(02-25-2013 04:49 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I'm guessing that if the C7 doesn't get the name, no one will. The name is one of those assets to be divided up per the pre-nup. If the Aresco group insists on some outrageous price, the C7 will and should turn them down. However, they won't let Aresco have the name either without the same price tag. So, my guess is that no one will get it if there's a tug of war. This is a problem calling for a Solomonesque solution because this baby can't be cut in half either.

The name really has little or no value to the Football schools. They are not "The Big East" and everyone knows it. Continuing with the name will simply remind everyone that this is a watered down product from what the league once was. The smarter move would be to come up with a new name to create some new excitement about what the league can be as it moves forward. A new name would signal that; the old one will not.

No. Thats not a smart move at all. If it was both sides would be moving on with a new name. New conferneces are viewed poorly. Conferences are about name recognition. Most people cant name every school in the ACC or Pac-12. While it would be best to not have massive turnover in membership--it doesnt mean you change the name every time it happens. Its just a league. The records and past still exists. It just moves on with significant membership changes.

Go with a new name, and the league gets zero respect, zero interest, and goes to the back of the line with respect to recognition, appeal, and tradition. A new name is a marketing nightmare. The Sunbelt would be more well known and recognized than the FCS sounding "Conference America" or that awful Metro name people are so obsessed with. There are no schools in the BE or moving to the Big East that have any desire to be associated with a new "start up". Nearly 20 years after its inception, CUSA is till trying to shake the new kid on the block start up image. When it comes to a new name, just say no.

(02-25-2013 05:03 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:30 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Big East name=WAC name.

It's a toxic name now. Yes, like the WAC, the Big East was once upon a time a great conference that competed at the highest level. That's not the case anymore with all the defections, lost identity and bad PR going on. If the C-7 want it so bad, sell the rights to them. Divide that money to the football schools that will be in the conference in 2014. Start all over. The MWC did it and had some success (although some people at the beginning thought the MWC schools were still in the WAC but that's expected it).

Not really. The Big East was criticized as not being deserving of an automatic BCS bid. It was never much of a question that the confernece was better than the non-AQ conferences. The criticism was they wernt as good as the the other AQ conferences. So, as a conference that must EARN its way to the BCS--whats left to criticize? The name still would have more prestige and recognition than any other non-AQ conference. So, I'd disagree that name is "toxic" or valueless. Its actually far more valuable than an unknown unrecognizable name like Conference America that would bring to mind some obscure FCS conference that will be eliminated in the NCAA "play in" game.

The Big East lost both its AQ label along with their old guard schools (for the most part) and its basketball identity. Regardless if the media pundits thought the Big East deserved the BCS autobid or not, the conference still had Pitt vs Syracuse or Rutgers vs West Virginia in football and Georgetown vs Villanova and Notre Dame vs UConn in basketball. Miami won a MNC in the BE, Virginia Tech became a national brand and Syracuse and UConn won NC's in basketball. All of that is either gone or about to be gone. That's why I think the Big East name is toxic to the football conference in 2014 and let the C-7 keep the name since the Big East ironically started as a basketball conference in the late 70's.

In 2014, CUSA will have a whopping two teams left that originally established the conference (out of 14). When you guys decide to change your name then I'll believe your view has some validity.

(02-25-2013 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:49 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I'm guessing that if the C7 doesn't get the name, no one will. The name is one of those assets to be divided up per the pre-nup. If the Aresco group insists on some outrageous price, the C7 will and should turn them down. However, they won't let Aresco have the name either without the same price tag. So, my guess is that no one will get it if there's a tug of war. This is a problem calling for a Solomonesque solution because this baby can't be cut in half either.

The name really has little or no value to the Football schools. They are not "The Big East" and everyone knows it. Continuing with the name will simply remind everyone that this is a watered down product from what the league once was. The smarter move would be to come up with a new name to create some new excitement about what the league can be as it moves forward. A new name would signal that; the old one will not.

No. Thats not a smart move at all. If it was both sides would be moving on with a new name. New conferneces are viewed poorly. Conferences are about name recognition. Most people cant name every school in the ACC or Pac-12. While it would be best to not have massive turnover in membership--it doesnt mean you change the name every time it happens. Its just a league. The records and past still exists. It just moves on with significant membership changes.

