Big 12 Non-Expansion: What Does It Mean to the AAC and UConn?

[Dooley]

Benedict has made a few very interesting comments addressing our biggest PR profile weakness (football/fan support) and the upcoming cash deficits. In my opinion, our biggest issue as a fanbase is this continued segmented mentality we have. Unite the fanbase as one single UConn entity and that will provide a nice immediate, albeit smallish, bump in football attendance. Cross-promote hoops, hockey, soccer with football.

Could not agree more that now is the time to double down on football, not cut funding. You get what you pay for and our assistant's coaching pool is mediocre. I know it won't happen, but hypothetically, what if we were still able to afford Don Brown as our DC. You think we will still play soft zone and let opposing offenses dictate play to us? No way. What if we had the money to bring TJ Weist back as OC? Or another guy like Joe Moorhead (again hypothetically speaking)? While how much you pay a coach doesn't dictate how successful he has been or can be in the future, it does provide for more flexibility in the hiring process to fill out a staff. Maybe we throw more money at OL coach or QB coach or hire a clock management coach. Yes, finding the money and support is tough given our low attendance and shortfall of cash. But I'm a firm believer in spending money to make money. If football is the one thing keeping us out of a P5 conference, then let's fix it together.

I'm looking forward to hearing what will come out of Benedict's conversations with ESPN. The bad blood has been brewing for a while and it seems to be front and center now. Yes, ESPN is running a business and they don't want to pay UConn a penny more than they are - we are ESPN's biggest value. But our athletic department is a business too and has to look out for itself. Getting our annual payout closer to our Tier 3 value, at the very least, is a good place to start. Maybe the next AAC deal will be a sliding scale variety - Type A schools (UConn, UH, UC) will receive a higher payout than the likes of ECU/SMU/Tulsa/Tulane etc. Or maybe the AAC/UConn will negotiate to have our Tier 3's returned to us so we can farm them out ourselves. I don't know what the answer will be but I'm encouraged that the topic is definitely on Benedict's radar and will be addressed soon.

 

[ZooCougar]

Benedict has made a few very interesting comments addressing our biggest PR profile weakness (football/fan support) and the upcoming cash deficits. In my opinion, our biggest issue as a fanbase is this continued segmented mentality we have. Unite the fanbase as one single UConn entity and that will provide a nice immediate, albeit smallish, bump in football attendance. Cross-promote hoops, hockey, soccer with football.

Could not agree more that now is the time to double down on football, not cut funding. You get what you pay for and our assistant's coaching pool is mediocre. I know it won't happen, but hypothetically, what if we were still able to afford Don Brown as our DC. You think we will still play soft zone and let opposing offenses dictate play to us? No way. What if we had the money to bring TJ Weist back as OC? Or another guy like Joe Moorhead (again hypothetically speaking)? While how much you pay a coach doesn't dictate how successful he has been or can be in the future, it does provide for more flexibility in the hiring process to fill out a staff. Maybe we throw more money at OL coach or QB coach or hire a clock management coach. Yes, finding the money and support is tough given our low attendance and shortfall of cash. But I'm a firm believer in spending money to make money. If football is the one thing keeping us out of a P5 conference, then let's fix it together.

I'm looking forward to hearing what will come out of Benedict's conversations with ESPN. The bad blood has been brewing for a while and it seems to be front and center now. Yes, ESPN is running a business and they don't want to pay UConn a penny more than they are - we are ESPN's biggest value. But our athletic department is a business too and has to look out for itself. Getting our annual payout closer to our Tier 3 value, at the very least, is a good place to start. Maybe the next AAC deal will be a sliding scale variety - Type A schools (UConn, UH, UC) will receive a higher payout than the likes of ECU/SMU/Tulsa/Tulane etc. Or maybe the AAC/UConn will negotiate to have our Tier 3's returned to us so we can farm them out ourselves. I don't know what the answer will be but I'm encouraged that the topic is definitely on Benedict's radar and will be addressed soon.

Great post.

 

[Confident Carl]

If basketball is so atrocious in the AAC, I would hope UConn would've won a regular season title by now. And as far as football goes, we're where we belong. At least for now.

The old Big East it ain't. But it also isn't the worst league in the world. It's important that SMU not tank back to where they were before Larry Brown arrived.

I agree with you. Below is some commentary I made in this post. Not sure if you saw it so am pasting hear again. I looked up the March Madness stats and all things considered the American stacks up fairly well.

Big East is a better basketball conference but atrocious for the AAC is a bit too harsh. Seven of the American's 11 teams (UCONN, Cincy, Houston, Memphis, Temple, SMU and Tulsa) have some tradition in basketball. The Big East teams consisting of Butler, Creighton, Depaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova and Xavier are sexier seasoned teams. USF and UCF are relatively new to big time Basketball. ECU being in North Carolina has never been a power but I can see them improving. The American has some really good coaches too. Although the Big East is better it is somewhat comforting to see that the NCAA tournament numbers are not that far apart. Obviously UCONN impacts the American's numbers considerably but non the less the comparison leaves some room for optimism.

AMERICAN..... BIG....EAST
NCAA CHAMPS ..6 ..4
NCAA RUNNER UP..... 5.. 9
NCAA FINAL 4.. 22..... 22
NCAA ELITE 8... 41..... 49
NCAA SWEET 16..... 69..... 87
NCAA APPEARANCES 175....228

 

[ZooCougar]

How does the AAC stack up in terms of RPI? If it's better or equal to the Big East then I'll gladly shut up.

One less thing to worry about.

 

[upstater]

Tulsa is the only AAC member in the top 100 of the US News undergrad rankings besides UConn, Tulane and SMU. They're actually a very good academic school.

As for location, the state of Oklahoma has over 300,000 more people than the state of Connecticut and growing at a much faster rate. More importantly, Oklahoma has one of the best per capita FBS recruit production rates of any state in the country. The state of Oklahoma produces almost twice as many FBS recruits annually than the entire state of New York *outright* (despite having less than 1/5th of the population of New York) and nearly the same amount of FBS recruits as the legitimately high school football-crazy state of Tennessee (despite having only 2/3rds of the population of Tennessee). Maybe it's the Northeastern bias here, but the perception of Oklahoma being a small low population state is completely incorrect. It's a fast growing state that is already larger than Connecticut and produces FBS football talent at an extraordinarily high rate. Whether Tulsa delivers that market from a TV perspective is debatable, but the location in and of itself brings a ton of value to a conference from a football recruiting perspective.

Let's put it this way: there are LOT of G5 schools that are worth a whole lot less than Tulsa. On the metrics that university presidents purport to care about such as academics and demographics, Tulsa is actually near the top among G5 schools.

For all that Oklahoma talent, Tulsa produces the lowest amount of NFL talent in the AAC, 5 to UConn's 20, which is amazing considering that UConn is in what you seem to describe as a talent wasteland.

So explain that one. I mean, Northeastern "bias" is a cheap card to play given that. There may indeed be a northeastern bias--against the northeast.

Besides, Oklahoma and UConn are similar population wise, the state of Connecticut has one land grant university. Just one. No pro sports.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma has the Oklahoma City Thunder, U. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

I mean, are you seriously standing behind your post?

 

[MattMang23]

Actually, it doesn't really matter how many, after 2 #nutkicks they all blur together.

There is an entirely different reason it stops mattering after two nutkicks. When you don't have any nuts left to kick it no longer hurts.

 

[ZooCougar]

Tulsa is the only AAC member in the top 100 of the US News undergrad rankings besides UConn, Tulane and SMU. They're actually a very good academic school.

As for location, the state of Oklahoma has over 300,000 more people than the state of Connecticut and growing at a much faster rate. More importantly, Oklahoma has one of the best per capita FBS recruit production rates of any state in the country. The state of Oklahoma produces almost twice as many FBS recruits annually than the entire state of New York *outright* (despite having less than 1/5th of the population of New York) and nearly the same amount of FBS recruits as the legitimately high school football-crazy state of Tennessee (despite having only 2/3rds of the population of Tennessee). Maybe it's the Northeastern bias here, but the perception of Oklahoma being a small low population state is completely incorrect. It's a fast growing state that is already larger than Connecticut and produces FBS football talent at an extraordinarily high rate. Whether Tulsa delivers that market from a TV perspective is debatable, but the location in and of itself brings a ton of value to a conference from a football recruiting perspective.

