(08-06-2019 12:18 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 11:16 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:39 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:32 PM)Bull Wrote:  WV would want Cinci ahead of those 3

Actually, WVa recruits Ohio heavily and dosn't want to elevate UC. WVa also recruits Florida but needs to get yearly exposure in Florida. So having UCF and South Florida makes sense for them.

I still don't believe it's true but, the season hasn't started yet and I was bored.

"TheDude" also has an agenda against UC because they can't out recruit UC in Ohio. He purposely will play up any school for expansion outside of Cincinnati.

He is a complete homer idiot and eventually had to unfollow him when the trolling lost its fun.

It goes a little deeper than that. Early on Lambert would often mention UC as one of the top candidates for an expanded Big XII. Some of our fans gave him a hard time because they doubted his posts/claimed sources. He grew resentful due to what he saw as attacks, then started trashing UC every chance he got.

He claimed the Big 12 had decided on BYU and Cincinnati at one point.

(08-06-2019 02:33 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:26 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 08:48 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Long term it is a potential juggernaut, as is USF. Enrollment is approaching 70k students in a huge metro area that doesn't have pro football. The state is a recruiting hotbed, the facilities are improving, and they've had the recent on field success. There's a lot to like

And yet, for all those advantages, their revenue from ticket sales has been pathetic, even by comparison with schools in their own conference. At some point, that potential has to start showing up as reality. Sleeping giants need to start using alarm clocks or they'll never wake up.

I have no idea what their revenues are, but they've sold out season tickets the last two seasons. Now, i don't know how often they are getting butts in seats or how much the tickets cost, but those tickets have all been sold. They'd also had two home P5 games cancelled the last two years due to hurricanes, which I'm sure has been frustrating.

A quick wiki search also tells me that they've gone from 33k students in 2000 to 68k in 2018. That's an increase about the size of South Carolina and most other SEC schools. Some of these students are still in school or just recently graduated, but the growth potential is definitely there for the long term as new graduates begin entering their 30s and 40s and have more money to spend. Eventually, they may even need a new stadium if they keep pumping out 10-15k graduates a year.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to USF.

That makes a whole lot more sense. I do still think there's good potential there though, just not as much as UCF

For the 2017 season, UCF reported ticket revenues of $4.4 million, while USF reported $6.0 million. I was not referring to USF.

(08-06-2019 02:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma initiates movement first it will either be with Kansas (B10) or Okla St (SEC). Texas would then need to find a suitor, declare full or partial independence, or stick with the Big 12.

Restocking would then be in order. I agree that this must be the pre-prepared list of who to reach out to first in the event of a defection. Cincy and Houston should also be under consideration.

If Oklahoma leaves and Texas doesn’t I’d anticipate Houston would get a call up to boost the Longhorn voting block

you clearly do not understand the relationship between uH and UT

the only thing uH would do in the Big 12 with UT there is serve to be a divisive force and attempt to be a thorn in the side of UT which is why they will never be in the Big 12 as long as UT is there

and more then likely they will not be in the Big 12 as long as Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU are there because those three programs with or without Texas have no interest in uH coming in and trying to drag up past SWC business and trying to throw their "weight" around like they are the savior of the conference or some major player in the conference.....they can keep doing that crap in the AAC where they belong

it is highly likely that even with UT and OU gone (if they were gone) the remaining members of the Big 12 would not add a new 4th Texas team and instead they would look for different markets and for more amiable partners instead of one that is going to immediately come in and pretend they are some major power player

(08-06-2019 06:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma initiates movement first it will either be with Kansas (B10) or Okla St (SEC). Texas would then need to find a suitor, declare full or partial independence, or stick with the Big 12.

Restocking would then be in order. I agree that this must be the pre-prepared list of who to reach out to first in the event of a defection. Cincy and Houston should also be under consideration.

If Oklahoma leaves and Texas doesn’t I’d anticipate Houston would get a call up to boost the Longhorn voting block

you clearly do not understand the relationship between uH and UT

the only thing uH would do in the Big 12 with UT there is serve to be a divisive force and attempt to be a thorn in the side of UT which is why they will never be in the Big 12 as long as UT is there

and more then likely they will not be in the Big 12 as long as Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU are there because those three programs with or without Texas have no interest in uH coming in and trying to drag up past SWC business and trying to throw their "weight" around like they are the savior of the conference or some major player in the conference.....they can keep doing that crap in the AAC where they belong

it is highly likely that even with UT and OU gone (if they were gone) the remaining members of the Big 12 would not add a new 4th Texas team and instead they would look for different markets and for more amiable partners instead of one that is going to immediately come in and pretend they are some major power player

It would seem to me that Texas would perpetually use their blessing to admit UH into the conference to hold it over the Coug’s heads.

