Quote in the New York Times.

...Steve Patterson, the men’s athletic director at the University of Texas, was more ruthless in describing the Big 5’s decision to break from the group. The programs outside the Big 5 aren’t pulling their weight, he said.

“We are the ones making the money and carrying the liability,” Patterson said. “The others don’t make any money. Nobody wants to watch them on TV. I don’t accept the argument that you have to have total socialism."

He said if the Division I universities on the outside looking in want to make it to the level of the Big 5, they would have to invest more in their sports programs. Or, he offered, they could simply step aside.

“They could be the University of Chicago,” he said. “And hey, a lot of parents want to send their kids there.”

The problem there, if you happen to have a child who wants to play top-level college sports, is that the University of Chicago is Division III. It dropped big-time football in 1939, troubled by the sport’s corrupting influence on academics.

The scary thing is that Patterson was really hinting at what could be the future: The Big 5 will rule college sports. Other programs, unable to keep up, would face the choice of dropping down a division or eradicating nonrevenue sports to go all in on football and basketball....

Well... we will try until we can't try anymore

He's not wrong. Painful but 100% correct.

Did the reporter tell him that no one has 'wanted' to watch his awful Texas squad either? Also, what kind of liability is he even talking about? The O'Bannon trial wasn't O'Bannon v. P5. It was O'Bannon v. NCAA.

The only thing I hate more than OU is Texas.

These people are crazy and somebody needs to stop them before ruin college sports. When the system is setup for them to make money and win how can you blame the other schools for not making money or creating interest. Heck there only a handful of schools in the power five that really define the those conferences, the rest of that group is full of schools that could be substituted with schools in the American and Mountain West and the quality of those leagues wouldn't change.

All we want is a fair system the gives every school an opportunity to compete for a national championship and enough resources to do it. Will the power five schools occupying the bottom end become targets for Texas, Ohio State, Notre Dame, and company because they are not pulling their own weight.

He makes it sound so black and white. There are some in the Cartel 5 that are liabilities, and some in the Smaller TV Contract leagues that would bring value.

Someone should ask him how feels about Baylor being the best team in Texas. And how he feels about a school from a "non P5" conference running them over last year. And how that sits, knowing that his super awesome Longhorns were run off the field by Baylor.

And please tell us more about how people are dying to watch Kansas vs Iowa State. Or Kansas State vs TCU. Or WVU vs TTU.

Yea, those programs are really "pulling their weight".

(08-11-2014 08:27 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  Quote in the New York Times.

...Steve Patterson, the men’s athletic director at the University of Texas, was more ruthless in describing the Big 5’s decision to break from the group. The programs outside the Big 5 aren’t pulling their weight, he said.

“We are the ones making the money and carrying the liability,” Patterson said. “The others don’t make any money. Nobody wants to watch them on TV. I don’t accept the argument that you have to have total socialism."

He said if the Division I universities on the outside looking in want to make it to the level of the Big 5, they would have to invest more in their sports programs. Or, he offered, they could simply step aside.

“They could be the University of Chicago,” he said. “And hey, a lot of parents want to send their kids there.”

The problem there, if you happen to have a child who wants to play top-level college sports, is that the University of Chicago is Division III. It dropped big-time football in 1939, troubled by the sport’s corrupting influence on academics.

The scary thing is that Patterson was really hinting at what could be the future: The Big 5 will rule college sports. Other programs, unable to keep up, would face the choice of dropping down a division or eradicating nonrevenue sports to go all in on football and basketball....

That's about 100 men's scholarships. Title IX isn't going to allow schools to eradicate all non-revenue sports or go all in on football and basketball.

He IS WORNG
i hate why they always generalize like sunbelt is the same as the american, like everyone in the p5 is bama and USC

Houston vs Cincy will get dramatically better rating than UNC vs Wake in football
uconn without tv money has a larger athletic than atleast 2 in every major P5 league with tv money
he is making it seem like we have the option to enter the p5 if we just invest (which is not even remotely true)

the p5 picks and chooses teams and the tells the rest to they should go the way of D3 Chicago

(08-11-2014 08:42 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 08:27 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  Quote in the New York Times.

...Steve Patterson, the men’s athletic director at the University of Texas, was more ruthless in describing the Big 5’s decision to break from the group. The programs outside the Big 5 aren’t pulling their weight, he said.

“We are the ones making the money and carrying the liability,” Patterson said. “The others don’t make any money. Nobody wants to watch them on TV. I don’t accept the argument that you have to have total socialism."

