(03-07-2016 10:17 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Lol....they were going to take Texas Tech a few years ago, the Harvard of Lubbock. They will do what they need to do to stay competive.

(03-07-2016 11:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:17 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

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

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

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.

Lol....they were going to take Texas Tech a few years ago, the Harvard of Lubbock. They will do what they need to do to stay competive.

Let's put what you said regarding the PAC and Texas Tech in perspective:
1. You forgot to mention that Texas Tech was getting in the PAC because they were coming with Texas, AtM and OU. 2. Texas was pushing for Texas Tech. 3. Texas will play in a conference with Texas Tech. 4. Texas has been pushing for Texas Tech to get AAU status.
Texas won't push for Houston to get into the PAC.
Texas won't play in a conference that has Houston.
Texas won't even schedule Houston.
Texas has been openly hostile to Houston for over 20 years and is just right now investing in a branch on 300 acres in Houston, UT-Houston is disrespectful, and a huge slap in the face to Houston by UT. A "hostile move" says a Texas House Rep.
Those are a few of the reasons why Texas Tech was once almost invited to the PAC, and why it's not a justification for Houston in any way.
Just tellin truths....Cheers!

(03-07-2016 08:21 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

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

are you such a damn dunce that you believe that INDIVIDUALS count as cable TV subscribers

apparently you are that stupid

cable TV does not bill on the basis of the number of people that live in a residence nor to they bill on the basis of the number of people that sit in front of a TV and watch a game

they bill based on something called a SUBSCRIPTION and that SUBSCRIPTION could be for one person or for a family of 6 or more

(03-08-2016 12:06 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 11:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:17 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

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

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

Lol....they were going to take Texas Tech a few years ago, the Harvard of Lubbock. They will do what they need to do to stay competive.

Let's put what you said regarding the PAC and Texas Tech in perspective:
1. You forgot to mention that Texas Tech was getting in the PAC because they were coming with Texas, AtM and OU. 2. Texas was pushing for Texas Tech. 3. Texas will play in a conference with Texas Tech. 4. Texas has been pushing for Texas Tech to get AAU status.
Texas won't push for Houston to get into the PAC.
Texas won't play in a conference that has Houston.
Texas won't even schedule Houston.
Texas has been openly hostile to Houston for over 20 years and is just right now investing in a branch on 300 acres in Houston, UT-Houston is disrespectful, and a huge slap in the face to Houston by UT. A "hostile move" says a Texas House Rep.
Those are a few of the reasons why Texas Tech was once almost invited to the PAC, and why it's a not justification for Houston in any way.
Just tellin truths....Cheers!

And neither Texas nor Texas Tech is going to Pac12 if the Big 12 expands. Tech is about as close to AAU status as we are (which is not close). Texas Tech isn't getting AAU status because Texas wants them to. Hell a third or more of the AAU membership doesn't want AAU expanded at all--regardless of the schools qualifications, because they believe expansion of the AAU degrades the advantages of being AAU.

Yes, Texas has been openly hostile towards Houston, though Houston never really reciprocated---until now. The move into Houston has already begun to garner negative flak from the legislature--driven by UH lobbying behind the scenes. The piling on has begun. The waste of duplicating an entire campus less than 5 miles from another major state school is already drawing interest in the state capital---and its not positive. I guarantee that campus is dead by the time the next session of the Texas Legislature comes to a close. With the current price of oil, there are going to be budget issues and this kind of waste is not going to play well in that environment.

So, as far as the Pac12 goes, just remember---your back to square one with your circular argument---which doesn't address the real issue. The Pac-12 Network needs more cable subscribers and the only place where a significant number of cable subscribers exists west of the Mississippi is in Texas. There are 4.7 million cable subscribers in Texas. Comparable that with the 124K cable subscribers in Idaho---or the 504K cable subscribers in Nevada---or the 212K cable subscribers in New Mexico. Do you see my point? Pac12 expansion without Texas doesn't work. In fact, the Pac12- Network without Texas doesn't work.

The end game for the Pac12 is to get into Texas. They want UT, but I don't think they can afford to wait for 20 years.

(03-08-2016 12:06 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 11:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:17 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

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

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

Lol....they were going to take Texas Tech a few years ago, the Harvard of Lubbock. They will do what they need to do to stay competive.

Let's put what you said regarding the PAC and Texas Tech in perspective:
1. You forgot to mention that Texas Tech was getting in the PAC because they were coming with Texas, AtM and OU. 2. Texas was pushing for Texas Tech. 3. Texas will play in a conference with Texas Tech. 4. Texas has been pushing for Texas Tech to get AAU status.
Texas won't push for Houston to get into the PAC.
Texas won't play in a conference that has Houston.
Texas won't even schedule Houston.
Texas has been openly hostile to Houston for over 20 years and is just right now investing in a branch on 300 acres in Houston, UT-Houston is disrespectful, and a huge slap in the face to Houston by UT. A "hostile move" says a Texas House Rep.
Those are a few of the reasons why Texas Tech was once almost invited to the PAC, and why it's a not justification for Houston in any way.
Just tellin truths....Cheers!

Some one once told me college's can exist without sports and conferences, but conferences cant exist without college sports. So while the pac-12 can sit all mighty and not take schools because of "research" money etc. Eventually when the time comes and the conference begins to fall so far behind the other major conferences that they have to think about expansion that stance may not be so "liked" by the schools i.e. USC.

For purely hypothetical reason lets say adding UH would bring in $50 million a year to the conference a ridiculous number I know but stick with me here. Lets also say that UH's research and academic rankings etc. where much worse then they are now. Do you think the Pac-12 is going to turn down that $50 million dollars once they keep falling behind the other major conferences? You do the math....

