Forgive my ambiguity here, reputable source: UConn making earnest P5 Push

[pj]

I was thinking the same thing. And I assume that he would be unlikely to post if the report from his contact was: there have been conversations and its a nonstarter. So, I think we can conclude we are in.
The other inference is that why have a conversation with an NDA if a move is not imminent? You cant keep secrets for years. So, I think its clear a move is announced soon.
The other inference that can be gleaned is that we are talking about the B1G. He said we are "using all available resources." That to me is a reference to the state level funding that is getting us up to B1G metrics on the academic side. That money would be pumped into a fast food sponsored stadium if we were talking about the ACC.
Lastly, I think he's talking about us joining in 2017. The reference to "2 degrees of separation" is a clear signal to 2017. We are "separated" now from the B1G by two years: 2015 and 2016.

Your logic is impeccable but you should have followed it a bit further. The state just made $1.5 billion available to UConn -- those are available resources. We are "using all available resources" to get in the B1G. How can an athletic conference move require $1.5 bn? Undoubtedly we are using the $1.5 billion for a hostile takeover of the BTN. In order to get their games on television, Michigan and Ohio State are going to have to play ball.

 

[Brochacho]

15 can work for football. Establish three 5 team pods. You play the teams in your pod every year, and then alternate 3 and 2 teams from the other pods.
Pod 1: UConn, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, VT "Old Big East"
Pod 2: Virginia, UNC, Duke, WF, NCST "Tobacco Road"
Pod 3: FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, Louisville, "South aka good at football pod"

So from UConn's perspective, this is how it could shape up:
Year 1, Home: BC, Syracuse, Virginia, UNC, Duke. Away: Pitt, VT, FSU, Miami
Year 2, Home: Pitt, VT, WF, NCST. Away: BC, Syracuse, GT, Clemson, Louisville
Year 3, Home: BC, Syracuse, GT, Clemson, Louisville. Away: Pitt, VT, WF, NCST
Year 4, Home: Pitt, VT, FSU, Miami. Away: BC, Syracuse, Virginia, UNC, Duke.

SO under this set up regional ties are maintained, and it allows each school to play the others schools H/H every 4 years. I think its a good setup.

 

[pj]

15 can work for football. Establish three 5 team pods. You play the teams in your pod every year, and then alternate 3 and 2 teams from the other pods.
Pod 1: UConn, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, VT "Old Big East"
Pod 2: Virginia, UNC, Duke, WF, NCST "Tobacco Road"
Pod 3: FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, Louisville, "South aka good at football pod"

So from UConn's perspective, this is how it could shape up:
Year 1, Home: BC, Syracuse, Virginia, UNC, Duke. Away: Pitt, VT, FSU, Miami
Year 2, Home: Pitt, VT, WF, NCST. Away: BC, Syracuse, GT, Clemson, Louisville
Year 3, Home: BC, Syracuse, GT, Clemson, Louisville. Away: Pitt, VT, WF, NCST
Year 4, Home: Pitt, VT, FSU, Miami. Away: BC, Syracuse, Virginia, UNC, Duke.

SO under this set up regional ties are maintained, and it allows each school to play the others schools H/H every 4 years. I think its a good setup.

I think you got the pods a little mixed up. You meant to write:
Pod 1: UConn, Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Michigan State
Pod 2: Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern
Pod 3: Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Weird, I thought they just made the BCS championship game not too long ago.

Nothing gets a quicker response on this board than saying something marginally negative about Notre Dame football. I forgot that this was a Notre Dame board too.

I am tired of arguing Notre Dame on this board because I don't really care enough about college football anymore. Notre Dame is the greatest football program in the history of football programs. Happy now?

 

[jostar1]

The other inference that can be gleaned is that we are talking about the B1G. He said we are "using all available resources." That to me is a reference to the state level funding that is getting us up to B1G metrics on the academic side. That money would be pumped into a fast food sponsored stadium if we were talking about the ACC.

When he said we are using "all available resources", I thought he meant other people, such as Gov. Malloy who 1) is a BC graduate and could possibly soften their objections and 2) could possibly strong arm, I mean "talk" to ESPN.

 

[uconnell]

how many rumors did you hear about MD or Rutty before they moved to the Big?

Rutgers used to talk about going to the Big for years. We used to laugh at them.

 

[uconnell]

They prefer you to be a current member before you get banned.

You mean like Syracuse?

 

[uconnell]

If you read the article linked about Maryland going to the big, the sentence that stands out to me is"Maryland doesn't command an usually large following, but access to the Washington and Baltimore markets matter".

Plus their football wasn't that good and attendance was low.

