(08-03-2011 09:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 11:03 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Another point to make here, the basketball school are in fact the ones that wanted to sign off early on the ESPN deal, and the football schools pulled them back. There has been some confusion about that decision on who did what, and this article with information from two AD's should help solidfy who was doing what here.

This seems to be the common perception, but the SportsBusiness Daily article about how the Big East turned the ESPN extension down says exactly otherwise. It was specifically reported that the 4 BE schools that voted against the deal were Rutgers, Georgetown, Notre Dame and Seton Hall (who might be in the weakest position of them all as a secondary school in a market that the BE already has covered and badly needs cash):

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...-Fees.aspx

So, 3 of the 4 schools that actually voted against the deal (not just supposedly voiced skepticism) were Catholic schools. That's completely the opposite of what a lot of BE FB school fans seem to want to believe.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that BE basketball still makes more TV money than BE football. When Comcast/NBC execs just talked about their interest in bidding for the BE, they mentioned the quality of basketball. As a result, it's the basketball side that doesn't need to rush into a deal, and that was reflected in the initial vote. It's the football side that needed more cash yesterday because that's where the financial arms race is taking place.

Regardless, it's all water under the bridge at this point. Once the terms of the Pac-12 deal came out, everyone is now on the same page that it's likely a better idea to take the TV rights to the open market next year.

That's the important thing: We're all on the same page!

Frank, you gotta love it: your first conference is living high on the hog and your second conference is soon to be neuvo riche (O.K. maybe not rich, but doing quite well). Now, we just need to work on your team selection...

(08-03-2011 09:20 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  BTW, the definition of the word "catholic" (small c) is "universal", not "for all".

If something is universal, it's for all by definition, dude. You're nitpicking about nothing...

I have said this a million times the only way it will work for the Big East long term is getting teams that fit with geographic rival ties even if that means getting a team with a small market....We have enough market already...But most fans of the Big East are blind and don't want Memphis, Marshall, UCF, Temple and out on a limb ECU....Trust me when you make it fun for the fans then you will see long term stability....And so far it ain't been much fun and we got basketball people running the show.....I think its funny when our commish says we want to be a different kind of conference......THE KIND THAT SUCKS! GROW A FREAKIN PAIR and get the teams that fit and that others have hate for.....Thats the formula to start with...Damn idiots running this conference...Im sick of hearing about markets or we are to good for that school crap.......Obviously Va..Tech, Miami & BC were to good for the Big East and thats all the Big East's terrible leadership fault......More teams will leave because of this in time....Connect the dots and the Big East wins.

Adding East Carolina, Missouri and Kansas does connect the dots!

But like I say, politics will probably force us to take both Kansas schools, provided we're able to persuade the Big XII north schools to come onboard...

True and I can live with Kansas State.

(08-03-2011 09:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 11:03 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Another point to make here, the basketball school are in fact the ones that wanted to sign off early on the ESPN deal, and the football schools pulled them back. There has been some confusion about that decision on who did what, and this article with information from two AD's should help solidfy who was doing what here.

This seems to be the common perception, but the SportsBusiness Daily article about how the Big East turned the ESPN extension down says exactly otherwise. It was specifically reported that the 4 BE schools that voted against the deal were Rutgers, Georgetown, Notre Dame and Seton Hall (who might be in the weakest position of them all as a secondary school in a market that the BE already has covered and badly needs cash):

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...-Fees.aspx

So, 3 of the 4 schools that actually voted against the deal (not just supposedly voiced skepticism) were Catholic schools. That's completely the opposite of what a lot of BE FB school fans seem to want to believe.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that BE basketball still makes more TV money than BE football. When Comcast/NBC execs just talked about their interest in bidding for the BE, they mentioned the quality of basketball. As a result, it's the basketball side that doesn't need to rush into a deal, and that was reflected in the initial vote. It's the football side that needed more cash yesterday because that's where the financial arms race is taking place.

Regardless, it's all water under the bridge at this point. Once the terms of the Pac-12 deal came out, everyone is now on the same page that it's likely a better idea to take the TV rights to the open market next year.

Yes I read that article at that time as well. However this latest article with two AD's from Pitt and WVU helped out with quotes and information, and it said that the basketball schools had to be talked out of it by the football schools.

Now we have contradicting pieces of information about who was approving and disaproving that deal.

Me, well I'll go down the middle and say that the schools struggling with their budgets probably openly or held closely to the chest hoped for the deal to go through.....and that would include some schools from both bball and football.

(08-02-2011 09:50 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 09:43 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  I hope everyone has read and re-read this.

