One other interesting note... I ran the numbers on Louisville 2007 and 2017, and they saw the exact same % increase as Utah. 119% (or, more specifically, both were 118.82%).

UL generated more than twice as much revenue from these sources as Utah did.

(07-20-2019 06:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(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:  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.

A couple of things— OU and OSU would represent double dipping of yet another small population state (a bad Pac12 habit). Such a move would also fail to access Texas—which is the only way any further Pac12 expansion makes any sense what so ever. It also should be noted that the OK/OSU pair were also rejected prior to the start of the Pac12 Network and the rejection occurred well before the conference realized just how badly the network would under deliver on revenue—-or that that revenue issue would be a long lasting problem. Finally, as I said before, there will be no further Pac12 expansion unless it adds the Texas population to the footprint....and that move will not be made until they are certain UT can’t be the school that gives them access to that state.

New Mexico does not get much bang for the buck, whereas Utah State seems to get a lot for their money. The PAC would be crazy to take UNM, they would become the PAC SJSU.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-21-2019 09:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 06:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

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

(07-20-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

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

A couple of things— OU and OSU would represent double dipping of yet another small population state (a bad Pac12 habit). Such a move would also fail to access Texas—which is the only way any further Pac12 expansion makes any sense what so ever. It also should be noted that the OK/OSU pair were also rejected prior to the start of the Pac12 Network and the rejection occurred well before the conference realized just how badly the network would under deliver on revenue—-or that that revenue issue would be a long lasting problem. Finally, as I said before, there will be no further Pac12 expansion unless it adds the Texas population to the footprint....and that move will not be made until they are certain UT can’t be the school that gives them access to that state.

your arguments are nonsense

you pretend that everyone or close to everyone in a metro area is a fan of a particular school and just waiting to start paying more on their cable bill if that school gets in a P5 conference

you also seem to not remotely understand the concept that OU and OkState (and Arkansas and Ole' Miss) have heavily recruited Texas students for DECADES and this their fan support goes well beyond the borders of those states and it often goes for generations.....not to mention the fans that jumped on the bandwagon because of winning

then there is the simple inability to do even basic math or to understand the reality of cable TV

here is how uH math works for expansion

5 million people in Houston BOOM!!!!!! 5 million more PAC 12 subscribers @ .27 per month iN mArKeT!!!! rates X 12 months = $16.2 million in revenues just for the HoUsToN mArKeT!!!!!!!

then the rest of Texas so another 30 million and we will say those are not ALL in market (but many will be because of course uH in a P5 conference bRiNgS iT!!!!!!), but we will use the lower .11 PAC 12 average

so 30 million X .11 X 12 months = $39,600,000

$39,600,000 + $16,200,000 = $55,800,000

bOoM add uH @Larry_Scott @Stanford_Pres @Lynn_Swan @PAC12N @ESPN, @Fox_Sports!!!!!!

when of course the real math is there are only 3.8 million cable subscribers in all of Texas because not every resident in the entire state has their own cable subscription, the AVERAGE rate for the PAC 12 across all subscribers (all 16 million of them) is .11

the out of market rate is .05 (which would be pretty much ALL of those 3.8 million cable boxes in Texas) even if we are remotely pretending that all 3.8 million would have the PAC 12 network crammed on them

but even if we pretend that and use the PAC 12 network .11 average

3.8 million X .11 X 12 = $5,016,000 in new PAC 12 network revenue per year for adding a team in Texas that gets them all 3.8 million cable subs at their current .11 per month average

but I am sure if you tossed in an annual Muffler Bowl payout and some NCAA credits to that $5 million in PAC 12 subscriber fees it would get somewhere close to the $30 million + needed for the PAC 12 to add a new member and break even

(07-21-2019 09:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 06:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

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

(07-20-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

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

A couple of things— OU and OSU would represent double dipping of yet another small population state (a bad Pac12 habit). Such a move would also fail to access Texas—which is the only way any further Pac12 expansion makes any sense what so ever. It also should be noted that the OK/OSU pair were also rejected prior to the start of the Pac12 Network and the rejection occurred well before the conference realized just how badly the network would under deliver on revenue—-or that that revenue issue would be a long lasting problem. Finally, as I said before, there will be no further Pac12 expansion unless it adds the Texas population to the footprint....and that move will not be made until they are certain UT can’t be the school that gives them access to that state.

