FSU, ACC In It For The Long Haul

[UPitt]

What do you say about Mitch McConnell, Oren Hatch, and the west Virginia, pols getting involved to see to it that the respective schools whose interest they had at heart did not end up getting ted on in conference realignment? How does the public about that Frank, tell us.

I don't advocate any state pressure that would force jobs to leave the state but lets be serious here, I don't see no one upset about politicians exerting pressure to a particular schools benefit.

I think you nailed it. I think a only a few people outside of West Virginia were upset with Mitch McConnell when he tried to push Louisville over West Virginia. And as soon as the Big 12 chose a team, just about everyone forgot that Mitch McConnell was ever involved. Similar thing happened to VT. A few schools, Uconn and Pitt mainly, remember Virginia getting involved in 2003. Ask yourself if you feel any discent towards VT or Virginia? I suspect the answer is no or very little. I see no reason why Connecticut's political leaders can not help promote Uconn or at least fight for money in courts via lawsuit. 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.

 

[frankthetank]

I agree with the Tank, that you find most people outside of Connecticut feel that Connecticut's Governement needs to look out for everyone in the state and not put the ESPN tax breaks at stake because of realignment. I do think the state has a commitment to Uconn to help provide political support for the school when needed, including realignment. Virginia meddled in 2003 and VT landed a spot in the ACC. I think the state of Connecticut should do anything to help including suing Pitt and Nordy for turning down the ESPN deal of 14 mil/year. But I think you there is a fine line between helping politically to position Uconn into a major conference, and interferring with ESPN's business practices. I'm not a lawyer, but I think ESPN and Uconn would see expensive lawsuits if it is found that ESPN receives benifits because Uconn is in a major conference.

I hear you, and the important distinction is that's on Connecticut's politicians themselves to do that (much in the way that West Virginia and Kentucky politicians respectively fought for WVU and Louisville) as opposed to putting ESPN (however unsympathetic people might find them to be) in a position where it's inserting itself into conference realignment issues for state tax reasons. I disagree with the lawsuit route, though. Unless you can show that Pitt was talking to the ACC at the time that they moved to reject the ESPN offer (and to be extremely fair, the overwhelming sentiment from TV industry people and Big East fans at that time was to turn that offer down since the Pac-12 had just received a massive windfall from going to the open market only a week or two prior to that - absolutely no one wanted to sign that deal once they saw the Pac-12's numbers), it's likely a loser on the merits and, further to the discussion earlier in this thread, the last thing that UConn needs is to have another legal challenge attached to its name. There are also perfectly reasonable business reasons why Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville were chosen for the ACC - even if you could show that UConn would have been more profitable than any of them (which may or may not be the case), courts give a wide amount of latitude on those decisions. Even speaking as a lawyer (albeit a pragmatic dealmaking type as opposed to a litigator), if you essentially can't show that the business case in favor of Louisville (or Syracuse or Pitt) was completely insane by the ACC where they just threw out all reasoning simply to spite UConn (and objectively speaking, I don't think it was insane), then this type of lawsuit isn't going anywhere. Plus, Pitt, Syracuse and everyone else that has left the Big East have settled up their exit fees and damages, so UConn likely couldn't bring a lawsuit at this point even if it wanted to if there was a standard settlement agreement put into place that ensured that the parties would not seek further claims from each other on this subject matter (which I'm 99.9% certain would have happened).

 

[specialisthusky]

BTW I truthfully believe if UConn/USF/Cincinnati/AAC Office sued ESPN for tortious interference while it would unlikely see the day of a courtroom it would generate a settlement. As long as the claim survived summary judgment, if the lawsuit got through summary judgment you and the other schools could clearly show damages and if DeFilippio, the 4x4x4 committee members had to give depositions, or left any emails, paper chains it could show what ESPN told or did for to those schools. I think the claim is something to the effect that ESPN told the ACC to blow up the Big East, and while it was within the ACC right to speak with Big East schools, ESPN can't meddle with or retaliate against the conference for turning down a decent offer. Suing ESPN is something I would think has to be considered before any potential SOL has expired.

You have been lecturing on the ramifications of UConn having been a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the ACC, yet you are suggesting suing the most powerful media corporation in sports who has been, if not dictating ACC CR, having a strong influence and whom pays the bills for that conference entirely. No thank you.

While I believe UConn was damaged in both instances, this lawsuit would be an enormous mistake.

 

[alsacs]

You have been lecturing on the ramifications of UConn having been a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the ACC, yet you are suggesting suing the most powerful media corporation in sports who has been, if not dictating ACC CR, having a strong influence and whom pays the bills for that conference entirely. No thank you.

While I believe UConn was damaged in both instances, this lawsuit would be an enormous mistake.

I didn't say I would file the lawsuit I just it would likely be successful, and secondly based on the responses UConn fans have given me most don't believe the ACC lawsuit has done much damage. BTW, I don't consider myself lecturing I am bringing a different perspective I don't feel I am smarter or better than anybody just bringing another opinion.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Alsacs - I usually don't agree with you, but I do appreciate a diversity of opinion around here. You, UPitt, Frank and some of our other B1G posters help to keep us sharp and check our assumptions. Hope you (or others) don't feel discouraged about posting here.

 

[specialisthusky]

I didn't say I would file the lawsuit I just it would likely be successful, and secondly based on the responses UConn fans have given me most don't believe the ACC lawsuit has done much damage. BTW, I don't consider myself lecturing I am bringing a different perspective I don't feel I am smarter or better than anybody just bringing another opinion.

Lecturing was a poor choice of wording. No disrepect intended.

