BIG EAST 7 Meet And Make Big Announcement!

UD90 · #1 01-04-2013, 11:42 PM

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...nd-plot-future

"Earlier today, university presidents representing the seven basketball
schools of the Big East met in New York to discuss our orderly
evolution to a foundation of basketball schools that continues to
honor the history and tradition on which the Big East was established.

We have retained the services of Proskauer Rose LLP and Pilson
Communications, Inc.

We had a very productive engagement among our group of seven and
expect that there will be ongoing discussion and conversation among
our group and our colleagues in the Big East as we continue to pursue
our evolution"

Riveting.... Stay Tuned ..........................................

AustinFlyer · #2 01-05-2013, 06:36 PM

That reminded me of the minutes from a People's Front of Judea meeting.

tirebiter · #3 01-05-2013, 06:48 PM

Or the Judean People's Front - "Splitters!"

Gazoo · #4 01-05-2013, 08:09 PM

Cast off the gourd and follow the sandal!!

ud69 · #5 01-06-2013, 12:19 AM

TV Deal being reported.

The "Catholic 7", however, want to have 2 classes of schools in the conference and share the TV money unequally. They want to do to the new schools what the old BE football schools did to them. Do those guys ever learn?

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...eal-basketball

Flyer68 · #6 01-06-2013, 10:34 AM

OK call me sarcastic and cynical. When there is big money on the table, we will see that the "Catholic 7" are as ethically, morally and financially challenged as all the other schools. I guess they are more "Catholic" than the others. Don't even start me on Georgetown. What will they have to say when Dayton plays at Depaul (Chicago), Seton Hall, Providence and St. Johns, when the Dayton fans equal or outnumber the home team fans. Also Dayton will have a representative turnout at Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, who we used to play twice a year). Just another group of phonies wrapping themselves in the blanket of "Catholic."

Flyer69ers · #7 01-06-2013, 10:45 AM

"One source said it is likely the new schools wouldn't share the same amount as the "Catholic 7," which would allow the former Big East basketball schools to earn in the $5 million range. It's thought that free agent schools such as the ones in the Atlantic 10 would be fine with making less than half of that on an annual basis because they currently pull in $400,000 a year."

At what point does one say "no" to such an agreement??

I hate class warfare.

San Diego Flyer · #8 01-06-2013, 10:56 AM

Actually I think the B7 learned quite well from their prior Big East experience with finances. They learned that when one party holds all the cards, it can extract inequities from the other party.

There are many ways to look at it, but we could do worse than quadrupling our current A10 $$take each year for 12 years. It's not a question of whether the B7 TODAY should be considered above equal on the basketball floor (they are not), it's a question of established brand names (B7) selling their name's "goodwill" on the open market. And then inviting select others to share in their gain on a graduated basis.

IMO Butler, Xavier, Dayton, SLU, VCU could pre-qualify with a network for a Different Conference and invite 5 select others to join them. Could easily command a deal in the
$1M each range, possibly more. They could also inequitably split the take such that the
5 "charter" members get more than the 5 "invitees". And those invitees would make more
money than the conference they are in now. Monetarily that's a win/win It's just bidness.

Again. You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. Could Xavier and Butler make a case that they should get a larger share than Dayton, SLU and VCU? You bet they could if I were the negotiator.

xubrew · #9 01-06-2013, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Flyer69ers

"One source said it is likely the new schools wouldn't share the same amount as the "Catholic 7," which would allow the former Big East basketball schools to earn in the $5 million range. It's thought that free agent schools such as the ones in the Atlantic 10 would be fine with making less than half of that on an annual basis because they currently pull in $400,000 a year."

At what point does one say "no" to such an agreement??

I hate class warfare.

I think I'm already at that point, but unfortunately it's not up to me.

A friend of mine stated it very well.....

I guess that's only fair given how much hard work Providence, DePaul and Seton Hall have to done to build the athletic reputation of that new conference.

I'm sure Butler and Xavier will recognize the year-in and year-out excellence those schools bless their conference mates with and understand that this excellence comes at an increased price.

As we know, it's not always about winning games, it's about cashing checks and no one does it better than Providence, Seton Hall, and DePaul.

CE80 · #10 01-06-2013, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Flyer68

OK call me sarcastic and cynical. When there is big money on the table, we will see that the "Catholic 7" are as ethically, morally and financially challenged as all the other schools. I guess they are more "Catholic" than the others. Don't even start me on Georgetown. What will they have to say when Dayton plays at Depaul (Chicago), Seton Hall, Providence and St. Johns, when the Dayton fans equal or outnumber the home team fans. Also Dayton will have a representative turnout at Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, who we used to play twice a year). Just another group of phonies wrapping themselves in the blanket of "Catholic."

Think of it this way. There will be two collections. The first will be divided equally and the special second collection will go to the BE7.

ClevelandFlyer05 · #11 01-06-2013, 11:13 AM

This is hilarious. As a Dayton fan, we can't really be choosers, so we'll almost have to take any deal that is offered (if there is an offer). However Xavier and Butler fans should be hopping mad at what the BE7 is trying to do here...

Flyer68 · #12 01-06-2013, 11:28 AM

CE80 - Then there will be collection envelopes for the first collection and the second collection basket will be for cash only. If this is to be a "Catholic" league, how does Butler fit in? I know it was a "Disciples of Christ" \ "Christianity" school, but isn't it considered a private, non- "Catholic" school? Maybe I am wrong. Oh wait, I just remembered, if Butler is in, it means more money for the "Catholic 7". It's just one group getting away from a group of thieves to start its own group of thieves. Is it too late to make a New Years resolution to be less sarcastic and cynical?

ud2 · #13 01-06-2013, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

Actually I think the B7 learned quite well from their prior Big East experience with finances. They learned that when one party holds all the cards, it can extract inequities from the other party.

There are many ways to look at it, but we could do worse than quadrupling our current A10 $$take each year for 12 years. It's not a question of whether the B7 TODAY should be considered above equal on the basketball floor (they are not), it's a question of established brand names (B7) selling their name's "goodwill" on the open market. And then inviting select others to share in their gain on a graduated basis.

IMO Butler, Xavier, Dayton, SLU, VCU could pre-qualify with a network for a Different Conference and invite 5 select others to join them. Could easily command a deal in the
$1M each range, possibly more. They could also inequitably split the take such that the
5 "charter" members get more than the 5 "invitees". And those invitees would make more
money than the conference they are in now. Monetarily that's a win/win It's just bidness.

Again. You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. Could Xavier and Butler make a case that they should get a larger share than Dayton, SLU and VCU? You bet they could if I were the negotiator.

Unfortunately, I agree. UD should take the unequal deal. Perhaps try to get a clause in there that says that the deal will be reviewed/possibly restructured after 5? years or so. I don't think UD can afford to play hard ball.

The BE7 have the brand names to command more money than the A10 can, so therefore I guess they sort of have the right to demand more money than the 3-5 new additions.

Maybe Butler, X, Creighton, and maybe Dayton and VCU could command more money than the rest of the A10, but the other A10 schools don't seem to be able to command a lot of money.

Again, without the BE7 brand name teams, the money in this new league would be much lower.

longtimefan · #14 01-06-2013, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by ud2

Again, without the BE7 brand name teams, the money in this new league would be much lower.

But without Butler, Xavier, St Louis, Dayton, Creighton/VCU, they won't have a league that could command any money - probably wouldn't have a league, period.

ud2 · #15 01-06-2013, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

But without Butler, Xavier, St Louis, Dayton, Creighton/VCU, they won't have a league that could command any money - probably wouldn't have a league, period.

I agree. The A10 schools/Creighton have to band together then and stand firm. It seems that the trust factor among the A10 schools/Creighton needs to be high, otherwise somebody could get left behind if the others cave in and engage in back door negotiations.

