(02-22-2013 01:05 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 01:01 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:54 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  The BE will survive but the Sun Belt may not.

As long as we aren't adding them so be it..........

I say add Southern Miss as #12 or Tulsa and Southern Miss if Navy leaves.

There isn't anything else out there that interests me that is not already in an AQ or went back to the MWC.

BYU is never happening.

When all you have are crumbs, I'm not sure you divide those up to add another mouth to feed.

I wouldn't expect any more additions to the BE. Replacements yes, additions no.

If a title game+additional inventory can pay 370k per school and potentially save travel cost the expansion would pay for itself.

Assumptions:
22mm per year

2.2 per 10
1.83 per 12

Don't see it.

Not surprised at all....the Nbe is basically CUSA in every which way measured or calculated.

(02-22-2013 01:08 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 01:05 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 01:01 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:54 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  The BE will survive but the Sun Belt may not.

As long as we aren't adding them so be it..........

I say add Southern Miss as #12 or Tulsa and Southern Miss if Navy leaves.

There isn't anything else out there that interests me that is not already in an AQ or went back to the MWC.

BYU is never happening.

When all you have are crumbs, I'm not sure you divide those up to add another mouth to feed.

I wouldn't expect any more additions to the BE. Replacements yes, additions no.

If a title game+additional inventory can pay 370k per school and potentially save travel cost the expansion would pay for itself.

Assumptions:
22mm per year

2.2 per 10
1.83 per 12

I think this is why they said the Big East would push for a championship game with 10 teams. Save the money and also have the championship game. Their only help comes from the Big XII. Doubt it passes.

(02-22-2013 01:17 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Not surprised at all....the Nbe is basically CUSA in every which way measured or calculated.

I beg to differ sir the Big East is what CUSA was CUSA going forward isn't even CUSA 2012-2013

the NBE is basically the old CUSA.

similarly-
the new CUSA is basically the old Sun Belt Conference.

(02-22-2013 12:40 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Bottom line for Houston, if something happens here in the next month or two- and the BE dissolves- Houston will land on their feet in the MWC quickly.

This!!!!

I really would prefer the BE to survive since I don't like how the MWC would stall our programs growth and seriously happer our exposure. Having said that we have been invited numerous times (most recently last year) and the MWC wants back into Texas bad!!!!

If we want in the MWC we can get into the MWC. I just hope the BE survives.

How do you expect to convince the voting block of the front range schools to approve future expansion, that does not include BYU, which will cost them revenue by having to move Boise State to the West Division? How do you add 2 or even 4 and not move Boise out? It is pretty much been proven that the the UH/SMU adds will not significantly alter the per team payout, so why do they make a move that costs them money?

I have asked this question many many times to those who automatically assume that UH and SMU have an automatic landing spot in the MWC still and no one can give a reasonable answer..

(02-22-2013 01:37 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:40 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Bottom line for Houston, if something happens here in the next month or two- and the BE dissolves- Houston will land on their feet in the MWC quickly.

This!!!!

I really would prefer the BE to survive since I don't like how the MWC would stall our programs growth and seriously happer our exposure. Having said that we have been invited numerous times (most recently last year) and the MWC wants back into Texas bad!!!!

If we want in the MWC we can get into the MWC. I just hope the BE survives.

How do you expect to convince the voting block of the front range schools to approve future expansion, that does not include BYU, which will cost them revenue by having to move Boise State to the West Division? How do you add 2 or even 4 and not move Boise out? It is pretty much been proven that the the UH/SMU adds will not significantly alter the per team payout, so why do they make a move that costs them money?

I have asked this question many many times to those who automatically assume that UH and SMU have an automatic landing spot in the MWC still and no one can give a reasonable answer..

To be honest I don't have an answer but I know we have been invited numerous times including the most recent "shake up" and nothing has changed since then.

You can claim we don't bring value all you want but the MWC TV is not that big to begin with. We wouldn't have to add much of anything to pay for ourselves.

(02-22-2013 01:05 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  When all you have are crumbs, I'm not sure you divide those up to add another mouth to feed.

I wouldn't expect any more additions to the BE. Replacements yes, additions no.

The TV deal being discussed list a CCG as part of the package. Makes it sound at least, like the package being bid for was for a 12-team BE.

(02-22-2013 01:37 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:40 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Bottom line for Houston, if something happens here in the next month or two- and the BE dissolves- Houston will land on their feet in the MWC quickly.

This!!!!

