KSUFans Archives
Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: bws on June 14, 2007, 10:15:38 PM
-
http://forums.hornfans.com/php/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=football&Number=5031268&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1&vc=1
-
i love how they're leaving us out of teams to keep in the conference but colorado is still in :rolleyes:
-
i about peed my pants.
-
LOL what a fantastic thread! Great find! 2 best things about that thread.
1. UT fans bitching and wanting to go to other conferences that already have the TV revenue sharing. In other words, joining conference that already have in place what they are wanting the leave the Big 12 to avoid. Hilarious!
2. Thinking they could actually be independent, and that the BIG XII needs them, more than they need the BIG XII. No doubt the Big 12 would take a hit without UT, but even without them, they'd be a top 6 conference. UT as an independent would be a joke. Notre Dame even had to join a conference in every sport outside of football...and Notre Dame football has suffered greatly in the era of the superconference.
It's great to listen to UT fans just be themselves. Entertainment for all!
-
thats funny stuff. i love how they dont talk about us like if we're not mentioned then we will go away. only one time was our name brought up and it was a Nubb fan :loly: man i forgot how much i hate texas and how big headed all those SOBs are. i hope they go indy and fall flat on there face
-
I know I'm banging the same drum but didn't we give them about all the in-conference competition they could handle this year? They are idiots who are taking the whole thing out of proportion. They always use a Baylor-ISU football game as an example. Under no contract, under the current conditions of those programs, would that game be on TV. A few crappier ones would but I think uTIceberg is right. If you complain about the level of competition, you have to let the revenue sharing happen. If you want the money, then don't complain about the level of competition. And no team would make a go as an Independent after leaving a conference. The other NCAA teams have to let them, and once that starts it would be a free for all.
-
I think they hate us more than OU sometimes...
-
They have to beat us atleast once for it to be a rivalry....
-
the arrogance and the selfishness that thread embodies is the reason why i will NEVER live in TX. mexico can have that &@#%er, as far as i am concerned. but really, do UT people even know how much money they would be foregoing in the short-term if revenue sharing for TV was adopted? it'd be like 2 million a year. they act as if the north teams would be stealing half their AD budget away from them.
-
As history shows...
Texas left Mexico because things were crapty. Thought they could be independent, but couldn't survive and had to run to the US.
Texans always think they can be independent, but in all reality they crumble with support.
-
Texas is scared to play us now that our football program gonna make a come back and that our basketball team is going to final four
-
It's funny how no one is answering the how-would-we-lose-by-revenue-sharing question.
If they left would we still be the Big12 or we would be "The New Big10"
-
"7. CU - good all around sports, pretty big name nationally
9. Texas Tech - don't bring that much but football is rising
10. Mizzou - don't bring much cept hoops "
Colorado??? What the &@#%? Colorado was at the bottom of the big 12 last year only to be beaten for the bottom spot in FB by ISU.
Texas Tech doesn't bring that much. His name is Bobby &@#%ing Knight. He is the winningest hoops coach of all time.
When was Mizzou good at hoops? It's not even still relevant! How drunk are these &@#%ers!?! We won the Big 12 Title in FB, VB, and WBB in 2003. We beat them in both sports last year. What is wrong with you people. They act like they had no idea that there were other teams in the Big 12. And they know nothing about the teams they've actually heard of.
Colorado State? http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/6913018 good idea jackasses.
tcu? Drunks!
-
I agree with alot of your analysis kusucks but I have to say, I think tcu would be a nice addition to the conference if we could kick out Baylor. That team is the biggest drain. Of course, Arkansas would be a nice addition but I don't see why they'd leave where they are.
-
Not even ku fans are this stupid. So, you know what this means right? We officially have a rival now :dancin: (because ku won't be it)
-
Colorado State would have to make some major upgrades to be Big XII-quality. Their stadium holds about 25,000, and their facilities pale even compared to ku. Today's arms-race Big XII probably isn't the ideal locale for them.
