College Sports (Football)

#53      
the juiceman cometh
Dkayak said:
I asked Google. Mr Kahn had been a significant contributor before being publicly shamed by tha faculty Senate.

https://share.google/nvr8AuoXhK7CpQ14Q
Click to expand...
That lists a large donation in 2011, then rejection for honorary degree. Then large donation in 2022 and rejection for honorary degree in 2024. Presumably he's also made smaller contributions in between, including to the Athletic department and to NIL efforts (based on what insiders have said on here). Where does it sat that he has stopped doing that since his 2024 rejection? Or that he has withheld any donations?
 
#54      
ChiefGritty
pvaughn8 said:
So you are saying it was inevitable?
Click to expand...
No!

Inevitable means "it was going to happen even if the people with power over the process had made different decisions".

You forgive leaders who suffer inevitable outcomes, because there is nothing they could have done to change them.

If Mark Emmert, Myles Brand, Jim Delany, Mike Slive and John Skipper had collectively taken a different approach in the early 2010's we would have had a lot of continuity instead of....this.

And I honestly believe that if the Ghost of Christmas Future had visited them at that time and told them the Pac 12 was dead and the conference system was unrecognizable, there was an open free market for players, pros were coming back to college to play, and how intensely gambling had become integrated into the presentation and finances of the game, they would have immediately embraced that alternative approach. (There are myriad other changes and problems, but I think those in particular would have horrified that particular group)
 
Last edited:
#55      
Mr. Tibbs
the juiceman cometh said:
That lists a large donation in 2011, then rejection for honorary degree. Then large donation in 2022 and rejection for honorary degree in 2024. Presumably he's also made smaller contributions in between, including to the Athletic department and to NIL efforts (based on what insiders have said on here). Where does it sat that he has stopped doing that since his 2024 rejection? Or that he has withheld any donations?
Click to expand...
how is anyone going to know definitively that he is giving less ?

but isn’t it simply intuitive that when continually slighted & criticized , one will send donations elsewhere ? our leftist faculty just can’t help but to be angry with any wealthy capitalist donor. enough so they don’t care at all if the donations to all things athletic stop totally
 
#57      
the juiceman cometh
Mr. Tibbs said:
how is anyone going to know definitively that he is giving less ?

but isn’t it simply intuitive that when continually slighted & criticized , one will send donations elsewhere ? our leftist faculty just can’t help but to be angry with any wealthy capitalist donor. enough so they don’t care at all if the donations to all things athletic stop totally
Click to expand...
Why make a factual assertion about something unknowable?

And why would the default assumption be that a billionaire is so petty about being denied a meaningless honorary degree that he'd stop donating to a thing he previously thought worthwhile? Maybe Khan was only donating money because he wanted to be lavished with praise. Certainly possible. But it's probably the least charitable assumption you could make about the guy. It's equally, if not more, possible that despite some disappointment in not being given an honor he still cares about the things he previously cared about.
 
#58      
Curbelo Fanboy
8 would be the perfect # of teams. So the clowns in charge go to……24. Kills the big regular season games. GA vs AL OSU vs MI. The type of games the sport was built on will be rendered basically meaningless now. Especially the November ones. You will see teams sit starters in some of those games if their playoff spot and seeding is secured.
 
#59      
sbillini
Curbelo Fanboy said:
8 would be the perfect # of teams. So the clowns in charge go to……24. Kills the big regular season games. GA vs AL OSU vs MI. The type of games the sport was built on will be rendered basically meaningless now. Especially the November ones. You will see teams sit starters in some of those games if their playoff spot and seeding is secured.
Click to expand...

I would imagine even a single loss (or win) would most likely have a meaningful impact on seeding regardless of your starting point.
 
#60      
fuddrules
Curbelo Fanboy said:
8 would be the perfect # of teams. So the clowns in charge go to……24. Kills the big regular season games. GA vs AL OSU vs MI. The type of games the sport was built on will be rendered basically meaningless now. Especially the November ones. You will see teams sit starters in some of those games if their playoff spot and seeding is secured.
Click to expand...

They said the same about Bowls.

 
#61      
Ryllini
Curbelo Fanboy said:
8 would be the perfect # of teams. So the clowns in charge go to……24. Kills the big regular season games. GA vs AL OSU vs MI. The type of games the sport was built on will be rendered basically meaningless now. Especially the November ones. You will see teams sit starters in some of those games if their playoff spot and seeding is secured.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Georgia/Alabama this year if things hold was basically "meaningless", but watching that game and seeing Kirby's remarks to his team say otherwise. When the bracket expanded to 12, the other bowl games were time and space killers to get to the playoff games anyways. I don't know about you, but I would've rather watched illinois V S. Carolina 15 v 18 matchup on a campus with a punchers chance against a top seed in the next round. What is better than playing 1 post season game? Playing multiple even if it winds up in a 30 point beat down. That can happen on any level. 8-4 is the new 6-6. I think selling a playoff spot is better than selling a 6-6 squad in say the Pinstripe.

