(03-03-2013 11:23 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 10:29 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  am i missing something? why do some fans of the incoming schools feel they are entitled to some of the $$$ the c7 and current fb schools are bargaining over?

I would say that because the league that was advertised, along with the money promised, to those willing to jump ship got shot to SH** with your defections. Could be argued that none would have moved if the split had come prior.

Could be argued, but not credibly. If the ACC had taken Syracuse and Uconn instead of Syracuse and Pitt, the split could very well have happened in 2011-12. If it did, you all would have thrown the same party to sign up with Boise, Louisville, Temple, ECU etc as the "Coast to Coast Conference" as you did to join the Big East.

Let's not pretend that anyone but Memphis and Temple fans were jacked to play Georgetown, St Johns, Marquette and Villanova in conference.

Let's not pretend that if Aresco had pulled $5M per school per year out of a hat, you wouldn't be happy to see us go, with or without the name.

(03-04-2013 12:07 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:04 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:54 PM)Mr. Derfman Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 10:47 PM)boss man Wrote:  

Quote:am i missing something? why do some fans of the incoming schools feel they are entitled to some of the $$$ the c7 and current fb schools are bargaining over?

Yes, you are missing something.

One other FACT that Attackcoog neglected to mention but is very relevant - the Big East conference that invited MEMPHIS, Houston, SMU, and UCF in Feb 2012 is NOT AT ALL the conference those four universities will be joining on 7-1-13. Hell, we aren't evenin joining the "Big East"!! That is a legitimate grievance and probably explains why there was NOT a contract signed in the Atlanta airport.

I know, the C-7 defectors don't give a but this is ridiculous. No wonder the Atlanta meeting (call) was a disaster. Tense, indeed.

UConn, Cincy, and USF (and Temple) do deserve a larger cut of the monies. No argument at all. But, yeah, the new members deserve something to compensate the huge loss of premier schools over the past year.

A fairer split IMHO of the $75mm:
Aresco office - $4mm
Connecticut, USF, Cincinnati - $13mm each ($39mm total)
Temple (in 1 year for FB) - $6mm
MEMPHIS, SMU, Houston, UCF - $5mm each ($20mm total)
Tulane and ECU (when they join) - $3mm each ($6mm total)

So let me get this straight, teams that can't even make the proposed contract worth more than 2-3 mill a year, feels entitled to moneys acquired without them! Sounds like these new teams thought they hit the lottery!

The conference no longer has Notre Dame. The conference no longer has Louisville, Boise, SDSU, and Rutgers. The conference no longer has the the C-7. The conference is no longer AQ. The last legitimate asset that the conference owns is the name---and the 3 remaining schools are attempting to strip the conference of that name, sell it, pocket the money, and then hold thier hand out for the 2.5 million dollar entry fee they charged when the conference had AQ status, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Louisville, Boise, SDSU, the C-7, and a well known name brand. Sure some of misfortune that has afflicted the conference was unavoidable. This, however, is entirely avoidable an in my mind, this rises to the level of bad faith.

I think the newbies will get their entrance fee waived which is why they probably agreed to it. Think about it, the leftover 3 wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court, because the league the schools signed up to join no longer exists, even in name.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. If entry fees arent waived or the new schools aren't compensated in some way you have every right to be furious.

I agree. If Houston, Memphis, SMU, UCF, East Carolina and Tulane have their entrance fees waved, then I won't be all that upset about Cindy, UConn and USF getting a massive payday. However, if they decide to stick us with the entrance fees while they are hauling the loot to the car, then to hell with em all.

(03-04-2013 02:28 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

Quote:The $100 million total is a combination of nearly 70 million dollars the Big East has and will collect in exit fee money from schools that have left or have announced they are leaving and another total of approximately $30 million which will come to the Big East offices from the NCAA as “unit” shares for conference teams participation in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament.

http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5423

Woah....

The oBE/nBE are liquidating the basketball fund. It makes the oBE basically worthless because the incoming schools aren't going to be able to rely on NCAA basketball money.

The entrance contracts specify that the new schools don't share in the tournament money earned before they join. I (and probably many) expected that the new schools would get something out of the exit fees.

(03-04-2013 06:19 AM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:07 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:04 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:54 PM)Mr. Derfman Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 10:47 PM)boss man Wrote:  Yes, you are missing something.

