ACC

[06029]

First off, we have the BCU AD who said on the record that UConn was the first choice for the ACC, but he killed it.

I am not one for revisionist history. You will find no quote anywhere from GDF or anybody in the ACC about Uconn being the first choice. Use Google. Then there was this in the Globe article that is the writer's words, not the AD's -
The first target was Syracuse, which had been on the original ACC expansion list eight years ago. The Orangemen, like BC, were disappointed when they didn’t make the final cut, passed over for Virginia Tech and Miami.

So you can take that little bit of fiction out of your narrative. The other bit of fiction that needs to disappear is this notion of the mega-NBC deal that the BE had coming prior to Pitt and Cuse leaving. Nothing but shear speculation on your part.

So, stop spouting facts and label your opinions as such. At least the guy you are disputing is offering up some opinion rather than claiming them to be facts.

I am still waiting for someone to post some TV numbers for markets, particularly NYC, as it relates to various conferences and ratings.

 

[06029]

Do you believe BC was the sole dissenter? (you only need 2 or 3 letters to answer)

No; Nay; Nada; Nyet

Again, in my opinion (not a fact) people want to dismiss that the ACC Expansion committee was made up of 12 members (that is a fact) and represented each school with 4 presidents, 4 AD's and 4 faculty reps (that is a fact). 1 vote, 1 voice, was not the only thing in the way of Uconn. ACC bylaws require 75% vote on membership issues (fact) so there were at least 3 other no votes. But to accept some facts and using those to form a somewhat more supported and reasonable opinion would require some to stop blaming BC for everything that went wrong for the BE. And that would take away what appears to be one of their only joys in life.

 

[SAMCRO]

I am not one for revisionist history. You will find no quote anywhere from GDF or anybody in the ACC about Uconn being the first choice. Use Google. Then there was this in the Globe article that is the writer's words, not the AD's -
The first target was Syracuse, which had been on the original ACC expansion list eight years ago. The Orangemen, like BC, were disappointed when they didn’t make the final cut, passed over for Virginia Tech and Miami.

You forgot the rest of the Globe article, so I've linked it for you: click me
Here's the part about UConn:
The second target was Connecticut, which was part of the Northeast footprint the ACC wanted, and was coming off the daily double of a BCS bid in football and a championship in men’s basketball (the third for Jim Calhoun).
In addition, the women’s basketball program under Geno Auriemma had established itself as the most dominant in the sport over the past 15 years.
With growing instability in the Big East, both schools were bound to accept any offers.
While Syracuse presented no problem, UConn did - to BC, which was still fuming over what it perceived to be vitriolic comments made when BC was finally invited to join the ACC and started competing in 2005. UConn and Pittsburgh filed a lawsuit against BC, and Calhoun made comments about never playing BC again.
DeFilippo does not deny that BC opposed the inclusion of UConn.
“We didn’t want them in,’’ he said. “It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.’’

 

[junglehusky]

Flipper may not be long for this world. And who knows what Pitt and SU might do once they become voting members.We might wind up waiting a long time for the next round of chess moves, or not.

And to Carl... dude, for all your griping about FTI (and others') lack of hard numbers, the evidence you provide just isn't convincing for a lot of people. SMU and Houston have to compete not only with pro sports, but far larger fanbases of the UT's and other Big 12 programs. When I was attending UConn in the Ray Allen days, there were a few syracuse, miami or georgetown fans. I'd bet the percentage of kids attending Houston with UT/TT/OU hats and T-shirts, or UCF kids with FSU/UF hats and T-shirts, is ten times higher. I know the UH football coach is trying to fight back against this but it's just an uphill battle (one that UConn didn't have as bad, thanks to Huskymania). We're not talking about an untapped market, the BE schools have to compete with behemoth established brands that already have a huge presence. And the big boys have alumni bases that eclipse what a small school like SMU, or up and comers like USF and UCF bring to the table. I have to think this factors very heavily into valuation.

There's one thing that could help the NNBE out (as you acknowledge), and that would be having a couple programs be legit top five contenders, year in, year out. West Virginia propped up the NBE but frankly that wasn't enough. Until the quality of the football product is enough to consistently compete with all the power conferences, nobody is going to tune in. Being average, or good, or even winning an Orange or Fiesta bowl game every few years, will not be enough. Watch what happens when Boise comes in and they lose their first BE game.

 

[husky10]

Fromtheinside I have a question, how would uconn compare with pitt as an expansion canidate? Could the theory on this board that uconn was replaced by in expansion plan with pitt by BC hold water? This would have to mean that the two schools probably had similar value giving the slight edge to uconn.

 

[FromTheInside]

UConn could have schedule 10 games at a site of ND's choosing, and given ND the right to pick 5 players of their choice off UConn's roster every year for the next 10 years, thrown $50 million of cash in the deal, and UConn still would NOT have made the ACC. I like your data, but like a lot of analysts, your conclusions do not make sense.

