Have you been on their campus and seen their facilities?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Printable View
Have you been on their campus and seen their facilities?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Yep...Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
But when you are talking about going from $17 or $20 million to $40 million in TV revenue in 5 to 7 years, current facilities don't mean much in the grans scheme of things
And THAT's what expansion means to the Big10 & SEC
A lot of you are forgetting that those Texas recruiting ties meant a Top-5 MBB program and a Top-10 Football program. Now that might not have translated into a lot of $$$ back then but it would result in mega-bucks now. On top of that you can't forget that the state of Texas is an enormous alumni base for Ark. Of course there is no guarantee that they could recreate that magic but it sure as hell aint happening in the SEC now. How sad the world of college athletics has become when you would choose mediocrity and great money over championship contention and good money?? I too don't think Ark. to the Big12 is likely but I don't think it is impossible. A lot of things would need to happen first and even then the chances would be slim. If I were the President and/or AD I would seriously be considering it.
That's the thing. The money in the SEC is definitely better and with expansion, it could double. If Arkansas doesn't go into the Big 12 and establish themselves as on the same level as OU and UT, they could lose money compared to what they are getting NOW in the SEC...not to mention what they could get in an expanded SEC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
Simple cost/benefit analysis says that there's NO way Arkansas should leave the SEC.
That's only because you are looking at it from a business only perspective based on current numbers and that you can't put a number on future winning. (yes I know college athletics is a business and that is sad) What if they do recreate that magic?? I think they would. And I think that would amount to A LOT of money. I just remember when they were in the SWC and you would look at the recruiting and in MBB the top-15 players in D/FW automatically had Arkansas in their top-3 if not at the top. In football almost all the blue chippers throughout the state had them in their top-5. It was amazing. When they had the SWC tournament in Dallas they would sell out the place and it would be 60% Arkansas fans and 40% fans from the entire rest of the conference. I remember going to TCU/Arkansas games where one whole side of the stadium was pig fans. Winning breeds that kind of following. Dominance in recruiting breeds that kind if winning and that kind of winning = Big $$$$$.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Again I agree it probably won't happen, I think they will be short sighted and not give it the consideration it deserves and they will continue to be not crappy but mediocre because of that.
BD13, I think you and I are the only 2 that get it. That's okay with me as long as the Arkansas top brass don't get it either. I'd rather hear these pig fans bragging about all the money they're making with their mediocre teams than bragging about all their championships they're winning with all those Texas recruits. The Big 12 can keep that opening for Tech in about 5 more years.
Arkansas will not leave the SEC even though they could compete and recruit better in the Big 12. This is especially true if Neb., Missouri and probably Colorado leaving the north division. The money is better in the SEC and the TV contract and coverage in general is better as well. And Frank Broyles, who called the SEC shot and still has a ton of stroke at ARK., hasn't passed away yet.
And have we actually factored this in yet per some of the posts above?
Big Ten TV revenue could double with expansion
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_r...with-expansion
Isn't he also the one keeping Tech off of the Arkansas schedule? For some reason I remember after those two close calls where the refs handed them the game something about him saying he's not scheduling us anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
As Bigdog13 said there is no gaurantee that they could recreate the magic of the old SWC days. I agree that they would compete better with recruits from Texas and Oklahoma and the like. I also agree that Arkansas should give serious consideration to leaving for the Big 12 if the opportunity presented itself. The money of the SEC is much more certain than Texas recruits and being more competitive in the Big 12.
I also think Texas or Oklahoma or whoever should seriously consider an offer to join the SEC if presented. Not saying they should take it but I think they should seriously consider it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
It wouldn't surprise me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
AMEN! GREAT Point. I agree with you. Johnny and company aren't considering what Arkansas could be if they were in the Big 12 and once again competing at top levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
Arkansas will never be more than just another "also ran" in the SEC because kids in Dallas and Texas just don't give a crap about the SEC. That hurts Arkansas' recruiting. Dallas isn't SEC country, and Arkansas has already lost untold millions because they can no longer recruit DFW area athletes effectively (and therefore they can't compete effectively).