College B-Ball Fan · #16 01-06-2013, 12:19 PM

One reason the league will only expand to 10-12? Perhaps, since there are "7" principals----and they have been in the so called "minority" for years-----they'll NEVER cede authority again! I'd be shocked if the league ever got to 14 teams!

Fudd · #17 01-06-2013, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by College B-Ball Fan

One reason the league will only expand to 10-12? Perhaps, since there are "7" principals----and they have been in the so called "minority" for years-----they'll NEVER cede authority again! I'd be shocked if the league ever got to 14 teams!

Especially in light of the inequitable deal that they want to force on new members. They would never want to give majority voting power to those that they have leveraged under their foot already.

ud2 · #18 01-06-2013, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

IMO Butler, Xavier, Dayton, SLU, VCU could pre-qualify with a network for a Different Conference and invite 5 select others to join them. Could easily command a deal in the
$1M each range, possibly more. They could also inequitably split the take such that the
5 "charter" members get more than the 5 "invitees". And those invitees would make more
money than the conference they are in now. Monetarily that's a win/win It's just bidness.

Again. You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. Could Xavier and Butler make a case that they should get a larger share than Dayton, SLU and VCU? You bet they could if I were the negotiator.

This is an interesting idea. Perhaps some of the better A10 schools should hire a consultant to negogiate with some of the tv networks to find out how much such a 5 + another 5 league would be worth.

San Diego Flyer · #19 01-06-2013, 12:32 PM

Just like the BE deal for $1B that they turned down because of greed (and would die for today), a good deal for Dayton should not be turned down due to greed. We could wake up some morning to a watered down A10 that gets a $200k/year split.

Pushed to the limit, the B7 just might come up with an out-of-the-box solution that involves no program from the A10. Don't ever say never. Just as it is "possible" the A10 candidates could do the same. What these expressed possibilities do for each side is establish leverage for what is likely to be the final split and eventual marriage between the two groups.

Swampy Meadows · #20 01-06-2013, 01:04 PM

There is a whole lot to like about the BE TV deal from UD's standpoint, even if it is initially an inequitable split. Somehere down the line that unequal split would be eliminated, I'm sure. The other thing is that as much as I hate Rupert Murdoch and Fox and all that they stand for, this ain't the crappy deal that the A-10 cut with CSTV years ago when no one could find the dang channel. Fox is going to flip The Speed Channel to Fox Sports Channel (like NBC did with Versus) and that equals instant distribution without any growing pains. You know Fox is going to cross promote and hype this thing in an effort to whittle away at ESPN's dominance. And the new BE would be their flagship property.

Bat'71 · #21 01-06-2013, 01:44 PM

IMHO, if the "new", expanded BE BB group is going to be Fox's flagship property, FOX is in big trouble. While things have surely gotten outta whack with broadcast rights, paying $50 Mil per year to show some BB games of a league that doesn't include many schools with storied histories and huge Alumni bases doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.* Moreover, a Conference that maintains a two-tiered payout system for member schools is bound to have Administrative, as well as cohesion problems going forward, regardless of who is involved. An uneven payout, if for a prolonged period of time, will put those that get the short end of the stick in a less competitive position in all sports than their more well-heeled brethren as they will have fewer resources for coaches salaries and facilities going forward. If, on the other hand, the two-tiered system is phased out over a short time frame and this is incorporated at the start, then there shouldn't be much of a problem.

*Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great if UD could join a group that could command that type of dough, but as stated in other Threads, college BB is on a different plane and doesn't attract the type of National audience that college FB does for numerous reasons. Oh, BTW, while some may look down their noses at Fox, I have more respect for that network than NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN...just sayin'!

bigred · #22 01-06-2013, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Swampy Meadows

There is a whole lot to like about the BE TV deal from UD's standpoint, even if it is initially an inequitable split. Somehere down the line that unequal split would be eliminated, I'm sure. The other thing is that as much as I hate Rupert Murdoch and Fox and all that they stand for, this ain't the crappy deal that the A-10 cut with CSTV years ago when no one could find the dang channel. Fox is going to flip The Speed Channel to Fox Sports Channel (like NBC did with Versus) and that equals instant distribution without any growing pains. You know Fox is going to cross promote and hype this thing in an effort to whittle away at ESPN's dominance. And the new BE would be their flagship property.

I think its a lateral move at best from CBS College Sports to a Fox Sports channel. First, what makes you think the people who couldn't find CSTV will be able to find the Fox Sports Channel? The problem with CSTV was it was on a sports tier with the cable companies, which required a digital converter box and an extra $5.95 per month. Will the Fox Sports channel be any different? Don't think so. And cross-promote from what?

Now if part of this deal means the games would be on local fox affiliates nationwide for certain Saturday games, then yea it would be a step up for us. But for others like Georgetown and Villanova, they were already getting nationally televised games on CBS with their prior deal.

The only reason why the television deal numbers are where they are is because the NBC/CBS and now Fox are competing for ANY content to show on their respective sports networks. The NBC ratings have been abysmal. Better lock in the deal now while there are multiple bidders.

UDGutter2 · #23 01-06-2013, 03:01 PM

The new Fox Sports will replace Speed channel which I think is already in 81 million homes on basic.

UACFlyer · #24 01-06-2013, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

But without Butler, Xavier, St Louis, Dayton, Creighton/VCU, they won't have a league that could command any money - probably wouldn't have a league, period.

To even imagine such a thing, those seven bast@rds think/know they are better than the A10 guys. To do so reveals something about the character of those elite institutions.

And if it works out that way and UD gets a second-class invite...and we accept realizing that in the long run such a deal is in the school's best interests, so be it. The new conference doesn't need UD....they know it, we know it.

But, the new conference does need the likes of Xavier and Butler. If those two turn down the BE7, then the new conference notion falls apart. Knowing that, to my mind the true test of institutional character lies in whether or not X and/or BU would go along with a deal in which there was uneven revenue distribution. If X and BU say, equal partners in all aspects, or no deal, then the BE7's backs are to the wall. In contrast, if X and BU are willing to allow themselves and other A10 colleagues to be treated like that....doesn't tell us a great deal about the character of X and BU?

I can't believe that Dan Curran would do something like that if UD was in the position of power enjoyed by X and BU.

ClevelandFlyer05 · #25 01-06-2013, 04:35 PM

Doesn't Fox already have contracts with the Big XII and Pac-12? I have to believe that the new FoxSports network would use inventory from those conferences football and basketball competitions, as well, to fill prime time programming.

UDEE79 · #26 01-06-2013, 04:58 PM

A caste system is anathema to a conference. A conference should be a federation of equals. Now I recognize that the original 7 have brand equity that the newcomers do not, especially if they get to keep the Big East name. That could be fairly handled by charging an entrance fee which would be a buy in of the brand equity. But once you are in the league it has to be a "Band of Brothers"

UDDoug · #27 01-06-2013, 05:17 PM

My guess is they would want to avoid up front fees. So a disprortionate share for a period of time to cover BE exit fees, conference formation, rights negotiation, buying the BE name is fine. But once recovered, equal shares.

You can structure the payouts legally that way. Say first $6 million distributed equally to everyone (keeps A10 hole, next $35 million all to C7 until such distributions equal X, then evenly.

ud2 · #28 01-06-2013, 05:26 PM

I've heard that WVU is earning less than the other Big 12 members initially, so this sort of arraignment might be common. Hopefully, the C7 treat the newcomers as equals after an introductory period.

Sea Bass · #29 01-06-2013, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by ud2

I've heard that WVU is earning less than the other Big 12 members initially, so this sort of arraignment might be common. Hopefully, the C7 treat the newcomers as equals after an introductory period.

its a new conference. The schools that sign up to come in as second class citizens will remain second class citizens. The A10 schools that are serious about basketball should use this as impetus to form a great 12 team league.

Medford · #30 01-06-2013, 05:49 PM

First, I'll say this, we don't know all of the details.

2nd, to be fair, there is a certain amount of costs associated w/ the startup of this league that the CE7 are bearing. Administrative costs, consulting costs, travel, lodging, paperwork, legal fees, etc... There is also exit fees, loss of NCAA tourney credits, etc... to be dealt with. If there was a dissparity of funds for the 1st handful of years to offset the cost of everything prior (and them some) so be it, but there needs to be binding languague written into each schools contract to ensure that is the case. If the dissparity in funds were set w/o an end date, then buyer beware.

3rd, the alternative to a split in TV payouts for a set period of time, would be for any new team to pay an upfront "entrance fee" that would cover their share of league startup money. The teams outside of the CE7 might actually prefer the temporary split TV payouts as that route would have minimal impact on their budgets (I don't know how much it would cost in upfront start up fees, but finding $5-$10 mil in the couch coushins might not be the easiest thing for all parties at this point) as they'd actually see an increase in TV revenue if the $500 mil figure is anywhere near close to the truth.

Bat'71 · #31 01-06-2013, 06:25 PM

Bullhockey on any rationale the BE 7 might use to extract an extra dime of recompense at the expense of any invitees; w/o quality newcomers and rivalry games that they could bring to the party, any new league they might form wouldn't be worth a crap, let alone $50 Mil per year. Every school that would leave it's respective Conference(s) to join the new group would have to pay a separation fee to it's league and forfeit any NCAA shares it may have earned from Tourney participation in past years as it departs. While, on the other hand, the BE (Arrogant) 7 not only will get to keep whatever NCAA shares the BE has coming in the future (according to reports) but they will not be assessed a departure fee. As far as setting up the new league and bearing the costs involved, it is fine for each school to be reimbursed for their efforts, but that's about it. As far as the BE "brand" is concerned, regardless of which group gets to keep the name (either the FB group or the departing BB group), it will never be confused with the BE that used to exist...I doubt it will "travel" well.

BTW, I'd still like to know how a league anchored by the likes of the BE 7 can command such a premium in the marketplace to the A-10 (as currently structured.) DePaul played at Providence last night, and I doubt anyone cared.

jack72 · #32 01-06-2013, 07:16 PM

Previously the likes of X and Butler would do what is best individually. Maybe this will **** off the A10 invitees and they will stick together and get a fair share or not go at all.

San Diego Flyer · #33 01-06-2013, 07:31 PM

What becomes problematic is how a "fair share" is defined. Wide spectrum there. And the "our way or the highway" approach is a call to battle. The two sides have to talk until there is an equitable split where both parties feel a win-win. In the end the Presidents have to be appeased, not the fans who don't have all the facts and basically have tunnel vision.

Tony T 71 · #34 01-06-2013, 08:42 PM

Call me if and when we are invited and what the financial deal really is

San Diego Flyer · #35 01-06-2013, 08:46 PM

No need to hang around the phone.

shapanud · #36 01-06-2013, 09:21 PM

If this new C7+ conference does end up on "Fox Sports 1" (and that seems to be the working theory right now), this article may be of some interest. It's over a month old, but it makes it very obvious that Fox is going to take on ESPN and they believe they can be successful.

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jou...xSports1.aspx?

Much like people doubted a network could ever successfully compete with NBC, CBS, & ABC (but Fox did), and much like people doubted a cable news network could successfully compete with CNN (but Fox News did), many believe no cable sports network can successfully compete with ESPN, but Fox believes "Fox Sports 1" can.

Buster Goode · #37 01-06-2013, 09:33 PM

Wow. Lots of sense of entitlement here. We haven't even earned our invite and many are criticizing the rumored t's and c's. If I started a business, hell if I'm going to give late entrants an equal share of equity.

ud2 · #38 01-06-2013, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

What becomes problematic is how a "fair share" is defined. Wide spectrum there. And the "our way or the highway" approach is a call to battle. The two sides have to talk until there is an equitable split where both parties feel a win-win. In the end the Presidents have to be appeased, not the fans who don't have all the facts and basically have tunnel vision.

That's a fair enough statement.

In your opinion, what is an equitable split?

This is unprecedented, I've never heard of a college league that has a permanent, unequal distribution of revenue like this.

I really hope the A10 schools/Creighton all stick together on this.

longtimefan · #39 01-06-2013, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Buster Goode

Wow. Lots of sense of entitlement here. We haven't even earned our invite and many are criticizing the rumored t's and c's. If I started a business, hell if I'm going to give late entrants an equal share of equity.

But what if you couldn't start your business without those late entrants? What if those late entrants brought just as much or even more to the table than what you already had? What if you needed those late entrants to boost your profile with the buying public and other investors?

Fudd · #40 01-06-2013, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

But what if you couldn't start your business without those late entrants? What if those late entrants brought just as much or even more to the table than what you already had? What if you needed those late entrants to boost your profile with the buying public and other investors?

Good point, how successfull can the BE7 conference be without all of the possible addition schools? I'm sure all of the new schools are excited to be playing Georgetown, Marquette and Nova, but probably have mamby pamby feelings about the rest of the BE7. So should they be bending over backwards to join under this deal as it is portrayed in the article? I think they would be foolish not to fight fire with fire if they have the fortitude to form a coalition. They should have a whole heck of a lot more bargaining power than to be forced to accept something like described in that article.

ClevelandFlyer05 · #41 01-07-2013, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Buster Goode

Wow. Lots of sense of entitlement here. We haven't even earned our invite and many are criticizing the rumored t's and c's. If I started a business, hell if I'm going to give late entrants an equal share of equity.

Even if the "late entrants" were tremendous assets with other options and were bringing more to the table than some of your other associates?

rollo · #42 01-07-2013, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

But what if you couldn't start your business without those late entrants? What if those late entrants brought just as much or even more to the table than what you already had? What if you needed those late entrants to boost your profile with the buying public and other investors?

If your business' success and reputation are solely a function of everyone around you, then you don't have much of a business.

We have the ability to stand alone...we're not the classic 'wanna-be' you describe above!

The more I read about this mess - and I must admit 100% of what I'm reading is from UDPriders - the more I want us to stay in the A10. It's becoming more and more obvious they need us. I say screw 'em.

longtimefan · #43 01-07-2013, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

If your business' success and reputation are solely a function of everyone around you, then you don't have much of a business.

We have the ability to stand alone...we're not the classic 'wanna-be' you describe above!

So what is your point - UD should turn down an invitation to join the Big East 7 along with Xavier, Butler, St Louis and Creighton/VCU and "stand alone" in a watered down A-10?

rollo · #44 01-07-2013, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

So what is your point - UD should turn down an invitation to join the Big East 7 along with Xavier, Butler, St Louis and Creighton/VCU and "stand alone" in a watered down A-10?

If we're not going to be treated as equals your d@mn right I'd turn them down.

TerryK_67 · #45 01-07-2013, 10:27 AM

When did the goal switch from being good at college basketball, to seeing how much money we can get from the TV networks? I have been reading on UDPride for years that the basketball side has all the resources it needs to get to the level we want to get to…..
So going from $400K per year, to $2 or $3M is gonna help how?
And I still have not seen any logical explanation how TV networks, that are only paying what they do now to the A10; and the Big Least is fearfull that their take is gonna drop to a meager $1M; is all in the sudden gonna pay a colglamoration of those 2 leagues 2 to 3 Mil???
Right from the start my position has been to tell em we are not interested…. There are bigger things in life than greedy money…..

San Diego Flyer · #46 01-07-2013, 11:24 AM

So your vote would be to stop all discussions right now, and proclaim your allegiance to the A10. Then, concentrate on domimating the carcus of the A10 that is left after the churning is over? And take whatever $$ comes your way, which likely won't be $400k.

