(04-04-2017 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 03:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 02:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 09:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You missed Frank's main point, which was to reiterate that the Homer-like criticisms of the Big East are of course ridiculous.

But concerning the issues you did raise: You think that in 2012/2013 the Big East was in a great bargaining position? The Big East was just as new and uncertain as was the AAC. They had both experienced the same ruptures, defections, etc. Plus, the Big East had the handicap of no football, FOX was signing a purely basketball league, all eggs in one basket.

So Big East "uncertainty" and bargaining "weakness" was no different than AAC. Big East just had much better negotiators.

The rest of your post is just about what you think will happen in the future, and we can all have rosy thoughts about the future. But until those visions materialize they mean little.

Trust me, I've been a supporter of a Big East - turned - AAC school a lot longer. I've seen lots of rosy future scenarios for our conference be envisioned, and precious few have materialized.

lol...The C7 defection is EXACTLY what CAUSED the "weakness" in the AAC....

Now, with an established track record of solid ratings and with a track record of solid on the field performance in both football and basketball---the AAC looks like a very attractive media property that can be had for less than half the cost of any P5 property. The AAC will get a big bump---given the total eyeball they attract with respect to the Big East, they wiil likely surpass the current BE deal by a significant margin.

1) You have cause and effect reversed, understandable because as a Cougars fan you had no stake in the Big East before 2012. But what caused the C7 to leave was the massive instability that occurred as a result of the 2011-2012 raids that decimated the conference and ensured it would not be a "Power" league once the BCS ended.

2) Once the C7 split, the C7 was no more 'stable' than the remaining AAC schools, nor was it in any kind of powerful negotiating position. Heck, the AAC had the alleged ace in the hole - genius TV ace Aresco, whereas the C7 had no organizational infrastructure. It didn't even get a commissioner until late June, 2013.

There's a tendency by AAC apologists to rationalize AAC failures and Big East success by claiming some huge Big East head start/advantage at their origins. In social life generally, this is a common argument conjured up by losers/failures to feel better about themselves. "Well of course we lost, we were fighting with one hand tied behind our backs!" and the like. But in this case at least, it's not true. The AAC started in the same place as the C7.

It's just that the C7, which from December 2012 to June 2013 was basically run by a committee, made excellent decisions related to membership, TV, and in separating from the AAC (IIRC, you've admitted that in selling the Big East name, Aresco made a major bonehead move, the C7 outsmarted him there), whereas the AAC, led by Aresco, signed a peanuts TV deal.

As for the future, who knows what deals each will sign. But one thing to consider about a future AAC deal is, do you really think ESPN is going to credit the AAC for the ratings boost it gets for being on ESPN? AAC supporters often say that it is good to be on ESPN because as the biggest sports brand, ESPN draws lots of casual viewers and has channel-familiarity that FOX and NBC don't. Well, that's a characteristic of ESPN, not the AAC, so if, e.g., the Big East draws a "1" rating on FOX and the AAC a "3" rating on ESPN (these are just made up numbers, btw), and the difference is because of the ESPN boost, it's unlikely that ESPN will pay the AAC for a "3" rating if 2 of those points come purely from being on ESPN to begin with. Expect them to say "don't tell us about your 3 rating, we both know if you were on NBCSN it would be a 1" or somesuch.

We'll see.

Some of what you say is true---some not so much. For starters---your point #1 and your point #2 are unlikely to both be true. Schools do not as a rule willingly move from an unstable situation to another unstable situation. The fact is, the C7 stated on multiple occasions that FBS football was largely responsible for the most of the realignment damage suffered by the Big East and that the C7 believed moving away from the FBS side of the conference would make them much more stable (which I agree with).

I do agree, and have said on numerous occasions that the AAC made errors from 2011-2012. Selling the BE name and poor execution of the western wing strategy are two Ive harped on.

That said, while some wounds were self inflicted--more were not. There is no doubt that an unusual set of circumstances occurred that very much worked to the detriment of the AAC contract negotiations. This time around, I don't think most of those unusual adverse circumstances will be swirling around the league.

Of course, the AAC has certainly exhibited the ability to shoot itself in the foot---despite that, I still think they will do better this time around. Heck, even you have admitted to believing they will likely get a nice raise (lol...in fact, despite our differing opinions, we are both in the same ball park on our estimates).

