Non-Key Tweets

[Kolumbo]

No argument that Messi is not an elite athlete. That said, he's only 5' 7".

Yogi was 5'7". Pele 5'8". Maradona 5'5". What's your point?

 

[Husky25]

Yogi was 5'7". Pele 5'8". Maradona 5'5". What's your point?

Don't you know that only men with over active pituitary can be great elite, great athletes?

Gotta be 6'-8" 270 lbs., be able to jump out of the arena and hit a 24 foot jumper with seem regularity. LeBron does flop to draw a foul with the best of them, so maybe he does belong on a soccer field.

 

[Kolumbo]

Just because I want to catch a lot of flack. It is starting to seem overly hypocritical because we all know big time sports brings problems which the NCAA has never handled properly and I am sick of reading about tv and dollars. Maybe it's time they do something unique and put the students and fans first. See how that experiment works. Keep it more regional and focus on academics, try being true to what it should be just as the Ivy League does not waiver.
UCONN, UMASS, Buffalo, ODU, Temple, Cinci, Army, Navy. The Colonial Conference consists of fine universities at the FCS level. It just seems to me that if a university is striving for excellence, all of the corruption at the P5 level should be taken out of the equation.
Crazy talk, I know, but F it. I'd rather see this if it is G5 for the rest of my life.

 

[Kolumbo]

Don't you know that only men with over active pituitary can be great elite, great athletes?

Gotta be 6'-8" 270 lbs., be able to jump out of the arena and hit a 24 foot jumper with seem regularity. LeBron does flop to draw a foul with the best of them, so maybe he does belong on a soccer field.

And along those lines, size alone with no skill can bring the appearance of an athlete. See Hasheem Thabeet.

 

[Dooley]

Yes, now. A bidding war could erupt however. If Cinci is in the Big XII, and UConn gets B1G overtures, the ACC has a problem if it expects ND to join. It has zero acceptable candidates remaining. It's a big poker game right now, and nobody is showing their cards. Once the hands start coming out it could change rapidly.

Respectfully disagree. You're either in the $25M-$50M/yr club or you're in the $1M/yr club. With the exception of a few small potatoes schools, those in the latter would chop off their limbs to get into the former. The only way our leverage would improve is if Mike Aresco can wave some sort of magic wand and get us MUCH closer to the $25M/yr club. I don't think that will happen. The best he could do would be possibly get us half of the way there...but even then, I think that's quite a stretch and very unlikely.

But let's say our leverage does improve...if we turn down an invitation to the B1G over a backloaded contract offer, I will march to Storrs with torches and pitchforks (as would the entire state).

 

[SubbaBub]

Respectfully disagree. You're either in the $25M-$50M/yr club or you're in the $1M/yr club. With the exception of a few small potatoes schools, those in the latter would chop off their limbs to get into the former. The only way our leverage would improve is if Mike Aresco can wave some sort of magic wand and get us MUCH closer to the $25M/yr club. I don't think that will happen. The best he could do would be possibly get us half of the way there...but even then, I think that's quite a stretch and very unlikely.

But let's say our leverage does improve...if we turn down an invitation to the B1G over a backloaded contract offer, I will march to Storrs with torches and pitchforks (as would the entire state).

Only the B12(Texas) would do that. The B1G would craft an agreement that best meets the needs of its members and the newcomers. If that means maintaining payout levels to current members, that's what they'd do, but they wouldn't move without knowing how it will work out past the immediate short term. They wouldn't expand if a heavily back loaded contract were necessary.

The ACC is only asking us if they are desperate so greed wouldn't be the driving force in any agreement with them.

 

[pj]

Seriously. Any school outside of the P5 right now has absolutely zero negotiating leverage. The B12 could offer Memphis or Houston $1 for the first 10 years before getting a full share and they would take it in a heartbeat.

Not true, for several reasons:
1. The B12 will lose its top programs by 2025 at the latest, meaning that ten years at $1 leaves you at least $30 mn behind your AAC colleagues and in the same boat in 2025 (as B12 will be arguably worse than the AAC). If AAC gets a nice uptick in the next contract, from $3 mn per year to say $8 mn, you could be $70-80 mn behind.
2. If Texas or Oklahoma has an exit from the GoR and leave early, then you may not even get the prestige benefit to make up for the loss of money.

You have to keep in mind the possibility that Oklahoma and Texas have exits already prepared, and that B12 expansion is really about protecting Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and other weak sisters, as ESPN and Fox cannot terminate the TV contract if the number of teams stays above a threshold. The conference you are entering may not be a P5 for long and you have to be sure you are getting paid adequately.

