Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #101
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-27-2018 09:15 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-25-2018 10:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2018 09:47 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929

Those attendance figures don't paint the whole picture from my calculations (I made a thread on the Liberty board as a project to show what it would take to be a P5 candidate). I assume you got those from the NCAA website. If so, their conference breakdown is on a per conference game average, not a per school average. Since each of the schools don't have the same number of home games, the two averages don't match.

Another way of explaining it:
The NCAA gets their average from the total home attendance for a conference divided by the number of games instead of taking the average attendance for each school and averaging over the number of schools. I think the latter is the better method as it accounts for the disparity in the number of home games but I understand those who prefer the former.

What I came up when averaging the conference members' averages were these:

SEC: 77,165
Big Ten: 65,574
Big 12: 57,569
PAC 12: 50,366
ACC: 49,716

I took the annual reported attendance figures for each of the schools and averaged them by conference. But truthfully there's not enough difference there to quibble over. Statistically they are virtually the same. It is a tool for determining the strength of a candidate, and as I stated it's not a stat that is a deal maker, but it is certainly one that could be a deal breaker. E.G. Kansas averaged a little over 25,000 in 2016-7. The ones for 2017-8 won't be available until late March or early April. It looks like most are lower by 200 to 300 by your calculations and the PAC is up by about 200. That's less than a 3/1000th variance.

And once again my links for all of this kind of data is in the pinned threads at the top of the SEC board.

The more relevant numbers are those of the Gross Total Revenue which is an indicator of earning potential and the ability to raise funds, and that supplied by the WSJ annually which shows the economic impact that a school has over its state or region. Somtimes the number of living alumni are compared to attendance, TV ratings, the number of contributors, etc.

Geographical fit, cultural fit, and academics are also weighed, but the bottom line again is if they don't add to the bottom line they aren't added. Which of course why the data sets I listed are essential to determining their estimated value as an addition.

I wasn't trying to be difficult, just accurate. I was surprised to see the NCAA's averages for each conference when I was going through. For reference:

SEC: 77,507
Big Ten: 66,151
Big 12: 57,531
Pac 12: 50,073
ACC: 49,734

I agree with you that it is very stark the contrast between Texas and Oklahoma compared to the remaining Big 12 schools. Personally, I found the Pac 12 schools interesting as they had the tightest range for all of them. Their lowest performing school had the second-best attendance compared to all other lowest performing schools in each conference. On the other hand, they have the lowest median and the lowest top figure (by far). And not that it matters, I came up with the same numbers on the WSJ numbers that you posted with a slight difference with the Big 12 but not enough to matter.

Thinking out loud, I wonder if an analysis like this sparks a conference to question whether or not certain members are pulling their weight. As I think about it, probably not unless they could really pull in the big fish. Purdue, Vanderbilt, Washington State, Wake Forest, Kansas State, etc. are all ahead of G5 schools so unless there were unofficial trades (Purdue for Vanderbilt for instance), then there would be no reason to expel a member(s) unless the conference would make a boatload more money to offset potentially destroying a relationship.

In the one statistic of Gross Total Revenue the G5 have a couple that make incursions inside the top 65 spots. UConn is the most notable and B.Y.U. sneaks in around the 65th position. In Gross Total Revenue it is Georgia Tech and Wake Forest that fall below the P5 Mendoza line. The reason I find that significant is because due to the gap in TV revenue it's remarkable that UConn finished as high in that list as they did.
01-27-2018 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #102
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-27-2018 11:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-27-2018 09:15 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-25-2018 10:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2018 09:47 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929

Those attendance figures don't paint the whole picture from my calculations (I made a thread on the Liberty board as a project to show what it would take to be a P5 candidate). I assume you got those from the NCAA website. If so, their conference breakdown is on a per conference game average, not a per school average. Since each of the schools don't have the same number of home games, the two averages don't match.

Another way of explaining it:
The NCAA gets their average from the total home attendance for a conference divided by the number of games instead of taking the average attendance for each school and averaging over the number of schools. I think the latter is the better method as it accounts for the disparity in the number of home games but I understand those who prefer the former.

