(11-09-2014 10:47 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 05:47 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 02:27 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 02:10 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:40 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Agreed. Aresco is annoying as hell to me when he does the lawyer/politician speak--which he does 99% of the time. Also, I'm not convinced that Tulsa and Temple will go along with what Aresco said "when and If" the legislation goes through.

They can both afford it

How do you know that?

Tulsa has lots of money and part of the reason temple folded the baseball program was to solidify and get ready for this

I don't think you know much about TU. .

You must have not read my earlier post so I will repeat for you. TU has a very good endowment, but their football program does not have a lot of money and has always struggled financially and endowments do not help.

Hopefully all of the schoools in the AAC can make the financial requirements of the new agenda.....but It may not be practical or possible for all.

This.

(11-09-2014 05:47 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 02:27 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 02:10 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:40 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:31 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Spot on

Why use precious time in writing about NOTHING.

Agreed. Aresco is annoying as hell to me when he does the lawyer/politician speak--which he does 99% of the time. Also, I'm not convinced that Tulsa and Temple will go along with what Aresco said "when and If" the legislation goes through.

They can both afford it

How do you know that?

Tulsa has lots of money and part of the reason temple folded the baseball program was to solidify and get ready for this

Your speculating on why temple dropped baseball. You don't know it was because they were preparing for this. Yes, Tulsa has a lot of $. As does Rice. While we're at it Harvard and Yale have a lot of $ too. What does that have to do with Tulsa funding their athletic programs?

Is Navy is going to pay full cost of attendance?

How will that work at a service academy?

(11-10-2014 12:10 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Is Navy is going to pay full cost of attendance?

How will that work at a service academy?

They already do

(11-09-2014 11:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 05:47 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 02:27 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 02:10 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:40 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Agreed. Aresco is annoying as hell to me when he does the lawyer/politician speak--which he does 99% of the time. Also, I'm not convinced that Tulsa and Temple will go along with what Aresco said "when and If" the legislation goes through.

They can both afford it

How do you know that?

Tulsa has lots of money and part of the reason temple folded the baseball program was to solidify and get ready for this

Your speculating on why temple dropped baseball. You don't know it was because they were preparing for this. Yes, Tulsa has a lot of $. As does Rice. While we're at it Harvard and Yale have a lot of $ too. What does that have to do with Tulsa funding their athletic programs?

Yes and no. There were some articles at the time regarding the uncertainty surrounding revenue generating sports and temples ability to pay for that. They were essentially saying that they were hedging and having to make hard choices in part because of the costs of the revenue producing sports. Hitt and the American championed the changes. I doubt they would have done that if temple was not prepared

(11-09-2014 11:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 05:47 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 02:27 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 02:10 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:40 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Agreed. Aresco is annoying as hell to me when he does the lawyer/politician speak--which he does 99% of the time. Also, I'm not convinced that Tulsa and Temple will go along with what Aresco said "when and If" the legislation goes through.

They can both afford it

How do you know that?

Tulsa has lots of money and part of the reason temple folded the baseball program was to solidify and get ready for this

Your speculating on why temple dropped baseball. You don't know it was because they were preparing for this. Yes, Tulsa has a lot of $. As does Rice. While we're at it Harvard and Yale have a lot of $ too. What does that have to do with Tulsa funding their athletic programs?

With regard to Tulsa. As we both know it's a very small school. Their stadium is smaller and they have never generated enough ticket sales to float the athletic program. They are a private school with deep pockets. They will make it happen. Everyone knew this was coming and I am sure aresco mentioned the expectations. With the means they have and the alternative I still think they make it work.

(11-09-2014 08:57 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 06:57 PM)covingtontiger Wrote:  It is my understanding that Memphis will spend the $ to keep pace with the P5 conferences. As soon as you don't do that, your school is relegated to second-class status permanently. Those who do keep pace may eventually have a chance to move up to the adults table.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

You honestly believe Memphis can "keep up". You're way behind as it is now and who knows how many rules and allowances they'll pass above and beyond the stipend cost.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Yes, we have deep pockets in the corporate world. I also think attendance will increase at football games.

(11-10-2014 12:31 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 12:10 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Is Navy is going to pay full cost of attendance?

How will that work at a service academy?

They already do

Yup, service academies are like the original Full-Cost of attendance programs.

(11-09-2014 01:40 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:31 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(11-08-2014 12:20 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  A whole lot of words that said basically nothing.

Spot on

Why use precious time in writing about NOTHING.

Agreed. Aresco is annoying as hell to me when he does the lawyer/politician speak--which he does 99% of the time. Also, I'm not convinced that Tulsa and Temple will go along with what Aresco said "when and If" the legislation goes through.

I agree that Aresco is arguably the most frequent user of lawyer/politician speak out of all of the conference commissioners, but he still has to issue this statement (even though it doesn't really mean anything).

