Akron- $14,510,000
Ball St.- $13,040,000
BGSU- $12,630,000
Buffalo- $16,070,000
CMU- $57,220,000 (I think they screwed up)
EMU- $9,650,000
Kent St.- $10,310,000
Miami- $12,550,000
NIU- $16,130,000
Ohio- $19,150,000
Toledo- $13,970,000
WMU- $14,370,000

**UMass- NR

http://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-your-c...sNewsForth

They listed CMU's football revenues at $31.1M, which has to be a mistake (correct me if I'm wrong)

Quote:**Intrinsic values are estimated using fundamental analysis. Fundamentals considered include long-term on-field performance, stadium size, state-by-state growth rates, cash flow, revenues and NFL programs' financial information.

that's the fine print on how those numbers was tallied. SO schools with small stadiums in rust belt states tend to rank lower. Imagine that.

(01-16-2015 01:01 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

Quote:**Intrinsic values are estimated using fundamental analysis. Fundamentals considered include long-term on-field performance, stadium size, state-by-state growth rates, cash flow, revenues and NFL programs' financial information.

that's the fine print on how those numbers was tallied. SO schools with small stadiums in rust belt states tend to rank lower. Imagine that.

Schools with small stadiums? - Yes
But being in a "Rust Belt" state has nothing to do with it.

Note that the last 4 schools on the list is comprise of 2 schools from Louisiana, 1 from Arkansas and 1 from Idaho. 6 of the bottom 10 are from the South or the Mountain West.

Distinctions without differences.

(01-16-2015 08:23 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 01:01 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

Quote:**Intrinsic values are estimated using fundamental analysis. Fundamentals considered include long-term on-field performance, stadium size, state-by-state growth rates, cash flow, revenues and NFL programs' financial information.

that's the fine print on how those numbers was tallied. SO schools with small stadiums in rust belt states tend to rank lower. Imagine that.

Schools with small stadiums? - Yes
But being in a "Rust Belt" state has nothing to do with it.

Note that the last 4 schools on the list is comprise of 2 schools from Louisiana, 1 from Arkansas and 1 from Idaho. 6 of the bottom 10 are from the South or the Mountain West.

when one of the measurements is "state-by-state growth rate" it absolutely has something to do with it, unless there is a rust belt state experiencing tremendous population growth that I'm not aware of.

you've mistakenly made the assumption that I meant that rust belt states were the ONLY states impacted by this metric, that was not my intent.

(01-16-2015 06:40 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 08:23 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 01:01 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

Quote:**Intrinsic values are estimated using fundamental analysis. Fundamentals considered include long-term on-field performance, stadium size, state-by-state growth rates, cash flow, revenues and NFL programs' financial information.

that's the fine print on how those numbers was tallied. SO schools with small stadiums in rust belt states tend to rank lower. Imagine that.

Schools with small stadiums? - Yes
But being in a "Rust Belt" state has nothing to do with it.

Note that the last 4 schools on the list is comprise of 2 schools from Louisiana, 1 from Arkansas and 1 from Idaho. 6 of the bottom 10 are from the South or the Mountain West.

when one of the measurements is "state-by-state growth rate" it absolutely has something to do with it, unless there is a rust belt state experiencing tremendous population growth that I'm not aware of.

you've mistakenly made the assumption that I meant that rust belt states were the ONLY states impacted by this metric, that was not my intent.

So what is the factor of the schools in the states that are on the bottom of that list, but are not in a Rust Belt state?

(01-17-2015 10:15 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 06:40 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 08:23 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 01:01 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

Quote:**Intrinsic values are estimated using fundamental analysis. Fundamentals considered include long-term on-field performance, stadium size, state-by-state growth rates, cash flow, revenues and NFL programs' financial information.

that's the fine print on how those numbers was tallied. SO schools with small stadiums in rust belt states tend to rank lower. Imagine that.

Schools with small stadiums? - Yes
But being in a "Rust Belt" state has nothing to do with it.

Note that the last 4 schools on the list is comprise of 2 schools from Louisiana, 1 from Arkansas and 1 from Idaho. 6 of the bottom 10 are from the South or the Mountain West.

when one of the measurements is "state-by-state growth rate" it absolutely has something to do with it, unless there is a rust belt state experiencing tremendous population growth that I'm not aware of.

you've mistakenly made the assumption that I meant that rust belt states were the ONLY states impacted by this metric, that was not my intent.

So what is the factor of the schools in the states that are on the bottom of that list, but are not in a Rust Belt state?

as noted, the factors in the formula are the following-
- state population growth
- stadium size
- cash flow
- long term on the field performance

for the other schools its any number of a combination of these things.

(01-17-2015 02:30 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 10:15 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 06:40 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 08:23 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 01:01 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  that's the fine print on how those numbers was tallied. SO schools with small stadiums in rust belt states tend to rank lower. Imagine that.

Schools with small stadiums? - Yes
But being in a "Rust Belt" state has nothing to do with it.

Note that the last 4 schools on the list is comprise of 2 schools from Louisiana, 1 from Arkansas and 1 from Idaho. 6 of the bottom 10 are from the South or the Mountain West.

when one of the measurements is "state-by-state growth rate" it absolutely has something to do with it, unless there is a rust belt state experiencing tremendous population growth that I'm not aware of.

you've mistakenly made the assumption that I meant that rust belt states were the ONLY states impacted by this metric, that was not my intent.