First, I agree that schools usually don't willingly move from a more stable to less stable situation. But stability wasn't the only issue in play. The C7 schools saw (or feared) that the defections and raids had created a situation where picking up the pieces would mean that the power balance was tilting inexorably in the direction of football. There was the sense that they were becoming strangers in their own land, so to speak. So it wasn't that the new situation, breaking away, was initially more stable, it provided more control, a chance to retain their cultural identity, even though it was, at least initially, less stable, then remaining would have been. The C7 were willing to trade off some stability for control. Of course, in the long run, everyone hopes to build greater stability out of an unstable situation, whether they are the C7, AAC, or whoever.

Yes, ultimately I do think the AAC will get a nice raise in its next deal and that belief is there whether WSU joins or not. I have to admit that a lot of my arguments point against that conclusion, so there is analytical inconsistency there. It's more a gut feeling than anything else.

I don't think anyone really believes the C7 left and then began negotiating a contract with FOX. They wouldn't leave without already knowing what FOX was going to pay them--which meant that FOX had been discussing this idea with them long before they annouced their exit in late 2012. I know I was hearing they were leaving as far back as summer 2012. Its hard to say that didn't have an adverse affect on Aresco's attempt to negotiate a deal for the AAC. While this was going on, its also true that Boise was engaged in a backdoor effort to get a value as a independent from multiple networks. This, along with all the exits, SEVERELY undermined Aresco's negotiating position. That's simply not arguable.

Without all that mess going on---I think Aresco will do much better this time around. FWIW--"Adcorbitt", who claims to have direct access from someone who was actually in the room, says that the AAC original offer from ESPN was around 40 million (but with much less exposure than we got from NBC). That number matches the number I have heard rumors about (its also at the low end of Dodd's articles citing estimates from media experts at the time). Given the AAC ratings performance has been much better than expected and the loss of 50% of ESPN's B1G inventory to FOX, I figure 40 million is the new floor.

(04-04-2017 10:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 09:55 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 09:22 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  So the basis of the rejoinder is claiming that Frank the Tank was way off base on the following:

Quote:"The American Athletic Conference (AAC) and Mountain West Conference (MWC) don’t seem interested at all in adding non-football members, so Wichita State won’t be considered."

Seems like Frank is being criticized for being right at the time. After all, given how fast this is moving now, if the AAC was interested in adding non-football members two years ago, Wichita State would already be in the conference.

Indeed, it follows directly from his argument that if either the American or the Mountain West became interested in adding a non-football member, then Wichita State might have someplace to go.

I'm not sure how right he was at the time. I've heard rumblings, apparently from someone who is usually connected, that these talks between Wichita and the AAC have been going on for a couple of years now. If that's true, Frank was wrong at the time as well.

In what way is his statement wrong? If they were interested enough to pull the trigger, they could have pulled the trigger any time in the past two years.

Quote: Just because things have progressed to the point where the AAC has started leaking things to the press doesn't mean it's all happened just now.

But it did signal that they were getting serious about adding an Olympic-sports member. It's long been obvious given Wichita's standing interest in getting into a stronger BBall conference and the geographic balance of the AAC that Wichita is likely their best choice to do that.

So by this logic, there is never any interest until it's officially done? We just disregard any and all negotiations and all else that goes into things? These things don't happen over night, regardless of what you apparently seem to think.

(04-04-2017 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I don't think anyone really believes the C7 left and then began negotiating a contract with FOX. They wouldn't leave without already knowing what FOX was going to pay them--which meant that FOX had been discussing this idea with then long before they annouced their exit in 2012. I know I was hearing they were leaving as far back as summer 2012. Its hard to say that didn't have an adverse affect on Aresco's attempt to negotiate a deal for the AAC. While this was going on, its also true that Boise was engaged in a backdoor effort to get a value as a independent from multiple networks. This, along with all the exits, SEVERELY undermined Aresco's negotiating position. That's simply not arguable.

Everyone relevant to negotiations knew in 2012 that the C7 were going to leave and form their own league -- that means that no one was undermined. There were no surprises. Given that Aresco knew those schools were leaving when he became commissioner in the summer of 2012, it would have been a major tactical mistake on his part if he tried to negotiate as if they were not leaving -- but it's better to assume that he didn't make a mistake that large. Aresco and the TV networks would have all negotiated under the assumption that the C7 schools were not going to be part of the league going forward.

At any rate, what will happen in the future depends on market forces at the time of the next negotiation, and not on what did or didn't go on in a negotiation several years in the past.

