(07-20-2019 03:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 12:51 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Something jumped out at me also after reading that table:. To be doing so well in ACC football, how Virginia Tech even on that list at all, let alone behind Virginia?!!!! I actually expected to see the Hokies right on up there with the Tigers and the 'Noles.
Also, Colorado State really needs to get more fan $$'s. USM too.

VT is overrated on these boards. I guess everyone thinks its 1999, but VT hasn't won an ACC championship in 9 years, not since 2010. They snuck in and won 3 ACC titles 10 or so years ago when FSU was slowly lingering out the last days of Bowden before Jimbo took over, and before Dabo arrived at Clemson.

They have a reputation both on the field (as a quasi-elite, though haven't won anything in a while) and as an institution (the SEC or B1G would add VT if they could! - nonsense) that does not comport with reality.

And that's no slag on VT, I have relatives who are graduates and I like the place.

Under the market footprint pay model they probably would have been added and along with N.C. State. Now that ESPN isn't playing or paying with the smokescreen they used to break up states not so much. Reality has returned to college football inasmuch as once again brand and performance matter.

So for the next round of realignment should it come there is only 1 strong brand from the ACC, Florida State. Clemson is gaining momentum quickly.

There are 3 schools that add value to the SEC and Big 10: Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame in that order. If there was a 4th it would be Florida State. The difference is Texas and Oklahoma would add enough value to perhaps justify a tag-along. The other 2 probably not.

(07-19-2019 02:36 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Wonder how accurate it is. Wyoming over Cincy is very hard to believe.

I find that a little surprising but believable. Cincinnati’s fan support for most of mick Cronin tenure for basketball wasn’t all that robust. Fans only really started coming back strongly last year. Football took a hit during tommy tubervilles era as well but is now coming back under fickell.

(07-19-2019 02:21 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I like to add ticket sales and donations from the USAToday college athletic budget page to get a good gauge of fan dollar support, as many schools require donations in order to buy premium tickets.

Attached is a list of the worst P5 schools in terms of fan dollar support, and best of the rest (and a smattering of others).

Couple things jump out:

1. Pac 12 has seven of the 13 lowest P5 fan dollar support totals;

2. New Mexico would be a decent replacement for UConn using this measure;

3. If the Pac 12 can't raid the Big 12, then among palatable schools in their geographical footprint expanded, New Mexico and Houston seem most ready to compete in the Pac 12 based on fan dollar support.

Where does Temple rank? Or is their data not included because they are only semi-public (Penn St., Pitt and Temple are an odd hybrid).

(07-20-2019 02:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 03:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 02:21 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  3. If the Pac 12 can't raid the Big 12, then among palatable schools in their geographical footprint expanded, New Mexico and Houston seem most ready to compete in the Pac 12 based on fan dollar support.

The PAC expanding to New Mexico? That's doable.

To *Houston*? On the bayou closer to Louisiana than Dallas or San Antonio?

That's trying to squeeze a D-cup boob in to an A-cup bra. Asking way too much of it.

Yup. Absolutely no history of the PAC-12 looking to gain access to the Texas/Oklahoma area.

Um, Texas is a pretty big place. I might as well say that El Paso and New Orleans are next door neighbors because, well, they are in adjacent states.

El Paso is closer to San Diego than Beaumont. Houston is nearly 100 miles closer to Birmingham than El Paso and only slightly further from Atlanta. Texas is a very big state. Something to keep in mind before anyone suggests UNM to the AAC.

Yeah, Temple, Penn St and Pitt don't report.

As for Cincy, remember this was 2017 when football was floundering and Fifth Third was not designed to sell luxury boxes.

Since then, Fickell has gotten football cranked up, and Fifth Third has been renovated. I expect Cincy's numbers to rise by a few million.

As for geography, New Mexico is closer to Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis and Wichita than Storrs.

(07-19-2019 08:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 03:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 02:21 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  3. If the Pac 12 can't raid the Big 12, then among palatable schools in their geographical footprint expanded, New Mexico and Houston seem most ready to compete in the Pac 12 based on fan dollar support.

The PAC expanding to New Mexico? That's doable.

To *Houston*? On the bayou closer to Louisiana than Dallas or San Antonio?

That's trying to squeeze a D-cup boob in to an A-cup bra. Asking way too much of it.

