What the equivalent offers does is just buy you time.

It's clear that 11 and 12 are undecided. This allows the conference to be thorough in evaluating teams the next few years. When teams show they are obvious picks, the contract can then be scaled to 12.

I also believe we'll eventually be 12. I just think it'll be 10 for a while.

(03-12-2013 11:49 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:36 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:20 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:53 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Didn't the article say that the contract would basically be the same per team if they wen't to 10 or 12? 500 for 10 teams for 12 years or 600 for 12 teams for 12 years? If thats the case i don't see why you don't go to 12.

I think that's what it said. In some ways makes ZERO sense for Fox to do that.

As to Frank's point- totally agree. I mean, I guess A10 could get Detroit (maybe with a connecting Cleveland St if necessary)- but that would be about as far west as they could go. With Dayton and especially SLU- it puts a LOT more tempting schools in play for the A10.

Well it could have been part of the agreement if they could get out right away and get the name. The Aresco league got to keep 100 mil, we get an extra 100 mil on the deal. It's basically Fox paying for our exit and the name.

Right and I get that 100%.

But makes no sense for them to say we'll give you 500m for 10 teams for 12 years or 600m for 12 teams for 12 years. Would have thought that Fox would have wanted to entice us to go up to 12. Now from a money standpoint, there is no incentive to go to 12 quite frankly.

Maybe Fox isn't as pushy about membership as you thought?

That remains to be seen. Also I'm kind of taking this with a grain of salt-it just seems strange from Fox's perspective not to give the BE a reason to go to 12, which is obvious what they want. soemthing doesn't seem right if you know what I mean..

(03-12-2013 11:55 AM)Title Wrote:  What the equivalent offers does is just buy you time.

It's clear that 11 and 12 are undecided. This allows the conference to be thorough in evaluating teams the next few years. When teams show they are obvious picks, the contract can then be scaled to 12.

I also believe we'll eventually be 12. I just think it'll be 10 for a while.

I kind of see that reasoning, but it's also hard to see who else would really be under consideration. SLU continues to seem to be a given to me in a 12-team league - it's too much of an institutional fit with a large TV market that enhances the impact of Creighton (just look at how many Creighton fans were in St. Louis for the MVC tournament this past weekend). Thus, we're talking about 1 spot in reality, and it's still going to be the same cast of characters under consideration for the next few years. It's not as if though there's a huge pool of potential schools where the C7 would be waiting for it to be winnowed - it really comes down to Dayton and Richmond with an very slim outside shot for VCU for that 12th spot. What information is going to materially change that? Sure, you can wait to see if one of them has another NCAA Tournament run, but the the fixed assets (TV market, facilities, etc.) are going to be the same for awhile. So, the likelihood of new information coming about in the near future that's going to sway people who like Dayton toward Richmond or vice versa is probably pretty low. As a result, if I were running the Catholic 7, I'd push the issue now when it has absolute 100% poaching power.

(03-12-2013 11:55 AM)Title Wrote:  What the equivalent offers does is just buy you time.

It's clear that 11 and 12 are undecided. This allows the conference to be thorough in evaluating teams the next few years. When teams show they are obvious picks, the contract can then be scaled to 12.

I also believe we'll eventually be 12. I just think it'll be 10 for a while.

I don't see the point in a while. Those schools will now be making less money than us in a worse conference. How is that a good thing for the teams we want to bring in with us? Now THAT makes no sense.

(03-12-2013 12:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  That remains to be seen. Also I'm kind of taking this with a grain of salt-it just seems strange from Fox's perspective not to give the BE a reason to go to 12, which is obvious what they want. soemthing doesn't seem right if you know what I mean..

It could also be interpreted the other way, though. That is, Fox is willing to guarantee right now today that the C7 wouldn't suffer financially if they expand to 12 right away compared to 10. Fox can take away that concern for the time being in the startup phase. However, that guarantee might not be there in the future, so the C7 can't just put off the decision to expand. The C7 would have a much harder time convincing Fox to raise the deal in the middle of contract if they expand to 12 later compared to right now before everything is signed.

So, Fox might not be giving the C7 a windfall for expanding to 12. However, this $600 million offer for 12 teams still might force the issue, where Fox is saying, "Look, if you want 12 teams, we'll give you the $600 million now to make everyone whole, but if you want to expand later after this deal is signed, it might not be as much. So, s**t or get off the pot."

The league is going to 12, either this coming year or in 2014. The deal is done. No one is putting up $600MM so we can decide a 'few years down the road' who to add when they are 'worthy'. Fox gives zero *****, they are putting up $600MM, they will get 12 teams in their needed markets.

