YOU'RE the EXPERT!!!

(09-25-2015 04:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 03:49 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 02:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The overall benefit, when you take into account the actual benefit minus the negatives, is so minor that they won't go through the trouble of setting up the game.

It is what it is.

I disagree with you about the benefits of being on national tv

The MAC and SB are already on national television, both during the regular season and during bowl games.

Just ask the Sunbelt fans, coaches, administrators, players, and fans if they want more or less games on national TV. Pretty sure I know the answer.

Since fans, players and coaches are usually the ones who decide conference operations ... you know, just like with expansion.

The university presidents will decide on adding a CCG, if it makes sense, based on facts and arguments made by the athletic directors and the commissioner of the conference.

"I hate positive national exposure"

Said no university president ever

(09-25-2015 05:34 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 03:49 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I disagree with you about the benefits of being on national tv

The MAC and SB are already on national television, both during the regular season and during bowl games.

Just ask the Sunbelt fans, coaches, administrators, players, and fans if they want more or less games on national TV. Pretty sure I know the answer.

Since fans, players and coaches are usually the ones who decide conference operations ... you know, just like with expansion.

The university presidents will decide on adding a CCG, if it makes sense, based on facts and arguments made by the athletic directors and the commissioner of the conference.

"I hate positive national exposure"

Said no university president ever

Some salesman: "How about some positive, national exposure for your university??"

Every university president ever: "How much does it cost?"

(09-25-2015 05:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:34 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The MAC and SB are already on national television, both during the regular season and during bowl games.

Just ask the Sunbelt fans, coaches, administrators, players, and fans if they want more or less games on national TV. Pretty sure I know the answer.

Since fans, players and coaches are usually the ones who decide conference operations ... you know, just like with expansion.

The university presidents will decide on adding a CCG, if it makes sense, based on facts and arguments made by the athletic directors and the commissioner of the conference.

"I hate positive national exposure"

Said no university president ever

Some salesman: "How about some positive, national exposure for your university??"

Every university president ever: "How much does it cost?"

Salesman: just an extra football game. No major financial cost to you. In fact youll probably make a little money from the gate.

(09-25-2015 12:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-24-2015 04:54 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-24-2015 09:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 11:03 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 09:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I didn't change it. I addressed my argument first, with the first sentence.

However, I recognize that you've already admitted that "it doesn't matter, either way". Thus, I was willing to step down to your argument, if you were ready to be done.

Now you're trying to jump back up to my argument. That's fine. In that case, my answer is "More losses are worse than less losses. That's self-evident."

And more wins are better than less wins, as Bruce said.

CCG's give the conference a national platform to showcase their best product. For smaller conferences that do not get a lot of national TV that is a huge benefit. Unless the loser is knocked out of the access bowl, there are no other negatives. If I am missing any negatives, please feel free to list them.

As I've said, the actual showcases are the bowl games. The CCG isn't a showcase for a conference like the Sun Belt. No one here has proven yet that the CCG would get significant viewership.

Yeah no one watches football on espn silly me

Lots of people watch college football on ESPN.

Not enough people would view the SB CCG on ESPN2, to make it worth giving a loss to its #1 or #2 team.

You are wrong. Some championship games on ESPN2 does draw a lot of people to watch.
#1 is ESPN
#2 is ESPN2
Than there is a big drop off to FSN1 at number 3 for the lack of households.
Than an even more drop off to NBCSports and CBSSports, ESPNU, ESPNNews, ESPNClassic. ESPN does have very good ratings for Northern Illinois, Boise State, MWC, some MAC, most of AAC, some C-USA and so forth.
If the North Dakota State Vs Kansas State game was on an ESPN or an ESPN2 network instead of FS1? It would have gotten over a 1 million viewers instead of a lousy Big 10 team beaten up on a hapless MAC team of the weak.

(09-25-2015 05:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:34 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Just ask the Sunbelt fans, coaches, administrators, players, and fans if they want more or less games on national TV. Pretty sure I know the answer.

Since fans, players and coaches are usually the ones who decide conference operations ... you know, just like with expansion.

The university presidents will decide on adding a CCG, if it makes sense, based on facts and arguments made by the athletic directors and the commissioner of the conference.

"I hate positive national exposure"

Said no university president ever

Some salesman: "How about some positive, national exposure for your university??"

Every university president ever: "How much does it cost?"

Salesman: just an extra football game. No major financial cost to you. In fact youll probably make a little money from the gate.

Every university president ever: "[loud laughter] That's a good one! If I had a nickel for every time someone claimed that it wasn't going to cost us anything ... Well anyway, look, there are always costs. Sometimes costs aren't as easy to identify or quantify, but they're always there. There are travel costs, logistics costs, additional physical and mental wear of another game, a star player could be lost to injury, etc."

(09-28-2015 10:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:34 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 04:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Since fans, players and coaches are usually the ones who decide conference operations ... you know, just like with expansion.

The university presidents will decide on adding a CCG, if it makes sense, based on facts and arguments made by the athletic directors and the commissioner of the conference.

"I hate positive national exposure"

Said no university president ever

Some salesman: "How about some positive, national exposure for your university??"

Every university president ever: "How much does it cost?"

Salesman: just an extra football game. No major financial cost to you. In fact youll probably make a little money from the gate.

Every university president ever: "[loud laughter] That's a good one! If I had a nickel for every time someone claimed that it wasn't going to cost us anything ... Well anyway, look, there are always costs. Sometimes costs aren't as easy to identify or quantify, but they're always there. There are travel costs, logistics costs, additional physical and mental wear of another game, a star player could be lost to injury, etc."

