(01-02-2012 07:12 PM)SMUstang Wrote: "point was, the conferences that got big dollars via expansion did so by adding big names, not cusa dregs like the big east."
Some of the "dregs from cusa" have done pretty well. Houston beat Penn State 30-14. SMU still has to play Pitt but has a chance to outperform them.
Then there's Boise State who whipped up on Arizona State 56-24, though they are not exactly "dregs from cusa".
Houston fans and blind NBE boosters keep missing the point: while the cougars win over penn state was nice, it does nothing to change the fact that penn state is far, far more valuable as a football media property than houston, or really all 5 new Big East teams put together.
The basic fact here is that while other AQ conference expanded by stealing established teams from other AQ conferences, the Big East was forced to dredge its nets through non-AQ conferences. We got warm bodies, not valuable media properties. The cream of our media properties were taken from us by the ACC and B12. So big TV dollars are unlikely.
Quo...you used the Big XII as an example...ok
Also, AFA & BYU were courted by the Big XII before the BIG EAST came into the picture.
If you remember Air Force "TURNED DOWN" the Big XII and the negotiations between BYU & the Big XII broke down much like the BYU/BIG EAST negotiations broke down over TV Rights.
For the record here is the link with Air Force turning down the Big XII...there are others but this is from NBC Sports.
“We were approached by the Big 12, and I told them we’re not a good fit for that conference. In the Big 12, geography makes sense, the economics make sense, but recruiting makes no sense for us. I can’t recruit against Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State,” Mueh told the paper
(01-02-2012 07:12 PM)SMUstang Wrote: "point was, the conferences that got big dollars via expansion did so by adding big names, not cusa dregs like the big east."
Some of the "dregs from cusa" have done pretty well. Houston beat Penn State 30-14. SMU still has to play Pitt but has a chance to outperform them.
Then there's Boise State who whipped up on Arizona State 56-24, though they are not exactly "dregs from cusa".
Houston fans and blind NBE boosters keep missing the point: while the cougars win over penn state was nice, it does nothing to change the fact that penn state is far, far more valuable as a football media property than houston, or really all 5 new Big East teams put together.
The basic fact here is that while other AQ conference expanded by stealing established teams from other AQ conferences, the Big East was forced to dredge its nets through non-AQ conferences. We got warm bodies, not valuable media properties. The cream of our media properties were taken from us by the ACC and B12. So big TV dollars are unlikely.
Quo...you used the Big XII as an example...ok
Also, AFA & BYU were courted by the Big XII before the BIG EAST came into the picture.
If you remember Air Force "TURNED DOWN" the Big XII and the negotiations between BYU & the Big XII broke down much like the BYU/BIG EAST negotiations broke down over TV Rights.
For the record here is the link with Air Force turning down the Big XII...there are others but this is from NBC Sports.
“We were approached by the Big 12, and I told them we’re not a good fit for that conference. In the Big 12, geography makes sense, the economics make sense, but recruiting makes no sense for us. I can’t recruit against Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State,” Mueh told the paper
You said it about the BIG EAST and then in the same token prop up conferences like the Big XII when they do the exact same thing.
In other words, you don't care about the actual point, you just want to quibble about details? I guess you could have also quibbled thst the PAC added a non- AQ in Utah too? Make you feel better?
I only bother with details if they undermine the other guy's point.
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2012 12:57 PM by quo vadis.)
(01-03-2012 08:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote: Houston fans and blind NBE boosters keep missing the point: while the cougars win over penn state was nice, it does nothing to change the fact that penn state is far, far more valuable as a football media property than houston, or really all 5 new Big East teams put together.
The basic fact here is that while other AQ conference expanded by stealing established teams from other AQ conferences, the Big East was forced to dredge its nets through non-AQ conferences. We got warm bodies, not valuable media properties. The cream of our media properties were taken from us by the ACC and B12. So big TV dollars are unlikely.
Quo...you used the Big XII as an example...ok
Also, AFA & BYU were courted by the Big XII before the BIG EAST came into the picture.
