Kansas Crimson

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:39 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:30 am you’re wasting your breath, Cnb

I am always respectful to and have honest discussion with CnB.

Don't get confused because you and douchecoach get treated differently. You get what you give.

fuck off with that nonsense

you do the same thing in most every thread - you have a narrative set in your mind and will argue ad nauseum to “prove” that you’re right despite numerous people making articulate, well thought out arguments to the contrary

you just did it with CnB’s response to you above

you’ve got the logic, reading comprehension and rhetorical prowess of a 12 year old

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:38 am Money is also tied to relevance which is tied to perception.

Fighting for 2nd or 3rd place in the Big 12 every year just looks and feels different than fighting Mizzou and Mississippi State for 7th place.

I am not sure it does in the grandscheme of things.

I think it is easy to think it does because we are big12 fans. But i think the opportunity for all the marquee matchups with the SEC powerhouses outweigh/overshadow any possible negative impact from finishing 7th in the SEC instead of 3rd in the Big12.

I think you are wrong.
( but the benefits of course, if Texas does get their shit together and is competitive, are no doubt, better than the B12 )

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:39 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:30 am you’re wasting your breath, Cnb

I am always respectful to and have honest discussion with CnB.

Don't get confused because you and douchecoach get treated differently. You get what you give.

It's just that at some point, it can't all be about chasing the money.

Extreme example, but if it were all about money, KU hoops should just go independent in basketball and build an NBA arena closer to or in KC, find tax loopholes for donors to earmark millions+ for the basketball program, and sell corporate sponsorships for every inch of the program.

That might work for a couple seasons, but it's clear there are later ramifications.


Now that said, I think the UT fans have to be really happy about the home football games they will receive plus that they are back in a conference with both of their rivals.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:43 am fuck off with that nonsense

you do the same thing in most every thread - you have a narrative set in your mind and will argue ad nauseum to “prove” that you’re right despite numerous people making articulate, well thought out arguments to the contrary

you just did it with CnB’s response to you above

you’ve got the logic, reading comprehension and rhetorical prowess of a 12 year old

Looks like you're trying your best to ruin this thread. Not me.

Not sure why you're melting down that CnB and I responded respectfully to each others posts. Weird reason for a tantrum, but that's sort of what you're doing more and more lately.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:45 am KU hoops should just go independent in basketball and build an NBA arena closer to or in KC

KC Phogushers.
Lenexa.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:44 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:38 am Money is also tied to relevance which is tied to perception.

Fighting for 2nd or 3rd place in the Big 12 every year just looks and feels different than fighting Mizzou and Mississippi State for 7th place.

I am not sure it does in the grandscheme of things.

I think it is easy to think it does because we are big12 fans. But i think the opportunity for all the marquee matchups with the SEC powerhouses outweigh/overshadow any possible negative impact from finishing 7th in the SEC instead of 3rd in the Big12.

I am a B1G fan, for the record.


I guess I would just point to my last post. I think conference titles are a lot easier for fans to fall asleep to compared to the annual financial reports that the athletic department releases.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:46 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:43 am fuck off with that nonsense

you do the same thing in most every thread - you have a narrative set in your mind and will argue ad nauseum to “prove” that you’re right despite numerous people making articulate, well thought out arguments to the contrary

you just did it with CnB’s response to you above

you’ve got the logic, reading comprehension and rhetorical prowess of a 12 year old

Looks like you're trying your best to ruin this thread. Not me.

Not sure why you're melting down that CnB and I responded respectfully to each others posts. Weird reason for a tantrum, but that's sort of what you're doing more and more lately.

you quoted me, bud

tantrum? melting down? that’s your game

you’re awful good at projection, though...so kudos

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:45 am I think you are wrong.
( but the benefits of course, if Texas does get their shit together and is competitive, are no doubt, better than the B12 )

There are a lot of BWW Chads out there....and they don't know who finished 3rd in the Big12 or 7th in the SEC.

If they aren't dominant in the big12 (which they haven't consistently been in a LONG time) then it's better to be middle of the pack in the SEC than upper middle of the pack in the Big12 in my opinion.

And maybe once every 20years they'll upset Alabama in Austin and everyone will forget about the 7th place finishes they have many years.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:50 amIf they aren't dominant in the big12 (which they haven't consistently been in a LONG time) then it's better to be middle of the pack in the SEC than upper middle of the pack in the Big12 in my opinion.

Jumping in on a response to someone else, but I don't agree with this.

Exposure is a big deal. 7th place isn't getting you prime time games or new year's bowls. That's what the casual fans can tell you about.


Now, of course, everything is different with UT b/c their school brand is going nowhere. Maybe a realistic worst case scenario is when Notre Dame was just bad at football for many seasons, except put them in a conference and take away their NBC deal. That hurts.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:53 am

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:50 amIf they aren't dominant in the big12 (which they haven't consistently been in a LONG time) then it's better to be middle of the pack in the SEC than upper middle of the pack in the Big12 in my opinion.

Jumping in on a response to someone else, but I don't agree with this.

Exposure is a big deal. 7th place isn't getting you prime time games or new year's bowls. That's what the casual fans can tell you about.

You get prime time games simply by playing in the SEC if you're Texas (or OU) because even if they're not a top 3 team in the conference they still get to play the likes of Alabama Georgia etc regularly.

I would be willing to bet the amount of prime time games they get increases not decreases with the move to the SEC.

