Want to know what Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott was salivating over Texas? Well, let Brett McMurphy of AOL Fanhouse show you.
Simply put: Texas' pure profit in football is more than just about everybody else's gross revenue.
The Longhorns' $87.5 million in gross revenue from Texas' football program is nearly $20 million more than the amount from the next highest school, Ohio State at $68.19 million. Ohio State spent a national-high $32.3 million on its football program, about $10 million more than Texas.
Not surprisingly, USC is the biggest gross revenue producer in the Pac-10, ranking 21st nationally at $35.203 million. But guess who makes the most in net revenue?
Here's the list:
Pac-10 2008-09 net football revenue (in millions)
1 Oregon State $18.35
2 Washington $15.64
3 USC $13.83
4 Arizona State $12.64
5 Oregon $8.92
6 California $8.62
7 Arizona $8.31
8 UCLA $8.25
9 Washington State $2.48
10 Stanford $0.66
Oregon State ranks 18th nationally, while Washington is 22nd and USC is 26th.
As for the new Pac-12 members, Colorado is 24th in the nation (14.78 million). And Utah? From the story:
Utah, which recently accepted a bid to leave the Mountain West for the Pac-10 Conference, had the greatest net profit [among non-automatic-qualifying teams] at $6.54 million, which ranks 49th among all 120 FBS schools. Utah, however, was the exception among non-automatic qualifying BCS schools, as 34 of the 51 either showed no profit or lost money.
In other words, Utah is a well-managed football program that's about to get a cash infusion. AD Chris Hill and coach Kyle Wittingham can't make their Cheshire Cat grins go away.
This article looks at bang for the football spending buck, which Oregon State obviously gets and Washington doesn't (at least not during an 0-12 year). What's interesting is that California ranks second in spending on football ($19.12 million) and Oregon, which is supposed to be flancypants Nike-U, only ranks sixth ($15.86 million).