@ S11 and BaylorGuy314

No disrespect to Baylor and its fans intended. I only used the school that you both root for (it was convenient to do so since you both root for the same school) to illustrate that most of the schools in the B12 are getting overpaid because of TX and OU…. I agree that the same point can be made with any power conference, so don’t take my posts as a personal attack on both of you or the school. Baylor has come a long way in sports; especially football. To that, much respect to the school and the fans of it....

(07-16-2013 12:00 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 11:55 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 11:43 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Yes I did, so feel free to answer point 6 in my above post....

How much is your school worth playing in the AAC?

As a so called "little brother" of Texas, we make more on our Tier 3 TV rights than the AAC schools make on their Tier 1/2 TV rights. Capitalism at its finest.

AAC schools are getting about $2 mil, so we are underpaid.... BIG TIME.... LOL However, replace TT with any of our two TX schools and TT would also get $2 mil a year in the AAC, which is basically my point about any school in the B12 other than TX and OU.

Wrong, the AAC isn't underpaid. They are paid according to what TV execs and advertisers feel they are worth. With the exception of ECU, the AAC is made up of schools with virtually no fan base.

UT and OU have no say in our Tier 3 worth which is still more than what AAC schools get for their Tier 1 rights. Unlike SMU and UH, Tech would definitely increase the AAC TV contract because of our ability to deliver TV sets in a state with 26mm people. Would we make us as much as we do in the Big 12? No but we would definitely increase the 2mm AAC schools receive simply because of our size and following.

(07-16-2013 12:13 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:00 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 11:55 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 11:43 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Yes I did, so feel free to answer point 6 in my above post....

How much is your school worth playing in the AAC?

As a so called "little brother" of Texas, we make more on our Tier 3 TV rights than the AAC schools make on their Tier 1/2 TV rights. Capitalism at its finest.

AAC schools are getting about $2 mil, so we are underpaid.... BIG TIME.... LOL However, replace TT with any of our two TX schools and TT would also get $2 mil a year in the AAC, which is basically my point about any school in the B12 other than TX and OU.

Wrong, the AAC isn't underpaid. They are paid according to what TV execs and advertisers feel they are worth. With the exception of ECU, the AAC is made up of schools with virtually no fan base.

UT and OU have no say in our Tier 3 worth which is still more than what AAC schools get for their Tier 1 rights. Unlike SMU and UH, Tech would definitely increase the AAC TV contract because of our ability to deliver TV sets in a state with 26mm people. Would we make us as much as we do in the Big 12? No but we would definitely increase the 2mm AAC schools receive simply because of our size and following.

TX and OU do have a say in your Tier 3 worth: Without both schools, your Tier 3 is worthless. You must be posting about "Fantasy Football" if you think TT's small market and decent football would add value to the AAC. However, there is no disputing what TT makes now, which is all that matters. No hate here because your school is getting overpaid more $$$ than almost the entire AAC combined.... With that said, UCONN bball is worth more than TT fball in the right conference because it's a national brand; TT isn't in fball. Consequently, the AAC was underpaid... BIG TIME—period.

(07-16-2013 09:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC is the most underpaid league in college football!

No, that would be the AAC.

(07-16-2013 12:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:13 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:00 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 11:55 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 11:43 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Yes I did, so feel free to answer point 6 in my above post....

How much is your school worth playing in the AAC?

As a so called "little brother" of Texas, we make more on our Tier 3 TV rights than the AAC schools make on their Tier 1/2 TV rights. Capitalism at its finest.

AAC schools are getting about $2 mil, so we are underpaid.... BIG TIME.... LOL However, replace TT with any of our two TX schools and TT would also get $2 mil a year in the AAC, which is basically my point about any school in the B12 other than TX and OU.

Wrong, the AAC isn't underpaid. They are paid according to what TV execs and advertisers feel they are worth. With the exception of ECU, the AAC is made up of schools with virtually no fan base.

UT and OU have no say in our Tier 3 worth which is still more than what AAC schools get for their Tier 1 rights. Unlike SMU and UH, Tech would definitely increase the AAC TV contract because of our ability to deliver TV sets in a state with 26mm people. Would we make us as much as we do in the Big 12? No but we would definitely increase the 2mm AAC schools receive simply because of our size and following.

