Topic: H-D: Chuck Landon: No pot of gold at end of Big East rainbow

[_sturt_]

Stuart hate to break this to you but we have had 1 winning season in 12 years (i thnk) ...we aren't in a position to move up or to place ourself in the same category as Boise State. We are an also ran. We got thumped by UCF at home and made to look like a 1aa school.

We need to win CUSA.

With all due respect, this is irrelevant to the discussion.

The discussion is just how much of a hit are we going to take as we descend to Sun Belt status as compared to if our administration was (and hopefully "is") using the BCS revenue structure negotiations to create the political dominoes that would result in MWC and Big East having 32 schools between them... and accordingly, wedging our way to remain with our current peers... continuing to enjoy our current revenue as opposed to taking a draconian cut.

Further, I think you probably are wrong to assume that you have to make it to a BCS game to reap the windfall revenue... rather, if this structure holds form with others, the BCS invitee gets a lion's share, but all of the sister schools of their conference get a share of those windfall revenues.

[_sturt_]

CUSA replaced those media markets with ones that are on par with the defectors. They also expanded the size of the league by adding more quality TV markets. When we rework our deal in a few years, we can easily match or exceed BE's figures. Plus, we might have conference mates who respect us and show up at the Joan in the bleachers.

As stated previously to Super...

If 80-90% of the group of schools currently comprising CUSA leave and become the Big Whatever... we should be able to predict fairly accurately that whatever those schools were getting in TV revenue before, they'll be getting that, plus maybe something for inflation, under the new name.

And if 80-90% of the group of schools that will comprise CUSA come up from Sun Belt... or even a lower echelon of football... then we should be able to predict fairly accurately that whatever those schools were getting in TV revenue before, they'll be getting that, plus maybe something for inflation, under their new name.

You can't get around this.  

- $3.1 million per school per year while Marshall was among the current group of schools that will leave for Big East.

- Less than $200,000 per school per year in the future group of schools largely composed of Sun Belt.

To say that you think our money can EVEN POSSIBLY fail to decrease is... pardon me for saying so, but it's just too painfully obvious... just a hallucinogenic proposition on your part.

You hang your only argument on this idea that competition among networks to gain FBS conferences' contracts will drive up the price... yet, again, you avoid the rejoinder... how's that working for the Big East who just had Boise defect after all? And turning back to us... you really think that the networks are going to pay us and our former-Sun-Belt-and-FCS peers 16-freakin-times (!) what they paid them before? We'll be very fortunate to even get to $500,000, let alone get back to more than $3 mil.

Now why is that? All of the astute football fans know that Tulane football sucks and they have no fan base... why wouldn't a network prefer to broadcast, say, Florida International?

Well, as much as some may enjoy FIU football and as much of a fan base as they may have, what appear to completely go unrecognized by some in this thread is that schools have this thing called name recognition and branding... hence, even though Tulane has fallen on hard times in more recent years, the brand Tulane is simply worth more than the brand FIU.

So, again, I'm glad you defined the question you were addressing, but then, the answer remains the same... there is no comparison, at least not in the early 2010s... ten years from now, I'll grant that the overall picture could have changed... but we're dealing with reality not potential, which again, only means you haven't done anything yet.

We might be making the best of a bad situation, but it does no one any good to pretend that the bad situation isn't all that bad.

The glass is three-quarters empty.

I realize your argument is based somewhat differently on market size, but that's only helping to make a bad situation a little less bad than it otherwise would be. Again, this isn't just a shot in the dark since we can look at the Sun Belt and actually get a sense for what these schools' presence on a TV screen have been thought to be worth previously. Does FIU get more money because they play us instead of Troy, or does MTSU get more money because they play UAB instead of Arkansas State? Maybe a little, but not a whole lot.

[catfanatic1979]

With all due respect, this is irrelevant to the discussion.

The discussion is just how much of a hit are we going to take as we descend to Sun Belt status as compared to if our administration was (and hopefully "is") using the BCS revenue structure negotiations to create the political dominoes that would result in MWC and Big East having 32 schools between them... and accordingly, wedging our way to remain with our current peers... continuing to enjoy our current revenue as opposed to taking a draconian cut.