(08-06-2019 07:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 06:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma initiates movement first it will either be with Kansas (B10) or Okla St (SEC). Texas would then need to find a suitor, declare full or partial independence, or stick with the Big 12.

Restocking would then be in order. I agree that this must be the pre-prepared list of who to reach out to first in the event of a defection. Cincy and Houston should also be under consideration.

If Oklahoma leaves and Texas doesn’t I’d anticipate Houston would get a call up to boost the Longhorn voting block

you clearly do not understand the relationship between uH and UT

the only thing uH would do in the Big 12 with UT there is serve to be a divisive force and attempt to be a thorn in the side of UT which is why they will never be in the Big 12 as long as UT is there

and more then likely they will not be in the Big 12 as long as Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU are there because those three programs with or without Texas have no interest in uH coming in and trying to drag up past SWC business and trying to throw their "weight" around like they are the savior of the conference or some major player in the conference.....they can keep doing that crap in the AAC where they belong

it is highly likely that even with UT and OU gone (if they were gone) the remaining members of the Big 12 would not add a new 4th Texas team and instead they would look for different markets and for more amiable partners instead of one that is going to immediately come in and pretend they are some major power player

It would seem to me that Texas would perpetually use their blessing to admit UH into the conference to hold it over the Coug’s heads.

once a member is in there is nothing to hold over their heads they are in

adding another Texas public university from the stand point of Texas just means there is another school that believes they can use Texas politics to try and hold Texas in the Big 12 if they ever do decide to leave

it also means the other members of the Big 12 have to hear Texas politicians say things that act like they have any real sway over what the Big 12 does (just like they did with the recent expansion)

no other members of the Big 12 want that and Texas does not want that and no other Texas (public or private) universities in the Big 12 are interested in that......especially from a new member that is still wanting to bring up the business of the SWC and that will always be looking to try and get politicians involved because they were left behind when the SWC folded

contrary to popular belief there are really not many issues that members of the Big 12 currently disagree on and any that they might like a conference network were dealt with long ago and 100% of the current members know how all of that actually went down and why Texas has the LHN....they all know that OU, Nebraska, aggy, and most likely Kansas and MU were all against a conference network so blaming Texas for that is just message forum nonsense

there is not any additional "leverage" or "voting block" that Texas needs to try and build in the Big 12 because there are really not any major issues to solve and even if there were there is little chance that one additional vote that is (thought to be) "beholden" to Texas would make a difference

and again uH would probably vote the opposite of Texas just to try and poke at Texas even if it was also against the best outcome for uH as well......that is all uH would be good for in the Big 12

and other members of the Big 12 have little or no interest in having a new member that thinks they will come in and "throw their "weight" around" or "show them how to stand up to Texas" or any of that nonsense just like Texas is not interested in bringing in a member to try and believe they would vote with Texas

none of that is healthy for a conference especially with past SWC business wanting to be brought up by a potential new member or Texas politics attempted to be brought in

Texas wants and needs none of that and none of the other Big 12 members need it either

(08-06-2019 05:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:33 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:26 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  And yet, for all those advantages, their revenue from ticket sales has been pathetic, even by comparison with schools in their own conference. At some point, that potential has to start showing up as reality. Sleeping giants need to start using alarm clocks or they'll never wake up.

I have no idea what their revenues are, but they've sold out season tickets the last two seasons. Now, i don't know how often they are getting butts in seats or how much the tickets cost, but those tickets have all been sold. They'd also had two home P5 games cancelled the last two years due to hurricanes, which I'm sure has been frustrating.

A quick wiki search also tells me that they've gone from 33k students in 2000 to 68k in 2018. That's an increase about the size of South Carolina and most other SEC schools. Some of these students are still in school or just recently graduated, but the growth potential is definitely there for the long term as new graduates begin entering their 30s and 40s and have more money to spend. Eventually, they may even need a new stadium if they keep pumping out 10-15k graduates a year.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to USF.

That makes a whole lot more sense. I do still think there's good potential there though, just not as much as UCF

For the 2017 season, UCF reported ticket revenues of $4.4 million, while USF reported $6.0 million. I was not referring to USF.

Things have changed quite a bit for UCF since 2017, I’d be interested to see those numbers after 2018 and 2019. As I said, Both years they completely sold out season tickets and now have a waiting list.

UCF does issue 13,000 student tickets as well, so perhaps that is part of the issue as well, not sure what USF does

(08-06-2019 10:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  Texas wants and needs none of that and none of the other Big 12 members need it either

Should the conference shed members at the end of the current deal, will it matter? A Big XII with or without its biggest parts (Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas) won't have the option to be so choosy.

