(10-18-2011 10:16 PM)SmallVoice Wrote:  I proposed what I thought was a reasonable solution before. I'm not yet a spokesperson for my own alma mater, but I think $1 million per remaining school per month of unfulfilled obligation is an excellent idea. Just multiply the number of months by $6 million - let's say they want to leave the conference next August so that they can play football in the ACC next year. That's 15 months before the end of their legal obligation. If Syracuse wants out, then each of the remaining 6 schools gets a check for $15 million. If Pitt wants out, then they pay $15 to each individual school. I know that Louisville could use that extra $30 million. I'll bet Cincinnati, UConn, USF, Rutgers & WVU could put it to good use, too.

Sure, it's funny to think that way. But when UL leaves for the Big12, you will be paying a $10 million exit fee and will be here until the start of the 2015 season - one year after Pitt and Cuse. Go ahead and pay your $30 million each to the remaining FB and BB schools if you want to get out according to your logic. Would you broker the same deal against your own university? If it's fair for Pitt and Cuse, it should be fair for UL I suppose.

I know what Marinatto wants to do in regards to Pitt and Syracuse but I wonder what the Big East members want to do. I would be shocked if the Basketball schools and Notre Dame want to hold either program beyond this year as it makes life a hell of a lot easier as far as the NCAA tournament is concerned. Then we get to the football schools. I think it is just a matter of how soon new members can get in for scheduling. Big East was supposed to have 9 members in 2012 so playing with 6 is obviously out of the question. If the Big East can get at least 3 new members in for 2012 Pitt/Cuse will be gone. If not they will def be out by 2013 when the CUSA teams can come in.

(10-18-2011 10:24 PM)snowycuse Wrote:  I know what Marinatto wants to do in regards to Pitt and Syracuse but I wonder what the Big East members want to do. I would be shocked if the Basketball schools and Notre Dame want to hold either program beyond this year as it makes life a hell of a lot easier as far as the NCAA tournament is concerned. Then we get to the football schools. I think it is just a matter of how soon new members can get in for scheduling. Big East was supposed to have 9 members in 2012 so playing with 6 is obviously out of the question. If the Big East can get at least 3 new members in for 2012 Pitt/Cuse will be gone. If not they will def be out by 2013 when the CUSA teams can come in.

I don't think you guys are grasping how this works.....Marinatto and the boys at Providence are in no hurry to do anything....because they have all 8 football schools and Notre Dame on the hook till 2014.

What is important to them? Basketball.....so why would you water down your BB product before you have to? I really think....they could be serious about keeping EVERYONE till 2014. Why? Because that means THREE more seasons of Pitt, SU, UConn, WVU, Louisville, Cincinnati and Notre Dame basketball. Yes 3 seasons....2012, 2013 AND 2014.

(10-18-2011 10:31 PM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 10:24 PM)snowycuse Wrote:  I know what Marinatto wants to do in regards to Pitt and Syracuse but I wonder what the Big East members want to do. I would be shocked if the Basketball schools and Notre Dame want to hold either program beyond this year as it makes life a hell of a lot easier as far as the NCAA tournament is concerned. Then we get to the football schools. I think it is just a matter of how soon new members can get in for scheduling. Big East was supposed to have 9 members in 2012 so playing with 6 is obviously out of the question. If the Big East can get at least 3 new members in for 2012 Pitt/Cuse will be gone. If not they will def be out by 2013 when the CUSA teams can come in.

I don't think you guys are grasping how this works.....Marinatto and the boys at Providence are in no hurry to do anything....because they have all 8 football schools and Notre Dame on the hook till 2014.

What is important to them? Basketball.....so why would you water down your BB product before you have to? I really think....they could be serious about keeping EVERYONE till 2014. Why? Because that means THREE more seasons of Pitt, SU, UConn, WVU, Louisville, Cincinnati and Notre Dame basketball. Yes 3 seasons....2012, 2013 AND 2014.