First off, we have the BCU AD who said on the record that UConn was the first choice for the ACC, but he killed it.

Second, does any conference make major long-term realignment decisions based on a handful of non-conference games? Has that ever happened before? Was Nebraska loading up on Big 10 games or Utah on Pac 12 games prior to those moves? If that was a driver, than ULL would be in the SEC, since they basically play half an SEC schedule every year (sarcasm intended).

The Big East was raided because ESPN wanted to kill it. Notre Dame had little to nothing to do with that. The Big East was on the verge of a big deal with NBC, was adding TCU, and was looking very strong, and ESPN would not tolerate a competitor getting a viable property, so they killed it. BCU's AD said as much.

Now the Big East is a shell of what it was, and the ACC is the next victim because like the Big East before it, the ACC is locked into a long-term TV deal that is well below market. UConn's problem is that the ACC is the only viable conference upgrade, but the ACC is in no position to do anything because of its lousy TV deal. In hindsight, the Big East and ACC would have been better merging and putting their TV contract out to bid, but ESPN pre-empted that, and now both leagues are screwed.

A game against Notre Dame in the Meadowlands of Foxboro (you seem to have forgotten that part of the deal) or the moon was not going to change any of the facts I laid out above.
See, that is how you take apart someone's argument without attacking the poster.

First, you have to know something about Gene........he is one of the most insecure, Napoleon-esque complex guys you'll ever meet. Very few people like him. I honestly think he'd die if he went 3 minutes without mocking someone or belittling someone through sarcasm. Second, he carries a big chip on his shoulder and an over-inflated sense of self-worth. Every bit of what he said was for the purpose of (a) making BC seem a lot more important than the are, and (b) kicking UConn while they were down. The only thing he said that was spot on was that ESPN was (to an extent) driving the boat. People actually read too much into that comment though, b/c it would be illogical to think they wouldn't at least have a hand on the steering wheel. You're not going to haul off and expand w/o getting insight from the very person who pays your bills.

This actually ties into ND, which I've mentioned ad nauseum. ESPN does not want to miss out on the opportunity to control ND's tv rights. So, they absolutely were giving direction as to whom to go after and whom not to. My commentary about the ACC expanding w/ Notre Dame in mind was not meant to imply it was one unified voice, but rather that's the voice that won out. There are plenty of programs that couldn't care jack diddly squat about ND joining the ACC. But, with ESPN's direction, they were building a case for ND. Why do you think ESPN decided against West Virginia? WVU has better TV #s, better fan support, and a wider geographic TV representation than Pitt or Syracuse. Yeah, a lot of people like to say academics, and that certainly was a strike against them. But, WVU doesn't get ND. Neither does Rutgers. Neither does Louisville. Neither does Kansas (who practically threw themselves at the ACC in 2010 - behind closed doors of course). I'm not going to say there weren't other factors that were considered beyond simply ND. But, they were the primary focus. And yes, it is my opinion, but I do believe, based on what I've seen and heard, had UConn had a long-term series with ND instead of Syracuse, they would have gotten the extra votes instead of Syracuse. ND was used a discussion point in their meetings, and it certainly was a focus of ESPN's POV.

As for Pitt, I don't know if they were in the original discussion or not, b/c we weren't brought in until after they'd already settled on which teams to do feasibility studies on. But I do know that Pitt was headed to the Big XII with WVU (tentatively) up until Boren (the OU pres) developed diarrhea of the mouth around Aug/Sept '11. The Big XII had been working that one hard. But, once Boren come out about forming a committee to look into leaving the Big XII w/o Texas, that killed Pitt & the Big XII. They then reached out to the ACC themselves. Where they initially ranked in all of this, I don't know.

As for the ACC wanting Syracuse 8 years ago...........you're right. But, a lot changes in 8 years. 8 years ago, Syracuse was coming off of a NC in basketball, and had had 9 ranked teams over the previous decade and a half in football. They'd won 3 conference championships over the prior half-decade, and had had multiple top 10 teams. They were cranking! But, fast forward and UConn, who'd been a nobody, is all of a sudden a growing force in the BE, and Syracuse is one of the worst football programs in college football. There are a lot of reason to pick UConn over Syracuse. So then, why did they get the nod over UConn? There is no plausible answer. TVs aren't better. Regional dominance isn't better. Fan support isn't better. On field & on court production isn't better. (Heck, Syracuse hasn't won the BE in basketball in 7 years, 6 at the time.) The tipping point from what I understand, was ND. BC has one vote. DeFilippo's comments about stopping UConn from coming into the conference were a lot like a scrawny nerd saying he stopped a burglar, all the while ignoring his dad standing behind him w/ a sawed off shotgun.