(03-08-2016 01:27 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:08 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 08:21 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

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

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

are you such a damn dunce that you believe that INDIVIDUALS count as cable TV subscribers

apparently you are that stupid

cable TV does not bill on the basis of the number of people that live in a residence nor to they bill on the basis of the number of people that sit in front of a TV and watch a game

they bill based on something called a SUBSCRIPTION and that SUBSCRIPTION could be for one person or for a family of 6 or more

Yes genius I know how cable works I'm not really sure any more what the point your making because you keep basing your "maths" arguments on complete fallacies.

Since you dont research anything any just post random numbers in order to keep making false arguments I did the research for you. http://www.calcable.org/learn/cable-in-california/ notice how cable subscribers can be people who strictly use it for internet and not TV. As of right now approx. 5.6 million household use cable in California in some way whether it be for TV or just internet.

So here is some "maths" for you unless those 5.5 million homes in California all had at least 6 people in them and they all used cable for TV and not just internet that would still only come out to around 33 million people. Also continuing with your logic lets say the term cable subscriber includes those who use dish, and direct tv etc. That would mean about 7 million people don't subscribe to cable meaning they don't watch TV at all.

But since your research is flawed here is the difference between cable and satellite http://www.digitallanding.com/20-questio...-satellite

Now since there is no real way to track the number of satellite TV subscribers vs cable TV subscribers since one cable subscription can be used for both internet or tv here is a link showing cable subscriber statistics along with satalite subscribers for each company. http://www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Cons...ns/1012906

Here is the population of California https://suburbanstats.org/population/how...california for your information. Here is the population of Texas http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/48

Like I said your math is a complete fallacy and therefore irrelevant. Next time do some research on your arguments... But I like how you ignored my previous post that explains why I had no idea what your were saying because you don't want to look ignorant.

those 5.4 million people in the calcable numbers are the number of BILLS PAID each month you fool

THAT IS THE NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS

it does not matter how many people live in the home it matters how many people pay a damn bill each month

there are fewer than 100 million "paid TV subscribers" in the entire USA and that includes cable, sat, telco TV and everything else so California having 5.4 million of those PEOPLE PAYING A BILL EACH MONTH makes perfect sense

the PAC12n has 11 million subscribers total it does not matter how many people live in the house or how many people watch that because at the end of each month the PAC12n gets $.80 cents per SUBSCRIBER with a SUBSCRIBER meaning a BILL BEING PAID not someone sitting in front of a TV you fool

and California in general actually has a lower average cable TV subscriber base compared to other states

and you are so ignorant in the calcable numbers it specifically breaks it down

VoIP is telephone

high speed data is internet not TV

so again the maths is simple 11 million X $.8 = $8.8 million a month or $105 million per year with a ton of that going to overhead

the PAC12n has 4 teams in California, 2 in Arizona, 2 in Washington, 2 in Oregon and one each in Colorado and Utah

so they have multiple teams in their largest state with 5.4 million cable SUBSCRIBERS and yet they only have 11 million TOTAL SUBSCRIBERS

so pretending that UH with their 37,000 hard core fans is suddenly going to deliver ANY meaningful amount of subscribers in Texas is just being stupid

because in California where there is 5.4 million subscribers and 4 PAC 12 teams including 2 in LA the second largest media market the PAC12n does not come close to getting all the cable subscribers in California and they WILL NOT COME CLOSE in Texas for adding UH and the number of subscribers they would get from New Mexico would be meaningless

it is about damn dollars and cents you dolt not the number of TV WATCHERS in a state because PEOPLE WATCHING TV DOES NOT EQUAL A MONTHLY CABLE BILL

what equals a monthly cable bill is SUBSCRIBERS

and when the PAC12n is struggling in California and Arizona and Washington and Oregon with 2 or more teams in each of those states then only a buffoon would think that UH is suddenly going to deliver the TEXAS market to the PAC12n or any MEANINGFUL amount of new subscribers that would generate MEANINGFUL revenue

they are not trying to get TV watchers they are trying to get MONEY

get a damn clue good night you posted the numbers right there....5.4 million SUBSCRIBERS

and even if you want to PRETEND that does not include sat providers.....well the PAC12n is not even on damn direct TV so even IF those numbers in California did not include sat providers that is negated by the fact that Direct TV does not give a damn about the PAC12n and still will not even if the UH and UNM get added to the PAC 12

the maths is simple....SUBSCRIBERS = MONEY.....VIEWERS = WHO CARES UNLESS THEY PAY A CABLE BILL

and in California 5.4 million people pay a cable bill and a very large chunk of them do not get the PAC12n and DO NOT CARE......just like it would be in Texas if the UH and UNM were added

and that means NOT A GREAT DEAL MORE MEANINGFUL AMOUNTS OF MONEY

which means the UH and UMN...NOT WANTED

(03-08-2016 02:41 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 01:27 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:08 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 08:21 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

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

are you such a damn dunce that you believe that INDIVIDUALS count as cable TV subscribers

apparently you are that stupid

cable TV does not bill on the basis of the number of people that live in a residence nor to they bill on the basis of the number of people that sit in front of a TV and watch a game

they bill based on something called a SUBSCRIPTION and that SUBSCRIPTION could be for one person or for a family of 6 or more

Yes genius I know how cable works I'm not really sure any more what the point your making because you keep basing your "maths" arguments on complete fallacies.

