(03-01-2013 09:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  1. For incoming schools, NOT coming would be more expensive that joining, under the current contracts. Since CUSA's TV deal isn't getting reduced, the CUSA exit fee is $500,000, and the Big East entry fee is $2.5M, according to the Houston and MEmphis entrance contracts. That's $3M, unless those contracts get rewritten. And by the still-valid entrance contracts, not joining would cost $5M. (The $1M-if-revenues-fall doesn't apply, and basically couldn't possibly have applied. I don't know why it was in the contracts)

2. Under the existing Big East bylaws, amending those bylaws takes a 3/4 vote. In July, there will be 3 old schools voting plus 5 new schools. (No votes for Tulane and ECU until they join in 2014.) So the new schools can't just outvote the old schools.

John, do you have a link to the Big East bylaws?

Thanks in advance.

(03-02-2013 02:49 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 09:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  1. For incoming schools, NOT coming would be more expensive that joining, under the current contracts. Since CUSA's TV deal isn't getting reduced, the CUSA exit fee is $500,000, and the Big East entry fee is $2.5M, according to the Houston and MEmphis entrance contracts. That's $3M, unless those contracts get rewritten. And by the still-valid entrance contracts, not joining would cost $5M. (The $1M-if-revenues-fall doesn't apply, and basically couldn't possibly have applied. I don't know why it was in the contracts)

2. Under the existing Big East bylaws, amending those bylaws takes a 3/4 vote. In July, there will be 3 old schools voting plus 5 new schools. (No votes for Tulane and ECU until they join in 2014.) So the new schools can't just outvote the old schools.

John, do you have a link to the Big East bylaws?

Thanks in advance.

They went public with the West Virginia lawsuit. SEarch "big east bylaws pdf"

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets...Bylaws.pdf

(03-01-2013 11:49 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Again.....MWC=12, CUSA=14 (I think) and nBE=11. That makes 37 schools. Assume UConn & Cincy bolt. That's 35. How the hell do you split that into 2 divisions for one super conference? There's so much of it that makes no sense at all. USF/UCF don't want to associate with FIU/FAU. ECU wants nothing to do with UNCC. SMU/UH want nothing to do with UNT/UTSA and so on.... just like UAB wants nothing to do with USA/Troy.

So in a nutshell, for your sources' plan to occur several schools are screwed over Air Port meeting style.

Or that group of 38 (including WKU) could be culled down from above.

(03-01-2013 11:00 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Paying an entry fee to Nbe is adding insult to injury.

yep, and your school wants to be insulted so very badly.

(03-02-2013 12:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  This makes the big assumption that the TV money is there for lower-FBS football. I don't think the money is there, no matter how you shuffle the conferences. If ESPN didn't have NBE or Sun Belt or MAC, they can send their crews out to FCS games and probably get pretty similar ratings. And if anyone else puts lower-FBS football on, no one will watch.

This proposed alliance would control 2/3 of the GOF games. The only power the GOF can gain is the herd. I personally think the next few years will be all about consolidation at both levels of FBS and maybe even at the classification level.

(03-01-2013 02:01 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 12:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 12:24 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 10:16 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

It is silly if the goal is to argue nBE vs. CUSA vs. MWC.


.

But there are too many schools in (or scheduled to be in) the Aresco LEague and CUSA for just one conference. Plus, there's now much less gap between CUSA and the Sun Belt, so are the Sun Belt schools in the Eastern Conference(s)? Does the MAC go into the stewpot too?

And is there more of a gap now between C-USA and the nBE or less than previously?

The Gap is smaller between NBE and CUSA. quite a bit smaller. but it is still there. same is true with CUSA and Belt. Bottom line in both, there still is and there will remain a gap. If NBE Plays well and shows it is a true tweener league the gap will grow, If CUSA does well and NBE takes a while to get its footing it will shrink. Same is true with MWC/CUSA vs belt and mac.

Bottom line in all the reshuffle, is the conf above always cherry picks the one below. So conf below always loses its cream.

(03-02-2013 07:48 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Bottom line in all the reshuffle, is the conf above always cherry picks the one below. So conf below always loses its cream.

