(05-21-2021 01:38 PM)Statefan Wrote:  As you can see from the above quote, this particular methodology is akin to a shaped meta-analysis where highly disparate objects are pushed into a shape for comparison.

In this case the shape is a professional football franchise with a market defined according to a statewide population.

In general this is just as good as most any set of variables and descriptors when it comes to a rough comparison between all schools, but it is not accurate for specific schools. it can't be.

Any program with the political need to hide revenue will be penalized. Those with the political need to overstate revenue will be rewarded, in this type of analysis. Programs sharing the same market will be difficult to value in comparison to others in the full list. Programs that are not being operated to maximize income will be penalized compared to those running at full bore.

Brewer has used this valuation model in a number of articles and over time he has touched on various socio-demographic issues that he notes represents trends that will attack value. A lot of people don't like social science research and don't like to read about sociological trends even when they are true.

Put another way, some P-5's have evolved into something akin to a girl's school with a little added testosterone. Non baby boom, non Gen X, non male alumni just don't support football like male baby boomers, or male Gen X'ers. Some P-5s have politics that incompatible with other p-5s and this is not new as it was the case in the Jim Crow years until the mid 1960's and early 70's.

Who adds the most value of a conference today, and who will still be adding that value in 2040 is the real conundrum.

(05-22-2021 06:22 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 09:38 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I don’t have a concern with the methodology. Valuations are estimates. As someone who worked in high-level finance roles for decades...I just accept that there is uncertainty and volatility associated with forecasting future events. Even valuations of publicly traded companies are speculative. Common accounting standards and disclosure requirements can’t mitigate all risk.

My concern is that ACC schools’ current valuations are all being dramatically impacted (i.e., depressed) by short-sighted Conference contracts and decisions. The SEC also signed a bad media deal in 2008, but the SEC pivoted and regained leverage to once-again share in media rights growth. In the meantime, the ACC doubled-down on its errors by extending its deal. Expected future revenue growth rate is the most important factor in these valuations. Relative to other conferences, the ACC media deal is an anchor...suggesting that the ACC is not truly interested in aggressively working for higher football media rights growth. The ACC has pursued a very conservative and static business model.

Clemson’s fundamentals are objectively better than their down-state rivals, yet USC has an astonishingly 50% higher valuation. Clemson has won three national championships, while the Gamecocks were lucky to be one-time SEC CCG participants. IMO, Warren Buffett would invest in Clemson over USC because it is easier to fix flawed decisions/contracts. The ACC can create a lot of value by getting all their members to invest and focus more on football. With the right support from ACC leaders, Clemson’s valuation (as well as other ACC schools) can double.

This is good to know. In other words, the ACC’s value is lower not (entirely) because its inherent value is low but because it got into a bad media contract, correct?

Then if the ACC doesn’t mess up the next media contract, the ACC may be able to close the value gap without going through the crazy realignment exercise, which is being discussed in a separate thread.

By the way, how come WVU’s value is so incredibly low? The Big 12 contract should give them enough revenue, no?

Yes, media payouts are about 30% of revenues so they absolutely factor into valuations.

WVU’s valuation is probably low because their inherent value is limited. The population in the state of West Virginia is relatively poor, there are not many big businesses in Morgantown and there are fewer rich boosters who are WVU graduates. T Boone Pickens gives a lot of money to Okie State athletics.

In addition, WVU football doesn’t fit well in the B12. Geographically, WVU is an outlier in the Texahoma / plains conference. Their traditional rivals are in the ACC and BIG. Their cultural brethren are in the ACC, SEC and BIG. Even if media payouts were equal, WVU’s valuation would probably increase in the SEC, BIG or ACC. Adding one of Cincy/Pitt/PSU/MD/VT to the B12 could also help WVU.

(05-20-2021 06:57 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Louisville, the most valuable member of the ACC, would be the 8th most valuable member of the Big Ten and the 11th most valuable member of the SEC.

Now we have a criteria as to who the dead weights are to each conference.

Not necessarily. In order to find out that information, I would say that you would need to an average of Louisville's WSJ valuations for however long they have been in the ACC and the median WSJ value of Louisville for all of the years that they have been in the ACC. I would use the same criterion for all other ACC members, and then I would make my determination.

The past two WSJ valuations are snapshots of how Wall Street would value that program/team for that particular year. Nothing more. If you are really interested in getting the true valuation of any college program, IMHO, you need several years valuations.

(05-22-2021 09:38 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Clemson’s fundamentals are objectively better than their down-state rivals, yet USC has an astonishingly 50% higher valuation. Clemson has won three national championships, while the Gamecocks were lucky to be one-time SEC CCG participants.

