(02-28-2013 03:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The problem with that argument is that according to them, they did not lead that charge, and it had a lot to do with them leaving. I'm not telling you that is or is not what happened, but that is apparently their stance. Even past that though, that would have no bearing on th eownership of the name. If anything, that very argument would probably be used in their favor.

I believe Jack Swarbrick was a president of a Catholic BBall-only school and he very much led the charge for the incoming programs.

Bam.

And exactly which member of the C7 is he an employee of?

Bam!

Notre Dame is not a part of this. On top of that, if you are including that expansion, that would have been over a year prior to the split. This doesn't even make sense.

(02-28-2013 03:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The problem with that argument is that according to them, they did not lead that charge

Here is Temple's press conference, welcoming them into the Big East. Check out who is front and center of the group.



Bam.

you really make no sense here sunshine. If you are talking about "that" expansion, that was over a year prior to the split, and after the defection of three other schools lead to this action. I can;t even respond to this...

Also, as stated above, Ol' Jack's schools is not a party of either side of the situation...

(02-28-2013 03:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  you really make no sense here sunshine. If you are talking about "that" expansion, that was over a year prior to the split, and after the defection of three other schools lead to this action. I can;t even respond to this...

Also, as stated above, Ol' Jack's schools is not a party of either side of the situation...

LMAO! Of course I'm talking about "that" expansion. Those are the universities that would be 'stripped' of the name.

The Villanova priest even stated he SPEARHEADED Temple's inclusion.

(02-28-2013 03:22 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 03:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  it basically says that the schools that trigger the split (i.e. those that choose leave) cannot have that action held against them in the division of assets. Essentially it means that it is almost like inadmissible evidence in a court case.

I'm referring to the actions of inviting teams BEFORE voting on the split. i.e. luring them out of their previous associations with an ultimate bait and switch (with the Big East name at the center).

I simply can't see any arbiter forgiving their culpability in that chain of events. They withdrew from a roster that they assembled on their own accord.

That would likely be irrelevant. The fact that there's a pre-nup in the first place is evidence that everyone that has signed up with the Big East knew that the Catholic schools could leave as a group and it would NOT be treated as just a "normal" defection.

I'm not saying that the C7 would win the name in arbitration. They could very well lose. However, it drives me nuts when I see people think that it's some type of easy arbitration decision on either side. There is absolutely nothing obvious here in favor of either the New Big East or C7 at all (no matter what the partisans might tell themselves). If it were that easy and the documents were clear, there wouldn't be a fight about this in the first place.

(02-28-2013 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 03:22 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 03:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  it basically says that the schools that trigger the split (i.e. those that choose leave) cannot have that action held against them in the division of assets. Essentially it means that it is almost like inadmissible evidence in a court case.

I'm referring to the actions of inviting teams BEFORE voting on the split. i.e. luring them out of their previous associations with an ultimate bait and switch (with the Big East name at the center).

I simply can't see any arbiter forgiving their culpability in that chain of events. They withdrew from a roster that they assembled on their own accord.

That would likely be irrelevant. The fact that there's a pre-nup in the first place is evidence that everyone that has signed up with the Big East knew that the Catholic schools could leave as a group and it would NOT be treated as just a "normal" defection.

I'm not saying that the C7 would win the name in arbitration. They could very well lose. However, it drives me nuts when I see people think that it's some type of easy arbitration decision on either side. There is absolutely nothing obvious here in favor of either the New Big East or C7 at all (no matter what the partisans might tell themselves). If it were that easy and the documents were clear, there wouldn't be a fight about this in the first place.

Frank, Considering your record of being right (going by your archives here), your position on this matter is comforting.

Why would anyone agree to arbitrate in Providence? Take it to a neutral site far away from any political agenda's

(02-28-2013 03:34 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  LMAO! Of course I'm talking about "that" expansion. Those are the universities that would be 'stripped' of the name.

There is no context to make that expansion from 2011 relevant. Since you said they invited times before they split, and trying to use that as a sticking point, the logical conclusion is you were talking about the expansion that happened two weeks before the split. Yes "that" expansion...

(02-28-2013 03:57 PM)Bearcat T Wrote:  Why would anyone agree to arbitrate in Providence? Take it to a neutral site far away from any political agenda's

That is the conference headquarters. Even now, that is the location of the headquarters for the football schools, and the place where the agreement was written. If a preexisting location was going to be chose, there is no other logical place for it to be. Whether a prexisting lcoation was necessary though, that could be argued.

It shouldn't matter a rat's a** if you are a 'founding' member, or a new member. Once you commit to the BE, you become a member. We all certainly have a stake in this...

(02-28-2013 03:57 PM)Bearcat T Wrote:  Why would anyone agree to arbitrate in Providence? Take it to a neutral site far away from any political agenda's

It's not about being neutral I'm guessing the pre-nup stipulates the arbitration would be in Providence. I doubt it goes to arbitration anyway, because it seems like an almost forgone conclusion the name gets sold by the football side.