-
Look guys - im here to make a point, no flame. you dont have to agree with it, but certainly not to flame you. I posted a very simple & direct point on our homesite- HornFans - about the whole debate on revenue sharing that has come up since the resignation of the ex-Big12 commish Kevin Weiberg -
I suggest that all Big12 members follow the model of Oklahoma State. They are not a big player but they have alumni that want to change that and significant resources have been put into their program from within. Please dont tell me that KSU or other schools dont have a "Pickens". Every school has both substantially AND relatively sucessful alumni. Thats how Texas got where we are. Anyone can do it. It is a matter of committment to long term programdevelopment.
By the way - Even though Kevin Weiberg has done some very profound things, he has preached the Big10 revenue sharing model since he came here from the Big10. He was tired of the struggle and frankly the powers that be were tired of hearing his rhetoric.
Part of the birth of the Big12 was the inception of its constitution called 'by laws'. These by laws were established to prevent radical change coming from some wind of opinion from here or there. There had/has to be 9 out of 12 institutions that were agreeable to the change. Obviously, 9 are not going to agree on a change in the by laws to include revenue sharing. This is not new. It was anticipated when the by-laws were established at the beginning of the Big12.
Some have suggested that roughly 2 million dollars per institution represents negligible investment. I tend to agree with that but I also know that THAT 2 million is not going to have a profound impact on smaller schools to compete. IMPACT will have to come from alumni. Also of note - The Big12 is not the Big10. There is much more reason to invest in revenue sharing in the Big10 due to their collective academic standing. That is a fact.
BTW - we werent aware that we are rivals, but thanks anyway.
Have a nice day.
-
BTW - we werent aware that we are rivals, but thanks anyway.
Have a nice day.
We're not rivals... you guys need to win one every now and then for that to be true. :tongue:
-
Pickens is the exception, not the rule. How many normal alumni would it take to donate $250,000,000 strictly for athletics at ANY school.
Texan's arrogance knows no boundaries, even when they think they are being diplomatic.
"I'm not flaming here, we are just that much better than you."
-
Look guys - im here to make a point, no flame. you dont have to agree with it, but certainly not to flame you. I posted a very simple & direct point on our homesite- HornFans - about the whole debate on revenue sharing that has come up since the resignation of the ex-Big12 commish Kevin Weiberg -
I suggest that all Big12 members follow the model of Oklahoma State. They are not a big player but they have alumni that want to change that and significant resources have been put into their program from within. Please dont tell me that KSU or other schools dont have a "Pickens". Every school has both substantially AND relatively sucessful alumni. Thats how Texas got where we are. Anyone can do it. It is a matter of committment to long term programdevelopment.
By the way - Even though Kevin Weiberg has done some very profound things, he has preached the Big10 revenue sharing model since he came here from the Big10. He was tired of the struggle and frankly the powers that be were tired of hearing his rhetoric.
Part of the birth of the Big12 was the inception of its constitution called 'by laws'. These by laws were established to prevent radical change coming from some wind of opinion from here or there. There had/has to be 9 out of 12 institutions that were agreeable to the change. Obviously, 9 are not going to agree on a change in the by laws to include revenue sharing. This is not new. It was anticipated when the by-laws were established at the beginning of the Big12.
Some have suggested that roughly 2 million dollars per institution represents negligible investment. I tend to agree with that but I also know that THAT 2 million is not going to have a profound impact on smaller schools to compete. IMPACT will have to come from alumni. Also of note - The Big12 is not the Big10. There is much more reason to invest in revenue sharing in the Big10 due to their collective academic standing. That is a fact.
BTW - we werent aware that we are rivals, but thanks anyway.
Have a nice day.
The only ones flaming in the Big 12 is Kansas.
:kugayfight:
-
Look guys - im here to make a point, no flame. you dont have to agree with it, but certainly not to flame you. I posted a very simple & direct point on our homesite- HornFans - about the whole debate on revenue sharing that has come up since the resignation of the ex-Big12 commish Kevin Weiberg -
I suggest that all Big12 members follow the model of Oklahoma State. They are not a big player but they have alumni that want to change that and significant resources have been put into their program from within. Please dont tell me that KSU or other schools dont have a "Pickens". Every school has both substantially AND relatively sucessful alumni. Thats how Texas got where we are. Anyone can do it. It is a matter of committment to long term programdevelopment.
By the way - Even though Kevin Weiberg has done some very profound things, he has preached the Big10 revenue sharing model since he came here from the Big10. He was tired of the struggle and frankly the powers that be were tired of hearing his rhetoric.
