Media deal iminent?

[PeteTheChop]

I'm with Loyal on this. I don't really want to take the lowest appeal teams in Texas. The only way that I would say yes is if they could demonstrate that we are going to make more money per school because of their involvement and I don't believe that anyone thinks that is the case.

Wonder if SMU and Rice would take a steep discount on their media rights in order to play in a Power Five conference and be associated with Stanford and Cal?

Couldn't hurt for Klaitkoff to gauge their interest in such an arrangement.

 

[COUGinNCW]

Rice and SMU actually have some similarities. Both were significant in the Texas market when in the Southwest Conference. Both had very monied alums. Rice got recruits that Texas wanted due to the academic angle; similar to Stanford and USC in the PAC. They did not get enough of them (again, similar to Stanford), but they would have the occasional successful year. The fan support at Rice was good, despite the fact that they lost more than they won. A son of one of my friends was at Rice. My friend and his son were attending a game and his son was sitting with him in the parent's section, opposite side of the field from the students. Rice was getting pounded by UT; it was early in the 4th quarter. My friend (an OU grad, in fact a former yell leader) laughed when he told me that during a time out, the ENTIRE Rice student section stood and chanted, "That's all right, That's OK: you'll be working for US someday!". I think that gives you a feel for some of the culture. And remember, during the SWC days Rice shared the Houston market with Houston. Houston was the opposite end of the academic spectrum. They were referred to locally in the Houston area as "Cougar High". Another one of my buddies who grew up in Houston & ended up at Florida for his doctorate told me that Houston was considered to be the university of last resort. Ultimately, when the SWC blew up, Rice decided not to go the P5 route. If they changed their mind, they (like SMU) could easily spool up their program. The money is there. I just don't know (in Rice's case) if the desire is there. It is clearly there for SMU. And if both were P5 programs, the media eyeballs would follow. Rice could draw the greater Houston market media as well as UH could, if they were competing in a P5 conference. Texans other than alums want to see major competition. If either or both were in the PAC, the eyeballs would follow.

Love that “you’ll work for us someday”. Puts it in perspective.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I'm with Loyal on this. I don't really want to take the lowest appeal teams in Texas. The only way that I would say yes is if they could demonstrate that we are going to make more money per school because of their involvement and I don't believe that anyone thinks that is the case.

I think Flat hit the nail on the head. IMHO it is worth doing if it pencils out. There are some peripheral benefits to having Texas an in-conference recruiting state and picking up some media markets. The media market penetration in both DFW and Houston will increase with time (it will exceed expectations from the beginning, if for no other reason than curiosity). There is also some downside in terms of travel time & expenses. They would have some winter weather games they are not accustomed to; we'd have some humidity games, and likely a few more heavy rain ones. I'm open to the idea, but as Flat suggests, if it does not help the money situation then there is no reason to do it. SDSU is in a smaller local market but keeps greater SoCal under our tent; that one fits without question. I'm thinking we just add SDSU and no one else this year unless there is a relatively clear financial advantage to do so. We don't need 2 schools this year just to keep the numbers even. But we shall see what we shall see.

 

[Coug90]

I'm with Loyal on this. I don't really want to take the lowest appeal teams in Texas. The only way that I would say yes is if they could demonstrate that we are going to make more money per school because of their involvement and I don't believe that anyone thinks that is the case.

Can we at least agree on Texas State?

 

[95coug]

I'm with Loyal on this. I don't really want to take the lowest appeal teams in Texas. The only way that I would say yes is if they could demonstrate that we are going to make more money per school because of their involvement and I don't believe that anyone thinks that is the case.

I’m not impressed by the “if you take them, people will come” argument as it relates to any of these schools. I don’t care that SMU and Rice had following in the SWC. That wasn’t in the current media era. More importantly, it was over 30 years ago - more like 40. The people who used to go to their games are probably - in large part - gone. And, we know that game attendance doesn’t matter anymore, TV viewing does. Both schools have gone basically 2 generations with little TV coverage, and we somehow think that overnight they’ll grow their audience by 5x? Sorry…I’m not buying it.

I would be on board with considering a probationary addition of a school like that for a 25% share, with strict criteria for increase. If they reach viewer and revenue milestones that warrant it, they can get to 1/3, 1/2, 3/4, and full shares. No advance in the first 3 season, they have to be able to sustain interest. And, if they don’t reach those milestones in 3 seasons, they’re out.

With those kind of conditions, I don’t even think the schools would be interested. Mostly because they know they’ll never reach them.