http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...2525141772

No Missouri?

Kansas #30 in football? Yes, basketball would be in the top 5, but football in the top 30? I wonder what the methodology was?

It appears to be based on profit or revenue.

(01-06-2014 06:24 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  It appears to be based on profit or revenue.

I wonder if ownership of facilities is taken into consideration? This is really just speculative...wish the parameters were shown.

(01-06-2014 06:24 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  It appears to be based on profit or revenue.

Texas Tech would be lower if that was the case. Tech's high rank suggests head coach comeliness is given great weight, which is SOP when conducting pigskin economic valuations.

(01-06-2014 07:30 PM)FreshPrinceOfDarkness Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 06:24 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  It appears to be based on profit or revenue.

Texas Tech would be lower if that was the case. Tech's high rank suggests head coach comeliness is given great weight, which is SOP when conducting pigskin economic valuations.

I can't find the guy's methodology not even after looking at his website at IUPU - perhaps others can find it. I think the value is based not on profit, but the entire bundle of sticks - cash flow, contracts, facilities owned, merchandise rights, etc. However, this is a guess.

Big deal. All this demonstrates is just how much of an underachiever a lot of these teams are and how this doesn't translate to success on the field

I've got far more respect for teams like Boise and UCF that have done more with less

(01-06-2014 07:46 PM)quintas Wrote:  Big deal. All this demonstrates is just how much of an underachiever a lot of these teams are and how this doesn't translate to success on the field

I've got far more respect for teams like Boise and UCF that have done more with less

The people that run these schools are less worried about how this money correlates to wins on the field and more concerned with how that money can positively affect the rest of the University.

Presidents and the like honestly could care less about such fandom mentalities.

For schools like Iowa that rank 11 and have "less than stellar" performances according to such scholars as yourself, they really don't give a damn about your opinion. They have built their brand and they have built it successfully. That is what the WSJ is talking about. Brand recognition and the ability to monetize that brand.

You can hate on that all you want but your school would love to have that ability.

I have to agree, to an exten, that you could use this as a solid argument for some of those programs being consistent underachievers.

If you have money and are still terrible there is a problem.

That is, assuming these numbers are decently accurate pictures of the financial strength of those programs.

(01-06-2014 08:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have to agree, to an exten, that you could use this as a solid argument for some of those programs being consistent underachievers.

If you have money and are still terrible there is a problem.

That is, assuming these numbers are decently accurate pictures of the financial strength of those programs.

Who are you talking about?

If you are talking about Iowa. They played the #10 team this year in their Bowl game and kept it competitive.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. This is about Brands, not on game performance.

Places like Iowa and Nebraska have Brands because their States don't have NFL teams there so everyone follows college football more closely. What they don't have are massive recruiting grounds so your argument does not hold water for the likes of Nebraska and Iowa.

You would like to try to simplify the situation but that is incorrect.

(01-06-2014 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 08:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have to agree, to an exten, that you could use this as a solid argument for some of those programs being consistent underachievers.

If you have money and are still terrible there is a problem.

That is, assuming these numbers are decently accurate pictures of the financial strength of those programs.

Who are you talking about?

If you are talking about Iowa. They played the #10 team this year in their Bowl game and kept it competitive.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. This is about Brands, not on game performance.

Places like Iowa and Nebraska have Brands because their States don't have NFL teams there so everyone follows college football more closely. What they don't have are massive recruiting grounds so your argument does not hold water for the likes of Nebraska and Iowa.

You would like to try to simplify the situation but that is incorrect.

Iowa is a great example of a historical under-performer.

Well,maybe that or they don't have much in the way of financial backing, and certainly less than this WSJ article suggests.

(01-06-2014 08:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 07:46 PM)quintas Wrote:  Big deal. All this demonstrates is just how much of an underachiever a lot of these teams are and how this doesn't translate to success on the field

I've got far more respect for teams like Boise and UCF that have done more with less

The people that run these schools are less worried about how this money correlates to wins on the field and more concerned with how that money can positively affect the rest of the University.

Presidents and the like honestly could care less about such fandom mentalities.

For schools like Iowa that rank 11 and have "less than stellar" performances according to such scholars as yourself, they really don't give a damn about your opinion. They have built their brand and they have built it successfully. That is what the WSJ is talking about. Brand recognition and the ability to monetize that brand.

