Corporate Consolidation 101.

[i'vegotwinners]

first off, let's get straight what this really is and isn't about.

what is the real end objective, and what is just the means to that end.

regardless of what one thinks about UCLA and USC, getting UCLA and USC to the B10, and their tv market, is not the end goal. it's a means to that end goal.

is there money there, maybe, probably, but we're talking chump change vs the real pot of gold.

the real end goal is eliminating the PAC as a negotiating competitor for tv money.

for those around since the SEC grabbed Mizzou and A&M, the B10 Neb, then UMd and RU, the PAC taking Colorado and going after Texas and OU hard at the time, the goal then wasn't those schools or "expansion", it was always about trying to take out the B12 and ACC as competitors for tv money.

i said so all day every day at the time, and have so since.

taking out the B12 is what the SEC taking Texas and OU was about. OU and Texas were just the means to that end goal.

the term "EXPANSION" was always just corporate spin.

this was always industry CONSOLIDATION. that is where the real money is.

negotiating with Fox and Disney/ESPN/ABC and Comcast/NBC and CBS and Apple and Amazon and Google as close to a pure monopoly/monopsony seller as possible, like the NFL does thanks to their anti trust exemption..

and duopolies generally "cooperate" to do business as a monopoly.

as to Oregon or Washington in the PAC, or UNC, Clemson, Miami, FSU, and all others, who will and won't be targets of the B10 and SEC, remember, this isn't mostly about if those schools would or wouldn't be good additions.

it will be who and how many it takes to achieve the real end goal.

taking out the PAC will be done taking as few schools as it takes to get the job done.

same with taking out the ACC.

CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION is about concentrating money and power in as few hands as possible.

it's not personal. it's just business.

and if/once the powers that be can get it down to a duopoly operating as a monopoly, at that point the duopoly can turn it's attention to consolidation within their ranks, as capitalism never sleeps, and never is content to stand pat.

what the powers will be content with tomorrow, is not what they will be content with the day after tomorrow.

the algorithm doesn't work that way. it has no off switch.

as for any at IU who may not like what i'm saying here.

"and when they came for me".

 

[i'vegotwinners]

why people should care.

when Texas and OU left the B12, there was 1 sure, arguably 3 winners, and between 22 to 24 losers.

the sure only winner was the SEC office and commissioner.

one could argue Texas and OU won, but that remains to be seen and history isn't on that side.

of Mizzou, A&M, Colorado, Neb, UMd, Rutgers, who have changed conferences in recent shifts, only Rutgers could you say was a sure winner, with A&M having a case for that as well.

other than maybe some extra money, of Mizzou, Colorado, Neb, UMd, are any of them better off now?

i'd say no on Neb, Mizzou, Colorado, and that UMd didn't gain or lose.

Texas and OU fans that think they'll be better off in the SEC are probably in for a rude awakening.

as for the losers,

Texas Tech, KU, KSU, Iowa St, Baylor, OSU, TCU, West Va.

other almost sure losers to be, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St, UK, Tenn, Mizzou again, (suckers all).

and are Fla, UGa, LSU, A&M, Bama, any better off? probably not.

when Neb, UMd, and Rutgers joined the B10, did any legacy schools benefit from that? NO. NOT ONE.

will there be any winners in the PAC from USC and UCLA moving? probably not,

and 10 PAC schools are definitely worse off, while USC and UCLA probably lose as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


well what about the money???

A), what extra money.

no one at the B10 office or IU or anywhere else can prove any of the recent gains came from adding schools, rather than from new contracts, which always have had those kind of significant revenue increases in every major conference and ever major pro sports league.

ALWAYS!

B), as to that money thing again, the propaganda machine always wants you to fixate on.

other than some already rich coaches and administrators and the construction industry, is anyone at IU better off when the B10 does new tv contracts or adds schools?

NO!

are any students better off? No. Is tuition any cheaper? No.

are IU fans better off? NO! Are tickets or parking cheaper? NO!

did that help the IU grad faculty get their union? NO!

did any faculty benefit? NO!

did any alumni benefit? NO!

did everybody's cable bill go up? yes!


so if anyone says IU is better off, just how are they defining "IU"?

if zero of the students, or faculty, or alumni, or fans, are better off, then how is IU better off?

are the townspeople of Btown better off? NO!

but IU, which once had some real say in the conference, has now gone from 1 vote of 10, to 1 vote of 16, and soon no say what so ever of consequence.

and don't discount that not so minor reality of IU's share of the voting shares.

and back to the shares thing, IU's presence on BTN goes down with every school added.

do the math.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

sorry bout that.

not everything that needs said, can be done in 280 characters or less.

who knew?

