For anybody who is trying to make good of our sitiation

[CL82]

I used to think this until Cinci hired Tuberville. Personally I'm not a big fan of Tuberville, and wouldn't particularly want him coaching here, but he has a name and he was hired away from a "Top 5 conference" school. It shows that there's more to it than conference, and if we show a real commitment to football, through a paycheck and through plans for stadium renovation/expansion, we can attract a splashy hire as well. Usually I'd prefer a relatively local 1AA HC, or a young up and comer, but in the position we're in right now we might be better off going for a name. It'll show recruits and conferences that we intend to stay competitive regardless of conference.

Fair enough Matt. I'm skeptical though.

 

[CL82]

Here's the situation as I see it. This is absolutely a horrible position to be in, but we haven't done much to improve our position, either. Whatever changes need to be made on the football side of things need to be made fairly quickly. Next season, unless UConn wins 8 games, there needs to be a new head coach. 6-6 won't cut it. 7-5 won't cut it. 8 plus wins is the minimum. And then we need to find a can't miss guy. Maybe its a Tuberville type, maybe its a well known highly respected coordinator and maybe its a MAC/Sunbelt guy, but it cannot be a mistake. We're not an awful team that will take 4-5 years to rebuild as Syracuse was when Marrone was hired. This should be a team which can compete relatively quickly with the right guy in charge.

We had an opportunity to do the same on the basketball side and went with the sentimental, and in the long run cheaper and probaly ineffective, choice. that cannot happen with the football program. It is possible to create a powerful program in a weak conference. Louisville did it in 2002-3. Boise has done it. TCU did it. Those need to be our models going forward. I'd like to see UConn-Cincinatti become the de facto Big East championship game every year.

Agree, except for the gratuitous shot at Ollie.

 

[zls44]

Without their ponying up money to the ACC for raid pt1 and pt2, there is a good chance that things are not as volatile right now, and a good chance that the Big East is still a viable major conference.

ESPN had the ACC locked down for a decade at a well below market rate. Why would ESPN try and increase the amount they owed? Why would they jack up their own deal? For Syracuse and Pitt, neither of whom move the ratings needle? How does that make any sense? Why would they try and owe more money when they had a sweetheart deal?

An automatic clause was triggered, one that exists in every conference TV deal, including the Mountain West's one with CBS. The ACC wanted to increase their payday, the only way they could do it was by expansion. Period. That's it. That's all it is.

This is checkers. Not chess.

 

[freescooter]

CL82,

It is pretty interesting how UConn fans look at our position. Even before we faced this conference re-organization, the assumption generally has been that nobody would want to coach here. We heard and read it about football, despite having some of the best facilitites in the country and having had rreasonable success, multiple conference titles, multiple bowl games. Then we heard the same thing when Calhoun's retirement was discussed. I was always amazed when people would say we have to hire Ollie because no major program coach would ever consider taking over a 3 time national champion in one of the top leagues in the country that was looking to build the best practice facility in the country. And none of that even takes into consideration the quality of life and the quality of the university. Where does this skepticism come from? I think there is still a Yankee Conference outlook that dominates the fan base and the leadership.

 

[HuskyHawk]

As for being a conspiracy theorist, multiple data points on the same trend line shows causation. UConn did not get to where it is by accident, and ESPN was responsible. Despite better ratings, a better market and a better program, programs like Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville were saved before UConn, and ESPN could have gotten us in the queue at any point but chose not to. Those 3 schools also did not give ESPN over $100MM in tax breaks.

Connecticut paid ESPN $100 million to save Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville. That is not a conspiracy, that is a fact.

This is where I diverge. I don't think ESPN orchestrated any of this, and I think they probably have a pro-UConn bias if anything. I think UConn got where it is not entirely by accident, but based on a system that works against newcomers. I keep seeing people say...why add UMass to a league, they just made the jump? We may fool ourselves all we want, but that's how the rest of the world sees UConn. Our football program is one that recently made the jump and therefore is a non-entity. Even compared to Pitt, which has a NC and producted Marino and Dorsett, or to Syracuse and their past glory, Jim Brown etc., we are viewed as minor leaguers. Even our academic success is fairly recent. Our basketball success goes back a little farther, but not much. We are party crashers at the ultimate old boys club.

