(04-11-2011 10:12 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  LOLOLOL Coog.

Can you dispute anything I said? In 1993, did UH Rice, SMU and TCU have any kind of Texas legislative support demanding that those schools be included in the Big 12 instead of Baylor and Tech? No. Did UH, Rice, SMU and TCU have attendance issues and in some cases NCAA problems? Yes.

So instead of laughing at me for pursuing a 2nd degree at UNT, please explain what I have written is incorrect?

Let's not forget that the University of Houston was less than 5 years removed from a Heisman Trophy winner and Top 10 rankings. The fact that they were left out of the BCS equation was in no way justifiable. Neither was the exclusion of teams like Louisville, BYU, etc.

I agree that a split would not be financially beneficial in the short term, but I absolutely believe it would be beneficial in the long term. The Big East would lose money on the basketball side by dropping the non football playing members and adding UCF, ECU and Houston would not make much of a difference on the football side. But, given 5 years, all of those programs have a great opportunity for growth and the Big East would be ripe for a boost in the next contract discussion. Besides, its pretty obvious that a 16 team hybrid is an awful way of doing business. Losing a little basketball money would be worth having autonomy as well as the real opportunity to see a growth in football revenue down the road. But I absolutely believe that the Big East thinks the same way as Frank and has no interest in potential future growth. I understand the conservative approach, just don't agree with it and am very glad my school isnt connected to such a ridiculous setup.

I found this post interesting on the Nova board. It is a Rutgers fan putting their spin on what transpired in the Nova proposal. I have heard snippets of this in other posts but I hadn't heard it put all together like this....has anyone else heard this story? Basically, Nova was looking for the other schools to subsidize around $9 million of their entrance costs? I had heard they wanted a deal but had not heard a number assigned to it....not sure where he got it from.

http://villanova.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?...00&style=2

RUforlife
Post #154
Posted on 4/12 9:12 AM

This is strictly about money people and the fact that the large state schools are not in the position at this point in time to help fund your move. There already is a lot of pressure on these schools regarding their own athletic budgets let alone helping to subsidize an out of state private school move up to BCS football.

As I understand it, your university wanted to defer a lot of the costs for the move to 5-7 years out, with a relatively small financial commitment from your school in the next 2 or 3 years. I believe, you wanted the state schools to wave the entrance fee and take only a portion of their entitled visiting team proceeds for a certain amount of time. I believe it came to about 9 mil in subsidies for this portion alone.

As far as the stadium issue, you planned on playing in a 18k stadium with nothing in writing regarding future financing of any additional seats. That is a public venue, it needs to have some type of government approval, the occupants (soccer team) needs to sign on, and the respective financial commitments need to be spelled out in detail. It is not good enough to have some type of verbal or loosely worded contract between the government entity, the soccer team, and Nova. Those deals fall apart all the time.

There just has to be large financial commitments made by Nova up front. You also need to spend 30-40 million on infrastructure to support BCS football on campus. There needs to be something in writing committing yourself to that expenditure as well. Basically, the state schools needs to see that you are totally financially committed to making this work and if it doesn't you are financially on the hook for a lot of money. That way they know you will not back out and leave them hanging at the first sign of financial difficulty.

I also tend to think what has irked the existing BCS football schools is your sense of entitlement. The whole we are Nova and we have an open invitation and we are special and don't need to put money up front, it is your responsibility to subsidize us attitude . That is not going to fly. The cash and the commitments have to start flowing from day one or you will never get the votes from the state schools.

And by the way, the boys in Providence are clueless for not understanding the tremendous financial pressure the state schools are under at this point in time. They should have been one step ahead and worked with you from day one to come up with a realistic and financially viable plan.

(04-12-2011 12:50 PM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  I found this post interesting on the Nova board. It is a Rutgers fan putting their spin on what transpired in the Nova proposal. I have heard snippets of this in other posts but I hadn't heard it put all together like this....has anyone else heard this story? Basically, Nova was looking for the other schools to subsidize around $9 million of their entrance costs? I had heard they wanted a deal but had not heard a number assigned to it....not sure where he got it from.

http://villanova.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?...00&style=2

RUforlife
Post #154
Posted on 4/12 9:12 AM

This is strictly about money people and the fact that the large state schools are not in the position at this point in time to help fund your move. There already is a lot of pressure on these schools regarding their own athletic budgets let alone helping to subsidize an out of state private school move up to BCS football.

As I understand it, your university wanted to defer a lot of the costs for the move to 5-7 years out, with a relatively small financial commitment from your school in the next 2 or 3 years. I believe, you wanted the state schools to wave the entrance fee and take only a portion of their entitled visiting team proceeds for a certain amount of time. I believe it came to about 9 mil in subsidies for this portion alone.

