(02-09-2018 08:24 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 06:43 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I disagree and we're talking long term not short term. The majority are long shots, which is better than no shot.

The only school with an attendance over 36,000 was B.Y.U. at 57,000. Cincinnati had 28,000, UConn 20,000, and a favorite discussed on Big 12 talk sites is Tulane 16,000. Houston did 32, UCF did 37, USF did 31, and Memphis did 36. ECU did about 36. That's miles away from compensating for academic ratings with stellar support numbers.

But if any of those teams were to be elevated to a power conference, one would expect their attendance numbers to increase significantly.

Cart before the horse.

A school has to be able to generate great numbers organically otherwise there's really no reason to add them.

Consider though that Vanderbilt plays quality SEC competition week in and week out and has done so for decades. Even with those advantages, their attendance is pretty paltry. So it's really not necessarily true that a school's attendance would increase significantly just because of Power membership.

(02-09-2018 08:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well, Houston has a market. But they operate the athletics in the red and only draw 32,000 in a stadium in dire need of replacement.

They actually rebuilt their stadium here a couple of years ago. It's a fairly nice facility now.

Problem remains though that the stadium is not all that big and attendance is fairly weak.

Long term, I could still see Houston making the jump. They've got more going for them than most G5s. But yeah, they've got work to do.

(02-09-2018 09:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 08:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Any new member to a P5 conference has to walk in the door adding over $30 million/year in value, or over $40 million/year if it's the SEC or Big Ten. Otherwise the existing members will lose a lot of money by expanding.

AFAIK, no one in charge at any of these schools is complaining that they make too much money and hoping they can find a way to make less money in the future.

That'll be 51 million for the Big 10 starting next year and about 46 million for the SEC.

I just read an interesting piece on TCU, but one that didn't make too much sense. The average around their stadium capacity of 45,000. They are worried what will happen with the expiration of the Big 12 contract with FOX in 2023. The odd part is that they are planning an expansion, and to make themselves more attractive that makes sense. It also makes sense that it will be with luxury seating since in DFW that will probably yield them more revenue than standard seating. The puzzling part is that it will only be for 1000 seats. They truly need to be in at least the mid 50's on seating to make themselves attractive to some other P conferences.

TCU would be in serious trouble if they didn't routinely play regional rivals. Their recovery from the end of the SWC should be admired but they have a limited ceiling, especially if the Big 12 breaks up or loses significant membership.

(02-09-2018 01:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Stewart Mandel had some thoughts on this (on his subscription site, The Athletic)

Quote:Here's my own personal observation from having attended a whole lot of big college football games over the years but also having spent a lot more weekends on the couch the past few seasons than I did previously. College football has some of the coolest pregame pageantry you could ever hope to experience, and there is no topping the electricity of a stadium right before kickoff and in the final minutes of a close game.

For most of those three-plus hours in between, though, it's a far better viewing experience on TV. There's no denying it at this point. The production values of the big network games have risen dramatically over the past decade with the use of more camera angles (including the wire cam overhead), more advanced replay and telestrator technology, the advent of officiating analysts and more. Plus, there are so many more games on TV in general that you can spend the entire afternoon just working the remote.

And, perhaps most importantly, it's easier to stay abreast of everything on Twitter, where no how obscure the game, someone is going to have the highlight. And given that, it sure is nice to have your own reliable home wi-fi than stadiums where I still, even today, get shoddy reception most places I go.

I was surprised to see a 40-something sportswriter complaining about Wi-Fi, but he's right. It's not just for the kids. No one wants to pay $50 or more per ticket and have their phone become a brick until they get back to their car after the game.

Everybody complains about that.

(02-09-2018 10:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 08:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well, Houston has a market. But they operate the athletics in the red and only draw 32,000 in a stadium in dire need of replacement.

They actually rebuilt their stadium here a couple of years ago. It's a fairly nice facility now.

Problem remains though that the stadium is not all that big and attendance is fairly weak.

Long term, I could still see Houston making the jump. They've got more going for them than most G5s. But yeah, they've got work to do.

Right. Its basically a brand new 40k stadium.

That can be upgraded to 50, then to 60k.

nobody in G5 is looking to join B-10 or SEC
B-12 is 35 million & 45,000 in atten
Pac-12 is 30 million & 40,000 in atten

(02-12-2018 02:25 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  nobody in G5 is looking to join B-10 or SEC
B-12 is 35 million & 45,000 in atten
Pac-12 is 30 million & 40,000 in atten

The Big 12 pays out 35 million for T1 & T2 rights. Each school holds its own T3 and that is added over and above the 35 million. And they average 56,000 in attendance.

The PAC makes between 28-30 million depending upon the PACN payout. They average 49,000.

The ACC makes around 27-28 million and they average 48,000 in attendance.

The Big 10 this year earned around 40 million and averaged 66,000 in attendance.