That leaves us with few options.
1. Try to win favor with the insiders at important schools and conferences. Pay homage to those who need us to kiss their pinky rings.
2. Kick down the door. Be so overwhelmingly good at everything that you can't be excluded. We did it in basketball, and it got us an invite into a BCS conference as a new FBS school. Think about it. Has that ever happened? No. We sometimes fail to see how lucky we were to be playing football in the BE to begin with.

That's pretty much it. This old boy's network is older than ESPN. ESPN is not running it, nor is anybody in the northeast. It includes southern and midwestern biases, and all manner of petty personal idiocy. That's why our "bonafides" don't mean jack.

 

[Pudge]

Well Whale typically, I read your posts (and I do read them, despite their negativity) and I think man this guy should quit breaking the prozacs in half, but this post is focused and specific, and not just a generic woe is me.

So who is your splashy hire? That's easier to say than to achieve given our current circumstances. I'm not sure we could draw big time established coaches here right now. I wish we had done that after FUCHCRE but things are tough right now. I think we are now in the position where we need to find the up and coming coach and ride his success until he gets a better offer. That's a step back but that's where we are.

I like number 3, and I think the same should be done at the XL and Gampel as well. There was a time when men's and women's basketball was a hot ticket. That enthusiasm was lost due to poor pricing and a preference for a big check over longstanding fans. That was a huge mistake and a new pricing policy could go a long way toward rebuilding the base. I've noticed that UConn seems to have ramped up the marketing a bit with three game plans and better ads. I think that is step in the right direction. I'd like to see us put students opposite the camera around the lower portion of the court. That does cost us revenue in the near term but it enhances the brand in long run. I wonder if we should include a partial ticket offset as a part of the tuition like other schools do. We certainly should make it as easy as possible to get to the XL and the Rent by providing busses. I believe this is happening for football, although I am not sure how well utilized they are. I'm not sure that it happens for basketball.

I'm not sure about the stadium expansion plan. I get the point behind it but I worry about putting it out there when we will have 20k (or perhaps less) at a lot of games next year. Maybe hold this back until we get a new coach and use it to pump up excitement.

Herbst bothers me less than some. I do agree that her "We're winners who like winning" and her "intriguingly unique" (or was it "uniquely intriguing") statements were underwhelming.

I'll add a number 6 that we need to aggressively market the university both in its academics and in its athletics consistently and at a high quality. I sense at step in the right direction, but it needs to ramped up and the quality needs to be improved.

Regarding ESPN, given that there was a public statement by someone who was in the trenches that ESPN was pulling the strings of that particular round (and additional discussion after the original raid) I think it is a tough stance to suggest that they are passive bystanders in CR. While it may not have gone exactly the way they wanted they were the catalyst. Without their ponying up money to the ACC for raid pt1 and pt2, there is a good chance that things are not as volatile right now, and a good chance that the Big East is still a viable major conference. I do believe that UConn got caught in the crossfire of ESPN's effort to make sure that NBC couldn't get a foothold in the cable college sports market. Do they hate UConn, probably not. Do they give a rat's patootie whether they've damaged our college sports, probably not. Should the State ever give them taxpayer money again, probably not.

Honestly ... those are the ACTION items that need to get done. Warde Manual????

 

[Pudge]

I am amazed at about 10 posters that just hammer the same theme no matter what they thread. (or what the topics or meanderings of the thread).

I agree with the idea that we know what we are going to read from some posters before we begin the first sentence.

 

[CL82]

ESPN had the ACC locked down for a decade at a well below market rate. Why would ESPN try and increase the amount they owed? Why would they jack up their own deal? By doing so they hoped to to take a potential competitor out of market before it became established enough to be a serious threat. Invest a little now so that you don't have pay more for every TV contract down the road. For Syracuse and Pitt, neither of whom move the ratings needle? How does that make any sense? Keep in mind that the original targets were Syracuse and UConn, the two best basketball teams, effectively finishing off the Big East. Why would they try and owe more money when they had a sweetheart deal? See my answer above. Keep in mind the cost was partially offset by the money that no longer needed to expend to keep the Big East.

An automatic clause was triggered, one that exists in every conference TV deal, including the Mountain West's one with CBS. The ACC wanted to increase their payday, the only way they could do it was by expansion. Period. That's it. That's all it is. Of course we still have the statement of someone with first hand knowledge who states that ESPN "told them who to get". Kind of an inconvenient fact for your "we had nothing to do with it" argument.

This is checkers. Not chess. It's neither. It is business. ESPN eliminated a potential competitor. We are just collateral damage. I wonder if anyone will explore the anti-trust implications, not regarding college sports per se but regarding one company's anti-competitive practices while holding the vast majority of college sports broadcast rights.

