WSJ: What is your college football team worth?

Dan · Jan 7, 2013, 11:14 AM

Quote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...sj_share_tweet

Groundhogday · Jan 7, 2013, 11:21 AM

UCLA is No. 45 on the list, below Minnesota? North Carolina is at No. 54 below Connecticut? Missouri is No. 67, below Washington State?

Without going into the methods, the results are a bit odd.

scubadunk · Jan 7, 2013, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groundhogday

UCLA is No. 45 on the list, below Minnesota? North Carolina is at No. 54 below Connecticut? Missouri is No. 67, below Washington State?

Without going into the methods, the results are a bit odd.

Im with you. This list doesnt make alot of sense. I cant see Missouri being so low and Indiana and Purdue so high. I know the Big Ten Network has alot to do with that but they numbers just dont seem right.

U of I 89-05-10 · Jan 7, 2013, 11:33 AM

Isn't it profit?... So if you keep expenses low, you can offset low revenues and still place highly on this ranking.

Isn't that kind of the criticism of RG, too? He kept us in the black but never built up our revenues in the long term?

Groundhogday · Jan 7, 2013, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scubadunk

Im with you. This list doesnt make alot of sense. I cant see Missouri being so low and Indiana and Purdue so high. I know the Big Ten Network has alot to do with that but they numbers just dont seem right.

Missouri is in the SEC, pulls in two metro areas, fills a large stadium and they are behind WSU in the Pac12 (less TV revenue), is in the middle of nowhere, and can't even fill a small stadium. I just can't fathom how any calculation would put Missouri behind WSU. Similarly UConn is in the BigEast vs. North Carolina in the ACC, with fan support, etc... clearly higher for UNC.

scubadunk · Jan 7, 2013, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groundhogday

Missouri is in the SEC, pulls in two metro areas, fills a large stadium and they are behind WSU in the Pac12 (less TV revenue), is in the middle of nowhere, and can't even fill a small stadium. I just can't fathom how any calculation would put Missouri behind WSU. Similarly UConn is in the BigEast vs. North Carolina in the ACC, with fan support, etc... clearly higher for UNC.

Kind of the same for me with Northwestern. Tiny stadium that is never full. I know they are in a huge market but just cant see how they are so much higher than other schools on the list. I mean Northwestern is right up there with Florida State and Miami. Two national brands who admittedly are down especially Miami but they are still a national brand. Northwestern can claim they are Chicago's team but I think Illinois has more fan support from Chicago than NW. So the numbers really dont add up for me.

RHITIllini · Jan 7, 2013, 11:46 AM

I guess what worries me is Cincy coming in second to last considering all the wonders Mike Thomas supposedly worked there. I guess to me it's a marketing thing, but still..

carmelillini · Jan 7, 2013, 12:07 PM

USC at 28? This ranking has zero credibility.

TheSecretWeapon · Jan 7, 2013, 12:24 PM

I guess the fact it came from Indiana explains why the value of IU football is listed as 20% higher than UI football...

GilThorpe · Jan 7, 2013, 01:13 PM

and he has Kentucky ahead of USC, Clemson and Fla State.

WHAT?

jackman404 · Jan 7, 2013, 02:18 PM

I think we can all agree that this list is a joke.

AzIlliniFan · Jan 8, 2013, 01:18 AM

Does this not take into account the facilities and the stadium they play in, much like the NFL rankings do? USC does not own the Rose bowl, nor is it on campus, so that would bring their rankings way down. Profit margins probably factor in. Money left over after siphoning by other low or non-revenue sports? Probably lots of factors went into these rankings and the article really gave very little detail on what exactly those were. I was surprised by Iowa's high, and USC's low rankings. It's a neat list though.

Jan 7, 2013, 11:21 AM	#2
Groundhogday Posts: 18,087	UCLA is No. 45 on the list, below Minnesota? North Carolina is at No. 54 below Connecticut? Missouri is No. 67, below Washington State? Without going into the methods, the results are a bit odd. __________________ ONLY ORANGE!

Jan 7, 2013, 12:24 PM	#9
TheSecretWeapon Location: ILLINI NATION! Posts: 586	I guess the fact it came from Indiana explains why the value of IU football is listed as 20% higher than UI football... __________________ PSA: Teams "LOSE" games. They don't "LOOSE" them. PSA#2: "Would have" or "would've," not "would of." ORANGEY RUN RUN RUN SCORE SCORE

Jan 7, 2013, 02:18 PM	#11
jackman404 Posts: 1,477	I think we can all agree that this list is a joke. __________________ Williams to tie it with a three......HE DOES!!!

Jan 7, 2013, 11:33 AM	#4
U of I 89-05-10 Location: Iowa City, Ia. Posts: 955	Isn't it profit?... So if you keep expenses low, you can offset low revenues and still place highly on this ranking. Isn't that kind of the criticism of RG, too? He kept us in the black but never built up our revenues in the long term?

Jan 7, 2013, 11:46 AM	#7
RHITIllini Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,751	I guess what worries me is Cincy coming in second to last considering all the wonders Mike Thomas supposedly worked there. I guess to me it's a marketing thing, but still..

Jan 7, 2013, 12:07 PM	#8
carmelillini Location: Hamilton Co. Posts: 2,067	USC at 28? This ranking has zero credibility.

Jan 7, 2013, 01:13 PM	#10
GilThorpe Location: Hinsdale Posts: 858	and he has Kentucky ahead of USC, Clemson and Fla State. WHAT?

Jan 8, 2013, 01:18 AM	#12
AzIlliniFan Posts: 2,068	Does this not take into account the facilities and the stadium they play in, much like the NFL rankings do? USC does not own the Rose bowl, nor is it on campus, so that would bring their rankings way down. Profit margins probably factor in. Money left over after siphoning by other low or non-revenue sports? Probably lots of factors went into these rankings and the article really gave very little detail on what exactly those were. I was surprised by Iowa's high, and USC's low rankings. It's a neat list though.