(02-25-2013 08:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(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.

There's no doubt it "sounds" good, but unless you think a new name would get ESPN pundits to stop crushing the Big East any chance they get it would be pretty hollow promotion. If the personalities on the network continue to dog and mock it then what good would that promotion actually do?

(02-25-2013 08:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(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.

My understanding is that ESPN had to match the terms as closely as possible or the offer would be considered a counter offer rather than a match. A counter offer would have allowed for a back and forth bidding situation. A matching offer with no non-conforming conditions would end the processs. Since it appears they did the latter (matched the offer and ended the process) then that clause is probably included in the ESPN deal.

(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.

In reading that article I believe it says roughly $2m FOR the network to market the new name. Sounds like if there's a new name that the contract goes down by $2m for the expenses incurred in marketing the new name. Not, as is being stated here, paying the new conference for the ability to market the new name.

(02-25-2013 08:27 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(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.

In reading that article I believe it says roughly $2m FOR the network to market the new name. Sounds like if there's a new name that the contract goes down by $2m for the expenses incurred in marketing the new name. Not, as is being stated here, paying the new conference for the ability to market the new name.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...gotiations

"The Big East namesake was part of the television negotiations with NBC, according to a source -- a potential provision of roughly $2 million for the network to market a new name should the league sell the Big East handle to the departing Catholic 7."

You could interpret that to read $2M worth of promotion on top of the $20M NBC pays the Aresco League, or as $2M, deducted from the Aresco League payout. I think it's on top of the $20M.

(02-25-2013 08:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 08:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(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.

My understanding is that ESPN had to match the terms as closely as possible or the offer would be considered a counter offer rather than a match. A counter offer would have allowed for a back and forth bidding situation. A matching offer with no non-conforming conditions would end the processs. Since it appears they did the latter (matched the offer and ended the process) then that clause is probably included in the ESPN deal.

Even if you're wrong about the nature of the old Big East-ESPN contract, ESPN is in a much better position to market a new name than NBC. Heck, by having the games on, ESPN would do more to promote the new name by accident than NBC-SN could do on purpose.

(02-25-2013 08:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 08:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 08:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(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.

My understanding is that ESPN had to match the terms as closely as possible or the offer would be considered a counter offer rather than a match. A counter offer would have allowed for a back and forth bidding situation. A matching offer with no non-conforming conditions would end the processs. Since it appears they did the latter (matched the offer and ended the process) then that clause is probably included in the ESPN deal.

Even if you're wrong about the nature of the old Big East-ESPN contract, ESPN is in a much better position to market a new name than NBC. Heck, by having the games on, ESPN would do more to promote the new name by accident than NBC-SN could do on purpose.

True. ESPN will draw more casual fans and create more new fans for the nBE than being the only live sports on NBC-Sports. Both offers had thier good points, but until we hear the details, its difficult to determine if either deal was all that good. It looks like less money and a marginal increase in exposure based on what we know at this point.

(02-25-2013 08:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(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.

... very good catch Wedge... however, I still believe football side keeps is name (Big East).

Meanwhile weren't your presidents suppose to vote on this new TV deal today so many of these questions can be answered? Why the Delay?

(02-25-2013 11:12 PM)billings Wrote:  Meanwhile weren't your presidents suppose to vote on this new TV deal today so many of these questions can be answered? Why the Delay?

Hopefully they have decided not to take the pennies on the dollar offer.

This thread is a joke.

Go to the ESPN website right now and you will find a Big East blog that will remain there. Go to rivals recruiting it says Big East. Go to any major college football website and you will find the Big East.

They will have the same problems the Sun Belt has if they get a new name. Getting a new name in basketball isn't really that big of a difference and the C7 league does not even have a Big East feel anymore. Yes there are Eastern teams but when I think Big East basketball I think of Cuse, Pitt, and UConn.

(02-26-2013 12:56 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  This thread is a joke.

Go to the ESPN website right now and you will find a Big East blog that will remain there. Go to rivals recruiting it says Big East. Go to any major college football website and you will find the Big East.

They will have the same problems the Sun Belt has if they get a new name. Getting a new name in basketball isn't really that big of a difference and the C7 league does not even have a Big East feel anymore. Yes there are Eastern teams but when I think Big East basketball I think of Cuse, Pitt, and UConn.

You're right; Tulane, ECU, SMU and UCF scream "Big East"! hahahaha

Im sure no one thinks of Georgetown and Villanova at all.

(02-26-2013 02:19 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:56 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  This thread is a joke.

Go to the ESPN website right now and you will find a Big East blog that will remain there. Go to rivals recruiting it says Big East. Go to any major college football website and you will find the Big East.

They will have the same problems the Sun Belt has if they get a new name. Getting a new name in basketball isn't really that big of a difference and the C7 league does not even have a Big East feel anymore. Yes there are Eastern teams but when I think Big East basketball I think of Cuse, Pitt, and UConn.

You're right; Tulane, ECU, SMU and UCF scream "Big East"! hahahaha

Im sure no one thinks of Georgetown and Villanova at all.

In my opinion neither conference screams Big East anymore. But ECU, Tulane, SMU, UCF are the ones joining the Big East not leaving it.

The catholic schools want to have their cake and eat it too. No matter how much people try and twist this proposal this is what your really trying to do.

