FSU, ACC In It For The Long Haul

[Palatine]

Let me get this straight. ESPN, because of a loss of $15 million in tax breaks, is going to abandon a billion dollars worth of infrastructure in Bristol in order to move to much more expensive Westchester County or even worse Northern New Jersey?

Does this really seem plausible to you?

The larger question is why Connecticut Democrats are trying to cook the goose that lays golden eggs. Malloy has an insane tax policy.

 

[upstater]

But I do not think it is fair to ask political leaders to enter into possible unfair business ethics and trade practices by forcing ESPN to include Uconn if it wants to accept tax breaks.

This is how the sausage is made. ESPN funds the expansion (and the damage to UConn) by giving the ACC MORE money to add Pitt, Cuse and Louisville. This is why the ACC does it in the first place. The state is essentially subsidizing an entity that turns around--through its business practices--and creates conditions that result in another state entity losing hundreds of millions. People are missing this.

 

[upstater]

The larger question is why Connecticut Democrats are trying to cook the goose that lays golden eggs. Malloy has an insane tax policy.

NBC Sports just moved to Stamford. It seems that rent and taxes in the media capital of the world are too high, and that Conn's setup is better.

 

[frankthetank]

This is how the sausage is made. ESPN funds the expansion (and the damage to UConn) by giving the ACC MORE money to add Pitt, Cuse and Louisville. This is why the ACC does it in the first place. The state is essentially subsidizing an entity that turns around--through its business practices--and creates conditions that result in another state entity losing hundreds of millions. People are missing this.

I understand this viewpoint from a UConn fan's perspective. However, I'm just saying that there's going to be less than zero sympathy for UConn nationally on that viewpoint - a greedy ESPN is par for the course (or even expected), but an ESPN that tries to move UConn ahead of Louisville, Syracuse or Pitt to curry political favor is what would engender the most hate of all for anyone outside of the UConn fan base. Having Connecticut's Governor, Senators and Congressmen lobby their counterparts in North Carolina and other parts of ACC country (in the same manner Mitch McConnell worked the phones on behalf of Louisville) is one thing, but it's MUCH different by saying that ESPN should be doing the same because they're receiving tax breaks.

What will get UConn into a power conference is a built-up football tradition that proves unequivocally without a doubt (not just potential) that it can deliver the TV households in its home region for football purposes. Do you think the University of Texas needs some politician lobbying for them in conference realignment? That's an extreme example, but the point is that if an expansion with School A is supposedly as profitable as School A's boosters claim it is, then it would get done, which would make what the desires of politicians and/or ESPN irrelevant. Being strong enough to make all of those outside factors irrelevant should be the goal of the school instead of pointing to such outside factors that are out of such school's control.

 

[upstater]

I understand this viewpoint from a UConn fan's perspective. However, I'm just saying that there's going to be less than zero sympathy for UConn nationally on that viewpoint - a greedy ESPN is par for the course (or even expected), but an ESPN that tries to move UConn ahead of Louisville, Syracuse or Pitt to curry political favor is what would engender the most hate of all for anyone outside of the UConn fan base. Having Connecticut's Governor, Senators and Congressmen lobby their counterparts in North Carolina and other parts of ACC country (in the same manner Mitch McConnell worked the phones on behalf of Louisville) is one thing, but it's MUCH different by saying that ESPN should be doing the same because they're receiving tax breaks.

What will get UConn into a power conference is a built-up football tradition that proves unequivocally without a doubt (not just potential) that it can deliver the TV households in its home region for football purposes. Do you think the University of Texas needs some politician lobbying for them in conference realignment? That's an extreme example, but the point is that if an expansion with School A is supposedly as profitable as School A's boosters claim it is, then it would get done, which would make what the desires of politicians and/or ESPN irrelevant. Being strong enough to make all of those outside factors irrelevant should be the goal of the school instead of pointing to such outside factors that are out of such school's control.

It's happened 3x now. Not once, not twice. UConn should have strong-armed its way in at the very beginning. It would have all been forgotten by now, because UConn can pull its weight. It can pull it in bball obviously, but also football, especially when compared to Pitt and Cuse (UConn has beaten these teams on the field). What it can't do as well if at all is compete outside the power structure. And THAT is precisely why the state pols should have brought the house down on ESPN.

 

[alsacs]

Let me get this straight. ESPN, because of a loss of $15 million in tax breaks, is going to abandon a billion dollars worth of infrastructure in Bristol in order to move to much more expensive Westchester County or even worse Northern New Jersey?

