(04-13-2013 10:06 AM)Freshy Wrote: There is a poster on Eaglepost who uses a picture of Nathan Bedford Forrest as his avatar. He quotes posts like yours and then removes every word except the "if"s and "maybe"s. He follows that up with pictures of flying saucers or bigfoot sightings.
That is the most appropriate answer to your post because your are seeing Bigfoot or a UFO right now.
1. You have yet to post a general conclusion to anything.
2. The proper pronouns are "I" and "my" because I have yet to see a single poster come on here and support your conclusions.
3. Let me give every one else an example (since you yourself are not open to logic): A Model T cost $850 in 1909. It cost $550 in 1913. Then it dropped to $440 in 1915. By the 1920s, it cost $260. By your logic, I should be able to buy a simple base model four seat car for whatever the inflation adjusted 2013 value of $240 is in 1927 dollars. I assure you it is not so high as ~$13,000.
There are a vast number of reasons why you can't buy a new ride for super cheap anymore, but your version of "simple math" (it is actually called a linear equation, btw) does not take into account any of them. Because it ignores every single possible variable except the one you want to hammer away at, your "simple math" is virtually worthless as a predictor of future conference revenues.
Even your use of the one variable is suspect because you only use one set of current data when other sets of data, both current and historical, are available.
I can come up with a more accurate assessment of the future value of CUSA's media deal with poster board, a handful of magic markers, and a classroom full of kindergartners. Before you even try to suggest I come up with a number myself, I am not going to bother. Given that I would put some actual thought behind my efforts, I might come up with a number that other people would place some faith in. While the exercise might be good for my brain and the kindergartners would surely enjoy themselves, the actual number I come up with would be nearly worthless the moment it was committed to paper. Winning the pissing contest is not enough motivation to make me want to do it.
I believe the colloquial term for what you are doing is "talking out your ass".
First, I don't have to attack you personally to make my case. I'm sorry if occasionally I don't quite filter my words thoroughly enough to ensure not offending.
So, your answer is to employ a different analogy. Okay. Let's use yours then.
If the question is what will the value of a TV package for CUSA 3.0 be in about 90 years, then you're entirely correct... over the years, variables do eventually amass to such a degree as to make it fairly futile to try to come up with a strong number.
But that's not the case here, obviously.
Within a 90 year time frame, it is much more arguable that MTSU would become the next Boise State than it is for them to do so in the next 5 years.
Within a 90 year time frame, it is much more arguable that FAU would become the next Boise State than it is for them to do so in the next 5 years.
Repeat that for all 9 newbies and the leftovers... and then compound that by saying that it is much more arguable for the 14 teams of CUSA to ascend to be a better conference than the AAC and MWC in the next 90 years than it is for them to do so in the next 5.
The schools that now comprise AAC and MWC have a track record, as do the schools of CUSA and Sun Belt. That track record led the TV execs to make a contract offer based on their historical data of the schools' TV games... and where no historical data exists for a particular school, it is reasonable to look at other start-ups and consider the timeline that it took for them to gain an audience...
That track record for any one school might change significantly in 5 years, but it's highly unlikely that it would change for enough schools in a given conference to make a substantive difference in the overall value of that group of schools' TV contract.
So, going back to your analogy again... I agree with the implicit assertion that decades of time make for too many variables to accurately assess what the average value of Model Ts should be today.
But...pardon the observation... but what's missing in the analogy you want to use is another data point.
That is, if we know what the MSRP of a base model Honda CRV is today, and we know what the MSRP of a base model Ford Escape is today, then we probably aren't going to be too far off the mark to project that in five years, the ratio of price difference will still be about the same.
Sure, again, a variety of things could happen between now and then, but the best projection we can make would assume the same ratio would hold.
So... back to sports...
Remember that we're not projecting CUSA 3.0's next contract on the basis of previous CUSA 2.0's contract (as we might do if we were simply looking at Model Ts only)... and that, in large part, because there is a substantial portion of CUSA 2.0 that now makes up AAC. Rather, there's another data point... Sun Belt... because so many of Sun Belt's large-market schools now comprise CUSA 3.0, and what is left of CUSA are the smaller-market schools.
I realize this is largely futile... I perceive what you wrote above to be mostly a tantrum, frankly, driven by a strong wish that a brighter future is within easy reach.
It is within reach. It is not within easy reach.
Today's CUSA brand is diminished. It will take a significantly positive turn of events for it to come back and compete with the top of the Go5.
