SU...Syracuse, which is private but it's in NY so it reminds me of the SUNY schools even though they have nothing to do with each other.
Duh
Upvote
0
-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter Mike80
- Start date
SU...Syracuse, which is private but it's in NY so it reminds me of the SUNY schools even though they have nothing to do with each other.
Duh
I thought I was because Billie Holiday performed “On the SUNY side of the street” at the Apollo Theater, which is in New York.
Upvote
0
From the 11W article on this today. The most detail I have seen yet on this:
This reads like their version of "spinning off the sports" as we have discussed above.
That's why you need a couple of Billion dollars. It's a new venture so debt is a bad idea, you don't want to use the school's cash so you spin up a new thing that concentrates on big time pro sports and entertainment. You leave the Big Ten and it's member institutions to focus on the business of being a University.
This reads like their version of "spinning off the sports" as we have discussed above.
That's why you need a couple of Billion dollars. It's a new venture so debt is a bad idea, you don't want to use the school's cash so you spin up a new thing that concentrates on big time pro sports and entertainment. You leave the Big Ten and it's member institutions to focus on the business of being a University.
Upvote
0
DZ83CK
Not Banned
https://www.espn.com/college-sports...uestion-proposed-big-ten-private-capital-deal
Latest report is UM and USC are holding up the deal, for now. We'll see if they continue to question it or give in. It appears the likes of Rutgers and Maryland want to get more cash to try and compete with the SEC in football, so that's cited as the motivation for this deal. Do we really need mid B1G teams wagging the dog here? For the true big boy football programs in the B1G, it is more of a liability to throw a financial lifeline to your competition within the conference while simultaneously sacrificing more of your ownership rights/money & future freedoms. It doesn't make much sense for the true football powers to go out of your way to give the uppity mid programs more money when you don't really need more yourself. For many of these programs, college sports has become a money pit, you want more money but you've got to stop acting like you're in an arms race at some point and accept that you're Rutgers, not Florida.
Latest report is UM and USC are holding up the deal, for now. We'll see if they continue to question it or give in. It appears the likes of Rutgers and Maryland want to get more cash to try and compete with the SEC in football, so that's cited as the motivation for this deal. Do we really need mid B1G teams wagging the dog here? For the true big boy football programs in the B1G, it is more of a liability to throw a financial lifeline to your competition within the conference while simultaneously sacrificing more of your ownership rights/money & future freedoms. It doesn't make much sense for the true football powers to go out of your way to give the uppity mid programs more money when you don't really need more yourself. For many of these programs, college sports has become a money pit, you want more money but you've got to stop acting like you're in an arms race at some point and accept that you're Rutgers, not Florida.
Upvote
0
I think that awareness is step two towards the eventual “premier league” type structure.
OR
This is where the big guys ownership gets cheap, gives up the advantage and joins some 30-ish member league with a salary cap as part of their CBA.
I hope for the former.
Upvote
0
ScriptOhio
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
No vote on Big Ten capital deal; some urge caution
A decision on the Big Ten's proposed private capital deal does not appear imminent in the wake of a Thursday meeting of the league's presidents and chancellors. Some critics of the proposal labeled it as "reckless" and urged caution before proceeding.
Proposed Big Ten private capital deal in holding pattern
A decision on the Big Ten's proposed private capital deal does not appear imminent in the wake of a Thursday meeting of the league's presidents and chancellors.No vote was taken on the conference call, as leagues rarely do so on any issue that won't be unanimously approved.
The Big Ten said in a statement that conversations are ongoing.
Earlier Thursday, University of Michigan regents criticized the proposed deal, illustrating how tenuous completing it will be. Regent Mark Bernstein dubbed the deal "a payday loan." Another regent, Jordan Acker, compared it to opening a new credit card to pay off debt.
.
.
.
At a previously scheduled meeting of Michigan trustees, multiple regents blasted the proposal as shortsighted and not addressing college athletics' underlying spending problem. Acker said it was the latest short-term strategy to raise money. He noted the league has expanded four times since 2011 to generate more revenue but again is being told it has to rush into another deal.
"Now, we have to do this deal; giving away 10% of future media revenue for the next 21 years even though no one knows what college athletics or media will look like?" Acker said.
Acker brought up regrets inside the ACC for a 2013 deal that extended its grant of rights through 2036.
"The ACC once thought a long-term deal was a good idea," he said. "Within a few years, they were suing each other."