(02-28-2013 03:29 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  And exactly which member of the C7 is he an employee of?

Bam!

Notre Dame is not a part of this. On top of that, if you are including that expansion, that would have been over a year prior to the split. This doesn't even make sense.

Sure it does. There is some responsibility that befalls one who invites schools to a conference and then seeks ti abandon and loot said conference just prior to the arrival of the newly invited members---and then has the audacity to include the entry fees as part of the assets they deserve a slice of. The incoming members should band together, hire a law firm, file an injuction, and deal with all these bstrds in courtroom. The biggest issue I see in this whole situation is that the new schools have no voice in the room---thats bound to end badly for us. There is literally no way it cant. A court motion at least gets us a voice.

mark blaudschun ‏@blauds

Big East FB Prez will meet in Atlanta Fri, expected to sell name, approve Cath 7 departure by July for lots of $$ http://ajerseyguy.com

b0ndsj0ns got banned?

(02-28-2013 04:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  mark blaudschun ‏@blauds

Big East FB Prez will meet in Atlanta Fri, expected to sell name, approve Cath 7 departure by July for lots of $$ http://ajerseyguy.com

lmao. What's "lots of $$"? For some reason, I suspect we'll be underwhelmed by the figure - which will be nowhere close to the amount we'll spend trying to establish a new brand name. If they're indeed impressed by the figure, they should ask themselves WHY the other side is willing to part with such a number.

Do the presidents even understand what it means to recruiting, to be in a conference that has brand awareness?

This is the last nail in the pine box.

Something is very very fishy about how this is all going down...

(02-28-2013 04:38 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 04:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  mark blaudschun ‏@blauds

Big East FB Prez will meet in Atlanta Fri, expected to sell name, approve Cath 7 departure by July for lots of $$ http://ajerseyguy.com

lmao. What's "lots of $$"? For some reason, I suspect we'll be underwhelmed by the figure - which will be nowhere close to the amount we'll spend trying to establish a new brand name. If they're indeed impressed by the figure, they should ask themselves WHY the other side is willing to part with such a number.

Do the presidents even understand what it means to recruiting, to be in a conference that has brand awareness?

This is the last nail in the pine box.

It won't matter if the number is big or not. That's why there in such a hurry to do it now. They don't have to give a dime to the new schools of they split prior to July 2013. This, with a final split agreement the screw job on the newbies is complete. Virtually no Big East members remain, no "big" payday, and no name recognition to aid in recruiting. And all for the low low low price of just 9 million in entry and exit fees. Makes my heart go pitter patter.

At what point do the CUSA 6, Temple and USF get together and have an airport meeting...

(02-28-2013 04:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 04:38 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 04:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  mark blaudschun ‏@blauds

Big East FB Prez will meet in Atlanta Fri, expected to sell name, approve Cath 7 departure by July for lots of $$ http://ajerseyguy.com

lmao. What's "lots of $$"? For some reason, I suspect we'll be underwhelmed by the figure - which will be nowhere close to the amount we'll spend trying to establish a new brand name. If they're indeed impressed by the figure, they should ask themselves WHY the other side is willing to part with such a number.

Do the presidents even understand what it means to recruiting, to be in a conference that has brand awareness?

This is the last nail in the pine box.

It won't matter if the number is big or not. That's why there in such a hurry to do it now. They don't have to give a dime to the new schools of they split prior to July 2013. This, with a final split agreement the screw job on the newbies is complete. Virtually no Big East members remain, no "big" payday, and no name recognition to aid in recruiting. And all for the low low low price of just 9 million I'm entry and exit fees. Makes my heart go pitted patter.

Aint that the truth. Makes me wonder who is running this band of scallywags, since Aresco has been taking a very different line for months. Have we completely abandoned our objective of increasing the viability of our conference for the next tv negotiations?

Selling the name will tie one hand behind the backs of our coaches as we try to bring in the level of talent to run a competitive conference on a shoestring.

Why does the C7 leadership realize this, while the misers dictating our futures do not??

(02-28-2013 03:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 03:19 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  UHCougar....... I agree with you on one thing primarily. Aresco is completely lost when it comes to inter-collegiate political situations. NO clue at all there.

Walking into a room full of Big East presidents is like walking through a landmine with people shooting at you from three sides and from above. Chuck Norris aside, no one could successfully maneuver that.

Naive response. Walking into a room full of Big XII presidents is infinitely more difficult. The PAC-12 has its own set of unique problems. The BIG has its own. Heck, walk into a faculty senate meeting at any liberal arts Div. III school, and it's far worse than a Big East presidents' meeting. Academia is a unique environment. And this guy is clueless.