(04-04-2017 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Everyone relevant to negotiations knew in 2012 that the C7 were going to leave and form their own league -- that means that no one was undermined. There were no surprises.

So, you're saying that Fox and the C7 didn't begin their dialogue while Mike Aresco was still trying to make a deal for the whole conference?

Just so I know what exactly you're saying..

It's not what I'm saying. It's what Attackcoog said, that everyone knew in the summer of 2012 -- i.e., at the time Aresco became commissioner -- that the C7 were going to leave.

(04-04-2017 09:22 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 03:45 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 02:47 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 02:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As a result, the Big East as a whole is worth more than the sum of its parts. There's a premium and goodwill attached to the entire Big East league that goes beyond simply the value of Georgetown plus the value of DePaul, et. al. This is the same with the strongest P5 leagues, too.

In contrast, the issue with the AAC and every other G5 league is that they're only worth the sum of their parts. UConn basketball and Houston and Navy football might be valuable *parts*, but there's simply no value to the AAC brand in and of itself as entity.

You seem to suggest that the AAC won't be able to get a deal that competes with the Big East or establish a similar brand. If that's the case then these paragraphs are pure conjecture on your part. If the AAC holds together there is really nothing keeping them from getting a good TV deal, not P5 level but very good.

Please tell us more about how Wichita State wasn't going to the AAC.

I was curious where you were getting this.

Then I read Frank's blog post from two years ago.

https://frankthetank.me/tag/wichita-state-to-aac/

Hey - no one's perfect.

So the basis of the rejoinder is claiming that Frank the Tank was way off base on the following:

Quote:"The American Athletic Conference (AAC) and Mountain West Conference (MWC) don’t seem interested at all in adding non-football members, so Wichita State won’t be considered."

Seems like Frank is being criticized for being right at the time. After all, given how fast this is moving now, if the AAC was interested in adding non-football members two years ago, Wichita State would already be in the conference.

Indeed, it follows directly from his argument that if either the American or the Mountain West became interested in adding a non-football member, then Wichita State might have someplace to go.

I myself am happy that the AAC came to its senses on that point. The counter-argument being raised then was, as Brian said in discussion on that post:

Quote: Michael in Raleigh,

“I think it’s foolish for the AAC and Mtn. West not to expand with non-football additions.”

On the other hand, they saw what a split membership did to the BE.

And as I replied:

Quote: They saw what massively unbalanced all-sports / olympic-sports did for the old Big East, so the simple solution would be to not do that. Learning the lessons of the old Big East that adding an olympic-sport school to match a FB-only school is a bad idea is learning more lesson than the old Big East has available to teach.

To build on that.

In December of 2015 Wichita State was studying adding football. Why? Because they had approached MWC and AAC and neither was interested in adding a non-football member.

Wichita State seemed to believe being a football school was their best path to improving their conference affiliation.

I suspect WSU had actually had high level conversations with at least some members of the AAC and MWC when they concluded that neither league would add a non-football.

(04-04-2017 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I don't think anyone really believes the C7 left and then began negotiating a contract with FOX. They wouldn't leave without already knowing what FOX was going to pay them--which meant that FOX had been discussing this idea with then long before they annouced their exit in 2012. I know I was hearing they were leaving as far back as summer 2012. Its hard to say that didn't have an adverse affect on Aresco's attempt to negotiate a deal for the AAC. While this was going on, its also true that Boise was engaged in a backdoor effort to get a value as a independent from multiple networks. This, along with all the exits, SEVERELY undermined Aresco's negotiating position. That's simply not arguable.

Everyone relevant to negotiations knew in 2012 that the C7 were going to leave and form their own league -- that means that no one was undermined. There were no surprises. Given that Aresco knew those schools were leaving when he became commissioner in the summer of 2012, it would have been a major tactical mistake on his part if he tried to negotiate as if they were not leaving -- but it's better to assume that he didn't make a mistake that large. Aresco and the TV networks would have all negotiated under the assumption that the C7 schools were not going to be part of the league going forward.

At any rate, what will happen in the future depends on market forces at the time of the next negotiation, and not on what did or didn't go on in a negotiation several years in the past.

Exactly.
Since that time, we've seen Fox walk away from the table on the CUSA deal, ESPN punch in a few dollars for CUSA but not what they put in to even the Sun Belt. Enough excess inventory sitting around that BeIn was able to enter the game on the cheap.

