Members
1,875 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 05:42 AM
I posted this on the California wrestling board but I thought it was so enlightening, the rest of the country might like to see it as well.

I don't think many people realize how crucial 2 things are to success at the college level: (1) opportunities and (2) funding. So I looked at expenses per school in each conference and here's how it breaks down. Not surprising that the # of All-American's per school follows very closely to the average spending per school in each conference. The conferences are ranked by # of All-Americans per school.

Conference # of Schools Avg Expense/School All-Americans All-Americans/School
BIG 10 12 $1,082,274 34 2.83
BIG 12 4 $1,274,200 11 2.75
ACC 7 $811,535 9 1.29
MAC 9 $672,867 9 1.00
EIWA 18 $620,337 10 0.56
EWL 7 $502,282 3 0.43
PAC 12 6 $648,939 2 0.33
WWC 6 $488,031 1 0.17
SO CON 8 $467,954 1 0.13

Then you have opportunities. Pennsylvania has 11 Division 1 programs in their state. The states of Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona have 10 combined.

WEST - 10 programs
MIDWEST - 23 programs
EAST - 29 programs
SOUTH - 15 programs

The numbers next to each school shows where they rank amonst the 77 D1 programs in terms of money spent per year. The only ones not listed were the military academies, which I guess wouldn't be relevant anyway since they don't have tuition costs and substitute military service.

WEST
12 Arizona State University AZ $1,045,074 PAC 12
41 Stanford University CA $583,975 PAC 12
58 California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo CA $445,942 PAC 12
70 California State University-Bakersfield CA $296,998 PAC 12
55 Boise State University ID $486,511 PAC 12
14 Oregon State University OR $1,035,136 PAC 12
65 University of Northern Colorado CO $373,600 WWC
75 Air Force CO WWC
57 Utah Valley University UT $453,969 WWC
36 University of Wyoming WY $679,603 WWC

EAST
25 University of Maryland-College Park MD $811,829 ACC
22 University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus PA $915,262 ACC
9 Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus PA $1,139,168 BIG 10
74 Sacred Heart University CT $154,875 EIWA
23 American University DC $849,013 EIWA
20 Boston University MA $926,805 EIWA
68 Harvard University MA $324,039 EIWA
77 Navy MD EIWA
37 Rutgers University-New Brunswick NJ $670,851 EIWA
60 Princeton University NJ $416,299 EIWA
19 Hofstra University NY $931,543 EIWA
35 Cornell University NY $713,595 EIWA
52 Columbia University in the City of New York NY $524,388 EIWA
54 SUNY at Binghamton NY $490,839 EIWA
76 Army NY EIWA
5 Lehigh University PA $1,339,028 EIWA
26 Drexel University PA $765,843 EIWA
31 Bucknell University PA $749,703 EIWA
56 University of Pennsylvania PA $480,485 EIWA
69 Franklin and Marshall College PA $299,802 EIWA
71 Brown University RI $288,282 EIWA
18 Rider University NJ $941,663 EWL
46 Lock Haven University PA $545,246 EWL
51 Edinboro University of Pennsylvania PA $525,848 EWL
64 Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania PA $375,674 EWL
66 Clarion University of Pennsylvania PA $351,331 EWL
48 University at Buffalo NY $538,576 MAC
49 North Dakota State University-Main Campus ND $529,390 WWC
61 South Dakota State University SD $403,594 WWC

