Bleacher report? Seriously?

(11-07-2012 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 09:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 08:35 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Part 1 of 4 >>>

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/13498...orts-worth

Not normally a big fan of the Bleacher Report--but every so often a well researched peice does show up there. I dont agree with several of his points, but the information is acurate and it is a nice compilation of much of the information that has dripped out over the last year (with corresponding links to the original source material). I think this may in fact be a series worth reading, even if you dont agree with the guy.

Okay, I agree with you the great majority of the time, but that article is garbage. There are so many mistakes and bad assumptions, I'm not even going to list them.

One example. He said RC estimated $13M in April, then down graded it to $10M later. Wrong twice. First time, RC said "low teens."

Second time, somebody in the media asked him for a number, and he balked. Then they asked, "$10 million?" RC quickly said yes.

Then the media soon printed that RC downgraded his estimate. RC had to clarify that by saying his estimate had not changed, that he simply answered the guy's question, when pressed, and did not want to elaborate.

Context is everything.

Other things: He thinks $4M all sports is reasonable. He thinks the Big East has been devalued in the last 60 days. He thinks ESPN may not go hard for anything. He thinks there may only be 2 competitors.

Every one of those things is almost 180 out from the truth.

I'm not going to break down the whole thing. Just too much effort. My advice is, use it to line the bird cage.

But then you did list some of them. Just yanking your chain AAA!

(11-08-2012 01:20 PM)Reekinhavoc Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 09:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 08:35 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Part 1 of 4 >>>

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/13498...orts-worth

Not normally a big fan of the Bleacher Report--but every so often a well researched peice does show up there. I dont agree with several of his points, but the information is acurate and it is a nice compilation of much of the information that has dripped out over the last year (with corresponding links to the original source material). I think this may in fact be a series worth reading, even if you dont agree with the guy.

Okay, I agree with you the great majority of the time, but that article is garbage. There are so many mistakes and bad assumptions, I'm not even going to list them.

One example. He said RC estimated $13M in April, then down graded it to $10M later. Wrong twice. First time, RC said "low teens."

Second time, somebody in the media asked him for a number, and he balked. Then they asked, "$10 million?" RC quickly said yes.

Then the media soon printed that RC downgraded his estimate. RC had to clarify that by saying his estimate had not changed, that he simply answered the guy's question, when pressed, and did not want to elaborate.

Context is everything.

Other things: He thinks $4M all sports is reasonable. He thinks the Big East has been devalued in the last 60 days. He thinks ESPN may not go hard for anything. He thinks there may only be 2 competitors.

Every one of those things is almost 180 out from the truth.

I'm not going to break down the whole thing. Just too much effort. My advice is, use it to line the bird cage.

But then you did list some of them. Just yanking your chain AAA!

Haha, I KNEW somebody would post that. I listed some, not all. Just can't help myself. Did it from memory. Wasn't going to go back and look, lol.

Bleacher Report = NCAABBS.com + blog feature

(11-07-2012 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  One example. He said RC estimated $13M in April, then down graded it to $10M later. Wrong twice. First time, RC said "low teens."

Second time, somebody in the media asked him for a number, and he balked. Then they asked, "$10 million?" RC quickly said yes.

Then the media soon printed that RC downgraded his estimate. RC had to clarify that by saying his estimate had not changed, that he simply answered the guy's question, when pressed, and did not want to elaborate.

Triple A: When you say "low teens," that would mean $13 million or more. $10 million is not in the "teens."

I stopped reading at "McBulshit laid out the "likely" high and low numbers in a very well written article"

Bleacher Report is such a pile of s^%$#....I can't believe people read it

I think if the BE was possibly looking at 10 million w/ ND along for the ride from ESPN/NBC and negotiations are now on the open market I couldn't see the Big East doing better.

If you can recall, almost always ESPN would at the last second offer a BCS conference something they couldn't refuse. The fact that this didn't happen for even the modest 10 million dollar per school demands for the Big East is troubling.

Now on the bottom end, all sport member of the Big East are presently making 3.375 per all sport school. That 5.625 figure from the article is off. The idea though that the Big East would be worth only 4 million per all sport school is too low when you factor in the addition of a championship game and western FB members.

What I think you'll see is ND's departure hurting the BE all sports to the tune of about 2 million. Instead of 10 million for the all sport member and 4 million for the basketball school it will be 8 million all sports, 2 million for basketball. ESPN will probably step in for basketball, the Big East football champion ship game and a limited number of regular season football games. NBC will take the remainder of the football content for its new network.

