No

Maybe not. But, he still has to take pay cut.
His pay is based on what he thought how BE contract was worth, 300 mil yearly base. Now, the contract will worth about 20 mil. That means BE has to reduce operational cost big time.

I don't understand why the new members are so disgusted about this new tv deal. It is more money than what you were making in CUSA. Supposedly the BE has taking the best of the best from CUSA and you're with UC and UConn now. I particularly don't get the madness coming from the ECU posters when all they wanted was to be out of CUSA at any cost.

(02-22-2013 08:07 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  I don't understand why the new members are so disgusted about this new tv deal. It is more money than what you were making in CUSA. Supposedly the BE has taking the best of the best from CUSA and you're with UC and UConn now. I particularly don't get the madness coming from the ECU posters when all they wanted was to be out of CUSA at any cost.

This is an understandable question coming from a UAB fan.

For many fans (especially ECU fans), getting out of a conference that had UAB in it was a large part of the innate value of the move.

That said, it's like anything else. You naturally want the best outcome possible. And by most accounts, the rumored outcome comes up well short.

It comes up short in every respect. The money is bad but that was at least tolerable if the game times and exposure were going to be good. Instead ESPN is going to stick us on weeknights and ESPN3 at a garbage price.

No, Look at the crappy schools he has to deal with? Nobody could get a good eal with the schools in this confrernce.

(02-23-2013 12:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It comes up short in every respect. The money is bad but that was at least tolerable if the game times and exposure were going to be good. Instead ESPN is going to stick us on weeknights and ESPN3 at a garbage price.

I hadn't heard that. Link?

(02-22-2013 10:31 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 10:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Lots of assumptions being made about Aresco that we don't really know. Remember which schools still had voting power at different junctions. Maybe Aresco wanted a stronger west division and the C7 wouldn't go for it.

And Aresco has had the best negotiating help available: the 2 guys who got the P12 deal.

And all those schools still would have left.

I'm not saying Aresco is blameless. It's just hard to tell whether he made things worse, or not. I doubt any other commissioner could have improved our situation with the way things fell out.

Yeah. Maybe I am assuming too much. But the results that have been observed under his direction are poor.

No, they're not. Your expectations were and still are unrealistic.

(02-23-2013 09:19 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 10:31 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 10:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Lots of assumptions being made about Aresco that we don't really know. Remember which schools still had voting power at different junctions. Maybe Aresco wanted a stronger west division and the C7 wouldn't go for it.

And Aresco has had the best negotiating help available: the 2 guys who got the P12 deal.

And all those schools still would have left.

I'm not saying Aresco is blameless. It's just hard to tell whether he made things worse, or not. I doubt any other commissioner could have improved our situation with the way things fell out.

Yeah. Maybe I am assuming too much. But the results that have been observed under his direction are poor.

No, they're not. Your expectations were and still are unrealistic.

Que? What results has Aresco delivered that have been positive? I'll admit that his hands are tied to a large degree and that he couldn't have avoided some of the external influences on his conference, but what has happened to the Big East in his 6 months on the job is an unprecedented failure. And as I stated above, even if it isn't his fault, a CEO in any other line of business would have been canned for such a drop in the conference.

(02-22-2013 11:54 AM)Underdog Wrote:  I won’t say Areso should be fired :noisycricket: (he started off in a very deep hole).
However, as a former TV executive, he should have known how valuable Boise St. was at making the Big East whole with more tv $$$. The MWC knew it and somewhat capitulated to Boise St. Nevertheless, Aresco should have been able to offer Boise St. the same deal or better. However, he allowed the MWC to keep Boise St. despite being locked into a contract (which makes him look even more inept). CBS tweaked the MWC’s contract in order for this to happen, which makes me wonder about the motives of CBS…. Consequently, CBS also knew how valuable Boise St. was to the Big East.

Moreover, Areso failed monumentally at overlooking the importance of establishing an all sports western division. The Big East already had Boise St., San Diego St., Houston, and SMU. You mean to tell me that he couldn't add two more schools for an all sports western division.…. This would have given the Big East uniqueness that no other conference has—which demands more $$$. If he couldn't have added two legit western schools, he should have considered Idaho and New Mexico St. (whose football programs are homeless). Both schools probably would have taken less $$$ to have a home, which could have been used to keep Boise St.

