(05-07-2012 05:19 PM)ollin Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  LOL anybody that truly believes that Pitt and Cuse wouldn't had moved to ACC had UCF been added and league accepted ESPNs deal has no clue. Reality ANY Big East schoos would have left and will eave if an invite fom the other current 5 BCS conferences comes along.

I'm not a fan with hypotheticals, but if they did sign the TV deal each school would have to sign a contract. BE teams signed a 5 year deal with the last TV deal. It ended in 2010 and schools were able to leave.

A contract? It would have still benn broken. You really think that those two would have not taken an ACC invite because UCF came on board?

(05-07-2012 03:10 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But given that the firing occurs at a time when we are dealing with two critical issues that stand far above any others right now - playoff system negotiations and new media deals - it stands to reason that it was his performance on those issues that precipitated the firing.

(1) The BCS termination of AQ status was neither unexpected or anything Marrinato could have done to prevent

(2) TV negotiations don't even begin until next Fall.

(1) Termination of AQ isn't the only issue here, the bigger one is division of revenue in the new playoff system. That is ongoing, right now. And (2) clearly, our strategy for the media negotiations is in the works.

There is no way to spin this firing as being outside the context of those two huge events.

(05-07-2012 05:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:03 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 12:10 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What "spin"? Only someone with their head buried in the sand would suggest that this is anything but a BAD sign about the Big East's revenue prospects in the new playoff system and media negotiations.

I know you like to think of yourself as this board's version of Fox News ("Fair & Balanced" which typically means "takes the opposite viewpoint of the mainstream opinion"), but this one's over the top. While I can understand that there could be negative consequences from this move, SURELY you can see that there are scenarios where there could also be positive ones.

Come ON. Sure, it is possible that this firing is "positive" in some way, but clearly, the overwhelmingly obvious conclusion is that this reflects NEGATIVE beliefs among the university presidents of his leadership of the Big East.

My goodness, if they had given him a raise, then you could claim that this bodes well for media/playoff negotiations. But when you FIRE the man leading those efforts, it almost surely means the presidents think things are NOT going well on those fronts.

Hence my point about hyperbole. You've already gone from "only somebody whose head was buried in the sand" to "sure it's possible" but with lots of hyperbolic "clearly the OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS conclusion" and "almost surely."

Yeah, you nailed me. I've backtracked from about 100% certain this firing is a negative thing for our TV deal/BCS negotiations all the way down to ... 98% sure. Point taken.

You're really 98%-100% sure of something that is a complete guess on your part?

How did Neinas with the Big 12's contract after Beebe's ouster?

(05-07-2012 05:14 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:10 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 04:57 PM)ollin Wrote:  Must read.
http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/18985030

That's really pushing up my Marinatto sympathy. Ultimately he was the wrong man for the job...but the presidents wouldn't let him do the job.

He was too nice of a guy. BE needed a slimy ball scumbag like Swofford. Swofford did everything in the shadows like a thief. Unfortunately in this cut throat world of college athletics, you needed a scumbag like Swofford who can lie and plot in the shadows. Marinatto was too nice of guy and he simply did not fit the profile.

Yup. We needed a shark, and instead we got chum.

(05-07-2012 05:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  LOL anybody that truly believes that Pitt and Cuse wouldn't had moved to ACC had UCF been added and league accepted ESPNs deal has no clue. Reality ANY Big East schoos would have left and will eave if an invite fom the other current 5 BCS conferences comes along.

Yep, that was true 5 years ago, 1 year ago, and today.

(05-07-2012 05:22 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:19 PM)ollin Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  LOL anybody that truly believes that Pitt and Cuse wouldn't had moved to ACC had UCF been added and league accepted ESPNs deal has no clue. Reality ANY Big East schoos would have left and will eave if an invite fom the other current 5 BCS conferences comes along.

I'm not a fan with hypotheticals, but if they did sign the TV deal each school would have to sign a contract. BE teams signed a 5 year deal with the last TV deal. It ended in 2010 and schools were able to leave.

