Great news Cats fans: Science proves we are younger, richer and not bandwagon

[wabash909]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324391104578225802183417888.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet



 

Missouri.   

[wazucat]

Louisville    Dax what gives.

[Skipper44]

So, in CFB Monopoly, KU + MU =/= KSU?   

[Mr Bread]

I'm no money scientist, but there appears to be a lot wrong with that.  Texas Tech and Kentucky over Southern Cal?  Northwestern and Indiana over UCLA?  I'm sorry Ryan Brewer, but my calculator says no rough ridin' way (and also boobs ).

[MakeItRain]

I'm no money scientist, but there appears to be a lot wrong with that.  Texas Tech and Kentucky over Southern Cal?  Northwestern and Indiana over UCLA?  I'm sorry Ryan Brewer, but my calculator says no rough ridin' way (and also boobs ).

I don't like the list either but not for the reasons you listed.  As much national cache as UCLA and USC has, their attendance % and their stadiums leave a lot to be desired.  I don't think either has much premium seating to maximize gameday revenue.  They also don't get anywhere close to the conference revenue as the Big 10 and the SEC schools.

A school like Iowa is high on the list because they sell a lot of tickets, have a lot of premium seats, and get a ton of money from their conference, this isn't the case for the Southern California schools.

[Mr Bread]

I'm no money scientist, but there appears to be a lot wrong with that.  Texas Tech and Kentucky over Southern Cal?  Northwestern and Indiana over UCLA?  I'm sorry Ryan Brewer, but my calculator says no rough ridin' way (and also boobs ).

I don't like the list either but not for the reasons you listed.  As much national cache as UCLA and USC has, their attendance % and their stadiums leave a lot to be desired.  I don't think either has much premium seating to maximize gameday revenue.  They also don't get anywhere close to the conference revenue as the Big 10 and the SEC schools.

A school like Iowa is high on the list because they sell a lot of tickets, have a lot of premium seats, and get a ton of money from their conference, this isn't the case for the Southern California schools.

I didn't mention Iowa.  Northwestern's stadium is the smallest and shittiest (i.e., dick for premium seating) in the Big Ten and they never sell it out.  It's a rough ridin' ghost town in there most games.  Their average attendance last season was 33,442 versus 56,644 for UCLA.  That's a hell of an offset for Pac 12 v. Big Ten tv revenue sharing. 

The Pac-12?s new-ish deal is expected to pay each member in the neighborhood of $22 million a year.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/21/big-tens-per-member-payout-this-year-nearly-25-million/

Whatever method of valuation he used seems a little unreliable.  I suspect the Texas Tech (55,347) versus Southern Cal (74,806) comparo wouldn't be much different.  I was under the impression Tech had a fairly shitty stadium as well at least when compared directly to USC. 

[MakeItRain]

His valuations seem uneven and inconsistent at best.  Tech's stadium is much nicer and has much more premium seating than the LA Coliseum, which is really awful.  Also bear in mind that neither LA school owns their stadium.

[ben ji]

I'm no money scientist, but there appears to be a lot wrong with that.  Texas Tech and Kentucky over Southern Cal?  Northwestern and Indiana over UCLA?  I'm sorry Ryan Brewer, but my calculator says no rough ridin' way (and also boobs ).

I don't like the list either but not for the reasons you listed.  As much national cache as UCLA and USC has, their attendance % and their stadiums leave a lot to be desired.  I don't think either has much premium seating to maximize gameday revenue.  They also don't get anywhere close to the conference revenue as the Big 10 and the SEC schools.

A school like Iowa is high on the list because they sell a lot of tickets, have a lot of premium seats, and get a ton of money from their conference, this isn't the case for the Southern California schools.

I didn't mention Iowa.  Northwestern's stadium is the smallest and shittiest (i.e., dick for premium seating) in the Big Ten and they never sell it out.  It's a rough ridin' ghost town in there most games.  Their average attendance last season was 33,442 versus 56,644 for UCLA.  That's a hell of an offset for Pac 12 v. Big Ten tv revenue sharing. 

The Pac-12?s new-ish deal is expected to pay each member in the neighborhood of $22 million a year.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/21/big-tens-per-member-payout-this-year-nearly-25-million/

Whatever method of valuation he used seems a little unreliable.  I suspect the Texas Tech (55,347) versus Southern Cal (74,806) comparo wouldn't be much different.  I was under the impression Tech had a fairly shitty stadium as well at least when compared directly to USC.

I'm guessing the big10 is over represented because they are already rolling in TV dough while the other conferences new tv deals have not kicked in yet.

[Stevesie60]

His valuations seem uneven and inconsistent at best.  Tech's stadium is much nicer and has much more premium seating than the LA Coliseum, which is really awful.  Also bear in mind that neither LA school owns their stadium.

So do you think our BSFS renovations are already accounted for since the money is already in, or do you think we'll make a big jump here in 8 months or so?

