ISU FB #42 in the Nation

[chilango]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-muc...ball-team-worth-1452473476?mod=trending_now_2

In a down FB year, ISU is still #42 in nation, and #6 out of 10 Big 12 teams, in terms of economic value. An argument can easily be made here that ISU, while definitely not a sleeping giant, nevertheless should be performing at a much higher level given (economic) assets like fan loyalty. Nate Silver wrote an article a while back that noted ISU as a realistic Big 10 expansion candidate given the true economic value, which goes beyond the wacky "Rutgers to the Big 10 because there's lots of people in New York" logic. Point is this kind of data flies in the face of the "poor Iowa State" low expectations perspective. Hoping Campbell can leverage these kind of strengths to turn the program around!

 

[mj4cy]

We have the fan base primed and ready for a winner. Just need the stars to align and to catch some breaks.

 

[cytown]

That is awesome. We still aren't getting into the Big 10, unfortunately. We are pretty close to Purdue and Indiana on that list. My guess is the Big Ten wont be expanding for schools like that, especially when the TV market is already saturated.

 

[TOFB4ISU]

'Studies' like this should calm fears we would somehow be left out of any realignment into super conferences.

 

[surly]

Would be interested in seeing his assumptions. Programs report differently and thus much of this should be taken with a grain of salt. But when Baylor is less valuable than Ku and the squawks are within a couple million of Missouri, I have to question the premises he used in reaching the conclusions.

 

[Bigman38]

Would be interested in seeing his assumptions. Programs report differently and thus much of this should be taken with a grain of salt. But when Baylor is less valuable than Ku and the squawks are within a couple million of Missouri, I have to question the premises he used in reaching the conclusions.

I don't know much about this guy but is it not stated somewhere in the fine print?

Silver has earned the benefit of the doubt from me when talking numbers.

 

[surly]

I don't know much about this guy but is it not stated somewhere in the fine print?

Silver has earned the benefit of the doubt from me when talking numbers.

I didn't see anything suggesting the assumptions are accurate or otherwise. But for example, Ku treats contributions as if people give to their football program, which is nonsense. They give to football and buy tickets only to have an opportunity to attend basketball games. How would one account for that fact in this study? Their football program today cannot be more valuable than Baylor's. That's common sense requiring zero financial reviews.

 

[Bigman38]

I didn't see anything suggesting the assumptions are accurate or otherwise. But for example, Ku treats contributions as if people give to their football program, which is nonsense. They give to football and buy tickets only to have an opportunity to attend basketball games. How would one account for that fact in this study? Their football program today cannot be more valuable than Baylor's. That's common sense requiring zero financial reviews.

In your example their intentions or reasons for giving money to football doesn't really matter. It's still money football is bringing in.

Baylor is a relatively tiny school with an equally tiny fanbase. It's not that surprising to me.

 

[surly]

In your example their intentions or reasons for giving money to football doesn't really matter. It's still money football is bringing in.

Baylor is a relatively tiny school with an equally tiny fanbase. It's not that surprising to me.

Your logic is fine if the study addressed athletic programs. But here, the author is most likely accepting the data at face value, which does not give the whole picture because schools report differently, thus the results are dependent on how the school chooses to report financials.

 

[Die4Cy]

I noticed Toledo was ranked 102nd out of 116 teams. Coach Campbell gave them great value from that position in the football landscape.

 

[Prone2Clone]

Ryan Brewer, an assistant professor of finance at Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus

"Where'd you go to school?"

"Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus."

"What the **** did you just say?"

 

[CascadeClone]

Tried to find his actual report, which should have the data assumptions for his calculations. Only could come up with this, which I assume was his doctoral thesis or maybe just his pitch to have this subject be his thesis.

<http://slideplayer.com/slide/5882824/>

Interesting reading! (to me anyway) Mostly Finance 101 for valuing a biz. The assumptions are wrapped around discounted cash flows, but he ties in some other football factors to control for risk to those cash flows (attendance, historical rankings, proximity to major league teams, etc). Makes sense - if Texas and Memphis had the same cash flows, you would assume Memphis would be more risky if the team success tailed off, so as a business you would value them lower.

Big question is how did he come up with the cash flow part of it? Like surly says, you can classify and count that a lot of different ways, and idk what he might have done to compare apples to apples. He calls it "program adjusted cash flow" so I would assume they did something to massage it for comparison.