OU is one of the top 8 football brands. Any conference would be wise to snap them up in a heartbeat even if OK State had to come along (and OK State isn't a bad addition).

Any conference that added OU would instantly be made stronger. They are a true blue-chip brand.

(07-21-2019 11:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 09:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 06:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

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

(07-20-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  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.

A couple of things— OU and OSU would represent double dipping of yet another small population state (a bad Pac12 habit). Such a move would also fail to access Texas—which is the only way any further Pac12 expansion makes any sense what so ever. It also should be noted that the OK/OSU pair were also rejected prior to the start of the Pac12 Network and the rejection occurred well before the conference realized just how badly the network would under deliver on revenue—-or that that revenue issue would be a long lasting problem. Finally, as I said before, there will be no further Pac12 expansion unless it adds the Texas population to the footprint....and that move will not be made until they are certain UT can’t be the school that gives them access to that state.

OU is one of the top 8 football brands. Any conference would be wise to snap them up in a heartbeat even if OK State had to come along (and OK State isn't a bad addition).

Any conference that added OU would instantly be made stronger. They are a true blue-chip brand.

Okie St. is 2nd in the Big 12 in NCAA team titles with over 50 in 5 different sports (wrestling and golf being the biggest). And they have T. Boone Pickens to write the check.

(12-15-1974 01:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  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.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Better to compare apples to future apples.

For example, Utah was pretty steady at $12-13M in tickets/donations until they joined the Pac 12.

They immediately jumped to $18M in Year 1 and have grown steadily since.

The point is that schools can charge more for tickets and ask for more donations in a Power league.

(07-21-2019 01:08 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-15-1974 01:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  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.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Better to compare apples to future apples.

For example, Utah was pretty steady at $12-13M in tickets/donations until they joined the Pac 12.

They immediately jumped to $18M in Year 1 and have grown steadily since.

The point is that schools can charge more for tickets and ask for more donations in a Power league.

Utah was already an extremely healthy athletic department before joining the Pac-12. Their annual athletic department deficit ("subsidy" or "total allocated" in the USA Today table) was only about 10-15% even when they were in the Mountain West. Their "real revenue" (reported revenue minus school subsidies and student fees) in 2009 was as high as anyone not in P5 at the time other than TCU. They were well positioned to make their athletic department even stronger, while many other schools would not be so well positioned.

Also, the increased ticket sales and donations are great for Utah itself, but the other Pac-12 schools don't get a single dime of that money. The only way the other conference members make money from the addition of a new member is if that addition increases the per-school payout from media rights. One could argue (and many have) that the Pac would be making more media money per school if they hadn't added Colorado and Utah. The 10-member Big 12 supports that argument -- the Pac-12 has more total conference revenue in gross dollars, but the Big 12 gives each of its schools a larger payout because dividing that money 10 ways is better than dividing it 12 ways. Comparing the two conferences makes it look like, in many ways, 10 > 12.

(07-21-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 01:08 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-15-1974 01:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  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.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Better to compare apples to future apples.

For example, Utah was pretty steady at $12-13M in tickets/donations until they joined the Pac 12.

They immediately jumped to $18M in Year 1 and have grown steadily since.

The point is that schools can charge more for tickets and ask for more donations in a Power league.

Utah was already an extremely healthy athletic department before joining the Pac-12. Their annual athletic department deficit ("subsidy" or "total allocated" in the USA Today table) was only about 10-15% even when they were in the Mountain West. Their "real revenue" (reported revenue minus school subsidies and student fees) in 2009 was as high as anyone not in P5 at the time other than TCU. They were well positioned to make their athletic department even stronger, while many other schools would not be so well positioned.

Also, the increased ticket sales and donations are great for Utah itself, but the other Pac-12 schools don't get a single dime of that money.

Not directly, but they benefit to the extent that strong programs make for a strong conference.

E.g., if Utah could increase its football attendance to 75,000 a year, that would mean they have a very strong program and large following, which means more TV interest, etc.

Basically, fan support is ultimately what leads to the brand value of a school. In the end, that's all a conference is, the sum of the brand values of its schools.

(07-21-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 01:08 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-15-1974 01:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  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.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Better to compare apples to future apples.

