(05-07-2014 07:47 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 07:38 AM)redbirdTD Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 06:53 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 06:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 05:20 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Bearcats#1, this must mean that he thinks all G5 conferences are major conferences, right??

why? Because some dude from IU says so? LOL, great logic man. That dude can say whatever he wants....but our tv contract and bowl line up say differently.

Not sure if it's memory, comprehension or just a barrier to communication going on here.... The other day you said that everyone viewed all of the G5 the same. I said that wasn't so in some cases. I've got friends who went to P5 schools that view the AAC over the SBC, etc. You said "nope, everyone views all G5 conferences as the same. Me, P5 fans, TV executives, university and conference officials."

Well, now there's at least two people aside from some friends and people on other boards. Me and "that dude" from Indiana can see the difference between the AAC and other G5.

The only way that the AAC is the same as the worst G5 conference (whatever that may be) is that we're all fighting for the same bowl and don't make nearly as much money as P5. Level of play, recruiting, TV exposure, fan bases, merchandise sales, budgets, public perception, etc. are all different.

What did you expect "the dude" from IU to say? We are scheduling one of the worst teams from a g5 conference. Fact is, IU is terrible in fball and have been forever. Hell, they are just average in bball now. IU is one of those teams you schedule for homecoming in fball, but keep telling yourself this is some big developement. LOL!

4 > 3

Defending National Champions! LOL!!!

Two time BCS champs vs none. That is why we are off to the ACC. Schedule IU in bball, that would be a better matchup, if Crean ever learns to coach. In fball (and that is what we are talking about) this matchup is a yawner. LOL!

(05-06-2014 06:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 05:20 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Bearcats#1, this must mean that he thinks all G5 conferences are major conferences, right??

why? Because some dude from IU says so? LOL, great logic man. That dude can say whatever he wants....but our tv contract and bowl line up say differently.

As do the aac's on field results in year one. Name any p-5 conference that has both a Bcs bowl champ and the national champ in basketball. Don't bother there's only one, the AAC. As to the tv contract and bowl lineup, that is more a product of the perceived instability of the AAC at contract formation.

(05-06-2014 06:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 05:20 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Bearcats#1, this must mean that he thinks all G5 conferences are major conferences, right??

why? Because some dude from IU says so? LOL, great logic man. That dude can say whatever he wants....but our tv contract and bowl line up say differently.

He got a call last night from James E. Delany, telling him to follow company guide lines on G5 schools.

(05-08-2014 06:19 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 06:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 05:20 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Bearcats#1, this must mean that he thinks all G5 conferences are major conferences, right??

why? Because some dude from IU says so? LOL, great logic man. That dude can say whatever he wants....but our tv contract and bowl line up say differently.

As do the aac's on field results in year one. Name any p-5 conference that has both a Bcs bowl champ and the national champ in basketball. Don't bother there's only one, the AAC. As to the tv contract and bowl lineup, that is more a product of the perceived instability of the AAC at contract formation.

While our basketball results on the court surely put us in the quasi-Power category (and the same could be said for the A10 and Big East), our football results were the opposite. We were terrible on the football field OOC, nowhere near Power quality.

And 'instability' doesn't mean anything, it's the nature of the instability that matters, because 'instability' just means 'change', which can be for the worse - or better.

E.g., if at the time of our contract negotiations, we were losing Rutgers, USF, Memphis, and Tulsa, but were adding Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, and Ohio State, that would make us very 'unstable', in that our membership was in serious flux, but since the change also is obviously for the better (in terms of market values), it would mean we would get a better contract, not worse.

Also, instability doesn't mean much because it is easy for a network to protect itself should further change of a negative nature occur, e.g., the clause in our current contract that says what happens if "class A" schools like Cincy or Houston leave.

The AAC got a terrible media deal because the networks looked at our post-realignment lineup and saw very little value. We'll see what happens in 6 years.

