http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/co...8115.story

Splitting of funds has not even been discussed, according to UCF AD.

Despite reports of in-fighting between football schools in the Big East, UCF athletics director Todd Stansbury said there have been no discussions about the finances of the new, yet-to-be-named conference.

Stansbury, who is part of a six-member panel that will decide how to split exit fees, NCAA Tournament credits and reserve funds left behind by defecting members, told the Orlando Sentinel Tuesday the group will not meet until next week to begin sorting through the new leagues finances.
======
Blaudschun and other media outlets suggested the current Big East members wanted to keep as much as 90 percent of the funds. Stansbury said those reports were purely speculative.

"In all my discussions with my counterparts, there is a desire to be fair and also set the tone on the front end of this new conference that we're all in this together," Stansbury said. "That we want to obviously consider what has been earned by the three existing Big East schools, and at the same time recognizing it's important that all of our programs are elevated as quickly as they can be. Because at the end of the day, the brand of this conference is going to be determined by our ability to be competitive."

would a picture of Baghdad Bob be appropriate?

Don't blame me. I didn't report it, the Orlando Sentinel did. According to the OS/UCF AD, the finances haven't even been discussed. Take it up with them.

(03-13-2013 12:02 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Don't blame me. I didn't report it, the Orlando Sentinel did. According to the OS/UCF AD, the finances haven't even been discussed. Take it up with them.

haha i was kiddin around. once things settle down this new eastern conference will be fine.

Soooo...are the UCF AD and the Houston admin disagreeing? Or do their stories mesh, each addressing slightly different things?

(03-13-2013 08:02 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Soooo...are the UCF AD and the Houston admin disagreeing? Or do their stories mesh, each addressing slightly different things?

More likey it's the difference between what's said on the record and off. I'd also add that virtually every media report mentioned talk of a 90-10 split (or at least stated that the holdover teams were expecting to keep the vast majority of the money) not just Blaudschun. So basically it's hard to swallow that they have not even discussed money. So far, whenever the BE has made claims opposite the media, it's been wrong or a flat lie. I believe until a few days before they left Aresco and other schools all claimed Boise was committed. I'm done swallowing the party line hook line and sinker. Also, the "insider" sources like NPpirate from ECU are painting a picture similar to UH Cougar.

(03-13-2013 08:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:02 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Soooo...are the UCF AD and the Houston admin disagreeing? Or do their stories mesh, each addressing slightly different things?

More likey it's the difference between what's said on the record and off. I'd also add that virtually every media report mentioned talk of a 90-10 split (or at least stated that the holdover teams were expecting to keep the vast majority of the money) not just Blaudschun. So basically it's hard to swallow that they have not even discussed money. So far, whenever the BE has made claims opposite the media, it's been wrong or a flat lie. I believe until a few days before they left Aresco and other schools all claimed Boise was committed. I'm done swallowing the party line hook line and sinker.

Maybe you should be done with swallowing the media hook, line and sinker. I've seen many posts on this and the Big East (old) board where people take speculative articles and run with them as fact and then crucify people when everything turns out differently. Not saying the Big East hasn't had to reverse tread a few times but most of the reversing comes after people buy into speculative articles. All it takes is one bad apple "source" feeding incorrect information to multiple sources for it to be spread everywhere.

So far whatever bad news reports have been out there about the Big East have either been true or not as bad as things actually ended up being. Until something actually happens that is better than expected I'm going to just believe anything negative reported because it's likely true.

(03-13-2013 08:28 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:02 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Soooo...are the UCF AD and the Houston admin disagreeing? Or do their stories mesh, each addressing slightly different things?

More likey it's the difference between what's said on the record and off. I'd also add that virtually every media report mentioned talk of a 90-10 split (or at least stated that the holdover teams were expecting to keep the vast majority of the money) not just Blaudschun. So basically it's hard to swallow that they have not even discussed money. So far, whenever the BE has made claims opposite the media, it's been wrong or a flat lie. I believe until a few days before they left Aresco and other schools all claimed Boise was committed. I'm done swallowing the party line hook line and sinker.

Maybe you should be done with swallowing the media hook, line and sinker. I've seen many posts on this and the Big East (old) board where people take speculative articles and run with them as fact and then crucify people when everything turns out differently. Not saying the Big East hasn't had to reverse tread a few times but most of the reversing comes after people buy into speculative articles. All it takes is one bad apple "source" feeding incorrect information to multiple sources for it to be spread everywhere.

