B1G+A Payroll Report
Does Payroll Buy Wins? B1G+A Payroll Report
REPORTED 2026 ROSTER BUDGETS VS. RESULTS · RECORDS & AP RANK FROM ESPN AS OF MON OCT 12, 2026
Read this first
Every dollar figure on this page is a reported estimate, not an official or audited payroll. Budget ranges are The Athletic's reported estimates (The Athletic, Sept 16, 2026: "Does your college football roster cost $8M or $50M? Here's our report on 68 teams"), built from 70+ industry sources, as relayed by On3 and SI. Records and AP ranks: ESPN, updated Oct 12, 2026, 9:00 AM CT.
+0.34Reported budget vs. AP rank
Spearman, top 25 reported budgets
+0.05Reported budget vs. win %
Spearman, top 25 reported budgets
Top 25 reported 2026 roster budgets (The Athletic) vs. results
▲ +N beating pay rank by 3+ spots▼ -N trailing pay rank by 3+– within 2▲ = performing better than payroll rank, ▼ = worse; the number is how many spots. Small line = payroll rank vs. performance rank (of 25).
| # | Program | Reported range | Reported midpoint | Record | AP rank | vs. Payroll |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio State | $49-54M | $51.5M | 5-1 | No. 4 | ▼ -3Payroll rank #1 · Performance rank #4 |
| 2 | Oregon | $48-54M | $51.0M | 3-2 | NR | ▼ -16Payroll rank #2 · Performance rank #18 |
| 3 | Texas | $45-55M | $50.0M | 4-1 | No. 7 | ▼ -4Payroll rank #3 · Performance rank #7 |
| 4 | LSU | $47-50M | $48.5M | 4-2 | No. 22 | ▼ -10Payroll rank #4 · Performance rank #14 |
| 5 | Texas A&M | $45-50M | $47.5M | 3-3 | NR | ▼ -19Payroll rank #5 · Performance rank #24 |
| 6 | Miami | $44-50M | $47.0M | 5-0 | No. 3 | ▲ +3Payroll rank #6 · Performance rank #3 |
| 7 | Notre Dame | $41-48M | $44.5M | 6-0 | No. 2 | ▲ +5Payroll rank #7 · Performance rank #2 |
| 8 | Ole Miss | $39-45M | $42.0M | 4-1 | No. 9 | –Payroll rank #8.5 · Performance rank #8 |
| 9 | Tennessee | $41-43M | $42.0M | 5-1 | No. 14 | ▼ -4Payroll rank #8.5 · Performance rank #12 |
| 10 | Alabama | $38-42M | $40.0M | 5-1 | No. 6 | ▲ +5Payroll rank #10.5 · Performance rank #6 |
| 11 | Texas Tech | $38-42M | $40.0M | 5-0 | No. 10 | –Payroll rank #10.5 · Performance rank #9 |
| 12 | USC | $37-40M | $38.5M | 6-1 | No. 19 | –Payroll rank #12 · Performance rank #13 |
| 13 | Indiana | $36-40M | $38.0M | 6-0 | No. 5 | ▲ +9Payroll rank #13.5 · Performance rank #5 |
| 14 | Michigan | $36-40M | $38.0M | 3-2 | NR | ▼ -8Payroll rank #13.5 · Performance rank #21 |
| 15 | Florida | $31-41M | $36.0M | 4-2 | NR | –Payroll rank #15 · Performance rank #17 |
| 16 | South Carolina | $32-35M | $33.5M | 3-3 | NR | ▼ -8Payroll rank #16 · Performance rank #24 |
| 17 | Auburn | $31-35M | $33.0M | 3-2 | NR | ▼ -4Payroll rank #17.5 · Performance rank #21 |
| 18 | Nebraska | $31-35M | $33.0M | 5-1 | NR | –Payroll rank #17.5 · Performance rank #15 |
| 19 | Georgia | $31-34M | $32.5M | 6-0 | No. 1 | ▲ +18Payroll rank #19 · Performance rank #1 |
| 20 | Oklahoma | $28-34M | $31.0M | 3-2 | NR | –Payroll rank #20 · Performance rank #19 |
| 21 | Clemson | $29-32M | $30.5M | 3-2 | NR | –Payroll rank #21.5 · Performance rank #21 |
| 22 | Penn State | $29-32M | $30.5M | 3-3 | NR | –Payroll rank #21.5 · Performance rank #24 |
| 23 | Wisconsin | $27-31M | $29.0M | 4-1 | NR | ▲ +7Payroll rank #23 · Performance rank #16 |
| 24 | Missouri | $27-30M | $28.5M | 5-1 | No. 13 | ▲ +13Payroll rank #24 · Performance rank #11 |
| 25 | UCLA | $26-30M | $28.0M | 5-0 | No. 12 | ▲ +15Payroll rank #25 · Performance rank #10 |
What the numbers say
| Sample | vs. win % | vs. AP rank |
|---|---|---|
| Top 15 reported budgets | -0.20 | +0.18 |
| Top 25 reported budgets | +0.05 | +0.34 |
Among the biggest spenders, reported spending is only a loose guide to results so far (a correlation of +1 would mean budget order exactly matched results).
