(02-04-2013 07:35 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 06:56 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 03:58 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 02:46 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  The C7 is not setting up an unequal distribution. There might be some the first few year like every conference taking in new members, be it the Pac, Big XII or SEC. Darren Rovell is the only one to ever report it. No one else has since mentioned it outside of citing Rovell. Can we please put this obvious false report to bed already?

The person I got the information from would be in the know... it is a real issue that will be put to bed soon because the incoming 5 have decided to hold together on it. There are not 5 other schools that makes sense to add to the C7... only 1 or 2. When asked about the when an announcement will come and the uneven revenue distribution his answer was "that is the reason why nothing has come out yet... and won't until it is settled. There are already memorandum of understandings signed, just waiting on all the final revenue details to be worked out."

Just curious, is your source from Providence? I've heard others say the same about the 5 teams being added being Butler, Xavier, Creighton, SLU and Dayton. Do you know what the likely start date is? Any chance of starting in 2013?

Just a heads up, lots of people have "sources" on here. Those who actually have some are few and far between. How would a Cincy "source" know about what the C7 are planning when it comes to sharing TV money?

I actually have sources... just none that have much in the way of insight on the C7, but I'm more than willing to join in on the speculation fun.

(02-04-2013 01:50 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 01:46 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 01:16 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Notre Dame is still wondering which conf they'll play in next year. It isn't odd that the C7 haven't announced their members. I really think that Butler and Xavier know they are in though. You don't announce you are leaving your wife until you've lined up a warm bed. This isn't anything new.

Why announce a new league when you dont even know when it will start?

They've announced they want a new league. They are negotiating the start date. Public pressure is on their side. It'd be very awkward for the invitees to announce they were leaving until the date is known though.

Butler joined the a-10 in May and played a conference game on January 2nd. no hurry.

(02-04-2013 02:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 02:00 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 10:14 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 11:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  MHver3‏@MHver3

Might the BiG stop at 16 for football but still grow to 20 or more? What's holding up the Catholics from inviting more schools?? Hmmmm

Just an observation on human nature here...

You posted a thread on the Nbe board asking why does everyone troll, hate, and flame Nbe?

Hmmmmm...

lol...those are not my words. Thats a tweet from MHver3. Like I said, I dont think it would happen, but it is an interesting option that I never even had considered as a possibility.

I love these sports boards, especially this one! Good for a lot of laughs, that's for sure!

So I take it posts on another conference are permissible when they have a negative conotation on this board....and that's not hating, flaming, or trolling?

Again, I simply posted the tweet. I didnt twist an article to come to a totally different conclusion than the author did in order to troll another conference. In fact, I did just the opposite. Ive said on this thread that while I find it an interesting option, I think its unlikley to ever occur. I dont really have a problem with the C7. I wished they had stayed--and I dont think they should get the BE name, but I understand what they are doing why they think it is best for thier schools. Every school does what best for thier university. Thats how realignment operates.

Trouble in C7 paradise?

That is not analysis. That's a putdown. And you "analysis" is totally wrong. But you pulled the trigger too quick. Regarding C7, I don't have a dog in the hunt. But I thought you objected to negative posts of conferences????

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=610027

Ha! Anyone who thinks the phrase 'Trouble in paradise' is a putdown has waaaaaaay to thin skin for an internet message board!

(02-04-2013 08:53 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 02:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 02:00 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 10:14 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Just an observation on human nature here...

You posted a thread on the Nbe board asking why does everyone troll, hate, and flame Nbe?

Hmmmmm...

lol...those are not my words. Thats a tweet from MHver3. Like I said, I dont think it would happen, but it is an interesting option that I never even had considered as a possibility.

I love these sports boards, especially this one! Good for a lot of laughs, that's for sure!

So I take it posts on another conference are permissible when they have a negative conotation on this board....and that's not hating, flaming, or trolling?