(05-08-2014 07:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 06:19 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 06:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 05:20 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Bearcats#1, this must mean that he thinks all G5 conferences are major conferences, right??

why? Because some dude from IU says so? LOL, great logic man. That dude can say whatever he wants....but our tv contract and bowl line up say differently.

As do the aac's on field results in year one. Name any p-5 conference that has both a Bcs bowl champ and the national champ in basketball. Don't bother there's only one, the AAC. As to the tv contract and bowl lineup, that is more a product of the perceived instability of the AAC at contract formation.

While our basketball results on the court surely put us in the quasi-Power category (and the same could be said for the A10 and Big East), our football results were the opposite. We were terrible on the football field OOC, nowhere near Power quality.

And 'instability' doesn't mean anything, it's the nature of the instability that matters, because 'instability' just means 'change', which can be for the worse - or better.

E.g., if at the time of our contract negotiations, we were losing Rutgers, USF, Memphis, and Tulsa, but were adding Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, and Ohio State, that would make us very 'unstable', in that our membership was in serious flux, but since the change also is obviously for the better (in terms of market values), it would mean we would get a better contract, not worse.

Also, instability doesn't mean much because it is easy for a network to protect itself should further change of a negative nature occur, e.g., the clause in our current contract that says what happens if "class A" schools like Cincy or Houston leave.

The AAC got a terrible media deal because the networks looked at our post-realignment lineup and saw very little value. We'll see what happens in 6 years.

Hogwash. Instability as in the tv networks at the time of contract negotiations did not know if any current members of the AAC would be poached by a P-5 conference, that is precisely why espn put a renegotiation clause into the contract should certain members leave the AAC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any reasonably objective person ever suggested that Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, or Ohio State would be joining the AAC, therefore your reference to same is not relevant to the "instability" to which I referred in my original post.

(05-07-2014 08:23 AM)redbirdTD Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 07:47 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 07:38 AM)redbirdTD Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 06:53 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 06:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why? Because some dude from IU says so? LOL, great logic man. That dude can say whatever he wants....but our tv contract and bowl line up say differently.

Not sure if it's memory, comprehension or just a barrier to communication going on here.... The other day you said that everyone viewed all of the G5 the same. I said that wasn't so in some cases. I've got friends who went to P5 schools that view the AAC over the SBC, etc. You said "nope, everyone views all G5 conferences as the same. Me, P5 fans, TV executives, university and conference officials."

Well, now there's at least two people aside from some friends and people on other boards. Me and "that dude" from Indiana can see the difference between the AAC and other G5.

The only way that the AAC is the same as the worst G5 conference (whatever that may be) is that we're all fighting for the same bowl and don't make nearly as much money as P5. Level of play, recruiting, TV exposure, fan bases, merchandise sales, budgets, public perception, etc. are all different.

What did you expect "the dude" from IU to say? We are scheduling one of the worst teams from a g5 conference. Fact is, IU is terrible in fball and have been forever. Hell, they are just average in bball now. IU is one of those teams you schedule for homecoming in fball, but keep telling yourself this is some big developement. LOL!

4 > 3

Defending National Champions! LOL!!!

Two time BCS champs vs none. That is why we are off to the ACC. Schedule IU in bball, that would be a better matchup, if Crean ever learns to coach. In fball (and that is what we are talking about) this matchup is a yawner. LOL!

I've got some bad news for you, troll... Louisville was NEVER a "BCS Champion" much less twice...

Louisville won two BCS bowls. The two things are vastly different.

(05-08-2014 07:57 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 07:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 06:19 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 06:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 05:20 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Bearcats#1, this must mean that he thinks all G5 conferences are major conferences, right??

why? Because some dude from IU says so? LOL, great logic man. That dude can say whatever he wants....but our tv contract and bowl line up say differently.

