There may be some truth to the popular notion that college football teams can purchase success.

The most successful programs, like Alabama and Ohio State, have been rewarded with national championships after they splurged on big-name coaches. However, there are many other programs, like Texas and Miami, who continue pumping money through the system without much recent success.

Since there are anecdotes to back up both, I decided to look at each FBS program to see which schools are getting the best and worst bang for their buck.

To see how much each school spent on football, I looked at data from the U.S. Department of Education. To measure on-field results, the Massey composite, an index that averages dozens of rankings including the AP Poll and computer ratings.

(Alabama had 13 combined losses in 2006 and 2007, so those seasons prevent them from reaching the very tip top of this chart, despite the four national titles. The difference between finishing first and fifth in the AP Poll feels like a huge distance, and the difference between finishing No. 30 and No. 35 feels minimal, but numerically, they can have the same impact. Because of that, a few forgettable seasons can really alter an average. Anyway, the point is certainly not to argue against Bama's dominance.)

Spending data was not available for the service academies, so Army, Navy, and Air Force are excluded, as are schools that have been FBS for fewer than 10 seasons.

The result spans from Auburn ($32.1 million on football-related expenses per year and one national championship) and Alabama ($31.4 million and four titles) to ULM ($3.1 million, though with at least more football success than some schools).

Boise State is by far the most efficient with its money.

The Broncos have outplayed their spending ranking by 62.7 spots, spending an average of $7.8 million. Most over-performers here are other smaller schools who've strung together a handful of successful seasons.

Mississippi State and Oregon stand out among Power 5 schools. Oregon has much more money invested in its program than these figures show, since they benefit from Phil Knight's donations. But Mississippi State has had back-to-back top-20 seasons despite spending a meager amount, relative to its competition.

Maryland and NC State had the smallest discrepancies between their spending and on-field performance, which puts them right on our chart's dotted line.

Syracuse, Colorado, and Virginia had the most distance between their spending and on-field rankings. Those teams have been so awful on the field, they don't come close to living up to their pedestrian spending. The Orange have spent an average of $18.2 million, with only three bowl trips to show for it.

Before you make too much fun of Syracuse, take these with several grains of salt.

The accounting methods many of these schools use are quite dishonest. Schools will report inflated costs in order to keep their reported profits lower, so they can cry poor when asking taxpayers and students for financial assistance. To inflate costs, schools will charge their athletic programs for things like "overhead," "university fundraising," and even "library renovations." And when athletic programs give out scholarships, programs can get charged the full price for an out-of-state student even though the marginal cost to the school for bringing on an extra student is minimal.

In the 2014 fiscal year, 26 of the 115 schools in our data set (22.6 percent), reported profits of $0, meaning their football-related expenses and revenues were exactly equal. If we are to believe the accounting, about one-fourth of college football programs at the top level neither profit nor lose a single dollar.

The most entertaining case that stuck out was TCU, which claimed that in every single year from 2005 to 2011, the school perfectly balanced its football expenses and revenues.

And while this data has its limitations, it's good for giving you a ballpark estimate. It's uncertain which schools most exaggerate their spending, but it is certain that no matter how much they exaggerate there's no way in hell a school like Iowa State can report spending levels similar to Ohio State.

For what it's worth, there was a 0.79 correlation between schools' on-field rankings and their football-related expense rankings. In other words, there's a pretty strong relationship.

Here's all the spending data, and then let's look at revenue.

This sortable table shows each team's average Massey ranking, average spending ranking, and average difference.

