(05-26-2012 10:30 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 10:21 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Hawaii, Utah, TCU and Boise State have all proven within the last decade that schools having comparatively low budgets and belonging to lower-rung conferences are capable of great success in football. Every football member of the new Big East (regardless of any possible defections) will enjoy considerably more money and exposure as well as improved perceptions than those schools ever had. We have a foundation for building a great football conference in the near future and that is what is important. The fact that Texas, with their $140 million budget, did not accomplish much in football (or basketball) last year shows that money, while important, isn't everything in the quest for glory.

Good point...as for most non-BCS AQ and even some of the lower revenue producing BCS AQ schools...spending your few sacred $$$$ efficiently can pay-off.

Heck...believe the team with the lowest (or 2nd lowest) overall sports budgets in CUSA is Southern Miss...yet they still produce good results, even with so few $$$$.

This is also true.

FORGET head coach Mack Brown's salary. The combined salaries of the 3 Texas Coordinators is over THREE MILLION DOLLARS, more than most head-coaches are getting.

...is that delivering the conference title? So far, hasn't appeared-to.

I wrote about this on my blog recently. I think if the Big East can somehow hold on long enough, and the ACC is decimated by the Big XII, SEC, and Big Ten, it could get back Cuse, Pitt, BC, and maybe even Miami. If that were to happen, I would be pretty sure Louisville would be very happy in the Big East for a long time.

(05-26-2012 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 09:34 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 07:33 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I understand what you are saying,but the reality specially for schools like we have in our league access to those BCS dollars and tv money is huge. USF just spent a ton of money in needed facilities upgraded don't think that would have happened without the extra cash the BCS AQ and tv money brought in. If the new tv contract makes 4-5 million more a year available it would be huge for our athletics department.
We have already seen this year huge payback from those facilities from record crowds showing up to baseball,softball and soccer games to NCAA runs in all three sports. That success can translate ino more support fan wise and ticket wise. But it would be much tougher without the money to help get good coaches and giving them the tools to compete

Sadly, our ticket sales revenue has been relatively flat the last few years. It was $4.2m in 2006, peaked at $6.7m in 2008, but was down to $5.8m last year.

In contrast, student fees, which should be ZERO percent of an athletic budget, have reason from $10m in 2006 to $15m this year. That has to change. Fully 37% of our Athletic budget are student fees. We need to built real fan support at USF. It has clearly plateaued.

Well unfortunately, bad economic conditions in our state as well as struggles on the field have hurt ticket sales. We add larger student body so that has increased the amount from student fees. Unless alumni such as yourself are willing to donate more and buy season ickets then we will remain dependent on those fees.

Personally, i favor abolishing the student fees, no matter what impact it has on our athletic budget. Athletics should be making money and subsidizing academics, never vice-versa. The current situation is ridiculous.

Agree.

The TV money as a % of athletics revenue is one thing to note, but that "Institutional subsidy / Student Fees" as a % of athletics revenue shows a disturbing trend at many schools. If you can't sell tickets in your market, don't have donor money to make it go, is your school now playing 'pharaoh,' and building their pyramid on the backs of student 'slaves' via fees? Is that justifiable?

I'm SHOCKED that this topic was barely touched-upon in that "Ban College Football" open-forum debate w/ Bissinger and the rest.

(05-26-2012 11:13 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 10:05 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Correct,quo I guess you have missed the main reason FSU to Big12 is so popular and is all about money and the Noles losing close to 3 million last year. UM has been hit ard themselves so to say that We are only ones is just being naive. USF whose ticket fan base is younger than established programs has been hit harder.

FSU to the Big 12 makes sense because the cultural-geographical issue i raised doesn't apply to them. Yes, FSU has no rivalries or connections with the Big 12 schools, BUT, it also has never had them with the ACC schools either, so fans are not any more or less likely to want to come see games vs Big 12 or ACC schools, so it makes sense for them to just follow the media dollars.

That's total BS if the ACC was making as much money as the Big12 FSU would not be thinking about making the move. Plain and simple.

What is BS about it? If the ACC was making as much money as the Big 12 OF COURSE FSU would not be thinking about making the move, because there would be no reason to.

