(10-09-2012 12:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 11:58 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-08-2012 10:39 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  BYU needs a conference to make some concessions for them and the Big East has shown a propensity to make concessions for property they want to acquire or keep badly enough.

The concessions BYU wanted makes them of no value to any conference. They wanted to keep control of their home games to sell on their own, which bascially means BYU is no more valuable than any OOC game that conference could sign. It would be absolutely stupid for ANY conference to agree with that. The only way there is a benefit to that, is if theyjoin the conference, but get no TV money for it, and do not share in split bowl revenue. Otherwise you are losing money by adding them.

Agreed. ND was ultimately given the same revenue as any other basketball member of the Big East. What BYU is asking for is the equivalent of ND asking for home TV rights for its home *basketball* games. That's a *fundamental* issue at stake here that isn't something that will be smoothed out by the standard response of "If there's enough money, then it will happen."

What's wrong with giving them the same tier rights they are getting right now with their ESPN contract? If they come for football-only, it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal as long as our own media contract get 1st rights and maybe see if there is some agreement on the 2nd tier rights for the conference. I may be wrong but I was under the impression the breakdown last year was over 3rd tier rights.

(07-08-2012 11:34 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  

(07-08-2012 07:41 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-08-2012 07:07 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  

(07-08-2012 10:47 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-08-2012 10:39 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  I think BYU and the Big East would be a good match. BYU needs a conference to make some concessions for them and the Big East has shown a propensity to make concessions for property they want to acquire or keep badly enough. BYU would benefit in scheduling quite a bit. There's no denying the league will be continue to be good in basketball. Overall I think it's just a good fit on both sides because BYU is probably the best property that's actually available and the Big East needs more western teams.

Don't expect the Big East bashing to stop anytime soon. That's nothing new - it's been cool to bash the Big East since the first round of defections and if your school is just getting here you'll probably see quickly that there is likely no end in sight.

Im sorry, who have we made concessions for?

And the part about Big East bashing, all I have to say is...

Miami and ND.

What Miami concessions? Also what Notre Dame concessions? Because ND is a everything but FB member? Please, we have FB onlys too.

Miami was offered additional revenue to stay in 2003.

http://articles.courant.com/2003-07-01/n...-acc-offer

ND being able to compete in all sports but football in the Big East is absolutely a concession. You are correct that the conference has football only schools, however, don't you think most of them would like to play Big East basketball?

Finally, you don't have to be a jerk about everything. The point of this is that the Big East is a good fit for BYU because BYU will require some concessions and the Big East has shown a propensity to do things like this in the past and being that it's a hybrid conference they make it work.

If you can't see that or you have some sort of weird inferiority problem with those facts being stated then I don't know what to tell you.

A minor concession to Miami was that they were allowed to play baseball as an independent despite the BE having a baseball conference.

As posted in a new thread, but relevant in this one, too, more speculation by the Salt Lake Tribune, that BYU could join the BE:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/5504...n.html.csp

(10-09-2012 12:18 PM)mj4life Wrote:  not implying that they are,with so many obstacles in the way to full membership this might provide a way to help both. if both are up for it you could restrict it to the top 5 teams from the BE from year to year. a schedule that consists of louisville,cincinnati,boise state & company provides a solid but not unmanageable schedule & gives the BE a opponent that tv execs don't mind putting on national tv

Teh obstacles are self created. BYU would be a nice addition. But not at the price of speacial treatment. BYU, for example, is not more valuable than some existing members, who do not get special treatment.

(10-09-2012 01:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 12:18 PM)mj4life Wrote:  not implying that they are,with so many obstacles in the way to full membership this might provide a way to help both. if both are up for it you could restrict it to the top 5 teams from the BE from year to year. a schedule that consists of louisville,cincinnati,boise state & company provides a solid but not unmanageable schedule & gives the BE a opponent that tv execs don't mind putting on national tv

Teh obstacles are self created. BYU would be a nice addition. But not at the price of speacial treatment. BYU, for example, is not more valuable than some existing members, who do not get special treatment.

i meant as a football only arrangement if you can't work out full football or all sport membership

(10-09-2012 01:04 PM)Road Apple Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 12:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 11:58 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-08-2012 10:39 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  BYU needs a conference to make some concessions for them and the Big East has shown a propensity to make concessions for property they want to acquire or keep badly enough.