	Conf.	Success	Spending	Diff.
Akron	MAC	103.7	100.8	-2.9
Alabama	SEC	11.6	5.9	-5.7
Arizona	P12	41.6	43.1	1.5
Arizona State	P12	40.5	20.5	-20
Arkansas	SEC	33.9	12.8	-21.1
Arkansas State	SBC	79	112	33
Auburn	SEC	29.4	2.5	-26.9
Ball State	MAC	81	101.9	20.9
Baylor	B12	44	45.8	1.8
Boise State	MWC	20.6	83.3	62.7
Boston College	ACC	54.5	28	-26.5
Bowling Green	MAC	77.4	109.1	31.7
Buffalo	MAC	96.3	101.6	5.3
BYU	FBSI	29.1	63.3	34.2
Cal	P12	48.5	27.9	-20.6
Central Michigan	MAC	77.1	97.7	20.6
Cincinnati	AAC	37.5	65.9	28.4
Clemson	ACC	24.6	28	3.4
Colorado	P12	85.9	44.8	-41.1
Colorado State	MWC	86.9	77.6	-9.3
Connecticut	AAC	69.5	51.8	-17.7
Duke	ACC	76.6	42.1	-34.5
East Carolina	AAC	63.2	77.6	14.4
Eastern Michigan	MAC	114.2	104.9	-9.3
Florida	SEC	20.1	11.3	-8.8
FAU	CUSA	97	102.9	5.9
FIU	CUSA	103.7	88.2	-15.5
Florida State	ACC	21.4	30.4	9
Fresno State	MWC	70	83.7	13.7
Georgia	SEC	19.5	16.8	-2.7
Georgia Tech	ACC	41.2	44.9	3.7
Hawaii	MWC	79.7	76.3	-3.4
Houston	AAC	51.5	80.7	29.2
Idaho	SBC	108.6	110	1.4
Illinois	B10	71.4	56.1	-15.3
Indiana	B10	83.4	50.5	-32.9
Iowa	B10	40	15.1	-24.9
Iowa State	B12	78.1	56.8	-21.3
Kansas	B12	78.2	47.7	-30.5
Kansas State	B12	46.5	57.1	10.6
Kent State	MAC	98.2	110	11.8
Kentucky	SEC	65	51.5	-13.5
UL-Lafayette	SBC	87.8	106.9	19.1
ULM	SBC	97.7	115.7	18
Louisiana Tech	CUSA	74.5	106.5	32
Louisville	ACC	44.7	44	-0.7
LSU	SEC	11.7	13.2	1.5
Marshall	CUSA	74.5	88.2	13.7
Maryland	B10	65.7	65.3	-0.4
Memphis	AAC	90.9	73.4	-17.5
Miami	ACC	44.9	17.2	-27.7
Miami (Ohio)	MAC	105.8	93.8	-12
Michigan	B10	38.8	19.9	-18.9
Michigan State	B10	30.3	24.2	-6.1
MTSU	CUSA	83	87.9	4.9
Minnesota	B10	65.9	45.4	-20.5
Mississippi State	SEC	42.1	64.1	22
Missouri	SEC	28.8	49.6	20.8
NC State	ACC	61.9	61.7	-0.2
Nebraska	B10	30.3	26.3	-4
Nevada	MWC	64.4	100.3	35.9
New Mexico	MWC	96.5	87.3	-9.2
New Mexico State	SBC	115.3	97.9	-17.4
North Carolina	ACC	49.5	43.7	-5.8
North Texas	CUSA	107.3	104.9	-2.4
NIU	MAC	60.1	90.4	30.3
Northwestern	B10	57.3	36.3	-21
Notre Dame	FBSI	32.8	10	-22.8
Ohio	MAC	79.1	92.1	13
Ohio State	B10	10.4	7	-3.4
Oklahoma	B12	11.2	13.2	2
Oklahoma State	B12	25.1	41.6	16.5
Ole Miss	SEC	45.1	55.1	10
Oregon	P12	11.3	33.1	21.8
Oregon State	P12	44.8	60.2	15.4
Penn State	B10	33	14.9	-18.1
Pitt	ACC	47.3	36.5	-10.8
Purdue	B10	77.7	52.2	-25.5
Rice	CUSA	83.4	67.2	-16.2
Rutgers	B10	52.9	27.8	-25.1
San Diego State	MWC	73.4	71	-2.4
San Jose State	MWC	85	101	16
SMU	AAC	88.4	59.6	-28.8
South Carolina	SEC	32.8	20.7	-12.1
South Florida	AAC	62.2	67.8	5.6
Southern Miss	CUSA	75.8	95.5	19.7
Stanford	P12	30.9	40	9.1
Syracuse	ACC	77	30.9	-46.1
TCU	B12	22.5	18.4	-4.1
Temple	AAC	80.2	65.5	-14.7
Tennessee	SEC	42	25.7	-16.3
Texas	B12	26.5	8.1	-18.4
Texas A&M	SEC	35.2	30.6	-4.6
Texas Tech	B12	75.1	40	-35.1
Toledo	MAC	73.9	94.4	20.5
Troy	SBC	105.7	109.5	3.8
Tulane	AAC	66.9	81.2	14.3
Tulsa	AAC	101.1	74	-27.1
UCF	AAC	65	69.6	4.6
UCLA	P12	43.9	27.8	-16.1
UNLV	MWC	102.6	87	-15.6
USC	P12	17.5	13.3	-4.2
Utah	P12	33.5	63.6	30.1
Utah State	MWC	77.9	106.4	28.5
UTEP	CUSA	98.4	82.5	-15.9
Va Tech	ACC	28.5	20.9	-7.6
Vanderbilt	SEC	67.1	36.7	-30.4
Virginia	ACC	68.9	30.6	-38.3
Wake Forest	ACC	67.5	54.5	-13
Washington	P12	51.5	17.7	-33.8
Washington State	P12	76.3	69.3	-7
West Virginia	B12	31	44.7	13.7
Western Michigan	MAC	80.8	99.1	18.3
Wisconsin	B10	21.4	12.1	-9.3
Wyoming	MWC	90.3	95.9	5.6

