Posted by poncho0091 on 6/4/2017 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 4:03:00 PM (view original):

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.

If they're going to make budget about the teams performance and history, now we're getting somewhere. But that's not what we're talking about. Duke and Kentucky don't have the budget they have because of the ACC or SEC, and their success doesn't benefit the scouting budget (or facilities, for that matter) of NC State or Mississippi State.

Conference strength and team prestige are factors that already have representation in the process. They don't need your proxy.

This is a flawed statement at best. There are lots of bad programs who ease the pain of being bad by remaining in a power conference and collecting all that extra money. There are plenty of bad program who have great facilities simply because they are in a tough conference. Just because the school gets the money, does not mean a lot of it does not go back into the athletic departments.

Its not a flawed statement. Its a factually incorrect statement. Maybe he didn't know how it worked so hopefully I was able to teach him something tonight.

What I said was correct. The money goes to the university. It doesn't go to the basketball programs scouting budget. How the athletic department chooses to spend the money is up to them. When they make an athletic department sim, then we can talk, but it's going to be a lot more complicated than what you're talking about.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 10:38:00 PM (view original):
What I said was correct. The money goes to the university. It doesn't go to the basketball programs scouting budget. How the athletic department chooses to spend the money is up to them. When they make an athletic department sim, then we can talk, but it's going to be a lot more complicated than what you're talking about.

Again, you're still incorrect. Your statement "Duke and Kentucky don't have the budget they have because of the ACC or SEC, and their success doesn't benefit the scouting budget (or facilities, for that matter) of NC State or Mississippi State."

Duke and Kentucky get a large budget, because they are good, but they also get a ton of money from their conference affiliation which allows the school to provide a bigger budget if they so choose.

Additionally, you're wrong on your second point. In football for example, the SEC is the premier conference, but only primarily, because a few teams have dominated. The conference got signed to huge network contracts, because of that success, and schools like Miss St and Vandy have benefitted by association, because we know it's not based on their success. You're right that the school is still going to determine how much of that budget they are allowed, but you'd be foolish to believe a chunk of that money doesn't go back into the athletic program.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 10:38:00 PM (view original):
What I said was correct. The money goes to the university. It doesn't go to the basketball programs scouting budget. How the athletic department chooses to spend the money is up to them. When they make an athletic department sim, then we can talk, but it's going to be a lot more complicated than what you're talking about.

You're mixing together a lot of potential issues and straw men here, and you're hopelessly incorrect on the core topic.

Posted by kcsundevil on 6/4/2017 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 10:38:00 PM (view original):
What I said was correct. The money goes to the university. It doesn't go to the basketball programs scouting budget. How the athletic department chooses to spend the money is up to them. When they make an athletic department sim, then we can talk, but it's going to be a lot more complicated than what you're talking about.

You're mixing together a lot of potential issues and straw men here, and you're hopelessly incorrect on the core topic.

The core topic is whether it is a good idea to work conference cash back into the game. I don't think it is. The proposal is presented as a proxy for "elite conference status", as if other factors aren't already representing that in the process. The proposal is unnecessary and unrealistic, because real life Rutgers and Michigan State make their own choices about how to spend their own revenue, which is all generated in multiple ways apart from how many games their conference wins in the national tournament, and treating a proposal that results in them getting equal boosts for scouting simply because they play in the same conference as anything but wildly simplistic and unrealistic is just lunacy.

If you want there to be incentives to playing in strong conferences, you're in luck. There are players who prefer playing in strong conferences, and being competitive in a strong conference helps your RPI and tournament seeding, along with your prestige. There is no need for an unrealistic proxy. If you want to add things like conference negotiations, tv rights, and athletic director personalities and tendencies... well someone can probably make an interesting game along those lines. But it's going to be a hell of a lot more complicated than these teams play in the same conference, so they should all get the same scouting budget boost for conference tournament performance, and it's way beyond the scope of a "small and easy fixes" thread.

I like how shoe calls ME the Duke of Obfuscating.

He says something that everyone can see is clearly incorrect. Then writes out hundreds of words of gibberish in a roundabout and dysfunctional way trying to prove he's right. It's hilarious.

Kudos Shoe. Dig those heels in.

The ACC is a good example of revenue allocation. Duke is pretty good at basketball, pretty mediocre at football. Clemson, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite. Was their success predicated by success, and failures, or how the AD budgeted the revenue?

