MUScoop

New rumor circulating Xavier, Georgetown and Providence boards (PC's insider board actually).

Basically there may be some announcement tomorrow on the TV contract (Fox, every game broadcast, 80 million homes) and/or the teams being added (those teams are Xavier, Butler, Creighton, Dayton, SLU).

Here are some quotes, and take it for what it's worth (obviously):

XavierHoops

"More breaking news, it's being reported by sources close to PC that the conference will be 12, the 3 I said before plus SLU and Creighton, and Fox Sports is going to announce the TV deal on Wednesday. Supposedly all conference games will be shown on FOX which will be in 80 million homes.

Now let me just say the source for this info is usually pretty accurate, so even though I believe it, I wouldn't bet my life on it."

HoyaTalk

"Take it for what it's worth but hearing that the announcement will be tomorrow, Dayton, Xavier, Butler, Saint Louis, and Creighton, all sports, huge Fox contract with every single men's basketball game televised in 80 million homes.

Have a great day Hoyas!"

Villanova Rivals

"is on Peegs (Indiana's board) knows an insider at Creighton who said they are in.  So if you are reasonably sure that Butler and Xavier are in, Creighton is the 10th.  Those were the best three schools they could get for a 10 team league. "

Would rather keep the league at 10 and exclude Dayton and SLU, but I would be fine with this. Creighton, Xavier and Butler are great additions.

I look forward to referring to Butler as non-bleivers for years to come

Quote from: LAZER on January 08, 2013, 02:18:41 PM
I look forward to referring to Butler as non-bleivers for years to come

The C11+1 Conference

Quote from: LAZER on January 08, 2013, 02:18:41 PM
I look forward to referring to Butler as non-bleivers for years to come

Maybe we can convert them?  It's just like inviting a friend to church.

Quote from: Bocephys on January 08, 2013, 02:22:36 PM
Maybe we can convert them?  It's just like inviting a friend to church.

Why would you punish a so-called friend like that?

I'm disappointed that Gonzaga isn't rumored to be part of the 12. I was hopeful that the new TV contract in addition to the revenue from their NCAA tournament success would offset the costs associated with their location. Oh well.

Fucking Dayton.

Quote from: TrueBlueAndGold on January 08, 2013, 02:27:58 PM
I'm disappointed that Gonzaga isn't rumored to be part of the 12. I was hopeful that the new TV contract in addition to the revenue from their NCAA tournament success would offset the costs associated with their location. Oh well.

Save them for when Notre Dame wants in.

Totally fine with this.  If we could get Gonzaga/ND later, I'd be stunned but thrilled.  Very good start and, if it is the end, very good end.  So much better than where we were 6 weeks ago.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 02:32:05 PM
Save them for when Notre Dame wants in.

National Title loss by 28 points didn't do THAT much damage.

Drop Dayton add VCU

Take it and run.   Good geographic footprint.   Like minded schools.   Every game nationally televised?    Grab it.   Learn how to be gracious to Dayton fans. 

We could go on and on about who to add and who not to add until the cows come home.  The real news now isn't who is invited, but how fast this is coming together.  I mean, it really does look like this could get done by 2013-14.  Does this mean that progression on an "amicable divorce" is moving forward pretty quickly?

Quote from: LittleMurs on January 08, 2013, 02:36:59 PM
National Title loss by 28 points didn't do THAT much damage.

I didn't mean "damage." If anything, their appearance only reinvigorated their commitment to football independence (literally is the perfect time to renegotiate their NBC deal). And if the ACC starts getting picked apart (the whispers are starting up again), they may not want to commit to 5 football games every year against Cuse, Pitt, BC, Temple, UConn, Ville, Cincy, Duke, Wake, etc.  They essentially would become the football team for one whole conference.

Quote from: Victor McCormick on January 08, 2013, 02:42:00 PM
Drop Dayton add VCU

I'm fine with Dayton and have never been in love with VCU as some have.

Quote from: PTM on January 08, 2013, 02:29:06 PM
fracking Dayton.

They immediately have to use the money to find a better placement of their TV camera.

I'm fine overall with the conference. This is a good deal...and with the TV deal its great.

I'm not in love with VCU, and I don't hate Dayton. The Rams are just objectively a stronger candidate than Dayton. Its hard to find an objective measure to the contrary. I don't know why you wouldn't go with them, unless they didn't want to leave to A-10 which seems unlikely. The "non Catholic" thing should be a non-factor, especially considering Butler is joining.

Oh well. I'll stop my complaining. Overall, this is very good news.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 08, 2013, 02:48:42 PM
We could go on and on about who to add and who not to add until the cows come home.  The real news now isn't who is invited, but how fast this is coming together.  I mean, it really does look like this could get done by 2013-14.  Does this mean that progression on an "amicable divorce" is moving forward pretty quickly?

I hope so. The quicker you can start building the brand, the better.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 08, 2013, 02:48:42 PM
We could go have gone on and on about who to add and who not to add until the cows come home.  The real news now isn't who is invited, but how fast this is coming together.  I mean, it really does look like this could get done by 2013-14.  Does this mean that progression on an "amicable divorce" is moving forward pretty quickly?

Fixed it for you.

I see why many would love Gonzaga, but they are on the west coast.

This new league is great! This fall we were looking at a future with the likes of Houston, SMU, Tulane & UCF.

Quote from: LAZER on January 08, 2013, 02:18:41 PM
I look forward to referring to Butler as non-bleivers for years to come

I thing we should have two divisions:  the Catholics Division and the Non-Believers Division.  Butler would have little room to object since they'd get to hang a Division Champs banner every year.

Jesuit Division vs Non-Jesuit Division?

Quote from: Victor McCormick on January 08, 2013, 03:00:03 PM
I'm fine overall with the conference. This is a good deal...and with the TV deal its great.

I'm not in love with VCU, and I don't hate Dayton. The Rams are just objectively a stronger candidate than Dayton. Its hard to find an objective measure to the contrary. I don't know why you wouldn't go with them, unless they didn't want to leave to A-10 which seems unlikely. The "non Catholic" thing should be a non-factor, especially considering Butler is joining.

Oh well. I'll stop my complaining. Overall, this is very good news.

They've been committed to basketball for a long time, have a rabid fan base (albeit an annoying and insecure one) and fill a 12,000+ seat arena. VCU is large, public and has a 6,000ish seat arena. There was that spreadsheet from the GTown board that showed Dayton in the top 3 of the C7+candidates for investment in basketball - behind only us I believe. Their investment just hasn't turned into great success on the court yet.  

I actually prefer Richmond and their $2 billion endowment over VCU anyways.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 02:51:02 PM
I didn't mean "damage." If anything, their appearance only reinvigorated their commitment to football independence (literally is the perfect time to renegotiate their NBC deal). And if the ACC starts getting picked apart (the whispers are starting up again), they may not want to commit to 5 football games every year against Cuse, Pitt, BC, Temple, UConn, Ville, Cincy, Duke, Wake, etc.  They essentially would become the football team for one whole conference.

Actually yesterday evening at about 8:33 EST was the PERFECT time to renegotiate their NBC deal.  Might have lost some leverage after the game got away from them  :D

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 03:17:57 PM

They've been committed to basketball for a long time, have a rabid fan base (albeit an annoying and insecure one) and fill a 12,000+ seat arena. VCU is large, public and has a 6,000ish seat arena. There was that spreadsheet from the GTown board that showed Dayton in the top 3 of the C7+candidates for investment in basketball - behind only us I believe. Their investment just hasn't turned into great success on the court yet.  

I actually prefer Richmond and their $2 billion endowment over VCU anyways.

How does a school's endowment help its athletic league?  Do you see it providing a big on campus arena?

Quote from: tower912 on January 08, 2013, 03:16:54 PM
Jesuit Division vs Non-Jesuit Division?

I have Georgetown, Marquette, Creighton, St. Louis, and Xavier. That's five. So close.


Gonzaga, San Francisco, LMU, St. Joe's, Holy Cross, Fordham, Detroit and Santa Clara are still out there though...

Quote from: LittleMurs on January 08, 2013, 03:21:00 PM
How does a school's endowment help its athletic league?  Do you see it providing a big on campus arena?

Well they already have a 9,000+ seat arena. But yes, it proves they have the financial capability to invest highly in their athletics.

Quote from: Bocephys on January 08, 2013, 02:22:36 PM
Maybe we can convert them?  It's just like inviting a friend to church.

For what it's worth,  Butler is pretty Catholic in terms of its student population.  Per the VP of Student Affairs (an MU grad himself), more students self-identify as Catholic than any other faith, and I believe that is even if you lump the Protestants together.

Quote from: warriorchick on January 08, 2013, 03:28:29 PM
For what it's worth,  Butler is pretty Catholic in terms of its student population.  Per the VP of Student Affairs (an MU grad himself), more students self-identify as Catholic than any other faith, and I believe that is even if you lump the Protestants together.

Butler (and Richmond) were actually founded as Christian. Butler by the Disciples of Christ church and Richmond by Virginia Baptists.

I quick went through kenpom ratings and figured out where this conference would rank every year since 2003:

03 - 4th, ahead of Big East, Big Ten, Pac 10
04 - 6th, ahead of Pac 10
05 - 7th
06 - 7th
07 - 4th, ahead of Pac 10, Big East, Big 12
08 - 7th
09 - 7th
10 - 6th, ahead of Pac 10
11 - 8th, behind Mountain West
12 - 5th, ahead of ACC, Pac 12
13 - 7th, ahead of SEC, behind Mountain West

Quote from: I don't care on January 08, 2013, 03:30:04 PM
I quick went through kenpom ratings and figured out where this conference would rank every year since 2003:

03 - 4th, ahead of Big East, Big Ten, Pac 10
04 - 6th, ahead of Pac 10
05 - 7th
06 - 7th
07 - 4th, ahead of Pac 10, Big East, Big 12
08 - 7th
09 - 7th
10 - 6th, ahead of Pac 10
11 - 8th, behind Mountain West
12 - 5th, ahead of ACC, Pac 12
13 - 7th, ahead of SEC, behind Mountain West

Interesting. Although, not apples to apples considering these teams wouldn't have played each other (for better or worse) and their SOS's would be different.

Quote from: I don't care on January 08, 2013, 03:30:04 PM
I quick went through kenpom ratings and figured out where this conference would rank every year since 2003:

03 - 4th, ahead of Big East, Big Ten, Pac 10
04 - 6th, ahead of Pac 10
05 - 7th
06 - 7th
07 - 4th, ahead of Pac 10, Big East, Big 12
08 - 7th
09 - 7th
10 - 6th, ahead of Pac 10
11 - 8th, behind Mountain West
12 - 5th, ahead of ACC, Pac 12
13 - 7th, ahead of SEC, behind Mountain West

That's respectable, but did you remove the C7 members from the Big East?

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 03:21:53 PM
I have Georgetown, Marquette, Creighton, St. Louis, and Xavier. That's five. So close.


Gonzaga, San Francisco, LMU, St. Joe's, Holy Cross, Fordham, Detroit and Santa Clara are still out there though...

There's still time to change the invites to include only Xavier and Loyola's, then if you go to three divisions, you could have the all Loyola division. (Loyola Marymount, Loyola of New Orleans, Loyola of Chicago, and Loyola Baltimore.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 03:33:24 PM
That's respectable, but did you remove the C7 members from the Big East?

No, I didn't want to spend that much time on it.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 03:33:24 PM
That's respectable, but did you remove the C7 members from the Big East?

Don't you understand?  He doesn't care.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 08, 2013, 03:32:45 PM
Interesting. Although, not apples to apples considering these teams wouldn't have played each other (for better or worse) and their SOS's would be different.

True, I just wanted to do a quick run through.  I also didn't factor in taking teams away from the Big East, just concentrated on the new conference.

Quote from: I don't care on January 08, 2013, 03:35:38 PM
No, I didn't want to spend that much time on it.

Thanks. Was just making sure. Gives a decent idea of what this set-up would be.

Well, I guess there goes hope for VCU and Gonzaga, if these reports are true.  I'd love to see Gonzaga at the BC rather than Dayton.  That would look a whole lot better, in my opinion than SLU and Dayton on the schedule (sorry, to SLU and Dayton, not trying to disrespect you guys, just going by perception... I know Dayton has had a lot of success). 

Maybe if we go to 14 down the line, we can look at VCU or Gonzaga or some team who drops football but has great basketball.  Maybe we now schedule Gonzaga once in a while. 

I just hope we're not stuck in the "West Division" with only 1 game against Georgetown, Nova and St. Johns every year.

Quote from: Litehouse on January 08, 2013, 03:53:13 PM
I just hope we're not stuck in the "West Division" with only 1 game against Georgetown, Nova and St. Johns every year.

Ugghhh, there better not be divisions or our attendance just went way down!

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 08, 2013, 02:48:42 PM
Does this mean that progression on an "amicable divorce" is moving forward pretty quickly?

More importantly, once the divorce is final, do we need to seek an annulment from the Vatican, or is the Pope on board with Butler?

Quote from: tower912 on January 08, 2013, 02:46:51 PM
Take it and run.   Good geographic footprint.   Like minded schools.   Every game nationally televised?    Grab it.   Learn how to be gracious to Dayton fans. 

