My ranking based on five criteria: football, finances, fit, other sports, and school profile:

Tier 1 - Programs that will add value to any conference
UCLA, USC, Florida State, Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington and North Carolina

Tier 2 - Programs that add above average value to their current conference and would be considered in a P2
Duke, Clemson, California, Oregon, Arizona State, Virginia Tech and Virginia

Tier 3 - Solid middle-class, but need an unlikely scenario to be considered
NC State, Miami, Arizona, Kansas, Louisville, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Utah, TCU, Kansas State, Baylor, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Colorado and Iowa State (P2s in this group…Northwestern, Ole Miss, Maryland, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and Missouri)

Tier 4 - Borderline power programs
Oregon State, Texas Tech, Washington State, BYU, Boston College, West Virginia, Houston, Cincinnati and Central Florida (P2 in this category is Rutgers)

(05-11-2022 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 10:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This data is a year dated but it gives an accurate perspective of a school's relative value to their conference by assuming where their value would be if conference media payouts were made proportionately to their % of the total revenue of the conference instead of equally.

You will note Washington's position relative to USC's. And the value of the ACC schools should open some eyes.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-916418.html


You can look at other evaluative tools as well:
Average Attendance
Gross Total Revenue
WSJ Valuations (which is their total economic impact upon their region other than the games themselves)


Clearly the schools which account for the highest % of total conference revenue are the most valuable to that conference. This inversion shows you just how much.

OK, but if the value is relative to the conference, then that implies that a school's value might vary in a different conference.

For example, I can buy that right now, in terms of WSJ factors, VT is has a higher % of total conference revenue than UNC. But IMO both the B1G and SEC would much rather invite North Carolina than VT. UNC is a much more attractive addition to both.

Agree. IIRC on WSJ valuations, it’s the estimated future free cash flow from football operations. Therefore, the ESPN media contract is an anchor on all ACC programs. In addition, basketball and other sports are not considered in these valuations…it assumes football is a stand-alone enterprise (not part of an athletic department). WSJ valuations are analyzing revenue sources that conference-led (e.g., media deals, bowl contracts, and CFP), as well as program specific (e.g., licensing arrangements, ticket revenue and donations).

(05-11-2022 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 10:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This data is a year dated but it gives an accurate perspective of a school's relative value to their conference by assuming where their value would be if conference media payouts were made proportionately to their % of the total revenue of the conference instead of equally.

You will note Washington's position relative to USC's. And the value of the ACC schools should open some eyes.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-916418.html


You can look at other evaluative tools as well:
Average Attendance
Gross Total Revenue
WSJ Valuations (which is their total economic impact upon their region other than the games themselves)


Clearly the schools which account for the highest % of total conference revenue are the most valuable to that conference. This inversion shows you just how much.

OK, but if the value is relative to the conference, then that implies that a school's value might vary in a different conference.

For example, I can buy that right now, in terms of WSJ factors, VT is has a higher % of total conference revenue than UNC. But IMO both the B1G and SEC would much rather invite North Carolina than VT. UNC is a much more attractive addition to both.

I recognize a minor, but significant flaw in the formula. At the time I did this one my last WSJ valuation on hoops was too old to factor in. So this is weighted to football but an incomplete but effective compensation would be to add 1/5th of the total valuation back in to cover hoops bluebloods like Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc.
I'll be doing another one when new data is available. And in the next one I will adjust percentages by using the actual ratio of variance between football and basketball at each school to apportion both into the final numbers and assign a % of the total conference value.

Since football is 80% of the value of the majority of athletic departments this evaluation still points to obvious media priority in terms of potential advertising value.

To fully assign a potential target value to any particular school for another conference you would want to use some basic tools as well:
Gross Total Revenue
Attendance
Straight WSJ valuations
Perhaps a tool like this one.

Filter each school by the minimum set requirements of the conference looking to expand:
Contiguity
AAU Status (if required)
The inquiring conferences strengths and weaknesses.
Cultural Fit (Fans & Donors, Politics, Proximity, etc.)
Academic Fit (Overall Disciplines, Academic Rankings)

The filtered lists, IMO, prove the most accurate. For example, I can easily see a Virginia school in the Big 10, much less so a State school in North Carolina. The ties between the 2 state AAU's however make the potentialities ambiguous, and therefore anything but certain. What deciding factor Duke may play when you look at the analysis is likely way overstated except as a required partner for UNC. The struggle over destination between UVa and UNC could be compelling.