Markets matter people.

 

[MattMang23]

Nothing gets a quicker response on this board than saying something marginally negative about Notre Dame football. I forgot that this was a Notre Dame board too.

I am tired of arguing Notre Dame on this board because I don't really care enough about college football anymore. Notre Dame is the greatest football program in the history of football programs. Happy now?

Actually, no. I'm not a ND fan and I don't much care if you talk about them, as long as it's accurate . Implying that they are already somewhat irrelevant is ridiculous considering just two years ago they were in the national championship game.

But then again, it's you making the comment, so I should have expected you to say something ridiculous.

 

[kyleslamb]

At the O'Bannon trial: George Schroeder@GeorgeSchroeder · 15m
Delany also mentioned membership in the AAU at time of application & sponsoring at least 16 sports as requirements for B1G entry.

I believe that is the most recent comment. It seems like a rehearsed statement, but as time passes I could see some wiggle room by saying that Delany wasn't expressing the collective sentiment of the Presidents and Chancellors of the Big Ten (or that those sentiments have changed).

I'm still trying to reconcile his comments with those of Scott Chipman back when all this began:

"There are no restrictions regarding expansion - potential additions are not required to be in the AAU, and they do not have to be in (or adjacent to) the eight Big Ten states," league spokesman Scott Chipman wrote in an e-mail. Removing the AAU and geographic limitations means the Big Ten can add any school from anywhere in the country.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/525178.html?nav=742

I mentioned this last summer when Delaney first made those comments, but Chipman had been very clear the Big Ten did not have an actual bylaw concerning AAU membership. Perhaps that's changed in the past 4-5 years, but that's what makes the comments more odd.

 

[OkaForPrez]

If you read the article linked about Maryland going to the big, the sentence that stands out to me is"Maryland doesn't command an usually large following, but access to the Washington and Baltimore markets matter".

Plus their football wasn't that good and attendance was low.

Markets matter people.

There are no universal rules though which is why this is tricky. You basically have to first differentiate every move that's taken place so far as either proactive expansion or backfill acquisition.

The hurdles are much higher to jump in proactive expansion than in backfill acquisition. a BA move really only has to match or come near the TV value of the lost school to justify the move. If a school administrator doesn't have to vote through a significant reduction in their own revenues its a much easier call to make.

Markets have been big factors in proactive expansion only when conference television networks are in play. In these scenarios you only need enough critical mass to get your network into a market at the highest carriage rate possible to impose the TV tax on all people within that market. That's why NYC and DC were so important to the B1g but might not be as important to an ESPN partnered conference like the ACC or SEC where ESPN is already a base tier established channel. Its been a while since we discussed the BTN landing on the base tier in the NYC DMA but if that's truly happened we've probably lost that race. No matter how much we trumpet our best of the rest value to the B1G in terms of markets, if they already have NYC then Hartford New Haven is enough to justify a proactive expansion hurdle jump.

The ACC's proactive moves are a bit trickier to plot. They feel like they were carried out with the intention of destroying the big east outright as directed by ESPN with the value of the PA move coming as a result of the full out death of the Big East.

I think at this point the best hope for a PA move is the Big 12's requirement for a CCG. If that conference believes they need a CCG in order to be competitive for a spot in the CFP every year then the value equation for expansion has to include the opportunity cost of missing out on CFP $ every year. If the value of the CFP $ per school * the increased likelihood of making the CFP each year exceeds the revenue dilution due to acquisition that might be enough to move the Big 12 off its perch. Bowlsby unfortunately has indicated publicly coming out of the Big 12's winter meetings that they collectively haven't concluded this year to be their ongoing reality but rather just the way the year played out. Maybe 2-3 consecutive years of not making the CFP changes that collective mindset and get's the Big12 moving.

 

[dayooper]

Markets have been big factors in proactive expansion only when conference television networks are in play. In these scenarios you only need enough critical mass to get your network into a market at the highest carriage rate possible to impose the TV tax on all people within that market. That's why NYC and DC were so important to the B1g but might not be as important to an ESPN partnered conference like the ACC or SEC where ESPN is already a base tier established channel. Its been a while since we discussed the BTN landing on the base tier in the NYC DMA but if that's truly happened we've probably lost that race. No matter how much we trumpet our best of the rest value to the B1G in terms of markets, if they already have NYC then Hartford New Haven is enough to justify a proactive expansion hurdle jump.

I don't think they have. They have carriage, but I believe it's not at the full cost of other states. It's why I believe that The Big10 is not done expanding in The Northeast, there is much more to be gained.

