Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell. | Page 424 | The Boneyard

Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

The big 12 would be silly to add us right this second until Oregon, udub, etc commit to the PAC. Then they can finish executing their plan. Hopefully that involves us.
 
uconnbaseball said:
The big 12 would be silly to add us right this second until Oregon, udub, etc commit to the PAC. Then they can finish executing their plan. Hopefully that involves us.
Expand ...
If they don't apply, the are effectively committing.
 
upstater said:
I'm talking about what is customary. The additions to the B1G took much longer to get full shares, including Penn State. The additions to the ACC did the same with their additions.

Who said it was a rule?

I didnt.

Nor is it based on when the next contract begins. It's just based on what conferences typically do. There's always a buy-in.
Expand ...
Yeah again, the way you're presenting it sounds as if there's some unstated rule that makes it the phasing of distributions a certainty, there isn't.

Again, additions to the big 10 are buying a share of the Big Ten network and do that via taking reduced distributions so that a portion of the distribution can be applied to their buy-in. On top of that, Rutgers took a loan from the Big Ten to pay for its exit fee and transitioning costs. The loan was repaid via a reduction of Big Ten distributions to Rutgers. I believe those have finally been completed in Rutgers now receives a full share.

Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and BYU to the big 12 is a unique situation whereby their media partners declined to pay for those additions. The other teams in the conference took a reduced share to pay for the addition of those four teams during the two-year period prior to the next contract being in place in 2025. Once the new contract begins those for schools will receive a full share.

The big 12 media partners have already said that Connecticut as an addition would be worthy of a pro rata share, or said differently, they will treat Connecticut as if we were a P5 addition. That is an entirely different situation than one described above.

So, no there is no imaginary rule that says it must happen. It might happen, but there would have to be a reason for it, just as there were in each of the other times you mentioned.
 
noeynox said:
I trust Benedict and Maric to not negotiate themselves out of an invite. Ill leave it that.
Expand ...
Meh Kinda GIF by Cultura
 
What's next? Pac-12 vs. Big 12 realignment saga rages on with Colorado's impending move
Ross Dellenger

The Big 12 pursuit
Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, a New York businessman, has proved that he is calculating and aggressive in his pursuit of expansion.

So why would he stop now? He won’t.

The goal is to at least get to a 14th additional member, sources tell Yahoo Sports. Colorado is expected to receive a full share from the Big 12 as the league’s new television deal calls for a pro-rata for any Power Five additions (roughly $32 million in distribution a year).

While Yormark has targeted UConn as that expansion option, the preference is to add a Power Five program more in the geographic footprint. But does one exist?

Arizona, Arizona State and Utah were in a grouping, with Colorado, that Big 12 administrators identified as expansion targets during a meeting in May. While Arizona has long been thought as a more real possibility to leave, conversations between the Wildcats and the Big 12 have slowed to a crawl this summer, or outright stopped.

Will the discussions pick up again? A source at the school believes the program will wait until a Pac-12 TV deal is presented before it makes a decision.

That said, most thought Colorado would do the same before … well, you know.

Arizona State has shown little or no interest in leaving the conference. In an interview last month in Washington, D.C, Arizona president Robert Robbins addressed the potential issue of the Wildcats and Sun Devils competing in different leagues.

“We don’t have to do the same thing,” he said, “but [ASU] president [Michael] Crow and I are very tight. I think it’d be unlikely that we’d be split up.”

Pressed about a Pac-12 deal and the prospects of leaving for the Big 12, Robbins said, “Everybody remembers the line from Jerry McGuire, ‘Show me the money.’ ”

And what of Washington and Oregon, arguably the Pac-12’s most valuable remaining brands? The two schools were somewhat high on an expansion list that former Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren and company created last year.

However, there is a sense that the league is not interested in adding more schools, something new commissioner Tony Petitti reiterated during Big Ten media day on Wednesday.

But what if Oregon and Washington, twisting in the Pac-12 winds, are in such an urgent situation that they would accept a partial share of Big Ten distribution to join? Some are asking the question.