 

[freescooter]

I am AMAZED at about 10 posters that just HAMMER the same theme NO matter what they thread. (or what the topics or meanderings of the thread).

I agree with the idea that we KNOW what we are going to read from some posters before WE BEGIN the first sentence.

Fixed your post. I think your CAP key mustn't be working...

 

[whaler11]

As for being a conspiracy theorist, multiple data points on the same trend line shows causation. UConn did not get to where it is by accident, and ESPN was responsible. Despite better ratings, a better market and a better program, programs like Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville were saved before UConn, and ESPN could have gotten us in the queue at any point but chose not to. Those 3 schools also did not give ESPN over $100MM in tax breaks.

Connecticut paid ESPN $100 million to save Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville. That is not a conspiracy, that is a fact.

So why don't you start with a motive?

And make sure to include why to bury UConn, they decided to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on mildly interesting programming.

Why did they do it?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

So why don't you start with a motive?

And make sure to include why to bury UConn, they decided to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on mildly interesting programming.

Why did they do it?

I don't need to have a motive. If someone is standing over a dead body with a bloody knife, it is a good starting assumption that person committed murder.

 

[RMoore1999]

LOGIC!
REASON!




...WIIIIIIITCH!

I look forward to the point at which you give up on UConn completely, jump on a bandwagon (surprised you aren't an Alabama fan for football and Duke fan for basketball), and stop posting here.

I actually thought This thread contains some of whaler's least negative comments. Correctly commenting upon a distressing plight doesnt make him negative. his 5-step plan would be a great start.

 

[whaler11]

I don't need to have a motive. If someone is standing over a dead body with a bloody knife, it is a good starting assumption that person committed murder.

This proves your insanity. Why would a corporation spend 9 figures damaging an athletic program for no reason.

In a methodical way in which they have kept all the parties silent? Jesus the fake moon landing makes more sense.

 

[CL82]

This proves your insanity. Why would a corporation spend 9 figures damaging an athletic program for no reason.

Don't know but what corporation wouldn't eliminate a competitor with a relatively minor investment, if it meant not not having to pay higher prices for product in the foreseeable future? UConn wasn't the target, it was just collateral damage.

 

[whaler11]

Don't know but what corporation wouldn't eliminate a competitor with a relatively minor investment, if it meant not not having to pay higher prices for product in the foreseeable future? UConn wasn't the target, it was just collateral damage.

Well even if that were true - that isn't what Waylon is saying. He is saying it was intentional damage.

 

[Vowelguy]

DO NOT READ IF YOU REALLY DON'T CARE FOR NEGITIVITY. Thank you.

Or an inability to spell correctly.

 

[Huskieforlife]

Or an inability to spell correctly.

Sue me.....

 

[CL82]

Well even if that were true - that isn't what Waylon is saying. He is saying it was intentional damage.

I don't know there is whole lot of why would they pick on UConn being thrown around this thread as a defense of EPSN. It is red herring.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This proves your insanity. Why would a corporation spend 9 figures damaging an athletic program for no reason.

In a methodical way in which they have kept all the parties silent? Jesus the fake moon landing makes more sense.

ESPN chose who got on a lifeboat. They made a lot of choices and never got to UConn.

 

[whaler11]

ESPN chose who got on a lifeboat. They made a lot of choices and never got to UConn.

Have you gotten to a reason as to what their motivation was yet? I'm all ears. Did ESPN save Louisville last go round? Did ESPN save Rutgers and West Virginia too? Does ESPN also have an vendetta against Cincinnati and USF - or are they just unlucky and UConn is the target.

 

[baggerbob]

The C7 were the problem that ESPN wanted to kill, Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova were the only decent teams out of the present re-incarnation. UConn, Louisville, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Notre Dame were by far better in basketball , and ESPN was paying for football and basketball, and felt the 7 would have been better off alone. Then the basketball schools helped vote down the contract, and ESPN figured it was time to deep 6 the conference.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Have you gotten to a reason as to what their motivation was yet? I'm all ears. Did ESPN save Louisville last go round? Did ESPN save Rutgers and West Virginia too? Does ESPN also have an vendetta against Cincinnati and USF - or are they just unlucky and UConn is the target.

I'm normally on the same page with you Whaler on the vast majority on topics on the Boneyard. However, I think ESPN definitely played a larger role in realignment, at least initially.

It makes sense to me that the ACC/ESPN acted together on the Syracuse/Pitt raid. The ACC gets to re-do their (under market) contract and while ESPN would have to open the checkbook for the ACC, it hurt the Big East brand from the perspective of a competitor (NBC Sports) to really make a big splash on the market. I think this is at least a reasonable premise.

I also believe that the targets were Syracuse and UConn and due to BC's opposition and a comparable brand in Pitt, there wasn't much push back from ESPN or the ACC. There's no conspiracy against UConn - we really got screwed due to BC's opposition and then Florida State yielding all the leverage in taking Louisville.

I think this was the initial plan. However, everything that has occurred since has spiraled out of control and cost ESPN a ton of extra money. This obviously wasn't the intention and who knows whether or not they occur without the Pitt/Syracuse raid, or take it a step further, the BC/VPI/Miami raid.

A final point, I don't know much about law, but as others have mentioned, tortious interference seems to describe the dynamic between ESPN and the ACC/Big East with respect to the raids. Unfortunately for us, UConn seems to be an innocent bystander that was irrevocably harmed in raids (unless we ourselves get to go to the ACC should further raids occur).

In any event, that's my $.02

 

[whaler11]

I'm normally on the same page with you Whaler on the vast majority on topics on the Boneyard. However, I think ESPN definitely played a larger role in realignment, at least initially.

It makes sense to me that the ACC/ESPN acted together on the Syracuse/Pitt raid. The ACC gets to re-do their (under market) contract and while ESPN would have to open the checkbook for the ACC, it hurt the Big East brand from the perspective of a competitor (NBC Sports) to really make a big splash on the market. I think this is at least a reasonable premise.

I also believe that the targets were Syracuse and UConn and due to BC's opposition and a comparable brand in Pitt, there wasn't much push back from ESPN or the ACC. There's no conspiracy against UConn - we really got screwed due to BC's opposition and then Florida State yielding all the leverage in taking Louisville.

I think this was the initial plan. However, everything that has occurred since has spiraled out of control and cost ESPN a ton of extra money. This obviously wasn't the intention and who knows whether or not they occur without the Pitt/Syracuse raid, or take it a step further, the BC/VPI/Miami raid.

A final point, I don't know much about law, but as others have mentioned, tortious interference seems to describe the dynamic between ESPN and the ACC/Big East with respect to the raids. Unfortunately for us, UConn seems to be an innocent bystander that was irrevocably harmed in raids (unless we ourselves get to go to the ACC should further raids occur).

In any event, that's my $.02

So if this is true ESPN didn't intentionally destroy UConn - BC was allowed to and ESPN couldn't stop them. Nobody is saying that they don't influence. Waylon is saying they murdered UConn and are the 'evidence' is clear. .

 

[ConnHuskBask]

So if this is true ESPN didn't intentionally destroy UConn - BC was allowed to and ESPN couldn't stop them. Nobody is saying that they don't influence. Waylon is saying they murdered UConn and are the 'evidence' is clear. .

Agreed. There's no incentive at all for ESPN to intentionally screw UCONN.

I really do fully believe ESPN started this whole mess and all things being equal, they miscalculated the situation and ended up paying more for actually leas product.

I know thats a bold stance considering ESPN's business acumen, but I don't think anyone could have for saw a day where Rutgers was a B1G school and the ACC academics yielded to the demands of Florida State.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

So if this is true ESPN didn't intentionally destroy UConn - BC was allowed to and ESPN couldn't stop them. Nobody is saying that they don't influence. Waylon is saying they murdered UConn and are the 'evidence' is clear. .

Whaler, you never just drop an argument when you are wrong. I have been crystal clear about my position here, and the evidence supports me 100%.

1) ESPN started a process that they knew would devastate the Big East and leave several of the programs in smoldering ruins. Is anyone debating this point?

2) ESPN got to choose which programs got saved and which ones got killed, and they chose TCU, WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers, and didn't choose USF, UConn and Cincinnati. Is anyone debating this point?

Why are you arguing? The fact that the process got out of control and overall, 14 of the 17 programs ended up in pretty good shape does not change the fact that ESPN started a process that was going to irrevocably damage several university athletic programs, and they had a pretty good idea going in which ones they were going to be. The only thing ESPN did not expect was that Fox would be so aggressive, grabbing Rutgers and Maryland (which caused Louisville to jump), and the C7.