Analysis: Emotional pull of Big East vs. revenue boost of Big 12. Why UConn may be lured by Power 5 invite (Mike Anthony)

[huskymedic]

Nice job by Mike laying it out…




Assisted access <<

 

[husky99]

Good read

 

[huskeynut]

Excellent article.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Meh. The logic of leaving for the Big 12, that college athletics will consolidate power, is also an argument against going to the Big 12. If the same people that have been wrong for the last decade are suddenly right, and it becomes P5 or best, it will be P2 or bust soon enough. The Big 12 WILL LOSE over the next 10 years if college athletics continues to consolidate. And then UConn will be stuck in a far flung conference that will have lost its best programs.

Anthony ignores the fact that we are now in an NIL era where schools from urban areas and wealthy states would seem to have a huge advantage, and in a Transfer Portal era where top teams can no longer hoard talent. 3 non-P5 schools in the Final Four may not be that unusual going forward, and some version of that may be coming to football soon too. TV money and the ability to raise NIL are two very different things.

Finally, no one has any idea how streaming will effect college athletics. Right now the Big 12, which looks like an island of misfit toys of a league, has a nice contract. We are in the early days of streaming and that will change over time.

Just like cable busted the control of the NCAA over college football and basketball broadcasting, streaming, with all of its outlets, WILL break the stranglehold of ESPN over college sports broadcasting. NO ONE knows what will come next, and Anthony doesn't even try to predict it. Yet without a position on that, how can UConn make a long-term, bet-the-university, decision like joining the Big 12?

 

[ucp990411]

Meh. The logic of leaving for the Big 12, that college athletics will consolidate power, is also an argument against going to the Big 12. If the same people that have been wrong for the last decade are suddenly right, and it becomes P5 or best, it will be P2 or bust soon enough. The Big 12 WILL LOSE over the next 10 years if college athletics continues to consolidate. And then UConn will be stuck in a far flung conference that will have lost its best programs.

Anthony ignores the fact that we are now in an NIL era where schools from urban areas and wealthy states would seem to have a huge advantage, and in a Transfer Portal era where top teams can no longer hoard talent. 3 non-P5 schools in the Final Four may not be that unusual going forward, and some version of that may be coming to football soon too. TV money and the ability to raise NIL are two very different things.

Finally, no one has any idea how streaming will effect college athletics. Right now the Big 12, which looks like an island of misfit toys of a league, has a nice contract. We are in the early days of streaming and that will change over time.

Just like cable busted the control of the NCAA over college football and basketball broadcasting, streaming, with all of its outlets, WILL break the stranglehold of ESPN over college sports broadcasting. NO ONE knows what will come next, and Anthony doesn't even try to predict it. Yet without a position on that, how can UConn make a long-term, bet-the-university, decision like joining the Big 12?

So let’s continue to lose 40 mil a year because nobody knows the future?

 

[willie99]

Gosh darn it, I'm so conflicted and @nelsonmuntz didn't help

I guess the best thing about this whole process, It's not my decision

I'll just buy tickets and hope for the best

Whatever Hurley wants, I want

 

[djct1999]

Meh. The logic of leaving for the Big 12, that college athletics will consolidate power, is also an argument against going to the Big 12. If the same people that have been wrong for the last decade are suddenly right, and it becomes P5 or best, it will be P2 or bust soon enough. The Big 12 WILL LOSE over the next 10 years if college athletics continues to consolidate. And then UConn will be stuck in a far flung conference that will have lost its best programs.

Anthony ignores the fact that we are now in an NIL era where schools from urban areas and wealthy states would seem to have a huge advantage, and in a Transfer Portal era where top teams can no longer hoard talent. 3 non-P5 schools in the Final Four may not be that unusual going forward, and some version of that may be coming to football soon too. TV money and the ability to raise NIL are two very different things.

Finally, no one has any idea how streaming will effect college athletics. Right now the Big 12, which looks like an island of misfit toys of a league, has a nice contract. We are in the early days of streaming and that will change over time.

