Non-Key Tweets | Page 638 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

If they're a yes vote for us, I think it's telling that they believe we help them make the most money.

I mean, is that not true? What other school can deliver the markets that UConn can? What other school will generate the NCAA Tournament revenue that UConn can?

With the exception of "Billionaire benefactors" there is no area in which adding UConn wouldn't result in a cash windfall for the Big 12.
 
Right. Coupling that with BHV report allows them to see the light. I think it's very telling. And if they see the light, why can't Baylor, TTU or UT?

The Baylor one might be one to sway, we have played them in the past, they know us a little and we can only help legitimize their M&W BB programs further
 
The Baylor one might be one to sway, we have played them in the past, they know us a little and we can only help legitimize their M&W BB programs further

We are in the process of scheduling to play a Men's and Women's double-header at MSG in the next year or two with Baylor.
 
I mean, is that not true? What other school can deliver the markets that UConn can? What other school will generate the NCAA Tournament revenue that UConn can?

With the exception of "Billionaire benefactors" there is no area in which adding UConn wouldn't result in a cash windfall for the Big 12.

I believe it to be true. I think the TV numbers believe it to be true, too. But it might not be true to everyone. Maybe TTU believes that traveling here will cost more than the incremental gain we bring them vs. a closer school like Memphis, and thusly Memphis makes them more money. Maybe Texas believes having a branch in Houston makes UT more money than the incremental TV money gain UConn makes them over UH.
 
I was there last year. It's really disappointing. Looks like a tin box.

It is OK...not wonderful, but certainly adequate.

1f2a5200-a588-11e4-8f9b-7f19c8ea3aed_Screen-Shot-2015-01-26-at-1-20-39-PM.png.cf.jpg
 
I would love to be a fly on the wall to witness the process for coming up with the crap that some of these "insiders" post. Does someone give them a little nugget and their creative writing skills kick in for the other 90% of BS or do they just get messed up and start making stuff up and other stoners pile on or what? What makes someone post crap that is probably 95% made up? Do they think it will influence the outcome?

I want to be a fly on the wall, but with an electric shock machine wired to each participant, so that anytime one of them says something stupid, like "UConn has weak facilities", "UConn people didn't go to the Fiesta", "Memphis academics aren't that bad"..."zapp!". It would be like the collar for an invisible fence for dogs, designed to fence them in to consideration of reality not some false perception of it.
 
Post by the so-called Cincy insider, MSMoose:

2 hours ago

To expedite the resolution of expansion candidates for the Big 12, Oklahoma proposed voting blocks, consisting of (4) blocks of any number of member institutions. This would ensure member interests could best be accommodated without extended debate per candidate. These voting blocks in Oklahoma’s eyes and Commissioner Bowlsby’s ensured a fair process.

The blocks were developed in open discussion when considering member institutions top preliminary expansion choices.

This process is what I referred to yesterday as the Oklahoma Compromise!

The voting blocks were as follows, with their top candidates in order;

Block 1 – Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor
Candidates = BYU-UH-UC-UCF\USF
Block 2 – Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma
Candidates = UC-BYU-UCONN-CSU-Memphis-UCF\USF
Block 3 – Kansas State\Oklahoma State
Candidates = Memphis-CSU-UC-UCONN
Block 4 – West Virginia\TCU
Candidates = UC-UCF\USF-Memphis-UCONN

Note, the members within blocks have changed as the process has unfolded, however I believe the above to be most accurate as of this morning.

In fact, the Big 12 Board has sent a contingent of Big 12 Commissioners, etc., to specific candidates. These visits were at times followed by visits from voting blocks of Presidents, and others from Big 12 institutions. All information has been shared with all Big 12 members. A very open process, however very thorough as well. The visits have wrapped up now, and the Big 12 is in deliberations, so to speak.

  • 2 hours ago

    • Before I have to leave for a meeting, I want to mention the Big 12 negotiations with its television providers.

    The negotiations are very complicated, those who make light of them simply have no clue how the negotiations work.

    First, renegotiation has to happen, as expansion adds more volume, which affects scheduling windows. Divisions affect scheduling and 1st and 2nd rights. A CCG has to be negotiated, etc. and so on. Point is renegotiation would occur, even if expansion didn't occur. However, expansion is occurring and that complicates renegotiations. While the media portrays these renegotiations as volatile, they are in most cases not. Conferences and television partners talks weekly, and for the most part work together very well.