Agree, if true. Tired of ESPN anyway. Would be nice to have a network promote the league rather than back handedly destroy it. Perhaps Gonzaga and Portland could join if the league wanted a national footprint. I know Portland is not great, but are they any worse than Depaul or Dayton right now.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 08, 2013, 04:03:09 PM
Agree, if true. Tired of ESPN anyway. Would be nice to have a network promote the league rather than back handedly destroy it. Perhaps Gonzaga and Portland could join if the league wanted a national footprint. I know Portland is not great, but are they any worse than Depaul or Dayton right now.

LMU or San Fran if we need another team out west to go w/ Zags (if not BYU).

Quote from: LancesOtherNut on January 08, 2013, 02:57:18 PM
They immediately have to use the money to find a better placement of their TV camera.

Ink that crap into their contract.

Also, every arena is going to have to be retrofitted with spitoons for all the traveling Dayton fans.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 03:23:37 PM
Well they already have a 9,000+ seat arena. But yes, it proves they have the financial capability to invest highly in their athletics.

So we should go after Yale?

Quote from: Victor McCormick on January 08, 2013, 04:22:32 PM
So we should go after Yale?

Meh... Oral Roberts would be a better fit.  With all those Catholics schools, there's bound to be some oral bobs in there somewhere.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 02:32:05 PM
Save them for when Notre Dame wants in.

Speaking to the best man in my wedding (who unfortunately is a ND grad) before the 1st half ended I told him ND would be lucky to get a invite to the C7!!!

Quote from: Victor McCormick on January 08, 2013, 04:22:32 PM
So we should go after Yale?

Does Yale actually want to try at athletics? Because if they do, with the money they have they could compete immediately. This isn't about a flash-in-the-pan success, or the hot sexy name now, or even who has the most success this past decade. It's future success and stability, and billion dollar endowments (along with a better academic reputation and a bigger arena) do matter.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 05:45:46 PM
Does Yale actually want to try at athletics? Because if they do, with the money they have they could compete immediately. This isn't about a flash-in-the-pan success, or the hot sexy name now, or even who has the most success this past decade. It's future success and stability, and billion dollar endowments (along with a better academic reputation and a bigger arena) do matter.

Unfortunately Yale has a football team that plays in an 80,000 seat stadium.  I drive by the Yale Bowl twice a day.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 02:52:19 PM
I'm fine with Dayton and have never been in love with VCU as some have.

Seriously. Enough with the VCU talk. I never HEARD of the school before their Final 4 run. Stop already.

VCU had a win over Duke in the tourney when they had A. Grant as head coach, now at Alabama.

Quote from: Avenue Commons on January 08, 2013, 06:33:54 PM
Seriously. Enough with the VCU talk. I never HEARD of the school before their Final 4 run. Stop already.

VCU is growing big time.

Dayton is a good pickup that can turn great. They are seriously trending in the right direction and aren't shy about spending money to get there. As long as Archie Miller is their coach and with the new conference I would put serious money on Dayton becoming and staying a great team.

Whether they stay that way after he leap-frogs into a better coaching position is the question.

Maybe adding Dayton is a good thing.  I don't hate any of the other conference schools and need someone to hate. 

+1

Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 08, 2013, 07:44:53 PM
Maybe adding Dayton is a good thing.  I don't hate any of the other conference schools and need someone to hate. 

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Flyers

Quote from: jeffreyweee on January 08, 2013, 07:41:16 PM
Dayton is a good pickup that can turn great. They are seriously trending in the right direction and aren't shy about spending money to get there. As long as Archie Miller is their coach and with the new conference I would put serious money on Dayton becoming and staying a great team.

Whether they stay that way after he leap-frogs into a better coaching position is the question.

Trending how? They are complacent with their mediocre success and always will be. I don't see them spending another dollar if they make it.

Dayton = Mid-major

I say that now but will regret it the first time we play them.

Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 08, 2013, 08:22:28 PM
I say that now but will regret it the first time we play them.

Their fans will be more annoying than when we played Cardinal Stritch.

Quote from: PTM on January 08, 2013, 08:23:19 PM
They're fans will be more annoying than when we played Cardinal Stritch.

... Or when people use the wrong form of "their..."  ;)

Quote from: CaptainAwesome on January 08, 2013, 08:30:50 PM
... Or when people use the wrong form of "their..."  ;)

Crap.

The two fools in the attached photo sat near robmufan and myself when we played Dayton in Chicago.  They made me hate Dayton.

A little taste of the Dayton message board.  Too funny
The Big East, and many of these specific teams, have treated us as the Little Sisters of the Poor for decades. Most won't even play us except in a tournament setting. This certainly affects our ability to recruit the best athletes as well as coaches (although I am pleased with AM). Now the Big 3 + Little 4 NEED some teams with excellent facilities, fans, and TV appeal to be viable as a league. I too realize we do not have the the same to offer as X and BU now, but it burns me of the audacity to continue to treat the newbies as unequal. Why would we want to associate with these pompous jerks if this is really what they expect? I'm sorry, but money is not worth continued groveling in the mud. X, VCU, BU, and GMU have done pretty well with less money. Let's do the same and not sacrifice our ethical principle of everyone being equal. It's equality or nothing. Why do you think we get so excited to play and beat these elitist schools?

They do realize the A10 already has unequal distribution don't they?

Quote from: warriorstrack on January 08, 2013, 08:41:44 PM
A little taste of the Dayton message board.  Too funny
The Big East, and many of these specific teams, have treated us as the Little Sisters of the Poor for decades. Most won't even play us except in a tournament setting. This certainly affects our ability to recruit the best athletes as well as coaches (although I am pleased with AM). Now the Big 3 + Little 4 NEED some teams with excellent facilities, fans, and TV appeal to be viable as a league. I too realize we do not have the the same to offer as X and BU now, but it burns me of the audacity to continue to treat the newbies as unequal. Why would we want to associate with these pompous jerks if this is really what they expect? I'm sorry, but money is not worth continued groveling in the mud. X, VCU, BU, and GMU have done pretty well with less money. Let's do the same and not sacrifice our ethical principle of everyone being equal. It's equality or nothing. Why do you think we get so excited to play and beat these elitist schools?

Think PTM might die of a brain hemmorhage after reading this.

Quote from: PTM on January 08, 2013, 08:10:34 PM
Trending how? They are complacent with their mediocre success and always will be. I don't see them spending another dollar if they make it.

Dayton = Mid-major

Archie Miller one of the best young coaches in the game. Give him a couple years to get some guys into his system (he didn't inherit the 3 amigos ala Buzz) and they'll be a very solid team. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them take down Butler at home Saturday as they might have the best home court advantage in the A-10.

Quote from: PTM on January 08, 2013, 08:10:34 PM
Trending how? They are complacent with their mediocre success and always will be. I don't see them spending another dollar if they make it.

Dayton = Mid-major

This.  How are they trending?  Is it that one tournament win in the past 22 years?  Their peak potential in this league is fighting for Seton Hall's "never quite good enough" label, though they're more likely duking it out with DePaul and Providence as a doormat.

Quote from: jeffreyweee on January 08, 2013, 08:52:40 PM
It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them take down Butler at home Saturday as they might have the best home court advantage in the A-10.

Weber State and Illinois State were super intimidated.

I used to look at Dayton as an extremely unfavorable add, mostly due to lack of recent success and minuscule TV market, but I actually think they're one of the better additions now.

This conference is not going to get a network like the BE or B1G has (which depends on market penetration, not necessarily viewers), the TV deal is going to be based solely on number of eyeballs TV execs see the games getting.  Therefore, it doesn't matter if we add a "Rutgers" (aka, someone like Duquesne who are in a large market even though no one watches them) like the B1G did, we're better off adding teams that have rabid fanbases.  From a purely TV dollars perspective, I think even though Dayton and Creighton have small TV markets, their fans are extremely passionate and eyeballs will turn out on the TV.  

...their fanbase is still beyond annoying, though.

I find it funny people are talking about how unequalness in the workplace cause resentment. Do you really think the players we recruit or Buzz cared the university got less than the other schools in the BigEast? They took the upgraded competition/money and ran with it until we knew we would completely lose out. If Dayton comes here and gets slightly less in the contract, maybe 2% of the fanbase would realize that. The other 98% would be happy to be in the league.

Ignorance is bliss, and sometimes the diehard fans who know all the facts get bitter for no reason.

Quote from: PTM on January 08, 2013, 08:10:34 PM
Trending how? They are complacent with their mediocre success and always will be. I don't see them spending another dollar if they make it.

Dayton = Mid-major

This is the worst reasoning to make any argument. They've committed a lot to basketball, but haven't run into a run of success. No reason that cant change. Same with DePaul, Providence, St. Louis, etc.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 09:18:43 PM
This is the worst reasoning to make any argument. They've committed a lot to basketball, but haven't run into a run of success. No reason that cant change. Same with DePaul, Providence, St. Louis, etc.

They never stepped up to the plate to keep a head coach from leaving, yet they make so much money.

Quote from: PTM on January 08, 2013, 08:09:00 PM
YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Flyers

"In particular, Dayton fans travel well when their teams play away games. Infiltrating arenas across the nation, convoys of early 1990's Chevrolet Cavaliers follow the Men's basketball team across the Nation. However, the Cavalier convoy often never make the trip to NCAA Tournament sites as Dayton is never invited to dance."

LOLSERS!

They seem to really think the C7 are ignorant, while at the same time looking down their noses at a lot of A-10 teams.  What kind of irks me is how they disparage DePaul.  I mean, if DePaul were in the A-10, they would at least be a middling team, and if Dayton was in the (currently comprised) Big East, they would be bottom feeders. 

Quote from: buckchuckler on January 08, 2013, 09:55:12 PM
They seem to really think the C7 are ignorant, while at the same time looking down their noses at a lot of A-10 teams.  What kind of irks me is how they disparage DePaul.  I mean, if DePaul were in the A-10, they would at least be a middling team, and if Dayton was in the (currently comprised) Big East, they would be bottom feeders. 

This. They love to ignore the fact that Providence, Seton Hall and DePaul have been playing in arguably the greatest conference ever the last decade.

Quote from: buckchuckler on January 08, 2013, 09:55:12 PM
I mean, if DePaul were in the A-10, they would at least be a middling team, and if Dayton was in the (currently comprised) Big East, they would be bottom feeders. 

How do you know Dayton wouldnt recruit better if they were in the BE? And how do you know that DePaul wouldnt fall off even more if in the A10?

It's hard to replicate DePaul. They got absolutely no boost from the BE.

Quote from: honkytonk on January 08, 2013, 10:13:37 PM
How do you know Dayton wouldnt recruit better if they were in the BE? And how do you know that DePaul wouldnt fall off even more if in the A10?

It's hard to replicate DePaul. They got absolutely no boost from the BE.

I don't, obviously.  But last time they were in our (and DePaul's) conference they went 1-23, tucked tail and ran.  Theoretically, they could have used that opportunity to boost their recruiting as well.  I can't see into the future, but historically...

No one knows anything about how these future teams will be (including us), but we must make sure the ones we do add are financially and institutionally committed to successful men's basketball and overall athletics.

Quote from: GOO on January 08, 2013, 03:59:10 PM
Ugghhh, there better not be divisions or our attendance just went way down!

I could see the following set up working to ensure the "western" schools still get plenty of east coast exposure without the rigidity of East/West "Divisions"...

Play everyone once. (11 games)
Each team gets two permanent mirrors (2 games) in scheduling "pods"
3 other mirrors, alternating each year.
16-game conference schedule total per team


So for example, let's say the reports are true and the team lineup is final, for the "permanent mirrors" I tried to cluster based on geography, but you could obviously set up the pods anyway you'd like. This is for illustrative purposes only.

Pod 1: Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's
Pod 2: Villanova, Dayton, Xavier
Pod 3: Marquette, DePaul, Creighton
Pod 4: Georgetown, Butler, SLU

So MU would play DePaul and Creighton twice. The first year, they might mirror against all the teams from Pod 1, then the next year, Pod 2, etc.

Under that format, possible 2013-14 MU Conference Schedule (assuming MU draws Pod 4 for mirrors in Year 1)
Home: DePaul, Creighton, Georgetown, Xavier, Butler, SLU, St. John's, Seton Hall
Away: DePaul, Creighton, Providence, Villanova, Dayton, SLU, Georgetown, Butler

In a simple East/West Division format for example, MU would likely only play St. John's once a season, and at the Garden only once every two years (50% of seasons).

Here, under a pod-based schedule, MU maintains the same alternating arrangement with St. John's every other season, but also gets an additional game at the Garden once every three years (66% of seasons).
Year 1: No Garden Trip (MU mirrored with Pod 4, plays St. John's once at home)
Year 2: Garden Trip (MU mirrored with Pod 2, plays St. John's once away)
Year 3: Garden Trip (MU mirrored with Pod 1, plays St. John's twice home and away, whereas in a divisional set-up, this would be a year to play St. John's once at home)

Quote from: I don't care on January 08, 2013, 03:30:04 PM
I quick went through kenpom ratings and figured out where this conference would rank every year since 2003:

Did something similar with Sagarin Rankings for last year and this current year and:

2011-12: 80.91 4th (assumes reduced Big East)
2012-13: 80.23 6th* (assumes reduced Big East)

*6th isn't bad when you consider that Nova, G'Town, and Xavier are having down years.

