Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
Author Message
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,662
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #61
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
The other point I have made, that I think others are making as well, is that it might be worth it to the University administration to lose more money on football as an independent that associates with the Academies, P5 peer schools, and local athletic rivals, then it does to make slightly more money (or lose slightly less) while associating with CUSA schools that bear no resemblence to Rice and bring no additional attention to Rice's academic excellence.

I really hope someone in the athletic department has at least inquired with the AAC about Rice joining as a non-football member. I think that is the most workable solution at this point, since they already have a football-only member, some regional rivals, and some decent academic schools. Even as a football independent, this would probably help Rice schedule OOC games against UH, SMU, Tulane, and Navy. And I think Rice's baseball program and rising basketball program would provide value to the AAC.
06-08-2016 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pimpa Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 913
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: South Texas
Post: #62
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
All of this is a very interesting and complex topic. I wonder if it would be a topic of discussion for a Dr. K podcast. Does anyone know if we those will be continued during the summer months?
06-08-2016 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,959
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #63
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-08-2016 11:36 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 11:21 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 11:18 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 11:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  as I said (but was perhaps buried in things few care to read)

maybe the solution is to keep CUSA, but eliminate the crossover games and forego the TV contract and let us each make our own/sell ad hoc. They can keep the bowls and perhaps the Championship game?

I mean at SOME point, there really isn't much value in 'selling' the TV rights. I think we're there.

It's good to see that someone other than myself is finally coming around on this idea. CUSA can work if we can free up schedule space for some familiar opponents. We should only play the schools in the West division. It would help attendance and cut travel costs, the two variables that are killing us right now.

Please. Do not equate Hambone's thinking ahead (which he has been doing for a long time with many ideas) with your Greenspan-esqe happiness with CUSA.

Had we listened to Hambone and co. then, we could be in a better spot. Instead we followed the Greenspan and d1 and your plan of trust in the "behind the scenes" did fuckall and here we are.

I would expect you to have a problem with my post, as you always do. As for Greenspan, I didn't hire him, your alma mater did. And don't throw stones at me for presenting ideas that don't include P5 membership. For years I've communicated several different conference models that could benefit Rice, only to be labeled as a supporter of the "status quo." Remaining in CUSA, but under a different scheduling system, is one of those models I've presented. Another is pursuing the MWC, or having CUSA West break away and form a new conference. I've been consistent, if nothing else. Don't you dare act like I'm riding the coattails of anyone on this board.

Consistent isn't a virtue when it's consistently stupid. That's the same issue with Greenspan. He was consistent, albeit wrong.

So no, not questioning your consistency just that every thing you support this far has been squarely wrong.
06-08-2016 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,959
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #64
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-08-2016 11:56 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  All of this is a very interesting and complex topic. I wonder if it would be a topic of discussion for a Dr. K podcast. Does anyone know if we those will be continued during the summer months?

I'm not sure I hope so.

Will shoot off an email to the athletics depth and check
06-08-2016 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #65
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
I've now seen several reports that if the Big12 expands, it will be from BYU, Houston, and Cincinnati. Not sure much happens until B12 acts, or convinces everyone they aren't going to expand. At that point we need to push to get in MWC or AAC at all costs. As bitter a pill as UH going to the Big 12 would be, if it got us into the AAC, I'd take it.
06-08-2016 12:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Afflicted Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,249
Joined: Sep 2009
I Root For: Rice and UH
Location:
Post: #66
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-08-2016 12:15 PM)Antarius Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 11:36 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 11:21 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 11:18 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 11:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  as I said (but was perhaps buried in things few care to read)

maybe the solution is to keep CUSA, but eliminate the crossover games and forego the TV contract and let us each make our own/sell ad hoc. They can keep the bowls and perhaps the Championship game?

I mean at SOME point, there really isn't much value in 'selling' the TV rights. I think we're there.

It's good to see that someone other than myself is finally coming around on this idea. CUSA can work if we can free up schedule space for some familiar opponents. We should only play the schools in the West division. It would help attendance and cut travel costs, the two variables that are killing us right now.

