Big 12 | Page 8 | The Boneyard

Big 12

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patman said:
That is never how an athletic department has worked
Expand ...
You have some special insight here? Because if the models are not already built and kept up to date for just this situation I would be very surprised. Either in house or outsourced.
 
WVU took the Big 12 offer but would have rather of had an ACC offer at the time. WVU and Cinci would be UConns most scheduled teams as an East division
 
If we accept the 'best case scenario,' by all means we should move to the Big 12 or some other 'P5" conference. However, the impression here is that we would be getting a FULL share almost immediately from the new conference. To my knowledge, that has not happened to any school that has transferred to a new conference. Rutgers made more money than they had previously, but their deficit grew. They are still only getting about half of the full Big 0 payout.

Chances are we'd be getting roughly half of the Big 12 payout - maybe $15M - and some of that would come at the expense of money we are currently generating that would go into the conference pocket. You have the increased travel costs that has been noted. But the greater level of competition significantly reduces the opportunity to make a men's basketball statement as we have in the Big East (although women's basketball would likely not be affected much). Final Fours would be harder to come by.

And do you seriously think we are going to go 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 in a league with Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Texas Christian, WVU, BYU, not to mention Baylor, UCF, and Cincy (that went to the playoffs a couple years ago)? Even Kansas and K-State would be a major challenge. You can believe that we'll only get better players by affiliation with a more major conference, but there is no guarantee that the Big !2 will even BE a major conference in the next few years. Again, take a look at the reality - what schools that moved to a new conference over the past 20 years are now thriving? Are now in the mix for conference championships - especially in football? BC? Syracuse? Missouri? A&M? Maryland? Rutgers? Colorado?

Don't even get me started on the payouts to the Big East, the entry fees to the new conference - some of which coincides with the payouts from the AAC and Ollie.

Smell the coffee, folks! No matter how much you want to be considered at the same level as Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, that's not who we are. Oh, and that's not who New England is. New England will go bonkers for basketball - always have and always will - but football is not high on the radar. Could we do better? Sure. Mora will have us there soon, I think. But against a decent schedule that gives us a chance at 9-3, 10-2 seasons. One thing you can say about New England. We really LOVE a winner. If we are part of the Big 10, Big 12, AAC (watered down), being a winner in football at least is not in the cards. Being a winner in the bank account isn't either.
 
geordi said:
If we accept the 'best case scenario,' by all means we should move to the Big 12 or some other 'P5" conference. However, the impression here is that we would be getting a FULL share almost immediately from the new conference. To my knowledge, that has not happened to any school that has transferred to a new conference. Rutgers made more money than they had previously, but their deficit grew. They are still only getting about half of the full Big 0 payout.

Chances are we'd be getting roughly half of the Big 12 payout - maybe $15M - and some of that would come at the expense of money we are currently generating that would go into the conference pocket. You have the increased travel costs that has been noted. But the greater level of competition significantly reduces the opportunity to make a men's basketball statement as we have in the Big East (although women's basketball would likely not be affected much). Final Fours would be harder to come by.

And do you seriously think we are going to go 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 in a league with Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Texas Christian, WVU, BYU, not to mention Baylor, UCF, and Cincy (that went to the playoffs a couple years ago)? Even Kansas and K-State would be a major challenge. You can believe that we'll only get better players by affiliation with a more major conference, but there is no guarantee that the Big !2 will even BE a major conference in the next few years. Again, take a look at the reality - what schools that moved to a new conference over the past 20 years are now thriving? Are now in the mix for conference championships - especially in football? BC? Syracuse? Missouri? A&M? Maryland? Rutgers? Colorado?

Don't even get me started on the payouts to the Big East, the entry fees to the new conference - some of which coincides with the payouts from the AAC and Ollie.

Smell the coffee, folks! No matter how much you want to be considered at the same level as Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, that's not who we are. Oh, and that's not who New England is. New England will go bonkers for basketball - always have and always will - but football is not high on the radar. Could we do better? Sure. Mora will have us there soon, I think. But against a decent schedule that gives us a chance at 9-3, 10-2 seasons. One thing you can say about New England. We really LOVE a winner. If we are part of the Big 10, Big 12, AAC (watered down), being a winner in football at least is not in the cards. Being a winner in the bank account isn't either.
Expand ...
There are no guarantees in anything. No guarantee the Big East is getting a better tv deal. No guarantee there wont be a total split of the top 80 or so schools. Its the one thing in your post i agree with. There are no guarantees.
 
Palatine said:
If we are successful in the B12 in football and basketball, it will open doors to much bigger things. If we crap the bed, the way we did in the American, we are screwiledoed.
Expand ...
I guess, but I doubt we go full Boston College there.
 
