Non-Key Tweets

[businesslawyer]

We add value but they won't take us alone. They prefer adding us with a PAC-12 member, so they will wait until the dust settles on their contract. If they can't get a PAC-12 team to leave, they will either 1) add us with Gonzaga or St. Johns (hoops only) or wait until another partner for us comes along. They know we are available.

If we add value, why would they delay upon realizing that value? Does that make sense?

 

[BlueandOG]

We add value but they won't take us alone. They prefer adding us with a PAC-12 member, so they will wait until the dust settles on their contract. If they can't get a PAC-12 team to leave, they will either 1) add us with Gonzaga or St. Johns (hoops only or wait until another partner for us comes along. They know we are available.

If we add value, why would they delay upon realizing that value? Does that make sense?

It does. The B12 will make the announcement about conference realignment when the plan is finalized. The plan won't be finalized until the PAC deal is done. Once the PAC deal is done, the B12 will know whether they can convince a PAC school to join us or not. If they can, they announce UCONN and PAC School X. If not, they weigh the pros and cons of adding UCONN and a hoops-only school or waiting to see if they can add UCONN and another P5 school at a later point. Time is on their side. They know 1) we are the primary target for our market, which they want to add, 2) we are the best hoops add to solidify their status as the premier hoops league, and 3) we are not going to the PAC, B10, ACC, or SEC.

 

[Blades]

Anything Marc Tweets is key. Even if it's what he had for lunch yesterday.

 

[businesslawyer]

It does. The B12 will make the announcement about conference realignment when the plan is finalized. The plan won't be finalized until the PAC deal is done. Once the PAC deal is done, the B12 will know whether they can convince a PAC school to join us or not. If they can, they announce UCONN and PAC School X. If not, they weigh the pros and cons of adding UCONN and a hoops-only school or waiting to see if they can add UCONN and another P5 school at a later point. Time is on their side. They know 1) we are the primary target for our market, which they want to add, 2) we are the best hoops add to solidify their status as the premier hoops league, and 3) we are not going to the PAC, B10, ACC, or SEC.

With all due respect (and no, unlike Ricky Bobby I'm not going to follow that with an insult), you still haven't told me why if UConn adds value they wouldn't have added UConn now and filled the last slot later. What did they gain, if we add value, but not pulling the trigger on us now?

 

[Urcea]

It might not topple the tower, but do you think any of the Pac 12 schools will stick behind in a 9 team league when they can just muscle us out of our Big 12 spot?

Because they like being in a culturally similar academically elite institution. Athletics aren't everything. In a situation where the PAC media deal is 15% less than the Big 12, most people will stick around. Colorado is the one in a unique spot, due to previous ties, football ambition, etc.

 

[CL82]

So if we're that important to the Big XII, the reason that they didn't bring us in by June 30, instead of waiting an additional year, would be what exactly? It taking us makes them more money, why would they wait to see what Colorado would do (or for any other event)?

Because they'd rather announce the full expansion plan then pick up schools in pieces?

 

[Forte]

The fact that these dummies could simply call AD DB at any time and ask what he thinks and why he feels that way, yet they don’t, says a lot.

CT media/press the gift the keeps on giving ... champions of UConn athletics

 

[freescooter]

It does. The B12 will make the announcement about conference realignment when the plan is finalized. The plan won't be finalized until the PAC deal is done. Once the PAC deal is done, the B12 will know whether they can convince a PAC school to join us or not. If they can, they announce UCONN and PAC School X. If not, they weigh the pros and cons of adding UCONN and a hoops-only school or waiting to see if they can add UCONN and another P5 school at a later point. Time is on their side. They know 1) we are the primary target for our market, which they want to add, 2) we are the best hoops add to solidify their status as the premier hoops league, and 3) we are not going to the PAC, B10, ACC, or SEC.

Remember too that Yormack is reported to want a northeast/New York presence. The B12 has actually wanted that for some time. If you want that, who are your options? Rutgers. Temple, Army, Syracuse, Buffalo, UConn and maybe UMass. Rutgers isn’t leaving the B10. Syracuse can’t leave the ACC. UB, Temple and UMass are non-starters. We bring nationally relevant basketball, womens basketball and baseball programs, a football team with an upside if nothing else.

 

[businesslawyer]

Because they'd rather announce the full expansion plan then pick up schools in pieces?

People keep saying that, but why is that in the XII's interest? Let's take a different example. I've decided it will be good for my firm to hire two more litigation partners (notwithstanding that I hate litigators). One of them is immediately available and would bring value to my firm. I have a second one identified who I'm also convinced would bring value, maybe even more than the first, but he's waiting to see if his current firm gives him a big raise and keeps getting stalled when he tries to get an answer. And he keeps stalling me. I also have a backup plan if this second partner won't join me, but the backup plan wouldn't be nearly as valuable as either of the first two options, and maybe I need to do more diligence and make sure I want him.

O.K., now since I'm slow, please explain to me why the uncertainty as to whether I can get the second litigator (and what I would do if the second turns me down) would keep me from hiring the first immediately, since the first one would add value today?

 

[NH Husky]

If we add value, why would they delay upon realizing that value? Does that make sense?

I think your take makes perfect sense. However rushing into expansion appears to have occurred several times in the past without intended results (re ACC). Yormark has been in his current role only since august of last year. It appears his approach is very different and would need time to assess the current situation and develop a plan with the member schools.

 

[CL82]

People keep saying that, but why is that in the XII's interest? Let's take a different example. I've decided it will be good for my firm to hire two more litigation partners (notwithstanding that I hate litigators). One of them is immediately available and would bring value to my firm. I have a second one identified who I'm also convinced would bring value, maybe even more than the first, but he's waiting to see if his current firm gives him a big raise and keeps getting stalled when he tries to get an answer. And he keeps stalling me. I also have a backup plan if this second partner won't join me, but the backup plan wouldn't be nearly as valuable as either of the first two options, and maybe I need to do more diligence and make sure I want him.

O.K., now since I'm slow, please explain to me why the uncertainty as to whether I can get the second litigator (and what I would do if the second turns me down) would keep me from hiring the first immediately, since the first one would add value today?

So, in your mind your decision to hire two more litigators is essentially the same thing to conference realignment? If not, it's kind of a silly analogy, no?

 

[businesslawyer]

So, in your mind your decision to hire two more litigators is essentially the same thing to conference realignment? If not, it's kind of a silly analogy, no?

Expanding a business is expanding a business. Of course there are differences in any two situations, but again -- if adding a person, member, piece of equipment or anything else brings you value today, why would you not act on it today, but instead put it off until a second thing that adds value can be accomplished?

 

[FfldCntyFan]

People keep saying that, but why is that in the XII's interest? Let's take a different example. I've decided it will be good for my firm to hire two more litigation partners (notwithstanding that I hate litigators). One of them is immediately available and would bring value to my firm. I have a second one identified who I'm also convinced would bring value, maybe even more than the first, but he's waiting to see if his current firm gives him a big raise and keeps getting stalled when he tries to get an answer. And he keeps stalling me. I also have a backup plan if this second partner won't join me, but the backup plan wouldn't be nearly as valuable as either of the first two options, and maybe I need to do more diligence and make sure I want him.

O.K., now since I'm slow, please explain to me why the uncertainty as to whether I can get the second litigator (and what I would do if the second turns me down) would keep me from hiring the first immediately, since the first one would add value today?

BL,

Let's look at your employee example as if the general belief were similar to Switzerland's law on pets where the requirement is that you have to hire in pairs. Would you announce the hiring of one, putting him in position of giving notice now, to start in a few weeks while also waiting at least a month before you can expect an answer from the other candidate, not knowing when, and not being fully confident if he would end up with your firm?

There is no law on this but I imagine that it is pretty safe to say the B-12 would prefer not going through a season with an odd number of members.

I don't know where we stand right now but I don't see how anyone could use that nothing has been announced yet as proof that nothing will be announced.

 

[CoastAtlantic]

 

[Skiblets]

People keep saying that, but why is that in the XII's interest? Let's take a different example. I've decided it will be good for my firm to hire two more litigation partners (notwithstanding that I hate litigators). One of them is immediately available and would bring value to my firm. I have a second one identified who I'm also convinced would bring value, maybe even more than the first, but he's waiting to see if his current firm gives him a big raise and keeps getting stalled when he tries to get an answer. And he keeps stalling me. I also have a backup plan if this second partner won't join me, but the backup plan wouldn't be nearly as valuable as either of the first two options, and maybe I need to do more diligence and make sure I want him.

O.K., now since I'm slow, please explain to me why the uncertainty as to whether I can get the second litigator (and what I would do if the second turns me down) would keep me from hiring the first immediately, since the first one would add value today?

I’ll try.

Yormark has 12 ADs, 12 Presidents and hundreds of Trustees and donors he needs to bring along the journey. He’s presented his expansion plans to a subset of them. He’s gotten consensus agreement on that plan from that diverse audience. If the consensus plan is to move on multiple schools then he can’t just go ahead and add us. Not very transformational adding a hoops heavy school.

So if he tried to do that he’d lose all credibility since that’s not the agreed upon plan and the next time he went back to the well he’d get a whole bunch of pushback.

 

[jostar1]

People keep saying that, but why is that in the XII's interest? Let's take a different example. I've decided it will be good for my firm to hire two more litigation partners (notwithstanding that I hate litigators). One of them is immediately available and would bring value to my firm. I have a second one identified who I'm also convinced would bring value, maybe even more than the first, but he's waiting to see if his current firm gives him a big raise and keeps getting stalled when he tries to get an answer. And he keeps stalling me. I also have a backup plan if this second partner won't join me, but the backup plan wouldn't be nearly as valuable as either of the first two options, and maybe I need to do more diligence and make sure I want him.