Go with a new name, and the league gets zero respect, zero interest, and goes to the back of the line with respect to recognition, appeal, and tradition. A new name is a marketing nightmare. The Sunbelt would be more well known and recognized than the FCS sounding "Conference America" or that awful Metro name people are so obsessed with. There are no schools in the BE or moving to the Big East that have any desire to be associated with a new "start up". Nearly 20 years after its inception, CUSA is till trying to shake the new kid on the block start up image. When it comes to a new name, just say no.

The MWC seemed to make out ok with a new name

(02-25-2013 05:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:03 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:30 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Big East name=WAC name.

It's a toxic name now. Yes, like the WAC, the Big East was once upon a time a great conference that competed at the highest level. That's not the case anymore with all the defections, lost identity and bad PR going on. If the C-7 want it so bad, sell the rights to them. Divide that money to the football schools that will be in the conference in 2014. Start all over. The MWC did it and had some success (although some people at the beginning thought the MWC schools were still in the WAC but that's expected it).

Not really. The Big East was criticized as not being deserving of an automatic BCS bid. It was never much of a question that the confernece was better than the non-AQ conferences. The criticism was they wernt as good as the the other AQ conferences. So, as a conference that must EARN its way to the BCS--whats left to criticize? The name still would have more prestige and recognition than any other non-AQ conference. So, I'd disagree that name is "toxic" or valueless. Its actually far more valuable than an unknown unrecognizable name like Conference America that would bring to mind some obscure FCS conference that will be eliminated in the NCAA "play in" game.

The Big East lost both its AQ label along with their old guard schools (for the most part) and its basketball identity. Regardless if the media pundits thought the Big East deserved the BCS autobid or not, the conference still had Pitt vs Syracuse or Rutgers vs West Virginia in football and Georgetown vs Villanova and Notre Dame vs UConn in basketball. Miami won a MNC in the BE, Virginia Tech became a national brand and Syracuse and UConn won NC's in basketball. All of that is either gone or about to be gone. That's why I think the Big East name is toxic to the football conference in 2014 and let the C-7 keep the name since the Big East ironically started as a basketball conference in the late 70's.

In 2014, CUSA will have a whopping two teams left that established CUSA (out of 14). When you guys decide to change your name then I'll believe your view has some validity.

But the big difference is nobody is fighting for the C-USA name. Neither the defectors nor the schools that are staying (along with the newcomers) are fighting to keep the rights or to sell the name. The C-7 and the football schools are. So that's a huge difference.

The football schools would be better off to sell that name, make a few millions on that sale, share it with every member and rebuild the conference with a new identity.

(02-25-2013 05:23 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:03 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:30 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Big East name=WAC name.

It's a toxic name now. Yes, like the WAC, the Big East was once upon a time a great conference that competed at the highest level. That's not the case anymore with all the defections, lost identity and bad PR going on. If the C-7 want it so bad, sell the rights to them. Divide that money to the football schools that will be in the conference in 2014. Start all over. The MWC did it and had some success (although some people at the beginning thought the MWC schools were still in the WAC but that's expected it).

Not really. The Big East was criticized as not being deserving of an automatic BCS bid. It was never much of a question that the confernece was better than the non-AQ conferences. The criticism was they wernt as good as the the other AQ conferences. So, as a conference that must EARN its way to the BCS--whats left to criticize? The name still would have more prestige and recognition than any other non-AQ conference. So, I'd disagree that name is "toxic" or valueless. Its actually far more valuable than an unknown unrecognizable name like Conference America that would bring to mind some obscure FCS conference that will be eliminated in the NCAA "play in" game.

The Big East lost both its AQ label along with their old guard schools (for the most part) and its basketball identity. Regardless if the media pundits thought the Big East deserved the BCS autobid or not, the conference still had Pitt vs Syracuse or Rutgers vs West Virginia in football and Georgetown vs Villanova and Notre Dame vs UConn in basketball. Miami won a MNC in the BE, Virginia Tech became a national brand and Syracuse and UConn won NC's in basketball. All of that is either gone or about to be gone. That's why I think the Big East name is toxic to the football conference in 2014 and let the C-7 keep the name since the Big East ironically started as a basketball conference in the late 70's.

In 2014, CUSA will have a whopping two teams left that established CUSA (out of 14). When you guys decide to change your name then I'll believe your view has some validity.

But the big difference is nobody is fighting for the C-USA name. Neither the defectors nor the schools that are staying (along with the newcomers) are fighting to keep the rights or to sell the name. The C-7 and the football schools are. So that's a huge difference.

The football schools would be better off to sell that name, make a few millions on that sale, share it with every member and rebuild the conference with a new identity.

