Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[SPEmaw]

So, as earnest as my friends from ku are, they are misinformed?  Could it be true that ku fans, in sharing information about their alma mater about themselves, would exchange faulty info?  Color me surprised.

Their point does mesh with a talking point, espoused on these boards by Beems, that football is going away, and will be replaced as the dominant collegiate sport with basketball.  This will therefore make ku, the inventor of basketball and the most famous basketball team the world, the most coveted university in conference realignment.  Just want to make sure I understand their perspective properly.

Thanks for the rational answer.

I believe part of the issue KU fans face is that they make false equivalencies between their own university's revenue streams and conference revenue streams.  Go figure KU fans have blinders on to the way things work in the real world.

I bet KU's zulu queen wrote some letter to the big 10 like this:

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/05/how-not-to-write-a-cover-letter/

[scottwildcat]

So Basically elite schools like K-State and Texas are rich? and pud schools like KU Mizzou and Colorado are poor? Did i summarize everything okay?

[Katpappy]

Effin KU!


[attachment deleted by admin]

[eastcat]

Effin KU!

LOL @ Connecticut 

[Skipper44]

Effin KU!

LOL @ Connecticut 

also Nevada

[Katpappy]

Wonder what Self makes? 

[bones129]

Wonder what Self makes? 

More than I do.

[MakeItRain]

Effin KU!

LOL @ Connecticut 

You're surprised by that? As far as coaches go Connecticut is way down on the list.

1. Mike Rice was the highest paid state employee in Jersey
2. The damn hockey coach in New Hampshire makes more than the university president? They aren't even that good.
3. Jerry Kill made the same amount of money as Tubby Smith? Either Tubby was dirt cheap or sorry ass Jerry Kill is grossly overpaid
4. Bo Ryan made more than Bielma
5. Billy Donovan made more than the football coaches at Florida and FSU
6. I believe USC is private??? Only rational explanation for Ben Howland making more money than Lane Kiffin, surely he didn't.

I would love to know where this came from so I can read the corresponding text, I'm interested in why there are notes for Bill O'Brien and Dan Mullen.

[MakeItRain]

Also I wonder who on here is the lowest paid coach, not counting the UNH hockey coach. It has to be either the University of Rhode Island basketball coach or the University of Wyoming Football coach.

[jc_jax]

Florida is really surprising.

[Hurricane Cat]

Relative influence of Bowlsby among conference commissioners:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1630229-power-ranking-the-most-influential-conference-commissioners

bleacherreport, did not click

Good advice

Do not have 30 spare minutes to open the additional 40 pages or so it would take to read a bleacherreport ranking list...

[Panjandrum]

Florida is really surprising.

They had to pay Billy Donovan to not coach the Orlando Magic, or something like that.  I can't remember exactly how that went down.

Long story short is that it keeps him from coaching in the NBA.

[TheHamburglar]

Does anyone else have the feeling that in the eyes of OU and UT the current Big12 exists only as a means to make money for the next ten years and that's it?  I do. With that in mind, shouldn't KSU be planning for the next round of conference realignment and start to work on what we can control.  One major strike against KSU is our number of sports, or lack there of.  We are going to be making a lot more in the next 10 years than we are used to.  From a strategic standpoint for the entire AD for potential conference membership, shouldn't we look into adding programs.  Men's and women's soccer would be easy adds and women's softball wouldn't be much harder. Sorry, but the only way the Big12 stays together is if 10 years it is still the best option for OU and UT, and there are so many potential variables there is no way to start to predict what the landscape might look like. Starting up programs is a multi-year process. If we want to plan for the worst case scenario, now is the time to prep for it.