However, I highly disagree that Tulsa, Temple or any other school is going to willingly downgrade themselves. They might lose money, but they'll pay up to keep their place in the AAC if only because of fear. In this day in age, schools don't willingly downgrade conferences (and, further, FBS schools don't downgrade to FCS) - the only acceptable trajectory is upward. (Note that you can get downgraded for circumstances completely out of your control - see what happened to the old Big East and Southwestern Conference.)

(11-10-2014 12:37 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 11:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 05:47 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 02:27 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 02:10 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  They can both afford it

How do you know that?

Tulsa has lots of money and part of the reason temple folded the baseball program was to solidify and get ready for this

Your speculating on why temple dropped baseball. You don't know it was because they were preparing for this. Yes, Tulsa has a lot of $. As does Rice. While we're at it Harvard and Yale have a lot of $ too. What does that have to do with Tulsa funding their athletic programs?

With regard to Tulsa. As we both know it's a very small school. Their stadium is smaller and they have never generated enough ticket sales to float the athletic program. They are a private school with deep pockets. They will make it happen. Everyone knew this was coming and I am sure aresco mentioned the expectations. With the means they have and the alternative I still think they make it work.

No...you are wrong. Tulsa athletics does not have deep pockets....they never have. Endowment money yes, but that does nothing for football.

(11-10-2014 11:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:40 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:31 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(11-08-2014 12:20 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  A whole lot of words that said basically nothing.

Spot on

Why use precious time in writing about NOTHING.

Agreed. Aresco is annoying as hell to me when he does the lawyer/politician speak--which he does 99% of the time. Also, I'm not convinced that Tulsa and Temple will go along with what Aresco said "when and If" the legislation goes through.

I agree that Aresco is arguably the most frequent user of lawyer/politician speak out of all of the conference commissioners, but he still has to issue this statement (even though it doesn't really mean anything).

However, I highly disagree that Tulsa, Temple or any other school is going to willingly downgrade themselves. They might lose money, but they'll pay up to keep their place in the AAC if only because of fear. In this day in age, schools don't willingly downgrade conferences (and, further, FBS schools don't downgrade to FCS) - the only acceptable trajectory is upward. (Note that you can get downgraded for circumstances completely out of your control - see what happened to the old Big East and Southwestern Conference.)

Iy is not a queston of willing downgrading. It is a question of not having the dollars to meet the autonomy agenda.

(11-10-2014 10:09 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 08:57 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 06:57 PM)covingtontiger Wrote:  It is my understanding that Memphis will spend the $ to keep pace with the P5 conferences. As soon as you don't do that, your school is relegated to second-class status permanently. Those who do keep pace may eventually have a chance to move up to the adults table.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

You honestly believe Memphis can "keep up". You're way behind as it is now and who knows how many rules and allowances they'll pass above and beyond the stipend cost.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Yes, we have deep pockets in the corporate world. I also think attendance will increase at football games.

I guess that explains your 41% subsidy. That's not meant as an insult as it's par for the course for G5 schools. That's what I mean by robbing Peter to pay Paul. We're all going to have to do that even more to keep up not fall behind any further than we already are. It makes me want to to be honest.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

All of the AAC schools are subsidizing at about 30-60% of their athletic budgets though student fees and/or university funds.

Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa are not in those calculations as they are private schools. I wonder how they all stack up.

I guess I'm still irked with the pathetic insulting tv deal this league was given.

No member of this league should be struggling to meet whatever guidelines are been presented by the so called p5... Had the AAC given the tv deal $$$ it DESERVED, we wouldn't be having this not so kind conversation of no one from this conference.

(11-10-2014 12:23 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 12:37 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 11:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 05:47 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 02:27 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  How do you know that?

Tulsa has lots of money and part of the reason temple folded the baseball program was to solidify and get ready for this

Your speculating on why temple dropped baseball. You don't know it was because they were preparing for this. Yes, Tulsa has a lot of $. As does Rice. While we're at it Harvard and Yale have a lot of $ too. What does that have to do with Tulsa funding their athletic programs?

With regard to Tulsa. As we both know it's a very small school. Their stadium is smaller and they have never generated enough ticket sales to float the athletic program. They are a private school with deep pockets. They will make it happen. Everyone knew this was coming and I am sure aresco mentioned the expectations. With the means they have and the alternative I still think they make it work.

No...you are wrong. Tulsa athletics does not have deep pockets....they never have. Endowment money yes, but that does nothing for football.

We will see

(11-10-2014 07:13 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 12:23 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 12:37 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 11:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 05:47 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  Tulsa has lots of money and part of the reason temple folded the baseball program was to solidify and get ready for this

Your speculating on why temple dropped baseball. You don't know it was because they were preparing for this. Yes, Tulsa has a lot of $. As does Rice. While we're at it Harvard and Yale have a lot of $ too. What does that have to do with Tulsa funding their athletic programs?