Because spending is just one part, let's also examine how revenue translates to success.

On average, FBS programs this past decade made $23.3 million per year. And the median was $20 million.

But there was a huge range. ULM made just $3.2 million per year on football, while Texas brought in a whopping $92.2 million per year. However, Texas is a ridiculous outlier. The No. 2, Alabama, made $73.1 million per year. That’s still an insane amount of money.

Again, Boise State gets the most out of its money.

On the field, the Broncos have exceeded their revenue ranking by 47.3 spots. Despite making just $13.5 million per year on football, Boise has had various top-10 finishes, multiple Fiesta Bowl victories, and several Power 5 upsets.

Among Power 5 programs, TCU, Stanford, Utah, Missouri, and Baylor stand out. However, Utah and TCU weren’t in a Power 5 conference for a good chunk of this analysis.

Wake Forest, Pitt, Oklahoma, Troy, and Clemson had the smallest discrepancies between their revenue and on-field success, which puts them on the chart’s dotted line.

Colorado got the worst production out of its revenue. Over the past 10 seasons, the Buffaloes made $26.7 million per year, but they have been the worst Power 5 team, with a Massey ranking of 85.9, which is nearly 50 spots below their revenue ranking. (Kansas got a few good years from Mark Mangino, otherwise KU's figures would probably be even more dismal than Colorado’s.)

Texas Tech, Indiana, and Washington were also pretty bad, considering how much money came in.

It’s pretty easy to laugh at Colorado, but take these results with a grain of salt.

I examined football revenue, not athletic department revenue. Many teams have more resources than their football-related revenue indicates. For example, if a donor gifts your university a multi-sport facility, on paper the revenue gained from that donation might elevate the entire athletic department’s revenue but not the football program’s specifically. I only looked at raw numbers, and I did not attempt to control for how general athletic department revenue might bleed into football resources.

It’s also worth noting that with the huge TV deals major conferences now get, even the shittiest Power 5 teams are guaranteed to bring in a good amount of money. And because Power 5 teams make so much, their revenue rankings are tilted toward exceeding their on-field rankings. On average, Power 5 teams (including Notre Dame) made $35.8 million per year, while non-Power 5 teams made $7.5 million per year.

With that said, this data is the best of what’s publicly available, and it gives you a ballpark estimate of how well teams are performing relative to how much money they make.

