Jump to content

Picking Up The Pieces


PAC MAN
 Share

Recommended Posts

I saw a tweet over on the MWBoard from an accounting firm that showed PAC tv revenue and other revenues with and without SDSU.

TV revenue would only increase 100k to 200k per season over the life of the contract. O believe they used ten years.

Total revenues without SDSU decrease 24,% after the departure of U$CLA. With SDSU, only 19%.

Currently, SDSU broadcasts get ~1million eyeballs when numbers are disclosed. Like the Utes, those eyeballs can easily double with inclusion to the PAC.

I know it's not a Home Run and we know chicks dig the long ball, but it is a single in the bottom of the 9th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 1:29 PM, Spaztecs said:

I saw a tweet over on the MWBoard from an accounting firm that showed PAC tv revenue and other revenues with and without SDSU.

TV revenue would only increase 100k to 200k per season over the life of the contract. O believe they used ten years.

Total revenues without SDSU decrease 24,% after the departure of U$CLA. With SDSU, only 19%.

Currently, SDSU broadcasts get ~1million eyeballs when numbers are disclosed. Like the Utes, those eyeballs can easily double with inclusion to the PAC.

I know it's not a Home Run and we know chicks dig the long ball, but it is a single in the bottom of the 9th.

Was that with just SDSU or another team as well? I can't see the PAC sitting at 11 teams as it would create weird schedules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone read that Stewart Mandel piece in the Athletic?  I'm too cheap to subscribe but I'm seeing that the PAC has more viewership numbers than the Big 12 since 2015 so at this point, I'm thinking the PAC remains intact sans the two LA schools.  At the same time Mandel is one of those writers who appear to have an interest in keeping the PAC intact in addition to Wilner and Canzano.  CU does have a slightly higher figure than Utah and games @Michigan, two games against Nebraska, and Texas A&M in Denver has helped CU's numbers.  That's a little surprising since it appears that Utah should draw better than CU since Utah has no NFL team to compete against in-state like CU has with the Broncos.  There is no doubt the upcoming Nebraska games are going to help CU's numbers in the coming years.

As for SDSU, just invite them to the PAC already before the Big 12 thinks about doing that.  I saw some stuff saying that Frenso would be the 12th school but I'm not buying it because I don't think the Big 12 would pick them up at this point because believe it or not, they do have almost similar standards as the PAC.  Will it be UNLV?  I don't think Boise State qualifies when it comes to the research rankings.

It's starting to feel more likely that the PAC remains intact and the outcome I am hoping for is that the P12N is on ESPN+ and more ESPN exposure.  If that happens, I will be happy with that outcome.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 2:19 PM, PAC MAN said:

Anyone read that Stewart Mandel piece in the Athletic?  I'm too cheap to subscribe but I'm seeing that the PAC has more viewership numbers than the Big 12 since 2015 so at this point, I'm thinking the PAC remains intact sans the two LA schools.  At the same time Mandel is one of those writers who appear to have an interest in keeping the PAC intact in addition to Wilner and Canzano.  CU does have a slightly higher figure than Utah and games @Michigan, two games against Nebraska, and Texas A&M in Denver has helped CU's numbers.  That's a little surprising since it appears that Utah should draw better than CU since Utah has no NFL team to compete against in-state like CU has with the Broncos.  There is no doubt the upcoming Nebraska games are going to help CU's numbers in the coming years.

As for SDSU, just invite them to the PAC already before the Big 12 thinks about doing that.  I saw some stuff saying that Frenso would be the 12th school but I'm not buying it because I don't think the Big 12 would pick them up at this point because believe it or not, they do have almost similar standards as the PAC.  Will it be UNLV?  I don't think Boise State qualifies when it comes to the research rankings.

It's starting to feel more likely that the PAC remains intact and the outcome I am hoping for is that the P12N is on ESPN+ and more ESPN exposure.  If that happens, I will be happy with that outcome.

 

WTF would "research rankings" have to do with anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 3:23 PM, Orange said:

WTF would "research rankings" have to do with anything?

It's a criteria that both the Pac-12 and Big 12 base on potential expansion schools.  This has been discussed on this board even at least since the day CU & Utah joined the conference.  This was covered by that Frank The Tank blog that focused on realignment and told us to think more like presidents than athletic directors.

Every Pac-12 school is Tier 1 and almost every Big 12 is Tier 1...I think two Big 12 schools even including the incoming ones are Tier 2 with a track to become Tier 1.  All Big Ten schools are Tier 1, most ACC schools are, and believe it or not, most of the SEC schools are Tier 1.

Again, presidents & chancellors and their board of regents are the ones who make decisions on conference affiliation not athletic directors.

If you can't understand any of this, you are not as bright as you think you are because this criteria has been discussed on this board since at least 2011.  It's pretty straight forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2022 at 6:13 AM, Spaztecs said:

Those Oly Sports rarely bring eyeballs or tv revenue.

Football drives the bus. Period. Right now, SDSU may not be the sexiest bus, but the PAC needs it.

 

Abigail Breslin Ride GIF

Yes, but you have to have a minimum number of men's sports to retain Div-1 status. SDSU is at their minimum. We are going to see PAC schools dropping non revenue mens sports left and right. Title IX requires schools to provide as many scholarships for women's sports as men's sports based on the ratio of of women to men in the the campus population. At SDSU I believe the ratio for women to men enrolled is 56-44 which means SDSU has to offer 12% more non-revenue generating scholarships for women's sports as to mens. This is why men's track and field gets dumped first which also drops mens cross country.

Ok, I have to add that I wonder how any university, such as SDSU, can justify such a disparity in enrollment based on sex. Really, women can outnumber men by 12%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 2:54 PM, PAC MAN said:

It's a criteria that both the Pac-12 and Big 12 base on potential expansion schools.  This has been discussed on this board even at least since the day CU & Utah joined the conference.  This was covered by that Frank The Tank blog that focused on realignment and told us to think more like presidents than athletic directors.

Every Pac-12 school is Tier 1 and almost every Big 12 is Tier 1...I think two Big 12 schools even including the incoming ones are Tier 2 with a track to become Tier 1.  All Big Ten schools are Tier 1, most ACC schools are, and believe it or not, most of the SEC schools are Tier 1.

Again, presidents & chancellors and their board of regents are the ones who make decisions on conference affiliation not athletic directors.

If you can't understand any of this, you are not as bright as you think you are because this criteria has been discussed on this board since at least 2011.  It's pretty straight forward.

Yes.  By almost exclusively you, incessantly.  A conference addition will be about eyeballs and markets, not "research."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 4:30 PM, Aztecgolfer said:

Yes, but you have to have a minimum number of men's sports to retain Div-1 status. SDSU is at their minimum. We are going to see PAC schools dropping non revenue mens sports left and right. Title IX requires schools to provide as many scholarships for women's sports as men's sports based on the ratio of of women to men in the the campus population. At SDSU I believe the ratio for women to men enrolled is 56-44 which means SDSU has to offer 12% more non-revenue generating scholarships for women's sports as to mens. This is why men's track and field gets dumped first which also drops mens cross country.

Ok, I have to add that I wonder how any university, such as SDSU, can justify such a disparity in enrollment based on sex. Really, women can outnumber men by 12%?

More women are applying.  And women were historically banned from higher education, for centuries.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 5:41 PM, Orange said:

Yes.  By almost exclusively you, incessantly.  A conference addition will be about eyeballs and markets, not "research."

