Why I hate College Sports: The Best College Basketball Teams in the Nation

Let's face it folks, few teams can contend with the Bucks or Gators.  But neither of these teams are the best teams in the nation; the quality of their players is a simple and expected outcome.  Teams like the Gators and Bucks, and other schools from their large power conferences, dominate college athletics year in and year out.  For most of us who do not attend large BCS schools, we're forced to watch relatively similar tournaments and bowls, year in and year out.  Most of us have little vested interest, other than enjoying watching a good game, in the competition because it is always so remote and foriegn to us. 

The BCS has all but ruined football for all but a small handfull of schools, and college basketball has become dominated by a cartel of over-powered conferences that should all be realigned to a reasonable standard.  But money, more than anything, corrupts college sports.  The amounts of money schools give to their athletic departments has a direct relation to how well their teams perform on the field.  Let's look at some numbers:  (All listed incomes are the 2006 athletic department expenses).

$101,804,848   Ohio State (BIG10) 

$92,655,584   Virginia (ACC)  

$83,600,248   Texas (BIG 12) 

$78,177,776   Florida (SEC)  

$70,096,024   Penn State (BIG10)  

$67,909,248   Michigan (BIG10)  

$66,749,084   Michigan State (BIG10)   

$66,165,792   Tennessee (SEC)  

$65,434,876   Southern California (PAC10) 

$64,322,580   Oklahoma (BIG12)  

$63,695,480   Nebraska (BIG12)   

$62,875,100   Wisconsin (BIG10)  

$62,672,792   Louisiana State (SEC)   

$61,726,664   Auburn (SEC)   

$61,534,688   Alabama (SEC)  

$61,419,536   Texas A&M (BIG12)  

$60,661,304   Stanford (PAC10)  

$59,138,700   Iowa (BIG10)  

$58,787,488   Georgia (SEC)  

$57,137,604   Kentucky (SEC)

As you can see, many of the teams we percieve as national power houses just so happen to spend almost twice as much on athletics as other schools in the nation.  Is it a sheer coincidence?  Hardly.  Sure, play out of the field determines which teams will win most games, but think of all the other aspects that allows an athlete to perform best on game day -- training, quality of living, diet, facilities, tutoring, travel, etc...  Factors that are directly related to the quantity of money avaliable effect the outcome of a game just as much as play on the field or court.

With the amount of income the BCS top 25 schools recieve, many of whom just so happen to consume the most athletic funds, teams who recieve the most money (in an excess of 50 million dollars) should be sweeping the floor with all their competition.  No team should even come --close-- to beating a team like Ohio State or Florida.  Since these schools devour the money of tax payers and charge insane amounts of tuition, it is only natural that their teams frequently dominate others.  Money has become the 11th and 6th man who is always on the field but never seen -- it's role has increased over the years and will continue to increase over the next decade.  So, that brings us back to the question mentioned in the title of this post -- who are the best teams (in college basketball)?

$8,804,465   Gonzaga (WCC)

$10,874,345   Xavier

$ 11,342,203  Drexel

$12,484, 735  Butler

$22,000,000~  Marqette

$22,000,000~  Nevada

$23,605,054   Georgetown (BIGEAST)

$27,155,528   Memphis (C-USA)

I'm sure we could list many others.  These are teams who operate on anywhere from half to a forth of the athletic budget of other schools yet still accomplish wonders.  Mid-Major and poorly funded teams must play without a sixth man on the court and face terrible recruiting and coaching moral problems.  Mid-Major teams who succeed shatter virtually every barrier the BCS and unregulated NCAA seek to establish.  The sports media scorns these schools, speaks ill of them all year long, but they still succeed.  By the amount of money invested into the programs alone, Ohio State should have beat Memphis by four times their margin.  NC should have crushed George Town by twice its margin. 

Many of these "big-money" teams succeed at the expense of their cross state rivals.  In my city of Memphis, we generate approximately 75% of the state's funding for public colleges and universities.  Our insutition recieves approximately 35% of that fund.  University of Tennessee, on the other hand, recieves approximately 50% of that money.  Their athletic programs and facilities shatter our own in quality.  Many other colleges face this problem and suffer at the expense of the BCS demi-gods. 

I hate most college sports for this simple fact: like the pros, money determines the outcome of most events.  The NFL battled this problem with a salary cap, and I feel that it is about time that the NCAA limits the amount of money a university can spend on its athletics program.  Give Rutgers, George Mason, Boise State, Memphis, Gonzaga, Oral Robets, and the dozens of other less fortunate schools a level playing field -- if these teams play so well on a fraction of the money other instiutions recieve, I fear to see what they could do if they were funded on an equal level. 

Sorry for delay.  Editing took a while.

