(02-17-2020 08:54 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 03:01 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 01:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  You don't announce finances until the deal is finalized.

Certainly not.

But it's time to start talking turkey, for a change.

From the AAC fan's perspective, the contract with ESPN was all set, and losing a team such as UConn was said to have absolutely no bearing on the contract.

If that had been true, then there would have been no further discussions, deliberations, negotiations, or nonsense of any kind. There would be no rumors, no leaks, no suggestions that anything whatsoever has changed.

Unfortunately, this story has been going on for about 3 weeks already. The more Aresco tries to hide the details or pretend that nothing is actually happening, the rumors and innuendos continue and begin to suggest that some kind of announcement may be impending.

If UConn's departure had no bearing on anything, since there would be no change in the broadcasting agreement or payments from ESPN, then we shouldn't have heard anything at all.

But we have heard a whole lot (no details, but a lot of chatter).

So it appears that something is going on, that there have been discussions, etc.

Truthfully, this is all starting to look kind of shady. There shouldn't have been anything to discuss, and suddenly, there seem to have been a whole lot of discussions.

So what in the hell has been going on?

Inquiring minds want to know...

p.s. Could all these discussions possibly be nothing more or less than discussions about adding team #12?

Finally, all of Aresco's efforts to keep everything top secret have begun to backfire. The more he tries to keep everything hidden, the more everyone involved tends to obsess and fret about what's happening behind the scenes. Sometimes, sunlight is the best medicine.

I think they are just still hashing things out.

The only semi-reliable info that I've gotten was from our AD last week. He said that we (AAC) will be getting less than a full 1/12th share back from UConn's exit.

So basically all AAC members will retain their original share + a little more $ (less than a full 1/12th share back from UConn's exit) and an additional $270k annually (1.3Million each spread out between 2020 and 2026) from the $17 Million UCONN exit fee?

(02-17-2020 11:27 AM)Pirate1989 Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:54 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 03:01 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 01:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  You don't announce finances until the deal is finalized.

Certainly not.

But it's time to start talking turkey, for a change.

From the AAC fan's perspective, the contract with ESPN was all set, and losing a team such as UConn was said to have absolutely no bearing on the contract.

If that had been true, then there would have been no further discussions, deliberations, negotiations, or nonsense of any kind. There would be no rumors, no leaks, no suggestions that anything whatsoever has changed.

Unfortunately, this story has been going on for about 3 weeks already. The more Aresco tries to hide the details or pretend that nothing is actually happening, the rumors and innuendos continue and begin to suggest that some kind of announcement may be impending.

If UConn's departure had no bearing on anything, since there would be no change in the broadcasting agreement or payments from ESPN, then we shouldn't have heard anything at all.

But we have heard a whole lot (no details, but a lot of chatter).

So it appears that something is going on, that there have been discussions, etc.

Truthfully, this is all starting to look kind of shady. There shouldn't have been anything to discuss, and suddenly, there seem to have been a whole lot of discussions.

So what in the hell has been going on?

Inquiring minds want to know...

p.s. Could all these discussions possibly be nothing more or less than discussions about adding team #12?

Finally, all of Aresco's efforts to keep everything top secret have begun to backfire. The more he tries to keep everything hidden, the more everyone involved tends to obsess and fret about what's happening behind the scenes. Sometimes, sunlight is the best medicine.

I think they are just still hashing things out.

The only semi-reliable info that I've gotten was from our AD last week. He said that we (AAC) will be getting less than a full 1/12th share back from UConn's exit.

So basically all AAC members will retain their original share + a little more $ (less than a full 1/12th share back from UConn's exit) and an additional $270k annually (1.3Million each spread out between 2020 and 2026) from the $17 Million UCONN exit fee?

Who knows. Either way, it's a varying $6m-$8m out of a bunch of $45m-$65m budgets.

Just tell UCorn to leave the money on the dresser and get out.

People who read message boards obsess about these things. Ninety-nine percent of the fans who attend/watch games could care less. When the deal is finalized, they will see the headline and say, "oh that's nice".

(02-17-2020 11:27 AM)Pirate1989 Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:54 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 03:01 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 01:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  You don't announce finances until the deal is finalized.