The B1G & the Pac12 have always over valued the research component, we could talk about how it shouldn't be a factor but it clearly is with the powers that be.  Whenever you hear someone mentioning "academics" when it comes to conference alignment that is always referring to research whether that is research restrictions (see BYU being blacklisted) or research funding (see why they didn't want anyone else from the Big 12).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 4:30 PM, Aztecgolfer said:

Yes, but you have to have a minimum number of men's sports to retain Div-1 status. SDSU is at their minimum. We are going to see PAC schools dropping non revenue mens sports left and right. Title IX requires schools to provide as many scholarships for women's sports as men's sports based on the ratio of of women to men in the the campus population. At SDSU I believe the ratio for women to men enrolled is 56-44 which means SDSU has to offer 12% more non-revenue generating scholarships for women's sports as to mens. This is why men's track and field gets dumped first which also drops mens cross country.

Ok, I have to add that I wonder how any university, such as SDSU, can justify such a disparity in enrollment based on sex. Really, women can outnumber men by 12%?

More women are applying to college, and are now graduating at higher rates than men. Some schools are reporting a 60% female population, I believe a few are nearing 70%. Some schools are now lowering admission standards for men specifically to convince them to apply. We'll see what will happen over the next few decades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a few examples of current enrollment by gender:

  • University of Washington: 21,464 male and 26,685 female
  • University of Arizona: 20,578 male and 25,023 female
  • University of Colorado: 20,469 male and 16,968 female
  • University of Utah: 17,073 male and 16,008 female
  • University of Oregon: 9,782 male and 11,970 female
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 8:04 PM, EastCoastFan said:

Here are a few examples of current enrollment by gender:

  • University of Washington: 21,464 male and 26,685 female
  • University of Arizona: 20,578 male and 25,023 female
  • University of Colorado: 20,469 male and 16,968 female
  • University of Utah: 17,073 male and 16,008 female
  • University of Oregon: 9,782 male and 11,970 female

This can be highly driven by the majors that a school offers. STEM majors draw more men. If you look at Cal Tech's enrollment with no context, you could think they are a bunch of misogynists' who hate black people. Need to look deeper, into admissions percentages and whatnot. 

 

All that being said, if I am an 18 year old hetrosexual male, the above stats would make me want to go to UW or UA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 7:24 PM, Mano said:

This can be highly driven by the majors that a school offers. STEM majors draw more men. If you look at Cal Tech's enrollment with no context, you could think they are a bunch of misogynists' who hate black people. Need to look deeper, into admissions percentages and whatnot. 

 

All that being said, if I am an 18 year old hetrosexual male, the above stats would make me want to go to UW or UA.

That is slowly shifting with the exception of math and physics. But the other life sciences are seeing greater percentages of women than men at some universities. There is definitely a shift overall in the perception men have when it comes to thinking about going to college. Whether it’s student loans, wanting to work after high school (high school dropouts are increasing among male students too), or simply the way men are treated in todays society and on university campuses in general. They are slowly seeing the value in doing something else to make a living. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 8:50 PM, Trojan209 said:

That is slowly shifting with the exception of math and physics. But the other life sciences are seeing greater percentages of women than men at some universities. There is definitely a shift overall in the perception men have when it comes to thinking about going to college. Whether it’s student loans, wanting to work after high school (high school dropouts are increasing among male students too), or simply the way men are treated in todays society and on university campuses in general. They are slowly seeing the value in doing something else to make a living. 

My perspective is likely slanted, as a Math and Physics duel major, and my classes were all sausage parties. However, looking at Cal Tech's demographics, it seems a lot more men than women are interested in technical majors. I am not saying women can't do Math and Physics, as some of the more brilliant people I came across in these fields were women, only that they don't pursue these types of Majors in great numbers, whether it is because there are social stigmas women get who chose the "nerdy" majors or because they favor professions that involve human interactions ( becoming Physicians as opposed to Physicists ). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 8:04 PM, Mano said:

My perspective is likely slanted, as a Math and Physics duel major, and my classes were all sausage parties. However, looking at Cal Tech's demographics, it seems a lot more men than women are interested in technical majors. I am not saying women can't do Math and Physics, as some of the more brilliant people I came across in these fields were women, only that they don't pursue these types of Majors in great numbers, whether it is because there are social stigmas women get who chose the "nerdy" majors or because they favor professions that involve human interactions ( becoming Physicians as opposed to Physicists ). 

