Non-Key Tweets

[OkaForPrez]

Smaller schools like BC, Wake, etc. would be kicked out???

BC's AD expenses are similar to ours:

Boston College $ 44,731,812.00
Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus $ 37,145,213.00
Northwestern University $ 46,771,738.00
University of Connecticut $ 42,366,936.00
Wake Forest University $ 32,614,124.00
Washington State University $ 29,194,102.00

 

[kyleslamb]

Goodness, that doesn't even make sense. Why would the Big Ten be worried about Wake Forest? Schools like that are the reason they have superiority in revenue over a league like the ACC. They don't need to force them out. They're already earning more revenue because they're mostly comprised of large land-grant institutions that carry a statewide presence.

 

[buddy]

I didn't say that UVA leaving the ACC would kill the ACC...but it will REALLY isolate BC (Syracuse and Pitt will be their closest League schools..then if you go South it could be either VT or NC, NCST, Duke) from the rest of the league by a B1G juggernaut.

At the time VT left the BE for the ACC with BC and Miami, former UCONN President and then UVA President John Casteen was HIGHLY pressured by the VA state legislature and Gov to get VT included in the ACC expansion. If anyone remembers right the original expansion group was Miami, BC, and Syracuse. Syracuse was replaced by VT after Casteen appealed to his ACC President peers to include VT instead.

You are correct.

 

[upstater]

Christopher Lambert‏@theDudeofWV 1h
B1G source says new approach to expansion coming via legislation. Details Monday.

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV · 1h
Basically the B1G wants to force smaller, private schools out of the Big 5 via governance if the big 5 system.

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV · 1h
B1G wants a small majority, say 60%, to force changes that smaller schools can’t afford.

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV · 1h
I’m talking within the big 5.

1. Doug ‏@NebGradDubDub 14m
   @theDudeofWV IMO, the legislation is aimed at wake forest, and is a way to entice a cash poor giant like GT. This would affect ACC the most
   
   
2. 1. Omega Supreme ‏@OmegaSupreme914 1m
      @NebGradDubDub @theDudeofWV Boston College GT Virginia Wake Forrest schools like that.

This is the only thing that makes sense. As I read all these Slive SEC reports, what it comes down to is voting among the P5 themselves. It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else.

 

[UConnDan97]

BC's AD expenses are similar to ours:

Boston College $ 44,731,812.00
Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus $ 37,145,213.00
Northwestern University $ 46,771,738.00
University of Connecticut $ 42,366,936.00
Wake Forest University $ 32,614,124.00
Washington State University $ 29,194,102.00

Just out of curiosity, where did you get those numbers from? I was under the impression that UConn's AD expenses were in the 63 million ballpark, not 42 million:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Perhaps your source eliminated the amount that we receive in subsidy? I couldn't find a date on the USAToday link I provided, so I don't know if that's current, but I'm guessing that we are at least at that number...

 

[jostar1]

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 6h
B1G wants a small majority, say 60%, to force changes that smaller schools can’t afford.

Transic_nyc ‏@Transic_nyc · 4h
@theDudeofWV Why would the @©© vote for something they know would force some of its members out of the P5? That's the part that doesn't jive

Christopher Lambert
‏@theDudeofWV @Transic_nyc I don’t have all the details yet. Monday.

TyBull ‏@TyBull · 3h
@theDudeofWV So would the Big "Backfill" with G5 public larger schools?

Christopher Lambert
‏@theDudeofWV @TyBull Dont have all the details but I think they are thinking about voiding ACC & B12 GoR by having schools like TCU, Pitt & BC drop out.

Geoffrey Mitchell ‏@geoffmitchell · 45m
@theDudeofWV @TyBull TCU has deep pockets BEFORE big 12$

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV · 41m
@geoffmitchell @TyBull No specific schools were mentioned. I just named a few private schools in both ACC & B12.

Geoffrey Mitchell ‏@geoffmitchell · 40m
@theDudeofWV @TyBull more like Wake BC and NW

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV · 38m
@geoffmitchell @TyBull look at the dept of edu report on athletics & pick the private schools with the lowest revenues & budgets.