- Top 10 reported budgets: 44-12 combined (.786), 6 teams in the AP top 10.
- Next 15: 64-20 (.762), 3 teams in the AP top 10.
Over-performers ▲
- Georgia: 6-0, No. 1, 19th-largest reported budget (+18).
- UCLA: 5-0, No. 12, 25th-largest reported budget (+15).
- Missouri: 5-1, No. 13, 24th-largest reported budget (+13).
- Indiana: 6-0, No. 5, tied 13th-largest reported budget (+9).
- Wisconsin: 4-1, unranked, 23rd-largest reported budget (+7).
- Notre Dame: 6-0, No. 2, 7th-largest reported budget (+5).
- Alabama: 5-1, No. 6, tied 10th-largest reported budget (+5).
- Miami: 5-0, No. 3, 6th-largest reported budget (+3).
Under-performers ▼
- Texas A&M: 3-3, unranked, 5th-largest reported budget (-19).
- Oregon: 3-2, unranked, 2nd-largest reported budget (-16).
- LSU: 4-2, No. 22, 4th-largest reported budget (-10).
- South Carolina: 3-3, unranked, 16th-largest reported budget (-8).
- Michigan: 3-2, unranked, tied 13th-largest reported budget (-8).
- Texas: 4-1, No. 7, 3rd-largest reported budget (-4).
- Auburn: 3-2, unranked, tied 17th-largest reported budget (-4).
- Tennessee: 5-1, No. 14, tied 8th-largest reported budget (-4).
- Ohio State: 5-1, No. 4, the largest reported budget (-3).
Methodology
- Each team's value is the midpoint of its reported range from The Athletic (e.g. $49-54M → $51.5M).
- We compute the Spearman rank correlation between reported midpoint and (a) win % and (b) AP rank, both oriented so a positive number means more money goes with better results. Unranked teams are coded 26.
- vs. Payroll column. Expected = the team's rank by reported budget midpoint among these 25 (1 = biggest). Actual = its performance rank among the same 25: AP-ranked teams first in AP order, then unranked teams by win %, then by AP poll points (others receiving votes). Teams tied on both measures, or on budget midpoint, share the average of their positions (e.g. 8.5). The number is expected minus actual: ▲ +N means the team ranks N or more spots better on the field than its payroll rank (3+, row tinted green), ▼ -N means N or more spots worse (3+, tinted red), and – means within 2. The coach table does the same with reported head-coach pay rank vs. performance rank among those 25 coaches' teams.
- Records, AP rank and AP points come from ESPN's public APIs (AP poll of Oct 11), as of Oct 12, 2026, 9:00 AM CT. The page is rebuilt weekly; budget and salary figures stay the reported ones.
- Context: the 2026-27 school-paid revenue-sharing cap is reported at about $21.3M; third-party NIL sits on top, which is why reported roster budgets can exceed double the cap.
Caveats
- These are reported estimates from anonymous sources, given as ranges. Some ranges span $10M (Texas, Florida).
- Outlets measure different things. The Athletic counts program-controlled money; others count market value or all player pay. Don't compare across outlets.
- Half a season is a small sample, and schedule strength varies.
- Only the top 25 reported spenders are included, so lower-budget teams that are ranked aren't.
- AP rank partly reflects preseason expectations, which themselves correlate with talent and money.
- A correlation isn't a causal finding.
Second section
Head Coach Pay vs. Results
REPORTED 2026 PAY (ON3/RIVALS) · SPEARMAN, TOP 25 BY PAY: +0.32 WITH WIN %, +0.53 WITH AP RANK
Top 25 reported 2026 head coach pay vs. results
▲ +N beating pay rank by 3+ spots▼ -N trailing pay rank by 3+– within 2▲ = performing better than payroll rank, ▼ = worse; the number is how many spots. Small line = payroll rank vs. performance rank (of 25).
