(09-28-2016 11:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I can lead you right to the water, shove your head under it, but you still don't have to drink.

It's a buy out of a GoR, which would have been voluntarily signed. No court can defeat it.

Todge hates everything G5 and especially anything UH......

We are all just lucky to live in his world we should be grateful he allows us to exist......

(09-28-2016 10:08 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 04:02 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  Todge,

Don't even get into budgets. Facts are facts and I can only speak for us and your numbers look right but you're missing one key factor.

Tech and the like have had 20 plus years enjoying the fat paychecks that come with BCS and now P5 status.

Don't act like they all came in from the cold with budgets, fanbases, and facilities that big.

You might as well say "Alabama and Notre Dame have the advantage of playing big games for over 90 years, thus allowing them to build huge fan bases and big national TV interest". Well duh, but that still means they have huge brand value and we don't. There was a time when they had no football value, too. Everyone starts with nothing.

From one troll onto another.....

I never said that and agree 100% with this statement. My point was directed at the "newer" blood in the BCS/P5 not the bluebloods.

But ... the same point applies to the new bloods. Everyone started from nowhere at some point in time so what's the sense of pointing it out?

(09-28-2016 01:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 10:08 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 04:02 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  Todge,

Don't even get into budgets. Facts are facts and I can only speak for us and your numbers look right but you're missing one key factor.

Tech and the like have had 20 plus years enjoying the fat paychecks that come with BCS and now P5 status.

Don't act like they all came in from the cold with budgets, fanbases, and facilities that big.

You might as well say "Alabama and Notre Dame have the advantage of playing big games for over 90 years, thus allowing them to build huge fan bases and big national TV interest". Well duh, but that still means they have huge brand value and we don't. There was a time when they had no football value, too. Everyone starts with nothing.

From one troll onto another.....

I never said that and agree 100% with this statement. My point was directed at the "newer" blood in the BCS/P5 not the bluebloods.

But ... the same point applies to the new bloods. Everyone started from nowhere at some point in time so what's the sense of pointing it out?

He's acting like schools should walk in with an unsubsidized 80 million dollar athletic budget.

Anyone without the benefit of a power home (and the ancillary cost benefits in addition to TV money) that come with that membership will not be up to snuff on the athletic budget.

He loves touting TCU but they are new blood in every sense. TCU is new money their recent surge in cash has everything to do with shale oil.

No knocking TCU at all but it is impossible to compare their budget both in and just before the B12 or any school for that matter. Go pull up the numbers for TCU, Utah, and Louisville pre-admission and currently and I bet you that the numbers skyrocketed and I am not getting into subsidies. If they have them (I doubt they do) they have them if they don't they don't.

What does it matter to anyone who isn't directly involved with any one school how they spend their money.

(09-27-2016 12:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Fat lady isn't even warming up. She's still in bed.

Here I'm beginning to think the fat lady is comatose.

(09-27-2016 12:27 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I would like to see the MWC as the P7 conference as well. Look at how many teams from the MWC have been considered as well?

Nah, a P6 would be just fine.

(09-28-2016 02:14 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  What does it matter to anyone who isn't directly involved with any one school how they spend their money.

It matters to any conference that is considering whether to invite that school to become a co-owner of the business that is their conference.

When Larry Scott first met with Utah officials when the Utes were being "vetted", he asked them something like, "What are your plans for bringing your athletic budget up to a Pac-10 level?" And the Utah people were ready with an answer. Some version of that question is almost certainly asked to any G5 school being vetted by a P5 conference.

(09-28-2016 04:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 02:14 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  What does it matter to anyone who isn't directly involved with any one school how they spend their money.

It matters to any conference that is considering whether to invite that school to become a co-owner of the business that is their conference.

When Larry Scott first met with Utah officials when the Utes were being "vetted", he asked them something like, "What are your plans for bringing your athletic budget up to a Pac-10 level?" And the Utah people were ready with an answer. Some version of that question is almost certainly asked to any G5 school being vetted by a P5 conference.

Agreed, and that's one of the biggest things UConn has going for them - they're already budgeted like a lower-tier Big 12 school.

(09-28-2016 04:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 02:14 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  What does it matter to anyone who isn't directly involved with any one school how they spend their money.

It matters to any conference that is considering whether to invite that school to become a co-owner of the business that is their conference.

When Larry Scott first met with Utah officials when the Utes were being "vetted", he asked them something like, "What are your plans for bringing your athletic budget up to a Pac-10 level?" And the Utah people were ready with an answer. Some version of that question is almost certainly asked to any G5 school being vetted by a P5 conference.

And I am sure we had answers as well. Not saying we are unsubsidized but people have to also realize we are debating 2014 numbers since 2015 hasn't been made public yet.

At best we are debating information 2 years out of date.....

People at the level making these decisions have up to date info and answers to the questions being asked.

(09-28-2016 11:40 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 11:23 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  again TCU was ranked at the end of the year 9 times in 12 years with several in the top 10 and one at least in the top 5

that is a long term history that is not 4 years or weekly nonsense that no one cares about except buffoons trying to make false comparisons

8 ranked seasons in the top 25 in 12 seasons with top 10 and top 5 finishes is much more impressive and shows the ability to sustains something much more than 2 ranked seasons in 25 seasons

Are you really that dense? I agreed with you! Just pointing out we have been ranked a respectable amount over a similar period.

TCU finished ranked 7 times in the 10 years prior to the B12 and 8 of the previous 12. Sorry your "facts" don't add up..... That said TCU had an unbelievable run and I for one am not trying to diminish that.

As always your bias bleeds through when I just try and provide a little perspective. I am sorry if it doesn't support your narrative.

TCU joined the Big 12 in 2012

prior to that TCU was ranked in 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011

2000 to 2011 is 12 seasons.....that is 9 ranked seasons out of 12 so my numbers do in fact add up

dem coogs doh have been ranked in 2011 and 2015......you have to go back to 1990 to get another ranked season so from 1991 to 2015 is 25 seasons and that is being ranked 2 times in 25 seasons

that is not similar at all to being ranked 9 times in 12 seasons just prior to joining the Big 12

even if you wanted to say that dem coogs doh will be ranked this year for sure and you only count back to 2011 that would be ranked 3 times in the prior 6 seasons

TCU was ranked 5 times in the prior 6 seasons so again that is a much better showing of the ability to sustain winning at a high level

not to mention that the history is in the books and the sustained winning seasons at a high level for TCU goes back much further than that and if you try and go back further for dem coogs doh you find there is not close to the same history of sustained winning

there is nothing "HaTerZ" about that it is simply irrefutable facts that are not possible to spin into anything different than the fact that TCU had a dramatically longer period of proven sustained success

not to mention that TCU has shown now that they can in fact to that in the Big 12 as well