[steve dave]

Does anyone else have the feeling that in the eyes of OU and UT the current Big12 exists only as a means to make money for the next ten years and that's it?  I do. With that in mind, shouldn't KSU be planning for the next round of conference realignment and start to work on what we can control.  One major strike against KSU is our number of sports, or lack there of.  We are going to be making a lot more in the next 10 years than we are used to.  From a strategic standpoint for the entire AD for potential conference membership, shouldn't we look into adding programs.  Men's and women's soccer would be easy adds and women's softball wouldn't be much harder. Sorry, but the only way the Big12 stays together is if 10 years it is still the best option for OU and UT, and there are so many potential variables there is no way to start to predict what the landscape might look like. Starting up programs is a multi-year process. If we want to plan for the worst case scenario, now is the time to prep for it.

good post

[scottwildcat]

Does anyone else have the feeling that in the eyes of OU and UT the current Big12 exists only as a means to make money for the next ten years and that's it?  I do. With that in mind, shouldn't KSU be planning for the next round of conference realignment and start to work on what we can control.  One major strike against KSU is our number of sports, or lack there of.  We are going to be making a lot more in the next 10 years than we are used to.  From a strategic standpoint for the entire AD for potential conference membership, shouldn't we look into adding programs.  Men's and women's soccer would be easy adds and women's softball wouldn't be much harder. Sorry, but the only way the Big12 stays together is if 10 years it is still the best option for OU and UT, and there are so many potential variables there is no way to start to predict what the landscape might look like. Starting up programs is a multi-year process. If we want to plan for the worst case scenario, now is the time to prep for it.

Do I disagree with you? Nope. Can i 100% guarantee that adding new sports are off the table and won't happen in the next 10 years? Yes I can.

[Panjandrum]

Does anyone else have the feeling that in the eyes of OU and UT the current Big12 exists only as a means to make money for the next ten years and that's it?  I do. With that in mind, shouldn't KSU be planning for the next round of conference realignment and start to work on what we can control.  One major strike against KSU is our number of sports, or lack there of.  We are going to be making a lot more in the next 10 years than we are used to.  From a strategic standpoint for the entire AD for potential conference membership, shouldn't we look into adding programs.  Men's and women's soccer would be easy adds and women's softball wouldn't be much harder. Sorry, but the only way the Big12 stays together is if 10 years it is still the best option for OU and UT, and there are so many potential variables there is no way to start to predict what the landscape might look like. Starting up programs is a multi-year process. If we want to plan for the worst case scenario, now is the time to prep for it.

I disagree.  Adding sports takes away potential money for revenue sports and capital improvement projects that will be critical for the next stage of realignment.  If we really need to add sports, we'll just put a mitigation plan in place with the conference we're joining and say, "With the money we'll get by joining your conference, this is what we'll do to add X, Y, and Z."

The most important thing is to stay good in football and make sure the whole 2025 plan increases our academic standing.

Regardless, if the Big 12 folds, I don't have a lot of concerns about our future.  The ACC will need 1-2 schools, the Big Ten will need a couple of schools, the SEC will need a couple of schools, and the Pac-12 will need a few schools.  There's like 8-10 spots left if we're the one left behind.  Stay competitive in football and we'll be alright.  The schools that need to be scared are TCU and Baylor.

Say that the Pac-12 wants to take Texas, Tech, OU, and OSU (16).  Then the Big Ten takes Kansas and UConn (16).  The ACC takes WVU (16).  The SEC's choices are Baylor, TCU, KSU, and Iowa State.  They obviously won't take two schools from Texas; that's redundant.  They definitely won't take Iowa State.  So, in this scenario, we'd be a part of some Northwestern pod with Mizzou, Arky, and A&M.

Or you can run different scenarios.  Either way, football is going to drive the bus, so adding sports that will potentially siphon away resources from football is a bad idea.

[scottwildcat]

Does anyone else have the feeling that in the eyes of OU and UT the current Big12 exists only as a means to make money for the next ten years and that's it?  I do. With that in mind, shouldn't KSU be planning for the next round of conference realignment and start to work on what we can control.  One major strike against KSU is our number of sports, or lack there of.  We are going to be making a lot more in the next 10 years than we are used to.  From a strategic standpoint for the entire AD for potential conference membership, shouldn't we look into adding programs.  Men's and women's soccer would be easy adds and women's softball wouldn't be much harder. Sorry, but the only way the Big12 stays together is if 10 years it is still the best option for OU and UT, and there are so many potential variables there is no way to start to predict what the landscape might look like. Starting up programs is a multi-year process. If we want to plan for the worst case scenario, now is the time to prep for it.

