(05-06-2016 05:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 03:26 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 06:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 10:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I've been saying what Rudd's saying all along.

There will be more realignment and the bottom line is the B12 may be the sick man of the P5 but P5 it will remain.

B12 loses Texas schools but gains 6-8 from the AAC and remains P5 will push numbers not too far from 80.

How on earth would the Big 12 remain P5 without Texas and with 6-8 AAC schools? They would be booted in five minutes. Not to mention that OK would never stick around for that.

Big 12 will lose Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and a few lucky schools packaged with the previous three. The (Big12) Leftover conference will maintain its P5 status by taking the best of AAC and Mountain West.

Slive and Delany will choke on their morning coffee at that idea. Not happening on this planet.

Slive? He's long gone.

(05-06-2016 07:35 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 03:26 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 06:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 10:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I've been saying what Rudd's saying all along.

There will be more realignment and the bottom line is the B12 may be the sick man of the P5 but P5 it will remain.

B12 loses Texas schools but gains 6-8 from the AAC and remains P5 will push numbers not too far from 80.

How on earth would the Big 12 remain P5 without Texas and with 6-8 AAC schools? They would be booted in five minutes. Not to mention that OK would never stick around for that.

Big 12 will lose Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and a few lucky schools packaged with the previous three. The (Big12) Leftover conference will maintain its P5 status by taking the best of AAC and Mountain West.

Slive and Delany will choke on their morning coffee at that idea. Not happening on this planet.

Slive? He's long gone.

Yeah...Greg Sankey is the SEC Commish now

(05-06-2016 01:17 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Some MWC members will be part of the 80 group as well. Boise State is way too hot to ignore any longer. I can see a North Dakota State in the mixed somewhere as well. Big 10 wanted to go to 22 to 24 teams. 4 pods of 6 rounds out better than 4 pods of 5.

PLLLEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEE!!!!!

Go study Arkansas Tech's chances of getting an SEC invite!!!!

(05-06-2016 05:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why on earth would the current P5 want to significantly dilute their money by adding 15+ schools to the feeding trough?

Makes no (dollars and) sense.

Some of the P5 schools are losing money overall, but some G5 schools are making a profit in ticket sales and all that.

They are making a profit by soaking their students with 70% subsidies, you mean?

Not sure if that's what the P5 is looking for.

Truth is, if we could be flies on the wall of a meeting of Michigan and USC athletic directors, we'd probably here those guys say that they already feel they (meaning the top 20 brand programs) are carrying too many free-loaders *within the current P5*. So the notion of significantly expanding it would seem crazy to them.

East Carolina is selling tickets.
BYU is selling tickets.
Boise State is selling tickets.

Those 3 have a net positive, and they are not have th highest subsidies like you claim. Even Memphis and Houston are doing better without the subsidies as long as they all keep winning.

(05-07-2016 03:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why on earth would the current P5 want to significantly dilute their money by adding 15+ schools to the feeding trough?

Makes no (dollars and) sense.

Some of the P5 schools are losing money overall, but some G5 schools are making a profit in ticket sales and all that.

They are making a profit by soaking their students with 70% subsidies, you mean?

Not sure if that's what the P5 is looking for.

Truth is, if we could be flies on the wall of a meeting of Michigan and USC athletic directors, we'd probably here those guys say that they already feel they (meaning the top 20 brand programs) are carrying too many free-loaders *within the current P5*. So the notion of significantly expanding it would seem crazy to them.

East Carolina is selling tickets.
BYU is selling tickets.
Boise State is selling tickets.

Those 3 have a net positive, and they are not have th highest subsidies like you claim. Even Memphis and Houston are doing better without the subsidies as long as they all keep winning.

This is not me taking either side of this argument, and I don't want to knock ECU because ECU is like all the other AAC schools, they heavily subsidize sports. So do most P5s.

In 2014, ECU had $36 million in revenue, and subsidized sports to the tune of $15.8 million. Those are big losses. Tickets accounted for $6 million of the $36 million in revenues.

Boise State has about 30k in fans show up per game. Last year they made $8m in ticket sales, $43m in revenue, and had a subsidy of $12.5m.

The thing is, Boise State is pretty woeful in terms of their sports. They only have 2 men's team sports (football, baseball). They have a total of 6 sports when you include tennis and cross country, etc. Most schools have 4 men's team sports. A school like UConn has 5 with soccer and ice hockey added to the big 3. This is a pretty big deficit for a school like Boise State.

(05-07-2016 04:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 03:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why on earth would the current P5 want to significantly dilute their money by adding 15+ schools to the feeding trough?

Makes no (dollars and) sense.

Some of the P5 schools are losing money overall, but some G5 schools are making a profit in ticket sales and all that.

