(04-06-2012 09:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 06:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  IIRC Texas gets $10-11M per year from the LHN ($300M for 10 years).

They get that NET. They get 15 GROSS. JR

Allow me the clarify.

15 mil a year is the total, BUT it is divided 3 ways between IMG, the university itself and the athletic department with each receiving about 5 mil a year.

For those that don't know, in Texas, at all of our public schools, the ADs and the universities have to account separately due to a law that no state funds can be used for sports, thus making AD's essentially separate entities attached to the university. So in a situation like this, UT is getting 10 mil total a year but since they are going to two separate parts of the school to be spent (one on athletics, one on academics) they are treated as two divisions instead of one for accounting purposes, thus the 15 mil pot is split 3 ways, not two.

(04-06-2012 09:44 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 09:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 06:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  IIRC Texas gets $10-11M per year from the LHN ($300M for 10 years).

They get that NET. They get 15 GROSS. JR

Allow me the clarify.

15 mil a year is the total, BUT it is divided 3 ways between IMG, the university itself and the athletic department with each receiving about 5 mil a year.

For those that don't know, in Texas, all of our ADs and the universities have to account separately due to a law that no state funds can be used for sports, thus making AD's essentially separate entities attached to the university. So in a situation like this, UT is getting 10 mil total a year but since they are going to two separate parts of the school to be spent (one on athletics, one on academics) they are treated as two divisions instead of one for accounting purposes, thus the 15 mil pot is split 3 ways, not two.

Thank you! JR

Half seriously, how did a law forbidding state funds to be used on sports ever pass in Texas? Don't y'all have like 40,000 seat high school football stadiums dotting the landscape? I can't imagine those are built with only private $$, meaning it's a college only rule which just seems weird and pointless.

(04-05-2012 10:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 09:42 AM)esayem Wrote:  ...and where are the people who believe the ACC contract will be good enough to keep the league together?

This garbage is happening because our academic leaders are too rigid and uninvolved. They establish criteria for governing an entire organization rather than compartmentalizing. Why would anyone think that by playing baseball in a league regularly with E. Carolina your academic profile would somehow be lowered? Or, how could the SEC assume that by playing football with W.V.U. their academic rating would somehow drag down that of Mississippi State? It's nuts!

If we want to avoid the potential for demise we need to be proactive, rather than reactive. It's time our university presidents started talking to one another rather than just listening to our commissioners, who were hired because of their media connections. The latter has always bothered me. We pay them, but just whom do they work for? JR

I'd say yes and no on the academic leaders. Yes, they are very rigid (look no further than UGa' President Adams for proof of this) , but uninvolved? I have to disagree and UF's President Machen being on hand for the TAMU & Missouri additions leads me to believe that the presidents were very much involved. What needs to happen, IMO, is for university presidents to give up on this idea of creating "the next Ivy League," and start listening more to the fans and the students; staying true to their university's original mission. For UGa, that mission would be educating the people of Georgia, and providing support for the farmers of Georgia. In no way, shape or form, does playing and even losing to East Carolina, WVU, etc. affect that mission, IMO. Does it hurt our pride? Yes. Are these losses to be expected? Given our pedigree, I'd say no, but not entirely out of realm of possibility as shown by our loss to UCF year before last. (or was it last year? Can't remember). That's why we have upsets in games, which make us want to win and follow the sport even more. This is how rivalries take root!!

Quote:Half seriously, how did a law forbidding state funds to be used on sports ever pass in Texas? Don't y'all have like 40,000 seat high school football stadiums dotting the landscape? I can't imagine those are built with only private $$, meaning it's a college only rule which just seems weird and pointless.

Truly I don't know about the origin of the law, and yes it is for public colleges only. I actually consider it a really good law. The money from the state is to improve your university, not your football stadium. If you want to upgrade the football field, get your alums to pay for it (though there are certain gray areas like multipurpose facilities, ie gyms that are also auditoriums)

Now local school districts are allowed to ask for bonds to pay for the palaces you see like Cy-Fair and if the locals vote to issue the bonds, then it's considered OK. To me, that money is betetr spent on the schools themselves, but I also know how Smalltown, Texas works and HS football is a huge part of their local economies, tradition and culture, so if they vote to spend their own money, I guess that's on them.