TX and OU do have a say in your Tier 3 worth: Without both schools, your Tier 3 is worthless. You must be posting about "Fantasy Football" if you think TT's small market and decent football would add value to the AAC. However, there is no disputing what TT makes now, which is all that matters. No hate here because your school is getting overpaid more $$$ than almost the entire AAC combined.... With that said, UCONN bball is worth more than TT fball in the right conference because it's a national brand; TT isn't in fball. Consequently, the AAC was underpaid... BIG TIME—period.

No one cares about the Lubbock TV market just like they don't care about the Tuscaloosa, Auburn and College Station TV markets. TV execs look at the big picture and see what schools like Tech can deliver in a state with 26mm residents. As for UConn BBall, who gives a crap? Realignment and TV contracts are largely based on football and that is what drives the bus. That being said, if Tech were relegated to the AAC, your TV contract would increase dramatically based on the fact we actually deliver TV sets in the state of Texas.

Until the AAC gets a big name school in football that can put 60K in the stands and deliver a state the size of Texas, you are paid exactly what you are worth.

(07-16-2013 11:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:51 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:26 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The real question is whether Texas is overpaid. The money is to keep Texas in the B12.

Texas committed to the Big 12 before ESPN won the LHN contract. OU is getting $7 million from Fox for their Tier 3. Texas, in a much bigger state and with twice the number of students, makes sense getting twice as much.

If you look at recent ratings (which is what matters), the ACC and Pac 12 are vastly overpaid. The SEC is underpaid. The Big 10 and Big 12 are about right.

WHOA! The ACC overpaid? Are you kidding me? If it was paid fairly it would be way out in front of both the Pac-12 AND the Big XII. The ACC is the most underpaid league in college football!

Some posters just have ACC tourette's - they can't help themselves - they're psychologically hardwired to emote negative things about the ACC regardless of any facts to the contrary - expect an epidemic of this now that the Big East is no more.

ACC fans on this board are just delusional. It doesn't matter how many people are in your market. It matters how many people watch. If it was all about markets the pecking order would be:
1) Big 10
2) CUSA
3) AAC

Look at the actual average TV ratings for football last year (posted on this board a few months ago).
1. SEC far ahead
2. Big 10
3. Big 12 just behind B10 and comfortably ahead of Pac 12
4. Pac 12
5. ACC
With the others way behind the ACC.

(and to tie into the other thread, almost all of the ratings are on a downward trend over the last few years).

ACC tourette's is to Big East tourette's as shingles is to chicken pox: Once you get the virus, it can erupt at any time even though signs of the original disease have long disappeared.

(07-16-2013 12:43 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:13 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:00 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 11:55 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  How much is your school worth playing in the AAC?

As a so called "little brother" of Texas, we make more on our Tier 3 TV rights than the AAC schools make on their Tier 1/2 TV rights. Capitalism at its finest.

AAC schools are getting about $2 mil, so we are underpaid.... BIG TIME.... LOL However, replace TT with any of our two TX schools and TT would also get $2 mil a year in the AAC, which is basically my point about any school in the B12 other than TX and OU.

Wrong, the AAC isn't underpaid. They are paid according to what TV execs and advertisers feel they are worth. With the exception of ECU, the AAC is made up of schools with virtually no fan base.

UT and OU have no say in our Tier 3 worth which is still more than what AAC schools get for their Tier 1 rights. Unlike SMU and UH, Tech would definitely increase the AAC TV contract because of our ability to deliver TV sets in a state with 26mm people. Would we make us as much as we do in the Big 12? No but we would definitely increase the 2mm AAC schools receive simply because of our size and following.

TX and OU do have a say in your Tier 3 worth: Without both schools, your Tier 3 is worthless. You must be posting about "Fantasy Football" if you think TT's small market and decent football would add value to the AAC. However, there is no disputing what TT makes now, which is all that matters. No hate here because your school is getting overpaid more $$$ than almost the entire AAC combined.... With that said, UCONN bball is worth more than TT fball in the right conference because it's a national brand; TT isn't in fball. Consequently, the AAC was underpaid... BIG TIME—period.

No one cares about the Lubbock TV market just like they don't care about the Tuscaloosa, Auburn and College Station TV markets. TV execs look at the big picture and see what schools like Tech can deliver in a state with 26mm residents. As for UConn BBall, who gives a crap? Realignment and TV contracts are largely based on football and that is what drives the bus. That being said, if Tech were relegated to the AAC, your TV contract would increase dramatically based on the fact we actually deliver TV sets in the state of Texas.

