U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-26-2011, 05:10 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 3,110,773 times
Reputation: 1532

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
i think you misunderstood me. I meant revenue sharing among all conferences. Splitting the pot of money earned from broadcasting of all games so that each conference is given the same amount (or just easily, each school gets the same amount).
so the big conferences get screwed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
All I'm asking is to get rid of the artificial factors, often based on demographics and fan base that give unfair advantages.
those aren't artificial factors , in my mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2011, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,853 posts, read 6,526,459 times
Reputation: 5336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
so the big conferences get screwed?



those aren't artificial factors , in my mind.
Cletus, I'm not sure what you are talking about. "big conferences get screwed????? In what way, I'm suggesting that the big conferences, those schools that want to play big time athletics, join together and help each other out. Revenue sharing allows all of them to be strong. And that strength aids the game.

What could be better for everyone if every conference in the nation (as I said...i suggest 8) were highly competitive and that it was done by revenue sharing which is the chief reason they are not today. If some regions of the nation have smaller populations and fewer "major markets", why penalize them? Do we really want the game to be run by those who are in a position to generate the most broadcasting revenue. For much of the history, the best history I may add, of this glorious game, broadcasting wasn't even an issue and didn't give an edge to anyone.

You go to say that "those arean't artifiicial reaons, in my mind". And I can't argue with that. You've expressed an opinion and, as such, you are correct. you get to pick what your values are.

but your values aren't mine. I definitely do not want all teams to walk onto the field with the exact same level of ability. I'd hate that, even if it made for some great games between equally matched foes. I want to see teams succeed. Heck, I want to see teams fail, too. I want to be able to shoot for the megastar team.

But what I definitely don't want is an "outside boost" that will help them do so. I don't want to see a rich owner have advantage for his team over others. I don't want major market teams to dominate the game.

And guess what? I live in the Chicago area, which has MAJOR MARKET written all over it and stamped on its forehead. I'm a fan of all our teams (one of the rare breed who likes both Cubs and Sox)......but when our teams play other cities, I don't want a major market boost. I want the Cubs to beat the Pirates, the Sox to beat the Royals, the Bears to beat the Packers, the Bulls to beat the Bucks, and the Blackhawks to beat the Sabres because they have better organization which generate better managers and better players.

I don't want the unfair boost of "major market" that can make me feel good only if I let go of any sense of reality and fair play, an artifical victory that isn't worth the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that generated it.

But as I noted before, just as you were right in what you wanted, I am equally right in what I want. It's my opinion and my opinion states: give me a fair playing field and I'll be more than interested in the game; tilt that playing field, even to my advantage, well, sorry, man, you've lost me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2011, 08:34 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 3,110,773 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
Cletus, I'm not sure what you are talking about. "big conferences get screwed????? In what way
you said 90-something teams. your plan has too much dead weight of programs that don't contribute enough.

Quote:
I'm suggesting that the big conferences, those schools that want to play big time athletics, join together and help each other out.
no, you're suggesting we water down the word "big" to include all sorts of teams whose fans don't even care about the sport.

there is no inherent advantage that Clemson and South Carolina have that allow them to draw 80,000 per game, and bring in big TV revenue from passionate viewers. It's not because we're rich or because we have big TV markets, it's because we care about football. I don't want to water that down and give money to Akron, Boise, Iowa State or Temple or whomever you have in mind, whose fans don't give a rats ass enough to draw 80,000 per game.


Quote:
Revenue sharing allows all of them to be strong. And that strength aids the game.
this is already done within many conferences.

Quote:
If some regions of the nation have smaller populations and fewer "major markets", why penalize them?
They are inferior; no one is penalizing them.

Quote:
Do we really want the game to be run by those who are in a position to generate the most broadcasting revenue.
Yes.

Quote:
I don't want major market teams to dominate the game.
What are you talking about? Major market teams don't dominate the game. The past 5 national championships have come from Auburn, AL, Tuscaloosa, AL, Baton Rouge, LA, and Gainesville, FL. Some of the biggest and best programs are in places like Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Louisiana, Alabama -- places devoid of major TV markets to begin with.

Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 09-26-2011 at 08:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2011, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,853 posts, read 6,526,459 times
Reputation: 5336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
you said 90-something teams. your plan has too much dead weight of programs that don't contribute enough.
The number I used was 96. I didn't really suggest there would be 96 schools; I only used 96 as a good number for divisibility. It allows for 8 conferences with 12 teams each. And I use those numbers only for the purpose of discussion.

But I'm happy to use another number, a lower one and more to your liking, but one that also is great for divisibility: 64. In that case, one might ask oneself:

which would work better for the game: 8 conferences of 8 teams each or 4 conferences of 16 teams each. To me, the lower number of teams (8) is far superior.

I think the super-conferences are mainly about $$$ and if (when) they get what they want, there's not much there for the fan.

Now realistically the conference average today is 12, not 8. So let's work with that divisibility:

would you prefer 5 conferences at 12 teams each or to expand the number of teams by only 4, up to 64 and have 4 conferences of 16 teams each. I'll go with the 12 team conferences. again, 16 is a horrible number and it is a number that is ruled by $$$ and not fan interest.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
no, you're suggesting we water down the word "big" to include all sorts of teams whose fans don't even care about the sport.

there is no inherent advantage that Clemson and South Carolina have that allow them to draw 80,000 per game, and bring in big TV revenue from passionate viewers. It's not because we're rich or because we have big TV markets, it's because we care about football. I don't want to water that down and give money to Akron, Boise, Iowa State or Temple or whomever you have in mind, whose fans don't give a rats ass enough to draw 80,000 per game.
cletus, on this one you're making points for my argument, not yours. Number one, let's dismiss fans in the stands; they have NEVER been a part of my equation. Remember: I'm only taking about t.v. revenue.

Now let's talk revenue. Neither South Carolina or Clemson are broadcasting revenue top feeders. Not be a longshot. Sure they are well supported and have lots of fan interest (heck, the same could e said of Boise).

South Carolina's football revenue is generated not through its own own in-state numbers but through the numbers of the SEC which draws in Atlanta, Miami, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Nashville, Louisville....all but Louisville big enough to warrant being NFL markets as well.)

Now look at Clemson in that same South Carolina wihtout a major metro. It draws from ACC markets (with obvious overlap with SEC): Miami, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Charlotte, Washington, Baltimore, Boston (and soon Pittsburgh and what Syracuse can draw from metro NYC).

Left to its own devices in the middle of nowhere (or the Great Plains), the South Carolina schools, SoCar and Clemson, would be more like Kansas and K-State.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
this is already done within many conferences.
again, something i've already said and which we agree. See point above. Conferences sharing their own revenue has a long, long history.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
They are inferior; no one is penalizing them.
but they're not really inferior, are they? they just play in regions with less money. Look at Utah. This has been a successful football program for years, exceedingly well supported in its own state with a stadium of more than presentable numbers for BCS consideration. Yet due to conference set up, Utah took in far less revenue than weak football schools....let's use Duke, Vanderbilt, Indiana, Washington State, Iowa State as some of the prime examples.

Utah didn't suddenly become a different place in college football this year; the landscape on the ground still looks the same. All the Utes did was join the Pac 12 and suddenly any notion of "inferior" is shredded. It's the $$$$$$$ that makes them equal. Meanwhile Vanderbilt, Duke, et al, are inferior.....and they've been drawing big broadcasting revenue for years.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Yes.
again...that's your call and your right to make it. mine says that i don't want size of markets in the conference to determine competitive quality between them. If the Rocky Mountain region can get well supported schools in the form of Utah, BYU, Wyoming, etc., I have no problem with them getting the boost from shared revenue among conferences, even if it means my conference, the Big Ten, as part of a larger more populated region, is at the "giving up" end of the spectrum. I want the Rockies to be a competitive region.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
What are you talking about? Major market teams don't dominate the game. The past 5 national championships have come from Auburn, AL, Tuscaloosa, AL, Baton Rouge, LA, and Gainesville, FL. Some of the biggest and best programs are in places like Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Louisiana, Alabama -- places devoid of major TV markets to begin with.
again, Cletus, you make my point for me. I'm thrilled that small places like Gainsville, Auburn and Tuscaloosa can achieve such success. I think it is great somewhat larger places like Baton Rouge and Knowville can do the same. And that in small Oxford, there will be times when Ole Miss looks very good.

And my answer is as above: those towns gain revenue from an SEC that uses the stength of 3 Florida markets, Atlanta, New Orleans, Nashville, Lousiville, etc., to bring that money down to the schools you mentioned.