As do the aac's on field results in year one. Name any p-5 conference that has both a Bcs bowl champ and the national champ in basketball. Don't bother there's only one, the AAC. As to the tv contract and bowl lineup, that is more a product of the perceived instability of the AAC at contract formation.

While our basketball results on the court surely put us in the quasi-Power category (and the same could be said for the A10 and Big East), our football results were the opposite. We were terrible on the football field OOC, nowhere near Power quality.

And 'instability' doesn't mean anything, it's the nature of the instability that matters, because 'instability' just means 'change', which can be for the worse - or better.

E.g., if at the time of our contract negotiations, we were losing Rutgers, USF, Memphis, and Tulsa, but were adding Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, and Ohio State, that would make us very 'unstable', in that our membership was in serious flux, but since the change also is obviously for the better (in terms of market values), it would mean we would get a better contract, not worse.

Also, instability doesn't mean much because it is easy for a network to protect itself should further change of a negative nature occur, e.g., the clause in our current contract that says what happens if "class A" schools like Cincy or Houston leave.

The AAC got a terrible media deal because the networks looked at our post-realignment lineup and saw very little value. We'll see what happens in 6 years.

Hogwash. Instability as in the tv networks at the time of contract negotiations did not know if any current members of the AAC would be poached by a P-5 conference, that is precisely why espn put a renegotiation clause into the contract should certain members leave the AAC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any reasonably objective person ever suggested that Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, or Ohio State would be joining the AAC, therefore your reference to same is not relevant to the "instability" to which I referred in my original post.

It's highly relevant, because it highlights your inaccurate use of the word "instability". Your point would have been accurate had you said that our lousy contract was a "product of the perceived lack of market value in the current membership caused by the recent changes in membership".

So it wasn't the threat of future losses that caused the deal to be terrible. That "threat" could easily be handled by the clause that states that ESPN can renegotiate or abrogate should the top 4 schools leave.

Rather, it was clearly the result of the devastating effect of recent losses and the addition of back-fill members, that caused us to get such a lousy deal. By the time the contract was negotiated, we had already lost the great bulk of the schools with non-trivial market value. Cincy and UConn were about all that was left, and that's why the contract was so bad.

(05-07-2014 08:23 AM)redbirdTD Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 07:47 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 07:38 AM)redbirdTD Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 06:53 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 06:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why? Because some dude from IU says so? LOL, great logic man. That dude can say whatever he wants....but our tv contract and bowl line up say differently.

Not sure if it's memory, comprehension or just a barrier to communication going on here.... The other day you said that everyone viewed all of the G5 the same. I said that wasn't so in some cases. I've got friends who went to P5 schools that view the AAC over the SBC, etc. You said "nope, everyone views all G5 conferences as the same. Me, P5 fans, TV executives, university and conference officials."

Well, now there's at least two people aside from some friends and people on other boards. Me and "that dude" from Indiana can see the difference between the AAC and other G5.

The only way that the AAC is the same as the worst G5 conference (whatever that may be) is that we're all fighting for the same bowl and don't make nearly as much money as P5. Level of play, recruiting, TV exposure, fan bases, merchandise sales, budgets, public perception, etc. are all different.

What did you expect "the dude" from IU to say? We are scheduling one of the worst teams from a g5 conference. Fact is, IU is terrible in fball and have been forever. Hell, they are just average in bball now. IU is one of those teams you schedule for homecoming in fball, but keep telling yourself this is some big developement. LOL!

4 > 3

Defending National Champions! LOL!!!

Two time BCS champs vs none. That is why we are off to the ACC. Schedule IU in bball, that would be a better matchup, if Crean ever learns to coach. In fball (and that is what we are talking about) this matchup is a yawner. LOL!

Your off to the ACC for one reason and one reason only, Tom Jurich. The man did a fabulous job over the last ten years positioning UL's athletic dept., winning two BCS games was irrelevant, lose those games and the ACC still comes calling.

