The Athletic’s top 25 most valuable college football programs

Football
1

Bad news for UH.

We ranked 16th out of 16 in the Big 12, and 68 out of 68 in the P4.

1 Like
2

Here are the Big 12 rankings.

Big 12 program valuation projection

1. Utah ($539M)
2. TCU ($523M)
3. Texas Tech ($440M)
4. Oklahoma State ($373M)
5. Arizona State ($372M)
6. Iowa State ($331M)
7. Colorado ($328M)
8. Kansas State ($321M)
9. BYU ($306M)
10. West Virginia ($284M)
11. Arizona ($282M)
12. Baylor ($276M)
13. UCF ($210M)
14. Kansas ($197M)
15. Cincinnati ($106M)
16. Houston ($91M)

3

Here’s the 1-68 list.

Stanford came in at #60.

So @3rdWardCoog2 , and others, forget about Stanford getting a B1G invite.

Value dilutive program.

4

It’s not bad news - it’s a wild-ass guess.

Our basketball team generated almost half of that “guessed” value this year alone, and that doesn’t count all of the “free press” that was much-discussed and valued in the 9-figure range.

We’ll receive a full revenue share this year of ~$35MM.

And none of that accounts for sponsorships, donations, facility valuations, etc. Their math ain’t mathin’.

Their math ain’t mathin’.

2 Likes
5

How the hell are we under Wake?

3 Likes
6

Yeah I saw that article. We are easily undervalued by a factor of 2 to 3 all things considered. I’d put us in the $200+ million.

7

Well it’s a valuation of the football program so there’s that

8

Good point. There still isn’t much science behind the evaluation formula, so it’s pretty worthless.

9

Anyone who followed expansion closely knows that list is garbage.

1 Like
10

The Utah disinformation machine is really getting busy, though. :laughing:

1 Like
11

We still have a few years to improve this.

12

Ehh I still disagree

As I’ve said many time, Stanford isn’t a media value add. They are added for other reasons.

Should Notre Dame join as a partner, then the market exposure that’s produced by ND will eclipse whatever Stanford seems to dilute.

Only ND could do this though.

13

If (more likely when) ND goes to the B1G, Stanford won’t be a factor.

First of all, the B1G wants ND, NOT Stanford, and they won’t invite the cool guy’s (ND’s) dorky friend (Stanford) just to get the cool guy (ND). If they thought that that was a thing, then they’d have made such an offer already.

Obviously, the B1G isn’t so desperate to add ND that they are willing to cancel out the value added from that by pursuing value dilutive Stanford, and obviously ND doesn’t care enough about Stanford to where they were willing to counter-offer the B1G by saying…“take our dorky friend Stanford along with us, or no deal.”

Neither has happened. Neither is an actual thing, regardless of the fact that some people on this board seem to believe that it is.

As I’ve said before, I have five cousins who are ND grads…NONE of them give a rat’s ass about the Stanford game. It’s all about the rivals that are ALREADY in the B1G, NOT Stanford.

14

Not gonna enter a 20 page argument like UH1927 about this lol

But I see where you’re coming from, however, I think it’s missing a holistic view.

  1. I think the value that is brought from ND is more than what gets diluted from Stanford. It’s not a break even. It’s more than a break even.
  2. Notre Dame did in fact play a giant role in getting Stanford / Cal specifically, into the ACC. They do care, somewhat.

Putting ND aside.

  1. The B1G needs more west coast travel partners, and there is nobody remaining that’s worth the add, maybe except Utah if they’re that desperate?
  2. Stanford adds significant academic pedigree to the conference, for which the conference values more than any other conference
  3. Stanford is a dominant non-revenue sport school (which is still important)
  4. They already have the facilities and infrastructure
  5. Adding Stanford would assure that schools like Purdue, NWern, etc. are still valued therefore the B1G won’t kick out said schools for not being TV powerhouses
  6. Stanford isn’t a threat to the hierarchy (similar to UNC/UVA for the SEC)

So does Stanford bring the powerhouse TV eyeballs? No, but that’s not why they would be added.

