Could we just lop off the next 13 months and get to July 1, 2013? Then we'll know who will be here, what the contract is, and we can get things rolling.

I'm sure 'Cuse and Pitt would like to haul now, plus any other teams that might be leaving, lol.

The Big East's value is somewhere between 2.9 trillion dollars and the $100 Sizzler gift card John Marinatto just found in his junk drawer.

I'm confused...where are all the anonymous sources?

All I see is:

1) Sports economist David Carter, executive director of the Sports Business Institute at the University of Southern California.

2) New York-based sports media consultant Lee Berke

3) Former Madison Square Garden president and sports television executive Bob Gutkowski, who runs the sports and entertainment division of New York-based Innovative Strategic Management.

So let me get this straight....the tiny Hartford Courant found not one, not two but THREE PEOPLE that they could go on the record with and QUOTE, yet the big, mighty CBS Sports writer McMurphy couldn't find ONE person to go on the record with?

I think we know why....McMurphy was just using the 2 former Big East Commish's as sources to hopefully bring down the conf...all because the Big East President not only fired Marinatto, that they didn't follow his lead by approving the Big East deal last year.

McMurphy is using his pulpit to try and save his "buddy", to show that he was right and the Big East Presidents were wrong.

Think about it...McMurphy was the only writer that I'm aware of that said that Marinatto should NOT have been fired (wrote an entire article how Marinatto was a "victim")...that alone shows that McMurphy is upset that he may not have the same inside scoop under a new Big East Administration.

Its even more clearer now who McMurphy was using as an "inside source" when he wrote about how USF President Judy Genshaft was the opponent in keeping UCF out of the conf over the last 2 years.

(05-26-2012 10:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Well, the smart thing to do is ignore all the estimates, b/c nobody has a damn clue until September, and even then, it'll likely be November before we hear some real numbers.

I actually agree with Quo. Using total contract numbers doesn't mean jack.

The more accurate number to pin down, if one could, would be the yearly average. The last offer from ESPN was about $110M a year, for 9 Years, right? For 9 FB teams.

Even the ACC number is goofy, and hard to pin down. The media keeps saying $155M a year (which I think is what it is NOW), and $17.1M average per team, per year, which is much higher for 14 teams ($239M total a year), or even 12 teams ($205M).

So, who the hell knows? I'll just be happy if everybody stays together, and we get the best offer available in open bidding.

Oh well, it's the off season, nothing much better to debate, and this estimate beats the hell out of the anonymous one, lol.

Yeah, the ACC number being thrown around (155M / yr) has been hard to pin down.

A lot of sources say ESPN offered a similar deal to the BE in the first round of negotiations.

Turns out this article says ESPN only pays the ACC about 120M, Raycom kicks in an additional 30M.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...2-network/

I would guess the BE was offered around the 120M figure, if sources are correct about similar to ACC money. Others use the 155M figure.

We'll probably never know for sure.

^ I've read $110M a year, too, from ESPN last time for the BE. Who knows?

I just think the BE will do fine, especially if nobody leaves.

I hope everyone TWEETS this article to CBS Sports Brett McMurphy, @McMurphyCBS...to let him know what its like to find not one, not two, but THREE SOURCES that will go ON THE RECORD to talk about the upcoming Big East TV Deal.

Its more clear than ever as to why McMurphy didn't want to name his two "sources" because those 2 sources are named Marinatto and Tranghese.

I heard it was Larry and Curly.

(05-27-2012 08:27 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I hope everyone TWEETS this article to CBS Sports Brett McMurphy, @McMurphyCBS...to let him know what its like to find not one, not two, but THREE SOURCES that will go ON THE RECORD to talk about the upcoming Big East TV Deal.

Its more clear than ever as to why McMurphy didn't want to name his two "sources" because those 2 sources are named Marinatto and Tranghese.

Those no name sources were no name because they dont want to look like idiots when the deal is finalized.

(05-27-2012 09:10 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 08:27 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I hope everyone TWEETS this article to CBS Sports Brett McMurphy, @McMurphyCBS...to let him know what its like to find not one, not two, but THREE SOURCES that will go ON THE RECORD to talk about the upcoming Big East TV Deal.

Its more clear than ever as to why McMurphy didn't want to name his two "sources" because those 2 sources are named Marinatto and Tranghese.

Those no name sources were no name because they dont want to look like idiots when the deal is finalized.

Agree....and now seeing how Marinatto et al are whining to McMurphy how the Big East Presidents should have signed ESPN's deal last year...it makes one wonder how much $$$$ ESPN offered Marinatto under the table to get that deal done.....

Things that make you go hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

(05-27-2012 06:40 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I'm confused...where are all the anonymous sources?

All I see is:

1) Sports economist David Carter, executive director of the Sports Business Institute at the University of Southern California.

2) New York-based sports media consultant Lee Berke

3) Former Madison Square Garden president and sports television executive Bob Gutkowski, who runs the sports and entertainment division of New York-based Innovative Strategic Management.

So let me get this straight....the tiny Hartford Courant found not one, not two but THREE PEOPLE that they could go on the record with and QUOTE, yet the big, mighty CBS Sports writer McMurphy couldn't find ONE person to go on the record with?

I think we know why....McMurphy was just using the 2 former Big East Commish's as sources to hopefully bring down the conf...all because the Big East President not only fired Marinatto, that they didn't follow his lead by approving the Big East deal last year.

McMurphy is using his pulpit to try and save his "buddy", to show that he was right and the Big East Presidents were wrong.

Think about it...McMurphy was the only writer that I'm aware of that said that Marinatto should NOT have been fired (wrote an entire article how Marinatto was a "victim")...that alone shows that McMurphy is upset that he may not have the same inside scoop under a new Big East Administration.

Its even more clearer now who McMurphy was using as an "inside source" when he wrote about how USF President Judy Genshaft was the opponent in keeping UCF out of the conf over the last 2 years.

Completely agree. I like McMurphy, but he was far too close to Marianatto to be objective at this point. I've pretty much decided to stop reading him, unless it's something informative, as opposed to commentary.

(05-27-2012 06:40 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I think we know why....McMurphy was just using the 2 former Big East Commish's as sources to hopefully bring down the conf...all because the Big East President not only fired Marinatto, that they didn't follow his lead by approving the Big East deal last year.

McMurphy is using his pulpit to try and save his "buddy", to show that he was right and the Big East Presidents were wrong.

Do you really think McMurphy would risk his credibility, which is really the only asset a journalist has, to prop up a tenuous "friendship" with Marinatto?

McMurphy may well end up being wrong about our media deal, but there's no justification for this endless snooping for "anti big east bias". It is a bad infection around here. As soon as anyone in the media posts something that isn't 100% pro big east, silly posters around here start the "bias" chant, and even worse are the ones who write long screeds trying to "prove" they have an ax to grind.

(05-27-2012 10:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 06:40 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I think we know why....McMurphy was just using the 2 former Big East Commish's as sources to hopefully bring down the conf...all because the Big East President not only fired Marinatto, that they didn't follow his lead by approving the Big East deal last year.

McMurphy is using his pulpit to try and save his "buddy", to show that he was right and the Big East Presidents were wrong.

Do you really think McMurphy would risk his credibility, which is really the only asset a journalist has, to prop up a tenuous "friendship" with Marinatto?

McMurphy may well end up being wrong about our media deal, but there's no justification for this endless snooping for "anti big east bias". It is a bad infection around here. As soon as anyone in the media posts something that isn't 100% pro big east, silly posters around here start the "bias" chant, and even worse are the ones who write long screeds trying to "prove" they have an ax to grind.

Common sense tells me no, but the timing is such that I believe it to be the case. It was an immediate 180 the day Marianatto was let go.

(05-27-2012 10:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 06:40 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I think we know why....McMurphy was just using the 2 former Big East Commish's as sources to hopefully bring down the conf...all because the Big East President not only fired Marinatto, that they didn't follow his lead by approving the Big East deal last year.

McMurphy is using his pulpit to try and save his "buddy", to show that he was right and the Big East Presidents were wrong.

Do you really think McMurphy would risk his credibility, which is really the only asset a journalist has, to prop up a tenuous "friendship" with Marinatto?

So McMurphy used Marinatto as a source...big deal...but now his source is out-of-office (McMurphy was even the only national writer to devote an entire column as to basically say Marinatto should NOT have been fired), it will probably take him a lot of time to build up new sources inside the new administration...

This happens all over...from rivals and scout.com (when certain coaches leave...so does many of their sources...and it takes up time for them to build up a trusting relationship with the new ones) to newspapers.

With reporters/columnists now tweeting every 10 mins...the biz model seems to be throw as much as you can on the wall...as some of it is bound to stick...vs the "old days" when newspaper columnists had just 2 articles to write per week.

Credibility?

That's the least of their worries...its all about followers/hits.

Come on guys, Marinatto is NOT McMurphy's source. He cares about the conference. He was a pallbearer at Gavitt's funeral! He's not going to say it's only worth peanuts now to McMurph.

I don't know if McMurphy holds a grudge, or not. I don't care.

I don't know who is McMurphy's source. Again, I don't care.

I do know that he used an unnamed industry source, and his OPINION has been countered by a number of other industry sources' OPINIONS, who were all named.

(05-27-2012 10:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't know if McMurphy holds a grudge, or not. I don't care.

I don't know who is McMurphy's source. Again, I don't care.

I do know that he used an unnamed industry source, and his OPINION has been countered by a number of other industry sources' OPINIONS, who were all named.

Including a guy (Pilson, ex of CBS Sports) named in the same McMurphy column.

(05-27-2012 11:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 10:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't know if McMurphy holds a grudge, or not. I don't care.

I don't know who is McMurphy's source. Again, I don't care.

I do know that he used an unnamed industry source, and his OPINION has been countered by a number of other industry sources' OPINIONS, who were all named.

Including a guy (Pilson, ex of CBS Sports) named in the same McMurphy column.

True. I keep forgetting that one, lol. Thanks for honing my argument.

I suspect those no name sources stayed no name because they have an agenda to spread rumors about instability of the BE and the low ball value. I suspect those sources came from Espn. If they want to be credible, they would have stake their names next to their quotes like the Cpotent article. Those with agenda merely used Mcmurphy to spread rumors because he is a mouthpiece and does not work for Espn directly.

Gawd, I hate "Total TV Contract Amount" quotes....

Soooooo irrelevant, since the term of the contract determines whether it's good-money or poor.

We should convert all such nonsense into "Per School / Year numbers.

Total amount is meaningless, since $1.5BN over 20 years clearly sucks to $1.5BN over ten years.

Frank said before that what will really happen is somewhere in-between. I'm inclined to believe that.