Since you dont research anything any just post random numbers in order to keep making false arguments I did the research for you. http://www.calcable.org/learn/cable-in-california/ notice how cable subscribers can be people who strictly use it for internet and not TV. As of right now approx. 5.6 million household use cable in California in some way whether it be for TV or just internet.

So here is some "maths" for you unless those 5.5 million homes in California all had at least 6 people in them and they all used cable for TV and not just internet that would still only come out to around 33 million people. Also continuing with your logic lets say the term cable subscriber includes those who use dish, and direct tv etc. That would mean about 7 million people don't subscribe to cable meaning they don't watch TV at all.

But since your research is flawed here is the difference between cable and satellite http://www.digitallanding.com/20-questio...-satellite

Now since there is no real way to track the number of satellite TV subscribers vs cable TV subscribers since one cable subscription can be used for both internet or tv here is a link showing cable subscriber statistics along with satalite subscribers for each company. http://www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Cons...ns/1012906

Here is the population of California https://suburbanstats.org/population/how...california for your information. Here is the population of Texas http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/48

Like I said your math is a complete fallacy and therefore irrelevant. Next time do some research on your arguments... But I like how you ignored my previous post that explains why I had no idea what your were saying because you don't want to look ignorant.

those 5.4 million people in the calcable numbers are the number of BILLS PAID each month you fool

THAT IS THE NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS

it does not matter how many people live in the home it matters how many people pay a damn bill each month

there are fewer than 100 million "paid TV subscribers" in the entire USA and that includes cable, sat, telco TV and everything else so California having 5.4 million of those PEOPLE PAYING A BILL EACH MONTH makes perfect sense

the PAC12n has 11 million subscribers total it does not matter how many people live in the house or how many people watch that because at the end of each month the PAC12n gets $.80 cents per SUBSCRIBER with a SUBSCRIBER meaning a BILL BEING PAID not someone sitting in front of a TV you fool

and California in general actually has a lower average cable TV subscriber base compared to other states

and you are so ignorant in the calcable numbers it specifically breaks it down

VoIP is telephone

high speed data is internet not TV

so again the maths is simple 11 million X $.8 = $8.8 million a month or $105 million per year with a ton of that going to overhead

the PAC12n has 4 teams in California, 2 in Arizona, 2 in Washington, 2 in Oregon and one each in Colorado and Utah

so they have multiple teams in their largest state with 5.4 million cable SUBSCRIBERS and yet they only have 11 million TOTAL SUBSCRIBERS

so pretending that UH with their 37,000 hard core fans is suddenly going to deliver ANY meaningful amount of subscribers in Texas is just being stupid

because in California where there is 5.4 million subscribers and 4 PAC 12 teams including 2 in LA the second largest media market the PAC12n does not come close to getting all the cable subscribers in California and they WILL NOT COME CLOSE in Texas for adding UH and the number of subscribers they would get from New Mexico would be meaningless

it is about damn dollars and cents you dolt not the number of TV WATCHERS in a state because PEOPLE WATCHING TV DOES NOT EQUAL A MONTHLY CABLE BILL

what equals a monthly cable bill is SUBSCRIBERS

and when the PAC12n is struggling in California and Arizona and Washington and Oregon with 2 or more teams in each of those states then only a buffoon would think that UH is suddenly going to deliver the TEXAS market to the PAC12n or any MEANINGFUL amount of new subscribers that would generate MEANINGFUL revenue

they are not trying to get TV watchers they are trying to get MONEY

get a damn clue good night you posted the numbers right there....5.4 million SUBSCRIBERS

and even if you want to PRETEND that does not include sat providers.....well the PAC12n is not even on damn direct TV so even IF those numbers in California did not include sat providers that is negated by the fact that Direct TV does not give a damn about the PAC12n and still will not even if the UH and UNM get added to the PAC 12

the maths is simple....SUBSCRIBERS = MONEY.....VIEWERS = WHO CARES UNLESS THEY PAY A CABLE BILL

and in California 5.4 million people pay a cable bill and a very large chunk of them do not get the PAC12n and DO NOT CARE......just like it would be in Texas if the UH and UNM were added

and that means NOT A GREAT DEAL MORE MEANINGFUL AMOUNTS OF MONEY

which means the UH and UMN...NOT WANTED

Well you still don't address the fact the those 5.4 million are paying a cable which means they aren't necessarily paying a dish network bill. Dish network does carry the pac-12 network but as an added sports package. So for example our house does not pay a cable subscription we pay a satellite subscription. We could pay extra for the pac-12 network on dish network but we don't. If we were to start paying for the pac-12 channel that would be a new subscription to the pac-12 network. Some cable companies also provide the option to not pay for the pac-12 channel. Houston is in Harris county which has approximately 2 million house holds who all either pay bill or a satellite bill. Albuquerque has about 183,000 households all which most likely pay a cable or satellite bill. Now remeber that since the pac-12 network is a sports network it usually comes in a package and is not included with a base cable subscription. So those 5.4 million aren't necessarily all paying the $.80 cents for the pac 12 network.

So here is the "maths" to end this pointless argument right here based on http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ributions/ .... the pac-12 made 106.8 million from its conference network in 2014. It made 105.6 million in 2013 from its conference network, 11 million subscribers x $0.8 per sub x 12 months = $105.6 million.

If you divide 106.8 million by 12 and you get 8.9 million in TV revenue distributed per team. 106.8 million divided by 14 equals approx. 7.6 million per team about 1 million less. So UH and UNM would only need to bring in about $1 million in subscriptions to make up the deficit. So lets say UNM and Houston bring in a total of 1 million new subscribers which wouldn't be too difficult. At 12 million subscribers the conference would make $115.2 million per year 12 million x $0.8 per sub x 12 months = $115.2 million. Which would be well over the the required deficit.

