|
Post by obboy13 on May 10, 2023 11:06:32 GMT -8
Swaim posted on Twitter today that 4 corners are gone to Big 12 and that the B1G wants Stanford and Cal, but will take ducks and huskies as well. Evidently, SDSU burned their chance with Wicker's comments. I don't believe this post, but because I've been a San Diego Sports fan for 50 years, I was thinking of the worst case scenario. If the 4 corners go to the B12 and Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford go to the B1G. What schools (MGC and others) would you want in the new PAC with OSU and WSU? I am thinking OSU, WSU, SDSU, FSU, UNLV, BSU, CSU, Tulane, SMU, Hawaii. That is absolutely hilarious. Where does this moron come up with this stuff? From other morons.
|
|
|
Post by sdmotohead on May 10, 2023 11:15:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by azson on May 10, 2023 15:09:29 GMT -8
Yoda could be annoying but not sure banning him was right. I mean what did he do that was so egregious? Erik/Wm wrote that he was banned from posting on this thread/topic, so I took that to mean that he was warned not to post on any "SDSU to the P12 Speculation" threads but not banned from AM entirely. That is correct. Since it offers a clarification, I will not move this post.
WLR
|
|
|
Post by gocoaztec on May 11, 2023 4:02:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gocoaztec on May 11, 2023 4:05:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by longtimesdsufan on May 11, 2023 5:30:21 GMT -8
Until UCLA learns how hard it is to play most games 2 time zones away, the money will be all that matters. I don't see them having as much success as they had in the PAC12. Lots of things can change over the next 5 years that could cause them to change their mind.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 11, 2023 6:11:40 GMT -8
Kind of an UNimpressive article. Circular reasoning, littered with typos, and nothing new to say.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 11, 2023 6:19:43 GMT -8
The only way they come back IMO is there is movement to a football only league that is national and Olympic sports are played in regional leagues. I never see them coming back for all sports.
|
|
|
Post by azteclou on May 11, 2023 7:22:55 GMT -8
Kind of an UNimpressive article. Circular reasoning, littered with typos, and nothing new to say. It’s based on this with a lot of hedging.
|
|
|
Post by jp92grad on May 11, 2023 7:41:28 GMT -8
The only way they come back IMO is there is movement to a football only league that is national and Olympic sports are played in regional leagues. I never see them coming back for all sports. I like this idea but it also brings up the old question of "do you really need the other (non-revenue) sports"? When you look at other sports, NoBody really cares about them and NOBODY goes to watch them so why have them? If they are that serious about these sports just fund the intramurals a little better and then maybe play against other local schools. This is the time to start asking these questions, sport participation is on a serious downhill slide with kids and parents putting kids them into into sports programs any more. Facts are facts, kids these days are much different then our generations and it kinda sucks if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on May 11, 2023 8:02:45 GMT -8
Kind of an UNimpressive article. Circular reasoning, littered with typos, and nothing new to say. It’s based on this with a lot of hedging. I always felt Apple TV + was a better fit anyway and still believe Apple TV will have tier 1 rights.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on May 11, 2023 9:30:02 GMT -8
at least we are back to " Insiders ' Speculators , Those in the Know , informed Sources - Podcasters, and other So Called Experts with their SPECUALTIONS / Guesses or Rumors heard through the Grapevine
|
|
|
Post by panammaniac on May 11, 2023 10:37:32 GMT -8
The only way they come back IMO is there is movement to a football only league that is national and Olympic sports are played in regional leagues. I never see them coming back for all sports. I like this idea but it also brings up the old question of "do you really need the other (non-revenue) sports"? When you look at other sports, NoBody really cares about them and NOBODY goes to watch them so why have them? If they are that serious about these sports just fund the intramurals a little better and then maybe play against other local schools. This is the time to start asking these questions, sport participation is on a serious downhill slide with kids and parents putting kids them into into sports programs any more. Facts are facts, kids these days are much different then our generations and it kinda sucks if you ask me. Simple answer: Title IX. If you play D-1 football and basketball, that's what, 98 men's scholarships that you have to offset on the women's side? Then you have baseball which does draw revenue at some schools. CSULB would probably tell you that baseball is a revenue sport, along with some of the WCC schools. So there's another dozen or so men's scholarships. Schools that support actual NCAA hockey and not club hockey - that's a revenue sport. So there's another 20 men's scholarships. In some parts of the country even weird sports like La Crosse