forgive me if this has already been posted, but...

the biggest things that jump out to me are UO and UW seem to be pretty stout 'gets' for someone, which leads me to believe they may be more 'in the fray' than what is being reported...

Yeah WSJ/college raptor consistently has UW in the top 20 for revenue/value.

UW #12 for football revenue

https://www.collegeraptor.com//college-r.../Football/

I just really don't see a scenario where Oregon, Washington, FSU, Miami, and Clemson get left out of one of the super conferences. ND and UNC definitely won't. FOX and ESPN won't let properties that valuable go to waste in a middle-class league.

Outside of ND and UNC, I don't think anyone is 100% safe but those aforementioned programs should be feeling pretty good about their chances of getting an invite to either the SEC or B1G.

Meanwhile, Cincy will probably be chilling with WVU, Louisville, and Pittsburgh just like old times in either an expanded Big 12 or an ACC-lite in the next few years.

(07-08-2022 11:17 AM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  forgive me if this has already been posted, but...

the biggest things that jump out to me are UO and UW seem to be pretty stout 'gets' for someone, which leads me to believe they may be more 'in the fray' than what is being reported...

interesting that Arkansas is worth more than USC.

the lit is dominated by SEC at 12

Zero Big 12 schools in the top 25.

I like the WSJ overall value estimates better. I mean, there's no way Texas AM football is more valuable than Notre Dame, Alabama or Ohio State. Not IMO.

(07-08-2022 11:35 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Zero Big 12 schools in the top 25.

You feel good you got that off your chest?

(07-08-2022 11:35 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Zero Big 12 schools in the top 25.

No Big East schools either

Neither will the ACC or PAC soon enough.

(07-08-2022 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I like the WSJ overall value estimates better. I mean, there's no way Texas AM football is more valuable than Notre Dame, Alabama or Ohio State. Not IMO.

Forbes is basing this off REVENUE, which the great differentiator is the TV revenue from a conference contract.

Texas A&M has SEC money, Notre Dame doesn't.

It's a lot of self-fulfilling prophesy.

(07-08-2022 01:19 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I like the WSJ overall value estimates better. I mean, there's no way Texas AM football is more valuable than Notre Dame, Alabama or Ohio State. Not IMO.

Forbes is basing this off REVENUE, which the great differentiator is the TV revenue from a conference contract.

Texas A&M has SEC money, Notre Dame doesn't.

It's a lot of self-fulfilling prophesy.

Good point.

IMO that's a reason not to take the rankings that seriously.

(07-08-2022 01:19 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I like the WSJ overall value estimates better. I mean, there's no way Texas AM football is more valuable than Notre Dame, Alabama or Ohio State. Not IMO.

Forbes is basing this off REVENUE, which the great differentiator is the TV revenue from a conference contract.

Texas A&M has SEC money, Notre Dame doesn't.

It's a lot of self-fulfilling prophesy.

Totally accurate. Even more confounding, is the revenue numbers that Forbes has used are completely incorrect. Here are the actual revenue numbers for 2021, from most to least, using the 77mm figure that Forbes pegged Clemson at as the lowest number used (Schools in bold were not included in the Forbes list):

