(02-28-2013 09:16 PM)pearland1 Wrote:  This is not the Big East any longer. Houston & SMU should not join this crap league with no name.

I don't give negative rep points, but almost did for this . . . where exactly do you propose that UH and SMU go? Back to Conference USA. If you say yes, then you are either uninformed, naive, stupid, or a troll . . . this (insert new conference name here) conference may suck (I strongly contend it doesn't), but it's UH's and SMU's best option for the moment . . .

Interesting thought and let me expand it.

If Houston and SMU do not like the contract the Big East football conference negotiated, do they have to stay?

Or, can SMU and Houston form a new conference and negotiate their own deal?

In my opinion, Houston, SMU, Memphis,and Tulane create a nice core for a conference. South Florida, Central Florida, and East Carolina fit well together.

If Temple, Connecticut, and Cincinnati want to come along for the ride, so be it.

That is a 10 team conference (9 conference football games). That leaves 3 to sell, home, or away games.

Can we get a better deal than what the Big East negotiated?

(03-01-2013 02:47 PM)chess Wrote:  Interesting thought and let me expand it.

If Houston and SMU do not like the contract the Big East football conference negotiated, do they have to stay?

Or, can SMU and Houston form a new conference and negotiate their own deal?

In my opinion, Houston, SMU, Memphis,and Tulane create a nice core for a conference. South Florida, Central Florida, and East Carolina fit well together.

If Temple, Connecticut, and Cincinnati want to come along for the ride, so be it.

That is a 10 team conference (9 conference football games). That leaves 3 to sell, home, or away games.

Can we get a better deal than what the Big East negotiated?

F Cinci and UCONN. They will always have one foot out the door as long as share ao conf. with them.

ALWAYS.

Why would UH and SMU not play in the Big East next year when it still has an AQ? That is better than any other option. Now, two years from now...

(03-01-2013 02:55 PM)egrizzard Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 02:47 PM)chess Wrote:  Interesting thought and let me expand it.

If Houston and SMU do not like the contract the Big East football conference negotiated, do they have to stay?

Or, can SMU and Houston form a new conference and negotiate their own deal?

In my opinion, Houston, SMU, Memphis,and Tulane create a nice core for a conference. South Florida, Central Florida, and East Carolina fit well together.

If Temple, Connecticut, and Cincinnati want to come along for the ride, so be it.

That is a 10 team conference (9 conference football games). That leaves 3 to sell, home, or away games.

Can we get a better deal than what the Big East negotiated?

F Cinci and UCONN. They will always have one foot out the door as long as share ao conf. with them.

ALWAYS.

I am not disagreeing with you about Connecticut and Cincinnati but all the schools have the same agenda. If any of the schools gets an offer from the ACC, SEC, B1G, or Big XII, the schools are gone. This conference will be a conference of convenience because we increase our chances at playing in the new playoff.

The only difference between ECU and Houston/SMU is that Houston/SMU can consider the MWC with Boise State.

(03-01-2013 03:05 PM)chess Wrote:  I am not disagreeing with you about Connecticut and Cincinnati but all the schools have the same agenda. If any of the schools gets an offer from the ACC, SEC, B1G, or Big XII, the schools are gone. This conference will be a conference of convenience because we increase our chances at playing in the new playoff.

The only difference between ECU and Houston/SMU is that Houston/SMU can consider the MWC with Boise State.

Do you think if this conference would implement what the Big XII has—a GOR—it would deter future defections? Thus; the conference would be seen as more stable instead of a stepping stone....

(03-01-2013 02:04 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 09:16 PM)pearland1 Wrote:  This is not the Big East any longer. Houston & SMU should not join this crap league with no name.

I don't give negative rep points, but almost did for this . . . where exactly do you propose that UH and SMU go? Back to Conference USA. If you say yes, then you are either uninformed, naive, stupid, or a troll . . . this (insert new conference name here) conference may suck (I strongly contend it doesn't), but it's UH's and SMU's best option for the moment . . .

The question is three fold. Is it worth paying 9 million to join? And if today it IS worth paying 9 million to join, what is the likeklihood that it will stay at such a level for more than a year or two (if that long)? The last question is---Is it worth 5 million to back out?

The issue is that unfortunately even IF SMU and UH wanted to back out, where would they go? A CUSA pipe dream is a nonstarter. SMU will not be in the same conference as UNT and has somewhat rubbed some of the CUSA presidents the wrong way with some of their comments. They are not coming back. It is just that simple. UH is in a better situation that they could come back and integrate well because there is no real bad blood with Rice and the other members, but there still is a numbers issue.

The MWC is not a slam dunk either. Unless you can convince the media partners for the MWC to rework their deal, it is going to be real hard to just add SMU and UH. The money will not offset the travel and the addition of SMU and UH pretty much means the cash cow option of playing BSU as a potential national TV game goes down by having to redo the divisions and allowing them to go to the west.

The old BE is the only real option at this point outside of creating a new conference from scratch, which is way outside of being feasible at the point in time. It would be real difficult to near impossible to get everything worked out before the new conference would begin play.

SMU and UH are coming. There is no real other option right no outside of that.

(03-01-2013 03:11 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 03:05 PM)chess Wrote:  I am not disagreeing with you about Connecticut and Cincinnati but all the schools have the same agenda. If any of the schools gets an offer from the ACC, SEC, B1G, or Big XII, the schools are gone. This conference will be a conference of convenience because we increase our chances at playing in the new playoff.

The only difference between ECU and Houston/SMU is that Houston/SMU can consider the MWC with Boise State.

Do you think if this conference would implement what the Big XII has—a GOR—it would deter future defections? Thus; the conference would be seen as more stable instead of a stepping stone....

I don't think all of the schools would agree to a GOR...and that's what you would need. As long as Cincy, UConn, and USF have one foot out of the door, there is no way they are doing that. In the Big12, the GOR was easy. UT and OU aren't going anywhere in the next few years and they control everything in the conference anyway....so, it was a good call for them. And, they probably have some kind of way to weasel out if they stay in for a number of years.

The points I'd like to see addressed: If Cincy, UConn, and USF get ALL of the entrance/exit/credits from what is left of the Big East; therefore, forming a new conference then: 1) entrance fees should be waved 2) exit fees should be very high ($20 mil or so) 3) exit fees from CUSA should be givin assisatnce (without the new members there would be no NBE) and 4) Aresco's contract should be re-addressed and decided if he acted in the best interest of all its current and in-coming memebers. The old and new Big East has been mismanaged enough.

cBad

Why can’t the C-USA schools unite and demand their entrance and exit fees be paid because the conference they joined is not what was offered to them? That’s like paying for a trip to Spain and getting :spam: instead.

Therefore, if the C-USA schools would unite, they probably could get most of their fees paid or state that they will bail on this conference and let it BE. The best of what C-USA had left was invited, so there aren't many viable options left that would be willing to take the risk of leaving a stable conference for an unstable one. Consequently, this conference would have no choice but to capitulate to the demands of the C-USA schools. However, if the BE doesn't grant this demand, the problem for the C-USA schools is…

(03-01-2013 03:33 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  ...where would they go?

(03-01-2013 02:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 09:24 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Let's get the original c-usa together. We are getting screwed by Uconn, USF, and Cincy. They are selling the name and grabbing exit $$$ so we all don't get it.

The BE east name is toxic for the football teams.
check out the ESPN poll. Who do you associate the BE name with, C7 or the football schools. 70% C7. There your proof why the BE name will not fit for the football schools.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...ng-sources

I thought I had you on ignore, no matter, back you go.

Is it too late to hit the reset button?
Imagine if everyone just STAYED in C*USA until this whole thing shook down. C*USA takes entry fees from UConn and Cincy (maybe Temple and USF), negotiates an increase in the TV contract, stability is achieved, no money lost.

Instead, it's been a money drain where everybody lost, except the Big 10, ACC, SEC, and Texas.

These panic threads make for great entertainment!

(03-01-2013 03:56 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  These panic threads make for great entertainment!

Are they panic threads, or anger threads?

(03-01-2013 03:11 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 03:05 PM)chess Wrote:  I am not disagreeing with you about Connecticut and Cincinnati but all the schools have the same agenda. If any of the schools gets an offer from the ACC, SEC, B1G, or Big XII, the schools are gone. This conference will be a conference of convenience because we increase our chances at playing in the new playoff.

The only difference between ECU and Houston/SMU is that Houston/SMU can consider the MWC with Boise State.

