(03-07-2016 02:40 PM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 09:14 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 07:48 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  The PAC 12 has been monitoring SMU

http://www.smu.edu.sg/

Ya I have read in other places that if Houston got the invite that SMU would most likely be the second team invited for geographic reasons. I would however recommend you read the links you post next time. The one you posted takes you to the Singapore management university website no article or anything lol.

sarcasm and/or sense of humor...look into it.

SMU's basketball sucks, but their badminton and table tennis teams are amazing

If they expand it would be with Texhoma. Divisions of old Pac 8 and 8 newer schools

(03-07-2016 02:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why is it that the empty wagons always make all the noise?

The Pac12 network makes 1 million dollars per team for the Pac12. The SEC networks is already making 5 times that much. The Big10 Network is making even more than that.

The Pac12 Networks problem is it has less than 20 million subscribers. In order for the Pac12 to keep pace with the other P5's, they need to get thier network into more homes. Only about a third of the US population is in the west, and about 60% of that is is two states--Texas and California. Any Pac12 expansion that doesn't include Texas is useless. The Pac12 Network is already in any western state with more than 3 million people. Texas has 28 million. It is the key to any Pac12 expansion.

The Pac12 has 2 choices. Make less than every other P5 for 12 long years waiting for the Big12 GOR to expire and hope UT decides to leave the Big12 for the one P5 conference that would cause UT athletes to travel farthest and a be seen by the fewest people---or, realize Texas isn't coming and make a move to shore up the P12 Networks subscriber base. That means selecting 1 or more G5 schools in Texas. The reality is that if the Big12 expands and creates its own network---then neither Texas or the Big12 is going anywhere for the next 12 years (and probably closer to 20 years because it's likley the B12 GOR will need to be extended to match the contract expiration date of the LHN in order for ESPN to sign off on its conversion to the B12N).

So UH to the Pac12 isn't nearly as ridiculous as you would like to portray it Billybobby. It's really nothing more than the reverse mirror of UConn to the Big12.

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

right now Jon Wilner has the PAC 12 teams taking in about $25 million each estimated in conference distributions so that is $300 million distributed for 12 teams

if you add the UH you need to add one other (the UH fans have New Mexico penciled in because......well WTF knows why, but that is who they are going to "travel partner" with

$300 million / 14 = $21.43 so a deficit of $3.57 million for each existing PAC 12 team

$25 million X 14 = $350 million so there needs to be $50 million (at least) in new revenue for the PAC 12 to hold even adding two teams

the PAC 12 network has 11 million subscribers according to Wilner (not 20)

so if you need the UH and UNM to bring in $50 million in new revenue most of that will be from subscribers

if you count 100% of the new subscribers as "profit" lets do the maths

$50 million / $.80 per subscriber per month = 62,500,000 months of subscriptions needed per year and there are 12 months in a year so

62,500,000 / 12 = 5,208,333 monthly subscribers needed

so the UH and UNM would need to more than double the number of subscribers for the PAC12n just for the PAC 12 to break even on adding them

and as of now 5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of cable subscribers in ALL of California and California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers

so the maths simply do not work out right now for adding teams to the PAC 12 unless it is enough teams with enough weight to bring about 3,000,000 cable subscribers EACH to the PAC12n

(03-07-2016 02:29 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I didn't think it was necessary to add Stanford to this conversation due to the similarity between Stanford and Houston is that they uh, they both have uh, they have in common uh.....sorry, I can't think of anything that Houston and Stanford have in common. I'm sure I'm forgetting something here.... Cheers!

mew stajiums that both seat 50,000 or less and do not regularly sell out

you owe me one...

New Stadiums* math* learn English first of all second of all have you ever heard of a fallacy because your math is based on a fallacy and would not matter at all in any situation. You literally only counted the PAC-12 TV subscription and not ticket revenues apparel, TV exposure and bowl appearances etc. to skew your argument. According to http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ributions/ ... In 2014 the PAC 12 network only made $105 million off the 11 million subscribers of its network less than 50% of its total $374 million. Most of of the PAC-12's revenue comes from TV rights at $282 million a year and bowls at $39.95 million a year. So adding two teams would only increase the TV and bowl money as that would equal to more TV coverage and more conference teams playing in bowls.

Not to mention California has a population of aprox. 40 million people and Texas approx. 28 million people. Houston including the metro are has an approx. population of 7 million people. Just adding Houston and UNM would be enough to get 5 million subscribers for the $50 million not to mention everything else like ticket sales and bowl appearances. I mean seriously if your going to try and make an argument against UH don't use BS math and skew the facts to fit your argument it makes you look completely unreliable.

(03-07-2016 04:51 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 02:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why is it that the empty wagons always make all the noise?

The Pac12 network makes 1 million dollars per team for the Pac12. The SEC networks is already making 5 times that much. The Big10 Network is making even more than that.

The Pac12 Networks problem is it has less than 20 million subscribers. In order for the Pac12 to keep pace with the other P5's, they need to get thier network into more homes. Only about a third of the US population is in the west, and about 60% of that is is two states--Texas and California. Any Pac12 expansion that doesn't include Texas is useless. The Pac12 Network is already in any western state with more than 3 million people. Texas has 28 million. It is the key to any Pac12 expansion.

The Pac12 has 2 choices. Make less than every other P5 for 12 long years waiting for the Big12 GOR to expire and hope UT decides to leave the Big12 for the one P5 conference that would cause UT athletes to travel farthest and a be seen by the fewest people---or, realize Texas isn't coming and make a move to shore up the P12 Networks subscriber base. That means selecting 1 or more G5 schools in Texas. The reality is that if the Big12 expands and creates its own network---then neither Texas or the Big12 is going anywhere for the next 12 years (and probably closer to 20 years because it's likley the B12 GOR will need to be extended to match the contract expiration date of the LHN in order for ESPN to sign off on its conversion to the B12N).

So UH to the Pac12 isn't nearly as ridiculous as you would like to portray it Billybobby. It's really nothing more than the reverse mirror of UConn to the Big12.

