What Should Texas Do?

[Kingdome]

Then why don't you quit making them.....

Texas made money in 2 sports: Football & Basketball....Baseball broke even....did not make the school a dime.

...if you do not include donations! That is what those sports do! They bring in money not from tickets sales or concessions, but from donations from fans, alums, & the local business community. When those teams succeed, they usually generate more donations to the program and the university.

If you do not understand this obvious point, read the article I link above about Ohio State and donations to their Ath. Dept.

Did you go to a school with a major Ath. Dept? How familiar are you really with the operations at Ohio State?

Outside of that, the schools do not matter when your talking making this decision. That is the point, you think all of this matter....if doesn't.

It all matters to a university, especially if you have millions of dollars invested in certain programs. I don't think you understand the value of these programs to the respective university. You laugh at rowing; it is huge at Washington. $$$$ huge. Baseball, swimming, & a bunch of the other sports you laugh at are huge at Texas. $$$$ huge. Hurting those programs will piss off valuable donors & alums.

 

[Kingdome]

They actually play in quite a bit.

Really?

I'll ask again: how many times has the lower half of the SEC played in a BCS bowl game (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, or BCS game)?

Our historically weakest program clown stomped Notre Dame in a Fiesta Bowl. Our 2nd historically weakest program (which is now the weakest) has played in two Rose Bowls plus strung together 3 top 10 seasons. What has Kentucky ever done? Vandy?

See what I am getting at? You have some terrible programs at the bottom. Done nothings. You don't have that in the Pac-10. Your weak are weaker than our weak which is why our conference is the considered the best top to bottom*.

* - being the best conference top to bottom doesn't always equal best conference.

 

[Miller]

lol, I'm not stuck on it...why do you care what I think? You seem to take offense that I recognize LSU at the NC that year....why, not sure....IMO, if I am going to recognize USC as a NC that year, you have to recognize Auburn the very next year as well. I do not, they were screwed, that is life, the Nat Champ IMO is the BCS winner...that is just me, you can recognize what you want....you are the one making it petty....but I'm getting used to it, if someone doesn't bend down and bow to what you say, you get bent out of shape. I have suggested we just need to agree to disagree on two different posts...now three...

Yet all you can do it go back to titles in sports I could give two shits less about. I bring up top 10 finishes by each conference and you make excuses for it....I bring up BCS at large bids and you claim you were snubbed....you try to say Big 10 country has a talent disadvantage yet I show we have more all pro's then the Pac-10.....it's like you feel there is a giant conspiracy to keep the Pac-10 down....every negative there is, really is not a negative after your excuse...just comes off as :blah:

Anyways, enjoy the argument, more productive thing to do then continue to go in circles here.

Not that year. #1 USC never played LSU. The system does not always work. People acknowledge two championships that year. Why are you stuck on something so small & so petty? Oh yeah, this is why:


Natl. Championships since 1990:

Football: Pac-10 3, Big Ten 2
Basketball: Pac-10 2, Big Ten 1
W. Basketball: Pac-10 2, Big Ten 1
Baseball: Pac-10 3, Big Ten 0
Softball: Pac-10 17, Big Ten 1
Volleyball: Pac-10 11, Big Ten 4

 

[Kingdome]

I guarantee there lesser programs have just as many if not more NFL players than the Pac-10.

# of players who played in NFL in 2009::

Oregon State - 22
Arizona - 16
Washington State - 14
Stanford - 13
Vanderbilt - 10
Kentucky - 7

Wow, KY & Vandy's #s are up. Good for them.

 

[Kingdome]

lol, I'm not stuck on it...why do you care what I think? You seem to take offense that I recognize LSU at the NC that year....why, not sure...

The only people I have ever heard that LSU was champion by themselves was from LSU fans. That's why I doubt your sincerity. An overwhelming number of people thought USC was the better team that year. Do you honestly believe LSU was the better team?

.IMO, if I am going to recognize USC as a NC that year, you have to recognize Auburn the very next year as well.

