The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Clark Addison]

I don't say his data are perfect, just that at least he tried. BTW, similar excuses apply to the low turnout for the 2006 Utah-UCLA game. Anyway, 71 and MBN understand me, that's all I need.

No, he didn't try at all. He just tried to find data that would fit his point of view, much like many do on both sides. That doesn't count as trying.

I would love to see some real data on this, but I haven't seen it from either side yet.

[Uncle Ted]

More on Tuberville's comments from OrangeBloods.com...

And everyone gets why Texas Tech should be mad. Tech has outperformed A&M in football (the revenue-producing sport that matters in this equation) for a decade. And then, after having its bags packed for the Pac-16 with visions of a $20 million payday and playing in an elite football conference, it wakes up to find itineraries to Ames, Manhattan and Columbia still in its travel file with a payday less than A&M's.

So there are vocal critics with some skins on the wall who don't think the Big 12 can make it long term. (Tuberville may have only been in the Big 12 for seemingly 10 minutes, but he did have an undefeated season in the MMA of college football - the SEC).

[...]

So if there’s anyone who can quiet the squeaky wheels in the Big 12, it’s the television partners. They saved the day once. Now, it’s a matter of how much those partners (or potentially new partners if the Big 12 is willing to open up its cable package for bid in 2011 to suitors such as ABC/ESPN, Fox Sports Net, Comcast, TNT or others), would be willing to pay to make everyone happy ? and quiet down.

Otherwise, the Big 12’s Squeaky Wheel Hall of Fame may be adding some more members.

I wonder how the Big 12 is going to add more television partners without a conference championship game.

[LA Ute]

No, he didn't try at all. He just tried to find data that would fit his point of view, much like many do on both sides. That doesn't count as trying.

I would love to see some real data on this, but I haven't seen it from either side yet.

I guess that's my point.

[Donuthole]

I don't say his data are perfect, just that at least he tried. BTW, similar excuses apply to the low turnout for the 2006 Utah-UCLA game. Anyway, 71 and MBN understand me, that's all I need.

Utah v. UCLA drew 59k in 2006. BYU v. UCLA drew 73k a year later.

UCLA averaged 64,955 per home game in 2006, and 76,378 in 2007. So Utah was nearly 6k below the average for a home schedule which featured Rice, Stanford, Arizona, Washington State, Oregon State, and USC. BYU was 3k below the average for a home schedule which featured Washington, Notre Dame, No. 12 ranked Cal, No. 9 ranked Oregon, and ASU.

[LA Ute]

UCLA averaged 64,955 per home game in 2006, and 76,378 in 2007. So Utah was nearly 6k below the average for a home schedule which featured Rice, Stanford, Arizona, Washington State, Oregon State, and USC. BYU was 3k below the average for a home schedule which featured Washington, Notre Dame, No. 12 ranked Cal, No. 9 ranked Oregon, and ASU.

Those are well-known data. If you look around on the various boards, they have been sliced and diced to death and there are persuasive arguments that the numbers are both illuminating and useless.

[Hot Lunch]

More on Tuberville's comments from OrangeBloods.com...



I wonder how the Big 12 is going to add more television partners without a conference championship game.

What all this is telling me is that the Big 12 is just as big a mess now as it was before.

[Donuthole]

Those are well-known data. If you look around on the various boards, they have been sliced and diced to death and there are persuasive arguments that the numbers are both illuminating or useless.

Oh, I thought you said you hadn't seen any data which showed that BYU outdraws Utah in attendance at away games. My mistake.

[LA Ute]

Oh, I thought you said you hadn't seen any data which showed that BYU outdraws Utah in attendance at away games. My mistake.

If I said that then I was pretty inarticulate. So maybe it's my mistake.

[ERCougar]

Those are well-known data. If you look around on the various boards, they have been sliced and diced to death and there are persuasive arguments that the numbers are both illuminating and useless.

The reason few are taking you up on this is that:
1) short of exit polling, it would tough to prove anything about why differing numbers of fans show up at games.
2) Multiple national media sources (including several PAC-10 sources) have claimed that BYU is a bigger draw.
and 3) When you're presented with decent data such as DH's, you dismiss it anyway.

It's a little like arguing about vaccines causing autism with my crazy cousin-in-law. Or like banging one's head against a wall.