I do believe that is one viable approach.

rollo · #47 01-07-2013, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

So your vote would be to stop all discussions right now, and proclaim your allegiance to the A10. Then, concentrate on domimating the carcus of the A10 that is left after the churning is over? And take whatever $$ comes your way, which likely won't be $400k.

I do believe that is one viable approach.

No...as I stated earlier, my approach is that we're all equal or I'm outta here...and, oh by the way, what's the phone number of the Missouri Valley Conference?

DallasFlyer · #48 01-07-2013, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

So what is your point - UD should turn down an invitation to join the Big East 7 along with Xavier, Butler, St Louis and Creighton/VCU and "stand alone" in a watered down A-10?

Dayton doesn't have any power in this obviously if they are acting alone. What I would have hoped would have happened is that X, Butler, Dayton and SLU would have made a pact. You can have all four schools or none with an equitable amount of TV revenue sharing. The BE7 need at least 3 out of 4 of those schools to make this thing work. If the four A10 schools agreed to stick together what choice would the BE7 have?

xubrew · #49 01-07-2013, 12:11 PM

I'm thinking that Dayton, Butler and Xavier will be a part of a ten team conference along with the rest of the BE7. However, none of the A10-3 will be considered charter members, and they won't get as big of a share of the TV and NCAA Tournament revenue.

that's my thinking....for today. As scattershot as all this is, I could be thinking something completely different tomorrow.

UACFlyer · #50 01-07-2013, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by DallasFlyer

Dayton doesn't have any power in this obviously if they are acting alone. What I would have hoped would have happened is that X, Butler, Dayton and SLU would have made a pact. You can have all four schools or none with an equitable amount of TV revenue sharing. The BE7 need at least 3 out of 4 of those schools to make this thing work. If the four A10 schools agreed to stick together what choice would the BE7 have?

The four-school pact approach gives the A10 schools as much or more power than the C7. The C7 need the A10 schools. What would their new league look like without two or three of the four schools mentioned?

How "tight" are those A10 schools? One of the four needs to take the initiative and unite the group. Suppose X feels it's a lock and doesn't need a pact. Wrong! The value of a pact to X is that ensures that X will receive equal status with the C7.

The schools of the A10 really hold the cards if they stick together. Dan Curran is a very, very smart man...an aggressive, proactive man. If we can think of it...he already has.

Can't believe Curran will sit by and watch the C7 pick off A10 schools one-by-one. He has to come up with a plan and make the case that it's in the best interest of each of the four A10 schools mentioned by Dallas to act in unison.

Jay O'Leary · #51 01-07-2013, 12:49 PM

The Big East, and many of these specific teams, have treated us as the Little Sisters of the Poor for decades. Most won't even play us except in a tournament setting. This certainly affects our ability to recruit the best athletes as well as coaches (although I am pleased with AM). Now the Big 3 + Little 4 NEED some teams with excellent facilities, fans, and TV appeal to be viable as a league. I too realize we do not have the the same to offer as X and BU now, but it burns me of the audacity to continue to treat the newbies as unequal. Why would we want to associate with these pompous jerks if this is really what they expect? I'm sorry, but money is not worth continued groveling in the mud. X, VCU, BU, and GMU have done pretty well with less money. Let's do the same and not sacrifice our ethical principle of everyone being equal. It's equality or nothing. Why do you think we get so excited to play and beat these elitist schools?

Bat'71 · #52 01-07-2013, 12:50 PM

I'm still trying to come to grips with how the seven departing schools from the BE think they can get $50 Mil per year. Forget about the Big East...it will not exist anymore and there isn't any amount of wishful thinking, or alchemy, in the world that will change that reality. Look who we're talking about here: Marquette, G'town, 'Nova, St. Johns, SHU, Providence and DePaul. I don't see any Syracuse, Louisville, Cinci, UConn, ND, Pitt or WVa among them. God bless 'em if they can get that amount of money per year for the next decade...take the money and run; but in all likelihood, they aren't going to get that dough without enticing some heavy hitters to join them, because, on their own, they just don't appear to be all that appealing, IMHO. I would hope that before any targeted A-10 members sign on for that new league, they have a minimum guarantee of what to expect.

shocka43 · #53 01-07-2013, 12:54 PM

C7 thinking they are in a position like this is concerning.

Treating the A10 schools like the dork upperclassman that is old enough to buy beer for the cool freshman kids.

ud2 · #54 01-07-2013, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Bat'71

I'm still trying to come to grips with how the seven departing schools from the BE think they can get $50 Mil per year. Forget about the Big East...it will not exist anymore and there isn't any amount of wishful thinking, or alchemy, in the world that will change that reality. Look who we're talking about here: Marquette, G'town, 'Nova, St. Johns, SHU, Providence and DePaul. I don't see any Syracuse, Louisville, Cinci, UConn, ND, Pitt or WVa among them. God bless 'em if they can get that amount of money per year for the next decade...take the money and run; but in all likelihood, they aren't going to get that dough without enticing some heavy hitters to join them, because, on their own, they just don't appear to be all that appealing, IMHO. I would hope that before any targeted A-10 members sign on for that new league, they have a minimum guarantee of what to expect.

Sure seems like Fox and/or NBC are willing to overpay in order to increase their inventory and to be able to try to compete with ESPN.

flyer82 · #55 01-07-2013, 01:10 PM

I would like it like this!

No matter if we stay in the A10 or leave for the Big Seveneast 75% of the revenue should go to the top 50% of the teams. Maybe this would force UD to improve quicker, and reward the likes of Xavier, Butler, VCU and Temple. And, this would force the bottom dwellers to move up or move out.

shocka43 · #56 01-07-2013, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by flyer82

I would like it like this!

No matter if we stay in the A10 or leave for the Big Seveneast 75% of the revenue should go to the top 50% of the teams. Maybe this would force UD to improve quicker, and reward the likes of Xavier, Butler, VCU and Temple. And, this would force the bottom dwellers to move up or move out.

Issue with this is that there is always a bottom 50%...

UD's success or lack of, isn't due to a lack of investment. The program gets what they want and so do the others that support men's hoops.

The real question is what is the ceiling or lid for UD hoops? We haven't hit it, at least I hope not. Pumping money into it doesn't heighten the lid...I believe with what we do have, from staff to commitment from the University, that a larger TV deal may get us to that level we expect. X did it on their own. Little bigger recruiting market and the ability to get it done on a national scene. If you can't put yourself on the national scene alone, then a TV deal may just help that.

What happens when a conference that does this, ends up at the level of say an ACC? I find it hard to believe that there are any schools in the ACC that don't adequately invest in their hoops program, yet they are in the bottom 50% due to factors out of their control. There is only so much you can do when going up against the tradition and results of a Duke or Carolina.

Just force the schools that underperform of don't perform to do so through your bylaws. When they don't, they are gone. No need to regulate funds to do this.

The issue here is that revenue distribution based on results won't pay the tab for bottom dwellers to invest at the level people assume. It costs millions to bring facilities up to par. And even if millions were generated through a TV deal, that won't be enough to build a 12k seat venue. Duke performs with a tiny venue. Facilities and program improvement don't necessarily translate to results.

ClevelandFlyer05 · #57 01-07-2013, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

No...as I stated earlier, my approach is that we're all equal or I'm outta here...and, oh by the way, what's the phone number of the Missouri Valley Conference?

(314) 444-4300

The only way I like this option is if either Creighton or SLU were there with us.

UACFlyer · #58 01-07-2013, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Jay O'Leary

The Big East, and many of these specific teams, have treated us as the Little Sisters of the Poor for decades. Most won't even play us except in a tournament setting. This certainly affects our ability to recruit the best athletes as well as coaches (although I am pleased with AM). Now the Big 3 + Little 4 NEED some teams with excellent facilities, fans, and TV appeal to be viable as a league. I too realize we do not have the the same to offer as X and BU now, but it burns me of the audacity to continue to treat the newbies as unequal. Why would we want to associate with these pompous jerks if this is really what they expect? I'm sorry, but money is not worth continued groveling in the mud. X, VCU, BU, and GMU have done pretty well with less money. Let's do the same and not sacrifice our ethical principle of everyone being equal. It's equality or nothing. Why do you think we get so excited to play and beat these elitist schools?

