PonyFans.com

According to the original terms proposed by NBC, which ESPN may adopt, the current media agreement can be terminated if a "Group A" + one other team leaves. (Group A consists of UConn, Temple, Cincy and UH)

If two "Group B" teams (SMU + everyone else) leave, the contract can be renegotiated.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... ng-sources

SMU2007 wrote:According to the original terms proposed by NBC, which ESPN may adopt, the current media agreement can be terminated if a "Group A" + one other team leaves. (Group A consists of UConn, Temple, Cincy and UH)

If two "Group B" teams (SMU + everyone else) leave, the contract can be renegotiated.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... ng-sources

Not a surprise that it would have an out if teams leave, would be crazy for a network to sign a contract with a league knowing the teams in the league are highly likely to leave if they can.

That said, not loving the idea that Temple and UH are ahead of SMU and I am surprised they are ahead of the Florida schools.

This is a no brainer. I don't think anybody really expected the Big East to play out that deal. The writing is on the wall, more moves are coming. This deal is about getting what they can for the next 2 years and first rights in the next negotiations.

I highly doubt any teams leave during the terms of this contract.

horsemanx wrote:I highly doubt any teams leave during the terms of this contract.

You don't think the ACC will be looking for members within the next 7 years?

Houston and SMU are interchangeable in the deal. If either Houston or SMU leave for another conference, odds are they would both go as a package. So it was necessary to put at least one of us in the first group. It did not matter which one.

mrydel wrote:Houston and SMU are interchangeable in the deal. If either Houston or SMU leave for another conference, odds are they would both go as a package. So it was necessary to put at least one of us in the first group. It did not matter which one.

Correct.

Odd, though, that they didn't put one of the Florida schools on the list. Maybe NBC thinks they have no options?

Keep in mind, that we are free to leave without an exit fee as says in our contract plus we have never said we were ever going to be committed to the Big East. Our president has a plan and agenda plus unlike 1995, we have political power in the State Legislature.

Cougar King wrote:Keep in mind, that we are free to leave without an exit fee as says in our contract plus we have never said we were ever going to be committed to the Big East.

Never committed? What the hell did they say when they signed up? Or is your position UH wanted to stay in CUSA and the Big East had to twist their arm?

horsemanx wrote:I highly doubt any teams leave during the terms of this contract.

It's a 7 year deal, no way this conference stays together that long.

CA Mustang wrote: Never committed? What the hell did they say when they signed up? Or is your position UH wanted to stay in CUSA and the Big East had to twist their arm?

No. In every press release from our President and AD they simply said, "UH wants to put itself in the best position possible going forward." Not once did we ever say "We are committed to the Big East for the long term." or anything of that sort.

There is no way this deal is going to stay together very long. Cincy or Uconn will get picked off by another conference. I do not see a scenario were UH leaves and SMU does not follow or vice versa. We're committed to the NBE for as long as it is actually beneficial. The only real benefit we're getting is increased exposure through the media. The money is a joke...

Mustang11 wrote:There is no way this deal is going to stay together very long. Cincy or Uconn will get picked off by another conference. I do not see a scenario were UH leaves and SMU does not follow or vice versa. We're committed to the NBE for as long as it is actually beneficial. The only real benefit we're getting is increased exposure through the media. The money is a joke...

Agreed, The increased exposure and the BCS bid for 2013 are the ONLY good things to come out of this.

I read it as follows: basically, U of H doesn't see itself attached to SMU at all and SMU is not one of the schools likely to be amongst those invited to a "new" ACC.

Mexmustang wrote:I read it as follows: basically, U of H doesn't see itself attached to SMU at all and SMU is not one of the schools likely to be amongst those invited to a "new" ACC.

That's how I see it as well. I think UH is concerned only about itself and rightly so...hopefully SMU is not counting on riding the UH coattails. Have to be very proactive.