Certainly not.

But it's time to start talking turkey, for a change.

From the AAC fan's perspective, the contract with ESPN was all set, and losing a team such as UConn was said to have absolutely no bearing on the contract.

If that had been true, then there would have been no further discussions, deliberations, negotiations, or nonsense of any kind. There would be no rumors, no leaks, no suggestions that anything whatsoever has changed.

Unfortunately, this story has been going on for about 3 weeks already. The more Aresco tries to hide the details or pretend that nothing is actually happening, the rumors and innuendos continue and begin to suggest that some kind of announcement may be impending.

If UConn's departure had no bearing on anything, since there would be no change in the broadcasting agreement or payments from ESPN, then we shouldn't have heard anything at all.

But we have heard a whole lot (no details, but a lot of chatter).

So it appears that something is going on, that there have been discussions, etc.

Truthfully, this is all starting to look kind of shady. There shouldn't have been anything to discuss, and suddenly, there seem to have been a whole lot of discussions.

So what in the hell has been going on?

Inquiring minds want to know...

p.s. Could all these discussions possibly be nothing more or less than discussions about adding team #12?

Finally, all of Aresco's efforts to keep everything top secret have begun to backfire. The more he tries to keep everything hidden, the more everyone involved tends to obsess and fret about what's happening behind the scenes. Sometimes, sunlight is the best medicine.

I think they are just still hashing things out.

The only semi-reliable info that I've gotten was from our AD last week. He said that we (AAC) will be getting less than a full 1/12th share back from UConn's exit.

So basically all AAC members will retain their original share + a little more $ (less than a full 1/12th share back from UConn's exit) and an additional $270k annually (1.3Million each spread out between 2020 and 2026) from the $17 Million UCONN exit fee?

Cool, need one more volunteer on the bottom of the AAC to go and we are set!
Thanks for the coin UConn.

.
In this thread, there seem to be a variety of opinions about what the AAC and ESPN have been discussing or negotiating in the past three weeks.

We seem to be discussing at least three interrelated topics - - or possible topics and speculations - - at the same time:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. How UConn's $17 million penalty payment will be allocated to the AAC schools.

The main topic of this thread is "Compensation for AAC schools resulting from UConn's departure," with the side topic being the timetable for such compensation.

The compensation discussion first arose with UConn's $17 million penalty payment agreement, which was announced in mid-2019. The standard penalty was $10 million, by contract, and the remaining $7 million of the penalty was to be paid for UConn's earlier than contractually agreed (i.e., 1 year) exit.

If the $17 were evenly split among the 11 membership slots (10 + Navy/Wichita State), the amount per slot would be 1/11 * $17,000,000 = $1.54 million per all sports school, to be distributed over the next 6 years (amounting to ~ $257,000 annually per school, on average).

Since it is a penalty, the $17 million should come from UConn, and not from ESPN. If the $17 million were to come from ESPN, it would not penalize UConn in any way for their early exit.

QUESTION: Is UConn actually going to be paying $17 million to the AAC schools ($257,000 per school, per year), or not?

If not, then what amount is UConn going to be paying, and how much $$ will each AAC school be receiving over the next 6 years?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. How will the $83 million that ESPN allocated for UConn over the 12 year broadcasting agreement be dealt with, given UConn's departure?

Interpretation A: Some have suggested that there will be no change at all to the seven million per school that ESPN will pay for their AAC broadcasting rights. In that case, ESPN's total payment to the AAC over 12 years would decrease from $1 billion to $917 million, with ESPN pocketing UConn's $83 million share over those 12 years.

Others have suggested that the amount ESPN agreed to pay (~$1 billion over 12 years) was to the AAC itself, rather than to the AAC member schools. In that case, they've argued, the 1/12th share that would have gone to UConn would be "divvied up" amongst the 10 remaining all-sports schools and Navy/Wichita State.

Still others have suggested that the $83 million that would have gone to UConn will be held in some kind of escrow status, and that if/when the AAC adds a 12th school (or FB & non-FB schools), that $83 million would simply be allocated to them.