Well said but I would go a step further. Not that they will get a chance but I wonder how Boise, UCF or even UH fare playing P5 opponents each week instead of g5 schools. It's easy to get up for 1 or 2 games a year but it is entirely different doing it 8-10 weeks a year.

Heck, look at Utah, TCU and West Virginia. They were their conference big dog and now they fight to stay out of the cellar in the PAC 12/Big 12.

(01-06-2014 09:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 08:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have to agree, to an exten, that you could use this as a solid argument for some of those programs being consistent underachievers.

If you have money and are still terrible there is a problem.

That is, assuming these numbers are decently accurate pictures of the financial strength of those programs.

Who are you talking about?

If you are talking about Iowa. They played the #10 team this year in their Bowl game and kept it competitive.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. This is about Brands, not on game performance.

Places like Iowa and Nebraska have Brands because their States don't have NFL teams there so everyone follows college football more closely. What they don't have are massive recruiting grounds so your argument does not hold water for the likes of Nebraska and Iowa.

You would like to try to simplify the situation but that is incorrect.

Iowa is a great example of a historical under-performer.

Well,maybe that or they don't have much in the way of financial backing, and certainly less than this WSJ article suggests.

Or, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

(01-06-2014 09:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 09:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 08:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have to agree, to an exten, that you could use this as a solid argument for some of those programs being consistent underachievers.

If you have money and are still terrible there is a problem.

That is, assuming these numbers are decently accurate pictures of the financial strength of those programs.

Who are you talking about?

If you are talking about Iowa. They played the #10 team this year in their Bowl game and kept it competitive.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. This is about Brands, not on game performance.

Places like Iowa and Nebraska have Brands because their States don't have NFL teams there so everyone follows college football more closely. What they don't have are massive recruiting grounds so your argument does not hold water for the likes of Nebraska and Iowa.

You would like to try to simplify the situation but that is incorrect.

Iowa is a great example of a historical under-performer.

Well,maybe that or they don't have much in the way of financial backing, and certainly less than this WSJ article suggests.

Or, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I guess being called an under-performer struck too close to home.

Oh, I just saw that you are an Iowa fan. Your defensiveness makes sense now.

(01-06-2014 09:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 09:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 09:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 08:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have to agree, to an exten, that you could use this as a solid argument for some of those programs being consistent underachievers.

If you have money and are still terrible there is a problem.

That is, assuming these numbers are decently accurate pictures of the financial strength of those programs.

Who are you talking about?

If you are talking about Iowa. They played the #10 team this year in their Bowl game and kept it competitive.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. This is about Brands, not on game performance.

Places like Iowa and Nebraska have Brands because their States don't have NFL teams there so everyone follows college football more closely. What they don't have are massive recruiting grounds so your argument does not hold water for the likes of Nebraska and Iowa.

You would like to try to simplify the situation but that is incorrect.

Iowa is a great example of a historical under-performer.

Well,maybe that or they don't have much in the way of financial backing, and certainly less than this WSJ article suggests.

Or, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I guess being called an under-performer struck too close to home.

I guess being told that you don't know what the hell you are talking about struck too close to home.

Like I said, just saw you were an Iowa fan, no wonder you're defensive.

(01-06-2014 09:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Like I said, just saw you were an Iowa fan, no wonder you're defensive.

You are an Alabama fan, no wonder you don't know what you are talking about.

Let me give you a clue. There was only one single 4 star recruit coming out of the state of Iowa last year. He was committed to Iowa and then all of a sudden a particular school comes in and lets him know he has a spot with them if he wants.

Can you guess who that school is that came in and made it all that much more difficult for Iowa to put together the type of squad that would make them not be an "under performing squad"?

You should.

Iowa isn't the only school that is located in poor recruiting grounds. That's merely an excuse for a relatively low level of success.

Iowa is a .500 or so team all time. That's a poor performance for any program of that size.

Then again, it is Iowa. LOL

(01-06-2014 09:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Iowa is the only school that is located in poor recruiting grounds. That's merely an excuse for a relatively low level of success.

Iowa is a .500 or so team all time. That's a poor performance for any program of that size.

Then again, it is Iowa. LOL

There you go, being the ignorant troll that you so often fall into being.

I will continue your schooling. The school that swept in and took that 4 star line man was Alabama.

Difficult recruiting is merely an excuse? Please, keep proving just how ignorant Alabama fans can be when it comes to the challenges other programs face in college football.

Not a single thing you just put in that post is correct.