They are making a profit by soaking their students with 70% subsidies, you mean?

Not sure if that's what the P5 is looking for.

Truth is, if we could be flies on the wall of a meeting of Michigan and USC athletic directors, we'd probably here those guys say that they already feel they (meaning the top 20 brand programs) are carrying too many free-loaders *within the current P5*. So the notion of significantly expanding it would seem crazy to them.

East Carolina is selling tickets.
BYU is selling tickets.
Boise State is selling tickets.

Those 3 have a net positive, and they are not have th highest subsidies like you claim. Even Memphis and Houston are doing better without the subsidies as long as they all keep winning.

This is not me taking either side of this argument, and I don't want to knock ECU because ECU is like all the other AAC schools, they heavily subsidize sports. So do most P5s.

In 2014, ECU had $36 million in revenue, and subsidized sports to the tune of $15.8 million. Those are big losses. Tickets accounted for $6 million of the $36 million in revenues.

Boise State has about 30k in fans show up per game. Last year they made $8m in ticket sales, $43m in revenue, and had a subsidy of $12.5m.

The thing is, Boise State is pretty woeful in terms of their sports. They only have 2 men's team sports (football, baseball). They have a total of 6 sports when you include tennis and cross country, etc. Most schools have 4 men's team sports. A school like UConn has 5 with soccer and ice hockey added to the big 3. This is a pretty big deficit for a school like Boise State.

^ You made a lot of things up there Upstater. I won't get into all the errors of your post on the financials for ECU, but I will say Boise St doesn't have a baseball team. They do have a Wrestling team.
Cheers!

(05-07-2016 04:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 03:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why on earth would the current P5 want to significantly dilute their money by adding 15+ schools to the feeding trough?

Makes no (dollars and) sense.

Some of the P5 schools are losing money overall, but some G5 schools are making a profit in ticket sales and all that.

They are making a profit by soaking their students with 70% subsidies, you mean?

Not sure if that's what the P5 is looking for.

Truth is, if we could be flies on the wall of a meeting of Michigan and USC athletic directors, we'd probably here those guys say that they already feel they (meaning the top 20 brand programs) are carrying too many free-loaders *within the current P5*. So the notion of significantly expanding it would seem crazy to them.

East Carolina is selling tickets.
BYU is selling tickets.
Boise State is selling tickets.

Those 3 have a net positive, and they are not have th highest subsidies like you claim. Even Memphis and Houston are doing better without the subsidies as long as they all keep winning.

This is not me taking either side of this argument, and I don't want to knock ECU because ECU is like all the other AAC schools, they heavily subsidize sports. So do most P5s.

In 2014, ECU had $36 million in revenue, and subsidized sports to the tune of $15.8 million. Those are big losses. Tickets accounted for $6 million of the $36 million in revenues.

Boise State has about 30k in fans show up per game. Last year they made $8m in ticket sales, $43m in revenue, and had a subsidy of $12.5m.

The thing is, Boise State is pretty woeful in terms of their sports. They only have 2 men's team sports (football, baseball). They have a total of 6 sports when you include tennis and cross country, etc. Most schools have 4 men's team sports. A school like UConn has 5 with soccer and ice hockey added to the big 3. This is a pretty big deficit for a school like Boise State.

Please don't take this as a knock for it truly isn't meant to be one, but what goes into UCONN's subsidy? If the state is putting mega dollars in as an investment, then good on y'all. I've been trying to decipher these numbers and others for years now and find few commonalities. ECU and Memphis have the lowest total subsidies in the conference, but I'm not sure what to make of it. Memphis revenues are down significantly due to bball as has been widely reported. Hopefully, that situation has been rectified. FB tix prices have also been raised. Time will tell.

(05-07-2016 04:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 03:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why on earth would the current P5 want to significantly dilute their money by adding 15+ schools to the feeding trough?

Makes no (dollars and) sense.

Some of the P5 schools are losing money overall, but some G5 schools are making a profit in ticket sales and all that.

They are making a profit by soaking their students with 70% subsidies, you mean?

Not sure if that's what the P5 is looking for.

Truth is, if we could be flies on the wall of a meeting of Michigan and USC athletic directors, we'd probably here those guys say that they already feel they (meaning the top 20 brand programs) are carrying too many free-loaders *within the current P5*. So the notion of significantly expanding it would seem crazy to them.

East Carolina is selling tickets.
BYU is selling tickets.
Boise State is selling tickets.

Those 3 have a net positive, and they are not have th highest subsidies like you claim. Even Memphis and Houston are doing better without the subsidies as long as they all keep winning.

This is not me taking either side of this argument, and I don't want to knock ECU because ECU is like all the other AAC schools, they heavily subsidize sports. So do most P5s.

