Conference Thought Experiment

[Guapo]

Doesn't UConn bring a lot of marginal value in the person of the population of New England and somewhat the Tri-State area and the eyeballs that subscribe to the cable networks of the region?

Haventyaheard?

Cable is dying!

It’s all about streaming content!

 

[Guapo]

Disclaimer: The below is pure fantasy, with that said, everything on here is.

If the Big East let us play Indy football, the move would have to presumably be blessed and funded by Fox Sports and then SNY to show our games.

You would have have to figure any AAC program is never scheduling you and likely won't get much love from other ESPN exclusive properties, so you're left with B1G and Big12 by virtue of some sort of Fox induced scheduling agreement with the bottom half of each league, and then G5 programs. So maybe Fox says B1G/Big12 give these guys 4 games every year, so how do we get to 12 games?

Always Home: Local FCS (URI, Maine, UNH)
Home/Home: 2 B1G games, 2 Big12 games, BYU, Army, New Mexico State, Liberty, 2 MAC, Rotating local FBS (Rutgers, Cuse, Pitt, BC, etc.)

Schedule:
1. Home - URI (SNY)
2. Away - Kansas (Fox Sports)
3. Home - Indiana (Fox Sports)
4. Away - Buffalo (SNY)
5. Home - New Mexico State (SNY)
6. Home - Toledo (SNY)
7. Away - Liberty (SNY)
8. Away - Pitt (ESPN)
9. Home - Illinois (Fox Sports)
10. Away - Iowa State (Fox Sports)
11. Home - BYU (ESPN)
12. Away - Army (SNY)

So that still leaves you with a pretty unappealing home slate, no league, and no bowl game. We would have a program in name only. Is it even worth it at that point?

You: “But what about bowl tie-ins?!” (hilariously thinking this program has any chance of winning 6 games in even the medium future)

Me: partner with ESPN/Fox and Sox and create the Fenway Bowl!

 

[storrsroars]

For a B1G invite would you live with poop in your pants 24/7?

That's what Depends is for. You're sitting in another meeting going nowhere, the boss offers a really stupid idea, you take a crap in your pants and don't even flinch. Silent protest.

Now, being constipated for a month... not totally sure you can live through that level of backup.

 

[intlzncster]

Why would they want us to drop it? If they offered all sports but football, we'd just take football independent. Yes, I'd take that deal in a heartbeat. Hopefully they'd help us by playing a few games against us each year as well. It's the same deal Notre Dame has more or less.

Why would anyone of consequence want to schedule UCONN for football out of conference? Notre Dame makes it work because they've a built in audience/draw.

 

[SubInATub]

Why would anyone of consequence want to schedule UCONN for football out of conference? Notre Dame makes it work because they've a built in audience/draw.

These big programs will pay us to go to them and beat us. Will fund out football program. easy as that. Sign me up.

 

[SubInATub]

IMHO, ACC is 1, B10 is 2, any other P5 conference is 3, but that is maybe only B12, if that, because the P12 or SEC is not realistic at all (P12 isn't very appealing either) so #3 might as well be B12, but some people have been saying they have doubts about it long term.

My process thought here was if we could choose any conference it would be ACC. After that I don't really care, anything but the AAC is better. But if we get more granular, I agree with you.

 

[uconnell]

To be fair, the effects of watching Big 10 sports can feel very similar to constipation.

I agree.

 

[BuckleyNerd]

Haventyaheard?

Cable is dying!

It’s all about streaming content!

It is tho...

 

[Guapo]

It is tho...

Look, I agree that is the future. However, right now even lowly ESPNU is in 70 million homes; ESPN+ is in barely 2 million.

 

[Guapo]

It is tho...

Look, I agree that is the future. However, right now even lowly ESPNU is in 70 million homes; ESPN+ is in barely 2 million.

People knew that mankind was working it’s way towards flight, but a whole lot of people had to jump off cliffs and die before we achieved it.

UConn and the AAC are being pushed off the cliff by ESPN.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Why would anyone of consequence want to schedule UCONN for football out of conference? Notre Dame makes it work because they've a built in audience/draw.

