(04-28-2013 07:45 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  I wrongly assumed that this guy was a fan of a CUSA program or I would have never responded. That was a complete waste of time.

Ummm... don't be so quick to assume that you assumed wrongly... but then again, it's not about the messenger, it's about the message, so it really doesn't matter which school is my alma mater.

The certitude concerning payout amounts expressed by the OP is unfounded because of lack of supporting objective sources, the complex nature of TV negotiations, and unknown factors inherent with any new enterprise like C-USA 3.0.

Furthermore, the OP does not appear to advance suggestions to improve the situation. Without positive action, nothing happens.

(04-28-2013 07:49 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 07:44 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No matter what the Sunbelt is getting, it doesn't mean that CUSA will get that with new deal. Is CUSA likely to get a haircut?? probably yes, but doubt it is going to be even close to Belt levels. My guess is CUSA if it does well over the next couple/few years till its deal comes up, it may well freeze it where it is, get a very small increase, or take a 10 to 30% drop. It will not drop off the face of the earth to Sun levels.

---------------

Only a few seem to realize the current cusa contract involved the Houstons, Memphis, SMU, etc who have now left for greener pastures. When the current contract expires the media dollars will plummet. This league has morphed into the Sunbelt and will bring in even more of them before its over. The new Cbelt is nothing more than a renamed Sunbelt.

Again, you state that when our contract expires the media dollars will plummet to Sun Belt levels. If you actually belived this and had any sense, you would have already stated somewhere in your argument that the TV networks are in the verge of renegotiating a new contract before July 1st. Why? Because there is no way in hell the networks will pay CUSA 14 million dollars over the next 2-3 years when according to you it should be 1 million. Do you really believe these businessmen are so ignorant as to do such a thing? Give away 13 million dollars per year over the next 2-3 years? Pay for a product that is not even worth one tenth of what they're paying for? Again, you fail.

It is clear that you are a bitter fan of one of the Sun Belt schools left behind. You have displayed great efforts in trying to make everyone feel like we're part of the bottom of the pit conference that is the Sun Belt.

There's nothing one can say to a troll that would make them come to their senses and for this reason this is my last attempt to inject some logic and sense into you.

civil, you seem a little confused, but maybe I'm reading too much into this post... the post you quote is not mine, but you seem to talk as-if it is me... what's up with that?

Second, the identity of my allegiance is actually embedded in one of the first posts in this thread, but again, not sure why that should matter.

Third... here's what an actual VP within one of the networks said to a recent post of mine on this topic of renegotiation on another board...

Quote:Guys, if we haven't learned anything else from realignment, it is this: EVERYTHING is a negotiation, when you can leave, what you pay, media rights, bowl game contracts, etc......

There aren't any hard and fast rules and contracts are made to be re-negotiated.

This is one of those occasions when a person would be wise to not be so married to his/her conclusions that s/he can't take new information and change his/her mind.

(04-28-2013 08:59 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The certitude concerning payout amounts expressed by the OP is unfounded because of lack of supporting objective sources, the complex nature of TV negotiations, and unknown factors inherent with any new enterprise like C-USA 3.0.

Furthermore, the OP does not appear to advance suggestions to improve the situation. Without positive action, nothing happens.

All of these things and more I pointed out to him in a previous thread that he posted here. All I got out of him after literally thousands of words, was that he didn't believe other variables would have any effect. He won't read anyone's arguments beyond searching out reasons to talk down to other posters. He actually seems totally oblivious to how simplistic and weak his own position actually is: "CUSA will make Sun Belt money in the future because I said so...here, look at the Sun Belt's current numbers".

Or maybe he isn't totally oblivious to it. Either way he is just trolling this forum for ego purposes. This time I just gave him the negative rep he deserves and posted music in the thread. His mature adult response is to post his self-portrait.

(04-28-2013 09:34 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  civil, you seem a little confused, but maybe I'm reading too much into this post... the post you quote is not mine, but you seem to talk as-if it is me... what's up with that?

Second, the identity of my allegiance is actually embedded in one of the first posts in this thread, but again, not sure why that should matter.

Third... here's what an actual VP within one of the networks said to a recent post of mine on this topic of renegotiation on another board...

Quote:Guys, if we haven't learned anything else from realignment, it is this: EVERYTHING is a negotiation, when you can leave, what you pay, media rights, bowl game contracts, etc......

There aren't any hard and fast rules and contracts are made to be re-negotiated.

This is one of those occasions when a person would be wise to not be so married to his/her conclusions that s/he can't take new information and change his/her mind.

