If this really is their plan, they're not getting any of the schools that they have at the top of the list. And if they don't get them, this new conference isn't all that special.

I think Darren Rovell must have not added that the monetary breakdown is temporary. Most conferences make new members take less than a full share. Nebraska made $14 mill in their first season in the Big Ten while the rest of the league made $24 mill. Penn State had to deal with the same thing. Rutgers and Maryland will also. It's very normal.

I can understand if the first few years the new teams make less money because of start up costs and fees of starting a new league. However, if it's for a full 12 years, there is no way that is gonna fly. Teams like Depaul, Seton Hall and Providence who have had very little success recently do not deserve twice as much money as say Butler or Xavier in year's 4-12. That's just gonna breed discontent among the league. My guess and hope is it's only for a few years just like the Big 10 and Pac 12 does.

Again, I have to think this is a misunderstanding.

Either the source was talking with more knowledge/authority than he had (speculating what he thought would make sense, rather than what had been discussed) or the journalist misinterpreted something much more ordinary (entry fees, phased-in revenue sharing, etc.)

everyone needs to relax. no one from the c7 claimed this was the plan. "a source" said it could be the plan

what am i missing? what does it mean share television rights evenly, but split up the rest?

The newer schools would be foolish to join if these were the terms beyond a couple years.

(01-06-2013 02:27 AM)stever20 Wrote:  They might be, but they're wrong. It's like I said just asking for big time trouble....

The thing that would be interesting now, does CBS and NBC go to the A10 and say we'll give you guys this much more money to try to save the A10(and, quite frankly, even ESPN). Butler and Xavier might see about this to put pressure on the CYO gang.....

Because those conferences have TV contracts they are locked into for however many more years. No one is going to offer you much more money.

Plus this move for those teams would be beyond financial. They would still likely make more money with us then without us, but with us they get added benefits. The get great recruiting areas, MSG, possibly the Big East name, an elitist reputation instead of a mid major reputation, etc. This is a best move for all schools and Ill wager that if this is proposed, every team that is offered will join.

(01-06-2013 05:18 AM)mj4life Wrote:  i don 't think this would be the long term tv revenue sharing model, the C7 may use this model to help pay the exits fees & maybe the Big East name. they could also offer whomever a greater percentage of it's NCAA credits to help off set the difference. either way 2.5 million is a whole lot more than what any one they offer will receive in the current conference payout

Great point. The C7 are taking all the costs and risks of starting a new conference. They have to negotiate for the Big East name, MSG, early exit, TV deal, etc. I think this split of the TV contracts should be imposed for the first TV deal and then an equal split beyond that.

(01-06-2013 12:45 PM)BEast Wrote:  

(01-06-2013 02:27 AM)stever20 Wrote:  They might be, but they're wrong. It's like I said just asking for big time trouble....

The thing that would be interesting now, does CBS and NBC go to the A10 and say we'll give you guys this much more money to try to save the A10(and, quite frankly, even ESPN). Butler and Xavier might see about this to put pressure on the CYO gang.....

Because those conferences have TV contracts they are locked into for however many more years. No one is going to offer you much more money.

Plus this move for those teams would be beyond financial. They would still likely make more money with us then without us, but with us they get added benefits. The get great recruiting areas, MSG, possibly the Big East name, an elitist reputation instead of a mid major reputation, etc. This is a best move for all schools and Ill wager that if this is proposed, every team that is offered will join.

You assume that these schools would get the Big East reputation. I highly doubt that this would be the case.

Instead, I firmly believe that this would enforce the idea that these schools are inferior members of the conference. You aren't promoting them to your status, you are just making sure everyone knows that you don't consider them equals.

Hate to harp on this. This idea of "status" is going to be a real issue, given most of the targets will already believe (for obvious reasons) that they are already superior to most of the old guard.

I suppose its up to the C7 but they simply aren't getting difference makers with this.

(01-06-2013 01:14 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  You assume that these schools would get the Big East reputation. I highly doubt that this would be the case.

Instead, I firmly believe that this would enforce the idea that these schools are inferior members of the conference. You aren't promoting them to your status, you are just making sure everyone knows that you don't consider them equals.

Why wouldn't the rep come with the founders of the Big East?

Disagree. Other then initial comment, I don't think anyone would think that. They were picked out because they are the best in the country at basketball with basketball first mind. Their status has been proven in tourney bids and will be proven on the court.

(01-06-2013 01:30 PM)Title Wrote:  Hate to harp on this. This idea of "status" is going to be a real issue, given most of the targets will already believe (for obvious reasons) that they are already superior to most of the old guard.

I suppose its up to the C7 but they simply aren't getting difference makers with this.

Status will be this: They will be in the best basketball first conference, making the more money then any of the other conferences, with the best exposure then the other conferences. That is a drastic improvement in status for these possible incoming schools.

Honestly, if Im an AD, I look at numbers and reasons. I see a ton of gain from this and no losses. A ton of pros for coming into this conference and only one con. Needless to say it wouldn't be a roadblock at all.

Lets make this simple. If its one penny less, if im correct, you can count out Butler. And from everything I'm seeing today that would go for Creighton and Xavier as well. And of course Gonzaga would have the position.

So, that's what you are left with for your "best" non-BCS conference. Only problem? It wouldn't be

(01-06-2013 01:46 PM)Title Wrote:  Lets make this simple. If its one penny less, if im correct, you can count out Butler. And from everything I'm seeing today that would go for Creighton and Xavier as well. And of course Gonzaga would have the position.

So, that's what you are left with for your "best" non-BCS conference. Only problem? It wouldn't be

Sorry to hear that Butler's AD.

I don't see how a deal that is helping everyone profit is a bad deal. Would it be the best non-BCS conference? Maybe not, but it would be paid like it and have the best exposure. This conference would have the best shot at being the best non-BCS conference, because of those reasons. Everything else still has to be proven on the field though.

ADs have little to nothing to do with this. This is up the chain at the University level.

BTW, The C7 isn't getting close to those dollars without those teams either.

(01-06-2013 01:55 PM)Title Wrote:  ADs have little to nothing to do with this. This is up the chain at the University level.

BTW, The C7 isn't getting close to those dollars without those teams either.

That's just not true.

(01-06-2013 01:55 PM)Title Wrote:  ADs have little to nothing to do with this. This is up the chain at the University level.

BTW, The C7 isn't getting close to those dollars without those teams either.

And are you involved there? You make it sound like your voice is the end all be all for Butler.

Disagree they were offered that amount already, without having teams secured. Getting 5 times the amount of money that the A-10 and other conferences shouldnt be a problem. But money isnt the key factor here. Exposure is. The C7 would be definitely getting the most of that.

(01-06-2013 01:46 PM)Title Wrote:  Lets make this simple. If its one penny less, if im correct, you can count out Butler. And from everything I'm seeing today that would go for Creighton and Xavier as well. And of course Gonzaga would have the position.

So, that's what you are left with for your "best" non-BCS conference. Only problem? It wouldn't be

Are you James Danko the president of Butler?



Are you also the president of Xavier and Creighton?

Why don't we stop talking like we are the ones making the decisions. Also, I highly doubt Butler walks away from 4.999999999999 million because GTown gets 5.0000000000001 million.

Of course, I wasn't being literal. But if I know anything of the school, athletic department, or college basketball program, if that article is materially accurate BU won't participate. On the others? Since that seems to be the ONLY sentiment, I can't do anything but assume something similar.

"Better off" isn't defined by 2mm dollars folks.

(01-06-2013 02:08 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-06-2013 01:46 PM)Title Wrote:  Lets make this simple. If its one penny less, if im correct, you can count out Butler. And from everything I'm seeing today that would go for Creighton and Xavier as well. And of course Gonzaga would have the position.

So, that's what you are left with for your "best" non-BCS conference. Only problem? It wouldn't be

Are you James Danko the president of Butler?



Are you also the president of Xavier and Creighton?

Why don't we stop talking like we are the ones making the decisions. Also, I highly doubt Butler walks away from 4.999999999999 million because GTown gets 5.0000000000001 million.

Redman, if the press report is accurate, they have a point. They're looking at significantly less money--$5M vs $2.222M if it's 10 teams, $5M vs $1.333M if it's 12 teams. And they're looking at a huge slap in the face.

And if one candidate--especially Xavier, Butler or VCU--publicly turns down this arrangement, it emboldens the others to do the same. And I really don't think that Fox Sports would be happy with the news that instead of Butler, Xavier and VCU or Creighton, it's Dayton, Richmond and Wichita State. (No disrespect, just a clear step down from one group of three to the other.)

I still say this is almost as pointless as the "Would we take Cincy/UConn" argument--what was reported can't be real. No way.