Quo Vadis

+1010101002907810810829048209890144123441 ESPN/NBC literally put the most important schools in a group in writing and you're still in denial. What will it take to make some of you not so biased? It's a punch to the gut, but I'm not going to ignore it and spin it every way possible to make myself feel better. In YOUR opinion that's what those groups meant to NBC. NBC is not the end all be all of University worth and quality. Unless you were there when the contract was being written up, you have no idea. @usfvoodoo5 ESPN matched NBC's contract exactly. NBC owns Comcast. Comcast has regional sports channels in Philly and Houston. Thus UH and Temple are A Comcast does not exist in the Tampa market, at all. ESPN could not negotiate terms or change verbage in the contract, it was an "accept or pass" option. Group B designation obviously means the networks regard us as less valuable than the Group A teams. Sometimes, statements are open to alternative interpretations. This is not one of them.

Group B means the networks don't think we are as valuable as the group A schools. No other way to spin it.

In a word, "yes", i think the Big East hurt us more than helped, at least in terms of immediate results. Sure, when experienced in moderate doses, better competition can toughen you up because if the challenge is just mildly more difficult, you have time to learn and improve and rise to it, but if the challenge is overwhelming, when you throw a baby into a wolve's den the baby will get devoured long before it has the chance to toughen up. Our basketball program was just nowhere near ready for fearsome Big East competition. However, at a broader programmatic level, Big East membership gave us the money to do things like upgrade the Sun Dome, which will help us in the coming years recruit better players and win more.

I agree, but IMO the OP does have a point: When you discuss goals and don't talk about winning, it's almost like you are setting a bar low enough for you to keep your job even if you don't win. And i can't abide that.

... but it's also a pretty expected view from someone in Suitcase City, Temple Terrace, or the Marshall Center Food Court too.

I wouldn't call it exactly the same as now. It be more like the same as being in the Big East the past 8 seasons, which quite frankly is better than what we have now. "Now" is Conference USA. And I agree that if the ACC comes calling for us, there is a good chance it won't be until it has lost true Power status, just like the old Big East was the runt of the BCS litter. The odds that we will ever be in an ACC with North Carolina or Duke strikes me as quite small, and an ACC without them won't be the "ACC" as we now know it. It will feel familiar though with UConn, UL,ND(drama sports only) Pitt and Syracuse in it. You really don't believe any of them are gonna pay huge exit fee to ACC after just paying one to BE? Except for Notre Dame, none of those schools will have the option of paying an exit fee from the ACC, since no better conference will want them.

I wouldn't call it exactly the same as now. It be more like the same as being in the Big East the past 8 seasons, which quite frankly is better than what we have now. "Now" is Conference USA. And I agree that if the ACC comes calling for us, there is a good chance it won't be until it has lost true Power status, just like the old Big East was the runt of the BCS litter. The odds that we will ever be in an ACC with North Carolina or Duke strikes me as quite small, and an ACC without them won't be the "ACC" as we now know it.

Good analysis. My take on your points ... First, i think the FSU situation has a few dimensions. First, i don't think FSU is in the driver's seat as far as moving is concerned. The Big 12 obviously doesn't want them or else they would have invited them by now. Second, and conversely, i also think there is a powerful FSU faction that romanticizes the ACC's better academic standing and wants to be affiliated with that over the Big 12. Of course their fan base wants the SEC, but the SEC doesn't want them. Overall, it's by no means clear that FSU can leave the ACC even if it wanted to, and it may not want to. Second, I don't think the Big 12 moves towards USF under any conceivable circumstances. They will not be "desperate" enough to have a CCG to take us if FSU declines an offer. We just do not bring enough to their table. Third, I agree our best, really only, Power 5 hope is the ACC. If the ACC gets raided by the B1G and/or SEC (and i think if the B1G takes any more ACC teams the SEC will step in to take some for themselves), then we could very well get a bid. But the ACC would have to need at least two teams, since IMO, UConn would get a bid before we would. Overall, given the B1G's appetite, i don't think (3) is beyond the realm of possibility. PS ... I lived in the USF dorms from 1985 - 1989 as an undergrad and then as a grad student (yep, for one year, LOL. Was weird being 24 with a bunch of 18 year olds during the 88-89 school year). But my time was spent over in Andros, in the Theta and Lambda dorms. Did spend the summer of 1987 on a work crew cleaning Alpha and Beta. That was a trip.