So you got that quote from a "VP", yet you are deliberately ignoring the advice with your "x got paid this much therefore y will be paid 1/30 of x". You need to take your own advice from the last paragraph.

Title: Synopsis of the Demise of Special Agent Freshy's Credibility
Subtitle: Why I Can Never Again Take This Guy Seriously

Special Agent Freshy said:


What I said:
"There are several variables that will go into determining the cost of a Big Mac at McD's in 2016. There are several variables that will go into determining the cost of a mushroom burger at Red Robin in 2016.

"If the cost of a Big Mac today is $2.50, and the cost of a mushroom burger today is $7.50, what is the best way today of projecting what the cost of a Big Mac will be in comparison to a mushroom burger in 2016?

"The cost of special sauce might rise. Maybe the cost of mushrooms dramatically decreases. Maybe Red Robin decides in the meantime to put less mayo on their burgers, or goes with a more expensive bun. The cost of lawsuits might be greater for McD's being who they are. Then again, who knows if maybe one of those mushrooms might be tainted in the meantime, and the chain that served it on a burger might have the public turn on them.

"Who knows? Several variables at play.

"But the general conclusion remains valid... we don't *know* what will happen, but *our best, most reasonable projection* right now would be to say that in 2016, if a Big Mac is $3, a mushroom burger will be $9... because the ratio is 1 to 3... no biases there, just simple math."

Seemingly undaunted, Special Agent Freshy said (again):


To which I said...
"Wow. I seem to have touched a nerve. I'd hoped we might lower the volume, but I suppose you're more comfortable with making attempts to zap the other person's intelligence... forgive if this is abrasive, but it sounds to me like a student who just got through Research Methods in grad school and is dying for someone to notice he passed...

"...My point seems to be getting lost here... I say that because you seem to be arguing about the exact value of the next contract... I am not attempting to pinpoint the value of the next CUSA contract, but rather am demonstrating that no matter what that value is, it most likely is going to look significantly more like what the Sun Belt has received, and much less like what CUSA previously received...

"The value could go up or could go down or could stay the same. My primary point is that it will remain proportionate to the value of other Group of Five teams, regardless of what conference name they are now assembled under. And proportionality is most important to the discussion. If we're getting $10 million each under the next contract or $100,000 each under the next contract, what matters is whether there is a significant gap between what we're getting and what the other conference competitors for the BCS berth are getting.

"A rose by any other name is still a rose, and a team under the banner of any other Group of Five conference is still that team. A dozen roses by any other name is still a dozen roses... and twelve teams under the banner of any other Group of Five conference is still those twelve teams. The newly negotiated AAC contract essentially affirms that point... the fact is that conference is mainly composed of former CUSA schools, so it can't surprise anyone that the TV contract ends up looking pretty close to the CUSA TV contract...

"...The CUSA contract will not be "based" on the Sun Belt. It will be based on the value that the CUSA schools bring, most of which we can surmise based on the previous Sun Belt contract, don't bring much. When you use essentially the same ingredients, you shouldn't be surprised when, whether the cook calls it a pancake or a waffle, the taste is going to be remarkably the same."

To which Special Agent Freshy replied:


And was gently provided some crow as requested:

"You mean like this?

Quote:...looking more soberly at the facts of history, there has been a significant difference between what those schools that have been grouped together as CUSA have fetched at the TV bargaining table and what those grouped together as Sun Belt have fetched... and the schools with the most value have now defected to AAC, and in their place, you have essentially Sun Belt-quality schools.

If the al.com report is accurate, the new CUSA should expect about 1/16th of whatever TV revenue would have been coming to the old CUSA had there been no realignment.

Chew on that... 1/16th.

Sure, the holdovers are blessed with that guarantee that the defectors will make up the difference, but none of that will matter a few years from now.

CUSA has to be innovative. The gap between CUSA (and MAC) and the two top conferences (MWC and AAC) will only widen if they aren't actively pursuing ways to reduce that gap.

"I venture that most grad students who successfully completed Research Methods would have gotten it that I seem to be speaking about proportionality from the start. :)

"And lest I be misinterpreted again... "should expect" is different than "will get." I should expect the Red Robin mushroom burger to increase to $9, given the current ratio to the Big Mac, but that doesn't mean it won't stay the same, or even decrease."

Turned back but undaunted, Special Agent Freshy mounts an attack on another front:


And for his trouble, gets another round of crow to chew on...

(I didn't say I did, but then again, have you?... you talk like it, but it took me about 30 seconds to find this. And that was a pretty lame use of your last word, I must say.)