For what it’s worth, there was a 0.80 correlation between schools’ on-field rankings and their football-related revenue rankings, which is a pretty strong relationship.

This sortable table shows each team's average Massey ranking, revenue ranking, and the difference between the two.

It also includes "profit" rankings, which are simply total football revenues minus total football costs. Again, remain skeptical of anything to do with "profit" in college football.

Team	Massey	Revenue	Profit	Revenue difference	Profit difference
Akron	103.7	105.5	104	1.8	0.3
Alabama	11.6	4.1	6.5	-7.5	-5.1
Arizona	41.6	47.1	49.9	5.5	8.3
Arizona St	40.5	25.3	31.8	-15.2	-8.7
Arkansas	33.9	14.1	15.4	-19.8	-18.5
Arkansas St	79	110.1	102.2	31.1	23.2
Auburn	29.4	7.1	15.8	-22.3	-13.6
Ball St	81	104.7	102.2	23.7	21.2
Baylor	44	60.9	71	16.9	27
Boise St	20.6	67.9	51.5	47.3	30.9
Boston College	54.5	51.5	65.2	-3	10.7
Bowling Green	77.4	107.5	94.4	30.1	17
Buffalo	96.3	104	101.1	7.7	4.8
BYU	29.1	62.6	56.9	33.5	27.8
Cal	48.5	33.7	39.7	-14.8	-8.8
Central Michigan	77.1	99.3	96.2	22.2	19.1
Cincinnati	37.5	71	79.3	33.5	41.8
Clemson	24.6	23.7	23.7	-0.9	-0.9
Colorado	85.9	36.8	35.9	-49.1	-50
Colorado St	86.9	85.6	96.6	-1.3	9.7
Connecticut	69.5	68.3	95.2	-1.2	25.7
Duke	76.6	60.4	77.2	-16.2	0.6
East Carolina	63.2	79.1	79.5	15.9	16.3
Eastern Michigan	114.2	100.6	81.9	-13.6	-32.3
Florida	20.1	6.2	5.6	-13.9	-14.5
Florida Atlantic	97	100.3	90.2	3.3	-6.8
Florida Int	103.7	85.7	79.5	-18	-24.2
Florida St	21.4	31.9	33.3	10.5	11.9
Fresno St	70	75.7	63	5.7	-7
Georgia	19.5	4.2	2.7	-15.3	-16.8
Georgia Tech	41.2	37.4	36.5	-3.8	-4.7
Hawaii	79.7	85.3	95.4	5.6	15.7
Houston	51.5	88	99.1	36.5	47.6
Idaho	108.6	99.1	78.7	-9.5	-29.9
Illinois	71.4	37.7	31.2	-33.7	-40.2
Indiana	83.4	48.1	42.9	-35.3	-40.5
Iowa	40	16.8	20.4	-23.2	-19.6
Iowa St	78.1	47.2	42	-30.9	-36.1
Kansas	78.2	61.5	71.3	-16.7	-6.9
Kansas St	46.5	42.4	35.8	-4.1	-10.7
Kent St	98.2	108.1	91.8	9.9	-6.4
Kentucky	65	32.1	27.5	-32.9	-37.5
Louisiana Lafayette	87.8	105.1	98.3	17.3	10.5
Louisiana Monroe	97.7	112.4	99.9	14.7	2.2
Louisiana Tech	74.5	106.6	87.4	32.1	12.9
Louisville	44.7	48.2	48.5	3.5	3.8
LSU	11.7	7.6	6.2	-4.1	-5.5
Marshall	74.5	83.1	71.9	8.6	-2.6
Maryland	65.7	63.1	57.4	-2.6	-8.3