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

right now Jon Wilner has the PAC 12 teams taking in about $25 million each estimated in conference distributions so that is $300 million distributed for 12 teams

if you add the UH you need to add one other (the UH fans have New Mexico penciled in because......well WTF knows why, but that is who they are going to "travel partner" with

$300 million / 14 = $21.43 so a deficit of $3.57 million for each existing PAC 12 team

$25 million X 14 = $350 million so there needs to be $50 million (at least) in new revenue for the PAC 12 to hold even adding two teams

the PAC 12 network has 11 million subscribers according to Wilner (not 20)

so if you need the UH and UNM to bring in $50 million in new revenue most of that will be from subscribers

if you count 100% of the new subscribers as "profit" lets do the maths

$50 million / $.80 per subscriber per month = 62,500,000 months of subscriptions needed per year and there are 12 months in a year so

62,500,000 / 12 = 5,208,333 monthly subscribers needed

so the UH and UNM would need to more than double the number of subscribers for the PAC12n just for the PAC 12 to break even on adding them

and as of now 5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of cable subscribers in ALL of California and California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers

so the maths simply do not work out right now for adding teams to the PAC 12 unless it is enough teams with enough weight to bring about 3,000,000 cable subscribers EACH to the PAC12n

(03-07-2016 02:29 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I didn't think it was necessary to add Stanford to this conversation due to the similarity between Stanford and Houston is that they uh, they both have uh, they have in common uh.....sorry, I can't think of anything that Houston and Stanford have in common. I'm sure I'm forgetting something here.... Cheers!

mew stajiums that both seat 50,000 or less and do not regularly sell out

you owe me one...

umm California has alot more than 5 million people..... Texas has 28 million living in it and Houston has 7 million people living in it alone. So in your scenario Houston and new mexico would add well over 5 million new subscribers. You might want to learn math first before you try and teach it to some one else...

um every single person living in California does not have an individual cable TV subscription do they?

you probably should have stopped reading here

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

I can see UH being invited to the PAC...especially due to Rice U in the same town. I can easily see both being invited to the PAC. Rice and Stanford are highly similar schools academically; Stanford has decided over the past decade to emphasize athletics.

UCLA is the University of California at Los Angeles. It's not a city-state school. UC has a number of campuses across the large state.

Look who holds the power in the PAC: Southern Cal, UCLA, Stanford, Cal-Berkeley, and Washington. Those are major-heavyweight institutions by any metric. When the SWC was disintegrating 20+ years ago, 9 PAC presidents agreed to extend an invite to UTexas; Stanford did not agree to extend the invite, and it never left the mail room.

Check out the academic standings of Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, and the Arizona schools. Not bad, certainly not great. UO is AAU since 1969, and their academic standing / research $ are well below the AAU norm. Oregon State is -yeesh-.

PAC added Utah and Colorado, and each are well-regarded academically. Colorado is ranked between the big dogs of Cal, USC, et al, and Arizona, Utah, Arizona State. Both UC and UU do a lot of well-regarded research. I think UH is closing in on the level of Utah/Arizona, and Rice would be received with open arms by the PAC's powers.

Does the PAC need to expand? Dunno. Do they want to expand? Dunno. We sports fans saw in 1992(?) and again a couple of years ago that most of the PAC wanted UTexas, and for the overstated reasons in innumerable posts on many message boards, the Horns didn't head to a western-based athletic conference. Doesn't mean PAC has stopped looking at Texas the state, tho.

(03-07-2016 05:12 PM)All Rams All The Time Wrote:  Check out the academic standings of Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, and the Arizona schools. Not bad, certainly not great. UO is AAU since 1969, and their academic standing / research $ are well below the AAU norm. Oregon State is -yeesh-.

PAC added Utah and Colorado, and each are well-regarded academically. Colorado is ranked between the big dogs of Cal, USC, et al, and Arizona, Utah, Arizona State. Both UC and UU do a lot of well-regarded research. I think UH is closing in on the level of Utah/Arizona, and Rice would be received with open arms by the PAC's powers.

you might want to throttle back on that

Arizona has been in the AAU since 1985 and they are the flagship and land grant university of the State of Arizona

they might not be on the LEVEL of Stanford, Cal or UCLA, but few public universities are

in 2014 Arizona did $588 million in total research and development which was #33 out of all US universities

Utah $486 million

CU $411

UH $140.6

in federal research and development

Arizona $290

Utah $288.5

CU $285

UH $59

one of those is not like the others...

(03-07-2016 05:09 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 04:51 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 02:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why is it that the empty wagons always make all the noise?

The Pac12 network makes 1 million dollars per team for the Pac12. The SEC networks is already making 5 times that much. The Big10 Network is making even more than that.

The Pac12 Networks problem is it has less than 20 million subscribers. In order for the Pac12 to keep pace with the other P5's, they need to get thier network into more homes. Only about a third of the US population is in the west, and about 60% of that is is two states--Texas and California. Any Pac12 expansion that doesn't include Texas is useless. The Pac12 Network is already in any western state with more than 3 million people. Texas has 28 million. It is the key to any Pac12 expansion.

The Pac12 has 2 choices. Make less than every other P5 for 12 long years waiting for the Big12 GOR to expire and hope UT decides to leave the Big12 for the one P5 conference that would cause UT athletes to travel farthest and a be seen by the fewest people---or, realize Texas isn't coming and make a move to shore up the P12 Networks subscriber base. That means selecting 1 or more G5 schools in Texas. The reality is that if the Big12 expands and creates its own network---then neither Texas or the Big12 is going anywhere for the next 12 years (and probably closer to 20 years because it's likley the B12 GOR will need to be extended to match the contract expiration date of the LHN in order for ESPN to sign off on its conversion to the B12N).

So UH to the Pac12 isn't nearly as ridiculous as you would like to portray it Billybobby. It's really nothing more than the reverse mirror of UConn to the Big12.