EDIT:  Also, for the Dayton haters they bring up the conference weighted average this year and last year were just barely below the proposed conference weighted average.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 08, 2013, 11:38:25 PM
Did something similar with Sagarin Rankings for last year and this current year and:

2011-12: 80.91 4th (assumes reduced Big East)
2012-13: 80.23 6th* (assumes reduced Big East)

If past performance is any indication, from our research this new Big East will be the 5th or 6th best basketball conference most years which occasionally (every 3 or 4 years) will move up a slot or two.  Definitely not a mid-major conference, but closer to the bottom of the major conferences.

As I'm sure others have said, this new conference has some depth but no teams that are consistent title contenders like the other major conferences.

Quote from: Litehouse on January 08, 2013, 08:45:43 PM
They do realize the A10 already has unequal distribution don't they?

Say what?

Quote from: buckchuckler on January 08, 2013, 10:34:21 PM
I don't, obviously.  But last time they were in our (and DePaul's) conference they went 1-23, tucked tail and ran.  Theoretically, they could have used that opportunity to boost their recruiting as well.  I can't see into the future, but historically...

UD didn't tuck tail and run, UD wasn't invited to join CUSA, not that I am blaming CUSA for not inviting UD, UD did terribly in the Great Midwest.

Quote from: PTM on January 08, 2013, 09:28:46 PM
They never stepped up to the plate to keep a head coach from leaving, yet they make so much money.

I assume you are talking about how UD should have paid to keep Purnell.  I personally feel that if Purnell would have stayed at UD for more money, then UD should have paid him what he wanted if UD could afford it.  But, I also very seriously doubt that UD could have competed with what Clemson offered Purnell.

A lot of UD fans, including myself, were happy to see Gregory leave, so I assume that you are not talking about Gregory.

A lot of UD fans felt that Purnell's last 3 recruiting classes were sub-par, so they feel that is why UD did not hire Ron Jirsa, Purnell's top assistant at UD.

IMO, Miller is going to elevate UD.  I know that sounds like a typical fan, but I really believe that Miller is the guy to get UD to a higher level.  At the very least, I think Miller is definitely going to do better than Gregory did.

Nothing against Gregory as a person, he is a great guy, but I don't think he is that great of a coach.

Quote from: dayton flyers on January 09, 2013, 12:31:48 AM
Say what?

I'm guessing he was talking about NCAA shares. We split them all evenly, which means DePaul is cashing the same share check as Marquette or UConn. Not the case in the A10 where Xavier cashes a check and everyone else gets X's scraps.

What the A10 schools fail to realize in the unequal distribution is how much we are spending to put this together. It will probably cost $5M each to get out of the league. Then we'll have to pay another $10-15M for Big East name rights, millions more in lawyer fees, and I'm guessing we'll pick up the bill for all the non-C7's exit fees too. When all is said and done this will probably cost each C7 school over $10M to transition, and that's not including the amount of money in NCAA shares we'll be leaving behind.

It will take years just to recoup our losses at the $5M each figure, and every other league (Big Ten, PAC-12, etc) has a system where you start out earning less than vested members. If you want to be in a big boy league you have to play by big boy rules. That means a few years of making less than the established members who set up this new league for you in the first place.

Suffice to say, creating this Big East 2.0 won't be cheap, and it'll be us footing the bill.

I don't have a problem with a school getting a larger chunk of the NCAA tournament money that that school created by qualifying for the tournament.

From what I've read, I think the big point of contention, that a lot of fans of the schools being mentioned as candidates for the new league have, is whether the unequal distribution of revenue in the new league is going to be permanent.

Those fans don't have a problem with the C7 schools being reimbursed for their time, trouble, lost NCAA units, exit fees, lawyer fees, Big East name rights, etc., but those fans want the revenue to be eventually distributed equally once all the bills have been paid.

Having a permanent unequal distribution of revenue is extremely unfair IMO.

There was an ESPN article that didn't specify if the unequal revenue distribution was going to be permanent or not.  The article made it sound like the unequal revenue distribution was going to be permanent, and that got A LOT of fans riled up.

Even at the lower rate, you're going to quadruple your TV rights and get national exposure the A10 never dreamed of. I'm sure there will be a sunset clause, but it's ridiculous that fans are getting bent out of shape when this is all positive for the schools involved. More TV money, more NCAA money, more exposure, and less Fordham. What else could you want?

The details will all come out. Everything is in the preliminary stage right now. Just bear this in mind: if it wasn't going to benefit your school and programs, your ADs and presidents wouldn't be joining up. I have no doubt they have a better grasp on the good of Dayton than any of the fans do. Put your faith in them and realize that for a non-football school, this IS the Golden Ticket.

Well, honestly, whether this is good for us is THE issue.

Everybody is ok with the lower rate as long as there is a sunset clause.  If there is a sunset clause, everybody will be happy and won't have any concerns.

If there is not a sunset clause though, then I think this could get very contentious.

And can you blame us for being upset about that?  I've never heard of a college league that has had a permanent unequal distribution of revenue.

Quote from: dayton flyers on January 09, 2013, 02:05:16 AM
Well, honestly, whether this is good for us is THE issue.

Everybody is ok with the lower rate as long as there is a sunset clause.  If there is a sunset clause, everybody will be happy and won't have any concerns.

If there is not a sunset clause though, then I think this could get very contentious.

And can you blame us for being upset about that?  I've never heard of a college league that has had a permanent unequal distribution of revenue.

This is quite easily solved for your beloved university. If there is a sunset clause, Dayton should accept the invitation. If there isn't, Dayton should turn it down regardless of all the other benefits joining the new conference would bring.

See, us Marquette folks are great problem solvers!

Quote from: dayton flyers on January 09, 2013, 02:05:16 AM
Well, honestly, whether this is good for us is THE issue.

Everybody is ok with the lower rate as long as there is a sunset clause.  If there is a sunset clause, everybody will be happy and won't have any concerns.

If there is not a sunset clause though, then I think this could get very contentious.

And can you blame us for being upset about that?  I've never heard of a college league that has had a permanent unequal distribution of revenue.

Then stay in the A10. Jeesh

Quote from: dayton flyers on January 09, 2013, 01:33:28 AM
Those fans don't have a problem with the C7 schools being reimbursed for their time, trouble, lost NCAA units, exit fees, lawyer fees, Big East name rights, etc., but those fans want the revenue to be eventually distributed equally once all the bills have been paid.

Having a permanent unequal distribution of revenue is extremely unfair IMO.

If I start a successful accounting firm, and along the way I assumed all of the risk, advanced the expenses, I put my sweat equity into the firm and part of the success was my great reputation in accounting, shouldn't I get paid more indefinitely than the other accountants that work with me? This is no different.

If the C7 didn't go through the process of building a new league and/or rebuilding the Big East as a bball-centric league, these other schools wouldn't even be sniffing at a taste of a half billion dollars the C7 could generate in TV revenue. Dayton and SLU fans, in particular, given their relatively modest histories, should be thanking their lucky stars they are even in the conversation. If they don't like it, enjoy the A10 or independence or whatever.

First dollars in, first dollars out.

Quote from: dayton flyers on January 09, 2013, 02:05:16 AM
Well, honestly, whether this is good for us is THE issue.

Everybody is ok with the lower rate as long as there is a sunset clause.  If there is a sunset clause, everybody will be happy and won't have any concerns.

If there is not a sunset clause though, then I think this could get very contentious.

And can you blame us for being upset about that?  I've never heard of a college league that has had a permanent unequal distribution of revenue.

Well, you know, except the Big 12

Quote from: Avenue Commons on January 09, 2013, 07:03:26 AM
If I start a successful accounting firm, and along the way I assumed all of the risk, advanced the expenses, I put my sweat equity into the firm and part of the success was my great reputation in accounting, shouldn't I get paid more indefinitely than the other accountants that work with me? This is no different.

If the C7 didn't go through the process of building a new league and/or rebuilding the Big East as a bball-centric league, these other schools wouldn't even be sniffing at a taste of a half billion dollars the C7 could generate in TV revenue. Dayton and SLU fans, in particular, given their relatively modest histories, should be thanking their lucky stars they are even in the conversation. If they don't like it, enjoy the A10 or independence or whatever.

First dollars in, first dollars out.

I agree with Dayton Flyer guy.

I think it is completely reasonable for the C7 to get more money to start, but it simply has to have a sunset clause for a full and equal partnership.  If not, it is just going to create instability.  For instance, what if Dayton, after 12 years in the league, manages to get to a couple S16s and outperforms schools like Seton Hall and Providence.  Why should they continue to get "minority" shares?

And there actually was a major conference that was built on unequal television distribution rights....the Big 12.  In fact, it is what drove Nebraska, Colorado and A&M to leave.  Now Texas has had to save face and divy up the first and second tier rights equally, whereas before they were based upon the number of games they played.

And I fully expect this to be the case with this new conference.  It is a model that by and large works throughout college athletics.

Dayton--

At $2.5 mm per school for one year, if true, it will take Dayton five years to generate the same scratch in the A10. If the Fox deal is for 10 years, it will take you 50 years in the A10. Allowing for no inflation on either deal, UD would be leaving $20mm for ten years and $100mm for 50 years on the table.  Worst case deal...and you would walk?

Now, after the BE recoups its extensive lost revenue/sunk costs minus the lost revenue that UD will give up, you propose the new BE moves from a tiered to an equal partnership, that is $3.1 per school...or $2.6 more per year than what you are getting now in the A10 while the C7 schools drop down to only $600k more per year than they are getting on an old TV deal and $1.9 less than they had been getting for a period of years to cover their sunk or lost revenue.  Does that seem fair?

I am sure the schools will settle on a fair and equitable solution in the partnership. But, this is the big leagues:  If you score a touchdown, act like you have been in the end zone before.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 09, 2013, 07:40:29 AM
I am sure the schools will settle on a fair and equitable solution in the partnership. But, this is the big leagues:  If you score a touchdown, act like you have been in the end zone before.

"Big league" conferences all have equal television rights distributions - hell the two richest conferences, B10 and SEC, divide up first, second, third tier rights, AND bowl revenue equally.  I don't see much crying from Alabama about "fairness" that Vanderbilt gets to cut the same check they do.

It is actually the lower conferences that do not share this philosophy.

Quote from: dayton flyers on January 09, 2013, 12:41:30 AM
I assume you are talking about how UD should have paid to keep Purnell.  I personally feel that if Purnell would have stayed at UD for more money, then UD should have paid him what he wanted if UD could afford it.  But, I also very seriously doubt that UD could have competed with what Clemson offered Purnell.

If you couldn't keep Clemson some nabbing your coach, mid-major.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 09, 2013, 07:44:09 AM

"Big league" conferences all have equal television rights distributions - hell the two richest conferences, B10 and SEC, divide up first, second, third tier rights, AND bowl revenue equally.  I don't see much crying from Alabama about "fairness" that Vanderbilt gets to cut the same check they do.

It is actually the lower conferences that do not share this philosophy.

I have no issue with a sunset provision or "earning" a greater share through certain performance qualifiers, ie tournament appearances, league titles, etc.

Quote from: reinko on January 08, 2013, 08:50:35 PM
Think PTM might die of a brain hemmorhage after reading this.

(http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1336/56/1336568413511.jpg)

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 09, 2013, 07:44:09 AM

"Big league" conferences all have equal television rights distributions - hell the two richest conferences, B10 and SEC, divide up first, second, third tier rights, AND bowl revenue equally.  I don't see much crying from Alabama about "fairness" that Vanderbilt gets to cut the same check they do.

It is actually the lower conferences that do not share this philosophy.

Huh?  Tell that to that to Utah, Rutgers and the members of the B12 not named Texas or the ACC not named Notre Dame.  Hell, UND's soccer team got them a near guaranteed football game for not being in their football conference.  

Quote from: PTM on January 09, 2013, 07:51:29 AM
If you couldn't keep Clemson some nabbing your coach, mid-major.

Kind of like Tennessee taking a teams's coach on the heels of a Sweet 16?

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 09, 2013, 07:11:49 AM
Well, you know, except the Big 12

They do now....not completely so but much more equitable than previously.  Texas had to agree to that after it looked like the conference was going to fall apart.  It's a lesson to be learned.  The C7 have the advantages now, but will they 10 years from now?  

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 09, 2013, 07:58:15 AM
Huh?  Tell that to that to Utah, Rutgers and the members of the B12 not named Texas or the ACC not named Notre Dame.  Hell, UND's soccer team got them a near guaranteed football game for not being in their football conference. 

Rutgers and Utah will both have equal shares after they buy their way into the league.  There is nothing wrong with that.  I agree that there should be a "sunset," but it shouldn't be a permanent inequality of revenue.

I just want to add one thing on the cost side of this partnership and tiers issues ..folks need to look at what the C7 is giving up in lost credits, revenue from other departees and potential exit fee....may be in the $10-$15 million dollar range per school...or more. It could take MU six or more years into this deal to make it better than what they may have to give up.

