"and their success doesn't benefit the scouting budget (or facilities, for that matter) of NC State or Mississippi State."

Wrong.

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:04:00 AM (view original):
"and their success doesn't benefit the scouting budget (or facilities, for that matter) of NC State or Mississippi State."

Wrong.

Do you think that piece of a sentence represents the core of my dislike for your proposal, benis? Despite my clearly stated - both before and after - position that those conference tv deals clearly do benefit *the universities*? It's almost as if you're trying to make my position sound like something else, to confuse the issues and the discussion. There must be a word for that. I think it starts with an "o"... Obfus...?

Posted by shoe3 on 6/5/2017 10:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:04:00 AM (view original):
"and their success doesn't benefit the scouting budget (or facilities, for that matter) of NC State or Mississippi State."

Wrong.

Do you think that piece of a sentence represents the core of my dislike for your proposal, benis? Despite my clearly stated - both before and after - position that those conference tv deals clearly do benefit *the universities*? It's almost as if you're trying to make my position sound like something else, to confuse the issues and the discussion. There must be a word for that. I think it starts with an "o"... Obfus...?

Listen, I don't care if you like my proposal or not. I barely thought about it before posting, just throwing it out there.

But then you start posting things that aren't opinions but that are just flat out wrong about how sports work in real life. I haven't been sitting here saying "Give me back postseason cash, the game sucks without it". I'm fine with it being gone, not a huge deal. But I could see some benefits of providing a little incentive to joining a fuller conference.

I've been just pointing out that you are saying things that are factually incorrect. And since you're saying those things to help prove that your opinion is the correct way to think about this game, it's pretty important that you understand what you're talking about.

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/5/2017 10:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:04:00 AM (view original):
"and their success doesn't benefit the scouting budget (or facilities, for that matter) of NC State or Mississippi State."

Wrong.

Do you think that piece of a sentence represents the core of my dislike for your proposal, benis? Despite my clearly stated - both before and after - position that those conference tv deals clearly do benefit *the universities*? It's almost as if you're trying to make my position sound like something else, to confuse the issues and the discussion. There must be a word for that. I think it starts with an "o"... Obfus...?

Listen, I don't care if you like my proposal or not. I barely thought about it before posting, just throwing it out there.

But then you start posting things that aren't opinions but that are just flat out wrong about how sports work in real life. I haven't been sitting here saying "Give me back postseason cash, the game sucks without it". I'm fine with it being gone, not a huge deal. But I could see some benefits of providing a little incentive to joining a fuller conference.

I've been just pointing out that you are saying things that are factually incorrect. And since you're saying those things to help prove that your opinion is the correct way to think about this game, it's pretty important that you understand what you're talking about.

Ooh, feisty benis, showing some assertiveness!

You listen. What I said wasn't "factually incorrect". What you think I meant might have been, when you pull out a piece of one sentence. But no, playing in a conference with Duke or Kentucky doesn't make NC State's or Mississippi State's scouting budget bigger. It makes the university coffers more full. And if the AD has the pull, and if the priorities of the president, boosters, and regents all align, then maybe s/he can make a few extra scouting trips to the opposite coast happen for the hoops team this year. It's possible. But that's not really how those decisions are made, is it? It's a little more complicated, isn't it? And that's really what I've been saying all along, isn't it?

Simplistic and unnecessary.

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 3:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Wait.. you think the incentive to play in a big conference isn't about money in real life? Ha.

Money for the university, ok. Money for more scouting, no.

Um yes. You're telling me that the travel budget for recruiting at Grambling St is the same as Kentucky?

You think the facilities at Valparaiso are just as good as Duke?

bigger conference equals more money for your athletic program.

Example 1A of benisfuscation in this thread. No benis, I'm not telling you that the travel budget for Grambling St is the same as Kentucky.

The university sets sets the budget, the NCAA doesn't set it for them.

"And if the AD has the pull, and if the priorities of the president, boosters, and regents all align, then maybe s/he can make a few extra scouting trips to the opposite coast happen for the hoops team this year. It's possible."

It's possible? What do you mean it's possible? It's not a possibility, it's what actually happens. Teams in power conferences can ride on the coat tails of better teams and then they spend more on recruiting than the teams in little conferences. That's how it works.

"But no, playing in a conference with Duke or Kentucky doesn't make NC State's or Mississippi State's scouting budget bigger. It makes the university coffers more full."

Ah, the technicality argument. Nice one. It's still wrong. If a school dedicates 10% of its income to the athletics and then the income increases, then athletic budget can increase proportionally. It's not all that complicated.

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:41:00 AM (view original):
"And if the AD has the pull, and if the priorities of the president, boosters, and regents all align, then maybe s/he can make a few extra scouting trips to the opposite coast happen for the hoops team this year. It's possible."

It's possible? What do you mean it's possible? It's not a possibility, it's what actually happens. Teams in power conferences can ride on the coat tails of better teams and then they spend more on recruiting than the teams in little conferences. That's how it works.

"But no, playing in a conference with Duke or Kentucky doesn't make NC State's or Mississippi State's scouting budget bigger. It makes the university coffers more full."

Ah, the technicality argument. Nice one. It's still wrong. If a school dedicates 10% of its income to the athletics and then the income increases, then athletic budget can increase proportionally. It's not all that complicated.

Simplistic and unnecessary. Let's stick to the basics.

Btw, I love that you're arguing this. It's awesome.

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:43:00 AM (view original):
Btw, I love that you're arguing this. It's awesome.

What I'm arguing, and what you think I'm arguing are two very different things. Refer back to 1A above.

No, you've made it pretty clear that you don't think bad teams in good conferences are spending more money on their athletic programs than good teams in bad conferences.

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
No, you've made it pretty clear that you don't think bad teams in good conferences are spending more money on their athletic programs than good teams in bad conferences.

Ok Duke.

Simplistic and unnecessary.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/5/2017 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
No, you've made it pretty clear that you don't think bad teams in good conferences are spending more money on their athletic programs than good teams in bad conferences.

Ok Duke.

Simplistic and unnecessary.

Finally starting to show some respect. Thank you sir.

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/5/2017 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
No, you've made it pretty clear that you don't think bad teams in good conferences are spending more money on their athletic programs than good teams in bad conferences.

Ok Duke.

Simplistic and unnecessary.

Finally starting to show some respect. Thank you sir.

Sorry, I don't want you to misunderstand. I'm mocking you.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/5/2017 10:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/5/2017 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
No, you've made it pretty clear that you don't think bad teams in good conferences are spending more money on their athletic programs than good teams in bad conferences.

Ok Duke.

Simplistic and unnecessary.

Finally starting to show some respect. Thank you sir.

Sorry, I don't want you to misunderstand. I'm mocking you.

Wow... the irony..

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/5/2017 10:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/5/2017 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
No, you've made it pretty clear that you don't think bad teams in good conferences are spending more money on their athletic programs than good teams in bad conferences.

Ok Duke.

Simplistic and unnecessary.

Finally starting to show some respect. Thank you sir.

Sorry, I don't want you to misunderstand. I'm mocking you.

Wow... the irony..

I'd feel bad if you went out and got a tattoo or something. It's not actually an honorable title. Just making sure I'm being clear.