Possible Big 12 Invite rumors

[polycom]

That's never going to happen. A lot of foolishness going on but I refuse to believe they're that dumb.

Why do you think they won’t do that? They have shown they are willing to change a much more valuable property

 

[businesslawyer]

Now you’re justifying your move to walk out of the first Big East Conference. I never said you didn’t have the right. I never said I wouldn’t have done the same in your shoes. The only thing I wouldn’t do — which many here do all the time — is pretend that it was UConn who walked out on the hoops only schools, rather than the other way around. I don’t understand why intellectual honesty is such a problem when the Catholic schools didn’t do anything wrong. But yet, there seems to be a need to control a false narrative.

 

[CTBasketball]

When does the Big 12’s current TV deal run out? Will they get a comparable number even tho Texas and Oklahoma left?

 

[Rico444]

What's interesting about it? His tweet doesn't change much of anything.

What do you mean? I get that Murphy has no skin in the game when it comes to the state budget, but he's still a very powerful person in Connecticut. And he's absolutely right about the school's athletics, it's an investment and not meant to be a money maker. The obsession with money over all else has damaged other strong basketball programs over the last 20 years; Murphy sees that and is smart to advise caution.

 

[jibsey]

It would be all sports if it happened, so yes.

I would have said no otherwise because the BE is great for us but the football….That said I’m quite happy where we are.

 

[Gburyhusky]

What do you mean? I get that Murphy has no skin in the game when it comes to the state budget, but he's still a very powerful person in Connecticut. And he's absolutely right about the school's athletics, it's an investment and not meant to be a money maker. The obsession with money over all else has damaged other strong basketball programs over the last 20 years; Murphy sees that and is smart to advise caution.

This is 100% correct. There is a false narrative that the athletic department spending is "unsustainable" because it operates with "deficit spending ". Therefore, the belief is that we must chase the last dollar no matter what. Clearly the athletic director doesn't believe that, nor do the politicians, who at the end of the day are the most important decision makers when it comes to the allocation of state funds.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

We are on page 17 of a thread arguing about an invitation that we do not have and is not forthcoming, so a handful of posters can beat the same dead horse trying to justify the horrible decision to stay in the American for as long as UConn did.

 

[WestHartHusk]

We are on page 17 of a thread arguing about an invitation that we do not have and is not forthcoming, so a handful of posters can beat the same dead horse trying to justify the horrible decision to stay in the American for as long as UConn did.

Who is doing that?

 

[huskymedic]

 

[UConnSwag11]

What do you mean? I get that Murphy has no skin in the game when it comes to the state budget, but he's still a very powerful person in Connecticut. And he's absolutely right about the school's athletics, it's an investment and not meant to be a money maker. The obsession with money over all else has damaged other strong basketball programs over the last 20 years; Murphy sees that and is smart to advise caution.

Athletics is a money maker. Schools are leaving conferences so their athletic departments can make millions of dollars more. No other reason.

Also, multiple times every year there are threads talking about the deficit the university is in, not just the AD. Murphy is just blowing gas

 

[UConnSwag11]

This would’ve been solved if we got invites over Maryland or Rutgers

 

[FfldCntyFan]

This is 100% correct. There is a false narrative that the athletic department spending is "unsustainable" because it operates with "deficit spending ". Therefore, the belief is that we must chase the last dollar no matter what. Clearly the athletic director doesn't believe that, nor do the politicians, who at the end of the day are the most important decision makers when it comes to the allocation of state funds.

Regardless of whether the deficit is real or merely due to our school's bookkeeping methodology, it is indisputable that an additional $25 million, $30 million, $35 million annually would give the school more money to utilize towards remaining competitive in whatever areas those in charge believe the additional funds would be best spent.

 

[Chief00]

You're over estimating the actual value of the TV deal. You're adding bowl revenues, bowl payouts, NCAA units, and a lot of other things to the actual revenue that B12 schools will make from their TV deal. What I read from people is an apples to oranges comparison. They are comparing the ACCs current TV deal to the B12s total revenue. This is apples to oranges.

The actual B12 TV money is $31m. The ACCs deal is $23m, but it's an old deal.

We're talking about the dissolution of that deal.

So the ACC would be up for a new deal as soon as all of this went down. All I'm saying is that I'd expect them to get more than the B12 simply because the ACC has the better schools and the better states.