The football schools in the Big East are going to come out fine. Most of them have large budgets and the overall windfall of money will be significant. Its the basketball schools of the Big East that are going to have a hard time keeping pace with the ACC, B1G and B12 schools in retaining coaches and recruiting.

(11-08-2012 04:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 10:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  One example. He said RC estimated $13M in April, then down graded it to $10M later. Wrong twice. First time, RC said "low teens."

Second time, somebody in the media asked him for a number, and he balked. Then they asked, "$10 million?" RC quickly said yes.

Then the media soon printed that RC downgraded his estimate. RC had to clarify that by saying his estimate had not changed, that he simply answered the guy's question, when pressed, and did not want to elaborate.

Triple A: When you say "low teens," that would mean $13 million or more. $10 million is not in the "teens."

Gee, really? I cannot believe you think I don't know that. You OBVIOUSLY did not understand my post, so I will try to clarify it.

RC NEVER SAID THE ESTIMATE WAS $10M. He said "low teens." That NEVER changed. The confusion was started when a reporter asked him for a number. RC did not want to give a number. So, the reporter finally asked, "$10M?" And RC said, "Yes." Then silence. That $10M number then made its way into the national media.

Sometime later, RC clarified that the reporter misinterpreted his remark. RC SAID HIS ESTIMATE OF "LOW TEENS" NEVER CHANGED. He had been asked by the BE office not to discuss the estimates, which is why he hesitated when first asked the question, and also why he hesitated to clarify the misunderstanding.

When RC finally clarified it, he said that he only meant that it was certainly AT LEAST $10M, not $10M TOPS, b/c he had been told "low teens," and nothing he heard from the BE had changed about low teens. He simply did not want to elaborate when asked by the reporter, b/c the BE had already told him to KEEP HIS BIG MOUTH SHUT, and RC had already said more than he was told to say.

Is that more clear?

I repeat. RC's estimate NEVER changed from "low teens." He even emphasized that, as he left office this past spring. The $10M number was simply a misunderstanding, the result of the reporter's question, RC's cryptic initial answer, the reporter's assumption that it was NO MORE THAN $10M, and RC's slow response to clearing up the misunderstanding.

If you don't understand now, I give up. This is way too much typing for something I already know.

(11-08-2012 09:59 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  I think if the BE was possibly looking at 10 million w/ ND along for the ride from ESPN/NBC and negotiations are now on the open market I couldn't see the Big East doing better.

If you can recall, almost always ESPN would at the last second offer a BCS conference something they couldn't refuse. The fact that this didn't happen for even the modest 10 million dollar per school demands for the Big East is troubling.

Now on the bottom end, all sport member of the Big East are presently making 3.375 per all sport school. That 5.625 figure from the article is off. The idea though that the Big East would be worth only 4 million per all sport school is too low when you factor in the addition of a championship game and western FB members.

What I think you'll see is ND's departure hurting the BE all sports to the tune of about 2 million. Instead of 10 million for the all sport member and 4 million for the basketball school it will be 8 million all sports, 2 million for basketball. ESPN will probably step in for basketball, the Big East football champion ship game and a limited number of regular season football games. NBC will take the remainder of the football content for its new network.

The football schools in the Big East are going to come out fine. Most of them have large budgets and the overall windfall of money will be significant. Its the basketball schools of the Big East that are going to have a hard time keeping pace with the ACC, B1G and B12 schools in retaining coaches and recruiting.

RC NEVER SAID $10M. THAT IS A BOGUS NUMBER. Please read my most recent post directly above this one. Thanks.

Now, if you want to assume $10M without a source, that's fine, but no BE source ever said $10M.

P.S. This is one more damn reason why RC Johnson needed to go.

(11-08-2012 09:59 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Now on the bottom end, all sport member of the Big East are presently making 3.375 per all sport school. That 5.625 figure from the article is off.

I did not read the article because, we'll its bleacher report. But keep in mind the $3.625 million per year is the average per year. The payment for 2012 could very well be $5.625 or even more, since the contracts are usually backloaded.

(11-08-2012 11:05 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-08-2012 09:59 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Now on the bottom end, all sport member of the Big East are presently making 3.375 per all sport school. That 5.625 figure from the article is off.

I did not read the article because, we'll its bleacher report. But keep in mind the $3.625 million per year is the average per year. The payment for 2012 could very well be $5.625 or even more, since the contracts are usually backloaded.

That is a good point that 5.625 figure very well may reflect a backloaded number.

I think the BE all things considered is going to do pretty good financially when its all said and done.