It would be interesting to know how much his different factors impact the value. One example: Nebby and Iowa are 11 and 12, higher than A&M, Oregon, Florida St. Maybe the proximity to major league teams jacks the rural teams up 20% or something. That would help ISU too, of course. There is some impact there to be sure, but maybe its arguable he overrates it. Some sensitivity analysis would be fun to do. If you like stats and finance that is.


Here's his bio: <https://www.iupuc.edu/academics/divisions-programs/business/contact-business/ryan-brewer/>
Not sure if clicking the link makes you a secret admirer or a creeper.

 

[surly]

"Where'd you go to school?"

"Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus."

"What the **** did you just say?"

In Iowa they might call it Southern Iowa. In Indiana, they tie the state schools to their city, like Wichita State and Emporia State in Kansas. IUPUI, for example, is in Indy. IUPU(Columbus) is in southern Indiana.

 

[Prone2Clone]

In Iowa they might call it Southern Iowa. In Indiana, they tie the state schools to their city, like Wichita State and Emporia State in Kansas. IUPUI, for example, is in Indy. IUPU(Columbus) is in southern Indiana.

I guess my boss' kid is attending University of Iowa-Iowa State University Cedar Falls then.

 

[ISUcyclones11]

In Iowa they might call it Southern Iowa. In Indiana, they tie the state schools to their city, like Wichita State and Emporia State in Kansas. IUPUI, for example, is in Indy. IUPU(Columbus) is in southern Indiana.

Don't forget about the Indiana University of Pennsylvania (not a joke)

 

[CyFan61]

Some of these are really surprising, not the least of which being West Virginia.

As I have thought before, the Power 5 school that should be most worried about super conference realignment isn't Iowa State - it's Wake Forest. And they are the least valuable P5 program on this list.

 

[KnappShack]

Kansas State and Southern Cal back to back at 24-25.

That's USC being that close to Kansas State. Ummm....huh

 

[Cloneon]

That is awesome. We still aren't getting into the Big 10, unfortunately. We are pretty close to Purdue and Indiana on that list. My guess is the Big Ten wont be expanding for schools like that, especially when the TV market is already saturated.

TVs, in relation to 'networks' will soon be obsolete. Tier 3 rights, internet viewership, and 'marketing' will become the 'value' of college sports in the not-too-distant future. One could argue right now that ESPN contracts are more a position of 'intellectual rights' than advertising revenue. This to secure viewership through televising to Tier 3. Mark my words, the world has allot more changing to go before we settle on the next level. In 10 years, things will be dramatically different.

I think we've done great things at ISU. But we're only scratching the surface. I always point to Oregon as an example. Once a doormat, now a perennial power. I remember the bold billboard in New York. The critics demonized its use. Yet, here we are: The big 'O' on the helmets. Now recognized everywhere. Yeh. I know. That was a Heisman billboard. But, it still accomplished really positive 'recognition'.

Some ideas:
- Jack Trice Hollywood film - This is an incredible story. My eyes well when considering what he did.
- Cyclone billboards "A Storm is Brewing"
- Wit in coaches (ala Orr) grabbing the media
- Unbelievable attendance despite the record. Fans are unmatched ... anywhere!

There's so much room for marketing that separates us from the rest.

 

[gnarlyboy]

Really large metro areas don't support football through attendance. Too many other sports entertainment options. Chicago, NYC, East Coast Megopolis in general, Dallas, Minn, Phoen, LA - they just don't unless team is in national title hunt. I can't think of one that does. Maybe you could argue Detroit, but Ann Arbor is certainly not a suburb. Tex is not in Dallas. The trend, as I see it, looks to favor Flagship Universities that have lots of professional graduate colleges, with presumably wealthy donors as alums. Then you have the SEC where college football rates higher than Jesus.

Thankfully this study does not correlate strongly to success on the field. If it did, 42 out of 65ish P5 Football Programs is not all that encouraging IMO.

 

[KnappShack]

Really large metro areas don't support football through attendance. Too many other sports entertainment options. Chicago, NYC, East Coast Megopolis in general, Dallas, Minn, Phoen, LA - they just don't unless team is in national title hunt. I can't think of one that does. Maybe you could argue Detroit, but Ann Arbor is certainly not a suburb. Tex is not in Dallas. The trend, as I see it, looks to favor Flagship Universities that have lots of professional graduate colleges, with presumably wealthy donors as alums. Then you have the SEC where college football rates higher than Jesus.

Thankfully this study does not correlate strongly to success on the field. If it did, 42 out of 65ish P5 Football Programs is not all that encouraging IMO.

As recently as 2014 USC averaged over 75,000 per game. UCLA was at 72,000/game.

I'd take support like that every day of the week.