well here's some great news! bruno out!

[Iggy]

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.

$370! What do I win?

[slufanskip]

$370! What do I win?

I don't know ... were you one of the guys with $100.00, or one of the guys with $1000.00

[billiken_roy]

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.

brian, dont believe for a second that slu is the only school in the conference that gives beancounters too much decision making authority.

[brianstl]

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.

I have no problem with the money being divided equally, but this deal was stupid. It seems like some teams just wanted to stick it to some others. I give CL credit. She understood that even though SLU got more money out of this deal it was a bad deal when you look at the long-term impact it had on the program.

You have to see beyond the immediate dollar signs in front of you and do a long-term cost benefit analysis of the deal in front of you. When you do that this was a bad deal for everyone in the conference.

[billiken_roy]

I have no problem with the money being divided equally, but this deal was stupid. It seems like some teams just wanted to stick it to some others. I give CL credit. She understood that even though SLU got more money out of this deal it was a bad deal when you look at the long-term impact it had on the program.

You have to see beyond the immediate dollar signs in front of you and do a long-term cost benefit analysis of the deal in front of you. When you do that this was a bad deal for everyone in the conference.

brian, good luck arguing with the accountants about non-tangible benefits. show me an accountant with authority that has that kind of vision. they dont exist. they deal in facts and proven dollar and cents.

[cheeseman]

I have no problem with the money being divided equally, but this deal was stupid. It seems like some teams just wanted to stick it to some others. I give CL credit. She understood that even though SLU got more money out of this deal it was a bad deal when you look at the long-term impact it had on the program.

You have to see beyond the immediate dollar signs in front of you and do a long-term cost benefit analysis of the deal in front of you. When you do that this was a bad deal for everyone in the conference.

Brian, one more time - nobody lost money - all got more from the new CSTV contract than the old conf TV contract. The extra money some schools got did not offset the loss of exposure to their program. A majority of the schools in the conf were happy to get more money and did not care about exposure - they were not getting any exposure to begin with so from their perspective the more money made sense. The schools who were going to loose exposure are in the minority and so their vote really did not matter. Most the local TV contracts that schools had paid little if anything - the loss of exposure came from CSTV wanting to charge $25K per game for a local station to show an A10 game therefore those local stations who were use to getting the games for free or for very little money balked thus the loss of exposure. This is as simply as I can explain it. If you don't understand now then I am sorry.

[brianstl]

Brian, one more time - nobody lost money - all got more from the new CSTV contract than the old conf TV contract. The extra money some schools got did not offset the loss of exposure to their program. A majority of the schools in the conf were happy to get more money and did not care about exposure - they were not getting any exposure to begin with so from their perspective the more money made sense. The schools who were going to loose exposure are in the minority and so their vote really did not matter. Most the local TV contracts that schools had paid little if anything - the loss of exposure came from CSTV wanting to charge $25K per game for a local station to show an A10 game therefore those local stations who were use to getting the games for free or for very little money balked thus the loss of exposure. This is as simply as I can explain it. If you don't understand now then I am sorry.

Actually, I understand what you are saying. The problem is you are very short sighted. What the teams getting no exposure should have asked for is exposure. Not just asked for it, but they should have demanded it. Exposure would help them build their program far more than the small amount of money they received in this deal. It is obvious now that the majority of the conference now agrees with my way of thinking and that is why Bruno is leaving.

I am not talking about exposure on local TV, but on the regional networks or on CSTV. Why in the hell didn't somebody at least demand an A-10 double header one night a week on CSTV, plus at least three other games a week on the network? If you were going to give them total control over your TV rights you have to at least guarantee clearance on the network. It is not like they would be asking them to bump big Monday. Here is a link to their awesome schedule tomorrow:

http://www.cstv.com/cgi-bin/tvsched.cgi?mo...amp;chosenCal=0 .

What CSTV did was come in and lock-up the A-10 long-term on the cheap when the conference was down. This was a terrible move for both the short-term and long-term for the A-10 and all of its members.

[Adman]

Actually, everyone here is right. But here's the real key:

Revenue in the sports business is built on product. It drives everything.

Product in the sports business is built largely on the players. Coaches and other things, too. Mostly players.

In the college game -- since players aren't paid -- the excitement derived from playing in a winning environment and TV exposure are the currencies of recruiting.

