College Sports (Football)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#76      
Dkayak
fuddrules said:
I'm not sure why this board is so anti-Whitman.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read even a whisper of anti-Whitman sentiment. Can you cite any?

Whitman is the AD, not a financial expert. He’s the equivalent of a Product Manager in a business setting. Brett manages one of his key operations. The Board of Trustees will make the decision with input from the AD and true financial experts.

Josh won’t share anything publicly until the board makes their decision. To do so would be very inappropriate, regardless of how much we fans (his customers) would like to know what’s being considered. Compare leaking the deal to a Product Manager announcing a major product update without first getting board approval fund its design and production. That would be foolishly insubordinate and Josh is no fool.

It’s an imperfect analogy, but you get the point. Nobody is anti-Whitman. We love the guy, but he’s not driving the bus on this. Josh is mostly a middleman, caught between B1G’s ideas for the conference and his own board. His role is to tell the board how he’d propose using the cash infusion. Others will also have input on what it might do to/for the conference, college sports in general, and the university over the long term, both risks and benefits. Financial, pro sports, and media experts will be tapped heavily.

The big questions on the future of college sports are unanswerable, making any big decisions (bets really) risky at this time. Someone still needs to answer the “why question”. When you own a rapidly appreciating asset with public visibility, you’re going to attract people waving cash your face, looking to buy a piece of it. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
 
#77      
Battle89
Pikeillinifan said:
Question for anyone, do you think USC and Michigan would really leave the B1G over this?

If so, it could be the path to creating a new super league and eliminating conferences as we know it.
Click to expand...
In my experience the conference concept is in danger no matter what, because as soon as you go to uneven shares you destroy the ideal.

There is nothing inherently wrong with uneven shares in a pure business deal, that happens every day in commerce. But to have them in a collegiate affiliation is not tenable. Look to the NFL model here also.

And as others have mentioned, the signing of any long-term deal, under any circumstances, almost seems silly in and of itself, given the constant change and uncertainty right now. I mean the former Pac-12 teams have joined so recently that they still have their old bowl tie-ins this year, and yet here is USC threatening to leave the league.
 
#78      
Battle89
Dkayak said:
The big questions on the future of college sports are unanswerable, making any big decisions (bets really) risky at this time. Someone still needs to answer the “why question”. When you own a rapidly appreciating asset with public visibility, you’re going to attract people waving cash your face, looking to buy a piece of it. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
Click to expand...
By definition (to me at least), any offer coming in is undervalued to me. Why would I as a buyer not, at least as an opening gambit?

I'm reminded of a personal anecdote...my mom owned a piece of land in Florida (while living in Illinois). It had been purchased decades ago by my dad as a potential retirement location, but he passed away young and without ever being able to do anything with it.

Periodically my mom would get a cold-call offer from a prospective buyer, and call me to ask if it was a good one. My answer was always the same: 1) I'm not a Florida real estate expert mom, you need to get your own local representation on this, and 2) in general, if someone is offering you 'x' then it's probably worth more than 'x'.
 
Last edited:
#84      
Pikeillinifan
I know this is a different beast, but here are Google Gemini notes on the creation of the B1G Network:

The Big Ten created the Big Ten Network in 2006 by partnering with Fox Sports in a 51%/49% joint venture, with the network launching in August 2007. The project was born from failed negotiations with ESPN for a rights fee increase, which prompted Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany to explore creating a conference-owned channel. The partnership provided the conference with a new way to control its content, increase revenue, and showcase both athletic and academic aspects of its member schools.
  • Negotiations and partnership: In 2006, the Big Ten was negotiating a new contract with ESPN but the network balked at the desired price increase. This led the conference to explore creating its own network. In June 2006, the Big Ten announced a 20-year partnership with Fox Networks to launch the network.
  • Ownership structure: The Big Ten Conference initially held a 51% stake in the network, while Fox owned the remaining 49% and handled the network's operations.
  • Launch: The network officially launched on August 30, 2007, with its first live football game being Michigan vs. Appalachian State.
  • Goals and programming: The network was created to give the conference greater control over its content, which included plans for 50/50 parity between men's and women's sports, school-specific programming, and a commitment to cover the academic strengths of the universities.
  • Financial impact: The creation of the network was a major financial success, providing significant new revenue streams for the member schools through a share of the network's profits from advertising and subscriber fees.
 
#86      
fuddrules
wma500 said:
Are we sure Tony P hasn't stolen Jon Rhoades' phone? He's on a bender today, Tweeting in support of the investment
Click to expand...
He seems to be the only one to understand it. I can't determine if Dodd's is as dumb as it gets or is he on the SEC payroll? Or possibly Michigan.

The more I read the more I believe Michigan doesn't like this because they want the ability to dropkick members out of the B1G or form a new conference to their liking. They are that much into elitism. Let them leave (although I can't imagine they would). TX joined a league so that tells you how tough it is outside of a league.
 
Last edited:
#87      
fuddrules
I hadn't read that JR thread before now. It's really good, IMO. Everyone should read it and the replies below. It'll keep my BP down around here.
 
#88      
sbillini
fuddrules said:
He seems to be the only one to understand it. I can't determine if Dodd's is as dumb as it gets or is he on the SEC payroll? Or possibly Michigan.

The more I read the more I believe Michigan doesn't like this because they want the ability to dropkick members out of the B1G or form a new conference to their liking. They are that much into elitism. Let them leave (although I can't imagine they would). TX joined a league so that tells you how tough it is outside of a league.
Click to expand...