One other FACT that Attackcoog neglected to mention but is very relevant - the Big East conference that invited MEMPHIS, Houston, SMU, and UCF in Feb 2012 is NOT AT ALL the conference those four universities will be joining on 7-1-13. Hell, we aren't evenin joining the "Big East"!! That is a legitimate grievance and probably explains why there was NOT a contract signed in the Atlanta airport.

I know, the C-7 defectors don't give a but this is ridiculous. No wonder the Atlanta meeting (call) was a disaster. Tense, indeed.

UConn, Cincy, and USF (and Temple) do deserve a larger cut of the monies. No argument at all. But, yeah, the new members deserve something to compensate the huge loss of premier schools over the past year.

A fairer split IMHO of the $75mm:
Aresco office - $4mm
Connecticut, USF, Cincinnati - $13mm each ($39mm total)
Temple (in 1 year for FB) - $6mm
MEMPHIS, SMU, Houston, UCF - $5mm each ($20mm total)
Tulane and ECU (when they join) - $3mm each ($6mm total)

So let me get this straight, teams that can't even make the proposed contract worth more than 2-3 mill a year, feels entitled to moneys acquired without them! Sounds like these new teams thought they hit the lottery!

The conference no longer has Notre Dame. The conference no longer has Louisville, Boise, SDSU, and Rutgers. The conference no longer has the the C-7. The conference is no longer AQ. The last legitimate asset that the conference owns is the name---and the 3 remaining schools are attempting to strip the conference of that name, sell it, pocket the money, and then hold thier hand out for the 2.5 million dollar entry fee they charged when the conference had AQ status, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Louisville, Boise, SDSU, the C-7, and a well known name brand. Sure some of misfortune that has afflicted the conference was unavoidable. This, however, is entirely avoidable an in my mind, this rises to the level of bad faith.

I think the newbies will get their entrance fee waived which is why they probably agreed to it. Think about it, the leftover 3 wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court, because the league the schools signed up to join no longer exists, even in name.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. If entry fees arent waived or the new schools aren't compensated in some way you have every right to be furious.

I agree. If Houston, Memphis, SMU, UCF, East Carolina and Tulane have their entrance fees waved, then I won't be all that upset about Cindy, UConn and USF getting a massive payday. However, if they decide to stick us with the entrance fees while they are hauling the loot to the car, then to hell with em all.

I would gladly trade you for being the team moving up in conferences rather than the team moving down. This entire process has been a disaster for UC and it's fan base if things hold as they are now, and if all they get out of it is some money, we're hardly the winners here. In on other words, I wouldn't expect any sympathy from UC or UConn especially.

(03-04-2013 12:04 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:54 PM)Mr. Derfman Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 10:47 PM)boss man Wrote:  

Quote:am i missing something? why do some fans of the incoming schools feel they are entitled to some of the $$$ the c7 and current fb schools are bargaining over?

Yes, you are missing something.

One other FACT that Attackcoog neglected to mention but is very relevant - the Big East conference that invited MEMPHIS, Houston, SMU, and UCF in Feb 2012 is NOT AT ALL the conference those four universities will be joining on 7-1-13. Hell, we aren't evenin joining the "Big East"!! That is a legitimate grievance and probably explains why there was NOT a contract signed in the Atlanta airport.

I know, the C-7 defectors don't give a but this is ridiculous. No wonder the Atlanta meeting (call) was a disaster. Tense, indeed.

UConn, Cincy, and USF (and Temple) do deserve a larger cut of the monies. No argument at all. But, yeah, the new members deserve something to compensate the huge loss of premier schools over the past year.

A fairer split IMHO of the $75mm:
Aresco office - $4mm
Connecticut, USF, Cincinnati - $13mm each ($39mm total)
Temple (in 1 year for FB) - $6mm
MEMPHIS, SMU, Houston, UCF - $5mm each ($20mm total)
Tulane and ECU (when they join) - $3mm each ($6mm total)

So let me get this straight, teams that can't even make the proposed contract worth more than 2-3 mill a year, feels entitled to moneys acquired without them! Sounds like these new teams thought they hit the lottery!