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

right now Jon Wilner has the PAC 12 teams taking in about $25 million each estimated in conference distributions so that is $300 million distributed for 12 teams

if you add the UH you need to add one other (the UH fans have New Mexico penciled in because......well WTF knows why, but that is who they are going to "travel partner" with

$300 million / 14 = $21.43 so a deficit of $3.57 million for each existing PAC 12 team

$25 million X 14 = $350 million so there needs to be $50 million (at least) in new revenue for the PAC 12 to hold even adding two teams

the PAC 12 network has 11 million subscribers according to Wilner (not 20)

so if you need the UH and UNM to bring in $50 million in new revenue most of that will be from subscribers

if you count 100% of the new subscribers as "profit" lets do the maths

$50 million / $.80 per subscriber per month = 62,500,000 months of subscriptions needed per year and there are 12 months in a year so

62,500,000 / 12 = 5,208,333 monthly subscribers needed

so the UH and UNM would need to more than double the number of subscribers for the PAC12n just for the PAC 12 to break even on adding them

and as of now 5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of cable subscribers in ALL of California and California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers

so the maths simply do not work out right now for adding teams to the PAC 12 unless it is enough teams with enough weight to bring about 3,000,000 cable subscribers EACH to the PAC12n

(03-07-2016 02:29 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I didn't think it was necessary to add Stanford to this conversation due to the similarity between Stanford and Houston is that they uh, they both have uh, they have in common uh.....sorry, I can't think of anything that Houston and Stanford have in common. I'm sure I'm forgetting something here.... Cheers!

mew stajiums that both seat 50,000 or less and do not regularly sell out

you owe me one...

umm California has alot more than 5 million people..... Texas has 28 million living in it and Houston has 7 million people living in it alone. So in your scenario Houston and new mexico would add well over 5 million new subscribers. You might want to learn math first before you try and teach it to some one else...

um every single person living in California does not have an individual cable TV subscription do they?

you probably should have stopped reading here

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

Ummm where did I say exactly that everyone in California is subscribed to cable? I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your math. You should probably learn English and how to read before you come on here and make arguments with no factual basis. First of all the PAC 12 network isn't just on cable its on dish network, xfinity etc. all things that are not included in the cable statistics since they're not... you know cable. Second of all don't then use those false statics to come to a conclusion and then get mad when some one points out your fallacy. You should probably graduate high school first if your going to to be on here making arguments lmao. Also its math* bro not maths and I think you meant to say you should have stopped reading there*.

(03-07-2016 02:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why is it that the empty wagons always make all the noise?

The Pac12 network makes 1 million dollars per team for the Pac12. The SEC networks is already making 5 times that much. The Big10 Network is making even more than that.

The Pac12 Networks problem is it has less than 20 million subscribers. In order for the Pac12 to keep pace with the other P5's, they need to get thier network into more homes. Only about a third of the US population is in the west, and about 60% of that is is two states--Texas and California. Any Pac12 expansion that doesn't include Texas is useless. The Pac12 Network is already in any western state with more than 3 million people. Texas has 28 million. It is the key to any Pac12 expansion.

The Pac12 has 2 choices. Make less than every other P5 for 12 long years waiting for the Big12 GOR to expire and hope UT decides to leave the Big12 for the one P5 conference that would cause UT athletes to travel farthest and a be seen by the fewest people---or, realize Texas isn't coming and make a move to shore up the P12 Networks subscriber base. That means selecting 1 or more G5 schools in Texas. The reality is that if the Big12 expands and creates its own network---then neither Texas or the Big12 is going anywhere for the next 12 years (and probably closer to 20 years because it's likley the B12 GOR will need to be extended to match the contract expiration date of the LHN in order for ESPN to sign off on its conversion to the B12N).

So UH to the Pac12 isn't nearly as ridiculous as you would like to portray it Billybobby. It's really nothing more than the reverse mirror of UConn to the Big12.

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

right now Jon Wilner has the PAC 12 teams taking in about $25 million each estimated in conference distributions so that is $300 million distributed for 12 teams

if you add the UH you need to add one other (the UH fans have New Mexico penciled in because......well WTF knows why, but that is who they are going to "travel partner" with

$300 million / 14 = $21.43 so a deficit of $3.57 million for each existing PAC 12 team

$25 million X 14 = $350 million so there needs to be $50 million (at least) in new revenue for the PAC 12 to hold even adding two teams

the PAC 12 network has 11 million subscribers according to Wilner (not 20)

so if you need the UH and UNM to bring in $50 million in new revenue most of that will be from subscribers

if you count 100% of the new subscribers as "profit" lets do the maths

$50 million / $.80 per subscriber per month = 62,500,000 months of subscriptions needed per year and there are 12 months in a year so

62,500,000 / 12 = 5,208,333 monthly subscribers needed

so the UH and UNM would need to more than double the number of subscribers for the PAC12n just for the PAC 12 to break even on adding them

and as of now 5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of cable subscribers in ALL of California and California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers

so the maths simply do not work out right now for adding teams to the PAC 12 unless it is enough teams with enough weight to bring about 3,000,000 cable subscribers EACH to the PAC12n

(03-07-2016 02:29 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I didn't think it was necessary to add Stanford to this conversation due to the similarity between Stanford and Houston is that they uh, they both have uh, they have in common uh.....sorry, I can't think of anything that Houston and Stanford have in common. I'm sure I'm forgetting something here.... Cheers!

mew stajiums that both seat 50,000 or less and do not regularly sell out

you owe me one...

I gave you two:)
Cheers!

(03-07-2016 04:51 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 02:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why is it that the empty wagons always make all the noise?

The Pac12 network makes 1 million dollars per team for the Pac12. The SEC networks is already making 5 times that much. The Big10 Network is making even more than that.

The Pac12 Networks problem is it has less than 20 million subscribers. In order for the Pac12 to keep pace with the other P5's, they need to get thier network into more homes. Only about a third of the US population is in the west, and about 60% of that is is two states--Texas and California. Any Pac12 expansion that doesn't include Texas is useless. The Pac12 Network is already in any western state with more than 3 million people. Texas has 28 million. It is the key to any Pac12 expansion.

