Arkstfan

Actually pretty typical coach. Coaches tend to not want to face tougher competition. UNC women's soccer has 21 national championships and six second place finishes and made final four another four times. Forty total NCAA appearances, yes they've won basically every other tournament appearance and only failed to make final four 9 times and only failed to make championship game 13 times. In three seasons before NCAA took over women's sports missed AIAW tournament once with a 10-2 record, finished as a semi-finalist and then won it last year AIAW was in business so 22 total national titles. They've made every NCAA Tournament and made two of three AIAW tournaments. 1979 only time haven't played in national championship tournament. Despite those gaudy numbers, haven't won the NCAA Tournament since 2012. After 47 years think he's hearing the footsteps.

This year Oregon State hosts UCLA, Washington, Stanford, and Utah. Washington State hosts Colorado, Stanford, Oregon State, and Arizona. Cougars schedule this year is fairly close to what they likely get if the four stick together. Oregon State loses a top 15 opponent and two traditional opponents. Selling tickets for UNLV or Rice or Utah State or Tulsa in lieu of UCLA, Washington, and Utah I suspect will be a challenge. Character of fan base will emerge. Will they pout and stay home or flock in to support the team?

Underwhelming article. At least since the SWC and Big-8 went to ABC to talk options going forward after the CFA TV deal broke up schools have gone to the powers that be and asked "What will you pay for ______?" The idea that they would be in a situation of joining MWC or rebuilding while not knowing the TV value is silly.

Some interesting takes. I struggle to see how adding Oregon State to AAC is notably different from adding Fresno. Based on fan attention Boise State is likely more value to AAC than Washington State. Cal is obviously a freaking mess in athletics but they are a bigger brand in name recognition than UCF and Stanford even bigger than they are. Those a schools worth traveling for. Oregon State and Washington State? Network TV didn't broadcast more than half of programming in color until 1965. Oregon State won the Pac-8 in 1964 and only once (2000) since and they split that title with Washington who had beaten them. Washington State won titles in 1917, 1930, 1997, and 2002 and split the last two. Neither gets presidents giddy about academic prestige. MWC with just the two of them isn't getting a big bump in TV money.

Writer for BearInsider believes ACC is voting again Tuesday and this time Cal and Stanford get in. If Oregon State and Washington State are the last cats standing seems pretty improbable that they raid a conference but rather join an existing one that claims to be the Pac-12 for the purposes of keeping the units earned. It seems a tall order for them to produce enough new TV revenue to offset the cost and hassle of travel for AAC. Football charters to Washington State tend to either fly in and out of Lewiston, ID which means taking off with a short load of fuel (short runway) and then flying to Boise or Salt Lake to refuel and go on or bus 90 minutes to Spokane to fly. Oregon State a bit easier with 45 minute bus ride from the Eugene airport. Just can't imagine too many people east of the rockies caring or recognizing Oregon State, WSU bit better known but obviously Leach days are over. https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/116011/1

I'm skeptical. When revenue declines, increasing expenses isn't a generally favored strategy.

It seems pretty narrowed but Oliver Luck might cook up something surprising. I'm personally rooting for a merger. Indifferent who it is with. Merger brings the chaos to a pause. AAC getting raided means chaos, I'm tired of chaos. Might mean yet more FCS schools called up and outside the two Dakota and two Montana schools and maybe Cal Davis and Kennesaw State who is already moving up, there's not much left in FCS I think has the resources and upside to not be zombie programs. MWC raid could see some MWC schools be zombie programs or out of FBS and don't like that outcome. It's not like there's another Idaho zombie program in the west shambling along neither alive or dead that needs to leave FBS.

What exactly is it that they COULD be doing that aren't doing? I'm sure they've been part of Pac-4 talking to media partners about the value of various combinations that do and do not include Stanford. I'm sure they've listened as MWC as touted what their numbers are with them as a member and a similar pitch from AAC. Could they just go "do something" by leaping into another conference? Yeah and then might look really stupid when the remainders pick off the value of that conference. Stanford ain't gone until Stanford has a place to move. I think we can scratch B1G, B12, SEC off that place to move list, so that leaves ACC who is reportedly one vote shy of admitting them. What we don't know is if there is a no vote that could become a yes vote if the right bargain is struck. Maybe changing ACC exit from Alcatraz level security to Leavenworth level barriers convinces Florida State to change their vote. I'm not convinced that Florida State is as hot of a property as Florida State believes. They add zero dollars to the SEC Network, ESPN would have to pay more for ABC/ESPN content to make up that no gain plus sharing revenue with them. B1G could make more money but B1G more likely isn't looking to add until they get some time under their belt with the four western schools and FSU isn't in AAU which has been a key point in assessing candidates. So if they can't get a deal brokered for ACC, Stanford is down to independent in football and find a less prestigious home for other sports or rebuild with schools they find acceptable which isn't San Jose and Fresno or most state schools that aren't land grant research schools. That takes us back to Washington State. Why would you leap today for options that are still there tomorrow when waiting may mean finding a way to keep Stanford?

