changing economics

[The Funster]

There simply are not 80 schools that can afford the massive expense that college football is becoming. Besides, those who run CFB are greedy bastards, loath to share money with those they deem unworthy.

I disagree. Maybe 80 is too much, it may be 72 that is the sweet spot. The idea that more schools equals less money per is old thinking. More = more because you can get good market spread and have multiple conferences tied into lucrative markets and recruiting grounds. You have more content for your alumni. And yes, the old way of thinking has to go. CFB has to think collectively if they really want the golden egg.

 

[The Funster]

If the market is so great, how do you explain the ACC taking a look at it and then going with Syracuse, Pitt and VTech? We all of those ACC folks uneducated or very simple?
If I was in charge, I would have gone with UConn over Syracuse, by the way.

Old story: BC stuck a knife in our back. We were out and Pitt was in. It is well documented too. Syracuse got in because it has the "iconic" Carrier Dome. Yes, I kid you not...

 

[Hoophound]

Markets speak for themselves with numbers. Connecticut is a top 20-22 market in terms of households and subscribers. That does not take into account its high disposable income, which adds a lot of value. It is really simple for people to bash UConn by saying, "well, if you are so great then....", but that just ignores the facts.

We aren't in the ACC because BC threw a fit. That is straight from the mouth of their AD. That's that.

 

[billybud]

Purdue can pay for it COA with BTN profit Bonuses. FSU had to cut staff in ATH Dept to pay for its COA.

FSU did cut its athletic budget by 2%.....and, 2 months ago, all FSU football assistant coaches received a 25% raise

 

[billybud]

Markets speak for themselves with numbers. Connecticut is a top 20-22 market in terms of households and subscribers. That does not take into account its high disposable income, which adds a lot of value. It is really simple for people to bash UConn by saying, "well, if you are so great then....", but that just ignores the facts.

We aren't in the ACC because BC threw a fit. That is straight from the mouth of their AD. That's that.

We have rehashed all the reasons that UConn fell out....internal ACC politics, previous commitments made to Miami, BC blocking...etc.

And assisting...was the belief that it had become a football world. I do think that the situation has changed.

Who else, if not UConn, from the east? Cincinnati? Nope...doesn't add what UConn does since Ohio is saturated with OSU.

 

[UConn990411]

If the market is so great, how do you explain the ACC taking a look at it and then going with Syracuse, Pitt and VTech? We all of those ACC folks uneducated or very simple?
If I was in charge, I would have gone with UConn over Syracuse, by the way.

For duck*'s sake, read posts more carefully. I literally said Connecticut's market isn't that great.

The ACC took VTech and BC (and Miami) in the early 2000s because, at the time, they were an embarrassingly bad football conference. Those three schools were all consistently ranked and fit with the ACC's then-important standard of having good academics. Sure, the markets were factors as well, but football was the priority at the time.

Syracuse got the invite after it became clear the Big East was a superior bball conference.

While I agree that markets matter most these days (at least for the B1G, SEC, and Pac-12), they aren't the only factor.

 

[pj]

Not sure that dividing the Big Ten revenue pie to include 2 or 4 more pieces makes sense. Each new school would have to increase incremental value of the conference by more than $35 million for all existing members just to stay whole.
How many schools can do that? Notre Dame and Texas, perhaps, but those ain't gonna happen for the B1G.
I am not convinced Big Ten presidents are convinced expansion beyond 14 is prudent. But we'll see.

UConn can. The key point is that a local presence in New England/close to New York gives you the opportunity to sell BTN content to 35 million people at significantly increased rates. It's not that UConn athletics alone has to bring in $35 mn people, it's that including UConn in the league brings Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, etc to the vicinity of 35 million largely unclaimed fans. To generate $35 mn for the B1G, UConn needs to bring maybe $10 mn for men's and women's basketball over the air, plus $50 mn to the BTN with B1G getting 50%. Among 35 million people in the New England-New York region, that's an average increase of $0.12 per subscriber per year. Just getting BTN on in Connecticut can bring most of the $50 mn, so it's more like getting an extra $0.06 per subscriber per month in the rest of New England and New York. That's not hard for UConn to do.

The challenge is finding a partner, and whether AAU is decisive as opposed to athletics and money.

 

[buddy]

We have rehashed all the reasons that UConn fell out....internal ACC politics, previous commitments made to Miami, BC blocking...etc.

And assisting...was the belief that it had become a football world. I do think that the situation has changed.

Who else, if not UConn, from the east? Cincinnati? Nope...doesn't add what UConn does since Ohio is saturated with OSU.

You forgot that the last knife in was by FSU and then they twisted it to make sure.