Please. Do not equate Hambone's thinking ahead (which he has been doing for a long time with many ideas) with your Greenspan-esqe happiness with CUSA.

Had we listened to Hambone and co. then, we could be in a better spot. Instead we followed the Greenspan and d1 and your plan of trust in the "behind the scenes" did fuckall and here we are.

I would expect you to have a problem with my post, as you always do. As for Greenspan, I didn't hire him, your alma mater did. And don't throw stones at me for presenting ideas that don't include P5 membership. For years I've communicated several different conference models that could benefit Rice, only to be labeled as a supporter of the "status quo." Remaining in CUSA, but under a different scheduling system, is one of those models I've presented. Another is pursuing the MWC, or having CUSA West break away and form a new conference. I've been consistent, if nothing else. Don't you dare act like I'm riding the coattails of anyone on this board.

Consistent isn't a virtue when it's consistently stupid. That's the same issue with Greenspan. He was consistent, albeit wrong.

So no, not questioning your consistency just that every thing you support this far has been squarely wrong.

Right, and everything you support is squarely correct.
06-08-2016 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,278
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #67
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-08-2016 11:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  The other point I have made, that I think others are making as well, is that it might be worth it to the University administration to lose more money on football as an independent that associates with the Academies, P5 peer schools, and local athletic rivals, then it does to make slightly more money (or lose slightly less) while associating with CUSA schools that bear no resemblence to Rice and bring no additional attention to Rice's academic excellence.

Another example of something I was getting at, but said far better by you.

We are 'outsourcing' our outreach through sports to groups that we share little in the way of values. If they're paying us very well, then that isn't a big deal... but the truth is now that they aren't.

Watching a CUSA broadcast where they're talking about La Tech as being the 'Premier research institution in Northern Louisiana' followed by Rice not sounding significantly different is a MAJOR problem for me (like UH's Tier 1). I understand why CUSA wants to lift all boats and why La Tech wants to paint itself in the best light... no problem with that....

but I've often thought our best commercial might be more along the lines of... 'Seriously?? if you're considering the academic reputation of ANY school being broadcast on this station, or any school in g5 football, nobody else even comes close.'

Which is why I think it isn't worth this pittance to continue to act as if there is even a comparison. I'm not saying that these schools don't have VERY worthwhile missions and charters and everything else... or that they aren't better fits for lots of people (even some of us who DID go to Rice)... but it's like putting a Bugatti Veyron next to a Fiat 500 and describing them both as 'premier sports cars'.

Obviously I'm being politically incorrect and overstating things for effect, but it's essentially true. We're academically in the category of UT or Harvard or Stanford or Vandy, not CUSA.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 01:32 PM by Hambone10.)
06-08-2016 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Orange County Owl Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,044
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 101
I Root For: Rice/Bradley/Iowa
Location: Summerlin, NV (LV)

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #68
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
Note that the preliminary CUSA 2016 TV schedule was just released, and CUSA's national partners selected only 4 of our games. And, one of those was ESPN's selection of the Baylor game - which is quite frankly 99% about Baylor. Another one was Army - which is probably 70% about Army. Some other games will likely be added down the road, but you get my point.

As a point of comparison, these same partners selected 11 Marshall telecasts, and they play exactly one name opponent (Louisville).

I mention this only because I think people underestimate how difficult it would be to acquire TV exposure for our games without a conference affiliation. Using the example above, we're not currently the top draw for the lower tier partners we have now - let alone in a world where we're competing for air time on our own.

And without TV exposure, recruiting becomes very, very difficult. Branding does as well, although admittedly I'm not sure how much branding support we're getting from BeIn Sports (maybe more Rice gear in Munich and Barcelona?).
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 01:58 PM by Orange County Owl.)
06-08-2016 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brookes Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,965
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 165
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesDonators
Post: #69
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-08-2016 01:37 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  ...we're not currently the top draw for the lower tier partners we have now - let alone in a world where we're competing for air time on our own.