A contract? It would have still benn broken. You really think that those two would have not taken an ACC invite because UCF came on board?

I'm not a fan of hypotheticals either, but does the opportunity to join the ACC ever arise if both leagues are snuggled safely in the bosom of the WWL?

(05-07-2012 05:18 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:44 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:12 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  In some sense, it's a reactionary one, true. But it's most likely a reaction to his lack of leadership and vision, not necessarily any one action. The sense I was trying to portray is that his canning wasn't due to some action, but rather a vague sense that someone else could do the job better and with more savvy. There are people who get fired all the time who do a "good" job, but the BE needs someone to do a great job, and I don't think Marinatto was up to that task.

I agree with you, that it probably wasn't any one particular action but a cumulative sense that JM asn't up to the job.

But given that the firing occurs at a time when we are dealing with two critical issues that stand far above any others right now - playoff system negotiations and new media deals - it stands to reason that it was his performance on those issues that precipitated the firing.

Or at least his anticipated performance. From the list McMurphy proposed of potential candidates, there are some really strong ones - especailly those who are media savvy, which Marinatto is not. John wanted the BE to sign the ESPN deal last year, which was turned down by the Presidents, who I guess are convinced it could be bigger. In any event, the position requires stronger leadership than John was able to provide. That is being rectified now, versus this fall when the actual negotiations take place.

I would agree, except that the negotiations for the other critical issue - the form of the playoff system and division of its revenues - are taking place right now.

And you think that M has pull with the other commishs?

No i do not. If he did, then that would likely mean the Big East was going to get revenue parity in the new playoff system, and that he wouldn't be getting fired.

(05-07-2012 05:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:18 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:44 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with you, that it probably wasn't any one particular action but a cumulative sense that JM asn't up to the job.

But given that the firing occurs at a time when we are dealing with two critical issues that stand far above any others right now - playoff system negotiations and new media deals - it stands to reason that it was his performance on those issues that precipitated the firing.

Or at least his anticipated performance. From the list McMurphy proposed of potential candidates, there are some really strong ones - especailly those who are media savvy, which Marinatto is not. John wanted the BE to sign the ESPN deal last year, which was turned down by the Presidents, who I guess are convinced it could be bigger. In any event, the position requires stronger leadership than John was able to provide. That is being rectified now, versus this fall when the actual negotiations take place.

I would agree, except that the negotiations for the other critical issue - the form of the playoff system and division of its revenues - are taking place right now.

And you think that M has pull with the other commishs?

No i do not. If he did, then that would likely mean the Big East was going to get revenue parity in the new playoff system, and that he wouldn't be getting fired.

And you know all this how? I've never come across someone that is so far removed from reality. Someone that runs with their assumptions so much, it's like they're living in their own butthole.

(05-07-2012 05:22 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:19 PM)ollin Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  LOL anybody that truly believes that Pitt and Cuse wouldn't had moved to ACC had UCF been added and league accepted ESPNs deal has no clue. Reality ANY Big East schoos would have left and will eave if an invite fom the other current 5 BCS conferences comes along.

I'm not a fan with hypotheticals, but if they did sign the TV deal each school would have to sign a contract. BE teams signed a 5 year deal with the last TV deal. It ended in 2010 and schools were able to leave.

A contract? It would have still benn broken. You really think that those two would have not taken an ACC invite because UCF came on board?

I do agree schools would have left for ACC no matter what and the TV deal with ESPN wasn't that great to begin with.

(05-07-2012 03:03 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:59 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Ironic to me that most people on here have complained for years that Marinatto needed to go, so when he finally gets fired, now people are wringing their hands about it.

Haters are going to hate no matter what! Negative nellies, and they know who they are. Same nellies every day on this board.

