NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:40 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1911 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 ... 128  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1654
If the people of PA aren't eating the cost of this, who is ?

Is this paid for by a tuition increase ?
Does the Athletic Department undergo austerity and live on less money for some duration ?

Ultimately, either somebody (taxpayers / students) will have to buck up to increase / replace revenue
AND / OR
The University reduces outlays for various programs or infrastructure (which hurts students / athletes / faculty).


Before this was agreed to, the BOT should have gotten some insight into this....
$60 mill (+ $13 mill in lost payments form Big Ten) spread over a number of years may not be over-whelming to
a school with typical $100 million annual athletic revenue,
but it's still a LOT of money.

To keep this in perspective, Terry Pegula (is providing [Nittany} lion's share of funding for $90 million upgrade to hockey program (including a new hockey arena).
So PSU Athletics is a huge operation (and profit center) that can withstand a short-term financial penalty....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:01 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 873
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Quote:
I really think they should drop this The PSU President negotiated the hammer after finding out the NCAA was about to bring the axe.


It's a circular argument; did the NCAA have any right to even go to its tool shed? That they did, without clarifying why other that they did, is why we are where we are.


Yes, Penn State illustrated Lack of Institutional Control.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:47 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1433
One of the motives by the NCAA to "vacate" Paterno wins, is that they did not want him to have this "most wins" record because he failed to report Sandusky to law enforcement authorities, and such a legacy the NCAA wanted to disassociate themselves with and not defend.

The NCAA is highly political, not necessarily objective and consistent over its many years of operation.

They were once hard on the Mississippi States' and gentle on the 'Bamas'.

Some conference supposedly king-pins would be tattletales to the NCAA on progressing upstarts who may be suddenly out-growing their britches for the moment.

Penn State was one of the "biggies", but the NCAA's actions were certainly not divorced from the "political" dimension, and wide exposure and public dismay gave the NCAA an outlet to look commanding.

How many politicians, entertainers, and athletes that are so beloved, then fall from grace and then ridiculed for indiscretions and offenses, often related to sordid sexual activity, criminal and otherwise, in some fashion? Some recover partially, sometimes; but near all shall carry the stigma for the rest of their earthly existence.

Humans like to see the "mighty" fall, proving they are vulnerable also. They are also intrigued with comeback stories.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:35 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1654
So true....

I think PSU President Erickson (or maybe Spanier, actually) should seek forgiveness by going on "Oprah" and confessing all sins....
Wait... "Oprah" is no more !!!! Will "Ellen" or "Montel" start to fill this role ?

PSU needs to hire some top-notch "image consultants".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 12:55 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 925
sec03 wrote:
Penn State was one of the "biggies", but the NCAA's actions were certainly not divorced from the "political" dimension, and wide exposure and public dismay gave the NCAA an outlet to look commanding.


I certainly believe this. The NCAA has an image problem and its own lack of control within its own body. They needed this. But the problem with the NCAA "tackling" PSU was that it was not just any school in the wrong, and not just any situation in which to rule.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1359
Location: Baltimore, MD
Sure glad the Obama Admin. hired Graham Spanier to help with "national security". He was sure good at it in State College, wasn't he?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:46 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 873
westwolf wrote:
Sure glad the Obama Admin. hired Graham Spanier to help with "national security". He was sure good at it in State College, wasn't he?



Let me tell you about another person who looked the other way when it came to laws and rules: His name was Jack Bauer and he thwarted terrorist plots dozens of times.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:19 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1433
OK, the NCAA got in on the act of strong punishments for Penn State. One may argue if it is appropriate, too little, or too much, redundant, etc. The fact is, they addressed "institutional control" in a very formidable way and conveyed it was their responsibility to do so.

But the University of North Carolina situation is CLEARLY a very direct matter for the NCAA to address. The whole fabric of UNC's athletic operation is in question, and on a conspriacy level, it involves more people from the top down, including much of the "academic" sector of the institution. These are real "cheating" initiatives.
If serious and perhaps even more extensive "corrective" actions are not leveled at UNC, then the NCAA needs to seen as even greater hypocrites and completely fold in the process of doing further investigations and sanctions with anyone.

Making an example of Penn State is one thing; letting another big name slide by with a few slaps is another.

No-show classes, grade alterations, bogus majors, plagiarism, etc. for athletes, appeared rampant at UNC. Some new revelations suggest the issues were deeper than was revealed earlier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:14 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 925
Yup. And while UNC is the uber-biggie, UMFL is almost a literal carbon-copy of SMU. The new recruiting issues added to that mix, yikes.

I'm still curious how this could play out against the Big Ten. If the conference alluded to expulsion off the record, that could speak to one of the reasons PSU may not fight this. The fight may be a noble one (really, not saying that as a PSU alum, but the NCAA DESPERATELY NEEDS the reform), but take away the elite Big Ten association away from PSU, and you can kiss their credibility goodbye.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:50 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 925
I fully expect the B1G is on a collision course with members 13 and 14 to tell the ACC you won't own the Atlantic Coast.

Here's hoping for Rutgers, Virginia, UMD, Navy, and/or BC to the B1G real soon.

Right here, Irish. Right here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:00 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I fully expect the B1G is on a collision course with members 13 and 14 to tell the ACC you won't own the Atlantic Coast.

Here's hoping for Rutgers, Virginia, UMD, Navy, and/or BC to the B1G real soon.

Right here, Irish. Right here.


Idunno if you heard but 50 MILLION dollars is the new buyout. No way in hell is anyone leaving the ACC. And since ACC has said no 16th, UConn and Rutgers are gonna have to pray the B1G wants them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:16 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 925
If the east coast matters anything to the B1G, and I think it does...maybe the B1G reopens expansion discussions. They could do a lot worse than Rutgers and UConn.

I do agree that the buyout dampens ACC defections, but I'm curious of the due diligence in that move. If all these other schools could whittle down the numbers, it should be no different in the ACC. And within the ACC, I'm sure any number of schools would KILL for the rub of being in the Big Ten. Now, the B1G has a reason: its own visibility in eastern markets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:39 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
If the east coast matters anything to the B1G, and I think it does...maybe the B1G reopens expansion discussions. They could do a lot worse than Rutgers and UConn.

I do agree that the buyout dampens ACC defections, but I'm curious of the due diligence in that move. If all these other schools could whittle down the numbers, it should be no different in the ACC. And within the ACC, I'm sure any number of schools would KILL for the rub of being in the Big Ten. Now, the B1G has a reason: its own visibility in eastern markets.


$50 million is enough to safely bypass the use of words like "dampens" in regards to the chances for ACC defections, and instead use "eliminate". It's $50 million dollars. To put in in perspective, if it were CUSA, that's 50 years of TV revenue for a school.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:47 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1330
Quinn wrote:
$50 million is enough to safely bypass the use of words like "dampens" in regards to the chances for ACC defections, and instead use "eliminate". It's $50 million dollars. To put in in perspective, if it were CUSA, that's 50 years of TV revenue for a school.

To be fair...that's only 2 years of revenue for most BCS schools.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:50 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 925
I stand by "dampen," because any fraction off that $50m is far more doable. TCU, Pitt, 'Cuse...if they could weasel out of some of that dough, no reason it can't elsewhere.

And when does that amount go into effect? If ND's a part of that, I suspect it would be when they enter the conference. So...door's open.

I believe the B1G isn't the type to pony up money for a school, because it would be perceived as weak or desperate, but it's not fully off the table, either.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1911 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 ... 128  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group