Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell. | Page 488 | The Boneyard

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

No we didn't, we were always behind the four corners schools from the start.
I mean we had Mora telling kids we'd be in the Big XII and the only leaks from our side have been "positive energy and hopefulness"

Yormark and some presidents visited campus. There's been a ton of news out there that Yormark wants us and if it weren't for those darn school presidents wed be the pick.

And it seems now that all of that was posturing.
 
According to a Chronicle of Higher Ed. study, the presidents at the big sports schools spend less than 3% of their time on AD stuff, even though the budgets for ADs often represent between 10-15% of the entire budget of the school. Most of the time spent by presidents is on the entire school budget. 50%+ of their time is spent literally moving around beans to see whether they can plug holes here and there, and whether they're causing bigger leaks elsewhere.

I've actually talked to a few of these guys about sports. I've been in Pres. suites where the Pres. (often from a foreign country who can barely understand the sport he's watching, and who thinks Americans are loony over college sports anyway) is simply deferring to the trustees and alumni. He makes $1m in salary. Don't rock the boat. Regarding sports, he is not making any strategy that benefits the long term health of the university and the welfare of students.

An administrator I know, who is now at the highest levels of a B1G school (no, not Penn State) once proposed a very smart plan for his school's athletic department, but it risked too much for the politicos and the Athletic Director (whose #1 goal was to keep his resume spotless for future promotions to bigger/better schools). I had talked about the administrator's (a Provost) recommendations at dinner weeks prior to that, and boy I tell you he will never get involved with sports ever again. His plan was received, and then people did an end around that chopped off his balls.

This is true especially down south where the coaches and ADs will run to the trustees, pols and boards behind the Presidents back. Down there, you will be fired for anything that can be perceived as inconveniencing sports. Remember Elsa Benitez at Texas A&M. Fired when the AD reported a surprise enormous deficit which she wasn't willing to totally subsidize.

So don't tell me Presidents make a considered analysis to lose money in athletics. They don't. The only thing they consider is how to keep making $1m in salary without permanently damaging the university, and when you hear about a President pulling a Benitez, make no mistake, something is going very, very, very wrong.

One of the primary rules of understanding business organizations of any type is to avoid asking what is in the best interests of the organization, and focus instead on what is in the best interests of the decision makers.
 
You know we're in a league with 9 catholic schools, right?
Yes. That's why we should assume that decisions that will be made that effect the entire conference will be made based on what is best for smaller catholic schools as opposed to state flagship universities. There is nothing wrong or untoward with that -- it's what we signed on for because we didn't have better options.
 
.-.
I honestly think it's Connecticut they don't like. Look how we treat the rights of woman compared to the B12 states. Laugh, but the thinking behind that Pace commercial is real.
They think CT is one of the ivory tower lib states who keeps losing population to the South and a lot of CT people think they're mouthbreathers who hate women. Sure, there's some of that but I highly doubt that's what's driving it.

Small time thinking that football is all that matters and that past performance is indicative of future performance is what's driving this.
 
I mean we had Mora telling kids we'd be in the Big XII and the only leaks from our side have been "positive energy and hopefulness"

Yormark and some presidents visited campus. There's been a ton of news out there that Yormark wants us and if it weren't for those darn school presidents wed be the pick.

And it seems now that all of that was posturing.
I'm not sure it was all posturing. You need to realize that these decisions aren't made in a vacuum and I really don't think anyone, anywhere was anticipating the bonehead performance Kliavkoff enacted in negotiating the P-12's media deal.

He spent months publicly stating that they were close to completion and the dollars would exceed the B-12 but never actually present anything to the conference's member schools. It reached the point where the conference basically demanded that he show them what he has and they found out it was 2/3 of the B-12's deal with no linear programming. That deal was likely available for months yet he was afraid to present it (until he could no longer delay) as he knew it was inadequate

He could not have played this any worse if his intent was to blow up the P-12.

This (the precarious situation the P-12 is in) is the monkey wrench in the works that nobody anticipated.
 
We picked the worst time to have a horrible football program right before Mora. If we had a great football team, it would have made Yormark's job easier.

Regardless, UConn brings far more value and potential to the B12 vs. Utah. It would be crazy for the B12 to take Utah over us right now.