Actually it's a pretty classic case of "who moved my cheese". A classic book that should be standard reading for many of us in conferences other than the BiG or Pac12

(05-07-2012 05:22 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:19 PM)ollin Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  LOL anybody that truly believes that Pitt and Cuse wouldn't had moved to ACC had UCF been added and league accepted ESPNs deal has no clue. Reality ANY Big East schoos would have left and will eave if an invite fom the other current 5 BCS conferences comes along.

I'm not a fan with hypotheticals, but if they did sign the TV deal each school would have to sign a contract. BE teams signed a 5 year deal with the last TV deal. It ended in 2010 and schools were able to leave.

A contract? It would have still benn broken. You really think that those two would have not taken an ACC invite because UCF came on board?

Of course, there is a pecking order in conferences, that's why Oklahoma tried to get out of the big12, why Nebraska, Cu, aTm and Mizzou did get out, etc and it's why SDSU worked behind the scenes to finagle it's way into the big east, why all those teams went to the MWC and CUSA.

Tier 1: Big10,Pac10, SEC, Notre Dame, Texas
Tier 2: Big12, ACC
Tier 3: Big East
Tier 4: MWC, CUSA
Tier 5: the rest

Everyone would take a promotion to the next tier if they could - it's how this game works.

For people that have been around running businesses, you don't fire someone other than cause unless you got someone else lined up. Since Marinatto was forced out, I would assume they got someone lined up for the job already. I am guessing they will announce the hire right before the BE meeting in a few weeks.

(05-07-2012 05:30 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:03 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:59 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Ironic to me that most people on here have complained for years that Marinatto needed to go, so when he finally gets fired, now people are wringing their hands about it.

Haters are going to hate no matter what! Negative nellies, and they know who they are. Same nellies every day on this board.

Actually it's a pretty classic case of "who moved my cheese". A classic book that should be standard reading for many of us in conferences other than the BiG or Pac12

And how is Craig Thompson working out for you guys??

I didn't see him at the SJSU or USU press conferences.

He's a real gem.

(05-07-2012 05:28 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:18 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:44 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Or at least his anticipated performance. From the list McMurphy proposed of potential candidates, there are some really strong ones - especailly those who are media savvy, which Marinatto is not. John wanted the BE to sign the ESPN deal last year, which was turned down by the Presidents, who I guess are convinced it could be bigger. In any event, the position requires stronger leadership than John was able to provide. That is being rectified now, versus this fall when the actual negotiations take place.

I would agree, except that the negotiations for the other critical issue - the form of the playoff system and division of its revenues - are taking place right now.

And you think that M has pull with the other commishs?

No i do not. If he did, then that would likely mean the Big East was going to get revenue parity in the new playoff system, and that he wouldn't be getting fired.

And you know all this how? I've never come across someone that is so far removed from reality. Someone that runs with their assumptions so much, it's like they're living in their own butthole.

Steve is omniscient, and disagreement is futile. Continuing to argue will only suck you into the infinite vortex of futility.



USFFan

(05-07-2012 05:33 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  For people that have been around running businesses, you don't fire someone other than cause unless you got someone else lined up. Since Marinatto was forced out, I would assume they got someone lined up for the job already. I am guessing they will announce the hire right before the BE meeting in a few weeks.

While I agree this is generally true, I don't put a lot of faith in our particular set of presidents to be working that efficiently. But I'd love to be pleasantly surprised!

(05-07-2012 05:34 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:28 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:18 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I would agree, except that the negotiations for the other critical issue - the form of the playoff system and division of its revenues - are taking place right now.

And you think that M has pull with the other commishs?

No i do not. If he did, then that would likely mean the Big East was going to get revenue parity in the new playoff system, and that he wouldn't be getting fired.

And you know all this how? I've never come across someone that is so far removed from reality. Someone that runs with their assumptions so much, it's like they're living in their own butthole.

Steve is omniscient, and disagreement is futile. Continuing to argue will only suck you into the infinite vortex of futility.



USFFan

ROFL!!! I believe I heard a sucking sound.

