(03-25-2013 10:26 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Of course the conferences need to come together as a team and share the money. But when a school leaves one conference and goes to another, the credits should follow them to the new conference.

Maybe some of the money should follow them, but some of the money should go to the conference that they were competing in when they got the bid. That goes double for those who got to the tournament on the back of winning the conference's tournament and claiming the conference's autobid.

I could see splitting the pot four ways instead of three ways ~ instead of slices to schools based on scholarships, to schools based on student-athlete academic performance and to the conferences for tournament appearances, it could be those three slices plus to the schools for number of tournament wins. Then, just like the scholarships slice of the money and the scholar-athlete slice of the money, the school's wins slice of the money would follow the school, while the conference representative slice of the money would stay with the conference.

(03-25-2013 06:13 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think people are making the conference realignment issues too complicated. We need clean breaks between departing schools and conferences so that everyone can start their new relationships without any clutter. So it makes sense that schools like SU, WVU and Pitt should be taking the NCAA credits that they generated with them to their new conferences. Having them stay behind with the old conferences is simply not right.

I also think that the Aresco conf should allow the new New BE access to the name without the messy bartering. The "new BE" is actually the majority of the schools that created the original BE conf. They should get the name free of charge as an act of good will and because it's the right thing to do.

Since when is life or realignment fair

(03-25-2013 08:20 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 07:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA doesn't force this on schools; they do it voluntarily. I actually think it's a good thing because it's one of the few things that promotes stability in the system.

Besides, Miko, you can't design a contract (as Pitt, Syracuse, and Georgetown did), force new members to sign it, and then whine when you are the one that gets bit by the provisions.

If you're referring to leaving the conference, then that was done simply because there was no other choice. The big east betrayed our schools. We had no choice but to leave in order to better align with schools that have the same traits as ours.

Please do tell us all how the Big East betrayed Pitt. Was it before or after Pitt led the charge to turn down the ESPN deal then a month later the day Dave Gavitt died announced that you had been secretly negotiating with the ACC to stab your partners in the back and throw the league into a spiral of instability?

Before or after all of that?

(03-25-2013 06:39 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 08:20 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 07:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA doesn't force this on schools; they do it voluntarily. I actually think it's a good thing because it's one of the few things that promotes stability in the system.

Besides, Miko, you can't design a contract (as Pitt, Syracuse, and Georgetown did), force new members to sign it, and then whine when you are the one that gets bit by the provisions.

If you're referring to leaving the conference, then that was done simply because there was no other choice. The big east betrayed our schools. We had no choice but to leave in order to better align with schools that have the same traits as ours.

Please do tell us all how the Big East betrayed Pitt. Was it before or after Pitt led the charge to turn down the ESPN deal then a month later the day Dave Gavitt died announced that you had been secretly negotiating with the ACC to stab your partners in the back and throw the league into a spiral of instability?

Before or after all of that?

Pitt wasn't the only school that thought the deal was not good. Even if the deal would have been accepted, it would not have prevented any of the schools from defecting. In fact, if Pitt would have voted yes on the deal and then left for the ACC, it would have been unethical.

(03-25-2013 06:56 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 06:39 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 08:20 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 07:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA doesn't force this on schools; they do it voluntarily. I actually think it's a good thing because it's one of the few things that promotes stability in the system.

Besides, Miko, you can't design a contract (as Pitt, Syracuse, and Georgetown did), force new members to sign it, and then whine when you are the one that gets bit by the provisions.

If you're referring to leaving the conference, then that was done simply because there was no other choice. The big east betrayed our schools. We had no choice but to leave in order to better align with schools that have the same traits as ours.

Please do tell us all how the Big East betrayed Pitt. Was it before or after Pitt led the charge to turn down the ESPN deal then a month later the day Dave Gavitt died announced that you had been secretly negotiating with the ACC to stab your partners in the back and throw the league into a spiral of instability?

Before or after all of that?

Pitt wasn't the only school that thought the deal was not good. Even if the deal would have been accepted, it would not have prevented any of the schools from defecting. In fact, if Pitt would have voted yes on the deal and then left for the ACC, it would have been unethical.

Not as unethical as leading the charge to turn it down, talking others into turning it down all the while having conversations with the ACC about leaving the Big East. I'm sure UConn, Cincy and USF would rather be "stuck" with that deal then what they have now.

We have no idea what would have happened if Pitt and Cuse didn't stab their conference partners in the back.

(03-25-2013 06:13 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think people are making the conference realignment issues too complicated. We need clean breaks between departing schools and conferences so that everyone can start their new relationships without any clutter. So it makes sense that schools like SU, WVU and Pitt should be taking the NCAA credits that they generated with them to their new conferences. Having them stay behind with the old conferences is simply not right.