Further, I think you probably are wrong to assume that you have to make it to a BCS game to reap the windfall revenue... rather, if this structure holds form with others, the BCS invitee gets a lion's share, but all of the sister schools of their conference get a share of those windfall revenues.

It seems more like the discussion you want to have, rather than the one the rest of us are having.

[IM4DHERD]

With all due respect, this is irrelevant to the discussion.

The discussion is just how much of a hit are we going to take as we descend to Sun Belt status as compared to if our administration was (and hopefully "is") using the BCS revenue structure negotiations to create the political dominoes that would result in MWC and Big East having 32 schools between them... and accordingly, wedging our way to remain with our current peers... continuing to enjoy our current revenue as opposed to taking a draconian cut.

The discussion from the start was the difference between the TV revenues we now have and what the BE was just offered, not what you are attempting to highjack to your opinion.  Don't chastise others for highjacking when they bring to the table a point just as, if not more, to the point that you are.

[_sturt_]

It seems more like the discussion you want to have, rather than the one the rest of us are having.

How do you reconcile that with this? Are these not your words?

When the new CUSA reworks their deal in the next few years, we can easily match that and might even exceeed it, IMO.

[catfanatic1979]

How do you reconcile that with this? Are these not your words?

What is your point here????

Seriously, you need to make it.

[_sturt_]

The discussion from the start was the difference between the TV revenues we now have and what the BE was just offered, not what you are attempting to highjack to your opinion.  Don't chastise others for highjacking when they bring to the table a point just as, if not more, to the point that you are.

IM4, you seemingly didn't notice and I know you just generally don't like for me to comment about any of this at all regardless... but Greenhouse was responding to MY assertion... not on something stated in the thread before that... so, I think I'm within my bounds to indicate to him/her that the response wasn't material to what I'd said.

[_sturt_]

What is your point here????

Seriously, you need to make it.

Back up.

As I understood it, you asserted that the discussion was one of my own making, not one that anyone else wanted to have.

But then, when we look at your words, notably posted before I got online this afternoon, it appears that it's a discussion you wanted to have because you'd already brought it all up before I got here.

[catfanatic1979]

Back up.

As I understood it, you asserted that the discussion was one of my own making, not one that anyone else wanted to have.

But then, when we look at your words, notably posted before I got online this afternoon, it appears that it's a discussion you wanted to have because you'd already brought it all up before I got here.

Um, no not quite. I see your subtle twist on the semantics to make it all work, but no. My position has been that we meet or exceed the current income. Many others think we make the same as the nBE as well. Your position has been the opposite and you have acted your opinion is only way this discussion can be framed and it should continue only within that framework. If you had simply stated we have it all wrong, that would be one thing. But it is clear your just trying to get everyone to accept your framing without neccessarily accepting your argument by petty much nagging them to death. The end result would have them leave the discussion entirely.

[_sturt_]

Um, no not quite. I see your subtle twist on the semantics to make it all work, but no. My position has been that we meet or exceed the current income. Many others think we make the same as the nBE as well. Your position has been the opposite and you have acted your opinion is only way this discussion can be framed and it should continue only within that framework. If you had simply stated we have it all wrong, that would be one thing. But it is clear your just trying to get everyone to accept your framing without neccessarily accepting your argument by petty much nagging them to death. The end result would have them leave the discussion entirely.

Touche'... speaking of semantics, what you call a "discussion" while asserting that the discussion is one of my own making, I think is more accurately a "position." I do not share your position, but we are all participating in a discussion that concerns Marshall's TV revenue situation relative to what our current peers are going to get, what we're all currently getting, and what we ought to be able to expect in New Sun Belt in the future.

I'm asking that you defend your position based on what history says these new conference mates bring to the table. You've asserted that market size is meaningful, and I suggest that the difference between being a Miami school competing against a school from Huntington shouldn't be thought to be a whole lot different than being a Miami school competing against a school from Troy, AL... though, indeed, it probably helps a little that we have a brand... Marshall... that is recognizable over Troy.