(05-07-2012 05:34 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:30 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:03 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:59 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Ironic to me that most people on here have complained for years that Marinatto needed to go, so when he finally gets fired, now people are wringing their hands about it.

Haters are going to hate no matter what! Negative nellies, and they know who they are. Same nellies every day on this board.

Actually it's a pretty classic case of "who moved my cheese". A classic book that should be standard reading for many of us in conferences other than the BiG or Pac12

And how is Craig Thompson working out for you guys??

I didn't see him at the SJSU or USU press conferences.

He's a real gem.

Big 12 canned DanDanJuice, Big East canned Meatball and the MWC should have canned the Hair. Instead, they let a CUSA on life support not only keep UTEP and/or Tulsa but add all the Texas teams and keep the MWC landlocked with no future roads to expansion.

1 conf. surely did what was right, 1 we will see, and the other kept their guy and destroyed their future.

(05-07-2012 05:34 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:30 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:03 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:59 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Ironic to me that most people on here have complained for years that Marinatto needed to go, so when he finally gets fired, now people are wringing their hands about it.

Haters are going to hate no matter what! Negative nellies, and they know who they are. Same nellies every day on this board.

Actually it's a pretty classic case of "who moved my cheese". A classic book that should be standard reading for many of us in conferences other than the BiG or Pac12

And how is Craig Thompson working out for you guys??

I didn't see him at the SJSU or USU press conferences.

He's a real gem.

Funny you mention it. Both he and Meatball as you call him were hamstrung by Presidents with limited vision. A desire to maximize short term revenue and an obsession with Texas.

Had the MWC added Boise, Nevada, Fresno and Hawaii long ago and went to 12 they would be in a much stronger position than today. Instead they gave the same old argument about splitting the pie more ways instead of making the conference stronger and more attractive.

TCU was a good add but was certain to be poached if they got any good as the big east did and then the big 12 did. Both conferences also made bad decisions on TV contracts. The problem was minimalist thinking by adding 1 or 2 stop gaps rather than executing a larger vision.

At least Thompson got smarter and moved that direction while the Big East remained committed to incrementalism. They could have/should have stayed with 8 football in the east that paired with the 8 in basketball for a strong condensed basketball conference instead of the mess that got John fired. The basketball schools would have been happier playing each other more often.

They then could have taken the top eight out west to form a strong western group. Likely Boise, Fresno, SDSU, UNLV, Hawaii, New Mexico, and either Colorado st/ Wyoming or Houston/SMU. These eight would form solid football and their own all sports conference with likely adding BYU. You jointly negotiate the TV package.

Thompson tried to sell that vision but John wouldn't even listen. He deserved to get fired.

(05-07-2012 05:28 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:18 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 05:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 02:44 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Or at least his anticipated performance. From the list McMurphy proposed of potential candidates, there are some really strong ones - especailly those who are media savvy, which Marinatto is not. John wanted the BE to sign the ESPN deal last year, which was turned down by the Presidents, who I guess are convinced it could be bigger. In any event, the position requires stronger leadership than John was able to provide. That is being rectified now, versus this fall when the actual negotiations take place.

I would agree, except that the negotiations for the other critical issue - the form of the playoff system and division of its revenues - are taking place right now.

And you think that M has pull with the other commishs?

No i do not. If he did, then that would likely mean the Big East was going to get revenue parity in the new playoff system, and that he wouldn't be getting fired.

And you know all this how? I've never come across someone that is so far removed from reality. Someone that runs with their assumptions so much, it's like they're living in their own butthole.

Is there any functioning grey matter between your ears at all? JM gets FIRED as we are in the midst of huge negotiations with other conferences over distribution of huge post-season dollars, and with important media negotiations right around the corner, and you doubt that this means the presidents lacked confidence in how all of that is proceeding?

Good Lord.

(05-07-2012 05:33 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  For people that have been around running businesses, you don't fire someone other than cause unless you got someone else lined up.

You also don't fire him if he is handling critical ongoing negotiations well.