(07-19-2013 02:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 11:19 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 10:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  one of the largest cities without a pro franchise of any kind, master of he corporate base. The AAA team also kills it comparatively for the same reason. There were years the Redbirds outdrew major league teams.

Louisville quite nearly landed a MLB franchise (Athletics) in 1964. The franchise was based in Kansas City Mo., at the time and was owned by Charles O. Finley, who had a great talent for promotion and for antagonizing his fellow-owners (along with most everyone else). Finley reached terms with the Gov. of Kentucky and in this day and age, he probably would have gotten his way. But 50 years ago, owners were much more easily controlled by their peers and by the league president. Mainly out of spite towards Finley, the other AL owners rejected 9-1 his bid to become owner of the "Kentucky Athletics" (that was the proposed name).

For Louisville, that moment came and went and has never returned. But I sometimes wonder how things would've worked out for the city and the commonwealth if Finley had pulled it off. He was desperate to get out of K.C. and of course eventually wound up in Oakland.

Louisville did actually once have a MLB team known as the Louisville Colonels. They were later merged into the Pittsburgh Pirates. Honus Wagner and Fred Clarke played for them.

Wasn't the old BB stadium the place where the Cards played FB before building PapaJohns?

(07-17-2013 07:28 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why are we arguing college hoops vs college football? College football is the big wheel....men's bball takes a big time back seat to college football and it's not even close. Lowly UK football brought in more money for UK than the Wildcat bball team. It's just that simple folks.

Some of you Memphis fans need to understand...college hoops is nice, but it sucks hind tit vs football. The reason you all stayed in CUSA back in the day and some of us moved on is that you guys didn't "Get it" then. Hopefully you are starting to get it now or at least in the near future.

Look closer. It is not Memphis fans making those arguments.

(07-20-2013 12:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 02:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 11:19 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 10:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  one of the largest cities without a pro franchise of any kind, master of he corporate base. The AAA team also kills it comparatively for the same reason. There were years the Redbirds outdrew major league teams.

Louisville quite nearly landed a MLB franchise (Athletics) in 1964. The franchise was based in Kansas City Mo., at the time and was owned by Charles O. Finley, who had a great talent for promotion and for antagonizing his fellow-owners (along with most everyone else). Finley reached terms with the Gov. of Kentucky and in this day and age, he probably would have gotten his way. But 50 years ago, owners were much more easily controlled by their peers and by the league president. Mainly out of spite towards Finley, the other AL owners rejected 9-1 his bid to become owner of the "Kentucky Athletics" (that was the proposed name).

For Louisville, that moment came and went and has never returned. But I sometimes wonder how things would've worked out for the city and the commonwealth if Finley had pulled it off. He was desperate to get out of K.C. and of course eventually wound up in Oakland.

Louisville did actually once have a MLB team known as the Louisville Colonels. They were later merged into the Pittsburgh Pirates. Honus Wagner and Fred Clarke played for them.

Wasn't the old BB stadium the place where the Cards played FB before building PapaJohns?

Yes, it was. It was the minor league park for the Louisville Redbirds, and UL used it for football. It was used until 1997, PJCS opened n 1998.

An interesting piece of trivia, Louisville actually had several major league teams long ago. In fact, the Louisville Grays were a founding member of the National League.

(07-20-2013 12:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 02:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 11:19 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 10:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  one of the largest cities without a pro franchise of any kind, master of he corporate base. The AAA team also kills it comparatively for the same reason. There were years the Redbirds outdrew major league teams.

Louisville quite nearly landed a MLB franchise (Athletics) in 1964. The franchise was based in Kansas City Mo., at the time and was owned by Charles O. Finley, who had a great talent for promotion and for antagonizing his fellow-owners (along with most everyone else). Finley reached terms with the Gov. of Kentucky and in this day and age, he probably would have gotten his way. But 50 years ago, owners were much more easily controlled by their peers and by the league president. Mainly out of spite towards Finley, the other AL owners rejected 9-1 his bid to become owner of the "Kentucky Athletics" (that was the proposed name).