Theres more than just money. We did very well this year in recruiting depsite a pretty crummy year. I attribute some of that to the Big East name. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think the biggest mistake made in 1996 was creating CUSA as a new entity. The teams and conference were fine---I just think they would have been much better off merging that group of teams with the remaining SWC schools and rebuilding the SWC. Start ups are tough way to go and are a marketing nightmare.

Sure--everyone would know Texas and A&M were not there anyomre, but the some of the SWC teams reamined, some of the traditions remained, and they could have moved forward under a familiar banner that was recognized by most any casual fan.

(02-25-2013 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Go with a new name, and the league gets zero respect, zero interest, and goes to the back of the line with respect to recognition, appeal, and tradition. A new name is a marketing nightmare.

Then the Aresco League is going to have to pay the C-7 something for their claim to the name. How high are you willing to go? $5M? $10M? $25M?

(02-25-2013 05:22 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:49 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I'm guessing that if the C7 doesn't get the name, no one will. The name is one of those assets to be divided up per the pre-nup. If the Aresco group insists on some outrageous price, the C7 will and should turn them down. However, they won't let Aresco have the name either without the same price tag. So, my guess is that no one will get it if there's a tug of war. This is a problem calling for a Solomonesque solution because this baby can't be cut in half either.

The name really has little or no value to the Football schools. They are not "The Big East" and everyone knows it. Continuing with the name will simply remind everyone that this is a watered down product from what the league once was. The smarter move would be to come up with a new name to create some new excitement about what the league can be as it moves forward. A new name would signal that; the old one will not.

No. Thats not a smart move at all. If it was both sides would be moving on with a new name. New conferneces are viewed poorly. Conferences are about name recognition. Most people cant name every school in the ACC or Pac-12. While it would be best to not have massive turnover in membership--it doesnt mean you change the name every time it happens. Its just a league. The records and past still exists. It just moves on with significant membership changes.

Go with a new name, and the league gets zero respect, zero interest, and goes to the back of the line with respect to recognition, appeal, and tradition. A new name is a marketing nightmare. The Sunbelt would be more well known and recognized than the FCS sounding "Conference America" or that awful Metro name people are so obsessed with. There are no schools in the BE or moving to the Big East that have any desire to be associated with a new "start up". Nearly 20 years after its inception, CUSA is till trying to shake the new kid on the block start up image. When it comes to a new name, just say no.

The MWC seemed to make out ok with a new name

Interestingly, I find thier situation far more similar to the C-7 than the remaining nBE teams. They more or less moved a block of teams that were all together already in an existing conference in order to create a new smaller conference. In other words, every team in the new conference was already playing in the old conference. Sound familiar? Of course, the similarity starts to break down once the C-7 adds some A-10 teams. The MW formation is really a very unique situation which is why I think it worked better than normal---plus the Mountain West name is pretty cool....alot better than Conference America or anything with the word Metro (lol....every time I hear that name all I think of is the term metrosexual).

(02-25-2013 05:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:23 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:03 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not really. The Big East was criticized as not being deserving of an automatic BCS bid. It was never much of a question that the confernece was better than the non-AQ conferences. The criticism was they wernt as good as the the other AQ conferences. So, as a conference that must EARN its way to the BCS--whats left to criticize? The name still would have more prestige and recognition than any other non-AQ conference. So, I'd disagree that name is "toxic" or valueless. Its actually far more valuable than an unknown unrecognizable name like Conference America that would bring to mind some obscure FCS conference that will be eliminated in the NCAA "play in" game.

The Big East lost both its AQ label along with their old guard schools (for the most part) and its basketball identity. Regardless if the media pundits thought the Big East deserved the BCS autobid or not, the conference still had Pitt vs Syracuse or Rutgers vs West Virginia in football and Georgetown vs Villanova and Notre Dame vs UConn in basketball. Miami won a MNC in the BE, Virginia Tech became a national brand and Syracuse and UConn won NC's in basketball. All of that is either gone or about to be gone. That's why I think the Big East name is toxic to the football conference in 2014 and let the C-7 keep the name since the Big East ironically started as a basketball conference in the late 70's.

In 2014, CUSA will have a whopping two teams left that established CUSA (out of 14). When you guys decide to change your name then I'll believe your view has some validity.

But the big difference is nobody is fighting for the C-USA name. Neither the defectors nor the schools that are staying (along with the newcomers) are fighting to keep the rights or to sell the name. The C-7 and the football schools are. So that's a huge difference.

The football schools would be better off to sell that name, make a few millions on that sale, share it with every member and rebuild the conference with a new identity.