The G6 teams do get screwed here, and I'd like to see them in their own playoff. I think they are something like 3-76 against power conferences this year anyways. One time transfer might balance that a bit.
 
#62      
ChiefGritty
Neutral site conference championship games will certainly not be mourned by me, in many ways they have proven to be the horsemen of the apocalypse, but the way this change just shifts the focus from the conference to the national picture (it's low key not that big of a change really, just reallocating a handful of games from conference championships to first round playoff games) says it all about the process.

We're all just national inventory now.
 
#63      
Curbelo Fanboy
sbillini said:
I would imagine even a single loss (or win) would most likely have a meaningful impact on seeding regardless of your starting point.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking late in season a team that is 11-0 or 10-1 is gonna be a top 8 seed regardless. They might sit guys in their "rival" game just to rest up for the playoffs.
 
#64      
Curbelo Fanboy
Ryllini said:
I disagree. Georgia/Alabama this year if things hold was basically "meaningless", but watching that game and seeing Kirby's remarks to his team say otherwise. When the bracket expanded to 12, the other bowl games were time and space killers to get to the playoff games anyways. I don't know about you, but I would've rather watched illinois V S. Carolina 15 v 18 matchup on a campus with a punchers chance against a top seed in the next round. What is better than playing 1 post season game? Playing multiple even if it winds up in a 30 point beat down. That can happen on any level. 8-4 is the new 6-6. I think selling a playoff spot is better than selling a 6-6 squad in say the Pinstripe.

The G6 teams do get screwed here, and I'd like to see them in their own playoff. I think they are something like 3-76 against power conferences this year anyways. One time transfer might balance that a bit.
Click to expand...
24 obviously helps Illinois chances to make a playoff more often. But lets be honest. Football isn't hoops where a 5 seed (say 20th ranked team) has a chance & sometimes does win the title or make a final four. No shot barring a 1 in 50 miracle where the 20th ranked team's star QB is hurt all year & comes back for the playoff would a 20th ranked team win more than 1 or 2 games in a playoff. Most likely 1 or 0. The talent gap from say 1 to 25 in football is leap years more than it is in college hoops. Just the very nature of the game as well. Football is a less random game & is more often controlled by the physically more gifted team (size, speed, etc). Yes upsets happen but not as often. Basketball has a lot more randomness. Shooting ebbs & flows, foul trouble, etc just make it a more random game in a short sample size tournament.
 
#66      
Mr. Roberts
ChiefGritty said:
Neutral site conference championship games will certainly not be mourned by me, in many ways they have proven to be the horsemen of the apocalypse, but the way this change just shifts the focus from the conference to the national picture (it's low key not that big of a change really, just reallocating a handful of games from conference championships to first round playoff games) says it all about the process.

We're all just national inventory now.
Click to expand...
Agreed - but I think this started when we went to 18 teams. This change and the abolishment of any semblance of a conference champion basically relegates conference teams to nothing more than a "bargaining unit" that can negotiate it's own TV deals.
 
#67      
Curbelo Fanboy
ChiefGritty said:
It's amazing the way the connectivity with the rhythm of the fall semester of college has just been dissolved in a vat of acid isn't it?
Click to expand...
Oh yes - teams that go deep in the playoffs won't attend class in person from early December til late January most likely. Granted a solid chunk of that is winter break but certainly not all of it. And we are still gonna have guys opt out for the NFL even on playoff teams. If I'm a top 5 pick & my team is ranked 23rd that really isn't gonna sway my stay or go decision given the draft $ involved & potential risk of injury playing multiple potential playoff games vs 1 bowl game in the old days.
 
#68      
ugottabjoshinme
I don't like the 24 team playoff. It devalues the regular season too much. There are going to be 4 loss teams in the playoffs so losing a big regular season game doesn't matter at all. There are more teams in the playoff now than what I want to see. I get TV money and all that but give me the top 8 no byes and let them go at it.
 
#69      
Dkayak
the juiceman cometh said:
That lists a large donation in 2011, then rejection for honorary degree. Then large donation in 2022 and rejection for honorary degree in 2024. Presumably he's also made smaller contributions in between, including to the Athletic department and to NIL efforts (based on what insiders have said on here). Where does it sat that he has stopped doing that since his 2024 rejection? Or that he has withheld any donations?
Click to expand...
As @Mr. Tibbs says, the effect isn’t knowable. But why allow rogue faculty to violate the guidelines for eligibility to publicly punish a proven donor for his political affiliations? What does this accomplish for the University? It’s just plain wrong and counterproductive, demonstrating poor leadership.
 