And before I get flamed for this post, I’m not a Boise St fan. Furthermore, I think that its football program is vastly overrated (barely beat one of the lower tier teams in the PAC 12 in a bowl game). Nonetheless, it is my opinion that the Big East wouldn't be in such a deep hole financially if Boise $t. and an all $port$ western division were here to make it whole—which Areso should have known…..

Boise State signed on with the Big East when they we an AQ conference and were in line for big bucks. Both of those changed. Both of those were essential to overcome the enormous distance that program was going to have to travel even with a western division and the fact that it was going to have to split its sports into 2 different conferences.

When everything started to fall into place, Boise did what was best for them and their program. There was nothing that could have been done to change that. Blaming Aresco is just sour grapes and represents an unwillingness to see this conference for what it is and the value that is commensurate with that.

The #1 factor in all of this whether it's Boise or the networks is the instability of the conference's top members, UCONN and Cincinnati.

(02-23-2013 09:04 AM)slowknight Wrote:  No, Look at the crappy schools he has to deal with? Nobody could get a good eal with the schools in this confrernce.

It's easy to talk trash now that Rutgers is in the Big 10. You are lucky your school is located near NYC. That is the only reason you are moving on. I wouldn't talk too much s$it dude. The tv deal wouldn't be any different if Rutgers was still around. Good luck getting your a$$ kicked in the Big10.

(02-23-2013 09:27 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:54 AM)Underdog Wrote:  I won’t say Areso should be fired :noisycricket: (he started off in a very deep hole).
However, as a former TV executive, he should have known how valuable Boise St. was at making the Big East whole with more tv $$$. The MWC knew it and somewhat capitulated to Boise St. Nevertheless, Aresco should have been able to offer Boise St. the same deal or better. However, he allowed the MWC to keep Boise St. despite being locked into a contract (which makes him look even more inept). CBS tweaked the MWC’s contract in order for this to happen, which makes me wonder about the motives of CBS…. Consequently, CBS also knew how valuable Boise St. was to the Big East.

Moreover, Areso failed monumentally at overlooking the importance of establishing an all sports western division. The Big East already had Boise St., San Diego St., Houston, and SMU. You mean to tell me that he couldn't add two more schools for an all sports western division.…. This would have given the Big East uniqueness that no other conference has—which demands more $$$. If he couldn't have added two legit western schools, he should have considered Idaho and New Mexico St. (whose football programs are homeless). Both schools probably would have taken less $$$ to have a home, which could have been used to keep Boise St.

And before I get flamed for this post, I’m not a Boise St fan. Furthermore, I think that its football program is vastly overrated (barely beat one of the lower tier teams in the PAC 12 in a bowl game). Nonetheless, it is my opinion that the Big East wouldn't be in such a deep hole financially if Boise $t. and an all $port$ western division were here to make it whole—which Areso should have known…..

Boise State signed on with the Big East when they we an AQ conference and were in line for big bucks. Both of those changed. Both of those were essential to overcome the enormous distance that program was going to have to travel even with a western division and the fact that it was going to have to split its sports into 2 different conferences.

When everything started to fall into place, Boise did what was best for them and their program. There was nothing that could have been done to change that. Blaming Aresco is just sour grapes and represents an unwillingness to see this conference for what it is and the value that is commensurate with that.

The #1 factor in all of this whether it's Boise or the networks is the instability of the conference's top members, UCONN and Cincinnati.

The all-sports western division, as great an idea as that might have been, was never going to get approved by the C7. Never. I'm sure the idea was talked about, but there wasn't any traction on making it a reality among the conference membership. So you can't blame Aresco for not making it happen. I would hope that he pushed for it, but we don't know. The only place it was discussed with any seriousness was in message boards. Nobody in the press touted it as a reality - except a random report from The Sporting News' Mike DeCourcy who suggested that a new national conference could form with members out west. It may have been the greatest idea to you, but it could never get past the people that matter - the BE presidents.

