(01-11-2016 02:35 PM)TerryD Wrote:  2015 Rank Program Value ($ in millions)


1 Ohio State 946.61
2 Texas 885.05
3 Michigan 811.30
4 Notre Dame 723.59
5 Alabama 694.87
6 Oklahoma 674.34
7 Florida 670.86
8 Georgia 636.44
9 LSU 612.30
10 Penn State 481.39


http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is-...76?tesla=y

Why only 116 schools?

(01-11-2016 03:59 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Interesting numbers....but all this means...exactly what?

It's just a hypothetical open market evaluation dollar figure. Not even accurate anyways if you hired a firm to do a real analysis. For example, no way in heck is USCw valued that low.

(01-12-2016 01:19 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 02:35 PM)TerryD Wrote:  2015 Rank Program Value ($ in millions)


1 Ohio State 946.61
2 Texas 885.05
3 Michigan 811.30
4 Notre Dame 723.59
5 Alabama 694.87
6 Oklahoma 674.34
7 Florida 670.86
8 Georgia 636.44
9 LSU 612.30
10 Penn State 481.39


http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is-...76?tesla=y

Why only 116 schools?

No idea. How many really are there?

(01-12-2016 01:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 03:59 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Interesting numbers....but all this means...exactly what?

It's just a hypothetical open market evaluation dollar figure. Not even accurate anyways if you hired a firm to do a real analysis. For example, no way in heck is USCw valued that low.

I agree. I was asking the question rhetorically, for all the reasons that have been stated in this thread.

I'm going to use one of ESPN's tactics for this.

1 Ohio State 946.61
2 Texas 885.05
3 Michigan 811.30
4 Notre Dame 723.59
5 Alabama 694.87
6 Oklahoma 674.34
7 Florida 670.86
8 Georgia 636.44
9 LSU 612.30
10 Penn State 481.39
11 Nebraska 444.13
12 Iowa 439.57

Five of the top 12, very nice!

(01-12-2016 06:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm going to use one of ESPN's tactics for this.

1 Ohio State 946.61
2 Texas 885.05
3 Michigan 811.30
4 Notre Dame 723.59
5 Alabama 694.87
6 Oklahoma 674.34
7 Florida 670.86
8 Georgia 636.44
9 LSU 612.30
10 Penn State 481.39
11 Nebraska 444.13
12 Iowa 439.57

Five of the top 12, very nice!

lol. So true.

That Florida #12 pimping sure did them well....lol. How many games was it that Florida lost in a row to end the season and they won that weak SEC East? lol.

(01-12-2016 08:02 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 06:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm going to use one of ESPN's tactics for this.

1 Ohio State 946.61
2 Texas 885.05
3 Michigan 811.30
4 Notre Dame 723.59
5 Alabama 694.87
6 Oklahoma 674.34
7 Florida 670.86
8 Georgia 636.44
9 LSU 612.30
10 Penn State 481.39
11 Nebraska 444.13
12 Iowa 439.57

Five of the top 12, very nice!

lol. So true.

That Florida #12 pimping sure did them well....lol. How many games was it that Florida lost in a row to end the season and they won that weak SEC East? lol.

Well, I will give credit where credit is due. They only went to #11 as Florida was #11 when they did that. So I guess you could say I expanded upon ESPN's tactics. It's all in good fun. Everyone already knew that Nebraska and Iowa are right up there. I was actually a little surprised to see Wisconsin down at 18 and not right there with Nebraska and Iowa. Suppose we can blame The Packers for that.

Wisconsin is slow fading back to the pre BA era. they couldn't even keep their best defensive coordinator in school history longer than 3 seasons. There is no star running back like Melvin Gordon or Ron Dayne.

(01-11-2016 05:32 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  It appears that the author failed to account for how much athletic budgets are subsidized. Perhaps using a true athletic profit margin would be more accurate?

KSU=USC
WVU below UConn.

This doesn't pass the laugh test.

No. This entire methodology is shot. Subsidies are minimal when compared to the other glaring flaws. Athletics exist to promote the school and to enhance student life. They also drive alumni giving (which often does not show up as athletic revenue). Ignoring those factors is a massive error in their methodology. After taking the NPV of that money (discounted by the WACC), Forbes should have taken the NPV of the contribution margin from the football team (keeping the Title IX balance in mind) and summed both values to find a combined value of the football program. To determine the value of the athletic program, they should have done the above on an entire AD basis (i.e. taken the other programs into account).

I realize that there are other valuation metgodologies, but since AD's and football programs are not very similar to other industries (the closest comp is the NFL, and that's a completely different animal), you can't really do a comps analysis. And, since none of these programs have been bought or sold be adverse parties, a precedent transaction analysis is also not applicable.

All other methodologies that I've either seen here or that I can imagine are wrong (unless they are generally similar to what I described, with only minor details differing). That said, I haven't gone through all the posts, so it's possible that someone said something different that's right and that I haven't contemplated. However, I doubt it.

(01-12-2016 08:08 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Wisconsin is slow fading back to the pre BA era. they couldn't even keep their best defensive coordinator in school history longer than 3 seasons. There is no star running back like Melvin Gordon or Ron Dayne.

I think that there's a high probability that Wisconsin is going to own the B1G west for a long, long time. Even if they're nothing special, there isn't much competition. Nebraska's days of being relevant are over, and Iowa had a fluke year this year. They're solid, but that's it. Since they're the tallest midget (Wiscondin is actually far from being a midget, the expression just illustrates my point well), they will be able to tell recruits that they can walk to a B1G title game, which is a big deal due to Michigan, OSU, and MSU all playing at an elite level. That's a MASSIVE built-in recruiting advantage over everyone else.