What exactly did WVU bring to the Big12?

[topdecktiger]

The governor and several legislators have stated publicly they want Houston in the Big 12. UT's president tweeted that if Houston wasn't admitted no one would be.

You are confusing state politics with conference policy. The governor and legislators aren't pushing Houston because of any benefit for the Big 12. They are pushing it for Houston's benefit. The same thing happened when Ann Richards pushed for Baylor's inclusion into the Big 12.

Houston doesn't need any favors, they just went 13 - 1 last year and kicked the crap out of FSU in the Peach Bowl 38 - 24. That's a bigger smackdown than your Clemson Tigers put on FSU.

One good year isn't the basis for getting a school into a conference. Houston going 13-1 in 2015 doesn't mean more money for the Big 12. That's the whole point of expansion.

We are not privy to what the consultants have said, except Commissioner Bob Bowlsby made it clear that their findings changed a lot of minds about expansion alone.

No he didn't. What changed their minds was the ACC getting a network. Boren flat-out said this. The data showed that the teams available added minimal value. What's making the difference is redistributing the pro rata shares.

Contrary to what you believe there are a handful of non power 5 teams left that are head and shoulders above many so called power 5 teams. They will bring value or they will not be added.

Sorry, but they don't. The schools mentioned bring little intrinsic value to the conference. The Big 12's plan is simple. They are going to keep most of the pro rata money for the other schools, and give the new schools reduced shares. If the new schools added value, the Big 12 wouldn't have to do that. They could simply give the new schools full shares, and still make more money. The fact that they can't do that just goes to show the new schools don't bring enough value on their own.

Houston would obviously be in the upper tier of any conference in football. They beat three top 25 teams as they ended up ranked #8 in the final poll for last season. In the Big 12 that was behind only Oklahoma and TCU. In the ACC that was behind only Clemson. And they bring no value?

Yes, they bring no value. You simply don't get it. What you are describing has nothing to do with how much money Houston would generate for the conference. Houston simply does not have a big fan base. They average less that 30,000 fans per game. Last year was the first time in 5 years they broke the 30,000 average mark. Even back in the SWC days they didn't come close to filling up the Astrodome. They just aren't a very popular team. When the SEC expanded into Texas, did they take Houston? No, they took A&M. That gives you a good idea of what kind of value Houston adds to a conference.

Try reading this if you cannot bring yourself to admit I'm right. Does the Orlando Sentinal have any credibility with you?

The Orlando Sentinal didn't deal with any of the issues being discussed. They didn't deal with how much money the schools will generate for the conference. They didn't deal with possible contract renegotiations. They didn't deal with GOR extension. They didn't deal with the consultant data. They didn't deal with the pro rata clause. The article just ranked the likelihood of the teams being considered to be picked. It had nothing to do with the value of the schools to the conference.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Houston isn't going to the Sec or Big 10

Hell, no! This past year Houston would have finished as the second highest ranked team in the SEC, third in the B1G, third in the Big 12, second in the ACC, and second in the PAC 12. Who wants a team like that? They make the majority of the P5 conference members look bad.

 

[Rootmaster]

topdeck...what conference and school do you really support? amazin'

 

[OlegeezEER]

Hell, no! This past year Houston would have finished as the second highest ranked team in the SEC, third in the B1G, third in the Big 12, second in the ACC, and second in the PAC 12. Who wants a team like that? They make the majority of the P5 conference members look bad.

Houston also lost to Uconn do you actually think they would have made it to Atlanta playing in a power five conference

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

You are confusing state politics with conference policy. The governor and legislators aren't pushing Houston because of any benefit for the Big 12. They are pushing it for Houston's benefit. The same thing happened when Ann Richards pushed for Baylor's inclusion into the Big 12.



One good year isn't the basis for getting a school into a conference. Houston going 13-1 in 2015 doesn't mean more money for the Big 12. That's the whole point of expansion.



No he didn't. What changed their minds was the ACC getting a network. Boren flat-out said this. The data showed that the teams available added minimal value. What's making the difference is redistributing the pro rata shares.



Sorry, but they don't. The schools mentioned bring little intrinsic value to the conference. The Big 12's plan is simple. They are going to keep most of the pro rata money for the other schools, and give the new schools reduced shares. If the new schools added value, the Big 12 wouldn't have to do that. They could simply give the new schools full shares, and still make more money. The fact that they can't do that just goes to show the new schools don't bring enough value on their own.



Yes, they bring no value. You simply don't get it. What you are describing has nothing to do with how much money Houston would generate for the conference. Houston simply does not have a big fan base. They average less that 30,000 fans per game. Last year was the first time in 5 years they broke the 30,000 average mark. Even back in the SWC days they didn't come close to filling up the Astrodome. They just aren't a very popular team. When the SEC expanded into Texas, did they take Houston? No, they took A&M. That gives you a good idea of what kind of value Houston adds to a conference.