So there is the fallacy in your math and subsequently your entire argument. If you had done any research you would have realized how wrong your argument was. It's easy to make counter arguments when you don't use facts and you skew numbers. The only thing point that can be made out of this argument is that UNM is not the right school to be added as number 14. If anything this would just make a stronger argument for SMU to be the 14th team. Now I have nothing left to say on this subject.

(03-08-2016 02:37 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:08 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 08:21 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

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

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

are you such a damn dunce that you believe that INDIVIDUALS count as cable TV subscribers

apparently you are that stupid

cable TV does not bill on the basis of the number of people that live in a residence nor to they bill on the basis of the number of people that sit in front of a TV and watch a game

they bill based on something called a SUBSCRIPTION and that SUBSCRIPTION could be for one person or for a family of 6 or more

Hey I'm just going to MAKE A BIGGER DUNCE OUT OF MYSELF right here based on http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ributions/ .... the pac-12 made 106.8 million from its conference network in 2014. It made 105.6 million in 2013 from its conference network, 11 million subscribers x $0.8 per sub x 12 months = $105.6 million.

If you divide 106.8 million by 12 and you get 8.9 million in TV revenue distributed per team. 106.8 million divided by 14 equals approx. 7.6 million per team about 1 million less. So UH and UNM would only need to bring in about $1 million in subscriptions to make up the deficit. So lets say UNM and Houston bring in a total of 1 million new subscribers which wouldn't be too difficult. At 12 million subscribers the conference would make $115.2 million per year 12 million x $0.8 per sub x 12 months = $115.2 million. Which would be well over the the required deficit.

So there is the fallacy in your math and subsequently your entire argument. If you had done any research you would have realized how wrong your argument was. It's easy to make counter arguments when you don't use facts and you skew numbers. Now I have nothing left to say on this subject.

no there is not a fallacy in my maths and my entire argument because I KNOW HOW TO READ and I am not an imbecile

you glossed over 100% of the MEANINGFUL part of the discussion in that article

*** By percentage of total revenue distributed to schools

Big Ten: 93.4%
SEC: 90.2%
Big 12: 87%
Pac-12: 67% (see below)
ACC: unknown

why on earth would you be dividing TOTAL REVENUE by 12 teams for the PAC12n when the PAC12N DOES NOT RUN FOR FREE IT HAS SOMETHING CALLED EXPENSES

5) Expenses

Commissioner Larry Scott earned approx $3.5 million in calendar year 2013 (individual compensation is reported for calendar years, not fiscal years). That’s up slightly from ’12 and, once again, makes him the highest-paid commissioner.

Additionally, nine other employees earned more than $400,000 in calendar year 2013. My guess is that far exceeds the number of highly-paid staffers at the other conferences. (Worth noting: Of the nine, six are Pac12Nets employees, and other leagues don’t have an in-house TV network.)

Scott runs the Pac-12 like a professional sports league, and that includes staff compensation.

Lastly:

As noted above, the Pac-12 distributed just 67% of its revenue to the schools ($250M out of $374M). That’s a far, far lower percentage than the other conferences.

But the raw percentage is misleading because of the expenses associated with the Pac12Nets — expenses the other league don’t have.

To make the comparison fair, we’d need to back out the Pac12Net expenses from the amount of money withheld by the conference, then re-assess.

Let’s assume that Pac12Nets cost $85 million to operate in FY14. If we remove that from the $124 million withheld, we’re left with $36 million.

That’s approx 10% of total revenue.

The good news for the conference: conference expenses as 10% of total revenue is in line with the Big Ten, SEC, etc.

The bad news for the conference: If the Big Ten and SEC keep expenses fixed as their revenues pop in coming years from a new TV network (SEC) and a new Tier 1 deal (B1G) — and that’s a pretty safe assumption — then the Pac-12 will lag far behind its peers in the amount distributed.

the PAC12n DOES NOT OPERATE FOR FREE

next for some reason you are assuming that the PAC 12 would get more money from their first and second tier TV deal for adding more teams which there is ZERO evidence that is the case

the SEC got ZERO new revenue from CBS for adding A&M and MU and that has been confirmed by dual first name idiot clay travis and there has NEVER been an indication that the SEC got more money from ESPN in the EXISTING SECOND TIER DEAL with the SEC for adding A&M and MU the new revenue for the SEC was from third tier media content that was bought back (Florida and some others) or not allocated to anyone and was able to be placed on the SECn

so the UH and UNM would not need to simply bring more money to help out the PAc12n numbers they also need to account for the additional money from first and second tier TV deals for the PAC 12, they also need to account for the $50 million the PAC 12 gets as a P5 playoff member and they need to account for the $40 million that the PAC 12 gets from The Rose Bowl when The Rose Bowl is not a playoff game

so unless someone was just TRYING to look dumb I have no idea why anyone would take a figure of $108 million in GROSS REVENUE and divide it by 12 for the PAC 12 and then divide it by 14 for adding the UH and UMN and then pretend that is the only money that the UH and UNM would need to deliver to the PAC 12

and that is not even counting the fact that any schools that come to the PAC 12 besides BYU are going to have ZERO NCAA playoff credits to bring with them

it is clear you do not have a clue how cable TV subscribers work, how a business functions, the revenues of the PAC 12 and the sources of them or how the addition of two teams (especially teams that no one cares about) would change those numbers and what types of NEW revenue would be needed to make it PROFITABLE for the PAC 12 to add teams

(03-08-2016 02:58 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 02:37 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:08 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 08:21 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

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

are you such a damn dunce that you believe that INDIVIDUALS count as cable TV subscribers

apparently you are that stupid

cable TV does not bill on the basis of the number of people that live in a residence nor to they bill on the basis of the number of people that sit in front of a TV and watch a game

they bill based on something called a SUBSCRIPTION and that SUBSCRIPTION could be for one person or for a family of 6 or more

Hey I'm just going to MAKE A BIGGER DUNCE OUT OF MYSELF right here based on http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ributions/ .... the pac-12 made 106.8 million from its conference network in 2014. It made 105.6 million in 2013 from its conference network, 11 million subscribers x $0.8 per sub x 12 months = $105.6 million.

