AD David Benedict: UConn 'in a very good situation' as college conference realignment swirls

[Rumrunner]

The problem that is lurking down the road is that attention, coverage, adulation, whatever you want to call it, will be increasingly centralized. We've heard the refrain that watching eg, High A baseball appeals to some more than MLB because the sport is purer, perhaps more competitive. But we are a nation that loves to idolize the best. That's why no one watches the G League, or MiLB, or a myriad other sports leagues that aren't competitive at the highest level. The dollars between the superleagues and the rest will be so great, that games will become friends, family plus the hardcore. That's the nature of the beast. If this was confined to football, a crappy situation, but liveable. The problem is that it won't be confined to football. It will affect every facet of a school's athletic department. Inexorably, Rutgers will be able to pay their men's bb head coach five times what UConn can pay. Football team revenues for average superleague teams will be 10x what they are for UConn.

How this plays out in a process point of view is not altogether relevant. Only thing that can stave it off is a decline in football's dominance, through demographics (cf Pac12/UCLA) or CTE stuff.

 

[hardcorehusky]

Largely agree with this but I could argue that I’d much rather be playing them in the coming years than SJSU, Fresno, Utah State, etc. UConn needs winnable games- playing NMSU in addition to UMass and a FCS gets you halfway to bowl eligibility. Any team who’s season O/U is 2 wins when there are 2 games against FCS teams on the slate for this year could use another easy game on the schedule going forward.

I’m sure someone will respond to this and say “Yeah but who’s to say they can’t beat any of those teams you mentioned?!” And to that I’d say they’re 27.5 point underdogs in week 1 this year to Fresno State.

I’m sure someone will respond to that above quote and say “well that line is crazy we’ve improved a bunch in our time off lifting!!” And to that I will say “well are you putting a wager on UConn +27.5 since you feel so strongly about it?”

And at that point there will be cricket

From a football standpoint, the idea of going independent was to play a more local schedule that would get fans to be interested in attending and the rivalries. Costs could be contained and the fans would be more interested in local teams like Army, UMass, BC, etc.

If fans didn't really come out to see USF or Cincinnati who were long time rivals, who would come out to see NMSU? And what is the expense to travel there? It makes no sense to schedule them- if you want an easy W - you can find someone much closer.

 

[Husky25]

The problem that is lurking down the road is that attention, coverage, adulation, whatever you want to call it, will be increasingly centralized. We've heard the refrain that watching eg, High A baseball appeals to some more than MLB because the sport is purer, perhaps more competitive. But we are a nation that loves to idolize the best. That's why no one watches the G League, or MiLB, or a myriad other sports leagues that aren't competitive at the highest level. The dollars between the superleagues and the rest will be so great, that games will become friends, family plus the hardcore. That's the nature of the beast. If this was confined to football, a crappy situation, but liveable. The problem is that it won't be confined to football. It will affect every facet of a school's athletic department. Inexorably, Rutgers will be able to pay their men's bb head coach five times what UConn can pay. Football team revenues for average superleague teams will be 10x what they are for UConn.

How this plays out in a process point of view is not altogether relevant. Only thing that can stave it off is a decline in football's dominance, through demographics (cf Pac12/UCLA) or CTE stuff.

If football goes to a super league model (e.g. 20-40 teams at the top), My money will be on Rutgers not getting an invitation.

 

[metsfan2323]

there is no reason that Kansas/UConn basketball should not be in power leagues. For football? Both those programs probably don't belong in the top leagues in the country.

Well that is your opinion, most basketball fans and players consider the Big East a power basketball league.

More importantly AD DAVE did not say we couldn't compete in the Big 10 in football if we were invited.

He is saying independents should be able to form a football conference, something they can't do now, he is also saying football only conferences would allow other non-revenue sports to compete in more local conferences instead of having to travel all over the country.
A school like Temple would be able to park their non revenue sports back in the A10.

 

[noeynox]

The problem that is lurking down the road is that attention, coverage, adulation, whatever you want to call it, will be increasingly centralized. We've heard the refrain that watching eg, High A baseball appeals to some more than MLB because the sport is purer, perhaps more competitive. But we are a nation that loves to idolize the best. That's why no one watches the G League, or MiLB, or a myriad other sports leagues that aren't competitive at the highest level. The dollars between the superleagues and the rest will be so great, that games will become friends, family plus the hardcore. That's the nature of the beast. If this was confined to football, a crappy situation, but liveable. The problem is that it won't be confined to football. It will affect every facet of a school's athletic department. Inexorably, Rutgers will be able to pay their men's bb head coach five times what UConn can pay. Football team revenues for average superleague teams will be 10x what they are for UConn.