"He says something that everyone can see is clearly incorrect."

Actually, I believe he is correct. I also believe he is far more patient in trying to explain it to you than your insufferable self-righteousness deserves.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2017 7:33:00 PM (view original):
Wisconsin gets all the fat white guys from Wisconsin by default. The parents feed 'em cheese and play the WI fight song from birth.

Wisconsin Buzzcats.

Posted by l80r20 on 6/5/2017 8:41:00 AM (view original):
"He says something that everyone can see is clearly incorrect."

Actually, I believe he is correct. I also believe he is far more patient in trying to explain it to you than your insufferable self-righteousness deserves.

As if you didn't need any more proof that Shoe is wrong, you got Spud siding with him.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2017 8:14:00 AM (view original):
The ACC is a good example of revenue allocation. Duke is pretty good at basketball, pretty mediocre at football. Clemson, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite. Was their success predicated by success, and failures, or how the AD budgeted the revenue?

I guess, because it supports no one's point, this is not a topic of discussion. But I'll answer:

Clemson started pouring money into their football program when they started winning. Duke, getting the same ACC money, did not.

So "conference cash" is bullshit because the Athletic Departments will allocate it to the programs that bring in the dough. IOW, in HD, the bottom feeders in power conferences would NOT be allocating funds to their **** basketball programs.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2017 9:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2017 8:14:00 AM (view original):
The ACC is a good example of revenue allocation. Duke is pretty good at basketball, pretty mediocre at football. Clemson, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite. Was their success predicated by success, and failures, or how the AD budgeted the revenue?

I guess, because it supports no one's point, this is not a topic of discussion. But I'll answer:

Clemson started pouring money into their football program when they started winning. Duke, getting the same ACC money, did not.

So "conference cash" is bullshit because the Athletic Departments will allocate it to the programs that bring in the dough. IOW, in HD, the bottom feeders in power conferences would NOT be allocating funds to their **** basketball programs.

North Carolina is a basketball school but spent more than Clemson on football recruiting - according to that article.

But the fact remains - even the bottom feeders of power conferences spend more money on recruiting than small schools due primarily to the fact they can because of all bonus cash they get.

Clemson spent a gazillion dollars on a new football facility with slides, swings set, nap rooms and probably juice boxes. That is a recruiting tool and I doubt it factored into whatever you read.

Posted by Benis on 6/5/2017 2:59:00 AM (view original):
I like how shoe calls ME the Duke of Obfuscating.

He says something that everyone can see is clearly incorrect. Then writes out hundreds of words of gibberish in a roundabout and dysfunctional way trying to prove he's right. It's hilarious.

Kudos Shoe. Dig those heels in.

By everyone, you mean you, mr poncho and mr sundevil. And by something, you mean a statement from me that you've taken and tried to pretend it means something I didn't say, so your proposal looks less silly than it is. For example, as near as I can tell, this "something" that "everyone" thinks I'm wrong about is stemming from the time I said Duke and Kentucky don't get their basketball scouting budget from being in the ACC or SEC; and that Rutgers and Michigan State don't have identical per scholarship scouting budgets because they play in the same conference. Both of those statements are factually correct. You seem to want people to think what I mean by that is playing in a big power conference doesn't have any potential financial benefits for those institutions. But that's not what I said, nor what I implied. Big conference tv rights can be lucrative *for the universities*, and there is usually some kind of profit sharing deal in place to divvy that pot. Sure. But that doesn't all go to scouting. The scouting budget would be determined by the AD, would be based on the specific priorities and needs of the program, and would come from a pot that includes a lot more than just the shared pot that each team in the conference got.

Thats what I mean when I say adding conference cash back into the game in the way you propose is simplistic and unnecessary. Simplistic, because it's a very bad approximation of how budgets are actually designed, and unnecessary because the game already factors conference strength into the process in multiple ways.

Im sure there are players who would enjoy the game more if there were more artificial advantages to press, and loopholes to exploit. I suspect guys like poncho are pretty desperate for WIS to toss them a bone. They have a right to their preferences. I will continue to decline to support them.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2017 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Clemson spent a gazillion dollars on a new football facility with slides, swings set, nap rooms and probably juice boxes. That is a recruiting tool and I doubt it factored into whatever you read.

Totally agree that it's a recruiting tool.

And again, the bottom feeders of power conferences have way better facilities than the small schools.