MIDWEST
2 University of Iowa IA $1,652,195 BIG 10
11 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign IL $1,055,936 BIG 10
16 Northwestern University IL $979,397 BIG 10
30 Indiana University-Bloomington IN $753,691 BIG 10
32 Purdue University-Main Campus IN $748,937 BIG 10
10 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor MI $1,114,298 BIG 10
29 Michigan State University MI $756,238 BIG 10
17 University of Minnesota-Twin Cities MN $944,870 BIG 10
8 University of Nebraska-Lincoln NE $1,156,542 BIG 10
3 Ohio State University-Main Campus OH $1,647,027 BIG 10
13 University of Wisconsin-Madison WI $1,038,987 BIG 10
1 Iowa State University IA $1,708,695 BIG 12
4 Oklahoma State University-Main Campus OK $1,413,618 BIG 12
6 University of Oklahoma Norman Campus OK $1,215,585 BIG 12
63 Cleveland State University OH $382,421 EWL
39 University of Northern Iowa IA $630,201 MAC
45 Northern Illinois University IL $567,917 MAC
38 Central Michigan University MI $657,762 MAC
59 Eastern Michigan University MI $417,305 MAC
7 University of Missouri-Columbia MO $1,212,903 MAC
33 Ohio University-Main Campus OH $745,450 MAC
50 Kent State University at Kent OH $526,762 MAC
72 Southern Illinois University Edwardsville IL $285,963 SO CON

SOUTH
24 North Carolina State University at Raleigh NC $824,514 ACC
34 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill NC $714,676 ACC
53 Duke University NC $502,549 ACC
15 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University VA $989,956 ACC
21 University of Virginia-Main Campus VA $921,959 ACC
28 West Virginia University WV $758,903 BIG 12
62 George Mason University VA $393,788 EWL
27 Old Dominion University VA $758,923 MAC
40 Gardner-Webb University NC $593,382 SO CON
43 Campbell University NC $569,982 SO CON
47 Appalachian State University NC $540,562 SO CON
73 Davidson College NC $269,658 SO CON
42 Citadel Military College of South Carolina SC $575,663 SO CON
44 The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga TN $569,789 SO CON
67 Virginia Military Institute VA $338,629 SO CON

In the entire Western United States, we have only 2 that are above the average for all 77:

12 Arizona State University AZ $1,045,074 PAC 12
14 Oregon State University OR $1,035,136 PAC 12

Average spend per school in NCAA D1 = $720,803

It's hard to expect excellence with most of the schools in the West spending less than the average, which by definition would make you AVERAGE.

Here in California, we have:
41 Stanford University CA $583,975 PAC 12
58 California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo CA $445,942 PAC 12
70 California State University-Bakersfield CA $296,998 PAC 12

Twitter: @adamtirapelle @ClovisWrestling

#2 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #2] tirapell

Silver Member
Members
1,875 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 05:46 AM
Here was a great reply by a very smart guy in California, who happened to coach Nahshon Garrett in high school:

This speaks to the fundamental principle of Soccernomics, a book I read a year ago -- that in soccer, by and large (barring the standard occasional outliers), a team's success is directly correlational to the amount it spends in salaries (or 'wages' as they say in Europe) to a statistically significant and reliable degree.

Interesting to realize that the principle exists in almost just as pure a form at the d1 level of wrestling.

Quote

dylhayliz said: "And in his 6th year I would expect a few AA and multiple qualifiers."


--> This speaks to a fallacy that exists among the rhetoric of many a college wrestling fan -- that every program in the country should be top ten on a consistent basis. As I pointed out earlier, going by this year's NCAA results, Illinois (13), NC state (19), and Maryland (20) were the only teams to finish in the top 20 that had less than 2 AAs. Thus, going off this admittedly small sample, a team must have at least 2 AAs to make the top 20 UNLESS that team's only AA is a finalist.

Teams 1-4 had a minimum of 5 AAs, and teams 5-10 all had 3 AAs sans Ohio State, who took 6th with "only" 2 AAs -- a champion and a 2nd place finisher.

What this very brief data tells you is that it is incredibly difficult to have 2 AAs, let alone "a few." However, one could reasonably surmise that finishing in the top 20 at the NCAA tournament is a realistic, achievable goal, either by developing one amazing guy or developing two really good guys. Anything more than that, from an All-American angle, is not realistic and liable to leave any fan who buys into the idea that programs should just randomly produce teams with more than 2 AA-caliber guys in any given year perpetually vexed and angry.

Twitter: @adamtirapelle @ClovisWrestling

#3 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #3] Jaroslav Hasek

Gold Member
Members
4,377 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 05:54 AM
excellent! thanks for sharing!

i especially like the like about how every team in the country should be in the the top ten. by my rough estimate, the number of teams that should be in the top 25, "end of story", is no less than 40.

are you able to share where you got your info on program expenses?

