MU ****The official NEW new conference realignment thread.**** - Page 3

**Saul Good** · 01-31-2012, 02:52 PM

the second thread has been pronounced dead.

SPchief · 01-31-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Do you even know what an endowment is?

I assume the answer is no since you think it is some sort of proxy for university/athletic dept/conference stability.

No one is making conference membership decisions based on endowments. Endowments don't generate TV revenue.

Hey, be nice. He spelled a big word correctly.

**Saul Good** · 01-31-2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickedson

I love stability.

Endowments:

UNC - $2 Billion

Duke - $4.8 Billion

Syracuse - $850 Million

Clemson - $382 Million

You should go after Harvard, then. Endowments having something to do with athletic conferences and all.

mnchiefsguy · 01-31-2012, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You should go after Harvard, then. Endowments having something to do with athletic conferences and all.

Hey, they would probably win more conference games than Kansas.

**Saul Good** · 01-31-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Hey, they would probably win more conference games than Kansas.

Yeah, but they get to play Kansas. That gives them an advantage over KU in terms of strength of schedule.

Bambi · 01-31-2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You should go after Harvard, then. Endowments having something to do with athletic conferences and all.

I love how you shift so easily in the wind.

Two days ago you were touting Mizzou because of the money the athletics bring in.

Now it's only athletic achievement that makes a program attractive.

UNC, Duke and Syracuse all have more national standing and more monetary value than Clemson.

If you want to hitch your wagon to that school over the other three it's fine with me.

Bambi · 01-31-2012, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Do you even know what an endowment is?

I assume the answer is no since you think it is some sort of proxy for university/athletic dept/conference stability.

No one is making conference membership decisions based on endowments. Endowments don't generate TV revenue.

Yes, the schools I listed (sans Clemson) fall much more in line with the endowment level of my school. The University of Kansas. This is one of the many reasons I would want any of them over Clemson.

**Saul Good** · 01-31-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickedson

I love how you shift so easily in the wind.

Two days ago you were touting Mizzou because of the money the athletics bring in.

Now it's only athletic achievement that makes a program attractive.

UNC, Duke and Syracuse all have more national standing and more monetary value than Clemson.

If you want to hitch your wagon to that school over the other three it's fine with me.

You do understand that money generated by the athletic department has nothing to do with the school's endowments, right? You're not very bright, but you're smart enough to have figured this out.

Bambi · 01-31-2012, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You do understand that money generated by the athletic department has nothing to do with the school's endowments, right? You're not very bright, but you're smart enough to have figured this out.

Of course.

However a large endowment is essential to winning championships at major college universities. Facilities, recruiting, advertising, etc... all go into winning.

This is why schools like UNC, Duke and Syracuse win. This is why they are more valuable on television then a school like Clemson.

If Harvard wanted to compete at a big time level in sports they would. They just have no interest. They are an academic institution first.

Mr. Plow · 01-31-2012, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Do you even know what an endowment is?

I assume the answer is no since you think it is some sort of proxy for university/athletic dept/conference stability.

No one is making conference membership decisions based on endowments. Endowments don't generate TV revenue.

TV revenue.....exactly.

**Saulbadguy** · 01-31-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Of course.

However a large endowment is essential to winning championships at major college universities. Facilities, recruiting, advertising, etc... all go into winning.

This is why schools like UNC, Duke and Syracuse win. This is why they are more valuable on television then a school like Clemson.

If Harvard wanted to compete at a big time level in sports they would. They just have no interest. They are an academic institution first.

I don't think I've ever seen Duke play a football game on television.

kstater · 01-31-2012, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

I don't think I've ever seen Duke play a football game on television.

Duke whored themselves out to some SEC team a couple seasons ago. I think it was on TV.

**Saul Good** · 01-31-2012, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Of course.

However a large endowment is essential to winning championships at major college universities. Facilities, recruiting, advertising, etc... all go into winning.

This is why schools like UNC, Duke and Syracuse win. This is why they are more valuable on television then a school like Clemson.

If Harvard wanted to compete at a big time level in sports they would. They just have no interest. They are an academic institution first.

That's funny because West Virginia and Clemson have nearly identical endowments.

I found a list from 2009 that listed 791 schools by endowments. It's not 100% up to date, but I'm going to assume that it's close enough to paint a pretty accurate picture.

Boise State is 437th
Memphis is 246th
UCONN is ranked 189th
Wisconsin is ranked 187th
Kansas State is ranked 182nd
Clemson is ranked 158th
Auburn is ranked 157th
South Carolina is ranked 156th
Oregon is ranked 148th
Arizona is ranked 140th
Virginia Tech is ranked 138th
Florida State is ranked 128th
LSU is ranked 119th
Stanford is ranked 3rd
Yale is ranked 2nd
Harvard is ranked 1st

There is minimal correlation between endowments and athletic performance, and there is no causation because the primary purpose of endowments is not typically to fund athletic ventures. Your point, as usual, is reeruned.

O.city · 01-31-2012, 08:13 PM

I assume you meant to say athletic performance.

**Saul Good** · 01-31-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

I assume you meant to say athletic performance.

Yes

O.city · 01-31-2012, 08:19 PM

Seems like the more prestigious academic schools have higher endowments which leads to increased academic success.

Ever looked at the tuiton to Harvard? It's a tad bit high.

01-31-2012, 02:52 PM
Saul Good Quit your bullshit Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bored of winning Casino cash: $10052799	**The official NEW new conference realignment thread.** the second thread has been pronounced dead.
Posts: 41,870

01-31-2012, 08:13 PM	#43
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $1184064	I assume you meant to say athletic performance.
Posts: 82,823

01-31-2012, 08:19 PM	#45
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $1184064	Seems like the more prestigious academic schools have higher endowments which leads to increased academic success. Ever looked at the tuiton to Harvard? It's a tad bit high.
Posts: 82,823