It's up to you whether you want to go off into the weeds and have a metadiscussion (a discussion about the discussion)... but if you do that, don't be surprised if many recognize that you're merely avoiding defending your position.

Look, I wish you were right. I'd love for you to offer up some aspect that turns everything upside down and that Marshall was actually going to benefit in incredible ways. I'd like nothing better, truly. But I continue to wait for someone to answer what history says, not what potential says or what optimism says.

[catfanatic1979]

Touche'... speaking of semantics, what you call a "discussion" while asserting that the discussion is one of my own making, I think is more accurately a "position." I do not share your position, but we are all participating in a discussion that concerns Marshall's TV revenue situation relative to what our current peers are going to get, what we're all currently getting, and what we ought to be able to expect in New Sun Belt in the future.

I'm asking that you defend your position based on what history says these new conference mates bring to the table. You've asserted that market size is meaningful, and I suggest that the difference between being a Miami school competing against a school from Huntington shouldn't be thought to be a whole lot different than being a Miami school competing against a school from Troy, AL... though, indeed, it probably helps a little that we have a brand... Marshall... that is recognizable over Troy.

It's up to you whether you want to go off into the weeds and have a metadiscussion (a discussion about the discussion)... but if you do that, don't be surprised if many recognize that you're merely avoiding defending your position.

Look, I wish you were right. I'd love for you to offer up some aspect that turns everything upside down and that Marshall was actually going to benefit in incredible ways. I'd like nothing better, truly. But I continue to wait for someone to answer what history says, not what potential says or what optimism says.

I like that bit where you accuse me of doing what your doing. I truly do, it made me laugh. If your goal was to spin this in a circle, then we are there. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I believe the contracts (at this point in time) are being based on media markets and we certainly have those in abundance. This discussion doesn't really go any further down the rabbit hole than "yes it matters" or "no it doesn't" until they act and you know that. The value of these contracts have a fair amount of subjectiveness to them after certain point but the current trends lie with media markets.

[_sturt_]

I like that bit where you accuse me of doing what your doing. I truly do, it made me laugh. If your goal was to spin this in a circle, then we are there. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I believe the contracts (at this point in time) are being based on media markets and we certainly have those in abundance. This discussion doesn't really go any further down the rabbit hole than "yes it matters" or "no it doesn't" until they act and you know that. The value of these contracts have a fair amount of subjectiveness to them after certain point but the current trends lie with media markets.

Avoidant.

Either address the question of why Miami is more of a media market as a CUSA member and capable of a $2-3 mil contract... though surrounded by other Sun Belt schools, FBS newbies and a smattering of old CUSA schools... than it was a media market as a Sun Belt member... or... address why the premise is flawed.

Let me show you how that's done...

In saying, "This discussion doesn't really go any further down the rabbit hole than "yes it matters" or "no it doesn't" until they act and you know that. The value of these contracts have a fair amount of subjectiveness to them after certain point but the current trends lie with media markets," first, you essentially assert that there is little "objectiveness" in determining what a given contract should look like.

My response? I respond that the networks... and more importantly, the advertisers who buy time that eventually finds its way to the schools via the networks... have more data than ever before about what schools attract what audiences. I respond that it won't matter whether FIU is in Sun Belt or CUSA... there is nothing magical about the CUSA brand... they're still FIU, and they'll continue to draw basically what they drew before.

And second, you assert that there is a current trend toward committing to greater amounts of revenue to larger markets.

My response? I respond that there's nothing new about any of that. Given the choice of picking up Charlotte and UT-San Antonio versus picking up Troy and Arkansas State, there's at least a potential audience for Charlotte and UTSA, whereas there is no such potential with the other two. I also respond, probably more pertinently, that we see how much the size of media markets meant to the Big East's contract... not much. The Big East essentially has obtained a CUSA-like contract because they became the new CUSA like we're becoming the new Sun Belt.