(05-08-2014 08:56 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Your off to the ACC for one reason and one reason only, Tom Jurich. The man did a fabulous job over the last ten years positioning UL's athletic dept., winning two BCS games was irrelevant, lose those games and the ACC still comes calling.

Not if Maryland doesn't bolt for the B1G. That's the #1 reason UL is going to the ACC.

(05-08-2014 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 07:57 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 07:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 06:19 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 06:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why? Because some dude from IU says so? LOL, great logic man. That dude can say whatever he wants....but our tv contract and bowl line up say differently.

As do the aac's on field results in year one. Name any p-5 conference that has both a Bcs bowl champ and the national champ in basketball. Don't bother there's only one, the AAC. As to the tv contract and bowl lineup, that is more a product of the perceived instability of the AAC at contract formation.

While our basketball results on the court surely put us in the quasi-Power category (and the same could be said for the A10 and Big East), our football results were the opposite. We were terrible on the football field OOC, nowhere near Power quality.

And 'instability' doesn't mean anything, it's the nature of the instability that matters, because 'instability' just means 'change', which can be for the worse - or better.

E.g., if at the time of our contract negotiations, we were losing Rutgers, USF, Memphis, and Tulsa, but were adding Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, and Ohio State, that would make us very 'unstable', in that our membership was in serious flux, but since the change also is obviously for the better (in terms of market values), it would mean we would get a better contract, not worse.

Also, instability doesn't mean much because it is easy for a network to protect itself should further change of a negative nature occur, e.g., the clause in our current contract that says what happens if "class A" schools like Cincy or Houston leave.

The AAC got a terrible media deal because the networks looked at our post-realignment lineup and saw very little value. We'll see what happens in 6 years.

Hogwash. Instability as in the tv networks at the time of contract negotiations did not know if any current members of the AAC would be poached by a P-5 conference, that is precisely why espn put a renegotiation clause into the contract should certain members leave the AAC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any reasonably objective person ever suggested that Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, or Ohio State would be joining the AAC, therefore your reference to same is not relevant to the "instability" to which I referred in my original post.

It's highly relevant, because it highlights your inaccurate use of the word "instability". Your point would have been accurate had you said that our lousy contract was a "product of the perceived lack of market value in the current membership caused by the recent changes in membership".

So it wasn't the threat of future losses that caused the deal to be terrible. That "threat" could easily be handled by the clause that states that ESPN can renegotiate or abrogate should the top 4 schools leave.

Rather, it was clearly the result of the devastating effect of recent losses and the addition of back-fill members, that caused us to get such a lousy deal. By the time the contract was negotiated, we had already lost the great bulk of the schools with non-trivial market value. Cincy and UConn were about all that was left, and that's why the contract was so bad.

Look Genius, using the running definition of instability as 1. Lack of stability or steadiness, or 2. Tendency to variable or unpredictable behavior, my statement was entirely accurate. How can a new conference have "stability" when it has no history by which to judge it's stability? I respectfully suggest you look up the word "context" to avoid these needless dissertations and pointless diatribes which are based upon nothing more than semantics.

Yeah but it's a lot easier to be a dick when you ignore tiny details like context.

(05-08-2014 09:45 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 07:57 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 07:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 06:19 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  As do the aac's on field results in year one. Name any p-5 conference that has both a Bcs bowl champ and the national champ in basketball. Don't bother there's only one, the AAC. As to the tv contract and bowl lineup, that is more a product of the perceived instability of the AAC at contract formation.

While our basketball results on the court surely put us in the quasi-Power category (and the same could be said for the A10 and Big East), our football results were the opposite. We were terrible on the football field OOC, nowhere near Power quality.

And 'instability' doesn't mean anything, it's the nature of the instability that matters, because 'instability' just means 'change', which can be for the worse - or better.

E.g., if at the time of our contract negotiations, we were losing Rutgers, USF, Memphis, and Tulsa, but were adding Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, and Ohio State, that would make us very 'unstable', in that our membership was in serious flux, but since the change also is obviously for the better (in terms of market values), it would mean we would get a better contract, not worse.