Just like cable busted the control of the NCAA over college football and basketball broadcasting, streaming, with all of its outlets, WILL break the stranglehold of ESPN over college sports broadcasting. NO ONE knows what will come next, and Anthony doesn't even try to predict it. Yet without a position on that, how can UConn make a long-term, bet-the-university, decision like joining the Big 12?

All salient points. The irony though is your post seems to be anti Big 12 but if you actually think it all through, it screams for UConn to run to the Big 12. So I am confused. Are you suggesting UConn should wait 10 years in the Big East until the P2 forms? At that point, the Big East and its members may be obsolete. The Big 12 offers a lifeline. It buys time. It allows UConn to grow. And in 10 years, who knows. Maybe the outcome will be same. But for UConn to even be considered then, it has to go now.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

All salient points. The irony though is your post seems to be anti Big 12 but if you actually think it all through, it screams for UConn to run to the Big 12. So I am confused. Are you suggesting UConn should wait 10 years in the Big East until the P2 forms? At that point, the Big East and its members may be obsolete. The Big 12 offers a lifeline. It buys time. It allows UConn to grow. And in 10 years, who knows. Maybe the outcome will be same. But for UConn to even be considered then, it has to go now.

The Big 12 may not be a lifeline, it may be an anchor.

I suspect everyone is going to want to see the Pac 12 TV contract before anything happens. Even if the money is less, if Apple signs the Pac 12, it is a gamechanger for college sports.

 

[Kemba15]

Gosh darn it, I'm so conflicted and @nelsonmuntz didn't help

I guess the best thing about this whole process, It's not my decision

I'll just buy tickets and hope for the best

Whatever Hurley wants, I want

I wouldn't be surprised if Hurley wants to stay but it's obviously not his decision

 

[djct1999]

The Big 12 may not be a lifeline, it may be an anchor.

I suspect everyone is going to want to see the Pac 12 TV contract before anything happens. Even if the money is less, if Apple signs the Pac 12, it is a gamechanger for college sports.

If the big 12 becomes an anchor, the big East is already at the bottom of the ocean. UConn may drown either way, but the big 12 allows it to possibly swim to shore. I am not sure if Apple becomes a game changer or not. Obviously, streaming is the future but depending on what Apple pays, it can be a needle that pops the media rights bubble. The pac 12 is desperate.

The recipe is simple. Join Big 12 and do everything they can to gain aau status. If they are able to achieve that before music stops, they have a legit chance. If not, then it was all a waste. At this point, too much has been invested to give up trying.

 

[ScottVib]

Just as UConn has continued to monitor the conference alignment over the last few years to make the move that was in the school's best interest (leave AAC); it needs to make the move in their best interest at the time. In this scenario it's the Big XII (if offered). You can't forgo the extra $30M annually just in case things go bad for that league in 7 years. You use the best information you have at the time of the decision and there isn't enough there to say definitively the Big XII (which has deals with both major collegiate sports right-holders). If the circumstances change in 7 years, then UConn will have another decision to make, but for now, there really is only one decision that could be made, if an all-sports invite comes from the Big XII (or even the seemingly dead-men walking that are the ACC) they have to make the move.

 

[John]

Gosh darn it, I'm so conflicted and @nelsonmuntz didn't help

I guess the best thing about this whole process, It's not my decision

I'll just buy tickets and hope for the best

Whatever Hurley wants, I want

he's a great basketball coach, but let's leave the strategic business decisions to the professionals.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I wouldn't be surprised if Hurley wants to stay but it's obviously not his decision

He probably does. But I don't think he views the B12 as being a step down in competition or a situation that harms his recruiting.

I get people who are nostalgic for the Big East and familiar names (I'm not because it's too different now). I don't get people who are irrational about the actual quality of play in the B12. Dan is a NJ guy, but so was Bobby, who played ball in NC and now coaches in AZ. We are a national program, not limited to recruiting the northeast. A whole lot of talent from this region goes to schools not in the Big East. It's not a problem.