What I came up when averaging the conference members' averages were these:

SEC: 77,165
Big Ten: 65,574
Big 12: 57,569
PAC 12: 50,366
ACC: 49,716

I took the annual reported attendance figures for each of the schools and averaged them by conference. But truthfully there's not enough difference there to quibble over. Statistically they are virtually the same. It is a tool for determining the strength of a candidate, and as I stated it's not a stat that is a deal maker, but it is certainly one that could be a deal breaker. E.G. Kansas averaged a little over 25,000 in 2016-7. The ones for 2017-8 won't be available until late March or early April. It looks like most are lower by 200 to 300 by your calculations and the PAC is up by about 200. That's less than a 3/1000th variance.

And once again my links for all of this kind of data is in the pinned threads at the top of the SEC board.

The more relevant numbers are those of the Gross Total Revenue which is an indicator of earning potential and the ability to raise funds, and that supplied by the WSJ annually which shows the economic impact that a school has over its state or region. Somtimes the number of living alumni are compared to attendance, TV ratings, the number of contributors, etc.

Geographical fit, cultural fit, and academics are also weighed, but the bottom line again is if they don't add to the bottom line they aren't added. Which of course why the data sets I listed are essential to determining their estimated value as an addition.

I wasn't trying to be difficult, just accurate. I was surprised to see the NCAA's averages for each conference when I was going through. For reference:

SEC: 77,507
Big Ten: 66,151
Big 12: 57,531
Pac 12: 50,073
ACC: 49,734

I agree with you that it is very stark the contrast between Texas and Oklahoma compared to the remaining Big 12 schools. Personally, I found the Pac 12 schools interesting as they had the tightest range for all of them. Their lowest performing school had the second-best attendance compared to all other lowest performing schools in each conference. On the other hand, they have the lowest median and the lowest top figure (by far). And not that it matters, I came up with the same numbers on the WSJ numbers that you posted with a slight difference with the Big 12 but not enough to matter.

Thinking out loud, I wonder if an analysis like this sparks a conference to question whether or not certain members are pulling their weight. As I think about it, probably not unless they could really pull in the big fish. Purdue, Vanderbilt, Washington State, Wake Forest, Kansas State, etc. are all ahead of G5 schools so unless there were unofficial trades (Purdue for Vanderbilt for instance), then there would be no reason to expel a member(s) unless the conference would make a boatload more money to offset potentially destroying a relationship.

Whether you look at mean or median, the numbers tell basically the same result. Its actually the Big 10 that is most impacted in its average by the big attendance schools, not the Big 12. Weighting each school equally in a 4 year average gives you the following:
Conference-mean-median
SEC 77,441-82,999
B10 65,973-56,880
B12 57,517-55,233
P12 50,907-47,793
ACC 49,018-49,845
AAC 30,100-31,553
MWC 24,435-23,299
USA 19,877-19,894
SuB 18,658-19,049
MAC 15,565-16,007

Those numbers are relevant as well. This is where the biggest difference in Gross Total Revenue can be accounted for. When you consider the extra ticket sales, the difference in ticket prices from conference to conference, and the donations involved it really dwarfs the differences in TV revenue. Of course this can get skewed in year over year figures when T.Boone, or a rich Aggie donate millions for a stadium renovation. But with a multiple year averaging you can level those a bit.
01-27-2018 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #103
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-27-2018 02:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-27-2018 09:15 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-25-2018 10:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2018 09:47 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929

Those attendance figures don't paint the whole picture from my calculations (I made a thread on the Liberty board as a project to show what it would take to be a P5 candidate). I assume you got those from the NCAA website. If so, their conference breakdown is on a per conference game average, not a per school average. Since each of the schools don't have the same number of home games, the two averages don't match.

Another way of explaining it:
The NCAA gets their average from the total home attendance for a conference divided by the number of games instead of taking the average attendance for each school and averaging over the number of schools. I think the latter is the better method as it accounts for the disparity in the number of home games but I understand those who prefer the former.

What I came up when averaging the conference members' averages were these:

SEC: 77,165
Big Ten: 65,574
Big 12: 57,569
PAC 12: 50,366
ACC: 49,716

I took the annual reported attendance figures for each of the schools and averaged them by conference. But truthfully there's not enough difference there to quibble over. Statistically they are virtually the same. It is a tool for determining the strength of a candidate, and as I stated it's not a stat that is a deal maker, but it is certainly one that could be a deal breaker. E.G. Kansas averaged a little over 25,000 in 2016-7. The ones for 2017-8 won't be available until late March or early April. It looks like most are lower by 200 to 300 by your calculations and the PAC is up by about 200. That's less than a 3/1000th variance.

And once again my links for all of this kind of data is in the pinned threads at the top of the SEC board.

The more relevant numbers are those of the Gross Total Revenue which is an indicator of earning potential and the ability to raise funds, and that supplied by the WSJ annually which shows the economic impact that a school has over its state or region. Somtimes the number of living alumni are compared to attendance, TV ratings, the number of contributors, etc.

Geographical fit, cultural fit, and academics are also weighed, but the bottom line again is if they don't add to the bottom line they aren't added. Which of course why the data sets I listed are essential to determining their estimated value as an addition.

I wasn't trying to be difficult, just accurate. I was surprised to see the NCAA's averages for each conference when I was going through. For reference:

SEC: 77,507
Big Ten: 66,151
Big 12: 57,531
Pac 12: 50,073
ACC: 49,734

I agree with you that it is very stark the contrast between Texas and Oklahoma compared to the remaining Big 12 schools. Personally, I found the Pac 12 schools interesting as they had the tightest range for all of them. Their lowest performing school had the second-best attendance compared to all other lowest performing schools in each conference. On the other hand, they have the lowest median and the lowest top figure (by far). And not that it matters, I came up with the same numbers on the WSJ numbers that you posted with a slight difference with the Big 12 but not enough to matter.

Thinking out loud, I wonder if an analysis like this sparks a conference to question whether or not certain members are pulling their weight. As I think about it, probably not unless they could really pull in the big fish. Purdue, Vanderbilt, Washington State, Wake Forest, Kansas State, etc. are all ahead of G5 schools so unless there were unofficial trades (Purdue for Vanderbilt for instance), then there would be no reason to expel a member(s) unless the conference would make a boatload more money to offset potentially destroying a relationship.

In the one statistic of Gross Total Revenue the G5 have a couple that make incursions inside the top 65 spots. UConn is the most notable and B.Y.U. sneaks in around the 65th position. In Gross Total Revenue it is Georgia Tech and Wake Forest that fall below the P5 Mendoza line. The reason I find that significant is because due to the gap in TV revenue it's remarkable that UConn finished as high in that list as they did.

I believe UConn's numbers are skewed somewhat by their share of exit fees and tourney credits from the BE breakup. Those expire soon. Also, I seem to recall that their institutional support was on the high side.
01-27-2018 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #104
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
Is there any merit in factoring in the WSJ's basketball values too? https://graphics.wsj.com/table/COUNT_0330

Some are comparable to or even greater than the football values.
(This post was last modified: 01-28-2018 01:39 PM by Nerdlinger.)
01-28-2018 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #105
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-28-2018 12:39 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Is there any merit in factoring in the WSJ's basketball values too? https://graphics.wsj.com/table/COUNT_0330

Some are comparable or even greater than the football values.

You will note that Kentucky's value as the top basketball product in terms of economic impact is mid tier at best in the worst of the P5 football conferences. Alabama's football value is a hair short of 1 billion. So Kentucky Basketball is worth not quite 1/3rd of that.

What I surprised by was North Carolina's program's value. They are 10th nationally, but I would have expected more. Duke was ranked well above them.
01-28-2018 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #106
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-28-2018 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 12:39 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Is there any merit in factoring in the WSJ's basketball values too? https://graphics.wsj.com/table/COUNT_0330

Some are comparable or even greater than the football values.

You will note that Kentucky's value as the top basketball product in terms of economic impact is mid tier at best in the worst of the P5 football conferences. Alabama's football value is a hair short of 1 billion. So Kentucky Basketball is worth not quite 1/3rd of that.

What I surprised by was North Carolina's program's value. They are 10th nationally, but I would have expected more. Duke was ranked well above them.

Some values changed significantly from 2015 to 2016. I'm guessing NCAA tournament performance is a big factor.
01-28-2018 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #107
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-28-2018 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 12:39 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Is there any merit in factoring in the WSJ's basketball values too? https://graphics.wsj.com/table/COUNT_0330

Some are comparable or even greater than the football values.

You will note that Kentucky's value as the top basketball product in terms of economic impact is mid tier at best in the worst of the P5 football conferences. Alabama's football value is a hair short of 1 billion. So Kentucky Basketball is worth not quite 1/3rd of that.

What I surprised by was North Carolina's program's value. They are 10th nationally, but I would have expected more. Duke was ranked well above them.

More puzzling to me is that it declined by 35% between 2015 and 2016. Might that be a self reporting change in the allocation of booster club donations between football and basketball?
01-28-2018 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #108
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-28-2018 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 12:39 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Is there any merit in factoring in the WSJ's basketball values too? https://graphics.wsj.com/table/COUNT_0330

Some are comparable or even greater than the football values.

You will note that Kentucky's value as the top basketball product in terms of economic impact is mid tier at best in the worst of the P5 football conferences. Alabama's football value is a hair short of 1 billion. So Kentucky Basketball is worth not quite 1/3rd of that.

What I surprised by was North Carolina's program's value. They are 10th nationally, but I would have expected more. Duke was ranked well above them.

More puzzling to me is that it declined by 35% between 2015 and 2016. Might that be a self reporting change in the allocation of booster club donations between football and basketball?

That's what I was thinking too! Ouch! It could also have been a simple drop off in contributions. It hurts, but still far less than they deserved.
(This post was last modified: 01-28-2018 03:30 PM by JRsec.)
01-28-2018 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mj4life Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,153
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: unc
Location:
Post: #109
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-28-2018 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 12:39 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Is there any merit in factoring in the WSJ's basketball values too? https://graphics.wsj.com/table/COUNT_0330

Some are comparable or even greater than the football values.

You will note that Kentucky's value as the top basketball product in terms of economic impact is mid tier at best in the worst of the P5 football conferences. Alabama's football value is a hair short of 1 billion. So Kentucky Basketball is worth not quite 1/3rd of that.

What I surprised by was North Carolina's program's value. They are 10th nationally, but I would have expected more. Duke was ranked well above them.

More puzzling to me is that it declined by 35% between 2015 and 2016. Might that be a self reporting change in the allocation of booster club donations between football and basketball?

That's what I was thinking too! Ouch! It could also have been a simple drop off in contributions. It hurts, but still far less than they deserved.

The only problem with that theory is that the Rams Club has set the record for donations the last 2 years
01-28-2018 10:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #110
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-28-2018 10:03 PM)mj4life Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 12:39 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Is there any merit in factoring in the WSJ's basketball values too? https://graphics.wsj.com/table/COUNT_0330

Some are comparable or even greater than the football values.

You will note that Kentucky's value as the top basketball product in terms of economic impact is mid tier at best in the worst of the P5 football conferences. Alabama's football value is a hair short of 1 billion. So Kentucky Basketball is worth not quite 1/3rd of that.

What I surprised by was North Carolina's program's value. They are 10th nationally, but I would have expected more. Duke was ranked well above them.

More puzzling to me is that it declined by 35% between 2015 and 2016. Might that be a self reporting change in the allocation of booster club donations between football and basketball?

That's what I was thinking too! Ouch! It could also have been a simple drop off in contributions. It hurts, but still far less than they deserved.

The only problem with that theory is that the Rams Club has set the record for donations the last 2 years

Well really that affects Gross Total Revenue. So the thought was errant anyway. The numbers given by the WSJ are what they see as the impact of the program within the state and community in terms of generated business.
01-29-2018 01:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #111
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-29-2018 01:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 10:03 PM)mj4life Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You will note that Kentucky's value as the top basketball product in terms of economic impact is mid tier at best in the worst of the P5 football conferences. Alabama's football value is a hair short of 1 billion. So Kentucky Basketball is worth not quite 1/3rd of that.

What I surprised by was North Carolina's program's value. They are 10th nationally, but I would have expected more. Duke was ranked well above them.

More puzzling to me is that it declined by 35% between 2015 and 2016. Might that be a self reporting change in the allocation of booster club donations between football and basketball?

That's what I was thinking too! Ouch! It could also have been a simple drop off in contributions. It hurts, but still far less than they deserved.

The only problem with that theory is that the Rams Club has set the record for donations the last 2 years

Well really that affects Gross Total Revenue. So the thought was errant anyway. The numbers given by the WSJ are what they see as the impact of the program within the state and community in terms of generated business.

Methodology on that WSJ report?
How does one lose 35% in basketball in a year the team is within :02 of being the NCAA champion?
01-29-2018 05:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #112
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-28-2018 10:03 PM)mj4life Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 12:39 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Is there any merit in factoring in the WSJ's basketball values too? https://graphics.wsj.com/table/COUNT_0330

Some are comparable or even greater than the football values.

You will note that Kentucky's value as the top basketball product in terms of economic impact is mid tier at best in the worst of the P5 football conferences. Alabama's football value is a hair short of 1 billion. So Kentucky Basketball is worth not quite 1/3rd of that.