Don't get me wrong. Freshy appears to be articulate, probably young, and maybe employed in some profession that requires a graduate degree... clearly, full of enthusiasm for USM's future. And I don't disparage the desire to sing in the rain... all I ask is that we all acknowledge that there are clouds in the sky and it is, indeed, raining.

But it's futile to give The Enforcer (a title that first came to mind as he stalked me on a different forum) any further benefit of a doubt.

Why? His pattern here has been that he accuses me of being unresponsive, and when I show him explicitly how the record shows that I did, indeed, respond, he mutters on... again... that I'm being unresponsive... yeah, you could say he's unresponsive to my showing that I've been responsive.

That's blatantly disingenuous. And you can never get anywhere in discussion with someone who takes that approach. It's pointless.

Did I step over a line characterizing him as Phillip?

Well, you have to admit, if you've watched the show and if you've read much of his posts, there is great similarity between the two in attitude, tone and word choice.

And, further, he chose to initiate the insults and the intellectual superiority thing... that wasn't me. Like many of us, my dad taught me to not start the fight. I didn't. The record will show that even after he started the silly taunts, I kept my part of the conversation exclusively to the substance.

So, nah... I don't think I stepped over a line. This guy is, for all intents and purposes, Phillip. And I give them both the same level of respect.

No doubt, he'll continue to mutter on. And assuming so, I might continue to have some fun at his expense. But I'm under no illusions... he won't be given the credibility of a person worth any serious response any more. He's overdrawn on that account.

(04-28-2013 03:01 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  So you got that quote from a "VP", yet you are deliberately ignoring the advice with your "x got paid this much therefore y will be paid 1/30 of x".

Geez louise... sorry if I sound impatient, but it's frustrating... with all due respect, please get this...

For the umpteenth time, the assertion being made is not that the 2016 CUSA contract will be 1/30th of the current CUSA contract.

The assertion being made is that the reported facts/figures in concert with the mix of schools as they're now realigned support the likelihood that the 2016 CUSA contract will look a whole lot more like the current Sun Belt contract than the current CUSA contract.

And besides that, please don't mangle the point of his quote. He was speaking to a similar kind of comment as civil's here that had suggested that if renegotiation hasn't already begun, CUSA should expect there's none forthcoming.

(04-28-2013 06:46 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:01 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  So you got that quote from a "VP", yet you are deliberately ignoring the advice with your "x got paid this much therefore y will be paid 1/30 of x".

Geez louise... sorry if I sound impatient, but it's frustrating... with all due respect, please get this...

For the umpteenth time, the assertion being made is not that the 2016 CUSA contract will be 1/30th of the current CUSA contract.

The assertion being made is that the reported facts/figures in concert with the mix of schools as they're now realigned support the likelihood that the 2016 CUSA contract will look a whole lot more like the current Sun Belt contract than the current CUSA contract.

And besides that, please don't mangle the point of his quote. He was speaking to a similar kind of comment as civil's here that had suggested that if renegotiation hasn't already begun, CUSA should expect there's none forthcoming.

So let me see if I understand what you are saying...

You deduced that the current Sun Belt contract is 1/30th of the current CUSA contract.

But the 2016 CUSA contract will not be 1/30th of the current CUSA.

You predict that the 2016 CUSA contract will be more closer to the current Sun Belt contract .... which is 1/30th of the current CUSA contract.

Did I summarize your points correctly?

You are a budding politician right?

With respect to your interpretation of your VP quote, I find it strange that you are willing to infer "expect renegotiation in the near future" but completely ignore what was explicitly said with regards to negotiations: there are no hard and fast rules; multiple variables are at play (several posters keep harping on this, yet you ignore it anyway) etc.

(04-28-2013 06:36 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  No doubt, he'll continue to mutter on. And assuming so, I might continue to have some fun at his expense. But I'm under no illusions... he won't be given the credibility of a person worth any serious response any more. He's overdrawn on that account.

Notice how this thread has devolved into a revolving door of people coming in, attempting to engage you in constructive criticism and discussion, and then finding out you are an egotistical tool who posts nothing but self-serving drivel...and disappearing soon after?

As for self-serving drivel, that's what you did above when you took my quotes out of context. Even then, you can't help yourself. All you did by quoting yourself was reinforce what I have been saying all along about you, which is that you are only interested in talking down to people for your personal enjoyment while not reading what anyone actually has to say. All you do is scan posts and look for material you can use to hammer away again with.

Thank you for your cooperation (finally!).

(04-28-2013 07:31 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  So let me see if I understand what you are saying...

Ummm... what do you find so difficult? I said... precisely...