The conference no longer has Notre Dame. The conference no longer has Louisville, Boise, SDSU, and Rutgers. The conference no longer has the the C-7. The conference is no longer AQ. The last legitimate asset that the conference owns is the name---and the 3 remaining schools are attempting to strip the conference of that name, sell it, pocket the money, and then hold thier hand out for the 2.5 million dollar entry fee they charged when the conference had AQ status, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Louisville, Boise, SDSU, the C-7, and a well known name brand. Sure some of misfortune that has afflicted the conference was unavoidable. This, however, is entirely avoidable an in my mind, this rises to the level of bad faith. Im fine if the 3 remaining schools keep every cent of thier half of the monies from the exit fees and credits. All Im asking is just dont sell the name.

Many posters of former, current and future Big East (Aresco) conference schools insisted for years (since at least 1998 or so) that Notre Dame "adds nothing" to the Big East.

So, in fairness to all of them and their strongly held positions, I think that you have to remove any value of ND from your equation.

(03-04-2013 06:23 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 02:28 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

Quote:The $100 million total is a combination of nearly 70 million dollars the Big East has and will collect in exit fee money from schools that have left or have announced they are leaving and another total of approximately $30 million which will come to the Big East offices from the NCAA as “unit” shares for conference teams participation in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament.

http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5423

Woah....

The oBE/nBE are liquidating the basketball fund. It makes the oBE basically worthless because the incoming schools aren't going to be able to rely on NCAA basketball money.

The entrance contracts specify that the new schools don't share in the tournament money earned before they join. I (and probably many) expected that the new schools would get something out of the exit fees.

I think Aresco has given the impression in multiple interviews that the exit fee money and left behind credits would form a war chest that would allow the conference to supplement the disappointing contract. I believe he said something to that effect on the Brando Show just this week. I've been hearing things to that affect in Houston as well, so I assume the Houston administration was being fed this line also.

UHCougar said his information is that Aresco had no idea the individual schools would act like they did--he may mean Aresco had no idea that the existing schools intended to largely pocket the money. For the Houston administration, I would not be surprised if this was the final straw. I get the impression that the Houston folks have been luke warm to this venture since the C-7 exit. Thier comments following that exit were not very supportive. I don't think they even bothered to issue a statement after Boise and SDSU left. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Houston bail.

A the very least, the CUSA schools no longer have any real reason to settle for a weak tv deal. Now that it's clear the conference revenue will be largely limited to TV income, I expect the ESPN deal will not be signed in its current form. It simply provides inadequate income. The issues at the Friday meeting likely contributed to the deal not getting signed. My guess is that it's modified to a traditional first tier deal (same money) with no ability to sublicense the games. ESPN will be allowed to show games on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU. Rights for any game not headed for those four venues would revert to the Confernce for resale before they could go to ESPN-3 or be sublicensed by ESPN. Essentially a use it or lose it contract. That effectively allows the no-name football conference to sell its second tier rights for additional cash rather allowing ESPN to essentially use the income from the sale of second tier rights to get the nBE first tier rights for free. The rejection also puts NBC back in the game as an active bidder.

At this point, I don't really care anymore. I'd completely understand if we made 2 calls from the president's office:

1. To Aresco League offices, telling him that we will not enter this "unnamed conference".
2. To C-USA offices, telling them that we will be staying in C-USA and to not expect a check in a few months.

I'm not that thrilled with C-USA, but I do like the idea of Tulane playing the following schools:

Rice, USM, LT, Charlotte, UAB

We have some sort of relation and/or history with those five.

The money isn't THAT much better after exit/entrance fees are taken out. There aren't many "new faces" to see Tulane play. The benefits are also gone. The name is gone. There is little point to the whole exercise - other than trying to dodge some Sun Belt schools.

If we could weasel out of exit fees, then I would like to see Tulane join a new conference, however.

(03-04-2013 06:14 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:23 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  I would say that because the league that was advertised, along with the money promised, to those willing to jump ship got shot to SH** with your defections. Could be argued that none would have moved if the split had come prior.

Could be argued, but not credibly. If the ACC had taken Syracuse and Uconn instead of Syracuse and Pitt, the split could very well have happened in 2011-12. If it did, you all would have thrown the same party to sign up with Boise, Louisville, Temple, ECU etc as the "Coast to Coast Conference" as you did to join the Big East. Let's not pretend that anyone but Memphis and Temple fans were jacked to play Georgetown, St Johns, Marquette and Villanova in conference.

Let's not pretend that if Aresco had pulled $5M per school per year out of a hat, you wouldn't be happy to see us go, with or without the name.