What I surprised by was North Carolina's program's value. They are 10th nationally, but I would have expected more. Duke was ranked well above them.

More puzzling to me is that it declined by 35% between 2015 and 2016. Might that be a self reporting change in the allocation of booster club donations between football and basketball?

That's what I was thinking too! Ouch! It could also have been a simple drop off in contributions. It hurts, but still far less than they deserved.

The only problem with that theory is that the Rams Club has set the record for donations the last 2 years

What I was suggesting was that UNC might have changed the way they were allocating Rams Club donations between basketball and football in their reporting. That is to say, perhaps their football valuation increased at the expense of the basketball valuation.
01-29-2018 09:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #113
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-29-2018 09:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 10:03 PM)mj4life Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You will note that Kentucky's value as the top basketball product in terms of economic impact is mid tier at best in the worst of the P5 football conferences. Alabama's football value is a hair short of 1 billion. So Kentucky Basketball is worth not quite 1/3rd of that.

What I surprised by was North Carolina's program's value. They are 10th nationally, but I would have expected more. Duke was ranked well above them.

More puzzling to me is that it declined by 35% between 2015 and 2016. Might that be a self reporting change in the allocation of booster club donations between football and basketball?

That's what I was thinking too! Ouch! It could also have been a simple drop off in contributions. It hurts, but still far less than they deserved.

The only problem with that theory is that the Rams Club has set the record for donations the last 2 years

What I was suggesting was that UNC might have changed the way they were allocating Rams Club donations between basketball and football in their reporting. That is to say, perhaps their football valuation increased at the expense of the basketball valuation.

Market valuations based on donations?
My Rams Club dues are not designated to any sport, although I did ask that none of my dues be used for football until Bunting was replaced.
01-29-2018 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mj4life Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,153
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: unc
Location:
Post: #114
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-29-2018 09:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 10:03 PM)mj4life Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You will note that Kentucky's value as the top basketball product in terms of economic impact is mid tier at best in the worst of the P5 football conferences. Alabama's football value is a hair short of 1 billion. So Kentucky Basketball is worth not quite 1/3rd of that.

What I surprised by was North Carolina's program's value. They are 10th nationally, but I would have expected more. Duke was ranked well above them.

More puzzling to me is that it declined by 35% between 2015 and 2016. Might that be a self reporting change in the allocation of booster club donations between football and basketball?

That's what I was thinking too! Ouch! It could also have been a simple drop off in contributions. It hurts, but still far less than they deserved.

The only problem with that theory is that the Rams Club has set the record for donations the last 2 years

What I was suggesting was that UNC might have changed the way they were allocating Rams Club donations between basketball and football in their reporting. That is to say, perhaps their football valuation increased at the expense of the basketball valuation.
I get that, but no information is available that suggest that.other than what the AD reports as revenue for each. The only major difference between the two revenue potential wise is that the Smith Center lacks premium seating but that was the same the year before this valuation. Now ifthe WSJ was assuming that UNC would get hammered by the NCAA then that might be why the value dropped so much
(This post was last modified: 01-29-2018 11:40 AM by mj4life.)
01-29-2018 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #115
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-29-2018 10:24 AM)mj4life Wrote:  
(01-29-2018 09:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 10:03 PM)mj4life Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  More puzzling to me is that it declined by 35% between 2015 and 2016. Might that be a self reporting change in the allocation of booster club donations between football and basketball?

That's what I was thinking too! Ouch! It could also have been a simple drop off in contributions. It hurts, but still far less than they deserved.

The only problem with that theory is that the Rams Club has set the record for donations the last 2 years

What I was suggesting was that UNC might have changed the way they were allocating Rams Club donations between basketball and football in their reporting. That is to say, perhaps their football valuation increased at the expense of the basketball valuation.
I get that, but no information is available that suggest that.other than what the AD reports as revenue for each. The only major difference between the two revenue potential wise is that the Smith Center lacks premium seating but that was the same the year before this valuation. Now ifthe WSJ was assuming that UNC would get hammered by the NCAA then that might be why the value dropped so much

These numbers have much less to do with donations, Gross Total Revenue, or NET revenue, etc. They are Wall Streets estimates of how having that sports team impacts the state and local economy. I suspect having Duke, and N.C. State so close by probably skews these numbers downward a bit. I suppose it is possible that the sanction issue could have been factored into their projections. There should be a methodology somewhere within the greater article of which this list would have been a part. But when compared to Kentucky you have to recognize that UK generates a much larger % of the business in Lexington and the state. The football value estimations work the same way. Oklahoma's football impacts that state's business by an estimated 1 billion dollars. Texas's valuation is 1.2 billion but of course that's a much more heavily populated area but it also has a lot more schools than does Oklahoma.