Part of the birth of the Big12 was the inception of its constitution called 'by laws'. These by laws were established to prevent radical change coming from some wind of opinion from here or there. There had/has to be 9 out of 12 institutions that were agreeable to the change. Obviously, 9 are not going to agree on a change in the by laws to include revenue sharing. This is not new. It was anticipated when the by-laws were established at the beginning of the Big12.
Some have suggested that roughly 2 million dollars per institution represents negligible investment. I tend to agree with that but I also know that THAT 2 million is not going to have a profound impact on smaller schools to compete. IMPACT will have to come from alumni. Also of note - The Big12 is not the Big10. There is much more reason to invest in revenue sharing in the Big10 due to their collective academic standing. That is a fact.
BTW - we werent aware that we are rivals, but thanks anyway.
Have a nice day.
:baityes: :baityes:
-
Every school has both substantially AND relatively sucessful alumni. Thats how Texas got where we are. Anyone can do it. It is a matter of committment to long term program development.
Good lord, this has to be the one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen on a sports board. Anyone can do it? Texas has more people than the rest of the Big 12 states combined. And since they are also the most popular school in that state by far, they have more money than any other school in the conference. That's not even mentioning the advantages that gives you recruiting.
Furthermore, thanks to the way you guys set up the Big 12, you get to play at least 9 games in Texas every year. Last year you played 11 out of your 13 games in Texas. The only time you had to leave your state was to play in Lincoln and Manhattan. That would be like Nebraska playing some of it's "road" games in Omaha, Kearney, and Chadron.
And have you forgotten what a mess your football program was before you joined the Big 12?
Like you said though, there's nothing to be concerned about. Any school can do what Texas does, right? :jerkoff:
-
He does make a good point though.
Is it really going to hurt Texas to lose 2 mil in revenue each year? No.
Is it really going to help K-state to gain 1 mil in revenue each year? No.
While I do firmly believe in revenue sharing, it's not nearly as big of a deal as a lot of people are making it. To really compete in the arms races(and therefore bolster recruiting, and therefore win more games) we need to increase our other sources of income - donations, ticket prices, etc. (I'm kind of a devils advocate here, because I don't want ticket prices to go up either, but when comparing ticket prices at our games to UT, UNL, OU, etc we're actually pretty fortunate.)
You're crazy if you don't think OSU is going to be one of the better teams in the Big XII in the future after all the money Pickens has donated to their athletic department.
Something I am very interested in though..
Somehow K-state was on TV 7 times(middle of the pack in the Big XII) but received the least payout. How the hell does that work?
-
He does make a good point though.
Is it really going to hurt Texas to lose 2 mil in revenue each year? No.
Is it really going to help K-state to gain 1 mil in revenue each year? No.
....
I dont think this is supposed to help teams like us... this is more for your ISU's and Baylors.
-
wildkatsphreak - kudos for the cognitive expression.
willie - [[[[[[[very-deep-breath]]]]]] uh, please explain how a [potential] equal distribution of a sum benefit ISU & Baylor more than KSU?
-
wildkatsphreak - kudos for the cognitive expression.
willie - [[[[[[[very-deep-breath]]]]]] uh, please explain how a [potential] equal distribution of a sum benefit ISU & Baylor more than KSU?
K-state is on a lot more than Baylor and ISU, even with our recent decline. I don't have numbers, but I'd be willing to bet we were on TV a lot more 97-03 than we are now.
In theory, we should be one of the "middle of the pack" teams. But somehow we're not getting crap for money, despite our TV appearances. I'm still trying to figure out how that happened.
-
phreak - I hear your frustration, but that does not answer the question I asked willie. maybe you SHOULD be the one to answer it though as you strike a reasonable tone without flames.
-
Equal distribution of revenue would theoretically help ISU and Baylor more because they're on TV less than we are, so the difference between what they would get and what they're getting now would be larger than K-state's.
Of course, the numbers are &@#%ed up somewhere if the Omaha World Herald is right and K-state gets the least out of the TV contracts.
-
Every school has both substantially AND relatively sucessful alumni. Thats how Texas got where we are. Anyone can do it. It is a matter of committment to long term program development.