If you remember Air Force "TURNED DOWN" the Big XII and the negotiations between BYU & the Big XII broke down much like the BYU/BIG EAST negotiations broke down over TV Rights.
For the record here is the link with Air Force turning down the Big XII...there are others but this is from NBC Sports.
“We were approached by the Big 12, and I told them we’re not a good fit for that conference. In the Big 12, geography makes sense, the economics make sense, but recruiting makes no sense for us. I can’t recruit against Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State,” Mueh told the paper
You said it about the BIG EAST and then in the same token prop up conferences like the Big XII when they do the exact same thing.
In other words, you don't care about the actual point, you just want to quibble about details? I guess you could have also quibbled thst the PAC added a non- AQ in Utah too? Make you feel better?
I only bother with details if they undermine the other guy's point.
No, your words...be a man and own them.
And the point is "Other AQ leagues" like as you now mention the Pac 12 along with the Big XII have added Non AQ schools. But I guess that goes against your constant bashing of the BIG EAST...not say'n...juz say'n.
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2012 01:18 PM by Maize.)
(01-03-2012 12:37 PM)Maize Wrote: Quo...you used the Big XII as an example...ok
Also, AFA & BYU were courted by the Big XII before the BIG EAST came into the picture.
If you remember Air Force "TURNED DOWN" the Big XII and the negotiations between BYU & the Big XII broke down much like the BYU/BIG EAST negotiations broke down over TV Rights.
For the record here is the link with Air Force turning down the Big XII...there are others but this is from NBC Sports.
“We were approached by the Big 12, and I told them we’re not a good fit for that conference. In the Big 12, geography makes sense, the economics make sense, but recruiting makes no sense for us. I can’t recruit against Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State,” Mueh told the paper
You said it about the BIG EAST and then in the same token prop up conferences like the Big XII when they do the exact same thing.
In other words, you don't care about the actual point, you just want to quibble about details? I guess you could have also quibbled thst the PAC added a non- AQ in Utah too? Make you feel better?
I only bother with details if they undermine the other guy's point.
No, your words...be a man and own them.
And the point is "Other AQ leagues" like as you now mention the Pac 12 along with the Big XII have added Non AQ schools. But I guess that goes against your constant bashing of the BIG EAST...not say'n...juz say'n.
I never bash the Big East. Your point is not relevant, unless you can refute the notion that a key difference between Big East expansion and our prospects for getting a big new media deal and otber AQ conferences that expanded and got better deals is that we added a bunch of nonAQs and they largely took from other AQs. I doubt you can do that.
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2012 02:50 PM by quo vadis.)
Did the Big East help itself by adding nationally-ranked, bowl-qualifying non-AQ programs seriously committed to their athletic departments n HUGE television market, or did it hurt itself by adding nationally-ranked, bowl-qualifying non-AQ programs seriously committed to their athletic programs in HUGE television markets . . . I'm getting confused.
Man, it was easier keeping up on the Conference USA board where we all knew we sucked, wanted to be some where else, and dreamed of one day playing USF again. What a downer joining this sucky new Big East turned out to be . . .
(01-03-2012 09:03 AM)SmallVoice Wrote: I believe that most of us have accepted the fact that it is what it is. To complain that the Big East isn't expanding by adding LSU and USC is like whining about the fact that the Jamaicans didn't win a medal in bobsledding.
I think in his case it's become some sort of comedy schtick that nobody's laughing at, but he can't turn off the loop.
I'm still upset by that...someone sabotaged the track right before the Jamaicans raced!
(01-03-2012 03:25 PM)UHCougar Wrote: Did the Big East help itself by adding nationally-ranked, bowl-qualifying non-AQ programs seriously committed to their athletic departments n HUGE television market, or did it hurt itself by adding nationally-ranked, bowl-qualifying non-AQ programs seriously committed to their athletic programs in HUGE television markets . . . I'm getting confused.
Man, it was easier keeping up on the Conference USA board where we all knew we sucked, wanted to be some where else, and dreamed of one day playing USF again. What a downer joining this sucky new Big East turned out to be . . .
(01-03-2012 12:51 PM)Maize Wrote: Just using "your words"...lol
Don't confuse him by using his own words against him. Okay that was pissing, so I will stop.