With regard to Tulsa. As we both know it's a very small school. Their stadium is smaller and they have never generated enough ticket sales to float the athletic program. They are a private school with deep pockets. They will make it happen. Everyone knew this was coming and I am sure aresco mentioned the expectations. With the means they have and the alternative I still think they make it work.

No...you are wrong. Tulsa athletics does not have deep pockets....they never have. Endowment money yes, but that does nothing for football.

We will see

We do not have to wait. TU does not have the deep pockets that you claim. That is a fact.

(11-10-2014 08:47 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 07:13 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 12:23 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 12:37 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 11:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Your speculating on why temple dropped baseball. You don't know it was because they were preparing for this. Yes, Tulsa has a lot of $. As does Rice. While we're at it Harvard and Yale have a lot of $ too. What does that have to do with Tulsa funding their athletic programs?

With regard to Tulsa. As we both know it's a very small school. Their stadium is smaller and they have never generated enough ticket sales to float the athletic program. They are a private school with deep pockets. They will make it happen. Everyone knew this was coming and I am sure aresco mentioned the expectations. With the means they have and the alternative I still think they make it work.

No...you are wrong. Tulsa athletics does not have deep pockets....they never have. Endowment money yes, but that does nothing for football.

We will see

We do not have to wait. TU does not have the deep pockets that you claim. That is a fact.

What exactly makes you think they won't support their athletic program? Nothing has said they won't and they have done so despite their size. The school and it's alumn have deep pockets and they will keep the program going

(11-10-2014 09:25 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 08:47 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 07:13 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 12:23 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 12:37 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  With regard to Tulsa. As we both know it's a very small school. Their stadium is smaller and they have never generated enough ticket sales to float the athletic program. They are a private school with deep pockets. They will make it happen. Everyone knew this was coming and I am sure aresco mentioned the expectations. With the means they have and the alternative I still think they make it work.

No...you are wrong. Tulsa athletics does not have deep pockets....they never have. Endowment money yes, but that does nothing for football.

We will see

We do not have to wait. TU does not have the deep pockets that you claim. That is a fact.

What exactly makes you think they won't support their athletic program? Nothing has said they won't and they have done so despite their size. The school and it's alumn have deep pockets and they will keep the program going

I have not said they will not support their athletic program. But you keep saying they have lots of money. What you do not seem to understand or refuse to listen.....is their athletic program does not have lots of money. Why do you keep insisting about this when you clearly do not know much about their financial situation.

I am sure they will make every effort to remain viable, but you are wrong. Why do you think they hired a former high school football coach that was not qualified for the position. Answer, because they could not afford more. Why do you think they schedule the one and done money games. Answer, they need the money. Why did they keep a failing basketball coach for several years. Answer, they could not afford to buy out his contract.

Look, I do not like posting this about TU. Tulsa is my home town. I have family living there. My wife and family members attended TU. Friends played football for TU. I stay in close contact. I know what I am talking about. You clearly do not. So I will not waste my time beating my head against the wall. Say what you want I am done.

(11-11-2014 05:38 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 09:25 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 08:47 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 07:13 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 12:23 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  No...you are wrong. Tulsa athletics does not have deep pockets....they never have. Endowment money yes, but that does nothing for football.

We will see

We do not have to wait. TU does not have the deep pockets that you claim. That is a fact.

What exactly makes you think they won't support their athletic program? Nothing has said they won't and they have done so despite their size. The school and it's alumn have deep pockets and they will keep the program going

I have not said they will not support their athletic program. But you keep saying they have lots of money. What you do not seem to understand or refuse to listen.....is their athletic program does not have lots of money. Why do you keep insisting about this when you clearly do not know much about their financial situation.

I am sure they will make every effort to remain viable, but you are wrong. Why do you think they hired a former high school football coach that was not qualified for the position. Answer, because they could not afford more. Why do you think they schedule the one and done money games. Answer, they need the money. Why did they keep a failing basketball coach for several years. Answer, they could not afford to buy out his contract.

Look, I do not like posting this about TU. Tulsa is my home town. I have family living there. My wife and family members attended TU. Friends played football for TU. I stay in close contact. I know what I am talking about. You clearly do not. So I will not waste my time beating my head against the wall. Say what you want I am done.

If you are referencing Blankenship then you don't know tu as well as you think you do. Blankenship has very close relationships with senior leadership. Not everyone hires like you guys did in bball. We didn't. Just because a school doesn't drop what you did on a bball coach doesn't mean they don't have money. Their athletic dept and endowment may not be as big as yours but that doesn't mean they won't spend the money. Memphis just did it. You guys just did it. They have the ability to generate the dollars. They have the donors and pockets to pay for it. My contention is they have the ability to raise the money to pay for it. The school will raise it. I don't know what your problem is but your missing the point. The fanbase, donors, and the school can and will pay for it. 2014 dollars allocated aren't the max they can spend just like the salary you spent on previous bball coaches didn't limit your current hire. They can and will spend the money.