 

[frankthetank]

You have been lecturing on the ramifications of UConn having been a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the ACC, yet you are suggesting suing the most powerful media corporation in sports who has been, if not dictating ACC CR, having a strong influence and whom pays the bills for that conference entirely. No thank you.

While I believe UConn was damaged in both instances, this lawsuit would be an enormous mistake.

Yeah, attempting to sue ESPN on this issue would be an extremely bad idea on a lot of levels (legally, business-wise, politically). I know a lot of people think that the comments from the BC AD that "ESPN told us what to do" is some type of smoking gun, but that's pretty easily refuted when taking that statement into context. Suing ESPN on conference realignment matters is in the category of something that you can talk yourselves into thinking is a good idea within the echo chamber of a message board, but almost any impartial observer that knows what it would take to win that type of case would see it as a terrible idea.

 

[alsacs]

Thank you to WestHartHusk and SpecialistHusky, I don't expect to have my posts liked, but as long as I am respectful I figure another opinion is welcome. If you check my posts on the SU board, I am pretty reasonable and haven't been really negative to any schools (except Rutgers who act like they are Ohio State on the gridiron when they have been like Purdue and that is insulting to Purdue) obviously I have an Orange slant, but I feel I am objective when I am posting as a guest on another team's board.

 

[alsacs]

Yeah, attempting to sue ESPN on this issue would be an extremely bad idea on a lot of levels (legally, business-wise, politically). I know a lot of people think that the comments from the BC AD that "ESPN told us what to do" is some type of smoking gun, but that's pretty easily refuted when taking that statement into context. Suing ESPN on conference realignment matters is in the category of something that you can talk yourselves into thinking is a good idea within the echo chamber of a message board, but almost any impartial observer that knows what it would take to win that type of case would see it as a terrible idea.

I don't disagree with this Frankthetank, and I wouldn't file the case and obviously nobody has filed the case, but if the AAC schools signed with FOX/NBC for significantly less money I think could have been discussed for the reasons I stated, and plus if the case survived summary judgment you know ESPN would want to settle the case. ESPN has no problem suing conferences when it feels it has been hurt see the CUSA lawsuit.

 

[UPitt]

Frank, being a lawyer you should have a better/different point of view. Please shed insight on the thoughts below:

Do you think that any lawsuit brought by Uconn would be harmful at this point?

You partly covered the reasons for not sueing over the 14 mil/year contract decline (and I think you have a valid point), but do you feel they could bring a lawsuit recouping additional money from Pitt, Cuse, and even WVU? This additional money would be because they agreed to let them leave at additional exiting costs assuming that Rutgers, C7, and Boise would remain in the league. Because the conditions for granting the early exit have changed, can the exit fee settlement be reconsidered, or can Uconn bring an additional lawsuit for new damages?

Can Uconn bring a civil suit that requires Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Rutgers, C7, or others to play home games in the future at Uconn? Similar to the settlement with the ACC in 2003/2004.

 

[frankthetank]

Frank, being a lawyer you should have a better/different point of view. Please shed insight on the thoughts below:

Do you think that any lawsuit brought by Uconn would be harmful at this point?

You partly covered the reasons for not sueing over the 14 mil/year contract decline (and I think you have a valid point), but do you feel they could bring a lawsuit recouping additional money from Pitt, Cuse, and even WVU? This additional money would be because they agreed to let them leave at additional exiting costs assuming that Rutgers, C7, and Boise would remain in the league. Because the conditions for granting the early exit have changed, can the exit fee settlement be reconsidered, or can Uconn bring an additional lawsuit for new damages?

Can Uconn bring a civil suit that requires Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Rutgers, C7, or others to play home games in the future at Uconn? Similar to the settlement with the ACC in 2003/2004.

It would be subject to the terms of the respective settlement agreements that Pitt, Syracuse and the others signed with the Big East (now AAC). If those settlement agreements are "normal" where the parties waive any rights to bring further claims about the underlying subject matter, it's very doubtful that UConn (or Cincinnati or anyone else in the AAC) can get anything more out of the Big East defectors at this point. You can try to argue that the conditions for the exit have changed, but that's not likely going to get you anywhere. Besides, the Catholic 7, Notre Dame, Rutgers and Louisville have all done their own settlements in the meantime, so UConn's ability to go back to the well with Syracuse and Pitt is virtually nil. The time to have gotten any scheduling concessions with them was in those settlement discussions. Unless Pitt et. al is actually breaching a settlement agreement, I can't see how a typical court would want to touch opening up those issues again. They HATE HATE HATE doing that (as a primary benefit of settlement agreements is to put less strain on the court system AKA not give more work to the judges reviewing your case).

 

[Cleanface]

The only conference FSU was ever going to leave the ACC for is/was the SEC.

Uhhhh, no.

Expansion 101 for the B1G/SEC - do not add schools already in your footprint.

SEC already owns FL with U of FL. FSU was NEVER going to the SEC.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Uhhhh, no.

Expansion 101 for the B1G/SEC - do not add schools already in your footprint.

SEC already owns FL with U of FL. FSU was NEVER going to the SEC.

That is the point. The wouldn't leave the ACC for anybody but the SEC, and the SEC wasn't taking them. Hence, FSU was driven to stabilize the ACC.

 

[Cleanface]

Well, the BXII was always the other option, but IMO that was a long shot, altho heavily rumored.

B1G as well. Don't think they ever seriously considered FSU.

Out of the B1G, SEC, and BXII, the BXII was the only Conf that I think they legitimately considered RE leaving the ACC.

 

[upstater]

????

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?

 

[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.