ACC

[nelsonmuntz]

Ok, let me see if I can follow nelsonmuntz logic.........

You don't believe "most" of what I say, but you admit you haven't read all of what I've said. On top of that, you don't believe it, but you haven't offered anything even remotely refuting one single comment I've made over 10 pages of this thread. And then the cherry on top..........I responded to your "doubting" post about ND driving the ACC expansion bus with further insight, and you conveniently have chosen not to respond to it.

Literally, your entire contribution to this thread is about a dozen "I don't believe him" posts. As for "having the ear of God"........I've never claimed anything close to that. I simply explained what I do for a living. How do you think networks, conferences, sports teams, sports entities (PGA, NBA, etc), events (World Cup, Olympics), etc come up with the values they're willing to pay/accept for television, radio, and internet broadcasts. You think every one of them employes a staff of quantitative, qualitative, analytical, and statistical experts??? Please. They hire consultants that specialize in that field. I simply work as an analyst for the top company in that industry niche. So, I hear, see, and read a lot about the inner workings of conferences, realignment, etc. I don't know all, and I've been very clear about my limitation. I have very little exposure to the Pac-12, Fox, and the Big East. I have really strong insight on the Big XII and ACC, and decent insight on the SEC and Big Ten. That's what I've got. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for people "following" me, nobody's following, and I'm not leading. I just think those who are interested, are excited to learn something beyond what's been shared on the board previously. Maybe you should actually read what I write rather than run around shouting "I actually believed you really were an insider" until I put down Carl. Like I've said, I won't be here permanently. I don't need any "cred" or "followers". I'm a Longhorn. I just stopped by to talk realignment. I enjoy discussing the topic with others, and I've tried to be respectful in my approach (though I agree I was harsh with Carl).

I am not going to read this whole post. I meant to say I don't DISAGREE with most of what you said. Double negatives are a little tricky with my auto-correct.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm still not convinced.

Ok, let me see if I can follow nelsonmuntz logic.........

You don't believe "most" of what I say, but you admit you haven't read all of what I've said. On top of that, you don't believe it, but you haven't offered anything even remotely refuting one single comment I've made over 10 pages of this thread. And then the cherry on top..........I responded to your "doubting" post about ND driving the ACC expansion bus with further insight, and you conveniently have chosen not to respond to it.

Literally, your entire contribution to this thread is about a dozen "I don't believe him" posts. As for "having the ear of God"........I've never claimed anything close to that. I simply explained what I do for a living. How do you think networks, conferences, sports teams, sports entities (PGA, NBA, etc), events (World Cup, Olympics), etc come up with the values they're willing to pay/accept for television, radio, and internet broadcasts. You think every one of them employes a staff of quantitative, qualitative, analytical, and statistical experts??? Please. They hire consultants that specialize in that field. I simply work as an analyst for the top company in that industry niche. So, I hear, see, and read a lot about the inner workings of conferences, realignment, etc. I don't know all, and I've been very clear about my limitation. I have very little exposure to the Pac-12, Fox, and the Big East. I have really strong insight on the Big XII and ACC, and decent insight on the SEC and Big Ten. That's what I've got. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for people "following" me, nobody's following, and I'm not leading. I just think those who are interested, are excited to learn something beyond what's been shared on the board previously. Maybe you should actually read what I write rather than run around shouting "I actually believed you really were an insider" until I put down Carl. Like I've said, I won't be here permanently. I don't need any "cred" or "followers". I'm a Longhorn. I just stopped by to talk realignment. I enjoy discussing the topic with others, and I've tried to be respectful in my approach (though I agree I was harsh with Carl).

Did you know that all UConn football games weren't available to our own local DMA until fall of 2010? The current station that carries that tier of rights, for football and basketball, is based out of NYC, broadcasts to NYC, and in 2011, put in plans to expand it's coverage and braodcasting in the region based on the UConn numbers, and is looking at the possibility of expanding into New Jersey and New York.

It all hinges on being competitive and winning. UConn football against Cincinatti in 2010 drew a 6.1 rating in our DMA. That was a home game, and it invovled an opponent that i promise you....ZERO.....uconn football fans interest in watching on television in spring of 2005, five years earlier, IF....they even had a chance to watch it.

I can't tell you what the ratings were for that game in Cincinatti on TV. I don't know who carried it, or if it was even on......

which is why football programs have been bolting the Big East for other television contract agreements for years.

The big east, I'm confident, is going to get it fixed this time around.

As always, it will hinge on being competitive on the field. If the programs suck, nobody will watch. But again, there is a 10 year track record, starting with UConn, of showing how multiple programs can elevate to national relevance and rankings based on the Big East model of competition. No reason to think that the current incoming programs won't do the same.

 

[Pudge]

MY JOB ... forces me to Value real estate (Institutional) for a living. Further, I teach Finance/Corporate Strategy/Case Study at UAlbany - where we often get into Valuation by taking Free Cash Flow & applying PV discounting on all kinds of assets. I have read this interesting FTI commentary & have thought all along that one key element was missing ... that is YOUR discussion of what is "GOING" to happen. You can apply past history all you want. But, past history is not all that great as a predictor of future performance.

As Carl correctly stated with UConn Football, its just NOT relevant to look at our OOC from 2002-2007 & think we weren't doing what lots of Real Estate players do: Stabilizing an Emerging Development.

And with that ... keep on with this. I am enjoying the dialogue.

 

[Pudge]

What amazes me is that from what I remember, Business Lawyer and I were the only posters who were in favor of the ND series with our home games at NFL stadiums in the northeast instead of the Rent. Today none of the posters who jumped all over the two of us are thumping their chest in this thread.

Not true. I was also in favor. (*where is that miscreant Palatine ... think he talked Hathaway & the Governor out of it)

 

[Rumrunner]

A couple of observations.

First, the fiduciary duty owed to one's firm as well as clients usually trumps one's desire to disseminate "insider" information

Second, since anyone with a computer, a feeble mind and a few moments, can find a UCLA law and MBA degree recipient that currently works in media relations who got his undergrad degree at Texas. That isn't rocket science. For what it's worth, only a few Texas grads per year attend UCLA.

I lied. I have more than a couple of observations. My third obsevation is that anyone smart enough to obtain their mba and jd from ucla would not be foolish enough to violate their obligations found in observation one.

 

[tzznandrew]

A couple of observations.

First, the fiduciary duty owed to one's firm as well as clients usually trumps one's desire to disseminate "insider" information

Second, since anyone with a computer, a feeble mind and a few moments, can find a UCLA law and MBA degree recipient that currently works in media relations who got his undergrad degree at Texas. That isn't rocket science. For what it's worth, only a few Texas grads per year attend UCLA.

I lied. I have more than a couple of observations. My third obsevation is that anyone smart enough to obtain their mba and jd from ucla would not be foolish enough to violate their obligations found in observation one.

Maybe true, but at least this board has been more fun to read.

 

[FromTheInside]

A couple of observations.

First, the fiduciary duty owed to one's firm as well as clients usually trumps one's desire to disseminate "insider" information

Second, since anyone with a computer, a feeble mind and a few moments, can find a UCLA law and MBA degree recipient that currently works in media relations who got his undergrad degree at Texas. That isn't rocket science. For what it's worth, only a few Texas grads per year attend UCLA.

I lied. I have more than a couple of observations. My third obsevation is that anyone smart enough to obtain their mba and jd from ucla would not be foolish enough to violate their obligations found in observation one.

First rule of sharing anything confidential online, never give enough to get your butt in trouble. Second, always cover your tracks. I haven't said anything that would even remotely violate our non-disclosure contracts. And, I've covered my tracks. If you think doing a Texas/UCLA/Media Relations cross reference is going to find me, you're going to be looking a long, long, long time.