There are factors that your not adding to your little spiel. You have to factor in that a lot of bigger schools have more athletics that are offered. Most the smaller schools might only have a small amount and then offer some club teams. I can tell you right now that Butler pretty much all they have is basketball. I had a friend that went there. Ohio State has the greatest amount because the offer the most sports. Plus they enroll the most student body in the nation, roughly 70-80 thousand. Ohio State has a synchronize swimming team for crying out loud. Matter fact there the national champions in that. They offer that and many other crazy sports. Sports are expensive and the more you have the more you have to keep up with facilities, equipment, etc. So your article means nothin. You act that just b/c schools like OSU has a greater fund, they win all the time. Like they pay off officials or something. gallienb

There are factors that your not adding to your little spiel. You have to factor in that a lot of bigger schools have more athletics that are offered. Most the smaller schools might only have a small amount and then offer some club teams. I can tell you right now that Butler pretty much all they have is basketball. I had a friend that went there. Ohio State has the greatest amount because the offer the most sports. Plus they enroll the most student body in the nation, roughly 70-80 thousand. Ohio State has a synchronize swimming team for crying out loud. Matter fact there the national champions in that. They offer that and many other crazy sports. Sports are expensive and the more you have the more you have to keep up with facilities, equipment, etc. So your article means nothin. You act that just b/c schools like OSU has a greater fund, they win all the time. Like they pay off officials or something. gallienb

Tis true. The reason there is inequality has a lot to do with a college's location and how long they have been around as well as the other factors mentioned above. Plus, there are a lot of universities that are more private ones so they have fewer total students and things like that. There are stupid things in college sports like the BCS (which really is there just for making money) but there are still plenty of upsets in college sports. Yeah there are certain teams that are always up front but they don't always win and there is still plenty of drama. It's not perfect but it's still awesome! Look at the Boise State vs Oklahoma game! That was awesome! And Gonzaga has turned into a very strong bball school out of nowhere. There is plenty to love man! 

Would you rather see Nevada vs Drexel or Ohio State vs Florida? Uh Ill take the 2nd one.

Same with football. Give me Texas vs USC not Troy vs Middle Tennessee. 

The world runs on money lol.  What do you expect? 

Nice wall of text, but still NOT a well thought-out criticism. For one thing, you reference "tax dollars and insane tuition" as the source of all this money. Money spent by the athletic department largely comes from 3rd party sources - private donors, sponsorship dollars, advertising, and TV revenue from the NCAA. There's a reason you see Nike swooshes on uniforms and ads all over the stadium -- that's where the money is coming from. Tax dollars and tuition go to education.

You also only throw out half the story when you whine about Memphis receiving less state funding than Tennessee -- you conveniently leave out how much larger of a university Tennessee is than Memphis. Show the per capita and per sport spending numbers. I'm betting Memphis spends a great deal more on its basketball team than most power conference schools. You have Rick Pitino as your coach, for goodness sakes!

Then there's the unfounded "scorn" you speak of from the media toward mid-major schools. I'm not seeing it. All anyone wanted to talk about on TV was how unfair it was that only 6 mid major schools made the NCAA tourney since George Mason made the Final Four last year. Where's the animosity? Only in your mind?

Like it or not successful teams will find it easier to be successful as it is easier for them to recruit.   Even without the money good players and coaches will want to go where they can win.  As for tuition even a semi big but not entirely successful (in terms of sports) school like the University of Minnesota here turns a profit most years with their sports program, and taking that whole budget and pretending that it would always be there and dumping it into tuition would not make ANY difference.

My only issue with college sports right now is the fact that NCAA football is ridiculously corrupt.  Players get beach houses to live in and cash from boosters.  Everyone knows it and what happens to the school?  Nothing, there no consequences for the school benefiting from that behavior what so ever.  It is pitiful.  As harsh as the NCAA basketball officials can be sometimes I think that would be the right way to go.  Cheat?  Take down those banners, no scholarships, no playoffs, go sit in the corner for a few years and then try to come back.

Didn't see UNC on that list :wink:Ngamer05

Like it or not successful teams will find it easier to be successful as it is easier for them to recruit. Even without the money good players and coaches will want to go where they can win. As for tuition even a semi big but not entirely successful (in terms of sports) school like the University of Minnesota here turns a profit most years with their sports program, and taking that whole budget and pretending that it would always be there and dumping it into tuition would not make ANY difference.

duxup

 I like that first sentence especially the part I put in bold because it reminds me of why the Yankees are a shoe-in for the playoffs every year even if they don't win it. College sports are similar due to the fact that if your team is good they are more popular which means better players and a better team year after year. The Yankees are the most popular baseball team and since there is no cap they have plenty of great players others can't afford because of how much more money they make compared to other teams. What's funny is nobody complains too much about this but for college it's the worst thing ever apperantly. It's not the Yankees fault they have been a popular franchise for years just as it's not Texas or USC's (to name a couple more current big teams) fault that they have been good at football so people like to play for them.