(05-24-2012 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Gotcha.

I know this seems odd to many, but I am going to have to step-up & defend Quo Vadis here...

It's not because I totally agree with him...

It's not because I think we could make some 'deal' and be OK with it.


It is because a board is DEAD-DEAD-DEAD without the contrarian view.



Perhaps someday, I'll be that contrarian-view. Sorry.

(05-24-2012 07:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:10 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:44 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  The only way $60 million is anywhere close to a reality is if 2 or 3 of Boise/UL/Cinci/Uconn is lost plus the BB schools split away.

Other than that happening, it is funny that just days ago with the relevant media on site at the BE meetings (FOX/ESPN/NBC) the "sources" were at $2+ billion.

But CBS is peddling this $60m BS.

But you do need to compare apples to apples. The $2B+ was total contract for 15 years. It was about $150M a year, vs. the $60M from McMurphy.

I can guarantee the Big East's TV contract will not be 15 years long. I suspect 9 or 10.

The Orlando paper's recount of the BE meetings, linked on here somewhere, specifically mentioned the $2B+ was for 15 years. It would be exactly $2.25B total, at $150M a year, for 15 years.

That is $6.7M per all sports school. Not exactly great.

(05-24-2012 08:08 PM)SteveAztec Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:54 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  I live in the Bay Area. Anyone who thinks Cal and Stanford own the Bay Area needs to have his/her head examined. Most PAC-12 markets are dominated by pro teams and the Bay Area is no different. I will admit USC/UCLA own bigger part of LA, but they don't OWN it like say Nebraska own Nebraska.

Trust me, no one is talking Stanford/Cal game other than people that graduated from those schools. They do have a ton of alums but to say they own this market is a joke. It is like SU fans saying they are NYC's team. It is just laughable.

When Stanford sucks, no one is paying attention. When Cal sucks, no one cares. It wasn't too long ago Cal had attendance in the 20K range.

This is my experience as a huge college sports fan that lived in NoCal until I was 24 and the next 34 years in SoCal.

It was once thought USC and UCLA "owned" San Diego. TV ratings from the last 2 years of the Aztecs going head to head with SC and UCLA in the San Diego market prove that to be untrue.

I belong to one of those super exclusive country/sports club type of place. Most people that go to this place are college graduates from great academic schools like Cal and Stanford. I always try to talk to the guys about college football. Naturally, I try to talk about PAC schools because they don't know nothing about schools from other parts of the country. The usual comments I got from people here is "Oh, is Stanford playing? Who are they playing?". I heard similar comments regarding Cal too. Some of these comments were from Cal graduates. My family tree is full of Cal graduates and a few Stanford ones as well. Most people here could careless about college FB.

They do care about 49ers and Giants though. There are some Sharks fans but 49ers/Giants definitely dominate majority of the conversation.

(05-24-2012 07:37 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Another thread Quo is about to ruin. I am trying to ignore this negative Nancy, but people are quoting him way too much.

McMurphy prediction is just wrong. End of the story.

He has been right about everything so far. He is like a sith lord.

(05-24-2012 08:09 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Gotcha.

I know this seems odd to many, but I am going to have to step-up & defend Quo Vadis here...

It's not because I totally agree with him...

It's not because I think we could make some 'deal' and be OK with it.


It is because a board is DEAD-DEAD-DEAD without the contrarian view.



Perhaps someday, I'll be that contrarian-view. Sorry.

Everyone is entitled to their view. I'm a fan, but I also like being right, so you won't see me making outrageous statements one way or another. I won't be your contrarian because I don't like trolling for the sake of entertainment. Group me in with the boring message board posters, I guess.

(05-24-2012 08:12 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:10 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:44 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  The only way $60 million is anywhere close to a reality is if 2 or 3 of Boise/UL/Cinci/Uconn is lost plus the BB schools split away.

Other than that happening, it is funny that just days ago with the relevant media on site at the BE meetings (FOX/ESPN/NBC) the "sources" were at $2+ billion.

But CBS is peddling this $60m BS.

But you do need to compare apples to apples. The $2B+ was total contract for 15 years. It was about $150M a year, vs. the $60M from McMurphy.

I can guarantee the Big East's TV contract will not be 15 years long. I suspect 9 or 10.

The Orlando paper's recount of the BE meetings, linked on here somewhere, specifically mentioned the $2B+ was for 15 years. It would be exactly $2.25B total, at $150M a year, for 15 years.

That is $6.7M per all sports school. Not exactly great.

Orlando paper just said $2B but no years. I am assuming it will be for 9 years because that's what was offered by ESPN. BE would be stupid to sign a long term deal like ACC did. BE should target 8-10 years for the next media deal.