The assertion that we really don't know anything is, indeed, an effort to avoid facing the history that we do know. I appreciate the pursuit of optimism, but I contend that too many of you guys gave up on this too early, and you've let Kopp off the hook.

I'll say this, though... if somehow Kopp salvages this and has quietly taken up his own campaign that forced Big East and MWC's hand... the man will deserve the highest honor we can give, having exercised his own initiative without any discernible pressure from the base.

[wesnky]

Sturt,

Just curious, are you retired or have a job with a lot of down time, or maybe some ghost writers??  ;)

[_sturt_]

Sturt,

Just curious, are you retired or have a job with a lot of down time, or maybe some ghost writers??  ;)

Ghost writers... hmmm... great idea.  8)

[field pass]

Avoidant.

Either address the question of why Miami is more of a media market as a CUSA member and capable of a $2-3 mil contract... though surrounded by other Sun Belt schools, FBS newbies and a smattering of old CUSA schools... than it was a media market as a Sun Belt member... or... address why the premise is flawed.

Let me show you how that's done...

In saying, "This discussion doesn't really go any further down the rabbit hole than "yes it matters" or "no it doesn't" until they act and you know that. The value of these contracts have a fair amount of subjectiveness to them after certain point but the current trends lie with media markets," first, you essentially assert that there is little "objectiveness" in determining what a given contract should look like.

My response? I respond that the networks... and more importantly, the advertisers who buy time that eventually finds its way to the schools via the networks... have more data than ever before about what schools attract what audiences. I respond that it won't matter whether FIU is in Sun Belt or CUSA... there is nothing magical about the CUSA brand... they're still FIU, and they'll continue to draw basically what they drew before.

And second, you assert that there is a current trend toward committing to greater amounts of revenue to larger markets.

My response? I respond that there's nothing new about any of that. Given the choice of picking up Charlotte and UT-San Antonio versus picking up Troy and Arkansas State, there's at least a potential audience for Charlotte and UTSA, whereas there is no such potential with the other two. I also respond, probably more pertinently, that we see how much the size of media markets meant to the Big East's contract... not much. The Big East essentially has obtained a CUSA-like contract because they became the new CUSA like we're becoming the new Sun Belt.

The assertion that we really don't know anything is, indeed, an effort to avoid facing the history that we do know. I appreciate the pursuit of optimism, but I contend that too many of you guys gave up on this too early, and you've let Kopp off the hook.

I'll say this, though... if somehow Kopp salvages this and has quietly taken up his own campaign that forced Big East and MWC's hand... the man will deserve the highest honor we can give, having exercised his own initiative without any discernible pressure from the base.

I dont know sturt...there have been several articles lately that go through the history ov tv revenue and how the big east was born out of growing college bball revenue inthe 70s.  these articles also talk about how tv revenue for football is is exploding exoonentially and tv markets for football matter more now than they did 5 years ago.  college football is second to only the nfl in sports watching on tv in the usa...its a new thing.

plus ive seen young teams with lirtle tradition ramp it up to new levels bases on making a decision and community financial ccommitment to be bigger rime at football...marshall, ucf, boise, lots of examples....odu and charlotte have the potential to make a commirmwnt and pass marshall fairly easily...they have more potential than we so...we are maxed out imo....we will always be a cusa nbe caliber team at best

[field pass]

I think with a $20m all sports contract for nbe...that pretty much slams the door on them adding new teams...

would tulsa or marshall or usm really spend $8m in fees to make $800k more in revenue per year???  thats ten years to cut even from cusa!  and have a harder playoff path and no props, etc...

plus cinncy and yukon gotta be thinking..c7 bball +cusa or nbe football only...its more money!  albeit only a couple mill per year more....

