#51 in revenue

Strange - it only lists 8 ACC schools and 14 of 16 SEC schools. Wake, Puke, Sorryexcuse not even on the list.
 
RamblinWreck92 said:
Strange - it only lists 8 ACC schools and 14 of 16 SEC schools. Wake, Puke, Sorryexcuse not even on the list.
Click to expand...
Yup, so the actual rank is probably below #60.

I only see two PAC-12 schools below GT, so pretty much every single big conference team above GT in revenue.
 
RamblinWreck92 said:
Strange - it only lists 8 ACC schools and 14 of 16 SEC schools. Wake, Puke, Sorryexcuse not even on the list.
Click to expand...

Doesn't include private schools. Only SEC school missing is Vanderbilt.

Given where we were at in FB and MBB in 2016-17 I wouldn't be surprised if that was a pretty low data point. Isn't there another thread that says 17-18 was a much better year for us?
 
What is the "Total Allocated" column reporting? Looks like it might be money sent by University to AA via student fees. If so 74% of GA State revenue was via student fees. I thought they capped the percentage of revenue that could be collected via fees but maybe I'm wrong.
 
I'm 4,775 in Stingtalk revenue because all of y'all are fat cat GT grads. I'm a poor SPSU grad just trying to scrape by.
 
gtg970g said:
What is the "Total Allocated" column reporting? Looks like it might be money sent by University to AA via student fees. If so 74% of GA State revenue was via student fees. I thought they capped the percentage of revenue that could be collected via fees but maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

GSU full time undergrad athletic fee: $279
GT full-time undergrad athletic fee: $127

GSU undergrad enrollment 26K
GT undergrad enrollment 15K

Talk about completely different models.
 
How strong is the correlation between overall athletic revenue and football expenditures? Texas is supporting a bunch of sports we’re not.
 
GT flunkout said:
Doesn't include private schools. Only SEC school missing is Vanderbilt.

Given where we were at in FB and MBB in 2016-17 I wouldn't be surprised if that was a pretty low data point. Isn't there another thread that says 17-18 was a much better year for us?
Click to expand...

thanks for the explanation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top