@JaroslavWrestle

#4 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #4] tirapell

Silver Member
Members
1,875 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:00 AM

Jaroslav Hasek said

are you able to share where you got your info on program expenses?


http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

Twitter: @adamtirapelle @ClovisWrestling

#5 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #5] JerseyJoey

Bronze Member
Members
469 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:02 AM
Obviously money helps, but you are vastly oversimplfying things. There are prominent examples of programs that have INCREASED funding but had a coaching change and things went the opposite direction.

Take American. Under Cody they had years with multiple AAs including a champ. They increased funding but had a coaching change and now are off the map.

Hofstra is an even better example. Tom Ryan was there they were not a fully funded program yet had multiple AAs most years. A few years ago (not sure if Ryan or Shifflet was the coach) they had 3 guys made the semi-finals. The program became fully funded, but they had some coaching changes and that was that.

2 AA's is a reasonable (and modest) goal for any school with a decent coach and some funding. American and Hofstra basically have everythign working against them. They are private schools that are not Ivy level academics. Yet they were churning out AA's every year without being fully funded when they had the right coaches.

As for California, it is a shame that there aren't more programs. Stanford obviously is a unique situation because of the academic requirements. But I'm 100% positive that if you had a Tom Ryan or Mark Cody (to say nothing of a Cael Sanderson or Rob Koll) at Cal Poly it would be in the Top 20every year.

#6 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #6] Pinnum

Gold Member
Members
3,924 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:05 AM
I run this data every year for my own benefit. One thing that has always been clear is that Tim Flynn does an amazing job.

But there are other trends I have found based on recruiting bases and other data which has made me think California has underperformed over all (which was the reason I have posted a few questions on California since I am not familiar with the culture out there).

But more to your point. I have ran all kinds of analysis over these figures each year and one that I thought was interesting was when I did a linear regression to attempt to determine the best ROI on a program vs performance.

One of the points I found interesting was that teams in the $500k a year range are more likely to place higher in dual rankings than they place in tournament finishes. (Which you wouldn't be surprised at since you saw how heavily weighted an All-American can be).

But probably the most notable is that a team should expect to spend over $1M on wrestling if they want to be in the running for a top 10 finish. (Note: I would say this is conservative since the top programs have more money funneling through their wrestling club)

Twitter: @Pinnum

#7 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #7] Jaroslav Hasek

Gold Member
Members
4,377 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:07 AM

tirapell said

Jaroslav Hasek said

are you able to share where you got your info on program expenses?


http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/


ah cool. i think i saw that posted before but never dug into it. looks pretty rad. thanks!

@JaroslavWrestle

#8 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #8] ban_basketball

Hall of Fame Member
Members
11,754 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:08 AM
Why it seems like the most foreign concept in the world to sports fans is beyond me, but grasping the idea of up and down seasons is something that sports fans just DO NOT get. Tirapell's post illustrates that to a good degree, and illustrates exactly what I've always said: teams have down years and up years. Yet, when the down years come back to back, or even longer, then screams of "coaching change" start echoing through the halls.

Tom Brands is now exhibit A.

#9 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #9] tirapell

Silver Member
Members
1,875 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:12 AM

JerseyJoey said

Obviously money helps, but you are vastly oversimplfying things. There are prominent examples of programs that have INCREASED funding but had a coaching change and things went the opposite direction.

Take American. Under Cody they had years with multiple AAs including a champ. They increased funding but had a coaching change and now are off the map.

Hofstra is an even better example. Tom Ryan was there they were not a fully funded program yet had multiple AAs most years. A few years ago (not sure if Ryan or Shifflet was the coach) they had 3 guys made the semi-finals. The program became fully funded, but they had some coaching changes and that was that.

2 AA's is a reasonable (and modest) goal for any school with a decent coach and some funding. American and Hofstra basically have everythign working against them. They are private schools that are not Ivy level academics. Yet they were churning out AA's every year without being fully funded when they had the right coaches.