Also, ESPN's desire was to kill off the BE, then they'd have told the ACC to grab UConn and Rutgers (or WVU). But, they baited the hook for ND, then stepped back and waited. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, fwiw, I do think (and this part is opinion) that when the BE decided to try to play other networks off ESPN to drive up the price of their contract, that ESPN didn't like the idea of paying that much $$$ for that much dead weight. And, no matter how you want to spin it, you have to admit, there's a lot of dead weight in the BE. DePaul, Providence, and Seton Hall all add very, very, very little value to the BE's contract (and there are a couple more you could add to that as well). Teams would actually make more $$$ individually just by cutting them. From a financial perspective, it certainly makes sense to support the ACC's desire to take a few teams from the BE, b/c you can take the cream from the BE, pay a little more to the ACC, and ding the BE significantly due to the loss of value. Plus, it totally undermined the BE's negotiating power. Whomever ends up signing the BE will sign them for pennies on the dollar (on a per team basis). Those 3 losses will be pretty significant financially. But, the MO wasn't to kill off the BE, but rather strengthen their only fully in house brand, the ACC. The icing on top is just that ESPN will end up spending a lot less for the new ACC/BE than they would the old ACC/BE.

 

[TRest]

First, you have to know something about Gene........he is one of the most insecure, Napoleon-esque complex guys you'll ever meet. Very few people like him. I honestly think he'd die if he went 3 minutes without mocking someone or belittling someone through sarcasm. Second, he carries a big chip on his shoulder and an over-inflated sense of self-worth. Every bit of what he said was for the purpose of (a) making BC seem a lot more important than the are, and (b) kicking UConn while they were down. The only thing he said that was spot on was that ESPN was (to an extent) driving the boat. People actually read too much into that comment though, b/c it would be illogical to think they wouldn't at least have a hand on the steering wheel. You're not going to haul off and expand w/o getting insight from the very person who pays your bills.

This actually ties into ND, which I've mentioned ad nauseum. ESPN does not want to miss out on the opportunity to control ND's tv rights. So, they absolutely were giving direction as to whom to go after and whom not to. My commentary about the ACC expanding w/ Notre Dame in mind was not meant to imply it was one unified voice, but rather that's the voice that won out. There are plenty of programs that couldn't care jack diddly squat about ND joining the ACC. But, with ESPN's direction, they were building a case for ND. Why do you think ESPN decided against West Virginia? WVU has better TV #s, better fan support, and a wider geographic TV representation than Pitt or Syracuse. Yeah, a lot of people like to say academics, and that certainly was a strike against them. But, WVU doesn't get ND. Neither does Rutgers. Neither does Louisville. Neither does Kansas (who practically threw themselves at the ACC in 2010 - behind closed doors of course). I'm not going to say there weren't other factors that were considered beyond simply ND. But, they were the primary focus. And yes, it is my opinion, but I do believe, based on what I've seen and heard, had UConn had a long-term series with ND instead of Syracuse, they would have gotten the extra votes instead of Syracuse. ND was used a discussion point in their meetings, and it certainly was a focus of ESPN's POV.

As for Pitt, I don't know if they were in the original discussion or not, b/c we weren't brought in until after they'd already settled on which teams to do feasibility studies on. But I do know that Pitt was headed to the Big XII with WVU (tentatively) up until Boren (the OU pres) developed diarrhea of the mouth around Aug/Sept '11. The Big XII had been working that one hard. But, once Boren come out about forming a committee to look into leaving the Big XII w/o Texas, that killed Pitt & the Big XII. They then reached out to the ACC themselves. Where they initially ranked in all of this, I don't know.

As for the ACC wanting Syracuse 8 years ago...........you're right. But, a lot changes in 8 years. 8 years ago, Syracuse was coming off of a NC in basketball, and had had 9 ranked teams over the previous decade and a half in football. They'd won 3 conference championships over the prior half-decade, and had had multiple top 10 teams. They were cranking! But, fast forward and UConn, who'd been a nobody, is all of a sudden a growing force in the BE, and Syracuse is one of the worst football programs in college football. There are a lot of reason to pick UConn over Syracuse. So then, why did they get the nod over UConn? There is no plausible answer. TVs aren't better. Regional dominance isn't better. Fan support isn't better. On field & on court production isn't better. (Heck, Syracuse hasn't won the BE in basketball in 7 years, 6 at the time.) The tipping point from what I understand, was ND. BC has one vote. DeFilippo's comments about stopping UConn from coming into the conference were a lot like a scrawny nerd saying he stopped a burglar, all the while ignoring his dad standing behind him w/ a sawed off shotgun.

Also, ESPN's desire was to kill off the BE, then they'd have told the ACC to grab UConn and Rutgers (or WVU). But, they baited the hook for ND, then stepped back and waited. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, fwiw, I do think (and this part is opinion) that when the BE decided to try to play other networks off ESPN to drive up the price of their contract, that ESPN didn't like the idea of paying that much $$$ for that much dead weight. And, no matter how you want to spin it, you have to admit, there's a lot of dead weight in the BE. DePaul, Providence, and Seton Hall all add very, very, very little value to the BE's contract (and there are a couple more you could add to that as well). Teams would actually make more $$$ individually just by cutting them. From a financial perspective, it certainly makes sense to support the ACC's desire to take a few teams from the BE, b/c you can take the cream from the BE, pay a little more to the ACC, and ding the BE significantly due to the loss of value. Plus, it totally undermined the BE's negotiating power. Whomever ends up signing the BE will sign them for pennies on the dollar (on a per team basis). Those 3 losses will be pretty significant financially. But, the MO wasn't to kill off the BE, but rather strengthen their only fully in house brand, the ACC. The icing on top is just that ESPN will end up spending a lot less for the new ACC/BE than they would the old ACC/BE.

