(08-15-2012 06:31 AM)TOGC Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 11:26 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  I'm curious as to if we did get BYU, would it be worth it to open a western all sports division for our football onlys.

That is not going to happen. It would dilute the basketball side way too much and you'd never get the votes.

How would adding BYU and SDSU dilute the basketball side?

If the Big 5 continue to isolate us like clearly they are (latest being Orange Bowl inclusion/exclusion list) then we are still up $hit creek. No matter how much money we have doesn't mean you keep coaches and bring in top recruits, which then just dominoes to the field. Believe me guys, UL has plenty of money already, but still struggle to keep top tier coaches and bring in enough top recruits, because of the conference/bowl situation not just this year but the last 10 years. The key component here aside from the schools/not fans getting a pay check is to get locked in with one of these big 6 bowls and sitting just as tall as the rest at the playoff table. Or else the tv contract is an overblown contract in a few years once the tv network and the conference realize the Big 5 truly are leaving us out. I don't know if the tv guys have enough pull or specifically if NBC can bring in one of these spots, through Notre Dame possibly or not, but it needs to be worked on parallel to the tv deal. And as of right now, the only headlines we see on that side of it is not favorable to the Big East.

(08-14-2012 11:26 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  I'm curious as to if we did get BYU, would it be worth it to open a western all sports division for our football onlys.

Doubt it.

Believe the ACC was mistaken in expanding to 14 teams about the value of new teams would bring to all the others bottom line...as the TV $$$$ were all back loaded to the NEXT DECADE.

Big East though needs 14 team to set up national games and games in 4 different time zones...but jumping from 14 to 16, odds are, like the ACC, you hit a point of diminishing returns.

Big East hasn't even played a game as a 12 team conf yet...or obviously as a 14 team conf...let's just see how these negotiations take the conf over the next 2-4 months as we will certainly know a lot more about the future of this conf by then.

(08-15-2012 07:05 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 06:31 AM)TOGC Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 11:26 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  I'm curious as to if we did get BYU, would it be worth it to open a western all sports division for our football onlys.

That is not going to happen. It would dilute the basketball side way too much and you'd never get the votes.

How would adding BYU and SDSU dilute the basketball side?

He missed the main point. It would be better for travel for western teams, but it would likely dilute the overall TV contract value in both football and basketball. After BYU, nobody left in the west (or anywhere else) bumps up the TV contract. Nobody but SDSU really helps BB, although BYU wouldn't hurt. And he's right that the eastern schools would never vote for it for all sports.

But let's say we really do go for a western all sports division, and assume for a moment that it does NOT hurt the TV contract (which it absolutely would). Add BYU, AFA and Fresno, and one more (UNLV, CSU, etc.)to make 8, with SMU, UH, Boise and SDSU. I don't personally have a serious issue with that, if it doesn't cost us contract bucks, but:

1) In Olympic sports, as long as we play strictly in divisions, I don't think the eastern side would have an issue with it, but mixing the two sides causes all kinds of travel issues for non-revenue sports.

2) I'm guessing, but I think UH and SMU would HATE that idea. They didn't sign up to play in the Mountain West 2.0. And if you move them to the east, now you need two more teams, and dilute the contract even more.

3) If you add 2 more teams, now you're up to 18 in football. That ain't happening, b/c the two sides would never play each other. You might as well have two different conferences, or an "Alliance" like the MWC and C-USA contemplated. Even worse, you would now have 26 in basketball, and REALLY dilute the product there. That's also a no go.

4) Isolating the east and west also hurts some of the attractiveness of airing football games in 4 different time zones.

I just don't see how that's practical. It doesn't make any more sense than having all the Catholic BB schools add football and be all sports, too.

Btw, I am NOT hating on the west. I LOVE having Boise and SDSU, plus #14. And I really have no philosophical issue with it. I just don't think it is financially and logistically practical to build a western all sports division.

(08-15-2012 06:12 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Guys, we may get paid out the ying yang for this new tv contract(s) but what good does that do if we don't have a respectable seat at the playoff table and backup big bowl plan like the others have. The Big 5 will let NBC pay us gobs of money, but still do their best to keep us on the other side of the moat. That part is still not being worked out, and goes back to what I was talking about yesterday about hiring a tv guy for commish. Let the consult firm handle the tv part and we needed a guy to get us back on the other side of the moat....just saying.

NBC pays us a crap ton of money for content but if we realize in the next few years that we are still being held in check on the field then viewers slowly walk away from the NBC channels. Just playing realist/devils advocate here for discussion.

Much easier to "break down the doors of an ESPN playoff" if Big East teams have the $$$$ to recruit, to invest in new facilities, to hire some of the best coaches, put together some of the best teams.

Maybe it takes time to Playoff Scenario #2 before Big East gets basically a permanent spot at the table...but its much easier to GET THERE if one has a major TV deal, offering up GREAT exposure, plus, some badly needed $$$$$ to their coffers.

Rome wasn't built in a day...and neither was this conf or future conf.

Just do it...and then do it again....and again...and again.

(08-15-2012 07:56 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 06:12 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Guys, we may get paid out the ying yang for this new tv contract(s) but what good does that do if we don't have a respectable seat at the playoff table and backup big bowl plan like the others have. The Big 5 will let NBC pay us gobs of money, but still do their best to keep us on the other side of the moat. That part is still not being worked out, and goes back to what I was talking about yesterday about hiring a tv guy for commish. Let the consult firm handle the tv part and we needed a guy to get us back on the other side of the moat....just saying.

NBC pays us a crap ton of money for content but if we realize in the next few years that we are still being held in check on the field then viewers slowly walk away from the NBC channels. Just playing realist/devils advocate here for discussion.

Much easier to "break down the doors of an ESPN playoff" if Big East teams have the $$$$ to recruit, to invest in new facilities, to hire some of the best coaches, put together some of the best teams.

Maybe it takes time to Playoff Scenario #2 before Big East gets basically a permanent spot at the table...but its much easier to GET THERE if one has a major TV deal, offering up GREAT exposure, plus, some badly needed $$$$$ to their coffers.

Rome wasn't built in a day...and neither was this conf or future conf.

Just do it...and then do it again....and again...and again.

I didn't say DONT go after a mega tv deal......I said we need to be going after the tv deal and the bowl/playoff situation parallel to each other. And yes like I said we (UL) are a good example of a program already with money and have been successful that still has to replenish coaches and recruits, because they don't stay/come to us.

I agree with KL. IF we get a TV deal close to the ACC, there is a better chance of staying in the bowl club, too. And I bet more often than not, our champ makes the major bowl games, and thus dilutes the recruiting argument against us. Adn it's not like we are going to beat the top SEC or Big Ten schools for recruits on a consistent basis, unless you're talking about the lower level teams, which we do anyway. I would argue that a Big East team has a better chance of making the playoffs and the major bowls than the lower level teams do in the SEC, B1G, B12 and ACC. The obstacles are not in the same universe.

It certainly would be better if we had a permanent bowl seat, but look at past history. Even with the AQ, our teams were usually chosen last by the BCS bowls. The long term solution is to get competitive TV money, be competitive on the field, and also help sell out the bowl games. But I don't think it's the huge disaster that some people think it will be, even if we don't get a contract bowl guaranteed seat. We'll see.

The major bowl money is not guaranteed, but we would pick it up in a lot of years. It just wouldn't be guaranteed. And the money per team pales in comparison to what we might get in a TV contract now. In the current BCS setup, they are about the same.

Big difference now. TV money rules. We would still have the recruiting issue to deal with, but even with a contract bowl, there is no guarantee we would make the playoffs. Otherwise, there's not a huge difference.

Plus, just b/c we hired a TV guy as commish, it does NOT mean he will be any less aggressive about going after a contract bowl tie. Aresco has already said that. And you can bet he has the connections to get it done, if it is at all possible. I just don't see how we could have made a better choice for commish.

Also, our future TV partner will likely push hard for our inclusion. This is not over yet.

(08-15-2012 06:12 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Guys, we may get paid out the ying yang for this new tv contract(s) but what good does that do if we don't have a respectable seat at the playoff table and backup big bowl plan like the others have. The Big 5 will let NBC pay us gobs of money, but still do their best to keep us on the other side of the moat. That part is still not being worked out, and goes back to what I was talking about yesterday about hiring a tv guy for commish. Let the consult firm handle the tv part and we needed a guy to get us back on the other side of the moat....just saying.

NBC pays us a crap ton of money for content but if we realize in the next few years that we are still being held in check on the field then viewers slowly walk away from the NBC channels. Just playing realist/devils advocate here for discussion.

I think its pretty obvious we will create a new bowl and have Fed-ex sponser it. Chill at let this thing play out. We are in good hands with the new commish.

Well, the last bit of news about the big bowls is the article regarding the Orange Bowl and their partners with ND, and the others...not including us. So contrary to prior speculation from within the BE office we are not linked to the Orange Bowl.

If we let Fed Ex get a Big Bowl put together, we've had this discussion either here or on twitter I can't remember....the best we'll get are the #3/4 teams from Pac 12, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, and maybe the #2 from the ACC.

(08-15-2012 07:59 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I didn't say DONT go after a mega tv deal......I said we need to be going after the tv deal and the bowl/playoff situation parallel to each other. And yes like I said we (UL) are a good example of a program already with money and have been successful that still has to replenish coaches and recruits, because they don't stay/come to us.

Everyone knows that...which is why I stated that the Big East might have to wait till Playoff Scenario/Version 2.0 to get a permanent seat...but in the meantime...use new $$$ to invest in your programs, hire the best coaches, build the best teams...and TEAR DOWN THOSE ESPN PLAYOFF WALLS until Playoff Version #2 comes along.

Big East may not get EVERYTHING it wants this go around...and thats out of the fans and even coaches control...so just deal with it...build up the conf to be one of the Best 3-4 conferences in the land...and when it comes time to change the playoff format...it will be the Big East sitting at the BIG BOY TABLE.

(08-15-2012 07:59 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I didn't say DONT go after a mega tv deal......I said we need to be going after the tv deal and the bowl/playoff situation parallel to each other. And yes like I said we (UL) are a good example of a program already with money and have been successful that still has to replenish coaches and recruits, because they don't stay/come to us.

WE ARE doing that. Aresco mentioned that yesterday on CFL. And once the TV deal is set, our TV partner will help us.

And even if UL got into the B12 or ACC, you would still lose recruits and coaches to the bigger schools. So all we're talking about are the lower level schools, and I don't think you're losing many recruits to Iowa State, Kansas, etc. in football. And if you are now, you still will if you join the B12.

Plus, it's not like the BE champ is being eliminated from the playoffs and bowls. If you're good enough, you still get in. Do you think it would be easier to beat Oklahoma and Texas to get there? Or to beat VT, FSU and Clemson to get there? Or to beat Alabama, Florida, LSU, etc.?

When you boil it down, you can actually make an argument that the BE is an EASIER path, lol.

(08-15-2012 08:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 07:59 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I didn't say DONT go after a mega tv deal......I said we need to be going after the tv deal and the bowl/playoff situation parallel to each other. And yes like I said we (UL) are a good example of a program already with money and have been successful that still has to replenish coaches and recruits, because they don't stay/come to us.

WE ARE doing that. Aresco mentioned that yesterday on CFL. And once the TV deal is set, our TV partner will help us.

And even if UL got into the B12 or ACC, you would still lose recruits and coaches to the bigger schools. So all we're talking about are the lower level schools, and I don't think you're losing many recruits to Iowa State, Kansas, etc. in football. And if you are now, you still will if you join the B12.

Plus, it's not like the BE champ is being eliminated from the playoffs and bowls. If you're good enough, you still get in. Do you think it would be easier to beat Oklahoma and Texas to get there? Or to beat VT, FSU and Clemson to get there? Or to beat Alabama, Florida, LSU, etc.?

When you boil it down, you can actually make an argument that the BE is an EASIER path, lol.

And that will be exposed for years from the other 5 as their argument to keep us out every year...even the ACC when we know how bad they are on the field....

(08-15-2012 09:20 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 08:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 07:59 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I didn't say DONT go after a mega tv deal......I said we need to be going after the tv deal and the bowl/playoff situation parallel to each other. And yes like I said we (UL) are a good example of a program already with money and have been successful that still has to replenish coaches and recruits, because they don't stay/come to us.

WE ARE doing that. Aresco mentioned that yesterday on CFL. And once the TV deal is set, our TV partner will help us.

And even if UL got into the B12 or ACC, you would still lose recruits and coaches to the bigger schools. So all we're talking about are the lower level schools, and I don't think you're losing many recruits to Iowa State, Kansas, etc. in football. And if you are now, you still will if you join the B12.

Plus, it's not like the BE champ is being eliminated from the playoffs and bowls. If you're good enough, you still get in. Do you think it would be easier to beat Oklahoma and Texas to get there? Or to beat VT, FSU and Clemson to get there? Or to beat Alabama, Florida, LSU, etc.?

When you boil it down, you can actually make an argument that the BE is an EASIER path, lol.

And that will be exposed for years from the other 5 as their argument to keep us out every year...even the ACC when we know how bad they are on the field....

So your recruiters just have to make the more honest, and better, argument. I think you have a somewhat legit concern. I just think it's overblown.

And things aren't settled just yet, either. Can't get worse. Could get a lot better, but it will hinge on the TV deal, and who our partner(s) are, to some extent.