That would be an egregious breech that would be cause for immediate termination for Marinatto. He would have to openly and willfully neglect the FB schools interests who would be left behind. In a situation like that, I would believe that the FB schools would be immediately released from any requirements to fulfill their side of the bargain when the conference - through the commissioner - would be refusing to do their part. IMO, that would be a defacto split between the FB and BB schools.

(10-18-2011 06:48 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It is possible that Syracuse and Pitt may be held to the 27 month rule as they are only paying 5 million to leave. UofL, UC and WVU may be able to depart next season for agreeing to vote for upping the exit fee from 5 million to 10. I understand that is the only reason UofL voted at all and for the increased exit fee. Pay more get out early.
CJ

Sorry, Jim. Marinatto said today in the press conference that the exit fee will be raised to $10 million AND the 27 month rule will continue to apply to all teams leaving the Big East. So that puts you into the 2014-2015 season. If UL gets the same deal as TCU, they won't get full Big 12 revenue for the first 4 years. So UL won't see full Big 12 revenue until 2018. By that time, it will cost UL tens of millions of dollars of dollars to make the move. I just don't see how they can possibly make the math work. It's not the exit fee that's the biggest problem.

(10-18-2011 10:41 PM)chrisharper80 Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 06:48 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It is possible that Syracuse and Pitt may be held to the 27 month rule as they are only paying 5 million to leave. UofL, UC and WVU may be able to depart next season for agreeing to vote for upping the exit fee from 5 million to 10. I understand that is the only reason UofL voted at all and for the increased exit fee. Pay more get out early.
CJ

Sorry, Jim. Marinatto said today in the press conference that the exit fee will be raised to $10 million AND the 27 month rule will continue to apply to all teams leaving the Big East. So that puts you into the 2014-2015 season. If UL gets the same deal as TCU, they won't get full Big 12 revenue for the first 4 years. So UL won't see full Big 12 revenue until 2018. By that time, it will cost UL tens of millions of dollars of dollars to make the move. I just don't see how they can possibly make the math work. It's not the exit fee that's the biggest problem.

Time is ticking away, so if the Big12 and UL don't hook up soon, it will be at the start of the 2015 - 2016 season plus no full share Big12 revenue until 2019.

(10-18-2011 10:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 10:41 PM)chrisharper80 Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 06:48 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It is possible that Syracuse and Pitt may be held to the 27 month rule as they are only paying 5 million to leave. UofL, UC and WVU may be able to depart next season for agreeing to vote for upping the exit fee from 5 million to 10. I understand that is the only reason UofL voted at all and for the increased exit fee. Pay more get out early.
CJ

Sorry, Jim. Marinatto said today in the press conference that the exit fee will be raised to $10 million AND the 27 month rule will continue to apply to all teams leaving the Big East. So that puts you into the 2014-2015 season. If UL gets the same deal as TCU, they won't get full Big 12 revenue for the first 4 years. So UL won't see full Big 12 revenue until 2018. By that time, it will cost UL tens of millions of dollars of dollars to make the move. I just don't see how they can possibly make the math work. It's not the exit fee that's the biggest problem.

Time is ticking away, so if the Big12 and UL don't hook up soon, it will be at the start of the 2015 - 2016 season plus no full share Big12 revenue until 2019.

You're assuming way to much regarding revenue. UofL brings much more to the revenue table for the league than TCU and won't be taking uneven revenue for 4 seasons if they go, bank on it.

(10-18-2011 10:48 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  You're assuming way to much regarding revenue. UofL brings much more to the revenue table for the league than TCU and won't be taking uneven revenue for 4 seasons if they go, bank on it.

Perhaps...after all, you are talking about joining a conference that has a history of preferential financial treatment for certain members. Then again, maybe Texas isn't keen on parting with any more money than they have to.

