North Carolina and Virginia may have Big Ten offers | Page 3 | The Boneyard

North Carolina and Virginia may have Big Ten offers

Status
Not open for further replies.
When one is looking for a football school how far do they dig before they get to Villanova?
 
The leftover rumors from last year had NC State and V Tech going to the SEC. UNC and Virginia going to the BiG. FSU and Georgia Tech and Clemson going to the B12 along with Louisville.

I'm not losing sleep over this. I think the BiG got what they wanted and will sit for a bit. The B12 and SEC won't be taking the teams most attractive to the BiG anyway -- Notre Dame and Virginia.
 
upstater said:
Texas and Michigan lose money on sports.

Schools are not going to kiss away $13 million a year.

They're not going to spend endowment money on non-essentials, not in this environment where states are slashing education.
Expand ...

Do you have a link that shows that Texas and Michigan lose money on sports? All I'm reading is that both make money on sports.
 
In the end there will be the haves and the have knots. Super conferences 3 1/2. The 1/2 would be the pack 10. In the end college sports is diluted. The have knots become 1AA level programs.

Or maybe not.

Why the hell did I spell nots knots damn spell correct.
 
uchusky32 said:
In the end there will be the haves and the have knots. Super conferences 3 1/2. The 1/2 would be the pack 10. In the end college sports is diluted. The have knots become 1AA level programs.

Or maybe not.
Expand ...

Knots. Pack 10.

Please blame booze.
 
.-.
I don't buy NC or Texas to B1G. Sounds like a pretty neat rumor to float to serve someone's purposes.
 
I don't like where college sports are headed due to realignment either, but am willing to lose the UNC-Duke hoops rivalry as collateral damage.
 
johnhuskies95 said:
Do you have a link that shows that Texas and Michigan lose money on sports? All I'm reading is that both make money on sports.
Expand ...

I've posted this numerous times.

Now I just searched for it and it's gone, but I seem to have the screen grab article here:

www.dailytexanonline.com/university/the-real-relationship-between-ut-s-academic-and-athletic-budgets-1.2140563+texas+mack+brown+"david+hillis"+trademark+donations

I'll post part of the text:

Many outside UT seem to think that we also receive positive net income from intercollegiate athletics, since the gross income from this source seems enormous (e.g., gross income for intercollegiate athletics was $105,230,260 in 2008-2009, the latest figures available, or a little less than 5 percent of UT’s total income from all sources). But athletics expenses (e.g., $107, 283,744 in 2008-2009) are even higher than its income. To make up the difference, UT has to “transfer in” large amounts from general revenue funds such as Trademark Income. In addition, because Intercollegiate Athletics has run up an enormous debt ($222,488,000 by 2008-2009), we have to transfer even larger sums from general revenue sources to the Athletics Operations Cash reserves, so that we have enough reserves to pay our debt obligations from athletics in years that we do not go to a BCS bowl. This is necessary because when UT is not at the top of the national rankings, even the large “transfers in” to athletics from general revenues are not enough to cover our athletic department debt.

Athletics at UT is often claimed to be “self-supporting,” so does this description fit with the numbers above? It is only “self-supporting” once the transfers into athletics from general University revenue funds are added to “Income and Transfers In” account. This amounts to a huge subsidy to athletics, which comes at a cost to the rest of the University.
Expand ...

The author is David Hillis, an administrator at UT. the debt income was borne by the academic side from building out facilities.

This is how it works. They collect private money for the buildout, but instead of using it to build facilities, they include it in the athletic budget as contribution revenue. Thus, that beefs up sports profits (i.e. Texas sports contributes to the school each year--except for the year Hillis quotes in this article) while the academic side services the debt.

Here's the same dynamic at Michigan:

http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/09/um_professors_urge_reconsidera.html

Last time I looked into this, I pulled up the athletic department budget. They do contribute to the debt service for the stadium. About $2 million a year.

Let me know if you can get a loan that requires you to pay back less than 1% of the principal per year. That would be a fantastic loan.
 
