(07-28-2015 03:37 PM)Stammers Wrote:  We can afford to do a lot of things. The people that make those decisions would prefer not spending so much money on buying out Pastner. There are other priorities that make sense to everyone except you and the drama queens that make strange statements about the program dying, and dropping basketball.

Again, I'm not surprised that you have no clue. Up until now, you have only been able to focus on a two very broad concepts. Trying to add a 3rd is a little too ambitious for you.

Again, lots of claims, no evidence. Instead of ad hominem attacks on me, just provide some numbers, quotes from boosters, official word from conferences on expansion, anything to substantiate your claims. Perhaps that is a concept that is too ambitious for you?

(07-28-2015 03:41 PM)Collegiate Black Man Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 03:37 PM)Stammers Wrote:  We can afford to do a lot of things. The people that make those decisions would prefer not spending so much money on buying out Pastner. There are other priorities that make sense to everyone except you and the drama queens that make strange statements about the program dying, and dropping basketball.

Again, I'm not surprised that you have no clue. Up until now, you have only been able to focus on a two very broad concepts. Trying to add a 3rd is a little too ambitious for you.

Again, lots of claims, no evidence. Instead of ad hominem attacks on me, just provide some numbers, quotes from boosters, official word from conferences on expansion, anything to substantiate your claims. Perhaps that is a concept that is too ambitious for you?

You need me for this? Do you live in a bubble? Your posts belong in the Head In The Sand HOF.

Who gives a **** what the number is? If it's $25 million you will say that $15 million is enough for football. If it is $17 million you will say $7 million is enough for football. If it is $35 million you will say that $25 million is enough for football.

The evidence is that the school and everyone with any common sense knows...

1. We have to spend money on football in the next 2 years

2. The basketball program is not dying; not anywhere close

3. The potential gains by making football attractive to a major conference outweigh the potential gains by spending more money on basketball by an amount so massive, that it isn't even worth discussing.

(07-28-2015 03:27 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  Nobody knows the real figures as to what is donated by boosters, ergo it makes it impossible to "substantiate" actual dollars and cents. What we do is what Stammer pointed out earlier, and that is that every year we are starting with $18 million less to spend than the lowest paid of the P5, and that does not include ticket sales deficits, merchandise deficits, etc. To be on an equal playing field financially, our boosters would have to pony up an $18 million (at least) out of pocket to keep up, that alone almost doubles the amount of Pastner's buyout, and that is just to keep up for one year. Go drive around most P5 schools, look at their recruiting budgets, and look at what they are paying their coaches. Then compare that our facilities, recruiting budgets, and coaching salaries and you will not be asking where/why that money should be spent on the football team, it will be clearly obvious.

The other fact that we know is that the booster who would be picking up the tab of firing Pastner and hiring a new coach either A.) think he is doing good enough B.) think his buyout is to high right now to afford or C.) agree that the money and focus should be on football for the immediate future.

Thank you for some numbers, at least a guesstimate. It seems to me you are basing these numbers on what P5 conferences take in, which is what I suspected much of the P5 fantasizers are thinking. The problem with this rationale is that while the P5 schools investing this much in their programs are doing so with at least 50% TV contract money, you and your ilk are looking for this amount of investment from Boosters right now. Boosters, who you admit either think a Pastner buyout of $10 million is too expensive or would rather see that amount go to football.

The problem is that Pastner will get his money anyway, either through a buyout or by being the coach through 2020. So, the amount of his buyout isn't the problem, it is the actual contract and its guarantees. If boosters are concerned about Pasnter's buyout, why did they agree to the contract with all the guarantees? If Boosters are the ones paying Pastner, it makes no sense for them to think the buyout is too expensive, because they will be on the hook for that amount regardless, whether it is this year or over the next 5 years. So, I do not see how you can expect for boosters to invest that money in football if they are on the hook for at least that amount to Pastner, regardless.

It also makes little sense to expect the boosters to fill the TV money gap now for football in order to get in a P5 conference. If that were possible, then why do so much to get in a P5 conference in the first place? All of that extra money could be given by boosters, according to your logic. I personally don't see why boosters would give that much, nor should the school ask that much of boosters to get into P5 conference that will require that level of investment all of the time. Again, the only real motivation for this P5 push is greed, in the form of all the extra money from the TV contracts. That money sounds nice, but it is not necessary in order for the school to have a good to great athletics program, that the students and the community can support and enjoy. Will the program be rolling in the dough like say Ohio St., Texas, Oregon, of Alabama? Heck no, but does it have to? I think not, especially if it means we have to put up with 5 more years of Pastner to possibly get there. It just makes no sense.

Can't wait to see the season ticket numbers in 2020 if he's allowed to serve out the balance of his contract.

(07-28-2015 03:50 PM)Stammers Wrote:  You need me for this? Do you live in a bubble? Your posts belong in the Head In The Sand HOF.

Who gives a **** what the number is? If it's $25 million you will say that $15 million is enough for football. If it is $17 million you will say $7 million is enough for football. If it is $35 million you will say that $25 million is enough for football.

The evidence is that the school and everyone with any common sense knows...

1. We have to spend money on football in the next 2 years

2. The basketball program is not dying; not anywhere close

3. The potential gains by making football attractive to a major conference outweigh the potential gains by spending more money on basketball by an amount so massive, that it isn't even worth discussing.

See my response to Tygyrs for my answers to your claims.

"Can't wait to see the season ticket numbers in 2020 if he's allowed to serve out the balance of his contract."

Here's hoping everyone is around then.

(07-28-2015 04:51 PM)Smith Wrote:  "Can't wait to see the season ticket numbers in 2020 if he's allowed to serve out the balance of his contract."

Here's hoping everyone is around then.

I'm sure you will be on your 11th or 12th username by then.


Sorry mods couldn't resist

(07-27-2015 02:34 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 02:11 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 02:02 PM)Collegiate Black Man Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 01:07 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  I am not advocating letting the basketball program die. I would like to see Pastner gone. However, the main focus should be football, which includes immediate funding. Thus, if the decision has to be made between firing Pastner and paying for his buyout or spending the money on football in some capacity, then I do believe the money should be spent on football. If we can fire Pastner and it not impact football funds, then I am all for it.

Also, of all the teams that have been included into the P5 recently, which program had a weak football program and great basketball program? How many schools with strong basketball programs and weak football programs are being considered for P5 consideration? We tried the great basketball approach with Cal and where did that land us? Basketball simply does not matter, see TCU... It is even widely held that if the B12 broke that a school like Kansas could be in trouble in regards to finding a new P5 home, and they are a "blue blood" basketball program. I would love for Memphis to be great in both, but right now we need football to be top dog. I rarely, if ever, hear basketball mentioned in criteria for expansion. I hear football mentioned in every bit of expansion talk...

Of the teams that were included in the P5 recently, who had weak basketball? TCU? After TCU who? Utah? Louisville? TCU also benefits from being in Texas, and therefore would have a much better recruiting base for football talent than Memphis would ever have. Keep in mind that there was probably more movement within the P5 than schools getting in from outside (Colorado, Nebraska, Maryland, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Miami, Boston College).

To assert that Basketball divestment (to invest in football) is more important at Memphis to get into the P5 is short sighted. One thing is that expansion talk is just that, talk. No one has made a move, and from the recent media days, no one is saying a move is even imminent. So, to say keep Pastner so that we can position football for inclusion in the P5 is counting chickens way before any eggs are hatched. Also, what Pastner is costing this university is way more than any buyout would cost, even in a pre-mature effort to get into a P5 conference. with each year of Pastner's coaching, the program gets less and less status as a place to top flight Basketball recruits to come to and get drafted. it is to appoint now where Pastner can no longer recruit nationally, which is what Cal was able to do and separates the contenders from the pretenders. This school and community has fared well without a good college football program (which I say only would get strong support in rural areas and college towns, not in a metro area like Memphis). But this school (athletically) and community without a good college basketball program.....

Short sighted is waiting until the conferences are ready to expand before we put ourselves in a position to be considered. Again, we have taken that approach and it failed miserably. I am not saying that getting football at a P5 level guarantees inclusion in the next round of expansion (which pretty much everyone recognizes as going to happen, it is just a question of when) but it at least gives us a legitimate shot. When expansion occurs and the Big Boys break away and form their own league, Memphis basketball will not matter at all if we are sitting at the Big Boy table. We will be a glorified D2 program...

It is also shortsighted to think one coach who performs at a mediocre/average level is going to forever ruin Memphis basketball. Program success far predates Cal and Pastner. We have far worse runs than we have with Pastner. Again, I think he should be fired but I do not our program falls to some unrecoverable point (see DePaul) from and two years of Pastner at the helm...

We are already on the list of expansion candidates. UCF is a one trick pony in major sports. We can't afford to also be one when the expansion wheels start turning. Without basketball prowess, we are just a UCF in a smaller market.

Expansion is a ONE TRICK PONY game. Football matters, basketball does not. Television ratings from basketball are way, way below football, thus revenue is way, way below football. If ESPN is cutting back which sport do you think they are going to scale back on? it is often said that when you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail, that is Memphis with basketball, but as has been said we tried it and it didn't work. The reality is, we aren't happy with Pastner (Mimi excluded), but Pastner is doing enough to keep it above panic mode, WHEN we have higher priorities. Even if Pastner does crater the program, basketball can be turned around quickly. Getting left on the outside CAN. NOT. BE. FIXED.

(07-28-2015 09:24 AM)Collegiate Black Man Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:34 AM)memphomike Wrote:  basketball is much easier and cheaper to fix, the decision is easy, invest in football. You can correct a basketball program with two good recruits. Those in the seats making these tuff decisions are making the right decisions for the future. Its not an easy decision cause they know basketball is important to the area.

My question again is, what further investments in football need to be made such that the school couldn't buy out Pastner's contract and fix the sinking ship that is the Basketball program?

Cost of Attendance is going to put us with a gaping hole we will have to plug, and if we get into a new league, it is likely we will not be a full revenue participant for a few years (the pay out would ramp up over time) so we would have to keep up with the Jones' through non-traditional revenue.

I can't imagine a scenario where Pastner's supposed ineptitude over the next 2 years would irreparably harm the Tiger Men's basketball program. The program has been to much lower depths, and has always recovered.

Take a breath everyone. We're not going to become Depaul. We will be fine.

(07-28-2015 03:33 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 03:09 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 03:01 PM)Collegiate Black Man Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 02:26 PM)Stammers Wrote:  ...as predicted.



Note the gray area.

Ha-Ha, nice graphic. Fact remains you have not quoted any amount of investment for football to substantiate your claim that we can't afford to buy out Pastner.


I rest my case!!!

Don't bother reasoning with him. He shouldn't still be a poster here anyway.

Collegiate Black Man and Titans3775. An interwebs dream team alliance.

I don't agree with alot of his posts, but you could unite the Nazis and Russians behind one cause.

(07-28-2015 04:15 PM)Collegiate Black Man Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 03:27 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  Nobody knows the real figures as to what is donated by boosters, ergo it makes it impossible to "substantiate" actual dollars and cents. What we do is what Stammer pointed out earlier, and that is that every year we are starting with $18 million less to spend than the lowest paid of the P5, and that does not include ticket sales deficits, merchandise deficits, etc. To be on an equal playing field financially, our boosters would have to pony up an $18 million (at least) out of pocket to keep up, that alone almost doubles the amount of Pastner's buyout, and that is just to keep up for one year. Go drive around most P5 schools, look at their recruiting budgets, and look at what they are paying their coaches. Then compare that our facilities, recruiting budgets, and coaching salaries and you will not be asking where/why that money should be spent on the football team, it will be clearly obvious.

The other fact that we know is that the booster who would be picking up the tab of firing Pastner and hiring a new coach either A.) think he is doing good enough B.) think his buyout is to high right now to afford or C.) agree that the money and focus should be on football for the immediate future.

Thank you for some numbers, at least a guesstimate. It seems to me you are basing these numbers on what P5 conferences take in, which is what I suspected much of the P5 fantasizers are thinking. The problem with this rationale is that while the P5 schools investing this much in their programs are doing so with at least 50% TV contract money, you and your ilk are looking for this amount of investment from Boosters right now. Boosters, who you admit either think a Pastner buyout of $10 million is too expensive or would rather see that amount go to football.