The concessions BYU wanted makes them of no value to any conference. They wanted to keep control of their home games to sell on their own, which bascially means BYU is no more valuable than any OOC game that conference could sign. It would be absolutely stupid for ANY conference to agree with that. The only way there is a benefit to that, is if theyjoin the conference, but get no TV money for it, and do not share in split bowl revenue. Otherwise you are losing money by adding them.

Agreed. ND was ultimately given the same revenue as any other basketball member of the Big East. What BYU is asking for is the equivalent of ND asking for home TV rights for its home *basketball* games. That's a *fundamental* issue at stake here that isn't something that will be smoothed out by the standard response of "If there's enough money, then it will happen."

What's wrong with giving them the same tier rights they are getting right now with their ESPN contract? If they come for football-only, it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal as long as our own media contract get 1st rights and maybe see if there is some agreement on the 2nd tier rights for the conference. I may be wrong but I was under the impression the breakdown last year was over 3rd tier rights.

No, it's not just about 3rd tier rights. BYU wants live TV rights to ALL of their home games (AKA all tiers). That's what killed the discussions. So, the Big East would only have TV rights to BYU's 4 conference road games and nothing further. That makes little sense for the Big East to do.

(10-09-2012 12:18 PM)mj4life Wrote:  not implying that they are,with so many obstacles in the way to full membership this might provide a way to help both. if both are up for it you could restrict it to the top 5 teams from the BE from year to year.

Why on Earth would the Big East agree to a deal liek that? Why would anyone? Notre Dame did not even get that type of deal. They have to play five ACC teams at the descetion and location of the ACC's choosing, and they do not even get to share in that money (football). And you want BYU to get to play a partial big east schedule, against the conference's best teams in a given year, where the BE would not get anything for it (under the BYU's terms).

(10-09-2012 03:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  No, it's not just about 3rd tier rights. BYU wants live TV rights to ALL of their home games (AKA all tiers). That's what killed the discussions. So, the Big East would only have TV rights to BYU's 4 conference road games and nothing further. That makes little sense for the Big East to do.

Exactly. Basically it is a scheduling arrangement.

(10-09-2012 04:10 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 12:18 PM)mj4life Wrote:  not implying that they are,with so many obstacles in the way to full membership this might provide a way to help both. if both are up for it you could restrict it to the top 5 teams from the BE from year to year.

Why on Earth would the Big East agree to a deal liek that? Why would anyone? Notre Dame did not even get that type of deal. They have to play five ACC teams at the descetion and location of the ACC's choosing, and they do not even get to share in that money (football). And you want BYU to get to play a partial big east schedule, against the conference's best teams in a given year, where the BE would not get anything for it (under the BYU's terms).

i mean let byu keep its money from espn & the big east keep it's moneyfrom whomever owns it's rights(same as nd/acc). have them play 5 ooc games against the big east & let them stay in the big west in other sports. by playing the top 5 every year might bolster each one's sos & give each other primetime exposure.

(10-09-2012 04:17 PM)mj4life Wrote:  have them play 5 ooc games against the big east & let them stay in the big west in other sports. by playing the top 5 every year might bolster each one's sos & give each other primetime exposure.

I don;t think you get it. When you do that, you also harm the rest of the league, as you are taking valuable conference games from the teams perceived as the "top teams" away from the rest of the conference. If Louisville, Boise, Cincy, USF, and UConn are considered the five best teams that year, if they all play BYU, that means you are taking away one game from each of those schools to another school in the conference, or perhaps each other. And for what benefit?

(10-09-2012 04:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:17 PM)mj4life Wrote:  have them play 5 ooc games against the big east & let them stay in the big west in other sports. by playing the top 5 every year might bolster each one's sos & give each other primetime exposure.