Well the Big Ten said we count as a P5 team towards the obligation of B1G teams to schedule certain teams. As an example.

I don't think it's likely that this happens. But UMass is independent and beat us last year.

 

[kemba]

I’m just trying to get a gauge on those of you who don’t want to drop football;

If the ACC or Big 10 offered partial membership for all sports IF we dropped football would you drop football?

Basically what I’m asking is; are you advocating keeping football because you think it’s important for the school to play football or are you advocating keeping football because you think it’s the key to getting the athletic department into a better conference?

A little of both. I like football, I've loved going to games in the past, I hope to again in the future. Even if our ceiling is 6 or 7 wins a year, in the American, or less than that but getting to play big time teams in a p5 conference. Ideally, we someday get in a p5 and that happens.

I care about remaining a basketball power more than that though, so yes there are hypothetical but not realistic scenarios I'd be willing to drop football. If the ACC brought us in for basketball only on the condition we drop football, I'd do it. If somehow dropping football magically brought back the old Big East for basketball and gave it stability, I'd do it. I think it's laughable to drop football just to join the current conference that bought the Big East name though.

 

[Guapo]

A little of both. I like football, I've loved going to games in the past, I hope to again in the future. Even if our ceiling is 6 or 7 wins a year, in the American, or less than that but getting to play big time teams in a p5 conference. Ideally, we someday get in a p5 and that happens.

I care about remaining a basketball power more than that though, so yes there are hypothetical but not realistic scenarios I'd be willing to drop football. If the ACC brought us in for basketball only on the condition we drop football, I'd do it. If somehow dropping football magically brought back the old Big East for basketball and gave it stability, I'd do it. I think it's laughable to drop football just to join the current conference that bought the Big East name though.

I dont agree with you re: NBE; but I appreciate you actually answering the question

 

[BuckleyNerd]

People knew that mankind was working it’s way towards flight, but a whole lot of people had to jump off cliffs and die before we achieved it.

UConn and the AAC are being pushed off the cliff by ESPN.

I would compare it more to being the first ones in the pool, even if we were pushed in. I just don't buy that it's a zero sum game, as it's not like the technology or demand isn't there. Again, you could look at the raw numbers of subscriptions or you can look at the proportion of those subscriptions purchased by people under 40 and see that streaming is absolutely the next generation of media consumption.


Ex: I've probably watched Ja Morant play 6-7 times this year because Youtube TV automatically suggests buzzy games regardless of channel, whereas if I had cable I'd just thrown on ESPN and watch whatever they're showing. It's amazing, it always suggests the shows/games that I genuinely want to watch, just one click away. Plus, now Murray State just made a bunch more money from other people like me. Like, old people gonna old people and not get with better technology, but that's not how you think about the future from a business and technology standpoint. A much worse deal than the admittedly not great one we have would be for us as an institution to just stubbornly entrench ourselves in nostalgia.

 

[BY06518]

I’m just trying to get a gauge on those of you who don’t want to drop football;

If the ACC or Big 10 offered partial membership for all sports IF we dropped football would you drop football?

Basically what I’m asking is; are you advocating keeping football because you think it’s important for the school to play football or are you advocating keeping football because you think it’s the key to getting the athletic department into a better conference?

I plan to make a billion dollars in the next two years then give 100 Million to the Athletic Department with the contingency we drop football and go back to the Big East.

 

[BY06518]

Disclaimer: The below is pure fantasy, with that said, everything on here is.

If the Big East let us play Indy football, the move would have to presumably be blessed and funded by Fox Sports and then SNY to show our games.

You would have have to figure any AAC program is never scheduling you and likely won't get much love from other ESPN exclusive properties, so you're left with B1G and Big12 by virtue of some sort of Fox induced scheduling agreement with the bottom half of each league, and then G5 programs. So maybe Fox says B1G/Big12 give these guys 4 games every year, so how do we get to 12 games?

Always Home: Local FCS (URI, Maine, UNH)
Home/Home: 2 B1G games, 2 Big12 games, BYU, Army, New Mexico State, Liberty, 2 MAC, Rotating local FBS (Rutgers, Cuse, Pitt, BC, etc.)