If you divide 106.8 million by 12 and you get 8.9 million in TV revenue distributed per team. 106.8 million divided by 14 equals approx. 7.6 million per team about 1 million less. So UH and UNM would only need to bring in about $1 million in subscriptions to make up the deficit. So lets say UNM and Houston bring in a total of 1 million new subscribers which wouldn't be too difficult. At 12 million subscribers the conference would make $115.2 million per year 12 million x $0.8 per sub x 12 months = $115.2 million. Which would be well over the the required deficit.

So there is the fallacy in your math and subsequently your entire argument. If you had done any research you would have realized how wrong your argument was. It's easy to make counter arguments when you don't use facts and you skew numbers. Now I have nothing left to say on this subject.

no there is not a fallacy in my maths and my entire argument because I KNOW HOW TO READ and I am not an imbecile

you glossed over 100% of the MEANINGFUL part of the discussion in that article

*** By percentage of total revenue distributed to schools

Big Ten: 93.4%
SEC: 90.2%
Big 12: 87%
Pac-12: 67% (see below)
ACC: unknown

why on earth would you be dividing TOTAL REVENUE by 12 teams for the PAC12n when the PAC12N DOES NOT RUN FOR FREE IT HAS SOMETHING CALLED EXPENSES

5) Expenses

Commissioner Larry Scott earned approx $3.5 million in calendar year 2013 (individual compensation is reported for calendar years, not fiscal years). That’s up slightly from ’12 and, once again, makes him the highest-paid commissioner.

Additionally, nine other employees earned more than $400,000 in calendar year 2013. My guess is that far exceeds the number of highly-paid staffers at the other conferences. (Worth noting: Of the nine, six are Pac12Nets employees, and other leagues don’t have an in-house TV network.)

Scott runs the Pac-12 like a professional sports league, and that includes staff compensation.

Lastly:

As noted above, the Pac-12 distributed just 67% of its revenue to the schools ($250M out of $374M). That’s a far, far lower percentage than the other conferences.

But the raw percentage is misleading because of the expenses associated with the Pac12Nets — expenses the other league don’t have.

To make the comparison fair, we’d need to back out the Pac12Net expenses from the amount of money withheld by the conference, then re-assess.

Let’s assume that Pac12Nets cost $85 million to operate in FY14. If we remove that from the $124 million withheld, we’re left with $36 million.

That’s approx 10% of total revenue.

The good news for the conference: conference expenses as 10% of total revenue is in line with the Big Ten, SEC, etc.

The bad news for the conference: If the Big Ten and SEC keep expenses fixed as their revenues pop in coming years from a new TV network (SEC) and a new Tier 1 deal (B1G) — and that’s a pretty safe assumption — then the Pac-12 will lag far behind its peers in the amount distributed.

the PAC12n DOES NOT OPERATE FOR FREE

next for some reason you are assuming that the PAC 12 would get more money from their first and second tier TV deal for adding more teams which there is ZERO evidence that is the case

the SEC got ZERO new revenue from CBS for adding A&M and MU and that has been confirmed by dual first name idiot clay travis and there has NEVER been an indication that the SEC got more money from ESPN in the EXISTING SECOND TIER DEAL with the SEC for adding A&M and MU the new revenue for the SEC was from third tier media content that was bought back (Florida and some others) or not allocated to anyone and was able to be placed on the SECn

so the UH and UNM would not need to simply bring more money to help out the PAc12n numbers they also need to account for the additional money from first and second tier TV deals for the PAC 12, they also need to account for the $50 million the PAC 12 gets as a P5 playoff member and they need to account for the $40 million that the PAC 12 gets from The Rose Bowl when The Rose Bowl is not a playoff game

so unless someone was just TRYING to look dumb I have no idea why anyone would take a figure of $108 million in GROSS REVENUE and divide it by 12 for the PAC 12 and then divide it by 14 for adding the UH and UMN and then pretend that is the only money that the UH and UNM would need to deliver to the PAC 12

and that is not even counting the fact that any schools that come to the PAC 12 besides BYU are going to have ZERO NCAA playoff credits to bring with them

it is clear you do not have a clue how cable TV subscribers work, how a business functions, the revenues of the PAC 12 and the sources of them or how the addition of two teams (especially teams that no one cares about) would change those numbers and what types of NEW revenue would be needed to make it PROFITABLE for the PAC 12 to add teams

Dude you literally make no sense you just spew stuff and make up numbers that don't make sense. But I find it funny how angry you get when your proven wrong. I mean you literally left out the fact that UH would bring in more money for those expenses through bowl appearances, TV exposure, advertising etc. but hey don't let those other numbers get in your way hypocrite. More teams from major cities in bowls means more bowl revenue which means more money to pay expenses. But hey keep using name calling and ranting it makes you sound smarter! Your obviously hate UH so no wonder you will do whatever it takes to argue against them lol you do a terrible job of hiding your hatred.

