2011 College Football "The Real been hacked!!!!" .

[flahustler1024]

Keep hating Baylor 

           

 

[flahustler1024]

Keep hating Baylor 

           

 

[sorkoram]

Altee Tennpenny visiting this weekend. Need that kid to commit, he's a hog lean

 

[sorkoram]

Altee Tennpenny visiting this weekend. Need that kid to commit, he's a hog lean

 

[ooiron manoo]

Originally Posted by University of Nike

Whatever you think, and the amount of rolling smileys that you use, don't matter. You said that everyone else will sit around and "count the $$$" that the big 3 will bring in.

USC isn't a "big $$$" school. It has nothing to do with talent, or wins, or anything. Hell, Arizona basketball makes more money than USC football.

But I'll let you put your CP shades back on and go back into delusional mode now.

What are you talking about, did you even see the "stats" you posted?

USC Football produced $35 million in revenue
Arizona Basketball produced $20 million in revenue

How is that more, plus the stats you used ranked schools based on profits, not on revenue generated.

On top of that, the USC does something that no other school in the Pac 12 does and that is produce revenue for 3rd parties (ie TV Networks).  Oregon is not quite there yet, if they continue building on what they got they will get there.

Sorry to break it to you Chester...in the grand scheme of things USC is a "big *$% school". 

Arizona and UCLA basketball? Need to reestablish dominance outside the conference, same with UW.
OSU baseball? College Baseball isn't a sport of interest in terms of viewership, it's too watered down at the college level.
Stanford and Oregon football?  Doormat Stanford and New Money Oregon, c'mon bro

Oregon T&F?  Niche sport at this point.

 

[ooiron manoo]

Originally Posted by University of Nike

Whatever you think, and the amount of rolling smileys that you use, don't matter. You said that everyone else will sit around and "count the $$$" that the big 3 will bring in.

USC isn't a "big $$$" school. It has nothing to do with talent, or wins, or anything. Hell, Arizona basketball makes more money than USC football.

But I'll let you put your CP shades back on and go back into delusional mode now.

What are you talking about, did you even see the "stats" you posted?

USC Football produced $35 million in revenue
Arizona Basketball produced $20 million in revenue

How is that more, plus the stats you used ranked schools based on profits, not on revenue generated.

On top of that, the USC does something that no other school in the Pac 12 does and that is produce revenue for 3rd parties (ie TV Networks).  Oregon is not quite there yet, if they continue building on what they got they will get there.

Sorry to break it to you Chester...in the grand scheme of things USC is a "big *$% school". 

Arizona and UCLA basketball? Need to reestablish dominance outside the conference, same with UW.
OSU baseball? College Baseball isn't a sport of interest in terms of viewership, it's too watered down at the college level.
Stanford and Oregon football?  Doormat Stanford and New Money Oregon, c'mon bro

Oregon T&F?  Niche sport at this point.

 

[university of nike]

I was mainly using the profit levels, but even using revenue, Oregon was higher than USC. I should have clarified.

Regardless, I was just trying to bring CP back down to earth. He thought that USC was on the same level as Texas and Oklahoma (as far as $$$ is concerned). I'm not talking about the football programs or any of that stuff - just revenue numbers.

 

[university of nike]

I was mainly using the profit levels, but even using revenue, Oregon was higher than USC. I should have clarified.

Regardless, I was just trying to bring CP back down to earth. He thought that USC was on the same level as Texas and Oklahoma (as far as $$$ is concerned). I'm not talking about the football programs or any of that stuff - just revenue numbers.

 

[39478]

My dude Chester

 

[39478]

My dude Chester

 

[gunna get it]

Eeeeeeeek Justin blackman's sports science performance

 

[gunna get it]

Eeeeeeeek Justin blackman's sports science performance

 

[p mac one]

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

Originally Posted by P MAC ONE

I don't think the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah are going to go for being separated from the California schools unless there are special considerations made with the scheduling.

The original 8 probably don't care either way.

Personally, I think a zipper system or keeping the North/South and putting the OK schools in the North would be the best way to go about it.

I don't think the Arizona schools have that much clout, and I don't mean to insult.

USC, UCLA, Stanford and UCLA basically pushed for special considerations when the  Pac 12 divisions were formed and they had and argument besides recruiting.  Oregon and Washington clamored because Stanford and Cal would be the only schools in the North Division that get to play in California every year...guaranteed.

If Oregon and Washington didn't have clout, don't think the Arizona schools will have much.

I agree with you, they probably don't have enough clout to stop from being part of the Big 12 west if that's what it comes to. My hope is that they'll come up with a different alignment or at least special considerations so that the Arizona schools and Colorado get to play in California since so much of the student bodies and athletes come from CA.

