(04-17-2012 04:34 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  He's yo' daddy. And he writes for the people.

(04-17-2012 04:34 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 03:28 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Laugh all you want. Dennis Dodd ran a piece not long ago quoting an industry source about the 4 most attractive TV properties in the new Big East.

Guess who didn't make the list? Louisville, USF or Georgetown.

Guess who did? Houston.

You have serious comprehension issues here my friend. Let's review what was said:

"One industry analyst texted me saying the addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC alone will worth more than a new Big East deal in 2014. The Sports Business Journal reported Monday that the addition of Pittsburgh and Syracuse will mean a $1 million-$2 million bump per year for ACC members. In a matter of a whirlwind few months, the Big East’s hopes for a lucrative TV contract now rest with Boise State, Connecticut, Houston and Rutgers."

Are you really that dumb? Did you not see the very next sentence in Dodd's article?

"Those are the four most attractive Big East schools to TV, according to the analyst."

This sentence formed the basis of my statement that "Dodd ran an article quoting an industry source about the 4 most attractive TV properties in the new Big East . . ."

(04-17-2012 07:35 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Are you really that dumb? Did you not see the very next sentence in Dodd's article?

"Those are the four most attractive Big East schools to TV, according to the analyst."

This sentence formed the basis of my statement that "Dodd ran an article quoting an industry source about the 4 most attractive TV properties in the new Big East . . ."

Yes, I believe he is.

He completely misinterpreted the other article too.

(04-17-2012 08:16 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 07:35 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Are you really that dumb? Did you not see the very next sentence in Dodd's article?

"Those are the four most attractive Big East schools to TV, according to the analyst."

This sentence formed the basis of my statement that "Dodd ran an article quoting an industry source about the 4 most attractive TV properties in the new Big East . . ."

Yes, I believe he is.

He completely misinterpreted the other article too.

You mean the article that you mistakenly thought showed Houston owning the Houston market?

(04-17-2012 10:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You mean the article that you mistakenly thought showed Houston owning the Houston market?

I don't suffer fools gladly. I know this about myself. I've simply got to stop going where the fools are.

Let me break this down for you slowly. I never said Houston owned the Houston market.

The fact is that no school "owns" the market. Like the last couple of years, there will be times when UH has the best ratings. There will be times when UT has the best ratings. And there will be times when A&M has the best ratings. It's going to depend on:

1. What station the game was shown on (ABC>ESPN>Fox Sports Net, etc.)
2. What the matchup is
3. What other games are competing in the time slot

On a conference level, with Houston stuck in C-DOA, the Big 12 pretty much had a death grip on the Houston market. Not anymore. Not with A&M going to the SEC, and Houston going to the Big East.

The Houston market just got a whole lot better for the college football fan, and a whole lot more competitive in terms of Conference TV ratings.

(04-17-2012 10:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:16 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 07:35 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Are you really that dumb? Did you not see the very next sentence in Dodd's article?

"Those are the four most attractive Big East schools to TV, according to the analyst."

This sentence formed the basis of my statement that "Dodd ran an article quoting an industry source about the 4 most attractive TV properties in the new Big East . . ."

Yes, I believe he is.

He completely misinterpreted the other article too.

You mean the article that you mistakenly thought showed Houston owning the Houston market?

Quo - just wondering, do you get a kick out of splashing cold water on everyone's positive outlook for the league? Do you live to ruin someone's day because you look at things half empty?

Seriously, give it a rest. You have no clue if Houston can own the Houston market in the future. Their TV numbers look pretty good considering they were in the CUSA for all those years.

I figure we got 8 more months before the BE's new TV deal. I can't wait for the day you would shut up with your BE bashing. You better keep your words.

(04-17-2012 11:37 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 10:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You mean the article that you mistakenly thought showed Houston owning the Houston market?

I don't suffer fools gladly. I know this about myself. I've simply got to stop going where the fools are.

Let me break this down for you slowly. I never said Houston owned the Houston market.

... but you don't seem to realize that this makes you a FOOL, since i DID say that Houston does not own the Houston market, and yet it was that statement that you objected to. Good Lord ...

(04-17-2012 11:52 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 10:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:16 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 07:35 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Are you really that dumb? Did you not see the very next sentence in Dodd's article?

"Those are the four most attractive Big East schools to TV, according to the analyst."

This sentence formed the basis of my statement that "Dodd ran an article quoting an industry source about the 4 most attractive TV properties in the new Big East . . ."

Yes, I believe he is.

He completely misinterpreted the other article too.

You mean the article that you mistakenly thought showed Houston owning the Houston market?

Quo - just wondering, do you get a kick out of splashing cold water on everyone's positive outlook for the league? Do you live to ruin someone's day because you look at things half empty?

Seriously, give it a rest. You have no clue if Houston can own the Houston market in the future. Their TV numbers look pretty good considering they were in the CUSA for all those years.

I figure we got 8 more months before the BE's new TV deal. I can't wait for the day you would shut up with your BE bashing. You better keep your words.

SF, i don't doubt your words very much, but would you mind posting a link to the post where i said i would "shut up about Big East bashing" if the new TV contract is a certain amount? I want to remember exactly what i committed myself too, LOL.

(04-17-2012 08:16 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Yes, I believe he is.

He completely misinterpreted the other article too.

