(04-24-2014 03:16 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:25 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  One paragraph they say the league earned 11 credits, the next they say 8. A few weeks ago the members of this board made it abundantly clear that the new members received nothing from credits earned this year or in the past. Not saying TU deserves anything, but it sure would help.

Let me let you all in on a secret, the quality of sports reporting (particularly for Tulane) is putrid in this state.

They are referencing the 8 tourney credits of teams still in the conference....Louisville's 3 not included...that's where 11 come from. L-ville's credits stay with the conference, but the conference office would not say how they would be distributed.

The way I read the article is that the 3 new members may not earn any or much of anything from PREVIOUS MEMBERS...but that revenue from all current members will be shared equally. I think that makes sense. So if you were in the conference when a previous member was there, then you get a share of the tourney credit money they made. But that does not mean that UConn's money won't go to the 3 new members, because UConn will be in a conference with those new members going forward.

It sure seems that way. Some people will not be happy if that is the case.

(04-24-2014 03:22 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:16 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:25 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  One paragraph they say the league earned 11 credits, the next they say 8. A few weeks ago the members of this board made it abundantly clear that the new members received nothing from credits earned this year or in the past. Not saying TU deserves anything, but it sure would help.

Let me let you all in on a secret, the quality of sports reporting (particularly for Tulane) is putrid in this state.

They are referencing the 8 tourney credits of teams still in the conference....Louisville's 3 not included...that's where 11 come from. L-ville's credits stay with the conference, but the conference office would not say how they would be distributed.

The way I read the article is that the 3 new members may not earn any or much of anything from PREVIOUS MEMBERS...but that revenue from all current members will be shared equally. I think that makes sense. So if you were in the conference when a previous member was there, then you get a share of the tourney credit money they made. But that does not mean that UConn's money won't go to the 3 new members, because UConn will be in a conference with those new members going forward.

It sure seems that way. Some people will not be happy if that is the case.

Why...they get the big chunks of money as the article laid out....from L-ville, Syracuse & Pitt (and Rutgers...HAHAHA!). I think it makes complete sense...the old schools WANT the new schools to fund their programs. This is a clear way for them to. Would love to see a layout of the actual money distributed if this is true.

(04-24-2014 03:22 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:16 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:25 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  One paragraph they say the league earned 11 credits, the next they say 8. A few weeks ago the members of this board made it abundantly clear that the new members received nothing from credits earned this year or in the past. Not saying TU deserves anything, but it sure would help.

Let me let you all in on a secret, the quality of sports reporting (particularly for Tulane) is putrid in this state.

They are referencing the 8 tourney credits of teams still in the conference....Louisville's 3 not included...that's where 11 come from. L-ville's credits stay with the conference, but the conference office would not say how they would be distributed.

The way I read the article is that the 3 new members may not earn any or much of anything from PREVIOUS MEMBERS...but that revenue from all current members will be shared equally. I think that makes sense. So if you were in the conference when a previous member was there, then you get a share of the tourney credit money they made. But that does not mean that UConn's money won't go to the 3 new members, because UConn will be in a conference with those new members going forward.

It sure seems that way. Some people will not be happy if that is the case.

Meh...can't make everyone happy. Only two AAC teams going forward even won a game. Only one was a new team. If we want to make it fair then only the tourney teams should get the $$.

(04-24-2014 03:28 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:22 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:16 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:25 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  One paragraph they say the league earned 11 credits, the next they say 8. A few weeks ago the members of this board made it abundantly clear that the new members received nothing from credits earned this year or in the past. Not saying TU deserves anything, but it sure would help.

Let me let you all in on a secret, the quality of sports reporting (particularly for Tulane) is putrid in this state.

They are referencing the 8 tourney credits of teams still in the conference....Louisville's 3 not included...that's where 11 come from. L-ville's credits stay with the conference, but the conference office would not say how they would be distributed.

The way I read the article is that the 3 new members may not earn any or much of anything from PREVIOUS MEMBERS...but that revenue from all current members will be shared equally. I think that makes sense. So if you were in the conference when a previous member was there, then you get a share of the tourney credit money they made. But that does not mean that UConn's money won't go to the 3 new members, because UConn will be in a conference with those new members going forward.

It sure seems that way. Some people will not be happy if that is the case.

Meh...can't make everyone happy. Only two AAC teams going forward even won a game. Only one was a new team. If we want to make it fair then only the tourney teams should get the $$.

To be clear, when this discussion came up by me a few weeks ago, most said ECU/TU/UT deserve nothing. It was near unannomous that we would get nothing, I even showed a Tulsa article that said the same as the recent Tulane article. Of course, they (current member fans) are probably bias. In the end this only costs the current members like $40k each, the only problem is that the $40k is for five years

(04-24-2014 02:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  "Tulane rag"?

The Advocate is Baton Rouge's paper and follows LSU religiously.

True

The new orleans advocate gives tulane great coverage and their beat writer for us is fantastic . Scott

(04-24-2014 01:33 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  [

All I really wanted was for AAC to cover whatever departure-fees were owed to C-USA, and let us start with a clean slate. Anything after that is gravy.

There are virtually no departure fees owed to C-USA.

(04-24-2014 02:19 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:16 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:15 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:10 PM)UConnFB Wrote:  I don't get it. Only teams that were in the conference this year should get a share of that money.

The problem here is the assumption that every detail in the article is correct.

Well, he claims the sources are AAC and Tulane officials. So he's either delivering the facts incorrectly, or the people in those offices don't know what they're talking about.

The man makes a good point. I can only guess, I believe the Tulane folks tried to present this carefully worded statement/interview to make it seem like the AAC was this huge cash windfall. The reporter just got confused, which was probably their (Tulane's) goal. The athletic department are absolute masters at spinning stories to try to make them look good.

The Advocate has an excellent Sports department, particularly with respect to college sports (which is why I subscribe) and they employ good writers. So as far as discrepancies (about what Tulane is getting from the AAC tournament credits pool) between this article and what has been previously posted on this forum, I would believe this article unless a definitive refutation emerges.

(04-24-2014 03:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  "Tulane rag"?

The Advocate is Baton Rouge's paper and follows LSU religiously.

True

The new orleans advocate gives tulane great coverage and their beat writer for us is fantastic . Scott

Doesn't surprise me. They have honed their teeth on covering LSU and the SEC and do as good a job at covering college athletics as any paper I've ever seen. They know how not to offend their audience while at the same time reporting everything, whether positive or negative. Objective and comprehensive coverage.

i think the newbies should get an equal cut. if you are a member, you are a full member. period. if they were worth inviting, they are worth getting an equal check.

(04-24-2014 05:07 PM)DrBox Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:33 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  [

All I really wanted was for AAC to cover whatever departure-fees were owed to C-USA, and let us start with a clean slate. Anything after that is gravy.

There are virtually no departure fees owed to C-USA.

Good to know

(04-24-2014 05:07 PM)DrBox Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:33 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  [

All I really wanted was for AAC to cover whatever departure-fees were owed to C-USA, and let us start with a clean slate. Anything after that is gravy.

There are virtually no departure fees owed to C-USA.

$500K, plus 5 years of TV money that has to be in escrow - but you'll get that back eventually.

(04-25-2014 08:58 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 05:07 PM)DrBox Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:33 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  All I really wanted was for AAC to cover whatever departure-fees were owed to C-USA, and let us start with a clean slate. Anything after that is gravy.

There are virtually no departure fees owed to C-USA.

$500K, plus 5 years of TV money that has to be in escrow - but you'll get that back eventually.

Link?

(04-25-2014 08:58 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  $500K, plus 5 years of TV money that has to be in escrow - but you'll get that back eventually.

Right - the TV money is for contract diminution, so most of it will come back. Only 500K for departure because we were a charter member. Not much.

(04-24-2014 08:00 PM)shere khan Wrote:  i think the newbies should get an equal cut. if you are a member, you are a full member. period. if they were worth inviting, they are worth getting an equal check.

Yes, an equal check of all money earned by the new conference (all NCAA credits this year forward, BCS payout this year, etc). Not an equal check of money remaining from an old conference that has nothing to do with any of the schools in question.

(04-24-2014 01:53 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:25 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  Reading this is exactly why I get annoyed when I heard the new schools whining and complaining when discussing the split of revenue from the old conference holdovers and new schools. It's hard to fathom why anyone had anything to whine about period considering what they are receiving out of the conference move.

But if the C-7 was forced to stay at least a year the exit money would have been distributed across all the 2013 schools. USF, Cincy, and Uconn didn't mind that early exit because of the war chest $$$. That was my issue. It doesn't matter now, time to make the best of what we got.

Just to be clear, teams like UCF earned it. We are currently in 1st place in 2 out of the 3 major sports. The idea that we are riding coattails is laughable. UCF joined the big east before it completey got gutted.