Yup. Absolutely no history of the PAC-12 looking to gain access to the Texas/Oklahoma area.

That makes perfect sense if one thinks that every FBS school in Texas is just as valuable to another conference as the Longhorns.

Finding a way, with or without UT, to gain access to the state of Texas is likely the only way the Pac12 Network is ever going to produce revenue anywhere close to expectations.

(07-20-2019 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 02:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 03:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 02:21 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  3. If the Pac 12 can't raid the Big 12, then among palatable schools in their geographical footprint expanded, New Mexico and Houston seem most ready to compete in the Pac 12 based on fan dollar support.

The PAC expanding to New Mexico? That's doable.

To *Houston*? On the bayou closer to Louisiana than Dallas or San Antonio?

That's trying to squeeze a D-cup boob in to an A-cup bra. Asking way too much of it.

Yup. Absolutely no history of the PAC-12 looking to gain access to the Texas/Oklahoma area.

Um, Texas is a pretty big place. I might as well say that El Paso and New Orleans are next door neighbors because, well, they are in adjacent states.

El Paso is closer to San Diego than Beaumont. Houston is nearly 100 miles closer to Birmingham than El Paso and only slightly further from Atlanta. Texas is a very big state. Something to keep in mind before anyone suggests UNM to the AAC.

Texarkana is closer to Chicago than El Paso.

El Paso is closer to three state capitals (Phoenix, Santa Fe and Chihuahua City) than its own.

Going back to topic, Houston, SMU, etc don’t fit the institutional profile of the Pac-12. Only Texas and Texas A&M do. Rice meets the academic requirement but they have many obstacles to overcome to even be considered. The only way (very unlikely) Rice can make it to the Big Ten or Pac-12 is if Texas decides to bring them as a package. Rice doesn’t have the “tech” problem and schools like Stanford and Northwestern see Rice as an academic peer but why would Texas do that when they can go on their own to any P5 they want. The rest of the Texas schools don’t meet the requirements for B1G and Pac-12 membership especially the public ones.

If I was the Houston president and AD, I would keep close connections with ACC presidents and ADs. That’s the conference I think Houston has a chance for a P5 invite.

(07-20-2019 11:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 03:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 02:21 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  3. If the Pac 12 can't raid the Big 12, then among palatable schools in their geographical footprint expanded, New Mexico and Houston seem most ready to compete in the Pac 12 based on fan dollar support.

The PAC expanding to New Mexico? That's doable.

To *Houston*? On the bayou closer to Louisiana than Dallas or San Antonio?

That's trying to squeeze a D-cup boob in to an A-cup bra. Asking way too much of it.

Yup. Absolutely no history of the PAC-12 looking to gain access to the Texas/Oklahoma area.

That makes perfect sense if one thinks that every FBS school in Texas is just as valuable to another conference as the Longhorns.

Finding a way, with or without UT, to gain access to the state of Texas is likely the only way the Pac12 Network is ever going to produce revenue anywhere close to expectations.

TV networks have looked at much better data than any of us have seen, conferences have it, consultants have it, and none of them have concluded that TV should pay the Pac-12 more money for adding any school in Texas other than UT-Austin.

And it's all about money. If ESPN offered to pay each Pac school $5 million more per year if Wyoming was in the conference, Larry Scott would be standing behind a podium in Laramie as soon as his blinged-out chartered jet could get him there.

(07-19-2019 02:21 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I like to add ticket sales and donations from the USAToday college athletic budget page to get a good gauge of fan dollar support, as many schools require donations in order to buy premium tickets.

Attached is a list of the worst P5 schools in terms of fan dollar support, and best of the rest (and a smattering of others).

Couple things jump out:

1. Pac 12 has seven of the 13 lowest P5 fan dollar support totals;

2. New Mexico would be a decent replacement for UConn using this measure;

3. If the Pac 12 can't raid the Big 12, then among palatable schools in their geographical footprint expanded, New Mexico and Houston seem most ready to compete in the Pac 12 based on fan dollar support.

I'm surprised you didn't mention subsidies? UH has 1 of the highest subsidies in the country.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

(07-19-2019 07:48 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Good metric.

New Mexico however is simply not close to P5 athletic budget. And BYU, being private doesn't report to USA Today.