The Funster said:
The attitude of the typical carolinan is that there are yankees and there are damned yankees according to my living in NC but transplanted from NYC brother in law.
Expand ...
True. The damned Yankees show up with U-Hauls!
 
upstater said:
I've posted this numerous times.

Now I just searched for it and it's gone, but I seem to have the screen grab article here:

www.dailytexanonline.com/university/the-real-relationship-between-ut-s-academic-and-athletic-budgets-1.2140563+texas+mack+brown+"david+hillis"+trademark+donations

I'll post part of the text:



The author is David Hillis, an administrator at UT. the debt income was borne by the academic side from building out facilities.

This is how it works. They collect private money for the buildout, but instead of using it to build facilities, they include it in the athletic budget as contribution revenue. Thus, that beefs up sports profits (i.e. Texas sports contributes to the school each year--except for the year Hillis quotes in this article) while the academic side services the debt.

Here's the same dynamic at Michigan:

http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/09/um_professors_urge_reconsidera.html

Last time I looked into this, I pulled up the athletic department budget. They do contribute to the debt service for the stadium. About $2 million a year.

Let me know if you can get a loan that requires you to pay back less than 1% of the principal per year. That would be a fantastic loan.
Expand ...

Interesting. But remember that that was in 08-09 when Texas didn't have the Longhorn network to give them close to 15 million a year. And that deal was signed with IMG so that UT and IMG split huge royalty payments each year, which I'm sure goes towards athletics.
 
.-.
HuskyfanDan said:
how can anyone possibly say uva or unc doesn't need the money? they may be in fine financial shape, but how cna u possibly say they wouldn't be happy with double the money in a different conf? not having schools like wake deflate the $ etc... silly

the reason md and ruty were 1st is this. nd is the lock in the last pair with a wildcard(hopefully uconn). u take md first becuase unc wont be the one to break up the acc, they will wait until its to late and dead and then move to save themselves ****ing duke. there is no connecting states rule in the b10, thats bc theory stuff but they do feel that geography is important to a degree. so u take md who is willing to be the first shaker in acc land and ruty. now u have shown your hand and what your doing. u basically just thumped major chest from dc to nyc. now your clearly going to grab the east coast and force nd in the last pair. now u invite uva and unc and lock them up as the acc falls apart. sec and b12 eat up teams also so its not all your fault. then 2015 rolls around nd calls and you grab a new england school and call yourself the norths only conf.
Expand ...

If you're saying ND controls our invite to the BiG, we are screwed. I understand why B1g might prefer a public land grant like UConn, but ND ain't gonna give a rat's ass about that -- they'd prefer bcu.
 
johnhuskies95 said:
Interesting. But remember that that was in 08-09 when Texas didn't have the Longhorn network to give them close to 15 million a year. And that deal was signed with IMG so that UT and IMG split huge royalty payments each year, which I'm sure goes towards athletics.
Expand ...

Hillis made a lot more arguments. For instance, all university royalties for gear and logo etc. ($35 million) are the second largest part of the budget after donations. He said, if you compare the net take of these royalties to a school such as Cal-San Diego or New York University, you could make the case that Texas would sell at least as much as these non-sports schools, at least as much since it's a state flagship, and that thus at least $8 million of of the $35 million should more properly be allocated to the academic side. He then wrote that when donors to the Longhorn Foundation ($45 million in contributions) were polled, a good 40% of them had absolutely no idea that they were not contributing to academics. But these may be piddling things, I really don't care. It's the debt service that is huge. Like I said, Texas gives $10-15 million a year to the school, but when you take into account debt service, cost per student subsidy, royalties, they don't make money.

Bizlawyer had a good point that the increased revenue is simply spent as malinvestment. I agree, so the argument that more money is better is simply dubious. Hillis made the same argument. He wondered why in the world Texas raised Mack brown's salary from $4 million to $5 million. That's poor resource management right there. No way any other school in America pays Mack Brown $5 million. But the flip side is that Rutgers administrators are very happy tonight.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
So let's assume:

B1G - UNC, UVA
SEC - NC State, VT
Big12 - Florida State, Clemson

ACC - UConn, Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Cincy, USF, UCF, Temple - ND hoops.