The Orlando Sentinal didn't deal with any of the issues being discussed. They didn't deal with how much money the schools will generate for the conference. They didn't deal with possible contract renegotiations. They didn't deal with GOR extension. They didn't deal with the consultant data. They didn't deal with the pro rata clause. The article just ranked the likelihood of the teams being considered to be picked. It had nothing to do with the value of the schools to the conference.

Wow! I've never read such a slanted agenda against WVU or their conference in nearly fifty years as a WVU fan. You don't alter your understanding to the obvious, real, and well publicized facts, you adjust the facts to fit your reasoning. Why do you spend so much time as a Clemson/ACC fan trolling a WVU/Big 12 board just to spew distorted doomsday information?

With the success of Clemson and the recent good fortune of the ACC, why aren't you celebrating and offering actual insight on their boards instead? Where does such a venomous hatred of a school and conference come from? Surely you have let go of past games. Have they banned you?

What you are spending so much time doing would be exactly like me trashing and spreading doom and gloom on a PAC 12 board. Why in the world would I do that?

 

[topdecktiger]

Wow! I've never read such a slanted agenda against WVU or their conference in nearly fifty years as a WVU fan. You don't alter your understanding to the obvious, real, and well publicized facts, you adjust the facts to fit your reasoning. Why do you spend so much time as a Clemson/ACC fan trolling a WVU/Big 12 board just to spew distorted doomsday information?

With the success of Clemson and the recent good fortune of the ACC, why aren't you celebrating and offering actual insight on their boards instead? Where does such a venomous hatred of a school and conference come from? Surely you have let go of past games. Have they banned you?

What you are spending so much time doing would be exactly like me trashing and spreading doom and gloom on a PAC 12 board. Why in the world would I do that?

Nothing I said was an agenda against West Virginia or the Big 12 conference. This is the whole problem. As a West Virginia fan, you are so emotionally attached to this issue, you interpret anything that isn't positive about the school/conference as a slight. You simply aren't looking at this issue objectively, which is unfortunate, given your journalism background.

If you want to take anything I said as a "slight," it could only be perceived as a slight against Houston, not West Virginia or the Big 12. However, it wasn't a slight against Houston either. This is a business decision. You have to look at it strictly in those terms. In that vein, you have to look at the facts and look at it from an objective basis. Simply having a good team doesn't bring value to a conference. For example, if we are just going by how good your team is, Boise St should be in a P5 conference. You keep talking up Houston, but Boise St's program is much more accomplished in the last 15 years than Houston. By your logic, the Pac 12 should have easily taken Boise St before Colorado. Well, they didn't. Why? Because the cold, hard reality is, programs with markets and name recognition are more valuable monetarily than schools that simply have good records. Boise St has only been a FBS team for about 20 years or so, and simply don't have the name recognition of a school like Colorado. That means they don't have as large of a fan base and don't draw as high ratings. They also have the misfortune of living in tiny media market. You may not think it's fair, but that's the cold, hard reality.

 

[topdecktiger]

topdeck...what conference and school do you really support? amazin'

It's been well documented what school I support. (I don't support a conference, since the whole notion of "conference pride" is idiotic.) But your comment highlights the problem. The implication in your comment is that my affiliation with a certain school influences my analysis of the expansion issue. This further implies that your own analysis is also influenced by the school you support.

Well, that's the whole problem. You can't let the school you support influence your analysis. You have analyze the situation objectively. If you approach this from the perspective of, "I don't want West Virginia to be left out, so I want the Big 12 to expand," then your analysis is flawed from the very beginning. Otherwise, you are just reaching a conclusion that you want to believe, rather than what is really going to happen.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Houston also lost to Uconn do you actually think they would have made it to Atlanta playing in a power five conference

One bad game does not spoil a season for anyone. Beating FSU by two touchdowns in Atlanta speaks volumes. They beat two other top 25 teams to get there. Selling 10,000 more season tickets last year shows growth of interest in the program.

I'm not even a Houston fan, but this persecution of good teams in weak conferences is much too elitist. The Big 12 is not the IVY League, worrisome fans need to let go of pre-judging teams they really know little about. Let the B12 presidents do their job based upon the consultants' research and their own conclusions.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Nothing I said was an agenda against West Virginia or the Big 12 conference. This is the whole problem. As a West Virginia fan, you are so emotionally attached to this issue, you interpret anything that isn't positive about the school/conference as a slight. You simply aren't looking at this issue objectively, which is unfortunate, given your journalism background.

If you want to take anything I said as a "slight," it could only be perceived as a slight against Houston, not West Virginia or the Big 12. However, it wasn't a slight against Houston either. This is a business decision. You have to look at it strictly in those terms. In that vein, you have to look at the facts and look at it from an objective basis. Simply having a good team doesn't bring value to a conference. For example, if we are just going by how good your team is, Boise St should be in a P5 conference. You keep talking up Houston, but Boise St's program is much more accomplished in the last 15 years than Houston. By your logic, the Pac 12 should have easily taken Boise St before Colorado. Well, they didn't. Why? Because the cold, hard reality is, programs with markets and name recognition are more valuable monetarily than schools that simply have good records. Boise St has only been a FBS team for about 20 years or so, and simply don't have the name recognition of a school like Colorado. That means they don't have as large of a fan base and don't draw as high ratings. They also have the misfortune of living in tiny media market. You may not think it's fair, but that's the cold, hard reality.