CUSA and AAC aren't the same thing and CUSA gave up dollars to do a short deal and take another crack at better dollars in two years.

Before the CUSA deal leaked out, my thought was that if Fox were going to try to mirror ESPN with more use of FS2 and online, that CUSA would get a raise and if not they might lose 25% or so of value and consider a no-change a win.

They lost 80% of value instead when Fox walked away.

Who knows what Wall Street analysts will be screaming at Disney when the next negotiation rolls around?

Hell ESPN3 may be a sports YouTube or Funny or Die in another five years with very little produced by ESPN, the rest just being a place to distribute what others produce and taking a skim of the advertising.

(04-04-2017 09:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 07:34 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Frank has been wrong before, after all, he's human like everybody else. He mostly posts common sense stuff on realignment and tv rights but he does a better job on explaining it than everybody else on this board. He might come across as elitist and arrogant to some people but it might be because he speaks well write on this case as a lawyer rather than an average guy on a sports board. I personally like his posts but it seems I might be in the minority.

We no longer live in a nation of discourse and dialog.
Frank looks at the situation, makes an argument, sets forth his reasoning for the argument. Typical response is nuh-uh.
Logic and reasoning isn't a crystal ball.
Expansion and realignment is not fully orderly because there are humans involved. Big 10 thought they were going to add Penn State and Notre Dame. They were wrong. SEC thought they were going to add Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, and Florida State. They were wrong.
Pac-10 thought they were going to add Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. They were wrong. WAC thought North Texas would leap at an invite. They were wrong. Utah State thought they would say no to the MWC along with Fresno and Nevada and force an impasse that would bring MWC to the table to negotiate something together.

People get pissed he ain't the psychic hotline, the dang players in these dramas have access to more facts and information and get it wrong.

I had Appalachian State and Georgia Southern as teams to move to the SBC a couple of years before they moved to SBC. I even had North Florida and Chattanooga as possible Sun Belt Conference moves as well. We know that SBC did asked Chattanooga if they would like to join.

I even had Grand Canyon, Utah Valley, UTRGV, Cal. State-Bakersfield and Chicago State as new WAC members before they got an invite. I even had California Baptist as well. All you have to see is the pattern for each conferences. Once you see the patterns? You could tell who the targets could be. Geography fitting schools and all that falls into the footprint of said conference does work out.

Like I said, Jackson State may not be a logical ideal for an expansion candidate, but they are since they fit in the Sun Belt Conference's footprint since SBC does not have a presence in the state of Mississippi. It is not the first time they reached out to a HBCU to join the conference. They invited Florida A&M to join which A&M was starting to transition to become FBS when they changed their minds and went back.

(04-04-2017 01:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's not what I'm saying. It's what Attackcoog said, that everyone knew in the summer of 2012 -- i.e., at the time Aresco became commissioner -- that the C7 were going to leave.

The C7 did not know it would be leaving in Summer 2012. It wasn't until the defection of Notre Dame (which was after Syracuse/Pittsburgh's move, and right before Louisville's), which led to the additions of Tulane and East Carolina, that the caused the C7 to pursue its own course. Losing Syracuse/Pittsburgh/Notre Dame really hurt, but it was the replacements in ECU/Tulane/UCF/SMU/Houston in basketball that got the ball rolling on from the basketball schools to pursue their own conference.

Our Fox contract did not come come until March 2013. The C7 gambled on itself being more valuable than those respective footballs schools, and ended up getting more money by doing so. If I had to guess, I would say the negotiations between Fox and the C7 took place between December and February, which was after the announcement of the C7 leaving, and up until the contract with Fox was announced.

(04-04-2017 11:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Sure - I didn't think that Wichita State would get an AAC invite because I sincerely didn't believe that they'd go down the well of adding non-football members. It didn't end very well the last time with the old Big East and the emotions were still pretty raw over the past few years. If the AAC has changed its mind on this matter, then yes, I guess I'll end up being wrong on this point (although I believe that they were in a very different place 2 years ago when I wrote that post).

Two years ago, the AAC brass and fans still thought AAC basketball was fine, that it was Big East-equal at least, and right on course. So while they might have toyed with ideas about adding WSU or others, it wasn't serious because it wasn't viewed as necessary.

Now, with two more years of hoops play under the belt, they recognize that the AAC basketball league has failed to meet their expectations and needs serious help.