@ Red, the schools coming from CUSA did try that with a possible alliance or whatever with the MWC. Basically the NCAA told us no on the sticking points to make it happen. CUSA pre latest expansion could have talked with the BE pre last raids to do the same thing but the NCAA rulings were known so no advantage to seek it with someone else.

@ Bold, for ECU, not so sure as we are looking to build and invest in basketball to turn it around and while the process with Lebo and Macy is going well towards our desired end game, some marquis opponents wouldn't be declined.

@ Blue, at a cool $5M a year, that would have been SIGNIFICANTLY better than current or past CUSA money so yes, we would have gone based on that. The catch is, when ECU came into the fold, what was left of the BE wasn't going to be pulling that kind of money, and especially with the C7 bolting...that kind of money wouldn't have been there.

I think this is a big piece of information that has largely gone overlooked:

"Reportedly the Catholic 7 are asking the Big East for approximately 35 million in total payouts."

That means the two sides are still $20M-$25M apart. That's quite the gap. I doubt this gets settled as soon as Blaudschun has indicated.

(03-03-2013 10:47 PM)boss man Wrote:  

Quote:am i missing something? why do some fans of the incoming schools feel they are entitled to some of the $$$ the c7 and current fb schools are bargaining over?

Yes, you are missing something.

One other FACT that Attackcoog neglected to mention but is very relevant - the Big East conference that invited MEMPHIS, Houston, SMU, and UCF in Feb 2012 is NOT AT ALL the conference those four universities will be joining on 7-1-13. Hell, we aren't evenin joining the "Big East"!! That is a legitimate grievance and probably explains why there was NOT a contract signed in the Atlanta airport.

I know, the C-7 defectors don't give a but this is ridiculous. No wonder the Atlanta meeting (call) was a disaster. Tense, indeed.

UConn, Cincy, and USF (and Temple) do deserve a larger cut of the monies. No argument at all. But, yeah, the new members deserve something to compensate the huge loss of premier schools over the past year.
A fairer split IMHO of the $75mm:
Aresco office - $4mm
Connecticut, USF, Cincinnati - $13mm each ($39mm total)
Temple (in 1 year for FB) - $6mm
MEMPHIS, SMU, Houston, UCF - $5mm each ($20mm total)
Tulane and ECU (when they join) - $3mm each ($6mm total)

Why do they deserve anything? Its better than what they left. Its far better than what they could return to. Maybe they could re-negotiate the entrance fee (and Jersey guy's article doesn't mention entrance fees-which Fowler said was about $25 million). But they don't deserve any of the rest when they aren't even conference members.

(03-04-2013 09:30 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 06:14 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:23 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  I would say that because the league that was advertised, along with the money promised, to those willing to jump ship got shot to SH** with your defections. Could be argued that none would have moved if the split had come prior.

Could be argued, but not credibly. If the ACC had taken Syracuse and Uconn instead of Syracuse and Pitt, the split could very well have happened in 2011-12. If it did, you all would have thrown the same party to sign up with Boise, Louisville, Temple, ECU etc as the "Coast to Coast Conference" as you did to join the Big East. Let's not pretend that anyone but Memphis and Temple fans were jacked to play Georgetown, St Johns, Marquette and Villanova in conference.

Let's not pretend that if Aresco had pulled $5M per school per year out of a hat, you wouldn't be happy to see us go, with or without the name.

@ Red, the schools coming from CUSA did try that with a possible alliance or whatever with the MWC. Basically the NCAA told us no on the sticking points to make it happen.

The MWC-CUSA alliance was trying it without any schools of any TV value. The widespread belief in 2011 was that Boise STate, Louisville, Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, etc had some TV value, and that there would be a big fat TV contract, because football drives the bus, and with Boise STate you were the clear "best of the rest" conference, nipping at the heels of the ACC waving Sagarin ratings and BCS bowl win-loss records around.

Quote:@ Bold, for ECU, not so sure as we are looking to build and invest in basketball to turn it around and while the process with Lebo and Macy is going well towards our desired end game, some marquis opponents wouldn't be declined.

"Wouldn't be declined." Again, just like most of the Aresco League newcomers, basketball is an afterthought.

Quote:@ Blue, at a cool $5M a year, that would have been SIGNIFICANTLY better than current or past CUSA money so yes, we would have gone based on that. The catch is, when ECU came into the fold, what was left of the BE wasn't going to be pulling that kind of money, and especially with the C7 bolting...that kind of money wouldn't have been there.

