Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
Author Message
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,356
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
(02-22-2013 09:53 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Maybe on the financial side but that is far different that what the average joe thinks when he hears Big East vs. C-USA. That, my friend, does have value.

Not for long, if the Big East is you guys. The "average Joe" who you're hoping to con into thinking you must have played Pitt last week and Syracuse the week before that thinks the football league disbanded anyway.
02-22-2013 10:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bones N Skulls Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 296
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 9
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
There is value to the name with the new schools who need some brand equity for promotion. They have already taken a hit from the TV deal and the key to an increase in the next deal is brand awareness and performance. The C7 will have the same issues. The best of the old BE is gone. Even as a basketball only entity it's overvalued. UConn will still be in the BE and the rest of the top performing schools are gone, so the C7 needs a rebranding and needs to develop some on court performance as well.
The new BE members were the best of CUSa for the most part; should they have taken the name with them? No. The C7 for the most part were not even the best of the old BE in recent times and yet they want to take the name with them?
02-23-2013 07:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,356
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
(02-23-2013 07:11 AM)Bones N Skulls Wrote:  The new BE members were the best of CUSa for the most part; should they have taken the name with them? No.

Once again, we're not withdrawing from the conference, we're splitting the conference into two parts.

Imagine that the current C-USA schools have made an agreement that, when the time is right, they will split into an eastern and a western conference. Wouldn't you expect the eastern side, with Southern Miss and UAB, to keep the name if they want it?
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2013 07:40 AM by johnbragg.)
02-23-2013 07:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,107
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 499
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
C7 lose the name, and get nothing for it. They are leaving to start a new conf.
02-23-2013 07:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bones N Skulls Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 296
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 9
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
(02-23-2013 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 07:11 AM)Bones N Skulls Wrote:  The new BE members were the best of CUSa for the most part; should they have taken the name with them? No.

Once again, we're not withdrawing from the conference, we're splitting the conference into two parts.

Imagine that the current C-USA schools have made an agreement that, when the time is right, they will split into an eastern and a western conference. Wouldn't you expect the eastern side, with Southern Miss and UAB, to keep the name if they want it?

That is a preposterous statement. The C7 has withdrawn. They did it as a group to avoid exit fees, thus confirming conference "exit". They are inviting new members. They are actively looking for a commissioner. They are looking for staff. That is, no matter how you try to spin it, a new conference. There will be no association between the groups, so it can't be two parts of the same conference. The C7 wanted and initiated the split, and had to do so knowing the conference brand name would be at risk. And, as another poster postulated, the name may be much less valuable to the school presidents than it is to their fans.
02-23-2013 08:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,356
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
(02-23-2013 08:07 AM)Bones N Skulls Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 07:11 AM)Bones N Skulls Wrote:  The new BE members were the best of CUSa for the most part; should they have taken the name with them? No.

Once again, we're not withdrawing from the conference, we're splitting the conference into two parts.

Imagine that the current C-USA schools have made an agreement that, when the time is right, they will split into an eastern and a western conference. Wouldn't you expect the eastern side, with Southern Miss and UAB, to keep the name if they want it?

That is a preposterous statement. The C7 has withdrawn. They did it as a group to avoid exit fees, thus confirming conference "exit". They are inviting new members. They are actively looking for a commissioner. They are looking for staff. That is, no matter how you try to spin it, a new conference. There will be no association between the groups, so it can't be two parts of the same conference. The C7 wanted and initiated the split, and had to do so knowing the conference brand name would be at risk.

goodknightfl Wrote:C7 lose the name, and get nothing for it. They are leaving to start a new conf.

So, you guys are OK with the C-7 taking half the Realignment Fund and 50-70% of the Syracuse/Louisville/Pitt/West Virginia credits? Because that's what it looks like, if you keep the name. That's an "equitable distribution of assets".

Quote:And, as another poster postulated, the name may be much less valuable to the school presidents than it is to their fans.
I may be overvaluing the name at $25M or so. If so, that means less money for you guys.
02-23-2013 08:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bones N Skulls Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 296
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 9
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
(02-23-2013 08:42 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 08:07 AM)Bones N Skulls Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 07:11 AM)Bones N Skulls Wrote:  The new BE members were the best of CUSa for the most part; should they have taken the name with them? No.

Once again, we're not withdrawing from the conference, we're splitting the conference into two parts.

Imagine that the current C-USA schools have made an agreement that, when the time is right, they will split into an eastern and a western conference. Wouldn't you expect the eastern side, with Southern Miss and UAB, to keep the name if they want it?

That is a preposterous statement. The C7 has withdrawn. They did it as a group to avoid exit fees, thus confirming conference "exit". They are inviting new members. They are actively looking for a commissioner. They are looking for staff. That is, no matter how you try to spin it, a new conference. There will be no association between the groups, so it can't be two parts of the same conference. The C7 wanted and initiated the split, and had to do so knowing the conference brand name would be at risk.

goodknightfl Wrote:C7 lose the name, and get nothing for it. They are leaving to start a new conf.

So, you guys are OK with the C-7 taking half the Realignment Fund and 50-70% of the Syracuse/Louisville/Pitt/West Virginia credits? Because that's what it looks like, if you keep the name. That's an "equitable distribution of assets".

Quote:And, as another poster postulated, the name may be much less valuable to the school presidents than it is to their fans.
I may be overvaluing the name at $25M or so. If so, that means less money for you guys.

Your confidence in your conjecture is admirable , but as neither of us is privy to or a part of the negotiation, one opinion is as irrelevant as the other.
02-23-2013 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
apex_pirate Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,820
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 95
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
(02-22-2013 10:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-22-2013 09:53 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Maybe on the financial side but that is far different that what the average joe thinks when he hears Big East vs. C-USA. That, my friend, does have value.