So what is the factor of the schools in the states that are on the bottom of that list, but are not in a Rust Belt state?

as noted, the factors in the formula are the following-
- state population growth
- stadium size
- cash flow
- long term on the field performance

for the other schools its any number of a combination of these things.

Hmmm. Okay. Now explain how Michigan Stadium has expanded their stadium 4 time in the last 20 years and had their highest attended game ever in 2013 (115,109) while being in the heart of Michigan's Rest belt (the East side of the state).

Ohio State has expanded their stadium 6 times in the past 20 years. Of course they have something else going for them that U of M does not. They are have actually been good this past decade.

The other points apply, but being in a "Rust Belt" state has nothing to do with it.

(01-17-2015 03:41 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 02:30 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 10:15 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 06:40 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 08:23 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  
Schools with small stadiums? - Yes
But being in a "Rust Belt" state has nothing to do with it.

Note that the last 4 schools on the list is comprise of 2 schools from Louisiana, 1 from Arkansas and 1 from Idaho. 6 of the bottom 10 are from the South or the Mountain West.

when one of the measurements is "state-by-state growth rate" it absolutely has something to do with it, unless there is a rust belt state experiencing tremendous population growth that I'm not aware of.

you've mistakenly made the assumption that I meant that rust belt states were the ONLY states impacted by this metric, that was not my intent.

So what is the factor of the schools in the states that are on the bottom of that list, but are not in a Rust Belt state?

as noted, the factors in the formula are the following-
- state population growth
- stadium size
- cash flow
- long term on the field performance

for the other schools its any number of a combination of these things.

Hmmm. Okay. Now explain how Michigan Stadium has expanded their stadium 4 time in the last 20 years and had their highest attended game ever in 2013 (115,109) while being in the heart of Michigan's Rest belt (the East side of the state).

Ohio State has expanded their stadium 6 times in the past 20 years. Of course they have something else going for them that U of M does not. They are have actually been good this past decade.

The other points apply, but being in a "Rust Belt" state has nothing to do with it.

I don't know how else to explain to you. ONE of the factors in the formula is state population growth. Another factor is stadium size. Another factor is cash flow. Do you see the difference?

state population growth- same for OSU, UM and MAC.
stadium size- HUUUUUUUUUGE difference between OSU, UM and MAC schools.
cash flow- HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference between OSU, UM and MAC.

so... bottom line is let's say state growth has a value of -10, cash flow for MAC teams is somewhere between +1 and -10, for OSU and UM its like +100. Same goes for stadium size. Bottom line, the overwhelming, gigantic, enormous, monstrous, gargantuan advantage in stadium size and cash flow negates what ever negative impact state population has. OSU and UM have significant pluses to overcome their minus, the MAC doesn't have any pluses, they're all minuses, being the rust belt is just one of those minuses. make sense?

(01-17-2015 06:46 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 03:41 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 02:30 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 10:15 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 06:40 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  when one of the measurements is "state-by-state growth rate" it absolutely has something to do with it, unless there is a rust belt state experiencing tremendous population growth that I'm not aware of.

you've mistakenly made the assumption that I meant that rust belt states were the ONLY states impacted by this metric, that was not my intent.

So what is the factor of the schools in the states that are on the bottom of that list, but are not in a Rust Belt state?

as noted, the factors in the formula are the following-
- state population growth
- stadium size
- cash flow
- long term on the field performance

for the other schools its any number of a combination of these things.

Hmmm. Okay. Now explain how Michigan Stadium has expanded their stadium 4 time in the last 20 years and had their highest attended game ever in 2013 (115,109) while being in the heart of Michigan's Rest belt (the East side of the state).

Ohio State has expanded their stadium 6 times in the past 20 years. Of course they have something else going for them that U of M does not. They are have actually been good this past decade.

The other points apply, but being in a "Rust Belt" state has nothing to do with it.

I don't know how else to explain to you. ONE of the factors in the formula is state population growth. Another factor is stadium size. Another factor is cash flow. Do you see the difference?

state population growth- same for OSU, UM and MAC.
stadium size- HUUUUUUUUUGE difference between OSU, UM and MAC schools.
cash flow- HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference between OSU, UM and MAC.

so... bottom line is let's say state growth has a value of -10, cash flow for MAC teams is somewhere between +1 and -10, for OSU and UM its like +100. Same goes for stadium size. Bottom line, the overwhelming, gigantic, enormous, monstrous, gargantuan advantage in stadium size and cash flow negates what ever negative impact state population has. OSU and UM have significant pluses to overcome their minus, the MAC doesn't have any pluses, they're all minuses, being the rust belt is just one of those minuses. make sense?

Ah, now I see. How did I miss your point before?
The MAC has all of the strikes against them plus the added strike of being in a "Rust Belt" state and that is why every MAC school not only the bottom 12 slots, but they are losing ground with every other school out there.......oh wait, I just looked at the list again and that does not seem to be true.

I agree with all of your original points except the part about being in "Rust Belt" states knocks us down further than all other schools. You will just have to be content with me being 80% in agreement with you on this one.

How is Toledo that far down on the list? I'd say we are a top 4 MAC storied program, with lots of wins over a decent span of time, and high profile wins with lots of bowl victories and a stadium that is in the upper half of the conference.

(01-20-2015 05:17 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  How is Toledo that far down on the list? I'd say we are a top 4 MAC storied program, with lots of wins over a decent span of time, and high profile wins with lots of bowl victories and a stadium that is in the upper half of the conference.

Just another meaningless list.