To go down this (independent) road we can't just win - we have to be outrageous/notorious/flamboyant. Crazy new offense, ridiculous pre-game/post-game shenanigans, unbelievable stadium special effects - we would have to do something that gets on SportsCenter (and beyond) every game. Until we're winning at TCU/Boise levels (and maybe after that), we'll have to do something to make Rice Football a must-see.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 04:05 PM by Brookes Owl.)
06-08-2016 04:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,959
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #70
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-08-2016 01:37 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  Note that the preliminary CUSA 2016 TV schedule was just released, and CUSA's national partners selected only 4 of our games. And, one of those was ESPN's selection of the Baylor game - which is quite frankly 99% about Baylor. Another one was Army - which is probably 70% about Army. Some other games will likely be added down the road, but you get my point.

As a point of comparison, these same partners selected 11 Marshall telecasts, and they play exactly one name opponent (Louisville).

I mention this only because I think people underestimate how difficult it would be to acquire TV exposure for our games without a conference affiliation. Using the example above, we're not currently the top draw for the lower tier partners we have now - let alone in a world where we're competing for air time on our own.

And without TV exposure, recruiting becomes very, very difficult. Branding does as well, although admittedly I'm not sure how much branding support we're getting from BeIn Sports (maybe more Rice gear in Munich and Barcelona?).

I agree. However with the new TV deal, we really stand to gain nothing. We could fundraise 200 grand in a week if we needed to.

It will certainly be difficult, however given that we give up absolutely nothing, its a worthwhile shot.
06-08-2016 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rick Gerlach Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #71
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-08-2016 09:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 05:57 AM)Antarius Wrote:  When did we draw 35k for Air Force and Navy? The 2009 listed Navy attendance was 15k and I can assure you, it was far less than than in person.


It seems like we're arguing just to argue.

Our largest home game in 2015 was against Army. 24,409... but when I said they drew 25,000... you protested. That's 5,000 more than we drew for the CUSA Championship game in 2013. We also drew 26,000 for UH in 2010

Yes, we only drew 15,000 for Navy in 2009, but we also got beat 63-14. We drew 10,000 for Tulsa and UTEP that year... so it was STILL 5,000 more.

2008 we drew 35,000 for UH
2006 we drew almost 24,000 for them but only 12k for ECU and SMU
2004 29k for Houston, 8k the next weekend for Hawaii.
2003 28k for Navy 13k for Nevada and Tulsa and 10k for UTEP
2002 31k for UH, 18k for Fresno, 10k for SMU and Tulsa

** Sep 2 2000 41k for UH we were 3-8 and running the boring wishbone
** Sep 25 1999 44k for Navy we were 5-6 and running the boring wishbone
1998 Air Force was #20, but we had them at Air Force... I suspect the 1997 home game had lots of folks.

There were more games like that in the 90's but WIKI doesn't go back that far and I don't feel like pulling the programs. We did a program called 'operation sell-out' for those games and really went after the armed forces people in the area, and even in San Antonio. MIGHT have been part of the reason we soon thereafter had such good luck recruiting in San Antonio?

My point is that certain teams draw better than others... and 5,000 seats for 6 games is worth $750,000... even at only $25/ticket

I think that selective scheduling could add 5,000 fans and perhaps even FAR more and EASILY replace the lost conference TV revenue... plus, as I said, no more Thursday Noon September (euphemism... I realize it would be noon Sat or night on Thurs) games, UNLESS our coach wants them for some reason

I think UTSA and UTEP and La Tech and UH and UNT and SMU would still want to play us... so perhaps rather than going independent, we simply completely revamp CUSA and get rid of the 'crossover' games. Dump the TV package. Have 5 or even 6 OOC games... play everyone in your division and the winner plays the other division's champ... PERIOD.

For 2015 that would mean dropping FAU and Charlotte. FAU only drew 13k at their own house and we get them at home this year... and we drew 16k for charlotte... for comparison, we drew 24k for Army.