Right now, it doesn't seem that anyone knows the answer. All three interpretations continue to be discussed as if they are correct. Aresco's office could have clarified this, but seemingly hasn't. As a result, the answer to this question isn't clear to the readers of this message board.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: It's essential to avoid confounding the topic of UConn's $17 million penalty payments and the entirely separate topic of how ESPN's annual payments of seven million per school over 12 years might be affected by UConn's departure.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the topics that the AAC and ESPN have been discussing, and apparently negotiating about over the past three weeks?

Interpretation A: They have simply been discussing how UConn's departure will impact ESPN's broadcasting schedule, and the fact that ESPN might not lose 1/12th of their AAC FB viewership, due to the poor quality of UConn FB. If so, it's possible that ESPN might not lower their payments to the AAC by the full $83 million that would have been allocated to UConn, but would distribute a share of this amount to each AAC school.

Interpretation B: The discussions have evolved into a minor revision of the 12 year AAC-ESPN broadcasting agreement, with the likely result being that the amounts distributed to the AAC schools will be recalculated, factoring in both the $17 million in penalties to be paid by UConn and minor adjustments to the amount that ESPN will be paying the AAC schools. There might be some remote possibility that ESPN would assist in the financial arrangements for UConn's $17 penalty payments. However, any changes in the amounts paid per school would be relatively minor, and there would be no significant revisions to the contract.

Interpretation B: The discussions have evolved into a slightly more substantive revision of the 12 year AAC-ESPN broadcasting agreement. The fundamentals of the 12 year contract would remain roughly the same, and there might be a few relatively minor upward or downward adjustments in the number of games to be broadcasted, broadcast times, flexibility to broadcast games, or payments to the AAC.

-One possibility is that ESPN might be seeking various concessions from the AAC, due to the loss of the UConn region's viewership, and to decrease their commitment to the AAC from $1 billion to $917 million over 12 years.

-Another possibility is that, in the wake of the MWC's new agreement with CBS & Fox, ESPN is offering to adjust slightly upward the amounts to be paid to the AAC schools, or the number of featured AAC games to be broadcasted, or both of the above.

-A third possibility is that ESPN might be offering to increase their payments to the AAC slightly, in return for more flexibility in broadcasting channels (ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN+,...), and/or times, or possibly showing some willingness to broadcast more games on the main ESPN channels in return for various concessions that the AAC might suggest.

Interpretation C: The discussions have evolved into a somewhat more substantive revision of the 12 year AAC-ESPN broadcasting agreement. ESPN might be trying to restructure the agreement in any of a number of ways. The net outcome might not be highly noticeable on a year over year basis, but ESPN and the AAC might each try to make various adjustments in payments and broadcasting details, or the provisions regarding any future adjustments (additions or subtractions) in the number of AAC schools.

Interpretation D: The discussions may be evolving into what will amount to a full or major renegotiation of the AAC-ESPN broadcasting agreement.

-The AAC might be willing to renegotiate certain aspects of the broadcasting agreement if ESPN has signaled any willingness to sweeten the deal, now that the MWC has gotten such a large upward adjustment in their media payments, with the possibility of another upward adjustment in 2006.

--For example, it might be possible that ESPN has signaled a willingness to pay the contractually agreed $83 million per year to the AAC (despite the loss of UConn) for all 12 years, or at least until UConn is replaced, or they might with to put certain incentives into the contract that will increase the likelihood that UConn FB will be replaced with a FB program that will boost ESPN's income significantly higher.

--ESPN might (possibly) have some interest in renegotiating the contract, due to any concerns they might have about the loss of UConn and viewership in the northeastern region, potential additions or subtractions to the AAC membership, and related issues.

--Though it seems unlikely, if the discussions evolve into a full-scale renegotiation, there might even be some inclination to adjust the duration of the broadcasting agreement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, there is some possibility that all three of these topics are being discussed by ESPN and the AAC Commissioner - - just as they are also being discussed in this thread and related threads.

Does this summarize the situation fairly well from your standpoint, and if not, how else might you summarize what you think might be going on?

That's Todge-worthy.

(02-17-2020 03:37 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  That's Todge-worthy.

The word count may actually exceed Todge. Is there an eyes glazing over emoji?

(02-17-2020 04:50 PM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 03:37 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  That's Todge-worthy.

