(07-29-2013 07:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 06:16 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 10:07 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 07:42 AM)nert Wrote:  Actually - that may be the only line I do agree with. UConn has recent national championships in BB, while most of the AAc has nothing in either major sport.

Now in FB - that would be a ridiculous statement - not because of "how good the AAc is" - but because of "how blah UConn FB is".

If the author had said "UConn basketball has a brand far above the AAC average ..." I would have agreed. But he didn't.

A basketball brand is almost equal to a football brand in total value.

For example, Georgetown has an FCS football team (I think) which means zero nationally. But people all over the country know about Georgetown, solely due to the basketball brand. That brand is almost as valuable as the "Auburn" brand, which is solely based on football.

Even though the money between football and basketball isn't close to being even, a good basketball brand is extremely valuable. And it's worth about as much as a football brand.

No it's not.

Basketball is not far from being a bandwagon sport. A sport that people only support when the team is winning. That's why the Lakers have "fans" in just about every state and why heat "fans" have magically appeared.

There's no Iron Bowl rivalries in college basketball, they don't even really sell basketball gear in most retail stores unless your close to a power program, and you can argue that basketball is becoming more unpopular every year.

The most popular basketball brand is no where near the most popular football brand. Yes, that's a fair comparison if your going to use the best of one. If you compare the 50th best basketball brand to the 50th best football brand it's an even bigger joke.

If college basketball carried half of the weight that football does none of the teams would have ever left the Big East.

Apparently you've never seen UL's basketball revenue numbers.

"Even though the money between football and basketball isn't close to being even, a good basketball brand is extremely valuable. And it's worth about as much as a football brand."

Take a good program's numbers (i.e. UL's) and compare them to an average football program's numbers and let me know who wins.

UL has the most profitable basketball program in the country so lets compare them to the most profitable football programs.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...-programs/
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...t-profits/

The most profitable basketball program in the nation does beat a single one of the top 15 football revenues.

Remind me how I'm wrong in saying what I said without your selective comparisons? My point was that the difference between Louisville and your average basketball program is an absolute joke. FIU revenue (a school in one of the largest cities in the nation generates less money than I make in a day. 247,190$

There are only 7-8 basketball programs that generate more revenue than Iowa State football. The point I was making is that an average basketball brand is NOT worth an average football brand. There are 340+ D1 basketball schools and only a small percent actually make money of it.

(07-30-2013 10:59 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 07:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 06:16 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 10:07 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the author had said "UConn basketball has a brand far above the AAC average ..." I would have agreed. But he didn't.

A basketball brand is almost equal to a football brand in total value.

For example, Georgetown has an FCS football team (I think) which means zero nationally. But people all over the country know about Georgetown, solely due to the basketball brand. That brand is almost as valuable as the "Auburn" brand, which is solely based on football.

Even though the money between football and basketball isn't close to being even, a good basketball brand is extremely valuable. And it's worth about as much as a football brand.

No it's not.

Basketball is not far from being a bandwagon sport. A sport that people only support when the team is winning. That's why the Lakers have "fans" in just about every state and why heat "fans" have magically appeared.

There's no Iron Bowl rivalries in college basketball, they don't even really sell basketball gear in most retail stores unless your close to a power program, and you can argue that basketball is becoming more unpopular every year.

The most popular basketball brand is no where near the most popular football brand. Yes, that's a fair comparison if your going to use the best of one. If you compare the 50th best basketball brand to the 50th best football brand it's an even bigger joke.

If college basketball carried half of the weight that football does none of the teams would have ever left the Big East.

Apparently you've never seen UL's basketball revenue numbers.

"Even though the money between football and basketball isn't close to being even, a good basketball brand is extremely valuable. And it's worth about as much as a football brand."

Take a good program's numbers (i.e. UL's) and compare them to an average football program's numbers and let me know who wins.

UL has the most profitable basketball program in the country so lets compare them to the most profitable football programs.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...-programs/
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...t-profits/

The most profitable basketball program in the nation does beat a single one of the top 15 football revenues.