HD
I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
If Texas moves to the SEC, even more so. The SEC will gain the huge Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston television markets as well as the fairly large sized Austin market. From a national viewpoint, who wouldn't want to watch a Texas-Florida, Texas-Alabama, Texas-Tennessee, Texas-Georgia, or a Texas-LSU game?
That's the ONLY way that Arkansas can stay in the SEC and compete effectively: They have to have the state of Texas and the DFW area turned into "SEC country".Quote:
Originally Posted by detltu
If TX, TX A&M, Okla & OSU joined the SEC, the state of Texas would suddenly become SEC country, and that could give Arkansas recruiting an enormous boost.
Of course, the "power base of the SEC would suddenly shift westward too.....so I'm not so sure the SEC wants to open that can of worms. The SEC has a very good thing going. Do the SEC gods really want to compete against a suddenly stronger Arkansas, as well as Texas, Oklahoma, OSU and Texas A&M? I think not.
HD
But y'alls reasons are full of contradictions. If Texas is such a big deal (not saying it isn't), then why would Missouri and Nebraska leave in the first place? Also, if arkansas wants to leave the SEC, then why would a Texas school want in only to be an "also ran"? On one hand you say Arkansas is stupid for staying for money, and on the other you say other schools want in for the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
I don't think Nebraska left for the money. They have always recruited Texas heavily and will continue to do so. I think they are tired of getting their brains beat out in the Big 12, but they can use money and academics as an excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by touchdown123
Nebraska and Mizzou are BOTH tired of what they view as an unfair revenue sharing structure. Nebraska doesn't like being second fiddle (or third...UT, OU, then Nebraska) and in the weak division.
You are exactly right. I will add that Nebraska's fate was doomed when it lost its annual rilvary with OU. Nebraska and Mizzouri are both better off in the Big X.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
With that said, that is why I don't see the Big XII south splitting. I think they have a great thing going with Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, OU and OSU. Baylor is only there to make it an even number. They will fill the north with whoever they want, and whoever they ordain will instantly have at least as much success as Missouri had.
I just don't see the Big XII south collapsing at all.
And if Colorado moves to the PAC as well? Seriously, who does the then BIG 9 then pick up to play in the north division with Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St? Talk about a sucky division of BCS teams. I think Texas, TA&M and OK would think long and hard about the SEC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
It would almost have to be reorganized as some sort of East-West model rather than North-South. To even things out.
With Louisiana Tech in the east division?Quote:
Originally Posted by domangue
:D
But they won't touch the south division no matter what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by domangue
Could it be that the MWC is hot and wet for Boise because they know TCU is gone back east to the BigXii once Nebraska & Mizzou bolt?
I just don't see the made for Tv 20 being sexy enough to drive the numbers on a new TV deal - especially considering that neither league has their own network like the SEC & Big10 does....
Remember it took both of those leagues 3/4 years to get into this position with their networks - you have to have those independent networks to drive the $$$$ - especially since Disney is already in bed with the two big breasted babes
Don't think the big twelve has much use for TCU. BYU maybe, but they have no need for another texas team.
They may not - it might be Utah or BYU...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
But they are hot and heavy for them for some reason outside of "hopefully" attaining AQ status automatically when all the number crunchers show it will not get them there
Very possible and a lot of truth in that post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Just another reason why Disney is the man!! :icon_wink:
Something on your mind, DfM? :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Mizzou denies newspaper request regarding correspondence with Big 10: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/st...big-ten-talks/
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
In the comment section....:laugh:
The latest news tonight.
Expansion looms over Big Ten meetings
By ANDREW SELIGMAN, AP Sports Writer
2 hours, 25 minutes ago
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-bigtenmeetings
+1. And this feeling has been growing since the conference was first formed and from day one they were mad about the real or percieved power that Texas has compared to them. Especially so when seeing where they sat in the old Big8.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
The first invite for refilling the Big 12 will go to Arkansas. As has been discussed on this and several other threads, who knows if they accept or not. Pluses on both sides for the UofA. I doubt they do ($$$$$$), but you never know. The second choice will be BYU. Third choice will be New Mexico. BYU and New Mexico bring in new markets and TV sets. Outside of those three, it is pretty much up in the air as to whom gets invited. TCU has the rep, but does not add anything in the way of $$$$. Plus, it might make it harder for the anybody not named Texas, A&M, or OU to recruit the DFW area if they are in the Big 12.
This could be exactly how it plays out if the Big 12 manages to lose three schools or less. Given what Texas Tech's chancellor said last week, it looks like the Big 12 wants to expand into new markets if it loses a few members. That would likely eliminate the Texas schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
I think Arkansas and BYU turn them down for different reasons. Arkansas will not leave the money and stability of the SEC and BYU appears unwilling to relent on its stance on not playing on Sundays, which will likely be a condition for the invitation.
New Mexico is a natural choice. It would give the league the Albuquerque TV market, which is bigger or as big a market than Memphis, Buffalo, New Orleans, and Oklahoma City. Also, if the Big 12 and Pac 10 partner for TV purposes, it gives them continuos coverage in the southwest US from California through Texas.
A TV partnership with the Pac 10 may eliminate Colorado State. Even if Colorado were to jump to the Pac 10, Colorado would still own the Denver TV market, and that market would be shared by the Big 12 in the partnership. The same holds true if Utah would be invited to the Pac 10. The new TV venture would have the Salt Lake City market with or without BYU.
There is one caveat to all of this, and that's the thought the Pac 10 and Big 12 might want to cut the MWC off at its knees and kill its drive to AQ status. That might open the door for TCU. TCU would not add much in the way of TV dollors, but it would, along with a Utah bid to the Pac 10, eliminate future competition from another AQ league in the same region of the country.
For the same reason, I think the Pac 10 would expand to 12, and the Big 12 would add schools to get back up to 12. There are a few open markets that give them value, and there are many political reasons for both conferences to do so.
Thought this was interesting (and yes, I know it's bleacher report...look at the points he makes, not the name on the top of the screen):
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...t-from-fiction
There are some very interesting thoughts in that article.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Makes me wonder if what is best for Tech is for Notre Dame to accept, UCF to be added as an all-sports member to the BE (puts them back at 18 for bball and 9 for football) and Tech take UCF's place in CUSA...with Memphis still in the league, I think we've got a leg up on MTSU and I honestly think they are our main competition if this goes down this summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Everything would be relatively stable for a few years and we could better position ourselves for higher consideration once things get moving again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Good article and better than average for Bleacher Report. More recent articles like this one make me wonder if we're looking at a less volitle situation than it initially appeared.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Knowing how hard we have been working CUSA, I feel better about our prospects of getting to move. I'm less worried CUSA will get decimated by wholesale changes and being a less attractive conference. I think the most likely candidates to leave CUSA are ECU to ACC and UCF to Big East. If that's all that happens, and we get in, I really like the remaining conference!
This horse has been beaten within an inch of its life, though. I'm ready for something to happen. Come on June!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenacious_dog
:icon_roll:Quote:
According to Forbes (or Fortune, can't remember which), there are. . .
He makes some good points, but if you want to be taken seriously (even on a message board) you've got to do better than that. He'd have been better off to just make his assertion and not cite anything. Who does he think he is, Hogdawg?
According to Wally Hall, sports editor of the Ark. Demozette, in today's paper, said that Arkansas will receive about 25 million this year from the SEC. Alabama and Florida will receive about 30 million. He believes the only conferences that will expand are the Big 10 and the Big East.
Johnny:Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
That's why the Big 10 expanding in phases and pulling at least one Big East school is important to Tech. If one slot opens in the Big East, it is also important to have one of the replacement schools be either UCF or ECU and not Memphis.
If Memphis is the replacement, there will be a lot of pressure by ECU, UCF, and Marshall to add another school in the east due to travel costs. If one of the other schools besides Memphis is the choice, the remaining schools in the east likely wouldn't be able to swing enough votes (more than 1) to keep the replacement school from coming from the west.
Eight of the remaining 11 members would be needed to add a school if it came to a vote. If ECU or UCF would leave, I think Tech would have at least 8 votes and maybe 9. We've turned some of our negatives into positives in the past seven years. Our TV numbers have debunked the market argument, our budget has grown dramatically, we've moved up a tier academically, and we've improved facilities with real plans for continued improvement.
It's a nitpick. You & I would have confirmed which was the source or we'd have left it out; he just didn't see it as being critical to the point he was making.Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
But you look at each of the items he discusses and he did a good job. Compared to a lot of expansion theories, his points are better thought, have better logic and make sense. I have seen so many shabby articles on BRpts that when I'm searching for info, I never look at their citings.
At the end of the day, all these expansion theories probably aren't worth the paper they're written on.....if you get what I mean. :icon_wink:
I certainly agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenacious_dog
But he does make some good points. And I kind of agree with his overall theme that:
1. People don't know what they're talking about.
2. This probably won't be as earthshattering as some seem to expect (overall).
But on that point in particular I think he's out to lunch. Basketball probably won't matter much at the top (because the AQ conferences max out their NCAA credits every year anyway) but it still means a lot at our level. And we all know that even if he had cited a study that showed "only X number of schools run in the black and they are all power football schools" that athletic department accounting is a strange beast. Duke's AD may not look like they turn a profit (depending on how you crunch the numbers), but they are worth having around in your conference.
Football on tv is driving this bus, but a strong overall athletic department (including national powerhouse basketball) will be more than just a tie-breaker (after a certain point).
Is there any truth to this at all? He seems to have something against the PAC10Quote:
Originally Posted by BleacherReport
That was definitely a well held secret if it happened. I didn't know Texas ever looked at a different conference during that time frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by odysseus
I think I read somewhere that the PAC 10 wanted Texas at one time, and it's not surprising that Texas wanted a&m to tag along. I'd just never heard that the PAC 10 lost interest due to a&m's "military leanings."Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
The liberal left coast. This is why they won't consider BYU.Quote:
Originally Posted by odysseus
Quote:
Originally Posted by odysseus
Hum.........The PAC/left coast is against anything/university strongly for or concerning God or the United States military. HummmmmmmmQuote:
Originally Posted by DONW
No this isn't true.Quote:
Originally Posted by odysseus
At the time Texas was being courted by the Pac10 and A&M was being courted by the SEC. Texas had no interest (at that time) in the SEC for academic reasons, A&M had no interest in the Pac10. A&M wasn't trying to get into the Pac10 they were all SEC or Big8. That was it. They both decided at that time that they should stick together and merge with the Big8 conference. And you know the rest how Baylor and T-Tech got in and so on.
Thanks for the clarification. So, it was all during the conference shake up during that time and was a different situation than was in the story. The story made it sound like they tried to recruit Texas in the last few years - while they were already in the B12. I just didn't remember anything like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
This morning on ESPN, Joe Schad was reporting live from the Big 10 meeting in Chicago. He said that they have confirmed that they will not vote on new members at their June 6 meeting, and that it seems as if they will stick with the 12-18 month timeline that has been mentioned.
He also said that Delaney (commish) seemed resigned to the fact that Notre Dame is not going to join the Big 10 during this round.
But, they are definitely not voting on expansion on June 6.
Well, that could halt everything. I was hoping that they would. If Boise leaves (they will), we will still be in the WAC without CUSA taking more members.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
I know for a fact that A&M was talking to the SEC and Texas was talking to the Pac10 at that time, if they spoke to them again afterwards (after the Big12 formed that is) it had to have been very secretive and wasn't publicized at all that I am aware of.Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
i would rather all of this shake down in 12-18 months than in the next 1-2 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
a winning season and a bowl win will only help us in our pitch to another conference. throw in the breaking of ground on the south endzone project, and we should have some very positive buzz in 12-18 mths.
Smoke screen to keep the media off their butt and trail. And to keep the PAC and Big 12 from doing their possible TV/Market sharing agreement soon as well. Who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by 1L_dawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
I read somewhere a few months ago that this has already been discussed in the Big 12 and it is not a problem for the conference. I don't think it had to do with BYU so much as to any school that did have a issue with it. Obviously, that would perhaps only apply to Baylor, but I don't think they care either.
UPDATE:
According to Delany, the Big 11 wants to go south!
"If the Big Ten decides to expand, commissioner Jim Delany said the league hopes to get some southern exposure. A few more eyes on the TV would be nice, too.
Delany said gaining a foothold in the South and extending the reach of the league's lucrative television network are the two biggest factors as it decides whether to grow."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...html?eref=sihp
Florida and Alabama to the Big 11????? Hahahahahah!
Virginia and N. Carolina would make sense geographically and academically.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
http://chronicle.com/article/As-AAU-...Tech-to/65200/
And Georgia Tech just became an AAU member. NC State is not a member but is pushing for membership.
"The AAU is the pre-eminent research-intensive membership group," says William R. (Randy) Woodson, North Carolina State's chancellor. "To be a part of that organization is something N.C. State aspires to."
Very interesting. Georgia Tech had all the qualifications of an AAU member decades ago but apparently never pursued membership until this year. Why now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
Maybe it'll be us :icon_wink:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...xpansion-plans
More from the Big 10 meetings. Dennis Dodd of CBS has a good point. Delany might have brought up the migration to the SunBelt not to expand in the South but to justify to his Presidents the need to add schools to the conference.
"I think that is reason by itself enough to look at the concept of expansion," Delany said. "I say it for the following reason: We've been blessed in many ways by the economy and density of the population in the 20th century. Our schools have benefitted by healthy economies, by strong job markets, by growth, by immigration. In the U.S. the population started off on the East Coast and moved to the Midwest. In the last 20 or 30 years, it's been a clear shift to movement into the Sun Belt. "
That can mean a couple of things in this increasingly mystifying expansion process. Texas -- located in one of those Sun Belt boom states -- could still be in play. Or, more likely, the Big Ten is intent on adding pure volume -- grabbing schools from Missouri, New York and New Jersey to address that drain. Or, as Delany keeps reminding us, do nothing at all.
After all the rhetoric, they will do nothing at all only if there is nothing at all they can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
The other day ESPN mentioned that the Big Ten is looking at Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
That wouldn't be so great for Tech... Boise will most likely be gone. And with all of these state budget cuts, we may drop back down a tier academically in USNWR, and I think that is one of our biggest assets right now. It also gives over programs an opportunity to improve their resumes as well. The sooner this happens, the better for Tech.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1L_dawg
His point is logical, but it doesn't make sense in the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
He is correct that the economy of the midwest is likely to be drastically different in the 21st century than it was in the 20th. But, that also means that their budgets might not be what they were. In that case, paying for non-revenue sports to travel from State College, PA to Austin, TX would be painful. The same is true for all other Big 10 schools.
I thought I saw a comment the other day that Big 10 ADs were concerned about covering travel costs. I could be confusing that with another conference, since there has been speculation about all of them lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
That would be a shocker if they were invited. Academically, they fit in very well, but neither is that much of a power in any sport. Wonder how the SEC would feel about it? On one hand, they lose a member, but on the other, arguably their weakest member... I think they might retaliate by taking the big four from the Big 12 and adding someone from the ACC.
I don't see why Vandy would leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
i see your point. however, IMO, the further we are from the Tech program that CUSA shunned a few short years ago, the better off we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Yeah, but the longer we wait, the more potent our competition will be. IMO, the sooner the better for Tech and cusa.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1L_dawg
Beating the snot out of USM is a good start.:)
1) Slightly more moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by champion110
2) Better academic fit
3) Easier competition
I'm not too sure about the first one, but if I were a Vandy fan I'd be all for going to the Big Ten. I just don't think the Big Ten would be very interested in them, since academics don't bring in big bucks.