I hope BYU is working overtime right now to block Utah. There is no reason BYU would want Utah in the same conference. Let's hope our Mormon friends can come through.
Only New England people stab our other residents in the back. They are gonna help them.
 
.-.
Not to be a downer but at this point, I just don’t see a scenario where Utah doesn’t accept a Big XII invite. The BIG10 is prioritizing O/W and then Cal/Stanford which means U is 5th on their list. The SEC clearly makes no sense for them. So with the PAC falling apart why wouldn’t they go BIG XII? They’re close to their geographic heart, are similar to many of the other schools, and they already have a built in in-state rival. They’d continue to be a national contender in football and would have huge games against Arizona, BYU, and Colorado, Baylor, and TCU every year.
im surprised the sec isnt pushing their face into the az/asu possibility
 
I'm not sure it was all posturing. You need to realize that these decisions aren't made in a vacuum and I really don't think anyone, anywhere was anticipating the bonehead performance Kliavkoff enacted in negotiating the P-12's media deal.

He spent months publicly stating that they were close to completion and the dollars would exceed the B-12 but never actually present anything to the conference's member schools. It reached the point where the conference basically demanded that he show them what he has and they found out it was 2/3 of the B-12's deal with no linear programming. That deal was likely available for months yet he was afraid to present it (until he could no longer delay) as he knew it was inadequate

He could not have played this any worse if his intent was to blow up the P-12.

This (the precarious situation the P-12 is in) is the monkey wrench in the works that nobody anticipated.
Eh maybe. I'm not so sure. Everyone knew Colorado was leaving, that's why the SDSU debacle happened.

How people did not foresee that Colorado leaving would destroy the PAC for good is beyond me. Anyone who pays any attention knew that would happen
 
According to a Chronicle of Higher Ed. study, the presidents at the big sports schools spend less than 3% of their time on AD stuff, even though the budgets for ADs often represent between 10-15% of the entire budget of the school. Most of the time spent by presidents is on the entire school budget. 50%+ of their time is spent literally moving around beans to see whether they can plug holes here and there, and whether they're causing bigger leaks elsewhere.

I've actually talked to a few of these guys about sports. I've been in Pres. suites where the Pres. (often from a foreign country who can barely understand the sport he's watching, and who thinks Americans are loony over college sports anyway) is simply deferring to the trustees and alumni. He makes $1m in salary. Don't rock the boat. Regarding sports, he is not making any strategy that benefits the long term health of the university and the welfare of students.

An administrator I know, who is now at the highest levels of a B1G school (no, not Penn State) once proposed a very smart plan for his school's athletic department, but it risked too much for the politicos and the Athletic Director (whose #1 goal was to keep his resume spotless for future promotions to bigger/better schools). I had talked about the administrator's (a Provost) recommendations at dinner weeks prior to that, and boy I tell you he will never get involved with sports ever again. His plan was received, and then people did an end around that chopped off his balls.

This is true especially down south where the coaches and ADs will run to the trustees, pols and boards behind the Presidents back. Down there, you will be fired for anything that can be perceived as inconveniencing sports. Remember Elsa Benitez at Texas A&M. Fired when the AD reported a surprise enormous deficit which she wasn't willing to totally subsidize.

So don't tell me Presidents make a considered analysis to lose money in athletics. They don't. The only thing they consider is how to keep making $1m in salary without permanently damaging the university, and when you hear about a President pulling a Benitez, make no mistake, something is going very, very, very wrong.
And yet, all your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, universities all across the country are investing millions upon millions of dollars in their athletic departments. Clearly all the decision makers at every one of those institutions are wrong in that decision and you are right.

Or maybe, just maybe, you are having a little bit of trouble seeing the forest because of all the trees in the way?
 
I'm not sure it was all posturing. You need to realize that these decisions aren't made in a vacuum and I really don't think anyone, anywhere was anticipating the bonehead performance Kliavkoff enacted in negotiating the P-12's media deal.

He spent months publicly stating that they were close to completion and the dollars would exceed the B-12 but never actually present anything to the conference's member schools. It reached the point where the conference basically demanded that he show them what he has and they found out it was 2/3 of the B-12's deal with no linear programming. That deal was likely available for months yet he was afraid to present it (until he could no longer delay) as he knew it was inadequate

He could not have played this any worse if his intent was to blow up the P-12.