Again, I simply posted the tweet. I didnt twist an article to come to a totally different conclusion than the author did in order to troll another conference. In fact, I did just the opposite. Ive said on this thread that while I find it an interesting option, I think its unlikley to ever occur. I dont really have a problem with the C7. I wished they had stayed--and I dont think they should get the BE name, but I understand what they are doing why they think it is best for thier schools. Every school does what best for thier university. Thats how realignment operates.

Trouble in C7 paradise?

That is not analysis. That's a putdown. And you "analysis" is totally wrong. But you pulled the trigger too quick. Regarding C7, I don't have a dog in the hunt. But I thought you objected to negative posts of conferences????

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=610027

lol...It not analysis or criticism. Note the punctuation. Its a question. Its just a tease of what the thread is about. This is where most of your threads go off the rail. You try to take an article or statement and spin it into something its not. If you notice, I didnt comment or analyze the tweet. I left discussion open to others. Like I said several posts into the thread, while I doubt it will happen, I found to be an interesting option I had never even considered.

As for MHver3---I really havent made up my mind about him yet. Ive found some of his stuff is accurate and some is way out there in nut job land. Right now I place him in the "entertaining" category. .

(02-04-2013 08:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  Ha! Anyone who thinks the phrase 'Trouble in paradise' is a putdown has waaaaaaay to thin skin for an internet message board!

Not really. A while back, posted something about how ODU or UMass wouldn't be very interested in a FB-only membership in the AResco League, and ODU's "home conference" definitely wouldn't be interested in having them for all-sports-but-football. I threw in something about their "superduperawesome football league."

That was a putdown. I didn't even think of it as a putdown, someone called me out on it and I had to look at my post for a few seconds to realize what I had said. But, yeah it was a putdown.

From an Aresco League poster, of course "Trouble in C-7 Paradise" is a putdown. It's not important, it's not out of line, I wouldn't have objected if Attackcoog had made the post on the C-7 board--it's relevant to the C-7.

It's dumb, and so is MHVer, but there's no AUP clause about dumb.

i love how some people have "sources" Yet they only speak in vague terms. Its not like your "source" is likely to read this board OR that he/she will be identified OR that anyone knows who the poster really is OR ANYTHING that you can "reveal" hasnt been said on here (or elsewhere) before!!
If you KNOW something as fact say you do, you dont need to reveal how you know it or fromwhom you learned it.

(02-04-2013 09:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 08:53 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 02:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 02:00 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...those are not my words. Thats a tweet from MHver3. Like I said, I dont think it would happen, but it is an interesting option that I never even had considered as a possibility.

I love these sports boards, especially this one! Good for a lot of laughs, that's for sure!

So I take it posts on another conference are permissible when they have a negative conotation on this board....and that's not hating, flaming, or trolling?

Again, I simply posted the tweet. I didnt twist an article to come to a totally different conclusion than the author did in order to troll another conference. In fact, I did just the opposite. Ive said on this thread that while I find it an interesting option, I think its unlikley to ever occur. I dont really have a problem with the C7. I wished they had stayed--and I dont think they should get the BE name, but I understand what they are doing why they think it is best for thier schools. Every school does what best for thier university. Thats how realignment operates.

Trouble in C7 paradise?

That is not analysis. That's a putdown. And you "analysis" is totally wrong. But you pulled the trigger too quick. Regarding C7, I don't have a dog in the hunt. But I thought you objected to negative posts of conferences????

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=610027

lol...It not analysis or criticism. Note the punctuation. Its a question. Its just a tease of what the thread is about. This is where most of your threads go off the rail. You try to take an article or statement and spin it into something its not. If you notice, I didnt comment or analyze the tweet. I left discussion open to others. Like I said several posts into the thread, while I doubt it will happen, I found to be an interesting option I had never even considered.

As for MHver3---I really havent made up my mind about him yet. Ive found some of his stuff is accurate and some is way out there in nut job land. Right now I place him in the "entertaining" category. .

There is no trouble in C7.

Spinning? Everything I said in the past has happened.

