Since the BE is last to negotiate, why couldn't all the networks get together and decide to save the money in the bargaining war by starting the bidding extremely low with the BE and countering by small margins? The BE would have no choice but to take the highest offer

(05-11-2012 08:22 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 07:06 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 05:48 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 05:41 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 05:25 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  BSU to the Big XII is certainly possible. Dunno if it has real legs or not. But my question is why would BSU stay in the MWC waiting for an invite that may never arrive. Interesting scenario indeed. At least this is coming from people in the know when it comes to BYU circles I guess.

Do you mean BSU, or BYU?

Does someone on here honestly thing Boise to the B12 is going to happen? I'm not reading every post in every thread. Just saw your wow.

I would give that less credence than the BE is splitting, or the BE is only going to get a little more than the MWC in the new contracts.

All 3 are not based on fact or logic.

And......there you have it.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...est-big-12

"Also, it could put BSU in position to negotiate with the Big 12 in the coming years. How does Boise State and BYU to the Big 12—with a restoration of that league’s divisional alignment—sound? For football, anyway, it sounds pretty great. It sounds potentially more lucrative for the Broncos than what the Big East could offer, too.

If Texas said yes to West Virginia, would it really say no to Boise?"

Obviously written like an opinion piece.

Wow, that's a great argument. Sounds like it came right off a message board.

In fact, I heard from some B12 contacts that Boise was brought up at one point last summer, and the idea was rejected before it got any farther. Can't prove it, b/c it never was made public, but it came from folks who work in AD offices, so it's probably realistic.

I love how everyone on a message board knows a guy or knows a guy who knows a guy.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. I know what I know, and you have absolutely no clue about my background. You have the right to doubt it. Big deal. But I don't throw out BS, or baseless, fourth person rumors. And I didn't say a damn thing about a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy. You made an incorrect assumption. Two of them, in fact.

(05-11-2012 08:42 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 08:22 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 07:06 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 05:48 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 05:41 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Do you mean BSU, or BYU?

Does someone on here honestly thing Boise to the B12 is going to happen? I'm not reading every post in every thread. Just saw your wow.

I would give that less credence than the BE is splitting, or the BE is only going to get a little more than the MWC in the new contracts.

All 3 are not based on fact or logic.

And......there you have it.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...est-big-12

"Also, it could put BSU in position to negotiate with the Big 12 in the coming years. How does Boise State and BYU to the Big 12—with a restoration of that league’s divisional alignment—sound? For football, anyway, it sounds pretty great. It sounds potentially more lucrative for the Broncos than what the Big East could offer, too.

If Texas said yes to West Virginia, would it really say no to Boise?"

Obviously written like an opinion piece.

Wow, that's a great argument. Sounds like it came right off a message board.

In fact, I heard from some B12 contacts that Boise was brought up at one point last summer, and the idea was rejected before it got any farther. Can't prove it, b/c it never was made public, but it came from folks who work in AD offices, so it's probably realistic.

I love how everyone on a message board knows a guy or knows a guy who knows a guy.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. I know what I know, and you have absolutely no clue about my background. You have the right to doubt it. Big deal. And I didn't say a damn thing about a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy. You made an incorrect assumption. Two of them, in fact.

That's fine. I am sleeping with the Boise State AD so I get my info from the top.
Why someone from Memphis would know about what the Big 12 is doing is beyond me but so be it.

(05-11-2012 07:52 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 06:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 06:00 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 03:30 PM)Maize Wrote:  If TV money is there, and I suspect it will be, then I don't think Boise State is leaving the Big East. And will find place for other teams

https://twitter.com/#!/murphsturph/statu...4326771712

So another misleading thread title.....figures.

It is not misleading, because McMurphy dropped this little nugget in his Boise write up:

"Former CBS Sports president Neil Pilson recently told the New York Times he thought the Big East's deal would exceed the $155 million per year deal the league turned down last year. However, industry sources told CBSSports.com that they believe the Big East's new media rights will be worth substantially less than $155 million per year. That's because when the Big East starts negotiating, about $8 billion will have been spent on recent college football deals, so there won't be as much money available."