UCF and Houston seem to top the list. Budgets UCF and Colorado State. Metrics keep pointing at UCF. Some point at Houston, some don't. None is really at P5 level (WSU is not P5 level). Memphis is also high, but they are killed by AI. BYU is probably high, but who knows?

Washington State is in the Boonies. That kills them, just too far from the high paying alumni, so they have to rely on the less successful. The P12 suffers from a lack of interest in college sports. It doesn't help when 15-20% of your student body are foreigners. The South sports is higher importance, academic lower. We see that in the heavy allocation for sports and smaller allocation for research. It's cultural. The east coast has similar tendencies as the west, but not as sever.

Seeing Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech in that bottom list simply reinforces the metrics that say those schools are stuck in the B12 with the next realignment.

We appreciate your concern but Texas Tech will be fine.

Top 25 in Forbes most valuable football programs
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/...78e476c647

Top 28 in football attendance with a lame duck HC
http://stats.ncaa.org/rankings?sport_cod...ivision=11

(07-20-2019 10:46 AM)scoscox Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 02:36 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Wonder how accurate it is. Wyoming over Cincy is very hard to believe.

I find that a little surprising but believable. Cincinnati’s fan support for most of mick Cronin tenure for basketball wasn’t all that robust. Fans only really started coming back strongly last year. Football took a hit during tommy tubervilles era as well but is now coming back under fickell.

The numbers as reported don't support the idea that coaches or short term performance on the field or court have had any significant impact on ticket sales and donations. The 2017 number of $11.44 million is consistent with the average for the entire 13 year period reported ($11.25 million). I'm surprised that Cincy's numbers aren't better, but at some point you have to accept that one is what its record says it is.

(07-19-2019 02:21 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I like to add ticket sales and donations from the USAToday college athletic budget page to get a good gauge of fan dollar support, as many schools require donations in order to buy premium tickets.

Attached is a list of the worst P5 schools in terms of fan dollar support, and best of the rest (and a smattering of others).

Couple things jump out:

1. Pac 12 has seven of the 13 lowest P5 fan dollar support totals;

2. New Mexico would be a decent replacement for UConn using this measure;

3. If the Pac 12 can't raid the Big 12, then among palatable schools in their geographical footprint expanded, New Mexico and Houston seem most ready to compete in the Pac 12 based on fan dollar support.

(07-19-2019 07:48 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Good metric.

New Mexico however is simply not close to P5 athletic budget. And BYU, being private doesn't report to USA Today.

UCF and Houston seem to top the list. Budgets UCF and Colorado State. Metrics keep pointing at UCF. Some point at Houston, some don't. None is really at P5 level (WSU is not P5 level). Memphis is also high, but they are killed by AI. BYU is probably high, but who knows?

New Mexico is a freaking mess. NMFishbowl has all the proof you need not including the state's attorney general raiding the booster club and charged the former AD with five counts of fraud and possible money laundering. Plus, they just cut four varsity sports a year ago, a move which is in effect for this academic year.

I understand why some fans of G5 schools want to focus on comparisons of the strongest G5 programs versus the weakest P5 programs. Those comparisons are intended to show that the G5 isn't that far behind the P5. The suggestion is often made that, if only those G5 schools got as much media revenue from their conference as P5 schools do, they would close the gap even further.

When you look at all the data in that link (not just the bottom of the P5) you see a different reality. Fans of the weakest P5 conference in terms of its fans' financial support, the PAC, provide on average $38 million a year to their athletic departments. The next lowest, the ACC, contribute $46 million, while the highest, the SEC, provide $65 million.

The strongest G5 conference, by comparison, contributes only $15 million per school. That's not going to change if media partners increase their payout to G5 conferences to P5 levels. And media partners aren't likely to do that until G5 fans (not students) are contributing at P5 levels.

Saying that the best G5 schools' fan support is only a little worse than the worst P5 schools isn't a great argument for "promoting" those G5 schools to the P5.

(07-20-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 11:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 03:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The PAC expanding to New Mexico? That's doable.

To *Houston*? On the bayou closer to Louisiana than Dallas or San Antonio?

That's trying to squeeze a D-cup boob in to an A-cup bra. Asking way too much of it.

Yup. Absolutely no history of the PAC-12 looking to gain access to the Texas/Oklahoma area.

That makes perfect sense if one thinks that every FBS school in Texas is just as valuable to another conference as the Longhorns.

Finding a way, with or without UT, to gain access to the state of Texas is likely the only way the Pac12 Network is ever going to produce revenue anywhere close to expectations.

TV networks have looked at much better data than any of us have seen, conferences have it, consultants have it, and none of them have concluded that TV should pay the Pac-12 more money for adding any school in Texas other than UT-Austin.

And it's all about money. If ESPN offered to pay each Pac school $5 million more per year if Wyoming was in the conference, Larry Scott would be standing behind a podium in Laramie as soon as his blinged-out chartered jet could get him there.

To me, it’s less about ESPN and more about wanting Texas to be the addition that gets them into Texas. It’s not going to happen—but if I were the Pac12 I would do nothing until I know for sure UT is not an option.

(07-20-2019 05:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 11:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yup. Absolutely no history of the PAC-12 looking to gain access to the Texas/Oklahoma area.

That makes perfect sense if one thinks that every FBS school in Texas is just as valuable to another conference as the Longhorns.

Finding a way, with or without UT, to gain access to the state of Texas is likely the only way the Pac12 Network is ever going to produce revenue anywhere close to expectations.

TV networks have looked at much better data than any of us have seen, conferences have it, consultants have it, and none of them have concluded that TV should pay the Pac-12 more money for adding any school in Texas other than UT-Austin.

And it's all about money. If ESPN offered to pay each Pac school $5 million more per year if Wyoming was in the conference, Larry Scott would be standing behind a podium in Laramie as soon as his blinged-out chartered jet could get him there.

To me, it’s less about ESPN and more about wanting Texas to be the addition that gets them into Texas. It’s not going to happen—but if I were the Pac12 I would do nothing until I know for sure UT is not an option.

They don't have the votes to add anyone from the central time zone unless UT is included. They voted down OU and Ok St in 2011 after confirming with Dodds that UT wasn't joining even if OU did. If you can't get the votes for OU and Ok St, there isn't any combination without UT that would get enough votes -- again, unless TV puts the money on the table.

If it's not UT -- and personally I think neither UT nor anyone else from the central time zone is ever joining -- then it's like that line from "Jerry Maguire": Show me the money. For Tim McDonald, it was "Don't tell me how much the coach loves me". For a conference, it's don't tell me what a "good fit" some school is, or how much "potential" they have, or how they rank in some academic ranking. Just put the money on the table.

(07-19-2019 02:21 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I like to add ticket sales and donations from the USAToday college athletic budget page to get a good gauge of fan dollar support, as many schools require donations in order to buy premium tickets.

Attached is a list of the worst P5 schools in terms of fan dollar support, and best of the rest (and a smattering of others).

Couple things jump out:

1. Pac 12 has seven of the 13 lowest P5 fan dollar support totals;

2. New Mexico would be a decent replacement for UConn using this measure;

3. If the Pac 12 can't raid the Big 12, then among palatable schools in their geographical footprint expanded, New Mexico and Houston seem most ready to compete in the Pac 12 based on fan dollar support.

Two issues with your metrics-

1- It doesn’t include private schools if I remember correctly
2- Some schools that distribute student tickets as part of their cost of attendance may have several thousand tickets listed under ‘student fees’ instead of tickets sold.

Still a good list but a couple caveats

(07-20-2019 09:56 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Two issues with your metrics-

1- It doesn’t include private schools if I remember correctly
2- Some schools that distribute student tickets as part of their cost of attendance may have several thousand tickets listed under ‘student fees’ instead of tickets sold.

Still a good list but a couple caveats

I would be curious to know how many FBS schools require students to buy tickets to get into home games. I always assumed that most students got in free (as one of the benefits from student athletics fees). Do some have to pay for tickets on top of, or instead of, paying an athletics fee?

(07-20-2019 04:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  I understand why some fans of G5 schools want to focus on comparisons of the strongest G5 programs versus the weakest P5 programs. Those comparisons are intended to show that the G5 isn't that far behind the P5. The suggestion is often made that, if only those G5 schools got as much media revenue from their conference as P5 schools do, they would close the gap even further.