For Louisville, that moment came and went and has never returned. But I sometimes wonder how things would've worked out for the city and the commonwealth if Finley had pulled it off. He was desperate to get out of K.C. and of course eventually wound up in Oakland.

Louisville did actually once have a MLB team known as the Louisville Colonels. They were later merged into the Pittsburgh Pirates. Honus Wagner and Fred Clarke played for them.

Wasn't the old BB stadium the place where the Cards played FB before building PapaJohns?

Yup. It was also called cardinal stadium. It wasn't ***that*** old stadium, as in from the 1800's, but probably from the 50's, built around the same time as Freedom Hall.

OK, so lets knock off all the silliness and get to the heart of the matter.

When is all the top Basketball programs going to break off from the NCAA in order to reap the rewards of a financial windfall unlike anything ever seen in the history of college athletics. There has been some talk of Football doing this....however, people need to keep in mind Basketball is driving the bus and is in a far superior postion than Football.

People just refuse to understand the HARD ECONOMIC NUMBERS and the ULTIMATE postion of strenght basketball has over footbball.....doesn't matter that BSPiN/Fox are shelling out billions for college football...that still doesn't mean football is a more valuabe product. Even if 80% of the contracts are for FB and 20% for basketball that still doesn't mean anything. Just ask some of the people on here, they'll tell you...haha! In fact this board is filled with CFO's of fortune 500 companies, it's just they are sports fans and like to come here to set the record straight.

Money - Post season
Football $500 million per year
Basketball - $771 million per year

Money - regular season
Only one conference has separate fb/bb contracts, the old Big East
fb - $13 million
bb - $32 million

AAC - fb/bb - $20 million
BE bb - $40 million

Just esamples that despite your smart ass attitude, you don't know every ******* thing. Oh, another one for you. Viewrship:

Football Games Viewers Avg Viewers FB/BB% Est. Production Cost
Regular Season 204 558,079,000 2,735,681 61.1% $30,600,000
Post Season 46 238,482,000 5,184,391 37.9% $34,500,000
Total 250 796,561,000 7,920,073 51.6% $65,100,000
Basketball Games Viewers Avg Viewers FB/BB% Est. Production Cost
Regular Season 678 355,558,000 524,422 38.9% $12,750,000
Post Season 145 391,495,000 2,699,966 62.1% $22,550,000
Total 823 747,053,000 3,224,387 48.4% $35,300,000

As you can see, the viewership is virtually even between the two, with one costing significantly more than the other. It is much easier to make a profit from a basketball game, which is much lower risk, than a football game.

Oh, one other thing. Go get you a connection at ESPN, and ask them which one was responsible for building ESPN. Then ask them about ESPN2. Then ask them about ESPNU. Then ask the guys over at Fox what helped them finally get clearances in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Minnesota? Go ahead. Then after they all tell you, come back and shut the **** up.

You can sit here and repeat stuff you heard on TV all you want. Doesn't mean it is true. We know what is driving most decisions. The problem is, you made some assumption that someone made the case it was basketball. No one did. We spoke of the value of it.

What's funny is you actually belive Basketball has more value than football. You are probably the only person in the country that thinks that. Now if you really and truly believe that your just foolish. Somebody challenges these misguided opinions and twisted logic, you can't handle it...So in closing I would just say just as you did...STFU! Now if you can't take the heat get out tha kithcen or I might just have to lay the smack down on your candy a##.,,,you understrand me, I SAID DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME! Now set down and keep ur potty mouth shut and leave this to the grown ups. See I can do the same as you...you know revert to name calling and stuff. You really don't have a clue, that much is crystal clear. This message board is probably where you come to get your ego stroked, how else to explain 6600 post in just over 3 yrs? Obvioulsy you like to hear yourself......You don't just refuse to follow the money, you just totally ignore reality. But, hey you could be right because a blockbuster rumor is floating around in regards to college basketball.