 

[Crossblock]

It's never about the money, until it's all about the Money.

 

[BayernFan]

IU should join the Big Twelve.

 

[Dick nixon]

why people should care.

when Texas and OU left the B12, there was 1 sure, arguably 3 winners, and between 22 to 24 losers.

the sure only winner was the SEC office and commissioner.

one could argue Texas and OU won, but that remains to be seen and history isn't on that side.

of Mizzou, A&M, Colorado, Neb, UMd, Rutgers, who have changed conferences in recent shifts, only Rutgers could you say was a sure winner, with A&M having a case for that as well.

other than maybe some extra money, of Mizzou, Colorado, Neb, UMd, are any of them better off now?

i'd say no on Neb, Mizzou, Colorado, and that UMd didn't gain or lose.

Texas and OU fans that think they'll be better off in the SEC are probably in for a rude awakening.

as for the losers,

Texas Tech, KU, KSU, Iowa St, Baylor, OSU, TCU, West Va.

other almost sure losers to be, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St, UK, Tenn, Mizzou again, (suckers all).

and are Fla, UGa, LSU, A&M, Bama, any better off? probably not.

when Neb, UMd, and Rutgers joined the B10, did any legacy schools benefit from that? NO. NOT ONE.

will there be any winners in the PAC from USC and UCLA moving? probably not,

and 10 PAC schools are definitely worse off, while USC and UCLA probably lose as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


well what about the money???

A), what extra money.

no one at the B10 office or IU or anywhere else can prove any of the recent gains came from adding schools, rather than from new contracts, which always have had those kind of significant revenue increases in every major conference and ever major pro sports league.

ALWAYS!

B), as to that money thing again, the propaganda machine always wants you to fixate on.

other than some already rich coaches and administrators and the construction industry, is anyone at IU better of

the 22 varsity sports athletes at IU

 

[i'vegotwinners]

the 22 varsity sports athletes at IU

are you under some impression those sports wouldn't exist otherwise?

or venues would be unusable?

hardly.

you're really reaching there Dick.

and nice to see you blew off the entire point, as if unimportant.

and yeah, i said what the propaganda machine, and obviously you, doesn't want said.

but is absolutely so.

all this crappola that "IU" is the one benefiting, is nothing but that.

 

[Dick nixon]

are you under some impression those sports wouldn't exist otherwise?

or venues would be unusable?

hardly.

you're really reaching there Dick.

and nice to see you blew off the entire point, as if unimportant.

and yeah, i said what the propaganda machine, and obviously you, doesn't want said.

but is absolutely so.

all this crappola that "IU" is the one benefiting, is nothing but that.

Maybe I misunderstood your intent on the original post that no one associated with IU is benefiting from being a member of the B10 and IU should move to the big 12.

Continuing to run with the number of varsity sports theme, per google the members of the big 12 including Texas and Oklahoma have 16 to 19 varsity sports. The members of the big 10 have 18-33 varsity sports.

Now I have no idea and wouldn't know how to prove the reason is the increased revenue sharing dollars B10 members receive in comparison to B12 but we can't ignore the difference in teams and athletes between the two conferences. Maybe one of the other members that is far smarter than me can vet out this idea.

I can say based upon reported data only football and basketball turn a profit compared to the other varsity sports so theoretically if the conference payout is larger in the b10 vs b12, the b10 schools should be able to support more varsity teams assuming the dollars are kept in the athletic program.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Maybe I misunderstood your intent on the original post that no one associated with IU is benefiting from being a member of the B10 and IU should move to the big 12.

Continuing to run with the number of varsity sports theme, per google the members of the big 12 including Texas and Oklahoma have 16 to 19 varsity sports. The members of the big 10 have 18-33 varsity sports.

Now I have no idea and wouldn't know how to prove the reason is the increased revenue sharing dollars B10 members receive in comparison to B12 but we can't ignore the difference in teams and athletes between the two conferences. Maybe one of the other members that is far smarter than me can vet out this idea.