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV · 47m
No specific schools were named. Right now it’s just B1G thinking outside the box. If one school leaves the GoR is voided - or so they think.

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV · 46m
First the B1G would need either the P12 or SEC to play along.

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV · 45m
Secondly when I ran it by a B12 source they said the conf would just replace the member & the networks would comply.

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV · 45m
So I’m going to run this down but it seems like much to do over nothing.

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV · 25m
So why is the B1G so anxious to expand? UMD & RU added huge markets? Are they looking to upgrade the football product or what?

Murr ‏@MurrDCU · 24m
@theDudeofWV more markets, more programming, more money, transition from regional to national. thinking UConn/UVA next two?

Christopher Lambert
‏@theDudeofWV @MurrDCU Methinks they are stuck.

 

[kyleslamb]

I especially get amusement out of this line:

"If one school leaves the GoR is voided - or so they think."

The whole point of the Grant of Rights is that the network retains all contracted home games for a set duration regardless of conference affiliation. The Big Ten would be under absolutely no illusion whatsoever that somehow kicking out a school based on an arbitrary change in eligibility, would somehow change the legal contract between the ACC and Wake Forest. If anything, it might require both parties to void the contract with Wake Forest specifically, but it would absolutely have nothing to do with the rights of the other members.

Man, the guy is really grasping at all kinds of straws.

On an unrelated note, did we ever learn this "big basketball news" he promised?

 

[Stinger92860]

I especially get amusement out of this line:

"If one school leaves the GoR is voided - or so they think."

The whole point of the Grant of Rights is that the network retains all contracted home games for a set duration regardless of conference affiliation. The Big Ten would be under absolutely no illusion whatsoever that somehow kicking out a school based on an arbitrary change in eligibility, would somehow change the legal contract between the ACC and Wake Forest. If anything, it might require both parties to void the contract with Wake Forest specifically, but it would absolutely have nothing to do with the rights of the other members.

Man, the guy is really grasping at all kinds of straws.

On an unrelated note, did we ever learn this "big basketball news" he promised?

I could be wrong, but I took that statement to be if a school decides they no longer want to be a P5 school and not just switching conferences. Now, why any school, including BC would voluntarily decide to leave, is the part I don't get. How could they be forced out? I have to believe they would increase their budget to comply.

 

[upstater]

I especially get amusement out of this line:

"If one school leaves the GoR is voided - or so they think."

The whole point of the Grant of Rights is that the network retains all contracted home games for a set duration regardless of conference affiliation. The Big Ten would be under absolutely no illusion whatsoever that somehow kicking out a school based on an arbitrary change in eligibility, would somehow change the legal contract between the ACC and Wake Forest. If anything, it might require both parties to void the contract with Wake Forest specifically, but it would absolutely have nothing to do with the rights of the other members.

Man, the guy is really grasping at all kinds of straws.

On an unrelated note, did we ever learn this "big basketball news" he promised?

I don't think this is grasping at straws. I'm not addressing the GOR part, but clearly the voting threshold issue inside the P5 is directed at someone. Who are they targeting? The whole controversy is all about voting thresholds. The top of the P5 may have noticed that the private schools are all of ne mind on this.

My take on this has been dismissed on this board, but I think I know what is going here. When people wrote that ADs try to hide athletic profits to hide it away from lawsuits, I wrote that the opposite is happening. The schools don't want to show tuition paying parents where some of their money is going (to ADs that lose money). That was not a popular point here. But look at the private schools. At private schools, the cost-per-student is often much LOWER than the tuition, which means that people's money is not going to instruction but to subsidizing other students.

And this is what bugs the private schools so much about what is going on right now. Because they are going to have to explain all this to their bread&butter customers.

 

[BC1978]

I could be wrong, but I took that statement to be if a school decides they no longer want to be a P5 school and not just switching conferences. Now, why any school, including BC would voluntarily decide to leave, is the part I don't get. How could they be forced out? I have to believe they would increase their budget to comply.