BTW. I don't form opinions from watching BSPiN or FOX or any other of the yellow journalism media.

I don't know why your even making an argument for basketball. Why? BECAUSE EVERYBODY IN AMERICA KNOWS BASKETBALL IS DRIVING THE BUS AND IS BY FAR THE TOP REVENUE SPORT...FOOTBALL IS A DISTANT SECOND. COLLEGE FOOTBALL COULD'T EVEN STAND ON IT'S OWN WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE BASKETBALL DOLLARS, WE ALL KNOW THIS.

There is a rumor going around that college basketball is going to form a new super division within the NCAA and start a new championship. The rumor is the new deal is to at a minimum double what March Madness is paying out...once figure has the new super division along with the tournament commading in excess of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, that's right ONE TRILLION.....However, keep in mind that this is in the early stages and nothing more that rumor at the point...some thing it could be far more than a Trillion.

Look, you can have the last word because I really could care less....LOL Just like my 3 year old grandson always wants the last word. Besides if we keep this up your going to hae 7000 post by this time tomorrow....you need to spend time with the family and step away for a few days. I know it's going to be hard with the withdrawl and all but just go cold turkey for a couple days, get laid or something....that's probaby more fun thatn talking trash on here....well, at least for most it probably is....hahahahahah!!!!!!!!

(07-23-2013 07:29 AM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  What's funny is you actually belive Basketball has more alue than football.

No, he's saying that for SOME schools, even most schools, basketball has more value than football. No matter how much money Penn State and Ohio STate football bring in, that doesn't make Temple football worth more than Temple basketball.

(07-23-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 07:29 AM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  What's funny is you actually belive Basketball has more alue than football.

No, he's saying that for SOME schools, even most schools, basketball has more value than football. No matter how much money Penn State and Ohio STate football bring in, that doesn't make Temple football worth more than Temple basketball.

Fair enough...but again for the record, on the whole, college football is the big wheel and college hoops takes a back seat.

(07-23-2013 07:39 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 07:29 AM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  What's funny is you actually belive Basketball has more alue than football.

No, he's saying that for SOME schools, even most schools, basketball has more value than football. No matter how much money Penn State and Ohio STate football bring in, that doesn't make Temple football worth more than Temple basketball.

Fair enough...but again for the record, on the whole, college football is the big wheel and college hoops takes a back seat.

But "on the whole" misses the point. Nobody really cares about on the whole. For the 2010 Big East, or for the AAC, or for the University of Cincinnati, or for the University of MEmphis, or for ECU, is college football such a big wheel that basketball is an afterthought? Those, er, checks fingers, 5 questions don't necessarily have the same answer.

The astronomical value of college football is concentrated in around 25-50 programs, and you're not them.

Part of the reason football seems to drive the bus as much as it does is because the schools and conferences control the money for football. The billion dollar NCAA Tournament pool is handled by the NCAA, take that away from the NCAA and the schools that would rise to the top would be the ones that are good in BOTH sports. The tone of this thread is that basketball is worthless and anyone that dares say otherwise must be saying football is worthless. That's not true, both sports are quite valuable to their member institutions, but one is run under a capitalist system and the other under a socialist system. The only way they could pillage basketball is to break away, there is no in-between, with football all they have to do is hype and advertise to drive up the value. But that's only helpful for five conferences and 70ish schools, for everyone else, their athletic departments live and die with that NCAA Tourney money.

(07-23-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 07:29 AM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  What's funny is you actually belive Basketball has more alue than football.

No, he's saying that for SOME schools, even most schools, basketball has more value than football. No matter how much money Penn State and Ohio STate football bring in, that doesn't make Temple football worth more than Temple basketball.

As John said, that was my point. And that was my entire argument with you. You read into it what you wanted to. I never said anything of the sort. What I have said, and continue to say, is that basketball cannot be worthless if it actually makes more post-season television revenue than football. This is not an opinion, but a statement of fact. Thus those who say football is the only thing that matters completely miss the boat. That was my statement and I stand by it. The AAC may actually be the living proof of it, something Melky has been stating on here for quite a while.

