I was surprised that today's Big East meeting ended with nothing happening. I assumed, like many of us, that the fact that these guys were meeting in person meant that the outlines of a deal had been worked out quietly in private, and that the in-person meeting was to finalize everything.

Clearly that's not the case.

I went back and dug up an article on how the split happened, and found this quote from Pete Thamel's article.

"Others say his lack of communication and reluctance to share information has driven a wedge in the league."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...z2ML1FA8lK

Maybe this is how Aresco does business. Maybe in November, he presented Tulane and ECU for a yes-no vote, and the Presidents didn't know a reason to vote against Tulane. That would explain the seeming lack of AD-president communication--maybe the presidents didn't know Tulane was a candidate until it was sprung on them. That would also sort of explain how the Dennis Dodds article saying that the BE was looking at $60-80M was a surprise to the presidents--there wasn't an information flow from Aresco, so all they had was the Dodds article. Then they started getting independent estimates.

Now in March, Aresco called his presidents in for a meeting and presented them with two yes-no votes, the TV contract and at least an outline of a deal with the C-7. And he got nothing.

(03-01-2013 07:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I was surprised that today's Big East meeting ended with nothing happening. I assumed, like many of us, that the fact that these guys were meeting in person meant that the outlines of a deal had been worked out quietly in private, and that the in-person meeting was to finalize everything.

Clearly that's not the case.

I went back and dug up an article on how the split happened, and found this quote from Pete Thamel's article.

"Others say his lack of communication and reluctance to share information has driven a wedge in the league."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...z2ML1FA8lK

Maybe this is how Aresco does business. Maybe in November, he presented Tulane and ECU for a yes-no vote, and the Presidents didn't know a reason to vote against Tulane. That would explain the seeming lack of AD-president communication--maybe the presidents didn't know Tulane was a candidate until it was sprung on them. That would also sort of explain how the Dennis Dodds article saying that the BE was looking at $60-80M was a surprise to the presidents--there wasn't an information flow from Aresco, so all they had was the Dodds article. Then they started getting independent estimates.

Now in March, Aresco called his presidents in for a meeting and presented them with two yes-no votes, the TV contract and at least an outline of a deal with the C-7. And he got nothing.

I think its pretty clear the presidents are not going to sign off on the ESPN deal. If they were going to agree to it, it would have happened today. I dont think they were too happy with the selling the name either. Maybe the C7 were not giving up nearly as much as we thought, or maybe the four remaining schools intended to keep all the money. Any way you look at it, this does not appear to be a group working together. I predict the seeds for more Boise style defections may have been sown today.

Well, we don't know what happened at that meeting today or why. But if the C-7 makes a deal with Aresco and the football-school presidents don't approve it, then maybe the C-7 needs to be negotiating with someone who actually has the authority to make a deal with them. Either the FB-school presidents need to give that authority to Aresco and then approve what he agrees to, or they need to give that authority to someone else and then approve what he or she agrees to. Otherwise, it's like Romper Room over there with no one in charge of the kids.

(03-01-2013 07:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Any way you look at it, this does not appear to be a group working together.

A valid point.

Quote:I predict the seeds for more Boise style defections may have been sown today.

Is a "Boise style defection" different than a "Louisville style defection" or a "TCU style defection" or a "Rutgers style defection"?

(03-01-2013 08:10 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:I predict the seeds for more Boise style defections may have been sown today.

Is a "Boise style defection" different than a "Louisville style defection" or a "TCU style defection" or a "Rutgers style defection"?

None of the above. There is nowhere for any of them to defect to, because we know none of them are going to (or back to) CUSA, the SBC, or the MAC. It's understandable that they might be unhappy about their situation, but leaving for any of the places they are able to leave for would not be an improvement.

Is Aresco really working for the C-7? They are now the true "Big East" after all.

(03-01-2013 08:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 08:10 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:I predict the seeds for more Boise style defections may have been sown today.

Is a "Boise style defection" different than a "Louisville style defection" or a "TCU style defection" or a "Rutgers style defection"?

None of the above. There is nowhere for any of them to defect to, because we know none of them are going to (or back to) CUSA, the SBC, or the MAC. It's understandable that they might be unhappy about their situation, but leaving for any of the places they are able to leave for would not be an improvement.

SMU and Houston could go to the MWC, maybe even Tulane if they were desperate. But other than that, yeah.

(03-01-2013 08:10 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 07:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Any way you look at it, this does not appear to be a group working together.

A valid point.

Quote:I predict the seeds for more Boise style defections may have been sown today.

Is a "Boise style defection" different than a "Louisville style defection" or a "TCU style defection" or a "Rutgers style defection"?

Different from Rutgers and Louisville---Yes. Different from TCU--No. Im referring to losing teams that never played an actual down in the league.

(03-01-2013 08:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 08:10 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:I predict the seeds for more Boise style defections may have been sown today.

Is a "Boise style defection" different than a "Louisville style defection" or a "TCU style defection" or a "Rutgers style defection"?

None of the above. There is nowhere for any of them to defect to, because we know none of them are going to (or back to) CUSA, the SBC, or the MAC. It's understandable that they might be unhappy about their situation, but leaving for any of the places they are able to leave for would not be an improvement.

I disagree that they have nowhere to go. Even without the possibility of a MWC invitation, Houston has enough stroke to cobble together a decent conference unencumbered by the Big East theatrics. Start with Houston, SMU, Tulsa and Tulane, then decide who you want to join your own conference. Seems like a better option than essentially joining Temple and USF, since Cincy and UConn are looking for the next bus out of town.

(03-01-2013 08:43 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 08:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's understandable that they might be unhappy about their situation, but leaving for any of the places they are able to leave for would not be an improvement.

SMU and Houston could go to the MWC, maybe even Tulane if they were desperate.

Only way SMU and Houston join Mtn. is if ACC takes about 4-5 more teams from Aresco League (say: UConn, Cincinnati, USF, UCF) and they are not included. Even then it would be no better than a 50% chance. Under that same scenario, I think the chances that Tulane would join them would be no better than 5%.

(03-01-2013 08:10 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 07:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Any way you look at it, this does not appear to be a group working together.

A valid point.

Quote:I predict the seeds for more Boise style defections may have been sown today.

Is a "Boise style defection" different than a "Louisville style defection" or a "TCU style defection" or a "Rutgers style defection"?

Rutgers and Louisville are the same IMO.

TCU and BSU are similar in that they got invited yet didn't play a down. The difference is that BSU went back to the MWC and TCU moved up to the B12.

Every one knew Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Cincinnati, USF all were looking for a lifeline the last 3 years. Nothing new there. Same with the CUSA schools in their old conference.
It's a shame that the new Big East management team learned nothing from the past mistakes of the old management team.

(03-01-2013 07:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 07:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I was surprised that today's Big East meeting ended with nothing happening. I assumed, like many of us, that the fact that these guys were meeting in person meant that the outlines of a deal had been worked out quietly in private, and that the in-person meeting was to finalize everything.

Clearly that's not the case.

I went back and dug up an article on how the split happened, and found this quote from Pete Thamel's article.

"Others say his lack of communication and reluctance to share information has driven a wedge in the league."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...z2ML1FA8lK

Maybe this is how Aresco does business. Maybe in November, he presented Tulane and ECU for a yes-no vote, and the Presidents didn't know a reason to vote against Tulane. That would explain the seeming lack of AD-president communication--maybe the presidents didn't know Tulane was a candidate until it was sprung on them. That would also sort of explain how the Dennis Dodds article saying that the BE was looking at $60-80M was a surprise to the presidents--there wasn't an information flow from Aresco, so all they had was the Dodds article. Then they started getting independent estimates.

Now in March, Aresco called his presidents in for a meeting and presented them with two yes-no votes, the TV contract and at least an outline of a deal with the C-7. And he got nothing.

I think its pretty clear the presidents are not going to sign off on the ESPN deal. If they were going to agree to it, it would have happened today. I dont think they were too happy with the selling the name either. Maybe the C7 were not giving up nearly as much as we thought, or maybe the four remaining schools intended to keep all the money. Any way you look at it, this does not appear to be a group working together. I predict the seeds for more Boise style defections may have been sown today.

Calm down, you aren't going anywhere and you aren't starting a new conference. You know why? Because you would just add all the teams you're with now!

(03-02-2013 10:11 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Calm down, you aren't going anywhere and you aren't starting a new conference. You know why? Because you would just add all the teams you're with now!

Hopefully the nBE(?) FB teams stay together, at least long enough to see what happens or not with the ACC.

If the ACC loses more teams, and then adds eastern/northern/FL replacements from the nBE(?), then many of the other teams should reform a new Southwest Conference with UH, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, UTSA, Rice, NMSU, etc. as the core.

(03-02-2013 10:11 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 07:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 07:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I was surprised that today's Big East meeting ended with nothing happening. I assumed, like many of us, that the fact that these guys were meeting in person meant that the outlines of a deal had been worked out quietly in private, and that the in-person meeting was to finalize everything.

Clearly that's not the case.

I went back and dug up an article on how the split happened, and found this quote from Pete Thamel's article.

"Others say his lack of communication and reluctance to share information has driven a wedge in the league."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...z2ML1FA8lK

Maybe this is how Aresco does business. Maybe in November, he presented Tulane and ECU for a yes-no vote, and the Presidents didn't know a reason to vote against Tulane. That would explain the seeming lack of AD-president communication--maybe the presidents didn't know Tulane was a candidate until it was sprung on them. That would also sort of explain how the Dennis Dodds article saying that the BE was looking at $60-80M was a surprise to the presidents--there wasn't an information flow from Aresco, so all they had was the Dodds article. Then they started getting independent estimates.