I can say based upon reported data only football and basketball turn a profit compared to the other varsity sports so theoretically if the conference payout is larger in the b10 vs b12, the b10 schools should be able to support more varsity teams assuming the dollars are kept in the athletic program.

either i did a really horrible job of esplainin, or you seriously misread.

not sure where you got my wanting IU to the B12.

the point of my post in question, was that all this corporate consolidation going down with the conferences is being sold as some great thing for IU or any B10 school, because of all the money involved.

and how much better off USC and UCLA will be now.

fake news pure propaganda total crappola as i see it.

all that extra money has gone to already well to do coaches and administrators, and contractors.

all that money hasn't benefited the student body one cent.

or the faculty one cent.

or the fans one cent.

or the alumni one cent.

or the townspeople one cent.


hasn't lowered tuition one cent.

didn't help the grad faculty get their union one iota.

didn't lower ticket prices or parking one cent for fans.

hasn't done one thing for alums.

so selling how much this benefits IU, is nothing but complete and total BS crappola.


and the exact same for every other school involved. and now UCLA and USC.

what is being sold, isn't what is actually happening for IU or the schools themselves, or their students, faculty, fans, and alums..

all that extra money is though coming out of the fans' and students' and alums' and faculty's pockets, literally every cent.

but not benefitting any of them, or IU, one iota.

and any and all collateral damage to the rest of the B12 and PAC, is real.

as is the legacy B10 and SEC schools losing their conference sovereignty real.

 

[Jackskip23]

are you under some impression those sports wouldn't exist otherwise?

or venues would be unusable?

hardly.

you're really reaching there Dick.

and nice to see you blew off the entire point, as if unimportant.

and yeah, i said what the propaganda machine, and obviously you, doesn't want said.

but is absolutely so.

all this crappola that "IU" is the one benefiting, is nothing but that.

Financially, we benefit tremendously, almost exponentially. That’s hardly a revelation and is understood by everyone. You’re not arguing otherwise, are you?

 

[Dick nixon]

either i did a really horrible job of esplainin, or you seriously misread.

You know what, I did do some misreading combining a few posts. Stupid phone and old eyes. My mistake

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Financially, we benefit tremendously, almost exponentially. That’s hardly a revelation and is understood by everyone. You’re not arguing otherwise, are you?

reading comprehension isn't your thing i see.

and you're obviously a recently added to the board troll.

 

[Jackskip23]

reading comprehension isn't your thing i see.

and you're obviously a recently added to the board troll.

You don’t think IU benefits financially by all of this consolidation? There are no facts to support your position. None.

 

[Dick nixon]

reading comprehension isn't your thing i see.

and you're obviously a recently added to the board troll

This is funny. Come on...keep going!

 

[i'vegotwinners]

You don’t think IU benefits financially by all of this consolidation? There are no facts to support your position. None.

define "IU".

what students, faculty, alumni, or fans, have benefited so much as 1 cent?

ONE CENT??

on anywhere non monetary?

good luck with that.

if by "IU", you mean a few coaches and dept administrators, and the construction industry, then yes.

in which case we just have a very very different definition of "IU".

 

[Jackskip23]

define "IU".

what students, faculty, alumni, or fans, have benefited so much as 1 cent?

ONE CENT??

on anywhere non monetary?

good luck with that.

if by "IU", you mean a few coaches and dept administrators, and the construction industry, then yes.

in which case we just have a very very different definition of "IU".

How did any of those groups benefit financially previous to all of this? We didn’t. But we now have improved facilities that would’ve only been built with BTN funds. And the benefits toIU have been. numerous. Your entire premise is moot.

 

[Jssanto]

first off, let's get straight what this really is and isn't about.

what is the real end objective, and what is just the means to that end.

regardless of what one thinks about UCLA and USC, getting UCLA and USC to the B10, and their tv market, is not the end goal. it's a means to that end goal.

is there money there, maybe, probably, but we're talking chump change vs the real pot of gold.

the real end goal is eliminating the PAC as a negotiating competitor for tv money.

for those around since the SEC grabbed Mizzou and A&M, the B10 Neb, then UMd and RU, the PAC taking Colorado and going after Texas and OU hard at the time, the goal then wasn't those schools or "expansion", it was always about trying to take out the B12 and ACC as competitors for tv money.

i said so all day every day at the time, and have so since.

taking out the B12 is what the SEC taking Texas and OU was about. OU and Texas were just the means to that end goal.

the term "EXPANSION" was always just corporate spin.

this was always industry CONSOLIDATION. that is where the real money is.

negotiating with Fox and Disney/ESPN/ABC and Comcast/NBC and CBS and Apple and Amazon and Google as close to a pure monopoly/monopsony seller as possible, like the NFL does thanks to their anti trust exemption..

and duopolies generally "cooperate" to do business as a monopoly.

as to Oregon or Washington in the PAC, or UNC, Clemson, Miami, FSU, and all others, who will and won't be targets of the B10 and SEC, remember, this isn't mostly about if those schools would or wouldn't be good additions.

it will be who and how many it takes to achieve the real end goal.

taking out the PAC will be done taking as few schools as it takes to get the job done.

same with taking out the ACC.

CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION is about concentrating money and power in as few hands as possible.

it's not personal. it's just business.

and if/once the powers that be can get it down to a duopoly operating as a monopoly, at that point the duopoly can turn it's attention to consolidation within their ranks, as capitalism never sleeps, and never is content to stand pat.

what the powers will be content with tomorrow, is not what they will be content with the day after tomorrow.

the algorithm doesn't work that way. it has no off switch.

as for any at IU who may not like what i'm saying here.

"and when they came for me".

Wait, it’s not about education?

 

[Andy06]

either i did a really horrible job of esplainin, or you seriously misread.

not sure where you got my wanting IU to the B12.

the point of my post in question, was that all this corporate consolidation going down with the conferences is being sold as some great thing for IU or any B10 school, because of all the money involved.

and how much better off USC and UCLA will be now.

fake news pure propaganda total crappola as i see it.

all that extra money has gone to already well to do coaches and administrators, and contractors.

all that money hasn't benefited the student body one cent.

or the faculty one cent.

or the fans one cent.

or the alumni one cent.

or the townspeople one cent.


hasn't lowered tuition one cent.

didn't help the grad faculty get their union one iota.

didn't lower ticket prices or parking one cent for fans.

hasn't done one thing for alums.

so selling how much this benefits IU, is nothing but complete and total BS crappola.


and the exact same for every other school involved. and now UCLA and USC.

what is being sold, isn't what is actually happening for IU or the schools themselves, or their students, faculty, fans, and alums..

all that extra money is though coming out of the fans' and students' and alums' and faculty's pockets, literally every cent.

but not benefitting any of them, or IU, one iota.

and any and all collateral damage to the rest of the B12 and PAC, is real.

as is the legacy B10 and SEC schools losing their conference sovereignty real.

The Fox Guarding the IU Athletics Henhouse?

It is nearly impossible to take a stroll through Indiana University’s Bloomington campus and not fall in love all over again. From the Sample Gates to the majestic limestone buildings, the sc…

www.thedailyhoosier.com

You haven't been paying attention if you don't think the athletic department windfall hasn't contributed to academics.

I guarantee there's not one athletic department in the country that would have funds used to decrease student tuition.

 

[Champs1976]

either i did a really horrible job of esplainin, or you seriously misread.

not sure where you got my wanting IU to the B12.

the point of my post in question, was that all this corporate consolidation going down with the conferences is being sold as some great thing for IU or any B10 school, because of all the money involved.

and how much better off USC and UCLA will be now.

fake news pure propaganda total crappola as i see it.

all that extra money has gone to already well to do coaches and administrators, and contractors.

all that money hasn't benefited the student body one cent.

or the faculty one cent.

or the fans one cent.

or the alumni one cent.

or the townspeople one cent.


hasn't lowered tuition one cent.

didn't help the grad faculty get their union one iota.

didn't lower ticket prices or parking one cent for fans.

hasn't done one thing for alums.

so selling how much this benefits IU, is nothing but complete and total BS crappola.


and the exact same for every other school involved. and now UCLA and USC.

what is being sold, isn't what is actually happening for IU or the schools themselves, or their students, faculty, fans, and alums..

all that extra money is though coming out of the fans' and students' and alums' and faculty's pockets, literally every cent.

but not benefitting any of them, or IU, one iota.

and any and all collateral damage to the rest of the B12 and PAC, is real.

as is the legacy B10 and SEC schools losing their conference sovereignty real.

Whoever said the revenue from collegiate athletics should benefit anyone or anything other than collegiate athletics? Not sure your overly long whine means anything. How, though, does more money from a collegiate sports tv contract COST students and faculties pockets? You realize the the tv contracts are paid for from advertising on the sports events televised. How do "legacy" schools lose their conference sovereignty even mean? The only real valid remark you make is the PAC 12 (now 10 at least temporarily) and Big 12 will have less lucrative tv contracts. So what? That's how real world competition works. And yes it does benefit IU athletics since the net impact of USC and UCLA on the B1G tv contracts will exceed the current tv contract payouts/school or the deal wouldn't have been done. IU's share (equal for each school in the B1G) will be greater.