The SEC earned right at 41 million and averaged 75,000 in attendance.

But those millions are only TV payouts which represent only around 1/3rd to 1/4th of the total revenue.

Big 10 and SEC are definitely unreachable for the non-traditional power conferences.

No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

You mean from one traditional power conference to another. I'd gladly see Houston play in the SEC next year.

(02-12-2018 06:52 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  You mean from one traditional power conference to another. I'd gladly see Houston play in the SEC next year.

I'll bet Vanderbilt would love some company at the bottom.

Houston wouldn't be at the bottom of the SEC every year.

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.

Well, many would, but that doesn't mean it's going to provide a big boost.

Case in point: Maryland had both Michigan and Penn State on its home schedule this year. That's a best-case scenario. Lots of fans who dream of their team joining the Big Ten or SEC is thinking, We would fill an NFL-sized stadium every week with a conference schedule that includes two "king" programs. Did Maryland have so much demand that they're going to add 25,000 seats to their stadium? Did they start to think, Wow, we have so many more people demanding tickets that we better move our home games to an NFL stadium? No, they didn't.

(02-12-2018 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.

Well, many would, but that doesn't mean it's going to provide a big boost.

Case in point: Maryland had both Michigan and Penn State on its home schedule this year. That's a best-case scenario. Lots of fans who dream of their team joining the Big Ten or SEC is thinking, We would fill an NFL-sized stadium every week with a conference schedule that includes two "king" programs. Did Maryland have so much demand that they're going to add 25,000 seats to their stadium? Did they start to think, Wow, we have so many more people demanding tickets that we better move our home games to an NFL stadium? No, they didn't.

Well, they are a basketball first school, so....

The better example would have been Missouri which was, like Louisville, a basketball and football school. Missouri was averaging around 71,000 and that held the first two years in the SEC. But the last two years they've averaged 51,000. And while there are many factors in that decline, bad PR, the loss of Pinkel, etc, a 30% rise in the cost of tickets because they are in the SEC might have a bit to do with that as well as does no longer playing a slate of schools that their fans have historically cared about.

(02-12-2018 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.

Well, many would, but that doesn't mean it's going to provide a big boost.

Case in point: Maryland had both Michigan and Penn State on its home schedule this year. That's a best-case scenario. Lots of fans who dream of their team joining the Big Ten or SEC is thinking, We would fill an NFL-sized stadium every week with a conference schedule that includes two "king" programs. Did Maryland have so much demand that they're going to add 25,000 seats to their stadium? Did they start to think, Wow, we have so many more people demanding tickets that we better move our home games to an NFL stadium? No, they didn't.

Well, they are a basketball first school, so....

The better example would have been Missouri which was, like Louisville, a basketball and football school. Missouri was averaging around 71,000 and that held the first two years in the SEC. But the last two years they've averaged 51,000. And while there are many factors in that decline, bad PR, the loss of Pinkel, etc, a 30% rise in the cost of tickets because they are in the SEC might have a bit to do with that as well as does no longer playing a slate of schools that their fans have historically cared about.

I guess the 51,000 included the 15,000 opposing SEC fans that you claimed showed up at every game.

(02-12-2018 01:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.

Well, many would, but that doesn't mean it's going to provide a big boost.

Case in point: Maryland had both Michigan and Penn State on its home schedule this year. That's a best-case scenario. Lots of fans who dream of their team joining the Big Ten or SEC is thinking, We would fill an NFL-sized stadium every week with a conference schedule that includes two "king" programs. Did Maryland have so much demand that they're going to add 25,000 seats to their stadium? Did they start to think, Wow, we have so many more people demanding tickets that we better move our home games to an NFL stadium? No, they didn't.

Well, they are a basketball first school, so....

The better example would have been Missouri which was, like Louisville, a basketball and football school. Missouri was averaging around 71,000 and that held the first two years in the SEC. But the last two years they've averaged 51,000. And while there are many factors in that decline, bad PR, the loss of Pinkel, etc, a 30% rise in the cost of tickets because they are in the SEC might have a bit to do with that as well as does no longer playing a slate of schools that their fans have historically cared about.

I guess the 51,000 included the 15,000 opposing SEC fans that you claimed showed up at every game.

For an outlying area like Missouri it was probably closer to 7 or 8 thousand for an average. When Goergia went the last time they were there they took a little over 10,000. But yes, in general that's a fair point. Within the original 10 schools of the SEC is where you usually get the travel crowds of around 15,000. Arkansas, Missouri and A&M are probably about half of that or a little better.

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

(02-12-2018 05:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

Carolina has more top ten finishes in the Director's Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame). That's competitive Catboy!

(02-12-2018 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

Carolina has more top ten finishes in the Director's Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame). That's competitive Catboy!

Director's cup? Is that what schools that don't play manly sports compete for? It sound like something you would get at Summer camp.