Horn of Gabriel

Pate is the worst of the college football commentators, except for all the others.

The most unrealistic part of that video is Texas playing @ Tech. That ain't ever happening again.

Barnes always seemed like a bitch but he's got a good skillset fit for the Spurs and Wemby. He is big enough defend, he can hit the three (like 37.x% last year), he has ok vision and playoff experience. What's his contract after the first year to S.A.?

Castle has a good floor with his defense and athleticism. I wonder on his ceiling, I think he can be a starting PG in the NBA and hopefully will really soak it up from Chris Paul this year. His handle is good but he's tall + vertical in his lean and dribbles a bit high, better defenders will rip him. TBH I read him as a good handling SG who could take PG minutes but not the primary ball handler role...but am willing to see where it goes. If he wants to be a true PG and develops that way, awesome. His skillset today to me seems 3 & D + explosive slasher with good vision more than PNR God + primary ball handler. Then again Tony didn't really have the "assist PG" early either he was more of a penetrate to score and then dish to a wide open Duncan and "no-matter-what-don't-turn-over-the-damn-ball" after Pop bashed that into his skull.

I have a friend who is breaking out on her own as a personal trainer after a few years working for the Globogyms. She'd like some help from a lawyer looking at her waiver to make sure her bases are covered. She's in Austin area. Any recommendations?

Not sure all his teammates not going to his concert is the flex he thinks it is

Never let Steve Patterson see this

How do you really feel though? In the context of draft picks vs. a known quantity, Young could be a deal if we got him for the right stuff. Draft is lotto ticket and it's kinda like funding a startup company. Out of 10, 2-3 will bust, 3-4 will be so-so, two will be above average and one will be HOF level. Young is not HOF level but he's between that and "above average." And he's also still young. I wouldn't give two first round picks but a first and two seconds I might think about. I'm guessing that Pop can get some more defensive effort from him, and his ability to beat his man and create chaos in the lane + vision would unlock Wemby more. Add some shooters (much easier to find) to do 3 and D and all the sudden you have a team. It's about chemistry and effort from there. Great Spurs teams of the past 25 years have never been all young guns, it's always been a combo of veteran leadership and young blood. If we're building mostly via draft we get another year of drafting, another year of "learning what works," followed by a year of "now that we know what works let's learn to play together," followed by a year of "let's fine tune the chemistry and find the missing pieces." Pretty soon you look up and Wemby is in year 6-7, he could be getting frustrated as would the fans and you know he'll have people in his ear about NY, LA, Miami, etc. And that's IF there aren't injuries along the way or an uncle that pops up. Whatever, this isn't in my circle of control, and there's so much luck involved as well as everything else - why worry about it? Just enjoy watching a generational talent while he's here and hopefully he turns into something amazing. In the pantheon of basketball fandom I'm playing with house money as a 40 year old Spurs fan at this point.

We couldn't get a country star?

Damn I'm glad I got under the shade during the Herman era 😖

Donation is already non-deductible? Also any school in the B1G, SEC, B12, or ACC if you broke out football alone would be profit making. ISU as an example will be $31.7MM/yr on the new B12 TV deal, and they're bringing in $16.19MM in football-only ticket sales. That's $48MM in revenues before we even get to brand licensing, etc. They're not spending that on football. Campbell makes $4MM/yr, with a $3MM assistant pool. So that's ~$7MM. The 85 scholarships true cost is incremental to the university to let an extra student or two or 85 sit in courses. Their internal cost is no where near what they charge students in fees, which ISU pegs at $22,295. Their true cost is less than that but let's apply that full amount here, $22,295 * 85 = $1.895MM. ISU's total spend on all sports team travel last year was ~$7.5MM, let's stick football with half of that or $4MM. Now we're up to ~$13MM in expenses against almost $50MM in revenues. Even if you add in capital expenditure amortization like stadium costs and other facilities, overhead for AD staff, etc, there's plenty of room for "profit." But if you don't believe my back of the napkin math, the Iowa St. student newspaper published all of this data for 2023. Football had $53.2MM in revenue against $27.7MM in expenses, a profit of $25.4MM. Today, Athletic Departments don't ever turn a "profit," because they want to be non-profit. But they have to spend the money; in cases of smaller schools the football overage fully funds everything else aside from Men's basketball which generates about 2x its cost. In larger "more profitable" ADs like UT, Ohio State, etc we've traditionally spent that money on coaching and the facilities arms race. Or in the case of UT we turn some money back over to the academic side. Out of curiosity I looked at a few other smaller teams... Boise State, Mountain West Conference Football-only expenses: $18.4MM Football-only revenues (TV, ticket sales): $25.6MM Surplus: $7.2MM Florida International University, Conference USA Football-only expenses: $13.3MM Football-only revenues: $11.8MM Surplus: $1.5MM Texas State, Sun Belt Conference Football-only expenses: 13MM Football-only revenues: $3.8MM Loss: $9.2MM There is some level where football can't stand on its own, but the line is drawn further down on the list than you might think. And even those who turn a "loss" make up the gap with student fees if they have sufficient desire to keep the program.