Theres more than just money. We did very well this year in recruiting depsite a pretty crummy year. I attribute some of that to the Big East name. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think the biggest mistake made in 1996 was creating CUSA as a new entity. The teams and conference were fine---I just think they would have been much better off merging that group of teams with the remaining SWC schools and rebuilding the SWC. Start ups are tough way to go and are a marketing nightmare.

Sure--everyone would know Texas and A&M were not there anyomre, but the some of the SWC teams reamined, some of the traditions remained, and they could have moved forward under a familiar banner that was recognized by most any casual fan.

That's something I never understood. The SWC name still had some cache and the four remaining schools would have invited Tulsa, Tulane, Southern Miss, etc to join their league.

But SWC had decades of tradition. Neither C-USA and the Big East are close to that. The Big East started sponsoring football in 1991 and was a basketball league for 12 years before that. C-USA had schools that were there at the right place at the right time. UL, UC and USF moved to a BCS league, TCU left for what was perceived as the best nonBCS league and UH, SMU, UCF, ECU and Tulane left for the same reasons TCU left in 2005. C-USA lost schools not because of its name but because there were better offers and options (at least at the time) for the defectors.

Keeping the Big East name is IMHO a very bad decision. But of course I don't make those decisions but like you said, we just agree to disagree.

(02-25-2013 05:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Go with a new name, and the league gets zero respect, zero interest, and goes to the back of the line with respect to recognition, appeal, and tradition. A new name is a marketing nightmare.

Then the Aresco League is going to have to pay the C-7 something for their claim to the name. How high are you willing to go? $5M? $10M? $25M?

How about we let you start your Fox contract a year early in 2013 (thats worth 17.5 million for the C-7) and we let you leave early for free (thats probably worth at least 5 million a school in penalties, thats another 35 million). Thats 52.5 million in concessions--which is probably too much. So I think there is plenty of room to come to a good deal for both sides. After the exist stuff is negotiated--we split cash on hand, realignment fund, and credit income. Hard to say the C-7 come out of that deal poorly.

(02-25-2013 05:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Go with a new name, and the league gets zero respect, zero interest, and goes to the back of the line with respect to recognition, appeal, and tradition. A new name is a marketing nightmare.

Then the Aresco League is going to have to pay the C-7 something for their claim to the name. How high are you willing to go? $5M? $10M? $25M?

How about we let you start your Fox contract a year early in 2013 (thats worth 17.5 million for the C-7) and we let you leave early for free (thats probably worth at least 5 million a school in penalties, thats another 35 million).

That's the same thing. You can count it as $35M, for waiving exit fees, or count it as $17.5M, $2.5M for leaving early x 7 schools, but you can't really count both.

But either way, leaving in 2013 is a big concession--if we can swing it on our side. I wouldn't be happy with that deal, but I wouldn't be unhappy.

You'd really rather have our name than keep the entire Realignment Fund?

Quote:After the exist stuff is negotiated--we split cash on hand, realignment fund, and credit income. Hard to say the C-7 come out of that deal poorly.

I think your presidents would rather have the money in the realignment fund, and in the case of the incoming schools, not pay entry fees.

(02-25-2013 04:55 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 02:56 PM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  I hate that certain fans of schools who haven't played a down of Big East football think they deserve the name over schools who have been playing in the Big East since 1979.

1) No one forced the C7 to depart. When you leave you don't get to take name with you.

2) They have as much right to the name, as any team that has ever played in the BE has.

If your wife divorced you, would you want to keep her ****** just because you could?

(02-25-2013 06:22 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:55 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 02:56 PM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  I hate that certain fans of schools who haven't played a down of Big East football think they deserve the name over schools who have been playing in the Big East since 1979.

1) No one forced the C7 to depart. When you leave you don't get to take name with you.

2) They have as much right to the name, as any team that has ever played in the BE has.

If your wife divorced you, would you want to keep her ****** just because you could?

In a lot of divorces, the answer is yes. And I didn't know "tampons" was a curse word on this board.

(02-25-2013 06:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Go with a new name, and the league gets zero respect, zero interest, and goes to the back of the line with respect to recognition, appeal, and tradition. A new name is a marketing nightmare.

Then the Aresco League is going to have to pay the C-7 something for their claim to the name. How high are you willing to go? $5M? $10M? $25M?

How about we let you start your Fox contract a year early in 2013 (thats worth 17.5 million for the C-7) and we let you leave early for free (thats probably worth at least 5 million a school in penalties, thats another 35 million).