Remind me how I'm wrong in saying what I said without your selective comparisons? My point was that the difference between Louisville and your average basketball program is an absolute joke. FIU revenue (a school in one of the largest cities in the nation generates less money than I make in a day. 247,190$

There are only 7-8 basketball programs that generate more revenue than Iowa State football. The point I was making is that an average basketball brand is NOT worth an average football brand. There are 340+ D1 basketball schools and only a small percent actually make money of it.

because you act like BB is not relevant. but of the top 15 athletic programs on that list. over half of them put considerable resources into basketball including texas alabama & tennessee.

your FIU comparison is beyond dumb, and your argument that BB doesnt have an "iron bowl" type game is even dumber

(07-30-2013 05:29 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 08:31 PM)john01992 Wrote:  UCONN < UK
Memphis < UF
UC > Vanderbilt

for starters the 3rd best team in the SEC is not vandy


1. uk (the one & done is high risk high rewards) barely edges out LV

1. louisville (coaching is what makes this team good)

3. florida (narrowly beats out memphis)

4. Memphis the #1 team in the aac right now (their incoming class is arguably the best in the nation)

5. uconn


from here on out its had to clearly say who is better.....

but imma take a crack at it

tenn (projected preseason top 25 team, returns their entire team) narrowly beats out cincy

cincy > missouri (ncaa distractions could derail this team)

temple (the most underrated team in bb last year) = bama (a lot of preseason polls have both bama in the top 25)

smu (a future bb powerhouse) > ole miss (off season distractions killed this team)

rutgers = vandy

I'm not counting UL as an AAC team and Vandy is way better than Rutgers. Since the second most recent incarnation of the SEC (I would use the most recent, but one year's of data isn't enough), RU made the tourney once ('91), whereas Vandy made it 9 times. I'm not sure who the 3rd best team in the SEC is. It's a volatile conference, but, unlike teams like Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, and Arkansas, Vandy always seems to be in the mix. That's why I gave them the nod. I realize that an argument coul dbe made for MIZZOu, but they haven't been in the conference long enough to say for sure.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...am1Id=7791

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...am1Id=7236

I also don't think that Memphis beats out UCONN. Obviously UCONN is a HUGE question mark right now, but the last 10 years under Calhoun saw 2 NC's. Going by past results, UCONN > Memphis.

oh my rankings were based just on this year. but if you are talking overall program strength. then your rankings look pretty good. however the SEC has NOBODY of note outside uk/fla

the thing about memphis though is that they are playing their best bb at a time when uconn is down. and looking forward that is very dangerous for uconn.

(07-30-2013 10:59 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 07:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 06:16 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 10:07 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the author had said "UConn basketball has a brand far above the AAC average ..." I would have agreed. But he didn't.

A basketball brand is almost equal to a football brand in total value.

For example, Georgetown has an FCS football team (I think) which means zero nationally. But people all over the country know about Georgetown, solely due to the basketball brand. That brand is almost as valuable as the "Auburn" brand, which is solely based on football.

Even though the money between football and basketball isn't close to being even, a good basketball brand is extremely valuable. And it's worth about as much as a football brand.

No it's not.

Basketball is not far from being a bandwagon sport. A sport that people only support when the team is winning. That's why the Lakers have "fans" in just about every state and why heat "fans" have magically appeared.

There's no Iron Bowl rivalries in college basketball, they don't even really sell basketball gear in most retail stores unless your close to a power program, and you can argue that basketball is becoming more unpopular every year.

The most popular basketball brand is no where near the most popular football brand. Yes, that's a fair comparison if your going to use the best of one. If you compare the 50th best basketball brand to the 50th best football brand it's an even bigger joke.

If college basketball carried half of the weight that football does none of the teams would have ever left the Big East.

Apparently you've never seen UL's basketball revenue numbers.

"Even though the money between football and basketball isn't close to being even, a good basketball brand is extremely valuable. And it's worth about as much as a football brand."

Take a good program's numbers (i.e. UL's) and compare them to an average football program's numbers and let me know who wins.

UL has the most profitable basketball program in the country so lets compare them to the most profitable football programs.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...-programs/
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...t-profits/

The most profitable basketball program in the nation does beat a single one of the top 15 football revenues.