The Pac12 has 2 choices. Make less than every other P5 for 12 long years waiting for the Big12 GOR to expire and hope UT decides to leave the Big12 for the one P5 conference that would cause UT athletes to travel farthest and a be seen by the fewest people---or, realize Texas isn't coming and make a move to shore up the P12 Networks subscriber base. That means selecting 1 or more G5 schools in Texas. The reality is that if the Big12 expands and creates its own network---then neither Texas or the Big12 is going anywhere for the next 12 years (and probably closer to 20 years because it's likley the B12 GOR will need to be extended to match the contract expiration date of the LHN in order for ESPN to sign off on its conversion to the B12N).

So UH to the Pac12 isn't nearly as ridiculous as you would like to portray it Billybobby. It's really nothing more than the reverse mirror of UConn to the Big12.

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

right now Jon Wilner has the PAC 12 teams taking in about $25 million each estimated in conference distributions so that is $300 million distributed for 12 teams

if you add the UH you need to add one other (the UH fans have New Mexico penciled in because......well WTF knows why, but that is who they are going to "travel partner" with

$300 million / 14 = $21.43 so a deficit of $3.57 million for each existing PAC 12 team

$25 million X 14 = $350 million so there needs to be $50 million (at least) in new revenue for the PAC 12 to hold even adding two teams

the PAC 12 network has 11 million subscribers according to Wilner (not 20)

so if you need the UH and UNM to bring in $50 million in new revenue most of that will be from subscribers

if you count 100% of the new subscribers as "profit" lets do the maths

$50 million / $.80 per subscriber per month = 62,500,000 months of subscriptions needed per year and there are 12 months in a year so

62,500,000 / 12 = 5,208,333 monthly subscribers needed

so the UH and UNM would need to more than double the number of subscribers for the PAC12n just for the PAC 12 to break even on adding them

and as of now 5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of cable subscribers in ALL of California and California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers

so the maths simply do not work out right now for adding teams to the PAC 12 unless it is enough teams with enough weight to bring about 3,000,000 cable subscribers EACH to the PAC12n

(03-07-2016 02:29 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I didn't think it was necessary to add Stanford to this conversation due to the similarity between Stanford and Houston is that they uh, they both have uh, they have in common uh.....sorry, I can't think of anything that Houston and Stanford have in common. I'm sure I'm forgetting something here.... Cheers!

mew stajiums that both seat 50,000 or less and do not regularly sell out

you owe me one...

New Stadiums* math* learn English first of all second of all have you ever heard of a fallacy because your math is based on a fallacy and would not matter at all in any situation. You literally only counted the PAC-12 TV subscription and not ticket revenues apparel, TV exposure and bowl appearances etc. to skew your argument. According to http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ributions/ ... In 2014 the PAC 12 network only made $105 million off the 11 million subscribers of its network less than 50% of its total $374 million. Most of of the PAC-12's revenue comes from TV rights at $282 million a year and bowls at $39.95 million a year. So adding two teams would only increase the TV and bowl money as that would equal to more TV coverage and more conference teams playing in bowls.

Not to mention California has a population of aprox. 40 million people and Texas approx. 28 million people. Houston including the metro are has an approx. population of 7 million people. Just adding Houston and UNM would be enough to get 5 million subscribers for the $50 million not to mention everything else like ticket sales and bowl appearances. I mean seriously if your going to try and make an argument against UH don't use BS math and skew the facts to fit your argument it makes you look completely unreliable.

The PAC 12 network is a flop. Adding Houston won't move the needle. Only Texas (if they dropped the LHN) and OU could make that network some money. That said, it still wouldn't come close to the Big 10 Network or SEC Network. People in the Midwest and South will pay whatever they have to to watch their state flagships play even in the most obscure college sports like college Wrestling college Hockey, college baseball etc. just tellin truths.....
Cheers!

(03-07-2016 05:29 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 05:12 PM)All Rams All The Time Wrote:  Check out the academic standings of Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, and the Arizona schools. Not bad, certainly not great. UO is AAU since 1969, and their academic standing / research $ are well below the AAU norm. Oregon State is -yeesh-.

PAC added Utah and Colorado, and each are well-regarded academically. Colorado is ranked between the big dogs of Cal, USC, et al, and Arizona, Utah, Arizona State. Both UC and UU do a lot of well-regarded research. I think UH is closing in on the level of Utah/Arizona, and Rice would be received with open arms by the PAC's powers.

you might want to throttle back on that

Arizona has been in the AAU since 1985 and they are the flagship and land grant university of the State of Arizona

they might not be on the LEVEL of Stanford, Cal or UCLA, but few public universities are

in 2014 Arizona did $588 million in total research and development which was #33 out of all US universities

Utah $486 million

CU $411

UH $140.6

in federal research and development

Arizona $290

Utah $288.5

CU $285

UH $59

one of those is not like the others...

You could even add other PAC dreamers like Hawaii, New Mexico and Colorado St to your list and show their research $ compared to Houston. Cheers!

(03-07-2016 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 04:51 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 02:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why is it that the empty wagons always make all the noise?

The Pac12 network makes 1 million dollars per team for the Pac12. The SEC networks is already making 5 times that much. The Big10 Network is making even more than that.

The Pac12 Networks problem is it has less than 20 million subscribers. In order for the Pac12 to keep pace with the other P5's, they need to get thier network into more homes. Only about a third of the US population is in the west, and about 60% of that is is two states--Texas and California. Any Pac12 expansion that doesn't include Texas is useless. The Pac12 Network is already in any western state with more than 3 million people. Texas has 28 million. It is the key to any Pac12 expansion.

The Pac12 has 2 choices. Make less than every other P5 for 12 long years waiting for the Big12 GOR to expire and hope UT decides to leave the Big12 for the one P5 conference that would cause UT athletes to travel farthest and a be seen by the fewest people---or, realize Texas isn't coming and make a move to shore up the P12 Networks subscriber base. That means selecting 1 or more G5 schools in Texas. The reality is that if the Big12 expands and creates its own network---then neither Texas or the Big12 is going anywhere for the next 12 years (and probably closer to 20 years because it's likley the B12 GOR will need to be extended to match the contract expiration date of the LHN in order for ESPN to sign off on its conversion to the B12N).

So UH to the Pac12 isn't nearly as ridiculous as you would like to portray it Billybobby. It's really nothing more than the reverse mirror of UConn to the Big12.

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

right now Jon Wilner has the PAC 12 teams taking in about $25 million each estimated in conference distributions so that is $300 million distributed for 12 teams

if you add the UH you need to add one other (the UH fans have New Mexico penciled in because......well WTF knows why, but that is who they are going to "travel partner" with

$300 million / 14 = $21.43 so a deficit of $3.57 million for each existing PAC 12 team

$25 million X 14 = $350 million so there needs to be $50 million (at least) in new revenue for the PAC 12 to hold even adding two teams

the PAC 12 network has 11 million subscribers according to Wilner (not 20)

so if you need the UH and UNM to bring in $50 million in new revenue most of that will be from subscribers

if you count 100% of the new subscribers as "profit" lets do the maths

$50 million / $.80 per subscriber per month = 62,500,000 months of subscriptions needed per year and there are 12 months in a year so

62,500,000 / 12 = 5,208,333 monthly subscribers needed

so the UH and UNM would need to more than double the number of subscribers for the PAC12n just for the PAC 12 to break even on adding them

and as of now 5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of cable subscribers in ALL of California and California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers

so the maths simply do not work out right now for adding teams to the PAC 12 unless it is enough teams with enough weight to bring about 3,000,000 cable subscribers EACH to the PAC12n

(03-07-2016 02:29 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I didn't think it was necessary to add Stanford to this conversation due to the similarity between Stanford and Houston is that they uh, they both have uh, they have in common uh.....sorry, I can't think of anything that Houston and Stanford have in common. I'm sure I'm forgetting something here.... Cheers!

mew stajiums that both seat 50,000 or less and do not regularly sell out

you owe me one...

New Stadiums* math* learn English first of all second of all have you ever heard of a fallacy because your math is based on a fallacy and would not matter at all in any situation. You literally only counted the PAC-12 TV subscription and not ticket revenues apparel, TV exposure and bowl appearances etc. to skew your argument. According to http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ributions/ ... In 2014 the PAC 12 network only made $105 million off the 11 million subscribers of its network less than 50% of its total $374 million. Most of of the PAC-12's revenue comes from TV rights at $282 million a year and bowls at $39.95 million a year. So adding two teams would only increase the TV and bowl money as that would equal to more TV coverage and more conference teams playing in bowls.

Not to mention California has a population of aprox. 40 million people and Texas approx. 28 million people. Houston including the metro are has an approx. population of 7 million people. Just adding Houston and UNM would be enough to get 5 million subscribers for the $50 million not to mention everything else like ticket sales and bowl appearances. I mean seriously if your going to try and make an argument against UH don't use BS math and skew the facts to fit your argument it makes you look completely unreliable.

The PAC 12 network is a flop. Adding Houston won't move the needle. Only Texas (if they dropped the LHN) and OU could make that network some money. That said, it still wouldn't come close to the Big 10 Network or SEC Network. People in the Midwest and South will pay whatever they have to to watch their state flagships play even in the most obscure college sports like college Wrestling college Hockey, college baseball etc. just tellin truths.....
Cheers!

Houston may not move the needle on the network as much as Texas but it still would move the needle on TV exposure and bowl revenue regardless. More teams from your conference in big name bowls means more TV and bowl money.

(03-07-2016 06:18 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 05:09 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 04:51 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 02:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why is it that the empty wagons always make all the noise?

The Pac12 network makes 1 million dollars per team for the Pac12. The SEC networks is already making 5 times that much. The Big10 Network is making even more than that.

The Pac12 Networks problem is it has less than 20 million subscribers. In order for the Pac12 to keep pace with the other P5's, they need to get thier network into more homes. Only about a third of the US population is in the west, and about 60% of that is is two states--Texas and California. Any Pac12 expansion that doesn't include Texas is useless. The Pac12 Network is already in any western state with more than 3 million people. Texas has 28 million. It is the key to any Pac12 expansion.

The Pac12 has 2 choices. Make less than every other P5 for 12 long years waiting for the Big12 GOR to expire and hope UT decides to leave the Big12 for the one P5 conference that would cause UT athletes to travel farthest and a be seen by the fewest people---or, realize Texas isn't coming and make a move to shore up the P12 Networks subscriber base. That means selecting 1 or more G5 schools in Texas. The reality is that if the Big12 expands and creates its own network---then neither Texas or the Big12 is going anywhere for the next 12 years (and probably closer to 20 years because it's likley the B12 GOR will need to be extended to match the contract expiration date of the LHN in order for ESPN to sign off on its conversion to the B12N).

So UH to the Pac12 isn't nearly as ridiculous as you would like to portray it Billybobby. It's really nothing more than the reverse mirror of UConn to the Big12.

