(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Actually, Hawaii got a BCS bowl birth. They have improved last year, and I think they will contend this year.

Hawaii is 30-47 since that bowl game that they got blown out by the way....

Lets keep up the same sample set (2009-2014) I applied to Hawaii. Doing that puts the MWC as follows...

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Fresno State had a bad year after Derick Carr left. They will bounce back.

46-33, clearly one of the "few" other respectable programs I was referring to. Do they do that well without the cupcakes at the bottom of the MWC?

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  UNR have been near the top, and have beaten Boise State on the Smurf Turf.

46-33, Just as good a record as Fresno but that record is inflated by the 13-1 2010 campaign. without is they are a .500 team. As far as beating Boise they have beaten them once in the last 15 games (2010) and that game was in Reno.

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  San Diego State,

45-32, I agree that SDST is a good program no argument here.

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Air Force,

42-35, Pretty much a slightly above average run here. Nothing to brag about (the 10-3 2014 is offset by the 2-10 2013).

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Colorado State and

31-44, and that is after going 10-3 in 2014.

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Wyoming have been competitive.

31-43, If you have to start with "competitive" my argument has been made for me.

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  New Mexico, San Jose State and UNLV have been like a Yo-Yo the last few years.

NM: 14-59
SJST: 28-46
UNLV: 18-56

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Wyoming with the North Dakota State's former head coach could turn that program around.

Speculative at best....

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  U. Conn have been missing the last several years.

31-43, But I would argue that they played a higher level of competition.

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  USF have disappeared.

30-44, Again same argument as UConn.

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Tulane only got one good year once every blue moon.

Not going to argue that.

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  SMU still have not found their footing after the death penelty.

Agreed

(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Temple have never got past the 7-5 mark, and been left out of bowl games.

That is incorrect. Temple has eclipsed 7 wins 5 times and twice in the last 6 seasons.

8-1 (1931), 9-1 (1973), 10-2 (1979), 9-4 (2009), 9-4 (2011)

Bottom line I still don't see the MWC as a superior product. They are a collection of .500 (or slightly above) and well below .500 programs after the top 2-3 teams. I would also like to see your argument for why any school would join the MWC under the current TV deal they have where schools like UNLV received $0 in 2014..........

(09-02-2015 02:06 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 12:51 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  But still not enough to get you in

Depends if Texas is still in the conference!

Oh, I think a lot of you out-of-staters have misjudged the present relationship between UT and UH. A lot has changed in the past 15 years, including administrations that get along with each other.

I didn't mean Texas would blackball Houston.

I mean that if Texas leaves, that may give the XII an incentive to add Houston, to replace Texas. As happened with TCU and TA&M.

(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus, population doesn't matter anyway. It's TV households.

And then you have to look at buying power of those households, etc.

Nope. If that was the case Uconn would be in a power conference. Much higher per capita income than places like Iowa who support 2 power conference teams, and Connecticut can't support one. The difference is fan numbers. How many people will either turn on the TV or show up in person to watch. That is what will always be valuable as those fans are willing to pay to watch their team play.

The days of adding Rutgers to charge all the people in NJ who do not care about college football are going to come to an end at some point.

Schools with real fans will always have value.

There's no question: advertisers prefer UConn fans to Oklahoma St fans, because the former actually have some money to buy the things being advertised.


But of course that's not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

(09-03-2015 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus, population doesn't matter anyway. It's TV households.

And then you have to look at buying power of those households, etc.

Nope. If that was the case Uconn would be in a power conference. Much higher per capita income than places like Iowa who support 2 power conference teams, and Connecticut can't support one. The difference is fan numbers. How many people will either turn on the TV or show up in person to watch. That is what will always be valuable as those fans are willing to pay to watch their team play.

The days of adding Rutgers to charge all the people in NJ who do not care about college football are going to come to an end at some point.

Schools with real fans will always have value.

There's no question: advertisers prefer UConn fans to Oklahoma St fans, because the former actually have some money to buy the things being advertised.


But of course that's not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

Sorry, you get an F on that test.

USA Today's college sports revenues have been linked on here enough times for you to know better.

Revenue ranking
#11 Oklahoma St. $117,803,302
Rest of the 2nd 10
12 Penn St.
13 Auburn
14 Tennessee
15 Minnesota
16 Iowa
17 Florida St.
18 Michigan St.
19 Georgia
20 Washington (last school above $100 million)

UConn is #44 at $71 million.

So people are spending money for Oklahoma St.

(09-03-2015 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus, population doesn't matter anyway. It's TV households.

And then you have to look at buying power of those households, etc.

