(03-09-2019 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 08:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

Quo Vadis Wrote:That said, in a sense this clause was superseded by the Big 12 expansion process of 2016, when they winnowed the candidates down to the final 12, as that represented a more current objective determination of value.

For the hundredth time, this is false. Carry on with your foolish trolling. I frankly don't care if you believe it to be true but I hope no one else is as obtuse.

What part is the false part? I wasn't obsessively tracking the 2016 Big 12 "expansion" dog and pony show (1) but the Big 12 list seems as objective (2) as anything gets in realignment. Did Memphis get snubbed? I mean, it's not my circus or my monkeys, but I enjoy being right and dislike being wrong.

Yes, I'm not sure what Shere Khan thought was 'trolling' either. Clearly, the Big 12's list of finalists could be regarded as the current (as of 2016) A5 thinking on how valuable the various G5 schools were. I'm not sure why that is controversial?

Sure, in the end, since the Big 12 didn't expand with anyone, they decided that all of the G5 schools were the same in the sense that none was worth expanding with. But to make the final list clear means they regarded those 12 schools as being more valuable than those that did not make that cut. That's a logical inference.

His issue is they believe the Memphis "insders" who say they were a finalist. They just didnt tell McMurphy because of the non-disclosure deal. What they dont realize is that McMurphy never said he was getting his information from the schools in question. For all we know, he was getting it from Big12 sources. Either way--thats the gripe that Memphis folk have with that measuring stick.

Ok. I don't feel like digging the article up again, but I remember something that the article's sources couldn't say if Memphis was or wasn't a finalist.

Now, if you tell me the whole thing was a smokescreen by the Big 12 to extort money out of the networks to give back the "pro rata" clause, I'll believe you because I already believe that.

(03-09-2019 05:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 08:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  For the hundredth time, this is false. Carry on with your foolish trolling. I frankly don't care if you believe it to be true but I hope no one else is as obtuse.

What part is the false part? I wasn't obsessively tracking the 2016 Big 12 "expansion" dog and pony show (1) but the Big 12 list seems as objective (2) as anything gets in realignment. Did Memphis get snubbed? I mean, it's not my circus or my monkeys, but I enjoy being right and dislike being wrong.

Yes, I'm not sure what Shere Khan thought was 'trolling' either. Clearly, the Big 12's list of finalists could be regarded as the current (as of 2016) A5 thinking on how valuable the various G5 schools were. I'm not sure why that is controversial?

Sure, in the end, since the Big 12 didn't expand with anyone, they decided that all of the G5 schools were the same in the sense that none was worth expanding with. But to make the final list clear means they regarded those 12 schools as being more valuable than those that did not make that cut. That's a logical inference.

His issue is they believe the Memphis "insders" who say they were a finalist. They just didnt tell McMurphy because of the non-disclosure deal. What they dont realize is that McMurphy never said he was getting his information from the schools in question. For all we know, he was getting it from Big12 sources. Either way--thats the gripe that Memphis folk have with that measuring stick.

Ok. I don't feel like digging the article up again, but I remember something that the article's sources couldn't say if Memphis was or wasn't a finalist.

Now, if you tell me the whole thing was a smokescreen by the Big 12 to extort money out of the networks to give back the "pro rata" clause, I'll believe you because I already believe that.

Honestly---I have no idea if Memphis was or was not a finalist. I try to avoid that battle. All I can say is there is no published information saying they were. But---for all I know--they may have been. Frankly, I agree with you that they knew fairly early in the process that there wasnt going to be any expansion. The Fertitta comments that nobody of significant was at the school presentations make that fairly clear. I mean---we have talked about it many times here. Because of the CFP, so much money is rolling into conferences that has nothing to do with TV. For the most part, that "other" money does not expand with new additions. Thus, the actual media value of any addition has to be darn close to the per team conference distribution (rather than just the per team media distribution) in order to not lower the overall per team payout of the conference. No G5 team is worth 35 million in media value....and there sure as hell are not a PAIR of 35 million dollar G5 teams. The only way G5's get elevated is by massively increasing thier value or for the purpose of filling in holes for raided P5s.

(03-09-2019 01:57 PM)usffan Wrote:  Not that Wolken's an ESPN person, but it's interesting the way the AAC is starting to get friendlier treatment in the press...

USFFan

ECU and Tulane are way down in the NET rankings, sub 200.

The lowest rated BE is DePaul at 98.

(03-09-2019 10:10 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 01:57 PM)usffan Wrote:  Not that Wolken's an ESPN person, but it's interesting the way the AAC is starting to get friendlier treatment in the press...

USFFan

ECU and Tulane are way down in the NET rankings, sub 200.

The lowest rated BE is DePaul at 98.

To be fair--the Big East only has 10 teams.

(03-09-2019 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 05:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  What part is the false part? I wasn't obsessively tracking the 2016 Big 12 "expansion" dog and pony show (1) but the Big 12 list seems as objective (2) as anything gets in realignment. Did Memphis get snubbed? I mean, it's not my circus or my monkeys, but I enjoy being right and dislike being wrong.

Yes, I'm not sure what Shere Khan thought was 'trolling' either. Clearly, the Big 12's list of finalists could be regarded as the current (as of 2016) A5 thinking on how valuable the various G5 schools were. I'm not sure why that is controversial?

Sure, in the end, since the Big 12 didn't expand with anyone, they decided that all of the G5 schools were the same in the sense that none was worth expanding with. But to make the final list clear means they regarded those 12 schools as being more valuable than those that did not make that cut. That's a logical inference.

His issue is they believe the Memphis "insders" who say they were a finalist. They just didnt tell McMurphy because of the non-disclosure deal. What they dont realize is that McMurphy never said he was getting his information from the schools in question. For all we know, he was getting it from Big12 sources. Either way--thats the gripe that Memphis folk have with that measuring stick.

Ok. I don't feel like digging the article up again, but I remember something that the article's sources couldn't say if Memphis was or wasn't a finalist.

Now, if you tell me the whole thing was a smokescreen by the Big 12 to extort money out of the networks to give back the "pro rata" clause, I'll believe you because I already believe that.

Honestly---I have no idea if Memphis was or was not a finalist. I try to avoid that battle. All I can say is there is no published information saying they were. But---for all I know--they may have been. Frankly, I agree with you that they knew fairly early in the process that there wasnt going to be any expansion. The Fertitta comments that nobody of significant was at the school presentations make that fairly clear. I mean---we have talked about it many times here. Because of the CFP, so much money is rolling into conferences that has nothing to do with TV. For the most part, that "other" money does not expand with new additions. Thus, the actual media value of any addition has to be darn close to the per team conference distribution (rather than just the per team media distribution) in order to not lower the overall per team payout of the conference. No G5 team is worth 35 million in media value....and there sure as hell are not a PAIR of 35 million dollar G5 teams. The only way G5's get elevated is by massively increasing thier value or for the purpose of filling in holes for raided P5s.

Academically, Memphis never had a chance. This is why they were crossed off the list early.

NET ranking as of 3/10

Top 5 teams:

Vilanova 26. . Houston 7
Marquette 29. . Cincinnati 23
Creighton 54. . UCF 28
Seaton Hall 61. . Temple 49
Butler 62. . Memphis 51


Rest of conference:

St. John's 66. . USF 86
Xavier 71. . Tulsa 90
Providence 74. . Wichita St. 91
Georgetown 76. . UConn 98
Depaul 101. . SMU 110

Top 5 Average:
Big East 46.4
AAC 31.6

Bottom Avg
Big East 77.6
AAC 95 (w/ Tulane 297 and ECU 254 avg 146.6)

(03-09-2019 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  They dont argue with the logic. The Memphis fans issue is they believe the Memphis "insiders" who say Memphis was indeed a finalist. They maintain that Memphis would not give McMurphy any info because of the non-disclosure deal and McMurphy assumed Memphis was not a finalist. Of course---what that fails to consider is the possibility McMurphy wasnt getting his information from the schools in question. For all we know, he was getting it from Big12 or school sources within the Big12. Either way--thats the gripe that Memphis folk have with the "Big 12 finalist measuring stick".

Thanks for that bit of Memphis ideology. IOW's, Memphis fans don't like that they didn't make the final 12 cut.

(03-10-2019 09:06 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  NET ranking as of 3/10

Top 5 teams:

Vilanova 26. . Houston 7
Marquette 29. . Cincinnati 23
Creighton 54. . UCF 28
Seaton Hall 61. . Temple 49
Butler 62. . Memphis 51

The Big East is 5th in conference NET, the AAC is 6th. But the Big East does stand out for how low their highest rated NET team is.

