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

UConn came in higher than Boston College and Rutgers. Delicious!

The top G5 program is UCF at 58th overall. Below are some other G5 schools.

58. UCF
59. USF
61. UConn
66. Boise State
69. San Jose State
70. Central Michigan
73. Wyoming
74. Army
75. Cincinnati
76. Colorado State
77. Fresno State
78. Temple
79. Houston
80. SMU

The lowest ranked was UL-Monroe. I'm curious as to why Navy and Air Force aren't listed, but Army is (74th).

You could make a strong argument that more equity in a conference makes it a lot stronger.

Tulane isn't listed. I'd imagine we're about level with Rice, since our budget is always a little bit higher than theirs. That puts us in the low-to-mid 80s overall.

Bottom 20 P5 schools:

46 Indiana 146.96
47 Purdue 132.36
48 Syracuse 130.50
49 Wash St 129.37
50 UNC 123.37
51 Mizzou 108.88
52 TCU 106.14
53 Miss State 103.03
54 Maryland 100.02
55 Illinois 99.55
57 Kansas 98.42
60 Baylor 89.69
62 Boston College 83.88
63 Pitt 81.91
64 WVU 81.80
65 Louisville 79.54
67 Rutgers 59.28
68 Vandy 55.64
71 Duke 44.37
72 Wake 44.09

7 ACC (including 5 of bottom 8), 5 Big 10, 4 Big 12, 3 SEC 1 Pac-12. PAC-12 has no top 10 but only one bottom 20. Everyone is between 15 and 49 on this list.

Interesting numbers....but all this means...exactly what?

Measuring revenues and expenses, performing cash flow analysis, etc. doesn't necessarily equate to the success of the program, especially given the potential volatility of a program's results year-to-year, IMO

Clemson is playing for the national championship tonight and comes in at a relatively pedestrian #30 on this list - despite finishing as high as #9, #7, #15, and #1 or #2 (depending on tonight) the past 4 years. Heck, Alabama, which many consider the cornerstone of CFB success in the last decade, comes in at #5.

Conversely, Texas is at #2. Would anybody disagree that over the last number of years they have been one of the most UNDERPERFORMING programs in the country?

Again, interesting numbers, but, IMO, other factors like on-the-field success, brand identity, market potential, and eyeballs watched must be factored into the analysis for it to have any real usefulness as a measurement tool in determining the true "worth" of a program. Also, IMO, a lot of this analysis seems to involve a qualitative assessment by the author, which I think is an issue. Just my opinion.

Now what they need to do is do the Basketball Values...add them together.

(01-11-2016 02:44 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  UConn came in higher than Boston College and Rutgers. Delicious!

Laugh while you can because Rutgers is going to be moving past you very quickly. Once we get a full share of tv revenue and the new tv deal gets signed we will be in the top 50 and you will be even lower. Especially once the B1G takes two AAC schools (not including you) and the TV contract takes a big hit. Maybe you guys should drop FB to FCS and go back to the Big East hat in hand and ask for your spot back. I mean even they are making more TV money than you.

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?

(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?

Good point. If you were estimating the value of an NFL franchise, you would look at revenue actually generated by the franchise; you wouldn't include money transferred from the owner's personal accounts into the team's operating account or expenses paid by the owner instead of by the team itself. So for a college football "franchise", instead of using reported "revenue" as a metric, they should use "gross revenue minus subsidy". Subtract out money transferred from the university to the athletic department and money from student fees.

(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?

Excellent point! Another example of why, IMO, one needs to actually look at the metrics of an analysis like this and make up their own mind as to its validity!

(01-11-2016 05:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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?

Excellent point! Another example of why, IMO, one needs to actually look at the metrics of an analysis like this and make up their own mind as to its validity!

Agreed. If the schools were all to be given the same credit in media contract value, I'm positive a lot of you would be crying foul as you plummet through the standings.

(01-11-2016 06:16 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 05:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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?

Excellent point! Another example of why, IMO, one needs to actually look at the metrics of an analysis like this and make up their own mind as to its validity!

Agreed. If the schools were all to be given the same credit in media contract value, I'm positive a lot of you would be crying foul as you plummet through the standings.

No, I think more to the point, IMO, it is a lot less accurate to measure the "worth" of a CFP using the same tools used to measure the "worth" of, say, a public corporation.

Hm, UMass appears to be free. I guess I'll take it.

(01-11-2016 05:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 02:44 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  UConn came in higher than Boston College and Rutgers. Delicious!

Laugh while you can because Rutgers is going to be moving past you very quickly. Once we get a full share of tv revenue and the new tv deal gets signed we will be in the top 50 and you will be even lower. Especially once the B1G takes two AAC schools (not including you) and the TV contract takes a big hit. Maybe you guys should drop FB to FCS and go back to the Big East hat in hand and ask for your spot back. I mean even they are making more TV money than you.

If the Big 10 takes 2 AAC schools, UConn would easily be the first pick. They are the only flagship in the conference, and the Big 10 loves flagships.

(01-11-2016 06:42 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 06:16 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 05:50 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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?

Excellent point! Another example of why, IMO, one needs to actually look at the metrics of an analysis like this and make up their own mind as to its validity!

Agreed. If the schools were all to be given the same credit in media contract value, I'm positive a lot of you would be crying foul as you plummet through the standings.

No, I think more to the point, IMO, it is a lot less accurate to measure the "worth" of a CFP using the same tools used to measure the "worth" of, say, a public corporation.

I was kidding. I never take this stuff seriously unless it hits the bidding floor.

(01-11-2016 05:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 02:44 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  UConn came in higher than Boston College and Rutgers. Delicious!

Laugh while you can because Rutgers is going to be moving past you very quickly. Once we get a full share of tv revenue and the new tv deal gets signed we will be in the top 50 and you will be even lower. Especially once the B1G takes two AAC schools (not including you) and the TV contract takes a big hit. Maybe you guys should drop FB to FCS and go back to the Big East hat in hand and ask for your spot back. I mean even they are making more TV money than you.

There is no other AAC school that fits the B1G. Stop trolling him.

I don't think profit margin itself is the best indicator either. Generally speaking the athletic departments aren't supposed to be making a profit, they aren't corporations with shareholders. If they are making a profit, the tendency is to use the extra money to better fund a sport or start a new one. What most athletic departments would really like is to be funding a ton of sports, many of them that are quite competitive, and with a small amount of profit each year they can hold onto for future shortfalls if need be.

Granted there is a big difference between slight negative or positive or massively supporting your department, but for a list like this, I think pure revenue for the big money sports is probably the best measurement.

(01-11-2016 05:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 02:44 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  UConn came in higher than Boston College and Rutgers. Delicious!

Laugh while you can because Rutgers is going to be moving past you very quickly. Once we get a full share of tv revenue and the new tv deal gets signed we will be in the top 50 and you will be even lower. Especially once the B1G takes two AAC schools (not including you) and the TV contract takes a big hit. Maybe you guys should drop FB to FCS and go back to the Big East hat in hand and ask for your spot back. I mean even they are making more TV money than you.

Rutgers has a well run and successful athletic department...said no one ever. I am betting that the B1G wishes that they could have a "do over" on that one.

Rutgers may end up with more money in the short term, but they will still have less overall athletic success than UConn. Rutgers has never been competitive in men's basketball and in football they are just there for their television sets and for providing easy wins for other Big Ten conference teams. At least you have women's basketball....wait, even THAT is better at UConn!