Nope. If that was the case Uconn would be in a power conference. Much higher per capita income than places like Iowa who support 2 power conference teams, and Connecticut can't support one. The difference is fan numbers. How many people will either turn on the TV or show up in person to watch. That is what will always be valuable as those fans are willing to pay to watch their team play.

The days of adding Rutgers to charge all the people in NJ who do not care about college football are going to come to an end at some point.

Schools with real fans will always have value.

There's no question: advertisers prefer UConn fans to Oklahoma St fans, because the former actually have some money to buy the things being advertised.


But of course that's not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

TV partners spend over 50 million $ a year on college football content in Oklahoma compared to a few million in Connecticut. And here you are telling us how valuable those people in Connecticut are. LOL.

Advertisers might prefer UConn over Tulsa but clearly not over OSU.

UConn has no college football fans. That is why they are not valuable to TV partners. They are wealthy but don't' watch college football. Thus they have no value.

UConn is not attractive. Go look at the TV ratings. They are FCS bad.

(09-03-2015 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus, population doesn't matter anyway. It's TV households.

And then you have to look at buying power of those households, etc.

Nope. If that was the case Uconn would be in a power conference. Much higher per capita income than places like Iowa who support 2 power conference teams, and Connecticut can't support one. The difference is fan numbers. How many people will either turn on the TV or show up in person to watch. That is what will always be valuable as those fans are willing to pay to watch their team play.

The days of adding Rutgers to charge all the people in NJ who do not care about college football are going to come to an end at some point.

Schools with real fans will always have value.

There's no question: advertisers prefer UConn fans to Oklahoma St fans, because the former actually have some money to buy the things being advertised.


But of course that's not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

Sorry, you get an F on that test.

USA Today's college sports revenues have been linked on here enough times for you to know better.

Revenue ranking
#11 Oklahoma St. $117,803,302
Rest of the 2nd 10
12 Penn St.
13 Auburn
14 Tennessee
15 Minnesota
16 Iowa
17 Florida St.
18 Michigan St.
19 Georgia
20 Washington (last school above $100 million)

UConn is #44 at $71 million.

So people are spending money for Oklahoma St.

And to top it off UConn has a huge subsidy, almost 40%. While OSU is less than 10%.

Take the subsidy away and we are comparing a 44 million $ AD to a $110 million AD.

Think about that.

New england in general is a very rich area but has almost no value for college football. Combine all the schools like UMass, UConn, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maine, etc.. they are worthless to companies like ESPN. All those wealthy people mean nothing to college football.


ESPN just wants tax breaks from Connecticut, they don't' want to pay for the football.

(09-03-2015 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus, population doesn't matter anyway. It's TV households.

And then you have to look at buying power of those households, etc.

Nope. If that was the case Uconn would be in a power conference. Much higher per capita income than places like Iowa who support 2 power conference teams, and Connecticut can't support one. The difference is fan numbers. How many people will either turn on the TV or show up in person to watch. That is what will always be valuable as those fans are willing to pay to watch their team play.

The days of adding Rutgers to charge all the people in NJ who do not care about college football are going to come to an end at some point.

Schools with real fans will always have value.

There's no question: advertisers prefer UConn fans to Oklahoma St fans, because the former actually have some money to buy the things being advertised.


But of course that's not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

Sorry, you get an F on that test.

USA Today's college sports revenues have been linked on here enough times for you to know better.

Revenue ranking
#11 Oklahoma St. $117,803,302
Rest of the 2nd 10
12 Penn St.
13 Auburn
14 Tennessee
15 Minnesota
16 Iowa
17 Florida St.
18 Michigan St.
19 Georgia
20 Washington (last school above $100 million)

UConn is #44 at $71 million.

So people are spending money for Oklahoma St.

That literally proves nothing about the average disposable income of the TV households that consider themselves OK St. fans.

(09-03-2015 12:15 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus, population doesn't matter anyway. It's TV households.

And then you have to look at buying power of those households, etc.

Nope. If that was the case Uconn would be in a power conference. Much higher per capita income than places like Iowa who support 2 power conference teams, and Connecticut can't support one. The difference is fan numbers. How many people will either turn on the TV or show up in person to watch. That is what will always be valuable as those fans are willing to pay to watch their team play.

The days of adding Rutgers to charge all the people in NJ who do not care about college football are going to come to an end at some point.

Schools with real fans will always have value.

There's no question: advertisers prefer UConn fans to Oklahoma St fans, because the former actually have some money to buy the things being advertised.


But of course that's not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

TV partners spend over 50 million $ a year on college football content in Oklahoma compared to a few million in Connecticut. And here you are telling us how valuable those people in Connecticut are. LOL.

Advertisers might prefer UConn over Tulsa but clearly not over OSU.