SLU is all but given - TV market, fan base, institutional fit, current success + substantial investment into the program, good central location with the other Midwest schools in consideration, good olympic sports, etc...

Sorry. This is an all but done deal that has been in the works for years. They released a statement saying they would announce the new teams "in the near future". They are not still sitting around deciding on who to add.

EDIT: Also interesting to note is this NYP article: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/b...9pucWJ0cZO

"This is certain: The Big East is living on and there’s no reason to think many of the programs currently in the league (Georgetown, Marquette, St. John’s) and many that are coming in (Butler, St. Louis, Xavier) won’t get significantly better. Those schools already have put their money where their mouths are."

Hmm...no mention of Creighton?

If you want to go full Machiavelli... we're staying at 10 for now, but everyone knows that we're going to cherrypick 2 schools whenever we want... so it doesn't let the A-10 (for example) re-set itself... they'll be continually worrying about which 2 teams will be lost... 3 or 4 teams will be jockeying for position every season... with each passing year, if a team clearly stands out, then it's likely gone... not to mention, adding a newly dominant A-10 team in a year or two or three will provide a lot of interest ("splash") when they join... (rather that adding Dayton during their temporary downswing)...

(03-12-2013 12:21 PM)Billikens88 Wrote:  The league is going to 12, either this coming year or in 2014. The deal is done. No one is putting up $600MM so we can decide a 'few years down the road' who to add when they are 'worthy'. Fox gives zero *****, they are putting up $600MM, they will get 12 teams in their needed markets.

SLU is all but given - TV market, fan base, institutional fit, current success + substantial investment into the program, good central location with the other Midwest schools in consideration, good olympic sports, etc...

Sorry. This is an all but done deal that has been in the works for years. They released a statement saying they would announce the new teams "in the near future". They are not still sitting around deciding on who to add.

I agree 100%. These guys are not fretting over who to take. I believe they knew who they wanted from the get go and there was no internal debate after they broke off. We have talked our selves in a circle when the Thamel 5 was the group getting invites from the get go.

(03-12-2013 12:26 PM)billyjack Wrote:  If you want to go full Machiavelli... we're staying at 10 for now, but everyone knows that we're going to cherrypick 2 schools whenever we want... so it doesn't let the A-10 (for example) re-set itself... they'll be continually worrying about which 2 teams will be lost... 3 or 4 teams will be jockeying for position every season... with each passing year, if a team clearly stands out, then it's likely gone... not to mention, adding a newly dominant A-10 team in a year or two or three will provide a lot of interest ("splash") when they join... (rather that adding Dayton during their temporary downswing)...

No...Fox isn't going to allow us to just reup whenever we want.

Also, going back to 1980, 81, 82...
Ok, originally we had the 7 of us.

When Villanova joined for Year 2, they were coming off an Eastern-8 title (their 2nd in 3 years), so it was an intriguing pickup. A splash. It built even more upon the great interest the conference already had.

Then after Villanova left the E-8, Pitt went on to win the next 2 titles in the Eastern-8, so when they joined for the 83 season it again was intriguing adding the dominant team in the nearby rival conference. Another splash.

I don't think we'll wait long to expand to 12, but if that happens I don't consider it to be a negative from the C-7+3 standpoint for those intrigue/perception/fan interest reasons.

(03-12-2013 12:28 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 12:26 PM)billyjack Wrote:  If you want to go full Machiavelli... we're staying at 10 for now, but everyone knows that we're going to cherrypick 2 schools whenever we want... so it doesn't let the A-10 (for example) re-set itself... they'll be continually worrying about which 2 teams will be lost... 3 or 4 teams will be jockeying for position every season... with each passing year, if a team clearly stands out, then it's likely gone... not to mention, adding a newly dominant A-10 team in a year or two or three will provide a lot of interest ("splash") when they join... (rather that adding Dayton during their temporary downswing)...

No...Fox isn't going to allow us to just reup whenever we want.

Right, probably not, I agree with you. My post (and later post #50) was more to explain how delaying expansion to 12 wasn't necessarily a bad thing for the C-7+3... and actually could result in a positive buzz if it works out like 1981 and 83.

(03-12-2013 12:28 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 12:26 PM)billyjack Wrote:  If you want to go full Machiavelli... we're staying at 10 for now, but everyone knows that we're going to cherrypick 2 schools whenever we want... so it doesn't let the A-10 (for example) re-set itself... they'll be continually worrying about which 2 teams will be lost... 3 or 4 teams will be jockeying for position every season... with each passing year, if a team clearly stands out, then it's likely gone... not to mention, adding a newly dominant A-10 team in a year or two or three will provide a lot of interest ("splash") when they join... (rather that adding Dayton during their temporary downswing)...

