The Holy Land of Hoops

According to the Wall Street Journal, these are the most valuable non-P5 college basketball teams:

13. UConn
20. Xavier
23. Dayton
28. Marquette
35. USF
40. Villanova
42. St. John's
44. Georgetown
45. Memphis
47. Providence
48. Gonzaga
49. San Diego State
58. VCU
67. New Mexico
70. DePaul
72. Cincinnati
73. SMU
79. BYU
80. UCF
81. Wichita State
82. Creighton
83. Seton Hall
89. Nevada
90. Temple
91. St. Louis
92. UAB
93. Tulsa
94. Butler
95. Houston
96. UMass
97. Ohio
98. Boise State
99. Wyoming
100. San Jose State

Surprise #1 is that Notre Dame doesn't show up until #104, just ahead of James Madison and just behind Marshall. Not much different than LaSalle at #109.

Surprise #2 is that there are so few teams from the A10 - only Dayton, VCU, St Louis, and UMass in the top 100.

interesting trivia note is that Dayton was not only #23 on this list but was also #21 on a similar - but shorter - list recently published by Forbes, which placed both Xavier and Marquette in the top 20.

If you're interested in reading the article and how they arrived at a monetary value for each program, you can read it here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-your- ... 1427903905

So DePaul draws 6k a game, plays way off campus, has the same tv deal, gets the same NCAA unit payout, and a recent history of losing yet somehow is 12 spots ahead of Creighton? Curious.

marquette wrote:So DePaul draws 6k a game, plays way off campus, has the same tv deal, gets the same NCAA unit payout, and a recent history of losing yet somehow is 12 spots ahead of Creighton? Curious.

When the article starts off by saying that Kentucky is not the most valuable basketball team, but is #6? You can pretty much throw away anything else that's said.

I also got a chuckle out of them doing a modified cash flow approach when it comes to University spending. I'm sure the author knows it's a flawed methodology to begin with. Just to use my Big East team as an example. Butler's men's program, at least according to the department of education figures the Butler reported, made $1 on its men's program, and its women's program also made $1 last year, and as an athletic department as a whole, they broke even. Look, I don't have access to their records, but even I can sense when something seems to be a little more than coincidental (especially since they broke even last year too) and probably isn't accurate.

When I saw USF ahead of Nova. SJU, and G'town I knew the methodology had to be spot on.

Marquette,

Cut the DePaul bashing! DePaul's fan base is very large. The program has been down for 20 years so fans do not attend games. They are waiting for the winner to return....and a long time at that. Also, DePaul's history is VERY strong.

If DePaul ever gets its act together ONCE AGAIN, then you will see what type of program DePaul can be and what the Chicago media can do to exponentially promote it.

I am guessing you are one of those young MU fans. The day after Al McGuire left that program, DePaul owned MU from 1978 - 1992. Outside of DWade (who actually wanted to go to DePaul but they did not recruit for some stupid reason) carrying your MU program single-handedly to the Final Four, MU has underachieved based on some of their talent levels. I have watched MU's teams since the late 60s so I know what I am talking about.

Most Chicagoans think MU fans and alumni are snobs and you fit right in. Just focus on your program.

GumbyDamnit! wrote:When I saw USF ahead of Nova. SJU, and G'town I knew the methodology had to be spot on.

In terms of financial health, USF is doing quite well right now with all of their income from old Big East exit fees and tournament credits as well as income from entrance fees to the AAC.

Irishdawg wrote:

marquette wrote:So DePaul draws 6k a game, plays way off campus, has the same tv deal, gets the same NCAA unit payout, and a recent history of losing yet somehow is 12 spots ahead of Creighton? Curious.

When the article starts off by saying that Kentucky is not the most valuable basketball team, but is #6? You can pretty much throw away anything else that's said.

I also got a chuckle out of them doing a modified cash flow approach when it comes to University spending. I'm sure the author knows it's a flawed methodology to begin with. Just to use my Big East team as an example. Butler's men's program, at least according to the department of education figures the Butler reported, made $1 on its men's program, and its women's program also made $1 last year, and as an athletic department as a whole, they broke even. Look, I don't have access to their records, but even I can sense when something seems to be a little more than coincidental (especially since they broke even last year too) and probably isn't accurate.

Kentucky does not have the greatest financial value. By every measure, Louisville does with their sweetheart deal at the Yum.

If you think their methodology is flawed, do you have a better one to suggest?

I often wonder why the first reaction to a data based article like this is to bash it, based on little or no data. Richard Hofstadter would probably have something to say about that. Oh, well . . .