Few years ago someone did a poll of NFL players and asked them what college they would want their kids to attend. Stanford was the runaway winner.

They offer academic prestige and they mean you can send the basketball team to Stanford on Wednesday or Thursday and let them stay there to play Cal on Saturday instead of turning around and going to Pitt.

I think you are spot on that Stanford is THE media value. I suspect they could do a BYU and put other sports in WCC and go independent and get a better contract than BYU got. Oregon State, Washington State, and Cal are worth more than most any G5 school because they have pretty good fan bases and name recognition, but still not as valuable as the Cardinal. Maybe reading this all wrong, but it seems like Stanford is an obstacle to the most efficient option. Merging with MWC and AAC to boost the overall value of whichever league, basically taking one of them over in order to retain the CFP contract status and NCAA units of P12, even if the other league has to discard their units. They deem too many schools in each league unworthy 🙂 To keep Stanford, I think Pac-4 has to pick off schools. I am skeptical a rebuilt Pac-4 can offer enough to convince people to start paying big departure fees, especially early departure fees to be in Pac-4 next season. This is absolutely the most fascinating realignment situation that has emerged. They merge and things get calm for a time because everyone with juice is locked in for a good time. They manage to raid? Freaking chaos.

You go to potential partners and say here are potential alignments, maybe give them four. What's each worth? If the numbers on the sheet are good, you go to the potential schools and say here is what is on the table if you join. It is on letterhead from this network or bears the names of the networks. I'm sure AAC got numbers before they extended invites. I know Sun Belt did.

Thanks. If I were Oliver Luck I’d tell the remaining four pick their poison. Join MWC which is more athlete and fan friendly or join AAC to make more money but otherwise get over yourselves. Stanford could survive as a football independent. I don’t see how Cal could afford it. Oregon State or Washington State as football independents ain’t UConn and winning hoops national titles in whatever league would take them without football

Yeah only thing is it's not so bad for minor sports because you can fly non-stop almost anywhere from San Francisco. Travel isn't bad if ACC were to want them. Sucks getting an equipment truck there. Might be cheaper to fly it freight and that's not cheap. But basketball, volleyball, you can fly direct from most ACC cities, get in two games and come home. What is horrible is how would Stanford or Cal players survive the constant trips from Pacific to Eastern time zone. That's another, this irks me. If you give a crap about the players, you don't send them that far across so many time zones so many times. You toughen up and live with the prospect of playing Utah State.

ADDENDUM. I like Stanford. They are a notable engine for the US economy. They are admirable for holding athletes to or at least close to their academic standards. But everything that has leaked about their actions in realignment has been pretty bad. No acceptance of what their market value is. It's like watching Hardcore Pawn, the Detroit show where people try to sell their gold chain that isn't gold or an old laptop with about a $50 value and refuse to take less than $200.

I don't think being in the 10th largest TV market and at the epicenter of the largest state economy in the US (the 5th largest economy in the world if it were a nation) hurts either school. The problem they have is Stanford doesn't turn out a lot of undergrads and neither Stanford nor Cal seem to attract and graduate people who think athletics is the best part of their alma mater. Their grads I suspect are more inclined to donate to insure their kiddos get in than they are to donate to watch great football and basketball. Their grads are more likely to view athletics as 49'ers, Giants, Warriors, getting deals done in the luxury boxes than yelling their head off. West Coast viewership for college athletics isn't awesome. USC and UCLA got lucky that most of their numbers were compiled while LA lacked NFL and in the wake of the Rams return and the general indifference to the Chargers return. Their long-term value to B1G may not hold up. Pro sports do great on the West Coast. The networks actually were not excited about LA getting NFL back because they were concerned about blackout rules hurting the great numbers they pull in. Starting later for home games helps avoid the rule that prevents showing a competing telecast against the local team. If this happens a decade earlier, both teams are in play but their recent non-success has hurt. Stanford hasn't been in a final poll last five years and not top 10 the last seven. In the 2010's they had double digit win totals six times. Cal hasn't been ranked since 2008. They've hit 8 wins three times since 2009. Don't want to be in a sustained slump when people pull your credit repot, uh pull your TV ratings.