.-.
1684694607432.png
 
geordi said:
If we accept the 'best case scenario,' by all means we should move to the Big 12 or some other 'P5" conference. However, the impression here is that we would be getting a FULL share almost immediately from the new conference. To my knowledge, that has not happened to any school that has transferred to a new conference. Rutgers made more money than they had previously, but their deficit grew. They are still only getting about half of the full Big 0 payout.

Chances are we'd be getting roughly half of the Big 12 payout - maybe $15M - and some of that would come at the expense of money we are currently generating that would go into the conference pocket. You have the increased travel costs that has been noted. But the greater level of competition significantly reduces the opportunity to make a men's basketball statement as we have in the Big East (although women's basketball would likely not be affected much). Final Fours would be harder to come by.

And do you seriously think we are going to go 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 in a league with Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Texas Christian, WVU, BYU, not to mention Baylor, UCF, and Cincy (that went to the playoffs a couple years ago)? Even Kansas and K-State would be a major challenge. You can believe that we'll only get better players by affiliation with a more major conference, but there is no guarantee that the Big !2 will even BE a major conference in the next few years. Again, take a look at the reality - what schools that moved to a new conference over the past 20 years are now thriving? Are now in the mix for conference championships - especially in football? BC? Syracuse? Missouri? A&M? Maryland? Rutgers? Colorado?

Don't even get me started on the payouts to the Big East, the entry fees to the new conference - some of which coincides with the payouts from the AAC and Ollie.

Smell the coffee, folks! No matter how much you want to be considered at the same level as Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, that's not who we are. Oh, and that's not who New England is. New England will go bonkers for basketball - always have and always will - but football is not high on the radar. Could we do better? Sure. Mora will have us there soon, I think. But against a decent schedule that gives us a chance at 9-3, 10-2 seasons. One thing you can say about New England. We really LOVE a winner. If we are part of the Big 10, Big 12, AAC (watered down), being a winner in football at least is not in the cards. Being a winner in the bank account isn't either.
Expand ...
Truthfully, did you think we would fail playing football in the Big East?
 
RSTuthill said:
So UConn AD DB refuses to confirm or deny the reports of a Yormark visit to Storrs. That in itself tells us it happened. But just to confirm our suspicions, I reached out to sources for an off the record yay or nay. No reply. My conclusion is that it indeed happened. No reply is all the confirmation I need.

The theory that UConn has come into play now that one suitor has appeared is reinforced by CONN78SEJ's post. Guess I am not surprised. The next month will be interesting.
Expand ...
If that suitor, is the ACC are we gonna really fall for the "you're next" routine. We know rhe B1G ain't calling. Must be the SEC!
 
geordi said:
If we accept the 'best case scenario,' by all means we should move to the Big 12 or some other 'P5" conference. However, the impression here is that we would be getting a FULL share almost immediately from the new conference. To my knowledge, that has not happened to any school that has transferred to a new conference. Rutgers made more money than they had previously, but their deficit grew. They are still only getting about half of the full Big 0 payout.

Chances are we'd be getting roughly half of the Big 12 payout - maybe $15M - and some of that would come at the expense of money we are currently generating that would go into the conference pocket. You have the increased travel costs that has been noted. But the greater level of competition significantly reduces the opportunity to make a men's basketball statement as we have in the Big East (although women's basketball would likely not be affected much). Final Fours would be harder to come by.

And do you seriously think we are going to go 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 in a league with Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Texas Christian, WVU, BYU, not to mention Baylor, UCF, and Cincy (that went to the playoffs a couple years ago)? Even Kansas and K-State would be a major challenge. You can believe that we'll only get better players by affiliation with a more major conference, but there is no guarantee that the Big !2 will even BE a major conference in the next few years. Again, take a look at the reality - what schools that moved to a new conference over the past 20 years are now thriving? Are now in the mix for conference championships - especially in football? BC? Syracuse? Missouri? A&M? Maryland? Rutgers? Colorado?

Don't even get me started on the payouts to the Big East, the entry fees to the new conference - some of which coincides with the payouts from the AAC and Ollie.