 

[Greedo]

The Big 12 may not be a lifeline, it may be an anchor.

I suspect everyone is going to want to see the Pac 12 TV contract before anything happens. Even if the money is less, if Apple signs the Pac 12, it is a gamechanger for college sports.

You keep hammering this point in every thread, and I'm struggling to see how Apple would be a game changer. Apple already has MLS, and it wasn't a game changer for MLS. I saw an article the other day that said they've met 40% of their initial subscriber projection for MLS. A streaming service like Amazon may be a game changer because everyone already has Amazon. But no one outside of hard core PAC 12 fans would sign up for Apple's streaming service just to watch their games.

If anything, Apple's experience with MLS will probably give them pause when evaluating further sports league contracts. Because adding the PAC 12 definitely wouldn't move the needle for them (especially with USC and UCLA gone). Not to mention, Apple's MLS subscription is separate from their general streaming subscription. I have Apple TV, but don't have access to their MLS subscription. Would they do the same for the PAC? That's such a low benefit to pay for as a subscriber.

 

[king conn]

The PAC is invisible to the rest of the country as it is.

Then they are going to go to Apple Lol

By the time an agreement with Apple ends, that conference would be so unnoticible their next agreement would probably be cut in half

 

[Palatine]

Emotion should play zero role in evaluating this situation.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The PAC is invisible to the rest of the country as it is.

Then they are going to go to Apple Lol

By the time an agreement with Apple ends, that conference would be so unnoticible their next agreement would probably be cut in half

Let's do more stuff on cable!!!!!

 

[king conn]

Let's do more stuff on cable!!!!!

There's this thing called network tv that actually works in a variety of ways along with cable.

And get this, people actually watch the networks!

 

[djct1999]

Let's do more stuff on cable!!!!!

You aren’t wrong. But it’s crazy to assume that streaming may be a net benefit to schools and leagues. It probably means less money not more. (For 90% of schools)

 

[superjohn]

He probably does. But I don't think he views the B12 as being a step down in competition or a situation that harms his recruiting.

I get people who are nostalgic for the Big East and familiar names (I'm not because it's too different now). I don't get people who are irrational about the actual quality of play in the B12. Dan is a NJ guy, but so was Bobby, who played ball in NC and now coaches in AZ. We are a national program, not limited to recruiting the northeast. A whole lot of talent from this region goes to schools not in the Big East. It's not a problem.

I don't get why so many people here say the Big East is too different from what it was and people are holding onto nostalgia. All the Big East lost are Syracuse, Pitt, and BC. BC pretty much always sucked outside of a few years. The Big 12 hardly looks anything like what it was. Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado are all gone.

 

[RayIsTheGOAT]

Emotion should play zero role in evaluating this situation.

Exactly. It’s not about the emotional pull of the Big East. It’s about what it does for the long term success of our men’s basketball program. There really is no other reason to stay in the Big East other than the potential upside it has for our men’s basketball program.

Does the potential drop in local recruiting for men’s basketball, not playing in MSG for the BET, and not being able to drive a bus to half your away games in-conference outweigh the lift in all other sports AND the long-term extra money that can be used to improve coach salaries and upgrade facilities? Do increased travel costs just mitigate all of that though?

The Big 12 is also, by most metrics, the best men’s basketball conference. It’s not like we’d be ditching the men’s basketball program. It would just be an adjustment. Freaking UCLA, the winningest men’s basketball program ever has one conference mate west of Nebraska now. I think we can handle traveling to Kansas. We already do, basically.

It’s such a complicated issue, I lean towards having to take the invite if it’s offered. But I don’t love it, especially if there’s something coming down the pipe with the ACC/Big East merging, or something. Whatever AD Dave thinks is best, I’m on board with.

 

[Jbirdp5]

Biggest concern from the article was how he mentioned coaches and players hate travel…..our whole season would be one long flight after another…I don’t think the school will look at it as a reason not to go, but it can clearly be an impediment to success.

 

[RayIsTheGOAT]

Biggest concern from the article was how he mentioned coaches and players hate travel…..our whole season would be one long flight after another…I don’t think the school will look at it as a reason not to go, but it can clearly be an impediment to success.

If it was that big of a concern, I don’t think UCLA and USC would’ve agreed to join a conference where their second nearest conference mate is in eastern Nebraska.

It’s just the way of the world now.

 

[Waquoit]

I wouldn't be surprised if Hurley wants to stay but it's obviously not his decision

I wouldn't be surprised if Hurley is all for it. He didn't rebuild this program and win a title by living in the past.

 

[nadav]

I think it's a good move potentially, but if we get passed up again and you have to imagine we will (it's our thing), let's just keep on winning (also our thing).

We are in a much better spot in the BE than we were a few years back and not as desperate.

 

[John]

I think it's a good move potentially, but if we get passed up again and you have to imagine we will (it's our thing), let's just keep on winning (also our thing).

We are in a much better spot in the BE than we were a few years back and not as desperate.

the BE is a great spot for us until better things come along.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You aren’t wrong. But it’s crazy to assume that streaming may be a net benefit to schools and leagues. It probably means less money not more. (For 90% of schools)

In the last 40 years, the diversity of channels and then the internet actually fragmented the audience for content. In the 60's, 70's and 80's, everyone watched three networks, CBS, NBC and ABC. The ratings for those shows were incredible by today's standards, even though a lot of those shows sucked. Then, as cable channels proliferated, a few people managed to push out syndicated original content like the Star Trek franchise or Baywatch on local channels and places like USA Network. Content for kids started showing up outside the major networks, and ringing up pretty good numbers for non-network shows.

Then HBO started making original content. The Sopranos changed everything. There was NO WAY that show could go on broadcast television, and while its audience numbers were big, they were nothing like the broadcast audiences for even mediocre shows. But it simultaneously changed both television and the movie industry forever. All the cable channels started developing original content, and the networks re-thought what qualified as a hit. Movie producers realized that cable might be a better platform for content targeting people over 30, and started churning out the best television in history. Most importantly, no one needed to produce weak, vanilla content that had to appeal/not offend 20 million people. Artists could make interesting, niche content.

The West Wing would have definitely been cancelled in 2001 or 2002 if not for the Sopranos. The West Wing was expensive to make and it was generally not a Top 20 show. But it was prestige television and NBC was light on that kind of programming at the time. Then AMC, which was hanging by a thread, produced Mad Men and Breaking Bad, which saved the network and launched AMC into this weird hybrid of niche, prestige television and horror. Showtime produced some hits like Shameless and Dexter. FX, TNT and USA all got into the game, along with a lot of the niche channels like Nickelodeon.

Not everyone wanted to watch award winning TV. MTV kicked off the dramality genre, which took over channels like Bravo and TLC. I am guessing that the founders of Bravo are appalled (if they are still alive) that their channel, which was originally targeted at the Lincoln Center set, is now primarily broadcasting middle-aged women wearing $5,000 outfits scream nonsense at each other in front of a drunk Andy Cohen.

Netflix was initially a renter of movies, but transitioned into an incredibly profitable movie and TV studio, churning out mediocre content at good prices that keep its subscribers just happy enough to pay the next month's bill. The major networks and studios all raced to get in the game, with Disney/Hulu (ABC), Peacock (NBC) and Paramount (CBS) all trying to keep up with changes they fought for years. Being a reseller (like a network or certainly a cable provider) is basically a dead business model. The content producers will own the future because they don't need much help from the networks, and they need none from cable.

So where is sports? Kind of like TV was when the Sopranos first went on the air. People are realizing that they can watch what they want, not what ESPN decides they should see. I have some ideas about what might happen, but the only thing I am 100% certain of is that sports broadcasting will look hugely different in 10 years.

 

[djct1999]

In the last 40 years, the diversity of channels and then the internet actually fragmented the audience for content. In the 60's, 70's and 80's, everyone watched three networks, CBS, NBC and ABC. The ratings for those shows were incredible by today's standards, even though a lot of those shows sucked. Then, as cable channels proliferated, a few people managed to push out syndicated original content like the Star Trek franchise or Baywatch on local channels and places like USA Network. Content for kids started showing up outside the major networks, and ringing up pretty good numbers for non-network shows.

Then HBO started making original content. The Sopranos changed everything. There was NO WAY that show could go on broadcast television, and while its audience numbers were big, they were nothing like the broadcast audiences for even mediocre shows. But it simultaneously changed both television and the movie industry forever. All the cable channels started developing original content, and the networks re-thought what qualified as a hit. Movie producers realized that cable might be a better platform for content targeting people over 30, and started churning out the best television in history.

The West Wing would have definitely been cancelled in 2001 or 2002 if not for the Sopranos. The West Wing was expensive to make and it was generally not a Top 20 show. But it was prestige television and NBC was light on that kind of programming at the time. Then AMC, which was hanging by a thread, produced Mad Men and Breaking Bad, which saved the network and launched AMC into this weird hybrid of niche, prestige television and horror. Showtime produced some hits like Shameless and Dexter. FX, TNT and USA all got into the game, along with a lot of the niche channels like Nickelodeon.

Not everyone wanted to watch award winning TV. MTV kicked off the dramality genre, which took over channels like Bravo and TLC. I am guessing that the founders of Bravo are appalled (if they are still alive) that their channel, which was originally targeted at the Lincoln Center set, is now primarily broadcasting middle-aged women wearing $5,000 outfits scream nonsense at each other in front of a drunk Andy Cohen.

Netflix was initially a renter of movies, but transitioned into an incredibly profitable movie and TV studio, churning out mediocre content at good prices that keep its subscribers just happy enough to pay the next month's bill. The major networks and studios all raced to get in the game, with Disney/Hulu (ABC), Peacock (NBC) and Paramount (CBS) all trying to keep up with changes they fought for years. Being a reseller (like a network or certainly a cable provider) is basically a dead business model. The content producers will own the future because they don't need much help from the networks, and they need none from cable.

So where is sports? Kind of like TV was when the Sopranos first went on the air. People are realizing that they can watch what they want, not what ESPN decides they should see. I have some ideas about what might happen, but the only thing I am 100% certain of is that sports broadcasting will look hugely different in 10 years.

Spot on. But will it mean more or less money for individual schools?

For example, I recently cut the chord and got YouTube tv. I used to be a diehard yankee fan but over time, my interest has waned a bit. I can get yes network dtc. I chose not to. Why? I don’t care enough and am happy getting scores/updates on Twitter. The same will happen with college sports. In my opinion, streaming will burst this bubble and most schools will suffer.

 

[John]

I don't get why so many people here say the Big East is too different from what it was and people are holding onto nostalgia. All the Big East lost are Syracuse, Pitt, and BC. BC pretty much always sucked outside of a few years. The Big 12 hardly looks anything like what it was. Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado are all gone.

they lost a lot more than that

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Spot on. But will it mean more or less money for individual schools?

Let's look at what happened with TV. 35 years ago, there were three (soon to be 4) networks, and a bunch of local channels showing reruns. I have no idea how many outlets are producing original video content today, but it is a huge number. The idea that a handful of schools will consolidate all the power seems unlikely when there is no way to consolidate access to content. ESPN held life and death sway over the Big East 20 or 12 years ago. Now? They are just a glorified production company with a few middle aged exjock talking heads tacked onto each end of the sports broadcast. ESPN's per box lifeline is drying up. That carriage fee both enabled ESPN to pay a lot for content, and created a huge incentive for ESPN to maintain its semi-monopoly position in sports broadcasting. That is over.

I think every major content provider will at least look into reselling sports, but long-term, I think the sports content producers (i.e. the leagues or schools themselves) are going to be selling their own content directly. That could take a while though.