It's not about fair, Tiger. It's about intellectually overriding and criticizing decisions and actions that haven't even been made yet. You are obviously well educated and intelligent, but you are being much too presumptuous about too many things Big 12. I'm actually not emotionally attached at all, I'm just a fan willing to give school presidents and 'would be' power 5 teams the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

 

[Rootmaster]

You have analyze the situation objectively

Glad you said that. You can begin now. We are listening. Listening. Still listening. Yawn.

 

[topdecktiger]

It's not about fair, Tiger. It's about intellectually overriding and criticizing decisions and actions that haven't even been made yet. You are obviously well educated and intelligent, but you are being much too presumptuous about too many things Big 12. I'm actually not emotionally attached at all, I'm just a fan willing to give school presidents and 'would be' power 5 teams the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

"Benefit of the doubt" is the entire problem. College sports is a cutthroat business. You don't get "benefit of the doubt." College sports is about, "How much money can you make for me?" Bob Bowlsby doesn't give a damn about benefit of the doubt. Davie Boren doesn't give a damn about benefit of the doubt. Jim Delany doesn't give a damn about benefit of the doubt. Greg Sankey doesn't give a damn about benefit of the doubt. All they care about are bottom line dollars. They aren't adding other schools to give them the benefit of the doubt. These conferences are strictly about "what can you do for me?" Here's the bottom line. The SEC had a chance to take Houston, and took A&M instead. The Big 12 had a chance to take Houston, and took TCU instead. That tells you all you need to know.

As far as not being emotionally attached, this coming from the guy who wanted to challenge me to a fistfight over posts on a message board. But yeah, you aren't too emotionally attached.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

"Benefit of the doubt" is the entire problem. College sports is a cutthroat business. You don't get "benefit of the doubt." College sports is about, "How much money can you make for me?" Bob Bowlsby doesn't give a damn about benefit of the doubt. Davie Boren doesn't give a damn about benefit of the doubt. Jim Delany doesn't give a damn about benefit of the doubt. Greg Sankey doesn't give a damn about benefit of the doubt. All they care about are bottom line dollars. They aren't adding other schools to give them the benefit of the doubt. These conferences are strictly about "what can you do for me?" Here's the bottom line. The SEC had a chance to take Houston, and took A&M instead. The Big 12 had a chance to take Houston, and took TCU instead. That tells you all you need to know.

As far as not being emotionally attached, this coming from the guy who wanted to challenge me to a fistfight over posts on a message board. But yeah, you aren't too emotionally attached.

Now who's emotional? The problem with your analysis and judgments is your lack of the most current research. History and nostalgic tradition does not put asses in stadiums or turn TV sets to a particular channel except for a small demographic.

This is very much a "What have you done lately? society of sports fans. Nebraska used to be a powerhouse in football. FSU used to be FSWho? If they are on opposing channels now, who is going to draw the largest viewership without regard to the opponent?

Younger audiences like the newest badass on the block. It's true in the NFL and also in college football. The specific academic and athletic criteria Commissioner Bowlsby listed as necessary for any expansion teams is right on. And so is the demand for schools with a commitment to grow in both areas.

What hurts the Big 12 right now more than anything is lack of broadcast product, not the names of the schools. It currently plays 75 games per year during the regular season. That total goes up to 90 with 12 teams and 105 with 14 teams. You add inventory with teams that can win now and in the future with a commitment to academics and a clean program and your broadcast value goes up. It's really that simple. Having teams in new market areas would be a plus.

It is really irrelevant what someones intentions or motivations are to do something constructive. It's the marketability of the end product that matters. If you were a sportswriter and I were your editor my only advice to you would be to update your research on all subjects you write about to today, and concentrate on events that are actually happening even if you editorialize. Attempting to report events as inevitable based upon past occurrences and reasoning is futile.

One more thing. I don't use fists in fights. I've been trained in other much more effective methods. That challenge was over personal attacks, not differences of opinion I thought was put behind us long ago. Is there anything you can't let go of?

 

[topdecktiger]

Now who's emotional? The problem with your analysis and judgments is your lack of the most current research. History and nostalgic tradition does not put asses in stadiums or turn TV sets to a particular channel except for a small demographic.

This is very much a "What have you done lately? society of sports fans. Nebraska used to be a powerhouse in football. FSU used to be FSWho? If they are on opposing channels now, who is going to draw the largest viewership without regard to the opponent?

Younger audiences like the newest badass on the block. It's true in the NFL and also in college football. The specific academic and athletic criteria Commissioner Bowlsby listed as necessary for any expansion teams is right on. And so is the demand for schools with a commitment to grow in both areas.