Smell the coffee, folks! No matter how much you want to be considered at the same level as Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, that's not who we are. Oh, and that's not who New England is. New England will go bonkers for basketball - always have and always will - but football is not high on the radar. Could we do better? Sure. Mora will have us there soon, I think. But against a decent schedule that gives us a chance at 9-3, 10-2 seasons. One thing you can say about New England. We really LOVE a winner. If we are part of the Big 10, Big 12, AAC (watered down), being a winner in football at least is not in the cards. Being a winner in the bank account isn't either.
Expand ...
With all due respect, the way things stand now is not sustainable. I know you love your Big East, but being there was only ever an interim fix. B12 is a stronger conference in both MBB and WBB. You will love it.
 
geordi said:
If we accept the 'best case scenario,' by all means we should move to the Big 12 or some other 'P5" conference. However, the impression here is that we would be getting a FULL share almost immediately from the new conference. To my knowledge, that has not happened to any school that has transferred to a new conference. Rutgers made more money than they had previously, but their deficit grew. They are still only getting about half of the full Big 0 payout.
Expand ...
UCLA/USC are getting full share revenue from B1G from Day 1 but they are UCLA/USC and have leverage (which UConn does not).

Rutgers took out league loans against their future earnings so won’t get full share revenue until 2027 I believe.
 
.-.
huskymedic said:
UCLA/USC are getting full share revenue from B1G from Day 1 but they are UCLA/USC and have leverage (which UConn does not).

Rutgers took out league loans against their future earnings so won’t get full share revenue until 2027 I believe.
Expand ...

Apparently we do have leverage. Its not the smartest leverage, but it's leverage

With the portion of the fan base so vocal about not doing this, and DB's tweet already reflecting this, he may have to say we need full shares immediately to justify it to the fan base
 
king conn said:
Apparently we do have leverage. Its not the smartest leverage, but it's leverage

With the portion of the fan base so vocal about not doing this, and DB's tweet already reflecting this, he may have to say we need full shares immediately to justify it to the fan base
Expand ...
That's not really leverage. That's cutting your nose to spite your face. Everyone needs to be realistic. Give a little to get a lot.
 
huskymedic said:
UCLA/USC are getting full share revenue from B1G from Day 1 but they are UCLA/USC and have leverage (which UConn does not).

Rutgers took out league loans against their future earnings so won’t get full share revenue until 2027 I believe.
Expand ...
If there are multiple suitors, UConn will have leverage even if many on this board think that one of the suitors may not be viable long term.

And even if there aren't, UConn's current position may not be sustainable long term, but for the short or medium term it clearly is
 
.-.
geordi said:
If we accept the 'best case scenario,' by all means we should move to the Big 12 or some other 'P5" conference. However, the impression here is that we would be getting a FULL share almost immediately from the new conference. To my knowledge, that has not happened to any school that has transferred to a new conference. Rutgers made more money than they had previously, but their deficit grew. They are still only getting about half of the full Big 0 payout.

Chances are we'd be getting roughly half of the Big 12 payout - maybe $15M - and some of that would come at the expense of money we are currently generating that would go into the conference pocket. You have the increased travel costs that has been noted. But the greater level of competition significantly reduces the opportunity to make a men's basketball statement as we have in the Big East (although women's basketball would likely not be affected much). Final Fours would be harder to come by.

And do you seriously think we are going to go 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 in a league with Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Texas Christian, WVU, BYU, not to mention Baylor, UCF, and Cincy (that went to the playoffs a couple years ago)? Even Kansas and K-State would be a major challenge. You can believe that we'll only get better players by affiliation with a more major conference, but there is no guarantee that the Big !2 will even BE a major conference in the next few years. Again, take a look at the reality - what schools that moved to a new conference over the past 20 years are now thriving? Are now in the mix for conference championships - especially in football? BC? Syracuse? Missouri? A&M? Maryland? Rutgers? Colorado?

Don't even get me started on the payouts to the Big East, the entry fees to the new conference - some of which coincides with the payouts from the AAC and Ollie.

Smell the coffee, folks! No matter how much you want to be considered at the same level as Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, that's not who we are. Oh, and that's not who New England is. New England will go bonkers for basketball - always have and always will - but football is not high on the radar. Could we do better? Sure. Mora will have us there soon, I think. But against a decent schedule that gives us a chance at 9-3, 10-2 seasons. One thing you can say about New England. We really LOVE a winner. If we are part of the Big 10, Big 12, AAC (watered down), being a winner in football at least is not in the cards. Being a winner in the bank account isn't either.
Expand ...
Forgot Nebraska
 
huskymedic said:
UCLA/USC are getting full share revenue from B1G from Day 1 but they are UCLA/USC and have leverage (which UConn does not).