I agree, but to be honest, it's generally been positive Big East news that has turned out to be incorrect. It's now 18 days since the ESPN contract has been agreed to, yet it's still unsigned--despite Arescos continued claims that it is just a formality. This article claims it cant be signed because of the C7 and Notre Dame. Notre Dame and and the C7 are gone. In fact, they were gone yesterday and the presidents were all together on a conference call--why wasn't the ESPN agreement approved? It obviously has nothing to do with the C7 and Notre Dame.

(03-13-2013 08:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:28 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:02 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Soooo...are the UCF AD and the Houston admin disagreeing? Or do their stories mesh, each addressing slightly different things?

More likey it's the difference between what's said on the record and off. I'd also add that virtually every media report mentioned talk of a 90-10 split (or at least stated that the holdover teams were expecting to keep the vast majority of the money) not just Blaudschun. So basically it's hard to swallow that they have not even discussed money. So far, whenever the BE has made claims opposite the media, it's been wrong or a flat lie. I believe until a few days before they left Aresco and other schools all claimed Boise was committed. I'm done swallowing the party line hook line and sinker.

Maybe you should be done with swallowing the media hook, line and sinker. I've seen many posts on this and the Big East (old) board where people take speculative articles and run with them as fact and then crucify people when everything turns out differently. Not saying the Big East hasn't had to reverse tread a few times but most of the reversing comes after people buy into speculative articles. All it takes is one bad apple "source" feeding incorrect information to multiple sources for it to be spread everywhere.

I agree, but to be honest, it's generally been positive Big East news that has turned out to be incorrect. It's now 18 days since the ESPN contract has been agreed to, yet it's still unsigned--despite Arescos continued claims that it is just a formality. This article claims it cant be signed because of the C7 and Notre Dame. Notre Dame and and the C7 are gone. In fact, they were gone yesterday and the presidents were all together on a conference call--why wasn't the ESPN agreement approved? It obviously has nothing to do with the C7 and Notre Dame.

Maybe it wasn't because of the C7/ND...or maybe it was. Why does everything need to be done on the fan's timetable? C7/ND deal announced yesterday so the presidents, who were together, should have just rubber stamped it immediately. No order, just rush and get it over with. Corporate america just doesn't work that way. A number of issues will be brought together and decided upon in a large session...and not always when you, as an uninformed observer, expect them to be.

I agree that most of the Big East good news has been wrong. I wouldn't call the news that the schools hadn't talked about the finances and were not in-fighting as some believed as "good news." Just a comment about where they were.

I think people are making things too black or white and not putting them in the various shades of gray buckets they actually belong in. Of course, that's because we don't have 90% of the information needed to do so. Just enough to slap it in a black or white bucket.

(03-12-2013 11:37 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/co...8115.story

Splitting of funds has not even been discussed, according to UCF AD.

Despite reports of in-fighting between football schools in the Big East, UCF athletics director Todd Stansbury said there have been no discussions about the finances of the new, yet-to-be-named conference.

Stansbury, who is part of a six-member panel that will decide how to split exit fees, NCAA Tournament credits and reserve funds left behind by defecting members, told the Orlando Sentinel Tuesday the group will not meet until next week to begin sorting through the new leagues finances.
======


"In all my discussions with my counterparts, there is a desire to be fair and also set the tone on the front end of this new conference that we're all in this together," Stansbury said. "That we want to obviously consider what has been earned by the three existing Big East schools, and at the same time recognizing it's important that all of our programs are elevated as quickly as they can be. Because at the end of the day, the brand of this conference is going to be determined by our ability to be competitive."

He says 'there have been no discussions about finances' ....then he says 'in all of my discussions with my counterparts'.
You would think those discussions about being fair, would have to involve finances.

(03-13-2013 08:47 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:28 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:02 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Soooo...are the UCF AD and the Houston admin disagreeing? Or do their stories mesh, each addressing slightly different things?

More likey it's the difference between what's said on the record and off. I'd also add that virtually every media report mentioned talk of a 90-10 split (or at least stated that the holdover teams were expecting to keep the vast majority of the money) not just Blaudschun. So basically it's hard to swallow that they have not even discussed money. So far, whenever the BE has made claims opposite the media, it's been wrong or a flat lie. I believe until a few days before they left Aresco and other schools all claimed Boise was committed. I'm done swallowing the party line hook line and sinker.

