not that have contracts in place to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 million/year to put their football teams on TV over the course of the next 10 years.
Wow ... What a misleading and COMPLETELY FALSE statement you made there. The Athletic Department did borrow money that has already been paid back in full by the AD. In addition, none of A&M's athletic department is paid for by taxpayers (which a lot of schools cannot say). Any exit fee will come from the Athletic Department Funds (or really witholding of this years money from the Big XII) and they already have enough donations to cover that, the student athletic village they are going to start building at the beginning of next year, and they are well on their way to having enough funds to do a major overhaul of Kyle Field (large enough that some have said may lead them to play home games in Dallas/Houston for a season). Saying what you said is a complete and total fabrication. Taxpayer funds have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the exit fees.
FIFY. OU lost a ton of leverage when the PAC said no thanks. UT basically called their bluff and unless the SEC/Big 10/ACC come calling, OU is not in the position of power as they were 24 hours ago. I do think some concessions need to be made regarding the content shown on LHN, but unequal revenue sharing was agreed upon by all of the Big 12 schools just a year ago, including OU. Also, don't forget that BYU also has their own network. I doubt their interested in joining the Big 12 if it would force them to equally share their revenues from it.
Totally agree with you on that (with the fact that each school should get to keep revenue from their Tier 3 Network) as long as the conference imposes restrictions so the Tier 3 Network doesnt hurt other schools, such as: 1) HS games or highlights 2) Conference games being put on the network before the Tier 1/2 makes their weekly choices 3) Member Institution cannot exclude themselves from a conference network. You are either a part of the conference or you are not. That said, with those reasonable restrictions, do you think ESPN is really willing to give Texas $15MM per year in addition to paying all of the production costs? NOT A CHANCE!! Again, the LHN was a bribe to Texas to keep the Super Conferences from happening last year, where ESPN would have had to pay MUCH more money out in renegotiated conference TV deals.
UT has more power, resources, authority, and influence than A&M, and beyond that, they're in the same conference as Tech while A&M isn't. Rightly or wrongly, that makes UT more responsible for Tech's fate.
Interesting take on how FSU kept the ACC's new exit fees from being higher than the $20MM that was just set. Remember the $20MM is probably about what A&M will pay so it certainly is not enough to keep a team from leaving. Still not sure about FL allowing Fla State into the SEC. http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/fsu-ne...itter&utm_campaign=Feed:+mrseccom+(MrSEC.com)
I did not say the AD was paid for by taxpayers. But an interest free loan from the taxpayers was a pretty sweet deal. If that loan doesn't get paid back, taxpayer money is at risk for the funding of college sports. There's no way to spin that, Josh..that's just what it is. When you make a loan, you take risk...typically you're rewarded for that with interest. You love to level crap at me you never back up. What did I say that was a fabrication? Here are highlights from an article published in August 2009; there's some pretty shameful crap in there from Byrne: http://www.theeagle.com/am/A-amp-amp-M-athletics-reworks-budget-to-pay-loan Published Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:09 AM A&M athletics reworks budget to pay loan In late 2008, the Texas A&M athletic department was scrambling to meet an ominous deadline. The department had less than a year before it was to begin repaying a $16 million loan arranged by previous A&M President Robert Gates and athletics director Bill Byrne. The loan gave the department four years to use university money to shore up budget shortfalls, and the first payment was due in the fiscal year that starts Sept. 1, 2009. But the department was facing two more years of projected deficit spending, and finance officials expressed concern that something needed to be done, records show. Interviews with university and athletic department officials, along with e-mails obtained by The Eagle through a Texas Public Information Act request, depict the financial equivalent of a frantic fourth-quarter drive to get the athletic department into the black. Officials now expect a balanced budget for 2009-10, but 10 months ago they weren't so optimistic. Many employees of A&M's division of finance, as well as some athletic department officials, expressed concern about the athletic department's fiscal responsibility. Financial officers cited poor revenue projections, a lack of interest in oversight or controls and an inability to control rising expenses as reasons that the program had problems the past three years. "In retrospect, it is inconceivable to me how this situation was allowed to fester for so many years without proper action being taken," Elsa Murano, then A&M's president, wrote in an April memo to system regents reviewing the situation. Expenses for the athletic department have risen sharply in recent years. In 2003, A&M athletics spent $43.2 million and turned an $800,000 profit. Projections for this fiscal year have the department spending $72.9 million and bringing in $71.9 million in revenue -- a $1 million deficit. Those revenue estimates included $4.5 million provided through the university's loan. The department still was in the red in November 2008 with the repayment