[_sturt_]

I dont know sturt...there have been several articles lately that go through the history ov tv revenue and how the big east was born out of growing college bball revenue inthe 70s.  these articles also talk about how tv revenue for football is is exploding exoonentially and (a) tv markets for football matter more now than they did 5 years ago.  college football is second to only the nfl in sports watching on tv in the usa...its a new thing.

plus (b) ive seen young teams with lirtle tradition ramp it up to new levels bases on making a decision and community financial ccommitment to be bigger rime at football...marshall, ucf, boise, lots of examples....odu and charlotte have the potential to make a commirmwnt and pass marshall fairly easily...they have more potential than we so...we are maxed out imo....we will always be a cusa nbe caliber team at best

(a) Cite me one of your articles, and I bet I've read it.

Markets have always mattered, but what you're probably referring to is that there are conferences who have built and are attempting to build cable channels, namely the Big Ten and now, the SEC. Originally MWC, with their The Mountain, thought they could pull it off, too, but ultimately that's been rendered a failure... the lesson seemingly being that if you don't have the branding of a Big Ten or SEC, it's just not going to work out.

Markets matter right now to CUSA because... well, because, what else are you going to do?... given Banowsky's choices, would you choose Troy over FIU?... Arkansas State over MTSU?... South Alabama over UT-San Antonio?... Louisiana-Monroe over North Texas?... clearly, all other factors being essentially even, you go with the schools in the larger markets... it's an edge. But that doesn't mean we're better to have North Texas than to have SMU... better to have UT-San Antonio than to have Houston... better to have MTSU instead of UCF... that's silly.

As to college football's popularity, it now competes with baseball, but only because baseball has fallen back... cfb has essentially remained the same since the turn of the century... http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/34585550

(b) In essence, I agree with this... when I was in college, I recall that when someone talked about Miami football, you would naturally think they were talking about Miami University (OH), not University of Miami (FL)... long before Boise did what they did, I was always one of those who maintained that Marshall could ascend to college football's upper echelon... similar to Boise, we are not likely to ascend into a primo conference, but we could emerge as dominant in a second-tier conference and be an annual Top 25 school.



....But this is not about what's possible, it's about what's likely.

And history, not rose-colored glasses, says it is (a) likely that, if surrounded by Sun Belt and FBS-newbie conference peers, our next TV contract is going to be similar to what Sun Belt schools have always fetched, and (b) likely that other conferences' schools are going to be in a decidedly better position to claim the BCS slot, which thusly puts them in a decidedly better position to reap that substantial reward... and assuming that we allow them to get what they want, gives those schools in MWC and Big East the financial influx to put some additional distance between them and us.

This is about whether we should be content at this stage or whether we should be investing all of our available energies into putting pressure on our administration to do what needs to be done to keep us in a relationship with our current peers.

Why wouldn't they do that naturally?... why wouldn't Kopp, in particular, be working toward that end?

I don't doubt for a second that he's good-intentioned. But he's a short-timer like practically any president at this level, and if left without impetus to do otherwise, he can be much easier satiated by the short-term money that will come from the exit fees... the long-term isn't as important to him as it is to us. Moreover, he only has so much political capital to spend. He only has so much time to invest. Without palpable pressure from his base, he's not likely to step up.

[field pass]

(a) Cite me one of your articles, and I bet I've read it.

Markets have always mattered, but what you're probably referring to is that there are conferences who have built and are attempting to build cable channels, namely the Big Ten and now, the SEC. Originally MWC, with their The Mountain, thought they could pull it off, too, but ultimately that's been rendered a failure... the lesson seemingly being that if you don't have the branding of a Big Ten or SEC, it's just not going to work out.

Markets matter right now to CUSA because... well, because, what else are you going to do?... given Banowsky's choices, would you choose Troy over FIU?... Arkansas State over MTSU?... South Alabama over UT-San Antonio?... Louisiana-Monroe over North Texas?... clearly, all other factors being essentially even, you go with the schools in the larger markets... it's an edge. But that doesn't mean we're better to have North Texas than to have SMU... better to have UT-San Antonio than to have Houston... better to have MTSU instead of UCF... that's silly.

