Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NevadaFan said:

They do have major budget problems and it's only getting worse. That's pretty obvious.

It's no wonder BYU doesn't want any part of that mess! The horror!

So let me get this straight. You think the reason BYU isn't in the P12 is because BYU doesn't want to join?

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, #1Stunner said:

This is true.  Every BYU student gets their tuition ~70% subsidized by Church tithing, almost exclusively from Utah State alums.

This is why typical tuition in the WCC (private schools), at a school like Gonzaga, is around $40,000 per year, and at BYU it is around $6,000 per year.

And let me get THIS straight. Are you saying students at a public university, USU, are forced to subsidize students at a religiously-based university, BYU?

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Del Scorcho said:

I'm sure USC and UCLA feel that they deserve more than a Utah, Arizona or WSU and they probably do.  If it means giving them a Boise St. type deal in the future, I'm all for it versus risk of losing those schools.  It's an every changing environment for sure.  Utah is still in the just happy to be here stage and if it means that Utah gets 85% of what USC gets, sign us up.

As a UCLA alum (who is a fan of my alma mater and some MW schools), I would say no one has any issue with any school in the Pac 12 who is also in the AAU.  Washington State, Arizona State and Utah could be in the AAU, but Oregon State has no realistic chance of doing that at all.  Washington State is really hampered by a location that is distant from major population centers.  

Equal revenue shares are fine among schools that are equal as institutions to each other.  UCLA and USC aren't scrounging for money or feeling dissed like a school in the Southeast is because of perceived lack of academic prestige.  It's just sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
3 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

And let me get THIS straight. Are you saying students at a public university, USU, are forced to subsidize students at a religiously-based university, BYU?

No. Not forced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

And let me get THIS straight. Are you saying students at a public university, USU, are forced to subsidize students at a religiously-based university, BYU?

I think he's saying that BYU students tithe from Utah State students - i.e. show up at their door begging.  It's serious Mormon shade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised to hear you say WSU could be in the AAU since USNWR has their academics only a fraction better than SDSU's and SDSU will never be considered for AAU membership. Also surprised to hear you say the P12 has no poor sisters. From everything I can tell (minuscule local population, virtually zero football and hoops titles, remote location to travel to) WSU must take 3-4 times as much money from conference coffers as it puts in.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bruininthebay said:

I think he's saying that BYU students tithe from Utah State students - i.e. show up at their door begging.  It's serious Mormon shade.

Although I guess that makes sense, it's obviously a whole 'nother world there in Utah.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bruininthebay said:

As a UCLA alum (who is a fan of my alma mater and some MW schools), I would say no one has any issue with any school in the Pac 12 who is also in the AAU.  Washington State, Arizona State and Utah could be in the AAU, but Oregon State has no realistic chance of doing that at all.  Washington State is really hampered by a location that is distant from major population centers.  

Equal revenue shares are fine among schools that are equal as institutions to each other.  UCLA and USC aren't scrounging for money or feeling dissed like a school in the Southeast is because of perceived lack of academic prestige.  It's just sports.

Under Armor Deals agreed to this year

UCLA - 15 years $280 million (18.6 million per yr)

Utah - 10 years $65 million (6.5m per)

free market economy at work, clearly the UCLA brand is more valuable.  Maybe the PAC-12 revenue distribution needs a little tweaking to compensate for larger population based and geographic cost differences when the next contract is negotiated?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Surprised to hear you say WSU could be in the AAU since USNWR has their academics only a fraction better than SDSU's and SDSU will never be considered for AAU membership. Also surprised to hear you say the P12 has no poor sisters. From everything I can tell (minuscule local population, virtually zero football and hoops titles, remote location to travel to) WSU must take 3-4 times as much money from conference coffers as it puts in.

I think we all recognize that the differences between universities is very small.  I agree that Washington State and SDSU are comparable.  I'm not trying to diss the university by suggesting athletic revenue isn't that high.

Oregon, Colorado and Arizona are in the AAU and are academically comparable to these universities as well.  I believe that these schools are usually ranked lower than WSU and don't recall how they are as compared to SDSU but are basically the same.