I would think there would be more money in the SEC.Quote:
Originally Posted by odysseus
I agree that I don't think the B10 would be that interested in them.
Vandy actually does NOT have the lowest athletics budget in the SEC, which is what I would have suspected. I think they are the 2nd or 3rd lowest....I also seem to remember M State was below them.
*These numbers are a year old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Dawg
07-08 SEC Athletics Budgets
$123,769,841 - Alabama
$106,607,895 - Florida
$101,806,196 - Tennessee
$89,311,824 - Auburn
$85,554,395 - Georgia
$85,018,205 - LSU
$71,727,243 - Kentucky
$66,545,953 - South Carolina
$66,174,916 - Arkansas
$45,521,855 - Vanderbilt
$34,769,709 - Ole Miss
$30,440,090 - Mississippi State
07-08 Big Ten Athletics Budgets
$115,737,022 - Ohio State
$99,027,105 - Michigan
$95,118,124 - Wisconsin
$91,570,233 - Penn State
$81,515,865 - Iowa
$81,390,686 - Michigan State
$68,951,692 - Minnesota
$67,818,403 - Illinois
$64,253,784 - Purdue
$57,155,333 - Indiana
$41,835,733 - Northwestern
07-08 Big XII Athletics Budgets
$120,288,370 - Texas
$98,874,092 - Oklahoma State
$92,476,146 - Texas A&M
$82,976,047 - Kansas
$77,098,008 - Oklahoma
$75,492,884 - Nebraska
$55,566,932 - Missouri
$52,631,896 - Colorado
$52,599,785 - Texas Tech
$49,113,706 - Kansas State
$44,151,763 - Baylor
$38,621,346 - Iowa State
07-08 Big East Athletics Budgets
$83,352,439 - Notre Dame (non-football)
$56,540,896 - Louisville
$55,218,003 - Connecticut
$54,262,716 - West Virginia
$52,012,491 - Rutgers
$44,702,831 - Syracuse
$39,741,621 - Pittsburgh
$34,935,813 - South Florida
$32,281,546 - Cincinnati
07-08 ACC Athletics Budgets
$73,458,494 - Florida State
$67,820,335 - Duke
$66,148,186 - North Carolina
$64,412,343 - Virginia Tech
$64,396,612 - Virginia
$61,203,340 - Boston College
$59,624,100 - Maryland
$59,180,652 - Clemson
$54,511,968 - Georgia Tech
$46,849,990 - Miami
$45,632,223 - North Carolina State
$39,961,624 - Wake Forest
07-08 Pac-10 Athletics Budgets
$76,661,466 - Stanford
$76,409,919 - USC
$66,088,264 - UCLA
$64,326,057 - California
$60,729,016 - Washington
$56,623,901 - Oregon
$54,833,194 - Arizona State
$52,875,339 - Oregon State
$49,241,506 - Arizona
$39,621,060 - Washington State
Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
According to the lsutimes, the Big Ten gives each member school about $22 million which is double the payout for each school in the SEC.
Big Ten Conference Revenue 07-08Quote:
Originally Posted by oledawg66
$23,662,435 - Indiana
$22,753,996 - Purdue
$22,653,081 - Iowa
$21,743,701 - Illinois
$20,845,136 - Michigan State
$20,732,405 - Michigan
$20,152,945 - Wisconsin
$18,871,037 - Minnesota
$9,463,082 - Ohio State
N/A - Northwestern
N/A - Penn State
SEC Conference Revenue 07-08
$14,178,616 - LSU
$13,138,751 - Florida
$12,995,297 - Kentucky
$12,925,282 - Arkansas
$12,811,908 - Georgia
$12,246,757 - Auburn
$11,566,425 - South Carolina
$11,155,952 - Mississippi State
$10,864,745 - Ole Miss
$10,864,150 - Tennessee
$7,229,425 - Alabama
N/A - Vanderbilt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Much better than the lswhotimes! Where does Vandy fit??