That's the difference with regards to clamoring for WSU now as opposed to then.

(04-04-2017 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 03:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 02:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 09:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...The C7 defection is EXACTLY what CAUSED the "weakness" in the AAC....

Now, with an established track record of solid ratings and with a track record of solid on the field performance in both football and basketball---the AAC looks like a very attractive media property that can be had for less than half the cost of any P5 property. The AAC will get a big bump---given the total eyeball they attract with respect to the Big East, they wiil likely surpass the current BE deal by a significant margin.

1) You have cause and effect reversed, understandable because as a Cougars fan you had no stake in the Big East before 2012. But what caused the C7 to leave was the massive instability that occurred as a result of the 2011-2012 raids that decimated the conference and ensured it would not be a "Power" league once the BCS ended.

2) Once the C7 split, the C7 was no more 'stable' than the remaining AAC schools, nor was it in any kind of powerful negotiating position. Heck, the AAC had the alleged ace in the hole - genius TV ace Aresco, whereas the C7 had no organizational infrastructure. It didn't even get a commissioner until late June, 2013.

There's a tendency by AAC apologists to rationalize AAC failures and Big East success by claiming some huge Big East head start/advantage at their origins. In social life generally, this is a common argument conjured up by losers/failures to feel better about themselves. "Well of course we lost, we were fighting with one hand tied behind our backs!" and the like. But in this case at least, it's not true. The AAC started in the same place as the C7.

It's just that the C7, which from December 2012 to June 2013 was basically run by a committee, made excellent decisions related to membership, TV, and in separating from the AAC (IIRC, you've admitted that in selling the Big East name, Aresco made a major bonehead move, the C7 outsmarted him there), whereas the AAC, led by Aresco, signed a peanuts TV deal.

As for the future, who knows what deals each will sign. But one thing to consider about a future AAC deal is, do you really think ESPN is going to credit the AAC for the ratings boost it gets for being on ESPN? AAC supporters often say that it is good to be on ESPN because as the biggest sports brand, ESPN draws lots of casual viewers and has channel-familiarity that FOX and NBC don't. Well, that's a characteristic of ESPN, not the AAC, so if, e.g., the Big East draws a "1" rating on FOX and the AAC a "3" rating on ESPN (these are just made up numbers, btw), and the difference is because of the ESPN boost, it's unlikely that ESPN will pay the AAC for a "3" rating if 2 of those points come purely from being on ESPN to begin with. Expect them to say "don't tell us about your 3 rating, we both know if you were on NBCSN it would be a 1" or somesuch.

We'll see.

Some of what you say is true---some not so much. For starters---your point #1 and your point #2 are unlikely to both be true. Schools do not as a rule willingly move from an unstable situation to another unstable situation. The fact is, the C7 stated on multiple occasions that FBS football was largely responsible for the most of the realignment damage suffered by the Big East and that the C7 believed moving away from the FBS side of the conference would make them much more stable (which I agree with).

I do agree, and have said on numerous occasions that the AAC made errors from 2011-2012. Selling the BE name and poor execution of the western wing strategy are two Ive harped on.

That said, while some wounds were self inflicted--more were not. There is no doubt that an unusual set of circumstances occurred that very much worked to the detriment of the AAC contract negotiations. This time around, I don't think most of those unusual adverse circumstances will be swirling around the league.

Of course, the AAC has certainly exhibited the ability to shoot itself in the foot---despite that, I still think they will do better this time around. Heck, even you have admitted to believing they will likely get a nice raise (lol...in fact, despite our differing opinions, we are both in the same ball park on our estimates).

First, I agree that schools usually don't willingly move from a more stable to less stable situation. But stability wasn't the only issue in play. The C7 schools saw (or feared) that the defections and raids had created a situation where picking up the pieces would mean that the power balance was tilting inexorably in the direction of football. There was the sense that they were becoming strangers in their own land, so to speak. So it wasn't that the new situation, breaking away, was initially more stable, it provided more control, a chance to retain their cultural identity, even though it was, at least initially, less stable, then remaining would have been. The C7 were willing to trade off some stability for control. Of course, in the long run, everyone hopes to build greater stability out of an unstable situation, whether they are the C7, AAC, or whoever.

Yes, ultimately I do think the AAC will get a nice raise in its next deal and that belief is there whether WSU joins or not. I have to admit that a lot of my arguments point against that conclusion, so there is analytical inconsistency there. It's more a gut feeling than anything else.

