(02-13-2013 02:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  John don't even bother. Stever has yet to be positive about anything ever.

So I can probably turn him around to being negative on the fates of the MWC, NBE and A-10.

(02-13-2013 02:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:21 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  There will absolutely be in-group and out-group. The question is are we in the in-group or not. I believe that the in-group will either be the Power 5, or the Power 5 + Big East basketball.

There's room for that distinction--Indiana sucks in football but rocks in basketball, so there's room for Duke and Georgetwon to rock in basketball and not matter in football. But we have to be competing with Duke and Indiana for that exception to be made.

You are making the in group WAY too narrow. I'm sorry but MWC isn't going anywhere, and the NBE group with the 4 teams they have won't go anywhere until more defections. You may not like the NBE group, but that doesn't change the fact they have 4 pretty good brands and a USF team that made the tourney last year. That's not going to change much at all. What will change is the groups behind that.

Was it yesterday you were worried about the $30M/$3M TV revenue disparity? Well, for the MWC and NBE, it might as well be $30/$0 for basketball. Memphis, UConn, New Mexico might continue on as Gonzagas or Butlers, but their conferences are pretty much doomed to irrelevance.

The MWC or NBE might get 2 or even 3 bids, but at best they're looking at the place in the basketball universe that the A-10 has now. The MWC is also benefiting from the PAC being down, and sooner or later the PAC schools will figure out how to use their money.

It's deeper for both leagues than just 1-2 teams. NBE has UConn, Cincy, Memphis, and Temple. MWC has 5 teams that are currently projected to be in the tournament. The MWC is #2 in RPI this year. It's not going to change overnight to where they are nothing. Also, out west, even with the Pac 12 being on, there's still a void there the MWC can fill. Its a joke to say they will be just like the WAC, which is what you are trying to say.

The thing for MWC and NBE is they will be getting at least 10 million dollars in BCS money. So, while they'll be making only 20 million in TV, when you add the BCS money, it's a lot closer to what we're making. It won't be a huge money difference at all between those conferences and us.

(02-13-2013 02:37 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:16 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:12 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  They are not getting 19.5 mil a year. Right now they are getting 13.

On average their contract is 19.5 mil a year.

I wonder what the numbers are each year for us. How low will we be starting off the contract? I know avg is 3-3.3 mil per year.

Average is not a per year payout. Also from last year the payouts didn't hit 17 until 2021.

right but 2 things-
1- the deal gets redone with Louisville and ND. So they'll be getting mroe and more.
2- our deal we won't be starting off making 3-3.3 from the start.

5 OOC ND games with only 2 or 3 of those on espn. That along with some extra BBall games is not worth millions more per team. Also they lost a team and replaced them with UofL. It's not like they just added a school. Conferences do not make more money by being raided.

Well Dennis Dodds said earlier this month or last that the ACC will be up to 19.5 mil on average. They did get a hike. Probably ESPN trying to protect the ACC quite frankly. They were at 13 before Pitt/Syracuse came aboard.

(02-13-2013 02:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  John don't even bother. Stever has yet to be positive about anything ever.

So I can probably turn him around to being negative on the fates of the MWC, NBE and A-10.

Oh the A-10, especially if we're smart and take 4 A10 teams, is in deep trouble. I think they would become what the CAA has been- generally speaking a 1 bid conference, with an occasional 2nd bid.

(02-13-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:38 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:29 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 09:58 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Fans show up when we win and when we play ranked teams. Folks know who Butler is. Also schools like St. John's, Villanova and Georgetown will have little trouble shifting its SOS towards OOC match ups.

Folks know who Butler is, but outside of them and really VCU due to their final 4 run, none of the other new schools are real names at all. It won't excite a Georgetown fan to play against Creighton. Heck, I don't think it'll excite a St John's fan to play vs Xavier. Being a ranked team helps, but what fans have gotten used to was a ranked name team.

Also with the OOC games, a lot get done on neutral floors. Not sure how good the home schedules can be OOC even.

Some are neutral, 95% are not.

VCU is not a name, final four run or not people are not as aware of VCU as you think.