So let me get this straight---your contention is that a championship game---held in the home stadium of the top team in the conference---is a money loser? I'll just say this---if you cant make money on a home game for all the marbles when your team is having the best season in the entire conference---then you probably need to drop your football program.

A home stadium CCG is not going to lose money. Now, a neutral game site is a completely different animal. I could see that being a money loser. But there is simply no way in hell a home game CCG is going to lose money. Your expenses are essentially just the travel cost for the #2 team. Don't you have that same cost for every home game? The Sunbelt seems to be able to generate a profit on the rest of their regular season games---Why on earth would a CCG be suddenly different---especially when a CCG ticket usually costs more than a regular season ticket.

(09-29-2015 01:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 10:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:34 PM)solohawks Wrote:  "I hate positive national exposure"

Said no university president ever

Some salesman: "How about some positive, national exposure for your university??"

Every university president ever: "How much does it cost?"

Salesman: just an extra football game. No major financial cost to you. In fact youll probably make a little money from the gate.

Every university president ever: "[loud laughter] That's a good one! If I had a nickel for every time someone claimed that it wasn't going to cost us anything ... Well anyway, look, there are always costs. Sometimes costs aren't as easy to identify or quantify, but they're always there. There are travel costs, logistics costs, additional physical and mental wear of another game, a star player could be lost to injury, etc."

So let me get this straight---your contention is that a championship game---held in the home stadium of the top team in the conference---is a money loser? I'll just say this---if you cant make money on a home game for all the marbles when your team is having the best season in the entire conference---then you probably need to drop your football program.

A home stadium CCG is not going to lose money. Now, a neutral game site is a completely different animal. I could see that being a money loser. But there is simply no way in hell a home game CCG is going to lose money. Your expenses are essentially just the travel cost for the #2 team. Don't you have that same cost for every home game? The Sunbelt seems to be able to generate a profit on the rest of their regular season games---Why on earth would a CCG be suddenly different---especially when a CCG ticket usually costs more than a regular season ticket.

Be prepared to prove this. You must use official spreadsheets from the university accountants and it must be 500 words in times new roman font

(09-29-2015 01:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 10:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:34 PM)solohawks Wrote:  "I hate positive national exposure"

Said no university president ever

Some salesman: "How about some positive, national exposure for your university??"

Every university president ever: "How much does it cost?"

Salesman: just an extra football game. No major financial cost to you. In fact youll probably make a little money from the gate.

Every university president ever: "[loud laughter] That's a good one! If I had a nickel for every time someone claimed that it wasn't going to cost us anything ... Well anyway, look, there are always costs. Sometimes costs aren't as easy to identify or quantify, but they're always there. There are travel costs, logistics costs, additional physical and mental wear of another game, a star player could be lost to injury, etc."

So let me get this straight---your contention is that a championship game---held in the home stadium of the top team in the conference---is a money loser? I'll just say this---if you cant make money on a home game for all the marbles when your team is having the best season in the entire conference---then you probably need to drop your football program.

A home stadium CCG is not going to lose money. Now, a neutral game site is a completely different animal. I could see that being a money loser. But there is simply no way in hell a home game CCG is going to lose money. Your expenses are essentially just the travel cost for the #2 team. Don't you have that same cost for every home game? The Sunbelt seems to be able to generate a profit on the rest of their regular season games---Why on earth would a CCG be suddenly different---especially when a CCG ticket usually costs more than a regular season ticket.

While I don't agree that CCG should be allowed to be hosted at a home stadium, that argument is for a different thread.

MW, CUSA and AAC do it, as lame as it is and as unequivalent to a true CCG (neutral site) as it is.


That said, this has already been discussed. Probably multiple times. If Georgia Southern got to host ULL at Paulson, and got to keep all the money from that game, then of course GS would be doing backflips for the CCG.

But of course that's not how it works. I think you know better, too.

But they are profitable even after the conference takes a cut. Glad you agree

(09-29-2015 09:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  But they are profitable even after the conference takes a cut. Glad you agree

The conference takes all the money and distributes the meager amount along with the total distribution. It's peanuts.

Certainly not justifying the total costs of the game, on it's own.


The only reason SB would host a CCG would be for the appearance of keeping up with the Jonses and the appearance that their champion should be on a level playing field for the bowl slot.

Neither are valid, of course. But that doesn't mean they won't be cited.

What is the amount. Prove it. I want an official link please

(09-29-2015 09:25 AM)solohawks Wrote:  What is the amount. Prove it. I want an official link please

You've conceded the argument.

Actually i was reciting your usual response but i think you knew that. You dont know how profitable a sunbelt a sunbelt championship would be nor do you know how the financials would work. But if 8 other conferences and their members on the fbs level can make them profitable and worthwhile no reason the sunbelt cant. And you know this

(09-29-2015 09:39 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Actually i was reciting your usual response but i think you knew that. You dont know how profitable a sunbelt a sunbelt championship would be nor do you know how the financials would work. But if 8 other conferences and their members on the fbs level can make them profitable and worthwhile no reason the sunbelt cant. And you know this

As I've said all along, the reason to host it literally has nothing to do with making money.

But you did imply the financial cost was a reason not to have it which is just not true

(09-29-2015 09:57 AM)solohawks Wrote:  But you did imply the financial cost was a reason not to have it which is just not true

If they don't care about appearance of this or that, then the total costs relative to the benefit are not compelling. As I've said.

But a non neutral site game is not cost prohibitive which is what it would most likely be. And you know this

(09-29-2015 10:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  But a non neutral site game is not cost prohibitive which is what it would most likely be. And you know this

As demonstrated in our hypothetical dialog between a salesman and a university president, considering only one type of costs, among many, is childishly naive.

Your main argument in that dialogue was players might get hurt.