(04-06-2012 11:49 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 10:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='esayem' pid='7760915' dateline='1333636951']
...and where are the people who believe the ACC contract will be good enough to keep the league together?

This garbage is happening because our academic leaders are too rigid and uninvolved. They establish criteria for governing an entire organization rather than compartmentalizing. Why would anyone think that by playing baseball in a league regularly with E. Carolina your academic profile would somehow be lowered? Or, how could the SEC assume that by playing football with W.V.U. their academic rating would somehow drag down that of Mississippi State? It's nuts!

If we want to avoid the potential for demise we need to be proactive, rather than reactive. It's time our university presidents started talking to one another rather than just listening to our commissioners, who were hired because of their media connections. The latter has always bothered me. We pay them, but just whom do they work for? JR

I'd say yes and no on the academic leaders. Yes, they are very rigid (look no further than UGa' President Adams for proof of this) , but uninvolved? I have to disagree and UF's President Machen being on hand for the TAMU & Missouri additions leads me to believe that the presidents were very much involved. What needs to happen, IMO, is for university presidents to give up on this idea of creating "the next Ivy League," and start listening more to the fans and the students; staying true to their university's original mission. For UGa, that mission would be educating the people of Georgia, and providing support for the farmers of Georgia. In no way, shape or form, does playing and even losing to East Carolina, WVU, etc. affect that mission, IMO. Does it hurt our pride? Yes. Are these losses to be expected? Given our pedigree, I'd say no, but not entirely out of realm of possibility as shown by our loss to UCF year before last. (or was it last year? Can't remember). That's why we have upsets in games, which make us want to win and follow the sport even more. This is how rivalries take root!!


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't know if you caught the first part of this discussion, but I do agree Bernie Machen has done admirably as an ambassador for the SEC. The original remarks were directed toward the business end of producing and marketing our own sports products. Most university presidents don't think they have the time to get involved with that, therefore we hire commissioners.

Commissioners are hired, not only for the business acumen, legal knowledge, and social skills, but because of their past connections with, and intimate understanding of the media and their business. My retort questions at what point those media connections might actually work against us. This is not to impune commissioners, but rather to point out that anyone who has been in close association with any particular business long enough will naturally be reticent towards a radical departure from what is so familiar.

Jim Delaney of the Big 10 has set up their Big10 Network independently of network corporate control. I think he is way ahead of the curve in his thinking. As long as FBS schools can produce and market their own product the revenue from networks will remain high. They simply wouldn't want to lose such a profitable product.

However, FCC regulations could be changed to exclude such endeavors on behalf of universities in the future. That would make our product captive to the media. Without the fear of losing our sports product outright contract offers will go down.

Commissioners have never had to think about production setup, costs, and programming. They've always just been a broker. They will be inclined to continue with what they know, the networks. If the SEC is to be secured against such a potential threat to its revenue in the future, we need to act now to acquire our own means of production. Once it is up and running, even in as minimal a capacity as the Big 10 network reflects now, we will be grandfathered in before regulation changes prohibit such activity. Then our revenue will be protected against reductions due to our lack of options at a future date.

The other point was that due to fuel costs and other economic stressors, playing a more regional schedule would be advantageous for all. We were lamenting the ACC's attitude toward sports conferences who did not adhere to strict academic requirements. My view was that the two have goals that are frequently mutually exclusive. If you hold academic alliances separate from athletic ones, both could benefit.

Enjoyed your points and agree with them. JR

Its a cost benefit analysis.

The SEC had its choice of WVU or Mizzou to be our partner in this expansion.

They based their choice on the simple economics formula of "what do I have vs what do I need"

Mizzou was chosen because they bring more of what the SEC needs (big fan bases, major markets for TV and academic prestige) while WVU brings more of what the SEC already has (great athletics).