Acker said Michigan hired third-party "consultants and banks," including the multinational financial institution Barclays, and all were "unequivocal in their opposition. They recommend different ways to address deficits and raise money. They say we can do it more efficiently without selling assets."
"We understand the responsibility to lift all boats and to help schools that need money to get that money," Acker said. "It just has to be on the best financial terms possible. The Big Ten doesn't need to be sold to save college sports. It needs to lead to save college sports."
Bernstein followed by criticizing the league for demanding quick action, claiming the "contrived urgency is mysterious." He called the deal "reckless" and a "payday loan."
"It is the job of the board to protect the future from the present," he said.
.
.
.
continued
Just sayin': Actually someone from scUM making sense.
Upvote
0
He's not on the Epstein file. He's responsible for it. Fucking scumbag pedo piece of garbage. Hope his house burns down with him in it.
Upvote
0
CincyInterloper
Hall of Fame
The thing I don’t understand is that the B1G is generating more revenue than ever, and yet it seems to have more members claiming they need more money to compete than ever. I don’t remember this being an issue before expansion. Is it a matter of the perennial doormats thinking they too could be Ohio State if only they had more money? Is the way athlete compensation is being managed (or not being managed) fueling the discontent?No vote on Big Ten capital deal; some urge caution
A decision on the Big Ten's proposed private capital deal does not appear imminent in the wake of a Thursday meeting of the league's presidents and chancellors. Some critics of the proposal labeled it as "reckless" and urged caution before proceeding.www.espn.com
Proposed Big Ten private capital deal in holding pattern
A decision on the Big Ten's proposed private capital deal does not appear imminent in the wake of a Thursday meeting of the league's presidents and chancellors.
No vote was taken on the conference call, as leagues rarely do so on any issue that won't be unanimously approved.
The Big Ten said in a statement that conversations are ongoing.
Earlier Thursday, University of Michigan regents criticized the proposed deal, illustrating how tenuous completing it will be. Regent Mark Bernstein dubbed the deal "a payday loan." Another regent, Jordan Acker, compared it to opening a new credit card to pay off debt.
.
.
.
At a previously scheduled meeting of Michigan trustees, multiple regents blasted the proposal as shortsighted and not addressing college athletics' underlying spending problem. Acker said it was the latest short-term strategy to raise money. He noted the league has expanded four times since 2011 to generate more revenue but again is being told it has to rush into another deal.
"Now, we have to do this deal; giving away 10% of future media revenue for the next 21 years even though no one knows what college athletics or media will look like?" Acker said.
Acker brought up regrets inside the ACC for a 2013 deal that extended its grant of rights through 2036.
"The ACC once thought a long-term deal was a good idea," he said. "Within a few years, they were suing each other."
Acker said Michigan hired third-party "consultants and banks," including the multinational financial institution Barclays, and all were "unequivocal in their opposition. They recommend different ways to address deficits and raise money. They say we can do it more efficiently without selling assets."
"We understand the responsibility to lift all boats and to help schools that need money to get that money," Acker said. "It just has to be on the best financial terms possible. The Big Ten doesn't need to be sold to save college sports. It needs to lead to save college sports."
Bernstein followed by criticizing the league for demanding quick action, claiming the "contrived urgency is mysterious." He called the deal "reckless" and a "payday loan."
"It is the job of the board to protect the future from the present," he said.
.
.
.
continued
Just sayin': Actually someone from scUM making sense.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
calibuck
Too soon old, too late smart
Probably. Several/many(?) athletic programs are bleeding money, from what everyone above is saying. If the university puts $ in the athletic programs, (net contributor), then cannot be spent on students. tOSU is one of the few that kicks cash into the general fund, and is paying for all their own capital improvements. Most cannot say that. And of course, the NIL/portal has added a new spending element to programs that are otherwise strapped for cash. Of course the 'big boys' are looking for a larger share of the pie, versus the equal shares that have been given from TV revenues. No one can argue that Northwestern deserves an equal share of TV revenues than tOSU/Michigan and ? A USC, while has a glorious history, hasn't done much in the past decade, but isn't hesitant in calling themselves a 'blueblood' and brings in many TV subscriptions from their major media market, and demanding (?) a larger share. Plus, this is one-time money. Should be spent on one-time expenses, but would bet the ranch that most schools will put into NIL, or other expenses that are on-going (never spend one-time money on things that eat ((ie recurring expenses)) ). This sounds like a problem for a McKinsey & Co to noodle out, but will boil down to making the big revenue generators happy. Ultimately giving this 'bond' a 1/20th share of the revenues (TV or ? - unclear what goes into this pot), will hurt those schools that get a reduced piece of the $2B, unless the one-time payout is sized to be paid back in other than 1/20th fractions. (not real clear, I know, but if you get more than equal shares, say tOSU and Xichigan get 20% of the pie, then they should pay back 20% of the annual payment).