What hurts the Big 12 right now more than anything is lack of broadcast product, not the names of the schools. It currently plays 75 games per year during the regular season. That total goes up to 90 with 12 teams and 105 with 14 teams. You add inventory with teams that can win now and in the future with a commitment to academics and a clean program and your broadcast value goes up. It's really that simple. Having teams in new market areas would be a plus.

It is really irrelevant what someones intentions or motivations are to do something constructive. It's the marketability of the end product that matters. If you were a sportswriter and I were your editor my only advice to you would be to update your research on all subjects you write about to today, and concentrate on events that are actually happening even if you editorialize. Attempting to report events as inevitable based upon past occurrences and reasoning is futile.

One more thing. I don't use fists in fights. I've been trained in other much more effective methods. That challenge was over personal attacks, not differences of opinion I thought was put behind us long ago. Is there anything you can't let go of?

No sorry, your "research" is simply incorrect. The reality is, the traditional, big name schools are the ones that draw ratings. Notre Dame is a perfect example. They haven't even won a major bowl game in 20 years, but they still draw big ratings. Same with Nebraska. Same with USC and Texas (although it hasn't been 20 years for them). These smaller schools that have the occasional good year simply don't draw big ratings. The only way they do is if they can sustain success for a period of time. Florida St is a good example. They are one of the biggest ratings ratings draws, but that's because they've had 30 years of success. They had that run of 14 straight years in the Top 5, plus the more recent success. Having a one-off year like Houston simply doesn't do it.

It also isn't as simple as inventory. You talk about not doing research. The previous conference expansions have clearly, clearly, been about markets. That's because few of the games from any conference are televised nationally. Most games are regionally broadcasted. That's why markets are important. If you have a small broadcast region, it automatically limits the amount of viewers you can have for a game.

Regarding the last point, I never made a personal attack on you. Sorry, that's simply a lie. Everything I've posted is still here on the forum. You can go back and find it all. You just got mad because I was disproving your theories, and instead of dealing with it rationally, you just got pissed off and wanted to fight.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

No sorry, your "research" is simply incorrect. The reality is, the traditional, big name schools are the ones that draw ratings. Notre Dame is a perfect example. They haven't even won a major bowl game in 20 years, but they still draw big ratings. Same with Nebraska. Same with USC and Texas (although it hasn't been 20 years for them). These smaller schools that have the occasional good year simply don't draw big ratings. The only way they do is if they can sustain success for a period of time. Florida St is a good example. They are one of the biggest ratings ratings draws, but that's because they've had 30 years of success. They had that run of 14 straight years in the Top 5, plus the more recent success. Having a one-off year like Houston simply doesn't do it.

It also isn't as simple as inventory. You talk about not doing research. The previous conference expansions have clearly, clearly, been about markets. That's because few of the games from any conference are televised nationally. Most games are regionally broadcasted. That's why markets are important. If you have a small broadcast region, it automatically limits the amount of viewers you can have for a game.

Regarding the last point, I never made a personal attack on you. Sorry, that's simply a lie. Everything I've posted is still here on the forum. You can go back and find it all. You just got mad because I was disproving your theories, and instead of dealing with it rationally, you just got pissed off and wanted to fight.

No disrespect Tiger, but I've never seen you disprove anything with corroborating facts. Only your interpretations or opinions which I am certain disprove anything in your mind. I may have faded memories, but i do not lie.

We agree on inventory and markets if nothing else. I rely on independent studies for my conclusions regarding markets, you rationalize your own conclusions. According to Neilson, the top three most watched games in the Houston area last fall were all SEC games. One UT game was in the top 10. So much for the Big 12 already having that enormous group of viewers.

 

[topdecktiger]

No disrespect Tiger, but I've never seen you disprove anything with corroborating facts. Only your interpretations or opinions which I am certain disprove anything in your mind. I may have faded memories, but i do not lie.

We agree on inventory and markets if nothing else. I rely on independent studies for my conclusions regarding markets, you rationalize your own conclusions. According to Neilson, the top three most watched games in the Houston area last fall were all SEC games. One UT game was in the top 10. So much for the Big 12 already having that enormous group of viewers.

Uh, sorry, but I have. You can go back to that long thread I argued with Buckaineer, and see that.

The problem is, you get too wrapped up in proving me wrong, and misunderstand what I say. This is a good example:

One UT game was in the top 10. So much for the Big 12 already having that enormous group of viewers.

This statement indicates you clearly have no understanding of what I was talking about. I'm not claiming the Big 12 has an "enormous" group of viewers. What I am telling you is, the Houston market is already included in the Big 12's TV contract. That is the key. It's not the amount of viewers that is the issue. The issue is that the Houston market already is considered part of the Big 12's regional telecast footprint. That means, all of the Big 12's regional broadcasts are televised in the Houston market. For example, the regional Texas Tech/Baylor game will be on in Houston. The Big 12 is already getting paid for having that game on in the Houston market. Adding UH to the conference does not change that. The game is on in Houston either way, so that doesn't increase the value to ESPN or Fox. The other issue is, having UH in the Big 12 does not mean the ratings for Baylor/Texas Tech in Houston will significantly increase. The increase will be minimal, at best. Well again, that doesn't add value to the Big 12's contract. Frankly, even Houston games themselves aren't going to change anything. You just said the top 3 games last year were SEC games, not UH games.