The problem is that Pastner will get his money anyway, either through a buyout or by being the coach through 2020. So, the amount of his buyout isn't the problem, it is the actual contract and its guarantees. If boosters are concerned about Pasnter's buyout, why did they agree to the contract with all the guarantees? If Boosters are the ones paying Pastner, it makes no sense for them to think the buyout is too expensive, because they will be on the hook for that amount regardless, whether it is this year or over the next 5 years. So, I do not see how you can expect for boosters to invest that money in football if they are on the hook for at least that amount to Pastner, regardless.

It also makes little sense to expect the boosters to fill the TV money gap now for football in order to get in a P5 conference. If that were possible, then why do so much to get in a P5 conference in the first place? All of that extra money could be given by boosters, according to your logic. I personally don't see why boosters would give that much, nor should the school ask that much of boosters to get into P5 conference that will require that level of investment all of the time. Again, the only real motivation for this P5 push is greed, in the form of all the extra money from the TV contracts. That money sounds nice, but it is not necessary in order for the school to have a good to great athletics program, that the students and the community can support and enjoy. Will the program be rolling in the dough like say Ohio St., Texas, Oregon, of Alabama? Heck no, but does it have to? I think not, especially if it means we have to put up with 5 more years of Pastner to possibly get there. It just makes no sense.

I do not expect them to do so. Thus, football funding is playing from behind, way behind. Thus, why it does not make sense to be paying for two basketball coaches salaries (plus the new coaches buyout) for the next 4 or 5 years instead of putting the funds into football, especially given the upswing we are seeing in football currently. I would really like to be great at both, but very few schools are. So, at least until expansion is finally finished, I just think football is the sport to focus on and invest in for the long term health of the Memphis athletic department as a whole.

"I'm sure you will be on your 11th or 12th username by then."

One thing about it I can always count on you for a laugh. Thanks

(07-28-2015 04:45 PM)Collegiate Black Man Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 03:50 PM)Stammers Wrote:  You need me for this? Do you live in a bubble? Your posts belong in the Head In The Sand HOF.

Who gives a **** what the number is? If it's $25 million you will say that $15 million is enough for football. If it is $17 million you will say $7 million is enough for football. If it is $35 million you will say that $25 million is enough for football.

The evidence is that the school and everyone with any common sense knows...

1. We have to spend money on football in the next 2 years

2. The basketball program is not dying; not anywhere close

3. The potential gains by making football attractive to a major conference outweigh the potential gains by spending more money on basketball by an amount so massive, that it isn't even worth discussing.

See my response to Tygyrs for my answers to your claims.

Why don't you make yourself useful for once, and come up with the numbers. YOU are the one making the bizarre claims. How about if you back up the nonsense you are trying to sell everyone.

(07-29-2015 08:43 AM)Smith Wrote:  "I'm sure you will be on your 11th or 12th username by then."

One thing about it I can always count on you for a laugh. Thanks

When you say count on him for laughs, if you mean copying and pasting the same 1-4 word nothing posts, then you are correct.

(07-29-2015 08:04 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  I do not expect them to do so. Thus, football funding is playing from behind, way behind. Thus, why it does not make sense to be paying for two basketball coaches salaries (plus the new coaches buyout) for the next 4 or 5 years instead of putting the funds into football, especially given the upswing we are seeing in football currently. I would really like to be great at both, but very few schools are. So, at least until expansion is finally finished, I just think football is the sport to focus on and invest in for the long term health of the Memphis athletic department as a whole.

Investment in football is the best path to a P5 conference, you have no contention from me on that point. To get to a P5, you and others that agree with you are willing to allow for the basketball program to suffer under Pastner in pursuit of the P5 "Golden Egg". Since funds are limited, buying out Pastner and "sufficiently" funding football to position the University for P5 expansion is not feasible, according to you.