But now we have a counterexample--Boise State. Boise State was the anchor program of the NBE, and they got recruited back to the MWC.

Make all the exception arguments you want, that's unprecedented. It doesn't matter what deal the MWC gave Boise, they have the only top 25 program in lower-FBS and you don't. MWC is now ahead of NBE in the pecking order. IF you doubt it, count the MWC teams who could be poached by the NBE(0) and count the NBE teams who could be poached by the MWC(2). Count the BCS bowl bids and BCS bowl wins for each conference.

MWC leapfrogged NBE by getting Boise State back (and NBE losing Rutgers and Louisville.) And the Sun Belt leapfrogged the WAC by poaching Texas State (and continuing to exist).

So it's not impossible.

(03-02-2013 06:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 02:49 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 09:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  1. For incoming schools, NOT coming would be more expensive that joining, under the current contracts. Since CUSA's TV deal isn't getting reduced, the CUSA exit fee is $500,000, and the Big East entry fee is $2.5M, according to the Houston and MEmphis entrance contracts. That's $3M, unless those contracts get rewritten. And by the still-valid entrance contracts, not joining would cost $5M. (The $1M-if-revenues-fall doesn't apply, and basically couldn't possibly have applied. I don't know why it was in the contracts)

2. Under the existing Big East bylaws, amending those bylaws takes a 3/4 vote. In July, there will be 3 old schools voting plus 5 new schools. (No votes for Tulane and ECU until they join in 2014.) So the new schools can't just outvote the old schools.

John, do you have a link to the Big East bylaws?

Thanks in advance.

They went public with the West Virginia lawsuit. SEarch "big east bylaws pdf"

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets...Bylaws.pdf

Thanks again.

I had forgotten that they had gone public.

So, the conference can be dissolved by a 2/3 vote. . .



Why doesn't the C7 simply dissolve this mess and put it out of its misery??? They have the votes to do precisely that and to make a lot of money for themselves i the process.

(03-02-2013 11:59 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 06:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 02:49 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 09:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  1. For incoming schools, NOT coming would be more expensive that joining, under the current contracts. Since CUSA's TV deal isn't getting reduced, the CUSA exit fee is $500,000, and the Big East entry fee is $2.5M, according to the Houston and MEmphis entrance contracts. That's $3M, unless those contracts get rewritten. And by the still-valid entrance contracts, not joining would cost $5M. (The $1M-if-revenues-fall doesn't apply, and basically couldn't possibly have applied. I don't know why it was in the contracts)

2. Under the existing Big East bylaws, amending those bylaws takes a 3/4 vote. In July, there will be 3 old schools voting plus 5 new schools. (No votes for Tulane and ECU until they join in 2014.) So the new schools can't just outvote the old schools.

John, do you have a link to the Big East bylaws?

Thanks in advance.

They went public with the West Virginia lawsuit. SEarch "big east bylaws pdf"

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets...Bylaws.pdf

Thanks again.

I had forgotten that they had gone public.

So, the conference can be dissolved by a 2/3 vote. . .



Why doesn't the C7 simply dissolve this mess and put it out of its misery??? They have the votes to do precisely that and to make a lot of money for themselves i the process.

Published reports have said that they'd need 2 votes from the football schools to do so. That may be nonsense, or it may be something in the pre-nup.

Also, if we dissolve the conference, most of the money we're negotiating over (exit fees still to be collected, tourney credits from departed schools) goes away, into the pockets of SU, Pitt, WVU, etc. And as a bonus, if we dissolve the conference, I can't see how we have a better claim to the name than the Aresco League, or than any clothing retailer who files a trademark claim. (I'm not sure about the trademark part, of course. That's just a layman talking.)

(03-02-2013 12:36 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 11:59 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 06:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 02:49 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 09:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  1. For incoming schools, NOT coming would be more expensive that joining, under the current contracts. Since CUSA's TV deal isn't getting reduced, the CUSA exit fee is $500,000, and the Big East entry fee is $2.5M, according to the Houston and MEmphis entrance contracts. That's $3M, unless those contracts get rewritten. And by the still-valid entrance contracts, not joining would cost $5M. (The $1M-if-revenues-fall doesn't apply, and basically couldn't possibly have applied. I don't know why it was in the contracts)

2. Under the existing Big East bylaws, amending those bylaws takes a 3/4 vote. In July, there will be 3 old schools voting plus 5 new schools. (No votes for Tulane and ECU until they join in 2014.) So the new schools can't just outvote the old schools.