Well, you're right, of course. But does anybody really believe these conversations and events are actually happening, or, like pretty much every other situation with these bloggers, they appear to be just making stuff up by speculating what they would LIKE to happen vs. what is actually happening?

FWIW, their inference about Boston College is ridiculous. I have attached a list of the revenues by school for the 2011-12 school year. Boston College sat in the top half of the ACC.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/alabama_and_auburn_stay_among.html#incart_river_default

 

[OkaForPrez]

Just out of curiosity, where did you get those numbers from? I was under the impression that UConn's AD expenses were in the 63 million ballpark, not 42 million:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Perhaps your source eliminated the amount that we receive in subsidy? I couldn't find a date on the USAToday link I provided, so I don't know if that's current, but I'm guessing that we are at least at that number...

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

I downloaded this file and pivoted by school.

 

[UConnJim]

Well, you're right, of course. But does anybody really believe these conversations and events are actually happening, or, like pretty much every other situation with these bloggers, they appear to be just making stuff up by speculating what they would LIKE to happen vs. what is actually happening?

FWIW, their inference about Boston College is ridiculous. I have attached a list of the revenues by school for the 2011-12 school year. Boston College sat in the top half of the ACC.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/alabama_and_auburn_stay_among.html#incart_river_default

The list of revenues is what the revenues are today. Unfortunately, conference networks are going to start a P5 separation. The SEC, Big 10, and Pac 12 networks are going to be greatly additive to those schools in those conferences. Texas has the LHN. The ACC and most of the Big 12 schools will not be part of a conference network that is similar. (The "ACC Network" will never be similar to the current conference networks if it even ever happens. Unfortunately, the ACC did not expand with schools that would have provided the ACC with the households to have a successful network. If the ACC had Rutgers, Maryland, and UConn, they could have had the households to pull it off.) Remember, it is possible (depending on what happens in NY and DC) that the Big 10 Network will be delivering more revenues per school than the total ACC TV contract with ESPN delivers to each of the ACC schools for all of their content!

Thus I think the conferences with the conferences networks and higher revenues are going to want to be able to make decisions that some of the smaller private schools that are in the ACC and Big 12 may not support.

 

[BC1978]

The list of revenues is what the revenues are today. Unfortunately, conference networks are going to start a P5 separation. The SEC, Big 10, and Pac 12 networks are going to be greatly additive to those schools in those conferences. Texas has the LHN. The ACC and most of the Big 12 schools will not be part of a conference network that is similar. (The "ACC Network" will never be similar to the current conference networks if it even ever happens. Unfortunately, the ACC did not expand with schools that would have provided the ACC with the households to have a successful network. If the ACC had Rutgers, Maryland, and UConn, they could have had the households to pull it off.) Remember, it is possible (depending on what happens in NY and DC) that the Big 10 Network will be delivering more revenues per school than the total ACC TV contract with ESPN delivers to each of the ACC schools for all of their content!

Thus I think the conferences with the conferences networks and higher revenues are going to want to be able to make decisions that some of the smaller private schools that are in the ACC and Big 12 may not support.

UconnJim - I understand your points and I don't necessarily agree ot disagree with them. Time will tell on how this plays out. My lmited point was to observe how, IMO, iodiotic these bloggers are in their sweeping inference that private schools as a group cannot keep up. Clearly their inclusion of BC in that category was nonsense as the data shows. It may (and I emphasize "may") be true that some schools, both public and private, over the long term will not be able to "keep up", but Boston College - and Uconn - will not be in that group.

 

[jostar1]

MH3@MH3 · May 29
B12 trying hard to defend not having a CCG while the SEC and ACC seek to undermine it in every way possible.

MH3‏@MH3 deregulation will not give the B12 any excuses. #paintedinacorner

MH3@MH3 · 1h
So Bowlsby confirmed that b12 will be distributing close to $40 mil by end of contract.