 

[Marty Jackson]

The OOC scheduling, especially during the early years when we just moved up, were intended to protect our program and prevent getting blown out. Losing 56-0 doesn't bring in a lot of new fans.
at the same time, not many teams of the ND, Michigan, or Ohio State level are going to schedule a home and home with Uconn. So, in order for Uconn to schedule home games, they've had to look at the regional and lesser 'brands' to play at The Rent...
Can't argue with your facts about Uconn's competition, but this was a specific strategy to help the program grow. Seems that the level of competition is getting better with Michigan and Tennessee signing home and homes.

 

[Rumrunner]

I believe you, which was my point. Which is another way of saying you haven't given us teat-sucklers very much tasty, fresh milk. Certainly nothing from the inside, by your admission. Opinions, sure. Unfortunately as you can tell, opinions matter very little, even though some matter more than others. Maybe one day the boneyard will get our very own Robert Gates.

First rule of sharing anything confidential online, never give enough to get your butt in trouble. Second, always cover your tracks. I haven't said anything that would even remotely violate our non-disclosure contracts. And, I've covered my tracks. If you think doing a Texas/UCLA/Media Relations cross reference is going to find me, you're going to be looking a long, long, long time.

 

[FromTheInside]

The OOC scheduling, especially during the early years when we just moved up, were intended to protect our program and prevent getting blown out. Losing 56-0 doesn't bring in a lot of new fans.
at the same time, not many teams of the ND, Michigan, or Ohio State level are going to schedule a home and home with Uconn. So, in order for Uconn to schedule home games, they've had to look at the regional and lesser 'brands' to play at The Rent...
Can't argue with your facts about Uconn's competition, but this was a specific strategy to help the program grow. Seems that the level of competition is getting better with Michigan and Tennessee signing home and homes.

You & Pudge make great points.

 

[FromTheInside]

I believe you, which was my point. Which is another way of saying you haven't given us teat-sucklers very much tasty, fresh milk. Certainly nothing from the inside, by your admission. Opinions, sure. Unfortunately as you can tell, opinions matter very little, even though some matter more than others. Maybe one day the boneyard will get our very own Robert Gates.

I've given plenty of inside information, but nothing that would get me in trouble. A number of years ago, I learned that lesson the hard way when I said too much on a message board and it spread like wildfire, ending up as a lead in story on ESPN, and talked about for a week and a half nationwide. Not going to make that mistake again. Ha ha. I've given plenty of opinions, but I've given a lot of insight: how TV contracts are valued, how teams are valued, how various teams are valued in relation to others, what teams various conferences are interested in, etc.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Insider - you also said that Notre Dame would make more money in television revenue than they do now, by joining the ACC, and that should ND join a conference, the ACC was in the lead - by a lot....I believe were close to the exact words...not looking bcak to check.....I don't remember if you were specific to just football or if you meant all braodcasting rights....but either way.

You might be, MIGHT be correct that ND may earn more on a yearly basis from television revenue alone with the ACC/ESPN contract - if they were to accept it and give up all tiers of broadcasting rights to ESPN (not happening)....but if so - then they MIGHT make more annually through television revenue alone, than they do currently in 2012, with their multiple deals around broadcasting with the Big East and independantly in football with NBC - and I emphasize....MIGHT. But assuming that would be the case........it doesn't change the fact that the big 10 and big east are both more valueable to ND than the ACC for the non-football athletic deaprtment, and the closest they've ever come to parking their football program in a conference, was the big 10, and it wasn't even close, and the big 10 is more valueable to them than the ACC. When the Big 10 was pitching for ND 12 years ago, the leadership at Miami, and Syracuse, and the like in teh Big EAst, was pitching the Big EAst leadership to go after Notre Dame too......never mind....not going there.

That's just TV revenue too, but you've failed time and again to provide any numbers for what you're saying, so I won't either.... I'll just say that Notre Dame as of right now in 2012, ranks right behind Texas - as the second most valueable college football product out there. Texas ranks #1 because they landed the deal with ESPN - individually. Until then, Notre Dame was #1 in overall value. Notre Dame ranks #2, because they've been negotiating individually for broadcasting rights since 1990, and are still indpendant and keep 100% of any profit they earn in football, and are part of the most valueable (by far) NON-football revenue generating sports conference. Notre Dame only de-values their own product by joining a conference, and they're not going to do it unless they're forced to.