I suspect Texas would much rather prefer Rice if the conference wanted more Texas stock, but Houston would be the one the networks would want to pay to see. Head to head with other non-majors just on the outside, Houston's hard to overlook. Perhaps a non-issue should it come to replacing one member in the future...plug Cincinnati right in there. Two? Like Houston to BYU? The body would likely tolerate Houston. But pray that Air Force or Navy would be game for football and spicing up the share structure?

It's not a knock on US/CF, either. I agree that there is some pedigree and snobbery that puts a ceiling on those schools despite marked successes. The kind of stuff that puts a Rice or Tulane into these studies or vetting. Athletic success is humbled by academic prestige or regionalism. The same happened to Memphis and ECU and their Big East candidacies. It's the politics of higher ed.

(08-07-2019 04:04 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 10:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  Texas wants and needs none of that and none of the other Big 12 members need it either

Should the conference shed members at the end of the current deal, will it matter? A Big XII with or without its biggest parts (Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas) won't have the option to be so choosy.

I suspect Texas would much rather prefer Rice if the conference wanted more Texas stock, but Houston would be the one the networks would want to pay to see. Head to head with other non-majors just on the outside, Houston's hard to overlook. Perhaps a non-issue should it come to replacing one member in the future...plug Cincinnati right in there. Two? Like Houston to BYU? The body would likely tolerate Houston. But pray that Air Force or Navy would be game for football and spicing up the share structure?

It's not a knock on US/CF, either. I agree that there is some pedigree and snobbery that puts a ceiling on those schools despite marked successes. The kind of stuff that puts a Rice or Tulane into these studies or vetting. Athletic success is humbled by academic prestige or regionalism. The same happened to Memphis and ECU and their Big East candidacies. It's the politics of higher ed.

sure they will have the option to be choosy

BYU, USF, UCF, FIU, FAU, Boise, CSU, Air Force, SMU, Memphis, Cincy, ECU, UTSA, Tulane, Tulsa, NIU and dozens of other programs would kill to get in a Big 12 that is the same conference minus OU and Texas

people need to stop pretending that some program "brings a market" simply because that program is in that market

Temple does not deliver the Philadelphia market, Georgia State does not bring the Atlanta market, SMU does not bring the Dallas market, Tulane does not bring the New Orleans market and uH damn sure does not bring the Houston market

they just paid $4 million for a coach that averaged .375 wins a season UNDER the 8 wins a season that their president said their university fires coaches for over an 8 year head coaching career after taking over for a program that averaged 9.5 wins a season in the prior 8 years under two difference coaches and never won less than 8 games a season in those 8 years

there is nothing that says uH, Memphis, Temple, UCF Cincy or any other program out there will be even half way decent IF or when expansion happens because the Big 12 loses two teams or what program will be good at that time

people need to understand you are not some amazing can't miss expansion candidate just because you have been ranked 4 times in 30 years with 2 of those 4 times 29 and 30 years ago

there are a lot of teams out there that can make that claim or much better and just because they do not play in a big city (where people have a lot of other things to do and care about) that does not mean they will not be a good expansion candidate

and no team in a conference that just took a deal for $6.944 million on average per year for 12 years is some big time rain maker program that a conference just has to add to get a huge media deal......all the more so when in the recent past the Big 12 media partners gave a full "pass" on paying about $13 million more per year to add that team to the Big 12

it is an even dumber argument when most people are critical of the Big 12 now for having too small of a foot print.....but yea somehow the Big 12 will just have to add a 4th Texas team yet again if they lose Texas instead of looking at Florida, Georgia, Colorado, Ohio or many other places to add teams

all the more so when one Texas team in particular drags in a ton of old baggage and unwanted or needed attitude and no benefits that remotely equal all of that baggage and attitude

(08-07-2019 07:43 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is nothing that says uH, Memphis, Temple, UCF Cincy or any other program out there will be even half way decent IF or when expansion happens because the Big 12 loses two teams or what program will be good at that time

people need to understand you are not some amazing can't miss expansion candidate just because you have been ranked 4 times in 30 years with 2 of those 4 times 29 and 30 years ago

there are a lot of teams out there that can make that claim or much better and just because they do not play in a big city (where people have a lot of other things to do and care about) that does not mean they will not be a good expansion candidate

and no team in a conference that just took a deal for $6.944 million on average per year for 12 years is some big time rain maker program that a conference just has to add to get a huge media deal......all the more so when in the recent past the Big 12 media partners gave a full "pass" on paying about $13 million more per year to add that team to the Big 12

it is an even dumber argument when most people are critical of the Big 12 now for having too small of a foot print.....but yea somehow the Big 12 will just have to add a 4th Texas team yet again if they lose Texas instead of looking at Florida, Georgia, Colorado, Ohio or many other places to add teams

all the more so when one Texas team in particular drags in a ton of old baggage and unwanted or needed attitude and no benefits that remotely equal all of that baggage and attitude

On the flip side, in 2021 the Big 12 might invite Houston to try and curry some favor with President (and UH alum) Elizabeth Warren.