As to college football's popularity, it now competes with baseball, but only because baseball has fallen back... cfb has essentially remained the same since the turn of the century... http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/34585550

(b) In essence, I agree with this... when I was in college, I recall that when someone talked about Miami football, you would naturally think they were talking about Miami University (OH), not University of Miami (FL)... long before Boise did what they did, I was always one of those who maintained that Marshall could ascend to college football's upper echelon... similar to Boise, we are not likely to ascend into a primo conference, but we could emerge as dominant in a second-tier conference and be an annual Top 25 school.



....But this is not about what's possible, it's about what's likely.

And history, not rose-colored glasses, says it is (a) likely that, if surrounded by Sun Belt and FBS-newbie conference peers, our next TV contract is going to be similar to what Sun Belt schools have always fetched, and (b) likely that other conferences' schools are going to be in a decidedly better position to claim the BCS slot, which thusly puts them in a decidedly better position to reap that substantial reward... and assuming that we allow them to get what they want, gives those schools in MWC and Big East the financial influx to put some additional distance between them and us.

This is about whether we should be content at this stage or whether we should be investing all of our available energies into putting pressure on our administration to do what needs to be done to keep us in a relationship with our current peers.

Why wouldn't they do that naturally?... why wouldn't Kopp, in particular, be working toward that end?

I don't doubt for a second that he's good-intentioned. But he's a short-timer like practically any president at this level, and if left without impetus to do otherwise, he can be much easier satiated by the short-term money that will come from the exit fees... the long-term isn't as important to him as it is to us. Moreover, he only has so much political capital to spend. He only has so much time to invest. Without palpable pressure from his base, he's not likely to step up.

markets havent always mattered to conferences like they do now...sure, confernce networks help alot...but even the fact that grandma has to pay for a sports bundle that includes nbc sprts network in her package just so she can watch movies on the hallmark channel ultimately finds its way back to our athletic departments in dollars.  its all a bubble....bc grandma is forced to pay for the sports channels...

so, yes tv markets matter more now for big east and cusa more than before and new tv contracts are yielding more for midmajor conferences than they did...

there are plwnty of schools that havent maxed their potential....most bcs schools have...smu in the state of texas is maxed out....but odu easily is a school that could compete in the top of the nbe....they were a great grab.  so tv market revenue hasnt always been the same and schools dont always stay the same those that are newer to the sport in nice metros without nearby market competition can move right on up ....ive read articles that say nfl is most watched and recwntly ncaa football is 2nd.

do a little research on the history of the big east...great study on how markets change

[IM4DHERD]

There is nothing Kopp or Hamrick or anyone else can do to get us into that mess that is the new Big East, nor should they want to.  Hamrick has been in contact with the Big East since day one of the recent upheavals.  Their response to MU is along the lines of "You don't even have a hotel appropriate to house visiting teams" (many, if not most, visiting teams stay in Charleston).  There is an airport up north getting millions of dollars of upgrades to satisfy the big XII.  Can anyone see similar help for infrastructure coming our way?

Here's another perspective...When we moved from the MAC to the CUSA, which had just lost Louisville, TCU, Army and Cincinnati in football and all those plus Charlotte, Marquette and St Louis in basketball, it was still perceived as a big step up, not a step down by those who were left.  Not so sure the market is looking at the new CUSA as a Sunbelt with a new name as much as certain teams rising to CUSA and those teams bringing a lot (larger markets, newer facilities, etc.) to the dance.  I sincerely feel we picked up the best teams we possibly could.

Losing Memphis, Houston, SMU, UCF, ECU and Tulane doesn't compare to losing WVU, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and the Catholic Seven not to mention Miami, Va Tech and Boston College.  

[goherd24]

Adding MTSU, UTSA, UNCC, FAU, and North texas, among others, subtracts value from what was the old CUSA. Respect wise, we are at the bottom of the barrel. If we dont win this thing every year, it is an embarrassment.

[_sturt_]

markets havent always mattered to conferences like they do now...sure, confernce networks help alot...but even the fact that grandma has to pay for a sports bundle that includes nbc sprts network in her package just so she can watch movies on the hallmark channel ultimately finds its way back to our athletic departments in dollars.  its all a bubble....bc grandma is forced to pay for the sports channels...

