WSJ ranks most valuable football programs

I thought this was interesting. A ranking of the most valuable football programs.

I think it's hard to translate something like this into a useful metric with which to pick expansion candidates, but I do think it can give us a broad picture of who multiplies content and who doesn't.

(01-12-2016 01:26 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  WSJ ranks most valuable football programs

I thought this was interesting. A ranking of the most valuable football programs.

I think it's hard to translate something like this into a useful metric with which to pick expansion candidates, but I do think it can give us a broad picture of who multiplies content and who doesn't.

I read it on the main board. It is the estimate of value of programs by one group of analysts and is comprised of a lot of speculation. Total revenues are far more concrete. Net revenues would be if so many budgets didn't have to be spent in order to be maintained.

(01-12-2016 02:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:26 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  WSJ ranks most valuable football programs

I thought this was interesting. A ranking of the most valuable football programs.

I think it's hard to translate something like this into a useful metric with which to pick expansion candidates, but I do think it can give us a broad picture of who multiplies content and who doesn't.

I read it on the main board. It is the estimate of value of programs by one group of analysts and is comprised of a lot of speculation. Total revenues are far more concrete. Net revenues would be if so many budgets didn't have to be spent in order to be maintained.

Yeah, I knew it was speculative. The WSJ analysts are smart people though. Their idea of the financial impact of a particular program has some validity I think. At least, in the sense of measuring popularity.

I don't but how they have some programs that rely on subsidies ahead of self sustaining athletic programs. Who would you rather buy stock in?

(01-12-2016 06:00 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't but how they have some programs that rely on subsidies ahead of self sustaining athletic programs. Who would you rather buy stock in?

If the subsidies are longstanding and not likely to go away? The subsidies. They can always go the route of being self sustaining but if you are truly buying stock then it is nice to know there is a prop up insurance policy there to keep the value high.

(01-12-2016 06:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 06:00 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't but how they have some programs that rely on subsidies ahead of self sustaining athletic programs. Who would you rather buy stock in?

If the subsidies are longstanding and not likely to go away? The subsidies. They can always go the route of being self sustaining but if you are truly buying stock then it is nice to know there is a prop up insurance policy there to keep the value high.

If this was meant on the university as a whole then I would agree with you but this is athletics only. I would invest in a self sustaining program compared to one that requires the equivalent of an owner putting his own money into it. I prefer a true profit margin instead of fictional one.

Anyone think the reduced C-USA TV contract bodes well for the B1G or will this not matter?

(01-12-2016 07:38 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Anyone think the reduced C-USA TV contract bodes well for the B1G or will this not matter?

We could well be in the beginning years of a global depression. If so even by 2017 ESPN and FOX will be through with larger payouts and bigger contracts.

(01-12-2016 07:31 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 06:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 06:00 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't but how they have some programs that rely on subsidies ahead of self sustaining athletic programs. Who would you rather buy stock in?

If the subsidies are longstanding and not likely to go away? The subsidies. They can always go the route of being self sustaining but if you are truly buying stock then it is nice to know there is a prop up insurance policy there to keep the value high.

If this was meant on the university as a whole then I would agree with you but this is athletics only. I would invest in a self sustaining program compared to one that requires the equivalent of an owner putting his own money into it. I prefer a true profit margin instead of fictional one.

I am sorry but your question does make it about the Universities because you brought in subsidies into the discussion. That directly ties in the University which is giving the subsidy.

Your question was about buying stock in the Athletic Department and my response is still valid. The Athletic Department that Can get the subsidization has an advantage in the eyes of an investor. It is more stable, just like our Nation's Big Banks.

(01-12-2016 08:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:31 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 06:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 06:00 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't but how they have some programs that rely on subsidies ahead of self sustaining athletic programs. Who would you rather buy stock in?

If the subsidies are longstanding and not likely to go away? The subsidies. They can always go the route of being self sustaining but if you are truly buying stock then it is nice to know there is a prop up insurance policy there to keep the value high.

If this was meant on the university as a whole then I would agree with you but this is athletics only. I would invest in a self sustaining program compared to one that requires the equivalent of an owner putting his own money into it. I prefer a true profit margin instead of fictional one.

I am sorry but your question does make it about the Universities because you brought in subsidies into the discussion. That directly ties in the University which is giving the subsidy.

Your question was about buying stock in the Athletic Department and my response is still valid. The Athletic Department that Can get the subsidization has an advantage in the eyes of an investor. It is more stable, just like our Nation's Big Banks.

The article is about football programs & not the university as a whole. I'm suggesting that a subsidy in this case would correlate to an NFL owner taking money out of his own pocket to put it into his team & then claiming it as a profit. A subsidy isn't revenue generated by the football program. In my opinion a fairer way to determine a college football programs value would be on the revenue it generates for itself, as in ticket sales, donations, merchandising, TV contract, etc. Other factors such as market & on field success need to be considered as well. You can say that student fees that are put into the football team are like a donation but I consider that a weak argument since those fees are forced upon them without their consent as to were the money goes. That's not actual money generated by the football team because if the students weren't forced to pay it the football teams wouldn't have it.

As for an athletic department my argument still stands. If a business owner is running a deficit but takes money out of his own personal account to balance the books did the business actually generate additional income? If you give yourself 5 bucks did you actually make 5 bucks? As an investor I look for a business that can generate it's own revenue & profit & not rely on an outside source.. In this case I would have difficulty considering a subsidy on a whole as a generated income, a portion of it maybe.

But hay, the article is meant to be fun & not completely accurate.