(02-04-2013 09:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 08:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  Ha! Anyone who thinks the phrase 'Trouble in paradise' is a putdown has waaaaaaay to thin skin for an internet message board!

Not really. A while back, posted something about how ODU or UMass wouldn't be very interested in a FB-only membership in the AResco League, and ODU's "home conference" definitely wouldn't be interested in having them for all-sports-but-football. I threw in something about their "superduperawesome football league."

That was a putdown. I didn't even think of it as a putdown, someone called me out on it and I had to look at my post for a few seconds to realize what I had said. But, yeah it was a putdown.


From an Aresco League poster, of course "Trouble in C-7 Paradise" is a putdown. It's not important, it's not out of line, I wouldn't have objected if Attackcoog had made the post on the C-7 board--it's relevant to the C-7.

It's dumb, and so is MHVer, but there's no AUP clause about dumb.

Ehh. It certainly described the MHver3 tweet. Plus, at least there was a media item that made the question worth asking.

What if I were to create a thread that was named--"Maybe Nobody Even Wants the C-7?". And then spun a bunch of assumptions together to support the idea that, in the end, there would not be a buyer for the conference media rights. I'd say that would be more of an attack or put down type thread.


http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=613728

(02-04-2013 09:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 09:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 08:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  Ha! Anyone who thinks the phrase 'Trouble in paradise' is a putdown has waaaaaaay to thin skin for an internet message board!

Not really. A while back, posted something about how ODU or UMass wouldn't be very interested in a FB-only membership in the AResco League, and ODU's "home conference" definitely wouldn't be interested in having them for all-sports-but-football. I threw in something about their "superduperawesome football league."

That was a putdown. I didn't even think of it as a putdown, someone called me out on it and I had to look at my post for a few seconds to realize what I had said. But, yeah it was a putdown.

From an Aresco League poster, of course "Trouble in C-7 Paradise" is a putdown. It's not important, it's not out of line, I wouldn't have objected if Attackcoog had made the post on the C-7 board--it's relevant to the C-7.

It's dumb, and so is MHVer, but there's no AUP clause about dumb.

Ehh. It certainly described the MHver3 tweet. Plus, at least there was a news item that made the question worth asking.

What if I were to create a thread that was named--"Maybe Nobody Even Wants the C-7?". And then spun a bunch of assumptions together to support the idea that, in the end, there would not be a buyer for the conference media rights. I'd say that would be more of an attack or put down type thread.


http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=613728

Putdown or not, it would have been a legit thread before the news stories about the Fox offer for C-7 rights. I have half a case laid out in my head right now counting up how much CBB the ESPN family already owns, counting CBS as part of the ESPN group for this purpose, and looking at the CBS-SN and NBC-SN deals and noticing how cheap those two nets are.

And I stand by the projection that you're not going to see more than 3-4 Aresco League football games per year on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, FoxSports1, ESPN or ESPN2.

I can't believe this thread has gone 5 pages for a tweet that everyone thinks is bogus...

(02-04-2013 09:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 09:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 09:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 08:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  Ha! Anyone who thinks the phrase 'Trouble in paradise' is a putdown has waaaaaaay to thin skin for an internet message board!

Not really. A while back, posted something about how ODU or UMass wouldn't be very interested in a FB-only membership in the AResco League, and ODU's "home conference" definitely wouldn't be interested in having them for all-sports-but-football. I threw in something about their "superduperawesome football league."

That was a putdown. I didn't even think of it as a putdown, someone called me out on it and I had to look at my post for a few seconds to realize what I had said. But, yeah it was a putdown.

From an Aresco League poster, of course "Trouble in C-7 Paradise" is a putdown. It's not important, it's not out of line, I wouldn't have objected if Attackcoog had made the post on the C-7 board--it's relevant to the C-7.

It's dumb, and so is MHVer, but there's no AUP clause about dumb.

Ehh. It certainly described the MHver3 tweet. Plus, at least there was a news item that made the question worth asking.