(04-06-2012 11:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Truly I don't know about the origin of the law, and yes it is for public colleges only. I actually consider it a really good law. The money from the state is to improve your university, not your football stadium. If you want to upgrade the football field, get your alums to pay for it (though there are certain gray areas like multipurpose facilities, ie gyms that are also auditoriums)

Now local school districts are allowed to ask for bonds to pay for the palaces you see like Cy-Fair and if the locals vote to issue the bonds, then it's considered OK. To me, that money is betetr spent on the schools themselves, but I also know how Smalltown, Texas works and HS football is a huge part of their local economies, tradition and culture, so if they vote to spend their own money, I guess that's on them.

It's not state law, but Ohio State follows a similar strategy with the athletic department money separate from the rest of the university and I agree it's a good policy. It's tricky sometimes (building used multiple purposes for instance).

Texas doing really well with the law given its applying to everyone. I know it would be hard on a lot of schools who don't bring in as much, but the state seems to have even more I-A teams emerging.

(04-06-2012 12:54 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 11:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Truly I don't know about the origin of the law, and yes it is for public colleges only. I actually consider it a really good law. The money from the state is to improve your university, not your football stadium. If you want to upgrade the football field, get your alums to pay for it (though there are certain gray areas like multipurpose facilities, ie gyms that are also auditoriums)

Now local school districts are allowed to ask for bonds to pay for the palaces you see like Cy-Fair and if the locals vote to issue the bonds, then it's considered OK. To me, that money is betetr spent on the schools themselves, but I also know how Smalltown, Texas works and HS football is a huge part of their local economies, tradition and culture, so if they vote to spend their own money, I guess that's on them.

It's not state law, but Ohio State follows a similar strategy with the athletic department money separate from the rest of the university and I agree it's a good policy. It's tricky sometimes (building used multiple purposes for instance).

Texas doing really well with the law given its applying to everyone. I know it would be hard on a lot of schools who don't bring in as much, but the state seems to have even more I-A teams emerging.

It all goes well beyond sports. FB is the key to academic success for many Texas schools because it drives applications and alumni giving.

A friend of mine from HS now works in the UTSA admin. He told me their biggest enemy is UT@Austin because so many UTSA students and alums would rather root for them and had no pride in their school. To the admin, football will be the difference maker between being a giant commuter school no student ever gives a second thought to once they leave and being a traditional, residential, "university of first (or least not last) choice" that students feel proud to attend and want to give back to later.

(04-06-2012 12:54 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 11:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Truly I don't know about the origin of the law, and yes it is for public colleges only. I actually consider it a really good law. The money from the state is to improve your university, not your football stadium. If you want to upgrade the football field, get your alums to pay for it (though there are certain gray areas like multipurpose facilities, ie gyms that are also auditoriums)

Now local school districts are allowed to ask for bonds to pay for the palaces you see like Cy-Fair and if the locals vote to issue the bonds, then it's considered OK. To me, that money is betetr spent on the schools themselves, but I also know how Smalltown, Texas works and HS football is a huge part of their local economies, tradition and culture, so if they vote to spend their own money, I guess that's on them.

It's not state law, but Ohio State follows a similar strategy with the athletic department money separate from the rest of the university and I agree it's a good policy. It's tricky sometimes (building used multiple purposes for instance).

Texas doing really well with the law given its applying to everyone. I know it would be hard on a lot of schools who don't bring in as much, but the state seems to have even more I-A teams emerging.

Auburn separates its althletic and academic budget as well, but that is not always a good thing. The athletic department tends to keep what it gets, unlike the Texas law cited earlier. This dichotomy is about to end if the IRS has its way. They have been looking for sometime now at the money generated by athletic departments of universities and whether or not how its spent falls under not for profit guidelines. JR

(04-05-2012 10:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 09:24 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 07:30 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 10:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  They will suddenly, and with certainty, materialise in concert with the announcement of the contract specifics. Just as surely as those who profess security in a 6 year grant of rights would dissipate like spit in the desert should 8 of the 10 Big 12 schools suddenly bolt (enough to kill the conference and make moot the 6 year grant of rights). No conference, no TV rights. They are still feeling this thing out at Texas or there would already be 12 schools in the Big 12 and a new commissioner. ESPN must be sure that even if they bolted it would be to one of their network affiliated conferences or they would have insisted upon expansion rather than merely giving it an incentive in this round of negotiations.