 

[noeynox]

Not true, for several reasons:
1. The B12 will lose its top programs by 2025 at the latest, meaning that ten years at $1 leaves you at least $30 mn behind your AAC colleagues and in the same boat in 2025 (as B12 will be arguably worse than the AAC). If AAC gets a nice uptick in the next contract, from $3 mn per year to say $8 mn, you could be $70-80 mn behind.
2. If Texas or Oklahoma has an exit from the GoR and leave early, then you may not even get the prestige benefit to make up for the loss of money.

You have to keep in mind the possibility that Oklahoma and Texas have exits already prepared, and that B12 expansion is really about protecting Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and other weak sisters, as ESPN and Fox cannot terminate the TV contract if the number of teams stays above a threshold. The conference you are entering may not be a P5 for long and you have to be sure you are getting paid adequately.

Any G5 school would run not walk toward that offer from the big12, us included. The weak sisters you mention are by and large better, more established teams than any,grouping of teams,schools you could put together from the G5 schools.

Wish it wasn't true but it is.

 

[SubbaBub]

No school is accepting a dollar a year for ten years unless the money lost is made up elsewhere. Said school would make the offer public and that would be that.

These conferences are clubs. Yes there may be a probationary period as you build equity, but the value you begin with isn't $1 and no group interested in working together operates that way. Hence, it's within the realm of the B12 (Texas), but not any of the others.

 

[whaler11]

The Big 12 dollar would get UConn it's tier 3 rights back.

They would set themselves on fire for that deal - between tier3 and additional ticket sales be $10 million plus a year better off.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Respectfully disagree. You're either in the $25M-$50M/yr club or you're in the $1M/yr club. With the exception of a few small potatoes schools, those in the latter would chop off their limbs to get into the former. The only way our leverage would improve is if Mike Aresco can wave some sort of magic wand and get us MUCH closer to the $25M/yr club. I don't think that will happen. The best he could do would be possibly get us half of the way there...but even then, I think that's quite a stretch and very unlikely.

But let's say our leverage does improve...if we turn down an invitation to the B1G over a backloaded contract offer, I will march to Storrs with torches and pitchforks (as would the entire state).

Yes, NOW. There is a possibility that there will be a sudden push to get to 16-20 among all the conferences. We already know that part of the consideration for Louisville going to the ACC was that they perceived that the Big XII would want them...while they likely wouldn't want us due to geography. That's fine while we are in the American, but if there is any risk that we might not be, the ACC sees it's only path to a partner for ND shut off. Colorado State is useless to the the ACC for example. As soon as a feeding frenzy starts, the leverage shifts. Not all the way, but it shifts from near zero.

The $1 per school point is ridiculous. Nobody would offer that. It would be a delayed revenue stream, nothing more.

 

[SAMCRO]

Gotta be 6'-8" 270 lbs...

I think you just described Fishy.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Yogi was 5'7". Pele 5'8". Maradona 5'5". What's your point?

In elite soccer where bigger players like Ronaldo at 6' 1", Suarez at 6' 0", Lewandowski at 6' 0" are becoming the norm, its amazing what Messi can do.

 

[Dooley]

The $1 per school point is ridiculous. Nobody would offer that. It would be a delayed revenue stream, nothing more.

It was meant to be ridiculous. I just threw an absurd example out there without thought but even at $1/yr + T3 rights retained, we would be up $8M-$10M/yr. At least an 800% profit in media rights alone. And as @whaler11 said, the uptick in ticket sales would add more revenue. Playing against other increased exposure schools also would probably give us a bump in the next apparel deal.

 

[SubbaBub]

The Big 12 dollar would get UConn it's tier 3 rights back.

They would set themselves on fire for that deal - between tier3 and additional ticket sales be $10 million plus a year better off.

That would be money made up elsewhere. Since we are evaluating deals. The next AAC deal should, if Aresco is any good be around $10M. I'd shoot for what the ACC is getting but would have to accept something closer to what they were getting before their latest deal.

A $10M deal would not be acceptable for a term longer than a handful of years and it would need to escalate consistent with the equity we'd add. A buy-in period is perfectly acceptable, akin to the distribution of the old BE credits. But as with the BE credits, some of that was shared with the new members of the AAC even thought they didn't earn it. I realize that the payout was a lot higher because the newcomers had leverage in forming the new league, but the same principle applies. Any new school is a partner, not a hired servant, except maybe to Texas.