Upvote
0
TampaBuckeyes
Assistant Coach
It’s the added $20M in payments to athletes that they are trying to secure combined with runaway coaching salaries. It appears to be a coaches market with insane salaries and ridiculous buyouts.
Add on the inflated cost of construction and maintenance over the last 5 years.
Upvote
0
TampaBuckeyes
Assistant Coach
Looks like scum is going to save us from ourselves. About time they did something useful.No vote on Big Ten capital deal; some urge caution
A decision on the Big Ten's proposed private capital deal does not appear imminent in the wake of a Thursday meeting of the league's presidents and chancellors. Some critics of the proposal labeled it as "reckless" and urged caution before proceeding.Proposed Big Ten private capital deal in holding pattern
A decision on the Big Ten's proposed private capital deal does not appear imminent in the wake of a Thursday meeting of the league's presidents and chancellors.
No vote was taken on the conference call, as leagues rarely do so on any issue that won't be unanimously approved.
The Big Ten said in a statement that conversations are ongoing.
Earlier Thursday, University of Michigan regents criticized the proposed deal, illustrating how tenuous completing it will be. Regent Mark Bernstein dubbed the deal "a payday loan." Another regent, Jordan Acker, compared it to opening a new credit card to pay off debt.
.
.
.
At a previously scheduled meeting of Michigan trustees, multiple regents blasted the proposal as shortsighted and not addressing college athletics' underlying spending problem. Acker said it was the latest short-term strategy to raise money. He noted the league has expanded four times since 2011 to generate more revenue but again is being told it has to rush into another deal.
"Now, we have to do this deal; giving away 10% of future media revenue for the next 21 years even though no one knows what college athletics or media will look like?" Acker said.
Acker brought up regrets inside the ACC for a 2013 deal that extended its grant of rights through 2036.
"The ACC once thought a long-term deal was a good idea," he said. "Within a few years, they were suing each other."
Acker said Michigan hired third-party "consultants and banks," including the multinational financial institution Barclays, and all were "unequivocal in their opposition. They recommend different ways to address deficits and raise money. They say we can do it more efficiently without selling assets."
"We understand the responsibility to lift all boats and to help schools that need money to get that money," Acker said. "It just has to be on the best financial terms possible. The Big Ten doesn't need to be sold to save college sports. It needs to lead to save college sports."
Bernstein followed by criticizing the league for demanding quick action, claiming the "contrived urgency is mysterious." He called the deal "reckless" and a "payday loan."
"It is the job of the board to protect the future from the present," he said.
.
.
.
continued
Just sayin': Actually someone from scUM making sense.
Upvote
0
You guys really think they are doing this to save the B1G or because they are the only ones smart enough to see something no one else does? Tsun is all of a sudden the grown up in the room of institutions?
They are posturing. They are trying to make a better cut for themselves. Look at the language they are using, it's rhetoric and it's aimed at deal terms not the question of doing it or not.
Barclays has been the "multinational financial institution" of rouge nation states, criminal organizations and narco's since forever.
If you paid them to consult, hopefully it was for a solution to money laundering problems.
They are posturing. They are trying to make a better cut for themselves. Look at the language they are using, it's rhetoric and it's aimed at deal terms not the question of doing it or not.
Barclays has been the "multinational financial institution" of rouge nation states, criminal organizations and narco's since forever.
If you paid them to consult, hopefully it was for a solution to money laundering problems.
Upvote
0
I mean its not the 1800s. You could substitute pretty much any multinational bank and their hands are just as dirty. In a just society they'd all be against the fuckin wall. Its not like BoA, Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, Citi, HSBC, Wachovia etc etc etc all haven't been brought to jus...lmao I can't even fake it....been fined a small fraction of their profits for laundering money for Narcos. Thats JUST Narco collaborators and just some and just the last decade or so
Upvote
0