Non-Key Tweets

[noeynox]

For anyone on Facebook looking for a little realignment entertainment....check out "The College Football Expansion Cohort" It's a closed group but you'll be added if you request.

Cliff notes?

 

[PAGS]

Cliff notes?

It's Chris lambert (theDudeofWV) spreading his lies. But lots of entertaining commentary. Nothing you haven't seen here already. But not many UConn voices heard on there

 

[UChusky916]

It's the number one rule of PR - you want to get in front of the train.

Similar to the $h*tstorm Rutgers fell into... Conveniently for them AFTER they got into the Big10

 

[CL82]

Wait it's not UCONN?

Not in writing. It's UConn.

Please note that when used in cases other than the wordmark, the word UConn should simply be written as ‘UConn’ not ‘UCONN’. Likewise, the words UConn Health should simply be written as ‘UConn Health’ not ‘UCONN Health’ or ‘UCONN HEALTH’.

Link

 

[Jerry27]

Not in writing. It's UConn.

Please note that when used in cases other than the wordmark, the word UConn should simply be written as ‘UConn’ not ‘UCONN’. Likewise, the words UConn Health should simply be written as ‘UConn Health’ not ‘UCONN Health’ or ‘UCONN HEALTH’.

Link

While I agree, I think those guidelines are primarily for the school, marketing, and media outlets. Do you really care if someone uses the wordmark UCONN instead of the the proper written text UConn? Honestly if they wanted to make it clear for everyone adopt one way of doing it if it's really that important. I use both.

 

[TruthNnumbers]

My personal favorite is University of UCONN.

 

[CL82]

While I agree, I think those guidelines are primarily for the school, marketing, and media outlets. Do you really care if someone uses the wordmark UCONN instead of the the proper written text UConn? Honestly if they wanted to make it clear for everyone adopt one way of doing it if it's really that important. I use both.

Personally? Nope, it doesn't matter to me. But PAGS asked the question and the school has articulated a clear answer as to usage.

 

[CallMeBruce]

While I agree, I think those guidelines are primarily for the school, marketing, and media outlets. Do you really care if someone uses the wordmark UCONN instead of the the proper written text UConn? Honestly if they wanted to make it clear for everyone adopt one way of doing it if it's really that important. I use both.

I don't see what's so complicated about it. Write UConn. It's always UConn when you write it. UCONN is the logo. The Syracuse wordmark is also in all-caps. Would you start calling them SYRACUSE because that's how the logo looks?

 

[CL82]

My personal favorite is University of UCONN.

We laugh about that every year when UConn wins another championship. It's nearly as funny as the ceremonial ignoring of Emmert, which I was sorry to see Geno abandon this year.

 

[The X Man]

The one that annoys me is the Washington Post. They write it U-Conn

 

[Jerry27]

I don't see what's so complicated about it. Write UConn. It's always UConn when you write it. UCONN is the logo. The Syracuse wordmark is also in all-caps. Would you start calling them SYRACUSE because that's how the logo looks?

No, but poor example because Syracuse isn't an acronym. As I said, I AGREE, but I admit I do use them both, I guess I'm just not that sensitive about it. I know what someone means when they do it and it's not inflammatory in any way so whatever. I get more annoyed at the the one X Man pointed out U-Conn.

 

[CL82]

No, but poor example because Syracuse isn't an acronym. As I said, I AGREE, but I admit I do use them both, I guess I'm just not that sensitive about it. I know what someone means when they do it and it's not inflammatory in any way so whatever. I get more annoyed at the the one X Man pointed out U-Conn.

Uh, I think "AGREE" isn't supposed to be all caps.

link

 

[jostar1]

Post by the so-called Cincy insider, MSMoose:

2 hours ago

To expedite the resolution of expansion candidates for the Big 12, Oklahoma proposed voting blocks, consisting of (4) blocks of any number of member institutions. This would ensure member interests could best be accommodated without extended debate per candidate. These voting blocks in Oklahoma’s eyes and Commissioner Bowlsby’s ensured a fair process.

The blocks were developed in open discussion when considering member institutions top preliminary expansion choices.

This process is what I referred to yesterday as the Oklahoma Compromise!

