billiken_roy Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/ne...se,236864.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/ne...se,236864.shtml now there just needs to be an upgrade i hope they make the right hire it would be tough, however, to think they could do worse, but youneverknow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 WH for commissioner!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbofive Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/ne...se,236864.shtml peace, brun-dawg. don't let the door hitcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 break the bank and hire elgin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Hot Damn! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Hot Damn! :) Good news for sure - what about CL? No one knows the problems the conf has better than her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I find it amusing that they list the CSTV contract in the list of her "accomplishments". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUAvtr Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I find it amusing that they list the CSTV contract in the list of her "accomplishments". I think they were clawing for whatever they could TRY and make the article sound respectful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Well this is a bright ray of sunshine in an otherwise crappy season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 break the bank and hire elginI think that is a great idea'''''''''''''''''''''''' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 elgin's orgins are east coast actually. he would be going home! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Post from GWHoops (It has a GW theme obviously, at least I found it amusing) In honor of Ms. Bruno's retirement, I have written a poem (and since it is the holiday season, it is to the same rythem as "Twas the Night Before Christmas") ODE TO LINDA BRUNO Twas the night before Conference Play, when all through the East Not an A10 game was playing, on any TV. The Colonials were in Philly, against a coach with no hair, But to view this great contest, you would have to be there. Fans turned on the TV, and their faces turned red While visions of a competent Commissioner danced in their heads. My friend in his Pops Jersey, and I in my GW cap, Had to settle to watch CSTV's Regional crap. When out on gwhoops there arose such a clatter, I sprang to the computer to see what was the matter. Colonials Fans were there and up talking trash, Out at Linda Bruno did they violently lash. At one point she said that improvements would show But some of the best teams said "It is time that we go!" VTech and Rutgers chose to disappear, Leaving the A10 sitting with a thumb up its rear. "I've got an idea," Ms. Bruno thought quick, "Some new teams can join, there are some I shall pick." More rapid than eagles the crappy teams came, And she whistled, and shouted, and called them by name! "The Explorers," she said and to Philly she ran! Then off to the Bronx for another team called the "Rams!" To the bottom of the RPI our conference did fall, as St. Bonnies brought Welders to their ball court and halls. Meanwhile at Smithy, G-Dub reached the stars, As Hobbs brought in Pops, Mike Hall and Omar. But the Selection Committee laughed as they decided our fate “Your conference is so bad, your seed is an eight!” Once again Colonial Fans were angry and mad as GW was placed in Greensboro which can’t be more sad. Some blamed the Committee, calling them hacks, others blamed Linda Bruno, the schedule and Jack. Next season came and anxious were we but Linda signed a deal with CSTV! The games were regional and rarely were seen And the number watching GW-URI was less than thirteen Then on December the 5th as G-Dub prepped for a game, from the blog in the Hatchet good news soon came. And I heard the fans exclaim as I sit here and type, Then on December the 5th as G-Dub prepped for a game, from the blog in the Hatchet good news soon came. And I heard the fans exclaim as I sit here and type, “The ***** has resigned; this is one hell of a night!” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetorch Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I find it amusing that they list the CSTV contract in the list of her "accomplishments". Actually, for a number of the teams in the conf the CSTV contract was a coup. For Dayton, X, UNCC, SLU, and St. Joe (I might be forgetting one other school) it was bad deal. CL told me that the contract with CSTV actually brought more money for SLU then the previous conf TV contract made but the increased money did not offset the loss of TV exposure locally for us. She also said for the majority of the A10 conf schools who had no local TV exposure that the increased revenue and the fact they actually got on TV if only a couple of times was a vast improvement for them. So for the A10 TV contract - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. For some it was an accomplishment for others a negative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Actually, for a number of the teams in the conf the CSTV contract was a coup. For Dayton, X, UNCC, SLU, and St. Joe (I might be forgetting one other school) it was bad deal. CL told me that the contract with CSTV actually brought more money for SLU then the previous conf TV contract made but the increased money did not offset the loss of TV exposure locally for us. She also said for the majority of the A10 conf schools who had no local TV exposure that the increased revenue and the fact they actually got on TV if only a couple of times was a vast improvement for them. So for the A10 TV contract - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. For some it was an accomplishment for others a negative.I in no way see how it was