1. Alabama- 180mm, with 98mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
2. Notre Dame- not publicly available however, unofficially made 170mm in revenue, with an unknown figure from media rights. Reports range in the 15-20mm range.
3. Georgia- 169mm, with 82mm in media rights and conference distributions
4. TAMU- 162mm, with 81mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
5. Texas- 153mm, with 35mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
6. Oklahoma 144mm, with 43mm in media rights and conference distributions
7. Florida- 139mm, with 85mm in media rights and conference distributions
8. South Carolina- 135mm, with 76mm in media rights and conference distributions
9.Tennessee- 133mm, with 77mm in media rights and conference distributions
10. Arkansas- 132mm, with 78mm in media rights and conference distributions
11. FSU- 130mm, with 38mm in media rights and conference distributions
12. Ole Miss- 127mm, with 88mm in media rights and conference distributions
13. Auburn- 124mm, with 80mm in media rights and conference distributions
14. Clemson- 123mm, with 37mm in media rights and conference distributions
15. LSU- 122mm, with 79mm in media rights and conference distributions
16. Kentucky- 121mm, with 97mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
17. USC- not publicly available but unofficially made 119mm in revenue with no clear 18. figure on how much of that comes from media rights and conference distributions.
19. Oregon- 118mm, with 22mm in media rights and conference distributions
20. Arizona State- 118mm, with 21mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
21. Miss State- 113mm, with 81mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
22. Missouri- 110mm, with 76mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
23. Ohio State- 107mm, with 55mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
24. Wisconsin- 107mm, with 47mm in media rights and conference distributions
25. Penn State- 106mm, with 43mm in media rights and conference distributions
26. Virginia- 105mm, with 34mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
27. Arizona- 102mm, with 19mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
28. North Carolina- 102mm, with 39mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
29. Michigan- 101mm, with 46mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
30. Louisville- 101mm, with 35mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
31. Illinois- 99mm, with 48mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
32. Nebraska- 92mm, with 47mm in media rights and conference distributions
33. Cal- 92mm, with 21mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
34.Kansas- 92mm, with 39mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
35. Virginia Tech- 90mm, with 38mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
Mich State- 90mm, with 45mm in media rights and conference distributions
36. Texas Tech- 89mm with 34mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
37. Rutgers- 88mm, with 32mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
38. Minnesota- 86mm, with 49mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
39. Georgia Tech- 86mm, with 37mm coming from media rights and conference distributions
40. Washington- 83mm, with 23mm in media rights and conference distributions
41. Indiana- 78mm, with 47mm in media rights and conference distributions
42. NC State- 78mm, with 36mm coming from media rights and conference distributions

The FBS Median is 62mm, schools not listed here that are not in the Pac 12, Big 12, B1G, ACC, or SEC are generally generating between the 28-43mm in revenue. Any schools in the major conferences that are not listed are due to the fact that their revenue is below the Forbes list of Clemson at 77mm (that was the cutoff). Notably, Colorado and UCLA are anemic at less than 48mm in total revenue. Clearly revenue was not equated to value for the B1G, it was all about the market.

There are MAJOR schools (think Duke, Boston College, Miami, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Stanford, etc.) that are not listed because no one knows their real revenues/value unless you somehow get your hands on their tax statements.

"Value" is in the eye of the beholder. Do you look at revenue and subtract institutional support from the total revenue figure, if you use revenue as your value indicator? Do you cut out media rights since, presumably, that is tied to the league the school is in rather than the school as an independent entity?

I know this-- I am familiar with someone who is working the "value" angle on behalf of a certain league...and many things OTHER than revenue are going into the calculus, such as media markets, population, alumni location, etc. Revenue as a value indicator is simply poor in deciding the future landscape of FBS. One thing is clear, if you are using "REVENUE" for realignment, there are a host of schools that people have written off that would have perceived valued to a league (Arizona St, Arizona, NC State, Va Tech, Louisville, etc.).

Again Louisville is Top 30 no matter what others may say

Man you get 76mil SEC bucks for just dressing out. UAB would be in the Top 25 if we would just walk down the few blocks to the SEC HQ get er done.

(07-08-2022 04:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 01:19 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I like the WSJ overall value estimates better. I mean, there's no way Texas AM football is more valuable than Notre Dame, Alabama or Ohio State. Not IMO.

Forbes is basing this off REVENUE, which the great differentiator is the TV revenue from a conference contract.

Texas A&M has SEC money, Notre Dame doesn't.

It's a lot of self-fulfilling prophesy.

Good point.

IMO that's a reason not to take the rankings that seriously.

Forbes has been doing this for years and it is accurate. This article from Forbes below shows rankings based on a three-year average:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/...da9673a2e7

"The nation’s top football programs rely mainly on three financial lifelines: massive broadcast deals, legions of rabid fans and the backing of wealthy—and generous—donors."
Forbes had for the top programs 29% of revenue coming from TV, 27% from tickets, 26% from contributions, 10% from sponsorships and 8% from other sources.