As I said, the BE has no good incentive to let them go early and every incentive to make them stay as a deterrent from other conference poaching teams. I wouldn't let them leave one second early if I were Marinatto. They knew what the rules were when they willingly signed a valid contract. No one twisted their arms. A contract is a contract, valid and enforceable. By keeping them the full 27 months, the BE may just give pause to another conference that wants to steal a team.

Just an FYI.....I think Louisville and others would have until March 2012 to make their departure known before they would fall into the next academic season.

Right now, 27 months from September 2011 (when Pitt and SU made their departure official) ends in December of 2013.....however...that falls in the Middle of the Academic year.....thus....that is why they are stuck through June 2014. So really their departure will be 33 months just because of the way things fell.

Now if Louisville waits till say April or May of 2012 to announce anything ....then yes....that would push them through into the next Academic Year of 2015.

(10-18-2011 10:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 10:31 PM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 10:24 PM)snowycuse Wrote:  I know what Marinatto wants to do in regards to Pitt and Syracuse but I wonder what the Big East members want to do. I would be shocked if the Basketball schools and Notre Dame want to hold either program beyond this year as it makes life a hell of a lot easier as far as the NCAA tournament is concerned. Then we get to the football schools. I think it is just a matter of how soon new members can get in for scheduling. Big East was supposed to have 9 members in 2012 so playing with 6 is obviously out of the question. If the Big East can get at least 3 new members in for 2012 Pitt/Cuse will be gone. If not they will def be out by 2013 when the CUSA teams can come in.

I don't think you guys are grasping how this works.....Marinatto and the boys at Providence are in no hurry to do anything....because they have all 8 football schools and Notre Dame on the hook till 2014.

What is important to them? Basketball.....so why would you water down your BB product before you have to? I really think....they could be serious about keeping EVERYONE till 2014. Why? Because that means THREE more seasons of Pitt, SU, UConn, WVU, Louisville, Cincinnati and Notre Dame basketball. Yes 3 seasons....2012, 2013 AND 2014.

That would be an egregious breech that would be cause for immediate termination for Marinatto. He would have to openly and willfully neglect the FB schools interests who would be left behind. In a situation like that, I would believe that the FB schools would be immediately released from any requirements to fulfill their side of the bargain when the conference - through the commissioner - would be refusing to do their part. IMO, that would be a defacto split between the FB and BB schools.

To my mind the conference would be remiss in not enforcing the contractual agreements. Various conferences have ways to protect themselves from poaching. The ACC raised their exit fees. The B12 have a TV rights forfeiture clause. The BE has the 27 month penalty box. To give that up during a time of realignment would be a grave mistake.

For instance, I don't think that people are doing the math regarding the B12. If they lose Missouri, they are rumored to need a replacement to protect their media contracts. Is any BE school a viable candidate for that slot if they can't be on the B12 schedule for 2-3 years? Sure, might not make a difference. However, it could be an important defense mechanism and shouldn't be discarded lightly.

(10-18-2011 10:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  That would be an egregious breech that would be cause for immediate termination for Marinatto. He would have to openly and willfully neglect the FB schools interests who would be left behind. In a situation like that, I would believe that the FB schools would be immediately released from any requirements to fulfill their side of the bargain when the conference - through the commissioner - would be refusing to do their part. IMO, that would be a defacto split between the FB and BB schools.

I am not sure why that would be the case? I mean from Marinatto's standpoint.....he would only need to ensure the League has 8 football members by the 2014 football season.

However, there is one deadline he would have to address prior to that and that is the TV negotiations starting in Sept 2012. For the Purpose of ESPN or NBC.....he needs to be able to tell them who will be in place starting the 2014 football season.

(10-18-2011 03:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  ...even if it has all of its invites lined up and ready to play FB for the 2013 season? Does the BE really want to have a 14 team FB conference for only one season? I could understand Pitt and Cuse sticking around for the 2012 season while the CUSA invites fulfill their one year notice req't, but what does the BE gain from having 14 schools for one season?