Oliver Luck ain't no dummy. He's also not a riverboat gambler. What he is, is a consensus builder stuck with at least 25% and maybe 50% of his charges being unrealistic snobs. Stanford and Cal are two great academic institutions but I will wager the reported professor who valued Pac-12-2 at $50 million per school was at Stanford and used the same sort of best case wishful thinking that plagues so many Silicon Valley valuations. Stanford and Cal don't command huge audiences. Oregon State and Washington State seem to grasp what the score is. Stanford and maybe Cal seem to think they can score a TD, a 2 point conversion, recover an onside kick score another 8 and then another onside kick and score another 8 and win this thing in overtime despite there being only 58 seconds left on the clock starting at their own 25 and it won't be hard. Stanford and maybe Cal are much like Louisiana Tech, ship is sinking and they are declaring that the lifeboats don't seem roomy enough, the passing tanker can't offer comfortable enough quarters so they'll just ride it out until a luxury liner arrives. So far I've seen it touted that they take 9 schools from MWC and convince them to dissolve to avoid departure fees and leave two of the full members for dead. Now I've seen it touted for AAC. Here's the thing. Does anyone believe that a judge or a jury is going to buy that X number of schools woke up one morning and all independently reached the conclusion that they should dissolve their conference and then by stroke of amazing coincidence those schools were offered admission to the Pac-12 but not until AFTER the vote. Not one of the schools voted to dissolve having assurances in place that they had a new conference to land in. MWC and Sun Belt have provisions that state you take any act to join another conference you've constructively withdrawn. Given the history of Big East/AAC and the long departure requirement I'd be stunned if AAC doesn't have a similar provision. So the left behinds file suit and declare the conference was not dissolved because once those schools conspired to agree to dissolve the conference they had constructively withdrawn and no longer were eligible to vote to withdraw and in fact committed fraud by representing that they were still part of the conference. It's a cute and clever plan, it is however not a plan that is likely to avoid an ugly and expensive resolution. There's a second problem. None of these dissolve and join Pac-12 plans are likely to appease Stanford and in turn, may not appease Cal. Stanford is the biggest prize left in Pac-4. Cal is saddled by a 100 year mortgage that currently costs them $18 million a year, with the university carrying $9.5 million of that payment and athletics carrying $8.5 million. In a decade or less that payment doubles. No matter what happens, Cal is bringing home less money in 2024-25 than they will make in 2023-24. So they have a lot of expense they can't shed but they will be shedding revenue and they have their debt obligation doubling sooner than they'd like. You want Stanford happy, you go round up a handful of AAU schools. So Rice, Tulane, Buffalo and South Florida are in the conversation. Maybe they elevate UC Davis out of FCS. Best case that's 9 schools. Meh. Need some more. In the Pacific time zone. There are only two schools of NOTABLE value. San Diego State and Gonzaga. You squint real hard and they sort of live up to the Stanford standard. Next you have UNLV and squinting won't help but they are major city and well tied to the coast. Move over to the Mountain time zone. It's Boise State who doesn't fit the Stanford ideal, but they bring TV value. You've got AFA that is a strong academic and highly selective some TV brand value but not like the other two academies. Then you've got Colorado State who spends a lot and doesn't sustain success. Next you've got Central Time Zone west of the Mississippi. Big brands? Not really. You've got SMU that feels like they should have gone down in the S&L crisis but had political contacts and got bailed out. You've got Tulsa highly selective and oddly for a private, it's an elite geo whatever it's called engineering program for people to go hunt and extract oil. Not sure that impresses the west coasties. Central east of the Mississippi. Hey there's Memphis with two vacated Final Four appearances. A really decent regional brand. Not sure they score that well outside the Mid-south. After that a passel of schools that are truly regional brands or worse, local brands. On to the Eastern Time Zone. FAU has a Final Four. Again what's left that will talk to you is a few regional brands and local brands. Here's the rub. You go the pick and choose route, you've got to limp through 2024-25. It's incredibly unlikely you can line up enough money for anyone to pay early departure penalties. You aren't dealing with CUSA with Marshall, ODU, USM where there was really nothing lost on such a poor TV deal making early departure cheap. So unless Stanford steps out, you probably announce not at 2024-25 lineup but a 2025-26 lineup but you announce it ahead of the transfer portal and early signing day. If Stanford comes to reality or Stanford goes football independent and maybe joins WCC for other stuff then there is freedom to go as a group to MWC or AAC and declare it a merger.

