Do we need to accept the premise?

[Chief00]

We constantly hear its all about Football and the money FB brings in, but if I recall even in our most successful Football seasons - we either lose money or break even.

No one has really laid out the financial case why we need to move?

Quite frankly, MBB brings in more money than FB - we are not Texas, Florida or Alabama and never will be. What's so wrong with playing Ville, Nova, GT, WVU, St John (who are going to be real good soon), Cincy, Marquette, ND, etc.....in basketball. TCU and Navy are certainly comparable to SU and Pitt in Football. Add a couple more major inter-sectional MBB games and call it a day.

At times I am excited about the ACC possibility but indeed something is troubling with the way that Commissioner conducts business - it smells.

 

[mets1090]

If we move now we are more likely to generate more revenue in the future. We still may be at an operating loss if you go strictly by revenue and expenses, but the net benefit from athletics and being a national brand in two major sports instead of just one would increase based on enrollment totals, donations and things of that nature.

 

[Chief00]

That sounds like a real soft reply. The ACC has never been a strong FB conference.

 

[gibhunter]

The only reason why the catholic schools are not yet considered mid-majors is because they were associated with football schools playing in a BCS-tied conference. UConn becomes independent or drops down to FCS and in 20 years I guarantee you, we are considered a mid-major with great history. Maybe a strong one like Gonzaga, but still a mid-major. That's what FBS football brings to this school.

 

[Near Nyack]

IMHO, this is about getting rid of the NCAA, the worthless parade of meaningless bowl games, and having a NC won on the field, not in the newspapers. A playoff for the NC in football would draw an incredible audience and $$.

 

[Danzz]

We constantly hear its all about Football and the money FB brings in, but if I recall even in our most successful Football seasons - we either lose money or break even.

No one has really laid out the financial case why we need to move?

Quite frankly, MBB brings in more money than FB - we are not Texas, Florida or Alabama and never will be. What's so wrong with playing Ville, Nova, GT, WVU, St John (who are going to be real good soon), Cincy, Marquette, ND, etc.....in basketball. TCU and Navy are certainly comparable to SU and Pitt in Football. Add a couple more major inter-sectional MBB games and call it a day.

At times I am excited about the ACC possibility but indeed something is troubling with the way that Commissioner conducts business - it smells.

The money comes from the TV contract and right now the BE doesn't have one. Ticket and merchandise sales etc. is less of a factor. The problem for us is that the TV contracts pick up the tab for other sports.If you are in a major conference with a TV football contract you share in the revenue and those numbers are huge.
Swofford's conduct is questionable but in the end he is going to do what is best for the ACC. There is probably a lot more secrecy behind the scenes by all the major conference Presidents.
The ACC is our best option but Uconn won't be going out of business if it doesn't happen.

 

[jleves]

Sorry Mr Wonderful - I have to totally disagree. The last time a non BCS school won a basketball championship was 1990 (UNLV). You simply cannot discount the importance of being in one of those conferences. The money trickles down and it's almost impossible to have the resources and relevance without being in such a conference. Look at Gonzaga for example - good teams, seldom any great players that you need to get over the top (same problem Pitt has). If you want basketball to continue to excel, you have to be in a BCS conference and the Big East will lose that soon.

For those of you who want to stay in the Big East, I have to ask you - Why? The Big East is no longer what it was. This is no longer a league with Syracuse, Pitt and even BCU. Sure you still have GT, SJU and Nova, but that's nothing like the golden years when Cuse and GT and SJU and Nova and UConn rocked it in the 90s. Now it's one or two of those schools being pretty good for a year or so. Now we have Marquette and DePaul and Cincy and soon to join TCU who we have no connection with either traditionally or geographically. The two most important games of the year (Pitt and Cuse) just left town. Have any of you circled Cincy as a game you can't miss? There is no reason to stay in a conference with those teams. It's not the Big East you want anymore. Don't be tied to a name out of habit. Our best games would be against Cuse and Pitt and even BCU and Maryland maybe even Rutgers. Those are our ties and that's where you should want to be. Plus the money doesn't suck.

 

[arnie3]

I disagree with you jleves- Maryland and BCU are not on the way up. The ACC is becoming more watered down with each new acquisition by the conference. They are on the way down along with GT, Wake and NCS. It's a mediocre basketball conference even with the new acquisitions.
I would not discount Cincy and Marquette because they have tradition and both are projected contenders this year in the BE. If people think that 4 conferences of 16 teams is the way of the future, and in our best interest, I regretfully disagree. This is madness, IMO. It will destroy the college basketball game as we know it, and I am against it. As i have said before, I don't know how to counter this, but I do believe that the ACC is a worst case scenario for us.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

UConn won a national championship with a Div. 1-AA football team in 1999. But that's beside the point. It seems a lot of the fear of becoming irrelevant in basketball stems from the loss of revenue from being in a conference that does not have a lucrative tv contract. The way things are going now, UConn will never be included in such a league anyway. Most fans hold out hope. I prefer to think negatively and be pleasantly surprised later. I don't have faith that this will turn out the way they hope.