I also think that the Aresco conf should allow the new New BE access to the name without the messy bartering. The "new BE" is actually the majority of the schools that created the original BE conf. They should get the name free of charge as an act of good will and because it's the right thing to do.

I agree.

Now Pitt should give back all the credits that UConn earned for them in winning three national championships.

(03-25-2013 08:10 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 06:13 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think people are making the conference realignment issues too complicated. We need clean breaks between departing schools and conferences so that everyone can start their new relationships without any clutter. So it makes sense that schools like SU, WVU and Pitt should be taking the NCAA credits that they generated with them to their new conferences. Having them stay behind with the old conferences is simply not right.

I also think that the Aresco conf should allow the new New BE access to the name without the messy bartering. The "new BE" is actually the majority of the schools that created the original BE conf. They should get the name free of charge as an act of good will and because it's the right thing to do.

I agree.

Now Pitt should give back all the credits that UConn earned for them in winning three national championships.

I don't think you get what I'm talking about. I'm in favor of cooperation within the conference. But when it's time to move on, it's time to move on. I'm trying to be ethical about this.

(03-25-2013 08:25 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 08:10 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 06:13 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think people are making the conference realignment issues too complicated. We need clean breaks between departing schools and conferences so that everyone can start their new relationships without any clutter. So it makes sense that schools like SU, WVU and Pitt should be taking the NCAA credits that they generated with them to their new conferences. Having them stay behind with the old conferences is simply not right.

I also think that the Aresco conf should allow the new New BE access to the name without the messy bartering. The "new BE" is actually the majority of the schools that created the original BE conf. They should get the name free of charge as an act of good will and because it's the right thing to do.

I agree.

Now Pitt should give back all the credits that UConn earned for them in winning three national championships.

I don't think you get what I'm talking about. I'm in favor of cooperation within the conference. But when it's time to move on, it's time to move on. I'm trying to be ethical about this.

Well the ethical thing to do would be to stand by the agreement that you signed, not go back on it to get more money.

(03-25-2013 06:13 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think people are making the conference realignment issues too complicated. We need clean breaks between departing schools and conferences so that everyone can start their new relationships without any clutter. So it makes sense that schools like SU, WVU and Pitt should be taking the NCAA credits that they generated with them to their new conferences. Having them stay behind with the old conferences is simply not right.

I also think that the Aresco conf should allow the new New BE access to the name without the messy bartering. The "new BE" is actually the majority of the schools that created the original BE conf. They should get the name free of charge as an act of good will and because it's the right thing to do.

And if my Uncle had tits, they would be my Aunt!

Next thread please!

(03-25-2013 09:20 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 08:25 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 08:10 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 06:13 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think people are making the conference realignment issues too complicated. We need clean breaks between departing schools and conferences so that everyone can start their new relationships without any clutter. So it makes sense that schools like SU, WVU and Pitt should be taking the NCAA credits that they generated with them to their new conferences. Having them stay behind with the old conferences is simply not right.

I also think that the Aresco conf should allow the new New BE access to the name without the messy bartering. The "new BE" is actually the majority of the schools that created the original BE conf. They should get the name free of charge as an act of good will and because it's the right thing to do.

I agree.

Now Pitt should give back all the credits that UConn earned for them in winning three national championships.

I don't think you get what I'm talking about. I'm in favor of cooperation within the conference. But when it's time to move on, it's time to move on. I'm trying to be ethical about this.

Well the ethical thing to do would be to stand by the agreement that you signed, not go back on it to get more money.

When a conference fails to look out for your best interests, and the conference no longer looks like the the one you originally signed on for, then there is nothing unethical about trying to find a place that is a better fit.

(03-25-2013 06:56 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Pitt wasn't the only school that thought the deal was not good.

It was surely in a minority though ~ majority of schools that left voted for the contract. Only one of the C7 voted against, and the other three No votes were football schools that then left not too long thereafter.

And the fact still remains ~ all of the units earned by Old Big East schools were earned with the Old Big East in their conference schedule, in an situation where, because of the conference RPI, a tough loss in the Big East was often better than a blow-out win in a Mid-Major.

And if the $130/yr contract had been signed, the loss in contract revenue following school defections would have been substantially muted, since contract renegotiations subject to arbitration do not bite as deep as having the contract in the open market when there is only one lowball counter-bidder. Boise State would clearly have continued with their move into the New Big East with a richer contract ~ they made the mercenary move throughout ~ and with a richer contract and clear "Best of the Rest" football status, there would have been strong possibilities of replacing Rutgers with a stronger basketball add than Tulane, which could well have avoided the C7 breakaway.

As a rule, the NCAA units earned by the basketball schools, who left after the Big East was thoroughly broken by football school defections, are traveling with them, while the NCAA units of the defecting football schools that tore the Old Big East apart are staying with the new Big TBA. And as an outside observer, that seems a fair outcome.