This thing is not over at all. If you consider the Big 10 has a network, the SEC wants a network, and they both want large new markets then the obvious target would be the ACC. You don't find many significant markets in Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Texas. If you already have an entrance in the Dallas/Ft. Worth market and Houston market what else do you need?

The Big 10 has Kansas and Missouri for a market. What do they get by going West? North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming? They get more in one ACC state than in all of those put together. The partnership with the PAC is about sharing each other's markets, not playing football. I'm afraid the only expansion target left worth having is the ACC. But to your advantage, I don't think ESPN would be too keen on having the best part of that market in the Big 10's hands.

I know it sounds crazy, but right now the best thing that could happen for the Big 12, ACC, and SEC would be a sports alliance. Not one conference, not an academic union, but regional play as if all of their combined teams were in one conference. It would cut overhead, please fan bases with easier travel and games that are more meaningful to them, and give us unity in negotiating the best Football, Baseball, and arguably best Basketball played in the nation. Together we are worth so much more than apart.

But, this is precisely why I believe the Big 10 would want a piece of this market. Recruiting, relevance, and tv share are the motives. And, the Big 10 would like to drive a dagger into the possibility of the aforementioned alliance before we could profit by it and lock them out.

There are thirtyeight teams in our 3 conferences. We could combine and add South Florida, the three service academies, Tulane, Louisville, Brigham Young, and Cincinnati. That would be a market stretching from Syracuse and the Hudson River in New York to the Rockies and Great Salt Flats out west. It would also take away a couple of the best targets remaining in our footprint by taking in Tulane and South Florida. And would claim one tv market, Cincinnati, right in the heart of Big 10 country. We would have eight divisions in two regions with 6 teams geographically associated in each division.

The hang up has always been academics versus sports. Why do the two even have to be associated.

If we wanted we could make it 56 and include eight of the following: Rice, Tulsa, East Carolina, Marshall, Southern Missisisippi, Houston, Louisiana Tech, Colorado State, U.A.B., Central Florida, or Memphis, or someone else I've omitted.

This garbage is happening because our academic leaders are too rigid and uninvolved. They establish criteria for governing an entire organization rather than compartmentalizing. Why would anyone think that by playing baseball in a league regularly with E. Carolina your academic profile would somehow be lowered? Or, how could the SEC assume that by playing football with W.V.U. their academic rating would somehow drag down that of Mississippi State? It's nuts!

If we want to avoid the potential for demise we need to be proactive, rather than reactive. It's time our university presidents started talking to one another rather than just listening to our commissioners, who were hired because of their media connections. The latter has always bothered me. We pay them, but just whom do they work for? JR

Why would the SEC and B1G share any of the spoils?

If we are referring to television markets it would simply be due to the division of teams from that area and certainly not intentional or in concert with the Big 10. If in reference to the teams directly I believe it would be totally dependent upon which ones the Big 10 took. They have a profile they have stated suits their conference. They prefer state schools who are members of AAU and have fairly large enrollments. That means their likely targets would be Maryland, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia from the ACC. Miami and Duke are private. The SEC wouldn't mind having more members of AAU as we presently only have 4 who will be members when A&M and Mizzou join Vandy and Florida. But our interests would be met with geography more than with fitting an institutional profile. If I didn't answer your question forgive me and we'll try again. But, no I don't think they are interested in sharing much of anything right now. JR

Thank you for your reply. I do enjoy your posts, but you did misunderstand me. I do not believe the SEC and the B1G will share with each other. What I meant was why would the two biggest dogs in the neighborhood let any of the other smaller dogs have any of the best territory? The SEC and the B1G are each others only true competition, and when they are done, no other conference will have pulled out a university either of these two conferences wanted.

I can see your point more closely now said the farsighted old man. I think you are absolutely correct about that. The question is who will they want and why? And, how many will they want?

If I were Jim Delaney, (and of course I'm not) I would want my Big 10 Network primed with coast to coast coverage. With the PAC partnership all he needs is the East. Rutgers, Maryland, U.N.C., Virginia, Georgia Tech, and possibly Duke would all fit that bill. But does he leave Syracuse on the table, or UConn? Neither fit his profile. Boston College is great academically, but they don't fit it either as they are not a state college with a large draw. If I'm Delaney I'm looking at 18 to 20 for my final conference numbers. I pick up Rutgers, Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech and convince Notre Dame that this is armageddon and they've got to choose. That's one heckuva televison market to grab!