I really would prefer the BE to survive since I don't like how the MWC would stall our programs growth and seriously happer our exposure. Having said that we have been invited numerous times (most recently last year) and the MWC wants back into Texas bad!!!!

If we want in the MWC we can get into the MWC. I just hope the BE survives.

How do you expect to convince the voting block of the front range schools to approve future expansion, that does not include BYU, which will cost them revenue by having to move Boise State to the West Division? How do you add 2 or even 4 and not move Boise out? It is pretty much been proven that the the UH/SMU adds will not significantly alter the per team payout, so why do they make a move that costs them money?

I have asked this question many many times to those who automatically assume that UH and SMU have an automatic landing spot in the MWC still and no one can give a reasonable answer..

Well they offered them once and were turned down. Thats obviously a rumor and I'm sure you'll claim "link" or "source" but that is all we have on MB's and there was a lot of smoke to it (in other words, as far as rumors have gone on here over the past 6 months, I considered it pretty sound). It wasn't that long ago that the MWC-16 rumors were THE rumor. This isn't some new idea guys, its been on the table before. SMU/UH told them they wanted to stay east and they haven't been able to get BYU to budge.

(02-22-2013 01:37 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:40 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Bottom line for Houston, if something happens here in the next month or two- and the BE dissolves- Houston will land on their feet in the MWC quickly.

This!!!!

I really would prefer the BE to survive since I don't like how the MWC would stall our programs growth and seriously happer our exposure. Having said that we have been invited numerous times (most recently last year) and the MWC wants back into Texas bad!!!!

If we want in the MWC we can get into the MWC. I just hope the BE survives.

How do you expect to convince the voting block of the front range schools to approve future expansion, that does not include BYU, which will cost them revenue by having to move Boise State to the West Division? How do you add 2 or even 4 and not move Boise out? It is pretty much been proven that the the UH/SMU adds will not significantly alter the per team payout, so why do they make a move that costs them money?

I have asked this question many many times to those who automatically assume that UH and SMU have an automatic landing spot in the MWC still and no one can give a reasonable answer..

I don't know if the theory is valid, but the operating theory of most conferences is to move into heavily populated areas, for TV purposes, for athletic recruiting and for recruiting out-of-state tuition-paying students.

That's why the MWC would want Dallas and Houston--I mean SMU and UH.

I don't know if the theory is actually valid, but it's the theory that's been powering conference affiliation for the conferences who aren't in the cable TV business. We hear from Saint Louis University people that they're in the A-10 partially to develop/maintain an east coast presence, from UH people that they want to be in an eastern conference for an eastern time-zone presence, it's why the CAA has/had teams from Atlanta to Boston or so.

Is there any mumbling out of the Navy camp? Are they going to back out or in the new system is independence worse?

(02-22-2013 12:09 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:04 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:02 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The hyperbole is something else. CUSA DREAMS of making 2 million a year. just dreams of that.

You have a football team? And I'm not referring to flag-football at Gtown on campus lawns.

Enjoy your reduction in per team money now that you have 2 more mouths with no more money. <1 Million a year now for you guys. Going to be getting 1 NCAA team per year (with a 13-14 seed so little/no chance for winning) so little NCAA hoops money. Have fun with that.

I don't know about that. It wouldn't surprise me, at all, if CUSA got a new deal in 2015 that paid each member something comparable to or better than what the BE was just offerred. Thay have some new schools with tremendous potential and who reside in major markets. I wouldn't scoff. If UH can't get in the MWC, I would only hope that our leaders would return to their senses and rejoin CUSA. If we've learned anything from all this, it's that no one among the G5 is better off than anyone else. With that being the case, I'd like to see us make peanuts playing our regional rivals than make peanuts playing eastern teams I really don't care about. UConn, Cincinatti, USF, Temple, UCF, UMass? Garbage.

a few things-
1- CUSA does not have the basketball chops at all vs the NBE.
2- CUSA does have several schools that were FCS 2 years ago(or not at all).
3- not a chance in the world UMass gets in. Tulsa likely does(another regional rival).
4- It's actually the 2016-17 season for the new deal. So 3 more years under the old contract. It may go up a smidge, but not to BE level(that would require the deal to be doubled just about).

The nBE contract after 6 years of inflation fell from 3.5 million per team to less than 2 million a team (assuming 12 teams and the numbers out there are correct). Contracts can go down if the league is deemed to have fallen a notch in prestige. Will this dynamic plague CUSA? Cant say for sure, but it would be silly to say its impossible. The only other league that has suffered as much as the BE might would be CUSA. If Tulsa leaves, the only thing close to a "brand" name remaining in CUSA would be S Miss.