good for anyone in the conference. The money is irrelevant, as is the local TV exposure. A conference like the A-10 needs as much exposure as possible on a national and regional level. Nobody except Direct and Dish subscribers get CSTV and then only if you have an upgraded paid package. The local TV is nice, but in no way does it really help to build beyond what the conference and conference members already are. The NHL made this obviously clear years ago when it signed a deal with Sports Net. A real conference director would have known this and made it clear to the conference members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I in no way see how it was good for anyone in the conference. The money is irrelevant, as is the local TV exposure. A conference like the A-10 needs as much exposure as possible on a national and regional level. Nobody except Direct and Dish subscribers get CSTV and then only if you have an upgraded paid package. The local TV is nice, but in no way does it really help to build beyond what the conference and conference members already are. The NHL made this obviously clear years ago when it signed a deal with Sports Net. A real conference director would have known this and made it clear to the conference members. Brian, I am simply passing on the info I was told from someone very close to the situation. So you will have to forgive me if I place little credence on your interpretation and choose to believe our former AD who was in the thick of it. Also, apparently everyone knew the situation but it only took a majority of votes to accept the contract. What I am telling you is that 8 teams are better off with it and 6 or not - you can choose to believe that or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Brian, I am simply passing on the info I was told from someone very close to the situation. So you will have to forgive me if I place little credence on your interpretation and choose to believe our former AD who was in the thick of it. Also, apparently everyone knew the situation but it only took a majority of votes to accept the contract. What I am telling you is that 8 teams are better off with it and 6 or not - you can choose to believe that or not.There is a difference in believing you are better off and actually being better off. A good commissioner would have had the knowledge to realize and the leadership to convince the other conference members that this was a bad deal. Both the conference and all the conference members need to get as much as exposure as possible. A deal that limits exposure is a bad deal no matter what the dollars are. Those short-term dollars end up costing you far more long-term dollars. Bruno should have realized this and should have convinced the rest of the conference of this. If CL really believed this was a good deal for the majority of the conference (and not just trying to put a happy face on it), then honestly I am happy she is gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted December 6, 2007 Author Share Posted December 6, 2007 when i talked to cheryl about it, she pointed out the direct benefit of the actual revenue slu was splitting with the other A-10 members, (we never got paid from charter if my info is correct) but she recognized the need for the exposure and the indirect benefit having the games on tv served and was furious that we were put into the take it or too bad position. i too believe that cheese is correct. other programs in the a-10 were more concerned with getting a bigger check than the previous deals. think about the likes of fordham that plays their games in a gym smaller than the east st louis high school gym. or duquesne that up until this year was drawing probably an average of about 1000 fans per game. hell there probably arent 1000 fans close enough to st bonaventure to make the games during the week. those programs were very likely all about a paycheck. when i had a couple of intense internet conversations with bruno, she couldnt care less about the indirect benefits and only saw the benefits of revenue. she was certain that slu was far better off last year actually receiving a check from cstv than in previous seasons. nothing i could give her even gave me any indication she could see the point or importance of being on tv more was a benefit of the conference. same with the espn every saturday deal vs cstv. she felt the revenue from cstv was more beneficial than every week being on a much more visible source like espn. this imo is a perfect example of the lack of vision that bruno showed and retarded the growth of the A-10. but it also shows the conference likely wasnt very focused on the bigger picture. someone finally pointed that out and convinced the other programs of the "you can have this if we want it bad enough" view. it would be interesting to know what has finally swung the tide. i would have thought cheryl would have been in the middle of that movement, but since we dont even have an athletic director anymore, it is doubtful we were the driving force. the a-10 board has some interesting quotes from the umass AD, so i am guessing that man is in the middle of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 when i talked to cheryl about it, she pointed out the direct benefit of the actual revenue slu was splitting with the other A-10 members, (we never got paid from charter if my info is correct) but she recognized the need for the exposure and the indirect benefit having the games on tv served and was furious that we were put into the take it or too bad position. i too believe that cheese is correct. other programs in the a-10 were more concerned with getting a bigger check than the previous deals. think about the likes of fordham that plays their games in a gym smaller than the east st louis high school gym. or duquesne