....that is exactly the way we will treat St. Joes, URI, UMass, GW, etc. Do you think for a second that UD would play home-and-homes with such schools? And they won't agree to playing only at the Arena.

There is a human nature angle at work here. Like most people, schools will do whatever they can get away with. When the BE was riding high the C7 could treat the A10 any way it wanted to.

But, now the worm has turned a bit. If the A10 schools act as individuals they will be submitting to whatever treatment the C7 chooses. But, if they exert their considerable power by sticking together, then they are in a position to set terms and conditions...not the C7.

The C7 desperately needs certain A10 schools...not any A10 schools,...but two or three in particular. Those three have got to stick together in negotiating with the C7 Certainly, they must realize the power they surrender by acting as individuals.

San Diego Flyer · #59 01-07-2013, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Jay O'Leary

Why would we want to associate with these pompous jerks if this is really what they expect? I'm sorry, but money is not worth continued groveling in the mud. X, VCU, BU, and GMU have done pretty well with less money. Let's do the same and not sacrifice our ethical principle of everyone being equal. It's equality or nothing. Why do you think we get so excited to play and beat these elitist schools?

Why you say? Because our administration thinks with their business head and not their bruised ego from yester-year. I like the deal (whatever the hell it is to be) because we get to kick their sorry asses twice each year, and get paid 4x to 10x more. What's not to like?

longtimefan · #60 01-07-2013, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

....that is exactly the way we will treat St. Joes, URI, UMass, GW, etc. Do you think for a second that UD would play home-and-homes with such schools? And they won't agree to playing only at the Arena.

Not sure about that. I could see UD doing a home-and-home with an A-10 school (after the anger of those schools wears off) as they have done with the MVC, MAC, Patriot League (Holy Cross), and CAA.

Bat'71 · #61 01-07-2013, 06:03 PM

Another snippet on what may be transpiring.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/17421...-big-east.html

UACFlyer · #62 01-07-2013, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Bat'71

Another snippet on what may be transpiring.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/17421...-big-east.html

.....that Xavier and A10 newcomer Butler are considered "locks", "must-haves", for the new C7 conference....while Dayton's possible inclusion is tenuous, at best.

I have referred to the BG era as a "lost decade"...and have been soundly criticized, even ridiculed by some Priders for so doing. In my opinion, UD's highly uncertain current position only serves to reinforce my opinion.

If in BG's last five years the Flyers made the NCAAs three or four times, winning a few games, instead of one appearance sandwiched in among years of disappointing under achievement...we would be a "lock", a "must have", instead of being in nail-biting mode.

Considering the close geographic proximity of X, UD and Butler, I think our chances are somewhere between very slim and none. SLU and/or CU make a lot more sense to me looking at it the way I suppose the C7 are.

We should not be in this unenviable position, Dr. Dan's optimism notwithstanding. It's nothing less than a d@mn shame.

I truly hope I am wrong in my assessment of our situation....no one will be happier than me if I am. But, I fear otherwise.

shocka43 · #63 01-07-2013, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

.....that Xavier and A10 newcomer Butler are considered "locks", "must-haves", for the new C7 conference....while Dayton's possible inclusion is tenuous, at best.

I have referred to the BG era as a "lost decade"...and have been soundly criticized, even ridiculed by some Priders for so doing. In my opinion, UD's highly uncertain current position only serves to reinforce my opinion.

If in BG's last five years the Flyers made the NCAAs three or four times, winning a few games, instead of one appearance sandwiched in among years of disappointing under achievement...we would be a "lock", a "must have", instead of being in nail-biting mode.

Considering the close geographic proximity of X, UD and Butler, I think our chances are somewhere between very slim and none. SLU and/or CU make a lot more sense to me looking at it the way I suppose the C7 are.

We should not be in this unenviable position, Dr. Dan's optimism notwithstanding. It's nothing less than a d@mn shame.

I truly hope I am wrong in my assessment of our situation....no one will be happier than me if I am. But, I fear otherwise.

That's what worries me. We have done nothing on the court in the last decade to place ourselves above, or even with, some of the other contenders mentioned.

Do we have facilities, fanbase, alumni reach, etc...that is better than many schools mentioned or already in the C7? Absolutely...

But...to be included, we better hope that the totality of the program, history, support, and academics have a heavier weight than recent results.

UDDoug · #64 01-07-2013, 09:04 PM

SLU and Dayton have done the least on the court, Creighton marginally more mostly because their current coach has a lottery pick for a son.

From a TV marketing standpoint I can make an argument either way on the proximity issue. The key is what gets the most people watching, and people in UD's market aren't going to watch X or Butler play any of the C7.

If it's a 10 team league being in the A10 isn't the end of the world. On the court, the two will not be a lot different initially, particulalry if the A10 uses the "raid" to reconfigure and set standards for the bottom of the league.

shocka43 · #65 01-07-2013, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by UDDoug

If it's a 10 team league being in the A10 isn't the end of the world. On the court, the two will not be a lot different initially, particulalry if the A10 uses the "raid" to reconfigure and set standards for the bottom of the league.

If it is a 12, and we are out, it is **** close to the end.,,,that is unless the A10 has a backup plan to include some power schools from other mid conferences coming to play.

I think a 10, we can manage, and the A10 has strong leadership, IMO, to get things done to make up for it. If it is a 12, and other A10 schools are picked, such as SLU, then it makes things more difficult.

I want to be aligned with X because I like playing them twice a year. Nothing says that would continue in the future if we part ways in the league.

hawkoooo · #66 01-07-2013, 09:38 PM

I wouldn't be crushed if it was those three. The A-10 could add Wichita St. and Murray St. and move on.

If it was 5 and we were still out I would be concerned, to say the least.

UDan71 · #67 01-07-2013, 09:39 PM

Because our performance over the past 10 years has been much less than spectacular, it seems to me that how the team performs this season is CRITICAL to any chance we have of "making the cut" for the new league.

I think AM and the players need to realize that every time they go out on the court this year, there is a tremendous amount at stake for the future of UD b-ball. There needs to be a level of intensity and passion displayed that will enable this team to achieve at a level of which they're capable - if they play like EVERYTHING is at stake. This team doesn't seem to understand how critical this moment in history (for UD) is. They really need to play with a much, much greater sense of urgency and intensity.

Some of these games have been played with significant inconsistency - losing games which are critical to our overall record and our RPI rating. This just diminishes our profile to the extent that we will be given very little consideration for this new league. This team HAS TO make a splash this season (BEAT Butler, BEAT VCU, BEAT X at their place) or else UD basketball will be exiled to the hinterlands for many, many years. I believe this is a watershed moment and guys like Dillard, Benson, and Oliver need to stand up and be counted, take the program where it needs to go - or we will fall back to being a St. Bonaventure or Duquesne. We'll be judged as a program by the company we keep. This program can no longer afford 8-8 records and 6th-place finishes in the A-10. It's do-or-die RIGHT NOW!

Flyer68 · #68 01-07-2013, 09:46 PM

Dick Weiss is the college basketball writer for the NY Daily News. A couple of months ago when the C7 story was starting to break, he wrote that X was 3-1 and Dayton was 4-1 to join with the C7. He had very complementary things to say about us, the history of the program particularly in the NYC area, the status of the school, size of the arena, passion of the fans, fan base and Dayton fan attendance at away games. I live in NJ and Dayton has a large following here. I have been watching college basketball here since I came back in 1968 and went Seton Hall Law School. The presence of SHU, DePaul and Providence does not excite anyone. Proposed new teams, X, UD, Temple, SLU, Creighton, Butler, VCU, are well known to this area but are never seen here by bball fans on a regular basis until on tv during the tournament. SHU v. any of the C7 is not going to increase attendance but SHU v. UD and the others will put new fans in the seats. The C7 teams have been playing each other for years and badly need new blood to make the proposed new league really viable. I think there is a lot of posturing here and the networks will have a large say

Avid Flyer · #69 01-07-2013, 09:48 PM

I know all the talk is about mens bball, but I ask what does NCAA appearances in Olympic Sports add to the mix. Probably not alot of $$$ but UD's womens program have had more NCAA appearances than most if not all the C7. Does it have any weight or is this just going to be mens bball conference and the hell with the rest.