15

  1. Not sure I agree. Stanford is among the smallest P4 brands. Seems to me that you most likely break even by adding them with ND. But I’ll allow you might have a small net gain; not sure if that’s enough to make such a move worthwhile.

  2. ND cared about getting Stanford in the ACC for the same reason that every ACC school not named FSU, Clemson, and UNC did: to preserve the conference and block any dissolution move by them. Here’s the reality: if ND wants to remain a football independent, then they’ll need a landing spot for all of their sports other than football and ice hockey. The ACC is really their only option, so it behooves them to bring in anyone they can to keep it alive. They did not want to add Stanford out of any sense of “big brother” rivalry camraderie, if that’s what you are thinking.

Putting aside ND.

  1. Not sure they want more west coast travel partners. This is like 1927, who claimed that they PAC and B1G would merge and then play only themselves with an “East v. West” title game. Sorry, but no. The B1G only wanted the BIGGEST West Coast brands (USC and UCLA combined made up 40% of the PAC’s media value), and only took Washington and Oregon (both far bigger and more valuable brands than Stanford) at HALF shares. They will not take value dilutive Stanford at ANY shares just for the sake of having more WC teams. They took the PAC teams they thought were value added…and THAT’S IT.

  2. The B1G does value academic pedigree insofar as it (not statutorily, but officially as a practical matter), requires AAU membership as a screening criteria, condition for an invite. But merely being AAU or even a prestige school isn’t enough. The B1G isn’t adding Vandy, Rice, Tulane, or other high powered AAU schools merely for their academic pedigree. They want AAU PLUS (primarily football) value added. ND delivers that. Stanford doesn’t. They already have one NW. They don’t want NW 2.0, and that’s what Stanford would be.

  3. Non-revenue sports absolutely DO NOT matter and DO NOT drive this. No one cares about Stanford’s synchronized swimming and tennis natties. Just like no one cares about UH’s golf natties. NOT a factor.

  4. So? Stanford has a great football stadium, tennis facility, etc. I’ve seen them personally. Guess what? Their attendance and TV viewership suck, they haven’t been good in either revenue sport in a long time, and they DON’T add value. THAT matters more than facilities.

  5. On the contrary, the B1G already has TOO MANY parasites. The last thing they want is to add more. Like 1927, I can’t rule out the possibility of a P2 breakaway. Unlike 1927, however, I think that one thing certain to happen in the event of such a breakaway would be the kicking out of smaller brands like NW, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, and possibly even Illinois or Minnesota. Even Illinois has expressed concern about this. The B1G wants value added brands, NOT additional parasites like Stanford.

  6. Not exactly sure what you mean by that, or how that makes a difference. The B1G recently added a football blue blood (USC), a basketball blue blood (UCLA), …and two other schools (Washington and Oregon) that can likely compete right away for conference titles in revenue sports… such schools may indeed be a threat to the football/basketball “hierarchy.” So? THAT’S HOW YOU BUILD A BETTER CONFERENCE!!! By adding BETTER programs that increase value AND increase competitiveness. You don’t accomplish that by adding Stanford. Adding the best teams available was absolutely a priority in the last round of realignment, and it will surely be in the next as well. That’s a bizarre justification for why the B1G might want Stanford. Add a sucky brand with sucky revenue sport teams just to add a warm body that won’t disturb the status quo? Come on now. NOT a thing.

16

Dana.

17

Hope to overachieve and catch Cincy.

18

Oh, well, if you value us by that, then yeah…we’re not that great atm :sweat_smile:

But seem to peak (on average) every 10 yrs. We’re due to shine again in 2026 by that logic.

19

I feel confident that we’ll look differently in a 5 years. Fritz is an actual program builder. We haven’t had one of those at the helm since Briles. We’ve got one in basketball and look at the difference its made.

20

This is based on how we’ve played the past 2 years, had we gone undefeated with a CFB playoff berth we’d be in the top 5

Like I’ve said, no one knows anything, they just guess, even the experts