I'd agree. Anyone excited about VCU would be excited about Xavier. Although that is a notch above Creighton.

I'll be honest, I think for a lot of folks all they know about Xavier is the brawl vs Cincy last year.

This is where VCU could do themselves a lot of good if they could have another long run this year. A final 4 maybe not necessary, but if they could get sweet 16 again, maybe elite 8- that would be huge.

Did you only start paying attention to college basketball when your VCU Rams went to the Final Four?

(02-13-2013 02:54 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:38 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:29 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Folks know who Butler is, but outside of them and really VCU due to their final 4 run, none of the other new schools are real names at all. It won't excite a Georgetown fan to play against Creighton. Heck, I don't think it'll excite a St John's fan to play vs Xavier. Being a ranked team helps, but what fans have gotten used to was a ranked name team.

Also with the OOC games, a lot get done on neutral floors. Not sure how good the home schedules can be OOC even.

Some are neutral, 95% are not.

VCU is not a name, final four run or not people are not as aware of VCU as you think.

I'd agree. Anyone excited about VCU would be excited about Xavier. Although that is a notch above Creighton.

I'll be honest, I think for a lot of folks all they know about Xavier is the brawl vs Cincy last year.

This is where VCU could do themselves a lot of good if they could have another long run this year. A final 4 maybe not necessary, but if they could get sweet 16 again, maybe elite 8- that would be huge.

Did you only start paying attention to college basketball when your VCU Rams went to the Final Four?

No. My point on Xavier is they for the general fan are unfortuantely known more for that than anything on the floor.

(02-13-2013 02:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing for MWC and NBE is they will be getting at least 10 million dollars in BCS money. So, while they'll be making only 20 million in TV, when you add the BCS money, it's a lot closer to what we're making. It won't be a huge money difference at all between those conferences and us.

But with FBS football, they also have a higher cost structure. 80 scholarships plus women's equivalents, football coaching staffs, football facilities.

We have $3M from TV plus NCAA credits, and have to fund basketball. They have $2M from TV, plus $1M per school or so from the BCS, and have to fund football, and then maybe basketball.

It's not going to change overnight, but it will change. UCLA hires Steve Fisher, let's see what happens to SDSU. And down the list.

(02-13-2013 02:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:54 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:38 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Some are neutral, 95% are not.

VCU is not a name, final four run or not people are not as aware of VCU as you think.

I'd agree. Anyone excited about VCU would be excited about Xavier. Although that is a notch above Creighton.

I'll be honest, I think for a lot of folks all they know about Xavier is the brawl vs Cincy last year.

This is where VCU could do themselves a lot of good if they could have another long run this year. A final 4 maybe not necessary, but if they could get sweet 16 again, maybe elite 8- that would be huge.

Did you only start paying attention to college basketball when your VCU Rams went to the Final Four?

No. My point on Xavier is they for the general fan are unfortuantely known more for that than anything on the floor.

Only unless you weren't around when they were going to three sweet 16s back to back to back, plus an Elite 8.

(02-13-2013 03:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing for MWC and NBE is they will be getting at least 10 million dollars in BCS money. So, while they'll be making only 20 million in TV, when you add the BCS money, it's a lot closer to what we're making. It won't be a huge money difference at all between those conferences and us.

But with FBS football, they also have a higher cost structure. 80 scholarships plus women's equivalents, football coaching staffs, football facilities.

We have $3M from TV plus NCAA credits, and have to fund basketball. They have $2M from TV, plus $1M per school or so from the BCS, and have to fund football, and then maybe basketball.

It's not going to change overnight, but it will change. UCLA hires Steve Fisher, let's see what happens to SDSU. And down the list.

It's not a guarantee at all. SDSU had like 37 million dollars in athletic department revenues last year. That number will improve with the new stuff with the MWC. I just don't see the MWC falling off much at all. Kind of if they were going to fall off, it would have already happened quite frankly.

(02-13-2013 03:04 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:54 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'd agree. Anyone excited about VCU would be excited about Xavier. Although that is a notch above Creighton.