I don;t think you get it. When you do that, you also harm the rest of the league, as you are taking valuable conference games from the teams perceived as the "top teams" away from the rest of the conference. If Louisville, Boise, Cincy, USF, and UConn are considered the five best teams that year, if they all play BYU, that means you are taking away one game from each of those schools to another school in the conference, or perhaps each other. And for what benefit?

i completely understand. all i'm say is it might not be a bad idea to form some type of partnership with byu if you can't get them to join full time.

(10-09-2012 04:38 PM)mj4life Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:17 PM)mj4life Wrote:  have them play 5 ooc games against the big east & let them stay in the big west in other sports. by playing the top 5 every year might bolster each one's sos & give each other primetime exposure.

I don;t think you get it. When you do that, you also harm the rest of the league, as you are taking valuable conference games from the teams perceived as the "top teams" away from the rest of the conference. If Louisville, Boise, Cincy, USF, and UConn are considered the five best teams that year, if they all play BYU, that means you are taking away one game from each of those schools to another school in the conference, or perhaps each other. And for what benefit?

i completely understand. all i'm say is it might not be a bad idea to form some type of partnership with byu if you can't get them to join full time.

I for one couldn't disagree more on any kind of partnership other than a BYU membership as #14. Have you seen their ratings for their games on ESPN this year? You think that would help us get a better media contract with BYU as a "partner?" ND brings the crowds and romance and a history of Knute Rockne and the 4 horsemen. BYU brings a church school who won a national champioinship 40 years ago. That's why the best bowl game they will get this year is the Poinsettia Bowl with a $500,000 pay out.

They might be one of the best options out there, but we all need to stop thinking they are worth so much more than what they are. Why compromise our conference just to get BYU as a "partner" and a watered down version of ND?

It's ludicrous that we would consider compromising the conference when we can get Air Force or Fresno State, or even ECU, who bring good value to the league without the headache and BS. This league can make it just fine, abet a little harder, without BYU. Its important at this stage of rebuilding that we prove to everyone we stand on our own merits. If BYU wants a part of OUR action then great, but they should be all in or nothing, especially for football only.

Like everyone else, I want them to come, but if it is a repeat of Nov 2011, then we need to look else where. If BYU declines again then there are a number of good teams that would make us pretty damned good 14-team league with a good TV contract, a decent bowl game, and probably more stability without resorting to a Big East +1 again.

(10-09-2012 04:38 PM)mj4life Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:17 PM)mj4life Wrote:  have them play 5 ooc games against the big east & let them stay in the big west in other sports. by playing the top 5 every year might bolster each one's sos & give each other primetime exposure.

I don;t think you get it. When you do that, you also harm the rest of the league, as you are taking valuable conference games from the teams perceived as the "top teams" away from the rest of the conference. If Louisville, Boise, Cincy, USF, and UConn are considered the five best teams that year, if they all play BYU, that means you are taking away one game from each of those schools to another school in the conference, or perhaps each other. And for what benefit?

i completely understand. all i'm say is it might not be a bad idea to form some type of partnership with byu if you can't get them to join full time.

No way they join as a complete member or they can stay indy.

(10-09-2012 05:55 PM)Road Apple Wrote:  BYU brings a church school who won a national champioinship 40 years ago. That's why the best bowl game they will get this year is the Poinsettia Bowl with a $500,000 pay out.

Not go off topic here, but BYU last won a championship in the mid 1980's. That is not 40 years ago. In fact, it was only four years prior to ND's last title.

(10-09-2012 06:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 05:55 PM)Road Apple Wrote:  BYU brings a church school who won a national champioinship 40 years ago. That's why the best bowl game they will get this year is the Poinsettia Bowl with a $500,000 pay out.

Not go off topic here, but BYU last won a championship in the mid 1980's. That is not 40 years ago. In fact, it was only four years prior to ND's last title.

You are correct; 1984 actually. Twenty-eight years ago. The guys on today's BYU team were not even born yet. But that reinforces my point that their one great accomplishment so long ago is not worth a +1 partnership over a Big East membership. ND won 13.

Well of NBE members, only SMU even has a claim to a national championship (from what is now known as FBS) in the last 140 years. And no, that is not a typo.