With the A10 structure, Dayton with few NCAA credits and only a $1mm exit fit, even at $2.5mm, goes into the black in Year1. They make money from the get go.  

It may take a full ten years of the deal to even these tiers out for the C7. Dayton won't be suffering.  

Ok, so let's assume a fair amount of money has been paid back to the C7 (say, cost plus fair return for risk taken, NCAA credits left on the table, exit fees that had to be paid, etc).  Whatever you want to call that amount, C7 schools got it.

Moving forward, wouldn't it be better for the conference to allow each team to have the same share of TV revenue?  That allows for equal reinvestment into the program, whether that program had a good or bad year.  In order for Dayton, SLU, etc to make it to the next level, they need those dollars to compete.

Quote from: Avenue Commons on January 09, 2013, 08:08:31 AM
Kind of like Tennessee taking a teams's coach on the heels of a Sweet 16?

No doubt.

Notre dame really is the only thing missing...if you went 7 + ND, Butler, and Xavier for a 10 team conference, not sure MU could have come out of this thing any better. How about helping facilitate a move to get UConn into the ACC in place of ND?

Quote from: xghostsniperx on January 09, 2013, 08:36:14 AMOk, so let's assume a fair amount of money has been paid back to the C7 (say, cost plus fair return for risk taken, NCAA credits left on the table, exit fees that had to be paid, etc).  Whatever you want to call that amount, C7 schools got it.

Moving forward, wouldn't it be better for the conference to allow each team to have the same share of TV revenue?  That allows for equal reinvestment into the program, whether that program had a good or bad year.  In order for Dayton, SLU, etc to make it to the next level, they need those dollars to compete.

Sure. In 5-10 years, once we get there, sure. And I'm sure that we will either see a sunset, or if there's inequity through this deal, it will be resolved in the next TV contract that is renegotiated in 2023 or so. But until we have made back the considerable amount we will be spending, I would hope all of these programs that are being handed the Golden Ticket without having to buy a single Wonka Bar would understand just how much effort and cash we went through to provide the tickets for them.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 09, 2013, 08:46:40 AM
Notre dame really is the only thing missing...if you went 7 + ND, Butler, and Xavier for a 10 team conference, not sure MU could have come out of this thing any better. How about helping facilitate a move to get UConn into the ACC in place of ND?

If Notre Dame knew then that there'd be the C7, maybe they would have done it differently.

What does ND get from ACC? Doesn't matter bc of their NBC football money, but I'm curious how competitive the C7 could be.

Quote from: Avenue Commons on January 09, 2013, 08:58:40 AM
If Notre Dame knew then that there'd be the C7, maybe they would have done it differently.

What does ND get from ACC? Doesn't matter bc of their NBC football money, but I'm curious how competitive the C7 could be.

They get access to ACC bowls on a rotating basis.  And honestly, the ACC is a better all-sports conference than the C7 will be.

Quote from: Avenue Commons on January 09, 2013, 08:58:40 AM
If Notre Dame knew then that there'd be the C7, maybe they would have done it differently.

What does ND get from ACC? Doesn't matter bc of their NBC football money, but I'm curious how competitive the C7 could be.

Such fuels the speculation that there remains an outside chance (IMO, <10%) that ND and Gonzaga bring the conference to 14.

ND's move to the ACC was strictly about housing its Olympic sports, so a few believe that there might still be an opportunity for them in a stabilized Big East / C7 conference.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 09, 2013, 09:05:10 AM

They get access to ACC bowls on a rotating basis.  And honestly, the ACC is a better all-sports conference than the C7 will be.

Let's not kid anyone... ND will always have access to a bowl game, and with the playoff system on the horizon, these bowl contracts are going to become less and less important going forward.  As it is right now, unless you're in a BCS bowl game, you're likely breaking even at best; further, since the ACC is going to take the lion's share of any bowl money ND earns via ACC relationships, the ACC bowl pathways aren't exactly going to be a windfall for ND.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 09, 2013, 09:05:10 AMThey get access to ACC bowls on a rotating basis.  And honestly, the ACC is a better all-sports conference than the C7 will be.

I still think they may have joined the C7. With ND, we'd still have an elite soccer league, an elite basketball league, and pretty good all-around sports. And they wouldn't be pressured every 5 minutes to become full members because they already would be.

That said, I think I'll be happier if we can get them as an annual home-and-home non-con series. Boosts our regular non-conference profile, lets us carry on the rivalry, and ensures that we won't be at the behest of football if some day the Irish are forced into a "join a league" scenario.

Looks like Fox is meeting with the C7 today. And VCU looks like they could be in play...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20130109/catholic-7-tv/?sct=hp_t2_a5&eref=sihp (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20130109/catholic-7-tv/?sct=hp_t2_a5&eref=sihp)

good, I'd hope VCU takes the place of Dayton. I say this because their fans would have the most entertaining reactions of all the prospective borderline teams that might get left in the cold.

Do people think Fox is the one pushing towards 12 teams? It seems to me that the C7 would want to keep things at 10 to keep the bottom of the league relatively high, maximize per school revenue, and have a nice round robin.

Quote from: Avenue Commons on January 09, 2013, 08:58:40 AM
If Notre Dame knew then that there'd be the C7, maybe they would have done it differently.

Didn't Brey kind of allude to ND being aware of the early discussions?  Sounded like they knew it would happen and would have been on board, but the ACC invite came and was a better option for them.  The Bowl tie-ins are very important.

Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on January 09, 2013, 09:26:13 AM
Do people think Fox is the one pushing towards 12 teams? It seems to me that the C7 would want to keep things at 10 to keep the bottom of the league relatively high, maximize per school revenue, and have a nice round robin.

Possibly.  But going with "strike while the iron is hot", now may be the best time to maximize the deal by giving them 12 teams.  Added risk by adding two in 3-5 years and going back to them to try to renegotiate for a better deal then when Fox has already filled their programming needs and has less interest in the marginal value of 12 vs. 10 than they do now.

Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on January 09, 2013, 09:26:13 AM
Do people think Fox is the one pushing towards 12 teams? It seems to me that the C7 would want to keep things at 10 to keep the bottom of the league relatively high, maximize per school revenue, and have a nice round robin.

Yes because Fox wants content.  10 schools playing 18 games is 90 conference games total.  12 schools playing 18 games is 108.  Plus you have rights to non-conference games at two additional arenas.

Quote from: chapman on January 09, 2013, 09:28:29 AM
Didn't Brey kind of allude to ND being aware of the early discussions?  Sounded like they knew it would happen and would have been on board, but the ACC invite came and was a better option for them.  The Bowl tie-ins are very important.

Brey made some mentions about the C7 meetings taking place just prior to the C7's "breakaway" announcement.  He may have earlier speculated that this was going to happen, but then again, people have been speculating on a basketball breakaway in the Big East since MU & DePaul were added in 2005.

The bottom line here is Brey made no mention - nor is there any indication - that ND knew that the C7 was imminent at the time ND accepted the ACC invite.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 09, 2013, 09:30:36 AMYes because Fox wants content.  10 schools playing 18 games is 90 conference games total.  12 schools playing 18 games is 108.  Plus you have rights to non-conference games at two additional arenas.

Especially if the two additional do end up being VCU and Creighton. Richmond is a solid market and VCU has some of that "it" factor with Shaka at the helm, so I think they'll actually draw eyes. And Creighton IS basketball in Nebraska. No one cares about what the Cornhuskers are doing from December through March (except for their bowl game). In a state where college basketball is the only basketball going, Creighton is the unquestioned top dog.

Quote from: ZMovieman on January 09, 2013, 09:13:45 AM
Looks like Fox is meeting with the C7 today. And VCU looks like they could be in play...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20130109/catholic-7-tv/?sct=hp_t2_a5&eref=sihp (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20130109/catholic-7-tv/?sct=hp_t2_a5&eref=sihp)

The way this article is written it sounds as though this announcement that was rumored for today might not actually take place today.  Especially as it mentions that none of the presidents will be present at the meeting.

I actually like the idea of unequal shares to the newcomers with them having the ability to "earn" equal distribution, instead of a time sunset.

For example, Dayton makes 2 consecutive NCAA tournaments, or wins a conference championship. Something of that nature.

Quote from: WarriorInDC on January 09, 2013, 09:39:46 AMThe way this article is written it sounds as though this announcement that was rumored for today might not actually take place today.  Especially as it mentions that none of the presidents will be present at the meeting.

I really feel the announcement is still a little ways off, possibly won't come until early March, which might be good to have everyone talking about our new league throughout the tournament. Especially if teams like Creighton, Butler, VCU, and us can make nice little runs.

We know we're moving, we probably know 3-4 of the 5 teams that will be coming along, and I'm guessing most of those teams know it as well. My only worry is going into next year without any TV deal.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 09, 2013, 08:46:40 AM
Notre dame really is the only thing missing...if you went 7 + ND, Butler, and Xavier for a 10 team conference, not sure MU could have come out of this thing any better. How about helping facilitate a move to get UConn into the ACC in place of ND?

Quote from: Avenue Commons on January 09, 2013, 08:58:40 AM
If Notre Dame knew then that there'd be the C7, maybe they would have done it differently.

What does ND get from ACC? Doesn't matter bc of their NBC football money, but I'm curious how competitive the C7 could be.

Talk of Notre Dame being interested in being a part of the C7 is as delusional as talk on the Dayton board of the C7 only getting a TV contract because of the A-10 teams that they would be adding was.

I know I should be happy that MU is in much better shape than they were a month ago...but I just can't get over the disappointment of going from a top conference in the nation to what? the 5th to 7th best conference? I will forever hate West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinatti...I hope they lose every football game they play fror the rest of time.

Quote from: xghostsniperx on January 09, 2013, 08:36:14 AM
Ok, so let's assume a fair amount of money has been paid back to the C7 (say, cost plus fair return for risk taken, NCAA credits left on the table, exit fees that had to be paid, etc).  Whatever you want to call that amount, C7 schools got it.

Moving forward, wouldn't it be better for the conference to allow each team to have the same share of TV revenue?  That allows for equal reinvestment into the program, whether that program had a good or bad year.  In order for Dayton, SLU, etc to make it to the next level, they need those dollars to compete.

X--

Look at it this way.  With NCAA credits, forfeiture fees, MU has $10mm cash in the bank in 2013 if they stand pat in the BE.  Bankble hard cash they were going to use to build a new indoor soccer and track facility at a very low interest rate time that they could also borrow against. With the C7+...they will most likely lose that to pay their own exit fees, MSG rights/guarentees, and naming rights.  In addition, the C7 will have to also incur real hard costs in 2013--whether legal, administrative, physical (real estate, servers, office and media equipment, agency fees, etc)...so let's call it $12mm to $15mm total out of MU's pocket to start with...if not more considering cost of capital, opportunity costs now incurred on their own indoor facility or non-revenue sports budgets shortfalls/investments like their new lacrosse teams.

Dayton has a $1mm exit fee and a few dollars in NCAA credits...but an increase in media of $2mm per year.  MU increases its revenue to $5mm with their media but also incurs losses of what would have been if they stood pat of, let's say as its close, $2.5mm per year of the above....a net of $2.5mm for both schools in Year 2.  Is that parity enough for the A10 schools?  

Frankly, I would be glad if the A10 joined with the C7 on the cost side...ponied in their share of the near $90mm cost pool the C7+5 schools are giving up...and we all start at $3.1 per year on the media deal.  A partnership is a two way street...and when you make these big league deals, you need to realize what it takes.  That includes facility investment, NCAA credits earned, retaining coaches, delivering TV markets, being good in all non-revenue sports.  Those are all part of the partnership too...including for some of the C7 schools as well.  I think X and Butler are closer to delivering on that...but consider the whole deal.

Quote from: brewcity77 on January 09, 2013, 09:46:45 AM
I really feel the announcement is still a little ways off, possibly won't come until early March, which might be good to have everyone talking about our new league throughout the tournament.

I agree. I would look for something a bit more formal around conference tournament time, particularly if the Big East name and MSG survive. Though ESPN will of course want no part of it if the deal is in fact with Fox.

Regardless of how it all shakes out, this year's BET is going to present a very interesting dynamic.

Quote from: icheights on January 09, 2013, 10:25:40 AM
I know I should be happy that MU is in much better shape than they were a month ago...but I just can't get over the disappointment of going from a top conference in the nation to what? the 5th to 7th best conference? I will forever hate West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinatti...I hope they lose every football game they play fror the rest of time.

It was one fantastic ride...

The other schools only did what MU would have done in their place, the real culprit was the rise in the importance of sports programming on cable, and state legislatures willing to subsidize football at state schools.

Quote from: icheights on January 09, 2013, 10:25:40 AM
I know I should be happy that MU is in much better shape than they were a month ago...but I just can't get over the disappointment of going from a top conference in the nation to what? the 5th to 7th best conference? I will forever hate West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinatti...I hope they lose every football game they play fror the rest of time.

I'd rather be one of the leading teams in a conference where we can control our own destiny than hoping to be just another name in a conference where we are everyone's bitch.

