C7 Announcement Rumor

[honkytonk]

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.

[buckchuckler]

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...

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

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)

[MarquetteDano]

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.

[MU Buff]

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.

[dayton flyers]

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

Say what?

[dayton flyers]

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.

[dayton flyers]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[dayton flyers]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[dayton flyers]

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.

[MU82]

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!

[keefe]

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

[Avenue Commons]

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.

[Hards Alumni]

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

[GGGG]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[🏀]

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.

[Avenue Commons]

"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.

[🏀]

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

[Dr. Blackheart]

"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.  

[Avenue Commons]

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?