 

[Western PA]

Old story: BC stuck a knife in our back. We were out and Pitt was in. It is well documented too. Syracuse got in because it has the "iconic" Carrier Dome. Yes, I kid you not...

Ok that helps explain the ACC deal, but then why did the B1G not grab the Connectict market instead of RU or MD?

Markets speak for themselves with numbers. Connecticut is a top 20-22 market in terms of households and subscribers. That does not take into account its high disposable income, which adds a lot of value. It is really simple for people to bash UConn by saying, "well, if you are so great then....", but that just ignores the facts.

We aren't in the ACC because BC threw a fit. That is straight from the mouth of their AD. That's that.

Nielsen has Hartford/New Haven at 31. Effectively Buying Income ranking is about 31 also.

 

[specialisthusky]

Ok that helps explain the ACC deal, but then why did the B1G not grab the Connectict market instead of RU or MD?

Nielsen has Hartford/New Haven at 31. Effectively Buying Income ranking is about 31 also.

He said Connecticut not Hartford/New Haven

 

[Western PA]

You forgot that the last knife in was by FSU and then they twisted it to make sure.

Can you fill me in on this one?

 

[itgoeslike]

The Boneyard needs an FAQ page. . .

 

[Dooley]

Can you fill me in on this one?

Boston College has always lobbied against UConn to "protect their turf". Their old AD admitted that. There are also probably old hurt feelings over our former AG (who is a slime in his own right) filing a lawsuit with Father Leahy's name in it. The original expansion back in 2011 was Syracuse with UConn. BC balked and, I guess, got enough support to make the switch to Pitt. So you have that.

In the last ACC expansion, the southern "football" schools, like FSU and Clemson, teamed up with BC and, maybe, Syracuse, to lobby against UConn and pull hard for Louisville. They won, since the football schools used their own departures as a threat if UConn was added over another "football" school. Louisville was added, the GoR signed (to keep the southern ACC from bolting), and we were left, again, in the cold.

 

[Stinger92860]

The Boneyard needs an FAQ page. . .

The Hartford-New Haven DMA is Not the entire state of CT. You also have to add in approximately 350K households in Fairfield County. This county, is part of the NYC DMA. The average income of Fairfield County is well above the national average. With Fairfield County the DMA of CT is almost 1.4M, which would make it a top 21-22 market. This does not take into account any parts of Mass, such as Springfield which is a top 125 market. We draw a small portion of fans from that area.

So in summary, there are only 20-21 TV markets larger than CT.

 

[CL82]

I think I read that someplace , but for the Midwesterners in the B1G, the assumption is Rutgers has NYC covered. I hate to keep repeating this, but if Connecticut was that attractive of a stand alone market, it would be in in P5 conference already.

Feel free to keep repeating it, but it doesn't change the facts. The numbers are the numbers the Hartford/New Haven DMA is #31 in the country and it doesn't include another million people in Fairfield County who are a part of the NYC DMA.

The Boneyard needs an FAQ page. . .

Good idea. I've given up addressing these points with the troll of the week. I will occasionally do so other visiting posters.

 

[itgoeslike]

The Hartford-New Haven DMA is Not the entire state of CT. You also have to add in approximately 350K households in Fairfield County. This county, is part of the NYC DMA. The average income of Fairfield County is well above the national average. With Fairfield County the DMA of CT is almost 1.4M, which would make it a top 21-22 market. This does not take into account any parts of Mass, such as Springfield which is a top 125 market. We draw a small portion of fans from that area.

So in summary, there are only 20-21 TV markets larger than CT.

Yes. Never said otherwise. . .

 

[SAMCRO]

In a nutshell, here's the CR thinking for both B1G and ACC
- B1G expansion was about a market grab (NY/NJ and Balt/DC both greater than CT/Ffld Cty markets, and those 2 schools met the AAU criteria) with state U's in major markets, who were both in the AAU already. Easy pick really.
- The ACC expansion rationale has changed every time, and has never been about markets. They initially wanted UM, BC, and SU. VA politics played a role blocking BC and SU from getting the votes, so they just added UM. The ACC leaders used terms like "like minded academic institution being a big factor in their selection process"
- BC then announced their commitment to the BE (while still negotiating behind the scenes with ACC). - The ACC then petitioned the NCAA to get approval for a CCG with 10 teams, NCAA said no.
- ACC went back out with invites to BC and VT (a way to appease VA politics) who both accepted, and SU was left in the cold. The ACC leaders used terms like "like minded academic institutions being a big factor in their selection process"
- Years later, ACC looking to move to 14 included SU and Pitt. BC AD on record as saying he pretty much blocked UConn's invite, and offered up Pitt as a compromise, saying it protected the "western front" from the B12 getting into PA. The ACC leaders used terms like "like minded academic institutions being a big factor in their selection process".
- Years later, UMd bolts for the B1G and ACC invites UL, who at the time was top 10 in FB and solid in all major sports. The ACC leaders DID NOT use the term "like minded academic institutions being a big factor in their selection process". This was a FB move and the bigger FB schools standing up to Tobacco Road finally. They had leverage with the real threat to take their schools to the B12. Tobacco Road balked, UConn passed over again.

