Big 12 thread

WhosYourDawggy said:
My periodic reminder that basketball revenue does not get included in the equation for expansion. And Kansas has been historically terrible at football. I mean really terrible. They would be so far away from ever contributing close to the $110 million per year share of revenue as to making each other team give up many millions for the pleasure of Kansas' company. Ain't happening.
Click to expand...
If it is ALL ABOUT FOOTBALL, then Kansas doesn’t carry the water. And they don’t really carry it in anything other than hoops. Fact is the SEC is getting better “other” programs from OU and Texas thannthey are football. Those two Texas Tech and Baylor have been best at non football programs the past several years in the Big 12.
 
Deep Creek said:
If it is ALL ABOUT FOOTBALL, then Kansas doesn’t carry the water. And they don’t really carry it in anything other than hoops. Fact is the SEC is getting better “other” programs from OU and Texas thannthey are football. Those two Texas Tech and Baylor have been best at non football programs the past several years in the Big 12.
Click to expand...

It is really all about fanbase size. Oklahoma and Texas dwarf any other Big12 school in that department. Football drives the fanbase size though so in a round about way, you are correct.

It is just my thought that certain states are growing and others shrinking. What we think it is a good option/market in 2023 may not be that way in 2033.
 
Volbound1700 said:
It is really all about fanbase size. Oklahoma and Texas dwarf any other Big12 school in that department. Football drives the fanbase size though so in a round about way, you are correct.

It is just my thought that certain states are growing and others shrinking. What we think it is a good option/market in 2023 may not be that way in 2033.
Click to expand...
I agree depending on the definition of "fan base". I think it is about the ability of schools to attract "other fan" eyeballs to tune into their games...whether those wanting to see those games are "fans" of that team or not. So, in that case Texas and OU are much more attractive nationally than any other Big 12 team. Not even close.

CFB "fans" in Pennsylvania (not necessarily a USC fan) are much more likely to tune into a USC vs Oregon State game than they are a Ariz State vs Oregon State game. Simply because it is USC. Same goes for Texas and OU. Those same Pennsylvania fans are attracted to Texas vs Kansas State game a lot more than a Baylor vs Kansas State game. They could care less about the rusty cow fan base per se.
 
Deep Creek said:
I agree depending on the definition of "fan base". I think it is about the ability of schools to attract "other fan" eyeballs to tune into their games...whether those wanting to see those games are "fans" of that team or not. So, in that case Texas and OU are much more attractive nationally than any other Big 12 team. Not even close.

CFB "fans" in Pennsylvania (not necessarily a USC fan) are much more likely to tune into a USC vs Oregon State game than they are a Ariz State vs Oregon State game. Simply because it is USC. Same goes for Texas and OU. Those same Pennsylvania fans are attracted to Texas vs Kansas State game a lot more than a Baylor vs Kansas State game. They could care less about the rusty cow fan base per se.
Click to expand...

True but there are also issues that are not measurable.

If USC starts going 3-9 consistently in the B1G, their brand value slides dramatically.

Tennessee is classic example right now. Prior to this season, we were 14th/15th or lower in most brand ratings. Some people have us as high as 5 or 6 now and potentially could go higher. When you are winning, you make $$$ and get eyeballs. If you are not winning, you slump.

Also, one thing that has really helped the SEC surpass everyone is the dynamics of population moving south. The area of the country that is forecasted to have the most growth right now is the region that encompasses the historic Big12.

If Big12 had been patient and stayed together with the original 12, they might be getting more attention in near future versus some other leagues due to the rising population trends in their region.
 
Volbound1700 said:
True but there are also issues that are not measurable.

If USC starts going 3-9 consistently in the B1G, their brand value slides dramatically.

Tennessee is classic example right now. Prior to this season, we were 14th/15th or lower in most brand ratings. Some people have us as high as 5 or 6 now and potentially could go higher. When you are winning, you make $$$ and get eyeballs. If you are not winning, you slump.

Also, one thing that has really helped the SEC surpass everyone is the dynamics of population moving south. The area of the country that is forecasted to have the most growth right now is the region that encompasses the historic Big12.

If Big12 had been patient and stayed together with the original 12, they might be getting more attention in near future versus some other leagues due to the rising population trends in their region.
Click to expand...
While not 3-9, Texas has been making money hand over fist the past few years without having a very good football team. And USC hasn't been too swift either.

Population is one thing, but that doesn't always translate to college football fanaticism. Lot of fans dressed as empty seats on the left coast and there is still a lot of people out there...even if some are bailing out of Cali. While there are a lot of 'em, it is the inverse of the SEC mantra. "It just DOESN'T mean as much."
 