And honestly, I think this conference could end up being one of the 2-3 best basketball conferences. I realize that we aren't going to be that now, but is it hard to believe that the conference winner will be a 1 or 2 seed most every year? And that in some years this league could have 2 teams fighting it out to the end that both end up on the top-two seed lines?

JTIII will almost certainly stay, and if this league can quickly become competitive, maybe Buzz, Brad Stevens, and Shaka (come on, VCU!) all stick around. No reason at all those guys can't have their teams perennially in the top-25. I look at virtually every team in this league as one that has a very good chance to be very good. If we add Xavier, Butler, Dayton, VCU, and Creighton, the league has an excellent young coaching foundation of Thompson, Williams, Wright, Stevens, and Smart. I look at Miller, McDermott, Mack, Cooley, and Willard all as guys that have the ability to be highly successful. Lavin has shown he can recruit to St. John's, which only leaves DePaul. Give them a fiery young recruiter in Chicago and they could compete again.

There isn't a team in this league that doesn't have upside potential, and this league will appeal to recruits who want to go somewhere that basketball is king. Keep most of the coaches intact and this league could be right there with the ACC and Big Ten in a decade. I know people don't see it now, but this could very well end up a league that is sending 5-7 teams every year and has 10-12 members in the top-100 every year. It'll take time, but I'd rather have that potential than feel like we're just waiting for the next shoe in an Imelda Marcos size closet to drop.

Quote from: brewcity77 on January 09, 2013, 10:45:05 AM
I'd rather be one of the leading teams in a conference where we can control our own destiny than hoping to be just another name in a conference where we are everyone's bitch.

And honestly, I think this conference could end up being one of the 2-3 best basketball conferences. I realize that we aren't going to be that now, but is it hard to believe that the conference winner will be a 1 or 2 seed most every year? And that in some years this league could have 2 teams fighting it out to the end that both end up on the top-two seed lines?

JTIII will almost certainly stay, and if this league can quickly become competitive, maybe Buzz, Brad Stevens, and Shaka (come on, VCU!) all stick around. No reason at all those guys can't have their teams perennially in the top-25. I look at virtually every team in this league as one that has a very good chance to be very good. If we add Xavier, Butler, Dayton, VCU, and Creighton, the league has an excellent young coaching foundation of Thompson, Williams, Wright, Stevens, and Smart. I look at Miller, McDermott, Mack, Cooley, and Willard all as guys that have the ability to be highly successful. Lavin has shown he can recruit to St. John's, which only leaves DePaul. Give them a fiery young recruiter in Chicago and they could compete again.

There isn't a team in this league that doesn't have upside potential, and this league will appeal to recruits who want to go somewhere that basketball is king. Keep most of the coaches intact and this league could be right there with the ACC and Big Ten in a decade. I know people don't see it now, but this could very well end up a league that is sending 5-7 teams every year and has 10-12 members in the top-100 every year. It'll take time, but I'd rather have that potential than feel like we're just waiting for the next shoe in an Imelda Marcos size closet to drop.

More from the man who correctly predicted we'd beat LSU when others said the sky was falling....

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 08, 2013, 10:39:26 PM
No one knows anything about how these future teams will be (including us), but we must make sure the ones we do add are financially and institutionally committed to successful men's basketball and overall athletics.

What exactly shows that Dayton meets that criteria?  That's the unanswered question.

Quote from: slingkong on January 09, 2013, 11:13:48 AM
What exactly shows that Dayton meets that criteria?  That's the unanswered question.

Second to Xavier in basketball revenue among the likely candidates.  >10 million.

13,435 seat capacity home arena.

Quote from: slingkong on January 09, 2013, 11:13:48 AM
What exactly shows that Dayton meets that criteria?  That's the unanswered question.

I think the first thing would be an unequivocal promise to never hire Jean Lenti Ponsetto.

Quote from: LittleMurs on January 09, 2013, 10:52:47 AM
More from the man who correctly predicted we'd beat LSU when others said the sky was falling....

What's your point?  We were a 10 point favorite in that game and barely won.

Quote from: LittleMurs on January 09, 2013, 11:28:42 AM
Second to Xavier in basketball revenue among the likely candidates.  >10 million.

13,435 seat capacity home arena.

Do they make a profit?  I'm actually surprised their revenue is that high, though.  Sure makes them a more interesting candidate than before.

Quote from: slingkong on January 09, 2013, 11:13:48 AM
What exactly shows that Dayton meets that criteria?  That's the unanswered question.

I know Dayton's largely been derided through this process, and their largely delusional fanbase seems to be the primary reason for it. Here are the reasons I think Dayton should be a must-add...

• Attendance: They pack UD Arena every game and their attendance would only be behind Marquette of the C7. It's a passionate fanbase that turns out for arguably the biggest sporting event in the city.
  
• Revenue: Dayton is a cash cow, bringing in over $10M per year, more than any C7 school aside from Marquette. I'd like to see them put more into basketball (just under $4M right now) but with a new TV contract and more exposure they can bring that up.
  
• Consistency: We all like tourney teams, but not everyone can be Gonzaga. But we also don't want teams that will be RPI drains. Dayton is a consistent top-100 team. They may not always be top-50, but they won't be a bad loss and should never really hurt anyone else's NCAA chances.
  
• Archie Miller: Of their past 3 coaches, I think Miller could be the best. Purnell went on to success at Clemson while Gregory hasn't fared well at Ga Tech. Miller learned from Darrin Horn, Thad Matta, Herb Sendek, and brother Sean Miller. He's ready, though I'm not sure he'll be at Dayton for the long haul.
  
• Love to hate: Maybe not the best reason, but their fans seem to be the douchiest of douchebags. Like Notre Dame and Wisconsin, Dayton is a team that just naturally seems to be a magnet for rival vitriol. Just ask Xavier fans, they seem to absolutely despise these guys. I'd rather have rivals I really dislike...it's made it so much easier with Cincy and Loserville over the years.
  
• Who's better? Also not the best reason, but if you get Xavier, Butler, Creighton, and VCU, who else is there? Wichita State? Please, they have less tourney success than Dayton. Gonzaga? I love them, but I'm sure they were among the first asked, and if they aren't being mentioned, it's because they already said no. St. Louis, St. Joe's, Richmond, Belmont, Oakland, or Valpo? Are any of them sexier than Dayton? No. And that's sad, because the only thing sexy about Dayton is their strip clubs (surprisingly quality) but once you get past the regular tourney participants, the best bet really is the perennial top-100 team that draws tons of local attention, fans, and most importantly, dollars.

DeCourcy on the inequitable television revenue:

"So after years of complaining they didn't have a proper and equivalent voice with the Big East football schools, after exiting that league in order to achieve it, the Catholic 7 will attempt to force a similar arrangement on the three to five schools they ask to fill out their league. It's greedy, and it's dumb.

...

If the Catholic 7 actually use this approach on their prospective partners, they might be surprised by how indifferently they are greeted. If the Catholic 7 want a league that works, they should be looking to form partnerships with these universities, not arrangements.

And he just retweeted...

Mike Jensen ‏@jensenoffcampus
@tsnmike I'm told whoever floated that unequal share proposal 100 percent wasn't speaking for entire Catholic 7.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 09, 2013, 11:47:08 AMIf the Catholic 7 actually use this approach on their prospective partners, they might be surprised by how indifferently they are greeted. If the Catholic 7 want a league that works, they should be looking to form partnerships with these universities, not arrangements.

If it's the long-term end, I agree. But I'm sure you've seen the hypothetical figures of how much this is going to cost us. If it's $10M per, I'm thinking we'd be getting off easy. Probably closer to $15M per C7 school.

If the total figure if $500M for 12 years, less $5M per C7 school, that's $1.33M per year for all the non-C7 schools. The disparity of $3.67M would take just over 4 years for the C7 to make up what they would be losing if it's costing us all $15M each.

Put a 5-year sunset on the deal, after 5 years everyone gets $3.47M per year, or graduate it to 7-8 years so that they slowly come down while we come up. I really don't think long-term anyone plans for us to be making 3-4 times what they are making. This is all coming from one article that talked about us getting a larger share to start and everyone is running with it like Chicken Little, spreading chaos on the Butler and Dayton message boards.

You yourself have pointed out that the B1G and Pac-12 have done this with new members. You make less until you earn your way into the top income bracket. I don't see how this is any different than that, except that people with little information are trying to spread large panic. This is such a non-story I can't believe it's even being seriously discussed.

Quote from: slingkong on January 09, 2013, 11:13:48 AM
What exactly shows that Dayton meets that criteria?  That's the unanswered question.

Is this a serious question? They are in the top ~25 in the country in BBall attendance, literally every season. UD arena has hosted more NCAA tournament games than any other. Bottom line, people show up no matter what. Ohio is obviously a huge basketball state, and they are located right between Columbus and Cincinatti. Other than the recent success under Shaka Smart, I see very little difference between Dayton and VCU. Either would be fine, but for anyone to suggest that VCU over Dayton is some sort of no-brainier is kinda silly.

What is the arrangement between UD and the NCAA regarding the play-in round of the tourney?  Is there a contract in place, and when does it end?

Having millions of anxious college hoops fans focusing on activity at the UD Arena every year wouldn't hurt the C7 profile.

Quote from: Bocephys on January 09, 2013, 11:36:46 AM
Do they make a profit?  I'm actually surprised their revenue is that high, though.  Sure makes them a more interesting candidate than before.

Spreadsheet time. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AlfWy6_OYXQRdExSWlMzTm1odDNXalVVNERtWFZRQmc&output=html

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 09, 2013, 11:47:08 AM
DeCourcy on the inequitable television revenue:

"So after years of complaining they didn't have a proper and equivalent voice with the Big East football schools, after exiting that league in order to achieve it, the Catholic 7 will attempt to force a similar arrangement on the three to five schools they ask to fill out their league. It's greedy, and it's dumb.

...

If the Catholic 7 actually use this approach on their prospective partners, they might be surprised by how indifferently they are greeted. If the Catholic 7 want a league that works, they should be looking to form partnerships with these universities, not arrangements.

So many here advocating treating other schools as second class citizens need their brains checked. 

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 09, 2013, 11:55:19 AM
Is this a serious question? They are in the top ~25 in the country in BBall attendance, literally every season. UD arena has hosted more NCAA tournament games than any other. Bottom line, people show up no matter what. Ohio is obviously a huge basketball state, and they are located right between Columbus and Cincinatti. Other than the recent success under Shaka Smart, I see very little difference between Dayton and VCU. Either would be fine, but for anyone to suggest that VCU over Dayton is some sort of no-brainier is kinda silly.

I do. Dayton is the better fit and better suited for longer-term success after their coach leaves. VCU has ONE tournament run and just now is filling their 6,000 seat arena - and we're all acting like they're the biggest prize.  Dayton values, and has valued, basketball significantly more than VCU ever has - and that's important.

Quote from: brewcity77 on January 09, 2013, 11:54:55 AM
If it's the long-term end, I agree. But I'm sure you've seen the hypothetical figures of how much this is going to cost us. If it's $10M per, I'm thinking we'd be getting off easy. Probably closer to $15M per C7 school.

If the total figure if $500M for 12 years, less $5M per C7 school, that's $1.33M per year for all the non-C7 schools. The disparity of $3.67M would take just over 4 years for the C7 to make up what they would be losing if it's costing us all $15M each.

Put a 5-year sunset on the deal, after 5 years everyone gets $3.47M per year, or graduate it to 7-8 years so that they slowly come down while we come up. I really don't think long-term anyone plans for us to be making 3-4 times what they are making. This is all coming from one article that talked about us getting a larger share to start and everyone is running with it like Chicken Little, spreading chaos on the Butler and Dayton message boards.

You yourself have pointed out that the B1G and Pac-12 have done this with new members. You make less until you earn your way into the top income bracket. I don't see how this is any different than that, except that people with little information are trying to spread large panic. This is such a non-story I can't believe it's even being seriously discussed.

I think that if these cost issues are indeed accurate, that new entrants will get a chance to review the figures and gain a better understanding of the reasoning behind an initial inequity in revenue.

Quote from: tower912 on January 09, 2013, 11:59:24 AM
So many here advocating treating other schools as second class citizens need their brains checked. 

I think most who were were advocating it on a temporary basis - i.e.  for setting up conference, securing lawyers, working out deals, paying exist fees, purchasing Big East name.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 09, 2013, 12:00:27 PM
I do. Dayton is the better fit and better suited for longer-term success after their coach leaves. VCU has ONE tournament run and just now is filling their 6,000 seat arena - and we're all acting like they're the biggest prize.  Dayton values, and has valued, basketball significantly more than VCU ever has - and that's important.

Completely agree. From an overall profile/fit standpoint, a much stronger case could be made for UD over VCU.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 09, 2013, 11:57:23 AM
Spreadsheet time.  

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AlfWy6_OYXQRdExSWlMzTm1odDNXalVVNERtWFZRQmc&output=html

Higher five year average attendance than Xavier or UConn.

