Why UConn is destined for the ACC

[uconnfan68]

What I feel like so much of this analysis on Uconn fails to miss is "potential". Listen, is Uconn an established football brand? No. It has a long way to go. That doesn't come in a decade plus. But this one of the brand name state universities in the Northeast - the Northeast is, if nothing else, is the most dense/$$ pockets in the US. It has a rabid fan base(as seen by basketball) and stadium expansion capabilities. It has a strong brand it can leverage(from basketball) and it can lean on the fact that it took a D1AA program to a BCS bowl game in a very short time frame - the potential is there. The academic accumen is there. So if put in the right conference with the right drawing cards and the right coach, why couldn't because a successful revenue generating football program? I just think the platform is there, the momentum from the hoops program is there and the brand potential is there to hold Northeast recruits.

So although it's always the ideal to go after established, I think if you want to buy low with high upside, the ACC is not going to find a more appropriate program.

Well said. My heart is almost broken now. To be tossed to the curb by BCS schools over lack of football pedigree will be the death knell of UConn athletics. I think we're a good get for almost anyone. Maybe not the SEC because we have integrity, but anyone else.

 

[NHUConnfan]

As mentioned by Danzz, but no one seemed to pick up on it...

FSU using academics as its reason is quite honestly laughable. If FSU wants to talk about fitting in academically, by all means they fit better with the SEC.

ACC:
#10 Duke
#25 Virginia
#25 Wake Forest
#29 UNC-Chapel Hill
#31 Boston College
#36 Georgia Tech
#38 Miami
#55 Maryland
(#58 Pitt)
(#62 Syracuse)
#68 Clemson
#71 Virginia Tech
#101 Florida State
#101 NC State

SEC:
#17 Vanderbilt
#58 Texas Tech
#58 Florida
#62 Georgia
#75 Alabama
#82 Auburn
(#90 Missouri)
#101 Tennessee
#111 South Carolina
#124 Kentucky
#128 LSU
#132 Arkansas
#143 Mississippi
#157 Mississippi State

Sooo...to me, this looks like FSU belongs in the SEC...

 

[Mr.Phat]

What scares me, and a lot of people say it's true, is that Swofford approached Jeff Hathaway many months ago about coming to the ACC and Hathaway gave him the brushoff and said "no thanks".

There is NO WAY that this would not be a PRESIDENTIAL level decision. If Hathaway said no then Hogan did too. Blame him. But then he couldn't wait to get out of here for the wheat fields of the midwest. His family hated it here.

 

[Heston]

If the ACC negotiates its new TV deal and it ends up being very big, the chances of Uconn getting an invite to the ACC drop to very small for the time being. Even if certain coaches want 16 teams or a bunch of ADs think it makes sense for scheduling, there will be no further expansion unless it adds money. All these other factors don't matter unless that one is true. No athletic department is going to take less money to go to 16. The bottom line for the ACC is what ESPN will be willing to pay to go from 14 to 16. Who is ESPN going to pay more for? Why would they pay more for Uconn? ESPN will still bid on the Big East basketball contract. They will still end up with what they want. Coach K can talk about why he wants 16 all day long, unless ND goes to the ACC, the ACC will not be expanding anytime soon.

 

[businesslawyer]

If the ACC negotiates its new TV deal and it ends up being very big, the chances of Uconn getting an invite to the ACC drop to very small for the time being. Even if certain coaches want 16 teams or a bunch of ADs think it makes sense for scheduling, there will be no further expansion unless it adds money. All these other factors don't matter unless that one is true. No athletic department is going to take less money to go to 16. The bottom line for the ACC is what ESPN will be willing to pay to go from 14 to 16. Who is ESPN going to pay more for? Why would they pay more for Uconn? ESPN will still bid on the Big East basketball contract. They will still end up with what they want. Coach K can talk about why he wants 16 all day long, unless ND goes to the ACC, the ACC will not be expanding anytime soon.

