Last Updated on January 23, 2012
Last week, BusinessofCollegeSports.com showed readers just how much schools spend on recruiting. The following is a list of the top-50 spenders in terms of total recruiting expenses for both men’s and women’s sports. We’ll list numbers 50-100 tomorrow!
| School | Conference | Total Recruitment Expenses | Men’s Recruitment Expenses | Women’s Recruitment Expenses |
| 1. Tennessee | SEC | $2,296,023 | $1,878,771 | $417,252 |
| 2. Auburn | SEC | $2,117,645 | $1,530,917 | $586,728 |
| 3. Notre Dame | Big East | $2,070,316 | $1,612,608 | $457,708 |
| 4. Alabama | SEC | $1,694,202 | $1,339,537 | $354,665 |
| 5. Georgia | SEC | $1,540,743 | $1,039,220 | $501,523 |
| 6. Florida | SEC | $1,501,899 | $1,065,716 | $436,183 |
| 7. Georgia Tech | ACC | $1,489,599 | $1,173,904 | $315,695 |
| 8. Arkansas | SEC | $1,480,557 | $1,060,500 | $420,057 |
| 9. Michigan | Big Ten | $1,480,357 | $1,039,948 | $440,409 |
| 10. Texas | Big 12 | $1,470,389 | $989,370 | $481,019 |
| 11. Marquette | Big East | $1,461,373 | $1,289,560 | $171,813 |
| 12. Kansas | Big 12 | $1,454,154 | $1,033,618 | $420,536 |
| 13. North Carolina | ACC | $1,337,338 | $949,396 | $387,942 |
| 14. Illinois | Big Ten | $1,328,931 | $962,345 | $366,586 |
| 15. Duke | ACC | $1,313,378 | $967,282 | $346,096 |
| 16. Oklahoma | Big 12 | $1,263,567 | $837,890 | $425,677 |
| 17. Kentucky | SEC | $1,260,065 | $865,254 | $394,811 |
| 18. Oregon | Pac-12 | $1,235,968 | $922,653 | $313,315 |
| 19. Nebraska | Big Ten | $1,234,097 | $888,165 | $345,932 |
| 20. Texas Tech | Big 12 | $1,184,799 | $892,436 | $292,363 |
| 21. Florida State | ACC | $1,156,982 | $749,499 | $407,483 |
| 22. Baylor | Big 12 | $1,138,946 | $755,226 | $383,720 |
| 23. Ohio State | Big Ten | $1,134,013 | $782,735 | $351,278 |
| 24. Minnesota | Big Ten | $1,130,963 | $741,471 | $389,492 |
| 25. Louisville | Big East | $1,128,645 | $786,574 | $342,071 |
| 26. Penn State | Big Ten | $1,128,129 | $681,284 | $446,845 |
| 27. Washington | Pac-12 | $1,089,582 | $776,098 | $313,484 |
| 28. Arizona | Pac-12 | $1,080,250 | $733,394 | $346,856 |
| 29. Stanford | Pac-12 | $1,079,437 | $771,567 | $307,870 |
| 30. Clemson | ACC | $1,069,565 | $796,648 | $272,917 |
| 31. North Carolina State | ACC | $1,069,192 | $722,995 | $346,197 |
| 32. Vanderbilt | SEC | $1,068,482 | $792,574 | $275,908 |
| 33. Virginia | ACC | $1,045,893 | $730,358 | $315,535 |
| 34. Syracuse | Big East | $1,045,212 | $655,055 | $390,157 |
| 35. Iowa State | Big 12 | $1,022,016 | $769,272 | $252,744 |
| 36. UCLA | Pac-12 | $993,663 | $711,415 | $282,248 |
| 37. USC | Pac-12 | $992,414 | $680,645 | $311,769 |
| 38. Ole Miss | SEC | $982,959 | $694,038 | $288,921 |
| 39. Virginia Tech | ACC | $981,067 | $650,651 | $330,416 |
| 40. Memphis | Conference USA | $961,150 | $759,844 | $201,306 |
| 41. Purdue | Big Ten | $954,543 | $684,920 | $269,623 |
| 42. Michigan State | Big Ten | $941,157 | $653,640 | $287,517 |
| 43. Iowa | Big Ten | $931,989 | $592,776 | $339,213 |
| 44. LSU | SEC | $927,990 | $574,182 | $353,808 |
| 45. California | Pac-12 | $919,410 | $630,158 | $289,252 |
| 46. Indiana | Big Ten | $899,047 | $558,442 | $340,605 |
| 47. Miami | ACC | $897,271 | $591,872 | $305,399 |
| 48. Colorado | Pac-12 | $885,421 | $633,190 | $252,231 |
| 49. Kansas State | Big 12 | $882,902 | $648,599 | $234,303 |
| 50. Missouri | Big 12 | $861,859 | $621,949 | $239,910 |
Author
Related
Related Topics
28 Comments
28 Comments
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Recent Posts
- Alabama Extends Mutimedia Rights With LEARFIELD in Landmark Deal
- Outback Steakhouse and Elon Defensive Lineman Partner to Support Fighting Pretty
- WWE Announces Its Third “Next In Line” NIL Class
- Crowdfunding Platform Champsraise Announces New Campaign
- MarketPryce Joins Forces With Seven University of Arizona Women’s Teams
Jeff Roy
January 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Love your lists because they always have their fare share of surprises.