And by the way, you did lie. Go back and post where I ever made a personal attack on you. I never did. Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack, just like saying Houston doesn't add value to the Big 12 is not an attack on West Virginia.

 

[steeleer]

Uh, sorry, but I have. You can go back to that long thread I argued with Buckaineer, and see that.

The problem is, you get too wrapped up in proving me wrong, and misunderstand what I say. This is a good example:

One UT game was in the top 10. So much for the Big 12 already having that enormous group of viewers.

This statement indicates you clearly have no understanding of what I was talking about. I'm not claiming the Big 12 has an "enormous" group of viewers. What I am telling you is, the Houston market is already included in the Big 12's TV contract. That is the key. It's not the amount of viewers that is the issue. The issue is that the Houston market already is considered part of the Big 12's regional telecast footprint. That means, all of the Big 12's regional broadcasts are televised in the Houston market. For example, the regional Texas Tech/Baylor game will be on in Houston. The Big 12 is already getting paid for having that game on in the Houston market. Adding UH to the conference does not change that. The game is on in Houston either way, so that doesn't increase the value to ESPN or Fox. The other issue is, having UH in the Big 12 does not mean the ratings for Baylor/Texas Tech in Houston will significantly increase. The increase will be minimal, at best. Well again, that doesn't add value to the Big 12's contract. Frankly, even Houston games themselves aren't going to change anything. You just said the top 3 games last year were SEC games, not UH games.

And by the way, you did lie. Go back and post where I ever made a personal attack on you. I never did. Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack, just like saying Houston doesn't add value to the Big 12 is not an attack on West Virginia.

The highlighted part is true. If we add UH, we are essentially doubling down on a territory we already own. Dumb.

 

[topdecktiger]

No disrespect Tiger, but I've never seen you disprove anything with corroborating facts.

Here are some facts for you. I'm comparing the ratings of Nebraska and Houston from the last two years. (I used Nebraska because you mentioned them specifically as an example of an old team that's fallen off and supposedly isn't as popular as new up and coming teams like Houston.)

2015

Houston

3.7 5.604M Houston/FSU


2.1 3.055M Navy

Houston 12:00 PM ABC


0.2 373K Houston

UConn 3:30 PM ESPNU


0.5 748K Memphis

Houston 7:05 PM ESPN2


— 396K Cincinnati

Houston 3:30 PM ESPN2


— 392K Vanderbilt

Houston 7:00 PM ESPN2


— 171K Houston

UCF 12:00 PM ESPNEWS


— 185K Houston

Tulane 9:00 PM ESPNU


— 356K SMU

Houston 8:00 PM ESPN2

Nebraska

3.9 6.189M Iowa

Nebraska 3:30 PM ABC


2.0 3.470M Michigan St.

Nebraska 7:03 PM ESPN


— 849K Nebraska

Purdue 12:00 PM ESPNU


— 1.747M N’western

Nebraska 12:00 PM ESPN2


— 970K Nebraska

Minnesota 3:30 PM ESPN2


— 594K So. Miss.

Nebraska 12:00 PM ESPNEWS


1.9 3.134M BYU

Nebraska 3:30 PM ABC

2014

Houston

1.5 2.11M 12:00 PM Houston/Pittsburgh ESPN


0.9 1.31M 12:00 PM Houston/Cincinnati ESPN


0.1 154K 3:30 PM Tulane/Houston ESPNU


0.0 68K 4:00 PM Houston/USF ESPNEWS


0.2 250K 9:00 PM Temple/Houston ESPNU


0.5 744K 7:00 PM UCF/Houston ESPN


0.6 1.05M 9:00 PM Houston/BYU ESPN


0.1 221K 9:00 PM UTSA/Houston ESPNU

Nebraska

4.0 6.80M 8:00 PM Nebraska/USC


2.4 3.91M 12:00 PM Nebraska/Iowa ABC


2.2 3.36M 12:00 PM Minnesota/Nebraska ESPN


2.4 4.03M 3:30 PM Nebraska/Wisconsin ABC


0.8 1.13M 12:00 PM Rutgers/Nebraska ESPN2


2.8 4.56M 8:00 PM Nebraska/Michigan St. ABC


1.0 1.82M 8:00 PM Miami/Nebraska ESPN2


0.5 959K 12:00 PM McNeese State/Nebraska ESPNU

I also want to further examine your point about the Houston market. It's true the SEC has the top 3 rated games in Houston last year, and 6 of the top 10. However, the Big 12 has 7 of the top 20 rated games, vs. 2 in the top 20 for UH. Now, that means UH, in its hometown, only had 2 of the top 20 rated games last year. And that means UH is supposed to make this big difference in the Houston market? Keep in mind, that's also with UH have their best season in probably 50 years. What do these ratings look like if UH is 6-6? They aren't going to be 13-1 every year.