Until the AAC gets a big name school in football that can put 60K in the stands and deliver a state the size of Texas, you are paid exactly what you are worth.

The same could be said for TT.... It's only TX and OU that matter in the overpaid B12 thanks "two" them, so get real with yourself. I'm not bashing you or the school that you root for, but you're pushing me there....

(07-16-2013 11:41 AM)Underdog Wrote:  My comments in bold:

(07-16-2013 10:59 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 10:05 AM)Underdog Wrote:  The B12 lost four schools and only added two. Therefore, is the new B12 of equal value to the former B12? NO!!! Fox overpaid for a B12 that added only WV and TCU.

The Big 12 tv deals that were recently signed were for 10 teams, not 12. We aren't being paid for 12 so losing 4 is irrelevant to this particular point.

1) You keep missing the point> Is the value of the current conference worth equal value to the former B12? Where do I even mention the current B12 contract is for 12 schools? You won't find it mentioned in 3 threads that we've discussed this subject in.

You keep bringing up 12 as if the tv deals were signed with them in mind. The post quoted at the beginning above this paragraph that I put in italics and underlined can easily draw the implication we are overpaid for where we used to be which isn't the case based on when contracts were done.

Quote:

Quote: I’ll admit that WV is a better football program than Misso. However, TCU doesn’t come close to the football tradition of A&M.

I'd have to find it but I saw somewhere where it was said that WVU had better ratings than all the departees other than NU. So since the tv deals were done AFTER CU/NU bolted its easy to see the two newbies keeping payments level. WVU replaces A&M ratings wise and TCU does enough to keep us level with MU who wasn't ever a ratings knockout for us.

2) WV wasn't added to replace A&M: TCU was. Do you expect me to believe a TX school was added to replace the market in another state—please.... The problem is the B12 thought TCU could deliver the Fort Worth market, but it can't.

TCU was added primarily to give us another Texas team. My argument is that the combined ratings of WVU+TCU and A&M+MU are pretty moot. One big and one not so big in each combo.

Quote:

Quote: Factor in the loss of Nebraska and Colorado, the B12 is getting overpaid for its current group of schools.

Factoring them in is foolish when the contracts were signed AFTER they left. The current contracts never paid us for their draw so please kill this talking point.

3) Please read point 1 again.

Once again you post something that directly implies we are overpaid because we lost schools that weren't even here when the contracts were done.

Quote: Furthermore, being overpaid will cause the death of the B12 because it has nearly reached its earning potential in my opinion. WV and TCU were added to keep the contract valid and not evaluated for their earning potential for the conference. WV has a small market so if it isn’t playing entertaining football, it adds practically no value to the conference.

In my opinion you overemphasize the local markets a school resides in. WVU draws significant ratings in Pittsburgh, Maryland, and parts of VA. Fanbases aren't constrained to the school's local DMA's and it's especially true of state flagships with rabid fanbases.

4) If TX and OU ever leave, we will see how valuable your small markets really are....

Obviously it would be a smaller payout without the biggest schools, like any conference. Still doesn't have anything to do with the point I made. WVU draws interest outside their state with a fanbase that has a lot of interest in the areas I named.

Quote:

Quote: TCU will never come close to being as valuable as A&M was to the B12.

Which is why their replacing Mizzou ratings wise is a better comparison. WVU replaces the national ratings of A&M and the outside footprint attention MU gave us. TCU gives us additional recruiting and Texas tv exposure A&M gave us with ratings that should effectively minimize the loss of Mizzou.

5) Please read point 2 again.

Read my reply to point 2.

Quote:

Quote: TT and OSU will always be seen as the “little brothers;” thus living off their big brothers. K St is in a small market and isn’t a national brand despite playing in a BCS bowl (the appeal just isn’t there). KU is more valuable in the B10 because the B12 lacks the basketball competition. Iowa St belongs in the MWC. Baylor isn’t a big money school in any sport. Consequently, this will cause TX and OU to leave once the GOR expires. Both schools will continue to get "overpaid" in other power conferences....

People were saying the Big 12 wouldn't do well because of markets this round of contracts yet were wrong. As long as the Big 12 performs well on the field (no reason to expect it to change) it will be paid. Texas may or may not stay but the money will most likely be there.