The word count may actually exceed Todge. Is there an eyes glazing over emoji?

The post was no longer than the kinds of substantive articles one would read in a respectable newspaper.

One would assume that the readers here have gone to college and can read 1,000 words in a couple of minutes.

However, there are always a few party animals in every crowd - and presidents - who apparently found a way to get through college without doing the reading assignments.

(02-17-2020 05:11 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The post was no longer than the kinds of substantive articles one would read in a respectable newspaper. A respectable newspaper, this is not

One would assume that the readers here have gone to college and can read 1,000 words in a couple of minutes. One assumes correctly

However, there are always a few party animals in every crowd - and presidents - who apparently found a way to get through college without doing the reading assignments. LOL +1

(02-17-2020 05:11 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The post was no longer than the kinds of substantive articles one would read in a respectable newspaper.

One would assume that the readers here have gone to college and can read 1,000 words in a couple of minutes.

However, there are always a few party animals in every crowd - and presidents - who apparently found a way to get through college without doing the reading assignments.

Can someone give me the Reader's Digest version of this post? Thanks in advance

(02-17-2020 01:09 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 11:27 AM)Pirate1989 Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:54 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 03:01 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 01:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  You don't announce finances until the deal is finalized.

Certainly not.

But it's time to start talking turkey, for a change.

From the AAC fan's perspective, the contract with ESPN was all set, and losing a team such as UConn was said to have absolutely no bearing on the contract.

If that had been true, then there would have been no further discussions, deliberations, negotiations, or nonsense of any kind. There would be no rumors, no leaks, no suggestions that anything whatsoever has changed.

Unfortunately, this story has been going on for about 3 weeks already. The more Aresco tries to hide the details or pretend that nothing is actually happening, the rumors and innuendos continue and begin to suggest that some kind of announcement may be impending.

If UConn's departure had no bearing on anything, since there would be no change in the broadcasting agreement or payments from ESPN, then we shouldn't have heard anything at all.

But we have heard a whole lot (no details, but a lot of chatter).

So it appears that something is going on, that there have been discussions, etc.

Truthfully, this is all starting to look kind of shady. There shouldn't have been anything to discuss, and suddenly, there seem to have been a whole lot of discussions.

So what in the hell has been going on?

Inquiring minds want to know...

p.s. Could all these discussions possibly be nothing more or less than discussions about adding team #12?

Finally, all of Aresco's efforts to keep everything top secret have begun to backfire. The more he tries to keep everything hidden, the more everyone involved tends to obsess and fret about what's happening behind the scenes. Sometimes, sunlight is the best medicine.

I think they are just still hashing things out.

The only semi-reliable info that I've gotten was from our AD last week. He said that we (AAC) will be getting less than a full 1/12th share back from UConn's exit.

So basically all AAC members will retain their original share + a little more $ (less than a full 1/12th share back from UConn's exit) and an additional $270k annually (1.3Million each spread out between 2020 and 2026) from the $17 Million UCONN exit fee?

Cool, need one more volunteer on the bottom of the AAC to go and we are set!
Thanks for the coin UConn.

So you are saying there is something in the bylaws that allow us to vote East Carolina out?

(02-17-2020 03:21 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .
In this thread, there seem to be a variety of opinions about what the AAC and ESPN have been discussing or negotiating in the past three weeks.

We seem to be discussing at least three interrelated topics - - or possible topics and speculations - - at the same time:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. How UConn's $17 million penalty payment will be allocated to the AAC schools.

The main topic of this thread is "Compensation for AAC schools resulting from UConn's departure," with the side topic being the timetable for such compensation.

The compensation discussion first arose with UConn's $17 million penalty payment agreement, which was announced in mid-2019. The standard penalty was $10 million, by contract, and the remaining $7 million of the penalty was to be paid for UConn's earlier than contractually agreed (i.e., 1 year) exit.

If the $17 were evenly split among the 11 membership slots (10 + Navy/Wichita State), the amount per slot would be 1/11 * $17,000,000 = $1.54 million per all sports school, to be distributed over the next 6 years (amounting to ~ $257,000 annually per school, on average).

Since it is a penalty, the $17 million should come from UConn, and not from ESPN. If the $17 million were to come from ESPN, it would not penalize UConn in any way for their early exit.

