The American Athletic Conference might be a shell of its former Big East glory, but it's still the home of some of the best bargains in college football. In fact, though the conference was something of a punching bag for teams from the so-called power five this year, our two picks for the best bargain college football teams hail from the AAC.

Cincinnati is once again college football's best team for the money, spending just $1.6 million per victory over the last three seasons. Part of that cost effectiveness is the result of success on the field, where the Bearcats have averaged more than nine wins per season, and another part is minimized spending. In fact, a whopping 63 schools have outspent Cincinnati football, which last year spent nearly $1 million just to buy out the former contract of head coach Tommy Tuberville, who alone makes upwards of $2 million per year in salary.

Just behind Cincinnati is AAC rival Central Florida, which has won more games than the Bearcats but at a slightly higher cost, spending $48 million on football - or $1.7 million per win - across the three most recent seasons for which data is available. The Knights have won consistently despite a recent conference change, joining the AAC from Conference USA for the 2013-14 season, and have averaged more than 10 wins per year over the last three seasons. Following UCF, and rounding out the top five, are Kansas State, Oregon and Mississippi State.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/college-foo...ncaaf.html

From the comments section...

some ******* Wrote:Yes, good article. A team that spends $1 million per win and makes next to nothing in TV money or merchandising is somehow a better deal than a team that spends $5 million per win and makes ten times that from television revenue and fifty times that from t-shirts, soft drinks, and bobble heads.

This right here is the problem with college sports. This fan believes that more money = better team. Nevermind that UCF and Cincy are winning more while spending less. We don't have a fat TV contract so we must be the inferior team.

Most P5 programs aren't actually bringing in $20M/yr in TV value anyway. The networks pay the B12 $200M/yr primarily for Texas and Oklahoma. There are some other good programs in that conference, but nobody else is a comparable TV draw. So following the logic that more money = better team, wouldn't that make 6-6 Texas the best team in the country?

(12-22-2014 01:16 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  From the comments section...

some ******* Wrote:Yes, good article. A team that spends $1 million per win and makes next to nothing in TV money or merchandising is somehow a better deal than a team that spends $5 million per win and makes ten times that from television revenue and fifty times that from t-shirts, soft drinks, and bobble heads.

This right here is the problem with college sports. This fan believes that more money = better team. Nevermind that UCF and Cincy are winning more while spending less. We don't have a fat TV contract so we must be the inferior team.

Most P5 programs aren't actually bringing in $20M/yr in TV value anyway. The networks pay the B12 $200M/yr primarily for Texas and Oklahoma. There are some other good programs in that conference, but nobody else is a comparable TV draw. So following the logic that more money = better team, wouldn't that make 6-6 Texas the best team in the country?

Yup.

I don't understand the mentality about spending. If a team like Cincinnati or UCF can win on a shoe-string budget while should they be penalized for it? Imagine how much better they would be if they received similar $$$, exposure and bowl opportuniteis that most of the P5 receives.

I also have to add that I respect the heck of schools like Kansas State who don't feel the need to spend a hundred million per year and competes at the highest level. Kansas State has pretty much dominated big spenders like Texas and Oklahoma the past 7-8 years.

I question Oregon's spot in the Top 5 because I have to believe a lot of "undocumtend" Nike Money is being spent under the table.

so UCF is the Tampa Bay Rays of College Football?

which means we are getting moved to Montreal after O'leary retires :(

(12-22-2014 01:16 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  From the comments section...

some ******* Wrote:Yes, good article. A team that spends $1 million per win and makes next to nothing in TV money or merchandising is somehow a better deal than a team that spends $5 million per win and makes ten times that from television revenue and fifty times that from t-shirts, soft drinks, and bobble heads.

This right here is the problem with college sports. This fan believes that more money = better team. Nevermind that UCF and Cincy are winning more while spending less. We don't have a fat TV contract so we must be the inferior team.

Most P5 programs aren't actually bringing in $20M/yr in TV value anyway. The networks pay the B12 $200M/yr primarily for Texas and Oklahoma. There are some other good programs in that conference, but nobody else is a comparable TV draw. So following the logic that more money = better team, wouldn't that make 6-6 Texas the best team in the country?

That fan is obviously too young to have seen Rocky series or he'd know that the guy with the lower training budget always wins.


.

I'm pretty sure ECU spent the least money per win on coaches this year in the AAC. Not necessarily the place you want to skimp on money but whatever.

Also how exactly is this calculated? I have to imagine UC is spending a good chunk of money on Nippert, or does that go towards next season?

(12-22-2014 03:35 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  I'm pretty sure ECU spent the least money per win on coaches this year in the AAC. Not necessarily the place you want to skimp on money but whatever.

Also how exactly is this calculated? I have to imagine UC is spending a good chunk of money on Nippert, or does that go towards next season?

Article says over the last 3 years.

Nice.

UC has been in this spot a lot in the past seven or eight years....would like to see what we could do with some real money

(12-22-2014 01:43 PM)knightastic Wrote:  so UCF is the Tampa Bay Rays of College Football?

which means we are getting moved to Montreal after O'leary retires :(

Yet another reason that I love college sports more than pro sports: You know that the teams aren't moving anywhere. Unfortunately, though, they can still be shut down (sorry, UAB).

UCF has never had much money and obviously never got to enjoy a real BCS TV Contract...and even with all their struggles...they were able to build an on-campus football stadium and a beautiful arena at the very same time (never done by anyone else in over 70 years)...all while building up a winning program.

Being efficient with the few $$$ you have...is similar to developing your recruits over time.

It's not always what you have (total $$)...its what you DO with it that counts the most.

(12-22-2014 11:07 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UC has been in this spot a lot in the past seven or eight years....would like to see what we could do with some real money

That's a good question, but what would we do if we had the money? If UC made $20M per year, where would/should it go?

About the only place for it to go is in coaches salaries. We wouldn't spend anymore on Nippert (outside of tear down and rebuild), we may build a permanent in-door practice facility to replace the bubble. But I think a good chunk would go to the other Olympic sports - upgrade the facilities and hire better coaches.

Look at Texas - the wealthiest loser in the nation even after paying Mack $5M a year. Charlie Strong may make them a winner again, but not because of the money.

The fact is, more money does not make for a winning team. It comes down to the coaching staff - they need to be good recruiters with the ability to teach. UC and UCF have that.

I know that UCF could do some pretty cool things with that kind of money. We'd probably finish our stadium.