Clearly, the only reason is to do it out of spite. It makes the BE look small, and I think it hurts the perception of the conference. Do the fans on here want to see the BE look like Shylock asking for his pound of flesh?

dude i told you this would happen, enjoy your lame duckedness
the big east survives because they reach out to the acadamies

It was my understanding that the 27-month wait is a contractual agreement. If that is the case then what party in their right mind willfully release a partner in such a contract when the original agreement was intended to protect the interests of the conference?

(10-18-2011 10:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 10:41 PM)chrisharper80 Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 06:48 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It is possible that Syracuse and Pitt may be held to the 27 month rule as they are only paying 5 million to leave. UofL, UC and WVU may be able to depart next season for agreeing to vote for upping the exit fee from 5 million to 10. I understand that is the only reason UofL voted at all and for the increased exit fee. Pay more get out early.
CJ

Sorry, Jim. Marinatto said today in the press conference that the exit fee will be raised to $10 million AND the 27 month rule will continue to apply to all teams leaving the Big East. So that puts you into the 2014-2015 season. If UL gets the same deal as TCU, they won't get full Big 12 revenue for the first 4 years. So UL won't see full Big 12 revenue until 2018. By that time, it will cost UL tens of millions of dollars of dollars to make the move. I just don't see how they can possibly make the math work. It's not the exit fee that's the biggest problem.

Time is ticking away, so if the Big12 and UL don't hook up soon, it will be at the start of the 2015 - 2016 season plus no full share Big12 revenue until 2019.

Define "soon." Because the way I see it, they have until June 1 if they want to start play in 2014. It will make no difference if they announce tomorrow or on June 1, 2012.

(10-18-2011 11:14 PM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 10:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  That would be an egregious breech that would be cause for immediate termination for Marinatto. He would have to openly and willfully neglect the FB schools interests who would be left behind. In a situation like that, I would believe that the FB schools would be immediately released from any requirements to fulfill their side of the bargain when the conference - through the commissioner - would be refusing to do their part. IMO, that would be a defacto split between the FB and BB schools.

I am not sure why that would be the case? I mean from Marinatto's standpoint.....he would only need to ensure the League has 8 football members by the 2014 football season.

However, there is one deadline he would have to address prior to that and that is the TV negotiations starting in Sept 2012. For the Purpose of ESPN or NBC.....he needs to be able to tell them who will be in place starting the 2014 football season.

In order for the conference to be able to do that, they will have to ensure that invitations were made and then accepted prior to that date. In that scenario, all former CUSA schools would have fulfilled their one year notice and should be available for the 2013 season. But if the claim that Marinatto and the BE will intentionally drag their feet to ensure that Pitt and Cuse are still "needed" for the 2013 season, the BE would have had to intentionally leave the FB side of the conference in a precarious state of being at an unknown number of schools when TV contract negotiation time came around. If that isn't incompetence, then I don't know what is. It sure would look like the FB side of the BE was left to twist in the wind while the BB schools would still have their strong foundation to renegotiate at least the BB side of the equation. If all of that would be done just to stick it to Pitt and Cuse...that would be a major issue that the FB schools would have to find recourse against the conference. That scenario of intentionally dragging their feet will not happen. Therefore, Pitt and Cuse will likely not be serving a 27 month sentence.

(10-18-2011 10:07 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Pitt will be leaving in time for the 2013 seasons if not for the 2012 seasons. If the remaining 6 schools commit, then I expect Pitt and Cuse will be playing BE football in 2012. If the Big12 takes one or more of the remaining 6 schools, then Pitt will be playing FB in the ACC by 2012. I get what you guys are saying, but we all know the 27 month window will not be enforced. Logically, it makes no sense to do so, because the conference will either by stabilized by the time 2013 rolls around or its fate will be sealed by the end of this season. I think it's stupid to go out of your way to state that you would hold 2 schools in a conference for 3 total seasons of play (this year included) knowing they are not long term committed members and that you expect the departing members to be replaced within the year. I get that it may be a negotiating tactic, but in the end it makes the BE look worse. It looks like the BE is acting like petulant children that do not want to give up their toys when it's time to go to bed...