 

[mets1090]

That sounds like a real soft reply. The ACC has never been a strong FB conference.

True but when this eventually moves from the 6x12 (ballpark) conference format to a 4x16, if we are not one of the 4 our football program will lose tons of money. The concentration of quality football will increase simply by there only being 4 legit conferences. One way or another, I think Big East football will lose its BCS bid. Whether that be by disbandment or by lower quality of football I think it is going to happen.

 

[Chief00]

I think we are making a huge mistake putting most of our eggs in the ACC basket.

 

[UConn5]

The biggest thing is the uncertainty. Maybe UConn and the BE could make it work somehow where UConn wouldn't make that much less money than they would in the ACC, but the possibility remains that a year from now they will have to go through this entire thing all over again. That is why UConn wants to leave so badly.

 

[SkyWalker2011]

Sorry Mr Wonderful - I have to totally disagree. The last time a non BCS school won a basketball championship was 1990 (UNLV). You simply cannot discount the importance of being in one of those conferences. The money trickles down and it's almost impossible to have the resources and relevance without being in such a conference. Look at Gonzaga for example - good teams, seldom any great players that you need to get over the top (same problem Pitt has). If you want basketball to continue to excel, you have to be in a BCS conference and the Big East will lose that soon.

For those of you who want to stay in the Big East, I have to ask you - Why? The Big East is no longer what it was. This is no longer a league with Syracuse, Pitt and even BCU. Sure you still have GT, SJU and Nova, but that's nothing like the golden years when Cuse and GT and SJU and Nova and UConn rocked it in the 90s. Now it's one or two of those schools being pretty good for a year or so. Now we have Marquette and DePaul and Cincy and soon to join TCU who we have no connection with either traditionally or geographically. The two most important games of the year (Pitt and Cuse) just left town. Have any of you circled Cincy as a game you can't miss? There is no reason to stay in a conference with those teams. It's not the Big East you want anymore. Don't be tied to a name out of habit. Our best games would be against Cuse and Pitt and even BCU and Maryland maybe even Rutgers. Those are our ties and that's where you should want to be. Plus the money doesn't suck.

This

 

[Adios]

UConn won a national championship with a Div. 1-AA football team in 1999.

We never won a national championship in football. Where'd you get this from?

Georgia Southern won in 1999. UMass won in 1998.

Apart from all that, football is the biggest money maker in terms of net revenue. That's why they say "football drives the bus".

 

[aceboon]

He's saying the basketball team won a title with the football team at the 1-AA level

We never won a national championship in football. Where'd you get this from?

Georgia Southern won in 1999. UMass won in 1998.

Apart from all that, football is the biggest money maker in terms of net revenue. That's why they say "football drives the bus".

 

[Adios]

Gotcha. My fault. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[tzznandrew]

I think we are making a huge mistake putting most of our eggs in the ACC basket.

It's not likely the B1G is going to call. I'm sure they're working that angle, but I think that angle goes nowhere. jleves is right. Playing Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Maryland, and possibly Rutgers would be ideal. You could drive to all those games (especially Rutgers/BC), and the football team could develop true rivalries.

 

[jibsey]

Been thinking about what if we don't move, how it affects the BB, and I think when Louisville and Memphis were pretty much the only things in Conference USA, it didn't really hurt them that much.They went out of their way to play a very strong non conference, and were always ready to do damage in March. The BE even as it exists is 5x stronger than that conference, with the potential to get better, and why do we automatically lose the bid for football BCS especially after adding TCU?

 

[tykurez]

Been thinking about what if we don't move, how it affects the BB, and I think when Louisville and Memphis were pretty much the only things in Conference USA, it didn't really hurt them that much.They went out of their way to play a very strong non conference, and were always ready to do damage in March. The BE even as it exists is 5x stronger than that conference, with the potential to get better, and why do we automatically lose the bid for football BCS especially after adding TCU?

C-USA had Cincy and Marquette as well, and when all those teams were in the league it made all the other teams a bit stronger ... Tulane, UAB used to actually show up once in a while. Point being, and I think jleves alluded to this, is you're ceiling is as high as your conference takes you to some extent. It's not just about dominating a league, it's also about money and the ability to draw recruits based on the teams surrounding you.

 

[Scalito]

None of UConn's basketball success is a result of football money or playing in a strong football conference. And if we build the basketball facilities we all hope for, it won't be as a result of football in any manner.

