Jump to content

2019 OOC


PAC MAN

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply
52 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

Sure, when I say it Papa paints me as satan.

It is a little satanic.  Or more than a little.  It's what the game has become, an adjunct to ESPN/ABC, Fox and CBS as they themselves desperately try to fend off the streaming services so those tired networks can survive another 15 years before crumbling like Bethlehem Steel or Texas Instruments.  The world we're in on Autumn Saturdays demands that our gladiators become bigger, stronger, and more dominant, and the Kansas States and Oregon States and Boston Colleges are fast becoming litter on the side of the fast lane.  The athletic directors at Florida and Oklahoma State and Nebraska know this all too well and are pushing on all cylinders to compete, to be one of the Big guys.  Nobody wants to share anything.  College football in 2040 will consist of Winners and Everybody Else, with the job of Everybody Else being to provide victories every other Saturday for the Winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you’re going to pull that thread, explain to me why Oregon State University needs a football team, let alone one in P5.

The reason there is money is because there is interest and popularity — from us fans.  The reason there would be more money in the future, is there is more interest and more popularity.

If top level College Football evolves into a league of 64 teams as I think it might, that will probably be a great relief to the educators and state governments of America.   It’s a bubble that the San Jose and Iowa States cant afford but they can’t stop themselves from doubling down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scscsc89 said:

Of course it’s money driven.

Everyone makes more money here, even with money set aside for FCS. That’s the point.

 No. The current system generates more money that’s why it Exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t believe that — 1/12th of the schedule is shit that nobody wants to watch/pay for.  It’s inefficient.

 

youre saying that media companies won’t pay more for better games?

 

systems evolve.   Like when they paid more for a 4 team playoff to replace the BCS.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KUGRDON said:

 The current system generates more money that’s why it Exists.

That’s ridiculous.  At one point the PAC-8 was the current system.

It certainly doesn’t exist in its current state because it is the most efficient money generator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given how much Nebraska-CU tickets cost for this year's game (I believe it hit $200 in some areas) and how much coin CU's AD pocketed, it's fair to ask if college football teams are robbing themselves of more revenue by scheduling FCS teams instead of big games.

CU-Nebraska led to the highest ticket prices for Nebraska home game ever.  That will be broken again when the Huskers play Oklahoma again in the coming years.

1 hour ago, Scscsc89 said:

...a bubble that the San Jose and Iowa States cant afford but they can’t stop themselves from doubling down.

Agree on SJSU but disagree on Iowa State...that school has fan support that SJSU and Stanford fans can only dream about.

1 hour ago, KUGRDON said:

 No. The current system generates more money that’s why it Exists.

Very true.  The BCS made more money than the old system and when the people running the NCAA saw those playoff money projections, ditching the BCS was an easy decision.  If an eight team playoff is going to bring much more coin than the four team playoffs, we will go to eight team playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Jalapeno said:

Given how much Nebraska-CU tickets cost for this year's game (I believe it hit $200 in some areas) and how much coin CU's AD pocketed, it's fair to ask if college football teams are robbing themselves of more revenue by scheduling FCS teams instead of big games.

 CU-Nebraska led to the highest ticket prices for Nebraska home game ever.  That will be broken again when the Huskers play Oklahoma again in the coming years.

Agree on SJSU but disagree on Iowa State...that school has fan support that SJSU and Stanford fans can only dream about.

Very true.  The BCS made more money than the old system and when the people running the NCAA saw those playoff money projections, ditching the BCS was an easy decision.  If an eight team playoff is going to bring much more coin than the four team playoffs, we will go to eight team playoffs.

You really think that is an outrageous amount for top end seats against a P5 rival? Sounds super cheap. CU must be having some real problems selling tickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mano said:

You really think that is an outrageous amount for top end seats against a P5 rival? Sounds super cheap. CU must be having some real problems selling tickets.

I wondered too about Jalapeno's claim that $200 tickets were blow-away  high.  Like, what planet is he living on.  So out of curiosity, I looked at a number of more notable Pac-12 games for Week 1 and Week 2 over on an aftermarket site, VividSeats.  Here are the going asking prices on VividSeats, which show some interesting comparisons (remember, some of this has to do with fan interest, but it also has to do with stadium size where smaller venues jack up demand $$$'s):

  • Nebraska at Colorado: $256 to $972.
  • Colorado State vs Colorado at Mile High: $41 to $782.
  • Utah at BYU: $80 to $267.
  • Oklahoma St at Oregon St: $38 to $194.
  • Auburn vs Oregon at Arlington: $31 to $667.
  • Northwestern at Stanford: $32 to $243.
  • San Diego State at UCLA: $29 to $484.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mano said:

You really think that is an outrageous amount for top end seats against a P5 rival? Sounds super cheap. CU must be having some real problems selling tickets.