UConn has no college football fans. That is why they are not valuable to TV partners. They are wealthy but don't' watch college football. Thus they have no value.

UConn is not attractive. Go look at the TV ratings. They are FCS bad.

Your TV partners get their money from the cable and satellite companies that distribute the games to their subscribes.

That only proves that there are a significant number of subscribers in OK that want to watch OU and OK St. games on TV. That doesn't mean those viewers have any money to buy something advertised during those telecasts.


If I was an advertiser, I'd probably prefer to have a few wealthy people view my add than a bunch of people I know aren't going to buy it.

(09-04-2015 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus, population doesn't matter anyway. It's TV households.

And then you have to look at buying power of those households, etc.

Nope. If that was the case Uconn would be in a power conference. Much higher per capita income than places like Iowa who support 2 power conference teams, and Connecticut can't support one. The difference is fan numbers. How many people will either turn on the TV or show up in person to watch. That is what will always be valuable as those fans are willing to pay to watch their team play.

The days of adding Rutgers to charge all the people in NJ who do not care about college football are going to come to an end at some point.

Schools with real fans will always have value.

There's no question: advertisers prefer UConn fans to Oklahoma St fans, because the former actually have some money to buy the things being advertised.


But of course that's not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

Sorry, you get an F on that test.

USA Today's college sports revenues have been linked on here enough times for you to know better.

Revenue ranking
#11 Oklahoma St. $117,803,302
Rest of the 2nd 10
12 Penn St.
13 Auburn
14 Tennessee
15 Minnesota
16 Iowa
17 Florida St.
18 Michigan St.
19 Georgia
20 Washington (last school above $100 million)

UConn is #44 at $71 million.

So people are spending money for Oklahoma St.

That literally proves nothing about the average disposable income of the TV households that consider themselves OK St. fans.

LOL. This is a UConn BY special right here.

Tell us more about how great that disposable income in Connecticut is. Tell us how valuable it is.

Then explain why they are in a conference with the #3 team in Oklahoma and get paid pennies compared to other schools.

There is no value for college football in New England. Doesn't matter how rich they are. They don't' watch college football. If they aren't watching then advertisers want nothing to do with it.

If it was valuable TV partners would pay more $ than they do.

(09-04-2015 03:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 12:15 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plus, population doesn't matter anyway. It's TV households.

And then you have to look at buying power of those households, etc.

Nope. If that was the case Uconn would be in a power conference. Much higher per capita income than places like Iowa who support 2 power conference teams, and Connecticut can't support one. The difference is fan numbers. How many people will either turn on the TV or show up in person to watch. That is what will always be valuable as those fans are willing to pay to watch their team play.

The days of adding Rutgers to charge all the people in NJ who do not care about college football are going to come to an end at some point.

Schools with real fans will always have value.

There's no question: advertisers prefer UConn fans to Oklahoma St fans, because the former actually have some money to buy the things being advertised.


But of course that's not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

TV partners spend over 50 million $ a year on college football content in Oklahoma compared to a few million in Connecticut. And here you are telling us how valuable those people in Connecticut are. LOL.

Advertisers might prefer UConn over Tulsa but clearly not over OSU.

UConn has no college football fans. That is why they are not valuable to TV partners. They are wealthy but don't' watch college football. Thus they have no value.

UConn is not attractive. Go look at the TV ratings. They are FCS bad.

Your TV partners get their money from the cable and satellite companies that distribute the games to their subscribes.

That only proves that there are a significant number of subscribers in OK that want to watch OU and OK St. games on TV. That doesn't mean those viewers have any money to buy something advertised during those telecasts.


If I was an advertiser, I'd probably prefer to have a few wealthy people view my add than a bunch of people I know aren't going to buy it.

LOL.

Sounds like you have it figured out.

UConn is the holy grail of college football because the state has a higher per capita income than states in the SEC and Big 12.

Strange that with all that wealth nobody wants the UConn content.

(09-04-2015 03:37 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Nope. If that was the case Uconn would be in a power conference. Much higher per capita income than places like Iowa who support 2 power conference teams, and Connecticut can't support one. The difference is fan numbers. How many people will either turn on the TV or show up in person to watch. That is what will always be valuable as those fans are willing to pay to watch their team play.

The days of adding Rutgers to charge all the people in NJ who do not care about college football are going to come to an end at some point.

Schools with real fans will always have value.

There's no question: advertisers prefer UConn fans to Oklahoma St fans, because the former actually have some money to buy the things being advertised.


But of course that's not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

Sorry, you get an F on that test.

USA Today's college sports revenues have been linked on here enough times for you to know better.