QUESTION: Is UConn actually going to be paying $17 million to the AAC schools ($257,000 per school, per year), or not?

If not, then what amount is UConn going to be paying, and how much $$ will each AAC school be receiving over the next 6 years?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. How will the $83 million that ESPN allocated for UConn over the 12 year broadcasting agreement be dealt with, given UConn's departure?

Interpretation A: Some have suggested that there will be no change at all to the seven million per school that ESPN will pay for their AAC broadcasting rights. In that case, ESPN's total payment to the AAC over 12 years would decrease from $1 billion to $917 million, with ESPN pocketing UConn's $83 million share over those 12 years.

Others have suggested that the amount ESPN agreed to pay (~$1 billion over 12 years) was to the AAC itself, rather than to the AAC member schools. In that case, they've argued, the 1/12th share that would have gone to UConn would be "divvied up" amongst the 10 remaining all-sports schools and Navy/Wichita State.

Still others have suggested that the $83 million that would have gone to UConn will be held in some kind of escrow status, and that if/when the AAC adds a 12th school (or FB & non-FB schools), that $83 million would simply be allocated to them.

Right now, it doesn't seem that anyone knows the answer. All three interpretations continue to be discussed as if they are correct. Aresco's office could have clarified this, but seemingly hasn't. As a result, the answer to this question isn't clear to the readers of this message board.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: It's essential to avoid confounding the topic of UConn's $17 million penalty payments and the entirely separate topic of how ESPN's annual payments of seven million per school over 12 years might be affected by UConn's departure.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the topics that the AAC and ESPN have been discussing, and apparently negotiating about over the past three weeks?

Interpretation A: They have simply been discussing how UConn's departure will impact ESPN's broadcasting schedule, and the fact that ESPN might not lose 1/12th of their AAC FB viewership, due to the poor quality of UConn FB. If so, it's possible that ESPN might not lower their payments to the AAC by the full $83 million that would have been allocated to UConn, but would distribute a share of this amount to each AAC school.

Interpretation B: The discussions have evolved into a minor revision of the 12 year AAC-ESPN broadcasting agreement, with the likely result being that the amounts distributed to the AAC schools will be recalculated, factoring in both the $17 million in penalties to be paid by UConn and minor adjustments to the amount that ESPN will be paying the AAC schools. There might be some remote possibility that ESPN would assist in the financial arrangements for UConn's $17 penalty payments. However, any changes in the amounts paid per school would be relatively minor, and there would be no significant revisions to the contract.

Interpretation B: The discussions have evolved into a slightly more substantive revision of the 12 year AAC-ESPN broadcasting agreement. The fundamentals of the 12 year contract would remain roughly the same, and there might be a few relatively minor upward or downward adjustments in the number of games to be broadcasted, broadcast times, flexibility to broadcast games, or payments to the AAC.

-One possibility is that ESPN might be seeking various concessions from the AAC, due to the loss of the UConn region's viewership, and to decrease their commitment to the AAC from $1 billion to $917 million over 12 years.

-Another possibility is that, in the wake of the MWC's new agreement with CBS & Fox, ESPN is offering to adjust slightly upward the amounts to be paid to the AAC schools, or the number of featured AAC games to be broadcasted, or both of the above.

-A third possibility is that ESPN might be offering to increase their payments to the AAC slightly, in return for more flexibility in broadcasting channels (ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN+,...), and/or times, or possibly showing some willingness to broadcast more games on the main ESPN channels in return for various concessions that the AAC might suggest.

Interpretation C: The discussions have evolved into a somewhat more substantive revision of the 12 year AAC-ESPN broadcasting agreement. ESPN might be trying to restructure the agreement in any of a number of ways. The net outcome might not be highly noticeable on a year over year basis, but ESPN and the AAC might each try to make various adjustments in payments and broadcasting details, or the provisions regarding any future adjustments (additions or subtractions) in the number of AAC schools.

Interpretation D: The discussions may be evolving into what will amount to a full or major renegotiation of the AAC-ESPN broadcasting agreement.