No...Fox isn't going to allow us to just reup whenever we want.

Yeah, this is actually what I was getting at in my last post. Upon further review, the fact that Fox will provide the C7 the same amount per school at 12 as it would at 10 is actually a pretty large concession. They're effectively stating that they're going to value SLU and Dayton at the same level as Xavier and Butler if the C7 goes to 12 *immediately*. Are they going to do the same 3 years from now? Maybe... or maybe not. So, there's quite a bit of risk there if the C7 waits to expand. As I'm thinking about this more, I really think Fox is trying to force the C7 into a decision one way or another. The last thing that they want to do is renegotiate with an expanded league in a few years and there's no guarantee that they'll make the C7 whole at that point. Heck, it might be hard to justify anyone other than a Notre Dame/Gonzaga combo getting an extra $8 million to $10 million per year once this new contract starts.

(03-11-2013 09:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think for me I'm surprised that it was fox doing this and not Turner. I thought they would be making more of an effort to get back into college sports in conjunction with the NCAA tourney rights they have. Imagine the Big East tourney leading up to the NCAA tourney.

That was a plan they had a few years back. When the Big East started falling apart, they lost some of their interest. The old Big East, with the C7, Syr, UL, UConn, UC, Pit, WV, ND, etc was something they really wanted to tie into the NCAA tournament

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:53 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Didn't the article say that the contract would basically be the same per team if they wen't to 10 or 12? 500 for 10 teams for 12 years or 600 for 12 teams for 12 years? If thats the case i don't see why you don't go to 12.

I think that's what it said. In some ways makes ZERO sense for Fox to do that.

Makes perfect sense for them. Gives them more programming. As was explained to me, one of the reasons Turner (and others) were so facinated with the (old) Big East, was the sheer size and depth of teams, meant that with an 18 team league, you have 162 conference games (18 team league) plus another 125 + OOC games, but 12-13 of those teams in a given year were teams people wanted to see, which meant that 144 of the conference games had at least one team people wanted to see, and at least 78 of them would between 2 teams people wanted to see. That was what made Biug East basketball so much more valuable than anyone else's.

while not at the same level, the same principle applies here. A 12 team league gives Fox 20% more conference games and 20% more OOC games to add to the inventory. And for a growing channel it also adds a few more large metropolitan areas that may have to expand availablity of Fox Sports 1 and/or Fox Sport 2, to cover the local teams, combined with giving them more games to fill TV slots (PAC 12 basketball surely isn't going to do it. So I can see why they would do it.

It honestly is the same method NBC should have used to lure both conferences.

I wonder if the going from 500-600 million is contingent on getting specific teams for 11/12. Like Fox saying ok for C7, XU, BU, and Creighton- you get 500 million for 10 teams. But to get same value for 12 teams- you have to add these specific 2 teams.

(03-12-2013 01:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 09:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think for me I'm surprised that it was fox doing this and not Turner. I thought they would be making more of an effort to get back into college sports in conjunction with the NCAA tourney rights they have. Imagine the Big East tourney leading up to the NCAA tourney.

That was a plan they had a few years back. When the Big East started falling apart, they lost some of their interest. The old Big East, with the C7, Syr, UL, UConn, UC, Pit, WV, ND, etc was something they really wanted to tie into the NCAA tournament

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:53 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Didn't the article say that the contract would basically be the same per team if they wen't to 10 or 12? 500 for 10 teams for 12 years or 600 for 12 teams for 12 years? If thats the case i don't see why you don't go to 12.

I think that's what it said. In some ways makes ZERO sense for Fox to do that.

Makes perfect sense for them. Gives them more programming. As was explained to me, one of the reasons Turner (and others) were so facinated with the (old) Big East, was the sheer size and depth of teams, meant that with an 18 team league, you have 162 conference games (18 team league) plus another 125 + OOC games, but 12-13 of those teams in a given year were teams people wanted to see, which meant that 144 of the conference games had at least one team people wanted to see, and at least 78 of them would between 2 teams people wanted to see. That was what made Biug East basketball so much more valuable than anyone else's.

while not at the same level, the same principle applies here. A 12 team league gives Fox 20% more conference games and 20% more OOC games to add to the inventory. And for a growing channel it also adds a few more large metropolitan areas that may have to expand availablity of Fox Sports 1 and/or Fox Sport 2, to cover the local teams, combined with giving them more games to fill TV slots (PAC 12 basketball surely isn't going to do it. So I can see why they would do it.