STILL better than where we are right now. Hell, add St. John's, Georgetown, Villanova for hoops.

At this point we'll have some regional rivals and still great hoops.

It's not the ideal situation, but it's not the worse - not by far.
Expand ...

Do we have to bring Temple?
 
My gut feeling - this is a ploy by Delaney to try to get Notre Dame to freak the duck* out, call up the Big Ten offices and #BegHarder to get in before they reach 16. If ND falls for it they go with either UVa or GT, I think UNC will stay put.
 
Tweet from 1 minute ago:

Greg Swaim Show ‏@GSwaim
Strong talk that #SEC wants to move to 16, and expand footprint north by getting #VT and #UNC.no timetable given, but may be shortly.
 
Swaim is tweeting:

Greg Swaim Show ‏@GSwaim
#Big12 won't add without more TV revenue per team, but that money will come with the "right teams". #FSU one of them. #Clemson may be other.

Greg Swaim Show ‏@GSwaim
#ACC contingency plan to add #Cardnation, #Bearcats, and others, basically merging them and #BigEast.

Greg Swaim Show ‏@GSwaim
"@irvinlaker: @GSwaim man on man. Do u think unc accepts a big to sec if offered?" // #UNC may also get #B1G offer.

Greg Swaim Show ‏@GSwaim
#TarHeels leaving would destroy the #ACC, but odds of #UNC going to either #B1G or #SEC are definitely increasing.
 
.-.
I cannot imagine that UNC would go to the SEC in my wildest dreams. The SEC is a partial academic horror show and UNC wouldn't win more than two conference games year, ever. Would they want to play SEC basketball either? The other Swaim musings are at least possible.
 
Fran Fraschilla ‏@franfraschilla
BREAKING: SEC accepts entire ACC into SEC to form 26-team league. Auburn and Alabama to play every eight years. 13 bowls games lined up.
 
lv99 said:
Swaim is tweeting:

Greg Swaim Show ‏@GSwaim
#Big12 won't add without more TV revenue per team, but that money will come with the "right teams". #FSU one of them. #Clemson may be other.

Greg Swaim Show ‏@GSwaim
#ACC contingency plan to add #Cardnation, #Bearcats, and others, basically merging them and #BigEast.

Greg Swaim Show ‏@GSwaim
"@irvinlaker: @GSwaim man on man. Do u think unc accepts a big to sec if offered?" // #UNC may also get #B1G offer.

Greg Swaim Show ‏@GSwaim
#TarHeels leaving would destroy the #ACC, but odds of #UNC going to either #B1G or #SEC are definitely increasing.
Expand ...


I'm done, if this happens I'm done with college sports. This is a real shame.
 
.-.
Isn't this the same UNC that conjured up fake classes for their student athletes? I have no idea why UNC gets a free pass from the NCAA and the court of public opinion, but UConn is smacked with prorated sanctions for academic scores that weren't in existence at the time they violated them.

On second thought, they would fit right in with the SEC.
 
auggie22 said:
I once thought that unc to the b1g was inevitable. Then I spoke to my cousin (unc alumn) at a family party about his alma mater joining osu, um and pus and he went off on the north. Essentially turned into the stereotypical southerner - and he is from ct. Then I paid attention to the message boards and realized that unc fans are very dukes of hazard. They stay in acc or move to sec...they definitely DO NOT join a predominently northern league.
Expand ...

Yes. And go look at the Big Ten boards. They do not want any southern schools. This has zero chance of happening. The B1G is done for now.
 
HuskyHawk said:
Yes. And go look at the Big Ten boards. They do not want any southern schools. This has zero chance of happening. The B1G is done for now.
Expand ...

No offense to anyone, but someone's cousin and a bunch of message board posters' opinion of a school are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
No offense to anyone, but someone's cousin and a bunch of message board posters' opinion of a school are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Expand ...
Yeah, and I'm sure their fans weren't huge fans of Rutgers, either, and how'd that work out for them?
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,304
Messages
4,562,248
Members
10,454
Latest member
caw2


Top Bottom