how about this: since joining the Big 12, BU stand behind only Texas and Texas A&M in overall conference championships won. no, that's not football.
ones i misread and donny linked. they have more overall athletic revenues, but not in college football.
why would we exclude the other sports though in that analysis? cash is cash, whether it comes in from football or underwater basket weaving.
The market price for tickets is the marginal price that fans are willing to pay for entertainment. You'll see the same thing apply to sell out venues or not. Rockets games don't sell out - but people will pay a lot more to see the Lakers than the T-Wolves, despite the fact that they are much more likely to see a win against the T-Wolves. I agree - and do you remember how much excitement there was surrounding the OSU and OU games? Yeah, people were happy to watch their team blow out the crappy teams - but people *remember* the OSU game. People talked about it for weeks leading up to it. They talked about it for weeks afterwards. No one remembers the details of the crappy games. There was just so much more entertainment value associated with those two than all the other games. I agree with that, except that the ACC may often result in *zero* of those good games, outside of OU which remains no matter what.
Tommy Tuberville led Tech to nothing last year after nonstop success under Leach - and I suspect that will be the trend going forward (IMO). Leach's brilliance was taking less talented players and getting incredible success out of all of them. Tuberville would be a better fit at a Texas or OU than at Tech - he's just not that kind of genius coach. Keep in mind that despite that 2004 season, he was subsequently fired by Auburn. But that said, I was referring to athletics as a whole - Baylor is 3rd in the Big12 in overall championships (behind Texas and A&M). They do really well in basketball and all the minor sports. What made Tech the bigger name was their football team, and that was a product of Mike Leach.
I could be wrong, but I believe that's a product of the Sagarin computer ranking system - a bunch of 6-6 teams will get higher conference valuations than a few 10-2 and a few 2-10 teams because you have less "gimme" games. I'm less concerned with the number of games against mediocre teams vs truly bad teams. For Texas, they should be consistently blowing out both of those categories. I'm more interested in competition at the top of the conference because those are the only games where the outcome should ever be in doubt.
I'm not sure how much weight i'd put in this list- Using Texas as a benchmark, this list says in 2008 UT had $120Mil in football rev. This chart shows revenue over a 7 year period, which actually shows Baylor losing money (this also showing Texas' revenues well under $100Mil): http://matlabgeeks.com/sports-analy...-div-i-college-football-expenses-and-revenue/ Here is an ESPN list that shows Texas only making $88Mil in '09. compared to your link, Baylors' $44Mil in Revenue would make it a top 15 program in terms of revenue ahead of Oklahoma, Tennessee, and A&M: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=4750560 Here is a list that says in '09 UT had $73Mil in football rev: http://getlisty.com/preview/top-college-football-revenue-producers/ Here is a list that suggests in '07 UT had $60.9Mil in football rev: http://www.fanblogs.com/ncaa/007263.php
Last year was Tubby's first year. Lets not jump to any conclusions. Leach's brilliance was based on the fact that he couldn't recruit those top tier players. Tubby has Tech ranked in the top 15 recruiting classes for 2012. That is something Leach simply could not do. To suggest a downward trend would continue is misinformed.
Oh, i follow now- I also misread it. I'm interested to see what Tech's revenue stream looks like with the stadium expansion and increased season ticket sales in 2011.
I would take Baylor over Tech every day of the week, Tech is just a notch above Southwest Texas State, and is actually smaller in size. DD
Well I suppose in the end we will see who takes Baylor and who takes Tech. For what it is worth, the Pac-12 commisioner's daughter is a student at Tech and he nearly became the athletic director a few years ago.
So it would be like 2005 again, where the only games like that were the OU game and the Ohio State game. The Tech game was a rout as well, they just finished with a good ranking (surprisingly). The ACC offers the same chance to play OU, another good OOC game and some surprising team from within the conference (their teams don't just suck year in and year out). Well, this is assuming UT can still schedule 2 top OOC games. As far as the rest of your post, I don't disagree that it's better to watch more exciting games. I just think you overrate the number of those games in every conference outside of the SEC. Most teams have 2-3 schedueld stud games a year and the rest are ho-hum. I would prefer to see a whole schedule of exciting games, but if I'm seeing a bunch of ho-hum ones but the end prize is better then I think I'm happy, along with most other fans. Again, folks seemed quite content in 2005 and I think the excitement of playing for a BCS Game or the NC game trumps all. Winning cures a lot....
When is the last time you went to Tech? That school has made tons of upgrades and dominates that market (nothing else is out there). You can drive by and miss SWT. You can't miss Tech.