Also, instability doesn't mean much because it is easy for a network to protect itself should further change of a negative nature occur, e.g., the clause in our current contract that says what happens if "class A" schools like Cincy or Houston leave.

The AAC got a terrible media deal because the networks looked at our post-realignment lineup and saw very little value. We'll see what happens in 6 years.

Hogwash. Instability as in the tv networks at the time of contract negotiations did not know if any current members of the AAC would be poached by a P-5 conference, that is precisely why espn put a renegotiation clause into the contract should certain members leave the AAC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any reasonably objective person ever suggested that Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, or Ohio State would be joining the AAC, therefore your reference to same is not relevant to the "instability" to which I referred in my original post.

It's highly relevant, because it highlights your inaccurate use of the word "instability". Your point would have been accurate had you said that our lousy contract was a "product of the perceived lack of market value in the current membership caused by the recent changes in membership".

So it wasn't the threat of future losses that caused the deal to be terrible. That "threat" could easily be handled by the clause that states that ESPN can renegotiate or abrogate should the top 4 schools leave.

Rather, it was clearly the result of the devastating effect of recent losses and the addition of back-fill members, that caused us to get such a lousy deal. By the time the contract was negotiated, we had already lost the great bulk of the schools with non-trivial market value. Cincy and UConn were about all that was left, and that's why the contract was so bad.

Look Genius, using the running definition of instability as 1. Lack of stability or steadiness, or 2. Tendency to variable or unpredictable behavior, my statement was entirely accurate. How can a new conference have "stability" when it has no history by which to judge it's stability? I respectfully suggest you look up the word "context" to avoid these needless dissertations and pointless diatribes which are based upon nothing more than semantics.

Why can't you seem to grasp that this is not an issue of semantics? You invoked the term "instability" to explain why our media deal sucked. I've explained to you why your use of the term was wrong, in a substantive sense.

The networks paid us peanuts not because they feared future instability. As I've noted, that fear is easily handled contractually, such as the clause that gives ESPN outs if "class A" schools leave.

We got peanuts because past instability had resulted in the loss of higher-value schools and their back-fill with lower-value schools. That was the "context" that mattered to them.

It's not instability per se that matters, it's the nature of that instability, whether the "lack of stability" results in the conference becoming more or less valuable. In our case, we became a lot less valuable because of the specific schools lost and added.

The nature of our instability was that the conference could have collapsed within a year. ESPN took a risk putting any money on us not just because of losses in media strength but lack of a clear future. That's why the number is so low. It's low for all the reasons you're saying but it's so low because of existential threats. Edit: what that means is that now we are not in an immanent state if collapse the value of our property is currently higher than what we are being paid for it.

(05-08-2014 10:55 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The nature of our instability was that the conference could have collapsed within a year. ESPN took a risk putting any money on us not just because of losses in media strength but lack of a clear future. That's why the number is so low. It's low for all the reasons you're saying but it's so low because of existential threats. Edit: what that means is that now we are not in an immanent state if collapse the value of our property is currently higher than what we are being paid for it.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

(05-08-2014 10:55 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The nature of our instability was that the conference could have collapsed within a year. ESPN took a risk putting any money on us not just because of losses in media strength but lack of a clear future. That's why the number is so low. It's low for all the reasons you're saying but it's so low because of existential threats. Edit: what that means is that now we are not in an immanent state if collapse the value of our property is currently higher than what we are being paid for it.

There's no reason to think that anything but the value of our membership significantly impacted the value of our media deal.

First, there wasn't much talk of a conference "collapse". While it was thought that a couple of schools, like UConn or Cincy, could leave for the P5, the rest of us had no better places to go so one way or another there was going to be a conference made up of those remaining schools. It's not like if UConn left, Tulane or Houston would decide they were better off staying in C-USA.