I don't think anyone really believes the C7 left and then began negotiating a contract with FOX. They wouldn't leave without already knowing what FOX was going to pay them--which meant that FOX had been discussing this idea with them long before they annouced their exit in late 2012.

My recollection was that while there were tweets by some speculators to the contrary, that there was no serious inkling of C7 leaving until the big changes of late November, 2012, when Rutgers and Louisville left and Tulane and ECU were invited all within a period of 10 days or so. If you look at the configuration at that moment - UL and Rutgers out, total strangers ECU and Tulane coming, and with football westies Boise and SDSU still on board - that's not a conference that meshed with C7 identity. That's what triggered the move, if those things hadn't happened, the C7 would have stayed.

The C7 announced their departure no more than two weeks after those events, which seems like precious little time to line up a TV deal with anyone. They were in the same boat as Aresco - a brand new unexpected situation - and they had to adjust on the fly accordingly.

(04-04-2017 02:04 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 01:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's not what I'm saying. It's what Attackcoog said, that everyone knew in the summer of 2012 -- i.e., at the time Aresco became commissioner -- that the C7 were going to leave.

The C7 did not know it would be leaving in Summer 2012. It wasn't until the defection of Notre Dame (which was after Syracuse/Pittsburgh's move, and right before Louisville's), which led to the additions of Tulane and East Carolina, that the caused the C7 to pursue its own course. Losing Syracuse/Pittsburgh/Notre Dame really hurt, but it was the replacements in ECU/Tulane/UCF/SMU/Houston in basketball that got the ball rolling on from the basketball schools to pursue their own conference.

Our Fox contract did not come come until March 2013. The C7 gambled on itself being more valuable than those respective footballs schools, and ended up getting more money by doing so. If I had to guess, I would say the negotiations between Fox and the C7 took place between December and February, which was after the announcement of the C7 leaving, and up until the contract with Fox was announced.

Eh, I would say that the Syracuse/Pitt defection was what set the C7 into motion in planning to split off. The C7 might not have 100% committed to splitting off at that exact time, but that definitely got the discussions going. Multiple C7 schools have stated that Syracuse leaving (not Notre Dame) was the trigger on their part that they needed a complete change in plans. As a result, the C7 (via former NFL commissioner and Georgetown Board Chairman Paul Tagliabue) had a very good idea (if not confirmation) about what Fox was going to offer them when they announced that they were going to split off. They definitely didn't fly into the split blind in that respect.

Now, did Aresco and the old Big East football schools get caught off-guard by the C7 splitting off? Possibly. I really don't think they took the prospect of the C7 leaving that seriously up until it actually happened (even if they had heard rumors about it previously). The entire environment at that time was premised on football being the only thing that mattered from a conference realignment perspective, so Aresco might have had a blind spot there. I don't think the eventual AAC really planned for the C7 departure very well as their actions and responses in the days following the C7 split announcement reflected an organization that was in complete panic mode. If Aresco truly knew that the C7 were going to leave, he would have gotten out in front of the story better. Instead, the messaging and optics from Aresco and the old Big East football schools were pretty haphazard and all over the place.

(04-04-2017 02:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Eh, I would say that the Syracuse/Pitt defection was what set the C7 into motion in planning to split off. The C7 might not have 100% committed to splitting off at that exact time, but that definitely got the discussions going. Multiple C7 schools have stated that Syracuse leaving (not Notre Dame) was the trigger on their part that they needed a complete change in plans. As a result, the C7 (via former NFL commissioner and Georgetown Board Chairman Paul Tagliabue) had a very good idea (if not confirmation) about what Fox was going to offer them when they announced that they were going to split off. They definitely didn't fly into the split blind in that respect.

Now, did Aresco and the old Big East football schools get caught off-guard by the C7 splitting off? Possibly. I really don't think they took the prospect of the C7 leaving that seriously up until it actually happened (even if they had heard rumors about it previously). The entire environment at that time was premised on football being the only thing that mattered from a conference realignment perspective, so Aresco might have had a blind spot there. I don't think the eventual AAC really planned for the C7 departure very well as their actions and responses in the days following the C7 split announcement reflected an organization that was in complete panic mode. If Aresco truly knew that the C7 were going to leave, he would have gotten out in front of the story better. Instead, the messaging and optics from Aresco and the old Big East football schools were pretty haphazard and all over the place.