So the locations of Deapul, seton Hall, PC, etc. in or near major urban markets doesn't really reap the BE any additional benefits because no one is watching their games? I assumed the value of all these teams in all these cities lies in adding local tv markets for BE regional network games, etc. Just not enough to matter?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

First, you have to know something about Gene........he is one of the most insecure, Napoleon-esque complex guys you'll ever meet. Very few people like him. I honestly think he'd die if he went 3 minutes without mocking someone or belittling someone through sarcasm. Second, he carries a big chip on his shoulder and an over-inflated sense of self-worth. Every bit of what he said was for the purpose of (a) making BC seem a lot more important than the are, and (b) kicking UConn while they were down. The only thing he said that was spot on was that ESPN was (to an extent) driving the boat. People actually read too much into that comment though, b/c it would be illogical to think they wouldn't at least have a hand on the steering wheel. You're not going to haul off and expand w/o getting insight from the very person who pays your bills.

This actually ties into ND, which I've mentioned ad nauseum. ESPN does not want to miss out on the opportunity to control ND's tv rights. So, they absolutely were giving direction as to whom to go after and whom not to. My commentary about the ACC expanding w/ Notre Dame in mind was not meant to imply it was one unified voice, but rather that's the voice that won out. There are plenty of programs that couldn't care jack diddly squat about ND joining the ACC. But, with ESPN's direction, they were building a case for ND. Why do you think ESPN decided against West Virginia? WVU has better TV #s, better fan support, and a wider geographic TV representation than Pitt or Syracuse. Yeah, a lot of people like to say academics, and that certainly was a strike against them. But, WVU doesn't get ND. Neither does Rutgers. Neither does Louisville. Neither does Kansas (who practically threw themselves at the ACC in 2010 - behind closed doors of course). I'm not going to say there weren't other factors that were considered beyond simply ND. But, they were the primary focus. And yes, it is my opinion, but I do believe, based on what I've seen and heard, had UConn had a long-term series with ND instead of Syracuse, they would have gotten the extra votes instead of Syracuse. ND was used a discussion point in their meetings, and it certainly was a focus of ESPN's POV.

As for Pitt, I don't know if they were in the original discussion or not, b/c we weren't brought in until after they'd already settled on which teams to do feasibility studies on. But I do know that Pitt was headed to the Big XII with WVU (tentatively) up until Boren (the OU pres) developed diarrhea of the mouth around Aug/Sept '11. The Big XII had been working that one hard. But, once Boren come out about forming a committee to look into leaving the Big XII w/o Texas, that killed Pitt & the Big XII. They then reached out to the ACC themselves. Where they initially ranked in all of this, I don't know.

As for the ACC wanting Syracuse 8 years ago...........you're right. But, a lot changes in 8 years. 8 years ago, Syracuse was coming off of a NC in basketball, and had had 9 ranked teams over the previous decade and a half in football. They'd won 3 conference championships over the prior half-decade, and had had multiple top 10 teams. They were cranking! But, fast forward and UConn, who'd been a nobody, is all of a sudden a growing force in the BE, and Syracuse is one of the worst football programs in college football. There are a lot of reason to pick UConn over Syracuse. So then, why did they get the nod over UConn? There is no plausible answer. TVs aren't better. Regional dominance isn't better. Fan support isn't better. On field & on court production isn't better. (Heck, Syracuse hasn't won the BE in basketball in 7 years, 6 at the time.) The tipping point from what I understand, was ND. BC has one vote. DeFilippo's comments about stopping UConn from coming into the conference were a lot like a scrawny nerd saying he stopped a burglar, all the while ignoring his dad standing behind him w/ a sawed off shotgun.

Also, ESPN's desire was to kill off the BE, then they'd have told the ACC to grab UConn and Rutgers (or WVU). But, they baited the hook for ND, then stepped back and waited. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, fwiw, I do think (and this part is opinion) that when the BE decided to try to play other networks off ESPN to drive up the price of their contract, that ESPN didn't like the idea of paying that much $$$ for that much dead weight. And, no matter how you want to spin it, you have to admit, there's a lot of dead weight in the BE. DePaul, Providence, and Seton Hall all add very, very, very little value to the BE's contract (and there are a couple more you could add to that as well). Teams would actually make more $$$ individually just by cutting them. From a financial perspective, it certainly makes sense to support the ACC's desire to take a few teams from the BE, b/c you can take the cream from the BE, pay a little more to the ACC, and ding the BE significantly due to the loss of value. Plus, it totally undermined the BE's negotiating power. Whomever ends up signing the BE will sign them for pennies on the dollar (on a per team basis). Those 3 losses will be pretty significant financially. But, the MO wasn't to kill off the BE, but rather strengthen their only fully in house brand, the ACC. The icing on top is just that ESPN will end up spending a lot less for the new ACC/BE than they would the old ACC/BE.