Why would Notre Dame care about that? Why would they think that such a move is Armageddon? They can still play their other sports in whatever grouping of leftover BE/ACC/A10, etc... schools are available.



"If I'm Mike Slive (ditto Delaney) I would take Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, Clemson, Florida State, Pitt, and make a pitch for Notre Dame just like Delaney. That's a great market increase for the SEC, but it is a lockout of competition from the best recruiting grounds in the country. They will have gotten broader and stronger."




Notre Dame would not join the SEC in 100 years. There is no commonality between SEC schools (other than Vanderbilt) and ND and nothing about the SEC that would cause ND to want to join that conference.


I know that "you get a chuckle" about Irish fans being adamant about ND remaining an independent in football.

But, if you think that ND would ever consider joining the SEC, you know nothing about Notre Dame, the institution or the athletic program.

The only "Armageddon" out there would be a four conference champ only playoff that effectively shuts ND out of any chance at playing for a national title.


Other than that, ND can remain an independent.


"I have to believe that Notre Dame would have to choose a conference at this point. If they picked the B1G then the SEC takes either Miami or South Florida or perhaps another longshot would be S.M.U. to go with A&M. If for any reason Ga Tech did not go B1G we might take them. Twenty teams, four divisions of five teams each.

If Notre Dame chose the SEC who would the B1G take for #20 I guess it might be UConn instead of B.C. especially without N.D., or they might just decide to stay at 18."


Why do you believe that?

(04-06-2012 06:54 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 10:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 09:24 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 07:30 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Why would the SEC and B1G share any of the spoils?

If we are referring to television markets it would simply be due to the division of teams from that area and certainly not intentional or in concert with the Big 10. If in reference to the teams directly I believe it would be totally dependent upon which ones the Big 10 took. They have a profile they have stated suits their conference. They prefer state schools who are members of AAU and have fairly large enrollments. That means their likely targets would be Maryland, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia from the ACC. Miami and Duke are private. The SEC wouldn't mind having more members of AAU as we presently only have 4 who will be members when A&M and Mizzou join Vandy and Florida. But our interests would be met with geography more than with fitting an institutional profile. If I didn't answer your question forgive me and we'll try again. But, no I don't think they are interested in sharing much of anything right now. JR

Thank you for your reply. I do enjoy your posts, but you did misunderstand me. I do not believe the SEC and the B1G will share with each other. What I meant was why would the two biggest dogs in the neighborhood let any of the other smaller dogs have any of the best territory? The SEC and the B1G are each others only true competition, and when they are done, no other conference will have pulled out a university either of these two conferences wanted.

I can see your point more closely now said the farsighted old man. I think you are absolutely correct about that. The question is who will they want and why? And, how many will they want?

If I were Jim Delaney, (and of course I'm not) I would want my Big 10 Network primed with coast to coast coverage. With the PAC partnership all he needs is the East. Rutgers, Maryland, U.N.C., Virginia, Georgia Tech, and possibly Duke would all fit that bill. But does he leave Syracuse on the table, or UConn? Neither fit his profile. Boston College is great academically, but they don't fit it either as they are not a state college with a large draw. If I'm Delaney I'm looking at 18 to 20 for my final conference numbers. I pick up Rutgers, Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech and convince Notre Dame that this is armageddon and they've got to choose. That's one heckuva televison market to grab!

Why would Notre Dame care about that? Why would they think that such a move is Armageddon? They can still play their other sports in whatever grouping of leftover BE/ACC/A10, etc... schools are available.



"If I'm Mike Slive (ditto Delaney) I would take Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, Clemson, Florida State, Pitt, and make a pitch for Notre Dame just like Delaney. That's a great market increase for the SEC, but it is a lockout of competition from the best recruiting grounds in the country. They will have gotten broader and stronger."




Notre Dame would not join the SEC in 100 years. There is no commonality between SEC schools (other than Vanderbilt) and ND and nothing about the SEC that would cause ND to want to join that conference.


