Adman

Not sure I agree. There’s a way for the nfl to sweeten pot to Chargers to sell to local St. Louis interests. And while they may not like a quasi-Green Bay scenario, when they stare at a judgement in the $2B range multiplied by perhaps 10 when punitive damages are applied by plaintiff happy stl city jury, they may do it anyway. By the way, just getting the nfl to put a team here in the Dome is WAY undervaluing our ask. It’s that, plus a new stadium, plus some cash. Dreaming? No. The stakes on this are huge from NFL standpoint if they lose in court. Beyond upwards of $20B, they risk precedent on relocations, PLUS the potential reopening of anti-trust exemptions. They really don’t want that. Don’t forget: the relocation guidelines created by the NFL - at issue in this case - were expressly written at the direction of the Federal appeals judge at the end of the Al Davis / Oakland Raiders relocation suit. The judge told them you better go write guidelines now to guide relocation behavior between the owners - and between the owners and markets they serve. And if you don’t, he’d haul the NFL and owners back to court to discuss their anti-trust exemptions. Oh yeah, there’s the bad PR value on top. Plus the legal fees that keep getting bigger that Stank wants to back out of. That’s why simply a team WAY undervalues the settlement value.

Agree with this. It's time to get to the Dance... not a transition year. On related topic - support for the program - he's in very good shape. One of the best buildings. Recent multi-million $ investment in renovated locker rooms for men and women. Basketball budget around the midpoint of Big East schools. Now a Champions Center to the tune of another $20M that is currently fairly rare among non-Football schools - opening in about a year. It's time to win. Then a move to the Big East.

Indeed. I'd say most or all of the Big East will have to raise their games to keep pace with us.

You’re right, no doubt. But I don’t begrudge this at all. When they offered to take on this case, not only were they doing it 100% on contingency, they knew full well the NFL would come a-blazing and throw all the most expensive legal resources at it they could, stretch it out as long as they could, ultimately requiring the STL attorneys to finance 5-years in prosecuting the case. That’s before appeals. I’m not an attorney, but I gotta believe their investment in this - again, all on their dime - must be north of $20M. Good for the attorneys - if they win. If a new team is involved, perhaps equity is (or would be) part of the comp.

Yes, yes, yes. For all the reasons you mention. The Chargers would be a better and quicker solution if the NFL can sweeten the deal for Spanos to sell to local interests. He needs a deal he can't refuse.

I've done a bit of research with former Rams season ticket holders... perhaps a dozen. Not scientific but is directional. When I asked would you like a new NFL team, they all said hell no. When I said, would you be interested if the team were free, the NFL gave us the funds for a stadium, and there was local ownership in such a way to prevent another move like what was perpetrated by Kroenke, 100% said absolutely YES.

There's a fourth party, too: their lawyers (Bob Bliss and team.) They are working 100% on contingency. So better figure 35-40% for them off the top.

This. And let me give you a reason why this is not so far-fetched a scenario. At the time St. Louis made their $1.1B proposal for a riverfront stadium north of the Arch, it included about $500M in NFL funds; about $250M from the NFL directly in stadium development funding (done routinely for all new and refurbed NFL stadiums) and another roughly $250M from Kroenke, the owner (again, done all the time by NFL owners in the cities in which they operate.) St. Louis taxpayers were going to pay the rest. Perfectly reasonable. So if the NFL and owner already pony up $500M (or so) regularly in these scenarios, making a $1B settlement with STL after swatting them away is only $500M more. And giving STL an expansion team at no charge costs them nothing other than opportunity cost. When push comes to shove and the defendants imagine this case in front of plaintiff-happy St. Louis City jury with $1-2B in damages multiplied by 10 in punitive damages -- $10-20B -- and the possibility that their anti-trust immunity could get reopened by Congress or the federal judge in Oakland who demanded they create the relocation guidelines to begin with, building STL a stadium and throwing in an expansion team for free will look like a bargain.

If this is true, I'd be on Schildt's side for sure. The embarrassing lack of situational hitting - especially when all what was needed was a base hit, especially when teams played the shift - drove me crazy. I love the long ball. But offenses need to take what defenses give you. Shorten the stroke, punch the ball into a wide open infield.

If this is true, I'd be on Schildt's side for sure. The embarrassing lack of situational hitting - especially when all what was needed was a base hit, especially when teams played the shift - drove me crazy. I love the long ball. But offenses need to take what defenses give you. Shorten the stroke, punch the ball into a wide open infield.

If this is true, I'd be on Schildt's side for sure. The embarrassing lack of situational hitting - especially when all what was needed was a base hit, especially when teams played the shift - drove me crazy. I love the long ball. But offenses need to take what defenses give you. Shorten the stroke, punch the ball into a wide open infield.

One of my all-time favorite highlights. The next shot after Guerrero threw his glove down in disgust was Lasorda in the dugout wondering why oh why he pitched to Clark.

