Hey there. Considering I spend my time analyzing entire athletic departments (this isn’t a football website folks) in many ways the Director’s Cup is my Super Bowl. So I hope you’re as excited as I am to see some of the data that’s coming out of this year’s final results.

The Learfield Director's Cup is college athletics' closest thing to an overall report card. Every sport counts. Every championship appearance earns points. And when the final scores are tallied across all three seasons of competition, one program stood clearly above the rest in 2025–26: the Texas Longhorns, with 1,322 points.

It wasn't particularly close.

Texas finished with 1,322 total points, beating second-place Stanford by nearly 60 points — a significant margin at the top of a competition this deep. But the way Texas accumulated those points is what separates them from every other program in the country.

The Longhorns were mediocre in the fall. With only 136 fall points, Texas ranked near the bottom of the top 25 in that season — a reflection of a football program that, despite its profile, doesn't generate Director's Cup points the way elite multi-sport departments do in September and October. They were middle of the pack in winter, earning 426.5 points. But when spring arrived, Texas was on a different planet entirely: 759.5 spring points, the highest of any school in the top 25 by a wide margin.

That spring explosion — fueled by track & field, tennis, baseball, softball, and golf — is what made Texas champions. It's a reminder that the Director's Cup is ultimately a spring sport competition wearing an all-sport jersey.

Scan the top 25 and the pattern is unmistakable: this is P4 territory. The SEC and Big Ten dominate the leaderboard, the ACC fills in behind them, and the Big 12 makes a quiet appearance via BYU at No. 25.

But the most interesting name in the top 25 isn't a blue blood — it's Princeton at No. 20 with 878.5 points. The Ivy League's presence in a list otherwise defined by resource-rich P4 programs is a genuine anomaly. Princeton doesn't offer athletic scholarships. It doesn't have a football program competing for national championships. And yet it sits comfortably ahead of programs like Penn State, NC State, Oregon, and Wisconsin. That's what a deep, well-run multi-sport department looks like when it's firing on all cylinders.

A few other notes from the standings:

The seasonal trajectory chart (for the top 25 teams) reveals something important about how Director's Cup points actually accumulate.

Most top-25 programs are clustered tightly in the fall — fall sports generate fewer championship opportunities and thus fewer points. The real differentiation happens in winter and especially spring.

The schools that separated themselves in winter were largely the Big Ten's indoor sports powerhouses. Michigan led all top-25 schools in winter points with 664.25, driven by elite performances in swimming, wrestling, and gymnastics. Ohio State (621.25) and Nebraska (576.75) rounded out a dominant Big Ten winter showing — the Huskers in particular are a volleyball and gymnastics program that punches well above its football weight in this competition.

Texas's trajectory tells its own story: modest fall, solid winter, then an almost vertical climb in spring. That's what a program with elite track & field, tennis, and baseball programs does when the calendar turns to March.

NILnomics has a partnership with NILNewsstand, a leading platform covering Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) and the revenue-sharing era of college athletics. As part of the agreement, NILNewsstand will launch the “NILNewsstand Data Series (Powered by NILnomics)”, a recurring content initiative available within NILNewsstand Pro, the platform’s professional membership offering.

The series is designed to deliver data-driven analysis, custom visuals, and practical insights to help athletic departments, operators, and industry professionals better understand and navigate the evolving NIL and revenue-sharing landscape.

Unlike traditional coverage, the NILNewsstand Data Series is built specifically for professionals working inside college athletics.

“Our goal has always been to inform the people actually building and operating in this space,” said Kyle Ems, Founder of NILNewsstand. “This partnership allows us to add a structured, data-driven layer to our coverage — not just what’s happening, but what it means and what to do next.”

The latest issue is around job titles, positions, and what can be learned analyzing Division I staff directories. Find the full article here.

The top 50 tells the conference story clearly.

The Big Ten and SEC each placed 14 schools in the top 50 — a tie for first that reflects two very different paths to multi-sport excellence. The SEC gets there through football money funding deep rosters of Olympic sports. The Big Ten gets there through a combination of large public university athletic infrastructure and a long history of investment in non-revenue programs.

The ACC placed 10 schools in the top 50, punching above its revenue weight thanks to elite lacrosse, soccer, swimming, and track programs scattered across the conference. The Big 12 placed 9, with the conference's historically strong programs in gymnastics, wrestling, and track carrying the load.

The most notable absence from this chart: the Pac-12, which has essentially ceased to exist as a major conference. Its remaining members are scattered across new homes, and the absence of a Pac-12 bar is itself a story about conference realignment's impact on the competitive landscape.