Dayon's overall resume when considering its other programs is a lot more attractive than the rest. If the new Fox is looking for fillers it just might add the Olympic sports to help fill some of that air time.

At the end of the day it probably don't mean a hell of beans but it does enhance our resume.

Avid Flyer · #70 01-07-2013, 09:50 PM

Not sure if true or not but a birdie told me Dayton was upgrading all its sports programs with full scholarships (less football and club teams.) Perhaps Dayton is trying to make a statement that they are willing to go the distance in all sports, thus upping the ante for the others to make the same commitment.

shocka43 · #71 01-07-2013, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by UDan71

Because our performance over the past 10 years has been much less than spectacular, it seems to me that how the team performs this season is CRITICAL to any chance we have of "making the cut" for the new league.

I would venture to say the short list is pretty short, to the extent that if we aren't on it, nothing we do this year will change minds. If the decisions regarding invites are made on such a short term history, then those decisions are pretty hasty. I don't think we would convince anyone to add us...but we surely could move further down the list if we aren't already a lock...

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer

I know all the talk is about mens bball, but I ask what does NCAA appearances in Olympic Sports add to the mix. Probably not alot of $$$ but UD's womens program have had more NCAA appearances than most if not all the C7. Does it have any weight or is this just going to be mens bball conference and the hell with the rest.

Dayon's overall resume when considering its other programs is a lot more attractive than the rest. If the new Fox is looking for fillers it just might add the Olympic sports to help fill some of that air time.

At the end of the day it probably don't mean a hell of beans but it does enhance our resume.

This is what you hope that these schools take a look at. It will make UD AD look like geniuses to those who are critical about their focus on all other sports not named men's basketball. But, where does the term "basketball centric schools" begin and end in the scheme of things...is it schools that don't depend on football...or does it mean they don't really care about anything else other than basketball...two totally different avenues, and we can only hope that the big picture is looked at.

Avid Flyer · #72 01-07-2013, 10:01 PM

Shocka43 that was Ted Kissels approach to making the flyers more attractive should a split occure. If it works out that this IS considered then TK will have been a visonary and genius. If not, well then maybe we can make it to the final 4 with one of the ladies teams, should the men's bball not rise to the occation.

ud2 · #73 01-07-2013, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

I have referred to the BG era as a "lost decade"...and have been soundly criticized, even ridiculed by some Priders for so doing. In my opinion, UD's highly uncertain current position only serves to reinforce my opinion.

If in BG's last five years the Flyers made the NCAAs three or four times, winning a few games, instead of one appearance sandwiched in among years of disappointing under achievement...we would be a "lock", a "must have", instead of being in nail-biting mode.

We should not be in this unenviable position, Dr. Dan's optimism notwithstanding. It's nothing less than a d@mn shame.

I posted something similar to your above post, and I got a red pipe for my post. I wonder if UD gave BG too much time and should have let BG go as many as 5 years ago, after his 5th year at UD. If this was Archie's(or some other coach's)3rd or 5th year, instead of just his 2nd year, things could be a lot different.

I don't know though, if they were going to let BG go, it probably would have had to have been after his 5th year(it seems like you have to give most coaches at least 5 years nowadays, unless things are really bad, 5 years seems to be sort of an industry standard minimum length of time before it is considered acceptable to let a coach go)or after his 7th(maybe, tougher case to be made for letting him go after winning the NIT)or 8th year(which ended up being his last year).

And there weren't any indications that they were going to let him go after his 8th year, so I don't know how much more time they were going to give him, I guess he really could have been here until 2018, unless things became really bad. They couldn't have let him go after his 6th year when he took UD to the NCAA tournament.

There is a price to be paid for being loyal to, and patient with, an underachieving coach.

BG's record at UD:

year 1 2003–2004 Dayton 24–9 12–4 1st (East) NCAA 1st Round
year 2 2004–2005 Dayton 18–11 10–6 T–2nd (East)
year 3 2005–2006 Dayton 14–17 6–10 T–11th
year 4 2006–2007 Dayton 19–12 8–8 T–7th
year 5 2007–2008 Dayton 23–11 8–8 T–7th NIT Quarterfinals
year 6 2008–2009 Dayton 27–8 11–5 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
year 7 2009–2010 Dayton 25–12 8–8 7th NIT Champions
year 8 2010–2011 Dayton 22–14 7–9 T–8th NIT 1st Round

Glen Clark · #74 01-07-2013, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by ud2

. . .BG's record at UD:

year 1 2003–2004 Dayton 24–9 12–4 1st (East) NCAA 1st Round
year 2 2004–2005 Dayton 18–11 10–6 T–2nd (East)
year 3 2005–2006 Dayton 14–17 6–10 T–11th
year 4 2006–2007 Dayton 19–12 8–8 T–7th
year 5 2007–2008 Dayton 23–11 8–8 T–7th NIT Quarterfinals
year 6 2008–2009 Dayton 27–8 11–5 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
year 7 2009–2010 Dayton 25–12 8–8 7th NIT Champions
year 8 2010–2011 Dayton 22–14 7–9 T–8th NIT 1st Round

Torture numbers long enough - they'll admit to anything.

BG's tenure was UD's most successful run since the mid eighties.
Most wins.
Most post-season wins.
Most NCAA wins (tie).
Most national rankings.
Most players in the NBA.

End of story

___________________
A man sees what he wants to see, And disregards the rest.
- Paul Simon

shocka43 · #75 01-07-2013, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by Glen Clark

Torture numbers long enough - they'll admit to anything.

BG's tenure was UD's most successful run since the mid eighties.
Most wins.
Most post-season wins.
Most NCAA wins (tie).
Most national rankings.
Most players in the NBA.

End of story

___________________
A man sees what he wants to see, And disregards the rest.
- Paul Simon

It was...but there wasn't much of a bar to hit...

I am not taking anything away from the accomplishments of those guys and those teams, but where did it leave us? Where are we now?

IMO, results or not, the end was pedestrian in comparison to our peers, and the program isn't in much better shape now, than early on in BG's tenure. It was still rather flat in the scheme of things given expectations.

To stay on topic, I think this is why UD fans in general are nervous about the conference alignment. The C7 isn't comparing the last 10 years to the JOB era. Many UD fans are.

If things pan out, I think it is a great time for UD to seize the opportunity. If it doesn't work out, the next 10 years have a real good chance of being like the last.

Bat'71 · #76 01-08-2013, 08:28 AM

Why the deep infatuation with the departing BE 7 schools on this Board? Honestly, I just don't get it. Don't get me wrong, I think that geographically, academically and philosophically they'd be a very good fit for UD...but I don't think that's what this is all about. We have a pretty good fit right where we are in the A-10, which, BTW, has been very good to UD. Our future is not dependent on whether or not we hook up with the new Conference being formed...other than our egos being bruised, we'll be just fine. Yes, if Butler and X move on (and let's face it...they are the key players here), the league will be diminished, but it will still be very viable and competitive. Our teams, our facilities, our fan base, our student body, our academic standing and our institutional integrity make us who we are...not some sports affiliation with a Conference. IMO, UD has a helluva lot to offer to any Conference: the atmosphere in our Arena is electric for most games*; our fans travel well; and, our institutional profile is second to none...these are some of the reasons pre-season Tourneies love to have us on their slate.