Yes. Much of the $$ will be for personal appearances. As to the question of whether players would be able use SLU logos, names, etc., it's an interesting topic. In some situations, top-tier players may compete with SLU for sponsorship dollars. In others, there may be joint team/player/sponsor opportunities. In yet other situations, sponsors may use player appearances as a cheap way to buy an implied relationship with SLU/team or defeat another sponsor's exclusivity. Each might have different solutions as to use of marks. There may be some top-tier players who capture the entire market's passion who advertisers want for more than just appearances. They might compete with the school for sponsorship $$. Now if the sponsor also buys a team sponsorship (or if already a team sponsor,) would SLU prohibit the use of their trademarks and all of the resulting co-marketing opportunities simply because the player is also getting paid? I wouldn't. Now if the sponsor is major, didn't buy a SLU sponsorship (bought the player only) -- and wants more than player appearances -- if you're SLU, you're probably prohibiting use of marks. But there are downsides: no SLU awareness via promotional co-marketing activities, and it reduces the opportunity to use this player-only sponsorship to ultimately bring the sponsor into a SLU sponsorship down the road. It also runs the possibility of angering your player if the deal goes south (because you didn't allow use of marks,) literally costing the player big money. Maybe the player walks at end of school year. There are two other situations. 1) Some schools offer exclusive sponsorships within business categories. For example, "official beer sponsor", "official wireless carrier", etc. (I have no idea if SLU has such.) Sometimes sponsors locked out of exclusive deals use player sponsorships to "break" the exclusivity, especially when there isn't a labor union governing this kind of thing, definitely the situation here. Imagine for a second, if Verizon tried to sponsor a player to undermine TMobile. (again, have no idea whether TMobile's SLU sponsorship is exclusive.) In that situation of using a player-only sponsorship to defeat another sponsor's SLU exclusivity, it would be a definite no-no on use of marks. But what about a player sponsorship in which there is no exclusivity involved, but it does compete with an existing sponsor. An example might be selling players to an automotive dealership group that competes with Bommarito Automotive. (again, I have no idea if that is an exclusive deal.) But what would Bommarito say if 4 or 5 players signed a deal to make personal appearances at a competitive dealership at half the cost of a SLU sponsorship? SLU gets nothing. Players might undermine an existing sponsorship. My opinion: no marks. And I don't really like the thought of it. 2) Small, mom & pop sponsors for personal appearances. A pizza parlor, for example. It's kind of a tough call. They're not likely ever going to be a SLU sponsor -- too small. So probably no loss of revenue that would have come to SLU. And it helps in building local goodwill. But in allowing use of marks, SLU might lose control of how its marks are used and which brands they're associated with. The player would control. Not good. Trying to police this for all their players? A nightmare. On other hand, SLU doesn't want to anger its players. Tough call. Maybe no SLU marks. But simple "SLU player" in ad copy/text is OK. A mess. Perhaps a solution would be a joint Athletic Dept/Players sponsorship sales strategy with rules governing. It would offer a stronger array of options, opportunities for both $$ (short and longer term) and co-marketing. But there may also be legal/anti-trust limitations for SLU, too. While SLU certainly owns and controls its marks, in the interest of protecting its sponsors and sponsorship pricing, can SLU actually limit the sponsors its players sell and the prices they charge? I'm not sure. The players don't have a labor union to negotiate these kind of things. Sorry if I've gotten too far into the weeds on this! But it's a complicated subject, actually way more so than I've highlighted. There will have to be much discussion, processes, rules, approvals, etc put in place. And lawyers. Getting a headache just thinking about it! (no offense to the many great lawyers on this board!)

There is a SLU alumni club in Boston. Have no idea how active. But here's the link. Click on Boston and all of the contact info is there. https://www.slu.edu/alumni-and-donors/alumni/clubs-organizations/club-cities.php

But takes two to tango. In 2017 when AAC sought to expand by one, only Wichita State, Dayton and VCU were considered. Not us. Is now different?

Clock, agree with so many of your points. However, am wondering about your last sentence. If we leave, where do we go? Very limited options, if any. Better options don't seem possible, at least at this time. And the ones which might be possible? They're either worse or no better.

Hoyas win! 66-58. Seton Hall goes down

In case wondering where the Jesuits are moving, not very far. A new Jesuit residence is being built at Spring near Laclede, south of Fusz Hall. Sounds like ground breaking coming soon. https://www.slu.edu/news/2021/january/jesuit-residence.php

With NET of 62 (and 0-4 Q1) they're out of the Dance as we know. A10 would try to help, I'm sure. There would probably be better games for us, but I like it. Currently, Davidson is projected to be in the NIT but towards the bottom, the last 3-seed, the 11th team of 16. There's a possibility those towards bottom could get pushed out as upsets happen this week, particularly conference champs who don't win their conference tourneys. So... if they're interested in playing in the NIT, they could be motivated to solidify their NIT standing, plus stay warm vs a 10+ day layoff. On other hand, losing to us would push them out. And given tough Covid season, players separated from families, etc., they may politely say no thanks to A-10.

Interesting tool, thanks for sharing. For what it's worth, here are the scenarios and results presuming we play VCU: Odds to NCAA Tourney Seed Today post UMass victory: 40.3 11, 3rd of Last Four Byes After beating Bonnies: 72.3% 10 After losing to VCU 59.8% 11, 2nd of Last Four Byes After beating VCU 100% (obviously) 9 But really curious how close this is to Wiz prediction. In Wiz I trust.

and 25 from Perk. Not too shabby

C'mon, Bills. Not only need win, but a BIG win. Line is 8. How about 15 or more. Will help the NET score. Do it. Go Bills.

I'll be there. Section 110. Go Bills!

And have now fallen to 34 in the NET, just 7 ahead of us.

Here's Carter Chapley's latest on the Bills, their post-Covid struggles, how communications was the key to the Bonnies win... and the key to success down the line. https://www.scoopswithdannymac.com/communication-needs-to-be-focus-for-billikens-to-keep-march-dreams-alive/