For example, Utah was pretty steady at $12-13M in tickets/donations until they joined the Pac 12.

They immediately jumped to $18M in Year 1 and have grown steadily since.

The point is that schools can charge more for tickets and ask for more donations in a Power league.

Utah was already an extremely healthy athletic department before joining the Pac-12. Their annual athletic department deficit ("subsidy" or "total allocated" in the USA Today table) was only about 10-15% even when they were in the Mountain West. Their "real revenue" (reported revenue minus school subsidies and student fees) in 2009 was as high as anyone not in P5 at the time other than TCU. They were well positioned to make their athletic department even stronger, while many other schools would not be so well positioned.

Also, the increased ticket sales and donations are great for Utah itself, but the other Pac-12 schools don't get a single dime of that money. The only way the other conference members make money from the addition of a new member is if that addition increases the per-school payout from media rights. One could argue (and many have) that the Pac would be making more media money per school if they hadn't added Colorado and Utah. The 10-member Big 12 supports that argument -- the Pac-12 has more total conference revenue in gross dollars, but the Big 12 gives each of its schools a larger payout because dividing that money 10 ways is better than dividing it 12 ways. Comparing the two conferences makes it look like, in many ways, 10 > 12.

at the time it all happened this is probably not true

the real split in money that conferences do not get more of for adding members is the Football Playoffs (about $50 million a year) and in the case of the PAC 12 The Rose Bowl ($40 million for two out of every three years)

when you add $40 million X2 and $50 million X3 and then divide by 3 to get a three year average payout you get $76.67 million

divided by 10 that is $7.667 million and divided by 12 it is about $6.38 so about $1.3 million per member per year difference

but in the case of the PAC 10 AT THAT TIME they needed two more members for a CCG and there was no indication that would change

if you put in an average CCG payout of about $24 million per year (perhaps less for the PAC 12) you are still at about $2 million more per team per year for a net benefit of $700,000 per member per year

plus Utah took less money for several years (Colorado did not) so the other 11 PAC 12 members made money on that

we will probably never know if the PAC 12 got more or less ESPN/FOX dollars for adding new members over and above the CCG money (and looking at the record of Larry Scott who knows it could be BAD), but one would think that the PAC 10 had an idea of what the money would be as the PAC 10 vs the PAC 12 and we do know that USC and UCLA were holding out for $20 million per year each or expecting the others to pay them out of their share and the PAC 12 got to that $20 million with 12 members

I would like to think the PAC 10 was smart enough to KNOW that being the PAC 12 brought more total money (but there is the "Larry Factor") so I will give them credit that they got more even if slightly more for adding 2 new members over and above the additional money for the CCG

so the division of the Rose Bowl and CFP money by two more teams was more than offset by the rest

there is the factor that CU is not bringing a lot of NCAA credits in mens BB, but Utah probably brings more than their fair share compared to most of the PAC 12 and other than that you are running out of other non "tier 1 and 2" media money that conferences pay out

(07-21-2019 01:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  (and looking at the record of Larry Scott who knows it could be BAD)

That's kind of where I'm coming from. In hindsight it would have been better if Larry didn't cosplay Gordon Gekko, flying all over the place on a chartered jet, and just negotiated with UT alone. If the Horns still said no, then ok, tell 'em good luck, and don't expand the Pac-10.

The bias of this message board is toward constant expansion of college conferences. But it's like the cliche, "If the only tool you use is a hammer, you tend to think that every problem is a nail." The bias here is to think that every athletic problem a school or a conference has can be solved by expansion or realignment.

(07-21-2019 02:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 01:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  (and looking at the record of Larry Scott who knows it could be BAD)

That's kind of where I'm coming from. In hindsight it would have been better if Larry didn't cosplay Gordon Gekko, flying all over the place on a chartered jet, and just negotiated with UT alone. If the Horns still said no, then ok, tell 'em good luck, and don't expand the Pac-10.

The bias of this message board is toward constant expansion of college conferences. But it's like the cliche, "If the only tool you use is a hammer, you tend to think that every problem is a nail." The bias here is to think that every athletic problem a school or a conference has can be solved by expansion or realignment.

well things were a lot different back then

the PAC 10 was one of the conferences that had pretty much all their content available at one time

they still had a CCG to bring value

the Big 12 was several years away from a new tier 1 deal ending and they had a tier 2 deal up for negotiation that was going to pay a lot more than the tier 1 deal they had, but the tier 1 deal was still going to drag them down

Larry thought he had a line on 6 Big 12 schools including aggy.......but when aggy backed out that was pretty much it the rest was done for because Texas was not going to go west while aggy was looking east (most likely wanting into the SEC SEC SEC)......aggy said no to going west pretty much no matter what and they were willing to wait out anything else including Texas and 5 others going west because they were confident they would get another offer

in addition to the financial aspects that make zero sense of paying 12 teams in the PAC 12 making less money than a 10 team Big 12 (much less throwing in the LHN) enough money to somehow lure UT

there is the fact that Texas is just no longer going to go west with aggy in the SEC SEC SEC....I don't think you could pay Texas $5 million a year MORE than they make now (LHN and all) to go west and I am not sure they would do it for $10 million

a lot of (well not a lot, but very vocal and unrealistic) Texas fans want it, but they simply can't grasp (like Nebraska fans) that Texas will be in the lesser half of the PAC 12 and they will be seeing a lot of CU, Utah, AU, ASU and the like vs USC, UCLA, UW, and Oregon.....much less that the vast majority of Texas fans are not going to be "vacationing" to all those "great" destinations if they can get time off from work to go to those games.....with rare exception they will just be spending a hell of a lot more to go to an away game and then returning home

you are right though once Larry realized that UT was backing out or strongly reconsidering because of aggy not wanting to go west (and Texas suspecting that meant they were angling for the SEC SEC SEC) Larry should have throttled back

but Larry thought he could grab CU, destabilize the Big 12, wait out aggy going to the SEC SEC SEC and force the hand of Texas

the issue he probably did not count on was the LHN and the fact that the SEC SEC SEC was not looking to immediately make a move once it was clear CU was going to the PAC 10

instead the LHN offer materialized and the PAC 10 was looking at being stuck as the PAC 11 and no CCG and I suppose Larry just did not know how to throw in an expansion clause and a CCG clause

instead he went to 12 because he felt they had to right then....there was a slim chance he could have looked to talk with OU, OkState, and KU and forced the hand of Texas, but by then I think it was clear Texas would either do something with the Big 10 (that we know they talked to) or possibly the ACC (that still had a lot in play and that was willing to do ND type deals)

(07-21-2019 02:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 01:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  (and looking at the record of Larry Scott who knows it could be BAD)

That's kind of where I'm coming from. In hindsight it would have been better if Larry didn't cosplay Gordon Gekko, flying all over the place on a chartered jet, and just negotiated with UT alone. If the Horns still said no, then ok, tell 'em good luck, and don't expand the Pac-10.

The bias of this message board is toward constant expansion of college conferences. But it's like the cliche, "If the only tool you use is a hammer, you tend to think that every problem is a nail." The bias here is to think that every athletic problem a school or a conference has can be solved by expansion or realignment.

Its more interesting to talk about than advertising and fan relations. And changes in coaching is more of a specific school topic.

(07-21-2019 05:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 02:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 01:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  (and looking at the record of Larry Scott who knows it could be BAD)

That's kind of where I'm coming from. In hindsight it would have been better if Larry didn't cosplay Gordon Gekko, flying all over the place on a chartered jet, and just negotiated with UT alone. If the Horns still said no, then ok, tell 'em good luck, and don't expand the Pac-10.

The bias of this message board is toward constant expansion of college conferences. But it's like the cliche, "If the only tool you use is a hammer, you tend to think that every problem is a nail." The bias here is to think that every athletic problem a school or a conference has can be solved by expansion or realignment.

Its more interesting to talk about than advertising and fan relations. And changes in coaching is more of a specific school topic.

Well that and it is called the "College Sports and Realignment Board".