Cletus, don't forget that I am not trying to completely change revenue in college football. I still think colleges should benefit from the seats they put in the stands, from their radio broacasting rights, from the amount of logo merchandise they can sell, from the reputation of the "programs" they develop that keep some iconic and iconic money earners.

I'm just asking one and only one thing: considering adding to intraconference sharing of broadcasting (TV) revenue the concept of interconference sharing of said revenue among all major conferences.

This not only makes for fairness on a flat coast-to-coast playing field. It also makes for far better working conferences, ideally 12 in membership...hopefully with 11 game round robins if they had the guts to do so.....instead of these horrible 16 team (or 16 team +) super conferences out there on the landscape which seem to have the destruction of the game in mind by their humongeous size and inability to group colleges with their close by rivals and neighbors.

And cletus, I think you're missing how small my revenue sharing truly is. From what I can see, based on the 8 conferences that I suggest, only two would be receiving money in: the Great Plains region of perhaps a new Big 8 type of conference and the Rocky Montain region currently not part of the BCS system.

That's all. Just two.

Even a potenial third one...the old SWC footprint....isn't an issue today as it was when that conference was breaking up. In a region with cities the size of Houston, D/FW, Austin, San Antonio.....this is an area that will be a revenue producer.

So all I ask is that 6 conferences (regions) throw in a little money to the 2 conferences (regions) most berift of major market cities....to give us 8 competitive regions in the nation.

Do you really think your team...whoever that would be....would be hurt by such a minor but still incredibly welcome new aspect to the game?

I don't.

But please remember above all else: while that "fair playing field" is important to me, it is not my most important point:

That one would be to put a stop to the super conference maddness which is only generated by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and serves no other purpose, other than to make the game a worse experience.

I want to keep conference size managable, even to the point of round robin scheduling (thus I'll go with 12 members at max, with an 11 game round robin) and schools playing each other in their regions, where the universities share much in common as do the student population and away games are quite often not all that far away.
THAT is the real reason for my plan.

Last edited by edsg25; 09-26-2011 at 09:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2011, 10:54 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 3,110,773 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
I think the super-conferences are mainly about $$$ and if (when) they get what they want, there's not much there for the fan.
$$$ is a representation of what is good for the fans. it represents the customers of this product.

Quote:
cletus, on this one you're making points for my argument, not yours. Number one, let's dismiss fans in the stands; they have NEVER been a part of my equation.
No, let's not. Fans in the stands are a good representation of the size and value of a school's fanbase, and BTW your "equation" doesn't have any numbers...

Quote:
Remember: I'm only taking about t.v. revenue.
In a discussion about conference alignment and revenue sharing, there are considerations to make besides just TV revenue.

Quote:
Now let's talk revenue. Neither South Carolina or Clemson are broadcasting revenue top feeders. Not be a longshot.
Where are your numbers to support this claim?

anyway, i never said there were 'top feeders'. i'm arguing that they are profitable on their own. not all programs will ever be profitable on their own. I don't have a problem with Utah joining the Pac-12, and I don't have a problem with Boise and Houston and TCU and whomever else got a late start banding together and forming a conference that works for them. USF went from nothing, to a BCS conference, in record time. Demand isn't there in Wyoming, or in Montana. All your ranting about markets is off, too - demand isn't there in the northeast, either. All those millions of viewers in Boston and New York don't care about college football and probably never will. Their dollars and time are going to other outlets.

Quote:
Sure they are well supported and have lots of fan interest (heck, the same could e said of Boise).
I don't accept your assumption here that Boise's program is of a similar size (or value) as Clemson and South Carolina.

Quote:
South Carolina's football revenue is generated not through its own own in-state numbers but through the numbers of the SEC which draws in Atlanta, Miami, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Nashville, Louisville....all but Louisville big enough to warrant being NFL markets as well.)

Now look at Clemson in that same South Carolina wihtout a major metro. It draws from ACC markets (with obvious overlap with SEC): Miami, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Charlotte, Washington, Baltimore, Boston (and soon Pittsburgh and what Syracuse can draw from metro NYC).
do you have any numbers to support this?

The largest revenue source for USC is ticket sales, which account (annually) for $19.25 million. $16 million in donations (including YES), over $3 million from under armour. We do get $18.4 million from the SEC, but not all of that is television.


Quote:
Left to its own devices in the middle of nowhere (or the Great Plains), the South Carolina schools, SoCar and Clemson, would be more like Kansas and K-State.
yup, and if we were at the north pole we'd be eskimos. so what? this doesn't make me want to share revenue with uneconomical programs.