Now in March, Aresco called his presidents in for a meeting and presented them with two yes-no votes, the TV contract and at least an outline of a deal with the C-7. And he got nothing.

I think its pretty clear the presidents are not going to sign off on the ESPN deal. If they were going to agree to it, it would have happened today. I dont think they were too happy with the selling the name either. Maybe the C7 were not giving up nearly as much as we thought, or maybe the four remaining schools intended to keep all the money. Any way you look at it, this does not appear to be a group working together. I predict the seeds for more Boise style defections may have been sown today.

Calm down, you aren't going anywhere and you aren't starting a new conference. You know why? Because you would just add all the teams you're with now!

Well, actually we are already about as close as you can get to starting a new conference without actually starting a new conference. In fact, since the traditional name appears to be headed to the C-7, to the generally public, the C-7 is the Big East and we are the new conference. So, starting a conference on our own is just as easy as staying with the Aresco Association. No difference--except we might get to swap S Miss for Tulane.

That said, starting a new conference is not the best option. Given the current landscape, taking 4-6 CUSA teams and becoming the eastern division of the MW is probably the best option at this point. You would create a nationwide conference, with both eastern and western exposure. At this point, the MW is the only FBS football available on the open market to the networks. Add Houston, S Miss, Tulsa, and SMU for instance to the MW and you have easily shifted the Gang of 5 advantage to the MW. The eastern division would be Houston, Tulsa, SMU, S Miss, Air Force, Colorado St, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Stable, and the travel would be certainly be no worse than the current Aresco Association.

Round and round and round she goes.....and where she stops, nobody knows!

It wouldn't surprise me if we were all surprised on how this realignment circus ends up. The caboose doesn't lead a train. The engine does. The B1G is the engine; the Nbe is the caboose. Nbe needs to just stop and wait for the realignment dominoes to fall....and those dominoes might just crush the Nbe out of existence. And, sorry, Nbe invitees. Yes, some of you could end up going back to CUSA. Boise, as powerful NonAQ program as it was, went back to MWC, didn't it? And no Nbe team is a Boise, that's for sure.

(03-01-2013 07:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I was surprised that today's Big East meeting ended with nothing happening. I assumed, like many of us, that the fact that these guys were meeting in person meant that the outlines of a deal had been worked out quietly in private, and that the in-person meeting was to finalize everything.

Clearly that's not the case.

I went back and dug up an article on how the split happened, and found this quote from Pete Thamel's article.

"Others say his lack of communication and reluctance to share information has driven a wedge in the league."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...z2ML1FA8lK

Maybe this is how Aresco does business. Maybe in November, he presented Tulane and ECU for a yes-no vote, and the Presidents didn't know a reason to vote against Tulane. That would explain the seeming lack of AD-president communication--maybe the presidents didn't know Tulane was a candidate until it was sprung on them. That would also sort of explain how the Dennis Dodds article saying that the BE was looking at $60-80M was a surprise to the presidents--there wasn't an information flow from Aresco, so all they had was the Dodds article. Then they started getting independent estimates.

Now in March, Aresco called his presidents in for a meeting and presented them with two yes-no votes, the TV contract and at least an outline of a deal with the C-7. And he got nothing.

My guess is too, too many week nite games and the ESPN TV contract was appropriately not approved.

(03-02-2013 08:03 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 07:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I was surprised that today's Big East meeting ended with nothing happening. I assumed, like many of us, that the fact that these guys were meeting in person meant that the outlines of a deal had been worked out quietly in private, and that the in-person meeting was to finalize everything.

Clearly that's not the case.

I went back and dug up an article on how the split happened, and found this quote from Pete Thamel's article.

"Others say his lack of communication and reluctance to share information has driven a wedge in the league."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...z2ML1FA8lK

Maybe this is how Aresco does business. Maybe in November, he presented Tulane and ECU for a yes-no vote, and the Presidents didn't know a reason to vote against Tulane. That would explain the seeming lack of AD-president communication--maybe the presidents didn't know Tulane was a candidate until it was sprung on them. That would also sort of explain how the Dennis Dodds article saying that the BE was looking at $60-80M was a surprise to the presidents--there wasn't an information flow from Aresco, so all they had was the Dodds article. Then they started getting independent estimates.

Now in March, Aresco called his presidents in for a meeting and presented them with two yes-no votes, the TV contract and at least an outline of a deal with the C-7. And he got nothing.

My guess is too, too many week nite games and the ESPN TV contract was appropriately not approved.

I suspect there are more issues than that with the contract.