Note the use of sources, which is more than one.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...t-big-east

Thats kind of a stupid statement (in the article) if you think about it. So when the Big 10----or NFL for that matter, decides to renew they are going to get less because 8 billion has already been spent? C'mon. ESPN may spent alot of money, but NBC hasnt spent a dime. Fox split the Pac 12 rights and the Big 12. Theres plenty of money out there.

One more item, the Pac split up thier rights between multiple networks to increase the bid size. Why? Networks told the Pac that they only had so much "shelf space". They didnt have room for all the Pac programming and therefore could not support paying any more for the package. The solution was to split the package between multiple bidders. The networks actually paid less for a smaller package that was a better match for thier "shelf space". However, the total amount paid to the Pac-12 exceeded what any one network was willing to give the conference for thier rights.

Look for a similar strategy from the Big East. I doubt seriously the Big East will have a single carrier. My guess is that NBC will buy the lions share of the rights with ESPN buying a smaller package to fill in on ESPN-2 and ESPN-U. The reason I think that is simple, ESPN doesnt need the Big East programming as much as NBC and likley wont pay full value for the whole package. But they would likley pay ull value for a smaller package that its thier needs. The only reason ESPN would pay top dollar is to lock NBC out of college football. Maybe it worth it to ESPN to do that, but I wouldnt make that my main strategy.

I'd deem it a partially stupid statement.

There is a cap on what can get spent. That cap is any particular network's available revenue (in most cases subscriber income plus ad income). There is also a cap based on available carriage space.

ESPN has done some big deals, they aren't going to spend big for the Big East because they have a lot of Saturday and Thursday content already and ACC has agreed to provide some Friday content.

Fox Sports and Comcast are problematic because they have MLB, NBA, NHL regional deals to contend with. In any given time slot they may be able to clear space in many markets but not all because of those other obligations. They tend to be second/third tier bidders and the unknown of how many games can be cleared nationally will depress their bid.

It really becomes a matter of what NBCS and CBSC can do. How much cash is available plus their available holes.

(05-11-2012 08:16 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 07:52 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 06:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 06:00 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 03:30 PM)Maize Wrote:  If TV money is there, and I suspect it will be, then I don't think Boise State is leaving the Big East. And will find place for other teams

https://twitter.com/#!/murphsturph/statu...4326771712

So another misleading thread title.....figures.

It is not misleading, because McMurphy dropped this little nugget in his Boise write up:

"Former CBS Sports president Neil Pilson recently told the New York Times he thought the Big East's deal would exceed the $155 million per year deal the league turned down last year. However, industry sources told CBSSports.com that they believe the Big East's new media rights will be worth substantially less than $155 million per year. That's because when the Big East starts negotiating, about $8 billion will have been spent on recent college football deals, so there won't be as much money available."

Note the use of sources, which is more than one.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...t-big-east

Thats kind of a stupid statement if you think about it. So when the Big 10, or NFL or that matter, they are going to get less because 8 billion has already been spent? C'mon. ESPN may spent alot of money, but NBC hasnt spent a dime. Fox split the Pac 12 rights and the Big 12. Theres plenty of money out there.

One more item, the Pac split up thier rights between multiple networks to increase the bid size. Why? Networks told the Pac that they only had so much "shelf space". They didnt have room for all the Pac programming and therefore could not support paying more for the package. The solution was to split the package between multiple bidders. The netwroks actually paid less fro a package that was a better match or thier "shelf space" and the total amount paid to the Pac-12 exceeded what any one network was willing to give the conference or thier rights.

Look for a similar strategy from the Big East. I doubt seriously the Big East will have a single carrier. My guess is that NBC will buy the lions share of the rights with ESPN buying a smaller package to fill in on ESPN-2 and ESPN-U. The reasn I think that is simple, ESPN doesnt need the Big East programming as much as NBC and likley wont pay full value for the whole package. But they would likley pay ull value for a smaller package that its thier needs.

Maybe I am missing something, but unless things stabilize really quickly for the Big East, then I think that we can agree that that big contractual offer will NOT be coming.