(03-08-2016 03:21 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 02:58 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 02:37 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:08 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 08:21 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Please don't tell me you actually believe only 5 million of California's 40 million population watch tv lmao!

are you such a damn dunce that you believe that INDIVIDUALS count as cable TV subscribers

apparently you are that stupid

cable TV does not bill on the basis of the number of people that live in a residence nor to they bill on the basis of the number of people that sit in front of a TV and watch a game

they bill based on something called a SUBSCRIPTION and that SUBSCRIPTION could be for one person or for a family of 6 or more

Hey I'm just going to MAKE A BIGGER DUNCE OUT OF MYSELF right here based on http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ributions/ .... the pac-12 made 106.8 million from its conference network in 2014. It made 105.6 million in 2013 from its conference network, 11 million subscribers x $0.8 per sub x 12 months = $105.6 million.

If you divide 106.8 million by 12 and you get 8.9 million in TV revenue distributed per team. 106.8 million divided by 14 equals approx. 7.6 million per team about 1 million less. So UH and UNM would only need to bring in about $1 million in subscriptions to make up the deficit. So lets say UNM and Houston bring in a total of 1 million new subscribers which wouldn't be too difficult. At 12 million subscribers the conference would make $115.2 million per year 12 million x $0.8 per sub x 12 months = $115.2 million. Which would be well over the the required deficit.

So there is the fallacy in your math and subsequently your entire argument. If you had done any research you would have realized how wrong your argument was. It's easy to make counter arguments when you don't use facts and you skew numbers. Now I have nothing left to say on this subject.

no there is not a fallacy in my maths and my entire argument because I KNOW HOW TO READ and I am not an imbecile

you glossed over 100% of the MEANINGFUL part of the discussion in that article

*** By percentage of total revenue distributed to schools

Big Ten: 93.4%
SEC: 90.2%
Big 12: 87%
Pac-12: 67% (see below)
ACC: unknown

why on earth would you be dividing TOTAL REVENUE by 12 teams for the PAC12n when the PAC12N DOES NOT RUN FOR FREE IT HAS SOMETHING CALLED EXPENSES

5) Expenses

Commissioner Larry Scott earned approx $3.5 million in calendar year 2013 (individual compensation is reported for calendar years, not fiscal years). That’s up slightly from ’12 and, once again, makes him the highest-paid commissioner.

Additionally, nine other employees earned more than $400,000 in calendar year 2013. My guess is that far exceeds the number of highly-paid staffers at the other conferences. (Worth noting: Of the nine, six are Pac12Nets employees, and other leagues don’t have an in-house TV network.)

Scott runs the Pac-12 like a professional sports league, and that includes staff compensation.

Lastly:

As noted above, the Pac-12 distributed just 67% of its revenue to the schools ($250M out of $374M). That’s a far, far lower percentage than the other conferences.

But the raw percentage is misleading because of the expenses associated with the Pac12Nets — expenses the other league don’t have.

To make the comparison fair, we’d need to back out the Pac12Net expenses from the amount of money withheld by the conference, then re-assess.

Let’s assume that Pac12Nets cost $85 million to operate in FY14. If we remove that from the $124 million withheld, we’re left with $36 million.

That’s approx 10% of total revenue.

The good news for the conference: conference expenses as 10% of total revenue is in line with the Big Ten, SEC, etc.

The bad news for the conference: If the Big Ten and SEC keep expenses fixed as their revenues pop in coming years from a new TV network (SEC) and a new Tier 1 deal (B1G) — and that’s a pretty safe assumption — then the Pac-12 will lag far behind its peers in the amount distributed.

the PAC12n DOES NOT OPERATE FOR FREE

next for some reason you are assuming that the PAC 12 would get more money from their first and second tier TV deal for adding more teams which there is ZERO evidence that is the case

the SEC got ZERO new revenue from CBS for adding A&M and MU and that has been confirmed by dual first name idiot clay travis and there has NEVER been an indication that the SEC got more money from ESPN in the EXISTING SECOND TIER DEAL with the SEC for adding A&M and MU the new revenue for the SEC was from third tier media content that was bought back (Florida and some others) or not allocated to anyone and was able to be placed on the SECn

so the UH and UNM would not need to simply bring more money to help out the PAc12n numbers they also need to account for the additional money from first and second tier TV deals for the PAC 12, they also need to account for the $50 million the PAC 12 gets as a P5 playoff member and they need to account for the $40 million that the PAC 12 gets from The Rose Bowl when The Rose Bowl is not a playoff game

so unless someone was just TRYING to look dumb I have no idea why anyone would take a figure of $108 million in GROSS REVENUE and divide it by 12 for the PAC 12 and then divide it by 14 for adding the UH and UMN and then pretend that is the only money that the UH and UNM would need to deliver to the PAC 12

and that is not even counting the fact that any schools that come to the PAC 12 besides BYU are going to have ZERO NCAA playoff credits to bring with them

it is clear you do not have a clue how cable TV subscribers work, how a business functions, the revenues of the PAC 12 and the sources of them or how the addition of two teams (especially teams that no one cares about) would change those numbers and what types of NEW revenue would be needed to make it PROFITABLE for the PAC 12 to add teams

Dude you literally make no sense you just spew stuff and make up numbers that don't make sense. But I find it funny how angry you get when your proven wrong. I mean you literally left out the fact that UH would bring in more money for those expenses through bowl appearances, TV exposure, advertising etc. but hey don't let those other numbers get in your way hypocrite. More teams from major cities in bowls means more bowl revenue which means more money to pay expenses. But hey keep using name calling and ranting it makes you sound smarter! Your obviously hate UH so no wonder you will do whatever it takes to argue against them lol you do a terrible job of hiding your hatred.