As far as the stadium issue, you planned on playing in a 18k stadium with nothing in writing regarding future financing of any additional seats. That is a public venue, it needs to have some type of government approval, the occupants (soccer team) needs to sign on, and the respective financial commitments need to be spelled out in detail. It is not good enough to have some type of verbal or loosely worded contract between the government entity, the soccer team, and Nova. Those deals fall apart all the time.

There just has to be large financial commitments made by Nova up front. You also need to spend 30-40 million on infrastructure to support BCS football on campus. There needs to be something in writing committing yourself to that expenditure as well. Basically, the state schools needs to see that you are totally financially committed to making this work and if it doesn't you are financially on the hook for a lot of money. That way they know you will not back out and leave them hanging at the first sign of financial difficulty.

I also tend to think what has irked the existing BCS football schools is your sense of entitlement. The whole we are Nova and we have an open invitation and we are special and don't need to put money up front, it is your responsibility to subsidize us attitude . That is not going to fly. The cash and the commitments have to start flowing from day one or you will never get the votes from the state schools.

And by the way, the boys in Providence are clueless for not understanding the tremendous financial pressure the state schools are under at this point in time. They should have been one step ahead and worked with you from day one to come up with a realistic and financially viable plan.

Nova is not prepared, willing, able to make the financial commitment required for BCS football. It doesn't have a clue.

(04-12-2011 01:04 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  Nova is not prepared, willing, able to make the financial commitment required for BCS football. It doesn't have a clue.

Whats that say about the leadership in Providence? They tried to foist this upon the football schools.....

Stop blaming the commissioner's office. It's not like this hasn't been on the agenda for two years.

And which of these schools voted for Marinnatto--UConn, Louisville, Syracuse, USF, Pitt, Rutgers, WV, or Cincinnati?
Answer: ALL OF THEM. It was unanimous.

(04-12-2011 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Stop blaming the commissioner's office. It's not like this hasn't been on the agenda for two years.

Just because it has been on the agenda doesn't mean that this hasn't been handled with the grace of a quadriplegic ballerina.

From the complete lack of communication, to not setting forth clear expectations for Villanova's stadium, this has been a disaster. The commissioner's office should be the force behind making sure these exact things don't happen. Conference expansion is a big deal for a conference, and it doesn't involve a 'hands off' approach on the part of the commissioner.

The whole charade has been a travesty.

(04-12-2011 02:42 PM)moron Wrote:  

(04-12-2011 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Stop blaming the commissioner's office. It's not like this hasn't been on the agenda for two years.

Just because it has been on the agenda doesn't mean that this hasn't been handled with the grace of a quadriplegic ballerina.

From the complete lack of communication, to not setting forth clear expectations for Villanova's stadium, this has been a disaster. The commissioner's office should be the force behind making sure these exact things don't happen. Conference expansion is a big deal for a conference, and it doesn't involve a 'hands off' approach on the part of the commissioner.

The whole charade has been a travesty.

From what I hear the fine folks ar Nova are very very very pissed off at the league right now.

(04-12-2011 02:55 PM)saxamoophone Wrote:  

(04-12-2011 02:42 PM)moron Wrote:  

(04-12-2011 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Stop blaming the commissioner's office. It's not like this hasn't been on the agenda for two years.

Just because it has been on the agenda doesn't mean that this hasn't been handled with the grace of a quadriplegic ballerina.

From the complete lack of communication, to not setting forth clear expectations for Villanova's stadium, this has been a disaster. The commissioner's office should be the force behind making sure these exact things don't happen. Conference expansion is a big deal for a conference, and it doesn't involve a 'hands off' approach on the part of the commissioner.

The whole charade has been a travesty.

From what I hear the fine folks ar Nova are very very very pissed off at the league right now.

So what you are saying is there is a lot of people from Philadelphia angry at what people from New Jersey and Pittsburgh are doing.

Why does that not surprise me. Actually, I would almost always assume that to be the case when those groups of people are working together.

(04-12-2011 02:42 PM)moron Wrote:  

(04-12-2011 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Stop blaming the commissioner's office. It's not like this hasn't been on the agenda for two years.

Just because it has been on the agenda doesn't mean that this hasn't been handled with the grace of a quadriplegic ballerina.

From the complete lack of communication, to not setting forth clear expectations for Villanova's stadium, this has been a disaster. The commissioner's office should be the force behind making sure these exact things don't happen. Conference expansion is a big deal for a conference, and it doesn't involve a 'hands off' approach on the part of the commissioner.

The whole charade has been a travesty.

