(03-28-2014 03:40 PM)redbirdTD Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:32 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:08 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Dude, the reason why the AAC got this raw insult of a deal was b/c the networks saw no stability.

You can negotiate around stability, he didn't (e.g. if X team leaves, the value changes).

The fact remains, he gave away some valuabe UConn assets (women for free?!) to his former industry, no doubt insuring that he had a cushy landing when he parts. How much could it have possibly cost the league to carve out, say Tier 3 men's and women's basketball, a few hundred thousand? And we know that we could have turned those into many millions (the women were getting $1.75m/yr for Tier 3 women's basketball alone before this deal). The guy fleeced our school, completely, to be on NBCSports.

He traded it so UConn football would be on national TV every week instead of being buried on ESPN-3 or regional tv. This idea that UConn was "fleeced" is small time thinking. How many times must some of you be told---we traded money for exposure and EVERY president was on board with the idea. We WERE offered more money by ESPN before we ever even spoke to NBC. We turned it down because the exposure was significantly less than what we had this year (the last year of the OLD contract).

For there to be a significant increase in value the conference must be made up of well known, recognizable, names that people are accustomed to watching. The only way to build that kind of name recognition is to be a fixture on TV and to win. All our teams will be on national tv constantly over the next 6 years and a number of teams will enjoy success. Those two factors will slowly increase the value of our schools individually and increase the collective value of the conference.

Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels? Is that how you think you can build UConn? I don't agree with everything Aresco has done, but he got this one right. I'd much rather have the exposure than an extra million or two a school.

Give me the money, UConn would be on national television regardless. What this deal really did is give school's like Houston air-time at the expense of money to schools like UConn/Cinci/UCF which is in turn a negative because everytime I turn on a Houston sporting even nobody is home which harms the reputation of the league. The mistake is that some schools in this league aren't ready to be on TV, and yet we sacrificed money to do it.

Stop making sense. They (the newbies) want to talk exposure, then when they are on tv, their arenas are damned near empty. Yea, they are being exposed alright, but not in a good way.

Wait and see if our place(s) are empty............

(03-28-2014 08:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 07:40 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If Aresco was such a genius about "exposure", why did he sign a contract that not only would have paid us peanuts, but also would have had all our "exposure" on NBCSN, a channel as "hard to find" as FS1?

Because our exposure level on ESPN was about to be severely downgraded. He managed to get all our games on a national network in 81 million homes, plus some games on NBC broadcast network. Was it ideal? No. Was it better than Tuesday and Wed games on ESPN-U with the rest on ESPN-3? Hell yeah!

The reason NBC's bid was so low was that NBC believed there was no way in hell ESPN would come anywhere near matching that exposure level. Why do you think they believed that?

FS1 is in 90 million homes too but everyone around here says the exposure sucks for the Big East because "nobody can find it". But it's as easy to find as NBCSN is. And yet Aresco was willing to put us on that alleged "wasteland" channel AND for peanuts. At least the Big East is getting paid very well to be out there, right? And yet that's the best Aresco could do?

The reason NBCSN was so low was because that's what Aresco was able to convince them we are worth. That's his job at the negotiating table.

The proof is in the results; The AAC is receiving great exposure and getting great viewership. The BE is not.

You do realize that Aresco signed a contract for the great bulk of our games to be on NBCSN, right?

As for results: The Big East is getting paid a lot more than the AAC. "Exposure"? I guess it's a huge deal that most of our games are on ESPNu and ESPN News?

Sounds more like you are lamenting the fact that UConn is in the Elite 8.

What funny to me is everyone saying Aresco this and that, y'all do realize Aresco can ONLY do what the members' presidents tell him to do. So, he didn't do anything with the TV deal it was UConn, USF, Cinny, and who ever else had voting rights at the time that okay end and signed the deal. Remember that meatball had a billion dollar deal for the BE and the presidents said no. If your looking someone to blame, look in the mirror.

(03-28-2014 08:58 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Remember that meatball had a billion dollar deal for the BE and the presidents said no. If your looking someone to blame, look in the mirror.

I feel the need to point out that 13/16 of the schools that rejected that deal are making more money than that deal would have paid them.

(03-28-2014 10:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:58 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Remember that meatball had a billion dollar deal for the BE and the presidents said no. If your looking someone to blame, look in the mirror.