I assume fans of ACC teams like to trash the Gamecocks, but as an athletic department they are more valuable than you are saying, regardless of how they compare to Clemson specifically. They were filling their football stadium even when their team was terrible, which would be a really good sign of high valuation if this was a pro football franchise (and that's what the WSJ is pretending in its rankings). Over the last five years reported on the USA Today chart, South Carolina averages about $28 million/year in ticket revenue and $34 million/year in donations. Even in a ranking that excludes all TV money, South Carolina would be top-20 in revenue in college sports.

(05-23-2021 01:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 09:38 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Clemson’s fundamentals are objectively better than their down-state rivals, yet USC has an astonishingly 50% higher valuation. Clemson has won three national championships, while the Gamecocks were lucky to be one-time SEC CCG participants.

I assume fans of ACC teams like to trash the Gamecocks, but as an athletic department they are more valuable than you are saying, regardless of how they compare to Clemson specifically. They were filling their football stadium even when their team was terrible, which would be a really good sign of high valuation if this was a pro football franchise (and that's what the WSJ is pretending in its rankings). Over the last five years reported on the USA Today chart, South Carolina averages about $28 million/year in ticket revenue and $34 million/year in donations. Even in a ranking that excludes all TV money, South Carolina would be top-20 in revenue in college sports.

You missed my point. I compared the financial valuations of USC and Clemson, partly because the athletic departments at the two universities have lots of similarities. They play in the same state, have similar stadium size, pursue football-first models with passionate fan bases (for ticket revenues and donations), and regularly play two cross-conference games per year. Clemson also has a more successful football pedigree...winning more conference and national championships, and attracting better TV viewership.

Yet USC has a 50% higher valuation than Clemson. IMO, the stated valuation of USC is 50% higher because SEC payouts are better. I wasn't trying to trash the Gamecocks, I was explaining the importance of conference payouts on individual school financial valuations.

(05-24-2021 06:48 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 01:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 09:38 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Clemson’s fundamentals are objectively better than their down-state rivals, yet USC has an astonishingly 50% higher valuation. Clemson has won three national championships, while the Gamecocks were lucky to be one-time SEC CCG participants.

I assume fans of ACC teams like to trash the Gamecocks, but as an athletic department they are more valuable than you are saying, regardless of how they compare to Clemson specifically. They were filling their football stadium even when their team was terrible, which would be a really good sign of high valuation if this was a pro football franchise (and that's what the WSJ is pretending in its rankings). Over the last five years reported on the USA Today chart, South Carolina averages about $28 million/year in ticket revenue and $34 million/year in donations. Even in a ranking that excludes all TV money, South Carolina would be top-20 in revenue in college sports.

You missed my point. I compared the financial valuations of USC and Clemson, partly because the athletic departments at the two universities have lots of similarities. They play in the same state, have similar stadium size, pursue football-first models with passionate fan bases (for ticket revenues and donations), and regularly play two cross-conference games per year. Clemson also has a more successful football pedigree...winning more conference and national championships, and attracting better TV viewership.

Yet USC has a 50% higher valuation than Clemson. IMO, the stated valuation of USC is 50% higher because SEC payouts are better. I wasn't trying to trash the Gamecocks, I was explaining the importance of conference payouts on individual school financial valuations.

Conference *membership* is important even beyond conference TV contracts. For college football, the SEC confers more status in addition to more money. In the Wall Street Journal's pretend world where a college football team is valued like a pro sports franchise, just being an SEC member adds additional value even if TV money was not considered. That's indisputable; your beef with the WSJ writer is only about how much additional value is conferred by SEC membership.

Your other beef with them is that you are valuing recent football success more than the WSJ's valuation does. Their position seems to be that recent success is valuable but not a guarantee that Clemson football will be better than South Carolina football 20 or 40 years from now. Again, it's a quibble about how much to value any one factor that goes into this pretend valuation.

So if Kansas and Oklahoma were amenable to a move to the Big 10, which I’d like to see happen, that would put the #2 and #3 Big 12 program in the Big 10.

Oklahoma becomes the 3rd most valuable program in the conference while Kansas sits comfortably in the top half due to their blue blood basketball pedigree.

If I’m Fox, I’m pushing hard to make this a reality. I’d commit to a triple header on the flagship weekly consisting of:

Big Ten #1
Big Ten #2
PAC 12 #1

The Big Ten gets the Noon slot, and they can be flexible with the 3:30 and prime time slots, until November, when the Big Ten stops playing night games.

FS1 gets a pretty loaded line up too. I’d slot a Pac 12 game in the late night slot and with the other 3 you can take your pick of the Big Ten’s #3-4 or the PAC 12’s #2-4.

(05-26-2021 03:25 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So if Kansas and Oklahoma were amenable to a move to the Big 10, which I’d like to see happen, that would put the #2 and #3 Big 12 program in the Big 10.