Hold up. First, who is bundling Hallmark with Fox Sports Ohio (et al) in a sports bundle? I don't think that's happening, but I can only speak for what I know here in Southeast Texas... I have Dish, and the local cable is Time Warner... in either case, the sports bundle is, in fact, a sports bundle.

But second and more importantly, if this cable/satellite subscription money is so significant, how do you square that assertion with the fact that the Big East's (essentially now CUSA schools plus a few BE holdovers) proposed NBC contract is approximately equivalent to CUSA's contract?

You can't because it's not (significant). In fact, interestingly, here in Texas, everyone thought the Longhorn Network was going to be a veritable money tree for UT, partially for the reason you've suggested... that there would be a stream of basic cable/satellite income, plus the advertising dollars, with ESPN (which manages the network) getting their cut. Turns out that it's been muchadoaboutnothing, at least so far.

so, yes tv markets matter more now for big east and cusa more than before and new tv contracts are yielding more for midmajor conferences than they did...

I think I just offered verifiable information to the contrary... I'll wait to see if you can find any other possible support for your assertion, but until then, this is just more empty optimism.

there are plwnty of schools that havent maxed their potential....most bcs schools have...smu in the state of texas is maxed out....but odu easily is a school that could compete in the top of the nbe....they were a great grab.  so tv market revenue hasnt always been the same and schools dont always stay the same those that are newer to the sport in nice metros without nearby market competition can move right on up ....ive read articles that say nfl is most watched and recwntly ncaa football is 2nd.

I've acknowledged that there are opportunities for individual schools to ascend to higher levels of competition.

It's ancillary to the core of this discussion, but worth noting that while NCAA football is popular, it hasn't grown appreciably in popularity so much as baseball has begun to decrease in popularity. (And that's not just me talking... I've provided an independent source that says as much.)

do a little research on the history of the big east...great study on how markets change

People have their various interests and sub-interests. For me, sports has been a constant interest over my lifetime, but moreover, this conference membership thing is not some area that I've happened to engage recently, but rather something I've been focused upon for as long as I can remember. Additionally, I have close relatives who have been employed in media... there were Broadcasting magazines in my house that I read regularly when I was in junior high and high school... so again, none of this is new territory of interest for me. I certainly bow to whatever wisdom that dshoe would bring to a discussion here, or Dave Weekley would... I don't have that level of insight... but for someone who hasn't been specifically employed in that industry, and as someone who has regularly had friendships with guys like that, I feel about as well-informed about this area as anyone could be who isn't getting a paycheck from the industry.

Point being, I'm not sure what you want me to glean from researching the Big East, but I can tell you that I've been paying fairly-close attention from the time of the Eastern Eight and the days when the Lambert Trophy was a big deal. Not only have I lived through it, I've made it a point to read extensively and to understand what was happening.

Maybe you're failing to understand that I do NOT disagree that markets change and schools change....

"....But this is not about what's possible, it's about what's likely.

And history, not rose-colored glasses, says it is (a) likely that, if surrounded by Sun Belt and FBS-newbie conference peers, our next TV contract is going to be similar to what Sun Belt schools have always fetched, and (b) likely that other conferences' schools are going to be in a decidedly better position to claim the BCS slot, which thusly puts them in a decidedly better position to reap that substantial reward... and assuming that we allow them to get what they want, gives those schools in MWC and Big East the financial influx to put some additional distance between them and us.

This is about whether we should be content at this stage or whether we should be investing all of our available energies into putting pressure on our administration to do what needs to be done to keep us in a relationship with our current peers.

Why wouldn't they do that naturally?... why wouldn't Kopp, in particular, be working toward that end?

I don't doubt for a second that he's good-intentioned. But he's a short-timer like practically any president at this level, and if left without impetus to do otherwise, he can be much easier satiated by the short-term money that will come from the exit fees... the long-term isn't as important to him as it is to us. Moreover, he only has so much political capital to spend. He only has so much time to invest. Without palpable pressure from his base, he's not likely to step up."