 

[OkaForPrez]

I don't think they have. They have carriage, but I believe it's not at the full cost of other states. It's why I believe that The Big10 is not done expanding in The Northeast, there is much more to be gained.

Do you have any data on that Dayoop? Would enjoy some reading on it.

 

[CTGoonie]

"There are no universal rules though which is why this is tricky."
This as we all should know is false. The first rule in conference realignment is that any move will result in Uconn being kicked in the nuts.

Also, the B1G does not "already have NYC". Yes, they get the BTN on basic cable but we don't know what the terms are. My hope is they went in low just to get on basic then will renegotiate when Uconn is added to the mix.

 

[UConn Dan]

I'm still trying to reconcile his comments with those of Scott Chipman back when all this began:

"There are no restrictions regarding expansion - potential additions are not required to be in the AAU, and they do not have to be in (or adjacent to) the eight Big Ten states," league spokesman Scott Chipman wrote in an e-mail. Removing the AAU and geographic limitations means the Big Ten can add any school from anywhere in the country.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/525178.html?nav=742

I mentioned this last summer when Delaney first made those comments, but Chipman had been very clear the Big Ten did not have an actual bylaw concerning AAU membership. Perhaps that's changed in the past 4-5 years, but that's what makes the comments more odd.

I mentioned this at the time. Delany was speaking to his audience- the judge. He wanted to emphasize that his conference wasn't all about athletics, but also academics. College sports business model was on trial. He wanted to emphasize to the judge that his member institutions cared about academics and that was the reason for existing and not athletics. He was implying that his conference athletes are getting a free education at world class universities and they are being compensated enough as it is.

Secondly, and this is purely speculative and borderline conspiracy theory type sheete, putting the AAU requirement on legal record may have been a CYA move in case some anti-trust sheete came down later and forced conferences to add teams within their footprint that were willing to spend the money to keep up. Think Cinci

EDIT: just wanted to note that of course I think that the B1G would take the right non-AAU school.

 

[OkaForPrez]

. Yes, they get the BTN on basic cable but we don't know what the terms are. My hope is they went in low just to get on basic then will renegotiate when Uconn is added to the mix.

It's not like they were in an embattled discussion for months. That deal happened pretty quick. And the problem is the biggest value of any school to the DMA is bringing enough critical mass to win the base tier. Meaning if school A and school B each have an equal share of the market the first school's return on investment is far more delivering X * subs per market rather than school B's leverage of (Y-X) * subs. While I think we would have justified a B1G proactive expansion if we were first like Rutgers, I have a hard time believing that our ability to increase the cost per sub in NYC will be enough incremental value to justify another proactive expansion on their part : /

 

[CTGoonie]

It's not like they were in an embattled discussion for months. That deal happened pretty quick. And the problem is the biggest value of any school to the DMA is bringing enough critical mass to win the base tier. Meaning if school A and school B each have an equal share of the market the first school's return on investment is far more delivering X * subs per market rather than school B's leverage of (Y-X) * subs. While I think we would have justified a B1G proactive expansion if we were first like Rutgers, I have a hard time believing that our ability to increase the cost per sub in NYC will be enough incremental value to justify another proactive expansion on their part : /

Thankfully we can offer more than just incremental value to NYC. 100% Hartford/New Haven and portions of the rest of New England on top of NYC.

 

[CL82]

I was thinking the same thing. And I assume that he would be unlikely to post if the report from his contact was: there have been conversations and its a nonstarter. So, I think we can conclude we are in.
The other inference is that why have a conversation with an NDA if a move is not imminent? You cant keep secrets for years. So, I think its clear a move is announced soon.
The other inference that can be gleaned is that we are talking about the B1G. He said we are "using all available resources." That to me is a reference to the state level funding that is getting us up to B1G metrics on the academic side. That money would be pumped into a fast food sponsored stadium if we were talking about the ACC.
Lastly, I think he's talking about us joining in 2017. The reference to "2 degrees of separation" is a clear signal to 2017. We are "separated" now from the B1G by two years: 2015 and 2016.

Conspiracy Kitty says:
Dude, you just blew my mind! It's all so clear now.

 

[Seaa Blue]

From a July 2004 release:

Jade Burroughs, Kerry Kenny and Jessica Palermo have each been elevated to director positions and will staff the Big Ten’s New York City office, providing expanded coverage and service to each of the conference’s member institutions and industry partners.

3 new Director -level positions, and the Big Ten is done expanding in the Big Apple? I don't think so.

 

[dayooper]

Do you have any data on that Dayoop? Would enjoy some reading on it.

No, it was one of those things you remember reading, but it may be incorrect.

 

[pj]

No way Rutgers delivers full value in NYC. Adding UConn would double the take in NYC (twice as many NY area schools, twice as many visits by Penn State/Ohio State/Michigan), deliver 100% of Connecticut (maybe, by B1G standards, 200% because they could get a lot more than $0.90 per subscriber in Connecticut), and penetration in Massachusetts and other New England states. Add some value for the national men's and women's basketball brands, and when you run the numbers UConn contributes about the average for a B1G school. It wouldn't be dilutive and it would be a strategic dagger at the ACC.

 

[Fishy]

I'd like to see the ACC just tell the Irish.."now or never" and then add Cincy and UConn. But you can't really push Notre Dame...they know folks are lined up to take them in.

That's the thing with Notre Dame - they really hold all the cards.

I never understand what people are thinking when they say that Notre Dame has "five years to become relevant" or that the Big Ten has moved on.

Relevance - I believe all 12 of their games last year were shown on network television. Not ESPN - network...NBC, CBS, ABC. Their least-appealing television matchup was against Navy - that game was shown in primetime by CBS.

Conference - If Notre Dame wanted to join the Big Ten, they could do it with a phone call.

 

[Seaa Blue]

Conference - If Notre Dame wanted to join the Big Ten, they could do it with a phone call.

Delany would do it, but only because he could then retire the next day, somewhere far from the fan base.

 

[Fishy]

Delany would do it, but only because he could then retire the next day, somewhere far from the fan base.

Delaney would do it and then spend the next year crowd surfing amidst the fans who are even now pretending they don't want Notre Dame and the firehose of cash they'd bring with them.

 

[Seaa Blue]

Delaney would do it and then spend the next year crowd surfing amidst the fans who are even now pretending they don't want Notre Dame and the firehose of cash they'd bring with them.

Sure I would take them. I campaigned long and hard to convince @TerryD that B1G was their destiny.

But, it's not like it was. B1G has done gone East. Notre Dame, still refusing to base its identity on anything tangible, continues to wonder the wilderness. It's become clear that they need to do so for perhaps another 40 years. And don't look now, but I think they've been sleeping with some other conference.

Their cash? Well, their sugar daddy (NBC) doesn't fit in well with the Big Ten. Without them, I don't know where the firehose of cash comes from. B1G has Indiana fairly well covered. And where outside of B1G's footprint would they justify BTN carriage? Cash, yes. Firehose? Maybe one with a little more water pressure, but B1G accomplished a lot recently without them and currently has assets in place that they're still dreaming about. It's no longer clear which direction the cash would flow.

 

[Rinaldi]

Sure I would take them. I campaigned long and hard to convince @TerryD that B1G was their destiny.

But, it's not like it was. B1G has done gone East. Notre Dame, still refusing to base its identity on anything tangible, continues to wonder the wilderness. It's become clear that they need to do so for perhaps another 40 years. And don't look now, but I think they've been sleeping with some other conference.

Their cash? Well, their sugar daddy (NBC) doesn't fit in well with the Big Ten. Without them, I don't know where the firehose of cash comes from. B1G has Indiana fairly well covered. And where outside of B1G's footprint would they justify BTN carriage? Cash, yes. Firehose? Maybe one with a little more water pressure, but B1G accomplished a lot recently without them and currently has assets in place that they're still dreaming about. It's no longer clear which direction the cash would flow.

ND is a true national brand...one of only a handful in college football. It simply doesn't matter Indiana is already well covered. You add ND if you can...

 

[whaler11]

UConn beat one of the worst Notre Dame teams that has ever existed and the next morning Edsall was interviewed on Sportscenter as if he was the greatest conqueror in college football history.... the same ESPN that pretends events they don't hold the rights to don't exist....

The government might have to start printing larger denominations for the Big Ten if they added ND.

 

[Seaa Blue]

UConn beat one of the worst Notre Dame teams that has ever existed and the next morning Edsall was interviewed on Sportscenter as if he was the greatest conqueror in college football history.... the same ESPN that pretends events they don't hold the rights to don't exist....

The government might have to start printing larger denominations for the Big Ten if they added ND.

Yeah, well Michigan has plenty of experience of elevating also-rans into the stratosphere; thank you very much.

Notre Dame is far from unique in that department, except that more people do watch them to see them lose.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I owe the Internet an apology for turning this into yet another Notre Dame thread

 

[whaler11]

Yeah, well Michigan has plenty of experience of elevating also-rans into the stratosphere; thank you very much.

Notre Dame is far from unique in that department, except that more people do watch them to see them lose.

LOL you are a Michigan fan making the case that the Big Ten doesn't need Notre Dame because they have Indiana covered.