(03-11-2013 04:19 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 04:14 PM)Bull Wrote:  No, I'm sure we're all smart enough to realize that Navy should keep those funds. The army navy game is transcendent compared to all our other product. If we want navy, we need to let them keep those funds.

And I don't believe this is a Boise double standard... Boise considers all their product 'special', we all realize the army navy game is something different.

If Navy still wants in, I bet they are equal conference mates for everything else... I guess we'll soon see.

No, it's really not different. It's all or nothing. Either EVERYBODY can cut those type of deals to keep their home revenues or nobody can. For that reason, I don't believe Navy will join. I would love to be able to keep our home game rights though.

Please.

Please what?

The attraction for Navy and the TV partners was:

Navy/Rutgers
Navy/Temple to a much much lesser extent
Navy/Air Force because Air Force was figured to be a Big East addition
Navy/SDSU for the obvious reasons

All of that is gone now except Temple and Navy simply isn't going to join the Big East to play Temple every year.

(03-11-2013 04:45 PM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  The attraction for Navy and the TV partners was:

Navy/Rutgers
Navy/Temple to a much much lesser extent
Navy/Air Force because Air Force was figured to be a Big East addition
Navy/SDSU for the obvious reasons

All of that is gone now except Temple and Navy simply isn't going to join the Big East to play Temple every year.

I don't think they end up joining either. We'll see.

(03-11-2013 04:36 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 04:02 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Demands for Navy to share with their future conference mates in 3... 2... 1...

I have no problem with them keeping every dime of that money.

Me neither. I think we need Navy. We need more teams that are not from CUSA so that narrative doesnt get any worse (or truer) than it already is. We are likley to add Tulsa and S Miss is probably high on the list as a replacement school. That is the ONLY reason I would even consider UMass. I also think that reviving the hybrid helps in this regard. If you add 2 or 3 solid basketball schools--you increase the respect of Big No Name basketball and further differentiate this conference from any comparison to CUSA. VCU, Fordham, U Mass, Richmond, Wichita State---a couple of teams like that could certainly add a little punch to basketball and add some new markets.

If Navy chooses not to join, adding some new blood is even more important. Say, Fordham (New York), VCU, and UMass might be nice olympic additions to the conference. Then when you add S Miss to replace the loss of Navy, at least the conference doesnt look so much like CUSA.

(03-11-2013 04:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 04:36 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 04:02 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Demands for Navy to share with their future conference mates in 3... 2... 1...

I have no problem with them keeping every dime of that money.

Me neither. I think we need Navy. We need more teams that are not from CUSA so that narrative doesnt get any worse (or truer) than it already is. We are likley to add Tulsa and S Miss is probably high on the list as a replacement school. That is the ONLY reason I would even consider UMass. I also think that reviving the hybrid helps in this regard. If you add 2 or 3 solid basketball schools--you increase the respect of Big No Name basketball and further differentiate this conference from any comparison to CUSA. VCU, Fordham, U Mass, Richmond, Wichita State---a couple of teams like that could certainly add a little punch to basketball and add some new markets.

Say, Fordham (New York), VCU, and UMass might be nice olympic additions to the conference.

If Navy does join, I think the powers that be in the conference are crazy not to invite one of VCU/Wichita State.

How the hell is Fordham going to help? PLEASE don't say NY market.

(03-11-2013 04:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you add 2 or 3 solid basketball schools--you increase the respect of Big No Name basketball and further differentiate this conference from any comparison to CUSA. VCU, Fordham, U Mass, Richmond, Wichita State---a couple of teams like that could certainly add a little punch to basketball and add some new markets.

The irony of listing VCU, since they were in the Metro and wanted to join CUSA when it formed but were kicked to the curb.

(03-11-2013 05:10 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 04:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you add 2 or 3 solid basketball schools--you increase the respect of Big No Name basketball and further differentiate this conference from any comparison to CUSA. VCU, Fordham, U Mass, Richmond, Wichita State---a couple of teams like that could certainly add a little punch to basketball and add some new markets.

The irony of listing VCU, since they were in the Metro and wanted to join CUSA when it formed but were kicked to the curb.

The VCU of 1995 is not the same as the VCU of 2013.

Navy brings perception of football.

We need them. They have a decent team and a nice following. Remember, this is all abut perception.

Since 1990 Navy has played 17 schools four or more times. FOUR of those schools will be part of the new BE.
Tulane 14 games
SMU 10 games
Temple 9 games
ECU 4 games

(03-11-2013 04:54 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  How the hell is Fordham going to help? PLEASE don't say NY market.

American automobiles and pork products?

(03-11-2013 04:02 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Demands for Navy to share with their future conference mates in 3... 2... 1...

Top notch.

(03-11-2013 04:54 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  How the hell is Fordham going to help? PLEASE don't say NY market.