That's the same thing. You can count it as $35M, for waiving exit fees, or count it as $17.5M, $2.5M for leaving early x 7 schools, but you can't really count both.

But either way, leaving in 2013 is a big concession--if we can swing it on our side. I wouldn't be happy with that deal, but I wouldn't be unhappy.

You'd really rather have our name than keep the entire Realignment Fund?

Quote:After the exist stuff is negotiated--we split cash on hand, realignment fund, and credit income. Hard to say the C-7 come out of that deal poorly.

I think your presidents would rather have the money in the realignment fund, and in the case of the incoming schools, not pay entry fees.

Why wouldn't I count both? The value to the C7 is realized not only as increased earnings but as decreased costs. The two added together reflect the difference of staying here in 2013 and still paying 5 a team in 2014 to get out early...or you could wait until 2015 I suppose and get out for free.

(02-25-2013 06:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 06:22 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:55 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 02:56 PM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  I hate that certain fans of schools who haven't played a down of Big East football think they deserve the name over schools who have been playing in the Big East since 1979.

1) No one forced the C7 to depart. When you leave you don't get to take name with you.

2) They have as much right to the name, as any team that has ever played in the BE has.

If your wife divorced you, would you want to keep her ****** just because you could?

In a lot of divorces, the answer is yes. And I didn't know "tampons" was a curse word on this board.

LMAO - I typed v-a-g-i-n-a.

(02-25-2013 06:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 06:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Go with a new name, and the league gets zero respect, zero interest, and goes to the back of the line with respect to recognition, appeal, and tradition. A new name is a marketing nightmare.

Then the Aresco League is going to have to pay the C-7 something for their claim to the name. How high are you willing to go? $5M? $10M? $25M?

How about we let you start your Fox contract a year early in 2013 (thats worth 17.5 million for the C-7) and we let you leave early for free (thats probably worth at least 5 million a school in penalties, thats another 35 million).

That's the same thing. You can count it as $35M, for waiving exit fees, or count it as $17.5M, $2.5M for leaving early x 7 schools, but you can't really count both.

But either way, leaving in 2013 is a big concession--if we can swing it on our side. I wouldn't be happy with that deal, but I wouldn't be unhappy.

You'd really rather have our name than keep the entire Realignment Fund?

Quote:After the exist stuff is negotiated--we split cash on hand, realignment fund, and credit income. Hard to say the C-7 come out of that deal poorly.

I think your presidents would rather have the money in the realignment fund, and in the case of the incoming schools, not pay entry fees.

Why wouldn't I count both? The value to the C7 is realized not only as increased earnings but as decreased costs. The two added together reflect the difference of staying here in 2013 and still paying 5 a team in 2014 to get out early...or you could wait until 2015 I suppose and get out for free.

I don't think paying $5M a team to get out in 2014 is on the table. The 27-month clause is dead, and you'd have an enormously difficult time in court proving any damages from us leaving in 2014 rather than 2015. Your TV contract already plans for us to be gone in 2014-15.

But however you do the accounting, getting out for 2013 and starting the Fox deal is a big enough concession that, if that's the outcome, I'll just grumble quietly rather than rant and rave.

The question is still: You'd really rather have our name than keep the entire Realignment Fund? I think I know your answer, but this is sort of the first time the discussion has moved past "you're leaving, suck eggs."

(02-25-2013 06:39 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 06:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 06:22 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 04:55 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 02:56 PM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  I hate that certain fans of schools who haven't played a down of Big East football think they deserve the name over schools who have been playing in the Big East since 1979.

1) No one forced the C7 to depart. When you leave you don't get to take name with you.

2) They have as much right to the name, as any team that has ever played in the BE has.

If your wife divorced you, would you want to keep her ****** just because you could?

In a lot of divorces, the answer is yes. And I didn't know "tampons" was a curse word on this board.

LMAO - I typed v-a-g-i-n-a.

I figured. But I just thought tampons were a better example, because they're of no use to you at all, while you at least used to like the other thing. And, if you're the villain in a low-budget sci-fi movie, maybe you could figure something out.

(02-25-2013 06:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 06:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 06:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Then the Aresco League is going to have to pay the C-7 something for their claim to the name. How high are you willing to go? $5M? $10M? $25M?

How about we let you start your Fox contract a year early in 2013 (thats worth 17.5 million for the C-7) and we let you leave early for free (thats probably worth at least 5 million a school in penalties, thats another 35 million).

That's the same thing. You can count it as $35M, for waiving exit fees, or count it as $17.5M, $2.5M for leaving early x 7 schools, but you can't really count both.

But either way, leaving in 2013 is a big concession--if we can swing it on our side. I wouldn't be happy with that deal, but I wouldn't be unhappy.

You'd really rather have our name than keep the entire Realignment Fund?

Quote:After the exist stuff is negotiated--we split cash on hand, realignment fund, and credit income. Hard to say the C-7 come out of that deal poorly.

I think your presidents would rather have the money in the realignment fund, and in the case of the incoming schools, not pay entry fees.

Why wouldn't I count both? The value to the C7 is realized not only as increased earnings but as decreased costs. The two added together reflect the difference of staying here in 2013 and still paying 5 a team in 2014 to get out early...or you could wait until 2015 I suppose and get out for free.

I don't think paying $5M a team to get out in 2014 is on the table. The 27-month clause is dead, and you'd have an enormously difficult time in court proving any damages from us leaving in 2014 rather than 2015. Your TV contract already plans for us to be gone in 2014-15.

But however you do the accounting, getting out for 2013 and starting the Fox deal is a big enough concession that, if that's the outcome, I'll just grumble quietly rather than rant and rave.

The question is still: You'd really rather have our name than keep the entire Realignment Fund? I think I know your answer, but this is sort of the first time the discussion has moved past "you're leaving, suck eggs."

To me, the money is a one shot deal where as the name pays ongoing benefits. I'd keep the name and split the assets. I would not distribute the nBE half. Leave it as a fund and use it to help replacement teams move to the conference when needed. Getting CUSA teams to come may not be as easy with a smaller income differential and no AQ bid. By the way, the 27 month clause is not dead, it's just been monetized.

(02-25-2013 02:56 PM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  I hate that certain fans of schools who haven't played a down of Big East football think they deserve the name over schools who have been playing in the Big East since 1979.

UConn is a charter member (1979). No school has done more for the Big East than UConn.

(02-25-2013 06:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 06:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 06:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Then the Aresco League is going to have to pay the C-7 something for their claim to the name. How high are you willing to go? $5M? $10M? $25M?

How about we let you start your Fox contract a year early in 2013 (thats worth 17.5 million for the C-7) and we let you leave early for free (thats probably worth at least 5 million a school in penalties, thats another 35 million).

That's the same thing. You can count it as $35M, for waiving exit fees, or count it as $17.5M, $2.5M for leaving early x 7 schools, but you can't really count both.

But either way, leaving in 2013 is a big concession--if we can swing it on our side. I wouldn't be happy with that deal, but I wouldn't be unhappy.

You'd really rather have our name than keep the entire Realignment Fund?

Quote:After the exist stuff is negotiated--we split cash on hand, realignment fund, and credit income. Hard to say the C-7 come out of that deal poorly.

I think your presidents would rather have the money in the realignment fund, and in the case of the incoming schools, not pay entry fees.

Why wouldn't I count both? The value to the C7 is realized not only as increased earnings but as decreased costs. The two added together reflect the difference of staying here in 2013 and still paying 5 a team in 2014 to get out early...or you could wait until 2015 I suppose and get out for free.

I don't think paying $5M a team to get out in 2014 is on the table. The 27-month clause is dead, and you'd have an enormously difficult time in court proving any damages from us leaving in 2014 rather than 2015. Your TV contract already plans for us to be gone in 2014-15.

But however you do the accounting, getting out for 2013 and starting the Fox deal is a big enough concession that, if that's the outcome, I'll just grumble quietly rather than rant and rave.

The question is still: You'd really rather have our name than keep the entire Realignment Fund? I think I know your answer, but this is sort of the first time the discussion has moved past "you're leaving, suck eggs."

Why do you keep referring to it as "your" name ?
And semantics have no legal precedent. From most reports it seems to belong to the remaining members of the Big East who did not defect/depart/split/ divorce/ whatever your current description is. If the remaining presidents decide to sell it to the C7 or a court of law deems that it belongs to them it's a moot point, and negotiating your own terms on a message board is pointless.

(02-25-2013 02:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Kruciff on the Big East board indicates that the contract mandates a name change. That's not what Fowler says--he writes "potential provision"--so if Aresco does sell the name, NBC would kick in some money to launch the new name.

We don't know if ESPN "matched" that provision of the NBCSN deal, though.

If ESPN did match that, then walking away from the old name and having the promotional power of ESPN behind building your new name sounds like a dam good deal to me.