EDIT: Forgot one. 4) It's a silly pointless argument, even by your own admission. And yet you keep raising it...

[Bengal Cougar]

What all this is telling me is that the Big 12 is just as big a mess now as it was before.

It sound like Tuberville is just whining to me. Yes the big 12 has unequal revenue share, but are schools like TT really going to do anything about it? No they aren't, because they have no other options, they need Texas and Texas does not need them so they will go along with what ever Texas says.

[LA Ute]

The reason few are taking you up on this is that:
1) short of exit polling, it would tough to prove anything about why differing numbers of fans show up at games.
2) Multiple national media sources (including several PAC-10 sources) have claimed that BYU is a bigger draw.
and 3) When you're presented with decent data such as DH's, you dismiss it anyway.

It's a little like arguing about vaccines causing autism with my crazy cousin-in-law. Or like banging one's head against a wall.

EDIT: Forgot one. 4) It's a silly pointless argument, even by your own admission. And yet you keep raising it...

As I said in the other thread: I don't think Utah brings more fannies to the seats. I've said that over and over. I'm just raising a question about statements like this one by Gordon Monson:

BYU, in part by way of the organization that owns it, not only has its reach and can use it, but also wields considerable economic heft by way of its national audience and drawing power. It is a valuable franchise.

I'm just wondering if that's simply a commonly-held belief or is based on some decent data. I really doubt there is an answer. If so, Monson and BYU fans should stop making the claim. That's all!

[creekster]

As I said in the other thread: I don't think Utah brings more fannies to the seats. I've said that over and over. I'm just raising a question about statements like this one by Gordon Monson:



I'm just wondering if that's simply a commonly-held belief or is based on some decent data. I really doubt there is an answer. If so, Monson and BYU fans should stop making the claim. That's all!

WHy do you care if they make the claim? You have admitted that it might be true. You think there may not be good evidecne of this, although there might be. And BYU supporters use this perception as an argument supporting their candidacy for an AQ conference. SO why do you care? Utah got its big payday and has been able to leave its local culture behind, why do you feel it so important to undermine a common perception that even you admit could very well be true?

[ERCougar]

As I said in the other thread: I don't think Utah brings more fannies to the seats. I've said that over and over. I'm just raising a question about statements like this one by Gordon Monson:



I'm just wondering if that's simply a commonly-held belief or is based on some decent data. I really doubt there is an answer. If so, Monson and BYU fans should stop making the claim. That's all!

Why does this claim bug you? It means absolutely nothing, particularly now that the street-walking PAC10 has finally settled on you.

And Monson and BYU fans aren't the only ones to make this claim. Do we really need to bring up the PAC 10 outlet sources bemoaning the fact that they had to settle on Utah and CU instead of BYU? Do we need to summon MBN?

Even if we don't have the exit polls to prove it, it's not crazy to assume that a university tied to a worldwide religion, that is both larger and has more diffusely spread alumni, would have a larger national following, would bring more butts to the seats and more eyes to TV sets, particularly when the very limited data suggests the same thing.

[LA Ute]

Why does this claim bug you? It means absolutely nothing, particularly now that the street-walking PAC10 has finally settled on you.

And Monson and BYU fans aren't the only ones to make this claim. Do we really need to bring up the PAC 10 outlet sources bemoaning the fact that they had to settle on Utah and CU instead of BYU? Do we need to summon MBN?

Even if we don't have the exit polls to prove it, it's not crazy to assume that a university tied to a worldwide religion, that is both larger and has more diffusely spread alumni, would have a larger national following, would bring more butts to the seats and more eyes to TV sets, particularly when the very limited data suggests the same thing.

The TV data suggests the opposite, but ...

[LA Ute]

WHy do you care if they make the claim? You have admitted that it might be true. You think there may not be good evidecne of this, although there might be. And BYU supporters use this perception as an argument supporting their candidacy for an AQ conference. SO why do you care? Utah got its big payday and has been able to leave its local culture behind, why do you feel it so important to undermine a common perception that even you admit could very well be true?

Because I think discussions should be based on reality, to the extent possible. If Ute fans were throwing similar claims around indiscriminately, I think you would be asking the same questions. Wouldn't you?

(If you choose not to answer, that's OK with me. This horse has beaten to a bloody, dead pulp.)