 

[p mac one]

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

Originally Posted by P MAC ONE

I don't think the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah are going to go for being separated from the California schools unless there are special considerations made with the scheduling.

The original 8 probably don't care either way.

Personally, I think a zipper system or keeping the North/South and putting the OK schools in the North would be the best way to go about it.

I don't think the Arizona schools have that much clout, and I don't mean to insult.

USC, UCLA, Stanford and UCLA basically pushed for special considerations when the  Pac 12 divisions were formed and they had and argument besides recruiting.  Oregon and Washington clamored because Stanford and Cal would be the only schools in the North Division that get to play in California every year...guaranteed.

If Oregon and Washington didn't have clout, don't think the Arizona schools will have much.

I agree with you, they probably don't have enough clout to stop from being part of the Big 12 west if that's what it comes to. My hope is that they'll come up with a different alignment or at least special considerations so that the Arizona schools and Colorado get to play in California since so much of the student bodies and athletes come from CA.

 

[bigmike23]

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

Sorry to break it to you Chester...in the grand scheme of things USC is a "big *$% school". 

Arizona and UCLA basketball? Need to reestablish dominance outside the conference, same with UW.
Stanford and Oregon football?  Doormat Stanford and New Money Oregon, c'mon bro

homer much?

 

[bigmike23]

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

Sorry to break it to you Chester...in the grand scheme of things USC is a "big *$% school". 

Arizona and UCLA basketball? Need to reestablish dominance outside the conference, same with UW.
Stanford and Oregon football?  Doormat Stanford and New Money Oregon, c'mon bro

homer much?

 

[runshouse23]

Originally Posted by FlaHustler1024

Originally Posted by Mr Marcus

yall think Fla Intl can beat L'ville?

don't know about winning but FIU could cover 

Yes. Only cause I'm a student 

. But in all seriousness, I think this year it's a big year for FIU. The staff is top notch and the players seemed determined to want to be Sun Belt champs 
and not co-Sun Belt champs. For the first time ever, students are talking about FIU football on campus. I've been there 6 years 

 and it's the most hyped season by far.

 

[runshouse23]

Originally Posted by FlaHustler1024

Originally Posted by Mr Marcus

yall think Fla Intl can beat L'ville?

don't know about winning but FIU could cover 

Yes. Only cause I'm a student 

. But in all seriousness, I think this year it's a big year for FIU. The staff is top notch and the players seemed determined to want to be Sun Belt champs 
and not co-Sun Belt champs. For the first time ever, students are talking about FIU football on campus. I've been there 6 years 

 and it's the most hyped season by far.

 

[ThaxbyChamblis]

Smh @ Cardo selling Greg and Telvin some loud and getting them suspended . I know you wanted them @ UGA but no need to sabotage

 

[ThaxbyChamblis]

Smh @ Cardo selling Greg and Telvin some loud and getting them suspended . I know you wanted them @ UGA but no need to sabotage

 

[ooiron manoo]

I was mainly using the profit levels, but even using revenue, Oregon was higher than USC. I should have clarified.
Slightly,

USC's profit margin will always be small due to the emphasis they place on Olympic sports.  Same can be said of Stanford and UCLA.

On top of that, USC has always cut below market deals in the best interest of the Pac 8, Pac 10 and the Pac 12.  Much to the anger of the fan base.

Fan base =/= alum base

homer much?
C'mon man, you know it's true.

Stanford football despite it's recent dominance isn't a draw.  They have one of the smallest venues in the Pac 12 and still can't sell it out.  Even last year, when they were a Top 5 team, it was a neutral crowd for the USC/Stanford game. 

How long will this Stanford run last?  Who knows, they are far from being a pillar of the conference football wise.

Oregon isn't carrying the conference without establishing itself, long term *cough* win a damn BCS game *cough*.  Before the turn of the century they were known as UW's punching bag with the ugly green and yellow uniforms and Donald Duck as their mascot.

Basketball- the Pac 10/12 has not been known as a strong conference for the past couple of years.  Your damn basketball school isn't holding up it's end of the deal. 

 

[ooiron manoo]

I was mainly using the profit levels, but even using revenue, Oregon was higher than USC. I should have clarified.
Slightly,

USC's profit margin will always be small due to the emphasis they place on Olympic sports.  Same can be said of Stanford and UCLA.

On top of that, USC has always cut below market deals in the best interest of the Pac 8, Pac 10 and the Pac 12.  Much to the anger of the fan base.

Fan base =/= alum base

homer much?
C'mon man, you know it's true.

Stanford football despite it's recent dominance isn't a draw.  They have one of the smallest venues in the Pac 12 and still can't sell it out.  Even last year, when they were a Top 5 team, it was a neutral crowd for the USC/Stanford game. 

How long will this Stanford run last?  Who knows, they are far from being a pillar of the conference football wise.

Oregon isn't carrying the conference without establishing itself, long term *cough* win a damn BCS game *cough*.  Before the turn of the century they were known as UW's punching bag with the ugly green and yellow uniforms and Donald Duck as their mascot.

Basketball- the Pac 10/12 has not been known as a strong conference for the past couple of years.  Your damn basketball school isn't holding up it's end of the deal. 

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by University of Nike

I was mainly using the profit levels, but even using revenue, Oregon was higher than USC. I should have clarified.

Regardless, I was just trying to bring CP back down to earth. He thought that USC was on the same level as Texas and Oklahoma (as far as $$$ is concerned). I'm not talking about the football programs or any of that stuff - just revenue numbers.

And it worked so well. 

 

I don't think USC is on Texas or anyone else's level money wise, I could care less.  "Matter" wise, they are.  They matter.  The other 13 do not.  I don't know how much more clear I need to make that, but it's the truth.  I've said the same stuff now for goin on 5 years, the Pac 9, would be 13, and then there would be "The 3"  Point blank, period.  It's how it would be, and should be viewed.  Stop with the Stanford Golf, and UCLA swimming, and some other school volleyball team.  These conferences are NOT being aligned based on the other stuff.  Get real here man.  Nobody talkin bout SEC baseball bro.  Does that stuff come with, yes absolutely.  Yes, there are other factors in play, but football is the driving force behind all of this, and the teams that matter number exactly 3, and then everybody else.  TODAY, Stanford and Oregon are big, the second, and I mean second Luck goes into the draft, where Stanford goin? 

  And as soon as Phil croaks, or wants to get away from whatever investigation that goes on and pulls his money, there goes that team.  Fight it all you want, Tex, Ok, and SC are going to be in charge.  I have no clue how anyone could see it any different.  *shrugs* 

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by University of Nike

I was mainly using the profit levels, but even using revenue, Oregon was higher than USC. I should have clarified.

Regardless, I was just trying to bring CP back down to earth. He thought that USC was on the same level as Texas and Oklahoma (as far as $$$ is concerned). I'm not talking about the football programs or any of that stuff - just revenue numbers.

And it worked so well. 

 

I don't think USC is on Texas or anyone else's level money wise, I could care less.  "Matter" wise, they are.  They matter.  The other 13 do not.  I don't know how much more clear I need to make that, but it's the truth.  I've said the same stuff now for goin on 5 years, the Pac 9, would be 13, and then there would be "The 3"  Point blank, period.  It's how it would be, and should be viewed.  Stop with the Stanford Golf, and UCLA swimming, and some other school volleyball team.  These conferences are NOT being aligned based on the other stuff.  Get real here man.  Nobody talkin bout SEC baseball bro.  Does that stuff come with, yes absolutely.  Yes, there are other factors in play, but football is the driving force behind all of this, and the teams that matter number exactly 3, and then everybody else.  TODAY, Stanford and Oregon are big, the second, and I mean second Luck goes into the draft, where Stanford goin? 

  And as soon as Phil croaks, or wants to get away from whatever investigation that goes on and pulls his money, there goes that team.  Fight it all you want, Tex, Ok, and SC are going to be in charge.  I have no clue how anyone could see it any different.  *shrugs* 

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by CP1708


And it worked so well. 

 

I don't think USC is on Texas or anyone else's level money wise, I could care less.  "Matter" wise, they are.  They matter.  The other 13 do not.  I don't know how much more clear I need to make that, but it's the truth.  I've said the same stuff now for goin on 5 years, the Pac 9, would be 13, and then there would be "The 3"  Point blank, period.  It's how it would be, and should be viewed.  Stop with the Stanford Golf, and UCLA swimming, and some other school volleyball team.  These conferences are NOT being aligned based on the other stuff.  Get real here man.  Nobody talkin bout SEC baseball bro.  Does that stuff come with, yes absolutely.  Yes, there are other factors in play, but football is the driving force behind all of this, and the teams that matter number exactly 3, and then everybody else.  TODAY, Stanford and Oregon are big, the second, and I mean second Luck goes into the draft, where Stanford goin? 

  And as soon as Phil croaks, or wants to get away from whatever investigation that goes on and pulls his money, there goes that team.  Fight it all you want, Tex, Ok, and SC are going to be in charge.  I have no clue how anyone could see it any different.  *shrugs* 

Saved ya a post Ches.  Keep it movin......