Quote:...the reported facts/figures in concert with the mix of schools as they're now realigned support the likelihood that the 2016 CUSA contract will look a whole lot more like the current Sun Belt contract than the current CUSA contract.

It's not that hard. We're likely to have a contract closer to $40K than to $1.17M, in 2013 dollars.

Geez, I feel like starting my own AT&T commercial.

(04-28-2013 07:31 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  With respect to your interpretation of your VP quote, I find it strange that you are willing to infer "expect renegotiation in the near future" but completely ignore what was explicitly said with regards to negotiations: there are no hard and fast rules; multiple variables are at play (several posters keep harping on this, yet you ignore it anyway) etc.

Again... with all due respect... you're mangling the quote to try to get a point out of it that isn't there.

This was said specifically in the context of the question of whether anyone should anticipate renegotiation even though nothing has begun one month after Tulsa's departure.

Having known this person for many years... not a close friend by any means, but enough of an acquaintance to be someone with whom I've spoken on the phone and who is on my Facebook at least... I can say with some confidence that he would back me up on my primary assertions here--perhaps starting with the point that these negotiations may be complex in getting to a specific dollar number, but the range is fairly well-established merely by a look at teams' historical TV audience ratings. Certainly, you never know when a single team will spike and improve dramatically from year to year, but when you take 12-14 teams, you can nail down pretty well what the overall audience ought to be. Can schools' brand grow? Sure. We're all counting on that. But to ultimately have that happen, you have to have sustained success on the field over a number of years... and 2015 is coming fast.

Fair enough?

(04-28-2013 07:53 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 07:55 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 07:31 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  So let me see if I understand what you are saying...

Ummm... what do you find so difficult? I said... precisely...

Quote:...the reported facts/figures in concert with the mix of schools as they're now realigned support the likelihood that the 2016 CUSA contract will look a whole lot more like the current Sun Belt contract than the current CUSA contract.

It's not that hard. We're likely to have a contract closer to $40K than to $1.17M, in 2013 dollars.

Geez, I feel like starting my own AT&T commercial.

(04-28-2013 07:31 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  With respect to your interpretation of your VP quote, I find it strange that you are willing to infer "expect renegotiation in the near future" but completely ignore what was explicitly said with regards to negotiations: there are no hard and fast rules; multiple variables are at play (several posters keep harping on this, yet you ignore it anyway) etc.

Again... with all due respect... you're mangling the quote to try to get a point out of it that isn't there.

This was said specifically in the context of the question of whether anyone should anticipate renegotiation even though nothing has begun one month after Tulsa's departure.

Having known this person for many years... not a close friend by any means, but enough of an acquaintance to be someone with whom I've spoken on the phone and who is on my Facebook at least... I can say with some confidence that he would back me up on my primary assertions here--perhaps starting with the point that these negotiations may be complex in getting to a specific dollar number, but the range is fairly well-established merely by a look at teams' historical TV audience ratings. Certainly, you never know when a single team will spike and improve dramatically from year to year, but when you take 12-14 teams, you can nail down pretty well what the overall audience ought to be. Can schools' brand grow? Sure. We're all counting on that. But to ultimately have that happen, you have to have sustained success on the field over a number of years... and 2015 is coming fast.

Fair enough?

Make whatever commercial you want to make, I am sure it will still be the same BS you are pushing.

Typing 900 words to cover you lack of coherent thinking may seem cute but it is easyily seen for what it is.

Quote:For the umpteenth time, the assertion being made is not that the 2016 CUSA contract will be 1/30th of the current CUSA contract.

Quote:the 2016 CUSA contract will look a whole lot more like the current Sun Belt contract than the current CUSA contract.

Explain to me how the next contract will not be 1/30 of the current but will be Sun Belt which as you stated is 1/30 of the current CUSA contract?

One or two sentences please, I had to shower after wading though the BS in your last few posts.

If you want a real, substantive discussion, I'm happy to have one. I have to ask... are you here for that? Because remarks like what you just made could lead someone to think you're just interested in taking unprovoked shots at meaningless stuff that have nothing to do with the actual content of the discussion. I don't call your stuff BS. I don't find sideshow things to comment about. Be fair to me and I'll be fair to you. Otherwise, you've got better things to do with your time, and so do I.

(04-28-2013 08:21 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  If you want a real, substantive discussion, I'm happy to have one. I have to ask... are you here for that? Because remarks like what you just made could lead someone to think you're just interested in taking unprovoked shots at meaningless stuff that have nothing to do with the actual content of the discussion. I don't call your stuff BS. I don't find sideshow things to comment about. Be fair to me and I'll be fair to you. Otherwise, you've got better things to do with your time, and so do I.

So your condescending comments are ok but mine are not?

Can you can reconcile your two positions? Simple question.

Quote:So you got that quote from a "VP", yet you are deliberately ignoring the advice with your "x got paid this much therefore y will be paid 1/30 of x". You need to take your own advice from the last paragraph.

Quote:Geez louise... sorry if I sound impatient, but it's frustrating... with all due respect, please get this...

Quote:So let me see if I understand what you are saying...

You deduced that the current Sun Belt contract is 1/30th of the current CUSA contract.

But the 2016 CUSA contract will not be 1/30th of the current CUSA.

You predict that the 2016 CUSA contract will be more closer to the current Sun Belt contract .... which is 1/30th of the current CUSA contract.

Did I summarize your points correctly?

You are a budding politician right?

Quote:Geez, I feel like starting my own AT&T commercial.

Quote:Again... with all due respect... you're mangling the quote to try to get a point out of it that isn't there.

Quote:Make whatever commercial you want to make, I am sure it will still be the same BS you are pushing.

Typing 900 words to cover you lack of coherent thinking may seem cute but it is easyily seen for what it is.

One or two sentences please, I had to shower after wading though the BS in your last few posts.

First, I apologize. I shouldn't have been condescending toward you by saying I should make an AT&T commercial. That clearly made you feel bad, and it wasn't necessary. Had I not done so, I'm sure you would not have felt compelled to say any of the things you said.

Second... with all due respect... only one of us has been using words like "sorry," "please," and "with all due respect."

Third, I have to ask... did the AT&T remark really make you feel that bad?

(04-28-2013 08:45 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

Quote:So you got that quote from a "VP", yet you are deliberately ignoring the advice with your "x got paid this much therefore y will be paid 1/30 of x". You need to take your own advice from the last paragraph.

Quote:Geez louise... sorry if I sound impatient, but it's frustrating... with all due respect, please get this...

Quote:So let me see if I understand what you are saying...

You deduced that the current Sun Belt contract is 1/30th of the current CUSA contract.

But the 2016 CUSA contract will not be 1/30th of the current CUSA.

You predict that the 2016 CUSA contract will be more closer to the current Sun Belt contract .... which is 1/30th of the current CUSA contract.

Did I summarize your points correctly?

You are a budding politician right?

Quote:Geez, I feel like starting my own AT&T commercial.

Quote:Again... with all due respect... you're mangling the quote to try to get a point out of it that isn't there.

Quote:Make whatever commercial you want to make, I am sure it will still be the same BS you are pushing.

Typing 900 words to cover you lack of coherent thinking may seem cute but it is easyily seen for what it is.

One or two sentences please, I had to shower after wading though the BS in your last few posts.

First, I apologize. I shouldn't have been condescending toward you by saying I should make an AT&T commercial. That clearly made you feel bad, and it wasn't necessary. Had I not done so, I'm sure you would not have felt compelled to say any of the things you said.

Second... with all due respect... only one of us has been using words like "sorry," "please," and "with all due respect."

Third, I have to ask... did the AT&T remark really make you feel that bad?

LOL, I will take this post as your inability to reconcile your statements.

Have a good night.

The question was, can I reconcile a with b:

(a) the assertion being made is not that the 2016 CUSA contract will be 1/30th of the current CUSA contract.

(b) the 2016 CUSA contract will look a whole lot more like the current Sun Belt contract than the current CUSA contract.

I can.

I am not asserting a specific ratio just because I'm reporting what the approximate ratio was in 2012 according to WKU via this Tidewater newspaper.

I am asserting that the 2016 contract will be closer to $40K per school in 2013 dollars than $1.2M per school.

Good rhetorical strategy, there, 4ever... post quickly so that you can bail before I answer... except I doubt I had to reconcile that for anyone but you... simple answer to a very simple question.

(Oops, was that condescending?)

Okay, so do we have any adults who would like to participate in this thread tonight?

Im not sure if the CUSA contract will go up or down, but I feel the CUSA and MAC contract will be very close after the next round of negotiations are complete. MAC had a better contract then both the Sun Belt and CAA and now the CUSA have lost their most valuable schools and have replaced them with a CAA school and several Sun Belt schools and other FCS. $1 million per team for both conferences would be reasonable.

I know this post will bring out 50 Marshall fans that will spew hate toward the MAC, but Id like to hear some reasonable logic of how the new TV deals for both the CUSA and MAC will compare in the future. Ours is up in 2016, and we may or may not lose UMass or add them and go to 14 and sign a GoR.