-The AAC might be willing to renegotiate certain aspects of the broadcasting agreement if ESPN has signaled any willingness to sweeten the deal, now that the MWC has gotten such a large upward adjustment in their media payments, with the possibility of another upward adjustment in 2006.

--For example, it might be possible that ESPN has signaled a willingness to pay the contractually agreed $83 million per year to the AAC (despite the loss of UConn) for all 12 years, or at least until UConn is replaced, or they might with to put certain incentives into the contract that will increase the likelihood that UConn FB will be replaced with a FB program that will boost ESPN's income significantly higher.

--ESPN might (possibly) have some interest in renegotiating the contract, due to any concerns they might have about the loss of UConn and viewership in the northeastern region, potential additions or subtractions to the AAC membership, and related issues.

--Though it seems unlikely, if the discussions evolve into a full-scale renegotiation, there might even be some inclination to adjust the duration of the broadcasting agreement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, there is some possibility that all three of these topics are being discussed by ESPN and the AAC Commissioner - - just as they are also being discussed in this thread and related threads.

Does this summarize the situation fairly well from your standpoint, and if not, how else might you summarize what you think might be going on?

Clampett:
I’m starting to get worried about you.
You are a combo of DaveySt, Quo and Todge—one hellava scary combo

(02-17-2020 07:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Clampett:
I’m starting to get worried about you.
You are a combo of DaveySt, Quo and Todge—one hellava scary combo

The hair on the back of my neck just stood up.

(02-17-2020 09:12 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 07:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Clampett:
I’m starting to get worried about you.
You are a combo of DaveySt, Quo and Todge—one hellava scary combo

The hair on the back of my neck just stood up.

Throw in some bigeasthomer and then worry

I get it some here deslike BigEastHomer but he needs to be set free.

(02-18-2020 03:25 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  I get it some here deslike BigEastHomer but he needs to be set free.

I did set you free. We are friends now aren’t we?

Pony94 wrote (see above):

Clampett:
I’m starting to get worried about you.
You are a combo of DaveySt, Quo and Todge—one hellava scary combo
[/quote]

To Pony94:

You're the only moderator of this message that has ever expressed criticism of any of my posts. As you will note, I have a "first class" reputation score of 46, as of midnight today, and this demonstrates that my posts have generally been of interest and well received. I'm certainly trying to be supportive of the conference and of each school in it, and to make a positive contribution to this community of AAC fans.

The purpose of the post above that you have taken to task was to make it clear that there has been some difficulty keeping the topics of UConn's departure penalties payments and the changes in media payments that may result given the departure of UConn.

No one who has written about these topics has claimed to know exactly where things stand. There are many opinions and interpretations on the matter, but it seems that everyone has been speculating to some degree.

The readers are college sports fans, and most of them have graduated from or attended college. Thus, they are fully capable of reading a 1,000 or 1,500 word essay. Those who prefer not to do so are free to to such a post or thread altogether.

.
Another concern to Pony94 (FW: to the other moderators)

Going forward, please refrain from objecting to informative and thought-provoking posts that the other moderators have not objected to, or deleting such posts, or moving them into the "Off Topic" section.

In addition, I request that you cease from writing what amount to gratuitously personal insults.

Here's an example of the objectionably personal insults or harassment that you have directed toward me, above:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pony 94 wrote:

"I’m starting to get worried about you"

(negative personal insinuation)

"You are a combo of DaveySt, Quo and Todge—one hellava scary combo."

(unduly personal insult or harassment)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not the thoughtful and professional way that a website moderator is expected to handle his duties. I would ask your fellow moderators to consider whether this is a reasonable request and come to some kind of agreement about other ways to provide feedback without personal insults or harassment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: The AAC message board moderators.

Pony94 has objected to the above post, and has made personally insulting remarks in his critical response above, which are generally considered unprofessional and which don't fit in the best spirit of your excellent website.

I would respectfully ask you all, as a group, to come up with an agreement or set a policy for the moderators about the importance of providing feedback to writers without leveling personal insults and without personal insinuations such as the one that was written above (quote: "I’m starting to get worried about you").

I would also request that the moderators - as a group - please consider not moving any threads into the "Off Topic" section unless they have nothing to do with the AAC.

