How Many More Teams Can We Lose And Keep The Bcs?

[upstater]

2nd part:

Lastly, How you can say "Missouri is a pretty big prize" but in your next post call the ACC outside of FSU "small fry"? It seems hardly credible to call one a big prize and the other small fry when many of the small fries have better resumes than Missouri.

I will stand by what I said before, the SEC has approached other options before taking Missouri into the fold and it included ACC schools. If Missouri is ultimately offered, the SEC was rebuffed by all of the others they approached for this round of expansion. Missouri is the best the SEC could offer and have say yes.

I do not think Missouri is a small fry or a bad catch. They are the best the SEC could get after shopping for others that were higher on the list. For Uconn is this good or bad news? For this round of expansion,it was bad news. Because Missouri to the SEC means the ACC stayed together....for now.

Compare Missouri to the schools you mention outside UNC (which isn't going to the SEC) and of course Missouri wins.

 

[Heston]

Compare Missouri to the schools you mention outside UNC (which isn't going to the SEC) and of course Missouri wins.

You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.... Again, as you have noted you don't have to believe me. Doesn't bother me. I am just posting what I know to be true and it does impact Uconn.

I did not mention any schools. I mentioned states that contain schools. At least you have acknowledged that UNC is better than Missouri. For the record, VT has better football than Missouri, much bigger market, but a smaller budget. UVA has a bigger budget, better market, and its football historically is not that far off of Missouri. The last time Missouri won a conference title LBJ was President. No question MO has done very well lately and UVA has not.

 

[ctchamps]

He did a really bad job, IMO.
First of all, when he says cash flow and profit, he doesn't tell us what he's looking at. So many programs don't aggregate contributions and such under football. Rutgers for instance doesn't look so bad for subsidizing football because the subsidy falls under all sports. Other schools however show student fees going directly to football. The fact that he saw a school lose many millions in football while Rutgers only loses a little tells me that his numbers are all screwed up, and that he hasn't accounted for how revenues are redistributed based on compliance with title9.

"And eight schools on the list have a negative valuation because they suck funds from the larger university to support operations."

This quote tells me that he doesn't have an appreciation for the difference in accounting.

All SEC and Big10 schools look great in these valuations because of TV income. A real analysis of how much they are worth would look at TV ratings and ticket revenue/contributions. That's how I would evaluate the worth of programs.

Indiana, for instance, comes out ahead of every BE team including WV simply because of conference affiliation, but if you looked at Indy's revenues after subtracting $25 million in Tv revs and compared them to WV's revs while subtracting $5 million in Tv revs, it's like night and day. WV blows them out of the water.

Thanks.

 

[upstater]

You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.... Again, as you have noted you don't have to believe me. Doesn't bother me. I am just posting what I know to be true and it does impact Uconn.

I did not mention any schools. I mentioned states that contain schools. At least you have acknowledged that UNC is better than Missouri. For the record, VT has better football than Missouri, much bigger market, but a smaller budget. UVA has a bigger budget, better market, and its football historically is not that far off of Missouri. The last time Missouri won a conference title LBJ was President. No question MO has done very well lately and UVA has not.

VT: much bigger market than Missouri. Uh-huh.
And I'm supposed to listen to what you write? VT does not have more fans than Missouri.

 

[Heston]

VT: much bigger market than Missouri. Uh-huh.
And I'm supposed to listen to what you write? VT does not have more fans than Missouri.

I never said "fans" although your claim that Missouri has more is dubious at best.

First, what I actually posted (again something you seem to rarely address), Viriginia is a bigger and better market. And it is:
Virginia: Population 8 million
Missouri: Population 5.9 million.
Virginia is growing at nearly twice the rate of Missouri, has more people in the 18-44 demo, and has a younger population.

As far as who has more fans, both schools have an undergraduate enrollment of roughly 24,000. Both claim to have over 200,000 living alumni although no one ever knows that those numbers really are. Missouri actually claims nearly 250,000. Virginia Tech, in spite of having a stadium with a capacity that is 5,000 less than Missouri, has a better average season attendance. And as everyone who is reading this mundane exchange knows, far more people have been following VT football the past 10 years than Missouri. That is not to take anything away from what Missouri has accomplished, but it is what is.

 

[upstater]

I never said "fans" although your claim that Missouri has more is dubious at best.

First, what I actually posted (again something you seem to rarely address), Viriginia is a bigger and better market. And it is:
Virginia: Population 8 million
Missouri: Population 5.9 million.
Virginia is growing at nearly twice the rate of Missouri, has more people in the 18-44 demo, and has a younger population.

As far as who has more fans, both schools have an undergraduate enrollment of roughly 24,000. Both claim to have over 200,000 living alumni although no one ever knows that those numbers really are. Missouri actually claims nearly 250,000. Virginia Tech, in spite of having a stadium with a capacity that is 5,000 less than Missouri, has a better average season attendance. And as everyone who is reading this mundane exchange knows, far more people have been following VT football the past 10 years than Missouri. That is not to take anything away from what Missouri has accomplished, but it is what is.

LOL. First, Va (a state where I lived for awhile) has a bunch of transplants in NoVa who are there for gov't in DC.
Secondly, most Va. people cheer for Virginia.
Missouri doesn't have a more popular school in its state like VT does.