Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 5565873, member: 622"]
UM and USC called Petitti’s bluff.

Petitti threatened both stating the BTE would move forward with 16, giving both a 3-6 month grace period.  Nearly simultaneously stating that the BoTs had no say in the matter.  He floated a soft date for a vote.  UM and USC stood their ground, called his bluff.

UC already stated they would move forward with the deal but if UM and USC, two of the major brands, were not included, the money would not be the same.  Now, UC is backing off.

This leads me to think other schools want to look closer at the details; the BoTs want to be informed or more; that USC, as indicated in some sources, was interested but thought the deal to be too one-sided; and UM was standing firm.  All in all, both sides want this pause.

From UC Investment’s perspective the deal is only good with all of the teams.  They get a nice stable long term return and the initial investment likely increases in value.  Without key pieces, the risk increases and the value of the investment does not appreciate as expected.

I don’t think I have stated this outright, but from UC Investment’s side, I would have been happy with the original deal.  I have taken the CFB perspective and that of the individual B1G teams, which means I have been against the deal as it smells too much of Rutgers-ian philosophy and execution regarding their AD expansion/improvements.  If you prefer, the “ Field of Dreams” approach wherein “If you build it they will come.”  This approach rarely works on its own, see Rutgers, UConn, others.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?