We AVERAGED over 35,000 in 1997, bolstered by UT and an Operation Sellout of over 40,000 for SMU (edit - or maybe SMU was 1998 and Air Force was the 1997 OpSellOut opponent? At any rate the numbers were big as Ham is suggesting).
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 05:14 PM by Rick Gerlach.)
06-08-2016 05:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,959
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #72
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-08-2016 05:04 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  We AVERAGED over 35,000 in 1997, bolstered by UT and an Operation Sellout of over 40,000 for SMU (edit - or maybe SMU was 1998 and Air Force was the 1997 OpSellOut opponent? At any rate the numbers were big as Ham is suggesting).

1997 was a blip - we were up 15,000 over 1996. And then 1998 dropped back to 22000

Given that we only had 5 home games with a total attendance of 177,000, the UT game was a MASSIVE outlier that completely skewed the results. And we played SMU on the road.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/1997.pdf

Not sure what your point was, unless it was to demonstrate that having one huge game is enough to skew your average significantly.
06-08-2016 05:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,278
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #73
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-08-2016 04:04 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 01:37 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  ...we're not currently the top draw for the lower tier partners we have now - let alone in a world where we're competing for air time on our own.

To go down this (independent) road we can't just win - we have to be outrageous/notorious/flamboyant. Crazy new offense, ridiculous pre-game/post-game shenanigans, unbelievable stadium special effects - we would have to do something that gets on SportsCenter (and beyond) every game. Until we're winning at TCU/Boise levels (and maybe after that), we'll have to do something to make Rice Football a must-see.

I don't think we'd have to be ridiculous, but since we'd control the TV/Internet, the MOB would certainly get a lot more attention... which WOULD garner some attention... and encourage them to do better (and give them more resources). Yes, we should take advantage of the now 7pm games and go with the lights and lasers (we should be pretty good at that) having the Owl swoop through the stadium (like in the Centennial)

There isn't a magic bullet. This is an AND, not an OR. But I believe these are things that we CAN do, that the University WOULD support (because it improves those aspects of athletics that they value) and would therefore improve the product on the field and thus move us in the right direction...

(06-08-2016 04:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 01:37 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  Note that the preliminary CUSA 2016 TV schedule was just released, and CUSA's national partners selected only 4 of our games. And, one of those was ESPN's selection of the Baylor game - which is quite frankly 99% about Baylor. Another one was Army - which is probably 70% about Army. Some other games will likely be added down the road, but you get my point.

As a point of comparison, these same partners selected 11 Marshall telecasts, and they play exactly one name opponent (Louisville).

I mention this only because I think people underestimate how difficult it would be to acquire TV exposure for our games without a conference affiliation. Using the example above, we're not currently the top draw for the lower tier partners we have now - let alone in a world where we're competing for air time on our own.

And without TV exposure, recruiting becomes very, very difficult. Branding does as well, although admittedly I'm not sure how much branding support we're getting from BeIn Sports (maybe more Rice gear in Munich and Barcelona?).

I agree. However with the new TV deal, we really stand to gain nothing. We could fundraise 200 grand in a week if we needed to.

It will certainly be difficult, however given that we give up absolutely nothing, its a worthwhile shot.

We give up almost nothing, and we take back control of our scheduling. The value of 7pm Saturday games in terms of atmosphere and 'players wanting to come and play here' over a noon scorcher with none of the frills is worth far more than I think we realize... especially for things that matter to the players, students and alumni, and thus the University. When our PLAYERS are saying that they're watching UT/Tech on Saturday Night (because we finished playing at 4pm) we've got a problem.

Besides... Exactly what is difficult? We've already replaced the revenue with actual fans in the seats. ANY tv (actually internet) eyes are gravy and don't need to add a dime to be 'better' than what we had.

(06-08-2016 05:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 05:04 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  We AVERAGED over 35,000 in 1997, bolstered by UT and an Operation Sellout of over 40,000 for SMU (edit - or maybe SMU was 1998 and Air Force was the 1997 OpSellOut opponent? At any rate the numbers were big as Ham is suggesting).