I'll step in. After reading the exchanges between todge and westhoff123 its clear who understands how this cable subscriber stuff works and who doesn't. Todge is correct. Westhoff, you're pulling stuff out of your a$$. Please stop doing that if you want to be taken seriously.
There's also one more thing to consider guys: I was a basic cable subscriber this season who did not have any ESPN channels, or any conference networks in my package. Many more people are doing this because A. Like my grandma/Mom/Girlfriend/little brother etc. they are not interested in sports. B. I did it to save $, but more importantly to take a stand against greed. I strongly dislike ESPN and I want bad things for them. I'll admit that. I also would insist on any cable company removing the SECN, PAC 12 Network, LHN from my package, even if it was given to me for free. I hate everything it stands for. In a word, greed. I'm not alone. Cheers!

(03-07-2016 11:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:17 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

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

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

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.

Lol....they were going to take Texas Tech a few years ago, the Harvard of Lubbock. They will do what they need to do to stay competive.

They were going to take them "IF" texas was coming with them. You dont have that arrangement. If somehow Texas decided to take Houston instead, then Id say youre a slam dunk.
OSU is nothing without Oklahoma and Tech is nothing without Texas.... Houston doesnt have either.

I mean seriously, if the Pac 12 is gonna turn down a package of OU and OSU without Texas, do you really believe that Houston is getting in without them too?

(03-05-2016 11:28 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  With all the talk of the big 12 expanding I read some where that this may cause pac 12 may look to expand to 14 teams. I also read that Houston would be their top target as it would allow them to get into Texas for recruiting, as well as hurt their competition i.e. the big 12 in their stake in the Houston market.

I also read that in terms of revenue generated for the conference and its teams like the Big 10 network etc. that the Pac-12 network may soon fall far behind and will need to find a way to keep up. So adding Houston would be a huge possible boost in the number of subscriptions and possible revenue for the conference.

Any thoughts on this guys?

They would add UH and Rice if they add UH. I'm not sure of UH academics so Rice has to be added for that regard.

But honestly they will poach from the Big 12 (Texas and Oklahoma) and revamp the PAC 12 Networks with ESPN getting some equity into it through an agreement letting LHN merge into that system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We can debate dollars all day long and whether or not Houston would actually make the PAC12 that much money but the simple truth is that the Pac12 is an elitist group that is run by Presidents and not ADs. There were several candidates that would have made the PAC12 lots of money (SDSU and UNLV combo brings in a ton) but they wouldnt accept them because they didnt come close to the academics of the PAC 12.

and for the two that have been going back and forth on the network value and how much Houston would bring in.... congrats on all the research but you didnt cover how they would afford the additional $44 million on the tv deal just to cover their entry. They can make the network some cash, but you have to figure out how they are going to get ESPN and FOX to cough up $44 million for content that they get for less than $4 million now.

This thread is taking up valuable interwebs space reserved for juggling monkeys

(03-08-2016 09:11 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 11:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:17 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

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

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

Lol....they were going to take Texas Tech a few years ago, the Harvard of Lubbock. They will do what they need to do to stay competive.

They were going to take them "IF" texas was coming with them. You dont have that arrangement. If somehow Texas decided to take Houston instead, then Id say youre a slam dunk.
OSU is nothing without Oklahoma and Tech is nothing without Texas.... Houston doesnt have either.

I mean seriously, if the Pac 12 is gonna turn down a package of OU and OSU without Texas, do you really believe that Houston is getting in without them too?

Uhmmm,......They turned that package down because it double dipped Oklahoma and didn't provide ANY access to Texas. What has been my point all along? The cable boxes in the west don't reside in Oklahoma. They are in Texas. Pac12 expansion must include The state of Texas or it has no purpose.

the decision to take OU and OkState or to not take OU and OkState had nothing to do with cable TV boxes or cable TV subscribers

at the time that OU and OkState talked to the PAC 12 the PAC12n was not even up and running and there was no indication at that time that it would be the poor financial performer that it is today at that time it was believed that the PAC 12 would just breeze into cable MSOs offices and tell them "$.80 cents put it on this channel" and that was that and that it really would not matter if there was a PAC 12 team in the state or not

not to mention that OU and OkState never were "turned down" by the PAC 12 the PAC 12 never voted on expansion they voted tot able the discussion of expansion and that is because OU and OkState informed the PAC 12 they were going to stay in the Big 12

(03-08-2016 01:30 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the decision to take OU and OkState or to not take OU and OkState had nothing to do with cable TV boxes or cable TV subscribers

at the time that OU and OkState talked to the PAC 12 the PAC12n was not even up and running and there was no indication at that time that it would be the poor financial performer that it is today at that time it was believed that the PAC 12 would just breeze into cable MSOs offices and tell them "$.80 cents put it on this channel" and that was that and that it really would not matter if there was a PAC 12 team in the state or not

not to mention that OU and OkState never were "turned down" by the PAC 12 the PAC 12 never voted on expansion they voted tot able the discussion of expansion and that is because OU and OkState informed the PAC 12 they were going to stay in the Big 12

The Pac12 Network was announced in 2011 and launched in August of 2012. Yeah, its wasn't up and running when Oklahoma came calling, but it was only about 12 months away from launching. Access to the treasure trove of cable boxes in Texas was still a big prize.