Do you think if this conference would implement what the Big XII has—a GOR—it would deter future defections? Thus; the conference would be seen as more stable instead of a stepping stone....

I hope not. Face it, any school leaving "our conference" is leaving for a significantly larger pay day. We can't fault a school for leaving.

What we want is a conference that can grow together. We all want crowds and a championship game appearance like Memphis basketball. We all want a dream football season like Tulane or Houston football (until they hit USM, that is).

Our schools are competitive enough to compete nationally at times.

We know what being in a BCS-type conference means. Look at the Cincinnati BCS bowl appearances as an example.

(03-01-2013 03:55 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  Is it too late to hit the reset button?
Imagine if everyone just STAYED in C*USA until this whole thing shook down. C*USA takes entry fees from UConn and Cincy (maybe Temple and USF), negotiates an increase in the TV contract, stability is achieved, no money lost.

Instead, it's been a money drain where everybody lost, except the Big 10, ACC, SEC, and Texas.

No risk. No reward... and luck for others.

(02-28-2013 11:18 PM)makeshifty Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 11:10 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Sorry. I was just responding to an idiotic post by pearland1. As both a UConn and an SMU fan, I don't want SMU or Houston to leave this conference. I don't think it would be a smart move for either school.

Maybe SMU doesnt have higher sights but this is definitely temporary for Houston (be it 2 years or 10). Might as well go ask the MWC to let us in for free rather than get bent over the table by UC, UConn, USF and ESPN. Waive the entry fee, pay our exits and there's no question we're in. But at 8.5 million it's gonna take a long time to even break even, and for what, ESPN3 and a likely god awful name? Make a case for going along with that. At least the MWC can still say its the Boise State conference.

If Houston really wanted in the MW, the MW would probably help pay some of their CUSA exit fee. And if Houston left the MW in future, I think its only a $1M exit fee and basically 1 year notice, which is pretty much required anyway for scheduling.

(03-01-2013 03:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 02:04 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 09:16 PM)pearland1 Wrote:  This is not the Big East any longer. Houston & SMU should not join this crap league with no name.

I don't give negative rep points, but almost did for this . . . where exactly do you propose that UH and SMU go? Back to Conference USA. If you say yes, then you are either uninformed, naive, stupid, or a troll . . . this (insert new conference name here) conference may suck (I strongly contend it doesn't), but it's UH's and SMU's best option for the moment . . .

The question is three fold. Is it worth paying 9 million to join? And if today it IS worth paying 9 million to join, what is the likeklihood that it will stay at such a level for more than a year or two (if that long)? The last question is---Is it worth 5 million to back out?

You keep stating this $9 million to join? Where do you get this? UH is paying $500,000 to exit CUSA. They are paying $2.5 million (maybe) to join the (insert name of new conference here) conference. There is no $9 million coming from UH unless I've missed something. What is your source for this statement because I"m almost 100 percent confident it is wrong.

(03-01-2013 06:31 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 03:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 02:04 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 09:16 PM)pearland1 Wrote:  This is not the Big East any longer. Houston & SMU should not join this crap league with no name.

I don't give negative rep points, but almost did for this . . . where exactly do you propose that UH and SMU go? Back to Conference USA. If you say yes, then you are either uninformed, naive, stupid, or a troll . . . this (insert new conference name here) conference may suck (I strongly contend it doesn't), but it's UH's and SMU's best option for the moment . . .

The question is three fold. Is it worth paying 9 million to join? And if today it IS worth paying 9 million to join, what is the likeklihood that it will stay at such a level for more than a year or two (if that long)? The last question is---Is it worth 5 million to back out?

You keep stating this $9 million to join? Where do you get this? UH is paying $500,000 to exit CUSA. They are paying $5 million (maybe) to join the (insert name of new conference here) conference. There is no $9 million coming from UH unless I've missed something. What is your source for this statement because I"m almost 100 percent confident it is wrong.

The entry fee to the Big East is 2.5 Million paid over five years. The exit fee for CUSA is 500k plus five years of lost media revenue to be binding and determined by Britt.

In Mphs case it appears they just took the full amt of the media deal 1.22m x five yrs for 6.1 million. Now I have not seen anything from CUSA media partners indicating a loss of revenue "if any" and the contract does not say amt equal to five years of tv revenue, but that is the amount that the exit announcements mentioned most often.