When wasn’t TX in a league? (I’m assuming you mean the longhorns)
 
#89      
illinistephen
fuddrules said:
:rolleyes:

Are we really still with this line of thinking?

We don't know the inner details, that's why I so surprised so many take a strong position against it when so many B1G's are for it. But people still don't even understand the basics and they're against it.
Click to expand...
The inner details are simple, a group is offering money today because they expect to make large profits in the long term. More profit than they would expect to make from bonds, stocks, real estate, or other investment options.
If this group is making large profits decades from now it's not a stretch to expect the Universities to be making less money than they would have otherwise.

I don't believe that the Big Ten Universities as a whole, who seem to be terrible stewards for the next generation, with their indebtedness and apparent desire to sell future assets, won't squander the money the second they get it.
 
#91      
fuddrules
illinistephen said:
The inner details are simple, a group is offering money today because they expect to make large profits in the long term. More profit than they would expect to make from bonds, stocks, real estate, or other investment options.
If this group is making large profits decades from now it's not a stretch to expect the Universities to be making less money than they would have otherwise.

I don't believe that the Big Ten Universities as a whole, who seem to be terrible stewards for the next generation, with their indebtedness and apparent desire to sell future assets, won't squander the money the second they get it.
Click to expand...
They are the most successful conference and have been around over 100 years. Because they do a few things people don't like doesn't make them terrible.
 
#92      
Dkayak
illinistephen said:
I don't believe that the Big Ten Universities as a whole, who seem to be terrible stewards for the next generation, with their indebtedness and apparent desire to sell future assets, won't squander the money the second they get it.
Click to expand...
I’m sure it will be invested as wisely as any other payday loan.

Nobody has yet explained why are we doing this? Because somebody waved a bunch of cash around?
 
Last edited:
#93      
sbillini
fuddrules said:
Joined a real league, I guess I should say. They ran the Big12 along with their own network. They were De facto, independent.
Click to expand...
4 big 12 championships in 24 years and 1 and the last 14 years they were in the league - I wouldn’t exactly call that running the big 12.

Regardless, I disagree with the notion that Michigan has a grander scheme to get themselves out of the big ten at some point. I think it’s more along the lines that the big ten is trying to get as few people involved in this deal as possible so as to minimize the risk of derailing it. So work with the ADs and presidents. Just so happens that Michigan and USC university leaders are interim so boards have more power, and that’s where you’re hearing the pushback.
 
#94      
wma500
fuddrules said:
He seems to be the only one to understand it. I can't determine if Dodd's is as dumb as it gets or is he on the SEC payroll? Or possibly Michigan.

The more I read the more I believe Michigan doesn't like this because they want the ability to dropkick members out of the B1G or form a new conference to their liking. They are that much into elitism. Let them leave (although I can't imagine they would). TX joined a league so that tells you how tough it is outside of a league.
Click to expand...
maybe, just maybe, it's as simple as a school doesn't like the idea because it doesn't make financial sense.
 
#95      
fuddrules
sbillini said:
4 big 12 championships in 24 years and 1 and the last 14 years they were in the league - I wouldn’t exactly call that running the big 12.

Regardless, I disagree with the notion that Michigan has a grander scheme to get themselves out of the big ten at some point. I think it’s more along the lines that the big ten is trying to get as few people involved in this deal as possible so as to minimize the risk of derailing it. So work with the ADs and presidents. Just so happens that Michigan and USC university leaders are interim so boards have more power, and that’s where you’re hearing the pushback.
Click to expand...
When I say running the conference, I’m talking off the field. Texas ran the conference. Perceived or real, it’s what a number of former B12 members (and fans wanted) stated why the left the B12. It was the B12 and then Texas was off doing their own thing. The exclusive LONGHORN network was also a big issue. IMO, Texas tried and it didn’t work out, hence the Texas reference. They ultimately ran to the SEC. I don't think Michigan is leaving the B1G. Call their bluff.

Here's an older reference under, “Cracks appear”

https://nondoc.com/2021/07/31/it-did-not-have-to-be-this-way-for-the-big-12-conference/

I don’t think Michigan wants to leave but they want to have complete control over who is/isn’t part of the B1G.

And yes, the best way to bog down a process is to get a large group involved. Particularly a group like a BOT who typically move at a glacier pace.
 
#97      
fuddrules
Dkayak said:
I’m sure it will be invested as wisely as any other payday loan.

Nobody has yet explained why are we doing this? Because somebody waved a bunch of cash around?
Click to expand...
Yes. And each University would use that cash in various and different ways. I bet Whitman already has a plan on what he would do with the money.

Also, how many payday loans has the DIA taken under Whitman? I at least have confidence in him, unfortunately, you don't.
 
Last edited:
#98      
gary?
meanwhile you haven't demonstrated that you understand it even a little bit. do i? no. however, i do understand the trepidation.
 
#99      
sbillini
fuddrules said:
Yes. And each University would use that cash in various and different ways. I bet Whitman already has a plan on what he would do with the money.

Also, how many payday loans has the DIA taken under Whitman? I at least have confidence in him, unfortunately, you don't.
Click to expand...

taking away the colorful "payday" language - the DIA has taken a lot of loans out under Whitman. So much so that Illinois is now the most indebted program in the big ten. So hopefully you'll understand when some people don't blindly trust him when a bunch of cash is waving in his face that take care of his short-term problems at the potential expense of the program's long-term success.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back