I disagree with you about your analysis of markets and college football broadcasting, in general, because I think that that product that the Big EAst can put out on television in the future, has a much greater potential to generate NEW viewership in a very wide and large range of demographics.

It will not happen overnight, and it will depend on fielding competitive football programs, but the potential for new viewership in the Big East with football coast to coast, and now big east basketball further into florida and now texas, is far greater than any other conference can boast in generating NEW viewership, and you yourself have admitted, that new viewership is the grail.

Have a nice day.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

As for people "following" me, nobody's following, and I'm not leading. I just think those who are interested, are excited to learn something beyond what's been shared on the board previously. Maybe you should actually read what I write rather than run around shouting "I actually believed you really were an insider" until I put down Carl. Like I've said, I won't be here permanently. I don't need any "cred" or "followers". I'm a Longhorn. I just stopped by to talk realignment. I enjoy discussing the topic with others, and I've tried to be respectful in my approach (though I agree I was harsh with Carl).

I find conference realignment in general to be very entertaining as well as pretty stressful being a fan on the outside looking in.

Insider or not, a lot of points you are making seem to be very within reason and certainly great fodder for message board discussions. Hope you continue to post as a lot of us appreciate your insights.

 

[JohnUnitas]

Carl, how many times did you have to repeat the idea that the NBE is going to flourish into the mirror before you started to actually believe it.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Ok, let me see if I can follow nelsonmuntz logic.........

You don't believe "most" of what I say, but you admit you haven't read all of what I've said. On top of that, you don't believe it, but you haven't offered anything even remotely refuting one single comment I've made over 10 pages of this thread. And then the cherry on top..........I responded to your "doubting" post about ND driving the ACC expansion bus with further insight, and you conveniently have chosen not to respond to it.

Literally, your entire contribution to this thread is about a dozen "I don't believe him" posts. As for "having the ear of God"........I've never claimed anything close to that. I simply explained what I do for a living. How do you think networks, conferences, sports teams, sports entities (PGA, NBA, etc), events (World Cup, Olympics), etc come up with the values they're willing to pay/accept for television, radio, and internet broadcasts. You think every one of them employes a staff of quantitative, qualitative, analytical, and statistical experts??? Please. They hire consultants that specialize in that field. I simply work as an analyst for the top company in that industry niche. So, I hear, see, and read a lot about the inner workings of conferences, realignment, etc. I don't know all, and I've been very clear about my limitation. I have very little exposure to the Pac-12, Fox, and the Big East. I have really strong insight on the Big XII and ACC, and decent insight on the SEC and Big Ten. That's what I've got. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for people "following" me, nobody's following, and I'm not leading. I just think those who are interested, are excited to learn something beyond what's been shared on the board previously. Maybe you should actually read what I write rather than run around shouting "I actually believed you really were an insider" until I put down Carl. Like I've said, I won't be here permanently. I don't need any "cred" or "followers". I'm a Longhorn. I just stopped by to talk realignment. I enjoy discussing the topic with others, and I've tried to be respectful in my approach (though I agree I was harsh with Carl).

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.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Carl, how many times did you have to repeat the idea that the NBE is going to flourish into the mirror before you started to actually believe it.

The NNBE will be fine, just not in the same class with the other leagues. Since neither you, nor anyone else that likes to bash the Big East has any solutions other than "beg harder", there is no point about complaining about it.

 

[FrostyNuggets]

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

BC has one vote. Who else was against UConn? I doubt Flipper has as much sway as he proclaims.

 

[Carl Spackler]

One vote was all it took to keep Penn State out of the Big East. That's the beauty of democracy.

 

[FrostyNuggets]

One vote was all it took to keep Penn State out of the Big East. That's the beauty of democracy.

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

 

[CTMike]

The Big East was raided because ESPN wanted to kill it.

If FTI can comment on this specifically, I'd be very interested to hear his thoughts. No offense Nelson, but it's a little too conspiracy theorist for me.

 

[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?