This thread is turning into every other "I hate the basketball schools" thread that this board has ever had. I will respectfully disagree on your characterization of Depaul at the least, and likely Providence too. Chicago is a huge market that actually follows Depaul if Depaul is even remotely competitive, and Depaul's commitment to basketball should not be questioned since they took Clemson's coach to the tune of about $1.6 million per year. Providence is a decent sized market with no competition and also does well if they are remotely competitive. I agree that Seton Hall is almost completely redundant. That said, the football schools could walk away any time they wanted, and they didn't. Unless you know something they don't, I will assume they have hired consultants to measure the league's value with and without the hoops schools, and they came back as a net positive. And the cost of the hoops schools was going to go up with any new TV deal based on the ESPN offer from May 2011, and the football schools still kept them.

If this was all about Notre Dame, why would ESPN not just sign Notre Dame? If this was about Notre Dame, why would ESPN give the ACC over $50 million to just "lure" Notre Dame. The NBC deal is not that rich, so why not just out-bid NBC? It stands to reason that from ESPN's perspective, Notre Dame is not worth more than the $14MM or so they get for football and whatever they get for hoops from the Big East. Because if Notre Dame was worth more, ESPN would have paid it.

Or why would ESPN not just leave the Big East as is and try to entice ND into the league, or any other ESPN league for that matter, with a very big carrot? Why give the ACC $50 MM, increase the payout to the Big 12, and destroy the Big East, when at the end of all that, ESPN still doesn't have Notre Dame?

We can all play amateur psychologist on Defillippo, but at the end of the day, his public comments tie together very well with the fact pattern of what actually happened. ESPN lowballed the Big East in May 2011, was turned down, and then went to work on destroying the Big East. An action which, by the way, pissed off Notre Dame and REDUCED the chance of ND ever signing with ESPN, not increased it. Defillippo needs to tell the world he torpedoed UConn, but also lets slip who the driver was behind the whole thing.

I believe, although I do not have proof, that Pitt and Syracuse were chosen because UConn and Rutgers were not trusted to keep quiet. I think ESPN/ACC was concerned that if they reached out to UConn and Rutgers, those two would go running back to their conference mates and try to lock everyone up for the NBC deal, which would have been a lot more than what Pitt and Syracuse will get in the ACC. ESPN/ACC had to target two school Presidents where fear was a bigger driver than greed. Nordenberg (sp?) and Cantor fit the bill.

The right move in September 2011 was not for everyone to grab a lifeboat, but to go to NBC with a Big East/ACC merger proposal for the whole league, splitting off from the hoops schools. Instead, the ACC got a trivial per team increase on their TV deal and the Big East got hammered. Both leagues suffered.

I just want to understand if you are on the record that the Big East will get pennies per team on their next rights deal. The President of the University of Memphis publicly predicted over $10MM a year, although some of that could be bowl revenue. That is a big difference from pennies. I tend to agree with the Memphis President. While the Big East got run over by a dump truck, it is still a seller's market. NBC, CBS and TNT/TBS still do not have any product.

 

[06029]

The right move in September 2011 was not for everyone to grab a lifeboat, but to go to NBC with a Big East/ACC merger proposal for the whole league, splitting off from the hoops schools. Instead, the ACC got a trivial per team increase on their TV deal and the Big East got hammered. Both leagues suffered.

I think this idea that some sort of merger between the ACC and BE was ever thought of is only in your head. Do you really think this was an option or a consideration by the ACC? The ACC, even if you hate them, has been proactive in this stuff and has picked off the teams they wanted. Not once was a team added to fill in holes caused by departures. They know they can add ANY BE team at any time with a phone call. They have 5 teams that prove that. And I still don't get your insistence that NBC is going to throw a ton of money at college sports. Not with so many resources tied up with the main network, the Olympics, NFL, NHL and ND. ABC/ESPN has only college sports and the NBA. They have the national and on-line outlets in place. The infrastructure and tradition is in place. This NBC dream of yours is just another fantasy. And a move of the BE games in both FB and BB to NBC/NBCSports will be a huge loss of visibility of the conference nationwide. As for the other networks, CBS is the SEC in the fall. They don't need anything else. TNT/TBS is Pac12 for FB. And if all they want is content, there are other conferences they can pick off for cheaper money than the BE without a huge drop off in quality.

And, finally, how has the ACC suffered? They did not lose anything and no one knows what there actual 2013/2014 gain will be when the expansion takes place. The TV dollars have not been officially announced by anyone. And even if it is a trivial increase per team as you are projecting is still way more than the BE is looking at post expansion. You can only hope that Uconn suffers that good.

