(07-24-2021 09:13 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:30 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:20 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:18 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:14 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  The fact FIU and Ohio are ranked above Marshall tells you all you need to know.

Why should (in your opinion) Marshall rank above FIU?

Lmao.. this can’t be a real question... I dunno. When we play at FIU there are just as many Marshall fans as FIU fans, maybe more. That’s a good start.

I think you should look at how the ranking is organized. It is entirely a monetary ranking. You could literally be in the midst of 500-game winning streak but not have the monetary position to be up the ranking.

Therefore making this ranking completely worthless. It really tells us nothing about any program. And 2017-2018 was about when UAB started their big push for a privately funded football stadium. Don't suppose that has anything to do with them having a higher ranking in the same year? They received a lot of donations that they might not normally have access to. If nothing else people were trying to prove their BoG and Administration were wrong and donating more. Again, something that isn't necessarily something they can count on perpetually. Raw numbers don't tell a story that we already know because we deal with each other daily. It takes nothing from UAB. Kudos to them. But I question the validity of any conclusions drawn from this data.

I think monetary value of the program is a very legitimate and a very valid piece of data.

(07-24-2021 09:19 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:13 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:30 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:20 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:18 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  Why should (in your opinion) Marshall rank above FIU?

Lmao.. this can’t be a real question... I dunno. When we play at FIU there are just as many Marshall fans as FIU fans, maybe more. That’s a good start.

I think you should look at how the ranking is organized. It is entirely a monetary ranking. You could literally be in the midst of 500-game winning streak but not have the monetary position to be up the ranking.

Therefore making this ranking completely worthless. It really tells us nothing about any program. And 2017-2018 was about when UAB started their big push for a privately funded football stadium. Don't suppose that has anything to do with them having a higher ranking in the same year? They received a lot of donations that they might not normally have access to. If nothing else people were trying to prove their BoG and Administration were wrong and donating more. Again, something that isn't necessarily something they can count on perpetually. Raw numbers don't tell a story that we already know because we deal with each other daily. It takes nothing from UAB. Kudos to them. But I question the validity of any conclusions drawn from this data.

I think monetary value of the program is a very legitimate and a very valid piece of data.

To be used how? We've already shown that it won't collect you anymore wins. Wins garner perception and make a team more valuable to a conference and their financial dealings. At this level nothing else matters. Not markets and not budgets. The LATech fan said it best. It's about cost per win. A team that is successful without overspending is the most valuable team because they are consistent and sustainable and they will have their day in the sun on occasion. What we want is the most teams poised to turn a good season into a great season because they will every so often. Consistent teams always get a turn.

(07-24-2021 09:25 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:19 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:13 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:30 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:20 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Lmao.. this can’t be a real question... I dunno. When we play at FIU there are just as many Marshall fans as FIU fans, maybe more. That’s a good start.

I think you should look at how the ranking is organized. It is entirely a monetary ranking. You could literally be in the midst of 500-game winning streak but not have the monetary position to be up the ranking.

Therefore making this ranking completely worthless. It really tells us nothing about any program. And 2017-2018 was about when UAB started their big push for a privately funded football stadium. Don't suppose that has anything to do with them having a higher ranking in the same year? They received a lot of donations that they might not normally have access to. If nothing else people were trying to prove their BoG and Administration were wrong and donating more. Again, something that isn't necessarily something they can count on perpetually. Raw numbers don't tell a story that we already know because we deal with each other daily. It takes nothing from UAB. Kudos to them. But I question the validity of any conclusions drawn from this data.

I think monetary value of the program is a very legitimate and a very valid piece of data.

To be used how? We've already shown that it won't collect you anymore wins. Wins garner perception and make a team more valuable to a conference and their financial dealings. At this level nothing else matters. Not markets and not budgets. The LATech fan said it best. It's about cost per win. A team that is successful without overspending is the most valuable team because they are consistent and sustainable and they will have their day in the sun on occasion. What we want is the most teams poised to turn a good season into a great season because they will every so often. Consistent teams always get a turn.

Well, it does mean a lot. It's the money available for improvements, it's the money available for recruiting. It's why we scream about our inability to get a decent paying TV contract. If not for that, why would we care?

(07-24-2021 09:19 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:13 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:30 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:20 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:18 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  Why should (in your opinion) Marshall rank above FIU?

Lmao.. this can’t be a real question... I dunno. When we play at FIU there are just as many Marshall fans as FIU fans, maybe more. That’s a good start.