How this plays out in a process point of view is not altogether relevant. Only thing that can stave it off is a decline in football's dominance, through demographics (cf Pac12/UCLA) or CTE stuff.

Let's say you're not wrong, what do you propose be done about it in regards to UConn's situation?

 

[Rumrunner]

Let's say you're not wrong, what do you propose be done about it in regards to UConn's situation?

That's the rub. There aren't any proposals that will stop the inevitable. The only thing that matters is money. Money is the be all and end all in college athletics. So something like a 250k subscription model paying $25 a month (which is pie in the sky) for special access to wbb, mbb, fb, baseball, hockey, go way beyond Husky tv. That would entail clawing back rights to mbb and women's bb. Go nuts, and have the state give a tax credit for half that amount, convince them it's a public good. Create a sports journalism center. Push it through alumni relations. Have the state push it in the name of equity and pay for it for FARMS families. This of course is a crazy idea, but the gist is to leverage the volume of UConn fans across the spectrum to have them pay that elastic amount.

 

[arch]

Well that is your opinion, most basketball fans and players co

I think you may have misread him. I believe he was referring to their respective football teams.

 

[Ajs120102]

The problem that is lurking down the road is that attention, coverage, adulation, whatever you want to call it, will be increasingly centralized. We've heard the refrain that watching eg, High A baseball appeals to some more than MLB because the sport is purer, perhaps more competitive. But we are a nation that loves to idolize the best. That's why no one watches the G League, or MiLB, or a myriad other sports leagues that aren't competitive at the highest level. The dollars between the superleagues and the rest will be so great, that games will become friends, family plus the hardcore. That's the nature of the beast. If this was confined to football, a crappy situation, but liveable. The problem is that it won't be confined to football. It will affect every facet of a school's athletic department. Inexorably, Rutgers will be able to pay their men's bb head coach five times what UConn can pay. Football team revenues for average superleague teams will be 10x what they are for UConn.

How this plays out in a process point of view is not altogether relevant. Only thing that can stave it off is a decline in football's dominance, through demographics (cf Pac12/UCLA) or CTE stuff.

By the time superleagues come, Rutgers won’t be there

bottom line is that at some point it’ll be 40-60 schools versus the rest. And by that point I don’t think those other schools will just be sitting there letting it happen. I really feel at some point a line will be crossed. In terms of basketball, the NCAA gives way more money to schools that any conference would be able to get. If superleagues take the reigns then that would eliminate half the schools. Which would take a significant chunk of change out from schools pockets. We just don’t know what will happen.

 

[Milo65]

There will be more schools on the outside looking in. How much is the B12 worth without Texas and OU. What will it be worth after some others leave? What’s the ACC worth after Clemson and FSU go? Do you think BC, Rutgers, Northwestern, Duke and others will be part of that 40 team power league? UConn is in a very good position considering all the chaos.

 

[shizzle787]

Largely agree with this but I could argue that I’d much rather be playing them in the coming years than SJSU, Fresno, Utah State, etc. UConn needs winnable games- playing NMSU in addition to UMass and a FCS gets you halfway to bowl eligibility. Any team who’s season O/U is 2 wins when there are 2 games against FCS teams on the slate for this year could use another easy game on the schedule going forward.

I’m sure someone will respond to this and say “Yeah but who’s to say they can’t beat any of those teams you mentioned?!” And to that I’d say they’re 27.5 point underdogs in week 1 this year to Fresno State.

I’m sure someone will respond to that above quote and say “well that line is crazy we’ve improved a bunch in our time off lifting!!” And to that I will say “well are you putting a wager on UConn +27.5 since you feel so strongly about it?”

And at that point there will be crickets.

I would rather play Fresno State (California school).

 

[metsfan2323]

I'd go see UConn v NMSU. I think it would be a pretty cool road trip

I agree, we can play in Fresno but New Mexico State is too far away? Makes no sense. Games against New Mexico State should be on the table. It is clearly not easy to schedule 12 games as an independent, take advantage of every school in the same boat as we are.

 

[metsfan2323]

I think you may have misread him. I believe he was referring to their respective football teams.

My bad then. The Big East is definitely considered a Power league for basketball.

I do think football could compete in the B1G and ACC if we got an upgrade. The Halo effect of those conferences plus the extra money would change everything fast, especially B1G football. Imagine if the electric crowd vs Michigan became the norm.

 

[Husky25]

I agree, we can play in Fresno but New Mexico State is too far away? Makes no sense. Games against New Mexico State should be on the table. It is clearly not easy to schedule 12 games as an independent, take advantage of every school in the same boat as we are.