This has just happened since Monday:

1. The Commissioner was fired after pissing off the basketball schools;

2. The interim Commissioner said that he didn't want the job on a permanent basis and he would not be involved in working on the new television contract. (BTW, what exactly will he be doing?);

3. The old Big East old Commissioner basically said that the league was on wobbly legs;

4. Louisville has made it clear that they are leaving. Period.;

5. Boise has all but made it official that they are not leaving the MWC, which means that SDSU will be staying too (after all SDSU asked the MWC to hold a spot open for them first);

6. Pitt is suing to leave early;

7. The Big 12 signed a new television deal;

8. The ACC signed a new television deal;

9. I don't know what Syracuse, Rutgers, Cincinatti and UConn have been up to this week, but no doubt they are working the phones like crazy trying to get the Hell out of there.

And we haven't even addressed the split rumblings that we can pretty much conclude are being made by the basketball schools. So why would they get a big television contract when it looks like they are about to bust apart? Mind you now; this has all just happened within the last 5 days.

1) Yes. The commissioner was fired. The commisioner that many claim was not effective and lacked the needed assertiveness to represent a conference in a time of change. His removal is a bad thing?

2) This is true. Honestly I have no idea what he is doing. I get the impression he will simply get the ball rolling on a more open and media friendly Big East commissioner, beyond that, yeah--he is a placeholder.

3) Nice of the old commisioner to swing by. He didnt seem pleased. Wasnt he friends with the guy who just got fired?

4) Louisville will leave if invited to a better conference. Not news and no different from any team in any conference not named the Big 10.

5) Boise has made it all but ofificial that they are not leaving the MW? Did you read the article? I swear I read Boise was trying to get in the Big West. Why does a team ask to be in the Big West if they have decided to stay in the MW?

6) Yes, Pitt is leaving early. Everyone knew they wanted to leave in 2013, the question has always been how much will it cost and are they willing to pay it.

7) True. The Big 12 signed a new deal. I think thats a good thing. The Big 12 nearly collapsed---twice. Lost thier championship game. They lost 4 teams with names like Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M, and Colorado. Sounds kinda like another conference I know. Losing Pitt, Syracuse, and W Virginia doesnt look so bad next to that. Yet when the dust cleared, the Big 12 got a raise and is now paid on a par with the Pac-12. Good news indeed.

8) True. The ACC signed an extension through 2027. They did get a decent bump, but are locked in for 15 years. Time will tell if that was good deal or not. One thought--Does anyone think they wouldnt have been paid more if they were on the open market with competetive biddiing?

9) See #4.

(05-11-2012 08:47 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  That's fine. I am sleeping with the Boise State AD so I get my info from the top.
Why someone from Memphis would know about what the Big 12 is doing is beyond me but so be it.

Because I used to own and operate a Memphis Tigers website, and built up a lot of contacts over the country, where we exchanged info. And I continue to do so, even after closing my website b/c it was too much like a full time job. I'm also retired, and have a huge interest in realignment, beyond just being a sports fan, and I have lots of time to put into this.

I'm not saying I am an all-knowing guru, that's silly, b/c my info is always second hand. But I do have contacts established in a lot of conference and school athletic offices, so I have some clue as to what those folks are saying, at a minimum. And b/c my stuff is second hand, and is spread out, I can post some of it openly, when it can't be traced back to a specific source.

No info of any sort is infallible, and things change quickly, but you should go by the record a person puts up, and not make a sweeping assumption that everybody on a message board cannot possibly know anything, especially past their own school. Phones and computers are a wonderful thing. And I certainly know a helluva lot about what's up at Memphis, as opposed to anywhere else.

But I have a good track record, I'm honest, and I'm not driven to hyperbole or self-inflation. My info (at the time I hear it) is usually right, although it can change, of course, so it's tricky. I try not to say anything unless I can get multiple sources to agree. And I hold a Ph.D. in business, so I'm not a typical, stereotyped message board idiot.

But sometimes, the info is not correct, and more often, my assumptions attached to the info, or elsewhere that I read, are wrong, but if so (like one debate I'm in with arkstfan and going back to in a while, lol), I say so when I find out, and try not to BS anybody. I'm not on an ego trip. Too old for that.

The only thing I can tell you about this specific topic for certain is I KNOW that at least a few folks, who work in several different B12 athletic departments, don't think anything will happen this summer. Could FSU or Clemson suddenly get religion and decide to jump, or is it possible that the people I talk to aren't in some secret negotiating loop? Sure. But I still have the ability to at least talk to them, and sometimes share what they're hearing. And I also try to triangulate that with what is coming out of the media (where I also have some contacts).

So, as I said, you can believe me or not, it's your choice. I don't care. The people who know me know what's up. And I usually don't explain myself, b/c it's self-serving and takes so long to type, so this is my one-time explanation in this particular forum, lol.

Just to be clear, I don't know anybody who knows anything.

But I do know math. By the time ESPN gets around to making the Big East an offer (or more exactly a menu of offers, see below) they will be paying serious money to the SEC, ACC, Big 10, PAC-12 and Big XII. Plus NBA, and looking down the road at paying more for MLB or seeing MLB walk. So ESPN's not going to have money burning a hole in their pocket.

NBC and FOX will still have room in the budget. (I don't know about CBS, because I don't know how serious CBS is about CBS SportsNet. I could actually see CBS selling CBS-SN to NBC as "NBC-SN 2", reserving the right to skim some games for CBS over-the-air.) But just because they have money, doesn't mean that they will spend more than they have to. If ESPN puts in a bid in September for $100M for the complete Big East package, then NBC isn't going to drop $200M on the table in October just because they can.

I don't think ESPN values Big East football. Same token, I don't think they would feel threatened by Big East football on NBC (or Fox). So I expect they'll offer the Big East a menu.

1. One price for the total package, ACC-style. Say $110M.
2. One price for the total football package, one price for the total basketball package, and one price for "non-revenue" sports. Say $50M/$50M/$5M.
3. A dozen prices for a dozen different options. 14 Tier 1 football games. Or 10 of 20 Tier 1 football games, alternating picks with a partner.

(05-11-2012 11:30 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 08:16 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 07:52 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 06:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 06:00 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  So another misleading thread title.....figures.

It is not misleading, because McMurphy dropped this little nugget in his Boise write up:

"Former CBS Sports president Neil Pilson recently told the New York Times he thought the Big East's deal would exceed the $155 million per year deal the league turned down last year. However, industry sources told CBSSports.com that they believe the Big East's new media rights will be worth substantially less than $155 million per year. That's because when the Big East starts negotiating, about $8 billion will have been spent on recent college football deals, so there won't be as much money available."

Note the use of sources, which is more than one.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...t-big-east

Thats kind of a stupid statement if you think about it. So when the Big 10, or NFL or that matter, they are going to get less because 8 billion has already been spent? C'mon. ESPN may spent alot of money, but NBC hasnt spent a dime. Fox split the Pac 12 rights and the Big 12. Theres plenty of money out there.

One more item, the Pac split up thier rights between multiple networks to increase the bid size. Why? Networks told the Pac that they only had so much "shelf space". They didnt have room for all the Pac programming and therefore could not support paying more for the package. The solution was to split the package between multiple bidders. The netwroks actually paid less fro a package that was a better match or thier "shelf space" and the total amount paid to the Pac-12 exceeded what any one network was willing to give the conference or thier rights.

Look for a similar strategy from the Big East. I doubt seriously the Big East will have a single carrier. My guess is that NBC will buy the lions share of the rights with ESPN buying a smaller package to fill in on ESPN-2 and ESPN-U. The reasn I think that is simple, ESPN doesnt need the Big East programming as much as NBC and likley wont pay full value for the whole package. But they would likley pay ull value for a smaller package that its thier needs.

Maybe I am missing something, but unless things stabilize really quickly for the Big East, then I think that we can agree that that big contractual offer will NOT be coming.

