Commentary Thread for Premium Top-Shelf Tweets

[IMind]

And right now everyone wants ESPN and Fox to help destroy the American by funding and pushing UConn.

So it's a bit hypocritical to be all bent out of shape. It was really Pittsburgh who screwed everyone anyway. They pushed for turning down the contract - which was the motivation to add them.

Yup... if everyone was voting in good faith and was actually committed to maintaining the Big East then turning down the contract was the right thing to do... the second the Big East did that though I'm guessing ESPN green lit the raid.

 

[BlueDogs]

The Big 12 officially jumped the shark with Boren's new maybe no expansion comments. This is going to turn into a public relations disaster for the conference and also ESPN if they don't expand.

 

[IMind]

For example lets imagine if UConn, Cinci, and Houston got in the Big 12 and received a 25 Million $ payout to offset subsidy. Compare apples to apples as a p-5 program. Becomes really clear that UConn, ISU, and KSU are the only P-5 AD's on that list with Colorado being close but still too poor and requires too much subsidy to operate. When you look at it that way UConn fits right in the Big 12.

I'd bet you a $100 that if UConn gets in the P5 the AD budget goes up. The subsidy will get smaller but they're not going to use 100% of the new cash to offset a fee that they already get away with charging.

 

[MountainMan]

I'd bet you a $100 that if UConn gets in the P5 the AD budget goes up. The subsidy will get smaller but they're not going to use 100% of the new cash to offset a fee that they already get away with charging.

No need to bet, as I agree 100%. I did that to keep it simple and easy to compare to the Big 12 schools who are all under 10% subsidy. I'm sure it would be in the 90+ range.

That was to let Nelson know how ridiculous it is to suggest that Houston or Cinci would be an upgrade to any current Big 12 member. Houston and Cinci are really nice AD's but they are none notch below p-5 level. The difference is they have been playing the game as long as everyone else and are just behind that much. UConn started just recently and are already at the p-5 level.

 

[gioff23]

No likely. I think the fans want Houston and BYU, tolerate UC and don't want UConn, except maybe KU fans.

I have no idea what Boren meant or what OU fans want, but I do not believe either wants to play in the southwest conference of yesteryear. The big 8 could've taken all the SWC schools years ago and passed. I don't see what's changed.

frankly, I remain convinced Boren and OU want out of B12. Time will tell.

 

[MountainMan]

The Big 12 officially jumped the shark with Boren's new maybe no expansion comments. This is going to turn into a public relations disaster for the conference and also ESPN if they don't expand.

Those comments were directed toward the other 9 presidents IMO. We want expansion or we are going to step down from the expansion committee and begin to plan our exit at the end of the GOR. OU and UT are essentially playing chicken with each other.

The Big 12 is a family.
UT is the alcoholic abusive dad
OU is the abused wife
KU is the oldest sister who knows what is going on with mom and dad and tries to take care of the kids
ISU, KSU, OSU, TT, Baylor, and TCU are the kids KU takes care of.
WVU is the outcast kid who already moved out on thier own at 16.

OU put it's foot down once again, we'll see if UT gives in or just goes back to thier old ways.

 

[BlueandOG]

Those comments were directed toward the other 9 presidents IMO. We want expansion or we are going to step down from the expansion committee and begin to plan our exit at the end of the GOR. OU and UT are essentially playing chicken with each other.

The Big 12 is a family.
UT is the alcoholic abusive dad
OU is the abused wife
KU is the oldest sister who knows what is going on with mom and dad and tries to take care of the kids
ISU, KSU, OSU, TT, Baylor, and TCU are the kids KU takes care of.
WVU is the outcast kid who already moved out on thier own at 16.

OU put it's foot down once again, we'll see if UT gives in or just goes back to thier old ways.

And like many dysfunctional families, mom sees having more kids as the answer. And just like kids in an orphanage, UCONN, UC, UCF, BYU, etc all would rather be in the abusive family.