I think you should look at how the ranking is organized. It is entirely a monetary ranking. You could literally be in the midst of 500-game winning streak but not have the monetary position to be up the ranking.

Therefore making this ranking completely worthless. It really tells us nothing about any program. And 2017-2018 was about when UAB started their big push for a privately funded football stadium. Don't suppose that has anything to do with them having a higher ranking in the same year? They received a lot of donations that they might not normally have access to. If nothing else people were trying to prove their BoG and Administration were wrong and donating more. Again, something that isn't necessarily something they can count on perpetually. Raw numbers don't tell a story that we already know because we deal with each other daily. It takes nothing from UAB. Kudos to them. But I question the validity of any conclusions drawn from this data.

I think monetary value of the program is a very legitimate and a very valid piece of data.

Monetary VALUE... is different from money collected off the backs of student fees.

Value would imply that people actually value the product/service enough to actually pay for it. FIU has no monetary value which is proven by their lack of attendance in all sports.

Kudos to them for having a large student body I suppose.

(07-24-2021 09:25 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:19 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:13 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:30 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:20 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Lmao.. this can’t be a real question... I dunno. When we play at FIU there are just as many Marshall fans as FIU fans, maybe more. That’s a good start.

I think you should look at how the ranking is organized. It is entirely a monetary ranking. You could literally be in the midst of 500-game winning streak but not have the monetary position to be up the ranking.

Therefore making this ranking completely worthless. It really tells us nothing about any program. And 2017-2018 was about when UAB started their big push for a privately funded football stadium. Don't suppose that has anything to do with them having a higher ranking in the same year? They received a lot of donations that they might not normally have access to. If nothing else people were trying to prove their BoG and Administration were wrong and donating more. Again, something that isn't necessarily something they can count on perpetually. Raw numbers don't tell a story that we already know because we deal with each other daily. It takes nothing from UAB. Kudos to them. But I question the validity of any conclusions drawn from this data.

I think monetary value of the program is a very legitimate and a very valid piece of data.

To be used how? We've already shown that it won't collect you anymore wins. Wins garner perception and make a team more valuable to a conference and their financial dealings. At this level nothing else matters. Not markets and not budgets. The LATech fan said it best. It's about cost per win. A team that is successful without overspending is the most valuable team because they are consistent and sustainable and they will have their day in the sun on occasion. What we want is the most teams poised to turn a good season into a great season because they will every so often. Consistent teams always get a turn.

I think its more than clear the amount of money a program takes in does not relate to the numbers of wins. Especially in the G5. There's another piece to this that hardly ever gets mentioned.

That would be the cost factor is not the same in BG KY or Huntington WV or Ruston La or Hattiesburg Miss as it is in Miami or Norfolk, Virginia or Dallas Metro. A lot of the revenues go for other things than on the field or court in cities the COL is higher. Sometimes millions more.

When you look at Knight's committee (something like that its escaping my mind right now) most of us spends about the same on football. But we cant dismiss student fees because like I said its a revenue stream that is not depended on winning . Its a fee paid for by each student and that's for their tickets to all sports. In the overall outlook, its cheap and a tiny fraction of their cost to attend a school.

I wish Western had this problem of 50+k they could draw from. But on the field and court its been shown that the small budget schools in CUSA are the leader when it comes to overall athletic program. So money isnt a factor at this level.

(07-24-2021 11:01 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:19 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:13 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:30 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:20 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Lmao.. this can’t be a real question... I dunno. When we play at FIU there are just as many Marshall fans as FIU fans, maybe more. That’s a good start.

I think you should look at how the ranking is organized. It is entirely a monetary ranking. You could literally be in the midst of 500-game winning streak but not have the monetary position to be up the ranking.

Therefore making this ranking completely worthless. It really tells us nothing about any program. And 2017-2018 was about when UAB started their big push for a privately funded football stadium. Don't suppose that has anything to do with them having a higher ranking in the same year? They received a lot of donations that they might not normally have access to. If nothing else people were trying to prove their BoG and Administration were wrong and donating more. Again, something that isn't necessarily something they can count on perpetually. Raw numbers don't tell a story that we already know because we deal with each other daily. It takes nothing from UAB. Kudos to them. But I question the validity of any conclusions drawn from this data.

I think monetary value of the program is a very legitimate and a very valid piece of data.

Monetary VALUE... is different from money collected off the backs of student fees.

Value would imply that people actually value the product/service enough to actually pay for it. FIU has no monetary value which is proven by their lack of attendance in all sports.