Lack of communication? The no vote does not necessarily equate with a lack of communication. Pitt has voiced its displeaure for some time now about NOVA and football. Pitt even went public with its criticism. I suspect the Commish got an ear full from other football schools as well. IF anything, this is on the Commish and NOVA. This should not have gone to a vote. Obviously, NOVA did not present a workable proposal. If anything, this reflects poorly on NOVA and the Big East Office. And thank you Pitt, Rutgers, and the football schools that had the good sense to do some "bud-nipping."

(04-12-2011 03:09 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(04-12-2011 02:42 PM)moron Wrote:  

(04-12-2011 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Stop blaming the commissioner's office. It's not like this hasn't been on the agenda for two years.

Just because it has been on the agenda doesn't mean that this hasn't been handled with the grace of a quadriplegic ballerina.

From the complete lack of communication, to not setting forth clear expectations for Villanova's stadium, this has been a disaster. The commissioner's office should be the force behind making sure these exact things don't happen. Conference expansion is a big deal for a conference, and it doesn't involve a 'hands off' approach on the part of the commissioner.

The whole charade has been a travesty.

Lack of communication? The no vote does not necessarily equate with a lack of communication. Pitt has voiced its displeaure for some time now about NOVA and football. Pitt even went public with its criticism. I suspect the Commish got an ear full from other football schools as well. IF anything, this is on the Commish and NOVA. This should not have gone to a vote. Obviously, NOVA did not present a workable proposal. If anything, this reflects poorly on NOVA and the Big East Office. And thank you Pitt, Rutgers, and the football schools that had the good sense to do some "bud-nipping."

Ding!

(04-12-2011 02:55 PM)saxamoophone Wrote:  From what I hear the fine folks ar Nova are very very very pissed off at the league right now.

Good for them, they should be, and I say that as someone that thinks they have no business playing DI. As a Catholic school, maybe they have time to sell some indulgences and can yet get the money they need (that's a joke, I love you Catholics).

(04-12-2011 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Stop blaming the commissioner's office. It's not like this hasn't been on the agenda for two years.

And which of these schools voted for Marinnatto--UConn, Louisville, Syracuse, USF, Pitt, Rutgers, WV, or Cincinnati?
Answer: ALL OF THEM. It was unanimous.

Voting for someone originally doesnt relegate you to have to support that person throughout their term. Lots of reps. voted for Bush and then criticized the administration and the same thing is happening with Obama.

And yes, the commissioner's office does deserve a sizeable chunk of blame. All of it? Of course not. But when you look at the other commissioners from BCS leagues (especially watching what those offices did in handling expansion) its pretty obvious that the Big East is poorly run.

You can take the Big 12 off of that list of lucrative conferences Sammy, they are not near the level of the ACC, SEC, Big Ten or PAC-10. You guys are more ripe for the picking than the Big East. You have three conference hovering over that carcass.

(04-11-2011 03:08 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-11-2011 03:03 AM)Frog People Wrote:  I can't imagine them signing off on a 2nd dead weight basketball program just to appease football.

Perhaps the basketball schools noticed something this year, that I have been saying since I joined this site. The best thing that could happen to teams ike Cincinnati, St. Johns, and even DePaul, teams that had been good int he past, but had been struggling, would be the addition of a lower tier team. And what happened this year when the Big East was void of true top level teams? Cincinnati and St. Johns made the NCAA tournament. The best thing that will happen to Big East basketball is the addition of TCU, which will help balance out the league that has too top heavy. This will allow the teams in the middle 1/3 of the conference to flourish, in much the same way that they did this year with only one top seed, to the point that all 11 would have gotten in even in a 65 team field (based on seed).

I was referring to dead weight from a financial standpoint. I'd be surprised if the Big East basketball schools allowed their revenue to be split up 18 ways instead of 16 ways.

(04-11-2011 10:12 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-11-2011 10:00 PM)canewton Wrote:  

(04-11-2011 09:53 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-11-2011 09:28 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(04-11-2011 02:39 PM)Lonestar Lizard Wrote:  If Nova was in Texas, we'd just pull out a shotgun and say, "You ain't good enuff, now git!"

Kind of like what DeLoss Dodds did to TCU, SMU, UH, and Rice.

Deloss didn't leave TCU, SMU, Rice and UH behind. Politics and their lack of fans left those schools behind.

LOLOLOL UNT

LOLOLOL Coog.

Can you dispute anything I said? In 1993, did UH Rice, SMU and TCU have any kind of Texas legislative support demanding that those schools be included in the Big 12 instead of Baylor and Tech? No. Did UH, Rice, SMU and TCU have attendance issues and in some cases NCAA problems? Yes.

So instead of laughing at me for pursuing a 2nd degree at UNT, please explain what I have written is incorrect?

