It seems these valuations are a product for private equity consumption...

Quote:

---

The information used to compile the valuations comes courtesy of Jason Belzer, publisher of AthleticDirectorU, who has advised universities on name, image and likeness deals and is now doing the same for athletic departments seeking private equity. AthleticDirectorU has an expansive database of college athletic program financials and information.

---

Surprisingly, only a couple mil difference between us and sip...

1. Ohio State University $1.32B
2. University of Texas at Austin $1.28B
3. Texas A&M University $1.26B

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/19/college-sports-programs-valuations.html

Made up numbers are fiction. But about a third of the lowest valued NBA Club. The clubs trade so a bit more substantiating those value but not much.

https://www.sportico.com/feature/nba-team-values-ranking-list-1234697991/

Overvalued?

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

no one and i mean no one does less with more than us. maybe our greatest tradition

---

Funny how the valuations have nothing to do w/ winning...

Mr. Fingerbottom said:

---

Impressive return on investment for a team that always collapses in November & consistently struggles to produce more than 8 wins a year


The Aggie athletic admin is quite a business model

---

You're right. It is quite the model. The athletic department has a loyal and captive audience that pisses away $$$ and doesn't demand results.

13 SEC teams on that list before you get to the first Big 12 school (Tceh)

So A&M is equivalent to modern-day Dallas Cowboys.

Gator92 said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

no one and i mean no one does less with more than us. maybe our greatest tradition

---

Funny how the valuations have nothing to do w/ winning...

---

Works great for Jerry Jones

carl spacklers hat said:

---

So A&M is equivalent to modern-day Dallas Cowboys.

---

I could only dream of A&M having the Cowboys success.

I used to take some kind of pride in these stupid program valuations. Now I just care about wins. We don't win games. We aren't even a top 20 program in that regard. Money is irrelevant if you can't turn it into wins.

How the heck is Nebraska still in the top 10?

tOSU, texas and A&M have a big gap in revenue than the 4th team. I mean, what are we doing with all this money when you look at the results.

MGS said:

---

How the heck is Nebraska still in the top 10?

---

No. 26 in revenue in 2023 according to this link (just behind Louisville):

https://sportsdata.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

Maybe it's one of those things where Nebraska is untouched, still in the package, and is valued as a collector's item.

Gator92 said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

no one and i mean no one does less with more than us. maybe our greatest tradition

---

Funny how the valuations have nothing to do w/ winning...

---

Valuations never have anything to do with records.

See: Dallas Cowboys

Gator92 said:

---

It seems these valuations are a product for private equity consumption...

Quote:

---

The information used to compile the valuations comes courtesy of Jason Belzer, publisher of AthleticDirectorU, who has advised universities on name, image and likeness deals and is now doing the same for athletic departments seeking private equity. AthleticDirectorU has an expansive database of college athletic program financials and information.

---

Surprisingly, only a couple mil difference between us and sip...

1. Ohio State University $1.32B
2. University of Texas at Austin $1.28B
3. Texas A&M University $1.26B

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/19/college-sports-programs-valuations.html

---

65. SMU
68. Arizona State
72. Boise State

Yikes!

5 of the top 10 are in the CFP
6th Mich won the Championship last year
7th Bama was last man out this year in CFP with multiple recent championships
8th OU been top 10 for most of the last decade and in championship games
9th/10th - Not relevant.

We waste so much $$ with little results. Its just sad

A couple mil or 20 million?

FDT 1999 said:

---

Mr. Fingerbottom said:

---

Impressive return on investment for a team that always collapses in November & consistently struggles to produce more than 8 wins a year


The Aggie athletic admin is quite a business model

---

The athletic department has a loyal and captive audience that pisses away $$$ and doesn't demand results.

---

I see this sentiment all the time and find it confusing. To your way of thinking, how can we, the audience, "demand" results? What form would those "demands" take? Please elucidate!

the most cool guy said:

---

I used to take some kind of pride in these stupid program valuations. Now I just care about wins. We don't win games. We aren't even a top 20 program in that regard. Money is irrelevant if you can't turn it into wins.

---

According to who? We are the 16th all-time winningest program (according to winsipedia), and the 4th/5th winningest program in the SEC since we joined (depending on if you are counting overall, or just conference wins). The problem isn't that we don't win, its that we win at a consistent rate, rather than in the bursts that it takes to win championships.

Ugly said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

I used to take some kind of pride in these stupid program valuations. Now I just care about wins. We don't win games. We aren't even a top 20 program in that regard. Money is irrelevant if you can't turn it into wins.

---

According to who? We are the 16th all-time winningest program (according to winsipedia), and the 4th/5th winningest program in the SEC since we joined (depending on if you are counting overall, or just conference wins). The problem isn't that we don't win, it's that we win at a consistent rate, rather than in the bursts that it takes to win championships.

---

What are we in the last 25 years? Thats all I care about and all anyone outside of this bubble cares about.