Kudos to them for having a large student body I suppose.

Monetary value is the money collected off the backs of the students AND many other things. TV revenues, ticket revenues, funds raised from the boosters and the local community, sale of merchandise, etc. Don't make it seem like we suggest that the students are the only source of income for the program.

(07-24-2021 11:05 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:25 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:19 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:13 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:30 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  I think you should look at how the ranking is organized. It is entirely a monetary ranking. You could literally be in the midst of 500-game winning streak but not have the monetary position to be up the ranking.

Therefore making this ranking completely worthless. It really tells us nothing about any program. And 2017-2018 was about when UAB started their big push for a privately funded football stadium. Don't suppose that has anything to do with them having a higher ranking in the same year? They received a lot of donations that they might not normally have access to. If nothing else people were trying to prove their BoG and Administration were wrong and donating more. Again, something that isn't necessarily something they can count on perpetually. Raw numbers don't tell a story that we already know because we deal with each other daily. It takes nothing from UAB. Kudos to them. But I question the validity of any conclusions drawn from this data.

I think monetary value of the program is a very legitimate and a very valid piece of data.

To be used how? We've already shown that it won't collect you anymore wins. Wins garner perception and make a team more valuable to a conference and their financial dealings. At this level nothing else matters. Not markets and not budgets. The LATech fan said it best. It's about cost per win. A team that is successful without overspending is the most valuable team because they are consistent and sustainable and they will have their day in the sun on occasion. What we want is the most teams poised to turn a good season into a great season because they will every so often. Consistent teams always get a turn.

I think its more than clear the amount of money a program takes in does not relate to the numbers of wins. Especially in the G5. There's another piece to this that hardly ever gets mentioned.

That would be the cost factor is not the same in BG KY or Huntington WV or Ruston La or Hattiesburg Miss as it is in Miami or Norfolk, Virginia or Dallas Metro. A lot of the revenues go for other things than on the field or court in cities the COL is higher. Sometimes millions more.

When you look at Knight's committee (something like that its escaping my mind right now) most of us spends about the same on football. But we cant dismiss student fees because like I said its a revenue stream that is not depended on winning . Its a fee paid for by each student and that's for their tickets to all sports. In the overall outlook, its cheap and a tiny fraction of their cost to attend a school.

I wish Western had this problem of 50+k they could draw from. But on the field and court its been shown that the small budget schools in CUSA are the leader when it comes to overall athletic program. So money isnt a factor at this level.

clt says Charlotte has the best overall athletic program and is not a small budget school

(07-23-2021 03:56 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 03:22 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 03:16 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 03:08 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 03:06 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  Monetarily, Yes. And, it is reflected in LT's athletic budget and licensing revenue too.

Once again you fail to grasp what is value. But hey I will continue to enjoy beating the brakes off of a school that payed way too much for their coach.

For what it's worth, LT has great value for C-USA on the football field. But, nothing lasts forever.

I don't think UNT pays too much. We just paid it to the wrong coach. Littrell's days are numbered. UNT will almost certainly start the season 1-6. He can't come back from that, and shouldn't even be given the chance. This is his 6th season. If he can't live up to expectations, than he must be replaced. If I were the AD, I would have fired him after last season.

UNT paid too much or he would have already been GONE. When a school cant afford to buy out a contract. They paid too much and it really is that simple

It isn't that simple. Littrell's family are personal friends with one of our biggest donors, and have been since before he was hired at UNT.

That is even a more stupid reason to keep him. Your admin is corrupt then.

(07-25-2021 12:05 AM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 11:01 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:19 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:13 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 07:30 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  I think you should look at how the ranking is organized. It is entirely a monetary ranking. You could literally be in the midst of 500-game winning streak but not have the monetary position to be up the ranking.

Therefore making this ranking completely worthless. It really tells us nothing about any program. And 2017-2018 was about when UAB started their big push for a privately funded football stadium. Don't suppose that has anything to do with them having a higher ranking in the same year? They received a lot of donations that they might not normally have access to. If nothing else people were trying to prove their BoG and Administration were wrong and donating more. Again, something that isn't necessarily something they can count on perpetually. Raw numbers don't tell a story that we already know because we deal with each other daily. It takes nothing from UAB. Kudos to them. But I question the validity of any conclusions drawn from this data.

I think monetary value of the program is a very legitimate and a very valid piece of data.

Monetary VALUE... is different from money collected off the backs of student fees.