The widespread expectation, until the NBC agreement-in-principle or whatever was reached, was that you were looking at closer to $5M per year than $2M per year. When Tulsa was being talked about as #12, they were expecting $3.5-$4.5M--after Boise left.

(03-04-2013 09:41 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I think this is a big piece of information that has largely gone overlooked:

"Reportedly the Catholic 7 are asking the Big East for approximately 35 million in total payouts."

That means the two sides are still $20M-$25M apart. That's quite the gap. I doubt this gets settled as soon as Blaudschun has indicated.

The gap isn't the problem. If we NEED to get out for 2013 for the Fox deal, then we're under pressure, and we'll take $15-20M. If the Fox deal is still good if we have to start in 2014, then we'll wait.

A $20M gap isn't going to kill the deal.

(03-04-2013 10:20 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:30 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 06:14 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:23 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  I would say that because the league that was advertised, along with the money promised, to those willing to jump ship got shot to SH** with your defections. Could be argued that none would have moved if the split had come prior.

Could be argued, but not credibly. If the ACC had taken Syracuse and Uconn instead of Syracuse and Pitt, the split could very well have happened in 2011-12. If it did, you all would have thrown the same party to sign up with Boise, Louisville, Temple, ECU etc as the "Coast to Coast Conference" as you did to join the Big East. Let's not pretend that anyone but Memphis and Temple fans were jacked to play Georgetown, St Johns, Marquette and Villanova in conference.

Let's not pretend that if Aresco had pulled $5M per school per year out of a hat, you wouldn't be happy to see us go, with or without the name.

@ Red, the schools coming from CUSA did try that with a possible alliance or whatever with the MWC. Basically the NCAA told us no on the sticking points to make it happen.

The MWC-CUSA alliance was trying it without any schools of any TV value. The widespread belief in 2011 was that Boise STate, Louisville, Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, etc had some TV value, and that there would be a big fat TV contract, because football drives the bus, and with Boise STate you were the clear "best of the rest" conference, nipping at the heels of the ACC waving Sagarin ratings and BCS bowl win-loss records around.

Quote:@ Bold, for ECU, not so sure as we are looking to build and invest in basketball to turn it around and while the process with Lebo and Macy is going well towards our desired end game, some marquis opponents wouldn't be declined.

"Wouldn't be declined." Again, just like most of the Aresco League newcomers, basketball is an afterthought.

Yes, the better bball programs would have had merit for playing C7s. The schools w/o premir basketball programs would have liked an upgraded conference schedule over CUSA and it would have helped them improve. That said, I think the solid C7 programs already there wouldn't have wanted who was coming as the resumes of who were leaving were obviously better.

Quote:@ Blue, at a cool $5M a year, that would have been SIGNIFICANTLY better than current or past CUSA money so yes, we would have gone based on that. The catch is, when ECU came into the fold, what was left of the BE wasn't going to be pulling that kind of money, and especially with the C7 bolting...that kind of money wouldn't have been there.

The widespread expectation, until the NBC agreement-in-principle or whatever was reached, was that you were looking at closer to $5M per year than $2M per year. When Tulsa was being talked about as #12, they were expecting $3.5-$4.5M--after Boise left.

BUT, to use $5M as a sales pitch to entice schools to join when you deliver less than half that, and that amount is so close to what you were making... If your league had been diluted by that many teams then you AND teh candidates would have wanted some figures to work with to make decisions on.

Added in some more comments.

(03-04-2013 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 10:47 PM)boss man Wrote:  

Quote:am i missing something? why do some fans of the incoming schools feel they are entitled to some of the $$$ the c7 and current fb schools are bargaining over?

Yes, you are missing something.

One other FACT that Attackcoog neglected to mention but is very relevant - the Big East conference that invited MEMPHIS, Houston, SMU, and UCF in Feb 2012 is NOT AT ALL the conference those four universities will be joining on 7-1-13. Hell, we aren't evenin joining the "Big East"!! That is a legitimate grievance and probably explains why there was NOT a contract signed in the Atlanta airport.

I know, the C-7 defectors don't give a but this is ridiculous. No wonder the Atlanta meeting (call) was a disaster. Tense, indeed.