 

[CL82]

No, of course not (and I agree that the money was more than fair). But ESPN could simply have let the Big East walk away from the table and try its luck negotiating with some other TV partner. Instead it opted to bankroll the Big East's destruction at the hands of the ACC. I understand that every party will act in its own interest, and doubtless ESPN was doing the same, but still, some self-interested moves are necessary and some aren't. I don't believe for a second that killing the Big East was essential to ESPN's long-term survival, whereas leaving the American probably is essential to UConn's. Hence my original point (which I won't belabor beyond this post) that I personally don't find it hypocritical to be indignant about the former scenario while condoning the latter.

Don't buy into the myth that it was "more than fair." It was positioning us to be lowest of the BCS conferences notwithstanding that we had better on field (and especially on the court) performance, better ratings, and better demographics.

I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post.

 

[Exit 4]

I have no idea what Boren meant or what OU fans want, but I do not believe either wants to play in the southwest conference of yesteryear. The big 8 could've taken all the SWC schools years ago and passed. I don't see what's changed.

frankly, I remain convinced Boren and OU want out of B12. Time will tell.

If UT never comes around to saving the B12, then yes - there will be plenty of OU resentment and animosity to cause them to seek a conf exit ASAP.

I'm just not convinced the conversations with other conferences has been so positive (why else would OU be trying so hard with conf expansion). I bet other conferences have listen to the soft pitch of OU, but probably responded with "you would make a great addition to our conference, but it is difficult to say in the future what our conference will be able to do with respect to adding new members" <--the problem is - how does the B10, SEC or PAC add OU with its small state foot print w/o detriment to the revenues of the existing members? The math to add OU is not a slam dunk unless OU will except a rev discount relative to its new conf mates in a new conf.

 

[CL82]

I had the same reaction, but I suspect (and hope) Boren is paying lip service to "listening to our fans" and plans to make whatever decision for Oklahoma he would have made anyway, regardless of the fans' input.

The more I think about Boren's quote the more I read it as positioning "Expansion won't happen unless we get what we want" rather that a signal that it won't happen at all.

 

[Kolumbo]

I would not be surprised at all if the Big 12 stands pat. Makes no sense to go through the entire dog and pony show for nothing. Seems to me it can only mean the Big 12 is a short timer.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I hate to break it to you but even lowly ISU is a P-5 school in every way imaginable when you look at the data. ISU has a 75 Million $ AD that requires less than 3% subsidy to operate. They have excellent fan support across the board and I believe enrollment is over 35k. They are a P-5 program in every sense. Just expanded the stadium to over 60k during a bad run of football.

If ISU was available for expansion they would get in ahead of Cinci, BYU, or Houston. It's hard to imagine but ISU and KSU have much better AD's than schools like Colorado or Utah so comparing them to Houston and Cincy is just ridiculous as they require the state to write a check for half the AD budget because they can't raise any money, have terrible ticket sales, lack donations, and are just welfare AD's.

Kansas State Big 12 $75,323,278 $67,316,209 $862,680 1.15
Iowa State Big 12 $75,283,516 $75,209,309 $2,044,400 2.72
Connecticut AAC $72,155,789 $72,062,423 $28,070,681 38.90
Rutgers Big Ten $70,558,935 $70,558,935 $23,803,903 33.74
Colorado Pac-12 $67,852,236 $65,273,311 $12,216,734 18.00
Utah Pac-12 $62,441,552 $58,734,014 $8,799,939 14.09
Cincinnati AAC $52,536,185 $51,717,370 $23,182,129 44.13
Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00

For example lets imagine if UConn, Cinci, and Houston got in the Big 12 and received a 25 Million $ payout to offset subsidy. Compare apples to apples as a p-5 program. Becomes really clear that UConn, ISU, and KSU are the only P-5 AD's on that list with Colorado being close but still too poor and requires too much subsidy to operate. When you look at it that way UConn fits right in the Big 12.

KSU 75 Million $ AD with less than 1 Million Subsidy
ISU 75 Million $ AD. 2 Million Subsidy
UConn 72 Million $ AD. 3 Million Subsidy
Rutgers 70 Million AD 28 Million Subsidy
Colorado 67 Million $ AD 12 Million Subsidy
Cinci 54 Million $ AD with 0 Subsidy
Houston 44 Million $ AD with 0 Subsidy

Big 12 school has big athletic budget because it is in the Big 12. Thanks for making my point.

 

[upstater]

I hate to break it to you but even lowly ISU is a P-5 school in every way imaginable when you look at the data. ISU has a 75 Million $ AD that requires less than 3% subsidy to operate. They have excellent fan support across the board and I believe enrollment is over 35k. They are a P-5 program in every sense. Just expanded the stadium to over 60k during a bad run of football.

If ISU was available for expansion they would get in ahead of Cinci, BYU, or Houston. It's hard to imagine but ISU and KSU have much better AD's than schools like Colorado or Utah so comparing them to Houston and Cincy is just ridiculous as they require the state to write a check for half the AD budget because they can't raise any money, have terrible ticket sales, lack donations, and are just welfare AD's.

Kansas State Big 12 $75,323,278 $67,316,209 $862,680 1.15
Iowa State Big 12 $75,283,516 $75,209,309 $2,044,400 2.72
Connecticut AAC $72,155,789 $72,062,423 $28,070,681 38.90
Rutgers Big Ten $70,558,935 $70,558,935 $23,803,903 33.74
Colorado Pac-12 $67,852,236 $65,273,311 $12,216,734 18.00
Utah Pac-12 $62,441,552 $58,734,014 $8,799,939 14.09
Cincinnati AAC $52,536,185 $51,717,370 $23,182,129 44.13
Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00

For example lets imagine if UConn, Cinci, and Houston got in the Big 12 and received a 25 Million $ payout to offset subsidy. Compare apples to apples as a p-5 program. Becomes really clear that UConn, ISU, and KSU are the only P-5 AD's on that list with Colorado being close but still too poor and requires too much subsidy to operate. When you look at it that way UConn fits right in the Big 12.

KSU 75 Million $ AD with less than 1 Million Subsidy
ISU 75 Million $ AD. 2 Million Subsidy
UConn 72 Million $ AD. 3 Million Subsidy
Rutgers 70 Million AD 28 Million Subsidy
Colorado 67 Million $ AD 12 Million Subsidy
Cinci 54 Million $ AD with 0 Subsidy
Houston 44 Million $ AD with 0 Subsidy

I'm not here to bag on ISU, but these numbers are phony baloney.

Even if they do make UConn look good.

Take Iowa State for example. 3 years ago they made $7m in contributions. Now they top $21m.

Looking at that, I can make a guess what happened, since this is a pretty frequent trick. You need new facilities. So you look for private donations. The private donations come, you add that to your ADs contributions. Meanwhile, you build the facilities, which can only be bonded by the university or the academic side (unless they are all paid for). A lot of schools don't even show this subsidy. If you look at UConn's build out for the football and basketball facilities, they never had a jump in contributions in the years preceding or after. Which makes me think that the private funds raised were actually used to build the facilities. This is just one way that sneaky subsidies are rolled into those numbers.

Someone needs a good explanation for how Iowa State managed to triple donations of that magnitude in 3 years.

 

[MountainMan]

Big 12 school has big athletic budget because it is in the Big 12. Thanks for making my point.

Epic Fail Nelson. ISU hs one of the best fan bases in the country and Cinci or Houston are nowhere close. That would be the case no matter what conference they are in. Changing conferences does not suddenly give you a new fanbase unless you are like a TCU where surrounding schools can help with attendance but even then its' not much. Honestly I think ISU might even be better off in a conference like the AAC where they would likely be more successful. Thier fans have watched a whole lot of losing over the years but they still sell 40k season tickets and have the # 3 stadium in the conference. Mix in a few CC's and a competitive football team and they would likely have even more support. They already have great support for BB and WBB which has nothing to do with the Big 12 games beyond KU and KSU. Few if Big 12 fans from Texas travel to Ames for games. There just isn't a whole lot going on in Des Moines or the rest of the state so whatever is going on in Ames is very popular to those folks and they show up. Hell they had 30k people show up for an outdoor wrestling match in Iowa.

You shout have picked some other p-5 schools to compare Houston and Cinci to. Compare them to Wake or Washington State and they look a little better but they are not comparable to most of the p-5.

 

[MountainMan]

I'm not here to bag on ISU, but these numbers are phony baloney.

Even if they do make UConn look good.

Take Iowa State for example. 3 years ago they made $7m in contributions. Now they top $21m.

Looking at that, I can make a guess what happened, since this is a pretty frequent trick. You need new facilities. So you look for private donations. The private donations come, you add that to your ADs contributions. Meanwhile, you build the facilities, which can only be bonded by the university or the academic side (unless they are all paid for). A lot of schools don't even show this subsidy. If you look at UConn's build out for the football and basketball facilities, they never had a jump in contributions in the years preceding or after. Which makes me think that the private funds raised were actually used to build the facilities. This is just one way that sneaky subsidies are rolled into those numbers.

Someone needs a good explanation for how Iowa State managed to triple donations of that magnitude in 3 years.

LOL. You think you need an explanation for why donations went up at a shcool??? The numbers are there for anyone to look at. If you really want to see somethign interesting look at Oregon or OkSt. They jump around to some years going over 100 Million in donations and back to teens the next year. Doesn't' take a genius to see why.

 

[noeynox]

Big 12 school has big athletic budget because it is in the Big 12. Thanks for making my point.

Try again. Cincy, Houston and others would have to keep their current subsidy and receive a full Big 12 payout just to have an AD budget at baseline Big 12 Levels. The only school outside the Big 12 that could give up their entire subsidy, and with a full Big 12 payout would have an AD comparable to other Big 12 schools is UConn.

It's a damn good point. One I've been saying along.

 

[BlueDogs]

Those comments were directed toward the other 9 presidents IMO. We want expansion or we are going to step down from the expansion committee and begin to plan our exit at the end of the GOR. OU and UT are essentially playing chicken with each other.

The Big 12 is a family.
UT is the alcoholic abusive dad
OU is the abused wife
KU is the oldest sister who knows what is going on with mom and dad and tries to take care of the kids
ISU, KSU, OSU, TT, Baylor, and TCU are the kids KU takes care of.
WVU is the outcast kid who already moved out on thier own at 16.

OU put it's foot down once again, we'll see if UT gives in or just goes back to thier old ways.

I get it. They may be playing chicken but they are a hair's breadth from burning down bridges as they go along. If they put 20 schools through a useless exercise and don't take anyone, nothing they say or do can be deemed reliable moving forward. Everyone will know the conference is on thin ice ready to implode from in-fighting, and different agendas. ESPN will be seen again as the tail wagging the college football dog at the expense of healthy stable competitive college football. But for the structural economic, recruiting and rules imbalances created by the anticompetitive p5 compact, I sure there are candidate schools that would love to tell the B12 get serious or stop wasting their time and money. I think the Big 12 started a grass fire they didn't anticipate could blow back on them.

 

[upstater]

LOL. You think you need an explanation for why donations went up at a shcool??? The numbers are there for anyone to look at. If you really want to see somethign interesting look at Oregon or OkSt. They jump around to some years going over 100 Million in donations and back to teens the next year. Doesn't' take a genius to see why.

I know why. I explained why. Don't know why you're having difficulty. It's a sham.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

My take on Boren's latest comment regarding possible no expansion is this:

• If there is no expansion, B12 is dead. B12 will just move along until 2023 and explode.
• I have no idea what schools like KSU and ISU are thinking. They can't be sitting too pretty. Without B12, they are no better than schools in the G5. There simply aren't too many options for them outside the B12. Same can be said for TTU (although big brother UT might take them along), Baylor, TCU, and OSU (it OU does not take them along).
• The expansion is about building up new schools to P5 level for the next media deal. UCONN is already at the P5 level, but schools like Houston and Cincy still need a lot of help. Sooner B12 expands, sooner they increase their chances for the playoff and build for media content for the future.
• OU is telling all the schools outside UT that if they want the B12 to survive, they better expand or OU is gone. I think Boren is looking at 14 to get to the same level as ACC, SEC, and the B1G.

The one unknown is the PAC-12. I would not be surprised to see PAC-12 make another attempt to go to 16 with UT, TTU, OU, and OSU.

 

[MountainMan]

I know why. I explained why. Don't know why you're having difficulty. It's a sham.