(07-23-2013 07:43 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 07:39 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-23-2013 07:29 AM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  What's funny is you actually belive Basketball has more alue than football.

No, he's saying that for SOME schools, even most schools, basketball has more value than football. No matter how much money Penn State and Ohio STate football bring in, that doesn't make Temple football worth more than Temple basketball.

Fair enough...but again for the record, on the whole, college football is the big wheel and college hoops takes a back seat.

But "on the whole" misses the point. Nobody really cares about on the whole. For the 2010 Big East, or for the AAC, or for the University of Cincinnati, or for the University of MEmphis, or for ECU, is college football such a big wheel that basketball is an afterthought? Those, er, checks fingers, 5 questions don't necessarily have the same answer.

The astronomical value of college football is concentrated in around 25-50 programs, and you're not them.

Actually, for the 100-120 Div I-A programs....most (not all) of them earn a heck of a lot more revenue from their football side of the equation (including tix sales, donations, etc...) vs what those same schools bring in on their hoop side of the equation (tix sales, donations, TV rights, etc...).

Basketball does have value but not on the same level as football.

However, that may be about to change because rumor has it the top basketball programs are going to form a new division and could very well command over a trillion dollars, THAT'S RIGHT A TRILLION.

Reality is not phrased with if/and/but....kind of like if Ole Miss wans't a charter member of the SEC they would be a bottom feeder in a historical sense....well guess what? Ole Miss is a charter memeber of the SEC and no if/and/but are ever going to change that fact. Lot's of schools benefit from being associated with the BIG DOG teams in whatever conference. That's just the way it is and no if/and but are ever going to change that. College FB at the highest level controls it's fortune and that is a fact that no if/and/but are ever going to change. The NCAA controls the BB distribution moneys for March Madness, FINE not big dea, that was a choice and a thought out choice based on reasoning and an econimic modle tht works best. To be in the college FB country club you need to add enough value to be a memeber. Change happenes and is always going to happen and it doesn't matter...it's better to accept it an move on. Maybe this rumor of the trillion dollars and taking control of TV money by starting a new tournamnet is the way to go, you know like FB...I mean why wouldn't they especially when by an fair measure BB is the sport driving the bus.

Anyobdy can't paint a picture to their liking and like PT Barnum said " A suckers born every day"...the facts on the ground don't always square up with the bitterness some sports fans have so in turn just paint a rosey picture/tiwist numbers/manipulate statistics and bingo problem solved...however the song remain the same and the pictures changes nothing.

But as a true basketball fan I'm not worried because I beleive this rumor of a trillion dollar deal for the best basketball programs, THST RIGHT A TRILLION. I saw one opinion with a set of facts that had the Dukies BB program valued at 20 times that of Alabama FB. That certainly leads me to put credence in this trillion dollar deal in the making.

(07-23-2013 11:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Actually, for the 100-120 Div I-A programs....most (not all) of them earn a heck of a lot more revenue from their football side of the equation (including tix sales, donations, etc...) vs what those same schools bring in on their hoop side of the equation (tix sales, donations, TV rights, etc...).

Nope. Because they get a ton of money from the NCAA that is after expenses, while for the smaller leagues the bowl money amounts to next to nothing after expenses. For example even a conference like the MAC earned $16 million in 2011 from the NCAA tournament. Now for 2012 they will probably earn more because they had a team in the BCS, but the combination of NCAA tourney revenue plus the TV contracts they get for their conference tournament championships, plus the expense of football, usually equates to most non-BCS school earning more money from basketball, plus several BCS schools. At least in the past, most Big East and ACC schools did too, for many of the same reasons (Big East schools actually earned more TV money as well). The Big Ten, while their TV revenues are not broken apart like the BE, made more money from the NCAA ($43 million after expenses) than they did from their bowls after expenses.