 

[The Funster]

Ok that helps explain the ACC deal, but then why did the B1G not grab the Connectict market instead of RU or MD?


Nielsen has Hartford/New Haven at 31. Effectively Buying Income ranking is about 31 also.

Admittedly RU and MD bring more TV sets than UConn does. Both are AAU while UConn was not. Both have had AD's that were in a shambles, RU's is so bad that even with B1G money they have not many planned infrastructure improvements. RU and MD were all about eyeballs. Does RU deliver the NY market? Kinda. They've had some highly rated games.

Here's the thing with UConn: If the ACC takes us, they still have a share in NYC (check us out re: SNY, etc.) but if the B1G takes UConn they lock up NYC FOR GOOD plus make valuable inroads to the rest of NE. Our WBB is beloved from CT to northern NE and while the MBB trails that, UConn is positioning itself to be New England's school, athletically AND academically. Imagine the flagship uni for all of NE.

 

[Stinger92860]

Yes. Never said otherwise. . .

My bad, I replied to the wrong message.

 

[jlarson]

Don't know where to post this so I will just post in this thread... http://247sports.com/Bolt/ACC-channel-Waiting-is-the-hardest-park-38296352

Sounds like the ACC Network isn't going to be around for a long while yet.

 

[billybud]

You forgot that the last knife in was by FSU and then they twisted it to make sure.

I have always surmised that...but there is no link that I can find from any responsible party ( I am a non responsible party) that speaks to that.

What ESPN reported at the announcement:

"The ACC also considered Connecticut and Cincinnati for membership. However, sources told ESPN that the league wanted Louisville only because there is a sense among league presidents that the ACC can add more schools at a later date if the conference loses any other current members."

There, it is my belief, was probably a sense of urgency to grab Louisville before the Big 12 woke from their stupor.

 

[Excalibur]

There, it is my belief, was probably a sense of urgency to grab Louisville before the Big 12 woke from their stupor.

That is the argument that FSU used to convince the others.

 

[jostar1]

Re expansion with Syracuse and Pitt:

It is known that BC voted against UConn. DeFililippo stated that in this article:

“We didn’t want them in,” Boston College’s athletic director, Gene DeFilippo, told The Globe. “It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/sports/ncaafootball/conference-instability-is-filtering-down-to-the-next-level.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=sports#

Also, FSU voted against UConn:

Florida State would be one of the schools that would probably object to the conference closing out its expansion efforts in this manner.

"Not particularly, no," Florida State Board of Trustees Chairman Andy Haggard said of whether he would be in favor of the conference adding Connecticut and Rutgers. "But I would have to hear more about it. I'd have to see where Connecticut is, and Connecticut is playing good football right now, and where Rutgers is football wise, basketball wise, TV exposure, the elements of the country that they are in and all that.

"It certainly wouldn't be my pick but it wouldn't be my decision; it would be Swofford's and the ACC presidents. But I've heard a lot of backlash against Connecticut and Rutgers coming in because it would make us more of a basketball (conference) not a football (conference). That's what I get from fans, alumni, boosters and so forth."

As Haggard has noted before, schools with more traditionally strong football programs would be a better fit for the ACC as far as FSU is concerned.

http://floridastate ... com/content.asp?CID=1280822

 

[Western PA]

Boston College has always lobbied against UConn to "protect their turf". Their old AD admitted that. There are also probably old hurt feelings over our former AG (who is a slime in his own right) filing a lawsuit with Father Leahy's name in it. The original expansion back in 2011 was Syracuse with UConn. BC balked and, I guess, got enough support to make the switch to Pitt. So you have that.

In the last ACC expansion, the southern "football" schools, like FSU and Clemson, teamed up with BC and, maybe, Syracuse, to lobby against UConn and pull hard for Louisville. They won, since the football schools used their own departures as a threat if UConn was added over another "football" school. Louisville was added, the GoR signed (to keep the southern ACC from bolting), and we were left, again, in the cold.

Thanks. Just a note: the president of FSU at that time is now the president at Penn State. Not sure I'd that mean a great deal, however.

 

[NEforceUConn]

Thanks. Just a note: the president of FSU at that time is now the president at Penn State. Not sure I'd that mean a great deal, however.

Great, and is Father OLeary at Ohio State?