I was actually looking to keep with the urban theme of the conference, but having a NY team certainly couldnt hurt. I suppose they might help with the NY market when you have UConn, Memphis, Cinci, etc. coming to town. Obviously, they dont capture the market on their own. That said, there are other northeastern A-10 schools that would work--maybe George Washington? To be perfectly honest, I dont really care--I just want to differentiate the conference from C-USA as much as possible.

IF Navy is willing to be a full and equal conference mate for everything but the Army Navy game, that's actually a good deal for the A12. They have a legitimate national following...

Isn't the Army Navy game actually a week after the CFB season ends? A single annual game with historical importance after the season ends... we don't need to get all puckered about that.

If you can get a MWC-Hawai'i like deal out of Navy, then do it and let them keep Army-Navy & ND-Navy revenue.

I'm referring to the item making the rounds that Hawai'i will not make any money off the MWC TV contract as a football only member (much like Navy) and will instead get to keep their statewide PPV package alive and make $2.3 million in TV rights per year from that package as long as their are six games in the package from conference & non-conference games. UH will still provide games to the national TV packages, but make no money or bonus payments from national TV.

Even if the money overall stays the same, sharing over 11 instead of 12 means some extra $$$ for everyone.

Just a reminder to all what the Navy A.D. Gladchuck had to say about the Boise deal to return to the MWC.

Quote: Gladchuck - “What Boise State wanted was outrageous and unprecedented. It was not palatable to any of the other Big East institutions,” Gladchuk said. “In the final analysis, Boise wasn’t worth it. There is zero television interest in Boise along the Eastern seaboard. What it tells me is the Mountain West was desperate. Clearly, the Mountain West was willing to make whatever concessions necessary to keep Boise in the fold.”

So now the obvious question is......"Is Navy worth it?" If in fact Navy still commits to the new conference then will Gladchuck have the same views concerning the Midshipmen as he did with Boise when it comes to the Army/Navy game?

(03-11-2013 07:18 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  Just a reminder to all what the Navy A.D. Gladchuck had to say about the Boise deal to return to the MWC.

Quote: Gladchuck - “What Boise State wanted was outrageous and unprecedented. It was not palatable to any of the other Big East institutions,” Gladchuk said. “In the final analysis, Boise wasn’t worth it. There is zero television interest in Boise along the Eastern seaboard. What it tells me is the Mountain West was desperate. Clearly, the Mountain West was willing to make whatever concessions necessary to keep Boise in the fold.”

So now the obvious question is......"Is Navy worth it?" If in fact Navy still commits to the new conference then will Gladchuck have the same views concerning the Midshipmen as he did with Boise when it comes to the Army/Navy game?

I have to admit, you make a very solid point by reminding us about his quote. I still think it's a bit different though... even though on the surface it seems so similar.

Boise is a small market relatively new upstart to big time football, who happens to be on a pretty decent roll. Their sweet deal with the MWC is for much more than a single game. In contrast, people don't watch Army Navy because of it's top level football... (no offense intended!) they watch it because of the great history and rivalry. Army Navy has been going on for 113 YEARS.

My 2 cents...

GUYS, the plan is in affect still navy in 15 tulaNE ECU IN 14, if there are no more defections.
guys, the glass is half full, this is ma strong league, it'll work and thrive with all things remaining the same.
go America12 conference

(03-11-2013 07:46 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 07:18 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  Just a reminder to all what the Navy A.D. Gladchuck had to say about the Boise deal to return to the MWC.

Quote: Gladchuck - “What Boise State wanted was outrageous and unprecedented. It was not palatable to any of the other Big East institutions,” Gladchuk said. “In the final analysis, Boise wasn’t worth it. There is zero television interest in Boise along the Eastern seaboard. What it tells me is the Mountain West was desperate. Clearly, the Mountain West was willing to make whatever concessions necessary to keep Boise in the fold.”

So now the obvious question is......"Is Navy worth it?" If in fact Navy still commits to the new conference then will Gladchuck have the same views concerning the Midshipmen as he did with Boise when it comes to the Army/Navy game?

I have to admit, you make a very solid point by reminding us about his quote. I still think it's a bit different though... even though on the surface it seems so similar.

Boise is a small market relatively new upstart to big time football, who happens to be on a pretty decent roll. Their sweet deal with the MWC is for much more than a single game. In contrast, people don't watch Army Navy because of it's top level football... (no offense intended!) they watch it because of the great history and rivalry. Army Navy has been going on for 113 YEARS.

My 2 cents...

I'd agree to a degree Bull. 2 different situations, but the underlying issue remains. Do you allow Navy to have a "special deal" regardless of the history of the Army/Navy game. I won't say yes or no, but you would hope or figure that this issue would have been discussed between Aresco and Gladchuck before the NBC/ESPN TV deals were being negotiated.