(02-22-2013 03:10 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  Is there any mumbling out of the Navy camp? Are they going to back out or in the new system is independence worse?

I think it is worse in my opinion but that will have to be hashed out once we are actually in the system.

The one thing that will be a problem for Independents is scheudling if the leagues continue to grow.

There will be a smaller OCC inventory available to schools not in a conference.

(02-22-2013 03:19 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  The one thing that will be a problem for Independents is scheudling if the leagues continue to grow.

Leagues are growing in size, but the number of indy football teams has grown by three in the past few years (BYU, Idaho, NMSU). There are 6 indies in the 2013 season.

IMO if the number of indy football teams in FBS grows to a critical mass of 8 or more, than football scheduling won't be a huge concern for them. Bowl access might still be an issue for indies other than ND, BYU, and the academies.

(02-22-2013 12:02 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:00 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:54 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  What a cluster this has become. No wonder West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and Rutgers wanted out. TV markets don't mean crap unless people care in those markets.

The BE needs more schools like ECU who put 50K in the stands for podunk U instead of worrying about TV markets.

50K ... like North Texas?

Tech can't even put 50,000 in the stands

We averaged 57K last season with a crappy coach which was 29th in the nation.

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2012/Internet/a...NDANCE.pdf

(02-22-2013 12:08 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:54 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  What a cluster this has become. No wonder West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and Rutgers wanted out. TV markets don't mean crap unless people care in those markets.

The BE needs more schools like ECU who put 50K in the stands for podunk U instead of worrying about TV markets.

Yeah, TTU really brings in the ratings for the networks. You are lucky enough to be in a conference that is wanted by the networks, but do not kid yourself, you are not the breadwinner.

Yeah actually we do quite well on TV networks.

http://lubbockonline.com/sports-red-raid...SfV9GfviSo

Quote:Hance said he thought the most nervous time for Tech was last year. To build the Red Raiders’ case as storm clouds swirled, the university hired a Denver firm to determine where Tech’s three-year average television ratings ranked within the Big 12 geographic area. Hance said the firm reported that Tech football had the second-highest television ratings in Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Waco/Temple/Bryan, Ames, Iowa, and Columbia-Jefferson City, Mo. The Red Raiders were the third most popular TV team over a three-year period in Houston, San Antonio and St. Louis, he said, and fourth most popular in Tulsa, Okla.

“The reason I hired and spent the money on this firm is I wanted to dismiss the myth that we’re a regional school or regional market,” Hance said. “We have a national following. We have a state following.

(02-22-2013 03:36 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:08 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:54 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  What a cluster this has become. No wonder West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and Rutgers wanted out. TV markets don't mean crap unless people care in those markets.

The BE needs more schools like ECU who put 50K in the stands for podunk U instead of worrying about TV markets.

Yeah, TTU really brings in the ratings for the networks. You are lucky enough to be in a conference that is wanted by the networks, but do not kid yourself, you are not the breadwinner.

Yeah actually we do quite well on TV networks.

http://lubbockonline.com/sports-red-raid...SfV9GfviSo

Quote:Hance said he thought the most nervous time for Tech was last year. To build the Red Raiders’ case as storm clouds swirled, the university hired a Denver firm to determine where Tech’s three-year average television ratings ranked within the Big 12 geographic area. Hance said the firm reported that Tech football had the second-highest television ratings in Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Waco/Temple/Bryan, Ames, Iowa, and Columbia-Jefferson City, Mo. The Red Raiders were the third most popular TV team over a three-year period in Houston, San Antonio and St. Louis, he said, and fourth most popular in Tulsa, Okla.

“The reason I hired and spent the money on this firm is I wanted to dismiss the myth that we’re a regional school or regional market,” Hance said. “We have a national following. We have a state following.

Tech has pull and I am not disputing that. With that said the 3 year period for that study (2008, 2009, 2010) is probably the most media attention Tech as ever had in a 3 year span.

2008 team in FB that had huge broadcasts vs UT, OSU, OU, and the Cotton Bowl
2009 with big game at UT. the late saturday upset at UH, and the leach firing fiasco spiking the bowl #s.
2010 was more typical but benefitted from a Labor Day game and another big early UT game.

I would be interested to see how the other years before and since compare to that. You've gotta think that's TTU's high water mark ratings wise in terms of 3 year increments.

(02-22-2013 03:46 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 03:36 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:08 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:54 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  What a cluster this has become. No wonder West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and Rutgers wanted out. TV markets don't mean crap unless people care in those markets.