Maybe you should be done with swallowing the media hook, line and sinker. I've seen many posts on this and the Big East (old) board where people take speculative articles and run with them as fact and then crucify people when everything turns out differently. Not saying the Big East hasn't had to reverse tread a few times but most of the reversing comes after people buy into speculative articles. All it takes is one bad apple "source" feeding incorrect information to multiple sources for it to be spread everywhere.

I agree, but to be honest, it's generally been positive Big East news that has turned out to be incorrect. It's now 18 days since the ESPN contract has been agreed to, yet it's still unsigned--despite Arescos continued claims that it is just a formality. This article claims it cant be signed because of the C7 and Notre Dame. Notre Dame and and the C7 are gone. In fact, they were gone yesterday and the presidents were all together on a conference call--why wasn't the ESPN agreement approved? It obviously has nothing to do with the C7 and Notre Dame.

Maybe it wasn't because of the C7/ND...or maybe it was. Why does everything need to be done on the fan's timetable? C7/ND deal announced yesterday so the presidents, who were together, should have just rubber stamped it immediately. No order, just rush and get it over with. Corporate america just doesn't work that way. A number of issues will be brought together and decided upon in a large session...and not always when you, as an uninformed observer, expect them to be.

I agree that most of the Big East good news has been wrong. I wouldn't call the news that the schools hadn't talked about the finances and were not in-fighting as some believed as "good news." Just a comment about where they were.

I think people are making things too black or white and not putting them in the various shades of gray buckets they actually belong in. Of course, that's because we don't have 90% of the information needed to do so. Just enough to slap it in a black or white bucket.

Thats exactly my point. The AD quotes in the article specifically say that Notre Dame and the C-7 are the reasons the ESPN contract have not been signed. As to a timetable, Im actually glad it hasnt been signed. I dont want it signed. From what Im hearing its not a match and it not a very good deal.

Im much more comfortable selling ESPN first tier rights for anything they want to show on ABC, ESPN, ESPN-2, and ESPNU. Anything they want to sell off to other networks or put on ESPN-3 I want back. We can sell a second tier rights package to NBC, Fox, or let them split it. NO need to let ESPN pocket the money from that sell or divert our inventory to places we dont want to to be.

(03-13-2013 08:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:02 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Soooo...are the UCF AD and the Houston admin disagreeing? Or do their stories mesh, each addressing slightly different things?

More likey it's the difference between what's said on the record and off. I'd also add that virtually every media report mentioned talk of a 90-10 split (or at least stated that the holdover teams were expecting to keep the vast majority of the money) not just Blaudschun. So basically it's hard to swallow that they have not even discussed money. So far, whenever the BE has made claims opposite the media, it's been wrong or a flat lie. I believe until a few days before they left Aresco and other schools all claimed Boise was committed. I'm done swallowing the party line hook line and sinker. Also, the "insider" sources like NPpirate from ECU are painting a picture similar to UH Cougar.

It doesn't matter that every media report mentioned talk of a 90-10 split. When one media source prints it, everyone else picks up that report and runs it as though they themselves sourced it. It's amazing how often that happens.

(03-13-2013 01:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:02 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Soooo...are the UCF AD and the Houston admin disagreeing? Or do their stories mesh, each addressing slightly different things?

More likey it's the difference between what's said on the record and off. I'd also add that virtually every media report mentioned talk of a 90-10 split (or at least stated that the holdover teams were expecting to keep the vast majority of the money) not just Blaudschun. So basically it's hard to swallow that they have not even discussed money. So far, whenever the BE has made claims opposite the media, it's been wrong or a flat lie. I believe until a few days before they left Aresco and other schools all claimed Boise was committed. I'm done swallowing the party line hook line and sinker. Also, the "insider" sources like NPpirate from ECU are painting a picture similar to UH Cougar.

It doesn't matter that every media report mentioned talk of a 90-10 split. When one media source prints it, everyone else picks up that report and runs it as though they themselves sourced it. It's amazing how often that happens.

Agree with that - here's one of my favorite, albeit extreme, examples:

Iran's News Agency Portray Satirical Onion Story As It's Own