 

[CTMike]

I will just respectfully disagree with these points, Nelson : the fact that a school exists in a location does not deliver that market. Period. Depaul is Depaul. They aren't delivering anything, especially not in the way of value, to the conference. They are just another mouth to feed. Maybe... maybe... they don't hurt the conference. Maybe they are a net wash. But there is no way that they add value just because of their location. Zero eyeballs is zero eyballs.

Second... and, well, there's definitely no way to convince you otherwise (so I won't), but you are way in to conspiracy theory with ESPN and the logic for Pitt and Cuse over UConn. Look out for the black helicopters, they are following you.

I liked your question about why not ESPN just outbidding NBC for ND. Why go through all these conference shenanigans when they could just negotiate directly with ND. (I don't know how long the NBC contract runs for). ESPN must feel that ND would make their ACC investment more valuable to them... though I'd be curious what the incremental difference to ESPN would be. Is it because a deal with independent ND wouldn't necessarily be for all three tiers?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I will just respectfully disagree with these points, Nelson : the fact that a school exists in a location does not deliver that market. Period. Depaul is Depaul. They aren't delivering anything, especially not in the way of value, to the conference. They are just another mouth to feed. Maybe... maybe... they don't hurt the conference. Maybe they are a net wash. But there is no way that they add value just because of their location. Zero eyeballs is zero eyballs.

Second... and, well, there's definitely no way to convince you otherwise (so I won't), but you are way in to conspiracy theory with ESPN and the logic for Pitt and Cuse over UConn. Look out for the black helicopters, they are following you.

I liked your question about why not ESPN just outbidding NBC for ND. Why go through all these conference shenanigans when they could just negotiate directly with ND. (I don't know how long the NBC contract runs for). ESPN must feel that ND would make their ACC investment more valuable to them... though I'd be curious what the incremental difference to ESPN would be. Is it because a deal with independent ND wouldn't necessarily be for all three tiers?

It was just good business on ESPN's part. They saw they would lose a conference, so they killed the conference. Oh, and Defillippo said as much. But CTMike doesn't think so, so it must be some wild conspiracy. As a reminder, I said ESPN was doing this to destroy the Big East before Defillippo opened his mouth to the Globe writer.

You hate the hoops schools. I get it. The football schools still disagree with you.

I do not know why Pitt and Syracuse were picked over UConn and Rutgers, other than what Defillippo told us. But again, you know better.

The irony of your post above is you agree that the "this is all for Notre Dame" argument's logic is tortured, and then you try to explain it again. Our new friend is the only one that has made this case, and the case makes no sense. BTW, NBC just renewed with Notre Dame within the last 2 years. It is likely that ESPN bid and lost on Notre Dame. Yet another indication that ESPN didn't think ND was worth it.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think this idea that some sort of merger between the ACC and BE was ever thought of is only in your head. Do you really think this was an option or a consideration by the ACC? The ACC, even if you hate them, has been proactive in this stuff and has picked off the teams they wanted. Not once was a team added to fill in holes caused by departures. They know they can add ANY BE team at any time with a phone call. They have 5 teams that prove that. And I still don't get your insistence that NBC is going to throw a ton of money at college sports. Not with so many resources tied up with the main network, the Olympics, NFL, NHL and ND. ABC/ESPN has only college sports and the NBA. They have the national and on-line outlets in place. The infrastructure and tradition is in place. This NBC dream of yours is just another fantasy. And a move of the BE games in both FB and BB to NBC/NBCSports will be a huge loss of visibility of the conference nationwide. As for the other networks, CBS is the SEC in the fall. They don't need anything else. TNT/TBS is Pac12 for FB. And if all they want is content, there are other conferences they can pick off for cheaper money than the BE without a huge drop off in quality.

And, finally, how has the ACC suffered? They did not lose anything and no one knows what there actual 2013/2014 gain will be when the expansion takes place. The TV dollars have not been officially announced by anyone. And even if it is a trivial increase per team as you are projecting is still way more than the BE is looking at post expansion. You can only hope that Uconn suffers that good.

BCU troll.

 

[CTMike]

It was just good business on ESPN's part. They saw they would lose a conference, so they killed the conference. Oh, and Defillippo said as much. But CTMike doesn't think so, so it must be some wild conspiracy. As a reminder, I said ESPN was doing this to destroy the Big East before Defillippo opened his mouth to the Globe writer.

You hate the hoops schools. I get it. The football schools still disagree with you.

I do not know why Pitt and Syracuse were picked over UConn and Rutgers, other than what Defillippo told us. But again, you know better.

The irony of your post above is you agree that the "this is all for Notre Dame" argument's logic is tortured, and then you try to explain it again. Our new friend is the only one that has made this case, and the case makes no sense. BTW, NBC just renewed with Notre Dame within the last 2 years. It is likely that ESPN bid and lost on Notre Dame. Yet another indication that ESPN didn't think ND was worth it.