I disagree.  Adding sports takes away potential money for revenue sports and capital improvement projects that will be critical for the next stage of realignment.  If we really need to add sports, we'll just put a mitigation plan in place with the conference we're joining and say, "With the money we'll get by joining your conference, this is what we'll do to add X, Y, and Z."

The most important thing is to stay good in football and make sure the whole 2025 plan increases our academic standing.

Regardless, if the Big 12 folds, I don't have a lot of concerns about our future.  The ACC will need 1-2 schools, the Big Ten will need a couple of schools, the SEC will need a couple of schools, and the Pac-12 will need a few schools.  There's like 8-10 spots left if we're the one left behind.  Stay competitive in football and we'll be alright.  The schools that need to be scared are TCU and Baylor.

Say that the Pac-12 wants to take Texas, Tech, OU, and OSU (16).  Then the Big Ten takes Kansas and UConn (16).  The ACC takes WVU (16).  The SEC's choices are Baylor, TCU, KSU, and Iowa State.  They obviously won't take two schools from Texas; that's redundant.  They definitely won't take Iowa State.  So, in this scenario, we'd be a part of some Northwestern pod with Mizzou, Arky, and A&M.

Or you can run different scenarios.  Either way, football is going to drive the bus, so adding sports that will potentially siphon away resources from football is a bad idea.

Don't worry we aren't adding sports.

[Skipper44]

I share some of the same fears that theHamburglar posted and will add fan unrest due to UT sucking(relatively) and OU's "big game" problems as possible catalysts for major change.  When the GoR is up, there will definitely be a new AD in Austin that most likely will not have Big 8 ties and the same situation in Norman could be true as well.  UT, for all it's resources, has had some long lulls between playing elite football and we may be entering one of those lulls now. 

Obviously, we can't do anything about OU and UT only what happens in MHK and I think taking the stadium to 60k+ is one of the few ways we could differentiate ourselves from KU, BU, TCU and ISU.  I know the demand is not there at $40 per seat or whatever the current average ticket price is but it might be at $20 or $15.  I can't even feel sure that a KSU that averages 8 wins a year and has a 65k stadium will guarantee a seat at the big boys table during the next go round of realignment but I do believe it will help more than additional sports that no one cares about unless we are winning.

[ChiComCat]

I share some of the same fears that theHamburglar posted and will add fan unrest due to UT sucking(relatively) and OU's "big game" problems as possible catalysts for major change.  When the GoR is up, there will definitely be a new AD in Austin that most likely will not have Big 8 ties and the same situation in Norman could be true as well.  UT, for all it's resources, has had some long lulls between playing elite football and we may be entering one of those lulls now. 

Obviously, we can't do anything about OU and UT only what happens in MHK and I think taking the stadium to 60k+ is one of the few ways we could differentiate ourselves from KU, BU, TCU and ISU.  I know the demand is not there at $40 per seat or whatever the current average ticket price is but it might be at $20 or $15.  I can't even feel sure that a KSU that averages 8 wins a year and has a 65k stadium will guarantee a seat at the big boys table during the next go round of realignment but I do believe it will help more than additional sports that no one cares about unless we are winning.

If we have to cut ticket prices in half to sell the 6k seats we would add, I can't imagine that would be considered.

["storm"nut]

Does anyone else have the feeling that in the eyes of OU and UT the current Big12 exists only as a means to make money for the next ten years and that's it?  I do. With that in mind, shouldn't KSU be planning for the next round of conference realignment and start to work on what we can control.  One major strike against KSU is our number of sports, or lack there of.  We are going to be making a lot more in the next 10 years than we are used to.  From a strategic standpoint for the entire AD for potential conference membership, shouldn't we look into adding programs.  Men's and women's soccer would be easy adds and women's softball wouldn't be much harder. Sorry, but the only way the Big12 stays together is if 10 years it is still the best option for OU and UT, and there are so many potential variables there is no way to start to predict what the landscape might look like. Starting up programs is a multi-year process. If we want to plan for the worst case scenario, now is the time to prep for it.