You asked why. I am not having any difficulty understanding the concept of big donors making donations which cause the totals to fluctuate from year to year.

Having donors give money to a program is a "Sham"?

Seriously UConn does the same thing. No idea why you see to dislike donors money but the more the better for these AD's.

 

[MountainMan]

My take on Boren's latest comment regarding possible no expansion is this:

• If there is no expansion, B12 is dead. B12 will just move along until 2023 and explode.
• I have no idea what schools like KSU and ISU are thinking. They can't be sitting too pretty. Without B12, they are no better than schools in the G5. There simply aren't too many options for them outside the B12. Same can be said for TTU (although big brother UT might take them along), Baylor, TCU, and OSU (it OU does not take them along).
• The expansion is about building up new schools to P5 level for the next media deal. UCONN is already at the P5 level, but schools like Houston and Cincy still need a lot of help. Sooner B12 expands, sooner they increase their chances for the playoff and build for media content for the future.
• OU is telling all the schools outside UT that if they want the B12 to survive, they better expand or OU is gone. I think Boren is looking at 14 to get to the same level as ACC, SEC, and the B1G.

The one unknown is the PAC-12. I would not be surprised to see PAC-12 make another attempt to go to 16 with UT, TTU, OU, and OSU.

Agree on #1. It would once again show that there is no long term plan or commitment. But I still don't think that will end up happening.

I am not sure why there seems to be the mindset that KSU, ISU, etc are not p-5 programs. When you look at the finances of these programs they are doing quite well. The worst AD's in the P-5 are in the PAC and ACC and even B1G (Rutgers). Schools who even with P-5 money require huge subsidies to operate because they lack fan support for things like donations and ticket sales. I can assure you that as far as ticket sales and fan support go ISU and KSU are doing just fine. It's the Washington States, Wake, Rutgers, etc who are really lagging behind even with a big P-5 paycheck. Washington St is one of the worst out there. UConn blows them away in things like ticket sales.

Completely agree and Houston and Cinci. They are the 2nd tier expansion candidates but still much better than the 3rd tier candidates like Colorado State or Tulane. UConn and BYU are P-5 AD's already.

Agree on Boren. This last tweet was a threat plain and simple. I believe that when it comes right down to it OU will get its' way but I'm only 60/40 on that. If that doesn't' happen all bets are off and OU will have plenty of options as will most of the others IMO. I put Baylor in the worst spot and that is mostly self inflicted with thier recent disaster.

I really think that if UConn gets in there will be a good rivalry with ISU. ISU will have a really good atmosphere for women's games with regular crowds over 10k for conference games. Mens games will be great as well. All the Texoma schools lack fan support for BB and WBB. Even OU struggled to sell out games with a top 5-10 team much of the season. Texas has horrible attendance for a school with 50k+ students in a good sized town.

 

[upstater]

You asked why. I am not having any difficulty understanding the concept of big donors making donations which cause the totals to fluctuate from year to year.

Having donors give money to a program is a "Sham"?

Seriously UConn does the same thing. No idea why you see to dislike donors money but the more the better for these AD's.

Big donors give the money for projects. The projects are completed by the academic side as a subsidy.

I'll say it again: UConn completed its basketball facility and two football facilities with private money, and you never saw a bump on the donation line. Why? Because there wasn't any accounting shenanigans. The private money paid for the facilities, or at the very least, if some school money was used, the private money was spent to defray the entire cost.

This is pretty simple to understand. The donations fluctuate wildly in relation to projects in any given year. But that requires a subsidy from the academic side to actually complete the projects!

 

[MountainMan]

Fair enough but lots of schools claim everyone else is cooking the books. UNC claims thier huge subsidy number is a lie. Colorado makes excuses about not getting a Big 12 check 4 years ago which is the reason they have terrible finances. Louisville Has Been accused of this as well. I just go by what is reported as opposed to the claims some make.

Maybe UConn takes the high road and everyone else does it differently. If so good on them.

Does Rutgers have an excuse?

 

[CTMike]

Does Rutgers have an excuse?

There is never an excuse for Rutgers.

 

[HuskyinWRNY]

There is never an excuse for Rutgers.

Rutgers to the Big10 still confounds me.