I think travel encompasses more than just distance. Ease of getting to the destination, for one. Cost/benefit for another.

Fresno might be further, but it is also in a comparative football hotbed to Las Cruces.

That said, I agree with take advantage of every possibility to fill the schedule.

 

[shizzle787]

By the time superleagues come, Rutgers won’t be there

bottom line is that at some point it’ll be 40-60 schools versus the rest. And by that point I don’t think those other schools will just be sitting there letting it happen. I really feel at some point a line will be crossed. In terms of basketball, the NCAA gives way more money to schools that any conference would be able to get. If superleagues take the reigns then that would eliminate half the schools. Which would take a significant chunk of change out from schools pockets. We just don’t know what will happen.

It is already down to 57 schools.

 

[noeynox]

That's the rub. There aren't any proposals that will stop the inevitable. The only thing that matters is money. Money is the be all and end all in college athletics. So something like a 250k subscription model paying $25 a month (which is pie in the sky) for special access to wbb, mbb, fb, baseball, hockey, go way beyond Husky tv. That would entail clawing back rights to mbb and women's bb. Go nuts, and have the state give a tax credit for half that amount, convince them it's a public good. Create a sports journalism center. Push it through alumni relations. Have the state push it in the name of equity and pay for it for FARMS families. This of course is a crazy idea, but the gist is to leverage the volume of UConn fans across the spectrum to have them pay that elastic amount.

Okay, not terrible ideas, but we've kicked those around here over the years. To be frank, the production quality of things like Husky Vision are usually trash. Shoot most AAC WatchESPN games have crap production. I really think for the time being, Benedict has chosen the best path for our unique situation. Let our Nationally relevant Men's and Women's hoops programs play in a league where its network partner acts like it gives a crap about how the product looks to the TV audience. The BE gets paid a premium for their BB at least. FB gets a chance to play at some pretty big venues like Clemson, Auburn, Ohio State, Michigan etc., and hopefully build back up to respectability. One of the things I hated the most about the AAC is how low budget most broadcasts looked. It was a far cry from the Big East Thursday Night football games. Those felt and looked big time. ESPN and I think CBS sports weren't even sending announcers to the game sometimes I think.

 

[Drew]

Yep and the over on wins. I may lose but I feel strongly about it. I only wish I could get Leicester City odds.

I am on the over wins as well for 3 bills

 

[ZooCougar]

A conference of independents... a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron coined by a moron.

I'm waiting for another gem from Benedict, something like, "If life hands you lemons, make furniture."

You’re irritated by how it is worded? That was how Big East Football was formed. It was all the eastern independents minus Penn State.

 

[SubbaBub]

Who do the 20-40 super teams play? Each other? The 'Bamas, LSUs, and tOSUs rely on the Vanderbilts and Illinois's to pad their records. 20-40 team super league introduces too much parity at the top. Coaches use program domination for recruiting.

Yes, it's what they do now. Does anyone outside the SEC really think teams 5-14 are better than the middling teams in other P5 conferences? OSU beats up on Illinois, Bama, Georgia, LSU, beat up on Vandy, Tennessee, the Mississippi's etc.

The English Premier league does the same thing, the top 6 clubs are almost always the top 6 clubs. Bama, Georgia, LSU, Florida, OU, UT, will always be at the top of a 20 team SEC. OSU would always be among them in a 40 team super league.

The top teams aren't sitting on magical FB land that makes them good, they have the most money and their success attracts the top talent. That cycle applies to a 14 team league just as it would a 20 or 40 team league. Somebody is going to be a bottom feeder every year. They argument against a super league is that very fact, but these programs are either too arrogant to think that will be them or they are already bottom feeders in their current league and happy to collect the checks.

 

[Husky25]

Yes, it's what they do now. Does anyone outside the SEC really think teams 5-14 are better than the middling teams in other P5 conferences? OSU beats up on Illinois, Bama, Georgia, LSU, beat up on Vandy, Tennessee, the Mississippi's etc.

The English Premier league does the same thing, the top 6 clubs are almost always the top 6 clubs. Bama, Georgia, LSU, Florida, OU, UT, will always be at the top of a 20 team SEC. OSU would always be among them in a 40 team super league.

The top teams aren't sitting on magical FB land that makes them good, they have the most money and their success attracts the top talent. That cycle applies to a 14 team league just as it would a 20 or 40 team league. Somebody is going to be a bottom feeder every year. They argument against a super league is that very fact, but these programs are either too arrogant to think that will be them or they are already bottom feeders in their current league and happy to collect the checks.