Oklahoma becomes the 3rd most valuable program in the conference while Kansas sits comfortably in the top half due to their blue blood basketball pedigree.

If I’m Fox, I’m pushing hard to make this a reality. I’d commit to a triple header on the flagship weekly consisting of:

Big Ten #1
Big Ten #2
PAC 12 #1

The Big Ten gets the Noon slot, and they can be flexible with the 3:30 and prime time slots, until November, when the Big Ten stops playing night games.

FS1 gets a pretty loaded line up too. I’d slot a Pac 12 game in the late night slot and with the other 3 you can take your pick of the Big Ten’s #3-4 or the PAC 12’s #2-4.

Not bad. I'd half expect the SEC to attempt to swoop Texas with Texas Tech. The PAC may reach out to Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, and TCU if they want to get to 16 with CTZ schools. Baylor and West Virginia may find themselves in the AAC.

B1G
East: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers
West: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

SEC
East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

PAC
East: Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, TCU, Utah
West: California, Oregon, Oregon St, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington St

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech

AAC
East: Central Florida, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Temple, West Virginia
West: Baylor, BYU*, Houston, Navy*, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa
* Football-only

(05-26-2021 04:26 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 03:25 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So if Kansas and Oklahoma were amenable to a move to the Big 10, which I’d like to see happen, that would put the #2 and #3 Big 12 program in the Big 10.

Oklahoma becomes the 3rd most valuable program in the conference while Kansas sits comfortably in the top half due to their blue blood basketball pedigree.

If I’m Fox, I’m pushing hard to make this a reality. I’d commit to a triple header on the flagship weekly consisting of:

Big Ten #1
Big Ten #2
PAC 12 #1

The Big Ten gets the Noon slot, and they can be flexible with the 3:30 and prime time slots, until November, when the Big Ten stops playing night games.

FS1 gets a pretty loaded line up too. I’d slot a Pac 12 game in the late night slot and with the other 3 you can take your pick of the Big Ten’s #3-4 or the PAC 12’s #2-4.

Not bad. I'd half expect the SEC to attempt to swoop Texas with Texas Tech. The PAC may reach out to Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, and TCU if they want to get to 16 with CTZ schools. Baylor and West Virginia may find themselves in the AAC.

B1G
East: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers
West: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

SEC
East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

PAC
East: Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, TCU, Utah
West: California, Oregon, Oregon St, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington St

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech

AAC
East: Central Florida, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Temple, West Virginia
West: Baylor, BYU*, Houston, Navy*, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa
* Football-only

IMO, leaders of the PAC do not prioritize short-term financial valuation criteria. The PAC seems to lean towards larger research-centric universities. AAU schools like UT-Austin, KU and Iowa St are their prizes; while schools that have solid research -like OU, Texas Tech, Kansas St and Houston- are at least comparable to their current baseline minimum research threshold. It's difficult to envision the PAC expanding with Okie St, much less TCU. TCU has a strong undergraduate academic reputation, but it's a small school without a research commitment.

(05-26-2021 04:26 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 03:25 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So if Kansas and Oklahoma were amenable to a move to the Big 10, which I’d like to see happen, that would put the #2 and #3 Big 12 program in the Big 10.

Oklahoma becomes the 3rd most valuable program in the conference while Kansas sits comfortably in the top half due to their blue blood basketball pedigree.

If I’m Fox, I’m pushing hard to make this a reality. I’d commit to a triple header on the flagship weekly consisting of:

Big Ten #1
Big Ten #2
PAC 12 #1

The Big Ten gets the Noon slot, and they can be flexible with the 3:30 and prime time slots, until November, when the Big Ten stops playing night games.

FS1 gets a pretty loaded line up too. I’d slot a Pac 12 game in the late night slot and with the other 3 you can take your pick of the Big Ten’s #3-4 or the PAC 12’s #2-4.

Not bad. I'd half expect the SEC to attempt to swoop Texas with Texas Tech. The PAC may reach out to Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, and TCU if they want to get to 16 with CTZ schools. Baylor and West Virginia may find themselves in the AAC.

B1G
East: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers
West: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

SEC
East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

PAC
East: Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, TCU, Utah
West: California, Oregon, Oregon St, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington St

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech

AAC
East: Central Florida, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Temple, West Virginia
West: Baylor, BYU*, Houston, Navy*, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa
* Football-only

Of the left behind Big 12 schools, only Iowa St passes the PAC 12 academic sniff test.

Texas and Texas Tech To the SEC seems logical.

WVU will be desperate for an ACC invite but I’m not sure they get it.

I think you end up with a 10 or 12 team Big 12 that looks something like this:

West: Baylor, TCU, Houston, Oklahoma St, Kansas St
East: Iowa St, Cincinnati, WVU, USF, UCF

In terms of potential next schools in—Memphis, BYU, Tulane

The Sugar Bowl dumps the Big 12 for the ACC and the Big 12 either negotiates a tie in with the Cotton or Orange Bowl or is left without a contract bowl.

