Comments on: Texas is the Most Valuable College Football Team By a Long Shot, Without Accounting For the Longhorn Network Deal

By: AssaultWithAConcreteDildo

AssaultWithAConcreteDildo — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:14:28 +0000

If the results of it are, on the face, ludicrous, then it’s garbage. Simply having A METHOD doesn’t justify its silly results.

By: tyduffy

tyduffy — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:51:32 +0000

SRS top 20.
Just a friendly reminder… this is the same supid ranking system that put Texas ahead of Kansas State.

Just a friendly reminder…it’s one of the few ranking systems that is transparent, accounts for SOS and MOV, and doesn’t include subjective horseshit as a vital component.

By: tyduffy

tyduffy — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:45:33 +0000

You also noted: “Ohio State, Iowa and Florida were in the top 40.” Way to attempt to marginalize them. tOSU was 14th and that was largely a short term blip due to the Tressel saga.
It’s sad to see how you went from killing it in the World Cup to just phoning in your game since.

Ohio State, Iowa and Florida finished between 30 and 40 in SRS this year. What’s your deal?

By: jimisawesome

jimisawesome — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 01:26:43 +0000

Stupid list like every years list since their methodology seems to be all over the place. Just take Nebraska as an example they move to the Big 10 but because travel is going to increase (not sure why it would increase that much in all honesty) they are going to be down graded in value?

Did I miss the part when the Big 12 paid out 22 million per school per year in shared revenue? Never mind the Big 10 is about 3 to 4 years from signing a new record breaking tier 1 tv contract?

This is a lot like their NFL list that has Tampa over Chicago in value but in reality the Bears would sell for at least 300 million more in the open market. If these teams were ever to be sold in an open market Texas, ND and Michigan are a class by themselves on what they would fetch.

By: AssaultWithAConcreteDildo

AssaultWithAConcreteDildo — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:38:52 +0000

The lowest was Auburn (No. 57), an effect that we’re expecting, without Newton and now without Malzahn, to become known as “the Chizik Chill.”

Is this the effect explaining how a team with about five senior contributors makes a bowl game?

By: scripty

scripty — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:16:02 +0000

Forbes wrote “The Wolverines saw a 15% increase in team value since 2009, which was mostly influenced by Michigan Athletics’ academic funding. Michigan contributed more to football scholarships than any other public university on our list.” FRAUDS.

You also noted: “Ohio State, Iowa and Florida were in the top 40.” Way to attempt to marginalize them. tOSU was 14th and that was largely a short term blip due to the Tressel saga.

It’s sad to see how you went from killing it in the World Cup to just phoning in your game since.

By: Dental Dam

Dental Dam — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:46:24 +0000

Just a friendly reminder… this is the same supid ranking system that put Texas ahead of Kansas State.

Yeah, but I’m going to keep using it because I can’t give the BCS rankings any credence because I rail against the BCS every other day, even though their rankings are fifty times more accurate than this trash.

By: cassino

cassino — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:01:35 +0000

SRS top 20.
Just a friendly reminder… this is the same supid ranking system that put Texas ahead of Kansas State.

And godawful Cal in the top 30

By: Anti-KC Res

Anti-KC Res — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:25:30 +0000

SRS top 20.

Just a friendly reminder… this is the same supid ranking system that put Texas ahead of Kansas State.

By: José Ovechkin

José Ovechkin — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:16:12 +0000

3. Penn State ($100m), 4. LSU ($96m),

This shocks me for some reason. The other 3 seem about right