Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 52

Thread: Uconn

  1. #31
    Supporting Member bleedXblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by JTG View Post
    TV revenue from soccer ? Ha, ha,
    Whats so funny? I think I saw where the average team generated 40MM last year from television. Yes, not on the scale of NFL, NBA etc. But they are growing.

  2. #32
    Supporting Member XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,517
    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post

    As for MLS, it might not have been as profitable at Nippert, but if they shared even $1 with UC, UC would be ahead of where they are now.
    I think the agreement with FC Cincinnati and UC was to split the parking and concessions, and FC was to pay for some of the stadium changes. For example, there is new turf going in that meets MSL specifications and that is being paid for by FC. I believe that FC kept the gate.

    I know it’s popular to bash UC football here, but I think that if you take a look at the actual numbers, and compare them to other non-power 5 conference schools, they don’t look so bad. Need to compare apples to apples. Besides, it is the only real game in town when it comes to college football. If X still had a football team, I am sure I would be a big fan and supporter. But they don’t.

  3. #33
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    20,260
    That's probably true. But $1,238/season ticket for all 43,691 students seems a little steep.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  4. #34
    Supporting Member XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,517
    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post
    That's probably true. But $1,238/season ticket for all 43,691 students seems a little steep.
    I agree.....but how much of that goes to support other sports that bring in no revenue? At least 1/2 of that is going to sports mandated by Title IX legislation, and quite possibly the majority of it is going there. It’s free to attend almost every contest in the other sports, besides MENS football and basketball. Yet it’s certainly not free to have them. Since the Title IX legislation requires that equal amount of dollars be spent on women’s programs as is spent on men’s, yet certainly doesn’t take into account the amount of money those sports actually earn in ticket sales and other revenue sources, there are millions of dollars that MUST be spent just to adhere to that legislation. That money has to come from somewhere. I wonder just how many of those students and parents understand that they are each spending thousands of dollars of their tuition money from every student to support “equality”?

  5. #35
    Supporting Member D-West & PO-Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montgomery
    Posts
    17,038
    Quote Originally Posted by XUGRAD80 View Post
    I agree.....but how much of that goes to support other sports that bring in no revenue? At least 1/2 of that is going to sports mandated by Title IX legislation, and quite possibly the majority of it is going there. It’s free to attend almost every contest in the other sports, besides MENS football and basketball. Yet it’s certainly not free to have them. Since the Title IX legislation requires that equal amount of dollars be spent on women’s programs as is spent on men’s, yet certainly doesn’t take into account the amount of money those sports actually earn in ticket sales and other revenue sources, there are millions of dollars that MUST be spent just to adhere to that legislation. That money has to come from somewhere. I wonder just how many of those students and parents understand that they are each spending thousands of dollars of their tuition money from every student to support “equality”?
    From everything I have read Title IX does not require equal spending on mens and womens sports. From what I read that is a common misconception though.

    Here is one thing I read:

    "The law allows for a school to spend differently on sports, but those differences can't be discriminatory. If a college has football, men's lacrosse and baseball, those sports are much more expensive to run and outfit. "And that's OK, because there are reasonable differences in sports," Morrison says. "But if you're outfitting your women's programs in substandard equipment, that would not be OK.""
    "I’m willing to sacrifice everything for this team. I’m going to dive for every loose ball, close out harder on every shot, block out for every rebound. I’m going to play harder than I’ve ever played. And I need you all to follow me." -MB '17

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by bleedXblue View Post
    How so? Sharing profits with UC? Do professional sports teams in general "share" their attendance revenue and profit with the leagues they are in? My understanding is that television rights are where a huge majority of the revenues come from.

    Once that stadium gets built and they have a place of their own, Nippert will be long forgotten.
    It would save the ownership $200 million they are spending on the new stadium (on top of the improvements to Nippert they are paying for to use the facility while the new stadium is built). Nippert also holds 33,800 fans vs the 26,500 at the new stadium (7,300 tickets not available for sale). Will FC be getting any parking revenue at the new site?
    How sweet it is!

  7. #37
    Supporting Member bleedXblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by DART87 View Post
    It would save the ownership $200 million they are spending on the new stadium (on top of the improvements to Nippert they are paying for to use the facility while the new stadium is built). Nippert also holds 33,800 fans vs the 26,500 at the new stadium (7,300 tickets not available for sale). Will FC be getting any parking revenue at the new site?
    I get it.......but the real value here is 20 years from now when the franchise could be worth 2-3 times what it is now. You don't get that playing at Nippert. Table stakes are to build a soccer old/stand alone facility. The Linder's are in this thing to make HUGE money. Its a gamble, but you cant think small.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by muskienick View Post
    Each team would NOT play an 18-game Conference season. You'd play each of the other 5 teams in your own Division home and away (that's 10 games) and you'd play each team in the other Division once, 3 of them at home and 3 of them away (that's 6 games). That totals a 16-game Conference schedule for each of the 12 teams. That produces a total of 192 Conference games that would be potential TV fodder for Fox's many channels (FOX network, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, and all the Regional Fox channels).

    However, if we limit the membership to 11, it will provide a LOT more opportunity for television coverage for Big East Conference games'. Each of the 11 teams could still play a round-robin Big East Conference schedule of 20 games (10 home and 10 away). That would provide us two big improvements in our Conference appeal: 1) we maintain the Round robin and, 2) we get to provide a lot more programming for the FOX brand (220 Conference games!!!). In the meantime, we'd have a balanced (and more fair) schedule for each of our Conference members than the 12-member plan.
    You should check your math, Nick...
    it's not 192 games, it's half of that, since each "game" is really "2 games" one for each team....right?

    Put me in the camp that would support expansion. i'd prefer 12 teams (UConn & SLU) or even 14 teams (UD and Richmond) before we just go to 11.

    11 teams results in 20 conference games. 2 more than we have today, meaning 2 less non-con games.
    14 teams would result in divisions, and 19 conference games.
    12 teams results in divisions with 16 conference games.

    I think it's important to play alot of non-con games. If you ONLY played conference games, then the cumulative W-L% of all the teams in the conference would be .500%, right? You WANT the conference to have a MUCH better cumulative win%, and they only way to do that is to win alot more non-con games than you lose. If your schedule is made up non-con games being a much smaller portion of the total games, then it's much harder to move the winning % up.

    Simple example assuming 34 games for each opponent, and a 70% non-con winning %.

    20 conference games @ .500 + 14 non-con games at .700= .582% combined win %
    18 16 = .594%
    16 18 = .606%

    The perception of the conference is formed, in part, by the collective winning % of the conference. why not keep this in mind?

  9. #39
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    20,260
    Or have 11 teams, keep the round robin, and have everybody schedule for good OOC results. We're at 75% this year.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  10. #40
    Supporting Member GIMMFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,917
    Quote Originally Posted by bleedXblue View Post
    Whats so funny? I think I saw where the average team generated 40MM last year from television. Yes, not on the scale of NFL, NBA etc. But they are growing.
    Yup, it's growing like crazy, here's a pretty fun fact: Toronto FC in the MLS' payroll is $26,559,206; that payroll would rank:
    2nd in the Scottish Premiership
    8th in Ligue 1 (France)
    12th in La Liga (Spain)
    13th in Bundesliga (Germany)
    15th in Serie A (Italy)

    MLS is growing as a brand as well, won't ever catch the English Premiership, but the talent levels are getting a lot better, it's not only old washed up athletes these days playing for these clubs, there's some decent young talent now too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •