collegesportsinfo wrote:
I'll take that bet too. But let's make it $1000. There is zero logic behind such a move (same markets so it would mean minimal viewership increase, would add 2 mouths to feed with a minimal economic boost...current Pac-10 schools would get less money per school).
You've been wrong before.
Sure, we all have in the past when there was less of a proven structure for expansion as TV deals weren't the biggest factor then.
Just like people here have made mistakes thinking that just because a school is an associate member in a conference with a BCS name for a revenue losing sport, that it would actually mean they would be considered in this lifetime for full-membership in such BCS conferences.
collegesportsinfo wrote:
I'll take that bet too. But let's make it $1000. There is zero logic behind such a move (same markets so it would mean minimal viewership increase, would add 2 mouths to feed with a minimal economic boost...current Pac-10 schools would get less money per school).
You've been wrong before.
But I'd greatly enjoy your thoughts on why the Pac-10 would ever want to add both schools. I'm very intrigued. Since it would mean losing money versus making money since it's the same exact market...and markets help determine the revenue projections for the TV contracts. Big Ten makes $242 million per year, Pac-10 makes $58 million per year.
blackfalkin, if you are so sure we are wrong take the bet or a more realistic bet because I wouldn't expect you to pay up. If you lose the bet put you're CSI and my bitch in your sig. If I lose I'd have to put that I'm yours. I can't speak for CSI but I can me. for a Month? Year? Deal?