What if I were to create a thread that was named--"Maybe Nobody Even Wants the C-7?". And then spun a bunch of assumptions together to support the idea that, in the end, there would not be a buyer for the conference media rights. I'd say that would be more of an attack or put down type thread.


http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=613728

Putdown or not, it would have been a legit thread before the news stories about the Fox offer for C-7 rights. I have half a case laid out in my head right now counting up how much CBB the ESPN family already owns, counting CBS as part of the ESPN group for this purpose, and looking at the CBS-SN and NBC-SN deals and noticing how cheap those two nets are.

And I stand by the projection that you're not going to see more than 3-4 Aresco League football games per year on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, FoxSports1, ESPN or ESPN2.

That would be just two more than CUSA currently gets on those outlets--and CUSA doesnt even have a contract with any of the outlets mentioned. If you throw Fox Sports-1 or even NBC Sports into that pot I would definitely disagree. I think we will end up with at least one game a Saturday on one the these networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN, ESPN-2, NBC-Sports, Fox Sports-1). I suspect that will be in addition to a mid-week game on one of those same networks. Anything less, and I will be extremely disappointed. Supposedly, we should be hearing something this month. Im very curious to see what Aresco is able to cobble together. If he only gets 3 or 4 on those networks per year then that would be an effective total failure.

To be honest, Im really ready for the debating to stop and the answers to begin.

(02-04-2013 09:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I can't believe this thread has gone 5 pages for a tweet that everyone thinks is bogus...

Must be slow news day. lol...This post generated 2 pages of responses on the Big East board.

ECU...

We play some sports and stuff. We are leaving CUSA and moving to the Big East.

Thanks

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=616616


Oh, and dont forget my current favorite useless thread, lol...Miko has 7 pages on his "inside information" that "certain" teams may be interested in changing conferences.

You guys need to set your profile to show 50 posts per page. So much better.

(02-04-2013 07:35 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Just a heads up, lots of people have "sources" on here. Those who actually have some are few and far between. How would a Cincy "source" know about what the C7 are planning when it comes to sharing TV money?

Uhh... maybe because this Cincinnati fan (I'm not the source) knows people in high places at local schools whom the C7 needs for their new conference. You don't have to believe me... but I stand by everything I said here.

On a side note, nothing I've heard comes from the C7 side of the conference (therefore eliminating Providence from the equation).

(02-04-2013 10:45 AM)mlb Wrote:  The only issues holding back the C7 from new member is their 65/35 revenue split they want. The "new" schools they've talked to have balked at that... they don't want 2 levels of members. Once that is settled then the 5 other schools will be announced.

Thanks for info! The "hybred" model that was the old BE is basically stating that their is a broad disparity among schools within a conference, that is, in enrollment, fan interest, and tv audience. That a large Catholic School like Georgetown in DC or St. John's in NYC should share equally with a smaller school of 4,000 students or so in a much smaller tv market is an issue. Making an adjustment in revenue sharing addresses that problem

In a way, we saw that with the MWC, and its adjusted tv contract providing for bonuses for tv appearances and a larger bonus for a Saturday football game.

Nbe fans are Rear End Hurt about C7 getting the heck out of the Nbe paradise, but the C7's coordinated move to get out of Nbe paradise indicates these seven Catholic schools are cooperating fully with each other. C7 schools are now addressing all current and possible future issues so there won't be the turmil one sees in the Nbe paradise presently. Obviously, as C7 addresses these issues they will probably find their way into the press and internet but Nbe fans should not interpret that as trouble in C7 paradise and the split C7 will yet again split.

(02-05-2013 10:24 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 10:45 AM)mlb Wrote:  The only issues holding back the C7 from new member is their 65/35 revenue split they want. The "new" schools they've talked to have balked at that... they don't want 2 levels of members. Once that is settled then the 5 other schools will be announced.