 

[Rootmaster]

UH have their best season in probably 50 years. What do these ratings look like if UH is 6-6? They aren't going to be 13-1 every year.

Sounds like you think UH is going to have the same kind of slide into also ran status as our Mountaineers have since DH became the 'ball coach. So I guess some might be questioning bringing on the Mountaineers? Pure elitism.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The highlighted part is true. If we add UH, we are essentially doubling down on a territory we already own. Dumb.

According to the TV people, the SEC owns the Houston area by far. The AAC is next and the Big 12 a distant third. Interesting conclusion.

 

[topdecktiger]

Sounds like you think UH is going to have the same kind of slide into also ran status as our Mountaineers have since DH became the 'ball coach. So I guess some might be questioning bringing on the Mountaineers? Pure elitism.

No, it's statistical probability. Here are Houston's records for the last 20 years, starting with 2015:

13-1
8-5
8-5
5-7
13-1
5-7
10-4
8-5
8-5
10-4
6-6
3-8
7-6
5-7
0-11
3-8
7-4
3-8
3-8
7-5

The data simply doesn't support the notion that Houston will continue to be a Top 10 program. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying you can't assume it will happen until they actually do it. Their history suggests the odds are more likely the won't be a Top 10 caliber program.

 

[topdecktiger]

According to the TV people, the SEC owns the Houston area by far. The AAC is next and the Big 12 a distant third. Interesting conclusion.

No, that's not according to the TV people. In the Houston market, the SEC had 9 games in the top 20. The Big 12 had 7. The AAC had 2. The Big Ten (!) had 2. Having 2 games in the top 20 doesn't make the AAC second, by any means.

Beyond that, you are basing this off of one year. What did the ratings look like in 2014? 2013? 2012? 2011?

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

No, that's not according to the TV people. In the Houston market, the SEC had 9 games in the top 20. The Big 12 had 7. The AAC had 2. The Big Ten (!) had 2. Having 2 games in the top 20 doesn't make the AAC second, by any means.

Beyond that, you are basing this off of one year. What did the ratings look like in 2014? 2013? 2012? 2011?

Tiger, there ain't no future in the past. The viewers are already there, so are the broadcasts. Did it occur to you that many more people from the Houston area might watch UH if they were a member of the Big 12 instead of the AAC? The quality of the average televised opponent would tend to pique interest, would it not? How many more people in the greater Pittsburgh area watch WVU play Oklahoma than Iowa State?

There is a human nature factor involved here. What would the average attendance be at Milan Puskar if WVU were in the AAC instead of the Big 12? Pure speculation, but I think we can agree it would plummet if that happened. Doesn't the reverse also apply?

 

[topdecktiger]

Tiger, there ain't no future in the past. The viewers are already there, so are the broadcasts. Did it occur to you that many more people from the Houston area might watch UH if they were a member of the Big 12 instead of the AAC? The quality of the average televised opponent would tend to pique interest, would it not? How many more people in the greater Pittsburgh area watch WVU play Oklahoma than Iowa State?

There is a human nature factor involved here. What would the average attendance be at Milan Puskar if WVU were in the AAC instead of the Big 12? Pure speculation, but I think we can agree it would plummet if that happened. Doesn't the reverse also apply?

No, sorry, that's not the case. You can't base everything off of one year. You can't just go by the ratings when Houston is 13-1. What are the ratings going to be like when Houston is 7-5? 3-9? That's the glaring problem you are overlooking. You are trying to act like ratings from 2014/2013/2012, etc. are not relevant because the are "in the past." Simply not true. They give you an indication of what Houston will pull in a typical year.

It did "occur" to me how many people will watch UH if they were a member of the Big 12. Here are a few things that haven't occurred to you. If UH isn't winning in the Big 12, they aren't going to draw good ratings anyway. That is also human nature. It also isn't just about UH games. It's about the other Big 12 games. Houston only plays 12 games. The Big12 will probably have 50+ games televised in Houston over the course of a year. UH being in the Big 12 isn't going to be significant, because those games are already on in Houston, and they are already drawing ratings.

You claim I don't back up my positions with facts, well sorry, you aren't either. I posted actual ratings that you can compare. I also posted the complete list of the top 20 games in Houston. The Big 12 already had 7 of the 20. UH itself only had 2 of 20. Hell, the Big Ten had 2 of 20. UH had 8 regular season games broadcasted in the Houston market. Only 2 made it in the top 20. Sorry, that's not good.

 

[12375CAT]

Your homemade moonshine was absolutely fabulous. Can we have more of it please?

 

[Rootmaster]

Their history suggests the odds are more likely the won't be a Top 10 caliber program.

Now are you talking about UH or WVU...since the record comparison could be made lol?

 

[topdecktiger]

Now are you talking about UH or WVU...since the record comparison could be made lol?

I'm talking about Houston.

Ok, let's make the comparison.