IMO, the filter negates Clemson to the B1G as a possibility and likely FSU as well.

Anyway when you stare at the %'s of value within each conference it shows some glaring misconceptions from actual values.

(05-11-2022 09:04 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 08:16 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Confirms my suspicions that the posters here are way overvaluing UNC and Duke ...

Pretty certain Greg Sankey, Kevin Warren and the ESPN/Fox bigwigs would disagree with this part of your post

Will Duke add $80/million a year to the B1G? Nope
Will UNC? Probably not.

(05-11-2022 08:16 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  JR - good stuff. Confirms my suspicions that the posters here are way overvaluing UNC and Duke and overvaluing basketball schools in general

If the big schools form their own March Madness...values would go way up. The NCAA uses it for their cas cow.

(05-11-2022 11:18 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 08:16 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  JR - good stuff. Confirms my suspicions that the posters here are way overvaluing UNC and Duke and overvaluing basketball schools in general

If the big schools form their own March Madness...values would go way up. The NCAA uses it for their cas cow.

Based on NCAA profits from the tourney I would estimate they go x 2.25 of whatever they presently are at each school in the P5. So, hoops would end up being well over 35% of the total value instead or 20%.

(05-11-2022 11:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 11:18 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 08:16 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  JR - good stuff. Confirms my suspicions that the posters here are way overvaluing UNC and Duke and overvaluing basketball schools in general

If the big schools form their own March Madness...values would go way up. The NCAA uses it for their cas cow.

Based on NCAA profits from the tourney I would estimate they go x 2.25 of whatever they presently are at each school in the P5. So, hoops would end up being well over 35% of the total value instead or 20%.

That would make the Big East much more valuable. Suggests to me they will likely be part of an equity ownership in an invitational tournament.

Disagree that a P6 only Basketball tournament would be more valuable.

(05-11-2022 11:12 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 09:04 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 08:16 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Confirms my suspicions that the posters here are way overvaluing UNC and Duke ...

Pretty certain Greg Sankey, Kevin Warren and the ESPN/Fox bigwigs would disagree with this part of your post

Will Duke add $80/million a year to the B1G? Nope
Will UNC? Probably not.

A sizable chunk of that estimated $160M will come from sending smaller checks to the ACC left-behinds.

It'll be Wake and Syracuse and BC (and yes, quite possibly, Miami, too) that will pay the price — literally — for the ACC's top brands (rightfully) moving to a better neighborhood.

(05-11-2022 11:29 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Disagree that a P6 only Basketball tournament would be more valuable.

Doesn't have to be P6 only...but the less mouths to feed the more for everyone

Crazy times though

(05-11-2022 10:15 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  My ranking based on five criteria: football, finances, fit, other sports, and school profile:

Tier 1 - Programs that will add value to any conference
UCLA, USC, Florida State, Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington and North Carolina

Tier 2 - Programs that add above average value to their current conference and would be considered in a P2
Duke, Clemson, California, Oregon, Arizona State, Virginia Tech and Virginia

Tier 3 - Solid middle-class, but need an unlikely scenario to be considered
NC State, Miami, Arizona, Kansas, Louisville, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Utah, TCU, Kansas State, Baylor, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Colorado and Iowa State (P2s in this group…Northwestern, Ole Miss, Maryland, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and Missouri)

Tier 4 - Borderline power programs
Oregon State, Texas Tech, Washington State, BYU, Boston College, West Virginia, Houston, Cincinnati and Central Florida (P2 in this category is Rutgers)

I am not sure the criteria you used supports all of your slotting.

I looked at Boston College and compared it to SU and GT (SU being a private, Northeast school and GT, while being a public university, does have some of the characteristics of a private university.) Here are the comparisons, based on your criteria:

FOOTBALL:
W-L records since 2013 (I used that timeframe to get an apples-to-apples comparison as that was SU's first year in the ACC.)
BC: 56-56
GT: 51-59
SU: 43-66

FINANCES:
Most recent revenues by school based on the Equity in Athletics date pinned to this Board:
BC: $87,003,060
SU: $86,415,599
GT: $86,415,599

SCHOOL PROFILE:
USN&WR Rankings (2021-22):
BC: #36
GT #38
SU: #59

Number of Intercollegiate Sports Offered (Based on what is listed in each school's website):
BC: 25
SU: 16
GT: 14

FIT
I am not sure there is any distinction here. All three are great schools with similar academic profiles and a long history in D1 athletics. All are roughly the same size. The only real distinction is BC is a Catholic school, which I think we both would agree is irrelevant.

Based on the criteria you set, I would submit to you there is no basis to slot BC differently than either SU or GT in your model. Certainly one could hold that opinion, but it would not be based on the criteria you indicated.

(05-11-2022 12:21 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 10:15 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  My ranking based on five criteria: football, finances, fit, other sports, and school profile:

Tier 1 - Programs that will add value to any conference
UCLA, USC, Florida State, Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington and North Carolina

Tier 2 - Programs that add above average value to their current conference and would be considered in a P2
Duke, Clemson, California, Oregon, Arizona State, Virginia Tech and Virginia

Tier 3 - Solid middle-class, but need an unlikely scenario to be considered
NC State, Miami, Arizona, Kansas, Louisville, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Utah, TCU, Kansas State, Baylor, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Colorado and Iowa State (P2s in this group…Northwestern, Ole Miss, Maryland, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and Missouri)

Tier 4 - Borderline power programs
Oregon State, Texas Tech, Washington State, BYU, Boston College, West Virginia, Houston, Cincinnati and Central Florida (P2 in this category is Rutgers)

I am not sure the criteria you used supports all of your slotting.

I looked at Boston College and compared it to SU and GT (SU being a private, Northeast school and GT, while being a public university, does have some of the characteristics of a private university.) Here are the comparisons, based on your criteria:

FOOTBALL:
W-L records since 2013 (I used that timeframe to get an apples-to-apples comparison as that was SU's first year in the ACC.)
BC: 56-56
GT: 51-59
SU: 43-66

FINANCES:
Most recent revenues by school based on the Equity in Athletics date pinned to this Board:
BC: $87,003,060
SU: $86,415,599
GT: $86,415,599

SCHOOL PROFILE:
USN&WR Rankings (2021-22):
BC: #36
GT #38
SU: #59

Number of Intercollegiate Sports Offered (Based on what is listed in each school's website):
BC: 25
SU: 16
GT: 14

FIT
I am not sure there is any distinction here. All three are great schools with similar academic profiles and a long history in D1 athletics. All are roughly the same size. The only real distinction is BC is a Catholic school, which I think we both would agree is irrelevant.

Based on the criteria you set, I would submit to you there is no basis to slot BC differently than either SU or GT in your model. Certainly one could hold that opinion, but it would not be based on the criteria you indicated.

I think the thing that puts GT over BC is location. I also suspect Georgia Tech gets better television ratings and an edge in brand strength as well. It’s not fair, but these things often trump on the field performance if we are not talking about a cavernous divide in on the field performance.

(05-10-2022 06:04 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  There are 39 teams in the ACC (including Notre Dame), B12 (post Oklahoma/Texas) and P12. If there were some type of breakaway, How how would you rate these schools in terms of attractiveness? Markets/tradition/football/basketball/overall athletics/tv ratings/academics /alumni base all play a factor. I’m sure someone will rank all 39, but my top choices would be

1. Notre Dame
2. USC
3. North Carolina
4. Clemson
5. Virginia
6. Florida St
7. UCLA
8. Oregon
9. Duke
10. Kansas

Pretty confident in Top 6, and I included Duke/Kansas up there for basketball purposes. Not sure where to put the 2 P12 schools I have there along with Stanford/Cal/Washington. Interested to hear others thoughts.

A list like this is subjective. If the criteria is "Markets/tradition/football/basketball/overall athletics/tv ratings/academics /alumni base," then Stanford with 130 national championships and the No. 1 academic ranking among FBS schools should be top-ranked. UCLA should be second with their 120 national championships and No. 1 academic ranking among public schools. Then Notre Dame 3rd and USC 4th.