Quote:
I'm just asking one and only one thing: considering adding to intraconference sharing of broadcasting (TV) revenue the concept of interconference sharing of said revenue among all major conferences.

This not only makes for fairness on a flat coast-to-coast playing field. It also makes for far better working conferences, ideally 12 in membership...hopefully with 11 game round robins if they had the guts to do so.....instead of these horrible 16 team (or 16 team +) super conferences out there on the landscape which seem to have the destruction of the game in mind by their humongeous size and inability to group colleges with their close by rivals and neighbors.

And cletus, I think you're missing how small my revenue sharing truly is. From what I can see, based on the 8 conferences that I suggest, only two would be receiving money in: the Great Plains region of perhaps a new Big 8 type of conference and the Rocky Montain region currently not part of the BCS system.

That's all. Just two.

Even a potenial third one...the old SWC footprint....isn't an issue today as it was when that conference was breaking up. In a region with cities the size of Houston, D/FW, Austin, San Antonio.....this is an area that will be a revenue producer.

So all I ask is that 6 conferences (regions) throw in a little money to the 2 conferences (regions) most berift of major market cities....to give us 8 competitive regions in the nation.

Do you really think your team...whoever that would be....would be hurt by such a minor but still incredibly welcome new aspect to the game?

I don't.

But please remember above all else: while that "fair playing field" is important to me, it is not my most important point:

That one would be to put a stop to the super conference maddness which is only generated by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and serves no other purpose, other than to make the game a worse experience.

I want to keep conference size managable, even to the point of round robin scheduling (thus I'll go with 12 members at max, with an 11 game round robin) and schools playing each other in their regions, where the universities share much in common as do the student population and away games are quite often not all that far away.
THAT is the real reason for my plan.
tl;ldr

i don't have a problem with a rocky mountain conference, i just don't want the SEC giving them any money.

Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 09-26-2011 at 11:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2011, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,853 posts, read 6,526,459 times
Reputation: 5336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
$$$ is a representation of what is good for the fans. it represents the customers of this product.
no, the fans aren't served when the big money folks are at play. they aren't even considered. the reason that Alabama plays Southwest Arkansas A&M and Tiddly Winks is not to please the fans but to fill up their stadium and not have to worry about playing a return game at that school. The fans gain nothing from that.

No fan will gain from super conferences which will destroy any sense of identity and solidarity in a conference, create ridiculous scheduling, and prevent schools from playing close by rivals.

really, celtus, what in corporate America today from t.v. to movies to sports or anything are do "for the fans". my guess is that most people who enjoy any of the above realize that and think things suffer because of it. I'm a Big Ten fan and I don't know of any B10 fan who drools at the notion of a 16 team conference; throw up over it: yea, that one is a real possibility.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
No, let's not. Fans in the stands are a good representation of the size and value of a school's fanbase, and BTW your "equation" doesn't have any numbers... .
I can't have a discussion or debate with you, cletus, if you continue to agree with me. when I dismissed fans in the stands, I was saying they didn't have anything to do with my equation; in other words, fans in the stands still pay the school that owns the stadium. no gate receipts are shared with anyone but the current system: the visiting team.

In a discussion about conference alignment and revenue sharing, there are considerations to make besides just TV revenue.





Where are your numbers to support this claim?[/quote]

my equation has no numbers since I have no desire to include any. I would think the conferences themselves would set the parameters. I personally think the rules should extend to "nationally televised games". Also, I would exempt the conference networks (like the Big Ten Network) which broadcasts mainly to the local markets and doesn't really get the marquis matchups which the conference prefers on the major networks instead.

I'm not sure any numbers could be supplied for me, given what I am trying to advocate here. I make a simple statement:

split the revenue for nationally broadcasted games among all conferences in order to deter competition between them for membership, thus alieviating us from the super conference realignment debacle.

That's all; not sure where I would need numbers for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
anyway, i never said there were 'top feeders'. i'm arguing that they are profitable on their own. not all programs will ever be profitable on their own. I don't have a problem with Utah joining the Pac-12, and I don't have a problem with Boise and Houston and TCU and whomever else got a late start banding together and forming a conference that works for them. USF went from nothing, to a BCS conference, in record time. Demand isn't there in Wyoming, or in Montana. All your ranting about markets is off, too - demand isn't there in the northeast, either. All those millions of viewers in Boston and New York don't care about college football and probably never will. Their dollars and time are going to other outlets.
You keep trying to find areas of disagreement with me where there are none. Of course you are correct when you note that there are endless numbers of folks in NYC and Boston who will not care about the college game.

But that isn't my issue; it is the conferences' issue. It's not me but them that introduces the notion of "expand our footprint". It's not me who ends up saying "Pitt in the ACC will bring in not only the Pittsburgh market, but arguably much of Pennsylvania.

It isn't me but the Big Ten who said in so many words "We'll take Nebraska over Missouri even though Missouri is the bigger school. Nebraska brings in high quality football pedigree. Missouri brings in nothing because the StL market is already in the fold because of the Univ of Illinois and KC is not that big to care about."

Them are thar words....not mine. ok, paraphrased a bit, but you get the idea.

Expanded footprint is what counts. That is why the Pac 12 went with Utah and Colorado over SDSU and Fresno St because broadcasting in San Diego and Fresno are already geared to Pac 12 sports. Footprints: their word; not mine.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
I don't accept your assumption here that Boise's program is of a similar size (or value) as Clemson and South Carolina.
Nobody has to accept my assumption. But geez, cletus, Vanderbilt's program comes across a lot smaller than USoCar's and Vandy shares SEC revenue with South Carolina.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
The largest revenue source for USC is ticket sales, which account (annually) for $19.25 million. $16 million in donations (including YES), over $3 million from under armour. We do get $18.4 million from the SEC, but not all of that is television.
Again, I bang my head on the wall, cletus. why are we arguing about our agreements? I say it's wonderful for you guys if the Gamecocks can fill up that stadium in Columbia every week. More power to you. It's your revenue. Keep it, except the part you share with the visiting team.

You and I are on the same page.

I'm merely talking about (again....again....again....) television revenue that applies only to nationally scheduled games. that's it. period. the fact that South Carolina makes so much from fannies in the seat is a plus for me. It means that that national broadcasting revenue is a smaller part of the picture and therefore shouldn't be the catylist to kill the game from expanding foot prints that allow conferences to absord the largest t.v. markets.

again, you and I are side by side on this one.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
yup, and if we were at the north pole we'd be eskimos. so what? this doesn't make me want to share revenue with uneconomical programs.
and who says i do? I don't. Again....I agree. All I'm saying is that I want to see successfully programs that have proven to be "geographically undesirable" by lack of major t.v. markets...but which offer success in all those other aspects of the game....allowed the same chance to play with the big boys as anyone else deserves.

Utah, as an example, got to do this with Pac Ten membership. But if Utah could have had the MWC or something like it turn into a major BCS conference and share revenues with the other conferences, I'd say everybody is served. But those teams (MWC) have to belong in and are competitive, or I don't want them.




tl;ldr

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
i don't have a problem with a rocky mountain conference, i just don't want the SEC giving them any money.
But you may end up with an SEC you want no part of if $$$$ continues to drive the game.

Let's start with the 12 schools: Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Bama, Auburn, UF, UGa, SCar, Tenn, Vandy, and Kentucky.

A&M goes on board as no. #13. We need to go back to an even number so let's say that VT becomes no. #14. In a throwback to old conference tradition, let's bring back two former members, Tulane and Georgia Tech Which make the New Orleans (LSU, Tulane) and Atlanta (UGa, GT) totally within the SEC.

Now try to schedule this mess that $$$$ gave birth to. Two divisions:

East: Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Alabama, Auburn, South Carolina, Kentucky,

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Tulane, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Tennessee.

You get 7 intradivision games. Let's say that you have 3 crossover games. 3 out of 8 is pretty small, so your strength of schedule within the division becomes questionable. Not a great set up.

And all because of t.v. revenue.

I'm not sure why you are so bent on a change that would not affect schools that greatly, but would save them from these super conferences based on broadcast revenue.

You haven't really given me any good reasons why the schools you love will take a hit on this .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 11:01 PM
 
8 posts, read 5,739 times
Reputation: 14
Agreed that the NFL does better with parity, however, Green Bay is unique in all of pro sports with it's public ownership. This system was grandfathered in and is no longer allowed, although they get to keep what they have. Gree Bay's situation is unique to them and the reason is public ownship, not something that makes the NFL different from MLB.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top