First, USF, Cincy, and UConn had nothing to do with the decision of the C7 to leave. They didn't force them out or demand they leave early so they could rake in money. To imply so is false. The BE holdovers would have much rather had the C7 stay in the conference than leave.

Second, UCF is certainly earning their money this year, but you can't make a legitimate argument that they earned money from the old BE conference. I certainly don't think UCF is riding coattails, but you had nothing to do with the money earned under the old conference. I never saw why people thought that their school was entitled to it.

In the end, the deal that was struck was fair enough, so I probably should have never brought it up.

Generally speaking, when it comes to previously earned NCAA credits and other revenue earned from prior years, if a team is replacing a team that left, then they are more likely to step right in and receive payments for retained earnings. That is because the existing schools, were already expecting a cut of the departing team to be made, and they don't lose anything. However with expansion, as it dilutes the expected income that was previously earned, with no way to expand it, typically new teams are not cut in, and only get a share of monies earned while they were there.

I don't know of any schools that moved leagues, who are receiving NCAA pay earned in years years prior to their joining. That is why most teams that moved have lower initial payouts compared to the rest of the league (see Nebraska, TCU, WVU, Rutgers, and MD). I do not know about Mizzou, aTm, Pitt, Syracuse, or ND.

I brought this exact discussion up a few weeks ago and it was near anonymous from members of this site that the three new members would get nothing AND deserved nothing. Just confusing, but I will take it.

Ok I think if we read this article we get a better idea.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013...ike-aresco
1. 100 million was split 60 mill to UC,USF and UConnn - 40 million to the rest.
2. The money is paid over the 6 year tv contract.
3. USF, UConn and UC receive 3.33 million per year
4. The others are paid depending on years in league
5. Temple,UCF,Houston,SMU and Memphis over 6 years so about 1 million per year
6. Tulane,Tulsa and ECU over a 5 year period. About 1 mill per year
7. Navy gets paid about 500k starting in 2015 for four years

Money from this years NCAA tourney 11 units gets added to the eight school returning next year at 340 k each or to the 11 members at 250 k

Going forward the NCAA tourney units is extra money added each year so by year six each school in league could be getting

2 million from TV + either 3.33 or 1 million from exit fees + 1.50 million from basketball units + football bowl playoff money

(04-25-2014 11:05 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 08:00 PM)shere khan Wrote:  i think the newbies should get an equal cut. if you are a member, you are a full member. period. if they were worth inviting, they are worth getting an equal check.

Yes, an equal check of all money earned by the new conference (all NCAA credits this year forward, BCS payout this year, etc). Not an equal check of money remaining from an old conference that has nothing to do with any of the schools in question.

IMO, newcomers should get some kind of a share of NCAA tournament money that was earned by the old Big East.

I know they had nothing to do with earning it, but they did have something to do with keeping it. Once the C7 decided to exercise their toon to split, only UConn, UC, and USF were left from the all sports membership of the old BE. If no one had joined them, they would have been dissolved as a conference and would not have been eligible to receive any money for the NCAA tournament.

(04-25-2014 11:10 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:53 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:25 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  Reading this is exactly why I get annoyed when I heard the new schools whining and complaining when discussing the split of revenue from the old conference holdovers and new schools. It's hard to fathom why anyone had anything to whine about period considering what they are receiving out of the conference move.

But if the C-7 was forced to stay at least a year the exit money would have been distributed across all the 2013 schools. USF, Cincy, and Uconn didn't mind that early exit because of the war chest $$$. That was my issue. It doesn't matter now, time to make the best of what we got.

Just to be clear, teams like UCF earned it. We are currently in 1st place in 2 out of the 3 major sports. The idea that we are riding coattails is laughable. UCF joined the big east before it completey got gutted.

First, USF, Cincy, and UConn had nothing to do with the decision of the C7 to leave. They didn't force them out or demand they leave early so they could rake in money. To imply so is false. The BE holdovers would have much rather had the C7 stay in the conference than leave.

Second, UCF is certainly earning their money this year, but you can't make a legitimate argument that they earned money from the old BE conference. I certainly don't think UCF is riding coattails, but you had nothing to do with the money earned under the old conference. I never saw why people thought that their school was entitled to it.

In the end, the deal that was struck was fair enough, so I probably should have never brought it up.

You realize you guys (USF, Uconn, and Cincy) got nothing if the newbies didn't join. We actually joined the big east. The complete meltdown happened later. You sold the rights to the big east name which UCF signed up for with our commitment. To me it seems fair that money was distributed out and which it was more.

Anyway, this is long history that isn't going to change. Everyone will be on a level playing field soon.