C7 TV Deal Possibility

[Bay Area Billiken]

SShoe, I was not replying to you. I think we were posting at about the same time, and I had not read your post.

The problem as I see it with "unionizing" is that did not work out too well the last time, when SLU went from C-USA to the A10. Ultimately, it becomes everyone for themselves IMHO. This being said, I have read some talk about this elsewhere, but I don't see it being effective.

The A10 has proven to be a better league for SLU than I expected back in '05. The problem is the A10 appears to be getting or about to get raided. I don't see how the teams expected to be leaving can be adequately replaced. An A10 without Xavier, Butler, and/or Dayton would be a geographical issue for SLU, as it would be out on a western island by itself, separated by 3 whole states from the next nearest member, Duquesne, if all of the aforementioned three are gone.

I don't see the MVC as a long term answer either, especially an MVC sans Creighton.

Somehow, some way, SLU needs to get in the new league now. Some of us have literally been waiting decades for this time and this scenario to finally come to pass. It has been 38 years since SLU left the MVC. Since that time, SLU has migrated to the Metro, to the MCC, to the Great Midwest (a good league), to C-USA, and to the A10.

Now is our time.

[brianstl]

The extra money you get really does you no good if more than half the conference gets double that. It puts you at a big disadvantage. If it was a one or two year deal, I could live with it. If it fives years, that would be tough. You would be spending your first decade in the conference trying to catch programs that where already ahead of you before you even enter the conference.

Spending a decade occupying the middle or bottom half of a conference because your conference sister institutions put you behind the 8 ball doesn't appeal to me.

So we are better off sitting in a crappy conference earning significantly less and competing for one maybe 2 NCAA bids? At the end of the day we are competing for NCAA tournament bids and most of the teams we are competing against are NOT in our conference. They are in BCS football conferences where the football programs supp

ort just about every other sport. We need as much revenue as possible to beat those guys...

We won't be competing for NCAA bids if we are stuck in the bottom half of the conference and that possibility strongly exist if we are not on equal financial footing. So yeah, we would be better of in a lower conference if the money disparity was going to be that drastic. It would put you behind in everyaspect of the game. You are better off trying to become a Creighton in the Valley than being a constant bottome feeder in the new conference.

[Quality Is Job 1]

We won't be competing for NCAA bids if we are stuck in the bottom half of the conference and that possibility strongly exist if we are not on equal financial footing. So yeah, we would be better of in a lower conference if the money disparity was going to be that drastic. It would put you behind in everyaspect of the game. You are better off trying to become a Creighton in the Valley than being a constant bottome feeder in the new conference.

Except that the standings of money/budget/spending doesn't always line up with the standings of competition. There's always teams which spend a lot of money but are mediocre (or worse), and then there are some teams with fewer resources which rise up to the top of the heap. Think Gonzaga, when they came into prominence in the late '90s. You're not just competing with teams in your conference, but with ALL Div. 1 teams. Getting in the conference, even with an entrance penalty, means being on television more and being more attractive to a "name" coach. Those things result in being more attractive to recruits of a higher caliber, who don't care that the tv deal pays that school less than others. Better coach and better players tends towards greater NCAA Tournament success and MONEY.

[Billiken Rich]

The extra money you get really does you no good if more than half the conference gets double that. It puts you at a big disadvantage. If it was a one or two year deal, I could live with it. If it fives years, that would be tough. You would be spending your first decade in the conference trying to catch programs that where already ahead of you before you even enter the conference.

Spending a decade occupying the middle or bottom half of a conference because your conference sister institutions put you behind the 8 ball doesn't appeal to me.

So we are better off sitting in a crappy conference earning significantly less and competing for one maybe 2 NCAA bids? At the end of the day we are competing for NCAA tournament bids and most of the teams we are competing against are NOT in our conference. They are in BCS football conferences where the football programs supp

ort just about every other sport. We need as much revenue as possible to beat those guys...

We won't be competing for NCAA bids if we are stuck in the bottom half of the conference and that possibility strongly exist if we are not on equal financial footing. So yeah, we would be better of in a lower conference if the money disparity was going to be that drastic. It would put you behind in everyaspect of the game. You are better off trying to become a Creighton in the Valley than being a constant bottome feeder in the new conference.

let's see $2 Million as oppoesed to $400,000. Take the two mill. Today with no extra money we'd kick Depaul's ass and would kick Villanov's ass if they had the balls to play us. Last year we had less money than Memphis and kicked their ass too.

It isn't fair but I'd do it in a heartbeat.......

[brianstl]

We won't be competing for NCAA bids if we are stuck in the bottom half of the conference and that possibility strongly exist if we are not on equal financial footing. So yeah, we would be better of in a lower conference if the money disparity was going to be that drastic. It would put you behind in everyaspect of the game. You are better off trying to become a Creighton in the Valley than being a constant bottome feeder in the new conference.

Except that the standings of money/budget/spending doesn't always line up with the standings of competition. There's always teams which spend a lot of money but are mediocre (or worse), and then there are some teams with fewer resources which rise up to the top of the heap. Think Gonzaga, when they came into prominence in the late '90s. You're not just competing with teams in your conference, but with ALL Div. 1 teams. Getting in the conference, even with an entrance penalty, means being on television more and being more attractive to a "name" coach. Those things result in being more attractive to recruits of a higher caliber, who don't care that the tv deal pays that school less than others. Better coach and better players tends towards greater NCAA Tournament success and MONEY.

And Gonzaga did it in a lesser conference where they were on equal footing.

[brianstl]

The extra money you get really does you no good if more than half the conference gets double that. It puts you at a big disadvantage. If it was a one or two year deal, I could live with it. If it fives years, that would be tough. You would be spending your first decade in the conference trying to catch programs that where already ahead of you before you even enter the conference.

Spending a decade occupying the middle or bottom half of a conference because your conference sister institutions put you behind the 8 ball doesn't appeal to me.

So we are better off sitting in a crappy conference earning significantly less and competing for one maybe 2 NCAA bids? At the end of the day we are competing for NCAA tournament bids and most of the teams we are competing against are NOT in our conference. They are in BCS football conferences where the football programs supp

ort just about every other sport. We need as much revenue as possible to beat those guys...

We won't be competing for NCAA bids if we are stuck in the bottom half of the conference and that possibility strongly exist if we are not on equal financial footing. So yeah, we would be better of in a lower conference if the money disparity was going to be that drastic. It would put you behind in everyaspect of the game. You are better off trying to become a Creighton in the Valley than being a constant bottome feeder in the new conference.

let's see $2 Million as oppoesed to $400,000. Take the two mill. Today with no extra money we'd kick Depaul's ass and would kick Villanov's ass if they had the balls to play us. Last year we had less money than Memphis and kicked their ass too.

It isn't fair but I'd do it in a heartbeat.......

Memohis made the is from a lesser conference and receives equal treatment as a conference member.

[Quality Is Job 1]

We won't be competing for NCAA bids if we are stuck in the bottom half of the conference and that possibility strongly exist if we are not on equal financial footing. So yeah, we would be better of in a lower conference if the money disparity was going to be that drastic. It would put you behind in everyaspect of the game. You are better off trying to become a Creighton in the Valley than being a constant bottome feeder in the new conference.

Except that the standings of money/budget/spending doesn't always line up with the standings of competition. There's always teams which spend a lot of money but are mediocre (or worse), and then there are some teams with fewer resources which rise up to the top of the heap. Think Gonzaga, when they came into prominence in the late '90s. You're not just competing with teams in your conference, but with ALL Div. 1 teams. Getting in the conference, even with an entrance penalty, means being on television more and being more attractive to a "name" coach. Those things result in being more attractive to recruits of a higher caliber, who don't care that the tv deal pays that school less than others. Better coach and better players tends towards greater NCAA Tournament success and MONEY.

And Gonzaga did it in a lesser conference where they were on equal footing.

But they did it with less than what other teams, nationally, whom they were beating on the court, were getting. SLU will be able to compete with the other teams in the conference even with an entrance penalty. Less tv money than the other school get won't automatically set up tiers in the standings. Let the presidents worry about the tv money, because the coach and recruits won't care, and SLU will still finish ahead of DePaul, Providence, Seton Hall, and St. John's — at least.

[kshoe]

The extra money you get really does you no good if more than half the conference gets double that. It puts you at a big disadvantage. If it was a one or two year deal, I could live with it. If it fives years, that would be tough. You would be spending your first decade in the conference trying to catch programs that where already ahead of you before you even enter the conference.

Spending a decade occupying the middle or bottom half of a conference because your conference sister institutions put you behind the 8 ball doesn't appeal to me.

So we are better off sitting in a crappy conference earning significantly less and competing for one maybe 2 NCAA bids? At the end of the day we are competing for NCAA tournament bids and most of the teams we are competing against are NOT in our conference. They are in BCS football conferences where the football programs supp

ort just about every other sport. We need as much revenue as possible to beat those guys...

We won't be competing for NCAA bids if we are stuck in the bottom half of the conference and that possibility strongly exist if we are not on equal financial footing. So yeah, we would be better of in a lower conference if the money disparity was going to be that drastic. It would put you behind in everyaspect of the game. You are better off trying to become a Creighton in the Valley than being a constant bottome feeder in the new conference.

There are numerous sources of revenue for basketball programs (ticket sales, booster giving, concessions, NCAA Credits, t.v. rights, etc.) and just because you are lower in one doesn't mean you have to be lower in the others. Nor does having less revenue mean that you will automatically be at the bottom of the conference.

I remember back when we moved from the A-10 everyone put a brave face on it and talked about how it would be better because we'd be competing with schools on a lower level both skill and budget wise. Yet if not for RM coming in and saving the program we'd still be stuck without a single NCAA tournament appearance. Compared with the Great Midwest/CUSA years where we were in a pretty damn good conference with teams that had significantly larger budgets than us and went to the dance 4 out of 11 or 12 years.

I want to be in the best conference possible even if some of the schools have an economic advantage. We shouldn't be shying away from the competion but rather stepping up to it.

[For-DaLove]

The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.

[Billiken Rich]

The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.

So It's a good thing we've got Crews then!

[Quality Is Job 1]

The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.

As if that isn't already the case!

[moytoy12]

The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.

As if that isn't already the case!

Exactly. Even if it was an even playing field amongst conference members it still wouldn't be an even playing field for SLU.

[davidnark]

First and foremost, SLU should hope that they are given a seat at the table to negotiate how much or little money they will be given in this new conference. Once they are given a seat, they need to argue for the best deal they can negotiate that ensures they are "in." If this means they have to agree to half the money for some period, it stinks, but it is still presents the best opportunity for the program and the university in the long run. You want to be associated with the conference name, the TV appearances, etc. If that requires them to do more with less for some period, then you suck it up and do it. Life isn't always fair, but that doesn't mean you walk away from your best long-term opportunities.

If you follow European soccer, you will be familiar with this concept. In the EPL, 4 or 5 teams receive an enormously disproportionate share of the revenue. In the Spanish La Liga, 2 teams (Barcelona and Real Madrid) receive most of the revenue. Nonetheless, every other soccer club in their countries fights tooth and nail just to keep a spot in the top league, a league they are unlikely to ever win due to the financial structure. The reality, however, is that being in that league still provides their best revenue and exposure opportunity and allows them to keep the dream that one day they will have that miracle season. For SLU, the Big East presents the same situation relative to a depleted a-10 or an MVC, even if it means getting shafted in the short-term. If the school gets an invite, accepting is a no-brainer.

[kshoe]

The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.

Do we only recruit against teams in our conference?

[Bay Area Billiken]

First and foremost, SLU should hope that they are given a seat at the table to negotiate how much or little money they will be given in this new conference. Once they are given a seat, they need to argue for the best deal they can negotiate that ensures they are "in." If this means they have to agree to half the money for some period, it stinks, but it is still presents the best opportunity for the program and the university in the long run. You want to be associated with the conference name, the TV appearances, etc. If that requires them to do more with less for some period, then you suck it up and do it. Life isn't always fair, but that doesn't mean you walk away from your best long-term opportunities.

If you follow European soccer, you will be familiar with this concept. In the EPL, 4 or 5 teams receive an enormously disproportionate share of the revenue. In the Spanish La Liga, 2 teams (Barcelona and Real Madrid) receive most of the revenue. Nonetheless, every other soccer club in their countries fights tooth and nail just to keep a spot in the top league, a league they are unlikely to ever win due to the financial structure. The reality, however, is that being in that league still provides their best revenue and exposure opportunity and allows them to keep the dream that one day they will have that miracle season. For SLU, the Big East presents the same situation relative to a depleted a-10 or an MVC, even if it means getting shafted in the short-term. If the school gets an invite, accepting is a no-brainer.

+++++

Very well said.

Agreed!

[For-DaLove]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="kshoe" data-cid="335045" data-time="1357610831"><p>

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="For-DaLove" data-cid="335039" data-time="1357609532"><p>The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.</p></blockquote>

<br />

Do we only recruit against teams in our conference?<br />

</p></blockquote>

Obviously not. But those are the teams you'll compare your situation to is my point.

It's true, we have less to spend on things right now. But that would increase some if we get in a conference with a better tv deal and higher revenues.

My prior post was simply to argue against the statement that coaches won't care if we get a smaller piece of the tv revenues. They will if it results in less money for their budget.

[JMM28]

ForDaLove +1.

We may not be recruiting exclusively against those guys, but the majority of our games will be against them.

[brianstl]

The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.

As if that isn't already the case!

Exactly. Even if it was an even playing field amongst conference members it still wouldn't be an even playing field for SLU.

[brianstl]

The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.

As if that isn't already the case!

Exactly. Even if it was an even playing field amongst conference members it still wouldn't be an even playing field for SLU.

[brianstl]

The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.

As if that isn't already the case!

Exactly. Even if it was an even playing field amongst conference members it still wouldn't be an even playing field for SLU.

This is a little outdated, but a quick search turned up some info stating we had the highest basketball budget in the A10. Even with that, the money would would be able to spend at first in the new conference would pale to the 7. Taking less TV revenue for an extended period of time would put us even further behind. It would be next to impossible to compete at a consistently at a high level in conference putting yourself at such a disadvantage. It isn't just the years that you take less revenue that you suffer it is the years you then have to spend digging yourself out of the hole you put yourself in.

http://www.basketballforum.com/atlantic-10-conference/451303-10-athletic-budgets-fiscal-year-2010-a.html

[moytoy12]

The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.

Exactly. Even if it was an even playing field amongst conference members it still wouldn't be an even playing field for SLU.

This is a little outdated, but a quick search turned up some info stating we had the highest basketball budget in the A10. Even with that, the money would would be able to spend at first in the new conference would pale to the 7. Taking less TV revenue for an extended period of time would put us even further behind. It would be next to impossible to compete at a consistently at a high level in conference putting yourself at such a disadvantage. It isn't just the years that you take less revenue that you suffer it is the years you then have to spend digging yourself out of the hole you put yourself in.

http://www.basketballforum.com/atlantic-10-conference/451303-10-athletic-budgets-fiscal-year-2010-a.html

Looks like I stand corrected. I still don't think the issue is as grave as you make it sound. I guess it's the whole small fish-big pond v. big fish-small pond dilemma. I just think that being in the C7 conference, even with a gross disparity, is more advantageous than the alternatives.

[brianstl]

The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.

Exactly. Even if it was an even playing field amongst conference members it still wouldn't be an even playing field for SLU.

This is a little outdated, but a quick search turned up some info stating we had the highest basketball budget in the A10. Even with that, the money would would be able to spend at first in the new conference would pale to the 7. Taking less TV revenue for an extended period of time would put us even further behind. It would be next to impossible to compete at a consistently at a high level in conference putting yourself at such a disadvantage. It isn't just the years that you take less revenue that you suffer it is the years you then have to spend digging yourself out of the hole you put yourself in.

http://www.basketballforum.com/atlantic-10-conference/451303-10-athletic-budgets-fiscal-year-2010-a.html

Looks like I stand corrected. I still don't think the issue is as grave as you make it sound. I guess it's the whole small fish-big pond v. big fish-small pond dilemma. I just think that being in the C7 conference, even with a gross disparity, is more advantageous than the alternatives.

As if that isn't already the case!

I want to be in the conference. I just hope the administration isn't so desperate to get in that they agree to a bad deal. I think we actually have a stronger negotiating position than many think. I think for the conference to work they need us.

[MusicCityBilliken]

Unbelievable total gall of these programs.

If we accept this we will be like we were in mid-70s when we joined the Metro or how Depaul is today. Is that better?

These schools are not that good. If the season ended today I doubt, with maybe the exception of Marquette, any world even get an at-large bid.

If Bondi and May have some ca-hones, instead of trying to get a seat in New York, they should be making the rounds in Omaha, Indy, Dayton and Cincy.

They need us more then we need them to pull this off. We should be setting the terms.

[kshoe]

I would say this no matter what the number say, but you have to take all published SLU athletic budget numbers with a grain of salt. In the past the revenues have exactly matched the expenses which tells me they are jiggering the numbers somehow. As a private university we can do such things. Once you recognize all the numbers are questionable it's hard to take any of them as pure fact.

[moytoy12]

The coaches will care if theyre receiving less of a recruiting budget than other coaches in their conference.

Exactly. Even if it was an even playing field amongst conference members it still wouldn't be an even playing field for SLU.

This is a little outdated, but a quick search turned up some info stating we had the highest basketball budget in the A10. Even with that, the money would would be able to spend at first in the new conference would pale to the 7. Taking less TV revenue for an extended period of time would put us even further behind. It would be next to impossible to compete at a consistently at a high level in conference putting yourself at such a disadvantage. It isn't just the years that you take less revenue that you suffer it is the years you then have to spend digging yourself out of the hole you put yourself in.

http://www.basketballforum.com/atlantic-10-conference/451303-10-athletic-budgets-fiscal-year-2010-a.html

Looks like I stand corrected. I still don't think the issue is as grave as you make it sound. I guess it's the whole small fish-big pond v. big fish-small pond dilemma. I just think that being in the C7 conference, even with a gross disparity, is more advantageous than the alternatives.

As if that isn't already the case!

I want to be in the conference. I just hope the administration isn't so desperate to get in that they agree to a bad deal. I think we actually have a stronger negotiating position than many think. I think for the conference to work they need us.

Somehow I added thicks comment to the end of my post. Anyhow, i agree with you. I think we have some leverage and there is some negotiating we can do.