You think Auburn would win head to head vs. USC? You do realize that USC & Auburn played the two years leading up to that and USC won both by a total of 47-17. USC was the best team in the country in 2003 & 2004.

I do not, they were screwed, that is life, the Nat Champ IMO is the BCS winner...that is just me, you can recognize what you want....you are the one making it petty....

I can't wait for the next time Ohio State is screwed. The Ohio State fans I know recognize USC's title and are still bitter about 1998.

Yet all you can do it go back to titles in sports I could give two shits less about.

Football Championships since 1990:

Pac-10 3, Big Ten 2

Basketball Championships since 1990:

Pac-10 2, Big Ten 1

I care about football. What do you care about, fencing?

I bring up top 10 finishes by each conference and you make excuses for it....I bring up BCS at large bids and you claim you were snubbed....

I backed up my claims with facts. Fact: Pac-10 plays the toughest schedule in the country by a significant margin. Fact: Pac-10 plays more conference games. Fact: Pac-10 teams have been snubbed my teams with weaker resumes.

you try to say Big 10 country has a talent disadvantage yet I show we have more all pro's then the Pac-10.

Apples, oranges anyone? Big Ten does have a natural talent disadvatage. Do you dispute this?

Again: 15 BCS teams within 300 miles of MWHS. 10 BCS teams west of the Rockies. See the advantage? We have a natural surplus of talent, you don't.

....it's like you feel there is a giant conspiracy to keep the Pac-10 down....every negative there is, really is not a negative after your excuse...just comes off as :blah:

There are negatives, but you haven't brought hardly any of them up yet. I am shooting down a lot of your silly theories & fantasies. You are attacking the Pac-10's advantages over the Big Ten instead of highlighting our weaknesses (comparative to the B10), other than our media contract.

 

[maverick824]

...if you do not include donations! That is what those sports do! They bring in money not from tickets sales or concessions, but from donations from fans, alums, & the local business community. When those teams succeed, they usually generate more donations to the program and the university.

If you do not understand this obvious point, read the article I link above about Ohio State and donations to their Ath. Dept.

Did you go to a school with a major Ath. Dept? How familiar are you really with the operations at Ohio State?



It all matters to a university, especially if you have millions of dollars invested in certain programs. I don't think you understand the value of these programs to the respective university. You laugh at rowing; it is huge at Washington. $$$$ huge. Baseball, swimming, & a bunch of the other sports you laugh at are huge at Texas. $$$$ huge. Hurting those programs will piss off valuable donors & alums.

just curious.......do you think the "donors" that you're referring to donated 50 million between all the non-funded sports at Texas? seems like their football team did LOL.......still waiting to see if you want to tell the AD and University president that they're wrong LMAO

 

[Kingdome]

just curious.......do you think the "donors" that you're referring to donated 50 million between all the non-funded sports at Texas? seems like their football team did LOL....

You think most of that $50,000,000 goes to non-revenue sports? Read the Ohio State link I provided. They needed private donor $ to pay for football upgrades.

 

[bodey24]

Really?

I'll ask again: how many times has the lower half of the SEC played in a BCS bowl game (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, or BCS game)?

Our historically weakest program clown stomped Notre Dame in a Fiesta Bowl. Our 2nd historically weakest program (which is now the weakest) has played in two Rose Bowls plus strung together 3 top 10 seasons. What has Kentucky ever done? Vandy?

See what I am getting at? You have some terrible programs at the bottom. Done nothings. You don't have that in the Pac-10. Your weak are weaker than our weak which is why our conference is the considered the best top to bottom*.

* - being the best conference top to bottom doesn't always equal best conference.

Just because our bottom teams rarely change from year to year doesn't mean that the Pac-10 is deeper. We are going season by season top to bottom. Which means take the bottom two teams in the Pac-10 and line them up against the bottom two teams in the SEC. It doesn't matter that the Pac-10s bottom team was good 20 years before cuz that doesn't help them now. The top of the SEC is so much tougher than the top of the Pac-10. The middle and bottom of both conferences most seasons are going to be about equal. This and the number of NFL players from UK and Vandy are your only two arguments to why the Pac-10 is deeper. You ignore the facts that the SEC has more wins against the Pac-10 and that the SEC has more bowl wins. You bring up the fact that the Pac-10 won the bowl challenge two years ago. Good for them. 5 of the 10 teams in their conference made it. The SEC had once again 9 of the 12 teams make bowls and they went 7-2. How does such a deep conference only have half the teams make a bowl? Your rebuttals have been pretty week so far so I am hoping that you can finally wake up.

