- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Decisions are based on the all mighty dollar...
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:24 am
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:24 am
If any of you SEC blowhards actually believe Texas, Texas A&M, or any other school are basing their decisions on anything other than money then you are obviously not tuned into what makes college football tick.
10
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:26 am to soonerhater
quote:a) No shite.
If any of you SEC blowhards actually believe Texas, Texas A&M, or any other school are basing their decisions on anything other than money then you are obviously not tuned into what makes college football tick.
b) frick Texas.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:27 am to soonerhater
that argument is weakened when Texas threatens to stop playing A&M if they go to a different conference
passing up a major rivalry game that makes everyone money is not about making money
passing up a major rivalry game that makes everyone money is not about making money
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:29 am to soonerhater
And right there is a reason enough for Texas and Texas A&M to come to the SEC. Except one school wanted to be pussies and travel the easy road out to the west.
This post was edited on 6/12/10 at 7:33 am
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:31 am to soonerhater
well there's a news flash. Thanks for that
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:32 am to soonerhater
can someone explain to me how Texas makes more money in the Pac than the SEC?
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:34 am to StormTiger
not sure what step 2 is, but step 1 is steal underpants from what i've heard
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:36 am to soonerhater
quote:
If any of you SEC blowhards actually believe Texas, Texas A&M, or any other school are basing their decisions on anything other than money then you are obviously not tuned into what makes college football tick.
Each SEC team makes almost double that of the Pac-10 schools from TV contracts.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:37 am to soonerhater
quote:
SEC blowhards
Your revelation is amazing and something no one has brought up before. kthxby
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:38 am to StormTiger
quote:
can someone explain to me how Texas makes more money in the Pac than the SEC?
Maybe Texas gets 25% of the pie vice splitting it evenly?
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:41 am to soonerhater
quote:
If any of you SEC blowhards actually believe Texas, Texas A&M, or any other school are basing their decisions on anything other than money then you are obviously not tuned into what makes college football tick.
I'd normally believe that, but in this case it's not even close. UT would make more money in the SEC. Period.
The SEC is paying $17 million per team, and rather than a conference network each team handles their own. Florida, for example, pulled in $10 million. I would expect UT could match or better that. With the 4 Big-12 teams coming to the SEC, Slive expects to pay a minimum of $20 million per team. That's a $30 million dollar haul for UT.
Now for the PAC-?... Let's assume that the new team allow the PAC to double their pay out per team. That would be $19.4 million. And if you accept the very dubious claim that a PAC network will bring in the same revenue as the Big-10 network, that's $72 million divided by 16 teams (another $4.5 million per team) For a grand total of $23.9 million per year.
So, UT will make more than 25% more money in the SEC, and pay less in travel costs. The only way UT can make more in the PAC is by a severely uneven distribution of wealth, which in turn will make the conference ripe to be the next conference ripped apart.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:44 am to DocBugbear
soonerhater - owned.
quote:
I'd normally believe that, but in this case it's not even close. UT would make more money in the SEC. Period.
The SEC is paying $17 million per team, and rather than a conference network each team handles their own. Florida, for example, pulled in $10 million. I would expect UT could match or better that. With the 4 Big-12 teams coming to the SEC, Slive expects to pay a minimum of $20 million per team. That's a $30 million dollar haul for UT.
Now for the PAC-?... Let's assume that the new team allow the PAC to double their pay out per team. That would be $19.4 million. And if you accept the very dubious claim that a PAC network will bring in the same revenue as the Big-10 network, that's $72 million divided by 16 teams (another $4.5 million per team) For a grand total of $23.9 million per year.
So, UT will make more than 25% more money in the SEC, and pay less in travel costs. The only way UT can make more in the PAC is by a severely uneven distribution of wealth, which in turn will make the conference ripe to be the next conference ripped apart.
This post was edited on 6/12/10 at 7:45 am
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:47 am to StormTiger
quote:It will be the only BCS conference that exists entirely west of the Mississippi, and assuming the Big 12 dissolves, you could have a situation where the only BCS schools west of the Mississippi who aren't in this conference are Nebraska, Iowa, and Arkansas (and probably Missouri and Kansas).
can someone explain to me how Texas makes more money in the Pac than the SEC?
That's a huge monopoly, and that's going to end up being a shite-ton of money. More than they'd get in the SEC? We'll know soon enough.
This post was edited on 6/12/10 at 7:48 am
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:49 am to soonerhater
With USC down, Texas and Oklahoma will roll over the Pac-10. Everyone knows this. Texas and Oklahoma athletics knows this.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:58 am to coldhotwings
quote:
With USC down, Texas and Oklahoma will roll over the Pac-10. Everyone knows this. Texas and Oklahoma athletics knows this.
Which is why their TV contract won't reach their expectations. You have to have a product as well as a market. TV networks are really only paying for the big games. They can put something else on and match the ratings of the weak games. And the PAC-16 is setting it up so they really aren't making many new big games. I'm guessing the payout will only go up by 50% or so, if that.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 8:00 am to DocBugbear
with USC down, Californians will not give two shits about college football...especially watching a Texas / Texas Tech football game...even if they are in the Pac whatever.
Its a bad decision for UT, I can only hope that aTm benifits and those presumtive bastards get shat on.
Its a bad decision for UT, I can only hope that aTm benifits and those presumtive bastards get shat on.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 8:03 am to DocBugbear
Texas cares less about money (which they would make plenty of, whether they're in the Big 12, Big 10, SEC, Mountain West, Independent, etc.) than control.
In the PAC-16, everyone will do what they tell them.
In the SEC, they'd be just another big-time program.
If it means giving up a few mil a year early on, they don't care, they just want to be in charge.
In the PAC-16, everyone will do what they tell them.
In the SEC, they'd be just another big-time program.
If it means giving up a few mil a year early on, they don't care, they just want to be in charge.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 8:11 am to deuce5000
No. I'm thinking most of it has to do with the TV contracts. The Pac 10 is about to sign a new one from what I understand, and Texas can manipulate the Pac 10 for more money than the SEC could give them.
I think this is bullshite, and we should go to the SEC, because the games against LSU, UF, etc. would be money. Of course, I only care about the football side of things. And we already have a rival in Arkansas in the SEC, and as the SEC is, we could soon make plenty of new enemies with Florida (Whom I already dislike), Bama, and LSU(especially since they're the closest). I'm not sure what kind of magnitude these would get to, I doubt like UT vs OU for example, but it would still be fun for the challenge every year.
I think this is bullshite, and we should go to the SEC, because the games against LSU, UF, etc. would be money. Of course, I only care about the football side of things. And we already have a rival in Arkansas in the SEC, and as the SEC is, we could soon make plenty of new enemies with Florida (Whom I already dislike), Bama, and LSU(especially since they're the closest). I'm not sure what kind of magnitude these would get to, I doubt like UT vs OU for example, but it would still be fun for the challenge every year.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 8:11 am to deuce5000
lets be honest with the geography the pac16 will be much closer to 2 8 team conference then it will be 1 16 team conference.
i believe the pac23207 is simply trying to position for 2 auto BCS bids. even without getting 2 auto bids with the 8 team mini conference setup they will essentially have 2 every year.
i believe the pac23207 is simply trying to position for 2 auto BCS bids. even without getting 2 auto bids with the 8 team mini conference setup they will essentially have 2 every year.
This post was edited on 6/12/10 at 8:14 am
Posted on 6/12/10 at 8:11 am to soonerhater
quote:
If any of you SEC blowhards actually believe Texas, Texas A&M, or any other school are basing their decisions on anything other than money then you are obviously not tuned into what makes college football tick.
D-d--ddd-d-d-d-douche, take a look at hornfans.com. You'll see all sorts of douchy comments about academics, fit, etc.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News