He said if the Division I universities on the outside looking in want to make it to the level of the Big 5, they would have to invest more in their sports programs. Or, he offered, they could simply step aside.

“They could be the University of Chicago,” he said. “And hey, a lot of parents want to send their kids there.”

The problem there, if you happen to have a child who wants to play top-level college sports, is that the University of Chicago is Division III. It dropped big-time football in 1939, troubled by the sport’s corrupting influence on academics.

The scary thing is that Patterson was really hinting at what could be the future: The Big 5 will rule college sports. Other programs, unable to keep up, would face the choice of dropping down a division or eradicating nonrevenue sports to go all in on football and basketball....

That's about 100 men's scholarships. Title IX isn't going to allow schools to eradicate all non-revenue sports or go all in on football and basketball.

I think Memphis should start stocking up on female kickers then... maybe that would help? haha

What a piece of trash. I'd love to smack that jackarse in the mouth.

(08-11-2014 08:46 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  What a piece of trash. I'd love to smack that jackarse in the mouth.

I can see the front page of ESPN now... Texas Athletic Director Assaulted by Disgruntled Pirate.

(08-11-2014 08:39 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  These people are crazy and somebody needs to stop them before ruin college sports. When the system is setup for them to make money and win how can you blame the other schools for not making money or creating interest. Heck there only a handful of schools in the power five that really define the those conferences, the rest of that group is full of schools that could be substituted with schools in the American and Mountain West and the quality of those leagues wouldn't change.

All we want is a fair system the gives every school an opportunity to compete for a national championship and enough resources to do it. Will the power five schools occupying the bottom end become targets for Texas, Ohio State, Notre Dame, and company because they are not pulling their own weight.

STOP IT!! THATS OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT SPORTS ARE ABOUT ANYMORE! HAVE YOU NOT BEEN LISTENING TO ESPN!!! Jeez, get with the times man...

(08-11-2014 08:48 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 08:46 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  What a piece of trash. I'd love to smack that jackarse in the mouth.

I can see the front page of ESPN now... Texas Athletic Director Assaulted by Disgruntled Pirate.

Sounds great can someone help set that up?

If he is so concerned then he should be lobbying for TCU, Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia to be kicked out.

(08-11-2014 08:42 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

Quote:Other programs, unable to keep up, would face the choice of dropping down a division or eradicating nonrevenue sports to go all in on football and basketball....[/i]

That's about 100 men's scholarships. Title IX isn't going to allow schools to eradicate all non-revenue sports or go all in on football and basketball.

It's just the men's non-revenue sports that will be relegated to non-scholarship "campus club" status. I agree the women's sports will be (mostly) untouched or even allowed to grow.

As for Patterson's comments, that doesn't really sound like a guy interested in expanding the Big <XII, does it? (And yes I realize the decision is not his to make, at least not his alone).

(08-11-2014 08:39 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  These people are crazy and somebody needs to stop them before ruin college sports.

They already have. Blame the AD's, presidents, etc. It's mostly the fault of the networks in my opinion. They were smart enough to see a low overhead product and they're cashing in on it hand over fist. This is just to shut up the players.

The love of money makes people say and do some crazy ****. Eventually the P5 will start turning on each other. Once ESPN figures out (probably already has) that a "Super League" of USC, Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St, Michigan, etc. is worth more than the current P5 alignments it won't be long.

(08-11-2014 08:50 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 08:42 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

Quote:Other programs, unable to keep up, would face the choice of dropping down a division or eradicating nonrevenue sports to go all in on football and basketball....[/i]

That's about 100 men's scholarships. Title IX isn't going to allow schools to eradicate all non-revenue sports or go all in on football and basketball.

It's just the men's non-revenue sports that will be relegated to non-scholarship "campus club" status. I agree the women's sports will be (mostly) untouched or even allowed to grow.

As for Patterson's comments, that doesn't really sound like a guy interested in expanding the Big <XII, does it? (And yes I realize the decision is not his to make, at least not his alone).

Oh I think the next step in all this (although it's probably a ways down the line) is a group of the top dogs of the P5 start to get really annoyed with the lesser P5 schools and end up kicking them out of the club.

Plantation owner criticizes sharecroppers for not being rich. What else is new.

(08-11-2014 08:27 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  Quote in the New York Times.

“We are the ones making the money and carrying the liability,” Patterson said. “The others don’t make any money. Nobody wants to watch them on TV. I don’t accept the argument that you have to have total socialism."

(08-11-2014 08:32 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  He's not wrong. Painful but 100% correct.

100%?