 

[bodey24]

Sometimes it's better to just settle for 2nd place

 

[Bucknut]

I don't like the idea of the Big Ten expanding to an area outside the mid-west.

I'd rather see the Big Ten add Nebraska, WVU, or ND.

 

[maverick824]

You think most of that $50,000,000 goes to non-revenue sports? Read the Ohio State link I provided. They needed private donor $ to pay for football upgrades.

I'm not talking about Ohio State's program, quit trying to steer the argument and answer a question with another question. As provided in the article, some of the money that is generated by the profits of the football program goes toward the university (after all, people do go to school here). The money that does not go toward the university's academic program, goes to support the programs under the athletic wing that are recognized as part of the university's athletic programs! Not a red cent goes to third-tier sports like men's rowing, water polo, kayaking, curling, cricket, the debate team, the chess team, the checkers team, or the university swimsuit modeling team. :trampolin These sports are funded completely by, yep, you guessed it, private donors! These sports don't cost a fortune to run, can use university provided grounds and facilities to run them(ironically enough, facilities that are provided by a combination of alumni donations and football money), and so therefore don't require as much money in order to make the team a part of the university. Before you start in on the "donation" crap again, every university in the country has alumni donations, they're what big schools use as the equivalent of a personal seat license for their football stadiums. Even if you add up all of these programs, their donors donating "to" these programs specifically are not going to even make a dent in the $50+ million a year the Texas football program brings to the table. So, once again, I ask you, tell me how the Texas AD and the university President are wrong???

 

[Kingdome]

The top of the SEC is so much tougher than the top of the Pac-10.

Ask what USC what they think of that. Them Texas, & Florida are on another planet and Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, & Auburn aren't that far back. Washington was that way until our current president took over. Hoepfully the new AD & coach right the ship.

Yes, we are #2. You have 6 super powers. We have between 1-3 of them. Maybe another 2 on their way.

This and the number of NFL players from UK and Vandy are your only two arguments to why the Pac-10 is deeper.

That, and quality success on the field for 100% of our members. No Dukes, Indianas, Vandys, Baylors in the Pac-10.

You ignore the facts that the SEC has more wins against the Pac-10

Not this decade.

How does such a deep conference only have half the teams make a bowl?

The Pac-10's geographical bowl disadvantage. The non-BCS bowls east of El Paso do not like agreements with the Pac-10 because of travel reasons. Until very recently only 5 teams made bowl games while the SEC with all of those bowl games in your backyard could get 8 or more in.

 

[Kingdome]

I'm not talking about Ohio State's program, quit trying to steer the argument and answer a question with another question. As provided in the article, some of the money that is generated by the profits of the football program goes toward the university (after all, people do go to school here). The money that does not go toward the university's academic program, goes to support the programs under the athletic wing that are recognized as part of the university's athletic programs!

According to the article you linked, the AD made a profit of $20,000,000, which came from "ticket sales, fundraising and logo licensing fees."

Not a red cent goes to third-tier sports like rowing, water polo, kayaking, curling, cricket, the debate team, the chess team, the checkers team, or the university swimsuit modeling team.

Check again. The article specifically mentions they have no interest in funding Men's rowing. They currently fund Women's rowing, most likely for Title 9 reasons. Crew powers traditionally are in areas surrounded by water like Washington, Wisconsin, Cal, Cornell, etc. (yes, austin is kind of that way too, with the "lakes", but "natural" water areas).

 

[Kingdome]

I don't like the idea of the Big Ten expanding to an area outside the mid-west.

I'd rather see the Big Ten add Nebraska, WVU, or ND.