100% agree.

(04-04-2017 02:04 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  it was the replacements in ECU/Tulane/UCF/SMU/Houston in basketball that got the ball rolling on from the basketball schools to pursue their own conference.

ECU was never a Big East basketball add.

Hindsight is not always 20/20. Three of those teams (all but Tulane) made the post-season this year. Jankovich won 30 games at SMU. Dawkins made the NIT Final Four at UCF. and Sampson had Houston on the NCAA bubble.
In Football, UCF had a significant BCS bowl win over the Big 12 Champions in the 1st season of the reconstructed conference, and Houston beat Florida State 2 years later in the Peach.
Aresco was right about the value he had before the breakup all along.

That being said, the football schools weren't exactly left longing. UConns MBB Championship was a great start while the conference went about bolstering the programs at the schools you mentioned.

Nevertheless, those negotiations didn't exist in a vacuum and there very much so was a domino effect. Aresco simply had his knees cut out every time he went to negotiate and his inventory wasn't the same.

(04-04-2017 02:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 02:04 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 01:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's not what I'm saying. It's what Attackcoog said, that everyone knew in the summer of 2012 -- i.e., at the time Aresco became commissioner -- that the C7 were going to leave.

The C7 did not know it would be leaving in Summer 2012. It wasn't until the defection of Notre Dame (which was after Syracuse/Pittsburgh's move, and right before Louisville's), which led to the additions of Tulane and East Carolina, that the caused the C7 to pursue its own course. Losing Syracuse/Pittsburgh/Notre Dame really hurt, but it was the replacements in ECU/Tulane/UCF/SMU/Houston in basketball that got the ball rolling on from the basketball schools to pursue their own conference.

Our Fox contract did not come come until March 2013. The C7 gambled on itself being more valuable than those respective footballs schools, and ended up getting more money by doing so. If I had to guess, I would say the negotiations between Fox and the C7 took place between December and February, which was after the announcement of the C7 leaving, and up until the contract with Fox was announced.

Eh, I would say that the Syracuse/Pitt defection was what set the C7 into motion in planning to split off. The C7 might not have 100% committed to splitting off at that exact time, but that definitely got the discussions going. Multiple C7 schools have stated that Syracuse leaving (not Notre Dame) was the trigger on their part that they needed a complete change in plans. As a result, the C7 (via former NFL commissioner and Georgetown Board Chairman Paul Tagliabue) had a very good idea (if not confirmation) about what Fox was going to offer them when they announced that they were going to split off. They definitely didn't fly into the split blind in that respect.

Now, did Aresco and the old Big East football schools get caught off-guard by the C7 splitting off? Possibly. I really don't think they took the prospect of the C7 leaving that seriously up until it actually happened (even if they had heard rumors about it previously). The entire environment at that time was premised on football being the only thing that mattered from a conference realignment perspective, so Aresco might have had a blind spot there. I don't think the eventual AAC really planned for the C7 departure very well as their actions and responses in the days following the C7 split announcement reflected an organization that was in complete panic mode. If Aresco truly knew that the C7 were going to leave, he would have gotten out in front of the story better. Instead, the messaging and optics from Aresco and the old Big East football schools were pretty haphazard and all over the place.

^^^^^THIS^^^^

Like I said, I had heard whispers that they were looking into to splitting in the summer of 2012---I honestly thought the people telling me this were full of it and didn't really believe there was much to it. Turned out they were correct. Seems like I also remember a couple of open letters by the Nova (may have been Providence) AD that to alumni that , at the very least, certainly hinted at trouble beneath the surface of BE paradise well before the Big East split was news in the press.

(04-04-2017 02:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Two years ago, the AAC brass and fans still thought AAC basketball was fine, that it was Big East-equal at least, and right on course. So while they might have toyed with ideas about adding WSU or others, it wasn't serious because it wasn't viewed as necessary.

Now, with two more years of hoops play under the belt, they recognize that the AAC basketball league has failed to meet their expectations and needs serious help.

That's the difference with regards to clamoring for WSU now as opposed to then.

Two years is a lifetime in realignment.

Wichita State wasn't added two years ago because there were looming questions of a Big 12 raid.

There was no way Aresco was going to add anyone without knowing what any defections may look like..

FAST FORWARD: The Big 12 just sold off their pro rata clause last Fall after a prolonged 'Beauty Pageant' that was a public relations nightmare. Consequently, the landscape has settled down for the foreseeable future.