This has just happened since Monday:

1. The Commissioner was fired after pissing off the basketball schools;

2. The interim Commissioner said that he didn't want the job on a permanent basis and he would not be involved in working on the new television contract. (BTW, what exactly will he be doing?);

3. The old Big East old Commissioner basically said that the league was on wobbly legs;

4. Louisville has made it clear that they are leaving. Period.;

5. Boise has all but made it official that they are not leaving the MWC, which means that SDSU will be staying too (after all SDSU asked the MWC to hold a spot open for them first);

6. Pitt is suing to leave early;

7. The Big 12 signed a new television deal;

8. The ACC signed a new television deal;

9. I don't know what Syracuse, Rutgers, Cincinatti and UConn have been up to this week, but no doubt they are working the phones like crazy trying to get the Hell out of there.

And we haven't even addressed the split rumblings that we can pretty much conclude are being made by the basketball schools. So why would they get a big television contract when it looks like they are about to bust apart? Mind you now; this has all just happened within the last 5 days.

1) Yes. The commissioner was fired. The commisioner that many claim was not effective and lacked the needed assertiveness to represent a conference in a time of change. His removal is a bad thing? I don't know if he was good or bad, because he probably wasn't the problem. It seems like there were too many competing interests to be brokered.

2) This is true. Honestly I have no idea what he is doing. I get the impression he will simply get the ball rolling on a more open and media friendly Big East commissioner, beyond that, yeah--he is a placeholder.

3) Nice of the old commisioner to swing by. He didnt seem pleased. Wasnt he friends with the guy who just got fired? Probably. But more than likely he still knows what is going on in the Big East (just like Chuck Neinas in the B12); so out of frustration he probably just acknowledged what's coming.

4) Louisville will leave if invited to a better conference. Not news and no different from any team in any conference not named the Big 10.

5) Boise has made it all but ofificial that they are not leaving the MW? Did you read the article? I swear I read Boise was trying to get in the Big West. Why does a team ask to be in the Big West if they have decided to stay in the MW? I read where Boise is unlikely to get into the Big West so they asked the Big East for help in placing their Olympic sports. So it sounds like Boise wants to go to the Big East, but their hopes died with the WAC.

6) Yes, Pitt is leaving early. Everyone knew they wanted to leave in 2013, the question has always been how much will it cost and are they willing to pay it.

7) True. The Big 12 signed a new deal. I think thats a good thing. The Big 12 nearly collapsed---twice. Lost thier championship game. They lost 4 teams with names like Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M, and Colorado. Sounds kinda like another conference I know. Losing Pitt, Syracuse, and W Virginia doesnt look so bad next to that. Yet when the dust cleared, the Big 12 got a raise and is now paid on a par with the Pac-12. Good news indeed.

8) True. The ACC signed an extension through 2027. They did get a decent bump, but are locked in for 15 years. Time will tell if that was good deal or not. One thought--Does anyone think they wouldnt have been paid more if they were on the open market with competetive biddiing? I don't know. This could be a bad deal in a few years, but if this a bubble then may end up being a great deal.

9) See #4.

(05-12-2012 08:58 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 11:30 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 08:16 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 07:52 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 06:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  It is not misleading, because McMurphy dropped this little nugget in his Boise write up:

"Former CBS Sports president Neil Pilson recently told the New York Times he thought the Big East's deal would exceed the $155 million per year deal the league turned down last year. However, industry sources told CBSSports.com that they believe the Big East's new media rights will be worth substantially less than $155 million per year. That's because when the Big East starts negotiating, about $8 billion will have been spent on recent college football deals, so there won't be as much money available."

Note the use of sources, which is more than one.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...t-big-east

Thats kind of a stupid statement if you think about it. So when the Big 10, or NFL or that matter, they are going to get less because 8 billion has already been spent? C'mon. ESPN may spent alot of money, but NBC hasnt spent a dime. Fox split the Pac 12 rights and the Big 12. Theres plenty of money out there.

One more item, the Pac split up thier rights between multiple networks to increase the bid size. Why? Networks told the Pac that they only had so much "shelf space". They didnt have room for all the Pac programming and therefore could not support paying more for the package. The solution was to split the package between multiple bidders. The netwroks actually paid less fro a package that was a better match or thier "shelf space" and the total amount paid to the Pac-12 exceeded what any one network was willing to give the conference or thier rights.