Number of top 25 finishes in the last 20 years:

Houston - 2
11,15

West Virginia - 7
02,05,06,07,08,09,11

Overall record over the last 20 years:

Houston: 132-115 .534

West Virginia: 144 - 91 .613

Yeah, I'll take West Virginia.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

Why did you let Tiger taker this thread?

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

To answer the topic. WVU brought two city markets - Pittsburgh and DC. DC was impotant tI Texas since there are many alumni there. We Are top 20 in all time wins and have a very nice following throughout the country since we have exported workers all over the country.

 

[Diggs59]

That's true, but only a few hundred separate WVU and two others. That's a virtual tie for third. Oklahoma and Texas are substantially larger. Oklahoma has around 82,000 and Texas just over 100,000, right?

And the record attendence at Austin was set in 2012 when WVU came to town. That's right, not Oklahoma and the Red River Shoot-Out....West Virginia!

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

And the record attendence at Austin was set in 2012 when WVU came to town. That's right, not Oklahoma and the Red River Shoot-Out....West Virginia!

The OU-Texas game is in the Cotton Bowl with a max attendance of around 80K. So it can never top any Texas home game.

 

[Diggs59]

The OU-Texas game is in the Cotton Bowl with a max attendance of around 80K. So it can never top any Texas home game.

Just saying its a very telling thing for a school out east to come to Texas and set attendence records when there was no history between the schools other than a game in the 1950's. I at least think thats a huge indictment of WVU's following.

 

[Rootmaster]

since we have exported workers all over the country

So a state with less than 2 mil in total population exports more workers around the country than Texas, Arksansas, Florida, etc. I highly doubt that is a WV exclusive trait. lol

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I'm willing to wait until the presidents and commissioner do their jobs before passing judgement on any new member. BC, Pitt, and Syracuse did not spell doom for the ACC. Rutgers and Maryland for the BIG or Missouri for the SEC. Any decent team from a populous area is going to experience an increase in viewership with an upgrade in the competition, especially if they are simply competitive.

That puts butts in stadiums and eyes on TV sets and that is what is needed.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

So a state with less than 2 mil in total population exports more workers around the country than Texas, Arksansas, Florida, etc. I highly doubt that is a WV exclusive trait. lol

People have been leaving WV since the 1950s. If everyone had stayed we might have 5 million in Wv instead of 1.8.

 

[Rootmaster]

woody...that was a joke right?

 

[topdecktiger]

I'm willing to wait until the presidents and commissioner do their jobs before passing judgement on any new member. BC, Pitt, and Syracuse did not spell doom for the ACC. Rutgers and Maryland for the BIG or Missouri for the SEC. Any decent team from a populous area is going to experience an increase in viewership with an upgrade in the competition, especially if they are simply competitive.

That puts butts in stadiums and eyes on TV sets and that is what is needed.

And that's the problem. You realize this was already studied, right? That was the whole point of the "data dump" back in June. You think the Big12 had this big meeting about expansion, but didn't bother to check into what kind of attendance and TV ratings these new schools would bring? You think they didn't already check with ESPN and Fox to see what they could get for these new schools? That's already been done. They know what they are getting with these schools. It's simply not that much.

It's not about trashing the other schools, or spelling "doom" for the Big 12. The whole point of expansion is to make money. The schools in question don't actually make more money. That's the thing. When the ACC and Big Ten added the teams you mentioned, the conferences got more money. They didn't have to do it by lowballing new schools and splitting up pro rata money. They got flat out increases in their payouts. The schools being considered by the Big 12 simply don't do that.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

And that's the problem. You realize this was already studied, right? That was the whole point of the "data dump" back in June. You think the Big12 had this big meeting about expansion, but didn't bother to check into what kind of attendance and TV ratings these new schools would bring? You think they didn't already check with ESPN and Fox to see what they could get for these new schools? That's already been done. They know what they are getting with these schools. It's simply not that much.

It's not about trashing the other schools, or spelling "doom" for the Big 12. The whole point of expansion is to make money. The schools in question don't actually make more money. That's the thing. When the ACC and Big Ten added the teams you mentioned, the conferences got more money. They didn't have to do it by lowballing new schools and splitting up pro rata money. They got flat out increases in their payouts. The schools being considered by the Big 12 simply don't do that.

You have no idea what value any particular school brings to any conference. Why do you pretend to know the results of studies not released yet? Second, why would you feel the need to argue with someone expressing a logical opinion? Or any opinion for that matter. How arrogant and presumptuous.

And you are dead wrong about even implying that B1G expansion teams immediately receive full shares. Rutgers and Maryland do not receive full shares until 2020-21. 'Mighty' Nebraska starts receiving a full share in 2017-18. Before you inappropriately analyze and 'correct' someone else's opinion perhaps you should at least get your facts straight.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

And that's the problem. You realize this was already studied, right? That was the whole point of the "data dump" back in June. You think the Big12 had this big meeting about expansion, but didn't bother to check into what kind of attendance and TV ratings these new schools would bring? You think they didn't already check with ESPN and Fox to see what they could get for these new schools? That's already been done. They know what they are getting with these schools. It's simply not that much.

