Non-Key Tweets | Page 546 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

whaler11 said:
You don't need to hire a firm
to tell you that UConn and Cincinnati are the two best G5 schools.

You don't need inside contacts to understand that Texas doesn't want to expand the Big 12.

Do you think I don't know there are posters who just post nonsense they don't actually believe? Thanks for the update.

For the record I'm never a contrarian on purpose - it just turns out group think is wrong a lot.
Expand ...
I accept your acceptance of my apology.
 
I'm at the point where so long as the Big XII doesn't raid the AAC without us I don't care. Texas is acting like a spoiled child and can go try and be independent and see how small their true market value is. They want to pretend they're on the same level as Notre Dame and they just aren't. Keep the AAC strong for a couple years, wait for Texas or OU to bail and add Baylor/ISU/TCU/etc. and we'll be alright.
 
Dodd still brings up an interesting point. Right now the Big 12 can guarantee 1 billion in their coffers over the next 10 years if they add 4 teams soon. Doesn't matter how good they are in football, whether they can bring a network (doesn't matter now), whether they are good academically, etc. They basically have ESPN and Fox by the balls.

And considering they can dictate terms to the new teams (which team is going to say no to 10 mil a year and maybe eventually 15 mil a year 5 years down the road if the Big 12 lays out those terms?) why wouldn't they? After they give the newbies their cut they can still hold on to approx 500 mil or 50 mil per team over 10 years.....extra cash to be had.

Why would you say no when you know there is a chance the league ceases to exist anyway once the B1G contract re-opens and the Big12 contract is on the verge of expiring?

The question is what 4 teams are taken...I would think from a football recruiting standpoint Cincy and a Florida team are in. That would leave 2 teams...and perhaps for those final 2 teams non-football factors play into it. Do the "presidents" want academic integrity and a school that is at least "competitive" across the board in all sports like UConn? You can scrap the Colorado school (who cares about Denver market now). Memphis (a 1-2 year football mirage perhaps with awful academics?) Houston (still can't see Texas wanting Houston considering how well Herman is already recruiting as a G5 member over Texas). BYU (sure although the Sunday thing who knows).....

Would they take 2 Florida schools? I can't see that happening....

anyway, now that I've had a few I still think if the Big12 is just looking to cash in as much as possible over the next 9 years, maybe UConn has an outside shot still, especially when the Big 12 is impressed when we win the College World Series.
 
The Viking said:
Dodd still brings up an interesting point. Right now the Big 12 can guarantee 1 billion in their coffers over the next 10 years if they add 4 teams soon. Doesn't matter how good they are in football, whether they can bring a network (doesn't matter now), whether they are good academically, etc. They basically have ESPN and Fox by the balls.

And considering they can dictate terms to the new teams (which team is going to say no to 10 mil a year and maybe eventually 15 mil a year 5 years down the road if the Big 12 lays out those terms?) why wouldn't they? After they give the newbies their cut they can still hold on to approx 500 mil or 50 mil per team over 10 years.....extra cash to be had.

Why would you say no when you know there is a chance the league ceases to exist anyway once the B1G contract re-opens and the Big12 contract is on the verge of expiring?

The question is what 4 teams are taken...I would think from a football recruiting standpoint Cincy and a Florida team are in. That would leave 2 teams...and perhaps for those final 2 teams non-football factors play into it. Do the "presidents" want academic integrity and a school that is at least "competitive" across the board in all sports like UConn? You can scrap the Colorado school (who cares about Denver market now). Memphis (a 1-2 year football mirage perhaps with awful academics?) Houston (still can't see Texas wanting Houston considering how well Herman is already recruiting as a G5 member over Texas). BYU (sure although the Sunday thing who knows).....

Would they take 2 Florida schools? I can't see that happening....

anyway, now that I've had a few I still think if the Big12 is just looking to cash in as much as possible over the next 9 years, maybe UConn has an outside shot still, especially when the Big 12 is impressed when we win the College World Series.
Expand ...

The reason against that line of thinking is they don't buy into the idea they are dead, can recruit better schools in the future and it's a short term cash grab that doesn't pay off in the end.

They might be wrong but that is why.

Based on the market contracting there aren't going to be many places for the non-elite to land.
 
The league can add a billion dollars for expansion....but it is no increase for current schools, only the same money for the additions....it is only worth it to current members if the new members take a ten year haircut.

Is it worth it to a G5 to take such a long term junior position? You betcha.

With no network in the near term, and moderate financial gains per team with expansion, the talk will move to "diluting the brand".

The division make up may play in when expansion occurs.

Oklahoma and Texas folks will want a Big 12 south and north. And that might end up UConn, Cincinnati, ISU, Kansas, KSU, and WVU in a north division.....

The Big Texoma vs the "Others"...and that would be interesting....while the relative power of each division would switch when football segues to basketball, the Texoma could be seen as the core of the conference.

The other scenario would be splitting Oklahoma and Texas...with possibility of either replays or end of RR Rivalry.

I think that there will be a wrestling match regarding division structure....
 
whaler11 said:
The reason against that line of thinking is they don't buy into the idea they are dead, can recruit better schools in the future and it's a short term cash grab that doesn't pay off in the end.

They might be wrong but that is why.

Based on the market contracting there aren't going to be many places for the non-elite to land.
Expand ...

I've never known a P5 conference to pass up a cash grab, even a short term one.
 
JMick said:
I'm at the point where so long as the Big XII doesn't raid the AAC without us I don't care. Texas is acting like a spoiled child and can go try and be independent and see how small their true market value is. They want to pretend they're on the same level as Notre Dame and they just aren't. Keep the AAC strong for a couple years, wait for Texas or OU to bail and add Baylor/ISU/TCU/etc. and we'll be alright.
Expand ...

You must be young. I'm old. I probably have 10 years.
 
whaler11 said:
You don't need to hire a firm
to tell you that UConn and Cincinnati are the two best G5 schools.

You don't need inside contacts to understand that Texas doesn't want to expand the Big 12.

Do you think I don't know there are posters who just post nonsense they don't actually believe? Thanks for the update.

For the record I'm never a contrarian on purpose - it just turns out group think is wrong a lot.
Expand ...
I'm amazed that you can pause from your celebratory 'Big 12 didn't expand' jerk off long enough to post.

Everyone here knows the non-key tweet thread is bull spit. That's why it is called "non-key."

Geesh, Nostradamus give it a rest.
 
billybud said:
The league can add a billion dollars for expansion....but it is no increase for current schools, only the same money for the additions....it is only worth it to current members if the new members take a ten year haircut.

Is it worth it to a G5 to take such a long term junior position? You betcha.

With no network in the near term, and moderate financial gains per team with expansion, the talk will move to "diluting the brand".

The division make up may play in when expansion occurs.

Oklahoma and Texas folks will want a Big 12 south and north. And that might end up UConn, Cincinnati, ISU, Kansas, KSU, and WVU in a north division.....

The Big Texoma vs the "Others"...and that would be interesting....while the relative power of each division would switch when football segues to basketball, the Texoma could be seen as the core of the conference.

The other scenario would be splitting Oklahoma and Texas...with possibility of either replays or end of RR Rivalry.

I think that there will be a wrestling match regarding division structure....
Expand ...

Texas has not had a first place finish since 2009. I would not be so fast to write off the competition.
 
Stinger92860 said:
Texas has not had a first place finish since 2009. I would not be so fast to write off the competition.
Expand ...

That's true but that's been just as much about Texas being bad and its recruiting lacking as it has the competition improving. I wouldn't chalk up their not having a first place finish in that time period as being all about the quality of the competition. Granted, it's probably both, but Texas has been mediocre regardless of the strength of their opponents. Remember, they've been rolled by BYU a few times too.
 
CL82 said:
I'm amazed that you can pause from your celebratory 'Big 12 didn't expand' jerk off long enough to post.

Everyone here knows the non-key tweet thread is bull spit. That's why it is called "non-key."

Geesh, Nostradamus give it a rest.
Expand ...

So sensitive.

The Big 12 not expanding is a good thing for UConn. That many don't understand it doesn't make it less true.
 
whaler11 said:
So sensitive.

The Big 12 not expanding is a good thing for UConn. That many don't understand it doesn't make it less true.
Expand ...
I thought you were going to take a break after Businesslawyer suggested it. There must be something else you like doing like, oh I don't know, giving away plot points at movies, or going to theme parks and telling kids that the costumed characters aren't real. You know, giving someone else the benefit of your perspicacity.
 
whaler11 said:
The reason against that line of thinking is they don't buy into the idea they are dead, can recruit better schools in the future and it's a short term cash grab that doesn't pay off in the end.

They might be wrong but that is why.

Based on the market contracting there aren't going to be many places for the non-elite to land.
Expand ...
Going to 14 doesn't keep them from recruiting better schools in the future (such as FSU and Clemson).
 
buddy said:
I'm in the same boat, but hoping for a little more time. Question is will we be too feeble to enjoy it when the day comes?
Expand ...

Buddy, I'm in the same boat. However, it has been said that everything is enjoyable when you're feeble. Ignorance is bliss... Frankly, I think there is quite a roster of posters on this board that have crossed over.
 
Ok maybe I am being a pure UConn homer but yesterday was not the end of the road.

Was it good for UConn that there is no BIG12 networking coming? Definitely no.

Was it good that Boren indicated at least part of any future selection criteria will be teams who Big12 fan bases want to see their school play? Probably not as this indicates expansion could be partly driven by a non-metric, geographical focused, football-centric popularity vote.

All that said, there is still money to be made in expansion for the Big12 and there is a lot more money to be made by taking G5 teams. It does not seem likely ACC schools would leave for the Big12 but even if they did FSU/Clemson are not taking "a haircut." In essence a lot of the potential money which could be made by the Big12 teams through expansion is in the form of extorting and withholding money from incoming members. Other P5 programs aren't going to agree to that...G5 program will take a half share with a smile.

If yesterday showed anything it is that neither UT nor Oklahoma seems fully committed long term to the Big12. Any Big12 program other than UT or OU should look at expansion as insurance in the event UT/OU bolt. Sure the Big12 may get the same expansion money for Appalachian State as they do for UConn but who is better situated to help the conference survive if UT/OU leave? UConn chances may have dropped some but I still think UConn helps the Big12's long term survival chances more than the competition.

Trying to make sense of the Big12 is like trying to mold a statute out of pudding. I suppose there is not really a Big12...there is UT and what UT lets the rest of the Big12 do....I am becoming more convinced UT is more interested in publicly imposing its will than it is in helping the Big12. Expansion will be an interesting test on what UT will allow.
 
Now that B12 dream is over it is now time to dream that a very good ND team "without a 13th data point" gets left out of the playoff and they join the ACC with us as 16. None of our current realignment rivals bring much to the ACC.
 
DiacosArmy said:
Now that B12 dream is over it is now time to dream that a very good ND team "without a 13th data point" gets left out of the playoff and they join the ACC with us as 16. None of our current realignment rivals bring much to the ACC.
Expand ...
Well here's Tim Brando saying that Notre Dame will join the ACC in 3 years and the ACCN will eventually get off the ground. A Duke blog (yuck) thinks that means Texas will also be on the table for the ACC when the B12 implodes - I guess because ND has a TV deal and Texas has a network... underpants? Anyway, there's that nut-punch to look forward to.
 
I think ESPN is trying to hold back a network to protect the ACC. Just a gut feeling that doesn't even rise to non-key anything. Further consolidation will marginalize the sport longer term but in some crazy way I think they feel it gives them more control (over a shrinking pie). And I'd love to see the report they decided to send back and the new criteria that's been suggested to massage the metrics.
 
whaler11 said:
So sensitive.

The Big 12 not expanding is a good thing for UConn. That many don't understand it doesn't make it less true.
Expand ...
I wouldn't call it "good" it's more neutral. It's bad in that we don't get into a P5 conference, but it's good that the AAC isn't weakened to a point of unsustainability. As it stands, the AAC is a place that we can tread water for a few more years in hopes of landing a P5 spot. The AAC minus some combination of one or two of UC, UH, Memphis, UCF would become immediately unsustainable for both football and basketball and would force us to seriously look at moving programs other places.
 
brasssbonanzaa said:
I wouldn't call it "good" it's more neutral. It's bad in that we don't get into a P5 conference, but it's good that the AAC isn't weakened to a point of unsustainability. As it stands, the AAC is a place that we can tread water for a few more years in hopes of landing a P5 spot. The AAC minus some combination of one or two of UC, UH, Memphis, UCF would become immediately unsustainable for both football and basketball and would force us to seriously look at moving programs other places.
Expand ...

It's the best possible outcome right now. There was never going to be a network and without a network it was never going to happen. So maybe 'good' isn't the right world but it's better than the alternatives.
 

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
2,732
Total visitors
2,844
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,256
Messages
4,389,302
Members
10,196
Latest member
Whizzlerr


.
..
Top Bottom