Look for a similar strategy from the Big East. I doubt seriously the Big East will have a single carrier. My guess is that NBC will buy the lions share of the rights with ESPN buying a smaller package to fill in on ESPN-2 and ESPN-U. The reasn I think that is simple, ESPN doesnt need the Big East programming as much as NBC and likley wont pay full value for the whole package. But they would likley pay ull value for a smaller package that its thier needs.

Maybe I am missing something, but unless things stabilize really quickly for the Big East, then I think that we can agree that that big contractual offer will NOT be coming.

This has just happened since Monday:

1. The Commissioner was fired after pissing off the basketball schools;

2. The interim Commissioner said that he didn't want the job on a permanent basis and he would not be involved in working on the new television contract. (BTW, what exactly will he be doing?);

3. The old Big East old Commissioner basically said that the league was on wobbly legs;

4. Louisville has made it clear that they are leaving. Period.;

5. Boise has all but made it official that they are not leaving the MWC, which means that SDSU will be staying too (after all SDSU asked the MWC to hold a spot open for them first);

6. Pitt is suing to leave early;

7. The Big 12 signed a new television deal;

8. The ACC signed a new television deal;

9. I don't know what Syracuse, Rutgers, Cincinatti and UConn have been up to this week, but no doubt they are working the phones like crazy trying to get the Hell out of there.

And we haven't even addressed the split rumblings that we can pretty much conclude are being made by the basketball schools. So why would they get a big television contract when it looks like they are about to bust apart? Mind you now; this has all just happened within the last 5 days.

1) Yes. The commissioner was fired. The commisioner that many claim was not effective and lacked the needed assertiveness to represent a conference in a time of change. His removal is a bad thing? I don't know if he was good or bad, because he probably wasn't the problem. It seems like there were too many competing interests to be brokered.

2) This is true. Honestly I have no idea what he is doing. I get the impression he will simply get the ball rolling on a more open and media friendly Big East commissioner, beyond that, yeah--he is a placeholder.

3) Nice of the old commisioner to swing by. He didnt seem pleased. Wasnt he friends with the guy who just got fired? Probably. But more than likely he still knows what is going on in the Big East (just like Chuck Neinas in the B12); so out of frustration he probably just acknowledged what's coming.

4) Louisville will leave if invited to a better conference. Not news and no different from any team in any conference not named the Big 10.

5) Boise has made it all but ofificial that they are not leaving the MW? Did you read the article? I swear I read Boise was trying to get in the Big West. Why does a team ask to be in the Big West if they have decided to stay in the MW? I read where Boise is unlikely to get into the Big West so they asked the Big East for help in placing their Olympic sports. So it sounds like Boise wants to go to the Big East, but their hopes died with the WAC.

6) Yes, Pitt is leaving early. Everyone knew they wanted to leave in 2013, the question has always been how much will it cost and are they willing to pay it.

7) True. The Big 12 signed a new deal. I think thats a good thing. The Big 12 nearly collapsed---twice. Lost thier championship game. They lost 4 teams with names like Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M, and Colorado. Sounds kinda like another conference I know. Losing Pitt, Syracuse, and W Virginia doesnt look so bad next to that. Yet when the dust cleared, the Big 12 got a raise and is now paid on a par with the Pac-12. Good news indeed.

8) True. The ACC signed an extension through 2027. They did get a decent bump, but are locked in for 15 years. Time will tell if that was good deal or not. One thought--Does anyone think they wouldnt have been paid more if they were on the open market with competetive biddiing? I don't know. This could be a bad deal in a few years, but if this a bubble then may end up being a great deal.

9) See #4.

Id say we are not that far apart on our views. I just think in the end, there will be some Big East scheduling deal to help Boise eek into the Big West or enough teams will be found to save the olympic sports side of the WAC. I dont think the basketball schools will split either. Im sure they are miffed, but in the end they gain more from being together than they do iin a split.

Just remember MORE than half of the Big Easts NCAA tournament credits (money that the basketball only schools share) was earned by the football playing members. Personally, I wish they would simply bid the basketball and football contracts seperately. That would end most of the problems I think.