(05-24-2012 08:13 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:37 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Another thread Quo is about to ruin. I am trying to ignore this negative Nancy, but people are quoting him way too much.

McMurphy prediction is just wrong. End of the story.

He has been right about everything so far. He is like a sith lord.

Wrong. He was flat out wrong about Boise staying in the MWC. He wrote the article just a couple of days ago.

He is becoming a rumor monger like everyone else in the blogsphere.

(05-24-2012 08:01 PM)Maize Wrote:  I heard about McMurphy report and just go on here and haven't read the post but all this means to me is that TV Networks IMO don't expect UConn, Louisville & Rutgers to be around the BIG EAST very long.

That would be the only reason BE would get such a horrible deal. Maybe ESPN is plotting something again in the background so we have no idea.

(05-24-2012 08:14 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:09 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Gotcha.

I know this seems odd to many, but I am going to have to step-up & defend Quo Vadis here...

It's not because I totally agree with him...

It's not because I think we could make some 'deal' and be OK with it.


It is because a board is DEAD-DEAD-DEAD without the contrarian view.



Perhaps someday, I'll be that contrarian-view. Sorry.

Everyone is entitled to their view. I'm a fan, but I also like being right, so you won't see me making outrageous statements one way or another. I won't be your contrarian because I don't like trolling for the sake of entertainment. Group me in with the boring message board posters, I guess.

You're fine, friend.

If you haven't noticed, I don't make any effort to argue with you for any reason....

(05-24-2012 08:12 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:10 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:44 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  The only way $60 million is anywhere close to a reality is if 2 or 3 of Boise/UL/Cinci/Uconn is lost plus the BB schools split away.

Other than that happening, it is funny that just days ago with the relevant media on site at the BE meetings (FOX/ESPN/NBC) the "sources" were at $2+ billion.

But CBS is peddling this $60m BS.

But you do need to compare apples to apples. The $2B+ was total contract for 15 years. It was about $150M a year, vs. the $60M from McMurphy.

I can guarantee the Big East's TV contract will not be 15 years long. I suspect 9 or 10.

The Orlando paper's recount of the BE meetings, linked on here somewhere, specifically mentioned the $2B+ was for 15 years. It would be exactly $2.25B total, at $150M a year, for 15 years.

That is $6.7M per all sports school. Not exactly great.

? 130 Mill/yr would be 8.66 for the all sports schools.

(05-24-2012 08:13 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:08 PM)SteveAztec Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:54 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  I live in the Bay Area. Anyone who thinks Cal and Stanford own the Bay Area needs to have his/her head examined. Most PAC-12 markets are dominated by pro teams and the Bay Area is no different. I will admit USC/UCLA own bigger part of LA, but they don't OWN it like say Nebraska own Nebraska.

Trust me, no one is talking Stanford/Cal game other than people that graduated from those schools. They do have a ton of alums but to say they own this market is a joke. It is like SU fans saying they are NYC's team. It is just laughable.

When Stanford sucks, no one is paying attention. When Cal sucks, no one cares. It wasn't too long ago Cal had attendance in the 20K range.

This is my experience as a huge college sports fan that lived in NoCal until I was 24 and the next 34 years in SoCal.

It was once thought USC and UCLA "owned" San Diego. TV ratings from the last 2 years of the Aztecs going head to head with SC and UCLA in the San Diego market prove that to be untrue.

I belong to one of those super exclusive country/sports club type of place. Most people that go to this place are college graduates from great academic schools like Cal and Stanford. I always try to talk to the guys about college football. Naturally, I try to talk about PAC schools because they don't know nothing about schools from other parts of the country. The usual comments I got from people here is "Oh, is Stanford playing? Who are they playing?". I heard similar comments regarding Cal too. Some of these comments were from Cal graduates. My family tree is full of Cal graduates and a few Stanford ones as well. Most people here could careless about college FB.

They do care about 49ers and Giants though. There are some Sharks fans but 49ers/Giants definitely dominate majority of the conversation.

Exactly

Look at where our nation, and government is heading. We can either be the EXAMPLE of "Statesmanship", or hate-hate-hate like they do now.

I obviously cast my vote in favor of "Civility."

(05-24-2012 08:17 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:14 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:09 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Gotcha.

I know this seems odd to many, but I am going to have to step-up & defend Quo Vadis here...

It's not because I totally agree with him...

It's not because I think we could make some 'deal' and be OK with it.


It is because a board is DEAD-DEAD-DEAD without the contrarian view.



Perhaps someday, I'll be that contrarian-view. Sorry.

Everyone is entitled to their view. I'm a fan, but I also like being right, so you won't see me making outrageous statements one way or another. I won't be your contrarian because I don't like trolling for the sake of entertainment. Group me in with the boring message board posters, I guess.

You're fine, friend.