Hey just drifted back, been an interesting summer 🙂 I agree with 93-98 There's so little to gain walking completely away. If it happens, it will be a blessing because if it happens it will be because one of two things has happened. 1. Players become employees and the cost of business becomes so high that the schools have to consolidate down to something in the sub 40 range in order to make it work. The supply of schools with BIG ticket revenue, BIG sponsor money, BIG donor revenue, and BIG viewership is small. A handful of schools can quickly price everyone out of the market and the long term affinity for Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Miss St, etc., simply won't be sufficient to overcome the opportunity cost of keeping them around as full equity partners. Stanford is one of the richest schools in the world, Cal the flagship of arguably the best public university system in the world and they are struggling to stay in the big leagues. 2. Universities give up, turn athletics over to venture capitalists who pay a fee to use the university intellectual property and venues. Denver Broncos sold for just over $4 billion, Washington went for $5 billion. Your investment fund has a few billion to take a flier on a sports venture but the chances of buying an NFL team are slim, they average something like a sale every other year so. NBA maybe has more upside. MLB and NHL? Hard to see that upside. MLS? Maybe but maybe not as long as shackled to the system that prevents you from losing money for a few years by buying a couple mega stars to dominate. Soccer is a ways from being peer level with the top Euro leagues and the damn Saudis might well beat you there. Nah you go sit down with the folks in Austin, offer a fat licensing fee to the stadium and facilities and name and you enter pro football with the Texas Longhorns. No XFL Arlington Renegades or USFL Birmingham Stallions names that take years to develop if the league lasts that long. Nope. Buy the rights to use the name, give the school a cut. Much better investment than XFL or USFL. You've got an established fan base. You license the name for professional football and basketball. University of Texas, Austin might keep an athletic department but it keeps an athletic department in sports that don't generate big revenue. USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Texas, TAMU, OU, etc. you probably only want to start with maybe 12-16 schools in "The College League", as other big spenders see what you've got going you can start expanding to 32. You've got a professional sports enterprise that swing toe-to-toe with the NFL and the NBA is short order. Columbus using the Ohio State name vs the Browns, Bengals, and Cavs? The College League might well win that. Michigan Wolverines vs. Detroit Lions and Pistons? If the names are licensed, the college doesn't have to worry about that crap any more. It's the venture capitalist problem. Maybe you want to keep baseball and track and tennis, and volleyball but that's your call. Maybe you retire the school from athletics and quit worrying about Title IX in athletics and quit worrying about whether coaches are selling admission to the school and quit worrying about whether the student-athlete can fit the academic profile, and quit worrying about armed robberies and sexual assaults by star players. They aren't students any more and they aren't your dad gum problem as long as the checks clear. That happens then college athletics becomes an amateur venture again among the remaining schools.

AAC is dropping P6 because the the whole P5/G5 thing is becoming irrelevant. In the BCS era, there wasn't much of a revenue difference between ACC, B1G, B12, P10, and SEC. Then you had Big East who was in the BCS club but the revenue gap between them and the rest of the AQ was about the same as the gap between Big East and CUSA/MWC. Then you had WAC then SBC and MAC. Before that the revenue of ACC, Big 8, B1G, Pac-10, SEC, and SWC was about the same. Then you had the WAC, then you had MAC and Big West. The market has changed that all up. You've got B1G and SEC. Below them ACC. Then you have Big XII nipping at their heels with a who knows what happens with Pac-12. Then you've got a pile up with AAC, MWC, SBC all pretty close together, then MAC and CUSA 4.0 or 5.0 or whatever it is now ending at the bottom of the heap.Market forces have skimmed off the notable value of what was once called the G5. Outside of SDSU (who appears fairly likely to move P12), Boise State and arguably Memphis and UConn there just aren't schools that do much for value of the leagues making more money. We've progressed from six schools being atop the heap in money to 5 to now two. From 55 in the top of the heap to 32 and probably no more 8-10 schools that could join them without a negative impact on revenue per school. Karl Marx was right about the progression of unfettered capitalism in that more and more resources will be concentrated in fewer hands. So far he hasn't been proven right about what comes next. People tend to skip over Adam Smith's advice that the wealthy should be taxed in greater proportion to wealth so that the resources circulate rather than being hoarded. The NFL probably never becomes what it is today if the owners hadn't agreed to turn all their TV rights over to the league. Each team made its own deal. The Giants and Redskins had very lucrative deals. Giants by virtue of being in the richest market and the Redskins had assembled a syndicated network that covered most of the south. Consolidation put teams on more equal financial footing as the war with the AFL started. It cleared the way to expansion in Dallas and Minnesota. The Tigers would have lost their TV in Minnesota and Skins feared Dallas would compete for southern markets. Unless something changes it is inevitable media rights for SEC and B1G will continue to grow faster than any others and the "middle class" will shrink in comparison.

