(01-10-2013 06:29 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Yea, I don't see why the new members should be forced to pay more than an equal share of "start-up costs". There should be no additional entrance fee. If not for these schools potentially joining, the Big East would have no chance of receiving a large, new tv deal and doubling what they are currently making.

Agree if 12 teams get together and just start a new conference, as there are only start-up costs under that scenario.

If the C7 spend $$$ to get the BE name, MSG, etc., then the value of that particular property is known, and the new schools can pay for their 1/12 share of that known value, along with their share of start-up costs.

Either way, payment can be up front or over time. Take your pick.

(01-10-2013 06:47 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 06:29 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 05:20 PM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 04:51 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 04:29 PM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  Suppose, after a formal valuation determines the value of the BE name, the C7 buy the BE name, rights, MSG, etc. from UC, UConn and USF for $36 million and spend another $12 million organizing the conference, paying attorneys, hiring personnel, negotiating, etc., that's $48 million out of pocket of the C7 to be the BE. Then, the C7 decide to grow this new BE to 12. Take $48 million divided by 12 teams , or $4 million each. In business, those who come in after frequently pay more than those who were there on the front end, so bump the value to $5 million for each new school ($4 million for their share of the value paid out to date and $1 million as an "entry fee"). The new schools can pay this in a lump sum, and get immediate equal TV distributions, or they can buy in over time with a lower conference payout until the entire $5 million is covered.

If this is the scenario that results in a lower payout, I have no problem with it. If the C7 are trying to "big time" the new conference mates, then I have an issue.

Are you also considering all the exit money that still needs to be divided by the Big East and the NCAA credits? I'm sure that is a nice chunk of change for the C7.

I am assuming that each school that buys in would be asked to cover their 1/12 share of (1) BE name and MSG value as determined by the cost paid to UC, UConn and USF, as they become a part-owner of such value going forward; and (2) Start-up costs. There may or may not be an additional kicker to buy-in as an entry fee. I assumed there was in my example.

I don't assume that any new school would participate in exit money or NCAA credits. Rather, the C7 would use that to fund the BE name acquisition and the new conference start-up costs, and pocket the remainder.

Yea, I don't see why the new members should be forced to pay more than an equal share of "start-up costs". There should be no additional entrance fee. If not for these schools potentially joining, the Big East would have no chance of receiving a large, new tv deal and doubling what they are currently making.

Well on the flip side, without the C7 no way can the 5 new members make almost 10x's what they make now.

Maybe but I think Butler has a much value in basketball as Boise in football. I am not sure which teams other than Georgetown have more TV value than a couple of the new teams coming in.

Being a Fresno and a Butler fan I would hate to see this fall apart by teams trying to be too greedy. It is a new conference, have everyone split the start-up costs and move forward on equal footing.

(01-10-2013 09:04 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 06:47 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 06:29 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 05:20 PM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 04:51 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  Are you also considering all the exit money that still needs to be divided by the Big East and the NCAA credits? I'm sure that is a nice chunk of change for the C7.

I am assuming that each school that buys in would be asked to cover their 1/12 share of (1) BE name and MSG value as determined by the cost paid to UC, UConn and USF, as they become a part-owner of such value going forward; and (2) Start-up costs. There may or may not be an additional kicker to buy-in as an entry fee. I assumed there was in my example.

I don't assume that any new school would participate in exit money or NCAA credits. Rather, the C7 would use that to fund the BE name acquisition and the new conference start-up costs, and pocket the remainder.

Yea, I don't see why the new members should be forced to pay more than an equal share of "start-up costs". There should be no additional entrance fee. If not for these schools potentially joining, the Big East would have no chance of receiving a large, new tv deal and doubling what they are currently making.

Well on the flip side, without the C7 no way can the 5 new members make almost 10x's what they make now.

Maybe but I think Butler has a much value in basketball as Boise in football. I am not sure which teams other than Georgetown have more TV value than a couple of the new teams coming in.

Being a Fresno and a Butler fan I would hate to see this fall apart by teams trying to be too greedy. It is a new conference, have everyone split the start-up costs and move forward on equal footing.

Uh no. If Butler stays in the A-10 that conference TV deal which was just signed for something like 400k a school is not jumping up 5 times that amount let alone 10 times.

Xavier, Dayton, Butler, St. Louis and Richmond. No brainer 12 team league there...

Why are we still talking about this?

Fox is requiring 12 teams.

Butler and Xavier aren't going to accept anything other than reasonable distribution and frankly it wouldn't even make sense for the other league members to start a relationship with that sort of tension.

So what's going to happen is a reasonable agreement that moves to equality over a few years. Everything else is just posturing. There's only one end to this.

(01-10-2013 10:06 PM)Title Wrote:  Why are we still talking about this?

Fox is requiring 12 teams.

Butler and Xavier aren't going to accept anything other than reasonable distribution and frankly it wouldn't even make sense for the other league members to start a relationship with that sort of tension.

So what's going to happen is a reasonable agreement that moves to equality over a few years. Everything else is just posturing. There's only one end to this.

And the posturing is coming from the fans, not the schools. Providence Journal says:

The current Big East basketball schools could earn as much as $5 million initially and cut new members in at a lower rate that gradually increases over time.

http://news.providencejournal.com/sports...twork.html

has there been any speculation as to when new members/targets will be announced?(officially)

(01-10-2013 09:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 09:04 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 06:47 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 06:29 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 05:20 PM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  I am assuming that each school that buys in would be asked to cover their 1/12 share of (1) BE name and MSG value as determined by the cost paid to UC, UConn and USF, as they become a part-owner of such value going forward; and (2) Start-up costs. There may or may not be an additional kicker to buy-in as an entry fee. I assumed there was in my example.

I don't assume that any new school would participate in exit money or NCAA credits. Rather, the C7 would use that to fund the BE name acquisition and jthe new conference start-up costs, and pocket the remainder.

Yea, I don't see why the new members should be forced to pay more than an equal share of "start-up costs". There should be no additional entrance fee. If not for these schools potentially joining, the Big East would have no chance of receiving a large, new tv deal and doubling what they are currently making.

Well on the flip side, without the C7 no way can the 5 new members make almost 10x's what they make now.

Maybe but I think Butler has a much value in basketball as Boise in football. I am not sure which teams other than Georgetown have more TV value than a couple of the new teams coming in.

Being a Fresno and a Butler fan I would hate to see this fall apart by teams trying to be too greedy. It is a new conference, have everyone split the start-up costs and move forward on equal footing.

Uh no. If Butler stays in the A-10 that conference TV deal which was just signed for something like 400k a school is not jumping up 5 times that amount let alone 10 times.

I heard you say the same things early in the Boise deal. Sharing the costs is fine but from there make it even. The last thing we want to see is the A10 use a Boise deal to keep Butler/VCU.

Also it makes business sense for the league. They have two of the best young coaches in Smart and Stevens. I hear from connected boosters that UCLA plans to dump their coach unless he pulls something special and go after Stevens. To starve teams like Butler and VCU to make an extra nickle and have them lose a Stevens/Smart is just bad business.

(01-10-2013 10:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 10:06 PM)Title Wrote:  Why are we still talking about this?

Fox is requiring 12 teams.

Butler and Xavier aren't going to accept anything other than reasonable distribution and frankly it wouldn't even make sense for the other league members to start a relationship with that sort of tension.

So what's going to happen is a reasonable agreement that moves to equality over a few years. Everything else is just posturing. There's only one end to this.

And the posturing is coming from the fans, not the schools. Providence Journal says:

The current Big East basketball schools could earn as much as $5 million initially and cut new members in at a lower rate that gradually increases over time.

http://news.providencejournal.com/sports...twork.html

Yeah, I still don't understand why so many people are making a big deal about this. The Big Ten is an equal revenue sharing league, but even Nebraska (one of the most power athletic programs in the country) has to be in the league for a few years before receiving a full conference share as a reflection of the time it takes to build up equity.

The Catholic 7 are setting up the league, hiring the lawyers and consultants, negotiating the TV deal, might be paying various fees to the Big East for exiting or even the brand name itself and took the risk overall from breaking off from the Big East in the first place. I think it's fair that those 7 would receive a bit more for the first few years to reflect that - Xavier, Butler and the others wouldn't have the opportunity in the first place to get the jump in revenue without the Catholic 7 having taken the risk and put in the leg work (both in terms of sweat equity and dollars).

Now, if the Catholic 7 were going to be making more than the other 5 members for the entire length of a 12-year contract, then yes, I can see why that's a problem. However, the Providence Journal article is reflecting what many of figured would be the case - it's a temporary bump to reflect all of the costs and time that the Catholic 7 put into setting up the league.

(01-10-2013 11:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 10:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 10:06 PM)Title Wrote:  Why are we still talking about this?

Fox is requiring 12 teams.

Butler and Xavier aren't going to accept anything other than reasonable distribution and frankly it wouldn't even make sense for the other league members to start a relationship with that sort of tension.

So what's going to happen is a reasonable agreement that moves to equality over a few years. Everything else is just posturing. There's only one end to this.

And the posturing is coming from the fans, not the schools. Providence Journal says:

The current Big East basketball schools could earn as much as $5 million initially and cut new members in at a lower rate that gradually increases over time.

http://news.providencejournal.com/sports...twork.html

Yeah, I still don't understand why so many people are making a big deal about this. The Big Ten is an equal revenue sharing league, but even Nebraska (one of the most power athletic programs in the country) has to be in the league for a few years before receiving a full conference share as a reflection of the time it takes to build up equity.

The Catholic 7 are setting up the league, hiring the lawyers and consultants, negotiating the TV deal, might be paying various fees to the Big East for exiting or even the brand name itself and took the risk overall from breaking off from the Big East in the first place. I think it's fair that those 7 would receive a bit more for the first few years to reflect that - Xavier, Butler and the others wouldn't have the opportunity in the first place to get the jump in revenue without the Catholic 7 having taken the risk and put in the leg work (both in terms of sweat equity and dollars).

Now, if the Catholic 7 were going to be making more than the other 5 members for the entire length of a 12-year contract, then yes, I can see why that's a problem. However, the Providence Journal article is reflecting what many of figured would be the case - it's a temporary bump to reflect all of the costs and time that the Catholic 7 put into setting up the league.

So we are all in agreement that Rovell is a hack.

(01-10-2013 11:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, I still don't understand why so many people are making a big deal about this. .........Now, if the Catholic 7 were going to be making more than the other 5 members for the entire length of a 12-year contract, then yes, I can see why that's a problem.

Because the phrasing of the first Rovell article indicated that the C-7 were going to get more, just because the A-10 schools didn't have a better option. And that was reinforced in the second Rovell article. Rovell's articles had nothing about a phase-in or entry fees or using TV contract money to pay the C-7s upfront costs. Just "well, the A-10 teams are making $400,000 now, they'll take $1M (and like it.)"