John, do you have a link to the Big East bylaws?

Thanks in advance.

They went public with the West Virginia lawsuit. SEarch "big east bylaws pdf"

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets...Bylaws.pdf

Thanks again.

I had forgotten that they had gone public.

So, the conference can be dissolved by a 2/3 vote. . .



Why doesn't the C7 simply dissolve this mess and put it out of its misery??? They have the votes to do precisely that and to make a lot of money for themselves i the process.

Published reports have said that they'd need 2 votes from the football schools to do so. That may be nonsense, or it may be something in the pre-nup.

Also, if we dissolve the conference, most of the money we're negotiating over (exit fees still to be collected, tourney credits from departed schools) goes away, into the pockets of SU, Pitt, WVU, etc. And as a bonus, if we dissolve the conference, I can't see how we have a better claim to the name than the Aresco League, or than any clothing retailer who files a trademark claim. (I'm not sure about the trademark part, of course. That's just a layman talking.)

1. Yes, published reports have said that dissolution has to include a football vote, but it's not in the bylaws, so I'm not believing it. It wouldn't be the first time that published reports have been wrong.

2. I understand that the money goes away, but from what I'm reading, the Aresco group wants it to go away as far as the C7 is concerned anyway. The C7 schools would come out with some many as well as their dignity.

3. We don't have a better claim to the name than the other group does. So, it probably goes to an arbitrator and I'm betting that the C7 wins this one. But let's play Solomon here. If neither party has a better claim to it than no one gets it and you can't split the baby. So, no one wins.

All of this provides the C7 with tremendous leverage. The nBE is playing chicken here but really has no ammunition. The more this thing drags out, the more disgusted and impatient the new nBE members become.

I'm guessing that the C7 have not yet filed their official notice of withdrawal. There's no reason for them to do that until April 1. That always gives them the option to stay around another year. That means dividing the very limited TV money next year 17 or 18 ways instead of 9 or 10. That would be a disaster for the nBE.

The nBE has major reasons to get this thing done, so the leverage isn't all theirs and the pressure isn't all on C7. If Aresco can't get it done amicably and in everyone's best interests, someone else will step in and he'll be gone.

The C7 has tremendous leverage. The nBE presidents had to have gone home yesterday very disappointed and feeling as if they'd wasted a lot of time for nothing. I'm sure they want to get this thing done the right way without any more unproductive use of their time which has far greater needs to attend to.

(03-01-2013 10:27 PM)blazr Wrote:  

Quote:If you're saying no more lower-FBS conferences based on NBE/CUSA/SBC prestige tiers...

When have I ever said anything like that? All I've said is that there has been serious discussions about the point where forming the nBE as a new, non-Cartel conference (vs. what some thought it would be way back when) just doesn't make any sense: mostly financially, but in other ways as well. In those discussions, there has been talk about what does make sense and that has included a "Western group" and an "Eastern group" forming up and cooperating in some way other than being full conference mates. Most of the talk I've heard is that this is what will eventually happen anyway.

Just like when the C7 actually decided to split way back when, there is a lot left to play out and many forms the above could eventually take. The gist, however, and so what would be a critical factor is that whatever is formed allows former CUSA schools to not pay an exit fee to CUSA or an entry fee to MWC (or anyone else). Second to that is cooperation to leverage the East and West groups into a more lucrative TV deal than either could manage on their own (and there's also the advantage of only regional travel for non-football sports).

The "prestige tiers" are nice for fans to talk about and generally enjoyed by university Presidents/Chancellors/ADs who have superhuman egos, but while the former group is still speaking in those terms the latter group is most definitely not. It comes down to the sizes of athletic budgets and not spending ridiculous millions of $$ for no reason. The "Schools formerly known as nBE", the majority of MWC, and the rest of CUSA all have similarly-sized budgets. The schools with pending invites to CUSA have committed to increasing their budgets accordingly. Those schools would make up the pool from which the Western and Eastern groups are drawn, but to get specific (beyond saying it would include every current MWC and CUSA school...owing both to budget sizes and the concessions I mentioned above) about which schools and how many is way, WAY too premature.

