Our market definitely played a role in getting us in. Houston is what? The 4th largest city in the U.S.
I just posted an article stating that the SF and DAllas MARKETS resulted in increased cable carriage revenue for the ACC Network.
To say Markets are NOT a consideration is just a false statement.
Even with the B1G, the MARKETS they added in their recent expansion moves include:
Baltimore/DC
New York/ New Jersey
Los Angeles x 2
Seattle
Portland
the SEC added
Austin
Oklahoma City
I donât know what country you live in but 100% of the 8 recent P2 movements, are schools that sit in LARGE marketsâŠyes, their brands matter but brand and viewership IN a LARGE Market are mutually exclusive.
No it didnât.
According to Pezman himself, the Big 12 didnât want to take us until Abbott and Patrick intervened.
Obviously, our market wasnât enough to get us in, nor our brand.
In the last few years, we benefitted from the same political pull that got Baylor in over UH in the 1990s.
But seriously, I keep hearing that Baylor is on the decline but they keep getting recruits (big ones in basketball and track too).
I think Baylor has been on the SEC recruiting program for about 30 years and their system is highly embedded, like a hermetic enclave.
That said Inthink Aranda is a bad coach and Baylor could resurrect in short order with the right guy.
1 Like
Everything the Big12 was worried about in terms of football support has proven to be true. No other addition has had this non-support issue. Thank god for basketball.
Letâs just say that markets are nowhere close to being a DECISIVE consideration, by themselves.
That may have been true 12-20 years ago, but it isnât today.
BRAND SIZE is the DECISIVE consideration today. Everything else, including markets, are SECONDARY.
Rutgers and Maryland probably would not get in the B1G today.
Georgia Tech canât get in the B1G today, despite their market.
Even recent adds like Washington and Oregon couldnât get in at full shares. And why not? Because their brands werenât big enough, DESPITE their markets.
UCLA and USC got in as the PACâs two biggest brands (alone, their represented 40% of the PACâs media value).
Wazzu and OSU were excluded from the P4 for the very same reasons.
Califord and SMU couldnât make the P3. They only got into the ACC at 1/4 or ZERO shares (i.e., SMU bought their way in; neither their brand nor their market got them in) because their brands werenât valuable enough.
why do you think UCLA, a team that averaged 400 k in football the year they received the invite was valued so highly?
It is the MARKET!
When i think of 100k packed stadiums, I never think of the BIG BRAND UCLAâŠthey just happen to sit in a large marketâŠjust like the University of Houston.
Our day will comeâŠletâs just get our football average to the 50k range!
We sit in a Large Market.
Iâm in 100% disagreement with youâŠmarkets still matterâŠAdvertising and Marketing opportunities in said large markets STILL MATTERS!
1 Like
Baylor ainât going to the SEC Funk.
Theyâll go to hell before they go to the SEC.
1 Like
Right. UCLA has a massive history. And is one of the most prestigious public schools in the country. They could be situated in Idaho and still get an invite. Like ND. If the âmarketâ were so important, why not pick up San Diego State, which is not far away?
1 Like
It was valued as the second largest PAC brand, its most successful basketball brand by far, and historically, its second most successful football brand (at the time of their B1G invite; I think Washington with its last title this past year just surpassed them in PAC conference football titles).
It was an easy choice.
Why do you think no P2 is inviting GaTech, despite its Atlanta market?
Why does no power conference consider Temple?
Same deal.
Itâs because their brands arenât worthy. Doesnât matter how big their markets may be.
Same for UH.
Why canât UConn get a P4 invite? Answer: SCHITTY football brand.
Why did Kansas get rejected by the B1G? Answer: SAME!!!
It mean, you can talk all you want about how UCLA isnât drawing well for football today, but it wasnât that long ago that they were drawing over 70K per game for football.
Name any point in UHâs history when it could claim the same.
Until you can, DONâT try to claim that our brand can get us in the P2 the way that theirs could.
yet they average 42k, in football, the year they received their invite
When UCLA is on top, theyâll draw over 70K.
UH never has, and never will.
Win and expand TDECU!
Exactly. Because theyâre UCLA, with huge history. Look, Texas didnât win for 15 years. Think the SEC cared?
No, they didnât care, because they knew that UTâs football BRAND SIZE was among the very largest in college football, regardless of their recent on field results.
Even in bad years, theyâll fill a 100K stadium and get huge TV ratings.
UH hasnât even done HALF that in its BEST years, because our brand size is truly that much smaller.
Consider this. In 2010, UCLA averaged 60K per game for a 4-8 team. Has UH EVER come close to that? Come on.
We arenât a better brand than Baylor, Iâm sorry
Baylor has a NC in basketball and has done more than we have football wise in the last 10 years so no, we are not a better brand
Bigger city yes, better brand no
1 Like
Nope weâre not better. Comes full circle to OP. The sooner everyone acknowledges what we lack, and what we need to accomplish, the better.
And the answer is not, âwell they got there politically before usâ, otherwise weâd be Ohio State.
1 Like
Iâll take the ugly one. You guys fight over the rest.