It may look like a petulant child to you, but I'm sure the ACC saw the Big East's law suit the same way in 2003. That didn't stop Pitt from enthusiastically participating in that suit. It all depends on your POV.

You're playing the victim card & that's what's childish. No one is "holding" anyone. What's holding Pitt is the promise that it made when it signed the contract. How is Pitt's voluntary agreement the fault of the Big East? Why would anyone not expect Pitt to live up to that agreement?

You've gotten so carried away with this that you're including this season in your count of the number of seasons that Pitt is being held up. Seriously? Do you really want to be let go now? Have the rest of your games canceled this year? Give up your TV revenue? Your chot at the BCS & the NCAA basketball tournament?

Of course not. You expect the Big East to honor its commitments to Pitt for the rest of this year. Guess what? the Big East expects Pitt to honor its commitments too.

(10-18-2011 11:12 PM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  Just an FYI.....I think Louisville and others would have until March 2012 to make their departure known before they would fall into the next academic season.

Right now, 27 months from September 2011 (when Pitt and SU made their departure official) ends in December of 2013.....however...that falls in the Middle of the Academic year.....thus....that is why they are stuck through June 2014. So really their departure will be 33 months just because of the way things fell.

Now if Louisville waits till say April or May of 2012 to announce anything ....then yes....that would push them through into the next Academic Year of 2015.

Nope. they have until June 1. That would allow them to leave on September 1 - just in time to begin a fall sports schedule in another league - including football.

(10-18-2011 10:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 10:31 PM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 10:24 PM)snowycuse Wrote:  I know what Marinatto wants to do in regards to Pitt and Syracuse but I wonder what the Big East members want to do. I would be shocked if the Basketball schools and Notre Dame want to hold either program beyond this year as it makes life a hell of a lot easier as far as the NCAA tournament is concerned. Then we get to the football schools. I think it is just a matter of how soon new members can get in for scheduling. Big East was supposed to have 9 members in 2012 so playing with 6 is obviously out of the question. If the Big East can get at least 3 new members in for 2012 Pitt/Cuse will be gone. If not they will def be out by 2013 when the CUSA teams can come in.

I don't think you guys are grasping how this works.....Marinatto and the boys at Providence are in no hurry to do anything....because they have all 8 football schools and Notre Dame on the hook till 2014.

What is important to them? Basketball.....so why would you water down your BB product before you have to? I really think....they could be serious about keeping EVERYONE till 2014. Why? Because that means THREE more seasons of Pitt, SU, UConn, WVU, Louisville, Cincinnati and Notre Dame basketball. Yes 3 seasons....2012, 2013 AND 2014.

That would be an egregious breech that would be cause for immediate termination for Marinatto. He would have to openly and willfully neglect the FB schools interests who would be left behind. In a situation like that, I would believe that the FB schools would be immediately released from any requirements to fulfill their side of the bargain when the conference - through the commissioner - would be refusing to do their part. IMO, that would be a defacto split between the FB and BB schools.

It's hard to understand how a crazy exchange like this gathers any momentum.

1. It has nothing to do with what "Marinatto & the boys in Providence" want. Marinatto is the chief executive officer. That means he "executes" the policies of the league. He doesn't create them or make them up as he goes along. The policies & the direction of the league are determined by its members as represented by their presidents & who in turn represent their respective boards of trustees. Marinatto acts in a purely advisory role & in an administrative capacity.

2. The idea of a breach of contract by Marinatto is completely absurd. Some of you guys are completely losing it in your hysteria over this thing. Matinatto doesn't have the power to do anything you're implying. He acts at the direction of his board, i.e. the members themselves. The only breach of contract that could exist on his part would come if he were insubordinate to his board.

Pitt & Syracuse have enjoyed Big East competition for a long time. Just relax & enjoy the competition for a couple of more seasons.

My opinion on this issue.