Search
Log in
Register
Teams
Teams
Fan Sites
Forums
Shows
College
College Football News
College Football Player Rankings
College Football Rankings
College Football Playoff
College Basketball News
Women's Sports
NIL
NIL News
NIL Valuation
NIL Deals
NIL Deal Tracker
Sports Business
Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal News
NCAA Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal Rankings
Transfer Portal Team Rankings
Recruiting
Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Database
Team Rankings
Player Rankings
Industry Comparison
Commitments
Recruiting Prediction Machine
High School
High School News
Schools
Rankings
Scores
Draft
NFL Draft
NFL Draft News
Draft By Stars
College Draft History
College Draft Totals
NBA Draft
NBA Draft News
Pro
NFL
NASCAR
NBA
Culture
Sports Betting
About
About
On3 App
Advertise
Press
FAQ
Contact
Get a profile. Be recruited.
New posts
Menu
Install the app
Install
On3:
Tracking college football’s highest-paid wide receivers
On3:
Nearly 50 years after Herschel Walker's debut, the Georgia-Tennessee rivalry still endures
On3:
QB Ryan Staub emerges at Colorado and what that says about Deion Sanders
On3:
Facing a must-win gauntlet, Florida's Billy Napier doubles down
Auburn:
Towns McGough injury update: Hugh Freeze shares where Auburn kicker stands in recovery
Reply to thread
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="topdecktiger" data-source="post: 129591295" data-attributes="member: 1459051"><p>Boren also made the comment that the market wasn't there for the network, and you twist around his words. The amount of money available from a network/expansion was never a certainty. You keep resting your argument on the "$4-6 million" comment Boren made. You are claiming that this was a hard figure. It was not. Boren said this on May 12 2016, just 3 weeks before the Big 12 Spring meeting:</p><p></p><p>I'm not out to get Texas. If we did something, you've got to make Texas financially whole. You can't expect them to give up $15 million ... unless [they're] compensated for that. Somehow, the conference has to get that $15 million back to them," Boren said. "You've got to devise a revenue distribution that lets them get paid back for the $15 million a year they're giving out. <strong><u><em>My suspicion is </em>if <em>the revenue figures [that] </em>come out</u></strong> are very high or moderately high, you can afford to make everybody whole and everybody makes money. They'd be making more money than $15 million a year, if it's so advantageous to us financially to create a network. <strong><u><em>But we </em>don't know the answer <em>to that question yet."</em></u></strong></p><p><a href="http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15523117/oklahoma-sooners-president-david-boren-says-consensus-key-big-12-expansion-network">http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15523117/oklahoma-sooners-president-david-boren-says-consensus-key-big-12-expansion-network</a></p><p></p><p>Well, there you go. Boren did not know the financial figures before the Spring meeting. He said so himself. He specifically said, in this quote, that he did not yet know if it was financially advantageous to create a network. So no, the timing of the Texas statement does not prove, at all, that the fix was in. Nobody knew what the financial figures were going to be until the meetings. When they actually got the figures, that's when everybody realized the money wasn't there, and that's why there wasn't a network. It's not because of Texas screwing the conference.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="topdecktiger, post: 129591295, member: 1459051"] Boren also made the comment that the market wasn't there for the network, and you twist around his words. The amount of money available from a network/expansion was never a certainty. You keep resting your argument on the "$4-6 million" comment Boren made. You are claiming that this was a hard figure. It was not. Boren said this on May 12 2016, just 3 weeks before the Big 12 Spring meeting: I'm not out to get Texas. If we did something, you've got to make Texas financially whole. You can't expect them to give up $15 million ... unless [they're] compensated for that. Somehow, the conference has to get that $15 million back to them," Boren said. "You've got to devise a revenue distribution that lets them get paid back for the $15 million a year they're giving out. [B][U][I]My suspicion is [/I]if [I]the revenue figures [that] [/I]come out[/U][/B] are very high or moderately high, you can afford to make everybody whole and everybody makes money. They'd be making more money than $15 million a year, if it's so advantageous to us financially to create a network. [B][U][I]But we [/I]don't know the answer [I]to that question yet."[/I][/U][/B] [URL]http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15523117/oklahoma-sooners-president-david-boren-says-consensus-key-big-12-expansion-network[/URL] Well, there you go. Boren did not know the financial figures before the Spring meeting. He said so himself. He specifically said, in this quote, that he did not yet know if it was financially advantageous to create a network. So no, the timing of the Texas statement does not prove, at all, that the fix was in. Nobody knew what the financial figures were going to be until the meetings. When they actually got the figures, that's when everybody realized the money wasn't there, and that's why there wasn't a network. It's not because of Texas screwing the conference. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
Top
Bottom