AggiesAreWe Posted May 27, 2015 Report Share Posted May 27, 2015 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up A&M #4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppermint Patty Posted May 27, 2015 Report Share Posted May 27, 2015 Texas #2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer Posted May 27, 2015 Report Share Posted May 27, 2015 Texas #2Not when it comes to profit or income over expenses.Texas definitely makes the $$$ but also does not mind spending the $$$A&M needs to get rid of the subsidy however - would like to see that at -0- make the athletic department pay for itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Buddy Garrity Posted May 27, 2015 Report Share Posted May 27, 2015 QUACK QUACK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UTfanatic Posted May 27, 2015 Report Share Posted May 27, 2015 Aggies should hire a graduate of the Red McCombs School of Business. Numbers never lie, it is all in how it is reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UTfanatic Posted May 27, 2015 Report Share Posted May 27, 2015 for BGquack quack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggiesAreWe Posted May 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2015 Texas #2How? It shows them #16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 How? It shows them #16Revenue. When you have more money than everyone else, you don't mind spending it. And when it comes to football, we are the Joneses. So try and keep up (Spoiler alert: you can't). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar14.2 Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Revenue. When you have more money than everyone else, you don't mind spending it. And when it comes to football, we are the Joneses. So try and keep up (Spoiler alert: you can't).This is probably what you were referring to. This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UTfanatic Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Study done by a professor in B 10 school.Numbers never lie, It is all in the reporting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggiesAreWe Posted May 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Revenue. When you have more money than everyone else, you don't mind spending it. And when it comes to football, we are the Joneses. So try and keep up (Spoiler alert: you can't).Was the article about revenue or profit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppermint Patty Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) Was the article about revenue or profit?This article was about profit. The article that was originally published was about revenue. It seems that you can make the numbers say what you want them too in order to make yourself look better. So it's not unusual that a pro-aggie website opted to focus on the "profit" side of the equation since it showed their program in a more favorable light. Here is an unbiased database: This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Texas is #2. I appreciate that they included the subsidy percentages. Edited May 28, 2015 by GCMPats2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 You're "quote" unbiased" database shows the same numbers that the originally quoted report does - the only difference is that your database does not net the Total Revenue and the Total Expenses as good bull hunting does.You say blue I say red - both articles have legitimate assumptions and the use the same numbers so how is one "biased" and the other NOT?Fact: Texas has the 2nd largest Total Revenue shownFact: Texas was the leader in Total ExpensesFact: Texas was Number 16 on Net Revenue These facts are neither good or bad by themselves - Texas should still be proud to make the most - by a lot - of almost any major college in the country - they just spend it and that is the reason that they have the best facilities in the country and can pay their assistant coaches the same as many college head coaches make. They should be proud of that fact.The fact that the net is better for the Aggie's than the Horns is a bright spot for the Aggie program which has struggled financially in the past. You opted to "focus" on the Revenue side since that showed favorably on the Texas program but you blast and Aggie fan for focusing on the bright spot for the Aggie's - called bias and it is always their for you, me and everybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggiesAreWe Posted May 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 This article was about profit. The article that was originally published was about revenue. It seems that you can make the numbers say what you want them too in order to make yourself look better. So it's not unusual that a pro-aggie website opted to focus on the "profit" side of the equation since it showed their program in a more favorable light. Here is an unbiased database: This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Texas is #2. I appreciate that they included the subsidy percentages. First comment was all I needed. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UTfanatic Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 y'all are still too funny!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppermint Patty Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 First comment was all I needed. Thank you.what fun would that have been? UTfanatic 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 First comment was all I needed. Thank you.Yes, let's not get into the Forbes valuation of football programs, athletic departments, merch sales, etc. Let's just use whatever data and manipulate it to make little brother feel better about himself. We get it. We really do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggiesAreWe Posted May 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Yes, let's not get into the Forbes valuation of football programs, athletic departments, merch sales, etc. Let's just use whatever data and manipulate it to make little brother feel better about himself. We get it. We really do Manipulate? Isn't the article I posted factual?If not, then my apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Manipulate? Isn't the article I posted factual?If not, then my apologies.You got me. Poor choice of words on my part. UTfanatic 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UTfanatic Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 I have been trying to say that beauty is in the "Eye of the Beholder".I can take any set of numbers and prove my point. You can take the same numbers and prove your point. I learned that in statistical analysis. TxHoops and Mr. Buddy Garrity 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 I have been trying to say that beauty is in the "Eye of the Beholder".I can take any set of numbers and prove my point. You can take the same numbers and prove your point. I learned that in statistical analysis. The point of the article was profit, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 The point of the article was profit, right? Yes. The point of the article, by an aggy publication, was that although they make less than 75 percent as much as big brother (even in the shiny new conference), they are much more thrifty! Mr. Buddy Garrity 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggiesAreWe Posted May 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Yes. The point of the article, by an aggy publication, was that although they make less than 75 percent as much as big brother (even in the shiny new conference), they are much more thrifty!Does the article being an "aggy publication" change the fact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Does the article being an "aggy publication" change the fact?Not at all. It laid out the data which I used to accurately state the premise which you quoted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Yes. The point of the article, by an aggy publication, was that although they make less than 75 percent as much as big brother (even in the shiny new conference), they are much more thrifty!That's what I thought...profit.Thanks for confirming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.5280c733203c02b00df30cf5e6edbab0.thumb.jpg.1722bbe93d1613cc60ea62c49ac24881.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.