Not exactly to what I am referring. Put the top 4 teams of each P5 league in the same conference and within a graduation cycle (two at the most; i.e. 8 years), I think the 'Bamas, LSUs, Clemsons, and tOSUs of the football world will be 9-3 at best, but not very often and not nearly enough for the alumni and rich boosters who have come to expect 0-1 loss seasons. Boy, would 9-3 vs 7-5 makes for a great playoff . Also there likely would be calls for some number of the bottom teams to be relegated. How does the media money get split in that case? Most of these schools are public institutions that require budgets and supplemental funding from their respective states to some level, that can't be in a year-to-year flux.

The European soccer leagues are professional. At the end of the day, the players making up these college programs start out as 17 year old kids, making decisions that will potentially affect the rest of their lives. I'm not talking about player NIL benefits. I think NIL for the athletes is a positive step...for the athlete. Not so much for the sport at the college level. As paper-thin as it is, college football still holds a veneer of amateurism, which makes it popular.

P5 college football is indeed elite...in terms of college football, but the closer college football gets to professional, the quicker its popularity wanes, and the money will dry up. The elite of the elite football is already available in the Fall, but it's played primarily on Sundays.

 

[businesslawyer]

I don't think it was meant that way. I also think we will be able to compete with the the bottom 1/2, maybe even bottom 2/3's of the Big Ten with a fully mature and stocked Randy Edsall program. We used to do it and he's bringing in solid talent again now.

This is the point. We beat Baylor, Indiana, Notre Dame, South Carolina, Iowa State and VAnderbilt. We beat UVA and Wake and Duke and Maryland. Within our region, we beat WVU once and held our own for a decade against Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse. Are we capable of competing with Michigan and Ohio State year in, year out? No. But are we capable of competing year in, year out with Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Rutgers and Maryland, and having some years where we threaten to be good in the Big Ten? Indiana was last year, and we beat them home and home early in Edsall 1. So why not?

But we can't do it now without both rebuilding the team and narrowing the money gap.

 

[gtcam]

What else is this jerk going to say. It sucks and I played a part in it?

 

[CONN78SEJ]

Not exactly to what I am referring. Put the top 4 teams of each P5 league in the same conference and within a graduation cycle (two at the most; i.e. 8 years), I think the 'Bamas, LSUs, Clemsons, and tOSUs of the football world will be 9-3 at best, but not very often and not nearly enough for the alumni and rich boosters who have come to expect 0-1 loss seasons. Boy, would 9-3 vs 7-5 makes for a great playoff . Also there likely would be calls for some number of the bottom teams to be relegated. How does the media money get split in that case? Most of these schools are public institutions that require budgets and supplemental funding from their respective states to some level, that can't be in a year-to-year flux.

The European soccer leagues are professional. At the end of the day, the players making up these college programs start out as 17 year old kids, making decisions that will potentially affect the rest of their lives. I'm not talking about player NIL benefits. I think NIL for the athletes is a positive step...for the athlete. Not so much for the sport at the college level. As paper-thin as it is, college football still holds a veneer of amateurism, which makes it popular.

P5 college football is indeed elite...in terms of college football, but the closer college football gets to professional, the quicker its popularity wanes, and the money will dry up. The elite of the elite football is already available in the Fall, but it's played primarily on Sundays.

I cannot believe that the Big 12 is done just because Texas and Oklahoma are leaving. For the past several years the top teams in the Big 12 have not been Oklahoma and Texas. On balance TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and a couple others have had great success, and in some years better success than Texas and Oklahoma.

 

[Watchdog]

I think it was more awkwardly worded than it was a bona fide Diacoism.

Basically saying the Independents can present a slate of teams for bowls to choose from for the games and also allows for some scheduling opportunities. Maybe more of the Article of Confederation than a Constitution. Of course, those Articles didn't work out so well, did they?

The SEC might contest your point about those Articles..........

 

[Watchdog]

I’ve chatted with someone in the know on the NMSU side and it was stated UConn doesn’t want to play them due to distance and location. I agree with you I’d like to play them annually though as they’re a fellow independent that we could schedule later in the season for what is almost an automatic W.

New Mexicon would be great for a late season road game. Drove through Las Cruces area in early December a few years ago and the weather was perfect. Nice road trip to White Sands Proving Ground, etc.

 

[Watchdog]

I cannot believe that the Big 12 is done just because Texas and Oklahoma are leaving. For the past several years the top teams in the Big 12 have not been Oklahoma and Texas. On balance TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and a couple others have had great success, and in some years better success than Texas and Oklahoma.

Logic doesn't count in conference realignment. It's all about the size of the fan base for the sport and Texas and Oklahoma have that and national recognition based on decades of success.....well not so much lately for Texas.