Memphis	90.9	77.2	88.2	-13.7	-2.7
Miami (FL)	44.9	37.2	53.7	-7.7	8.8
Miami (OH)	105.8	93.6	91.5	-12.2	-14.3
Michigan	38.8	6.2	4.6	-32.6	-34.2
Michigan St	30.3	16.7	16	-13.6	-14.3
Middle Tenn	83	88.3	89.1	5.3	6.1
Minnesota	65.9	33.9	31.3	-32	-34.6
Mississippi St	42.1	53	44.1	10.9	2
Missouri	28.8	45	43.4	16.2	14.6
NC St	61.9	41.5	32.5	-20.4	-29.4
Nebraska	30.3	15.9	14.7	-14.4	-15.6
Nevada	64.4	99.9	89.7	35.5	25.3
New Mexico	96.5	89.6	90.4	-6.9	-6.1
New Mexico St	115.3	100.9	102.9	-14.4	-12.4
North Carolina	49.5	38.9	38.7	-10.6	-10.8
North Texas	107.3	98.9	86.3	-8.4	-21
Northern Illinois	60.1	98.8	99.1	38.7	39
Northwestern	57.3	41	44.5	-16.3	-12.8
Notre Dame	32.8	5.8	6.2	-27	-26.6
Ohio	79.1	91.1	81.6	12	2.5
Ohio St	10.4	7.7	11.7	-2.7	1.3
Oklahoma	11.2	11.9	11.8	0.7	0.6
Oklahoma St	25.1	29.2	26.8	4.1	1.7
Ole Miss	45.1	35.5	27.9	-9.6	-17.2
Oregon	11.3	26.5	27.8	15.2	16.5
Oregon St	44.8	39.2	30.2	-5.6	-14.6
Penn St	33	8.9	9.1	-24.1	-23.9
Pitt	47.3	47.6	56.1	0.3	8.8
Purdue	77.7	51.8	49.6	-25.9	-28.1
Rice	83.4	74	87.2	-9.4	3.8
Rutgers	52.9	54.6	80	1.7	27.1
San Diego St	73.4	75.2	87.6	1.8	14.2
San Jose St	85	102	95.5	17	10.5
SMU	88.4	69.3	88.9	-19.1	0.5
South Carolina	32.8	15.2	14.5	-17.6	-18.3
South Florida	62.2	65.8	62.8	3.6	0.6
Southern Miss	75.8	94.4	88.9	18.6	13.1
Stanford	30.9	50.8	62.6	19.9	31.7
Syracuse	77	43.9	59.7	-33.1	-17.3
TCU	22.5	45.3	74.5	22.8	52
Temple	80.2	71.9	84.6	-8.3	4.4
Tennessee	42	14	12.3	-28	-29.7
Texas	26.5	1.1	1.2	-25.4	-25.3
Texas A&M	35.2	16.4	14.3	-18.8	-20.9
Texas Tech	75.1	34.8	36.6	-40.3	-38.5
Toledo	73.9	96.3	93.1	22.4	19.2
Troy	105.7	105.3	86	-0.4	-19.7
Tulane	66.9	89	100.7	22.1	33.8
Tulsa	101.1	80.5	95	-20.6	-6.1
UCF	65	73.5	78.7	8.5	13.7
UCLA	43.9	35.3	42.3	-8.6	-1.6
UNLV	102.6	94.7	96.8	-7.9	-5.8
USC	17.5	24.1	32.2	6.6	14.7
Utah	33.5	53.6	44.4	20.1	10.9
Utah St	77.9	106.6	95.5	28.7	17.6
UTEP	98.4	75.6	63.5	-22.8	-34.9
Va Tech	28.5	23.9	28.4	-4.6	-0.1
Vanderbilt	67.1	52.5	57.2	-14.6	-9.9
Virginia	68.9	51.5	66.7	-17.4	-2.2
Wake Forest	67.5	67.6	81.1	0.1	13.6
Washington	51.5	17	17.3	-34.5	-34.2
Washington St	76.3	61.1	50.1	-15.2	-26.2
West Virginia	31	42.3	41.2	11.3	10.2
Western Michigan	80.8	100.8	91.2	20	10.4
Wisconsin	21.4	19.1	22.9	-2.3	1.5
Wyoming	90.3	82.2	64.5	-8.1	-25.8