Notwithstanding all the *****in' and moanin' about BG's record, he instilled a winning attitude among our players, he competed for and landed some high profile recruits we hadn't been able to even talk to in the past, he instilled a winning attitude, he raised expectations and he boosted our national profile (and he did it the right way!) If not for the fiasco with the Statens, he probably would still be with us, but it was probably time for him to move on anyway...I wish him nothing but the best. So, let's get out of our collective funk, stop flogging ourselves over what might have been (and trying to blame someone for our woes) and be thankful for what we have...in the scheme of things, we're in pretty good shape...and we will be, come what may. Actually, IMHO, we should show a little more gratitude and respect to the A-10 and the member schools we've been associated with over the past 17 years...they ain't chopped liver, ya know.

*While I haven't been able to attend a game at the Arena in a few years, the news from another Thread that the intro music leaves our fans flat at the start of our Home games is not good. For Gaud's sake UD, fix it! What type of institutional gridlock has taken over that prevents a simple fix to this situation. It ain't rocket science. Geeze, Louise, if the current music stinks and no one's sure what to do, go back to what actually did work in the past..even if it's a little dated. Going forward, why doesn't the AD or the Arena staff (or whoever it is that is in charge of this) simply attend a few games at other Arenas in the area (OSU, X, Cinci, UofL, Butler, OU, etc.) and see what they're doing. I've been to UofL games, and that place rocks at the start of games. I'll be going to the SHU/UofL game tomorrow at he PruCenter and see what they're doing. BTW, just for the record, I liked the intro we used to have at our games, but I'm an Old Fart.

westchesterflyer · #77 01-08-2013, 08:39 AM

One of the interesting things about the BE Tournament is that the "heat" of the ticket is very much dependant on Syracuse and UConn. St. John's has lost a lot of it's appeal in the NY area (a recent game against UNC Ashville saw attendance at about 4,500 on campus). Seton Hall, Providence et al will bring very little to MSG assuming the tourney stays there. 'Nova and G'Town are the exceptions but the "new BE" will need teams that travel well. I don't think anyone would argue that UD doesn't provide a crowd. I would hope TW and DC would emphasize that.

shocka43 · #78 01-08-2013, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Bat'71

Why the deep infatuation with the departing BE 7 schools on this Board?

I don't think it is as much of that as it is the infatuation with the strength of the A10.

From what we have heard, we can almost guarantee that two of the top A10 teams are leaving...

What we can't guarantee, is that anyone with any strength would be replacing them.

This revolves around being associated with the stronger of the two hoops conferences when it is all said and done. Not doing so, puts us behind...again.

m21eagle45 · #79 01-08-2013, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Glen Clark

Torture numbers long enough - they'll admit to anything.

BG's tenure was UD's most successful run since the mid eighties.
Most wins.
Most post-season wins.
Most NCAA wins (tie).
Most national rankings.
Most players in the NBA.

End of story

___________________
A man sees what he wants to see, And disregards the rest.
- Paul Simon

70-58 in the A-10 for his 8 seasons. Over the last 6 years, when it was mostly or all his players, BG was 48-48. It doesn't matter how well you do in OOC to make it seem like you are a great head coach. Winning in the league matters. BG didn't do that. They play more games now than they did when DD, JO'B, and even OP was here. So I would hope he won more games. But NIT's do not mean you had a successful season. A 20 win season is not what it used to be. When will this fan base understand that? Success is measured in NCAA appearances and NCAA wins. Not NIT appearances.

Where it matters, BG failed.

UACFlyer · #80 01-08-2013, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Glen Clark

Torture numbers long enough - they'll admit to anything.

BG's tenure was UD's most successful run since the mid eighties.
Most wins.
Most post-season wins.
Most NCAA wins (tie).
Most national rankings.
Most players in the NBA.

End of story

___________________
A man sees what he wants to see, And disregards the rest.
- Paul Simon

Originally Posted by m21eagle45

70-58 in the A-10 for his 8 seasons. Over the last 6 years, when it was mostly or all his players, BG was 48-48. It doesn't matter how well you do in OOC to make it seem like you are a great head coach. Winning in the league matters. BG didn't do that. They play more games now than they did when DD, JO'B, and even OP was here. So I would hope he won more games. But NIT's do not mean you had a successful season. A 20 win season is not what it used to be. When will this fan base understand that? Success is measured in NCAA appearances and NCAA wins. Not NIT appearances.

Where it matters, BG failed.

Eagle is right.

A successful coach must be good ar recruiting, player development and game coaching...or at least very good at two of those three and at least adequate at one other.

BG is a good man and was a good ambassador for our U....and he was a good recruiter, maybe even very good. The fact that players he recruited are either in the NBA or nearly so only serves to highlight the fact that he was not at all good at player development and game coaching.

How else does one explain BG's mediocre A10 record and underachieving teams when he starts with very good players but doesn't produce results when they count?

One NCAA appearance in a decade (not counting the first with OP's team) for a program like UD's is woefully inadequate...and accounts in no small way for our relatively weak position in the C7 sweepstakes.

UDDoug · #81 01-08-2013, 09:58 AM

He wasn't good at putting together a roster of complementary players with basketball skills. Too many athletes with limited basketball skills and IQ. Not a recipe for success unless you rely on athleticism by pressing and trapping to create offense.

If UD had 4 NCAA appearances in Gregory's tenure, they would be in better shape. But I don't think the primary driver would be the on court success. It's going to be a combination of that and what it means for TV. The decision certainly isn't being made on who has done what on the court within the last 2 to 4 years.

I think TV will outweigh oncourt success as long as there is a feeling they aren't adding Providence or DePaul.

And I don't know where that puts UD, likely somewhere right around the cut line just like many post seasons.

San Diego Flyer · #82 01-08-2013, 10:39 AM

I think BG recruited exactly what he was after except for the point guards. Where he may have erred on the aggressive side was what he thought he could pull off in developing the athletic talent to be well-rounded players. And having been a point guard himself, the lack of development in that position had to frustrate him heavily.

As to our ongoing concern over being included in the new BE, just reading all the conjecture and releases, I don't like the feeling I'm getting re our chances of being invited.

UDDoug · #83 01-08-2013, 11:01 AM

I would rather be the Gonzaga or Butler in a revamped A10, than a Providence or DePaul in the new Big East. Playing in a weaker perceived league hasn't hampered either one of them.

Bat'71 · #84 01-08-2013, 11:03 AM

It seems to me that what any Conference would want (and Broadcasters too, I might add) would be games where the Arenas are packed, the crowd is electric and the games are intense; bringing in and developing natural rivalries among good teams would also be a major plus, IMO. UD has all that in spades. While some may think our lack of success in getting to the NCAAs over the past decade would be a detriment to our appeal as a program, IMO this may be overrated...we've had a solid, respectable record over the past decade and have been on the cusp of success virtually every year; although falling short of our expectations, we do have a lot to be proud of and have gained "respectability" as a program.

What I particularly liked about the additions of Butler and VCU to the A-10 (in addition to the fact they both have strong, competitive programs) was that a nexus of UD, X, Butler and SLU could provide strong competitive, regional rivalries to the league, while the addition of VCU, with Richmond and GW could do the same thing along with the Philly schools in the East. If UMass, URI and Fordham could get their acts together, this would be a helluva Conference. Even Duquesne and the Bonnies would add value if they can step it up a notch or two. I'm not sure the departing schools of the BE have that going for them anymore...they will need to bring in some schools that can provide a similar type of competitive fervor and excitement to be successful. Without that, any year end Conference Tourny they might hold in MSG (or anywhere else) will be a hollow shell of what they had when 'Cuse, Pitt, ND and UConn (with their strong regional alumni bases in the region) were in the mix.