(05-26-2012 12:07 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 06:55 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I don't know why you keep comparing the Big East to SEC schools like Alabama. The reality is that schools like Bama are the exception in college sports not the norm.
Most schools rely on tv revenues, heck even in the SEC you have schools like Vandy that would be nothing without the tv revenue. Most of the BE schools are just developing those fan bases that SEC schools have had years to develop many without any competition.

Noted.

You don't compare a school like Bama, who has ridiculous sports-donor money flying-around, and SELLS TICKETS for $25/head for their spring-game and gets 77k attendande to a random Big East school.

Here was the point of the comparison: Someone said that media TV dollars were the most important thing in building an athletic program. I just noted that this is not true, and used Alabama as an example to contrast with Big East schools. That's all my "comparison" was about and it made the point perfectly.

(05-26-2012 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 12:07 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 06:55 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I don't know why you keep comparing the Big East to SEC schools like Alabama. The reality is that schools like Bama are the exception in college sports not the norm.
Most schools rely on tv revenues, heck even in the SEC you have schools like Vandy that would be nothing without the tv revenue. Most of the BE schools are just developing those fan bases that SEC schools have had years to develop many without any competition.

Noted.

You don't compare a school like Bama, who has ridiculous sports-donor money flying-around, and SELLS TICKETS for $25/head for their spring-game and gets 77k attendande to a random Big East school.

Like Cuban, you missed the point of the comparison. Someone said that media TV dollars were the most important thing in building an athletic program. I just noted that this is not true, and used Alabama as an example to contrast with Big East schools. That's all my "comparison" was about and it made the point perfectly.

LOL. And as usual you pick and choose on what to base your points on. As I stated on my post most of the posters on this board including myself explained our point perfectly. If you fail to understand that then that's your loss.

(05-26-2012 12:55 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 12:07 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 06:55 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I don't know why you keep comparing the Big East to SEC schools like Alabama. The reality is that schools like Bama are the exception in college sports not the norm.
Most schools rely on tv revenues, heck even in the SEC you have schools like Vandy that would be nothing without the tv revenue. Most of the BE schools are just developing those fan bases that SEC schools have had years to develop many without any competition.

Noted.

You don't compare a school like Bama, who has ridiculous sports-donor money flying-around, and SELLS TICKETS for $25/head for their spring-game and gets 77k attendande to a random Big East school.

Like Cuban, you missed the point of the comparison. Someone said that media TV dollars were the most important thing in building an athletic program. I just noted that this is not true, and used Alabama as an example to contrast with Big East schools. That's all my "comparison" was about and it made the point perfectly.

LOL. And as usual you pick and choose on what to base your points on. As I stated on my post mosto of the posters on this board including myself explained our point perfectly. If you fail to understand that then that's your loss.

The other poster did explain their point perfectly, they just happened to be wrong, so i gave an example using Alabama to explain why. Apparently, that whooshed way over your head, but since i pitched it at a level appropriate for this forum, thats not my problem.

(05-26-2012 01:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 12:55 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 12:07 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 06:55 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I don't know why you keep comparing the Big East to SEC schools like Alabama. The reality is that schools like Bama are the exception in college sports not the norm.
Most schools rely on tv revenues, heck even in the SEC you have schools like Vandy that would be nothing without the tv revenue. Most of the BE schools are just developing those fan bases that SEC schools have had years to develop many without any competition.

Noted.

You don't compare a school like Bama, who has ridiculous sports-donor money flying-around, and SELLS TICKETS for $25/head for their spring-game and gets 77k attendande to a random Big East school.

Like Cuban, you missed the point of the comparison. Someone said that media TV dollars were the most important thing in building an athletic program. I just noted that this is not true, and used Alabama as an example to contrast with Big East schools. That's all my "comparison" was about and it made the point perfectly.

LOL. And as usual you pick and choose on what to base your points on. As I stated on my post mosto of the posters on this board including myself explained our point perfectly. If you fail to understand that then that's your loss.

The other poster did explain their point perfectly, they just happened to be wrong, so i gave an example using Alabama to explain why. Apparently, that whooshed way over your head, but since i pitched it at a level appropriate for this forum, thats not my problem.

LOL. Sure buddy whatever floats your boat.

(05-25-2012 08:57 PM)Bull Wrote:  If we get a good TV deal, and there is every indication we will, then that fact would/could/should change with respect to the ACC.

The Big East will not get a TV deal that would keep members from jumping to another conference.
CJ

(05-26-2012 11:53 AM)justinslot Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 11:21 AM)Fireman451 Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 11:17 AM)CougarTruth Wrote:  We UH fans have seen similar doomsday predictions in 96 when the SWC broke apart. We've been to "the end of the world". This ain't it.

My thoughts exactly. It's entertaining and a little exciting to see how things will shake out.

Being left out sucks, this is not the same experience at all and whatever the nBE will look like, I assure you it is a million times better than the creation of CUSA - I hated that.

What did you not like about it? Just curious...I always think the name was dreadful, and they should have stuck with the Metro name since it had a bit of history.

As a Houston fan, I always felt the remaining members made a mistake by not rebuilding the SWC. The remaining schools were all in metro markets and would have been excellent fits for CUSA. If they had simply stuck together, and brought in the schools that formed CUSA, along with say Tulsa--they could have rebuilt the conference under the Southwest Conference umbrella. They would have had much greater brand recognition, better immediate public perception, and would have had (at least for a while) a football tie-in with the Cotton Bowl.

To me, that would have been a much better start than generating a conference from scratch. I think this would have given CUSA a 10 year head start in thier development.

(05-26-2012 01:26 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 08:57 PM)Bull Wrote:  If we get a good TV deal, and there is every indication we will, then that fact would/could/should change with respect to the ACC.

The Big East will not get a TV deal that would keep members from jumping to another conference.
CJ

Agree. And even if they did, the playoff format will be decided in June. So, any conference jumping will heat up way before the BE gets a real idea of what its next TV deal will look like, which likely won't happen until November.

(05-26-2012 01:26 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 08:57 PM)Bull Wrote:  If we get a good TV deal, and there is every indication we will, then that fact would/could/should change with respect to the ACC.

The Big East will not get a TV deal that would keep members from jumping to another conference.
CJ

with the present alignment the big east will get a soilid tv contract, as long as we all stay together. it will be equal to or better than what the acc has .................

(05-26-2012 01:37 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 11:53 AM)justinslot Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 11:21 AM)Fireman451 Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 11:17 AM)CougarTruth Wrote:  We UH fans have seen similar doomsday predictions in 96 when the SWC broke apart. We've been to "the end of the world". This ain't it.

My thoughts exactly. It's entertaining and a little exciting to see how things will shake out.

Being left out sucks, this is not the same experience at all and whatever the nBE will look like, I assure you it is a million times better than the creation of CUSA - I hated that.

What did you not like about it? Just curious...I always think the name was dreadful, and they should have stuck with the Metro name since it had a bit of history.

As a Houston fan, I always felt the remaining members made a mistake by not rebuilding the SWC. The remaining schools were all in metro markets and would have been excellent fits for CUSA. If they had simply stuck together, and brought in the schools that formed CUSA, along with say Tulsa--they could have rebuilt the conference under the Southwest Conference umbrella. They would have had much greater brand recognition, better immediate public perception, and would have had (at least for a while) a football tie-in with the Cotton Bowl.

To me, that would have been a much better start than generating a conference from scratch. I think this would have given CUSA a 10 year head start in thier development.

In hindsight, you are probably correct.

Houston was caught off guard by the Baylor incursion into the Big 12 instead of Houston, and viewed it as a political maneuver at their expense.

Anxious to prove we were somehow better than the remaining private schools from Texas that went to the WAC (TCU, SMU, Rice) we rationalized C-USA as a better option, partially because of Houston's rich basketball tradition (at least at that time fresh off of 3 final fours in previous decade) and the clearly superior mix of basketball schools (many are now Big East and Atlantic 10 stalwarts in round ball) that formed C-USA at that time. Many pundits saw that original C-USA basketball lineup as one of the nation's best basketball conferences.

The basketball assumption proved wrong as it also broke apart. The WAC football ended up imploding with MWC formation. Hence an SWC option may have been far better.