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

right now Jon Wilner has the PAC 12 teams taking in about $25 million each estimated in conference distributions so that is $300 million distributed for 12 teams

if you add the UH you need to add one other (the UH fans have New Mexico penciled in because......well WTF knows why, but that is who they are going to "travel partner" with

$300 million / 14 = $21.43 so a deficit of $3.57 million for each existing PAC 12 team

$25 million X 14 = $350 million so there needs to be $50 million (at least) in new revenue for the PAC 12 to hold even adding two teams

the PAC 12 network has 11 million subscribers according to Wilner (not 20)

so if you need the UH and UNM to bring in $50 million in new revenue most of that will be from subscribers

if you count 100% of the new subscribers as "profit" lets do the maths

$50 million / $.80 per subscriber per month = 62,500,000 months of subscriptions needed per year and there are 12 months in a year so

62,500,000 / 12 = 5,208,333 monthly subscribers needed

so the UH and UNM would need to more than double the number of subscribers for the PAC12n just for the PAC 12 to break even on adding them

and as of now 5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of cable subscribers in ALL of California and California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers

so the maths simply do not work out right now for adding teams to the PAC 12 unless it is enough teams with enough weight to bring about 3,000,000 cable subscribers EACH to the PAC12n

(03-07-2016 02:29 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I didn't think it was necessary to add Stanford to this conversation due to the similarity between Stanford and Houston is that they uh, they both have uh, they have in common uh.....sorry, I can't think of anything that Houston and Stanford have in common. I'm sure I'm forgetting something here.... Cheers!

mew stajiums that both seat 50,000 or less and do not regularly sell out

you owe me one...

umm California has alot more than 5 million people..... Texas has 28 million living in it and Houston has 7 million people living in it alone. So in your scenario Houston and new mexico would add well over 5 million new subscribers. You might want to learn math first before you try and teach it to some one else...

um every single person living in California does not have an individual cable TV subscription do they?

you probably should have stopped reading here

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

Ummm where did I say exactly that everyone in California is subscribed to cable? I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your math. You should probably learn English and how to read before you come on here and make arguments with no factual basis. First of all the PAC 12 network isn't just on cable its on dish network, xfinity etc. all things that are not included in the cable statistics since they're not... you know cable. Second of all don't then use those false statics to come to a conclusion and then get mad when some one points out your fallacy. You should probably graduate high school first if your going to to be on here making arguments lmao. Also its math* bro not maths and I think you meant to say you should have stopped reading there*.

where exactly did I say that California has only 5 million residents I said they had about 5 million cable subscribers and that would include dish and the like

so there is no fallacy in my math and you need to learn to read

ToddRodge said, "there is maths involved here so this might pass you by"


lol are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!?!? Hahaha this can't be real.

(03-07-2016 06:51 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 06:18 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 05:09 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 04:51 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 02:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

right now Jon Wilner has the PAC 12 teams taking in about $25 million each estimated in conference distributions so that is $300 million distributed for 12 teams

if you add the UH you need to add one other (the UH fans have New Mexico penciled in because......well WTF knows why, but that is who they are going to "travel partner" with

$300 million / 14 = $21.43 so a deficit of $3.57 million for each existing PAC 12 team

$25 million X 14 = $350 million so there needs to be $50 million (at least) in new revenue for the PAC 12 to hold even adding two teams

the PAC 12 network has 11 million subscribers according to Wilner (not 20)

so if you need the UH and UNM to bring in $50 million in new revenue most of that will be from subscribers

if you count 100% of the new subscribers as "profit" lets do the maths

$50 million / $.80 per subscriber per month = 62,500,000 months of subscriptions needed per year and there are 12 months in a year so

62,500,000 / 12 = 5,208,333 monthly subscribers needed

so the UH and UNM would need to more than double the number of subscribers for the PAC12n just for the PAC 12 to break even on adding them

and as of now 5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of cable subscribers in ALL of California and California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers

so the maths simply do not work out right now for adding teams to the PAC 12 unless it is enough teams with enough weight to bring about 3,000,000 cable subscribers EACH to the PAC12n



mew stajiums that both seat 50,000 or less and do not regularly sell out

you owe me one...

umm California has alot more than 5 million people..... Texas has 28 million living in it and Houston has 7 million people living in it alone. So in your scenario Houston and new mexico would add well over 5 million new subscribers. You might want to learn math first before you try and teach it to some one else...

um every single person living in California does not have an individual cable TV subscription do they?

you probably should have stopped reading here

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

Ummm where did I say exactly that everyone in California is subscribed to cable? I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your math. You should probably learn English and how to read before you come on here and make arguments with no factual basis. First of all the PAC 12 network isn't just on cable its on dish network, xfinity etc. all things that are not included in the cable statistics since they're not... you know cable. Second of all don't then use those false statics to come to a conclusion and then get mad when some one points out your fallacy. You should probably graduate high school first if your going to to be on here making arguments lmao. Also its math* bro not maths and I think you meant to say you should have stopped reading there*.

where exactly did I say that California has only 5 million residents I said they had about 5 million cable subscribers and that would include dish and the like

so there is no fallacy in my math and you need to learn to read

[/quote]

and as of now 5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of cable subscribers in ALL of California and California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers

[/quote]

Well right here..... is were you messed up if California has 5 million cable subscribers then that means about 30-35 million people who watch TV are subscribed to dish, xfinity etc. or non cable subscriptions. If you spoke English you would have known clarify that you meant the 5,000 million subscribers you were talking about were not just subscribers of cable. This is not even including the fact that if you had done any research you would know your data alone is completely off, which is why people will get confused and think you were talking about cable subscribers. Since like I said almost 30-35 million people in California are subscribed to a TV network in one way or another.

The way English works when you say "and as of now "5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of all cable subscribers in California" that means you are stating what the approx. number of current cable subscribers in California is. Which means you are not including subscribers of non cable networks such as dish, xfinity etc.

So then when you go onto to say "California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers" you are not clarifying what subscribers means in the context of the sentence. Which means the person reading your statement is forced to assume that your including non cable subscribers in the context of your statement.

This then inevitably causes your statements to become fallacies. Especially when you state "there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers" Since almost all of Texas' population is subscribed to a television network in some way and you state that even if they got 100% of Texas subscribers they would not get 5,000,000 new subscribers, you have now effectively implied Texas has less than 5 million people. As well since you stated that since California has a population larger than Texas, and the 5 million you stated is the total number of subscribers in California you have now implied that either 30 million people don't watch tv in anyway in California based on real world data. That or you don't know there are around 30-35 million people living in California subscribed to a television network. Which then makes one infer you think California has a population of or around 5 million. Since most people will not think your crazy enough to believe almost 35 million people don't watch television in California.