(03-26-2013 06:21 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 09:20 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 08:25 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 08:10 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 06:13 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think people are making the conference realignment issues too complicated. We need clean breaks between departing schools and conferences so that everyone can start their new relationships without any clutter. So it makes sense that schools like SU, WVU and Pitt should be taking the NCAA credits that they generated with them to their new conferences. Having them stay behind with the old conferences is simply not right.

I also think that the Aresco conf should allow the new New BE access to the name without the messy bartering. The "new BE" is actually the majority of the schools that created the original BE conf. They should get the name free of charge as an act of good will and because it's the right thing to do.

I agree.

Now Pitt should give back all the credits that UConn earned for them in winning three national championships.

I don't think you get what I'm talking about. I'm in favor of cooperation within the conference. But when it's time to move on, it's time to move on. I'm trying to be ethical about this.

Well the ethical thing to do would be to stand by the agreement that you signed, not go back on it to get more money.

When a conference fails to look out for your best interests, and the conference no longer looks like the the one you originally signed on for, then there is nothing unethical about trying to find a place that is a better fit.

I'm sorry but no one left before you for in seven years. You were the first out the door, you can't claim that the other schools failed you when you were the one who told them to turn down the deal when you knew you were leaving. Pitt failed its partners.

How did the conference fail Pitt. We're all ears.

I think Miko is pissing into the wind on this one...unless it was negotiated or in the By-Laws Cuse and Pitt have no claim as far as I know.

I believe it is "fair" for schools to share post-season revenue with their conference mates. You don't get to the post season without playing the games. You need conference mates.

The issue is that the NCAA distributes the Tourney payments over 6 years. The "fair" thing would be to continue to distribute the credits based on the formula that was in place when the school left. If a school leaves a conference this year they would get a 1/x share of the credits from 2007-2013. In 2014 they would get a 1/x share of the credits from 2008-2013. They would not receive any share of credits earned by the previous conference after 2013.

I can see where it would be painful to write a check to a school that is not part of your conference any more. I hate the idea of writing Maryland a check for the next 5 years but they did help earn that money.

(03-25-2013 06:13 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think people are making the conference realignment issues too complicated. We need clean breaks between departing schools and conferences so that everyone can start their new relationships without any clutter. So it makes sense that schools like SU, WVU and Pitt should be taking the NCAA credits that they generated with them to their new conferences. Having them stay behind with the old conferences is simply not right.

I also think that the Aresco conf should allow the new New BE access to the name without the messy bartering. The "new BE" is actually the majority of the schools that created the original BE conf. They should get the name free of charge as an act of good will and because it's the right thing to do.

It makes sense to have the conferences keep the credits unless a team is tossed from a conference (very rare) for several reasons: 1) the departing schools dont have to leave; 2) stability of funding for all athletic departments in the league; 3) which bid should the school keep the credit for?-the automatic bid? The at-large? The last minute at-large clinched with a win or two in the conference tournament?; and, 4) the departing schools are in control of whether or not there's "clutter" by leaving or not.

The c7 or "big East 2.0" is entitled to nothing in my view. They should have to wait 5 years for an automatic qualifier for the NCAA tournament as a new conference. They got to eat off of Cincinnati, Louisville, Syracuse, etc. by sharing in their credits which have been much greater than their own. Whatever they get from Aresco and company as well as the NCAA is a gift.

By this logic the Big East should have to pay back WVU and Louisville all the money for BCS bowls they earned while in the league the past 6 years.

WTF is all this "fair" talk? There is the contract a school signed and then there is whatever the lawyers of all parties involved work out differently (if anything). NCAA credits are tied to schools...what makes you think they aren't? If schools go to their conference and collectively agree to give up those credits to the conference as part of the criteria for membership that's their prerogative. It's already been explained why it makes sense to do so (the same damn reason it makes sense to have conferences at all...leverage; Vanderbilt isn't earning any BCS bowl monies or NCAA credits, but they damn sure pull the rest of the league up when it comes time to trumpet academic integrity).

I'm not a lawyer but I've been in on more than my fair share of corporate agreements/disputes/settlements/etc. Any side that walks into negotiations with the word "fair" on their lips has the other side silently high-fiving and counting bonus checks.

And, just to close the loop: any agreement on which all parties put their stamp of approval is, by definition, "fair." Certain parties may ultimately be branded "stupid" or "brilliant" or "lying snakes", but "unfair" is only a valid claim before the contract is signed.

(03-26-2013 11:53 AM)blazr Wrote:  WTF is all this "fair" talk? There is the contract a school signed and then there is whatever the lawyers of all parties involved work out differently (if anything). NCAA credits are tied to schools...what makes you think they aren't? ...