In 2014, ECU had $36 million in revenue, and subsidized sports to the tune of $15.8 million. Those are big losses. Tickets accounted for $6 million of the $36 million in revenues.

Boise State has about 30k in fans show up per game. Last year they made $8m in ticket sales, $43m in revenue, and had a subsidy of $12.5m.

The thing is, Boise State is pretty woeful in terms of their sports. They only have 2 men's team sports (football, baseball). They have a total of 6 sports when you include tennis and cross country, etc. Most schools have 4 men's team sports. A school like UConn has 5 with soccer and ice hockey added to the big 3. This is a pretty big deficit for a school like Boise State.

One thing, Boise State have more teams than what you listed for men's like basketball.

Their average attendance for their football have always stayed around 33,000 to 34,000 a year.

Boise State's basketball is on the rise.
They won the PAC 12 title in wrestling a few years ago.

They have three sports for men's that have been pretty darn good. Compare with other schools that only have 1 men's team that have been good.

(05-07-2016 04:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  The thing is, Boise State is pretty woeful in terms of their sports. They only have 2 men's team sports (football, baseball [+Note]). They have a total of 6 sports when you include tennis and cross country, etc. Most schools have 4 men's team sports. A school like UConn has 5 with soccer and ice hockey added to the big 3. This is a pretty big deficit for a school like Boise State.

[+ Note: This is impossible, under NCAA rules, so I assume it is a typo. If a Div1 school has only two men's team sports, they are Football and Basketball, since Basketball is required to be Div1, and the exception to three men's teams sports is only allowed for FB playing schools.]

A number of schools in the Inland West are toward the bottom of Div1 schools in terms of sports played, because of simple social geography. The Mountain Time Zone is the least populous of our four time zones (46% Eastern, 30% Central, 17% Pacific, 7% Mountain), and so travel costs are higher for schools located in the Inland West than for schools located in the Northeast Coast.

This appears to be an effort to make some strained point where the conclusion is determined in advance ("the school I support is objectively better than this other school") and the challenge is to cherry pick some numbers to arrive at that conclusion.

Certainly as far as the topic at hand is concerned, it is a total non-issue. Nobody is getting admitted into the Power Conference group on the strength of their baseball, men's ice hockey or men's lacrosse teams. For the topic at hand, there is no "men team's sport deficit", since every school under discussion has FB and Men's BBall, and those are the men's team sports that have weight in this issue (and, of course, FB has substantially more weight than BBall).

If the B12 adds some schools there will be some back fill for the other conferences. Otherwise that is it for about a decade until the GORs start to expire. Even then, there will likely be more movement within the P5 than from outside.

(05-07-2016 10:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 04:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  The thing is, Boise State is pretty woeful in terms of their sports. They only have 2 men's team sports (football, baseball [+Note]). They have a total of 6 sports when you include tennis and cross country, etc. Most schools have 4 men's team sports. A school like UConn has 5 with soccer and ice hockey added to the big 3. This is a pretty big deficit for a school like Boise State.

[+ Note: This is impossible, under NCAA rules, so I assume it is a typo. If a Div1 school has only two men's team sports, they are Football and Basketball, since Basketball is required to be Div1, and the exception to three men's teams sports is only allowed for FB playing schools.]

A number of schools in the Inland West are toward the bottom of Div1 schools in terms of sports played, because of simple social geography. The Mountain Time Zone is the least populous of our four time zones (46% Eastern, 30% Central, 17% Pacific, 7% Mountain), and so travel costs are higher for schools located in the Inland West than for schools located in the Northeast Coast.

This appears to be an effort to make some strained point where the conclusion is determined in advance ("the school I support is objectively better than this other school") and the challenge is to cherry pick some numbers to arrive at that conclusion.

Certainly as far as the topic at hand is concerned, it is a total non-issue. Nobody is getting admitted into the Power Conference group on the strength of their baseball, men's ice hockey or men's lacrosse teams. For the topic at hand, there is no "men team's sport deficit", since every school under discussion has FB and Men's BBall, and those are the men's team sports that have weight in this issue (and, of course, FB has substantially more weight than BBall).

Conferences will look at the all sports program. Even in the smaller conferences, they are evaluating schools based on whether they are carrying sports they play. Now its not going to be a priority, but it is not irrelevant either.

(05-08-2016 08:31 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  If the B12 adds some schools there will be some back fill for the other conferences. Otherwise that is it for about a decade until the GORs start to expire. Even then, there will likely be more movement within the P5 than from outside.

Division I basketball and FCS football will continue to change as the fallout from 2010-2012 filters down. The CFP somewhat stabilizes FBS for the time being.