Does this really seem plausible to you?

I honestly don't understand what you responding too, but if the State of Connecticut cut ESPN's tax breaks because they wouldn't get UConn into a better conference then ESPN would move jobs/infrastructure from Bristol to Charlotte or Los Angeles and make Bristol less the main hub.

 

[specialisthusky]

I understand this viewpoint from a UConn fan's perspective. However, I'm just saying that there's going to be less than zero sympathy for UConn nationally on that viewpoint - a greedy ESPN is par for the course (or even expected), but an ESPN that tries to move UConn ahead of Louisville, Syracuse or Pitt to curry political favor is what would engender the most hate of all for anyone outside of the UConn fan base.

I don't think it very difficult to create legitamate arguments that ESPN doesn't have to do much to move UConn ahead of Ville, Cuse or Pitt. UConn is in a larger media market than 2 of the 3. More recent sucess in football than 2 of the 3. More basketball success than possibly all 3 but definitly 2. Has a profitable WBB team which only Cuse's lacrosse team can possibly compare in terms of possible X factor.

This never had to involve politicians if ESPN would have told BC to get over their "turf war" UConn would be in the ACC. It is not too difficult to imagine the benefits of having UConn over Pitt in the ACC even with UConn football being down the last two season. It isn't difficult to imagine the benefits of having UConn in the ACC over Lville before their big BCS win this year.

There didn't have to be any currying to political favor. There was a reason UConn was linked to every round of ACC expansion. It's because it makes alot of sense. All ESPN had to do was say they wanted it and its done.

 

[upstater]

I honestly don't understand what you responding too, but if the State of Connecticut cut ESPN's tax breaks because they wouldn't get UConn into a better conference then ESPN would move jobs/infrastructure from Bristol to Charlotte or Los Angeles and make Bristol less the main hub.

No, they wouldn't. Charlotte is about as far from NYC as to be irrelevant. Bristol isn't the back office.

Have you ever seen ESPN in Bristol? The campus is huge. ESPN cannot move away without abandoning a huge plant. It's like a suburban university trying to move downtown. It only happens at a huge expense.

 

[frankthetank]

I don't think it very difficult to create legitamate arguments that ESPN doesn't have to do much to move UConn ahead of Ville, Cuse or Pitt. UConn is in a larger media market than 2 of the 3. More recent sucess in football than 2 of the 3. More basketball success than possibly all 3 but definitly 2. Has a profitable WBB team which only Cuse's lacrosse team can possibly compare in terms of possible X factor.

This never had to involve politicians if ESPN would have told BC to get over their "turf war" UConn would be in the ACC. It is not too difficult to imagine the benefits of having UConn over Pitt in the ACC even with UConn football being down the last two season. It isn't difficult to imagine the benefits of having UConn in the ACC over Lville before their big BCS win this year.

There didn't have to be any currying to political favor. There was a reason UConn was linked to every round of ACC expansion. It's because it makes alot of sense. All ESPN had to do was say they wanted it and its done.

Sure, there are legitimate arguments in favor of UConn, but there are also perfectly legitimate arguments in favor of Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville, too. This isn't like the ACC adding Central Connecticut State instead of UConn (which would truly indicate that the ACC is acting purely out of spite since there's no business case for that whatsoever). First and foremost, UConn's lack of FBS football history is a *BIG* deal. I know a lot of UConn fans may not want it to be a big deal or try to argue that UConn has ramped up its football program well enough in the short time that it has existed or that no one should care because it's been so elite in basketball, but the fact remains that it's a glaring negative. It simply is. No amount of ESPN politicking would have changed that. At the same time, if BC had the ability to block a school, no amount of ESPN politicking would have changed that, either. More importantly, if a school that ESPN *really* cares about, like Florida State, wanted to vote in one direction, then ESPN would be shooting itself in the foot by sending FSU to a league like the Big Ten that ESPN doesn't completely control like the ACC. What do you care about if you were actually paid to run ESPN and whose job is to deliver profits to Mickey Mouse - potentially seeing schools like FSU, Georgia Tech and UVA walking off to the Big Ten Network or trying to argue that UConn really is that much stronger than Louisville that the ACC should take that risk to help ESPN's tax break situation? That might have been an empty threat, but it was certainly something that many people were worried about for the past 5 months.

At the end of the day, ESPN's job is to make money for Disney's shareholders. That's literally its fiduciary and legal obligation, NOT to make politicians happy. (And even then, making one set of politicians happy can make another set of politicians extremely unhappy. Don't you think that Mitch McConnell might have a different view of the a la carte cable legislation that John McCain just introduced if ESPN actually directed the ACC to take UConn over Louisville? The state of Connecticut tax break is a rounding error compared to what that bill could do to ESPN's profits, so Disney needs McConnell on its side.) A stable ACC (meaning one that still has FSU) is very much in the interest of anyone that owns shares of Disney.

 

[The Viking]

What is the reason we're giving tax breaks to ESPN? How is the state benefitting from this in the first place?

I'm not saying we don't, but I need a reason why they shouldn't have their tax breaks ripped away considering how much they make and how much they've been perking up the conference that left UConn in the mess that it was in. Not to mention the possibility that other underhanded things may or may not have been going on once the BE rejected offer #1 and was about to take it's inventory to the open market and potential big time competitor.

Considering how close Bristol is to Storrs, it is ironic that the sports empire can't save one of the more popular college brand names in the country (at least in hoops).

 

[UPitt]

This is how the sausage is made. ESPN funds the expansion (and the damage to UConn) by giving the ACC MORE money to add Pitt, Cuse and Louisville. This is why the ACC does it in the first place. The state is essentially subsidizing an entity that turns around--through its business practices--and creates conditions that result in another state entity losing hundreds of millions. People are missing this.

I agree it looks bad on paper when you connect the dots the way you did, but remember that the ESPN tax breaks have nothing to do with Uconn. Those tax breaks are only in place to provide jobs and economy. ESPN is a private business that has every right to add more money to the ACC after they added Pitt and Cuse. If the State of Connecticut decides they do not like the way ESPN is running its private business, they have every right to refuse to renew those tax breaks next time. At which time ESPN would weigh its options and considering moving to Charlotte, LA, etc. These tax breaks are only in place to provide benefits for jobs and economy.

I know it seems unfair that ESPN receives tax breaks and has not helped Uconn, but understand that those tax breaks were not given to ESPN to help benefit Uconn.

 

[frankthetank]

No, they wouldn't. Charlotte is about as far from NYC as to be irrelevant. Bristol isn't the back office.

Have you ever seen ESPN in Bristol? The campus is huge. ESPN cannot move away without abandoning a huge plant. It's like a suburban university trying to move downtown. It only happens at a huge expense.

NYC is hardly the be all end all or else ESPN would have just located in that market directly. Turner is located in Atlanta and no one cares about its lack of proximity to NYC. Believe me - a lot bigger companies have ditched a whole lot more in search of a less expensive corporate home. That doesn't mean that ESPN would actually leave (as they wouldn't want to if all things are relatively equal), but NEVER assume that they wouldn't follow through with a threat to leave. It happens all of the time. There are plenty of states that would offer extremely favorable terms to get ESPN to move. ESPN has significantly more leverage than the state here.

 

[frankthetank]

What is the reason we're giving tax breaks to ESPN? How is the state benefitting from this in the first place?

I'm not saying we don't, but I need a reason why they shouldn't have their tax breaks ripped away considering how much they make and how much they've been perking up the conference that left UConn in the mess that it was in. Not to mention the possibility that other underhanded things may or may not have been going on once the BE rejected offer #1 and was about to take it's inventory to the open market and potential big time competitor.

Considering how close Bristol is to Storrs, it is ironic that the sports empire can't save one of the more popular college brand names in the country (at least in hoops).

Just because ESPN isn't benefiting UConn specifically does not mean that ESPN isn't benefiting the state of Connecticut. At a minimum, every person that ESPN employs at its Bristol campus is earning income and, therefore, pays taxes to the state. Many of those people own homes in the state, meaning that they also pay property taxes and support businesses locally (who then can hire their own employees that then earn income and pay taxes to the state, and the cycle continues).

So, the $20 million per year that UConn isn't receiving in TV money by not being in a power conference is a speck of dust compared to what ESPN would be contributing to the state's economy. There's just no comparison. Like I've said, it's a big chunk of change to the UConn athletic department, but it's miniscule compared to the economic impact of having a large employer like ESPN located in your state.

 

[The Viking]

Just because ESPN isn't benefiting UConn specifically does not mean that ESPN isn't benefiting the state of Connecticut. At a minimum, every person that ESPN employs at its Bristol campus is earning income and, therefore, pays taxes to the state. Many of those people own homes in the state, meaning that they also pay property taxes and support businesses locally (who then can hire their own employees that then earn income and pay taxes to the state, and the cycle continues).

So, the $20 million per year that UConn isn't receiving in TV money by not being in a power conference is a speck of dust compared to what ESPN would be contributing to the state's economy. There's just no comparison. Like I've said, it's a big chunk of change to the UConn athletic department, but it's miniscule compared to the economic impact of having a large employer like ESPN located in your state.

Yeah, but how does it affect me. I don't care about the state. I'm angry, especially after reading your constant posts telling us how incredibly f@*#*$d we are.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Frank, I think you are right on here. We are just incredibly, incredibly frustrated by the fact that we see other companies supporting their home schools while we have someone as powerful as ESPN who can directly help and doesn't offer a hand.

What I haven't seen discussed yet, but which is implicit in every 'yarders position is our intimate relationship with this company. Many outside the area probably don't realize this but the station was founded for the sole purpose of airing Whalers and UConn games (and then other inventory they can get their hands on). So, literally, the school that launched ESPN is the one being hurt the most by them.

 

[UPitt]

What is the reason we're giving tax breaks to ESPN? How is the state benefitting from this in the first place?

I'm not saying we don't, but I need a reason why they shouldn't have their tax breaks ripped away considering how much they make and how much they've been perking up the conference that left UConn in the mess that it was in. Not to mention the possibility that other underhanded things may or may not have been going on once the BE rejected offer #1 and was about to take it's inventory to the open market and potential big time competitor.

Considering how close Bristol is to Storrs, it is ironic that the sports empire can't save one of the more popular college brand names in the country (at least in hoops).

Realize that tax breaks are given to thousands of businesses each year. They are given for creating new jobs, hiring diversity, producing economy, opening new facilities, expansion, etc. Tax breaks are an important part of business. Many times companies use empty threats about leaving without additional tax breaks, but then every once in a while someone does leave the city and state (ie. Boeing). Can Connecticut afford for ESPN to pack up its bags and leave? Yes, but it would sting a few people. Can Connecticut afford the aftermath of ESPN losing its tax breaks, even if ESPN does not leave? That answer is NO. Connecticut can NOT afford for other businesses to see ESPN lose its tax breaks (which would become very public). When choosing to relocate, expand or start a business, things like location and resources are important. But most important of all is MONEY (gross - expenses = profits - taxes = MONEY). No matter what happens to Uconn is expansion, do not expect Connecticut to even threaten to remove the tax breaks from ESPN. Its all about perception that your state is welcoming businesses to make more money.

 

[The Viking]

I know. We're not removing their tax breaks. this is just stuff that is talked about on the internet. Malloy can not allow ESPN to leave anyway.
I'm just angry.

 

[UPitt]

Frank, I think you are right on here. We are just incredibly, incredibly frustrated by the fact that we see other companies supporting their home schools while we have someone as powerful as ESPN who can directly help and doesn't offer a hand.

What I haven't seen discussed yet, but which is implicit in every 'yarders position is our intimate relationship with this company. Many outside the area probably don't realize this but the station was founded for the sole purpose of airing Whalers and UConn games (and then other inventory they can get their hands on). So, literally, the school that launched ESPN is the one being hurt the most by them.

I understand the frustration many people are feeling, but I think there is a fine line between ESPN providing Uconn support and ESPN requiring Uconn be included in the ACC. Local businesses support colleges all over the country by provide donations and other support. ESPN may owe it to Uconn to provide donations to the school, buy the weight room and stadium naming rights, and provide interships and jobs. But in my opinion, I think that ESPN would be crossing unethical business barriers if they were to require that Uconn be included in any realignment.

 

[frankthetank]

Frank, I think you are right on here. We are just incredibly, incredibly frustrated by the fact that we see other companies supporting their home schools while we have someone as powerful as ESPN who can directly help and doesn't offer a hand.

What I haven't seen discussed yet, but which is implicit in every 'yarders position is our intimate relationship with this company. Many outside the area probably don't realize this but the station was founded for the sole purpose of airing Whalers and UConn games (and then other inventory they can get their hands on). So, literally, the school that launched ESPN is the one being hurt the most by them.

Oh, I can't imagine the frustration. The only fan base that can really compare in terms of frustration is Cincinnati. I feel for you guys there.