California funds it's universities completely differently than other states.  On a per pupil basis, Cal State university spending is the same as other state's flagship universities like Oregon, Arizona, Utah, Colorado and Washington.  On a per pupil basis, UC funds itself comparable to private universities like Stanford, USC and Ivy League schools.  The naming conventions in California are humbler, but just because Arizona or Oregon State play in the Pac 12 doesn't mean they are actually better institutions than SDSU, SJSU or Fresno State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Surprised to hear you say WSU could be in the AAU since USNWR has their academics only a fraction better than SDSU's and SDSU will never be considered for AAU membership. Also surprised to hear you say the P12 has no poor sisters. From everything I can tell (minuscule local population, virtually zero football and hoops titles, remote location to travel to) WSU must take 3-4 times as much money from conference coffers as it puts in.

I have a grad degree from Washington State. AAU worthy that school is not. Just glad the tuition was reimbursed by an former employer. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Del Scorcho said:

Under Armor Deals agreed to this year

UCLA - 15 years $280 million (18.6 million per yr)

Utah - 10 years $65 million (6.5m per)

free market economy at work, clearly the UCLA brand is more valuable.  Maybe the PAC-12 revenue distribution needs a little tweaking to compensate for larger population based and geographic cost differences when the next contract is negotiated?

 

Who else was dumb enough to invest in Under Armor before the big crash!! Crickets.... crickets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Bruininthebay said:

The economic case for expansion is that it drives better rights fees from broadcast partners, particularly the rights to a championship game between conference divisions.  The Pac 12's championship game in particular has failed to find a niche like the east coast conference championship games do - it gets pre-empted on Saturday or is played Friday night before the big games are played on Saturday.  The downside of expansion is dividing the overall revenue in a share of 14 or 12 rather than 10.

As we've discussed, the Pac 12 is not moving on the same trajectory as the top 2 conferences in FBS.  If rights fees aren't how you capitalise on expansion, then you have to look at other options.  Personally, i think a 1959 style dissolution and reformation where we go back to a round robin football and basketball schedule is a more likely consequence of any economic distress among Pac 12 members.  However, there are no poor sisters in the Pac 12 and thus not much economic anxiety.  I'm pretty certain the round robin schedule is fondly remembered by all and I'm also pretty certain that many people still call it the Pac 10, so if a change was made we'd wish Oregon State and Washington State the best of luck in their future athletic endeavors.

The original MWC had a great idea in an airport to make the smallest, best conference they could.  The biggest upside economically is to split the revenue the fewest ways while still having schools that networks are interested in broadcasting..  The Pac 12 is much more likely to follow the airport meeting example and reform the Pac 10 than add two more mouths to feed and be a bastardized Pac 14 with Central time zone schools.

Seems like a huge long shot, but playing along; why wouldn't they go back to PAC 8 at that point?

lamb-with-human-face-150331-670.jpg?itok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NevadaFan said:

I have a grad degree from Washington State. AAU worthy that school is not. Just glad the tuition was reimbursed by an former employer. :)

Kudos for the honesty. I have nothing against the school and rooted like hell for the Cougars in the Rose Bowl when a certain QB led them there only to turn out to be one of the biggest flops in NFL history. Played slow-pitch softball in 2-3 leagues per year and a great guy on our Friday night team was a WSU grad.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

If I got the PAC12 TV numbers wrong by a million or two, thanks for correcting me.

Back to the TV Money discussion, I think the main thing to take from it is that it might convince the PAC12 (who is traditionally very against expansion) to expand by 2 more teams to try and keep up.  Probably into Texas.

The top targets would probably be Texas and TCU.  Maybe Texas and Houston.  But if they stay status quo, I agree, West Coast Football just doesn't have the fan interest to keep up with the SEC and B1G.  Schools like USC will be a financial disadvantage to schools like Alabama and Michigan.

Im thinking if Texas goes, its Tech going with them. The state wants to leave Tech in a good place and put Houston in a better place (Big 12/Big 12 remnant). While I agree Houston (the city) is a better market, Texas (the school.... and state I guess) would hold the cards in a Pac-16 expansion and would leverage it for Tech (Pac-12 expansion must have Texas to keep keep up with the SEC/Big Ten). TCU is not going as I see it.... but Ive been wrong about TCU before.

 

I just don't see the incentive for UT that much anymore. I think the flailing of the Pac-12 network has closed that do a lot. Academics are stronger, but the Big Ten has better academics, more money, better time zones for travel, more eyes, better brands. they just won't allow a Tech Tag along. it will be interesting how it plays out in the end. 

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...