It would be safe to say that the Big Ten schools and the SEC schools will be getting a larger percentage of their revenue from TV in the future. Schools like Clemson, Florida State, Oregon and Washington will still be very profitable in the future, but may not make the top 25.

(07-09-2022 01:30 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Forbes has been doing this for years and it is accurate.

Right, but that isn't the point though.

My point is about the APPLICATION of those values. Forbes has South Carolina as "move valuable" than Clemson by $18 million.


Let's say ESPN decides to simply scrap the existing conferences and pay schools to form three brand new conferences to attract more viewers, and cut the dead weight/duplicate markets. Those not selected will not receive an offer for a TV contract from ESPN.

Who is ESPN picking to bring viewers from the state of South Carolina if they are only taking one?

CLEMSON. 100x times out of 100. Clemson has been better at football.

South Carolina is "More Valuable" ONLY BECAUSE they are getting $30 million more than Clemson in TV revenue FROM ESPN.

Clemson is bringing in $12 million more on their own than South Carolina is.

If Clemson got SEC money and South Carolina got ACC money, Clemson would be $42 million more valuable than South Carolina. But because SEC money is more than ACC money, South Carolina is ahead.


Does that make sense? THAT'S the self-fulfilling prophesy of it. Using "Most valuable" for "Who's going to get you the best TV deal?" is silly, because the "most valuable" already HAVE the best TV deal, that's what's making them "most valuable."

(07-09-2022 01:50 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 01:30 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Forbes has been doing this for years and it is accurate.

Right, but that isn't the point though.

My point is about the APPLICATION of those values. Forbes has South Carolina as "move valuable" than Clemson by $18 million.


Let's say ESPN decides to simply scrap the existing conferences and pay schools to form three brand new conferences to attract more viewers, and cut the dead weight/duplicate markets. Those not selected will not receive an offer for a TV contract from ESPN.

Who is ESPN picking to bring viewers from the state of South Carolina if they are only taking one?

CLEMSON. 100x times out of 100. Clemson has been better at football.

South Carolina is "More Valuable" ONLY BECAUSE they are getting $30 million more than Clemson in TV revenue FROM ESPN.

Clemson is bringing in $12 million more on their own than South Carolina is.

If Clemson got SEC money and South Carolina got ACC money, Clemson would be $42 million more valuable than South Carolina. But because SEC money is more than ACC money, South Carolina is ahead.


Does that make sense? THAT'S the self-fulfilling prophesy of it. Using "Most valuable" for "Who's going to get you the best TV deal?" is silly, because the "most valuable" already HAVE the best TV deal, that's what's making them "most valuable."

In terms of "most valuable," you are correct. I have always looked at this list as "most profitable," because that is what the value is based on. South Carolina is not more valuable than Clemson. They are more profitable than Clemson and they both are very profitable.

(07-09-2022 02:18 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  In terms of "most valuable," you are correct. I have always looked at this ist as "most profitable," because that is what the value is based on. South Carolina is not more valuable than Clemson. They are more profitable than Clemson and they both are very profitable.

Yeah. You get it.

I was objecting to using that list for any kind of realignment purposes, because the list is the PRODUCT of the alignment.


The other one that drives me nuts is when people use average NET rankings to say how strong/weak a new conference will be in basketball.

Because you get your NET rating by playing your Non-Conference schedule (which changes every year) and your conference schedule (which is changing if someone's switching conferences).

You're better off using everyone's overall win percentage and adding that to the new league's OOC win percentage. Because a schools total win percentage over the last 8 to 12 years is giving you a better assessment of who that program is.

Especially because when schools leave a smaller, geographically friendly conference for a better conference that isn't geographic, they're probably going to play their old conference teams in their OOC games.

(07-08-2022 11:29 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  [...]

Meanwhile, Cincy will probably be chilling with WVU, Louisville, and Pittsburgh just like old times in either an expanded Big 12 or an ACC-lite in the next few years.

If those 4 were to start their own conference, who would you see getting/accepting an invite to join them?