(05-23-2016 07:16 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 06:49 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 05:25 PM)Charlie Broadway Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 11:50 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  Here are my thoughts on Houston to the Big 12. I think if you take money out of the equation, adding Houston makes more sense than adding any other team. Houston already has a deep history with the Big 12 schools in Texas. Houston spent 20 years in the same conference as Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor. As a current student at Texas, I can tell you right now that Texas students I know would rather watch Texas play games against Houston than against UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Connecticut, or any other potential expansion teams. These students all have connections to UH whether through friends or family who went there or just growing up in the city. I'm not saying the games would ever become as meaningful as Texas' rivalry games, but of the expansion teams the interest would be the highest.

That said, I don't really think Houston makes too much sense otherwise. For starters, expansion is probably off the table unless a conference network is in the mix. Even if we assume a conference network will be made, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that UH would be critical to getting full carriage fees in Houston. It's a pretty safe assumption that the whole state of Texas would get full carriage fees from a conference network with just Texas, TCU, Baylor, and TTU. If Houston isn't necessarily to get full carriage feees (or doesn't significantly bump up the carriage fees), then it would make sense to go after other schools in high population areas to bring higher carriage fees to those areas.

You live in Texas but you think this? Lhn isn't even on Comcast in Houston. Most people in Houston cannot watch it and never have been able to watch it. A separate channel with exclusive content from the rockets, Astros, Texans, and dynamo failed miserably because it couldn't even get full carriage in the city of Houston. But it's a slam dunk this big 12 network will get full carriage?

Okay for the sake of argument, lets assume you're right. Without UH, the Big 12 network gets full carriage throughout Texas except for Comcast in Houston. Adding full carriage on Comcast in Houston would add what? 850k subscribers? That's not a whole lot compared to another university that can deliver a lot more than one network in one city. The LHN is already on 9 of the 10 largest carriers in Texas.

How did you come up with 850k subscribers??

Is this not the right number? http://www.comcastspotlight.com/userfile...ouston.pdf
http://www.comcastspotlight.com/userfile...Map(4).pdf

I really don't know, so correct me if I'm wrong.

@ChuckCarltonDMN 9m9 minutes ago
With all due respect to Red McCombs, he couldn't get Jon Gruden hired at Texas. Don't know how much weight he carries on Big 12 expansion.

(05-23-2016 07:23 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 07:16 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 06:49 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 05:25 PM)Charlie Broadway Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 11:50 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  Here are my thoughts on Houston to the Big 12. I think if you take money out of the equation, adding Houston makes more sense than adding any other team. Houston already has a deep history with the Big 12 schools in Texas. Houston spent 20 years in the same conference as Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor. As a current student at Texas, I can tell you right now that Texas students I know would rather watch Texas play games against Houston than against UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Connecticut, or any other potential expansion teams. These students all have connections to UH whether through friends or family who went there or just growing up in the city. I'm not saying the games would ever become as meaningful as Texas' rivalry games, but of the expansion teams the interest would be the highest.

That said, I don't really think Houston makes too much sense otherwise. For starters, expansion is probably off the table unless a conference network is in the mix. Even if we assume a conference network will be made, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that UH would be critical to getting full carriage fees in Houston. It's a pretty safe assumption that the whole state of Texas would get full carriage fees from a conference network with just Texas, TCU, Baylor, and TTU. If Houston isn't necessarily to get full carriage feees (or doesn't significantly bump up the carriage fees), then it would make sense to go after other schools in high population areas to bring higher carriage fees to those areas.

You live in Texas but you think this? Lhn isn't even on Comcast in Houston. Most people in Houston cannot watch it and never have been able to watch it. A separate channel with exclusive content from the rockets, Astros, Texans, and dynamo failed miserably because it couldn't even get full carriage in the city of Houston. But it's a slam dunk this big 12 network will get full carriage?

Okay for the sake of argument, lets assume you're right. Without UH, the Big 12 network gets full carriage throughout Texas except for Comcast in Houston. Adding full carriage on Comcast in Houston would add what? 850k subscribers? That's not a whole lot compared to another university that can deliver a lot more than one network in one city. The LHN is already on 9 of the 10 largest carriers in Texas.