You either have a 10 year old's view of "fairness" or were raised in the participation trophy era and are ignorant of the real world. Grow up and learn something about which you comment.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Whoever said the revenue from collegiate athletics should benefit anyone or anything other than collegiate athletics? Not sure your overly long whine means anything. How, though, does more money from a collegiate sports tv contract COST students and faculties pockets? You realize the the tv contracts are paid for from advertising on the sports events televised. How do "legacy" schools lose their conference sovereignty even mean? The only real valid remark you make is the PAC 12 (now 10 at least temporarily) and Big 12 will have less lucrative tv contracts. So what? That's how real world competition works. And yes it does benefit IU athletics since the net impact of USC and UCLA on the B1G tv contracts will exceed the current tv contract payouts/school or the deal wouldn't have been done. IU's share (equal for each school in the B1G) will be greater.

You either have a 10 year old's view of "fairness" or were raised in the participation trophy era and are ignorant of the real world. Grow up and learn something about which you comment.

I think you are generally correct. I will say that we are "spending" more than ever before with the addition of contributions to H4G and increased levels of VC donations but those things are choices.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The Fox Guarding the IU Athletics Henhouse?

It is nearly impossible to take a stroll through Indiana University’s Bloomington campus and not fall in love all over again. From the Sample Gates to the majestic limestone buildings, the sc…

www.thedailyhoosier.com

You haven't been paying attention if you don't think the athletic department windfall hasn't contributed to academics.

I guarantee there's not one athletic department in the country that would have funds used to decrease student tuition.

"Under Glass’ stewardship, Indiana Athletics has been financially self-supporting without any tuition contribution, student fee, or taxpayer money. In fact, the Athletic Department annually pays over $17 million to the University in tuition, room and board, books, and fees for scholarships, and is helping to fund the University’s new Global and International Studies Building and Regional Academic Health Center".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that's some nice creative accounting there.

the ath side paying the education side for the cost of schollies, including tuition, room and board, books and fees, then acting like it's a gift.

if the athletic dept was self funding the schollies it itself gives out, then it's not really money the athletic dept is giving over to the educational side, it's money owed to the educational side.

and how much rent is the educational side charging the athletic side for the use of all that land and facilities?

i'm guessing none.

i could far more credibly put a dollar value on all that per yr, and say that's money the education side is subsidizing the athletic side per yr.

and i'm guessing it would come out to more than $17 mil per yr.

all that said, i'll stand by my statement that the university, it's students, faculty, alumni, and fans, are not the real beneficiaries of the financial windfall of athletic tv deals.

that said, with the "Brewster's Millions" esque mandate as another poster quite credibly put it, surely more will go back to the education side in the future.

but even if so, i still doubt any benefit to the students, faculty, alumni, fans, will be more than minimal.

the big beneficiaries will still be a very small handful of individuals, and the construction industry.
--------------------------------

as to your comment that "no athletic dept in the country would have used those funds to lower student tuition", while likely so, that's an indictment on the universities themselves, not a valid excuse for that being the case.

nor would any use that money to lower ticket or parking prices either.

which again is an indictment, not a valid excuse for said behavior.


especially considering the absolute fact that the students, faculty, alumni, fans, and citizenry, are the ones paying for all this.

and not doing so voluntarily, but being mandated to do so no differently than if being taxed.

did you think Fox and Disney and Turner and Comcast/NBC and CBS, were paying for any of this?

literally not one cent are they.

you and me and the rest of the citizenry are. literally 100 plus % of it. and again, being mandated to do so not much differently than if being taxed.

and the whole reason for all this corporate consolidation, literally 100% percent of it, is so they can MANDATE us all to pay even more and more and more and more.

demonize this post or me as you wish for spin, as the idiot Champs1976 tried, everything i say here and above is totally accurate. even if not what some want to hear.

 

[Jackskip23]

"Under Glass’ stewardship, Indiana Athletics has been financially self-supporting without any tuition contribution, student fee, or taxpayer money. In fact, the Athletic Department annually pays over $17 million to the University in tuition, room and board, books, and fees for scholarships, and is helping to fund the University’s new Global and International Studies Building and Regional Academic Health Center".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that's some nice creative accounting there.

the ath side paying the education side for the cost of schollies, including tuition, room and board, books and fees, then acting like it's a gift.

if the athletic dept was self funding the schollies it itself gives out, then it's not really money the athletic dept is giving over to the educational side, it's money owed to the educational side.

and how much rent is the educational side charging the athletic side for the use of all that land and facilities?

i'm guessing none.

i could far more credibly put a dollar value on all that per yr, and say that's money the education side is subsidizing the athletic side per yr.

