|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 19, 2010 9:37:42 GMT -8
Houston SMU Fresno Utep Tulsa UNR Hawaii theres 7 That's as good as any guess. No school over 100 in TV market ranking should be acquired. Only special circumstances got Boise an invite. Those circumstances were the winningest D-1 football program over the last 10 years and two BCS wins. No other small market team even comes close. Hawaii due to travel and other reasons would be a bad selection. UNR with a market ranking of 108 shouldn't be considered. Houston 10, Fresno 55 and Tulsa 61 bring the best TV rankings available and have good football programs. If June Jones could re-create the type of teams he had at Hawaii at SMU, they would have to be considered. And maybe UTEP, too. But of those 7, UNR and Hawaii are definitely out. Here is the thing. Boise arguably controls the state of Idaho's tv market which is as follows: Boise 262,800 ID Falls 126,880 Twin Falls 64,700 Idaho Market - 454,300 Not Bad, but I agree that we need eyeballs and quality. In that order. So Of the remaining teams how do they stack up? Houston - #10 DMA with 2.1M but do they control the market? Product is Good? SMU - #5 DMA with 2.5M but do they control the market? I mean TCU cannot convince the local Cable providers to carry the mtn, what chance does SMU? Product is Average? (A lot of money as well). UTEP - #98 DMA with 310K and they do have a very loyal fan base. The product has been bad in recent years. Tulsa - #61 DMA with 518K but they clearly do not control that market. The Product has been average at best lately. Rice - #10M DMA with 2.1M but they do not control their market. The product has been poor as well. Nevada - #108 DMA with 270K and they do control their market. The product has been less than average. Fresno - #55 DMA with 579K and they control their market. The Product has been good. Hawaii - #71 DMA with 433K and they control their market. The product has been up and down. Which three or one would you pick? |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 19, 2010 9:58:58 GMT -8
 Food for thought. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 12:10:36 GMT -8
Houston doesn't own the Houston market, just because you're in a big market doesn't mean a thing. This was the mistake the WAC 16 made. So the question really becomes does Houston own enough of it's market to have no negative impact, monetarily on the other teams, or a net positive impact, and whether or not they help the MWC attain BCS status. And this is all assuming Houston is even interested in the MWC. Houston is definitely interested in the MWC. As to the MWC's interest in Houston, the city has approximately 2M people. Even if only a third of them pay any attention to Cougars sports, that three-quarters of a million people. The University of Wyoming completely owns its entire state. However, since there are barely half a million people in Wyoming, Houston is potentially more valuable to the MWC just on that basis than Wyoming is. Further, Houston's football program is much better than Wyoming's and although moribund right now, UH has occasionally had top 10 basketball teams. (Of course, Wyoming won the college national championship in BB . . . in I think it was 1942.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 12:15:22 GMT -8
Perusing the Houston Scouts board I get the feeling the boat has sailed concerning the MWC. Recent commentary has 26 local Texas legislators petitioning the Big12-2 on behalf of Houston. Others think the Big East will expand to include Houston. Another line of thought sez the MWC will all but disappear the next expansion go-around with BYU, TCU among others being accepted elsewhere. One gets the general impression that the MWC might have been on the table at one time but not now so much. If the MWC can gain BCS status then yes they're willing but there seems to be a lot of doubt that BCS status will ever happen. All true. So is this: SDSU is the California version of Houston in pretty much every way except the quality of its football program. So we're on the clock and although Aztecs football won't die, it also won't thrive unless some major improvement is made before the $#!+ hits the fan with regard to the real falling of the dominoes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 12:31:44 GMT -8
Here is the thing. Boise arguably controls the state of Idaho's tv market which is as follows: Boise 262,800 ID Falls 126,880 Twin Falls 64,700 Idaho Market - 454,300 Not Bad, but I agree that we need eyeballs and quality. In that order. So Of the remaining teams how do they stack up? Houston - #10 DMA with 2.1M but do they control the market? Product is Good? SMU - #5 DMA with 2.5M but do they control the market? I mean TCU cannot convince the local Cable providers to carry the mtn, what chance does SMU? Product is Average? (A lot of money as well). UTEP - #98 DMA with 310K and they do have a very loyal fan base. The product has been bad in recent years. Tulsa - #61 DMA with 518K but they clearly do not control that market. The Product has been average at best lately. Rice - #10M DMA with 2.1M but they do not control their market. The product has been poor as well. Nevada - #108 DMA with 270K and they do control their market. The product has been less than average. Fresno - #55 DMA with 579K and they control their market. The Product has been good. Hawaii - #71 DMA with 433K and they control their market. The product has been up and down. Which three or one would you pick? To answer your question: UTEP: Having researched it a bit, I'll tell you they bring nothing. Yeah average attendance is good for such a lousy product (almost 30K per game in 2009). However, that's deceptive since in recognition of the lack of any affluence in El-Armpit, ticket prices are among the lowest in the country. Plus, can't even bring the Sun Bowl. Tulsa: Also of next to no value. Even during an 11-win season in 2008, Tulsa averaged 24.5K per game since it has one of the smallest student populations of the 120 DIA schools. (Attendance dropped to just 22.5K per last year.) Rice: It IS #120 of 120 in student population. 2009 attendance: Are you ready? 13,552 per game. Bottom Line: All of the above are completely useless to the MWC. Hawaii: Polynesians love football so attendance was again good in even in a losing season in 2009: 36,725. Problems are travel costs and the fact they always want to play at night despite being three hours behind PST so nobody in the world watches their games. Because it's a great place to visit and there are a lot of good football players to recruit, if UH would agree to move kickoffs up to mid-afternoon locally, they are a possibility. Nevada: A football fraud (7-1 in the WAC in 2009, 1-4 OOC). Facilities suck, as does attendance (17.5K per game) and population (only ~350K people in Washoe County) so they would bring only two things: geography and a good BB program. SMU: Also a small school but one with some mega-rich alumni who love football, plus they have June Jones. Fresno State and Houston: Already discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. To conclude, any of the bottom five could be possibilities WHEN THE TIME COMES. None of the top three should ever be bothered with. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jun 19, 2010 12:36:00 GMT -8
Houston doesn't own the Houston market, just because you're in a big market doesn't mean a thing. This was the mistake the WAC 16 made. So the question really becomes does Houston own enough of it's market to have no negative impact, monetarily on the other teams, or a net positive impact, and whether or not they help the MWC attain BCS status. And this is all assuming Houston is even interested in the MWC. Houston is definitely interested in the MWC. As to the MWC's interest in Houston, the city has approximately 2M people. Even if only a third of them pay any attention to Cougars sports, that three-quarters of a million people. The University of Wyoming completely owns its entire state. However, since there are barely half a million people in Wyoming, Houston is potentially more valuable to the MWC just on that basis than Wyoming is. Further, Houston's football program is much better than Wyoming's and although moribund right now, UH has occasionally had top 10 basketball teams. (Of course, Wyoming won the college national championship in BB . . . in I think it was 1942.) Wyoming shouldn't be the bar we should be comparing potential expansion options to. The bottom line becomes does Houston add value to the MWC (along with additional revenue to the rest of the teams), if so, how much? Boise while in a smallish market they bring national appeal. That imo is where their value is at, along with being great in football. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jun 19, 2010 12:40:15 GMT -8
I like Hawaii, good potential for recruiting, they own their market and are a quality team, the problem is the travel costs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 12:43:34 GMT -8
Wyoming shouldn't be the bar we should be comparing potential expansion options to. The bottom line becomes does Houston add value to the MWC (along with additional revenue to the rest of the teams), if so, how much? You missed my point. That is that if the "bar" is what Bill King of Rivals Radio says it should be, i.e. whether an additional school would be helping pull the conference cart or riding in it in the future, any school with less potential than Wyoming has in that regard shouldn't be considered for membership. For many months, some Wyoming fans on the MWC board have referred to SDSU as Team Potential since we haven't been bringing any more revenue in than they have but we Aztecs have been saying we're capable of bringing in a lot whereas they aren't. My guess is you fully agree with that premise. Schools like Rice, Tulsa and UTEP would just be three more Wyomings regardless of how good their teams might be. Not so with Houston because of the size of the school and its location. (Thus, Houston is also Team Potential.) |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 19, 2010 13:07:57 GMT -8
Here is the thing. Boise arguably controls the state of Idaho's tv market which is as follows: Boise 262,800 ID Falls 126,880 Twin Falls 64,700 Idaho Market - 454,300 Not Bad, but I agree that we need eyeballs and quality. In that order. So Of the remaining teams how do they stack up? Houston - #10 DMA with 2.1M but do they control the market? Product is Good? SMU - #5 DMA with 2.5M but do they control the market? I mean TCU cannot convince the local Cable providers to carry the mtn, what chance does SMU? Product is Average? (A lot of money as well). UTEP - #98 DMA with 310K and they do have a very loyal fan base. The product has been bad in recent years. Tulsa - #61 DMA with 518K but they clearly do not control that market. The Product has been average at best lately. Rice - #10M DMA with 2.1M but they do not control their market. The product has been poor as well. Nevada - #108 DMA with 270K and they do control their market. The product has been less than average. Fresno - #55 DMA with 579K and they control their market. The Product has been good. Hawaii - #71 DMA with 433K and they control their market. The product has been up and down. Which three or one would you pick? To answer your question: UTEP: Having researched it a bit, I'll tell you they bring nothing. Yeah average attendance is good for such a lousy product (almost 30K per game in 2009). However, that's deceptive since in recognition of the lack of any affluence in El-Armpit, ticket prices are among the lowest in the country. Plus, can't even bring the Sun Bowl. Tulsa: Also of next to no value. Even during an 11-win season in 2008, Tulsa averaged 24.5K per game since it has one of the smallest student populations of the 120 DIA schools. (Attendance dropped to just 22.5K per last year.) Rice: It IS #120 of 120 in student population. 