Rutgers took out league loans against their future earnings so won’t get full share revenue until 2027 I believe.
Expand ...
Rutgers bought a helicopter
 
SoFla Steve said:
I'd be interested to know why you and others think this is so. Mostly, I've stayed out of these discussions as I have no firm opinion as yet. Right now, I am on the fence. As I said in my only other post on the subject, conference realignment is a conundrum for me:

Pros - More money to fund the athletic dept.;​
Cons - Pretty much everything else.​

I think there is so (too?) much discussion on the money part of the equation and not enough about the product and fan experience. I guess my question is, money aside, will the fanbase see the B12 (as another poster referred to it) as the AAC+? We would have no real rivalries which might result in decreased fan interest, lower ticket sales, smaller crowds, lower viewership.

In the end, college sports is entertainment. I don't think any of us wants to be Syracuse all over again -- stuck in a conference where you don't care much about your opponents and they don't care about you. We'll be better funded, but if there is little fan interest, what's the point?

I'm glad I don't have to make this decision! The facts are few, the future is murky and everything is happening faster than I dreamed it could. We're all for getting more money, but do you think this is the right move? (Wow! Longer post than I thought it would be.)
Expand ...
How in heavens name would UConn fans see Kansas (2022 Champ), Baylor,(2021 Champ) K-State, Iowa State, Oak State, Houston 2021 Final Four) Gonzaga as the AAC light. I know there are a bunch of Big East or die fans in the group but the dominant basketball conference in the country, is still the best conference in the country. On the football side TCU and Cincinatti have been to the Nation Championship tournament recently. And FWIW for all the blather about Texas, they haven’t won a B12 title since 2009. Oklahoma is the big loss, not the longhorns.
 
.-.
CONN78SEJ said:
They are the #1 basketball conference even without UConn. Baylor won it all in 2021 and Kansas won it all last year.
Expand ...
Sure, for the last few years. However, how many long-term consistent powers are in that conference? To me it looks like one, Kansas. The rest are, at best, up and down depending on the coach du jour. Look how fast TT dropped once the star coach left. Maybe the Big 12 will choose to allocate a much bigger percentage of its lesser revenues (than the P2) to BB and decide to stay on top there, but it is equally likely they’ll make a futile effort to keep up in FB and start to starve all other sports.
 
kibblesnbits said:
Sure, for the last few years. However, how many long-term consistent powers are in that conference? To me it looks like one, Kansas. The rest are, at best, up and down depending on the coach du jour. Look how fast TT dropped once the star coach left. Maybe the Big 12 will choose to allocate a much bigger percentage of its lesser revenues (than the P2) to BB and decide to stay on top there, but it is equally likely they’ll make a futile effort to keep up in FB and start to starve all other sports.
Expand ...
UConn aside, how many are in the BE? One, Villanova (and they're currently in a let's see if the new coach will survive mode).
 
I think our BB fans have no idea that the B12 commissioner sees basketball as undervalued, believes there is money to be made there and has spoken about splitting up the BB and FB contracts from one another during the next round of negotiations. He literally wants to make the Big12 a better bb league than it is now, The Best. That talk sure excites me.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
UConn aside, how many are in the BE? One, Villanova (and they're currently in a let's see if the new coach will survive mode).
Expand ...
I don’t disagree, but that’s the point. We should join a conference if it makes sense on an extended basis and not because of a transient condition like “they are the #1 basketball conference” (today). If the powers that be determine this is our only path to the upper tiers then I’ll support the decision. However, I’m not excited about it because it lacks the critical elements that made college sports attractive to me - rivalries against schools that have a lot in common (geography, student body recruiting base, similar demographics, etc.). Those are what college sports are built on. Old fashioned I know……
 
kibblesnbits said:
I don’t disagree, but that’s the point. We should join a conference if it makes sense on an extended basis and not because of a transient condition like “they are the #1 basketball conference” (today). If the powers that be determine this is our only path to the upper tiers then I’ll support the decision. However, I’m not excited about it because it lacks the critical elements that made college sports attractive to me - rivalries against schools that have a lot in common (geography, student body recruiting base, similar demographics, etc.). Those are what college sports are built on. Old fashioned I know……
Expand ...
Can you lay out a better path to the upper tiers?
 
huskymedic said:
UCLA/USC are getting full share revenue from B1G from Day 1 but they are UCLA/USC and have leverage (which UConn does not).

Rutgers took out league loans against their future earnings so won’t get full share revenue until 2027 I believe.
Expand ...
UCLA gets a full share immediately from the Big Ten??? Why? and how do you know that? They’ve not done anything in any major college sport in decades. I know what DB must of said to Yormark, when he heard about UCLA getting a full share “We just won the NC in men’s basketball for the fifth time”, and all you’re offering is a half share????:mad:
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,020
Messages
4,550,014
Members
10,432
Latest member
Books&Ball


Top Bottom