As for blaming Boise's departure on Aresco, there are too many stories out there to know the truth at this point. The story that broke this week about the e-mails Aresco sent about Boise's final days in the conference suggest Aresco was not caving to their demands (a positive), but at the same time, there are stories that suggest Aresco was hiding or not as forthcoming about TV $$ projections to Boise. That could be seen as a factor that drove Boise away. But that may have been Aresco's plan, too.

(02-23-2013 09:32 AM)First Mate Wrote:  

(02-23-2013 09:04 AM)slowknight Wrote:  No, Look at the crappy schools he has to deal with? Nobody could get a good eal with the schools in this confrernce.

It's easy to talk trash now that Rutgers is in the Big 10. You are lucky your school is located near NYC. That is the only reason you are moving on. I wouldn't talk too much s$it dude. The tv deal wouldn't be any different if Rutgers was still around. Good luck getting your a$$ kicked in the Big10.

Losing Rutgers was huge for the BE. As you said, the reason the B1G chose them was NYC - which was the big reason Rutgers' departure is such a big blow to the BE TV deal. Believe what you want, but losing Rutgers had a huge negative impact on the TV deal.

To debate Aresco job performance at this point is way to early in the process. First and foremost, the league hasn't completely folded so keeping the league viable enough to obtain an offer from ESPN at this point is a positive in his column. While it's not the deal we all wanted at least after the big five we're the only conference with a deal so politically that is important.

The Big East prior to his arrival IMHO is the most grossly mismanaged conference in the history of college athletics. That is not his fault and he inherited a turd from that standpoint. Most of the blame lays squarely on the shoulders of the C7 schools, Notre Dame and the Providence influence. They never got it in regards to realignment and put the conference in the position it is today.

Now the Big East consist of like minded institutions in regard to athletics and will have to build from here. I will hold judgement of Mike's performance over the next year or so. I guess what I'm saying is he is still in a probationary period on his job.

(02-23-2013 11:46 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  Now the Big East consist of like minded institutions in regard to athletics and will have to build from here. I will hold judgement of Mike's performance over the next year or so. I guess what I'm saying is he is still in a probationary period on his job.

Like minded? The only thing they're like-minded about is wanting to get out...*rimshot*

Bob,

Considering our history together I think of UCF as a good partner. Yes we are likeminded and would get out if we could, but where we are today we need to work together. I've enjoyed our rivalry and beieve we are stronger together.

My question is, who would have done better, with reasonable expectations. The BE was already breaking apart. If the new schools do not like the contract, go back. I will live with the contract, as long as the competition is better. It is then up to the team to prove themselves to be shown on TV more often.

Oh by the way, **ck NBC. They will be paying up the *ss to keep ND. (No sour grapes here)

(02-23-2013 09:04 AM)slowknight Wrote:  No, Look at the crappy schools he has to deal with? Nobody could get a good eal with the schools in this confrernce.

Crappy, bring your arse to ECU & see how crappy we are.

(02-23-2013 09:40 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(02-23-2013 09:32 AM)First Mate Wrote:  

(02-23-2013 09:04 AM)slowknight Wrote:  No, Look at the crappy schools he has to deal with? Nobody could get a good eal with the schools in this confrernce.

It's easy to talk trash now that Rutgers is in the Big 10. You are lucky your school is located near NYC. That is the only reason you are moving on. I wouldn't talk too much s$it dude. The tv deal wouldn't be any different if Rutgers was still around. Good luck getting your a$$ kicked in the Big10.

Losing Rutgers was huge for the BE. As you said, the reason the B1G chose them was NYC - which was the big reason Rutgers' departure is such a big blow to the BE TV deal. Believe what you want, but losing Rutgers had a huge negative impact on the TV deal.

If markets (like NYC) meant so much the deal would have been much higher. Rutgers has never won the Big East in football or basketball, no big loss IMO. We still have plenty of high value markets but we got a small time deal. When is this conference going to realize that good teams, great attendance/environments, and winning is what counts, not markets. We have a good league now it's time to go on the field and prove it. More money will come down the line if we take care of business.

Well lets go ahead and bump this back to the top.