Fans wearing long sleeves? To a day game? At Texas? WTF, will not buy.

Staples said on the Feldman pod that it was likely to be structured as a sort of loan. You get $xxMM now and the PE firm wants 20% of your growth over $x/year going forward for a period of time. Kinda like a tax or Income Sharing Agreement (ISA). That gives a way to ADs to sell it to their president as "free" money with downside protection (if you don't grow you don't pay), and the PE firm is betting that the growth in college football is going to continue and they get a cut of it.

...said fans when the forward pass was legalized ...said fans when we went from leather helmets to modern equipment ...said fans when when conferences realigned the first, second, third, forth, fifth, and sixth times ...said fans when black players were allowed to play ...said fans when we started declaring a national champion AFTER the bowls and yet...here we are, college football still as popular as ever, even moreso.

aggy wins to start the hype rollercoaster aggy_october_rollercoaster.gif

JFC I feel old now

The donkey show in Mexico sells out too, doesn't make it a good show.

Any journalist who talks about NIL as part of athletic budget is either dumb or uninformed. It's not, anywhere, at least in the letter of current NIL law, and I think we'd hear about it here pretty quick if universities started funding NIL payments to players directly out of AD budgets. It's all 3rd party transactions and multiple 3rd parties coming together as collectives. Title IX is a big problem for schools outside of the B1G and SEC. If the House settlement involves them paying out rev shares to football, they're going to get hit with Title IX lawsuits for inequity if they don't balance that with money on the women's side. So $20MM becomes $40MM quick, and the ISUs, KSUs, and OkState's of the world can't afford that. That's why I think the rev shares will get paid out equally to any scholarship athlete to solve for Title IX, and the outside 3rd party NIL will be that differentiator. Now where things get really interesting is if the House settlement or near future NLRB or Federal action turns these students into employees. Then Title VII applies, which in this case is mostly about non-discrimination not equality. People in Sales/revenue generating roles generally make more than operational/administrative roles all day long. So in that case if Title VII is governing, the schools could bring NIL under their umbrella and raise and pay out money directly to employee-athletes at different rates legally. But which statute wins when they're both student AND employee? Title IX or VII? The law dogs will sort that one out...

I think it is. I have a daughter and get the point of Title IX...women's sports have never received the level of investment of men's sports. That is _part of_ but not the only reason they aren't as popular. However t9 doesn't concern itself with popularity of a sport. It's about ensuring equal access for women and men. You can argue with a lot of truth that without Title IX we wouldn't have women's sports opportunities at nearly the level we do today - many, many universities would never invest in it while they were remodeling their men's football locker rooms for the umpteenth time. In a world where the universities are providing amateur athletes opportunities to compete as part of their education, that makes a ton of sense to me. There are also a lot of things that make less sense and unintended consequences: UT doesn't do men's soccer for example even though there are a ton of great players in the state - because we'd have to find more sports on the women's side. Only so much non-rev even UT chooses to support. The mirroring of sports makes sense: men/women's swimming/diving, m/w tennis, golf, basketball, baseball/softball. But then we get women's only soccer, rowing, etc essentially b/c of football which doesn't have a female counterpart. Title IX calls that an inequity that must be balanced out. Fair? Some say yes; but if we took football off the table a lot of women's sports would disappear too without the mandate of Title IX.

It's kinda B.S. that they have to play in a public park and they have a point about the facilities differences. It's also true that they're mixing up correlation and causation with regard to NIL popularity.

It doesn't/won't just like it doesn't today. But the revenue sharing system they're discussing as part of this proposal isn't private funds. It's money coming into the university system via the TV deals.

Title IX doesn't give a shit about the market. The university level administrators and their Federal guidance are seeking "equitable" treatment for females vs. males from the university -> student. That's why we have a women's rowing team with literally dozens of fans that recruits any female willing to sign up on campus; so we can have the same # of scholarships for men and women. Doesn't matter to the government that there isn't an equivalent female sport to football...85 scholarships are 85 scholarships. Also won't mater to the government Title IX administrators that the market value of the starting QB is higher than the volleyball libero's...$1 to him has to be $1 to her (note: IF it's coming from the university) or it's not Title IX compliant... The only way I see to work this out is to pay everyone equal, and establish that as a "floor" to keep the schools from getting sued: "See, we're rev sharing with our athletes! And yes it's Title IX equal!" Then, keep the NIL collective structure in place to pay the market value out to those whose market value actually dictates it. Anyone dreaming all of this will end up under the school umbrella is wrong, there's just no way to manage it save a huge legislative overhaul at the Federal level which won't happen.

Title 9 is going to fuck this whole deal. When the women's rowers demand to be paid the same as the starting QB, he'll sue for not getting his value. And they'll sue for equal pay. Rock and hard place.

TL;DR, can you summarize?