The BE needs more schools like ECU who put 50K in the stands for podunk U instead of worrying about TV markets.

Yeah, TTU really brings in the ratings for the networks. You are lucky enough to be in a conference that is wanted by the networks, but do not kid yourself, you are not the breadwinner.

Yeah actually we do quite well on TV networks.

http://lubbockonline.com/sports-red-raid...SfV9GfviSo

Quote:Hance said he thought the most nervous time for Tech was last year. To build the Red Raiders’ case as storm clouds swirled, the university hired a Denver firm to determine where Tech’s three-year average television ratings ranked within the Big 12 geographic area. Hance said the firm reported that Tech football had the second-highest television ratings in Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Waco/Temple/Bryan, Ames, Iowa, and Columbia-Jefferson City, Mo. The Red Raiders were the third most popular TV team over a three-year period in Houston, San Antonio and St. Louis, he said, and fourth most popular in Tulsa, Okla.

“The reason I hired and spent the money on this firm is I wanted to dismiss the myth that we’re a regional school or regional market,” Hance said. “We have a national following. We have a state following.

Tech has pull and I am not disputing that. With that said the 3 year period for that study (2008, 2009, 2010) is probably the most media attention Tech as ever had in a 3 year span.

2008 team in FB that had huge broadcasts vs UT, OSU, OU, and the Cotton Bowl
2009 with big game at UT. the late saturday upset at UH, and the leach firing fiasco spiking the bowl #s.
2010 was more typical but benefitted from a Labor Day game and another big early UT game.

I would be interested to see how the other years before and since compare to that. You've gotta think that's TTU's high water mark ratings wise in terms of 3 year increments.

We did pretty well the past 2 years according to the Houston Chronicle. Now that tuberfail is gone, Kliff will raise the level of excitement around the football program.

(02-22-2013 03:46 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 03:36 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:08 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:54 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  What a cluster this has become. No wonder West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and Rutgers wanted out. TV markets don't mean crap unless people care in those markets.

The BE needs more schools like ECU who put 50K in the stands for podunk U instead of worrying about TV markets.

Yeah, TTU really brings in the ratings for the networks. You are lucky enough to be in a conference that is wanted by the networks, but do not kid yourself, you are not the breadwinner.

Yeah actually we do quite well on TV networks.

http://lubbockonline.com/sports-red-raid...SfV9GfviSo

Quote:Hance said he thought the most nervous time for Tech was last year. To build the Red Raiders’ case as storm clouds swirled, the university hired a Denver firm to determine where Tech’s three-year average television ratings ranked within the Big 12 geographic area. Hance said the firm reported that Tech football had the second-highest television ratings in Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Waco/Temple/Bryan, Ames, Iowa, and Columbia-Jefferson City, Mo. The Red Raiders were the third most popular TV team over a three-year period in Houston, San Antonio and St. Louis, he said, and fourth most popular in Tulsa, Okla.

“The reason I hired and spent the money on this firm is I wanted to dismiss the myth that we’re a regional school or regional market,” Hance said. “We have a national following. We have a state following.

Tech has pull and I am not disputing that. With that said the 3 year period for that study (2008, 2009, 2010) is probably the most media attention Tech as ever had in a 3 year span.

2008 team in FB that had huge broadcasts vs UT, OSU, OU, and the Cotton Bowl
2009 with big game at UT. the late saturday upset at UH, and the leach firing fiasco spiking the bowl #s.
2010 was more typical but benefitted from a Labor Day game and another big early UT game.

I would be interested to see how the other years before and since compare to that. You've gotta think that's TTU's high water mark ratings wise in terms of 3 year increments.

Texas Tech's shadow is long and dark over the TV college football landscape . . . it has consistently established itself as one of the highest-rated college football programs, despite playing in horrible TV markets like Ames, Iowa; Manhattan, Kansas; Lawrence, Kansas; Stillwater, OK; Waco, Tx.; College Station, Tx.; and Austin, Tx..

Despite their small-market opponents, game after game, and year after year, 55,000-plus screaming Tech fans have traveled great distances to watch their beloved Red Raiders . . . can you only image what these Red Raider could do if they were in a real conference, competing against marque opponents like Marshall, UAB, UTEP, Southern Miss, etc. . . . why, the bump in competition alone would push them over 80,000 fans!

. . . no, guns up my friend . . . no question that Texas Tech is a giant in the college football landscape despite being severely handicapped playing in the Big XII . . .