UConn, Cincy, and USF (and Temple) do deserve a larger cut of the monies. No argument at all. But, yeah, the new members deserve something to compensate the huge loss of premier schools over the past year.
A fairer split IMHO of the $75mm:
Aresco office - $4mm
Connecticut, USF, Cincinnati - $13mm each ($39mm total)
Temple (in 1 year for FB) - $6mm
MEMPHIS, SMU, Houston, UCF - $5mm each ($20mm total)
Tulane and ECU (when they join) - $3mm each ($6mm total)

Why do they deserve anything? Its better than what they left. Its far better than what they could return to. Maybe they could re-negotiate the entrance fee (and Jersey guy's article doesn't mention entrance fees-which Fowler said was about $25 million). But they don't deserve any of the rest when they aren't even conference members.

Honestly--most of us dont want a dime. We just dont want the name sold off. UConn, USF, and Cinci can split up th entire realignment fund and keep every cent--just leave the name on the front door is all we are asking.

(03-04-2013 10:20 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:30 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 06:14 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:23 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  I would say that because the league that was advertised, along with the money promised, to those willing to jump ship got shot to SH** with your defections. Could be argued that none would have moved if the split had come prior.

Could be argued, but not credibly. If the ACC had taken Syracuse and Uconn instead of Syracuse and Pitt, the split could very well have happened in 2011-12. If it did, you all would have thrown the same party to sign up with Boise, Louisville, Temple, ECU etc as the "Coast to Coast Conference" as you did to join the Big East. Let's not pretend that anyone but Memphis and Temple fans were jacked to play Georgetown, St Johns, Marquette and Villanova in conference.

Let's not pretend that if Aresco had pulled $5M per school per year out of a hat, you wouldn't be happy to see us go, with or without the name.

@ Red, the schools coming from CUSA did try that with a possible alliance or whatever with the MWC. Basically the NCAA told us no on the sticking points to make it happen.

The MWC-CUSA alliance was trying it without any schools of any TV value. The widespread belief in 2011 was that Boise STate, Louisville, Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, etc had some TV value, and that there would be a big fat TV contract, because football drives the bus, and with Boise STate you were the clear "best of the rest" conference, nipping at the heels of the ACC waving Sagarin ratings and BCS bowl win-loss records around.

Quote:@ Bold, for ECU, not so sure as we are looking to build and invest in basketball to turn it around and while the process with Lebo and Macy is going well towards our desired end game, some marquis opponents wouldn't be declined.

"Wouldn't be declined." Again, just like most of the Aresco League newcomers, basketball is an afterthought.

Quote:@ Blue, at a cool $5M a year, that would have been SIGNIFICANTLY better than current or past CUSA money so yes, we would have gone based on that. The catch is, when ECU came into the fold, what was left of the BE wasn't going to be pulling that kind of money, and especially with the C7 bolting...that kind of money wouldn't have been there.

The widespread expectation, until the NBC agreement-in-principle or whatever was reached, was that you were looking at closer to $5M per year than $2M per year. When Tulsa was being talked about as #12, they were expecting $3.5-$4.5M--after Boise left.

There were a couple of other more important factors.
1) Both conferences had existing contracts they couldn't get out of. The only way to negotiate on the fair market was liquidating. And that had some litigation risk with their existing rights holders.
2) Liquidating meant giving virtually all of the CUSA bb tourney credits to the exiting schools and giving up exit fees. That made no financial sense to the CUSA.

The incoming schools should just immediately set the exit fee to 25 million with a 36 month notice. Unless there is a major shake up Cincy and U Conn are the only ones that might get a life boat out in the next year or two and that would get back some of the monies they pilfered off during the sale of the name.

(03-04-2013 03:04 PM)Eagleweiser Wrote:  The incoming schools should just immediately set the exit fee to 25 million with a 36 month notice. Unless there is a major shake up Cincy and U Conn are the only ones that might get a life boat out in the next year or two and that would get back some of the monies they pilfered off during the sale of the name.

Takes a 3/4 vote, and the new schools only have 7/10. If 7/10 were enough to get it done, the C-7 would be stripping the assets, not the 3 holdover schools.

(03-04-2013 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 10:20 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:30 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 06:14 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:23 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  I would say that because the league that was advertised, along with the money promised, to those willing to jump ship got shot to SH** with your defections. Could be argued that none would have moved if the split had come prior.