MH3@MH3 · 1h
The study they commissioned showed that number could go north of $50 mil per school with the right additions(markets)

MH3@MH3 · 1h
Also B12 sees a legal battle coming soon in regards to the P5 vs the rest of D1. And possibly a labor issue as well. Future is cloudy

MH3@MH3 · 1h
BYU getting into a P5 silences the loudest voice on the other side of the fence

MH3@MH3 · 58m
B12 and Netflix partnership still in the pipes.Talks are still ongoing. Should get classic games first. Ironing out the details

MH3@MH3 · 55m
The B12 will announce they are interested in expanding when everything is already done. They will not have another WVU/UL fiasco

MH3@MH3 · 53m
Got a DM from a BYU booster. Ill keep him nameless unless he wants to step forward.Says Holmoe told boosters at an event(1/2)

MH3@MH3 · 53m
(2/2) that BYu would be in a conference within 5 years.

MH3@MH3 · 52m
That's the first actual Byu side of things I've heard.

 

[uconndogs]

There is a bigger core issue here and it has to do with the ongoing goal to segregate college athletics through both the allocation of resources and rules of engagement. Reference another thread on this board about the SEC's threat to break away into its own NCAA division. The mindset in major college athletics now is pure cut-throat business. A fixed size pie and everyone wanting a bigger piece. A level playing field for fair competition is now completely missing from any discussion.

In my opinion, purely from a business standpoint and ignoring my interest in UCONN athletics for a moment, the strategy is grossly flawed. The market for college athletics can continue to grow (an ever growing pie) if a rational approach were taken to address the markets....and make no mistake about it, these markets are regional and need to be addressed that way. The northeast clearly has continued growth opportunities for college football, but separating and excluding key institutions in that effort into different conferences, some now with gross differences in available resources, is simply not the formula to grow this potentially huge market.

I see no reason why the P5 will be more attractive to consumers who follow college athletics. All I see is further disinterest by those who may not have a direct P5 affiliation. Moreover, within the P5 I see the potential for further bifurcation amount the largest athletic departments and those on the margin. At what point does Wake Forest beating FSU once every decade or two become of limited interest to anyone other than maybe a Seminole fan?

One of the primary drivers in the NFL's enormous success has been the ability to provide a level playing field such that all franchises can be successful - and the dispersion of success and franchises that reach the Super Bowl support this. College athletics is moving in exactly the opposite direction. It's about limiting competition, grabbing resources and exclusion. In my opinion, it's missing the point entirely about what the consumer most enjoys about college athletics....passion, history, youth, the potential for the unexpected. TV contracts? Not so much.

I will bring this right back to our friends at BC. That BC has fought so hard to keep UCONN out of the ACC (and I am not arguing if they were influential or successful in that effort) has NOT been in BC's best interest. What is in BC's best interest is the same thing that is in UCONN's best interest......and Rutgers and Syracuse for that matter - and that is to grow the interest in college football in the northeast to the level reached by basketball. UCONN's inclusion helps in that effort, our exclusion hinders that effort. I will arrogantly state that is progressive thinking and would take courage and leadership. Sadly, I see little of that in college athletics - and in Fr. Leahy and Gene DeFelippo their actions speak for themselves.

 

[UConnDan97]

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

I downloaded this file and pivoted by school.

It's weird that the numbers are that far off, but I'm guessing that the difference might be the nearly 20 million dollar subsidy that we are listed as getting. BC, not being a state school, would not receive such a subsidy...

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Not even remotely the same. Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers are already in the Big Ten now. They'd be no more out of their geographical area in the Big Ten than they are now in the ACC especially since they'd be in a division with those three, UConn, Ohio State and the Michigan schools.

Plus, Virginia really does culturally fit with the other Big Ten schools. They're chummy in the AAU with those schools, the President came from Michigan and they dig the idea of participation in the CIC.

Virginia to the Big Ten, while not a certainty, is very sensible in a lot of ways. It's nothing like Florida State playing west of the great river.

There are only two state flagships in tha ACC . The Big and SEC are dominated by Flagships. That alone is enough to speculate on them leaving the ACC.

