I have to say I hate the business side of sports. I've stopped listening to sports radio because it seems like most conversations about pro teams revolve around salary caps, signing bonuses and veteran's exceptions. I have always enjoyed the college game more because of my emotional attachment to the Longhorns.

But I am a business person, and it has occurred to me (and probably many of you) that the FMB crowd is looking at the wrong metric. I would bet that the real measure against which Deloss Dodds (and Mack) are measured is the athletic department's profitability. Yes, wins are important and failure to win harms our long term profitability, but here are the numbers for Texas for 2006-2011:

It's not a true financial statement, but as athletic departments go, it's not bad. Ticket sales, licensing rights and revenue have gone up every year, and almost 80% since 2006 -- with only about a 20% increase in seating capacity. Even after the disaster of 2010 ticket sales and licensing revenue increased. Contributions have leveled off, which could be an indicator of fan dissatisfaction but could also be a function of the economy.

I haven't looked at all the years, but for 2011 only 22 programs were in the black. For Texas, the headline number is the 137%+ increase in "profit" (revenue less all expenses) since 2006. The way Texas runs its department has allowed them to decrease its expenses as a proportion of revenue (by about 20%) and consequently double its profit. I don't see how that could be seen as anything but a win.

Everybody knows Mack is the highest paid coach in football, but we also make a lot more money than anyone else. Ranking the 99 programs for which the data is available, Mack's salary as a percentage of program revenue ranks #21 (and #7 for profitable programs), behind Ole Miss, North Texas, Utah, Georgia Tech, Mississippi State, Mizzou, Boise State, Iowa, South Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Rutgers, NC State, LSU, Cal, FSU, Va Tech, Houston and Texas Tech. So as a percentage of revenue, we're getting a lot better deal than a lot of schools -- I would bet you would not want a coach from half those programs.

Here are the numbers from profitable schools for 2011:

*replaced coaches this year

Obviously, Penn State will be falling off this list, moving everyone up one spot. Here, we're ranked #10 - and in the neighborhood of Florida, MIchigan and Alabama and substantially ahead of Georgia, Oregon, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. I'd say on these metrics, we're getting a pretty good deal. Would I love to be Alabama or Oregon? Sure. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good -- there are a lot of schools that do a lot worse than we do.