If the Big Ten doesn’t crack the expansion door, do the Huskies and Ducks look to the Big 12?

“What if they are just out there for the taking?” asks one Big 12 source. “It would be hard not to take them.”

sports.yahoo.com

What's next? Pac-12 vs. Big 12 realignment saga rages on with Colorado's move

"Is this when the dominoes start to fall?" The Pac-12 is reeling and searching for answers with Colorado voting on leaving for the Big 12.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com
 
.-.
CL82 said:
Yeah again, the way you're presenting it sounds as if there's some unstated rule that makes it the phasing of distributions a certainty, there isn't.

Again, additions to the big 10 are buying a share of the Big Ten network and do that via taking reduced distributions so that a portion of the distribution can be applied to their buy-in. On top of that, Rutgers took a loan from the Big Ten to pay for its exit fee and transitioning costs. The loan was repaid via a reduction of Big Ten distributions to Rutgers. I believe those have finally been completed in Rutgers now receives a full share.

Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and BYU to the big 12 is a unique situation whereby their media partners declined to pay for those additions. The other teams in the conference took a reduced share to pay for the addition of those four teams during the two-year period prior to the next contract being in place in 2025. Once the new contract begins those for schools will receive a full share.

The big 12 media partners have already said that Connecticut as an addition would be worthy of a pro rata share, or said differently, they will treat Connecticut as if we were a P5 addition. That is an entirely different situation than one described above.

So, no there is no imaginary rule that says it must happen. It might happen, but there would have to be a reason for it, just as there were in each of the other times you mentioned.
Expand ...
I don't know how else to say it when I already said it isn't a rule, but you keep on saying I'm saying it is a rule. This then becomes a really weird discussion.

I think I already made my point about the conference networks and the delayed full share. Penn State got a delayed full share decades before the network even existed. In BCs case, they got a delayed share 16 years before the ACCN came into being. So the regular or normal occurrence of these delayed shares happened long before the advent of conference TV networks.
 
JMick said:
Taking reduced shares made sense when growth looked exponential.

Now that is looks like there isn't any growth with these TV contracts, taking an initial hit makes much less sense than it did in the past. Especially if the conference is getting paid the full amount for your addition.
Expand ...
The B12 is going to have $50m payouts. Let's say UConn takes $25m and then $35m for the 1st 2 years. Then $350m over the next 7 years of the contract. That's $410m.

As opposed to the maybe $70m they'd make in the BE.

That's a difference of $340m. That does make sense.
 
Da_Aisijimo_Gou said:
Fiduciary responsibilities matter
Expand ...
upstater said:
The B12 is going to have $50m payouts. Let's say UConn takes $25m and then $35m for the 1st 2 years. Then $350m over the next 7 years of the contract. That's $410m.

As opposed to the maybe $70m they'd make in the BE.

That's a difference of $340m. That does make sense.
Expand ...
We definitely should not take any reduced rates. We might offer to play some home games at the Yankee stadium or Foxboro against B12 teams, but we should not take any reduced rates. This will help the B12 with exposure, and also help build UCONN brand in those areas.
 
Perception is a stupid fickle thing. We started football in a power conference. The other schools (except USF) around us have gone to other power conferences. We got left behind and suddenly we're not considered a power conference school, even though we already have been and we did quite well in a power conference. Our struggles have come when we were in weaker conferences. Nobody seems to care though. We've been slapped with the non-p5 label for some reason even though our AD is clearly p5 level. Hopefully none of that will matter shortly but it's really annoying and honestly a very lazy way of viewing things by the media.
 
WestCoastHusky said:
We definitely should not take any reduced rates. We might offer to play some home games at the Yankee stadium or Foxboro against B12 teams, but we should not take any reduced rates. This will help the B12 with exposure, and also help build UCONN brand in those areas.
Expand ...
I've never understood pro-rata as if its the conference's money and not the TV people's money. Maybe it is the conferences money? There's some disconnect there. Maybe the conference gets the difference? I'm a little confused by the idea that the conference makes the call to downrate UConn's financial worth. I can see where a conference would want to inflict that on somebody you don't trust but if you don't trust them you don't ever trust them. Unless the remainder goes the conference and thus the other schools I don't get it.
 
