Determining the value of sport franchises ncaa fbs programs
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 20

Determining the value of sport franchises: NCAA FBS programs PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 117 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Determining the value of sport franchises: NCAA FBS programs. Ryan Brewer, M.B.A. Indiana University-Bloomington Advisor: Paul M. Pedersen, Ph.D. 2009 Scholarly Conference on College Sport. My interest in the study. Value assessment of sport franchises Forbes (Van Riper, 2009) NFL (1998)

Download Presentation

Determining the value of sport franchises: NCAA FBS programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Determining the value of sport franchises ncaa fbs programs

Determining the value of sport franchises:NCAA FBS programs

Ryan Brewer, M.B.A.

Indiana University-Bloomington

Advisor: Paul M. Pedersen, Ph.D.

2009 Scholarly Conference on College Sport


My interest in the study

My interest in the study

  • Value assessment of sport franchises

  • Forbes(Van Riper, 2009)

    • NFL (1998)

    • NBA, NHL, MLB (1999)

    • NCAA FBS Football Programs (2007)

    • NCAA D-I Basketball Programs (2008)

    • Magazine’s valuation methods include value attributions deriving from four self-defined areas

      • The sport

      • The market

      • The stadium

      • The brand management


My interest in the study1

My interest in the study

Current system of NCAA Division I football championship (“FBS”) is controversial..

The BCS has been given considerable media attention for its commercial (broadcast & sponsorship) spotlight


Purpose of this study

Purpose of this study

To value FBS college football programs using theories and practices of classic financial economics

To test for differences between results if this study and the results

generated by Mike Ozanian

of Forbes magazine


Determining value in fbs

Determining value in FBS

Issues

  • Current FBS valuations may exclude important factors in assessing value

  • Current FBS valuations may not have applied valuation theory in assessing value

  • A lack of competing alternatives generally exists in assessing sport franchise valuations


Current practice

Current Practice

  • Considerations included in the algorithm for current valuation of FBS programs:

    • 2007 (Forbes’ inaugural valuations):

      • Team contribution to athletic department

      • Team contribution to university

      • Incremental spending in local metro-area during home games

    • 2008 (2nd year valuations):

      • Team contribution to university

      • Team contribution to athletic department

      • Team contribution to conference

      • Incremental spending in local metro-area during home games


Forbes valuation results 2008

Forbes Valuation Results (2008?)

  • Notre Dame $101 million

  • Texas $92 million

  • Georgia $90 million

  • Michigan $85 million

  • Florida $84 million

  • LSU $76 million

  • Tennessee $74 million

  • Auburn $73 million

  • Alabama $72 million

  • Ohio State $71 million


Current practice valuation theory

Current Practice: Valuation Theory

  • Pricing of [future expected] uncertain income streams is key to valuation (Rubinstein, 2005)

  • The Capital Asset Pricing Model is intrinsic to the modern approach to determining value of anticipated benefits (Treynor, 1961)

  • Value drivers are useful in determining the value of assets sold in the open markets (Pratt, 2000)

  • A build-up model of the discount rate is an alternative to the CAPM, especially for organizations not traded in the securities markets (Pratt, 2000)


What s missing from current practice

What’s Missing from Current Practice?

  • Discounted cash flows

  • Capitalization of cash flows

  • Assessment of similar franchises sold recently in the open market


Valuation requirements

Valuation Requirements

  • Specify the date of value (e.g., Pratt, 2000)

  • Specify the relationship between hypothetical buyer and seller, neither of whom are under compulsion, both of whom are reasonably knowledgeable of relevant facts (IRS Revenue Ruling 59-60, 1959)

  • Assess the capacity to earn dividends (IRS Revenue Ruling 59-60, 1959)


Financial analysis cont

Financial Analysis (cont.)

  • Specify the…

    • Standard of value (e.g., Pratt, 2000)

    • Premise of value (e.g., Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2008)

    • Uses of the valuation (e.g., Trugman, 2004)

  • Assess the discount rate (e.g., Brealy & Meyers, 1998)

    • WACC

    • CAPM

    • Build-up method (Pratt, 2000)


Financial analysis cont1

Financial Analysis (cont.)

  • Forecast cash flows using…

    • Historical financial data

    • Current economic information

    • Adjustments made from the characteristics of marketability

      • Either to cash flows, risk level, or both, as appropriate


Brewer s proposal

Brewer’s Proposal

  • Locate financial data on a sufficient sample of the 119 FBS programs

    • Revenue data

    • Expense data

  • Assess Cash Flows

  • Using relevant publicly available characteristics inuring to FBS programs, develop a risk model.

  • Using cash flows, quantitative risk assessment, and growth forecast, develop a capitalization model under currently accepted financial economics theory to value FBS programs.


Publicly available characteristics

Publicly Available Characteristics

  • Dividend paying capacity…

    • Program adjusted cash flow (cf)

  • Risk…

    • Turnstile attendance (a)

    • Program historical FBS rankings (r)

    • Proximity to and association with nearest “major league” town and franchise (t)

    • School reputational quality (q)

    • Power conference affiliation (c)


Most valuable fbs programs

Most Valuable FBS Programs

BREWER MODEL

  • Texas $379million

  • Georgia $355 million

  • Michigan $306 million

  • Notre Dame $281 million

  • Ohio State $277 million

  • LSU $261 million

  • Florida $257 million

  • Alabama $233 million

  • Auburn $206 million

  • Texas A&M $185 million


A contrast of results

A Contrast of Results

Brewer Model

Ozanian Model

Notre Dame $101 million

Texas $92 million

Georgia $90 million

Michigan $85 million

Florida $84 million

LSU $76 million

Tennessee $74 million

Auburn $73 million

Alabama $72 million

Ohio State $71 million

  • Texas $379million

  • Georgia $355 million

  • Michigan $306 million

  • Notre Dame $281 million

  • Ohio State $277 million

  • LSU $261 million

  • Florida $257 million

  • Alabama $233 million

  • Auburn $206 million

  • Texas A&M $185 million


A contrast of results1

A Contrast of Results

  • Are the values significantly different?

    • YES (p-value = 0.0000008502)

  • Is the first-order linear measure – the slope of value drop descending the ordinal ranking – significantly different?

    • YES (p-value = 0.0079)


A contrast of results2

A Contrast of Results


What s the difference

What’s the Difference? ∆

Brewer

Ozanian

Uses cash flow to academics and overall (value to university academics).

Includes analysis of the impact to the community (value to community).

Includes element of contribution to the conference (value to conference)

  • Uses adjusted cash flow generated by programs (Value to program owner).

  • Incorporates historical performance, turnstile attendance, and other idiosyncratic factors to develop a risk profile for each school (risk to program’s future).


Questions

Questions…


  • Login