Frankly, I think much of the Pac-12 Networks issues are self inflicted. Its .80 in state and .80 out of state. Mostly its just out. Make the thing a dime out of state. You'd probably get on virtually every system at that low price. Lets say you get an extra 40 million subs at that rate. That's another 48 million in revenue a year your currently leaving in the street. The Pac12 has no partners---and the expenses don't expand with additional subs---so, that's 4 million a team in straight profit being left on the table every year. It seems silly to have a pricing strategy that kills revenue. A good pricing strategy maximizes revenue.

cable channel/content pricing has always worked on a system where cable MSOs pay the LEAST COST as any other MSO pays so that means if one MSO manages to get a deal for X cents to have the channel others that are paying X + .10 cents can now get the channel for X cents to carry it or at least that is what they will start demanding......this will not ALWAYS apply to all cable MSOs because some of the smaller ones might not have that leverage, but it applies to the bigger ones for sure

it is similar to auto companies or airlines working with unions.....the union usually picks one to "negotiate with" and then the deal struck with them sets the terms for the others to follow

the "in state" "out of state" is something that only really applies to conference sports networks because there is no "in state out of state" for the Disney Channel or Discovery

in the case of the PAC12n they can play the "in state out of state" game all they wish, but of course they have no leverage to demand that cable MSOs follow that model or give it any credibility and as of now after seeing the reaction of Direct TV subscribers to Direct TV not having the channel (and no one caring even after the PAC 12 begged them to care and call and complain and switch to dish or to a terrestrial cable provider) as soon as the PAC 12 devalues their product to $.10 cents they run a big risk of all cable MSOs looking to devalue their product down to $.10 cents or something less than $.80 cents

the only reason that the SECn was able to play the "in state out of state" game (even though most major cable providers in Texas stated that A&M being in the SEC did not make Texas fully "in state") is because the viewers in the "in state" areas of the SEC actually cared to get the content and so when ESPN was leveraging against CABLE MSOs with the "carry the SECn or do not get ESPN ESPN II ABC and other Disney Channels" the cable MSOs capitulated to the "in state out of state" model so they could at least keep the prices down out of state

the PAC12n has no such leverage

and in fact this is supported by the Direct TV "negotiations" after AT&T bought Direct TV.......AT&T and Direct TV made the PAC12n a terrible offer that was so bad the PAC 12 did not even vote on it and that is because if they had accepted it they would have been assured that Dish Network (at least) would have been asking for the same (terrible for the PAC12n) type of deal or threatening to no longer carry the channel when the deal was done and it is already clear the everyone that a major satellite provider not having the PAC12n is meaningless to their subscriber base even on the west coast so Dish Network would have had little fear of losing subscribers for demanding a lower rate of dumping the PAC12n

and I might be mistaken on this, but I believe the AT&T/Direct TV/PAC12n talks involved UVerse and other AT&T cable properties as well IE AT&T wanted the PAC12n to deal with the cost on ALL AT&T properties in exchange for it being added to dish and I think AT&T might have even ask for a small share of the network to help push it to others (I believe that was printed, but too lazy to look it up)

either way there is little chance that the PAC12n can pull the "in state out of state" rate plan without opening up the pricing for ALL cable MSOs in state or out of state because they simply have no leverage

(03-08-2016 11:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 09:11 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 11:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:17 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

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

Lol....they were going to take Texas Tech a few years ago, the Harvard of Lubbock. They will do what they need to do to stay competive.

They were going to take them "IF" texas was coming with them. You dont have that arrangement. If somehow Texas decided to take Houston instead, then Id say youre a slam dunk.
OSU is nothing without Oklahoma and Tech is nothing without Texas.... Houston doesnt have either.

I mean seriously, if the Pac 12 is gonna turn down a package of OU and OSU without Texas, do you really believe that Houston is getting in without them too?

Uhmmm,......They turned that package down because it double dipped Oklahoma and didn't provide ANY access to Texas. What has been my point all along? The cable boxes in the west don't reside in Oklahoma. They are in Texas. Pac12 expansion must include The state of Texas or it has no purpose.

Well, Ill let ya believe what you want. The entire known universe knows that Houston isnt getting into the Pac12 but go with what ya feel my friend.

Houston isnt going to be in the PAC.... ever. Id lay a years salary on that.

(03-08-2016 07:57 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 09:11 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 11:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:17 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  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.

Lol....they were going to take Texas Tech a few years ago, the Harvard of Lubbock. They will do what they need to do to stay competive.

They were going to take them "IF" texas was coming with them. You dont have that arrangement. If somehow Texas decided to take Houston instead, then Id say youre a slam dunk.
OSU is nothing without Oklahoma and Tech is nothing without Texas.... Houston doesnt have either.

I mean seriously, if the Pac 12 is gonna turn down a package of OU and OSU without Texas, do you really believe that Houston is getting in without them too?

Uhmmm,......They turned that package down because it double dipped Oklahoma and didn't provide ANY access to Texas. What has been my point all along? The cable boxes in the west don't reside in Oklahoma. They are in Texas. Pac12 expansion must include The state of Texas or it has no purpose.

Well, Ill let ya believe what you want. The entire known universe knows that Houston isnt getting into the Pac12 but go with what ya feel my friend.

Houston isnt going to be in the PAC.... ever. Id lay a years salary on that.

I agree with you. I also sympathize with Coog fans who see their school trying so hard to get to a better place. Their improving their school in all facets, and investing a lot of time and money. Houston was very apathetic about their situation for a long period during the late 80's and all of the 90's but the school has woken up in the past decade. It's great to see the enthusiasm by the school and fans. I also hate to see UT obstructing Houston. I sympathize because I can relate 100%. ECU has had no favors handed to them and has had to deal with an in state bully blocking any potential progress of moving up as well. I know a lot of people will disagree with me because it's ECU and ECU is lucky to even be in the AAC. I digress....cheers!