.-.
Wonder If the B12 presidents trust Yormark enough to do something out of their comfort zone. He might be our hero if this goes through.
 
Patman said:
I've never understood pro-rata as if its the conference's money and not the TV people's money. Maybe it is the conferences money? There's some disconnect there. Maybe the conference gets the difference? I'm a little confused by the idea that the conference makes the call to downrate UConn's financial worth. I can see where a conference would want to inflict that on somebody you don't trust but if you don't trust them you don't ever trust them. Unless the remainder goes the conference and thus the other schools I don't get it.
Expand ...
Think of it as a buy-in. The conference members built the conference into what it is. Just as pro leagues take franchise fees.

Heck, UConn did this to members who wanted to join the BE.

UConn personally profited from TCU joining the BE without ever playing. TCU gave the BE $5m for that whole thing, and UConn got its cut.
 
upstater said:
UConn would be the only school in the NCAA so far that agrees to a permanent reduced rate. The only one. It would put them behind their conference brethren in terms of support.

Now, this might be a model for the future, but it's a horrible situation to put yourself there before any other school, to say the least

I can see entire conferences agreeing to differentials, but not just one school.
Expand ...
B12 - “UConn, you’re not investing enough resources in football so we’re going to give you less money (resources) than all of our other members but also you guys need to catch up.

That makes perfect sense.
 
.-.
GoKU said:
Lol. The Big 12 is not taking Oregon State.
Expand ...
Exactly, Nice rumor started by an Oregon State website out here. There are about 11th on the pac-12 pecking order ahead of Washington State. Breathe easy people.
 
Now we need the pac-12 to bring in oodles of dollars or fall apart so hard that we join with 2 other p12 schools as Oregon etc are poached by the Big 10.

Lucy has set the football. Kick her head off, Charlie.
 
upstater said:
I don't know how else to say it when I already said it isn't a rule, but you keep on saying I'm saying it is a rule. This then becomes a really weird discussion.

I think I already made my point about the conference networks and the delayed full share. Penn State got a delayed full share decades before the network even existed. In BCs case, they got a delayed share 16 years before the ACCN came into being. So the regular or normal occurrence of these delayed shares happened long before the advent of conference TV networks.
Expand ...
So wherever in my post you see the word "rule" in my post feel free to read it as "establish practiced or normal occurrence."

Hope that helped.
 
Last edited:
.-.
I personally would take a reduced rate, we'd likely be making 4x what we do in the Big East, and we basically make nothing on football with our CBS sports deal, the resources we could pump into every sport immediately with that type of money basketball already owns the Big 12 making significantly less, and it's not like it's a permanent thing never is, if that's what it takes to join the conference I'm down.
 
huskypantz said:
B12 - “UConn, you’re not investing enough resources in football so we’re going to give you less money (resources) than all of our other members but also you guys need to catch up.

That makes perfect sense.
Expand ...
You forgot the part where the B12 say to themselves (“here’s extra money since we are lowballing UConn, spend it wisely. [chuckling] Lol, kidding, we’re going to Vegas for our next president meeting”).
 
huskidork said:
I personally would take a reduced rate, we'd likely be making 4x what we do in the Big East, and we basically make nothing on football with our CBS sports deal, the resources we could pump into every sport immediately with that type of money basketball already owns the Big 12 making significantly less, and it's not like it's a permanent thing never is, if that's what it takes to join the conference I'm down.
Expand ...

It depends how reduced, and for how long. You have to factor in that we would be immediately forfeiting our NCAA shares to the Big East and would owe them a fee for leaving. Add in the extra travel costs and all of a sudden it might not be all that much extra money.

It would probably still be worth it, but if it only ends up being ~$5 million more per year and puts us in a league that everyone knows isn't a great cultural fit, it's something to think about long and hard if it's worth it.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,556
Messages
4,582,880
Members
10,492
Latest member
7774Forever


Top Bottom