Nothing you said doesn't make sense. Except that I could have said the same about the Pac Ten taking Utah and Colorado and the SEC taking Mizzou and the ACC taking Pitt and Syracuse. So it's more complicated than that.

 

[huskyjawz]

Nothing you said doesn't make sense. Except that I could have said the same about the Pac Ten taking Utah and Colorado and the SEC taking Mizzou and the ACC taking Pitt and Syracuse. So it's more complicated than that.

not true regarding the acc; taking pitt and cuse allowed them to renegotiate their tv contract, thereby bringing in more money.

 

[Heston]

Nothing you said doesn't make sense. Except that I could have said the same about the Pac Ten taking Utah and Colorado and the SEC taking Mizzou and the ACC taking Pitt and Syracuse. So it's more complicated than that.

Well, it might not make sense to you, but it makes it no more less true. There is no expansion at all unless there is more money. Period. End of story.

ACC:

When the ACC went from 12 to 14 by adding Pitt and Cuse they added a northeast footprint along with BC. That money is done. It is going to be baked in with this new TV deal. The ACC is going to get a premium for it.

To go from 14 to 16 without ND you need to bring enough to the table to at least keep the money the same per team. ESPN is not going to pay for a Northeast presence. They already got that. Now, which programs can bring in more incremental money to the ACC if they go from 14 to 16? Even Uconn is a break even as the 15th (which MIGHT be true), you still need the 16th to be at least that. ESPN is not going to pay a bunch of more money for Rutgers in the ACC when Cuse is already there. If you don't think that makes sense, that it fine. But that is the reality.

PAC-12:

No, you could not have said the same thing about the Pac-12. The Pac-12 added CU and Utah because they would bring more money. Hence why they were offered and why the Pac-12 did get more money. Not only more money, massively more money. A monster TV deal that is causing every other conference to try to renegotiate. There would NEVER have been expansion at that point without it.

Fox and ESPN and every consultant told the Pac-12, they needed non Pacific time slots to get more TV money because of the nature of the west coast and how late the games start. I actually saw Larry Scott speak about it in person at a luncheon.

The PAC-12 even further proves my point. In spite of the fact OU and OSU wanted to go a few months ago, with or without Texas, they did not have the votes to get in the Pac 12. The easy TV money by moving into the mountain time slot was taken. The Pac-12 schools had signed a fat deal and they said, hey we begged you a year ago, but now we doing even need you. Scott took the message back the only way they were in is if Texas came in to and gave up the LHN.

I won't address the SEC because it is obvious to everyone that they took A&M for more money. Missouri is coming in as the 14th because they will not dilute that incremental value in terms of money and get the SEC back to even numbers.

It is not that complicated. As for ESPN still bidding on the Big East basketball contract, of course they will. If they get it, they have the best of what Uconn offers without having to pay a dime for the stuff they don't want.

 

[businesslawyer]

Well, it might not make sense to you, but it makes it no more less true. There is no expansion at all unless there is more money. Period. End of story.

ACC:

When the ACC went from 12 to 14 by adding Pitt and Cuse they added a northeast footprint along with BC. That money is done. It is going to be baked in with this new TV deal. The ACC is going to get a premium for it.

To go from 14 to 16 without ND you need to bring enough to the table to at least keep the money the same per team. ESPN is not going to pay for a Northeast presence. They already got that. Now, which programs can bring in more incremental money to the ACC if they go from 14 to 16? Even Uconn is a break even as the 15th (which MIGHT be true), you still need the 16th to be at least that. ESPN is not going to pay a bunch of more money for Rutgers in the ACC when Cuse is already there. If you don't think that makes sense, that it fine. But that is the reality.

PAC-12:

No, you could not have said the same thing about the Pac-12. The Pac-12 added CU and Utah because they would bring more money. Hence why they were offered and why the Pac-12 did get more money. Not only more money, massively more money. A monster TV deal that is causing every other conference to try to renegotiate. There would NEVER have been expansion at that point without it.

Fox and ESPN and every consultant told the Pac-12, they needed non Pacific time slots to get more TV money because of the nature of the west coast and how late the games start. I actually saw Larry Scott speak about it in person at a luncheon.

The PAC-12 even further proves my point. In spite of the fact OU and OSU wanted to go a few months ago, with or without Texas, they did not have the votes to get in the Pac 12. The easy TV money by moving into the mountain time slot was taken. The Pac-12 schools had signed a fat deal and they said, hey we begged you a year ago, but now we doing even need you. Scott took the message back the only way they were in is if Texas came in to and gave up the LHN.

I won't address the SEC because it is obvious to everyone that they took A&M for more money. Missouri is coming in as the 14th because they will not dilute that incremental value in terms of money and get the SEC back to even numbers.

It is not that complicated. As for ESPN still bidding on the Big East basketball contract, of course they will. If they get it, they have the best of what Uconn offers without having to pay a dime for the stuff they don't want.

If you really believe that the Pac Ten was worth "massively more" not because of market timing and the changes in media competition, but the addition of Utah and Colorado, there is no point conversing further.

 

[Heston]

If you really believe that the Pac Ten was worth "massively more" not because of market timing and the changes in media competition, but the addition of Utah and Colorado, there is no point conversing further.

The timing of their contract was significant. When the ACC and SEC redo their deals we will have a better comparison for how much of a factor. But the other reason was the addition of the mountain time slot. Which would not matter to another conference since they don't have that left coast time slot issue. But that was just what Larry Scott said. But, what does he know, right?

 

[businesslawyer]

So your theory is that Utah and Colorado, while not worth anywhere near $20M annually in TV rights to the MWC and Big XII, collectively, were worth that much to the Pac Ten, but that you know with certainty that UConn, not worth $16M a year (or whatever it is) to the Big East, can't be worth that amount to the ACC? O.K. You're just smarter than I am I guess.

What I see is a market where conferences are paying far more a year for properties that weren't worth that in their prior homes. And my best guess is that there is, right now, value in mass for television packaging. You can always argue ancillary factors like "mountain time zone." So what. Who lives there? And how does a one hour difference, as opposed to a two or three hour difference, help you stagger product? I can come up with tons of ancillary factors for UConn. Killing off Big East basketball as we know it. Making the ACC a superpower hoops league by itself with no cmpetition ever. Having a dominant football presence in NYC, especially if you add Rutgers and Syracuse and UConn together. Note that, today, the ACC can't get it's football package on the air in NYC. UConn itself has SNY taking any game it can get its hands on.

That being the case, I am going to actually have to see UConn stuck in the remanants of the Big East on the day Pitt and Syracuse leave to be convinced that you are right.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

UConn is worth at least their pro rata share of any conference's contract. The question is how to get another conference to pay it.

 

[businesslawyer]

UConn is worth at least their pro rata share of any conference's contract. The question is how to get another conference to pay it.

I actually have an answer for you. It's just one that you don't like.

Be patient.

 

[uconnbaseball]

I actually have an answer for you. It's just one that you don't like.

Be patient.

In the meantime, UConn needs to strengthen itself. Hiring a competent AD, constructing the new basketball facility, and retaining a good relationship with Big 10 and ACC institutions are critical to our future survival.

 

[junglehusky]

I actually have an answer for you. It's just one that you don't like.

Be patient.

Oh, you almost had me. Thought you were going to say #BegHarder.

 

[Heston]

So your theory is that Utah and Colorado, while not worth anywhere near $20M annually in TV rights to the MWC and Big XII, collectively, were worth that much to the Pac Ten, but that you know with certainty that UConn, not worth $16M a year (or whatever it is) to the Big East, can't be worth that amount to the ACC? O.K. You're just smarter than I am I guess.

As far as UConn, the ACC could care less what Uconn is worth to the Big East. If UConn is worth $16 million or whatever to the Big East, the ACC DOES NOT CARE. They only care what they are worth to the ACC going forward.

Youa re missing an entire step here. The bar is much higher for UConn. When the new ACC deal is done, lets say it is $20 million per team (or more) at 14 teams. For the ACC to go to 16 teams what the ACC will care about is if those 2 new teams can incrementally bring in at least $40 million more. Those 2 new schools need to justify that amount, not what they were getting in their old conference or what the old ACC contract was. The ACC will have their northeast footprint after they add Syracuse and Pitt. And ESPN is going to pay them for it. Incrementally to add another New England school in Uconn or another NY/NJ school in Rutgers, is ESPN going to pay another $40 million? Why would they when Rugters and Uconn are not a threat?Where else is Uconn and Rutgers going to go? The ACC has already locked up that market.

What I see is a market where conferences are paying far more a year for properties that weren't worth that in their prior homes. And my best guess is that there is, right now, value in mass for television packaging. You can always argue ancillary factors like "mountain time zone." So what. Who lives there?

As far as who lives there, Colorado is already significantly bigger than CT (by 1.5 million people). While Utah is still smaller than CT, Utah grew by 24% the past ten and will pass CT in the next decade in size. To answer who lives there, a demo of tons of 14 to 44 year olds, growing populations, and everything tv wants.

And how does a one hour difference, as opposed to a two or three hour difference, help you stagger product?

Again, according to Scott it was instrumental in the deal. I am not arguing, it is what the commissioner of the Pac-12 actually said and it was not an ancillary factor. That was unique to the Pac-12. Hence, a Friday night game of USC (which is the big draw) on Friday night at Colorado later this year.

I can come up with tons of ancillary factors for UConn. Killing off Big East basketball as we know it. Making the ACC a superpower hoops league by itself with no cmpetition ever.
First, the one I stated was not one I came up with but one that was actually paid for by ESPN and Fox and used as an example by Scott. As for the ones you point out, how many times do we have to hear it before it sinks in to the Big East teams and fans, Hoops is a small percentage of the entire deal. Who cares that they can kill of the BIg East in hoops? I don't think anyone believes the goal of ESPN or anyone else is to kill off Big East Basketball. Football, another story.

Having a dominant football presence in NYC, especially if you add Rutgers and Syracuse and UConn together. Note that, today, the ACC can't get it's football package on the air in NYC. UConn itself has SNY taking any game it can get its hands on.
Does adding Uconn significantly improve the ACC's chances of getting on the air in NYC? First, we will see what the addition of Syracuse did there. So after the next TV deal we will see what happens. Really all the matters is what ESPN is willing to pay based on what it thinks will happen. Next, does adding Rutgers and UConn add enough vs just adding Syraucse to justify another $40 million or more? Lastly, if the ACC thought Uconn was meaningful better than Cuse or Pitt in adding money, we would be in. We are not.

That being the case, I am going to actually have to see UConn stuck in the remanants of the Big East on the day Pitt and Syracuse leave to be convinced that you are right.
That day is coming. Hope I am wrong, but the math does not add up for any other result if the new ACC TV deal is a huge deal. All indications are it will be bigger than many even thought. The only way being left in the remnants is avoided, is if ND is the other ACC team and for them the ACC will gladly expand. And to keep it even teams, they will add the next best fit for the conference with ND. Then Uconn might be the 16th team in.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

It's not as simple as the ACC per team pay out is $15M, so UConn and Rutgers have to equal $30M in order to be invited.

 

[noeynox]

It's not as simple as the ACC per team pay out is $15M, so UConn and Rutgers have to equal $30M in order to be invited.

Please explain this to me. I really have a hard time following the math involved in the formula that goes into expanding or not expanding. This is a serious question.

 

[freescooter]

In the meantime, UConn needs to strengthen itself. Hiring a competent AD, constructing the new basketball facility, and retaining a good relationship with Big 10 and ACC institutions are critical to our future survival.

Um, constructing th enew basktball facility has what to do with finding a football conference? Or is that one of thos e throwaway lines we use for everything now? "The SEC want UCONN...ok, that mean s we better build a new basketball facility" "President Obama is speaking at UCONN...ok, that means we better build a new basketball facility." I agree with the other points, though.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Please explain this to me. I really have a hard time following the math involved in the formula that goes into expanding or not expanding. This is a serious question.

I believe, that in this round of expansion it comes down to the idea that the sum is greater is than the individual parts involved.

For example, Syracuse alone doesn't bring NYC. However, UConn, Rutgers and Syracuse all together could deliver a portion of NYC that alone, none of them could. So, UConn, Rutgers and Syracuse all individually aren't worth $15 a piece, but together they could be $45 or greater.

Again, this is just a really quick example that I could think of. I don't have any concrete math behind everything, but it's just my opinion.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

New Jersey and Connecticut are each worth more than $15MM per school in this market, without even accounting for New York.

 

[Heston]

New Jersey and Connecticut are each worth more than $15MM per school in this market, without even accounting for New York.

If the ACC is making $20 plus million per school, Uconn and Rutgers would have to be worth ESPN paying another $40 million plus to make it worth the ACC to make the offer. Without ND in the mix, it seems like a stretch. This assumes the ACC gets a great new TV deal at 14 teams. ANd all indications are it is imminent.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I actually have an answer for you. It's just one that you don't like.

Be patient.

Bingo.

The SEC has already petitioned the BCS to raise the cap from two schools per conference in BCS bowl games any given season to three. They won't move beyond fourteen until the BCS allows a third school into a BCS game. Once this happens, the ACC will need to find a replacement or two.

 

[gars44]

Bingo.

The SEC has already petitioned the BCS to raise the cap from two schools per conference in BCS bowl games any given season to three. They won't move beyond fourteen until the BCS allows a third school into a BCS game. Once this happens, the ACC will need to find a replacement or two.

They will need RU and Uconn just to pad the win column for the third team to get in!!!

 

[tzznandrew]

Bingo.

The SEC has already petitioned the BCS to raise the cap from two schools per conference in BCS bowl games any given season to three. They won't move beyond fourteen until the BCS allows a third school into a BCS game. Once this happens, the ACC will need to find a replacement or two.

I didn't think that there would be a time when a conference could legitimately get three teams in. But I look at the BCS standings, and the SEC has 1, 2, and 10. Arkansas has a legit shot to be ranked in the Top 10 by the end of the season, as well as LSU and Alabama. LSU beats Alabama, Arkansas beats LSU (Alabama already beat Arkansas). Only one gets to play in the SEC title game (probably, in that scenario, Arkansas).

Or, instead, LSU or Alabama wins out. The other ends with 1 loss. They somehow lose in the SEC Title game to, say, Georgia. Georgia is AQ. LSU and Alabama will be near the top of BCS, provided the each finish with 1 loss.

Those fanbases draw, so I wouldn't be shocked that the BCS bowls would want more.

 

[UConnNick]

Yep, that ship sailed. This should have been done while Pitt/SU/TCU were still on board. Problem with Big East football side is that it has always been reactionary rather than proactive. Why weren't we having discussions about adding the Boise's, SMU, Houston's before the most recent defections? Is it because it would dilute the basketball product? Sad, because the Big East has provided great basketball moments and good football ones. The Big East commissioner's office and the Big East presidents failed in pushing the envelope and moving this conference from a good football conference and trying to make it great. Locking up the likes of Boise and TCU in some form of western division under the Big East banner with a forward thinking media rights assignment would have been a stroke of genius.

According to some reports, Marinatto was waiting around for Villanova to decide whether or not they would upgrade their football program before opening it up to schools like Houston and Boise. SMU probably didn't come into play back at that time because they thought TCU was coming and they're both located in the same market. My guess is that Tagliabue was on board with that ridiculous strategy, as a means of preserving the BB side of the conference. Tags is a Georgetown grad.

In retrospect, the decision to do absolutely nothing while waiting around for Nova will be largely to blame for killing the Big East football conference if it does die.