The AAC uses components of C-USA to put together a 10 team football line up.

I don't know how important it is for the Pac-12 to be in the Central Time Zone. They'll no doubt do it for Texas. As Wahoowa84 said, the academic focused leaders of the Pac 12 might hesitate towards Oklahoma but they are pretty attractive to pass up. Unless one of these two are involved, I highly doubt the Pac expands elsewhere just to be in the Central Time Zone. What's stopping them from picking up Houston or SMU now?

(05-19-2021 09:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

JR told me to make a thread for this. :3

FB values: https://graphics.wsj.com/table/NCAA_2019
BB values: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is...1554739458

Wow. UK and KU far outpace everyone in BB valuation, even NC and Duke. UK is having success in FB. KU needs to get FB to mediocrity.

(10-26-2021 09:26 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 09:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

JR told me to make a thread for this. :3

FB values: https://graphics.wsj.com/table/NCAA_2019
BB values: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is...1554739458

Wow. UK and KU far outpace everyone in BB valuation, even NC and Duke. UK is having success in FB. KU needs to get FB to mediocrity.

Now get rid of the NCAA's control of basketball and you can do a little more than double hoops money and reconsider Kansas, UNC, and Duke for realignment value. I can't fathom why anyone wants the NCAA taking more than half of the 1.3 billion the tourney made last year! BTW, the 2019 WSJ valuations should be available for football, but it's nice to have the side by side with totals.

Oh, and one other thing. Duke and UNC are lower because the WSJ tends to divide their total value 3 ways with N.C. State because they share the same market. They would be worth much more individually to the SEC or B1G.

(10-26-2021 09:26 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 09:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

JR told me to make a thread for this. :3

FB values: https://graphics.wsj.com/table/NCAA_2019
BB values: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is...1554739458

Wow. UK and KU far outpace everyone in BB valuation, even NC and Duke. UK is having success in FB. KU needs to get FB to mediocrity.

UK is more valuable than any P5 outside the SEC 16 except for Ohio St. and Michigan (and of course ND).

(10-26-2021 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2021 09:26 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 09:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

JR told me to make a thread for this. :3

FB values: https://graphics.wsj.com/table/NCAA_2019
BB values: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is...1554739458

Wow. UK and KU far outpace everyone in BB valuation, even NC and Duke. UK is having success in FB. KU needs to get FB to mediocrity.

Now get rid of the NCAA's control of basketball and you can do a little more than double hoops money and reconsider Kansas, UNC, and Duke for realignment value. I can't fathom why anyone wants the NCAA taking more than half of the 1.3 billion the tourney made last year! BTW, the 2019 WSJ valuations should be available for football, but it's nice to have the side by side with totals.

Oh, and one other thing. Duke and UNC are lower because the WSJ tends to divide their total value 3 ways with N.C. State because they share the same market. They would be worth much more individually to the SEC or B1G.

When you combine KY and Louisville you get 482 M for basketball.
When you combine Duke, UNC, NC State, and WF you get 447 M

Three major schools existing in the same media market is rare.

State, Duke, and UNC are the most obvious examples, but I suppose you could make a case for NW, ND, and Illinois relative to Chicagoland. Pairs are GT and UGa, Michigan and MSU, Cal and Stanford, and USC and UCLA. I don't know enough about Auburn's sway over Atlanta, but that might make something akin to three in one, but if you including one that distance you might as well put WF in with State, UNC, and Duke.

But you are correct, separated, Duke, UNC, and NC State are all of greater individual value.

(05-19-2021 10:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  This underscores a few things that have been said.

-For one, the Big 12 is capable of surviving. The combined values make them a clear cut 3rd place.

-The PAC 12 doesn't have a great deal of potential for improvement beyond some of their brands performing better.

-The ACC has some serious issues and nothing is a simple fix.

I actually decided to calculate what it would be minus Texas and Oklahoma. It comes to $2,224,037,656. I can assure you that figure comes in last of all the P5 conferences.

(06-03-2022 02:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 10:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  This underscores a few things that have been said.

-For one, the Big 12 is capable of surviving. The combined values make them a clear cut 3rd place.

-The PAC 12 doesn't have a great deal of potential for improvement beyond some of their brands performing better.

-The ACC has some serious issues and nothing is a simple fix.

I actually decided to calculate what it would be minus Texas and Oklahoma. It comes to $2,224,037,656. I can assure you that figure comes in last of all the P5 conferences.

I don't remember much about this conversation, but I think my point was that the Big 12 was strong as long as Texas and Oklahoma stayed around.

We didn't know they were leaving until a couple months after this thread was started.