It's not about trashing the other schools, or spelling "doom" for the Big 12. The whole point of expansion is to make money. The schools in question don't actually make more money. That's the thing. When the ACC and Big Ten added the teams you mentioned, the conferences got more money. They didn't have to do it by lowballing new schools and splitting up pro rata money. They got flat out increases in their payouts. The schools being considered by the Big 12 simply don't do that.

Have you ever wondered why you have 5,430 posts and only 53 likes, some of which were from me? There is a reason!

 

[topdecktiger]

You have no idea what value any particular school brings to any conference. Why do you pretend to know the results of studies not released yet? Second, why would you feel the need to argue with someone expressing a logical opinion? Or any opinion for that matter. How arrogant and presumptuous.

And you are dead wrong about even implying that B1G expansion teams immediately receive full shares. Rutgers and Maryland do not receive full shares until 2020-21. 'Mighty' Nebraska starts receiving a full share in 2017-18. Before you inappropriately analyze and 'correct' someone else's opinion perhaps you should at least get your facts straight.

Yes, I do know what value these particular schools bring to the conference. The data has already been studied. There have been comments from various people in the Big 12. The Big 12 has already spoken with ESPN and Fox about this before, and both networks say that there simply isn't any value in the schools being mentioned. On top of that, there is also pro rata clause that caps what the Big 12 can get.

I case you haven't noticed, all of these expansion threads are based on arguments. You can't single me out for "arguing" when everybody else posting on these threads is doing the same thing. Aside from that, we are beyond opinions. Everything is concrete at this point. It's simple. The Big 12 isn't getting a new contract, so they are going to add teams and keep the pro rata increase.

I didn't imply Rutgers and Maryland got full shares. YOU should get YOUR facts straight. What I said was, the conferences got to renegotiate their contracts for extra money. The Big Ten and ACC didn't have to fool around with this pro rata monkey business. See, with the Big 12, they aren't getting extra money. Once they stop giving the new schools partial shares, then the TV payouts will be the same as what they are getting now. Not so for the Big Ten and ACC. When their new schools get off partial shares, they will still get more money than they do now. For example, before Pitt and Syracuse joined the ACC, the average TV payouts were $13 million a year per team. With the new contract, the average TV payouts went up to $17 million. That's including Pitt and Syracuse getting a full share. So, not only did the conference get enough money to cover the cost of splitting the pie 2 extra ways (like the pro rata), they got an extra $4 million on top of that. If the Big 12 took Cincy and BYU, for example, and the payouts were $20 million before, the payouts would still be $20 million. Once Cincy and BYU started getting full shares, the Big 12 wouldn't be getting extra money. That's not how it is for the other conferences.

Have you ever wondered why you have 5,430 posts and only 53 likes, some of which were from me? There is a reason!

No, I haven't ever wondered. I don't care.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Yes, I do know what value these particular schools bring to the conference. The data has already been studied. There have been comments from various people in the Big 12. The Big 12 has already spoken with ESPN and Fox about this before, and both networks say that there simply isn't any value in the schools being mentioned. On top of that, there is also pro rata clause that caps what the Big 12 can get.

I case you haven't noticed, all of these expansion threads are based on arguments. You can't single me out for "arguing" when everybody else posting on these threads is doing the same thing. Aside from that, we are beyond opinions. Everything is concrete at this point. It's simple. The Big 12 isn't getting a new contract, so they are going to add teams and keep the pro rata increase.

I didn't imply Rutgers and Maryland got full shares. YOU should get YOUR facts straight. What I said was, the conferences got to renegotiate their contracts for extra money. The Big Ten and ACC didn't have to fool around with this pro rata monkey business. See, with the Big 12, they aren't getting extra money. Once they stop giving the new schools partial shares, then the TV payouts will be the same as what they are getting now. Not so for the Big Ten and ACC. When their new schools get off partial shares, they will still get more money than they do now. For example, before Pitt and Syracuse joined the ACC, the average TV payouts were $13 million a year per team. With the new contract, the average TV payouts went up to $17 million. That's including Pitt and Syracuse getting a full share. So, not only did the conference get enough money to cover the cost of splitting the pie 2 extra ways (like the pro rata), they got an extra $4 million on top of that. If the Big 12 took Cincy and BYU, for example, and the payouts were $20 million before, the payouts would still be $20 million. Once Cincy and BYU started getting full shares, the Big 12 wouldn't be getting extra money. That's not how it is for the other conferences.



No, I haven't ever wondered. I don't care.

You have no idea what your talking about regarding the Big 12. You base your conclusions on June data, not July. You are not privy to any of it, you simply troll.

Apparently you have nothing better to do than criticize other's opinions and try to imply that yours is somehow more informed or more accurate. They are not except in your mind.

Even though you don't care, I believe your likes are so low because rarely does anyone agree with you. Ignorance can be cured with knowledge, but when you mix arrogance with it you simply turn people off to your opinions.

What if everyone put you on ignore, would you continue trolling not knowing the difference? I understand why you do not show yourself in your avatar.