Second, even if ESPN thought the AAC might "collapse", that risk wouldn't have mattered because it was not risk ESPN had to bear. It's not like ESPN paid the conference for all 6 years in advance and risked losing that investment if we dissolved. And they weren't investing additional up-front resources in something like the SEC Network that could be lost either. Our contract is essentially pay-as-you-go, so if we dissolved, ESPN would simply be free of its obligation to pay us, problem solved.

I know it's ego-bruising to accept the stark fact of the matter, but that fact remains: The market valued us at $1.8 million per school because that's what the market thought our membership was worth, period. Now can that worth rise or fall in the future? Sure. But don't fool yourself, instability had nothing to do with the dollars we were offered.

(05-09-2014 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...The market valued us at $1.8 million per school because that's what the market thought our membership was worth, period. Now can that worth rise or fall in the future? Sure. But don't fool yourself, instability had nothing to do with the dollars we were offered.

A fact so obvious that rational folks would accept it on it's face. Not so with the head on the ground geniuses on this board.

(05-08-2014 07:14 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 06:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 05:20 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Bearcats#1, this must mean that he thinks all G5 conferences are major conferences, right??

why? Because some dude from IU says so? LOL, great logic man. That dude can say whatever he wants....but our tv contract and bowl line up say differently.

He got a call last night from James E. Delany, telling him to follow company guide lines on G5 schools.

and mike slive told swafford to keep his mouth shut or he would add clemson and florida state, break into 3 divisions and become the top 3 best conferences sec-east, sec-west and sec middle.

(05-09-2014 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 10:55 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The nature of our instability was that the conference could have collapsed within a year. ESPN took a risk putting any money on us not just because of losses in media strength but lack of a clear future. That's why the number is so low. It's low for all the reasons you're saying but it's so low because of existential threats. Edit: what that means is that now we are not in an immanent state if collapse the value of our property is currently higher than what we are being paid for it.

I know it's ego-bruising to accept the stark fact of the matter, but that fact remains: The market valued us at $1.8 million per school because that's what the market thought our membership was worth, period. Now can that worth rise or fall in the future? Sure. But don't fool yourself, instability had nothing to do with the dollars we were offered.

have you never heard the phrase "getting a real estate steal?" ESPN went into negotiations at the PERFECT time. nobody really felt the need to add inventory at that time.

if you and 5 others are in the market for a house in a neighborhood that did not have any homes for sale for the past 10 years...... and one comes available at a steal..... what do you do? you all go into a bidding war and drive up the price. all 6 of you live in an apartment and live close to that neighborhood. you all want in since you all want to buy at that time.

now, if you are the only one still in an apartment and the 5 others bought overpriced mcmansions 4 years earlier before the market went south.......their money is all tied up. what is going to happen? you are going to be one very happy bidder at that auction because the only other person that showed up was the only owner of one of the mcmansions that saved a few bucks and was willing to see what the few bucks can bring in. he had nothing to lose. you obviously got a steal, because you easily outbid him, but at a basement price.

the market was artificially low. that simple.

(05-09-2014 09:09 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 10:55 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The nature of our instability was that the conference could have collapsed within a year. ESPN took a risk putting any money on us not just because of losses in media strength but lack of a clear future. That's why the number is so low. It's low for all the reasons you're saying but it's so low because of existential threats. Edit: what that means is that now we are not in an immanent state if collapse the value of our property is currently higher than what we are being paid for it.