Not for long, if the Big East is you guys. The "average Joe" who you're hoping to con into thinking you must have played Pitt last week and Syracuse the week before that thinks the football league disbanded anyway.

Way to twist it WAY beyond what I actually meant. It isn't black or white.
02-23-2013 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fear The Frog Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 996
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 32
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
Value of the Big East name is 20-25 million the Networks made the Value...

So is this to high for the C7 ?
Or to low for the NBE ?

The C7 Value the history of the name...

I Think the market value already been shown so why not let the C7 have the name for {20-25 million } and use the money to help out NBE teams who though were going get more cash ?

Not like the media deal going to go up or down the price has been set..
02-23-2013 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 449
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #30
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
(02-23-2013 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 07:11 AM)Bones N Skulls Wrote:  The new BE members were the best of CUSa for the most part; should they have taken the name with them? No.

Once again, we're not withdrawing from the conference, we're splitting the conference into two parts.

Imagine that the current C-USA schools have made an agreement that, when the time is right, they will split into an eastern and a western conference. Wouldn't you expect the eastern side, with Southern Miss and UAB, to keep the name if they want it?

Now that is a helluva stretch of the truth - even by this board's notoriously low standard. Well done.
02-23-2013 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sierrajip Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,697
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 187
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
(02-23-2013 03:02 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 07:11 AM)Bones N Skulls Wrote:  The new BE members were the best of CUSa for the most part; should they have taken the name with them? No.

Once again, we're not withdrawing from the conference, we're splitting the conference into two parts.

Imagine that the current C-USA schools have made an agreement that, when the time is right, they will split into an eastern and a western conference. Wouldn't you expect the eastern side, with Southern Miss and UAB, to keep the name if they want it?

Now that is a helluva stretch of the truth - even by this board's notoriously low standard. Well done.

Maybe that is the C7's legal strategy. 01-lauramac2
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2013 03:15 PM by sierrajip.)
02-23-2013 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gray Avenger Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,451
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 744
I Root For: MEMPHIS
Location: Memphis
Post: #32
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
(02-22-2013 01:28 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  My guess....

C7 leaves with no penalty
C7 leaves after next season
NBE gets the Big East name
NBE gets the pot of remaining exit fees
Tourney credits are split between C7 and Big East


Pretty fair all the way around

Agreed. 04-cheers
02-24-2013 12:03 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,356
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
(02-23-2013 03:14 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 03:02 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-23-2013 07:11 AM)Bones N Skulls Wrote:  The new BE members were the best of CUSa for the most part; should they have taken the name with them? No.

Once again, we're not withdrawing from the conference, we're splitting the conference into two parts.

Imagine that the current C-USA schools have made an agreement that, when the time is right, they will split into an eastern and a western conference. Wouldn't you expect the eastern side, with Southern Miss and UAB, to keep the name if they want it?

Now that is a helluva stretch of the truth - even by this board's notoriously low standard. Well done.

Maybe that is the C7's legal strategy. 01-lauramac2

It's not just the legal strategy--it was the plan at the time the Pre-Nup was written. The football schools were ready to bolt in 2003, but couldn't do it without losing their autobid. So the plan was that the hybrid would let each side get 6-schools-for-5-years, and then split. (People didn't factor in the 16-team Big East being so wildly successful.)

That's why it helps to imagine a CUSA West-CUSA East split. They can't do it now, but let's pretend that's the long-term plan for 2017.

That's why we get half, Eddie.

That's why Knighttime's list:

Quote:C7 leaves with no penalty
C7 leaves after next season
NBE gets the Big East name
NBE gets the pot of remaining exit fees
Tourney credits are split between C7 and Big East

Doesn't quite work.

Quote:C7 leaves with no penalty
That's not really up for negotiation.
Quote:C7 leaves after next season
That's only a concession compared to 2015. No one else has been bound by the 27-month clause, so it's not much of a concession.
Quote:NBE gets the Big East name
And what do we get in return?
Quote:NBE gets the pot of remaining exit fees
And what do we get in return?
Quote:Tourney credits are split between C7 and Big East
Not really up for negotiation either. What the split is (50/50? 70/30?) probably is, though.

So of the issues:
1. Separation Date
2. Name
3. Realignment Fund--including entry fees
4. Tournament credits

You've given the Aresco League 2 and 3, made minor concessions on 1, and haven't really made any concessions on 4.

IF you want the name, we get half of the exit fees and entry fees.
02-24-2013 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,356
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
Shorter version: One side is going to get half the money, plus something for the name. One side is going to get half the money, minus something for the name. Or, possibly, each side gets half the money and the C-7 leave at the end of this season.
02-24-2013 12:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Speculation: How a C-7-Old Big East-New Big East deal could shape up
(02-24-2013 12:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Shorter version: One side is going to get half the money, plus something for the name. One side is going to get half the money, minus something for the name. Or, possibly, each side gets half the money and the C-7 leave at the end of this season.

I think that's the key. The prenup envisioned someone leaving. The idea was to split the assets, but the name was never considered to be part of the negotiation as long as someone was staying. In fact, it was the basketball schools who expected the football schools to leave. Thus, when the prenup was written, the basketball schools assumed that the name would remain theirs since the football teams were leaving and the existing conference would continue regular operations. What would be the basis for the football schools to leave AND take the name?

I think it's time for John to file a FOIA request from Rutgers on the prenup related information. Without that document, all we can do is speculate.
02-24-2013 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.