I feel the need to point out that 13/16 of the schools that rejected that deal are making more money than that deal would have paid them.

Yeah, they already had their lifeboats in the water and voted the TV deal down, just as their ESPN masters had commanded. Hope they choke on those TV dollars, from their new conferences.

(03-28-2014 10:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:58 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Remember that meatball had a billion dollar deal for the BE and the presidents said no. If your looking someone to blame, look in the mirror.

I feel the need to point out that 13/16 of the schools that rejected that deal are making more money than that deal would have paid them.

Ummm....because they are not here. It's not like thier management of the league worked out well.

(03-28-2014 10:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:58 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Remember that meatball had a billion dollar deal for the BE and the presidents said no. If your looking someone to blame, look in the mirror.

I feel the need to point out that 13/16 of the schools that rejected that deal are making more money than that deal would have paid them.

Is not about how much those members who left are making now, but rather what the offer was made then and turned down right after.

(03-28-2014 08:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 07:40 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If Aresco was such a genius about "exposure", why did he sign a contract that not only would have paid us peanuts, but also would have had all our "exposure" on NBCSN, a channel as "hard to find" as FS1?

Because our exposure level on ESPN was about to be severely downgraded. He managed to get all our games on a national network in 81 million homes, plus some games on NBC broadcast network. Was it ideal? No. Was it better than Tuesday and Wed games on ESPN-U with the rest on ESPN-3? Hell yeah!

The reason NBC's bid was so low was that NBC believed there was no way in hell ESPN would come anywhere near matching that exposure level. Why do you think they believed that?

FS1 is in 90 million homes too but everyone around here says the exposure sucks for the Big East because "nobody can find it". But it's as easy to find as NBCSN is. And yet Aresco was willing to put us on that alleged "wasteland" channel AND for peanuts. At least the Big East is getting paid very well to be out there, right? And yet that's the best Aresco could do?

The reason NBCSN was so low was because that's what Aresco was able to convince them we are worth. That's his job at the negotiating table.

The proof is in the results; The AAC is receiving great exposure and getting great viewership. The BE is not.

You do realize that Aresco signed a contract for the great bulk of our games to be on NBCSN, right?

Which was correct but he got us on ESPiN instead for the same price. I'll take this exposure for 6 years over the $$$. Now it's up to us to prove we are worth more and it looks like we are doing pretty good.

(03-28-2014 03:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:58 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels?

If Aresco was such a genius about "exposure", why did he sign a contract that not only would have paid us peanuts, but also would have had all our "exposure" on NBCSN, a channel as "hard to find" as FS1?

Aresco is doing fine. I've seen him all over the networks (fox business and cnbc come to mind). You can't ask more out of the guy.

Competitively, on the fields and courts, the AAC is doing fine, albeit the results have been skewed by having Louisville still in the fold. Off the field, Aresco has simply failed to deliver. All the big things - AQ, bowls, media deals - have been abject disasters on his watch.

If you think that he's earning his $1.1 million salary by giving 15 minute interviews with various media outlets, than I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't understand why the mods on this board even let you still post here. You obviously do not like the AAC or the sport of football. Why not just post on the Big East message board?

Aside from a few disgruntled Uconn fans who think they are too good for the AAC (USF included) you don't really impress anyone. You guys are a conference that has not even existed for a year and what have you done in this short time?

You were one of the best conferences in football. (BCS bowl victory and two top 25 teams)
You were one of the best conferences in basketball.
You are one of the best conferences in baseball.
You have the strongest women's basketball program in the history of the sport.

The American is strong at all of the major sports. If you guys kept this up for five more years there is no way ESPN wont pay more or someone else will. I think some of you guys also are not considering that when the AAC signed it's contract not only had no one ever heard of the conference. No one knew who was in the conference or who was joining the conference. It's safe to say UCF, USF, SMU, Houston, ECU, Temple, Memphis, Tulsa, Tulane, Uconn, and Cincinnati are not going anywhere any time soon. And then you have Navy football joining so that's even more national exposure.

Just give it some time.

(03-28-2014 10:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:58 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Remember that meatball had a billion dollar deal for the BE and the presidents said no. If your looking someone to blame, look in the mirror.

I feel the need to point out that 13/16 of the schools that rejected that deal are making more money than that deal would have paid them.