It honestly is the same method NBC should have used to lure both conferences.

I get what you are saying. But basically per team its 5 million for 10 teams per year or 5 million for 12 teams per year. The total value increases, but the real per school value doesn't. There's no incentive to expand there.. However if it was 4.5 million for 10 teams per year or 5 million for 12 teams- there would be the incintive to expand. That increases the real value per school.

(03-12-2013 01:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I get what you are saying. But basically per team its 5 million for 10 teams per year or 5 million for 12 teams per year. The total value increases, but the real per school value doesn't. There's no incentive to expand there.. However if it was 4.5 million for 10 teams per year or 5 million for 12 teams- there would be the incintive to expand. That increases the real value per school.

That might be true for the revenue side, but let's not forget about the expense side of the ledger. I think that if you factor in other costs, then there's still more immediate incentive to expand. For instance, legal fees and the startup expenses for the league are pretty much fixed costs - they're going to be the same whether there are 10 or 12 teams. So, to the extent that those expenses have to come off the top of that new TV contract (which might very well be the case), the fact that the league is getting $50 million total in year 1 instead of under $42 million total (even if the per school average is the same on paper) could be a pretty material difference. (The legal expenses alone for the football schools in the split negotiations were $15 million, so that figure will likely be even more for the C7 because they have those negotiation costs plus all of the fees for starting a new league from scratch.) That fixed cost burden would also be shared over time by 12 schools as opposed to 10.

At the same time, the conference office typically takes a share of the TV contract for administrative expenses (usually equal to the share of a school). So, the per school average for the TV rights is really closer to $50 million divided by 13 shares (12 schools plus the league office) versus $41.67 million divided by 11 shares (10 schools plus the league office). With a 12 team league, that averages to $3,846,154 per school per year, while a 10 team league average would be $3,787,879 per school. It's not a huge amount, but there is a slightly higher payout for a 12 team league assuming that the conference office takes the equivalent of school's full share of the TV contract.

On the balance, the fixed costs would seem to be a much bigger deal. Having 12 teams right away instead of 10 means that the fixed legal and startup costs could be wiped out much more quickly with less impact to each individual school.

(03-12-2013 01:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I get what you are saying. But basically per team its 5 million for 10 teams per year or 5 million for 12 teams per year. The total value increases, but the real per school value doesn't. There's no incentive to expand there.. However if it was 4.5 million for 10 teams per year or 5 million for 12 teams- there would be the incintive to expand. That increases the real value per school.

That might be true for the revenue side, but let's not forget about the expense side of the ledger. I think that if you factor in other costs, then there's still more immediate incentive to expand. For instance, legal fees and the startup expenses for the league are pretty much fixed costs - they're going to be the same whether there are 10 or 12 teams. So, to the extent that those expenses have to come off the top of that new TV contract (which might very well be the case), the fact that the league is getting $50 million total in year 1 instead of under $42 million total (even if the per school average is the same on paper) could be a pretty material difference. (The legal expenses alone for the football schools in the split negotiations were $15 million, so that figure will likely be even more for the C7 because they have those negotiation costs plus all of the fees for starting a new league from scratch.) That fixed cost burden would also be shared over time by 12 schools as opposed to 10.

At the same time, the conference office typically takes a share of the TV contract for administrative expenses (usually equal to the share of a school). So, the per school average for the TV rights is really closer to $50 million divided by 13 shares (12 schools plus the league office) versus $41.67 million divided by 11 shares (10 schools plus the league office). With a 12 team league, that averages to $3,846,154 per school per year, while a 10 team league average would be $3,787,879 per school. It's not a huge amount, but there is a slightly higher payout for a 12 team league assuming that the conference office takes the equivalent of school's full share of the TV contract.

On the balance, the fixed costs would seem to be a much bigger deal. Having 12 teams right away instead of 10 means that the fixed legal and startup costs could be wiped out much more quickly with less impact to each individual school.

True so it ever so slightly makes it worth more to go 12 over 10- by like 60k.

All I'm arguing is that I'd have thought Fox would have given us more incintive to go to 12. I mean 60k isn't much at all. What you are talking about is more on our side of the house than Fox.

(03-12-2013 01:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I get what you are saying. But basically per team its 5 million for 10 teams per year or 5 million for 12 teams per year. The total value increases, but the real per school value doesn't. There's no incentive to expand there.. However if it was 4.5 million for 10 teams per year or 5 million for 12 teams- there would be the incintive to expand. That increases the real value per school.

