Net I don't see any value to Cal/Stan/SMU since they would all be taking little to nothing for the first five years or so. The net for the conference would be substantial and it would help them pay the Clemsons and FSUs more money. But what about in five years when it's time to pay the three new schools? Is the ACC going to take away the uplift for FSU and Clemson, or will the new schools be stuck earning a pittance?
For the Big 12 there is no net increase and it would actually be modest loss. They'll pay the new schools more money up front, but the existing schools would get no uplift out of it and would actually have to split the remaining parts of the total payout between four additional schools. It would be a net loss for them but a much better deal for the Pac 4.
Big 12 would probably be easier on non-revenue sports because of shorter distances, including 7 other Pac schools they already go to. Though the primary concern for non-revenue sports is staying off the chopping block (which takes money).
I don't understand the donor fatigue aspect. I'd imagine donors will adapt like everyone else around the larger forces at play.
Avi shared the notion that we might lose some whales and ordinary donors, if we joined the Big 12, but, IMHO, it's much ado about nothing and more than a bit suggesting that Cal donors have fragile egos. Honestly, Big 12, as is the B!G, is heartland America and if that does not suit somebody, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Then why even entertain going there. First, they are going to fight tooth and nail not to invite the Pac 4 -- there is nothing it it for the legacy Big 12 schools. Second, we all know Cal doesn't want to go and would even lose donors (I don't understand that at all -- those donors ought to just be happy to see their school not in the MWC next year). The bottom line is neither side wants it so why do it? And after losing their resident primadonna Texas there's no doubt they don't want to add another couple of primadonnas, especially if they aren't adding any increases to the overall payouts.
I vote for the conference that gives us the most money (whatever percentage of share we're dealing with). Is there a poll choice for that?
Literally, everything else is trivial given our situation.
Great point. I would put it in terms of net takeaway, like a balance sheet, revenue versus expenses (e.g. travel).
Exactly. Gotta be net.
Net I don't see any value to Cal/Stan/SMU since they would all be taking little to nothing for the first five years or so. The net for the conference would be substantial and it would help them pay the Clemsons and FSUs more money. But what about in five years when it's time to pay the three new schools? Is the ACC going to take away the uplift for FSU and Clemson, or will the new schools be stuck earning a pittance?
For the Big 12 there is no net increase and it would actually be modest loss. They'll pay the new schools more money up front, but the existing schools would get no uplift out of it and would actually have to split the remaining parts of the total payout between four additional schools. It would be a net loss for them but a much better deal for the Pac 4.
Might want to project possible donor fatigue of Big 12 versus ACC.
Also factor the relative benefits for non-revenue sports.
Big 12 would probably be easier on non-revenue sports because of shorter distances, including 7 other Pac schools they already go to. Though the primary concern for non-revenue sports is staying off the chopping block (which takes money).
I don't understand the donor fatigue aspect. I'd imagine donors will adapt like everyone else around the larger forces at play.
Agree. Maybe there are donors trying to steer in a certain direction but seems odd they would cut off funding if Big 12.
Avi shared the notion that we might lose some whales and ordinary donors, if we joined the Big 12, but, IMHO, it's much ado about nothing and more than a bit suggesting that Cal donors have fragile egos. Honestly, Big 12, as is the B!G, is heartland America and if that does not suit somebody, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Then why even entertain going there. First, they are going to fight tooth and nail not to invite the Pac 4 -- there is nothing it it for the legacy Big 12 schools. Second, we all know Cal doesn't want to go and would even lose donors (I don't understand that at all -- those donors ought to just be happy to see their school not in the MWC next year). The bottom line is neither side wants it so why do it? And after losing their resident primadonna Texas there's no doubt they don't want to add another couple of primadonnas, especially if they aren't adding any increases to the overall payouts.
sometimes I imagine the reaction to "different (read unsavory)" is as if they were like the old actress Margaret Dumont who was in many Marx Brothers movies.https://www.lordheath.com/web_images/margaret_dumont___the_dancing_masters.jpg
That's the exact image I have in mind only set on a wrap around porch. ЁЯШЙ