| # | Coach | School | Reported pay | Record | AP | vs. Pay | Wins per $M | Data |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kirby Smart | Georgia | $13.3M | 6-0 | No. 1 | –Coach pay rank #1 · Performance rank #1 | 0.45 | Public |
| 2 | Curt Cignetti | Indiana | $13.0M | 6-0 | No. 5 | –Coach pay rank #2.5 · Performance rank #5 | 0.46 | Public |
| 3 | Lane Kiffin | LSU | $13.0M | 4-2 | No. 22 | ▼ -9Coach pay rank #2.5 · Performance rank #11 | 0.31 | Public |
| 4 | Ryan Day | Ohio State | $12.6M | 5-1 | No. 4 | –Coach pay rank #4 · Performance rank #4 | 0.40 | Public |
| 5 | Kalen DeBoer | Alabama | $12.5M | 5-1 | No. 6 | –Coach pay rank #5 · Performance rank #6 | 0.40 | Public |
| 6 | Lincoln Riley | USC | $11.5M | 6-1 | No. 19 | ▼ -4Coach pay rank #6 · Performance rank #10 | 0.52 | Private (est.) |
| 7 | Dabo Swinney | Clemson | $11.4M | 3-2 | NR | ▼ -11Coach pay rank #7 · Performance rank #18 | 0.26 | Public |
| 8 | Steve Sarkisian | Texas | $11.1M | 4-1 | No. 7 | –Coach pay rank #8 · Performance rank #7 | 0.36 | Public |
| 9 | Mike Elko | Texas A&M | $10.8M | 3-3 | NR | ▼ -13Coach pay rank #9 · Performance rank #22 | 0.28 | Public |
| 10 | Dan Lanning | Oregon | $10.4M | 3-2 | NR | ▼ -5Coach pay rank #10 · Performance rank #15 | 0.29 | Public |
| 11 | Mike Norvell | Florida State | $10.3M | 3-3 | NR | ▼ -11Coach pay rank #11.5 · Performance rank #22 | 0.29 | Public |
| 12 | Eli Drinkwitz | Missouri | $10.3M | 5-1 | No. 13 | ▲ +4Coach pay rank #11.5 · Performance rank #8 | 0.49 | Public |
| 13 | Marcus Freeman | Notre Dame | $10.0M | 6-0 | No. 2 | ▲ +12Coach pay rank #14 · Performance rank #2 | 0.60 | Private (est.) |
| 14 | Deion Sanders | Colorado | $10.0M | 2-3 | NR | ▼ -11Coach pay rank #14 · Performance rank #25 | 0.20 | Public |
| 15 | Bill Belichick | North Carolina | $10.0M | 3-2 | NR | ▼ -4Coach pay rank #14 · Performance rank #18 | 0.30 | Public |
| 16 | Shane Beamer | South Carolina | $9.2M | 3-3 | NR | ▼ -6Coach pay rank #16 · Performance rank #22 | 0.33 | Public |
| 17 | Josh Heupel | Tennessee | $9.0M | 5-1 | No. 14 | ▲ +8Coach pay rank #17 · Performance rank #9 | 0.56 | Public |
| 18 | Brent Venables | Oklahoma | $8.7M | 3-2 | NR | –Coach pay rank #18 · Performance rank #16 | 0.34 | Public |
| 19 | Matt Rhule | Nebraska | $8.5M | 5-1 | NR | ▲ +7Coach pay rank #19 · Performance rank #12 | 0.59 | Public |
| 20 | Mario Cristobal | Miami | $8.3M | 5-0 | No. 3 | ▲ +17Coach pay rank #20 · Performance rank #3 | 0.60 | Private (est.) |
| 21 | Bret Bielema | Illinois | $8.2M | 3-3 | NR | –Coach pay rank #21 · Performance rank #22 | 0.37 | Public |
| 22 | Matt Campbell | Penn State | $8.0M | 3-3 | NR | –Coach pay rank #22.5 · Performance rank #22 | 0.38 | Public |
| 23 | Kyle Whittingham | Michigan | $8.0M | 3-2 | NR | ▲ +5Coach pay rank #22.5 · Performance rank #18 | 0.38 | Public |
| 24 | P.J. Fleck | Minnesota | $7.9M | 4-2 | NR | ▲ +10Coach pay rank #24 · Performance rank #14 | 0.51 | Public |
| 25 | Luke Fickell | Wisconsin | $7.8M | 4-1 | NR | ▲ +12Coach pay rank #25 · Performance rank #13 | 0.51 | Public |
Pay: On3/Rivals 2026 coaching salaries (reported, rounded to $0.1M, fetched Oct 12, 2026). USA Today's database hasn't been updated for 2026. Private-school figures are estimates. Outlets disagree on who is No. 1. Records/AP: ESPN, as of Oct 12, 2026, 9:00 AM CT.
Coach pay takeaways
- Coach pay vs. AP rank: +0.53; reported roster spending vs. AP rank: +0.34. Pay largely rewards past success.
- Top 10 paid: 45-13 combined, 7 of 10 ranked. Ranked 11-25 by pay: 57-27, 4 of 15 ranked.
- Beating their pay rank: Eli Drinkwitz (Missouri), Marcus Freeman (Notre Dame), Josh Heupel (Tennessee), Matt Rhule (Nebraska), Mario Cristobal (Miami), Kyle Whittingham (Michigan), P.J. Fleck (Minnesota), Luke Fickell (Wisconsin). Trailing it: Lane Kiffin (LSU), Lincoln Riley (USC), Dabo Swinney (Clemson), Mike Elko (Texas A&M), Dan Lanning (Oregon), Mike Norvell (Florida State), Deion Sanders (Colorado), Bill Belichick (North Carolina), Shane Beamer (South Carolina).
Wins per $M is noisy at this point of the season; schedule strength isn't accounted for.
Sources: The Athletic (Sept 16, 2026) · On3 · SI · ESPN · On3/Rivals coach salaries. All dollar figures reported estimates.