(03-29-2013 06:23 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 05:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 05:22 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 05:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 05:11 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Adding a few BBall schools won't get espn to open up their wallets.

You'd also have to agree to give them a lower exit fee and a better deal than that 80/20 nonsense. Those BBall schools would be better served to wait, improve their programs and try to get into the big east. Wait and see who is even left in the Aresco league in a few years.

The basketball side is worth abut 8 million (6 from ESPN and 2 from CBS). Theres no reason to come up with a ratio. We know pretty much what the actual numbers are due to the bridge year contract. It may be slightly less than 8 since the 6 millon dollar adjusted bridge year included Louisville and Rutgers--but it should be in the ball park.

So why would VCU or Wichita come on board for a few hundred thousand?

The money, opponents, and contract coverage are all much better. Im not even sure the MVC has a tv contract. Not sure the A-10 contract is going to continue to pay what it did based on their losses.

The money isn't that good, the opponents have one foot out the door and the Aresco TV deal has a clause that could blow up the contract if a few teams leave which is a very good possibility. Now throw in the increased travel and loss of rivals makes it a questionable move.

So is staying in the A10.

(03-29-2013 12:00 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 11:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 11:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Metro / American / Conference TBA should add the following schools: Wichita State, VCU, SLU, Dayton, Belmont, and Davidson.

A hybrid FB/BB league with more BB playing schools than FB playing schools ... brilliant! What could possibly go wrong?

Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

LOL. I agree, the hybrid idea causes unnecessary tension. It detracts from the mission of the conference. No need to re-establish the same issue that tore the conference apart.

I'm a little confused by this line of thinking. Are you trying to imply that the conference could be more unstable than it already is? Everyone knows that the top 2 teams (UC and UConn) would jump ship in a heartbeat, and if that happens then Houston is gone to the MWC with SMU or Memphis in tow.

How does adding non-fb members possibly make that situation any worse?

Man, some of you guys are like that abused woman who keeps dating the same type of guy. You really want to go back to a hybrid conference? SMH

(03-29-2013 07:59 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Man, some of you guys are like that abused woman who keeps dating the same type of guy. You really want to go back to a hybrid conference? SMH

Never understood the driving desire to recreate CUSA with a new name. How do you not see that?

(03-29-2013 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:59 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Man, some of you guys are like that abused woman who keeps dating the same type of guy. You really want to go back to a hybrid conference? SMH

Never understood the driving desire to recreate CUSA with a new name. How do you not see that?

Your memory must be short. This conference is not what UCF or Houston signed up for, so neither of us chose this configuration, however adding more basketball-only schools is the very definition of insanity. How can you not see that? Talk about a glutton for punishment.

And I don't care if we add one basketball progam to even out Navy's football only status, but you guys were talking up to 6 basketball-only schools. Just wow!

(03-29-2013 07:59 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Man, some of you guys are like that abused woman who keeps dating the same type of guy. You really want to go back to a hybrid conference? SMH

Because basketball can generate $$$. If we have the chance to improve, take it! If you haven't notice Wichita State is in the elite 8. That is big $$$.

(03-29-2013 08:27 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:59 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Man, some of you guys are like that abused woman who keeps dating the same type of guy. You really want to go back to a hybrid conference? SMH

Because basketball can generate $$$. If we have the chance to improve, take it! If you haven't notice Wichita State is in the elite 8. That is big $$$.

I'm very much aware of Wichita's status, and I'm actually an old school fan of WSU. I used to watch them play Tulsa back in the MVC days. I understnad your point about dollars, but I also know you don't keep shooting holes in the bottom of the boat because there's fish under it.

If we prove ourselves on the field/court, the money will come, and we won't compromise the chemistry/powerbase of the conference to achieve it.

Patience for god's sake.

(03-29-2013 08:25 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:59 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Man, some of you guys are like that abused woman who keeps dating the same type of guy. You really want to go back to a hybrid conference? SMH

Never understood the driving desire to recreate CUSA with a new name. How do you not see that?

Your memory must be short. This conference is not what UCF or Houston signed up for, so neither of us chose this configuration, however adding more basketball-only schools is the very definition of insanity. How can you not see that? Talk about a glutton for punishment.

And I don't care if we add one basketball progam to even out Navy's football only status, but you guys were talking up to 6 basketball-only schools. Just wow!

Lol. That's not me. I'm ok with adding 1 to 3 basketball schools. I agree that going back to a large scale hybrid is a mistake. I'm only interested in the very limited use of the hybrid to give basketball a nice boost. Adding any more than 3 messes up the voting and is a bad idea--but I dont see any great harm in adding 1-3 olympic only schools.

(03-29-2013 08:25 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  And I don't care if we add one basketball progam to even out Navy's football only status, but you guys were talking up to 6 basketball-only schools. Just wow!

Yeah, I'm against that too. Balanced adds ~ Olympic-sport schools paired with FB-only schools ~ that could well make sense. Best case, it could turn a 2-3 bid conference into a 4-5 bid conference. A 4-5 bid conference could well be an 8 appearance conference, which is $12m/yr, or an average of $1m each.

But a lot of more Olympic sports schools than FB schools is how the Old Big East boxed itself into a corner in the first place, where it couldn't raid the ACC because it would make the BB competition too big, and so in an unstable raid-or-be-raided situtation along the eastern seaboard, they set themselves up to be raided.

(03-29-2013 08:32 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 08:27 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:59 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Man, some of you guys are like that abused woman who keeps dating the same type of guy. You really want to go back to a hybrid conference? SMH

Because basketball can generate $$$. If we have the chance to improve, take it! If you haven't notice Wichita State is in the elite 8. That is big $$$.

I'm very much aware of Wichita's status, and I'm actually an old school fan of WSU. I used to watch them play Tulsa back in the MVC days. I understnad your point about dollars, but I also know you don't keep shooting holes in the bottom of the boat because there's fish under it.

If we prove ourselves on the field/court, the money will come, and we won't compromise the chemistry/powerbase of the conference to achieve it.

Patience for god's sake.

That's what UC thought too. Two BCS bowls, four conference titles, five 10-win seasons, and successfully rebuilding our basketball program (after Zimpher tried to kill it by effectively guaranteeing that we couldn't recruit for 2 1/2 years by dragging out Huggins' firing). And yet in 2013 our revenue will be worse relative to our peers than it was in 2003.

It also hasn't worked for VCU, St. Mary's, USM, Ohio U, or CMU. It hasn't even worked for big-time winners like Gonzaga and Boise. "Win and the money will come" is a nice theory, but it doesn't always work in practice.

(03-30-2013 11:11 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  ... It hasn't even worked for big-time winners like Gonzaga and Boise. ...

But Boise State got more money. Sure, they didn't win the lottery jackpot, but they did end up with a nice pay raise.

(03-30-2013 11:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 11:11 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  ... It hasn't even worked for big-time winners like Gonzaga and Boise. ...

But Boise State got more money. Sure, they didn't win the lottery jackpot, but they did end up with a nice pay raise.

The standard of comparison is not "more money." Everyone is getting more money. Even Minnesota, Boston College, and UNLV are getting more money these days. It's "more money relative to what others are getting."

Boise is getting 1 to 1.5 million/year in the MWC. 10 years ago, they were getting a few hundred thousand in the WAC, so they're up around $1 million. That might jump to $2 million with the MWC's new contract.

At the same time, their closest peer school, Washington State, has jumped from $5.4 million to $19 million despite being one of the worst programs in D-1A. Other regional rivals such as Utah, BYU, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado have had similar jumps. So Boise has increased their revenue by $2 million while their rivals have increased by $10-15 million. Boise is farther behind than ever.

(03-29-2013 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 12:23 PM)jmufan Wrote:  Why would a conference add basketball only schools when they just had a split from basketball only schools? Doesn't make sense.

Keep in mind, these schools didnt split form the basketball schools. The basketball schools split from them. The football schools didnt have a problem with having basketball only members.

Not to mention the original basketball big east schools were like the guy that marries the hot chick and then all her low life relatives move in. (Their perception not mine)

(03-30-2013 11:11 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 08:32 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 08:27 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:59 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Man, some of you guys are like that abused woman who keeps dating the same type of guy. You really want to go back to a hybrid conference? SMH

Because basketball can generate $$$. If we have the chance to improve, take it! If you haven't notice Wichita State is in the elite 8. That is big $$$.

I'm very much aware of Wichita's status, and I'm actually an old school fan of WSU. I used to watch them play Tulsa back in the MVC days. I understnad your point about dollars, but I also know you don't keep shooting holes in the bottom of the boat because there's fish under it.

If we prove ourselves on the field/court, the money will come, and we won't compromise the chemistry/powerbase of the conference to achieve it.

Patience for god's sake.

That's what UC thought too. Two BCS bowls, four conference titles, five 10-win seasons, and successfully rebuilding our basketball program (after Zimpher tried to kill it by effectively guaranteeing that we couldn't recruit for 2 1/2 years by dragging out Huggins' firing). And yet in 2013 our revenue will be worse relative to our peers than it was in 2003.

It also hasn't worked for VCU, St. Mary's, USM, Ohio U, or CMU. It hasn't even worked for big-time winners like Gonzaga and Boise. "Win and the money will come" is a nice theory, but it doesn't always work in practice.

Fair point Captain, but I for the longest time have felt that UC will land in a better situation soon enough. I don't have any sources, or inside information. It just doesn't make sense how Cincy can be so successful at football and basketball, and still be left out of the BCS picture.

If the realignment ball stops rolling and UC and UConn are still in this conference, then I will recant my statement. But on the whole, if this conference can field even mediocre teams with a couple of good programs, it will fair better than the current contract suggests.

(03-30-2013 12:02 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Boise is getting 1 to 1.5 million/year in the MWC. 10 years ago, they were getting a few hundred thousand in the WAC, so they're up around $1 million. That might jump to $2 million with the MWC's new contract.

How high it goes depends on how exciting a brand of football they play, with the new contract ~ they can make $2.5m if ESPN puts them on ESPN or ESPN2 a few times. Even more if they are the Group of Five rep, since they keep $2m of the $4m under the MWC revenue sharing deal.

Quote: At the same time, their closest peer school, Washington State, has jumped from $5.4 million to $19 million despite being one of the worst programs in D-1A.

Yeah, like I said, Boise State didn't hit the lottery jackpot, but they are making more money than they were a couple of years ago, and with good performance have the chance to make still more.