I merely asked for your sources of information. I countered your information, game attendance records, which you alleged were indicative of the fanbase - to be certain, they are one factor to be considered. I live in Houston, I am a Syracuse fan. I rarely get back to Syracuse so I don't attend games often. I will rarely show up in attendance figures, but I remain a loyal fan. I presented data showing the alumni bases and the metro market differences. I also included issues UofH has to compete with and TTU does not have to compete with. All factors to be considered when analyzing a fan base.
All I am asking is that you provide sources for the bases of your conclusions. You present your opinion as fact, it isn't, it is opinion. There is nothing wrong with opinions, everyone has them.* The issue is you stated a "fact" - fanbase size based off game attendance average. You stated TTU's fanbase is larger and that UofH may catch up at some point. I countered that a fanbase is more than just game attendees, I also provide some evidence to support that TTU is not as desirable as a first glance may appear based on number of alumni (Houston +60K over TTU) and metro (Houston 6MM+, TTU 300K+).
You moved the goal post and created a straw man in on fell swoop with the question of my data point to prove Cougar fans are willing to pay $10/month to watch the Cougars. As this was never in our discussion, it remains outside of our discussion. Neither of us has provided evidence or asserted claims that one is more likely to draw subscriptions. I don't have to defend a position I have not posited.
Your final comment makes no sense. While Orlando certainly is a larger city than Syracuse, the fact remains the UCF is at best the fourth school in Florida and a relative newcomer to the hoops ranks at the highest level. Juxtaposed with Syracuse, the main New York hoops school (possibly #2 to St. Johns, but I doubt it) and a long history of greatness in hoops. Again, you posit a claim as if I made the claim. One must look at as many factors as one may find to make a reasoned decision. UCF v. SU in hoops supremacy is an apples to lug nuts analysis.
I challenged your claim that TTU would be a good addition to the ACC. I am not confident Houston would fit, though Louisville may appreciate either one or both from an academic standpoint. I've stated as much to be clear on the matter. Plus, TTU simply lacks any significant fans throughout the state.
You are a better poster than that and have deeper thoughts than insinuating I am making a claim beyond what I state. While I don't always agree with you; nevertheless, you post your own thoughts as opposed to simple regurgitation from internet hot air/click bait seekers. And you have some good ideas and solid thoughts. On the point of TTU being a good addition for the ACC, we disagree.
Anyway, this discussion can go no further. We lack sufficient data to further develop the analysis. Unless one of our TV gurus can share some ...
*Unless the opinion is the Rutgers is a sleeping giant in football or Georgetown hoops is great, the you are completely messed up and delusional and factually wrong and for which the person with an idiotic favorable opinion of Rutgers and/or Georgetown should be locked in a padded cell. (O.K. That really is an opinion)
So you are saying there isn’t a strong correlation between attendance and loyal fanbase size? Ok.
And sure not all alumni live near the school but don’t a good amount? What city has the most Cougar alumni living in it? If Cougar fans are not engaged enough to show up why would they pay for a sub? Do most Tech alumni live near Lubbock?
A lot of what you say applies to OTA and not app subscriptions, which is what we were talking about but you keep trying to change the parameters. Ratings do not matter in this aspect.
The fact that you keep mentioning Lubbock shows that you are trying to move the goalposts. City size does not matter for this conversation.
If Apple bought the B12 FB Tier 3 rights and had a plug-in for B12 FB, you really think Houston would bring in more subscribers that Tech? Based on?
Houston is a big city, but that doesn’t matter for subs. People in Houston with no affiliation to the Cougars aren’t paying extra to watch.
Houston is a big school but based on attendance their alumni are not engaged. If the alumni are not willing to show up to games why do you believe that they care enough to pay $5.99 a month to watch?
You have made zero counter arguments as to why they would have more paying customers. Where is your data?
You keep making the argument that Tech isn’t a good overall fit. That is moving the goalposts. The original point was who adds more subscribers.
OTA value has to do with ratings and markets. All of the B12 Texas schools are pretty even as brands. If SMU is already in the ACC, adding TCU isn’t as big. Houston is the only real one adding a new market (as I have said multiple times already).
A direct to consumer subscription has to do with hardcore fanbase. Casual fans who aren’t really engaged aren’t going to pay. Locals who have mild interest in the going’s on aren’t going to pay. Alumni who have no interest in Cougar FB or even mild interest are not going to pay.
Like I said several times Houston has by far the most potential fan pool. But at some point they need to start capturing those fans. Otherwise they are just another Rutgers in that regard.
You keep arguing that Houston is a big city and is a big school and therefore have a large fanbase, have you not? And that fanbase is bigger than Tech’s who has a small city and smaller school, correct? Is that not also correct between UCF and SU?
My argument is Tech has more engaged and loyal fans. Is that not also true about SU BBall? You agree that SU BBall fans are larger than UCF’s fans but at the same time chose the opposite with Houston vs Tech.
Whether or not Tech is a good addition to the ACC was never the point of the conversation, moving the goalposts.
The WHOLE point was who adds more subscribers and saying that is “moving the goalposts” shows you were not interested in that conversation and changed the conversation to fit your narrative.
en.wikipedia.org