 

[jostar1]

Christopher Lambert‏@theDudeofWV 2h
I’m going to try and arrange a podcast with my B1G source.

Christopher Lambert‏@theDudeofWV 2h
I’m also trying to obtain a copy of the B1G’s strategy position paper.

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV · 2h
I want to understand why the B1G is so desperate to expand again? What’s the motivation for high risk ploys with little chance of success.

Christopher Lambert‏@theDudeofWV 2h
My B1G source says the end game is two-fold: improve the football product & entice ND.

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV · 2h
He says the B1G also needs a presence in the south.

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV · 2h
If that’s true why did they reject FSU?

 

[kyleslamb]

I don't think this is grasping at straws. I'm not addressing the GOR part, but clearly the voting threshold issue inside the P5 is directed at someone. Who are they targeting? The whole controversy is all about voting thresholds. The top of the P5 may have noticed that the private schools are all of ne mind on this.

My take on this has been dismissed on this board, but I think I know what is going here. When people wrote that ADs try to hide athletic profits to hide it away from lawsuits, I wrote that the opposite is happening. The schools don't want to show tuition paying parents where some of their money is going (to ADs that lose money). That was not a popular point here. But look at the private schools. At private schools, the cost-per-student is often much LOWER than the cost per student, which means that people's money is not going to instruction but to subsidizing other students.

And this is what bugs the private schools so much about what is going on right now. Because they are going to have to explain all this to their bread&butter customers.

I think you're looking too deep into the voting thresholds. They're just trying to clear the path for autonomy. In the process, they're publicly going to make it about the student athlete but behind the scenes, they're looking for the avenue to get them their own subdivision. I'm sure there are some other targeted issues that perhaps have them split and there might be some jockeying/politicking over them, but ultimately I think they're just first trying to gain their distance in the voting body.

But while I don't dismiss the possibility of targeted votes you mention, it's absolutely silly to think they're trying to get rid of smaller private schools. The Big Ten knows the reason it has an advantage is because of its dependence on land-grant, flagship institutions. It's not going to go picking off the smaller private schools just so they will be replaced with larger, state institutions in new markets. That's not how the Big Ten is operating.

Plus, let's be honest, consider the source. The next time the Dude gets something right could be the first.

 

[kyleslamb]

The "B1G source" revealed...

 

[Durks07]

The "B1G source" revealed...

More likely, its this guy:

 

[Oxford Bob]

Or this guy!!!

 

[FDNY99]

Here are his sources:

 

[upstater]

Well, you're right, of course. But does anybody really believe these conversations and events are actually happening, or, like pretty much every other situation with these bloggers, they appear to be just making stuff up by speculating what they would LIKE to happen vs. what is actually happening?

FWIW, their inference about Boston College is ridiculous. I have attached a list of the revenues by school for the 2011-12 school year. Boston College sat in the top half of the ACC.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/alabama_and_auburn_stay_among.html#incart_river_default

The conversation about cost-of-attendance is definitely happening, because otherwise there'd be no controversy over voting thresholds among the P5. Why would anyone but the P5 care about thresholds?

 

[upstater]

I think you're looking too deep into the voting thresholds. They're just trying to clear the path for autonomy. In the process, they're publicly going to make it about the student athlete but behind the scenes, they're looking for the avenue to get them their own subdivision. I'm sure there are some other targeted issues that perhaps have them split and there might be some jockeying/politicking over them, but ultimately I think they're just first trying to gain their distance in the voting body.

But while I don't dismiss the possibility of targeted votes you mention, it's absolutely silly to think they're trying to get rid of smaller private schools. The Big Ten knows the reason it has an advantage is because of its dependence on land-grant, flagship institutions. It's not going to go picking off the smaller private schools just so they will be replaced with larger, state institutions in new markets. That's not how the Big Ten is operating.

Plus, let's be honest, consider the source. The next time the Dude gets something right could be the first.

The voting threshold issue has nothing to groups outside the P5. It's 0nly about voting "within the P5" and not "the voting body," as you wrote.