Take Texas and Oklahoma out and it is a different conference.
I like the article line about going back to playing UFC. Maybe Bob Diaco could dust off that trophy that no one wanted?

 

[mussels]

No. That's just not right. We, with Cincy and USF, were looking to rebuild the football part of the conference while still playing the Catholic onlies. And the Catholic basketball onlies left.

Would we have left the Big EAst for a better spot? Yes. Like every member of every organization and every employee of every employer. What in the world is the point of saying someone would leave for a better offer. We stayed and rebuilt the best we could having had the Catholic schools walk out.

OK, but better spots don’t just fall in your lap.

If we weren’t working the phones, and our contacts to pitch the big 10 and ACC, then our fate was on us, not the Catholic’s that we’re proactive in taking the steps they saw as necessary for stability, and their best option for long term success.

It all worked out pretty well in the long run though, so no harm no foul on anyone as far as I’m concerned.

 

[CL82]

This is 100% correct. There is a false narrative that the athletic department spending is "unsustainable" because it operates with "deficit spending ". Therefore, the belief is that we must chase the last dollar no matter what. Clearly the athletic director doesn't believe that, nor do the politicians, who at the end of the day are the most important decision makers when it comes to the allocation of state funds.

The AD sure seems like he does since he's cutting programs. The legislature cut the universities budget, so....

 

[HuskyHawk]

Athletics is a money maker. Schools are leaving conferences so their athletic departments can make millions of dollars more. No other reason.

Also, multiple times every year there are threads talking about the deficit the university is in, not just the AD. Murphy is just blowing gas

Yeah, no. This is a myth. It's marketing. It's intended to put the school in front of potential students, and to provide more appeal to those students who enjoy the experience. Only 20-30 schools make any money and most of them are barely profitable. The rest are trying to reduce the cost of this marketing expense. If not for this, nobody would do it. College football is a $4B a year business. Pepsico is $80B. A supply chain company in Pittsburgh called Armada is $4B. Walmart is $500B.

As for "big business", it's not that big. It's tiny compared to the research grants these schools want and compared to what they rake in from students. Why did the ACC want BC? To make their schools more attractive to wealthy kids in New England who have good SAT scores and went to good high schools. It's also why the B1G wanted Rutgers and Maryland. Not really about athletics. The AD $ is nice too, but not the main reason. Guess what? It worked. New England kids are heading to ACC schools in much bigger numbers. Northeastern area kids heading to B1G schools in bigger numbers too. BC applications from out of state kids in ACC states went way up. That's what it's about. It's why Miami joined the Big East.

This is good for UConn, except that the B12 schools likely know that they won't be all that appealing to kids in New England. What Benedict said the other day is the inverse of this, will kids from Iowa, KS, TX want to go to UConn? Or are they more appealing to kids in the Big East states? Part of UConn's problem is it's expensive as hell out of state. The ACC is a much better fit, because those growing areas are full of kids that might actually go to UConn. Benedict's answer to the ACC would be an instant yes.

 

[Tenspro2002]

We are on page 17 of a thread arguing about an invitation that we do not have and is not forthcoming, so a handful of posters can beat the same dead horse trying to justify the horrible decision to stay in the American for as long as UConn did.

We "stayed" in the AAC for like 5 years, with no evidence that there was an opportunity to do anything differently earlier.

 

[EnochRoot]

This would’ve been solved if we got invites over Maryland or Rutgers

There are probably at least a dozen universities that also lack the AAU rating that would make more sense for The Big Ten.

 

[uconnric]

Yeah, no. This is a myth. It's marketing. It's intended to put the school in front of potential students, and to provide more appeal to those students who enjoy the experience. Only 20-30 schools make any money and most of them are barely profitable. The rest are trying to reduce the cost of this marketing expense. If not for this, nobody would do it. College football is a $4B a year business. Pepsico is $80B. A supply chain company in Pittsburgh called Armada is $4B. Walmart is $500B.

As for "big business", it's not that big. It's tiny compared to the research grants these schools want and compared to what they rake in from students. Why did the ACC want BC? To make their schools more attractive to wealthy kids in New England who have good SAT scores and went to good high schools. It's also why the B1G wanted Rutgers and Maryland. Not really about athletics. The AD $ is nice too, but not the main reason. Guess what? It worked. New England kids are heading to ACC schools in much bigger numbers. Northeastern area kids heading to B1G schools in bigger numbers too. BC applications from out of state kids in ACC states went way up. That's what it's about. It's why Miami joined the Big East.

This is good for UConn, except that the B12 schools likely know that they won't be all that appealing to kids in New England. What Benedict said the other day is the inverse of this, will kids from Iowa, KS, TX want to go to UConn? Or are they more appealing to kids in the Big East states? Part of UConn's problem is it's expensive as hell out of state. The ACC is a much better fit, because those growing areas are full of kids that might actually go to UConn. Benedict's answer to the ACC would be an instant yes.

The ACC is in no position to invite anyone with the instability the league is facing. The other elephant in the room, besides the athletic budget deficit (I'm sure UConn and the state leaders love seeing an article every year that the athletic dept. is $35 mil in the hole), is NIL money. That doesn't just fall from a tree either.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

We are on page 17 of a thread arguing about an invitation that we do not have and is not forthcoming, so a handful of posters can beat the same dead horse trying to justify the horrible decision to stay in the American for as long as UConn did.

If you're going to call out the voice in your head at least have the decency to tag his handle.

 

[Chin Diesel]

I know it will never happen and I'm regurgitating bile even thinking it but aiding an ACC breakup and having Big12 add Pitt and 'cuse would be an interesting play.

Pitt and 'cuse now know they aren't part of the Magnificent 7 and they are likely to be left to fend for themselves when the ACC breaks up. Rather than wait to see who wants ACC scraps, proacticely engage them to go with Mag 7 and dissolve ACC.

A UConn, 'cuse, Pitt, Cincy and WVU block forms a nice transition from northeast to rust belt. Screw BCU, they can die on an island. Put UCF in this group too.

Big 12 goes to 18 teams total. They add some Pac12 scraps and have three divisions of 6 each.

As I said, this has no chance of happening, so no need to go crazy telling me why it won’t happen. I know it's not. But it would be enough to help UConn AD across the board.

 

[upstater]

No I didn't. I mean it's right here in the posts you are responding to.

I said the ACC scraps you were referring to.. You keep calling the ACC scraps the ACC, not me.

Now you do have a point about the Big 12 surprisingly able to pull off what they did. But that's because it was their top 2 schools, not their top 6 or 7. Big difference.

I see your post. You specifically asked how the remains of the ACC would be able to meet the $50m B12 payout. DID YOU NOT WRITE $50m? It's right in your post.

Lastly, I didn't say 7 ACC schools would leave. I said 7 ACC schools MET. Big difference. In my posts, I said 3 or 4 would leave.

The remaining schools are much more valuable than anything the B12 has.

 

[upstater]

When does the Big 12’s current TV deal run out? Will they get a comparable number even tho Texas and Oklahoma left?

They got a new deal. It wasn't just comparable. It was much higher.

So, the question to ask: why are Iowa State and Kansas State and Cincy and Houston worth more than Texas and Oklahoma used to be?

And the answer is: it's a new era. TV is paying more than it used to.

 

[upstater]

This is 100% correct. There is a false narrative that the athletic department spending is "unsustainable" because it operates with "deficit spending ". Therefore, the belief is that we must chase the last dollar no matter what. Clearly the athletic director doesn't believe that, nor do the politicians, who at the end of the day are the most important decision makers when it comes to the allocation of state funds.

The politicians are cutting state subsidies to UConn.

This is a massive loss at the university.

Just to put it in perspective, some schools like Arts & Sciences have entire budgets comparable to the ADs. It's really a massive amount of losses.

If the politicians were saying, each year, here's $50m to cover your athletic losses, that would be one thing. But instead, they actually blow holes in the overall budget, and UConn responds by raising tuition to a level where it can no longer serve all its state residents.

This is why the new UConn president, a person who is probably making a huge amount of cash for the very first time in her life, risked her job by threatening the politicians with the prospect of pulling out of the XL Center. People can say that was a dumb move, but a strong argument could be made that it was highly appropriate.

 

[upstater]

Take Texas and Oklahoma out and it is a different conference.
I like the article line about going back to playing UFC. Maybe Bob Diaco could dust off that trophy that no one wanted?

???

The B12 signed a new deal without Texas and Oklahoma. The schools are making more money WITHOUT Texas and Oklahoma.

They would have made even more had Texas and Oklahoma stayed.

This is my entire point: the ACC will be worth MORE than it is now, even if 3 or 4 of Virginia, UNC, Clemson or FSU leave.