(08-06-2019 10:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 07:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 06:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma initiates movement first it will either be with Kansas (B10) or Okla St (SEC). Texas would then need to find a suitor, declare full or partial independence, or stick with the Big 12.

Restocking would then be in order. I agree that this must be the pre-prepared list of who to reach out to first in the event of a defection. Cincy and Houston should also be under consideration.

If Oklahoma leaves and Texas doesn’t I’d anticipate Houston would get a call up to boost the Longhorn voting block

you clearly do not understand the relationship between uH and UT

the only thing uH would do in the Big 12 with UT there is serve to be a divisive force and attempt to be a thorn in the side of UT which is why they will never be in the Big 12 as long as UT is there

and more then likely they will not be in the Big 12 as long as Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU are there because those three programs with or without Texas have no interest in uH coming in and trying to drag up past SWC business and trying to throw their "weight" around like they are the savior of the conference or some major player in the conference.....they can keep doing that crap in the AAC where they belong

it is highly likely that even with UT and OU gone (if they were gone) the remaining members of the Big 12 would not add a new 4th Texas team and instead they would look for different markets and for more amiable partners instead of one that is going to immediately come in and pretend they are some major power player

It would seem to me that Texas would perpetually use their blessing to admit UH into the conference to hold it over the Coug’s heads.

once a member is in there is nothing to hold over their heads they are in

adding another Texas public university from the stand point of Texas just means there is another school that believes they can use Texas politics to try and hold Texas in the Big 12 if they ever do decide to leave

it also means the other members of the Big 12 have to hear Texas politicians say things that act like they have any real sway over what the Big 12 does (just like they did with the recent expansion)

no other members of the Big 12 want that and Texas does not want that and no other Texas (public or private) universities in the Big 12 are interested in that......especially from a new member that is still wanting to bring up the business of the SWC and that will always be looking to try and get politicians involved because they were left behind when the SWC folded

contrary to popular belief there are really not many issues that members of the Big 12 currently disagree on and any that they might like a conference network were dealt with long ago and 100% of the current members know how all of that actually went down and why Texas has the LHN....they all know that OU, Nebraska, aggy, and most likely Kansas and MU were all against a conference network so blaming Texas for that is just message forum nonsense

there is not any additional "leverage" or "voting block" that Texas needs to try and build in the Big 12 because there are really not any major issues to solve and even if there were there is little chance that one additional vote that is (thought to be) "beholden" to Texas would make a difference

and again uH would probably vote the opposite of Texas just to try and poke at Texas even if it was also against the best outcome for uH as well......that is all uH would be good for in the Big 12

and other members of the Big 12 have little or no interest in having a new member that thinks they will come in and "throw their "weight" around" or "show them how to stand up to Texas" or any of that nonsense just like Texas is not interested in bringing in a member to try and believe they would vote with Texas

none of that is healthy for a conference especially with past SWC business wanting to be brought up by a potential new member or Texas politics attempted to be brought in

Texas wants and needs none of that and none of the other Big 12 members need it either

LOL. And there you have it, a perfect example of how complete cluelessness and trolling are often difficult tell apart. The reality is any addition to the Big12 in the situation being described would have one agenda—keep Texas happy so they don’t leave. That’s the only way the Big12 in that situation stays a P5. It’s basic self preservation by the dwarfs.

City schools... blah, blah, blah....

- This guy probably

(08-07-2019 07:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 10:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 07:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 06:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma initiates movement first it will either be with Kansas (B10) or Okla St (SEC). Texas would then need to find a suitor, declare full or partial independence, or stick with the Big 12.

Restocking would then be in order. I agree that this must be the pre-prepared list of who to reach out to first in the event of a defection. Cincy and Houston should also be under consideration.

If Oklahoma leaves and Texas doesn’t I’d anticipate Houston would get a call up to boost the Longhorn voting block

you clearly do not understand the relationship between uH and UT

the only thing uH would do in the Big 12 with UT there is serve to be a divisive force and attempt to be a thorn in the side of UT which is why they will never be in the Big 12 as long as UT is there

and more then likely they will not be in the Big 12 as long as Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU are there because those three programs with or without Texas have no interest in uH coming in and trying to drag up past SWC business and trying to throw their "weight" around like they are the savior of the conference or some major player in the conference.....they can keep doing that crap in the AAC where they belong

it is highly likely that even with UT and OU gone (if they were gone) the remaining members of the Big 12 would not add a new 4th Texas team and instead they would look for different markets and for more amiable partners instead of one that is going to immediately come in and pretend they are some major power player