Let's put it this way: there are LOT of G5 schools that are worth a whole lot less than Tulsa. On the metrics that university presidents purport to care about such as academics and demographics, Tulsa is actually near the top among G5 schools.

Nice facts about Oklahoma, but it doesn't appear that the positives apply much to Tulsa. Small private school, distant third program in a state etc.

 

[ZooCougar]

In Oklahoma, minor league soccer draws about as many fans as Tulsa sports.

 

[ZooCougar]

Tulsa is the only AAC member in the top 100 of the US News undergrad rankings besides UConn, Tulane and SMU. They're actually a very good academic school.

As for location, the state of Oklahoma has over 300,000 more people than the state of Connecticut and growing at a much faster rate. More importantly, Oklahoma has one of the best per capita FBS recruit production rates of any state in the country. The state of Oklahoma produces almost twice as many FBS recruits annually than the entire state of New York *outright* (despite having less than 1/5th of the population of New York) and nearly the same amount of FBS recruits as the legitimately high school football-crazy state of Tennessee (despite having only 2/3rds of the population of Tennessee). Maybe it's the Northeastern bias here, but the perception of Oklahoma being a small low population state is completely incorrect. It's a fast growing state that is already larger than Connecticut and produces FBS football talent at an extraordinarily high rate. Whether Tulsa delivers that market from a TV perspective is debatable, but the location in and of itself brings a ton of value to a conference from a football recruiting perspective.

Let's put it this way: there are LOT of G5 schools that are worth a whole lot less than Tulsa. On the metrics that university presidents purport to care about such as academics and demographics, Tulsa is actually near the top among G5 schools.

Northeastern bias? I live in KC.

Now I remember why I stopped listening to you years ago. Your bias claim is always your first card.

 

[frankthetank]

Would like to hear @frankthetank thoughts on AAC/MWC merger or partial merger with the goal of being a Power 6 conference (and getting paid like it). My guess is nobody in old media or new is willing to pony up.

I think there are a few issues with this:

(1) BYU isn't joining this type of league. I've noted this elsewhere. Suffice to say, they will die a fiery death as an independent before they would ever join anything less than a P5 league as long as Utah is in the Pac-12. Without BYU, the value of this potential league drops considerably.

(2) At a pure contractual level, being a "power conference" means that a league needs to have a guaranteed contractual tie-in with one of the New Year's Six bowls. Would any of those bowls want to lock in AAC/MWC hybrid school or would they rather just take whichever P5 school falls to them? I believe history indicates the latter. The NY6 (and previously the BCS) bowls have tried to avoid the non-power schools like a hot potato, so why would they lock themselves in contractually with any of those schools? Realistically, that's not going to happen, which means that there will never be a "P6". We're much more likely to see a P4 than a P6 in the future.

(3) The TV money might be a little better with a partial merger (essentially taking the best of each of the AAC and MWC together), but it's probably not going to be as much as fans of the applicable schools would hope. From a TV perspective, Boise State is really the lynch pin - if they're willing to make a move, then the networks would take notice and I could see them providing a slight bump in fees. Without Boise State, though, then it doesn't work. They're really the key from a national TV viewpoint. Once again, though, it's all circular. Without the power conference label and talent, TV networks essentially look at it as a lower tier product (think English Premier League versus MLS) and will pay it accordingly. MLS gets better deals than lower division soccer leagues, but they're not in the same universe as the top European leagues.

 

[frankthetank]

For all that Oklahoma talent, Tulsa produces the lowest amount of NFL talent in the AAC, 5 to UConn's 20, which is amazing considering that UConn is in what you seem to describe as a talent wasteland.

So explain that one. I mean, Northeastern "bias" is a cheap card to play given that. There may indeed be a northeastern bias--against the northeast.

Besides, Oklahoma and UConn are similar population wise, the state of Connecticut has one land grant university. Just one. No pro sports.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma has the Oklahoma City Thunder, U. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

I mean, are you seriously standing behind your post?