If the moderators should decide - as a policy - that threads about the future of the AAC (e.g., schools that might join the AAC, the optimal number of AAC schools, possibilities of realignment, potential P6 status for the conference, possible improvements in media payments) should be listed under a new heading, please consider giving it an appropriate title, such as "Discussions about the future of the conference," rather than putting them into the "Off Topic" section.

On another topic, while one of the things that makes this message board interesting and popular is the diversity of posts, including posts exceeding 1,000 words, there is one moderator who has raised strong objections to posts that exceed a certain word count.

Other moderators have - I believe appropriately - been more tolerant and have not objected to the lengthier posts.

If there is a policy against posting a thread with more than 1,000 words, it may be helpful to consider adjusting the website algorithm to prevent posts from exceeding that number of words.

Another option - - if there is a policy to have fewer long posts - - might be to limit the number of long posts that a member can make each month.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(02-18-2020 07:21 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  Pony94 wrote (see above):

Clampett:
I’m starting to get worried about you.
You are a combo of DaveySt, Quo and Todge—one hellava scary combo

To Pony94:

You're the only moderator of this message that has ever expressed criticism of any of my posts. As you will note, I have a "first class" reputation score of 46, as of midnight today, and this demonstrates that my posts have generally been of interest and well received. I'm certainly trying to be supportive of the conference and of each school in it, and to make a positive contribution to this community of AAC fans.

The purpose of the post above that you have taken to task was to make it clear that there has been some difficulty keeping the topics of UConn's departure penalties payments and the changes in media payments that may result given the departure of UConn.

No one who has written about these topics has claimed to know exactly where things stand. There are many opinions and interpretations on the matter, but it seems that everyone has been speculating to some degree.

The readers are college sports fans, and most of them have graduated from or attended college. Thus, they are fully capable of reading a 1,000 or 1,500 word essay. Those who prefer not to do so are free to to such a post or thread altogether.

.
Another concern to Pony94 (FW: to the other moderators)

Going forward, please refrain from objecting to informative and thought-provoking posts that the other moderators have not objected to, or deleting such posts, or moving them into the "Off Topic" section.

In addition, I request that you cease from writing what amount to gratuitously personal insults.

Here's an example of the objectionably personal insults or harassment that you have directed toward me, above:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pony 94 wrote:

"I’m starting to get worried about you"

(negative personal insinuation)

"You are a combo of DaveySt, Quo and Todge—one hellava scary combo."

(unduly personal insult or harassment)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:This is not the thoughtful and professional way that a website moderator is expected to handle his duties. I would ask your fellow moderators to consider whether this is a reasonable request and come to some kind of agreement about other ways to provide feedback without personal insults or harassment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: The AAC message board moderators.

Pony94 has objected to the above post, and has made personally insulting remarks in his critical response above, which are generally considered unprofessional and which don't fit in the best spirit of your excellent website.

I would respectfully ask you all, as a group, to come up with an agreement or set a policy for the moderators about the importance of providing feedback to writers without leveling personal insults and without personal insinuations such as the one that was written above (quote: "I’m starting to get worried about you").

I would also request that the moderators - as a group - please consider not moving any threads into the "Off Topic" section unless they have nothing to do with the AAC.

If the moderators should decide - as a policy - that threads about the future of the AAC (e.g., schools that might join the AAC, the optimal number of AAC schools, possibilities of realignment, potential P6 status for the conference, possible improvements in media payments) should be listed under a new heading, please consider giving it an appropriate title, such as "Discussions about the future of the conference," rather than putting them into the "Off Topic" section.

On another topic, while one of the things that makes this message board interesting and popular is the diversity of posts, including posts exceeding 1,000 words, there is one moderator who has raised strong objections to posts that exceed a certain word count.

Other moderators have - I believe appropriately - been more tolerant and have not objected to the lengthier posts.

If there is a policy against posting a thread with more than 1,000 words, it may be helpful to consider adjusting the website algorithm to prevent posts from exceeding that number of words.

Another option - - if there is a policy to have fewer long posts - - might be to limit the number of long posts that a member can make each month.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C'mon now---I think you might need to check the batteries in your humor detector. Also, please turn on your Private Message option. Thats really the proper avenue for this type of thing.