It would seem to me that Texas would perpetually use their blessing to admit UH into the conference to hold it over the Coug’s heads.

once a member is in there is nothing to hold over their heads they are in

adding another Texas public university from the stand point of Texas just means there is another school that believes they can use Texas politics to try and hold Texas in the Big 12 if they ever do decide to leave

it also means the other members of the Big 12 have to hear Texas politicians say things that act like they have any real sway over what the Big 12 does (just like they did with the recent expansion)

no other members of the Big 12 want that and Texas does not want that and no other Texas (public or private) universities in the Big 12 are interested in that......especially from a new member that is still wanting to bring up the business of the SWC and that will always be looking to try and get politicians involved because they were left behind when the SWC folded

contrary to popular belief there are really not many issues that members of the Big 12 currently disagree on and any that they might like a conference network were dealt with long ago and 100% of the current members know how all of that actually went down and why Texas has the LHN....they all know that OU, Nebraska, aggy, and most likely Kansas and MU were all against a conference network so blaming Texas for that is just message forum nonsense

there is not any additional "leverage" or "voting block" that Texas needs to try and build in the Big 12 because there are really not any major issues to solve and even if there were there is little chance that one additional vote that is (thought to be) "beholden" to Texas would make a difference

and again uH would probably vote the opposite of Texas just to try and poke at Texas even if it was also against the best outcome for uH as well......that is all uH would be good for in the Big 12

and other members of the Big 12 have little or no interest in having a new member that thinks they will come in and "throw their "weight" around" or "show them how to stand up to Texas" or any of that nonsense just like Texas is not interested in bringing in a member to try and believe they would vote with Texas

none of that is healthy for a conference especially with past SWC business wanting to be brought up by a potential new member or Texas politics attempted to be brought in

Texas wants and needs none of that and none of the other Big 12 members need it either

LOL. And there you have it, a perfect example of how complete cluelessness and trolling are often difficult tell apart. The reality is any addition to the Big12 in the situation being described would have one agenda—keep Texas happy so they don’t leave. That’s the only way the Big12 in that situation stays a P5. It’s basic self preservation by the dwarfs.

and Texas wants nothing to do with uH just as I said

anyone that thinks otherwise is the clueless one

What kind of job does this "Dude" have in West Virginia that connects him with the upper echelons of higher education and sports broadcasting?

Are conference commissioners, college Presidents, ADs, network executives, trustee board members, reputable sports journalists, etc., consulting with this fellow and other Twitter characters allegedly appearing to be tossing poop from somewhere against the walls?

If this is the way collegiate and broadcasting executives make their decisions, such would be quite disturbing. I can't imagine a professional, experienced, and careful Bowlsby, for example, leaking to 'the Dude'.

Here's a suggestion, ask Ganga Tarot. At least she would use a methodology

(08-07-2019 09:39 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  What kind of job does this "Dude" have in West Virginia that connects him with the upper echelons of higher education and sports broadcasting?

Are conference commissioners, college Presidents, ADs, network executives, trustee board members, reputable sports journalists, etc., consulting with this fellow and other Twitter characters allegedly appearing to be tossing poop from somewhere against the walls?

If this is the way collegiate and broadcasting executives make their decisions, such would be quite disturbing. I can't imagine a professional, experienced, and careful Bowlsby, for example, leaking to 'the Dude'.

Here's a suggestion, ask Ganga Tarot. At least she would use a methodology

Probably as a receiver of Disability

(08-07-2019 01:27 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 05:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:33 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:26 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I have no idea what their revenues are, but they've sold out season tickets the last two seasons. Now, i don't know how often they are getting butts in seats or how much the tickets cost, but those tickets have all been sold. They'd also had two home P5 games cancelled the last two years due to hurricanes, which I'm sure has been frustrating.

A quick wiki search also tells me that they've gone from 33k students in 2000 to 68k in 2018. That's an increase about the size of South Carolina and most other SEC schools. Some of these students are still in school or just recently graduated, but the growth potential is definitely there for the long term as new graduates begin entering their 30s and 40s and have more money to spend. Eventually, they may even need a new stadium if they keep pumping out 10-15k graduates a year.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to USF.

That makes a whole lot more sense. I do still think there's good potential there though, just not as much as UCF

For the 2017 season, UCF reported ticket revenues of $4.4 million, while USF reported $6.0 million. I was not referring to USF.

Things have changed quite a bit for UCF since 2017, I’d be interested to see those numbers after 2018 and 2019. As I said, Both years they completely sold out season tickets and now have a waiting list.

UCF does issue 13,000 student tickets as well, so perhaps that is part of the issue as well, not sure what USF does

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.orlando...utType=amp
$5.6M, not $4.4M, also it probably soared way up in 2018.