Some parts of this Big XII / Pac-12 thing have been repugnantly public. We know that P12 has not brought a contract or at least a contract the presidents will approve to them within the publicly predicted time frame and now months behind. We know that the Big XII presidents rejected the option to add two hoops monsters. Gonzaga and defending national champions UConn and the scuttlebutt being that B12 presidents right now believe raiding a P5 is within grasp and the pool they want to fish in. As an MLS fan, the league has picked up a fat raise from Apple. Production values are very good with every game offered in English and Spanish and viewers also having option to substitute local radio for Apple's sound and with the Canadian teams the added option of French audio. For all the nifty keen bells and whistles of the Apple broadcasts, on many levels it's been a freaking disaster. No more telecasts on regional sports nets or local TV. No more ESPN, ABC, Fox, FS1, or before that NBC or NBCSN national telecasts. Reports are viewership numbers have collapsed. There are claims subscriber numbers are roughly what they were when MLS had it's out-of-market streaming and well below what they were on ESPN+ which cost less per year than the old MLS streaming did until they bumped the price to $10 per month. The Apple package costs basically what the old out of market package cost. The belief is that P12 can match B12 in per team revenue, but only if it is all or primarily a streaming led package. Revenue will be there but the audience will be smaller. Apple or Amazon aren't going to bring exposure. ESPN supposedly isn't interested because they've got so much tied up in other conferences and are looking at needing a fat war chest to go after the expanded CFP deal and already speculation is CFP+ will be a two network contract because no one network is likely to be in position to pay what 11 playoff games per year can command. So maybe Paramount+ or Peacock pop in and offer some linear TV with CBS or NBC but Peacock/NBC have a big investment in B1G and Notre Dame. SO COLORADO Once a successful program, they'd win a conference title about once a decade and go to a bowl about every other year while in Big8/12 since joining Pac-12 in 2011 they've made two bowl appearances. They've gone for flash and splash with Deion. Being in a TV package with less potential reach than Deion had at Jackson State doesn't fit flash and splash. Who cares about the money if your rebuild plan is based on getting a lot of attention and your plan is gutted by reducing exposure? Unless Pac-12 can deliver a notable linear broadcast package, Colorado's whole revival plan falls apart. I am sure there is great conflict in Boulder right now. Culturally Pac-12 is a better fit, the Pac-12 fits their vision of who they are academically. Athletically they have struggled being so much further from the recruiting base of their conference and the flatiron mountains likely don't impress four star recruits from California as much as they do kids from Texas. Recreational cannabis is a yawn for Cali kids. Tibetan food (not a fan) probably more unusual in Texas vs California. Dallas is closer to Boulder than any of the large California cities. If athletics wins out in the debate, they are Big XII bound. Denver is 16th largest TV market and Colorado makes a nice bridge to BYU. If Colorado follows the exposure to Big XII what next? Colorado is a big win in Big XII minds. Shows they can raid "peers" and adds another AAU for academic prestige. A second western school makes it easier to join the battle for late night games. Rumor mill has said for some time Big XII wants the four corners schools. Utah brings the Holy War into the fold a great travel setup, and another AAU. Arizona has purportedly expressed some interest. Arizona State is the sphinx who knows. Both have been dependent on Southern California for students and athletes. AAU status and large Arizona market makes them attractive to B12. Is the feeling mutual?