2009 attendance: Are you ready? 13,552 per game. Bottom Line: All of the above are completely useless to the MWC. Hawaii: Polynesians love football so attendance was again good in even in a losing season in 2009: 36,725. Problems are travel costs and the fact they always want to play at night despite being three hours behind PST so nobody in the world watches their games. Because it's a great place to visit and there are a lot of good football players to recruit, if UH would agree to move kickoffs up to mid-afternoon locally, they are a possibility. Nevada: A football fraud (7-1 in the WAC in 2009, 1-4 OOC). Facilities suck, as does attendance (17.5K per game) and population (only ~350K people in Washoe County) so they would bring only two things: geography and a good BB program. SMU: Also a small school but one with some mega-rich alumni who love football, plus they have June Jones. Fresno State and Houston: Already discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. To conclude, any of the bottom five could be possibilities WHEN THE TIME COMES. None of the top three should ever be bothered with. My First Choice is Fresno. My Second Choice is Houston. My Third Choice is a tie between Nevada and SMU. If Nevada launched a capital program even to half the degree that Houston just launched, they would be in over SMU. Nevada owns their market and it is growing. SMU has and always will have money, so they can help slice into the DFW market. So it will be interesting to see what SMU and Nevada do in the next 2-4 years. Winner gets the invite. JMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 14:29:00 GMT -8
FM, keep in mind that Nevada football has been good only when this guy has coached it: www.nevadawolfpack.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=56207&SPID=4082&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=10000&ATCLID=530575&Q_SEASON=2010He obtained his bachelor's degree in 1968 so he's gotta be in his mid sixties at least, so how long can he keep going and where will they be when he can't? Also, I've never been inside their stadium but I've seen it from the outside and it looks like a large community college facility. There also isn't much in the way of HS talent in northern Nevada from which the MWC would gain recruiting possibilities. So maybe June Jones won't kick butt at SMU to the degree I suspect, but if he does, I think SMU will ultimately be a better choice than Nevada. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 19, 2010 17:22:57 GMT -8
The Big 12 teams control the Houston market. I see no reason to invite them. =Bob I'm not arguing with that. What I do say is that if the MWC is absolutely dead set on inviting a 10th school, which school would be better than Houston? Houston is a pretty big city, after all. If we want a school from Houston (which we may indeed not really want), we sure aren't going to invite Rice or Texas Southern. Frankly, now that the Big-12 is not about to disisntegrate, I can't really see any school that would excite me as a 10th member of the MWC. If we could get a Missouri or a Kansas, that would be good. Since they do not seem to be available, why wouldn't Houston be a strong choice, or at least stronger than many other schools mentioned in this thread? Would you rather have Idaho or New Mexico State? How about the generally disliked Fresno State? Houston would appear to me to be a better bet than the Bulldogs. I've never made any bones about preferring Fresno because they are an historic rival of ours and they are a CSU school and would therefore give us an ally when the billy goats vote on something that favors them over us. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Jun 19, 2010 18:03:57 GMT -8
Houston,Fresno and Hawaii.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickdoerr on Jun 19, 2010 19:19:09 GMT -8
Perusing the Houston Scouts board I get the feeling the boat has sailed concerning the MWC. Recent commentary has 26 local Texas legislators petitioning the Big12-2 on behalf of Houston. Others think the Big East will expand to include Houston. Another line of thought sez the MWC will all but disappear the next expansion go-around with BYU, TCU among others being accepted elsewhere. One gets the general impression that the MWC might have been on the table at one time but not now so much. If the MWC can gain BCS status then yes they're willing but there seems to be a lot of doubt that BCS status will ever happen. All true. So is this: SDSU is the California version of Houston in pretty much every way except the quality of its football program. So we're on the clock and although Aztecs football won't die, it also won't thrive unless some major improvement is made before the $#!+ hits the fan with regard to the real falling of the dominoes. Agree that SDSU has to step big time. All I'm saying is based on what I've read on their board Houston, currently anyway, has little or no interest in the MWC. As to the dominos falling, I'm still not convinced the Big 12-2 holds together more than three-four years, although I hope they hang together long enough for the MWC to qualify. Not sure the BE will be around after four years. you're right about the major improvement. The clock is ticking. We need to pick up the pace big time. |
|