(08-07-2019 09:39 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  What kind of job does this "Dude" have in West Virginia that connects him with the upper echelons of higher education and sports broadcasting?

Are conference commissioners, college Presidents, ADs, network executives, trustee board members, reputable sports journalists, etc., consulting with this fellow and other Twitter characters allegedly appearing to be tossing poop from somewhere against the walls?

If this is the way collegiate and broadcasting executives make their decisions, such would be quite disturbing. I can't imagine a professional, experienced, and careful Bowlsby, for example, leaking to 'the Dude'.

Here's a suggestion, ask Ganga Tarot. At least she would use a methodology

West Virginia is a small state and so its like a small town. Everybody knows somebody who knows somebody. I'm sure the top people don't spread stuff around, but people hear bits and pieces. Tuxedo Yoda knew someone in the UT athletics department. Maybe it was a janitor, but he might have overheard something. And we all know the game where someone whispers in somebody's ear and it comes out completely different by the time you get around the room.

(08-05-2019 06:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Why add 2 more when every few years you can use the threat of expansion to get a pay bump for waiving your pro rats clause

ESPN could save more money if they can get the best AAC schools into the AAC, Big 12 and SEC. They could get BYU, Boise State and a couple of MWC schools. Those schools are getting better viewership than most of the ACC schools.

It’s funny that I don’t even have to look at who posted that ^^^^ to know who posted it

That $5.6M is all sports for UCF, and it's nice, but not close to enough for P5.

But let's put this in perspective with B12 schools ticket sales (from USAToday)

Texas = $72,457,216
Oklahoma = $42,142,811
West Virginia = $20,222,242
Oklahoma State = $19,679,074
Kansas = $18,957,247
Kansas State = $15,274,064
Iowa State = $14,260,192
Texas Tech = $11,970,439 // JRsec, are you really sure the SEC would consider them?

Baylor and TCU are private so do not report to the source used by USAToday.

Now the top G5 schools

Connecticut = $9,843,615 // Basketball (M & W) is most of this
Memphis = $8,804,547
Cincinnati = $7,420,821
Boise State = $7,378,826
East Carolina = $7,266,784
Houston = $6,551,591
South Florida = $6,071,874
Hawaii = $5,818,333
San Diego State = $5,809,058
New Mexico = $5,802,815
UNLV = $4,865,689
Central Florida = $4,458,254
Wyoming = $4,435,800
Colorado State = $4,231,475

BYU, Rice, Tulane, SMU are private and do not report to USAToday's source.

Nobody else topped $4m. There are some low P5, but these should not be considered the threshold, rather that these are "legacy" schools, falling below $12M in gate, who might not make the cut today were conferences forming again:

Texas Tech = $11,970,439
Georgia Tech = $11,756,425
Arizona State = $10,033,481 // I am sure they bounced back from this lower than normal number
Purdue = $9,222,191
Washington State = $7,656,362

Even so, if you take UConn out of the picture, as a school with exceptional Basketball ticket sales (Memphis, Cincy, New Mexico and SDSU also benefit from that), then only Washington State falls into the range of G5 schools. A similar gap exists in donations.

Texas = $46,019,194
Oklahoma = $45,504,839
West Virginia = $34,599,908
Texas Tech = $25,692,336 // makes up for weak gate
Kansas = $23,042,524 // this is way down, should bounce back $5-8M
Kansas State = $22,154,333
Iowa State = $17,551,225
Oklahoma State = $15,573,414

again there are some bottom P5 schools, everyone else is easily above $15M:

Minnesota = $14,018,855
Maryland = $12,281,532
Georgia Tech = $11,187,993
Oregon State = $9,785,111
Utah = $9,031,413 // unusual in that gate almost doubles donations
Washington State = $8,212,785
Rutgers = $8,125,201

Now the best G5 (number is fairly typical year to year if no comment):

East Carolina = $11,008,954 // surged up 4 years ago
Boise State = $10,328,892
Central Florida = $10,303,140 // surged up 4 years ago, more fluctuation than Houston
Houston = $9,923,994 // surged up 4 years ago, and seems to be holding at a higher level
New Mexico = $9,878,231
Fresno State = $9,601,295 // surged up 3 years ago with Tollner's hiring
Memphis = $9,279,348
San Diego State = $8,826,053
Air Force = $8,705,370
UNLV = $7,661,855
Wyoming = $7,577,090 // fluctuates from $4M to $8M
Connecticut = $5,666,522 // donations have dropped from $10-12M in the Big East days
Hawaii = $4,204,892
Cincinnati = $4,019,074
Colorado State = $3,740,779
South Florida = $2,566,098

Nobody else is above $4M, almost all of the rest of G5 below $3M. South Florida lacks a donation support (Fire the AD, snce his #1 job is fund raising), and I think that pretty much DQs them from B12 expansion. Really poor AI schools eliminated in the B12 Rose ceremony are up on this list (ECU, Boise State, Memphis, New Mexico, Fresno State, UNLV). Again BYU and other privates not reporting, so can't say.

