Warde to CBSSports: 'Move on' from realignment

[specialisthusky]

1. If just based on TV markets alone, how is the Hartford and New Haven area which is ranked at 30th, a better market than Pittsburgh (not including the suburbs) which is ranked at 24th?
(http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_Market_Profiles_Nielsen_Household_DMA_Ranks2.pdf)

No professional competition such as Steelers in Pitt. Plus our market is not split with fans of competing teams such as PSU and WVU.

If you considering surrounding markets including NYC and Boston, Uconn has competition for those markets (8 pro plus college teams). An area like Pittsburgh (3 pro, 0 college) or Louisville (o pro, 1 college) may lack as many surrounding markets, but also does not have as much compitition for those markets.

Why are we comparing NYC and Boston? Those areas don't influence the number 30 media market. 30. That number itself beats Louisville and Cuse and is 6 behind Pitt.

These areas only increase the possibility of greater UConn influence. How can that possibly be a bad thing to have no competition in your own media market, but the number 1 and 4 (what's Boston? I am guessing) markets are also nearby?
Can we agree that the metrics for TV ratings are not a clear black and white? No one knows which markets will catch on best before the realignment takes place. That would take years of studying and these decisions were made in days based on opinions. I think Uconn has great value to add to a conference but I do not think that the metrics alone showed them to be the above and beyond clear best choice.

Well isn't this pretty much the whole point of what was being discussed? The whole argument Upstater and others are making is UConn's media/tv/academic/athletic metrics were enough for ESPN to say "We Want UCONN."

 

[UPitt]

Again, the metrics are there for all to see. At the very least, don't top off the ACC like they did. How is Pitt worth more than the average of, say, Virginia and Clemson? Pitt is not more valuable, and in fact is probably less valuable. The ACC as a whole may be less valuable with Pitt and Syracuse included, but the ACC as a whole was re-evaluated. This means the FSU, Clemson, UNC, Virginia, and the rest are all worth more than they were 3 -4 years ago when the contract was originally signed. When Pitt and Cuse joined they renegotiated and offered the ACC more. Was hat fiduciary duty? It was a contractual committment. I am sure this was bad for ESPN and the shareholders bottom line, but it was a contractual agreement to look at the ACC as whole and re-evaluate the value. ESPN got burned by the ACC on this deal. Or was that something else entirely? I do think that ESPN was aware of the clause to re-evaluate and may have worked with the ACC to help them up the payout. Without this increase, ESPN may have lost the ACC teams to FOX leagues such as the B1G and Big 12. We know what that was--had nothing to do with ESPN's bottom line, and was not supported by any metric either. It was the cutthroat business of NCAA realignment. This is what you're missing. I am not missing that realignment has been cut throat. It has ruined rivalries and left teams behind. But do not blame ESPN for holding up there end of the contract and looking out for there best interests.

 

[UPitt]

I honestly believe that the ACC would have prefered to renegotiate the contract to about 18 mil/year without adding any schools, but per the contract it was required to add at least one to be renegotiated. If every Big East school said NO, ECU would have increased the payout per school based on the contract.

 

[upstater]

It's $7 million more!

Come on. You can't paint that any other way. ESPN (whatever the pressures are) is taking part in a process that has absolutely little to do with metrics and evaluations and more to do with threats and implied leverage, and their part in this process (from the initial moment they kicked off realignment by signaling to the ACC -- per internal ACC people -- that they would make more money by raiding the BE) has been to the detriment of a state institution from which they receive state welfare. If ESPN were a lighter company without billions in infrastructure on a massive campus, this might all be ignored. But since the state can wield influence with the $60 million it gives ESPN, we're saying that ESPN should have used its influence and the reason and logic that show UConn is a bigger money-maker than the others (it is!) in order to convey to the ACC that indeed UConn's media rights are worth more (they are). You think that's somehow underhanded, which is absurd, because ESPN has done the same for every single school admitted (given an assessment). ESPN should have feared a loss of subsidies given the way it badly handled the ACC contract.

 

[UPitt]

Specialisthusky, My point with the markets metrics is that it is not black and white. Pittsburgh may have a larger immeadiate market than Uconn, but Uconn has larger surrounding markets. Pittsburgh has 3 immeadiate pro teams to compete with and PSU has a presence, where as Uconn has 0 immeadiate pro teams, but 8 pro teams in NYC and 4 pro teams in Boston as well as college teams to compete with in the surrounding markets.

I don't think any metrics will show that one market is far superior to the other. They are just too different to make a fair comparison using one single metric.

 

[UPitt]

It's $7 million more!

ESPN should have feared a loss of subsidies given the way it badly handled the ACC contract.

ESPN does not fear losing its subsidies and tax benefits. Those tax benefits are untouchable and we (including ESPN, CT, and UConn) all know they will not even face the threat of losing them. Those tax benefits are far to valuable to Connecticut as they have help create a boom of companies to move into the state.

 

[upstater]

ESPN does not fear losing its subsidies and tax benefits. Those tax benefits are untouchable and we (including ESPN, CT, and UConn) all know they will not even face the threat of losing them. Those tax benefits are far to valuable to Connecticut as they have help create a boom of companies to move into the state.

Same old s--- from you. You have no idea what ESPN's campus even looks like. It's bizarre that it's been explained to you so many times, and here you are again.

 

[UPitt]

Same old s--- from you. You have no idea what ESPN's campus even looks like. It's bizarre that it's been explained to you so many times, and here you are again. I'm done with your trolling. Go on, have to dumb last word.

Take a picture for me. I bet it look likes a huge complex of buildings with a huge parking lot. I bet they employ a large amount of people. I am not argueing about how large ESPN is and how difficult it is to move the operations. I am not arguein about the importance of ESPN to the local area and how important the tax benefits are to ESPN. ESPN values the tax breaks at $60 million dollars (value per your post). Those tax breaks are important but realatively small amounts compared to the size of ESPN and the State Budget.

I am not suggesting that ESPN will move, or even threaten to move if tax breaks are removed.

What I am suggesting is that ESPN will not lose its Tax benefits and subsidies for the following reasons:

1) Part of the tax benefit is promised to ESPN for life per an agreement to expand.

2) The tax break has ESPN and Connecticut on very good terms and wouldn't want to strain them.

3) But most importantly, removing or threatening to remove the ESPN tax breaks is bad for our future business. Those tax breaks have pushed several other companies to move into the area. If those tax breaks are removed it will discourage future growth by ESPN as well as the rest of the businesses interested in expanding or moving into Connecticut.

 

[UPitt]

I'm done with your trolling. Go on, have to dumb last word.

Upstarter, I have said nothing negative about you, your school, or teams. I have given my honest opinion and you do not seem to want to hear it.

Would you prefer that I never post on your board again?

 

[upstater]

The nature of the tax breaks and the size of the campus have all been addressed in the previous thread by multiple posters. Your assumptions are incorrect.

 

[UPitt]

The nature of the tax breaks and the size of the campus have all been addressed in the previous thread by multiple posters. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Maybe i am missing something. I have agreed with you that ESPN is very large and is not going to pack up and leave. Please see my comment below and let me know what assumptions are incorrect.

What I am suggesting is that ESPN will not lose its Tax benefits and subsidies for the following reasons:

1) Part of the tax benefit is promised to ESPN for life per an agreement to expand.

2) The tax break has ESPN and Connecticut on very good terms and wouldn't want to strain them.

3) But most importantly, removing or threatening to remove the ESPN tax breaks is bad for our future business. Those tax breaks have pushed several other companies to move into the area. If those tax breaks are removed it will discourage future growth by ESPN as well as the rest of the businesses interested in expanding or moving into Connecticut.

 

[upstater]

The nature of the tax breaks and the size of the campus have all been addressed in the previous thread by multiple posters. Your assumptions are incorrect.

 

[husky91]

Manuel is such a fool

We get $2mm/year, is that the end game??

This guy is such a clown, suprised he has a job, but he works for the state officially, so that is rhetorical I guess

Manuel in answering these kinds of questions can approach the answers in one of two ways- the Whit Babcock/Cincy AD way, which basically boils down to saying "We will do whatever it takes to make ourselves attractive to other conferences by hook or by crook" or the Warde Manuel way, which is to pretend it doesn't matter.

Who knows what he is really thinking? Although Manuel isn't a particularly strong speaker, it's gems like this that make me scratch my head,

"You can look at increase of media, what other conferences are doing with cable networks, though we don't have that."

As they say, no sh$t sherlock. That's why it does matter.