Those were not the top end seats at Folsom Field more like average Joe seats.  Those seats probably would have gone for $20 or less against a FCS school.

8 minutes ago, Downthefield said:

I wondered too about Jalapeno's claim that $200 tickets were blow-away  high.  Like, what planet is he living on.  So out of curiosity, I looked at a number of more notable Pac-12 games for Week 1 and Week 2 over on an aftermarket site, VividSeats.  Here are the going asking prices on VividSeats, which show some interesting comparisons (remember, some of this has to do with fan interest, but it also has to do with stadium size where smaller venues jack up demand $$$'s):

  • Nebraska at Colorado: $256 to $972.
  • Colorado State vs Colorado at Mile High: $41 to $782.
  • Utah at BYU: $80 to $267.
  • Oklahoma St at Oregon St: $38 to $194.
  • Auburn vs Oregon at Arlington: $31 to $667.
  • Northwestern at Stanford: $32 to $243.
  • San Diego State at UCLA: $29 to $484.

Those CU-CSU prices seem out of whack.  If not, just wait until you see the prices for next year's game at CSU's stadium which seats 36k and another 5k for standing room only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jalapeno said:

Those were not the top end seats at Folsom Field more like average Joe seats.  Those seats probably would have gone for $20 or less against a FCS school.

Those CU-CSU prices seem out of whack.  If not, just wait until you see the prices for next year's game at CSU's stadium which seats 36k and another 5k for standing room only.

Most of the seats are in the $40-$70 range.  A couple of high-end waiter-served seats are on the upper end.  The best way to look at comparable prices on VividSeats, SeatGuru, etc. is to look at the low $ number.  On the Auburn/Oregon game, though (if you've been there), the low $ seats are so far away from the action that it might as well be another county, so that's why they're priced the way they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jalapeno said:

Those were not the top end seats at Folsom Field more like average Joe seats.  Those seats probably would have gone for $20 or less against a FCS school.

 

Quote

Given how much Nebraska-CU tickets cost for this year's game (I believe it hit $200 in some areas) and how much coin CU's AD pocketed, it's fair to ask if college football teams are robbing themselves of more revenue by scheduling FCS teams instead of big games.

One of these 2 statements is at the very least misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scscsc89 said:

...explain to me why Oregon State University needs a football team, let alone one in P5 ...

The answer, I presume, is that of OSU's 17 sports, football is the only one that makes money.  Even with side income, the football program keeps the other 16 programs going -- for example, the Beavers took in $714,298 selling beer at football games this past year -- that alone supports some minor sports.  Football is what it is for the non-elite of the P5 schools; a money generator from their conference media share to the rights for their t-shirt sales, keeping alive everything from men's golf to women's rowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2019 at 2:56 PM, Jalapeno said:

 

September 7, 2019: Nevada @ UO, OSU @ Hawaii, Northern Colorado @ WSU, NAU @ UA, Nebraska @ CU, SDSU @ UCLA, and NIU @ Utah

Nevada might as well stay home and forfeit the game against the Ducks. 

 

I don’t know about that.  I think we’re going to win......

 

 

 

 

 

....the 4th quarter, maybe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scscsc89 said:

That may be why the athletic department needs a football team but certainly not why the university needs one.

Actually it is why many universities need a football team.  Participation in varsity athletics is core value of many universities.  It's why Yale has 35 varsity teams, Brown has 38 -- it's thought by many university leaders to be a critical part of the total college developmental experience.  However, paying for varsity athletic teams isn't so easy for schools that don't have Yale's $30 billion endowment fund, or Stanford's $25 billion, or even USC's 5 billion.

For a school like Oregon State, with an endowment fund of a little over $500 million and a stingy state legislature, to offer a range of varsity sports, which they (like most other schools) want to do, is out of the question unless there's a way to pay for it that doesn't take significant funds from academic programs.  Also, there are a number of studies that show that donation levels to university academic programs increase dramatically with a winning football program (as does the SAT/ACT score levels of applicants,) so there are a lot of incentives to keep football.

The bottom line is that there are powerful reasons for the Oregon States and Iowa States and Rutgers of the world to continue to support their football programs and retain their status as Power Five schools, even if they aren't at the top of the pecking order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Donate

    Please donate to support this community. We appreciate all donations!

    Donate Sidebar by DevFuse
×
×
  • Create New...