Heck, the #9 WCC and the #15 Southern Conference both have #1 teams that are ranked higher than the top Big East team.

Parity in the ranks.

(03-10-2019 03:57 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 05:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, I'm not sure what Shere Khan thought was 'trolling' either. Clearly, the Big 12's list of finalists could be regarded as the current (as of 2016) A5 thinking on how valuable the various G5 schools were. I'm not sure why that is controversial?

Sure, in the end, since the Big 12 didn't expand with anyone, they decided that all of the G5 schools were the same in the sense that none was worth expanding with. But to make the final list clear means they regarded those 12 schools as being more valuable than those that did not make that cut. That's a logical inference.

His issue is they believe the Memphis "insders" who say they were a finalist. They just didnt tell McMurphy because of the non-disclosure deal. What they dont realize is that McMurphy never said he was getting his information from the schools in question. For all we know, he was getting it from Big12 sources. Either way--thats the gripe that Memphis folk have with that measuring stick.

Ok. I don't feel like digging the article up again, but I remember something that the article's sources couldn't say if Memphis was or wasn't a finalist.

Now, if you tell me the whole thing was a smokescreen by the Big 12 to extort money out of the networks to give back the "pro rata" clause, I'll believe you because I already believe that.

Honestly---I have no idea if Memphis was or was not a finalist. I try to avoid that battle. All I can say is there is no published information saying they were. But---for all I know--they may have been. Frankly, I agree with you that they knew fairly early in the process that there wasnt going to be any expansion. The Fertitta comments that nobody of significant was at the school presentations make that fairly clear. I mean---we have talked about it many times here. Because of the CFP, so much money is rolling into conferences that has nothing to do with TV. For the most part, that "other" money does not expand with new additions. Thus, the actual media value of any addition has to be darn close to the per team conference distribution (rather than just the per team media distribution) in order to not lower the overall per team payout of the conference. No G5 team is worth 35 million in media value....and there sure as hell are not a PAIR of 35 million dollar G5 teams. The only way G5's get elevated is by massively increasing thier value or for the purpose of filling in holes for raided P5s.

Academically, Memphis never had a chance. This is why they were crossed off the list early.

There is no battle. Everybody but Memphis fans know they didn't make the finalists.
It was a combination of academics and past NCAA violations. There was a quote from a Big 12 president, "A conference with Memphis is a conference I would not want to be a part of."

Now there is a difference between the value ESPN might put on a program and what a P5 conference would. Personally, Memphis would have been #2 on my list after BYU. But the fact is the presidents were not interested.

(03-09-2019 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 05:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  What part is the false part? I wasn't obsessively tracking the 2016 Big 12 "expansion" dog and pony show (1) but the Big 12 list seems as objective (2) as anything gets in realignment. Did Memphis get snubbed? I mean, it's not my circus or my monkeys, but I enjoy being right and dislike being wrong.

Yes, I'm not sure what Shere Khan thought was 'trolling' either. Clearly, the Big 12's list of finalists could be regarded as the current (as of 2016) A5 thinking on how valuable the various G5 schools were. I'm not sure why that is controversial?

Sure, in the end, since the Big 12 didn't expand with anyone, they decided that all of the G5 schools were the same in the sense that none was worth expanding with. But to make the final list clear means they regarded those 12 schools as being more valuable than those that did not make that cut. That's a logical inference.

His issue is they believe the Memphis "insders" who say they were a finalist. They just didnt tell McMurphy because of the non-disclosure deal. What they dont realize is that McMurphy never said he was getting his information from the schools in question. For all we know, he was getting it from Big12 sources. Either way--thats the gripe that Memphis folk have with that measuring stick.

Ok. I don't feel like digging the article up again, but I remember something that the article's sources couldn't say if Memphis was or wasn't a finalist.

Now, if you tell me the whole thing was a smokescreen by the Big 12 to extort money out of the networks to give back the "pro rata" clause, I'll believe you because I already believe that.

Honestly---I have no idea if Memphis was or was not a finalist. I try to avoid that battle.