    ESPN obviously wants to protect its properties so to speak, and does not feel G5 candidates are worthy of Big 12 Pro Rata monies. Fox Sports feels differently. So this is the starting point for a resolution that is agreeable by all. While Pro Rata is part of the Big 12 contract, the Big 12 is not necessarily toeing the line on it, they are willing to work with the television partners on compromises. Negotiations have been going very well, I was told, and as stated to me the framework for a new deal is far enough along that final agreements with candidates will or have begun already.

    Texas wants an extension of the GOR until 2031, concurrent with the expiration of its agreement with ESPN for the LHN. Texas wants to ensure expansion is solidifies the conference, yet also protects it from realignment at the termination of the current Big 12 contract. Oklahoma and others agree, however they want concessions from Texas on the LHN. Texas has worked with the conference on concessions, however has hit so roadblocks with ESPN. Work remains in progress on this front.
From another poster:

o with that in mind, as of this morning, the schools listed with each candidate is as follows:

Cincinnati: 10 (All ten schools)

UCF/USF: 8 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor, West Virginia, TCU, Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma)

Memphis: 7 (Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, TCU, Kansas St., Oklahoma St.)

UConn: 7 (Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas St., Oklahoma St., West Virginia, TCU)

BYU: 6 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor, Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma)

CSU: 5 (Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas St., Oklahoma St.)

Houston: 3 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor)
long post... not sure how legitimate but there is great deal of detail...
How do UCF and USF have 8 votes and Memphis is tied with Uconn? Is this the Presidents' thinking? Makes no sense.
And now Oklahoma is voting for Memphis? I thought they didn't want to be in the same league.
 
Last edited:
long post... not sure how legitimate but there is great deal of detail...
How do UCF and USF have 8 votes and Memphis is tied with Uconn? Is this the Presidents' thinking? Makes no sense.
And now Oklahoma is voting for Memphis? I thought they didn't want to be in the same league.

I think it's a bunch of conjecture, but many commentators, including actual journalists have said that taking UCF or USF without the other is pointless. Neither do enough to entrench you in the Florida market, but together they might. So perhaps this person views them as a pair or not at all.

Of course we understand that rationale, and apply it to Syracuse and Rutgers, neither of whom can do enough to bring the NY market.
 
Saw that post on Shaggy...searched for MSMoose...it originated on the cincy 247 board (page 56) where MSMoose posts
 
Matt, your avatar is so tilting. Makes me want to go find a jug of moonshine, and drink my conference realignment troubles away
seriously... it is really disturbing. Is it possible to "ignore" a posters avatar, but still read their posts? Not that Dood resembles him physically, but for whatever reason whenever I see that pic I think of Private Jelly Donut from Full Metal Jacket.
1608.jpg
images
 
My autotext writes what it wants. I agree to feed it and it doesn't rewire my phone.
 
Oh my God...please please please....we need to get in or stay out so this kind of crap ends! We just need football. Or ludes. Or something, man.

I suggest embracing it or skimming past it because whether we get in or stay out will not change a thing in how posts are made on the boneyard
 
Yes I thought that might have had an affect as well. But even still, I still have a hard time believing they would pass up more money with another candidate to vote for us. If they're a yes vote for us, I think it's telling that they believe we help them make the most money.
How would another candidate mean more money to them? The TV money adjustment is a fixed number, no?
 
How would another candidate mean more money to them? The TV money adjustment is a fixed number, no?
I keep getting lost on that as well. Because the pro rata is a fixed number the only way they would get more is if a candidate would give up more. Unless by some miracle they all stick together past the current deal, no one would see the benefit from anyone's ability to generate more money.

or unless they renegotiate
 
I keep getting lost on that as well. Because the pro rata is a fixed number the only way they would get more is if a candidate would give up more. Unless by some miracle they all stick together past the current deal, no one would see the benefit from anyone's ability to generate more money.

or unless they renegotiate

Except that there's more than just TV money. For example, NCAA tournament credits, something that we'd be well-suited to provide.
 
Except that there's more than just TV money. For example, NCAA tournament credits, something that we'd be well-suited to provide.
Would we be leaving any behind in the AAC for a while?
 
It is OK...not wonderful, but certainly adequate.

1f2a5200-a588-11e4-8f9b-7f19c8ea3aed_Screen-Shot-2015-01-26-at-1-20-39-PM.png.cf.jpg
big 12 official to athletic director: Is that the lgbt smoking area right there by the gator pond?

a.d: uh, uh, yes yes, we'll be relocating that to luxury section 210 just prior to the start of the 2017 season.

big 12 official: good!
 