Houston and Central Florida stand out here as being withing striking range of that $15M P5 expectation. They could probably grow into it (So could SDSU, but geography is against them). Not so Cincy and USF. BYU probably is already at the $15M "P5 level", based on their attendance (mentioned below). It's very apparent why UConn gave up on the American, their donations collapsed after the C7 split; if they bounce back to $12M range with Big East entry, the move will pay for itself in just 3 years.

Comments on Gate, Resources:
There is fluctuation in gate (less in donations), but the ranges are very much lower. We don't have readily accessible date from BYU, but football attendance is 56,000 and all the G5 are below 40,000 (mostly around 30-34K), and BYU also gets 14,000 Basketball fans per game. If the ratio of ticket sales to seats in butts is similar then BYU is probably netting well north of $10M in gate (conservatively -- I'd guess closer to $15M than to $10M). There is no doubt donations are a good bit higher there as well -- those with good attendance have good donation levels as well. None of the others is within striking range of the P5 expectation for gate.

From a resource level, regardless of metric, BYU looks like a P5 school, none of the other aspirants for the B12 looks like a P5 school. Certainly some bump would come from moving up, but it would likely take over a decade to get on even standing with the little-8 for those schools with the most growth potential. BYU is the only one ready to go. Houston and UCF have P5 potential. (I'd say the same for New Mexico, Fresno State, Memphis, Boise State and ECU, except AI and location kill them as choices; all need to invest heavily in the school over the athletic department to boost AI before seeking P5 membership -- this is why they did not get a Rose from the B12 in 2016.)

Conclusion
Texas, if they stay (which I think is likely until the LHN runs out in 2031) would be the ultimate decider on whether any school is taken by the B12 to replace Oklahoma. The Florida schools may have the market value, but they are otherwise not acceptable to Texas. Others are even less acceptable to Texas (and probably also with other B12 schools). It pretty much comes down to Texas say thumbs up or down on BYU. Nobody else makes sense. Frankly they might even say no on BYU for travel and T9 concerns.

Note: the resources, support and institutional standing point at three more "next up" after BYU; SDSU (too far west for B12 consideration), Houston and UCF (trajectory is right for these two, base not yet enough for P5). I put these more in the aspirational category. I can't see Texas accepting an aspirational school. But once they leve they would be high on the B12 list.

(08-07-2019 07:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 10:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 07:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 06:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma initiates movement first it will either be with Kansas (B10) or Okla St (SEC). Texas would then need to find a suitor, declare full or partial independence, or stick with the Big 12.

Restocking would then be in order. I agree that this must be the pre-prepared list of who to reach out to first in the event of a defection. Cincy and Houston should also be under consideration.

If Oklahoma leaves and Texas doesn’t I’d anticipate Houston would get a call up to boost the Longhorn voting block

you clearly do not understand the relationship between uH and UT

the only thing uH would do in the Big 12 with UT there is serve to be a divisive force and attempt to be a thorn in the side of UT which is why they will never be in the Big 12 as long as UT is there

and more then likely they will not be in the Big 12 as long as Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU are there because those three programs with or without Texas have no interest in uH coming in and trying to drag up past SWC business and trying to throw their "weight" around like they are the savior of the conference or some major player in the conference.....they can keep doing that crap in the AAC where they belong

it is highly likely that even with UT and OU gone (if they were gone) the remaining members of the Big 12 would not add a new 4th Texas team and instead they would look for different markets and for more amiable partners instead of one that is going to immediately come in and pretend they are some major power player

It would seem to me that Texas would perpetually use their blessing to admit UH into the conference to hold it over the Coug’s heads.

once a member is in there is nothing to hold over their heads they are in

adding another Texas public university from the stand point of Texas just means there is another school that believes they can use Texas politics to try and hold Texas in the Big 12 if they ever do decide to leave

it also means the other members of the Big 12 have to hear Texas politicians say things that act like they have any real sway over what the Big 12 does (just like they did with the recent expansion)

no other members of the Big 12 want that and Texas does not want that and no other Texas (public or private) universities in the Big 12 are interested in that......especially from a new member that is still wanting to bring up the business of the SWC and that will always be looking to try and get politicians involved because they were left behind when the SWC folded