#70      
Curbelo Fanboy
Dkayak said:
As @Mr. Tibbs says, the effect isn’t knowable. But why allow rogue faculty to violate the guidelines for eligibility to publicly punish a proven donor for his political affiliations? What does this accomplish for the University? It’s just plain wrong and counterproductive, demonstrating poor leadership.
Click to expand...
Leave it to the academes at U of I to undercut their own athletic program which if highly successful would help the whole operation. A tale as old as time.
 
#71      
Battle89
the juiceman cometh said:
Why make a factual assertion about something unknowable?

And why would the default assumption be that a billionaire is so petty about being denied a meaningless honorary degree that he'd stop donating to a thing he previously thought worthwhile? Maybe Khan was only donating money because he wanted to be lavished with praise. Certainly possible. But it's probably the least charitable assumption you could make about the guy. It's equally, if not more, possible that despite some disappointment in not being given an honor he still cares about the things he previously cared about.
Click to expand...
Kind of a big leap IMO Juice.

If my best friend kicks me in the nuts then maybe I don't feel the same way about him anymore. You are placing a very small value (in the recipient's mind) on the awarding of the honorary degree. I lean more towards @Mr. Tibbs 's POV, the rejection is a direct repudiation of Shad's person and reputation, and those billionaire CEOS have huge egos and do care about this stuff.

Different but analogous to Marc Andreesen's situation many years earlier, though that was more $$$ related than reputationally related. He has had nothing to with UI since. Not sure why Ellison hates us, probably more just chasing a perceived winner in Ann Arbor (and therefore back to my point on egos).
 
Last edited:
#72      
Illini2010-11
Curbelo Fanboy said:
I'm thinking late in season a team that is 11-0 or 10-1 is gonna be a top 8 seed regardless. They might sit guys in their "rival" game just to rest up for the playoffs.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily agree here (especially in the high profile rivalry games). There is no way Ohio State would simply rest their players against Michigan. Heck, there were Ohio State folks (before OSU won that natty) that wanted Day gone because he could not beat Michigan (even if they were close to winning the national championship). Some rivalry games are built differently. For soft rivalry games, I might actually agree with you a bit.
 
#73      
Ryllini
Illini2010-11 said:
I don't necessarily agree here (especially in the high profile rivalry games). There is no way Ohio State would simply rest their players against Michigan. Heck, there were Ohio State folks (before OSU won that natty) that wanted Day gone because he could not beat Michigan (even if they were close to winning the national championship). Some rivalry games are built differently. For soft rivalry games, I might actually agree with you a bit.
Click to expand...
Exactly, even though OSU won, that Michigan game still lingered. I think people forget the crazy that resides in college football. You think bama is sitting guys in the Iron bowl? No shot. Also, there are byes and home field at stake. Yea, you can with stand a loss better, but a loss could mean the difference between playing a game in the sunny south or potentially coming up to a frigid hornets nest in Iowa against that defense or a snow game in Minnesota. I like it because it does help Illinois, but I also think we should be shooting for 8 wins every year. Are you going to be that geeked if we make it to 6 this year? I was told 12 games would ruin the regular season, that hasn't happened. Basketball is going to almost 80 teams, look at our schedule.

Football isn't a Cinderella sport, but a single game upset a pretty awesome aspect.
 
#74      
the juiceman cometh
Dkayak said:
As @Mr. Tibbs says, the effect isn’t knowable. But why allow rogue faculty to violate the guidelines for eligibility to publicly punish a proven donor for his political affiliations? What does this accomplish for the University? It’s just plain wrong and counterproductive, demonstrating poor leadership.
Click to expand...
I think the University is trying to change the process.

At the same time, why make a factual assertion about something that is "unknowable?" Your original post says definitively that he has "withheld big gifts" as a direct result of being denied an honorary degree. Sure, there's no proof it's false. There's also no proof it's true. Classic, "you don't know it's not true"/argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
 
#75      
Dkayak
the juiceman cometh said:
I think the University is trying to change the process.

At the same time, why make a factual assertion about something that is "unknowable?" Your original post says definitively that he has "withheld big gifts" as a direct result of being denied an honorary degree. Sure, there's no proof it's false. There's also no proof it's true. Classic, "you don't know it's not true"/argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Click to expand...
You are correct, as I acknowledged in my previous post.

Don’t you find this ironic? “Kate Clancy, a member of the anthropology department, complained about news reports that Khan recently held a “yacht party” attended by politicians she deemed suspect. ‘There are some ethical concerns,’ Clancy said.”

She should look in the mirror re: ethics.
 
Back