(01-03-2012 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote: In other words, you don't care about the actual point, you just want to quibble about details?
No that is not the issue. You gave four examples to try and "prove" your point, and we shot down three of them with facts that not only disporved the "words" you used, but disproved your actual point. Both the Pac 12 and Big XII added teams from non-BCS conferences, no matter how you spin it, and profited from it, basicaly doing the same thing you are saying will not work for the Big East. The ACC is profiting from adding Big East teams, which according to how you put it, is not a major conference, and thus also disproves both your actual point, AND the words you used. Oh and the fouth was the Big Ten, who did not sign a new media rights deal (they only signed a deal fo the CCG game). So basically you went 0-4 on your examples. Thus that would make your point invalid.
(12-09-2011 11:49 PM)uconnbaseball Wrote: I would be pleased with 10 million...I am optimistic NBC will give us even more.
You are dreaming. ESPN won't get into a bidding war with NBC for the Big East. If push comes to shove they will simply order the ACC to grab Rutgers and Connecticut(I'm sure that will please you) and the Big-12 to get Louisville, Cincinnati, & maybe Notre Dame(minus FB). Then NBC will get stuck with the leftovers which won't be very appetizing.
(12-09-2011 11:49 PM)uconnbaseball Wrote: I would be pleased with 10 million...I am optimistic NBC will give us even more.
You are dreaming. ESPN won't get into a bidding war with NBC for the Big East. If push comes to shove they will simply order the ACC to grab Rutgers and Connecticut(I'm sure that will please you) and the Big-12 to get Louisville, Cincinnati, & maybe Notre Dame(minus FB). Then NBC will get stuck with the leftovers which won't be very appetizing.
Actually they may. If ESPN loses Big East basketball, because of the heavy volume of BE games the family of networks broadcasts, it will either significantly reduce the value of ESPNU (because they will have to pull so many games currently shown there to fill up ESPN and ESPN2), or it will cause the syndicated packages they have with the ACC and SEC to lose considerable value, again as they will have to pull games. They may also run into distrubution issues with ESPNU in Big East cities, not only because a competitng network might get that slot, but because again, ESPNU will look at lot more like ESPN3 exclusive games. ESPNU brings in $180 million a year in subscriber fees alone: they do not wish to **** with that. Not to mention they do not want competition.
Not to say they will pay "top dollar" but they really do not want to lose the BE. Plus, if nothing else, they do not want to let soemoen else get in the game for cheap. Especially not with the Big XII Tier 1 rights and the Big Ten rights coming up for renewal int he next few years.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2012 01:00 PM by adcorbett.)
(12-09-2011 11:49 PM)uconnbaseball Wrote: I would be pleased with 10 million...I am optimistic NBC will give us even more.
You are dreaming. ESPN won't get into a bidding war with NBC for the Big East. If push comes to shove they will simply order the ACC to grab Rutgers and Connecticut(I'm sure that will please you) and the Big-12 to get Louisville, Cincinnati, & maybe Notre Dame(minus FB). Then NBC will get stuck with the leftovers which won't be very appetizing.
Actually they may. If ESPN loses Big East basketball, because of the heavy volume of games they carry, it will eithe rsignificantly reduce the value of ESPNU (becaus ethey will have to pull so many games to fill up ESPN and ESPN2), or it will cause the syndicated packages they have with the ACC and SEC to lose considerable value, as they will have to pull games. They may also run into distrubution issues with ESPNU in Big East cities, not only because a competitng network might get that slot, but because again, ESPNU will look at lot more like ESPN3 exclusive games. ESPNU brings in $180 million a year in subscriber fees alone: they do not wish to **** with that. Not to mention they do not want competition. So not to say they will pay "top dollar" but they really do not want to lose the BE.
They will simply pay the ACC and Big-12 to raid the Big East(like we all know they've done before) rather than pay for the Big East itself. If the Big East keeps getting watered down continually it is worth less. So bet on the Big East getting raided rather than getting paid.
![[Image: 128993076910576614.jpg]](http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/6/128993076910576614.jpg)