are revenue makers. Not a lot of revenue, but it's pretty popular with some of the Big 10 and Ivy League schools. Now with all of that, you have to offset with women's sports, and none of the women's sports draw much revenue. There's a small handful of schools that draw very, very well for women's hoops, but you see very little women's hoops on TV. Women's softball does well at a small handful of schools, but you see very little women's softball on TV. So bottom line is you have to make up 150 or so women's scholarships with sports that don't really make money, while men's basketball and football pay the bills. Because of Title IX you can't just play football and basketball, and a lot of schools wouldn't want to part with some of the "smaller" sports because they're the bread and butter of their programs. And then there's the "well balanced student" argument. Schools like students who are more than just pure academic. EDIT: I do think there would be a benefit in a lot of situations to have the non/low revenue sports in more regional conferences to minimize operating expenses. But it would take a monumental change in mindset by a lot of conferences, particularly the big ones that like to keep all of their members together. For UCLA for example does it really make sense to send the tennis team to play an away match at Rutgers?
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on May 11, 2023 11:10:32 GMT -8
Kind of an UNimpressive article. Circular reasoning, littered with typos, and nothing new to say. It’s based on this with a lot of hedging. He could be right… but I also listened to a podcast with him where he said that he didn’t have any contact with the streaming folks at Amazon and Apple… unlike his long standing contacts at linear companies
|
|
|
Post by William L. Rupp on May 11, 2023 14:04:26 GMT -8
As some have already noticed, the great Yoda purge is underway. Some of the offending posts (okay, not really offending by the classical definition of that term) were just deleted. I apologize for that; those were my errors. Most of the others were move to another board. No need to look for them, since the board in question is for moderators-only.
I hope that this change has met with the approval of most members.
WLR
|
|
|
Post by jp92grad on May 11, 2023 14:08:59 GMT -8
I like this idea but it also brings up the old question of "do you really need the other (non-revenue) sports"? When you look at other sports, NoBody really cares about them and NOBODY goes to watch them so why have them? If they are that serious about these sports just fund the intramurals a little better and then maybe play against other local schools. This is the time to start asking these questions, sport participation is on a serious downhill slide with kids and parents putting kids them into into sports programs any more. Facts are facts, kids these days are much different then our generations and it kinda sucks if you ask me. Simple answer: Title IX. If you play D-1 football and basketball, that's what, 98 men's scholarships that you have to offset on the women's side? Then you have baseball which does draw revenue at some schools. CSULB would probably tell you that baseball is a revenue sport, along with some of the WCC schools. So there's another dozen or so men's scholarships. Schools that support actual NCAA hockey and not club hockey - that's a revenue sport. So there's another 20 men's scholarships. In some parts of the country even weird sports like La Crosse are revenue makers. Not a lot of revenue, but it's pretty popular with some of the Big 10 and Ivy League schools. Now with all of that, you have to offset with women's sports, and none of the women's sports draw much revenue. There's a small handful of schools that draw very, very well for women's hoops, but you see very little women's hoops on TV. Women's softball does well at a small handful of schools, but you see very little women's softball on TV. So bottom line is you have to make up 150 or so women's scholarships with sports that don't really make money, while men's basketball and football pay the bills. Because of Title IX you can't just play football and basketball, and a lot of schools wouldn't want to part with some of the "smaller" sports because they're the bread and butter of their programs. And then there's the "well balanced student" argument. Schools like students who are more than just pure academic. EDIT: I do think there would be a benefit in a lot of situations to have the non/low revenue sports in more regional conferences to minimize operating expenses. But it would take a monumental change in mindset by a lot of conferences, particularly the big ones that like to keep all of their members together. For UCLA for example does it really make sense to send the tennis team to play an away match at Rutgers? I was responding to the post about having a separate football only conference that was NOT funded by the General Fund schooling dollars. This would be done with other teams that do not use anything from said Universities so there would be no Title IV requirements where no federal or state money was used for football. This would then be a level playing field for every other sport, not exactly sure how this would work but we are headed in that direction it seems.