I'll be honest, I think for a lot of folks all they know about Xavier is the brawl vs Cincy last year.

This is where VCU could do themselves a lot of good if they could have another long run this year. A final 4 maybe not necessary, but if they could get sweet 16 again, maybe elite 8- that would be huge.

Did you only start paying attention to college basketball when your VCU Rams went to the Final Four?

No. My point on Xavier is they for the general fan are unfortuantely known more for that than anything on the floor.

Only unless you weren't around when they were going to three sweet 16s back to back to back, plus an Elite 8.

No. I think Xavier got hurt a lot because in 2010, the last of the years- Butler makes the title game. Then next year, Butler does it again, and VCU makes the final 4. That changed the equation on the mid majors to some degree.

Also, I think Xavier gets always put behind Gonzaga, which is funny. Xavier has done more in the tourney than Gonzaga. 2 elite 8's and 5 sweet 16's last 10 years to Gonzaga with 1 elite 8 and 5 sweet 16's ever.

(02-13-2013 03:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:04 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  Only unless you weren't around when they were going to three sweet 16s back to back to back, plus an Elite 8.

No. I think Xavier got hurt a lot because in 2010, the last of the years- Butler makes the title game. Then next year, Butler does it again, and VCU makes the final 4. That changed the equation on the mid majors to some degree.

Also, I think Xavier gets always put behind Gonzaga, which is funny. Xavier has done more in the tourney than Gonzaga. 2 elite 8's and 5 sweet 16's last 10 years to Gonzaga with 1 elite 8 and 5 sweet 16's ever.

X>VCU, and probably > Butler. The equation was changed to some degree, but not to the degree you're talking...

(02-13-2013 03:27 PM)thegalen Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:04 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  Only unless you weren't around when they were going to three sweet 16s back to back to back, plus an Elite 8.

No. I think Xavier got hurt a lot because in 2010, the last of the years- Butler makes the title game. Then next year, Butler does it again, and VCU makes the final 4. That changed the equation on the mid majors to some degree.

Also, I think Xavier gets always put behind Gonzaga, which is funny. Xavier has done more in the tourney than Gonzaga. 2 elite 8's and 5 sweet 16's last 10 years to Gonzaga with 1 elite 8 and 5 sweet 16's ever.

X>VCU, and probably > Butler. The equation was changed to some degree, but not to the degree you're talking...

I can agree for VCU, but not for Butler. only 4 sweet 16's to Xavier's 5 over last 10 years, but still 2 elite 8's to match, but then the 2 final 4's and 2 final games blows Xavier away.

(02-13-2013 01:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I'd put MVC as the same level as the A10 and WCC.

As a member of the conference, I wouldn't. There are only two schools in the conference with even a slight focus on athletics: Wichita State, and Creighton. The other schools occasionally rise above their meager spending, but they are generally just barely better than the Fordhams and Pepperdines of the world. The conference is not going to be a consistent multiple-bid conference in the future.

(02-13-2013 03:37 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 01:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I'd put MVC as the same level as the A10 and WCC.

As a member of the conference, I wouldn't. There are only two schools in the conference with even a slight focus on athletics: Wichita State, and Creighton. The other schools occasionally rise above their meager spending, but they are generally just barely better than the Fordhams and Pepperdines of the world. The conference is not going to be a consistent multiple-bid conference in the future.

While I agree with you, I think that's goign to be the same as A10 and WCC (while pretty much all the others won't ever sniff multiple bids)

(02-13-2013 03:37 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 01:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I'd put MVC as the same level as the A10 and WCC.

As a member of the conference, I wouldn't. There are only two schools in the conference with even a slight focus on athletics: Wichita State, and Creighton. The other schools occasionally rise above their meager spending, but they are generally just barely better than the Fordhams and Pepperdines of the world. The conference is not going to be a consistent multiple-bid conference in the future.

I think it's good competition in the Valley. Even though most of them hate us.

Arch Madness is a fun few days.

(02-13-2013 03:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:27 PM)thegalen Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:04 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  Only unless you weren't around when they were going to three sweet 16s back to back to back, plus an Elite 8.

No. I think Xavier got hurt a lot because in 2010, the last of the years- Butler makes the title game. Then next year, Butler does it again, and VCU makes the final 4. That changed the equation on the mid majors to some degree.

Also, I think Xavier gets always put behind Gonzaga, which is funny. Xavier has done more in the tourney than Gonzaga. 2 elite 8's and 5 sweet 16's last 10 years to Gonzaga with 1 elite 8 and 5 sweet 16's ever.

X>VCU, and probably > Butler. The equation was changed to some degree, but not to the degree you're talking...

I can agree for VCU, but not for Butler. only 4 sweet 16's to Xavier's 5 over last 10 years, but still 2 elite 8's to match, but then the 2 final 4's and 2 final games blows Xavier away.

They were also dominating a much more respected conference, getting more media attention and love for years. No they didn't break through to a F4, but that doesn't reflect bad on their program. Final Four's are hard and almost always involve a lot of luck (which the casual fan IS aware of, and a reason why "madness" is so fondly revered in March). If you get to one every 10-15 years your program is doing great.

Butler was a preseason Top 10 and right around top 10 all year in 09/10.

They started two NBA players, 1 D-league guy, and had 4 other pros playing in Europe. A 5th (Andrew Smith) will join them. Butler's 09/10 was predicted by many preseason. It was surprising, only if you were t paying attention

(02-13-2013 06:18 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  They were also dominating a much more respected conference, getting more media attention and love for years. No they didn't break through to a F4, but that doesn't reflect bad on their program. Final Four's are hard and almost always involve a lot of luck (which the casual fan IS aware of, and a reason why "madness" is so fondly revered in March). If you get to one every 10-15 years your program is doing great.

And back to back national championship games? Extra, double luck!

As I think about it, I'd say it's a tossup tilting towards Butler. X has been in the collective conscious as consistent for longer, but Butler made one hell of a splash much more recently....

(02-13-2013 03:04 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:54 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'd agree. Anyone excited about VCU would be excited about Xavier. Although that is a notch above Creighton.

I'll be honest, I think for a lot of folks all they know about Xavier is the brawl vs Cincy last year.

This is where VCU could do themselves a lot of good if they could have another long run this year. A final 4 maybe not necessary, but if they could get sweet 16 again, maybe elite 8- that would be huge.

Did you only start paying attention to college basketball when your VCU Rams went to the Final Four?

No. My point on Xavier is they for the general fan are unfortuantely known more for that than anything on the floor.

Only unless you weren't around when they were going to three sweet 16s back to back to back, plus an Elite 8.

Actually 2 elite 8s in last decade, not one.

(02-13-2013 06:18 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:27 PM)thegalen Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:04 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  Only unless you weren't around when they were going to three sweet 16s back to back to back, plus an Elite 8.

No. I think Xavier got hurt a lot because in 2010, the last of the years- Butler makes the title game. Then next year, Butler does it again, and VCU makes the final 4. That changed the equation on the mid majors to some degree.

Also, I think Xavier gets always put behind Gonzaga, which is funny. Xavier has done more in the tourney than Gonzaga. 2 elite 8's and 5 sweet 16's last 10 years to Gonzaga with 1 elite 8 and 5 sweet 16's ever.

X>VCU, and probably > Butler. The equation was changed to some degree, but not to the degree you're talking...

I can agree for VCU, but not for Butler. only 4 sweet 16's to Xavier's 5 over last 10 years, but still 2 elite 8's to match, but then the 2 final 4's and 2 final games blows Xavier away.

They were also dominating a much more respected conference, getting more media attention and love for years. No they didn't break through to a F4, but that doesn't reflect bad on their program. Final Four's are hard and almost always involve a lot of luck (which the casual fan IS aware of, and a reason why "madness" is so fondly revered in March). If you get to one every 10-15 years your program is doing great.

It doesn't reflect badly on Xavier, it's more the positive that Butler did. I think most everyone would trade a sweet 16 appearance when you have 4 others for 1 final 4 spot, let alone 2. It's also not helped after what Butler did that Xavier has come down just a little.