period less than a year away. A review by the university's division of finance predicted a $3 million operating loss for the 2008-09 fiscal year -- which began Sept. 1, 2008 and ends Aug. 31 -- and a $4.5 million deficit for 2009-10. More strains on the budget were on the horizon. Athletic department officials were preparing in late 2008 to move their 80 employees out of the John J. Koldus Student Services Building to make room for departments displaced by the renovation of the Memorial Student Center. That move, which was requested by the university and required to be completed by May 2009, would cost the department $1.4 million, employees estimated. Internal e-mails indicated that several possible solutions were discussed, including that the department might want the $16 million loan forgiven in exchange for athletics moving out of Koldus. University and athletic department officials said last week that such an option was never seriously considered. It quickly was shot down by A&M administrators. "If it's true ... the request is completely out of the question," wrote Terry Pankratz, A&M's chief financial officer, referring to the loan forgiveness in a November 2008 e-mail to administrators. Byrne requested university funding to help pay for non-revenue-generating women's athletics. All sports currently are paid for with athletic revenue, most of which comes from football and men's basketball. "This is something that I have asked for since my arrival here," Byrne said in an e-mail last week, adding that most universities provide some financial assistance for their athletic departments. Byrne declined to be interviewed for this story but responded to questions submitted by e-mail. University officials rejected his funding idea, saying they wanted the department to be financially self-sufficient. That's when Byrne requested that the university pay the $1.4 million relocation costs, according to e-mails. That also was refused. "During the past three years, very few, if any, measures have been implemented by athletics to significantly reduce operating costs," Pankratz wrote to then-president Murano in February. "Had cost-saving measures been implemented during the past three years, athletics may have some reserve balances to address the renovation costs or there may be some funding available through the line of credit Dr. Gates authorized." E-mails, interviews and internal memos from 2006 all indicate that the main purpose of the loan was to allow the university's sports teams to improve competitively while the department sought out new revenue streams. The football team, which brings in the most income and subsidizes other sports, has struggled, which might have contributed to the department's financial difficulties. "If we had been selling out Kyle Field, you would not be asking me these questions," Byrne told The Eagle last week. "We would be operating in the black." Then there was this in December 2009: http://www.chron.com/sports/college...it-sheds-light-on-problems-at-A-M-1733223.php COLLEGE STATION — The Texas A&M athletic department lacks control of its finances, according to an audit obtained by the San Antonio Express-News. The department “requires significant improvement in its financial controls and processes,” according to the 25-page report that reviews a span from September 2007 to December 2008. Six accountants from the A&M system performed the internal audit. “Overall, in spite of the hardships imposed on our fans by the economy, the financial picture for the athletic department is healthy,” he wrote. “We have begun repaying the $16 million loan from the University, and intend to adhere to its terms.” And then there's this: http://knightcommission.org/index.p...-loan-to-athletics-&catid=1:content&Itemid=11 According to the report, the athletics department was provided access to that credit for four years and then would have 10 years to repay the money without interest, with the first year of the repayment beginning in 2009. The credit was used to pay anticipated deficits from 2004-2009, including expenses for major contracts to football and men's and women's basketbal coaches, and significant facility upgrades, including track and field facilities. So that loan isn't due until 2019. If it's been repaid entirely, great....but I can't find one article that says it has been repaid in full.
The implication that the exit fees are going to be paid by your and my tax dollars. Ridiculous. And don't even try to act like that is where you were not going with that.
Here's the implication, Copernicus. There remains to be paid the balance of a $16 million loan that was made by a publicly-funded university to an athletic department that is supposed to be self-sufficient. It couldn't cover operating costs...it got 4 years of no payments and no interest over the life of a 10 year loan. My understanding is exit fees will be paid by A&M simply not receiving money from the media deal this year. But the loan payments are still due. So yes, there is a connection between the repayment of those public funds under the terms of that loan and A&M's decision to forego an assload of income this year in exchange for the right to head East next year.
The guy laughing at someone who cares about the taxpayer when actually his school took millions from a publicly funded Universities? schools have spent millions of taxpayer money on athletics.
It'll be interesting to see if the exit fees change if Beebe is out as Commissioner. I couldn't believe Beebe agreed to take a negotiated buy out from A&M after all that transpired just a year ago, all it showed was a lack of leadership and accountability on his part IMO. It basically opened the door to a Big 12 raid which was haulted by Baylor out of all people.