[Penn2moss]

From what I have heard, Hamrick believes that if we move up now, we will be stuck in the bottom to middle of the BE with no hope of ever progressing up.  We will have the worst facilities, lowest budget, worst recruiting area, etc.  Losing the ability to take props is also a big factor, especially in Doc's eyes.  Hamrick wants to stay were we are, build all of our planned facilities, continue to take props, win championships, build support, and see if we want to move up in 5 years.

[_sturt_]

(a) There is nothing Kopp or Hamrick or anyone else can do to get us into that mess that is the new Big East, (b) nor should they want to.  Hamrick has been in contact with the Big East since day one of the recent upheavals.  Their response to MU is along the lines of "You don't even have a hotel appropriate to house visiting teams" (many, if not most, visiting teams stay in Charleston).  There is an airport up north getting millions of dollars of upgrades to satisfy the big XII.  Can anyone see similar help for infrastructure coming our way?

Here's another perspective...When we moved from the MAC to the CUSA, which had just lost Louisville, TCU, Army and Cincinnati in football and all those plus Charlotte, Marquette and St Louis in basketball, (c) it was still perceived as a big step up, not a step down by those who were left.  Not so sure the market is looking at the new CUSA as a Sunbelt with a new name as much as certain teams rising to CUSA and those teams bringing a lot (larger markets, newer facilities, etc.) to the dance.  I sincerely feel we picked up the best teams we possibly could.

(d) Losing Memphis, Houston, SMU, UCF, ECU and Tulane doesn't compare to losing WVU, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and the Catholic Seven not to mention Miami, Va Tech and Boston College.  

(a) I've demonstrated in several threads now, IM4, that there is a political way to force MWC and Big East to prefer 32 teams between them. At some point, you either have to show how that logic is flawed, or be placed in the category of those who are avoidant.

(b) If he "shouldn't want to," as you allege, then does Hamrick himself disagree with you by virtue of the fact that, as you allege, he's been in contact from day one?

Again, I've demonstrated in several threads now that he should want to because in the long-term it's better for Marshall to keep pace with the current peers than to fade back and have to compete with a level of competition that arguably is behind even the MAC.

(c) Source? I don't even barely know how you make that assertion. Of the newcomers, we stood alone as having any name in the primary money sport, football. Would be interested to know where you got that. Cincy and Louisville in particular were huge losses for CUSA at the time.

(d) Maybe so, but it's not material to this discussion. I only care about Marshall's position relative to the rest of its competitors. It's not debatable that the Big East took a hit, but the aftershock was that CUSA took a hit, and its still better to be keeping up with the Houstons and ECUs of the world than to be drifting back to playing FBS newbies and Sun Belt schools. To be satisfied with that is to be satisfied with lesser income, fewer bowl opportunities, and diminished reputation nationally.

[IM4DHERD]

From what I have heard, Hamrick believes that if we move up now, we will be stuck in the bottom to middle of the BE with no hope of ever progressing up.  We will have the worst facilities, lowest budget, worst recruiting area, etc.  Losing the ability to take props is also a big factor, especially in Doc's eyes.  Hamrick wants to stay were we are, build all of our planned facilities, continue to take props, win championships, build support, and see if we want to move up in 5 years.

Truth is, you cannot turn down an invitation that was not offered.

[IM4DHERD]

Sturt:

a). Your demonstrations are opinion which assumes power and leverage that does not exist.

b). My opinion, however Hamrick, et.al. have stated that we are in a better position than those who have bailed on CUSA to the BE.  To say Hamrick believes otherwise because he made inquiries and performed due diligence is simply twisting words.

c). My opinion, and in my opinion the opinion of most.  I don't think anyone thinks we made a move down by moving from the MAC to CUSA or that the perception was that ECU. So Miss, etc. were drug down by us joining.

d). Satisfaction should be tempered by reality.  We are in the best position we can be.  We have a solid, Southern-based...It's all been said before.  No one is pursuing us and no one has the power or leverage to pursuade large groups to do our bidding to our benefit.  It is what it is.  I cannot wait for football season.

I am not climbing further down this rat hole with you.