A standard measure of statistical reliability is to see how the results compare with another measure of the same thing. Forbes does a similar top 20 every year, so let's see how the 2 lists compares. Below is the WSJ list with the Forbes ranking in parentheses. If a team didn't show up on the Forbes list, I checked the same list from a year or two before since I couldn't go any deeper on Forbes than top 20 + 1.

1. Louisville (1)
2. Arizona (4)
3. Kansas (2)
4. Ohio State (7)
5. Wisconsin (10)
6. Kentucky (3)
7. Syracuse (6)
8. Indiana (8)
9. Duke ((9)
10. North Carolina (5)

So far, highly reliable. Top 10 are identical with only slightly different order.

11. Michigan State (12)
12. Maryland (11)
13. UConn (-)
14. Purdue (-)
15. Illinois (13)
16. Alabama (14)
17. Arkansas (17)
18. Tennessee (11)
19. NC State (12 in 2014)
20. Xavier (18)
21. Minnesota (-)
22. UCLA (ranked in 2013)
23. Dayton (21)
24. Northwestern (19)
25. Cal (-)
26. Michigan (16)
27. Iowa (-)
28. Marquette (15)

Even down #28, the lists are highly correlated. It isn't a stretch to think that schools like UConn, Cal, and the Big Ten schools from the WSJ list but not on the Forbes list would be showing up soon if the Forbes list went beyond 21. The same methodology that was highly reliable this far is probably just as reliable all the way down the list although I'm equally sure that anyone can nitpick flaws in any such calculation.

My guess is that this list is a pretty sound measure of the financial health of these programs.

What comes screaming off the page when reading the WSJ list is Dayton at #23 (#21 on the Forbes list). Finances have a lot to do with a program's ability to compete. According to these two studies, Dayton has that in spades. In my mind, they move up to the top of the list among expansion candidates.

The other thing that emerges from the list is that there is only one other program in the top 50 which is not a football school - Gonzaga. Just outside the top 50 is VCU at #58. If the conference decides eventually that it wants to grow to 12, it seems to me that the choice is clear - Dayton + either Gonzaga or VCU. Gonzaga has the right profile but the wrong geography, while VCU has the right geography but the wrong profile. It's not a perfect world; they should choose one or the other and live with the compromise they need to make to get there.

These 3 programs have built themselves to the point where they have the financial infrastructure that will enable them to compete with the best in the Big East (6 in the top 50) and almost everyone else in the P5. A program in the top 50 or close to it is in exactly that position, given that 65 P5 schools + 10 Big East schools equal the 75 best funded programs in the country with just a handful of exceptions. There really is no one other than those 3 who have the finances to compete on this level right now.

DemonLS wrote:Marquette,

Cut the DePaul bashing! DePaul's fan base is very large. The program has been down for 20 years so fans do not attend games. They are waiting for the winner to return....and a long time at that. Also, DePaul's history is VERY strong.

If DePaul ever gets its act together ONCE AGAIN, then you will see what type of program DePaul can be and what the Chicago media can do to exponentially promote it.

I am guessing you are one of those young MU fans. The day after Al McGuire left that program, DePaul owned MU from 1978 - 1992. Outside of DWade (who actually wanted to go to DePaul but they did not recruit for some stupid reason) carrying your MU program single-handedly to the Final Four, MU has underachieved based on some of their talent levels. I have watched MU's teams since the late 60s so I know what I am talking about.

Most Chicagoans think MU fans and alumni are snobs and you fit right in. Just focus on your program.

Some things to say to this:

1. So your fan base is almost entirely bandwagon fans then? Because I dated a Depaul girl and my best friend from high school went there and they used to laugh when I'd talk about their team and say nobody cares about their sports.

2. If you're going to disparage Marquette for only having Wade and the McGuire years then I'd fire back with take away Meyer or even just Mikan and Aguire (who wanted to go to MU before Mcguire retired) and that'd make Depaul's program a complete joke.

3. You're right about Wade, and it's because he wasn't academically eligible right away there was a term for it and it's against the rules for schools to accept students under those circumstances now.

4. Wade did not single-handedly carry us to the Final Four in case you didn't realize there was 2 other future NBA players on that team.

5. MU alums are snobby but nowhere near as bad as Notre Dame alums.

6. You are right about Chicago and if Depaul got good again the media would really do them justice especially with Simeon being nationally known as a basketball powerhouse and the Bulls being contenders.

7. Is there a year in particular you feel we underperformed? I mean 11-12 we should have beaten Florida getting to the Elite8 but there was a clear glaring hole at Center after Otule went down. In 08-09 we should've beaten Missouri and at least been in the S16 but Dominick James was playing with a broken foot after sitting a month. What other team should've gone farther? The 1979 team? (just kidding about that cause Depaul knocked us out)