That might be true for the revenue side, but let's not forget about the expense side of the ledger. I think that if you factor in other costs, then there's still more immediate incentive to expand. For instance, legal fees and the startup expenses for the league are pretty much fixed costs - they're going to be the same whether there are 10 or 12 teams. So, to the extent that those expenses have to come off the top of that new TV contract (which might very well be the case), the fact that the league is getting $50 million total in year 1 instead of under $42 million total (even if the per school average is the same on paper) could be a pretty material difference. (The legal expenses alone for the football schools in the split negotiations were $15 million, so that figure will likely be even more for the C7 because they have those negotiation costs plus all of the fees for starting a new league from scratch.) That fixed cost burden would also be shared over time by 12 schools as opposed to 10.

At the same time, the conference office typically takes a share of the TV contract for administrative expenses (usually equal to the share of a school). So, the per school average for the TV rights is really closer to $50 million divided by 13 shares (12 schools plus the league office) versus $41.67 million divided by 11 shares (10 schools plus the league office). With a 12 team league, that averages to $3,846,154 per school per year, while a 10 team league average would be $3,787,879 per school. It's not a huge amount, but there is a slightly higher payout for a 12 team league assuming that the conference office takes the equivalent of school's full share of the TV contract.

On the balance, the fixed costs would seem to be a much bigger deal. Having 12 teams right away instead of 10 means that the fixed legal and startup costs could be wiped out much more quickly with less impact to each individual school.

True so it ever so slightly makes it worth more to go 12 over 10- by like 60k.

All I'm arguing is that I'd have thought Fox would have given us more incintive to go to 12. I mean 60k isn't much at all. What you are talking about is more on our side of the house than Fox.

You talk a lot about perception Stever, what makes both Fox and the Big East look like they are both invested in being in the big time? 600 mil sure says that about both sides. More than 500 thats for sure.

(03-12-2013 02:01 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I get what you are saying. But basically per team its 5 million for 10 teams per year or 5 million for 12 teams per year. The total value increases, but the real per school value doesn't. There's no incentive to expand there.. However if it was 4.5 million for 10 teams per year or 5 million for 12 teams- there would be the incintive to expand. That increases the real value per school.

That might be true for the revenue side, but let's not forget about the expense side of the ledger. I think that if you factor in other costs, then there's still more immediate incentive to expand. For instance, legal fees and the startup expenses for the league are pretty much fixed costs - they're going to be the same whether there are 10 or 12 teams. So, to the extent that those expenses have to come off the top of that new TV contract (which might very well be the case), the fact that the league is getting $50 million total in year 1 instead of under $42 million total (even if the per school average is the same on paper) could be a pretty material difference. (The legal expenses alone for the football schools in the split negotiations were $15 million, so that figure will likely be even more for the C7 because they have those negotiation costs plus all of the fees for starting a new league from scratch.) That fixed cost burden would also be shared over time by 12 schools as opposed to 10.

At the same time, the conference office typically takes a share of the TV contract for administrative expenses (usually equal to the share of a school). So, the per school average for the TV rights is really closer to $50 million divided by 13 shares (12 schools plus the league office) versus $41.67 million divided by 11 shares (10 schools plus the league office). With a 12 team league, that averages to $3,846,154 per school per year, while a 10 team league average would be $3,787,879 per school. It's not a huge amount, but there is a slightly higher payout for a 12 team league assuming that the conference office takes the equivalent of school's full share of the TV contract.

On the balance, the fixed costs would seem to be a much bigger deal. Having 12 teams right away instead of 10 means that the fixed legal and startup costs could be wiped out much more quickly with less impact to each individual school.

True so it ever so slightly makes it worth more to go 12 over 10- by like 60k.

All I'm arguing is that I'd have thought Fox would have given us more incintive to go to 12. I mean 60k isn't much at all. What you are talking about is more on our side of the house than Fox.

You talk a lot about perception Stever, what makes both Fox and the Big East look like they are both invested in being in the big time? 600 mil sure says that about both sides. More than 500 thats for sure.

Right but anyone who is anything with math knows 500 for 10 and 600 for 12 is the exact same. I'd say the perception there would be nearly the same. All I'm saying is I would have thought Fox would have given us more of an incintive to go 12- because of just how much it benefits them. On our side it makes sense. That's all...

Well, the fact that we'd probably send another team to the dance with 12 vs 10 is another incentive.