I'm not here to convince anyone so feel free to ignore what I'm saying (many on here began doing that long ago), but if you try to shoehorn the information I'm passing along into the world your describing and many nBE fans want to sustain...well, your absolutely right that it doesn't make any sense. But the decision makers have (mostly) a larger view of things than any of us, thankfully...

I hear what you are saying---but there's a huge problem. There are decision makers (read this as school administrators and in some cases conference administrators) who are very interested in this concept because they stand to gain something from such a move. There are also decision makers who have absolutely no interest in this and believe they have much to lose if such a plan comes to pass. There are always winners and losers in any change. The problem is, the proposed "future" doesn't work without the decision makers who don't like it. Thus, the whole concept is about as likely as the cartel suddenly deciding to share money equally. In centuries of history, instances of groups voluntarily giving up an advantage over another group are exceedingly rare.

(03-02-2013 01:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I hear what you are saying---but there's a huge problem. There are decision makers (read this as school administrators and in some cases conference administrators) who are very interested in this concept because they stand to gain something from such a move. There are also decision makers who have absolutely no interest in this and believe they have much to lose if such a plan comes to pass. There are always winners and losers in any change. The problem is, the proposed "future" doesn't work without the decision makers who don't like it.

There was a point in time when nearly everything about the BE's future was potential: potentially still a Cartel conf, potentially a coast-to-coast behemoth, potentially $20 million+ per school from TV, and so on. 100% of the decision makers at the schools still considered to be upcoming members of the "Conference Formerly Known as BE" obviously preferred what could potentially come to pass. Now that many of the "potentialities" have been settled, that percentage has dropped. Precipitously (I think someone paraphrased me as saying all my contacts were in C7, which is not the case). The equations for considering next steps - including "stay the course" and "the East/West solution" - have been completely rewritten. We'll see what plays out.

But, it should be said, many of those decision makers are responsible for putting their schools on the brink of a terrible financial blunder and a FUBAR future, so you could prove to be correct in the sense that certain actors will disregard changing financial realities in any case...especially when it's not their money being tossed around (and so really not their call anyway).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

(03-02-2013 01:33 PM)blazr Wrote:  The equations for considering next steps - including "stay the course" and "the East/West solution" - have been completely rewritten. We'll see what plays out.

You still haven't explained or come close to explaining how the math works for the East/West solution, combining 3 conferences of 12+ into 2 conferences, under current NCAA rules. Or how the East-West solution would necessarily command more TV revenue than the 3 existing (or semi-existing, if you want to doubt the Aresco League) conferences.

If ESPN still has the MAC and Sun Belt, then there are plenty of lower-FBS games available to fill their spots. A Houston-Air Force game or a UCF-Cincinnati game maybe has some marginal value over a Kent State-Toledo game, or even a Youngstown State-Indiana State game, but judging by the MWC, NBE and CUSA tv contracts, not much. So I don't see that an Upper-Lower-FBS-Alliance would have much leverage.

(03-01-2013 10:27 PM)blazr Wrote:  

Quote:If you're saying no more lower-FBS conferences based on NBE/CUSA/SBC prestige tiers...

When have I ever said anything like that? All I've said is that there has been serious discussions about the point where forming the nBE as a new, non-Cartel conference (vs. what some thought it would be way back when) just doesn't make any sense: mostly financially, but in other ways as well. In those discussions, there has been talk about what does make sense and that has included a "Western group" and an "Eastern group" forming up and cooperating in some way other than being full conference mates. Most of the talk I've heard is that this is what will eventually happen anyway.

Just like when the C7 actually decided to split way back when, there is a lot left to play out and many forms the above could eventually take. The gist, however, and so what would be a critical factor is that whatever is formed allows former CUSA schools to not pay an exit fee to CUSA or an entry fee to MWC (or anyone else). Second to that is cooperation to leverage the East and West groups into a more lucrative TV deal than either could manage on their own (and there's also the advantage of only regional travel for non-football sports).