Standing behind that I think Tulsa is a good academic school and people seem to be discounting the size of Oklahoma itself? Yes, I will stand behind that. Do I think Tulsa is some type of world-beater? Of course not. I think the last two sentences of my post are a fair summary:

"Whether Tulsa delivers that market from a TV perspective is debatable, but the location in and of itself brings a ton of value to a conference from a football recruiting perspective.

Let's put it this way: there are LOT of G5 schools that are worth a whole lot less than Tulsa. On the metrics that university presidents purport to care about such as academics and demographics, Tulsa is actually near the top among G5 schools."

I mean, who is the AAC adding if it dropped Tulsa (which is effectively the statement that I was responding to)? The AAC in its current form hasn't been able to lure MWC schools, so you're looking at the pool of C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt schools. This isn't about whether Tulsa is more popular than the Sooners or Oklahoma State (which they obviously aren't in the vicinity of right now). My post was in response to the general question of "Why did the AAC add Tulsa?" Well, just look at the other options that the AAC has in C-USA, MAC and the Sun Belt. Outside of Rice (whose market is already covered by Houston in the AAC), it's pretty slim pickings whether you're talking about academics, location and branding.

 

[frankthetank]

Northeastern bias? I live in KC.

Now I remember why I stopped listening to you years ago. Your bias claim is always your first card.

Yeesh - OK, so the Northeastern bias reference obviously touched a nerve. Apologies as I meant no harm. That being said, I would disagree that a "bias claim" is my first card outside that I think fans are very biased by "What have you done for me lately?" results on the football field.

 

[ZooCougar]

Standing behind that I think Tulsa is a good academic school and people seem to be discounting the size of Oklahoma itself? Yes, I will stand behind that. Do I think Tulsa is some type of world-beater? Of course not. I think the last two sentences of my post are a fair summary:

"Whether Tulsa delivers that market from a TV perspective is debatable, but the location in and of itself brings a ton of value to a conference from a football recruiting perspective.

Let's put it this way: there are LOT of G5 schools that are worth a whole lot less than Tulsa. On the metrics that university presidents purport to care about such as academics and demographics, Tulsa is actually near the top among G5 schools."

I mean, who is the AAC adding if it dropped Tulsa (which is effectively the statement that I was responding to)? The AAC in its current form hasn't been able to lure MWC schools, so you're looking at the pool of C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt schools. This isn't about whether Tulsa is more popular than the Sooners or Oklahoma State (which they obviously aren't in the vicinity of right now). My post was in response to the general question of "Why did the AAC add Tulsa?" Well, just look at the other options that the AAC has in C-USA, MAC and the Sun Belt. Outside of Rice (whose market is already covered by Houston in the AAC), it's pretty slim pickings whether you're talking about academics, location and branding.

Standing by your Tulsa logic, maybe we should add La Tech and double down on Louisiana.

Tulsa doesn't give us much access. But I would punt Tulane first.

 

[ZooCougar]

Yeesh - OK, so the Northeastern bias reference obviously touched a nerve. Apologies as I meant no harm. That being said, I would disagree that a "bias claim" is my first card outside that I think fans are very biased by "What have you done for me lately?" results on the football field.

I live in this wind blown territory unfortunately.

I go to Tulsa for Tulsa Tough every other year or so, the school and it's sports really don't register much down there. They have a 30,000 seat stadium and they don't even fill it to 2/3ds as of late.

Imagine if Depauw played Division I. That's kind of what Tulsa seems to be in Oklahoma.

 

[Pudge]

My Problem with Frank ...

I have to first start - always - you B1G guys took RUTGERS. We have been around them so long that WE knew that they would fall flat on their face. Forever. Schiano was illusory; one or two good years ... and he consistently played Howard or Norfolk because he could lose easily to Lehigh or Villanova or UNH.

But ... the Northeast>? Nobody has harvested the demographics for truly talented football players with honestly solid opportunity at a Public State U. Syracuse and BC is not about that. UConn has an opportunity in raising talent that none of these had because we can really reach and develop raw speed/tenacity kids. Randy Edsall, actually, was doing a solid job of this. Diaco has this. Saying Oklahoma will always have more recruits for FBS is ignorant. They have 3 in-state schools playing. Many many kids are routed to the Colonial in our NY/NE + NJ + MD + PA corridor. The point: we are still relatively new to this. You can't have 5 times the population (actually more like 10) and get less than Oklahoma on raw talent. Our HS football also is a drawback. That is changing as the Prep route is becoming preferred as in hoop.

And ... HOOP. ZooCougar hit on it. UConn fans want to know that we are going to be in a solid hoop league. This AAC has UConn + Cincinnati this year. Memphis, Temple, SMU, Houston clearly can be damn good. But you have a bunch of dregs (USF, UCF, ECU, Tulsa (now that they lost 8 seniors), Tulane) that have not looked like they can pick it up. Dawkins, Dunleavy, Tubby, Sampson give you some hope.

USF and UCF ... Houston ... locked out of the Power 5 actually can consistently grow and therefore create market value far beyond.

Lastly to Frank: I have a continuing skepticism on where the "Conference" and "Network" and "Bowl" discussion is going. In Cord Cutting and new forms of distribution, the biggest idiocy was long term contracts. Enjoy the Rutgers Scarlet Knights.

 

[upstater]

Benedict's conversation with ESPN will be interesting. If it were me, I'd be telling them that either UConn gets its third tier rights to give them to SNY, or otherwise UConn/ESPN collaborate on a channel that is dedicated to UConn sports (you might want to call the channel Original ESPN or something along those lines), but ESPN wants absolutely nothing to do with this because it owns UConn sports for pennies on the dollar.

Does Benedict have ANY political support for these conversations?

I should hope he does.

Because that's the only way that UConn is going to be able to monetize its popularity within the state of Connecticut.

 

[frankthetank]

Standing by your Tulsa logic, maybe we should add La Tech and double down on Louisiana.

Tulsa doesn't give us much access. But I would punt Tulane first.

Tulane is a legitimately excellent academic school, though - that's what university presidents want. It's pretty instructive that Tulane got to round 2 of the Big 12 non-expansion process while Memphis didn't.

To me, schools like FIU, FAU and UTSA are probably going to be the most valuable non-MWC expansion options for the AAC to the extent that the league would even want to expand. Those are large schools in big markets and recruiting areas that aren't currently covered by the AAC. Whether any of these schools actually "deliver" their markets is almost beside the point - it's hard to expect any G5 school to actually "deliver" a market. As a result, the calculations are more toward recruiting areas, demographics, etc. UMass is also probably on that list (although UConn fans may or may not want to really help them out).

 

[ZooCougar]

I think there are a few issues with this:

(1) BYU isn't joining this type of league. I've noted this elsewhere. Suffice to say, they will die a fiery death as an independent before they would ever join anything less than a P5 league as long as Utah is in the Pac-12. Without BYU, the value of this potential league drops considerably.

(2) At a pure contractual level, being a "power conference" means that a league needs to have a guaranteed contractual tie-in with one of the New Year's Six bowls. Would any of those bowls want to lock in AAC/MWC hybrid school or would they rather just take whichever P5 school falls to them? I believe history indicates the latter. The NY6 (and previously the BCS) bowls have tried to avoid the non-power schools like a hot potato, so why would they lock themselves in contractually with any of those schools? Realistically, that's not going to happen, which means that there will never be a "P6". We're much more likely to see a P4 than a P6 in the future.

(3) The TV money might be a little better with a partial merger (essentially taking the best of each of the AAC and MWC together), but it's probably not going to be as much as fans of the applicable schools would hope. From a TV perspective, Boise State is really the lynch pin - if they're willing to make a move, then the networks would take notice and I could see them providing a slight bump in fees. Without Boise State, though, then it doesn't work. They're really the key from a national TV viewpoint. Once again, though, it's all circular. Without the power conference label and talent, TV networks essentially look at it as a lower tier product (think English Premier League versus MLS) and will pay it accordingly. MLS gets better deals than lower division soccer leagues, but they're not in the same universe as the top European leagues.

Actually, TV ratings drive what US networks pay for soccer.

If MLS had better ratings they would pay more.

EPL probably has the highest fees in the US but I bet Fox pays less for the Bundesliga than they do for MLS because it doesn't have the appeal of the EPL and because it goes up against the EPL in the same time slot.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Standing behind that I think Tulsa is a good academic school and people seem to be discounting the size of Oklahoma itself? Yes, I will stand behind that. Do I think Tulsa is some type of world-beater? Of course not. I think the last two sentences of my post are a fair summary:

"Whether Tulsa delivers that market from a TV perspective is debatable, but the location in and of itself brings a ton of value to a conference from a football recruiting perspective.

Let's put it this way: there are LOT of G5 schools that are worth a whole lot less than Tulsa. On the metrics that university presidents purport to care about such as academics and demographics, Tulsa is actually near the top among G5 schools."

I mean, who is the AAC adding if it dropped Tulsa (which is effectively the statement that I was responding to)? The AAC in its current form hasn't been able to lure MWC schools, so you're looking at the pool of C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt schools. This isn't about whether Tulsa is more popular than the Sooners or Oklahoma State (which they obviously aren't in the vicinity of right now). My post was in response to the general question of "Why did the AAC add Tulsa?" Well, just look at the other options that the AAC has in C-USA, MAC and the Sun Belt. Outside of Rice (whose market is already covered by Houston in the AAC), it's pretty slim pickings whether you're talking about academics, location and branding.

Maybe the disconnect is that you seem to think that we need to add someone to replace Tulsa and Tulane. We do not. So, the real question is, on a per team basis is the AAC more or less valuable with or without Tulsa and Tulane. To argue that we are more value with them, then you have to show me the 5 schools in the AAC that they are both more valuable then.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Interesting that merging with a league that makes less than we currently do would somehow increase our value. Seems like it would only devalue what we have.

More content? Sure. Better content? Aside from Boise State football who is it that is driving this content?

The AAC and MW in their current forms (without kicking members out) are in their best possible forms given the circumstances.

Doing something, just for the sake of it isn't always the best idea. You guys want to be in a league where we are flying to San Jose or Wyoming for games?

Are you out of your mind?

I just checked my mail. No Big 10 invitation. Maybe tomorrow.

 

[upstater]

it's hard to expect any G5 school to actually "deliver" a market. As a result, the calculations are more toward recruiting areas, demographics, etc.

 

[upstater]

Actually, TV ratings drive what US networks pay for soccer.

If MLS had better ratings they would pay more.

EPL probably has the highest fees in the US but I bet Fox pays less for the Bundesliga than they do for MLS because it doesn't have the appeal of the EPL and because it goes up against the EPL in the same time slot.

Also, Fox doesn't seem to have enough HD cameras.

I mean, what the hell??!

 

[ZooCougar]

Also, Fox doesn't seem to have enough HD cameras.

I mean, what the hell??!

They rely heavily on someone else's feed. Non HD channels are useless.

 

[frankthetank]

My Problem with Frank ...

I have to first start - always - you B1G guys took RUTGERS. We have been around them so long that WE knew that they would fall flat on their face. Forever. Schiano was illusory; one or two good years ... and he consistently played Howard or Norfolk because he could lose easily to Lehigh or Villanova or UNH.

Oh, there's no doubt that Rutgers has a dumpster fire athletic department. Here's the thing with respect to the Big Ten's intent for Rutgers: it doesn't matter. Adding Rutgers was never about actually "adding Rutgers". This was about (a) BTN cable households in the NYC market and (b) providing a NYC market vessel for all of the Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and other Big Ten fans that already live in that market. Rutgers only role is to be a conduit to connect the rest of the Big Ten to the NYC market - they were never intended to deliver the NYC market itself (because the reality is that no one can do that from a college sports perspective). This is the mistake I think a lot of people have made in evaluating the Big Ten addition of Rutgers. It's NOT about Rutgers itself bringing the NYC market to the conference. Instead, it's the "penumbra effect" of Michigan plus Ohio State plus Penn State plus Maryland plus Rutgers et. al in the NYC market that the conferences want to leverage into a "Big Ten market". We'll see if that actually happens in the long-term, but Rutgers certainly fulfilled its role in terms of delivering BTN cable households in the short-term.

But ... the Northeast>? Nobody has harvested the demographics for truly talented football players with honestly solid opportunity at a Public State U. Syracuse and BC is not about that. UConn has an opportunity in raising talent that none of these had because we can really reach and develop raw speed/tenacity kids. Randy Edsall, actually, was doing a solid job of this. Diaco has this. Saying Oklahoma will always have more recruits for FBS is ignorant. They have 3 in-state schools playing. Many many kids are routed to the Colonial in our NY/NE + NJ + MD + PA corridor. The point: we are still relatively new to this. You can't have 5 times the population (actually more like 10) and get less than Oklahoma on raw talent. Our HS football also is a drawback. That is changing as the Prep route is becoming preferred as in hoop.

OK, but what you're describing actually makes it seem even harder to produce more FBS recruits in the region in the future compared to a place like Oklahoma where high school is sacrosanct and concussion fears aren't having the same impact on youth participation as they are in affluent suburban areas in the North. You're effectively describing a sea change in participation at multiple levels in the middle of a time where parents are actually more concerned about kids playing football. That seems really difficult on its face.

And ... HOOP. ZooCougar hit on it. UConn fans want to know that we are going to be in a solid hoop league. This AAC has UConn + Cincinnati this year. Memphis, Temple, SMU, Houston clearly can be damn good. But you have a bunch of dregs (USF, UCF, ECU, Tulsa (now that they lost 8 seniors), Tulane) that have not looked like they can pick it up. Dawkins, Dunleavy, Tubby, Sampson give you some hope.

USF and UCF ... Houston ... locked out of the Power 5 actually can consistently grow and therefore create market value far beyond.

Well, the one upshot for UConn is that success in college basketball is less dependent on conference affiliation compared to college football (where conference affiliation can mean everything). Gonzaga is a consistent power in a league that has much less depth than the AAC. UConn basketball can definitely thrive outside of a P5 league. That is not true for UConn football, though.

Lastly to Frank: I have a continuing skepticism on where the "Conference" and "Network" and "Bowl" discussion is going. In Cord Cutting and new forms of distribution, the biggest idiocy was long term contracts. Enjoy the Rutgers Scarlet Knights.

Well, those are larger market forces that go beyond the realm of college football. That being said, the Big Ten was the wealthiest conference long before they created a conference network, just as the New York Yankees were the wealthiest baseball team long before they created their own network, too. I think a lot of people focus on the form (e.g. cable subscribers to the Big Ten Network) as being why the Big Ten is wealthy as opposed to the substance (e.g. the whole reason why the BTN worked in the first place was because people wanted their content, unlike, say, the Mountain West's old network). Premium content will find a way to be monetized no matter what format it's being delivered in. Maybe that makes Rutgers less valuable to the Big Ten for that particular content delivery format, but it was still important for the league to have a direct vessel in the NYC market for the fans of other Big Ten schools.

 

[Marty Jackson]

I think there are a few issues with this:

(1) BYU isn't joining this type of league. I've noted this elsewhere. Suffice to say, they will die a fiery death as an independent before they would ever join anything less than a P5 league as long as Utah is in the Pac-12. Without BYU, the value of this potential league drops considerably.

(2) At a pure contractual level, being a "power conference" means that a league needs to have a guaranteed contractual tie-in with one of the New Year's Six bowls. Would any of those bowls want to lock in AAC/MWC hybrid school or would they rather just take whichever P5 school falls to them? I believe history indicates the latter. The NY6 (and previously the BCS) bowls have tried to avoid the non-power schools like a hot potato, so why would they lock themselves in contractually with any of those schools? Realistically, that's not going to happen, which means that there will never be a "P6". We're much more likely to see a P4 than a P6 in the future.

(3) The TV money might be a little better with a partial merger (essentially taking the best of each of the AAC and MWC together), but it's probably not going to be as much as fans of the applicable schools would hope. From a TV perspective, Boise State is really the lynch pin - if they're willing to make a move, then the networks would take notice and I could see them providing a slight bump in fees. Without Boise State, though, then it doesn't work. They're really the key from a national TV viewpoint. Once again, though, it's all circular. Without the power conference label and talent, TV networks essentially look at it as a lower tier product (think English Premier League versus MLS) and will pay it accordingly. MLS gets better deals than lower division soccer leagues, but they're not in the same universe as the top European leagues.

That's bs. ESPN dictates the term P5.

Its a joke. The line isn't as clear as the networks would like so they are creating an artificial gap.

If there were means testing to be a P5 I might agree. In no way is Wake Forest more valuable than Uconn.