ESPN didn't say they were trying to kill the Big East. Flipper didn't say ESPN was trying to kill the Big East. He said that ESPN was "telling them what to do" which could mean quite a lot of things short of "kill the Big East". Maybe ESPN said "let's maximize future revenue by adding this team instead of that one" but you heard it as "kill the Big East", because that's what you choose to believe. That's fine. Neither of us liked Flippers comments at the end of the day we just interperet them differently.

I've never made any statements regarding hate for the basketball schools. I do believe a strong all sports conference, with common interests and regional rivalries, is better than a mixed affiliation conference with divided interests. And, I believe that the Big East has too many mouths to feed, simply because I think UConn could make more money if the DePauls of the world weren't sucking at the teet. That's not basketball school hate.

Finally, ND is still a very valuable property. ND in the ACC (or any league) would "rise all boats", in terms of the ACCs (and ESPN's) interests. More eyeballs, more money. Additionally, as many have noted, ND is east-coast centric. IF ND were to ever join a league, the choices would include the ACC or the Big East, because they cover the regions ND wants to associate with. It is not strange at all to me that the ACC would want to make themselves more attractive to ND. I was more curious what prevented ESPN from elimating the ACC middleman and negotiating directly for NDs rights, like you asked. Or if they did, where talks would have broken down. Hence why I was curious if it was a matter of tiers. I'm sure money was an issue as well.

 

[noeynox]

CTMIKE, what Flipper did say was that he lobbied to keep UConn out. Insider say s he is one voice, but I think that one voice only has to convince three others into dissenting votes. Flippers comments definitely poke a hole in his ACC didn't pick UConn because of a failure to schedule a series with ND theory. The fact that a few regular posters are quick to jump in and scream "i told you so", doesn't change that.

 

[UConnDan97]

Nelson Muntz and CTMike are making similar points in my view. Whether you want to call it "Killing off the Big East" or just going after schools of high value that you have the ability to acquire, it still amounts to the same thing. It is akin to us taking Conference USA / Mountain West / MAC schools of high value because we have the ability to poach them. If we had the ability to poach a Clemson or a Florida State, we would.

I agree with CTMike from the standpoint that the non-regional marriage of schools is one of convenience and is going to always be on shaky ground. However, in the world of constant conference realignment, regional schools being together offers only slightly more stability (for more on that, see Pitt, Syracuse, BC, etc.). It's all about the money, money, money...

...which brings me to the final point; Notre Dame. You both agree (as do I) that if ESPN wanted Notre Dame, it would just be easier to outbid the NBC package, rather than to beat around the bush with the realignment scenarios that only "might" bring them to the ACC. I know that everyone thinks ND will be part of an eastern conference, and I agree that they have many east coast ties, but when push comes to shove, I don't see them going anywhere other than the Big10....if at all....just my two cents.

 

[Marty Jackson]

reading these posts over the past couple days, you can get a sense about how people feel regarding the NBE.
I don't know if 'Insider' is or isn't an industry insider, but the logic behind the posts seem legit. If nothing else, he's provided some good insight into the expansion craze.
Personally, I'd love to see the NBE become successful because I think we can become a dominant program here on the football side. Eventually, I do think we'll wind up in the ACC, but after reading these posts I am not so certain that this is a great goal.
Since 2003, what's really hurt this conference is that we haven't had a truly dominant team or two. Yes WVU was clearly the flag bearer, but they weren't dominant. The fact that Uconn has won 2 BE titles says a lot... I think the year that WVU lost to Pitt and could have been bound for the NC was huge for the perception of the league. Just when a team was about to break-through, they tripped up. That seems to be the story-line. Even when we perform better than the ACC and pac 12 and finish higher in the BCS rankings (which has happened several times), the perception is that we are still weaker.
We have some solid teams with potential. we need 3-4 to start finishing in the top 25 (and 1 in the Top 10), to gain some credibility. I think that can happen, which makes me excited for this league. Boise, Louisville, Cincy, and Houston have that potential along with USF. In a year or two, add Uconn to that Top 25 list.

 

[UConnDan97]

We have some solid teams with potential. we need 3-4 to start finishing in the top 25 (and 1 in the Top 10), to gain some credibility. I think that can happen, which makes me excited for this league. Boise, Louisville, Cincy, and Houston have that potential along with USF. In a year or two, add Uconn to that Top 25 list.

This is a great point, and I agree with the potential. If the NNBE sticks together for long enough, I think it will be a very solid league, and I'm excited about the possibilities too. Of course, that is all predicated on the NNBE not getting shut out of things by the "new non-BCS" format.

 

[CTMike]

CTMIKE, what Flipper did say was that he lobbied to keep UConn out. Insider say s he is one voice, but I think that one voice only has to convince three others into dissenting votes. Flippers comments definitely poke a hole in his ACC didn't pick UConn because of a failure to schedule a series with ND theory. The fact that a few regular posters are quick to jump in and scream "i told you so", doesn't change that.