Please! I didn't misinterpet anything. Showed you right in front of you that your "proof" actually hurt your case, signifcantly.

I have a degree in Mass Media with my as specialty television production. I have a masters degree in Sports television. I worked in sports for several years, including working at ESPN, and for a pro football team before leaving the field to work in finance. If either of you have any of these credentials, you can feel free to speak up?

(04-18-2012 09:21 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:16 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Yes, I believe he is.

He completely misinterpreted the other article too.

Please I didn;t misinterpet anything. Shwoed you right in front of you that your "proof" actually hurt your case signifcantly.

I have a degree in Mass Media with my specialty television production. I have a masters degree in Sports television. I worked in sports for several years, including working at ESPN, and for a pro football team before leaving the field to work in finance. If either of you have any of these credentials, you can feel free to speak up?

I have a degree in TV/Film production and have been working in television for the last six years. Does that count?

(04-18-2012 09:35 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 09:21 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:16 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Yes, I believe he is.

He completely misinterpreted the other article too.

Please I didn;t misinterpet anything. Shwoed you right in front of you that your "proof" actually hurt your case signifcantly.

I have a degree in Mass Media with my specialty television production. I have a masters degree in Sports television. I worked in sports for several years, including working at ESPN, and for a pro football team before leaving the field to work in finance. If either of you have any of these credentials, you can feel free to speak up?

I have a degree in TV/Film production and have been working in television for the last six years. Does that count?

Sure it counts. But Adcorbett is correct about this anyway.

(04-18-2012 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 09:35 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 09:21 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:16 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Yes, I believe he is.

He completely misinterpreted the other article too.

Please I didn;t misinterpet anything. Shwoed you right in front of you that your "proof" actually hurt your case signifcantly.

I have a degree in Mass Media with my specialty television production. I have a masters degree in Sports television. I worked in sports for several years, including working at ESPN, and for a pro football team before leaving the field to work in finance. If either of you have any of these credentials, you can feel free to speak up?

I have a degree in TV/Film production and have been working in television for the last six years. Does that count?

Sure it counts. But Adcorbett is correct about this anyway.

Oh im not part of this conversation, I just thought we were throwing credentials around.

(04-18-2012 09:35 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I have a degree in TV/Film production and have been working in television for the last six years. Does that count?

Yup. But strangely you are not the one namecalling. Wonder why?

No much tradition left in college football...outside a national title game, I hope the Rose Bowl "stays" Big Ten vs Pac-10/12.

(04-18-2012 10:04 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  No much tradition left in college football...outside a national title game, I hope the Rose Bowl "stays" Big Ten vs Pac-10/12.

Sure, but if either champ qualifies for the four team playoff then they shouldn't play in the Rose Bowl.

(04-17-2012 09:21 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:50 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:21 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:00 AM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  But it is funny, some of those championships - at least Miami were done under the BE, not ACC banner.

But of course I guess that doesn't count!

I believe Miami only won one championship under the BE banner in. The others were when Miami was an indy.

Believe Miami won 2 under the Big East Banner (1991 and 2001).

Miami also won national titles in '83, '87 and '89.

You might be right Knightlight. But I was thinking that Miami won the national championship in January 1991 as an indy and then was officially a member of the BE later on that year in the fall.

Miami's title in 1991 was as an independent, KL. BEast football didn't begin play until the fall of 1991, and by then Miami was on probation...

(04-18-2012 10:56 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 09:21 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:50 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:21 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:00 AM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  But it is funny, some of those championships - at least Miami were done under the BE, not ACC banner.

But of course I guess that doesn't count!

I believe Miami only won one championship under the BE banner in. The others were when Miami was an indy.

Believe Miami won 2 under the Big East Banner (1991 and 2001).

Miami also won national titles in '83, '87 and '89.

You might be right Knightlight. But I was thinking that Miami won the national championship in January 1991 as an indy and then was officially a member of the BE later on that year in the fall.

Miami's title in 1991 was as an independent, KL. BEast football didn't begin play until the fall of 1991, and by then Miami was on probation...

Incorrect. Miami won the 1991 national title (AP) by beating Nebraska in the OB on January 1, 1992 and playing as a Big East member.

Miami Hurricanes 1991 Big East Team

Big East

Miami was in their first year of BE play. Split champion with Washington. They were not independent. Don't know how they played only two conference games, though. Maybe it was part of their transition as their independent schedule contracts expired.

Either way, they were under the BE banner.

(04-18-2012 07:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  SF, i don't doubt your words very much, but would you mind posting a link to the post where i said i would "shut up about Big East bashing" if the new TV contract is a certain amount? I want to remember exactly what i committed myself too, LOL.

I don't have the time to find the link. However, I remember vividly that you said you won't bash the BE if BE gets a media deal that's at least $10M per team. I remember that I told you that we would hold you to your words.

I figure BE TV deal should be settled by Dec 2012. We got about 7.5 months of your negative Nancy non-sense. You just better do your part and do what you said you would.

(04-18-2012 09:21 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  I have a degree in Mass Media with my as specialty television production. I have a masters degree in Sports television. I worked in sports for several years, including working at ESPN, and for a pro football team before leaving the field to work in finance. If either of you have any of these credentials, you can feel free to speak up?

Now that you've stated that, how about handicapping your prediction on how much the BE will make in its next contract, given its lineup