How did you come up with 850k subscribers??

Is this not the right number? http://www.comcastspotlight.com/userfile...ouston.pdf
http://www.comcastspotlight.com/userfile...Map(4).pdf

I really don't know, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Just so that we're clear, I'm not one who favors joining the big12

Who really knows what the number would be if Houston joined. This much I can say, there's so much interest for this University than ever before.

(05-23-2016 07:39 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  @ChuckCarltonDMN 9m9 minutes ago
With all due respect to Red McCombs, he couldn't get Jon Gruden hired at Texas. Don't know how much weight he carries on Big 12 expansion.

I think the jury is definitely still out on whether he should have been listened to. Strong hasn't exactly instilled a lot of confidence with on the field performances.

(05-23-2016 07:53 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 07:23 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 07:16 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 06:49 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 05:25 PM)Charlie Broadway Wrote:  You live in Texas but you think this? Lhn isn't even on Comcast in Houston. Most people in Houston cannot watch it and never have been able to watch it. A separate channel with exclusive content from the rockets, Astros, Texans, and dynamo failed miserably because it couldn't even get full carriage in the city of Houston. But it's a slam dunk this big 12 network will get full carriage?

Okay for the sake of argument, lets assume you're right. Without UH, the Big 12 network gets full carriage throughout Texas except for Comcast in Houston. Adding full carriage on Comcast in Houston would add what? 850k subscribers? That's not a whole lot compared to another university that can deliver a lot more than one network in one city. The LHN is already on 9 of the 10 largest carriers in Texas.

How did you come up with 850k subscribers??

Is this not the right number? http://www.comcastspotlight.com/userfile...ouston.pdf
http://www.comcastspotlight.com/userfile...Map(4).pdf

I really don't know, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Just so that we're clear, I'm not one who favors joining the big12

Who really knows what the number would be if Houston joined. This much I can say, there's so much interest for this University than ever before.

If you read my first paragraph, I see a whole lot of value in Houston being in the Big 12 outside of the financial aspect. If someone can convince me that I'm wrong about the financial stuff, I'm all ears.

(05-23-2016 08:04 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 07:39 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  @ChuckCarltonDMN 9m9 minutes ago
With all due respect to Red McCombs, he couldn't get Jon Gruden hired at Texas. Don't know how much weight he carries on Big 12 expansion.

I think the jury is definitely still out on whether he should have been listened to. Strong hasn't exactly instilled a lot of confidence with on the field performances.

I'm still not sold on Strong. This year will be what solidifies my opinion, though. This year he'll have his own sophmores and freshmen starting.

The Set Up:
http://theamerican.org/sports/2016/1/22/...px?id=186&

Bracket View:
http://theamerican.org/documents/2016/1/...pdf?id=845

**************

TUE:

#5
Houston
http://www.uhcougars.com/sports/m-basebl...sched.html

vs

#4
UC
http://www.gobearcats.com/sports/m-baseb...sched.html


#8
UCF
http://www.ucfknights.com/sports/m-baseb...sched.html

vs

#1
Tulane
http://www.tulanegreenwave.com/sports/m-...sched.html

**WED**

#7
USF
http://www.gousfbulls.com/SportSelect.db...PSID=36642

vs

#2
ECU
http://www.ecupirates.com/sports/m-baseb...sched.html

#6
Memphis
http://www.gotigersgo.com/schedule.aspx?path=baseball

vs

UConn
http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/m-bas...-sched.htm

Loser of #5 vs #4

vs

Loser of #8 vs #1

McCombs influential days are over at UT. He wanted to keep Brown and didn't want Strong. Guess who the coach is? Not sure why he still goes public with this stuff - it just makes him look more out of it later.

The Dude of WV has been tweeting that BYU and CSU are UT's top two choices for expansion, and UT may compromise for expansion if it's those two schools.

(05-23-2016 09:00 PM)akhosrof Wrote:  The Dude of WV has been tweeting that BYU and CSU are UT's top two choices for expansion, and UT may compromise for expansion if it's those two schools.

I wouldn't mind that, at least the AAC remains untouched.