I don't know. The private schools don't have to report it.Quote:
Originally Posted by oledawg66
Cincy sure gets some bang for their buck!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaz17
My thoughts exactly! The do more with less too.
That list of conference distributions doesn't include NCAA dists I think. So a higher level of competition in football and basketball would be a consideration. I think the big 10 does ok in that department.
Yes it does... It's conference and NCAA revenue..Quote:
Originally Posted by FishingBack
Article on the WAC 16 experiment and what it might mean for the Big 11/16:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...html?eref=sihp
Finally Benson says something smart:Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
Quote:
As the ratings came in during the first year of the 16-team league, it became obvious that just because TCU was in the conference didn't mean people in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex would tune in en masse. Ditto for Rice and the Houston market and San Jose State and the Bay Area market.
"Just because you have Houston in your market doesn't mean you can deliver Houston," Benson said. "One of the other keys to a large number of schools is how much they can deliver your population. ... We advertised that we had the Houston market, the Dallas market and the San Francisco market, and yet there was such minimum penetration."
That is where CUSA was misguided, as well - even after the WAC break up. They have gone after programs with large market areas, but that doesn't mean those programs can deliver those markets. Let's hope they learned their lesson on that.
TWSSQuote:
yet there was such minimum penetration
Oh, so many comments I can make about Benson with that..........:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Benson has never said anything smart. He didn't know how to sell it.Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
What he states about the market size and "penetration" is right on the money. That is what we have been saying for years. SMU can't deliver Dallas and Tulane can't deliver New Orleans. Sometimes, schools in smaller market areas can deliver a lot more due to lack of competition for that market.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
CUSA started out only going after metro schools. They don't get those markets, though, and it was a lesson that was learned by the WAC a long time ago.
UTSA is going to try to sell themselves as delivering S.A. - they can't.
Anyway, it was a smart thing to say - HOWEVER, he probably just heard it somewhere else. :D
Excellent post!!Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
The SEC has identified its six expansion targets:
http://www.mrsec.com/story/report-se...ible-expansion
There are also several other articles in this series as well (listed on the site).
This is a good one on how academics and politics relate to the possible expansion scenarios.
http://www.mrsec.com/story/expoundin...fore-specifics
That's definitely not any surprise, that's exactly what I predicted. They won't be able to get Texas and Texas A&M, so they'll take FSU, Miami, Ga. Tech, and Clemson. So, the ACC will pull 4 teams out of the Big East, and the Big East pulls 5-6 out of CUSA and the MAC.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
No not smart at all. If he had half a brain he'd know that TV Networks don't sell that way. They sell based on the number of TV's in the market, not the number that could possibly be interested enough to tune in. Advertisers buy based on this too. Both stations and advertisers look at past ratings, but it is well after the TV deal has been made with the conference.Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
Benson did well on the latest TV contract, but only because he was willing to whore out his beloved Boise and the rest of the WAC for multiple weekday games.
IMO, UTSA has no chance of claiming anything in San Antonio. Being that close to Austin, everyone will be UT fans. Being a Tulane fan and alum in New Orleans would mean more in south Louisiana with LSU being a hour away than being a UTSA fan/alum. Just think, if you aren't an UT fan or alum, there are a high percentage of A&M fans/alums out there.