This (the precarious situation the P-12 is in) is the monkey wrench in the works that nobody anticipated.
How did nobody anticipate it? It was so obvious Kliavkoff had nothing that it was a meme. I thought Waylon was the only person who believed Kliavkoff was two steps ahead instead of the bumbling buffoon who kept talking about his super awesome deal that he could never show anybody.
 
Only on here are people genuinely dismissing the credentials of Utah, a school that just went to back-to-back Rose Bowls, went as far in the WBB tournament as we did and has a solid MBB history.

Try looking around, guys.
 
.-.
Eh maybe. I'm not so sure. Everyone knew Colorado was leaving, that's why the SDSU debacle happened.

How people did not foresee that Colorado leaving would destroy the PAC for good is beyond me. Anyone who pays any attention knew that would happen
In mid June you knew the P-12 was six weeks away from imploding?
 
Eh maybe. I'm not so sure. Everyone knew Colorado was leaving, that's why the SDSU debacle happened.

How people did not foresee that Colorado leaving would destroy the PAC for good is beyond me. Anyone who pays any attention knew that would happen

No. Colorado meant little to the Pac. If there was an adequate TV contract, Colorado leaving would have been followed by crickets. Colorado leaving is the symptom. The illness is that without USC and UCLA, the Pac couldn't get an adequate TV contract.
 
Last edited:
I and yet, all your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, universities all across the country are investing millions upon millions of dollars in their athletic departments. Clearly all the decision makers at every one of those institutions are wrong in that decision and you are right. Or maybe you are having a little bit of trouble seeing the forest because of all the trees in the way?
You keep using the word investing.

We're talking about massive deficits.

Losing $10m on sports would be considered a normal thing. Heck, 23 of these schools MAKE money on sports.

I'm talking about losing bundles. UConn is not the only school in that boat. But the schools in that boat are doing exactly what I described in the post you are responding to.
 
Yes. That's why we should assume that decisions that will be made that effect the entire conference will be made based on what is best for smaller catholic schools as opposed to state flagship universities. There is nothing wrong or untoward with that -- it's what we signed on for because we didn't have better options.
Most of the time those interests are going to overlap. The times that they haven't, though, have been inflection points for the conference and have cost us considerably.
 
To date not a single conference agrees with the premise that we bring enough value. Thats a 20 year track record. We should be proposing a reduced payout thats greater than the BE payout.

Stop groveling.

Why would the Big 12 want us with one hand tied behind our back?
 
It's not the best cultural fit, either, but I would say that on average the typical Big East student has more in common with the typical UConn student.

I'm not so sure about that either. I'll give you PC, Seton Hall, and maybe St. John's... Do we think the kid paying $100k in tuition at Georgetown is really more similar to a kid from Newington than a kid going to KU?
 
.-.
Only on here are people genuinely dismissing the credentials of Utah, a school that just went to back-to-back Rose Bowls, went as far in the WBB tournament as we did and has a solid MBB history.

Try looking around, guys.
Utah is a better athletic program than ASU, which will just keep foundering along.
 
Most of the time those interests are going to overlap. The times that they haven't, though, have been inflection points for the conference and have cost us considerably.

Often they vary considerably, especially when litigation is involved. It's often in the interests of an organization to settle litigation quickly and move on, while for the decision makers settling means admitting to boards and owners that they could have done something better to avoid the situation, and they'd rather delay finality and then blame a judge for getting it wrong.
 
Only on here are people genuinely dismissing the credentials of Utah, a school that just went to back-to-back Rose Bowls, went as far in the WBB tournament as we did and has a solid MBB history.

Try looking around, guys.

I forgot to mention that they average 15.5k a night

FOR GYMNASTICS.
 
In mid June you knew the P-12 was six weeks away from imploding?
The rumors started in what? April? Whenever that happened it was bad news for the PAC and the only thing that would hold it together was incompetence from the member institutions
 
Utah is a better athletic program than ASU, which will just keep foundering along.

ASU is a sheer volume play, similar to UCF. The school's so damn big.
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,197
Messages
4,556,517
Members
10,442
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom