(04-26-2011 09:03 PM)Bearcat 1984 Wrote:  I'm not in this business, but maybe one of you have more experience in this area.

Why couldn't schools be required to post a surety bond against leaving? Or have a portion of their annual payout diverted into the conference's Surety Fund?

The problem with "exit fees" is that the school balks, and doesn't want to pay, and find some way to weasel out of it. Fine. Take the money up front (long before they leave) from all members and hold it in a reserve against anyone leaving. Over time that money helps the conference weather these storms.

Everyone says "blah blah" but the reality is that it's not a zero sum game. A school or multiple schools leave and it puts the other members in jeopardy. We've seen that and spoken about it ENDLESSLY for the last five or more years.

That's not a bad idea...but it seems for most (i.e. Nebraska, Colorado and Utah come to mind) that they are still able to negotiate a smaller payout required to leave their last conf as one just needs to threaten to delay, take it to court, etc...which costs both parties (school and conf) in the long run...so most just agree to a smaller payment.

Your above proposal makes sense...but would it set up that since some $$$ are put in equity for a team for when a team leaves...would it cause virtually EVERY TEAM to try and market itself to another/higher paying BCS Conf 24/7/365 since there wouldn't be much of an added penalty if they left? (All the $$$$ are already in some equity account teams can't touch and are forced to pay anyway).

(04-27-2011 10:30 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(04-26-2011 09:03 PM)Bearcat 1984 Wrote:  I'm not in this business, but maybe one of you have more experience in this area.

Why couldn't schools be required to post a surety bond against leaving? Or have a portion of their annual payout diverted into the conference's Surety Fund?

The problem with "exit fees" is that the school balks, and doesn't want to pay, and find some way to weasel out of it. Fine. Take the money up front (long before they leave) from all members and hold it in a reserve against anyone leaving. Over time that money helps the conference weather these storms.

Everyone says "blah blah" but the reality is that it's not a zero sum game. A school or multiple schools leave and it puts the other members in jeopardy. We've seen that and spoken about it ENDLESSLY for the last five or more years.

That's not a bad idea...but it seems for most (i.e. Nebraska, Colorado and Utah come to mind) that they are still able to negotiate a smaller payout required to leave their last conf as one just needs to threaten to delay, take it to court, etc...which costs both parties (school and conf) in the long run...so most just agree to a smaller payment.

Your above proposal makes sense...but would it set up that since some $$$ are put in equity for a team for when a team leaves...would it cause virtually EVERY TEAM to try and market itself to another/higher paying BCS Conf 24/7/365 since there wouldn't be much of an added penalty if they left? (All the $$$$ are already in some equity account teams can't touch and are forced to pay anyway).

Right - this type of reserve could backfire as much as it could help.

Once again, the schools actually have to agree to it, and without some type of outside pressure insisting upon it (i.e. Fox with the Big 12), why would they do so? As others have noted, the schools that would want the penalties the most are the ones that are least likely to be picked up by other BCS conferences. The schools that are most desirable (and therefore, more influence) are the ones that are least likely to want penalties.

The reason why these types of penalties are so easy to challenge in litigation is that courts generally hate them. There's tons of case law that have rejected massive penalties for parties to leave a contract. That doesn't mean that there can't be penalties, but they also need to be reasonable if you want them to be ultimately enforced. Generally speaking, a penalty clause is more likely to upheld as reasonable if it hurts a bit to the party leaving the business relationship in order to provide some compensation to the ones that are left behind, but not so much that it's punitive. It's a very fine line.

(04-26-2011 07:55 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  

(04-26-2011 07:40 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Absolutely not. If a better offer comes along schools shouldn't have to be hamstrung by an astronomical exit fee.

Was told that the Big 12, in conjunction with the FOX cable deal, put in new large increases in the penalties if someone decides to leave the conference. Don't know all details or amounts, but it was designed to protect FOX and all other members should one leave.

Line item - Texas.

(04-27-2011 08:56 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2011 03:04 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  That is some very interesting news Matt. For those here who disagree that your school should sign such an agreement, your school may not have any choice if they want to recieve a big tv deal. The network, whoever that is, has to protect itself and likely will ad specific language to do so, that member schools will have to accept. Its not about just looking out for numero uno. If the network demands a commitment from the member schools to protect their investment, the member schools will have to acquiese.

Did ESPN/CBS demand that of the SEC? Did ESPN demand it from the ACC? If so, it seems to be a deep secret. I wonder why they didn't?

Quote:Being in the BE involves contracts that details what is expected of each program. Programs should reasonably be able to live up to those expectations. If a school leaves the BE which may cause its tv deals to be reduced

Now you've answered my question: The reason networks do NOT demand huge exit fees, is because they have an easy solution to the problem of teams exiting - they can reduce the rights fees in the TV deal accordingly.

From what I understand, Fox did add increased exit fees to their new deal with the Big 12 and I can see why. I dont know if the SEC and and Acc have exit fees in their new tv deals or not.

To my knowledge (admittedly limited), exit fees have historically not been an aspect of conference TV contracts, they are an internal conference matter.

The TV networks just insist on clauses in the contract that allow them to re-open it for re-negotiation if conference membership changes (and vice-versa, since if the conference adds new members that could make its 'inventory' more valuable).

Quote:...... But if for instance a league that ESPN does not have the rights to takes some schools from a league that Espn does have the rights to, Espn could forever lose the opportunity to broadcast those games. These sorts of deals could erode Espn's dominant foothold on college sports and being the "worldwide leader in sports." So there is some impetus for a company like Espn to make sure that conferences protect themselves and Espn's long range investments. You have to believe that Espn is concerned about the new competitors springing up.

Most accounts of last year's Pac 10 attempted dismemberment of the Big 12 indicate that ESPN and FOX were indeed against it and tried to intervene on the side of the Big 12.

Quote:Summed Up:

1)Less quality inventory

2)Less demand which leads to lower fees that cable companies are willing to pay to network.

3)Ratings decrease

4)Lower advertising rates to charge advertisers

5)Overall possible revenue decrease, or lower overall revenue growth depending on whther you are Espn or one of the new competitors.

There are plenty of reasons for a network to make sure that conferences protect themselves and the networks by adding exit fees.

We all know that if conference membership changes, that can have a positive or negative impact on the value of the broadcast rights to their network, so obviously the networks have an interest in membership changes during the tenure of the contract.

But to my knowledge, that has been handled via renegotiation clauses, not by trying to compel membership stability by trying to force a conference to create high barriers to exit via fees.

But back to the original poster's point, who knows? Maybe the Big East can break new ground by creating a huge exit fee, and thereby get more TV money by selling that idea to the network as protection for their investment. Even if that is true, i'd still hope that USF would vote against it because IMO it's better to retain our freedom of movement than to take the extra money.

Mind you, i'm not in favor of NO exit fees. I think a reasonable exit fee, a small one, is justified, because when a team leaves there are logistical inconveniences (costs) to the remaining schools with regard to scheduling and the like. But i oppose huge fees that try to compensate remaining members for lost revenue, since that is an attempt to extort subsidization out of the leaving institution. It subverts the notion that the school comes first, not the conference. It has the taint of socialism about it, of the weak blackmailing and holding back the stronger.

All of our schools joined the conference because we thought we were bettering ourselves by doing so. I firmly believe every institution should retain the practical right to better itself, even if that means leaving my school behind. If Syracuse or WVU or Pitt were to get a bid to join a better league, like the SEC or Big 10, i'd wish them well, i wouldn't try to extort money out of them. My response would be "well, we need to improve USF, either academically or athletically, to the level where a better conference would want us too ...".

Quo Vadis, do you see any reason why the TV deal couldn't be structured that way? It's no secret that money drives these expansions, and TV is one of, if not *THE*, major sources of said money.

EDIT: And they could do it with the support of many of the other schools too, the ones who might be left out if the top schools are poached. If you get pressure from both sides, ie: half of the schools and the tv networks combined, you might be able to get something like this ironed out.

(04-26-2011 10:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-26-2011 08:23 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Great post cuse I agree. I know mercenaries think that schools should be available for "better offers", but this is a great chance to move ourselves up the food chain in athletics. Get a monster TV deal which is similar to the ACC's giving us a powerful protection against raids (remember, the SEC admitted that they backed off of the ACC because they couldn't afford to pluck any schools because of the new TV deal). As cuse mentions we would be making around 20 million per year per school with the potential for starting out own network. The Big East should be making sure that ESPN knows that if they want this conglomerate to stick together pay us enough money to expand the football schools to 12 and make 14 to 15 million per year, that way we can sign a binding pact with the basketball schools and everybody has the best of both worlds. ESPN has their basketball commodity and access to Houston, Orlando and whatever else, we won't have to force Nova to move up allowing us to add someone like ECU, and Notre Dame get to keep Independence and ESPN might have access to them. The pieces are already in place, we would improve football, and we have improved academics by adding another powerful academic university to go with the basketball schools, Notre Dame, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn and Cincinnati. Maybe we can out our own academic consortium going for the entire conference or hook up with an existing consortium. Win-win, and all ESPN has to do is shell out the money, and they have PLENTY of money.

First, there is nothing athletics related that is preventing this from happening. Second, the schools in the conference are too diverse for something like this to work effectively in the first place. Plenty of schools would try their best to use Pitt for research; however Pitt would most likely only be able to gain benefits from Rutgers and UCONN. Syracuse does hardly anything in research...

You do realize that one of the main reason conferences were originally formed was so that they could share academic information. It's not just athletics. And the Big Ten does fine with it, as does the Pac-10.

(04-27-2011 08:05 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:42 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

It's "mercenary" to look out for your own interests?

Quote:It is when you're a fan of the Big East football school least likely to land in a BCS conference if massive conference expansion ever took place.

This makes little sense. It's in the interest of weaker schools, the ones less likely to land in other BCS conferences in the event of massive expansion/reorganization, to want huge exit fees. Because these schools contribute less to the value of the conference, and thus get more revenue from the current conference than they contribute. Since in effect they are subsidized by the stronger members, they are the ones with an interest in keeping that good (for them) deal going ...

Ummm...yes. That's basically what I implied. CatsClaw is a Cincinnati fan. They are the Big East program least likely to end up in a stronger position if superconferences ever come about. Of course he is for higher exit fees and considers those schools "mercenaries" that may have a possibility at joining a better conference somewhere down the line.

Actually you're wrong about that as near actions from last year proved. But that's beside the point. Instead of snide remarks bring facts to the table. So I'll ignore the rest of your post and address the people who actually want to debate.

I consider it mercenary if you're in a BCS conference and you're actively pursuing other avenues instead of trying to improve your current setup. For example, if Syracuse got a Big Ten invite good for them. But if Syracuse were actively pursuing the Big Ten at the detriment of the Big East I consider that mercenary. Heck, it was mercenary what UC and Louisville did to get into the Big East conference but the diffence was C-USA wasn't a BCS conference. It has nothing to do with superconferences because MichaelSavage doesn't have a clue what was going on during expansion last year. He's probably one of the same people who thought we had horrible academics and would be "left behind", but again you're wrong about that, that's why I'm not upset at his post about Cincinnati because he is clueless about it. In actuality if the superconferences had happened last year every Big East team would have likely landed a home in one of the superconferences, it was Iowa State, Baylor and Kansas State sweating it out along with Kansas or Utah (and even they had optionns). But I don't want superconferences because 16 All-Sports teams in one conference is a clusterf*ck. It's just annoying to see petty potshots instead of actually discussion. Then again Cincinnati isn't the one working to stop this it's ESPN, Notre Dame and others who are working to stop this. Exit fees will likely be a moot point.

(04-27-2011 09:01 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:11 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:42 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  It's "mercenary" to look out for your own interests?

Isn't that the very definition of mercenary? I don't take that word in a negative way at all. I'd be disappointed if UC wasn't mercenary.

To me, 'mercenary' has negative connotations. As in the dictionary definition:

"Primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics."

And it's clear Cuseroc meant it to have negative connotations.

If you are going to debate at least figure out who said what. I never used the term "mercenary". It was CatsClaw.

Exactly I said it, and I'll address quo since MichaelSavage apparently can't be mature enough to discuss anything (didn't you wish for the destruction of the conference last summer under the guise that the hybrid didn't work)? Here is the definition of mercenary:

working or acting merely for money or other reward

That is addressed towards FANS who insist that Big East schools should look for the best offer (thus MichaelSavage silly, and inaccurate, shot at Cincinnati) true Big East fans have seen the Big East getting closer and closer at taking that next step towards being a major power conference in football so it would be a shame to see it damaged by another conference when we can do something special here.

(04-27-2011 05:48 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 09:01 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:11 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:42 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  It's "mercenary" to look out for your own interests?

Isn't that the very definition of mercenary? I don't take that word in a negative way at all. I'd be disappointed if UC wasn't mercenary.

To me, 'mercenary' has negative connotations. As in the dictionary definition:

"Primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics."

And it's clear Cuseroc meant it to have negative connotations.

If you are going to debate at least figure out who said what. I never used the term "mercenary". It was CatsClaw.

Exactly I said it, and I'll address quo since MichaelSavage apparently can't be mature enough to discuss anything (didn't you wish for the destruction of the conference last summer under the guise that the hybrid didn't work)? Here is the definition of mercenary:

working or acting merely for money or other reward

Well, we found different definitions. To me, 'mercenary', when used in ordinary parlance, has a negative connotation.

Quote:That is addressed towards FANS who insist that Big East schools should look for the best offer (thus MichaelSavage silly, and inaccurate, shot at Cincinnati) true Big East fans have seen the Big East getting closer and closer at taking that next step towards being a major power conference in football so it would be a shame to see it damaged by another conference when we can do something special here.

I am not a 'true Big East fan', if what you mean by that is that i should prioritize the interests of the conference ahead of the interests of my school. My first loyalty is to USF and i want what is best for her. I am a Big East supporter because USF is a member of the Big East, not vice-versa. Should it become in USF's interests to leave the Big East for another conference, i would support that move, become a supporter of that new conference, and no longer support the Big East.

Sorry about that.

You're picking an argument over ONE word. You don't have to be sorry because I do. Care what you think about USF's interest I was referring to the school's opinion. If you're going to get upset over the word "mercenary". I cant help you because you and MichaelSavage are being overly sensitive to one throwaway statement so it's useless to talk about this.

On a side note, you may not be a true Big East fan by your definition but USF is a true Big East program. They were the ones last summer who stood by the Big East when the raids came and publicly said so. So they werent "mercenaries".

(04-27-2011 11:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Generally speaking, a penalty clause is more likely to upheld as reasonable if it hurts a bit to the party leaving the business relationship in order to provide some compensation to the ones that are left behind, but not so much that it's punitive. It's a very fine line.

Don't you think it pretty much fits the bill, if the penalty is predicated on a lucrative TV deal?

(04-28-2011 11:57 AM)CatsClaw Wrote:  You're picking an argument over ONE word... If you're going to get upset over the word "mercenary", I cant help you because you and MichaelSavage are being overly sensitive to one throwaway statement so it's useless to talk about this.

CC: You're being too nice. "Mercenary" implies being some sort of bad-ass for hire, which they aren't. A more accurate word would be "prostitute" or similar.

QV: I think schools are better off trying to strengthen the league that they're already in.

(04-27-2011 05:48 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 09:01 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:11 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:42 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  It's "mercenary" to look out for your own interests?

Isn't that the very definition of mercenary? I don't take that word in a negative way at all. I'd be disappointed if UC wasn't mercenary.

To me, 'mercenary' has negative connotations. As in the dictionary definition:

"Primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics."

And it's clear Cuseroc meant it to have negative connotations.

If you are going to debate at least figure out who said what. I never used the term "mercenary". It was CatsClaw.

Exactly I said it, and I'll address quo since MichaelSavage apparently can't be mature enough to discuss anything (didn't you wish for the destruction of the conference last summer under the guise that the hybrid didn't work)? Here is the definition of mercenary:

working or acting merely for money or other reward

That is addressed towards FANS who insist that Big East schools should look for the best offer (thus MichaelSavage silly, and inaccurate, shot at Cincinnati) true Big East fans have seen the Big East getting closer and closer at taking that next step towards being a major power conference in football so it would be a shame to see it damaged by another conference when we can do something special here.

Whatever this vague "something special" thing is it will never be equal to the SEC/Big Ten. Therefore if schools have the opportunity to be part of a better conference they should take it. And all of the pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking in the world won't change what the Big East is.

(04-28-2011 11:57 AM)CatsClaw Wrote:  You're picking an argument over ONE word. You don't have to be sorry because I do. Care what you think about USF's interest I was referring to the school's opinion. If you're going to get upset over the word "mercenary". I cant help you because you and MichaelSavage are being overly sensitive to one throwaway statement so it's useless to talk about this.

What the....? You are being oversensitive. All I did was explain why I oppose high exit fees.

(04-28-2011 12:00 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  On a side note, you may not be a true Big East fan by your definition but USF is a true Big East program. They were the ones last summer who stood by the Big East when the raids came and publicly said so. So they werent "mercenaries".

I believe USF and I are on the same page: we support the BE right now because we believe it is in USFs interests to do so ...

Billyjack: Since you're a Providence fan, a school unlikely to ever have an opportunity better than the Big East, i can understand why you think a school should invest all its energy into making its current conference as strong as possible.

(04-27-2011 09:01 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:11 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:42 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  It's "mercenary" to look out for your own interests?

Isn't that the very definition of mercenary? I don't take that word in a negative way at all. I'd be disappointed if UC wasn't mercenary.

To me, 'mercenary' has negative connotations. As in the dictionary definition:

"Primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics."

And it's clear Cuseroc meant it to have negative connotations.

If you are going to debate at least figure out who said what. I never used the term "mercenary". It was CatsClaw.

Second day in a row he's done that. This time, he got the school and the poster wrong

(04-28-2011 12:41 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Whatever this vague "something special" thing is it will never be equal to the SEC/Big Ten. Therefore if schools have the opportunity to be part of a better conference they should take it. And all of the pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking in the world won't change what the Big East is.

Anything is possible, cuz the same thing was said of the original Big East hoops back in the day. Good thing you weren't around! What team do you follow anyway? West Va? Nebraska? Big Ten? ACC? SEC?

(04-28-2011 01:01 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 09:01 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:11 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:42 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  It's "mercenary" to look out for your own interests?

Isn't that the very definition of mercenary? I don't take that word in a negative way at all. I'd be disappointed if UC wasn't mercenary.

To me, 'mercenary' has negative connotations. As in the dictionary definition:

"Primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics."

And it's clear Cuseroc meant it to have negative connotations.

If you are going to debate at least figure out who said what. I never used the term "mercenary". It was CatsClaw.

Second day in a row he's done that. This time, he got the school and the poster wrong

File under: "day late, dollar short".

Touche... too much to read through... That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.