Samuel Fang,
Post by Bill LangSamuel Fang,
Post by Bill LangSamuel Fang,
Post by Samuel FangUConn was in a reasonably strong negotiating position. Not a great
one, no, but one that should have resulted in a better deal than this.
Actually, no. What would UConn threaten them with? The Big East did
agree to accept UConn if they decided to join before a certain
deadline. However, UConn waited until the very end befioe deciding to
join. By then, the extremely minute bargaining power they had was
pretty much nil.
On the other hand, Temple was pretty much a goner by that point.
Which is entirely irrelevant.
And just how would it be irrelevant? The Big East was dumping Temple.
It needed an eighth team to fill Temple's spot.
1. No they didn't
2. There were other, probably better, teams besides UConn
If you recall, the Big East originally decided to kick out Temple in
2001. They were going to play with only 7 teams until it was time for
UConn to join. Then Temple sued, and they settled on letting Temple
stay until 2004. Your idea that Temple had anything to do with UConn
simply doesn't hold water. It was entirely irrelevant.
The Big East Footbal
Conference, by its charter, HAD to take UConn. It wouldn't matter if
the application came in two days before the deadline, two years before
the deadline, or two seconds before the deadline: the Big East HAD to
take UConn.
Right. They had to take UConn, and they did not have to give them
anything better than what was agreed to. At that point, UConn had
very little bargaining power to change that.
None of this was affected in any way by Temple.
Now, at that point, both the BEFC and UConn would be trying to push
each other around with wet noodles. The Big East had to take UConn,
but the Big East didn't have to give UConn immediate and full revenue
sharing. UConn wasn't going anywhere else, but they could also simply
say "We don't like that deal, give us something better", and drag the
discussions on forever.
Which they couldn't do, because they waited until the last minute.
The meager bargaining power they had was gone. That's exactly what I
said.
I'm glad you at least you seem to have gotten away from your statement
that UConn had a reasonably good baragaining position, cause they
really had almost nothing.
Neither side had a good hold over the other. That UConn ended up with
such a high buy-in is startling, to me, even given the state of
UConn's program.
I think it was very appropriate. That UConn even got invited into the
Big East was better than they deserved.
Post by Bill LangPost by Bill LangAnd it's not really a bad deal. There's a dozen or more schools that
would take it in a second.
At the time, no.
I say yes, even now.
What is this comment in direct response to? Is it assuming "At the
time, no." is in resonse to the first sentense of the >>> comment, or
the second sentence?
The second, of course. If you had wanted to say no to the first
sentence, I assume you would have put your reply after the first
sentence. If there was any ambiguity, it's your fault.
Regardless, I say both of my sentences were true, now and then.
Post by Bill LangAt this point, given the uncertainty of the Big
East's ability to keep BCS-type money, it is a pretty bad deal.
You can't honestly be this stupid.
Is there something about Blacksburg that turns MD and PA people into
complete pricks? I know *I'm* one, and it seems to have done that to
both you and Slick. This is a great way to turn a debate into a
pissing contest, Carl.
Whether you think I'm a prick or not doesn't change the fact that you
made a consummately stupid comment.
Post by Bill LangUConn isn't going to see the BCS money whether the Big East loses its
bid or not, and the Big East is still far better than any other
conference they'd end up in. If the Big East loses its BCS bid, it
means that UConn would actually be an equal member.
In an absolute sense, I agree with you. On the other hand, VT got a
good deal, in an absolute sense. When you consider it in the relative
sense (Rutgers got a cheap buy-in, and quick revenue sharing, for
instance, despite being less competitive in football than UConn), you
start having problems.
You have problems if you think I-AA UConn was stronger than I-A
Rutgers. It's true UConn had more potential, only because they don't
have to overcome a negative stigma, but they were (and still are) a
serious risk. I think you're attaching far too little significance to
this. You don't just let I-AA teams into your conference as an equal
member, no questions asked. You have to guard against the risk.
UConn wasn't a very good I-AA team, either, until they annouced the
move to I-A.
(And don't get semantic on me--if you really meant that being
"competitive" in I-AA was more attactive than being a bottom-dweller
in I-A, you are beyond hope. I assume you intended "competitive" as a
synonym for strong.)
UConn has forked over lots of money, and will likely continue to do
so, in order to join a conference that isn't anywhere near as strong
as it was when it signed the papers. Spending that kind of money to
join the Big East as it would have been would have been would have
been a stretch (yes, even considering there would have been many
schools that would have taken their position, and that UConn was
making a big jump). Spending that kind of money now strikes me as a
very raw deal.
Now you're bringing in a completely separate issue--I thought we were
discussing the BCS money? The money UConn spent to join the Big East
was more than fair then, and still resonable now.
The current Big East schools did not screw UConn by its entry
conditions. Only Miami and VT screwed UConn by ditching them.
I would hope, for UConn's sake, that their earlier entry into the BEFC
also includes some breaks for them in terms of entry fees, but I kind
of doubt it.
If you really care so much about UConn, then you should be really
hoping VT goes back to the Big East. The money UConn spent, and the
BCS money they won't get, is a rather small thing compared to the long
term loss in prestige caused by the departure of those two schools.
Post by Bill LangAnd I guarantee you, there's at least a dozen schools out there who
would jump at the opportunity to join the Big East even without a BCS
bid; it's still a much better conference than the one they came from.
Those schools would be even happier if the Big East managed to hang on
to the prestige of the BCS bid, even if they wouldn't see the money
for ten years.
Maybe it's our different perspectives of UConn. In your mind, and in
the minds of many out there, UConn is Just Another I-AA Program.
They *were* just another I-AA program.
I
honestly and truly think UConn is another Boston College (at least) in
the making. I see a contender there, in a few years,
They might be a contender, or they might be the next Rutgers. It's
still too early to tell. You don't know.
and I see the
Big East treating them like a mendicant instead of a future equal.
That might well be a personality trait of Mike Tranghese, and if so
that's going to hurt the conference, badly.
Look, the real problem here is you have this idea that the Big East
somehow owed UConn (or VT) something.
Guess what? The Big East owed UConn squat. UConn was an unremarkable
I-AA program that got a chance to play football in a BCS conference in
exchange for a freaking vote. The terms of them joining the Big East
were extremely generous considering what they did to get it.
I don't give one fuck if UConn ends up being competitive. The fact
is, they were a I-AA nothing, pulled out of the gutter due to
circumstance, and they are very lucky to join the Big East on the
terms they have.
The only parties that screwed UConn were Miami and VT.
--
CARL BANKS "If Bubbles isn't a Penn State fan,
http://www.aerojockey.com why does she wear blue and white?"