that up until this year was drawing probably an average of about 1000 fans per game. hell there probably arent 1000 fans close enough to st bonaventure to make the games during the week. those programs were very likely all about a paycheck. when i had a couple of intense internet conversations with bruno, she couldnt care less about the indirect benefits and only saw the benefits of revenue. she was certain that slu was far better off last year actually receiving a check from cstv than in previous seasons. nothing i could give her even gave me any indication she could see the point or importance of being on tv more was a benefit of the conference. same with the espn every saturday deal vs cstv. she felt the revenue from cstv was more beneficial than every week being on a much more visible source like espn. this imo is a perfect example of the lack of vision that bruno showed and retarded the growth of the A-10. but it also shows the conference likely wasnt very focused on the bigger picture. someone finally pointed that out and convinced the other programs of the "you can have this if we want it bad enough" view. it would be interesting to know what has finally swung the tide. i would have thought cheryl would have been in the middle of that movement, but since we dont even have an athletic director anymore, it is doubtful we were the driving force. the a-10 board has some interesting quotes from the umass AD, so i am guessing that man is in the middle of things. I will buy that about the TV deal and that is closer to what I remember her saying at the time. It was the statement about eight teams being better off, I had a problem with. Those eight teams might have thought they were better off, but in no way were they actually better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJK Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 hell yeah... things are finally looking up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 So does anyone think that Majerus had any influence into this move? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I will buy that about the TV deal and that is closer to what I remember her saying at the time. It was the statement about eight teams being better off, I had a problem with. Those eight teams might have thought they were better off, but in no way were they actually better off. Brian, your logic is startling to say the least. Look how Roy explained it and he very clearly pointed out how the 8 teams are better off from a revenue standpoint and did not care about exposure. Maybe for them TV exposure is a moot point since nobody wants to watch them on TV. I never said that CL liked the situation but all she did was explain how it went down. You can not now bring up unintended consequences as to why the conf was stupid for voting for it. Bottom line is all made more money and six lost exposure and do not see the money as a good trade off for the lost exposure but 8 is all you need to operate for voting purposes in the conf. Bruno created this problem and the truth is - we may never know for sure - it probably caused her to leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Brian, your logic is startling to say the least. Look how Roy explained it and he very clearly pointed out how the 8 teams are better off from a revenue standpoint and did not care about exposure. Maybe for them TV exposure is a moot point since nobody wants to watch them on TV. I never said that CL liked the situation but all she did was explain how it went down. You can not now bring up unintended consequences as to why the conf was stupid for voting for it. Bottom line is all made more money and six lost exposure and do not see the money as a good trade off for the lost exposure but 8 is all you need to operate for voting purposes in the conf. Bruno created this problem and the truth is - we may never know for sure - it probably caused her to leave.The loss of long term revenue is not an unintended consequence and it should not have gone unseen. Shortsightedness like this cost the schools chances to expand there applicantion base. It also made it nearly impossible for alumni around the country a chance to see their team and that doesn't help when it comes to fund raising. The exposure these schools have lost would cost them far more to replace than the money they made off the deal. One reason why we joined this conference is to get the school exposure in areas it has never had it before. That exposure goes both ways. The schools that choose this deal would have to pay far more for ads on tv in markets like DC, St. Louis, Cincy, Philly, and Charlotte. It was a bad deal for everyone in the conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 The loss of long term revenue is not an unintended consequence and it should not have gone unseen. Shortsightedness like this cost the schools chances to expand there applicantion base. It also made it nearly impossible for alumni around the country a chance to see their team and that doesn't help when it comes to fund raising. The exposure these schools have lost would cost them far more to replace than the money they made off the deal. One reason why we joined this conference is to get the school exposure in areas it has never had it before. That exposure goes both ways. The schools that choose this deal would have to pay far more for ads on tv in markets like DC, St. Louis, Cincy, Philly, and Charlotte. It was a bad deal for everyone in the conference. You have 10 guys. 3 guys have a $1000.00 and the other 7 have $100.00 and there is a vote to decide if everyone keeps what they have or if everyone throws all their money in a pot and divide it up equally. It ends up good for the 7 with $100.00, but not so good for the 3 with a $1000.00. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.