* I know there is talk of a "national BB league" with the possible inclusion of a Creighten, Gonzaga and or/St Mary's in the mix with the BE 7, but this really doesn't seem to make a lot of sense on it's "face". How packed would MSG be if quarter finals in that "Conference" were to have Gonzaga/Providence and St. Mary's/DePaul? You could probably shoot a cannon off in there and not hit anybody. For BB, neutral site Conference Tournament games really need to be centered in an area where the schools have strong alumni bases, the schools have fans that travel really well and/or be in a hot bed of college BB with little competition form other regional schools. Now with UConn, 'Cuse and ND going in different directions, MSG probably will have a different dynamic than in the past.

Buster Goode · #85 01-08-2013, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

But what if you couldn't start your business without those late entrants? What if those late entrants brought just as much or even more to the table than what you already had? What if you needed those late entrants to boost your profile with the buying public and other investors?

LOL!!!!

You are acting as if we are one of the last decent college basketball programs on the planet looking for an upgrade. There are at least another 5-7 very good programs very willing to take our place if we are unwilling to accept their reasonable terms.

UDDoug · #86 01-08-2013, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Buster Goode

LOL!!!!

You are acting as if we are one of the last decent college basketball programs on the planet looking for an upgrade. There are at least another 5-7 very good programs very willing to take our place if we are unwilling to accept their reasonable terms.

LOL!!!!!!!

His point didn't have anything to do with UD in particular, it was in regards to ANY new entrant taking a lesser share. If they all said no to that, then what would the C7 do?

My guess is it's a moot point because any of them will take the lesser share to chase more money.

Bat'71 · #87 01-08-2013, 01:30 PM

They should have a remake of the movie "Wall Street", call it "Conference Hopping" and instead of Gordon Gecko, have a President of one of our more "prestigious" State Universities (or his AD) have the line "Greed is good". That would put a proper 21st Century spin on things.

Buster Goode · #88 01-08-2013, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by UDDoug

LOL!!!!!!!

His point didn't have anything to do with UD in particular, it was in regards to ANY new entrant taking a lesser share. If they all said no to that, then what would the C7 do?

My guess is it's a moot point because any of them will take the lesser share to chase more money.

It's all moot. Without any late entrants, there is no business and we aren't having this discussion.

No one is going to say no. There will be negotiation at worst case and then a yes.

Flyer69ers · #89 01-08-2013, 01:52 PM

http://www.vuhoops.com/2013/1/7/3846...art-up-process

"They should avoid the hubris of creating a caste system where some founding members receive more than others from the television deal -- a set-up that could offend some potential partners or lead to hard feelings and difficult politics later on. That said, if the money could work out to pay between $4 and $5 million to each school annually for the next 12 years, that would be a great start for the league."

Glen Clark · #90 01-08-2013, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by m21eagle45

70-58 in the A-10 for his 8 seasons. . . where it matters, BG failed.

Conference play was obviously BG's Achilles Heel - I won't argue otherwise. But to focus on the negative - "where it matters, BG failed" - serves no purpose. In all, I think the NIT Championship team and the Juwan Staten clusterf*ck were the two seasons that any fan would find disappointing - and probably helped BG decide to move on. Even taking those two seasons into account, though, I would still say:
'where it matters, BG succeeded'. He may have not raised the bar as high as you would have liked, but he raised the bar.
It's up to Archie now.

___________________
Whether your glass is half empty or half full, you still have more to drink.

UACFlyer · #91 01-08-2013, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Glen Clark

Conference play was obviously BG's Achilles Heel - I won't argue otherwise. But to focus on the negative - "where it matters, BG failed" - serves no purpose. In all, I think the NIT Championship team and the Juwan Staten clusterf*ck were the two seasons that any fan would find disappointing - and probably helped BG decide to move on. Even taking those two seasons into account, though, I would still say:
'where it matters, BG succeeded'. He may have not raised the bar as high as you would have liked, but he raised the bar.
It's up to Archie now.

___________________
Whether your glass is half empty or half full, you still have more to drink.

Success at the top tier of Div 1 BB these days is judged by NCAA appearances and wins. Hardly anything else matters. To say that BG "raised the bar", "elevated the program", "recruited better athletes", "sent players to the NBA", "had the best record since the 80s", or whatever, misses the point entirely.

UD strives to be among the best in college BB. There is only one measure of that...consistent NCAA appearances and wins. Over BG's decade the UD program was not sucessful by the single measure that matters.

There is no need for more complicated analysis. TK did not hire BG to take the program to one NCAA in a decade. UD "needs" to be in the NCAAs roughly half the time over a decade. We are light years from achieving that goal.

UDDoug · #92 01-08-2013, 04:05 PM

Agree.

And UD hasn't been successful at that level for 45 years. Even if you take the 70s and 80s and say the NIT was comparable, the decade plus from 2000 on was probably as or more successful than the three decades prior.

Since 2000 they've been CLOSE, and much closer than they've been to that level of success for the 30 years prior, but not there.

Sea Bass · #93 01-08-2013, 04:10 PM

honestly the real issue I have in staying in a restructured A10 has nothing to do with the level of competition or the money. It is the lackluster fan bases of most of the other schools . Most of the BE7 have rather apathetic fans as well (at least outside of Marquette), It is why it would be nice to be in a league with XU, SLU, Creighton and Marquette.

FlyingArrow · #94 01-08-2013, 04:16 PM

I am a fan of Creighton's fans. Creighton seems to get as much excitement from its fans as Dayton does.

San Diego Flyer · #95 01-08-2013, 05:20 PM

Totally agree with that. In my first 10 years out of UD, I lived and worked in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and two of my associates were from Creighton and Marquette. Their allegiance and pride for their schools was parallel to mine for UD. Not arrogant, just prideful. And all 3 of us ended up on the same AAU industrial league team and bonded.

longtimefan · #96 01-08-2013, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

As to our ongoing concern over being included in the new BE, just reading all the conjecture and releases, I don't like the feeling I'm getting re our chances of being invited.

Wondering why you feel this way. Almost everything I've read has us included. The most consistent rumor seems to be X, Butler, Creighton, UD, and St Louis.

San Diego Flyer · #97 01-08-2013, 09:13 PM

Tell you what's bothering me about this B7 thing at this point. The BE7 consultants are doing their job and stirring up competition between media outlets--Fox, NBC, ESPN, et al. The pot is growing for the B7 with the right combination of teams. But as the money grows for the potential partners in the B7, B10 or B12, it attracts more and more interest from other basketball programs. From my experience just when you think the logical outcome is set, in swoops some deal no one even thought about, particularly when large sums of $$ are involved. In this deal, whenever and however it happens in the chess game of life, UD is not a queen, a rook, or even a knight. We are pawns. The power brokers from the media folks become heavily involved (and they will never admit it). And many of them have connections to candidates who see what this 12 year payout could be. The end result can be something no one on the "outside" ever saw coming. I get a bad feeling because the pot that is being talked about has grown so large (supposedly).

ClevelandFlyer05 · #98 01-08-2013, 09:47 PM

I read an article the earlier this evening that seems to indicate that Richmond may be on the radar more than many had previously imagined. It also implied that Georgetown may get to make the final call on whether a school in their neck of the woods, such as Richmond, would get an invite. Seems like SDF is right and that there may be more schools throwing their hat in the ring, which doesn't bode well for us, particularly if we're not #10.

bcross · #99 01-08-2013, 11:05 PM

Any relevant non-football school has had their hat in the ring since the beginning. Nothing has changed. Three weeks ago it was reported that each team could get $3 million per school from Fox, and the recent estimates put it around $3.5 million from Fox.

San Diego Flyer · #**100** 01-09-2013, 09:21 AM

Duke is a basketball school that has non-relevant football. There are more than one of those around. When the conjecture, or even facts, are reported, the public is the last to know. One report on this board had the number at $5M. No one on the outside knows what is going on in those conclaves right now.