That wasn't the point,since you missed it, the schools turned it down, not the commish, just as Aresco had to sign what ever deal the presidents of the schools told him to sign. IE, this deal isn't on Aresco, it was approved by the schools.

(03-28-2014 11:19 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:58 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels?

If Aresco was such a genius about "exposure", why did he sign a contract that not only would have paid us peanuts, but also would have had all our "exposure" on NBCSN, a channel as "hard to find" as FS1?

Aresco is doing fine. I've seen him all over the networks (fox business and cnbc come to mind). You can't ask more out of the guy.

Competitively, on the fields and courts, the AAC is doing fine, albeit the results have been skewed by having Louisville still in the fold. Off the field, Aresco has simply failed to deliver. All the big things - AQ, bowls, media deals - have been abject disasters on his watch.

If you think that he's earning his $1.1 million salary by giving 15 minute interviews with various media outlets, than I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't understand why the mods on this board even let you still post here. You obviously do not like the AAC or the sport of football. Why not just post on the Big East message board?

It is called playa hating. If the AAC didn't have people hating them then that would tell us that Aresco was not doing things right. No one bothers hating on the C-7, so what does that tell you? Yet C-7 fans routinely drop in to hate on the AAC.

(03-28-2014 11:19 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:58 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels?

If Aresco was such a genius about "exposure", why did he sign a contract that not only would have paid us peanuts, but also would have had all our "exposure" on NBCSN, a channel as "hard to find" as FS1?

Aresco is doing fine. I've seen him all over the networks (fox business and cnbc come to mind). You can't ask more out of the guy.

Competitively, on the fields and courts, the AAC is doing fine, albeit the results have been skewed by having Louisville still in the fold. Off the field, Aresco has simply failed to deliver. All the big things - AQ, bowls, media deals - have been abject disasters on his watch.

If you think that he's earning his $1.1 million salary by giving 15 minute interviews with various media outlets, than I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't understand why the mods on this board even let you still post here. You obviously do not like the AAC or the sport of football. Why not just post on the Big East message board?

Aside from a few disgruntled Uconn fans who think they are too good for the AAC (USF included) you don't really impress anyone. You guys are a conference that has not even existed for a year and what have you done in this short time?

You were one of the best conferences in football. (BCS bowl victory and two top 25 teams)
You were one of the best conferences in basketball.
You are one of the best conferences in baseball.
You have the strongest women's basketball program in the history of the sport.

The American is strong at all of the major sports. If you guys kept this up for five more years there is no way ESPN wont pay more or someone else will. I think some of you guys also are not considering that when the AAC signed it's contract not only had no one ever heard of the conference. No one knew who was in the conference or who was joining the conference. It's safe to say UCF, USF, SMU, Houston, ECU, Temple, Memphis, Tulsa, Tulane, Uconn, and Cincinnati are not going anywhere any time soon. And then you have Navy football joining so that's even more national exposure.

Just give it some time.

No, no, no, no! They want their paid day NOW!

(03-28-2014 08:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels?

If Aresco was such a genius about "exposure", why did he sign a contract that not only would have paid us peanuts, but also would have had all our "exposure" on NBCSN, a channel as "hard to find" as FS1?

Because our exposure level on ESPN was about to be severely downgraded. He managed to get all our games on a national network in 81 million homes, plus some games on NBC broadcast network. Was it ideal? No. Was it better than Tuesday and Wed games on ESPN-U with the rest on ESPN-3? Hell yeah!

The reason NBC's bid was so low was that NBC believed there was no way in hell ESPN would come anywhere near matching that exposure level. Why do you think they believed that?

FS1 is in 90 million homes too but everyone around here says the exposure sucks for the Big East because "nobody can find it". But it's as easy to find as NBCSN is. And yet Aresco was willing to put us on that alleged "wasteland" channel AND for peanuts. At least the Big East is getting paid very well to be out there, right? And yet that's the best Aresco could do?

The reason NBCSN was so low was because that's what Aresco was able to convince them we are worth. That's his job at the negotiating table.

You can lambast the NBC-Sports deal, but we were looking at far less exposure than the Big East. We were looking at MAC exposure. So compared to that, every game on a national cable network was a huge step up.

Folks around here can't have it both ways: They can't deride the Big East for signing with the "desert wasteland" of FS1 for lots of money and praise Aresco for taking more "exposure" on the ESPN family and less money, when what Aresco originally negotiated was less money and the wasteland of NBCSN.