I know that "you get a chuckle" about Irish fans being adamant about ND remaining an independent in football.

But, if you think that ND would ever consider joining the SEC, you know nothing about Notre Dame, the institution or the athletic program.

The only "Armageddon" out there would be a four conference champ only playoff that effectively shuts ND out of any chance at playing for a national title.


Other than that, ND can remain an independent.


"I have to believe that Notre Dame would have to choose a conference at this point. If they picked the B1G then the SEC takes either Miami or South Florida or perhaps another longshot would be S.M.U. to go with A&M. If for any reason Ga Tech did not go B1G we might take them. Twenty teams, four divisions of five teams each.

If Notre Dame chose the SEC who would the B1G take for #20 I guess it might be UConn instead of B.C. especially without N.D., or they might just decide to stay at 18."


Why do you believe that?

ND will eventually join a conference whether it is the B1G, or someone else is not important. What is important is that consolidation will continue. Costs will become more and more of a factor. Eventually scheduling enough great opponents will be too daunting, as they will all have 9 or 10 tough conference games to face. The will not want the Irish on their schedule unless they are one of the service academies, or USC. I can't really see that one ending no matter what. The Big 10 may well find itself in a scheduling crunch as well, cutting out your annuals with Michigan or Michigan State, or even Purdue which is much less likely.

Your program is already facing schedule RPI deficits. And you can't even win consistently against those. Your recruiting has been poor and if your track record continues to be mediocre NBC will not be able to remain a sure bet for your revenue stream, no matter how many connections you may have with their front office. To the average 18 year old you have never done anything great, because to them great was the last 7-10 years.

You will eventually join the Big 10 because they are closer and the Big East is dead, and because you don't share cultural ties with the SEC and the Big 12 is too far away, and the PAC would break you in travel. We've likely reached peak oil. Do you know what that means? From here on out all travel will be ever increasing in cost.

The NCAA, if it still exists in a few years, or any organization that replaces it, will have to move college athletics toward regionalization. It will be better for the schools, the athletes, and the fans.

The move towards playoffs is inevitable. The camel's nose is under the tent and smells revenue. Eventually appeasing the major conferences will be more expedient than pleasing independents.

Higher education has reached peak as well. With automation, outsourcing, and remote access education, the classroom / campus experience will become too costly as well. Fewer jobs, more expensive education, and inflation will lead many promising students to seek selfemployment opportunities for which academic training is not essential, or they will simply take wage and hour jobs. The economic crisis has already proven that government cannot be relied upon to continue to fund scholarships and grants at present levels. The default rate is out of control. All of this means that we will see a trend of mergers, and closures, first of community colleges, and then small private institutions. Eventually the States will be forced to consoidate as well.

As for UConn over B.C., not that I believe either to be high priority targets for the Big 10, we were just filling out a going big scenario of 18 to 24 team conferences, I suggested UConn because inspite of their academic troubles this year they are nationally recognized. B.C. hasn't been a national name since Phelan caught the pass from Flutie against the Canes.

If you've taken umbrage, I'm truly sorry it is not my intention to offend anyone. It is funny how ND is in everyone's expansion scenarios and really none of us have too much of clue about it. It's all speculation, informed and otherwise. That's why it should be a pleasant distraction from today's problems. JR

(04-06-2012 07:52 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 06:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  IIRC Texas gets $10-11M per year from the LHN ($300M for 10 years).

Is my math terrible or would that not net $30M/year?

Texas splits the money three ways with two other organizations. That comes down to the 10-11M per year stated by XLance.

I am not offended. I just don't think you are correct. You throw a lot of disconnected things around and make some grand, sweeping assumptions that may or may not pan out. No offense.

By the way, I agree with you about corporations. I think that the nineteenth century Gilded Age Supreme Court was corrupt and wrong when it ruled that corporations are "people".

I don't know how any political conservative who claims to be a "strict constructionist" can support that ruling.

The word "corporation" cannot be found in the Constitution.

Last year, the Supreme Court compounded the problem with its Citizen's United holding that corporations can donate unlimited money to political candidates.

I grew up in Southwestern Pennsylvania coal country. Nobody has to sell me on the evil consequences of powerful corporations.