6) Please explain what Baylor has done to be worth $20 mil a year in sports since if "Texas may or may not stay but the money will most likely be there."

You misunderstand my phrasing here. It's better stated as:

1- Texas may or may not stay
2- Assuming they stay the money will most likely be there.

(07-16-2013 12:52 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:43 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:13 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:00 PM)Underdog Wrote:  AAC schools are getting about $2 mil, so we are underpaid.... BIG TIME.... LOL However, replace TT with any of our two TX schools and TT would also get $2 mil a year in the AAC, which is basically my point about any school in the B12 other than TX and OU.

Wrong, the AAC isn't underpaid. They are paid according to what TV execs and advertisers feel they are worth. With the exception of ECU, the AAC is made up of schools with virtually no fan base.

UT and OU have no say in our Tier 3 worth which is still more than what AAC schools get for their Tier 1 rights. Unlike SMU and UH, Tech would definitely increase the AAC TV contract because of our ability to deliver TV sets in a state with 26mm people. Would we make us as much as we do in the Big 12? No but we would definitely increase the 2mm AAC schools receive simply because of our size and following.

TX and OU do have a say in your Tier 3 worth: Without both schools, your Tier 3 is worthless. You must be posting about "Fantasy Football" if you think TT's small market and decent football would add value to the AAC. However, there is no disputing what TT makes now, which is all that matters. No hate here because your school is getting overpaid more $$$ than almost the entire AAC combined.... With that said, UCONN bball is worth more than TT fball in the right conference because it's a national brand; TT isn't in fball. Consequently, the AAC was underpaid... BIG TIME—period.

No one cares about the Lubbock TV market just like they don't care about the Tuscaloosa, Auburn and College Station TV markets. TV execs look at the big picture and see what schools like Tech can deliver in a state with 26mm residents. As for UConn BBall, who gives a crap? Realignment and TV contracts are largely based on football and that is what drives the bus. That being said, if Tech were relegated to the AAC, your TV contract would increase dramatically based on the fact we actually deliver TV sets in the state of Texas.

Until the AAC gets a big name school in football that can put 60K in the stands and deliver a state the size of Texas, you are paid exactly what you are worth.

The same could for TT.... It's only TX and OU that matter in the overpaid B12 thanks "two" them, so get real with yourself. I'm not bashing you or the school that you root for, but you're pushing me there....

You have repeatedly bashed the Big 12 which my alma mater is a member of. Why don't you bash the SEC, PAC 12 and Big 10 for only having a few "big" name schools and how much they are paid? Or is this a personal vendetta against the Big 12 because they won't invite your school to big boy college athletics?

We'll find out in 12 years

(07-16-2013 12:59 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:52 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:43 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:13 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  Wrong, the AAC isn't underpaid. They are paid according to what TV execs and advertisers feel they are worth. With the exception of ECU, the AAC is made up of schools with virtually no fan base.

UT and OU have no say in our Tier 3 worth which is still more than what AAC schools get for their Tier 1 rights. Unlike SMU and UH, Tech would definitely increase the AAC TV contract because of our ability to deliver TV sets in a state with 26mm people. Would we make us as much as we do in the Big 12? No but we would definitely increase the 2mm AAC schools receive simply because of our size and following.

TX and OU do have a say in your Tier 3 worth: Without both schools, your Tier 3 is worthless. You must be posting about "Fantasy Football" if you think TT's small market and decent football would add value to the AAC. However, there is no disputing what TT makes now, which is all that matters. No hate here because your school is getting overpaid more $$$ than almost the entire AAC combined.... With that said, UCONN bball is worth more than TT fball in the right conference because it's a national brand; TT isn't in fball. Consequently, the AAC was underpaid... BIG TIME—period.

No one cares about the Lubbock TV market just like they don't care about the Tuscaloosa, Auburn and College Station TV markets. TV execs look at the big picture and see what schools like Tech can deliver in a state with 26mm residents. As for UConn BBall, who gives a crap? Realignment and TV contracts are largely based on football and that is what drives the bus. That being said, if Tech were relegated to the AAC, your TV contract would increase dramatically based on the fact we actually deliver TV sets in the state of Texas.

Until the AAC gets a big name school in football that can put 60K in the stands and deliver a state the size of Texas, you are paid exactly what you are worth.