I know it's ego-bruising to accept the stark fact of the matter, but that fact remains: The market valued us at $1.8 million per school because that's what the market thought our membership was worth, period. Now can that worth rise or fall in the future? Sure. But don't fool yourself, instability had nothing to do with the dollars we were offered.

have you never heard the phrase "getting a real estate steal?" ESPN went into negotiations at the PERFECT time. nobody really felt the need to add inventory at that time.

if you and 5 others are in the market for a house in a neighborhood that did not have any homes for sale for the past 10 years...... and one comes available at a steal..... what do you do? you all go into a bidding war and drive up the price. all 6 of you live in an apartment and live close to that neighborhood. you all want in since you all want to buy at that time.

now, if you are the only one still in an apartment and the 5 others bought overpriced mcmansions 4 years earlier before the market went south.......their money is all tied up. what is going to happen? you are going to be one very happy bidder at that auction because the only other person that showed up was the only owner of one of the mcmansions that saved a few bucks and was willing to see what the few bucks can bring in. he had nothing to lose. you obviously got a steal, because you easily outbid him, but at a basement price.

the market was artificially low. that simple.

Usually, markets are only called "artificially" low when companies have engaged in illegal collusion or restraint of trade, like what Apple and Google did with their agreement to not raid each other for employees. In that case, a Silicon Valley tech employee could say that the market rate for their job was artificially low during that time because the market had been 'fixed', which means it wasn't a true free market.

But otherwise, the market is just the market. As was the case with our negotiations. I think proof of this is that within a month or so of the announcement of our agreement, the SEC and ESPN reached their massive "SEC Network" deal that pays the SEC gobs of money, so there's no evidence that general market conditions were artificially depressed, or even unusually low as a result of the natural up and down rhythms of supply and demand. There was just little demand for us.

(05-10-2014 07:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:09 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 10:55 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The nature of our instability was that the conference could have collapsed within a year. ESPN took a risk putting any money on us not just because of losses in media strength but lack of a clear future. That's why the number is so low. It's low for all the reasons you're saying but it's so low because of existential threats. Edit: what that means is that now we are not in an immanent state if collapse the value of our property is currently higher than what we are being paid for it.

I know it's ego-bruising to accept the stark fact of the matter, but that fact remains: The market valued us at $1.8 million per school because that's what the market thought our membership was worth, period. Now can that worth rise or fall in the future? Sure. But don't fool yourself, instability had nothing to do with the dollars we were offered.

have you never heard the phrase "getting a real estate steal?" ESPN went into negotiations at the PERFECT time. nobody really felt the need to add inventory at that time.

if you and 5 others are in the market for a house in a neighborhood that did not have any homes for sale for the past 10 years...... and one comes available at a steal..... what do you do? you all go into a bidding war and drive up the price. all 6 of you live in an apartment and live close to that neighborhood. you all want in since you all want to buy at that time.

now, if you are the only one still in an apartment and the 5 others bought overpriced mcmansions 4 years earlier before the market went south.......their money is all tied up. what is going to happen? you are going to be one very happy bidder at that auction because the only other person that showed up was the only owner of one of the mcmansions that saved a few bucks and was willing to see what the few bucks can bring in. he had nothing to lose. you obviously got a steal, because you easily outbid him, but at a basement price.

the market was artificially low. that simple.

Usually, markets are only called "artificially" low when companies have engaged in illegal collusion or restraint of trade, like what Apple and Google did with their agreement to not raid each other for employees. In that case, a Silicon Valley tech employee could say that the market rate for their job was artificially low during that time because the market had been 'fixed', which means it wasn't a true free market.

But otherwise, the market is just the market. As was the case with our negotiations. I think proof of this is that within a month or so of the announcement of our agreement, the SEC and ESPN reached their massive "SEC Network" deal that pays the SEC gobs of money, so there's no evidence that general market conditions were artificially depressed, or even unusually low as a result of the natural up and down rhythms of supply and demand. There was just little demand for us.

if you think the SEC network was not in the works years before Louisville and rutgers were given their golden parachutes as well as the C7 split....... you are mistaken. even though it was announced in may 2013, they have been working on this well before the last round of big east poaching.

espn did their bidding with full knowledge of their SEC network plans.

if you are going to use the SEC network as an example to compare to AAC..... well...... i just gotta laugh.