As for California, it is a shame that there aren't more programs. Stanford obviously is a unique situation because of the academic requirements. But I'm 100% positive that if you had a Tom Ryan or Mark Cody (to say nothing of a Cael Sanderson or Rob Koll) at Cal Poly it would be in the Top 20every year.


Show me the data (# of All-Americans over what time period). I think you are oversimplfying things. You are choosing outliers to prove a point. Like saying you don't need two legs to wrestle well because Anthony Robles did it with one. There is a mountain of evidence to back up that money is highly correlated to and predictive of success over a meaningful (statistically) time period, in more than just D1 wrestling.

Both Tom Ryan and Mark Cody are excellent coaches and prove the FUNDING point even further. Why did they leave American and Hofstra? Funding. They got paid more and had more money to spend at Oklahoma and Ohio State.

I never said having lots of funding would guarantee you All-Americans, but the data shows it's a pretty meaningful factor.

Twitter: @adamtirapelle @ClovisWrestling

#10 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #10] Jaroslav Hasek

Gold Member
Members
4,377 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:18 AM
i would echo the thoughts of everybody stressing the concept of regression. from my perspective, ncaa wrestling appears to be one of the most results obsessed sports, which can lead to poor organizational decision making if the process by which those results are derived is ignored.

@JaroslavWrestle

#11 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #11] tirapell

Silver Member
Members
1,875 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:24 AM

Pinnum said

I run this data every year for my own benefit. One thing that has always been clear is that Tim Flynn does an amazing job.

But there are other trends I have found based on recruiting bases and other data which has made me think California has underperformed over all (which was the reason I have posted a few questions on California since I am not familiar with the culture out there).

But more to your point. I have ran all kinds of analysis over these figures each year and one that I thought was interesting was when I did a linear regression to attempt to determine the best ROI on a program vs performance.

One of the points I found interesting was that teams in the $500k a year range are more likely to place higher in dual rankings than they place in tournament finishes. (Which you wouldn't be surprised at since you saw how heavily weighted an All-American can be).

But probably the most notable is that a team should expect to spend over $1M on wrestling if they want to be in the running for a top 10 finish. (Note: I would say this is conservative since the top programs have more money funneling through their wrestling club)


Great points. I just think people get the idea that the playing field in college sports is more level than it actually is. It's even worse in football.

There is a lot of data to predict success -- like having to spend over $1 million on wrestling if you want to have a shot at the Top 10. That's only 14 teams. This basically tells you that even if you take it down to $900k, there are 22 teams out of 77 in the running for Top 10 each season, or 28% of the field.

Your dual comment is interesting, as people think it's exactly the opposite. There are a lot of teams that spend right around $500k, but very few over $1 million.

Twitter: @adamtirapelle @ClovisWrestling

#12 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #12] JerseyJoey

Bronze Member
Members
469 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:25 AM
How do you know what is the chicken and what is the egg? It looks like all of the Big 10 programs are well funded, even the ones that are basically awful. Per your stats, Purdue, Indiana and Michigan State spend more than Cornell and Edinboro. Look at Arizona State, how high their funding is and how low that program has fallen.

Has Penn State's funding changed dramatically in the past 5 years or maybe something else changed over there? How is outspending everyone working for Iowa State? Cael didn't leave Iowa State because of funding, per your stats. Lehigh is still 5th in funding, but obviously some things have changed over the past few years.

I am not dissmissing the importance of money. But coaches make more of a difference than money. If Tom Ryan went back to Hofstra tomorrow or Mark Cody went back to American tomorrow those would be Top 20 programs again within 2-3 years. If Tom Ryan , Tim Flynn or Rob Koll went to Cal Poly, that is a Top 10 program within 4 years.

#13 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #13] Pinnum

Gold Member
Members
3,924 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:27 AM

Jaroslav Hasek said

i would echo the thoughts of everybody stressing the concept of regression. from my perspective, ncaa wrestling appears to be one of the most results obsessed sports, which can lead to poor organizational decision making if the process by which those results are derived is ignored.