3rd place in the big 12 gets you about the same as 6th in the SEC when it comes to new years bowls.

But maybe only initially. If UT is playing Mississippi State or Arkansas level football for many seasons, the novelty of being new wears off. Plus, there are only so many channels that show prime time cfb (3? 4?). They are now like, at best, 5th in line in their own conference.

I think you might just be too fixated on what is the best decision right now, but college sports have been around for a long, long time.

Also, I'm not saying UT made a bad decision. Hell, it was a good one especially when you consider the circumstances.

But, it's just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn to not admit there are risks. UT spent a shit ton of time and money weighing the decision.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:03 am But maybe only initially. If UT is playing Mississippi State or Arkansas level football for many seasons, the novelty of being new wears off. Plus, there are only so many channels that show prime time cfb (3? 4?). They are now like, at best, 5th in line in their own conference.

I think the differnce is that the Texas fanbase and draw is not comparable to Arkansas or Mississippi State regardless of on field quality.

Has Texas really been playing that much better than Arkansas or Mississippi State the last decade or 2 when they've been 1 of the top earners in college athletics? Seems like they've already been performing at middle of the pack levels most years even in the big12.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:08 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:03 am But maybe only initially. If UT is playing Mississippi State or Arkansas level football for many seasons, the novelty of being new wears off. Plus, there are only so many channels that show prime time cfb (3? 4?). They are now like, at best, 5th in line in their own conference.

I think the differnce is that the Texas fanbase and draw is not comparable to Arkansas or Mississippi State.

Has Texas really been playing that much better than Arkansas or Mississippi State the last decade or 2 when they've been 1 of the top earners in college athletics? Seems like they've already been performing at middle of the pack levels most years.

Your first sentence is a good point, and I think I did point out the caveat of UT's brand.

But your point you keep brining up about revenue is ignoring one I initially made: UT no longer has its 3rd tier asset that has been extremely lucrative for them, and given the future of streaming, that could very well be an opportunity cost.

Perhaps the SEC makes an NFL-sized TV deal and that doesn't even matter, but then it's just a full circle of the entire argument: why is it only money that matters?

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:11 am but then it's just a full circle of the entire argument: why is it only money that matters?

It shouldn't be, but i think maybe it is. It sucks, but somewhere along the lines money seemingly became all that really matters in big time college athletics.

UT ran off the teams of the Big 12 once already. They had a structural advantage with their network money and actually became less relevant. Already. Chasing dollars has tangibly hurt them. It really becomes a dollars for dollars sake argument. You have to question to what end?

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:53 am

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:50 amIf they aren't dominant in the big12 (which they haven't consistently been in a LONG time) then it's better to be middle of the pack in the SEC than upper middle of the pack in the Big12 in my opinion.

Jumping in on a response to someone else, but I don't agree with this.

Exposure is a big deal. 7th place isn't getting you prime time games or new year's bowls. That's what the casual fans can tell you about.


Now, of course, everything is different with UT b/c their school brand is going nowhere. Maybe a realistic worst case scenario is when Notre Dame was just bad at football for many seasons, except put them in a conference and take away their NBC deal. That hurts.

If we are simply talking brand, I think a brand can suffer if you're year in year out never competing for a championship in your conference.

Over time, if you're the 7th-8th best team and missing bowl games consistently rather than the 2nd-4th best team, bowl game every season, you're going to take a hit. Even if you're in a more football heavy conference. 5-7 is still 5-7.

I'm also talking fan support - you start getting 50% attendance to your games, that's a 3 to 4 million dollar hit every game. You get fewer eyeballs watching your televised/streamed games. That's also a hit.

And this is only considering financial risks for moving to the SEC.
Completely separate issue, which i'd care more about if I were a Texas fan, is simply will my football program be winning games now? I don't care about the $$ we would be making - I don't want to see a 4-8 season with a 50 point Alabama beat down.

a few months old, but some good points made

https://slate.com/culture/2021/07/texas ... money.html

...The result will be a lesser experience for scores of people well beyond Norman and Austin—though the athletes and fans in those places might find that they are not any better off in the SEC than in the Big 12, either...

...There’s no particular virtue in money-driven decisions in an industry where the labor goes unpaid, but the last wave of realignment at least made sense as a necessity on financial grounds. Maryland is no longer cutting a bunch of varsity programs, as it was doing before it boarded the Big Ten lifeboat. Big Ten schools now make more than $50 million per year in media money...

...What sets this exodus apart from the early-2010s realignment is that UT and OU clearly don’t need to chase a few million extra dollars per year. Texas’ athletic department is the most lucrative in college sports at well over $200 million in annual revenue, and Oklahoma is typically in the top 10. Go through both schools’ recent financial reports with the NCAA, and you’ll find that conference TV money isn’t even an essential line item for these schools. Both have larger revenue sources like fundraising, ticket sales, and licensing, and both would be among the richest athletic departments in America even if they never made a cent from their conferences. Both have enough to do whatever they want, whether that’s UT coming up with $25 million to fire its football coaching staff or OU throwing nine figures into facility upgrades. Money isn’t either team’s problem. Texas’ issues are internal politics and self-sabotage. Oklahoma’s is that winning national championships requires playing a little bit of defense. Pursuing more money is their right, but nobody has to cheer it or pretend it will meaningfully improve anything...

PDub:. Yep. Spirals happen fast. And last these days.