(07-19-2019 06:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I am not sure why people look at something and see that one group has more members at the bottom of a grouping and then say that the answer to solve that is to add more members to that group that would be at the very bottom and that would be about 50% below all but one in the bottom of that group that needs "help"

of course the (extremely weak) argument is that if those programs are allowed to join that group suddenly "their fans" and "their financial supporters" would suddenly come out of the wood work to start giving a lot more money and pay a lot more for tickets because suddenly "their fans" have something they are interested in seeing and supporting......which of course to most logical people would seem to support the idea that those are really not "your fans" nor are they fans or financial supporters that can be counted on especially if things get tough....like playing in a conference 1 or 2 time zones away and with one of if not the smallest budget in that conference

and of course these are the same people that look at one group of 12 that is making $7 or $8 million less than a smaller group and they suddenly think that moving the two top earners from that smaller group (that are making about $18 to $22 million more than the larger group) would somehow work out financially because it makes sense to pay a ton more to a larger group making less than it does to pay a smaller group already making more and with two members making a lot more

Well, yes. Particularly in bigger cities, revenue will increase if the opponents are better.

Corporate box suites are a big revenue stream. Corporations are much more willing to buy box seats to watch USC than Utah State.

Also, bandwagon fans are still fans.

(07-20-2019 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(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.

And that's just it. Why would the 2017 number be the same as the average from 2004-2017? Both ticket prices and attendance rose a lot over that time. The last 3 years of the dataset, 2015-17, were the only years that UC had luxury boxes or premium seating.

In 2005 Cincinnati averaged 22,000/game. Until 2008 student football tickets were free at the gate with a swipe; you didn't even have to get them ahead of time because they never sold out.


Also, the USA Today numbers show that 2015 tickets & donations are about $2.1 million below 2013 and 2014. This is not possible.

In 2015, UC added 18 Suites (cost $100k/year), 3 mini-Suites (50k/year), 30 loges ($16-32k/year) and 1200 club seats (avg cost $2500/year) to the football stadium. The loges and Suites all sold out, and the club seats were at least 80% sold out, adding $4.6 million to revenue. Attendance also increased 30% in 2015.


So something is wrong with the data. If I had to guess, the income from the suites was not booked as ticket revenue or as an athletic donation; I think it was booked directly as a university donation and used to pay the debt service on the loan used to upgrade the stadium. The university actually had a huge incentive to do this: the faculty union (with the support of the local daily newspaper) raised a big stink about athletic funding when UC joined the Big East. So I think UC took every step possible to make athletic department spending look lower than our peers.

Y'all might be interested in the "College Athletics Financial Information Database" on the Knight Commission's website. It's the same data (the Knight Foundation funded the project) but you can create customized reports w/graphs. Haven't actually used it myself, just noticed that they've been promoting it all week on Twitter.

ETA: they have a little tutorial too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycdmROqY_fQ

(07-21-2019 06:41 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 06:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I am not sure why people look at something and see that one group has more members at the bottom of a grouping and then say that the answer to solve that is to add more members to that group that would be at the very bottom and that would be about 50% below all but one in the bottom of that group that needs "help"

of course the (extremely weak) argument is that if those programs are allowed to join that group suddenly "their fans" and "their financial supporters" would suddenly come out of the wood work to start giving a lot more money and pay a lot more for tickets because suddenly "their fans" have something they are interested in seeing and supporting......which of course to most logical people would seem to support the idea that those are really not "your fans" nor are they fans or financial supporters that can be counted on especially if things get tough....like playing in a conference 1 or 2 time zones away and with one of if not the smallest budget in that conference

and of course these are the same people that look at one group of 12 that is making $7 or $8 million less than a smaller group and they suddenly think that moving the two top earners from that smaller group (that are making about $18 to $22 million more than the larger group) would somehow work out financially because it makes sense to pay a ton more to a larger group making less than it does to pay a smaller group already making more and with two members making a lot more

Well, yes. Particularly in bigger cities, revenue will increase if the opponents are better.

Corporate box suites are a big revenue stream. Corporations are much more willing to buy box seats to watch USC than Utah State.