If you think Tulane games look lonely inside the Superdome, UTSA games in the Alamodome will look totally deserted. If they stick to just playing on the Northwest Side in San Antonio on campus, at least some of the neighborhood people might go to the games. I don't think I've ever seen any sort of UTSA merchandise in any sports stores there. I also get the feeling that San Antonio isn't much of a sports town besides the Spurs. I say that, but Baseball Express' brick-and-mortar store is there (and it's heaven) and their affiliate of the Men's Amateur Baseball League is one of the best in the nation... I just don't get that it's a big spectator sport town, but I could be wrong. Does anyone know how well the people support the Missions and the Rampage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cactus Rob
I always thought that given the huge hispanic population that an MLS franchise would do very well there. I think soccer would be a big hit in SA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ktulu7
It is a HUGE Cowboys city and they heavily support them through merchandise sales and training camp. I see more Cowboy paraphenalia when I am in SA then I do here in Dallas. I don't see UTSA garnering a huge following though. Thats the heart of Aggie and Longhorn country right there and anything else is considered minor league.
I live 5 miles from the UTSA campus. I have been to three BB games there. One with the TECH men and 2 with the ladies. You could count the people in the stands by the low tens for each game. Their gym, and I really do mean gym not arena etc., will not hold that many people anyway. High school sports get good attendance mainly due to family and friends of the players. UTSA is definitely a commuter school with very little spirit. They don't even have there own message board. The Express News had an article last week where they were trying to form a band and color guard. The outcome of that effort could be an indicator of how their following will be. It is not just UT and aTm that are a problem but just about everyone else that belongs to the big 12. I'm surrounded by big 12 grads. I also wonder how UTSA will be able to afford the Alamo Dome if the crowds don't show up. The Alamo Dome runs a deficit every year and the city of SA is not going to let UTSA play there without paying their way. I don't think there will be any type of tail gate atmosphere there as the parking lot is simply a large asphalt slab in a section of town where that type of activity could be a problem. The river walk is connected via a tunnel under the interstate but that could get expensive for alum not to mention students. Most people in SA don't make a habit of visiting the river walk. UTSA would be better off using the high school stadium the next exit down on Loop 1604 which is housed in a very nice sports complex used by numerous north side high schools.
What did that Cowgirl statement have to do per this subject? :icon_roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
Whether the city itself supports sports teams, which was the direction the thread took re: UTSA. With a Louisiana Tech degree I would expect reading comprehension to be in your skill set. Again I'm ok that you are consumed with hate if you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
I mean really Bigdog13 :icon_roll:None of that matters to CUSA. They could care less if New Orleans supports and buys merchandise of the Saints, San Antonio supports or buys merchandise of the Cowgirls or UCF supports the Dolphins etc.... For that matter, is Mobil a great sports town or El Paso?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
Although the story has since been denied by SEC office, I have to agree with the author when he says this about Jimmy Hyams, who originally broke the story on his show last week.
"With that in mind, I want to make it clear that we have no problem reporting to you what Hyams reported on his own sportstalk show. Hyams has covered the SEC for three decades in both Louisiana and Tennessee. Knowing him, I would say it’s very, very unlikely that he would run with a story if he was not certain of its accuracy. In other words, he’s got a darn good source inside or close to CBS."
With that being said, if the SEC were to be turned down by Texas and Texas A&M and would then invite the four ACC schools, it would certainly do one thing - cripple ACC football in the southeast to a point where ESPN would insist on reopening negotiations with the league that ended last week. And it would shift some of the ESPN programming the ACC was able to carve out for itself back over to the SEC.
The ACC's surprising new TV deal, which was driven upward by a last-minute offer from News Corp, showed that both networks believe there is a national audience for not only ACC basketball but ACC football, as well.
By the same token, if the bulk of the ACC football power shifts to the SEC, that potential national audience shifts to the SEC, as well. It wouldn't be surprising if ESPN has already told the SEC it would be willing to pay for those four current ACC schools, whether they would stay in the ACC or not. That was not the conventional wisdom as recently as a week ago.
Florida State and Miami have had their struggles in recent years, but they still both garner a national TV audience. The SEC might already have a foothold in the Florida market, but those schools would add to the SEC per school TV payout, even in a 16-team setup. The ACC TV deal confirms that fact.
The SEC's real goal is the Texas schools. But it now has several reasons to expand to 16, even if the Longhorns and Aggies turn them down.