That's what his genius media skills were actually able to negotiate: Peanut money on a peanut network. Or at least as peanut as FS1.

(03-28-2014 08:58 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  What funny to me is everyone saying Aresco this and that, y'all do realize Aresco can ONLY do what the members' presidents tell him to do.

That's simplistic. Sure, the Presidents have the final say, but they hire a commissioner to lead them. Presidents have a LOT more on their table at their schools than just the intricacies of athletics, so they hire a commissioner to mind that store 24/7.

A good commissioner is not a puppet of the Presidents, he leads them and persuades.

(03-28-2014 11:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:58 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  What funny to me is everyone saying Aresco this and that, y'all do realize Aresco can ONLY do what the members' presidents tell him to do.

That's simplistic. Sure, the Presidents have the final say, but they hire a commissioner to lead them. Presidents have a LOT more on their table at their schools than just the intricacies of athletics, so they hire a commissioner to mind that store 24/7.

A good commissioner is not a puppet of the Presidents, he leads them and persuades.

Like you would know. Running a shift at McDonalds does not make you qualified to comment on Aresco's performance. Oh and hold the salt, fry boy.

(03-28-2014 11:34 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:58 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Remember that meatball had a billion dollar deal for the BE and the presidents said no. If your looking someone to blame, look in the mirror.

I feel the need to point out that 13/16 of the schools that rejected that deal are making more money than that deal would have paid them.

That wasn't the point,since you missed it, the schools turned it down, not the commish, just as Aresco had to sign what ever deal the presidents of the schools told him to sign. IE, this deal isn't on Aresco, it was approved by the schools.

I'm not disputing that the schools turned down the deal in 2011--Marinatto wanted to sign. I was disputing the "blame someone" part.

Aresco wasn't exactly the same case, as he had been hired as the big wheeler-dealer with the expertise and connections to make things happen. And, at least after the C7 left, Aresco didn't have someone with the credentials of a Paul Tagliabue (Georgetown Board of Trustees) giving a contrary opinion.

I'm still of the opinion that no one could have done a much better job than Aresco, but that plenty of people could have done just as good a job. It's awkward that he's being paid like the commissioner of a power conference, but I don't see who raises that issue or how that gets resolved without bitterness.

(03-29-2014 12:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:34 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:58 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Remember that meatball had a billion dollar deal for the BE and the presidents said no. If your looking someone to blame, look in the mirror.

I feel the need to point out that 13/16 of the schools that rejected that deal are making more money than that deal would have paid them.

That wasn't the point,since you missed it, the schools turned it down, not the commish, just as Aresco had to sign what ever deal the presidents of the schools told him to sign. IE, this deal isn't on Aresco, it was approved by the schools.

I'm not disputing that the schools turned down the deal in 2011--Marinatto wanted to sign. I was disputing the "blame someone" part.

Aresco wasn't exactly the same case, as he had been hired as the big wheeler-dealer with the expertise and connections to make things happen. And, at least after the C7 left, Aresco didn't have someone with the credentials of a Paul Tagliabue (Georgetown Board of Trustees) giving a contrary opinion.

I'm still of the opinion that no one could have done a much better job than Aresco, but that plenty of people could have done just as good a job. It's awkward that he's being paid like the commissioner of a power conference, but I don't see who raises that issue or how that gets resolved without bitterness.

i think many people could have gotten us our tv deal money but i think very very few people could have gotten us the type of exposure we are getting
the old big east with way more teams, and arguably way bigger brands (miami, vt etc.) was given way less coverage than our current deal

which is honestly worth dramatically more than the difference in our contract vs the NBE
if you watched the big east special on espn youd realize what made the BE was exposure and what killed it was greed. Aresco made sure our foundation was set so in a few years (if not sooner the way we are performing) we'll be a highly regarded conference and the exposure to rebuild former greats like houston smu and tulane while introducing the world to the ECU's & UCF's.