If you haven't noticed, I don't make any effort to argue with you for any reason....

Cheers then!

(05-24-2012 08:15 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:13 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:37 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Another thread Quo is about to ruin. I am trying to ignore this negative Nancy, but people are quoting him way too much.

McMurphy prediction is just wrong. End of the story.

He has been right about everything so far. He is like a sith lord.

Wrong. He was flat out wrong about Boise staying in the MWC. He wrote the article just a couple of days ago.

He is becoming a rumor monger like everyone else in the blogsphere.

He never said they were staying, he said they were considering it, and they did and still are.

(05-24-2012 08:17 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:12 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:10 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  But you do need to compare apples to apples. The $2B+ was total contract for 15 years. It was about $150M a year, vs. the $60M from McMurphy.

I can guarantee the Big East's TV contract will not be 15 years long. I suspect 9 or 10.

The Orlando paper's recount of the BE meetings, linked on here somewhere, specifically mentioned the $2B+ was for 15 years. It would be exactly $2.25B total, at $150M a year, for 15 years.

That is $6.7M per all sports school. Not exactly great.

? 130 Mill/yr would be 8.66 for the all sports schools.

\

What about the basketball teams?

(05-24-2012 08:12 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:10 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:44 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  The only way $60 million is anywhere close to a reality is if 2 or 3 of Boise/UL/Cinci/Uconn is lost plus the BB schools split away.

Other than that happening, it is funny that just days ago with the relevant media on site at the BE meetings (FOX/ESPN/NBC) the "sources" were at $2+ billion.

But CBS is peddling this $60m BS.

But you do need to compare apples to apples. The $2B+ was total contract for 15 years. It was about $150M a year, vs. the $60M from McMurphy.

I can guarantee the Big East's TV contract will not be 15 years long. I suspect 9 or 10.

The Orlando paper's recount of the BE meetings, linked on here somewhere, specifically mentioned the $2B+ was for 15 years. It would be exactly $2.25B total, at $150M a year, for 15 years.

That is $6.7M per all sports school. Not exactly great.

It doesnt matter because it is wrong. It is not for 15 years.

(05-24-2012 08:19 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:17 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:12 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:10 PM)General Mike Wrote:  I can guarantee the Big East's TV contract will not be 15 years long. I suspect 9 or 10.

The Orlando paper's recount of the BE meetings, linked on here somewhere, specifically mentioned the $2B+ was for 15 years. It would be exactly $2.25B total, at $150M a year, for 15 years.

That is $6.7M per all sports school. Not exactly great.

? 130 Mill/yr would be 8.66 for the all sports schools.

\

What about the basketball teams?

Numbers are as follows- 8.66 all sports, 6.5 football only, and 2.16 for basketball only. Source, oddly enough is McMurphy's article. This is also assuming the same deal for FOURTEEN teams.

"A $130 million deal per year (as speculated by Pilson) would be worth $8.66 million each for the 10 full members; $6.5 million each for the four football-only members (Boise State, San Diego State, Navy and TBA); and $2.16 million each for the eight non-football members"

(05-24-2012 08:19 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:15 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:13 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:37 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Another thread Quo is about to ruin. I am trying to ignore this negative Nancy, but people are quoting him way too much.

McMurphy prediction is just wrong. End of the story.

He has been right about everything so far. He is like a sith lord.

Wrong. He was flat out wrong about Boise staying in the MWC. He wrote the article just a couple of days ago.

He is becoming a rumor monger like everyone else in the blogsphere.

He never said they were staying, he said they were considering it, and they did and still are.

So Boise AD was lying to the media a couple of days ago? Who is the better source? Boise AD or McMurphy?

(05-24-2012 08:24 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:19 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:15 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:13 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:37 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Another thread Quo is about to ruin. I am trying to ignore this negative Nancy, but people are quoting him way too much.

McMurphy prediction is just wrong. End of the story.

He has been right about everything so far. He is like a sith lord.

Wrong. He was flat out wrong about Boise staying in the MWC. He wrote the article just a couple of days ago.

He is becoming a rumor monger like everyone else in the blogsphere.

He never said they were staying, he said they were considering it, and they did and still are.

So Boise AD was lying to the media a couple of days ago? Who is the better source? Boise AD or McMurphy?

Probably McMurphy.

(05-24-2012 08:25 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:24 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:19 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:15 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 08:13 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  He has been right about everything so far. He is like a sith lord.

Wrong. He was flat out wrong about Boise staying in the MWC. He wrote the article just a couple of days ago.

He is becoming a rumor monger like everyone else in the blogsphere.

He never said they were staying, he said they were considering it, and they did and still are.

So Boise AD was lying to the media a couple of days ago? Who is the better source? Boise AD or McMurphy?

Probably McMurphy.