What makes most people think that they aren't is the fact that its been extensively covered that the units for tournament appearances are received by the conferences that they were representing in the tournament. For example, when the MWC and CUSA were considering a merger, they were informed by the NCAA that they would keep the MWC units if they merged by adding the CUSA schools to the MWC, keep the CUSA units if they merged by adding the MWC schools to CUSA, and would not receive either if they shut down both and started a new conference from scratch.

The schools that would get paid their tournament money directly would be those that would be invited to compete as independents, rather than as representatives of conferences, though I do not know of any independents invited to the NCAA tournament over the past six years. I was under the impression that the big name football independents ~ Notre Dame, Navy, Army ~ are all conference members for BBall.

The "New Big East" schools had bargaining leverage, since until they put in formal notice, they had a majority of the votes. They also had the right to leave without exit fee if they left as a block. However there was a clause requiring a majority of both BB and FB schools to shut down the Old Big East. Both of those were hammered out last time the Old Big East threatened to fall apart.

So they could have used their voting power to block things, and they could have stripped D1 status from the Old Big East by leaving before the new schools were able to join and provide the required 7 men and women BB schools, 6 FB schools (for non-FB schools, 6 teams in each of two men's sports*), and 6 teams in each of two women's teams sports ... but they couldn't use it to simply kill the old Big East and then divide assets on a majority vote basis. Since they were the ones that wanted to get things done quickly, the three Big TBA voting schools were able to negotiate an exit in which the C7 would basically get "their" units and not much else.

As far as PITT getting "their" units: Changing the rules this summer would only affect the payouts for tournament appearances starting in 2014. The Pitt units earned as a representative of the Old Big East would in any event stay with the Big TBA for the full six year payout. Pitt fans can argue until they are blue in the face that its "only fair" for Pitt to get "their" Big East representative tournament appearance money, but those were not the rules in place when Pitt made its decision to go for the bigger conference payouts from the ACC.

(* The New Big East gets over the D1 sports played rules with men's soccer and baseball, and hits six baseball schools with four C7 schools that play baseball plus X and Butler, which is likely why X and Butler were always such firm picks in early reporting on schools to be picked for the New Big East.)

(03-25-2013 10:47 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 10:46 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 10:37 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 10:26 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 10:22 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  How about you give up your BCS revenue share in the ACC since it should all go to the 1 team that makes the game? Pitt would get zero every season. How about that fairness?

You miss my point. Of course the conferences need to come together as a team and share the money. But when a school leaves one conference and goes to another, the credits should follow them to the new conference. Schools like UH, SMU, Memphis and Tulane did nothing to help the Aresco conf. They should not get the right to have the credits that Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, etc. made. Those credits should go to their new conferences.

Why should schools, like Memphis, who have a lot of credits tied to their name, have to share with their new conference?

Because you need the help on the football side of the equation. Look, I'm not saying that schools shouldn't share with their conference mates. I think it's fair though to allow the credits to transfer with the departing school to the new conference.

If the credits can move around then they belong to the school and at no point should they have to share. Sharing is fair to everyone else, but not the person doing the sharing.

You're wrong. Sharing creates stability. It prevents highs and lows. He is saying that the credits should follow the school and be shared in the new conference, as opposed to staying in the old conference where they are shared amongst the remaining schools. Memphis would actually beenfit from this rule because their credits wouldn't stay in the CUSA. They would be moved to the A-12, where Memphis would get a share of the distribution.

Ultimately this is a moot point because this is a contract issue, not an "inherent fairness" issue, which is why I am completely OK with Syracuse's credits staying with the A-12.

RE: Captain Bearcat
miko33 didn't personally agree to the terms of the contract, and miko33 didn't personally write the contract. A school that he happened to like pooled resources with a number of other schools, and, as a group, those schools hired a legal team to write the contract. There's no reason why he can't complain. In fact, the situation is similar to politics. Your elected reps enacet policy on your behalf, but I bet you've complained about at least one gov. policy at least once in your life.


**That said, I have no issue with Syracuse leaving its NCAA tourney credits. That's just part of doing business, and that's OK with me.**

(03-26-2013 12:19 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Ultimately this is a moot point because this is a contract issue, not an "inherent fairness" issue, which is why I am completely OK with Syracuse's credits staying with the A-12.

While the check is made out to the conference based on how many appearances its representative teams have made in the previous six years, the contract issue stands in any event ~ the distribution of the NCAA units was set in the bylaws of a voluntary association that Pitt elected to be a member of, and so was the fact that a team that pulled up stakes ~ whether for a richer conference payout somewhere else or because they wanted to drop out of Div1 football ~ would not get any share of the units received by the Old Big East forwarded to it at its new conference.