Value would imply that people actually value the product/service enough to actually pay for it. FIU has no monetary value which is proven by their lack of attendance in all sports.

Kudos to them for having a large student body I suppose.

Monetary value is the money collected off the backs of the students AND many other things. TV revenues, ticket revenues, funds raised from the boosters and the local community, sale of merchandise, etc. Don't make it seem like we suggest that the students are the only source of income for the program.

TV revenues are the same for all of us. I don't think anyone has more ticket sales than us, maybe ODU. As a popular school we probably do well in merchandise and also in donations compared to CUSA schools not in the middle of huge projects, like when we built our IPF and made a lot of campus improvements we had extra millions in donations. So the main difference comes down to student fees. I don't discount them, but big student bodies don't always mean solid programs. Like Guns said, the smaller budget schools seem to consistently do better than the large budget schools in REVENUE sports. Throwing money at a problem won't fix it if you don't know where and how to throw it. Poor schools know exactly where it will do the most good. They can't afford to get it wrong and they will invest more when it's going right, like our soccer coach, for instance.

And thanks for debating this without being a d!ck or condescending. It's an interesting topic with no right answers.

(07-25-2021 03:23 PM)MUther Wrote:  TV revenues are the same for all of us. I don't think anyone has more ticket sales than us, maybe ODU. As a popular school we probably do well in merchandise and also in donations compared to CUSA schools not in the middle of huge projects, like when we built our IPF and made a lot of campus improvements we had extra millions in donations. So the main difference comes down to student fees. I don't discount them, but big student bodies don't always mean solid programs. Like Guns said, the smaller budget schools seem to consistently do better than the large budget schools in REVENUE sports. Throwing money at a problem won't fix it if you don't know where and how to throw it. Poor schools know exactly where it will do the most good. They can't afford to get it wrong and they will invest more when it's going right, like our soccer coach, for instance.

And thanks for debating this without being a d!ck or condescending. It's an interesting topic with no right answers.

2019 data for ticket sales

ODU 3.79 mil
Marshall 3.57 mil
USM 2.42 mil
UTSA 2.34 mil
WKU 2.3 mil
FAU 2.01 mil
UNT 1.76 mil
UTEP 1.61 mil
UAB 1.59 mil
LA Tech 1.56 mil
Char 1.43 mil
MT 1.31 mil
FIU 1.24 mil

Rice ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


source: http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org...s/512f312b

(07-23-2021 03:06 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 02:36 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 02:22 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  Interesting. Here are the rankings of our C-USA programs....

71. UAB
82. North Texas
84. FIU
87. Rice
88. Marshall
90. MTSU
92. UTEP
96. WKU
101. Southern Miss
104. FAU
111. LA Tech

I guess the new programs don;t have much value yet. None of them were ranked (UTSA, Charlotte, & ODU).

Be honest with your assessment. Is Louisiana Tech the least valuable member of CUSA?

Monetarily, Yes. And, it is reflected in LT's athletic budget and licensing revenue too.

....And yet.....there's THIS little 'ole thing.......

CUSA 3.0 Football Records since 2014 (the year WKU joined and competed):

LA Tech - 38-18 (.679)
WKU - 37-20 (.649)
Marshall - 36-19 (.655)
MTSU - 32-23 (.582)
FAU - 31-25 (.554)
USM - 30-25 (.545)
UAB - 28-11 (.718) - UAB did not play in 2015 & 2016
FIU - 24-27 (.471)
UTSA - 24-31 (.436)
UNT - 24-32 (.429)
ODU - 19-29 (.296) - ODU did not field a team in 2020
Rice - 17-36 (.321)
Charlotte - 15-29 (.341)
UTEP - 11-41 (.211)

(07-25-2021 11:19 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 03:06 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 02:36 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 02:22 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  Interesting. Here are the rankings of our C-USA programs....

71. UAB
82. North Texas
84. FIU
87. Rice
88. Marshall
90. MTSU
92. UTEP
96. WKU
101. Southern Miss
104. FAU
111. LA Tech

I guess the new programs don;t have much value yet. None of them were ranked (UTSA, Charlotte, & ODU).

Be honest with your assessment. Is Louisiana Tech the least valuable member of CUSA?

Monetarily, Yes. And, it is reflected in LT's athletic budget and licensing revenue too.

....And yet.....there's THIS little 'ole thing.......

CUSA 3.0 Football Records since 2014 (the year WKU joined and competed):

LA Tech - 38-18 (.679)
WKU - 37-20 (.649)
Marshall - 36-19 (.655)
MTSU - 32-23 (.582)
FAU - 31-25 (.554)
USM - 30-25 (.545)
UAB - 28-11 (.718) - UAB did not play in 2015 & 2016
FIU - 24-27 (.471)
UTSA - 24-31 (.436)
UNT - 24-32 (.429)
ODU - 19-29 (.296) - ODU did not field a team in 2020
Rice - 17-36 (.321)
Charlotte - 15-29 (.341)
UTEP - 11-41 (.211)

Well thanks for being 3 of our wins and none of our losses.

Do we need to talk about how incredibly weak the west was when you gathered a lot of those wins? I mean you've been spotted a free UTEP win every single year in this conference. No one in the East has laid down for anyone every single season.

(07-26-2021 11:07 AM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-25-2021 11:19 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 03:06 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 02:36 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 02:22 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  Interesting. Here are the rankings of our C-USA programs....

71. UAB
82. North Texas
84. FIU
87. Rice
88. Marshall
90. MTSU
92. UTEP
96. WKU
101. Southern Miss
104. FAU
111. LA Tech

I guess the new programs don;t have much value yet. None of them were ranked (UTSA, Charlotte, & ODU).

Be honest with your assessment. Is Louisiana Tech the least valuable member of CUSA?

Monetarily, Yes. And, it is reflected in LT's athletic budget and licensing revenue too.

....And yet.....there's THIS little 'ole thing.......

CUSA 3.0 Football Records since 2014 (the year WKU joined and competed):

LA Tech - 38-18 (.679)
WKU - 37-20 (.649)
Marshall - 36-19 (.655)
MTSU - 32-23 (.582)
FAU - 31-25 (.554)
USM - 30-25 (.545)
UAB - 28-11 (.718) - UAB did not play in 2015 & 2016
FIU - 24-27 (.471)
UTSA - 24-31 (.436)
UNT - 24-32 (.429)
ODU - 19-29 (.296) - ODU did not field a team in 2020
Rice - 17-36 (.321)
Charlotte - 15-29 (.341)
UTEP - 11-41 (.211)

Well thanks for being 3 of our wins and none of our losses.

Do we need to talk about how incredibly weak the west was when you gathered a lot of those wins? I mean you've been spotted a free UTEP win every single year in this conference. No one in the East has laid down for anyone every single season.

Well, you do have to go 6 teams down the list --to USM-- before you find another CUSA west team on the list.

(07-25-2021 03:23 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-25-2021 12:05 AM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 11:01 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:19 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 09:13 PM)MUther Wrote:  Therefore making this ranking completely worthless. It really tells us nothing about any program. And 2017-2018 was about when UAB started their big push for a privately funded football stadium. Don't suppose that has anything to do with them having a higher ranking in the same year? They received a lot of donations that they might not normally have access to. If nothing else people were trying to prove their BoG and Administration were wrong and donating more. Again, something that isn't necessarily something they can count on perpetually. Raw numbers don't tell a story that we already know because we deal with each other daily. It takes nothing from UAB. Kudos to them. But I question the validity of any conclusions drawn from this data.

I think monetary value of the program is a very legitimate and a very valid piece of data.

Monetary VALUE... is different from money collected off the backs of student fees.

Value would imply that people actually value the product/service enough to actually pay for it. FIU has no monetary value which is proven by their lack of attendance in all sports.

Kudos to them for having a large student body I suppose.

Monetary value is the money collected off the backs of the students AND many other things. TV revenues, ticket revenues, funds raised from the boosters and the local community, sale of merchandise, etc. Don't make it seem like we suggest that the students are the only source of income for the program.

TV revenues are the same for all of us. I don't think anyone has more ticket sales than us, maybe ODU. As a popular school we probably do well in merchandise and also in donations compared to CUSA schools not in the middle of huge projects, like when we built our IPF and made a lot of campus improvements we had extra millions in donations. So the main difference comes down to student fees. I don't discount them, but big student bodies don't always mean solid programs. Like Guns said, the smaller budget schools seem to consistently do better than the large budget schools in REVENUE sports. Throwing money at a problem won't fix it if you don't know where and how to throw it. Poor schools know exactly where it will do the most good. They can't afford to get it wrong and they will invest more when it's going right, like our soccer coach, for instance.

And thanks for debating this without being a d!ck or condescending. It's an interesting topic with no right answers.

It’s very obvious who the TV executives value the most.

(07-26-2021 09:58 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(07-26-2021 11:07 AM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-25-2021 11:19 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 03:06 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 02:36 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  Be honest with your assessment. Is Louisiana Tech the least valuable member of CUSA?

Monetarily, Yes. And, it is reflected in LT's athletic budget and licensing revenue too.

....And yet.....there's THIS little 'ole thing.......

CUSA 3.0 Football Records since 2014 (the year WKU joined and competed):

LA Tech - 38-18 (.679)
WKU - 37-20 (.649)
Marshall - 36-19 (.655)
MTSU - 32-23 (.582)
FAU - 31-25 (.554)
USM - 30-25 (.545)
UAB - 28-11 (.718) - UAB did not play in 2015 & 2016
FIU - 24-27 (.471)
UTSA - 24-31 (.436)
UNT - 24-32 (.429)
ODU - 19-29 (.296) - ODU did not field a team in 2020
Rice - 17-36 (.321)
Charlotte - 15-29 (.341)
UTEP - 11-41 (.211)

Well thanks for being 3 of our wins and none of our losses.

Do we need to talk about how incredibly weak the west was when you gathered a lot of those wins? I mean you've been spotted a free UTEP win every single year in this conference. No one in the East has laid down for anyone every single season.

Well, you do have to go 6 teams down the list --to USM-- before you find another CUSA west team on the list.

Except UAB has the superior record at .718

(07-26-2021 11:52 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(07-26-2021 09:58 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(07-26-2021 11:07 AM)MUther Wrote:  

(07-25-2021 11:19 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(07-23-2021 03:06 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  Monetarily, Yes. And, it is reflected in LT's athletic budget and licensing revenue too.

....And yet.....there's THIS little 'ole thing.......

CUSA 3.0 Football Records since 2014 (the year WKU joined and competed):

LA Tech - 38-18 (.679)
WKU - 37-20 (.649)
Marshall - 36-19 (.655)
MTSU - 32-23 (.582)
FAU - 31-25 (.554)
USM - 30-25 (.545)
UAB - 28-11 (.718) - UAB did not play in 2015 & 2016
FIU - 24-27 (.471)
UTSA - 24-31 (.436)
UNT - 24-32 (.429)
ODU - 19-29 (.296) - ODU did not field a team in 2020
Rice - 17-36 (.321)
Charlotte - 15-29 (.341)
UTEP - 11-41 (.211)

Well thanks for being 3 of our wins and none of our losses.

Do we need to talk about how incredibly weak the west was when you gathered a lot of those wins? I mean you've been spotted a free UTEP win every single year in this conference. No one in the East has laid down for anyone every single season.

Well, you do have to go 6 teams down the list --to USM-- before you find another CUSA west team on the list.

Except UAB has the superior record at .718

UAB should be happy we waited on them and those wins aren't in FCS.

So I looked at this guys methodology a bit, it's actually a doctoral student from Purdue who came up with the formula and the WSJ just published it. The first thing I'd note is he's come up with a formula not using variables not unlike business valuations and applying that to all the FBS programs. Of course if you were to evaluate any one program as you would a business you'd look and see how appropriate using these measures are. For example he uses not only revenues but year to year growth as an input and that's from 2017-18. A reasonable approach on it's face and perhaps gives a good look at trajectory in most cases. However, if you take UAB for example their overall revenues were 24.7M in 2017 and 34.7M in 2018 which makes for an impressive 10M one year increase in revenues. This guy obviously didn't look specifically at UAB though because as we all know there were some extenuating circumstances in those years, namely no football. In 2016 their total revenue was 32.5M so it was really a return to the norm more than impressive growth. (I'm not picking on UAB and their fundraising and efforts to bring back FB WAS impressive). Also if you're doing a business valuation you typically use earning before depreciation, amortization, interest and taxes because if someone were to buy the business these items wouldn't carry over in a meaningful way. You can't sell a college football program but if you could would the student fees transfer to the new owner? Nah. It probably would be better to value it without subsidies. It doesn't really matter with the top tier which is where he and everyone else was likely focused and if you took them out then none of us would have any value using these metrics. Life as a G5er. Finally the inputs likely come from NCAA reporting or equity in athletics and to reiterate once again schools account for athletics in many different ways, there's no GAAP in college athletic budgets. So garbage in, garbage out. So take it all with a grain of salt, some seem to have swallowed the whole salt shaker though.

Stale numbers...and monetary valuations only matter if you are selling or getting a loan.