I disagree.  Adding sports takes away potential money for revenue sports and capital improvement projects that will be critical for the next stage of realignment.  If we really need to add sports, we'll just put a mitigation plan in place with the conference we're joining and say, "With the money we'll get by joining your conference, this is what we'll do to add X, Y, and Z."

The most important thing is to stay good in football and make sure the whole 2025 plan increases our academic standing.

Regardless, if the Big 12 folds, I don't have a lot of concerns about our future.  The ACC will need 1-2 schools, the Big Ten will need a couple of schools, the SEC will need a couple of schools, and the Pac-12 will need a few schools.  There's like 8-10 spots left if we're the one left behind.  Stay competitive in football and we'll be alright.  The schools that need to be scared are TCU and Baylor.

Say that the Pac-12 wants to take Texas, Tech, OU, and OSU (16).  Then the Big Ten takes Kansas and UConn (16).  The ACC takes WVU (16).  The SEC's choices are Baylor, TCU, KSU, and Iowa State.  They obviously won't take two schools from Texas; that's redundant.  They definitely won't take Iowa State.  So, in this scenario, we'd be a part of some Northwestern pod with Mizzou, Arky, and A&M.

Or you can run different scenarios.  Either way, football is going to drive the bus, so adding sports that will potentially siphon away resources from football is a bad idea.

Don't worry we aren't adding sports.

Agree but I would love for CC to drop a, are sure were not adding?

[Panjandrum]

Also, it's worth mentioning that Texas doesn't want to join the Pac-12.  So, that's going to complicate things because they are too academically snotty to join the SEC and they don't want the Big Ten.

Texas likes making money, but they also like having the autonomy being a part of this conference allows.  We allow them to be quasi independent, but at the same time, we fill their non-revenue sport schedule.

Now, on the flip side, I'm all for adding the required number of sports for the Big 12 and increasing academic collaboration between the universities to help create a common bond for the conference.  I'm also open to "adding" a couple of schools and "growing" them for the purposes of increasing potential markets.

[steve dave]

and they don't want the Big Ten

you're trying to talk yourself into something again

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think Texas likes where they are right now. The only real downside for them is that they don't get to play A&M anymore.

[Panjandrum]

and they don't want the Big Ten

you're trying to talk yourself into something again

Not really.  The same things that Texas disliked about the Pac-12 are the same things they dislike about the Big Ten.

Massively increased travel + decreased influence is not a Texas thing.  If anything, they'll do whatever they can to make this conference work so they can have autonomy, revenue, and influence.

[Skipper44]

I share some of the same fears that theHamburglar posted and will add fan unrest due to UT sucking(relatively) and OU's "big game" problems as possible catalysts for major change.  When the GoR is up, there will definitely be a new AD in Austin that most likely will not have Big 8 ties and the same situation in Norman could be true as well.  UT, for all it's resources, has had some long lulls between playing elite football and we may be entering one of those lulls now. 

Obviously, we can't do anything about OU and UT only what happens in MHK and I think taking the stadium to 60k+ is one of the few ways we could differentiate ourselves from KU, BU, TCU and ISU.  I know the demand is not there at $40 per seat or whatever the current average ticket price is but it might be at $20 or $15.  I can't even feel sure that a KSU that averages 8 wins a year and has a 65k stadium will guarantee a seat at the big boys table during the next go round of realignment but I do believe it will help more than additional sports that no one cares about unless we are winning.

If we have to cut ticket prices in half to sell the 6k seats we would add, I can't imagine that would be considered.

I know the math doesn't work but what else are we going to do that make us more appealing than the competition for that few spots if this thing goes to 64?  The math could work if we move the students and then sell the prime seats they are in now even though I love the atmosphere created by having the students in that location. 

Realignment has been almost exclusively about markets except for NU and their "brand".  We will never have a enough of a market to make a difference so we are left with building a brand - having the largest stadium of the "last in" group could only help our brand.   Winning will be kind of important too.