I was just trying to point out that they don't depend on TV money. I felt that the 3 points made by the poster were valid IMO and why I thought so. Not trying to be holier than thou. Apologize if it came out that way. No problem. Sadly, I do not think it a coincidence that the schools that consistently do get the top recruits and win the most games, get donors to cough up big bucks, and put the fans in the seats also have the big TV money. There is no doubt that the better programs get more money from their donors. And more money will allow a larger recruiting budget. But there are a ton of programs that haven't won a Nat'l Championship that still draw big donors. USF needs time to have people that graduated with football (last 15 years) to establish themselves and become successful in life. There are probably a bunch of USF grads from the 80's that are UF, FSU or Miami fans since we had no football. This will all take time. Yep, it sure will. Let's just keep plugging away. If there is one short-cut to on the field success it would be landing a great coach before anyone else knows he's great, a budding Bowden or Saban, a guy who can make lemonade out of lemons, so to speak.

I was just trying to point out that they don't depend on TV money. I felt that the 3 points made by the poster were valid IMO and why I thought so. Not trying to be holier than thou. Apologize if it came out that way. No problem. Sadly, I do not think it a coincidence that the schools that consistently do get the top recruits and win the most games, get donors to cough up big bucks, and put the fans in the seats also have the big TV money.

Hey Cousin, no reason to get all more holier Bull than thou on me, lol. I always support USF, I was just explaining that if things like recruiting top talent depend on TV money we are in trouble.

But ... with the new media deal paying us $2 million per year, compared to the $25 million Florida gets and the $19 million FSU gets, there is no way we will have enough TV money to accomplish ANY of the three objectives you list. What we might be able to do is parlay that $30 million Big East legacy payout into better facilities and/or coaches that might give us a bit of a boost. But even then, what "top shelf" recruit is going to be excited about playing Tulane, Memphis, and ECU on ESPN3 when they could be playing against Georgia, LSU, Clemson, or Miami on ESPN or ABC? We have no chance to land top recruits unless there happens to be a 5- star guy from Plant or King High who is such a homebody he can't imagine leaving Tampa. Good luck to us with that ...

Actually, it's now being widely reported.

If a commissioner isn't responsible for outcomes, who is? What did we pay him a milion dollars for?

IMO, Aresco talked a big game but in the end, a brain injured monkey could have produced the same results.

Mike Aresco, the worst excuse for a commissioner ever, says: "I am pleased that this agreement has been reached," Aresco said in a statement. "With the long-term well-being of our outstanding institutions and their student-athletes of paramount importance, each group worked through a number of complex issues in an orderly, comprehensive and amicable manner marked by mutual respect. We part ways as friends and colleagues and look forward to the success of both conferences." http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigeast/2013/03/08/catholic-7-seven-split/1970647/

I admit that USF is not "driving" the value of the media deal. Hell, the media deal is so lousy that i wouldn't want us to take responsibility for it, LOL. Fact is, none of the football programs have any TV value worth mentioning, and only UConn, Cincy, Memphis, and arguably Temple basketball do, and evidently they aren't worth all that much either. So i do not claim that USF is responsible for more of those media dollars than is UCF. That said, a 90/10 split of the $100 million in Big East legacy money is eminently fair, as who should get those dollars has nothing to do with current media value. It has to do with who participated in the conference during the time those exit, entry, and basketball credit fees were earned, and that means it should go to USF, Cincy, and UConn. Because that's how it works in every conference: Schools get conference money that is "earned" if they are members of the conference when it is earned. So really, the actual split should be 100/0 in our favor. We are entitled to all of it. Thus, a 90/10 split already represents us giving the newbies something they don't deserve. It is a nice good-will gesture on our part, a welcoming gift. But instead of being thanked for giving you free money, we are getting called "greedy". That takes a big nut-sack, pal. Very ungrateful. First of all all of this is predicated on the beleif that the new teams are actuall "joining a conference" If that is the case then all of the schools joined a conference that consisted of various schools. Each of those school brought value to the conference. So when they agreed to join there was a certain value they thought they were buying into with the entry fee. That value was based upon the existing teams and revenue streams including Rutgers etc., and the current and potential value of media money. When those teams left they pay exit fees to compensate THE CONFERENCE for the future loss in value their departure causes, not the value of already paid and earned TV revenue. This is revenue above and beyond what is already earned and owed under existing deals. It compensates for future losses not past value. Therefore that money should be paid to the conference to help offset everyone's loss.. Obviously UCF believed they were buying into a conference where the yearly TV revenue would be "x". They bargained for "x". No, nobody ever "bargains for" joining a conference with guaranteed membership. When you joined the Big East you joined with the knowledge that teams presently in the Big East, like Rutgers, could choose to leave, and you accepted the invite with that understanding. So you are owed nothing on that account, which is exactly why legally, you are entitled to none of this $100 million. FWIW, I would be just fine with USF, UCF, and Cincy agreeing to waive your entry fee. Chalk it up as another good-will gesture. But again, you would owe us a thank-you for that, not griping about what you aren't getting.

I admit that USF is not "driving" the value of the media deal. Hell, the media deal is so lousy that i wouldn't want us to take responsibility for it, LOL. Fact is, none of the football programs have any TV value worth mentioning, and only UConn, Cincy, Memphis, and arguably Temple basketball do, and evidently they aren't worth all that much either. So i do not claim that USF is responsible for more of those media dollars than is UCF. That said, a 90/10 split of the $100 million in Big East legacy money is eminently fair, as who should get those dollars has nothing to do with current media value. It has to do with who participated in the conference during the time those exit, entry, and basketball credit fees were earned, and that means it should go to USF, Cincy, and UConn. Because that's how it works in every conference: Schools get conference money that is "earned" if they are members of the conference when it is earned. So really, the actual split should be 100/0 in our favor. We are entitled to all of it. Thus, a 90/10 split already represents us giving the newbies something they don't deserve. It is a nice good-will gesture on our part, a welcoming gift. But instead of being thanked for giving you free money, we are getting called "greedy". That takes a big nut-sack, pal. Very ungrateful.

Reality for USF is to make the best with what we have no matter where we end up. Keep winning and you make yourself appealing for the next round of expansion AND you get to play the big boys in the bowls where you can further build your rep. The ACC is the #5 conference for now, but I think it is possible for our new conference or a conference like the MWC to usurp that status from the ACC. Even with our current makeup in the new "America 12" as it seems to be called, I think we are already in striking distance of the ACC in football. "Striking distance" in what sense? On-field results? That and a dollar will buy us a candy bar. Fact is, the Big East that existed between 2005 and 2012 was ranked HIGHER than the ACC in most rating services, like Sagarin, more of those years than not. We were ranked higher than the B1G in three of those years. For all the good it did us: When it came time to dole out media money and bowl bids, we were left on the scrap heap and any of our schools was willing to jump to any other Power conference. And that's because on-field performance has almost nothing to do with the conference-desirability of a school. If it was, then the Power 5 would have been tripping all over themselves to lure Boise State, but Boise is on the outside looking in, while a Notre Dame, which until this past season had never done anything during the BCS era, can join any conference they want any time they want. The coin of the realm in terms of being desirable to a conference is not wins on the field, nor is it "market size". It is brand name recognition. Sure, we do have a path to an ACC bid, if certain cards fall the right way. But that's what it's going to take until we establish national brand visibility.

Yes, it's a stupid name. But this has become a stupid conference, no?

Again per USF rumor thread FSU's preferences are 1. B1G (This is the prized conference) 2. SEC (The prized football conference) 3. A Stabilized ACC with ND (indy or full) with a future chance at a Texas (indy or full as 16) 4. Big 12 (Assumes ACC blowup) Miami & I believe Clemson only has these options and in order 1. Stabiliized ACC 2. Big 12 (Though Clemson wants SEC) FSU might "prefer" the B1G or SEC to the Big 12, but those conferences do not want them.

From a financial standpoint they likely are happy, but the big question is if the lack of a title game will hurt them in the calculations of the new BCS. SEC, ACC, B1G, and PAC-12 all get an extra game with two ranked opponents. The victor of each gets their resume polished a little bit. The championship game is clearly important to the Big XII since Bowlsy is asking the NCAA to allow it even though they only have ten members. These are all the bowls currently floating in the air. Will the NCAA allow a ten team conference to have a championship game? If not, will not having a title game hurt the chances of a Big XII team playing in the four team playoff? Will adding the extra two teams cost the Big XII members any money? Would FSU join and how much will it cost them to exit their conference (this is a factor because the exit fee is enormous if it holds - BE leftovers probably have to pay $15M to exit and will be receiving an influx of TV money in return; there's more incentive for a team like USF and UCF to move than for FSU)? If Fox is willing to ensure that the Big XII members lose zero dollars then expansion is a no brainer IF the NCAA does not allow them a title game anyways. I don't think FSU has the financial incentive to move, not to the Big XII. B1G? Sure, but unless they get into the AAU it will not happen. SEC? Again, sure, but doubtful. I also think the B1G would be interested in expanding to Florida, but they are academic snobs. Nebraska was at least in the AAU at one point. I doubt they sneak another one in. If FSU can get in then the B1G may expand south with GT and FSU. Yet I doubt anyone in the ACC moves. I'm not sure the SEC wants to expand again. The B1G would, but I'd suspect they'd look to snag Duke and UNC to help knock their basketball out of the park (not to mention academics). If the BXII is told outright that they cannot have a title game then who knows? I do think they have seriously looked at USF and UCF as alternatives to FSU. They could also look at Cincinnati and one of USF/UCF to expand to Ohio and Florida, though a twofer in Florida is probably better than trying to get into Ohio. USF and UCF can gain inroads, especially with their urban locations and large student populations. I'm originally from Ohio and the rest of the state thinks that Cincinnati is part of Kentucky. The people up in Cleveland and Columbus won't take much interest. The student populations at USF and UCF plus access to Florida recruits makes them both able to surpass FSU over the next decade plus. UCF at 60,000 students has got to be appealing. Good point about the Big 12 and the CGS. Since they are appealing to the NCAA to allow one at 10 teams, clearly they do want that. Sure, if FOX and/or ESPN (we always seem to forget that ESPN has half of the Big 12 deal) is willing to guarantee no loss in per-team revenue by going to 12, AND the NCAA refuses to allow the Big 12 a title game unless they expand to 12, then the Big 12 will expand to 12. But IMO, FOX/ESPN will only do that if the Big 12 adds teams that are worth $20 million per year. Who out there is worth that? FSU is, but they are unlikely to leave the ACC unless they have to, otherwise they would probably have already joined the Big 12. Likewise Notre Dame, on both counts. But IMO it is wishful thinking that FOX/ESPN would value USF and UCF at that level of money. The contract that the Big East just signed puts our value at WAY below that. Not even in the same ballpark. So i don't see a path to the Power 5 for USF in all of this. The way i see it, the only current and reasonable path to the Power 5 for USF goes something like this: 1) B1G successfully raids the ACC, taking Virginia and North Carolina* 2) SEC responds by taking NC State and Duke* 3) FSU, jilted by the SEC again, jumps to Big 12, Clemson does too. 4) a rump ACC takes USF, Cincy, and UConn to backfill its losses. Of course, at this point, the ACC, already the runt of the Power 5 litter, will be significantly reduced in power. Its TV contract will be re-adjusted downwards to reflect the loss of its biggest names. USF ends up in what amounts to something similar to various versions of the 1990s Big East, with Syracuse, Pitt, , Wake Forest, VT, Louisville, Miami, UConn, BC, Georgia Tech, and Cincy. Who gets the 12th ACC slot? I don't know, probably not UCF though. Of course, this will still be a FAR better conference, competitively and financially, then what we are facing right now. * Arrangements are made so Duke and UNC can still play home/home every year in basketball.

Excellent victory!

So nobody seems to believe that the Big "12" will be happy at 10 for the forseeable future? I think they are happy, and so are FOX and ESPN. However, should the B1G or SEC raid the ACC, then the Big 12 might be spurred to try and scoop up FSU and Clemson or maybe Miami, and in that case those schools would be amenable. But IMO there are big roadblocks to USF being a component in that kind of movement, either to the Big 12 or ACC.

Furthermore, I believe, if "forced" by the possibility of USF/UCF getting into the B12, naturally, the Noles will pull the trigger and jump ship, costs be damned. I am not sure why many here think that if the Big 12 said "come or we invite USF/UCF" that this would have a big impact on FSU's thinking. I don't imagine FSU cares if USF/UCF join the Big 12 or not. FSU seems to have the following desires: (1) join the SEC, but that isn't happening. (2) remain in the ACC, but bail to the Big 12 if the ACC collapses. USF and UCF do not impact on any of that. I think the general consensus, at least from what I've seen elsewhere - and I agree with is that the B12's payout per team is generally accepted to be greater than the ACC's, isn't it? Plus, if the B12 gets a CC game, given the "strength" of the conference compared to the ACC's, potentially I could see FSU on the outside looking in of the NCG. FSU will not want to be leap-frogged in affiliation and payout by two 'lesser' programs in state, right? I absolutely believe if they think USF/UCF is going to get the invite, they will jump, regardless of the 'solidarity' of the ACC. The Big 12 does make more than the ACC. About $2 million more per team from the media deal, and also the Big 12 will make about an additional $2.5 million more per team thanks to its tie-in with the higher-paying Sugar Bowl compared to the Orange Bowl (under the new playoffs regime beginning next year). Is that enough to cause FSU to jump to the Big 12? So far, it has not been. Or else, the Big 12 doesn't want FSU. But either way, I do not see what USF and UCF have to do with Big 12/FSU thinking. Wish it were so, but ....