This article from a Memphis paper says Memphis was not one of the schools invited to make a presentation to the Big 12:

"The groveling didn’t work. Memphis wasn’t even one of the 11 institutions invited to make a personal pitch to join the conference. It was a slap in the face to Smith, to Rudd and to the university itself."

https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...485296001/

(03-10-2019 11:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 05:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, I'm not sure what Shere Khan thought was 'trolling' either. Clearly, the Big 12's list of finalists could be regarded as the current (as of 2016) A5 thinking on how valuable the various G5 schools were. I'm not sure why that is controversial?

Sure, in the end, since the Big 12 didn't expand with anyone, they decided that all of the G5 schools were the same in the sense that none was worth expanding with. But to make the final list clear means they regarded those 12 schools as being more valuable than those that did not make that cut. That's a logical inference.

His issue is they believe the Memphis "insders" who say they were a finalist. They just didnt tell McMurphy because of the non-disclosure deal. What they dont realize is that McMurphy never said he was getting his information from the schools in question. For all we know, he was getting it from Big12 sources. Either way--thats the gripe that Memphis folk have with that measuring stick.

Ok. I don't feel like digging the article up again, but I remember something that the article's sources couldn't say if Memphis was or wasn't a finalist.

Now, if you tell me the whole thing was a smokescreen by the Big 12 to extort money out of the networks to give back the "pro rata" clause, I'll believe you because I already believe that.

Honestly---I have no idea if Memphis was or was not a finalist. I try to avoid that battle.

This article from a Memphis paper says Memphis was not one of the schools invited to make a presentation to the Big 12:

"The groveling didn’t work. Memphis wasn’t even one of the 11 institutions invited to make a personal pitch to join the conference. It was a slap in the face to Smith, to Rudd and to the university itself."

https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...485296001/

Jeebus, how far down in the rankings IS Memphis?

googles..National Universities #230-300

Ouch.

(03-09-2019 01:57 PM)usffan Wrote:  Not that Wolken's an ESPN person, but it's interesting the way the AAC is starting to get friendlier treatment in the press...

USFFan

It was a nice spark for a social media discussion, but one of the biggest reasons why I think it will be difficult for the AAC to "surpass" the Big East is not only the recent on-court success of the BE, but the historical success and perceptions that the BE programs have over many of the AAC programs. To be clear, this is not to disparage programs like UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, et al. All of the Big East programs are basketball-first institutions, each with a history of strong postseason success at various points, and sustained success (NCAA Tournament-capable) on a yearly basis. The same simply cannot be said about the American.

Eliminating the ECU/Tulane discussion, because I don't think there is any debate here, take UCF, USF, SMU and Houston. Counting (expected) bids for UCF and Houston this year, those four programs have a combined 11 tournament bids in the past 25 years. To be clear, each of the programs have invested in their programs considerably since moving to the AAC. However, the biggest hurdle for each of those programs will be whether they will be able to sustain it (not unlike what each of those programs has been able to do with football). Temple and Tulsa are a strong middle support to the league in basketball (I'm actually surprised that Tulsa has not been more consistent in the AAC). For the AAC to take the next step in men's basketball, from a perception standpoint, they need:

1) a team to make a deep run in the tournament (Houston is capable this year)
2) they need these four programs maintain their level of financial commitment/on-court success (let's assume UConn/Memphis/Cincinnati/Temple will return/remain near-top of the league)
3) UCF, USF, ECU, Tulsa and Tulane all need to increase their basketball attendance (each is below 5k for year)
4) they need a challenge with a P5 conference or the A10 (the latter only so it can separate itself with on-court success)

(03-11-2019 08:56 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 01:57 PM)usffan Wrote:  Not that Wolken's an ESPN person, but it's interesting the way the AAC is starting to get friendlier treatment in the press...

USFFan

It was a nice spark for a social media discussion, but one of the biggest reasons why I think it will be difficult for the AAC to "surpass" the Big East is not only the recent on-court success of the BE, but the historical success and perceptions that the BE programs have over many of the AAC programs. To be clear, this is not to disparage programs like UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, et al. All of the Big East programs are basketball-first institutions, each with a history of strong postseason success at various points, and sustained success (NCAA Tournament-capable) on a yearly basis. The same simply cannot be said about the American.