It would be interesting to see a combined list of Big Ten and SEC schools from most attractive to least attractive.

My lists from a Big Ten point of view, separated by conference (I did these a while back):

ACC: https://csnbbs.com/thread-925723.html
Pac-12: https://csnbbs.com/thread-925722.html

SEC: https://csnbbs.com/thread-925736.html

(05-11-2022 01:12 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I think the thing that puts GT over BC is location.

Georgia Tech is located in one of the nation's top five recruiting hotbeds for both revenue sports as well as at Ground Zero for the S-E-C.

Meanwhile, Boston College is located ... 4 miles from Fenway Park?

(05-11-2022 12:21 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 10:15 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  My ranking based on five criteria: football, finances, fit, other sports, and school profile:

Tier 1 - Programs that will add value to any conference
UCLA, USC, Florida State, Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington and North Carolina

Tier 2 - Programs that add above average value to their current conference and would be considered in a P2
Duke, Clemson, California, Oregon, Arizona State, Virginia Tech and Virginia

Tier 3 - Solid middle-class, but need an unlikely scenario to be considered
NC State, Miami, Arizona, Kansas, Louisville, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Utah, TCU, Kansas State, Baylor, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Colorado and Iowa State (P2s in this group…Northwestern, Ole Miss, Maryland, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and Missouri)

Tier 4 - Borderline power programs
Oregon State, Texas Tech, Washington State, BYU, Boston College, West Virginia, Houston, Cincinnati and Central Florida (P2 in this category is Rutgers)

I am not sure the criteria you used supports all of your slotting.

I looked at Boston College and compared it to SU and GT (SU being a private, Northeast school and GT, while being a public university, does have some of the characteristics of a private university.) Here are the comparisons, based on your criteria:

FOOTBALL:
W-L records since 2013 (I used that timeframe to get an apples-to-apples comparison as that was SU's first year in the ACC.)
BC: 56-56
GT: 51-59
SU: 43-66

FINANCES:
Most recent revenues by school based on the Equity in Athletics date pinned to this Board:
BC: $87,003,060
SU: $86,415,599
GT: $86,415,599

SCHOOL PROFILE:
USN&WR Rankings (2021-22):
BC: #36
GT #38
SU: #59

Number of Intercollegiate Sports Offered (Based on what is listed in each school's website):
BC: 25
SU: 16
GT: 14

FIT
I am not sure there is any distinction here. All three are great schools with similar academic profiles and a long history in D1 athletics. All are roughly the same size. The only real distinction is BC is a Catholic school, which I think we both would agree is irrelevant.

Based on the criteria you set, I would submit to you there is no basis to slot BC differently than either SU or GT in your model. Certainly one could hold that opinion, but it would not be based on the criteria you indicated.

I did the analysis differently.

To judge football relevance, I used home attendance and AP rankings as the indicators. GT has much better (40% higher) attendance and a stronger history (although the last 5 years have been bad) in football. Syracuse and BC are close in terms of football. W-L records are nice, but I was searching for outcomes metrics that provide distinguishing characteristics.

To evaluate finances, I used athletic department budgets and WSJ valuations. Over the past 5 years of EADA reporting, Syracuse has had 15% higher spend…GT and BC are comparable in spending. Syracuse and GT also do better in valuations in the two revenue generating sports. In 2019-20, Syracuse cut spending dramatically…but that was likely a COVID related aberration.

To evaluate strength in other sports, it was largely basketball and somewhat Directors Cup results. Syracuse is far superior in both areas. GT and BC are relatively close, but GT has a slight edge.

To measure the university profile, it was USNWR and ARWU rankings plus undergraduate enrollment. Overall, GT was significantly higher; BC and Syracuse are comparable. Syracuse’s larger enrollment compensates for BC’s strong educational ranking, but neither match the overall profile of GT.

To measure conference fit, it was the average distance to other schools and whether conference members are your frequent rivals. Once again, GT was significantly higher; BC and Syracuse are comparable.

Overall, Georgia Tech has a better football brand, as well as institutional fit and profile; Syracuse has more financial resources and better basketball. In the past 5 years BC has been more successful in football, but I was looking at more variables over a longer horizon.