Thanks for info! The "hybred" model that was the old BE is basically stating that their is a broad disparity among schools within a conference, that is, in enrollment, fan interest, and tv audience. That a large Catholic School like Georgetown in DC or St. John's in NYC should share equally with a smaller school of 4,000 students or so in a much smaller tv market is an issue. Making an adjustment in revenue sharing addresses that problem

No no no. No unequal revenue sharing, none of that. If they don't merit a full and equal share, they don't merit a conference invite. IF we don't like Butler's enrollment, don't invite them. If we don't think Dayton brings TV viewers, don't invite them.

Setting up tiered membership (besides standard stuff like entrance fees, repaying the C-7 for whatever startup expenses, etc.) is about the worst decision we could make.

(02-05-2013 11:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 10:24 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 10:45 AM)mlb Wrote:  The only issues holding back the C7 from new member is their 65/35 revenue split they want. The "new" schools they've talked to have balked at that... they don't want 2 levels of members. Once that is settled then the 5 other schools will be announced.

Thanks for info! The "hybred" model that was the old BE is basically stating that their is a broad disparity among schools within a conference, that is, in enrollment, fan interest, and tv audience. That a large Catholic School like Georgetown in DC or St. John's in NYC should share equally with a smaller school of 4,000 students or so in a much smaller tv market is an issue. Making an adjustment in revenue sharing addresses that problem

No no no. No unequal revenue sharing, none of that. If they don't merit a full and equal share, they don't merit a conference invite. IF we don't like Butler's enrollment, don't invite them. If we don't think Dayton brings TV viewers, don't invite them.

Setting up tiered membership (besides standard stuff like entrance fees, repaying the C-7 for whatever startup expenses, etc.) is about the worst decision we could make.

I 100% agree

(02-05-2013 11:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 10:24 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 10:45 AM)mlb Wrote:  The only issues holding back the C7 from new member is their 65/35 revenue split they want. The "new" schools they've talked to have balked at that... they don't want 2 levels of members. Once that is settled then the 5 other schools will be announced.

Thanks for info! The "hybred" model that was the old BE is basically stating that their is a broad disparity among schools within a conference, that is, in enrollment, fan interest, and tv audience. That a large Catholic School like Georgetown in DC or St. John's in NYC should share equally with a smaller school of 4,000 students or so in a much smaller tv market is an issue. Making an adjustment in revenue sharing addresses that problem

No no no. No unequal revenue sharing, none of that. If they don't merit a full and equal share, they don't merit a conference invite. IF we don't like Butler's enrollment, don't invite them. If we don't think Dayton brings TV viewers, don't invite them.

Setting up tiered membership (besides standard stuff like entrance fees, repaying the C-7 for whatever startup expenses, etc.) is about the worst decision we could make.

I would think it would be either entrance fees or repaying the C-7 for the startup expenses- but not both. I mean, either you are a part of the startup of the league, or you are entering an "existing" league- but not both.

(02-05-2013 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I would think it would be either entrance fees or repaying the C-7 for the startup expenses- but not both. I mean, either you are a part of the startup of the league, or you are entering an "existing" league- but not both.

True, but we're still pushing back against the Rovell article that had us getting paid 2x what the new members get in perpetuity, or at least the length of the Fox contract.

I suppose, though, that both entrance fees and loan repayments are both _possible._ Say the C-7 agrees to pay $5M each to the Aresco League, leave a year early and secure 100% clear title to the name. The conference agrees to reimburse the schools at say $500,000 per year over 10 years, paid out "off the top" of conference revenues. Then the new Big East entrants pay $2.5M each, $500,000 per year for 5 years. (That's what Houston agreed to pay to get in to the Big East according to their contract. http://www.cougarinsurance.com/blog/wp-c...ntract.pdf)

If the payout is $3.5M per, then Providence would be getting $4M per year and Creighton would be getting $3M per year to start.

Now common sense says, don't be a raging jackwad and just pick one or the other. And furthermore, if the "exit fees"/settlement with the Aresco League are a conference expense, so are the A-10 exit fees.