Nah, what you wrote was right. Enjoy your music degree or what the **** ever it was that was worthwhile there.

(04-12-2011 04:20 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  You can take the Big 12 off of that list of lucrative conferences Sammy, they are not near the level of the ACC, SEC, Big Ten or PAC-10. You guys are more ripe for the picking than the Big East. You have three conference hovering over that carcass.

1- I didn't say the Big 12 is more lucrative than them. I said the Big 12 is more lucractive than the BE and I have yet to see any credible reported figures that indicate anything changing that.

2- The ACC is certainly less lucrative in league money than the Big 12. Our schools will average 15 million (if reports are to be believed) and theirs will get 12.9. Add to this the fact that the Big 12 will get tier 3 deals on top of this (the ACC's are Raycom's as part of the 12.9) and also get their best rights renegotiated in 2016 and the ACC isn't going to be ahead of us at all. Even allowing for 1-2 million variation from the average (Half is appearance based) the least B12 schools will be on par with the ACC if not better in payout.

SEC will get 17 each and when our tier 1 deal in 2016 is done we probably catch them with our league average. We won't catch the B10 (they re-up at the same time) and nobody knows what the Pac will come out with yet and won't until figures are firmed up.

(04-12-2011 06:27 PM)canewton Wrote:  

(04-11-2011 10:12 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-11-2011 10:00 PM)canewton Wrote:  

(04-11-2011 09:53 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-11-2011 09:28 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Kind of like what DeLoss Dodds did to TCU, SMU, UH, and Rice.

Deloss didn't leave TCU, SMU, Rice and UH behind. Politics and their lack of fans left those schools behind.

LOLOLOL UNT

LOLOLOL Coog.

Can you dispute anything I said? In 1993, did UH Rice, SMU and TCU have any kind of Texas legislative support demanding that those schools be included in the Big 12 instead of Baylor and Tech? No. Did UH, Rice, SMU and TCU have attendance issues and in some cases NCAA problems? Yes.

So instead of laughing at me for pursuing a 2nd degree at UNT, please explain what I have written is incorrect?

Nah, what you wrote was right. Enjoy your music degree or what the **** ever it was that was worthwhile there.

Thank You. I'm not getting music degree. By the way, UNT & UH have a lot of the same characteristics. Big commuter school with sub par facilities and very little support from the alumni, students or fans. I have no grand ideas of UNT being anything more than what they are. It's big school that is affordable in comparison to SMU & TCU. I would have never chosen UNT out of HS but since I have a family, this was the most economical way to go back to school and get a 2nd degree.

FTR, UNT leads UH in football 7-5 and over the last 6 seasons has averaged 5600 less than UH.

(04-12-2011 03:13 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(04-12-2011 03:09 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(04-12-2011 02:42 PM)moron Wrote:  

(04-12-2011 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Stop blaming the commissioner's office. It's not like this hasn't been on the agenda for two years.

Just because it has been on the agenda doesn't mean that this hasn't been handled with the grace of a quadriplegic ballerina.

From the complete lack of communication, to not setting forth clear expectations for Villanova's stadium, this has been a disaster. The commissioner's office should be the force behind making sure these exact things don't happen. Conference expansion is a big deal for a conference, and it doesn't involve a 'hands off' approach on the part of the commissioner.

The whole charade has been a travesty.

Lack of communication? The no vote does not necessarily equate with a lack of communication. Pitt has voiced its displeaure for some time now about NOVA and football. Pitt even went public with its criticism. I suspect the Commish got an ear full from other football schools as well. IF anything, this is on the Commish and NOVA. This should not have gone to a vote. Obviously, NOVA did not present a workable proposal. If anything, this reflects poorly on NOVA and the Big East Office. And thank you Pitt, Rutgers, and the football schools that had the good sense to do some "bud-nipping."

Ding!

I disagree. Nova is beholden to the Big East, not Pitt. And I do think the BE and Nova had a responsibility to communicate DURING this process and thus not waste all this time chasing a 'plan' that would be found unacceptable at the last minute. Communication is how this is avoided, communication is what was not happening. And nothing is obvious about the plan (just becuase the two closest schools to Nova don't like it) until we see the specifics.

(04-12-2011 01:18 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(04-12-2011 01:04 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  Nova is not prepared, willing, able to make the financial commitment required for BCS football. It doesn't have a clue.

Whats that say about the leadership in Providence? They tried to foist this upon the football schools.....

Why didnt the FB schools express their doubts last fall? I find it hard to imagine Marinatto woke one morning and said we should invite villanova, i'll call the media but not confer with the league members.

It continues to amaze me, how some people have such a low opinion of the football schools that they believe they are "forced" to do things against their best interests.