ACC expansion

[JohnFSilver]

I

Im with you man. I can appreciate people on this board wanting to be optimistic but UConn athletics has been one of the biggest financial failure in all of college sports. I’m not talking about our performance on the field/court but just in terms of how much we’ve invested vs gotten in return. No matter what anyone on this board says, you cannot continue to support a nationally-relevant athletics program on $7M a year for the long term. Just doesn’t happen. Something has to give and I fear that we’re only years away from the football program shutting down.

People can call me a doomer or whatever but this has been the worst 3 month period possible for our athletics program. There’s literally not a single thing that could have gone worse for us.

Here is the problem. U shut football down, then why is any other state school supporting football, and what do you do when you are still with a large deficit.

UConn’s issue isn’t expenses. UConn’s problem is unlocking its revenue potential.

We always tend to think there is waste going on and that we can trim fat off orograms.

U can do that, but I would argue that UConn’s problems aren’t operational, they are revenue based.

 

[Rufus]

Why can't the ACC basketball schools flex their power this time (like FSU and Clemson did last time on Louisville) and insist on UConn instead of SMU in order to get their vote?

Because SMU is paying for the additions of Cal and Stanford by forgoing any media rights payouts for 7 years. The SMU boosters are paying to run the athletic department at SMU for the next 7 years.

If UConn would forgo any media rights payouts for 7 years and rely on the UConn boosters to fund the athletic department during that time, I'm sure the ACC would be interested.

These additions will cost the ACC money once all three are full members after the 7 year buy-in period. That's why adding these teams shows the ACC knows it will inevitably lose teams down the road.

 

[ramses 2.0]

Yeah, I'm not necessarily faulting them. They know the merry go round ends in 2036.

There's is just zero way that Stanford, Cal, or SMU would help them negotiate a better media deal in 2036 than UConn... while not being a total geographical albatross.

But, like you said, it isn't about that..it's about adding another $25-$30M per team over the next ~7 or so years and figuring out a new way of life when the GOR expires.

I agree 100@% on Cal but Stanford had a great 10 year run playing in 5 CFP level bowls,winning 4& finished ranked in the top 10 5 times. Now can they replicate that in the NIL/Portal era is in question. SMU on the other side will likely thrive in the NIL/Portal era & coming for free doesn't hurt either.

 

[Hoophound]

Here is the problem. U shut football down, then why is any other state school supporting football, and what do you do when you are still with a large deficit.

UConn’s issue isn’t expenses. UConn’s problem is unlocking its revenue potential.

We always tend to think there is waste going on and that we can trim fat off orograms.

U can do that, but I would argue that UConn’s problems aren’t operational, they are revenue based.

This. We do more with less than any other school and it isn’t even close.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I agree 100@% on Cal but Stanford had a great 10 year run playing in 5 CFP level bowls,winning 4& finished ranked in the top 10 5 times. Now can they replicate that in the NIL/Portal era is in question. SMU on the other side will likely thrive in the NIL/Portal era & coming for free doesn't hurt either.

It's not so much a knock on the Stanford football program but more so do they move the needle particularly in a league on the opposite coast? They are a last minute money grab from the ACC from getting a conference slate of UNLV, Wyoming and Boise.

 

[ramses 2.0]

It's not so much a knock on the Stanford football program but more so do they move the needle particularly in a league on the opposite coast? They are a last minute money grab from the ACC from getting a conference slate of UNLV, Wyoming and Boise.

Don't get me wrong this is what it is. But I will say these are schools UNC might stay attached to long term even if FSU/CLE leave

 

[Ha Who]

Because SMU is paying for the additions of Cal and Stanford by forgoing any media rights payouts for 7 years. The SMU boosters are paying to run the athletic department at SMU for the next 7 years.

If UConn would forgo any media rights payouts for 7 years and rely on the UConn boosters to fund the athletic department during that time, I'm sure the ACC would be interested.

These additions will cost the ACC money once all three are full members after the 7 year buy-in period. That's why adding these teams shows the ACC knows it will inevitably lose teams down the road.

Could you explain the difference between what the SMU boosters are offering versus the current deficit that is being run by us?

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Don't get me wrong this is what it is. But I will say these are schools UNC might stay attached to long term even if FSU/CLE leave

Perhaps. I tend to think at minimum the football centric and/or classic ACC teams breakaway and do their own thing come the end of the GOR. Could be some head to the Big12...the B1G and SEC seem pretty tapped for capacity at this point.

I suspect that'll leave a void for a football playing home for the ex BE teams. Maybe an opportunity to reconstitute an eastern football league.

 

[ramses 2.0]

Perhaps. I tend to think at minimum the football centric and/or classic ACC teams breakaway and do their own thing come the end of the GOR. Could be some head to the Big12...the B1G and SEC seem pretty tapped for capacity at this point.

I suspect that'll leave a void for a football playing home for the ex BE teams. Maybe an opportunity to reconstitute an eastern football league.

It all depends on what moves are made down the road. What guaranteed cut of the the expanded CFP the ACC gets & how the conference distrubutes those funds are key. Also down the road the Big 2 are going push for more money from the NCAA & are going to need support from the ACC,B12, Big East to make that happen IMO

 

[TheCatsLair]

Nobody is poaching The Big 12. All the teams are there because they have nowhere better to go. The final move will be the B1G and SEC tearing The ACC apart and a bunch of the leftovers merging with The Big 12. The ACC is officially on the clock.

And truthfully being on the third best and highest paid conference is a great place to be.

 

[Rufus]

Could you explain the difference between what the SMU boosters are offering versus the current deficit that is being run by us?

That's specifics beyond what I know. I just know SMU is what is making this possible, so there is no way SMU is replaced by UConn or anyone else.

 

[Ldandy]

And truthfully being on the third best and highest paid conference is a great place to be.

My concern with being in The Big 12 would be if the schools who bring the value decide that they could possibly get something better starting something altogether new with a number of leftover ACC Schools. Not saying that will happen, but it certainly could happen. When you consider the amount of upheaval that league has seen, is anybody in it really going to have allegiance to anyone else?

 

[uconnyankee]

That's specifics beyond what I know. I just know SMU is what is making this possible, so there is no way SMU is replaced by UConn or anyone else.

SMU is sitting on a pile of cash. There was speculation that SMU would cover the comcast bill for Pac in exchange for invite.

It’s not really different except that UConn is funded by taxpayers. SMU is getting cash from boosters.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

This. We do more with less than any other school and it isn’t even close.

LOL We have typically haves done less with more.
We spend at a P5 rate . But the taxpayers underwrite it not s media company . We had the biggest budget in the entire G5 .

The only reason movingq to the ACC would make sense for us would be for the additional media revenue. If we join at such a discount where the increase would be negligible, it wouldn't make a lot of sense.

SMU has an advantage in that they have donors who would be both willing and able to underwrite the lack of revenues, we aren't in that position.

I also still have a strong desire to get to where we are above all ACC schools as an athletic program and tell them to kiss our backside if they finally come around as extend an invitation.

Do you you seriously think the $6,000,000 a year SMU gets from the AAC underwrites their Athletic Budget.?
I would forgo any media money to join a P4 conference from a G5
Because you could possibly minimal replace the AAC money or even greatly exceed it.

If you got a share of the ACC football playoff money which will be a pool of $125, 000,000 per P4 conference and have inclusion to
their Bowl tie ins that.huge jump in potential income
and can easily exceed xour current conference contribution.
Even without those perks the better exposure , increased attendance and ticket prices alone could offset the media money loss . I do agree booster money
should also increase . A conclusion that SMU isn’t really a big investment simple because worlds are that far apart .,
They do have a small stadium for P conference 32,000 but a with a bigger attraction multiple larger sites in the Dallas area are available .
UConn is a little different situation
But I would have jumped at a a 0 media money for football guarantee of 3-4 BB men’s and. women’s games games annually .
The ACC may not want us but if it even looked like the B12 was going to grab us they would have done it .
Even the ACC isn’t that stupid .

 

[Duncan Idaho]

We spend at the very low end of P5 rate and it's not on football. Geno makes as much as the entire football coaching staff. We don't spend high on G5 rate. SMU spends 22MM+ on football, that's 6MM more than us. UCF, USF spend millions higher. The deficit is largely accumulated by sports not football and basketball.

 

[noeynox]

We spend at the very low end of P5 rate and it's not on football. Geno makes as much as the entire football coaching staff. We don't spend high on G5 rate. SMU spends 22MM+ on football, that's 6MM more than us. UCF, USF spend millions higher. The deficit is largely accumulated by sports not football and basketball.

This is why people that say we are not serious about football, do have a leg to stand on.

 

[billybud]

Anything can happen now that we have Frankenstein conferences.

Stitched together from disparate parts from all over the country, Now, it doesn't have to make geographic sense, rivalry sense, fan sense...

Should make any team a "fit" for any conference if the money speaks.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

This is why people that say we are not serious about football, do have a leg to stand on.

We spent 70MM on a beautiful hockey facility with great amenities for the players that only seats 2.5k. Spent a lot of money on the exterior but limited the seating for students and the public for a cocktail lounge and some monstrosity student SRO thing,

 

[ConnHuskBask]

We spent 70MM on a beautiful hockey facility with great amenities for the players that only seats 2.5k. Spent a lot of money on the exterior but limited the seating for students and the public for a cocktail lounge and some monstrosity student SRO thing,

Hockey east is/was an irredeemable money pit that we never should have entertained from day 1.

 

[CL82]

We spent 70MM on a beautiful hockey facility with great amenities for the players that only seats 2.5k. Spent a lot of money on the exterior but limited the seating for students and the public for a cocktail lounge and some monstrosity student SRO thing,

Agree about the ice level bar and the stupid student deck. In a year or so I would expect the student deck to come out as part of an expanded seating program. It looks temporary. I'm not so sure that the exterior is all that pricey. For the most part it's pretty generic materials, including what appears to be vinyl siding on the left-hand side of the building 3/4 of the way.

Most of the money I think went to internal with amenities, which, when you think about it it's probably more important than seating capacity in the near term. It's unfortunate that Connecticut law makes building public buildings pricier than private buildings, but it is what it is.

 

[CL82]

Hockey east is/was an irredeemable money pit that we never should have entertained from day 1.

How so?

 

[ConnHuskBask]

How so?

The annual operating expenses and the infrastructure required to field a niche sport that has low visibility even regionally, let alone nationally, and will operate in the red forever seemed irresponsible and a luxury item for a school that was in the AAC for other sports at the time. Even more so today as were still in the G5 abyss.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Agree about the ice level bar and the stupid student deck. In a year or so I would expect the student deck to come out as part of an expanded seating program. It looks temporary. I'm not so sure that the exterior is all that pricey. For the most part it's pretty generic materials, including what appears to be vinyl siding on the left-hand side of the building 3/4 of the way.

Most of the money I think went to internal with amenities, which, when you think about it it's probably more important than seating capacity in the near term. It's unfortunate that Connecticut law makes building public buildings pricier than private buildings, but it is what it is.

idk CL, I was up for a baseball game when they were in the process of installing the last of the exterior tiles. The stuff looked pretty good to me but truly cant say what they were made of... Ill ask next time I'm there. Definitely bucks went for the players benefit but the lack of simple bench seating in those areas alone just galls.

 

[NEforceUConn]

Because SMU is paying for the additions of Cal and Stanford by forgoing any media rights payouts for 7 years. The SMU boosters are paying to run the athletic department at SMU for the next 7 years.

If UConn would forgo any media rights payouts for 7 years and rely on the UConn boosters to fund the athletic department during that time, I'm sure the ACC would be interested.

These additions will cost the ACC money once all three are full members after the 7 year buy-in period. That's why adding these teams shows the ACC knows it will inevitably lose teams down the road.

I strongly hope the IRS does not consider any booster donations as tax deductible.

 

[uconnfan68]

We spend at the very low end of P5 rate and it's not on football. Geno makes as much as the entire football coaching staff. We don't spend high on G5 rate. SMU spends 22MM+ on football, that's 6MM more than us. UCF, USF spend millions higher. The deficit is largely accumulated by sports not football and basketball.

And Dan Hurley makes more than Geno.