If you want to build revenue, you can take a smaller check now from CSTV. Or keep the games on the tube and take a bigger check later when your better recruiting, better product, better attendance, better TV money... drive real revenue.

The schools that take the short term cash have a different objective. Low-risk, non-commitment, pay down costs. Status quo.

The schools that take the long view have a different objective. Commitment to excellence, investment in product. Bigger pot.

Sad to say, the U had the short term view for way too many years. Now that they're moving to the long view, A10 deal goes the wrong way.

But I find it a bit disingenuous that Cheryl was furious about the deal. Couldn't she have underwritten the TV fees by taking her CSTV check and sending it to a local broadcast carrier, cancelling the rights fee? I'm guessing some variation of that plan is what the A10 announced this year, the day before she resigned.

[jjray]

Hot Damn!

:) \

SluSignGuy's guerilla campaign to replace Bruno with Elgin has borne fruit in a matter of days! Don't mess with SSG.

[cheeseman]

Actually, I understand what you are saying. The problem is you are very short sighted. What the teams getting no exposure should have asked for is exposure. Not just asked for it, but they should have demanded it. Exposure would help them build their program far more than the small amount of money they received in this deal. It is obvious now that the majority of the conference now agrees with my way of thinking and that is why Bruno is leaving.

I am not talking about exposure on local TV, but on the regional networks or on CSTV. Why in the hell didn't somebody at least demand an A-10 double header one night a week on CSTV, plus at least three other games a week on the network? If you were going to give them total control over your TV rights you have to at least guarantee clearance on the network. It is not like they would be asking them to bump big Monday. Here is a link to their awesome schedule tomorrow:

http://www.cstv.com/cgi-bin/tvsched.cgi?mo...amp;chosenCal=0 .

What CSTV did was come in and lock-up the A-10 long-term on the cheap when the conference was down. This was a terrible move for both the short-term and long-term for the A-10 and all of its members.

Brian, where did I ever defend the CTSV contract - all I did was try to explain how it happened and why some schools liked it. You are always so busy arguing with people you don't even see what people are saying.

[cheeseman]

Actually, everyone here is right. But here's the real key:

Revenue in the sports business is built on product. It drives everything.

Product in the sports business is built largely on the players. Coaches and other things, too. Mostly players.

In the college game -- since players aren't paid -- the excitement derived from playing in a winning environment and TV exposure are the currencies of recruiting.

If you want to build revenue, you can take a smaller check now from CSTV. Or keep the games on the tube and take a bigger check later when your better recruiting, better product, better attendance, better TV money... drive real revenue.

The schools that take the short term cash have a different objective. Low-risk, non-commitment, pay down costs. Status quo.

The schools that take the long view have a different objective. Commitment to excellence, investment in product. Bigger pot.

Sad to say, the U had the short term view for way too many years. Now that they're moving to the long view, A10 deal goes the wrong way.

But I find it a bit disingenuous that Cheryl was furious about the deal. Couldn't she have underwritten the TV fees by taking her CSTV check and sending it to a local broadcast carrier, cancelling the rights fee? I'm guessing some variation of that plan is what the A10 announced this year, the day before she resigned.

Not sure what the contractual issues where - that is an idea. I never got the idea from CL that she supported the deal but simply was outvoted. One other thing she told me was that CSTV and the A10 would not let her get involved in the local negotiations even though she specifically asked a couple of times. CSTV had apparently decided to play hardball with the local stations and their bet lost. Unfortunately not only did CSTV loose money but SLU lost exposure as did some other schools in our same boat. Since CL is not here I am not sure what her plans where for this year but she did say that she was working on an approach that would solve the problem but then she left. I also know that Channel 5 was ready to sign a 16 game contract with SLU but for some reason, CSTV nixed it by asking for money for the broadcast then what was originally thought when SLU started the negotiations with Channel 5.

[Cowboy]

[i also know that Channel 5 was ready to sign a 16 game contract with SLU but for some reason, CSTV nixed it by asking for money for the broadcast then what was originally thought when SLU started the negotiations with Channel 5.

if true, this sucks, sucks really bad

[SluSignGuy]

SluSignGuy's guerilla campaign to replace Bruno with Elgin has borne fruit in a matter of days! Don't mess with SSG.

heh, I don't know what fruit has been born, but the logo I made is a Charlotte fan's signature, I know that.