Kansas or Utah if A&M bolts to SEC?
- Thread starter OUHoops
- Start date
Max Power
New member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,672
- Reaction score
- 0
My vote for Utah was not to be anti-Kansas, I just feel that if this is driven by Football revenue, the Utah, would be better. If they feel that football revenue is fine with the other 15, which i doubt, then Kansas would dramatically help basketball revenue
Seymore Cox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,126
- Reaction score
- 217
Kansas is about to start running the wishbone again. No one wants that.
The people who say expansion is about football don't know what they are talking about.
Football revenue is pretty much tapped unless a playoff replaces the bowl system. The untapped revenue source is all of the sports currently not being broadcast. ie Basketball and Baseball games.
Football revenue is pretty much tapped unless a playoff replaces the bowl system. The untapped revenue source is all of the sports currently not being broadcast. ie Basketball and Baseball games.
The people who say expansion is about football don't know what they are talking about.
Football revenue is pretty much tapped unless a playoff replaces the bowl system. The untapped revenue source is all of the sports currently not being broadcast. ie Basketball and Baseball games.
Pac-16 football is already loaded with OU, Texas, USC, Washington and Colorado as recent national champions.
Football revenue is pretty much tapped unless a playoff replaces the bowl system. The untapped revenue source is all of the sports currently not being broadcast. ie Basketball and Baseball games.
Pac-16 football is already loaded with OU, Texas, USC, Washington and Colorado as recent national champions.
playmakr
New member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,967
- Reaction score
- 0
usc*
stoops4pres
New member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,854
- Reaction score
- 0
Football isn't the #1 reason for all this expansion, but its certainly more so then it is basketball. Football may be tapped out, but it still drives revenue more then basketball, baseball, or any other sport by a good margin. Doesn't matter what the potential of the untapped revenue could hold, it still won't reach the revenue football generates.
NickZepp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,393
- Reaction score
- 577
Kansas just because of the KC area. It would basically seal up most of the west for the new conference. Utah makes geographic sense also and has a decent market but not like KC is. Also KU basketball fans are spread more nationally. I doubt there's a big Utah fan base outside of Utah.
You couldn't be more wrong. The NCAA basketball tournament just signed a new deal at $740 million per year. The BCS just signed a new deal at $125 million per year.
More games = more revenue potential in both broadcast and attendance. The basketball regular season is not close to full potential.
The SEC just signed 15 year deals with ESPN and CBS for $3.075 billion which is only $205 million per year. If you add up all the football TV contracts for the regular season and bowls it is not as much as the NCAA basketball tournament all by itself.
Basketball is the money machine the Pac-16 is going exploit and in 5 years the SEC will be regretting that $205 million per year football TV contract too as the Pac-16 and Big 10 will be dwarfing it.
Basketball is the money machine the Pac-16 is going exploit and in 5 years the SEC will be regretting that $205 million per year football TV contract too as the Pac-16 and Big 10 will be dwarfing it.
Do you have that list? That would be interesting to see. And I assume you mean KU made more than everyone BUT Texas right?
ByronHoustonsSweatyPalms
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 909
- Reaction score
- 0
For selfish reasons, Kansas. It would be nice to have another team in the Central Time zone. Easy drive for road games and a great basketball rivalry already for OU and OSU. Wouldn't it be nice to get back to home and home with the Jayhawks in BB?:woot
Seymore Cox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,126
- Reaction score
- 217
I would love to have Kansas play OU in the all college every year. The things the All college can now do with Kansas, K-State, and Mizzou would be sweet. Those schools would want to do it too, because they're losing a recruiting base in Texas and Oklahoma with realignment.
stoops4pres
New member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,854
- Reaction score
- 0
Well if I "couldn't be any more wrong", maybe you can help enlighten me as to why that is so.
If you read Wetzel's article on the Big 12's demise, he says himself that the money will come from football, not basketball. Now, I'm not suggesting Wetzel is an NCAA-omniscent individual, but obviously there is something that myself and credible writers such as Wetzel aren't seeing that you claim you are.
Also, isn't this $740 million deal dispersing to every single member of the NCAA? I know that certain schools will receive more money from the deal (example: Texas more than Texas San-Antonio), but if every single member is receiving a cut of the pie (unclear on the size of the pie), then its hard to imagine a guaranteed say $20 million resulting from football's TV deal (should OU move to the Pac 10) falling short relative to this new basketball TV deal.
Again, there's something that you're seeing that I'm not.
Read a report saying that Beebe is making major headway with TV execs on renegotiating Big 12 contracts to keep the 10 remaining teams. That would be awesome.
The schools should look at this because this would make the TV money comparable to what the Pac-16 is talking about.
Texas should seriously look at this because then they could do their Longhorn Network as well.
The schools should look at this because this would make the TV money comparable to what the Pac-16 is talking about.
Texas should seriously look at this because then they could do their Longhorn Network as well.