1997 was a blip - we were up 15,000 over 1996. And then 1998 dropped back to 22000

Given that we only had 5 home games with a total attendance of 177,000, the UT game was a MASSIVE outlier that completely skewed the results. And we played SMU on the road.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/1997.pdf

Not sure what your point was, unless it was to demonstrate that having one huge game is enough to skew your average significantly.

This wasn't the case (one huge game). UT didn't draw more than about 45k in the late 90's and again, this just seems to be arguing about arguing. Rick was providing an 'in addition', but still recognizing that his memory is what mine was....

It was suggested that we didn't draw 35,000 for UH or NAVY or AIR FORCE, and it has been demonstrated that we DID. The claim that we AVERAGED 35,000 one year was certainly the result of serendipitous scheduling (which fell off the previous and following years as you'd expect... but it STILL gives us an average attendance for those 3 years of more than 5,000 seats more than we average today. That means that over those 3 years, we took in $2.25mm more than we do with todays attendance. Take out the UT game and we STILL probably make $2mm more over 3 years. THAT is the point.

It's not about one game with 60,000... because we haven't had that since perhaps the 70's?
06-08-2016 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,278
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #74
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
**ETA, if my 1970's guess isn't true, I don't care. It wasn't pertinent to my point. We haven't had 60,000 + in our stadium in a VERY VERY VERY long time... certainly not in the mid 90's.
06-08-2016 06:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fort Bend Owl Online
Legend
*

Posts: 28,343
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 448
I Root For: An easy win
Location:

The Parliament Awards
Post: #75
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
At least the games on BeIn TV (or whatever it's called) could be night games. Our game vs. UTSA will be a TV game on that network and was announced today as being a 6 pm start.

What's worse than being on an obscure TV network is being on an obscure TV network and having to play a Saturday day game in September and October.
06-08-2016 06:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,959
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #76
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-08-2016 06:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  **ETA, if my 1970's guess isn't true, I don't care. It wasn't pertinent to my point. We haven't had 60,000 + in our stadium in a VERY VERY VERY long time... certainly not in the mid 90's.

Listed attendance was 53, 811

1997 was an anomaly. But yes, we likely made more then than we do now. I wasn't around in 1997 so I can't comment on whether the level of fabricating attendance is the same then as now.

The crux of my point is that if we are making a change based on making up TV revenue based on attendance, then we have to be realistic about the attendance. That's all
06-08-2016 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,662
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #77
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
Come on guys, it isn't that hard. 1997 home attendance figures:
Air Force - 53,145
Texas - 53,811
BYU - 23,814 (this game was played in horrible weather)
TCU - 28,763
UTEP - 18,014
06-09-2016 12:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,640
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #78
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-09-2016 12:03 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Come on guys, it isn't that hard. 1997 home attendance figures:
Air Force - 53,145
Texas - 53,811
BYU - 23,814 (this game was played in horrible weather)
TCU - 28,763
UTEP - 18,014

I much prefer the petty squabbles. Big, why are you bringing data to this fight?
06-09-2016 06:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,959
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #79
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
(06-09-2016 12:03 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Come on guys, it isn't that hard. 1997 home attendance figures:
Air Force - 53,145
Texas - 53,811
BYU - 23,814 (this game was played in horrible weather)
TCU - 28,763
UTEP - 18,014

Thanks. Looks like there were two big outljers that year. I stand corrected.

Does anyone know if these figures are accurate or are they grossly inflated like the ones now? Am curious as that would have a sizeable impact on revenue projections.
06-09-2016 07:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Afflicted Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,249
Joined: Sep 2009
I Root For: Rice and UH
Location:
Post: #80
RE: New CUSA TV contract - revenue worse than originally reported
The crowd at that Air Force game was amazing. I remember the show they gave with the falcon before the game, and the flyover. Then we got crushed. It's hard to believe we almost beat Texas again a couple of weeks later.
06-09-2016 08:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.