What you are suggesting is that we can allow the basketball program to continue its downward spiral under Pastner in hopes of getting a chance to be included in a Big 12 expansion that is not even imminent. Any plans to join the Big 12 are being made with no assurances that this would even be a possibility, and if it were a possibility, the chances that Memphis would be selected are slim, even if the Football investment rivalled that of a P5 school (in that case, why would we need to be in a P5 conference?). Memphis is competing with schools like BYU, Boise State, UCF and USF who are either vastly better in football (on the field and off), in larger markets or have larger endowments.

Joining a P5 would be lucrative, but not necessary. I like what Aresco has stated that his goal with the AAC is to make it a P6 conference. I honestly would be thrilled to see more of a push to make the American better. It has the athletic talent (2 of the last 3 national Basketball Champions were in the AAC), the geographic and demographic footprint, and member schools that can really make a viable conference. Sacrificing our Basketball program to try and get in a P5 just seems short sighted to me. And being content with mediocre seasons is indeed sacrificing the basketball program, contrary to what others have said on here.

(07-29-2015 10:43 AM)Collegiate Black Man Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 08:04 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  I do not expect them to do so. Thus, football funding is playing from behind, way behind. Thus, why it does not make sense to be paying for two basketball coaches salaries (plus the new coaches buyout) for the next 4 or 5 years instead of putting the funds into football, especially given the upswing we are seeing in football currently. I would really like to be great at both, but very few schools are. So, at least until expansion is finally finished, I just think football is the sport to focus on and invest in for the long term health of the Memphis athletic department as a whole.

Investment in football is the best path to a P5 conference, you have no contention from me on that point. To get to a P5, you and others that agree with you are willing to allow for the basketball program to suffer under Pastner in pursuit of the P5 "Golden Egg". Since funds are limited, buying out Pastner and "sufficiently" funding football to position the University for P5 expansion is not feasible, according to you.

What you are suggesting is that we can allow the basketball program to continue its downward spiral under Pastner in hopes of getting a chance to be included in a Big 12 expansion that is not even imminent. Any plans to join the Big 12 are being made with no assurances that this would even be a possibility, and if it were a possibility, the chances that Memphis would be selected are slim, even if the Football investment rivalled that of a P5 school (in that case, why would we need to in a P5 conference?). Memphis is competing with schools like BYU, Boise State, UCF and USF who are either in larger markets or have larger endowments.

Joining a P5 would be lucrative, but not necessary. I like what Aresco has stated that his goal with the AAC is to make it a P6 conference. I honestly would be thrilled to see more of a push to make the American better. It has the athletic talent (2 of the last 3 national Basketball Champions were in the AAC), the geographic and demographic footprint, and member schools that can really make a viable conference. Sacrificing our Basketball program to try and get in a P5 just seems short sighted to me. And being content with mediocre seasons is indeed sacrificing the basketball program, contrary to what others have said on here.

Everyone and I mean everyone is in agreement that realignment isn't over. The Big 12 will probably do something, but even if it doesn't, either the ACC, Big Ten or $EC will do something. So your position on this makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote:Joining a P5 would be lucrative, but not necessary.

Yes, as unnecessary as making $20 million per year instead of $2 million. That makes even less sense than your first statement.

Quote: I honestly would be thrilled to see more of a push to make the American better.

The best case scenario for the AAC is to stay exactly as it is. There will be no getting better. Any teams that are added will be because better conferences will have poached its best teams. Let's assume that the AAC can get "better" with what it has. At whose expense will it be? At the expense of conferences whose schools are making $20 million versus our $2 million, or lesser conferences? Also, put into numbers what you think this potential gain could be worth. Let's say we go from $2 million to $4 million. Again, this makes zero sense.

Quote:if it were a possibility, the chances that Memphis would be selected are slim

One of the dozens of statements you have made; pulled out of your rear end, with nothing factual attached to it.

Quote:What you are suggesting is that we can allow the basketball program to continue its downward spiral under Pastner.

We will probably have the same type of season as last season. Not very good, but nowhere near a downward spiral. From 1997 - 2000 we missed the tournament 4 years in a row and went 61-58. THAT is a downward spiral. Again, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but nothing you say makes any sense.