News From The Wash

[whaler11]

Ha ha, that may be easy for you to Google, I have no idea what to search for that. I guess you'd have to look at the ratings for UConn games and then figure out what the incremental increase would be playing against B1G teams and then look at advertising rates for sports and maybe adjust for Connecticut demographics which are desirable given the relative affluence of the state population....kind of seems complex to me. If you know of a site that would have all that information already put together, post a link when you get a chance and tag me.

With a population of @3 million, about a million of which are located in the coveted NYC DMA, UConn is the most attractive piece left on the board for a conference with it's own network. Having homes pay a premium for the network brings revenue that is otherwise untapped. UConn also brings ratings, especially in the Connecticut, NYC, New England, but also nationwide as it is a nationally recognized brand. Again if you are trying draw ratings and thus advertising dollars, that's important. UConn bring content, across a broad range of sports and thus across a broad range of seasons. That's attractive if you are trying maximize your return on your very expensive sports programs.

In the roll out of any product or service you pick the low hanging fruit first. For college athletics that was broadcast rights. Connecticut is attractive under that metric, not the most attractive, perhaps, but attractive. As an product or service matures you then have be a little creative to squeeze out the remaining available cash. For athletics, the next step was conference networks and subscriber fees. UConn is attractive there as well. The next iteration to monetize college is going to advertising and, once again UConn is well positioned. That is true whether the broadcast rights pie is growing or whether it is shrinking.

While advertising as a stand alone may not have enough value to make UConn an attractive conference addition, all of what UConn brings to the table should be to conference with it's own network. For us, given our location, that means that the B1G is likely considering us. Without other competitors it has the luxury of being able to take it's time, vet us thoroughly, and give us a checklist of what would make us more attractive. It's very possible that is happening. Alternatively, it is possible that Suzie is doing what she can to position us. If so she's doing it very intelligently. Regardless, the notion that we bring nothing to the table flawed, in my belief.

The problem is that the carriage fees dwarf the advertising dollars by an immense factor. So when you take an already shrinking pie and divide by 16 instead of 14 - the math doesn't work. There isn't a program in the country who could generate advertising dollars to make up the gap.

If UConn is getting to the Big 10 - it's not going to have anything to do with NYC. The Big Ten has already monetied the network in NYC through Rutgers (like it or not).

The Big Ten already has a cord-cutting issue like every other cable network. They were first to the party - but as Yogi would say it gets late early out there.

UConn needs to get in out in front on alternative distribution mechanisms. That is going to be the only way to grow the BTN because there are only a handful of programs that meet their requirements as a university and have enough cable boxes attached to be accretive to the television revenue.

The math is really simple - the only argument against it is to believe that the Big Ten schools are going to invite schools that decrease their per team rake. I guess it could happen - but that is something I'm not going to believe until I see it.

 

[Pudge]

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!!!
Not to dispute ...

But, every instance that a TV contract is open at the option period, these conferences use the "Change in Configuration" clause to expand revenues." The B1G is in that window today.

Your position makes sense; but, I think you're missing the broad nature of the possibility set AND ignoring that this is - for the B1G (and maybe 1 other) - beyond FOOTBALL. I know that is anathema to many on Twitter (some called Dude). But, for Academia, there is a real push to maintain and climb Global Rankings. BRAND of B1G is very important. (and you can see the 14 all - to some extent - pushing on the same strategic focus) The coming decade is one of building for an influx of Global students and being in the top 50. That's if Donald Trump allows student visa.

 

[CL82]

The problem is that the carriage fees dwarf the advertising dollars by an immense factor. So when you take an already shrinking pie and divide by 16 instead of 14 - the math doesn't work. There isn't a program in the country who could generate advertising dollars to make up the gap.

If UConn is getting to the Big 10 - it's not going to have anything to do with NYC. The Big Ten has already monetied the network in NYC through Rutgers (like it or not).

The Big Ten already has a cord-cutting issue like every other cable network. They were first to the party - but as Yogi would say it gets late early out there.

UConn needs to get in out in front on alternative distribution mechanisms. That is going to be the only way to grow the BTN because there are only a handful of programs that meet their requirements as a university and have enough cable boxes attached to be accretive to the television revenue.

The math is really simple - the only argument against it is to believe that the Big Ten schools are going to invite schools that decrease their per team rake. I guess it could happen - but that is something I'm not going to believe until I see it.

The problem is that the carriage fees dwarf the advertising dollars by an immense factor. So when you take an already shrinking pie and divide by 16 instead of 14 - the math doesn't work. There isn't a program in the country who could generate advertising dollars to make up the gap....The math is really simple ...

That math is simple but I believe the core premise that it is based upon, that UConn would add zero dollars to broadcast rights, is flawed. Perhaps UConn isn't worth increasing a conference deal by a full share, although I would argue that it should, but it's broadcast rights aren't zero. So the somewhat more complicated math is does UConn's broadcast rights + conference network subscriber fees + it's advertising potential, increase the pie for the B1G. I'd guess that it would, but I don't have the data. I very strongly suspect that Delaney does.

(Whaler while I agree with you that Rutgers NYC 1st tier access for the B1G took away some of our potential value, but Connecticut residents are still on the table and it is well documented (SNY) that we value access to our teams. Our support in NYC is valuable, however, as it impacts ratings and thus advertising dollars.)

 

[Exit 4]

Its good we are sorting ourselves out here on CRA.

I'll pen Whaler11 down for ACC, Nelson for independence and myself, I'll go with B1G - because as sound as the logic in Whaler11's last post maybe, the ACC will never take us. BC and the southern FB schools never allow it. Never.

 

[whaler11]

Its good we are sorting ourselves out here on CRA.

I'll pen Whaler11 down for ACC, Nelson for independence and myself, I'll go with B1G - because as sound as the logic in Whaler11's last post maybe, the ACC will never take us. BC and the southern FB schools never allow it. Never.

It seems like a pipe dream - but root for an ACC network. UConn would be most attractive in that scenario.

Root for the Big 12 to stay together. Texas in the ACC is a UConn nightmare.

I think UConn ends up in the ACC because two of the four schools that would grow the Big Ten TV revenues are in the ACC. The next time they need to backfill the options beyond Cincinnati are non-existant.

 

[NYUConn]

The problem is that the carriage fees dwarf the advertising dollars by an immense factor. So when you take an already shrinking pie and divide by 16 instead of 14 - the math doesn't work. There isn't a program in the country who could generate advertising dollars to make up the gap....The math is really simple ...

That math is simple but I believe the core premise that it is based upon, that UConn would add zero dollars to broadcast rights, is flawed. Perhaps UConn isn't worth increasing a conference deal by a full share, although I would argue that it should, but it's broadcast rights aren't zero. So the somewhat more complicated math is does UConn's broadcast rights + conference network subscriber fees + it's advertising potential, increase the pie for the B1G. I'd guess that it would, but I don't have the data. I very strongly suspect that Delaney does.

I think one of the things that has been mentioned here in the past is the value of UConn's non-football programs to a B1G Network.

What I mean by that is when you have a 24 hour network you need content. Right now I would venture to guess that the best women's basketball match up on the B1G Network last season struggled to crack 1.0 overnight. If you put UConn women's hoops on that network than suddenly you're looking at 1-1.5 nightly in the Hartford/New Haven DMA alone. That is something you can seriously take to advertisers, that on a non-football or non-Top 25 Men's bball night, that you can still produce the eyeballs needed to justify high ad rates.

This doesn't even get into the idea of UConn Men's BBall getting games against MSU, Maryland, Michigan and Ohio State annually or the burgeoning Men's Hockey program that is attracting 7-8,000 live every night in Hartford and would probably bring in half a million nightly on TV.

Point is I think the reason we are a better fit for the B1G than the ACC at the moment is that our non-football sports add a lot of potential advertising value for their network.

 

[whaler11]

The problem is that the carriage fees dwarf the advertising dollars by an immense factor. So when you take an already shrinking pie and divide by 16 instead of 14 - the math doesn't work. There isn't a program in the country who could generate advertising dollars to make up the gap....The math is really simple ...

That math is simple but I believe the core premise that it is based upon, that UConn would add zero dollars to broadcast rights, is flawed. Perhaps UConn isn't worth increasing a conference deal by a full share, although I would argue that it should, but it's broadcast rights aren't zero. So the somewhat more complicated math is does UConn's broadcast rights + conference network subscriber fees + it's advertising potential, increase the pie for the B1G. I'd guess that it would, but I don't have the data. I very strongly suspect that Delaney does.

(Whaler while I agree with you that Rutgers NYC 1st tier access for the B1G took away some of our potential value, but Connecticut residents are still on the table and it is well documented (SNY) that we value access to our teams. Our support in NYC is valuable, however, as it impacts ratings and thus advertising dollars.)

It's broadcast rights aren't zero but to keep the Big Ten current members at parity you have to generate a minimum of $60-$70 million.

Whatever their tier 1 ends up being -20-25. More than double what the school's rake from BTN: because the Big Ten owns half and now it's 16 mouths to feed instead of 14. So if they get $15 million - you need to generate 30-35 at a bare minimum.

Big Ten schools would also give up network equity to new members - that isn't free.

The network generates a trivial amount of advertising dollars. You could triple it across the board and still have a gap.

 

[whaler11]

I think you guys might need a baseline on the ratio of fees versus ads. This is before the NYC expansion where the revenue is all fees. If you want to know how little advertising for non-football impacts the bottom line.... more than half the 29 million was generated on 11 football saturdays. Non-football games generated less than $15 million for the entire year. So unless you think UConn's non-football programs are worth more in advertising than the sum of the non-football programs of the 12 Big Ten members in 2013... incremental advertising dollars aren't getting you there. They may also not be a less attractive TV demographic than women's basketball.


In 2013, BTN is projected to bring in $270 million in total net revenue, of which $234 million is from license fees charged to cable and satellite distributors to carry the network, according to SNL Kagan.

On average, subscribers pay about 37 cents per month to receive BTN. But within the Big Ten footprint, that rate is nearly $1 per subscriber, according to sources, making the East Coast expansion a potentially big revenue boost.

Net advertising revenue has grown to a projected $29 million this year, despite a conference ban on alcohol ads.

 

[CL82]

It's broadcast rights aren't zero but to keep the Big Ten current members at parity you have to generate a minimum of $60-$70 million.

Whatever their tier 1 ends up being -20-25. More than double what the school's rake from BTN: because the Big Ten owns half and now it's 16 mouths to feed instead of 14. So if they get $15 million - you need to generate 30-35 at a bare minimum.

Big Ten schools would also give up network equity to new members - that isn't free.

The network generates a trivial amount of advertising dollars. You could triple it across the board and still have a gap.

Where are you getting the $60-70M number? It feels high, but I didn't look. I think the next TV deal is expected to be the $40-$45M range.

That -$20M, -$25M is entirely speculative, correct? Do you have data supporting it?

I understand your implied point that the B1G isn't going to just UConn (16 vs. 14) but UConn wouldn't be required to make up the difference for the addition of the other school. (Now if you want make the argument that there is no other school on the board for UConn partner with, I think it is a valid point.) So if your analysis is down UConn bring enough to justify it's value you should should divide by 15.

Yes a new B1G school would have to "buy in" to the BTN, just the way Rutgers and Maryland are doing currently. That's not an impediment to joining.

Yes advertising is currently low. It is the next area to be monetized, in my opinion. The potential for movement there is reason why UConn is attractive.

I understand your point Whaler. I think your math/assumptions are off.

 

[whaler11]

Where are you getting the $60-70M number? It feels high, but I didn't look. I think the next TV deal is expected to be the $40-$45M range.

That -$20M, -$25M is entirely speculative, correct? Do you have no data to supporting it?

I understand your implied point that the B1G isn't going to just UConn (16 vs. 14) but UConn wouldn't be required to make up the difference for the addition of the other school. (Now if you want make the argument that there is no other school on the board for UConn partner with, I think it is a valid point.) So if your analysis is down UConn bring enough to justify it's value you should should divide by 15.

Yes a new B1G school would have to "buy in" to the BTN, just the way Rutgers and Maryland are doing currently. That's not an impediment to joining.

Yes advertising is currently low. It is the next area to be monetized, in my opinion. The potential for movement there is reason why UConn is attractive.

I understand your point Whaler. I think your math/assumptions are off.

I don't think they are. You are ignoring that the schools only own half the network. I lowballed the tier 1 take against internet rumors.

Technically the network pays the league rights fees - but if you are going to keep the schools whole in the long run you need to generate more than double what they rake from the Network because other entities own half.

Really I'm underestimating because we are ignoring the BTN expenses and the value of the equity stake the schools would share with new members.

I don't see why all of a sudden they would become an advertising juggernaut. It's not like there are schools they can add that are bigger brands than schools like Michigan and Ohio State. Nobody is bringing the incremental viewers - it's not an accident they generated only $15 million on the 350 non-football days. It isn't because they didn't try.

 

[NYUConn]

I think you guys might need a baseline on the ratio of fees versus ads. This is before the NYC expansion where the revenue is all fees. If you want to know how little advertising for non-football impacts the bottom line.... more than half the 29 million was generated on 11 football saturdays. Non-football games generated less than $15 million for the entire year. So unless you think UConn's non-football programs are worth more in advertising than the sum of the non-football programs of the 12 Big Ten members in 2013... incremental advertising dollars aren't getting you there. They may also not be a less attractive TV demographic than women's basketball.


In 2013, BTN is projected to bring in $270 million in total net revenue, of which $234 million is from license fees charged to cable and satellite distributors to carry the network, according to SNL Kagan.

On average, subscribers pay about 37 cents per month to receive BTN. But within the Big Ten footprint, that rate is nearly $1 per subscriber, according to sources, making the East Coast expansion a potentially big revenue boost.

Net advertising revenue has grown to a projected $29 million this year, despite a conference ban on alcohol ads.

Not adding as much is not the the same as not adding anything at all.

Why settle for $13 million in non-football ad revenue when you can get $15-18? You're not diluting the product when the school you are adding is competitive in basically every Olympic Sport and you're not decreasing existing members revenue.

I don't get the argument that just because action A doesn't make you as much money as Action B, it isn't worth pursuing. If you can increase revenue without dilution of the product than why wouldn't you?

 

[FluxTZ]

I think one of the things that has been mentioned here in the past is the value of UConn's non-football programs to a B1G Network.

What I mean by that is when you have a 24 hour network you need content. Right now I would venture to guess that the best women's basketball match up on the B1G Network last season struggled to crack 1.0 overnight. If you put UConn women's hoops on that network than suddenly you're looking at 1-1.5 nightly in the Hartford/New Haven DMA alone. That is something you can seriously take to advertisers, that on a non-football or non-Top 25 Men's bball night, that you can still produce the eyeballs needed to justify high ad rates.

This doesn't even get into the idea of UConn Men's BBall getting games against MSU, Maryland, Michigan and Ohio State annually or the burgeoning Men's Hockey program that is attracting 7-8,000 live every night in Hartford and would probably bring in half a million nightly on TV.

Point is I think the reason we are a better fit for the B1G than the ACC at the moment is that our non-football sports add a lot of potential advertising value for their network.

Yes, you get it. Football drives the bus overall, but that only works for 12-15 weeks out of the year. In order to be a sustainable network you need as much content as possible. And not just random content; QUALITY content. UConn has proven year in and out they can consistently produce quality athletic content across all sports throughout the year and I can't see how that isn't appealing to a programming team.

 

[whaler11]

Not adding as much is not the the same as not adding anything at all.

Why settle for $13 million in non-football ad revenue when you can get $15-18? You're not diluting the product when the school you are adding is competitive in basically every Olympic Sport and you're not decreasing existing members revenue.

I don't get the argument that just because action A doesn't make you as much money as Action B, it isn't worth pursuing. If you can increase revenue without dilution of the product than why wouldn't you?

Um because the total revenue isn't key. The key number is what each school gets.

Maybe the schools will take less each to add new membership.... that would pretty much go against everything that has happened in CR to date.

 

[CL82]

I don't think they are. You are ignoring that the schools only own half the network. I lowballed the tier 1 take against internet rumors.

Technically the network pays the league rights fees - but if you are going to keep the schools whole in the long run you need to generate more than double what they rake from the Network because other entities own half.

Really I'm underestimating because we are ignoring the BTN expenses and the value of the equity stake the schools would share with new members.

I don't see why all of a sudden they would become an advertising juggernaut. It's not like there are schools they can add that are bigger brands than schools like Michigan and Ohio State. Nobody is bringing the incremental viewers - it's not an accident they generated only $15 million on the 350 non-football days. It isn't because they didn't try.

Mmm, I think we're starting to spin our wheels here, so absent any new data I'll hold off on posting more on it, at least for now. A couple of quick points:

The cost of the buy in is not any more prohibitive to UConn's candidacy than it was to Rutgers' and Maryland's. It would be handled the identical way, by having the incoming member fund the buy out by taking a reduced share and using the withheld portion to fund the BTN buy in. It is not an impediment to a school joining in the least, nor does it gross up what the school needs to bring to the table. As long as a candidate meets the income generation needs, the equity buy in portion is funded from that cash stream.

If your numbers are accurate, Maryland would never have been admitted to B1G. Maryland's households with cable are 1,574,690. Connecticut's households with cable are 1,088,190. [ LINK] The less than a half million differential wouldn't make up your proposed shortfall, correct? That's a good indicator that your estimates are probably high.

Regardless, it's an interesting discussion. Without hard numbers, it will be tough quantify, unless Delaney leaves the study of potential B1G candidates in a North Carolina car wash.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

To be honest with you, as much as I've always hated the ACC my ideal scenario has us ending up there.

Compete regionally in football with our peers/rivals with a realistic shot at division titles, like in the Big East. Compete nationally in basketball, while also playing local rivals.

The B1G has the prestige but aside from the novelty factor of some of the big name schools they don't have the real rivaly feel of a Cuse, BC, Pitt, etc. Not to mention how impossible it will be to compete year in year out in a football division with Penn State, Ohio state, Michigan, Michigan state, etc.

 

[NYUConn]

Um because the total revenue isn't key. The key number is what each school gets.

Maybe the schools will take less each to add new membership.... that would pretty much go against everything that has happened in CR to date.

Right, but your assuming that the individual school cut would decrease with say two more teams added.

Any two additional schools added to the conference will increase the ad revenue at close to the same rate because you are adding content. Adding KU and UConn all of a sudden gives the network 1-2 additional football games every Saturday in the fall, thus increasing the # of ads being purchased and run during broadcast. My point is that UConn not only increases football ad revenue at close to a similar rate (if not accordingly), but it's Olympic sports could increase non-football ad revenue growth and give the existing 14 schools an ultimately higher payout.

 

[UConn9604]

Regardless, it's an interesting discussion. Without hard numbers, it will be tough quantify, unless Delaney leaves the study of potential B1G candidates in a North Carolina car wash.

Did you say car wash? Work, and work.

 

[whaler11]

Right, but your assuming that the individual school cut would decrease with say two more teams added.

Any two additional schools added to the conference will increase the ad revenue at close to the same rate because you are adding content. Adding KU and UConn all of a sudden gives the network 1-2 additional football games every Saturday in the fall, thus increasing the # of ads being purchased and run during broadcast. My point is that UConn not only increases football ad revenue at close to a similar rate (if not accordingly), but it's Olympic sports could increase non-football ad revenue growth and give the existing 14 schools an ultimately higher payout.

You are hung up on ad revenue - they are going to look all in. Minnesota isn't taking a 3 million dollar a year haircut to add two schools even if it increases
one component of network revenue.

You aren't getting the math. Nobody can generate enough advertising revenue to gain entry on that.

 

[NYUConn]

You are hung up on ad revenue - they are going to look all in. Minnesota isn't taking a 3 million dollar a year haircut to add two schools even if it increases
one component if network revenue.

That's the one area where the hangup would be though at least from the BTN standpoint. UConn increases ticket revenue, increases revenue from the NCAA for all of the titles we win and championship appearances we make.

Where is the $3 million haircut coming from then? Through overall TV rights? Genuinely asking.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Who is UConn increasing ticket revenue for? If anything, we'd be a negative for that as Ohio State losses games with Wisconsin and Nebraska losses games with Michigan.

Unless you think an incremental increases of 2,000 people paying $5 for a women's basketball game outweighs that.

 

[whaler11]

That's the one area where the hangup would be though at least from the BTN standpoint. UConn increases ticket revenue, increases revenue from the NCAA for all of the titles we win and championship appearances we make.

Where is the $3 million haircut coming from then? Through overall TV rights? Genuinely asking.

If the schools get $40 million in TV eachtoday and add two schools that don't generate an incremental $80 million to be shared amongst the 16 schools then each current school
makes less on a per school basis.

If today they split 500 million between 14 schools each gets 36 million.

If post expansion they generate 550 million between 16 schools each gets 34 million.

Generating an incremental 80 million dollars is a huge lift - because it's not 80 million it's more because of the structure of the Big Ten Network.

You are also attempting to do this in the strong headwinds of the biggest buyer of television rights. The deepest pockets (ESPN) are aggressively cutting costs.

So again unless you think Minnesota and Iowa are willing to take less to add someone - the list of schools that can generate that much incremental revenue is short.

 

[NYUConn]

Who is UConn increasing ticket revenue for? If anything, we'd be a negative for that as Ohio State losses games with Wisconsin and Nebraska losses games with Michigan.

Unless you think an incremental increases of 2,000 people paying $5 for a women's basketball game outweighs that.

Not football. Basketball.

Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and Wisconsin sell out versus the Coastal Carolinas of the world in football. Won't make a dent there and it won't matter.

But if you take a 16-13 Nebraska basketball team hosting a 24-5 nationally ranked UConn team, suddenly you're getting thousands of more people in the arena than you would normally not have. Even more drastic increase in gate sales for Women's hoops.

 

[Dooley]

I'm sorry, I must've gotten off at the wrong stop. I was headed towards the B1G and my train has seemed to have derailed into ACC land. Why?

We. Will. Never. Get. Into. The. ACC. NEVER. That ship has sailed long ago, my friends. If all that is needed for an ACCN to launch is our presence and we're still not in, then that's that. If we're waiting on Notre Dame to join full-time, we will be waiting until long after we're dead and buried. If we're waiting on some power invite move that includes Texas, then we'll be waiting until our grandchildren our dead and buried. If we're waiting to backfill the conference after FSU or UNC leaves, then there is that ol' dreaded GoR and $52M exit fee to worry about. The only way that the ACC could help us get out of AAC purgatory is if the B1G started to become anxious that they haven't secured the eastern front like they had hoped when they invited RU/MD and began to worry that they would "lose" UConn to the ACC.

BC hates and is afraid of us. Miami hates us. Every single southern football school will never vote for us because they view their conference as a SEC lite. Syracuse does not want us because they're afraid. The conference itself is a mosh posh of southern and northern cultures that do not see eye to eye and never will. One half of the conference is hoops centric, the other is football (sound familiar?). The conference contains a few community college level academia, the latest was selected over us most recently.

Half of the ACC has flirted with other conferences fairly recently. The last time we joined a conference that contained Miami, VT, and BC, they abruptly left. The conference is no closer to getting a network than the AAC. It makes half the money that the B1G and SEC make and that will always be a concern for their members.

We are a much better fit for the B1G. It's a northern based conference that cares about academics (so do we). It's a conference that consists entirely of large, public schools with huge alumni bases. It has its own network that is crushing revenue records every year (current estimates over $50M/yr per school). It's a basketball conference that we can help elevate to elite levels and have a good shot at winning in most seasons. The conference plays hockey. No conference member has ever flirted with leaving the B1G (I do not believe those nutty rumors about PSU and the ACC). The conference has exclusive scheduling agreements with the PAC 12 that could further reach our brand to the west coast on an annual basis. And guess what happens the day after we would be a B1G member? All of those regional r1vals that won't schedule us now (in hopes of cementing us in the AAC) will want to schedule us to build relationships with us and other B1G members. Have I mentioned that we would make double the cash in revenue and could afford to outpay our football and MBB coaches out of the scale that our ACC friends can't?

Don't get me wrong, I could be wrong and if I am, I will happily skip my way towards any Power conference invite. All I'm saying is that when the sun comes up every morning, I expect it to continue coming up every morning. When we are continuously passed over by the ACC for random, changing variables, then I expect us to continue to be passed over for new, random, changing variables.

B1G or bust. I happen to think we're closer to an invite to the B1G than ACC.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Not football. Basketball.

Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and Wisconsin sell out versus the Coastal Carolinas of the world in football. Won't make a dent there and it won't matter.

But if you take a 16-13 Nebraska basketball team hosting a 24-5 nationally ranked UConn team, suddenly you're getting thousands of more people in the arena than you would normally not have. Even more drastic increase in gate sales for Women's hoops.

That's no longer true though for all the schools. Up until Harbaugh, it was well documented that ticket sales were down at UM, and that is a national trend as well.

You also can't expect to charge the same for season ticket that used to feature Wisconsin, Iowa, etc as long time rivals and replace them with Maryland, UConn and Rutgers.

I don't want to talk down our value, but if women's basketball or men's basketball had dictated ANYTHING so far, how do you figure that the most dominant team in all of sports, not just womens hoops, was left out, in addition to one of the top 5 men's programs of the past 30 years is left out too.

The math simply doesn't add up using those metrics.

 

[ThetaZoo]

Don't hold your breath on the ACC. They passed over us for Pitt, and when Maryland left the old line tobacco road lost to the FB schools. Since then the FB schools have even more influence given the disaster called UNC. I'm in Greensboro and my contact here didn't blink an eye saying no movement in P5 for 5 years. He obviously was talking his book and his bosses.

If that was true then all the conferences and all the networks would have to be in lockstep with each other. That seems a little unlikely.