Anything Marc Tweets is key. Even if it's what he had for lunch yesterday.
Anything Marc Tweets is key. Even if it's what he had for lunch yesterday.
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?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.
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.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'd rather announce the full expansion plan then pick up schools in pieces?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)?
CT media/press the gift the keeps on giving ... champions of UConn athleticsThe 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.
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.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.
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.Because they'd rather announce the full expansion plan then pick up schools in pieces?
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.If we add value, why would they delay upon realizing that value? Does that make sense?
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?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?
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?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?
BL,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.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?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.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?
In a vacuum, no. But there are other items in play so it’s not as black and white.If we add value, why would they delay upon realizing that value? Does that make sense?
I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to Switzerland so I'll ignore it. Sorry.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 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.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?
And, there's this little ole issue of pleasing/getting buy in from your media partners on any and all conference additions.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.
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.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?
That's a fair characterization. And it makes my point. So I'll say this and stop -- if we truly added value to the Big XII, and the Big XII realized that, there is no good reason they wouldn't take us. Among other things, it might make the Four Corner Schools realize that there might only be a spot for 3 of them and they didn't want to be the last one to ask.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]