And while we are at it, there will be a number G5 for the B12 or any conference they will want the best of the breed, which does limit their choices else they add a Rutgers without the cable boxes that make them so charming.

 

[whaler11]

That would be money made up elsewhere. Since we are evaluating deals. The next AAC deal should, if Aresco is any good be around $10M. I'd shoot for what the ACC is getting but would have to accept something closer to what they were getting before their latest deal.

A $10M deal would not be acceptable for a term longer than a handful of years and it would need to escalate consistent with the equity we'd add. A buy-in period is perfectly acceptable, akin to the distribution of the old BE credits. But as with the BE credits, some of that was shared with the new members of the AAC even thought they didn't earn it. I realize that the payout was a lot higher because the newcomers had leverage in forming the new league, but the same principle applies. Any new school is a partner, not a hired servant, except maybe to Texas.

And while we are at it, there will be a number G5 for the B12 or any conference they will want the best of the breed, which does limit their choices else they add a Rutgers without the cable boxes that make them so charming.

No offense but LOL. There is no way the AAC deal is going up 500%.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Hate to ask the question, but why wouldn't UConn just propose that deal? Big12 grabs UConn and Cincinnati. Gets a football title game and increases per team pay out.

Sure you hurt ticket sales a bit in football (facing OU, Texas less), but I'd imagine the title game would help offset that.

 

[SubbaBub]

No offense but LOL. There is no way the AAC deal is going up 500%.

I suppose it depends on their ability to talk to multiple providers. The new AAC was hampered by a lack of ratings history and the matching clause in the old BE contract.

They now have a decent ratings history and hopefully would be free to talk to other networks. A 500% bump up of squadouche isn't the same. The market for mediocre football is somewhere just below the ACC. They should be able to get a nice bump.

 

[UConn9604]

I suppose it depends on their ability to talk to multiple providers. The new AAC was hampered by a lack of ratings history and the matching clause in the old BE contract.

They now have a decent ratings history and hopefully would be free to talk to other networks. A 500% bump up of squadouche isn't the same. The market for mediocre football is somewhere just below the ACC. They should be able to get a nice bump.

Or, more simply, 500% of a small number is still five times the small number. We're not talking about the Big Ten quintupling its take here. It wouldn't be that hard for us to get five times more.

 

[whaler11]

I suppose it depends on their ability to talk to multiple providers. The new AAC was hampered by a lack of ratings history and the matching clause in the old BE contract.

They now have a decent ratings history and hopefully would be free to talk to other networks. A 500% bump up of squadouche isn't the same. The market for mediocre football is somewhere just below the ACC. They should be able to get a nice bump.

If you think someone like NBC or Fox is paying billions of dollars for the AAC over a decade - are you sure you've been paying attention?

There is no AAC bidding war coming.

 

[whaler11]

5x the current money over a ten year deal is 1.2 billion dollars. I mean come on - that's absurd as soon as you get to the 'b'.

 

[Kolumbo]

5x the current money over a ten year deal is 1.2 billion dollars. I mean come on - that's absurd as soon as you get to the 'b'.

It is absurd. What about CR is not absurd? What is the ACC getting over 10 years?

 

[whaler11]

It is absurd. What about CR is not absurd? What is the ACC getting over 10 years?

Contrary to what people here want to beleive it's a lot more valuable.

They also wouldn't get their deal today - they are very lucky it was signed and long term.

ESPN is laying off peons they pay nothing to. The market has already changed - if you don't have something high end to sell you are in trouble.

 

[Husky25]

Contrary to what people here want to beleive it's a lot more valuable.

They also wouldn't get their deal today - they are very lucky it was signed and long term.

ESPN is laying off peons they pay nothing to. The market has already changed - if you don't have something high end to sell you are in trouble.

Peons? Hardly.

If every one of the 350 being let go makes even the lowest of six figures, that is $35,000,000, plus benefits and tax expense, which roughly equate to 33-50% of gross wages.

ESPN Layoffs Begin Tomorrow: 350 Employees, Six-Figure Earners

 

[whaler11]

Peons? Hardly.

If every one of the 350 being let go makes even the lowest of six figures, that is $35,000,000, plus benefits and tax expense, which roughly equate to 33-50% of gross wages.

ESPN Layoffs Begin Tomorrow: 350 Employees, Six-Figure Earners

Meant it in the sense they aren't going to be expensive talent under contract.

The fact they are taking out that much money further enforces my point - you aren't selling the AAC for a 500% markup to a company that is bledding 5% of it's workforce to cut expenses because the top line is shrinking.