Revenue ranking
#11 Oklahoma St. $117,803,302
Rest of the 2nd 10
12 Penn St.
13 Auburn
14 Tennessee
15 Minnesota
16 Iowa
17 Florida St.
18 Michigan St.
19 Georgia
20 Washington (last school above $100 million)

UConn is #44 at $71 million.

So people are spending money for Oklahoma St.

That literally proves nothing about the average disposable income of the TV households that consider themselves OK St. fans.

LOL. This is a UConn BY special right here.

Tell us more about how great that disposable income in Connecticut is. Tell us how valuable it is.

Then explain why they are in a conference with the #3 team in Oklahoma and get paid pennies compared to other schools.

There is no value for college football in New England. Doesn't matter how rich they are. They don't' watch college football. If they aren't watching then advertisers want nothing to do with it.

If it was valuable TV partners would pay more $ than they do.

Ok, I will explain it:

buying power of the team's TV viewer base not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

(09-04-2015 03:40 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 03:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 12:15 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Nope. If that was the case Uconn would be in a power conference. Much higher per capita income than places like Iowa who support 2 power conference teams, and Connecticut can't support one. The difference is fan numbers. How many people will either turn on the TV or show up in person to watch. That is what will always be valuable as those fans are willing to pay to watch their team play.

The days of adding Rutgers to charge all the people in NJ who do not care about college football are going to come to an end at some point.

Schools with real fans will always have value.

There's no question: advertisers prefer UConn fans to Oklahoma St fans, because the former actually have some money to buy the things being advertised.


But of course that's not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

TV partners spend over 50 million $ a year on college football content in Oklahoma compared to a few million in Connecticut. And here you are telling us how valuable those people in Connecticut are. LOL.

Advertisers might prefer UConn over Tulsa but clearly not over OSU.

UConn has no college football fans. That is why they are not valuable to TV partners. They are wealthy but don't' watch college football. Thus they have no value.

UConn is not attractive. Go look at the TV ratings. They are FCS bad.

Your TV partners get their money from the cable and satellite companies that distribute the games to their subscribes.

That only proves that there are a significant number of subscribers in OK that want to watch OU and OK St. games on TV. That doesn't mean those viewers have any money to buy something advertised during those telecasts.


If I was an advertiser, I'd probably prefer to have a few wealthy people view my add than a bunch of people I know aren't going to buy it.

LOL.

Sounds like you have it figured out.

UConn is the holy grail of college football because the state has a higher per capita income than states in the SEC and Big 12.

Strange that with all that wealth nobody wants the UConn content.

It's not strange at all.

Buying power of the team's TV viewer base not the only factor. Geography and conference presidential politics also play huge roles, along with dozens of other factors, in adding a school to the conference.

You seem to laugh out loud, quite a lot.

That's good. Laughter is the best medicine, they say. Helps lower the blood pressure.

(09-04-2015 05:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You seem to laugh out loud, quite a lot.

That's good. Laughter is the best medicine, they say. Helps lower the blood pressure.

When listening to someone explain how valuable the college football fans of Connecticut are I can't help but LOL.

We are talking about value related to college sports. If it's' not college sports related then its doesn't matter. They might be higher in IQ and have 4x the income of Arkansas but the Hogs and fans are worth Millions to ESPN. Connecticut and it's fans aren't worth much to ESPN or advertizing.

Look at which games are in the best slots and have the most viewers. Those are the ones with the most valuable advertising space. Not the UConn/UMass game where there are 20 million people in the states combined who are all wealthy and could care less about watching the UConn/UMass football game. Advertizing space is going to much less for those games as there are not nearly as many viewers. Doesn't matter what the per capita income is in those states.

(09-04-2015 05:38 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 05:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You seem to laugh out loud, quite a lot.

That's good. Laughter is the best medicine, they say. Helps lower the blood pressure.

When listening to someone explain how valuable the college football fans of Connecticut are I can't help but LOL.

We are talking about value related to college sports. If it's' not college sports related then its doesn't matter. They might be higher in IQ and have 4x the income of Arkansas but the Hogs and fans are worth Millions to ESPN. Connecticut and it's fans aren't worth much to ESPN or advertizing.

Look at which games are in the best slots and have the most viewers. Those are the ones with the most valuable advertising space. Not the UConn/UMass game where there are 20 million people in the states combined who are all wealthy and could care less about watching the UConn/UMass football game. Advertizing space is going to much less for those games as there are not nearly as many viewers. Doesn't matter what the per capita income is in those states.

The games with the most valuable advertising space are by far and away the games that draw the largest national audience.

I doubt advertisers pay much for just a plain old college football game, especially when the audience isn't likely to buy the product.


And while I'd be curious to know the exact figures, my guess is that ESPN makes a large majority of its revenue from carriage fees as opposed to advertising.