Completely agree and I hope Flipper burns in hell for his pettiness. Though, I don't think that means the failure to schedule ND theory is totally bunk - just one in a large number of factors.

 

[SAMCRO]

The next 2 realignment dominoes will be:
- As everyone has predicted, UL to the B12 over the summer;
- and one or both of UConn/Rutgers in the fall, just prior to the date when the BE can open up their TV contract for negotiations.

This is just my opinion, but based on the facts that every time the the BE seemed to be pulling itself up by the boot straps and getting on their feet, another dominoe has fallen. This will be no different as we get closer to the dates the league can open up the negotiating. ESPN does not want NBC in their kitchen, and make no mistake about it, ESPN's kitchen is college sports (FB and BB specifically).

 

[CTMike]

We all agree more than disagree I think. We all want the best for UConn at the end of the day. It's just the first commandment of interent message boards to dissent. If I met Nelson I'd be happy to buy him a beer.

 

[AJC88]

I think that ND would turn down a comparable offer from ESPN compared to NBC because they are the only show on NBC, as opposed to one of many teams in a conference affiliated with ESPN.
Nelson- you assertion that ESPN should just throw 50 million at them is STOOPID. Why overpay when you can weaken the Big East to the point where you have a chance to lure them into the conference you hold the keys to?
Notre Dame is concerned with its independence and its profile. Why be one of many when you can be on a network as the ONLY show?

 

[Carl Spackler]

It was just good business on ESPN's part. They saw they would lose a conference, so they killed the conference. Oh, and Defillippo said as much. But CTMike doesn't think so, so it must be some wild conspiracy. As a reminder, I said ESPN was doing this to destroy the Big East before Defillippo opened his mouth to the Globe writer.

You hate the hoops schools. I get it. The football schools still disagree with you.

I do not know why Pitt and Syracuse were picked over UConn and Rutgers, other than what Defillippo told us. But again, you know better.

The irony of your post above is you agree that the "this is all for Notre Dame" argument's logic is tortured, and then you try to explain it again. Our new friend is the only one that has made this case, and the case makes no sense. BTW, NBC just renewed with Notre Dame within the last 2 years. It is likely that ESPN bid and lost on Notre Dame. Yet another indication that ESPN didn't think ND was worth it.

I think you nailed it with Syracuse and Pitt leadership. Easy targets. UConn, I believe, would only have been willing if they were approached by Syracuse first.

I think it's pretty clear that the ACC was doing two things with expansion. It was building a reinforcement, in case some of it's own members defected, and at the same time, specifically trying to weaken the Big East conference as much as possible. For the ACC, their own interests in becoming a stronger basketball league, and for ESPN - to get in the backdoor to negotiating with Notre Dame.

That's how I believe Syracuse and UConn were arrived at by the ACC expansion committee, and the lobbying by a certain member of the committee from Boston College, is what changed UConn to Pitt.

They accomplished one task successfully. I don't foresee any other conference besides the Big East, being concerned about adding 2012 Pitt or Syracuse to their coffers. So the ACC is safe there in case some other members defect, and who knows, maybe a new big east, is more desireable to Syracuse and Pitt in the future.......

But although Syracuse and Pitt leaving the Big East, has caused a significant change and weakening in the big east basketball conference for the negative, the movement has caused a monumental shift in the Big East conference mode of operation and priorities, and Big East conference, that puts highest piority on football, is goig t be even more difficult for the ACC to handle than te Big East in the past.

Look at he revenue streams - it's all you need to do. The ACC is not a desireable place to be.

 

[UConnDan97]

We all agree more than disagree I think. We all want the best for UConn at the end of the day. It's just the first commandment of interent message boards to dissent. If I met Nelson I'd be happy to buy him a beer.

Amen! +1 to this ^

 

[SubbaBub]

The one thing I haven't read here yet is the fact that Uconn was always more loyal to the BE than any of the departing schools ever were. As a former BB only, we still preferred a stronger BE to a split or escape. That of course has changed, but I think our stance was well known that the university would have had some reservations about abandoning ship back then.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think that ND would turn down a comparable offer from ESPN compared to NBC because they are the only show on NBC, as opposed to one of many teams in a conference affiliated with ESPN.
Nelson- you assertion that ESPN should just throw 50 million at them is STOOPID. Why overpay when you can weaken the Big East to the point where you have a chance to lure them into the conference you hold the keys to?
Notre Dame is concerned with its independence and its profile. Why be one of many when you can be on a network as the ONLY show?

So in your world Notre Dame simply will not sign with ESPN. That sounds a little silly, but fine, let's run with it for now. I would assume that ESPN knows this and has probably been told as much by Notre Dame, if your assertion is true. So, if that is the case, why would ESPN pay the ACC $50 million more and the Big 12 another $30-40 million just to try and shake ND loose from the Big East if ND is never going to sign with ESPN anyway? The assertion that all of this was driven by ESPN's desire to get Notre Dame into a league it controlled makes no sense.