When you look at all the data in that link (not just the bottom of the P5) you see a different reality. Fans of the weakest P5 conference in terms of its fans' financial support, the PAC, provide on average $38 million a year to their athletic departments. The next lowest, the ACC, contribute $46 million, while the highest, the SEC, provide $65 million.

The strongest G5 conference, by comparison, contributes only $15 million per school. That's not going to change if media partners increase their payout to G5 conferences to P5 levels. And media partners aren't likely to do that until G5 fans (not students) are contributing at P5 levels.

Saying that the best G5 schools' fan support is only a little worse than the worst P5 schools isn't a great argument for "promoting" those G5 schools to the P5.

Hard to argue with that, ken, especially in the attached chart that shows only 4 G5 schools higher than the lowest A5 school, and none higher than the second-lowest A5 school.

(07-21-2019 07:43 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 04:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  I understand why some fans of G5 schools want to focus on comparisons of the strongest G5 programs versus the weakest P5 programs. Those comparisons are intended to show that the G5 isn't that far behind the P5. The suggestion is often made that, if only those G5 schools got as much media revenue from their conference as P5 schools do, they would close the gap even further.

When you look at all the data in that link (not just the bottom of the P5) you see a different reality. Fans of the weakest P5 conference in terms of its fans' financial support, the PAC, provide on average $38 million a year to their athletic departments. The next lowest, the ACC, contribute $46 million, while the highest, the SEC, provide $65 million.

The strongest G5 conference, by comparison, contributes only $15 million per school. That's not going to change if media partners increase their payout to G5 conferences to P5 levels. And media partners aren't likely to do that until G5 fans (not students) are contributing at P5 levels.

Saying that the best G5 schools' fan support is only a little worse than the worst P5 schools isn't a great argument for "promoting" those G5 schools to the P5.

Hard to argue with that, ken, especially in the attached chart that shows only 4 G5 schools higher than the lowest A5 school, and none higher than the second-lowest A5 school.

I guess we can look at before and after with recent promotions. E.g., what was Utah's fan support in 2006 compared to 2016, TCU's in 2007 and 2017, Louisville's in 2004 and 2015, among others.

(07-21-2019 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:43 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 04:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  I understand why some fans of G5 schools want to focus on comparisons of the strongest G5 programs versus the weakest P5 programs. Those comparisons are intended to show that the G5 isn't that far behind the P5. The suggestion is often made that, if only those G5 schools got as much media revenue from their conference as P5 schools do, they would close the gap even further.

When you look at all the data in that link (not just the bottom of the P5) you see a different reality. Fans of the weakest P5 conference in terms of its fans' financial support, the PAC, provide on average $38 million a year to their athletic departments. The next lowest, the ACC, contribute $46 million, while the highest, the SEC, provide $65 million.

The strongest G5 conference, by comparison, contributes only $15 million per school. That's not going to change if media partners increase their payout to G5 conferences to P5 levels. And media partners aren't likely to do that until G5 fans (not students) are contributing at P5 levels.

Saying that the best G5 schools' fan support is only a little worse than the worst P5 schools isn't a great argument for "promoting" those G5 schools to the P5.

Hard to argue with that, ken, especially in the attached chart that shows only 4 G5 schools higher than the lowest A5 school, and none higher than the second-lowest A5 school.

I guess we can look at before and after with recent promotions. E.g., what was Utah's fan support in 2006 compared to 2016, TCU's in 2007 and 2017, Louisville's in 2004 and 2015, among others.

Louisville already was raking in the dough through fan support, which is why the ACC went after them (that and their football was best of the candidates, and FSU and Clemson were pining for another good football program). Utah is still near the bottom of the A5, so if there was a bump it was not considerable. TCU is private, so who knows.

Edit - Ran a few numbers...

So Utah saw a 119% increase in these revenues from 2007 to 2017. Which sounds impressive, but how much of it can be tied to being invited to an autonomy conference?

Consider during the same time frame, my ECU pirates saw a 104% increase. And that was with our football team entering the toilet in 2016.

UCF, on the other hand, saw an increase of 133%.

I'd need to run more numbers to form a real conclusion, but my guess is that the increase from just joining a power conference is less than what you could get from just being really good. Unless you want to say that moving from C-USA to the American is like being promoted to a power conference. :)