The voting blocks were as follows, with their top candidates in order;

Block 1 – Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor
Candidates = BYU-UH-UC-UCF\USF
Block 2 – Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma
Candidates = UC-BYU-UCONN-CSU-Memphis-UCF\USF
Block 3 – Kansas State\Oklahoma State
Candidates = Memphis-CSU-UC-UCONN
Block 4 – West Virginia\TCU
Candidates = UC-UCF\USF-Memphis-UCONN

Note, the members within blocks have changed as the process has unfolded, however I believe the above to be most accurate as of this morning.

In fact, the Big 12 Board has sent a contingent of Big 12 Commissioners, etc., to specific candidates. These visits were at times followed by visits from voting blocks of Presidents, and others from Big 12 institutions. All information has been shared with all Big 12 members. A very open process, however very thorough as well. The visits have wrapped up now, and the Big 12 is in deliberations, so to speak.

• 2 hours ago
  • 
    Before I have to leave for a meeting, I want to mention the Big 12 negotiations with its television providers.
  
  The negotiations are very complicated, those who make light of them simply have no clue how the negotiations work.
  
  First, renegotiation has to happen, as expansion adds more volume, which affects scheduling windows. Divisions affect scheduling and 1st and 2nd rights. A CCG has to be negotiated, etc. and so on. Point is renegotiation would occur, even if expansion didn't occur. However, expansion is occurring and that complicates renegotiations. While the media portrays these renegotiations as volatile, they are in most cases not. Conferences and television partners talks weekly, and for the most part work together very well.
  
  ESPN obviously wants to protect its properties so to speak, and does not feel G5 candidates are worthy of Big 12 Pro Rata monies. Fox Sports feels differently. So this is the starting point for a resolution that is agreeable by all. While Pro Rata is part of the Big 12 contract, the Big 12 is not necessarily toeing the line on it, they are willing to work with the television partners on compromises. Negotiations have been going very well, I was told, and as stated to me the framework for a new deal is far enough along that final agreements with candidates will or have begun already.
  
  Texas wants an extension of the GOR until 2031, concurrent with the expiration of its agreement with ESPN for the LHN. Texas wants to ensure expansion is solidifies the conference, yet also protects it from realignment at the termination of the current Big 12 contract. Oklahoma and others agree, however they want concessions from Texas on the LHN. Texas has worked with the conference on concessions, however has hit so roadblocks with ESPN. Work remains in progress on this front.
  
  

From another poster:

o with that in mind, as of this morning, the schools listed with each candidate is as follows:

Cincinnati: 10 (All ten schools)

UCF/USF: 8 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor, West Virginia, TCU, Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma)

Memphis: 7 (Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, TCU, Kansas St., Oklahoma St.)

UConn: 7 (Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas St., Oklahoma St., West Virginia, TCU)

BYU: 6 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor, Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma)

CSU: 5 (Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas St., Oklahoma St.)

Houston: 3 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor)

 

[whaler11]

The one that annoys me is the Washington Post. They write it U-Conn

That's the old AP styleguide. I think the WSJ at least used to as well.

 

[JMick]

Post by the so-called Cincy insider, MSMoose:

2 hours ago

To expedite the resolution of expansion candidates for the Big 12, Oklahoma proposed voting blocks, consisting of (4) blocks of any number of member institutions. This would ensure member interests could best be accommodated without extended debate per candidate. These voting blocks in Oklahoma’s eyes and Commissioner Bowlsby’s ensured a fair process.

The blocks were developed in open discussion when considering member institutions top preliminary expansion choices.

This process is what I referred to yesterday as the Oklahoma Compromise!

The voting blocks were as follows, with their top candidates in order;

Block 1 – Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor
Candidates = BYU-UH-UC-UCF\USF
Block 2 – Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma
Candidates = UC-BYU-UCONN-CSU-Memphis-UCF\USF
Block 3 – Kansas State\Oklahoma State
Candidates = Memphis-CSU-UC-UCONN
Block 4 – West Virginia\TCU
Candidates = UC-UCF\USF-Memphis-UCONN

Note, the members within blocks have changed as the process has unfolded, however I believe the above to be most accurate as of this morning.