It’s definitely a complex issue that I think has slowly become addressed over the last few decades. But with every solution to a problem a new one is created. Overall, there are fewer people attending college than before the pandemic. But the largest population affected is men. It’s not a bad thing for physics, math, engineering, etc to hold steady at retaining men, while simultaneously convincing women that they are just as capable at doing the work and getting into the field. But we also need male teachers just as much as female teachers, we need male therapists just as much as female therapists, and male physicians too. It creates diversity in their respective fields and I believe, keeps the wages competitive. Most areas of psychology are seeing a decline in wages and some attribute it to the decline in men pursuing the degree. Not that women are hurting the field, but that there is a lack of competition and thus little reason to increase wages. Although as an 18-year-old I had a lot of fun in my undergrad psych classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 7:50 PM, Trojan209 said:

That is slowly shifting with the exception of math and physics. But the other life sciences are seeing greater percentages of women than men at some universities. There is definitely a shift overall in the perception men have when it comes to thinking about going to college. Whether it’s student loans, wanting to work after high school (high school dropouts are increasing among male students too), or simply the way men are treated in todays society and on university campuses in general. They are slowly seeing the value in doing something else to make a living. 

How are males being treated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 6:12 PM, clpp01 said:

The B1G & the Pac12 have always over valued the research component, we could talk about how it shouldn't be a factor but it clearly is with the powers that be.  Whenever you hear someone mentioning "academics" when it comes to conference alignment that is always referring to research whether that is research restrictions (see BYU being blacklisted) or research funding (see why they didn't want anyone else from the Big 12).

Seems like lip-service.  CU was on the downswing, academically speaking, when the Pac picked them up.  While I was in Colorado working as a public defender, I worked with about a dozen CU grads, and they bemoaned what it had become, as compared to even the University of Denver, UO, etc.  They were happy to see me, a UO grad, looking to work in Colorado.  It was bizarre, because I had always assumed CU was an upper-tier school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 4:56 PM, MrBug708 said:

Factually speaking, of all of the teams in the PAC-12 with naming rights to their football stadium, SDSU would be bottom two. No need for the word vomit to confirm what I said.

Football Stadium Naming Rights

WSU: $11M/10years https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/03/12/washington-state-lands-naming-rights-deal-for-stadium-field/115554186/

ASU: N/A. However, it is Sun Devil Stadium so its likely they are getting nothing.

UCLA: None.

Cal: $17.5M/10 years https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/03/12/washington-state-lands-naming-rights-deal-for-stadium-field/115554186/

CU: None.

Oregon: None. https://ivypanda.com/essays/having-naming-rights-to-autzen-stadium-challenges-and-benefits/

OSU:  $12M/25 years https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/1999/06/21/No-Topic-Name/Oregon-State-Renames-Stadium-For-Much-Needed-$5M.aspx

Stanford: None.

Utah: one time donations of $1M and $10M. https://www.deseret.com/1998/7/29/19393729/u-football-stadium-renamed-rice-eccles-to-honor-donors

Zona: None: https://zonazealots.com/2021/03/13/arizona-football-add-sponsor-stadium/

USC: $69M/16 years ($4.3125 annually)

Washington: $41M/10 years ($4.1M annually) https://www.geekwire.com/2015/uw-inks-41m-deal-with-alaska-airlines-for-husky-stadium-naming-rights/

SDSU: $45M/15 years ($3.0M annually)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 5:42 PM, Orange said:

More women are applying.  And women were historically banned from higher education, for centuries.  

SDSU has a 34% acceptance rate. Plenty of males could be selected to even out the numbers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...