What about Pitt? They have had recent & historical success at football & have been pretty good at basketball of late. If you can't get ND, Pitt, WVU, & Nebraska would work just fine. Missouri & Kansas are also being mentioned.

 

[maverick824]

According to the article you linked, the AD made a profit of $20,000,000, which came from "ticket sales, fundraising and logo licensing fees."



Check again. The article specifically mentions they have no interest in funding Men's rowing. They currently fund Women's rowing, most likely for Title 9 reasons. Crew powers traditionally are in areas surrounded by water like Washington, Wisconsin, Cal, Cornell, etc. (yes, austin is kind of that way too, with the "lakes", but "natural" water areas).

LOL, you might as well be waving a white flag......

My sincerest apologies to the women's rowing team. Since they're included in with the athletic program's budget, that completely changes the entire basis of my argument! That changes everything!!! Egads!

I don't know if it was picked up on, but that last part was sarcasm. To fix the 1 error I happened to type out, I will go up and edit out the women's rowing team from that list, just to make everyone happy. Wow.

Secondly, out of that $20 million operating budget, ticket sales and the licensing are the lion's share of it.

Let's see, didn't I just cover ticket sales? Yep, that's right, alumni donations for season tickets. They sell out the rest between student and public purchases, so there's a huge chunk. I'm thinking that the ticket sales for football, basketball, and baseball games, any of em by themselves is more than the sales for every other program put together.

As for the licensing, that should be easy. Poll some common joes on any street in America about any Texas program other than football, basketball, or baseball. Ask em anything. I guarantee you that 99.9% won't be able to tell ya one fact, unless they absolutely bleed burnt orange. But, most everyone knows about the Texas Longhorn logo! People associate that logo with winning football and basketball programs (hell, I'll even be a nice guy and give you baseball just for the fact that they broke even). So, the logo money is pretty much tied to the success of the big boy sports.

it's not that you're trying to make 1 + 1 = 3, King, you're trying to make 1 +1 = 464. I'm saddened that the biggest response to the fact-gasm I slapped you with was a correction to rowing and adding another fact (AD profit vs sport by sport profit)as a sad attempt at rebuking what was already fact to begin with, and was never questioned.

In short, I can do this all day. I don't get bored with correcting the notion that the earth is flat. I think it's now time that you said what everyone is waiting to hear. Just tell me I'm right, stop trying to shoot holes in what is a completely factually sound argument, and go back to comparing Vanderbilt vs Washington State with Bodey, or looking up meaningless lists of guys whose parents may or may not have conceived them in a specific region of the country. :stooges:

 

[Kingdome]

Secondly, out of that $20 million operating budget, ticket sales and the licensing are the lion's share of it.

That $20,000,000 is the "profit" from "ticket sales, fundraising and logo licensing fees." Texas football generated $45,000,000 more than Oklahoma football did in 2008. Why is that?

Hint: donations. That is also how Texas and many of the other elite programs build/improve their athletic facilities.

 

[bodey24]

Ask what USC what they think of that. Them Texas, & Florida are on another planet and Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, & Auburn aren't that far back. Washington was that way until our current president took over. Hoepfully the new AD & coach right the ship.

Yes, we are #2. You have 6 super powers. We have between 1-3 of them. Maybe another 2 on their way.



That, and quality success on the field for 100% of our members. No Dukes, Indianas, Vandys, Baylors in the Pac-10.



Not this decade.



The Pac-10's geographical bowl disadvantage. The non-BCS bowls east of El Paso do not like agreements with the Pac-10 because of travel reasons. Until very recently only 5 teams made bowl games while the SEC with all of those bowl games in your backyard could get 8 or more in.

LOL ok

 

[maverick824]

Texas football generated $45,000,000 more than Oklahoma football did in 2008. Why is that?

Hint: donations. That is also how Texas and many of the other elite programs build/improve their athletic facilities.