1)The catholic schools are as one (or for all which is pretty close to definition of catholic). One goes they all do, NO PARTIAL hybrids
2) The FB SCHOOLS cant agree on how to proceed.THEY dont want the usual CUSA candidates (other than ucf which has mixed reviews)

i am convinced the BE has discussed with the so called experts what they could expect $$$$$ wise for every combination of the established 17(tcu) plus 3 of the following.
BC, UMD,KANSAS, KSTATE,MIZZOU IOWA ST,MIAMI,BYU,UCF,ECU,NAVY
Can they make it happen?

i really wish this discussion would end once and for all

I wouldnt be too sure on your point #1. If you think Nova and Gtown would turn down a chance to stay attached with the football schools to help Providence and Seton Hall then I think you are missing the importance for those two schools that their basketball programs remain in atop conference

The catholics sticking together as one was cited in the article. If you going to believe any of it why would that be the part that isn't true?
I cant see Gtown(or anyone )voting out someone in good standing.
Agreeing to form a new conference without some of the current catholics, maybe. However they would do so in their own peril. How long before a 16 team conference (with 4 non fb members) be satified before they decide they want 16 all sports. Sorry Catholic non fb you gots to go 20 is too big

(08-03-2011 09:20 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 09:43 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  1)The catholic schools are as one (or for all which is pretty close to definition of catholic). One goes they all do, NO PARTIAL hybrids

You don't know these schools well, do you?

And BTW, the definition of the word "catholic" (small c) is "universal", not "for all".

i said close, not an exact def.
and it can also mean universal to all, involving all, of interest to all

(08-03-2011 09:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 11:03 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Another point to make here, the basketball school are in fact the ones that wanted to sign off early on the ESPN deal, and the football schools pulled them back. There has been some confusion about that decision on who did what, and this article with information from two AD's should help solidfy who was doing what here.

This seems to be the common perception, but the SportsBusiness Daily article about how the Big East turned the ESPN extension down says exactly otherwise. It was specifically reported that the 4 BE schools that voted against the deal were Rutgers, Georgetown, Notre Dame and Seton Hall (who might be in the weakest position of them all as a secondary school in a market that the BE already has covered and badly needs cash):

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...-Fees.aspx

So, 3 of the 4 schools that actually voted against the deal (not just supposedly voiced skepticism) were Catholic schools. That's completely the opposite of what a lot of BE FB school fans seem to want to believe.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that BE basketball still makes more TV money than BE football. When Comcast/NBC execs just talked about their interest in bidding for the BE, they mentioned the quality of basketball. As a result, it's the basketball side that doesn't need to rush into a deal, and that was reflected in the initial vote. It's the football side that needed more cash yesterday because that's where the financial arms race is taking place.

Regardless, it's all water under the bridge at this point. Once the terms of the Pac-12 deal came out, everyone is now on the same page that it's likely a better idea to take the TV rights to the open market next year.

Would you stop with the logic and facts? Don't you know they get in the way of blaming the catholic schools for all the ills(perceived or real) in the BE? Despite the fact that the FB schools had NUMEROUS opportunities to form thier own league and repeatedly did not, its the catholic schools that are holding them back.

I have yet to read a repsonse from ANYONE, citing an example of how/when the non fb schools have prevented the FB schools from anything. From Miami to TCU they have agreed to every FB expansion candidate proposed. They have also agreed to a 10th unnamed FB member
If anyone can present a factual instance please do so.

Just a throw out there question along these lines:

Besides the season being played out. What would happen between now and September of 2012 that would cause Kansas and Kansas State and maybe Mizzou to consider jumping ship to the Big East?

Assume right now that the Big 12 doesn't just implode mid-season. Is Kansas (who seems to be the center piece in all of this Big 12 North talk if it is even happening) just waiting to see how the LHN plays out this season? Will the networks soon leak new TV contract numbers that a Big East including Kansas and others would bring?

(08-03-2011 09:04 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  I like thsi quote:

"But Pederson isn't interested in adding just anyone, nor is the rest of the conference, which is where this could get very interesting because behind closed doors, there are less discussions about the Central Florida, Memphis, Southern Miss, Marshall, Army, Navy-type teams (you know, the ones which are always thrown out there) and more about the teams which may be ripe to be plucked from their current conferences for whatever reason."

It's a relief to know for sure that the issue of expansion is more about "who" than whether to do so in the first place. Basically, if someone shows the are ready for AQ BCS football, they will be considered.

http://blogs.sites.post-gazette.com/inde...-media-day

Its seems pretty obvious now that the leaders in the Big East (i.e. AD's at WVU, RU, Pitt et al) have been shown that bumping up to 12 football members will bring them the largest TV $$$$ available...hence why the Commish is talking about a Championship Game.

The days of "8-8 split is best" or "With TCU, 9 football teams is best" comments by many posters over the past few months and even years show that idea is dead...and football is KING.

Looks like the goal is to reach 12 teams...now which 12 teams? That seems to be the battle as of now.

(08-02-2011 07:42 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

Quote:

I had a long talk with Steve Pederson today about what it is exactly that he and Oliver Luck and the rest of the athletic directors from football-playing schools really want and he made it simple -- they want a league where every single year they don't have to worry about losing members to other leagues and that means they need long-term stability

Amen....

http://blogs.sites.post-gazette.com/inde...-media-day


Jackson

yup....and adding Army/Navy and moving Nova up to FBS isn't NOT going to be the means to this end.....