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on May 11, 2023 14:25:04 GMT -8
As some have already noticed, the great Yoda purge is underway. Some of the offending posts (okay, not really offending by the classical definition of that term) were just deleted. I apologize for that; those were my errors. Most of the others were move to another board. No need to look for them, since the board in question is for moderators-only.
I hope that this change has met with the approval of most members.
WLR Before this post is moved for mentioning he who shall not be named, let me just say Mahalo to you WLR and Erik for the work you do here; and while I only get one vote (or perhaps no vote) I appreciate your actions in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfred on May 11, 2023 15:27:06 GMT -8
Simple answer: Title IX. If you play D-1 football and basketball, that's what, 98 men's scholarships that you have to offset on the women's side? Then you have baseball which does draw revenue at some schools. CSULB would probably tell you that baseball is a revenue sport, along with some of the WCC schools. So there's another dozen or so men's scholarships. Schools that support actual NCAA hockey and not club hockey - that's a revenue sport. So there's another 20 men's scholarships. In some parts of the country even weird sports like La Crosse are revenue makers. Not a lot of revenue, but it's pretty popular with some of the Big 10 and Ivy League schools. Now with all of that, you have to offset with women's sports, and none of the women's sports draw much revenue. There's a small handful of schools that draw very, very well for women's hoops, but you see very little women's hoops on TV. Women's softball does well at a small handful of schools, but you see very little women's softball on TV. So bottom line is you have to make up 150 or so women's scholarships with sports that don't really make money, while men's basketball and football pay the bills. Because of Title IX you can't just play football and basketball, and a lot of schools wouldn't want to part with some of the "smaller" sports because they're the bread and butter of their programs. And then there's the "well balanced student" argument. Schools like students who are more than just pure academic. EDIT: I do think there would be a benefit in a lot of situations to have the non/low revenue sports in more regional conferences to minimize operating expenses. But it would take a monumental change in mindset by a lot of conferences, particularly the big ones that like to keep all of their members together. For UCLA for example does it really make sense to send the tennis team to play an away match at Rutgers? I was responding to the post about having a separate football only conference that was NOT funded by the General Fund schooling dollars. This would be done with other teams that do not use anything from said Universities so there would be no Title IV requirements where no federal or state money was used for football. This would then be a level playing field for every other sport, not exactly sure how this would work but we are headed in that direction it seems. They can call it the NFL,USFL or anything they want it's pro ball, not college football.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 11, 2023 15:33:15 GMT -8
As some have already noticed, the great Yoda purge is underway. Some of the offending posts (okay, not really offending by the classical definition of that term) were just deleted. I apologize for that; those were my errors. Most of the others were move to another board. No need to look for them, since the board in question is for moderators-only.
I hope that this change has met with the approval of most members.
WLR But you're keeping the original (longtimebooster) thread locked?
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on May 11, 2023 15:53:10 GMT -8
As some have already noticed, the great Yoda purge is underway. Some of the offending posts (okay, not really offending by the classical definition of that term) were just deleted. I apologize for that; those were my errors. Most of the others were move to another board. No need to look for them, since the board in question is for moderators-only.
I hope that this change has met with the approval of most members.
WLR But you're keeping the original (longtimebooster) thread locked? Don’t you have an alter ego, say myownmathskills who can handle the requisite addition for the three threads? Just funnin you MOW.
|
|