Schedule:
1. Home - URI (SNY)
2. Away - Kansas (Fox Sports)
3. Home - Indiana (Fox Sports)
4. Away - Buffalo (SNY)
5. Home - New Mexico State (SNY)
6. Home - Toledo (SNY)
7. Away - Liberty (SNY)
8. Away - Pitt (ESPN)
9. Home - Illinois (Fox Sports)
10. Away - Iowa State (Fox Sports)
11. Home - BYU (ESPN)
12. Away - Army (SNY)

So that still leaves you with a pretty unappealing home slate, no league, and no bowl game. We would have a program in name only. Is it even worth it at that point?

Yes because we would be in a Basketball conference, attendance goes up, recruiting gets better, and fans are happy again.

 

[whaler11]

I would compare it more to being the first ones in the pool, even if we were pushed in. I just don't buy that it's a zero sum game, as it's not like the technology or demand isn't there. Again, you could look at the raw numbers of subscriptions or you can look at the proportion of those subscriptions purchased by people under 40 and see that streaming is absolutely the next generation of media consumption.


Ex: I've probably watched Ja Morant play 6-7 times this year because Youtube TV automatically suggests buzzy games regardless of channel, whereas if I had cable I'd just thrown on ESPN and watch whatever they're showing. It's amazing, it always suggests the shows/games that I genuinely want to watch, just one click away. Plus, now Murray State just made a bunch more money from other people like me. Like, old people gonna old people and not get with better technology, but that's not how you think about the future from a business and technology standpoint. A much worse deal than the admittedly not great one we have would be for us as an institution to just stubbornly entrench ourselves in nostalgia.

Murray State didn’t make a cent off you watching their games.

You Tube TV is just cable using a different wire.

 

[BuckleyNerd]

Murray State didn’t make a cent off you watching their games.

You Tube TV is just cable using a different wire.

Maybe not directly but I'd bet that their brand value increased, all things/Ja being equal, as a result of easier access to their games. My point was supposed to be that if a product is good, over-the-top streaming packages will actually increase people's exposure to that product.

I guess you could call Youtube TV that, but I definitely think there is value-added over standard cable in terms of user experience. I guess Roku/Chromecast is more representative of the streaming services we are talking about, i.e. where you can "add" ESPN+ or whatever. But still, I think these higher-level, over-the-top providers will start to develop user interfaces that mimic and subsume the Youtube TV interface, e.g. turn the TV on and suggestions from across your various streaming channels are the first thing you see, whereas now on Roku there are just different "channel" icons, which each have their own internal UI.

 

[whaler11]

Maybe not directly but I'd bet that their brand value increased, all things/Ja being equal, as a result of easier access to their games. My point was supposed to be that if a product is good, over-the-top streaming packages will actually increase people's exposure to that product.

I guess you could call Youtube TV that, but I definitely think there is value-added over standard cable in terms of user experience. I guess Roku/Chromecast is more representative of the streaming services we are talking about, i.e. where you can "add" ESPN+ or whatever. But still, I think these higher-level, over-the-top providers will start to develop user interfaces that mimic and subsume the Youtube TV interface, e.g. turn the TV on and suggestions from across your various streaming channels are the first thing you see, whereas now on Roku there are just different "channel" icons, which each have their own internal UI.

The X1 interface with Comcast runs laps around You Tube TV and anything else on the market. Cox has a stripped down version - Contour. Do you really think they don’t have the ability to feed you what is trending? I can sort television by what is trending on twitter.

Murray State doesn’t have a brand. There have been hundreds of players and upsets that got a school a brief moment in the sun and none of it has any lasting value. It just becomes trivia - there is no permanent value. UMBC will forever be the 16 that beat a 1 and besides people regurgitating that fact there is nothing else to add.

ESPN+ has 1/43rd the subs that ESPN has and many of them are there for UFC - it’s complete and total fantasyland lunacy that ESPN+ would increase exposure to the properties relative to their linear networks.

 

[imno1]

Look, I agree that is the future. However, right now even lowly ESPNU is in 70 million homes; ESPN+ is in barely 2 million.

2 million and 1 if I have to stream husky games

 

[SubbaBub]

If...we...were....in....the....B1G....we...wouldn't...have...to...drop....FB.

We'd have enough money to fund an independent FB schedule.

 

[huskyinfl]

Lol, why would they pay you a full share of football revenue if you don't have a team?

 

[CL82]

To be fair, the effects of watching Big 10 sports can feel very similar to constipation.

You feel like something momentous is going happen but it never does?

 

[storrsroars]

If...we...were....in....the....B1G....we...wouldn't...have...to...drop....FB.

We'd have enough money to fund an independent FB schedule.

Lol, why would they pay you a full share of football revenue if you don't have a team?

Good point. OTOH, B1G payouts are now >$50 mill/year, and if FB is 80% of that, then that's at least $10 mill for us and we likely get to keep SNY. So it's still better than where we're at.

Not that that would happen...

 

[mrl2016]

I am not even an AAC apologist/sycophant, but why doesn't anyone appreciate the fact that a conference is essentially a brand, and ours is still a very new brand. Brands need time to grow, and constantly crapping all over the brand and writing off the product just leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's just ironic to me how we are all "all-in" on our basketball rebuild but when it comes to building up a conference, and by extension our school, some people want nothing to do with it.

I’m not sure I’ve read a take on the BY I’ve ever agreed with more than this.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Lol that wasn’t the point of the thread! It was to try and measure if those wanting to keep football were doing so in order to help the AD overall or if they were simply football fans

My view is that there is no future for UConn basketball if we drop football. It's as simple as that. Dropping football is a ticket to irrelevance. So the hypothetical doesn't make any sense.

• Conferences that are never ever going to add UConn: SEC, Pac12, B1G
• Conferences that might consider UConn if Notre Dame joined as a full member and if UConn was very good at basketball and at least competitive at football: ACC
• Conferences that might be raided and therefore need to replace members with schools that are good at basketball and at least competitive at football: Big12
• Conferences that are worse for UConn basketball than the American: every conference not listed above, including the Big East.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

Like you Guapo but no P5 is going to take any new programs without football - these conferences are based on football - every other sport including MBB are a distant second - way distant second

In general I agree with this, but the ACC does have an inequality issue due to Notre Dame not being there for football. Adding UConn to that conference for all but football does leave football at 14 schools and gets hoops to 16.

 

[UConnNick]

Maybe they are the exception, but Nova faced a choice between big time football and no big time football. It seems that, at the moment, things have worked out well for them.

Unfortuantly, I think the NBE and the AAC are ultimately headed for the same fate. But, I’d rather die with friends than some jokers from Tulsa or Tampa.

Friends? The C7 schools spent the last few years of the old Big East undermining the football schools due to petty jealousies and turf wars. They're no friends of ours. They pushed their own agenda to such an extent that it drove the football schools to seek better alternatives. Well, all of them except our clueless administration at that time.

 

[SubInATub]

My view is that there is no future for UConn basketball if we drop football. It's as simple as that. Dropping football is a ticket to irrelevance. So the hypothetical doesn't make any sense.

• Conferences that are never ever going to add UConn: SEC, Pac12, B1G
• Conferences that might consider UConn if Notre Dame joined as a full member and if UConn was very good at basketball and at least competitive at football: ACC
• Conferences that might be raided and therefore need to replace members with schools that are good at basketball and at least competitive at football: Big12
• Conferences that are worse for UConn basketball than the American: every conference not listed above, including the Big East.

Basketball and Football at UConn aren't a 1:1 correlation. Football has never really been good here, it was just the environment (conference realignment and poor coaching decisions). That being said, dropping football wouldn't bring basketball to irrelevance, but keeping football around and making that priority would (unless we successfully land a spot in P5).

 

[Guapo]

Friends? The C7 schools spent the last few years of the old Big East undermining the football schools due to petty jealousies and turf wars. They're no friends of ours. They pushed their own agenda to such an extent that it drove the football schools to seek better alternatives. Well, all of them except our clueless administration at that time.

I’m not talking about the administrations of those schools.

Culturally, I have much more in common (and much more history with) the alum and fans of Villanova, PC, Georgetown etc.