[Dugout DickStone]

does Texas just print football bucks? 

[nicname]

How is Colorado making any money?

[MakeItRain]

His valuations seem uneven and inconsistent at best.  Tech's stadium is much nicer and has much more premium seating than the LA Coliseum, which is really awful.  Also bear in mind that neither LA school owns their stadium.

So do you think our BSFS renovations are already accounted for since the money is already in, or do you think we'll make a big jump here in 8 months or so?

For his valuations, I have no idea.  For our books, we will get a bump, not all of that money was committed and not all of that committed money is in.  I don't know how much money thats going to be.

[_33]

His valuations seem uneven and inconsistent at best.  Tech's stadium is much nicer and has much more premium seating than the LA Coliseum, which is really awful.  Also bear in mind that neither LA school owns their stadium.

I think the one thing that validates the list in my mind is that KSU is ranked pretty high. If not I would probably think this list was total trash.

[ben ji]

My initial source: 


http://www.solar-facts-and-advice.com/solar-investments.html

For example: First Solar (FSLR) – (up 4,685%) and Trina Solar (TSL) – (up 1,774%) during 2010 have both had good years – and investors who got in early are no doubt very happy they did so.

 

This just keeps getting more interesting

Apparently google searching for some quick information has its limitations. 


 

Not a big deal.  Whatever happens to First Solar in the future, it will always live on as part of goEMAW folklore right up there with the Amare Camp and the selection committee.

First Solar's a giant in the industry.  It's not going anywhere.  Like I said, though, the solar industry is going through a transition phase right now, and a lot of the smaller firms will start to consolidate with companies like First Solar in the future.  Also, if you're looking to invest in an up-and-coming green stock, check out ECOtality (NASDAQ: ECTY).

O man... Just cruising this thread after it was linked earlier and I find this gem.....

If you would of taken beems advice and bouth ECTY on May 19th you would of paid $4.80...Now trading at $0.50

[WillieWatanabe]

woof

[Emo EMAW]

Solar has just crap the bed, too.  Natural gas is just too cheap.

[CNS]

Bet the trust fund!

[Rage Against the McKee]

My initial source: 


http://www.solar-facts-and-advice.com/solar-investments.html

For example: First Solar (FSLR) – (up 4,685%) and Trina Solar (TSL) – (up 1,774%) during 2010 have both had good years – and investors who got in early are no doubt very happy they did so.

 

This just keeps getting more interesting

Apparently google searching for some quick information has its limitations. 


 

Not a big deal.  Whatever happens to First Solar in the future, it will always live on as part of goEMAW folklore right up there with the Amare Camp and the selection committee.

First Solar's a giant in the industry.  It's not going anywhere.  Like I said, though, the solar industry is going through a transition phase right now, and a lot of the smaller firms will start to consolidate with companies like First Solar in the future.  Also, if you're looking to invest in an up-and-coming green stock, check out ECOtality (NASDAQ: ECTY).

O man... Just cruising this thread after it was linked earlier and I find this gem.....

If you would of taken beems advice and bouth ECTY on May 19th you would of paid $4.80...Now trading at $0.50

He was investing for the long term. Jeez, guys.

[CNS]

Buy low!!!!

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't know if you guys heard, but we're in a little bit of a recession right now. You know what's recession-proof? Sunlight. Time to buy.

[bubbles4ksu]

I don't know if you guys heard, but we're in a little bit of a recession right now. You know what's recession-proof? Sunlight. Time to buy.

we are not in a recession right now.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't know if you guys heard, but we're in a little bit of a recession right now. You know what's recession-proof? Sunlight. Time to buy.

we are not in a recession right now.

[Stevesie60]

No wonder Beems hasn't been around lately. He probably can't afford internet.

[Cartierfor3]

I put my tickets for tomorrow's Sunday session on Craigslist, and squawks were just low balling me to death all damn day. Finally, someone offers me what I asked, offers to meet me 3 blocks from my house even though he's 45 minutes away, and when I meet him, yep, you guessed it, Ole Miss fan.

The poors can't even afford to see their team play against ol' Roy. 

[meow meow]

Manhattan, Kansas has an economy of $6.5
billion nearly twice as large as Lawrence's.

Info from 2011
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas: $391.35 billion. Rank 6
Austin, Texas: $90.91 billion. Rank: 34
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: $60.99 billion. Rank: 46
Lubbock, Texas: $10.53 billion. Rank: 173
Waco, Texas: $8.75 billion. Rank: 198
Manhattan, Kansas: $6.505 billion. Rank: 230
Morgantown, West Virginia: $6,26 billion. Rank 239
Ames, Iowa: $4.24 billion; Rank: 309
Lawrence, Kansas: $3.56 billion. Rank: 339 out of the 366 metro areas.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2013/pdf/gdp_metro0213.pdf