If there was ever a time to add Wichita State it is right now. Unlike the negotiations 4 years ago, Aresco is able to come to the table with an established conference that has an indisputable record he can monetize. Wichita State is going to add more data to the portfolio.

Good for ESPN

(04-04-2017 02:48 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 02:04 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  it was the replacements in ECU/Tulane/UCF/SMU/Houston in basketball that got the ball rolling on from the basketball schools to pursue their own conference.

ECU was never a Big East basketball add.

Hindsight is not always 20/20. Three of those teams (all but Tulane) made the post-season this year. Jankovich won 30 games at SMU. Dawkins made the NIT Final Four at UCF. and Sampson had Houston on the NCAA bubble.
In Football, UCF had a significant BCS bowl win over the Big 12 Champions in the 1st season of the reconstructed conference, and Houston beat Florida State 2 years later in the Peach.
Aresco was right about the value he had before the breakup all along.

That being said, the football schools weren't exactly left longing. UConns MBB Championship was a great start while the conference went about bolstering the programs at the schools you mentioned.

Nevertheless, those negotiations didn't exist in a vacuum and there very much so was a domino effect. Aresco simply had his knees cut out every time he went to negotiate and his inventory wasn't the same.

Correct, and I should have clarified, ECU was originally a football-only add - but the prevailing belief at the time was that it was a matter of when, not if, ECU was taken as a full-member.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but the fact was, at the time, that the combination of ECU, Tulane, Houston, SMU, and UCF had a combined eight NCAA tournament appearances in the previous 20 years of play. Programs go through ups and downs, but the reality was that these programs - as a combination and as a group - would, perception-wise, drag down the value of the basketball brand of the conference. Toss in USF, which was never really strong in the Big East, and you have six schools that had not done anything of significance in basketball in a very, very long time (and some ever). In hindsight, the C7 breaking off and reorganizing the Big East was, and still is, the best move for the schools.

(04-04-2017 03:02 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  If there was ever a time to add Wichita State it is right now.

I'm not following the topic very closely, so this may have been answered already.

There was discussion at WSU about restarting its FB program. Have there been any leaks on if a WSU FB program, at some point in the future, would be included if they move to the AAC?

(04-04-2017 03:20 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 02:48 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 02:04 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  it was the replacements in ECU/Tulane/UCF/SMU/Houston in basketball that got the ball rolling on from the basketball schools to pursue their own conference.

ECU was never a Big East basketball add.

Hindsight is not always 20/20. Three of those teams (all but Tulane) made the post-season this year. Jankovich won 30 games at SMU. Dawkins made the NIT Final Four at UCF. and Sampson had Houston on the NCAA bubble.
In Football, UCF had a significant BCS bowl win over the Big 12 Champions in the 1st season of the reconstructed conference, and Houston beat Florida State 2 years later in the Peach.
Aresco was right about the value he had before the breakup all along.

That being said, the football schools weren't exactly left longing. UConns MBB Championship was a great start while the conference went about bolstering the programs at the schools you mentioned.

Nevertheless, those negotiations didn't exist in a vacuum and there very much so was a domino effect. Aresco simply had his knees cut out every time he went to negotiate and his inventory wasn't the same.

Correct, and I should have clarified, ECU was originally a football-only add - but the prevailing belief at the time was that it was a matter of when, not if, ECU was taken as a full-member.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but the fact was, at the time, that the combination of ECU, Tulane, Houston, SMU, and UCF had a combined eight NCAA tournament appearances in the previous 20 years of play. Programs go through ups and downs, but the reality was that these programs - as a combination and as a group - would, perception-wise, drag down the value of the basketball brand of the conference. Toss in USF, which was never really strong in the Big East, and you have six schools that had not done anything of significance in basketball in a very, very long time (and some ever). In hindsight, the C7 breaking off and reorganizing the Big East was, and still is, the best move for the schools.

ECU knew they would never get full membership with the Catholics in the conference. I don't know who you've been talking to. They understood their second class status well enough after applying to the original Big East for years.
As for perceptions, Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, and St Johns (4 of the C7) were all mediocre with OBE resources leading up to that time. To criticize the incoming schools for what they did on a fraction of the budget is absurd. The NBE chose 3 hot mid-majors at the time to branch off with because they needed the boost.
History shows that the conference would have succeeded either way.