contrary to popular belief there are really not many issues that members of the Big 12 currently disagree on and any that they might like a conference network were dealt with long ago and 100% of the current members know how all of that actually went down and why Texas has the LHN....they all know that OU, Nebraska, aggy, and most likely Kansas and MU were all against a conference network so blaming Texas for that is just message forum nonsense

there is not any additional "leverage" or "voting block" that Texas needs to try and build in the Big 12 because there are really not any major issues to solve and even if there were there is little chance that one additional vote that is (thought to be) "beholden" to Texas would make a difference

and again uH would probably vote the opposite of Texas just to try and poke at Texas even if it was also against the best outcome for uH as well......that is all uH would be good for in the Big 12

and other members of the Big 12 have little or no interest in having a new member that thinks they will come in and "throw their "weight" around" or "show them how to stand up to Texas" or any of that nonsense just like Texas is not interested in bringing in a member to try and believe they would vote with Texas

none of that is healthy for a conference especially with past SWC business wanting to be brought up by a potential new member or Texas politics attempted to be brought in

Texas wants and needs none of that and none of the other Big 12 members need it either

LOL. And there you have it, a perfect example of how complete cluelessness and trolling are often difficult tell apart. The reality is any addition to the Big12 in the situation being described would have one agenda—keep Texas happy so they don’t leave. That’s the only way the Big12 in that situation stays a P5. It’s basic self preservation by the dwarfs.

How would adding G5 schools keep Texas happy? It won’t. On the contrary, if the Big XII wants to self destruct, they would’ve done it already. You don’t give Texas an ultimatum if you’re Iowa State and West Virginia. You want to keep Texas happy and in exchange you keep your power school label.

(08-07-2019 04:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 07:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 10:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 07:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 06:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  you clearly do not understand the relationship between uH and UT

the only thing uH would do in the Big 12 with UT there is serve to be a divisive force and attempt to be a thorn in the side of UT which is why they will never be in the Big 12 as long as UT is there

and more then likely they will not be in the Big 12 as long as Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU are there because those three programs with or without Texas have no interest in uH coming in and trying to drag up past SWC business and trying to throw their "weight" around like they are the savior of the conference or some major player in the conference.....they can keep doing that crap in the AAC where they belong

it is highly likely that even with UT and OU gone (if they were gone) the remaining members of the Big 12 would not add a new 4th Texas team and instead they would look for different markets and for more amiable partners instead of one that is going to immediately come in and pretend they are some major power player

It would seem to me that Texas would perpetually use their blessing to admit UH into the conference to hold it over the Coug’s heads.

once a member is in there is nothing to hold over their heads they are in

adding another Texas public university from the stand point of Texas just means there is another school that believes they can use Texas politics to try and hold Texas in the Big 12 if they ever do decide to leave

it also means the other members of the Big 12 have to hear Texas politicians say things that act like they have any real sway over what the Big 12 does (just like they did with the recent expansion)

no other members of the Big 12 want that and Texas does not want that and no other Texas (public or private) universities in the Big 12 are interested in that......especially from a new member that is still wanting to bring up the business of the SWC and that will always be looking to try and get politicians involved because they were left behind when the SWC folded

contrary to popular belief there are really not many issues that members of the Big 12 currently disagree on and any that they might like a conference network were dealt with long ago and 100% of the current members know how all of that actually went down and why Texas has the LHN....they all know that OU, Nebraska, aggy, and most likely Kansas and MU were all against a conference network so blaming Texas for that is just message forum nonsense

there is not any additional "leverage" or "voting block" that Texas needs to try and build in the Big 12 because there are really not any major issues to solve and even if there were there is little chance that one additional vote that is (thought to be) "beholden" to Texas would make a difference

and again uH would probably vote the opposite of Texas just to try and poke at Texas even if it was also against the best outcome for uH as well......that is all uH would be good for in the Big 12

and other members of the Big 12 have little or no interest in having a new member that thinks they will come in and "throw their "weight" around" or "show them how to stand up to Texas" or any of that nonsense just like Texas is not interested in bringing in a member to try and believe they would vote with Texas

none of that is healthy for a conference especially with past SWC business wanting to be brought up by a potential new member or Texas politics attempted to be brought in

Texas wants and needs none of that and none of the other Big 12 members need it either

LOL. And there you have it, a perfect example of how complete cluelessness and trolling are often difficult tell apart. The reality is any addition to the Big12 in the situation being described would have one agenda—keep Texas happy so they don’t leave. That’s the only way the Big12 in that situation stays a P5. It’s basic self preservation by the dwarfs.

How would adding G5 schools keep Texas happy? It won’t. On the contrary, if the Big XII wants to self destruct, they would’ve done it already. You don’t give Texas an ultimatum if you’re Iowa State and West Virginia. You want to keep Texas happy and in exchange you keep your power school label.

they are not G5 they are P6