Thus, while I hope to go to the ACC for the good of basketball and football, I agree with Chief that people too breazily assume that acting in the interest of football is tantamount to protecting basketball. It isn't. If we don't get an ACC invite, we'd be better off basketball-wise sticking with the Catholics and going independent in football until a better option arises. Basketball can pay for itself until then, and will retain it's national cache by competing against marquee brands.

 

[ctchamps]

None of UConn's basketball success is a result of football money or playing in a strong football conference. And if we build the basketball facilities we all hope for, it won't be as a result of football in any manner.

Thus, while I hope to go to the ACC for the good of basketball and football, I agree with Chief that people too breazily assume that acting in the interest of football is tantamount to protecting basketball. It isn't. If we don't get an ACC invite, we'd be better off basketball-wise sticking with the Catholics and going independent in football until a better option arises. Basketball can pay for itself until then, and will retain it's national cache by competing against marquee brands.

The problem with this assumption is we don't know what will happen with the NCAA format in the future. I'm not saying I do either, but if there develops four conference of sixty four teams, they may decide to forgo the NCAA model and create their own governing board. And they may do this for all sports and not just football. This would result in a separate basketball college venue and the one that will get the most attention nationally. In this case those schools not allied with the BCS conferences or whatever they will call themselves in the future, will have trouble maintaining their prominence in all sports. Think of Division II and Division III schools versus Division I schools. A scenario such as this is not definite, but it is very possible. And its these type of worst case scenarios (from the perspective of any schools left out of these super conferences) that people really need to strongly consider.

 

[Chief00]

Interestingly, 21 posts and no one has supplied any math. People are just posting things they heard about it meaning more money for us - but no math.

Also remember BC's football and MBB programs were both stronger the day they left the Big East than they are now.

 

[gruconn]

I think either way Uconn Basketball will be fine. If its a case where we are bleeding money and we need that football money to survive then we need to leave the Big East. I just don't think our football program will be that much better in the ACC. What was the last ACC team to win a National Title in Football just curious?

 

[jleves]

Interestingly, 21 posts and no one has supplied any math. People are just posting things they heard about it meaning more money for us - but no math.

Also remember BC's football and MBB programs were both stronger the day they left the Big East than they are now.

There are somet things that occur that you don't need to resort to math. Common sense can simply prevail. Is it cheaper for me to take the bus to work or drive my car? I don't have to go look up bus fair then compare the cost of gas and maintenance to my car to know that it's cheaper to ride the bus. Pitt and Cuse didn't bolt in the middle of the night to wind up in a conference where they would draw less revenue. Why would they want to travel further and lose long standing rivals for no gain? They wouldn't.

But because we've had enough back and forth discourse, I knew that wouldn't placate you. So I spent about 3 minutes googling to come up with this:

In 2010, the ACC got a new ESPN contract for Football and Basketball that works out to 155milllion/year. If they go to 16, that works out to 9.6million per team per year. That could well be renegotiated to more with the inclusion of 4 more teams particularly if they get ND and UConn. But let's just say 9.6M per team at 16 no matter who is there.

In 2010, the Big East still had 4 years on football and 3 years on basketball in the current contract. That contract is 39 million/year. The previous ACC contract was 67 million for fewer teams if you want to compare contracts by age. There's a big difference between 67M for 12 teams vs 39M for 18 teams. So for the old ACC contract it was 5.5M per team.

I'm sure the football schools get more than the BB only schools, but to make it simple, I'm just going to use 18 teams. That's 2.2M/year for each team. Let's assume the football schools get a 60% share which I think is realistic. 39*.60/8 = 2.9M. 5.5M per team vs 2.9M for football BE schools is a huge difference. Figure in the new contract that bumps that up to 9.6M for 16 teams and the gap is enourmous.

In 2010, the Big East hoped to triple the contract when it's redone. That would be 120M. Using the same math, the football schools would get 9 million, pretty close. However, there are two issues. 1) With Pitt and Cuse gone, there's no way they triple the money they are currently getting. 2) There is no way they can survive with 8 football teams, so that split is going to go down.

With the teams leaving and the instability of the league, they will be lucky to get a contract for even 100M. They almost have to go to a 12/20 team league. That would leave footballs schools with 5M. If they go with a 10/18 league or an 8/16 league, there's no way they sniff 100M.

So there's your math. Best case scenario, 5M/year in the BE. With the current 12 year deal, worst case, they make 9.6M in the ACC. The exit fee is paid in just over a year. Currently the differene is 2.9M vs 9.6M. A few million here and a few million there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

This is absolutely a no brainer.

ps Just for reference, the SEC has a 205M deal. For 16 teams, that's 12.8M. The move from the ACC to the SEC would take about 6 to 7 years to pay off.

 

[ctchamps]

The LHN was launched this year. ESPN has a contract with Texas for 300 million over 20 years. Does anyone know how this works?