I find it odd that it's entirely feasible for say the Redskins or Ravens to go face Chargers or Rams, the Nationals or Orioles can go play the Angels or Dodgers, the Wizards can go play the Lakers or Clippers, the Capitals can go play the Kings or Ducks, and DC United can go play Galaxy or LAFC but the Terrapins can't go play the Trojans or Bruins. In men's and women's hoops and volleyball they can play both on the same trip. Maryland will go to LA fewer times in a season than their pro neighbors. B1G doled out about $58 million per school. NHL's TV deal is just under $20 million per team. Major League Soccer just got a really nice raise (and terrible exposure) at just under $10 million per team. Pro leagues are putting about 55% of revenue in salaries for players. Schools in B1G are spending about 4% of revenue on scholarships. Maryland will fly commercial most likely for anything other than football. The NFL, MLB, and NBA will charter. NHL will mostly charter but occasionally flies commercial and MLS flies commercial though MLSPA has said they intend to demand teams have the right to charter, currently league rules require commercial. So in general Maryland will go west less often than their pro neighbors and do so at a cheaper cost than their pro neighbors. Their revenue will lag well behind their NFL, NBA, and MLB neighbors but their league distribution will be higher than the distribution the Caps and United receive. NCAA cut back what players could receive in 1973 removing the "laundry money" cash payment because we were in a persistent recession/stagflation economy with declining college enrollment and the added cost of Title IX. Revenue for college was not great 1973 to 1990. Schools actually ended up worse off after Board of Regents v NCAA until the schools started bailing out of the CFA and cutting their own deals in 1991. When the money shot up, no one gave a crap about restoring benefit to players. Even Stevie Wonder could see the insane spending coaches salaries and facilities. Bear Bryant's salary when he retired was worth $1.4 million in today dollars. Nick Sagan has a good argument for being as good or better than Bryant but not 9X better but his salary is 9X more. If the power schools had been funneling 25% or even 10% of their $100 million revenues over to raise faculty salaries, lower tuition, add more scholarships, or something similar, the odds are fewer people would have been angry and we probably don't get the lawsuits nor the warm reception to the lawsuits that brought us stipends and NIL.

As to arena size. There is absolutely a benefit in not having too many seats. I've repeated this line many times. It's much better to have a thousand too few seats than a thousand too many. Gonzaga has a 6000 seat arena they built in 2004. They'd made NCAA in 1995. Then again in 1999 when they made the crazy Elite Eight run. They've not missed the tournament since that run in 1999. They've got a great set up. Community of around 6000. About 80 miles from nearest P5 and four hours plus from nearest major pro team. Single game tickets run $36 to $75. No season tickets are available unless on the list. To get on the list there are three tiers that entitle you to a shot to buy some single game tickets during the year, conference tournament tickets, neutral site tickets and NCAA Tournament tickets. For $250 you get on the list for day before and day of game ticket availability, shot at tickets during Christmas break when students are gone, neutral site, conference and maybe NCAA tickets For $500 get those benefits plus possibility of tickets a day earlier. For $1000 (which is sold out) you get all of that plus social passes to pre-game donor activities. School says if you buy one of those annual memberships you will likely get tickets for 3-5 games a year. If you are bottom level, get the cheapest tickets and get them five times and each time can get the maximum four tickets, that's $48.50 per ticket. Scarcity is profitable. I mean yeah it's a lot easier when you've been in the Dance every year for 25 years and hold the nation's longest active Sweet 16 streak at 8 seasons but they had a streak of four and one of three of not making it that far. But if you average 2000 for example, having 2500 is good because there will be games people are turned away and maybe some buy a season ticket to make sure it doesn't happen again, some others buy because they afraid it will happen to them. Then 3000 seats might be a good number and so on. Problem is hard to handle hard infrastructure that way. Memphis used to play at Mid-South Coliseum, it held 11,200 and the Tigers were packing it to the rafters. They quit taking season ticket applications when it got to the point it was estimated you'd get tickets in 20 years. If they had a bad year, you kept your seats because you'd never get them back when things got better. Then they moved to the Pyramid which had 20,000 seats and everyone on the waiting list got tickets. Soon after Tigers hit a dry spell and average attendance fell well below what it had been in the Coliseum. People figured out they could dump the season tickets, buy just the games they wanted, if they wanted any and could go back and likely have better season tickets than they had before whenever they wanted. Excess capacity is an issue all across Division I football and basketball outside a few schools.

Unless things have changed, host school pays NIT/NCAA based on tickets sold. If you are mailing a check based on tickets sold you, don't report a larger number than the sales number, even if it is people who were in the building.

So if TCU, SMU, and UNT are all at home on a given night, that is about 14,000 people watching college basketball, make it 15,000 if UTA is home

I’d pick Wichita over Lubbock but neither on my list of future retirement communities 🙂