The numbers are an indicator of the economic impact of a program.
(This post was last modified: 01-29-2018 01:11 PM by JRsec.)
01-29-2018 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mj4life Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,153
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: unc
Location:
Post: #116
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-29-2018 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-29-2018 10:24 AM)mj4life Wrote:  
(01-29-2018 09:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 10:03 PM)mj4life Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's what I was thinking too! Ouch! It could also have been a simple drop off in contributions. It hurts, but still far less than they deserved.

The only problem with that theory is that the Rams Club has set the record for donations the last 2 years

What I was suggesting was that UNC might have changed the way they were allocating Rams Club donations between basketball and football in their reporting. That is to say, perhaps their football valuation increased at the expense of the basketball valuation.
I get that, but no information is available that suggest that.other than what the AD reports as revenue for each. The only major difference between the two revenue potential wise is that the Smith Center lacks premium seating but that was the same the year before this valuation. Now ifthe WSJ was assuming that UNC would get hammered by the NCAA then that might be why the value dropped so much

These numbers have much less to do with donations, Gross Total Revenue, or NET revenue, etc. They are Wall Streets estimates of how having that sports team impacts the state and local economy. I suspect having Duke, and N.C. State so close by probably skews these numbers downward a bit. I suppose it is possible that the sanction issue could have been factored into their projections. There should be a methodology somewhere within the greater article of which this list would have been a part. But when compared to Kentucky you have to recognize that UK generates a much larger % of the business in Lexington and the state. The football value estimations work the same way. Oklahoma's football impacts that state's business by an estimated 1 billion dollars. Texas's valuation is 1.2 billion but of course that's a much more heavily populated area but it also has a lot more schools than does Oklahoma.

The numbers are an indicator of the economic impact of a program.

No doubt UK is the big fish in a small pond & I don't doubt having Duke & State nearby having some effect on a estimated valuation of UNC. The only issue is how they dropped the value that much in one year.
(This post was last modified: 01-29-2018 02:09 PM by mj4life.)
01-29-2018 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #117
RE: Realignment's Sobering Numbers For Those Who Like To Create Move Scenarios
(01-29-2018 02:08 PM)mj4life Wrote:  
(01-29-2018 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-29-2018 10:24 AM)mj4life Wrote:  
(01-29-2018 09:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-28-2018 10:03 PM)mj4life Wrote:  The only problem with that theory is that the Rams Club has set the record for donations the last 2 years

What I was suggesting was that UNC might have changed the way they were allocating Rams Club donations between basketball and football in their reporting. That is to say, perhaps their football valuation increased at the expense of the basketball valuation.
I get that, but no information is available that suggest that.other than what the AD reports as revenue for each. The only major difference between the two revenue potential wise is that the Smith Center lacks premium seating but that was the same the year before this valuation. Now ifthe WSJ was assuming that UNC would get hammered by the NCAA then that might be why the value dropped so much

These numbers have much less to do with donations, Gross Total Revenue, or NET revenue, etc. They are Wall Streets estimates of how having that sports team impacts the state and local economy. I suspect having Duke, and N.C. State so close by probably skews these numbers downward a bit. I suppose it is possible that the sanction issue could have been factored into their projections. There should be a methodology somewhere within the greater article of which this list would have been a part. But when compared to Kentucky you have to recognize that UK generates a much larger % of the business in Lexington and the state. The football value estimations work the same way. Oklahoma's football impacts that state's business by an estimated 1 billion dollars. Texas's valuation is 1.2 billion but of course that's a much more heavily populated area but it also has a lot more schools than does Oklahoma.

The numbers are an indicator of the economic impact of a program.

No doubt UK is the big fish in a small pond & I don't doubt having Duke & State nearby having some effect on a estimated valuation of UNC. The only issue is how they dropped the value that much in one year.

Agreed. It is peculiar and the anticipation of sanction may have had a part in that. But I don't know for sure, and will probably never know. And we are dealing with a year over year. It would be much more helpful to know what the last 10 year's valuations were. Then we'd know if last year's was a spike and this year returned to normal, or if this year was the anomaly.
01-29-2018 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.