Eliminating the ECU/Tulane discussion, because I don't think there is any debate here, take UCF, USF, SMU and Houston. Counting (expected) bids for UCF and Houston this year, those four programs have a combined 11 tournament bids in the past 25 years. To be clear, each of the programs have invested in their programs considerably since moving to the AAC. However, the biggest hurdle for each of those programs will be whether they will be able to sustain it (not unlike what each of those programs has been able to do with football). Temple and Tulsa are a strong middle support to the league in basketball (I'm actually surprised that Tulsa has not been more consistent in the AAC). For the AAC to take the next step in men's basketball, from a perception standpoint, they need:

1) a team to make a deep run in the tournament (Houston is capable this year)
2) they need these four programs maintain their level of financial commitment/on-court success (let's assume UConn/Memphis/Cincinnati/Temple will return/remain near-top of the league)
3) UCF, USF, ECU, Tulsa and Tulane all need to increase their basketball attendance (each is below 5k for year)
4) they need a challenge with a P5 conference or the A10 (the latter only so it can separate itself with on-court success)

I disagree but hey it's opinion and really what else are you supposed to think.

So where are the deal details?

(03-12-2019 08:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So where are the deal details?

Aresco muzzled the Memphis administration - I'm sure to control the message. People on the AAC board keep speculating it will come out during the tourney. If that happens, I predict the numbers will be far less than some of the rosier projections on here. You wouldn't want good news lost in the bigger story of the tournament.

USFFan

(03-12-2019 08:36 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So where are the deal details?

Aresco muzzled the Memphis administration - I'm sure to control the message.

He can't actually do that, you know.

Anyway, the wait goes on.

(03-12-2019 10:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:36 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So where are the deal details?

Aresco muzzled the Memphis administration - I'm sure to control the message.

He can't actually do that, you know.

Anyway, the wait goes on.

As in he couldn't physically put a muzzle on them? You're right.

If, however, he told them "if I hear one more word about our media rights deal coming out of Memphis, I will ensure nobody from Memphis ever gets on the committee for negotiating these things, and I wouldn't count on Memphis ever hosting another conference tournament" I wouldn't be remotely surprised. Frankly, I suspect some of the other conference presidents would have told him the same thing.

USFFan

(03-12-2019 10:37 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 10:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:36 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So where are the deal details?

Aresco muzzled the Memphis administration - I'm sure to control the message.

He can't actually do that, you know.

Anyway, the wait goes on.

As in he couldn't physically put a muzzle on them? You're right.

If, however, he told them "if I hear one more word about our media rights deal coming out of Memphis, I will ensure nobody from Memphis ever gets on the committee for negotiating these things, and I wouldn't count on Memphis ever hosting another conference tournament" I wouldn't be remotely surprised. Frankly, I suspect some of the other conference presidents would have told him the same thing.

USFFan

What I think he was trying to tell you is that you have the employer-employee dynamic wrong. Aresco is the employee., get it. Know you can get back to your Memphis obsession.

(03-12-2019 11:07 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 10:37 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 10:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:36 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So where are the deal details?

Aresco muzzled the Memphis administration - I'm sure to control the message.

He can't actually do that, you know.

Anyway, the wait goes on.

As in he couldn't physically put a muzzle on them? You're right.

If, however, he told them "if I hear one more word about our media rights deal coming out of Memphis, I will ensure nobody from Memphis ever gets on the committee for negotiating these things, and I wouldn't count on Memphis ever hosting another conference tournament" I wouldn't be remotely surprised. Frankly, I suspect some of the other conference presidents would have told him the same thing.

USFFan

What I think he was trying to tell you is that you have the employer-employee dynamic wrong. Aresco is the employee., get it. Know you can get back to your Memphis obsession.

My obsession is with their historic inability to keep themselves quiet. It's especially galling when it affects 12 other schools, but they're such glory whores they can't help themselves.

As for the employee/employer relationship, if Memphis' administration had the sole ability to fire Aresco, that would be one thing. The presidents of the other universities would have a say, and at this point, that vote would almost assuredly be 12-1 in favor of Memphis shutting the F up. So it's not like he's completely powerless to censure Memphis. Not to mention that your boys who like to hear themselves on the radio pretty much admitted this very thing...

USFFan

(03-12-2019 10:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:36 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So where are the deal details?

Aresco muzzled the Memphis administration - I'm sure to control the message.

He can't actually do that, you know.

Anyway, the wait goes on.

Pro sports commissioners enforce gag orders with six and seven digit fines to owners, usually Mark Cuban, JErry Jones (what is it with DAllas) or Raiders ownership