The same could for TT.... It's only TX and OU that matter in the overpaid B12 thanks "two" them, so get real with yourself. I'm not bashing you or the school that you root for, but you're pushing me there....

You have repeatedly bashed the Big 12 which my alma mater is a member of. Why don't you bash the SEC, PAC 12 and Big 10 for only having a few "big" name schools and how much they are paid? Or is this a personal vendetta against the Big 12 because they won't invite your school to big boy college athletics?

If anything I posted offended you it was never my intent. However, it's difficult for a person to express why he thinks the B12 is overpaid and not appear to bash the conference. Nevertheless, some of your opinions I strongly disagree with and have tried to make my point without offending you. You have the satisfaction of knowing your school is overpaid (my opinion has not changed) almost as much as the conference that I root for combined. Nothing that I post can change or disprove a fact that we all know—TT is making over $20 mil a year, so you win in the end….


Underdog

Btw. The subject of this thread is... which I didn't start. Therefore, I have no "personal vendetta against the Big 12"....

(07-16-2013 10:59 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 10:05 AM)Underdog Wrote:  The B12 lost four schools and only added two. Therefore, is the new B12 of equal value to the former B12? NO!!! Fox overpaid for a B12 that added only WV and TCU.

The Big 12 tv deals that were recently signed were for 10 teams, not 12. We aren't being paid for 12 so losing 4 is irrelevant to this particular point.

Excellent point. The Big 12 was paid what it was worth AFTER Nebraska & Colorado left.

(07-16-2013 10:59 AM)S11 Wrote:  

Quote: I’ll admit that WV is a better football program than Misso. However, TCU doesn’t come close to the football tradition of A&M.

I'd have to find it but I saw somewhere where it was said that WVU had better ratings than all the departees other than NU. So since the tv deals were done AFTER CU/NU bolted its easy to see the two newbies keeping payments level. WVU replaces A&M ratings wise and TCU does enough to keep us level with MU who wasn't ever a ratings knockout for us.

Another excellent point. WVU ratings > TCU ratings (for now at least)

(07-16-2013 10:59 AM)S11 Wrote:  

Quote: Furthermore, being overpaid will cause the death of the B12 because it has nearly reached its earning potential in my opinion. WV and TCU were added to keep the contract valid and not evaluated for their earning potential for the conference. WV has a small market so if it isn’t playing entertaining football, it adds practically no value to the conference.

In my opinion you overemphasize the local markets a school resides in. WVU draws significant ratings in Pittsburgh, Maryland, and parts of VA. Fanbases aren't constrained to the school's local DMA's and it's especially true of state flagships with rabid fanbases.

This one is nearly impossible to know one way or the other. I do agree that the Big 12 is essentially getting Tier 1 money for Tier 2 games, and I suspect that is largely due to on-field performance a few years back... a level of performance which is not likely to continue indefinitely. So I do expect the value of Big 12 football to erode over time.

Football success is cyclical, and the Big 12 renegotiated when it was near the peak of its cycle. Conversely, the ACC signed a deal when it was near the bottom of its cycle. It is what it is.

(07-16-2013 01:10 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:59 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:52 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:43 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  TX and OU do have a say in your Tier 3 worth: Without both schools, your Tier 3 is worthless. You must be posting about "Fantasy Football" if you think TT's small market and decent football would add value to the AAC. However, there is no disputing what TT makes now, which is all that matters. No hate here because your school is getting overpaid more $$$ than almost the entire AAC combined.... With that said, UCONN bball is worth more than TT fball in the right conference because it's a national brand; TT isn't in fball. Consequently, the AAC was underpaid... BIG TIME—period.

No one cares about the Lubbock TV market just like they don't care about the Tuscaloosa, Auburn and College Station TV markets. TV execs look at the big picture and see what schools like Tech can deliver in a state with 26mm residents. As for UConn BBall, who gives a crap? Realignment and TV contracts are largely based on football and that is what drives the bus. That being said, if Tech were relegated to the AAC, your TV contract would increase dramatically based on the fact we actually deliver TV sets in the state of Texas.

Until the AAC gets a big name school in football that can put 60K in the stands and deliver a state the size of Texas, you are paid exactly what you are worth.

