|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jul 14, 2015 21:31:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jul 17, 2015 7:29:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by alamobruin on Jul 17, 2015 9:26:54 GMT -8
That is an interesting take on the B12 and its TV contract, and one that could benefit SDSU if the proposal was approached cogently.
Imagine this:
By expanding now by 6 teams, the B12 is adding $120MM per year in TV revenues (proportional revenue clause at $20MM per school X 6 schools). That is money that, even though it would be going to the new members, would not reduce the shares of the current members. It is, in effect, money that the B12 is leaving on the table if it doesn't expand. Next, would SDSU be willing to forego the CFP money from the B12, if it were getting $20MM per year from the TV deal, until the current GOR and TV deal expires in 2024-25? Wouldn't any of the other non-P5 candidates be willing to do the same? If so, then:
The B12 bowl pool and NCAA basketball tourney pool would be enhanced with the new additions, meaning even if that money was split evenly, it would result in higher earnings for the current members. Then:
The addition of revenue created by a CCG would be enough to offset revenues that would otherwise be lost in buying Texas out of its LHN, to allow creation of a B12 Network. That network could then be maximized by a HUGE footprint expansion to pick up subscriber fees in California (SDSU), Utah (BYU), Colorado (CSU), Ohio (Cincinnati), Florida (UCF) and either Tennessee (Memphis) or North Carolina (ECU).
The only question in terms of expansion would be whether those 6 institutions would be willing to draw $25-28MM per year for the next 9 years. If so, then such an expansion is favorable over a delayed raid of another conference, like the ACC for several reasons:
1. The conference gains new revenue streams NOW without reducing member payouts. Even if you added FSU and Clemson today, you would be reducing current member payouts, since those schools would not forego revenues that they are currently receiving from the CFP. 2. You allow the new members a 9-year period of high revenues with which to build their programs and facilities. 3. You take advantage of the current Cable TV model as it exists today, since that landscape will likely be much different in 9 years when the current deals expire. 4. You eliminate the stigma that exists with not having a CCG in football, without having the disadvantages of pairing a CCG with a round-robin format. 5. If you wait 9 years, you have effectively left more than $1 Billion in B12 revenues blowing away on the winds. (And you flush $120MM for every year that you wait.) 6. You satisfy OU's complaints (and most of the other current members) over the LHN, and provide UT with "make whole" compensation for changing to a conference-wide network, thereby providing additional stability among the membership.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jul 17, 2015 9:47:06 GMT -8
That is an interesting take on the B12 and its TV contract, and one that could benefit SDSU if the proposal was approached cogently.
Imagine this:
By expanding now by 6 teams, the B12 is adding $120MM per year in TV revenues (proportional revenue clause at $20MM per school X 6 schools). That is money that, even though it would be going to the new members, would not reduce the shares of the current members. It is, in effect, money that the B12 is leaving on the table if it doesn't expand. Next, would SDSU be willing to forego the CFP money from the B12, if it were getting $20MM per year from the TV deal, until the current GOR and TV deal expires in 2024-25? Wouldn't any of the other non-P5 candidates be willing to do the same? If so, then:
The B12 bowl pool and NCAA basketball tourney pool would be enhanced with the new additions, meaning even if that money was split evenly, it would result in higher earnings for the current members. Then:
The addition of revenue created by a CCG would be enough to offset revenues that would otherwise be lost in buying Texas out of its LHN, to allow creation of a B12 Network. That network could then be maximized by a HUGE footprint expansion to pick up subscriber fees in California (SDSU), Utah (BYU), Colorado (CSU), Ohio (Cincinnati), Florida (UCF) and either Tennessee (Memphis) or North Carolina (ECU).
The only question in terms of expansion would be whether those 6 institutions would be willing to draw $25-28MM per year for the next 9 years. If so, then such an expansion is favorable over a delayed raid of another conference, like the ACC for several reasons:
1. The conference gains new revenue streams NOW without reducing member payouts. Even if you added FSU and Clemson today, you would be reducing current member payouts, since those schools would not forego revenues that they are currently receiving from the CFP. 2. You allow the new members a 9-year period of high revenues with which to build their programs and facilities. 3. You take advantage of the current Cable TV model as it exists today, since that landscape will likely be much different in 9 years when the current deals expire. 4. You eliminate the stigma that exists with not having a CCG in football, without having the disadvantages of pairing a CCG with a round-robin format. 5. If you wait 9 years, you have effectively left more than $1 Billion in B12 revenues blowing away on the winds. (And you flush $120MM for every year that you wait.) 6. You satisfy OU's complaints (and most of the other current members) over the LHN, and provide UT with "make whole" compensation for changing to a conference-wide network, thereby providing additional stability among the membership.
+1,000,000
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 17, 2015 9:47:53 GMT -8
And according to that article, SDSU is not in the race.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 17, 2015 10:24:42 GMT -8
That is an interesting take on the B12 and its TV contract, and one that could benefit SDSU if the proposal was approached cogently.
Imagine this:
By expanding now by 6 teams, the B12 is adding $120MM per year in TV revenues (proportional revenue clause at $20MM per school X 6 schools). That is money that, even though it would be going to the new members, would not reduce the shares of the current members. It is, in effect, money that the B12 is leaving on the table if it doesn't expand. Next, would SDSU be willing to forego the CFP money from the B12, if it were getting $20MM per year from the TV deal, until the current GOR and TV deal expires in 2024-25? Wouldn't any of the other non-P5 candidates be willing to do the same? If so, then:
The B12 bowl pool and NCAA basketball tourney pool would be enhanced with the new additions, meaning even if that money was split evenly, it would result in higher earnings for the current members. Then:
The addition of revenue created by a CCG would be enough to offset revenues that would otherwise be lost in buying Texas out of its LHN, to allow creation of a B12 Network. That network could then be maximized by a HUGE footprint expansion to pick up subscriber fees in California (SDSU), Utah (BYU), Colorado (CSU), Ohio (Cincinnati), Florida (UCF) and either Tennessee (Memphis) or North Carolina (ECU).
The only question in terms of expansion would be whether those 6 institutions would be willing to draw $25-28MM per year for the next 9 years. If so, then such an expansion is favorable over a delayed raid of another conference, like the ACC for several reasons:
1. The conference gains new revenue streams NOW without reducing member payouts. Even if you added FSU and Clemson today, you would be reducing current member payouts, since those schools would not forego revenues that they are currently receiving from the CFP. 2. You allow the new members a 9-year period of high revenues with which to build their programs and facilities. 3. You take advantage of the current Cable TV model as it exists today, since that landscape will likely be much different in 9 years when the current deals expire. 4. You eliminate the stigma that exists with not having a CCG in football, without having the disadvantages of pairing a CCG with a round-robin format. 5. If you wait 9 years, you have effectively left more than $1 Billion in B12 revenues blowing away on the winds. (And you flush $120MM for every year that you wait.) 6. You satisfy OU's complaints (and most of the other current members) over the LHN, and provide UT with "make whole" compensation for changing to a conference-wide network, thereby providing additional stability among the membership.
And still we remain invisible, even in dreamland. Perhaps we should chant for an 8-team expansion. Would we then get "Honorable" mention?
|
|
|
Post by alamobruin on Jul 17, 2015 11:28:10 GMT -8
Holy criminy! The guy just gave you the blueprint for B12 membership, one that is ideal for the league, and all you can think about is that he didn't mention SDSU in the article! That's sad. He also didn't mention Colorado State, South Florida, UConn, Fresno State, or Whack-a-Doodle U. So freaking what!
Don't miss the horns by staring at the balls. This is an opening for your AD. If he gets together with five of those other ADs and they put a proposal in place that shows the B12 how they make money with the plan, and the B12 folks are still lukewarm, releases the proposal to the PUBLIC, there is almost nowhere for the B12 to go. How can they say that they turned down a proposal that made their members more money, and threw away a billion dollars for six other schools at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jul 17, 2015 11:52:29 GMT -8
Articles like that which say how other G5 schools are building stadiums, paying more for new head coaches and the like while we do nothing of the sort are depressing as hell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 11:53:36 GMT -8
Holy criminy! The guy just gave you the blueprint for B12 membership, one that is ideal for the league, and all you can think about is that he didn't mention SDSU in the article! That's sad. He also didn't mention Colorado State, South Florida, UConn, Fresno State, or Whack-a-Doodle U. So freaking what! Don't miss the horns by staring at the balls. This is an opening for your AD. If he gets together with five of those other ADs and they put a proposal in place that shows the B12 how they make money with the plan, and the B12 folks are still lukewarm, releases the proposal to the PUBLIC, there is almost nowhere for the B12 to go. How can they say that they turned down a proposal that made their members more money, and threw away a billion dollars for six other schools at the same time? Yeah, he's basically a troll...
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 17, 2015 11:56:28 GMT -8
Holy criminy! The guy just gave you the blueprint for B12 membership, one that is ideal for the league, and all you can think about is that he didn't mention SDSU in the article! That's sad. He also didn't mention Colorado State, South Florida, UConn, Fresno State, or Whack-a-Doodle U. So freaking what! Don't miss the horns by staring at the balls. This is an opening for your AD. If he gets together with five of those other ADs and they put a proposal in place that shows the B12 how they make money with the plan, and the B12 folks are still lukewarm, releases the proposal to the PUBLIC, there is almost nowhere for the B12 to go. How can they say that they turned down a proposal that made their members more money, and threw away a billion dollars for six other schools at the same time? I want SDSU mentioned in any article that would include any teams being added to the B12, or ANY P5 conference. And even with the recent improvement in the football program, we have a ways to go to elbow our way to the top of the left-out 5 conferences. And the article I referred to did mention Colorado State.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 12:02:37 GMT -8
We all know how this works, its all about the now. We go out and win 10 or more this year and I bet we're in the conversation, we don't and we won't...pretty simple.
|
|
|
Post by alamobruin on Jul 17, 2015 12:06:35 GMT -8
Holy criminy! The guy just gave you the blueprint for B12 membership, one that is ideal for the league, and all you can think about is that he didn't mention SDSU in the article! That's sad. He also didn't mention Colorado State, South Florida, UConn, Fresno State, or Whack-a-Doodle U. So freaking what! Don't miss the horns by staring at the balls. This is an opening for your AD. If he gets together with five of those other ADs and they put a proposal in place that shows the B12 how they make money with the plan, and the B12 folks are still lukewarm, releases the proposal to the PUBLIC, there is almost nowhere for the B12 to go. How can they say that they turned down a proposal that made their members more money, and threw away a billion dollars for six other schools at the same time? I want SDSU mentioned in any article that would include any teams being added to the B12, or ANY P5 conference. And even with the recent improvement in the football program, we have a ways to go to elbow our way to the top of the left-out 5 conferences. The guy wasn't even making any suggestion about who should be invited, he was simply parroting names that are out there. And this is not some random blogger, this is a guy associated with WVU media, a B12 member. He has a built-in agenda given WVU's position, yet he wasn't touting anyone in specific. Some of you guys are eat up with the "woe is me" infection. The inferiority complex is deafening.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jul 17, 2015 12:49:16 GMT -8
Some of you guys are eat up with the "woe is me" infection. The inferiority complex is deafening. Yes, and it is massively infuriating to the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jul 17, 2015 12:57:08 GMT -8
I want SDSU mentioned in any article that would include any teams being added to the B12, or ANY P5 conference. And even with the recent improvement in the football program, we have a ways to go to elbow our way to the top of the left-out 5 conferences. The guy wasn't even making any suggestion about who should be invited, he was simply parroting names that are out there. And this is not some random blogger, this is a guy associated with WVU media, a B12 member. He has a built-in agenda given WVU's position, yet he wasn't touting anyone in specific. Some of you guys are eat up with the "woe is me" infection. The inferiority complex is deafening. Obviously, I appreciate you being here (see my signature line). However, trust me when I say there are valid reasons for pessimism. Although I'm no longer in the loop, I used to get a lot of inside info from various sources and the stoopidity of SDSU's athletics department once knew no bounds. Granted, things have improved but I just don't sense that there's an acknowledgement of the urgency of the situation like there is at places like Houston and Colorado State. BTW, check your personal messages in 15 minutes or so and I'll share some background.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jul 17, 2015 13:46:55 GMT -8
The guy wasn't even making any suggestion about who should be invited, he was simply parroting names that are out there. And this is not some random blogger, this is a guy associated with WVU media, a B12 member. He has a built-in agenda given WVU's position, yet he wasn't touting anyone in specific. Some of you guys are eat up with the "woe is me" infection. The inferiority complex is deafening. Obviously, I appreciate you being here (see my signature line). However, trust me when I say there are valid reasons for pessimism. Although I'm no longer in the loop, I used to get a lot of inside info from various sources and the stoopidity of SDSU's athletics department once knew no bounds. Granted, things have improved but I just don't sense that there's an acknowledgement of the urgency of the situation like there is at places like Houston and Colorado State. BTW, check your personal messages in 15 minutes or so and I'll share some background. What "urgency" is there? We've had discussions with B12; we continue discussions and I'm sure we will continue to do so. We have an AD who's known the B12 commish for years and just spent time with him last month. We have a major fundraising push going on with Coryell Legacy, and we'll be opening the JAM center and expanding Fowler. Don't confuse what the press thinks with reality. The B12 isn't going to partner with someone because they yell the loudest and/or happens to get mentioned in a WV paper or on ESPN. Our administration is well aware of what needs to be done to help make us a viable candidate.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jul 17, 2015 14:18:19 GMT -8
The guy wasn't even making any suggestion about who should be invited, he was simply parroting names that are out there. And this is not some random blogger, this is a guy associated with WVU media, a B12 member. He has a built-in agenda given WVU's position, yet he wasn't touting anyone in specific. Some of you guys are eat up with the "woe is me" infection. The inferiority complex is deafening. Obviously, I appreciate you being here (see my signature line). However, trust me when I say there are valid reasons for pessimism. Although I'm no longer in the loop, I used to get a lot of inside info from various sources and the stoopidity of SDSU's athletics department once knew no bounds. Granted, things have improved but I just don't sense that there's an acknowledgement of the urgency of the situation like there is at places like Houston and Colorado State. BTW, check your personal messages in 15 minutes or so and I'll share some background. This is a good summary of where SDSU is. This is why the Chargers need to get off the Q site ASAP; and the fastest way that will happen is when they move to LA in 2016. "Like the rest of San Diego, we’re waiting to see what happens between the mayor and the Chargers,” said state Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, who would push for state funding for SDSU expansion if the site becomes available. “If we keep them (the team) somewhere else in San Diego, downtown or wherever, that’s the best of both worlds.” Early brainstorming imagines moving the college of sciences to the Qualcomm site, along with student and faculty housing, research offices and a smaller, cheaper stadium for Aztec football and perhaps a professional soccer team." www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jul/04/san-diego-may-do-better-without-nfl-chargers/
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 17, 2015 14:18:37 GMT -8
And according to that article, SDSU is not in the race. Did anybody notice this in that article?
Houston went 8-5 last year, won their bowl game, yet fired their coach. We went 7-6 last year, lost our bowl game and the coach probably has another 2 years, minimum.
It'll be interesting to see which school attains Top 25 first.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jul 17, 2015 14:26:44 GMT -8
And according to that article, SDSU is not in the race. The article never states SDSU is not in the race. Not once.
|
|
|
Post by jmarshall on Jul 17, 2015 14:34:37 GMT -8
The guy wasn't even making any suggestion about who should be invited, he was simply parroting names that are out there. And this is not some random blogger, this is a guy associated with WVU media, a B12 member. He has a built-in agenda given WVU's position, yet he wasn't touting anyone in specific. Some of you guys are eat up with the "woe is me" infection. The inferiority complex is deafening. Obviously, I appreciate you being here (see my signature line). However, trust me when I say there are valid reasons for pessimism. Although I'm no longer in the loop, I used to get a lot of inside info from various sources and the stoopidity of SDSU's athletics department once knew no bounds. Granted, things have improved but I just don't sense that there's an acknowledgement of the urgency of the situation like there is at places like Houston and Colorado State. BTW, check your personal messages in 15 minutes or so and I'll share some background. Wait a minute. It's like when you brought some candy to school. You gotta share with everyone! I'd like to know too.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 17, 2015 14:36:05 GMT -8
And according to that article, SDSU is not in the race. The article never states SDSU is not in the race. Not once. Nor does it mention us at all. That is my point--it's time for the Aztecs to step up. Mine is not a "woe is me" attitude, as another poster stated. It is what it is. We are getting better, but we aren't there yet. This is a great time to step up. This is what I want to see. Get our name out there with a 10 win season. At least.
|
|