Except that there's more than just TV money. For example, NCAA tournament credits, something that we'd be well-suited to provide.
True, but to follow the narrative that only accounts for a small portion of the revenue. but if everything is equal per the pro rata you may be right that could be something to push us up the pecking order
 
Can't W work his contacts in Austin to move UConn's appeal to UT? I mean jesus your family's fortune was established in CT.
 
Post by the so-called Cincy insider, MSMoose:

2 hours ago

To expedite the resolution of expansion candidates for the Big 12, Oklahoma proposed voting blocks, consisting of (4) blocks of any number of member institutions. This would ensure member interests could best be accommodated without extended debate per candidate. These voting blocks in Oklahoma’s eyes and Commissioner Bowlsby’s ensured a fair process.

The blocks were developed in open discussion when considering member institutions top preliminary expansion choices.

This process is what I referred to yesterday as the Oklahoma Compromise!

The voting blocks were as follows, with their top candidates in order;

Block 1 – Texas Tech\Texas\Baylor
Candidates = BYU-UH-UC-UCF\USF
Block 2 – Iowa State\Kansas\Oklahoma
Candidates = UC-BYU-UCONN-CSU-Memphis-UCF\USF
Block 3 – Kansas State\Oklahoma State
Candidates = Memphis-CSU-UC-UCONN
Block 4 – West Virginia\TCU
Candidates = UC-UCF\USF-Memphis-UCONN

Note, the members within blocks have changed as the process has unfolded, however I believe the above to be most accurate as of this morning.

In fact, the Big 12 Board has sent a contingent of Big 12 Commissioners, etc., to specific candidates. These visits were at times followed by visits from voting blocks of Presidents, and others from Big 12 institutions. All information has been shared with all Big 12 members. A very open process, however very thorough as well. The visits have wrapped up now, and the Big 12 is in deliberations, so to speak.

  • 2 hours ago

    • Before I have to leave for a meeting, I want to mention the Big 12 negotiations with its television providers.

    The negotiations are very complicated, those who make light of them simply have no clue how the negotiations work.

    First, renegotiation has to happen, as expansion adds more volume, which affects scheduling windows. Divisions affect scheduling and 1st and 2nd rights. A CCG has to be negotiated, etc. and so on. Point is renegotiation would occur, even if expansion didn't occur. However, expansion is occurring and that complicates renegotiations. While the media portrays these renegotiations as volatile, they are in most cases not. Conferences and television partners talks weekly, and for the most part work together very well.

    ESPN obviously wants to protect its properties so to speak, and does not feel G5 candidates are worthy of Big 12 Pro Rata monies. Fox Sports feels differently. So this is the starting point for a resolution that is agreeable by all. While Pro Rata is part of the Big 12 contract, the Big 12 is not necessarily toeing the line on it, they are willing to work with the television partners on compromises. Negotiations have been going very well, I was told, and as stated to me the framework for a new deal is far enough along that final agreements with candidates will or have begun already.

    Texas wants an extension of the GOR until 2031, concurrent with the expiration of its agreement with ESPN for the LHN. Texas wants to ensure expansion is solidifies the conference, yet also protects it from realignment at the termination of the current Big 12 contract. Oklahoma and others agree, however they want concessions from Texas on the LHN. Texas has worked with the conference on concessions, however has hit so roadblocks with ESPN. Work remains in progress on this front.
From another poster:

o with that in mind, as of this morning, the schools listed with each candidate is as follows:

Cincinnati: 10 (All ten schools)

UCF/USF: 8 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor, West Virginia, TCU, Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma)

Memphis: 7 (Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, TCU, Kansas St., Oklahoma St.)

UConn: 7 (Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas St., Oklahoma St., West Virginia, TCU)

BYU: 6 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor, Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma)

CSU: 5 (Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas St., Oklahoma St.)

Houston: 3 (Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor)


First, no message board poster is going to have that level of detail.
Second, while we might see UCF and USF as interchangeable, no one who paid for an analysis of these schools would. If the FL market is a desirable outcome, they will have one picked out. The representation above is not implying taking both, unless taking 5 is an option. It isn't.
Third, If UT and OU agree on a school, they are in and this exercise is unnecessary. They would be focusing on the 14th school as accoring to Mr Moose here, BYU, Cincy and whatever UCF/USF means would be in.
Lastly because I think we're done with this, it shows OU in favor of Memphis (and every school that isn't Houston). Highly suspect.
 

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
1,214
Total visitors
1,325

Forum statistics

Threads
164,027
Messages
4,378,957
Members
10,172
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom