ACC votes to add Stanford, Cal, SMU: Conference presidents approve expansion to 18 schools

[AllHusky]

The ACC will have to change their name.

lawsuit, false advertising

 

[CL82]

It is very difficult to believe given the risk-averse mentality of 99.9% of the people in that position. They get there by NEVER EVER stirring the pot. It's practically in their DNA.

And yet she did. I suspect it wasn't deliberate. I chalk it up to naiveté.

 

[ElGreco]

not unimaginable, hopefully true

We need to have a winning football season with good attendance plus hope conferences expand further. There are dwindling options left for conferences.

 

[upstater]

And yet she did. I suspect it wasn't deliberate. I chalk it up to naiveté.

Between deliberate decisions and naivete, there's panic. For instance, I'm reading panic into the ACC move. You have a GOR, no need to run around like your hair's on fire, at least not yet. And when people are panicking, you know things are bad.

 

[huskymedic]

Assisted access <<

 

[CL82]

Between deliberate decisions and naivete, there's panic. For instance, I'm reading panic into the ACC move. You have a GOR, no need to run around like your hair's on fire, at least not yet. And when people are panicking, you know things are bad.

Yeah I was just talking about Maric's tone deaf comment.

For the ACC, I view their expansion move as being one of short term maximization of income. That's probably the correct decision if you consider the ACC not to be viable beyond the lapsing of their existence GOR.

Are the addition of Stanford, California, and SMU ideal for the long term, composition of that conference? Absolutely not. Do they bring in millions of dollars of additional revenue over the next seven years, absolutely.

Additionally, the addition of schools allows them to whether a pre-GOR exit of FSU Clemson and UNC without an automatic reopening of their media deal with ESPN.

All of those are sensible reasons for their expansion. When viewed in that context, the decision seems one of people maximizing their choices rather than acting in panic.

 

[upstater]

Yeah I was just talking about Maric's tone deaf comment.

For the ACC, I view their expansion move as being one of short term maximization of income. That's probably the correct decision if you consider the ACC not to be viable beyond the lapsing of their existence GOR.

Are the addition of Stanford, California, and SMU ideal for the long term, composition of that conference? Absolutely not. Do they bring in millions of dollars of additional revenue over the next seven years, absolutely.

Additionally, the addition of schools allows them to whether a pre-GOR exit of FSU Clemson and UNC without an automatic reopening of their media deal with ESPN.

All of those are sensible reasons for their expansion. When viewed in that context, the decision seems one of people maximizing their choices rather than acting in panic.

I agree with all of this. I just think that ESPN is going to hold this gimmickry against them, and that when schools leave the conference (easier now with a huge payout from those schools), the league will be so weakened by these additions that they can be poached by the B12.

I always thought the opposite would happen.

They went for short term money but the long-term dissolution of the conference.

 

[AllHusky]

Somewhere in all the realignment posts, a person reframed the "$50 million deficit" as an annual investment in a University that has constantly been striving to become an elite State U. Part of that elite infrastructure is "Big Time athletics". While getting a conference to pay for that infrastructure would be preferable, it is not absolutely necessary.

Compare us to NC St. Which school would you rather go to to? I'lI argue UConn all day every day. There are plenty of athletes out there that would want to go to UConn, it is up to the coaches to recruit to UConn, not to what UConn wishes it were. Hurley has done a great job of this.
"We ain't for everybody"

As Mora and his staff continue to grow together and learn what and who we/they are, you'll see the same thing happening. They will find "their guys", and they will win. Maybe B1G.

My expectation/hope/goal for us vs NC State was skewed by the Big 12 strip show we all went to this summer. I wanted "it"(to beat them) just to show the Conference Gods how wrong they were, and I wouldn't be surprised if a little of that was on the field for us as well. (can you imagine Mora saying to the kids, Conference realignment future is all on this game). While it wasn't quite like that, many folks, me included had that in their consciousness. I was initially very disappointed. I hate to lose, and in this case it was worse because of the Big12 hangover.

In reality, we closed the gap appreciably in one year, and while not playing very well in some areas, we had a shot at winning that game. No wine before its time I guess.

If all of us can concentrate on the fundamentals and stick to the plan(go to games, donate, talk up our school, be excited and positive, show great Pride), this can continue to be a great era to be a Husky.

A positive Conference realignment outcome for us would be great, but, we are UConn, we need to accept and revel in that fact. We are Huskies and you aren't, too bad for you!!

 

[CL82]

I agree with all of this. I just think that ESPN is going to hold this gimmickry against them, and that when schools leave the conference (easier now with a huge payout from those schools), the league will be so weakened by these additions that they can be poached by the B12.

I always thought the opposite would happen.

They went for short term money but the long-term dissolution of the conference.

If they view it as inevitable, then they made the right call.

 

[UConnJim]

You throw out a lot of ideas, but the reality is that all of them are just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to or won't increase attendance at football games. But an extra $3M from football attendance isn't changing anything significantly for the athletic department.

The only idea I completely disagree with is your UConn+ idea. Charging for UConn+ and putting it on cable is a surefire way to make sure that you lose 95% of your customer base. It goes against the entire purpose of it being created

Free to cable customers, forced carry in the cable bundle just like ESPN or SNY. You would get more viewers of UConn+ in the bundle.

 

[upstater]

Somewhere in all the realignment posts, a person reframed the "$50 million deficit" as an annual investment in a University that has constantly been striving to become an elite State U. Part of that elite infrastructure is "Big Time athletics". While getting a conference to pay for that infrastructure would be preferable, it is not absolutely necessary.

Compare us to NC St. Which school would you rather go to to? I'lI argue UConn all day every day. There are plenty of athletes out there that would want to go to UConn, it is up to the coaches to recruit to UConn, not to what UConn wishes it were. Hurley has done a great job of this.
"We ain't for everybody"

$50m is a huge amount of money for a university

The kind of money that forces universities to cut programs

All anyone needs to look at is the rise of tuition. You have 19,000 undergrads paying 19,500 a year in tuition. You could defray that by removing the $500 student fee for sports, and the $2600 per student that makes up the $50m deficit.

Without adding that $50m to a single academic program, you could reduce the tuition per student by $3000. As your tuition rises to the $20k per year range, you will be forced to make this decision. Sooner, rather than later. It has to happen. Because the costs are unsustainable.

 

[AllHusky]

$50m is a huge amount of money for a university

The kind of money that forces universities to cut programs

All anyone needs to look at is the rise of tuition. You have 19,000 undergrads paying 19,500 a year in tuition. You could defray that by removing the $500 student fee for sports, and the $2600 per student that makes up the $50m deficit.

Without adding that $50m to a single academic program, you could reduce the tuition per student by $3000. As your tuition rises to the $20k per year range, you will be forced to make this decision. Sooner, rather than later. It has to happen. Because the costs are unsustainable.

Don't disagree with your argument, just don't know when the cost in general or athletic fees specifically bite us in the butt. How long do you hold a losing stock before you divest and say I made a bad decision, cut your losses and run? My guess with the "Athletic Investment" shouldered by the students, we "divest" or "cut our losses" when kids stop coming to UConn because of the athletic fees, and cost in general. When will that be????

 

[zls44]

You realize that Dan Hurley alone makes more than our entire Big East media rights distribution, right?

And yet they still gave him and his staff a massive raise.

Why do you think they did that despite this SKY IS FALLING theory

 

[CL82]

And yet they still gave him and his staff a massive raise.

Why do you think they did that despite this SKY IS FALLING theory

Oh, and I'm just spit balling here because he was the national championship coach and that's the going rate?

Connecticut may find a way to stay viable, at least for a time, but the Big East media contract is not helping it to do so.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yeah I was just talking about Maric's tone deaf comment.

For the ACC, I view their expansion move as being one of short term maximization of income. That's probably the correct decision if you consider the ACC not to be viable beyond the lapsing of their existence GOR.

Are the addition of Stanford, California, and SMU ideal for the long term, composition of that conference? Absolutely not. Do they bring in millions of dollars of additional revenue over the next seven years, absolutely.

Additionally, the addition of schools allows them to whether a pre-GOR exit of FSU Clemson and UNC without an automatic reopening of their media deal with ESPN.

All of those are sensible reasons for their expansion. When viewed in that context, the decision seems one of people maximizing their choices rather than acting in panic.

Why was it tone deaf? It was long overdue. There isn’t anybody in the legislature with enough brainpower to screw in a lightbulb. It’s a bunch of morons. They’ve been treating UConn like a milk cow for decades. Trying to use it shore up crumbling cities that they let go to hello. That came after more decades of treating it like “Cousin Eddie”, an unwanted necessity.

They remain blind to the reality that the poor situation UConn is facing is their fault. They lacked vision then and they still lack vision now. They’re arrogant.

 

[HuskyHawk]

$50m is a huge amount of money for a university

The kind of money that forces universities to cut programs

All anyone needs to look at is the rise of tuition. You have 19,000 undergrads paying 19,500 a year in tuition. You could defray that by removing the $500 student fee for sports, and the $2600 per student that makes up the $50m deficit.

Without adding that $50m to a single academic program, you could reduce the tuition per student by $3000. As your tuition rises to the $20k per year range, you will be forced to make this decision. Sooner, rather than later. It has to happen. Because the costs are unsustainable.

I agree, but it’s already way past $20k in total costs. The “tuition” number is a sleight of hand.

2024-2025 Direct Costs and Cost of Attendance | Office of Student Financial Aid Services

2024-2025 Direct Costs These figures represent the typical tuition and fees and do not include financial aid or scholarships in the figures. This is only an ...

financialaid.uconn.edu

 

[BigTenFan]

 

[superjohn]

View attachment 91169

Dude it's Connecticut, you pay more everything there.

 

[Excalibur]

So what you’re saying is that maybe SMU wasn’t insane to offer to take no money to start?
Imagine that.

There is no way tourney credits are worth $9 million per team.

 

[auror]

View attachment 91169

Dude it's Connecticut, you pay more everything there.

CT has somewhere around the 5th highest income/salary per household in the country (depending on the stats you find). You can both get a better job after graduation and have parents that can afford to pay more.

 

[huskymedic]

There is no way tourney credits are worth $9 million per team.

 

[CL82]

Why was it tone deaf? It was long overdue. There isn’t anybody in the legislature with enough brainpower to screw in a lightbulb. It’s a bunch of morons. They’ve been treating UConn like a milk cow for decades. Trying to use it shore up crumbling cities that they let go to hello. That came after more decades of treating it like “Cousin Eddie”, an unwanted necessity.

They remain blind to the reality that the poor situation UConn is facing is their fault. They lacked vision then and they still lack vision now. They’re arrogant.

All true, but it still was tone deaf. That's the kind of observation that was best made quietly and privately. Plus, since the bulk of the reduction in funding to the university was due to no longer existing federal Covid funds, she played her Trump card both early and effectively. I'm sure she's brilliant at what she does, but she needs to let people help her in the areas that she's unfamiliar with. I'm sure that's a lesson learned.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

There is no way tourney credits are worth $9 million per team.

As unlikable as it is for UConn’s overall-athletic dept to continue being on the outside looking in and for SMU now being in the newest ACC, more than enough SMU old ranching, oil & gas, etc dinero easily stepped up to cover any lost revenues.

Different world than UConn’s current gold coast relationship. As low as SMU is on the DFW/Texas gridiron and hoops support spectrum, availability on the cheap and TX recruiting access made the very good school attractive to the newest ACC. Sukcs!

 

[upstater]

Don't disagree with your argument, just don't know when the cost in general or athletic fees specifically bite us in the butt. How long do you hold a losing stock before you divest and say I made a bad decision, cut your losses and run? My guess with the "Athletic Investment" shouldered by the students, we "divest" or "cut our losses" when kids stop coming to UConn because of the athletic fees, and cost in general. When will that be????

You have a duty to ALL citizens of the state, not only the rich or upper middle class.

It's still a public institution.

If you ask me, UConn is actually past the point of affordability for the average citizen of the state.

 

[ElGreco]

Media tights?

Do they look something like this?

View attachment 91164