and i'm guessing it would come out to more than $17 mil per yr.

all that said, i'll stand by my statement that the university, it's students, faculty, alumni, and fans, are not the real beneficiaries of the financial windfall of athletic tv deals.

that said, with the "Brewster's Millions" esque mandate as another poster quite credibly put it, surely more will go back to the education side in the future.

but even if so, i still doubt any benefit to the students, faculty, alumni, fans, will be more than minimal.

the big beneficiaries will still be a very small handful of individuals, and the construction industry.
--------------------------------

as to your comment that "no athletic dept in the country would have used those funds to lower student tuition", while likely so, that's an indictment on the universities themselves, not a valid excuse for that being the case.

nor would any use that money to lower ticket or parking prices either.

which again is an indictment, not a valid excuse for said behavior.


especially considering the absolute fact that the students, faculty, alumni, fans, and citizenry, are the ones paying for all this.

and not doing so voluntarily, but being mandated to do so no differently than if being taxed.

did you think Fox and Disney and Turner and Comcast/NBC and CBS, were paying for any of this?

literally not one cent are they.

you and me and the rest of the citizenry are. literally 100 plus % of it. and again, being mandated to do so not much differently than if being taxed.

and the whole reason for all this corporate consolidation, literally 100% percent of it, is so they can MANDATE us all to pay even more and more and more and more.

demonize this post or me as you wish for spin, as the idiot Champs1976 tried, everything i say here and above is totally accurate. even if not what some want to hear.

The Athletic Department owes the University for the cost of each GIA, and they pay it. It’s not a gift, and it’s not treated as such by either party. It’s a payable to the AD and a receivable to the University.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

"Under Glass’ stewardship, Indiana Athletics has been financially self-supporting without any tuition contribution, student fee, or taxpayer money. In fact, the Athletic Department annually pays over $17 million to the University in tuition, room and board, books, and fees for scholarships, and is helping to fund the University’s new Global and International Studies Building and Regional Academic Health Center".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that's some nice creative accounting there.

the ath side paying the education side for the cost of schollies, including tuition, room and board, books and fees, then acting like it's a gift.

if the athletic dept was self funding the schollies it itself gives out, then it's not really money the athletic dept is giving over to the educational side, it's money owed to the educational side.

and how much rent is the educational side charging the athletic side for the use of all that land and facilities?

i'm guessing none.

i could far more credibly put a dollar value on all that per yr, and say that's money the education side is subsidizing the athletic side per yr.

and i'm guessing it would come out to more than $17 mil per yr.

all that said, i'll stand by my statement that the university, it's students, faculty, alumni, and fans, are not the real beneficiaries of the financial windfall of athletic tv deals.

that said, with the "Brewster's Millions" esque mandate as another poster quite credibly put it, surely more will go back to the education side in the future.

but even if so, i still doubt any benefit to the students, faculty, alumni, fans, will be more than minimal.

the big beneficiaries will still be a very small handful of individuals, and the construction industry.
--------------------------------

as to your comment that "no athletic dept in the country would have used those funds to lower student tuition", while likely so, that's an indictment on the universities themselves, not a valid excuse for that being the case.

nor would any use that money to lower ticket or parking prices either.

which again is an indictment, not a valid excuse for said behavior.


especially considering the absolute fact that the students, faculty, alumni, fans, and citizenry, are the ones paying for all this.

and not doing so voluntarily, but being mandated to do so no differently than if being taxed.

did you think Fox and Disney and Turner and Comcast/NBC and CBS, were paying for any of this?

literally not one cent are they.

you and me and the rest of the citizenry are. literally 100 plus % of it. and again, being mandated to do so not much differently than if being taxed.

and the whole reason for all this corporate consolidation, literally 100% percent of it, is so they can MANDATE us all to pay even more and more and more and more.

demonize this post or me as you wish for spin, as the idiot Champs1976 tried, everything i say here and above is totally accurate. even if not what some want to hear.

You make some solid points as always but I don’t see where the payments for scholarship costs are being called or implied as a “gift”. They aren’t gifts and I have not seen Fred say that. Did I miss it?

 

[Dick nixon]

How does an article talking about how much the university, faculty, students, etc. benefit from the athletic department $'s at the cost of the athletic department validate your argument the university, faculty, students etc do not benefit from the athletic department revenue?

maybe I'm missing something?

 

[jsenleo]

"Under Glass’ stewardship, Indiana Athletics has been financially self-supporting without any tuition contribution, student fee, or taxpayer money. In fact, the Athletic Department annually pays over $17 million to the University in tuition, room and board, books, and fees for scholarships, and is helping to fund the University’s new Global and International Studies Building and Regional Academic Health Center".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that's some nice creative accounting there.

the ath side paying the education side for the cost of schollies, including tuition, room and board, books and fees, then acting like it's a gift.

if the athletic dept was self funding the schollies it itself gives out, then it's not really money the athletic dept is giving over to the educational side, it's money owed to the educational side.

and how much rent is the educational side charging the athletic side for the use of all that land and facilities?

i'm guessing none.

i could far more credibly put a dollar value on all that per yr, and say that's money the education side is subsidizing the athletic side per yr.

and i'm guessing it would come out to more than $17 mil per yr.

all that said, i'll stand by my statement that the university, it's students, faculty, alumni, and fans, are not the real beneficiaries of the financial windfall of athletic tv deals.

that said, with the "Brewster's Millions" esque mandate as another poster quite credibly put it, surely more will go back to the education side in the future.

but even if so, i still doubt any benefit to the students, faculty, alumni, fans, will be more than minimal.

the big beneficiaries will still be a very small handful of individuals, and the construction industry.
--------------------------------

as to your comment that "no athletic dept in the country would have used those funds to lower student tuition", while likely so, that's an indictment on the universities themselves, not a valid excuse for that being the case.

nor would any use that money to lower ticket or parking prices either.

which again is an indictment, not a valid excuse for said behavior.


especially considering the absolute fact that the students, faculty, alumni, fans, and citizenry, are the ones paying for all this.

and not doing so voluntarily, but being mandated to do so no differently than if being taxed.

did you think Fox and Disney and Turner and Comcast/NBC and CBS, were paying for any of this?

literally not one cent are they.

you and me and the rest of the citizenry are. literally 100 plus % of it. and again, being mandated to do so not much differently than if being taxed.

and the whole reason for all this corporate consolidation, literally 100% percent of it, is so they can MANDATE us all to pay even more and more and more and more.

demonize this post or me as you wish for spin, as the idiot Champs1976 tried, everything i say here and above is totally accurate. even if not what some want to hear.

But you can't hold a whole athletic department responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole university system? And if the whole university is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, IGW - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can say whatever you want, but some of us are not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!















😁

 

[Crossblock]

But you can't hold a whole athletic department responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole university system? And if the whole university is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, IGW - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can say whatever you want, but some of us are not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!















😁

Thank You Otter. Bluto Blutarsky is now asking if the United States gave up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

 

[Andy06]

"Under Glass’ stewardship, Indiana Athletics has been financially self-supporting without any tuition contribution, student fee, or taxpayer money. In fact, the Athletic Department annually pays over $17 million to the University in tuition, room and board, books, and fees for scholarships, and is helping to fund the University’s new Global and International Studies Building and Regional Academic Health Center".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that's some nice creative accounting there.

the ath side paying the education side for the cost of schollies, including tuition, room and board, books and fees, then acting like it's a gift.

if the athletic dept was self funding the schollies it itself gives out, then it's not really money the athletic dept is giving over to the educational side, it's money owed to the educational side.

and how much rent is the educational side charging the athletic side for the use of all that land and facilities?

i'm guessing none.

i could far more credibly put a dollar value on all that per yr, and say that's money the education side is subsidizing the athletic side per yr.

and i'm guessing it would come out to more than $17 mil per yr.

all that said, i'll stand by my statement that the university, it's students, faculty, alumni, and fans, are not the real beneficiaries of the financial windfall of athletic tv deals.

that said, with the "Brewster's Millions" esque mandate as another poster quite credibly put it, surely more will go back to the education side in the future.

but even if so, i still doubt any benefit to the students, faculty, alumni, fans, will be more than minimal.

the big beneficiaries will still be a very small handful of individuals, and the construction industry.
--------------------------------

as to your comment that "no athletic dept in the country would have used those funds to lower student tuition", while likely so, that's an indictment on the universities themselves, not a valid excuse for that being the case.

nor would any use that money to lower ticket or parking prices either.

which again is an indictment, not a valid excuse for said behavior.


especially considering the absolute fact that the students, faculty, alumni, fans, and citizenry, are the ones paying for all this.

and not doing so voluntarily, but being mandated to do so no differently than if being taxed.

did you think Fox and Disney and Turner and Comcast/NBC and CBS, were paying for any of this?

literally not one cent are they.

you and me and the rest of the citizenry are. literally 100 plus % of it. and again, being mandated to do so not much differently than if being taxed.

and the whole reason for all this corporate consolidation, literally 100% percent of it, is so they can MANDATE us all to pay even more and more and more and more.

demonize this post or me as you wish for spin, as the idiot Champs1976 tried, everything i say here and above is totally accurate. even if not what some want to hear.