Think about what else does the state of Nebraska have to compete with NU?

Ugly said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

I used to take some kind of pride in these stupid program valuations. Now I just care about wins. We don't win games. We aren't even a top 20 program in that regard. Money is irrelevant if you can't turn it into wins.

---

According to who? We are the 16th all-time winningest program (according to winsipedia), and the 4th/5th winningest program in the SEC since we joined (depending on if you are counting overall, or just conference wins). The problem isn't that we don't win, its that we win at a consistent rate, rather than in the bursts that it takes to win championships.

---

In 12 years, we finished with a winning conference record just 3 times (6-2 in 2012, 5-3 in 2018, and 8-1 in 2020). We posted a 4-4 SEC record 7 times (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023), 3-5 in 2014, and 2-6 in 2022.

This is from another poster so I didn't verify.

We are a .500 team in conference which essentially guarantees the toilet bowl every year. Only in 2020 and maybe 2012 would we be in the CFP with the current format. 2 out of 12 years going to the CFP is not good no matter how you slice it.

Of the top 15, only Wisconsin and we have a title drought that goes back almost 100 years. The next worst is Penn St in 1986.

the most cool guy said:

---

Ugly said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

I used to take some kind of pride in these stupid program valuations. Now I just care about wins. We don't win games. We aren't even a top 20 program in that regard. Money is irrelevant if you can't turn it into wins.

---

According to who? We are the 16th all-time winningest program (according to winsipedia), and the 4th/5th winningest program in the SEC since we joined (depending on if you are counting overall, or just conference wins). The problem isn't that we don't win, it's that we win at a consistent rate, rather than in the bursts that it takes to win championships.

---

What are we in the last 25 years? Thats all I care about and all anyone outside of this bubble cares about.

---

In the last 25 years, we're 34th in winning percentage. Wanna know who's behind us? Playoff teams Arizona State and SMU. So your 25 year mark is arbitrary at best and absurd at worst.

The REAL measure is on or around 1972-4. That was the time period where freshman became eligible and scholarship limits were put into place. Has nothing to do with subjective preferences or YOUR age or attention span. So we'll say 1972. Since then, we're 20th. You can adjust time frames all you want to get the results you want (or don't want). Last decade, t.u. is outside the top 40. Go tell them that and see what response you get.

Could/should we be better? Absolutely. We SHOULD be in the top 10 at least. Just ONE additional freakin' win a year since 1972 (hell, since 1982) would have gotten us there.

People complain that we're cursed or whatever. What we MUST start doing is make better coaching hires by NOT continuing to do it the same way we've always done it.

MPM61 said:

---

Think about what else does the state of Nebraska have to compete with NU?

---

There are probably some Creighton fans in the state's less than 2 million total population.

Nebraska's total athletic revenue isn't even in the Top 25.

Quote:

---

The information used to compile the valuations comes courtesy of Jason Belzer, publisher of AthleticDirectorU, who has advised universities on name, image and likeness deals and is now doing the same for athletic departments seeking private equity.

---

That's a big deal. Right now, football profits go to pay for other sports. If departments are looking at taking in private equity money, they will have to send the profits back to the private equity company. So kiss your non-revenue mens sports goodbye. Especially at smaller schools trying to compete. Title 9 will at least protect some womens sports.

Quote:

---

You're right. It is quite the model. The athletic department has a loyal and captive audience that pisses away $$$ and doesn't demand results.

---

This is silly. How would they DEMAND results? They already build infrastructure, hire and fire coaches, etc. Now, they have made stupid decision, sure, but the don't demand results? How?

FDT 1999 said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

So A&M is equivalent to modern-day Dallas Cowboys.

---

I could only dream of A&M having the Cowboys success.

---

I see the Cowboy goal-tenders can't read/comprehend, which is expected. Modern day, i.e. 21st Century. Jets had success back in the 1900s, too. And it really is a perfect comparison. Cowboy fans enter every season full of the Kool-aid and every season since sometime in the mid-1990s, has been a disappointment. Both Aggie and Cowboy fans could take a lesson in setting realistic expectations.

agnerd said:

---

Quote:

---

The information used to compile the valuations comes courtesy of Jason Belzer, publisher of AthleticDirectorU, who has advised universities on name, image and likeness deals and is now doing the same for athletic departments seeking private equity.

---

That's a big deal. Right now, football profits go to pay for other sports. If departments are looking at taking in private equity money, they will have to send the profits back to the private equity company. So kiss your non-revenue mens sports goodbye. Especially at smaller schools trying to compete. Title 9 will at least protect some womens sports.

---

And to compound the problem, next year scholarship limits basically go away in all NCAA sports.

There are roster limits tho. 105 FB roster limit, but you can offer all of them scholarships. Baseball roster limit is 34 and 34 scholarships can be offered.

Seems the new rule will drastically affect non revenue mens sports. To manage Title IX concerns, no way all scholarships will be funded...

Good point - forgot about Creighton.