Cusa would probably lose UTEP or Rice to the MW

Anything including CSU would be hilarious. The Big 12 is already a geographical mess as it is, but to sweep across 3 different time zones without significantly improving their on the field product would bury them in the eyes of the media. The gap between the Big 12 and AAC would narrow, and our argument for P6 would gain credence. It wouldn't happen, but maybe it would set a move to a P4 in motion. UT and OU would bolt, then maybe the AAC and Big 12 leftovers could form a formidable conference.

I wonder what number a West Virginia vs. Colorado State game would pull in the Houston market.

(05-23-2016 09:00 PM)akhosrof Wrote:  The Dude of WV has been tweeting that BYU and CSU are UT's top two choices for expansion, and UT may compromise for expansion if it's those two schools.

The Dude?

(05-23-2016 11:16 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Anything including CSU would be hilarious. The Big 12 is already a geographical mess as it is, but to sweep across 3 different time zones without significantly improving their on the field product would bury them in the eyes of the media. The gap between the Big 12 and AAC would narrow, and our argument for P6 would gain credence. It wouldn't happen, but maybe it would set a move to a P4 in motion. UT and OU would bolt, then maybe the AAC and Big 12 leftovers could form a formidable conference.

I wonder what number a West Virginia vs. Colorado State game would pull in the Houston market.

The whole situation is already hilarious and the conference is already a mess. Nothing at this point would be surprising. CSU and BYU actually do make sense geography wise as they don't put added stress on any other member than WVU. WVU knew what they were getting themselves into when they joined the conference. The conference shouldn't compromise itself to accommodate WVU for one "close" 5 hour travel game every year or so

UT and OU are bolting by 2024-26 once the revenue gap gets large enough. The only thing that matters now to the other members is maximizing revenue between now and then, and making UT and OU as happy as possible, with the hope they change their mind and stay in the conference but are given a much large share of revenues than the other members. In other words, by the next Big 12 TV contract, UT and OU might get SEC/B1G level revenue, but the other members will get significantly less.

If UT wants CSU and BYU in expansion, they will get them. A conference network isn't happening so geography means nothing at this point when you already have deadweight geography such as OKSU, ISU, KSU, TTU and Baylor.

Because of massive tv contracts, boosters are not as powerful. The Big 10 each get $40 million before the season starts. Really no need to let a booster hassle you into anything.

I doubt Csu and BYU happen although that is good for the AAC. The whole point was to get a more east coast footprint and lead to a network (which isn't happening either). I feel like the Big 12 is just trying to bandaid themselves until Texas and Oklahoma bolt. Keep the money train going as long as you can.

I always chuckle when I read the Big Twelve boards talk up Colorado State. The comments usually go like this:

"We don't want UC, UH or Memphis. They are city colleges and are big commuter schools. Nobody goes to their games. Give me Colorado State or Boise State. They are state schools".

The fail is that posters disregards the three aforementioned schools have better football attendance that CSU and Boise State is a bigger commuter school that all three (less than 10% of the student body at Boise live on campus). Furthermore all three schools are part of their state university system. They are as much of a state school as Ohio State, Texas or Tennessee.

(05-24-2016 05:24 AM)akhosrof Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 11:16 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Anything including CSU would be hilarious. The Big 12 is already a geographical mess as it is, but to sweep across 3 different time zones without significantly improving their on the field product would bury them in the eyes of the media. The gap between the Big 12 and AAC would narrow, and our argument for P6 would gain credence. It wouldn't happen, but maybe it would set a move to a P4 in motion. UT and OU would bolt, then maybe the AAC and Big 12 leftovers could form a formidable conference.

I wonder what number a West Virginia vs. Colorado State game would pull in the Houston market.

The whole situation is already hilarious and the conference is already a mess. Nothing at this point would be surprising. CSU and BYU actually do make sense geography wise as they don't put added stress on any other member than WVU. WVU knew what they were getting themselves into when they joined the conference. The conference shouldn't compromise itself to accommodate WVU for one "close" 5 hour travel game every year or so

UT and OU are bolting by 2024-26 once the revenue gap gets large enough. The only thing that matters now to the other members is maximizing revenue between now and then, and making UT and OU as happy as possible, with the hope they change their mind and stay in the conference but are given a much large share of revenues than the other members. In other words, by the next Big 12 TV contract, UT and OU might get SEC/B1G level revenue, but the other members will get significantly less.