The "prestige tiers" are nice for fans to talk about and generally enjoyed by university Presidents/Chancellors/ADs who have superhuman egos, but while the former group is still speaking in those terms the latter group is most definitely not. It comes down to the sizes of athletic budgets and not spending ridiculous millions of $$ for no reason. The "Schools formerly known as nBE", the majority of MWC, and the rest of CUSA all have similarly-sized budgets. The schools with pending invites to CUSA have committed to increasing their budgets accordingly. Those schools would make up the pool from which the Western and Eastern groups are drawn, but to get specific (beyond saying it would include every current MWC and CUSA school...owing both to budget sizes and the concessions I mentioned above) about which schools and how many is way, WAY too premature.

I'm not here to convince anyone so feel free to ignore what I'm saying (many on here began doing that long ago), but if you try to shoehorn the information I'm passing along into the world your describing and many nBE fans want to sustain...well, your absolutely right that it doesn't make any sense. But the decision makers have (mostly) a larger view of things than any of us, thankfully...

It's so nice to write in such vagaries. That way, you can never really be wrong. What you have posted makes sense as a potential future, but since you have attached no specifics to what you are saying, it's very easy to suggest that you have prescient knowledge of the situation, when in fact you're really just writing in platitudes.

The reality is that in four months, this has to be worked out or CUSA schools are paying exit fees. The clock is ticking. What you're suggesting given the various constraints of media rights, schedules, and dollars is really extremely difficult to achieve in that timeframe. Not only that, but such a concerted effort would have to be lead by someone - someone who has a ton of drive and ability to build consensus among a group of schools that is wide-ranging in both mission and geography as well as a diverse set of media companies who are pretty much bent on collusion right now. Most would tend to believe that if such a deal was being worked out, that such a person or persons would be identified and the plan as discussed would be mentioned somewhere - anywhere - other than in your posts, especially given the tight timeframe.

I'm saying flat out that the concept has been on the table, has been considered as a viable option, and is being considered even more seriously now. I'm also saying that most voices I hear think the larger "West/East" scenario at the heart of the deal is where things are headed in any case. I said in Summer 2012 that the basketball schools had decided to split...and I also said as recently as January that the method of their departure had yet to be decided. Now how does any of that qualify as vagaries and platitudes?

I know that most posters enjoy saying 'X' school will never do this or 'Y' conference will pick these 3 schools and be fine. That's fine...it's entertaining as far as it goes. But it's simply a fact that the thought process of fans on these matters resembles the thought process of the decision makers virtually not at all. That's not unique to this day and time, of course...it's always been the case.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again: anyone speaking to those they trust that can be considered "sources" with the goal of finding out exactly what's going to happen with whom and when is going to wind up confused as hell (yes, journalists do this but that's their job). All that can be determined is how the winds are blowing and what seemingly insignificant factors looming in the back channels, if any, could very quickly alter the winds and the landscape. And here's a shocker: when things like that happen, there are plenty critical people at the top of decision chains just as surprised as anyone.

Finally, and this might be the most important point of all, the fact that there are people who have closely followed this Cirque de Monstre and still believe that, in modern college football, contracts and bylaws constrain what actually happens and that any specifics stated publicly or privately carry any weight as soon as they're uttered (or at least believe those things enough to confidently state what is to come) explains how governments and the Bernie Madoffs of the world can pull off their shenanigans. I mean, just in this case can you really describe the actions of the major players as those of people acting on solid planning and thorough vetting processes as opposed to packs of animals madly scrambling for high ground long before you have any idea a tsunami is on the way?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

(03-02-2013 02:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You still haven't explained or come close to explaining how the math works for the East/West solution, combining 3 conferences of 12+ into 2 conferences, under current NCAA rules. Or how the East-West solution would necessarily command more TV revenue than the 3 existing (or semi-existing, if you want to doubt the Aresco League) conferences.

I've already pointed out how such a scenario could make more financial sense...and those are just the most obvious cases. By your reckoning, the numbers don't add up. I would argue that the most important numbers to this point that haven't added up have been the dollar figures promised BE schools - old and new. If history has taught us anything it's that when those numbers don't add up, all the other numbers suddenly start to add up where they didn't before. The number of tools and options available to make that happen are virtually endless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD