Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
Author Message
Bogg Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 951
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 46
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #141
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 04:20 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 04:00 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:45 PM)Bogg Wrote:  There was no reason for any such clause to begin with - it wasn't an inducement from the new members given to keep Cincy/USF/UConn to keep them as part of the conference. It was just a big pile of money available at a time when those three were the only fully vested members of the conference, and thus the only schools with any right to it, if I remember correctly.

I don't disagree, but, the emboldened part is cause for some question, as the C7 was on board for the likes of Houston, SMU, UCF, and Temple, even though those guys were partially or soon to be aboard the group. IIRC, I think the three of them pulled seniority over the rest of the incoming group as a reason for extra money; "we should get more because we were here longer."

Again, I don't disagree...but, who's to say the conference doesn't sue just to see if they could collect a little extra off UConn? When has procedure really mattered in these moves, especially for this group, who basically sues EVERYONE once they announce their departure?

UConn, Cincy, and USF had a right to pull seniority for the extra money that resulted from selling the Big East name and giving up playing the tourney at MSG. Why? Because those three schools were members of the Big East, so it was their name to sell. The incoming schools had never played a single game in the Big East, so they really had no claim to the money resulting from the sale of the name. That is why they were understanding about UConn, Cincy, and USF taking the lion's share.

They didn't get that money because they "earned it" by putting in dues and Houston and company thought it was the right thing to do. They got it because they were the only schools with a legal right to it, otherwise everyone would have gotten a cut.
12-07-2017 04:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,318
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 83
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #142
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
Remind me...did Temple get any kind of special cut? Like, did they get anything for being there with some sort of stake?
12-07-2017 04:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UConnHusky Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,075
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 126
I Root For: A 3-9 season
Location: P6 country
Post: #143
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 04:23 PM)Bogg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 04:20 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 04:00 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:45 PM)Bogg Wrote:  There was no reason for any such clause to begin with - it wasn't an inducement from the new members given to keep Cincy/USF/UConn to keep them as part of the conference. It was just a big pile of money available at a time when those three were the only fully vested members of the conference, and thus the only schools with any right to it, if I remember correctly.

I don't disagree, but, the emboldened part is cause for some question, as the C7 was on board for the likes of Houston, SMU, UCF, and Temple, even though those guys were partially or soon to be aboard the group. IIRC, I think the three of them pulled seniority over the rest of the incoming group as a reason for extra money; "we should get more because we were here longer."

Again, I don't disagree...but, who's to say the conference doesn't sue just to see if they could collect a little extra off UConn? When has procedure really mattered in these moves, especially for this group, who basically sues EVERYONE once they announce their departure?

UConn, Cincy, and USF had a right to pull seniority for the extra money that resulted from selling the Big East name and giving up playing the tourney at MSG. Why? Because those three schools were members of the Big East, so it was their name to sell. The incoming schools had never played a single game in the Big East, so they really had no claim to the money resulting from the sale of the name. That is why they were understanding about UConn, Cincy, and USF taking the lion's share.

They didn't get that money because they "earned it" by putting in dues and Houston and company thought it was the right thing to do. They got it because they were the only schools with a legal right to it, otherwise everyone would have gotten a cut.

Everyone did get a cut, but UConn, Cincy, and USF got way (WAY) more. Schools like Houston (and the other new members) had some legal right to some money from the sale of the Big East name since, when they signed on the dotted line to join, they thought they were joining a conference named the Big East. However, in the need to avoid litigation against one another for every available nickel and to show good will toward each other after just forging a new conference, everyone agreed that the three schools that actually played in the Big East deserved most of that money.
12-07-2017 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bogg Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 951
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 46
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #144
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 04:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Remind me...did Temple get any kind of special cut? Like, did they get anything for being there with some sort of stake?

I'm not sure, just reiterating what I seem to remember from that period.
12-07-2017 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,318
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 83
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #145
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 04:40 PM)Bogg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 04:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Remind me...did Temple get any kind of special cut? Like, did they get anything for being there with some sort of stake?

I'm not sure, just reiterating what I seem to remember from that period.

There was a lot going on, and it seemed like Temple was onboarded with certain privileges, iirc. They apparently had to be okay with Villanova's FBS subsidization. I remember that not going well with some Temple fans (along with others).

I remember folks asking why Temple wasn't part of the preferred money split, and it being said "weren't there long enough," but that didn't mean, "weren't a full member."
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2017 04:52 PM by The Cutter of Bish.)
12-07-2017 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,365
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 107
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #146
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 04:00 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:26 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Where are the WSU fans who think the AAC is such a better conference than the Big East (or Big Pee as they call it like that makes any sense at all)?

probably on the AAC board discussing more important things than this once a week rehashed NBE wet dream. SOS rehashed by the same posters. They'll be okay, they can comment on the new thread next week when you start the new one so you and certain posters can say this same "stuff" again. YOU know for such a lousy conference it's amazing how much people like you care, maybe that's why our ratings are so exceeding so well,,, hmm.03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao sheesh! Lol

Yeah, since that was like my 2nd post on this thread. I sure do care! I'm surprised you aren't discussing more important things like new names to give the Big East. Big Yeast! Big Sheesh!
12-07-2017 05:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 25,227
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1050
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #147
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 03:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 12:27 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  .....reasons.

Yes, that's why Aresco and the league presidents bent over backward to make special arrangements to get Boise STate football into the league.

Oh wait that didn't happen, even though there were all sorts of rational arguments for it, because it was seen as unfair and disrespectful by the presidents and a lot of the fanbases. Hmmm.

While that would have given the league some advantages in the very short term, it would have also caused issues in the long term. Lets be honest, Boise isnt quite what they were and if you havent noticed, even the MW schools are second guessing and grumbling (sometimes publicly) about that deal.

Passing on that deal was smart for the AAC. Honestly, where the old Big East/AAC "blew it" was in the piss poor way they executed the "western wing" strategy and in the way they failed to let the C7 exodus shake out before replacing Rutgers and Louisville. The "football only" western invites were not terribly attractive. Had they waited until the C7 made a final decision, a viable "western wing" offering all sports memberships and mostly divisional play (to control travel costs) would have been an attractive option for everyone. No special deals would have been needed and AAC membership for western teams would have had no significant drawbacks. Having to dump your sports into the Big West (and, in Boise's case, having to pay $900K every year in travel subsidies for the priviledge) made the AAC invite easy to pass on.
04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2017 06:37 PM by Attackcoog.)
12-07-2017 06:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 25,227
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1050
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #148
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 04:20 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 04:00 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:45 PM)Bogg Wrote:  There was no reason for any such clause to begin with - it wasn't an inducement from the new members given to keep Cincy/USF/UConn to keep them as part of the conference. It was just a big pile of money available at a time when those three were the only fully vested members of the conference, and thus the only schools with any right to it, if I remember correctly.

I don't disagree, but, the emboldened part is cause for some question, as the C7 was on board for the likes of Houston, SMU, UCF, and Temple, even though those guys were partially or soon to be aboard the group. IIRC, I think the three of them pulled seniority over the rest of the incoming group as a reason for extra money; "we should get more because we were here longer."

Again, I don't disagree...but, who's to say the conference doesn't sue just to see if they could collect a little extra off UConn? When has procedure really mattered in these moves, especially for this group, who basically sues EVERYONE once they announce their departure?

UConn, Cincy, and USF had a right to pull seniority for the extra money that resulted from selling the Big East name and giving up playing the tourney at MSG. Why? Because those three schools were members of the Big East, so it was their name to sell. The incoming schools had never played a single game in the Big East, so they really had no claim to an equal cut of the money resulting from the sale of the name. That is why they were understanding about UConn, Cincy, and USF taking the lion's share.

Frankly, there was a pretty reasonable argument to be made that the remaining legacy members of the Big East were the most heavily damaged by the exits of the other BE schools. I was ok with the concept that those schools got more. The new schools were also damaged as they paid exit/entry fees based on an expectation they would be playing the C7, Notre Dame, ect. In the end, UConn/USF/Cinci got more than everyone else--but the new schools essentially got enough that their entry/exit fees were completely offset (and then some). It wasnt an unfair deal.
12-07-2017 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,457
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #149
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 06:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 12:27 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  .....reasons.

Yes, that's why Aresco and the league presidents bent over backward to make special arrangements to get Boise STate football into the league.

Oh wait that didn't happen, even though there were all sorts of rational arguments for it, because it was seen as unfair and disrespectful by the presidents and a lot of the fanbases. Hmmm.

While that would have given the league some advantages in the very short term, it would have also caused issues in the long term. Lets be honest, Boise isnt quite what they were and if you havent noticed, even the MW schools are second guessing and grumbling (sometimes publicly) about that deal.

Passing on that deal was smart for the AAC. Honestly, where the old Big East/AAC "blew it" was in the piss poor way they executed the "western wing" strategy and in the way they failed to let the C7 exodus shake out before replacing Rutgers and Louisville. The "football only" western invites were not terribly attractive. Had they waited until the C7 made a final decision, a viable "western wing" offering all sports memberships and mostly divisional play (to control travel costs) would have been an attractive option for everyone. No special deals would have been needed and AAC membership for western teams would have had no significant drawbacks. Having to dump your sports into the Big West (and, in Boise's case, having to pay $900K every year in travel subsidies for the priviledge) made the AAC invite easy to pass on.
04-cheers

Let's no kid ourselves. If Boise and SDSU said they wanted in the AAC tonight, they'd be full AAC members tom- er tonight.
12-07-2017 08:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,001
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 298
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #150
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 03:45 PM)Bogg Wrote:  Also, going off of memory here so I may have made this up, but I believe a big part of why the C7 was able to negotiate a split that left them with the name and tournament is that there was a brief window where they had a voting supermajority, and thus the technical ability to completely dissolve the conference.

We didn't negotiate the split in 2012. Most of the split was governed by the pre-nup written in 2005 or so, the details (name, MSG, timing) were negotiated in the spring of 2013.

Once we announced our intentions to split, we stopped voting on conference matters. Technically, we may have had the right to march back in to the board room and ram things through. Or maybe not--nobody has seen what the prenup actually said, and there were widespread media reports that a dissolution would have needed the consent of 2 of the football schools, which is nowhere in the bylaws.

If you accept that the split was more like a corporate split (like CBS and Viacom) than like the MWC leaving the WAC, then the terms make a lot more sense--the assets were divided up pretty evenly, the non-FBS schools got the brand name and the MSG tournament, the FBS schools got the money from the exit fees and the departed (FBS) schools.

(12-07-2017 04:00 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:26 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Where are the WSU fans who think the AAC is such a better conference than the Big East (or Big Pee as they call it like that makes any sense at all)?

probably on the AAC board discussing more important things than this once a week rehashed NBE wet dream. SOS rehashed by the same posters. They'll be okay, they can comment on the new thread next week when you start the new one so you and certain posters can say this same "stuff" again. YOU know for such a lousy conference it's amazing how much people like you care, maybe that's why our ratings are so exceeding so well,,, hmm.03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao sheesh! Lol

There's actually a thread on the AAC smack board that started as WSU fans trolling the Big East, and is now Wichita fans and RutgersGuy trying to troll and PWN each other.

(12-07-2017 04:15 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 12:27 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  .....reasons.

Yes, that's why Aresco and the league presidents bent over backward to make special arrangements to get Boise STate football into the league.

Oh wait that didn't happen, even though there were all sorts of rational arguments for it, because it was seen as unfair and disrespectful by the presidents and a lot of the fanbases. Hmmm.

Making special arrangements to bring Boise State into the old Big East (which became the AAC) isn't quite apples to apples to letting UConn remain in the AAC (which is the old Big East and of which UConn is a founding member). Either way, there is a difference between making a sweetheart financial deal to benefit a single member (like Boise wanted and which was declined by the AAC) and letting a team remain as a football only member for whatever the financial cut amounts to for just that sport.

It's not that big a difference. You're asking for something special, and the other schools are likely to tell you to GTFO with that nonsense.

Quote:The AAC has Navy as a football only and, in fact, there was a time that ECU was only going to be admitted as a football only member.

Because we the C7 were firmly committed and devoted to c***blocking ECU.
No more C7, no more objections to ECU as a full member

Quote:So, just pay UConn what the cut would be for just football and call it a day. It isn't exactly "unfair" in that case.

If UConn leaves the AAC, which would be required to join the Big East for basketball, I don't like your chances for getting an affiliate membership for football. Note that you'd be ASKING for an affiliate membership, not KEEPING anything.
12-07-2017 08:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,001
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 298
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #151
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 04:52 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 04:40 PM)Bogg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 04:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Remind me...did Temple get any kind of special cut? Like, did they get anything for being there with some sort of stake?

I'm not sure, just reiterating what I seem to remember from that period.

There was a lot going on, and it seemed like Temple was onboarded with certain privileges, iirc. They apparently had to be okay with Villanova's FBS subsidization. I remember that not going well with some Temple fans (along with others).

I remember folks asking why Temple wasn't part of the preferred money split, and it being said "weren't there long enough," but that didn't mean, "weren't a full member."

Temple's special status was basically that they somehow had full voting rights for their first year, despite not being a full member for the first year.
12-07-2017 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,352
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 248
I Root For: USF, UofH, AAC!
Location:
Post: #152
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-06-2017 03:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 03:44 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  If UConn was in the Big East this year, they would be 10th place. Ahead of only DePaul.

Moving to the Big East is not necessary to right the ship in men's hoops. Hiring a better coach is.

For example, see Geno winning several national titles in the American, which is not a good women's league.

Not necessarily. The Big East is viewed as a major conference, the AAC isn't. The Big East will usually have 5 bids to the tourney, the AAC 2 to 3.
Recruiting is in a major conference is better than trying to recruit in a mid-major conference.

Pretty sure UConn won a national championship while a member of the AAC.
12-07-2017 08:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,001
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 298
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #153
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 06:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 12:27 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  .....reasons.

Yes, that's why Aresco and the league presidents bent over backward to make special arrangements to get Boise STate football into the league.

Oh wait that didn't happen, even though there were all sorts of rational arguments for it, because it was seen as unfair and disrespectful by the presidents and a lot of the fanbases. Hmmm.

While that would have given the league some advantages in the very short term, it would have also caused issues in the long term. Lets be honest, Boise isnt quite what they were and if you havent noticed, even the MW schools are second guessing and grumbling (sometimes publicly) about that deal.

The biggest advantage of the deal for the AAC would be the crippling of the MWC. As it is, the AAC has to claw and scratch and fight for every millimeter of separation from the MWC, and they're still often grouped with the MWC as the top half-tier of the G5.

If Boise STate (and SDSU) had gone from the MWC to the AAC, that would not be the case. The AAC would be the predator, the MWC would be prey.

Quote:Passing on that deal was smart for the AAC. Honestly, where the old Big East/AAC "blew it" was in the piss poor way they executed the "western wing" strategy

There never was a "western wing" strategy the way you describe it. There was the hope that Air Force or BYU could be enticed to take the last football-only spot.

Quote:and in the way they failed to let the C7 exodus shake out before replacing Rutgers and Louisville. The "football only" western invites were not terribly attractive. Had they waited until the C7 made a final decision, a viable "western wing" offering all sports memberships and mostly divisional play (to control travel costs) would have been an attractive option for everyone. No special deals would have been needed and AAC membership for western teams would have had no significant drawbacks. Having to dump your sports into the Big West (and, in Boise's case, having to pay $900K every year in travel subsidies for the priviledge) made the AAC invite easy to pass on.
04-cheers

I don't understand the rush to bring in Tulane (except, of course, because Tulane has all the awesomeness) and ECU. I don't think having the CCG in 2013 was the be-all and end-all of everything, so I don't understand why the league couldn't have gone one year with 10 members (UConn, Temple, Cincy, UCF, USF, Memphis, SMU, Houston, SDSU, BSU) if necessary. Or bring in ECU when NAvy comes in, or bring in BYU or UNLV or Tulsa as a football-only.

I don't think your western wing was ever viable, but that's okay.
12-07-2017 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pensionplug Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 33
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation: 3
I Root For: UCLA
Location:
Post: #154
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 08:30 PM)Bull Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 03:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 03:44 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  If UConn was in the Big East this year, they would be 10th place. Ahead of only DePaul.

Moving to the Big East is not necessary to right the ship in men's hoops. Hiring a better coach is.

For example, see Geno winning several national titles in the American, which is not a good women's league.

Not necessarily. The Big East is viewed as a major conference, the AAC isn't. The Big East will usually have 5 bids to the tourney, the AAC 2 to 3.
Recruiting is in a major conference is better than trying to recruit in a mid-major conference.

Pretty sure UConn won a national championship while a member of the AAC.

The recruits went to a Big East team
12-07-2017 08:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,759
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 288
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #155
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 03:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Maybe, although I think the main qualification is that the Big East and the AAC getting the same amount of TV money in total is NOT the same because the Big East is getting paid that amount without football at all, while the AAC amount is for football and basketball together. The only way that the AAC TV contract can really the "same" as the Big East contract is if it's getting paid at least twice as much total in order to account for the inclusion of football.

The real comparison is if UConn football independence plus Big East money would be more than the total all-in amount they'd get from the AAC. Who knows one way or the other how that will shake out, but it's simply important to keep noting that the Big East contract is for basketball *only*. The total AAC future TV contract needs to be significantly more than that (e.g. twice as much or more) in order to be truly "equal" to the basketball-only Big East contract. The fact that the Big East is making more outright in TV dollars than the AAC with just basketball can't be emphasized enough (even if others want to discount how critical that point might be).

At least you now concede that the next American TV deal is a damned important part of this equation.

Given that UConn would lose TV exposure, bowl ties and playoff money (every school in the G4 + American gets $1M from the playoff, BYU and Indies do not) by going independent in football, focusing solely on relative TV contract value is too simplistic.

What kind of football schedule could UConn put together? How many football donors would dry up? How much football attendance would dry up? How much would basketball attendance improve? What kind of ratings would UConn get in FS1 vs what they get now in hoops? There are a million pros and cons to the deal.

And you haven't addressed the $10M exit fee. That's a big deterrent to UConn moving to the Big East.
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2017 09:23 PM by CougarRed.)
12-07-2017 09:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,001
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 298
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #156
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 09:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  And you haven't addressed the $10M exit fee. That's a big deterrent to UConn moving to the Big East.

I agree with everything the "UConn will stay in the AAC" contingent says, except for that part. If "Big East/FBS indy" were actually the better long term move for UConn, the $10M would not stand in their way.
12-07-2017 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigersmoke4 Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 382
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #157
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 08:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:45 PM)Bogg Wrote:  Also, going off of memory here so I may have made this up, but I believe a big part of why the C7 was able to negotiate a split that left them with the name and tournament is that there was a brief window where they had a voting supermajority, and thus the technical ability to completely dissolve the conference.

We didn't negotiate the split in 2012. Most of the split was governed by the pre-nup written in 2005 or so, the details (name, MSG, timing) were negotiated in the spring of 2013.

Once we announced our intentions to split, we stopped voting on conference matters. Technically, we may have had the right to march back in to the board room and ram things through. Or maybe not--nobody has seen what the prenup actually said, and there were widespread media reports that a dissolution would have needed the consent of 2 of the football schools, which is nowhere in the bylaws.

If you accept that the split was more like a corporate split (like CBS and Viacom) than like the MWC leaving the WAC, then the terms make a lot more sense--the assets were divided up pretty evenly, the non-FBS schools got the brand name and the MSG tournament, the FBS schools got the money from the exit fees and the departed (FBS) schools.

(12-07-2017 04:00 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:26 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Where are the WSU fans who think the AAC is such a better conference than the Big East (or Big Pee as they call it like that makes any sense at all)?

probably on the AAC board discussing more important things than this once a week rehashed NBE wet dream. SOS rehashed by the same posters. They'll be okay, they can comment on the new thread next week when you start the new one so you and certain posters can say this same "stuff" again. YOU know for such a lousy conference it's amazing how much people like you care, maybe that's why our ratings are so exceeding so well,,, hmm.03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao sheesh! Lol

There's actually a thread on the AAC smack board that started as WSU fans trolling the Big East, and is now Wichita fans and RutgersGuy trying to troll and PWN each other.

(12-07-2017 04:15 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 12:27 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  .....reasons.

Yes, that's why Aresco and the league presidents bent over backward to make special arrangements to get Boise STate football into the league.

Oh wait that didn't happen, even though there were all sorts of rational arguments for it, because it was seen as unfair and disrespectful by the presidents and a lot of the fanbases. Hmmm.

Making special arrangements to bring Boise State into the old Big East (which became the AAC) isn't quite apples to apples to letting UConn remain in the AAC (which is the old Big East and of which UConn is a founding member). Either way, there is a difference between making a sweetheart financial deal to benefit a single member (like Boise wanted and which was declined by the AAC) and letting a team remain as a football only member for whatever the financial cut amounts to for just that sport.

It's not that big a difference. You're asking for something special, and the other schools are likely to tell you to GTFO with that nonsense.

Quote:The AAC has Navy as a football only and, in fact, there was a time that ECU was only going to be admitted as a football only member.

Because we the C7 were firmly committed and devoted to c***blocking ECU.
No more C7, no more objections to ECU as a full member

Quote:So, just pay UConn what the cut would be for just football and call it a day. It isn't exactly "unfair" in that case.

If UConn leaves the AAC, which would be required to join the Big East for basketball, I don't like your chances for getting an affiliate membership for football. Note that you'd be ASKING for an affiliate membership, not KEEPING anything.
I know JB. I think they started that thread to fire back at the NBE after seeing that 3 months and counting, 32 page thread about how terrible the AAC is. Think they may have taken it personal,,, eh newbies. LOL04-cheers
12-07-2017 10:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shizzle787 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 537
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 0
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #158
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
I really want to be in the Big East, but the American won't let us stay for football only. They would probably try to snatch New Mexico out of the MW.
UConn needs a new coach in basketball and a better OOC schedule.
Next year we are play the 2K Tournament in MSG with Syracuse and two others. So we get 2 good games there and two cupcakes at home.
That leaves 9 OOC games. Villanova will be at MSG, and Arizona will be a home game. That leaves 7 OOC games. There is no reason why we can't schedule 4 more good OOC games and still get 3 more cupcakes. A remaining slate of Tennessee, Indiana, UCLA, Iowa State, Iona, Quinnipiac, and Fairfield would be good and doable. 8 good games, 5 cupcakes. Currently we have 7 and 6 respectively. One way UConn is going to recruit better in the AAC is by having a better OOC schedule. You may have to do that occasionally.

As far as CR in the future goes, I do think the Big 12 will lose Texas and Oklahoma and probably some others. If the conference still has West Virginia and Kansas after doomsday, I would join it.
12-07-2017 11:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,001
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 298
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #159
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 10:51 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  I know JB. I think they started that thread to fire back at the NBE after seeing that 3 months and counting, 32 page thread about how terrible the AAC is. Think they may have taken it personal,,, eh newbies. LOL04-cheers

Umm....wow. That's embarrassing for us.

OK, I just waded through some of it. A lot of it is HLOH posters piling on Stever20 and accusing him of being a secret AAC fan.

Wait, that's actually more embarrassing.
12-07-2017 11:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 25,227
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1050
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #160
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East
(12-07-2017 08:15 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 06:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 12:27 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  .....reasons.

Yes, that's why Aresco and the league presidents bent over backward to make special arrangements to get Boise STate football into the league.

Oh wait that didn't happen, even though there were all sorts of rational arguments for it, because it was seen as unfair and disrespectful by the presidents and a lot of the fanbases. Hmmm.

While that would have given the league some advantages in the very short term, it would have also caused issues in the long term. Lets be honest, Boise isnt quite what they were and if you havent noticed, even the MW schools are second guessing and grumbling (sometimes publicly) about that deal.

Passing on that deal was smart for the AAC. Honestly, where the old Big East/AAC "blew it" was in the piss poor way they executed the "western wing" strategy and in the way they failed to let the C7 exodus shake out before replacing Rutgers and Louisville. The "football only" western invites were not terribly attractive. Had they waited until the C7 made a final decision, a viable "western wing" offering all sports memberships and mostly divisional play (to control travel costs) would have been an attractive option for everyone. No special deals would have been needed and AAC membership for western teams would have had no significant drawbacks. Having to dump your sports into the Big West (and, in Boise's case, having to pay $900K every year in travel subsidies for the priviledge) made the AAC invite easy to pass on.
04-cheers

Let's no kid ourselves. If Boise and SDSU said they wanted in the AAC tonight, they'd be full AAC members tom- er tonight.

Maybe...maybe not. What I DO know is, just like 2013, they would be told to pizz off if they wanted a special deal to make it happen.
(This post was last modified: 12-08-2017 12:32 AM by Attackcoog.)
12-08-2017 12:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.