Well no kidding!!! Texas football gets donations!!!! Hey, the sky is blue!!! Thanks for making my argument for me, pretty easy this time. We KNOW Texas football gets those donations, figured that'd kinda go without saying. The argument here is that Texas football will be the deciding factor financially in a Texas conference move. You've been trying unsuccessfully to say that donors for other programs (even ones that aren't even on the damn budget) will trump the massive amounts of money the football program brings in! So, I say again for the 4th time, tell me how the Texas AD and the University President's facts are wrong??????

LMAO!! You simply can't do it, can you??? You can get a list of facts from the very source talking about telling you that you're wrong, and you just have to pick one thing, you don't even have to know if it's true or not, and you have to debate it! Dude, when you're wrong, you're just wrong, it's a lesson I've had to learn plenty of times! Just give it up!!! :rofl:

 

[Kingdome]

The argument here is that Texas football will be the deciding factor financially in a Texas conference move.

And if that is equal, what is the 2nd most important factor? Texas is a better fit in the Pac-10 for all sports, football included. Looking at the demographics, if the Pac-10 adds Texas, we should be able to command as much if not more than the Big Ten.

We already covered this way earlier in the discussion. Now the debate is over better fit. Texas is a better fit in the Pac-10 for football. Texas is a better fit in the Pac-10 for most other sports.

Super Pac-10 advantages over Big Ten:

-larger, more diverse geographic region
-more populous region
-faster growing region
-6 of the 13 largest media markets in the country
-larger football recruiting base with less local competition
-better climate, 6 warm weather, 2 warm/mild weather, 3 mild, 1 mild/cold, 2 cold weather
-easier & cheaper travel
-better cultural fit
-better comparative fit with the Texas Ath. program
-#1 recruiting region for many of the sports Texas takes pride in

Super Big Ten advantages over Pac-10:

-TV network infrastructure already in place and available on most major cable & satellite systems.
-More consistent fan support for football & basketball, which is equals better game day environments at more programs
-Better basketball conference top to bottom
-closer to the source of east coast bias, NYC/Bristol

I am sure I am leaving a few out, but I am trying to multitask at the moment.

 

[maverick824]

And if that is equal, what is the 2nd most important factor?

I deleted your entire meaningless post and trimmed it down to the only argument you tried to make that mattered, and you still screwed that up. You're once again trying to assume things. Don't assume. It makes an...well, you know LOL. The move is being discussed for this year. No argument toward "well, we will eventually in 5 years have a network and a big contract blah blah blah....", we are discussing a possible move for Texas when????

:ribbon:RIGHT NOW!!!!:ribbon:


Ok....we've established the time, just in case you forget and try to drift into the future when your crystal ball says the Pac 10 will get these perks like a network and a bigger TV deal. Just for clarification, in the time frame that this discussion is taking place, the Pac-10 is LEAGUES behind the Big 10 in financial compensation, a fact you have willingly admitted to Miller in a previous discussion on the topic. So all those facts you put up there, they don't mean jack, because you're assuming a premise that the Pac-10 and Big 10 are equal right now in income as far as their network deals, ESPN deals, etc. They're not, not even close.

LOL, to be honest, I didn't read one line past the first sentence before I could completely smash that one to pieces. That's just scary how weak the points that are trying to be made are. Once this is posted, just for a laugh, I'll take a look at what looks like a list of stuff, but honestly, there won't be a comment for me, because in order for any of that crap to be relevant, they have to be equal in finances right now. Let me just inform you for any future attempts at steering the argument. That might work on Miller or Bodey (that's the only explanation I have for how you guys got into digging up hometowns of All-Pros and comparing Vandy/Kentucky to Arizona State/Washington State :biglaugh, but it seriously won't work on me. You can feel free to try to take one or two lines out of my post every time and tell me that something's not right and steer it. I'll just blatantly not answer it, and redirect you to the same question I keep asking and asking and asking.....

So, once again, for the FIFTH time, I ask you........please, either tell me how the Texas AD and the University President are wrong, or just concede and admit that in the area of finances, that you are wrong. It's not hard to do, I just want you to grasp the fact that sometimes in life, facts get in the way of the best of arguments!! No hard feelings at all, I'm having a blast with this.