Here's the thing for me personally: over the years, I have developed pretty low expectations of ESPN, so that's why I don't have the emotional reaction to their actions/inactions that a lot of fans have. You mention the Whalers (RIP) and just look at how ESPN treats NHL (or more accurately, simply ignores the completely) now that they're no longer on their networks. They're ruthless and maniacal, which can be grating for sports fans, but at the same time, you can't question their business practices. ESPN alone generates almost as much profit as the rest of the Disney empire *combined*. Just think about what that entails - Disney World, Disneyland, Mickey Mouse and other character licensing, the Disney Princesses, ABC, all of the Pixar movies like Toy Story and Cars, Winnie the Pooh, the Muppets, all of the Marvel properties like The Avengers and the Iron Man movies that are blasting box office records, and now even Star Wars (plus countless of other things that I'm not thinking of). Think about how much of that Disney stuff permeates the lives of you and (if you have them) your kids already... and ESPN generates as much profit as ALL OF THAT COMBINED. It's honestly mind-boggling when you think of that scale. So, it's not just not a local Connecticut company anymore - it's the biggest piece of the biggest and most omnipresent media company in the world.

 

[WestHartHusk]

I understand the frustration many people are feeling, but I think there is a fine line between ESPN providing Uconn support and ESPN requiring Uconn be included in the ACC. Local businesses support colleges all over the country by provide donations and other support. ESPN may owe it to Uconn to provide donations to the school, buy the weight room and stadium naming rights, and provide interships and jobs. But in my opinion, I think that ESPN would be crossing unethical business barriers if they were to require that Uconn be included in any realignment.

I think we are all kidding ourselves if we don't think ethical lines are being crossed everyday all across college sports. But again, I don't disagree with you, there are just emotional aspects that make you want to drive to Bristol and kick someones .

 

[UPitt]

I know. We're not removing their tax breaks. this is just stuff that is talked about on the internet. Malloy can not allow ESPN to leave anyway.
I'm just angry.

Everyone should feel free to vent on the internet and let thoughts fly, but I think everyone needs to have a level head about the importance of these tax breaks before calling up your Governor.

 

[The Viking]

I understand the frustration many people are feeling, but I think there is a fine line between ESPN providing Uconn support and ESPN requiring Uconn be included in the ACC. Local businesses support colleges all over the country by provide donations and other support. ESPN may owe it to Uconn to provide donations to the school, buy the weight room and stadium naming rights, and provide interships and jobs. But in my opinion, I think that ESPN would be crossing unethical business barriers if they were to require that Uconn be included in any realignment.

What percentage of corporations are completely ethical?

 

[upstater]

NYC is hardly the be all end all or else ESPN would have just located in that market directly. Turner is located in Atlanta and no one cares about its lack of proximity to NYC. Believe me - a lot bigger companies have ditched a whole lot more in search of a less expensive corporate home. That doesn't mean that ESPN would actually leave (as they wouldn't want to if all things are relatively equal), but NEVER assume that they wouldn't follow through with a threat to leave. It happens all of the time. There are plenty of states that would offer extremely favorable terms to get ESPN to move. ESPN has significantly more leverage than the state here.

A lot of companies are not located in NYC but use it for close proximity. They could in Hoboken, they could be in Stamford. As a matter of fact, NBC Sports just moved TO Stamford. ESPN has spent a whopping huge amount of money in Bristol. It is indeed a very big company.

 

[UPitt]

I think we are all kidding ourselves if we don't think ethical lines are being crossed everyday all across college sports. But again, I don't disagree with you, there are just emotional aspects that make you want to drive to Bristol and kick someones .

College sports defines unethical behavior, but that doesn't mean you want your team to be the king of it. Leave that to a few select B1G teams.

 

[upstater]

At the end of the day, ESPN's job is to make money for Disney's shareholders. That's literally its fiduciary and legal obligation, NOT to make politicians happy. (And even then, making one set of politicians happy can make another set of politicians extremely unhappy. Don't you think that Mitch McConnell might have a different view of the a la carte cable legislation that John McCain just introduced if ESPN actually directed the ACC to take UConn over Louisville? The state of Connecticut tax break is a rounding error compared to what that bill could do to ESPN's profits, so Disney needs McConnell on its side.) A stable ACC (meaning one that still has FSU) is very much in the interest of anyone that owns shares of Disney.

Everyone here well knows what ESPN's obligations are. No one is arguing that. hat they are arguing is that the state should end its tax break to ESPN, an organization that is subsidizing the destruction of UConn sports. For the life of me, I can't understand why this is so difficult.