(04-06-2012 07:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  The speculation on this thread is interesting and imaginative.
Let me throw out another scenario just for fun:
If Florida State and Clemson were to go to the Big XII (and IF the ACC thought they were unstable or unable to compete because of dollars). Merge with the SEC?.......you can forget about that! More schools leave to go the the Big XII?....is that a joke? HELLO B1G (24). It would be the SEC and Big XII's worst nightmare. The number 1 and number 3 conference in terms of football viewership (also the #1 and #2 conferences in terms of basketball viewship) combined. Wow! And don't forget....twice the number of television sets than the rest of the country combined.
Ridiculous?....not anymore so that the other "stuff" i've read on this thread.

Eh, pretty ridiculous imo. Why would FSU and Clemson leave the ACC if no one else in the conference were leaving with them?

If I'm the Big Ten (or any other major conference) I would never offer Wake Forest or NC State if I already had UNC and Duke locked up.

(04-06-2012 08:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I am not offended. I just don't think you are correct. You throw a lot of disconnected things around and make some grand, sweeping assumptions that may or may not pan out. No offense.

By the way, I agree with you about corporations. I think that the nineteenth century Gilded Age Supreme Court was corrupt and wrong when it ruled that corporations are "people".

I don't know how any political conservative who claim to be a "strict constructionist" can support that ruling.

The word "corporation" cannot be found in the Constitution.

Last year, the Supreme Court compounded the problem with its Citizen's United holding that corporations can donate unlimited money to political candidates.

I grew up in Southwestern Pennsylvania coal country. Nobody has to sale me on the evil consequences of powerful corporations.

I'm glad. Yes there are some points that seem disconnected. To connect them would not be appropriate on a site about conference realignment, if we are talking about the outside stressors I mentioned.

The constitutional issues are of paramount importance to me as well. It is the source of our guarnteed freedoms, all to many which are being eroded at what now seems to be a daily pace.

I've worked in the past on behalf of the poor who were fighting to keep property that corporations were trying to take. The imminent domain ruling by the Supreme Court under W. was appalling as well.

Health care.......I'll just await their ruling but it is more socialistic creep. Some folks don't understand but all governments run by business giants have tradionally sought to limit individual rights, and to force socialization of the economy. It locks them into positions of power. Example: Germany under Hitler. Corporate run socialism under a national banner.

Take care. I do hope the Irish have a great year. JR

(04-06-2012 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 08:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I am not offended. I just don't think you are correct. You throw a lot of disconnected things around and make some grand, sweeping assumptions that may or may not pan out. No offense.

By the way, I agree with you about corporations. I think that the nineteenth century Gilded Age Supreme Court was corrupt and wrong when it ruled that corporations are "people".

I don't know how any political conservative who claim to be a "strict constructionist" can support that ruling.

The word "corporation" cannot be found in the Constitution.

Last year, the Supreme Court compounded the problem with its Citizen's United holding that corporations can donate unlimited money to political candidates.

I grew up in Southwestern Pennsylvania coal country. Nobody has to sale me on the evil consequences of powerful corporations.

I'm glad. Yes there are some points that seem disconnected. To connect them would not be appropriate on a site about conference realignment, if we are talking about the outside stressors I mentioned.

The constitutional issues are of paramount importance to me as well. It is the source of our guarnteed freedoms, all to many which are being eroded at what now seems to be a daily pace.

I've worked in the past on behalf of the poor who were fighting to keep property that corporations were trying to take. The imminent domain ruling by the Supreme Court under W. was appalling as well.

Health care.......I'll just await their ruling but it is more socialistic creep. Some folks don't understand but all governments run by business giants have tradionally sought to limit individual rights, and to force socialization of the economy. It locks them into positions of power. Example: Germany under Hitler. Corporate run socialism under a national banner.

Take care. I do hope the Irish have a great year. JR

Thanks, but they won't. Their schedule is very tough and their QB and cornerback issues too unsettled. I expect them to go 6-6. See, I am not totally delusional or out of touch with reality. :)

(04-06-2012 08:20 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 08:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I

I expect them to go 6-6. See, I am not totally delusional or out of touch with reality. :)

Congrats on staying on your meds Terry.