Hard to find bandwagon K-State fans, unlike those to the east who have a great(in numbers only) following of people who haven't even been to Lawrence. Those who root for K-state also represent the university
-
phreak - your cognitive statement has turned to supposition. Can you link to the Omaha rag where you quote?
Most interested fans and alumni are unaware of the terms of the by-laws of the Big12 conference. Obviously the leadership as well as legal representation - ie: president, athletic director & general counsel of each institution are acutely aware, but due to the images, profiles, and assets which are different in each Big12 institution, do you see the logic why the decision makers intentionally have not and will not publicize the specifics of agreed revenue terms and other factors that impact every Big12 institution? Its comparable to why, for example, government officials do not discuss classified information. It is, as they say, on a need to know basis for the benefit of the country, in this case, for the benefit of the conference as a whole. There may be revenue agreements or other terms that benefit other Big12 institutions that "I" might find objectionable as it in some relative way effects The University of Texas.
-
longhorngirlie needs to die.
-
Something I am very interested in though..
Somehow K-state was on TV 7 times(middle of the pack in the Big XII) but received the least payout. How the hell does that work?
They're from different years, as I understand it. The last place comes from the 2004-2005 seasons. I may be wrong, but that's what my super secret sources have stated. We should be in the top 5 this year and next.
-
it's from the 05-06 season. we went into a blackhole that year. Thanks evridge! prick.
-
F'ing Bobby Elliot....
-
phreak - I hear your frustration, but that does not answer the question I asked willie. maybe you SHOULD be the one to answer it though as you strike a reasonable tone without flames.
I don't keep track of payouts or how often a team is on TV; I would assume that Baylor is on TV the least amount. If I'm incorrect in my assumptions, I'm big enough to admit that I was wrong.
Maybe I don't understand how this whole deal is working, here’s my thought process, feel free to point out my mistake.
Let's just say that each school gets $10 every time they're on TV. Which I understand each school gets a different amount, but for arguments sake, humor me.
KSU's on it 3 = $30
UT's on it 6 = $60
Baylor 1 = $10
Grand total payout between the 3 schools is $100
It is split between all three for a payout of $33.33.
You get screwed, we stay nearly the same, and Baylor triples its income. Helping put us closer to the same page and theoretically more competitive.
Also, as for flaming; when was that?
If I had been, I would have said something to the tune of: “You’re the asshat that thinks every school can match the donor output of Boone Pickens.”
Honestly, do you realize how retarded that type of thinking is?
-
Equal distribution of revenue would theoretically help ISU and Baylor more because they're on TV less than we are, so the difference between what they would get and what they're getting now would be larger than K-state's.
Of course, the numbers are &*$@!ed up somewhere if the Omaha World Herald is right and K-state gets the least out of the TV contracts.
or what phreak said.
-
willie - follow the bouncing ball -
I suggested following the oklahoma State MODEL. Model is another word for 'example', 'to immitate', or 'comparable to'. That means that while an alumni or more likely a group of alumni from a school can contribute, the idea does not assume or suggest to copy or replicate exactly dollar for dollar the Pickens donations. Most alumni outside of a Pickens does not possess said level of coin, however the PRINCIPLE would still be the same, in that the common Joe Alumni from KSU times however many past Joe Alumni you have represent volume. :popcorn:
In the real world, the point is not whether or not KSU or other chooses to follow the model. The point is that it CAN be done.
yes you did flame me above - dont blame me because you cant or wont scroll up.
-
The point is that it CAN be done.
What can be done?
Kansas State has more than showed in the 11 years of the big 12 it belongs, if you consider football to easily be priority #1.
It wasn't until 2004, till Texas passed KSU in the big 12 era.
-
willie - follow the bouncing ball -
I suggested following the oklahoma State MODEL. Model is another word for 'example', 'to immitate', or 'comparable to'. That means that while an alumni or more likely a group of alumni from a school can contribute, the idea does not assume or suggest to copy or replicate exactly dollar for dollar the Pickens donations. Most alumni outside of a Pickens does not possess said level of coin, however the PRINCIPLE would still be the same, in that the common Joe Alumni from KSU times however many past Joe Alumni you have represent volume. :popcorn:
In the real world, the point is not whether or not KSU or other chooses to follow the model. The point is that it CAN be done.
yes you did flame me above - dont blame me because you cant or wont scroll up.