Could be argued, but not credibly. If the ACC had taken Syracuse and Uconn instead of Syracuse and Pitt, the split could very well have happened in 2011-12. If it did, you all would have thrown the same party to sign up with Boise, Louisville, Temple, ECU etc as the "Coast to Coast Conference" as you did to join the Big East. Let's not pretend that anyone but Memphis and Temple fans were jacked to play Georgetown, St Johns, Marquette and Villanova in conference.

Let's not pretend that if Aresco had pulled $5M per school per year out of a hat, you wouldn't be happy to see us go, with or without the name.

@ Red, the schools coming from CUSA did try that with a possible alliance or whatever with the MWC. Basically the NCAA told us no on the sticking points to make it happen.

The MWC-CUSA alliance was trying it without any schools of any TV value. The widespread belief in 2011 was that Boise STate, Louisville, Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, etc had some TV value, and that there would be a big fat TV contract, because football drives the bus, and with Boise STate you were the clear "best of the rest" conference, nipping at the heels of the ACC waving Sagarin ratings and BCS bowl win-loss records around.

Quote:@ Bold, for ECU, not so sure as we are looking to build and invest in basketball to turn it around and while the process with Lebo and Macy is going well towards our desired end game, some marquis opponents wouldn't be declined.

"Wouldn't be declined." Again, just like most of the Aresco League newcomers, basketball is an afterthought.

Quote:@ Blue, at a cool $5M a year, that would have been SIGNIFICANTLY better than current or past CUSA money so yes, we would have gone based on that. The catch is, when ECU came into the fold, what was left of the BE wasn't going to be pulling that kind of money, and especially with the C7 bolting...that kind of money wouldn't have been there.

The widespread expectation, until the NBC agreement-in-principle or whatever was reached, was that you were looking at closer to $5M per year than $2M per year. When Tulsa was being talked about as #12, they were expecting $3.5-$4.5M--after Boise left.

There were a couple of other more important factors.
1) Both conferences had existing contracts they couldn't get out of. The only way to negotiate on the fair market was liquidating. And that had some litigation risk with their existing rights holders.
2) Liquidating meant giving virtually all of the CUSA bb tourney credits to the exiting schools and giving up exit fees. That made no financial sense to the CUSA.

I think one reason the MWC/CUSA thing died was that CBS agreed to totally redo the MWC TV deal and interest cooled in the west. That and the NCAA killing the mini 4 team playoff idea

(03-04-2013 10:23 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:41 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I think this is a big piece of information that has largely gone overlooked:

"Reportedly the Catholic 7 are asking the Big East for approximately 35 million in total payouts."

That means the two sides are still $20M-$25M apart. That's quite the gap. I doubt this gets settled as soon as Blaudschun has indicated.

The gap isn't the problem. If we NEED to get out for 2013 for the Fox deal, then we're under pressure, and we'll take $15-20M. If the Fox deal is still good if we have to start in 2014, then we'll wait.

A $20M gap isn't going to kill the deal.

Yes, and it's probably not a $20 million dollar gap because $35 mill is a negotiating position. Split the difference and a deal can be had for $20-$25 million. Each side gives up $10-$12 million. In all likelihood, that's the real gap and it's a gap that I'm betting can be bridged.

(03-04-2013 04:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 10:23 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:41 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I think this is a big piece of information that has largely gone overlooked:

"Reportedly the Catholic 7 are asking the Big East for approximately 35 million in total payouts."

That means the two sides are still $20M-$25M apart. That's quite the gap. I doubt this gets settled as soon as Blaudschun has indicated.

The gap isn't the problem. If we NEED to get out for 2013 for the Fox deal, then we're under pressure, and we'll take $15-20M. If the Fox deal is still good if we have to start in 2014, then we'll wait.

A $20M gap isn't going to kill the deal.

Yes, and it's probably not a $20 million dollar gap because $35 mill is a negotiating position. Split the difference and a deal can be had for $20-$25 million. Each side gives up $10-$12 million. In all likelihood, that's the real gap and it's a gap that I'm betting can be bridged.

I don't think the $35M is any more or less a negotiating position than $15M. But yes, most likely split the difference before Tuesday's press conference.

If not, I wonder if we (the C-7/"Eastern 12") walk anyway, and file suit for $95M (70% of the money plus $25M for the name), citing lack of protection from conference leadership--we don't have a TV contract for next year, and apparently there wasn't an effort made to get a one-year contract.