I think basing performance metrics based on duals rather than tournaments allows for a better indication of a coach and program performance.

How often have we used a lack of All-American to claim a coach should be fired while saying national champion(s), despite miserable dual performance is an indication of a good program?

Twitter: @Pinnum

#14 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #14] ban_basketball

Hall of Fame Member
Members
11,754 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:29 AM
Proving my point: wasn't it last year that nimrods were already calling for Tom Ryan's job, due to them having a bit of a 'down" year?

#15 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #15] tirapell

Silver Member
Members
1,875 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:30 AM

JerseyJoey said

I am not dissmissing the importance of money. But coaches make more of a difference than money. If Tom Ryan went back to Hofstra tomorrow or Mark Cody went back to American tomorrow those would be Top 20 programs again within 2-3 years. If Tom Ryan , Tim Flynn or Rob Koll went to Cal Poly, that is a Top 10 program within 4 years.


If coaches made more of a difference than money, why did Cody and Ryan leave American and Hofstra? It goes against your theory. And I believe Tim Flynn has been in the running for some very high profile jobs, just didn't get them.

Money recruits talent away from no money. It's the way the world works.

Twitter: @adamtirapelle @ClovisWrestling

#16 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #16] tirapell

Silver Member
Members
1,875 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:34 AM

Pinnum said

I think basing performance metrics based on duals rather than tournaments allows for a better indication of a coach and program performance.

How often have we used a lack of All-American to claim a coach should be fired while saying national champion(s), despite miserable dual performance is an indication of a good program?


100% agreement.

Twitter: @adamtirapelle @ClovisWrestling

#17 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #17] Pinnum

Gold Member
Members
3,924 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:40 AM

tirapell said

Pinnum said

I run this data every year for my own benefit. One thing that has always been clear is that Tim Flynn does an amazing job.

But there are other trends I have found based on recruiting bases and other data which has made me think California has underperformed over all (which was the reason I have posted a few questions on California since I am not familiar with the culture out there).

But more to your point. I have ran all kinds of analysis over these figures each year and one that I thought was interesting was when I did a linear regression to attempt to determine the best ROI on a program vs performance.

One of the points I found interesting was that teams in the $500k a year range are more likely to place higher in dual rankings than they place in tournament finishes. (Which you wouldn't be surprised at since you saw how heavily weighted an All-American can be).

But probably the most notable is that a team should expect to spend over $1M on wrestling if they want to be in the running for a top 10 finish. (Note: I would say this is conservative since the top programs have more money funneling through their wrestling club)


Great points. I just think people get the idea that the playing field in college sports is more level than it actually is. It's even worse in football.

There is a lot of data to predict success -- like having to spend over $1 million on wrestling if you want to have a shot at the Top 10. That's only 14 teams. This basically tells you that even if you take it down to $900k, there are 22 teams out of 77 in the running for Top 10 each season, or 28% of the field.

Your dual comment is interesting, as people think it's exactly the opposite. There are a lot of teams that spend right around $500k, but very few over $1 million.


I agree that people don't realize the disparity between some programs.

I actually think the emphasis on All-Americans has hurt some of the smaller school coaches that do a great job of developing talent from getting noticed. Which coach is better? One that has 9.9 and gets 5 guys to nationals with two winning matches and one All-American or a guy with 4 scholarships that gets three guys to nationals but splits matches 5-5 with the 9.9 team in the dual and is ranked about the same in duals?

It has resulted in coaches chasing All-Americans at the expense of balanced talent that would actually do more to expose the programs with funding that are under performing.

The real shocker was Northern Iowa finishing 5th in the dual rankings. I don't think many people would argue with their ranking but it seems like they aren't getting the credit they deserve for a great season because they didn't have guys high enough on the podium. Based on my three year analysis, their program should have been spending roughly double ($1.15M) their budget to get a top 5 finish.

Twitter: @Pinnum

#18 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #18] tirapell

Silver Member
Members
1,875 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:46 AM

Pinnum said

I agree that people don't realize the disparity between some programs.