Also, bandwagon fans are still fans.

excellent G5 thinking here

bandwagon fans are fans....but very fickle and unreliable fans that will NOT be there when your program needs them the most

they are the ones that stop buying suites when the winning slows down

they are the type that stops sending donations until a coach is fired or some other change is made

at P5 programs especially top ones real long term fans are the ones that SEND MONEY to get someone fired or to have changes made because they understand the cost associated with that

they are the ones that pay more to get better facilities built because they understand the difficulty of recruiting with lesser facilities and they understand that moving up a level of competition will require a larger investment

that is why a P5 conference that wants a program that is long term additive to their conference will be looking to consider programs that already have strong ticket sales and donor support BEFORE moving to the P5 and playing programs "their fans" want to see on a more regular basis

then any fair weather fans are just icing on the cake not something that is gone when the wind (or wins) change direction

and yes ticket sales often decline at top programs when they do not win.....but the major donors still make things happen and the level of ticket sales is still very high relative to G5 programs especially even if the winning is very low

TCU had already done one major renovation to their stajium before they had any idea they would be in the Big 12 (end zone suites) and they had already announced and raised $105 million for further renovations right before being invited to the Big 12

and they had already successfully fended off others trying to hire away their coach

they were not sitting around selling what they would do "IF" they were already showing what they could do right then

(07-21-2019 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(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.

And that's just it. Why would the 2017 number be the same as the average from 2004-2017? Both ticket prices and attendance rose a lot over that time. The last 3 years of the dataset, 2015-17, were the only years that UC had luxury boxes or premium seating.

In 2005 Cincinnati averaged 22,000/game. Until 2008 student football tickets were free at the gate with a swipe; you didn't even have to get them ahead of time because they never sold out.


Also, the USA Today numbers show that 2015 tickets & donations are about $2.1 million below 2013 and 2014. This is not possible.

In 2015, UC added 18 Suites (cost $100k/year), 3 mini-Suites (50k/year), 30 loges ($16-32k/year) and 1200 club seats (avg cost $2500/year) to the football stadium. The loges and Suites all sold out, and the club seats were at least 80% sold out, adding $4.6 million to revenue. Attendance also increased 30% in 2015.


So something is wrong with the data. If I had to guess, the income from the suites was not booked as ticket revenue or as an athletic donation; I think it was booked directly as a university donation and used to pay the debt service on the loan used to upgrade the stadium. The university actually had a huge incentive to do this: the faculty union (with the support of the local daily newspaper) raised a big stink about athletic funding when UC joined the Big East. So I think UC took every step possible to make athletic department spending look lower than our peers.

Agree the figures reported for Cincinnati are suspiciously "low". On top of all the things you mentioned, what about all the extra revenue for housing FC Cincinnati. They are paying a decent amount of rent+ a percentage of the game + a significant portion of the concession + some merch sold on campus + all the parking. FC Cincinnati has been averaging Twenty something thousand a game for a few years now.

(07-22-2019 08:20 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(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.

And that's just it. Why would the 2017 number be the same as the average from 2004-2017? Both ticket prices and attendance rose a lot over that time. The last 3 years of the dataset, 2015-17, were the only years that UC had luxury boxes or premium seating.

In 2005 Cincinnati averaged 22,000/game. Until 2008 student football tickets were free at the gate with a swipe; you didn't even have to get them ahead of time because they never sold out.


Also, the USA Today numbers show that 2015 tickets & donations are about $2.1 million below 2013 and 2014. This is not possible.

In 2015, UC added 18 Suites (cost $100k/year), 3 mini-Suites (50k/year), 30 loges ($16-32k/year) and 1200 club seats (avg cost $2500/year) to the football stadium. The loges and Suites all sold out, and the club seats were at least 80% sold out, adding $4.6 million to revenue. Attendance also increased 30% in 2015.


So something is wrong with the data. If I had to guess, the income from the suites was not booked as ticket revenue or as an athletic donation; I think it was booked directly as a university donation and used to pay the debt service on the loan used to upgrade the stadium. The university actually had a huge incentive to do this: the faculty union (with the support of the local daily newspaper) raised a big stink about athletic funding when UC joined the Big East. So I think UC took every step possible to make athletic department spending look lower than our peers.

Agree the figures reported for Cincinnati are suspiciously "low". On top of all the things you mentioned, what about all the extra revenue for housing FC Cincinnati. They are paying a decent amount of rent+ a percentage of the game + a significant portion of the concession + some merch sold on campus + all the parking. FC Cincinnati has been averaging Twenty something thousand a game for a few years now.

Based on attendance as reported by UC to the NCAA, they averaged 35,076 in 2010 and 28,434 in 2017. The 2018 numbers were a little better, rising to 30,519. I don't have the numbers going back to 2004.