O.K., now since I'm slow, please explain to me why the uncertainty as to whether I can get the second litigator (and what I would do if the second turns me down) would keep me from hiring the first immediately, since the first one would add value today?

Your first litigator starts working for you immediately. UConn wouldn't start working (playing) for the Big 12 for one (possibly football) or two years. So what value would UConn be adding immediately? Are you talking about, say, public relations value?

 

[danlow1963]

People keep saying that, but why is that in the XII's interest? Let's take a different example. I've decided it will be good for my firm to hire two more litigation partners (notwithstanding that I hate litigators). One of them is immediately available and would bring value to my firm. I have a second one identified who I'm also convinced would bring value, maybe even more than the first, but he's waiting to see if his current firm gives him a big raise and keeps getting stalled when he tries to get an answer. And he keeps stalling me. I also have a backup plan if this second partner won't join me, but the backup plan wouldn't be nearly as valuable as either of the first two options, and maybe I need to do more diligence and make sure I want him.

O.K., now since I'm slow, please explain to me why the uncertainty as to whether I can get the second litigator (and what I would do if the second turns me down) would keep me from hiring the first immediately, since the first one would add value today?

If hiring one or two of these potential litigators would directly impact the work schedules, travel schedules and day to day functions of the entire firm, then you probably do not want to add one until you are sure it’s only one if at all possible. I think the Big XII would prefer two, with one being us, and a second being a PAC team. When they’re sure, they announce the one or two additions, not before.

 

[uconnyankee]

If we add value, why would they delay upon realizing that value? Does that make sense?

In a vacuum, no. But there are other items in play so it’s not as black and white.

 

[businesslawyer]

BL,

Let's look at your employee example as if the general belief were similar to Switzerland's law on pets where the requirement is that you have to hire in pairs. Would you announce the hiring of one, putting him in position of giving notice now, to start in a few weeks while also waiting at least a month before you can expect an answer from the other candidate, not knowing when, and not being fully confident if he would end up with your firm?

There is no law on this but I imagine that it is pretty safe to say the B-12 would prefer not going through a season with an odd number of members.

I don't know where we stand right now but I don't see how anyone could use that nothing has been announced yet as proof that nothing will be announced.

I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to Switzerland so I'll ignore it. Sorry.

Is it plausible to see why the Big XII would prefer any even number of members? Of course it is. But it has gone througha period with an odd number and, more importantly, the premise I was challenging is THAT UCONN BRINGS VALUE TO THE BIG XII TODAY. Not that UConn would bring value to the Big XII only if without adding us they are stuck on an odd number. So I go back to my original point -- if doing something adds value, you do it. You don't wait for something else that would also add value if it occurs.

 

[businesslawyer]

Your first litigator starts working for you immediately. UConn wouldn't start working (playing) for the Big 12 for one (possibly football) or two years. So what value would UConn be adding immediately? Are you talking about, say, public relations value?

I am fairly certain that, by not bringing us in by 6/30, they have to wait one entire full season before they can get us in.

 

[hardcorehusky]

Conference Realignment is not analogous to hiring two partners to a firm. The Big XII has. Game plan. Integrate its 4 new members now and then announce additions. The Pac 12 TV contract could have made it easier to pick off Colorado. But it has been delayed again. UConn is part of the Northeast expansion if you believe Yormark. For conferences and universities, it is easier to get all the ducks in a row and then make the announcement. I read a while back that Yormark said the next additions are for the 2031 contract, not the 2026 contract. If we can join early and get pro rata, better for UConn. However, to add value, we need to be a member for a few years and weave that UConn magic.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

I’ll try.

Yormark has 12 ADs, 12 Presidents and hundreds of Trustees and donors he needs to bring along the journey. He’s presented his expansion plans to a subset of them. He’s gotten consensus agreement on that plan from that diverse audience. If the consensus plan is to move on multiple schools then he can’t just go ahead and add us. Not very transformational adding a hoops heavy school.

So if he tried to do that he’d lose all credibility since that’s not the agreed upon plan and the next time he went back to the well he’d get a whole bunch of pushback.

And, there's this little ole issue of pleasing/getting buy in from your media partners on any and all conference additions.

 

[metsfan2323]

So UConn will now join Holy Cross and Tulane on the Mt Rushmore of horrible decisions.

"A UConn spokesman declined to comment" says it all. They were too busy punching the wall.

 

[jostar1]

This guy appears to be a BYU fan. I doubt he would have any insider info.

 

[CL82]

Expanding a business is expanding a business. Of course there are differences in any two situations, but again -- if adding a person, member, piece of equipment or anything else brings you value today, why would you not act on it today, but instead put it off until a second thing that adds value can be accomplished?

Lol, c'mon Biz. Your handle is business lawyer. You know there's a huge difference between hiring a couple of people in a private company and the addition of members to association of multiple public entities for which public relations (perception management) is a principal goal. Your analogy is the equivalent of "I go to the store to get milk and eggs, but they're all out of milk. Why should I deny myself eggs?" Not exactly applicable.

[SMH, laughing]