So you want the athletic department pay rent for the space used? Does the business school have to pay rent for the space it uses?

The athletic department has always paid tuition for the scholarships, and they pay in-state tuition for the kids from Indiana and out of state tuition for everyone that's from outside the state.

Not sure I understand the involuntary tax you are claiming. No tax money goes to the athletic department, and if you don't want to subsidize the athletic department then don't buy apparel. Don't go to games, and don't buy a TV package.

Should the athletic department bill the university for the 100s of millions of dollars in free marketing the university gets from games being televised? There's a direct correlation between a successful athletic program and the volume and quality of applications a school receives.

If you want to be mad about money not benefiting students, you should be more upset about the billions of dollars universities keep in their endowments.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

So you want the athletic department pay rent for the space used? Does the business school have to pay rent for the space it uses?

The athletic department has always paid tuition for the scholarships, and they pay in-state tuition for the kids from Indiana and out of state tuition for everyone that's from outside the state.

Not sure I understand the involuntary tax you are claiming. No tax money goes to the athletic department, and if you don't want to subsidize the athletic department then don't buy apparel. Don't go to games, and don't buy a TV package.

Should the athletic department bill the university for the 100s of millions of dollars in free marketing the university gets from games being televised? There's a direct correlation between a successful athletic program and the volume and quality of applications a school receives.

If you want to be mad about money not benefiting students, you should be more upset about the billions of dollars universities keep in their endowments.

that post shows a monumental lack of reading comprehension of literally everything i've posted here.

or just going for false spin.

either way, do better.

perhaps you should re read my posts from the start, so you don't mischaracterize literally everything i said.

if you can't grasp what i posted, that's on you.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

So you want the athletic department pay rent for the space used? Does the business school have to pay rent for the space it uses?

The athletic department has always paid tuition for the scholarships, and they pay in-state tuition for the kids from Indiana and out of state tuition for everyone that's from outside the state.

Not sure I understand the involuntary tax you are claiming. No tax money goes to the athletic department, and if you don't want to subsidize the athletic department then don't buy apparel. Don't go to games, and don't buy a TV package.

Should the athletic department bill the university for the 100s of millions of dollars in free marketing the university gets from games being televised? There's a direct correlation between a successful athletic program and the volume and quality of applications a school receives.

If you want to be mad about money not benefiting students, you should be more upset about the billions of dollars universities keep in their endowments.

"So you want the athletic department pay rent for the space used"?

just stop with the out and out lying. i never said that and you know it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Not sure I understand the involuntary tax you are claiming".

it effectively absolutely is an involuntary mandatory tax. that you haven't figured that out, or why, is on you.

many to most here have, though many apparently are strongly in favor of the involuntary mandatory tax. (so they're either total idiots or not being honest).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Should the athletic department bill the university for the 100s of millions of dollars in free marketing the university gets from games being televised"?

first off, the athletic dept 100% belongs to IU. so all athletic dept money belongs to IU in the first place.

secondly, 99 cents on the dollar of said marketing, is free marketing the athletic dept gets from the school.. not vice versa.

take the school names, "IU" in our case, off the basketball or football teams, and the public literally couldn't care less about them.



and right now that "free marketing" you speak of, is an absolute and very public admission that IU is in things for the money, only for the money, and maxing the money for IU, drives all decisions at the institution.

not exactly the "marketing" message a supposedly non profit tax exempt institution, that's tax exempt and supposedly non profit, precisely because it's in charge of the state's higher education, and now our state's hospital systems and entire healthcare systems as well.

which IU is now also deliberately and openly monopolizing as much as college sports conferences, for the exact same reason of also maxing already outlandishly huge revenues in both our state's higher educational system, and our state's entire hospitals' and entire healthcare' systems.

beyond shameful behavior by those who's only driving goal is more and more and more and more and more money, for already rich programs and institutions that are supposed to be "non profit" for a very good reason, that have outright hijacked our state's collegiate sports, and our state's higher education system, and now even our state's entire hospital and healthcare systems, all the way down to the family doctor.

if you don't grasp that literally everything i just said is absolutely true, then you aren't paying attention.

if you do grasp it and just don't care, then you are the danger.