If UT wants CSU and BYU in expansion, they will get them. A conference network isn't happening so geography means nothing at this point when you already have deadweight geography such as OKSU, ISU, KSU, TTU and Baylor.

To me, BYU makes the most sense from a purely athletics standpoint. They have a brand and a big following. It would only grow in the Big 12 with the additional money and prestige of being in the P5. The next team is tough. The American certainly houses the most candidates though which says something about the conference as a whole. CSU like you said would offer Geography but is also a land grant institution which carries a certain cache as well. They are growing as well and the Big 12 may want to get back into Colorado as well which this would make sense with BYU. Just think what they could become with an extra 20 million a year to spend. The certainly would have a high ceiling IMO. The Big 12 needs to be forward thinking like the Big 10. I mean they added Rutgers which is arguable the worse athletics program around. I know they did it based on a cable model but at the end of the day if they don't bring the market because they are lousy then the carriage fees will drop in those markets and the model starts to crumble. Will that happen? Who knows but I think the Big 12 needs to be thinking along those lines.

(05-24-2016 07:14 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Because of massive tv contracts, boosters are not as powerful. The Big 10 each get $40 million before the season starts. Really no need to let a booster hassle you into anything.

But Boosters are still very important to the bottom line...as some of the largest Athletic Programs have $100 Million to even $150 Million annual budgets...plus the need for huge projects (new/renovated stadiums/arenas/facilities), so $$$ from top boosters are still extremely important.

Now Univ don't have to do do everything they say...(they can always use the tag line "we will take that up under advisement"), and if they put their name on a building/project or two...and have the President/AD/Coaches glad hand with them at major games/events...that's usually enough.

(05-24-2016 08:02 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I always chuckle when I read the Big Twelve boards talk up Colorado State. The comments usually go like this:

"We don't want UC, UH or Memphis. They are city colleges and are big commuter schools. Nobody goes to their games. Give me Colorado State or Boise State. They are state schools".

Dear Lord that is hilarious!!!!

We have the second most beds on campus in the State (more than A&M, Tech, Baylor, TCU, Etc.) the commuter label is old. Do we have commuters? Of course we do and we always will but the tide has turned when it comes to living on campus.

Nobody goes to their games? Like you said man go look at the attendance numbers at CSU. If numbers like this impress them it only proves how dysfunctional the B12 is: 2015 24,916 avg, 2014 26,575 avg, 2013 18,599 avg, 2012 19,250 avg, 2011 21,867 avg. For a grand total 5 year average of 22,241........

Using UH as an example (because go figure I have the numbers handy) we have a 29,406 average over the same period, and that was with a stadium capacity of 32k for 3 of those years. Not numbers I really brag about but the upward trend is there and we now have the capacity.

But I digress...... Anyone who thinks a school with a "plan" for a stadium. A school that is a low 20k program. A school that is 32-32 in the last 5 years (UH again because I have those numbers handy.... is 47-19 in the same span)...... and on and on. Needs some help!

I need to just stop CSU makes no sense. BYU with all their issues though I cant really see a problem if they work those out.

Bottom line BYU yes, CSU....

Fort Collins over Houston everyday of the week until the sun burns out.

Houston just sucks. Texans dont like Houston. Nobody likes Houston. Houston smells like urine. People in Houston dont like Houston.

(05-24-2016 09:00 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Fort Collins over Houston everyday of the week until the sun burns out.

Houston just sucks. Texans dont like Houston. Nobody likes Houston. Houston smells like urine. People in Houston dont like Houston.

People who were born here don't like Houston. People who work here don't like Houston. People who moved here because they love Houston don't like Houston. Houston is the largest city in Texas but yet don't like Houston. NASA don't like Houston. Houston We Have A Problem don't like Houston. The NFL don't like Houston. The NBA don't like Houston. MLB don't like Houston. Houston Houston Houston and Houston don't like Houston.