The same could for TT.... It's only TX and OU that matter in the overpaid B12 thanks "two" them, so get real with yourself. I'm not bashing you or the school that you root for, but you're pushing me there....

You have repeatedly bashed the Big 12 which my alma mater is a member of. Why don't you bash the SEC, PAC 12 and Big 10 for only having a few "big" name schools and how much they are paid? Or is this a personal vendetta against the Big 12 because they won't invite your school to big boy college athletics?

If anything I posted offended you it was never my intent. However, it's difficult for a person to express why he thinks the B12 is overpaid and not appear to bash the conference. Nevertheless, some of your opinions I strongly disagree with and have tried to make my point without offending you. You have the satisfaction of knowing your school is overpaid (my opinion has not changed) almost as much as the conference that I root for combined. Nothing that I post can change or disprove a fact that we all know—TT is making over $20 mil a year, so you win in the end….


Underdog

Btw. The subject of this thread is... which I didn't start. Therefore, I have no "personal vendetta against the Big 12"....

As a member of the Big 12, Tech isn't overpaid. In another thread, you mentioned that the Big 12 will be 6 under in the future which leads me to believe you have something against the Big 12.

(07-16-2013 01:38 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 01:10 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:59 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:52 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:43 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  No one cares about the Lubbock TV market just like they don't care about the Tuscaloosa, Auburn and College Station TV markets. TV execs look at the big picture and see what schools like Tech can deliver in a state with 26mm residents. As for UConn BBall, who gives a crap? Realignment and TV contracts are largely based on football and that is what drives the bus. That being said, if Tech were relegated to the AAC, your TV contract would increase dramatically based on the fact we actually deliver TV sets in the state of Texas.

Until the AAC gets a big name school in football that can put 60K in the stands and deliver a state the size of Texas, you are paid exactly what you are worth.

The same could for TT.... It's only TX and OU that matter in the overpaid B12 thanks "two" them, so get real with yourself. I'm not bashing you or the school that you root for, but you're pushing me there....

You have repeatedly bashed the Big 12 which my alma mater is a member of. Why don't you bash the SEC, PAC 12 and Big 10 for only having a few "big" name schools and how much they are paid? Or is this a personal vendetta against the Big 12 because they won't invite your school to big boy college athletics?

If anything I posted offended you it was never my intent. However, it's difficult for a person to express why he thinks the B12 is overpaid and not appear to bash the conference. Nevertheless, some of your opinions I strongly disagree with and have tried to make my point without offending you. You have the satisfaction of knowing your school is overpaid (my opinion has not changed) almost as much as the conference that I root for combined. Nothing that I post can change or disprove a fact that we all know—TT is making over $20 mil a year, so you win in the end….


Underdog

Btw. The subject of this thread is... which I didn't start. Therefore, I have no "personal vendetta against the Big 12"....

As a member of the Big 12, Tech isn't overpaid. In another thread, you mentioned that the Big 12 will be 6 under in the future which leads me to believe you have something against the Big 12.

You left out the tumble weed blowing over the B6 feet under conference after hitting pay dirt... LOL... Lighten up dude, that's funny... and was my humorous way of saying that the conference could have and will eventually dissolve. However, if that offended you, I apologize....

Off topic: Obviously I'm not a B12 fan, nor am I a hater. Yes, I rooted for WV (former BE school) to beat every B12 school to prove that the BE belonged with the other P5, but it came up very short. I also rooted for OU to beat ND. Do I want the B12 to dissolve? No. Do I think it will? Yes. These are just my honest opinions of what I think is still an “overpaid” conference and nothing more so please don't take it personal….

The Big XII is definitely not overpaid. Nor is Texas because of the LHN. Two sides simply came to an agreement regarding the value each is worth/willing to pay and signed a contract. The invisible hand at its best.

By the same token, The MWC, American Athletic, etc are also not underpaid. The market is the market.

(07-16-2013 10:59 AM)S11 Wrote:  In my opinion you overemphasize the local markets a school resides in. WVU draws significant ratings in Pittsburgh, Maryland, and parts of VA. Fanbases aren't constrained to the school's local DMA's and it's especially true of state flagships with rabid fanbases.

First let me say that I'm not interested in getting into a pissing match with anyone. Also, as far as I'm concerned, any conference is worth whatever it is paid. To argue about which league is underpaid or overpaid is really silly, IMHO.

That said, I would like to see some hard evidence of West Virginia's alleged widespread appeal in Pittsburgh, Maryland and Virginia. Based on my experience in Pittsburgh at least, that's a claim that their fans often make but never with support and frankly it's a bunch on nonsense. Let me put it this way, if Pitt, Penn State, and West Virginia are each slated for an ABC 3:30 p.m. game, Pitt is going to end up on ABC, Penn State will be on an ESPN station and West Virginia will end up on one of the small syndicated stations - if their game is televised at all. That's just reality.

First let me say that West Virginia does VERY well in its own state. I used to live there and it always surprised me/impressed me how important WVU was to the locals. They have no pro sports teams and Marshall has never really been a big time program and that leaves the Mountaineers as the sports focal point of the Mountain State.

That said, they are also pretty much a non-factor in Pennsylvania. I'm sure that they are a bigger deal in some of the rural PA towns that border WVA but as you get into the more heavily populated areas of Western PA, it is rare to meet a WVU fan. I do occasionally see a flying WV flag here or a Mountaineer decal there but not very often.

My guess is that WVU gets good ratings in the parts of WVA that are in the Pittsburgh DMA (and there are a few) but in the major part of the market they are at best the third most popular team behind Pitt and Penn State - by a long shot - and they are likely behind Notre Dame as well. Remember, Pittsburgh is heavily Catholic and those ties still bind. Still, even ND is well behind Pitt and Penn State on the popularity front in Western PA.

To draw a comparison, parts of Ohio are also in Pittsburgh's DMA and I'm sure that Ohio State does well in those areas. However, that does not make Ohio State one of Pittsburgh's favored college athletic programs. Still, like the Mountaineers, the Buckeyes are ENORMOUSLY popular in Ohio - MUCH more so than either Pitt or Penn State in PA - but they are basically fifth or sixth (along with Michigan) in Western PA.

Also, let me say that I disagree with your primary point as well. If West Virginia's rabid fan base was so valuable, why were they passed over by the SEC and ACC and fighting tooth and nail with Louisville for that last spot in the B12? For that matter, why are Rutgers and Maryland in the B1G? Local market means a LOT.

Now, having said that, there are some fan bases that are so huge that they are able to transcend that issue. A school like Nebraska, for example, has such an enormous fan base that it is able to overcome its lack of a major market. However, West Virginia's fan base is nowhere near that large or passionate and anyone who tells you otherwise is either mistaken or is flat out lying to you. If you don't believe me, just go back for the past decade or so and compare their attendance figures to the big boys. Not even close. And their TV ratings were rarely the highest among Big East teams.

It's a decent sized fan base but it is nowhere near the giants of the game - the programs who can overcome the lack of a major media center.

(07-16-2013 02:44 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 10:59 AM)S11 Wrote:  In my opinion you overemphasize the local markets a school resides in. WVU draws significant ratings in Pittsburgh, Maryland, and parts of VA. Fanbases aren't constrained to the school's local DMA's and it's especially true of state flagships with rabid fanbases.

First let me say that I'm not interested in getting into a pissing match with anyone. Also, as far as I'm concerned, any conference is worth whatever it is paid. To argue about which league is underpaid or overpaid is really silly, IMHO.

That said, I would like to see some hard evidence of West Virginia's alleged widespread appeal in Pittsburgh, Maryland and Virginia. Based on my experience in Pittsburgh at least, that's a claim that their fans often make but never with support and frankly it's a bunch on nonsense. Let me put it this way, if Pitt, Penn State, and West Virginia are each slated for an ABC 3:30 p.m. game, Pitt is going to end up on ABC, Penn State will be on an ESPN station and West Virginia will end up on one of the small syndicated stations - if their game is televised at all. That's just reality.

First let me say that West Virginia does VERY well in its own state. I used to live there and it always surprised me/impressed me how important WVU was to the locals. They have no pro sports teams and Marshall has never really been a big time program and that leaves the Mountaineers as the sports focal point of the Mountain State.

That said, they are also pretty much a non-factor in Pennsylvania. I'm sure that they are a bigger deal in some of the rural PA towns that border WVA but as you get into the more heavily populated areas of Western PA, it is rare to meet a WVU fan. I do occasionally see a flying WV flag here or a Mountaineer decal there but not very often.