Remind me how I'm wrong in saying what I said without your selective comparisons? My point was that the difference between Louisville and your average basketball program is an absolute joke. FIU revenue (a school in one of the largest cities in the nation generates less money than I make in a day. 247,190$

There are only 7-8 basketball programs that generate more revenue than Iowa State football. The point I was making is that an average basketball brand is NOT worth an average football brand. There are 340+ D1 basketball schools and only a small percent actually make money of it.

Huh? Did you even read what he said? Look at the underlined portion. He said that the numbers weren't close in the abstract, but a good basketball program (i.e. UL) compares well to a football program (notice the lack of the word "good"). That almost explicitly says, and definitely implies, that a top tier round ball program compares well to a middle tier weird ball program. Quit trying to cherry pick and change what he said. My "selective comparisons" where based on the basis of the dispute. Your comparisons were based on cherry picked data that is completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the entire discussion. Show me where he said that a top tier basketball program was equal to a top tier football program, or even that any bball program was equal to an equivalent level program.

(07-29-2013 10:07 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 07:42 AM)nert Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 06:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 12:55 PM)FromTheInside Wrote:  1) Uconn has a brand far above the AAC.

Actually - that may be the only line I do agree with. UConn has recent national championships in BB, while most of the AAc has nothing in either major sport.

Now in FB - that would be a ridiculous statement - not because of "how good the AAc is" - but because of "how blah UConn FB is".

If the author had said "UConn basketball has a brand far above the AAC average ..." I would have agreed. But he didn't.

A basketball brand is almost equal to a football brand in total value.

For example, Georgetown has an FCS football team (I think) which means zero nationally. But people all over the country know about Georgetown, solely due to the basketball brand. That brand is almost as valuable as the "Auburn" brand, which is solely based on football.

Even though the money between football and basketball isn't close to being even, a good basketball brand is extremely valuable. And it's worth about as much as a football brand.

That comment is lulz. Show us so more delusion please. Louisville has elite bb, probably top 5. Their basketball brand is nowhere near as valuable as the Ohio State or Michigan football brand

(07-29-2013 11:02 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 06:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 06:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 12:55 PM)FromTheInside Wrote:  1) Uconn has a brand far above the AAC.

Why is THAT the single line you take issue with in his entire mammoth fiction piece?

Because if they did, they wouldn't be in the AAC. Of all the fiction in that mammoth piece, it stood out as the most fantastical.

Doesn't prove anything. In all likelihood, UConn won't be in the AAC for a long time.

Next defection won't be UConn. UConn is not getting into ACC for obvious reasons. UConn is not getting in the Big 10 without AAU. UConn is not getting into the SEC unless they start averaging 75k attendance. UConn's only chance is the Big 12, even then there better candidates who emphasize football over basketball. Add to the fact that UConn fan support will probably take a hit in the near future (as will Cincy and USF) due to the dilution of the schedule basketball and football wise and overall conference dilution.

(07-30-2013 10:59 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  UL has the most profitable basketball program in the country so lets compare them to the most profitable football programs.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...-programs/
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...t-profits/

The most profitable basketball program in the nation does beat a single one of the top 15 football revenues.

Remind me how I'm wrong in saying what I said without your selective comparisons? My point was that the difference between Louisville and your average basketball program is an absolute joke. FIU revenue (a school in one of the largest cities in the nation generates less money than I make in a day. 247,190$

There are only 7-8 basketball programs that generate more revenue than Iowa State football. The point I was making is that an average basketball brand is NOT worth an average football brand. There are 340+ D1 basketball schools and only a small percent actually make money of it.

You did notice that UofL makes more money at basketball as a member of The AAC then every football program in The PAC, The ACC and every team in The Big 12 not known as Texas or Oklahoma. UofL would be 6th in The Big Ten in revenue ahead of Ohio State.
There is money to be made at basketball and no one does it like Louisville. The Yum Center has 72 luxury suites, more than most college football stadiums. Papa Johns has 105. BTW between the two facilities UofL has 177 luxury suites. Every suite is owned by the fans and every dollar goes to UofL.
With the move to The ACC, UofL should move into the Top 10 most profitable programs in the country. With plans being drawn up to expand Papa Johns to over 75K, Louisville could find itself in the Top 5 in a decade.

UofL prints money. The university is our city's team. We compete with no one.
We love are team and we put our money into it.
CJ