So basically since you failed to clarify your original statement one must infer based on real world facts and data, along with how you word your argument, that you think the population of California is only around 5 million.

To your last statement cable subscriber statistics only include people with cable i.e. Comcast, Time warner etc. Since dish and direct tv use this thing called a satellite dish, and it is not included in cable statistics. So sorry just because you made a foolish argument doesn't mean you can skew facts to cover your mess up.

Also you don't start sentences or new paragraphs with "and". Learn English, learn how context works I would recommend taking some online courses in English maybe go to school. But seriously no one on here can take some one seriously if they can't even speak properly.

(03-07-2016 06:51 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 06:18 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 05:09 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 04:51 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 02:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

right now Jon Wilner has the PAC 12 teams taking in about $25 million each estimated in conference distributions so that is $300 million distributed for 12 teams

if you add the UH you need to add one other (the UH fans have New Mexico penciled in because......well WTF knows why, but that is who they are going to "travel partner" with

$300 million / 14 = $21.43 so a deficit of $3.57 million for each existing PAC 12 team

$25 million X 14 = $350 million so there needs to be $50 million (at least) in new revenue for the PAC 12 to hold even adding two teams

the PAC 12 network has 11 million subscribers according to Wilner (not 20)

so if you need the UH and UNM to bring in $50 million in new revenue most of that will be from subscribers

if you count 100% of the new subscribers as "profit" lets do the maths

$50 million / $.80 per subscriber per month = 62,500,000 months of subscriptions needed per year and there are 12 months in a year so

62,500,000 / 12 = 5,208,333 monthly subscribers needed

so the UH and UNM would need to more than double the number of subscribers for the PAC12n just for the PAC 12 to break even on adding them

and as of now 5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of cable subscribers in ALL of California and California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers

so the maths simply do not work out right now for adding teams to the PAC 12 unless it is enough teams with enough weight to bring about 3,000,000 cable subscribers EACH to the PAC12n



mew stajiums that both seat 50,000 or less and do not regularly sell out

you owe me one...

umm California has alot more than 5 million people..... Texas has 28 million living in it and Houston has 7 million people living in it alone. So in your scenario Houston and new mexico would add well over 5 million new subscribers. You might want to learn math first before you try and teach it to some one else...

um every single person living in California does not have an individual cable TV subscription do they?

you probably should have stopped reading here

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

Ummm where did I say exactly that everyone in California is subscribed to cable? I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your math. You should probably learn English and how to read before you come on here and make arguments with no factual basis. First of all the PAC 12 network isn't just on cable its on dish network, xfinity etc. all things that are not included in the cable statistics since they're not... you know cable. Second of all don't then use those false statics to come to a conclusion and then get mad when some one points out your fallacy. You should probably graduate high school first if your going to to be on here making arguments lmao. Also its math* bro not maths and I think you meant to say you should have stopped reading there*.

where exactly did I say that California has only 5 million residents I said they had about 5 million cable subscribers and that would include dish and the like

so there is no fallacy in my math and you need to learn to read

Please don't tell me you actually believe only 5 million of California's 40 million population watch tv lmao!

(03-07-2016 06:56 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  ToddRodge said, "there is maths involved here so this might pass you by"


lol are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!?!? Hahaha this can't be real.

I know right?? I really hope these arnt the kinda kids going to school in the "high educational" standards that is the pac-12

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...g-rig.html

(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 06:51 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 06:18 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 05:09 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 04:51 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  umm California has alot more than 5 million people..... Texas has 28 million living in it and Houston has 7 million people living in it alone. So in your scenario Houston and new mexico would add well over 5 million new subscribers. You might want to learn math first before you try and teach it to some one else...

um every single person living in California does not have an individual cable TV subscription do they?

you probably should have stopped reading here

there is maths involved here so this might pass you by

Ummm where did I say exactly that everyone in California is subscribed to cable? I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your math. You should probably learn English and how to read before you come on here and make arguments with no factual basis. First of all the PAC 12 network isn't just on cable its on dish network, xfinity etc. all things that are not included in the cable statistics since they're not... you know cable. Second of all don't then use those false statics to come to a conclusion and then get mad when some one points out your fallacy. You should probably graduate high school first if your going to to be on here making arguments lmao. Also its math* bro not maths and I think you meant to say you should have stopped reading there*.

where exactly did I say that California has only 5 million residents I said they had about 5 million cable subscribers and that would include dish and the like

so there is no fallacy in my math and you need to learn to read

and as of now 5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of cable subscribers in ALL of California and California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers

[/quote]

Well right here..... is were you messed up if California has 5 million cable subscribers then that means about 30-35 million people who watch TV are subscribed to dish, xfinity etc. or non cable subscriptions. If you spoke English you would have known clarify that you meant the 5,000 million subscribers you were talking about were not just subscribers of cable. This is not even including the fact that if you had done any research you would know your data alone is completely off, which is why people will get confused and think you were talking about cable subscribers. Since like I said almost 30-35 million people in California are subscribed to a TV network in one way or another.

The way English works when you say "and as of now "5,208,333 subscribers is about the amount of all cable subscribers in California" that means you are stating what the approx. number of current cable subscribers in California is. Which means you are not including subscribers of non cable networks such as dish, xfinity etc.

So then when you go onto to say "California is of course larger in population than Texas and there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers" you are not clarifying what subscribers means in the context of the sentence. Which means the person reading your statement is forced to assume that your including non cable subscribers in the context of your statement.

This then inevitably causes your statements to become fallacies. Especially when you state "there is little chance the PAC12n is able to get 100% of the subscribers in Texas and New Mexico even with the mighty the UH and UNM and even if they did that is still not going to be 5,000,000+ new subscribers" Since almost all of Texas' population is subscribed to a television network in some way and you state that even if they got 100% of Texas subscribers they would not get 5,000,000 new subscribers, you have now effectively implied Texas has less than 5 million people. As well since you stated that since California has a population larger than Texas, and the 5 million you stated is the total number of subscribers in California you have now implied that either 30 million people don't watch tv in anyway in California based on real world data. That or you don't know there are around 30-35 million people living in California subscribed to a television network. Which then makes one infer you think California has a population of or around 5 million. Since most people will not think your crazy enough to believe almost 35 million people don't watch television in California.