In fact, the Big 12 Board has sent a contingent of Big 12 Commissioners, etc., to specific candidates. These visits were at times followed by visits from voting blocks of Presidents, and others from Big 12 institutions. All information has been shared with all Big 12 members. A very open process, however very thorough as well. The visits have wrapped up now, and the Big 12 is in deliberations, so to speak.

• 2 hours ago
  • 
    Before I have to leave for a meeting, I want to mention the Big 12 negotiations with its television providers.
  
  The negotiations are very complicated, those who make light of them simply have no clue how the negotiations work.
  
  First, renegotiation has to happen, as expansion adds more volume, which affects scheduling windows. Divisions affect scheduling and 1st and 2nd rights. A CCG has to be negotiated, etc. and so on. Point is renegotiation would occur, even if expansion didn't occur. However, expansion is occurring and that complicates renegotiations. While the media portrays these renegotiations as volatile, they are in most cases not. Conferences and television partners talks weekly, and for the most part work together very well.
  
  ESPN obviously wants to protect its properties so to speak, and does not feel G5 candidates are worthy of Big 12 Pro Rata monies. Fox Sports feels differently. So this is the starting point for a resolution that is agreeable by all. While Pro Rata is part of the Big 12 contract, the Big 12 is not necessarily toeing the line on it, they are willing to work with the television partners on compromises. Negotiations have been going very well, I was told, and as stated to me the framework for a new deal is far enough along that final agreements with candidates will or have begun already.
  
  Texas wants an extension of the GOR until 2031, concurrent with the expiration of its agreement with ESPN for the LHN. Texas wants to ensure expansion is solidifies the conference, yet also protects it from realignment at the termination of the current Big 12 contract. Oklahoma and others agree, however they want concessions from Texas on the LHN. Texas has worked with the conference on concessions, however has hit so roadblocks with ESPN. Work remains in progress on this front.
  

From another poster:

o with that in mind, as of this morning, the schools listed with each candidate is as follows:

Cincinnati: 10 (All ten schools)

UCF/USF: 8 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor, West Virginia, TCU, Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma)

Memphis: 7 (Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, TCU, Kansas St., Oklahoma St.)

UConn: 7 (Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas St., Oklahoma St., West Virginia, TCU)

BYU: 6 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor, Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma)

CSU: 5 (Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas St., Oklahoma St.)

Houston: 3 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor)

I don't get the vote totalling - Are USF and UCF presented as a package or are they just doubling reaches votes....?

 

[whaler11]

I like how Oklahoma is voting for 6 teams!

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Considering that we know all involved have signed non-disclosure agreements and it has been published by truly credible sources that everyone is being very tight lipped about this, where exactly are these nimrods getting their Inside information'?

 

[MattMang23]

No, but poor example because Syracuse isn't an acronym. As I said, I AGREE, but I admit I do use them both, I guess I'm just not that sensitive about it. I know what someone means when they do it and it's not inflammatory in any way so whatever. I get more annoyed at the the one X Man pointed out U-Conn.

UConn isn't an acronym, either. Not unless, of course, you think the O, N and second N all stand for something.

 

[don356]

It's not specific exclusively to only 4 teams. I suspect it's teams you would support regardless as i understand it. Thus, you can have more than 4 votes, etc.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

That guy said Cincinnati was already invited a week ago.

 

[don356]

That said, if Moose makes those details up, he has a fairly detailed imagination.

 

[whaler11]

It's not specific exclusively to only 4 teams. I suspect it's teams you would support regardless as i understand it. Thus, you can have more than 4 votes, etc.

No offense that makes no sense. If they were expanding by 4 - you'd want 4 teams. Not some subset of 4 from any 6.

 

[MattMang23]

I like how Oklahoma is voting for 6 teams!

And Baylor apparently wants a 13 team conference.

 

[dr.holiday]

I can flat out guarantee that information is not accurate. I was told by the KU AD office, that the Chancellor would not vote to include Memphis.

 

[Slasher]

I can flat out guarantee that information is not accurate. I was told by the KU AD office, that the Chancellor would not vote to include Memphis.

Well they are 5th on the list. So that's a no-vote on an expansion of 4.