I would imagine that KSU and OSU had very similar "models" in terms of fund raising until T. Boone decided to drop a quarter billion in their laps. We would gladly follow that model if you know someone interested.
-
willie - you appear to be a pretty good fella, but really willie, your reading/comprehension needs a bit of work, bud. no flame.
fat - 'it can be done' - paraphrasing means that over time, a group of alumni can make a difference to any football program if they have the desire and minimal volume of alumni.
Texas was the last SWC champion, the first Big12 champion, and has top winning percentage alltime in history of the Big12. So when you said '...it wasnt until 2004 that Texas passed KSU, were you alluding to head to head or representing the Big12?
-
Head 2 head....in the big 12 era of course.
Before 2004.
KSU 49-15
UT 47-17
Big 12 titles: 1-1
Bowls: 8-7 (KSU)
BCS/Alliance Bowls: 2-1 (KSU)
etc...
Remarkable, really.
-
In other words UT is extremely overrated and we get no respect anymore... damn i miss the days of snyder
-
God, I can't wait till the Chisholm Trail Showdown this year. UT will really want out of the conference after we rape them again :ksu:
-
I'll settle for another W over them. They will come out gunnin so if we come out with a W I will be REALLY happy
-
willie - you appear to be a pretty good fella, but really willie, your reading/comprehension needs a bit of work, bud. no flame.
I understand what you said, I'm just being realistic. Although KSU has plenty of alumni with large sums of money, a very small percentage of them would be willing to spend their money on sports. For OSU, they had ONE fanatical alumnus with huge amounts of cash AND is tired of losing to OU, so he is buying wins and we will all feel the pain, including you. No flame.
-
God, I can't wait till the Chisholm Trail Showdown this year. UT will really want out of the conference after we rape them again :ksu:
Is that the new name for our rivalry with Texas? I think I like it...
-
Actually, Texas will be due for another run of mediocrity very soon. Extended stretches in which a team is remains in the top ten year after year are very uncommon to say the least. When this occurs, TDTexas! - if that's his real name - won't be nearly as smug as he is now.
-
willie - follow the bouncing ball -
I suggested following the oklahoma State MODEL. Model is another word for 'example', 'to immitate', or 'comparable to'. That means that while an alumni or more likely a group of alumni from a school can contribute, the idea does not assume or suggest to copy or replicate exactly dollar for dollar the Pickens donations. Most alumni outside of a Pickens does not possess said level of coin, however the PRINCIPLE would still be the same, in that the common Joe Alumni from KSU times however many past Joe Alumni you have represent volume. :popcorn:
In the real world, the point is not whether or not KSU or other chooses to follow the model. The point is that it CAN be done.
yes you did flame me above - dont blame me because you cant or wont scroll up.
Here's my real flame.... ASSHAT, we do have Alumni donors that contribute to our facilities/scholarships etc and funding is already coming from within. Why the &@#% do you think its called Wagner Field? Fred Bramlage ring a bell? Vanier family? Why bring it up if you weren't trying to say we should match Pickens dollar for dollar... DONORS ARE ALREADY THERE. My god you're an idiot.
-
Why bother with reading comprehension when we can just talk out our ass about things we dont' know @#%$ about like you?
-
well I didnt come for a flame fest, so i'll be brief and out -
since you admit that you understand how it works [program growth comes from within] and you say that you do have donors, you DO understand why the by-laws were written the way they were - there will be no MORE revenue sharing outside of current agreements [bowls, etc]. Would you pass money out on a street corner because you hear rumbles of noise in the distance?
y'all take care. youre much too wound up against reality for me and this is your site.
HOOK'EM HORNS!
-
:thumbsup: See ya later! It was fun!
-
well I didnt come for a flame fest, so i'll be brief and out -
since you admit that you understand how it works [program growth comes from within] and you say that you do have donors, you DO understand why the by-laws were written the way they were - there will be no MORE revenue sharing outside of current agreements [bowls, etc]. Would you pass money out on a street corner because you hear rumbles of noise in the distance?
y'all take care. youre much too wound up against reality for me and this is your site.
HOOK'EM HORNS!
Let me help you with a good starting point. Why should we care about any of that crap?