Filled arenas look good on TV.  Ask DePaul about trying to hide low attendance from the cameras.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 09, 2013, 12:00:27 PM
I do. Dayton is the better fit and better suited for longer-term success after their coach leaves. VCU has ONE tournament run and just now is filling their 6,000 seat arena - and we're all acting like they're the biggest prize.  Dayton values, and has valued, basketball significantly more than VCU ever has - and that's important.

In reality, the profile of VCU as an institution is kind of like a better UWM.  It is a school where most students commute, and while they may fill a 6,000 seat arena, that is out of a student body of 30,000+.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 09, 2013, 12:07:51 PM

In reality, the profile of VCU as an institution is kind of like a better UWM.  It is a school where most students commute, and while they may fill a 6,000 seat arena, that is out of a student body of 30,000+.

BOOM. This +1000. Richmond is the school you'd actually want in the Richmond market. Better academics, better fit, better arena and a boatload of money to elevate their program and facilities.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 09, 2013, 12:09:48 PM
BOOM. This +1000. Richmond is the school you'd actually want in the Richmond market. Better academics, better fit, better arena and a boatload of money to elevate their program and facilities.

And they might be the only program that could hire away Shaka Smart since Smart's wife wants to stay in Richmond.

I thought I read somewhere that the C7 schools would not have to pay exit fees and that it might have something to do with the number of schools involved. Anyone know what the real deal on that is?

Quote from: mileskishnish72 on January 09, 2013, 12:14:33 PM
I thought I read somewhere that the C7 schools would not have to pay exit fees and that it might have something to do with the number of schools involved. Anyone know what the real deal on that is?

No. And not a "no" as in I don't know (though I don't) but more so that I don't think anyone that does know is talking about it right now.

There will almost certainly be some form of payment/settlement to the remaining Big East football schools. Right now the buyout is $10M. I doubt we'll all pay that much to get out, but that is the current agreed-upon fee. I figure they'll negotiate that down, mostly using our share of the buyout fees gained from Louisville, Rutgers, Syracuse, etc. There's also a decent chance we'll end up paying for Xavier, Butler, Creighton, and everyone else's exit fees to get them out of their respective leagues.

In addition, lawyer fees, paying for rights to the Big East name, and all the NCAA credits we'll be leaving on the table, it's going to cost a lot. Probably somewhere between $10M and $20M per C7 team. Which is why a disparity in economic rights between us and the new members is not only a good idea, it's a fair one. We're going to foot the bill to get out of our league, get them out of their leagues, and create this non-football school conference. The least they can do is let us recoup all the costs we're going to pay.

Quote from: WarriorInDC on January 09, 2013, 09:39:46 AM
The way this article is written it sounds as though this announcement that was rumored for today might not actually take place today.  Especially as it mentions that none of the presidents will be present at the meeting.

I presumed the announcement was a formal meeting in and of itself.

Why stop at unequal revenue sharing? Who says we have to let the new teams play half their games at home?

Xavier: 8 home, 10 road
Butler/Creighton: 7 home, 11 road
SLU: 6 home, 12 road
Dayton: 2 home, 16 road. (Hope the early 90's Cavaliers get good mileage.)

Quote from: drewm88 on January 09, 2013, 08:36:02 PM
Why stop at unequal revenue sharing? Who says we have to let the new teams play half their games at home?

Xavier: 8 home, 10 road
Butler/Creighton: 7 home, 11 road
SLU: 6 home, 12 road
Dayton: 2 home, 16 road. (Hope the early 90's Cavaliers get good mileage.)

Dayton travels so well this only makes sense.

Some of you who advocate equal revenue sharing please read what the C7 is giving up on the cost side imbedded in this thread to the benefit of the A11 teams and get back to us.  Some of you guys are advocating 9th place ribbons and giving away the shop.

Equal revenues shared = Equal Cost Shared.  There is NOTHING UNFAIR about that!

As I laid out, unless there is a tiered system for the the length of the deal, MU is better off staying in the old BE.  Gladly, for profit guys run Georgetown and they understand that.  MU could build their indoor soccer|track facility tomorrow or they could start a new conference for that capital....hoping to build that facility in 7-10 years.  At this point I am ready to bag the C7 for the legacy BE.  Glad to have UCONN, Cinci, Memphis, USF over the Dayton's, SLU at this point despite the football woes.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 09, 2013, 11:18:35 PM
Some of you who advocate equal revenue sharing please read what the C7 is giving up on the cost side imbedded in this thread to the benefit of the A11 teams and get back to us.  Some of you guys are advocating 9th place ribbons and giving away the shop.

Equal revenues shared = Equal Cost Shared.  There is NOTHING UNFAIR about that!

As I laid out, unless there is a tiered system for the the length of the deal, MU is better off staying in the old BE.  Gladly, for profit guys run Georgetown and they understand that.  MU could build their indoor soccer|track facility tomorrow or they could start a new conference for that capital....hoping to build that facility in 7-10 years.  At this point I am ready to bag the C7 for the legacy BE.  Glad to have UCONN, Cinci, Memphis, USF over the Dayton's, SLU at this point despite the football woes.

Youre insane. I wouldnt want to stick around at all because the second UConn, Cinci or even USF for that matter get a chance to go to another conference they would not hesitate. Then were stuck with the Tulanes and the SMUs of the world.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 09, 2013, 11:18:35 PMSome of you who advocate equal revenue sharing please read what the C7 is giving up on the cost side imbedded in this thread to the benefit of the A11 teams and get back to us.  Some of you guys are advocating 9th place ribbons and giving away the shop.

Equal revenues shared = Equal Cost Shared.  There is NOTHING UNFAIR about that!

As I laid out, unless there is a tiered system for the the length of the deal, MU is better off staying in the old BE.  Gladly, for profit guys run Georgetown and they understand that.  MU could build their indoor soccer|track facility tomorrow or they could start a new conference for that capital....hoping to build that facility in 7-10 years.  At this point I am ready to bag the C7 for the legacy BE.  Glad to have UCONN, Cinci, Memphis, USF over the Dayton's, SLU at this point despite the football woes.

I don't think Dr. B is advocating staying in the old Big East. He's saying that if we leave and hand an equal share immediately to all these other schools, we would have been better off staying. That a tiered system to help the C7 recoup their profits is not only fair, but should also be necessary to offset the ridiculous amounts of money our schools are going to be putting on the table for exit fees (our and the other schools'), Big East naming rights, possibly the MSG contract, and the amount of money we will be forfeiting in NCAA credits.

We are taking a HUGE hit financially by making this move. Getting a larger cut of the new TV deal is the only way we are going to offset that. Essentially, the C7 are all investing in a new company at a cost of around $15M each (speculative number, but probably in that realm). So people advocating equal media rights are saying the 7 schools should invest over $100M of their own money, bring in 5 partners who are investing NOTHING, and share all the profits with them equally? After we built this whole thing for them? That's insane.

Not only should it be a tiered deal, it better be a tiered deal if the ADs and presidents have any sense. If everyone is making the same from day one, then Xavier, Butler, Creighton, VCU, and Dayton better be willing to not only pay their own exit fees, but also to pay a $20M entry fee to get into our league. It's the only way it would make sense.

Quote from: esard2011 on January 10, 2013, 12:48:23 AM
Youre insane. I wouldnt want to stick around at all because the second UConn, Cinci or even USF for that matter get a chance to go to another conference they would not hesitate. Then were stuck with the Tulanes and the SMUs of the world.

Brew caught my hyperbole.  Again, look at it in simple financial terms:

--If MU stays in the legacy BE and the current media deal is extended 10 years, MU will make $25mm in media revenue+ $10mm it has in the bank TODAY in earned and forfeited NCAA credits from departed schools and their exit fees.  That is $35mm over 10 years.

--if the new league equally shares revenue at $3.1 for 10 years.  MU will earn $31mm or $6mm more on the TV deal.  However, MU gives up at least $10mm in that revenue for leaving.  So, over years of equal partnership, then MU loses $4mm in the new conference deal.  If as an alternative, MU invested the $10mm today, they would reasonably have at least $20mm in the bank in ten years.  Equal revenue sharing is a horrible deal for MU, despite what the puppy dog society led by DeCourcy is railing about.

--Tiered scenario:  The C7 gets $5mm per year, they clear $50mm.  If you subtract then $10mm MU has to give up to leave, you are left with $40mm, which is $15mm better than staying in the legacy BE and a bit better than investing the $10mm MU has today in the bank.  MU takes that deal.

--If I am Dayton, I will make $5mm over ten years staying in the A10.  Or I can take $25mm by joining at the C7 with $2.5mm in media revenue per year.  I will have to pay $1mm in exit fees and give up, let's say another $1mm in NCAA credits.  So, in 10 years Dayton is $18mm better off...or in the same range as MU in a tiered structure.  Dayton takes that deal.

--The puppy dog society says MU is greedy, that the partnership is unfair.  It simply isn't the case financially if all alternatives are considered.  If new members insist on it, MU should stay put as insane as that sounds.

Thanks Doc. Your earlier post was plenty clear.

Just goes to show the filters some people use under the subjective guise of how they choose to define "fair".

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 10, 2013, 07:18:37 AM
Brew caught my hyperbole.  Again, look at it in simple financial terms:

--If MU stays in the legacy BE and the current media deal is extended 10 years, MU will make $25mm in media revenue+ $10mm it has in the bank TODAY in earned and forfeited NCAA credits from departed schools and their exit fees.  That is $35mm over 10 years.

--if the new league equally shares revenue at $3.1 for 10 years.  MU will earn $31mm or $6mm more on the TV deal.  However, MU gives up at least $10mm in that revenue for leaving.  So, over years of equal partnership, then MU loses $4mm in the new conference deal.  If as an alternative, MU invested the $10mm today, they would reasonably have at least $20mm in the bank in ten years.  Equal revenue sharing is a horrible deal for MU, despite what the puppy dog society led by DeCourcy is railing about.

--Tiered scenario:  The C7 gets $5mm per year, they clear $50mm.  If you subtract then $10mm MU has to give up to leave, you are left with $40mm, which is $15mm better than staying in the legacy BE and a bit better than investing the $10mm MU has today in the bank.  MU takes that deal.

--If I am Dayton, I will make $5mm over ten years staying in the A10.  Or I can take $25mm by joining at the C7 with $2.5mm in media revenue per year.  I will have to pay $1mm in exit fees and give up, let's say another $1mm in NCAA credits.  So, in 10 years Dayton is $18mm better off...or in the same range as MU in a tiered structure.  Dayton takes that deal.

--The puppy dog society says MU is greedy, that the partnership is unfair.  It simply isn't the case financially if all alternatives are considered.  If new members insist on it, MU should stay put as insane as that sounds.

It makes all the sense in the world and I think a short term inequity in revenue with a 8-10 year sunset is how it is going to all go down.  Keep in mind the only article I've seen that at all makes it seem like the inequity would be permanent is one floated by ESPN who has a vested interest in the C7+ league not forming and especially having it not go to Fox.  So once again, ESPNs reporting interests are conflicted by their corporate interests, is anyone shocked?

At the end of the day, I think everyone needs to just realize this whole deal if you lay it out just makes entirely too much sense not to work out.  The chicken littles screaming about fairness don't understand the word and just like to cause trouble.

I wouldn't blame ESPN for this.  They legitimately stated, and I am paraphrasing, "a source said that it could include inequitable revenue."  Since tweets have followed up stating this position does not represent everyone, you could easily deduce that this position does exist among the C7 group.  That is factual reporting.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 10, 2013, 08:01:48 AM
I wouldn't blame ESPN for this.  They legitimately stated, and I am paraphrasing, "a source said that it could include inequitable revenue."  Since tweets have followed up stating this position does not represent everyone, you could easily deduce that this position does exist among the C7 group.  That is factual reporting.

Sultan, I agree with you, but ESPN could have added a simple addition, "there is no indication if this would be permanent or temporary" or something to that effect.  The folks at ESPN are pretty smart and should know that distinction is important in this kind of atmosphere.  A lot of times it's not what is in the story but what is not in the story that tells the tale.

Perhaps it's a jumping at shadows, but my ultimate point was for those that were carrying on about fairness, there is no reporting it won't be fair....just an absence of definitive statement that it will be fair

This is specifically what Rovell said:

"One source said it is likely the new schools wouldn't share the same amount as the "Catholic 7," which would allow the former Big East basketball schools to earn in the $5 million range. It's thought that free agent schools such as the ones in the Atlantic 10 would be fine with making less than half of that on an annual basis because they currently pull in $400,000 a year."

I would agree that this is somewhat incompetent reporting because it doesn't touch on the cost aspect of it.  But hell, it's Rovell so I wouldn't expect much from him anyway.  However I don't think it was nefarious. 

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 10, 2013, 08:18:40 AM
This is specifically what Rovell said:

"One source said it is likely the new schools wouldn't share the same amount as the "Catholic 7," which would allow the former Big East basketball schools to earn in the $5 million range. It's thought that free agent schools such as the ones in the Atlantic 10 would be fine with making less than half of that on an annual basis because they currently pull in $400,000 a year."

I would agree that this is somewhat incompetent reporting because it doesn't touch on the cost aspect of it.  But hell, it's Rovell so I wouldn't expect much from him anyway.  However I don't think it was nefarious. 

Never underestimate the shill-factor when it comes to "ESPN reporting."

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 10, 2013, 08:18:40 AM
This is specifically what Rovell said:

"One source said it is likely the new schools wouldn't share the same amount as the "Catholic 7," which would allow the former Big East basketball schools to earn in the $5 million range. It's thought that free agent schools such as the ones in the Atlantic 10 would be fine with making less than half of that on an annual basis because they currently pull in $400,000 a year."

I would agree that this is somewhat incompetent reporting because it doesn't touch on the cost aspect of it.  But hell, it's Rovell so I wouldn't expect much from him anyway.  However I don't think it was nefarious. 

I don't think it is necessarily nefarious either.  I think at a minimum it's a "psychological blindspot".  Whether intentional or not I think there is a consistent habit or reporting sports news in such a way that it serves ESPN's best interest, not the interests of sports in general.

Either way, my point is, regardless of the source there isn't enough discussion of cost and revenue implications for the new league and what they are aiming for to really draw a conclusion.

At the end of the day some smart adults are going to sit in a room and discuss a contract that I think will ultimately be very fair from a business standpoint.  Both parties(C7 and the + teams) are incentivized to achieve this fairness.

C7 is incentivized to assure the following:
-Maximize revenues
-Minimize and/or cover costs new legal
-Promote long-term stability
-Create a league that is at least as successful as the current iteration of the BE

+ teams are incentivized to assure the following:
-Maximize revenues
-Promote long-term stability
-Create a league that is at least is a level above their current leagues

Those goals line up, a good deal gets struck and I think 5 years from now we are talking about a really good league and what a great position

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 10, 2013, 08:18:40 AM
This is specifically what Rovell said:

"One source said it is likely the new schools wouldn't share the same amount as the "Catholic 7," which would allow the former Big East basketball schools to earn in the $5 million range. It's thought that free agent schools such as the ones in the Atlantic 10 would be fine with making less than half of that on an annual basis because they currently pull in $400,000 a year."

I would agree that this is somewhat incompetent reporting because it doesn't touch on the cost aspect of it.  But hell, it's Rovell so I wouldn't expect much from him anyway.  However I don't think it was nefarious. 

Posted this in the other thread, have to agree with DeCourcey that just doesn't seem right and basically hypocritical.  Not a good way to start a league, in my opinion.  He is interviewed in the link below.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2013-01-09/catholic-7-tv-contract-rpi-ratings-cj-mccollum-kentucky-john-calipari-mid-major

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 10, 2013, 01:22:24 PM
Posted this in the other thread, have to agree with DeCourcey that just doesn't seem right and basically hypocritical.  Not a good way to start a league, in my opinion.  He is interviewed in the link below.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2013-01-09/catholic-7-tv-contract-rpi-ratings-cj-mccollum-kentucky-john-calipari-mid-major

This is the cause of creating a scenario and then arguing against....as opposed to arguing against the facts.  If the situation is that the C7 are creating a league with the next 3/5 members are inferior members who don't get their fair share(accounting for costs so that revenue and costs are distributed appropriately) at any point in time, then DeCourcey is correct.  However that scenario has never been reported.

The only thing reported is there a movement to have unbalanced revenues, but there is no idea if it's permanent or short-term.  It is neither hypocritical nor "unfair" to have unbalanced revenues as long as costs are unbalanced.  If cost is balanced, revenue should be balanced, just good business sense.  Now if long term costs are balanced and revenue is not then you and DeCourcey have a point, but that is report no where and is a critical distinction.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 10, 2013, 07:18:37 AM
Brew caught my hyperbole.  Again, look at it in simple financial terms:

--If MU stays in the legacy BE and the current media deal is extended 10 years, MU will make $25mm in media revenue+ $10mm it has in the bank TODAY in earned and forfeited NCAA credits from departed schools and their exit fees.  That is $35mm over 10 years.

--if the new league equally shares revenue at $3.1 for 10 years.  MU will earn $31mm or $6mm more on the TV deal.  However, MU gives up at least $10mm in that revenue for leaving.  So, over years of equal partnership, then MU loses $4mm in the new conference deal.  If as an alternative, MU invested the $10mm today, they would reasonably have at least $20mm in the bank in ten years.  Equal revenue sharing is a horrible deal for MU, despite what the puppy dog society led by DeCourcy is railing about.

--Tiered scenario:  The C7 gets $5mm per year, they clear $50mm.  If you subtract then $10mm MU has to give up to leave, you are left with $40mm, which is $15mm better than staying in the legacy BE and a bit better than investing the $10mm MU has today in the bank.  MU takes that deal.

--If I am Dayton, I will make $5mm over ten years staying in the A10.  Or I can take $25mm by joining at the C7 with $2.5mm in media revenue per year.  I will have to pay $1mm in exit fees and give up, let's say another $1mm in NCAA credits.  So, in 10 years Dayton is $18mm better off...or in the same range as MU in a tiered structure.  Dayton takes that deal.

--The puppy dog society says MU is greedy, that the partnership is unfair.  It simply isn't the case financially if all alternatives are considered.  If new members insist on it, MU should stay put as insane as that sounds.

Great explanation.

Those advocating the same terms for each school must work at organizations where every employee is paid an equal salary?

Quote from: sixstrings03 on January 10, 2013, 01:55:17 PM
Great explanation.

Those advocating the same terms for each school must work at organizations where every employee is paid an equal salary?

More likely, they paid attention in b-school when the concept of "sunk costs" were discussed.

If the schools being invited don't want to make 5 times what they currently make in television revenue while increasing their national exposure exponentially in exchange for waiting a few years to increase their revenue to the same status as their conference mates, I'm sure the C7 can find 5 other schools willing to take those terms.

Quote from: brewcity77 on January 10, 2013, 04:05:30 PM
If the schools being invited don't want to make 5 times what they currently make in television revenue while increasing their national exposure exponentially in exchange for waiting a few years to increase their revenue to the same status as their conference mates, I'm sure the C7 can find 5 other schools willing to take those terms.

Will those "next 5" schools be any good? Worth putting on tv for a network? Worth buying tickets to see?

Quote from: sixstrings03 on January 10, 2013, 01:55:17 PM
Great explanation.

Those advocating the same terms for each school must work at organizations where every employee is paid an equal salary?

Apples and oranges comparison.  The Dallas Cowboys are worth $2.1 billion according to Forbes.  They are the most popular football team in the NFL again according to ratings, etc.  They generate more revenue for the league, yet they get the exact same 1/32nd piece of the television contract as every other team despite driving more eyeballs, etc.

The NFL is the strongest league in this country, mostly because of the way they divide up revenues and expenses.  A little town like Green Bay can compete with New York city.  Small market Pittsburgh can be a champion every bit as much as Chicago or Philadelphia.  It works.  You can still decide to pay the QB more than the linebacker or the kicker, but from an aggregate perspective you share in the revenues and expenses for most of the cost structure (coaching salaries, employee salaries exempted).

Quote from: brewcity77 on January 10, 2013, 04:05:30 PM
If the schools being invited don't want to make 5 times what they currently make in television revenue while increasing their national exposure exponentially in exchange for waiting a few years to increase their revenue to the same status as their conference mates, I'm sure the C7 can find 5 other schools willing to take those terms.

They won't be nearly as good as those five. 


I have no doubt if the shoe was on the other foot our fans would be quite pissed off, and I would say rightly so.  You're inviting other schools to form a PARTNERSHIP.  Share the costs (pain) and the revenues (rewards) and the marriage will be much happier and get off on the right foot.

We'll just agree to disagree on this.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 10, 2013, 04:33:46 PM
I have no doubt if the shoe was on the other foot our fans would be quite pissed off, and I would say rightly so.  You're inviting other schools to form a PARTNERSHIP.  Share the costs (pain) and the revenues (rewards) and the marriage will be much happier and get off on the right foot.

Well said.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on January 10, 2013, 04:35:59 PM
Well said.

If the Big East told MU in 2005 that they had to to take a smaller piece of the pie for 5 years(or however long it would have been), but they still would be doubling their revenues, I don't think we would have been that upset about it.

Quote from: LAZER on January 10, 2013, 04:50:13 PM
If the Big East told MU in 2005 that they had to to take a smaller piece of the pie for 5 years(or however long it would have been), but they still would be doubling their revenues, I don't think we would have been that upset about it.

How did that marriage work out? What was one of the reasons we got out?  Inequity.





Can you imagine being Butler or Xavier and looking at the "product" that Seton Hall, DePaul, Providence has put on the court the last decade and think that those schools should be getting a bigger piece of the pie since they did so much to "enhance" the Big East brand.  I would be giggling in the room if I was them.  If I were the five "invitees", I would band together and cut a side deal and say all or none.  The C7 needs 5 quality schools and the next five on the list after the initial five are a step down.  Or at the very least, if I were Xavier or Butler, I would join hands and say we need a better deal or we're not coming in....they have leverage, too, especially if they are acting in concert with each other as a bloc instead of individually.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 10, 2013, 04:33:46 PM
They won't be nearly as good as those five.  


I have no doubt if the shoe was on the other foot our fans would be quite pissed off, and I would say rightly so.  You're inviting other schools to form a PARTNERSHIP.  Share the costs (pain) and the revenues (rewards) and the marriage will be much happier and get off on the right foot.

We'll just agree to disagree on this.

#1 - Chicos, you need to ban yourself from the phrase "apples and oranges."  You've probably been in SoCal so long you don't even know what an apple looks like anymore.

#2 - Let's say we go into business, and and we're going to share $4M in annual profits equally.  But I've already spent $10M getting the thing going, so would you rather pay me $5M now, or would you rather forgo one-half of your share of the profits ($1M) for five years?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 10, 2013, 04:33:46 PMI have no doubt if the shoe was on the other foot our fans would be quite pissed off, and I would say rightly so.  You're inviting other schools to form a PARTNERSHIP.  Share the costs (pain) and the revenues (rewards) and the marriage will be much happier and get off on the right foot.

Sure. If they want to pay a $20M entry fee each to get into the league, and thereby share the costs, I agree.

Otherwise, you're advocating them getting something for nothing.

And while I'm not a huge fan of St. Louis, Wichita State, Richmond, George Mason, and St. Joseph's, it's not like any of them couldn't fit into this league. There are other options if necessary.

Quote from: Benny B on January 10, 2013, 04:59:59 PM
#1 - Chicos, you need to ban yourself from the phrase "apples and oranges."  You've probably been in SoCal so long you don't even know what an apple looks like anymore.

#2 - Let's say we go into business, and and we're going to share $4M in annual profits equally.  But I've already spent $10M getting the thing going, so would you rather pay me $5M now, or would you rather forgo one-half of your share of the profits ($1M) for five years?

#1  I have an apple tree in my back yard, as well an orange tree.  Seriously.   I just sent a picture of my orange tree to my little sister the other day as she was battling a snowstorm.

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/255093_10200165621006526_1556315308_n.jpg)

#2  Your example is fine, but again...apples to oranges.   Let's say you are going to start a highly competitive basketball league with 7 Catholic schools in which 3 of them are really crappy and a 4th has run on hard times of late.  Let's say that league doesn't exist yet but has an opportunity for a $500 million television contract if it can convince 5 other schools of like minded perspective to join, but only if those 5 join (or at least the top 2...Xavier, Butler) will the money be there.  Those five free agent school are actually better than 4 of the 7 Catholic schools in terms of the product, their fan support, their ability to make the post season and are vital for this contract to happen.   However, those 5 schools have so-so revenue from television and stand to make more by joining this partnership so they're in a quandry but they find out that the 7 Catholic schools will make more...far more...than the five for some period of time which could be a number of years.  The inequity explanation is due to the "risk" and sunk costs associated with creating this new league.  Well, begs the question if the new league even exist without the other 5?  Does the $500 million contract exist without the other 5?  Seems to me, there is no league without the 5 schools anymore then there is a league with 7.  If I'm going to join your league of 7 and most of my schools are better than half of your 7, I need to be treated fairly. I know you need ME for that $500 million contract.  Without me, you don't get that $500 million.  To make it worse, I'm cutting a side deal with the other four invitees so you can't get ANY of us without taking all of us.  You want to go to the next rung of the ladder and get Detroit, Loyola, Duquesne, George Mason...see how that $500 million looks.  We have risks, too.  We have it made in our current conference...Nearly annual NCAA bids, treated like equals, we will have legal fees and expenses to pay also.  The risk isn't all on you guys.  Those "sunk" costs can be divided up....this league doesn't exist without us.  You need us.

I think you are missing the leverage that they have, especially if Fox is saying the league has to be 12 teams.  The likely five, or certainly the definite two or three (Xavier, Butler, Creighton) should form a bloc to make sure they are protected.  They would be foolish not to.  

See, at the end of the day, both parties need each other and that's the beauty of it.  We may have more prestige, the names, etc, but they have the missing quantity and quality needed to get the pot of gold everyone wants.

Quote from: brewcity77 on January 10, 2013, 05:31:43 PM
Sure. If they want to pay a $20M entry fee each to get into the league, and thereby share the costs, I agree.

Otherwise, you're advocating them getting something for nothing.

And while I'm not a huge fan of St. Louis, Wichita State, Richmond, George Mason, and St. Joseph's, it's not like any of them couldn't fit into this league. There are other options if necessary.

$20 Million...what is that number tied to?  You said earlier $100 million, not sure where that number came from but say it's real, then $100 million divided equally by 12 schools is $8.33 million.

That next tier you just announced dropped the $500 million package down to $300million.  That's why the "FIVE", or the definite three "Xavier, Butler, Creighton" carry a lot more leverage than folks think.  Not complete leverage, but a lot.  Without them, that $500 million drops in value fast.

Very jealous of the orange tree. 

Rutgers and Maryland will have to take partial shares for a number of years before earning full B1G money. How is that any different than this? They take partial shares until we're all on equal ground, then we go forward as equals. This isn't something new, it's just how this process works.

Quote from: The Equalizer on January 10, 2013, 02:49:00 PM
More likely, they paid attention in b-school when the concept of "sunk costs" were discussed.

Or they weren't paying attention in their advanced corporate finance classes when the concept of incremental cash flows when deciding between two or more alternatives was discussed. Good job trying to sound smart though.

Since the conference is just being formed all the schools should split the money evenly. Rutgers and maryland are entering a conference that was formed many years ago.

Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on January 10, 2013, 07:40:00 PM
Very jealous of the orange tree. 

+1.

Quote from: raul on January 10, 2013, 10:26:46 PM
Since the conference is just being formed all the schools should split the money evenly. Rutgers and maryland are entering a conference that was formed many years ago.

The investments aren't equal. If you form a new corporation the people that will get the most shares are those that invest the most. This is no different. Until costs are recouped, it makes all the sense in the world that the C7 get a bigger share.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 10, 2013, 04:56:59 PM
How did that marriage work out? What was one of the reasons we got out?  Inequity.


Can you imagine being Butler or Xavier and looking at the "product" that Seton Hall, DePaul, Providence has put on the court the last decade and think that those schools should be getting a bigger piece of the pie since they did so much to "enhance" the Big East brand.  I would be giggling in the room if I was them.  If I were the five "invitees", I would band together and cut a side deal and say all or none.  The C7 needs 5 quality schools and the next five on the list after the initial five are a step down.  Or at the very least, if I were Xavier or Butler, I would join hands and say we need a better deal or we're not coming in....they have leverage, too, especially if they are acting in concert with each other as a bloc instead of individually.

First, these "marriages" are entirely different and in the end it still ended up working great for MU.  Second, the other 5 have no leverage, everyone knows how much their A10 contract is worth and how much they stand to gain from attaching themselves to the C7. All it takes is for the C7 to put some feelers out to St Joe's, VCU, Richmond, etc. and the 5 mentioned schools would come running back to the table.

Quote from: TrueBlueAndGold on January 08, 2013, 02:27:58 PM
I'm disappointed that Gonzaga isn't rumored to be part of the 12. I was hopeful that the new TV contract in addition to the revenue from their NCAA tournament success would offset the costs associated with their location. Oh well.

Zags will join if they deem it in their best interest.

Quote from: raul on January 10, 2013, 10:26:46 PM
Since the conference is just being formed all the schools should split the money evenly. Rutgers and maryland are entering a conference that was formed many years ago.

Rutgers isnt getting a full share immediately. However, Maryland is. Apparently, every team is always so anxious to join a new conference that they forget that its possible to negotiate for a full share right away. Maryland did it and it worked out well for them.

Quote from: keefe on January 11, 2013, 01:55:05 AM
Zags will join if they deem it in their best interest.

If Gonzaga were still in the mix, there'd at least be rumors. No smoke = no fire. Gonzaga's not coming.

Quote from: honkytonk on January 11, 2013, 02:05:51 AM
Rutgers isnt getting a full share immediately. However, Maryland is. Apparently, every team is always so anxious to join a new conference that they forget that its possible to negotiate for a full share right away. Maryland did it and it worked out well for them.

And their exit fees weren't equal either: $50million for Maryland, $10million for RU. Again, equal share partnerships include both revenue and cost considerations (like Maryland's lawsuit which the B1G wants to knock down for future expansion targets). Also note that Maryland has the potential to bring other revenue to the B1G via their alumni network: namely Under Armour...which a school like Northwestern just switched to.

Also, the term "sunken costs" came up.  Sunken costs are past costs like MU's entrance fee to get in the BE originally.  Sunken costs should not be considered when making new investments was the point which is true because they were in the past. However, I was not taking about sunken costs but about a term called prospective costs...costs you have to make or give up in the future.  

Simply put, MU needs $5mm per year for 10 years+ to make this a better investment from their current choices...the A10 schools need one year at $2.5mm...or six months at $3.1.  Again, please tell me why MU is being greedy by taking almost all the risk for Dayton and why it is unfair for Dayton to be in the black on the deal six years before MU?

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 11, 2013, 06:20:07 AM
And their exit fees weren't equal either: $50million for Maryland, $10million for RU. Again, equal share partnerships include both revenue and cost considerations (like Maryland's lawsuit which the B1G wants to knock down for future expansion targets). Also note that Maryland has the potential to bring other revenue to the B1G via their alumni network: namely Under Armour...which a school like Northwestern just switched to.

Also, the term "sunken costs" came up.  Sunken costs are past costs like MU's entrance fee to get in the BE originally.  Sunken costs should not be considered when making new investments was the point which is true because they were in the past. However, I was not taking about sunken costs but about a term called prospective costs...costs you have to make or give up in the future.  

Simply put, MU needs $5mm per year for 10 years+ to make this a better investment from their current choices...the A10 schools need one year at $2.5mm...or six months at $3.1.  Again, please tell me why MU is being greedy by taking almost all the risk for Dayton and why it is unfair for Dayton to be in the black on the deal six years before MU?

The good doctor hits the nail on the head. Anyone pointing to "sunk costs" trying to sound smart doesn't actually understand the meaning of the term. We're evaluating alternatives here, and staying in the Big East was one of them. When you analyze the new conference, you take into consideration cash flows you will not be receiving as a result of leaving the Big East plus all associated costs of starting the new league.

Also, so many seem to be saying that the XU and Butler administrations are smart enough to get equal terms. My guess is they're also smart enough to realize this opportunity is a golden egg. They will be making millions more per year with this move and when the egg hatches and they get to full golden goose status they'll really be raking it in. Maybe that takes 4-6 years, but I think they're smart enough to realize that great things are worth waiting for, especially if the waiting period is better than your school had ever dreamed of.

Quote from: brewcity77 on January 11, 2013, 05:44:26 AM
If Gonzaga were still in the mix, there'd at least be rumors. No smoke = no fire. Gonzaga's not coming.

Using the Old Literary Guild Landon beats FDR ruse? (ie I haven't read anything about Gonzaga on these fan-driven internet forums so they must not be coming!)

Zags are part of the mix. I am not sure where they are at in their thinking but they have a firm offer to join. Gonzaga will do what is best for Gonzaga. Unlike SLU, Creighton, Dayton, VCU, et al the Zags are routinely referred to as "America's Team." Check out Sports Center and they always call the Zags "America's Team." Solid Brand Equity, unlike the names being bandied about here. Zags are in the driver's seat on this, much like ND.

Quote from: keefe on January 11, 2013, 10:13:30 AM
Using the Old Literary Guild Landon beats FDR ruse? (ie I haven't read anything about Gonzaga on these fan-driven internet forums so they must not be coming!)

the Zags are routinely referred to as "America's Team." Check out Sports Center and they always call the Zags "America's Team."

Never, ever heard this used for Gonzaga. Never. Ever.

Quit making crap up.

Quote from: PTM on January 11, 2013, 10:58:28 AM
Never, ever heard this used for Gonzaga. Never. Ever.

Quit making crap up.

It's what keefe does best.

Quote from: PTM on January 11, 2013, 10:58:28 AM
Never, ever heard this used for Gonzaga. Never. Ever.

Quit making crap up.

Really??  They've been called this for a while now.

This thread has basically devolved into a Miller Lite commercial from the 90's.  I'm infinitely interested in this topic, but the last three pages have been nothing but "TASTES GREAT!"    "LESS FILLING!"    Repeat ad nauseum.

Everyone is loudly agreeing with each other that the situation should be made equitable for all parties.  Chicos, et al. thinks the conference should have the Invite 5 should pay up front for the privilege of joining, thereby joining in the up front costs equally.  Everyone else thinks the conference should use future revenue distribution for the purpose of compensating the members who covered the up front costs instead.  No one is arguing for permanent inequality in revenue distribution.  Can we simply agree that there are multiple ways to manage this and let the interested parties negotiate a fair agreement amongst themselves?

Sorry I forgot this was an internet message board for a moment.  Of course we can't do that.

Quote from: keefe on January 11, 2013, 10:13:30 AM
Using the Old Literary Guild Landon beats FDR ruse? (ie I haven't read anything about Gonzaga on these fan-driven internet forums so they must not be coming!)

Not why I'm saying it, but not going to lose any sleep over you thinking Gonzaga is still in the mix. Hear me now, believe me later. They aren't coming.

Quote from: TJ on January 11, 2013, 11:24:43 AM
This thread has basically devolved into a Miller Lite commercial from the 90's.  I'm infinitely interested in this topic, but the last three pages have been nothing but "TASTES GREAT!"    "LESS FILLING!"    Repeat ad nauseum.

Everyone is loudly agreeing with each other that the situation should be made equitable for all parties.  Chicos, et al. thinks the conference should have the Invite 5 should pay up front for the privilege of joining, thereby joining in the up front costs equally.  Everyone else thinks the conference should use future revenue distribution for the purpose of compensating the members who covered the up front costs instead.  No one is arguing for permanent inequality in revenue distribution.  Can we simply agree that there are multiple ways to manage this and let the interested parties negotiate a fair agreement amongst themselves?

Sorry I forgot this was an internet message board for a moment.  Of course we can't do that.

+1

Quote from: keefe on January 11, 2013, 10:13:30 AM
Using the Old Literary Guild Landon beats FDR ruse? (ie I haven't read anything about Gonzaga on these fan-driven internet forums so they must not be coming!)

Zags are part of the mix. I am not sure where they are at in their thinking but they have a firm offer to join. Gonzaga will do what is best for Gonzaga. Unlike SLU, Creighton, Dayton, VCU, et al the Zags are routinely referred to as "America's Team." Check out Sports Center and they always call the Zags "America's Team." Solid Brand Equity, unlike the names being bandied about here. Zags are in the driver's seat on this, much like ND.

Its ESPN, they will say anything to make a story.

Quote from: PTM on January 11, 2013, 10:58:28 AM
Never, ever heard this used for Gonzaga. Never. Ever.

Quit making crap up.

Really? Gonzaga has been called America's team for 14 years. You should open your mind and think for a change.

http://www.chacha.com/question/why-is-the-university-of-gonzaga-know-as-america's-team

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=20010321&id=IyQyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=auYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6589,104151

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Team


I could go on with references but what's the point? You strike as a boorish, loudmouthed lout who views opinions here as challenges to your manhood.

I thought the Dallas Cowboys were America's team?

And I'm not a fan of the Cowboys.

Quote from: keefe on January 11, 2013, 08:09:07 PM
Really? Gonzaga has been called America's team for 14 years. You should open your mind and think for a change.

http://www.chacha.com/question/why-is-the-university-of-gonzaga-know-as-america's-team

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=20010321&id=IyQyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=auYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6589,104151

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Team


I could go on with references but what's the point? You strike as a boorish, loudmouthed lout who views opinions here as challenges to your manhood.

Please keep going. ChaCha isn't quite Sportscenter like you said.

I've never heard Sportscenter call Gonzaga America's Team, like you stated.

Quote from: keefe on January 11, 2013, 08:09:07 PM

I could go on with references but what's the point? You strike as a boorish, loudmouthed lout who views opinions here as challenges to your manhood.

You should still be pissed I flat out called you out on bullshit earlier.

You strike me as someone who questions others opinion while slandering others with your own shitty opinion. I would have ignored you a long time ago, but someone needs to call out your crap.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 10, 2013, 04:56:59 PM
How did that marriage work out? What was one of the reasons we got out?  Inequity.

The reason why we are getting out is that Syracuse, Notre Dame, Louisville, Rutgers, Pittsburgh and West Virginia all flew the coup for more revenue.  Which is the same reason why Xavier, Butler, Creighton, St. Louis and anyone else will come into this league even if it means they make less money then the C7 for X number of years.

Bottom line, if none of those teams left the Big East, we would still be in the Big East even though we would be making less money then the schools that have already decided to leave.

Love the "taste great -less filling" comment, and with that in mind I have changed my opinion and think the c7 have seniority status and any additional programs who want to join, well they have not invested in the conference and should not have the same payout. As for Gonzaga it would be awesome to have them join but the distance is just too much for that to happen.

Quote from: raul on January 12, 2013, 12:43:45 AM
Love the "taste great -less filling" comment, and with that in mind I have changed my opinion

Wow! I didn't think anyone ever changed their opinion based on a "Tastes Great, Less Filling" style argument.

Butler/Dayton playing right now on NBCSN, little taste of new conf