So basically since you failed to clarify your original statement one must infer based on real world facts and data, along with how you word your argument, that you think the population of California is only around 5 million.

To your last statement cable subscriber statistics only include people with cable i.e. Comcast, Time warner etc. Since dish and direct tv use this thing called a satellite dish, and it is not included in cable statistics. So sorry just because you made a foolish argument doesn't mean you can skew facts to cover your mess up.

Also you don't start sentences or new paragraphs with "and". Learn English, learn how context works I would recommend taking some online courses in English maybe go to school. But seriously no one on here can take some one seriously if they can't even speak properly.
[/quote]

lol....are actually expecting the use of punctuation, capitals, and coherent thoughts from ToddRodge? I stopped reading most of his stuff long ago. It usually only takes a few sentences to figure out what silly idea he is trying to twist the facts to fit. No need to read 2 pages of jumbled run-on sentences.

Ranking of research universities involves more than total or federal research dollars. Other metrics such as the number of National Academy Members, Faculty Awards, and Postdoctoral appointees are involved. UH ranks above many AAU schools in these metrics. Between 2006 and 2010, UH Post Doctoral Appointees rose 88% while passing 28 universities.

Houston will not be invited to the PAC any time soon. TARU ranks UH (81) which is above only two members of the PAC, Oregon and Washington State.

Top American Research Universities 2013 Annual Report

There is one metric which is a far better assessment of research quality and has far greater significance than others. That is Intellectual Property Revenue.

"Royalties from our licenses have grown to the level where UH now ranks No. 14 among all public universities in the nation and No. 1 in the nation among all public universities without a medical school."

2013 President's Report (See Royalties)

(03-07-2016 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 11:24 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 07:45 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 02:52 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Except outside of Houston fans there was never any real talk of Houston getting into the sec. True Houston fans knew the sec was always going to be a pipe dream anyway.

With the pac 12 its a different story, this time its the outsiders talking about Houston to the pac 12. While Houston fans are the ones not quite ready to believe there is even a chance.

There are certainly Coog fans who are beyond believing that Houston has a chance at the PAC. They beleive it will happen. When the the most glaring and most obvious reason is brought up on why it's impossible, the default Houston fan reply has become "But UCLA is in the PAC". I suppose ECU fans can use that one too...But SOUTHERN Cal is in the PAC"...cheers!

Why is it that the empty wagons always make all the noise?

The Pac12 network makes 1 million dollars per team for the Pac12. The SEC networks is already making 5 times that much. The Big10 Network is making even more than that.

The Pac12 Networks problem is it has less than 20 million subscribers. In order for the Pac12 to keep pace with the other P5's, they need to get thier network into more homes. Only about a third of the US population is in the west, and about 60% of that is is two states--Texas and California. Any Pac12 expansion that doesn't include Texas is useless. The Pac12 Network is already in any western state with more than 3 million people. Texas has 28 million. It is the key to any Pac12 expansion.

The Pac12 has 2 choices. Make less than every other P5 for 12 long years waiting for the Big12 GOR to expire and hope UT decides to leave the Big12 for the one P5 conference that would cause UT athletes to travel farthest and a be seen by the fewest people---or, realize Texas isn't coming and make a move to shore up the P12 Networks subscriber base. That means selecting 1 or more G5 schools in Texas. The reality is that if the Big12 expands and creates its own network---then neither Texas or the Big12 is going anywhere for the next 12 years (and probably closer to 20 years because it's likley the B12 GOR will need to be extended to match the contract expiration date of the LHN in order for ESPN to sign off on its conversion to the B12N).

So UH to the Pac12 isn't nearly as ridiculous as you would like to portray it Billybobby. It's really nothing more than the reverse mirror of UConn to the Big12.

Um....no. Uconn in the big 12 would be top 5 in atheistic revenue, would be top 4 in academic ranking and would be top 5 in number of major sports championships... and they would bring in a top 5 market. Uconn for the Big 12 checks off more "must haves" on the admittance checklist than Houston does for the Pac12.
Other problem is that the Big 12 isnt an academic elite conference. Its solid, but not elite... the Pac 12 is elite and they are elitist. They turned down OU and OSU as a package because Texas wasnt a part of the deal. Thats how much they dont care for OSUs academics.

Love me some Houston but that comparison isnt accurate.

Houston is classified in the highest tier of research universities by Carnegie and is a top 200 ranked USNWP. It is a large urban public university, like many of the Pac-12 schools. It has past major conference history and has significant history of national relevance in both major revenue sports (SWC championships, Cotton bowl wins, Final Fours, and the Game of the Century that ushered in the tv era of college basketball). In football UH is 88-44 over the last decade winning double digits in 40% of their seasons.

Look, ..Are we the Pac-12 first choice? lol...Hell no! But Texas isn't coming. And if the Big-12 survives---neither is any other B12 team. Look at the roster of expansion candidates and look at a map of where people live---there are no better choices for the Pac12 once the P5's are off the table. Like I said, they can either spend the next 20 years falling farther and farther behind the other P5's in earnings, or they can expand with G5's---just like the B12 is doing. I know that the Pac-12 has talked to us and the interest is mutual. Doesn't mean anything is happening anytime soon--but the massive investment of money into the UH sports programs by the administration is not just about the Bi12.

Lots of schools ranked in the top tier of Carnegie, but that still doesnt mean academically you are a peer to the Pac12 schools and they simply dont see you as such.
Seriously man, you know I love the coogs but Houston simply isnt anywhere near the same as a Pac 12 school. Look at your research numbers and rankings.
It would honestly be like me saying that USF deserves to be in the Big 10.... well, actually were closer academically to the Big 10 than Houston is to the Pac and we have no prayer at all.