My guess is that WVU gets good ratings in the parts of WVA that are in the Pittsburgh DMA (and there are a few) but in the major part of the market they are at best the third most popular team behind Pitt and Penn State - by a long shot - and they are likely behind Notre Dame as well. Remember, Pittsburgh is heavily Catholic and those ties still bind. Still, even ND is well behind Pitt and Penn State on the popularity front in Western PA.

To draw a comparison, parts of Ohio are also in Pittsburgh's DMA and I'm sure that Ohio State does well in those areas. However, that does not make Ohio State one of Pittsburgh's favored college athletic programs. Still, like the Mountaineers, the Buckeyes are ENORMOUSLY popular in Ohio - MUCH more so than either Pitt or Penn State in PA - but they are basically fifth or sixth (along with Michigan) in Western PA.

Very well articulated post and refreshing to read. However, I humbly disagree with what I’ve placed in bold type above. If ESPN had paid the same amount of money to the AAC as Fox paid the B12, I’m sure you would have thought, "ESPN overpaid for that conference." I root for the AAC, and I can honestly say that I would have thought the same thing. Consequently, questioning the value of a conference that replaced A&M and Mizzo with WV and TCU has merit in my opinion....

(07-16-2013 03:13 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 02:44 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 10:59 AM)S11 Wrote:  In my opinion you overemphasize the local markets a school resides in. WVU draws significant ratings in Pittsburgh, Maryland, and parts of VA. Fanbases aren't constrained to the school's local DMA's and it's especially true of state flagships with rabid fanbases.

First let me say that I'm not interested in getting into a pissing match with anyone. Also, as far as I'm concerned, any conference is worth whatever it is paid. To argue about which league is underpaid or overpaid is really silly, IMHO.

That said, I would like to see some hard evidence of West Virginia's alleged widespread appeal in Pittsburgh, Maryland and Virginia. Based on my experience in Pittsburgh at least, that's a claim that their fans often make but never with support and frankly it's a bunch on nonsense. Let me put it this way, if Pitt, Penn State, and West Virginia are each slated for an ABC 3:30 p.m. game, Pitt is going to end up on ABC, Penn State will be on an ESPN station and West Virginia will end up on one of the small syndicated stations - if their game is televised at all. That's just reality.

First let me say that West Virginia does VERY well in its own state. I used to live there and it always surprised me/impressed me how important WVU was to the locals. They have no pro sports teams and Marshall has never really been a big time program and that leaves the Mountaineers as the sports focal point of the Mountain State.

That said, they are also pretty much a non-factor in Pennsylvania. I'm sure that they are a bigger deal in some of the rural PA towns that border WVA but as you get into the more heavily populated areas of Western PA, it is rare to meet a WVU fan. I do occasionally see a flying WV flag here or a Mountaineer decal there but not very often.

My guess is that WVU gets good ratings in the parts of WVA that are in the Pittsburgh DMA (and there are a few) but in the major part of the market they are at best the third most popular team behind Pitt and Penn State - by a long shot - and they are likely behind Notre Dame as well. Remember, Pittsburgh is heavily Catholic and those ties still bind. Still, even ND is well behind Pitt and Penn State on the popularity front in Western PA.

To draw a comparison, parts of Ohio are also in Pittsburgh's DMA and I'm sure that Ohio State does well in those areas. However, that does not make Ohio State one of Pittsburgh's favored college athletic programs. Still, like the Mountaineers, the Buckeyes are ENORMOUSLY popular in Ohio - MUCH more so than either Pitt or Penn State in PA - but they are basically fifth or sixth (along with Michigan) in Western PA.

Very well articulated post and refreshing to read. However, I humbly disagree with what I’ve placed in bold type above. If ESPN had paid the same amount of money to the AAC as Fox paid the B12, I’m sure you would have thought, "ESPN overpaid for that conference." I root for the AAC, and I can honestly say that I would have thought the same thing. Consequently, questioning the value of a conference that replaced A&M and Mizzo with WV and TCU has merit in my opinion....

Considering that WVU has as many BCS bowl wins as the ENTIRE ACC, the ACC got a gift. If the ACC was paid commensurate with their efforts on the field to date, they'd be making considerably less...

they got 3 mill more per school + tier 3 than the acc.

while texas/ou have huge fanbases. the combined market blueprint is less than half of the size of the acc's market blueprint

this is a no brainer