I actually think the emphasis on All-Americans has hurt some of the smaller school coaches that do a great job of developing talent from getting noticed. Which coach is better? One that has 9.9 and gets 5 guys to nationals with two winning matches and one All-American or a guy with 4 scholarships that gets three guys to nationals but beat split with the 9.9 team in the dual and is ranked about the same in duals?

It has resulted in coaches chasing All-Americans at the expense of balanced talent that would actually do more to expose the programs with funding that are under performing.

The real shocker was Northern Iowa finishing 5th in the dual rankings. I don't think many people would argue with their ranking but it seems like they aren't getting the credit they deserve for a great season because they didn't have guys high enough on the podium. Based on my three year analysis, their program should have been spending roughly double ($1.15M) their budget to get a top 5 finish.


I think Tim Flynn does a great job but not solely because he had 3 All-Americans. Too many people, like you stated, get caught up in the "All-American Chase" and miss the idea of building a TEAM.

I'm not really interested in opinions, as they don't mean any more than a favorite team. Would you post your list of over/under performing teams based on your analysis, since it has a statistical basis?

Twitter: @adamtirapelle @ClovisWrestling

#19 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #19] JerseyJoey

Bronze Member
Members
469 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:56 AM
Still looking for the explanation as to why Arizona State, Purdue, Indiana and Michigan State are so bad if this is about $ and not coaching and where you are located. Also looking for the explanation as to why Hofstra was a top 10ish program when they weren't fully funded but now are a bottom feeder despite being near the top in funding. Why did Cael leave Iowa State since according to Tirapelle's stats that should be the most succesful program in the country? BU is 20th for funding. Drexel and Bucknell are top 30. Rider is top 20.

The fact is, programs that are in the big conferences get funding. Private schools get more funding because the scholarships are worth more. Programs that have success get more funding. But the biggest factors in a programs success:

1) Coach
2) Location
3) Public v private
4) Tradition
5) Conference
6) Academics/Admisson

Funding is after those.

#20 [NCAA D1 - Funding by the numbers: post #20] jstock

Gold Member
Members
2,937 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:57 AM
The money argument just isn't adding up. Tim Flynn and Edinboro are great examples.
PA is deep with talent but that talent is spread out among the in state opportunities and also almost as many PA kids wrestle out of state. By contrast - CA has some very tough kids with limited in-state opportunity. You could argue that those few CA schools should be great since the talent is not spread thin.
I think that the success comes down to coaching. Not just the technique side but choosing the right kids for your program. Kids that work hard, love the sport and buy into what the coach is trying to do. Penn State has always had a good budget, great facilities and a talent pool but were under performing so bad that I couldn’t stand to watch. They make a coaching change and now look. I understand that Cael has a recruiting edge over many. Now look at Flynn at Edinboro. Low budget, poor facilities, small DII school in a rural area. He still has multiple AA's every year along with finalists and champs most years. Boro was 5th this year but has outperformed most schools, not just this year but every year. Boro has been in the top 10 many times before.

1 Iowa State University IA 1,708,695 BIG 12
2 University of Iowa IA 1,652,195 BIG 10
3 Ohio State University-Main Campus OH 1,647,027 BIG 10
4 Oklahoma State University-Main OK 1,413,618 BIG 12
5 Lehigh University PA 1,339,028 EIWA
6 University of Oklahoma Norman OK 1,215,585 BIG 12
7 University of Missouri-Columbia MO 1,212,903 MAC
8 University of Nebraska-Lincoln NE 1,156,542 BIG 10
9 Pennsylvania State University-Main s PA 1,139,168 BIG 10
10 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor MI 1,114,298 BIG 10
11 University of Illinois at UrbanaIL 1,055,936 BIG 10
12 Arizona State University AZ 1,045,074 PAC 12
13 University of Wisconsin-Madison WI 1,038,987 BIG 10
14 Oregon State University OR 1,035,136 PAC 12
51 Edinboro University of Pennsylvania PA 525,848 EWL