and the bueaty of our deal is we can renegotiate for more money in 5 years. and if this year is an indication of what we're going to do the next five we'll atleast be in the 10-12mil range

its literally been less than 1 year and the NBE is already having fallouts because of playing on FS1. they chose greed over exposure. and honestly their really isnt any indication your conference is on any major upswing. kinda downwards with all your top coaches wanting to leave

ours is the complete opposite, smu is out here pulling all kinds of all mcdonalds all american, our league 2 new football stadium and 3 teams are either expanding or in the planing stages of expanding (and temple is pushing for a new stadium aswell). most of us received a boost in recruiting & fan interest. our league is on a major upswing and will only get better with the vast majority of our games on espn to build our brands as the years go by.

aresco has done an unrealistically great job for what he was given. he didn't get us SEC money but we aren't the SEC. he gave us the tools to for every team to grow, the eyes to witness us if we accomplish anything. he's building a house by making a sterdy foundation (growing the programs) before trying to put a roof over it (long term contract). i like what we have going here, i like what aresco has done, and hopefully he can build on it and i don't think many would have done such a great job as him

(03-29-2014 12:48 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 12:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:34 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:58 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Remember that meatball had a billion dollar deal for the BE and the presidents said no. If your looking someone to blame, look in the mirror.

I feel the need to point out that 13/16 of the schools that rejected that deal are making more money than that deal would have paid them.

That wasn't the point,since you missed it, the schools turned it down, not the commish, just as Aresco had to sign what ever deal the presidents of the schools told him to sign. IE, this deal isn't on Aresco, it was approved by the schools.

I'm not disputing that the schools turned down the deal in 2011--Marinatto wanted to sign. I was disputing the "blame someone" part.

Aresco wasn't exactly the same case, as he had been hired as the big wheeler-dealer with the expertise and connections to make things happen. And, at least after the C7 left, Aresco didn't have someone with the credentials of a Paul Tagliabue (Georgetown Board of Trustees) giving a contrary opinion.

I'm still of the opinion that no one could have done a much better job than Aresco, but that plenty of people could have done just as good a job. It's awkward that he's being paid like the commissioner of a power conference, but I don't see who raises that issue or how that gets resolved without bitterness.

i think many people could have gotten us our tv deal money but i think very very few people could have gotten us the type of exposure we are getting
the old big east with way more teams, and arguably way bigger brands (miami, vt etc.) was given way less coverage than our current deal

which is honestly worth dramatically more than the difference in our contract vs the NBE

...........

its literally been less than 1 year and the NBE is already having fallouts because of playing on FS1. they chose greed over exposure.

While criticizing the Big East's "lack of exposure" on FS1, you do realize that Aresco signed us up with NBCSN, which is as hard to find on the grid as FS1, right? And he didn't even get decent money to compensate.

I think a trained monkey could have gotten us a TV deal as good as Aresco's.

(03-29-2014 05:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 12:48 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 12:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:34 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I feel the need to point out that 13/16 of the schools that rejected that deal are making more money than that deal would have paid them.

That wasn't the point,since you missed it, the schools turned it down, not the commish, just as Aresco had to sign what ever deal the presidents of the schools told him to sign. IE, this deal isn't on Aresco, it was approved by the schools.

I'm not disputing that the schools turned down the deal in 2011--Marinatto wanted to sign. I was disputing the "blame someone" part.

Aresco wasn't exactly the same case, as he had been hired as the big wheeler-dealer with the expertise and connections to make things happen. And, at least after the C7 left, Aresco didn't have someone with the credentials of a Paul Tagliabue (Georgetown Board of Trustees) giving a contrary opinion.

I'm still of the opinion that no one could have done a much better job than Aresco, but that plenty of people could have done just as good a job. It's awkward that he's being paid like the commissioner of a power conference, but I don't see who raises that issue or how that gets resolved without bitterness.

i think many people could have gotten us our tv deal money but i think very very few people could have gotten us the type of exposure we are getting
the old big east with way more teams, and arguably way bigger brands (miami, vt etc.) was given way less coverage than our current deal

which is honestly worth dramatically more than the difference in our contract vs the NBE

...........

its literally been less than 1 year and the NBE is already having fallouts because of playing on FS1. they chose greed over exposure.

I think a trained monkey could have gotten us a TV deal as good as Aresco's.

If you could find a monkey that can, bring him to Houston NASA, we'll send his little monkey a$$ to the moon.

(03-29-2014 05:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think a trained monkey could have gotten us a TV deal as good as Aresco's.

Then why aren't the trained monkeys at other conferences able to secure the above?

Oh I get it...you are a troll...and you are trolling....because that's what you do since you can't do anything else.