7. Georgia Tech – just two places behind their main rival in the same university system. They spend virtually the same amount, but Georgia gets better ROI. And the UGA fan base dwarfs GT.
11. Marquette – a private school with no football program spending almost $1.3M to recruit men’s athletics. A poster child for the outsized role collegiate sports play today. Curious their main in-state competition, Wisconsin, not even in top 50.
32. Vanderbilt – another private school spending seven figures with a football program that will never catch the No.1 spender.
37. USC – with so much local talent, the travel portion of their expenses must be low.
44. LSU – ditto USC, with the rich recruiting environment of Texas (specifically my hometown, Houston), Mississippi, and Louisiana, the state with the highest per capita rate of NFL players.
47. Miami – They used to recruit Texas and Houston with some success. Now they are nowhere to be seen on the state’s Top 100 list. How the mighty have fallen.
Louisville Kentucky Mortgage
January 23, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Does this include both basketball and football
Alicia Jessop
January 24, 2012 at 11:20 am
The total expense is for all sports. Then there is a breakdown for men’s and women’s sports. Unfortunately, the schools do not have to break down how much they spend on a particular sport when they submit the data to the Department of Education.
Pingback: Recruiting Expenses: Top 50 Spenders - Irish Envy | Notre Dame Football Discussion
M. Rahman
January 24, 2012 at 12:19 pm
This is for the 2010-11 season. Correct.
Pingback: UT #1 Nationally in Recruiting (Spending) - VolNation
Alicia Jessop
January 24, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Yes, it is for 2010-11. The data for 2010-11 won’t be out until later this year, closer to the fall.
Alicia Jessop
January 24, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Excuse me, I meant to say the data for 2011-12 won’t be out until later this year.
bobby seigle (@meandmyfro)
January 24, 2012 at 3:19 pm
this is outrageous about marquette. unreal. they should have #1 basketball team in the country every year.
Alicia Jessop
January 24, 2012 at 4:22 pm
The three freshmen this year on Marquette’s basketball team are from California, West Virginia and Alaska. They would’ve been recruited during the 2010-11 year. So, I’m guessing that because Marquette isn’t recruiting exclusively in Wisconsin, their expenses are proportionately higher than those schools who largely recruit in-state.
Damon
January 25, 2012 at 3:23 pm
still a glaring stat considering the size of the school and they have no football program….investigation??????
Brian Childs
March 31, 2014 at 12:05 pm
Investigation? Marquette is one of the few schools in the country that has never been on probation. Not one school in the Big 10, SEC, Big 12 and other conferences can make that statement. Marquette is clean as a whistle, they just waste a lot of money recruiting!
Pingback: SEC Schools Make Four of Top Five Recruiting Spenders « The College Court
Pingback: 1/24/2012 Evening Edition | collegefootballnewswire.com
Pingback: Top 50 Spenders on Recruiting.
Jack Doub
January 25, 2012 at 4:07 pm
The headline says the Aggies “lead the Big 12” yet they don’t appear in the top 50?
Gig 'Em
January 25, 2012 at 4:45 pm
They lead by having a top 10 class and not having to spend as much as these other guys!
Pingback: KC SportsNation » K-State Daily Links 1/25/12: Henriquez reinstated, Tech preview and D-Coordinator search » KC SportsNation
Pingback: I don't know whether to look at this as a positive or negative - TigerFan.com
Pingback: Alabama, Auburn among top 5 in nation for recruiting expenses | Alabama News | Alabama Breaking News Headlines | Alabama News Directory
Joe
January 27, 2012 at 9:18 am
Wish you could break this down by sport too.
Pingback: Tennessee Vols Have Highest Recruiting Expense | MoonDog Sports
Tarawa
January 27, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Under a bell curve a vast majority of these schools’ recruiting expenditures are normal. The geographic range (States) which they recruit and the repeated visits to undecided or vacillating HS athletes drive travel/per diem costs. Plus, a larger recruiting staff is costly if they are evaluating more players. Its an investment and the payoffs are better athletes, conference payouts, royalties, and nearly everyone loves a winner.
Pingback: Memphis to the Big East: A Good Fit? «
Pingback: Which Schools and Conferences Support Multi-Year Scholarships? «
Pingback: Georgia Tech’s Recruiting Expenses «
Pingback: The secret to Stanford's recruiting success - money
Pingback: hidemyass proxy list