I don't think the spending is the issue. It's from where the money they are spending comes. They'd much rather the money come from a large base of donors than from a state government. A lot has to happen to turn off each individual donor spigot than does the current government subsidy.There are also concerns that UConn is "one of the most heavily subsidized public FBS athletic departments in the country,"
The fact that any "serious" person doesn't understand WHY that's the case is still so incredibly dumbfounding. It's actually pure stupidity. Do they think 1+1=3? In one breathe they complain we don't spend enough money, in another breathe we spend too much money.
It's just people who don't want us making up reasons. You spend too much money guys. We don't want you because you don't spend enough money. If we do let you in were not going to spend any money on you and expect you to spend your own money to get better. But we have concerns you spend too much money.Where do they think the money should be coming from? We're a football independent. Donors? The school's endowment? It's like not hiring someone to a good-paying job despite their tremendous qualifications because they currently don't earn enough money from their freelance gig.
Which, come to think of it, is kind of how our society works, isn't it?
Not for an article written in 2018…View attachment 103156
Like an odd choice of host for the football coach's show.
It makes no sense. Green is green. A major donor of a university that props up a program can die and their kids could say screw it I want a yacht not club seats at a football game. It's no different than fears the state would pull back on funding.I don't think the spending is the issue. It's from where the money they are spending comes. They'd much rather the money come from a large base of donors than from a state government. A lot has to happen to turn off each individual donor spigot than does the current government subsidy.
Debatable. Have you ever heard Randy speak?Not for a article written in 2018zzz
This feels illegal but it's probably not. It's surely a conflict of interest.Fox gets us on the cheap now and we keep the BE relevant . Why would they want to damage one of their properties and pay more for the privilege
Bingo- the concern is the lack of big time athletics donors/fundraising (which is something UConn has struggled with for years). Relying on the state to fund improvements to facilities (look at how long its taken to do anything at The Rent, XL, Gampel as an example) rather than a large base of donors is one of many things that highlight the existing issue, along with the lack of initiative related to NIL and low fundraising amount as it relates to football.I don't think the spending is the issue. It's from where the money they are spending comes. They'd much rather the money come from a large base of donors than from a state government. A lot has to happen to turn off each individual donor spigot than does the current government subsidy.
Once they get the 12th vote, it will be unanimous. Only the B1G had negative votes when PSU was invited. All the other additions were unanimous.6/8 is a 75% clip. If the other teams are 8/8 (not impossible, as I feel teams opposed to us would be most likely to leak) we probably sneak in, but 12/16 sound acrimonious.
The difference of course is the media money, of which UConn receives very little. If UConn joined the B12, it would instantly vault into the top quarter of the league in spending, even if it reduced it's university subsidy by $20m. And then if it became really aggressive in fake accounting, it would take all the branding revenue for the entire university and include that as athletics income. That's just one common trick. There are many more.I don't think the spending is the issue. It's from where the money they are spending comes. They'd much rather the money come from a large base of donors than from a state government. A lot has to happen to turn off each individual donor spigot than does the current government subsidy.
The vast majority of P4 schools rely on the state for facility improvements. Michigan does. Texas does. Donors don't pay for stadiums, except in the case of T Boone Pickens and the $450m he donated (then rescinded because he lost all his money, only to give it again a decade later). The bonding for those projects goes through the school, not the AD. So does the debt service. You won't see debt service for facilities on the AD's balance sheet. And if donors pony up for stadiums, the money never goes to the construction of the stadium itself. Instead, it becomes athletic donor revenue.Bingo- the concern is the lack of big time athletics donors/fundraising (which is something UConn has struggled with for years). Relying on the state to fund improvements to facilities (look at how long its taken to do anything at The Rent, XL, Gampel as an example) rather than a large base of donors is one of many things that highlight the existing issue, along with the lack of initiative related to NIL and low fundraising amount as it relates to football.
I would hope as part of the presentation, AD David Benedict has a list of high end donors willing to step up with multi-year commitments once it becomes official.
Yes. But most or all of it is to pay us. Maybe a little of it would go to the other schools to pay travel expenses. Adding UConn is supposed to be revenue neutral to the other schools.Wait is ESPN offering to up the Big 12 Media deal to add us?
There is only one or two left. They can’t do everything. And, there is no dedicated college football writer at any of the legacy papers.Our state media is worthless
My way of thinking is it is either tomorrow because they have the votes or "still working out the details" because BY doesn't have the votes and turns to hoping that Mora's boys change some minds by not being awful.I think the only thing left of concern is finding out when they will take an official vote. Especially if Zanetto is correct that the needed votes are secured and all these meetings are formalities. You'd think the final pitch and vote would be before College Football really kicks off.
Hopefully don’t need to sweeten it if Yormark & Endeavor can convince 6 of them to join the 6 schools already on board. If they’re on the fence, the benefit of the doubt should go to Yormark.Gotta wonder which of the 8 schools voted yes or no and which ones of the remaining 8 are left undecided.
And what it would take to sweeten the deal for everyone so we get the 12 needed votes.
Possible alternative consideration: After Big 12 presidents potentially just received media details, Endeavor’s reports, more information from UConn, etc, why would anyone reasonably believe undocumented rumors to be accurate? Alternatively, what’s the likelihood no university presidents would be compelled to share important updates with their respective board of trustees before any formal votes would occur? Bit early in the process? To be determined.I don’t really understand the assumption that yormark still has the votes when it was just reported that the unofficial vote was 6-2 and at least a couple schools still needed convincing. Otherwise the latest intel would be along the lines of “yormark still has the votes…”
That wasn't an "unofficial" vote. Dodd got info about 8 schools.I don’t really understand the assumption that yormark still has the votes when it was just reported that the unofficial vote was 6-2 and at least a couple schools still needed convincing. Otherwise wouldn’t the latest intel be along the lines of “yormark still has the votes…”
It seems he's never had the votes to begin with. He's trying to persuade themI don’t really understand the assumption that yormark still has the votes when it was just reported that the unofficial vote was 6-2 and at least a couple schools still needed convincing. Otherwise wouldn’t the latest intel be along the lines of “yormark still has the votes…”
The loss of UConn on its channels really hurts espn hoops credibility.This feels illegal but it's probably not. It's surely a conflict of interest.