1. You invited teams to join a conference and they accepted.
2. You got upset because other teams left
3. You announced that you were leaving the conference
4. You turn around and want to retain the conference name while (leaving)
5. Your pretty much hoping to un invite all of the football playing members but you have no way to.
6. Your telling them to make a new conference and all of the difficulties involved.

The reason the Big East members (Cincy, UConn, USF, Temple) and future members will never let this fly is because your asking them to take all of the risks.

(02-26-2013 12:56 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  They will have the same problems the Sun Belt has if they get a new name.

That's ridiculous. If C-USA rebranded tomorrow as the "American South", it wouldn't make any difference at all. The Sun Belt suffers from being FBS newbies, and very mildly from having a stupid name. If the Sun Belt rebranded tomorrow as the "American South Conference" tomorrow, they'd be very slightly better off.

Quote:Getting a new name in basketball isn't really that big of a difference and the C7 league does not even have a Big East feel anymore.

That's only because you don't know or care about basketball.

Quote:Yes there are Eastern teams but when I think Big East basketball I think of Cuse, Pitt, and UConn.

Pitt? Really.

(02-26-2013 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:Getting a new name in basketball isn't really that big of a difference and the C7 league does not even have a Big East feel anymore.

That's only because you don't know or care about basketball.

I've watched basketball my entire life. Grew up in the heart of ACC land and saw LOTS of Big East basketball. I'm sorry, but IMO the Trojan is right on this point.

(02-26-2013 08:04 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:Getting a new name in basketball isn't really that big of a difference and the C7 league does not even have a Big East feel anymore.

That's only because you don't know or care about basketball.

I've watched basketball my entire life. Grew up in the heart of ACC land and saw LOTS of Big East basketball. I'm sorry, but IMO the Trojan is right on this point.

So how exactly is a new name in basketball trivial, but a new name in football is crushing?

(02-26-2013 08:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 08:04 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:Getting a new name in basketball isn't really that big of a difference and the C7 league does not even have a Big East feel anymore.

That's only because you don't know or care about basketball.

I've watched basketball my entire life. Grew up in the heart of ACC land and saw LOTS of Big East basketball. I'm sorry, but IMO the Trojan is right on this point.

So how exactly is a new name in basketball trivial, but a new name in football is crushing?

Well the C7 schools other than Depaul and Marquette have been together for 30 years and have a common bond and identity that would be there whether the league kept the name or not. That is much like the MWC who were all together for years under the WAC banner. They didn't have to keep the name because they had an identity. The new Big East schools really have little identity. Even the ones who have been together since the beginning of C-USA don't really feel like they belong together. ECU never fit in a league with Houston and Memphis. The only common identity these schools have is they have no desire to be in the leagues below but can't get in the leagues above. No the Big East name doesn't solve those issues, but a new name with schools that don't really belong in a league together puts you behind the 8 ball in the same way that C-USA was when it started.

(02-26-2013 08:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 08:04 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:Getting a new name in basketball isn't really that big of a difference and the C7 league does not even have a Big East feel anymore.

That's only because you don't know or care about basketball.

I've watched basketball my entire life. Grew up in the heart of ACC land and saw LOTS of Big East basketball. I'm sorry, but IMO the Trojan is right on this point.

So how exactly is a new name in basketball trivial, but a new name in football is crushing?

I was only debating your tangent

(02-26-2013 08:57 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 08:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 08:04 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:Getting a new name in basketball isn't really that big of a difference and the C7 league does not even have a Big East feel anymore.

That's only because you don't know or care about basketball.

I've watched basketball my entire life. Grew up in the heart of ACC land and saw LOTS of Big East basketball. I'm sorry, but IMO the Trojan is right on this point.

So how exactly is a new name in basketball trivial, but a new name in football is crushing?

I was only debating your tangent

You said Trojan was right. What did you mean, then?

(02-26-2013 08:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 08:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 08:04 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 07:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:Getting a new name in basketball isn't really that big of a difference and the C7 league does not even have a Big East feel anymore.

That's only because you don't know or care about basketball.

I've watched basketball my entire life. Grew up in the heart of ACC land and saw LOTS of Big East basketball. I'm sorry, but IMO the Trojan is right on this point.

So how exactly is a new name in basketball trivial, but a new name in football is crushing?

Well the C7 schools other than Depaul and Marquette have been together for 30 years and have a common bond and identity that would be there whether the league kept the name or not.

Well, yeah, that's why the name would make us some extra money.

Quote:The new Big East schools really have little identity. Even the ones who have been together since the beginning of C-USA don't really feel like they belong together.

I don't think that's true.

Urban publics--UConn*, Temple, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, USF, Houston
Urban privates--SMU, Tulane
Rural publics--ECU
Service academy--Navy maybe

That's 7 out of 10 or 11. It's not so much that the league doesn't fit together, as that ECU is an outlier.

Quote:No the Big East name doesn't solve those issues, but a new name with schools that don't really belong in a league together puts you behind the 8 ball in the same way that C-USA was when it started.

If you're going to fail as the Metro Conference or Big 11, you're going to fail as the Big East. The Metro Conference tag doesn't fit ECU, but it fits and has plenty of history with Cincinnati, Memphis and Tulane, fits with USF, UCF, Houston, SMU and Temple, fits well enough with UConn. (And South Florida was in the Metro for about five minutes).

I still don't think the name is worth more to you guys than half of the Realignment Fund.

(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.

I agree. Since UConn is the only remaining school to both play BE football and be in the conference since it formed; the name should reside in Storrs.