Deep Creek said:
While not 3-9, Texas has been making money hand over fist the past few years without having a very good football team. And USC hasn't been too swift either.

Population is one thing, but that doesn't always translate to college football fanaticism. Lot of fans dressed as empty seats on the left coast and there is still a lot of people out there...even if some are bailing out of Cali. While there are a lot of 'em, it is the inverse of the SEC mantra. "It just DOESN'T mean as much."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think Texas and USC are different.

USC made sense on check book but all of the traveling is going to take its toll on them from a wear and tear perspective. I do think they got the right coach and process to turn things around but how many games do they lose because of constant travel and does it eventually diminish their return?

Also both "stinking" is not 100% accurate as both have been ranked and got attention at times over last 5 years. Sure their final season record may have not been good but that doesn't matter for the purpose of drawing eyeballs. Texas constantly gets ranked in top 20 and that draws eyeballs even if they don't finish in top 20. Texas also tends to do well the first half of the season and have late season collapses.

USC has also been decent enough even when they struggled to be in high profile matchups.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Yeah, I think Texas and USC are different.

USC made sense on check book but all of the traveling is going to take its toll on them from a wear and tear perspective. I do think they got the right coach and process to turn things around but how many games do they lose because of constant travel and does it eventually diminish their return?

Also both "stinking" is not 100% accurate as both have been ranked and got attention at times over last 5 years. Sure their final season record may have not been good but that doesn't matter for the purpose of drawing eyeballs. Texas constantly gets ranked in top 20 and that draws eyeballs even if they don't finish in top 20. Texas also tends to do well the first half of the season and have late season collapses.

USC has also been decent enough even when they struggled to be in high profile matchups.
Click to expand...
Aren't the future revenue estimates something around $100+ million for B1G teams and $40 million for PAC 12 teams? If those numbers are close to correct, I think they can afford a lot of financial diminishing for that difference. Now their performance diminishing is a whole different story.

And the point was Texas (and Oklahoma) draw eyeballs regardless of their performance. Same for other name brands.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Yeah, I think Texas and USC are different.

USC made sense on check book but all of the traveling is going to take its toll on them from a wear and tear perspective. I do think they got the right coach and process to turn things around but how many games do they lose because of constant travel and does it eventually diminish their return?

Also both "stinking" is not 100% accurate as both have been ranked and got attention at times over last 5 years. Sure their final season record may have not been good but that doesn't matter for the purpose of drawing eyeballs. Texas constantly gets ranked in top 20 and that draws eyeballs even if they don't finish in top 20. Texas also tends to do well the first half of the season and have late season collapses.

USC has also been decent enough even when they struggled to be in high profile matchups.
Click to expand...
what do you mean by being in them? scheduling them? anyone can do that. then the hype comes in. then the results.
when they were struggling they lost to Notre Dame and BYU and Texas and Alabama
 
OlyDuck said:
what do you mean by being in them? scheduling them? anyone can do that. then the hype comes in. then the results.
when they were struggling they lost to Notre Dame and BYU and Texas and Alabama
Click to expand...

Usually USC was in big-time television matchups and ranked several years. One year with Kiffin they were preseason #1, I would say they have been in the preseason top 10 or 15 at least twice in last 5 years. That still gets them attention for a while even if they fall off as the season goes.
 
Deep Creek said:
Aren't the future revenue estimates something around $100+ million for B1G teams and $40 million for PAC 12 teams? If those numbers are close to correct, I think they can afford a lot of financial diminishing for that difference. Now their performance diminishing is a whole different story.

And the point was Texas (and Oklahoma) draw eyeballs regardless of their performance. Same for other name brands.
Click to expand...
Those are the numbers.
 
they better be happy and anxious for us to leave... lol they have no choice, we are gone.
 
I've never seen this before.. it's pretty shitty and it looks so desperate.. They would have done this to ou as well if they were on the schedule..

 
Thiefery said:
I've never seen this before.. it's pretty shitty and it looks so desperate.. They would have done this to ou as well if they were on the schedule..

Click to expand...

Oklahoma State used to do this. Not sure if they still do, but probably.
Just tell us you can't sell out your stadium, without actually saying you can't sell out your stadium.

Losers
 
Thiefery said:
I've never seen this before.. it's pretty shitty and it looks so desperate.. They would have done this to ou as well if they were on the schedule..

Click to expand...

I haven’t seen anything like this. But I have seen schools jack up the price of single game tickets for marquee opponents to the point you might as well purchase season tickets. I know my guys did just that on those rare occasions when Texas and Oklahoma came to the Sun Bowl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top