The relationship between athletic spending and Director's Cup performance is real — but it's messier than you might expect.

The general trend is clear: higher-spending programs tend to score more Director's Cup points. That makes intuitive sense. More money means more scholarships, better facilities, higher coaching salaries, and more sports sponsored. All of that translates to more championship appearances and more points.

But the scatter is wide. Several programs in the $150M–$200M spending range cluster in the 400–700 point range, while a handful of schools spending similar amounts land well above or below that band. And at the very top — that lone outlier spending well above $400M — you're looking at a program (almost certainly Texas or Ohio State) where the spending and the results are both extraordinary.

The real story in this chart is the cluster at the bottom left: dozens of programs spending under $50M and scoring under 200 points. These are mid-major athletic departments where the Director's Cup competition is largely out of reach — not because they lack effort, but because the resource gap is simply too large to overcome through effort alone.

The newsletter is free. Keep it that way (please!) by subscribing. Then, share it with a friend if you’re able.

This is where things get genuinely interesting from a financial analysis perspective.

The "worst value" programs among Power Four schools are some of the ones you'd expect. Rutgers leads all P4 programs with a value score of $852,009 — meaning the Scarlet Knights are spending roughly $852K per Director's Cup point. Georgia Tech ($669,411) and Maryland($547,737) round out the top three.

What these schools share: they're spending significantly more than the conference's biggest programs and failing to maintain competitive multi-sport departments. Rutgers has historically been an afterthought in Big Ten athletics, but this metric suggests their Olympic sports programs are also failing to generate outsized returns relative to their investment.

The best value scores tell the opposite story. UVA ($141,081) and UCLA ($146,553) sit at the top — which is striking given that both finished in the top five of the overall standings. The explanation is spending. These are programs investing enormous resources in athletics and generating strong results, but the ratio of output to input is higher than their peers. High performance, high cost.

Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Arizona also appear in the best-value group — programs spending at or near the top of their conference peers while generating Director's Cup results that justify the investment.

The conference-by-conference breakdown shows which leagues have true top-to-bottom depth versus which are carried by a handful of elite programs.

The SEC's column is long and deep, anchored by Texas at the top but with consistent representation down the list. The Big Ten mirrors it. The ACC shows strong top-end performance — Stanford, UNC, Virginia, Duke, Notre Dame, NC State — before dropping off more steeply.

The Group of Five conferences tell a different story. The American Athletic, Mountain West, and MAC have programs scattered throughout the middle of the distribution, with occasional outliers but no programs competing at the very top. For these schools, the Director's Cup is a different competition entirely — one measured in terms of conference-relative success rather than national standings.

Longtime readers know I’ve been hard at work building a free, public dashboard out of all the MFRS data I have. Many of you have already signed up to be beta testers and I’ve started to roll subscribers into the program. Beta testers have been providing me feedback and I’m actively building out improvements and new features. One of these fine young people said to me, “congrats on all this - so cool to see and I know all of the hard work that goes into it”

If this interests you at all and you want to be on the ground floor using and improving the tool, shoot me an email and I’ll add you to the list. More volunteers will be rolled into the beta test this week.

Texas is the best all-around athletic program in college sports right now, and the Director's Cup makes that case more persuasively than any single sport could. The Longhorns built their championship on spring sport excellence — a model that reflects both deliberate investment and the deep talent pipeline that comes with being the flagship university of the most college sports-obsessed state in the country.

But zoom out from the champion and the broader picture is one of increasing concentration. The Big Ten and SEC together claimed 28 of the top 50 spots. P4 schools occupy virtually the entire top 25. And the gap between a top-10 program and a mid-major — measured both in points and in dollars — continues to grow.

The Director's Cup doesn't just tell you who won. It tells you how college athletics is stratifying in real time.

Thank you to you and the other 1,387 subscribers who get this newsletter weekly. Please feel free to share it with anyone that would enjoy it - here, on LinkedIn, or elsewhere. You can find me on LinkedIn or X if you want my latest thoughts.

Best,

Greg Chick, PhD
Data Analyst

NILnomics is a research and analytics platform covering the business of college sports. We build original data infrastructure — drawing on public filings, financial disclosures, and athletic department records across hundreds of institutions — to power in-depth reporting, interactive dashboards, and financial models. Our work helps administrators, agents, and industry leaders understand how athletic departments raise, spend, and report money. Founded by a data analyst with a PhD in NCAA financial policy, NILnomics pairs academic rigor with decision-ready analysis.