GOR's?

[frankthetank]

Why would a Kansas be an easy add for the Big Ten? Poor football, small market.

Missouri seems a much bigger grab.

Two points:

(1) Before the Longhorn Network was formed, guess which school made the most money off of its 3rd tier rights in the Big 12? It wasn't Texas. It wasn't Texas A&M. It wasn't Nebraska. It wasn't Oklahoma. It was KANSAS.

(2) The Big Ten has passed on Missouri multiple times in the past 3 years. They were BEGGING to get in at all costs and Delany and the Big Ten presidents continued to reject them. The Big Ten simply wants nothing to do with them - they believe that they can either get stronger national brand names in the long run (of which Kansas would qualify) or better markets. This has always been the problem that I've seen in the "Big Ten could take Mizzou" scenarios: they keep rejecting them outright (and this is a flagship AAU school in a geographically friendly state that has 6 million people, so they legitimately think that they could do a lot better).

 

[upstater]

Two points:

(1) Before the Longhorn Network was formed, guess which school made the most money off of its 3rd tier rights in the Big 12? It wasn't Texas. It wasn't Texas A&M. It wasn't Nebraska. It wasn't Oklahoma. It was KANSAS.

(2) The Big Ten has passed on Missouri multiple times in the past 3 years. They were BEGGING to get in at all costs and Delany and the Big Ten presidents continued to reject them. The Big Ten simply wants nothing to do with them - they believe that they can either get stronger national brand names in the long run (of which Kansas would qualify) or better markets. This has always been the problem that I've seen in the "Big Ten could take Mizzou" scenarios: they keep rejecting them outright (and this is a flagship AAU school in a geographically friendly state that has 6 million people, so they legitimately think that they could do a lot better).

I understand #2 very well. If #1 meant anything, UConn would have a conference. Our licensing rights combined with tier 3 were by far and away the most valuable in the BE, at $25 million a year, or $10 million more than Louisville. Hasn't worked for UConn.

 

[frankthetank]

I understand #2 very well. If #1 meant anything, UConn would have a conference. Our licensing rights combined with tier 3 were by far and away the most valuable in the BE, at $25 million a year, or $10 million more than Louisville. Hasn't worked for UConn.

Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Indiana and UCLA.

That's the full list of schools where basketball may actually matter for power conference realignment. As multi-generational blue bloods, those are the 6 schools that move the meter nationally year-in and year-out whether they win or lose. Everyone beyond those 6 is effectively interchangeable with a "What have you done for me lately?" standard, whether it's fair or not. And believe me, I have no personal affection for *any* of those schools, so it's certainly not because I support them. I'm just saying that it wasn't an accident that Kansas was studied by the Big Ten.

 

[WestHartHusk]

I understand #2 very well. If #1 meant anything, UConn would have a conference. Our licensing rights combined with tier 3 were by far and away the most valuable in the BE, at $25 million a year, or $10 million more than Louisville. Hasn't worked for UConn.

To add to #2, I think Frank is living in the past a bit here. The B1G thought they could do better, but it turns out they can't which is why some of us think Mizzou could / should be on the table. But what do any of us know...

 

[frankthetank]

To add to #2, I think Frank is living in the past a bit here. The B1G thought they could do better, but it turns out they can't which is why some of us think Mizzou could / should be on the table. But what do any of us know...

Well, sure, you could argue that with 20/20 hindsight, adding Missouri 3 years ago is better expansion option than any of the realistic Big Ten expansion options that they have now (e.g. picking through the AAC or MWC). If that's what you're getting at, then I wouldn't argue with that line of thought. However, this is also assuming that expansion in and of itself was a primary motivator for the Big Ten, which I don't believe was ever the case. If Missouri comes along with a blue chip name (e.g. Notre Dame, Texas, UNC), then that would have been more than acceptable, but going up to 16 with Missouri and a non-blue chip name wasn't ever going to be acceptable. As much as people enjoy the Armageddon scenarios of 18 or 20 teams in the Big Ten, there's a definite feeling that spots #15 and #16 would realistically be the very last spots that the conference would ever conceivably offer to anyone, so there's heightened scrutiny for such spots.

 

[B1GALUM]

Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Indiana and UCLA.

That's the full list of schools where basketball may actually matter for power conference realignment. As multi-generational blue bloods, those are the 6 schools that move the meter nationally year-in and year-out whether they win or lose. Everyone beyond those 6 is effectively interchangeable with a "What have you done for me lately?" standard, whether it's fair or not. And believe me, I have no personal affection for *any* of those schools, so it's certainly not because I support them. I'm just saying that it wasn't an accident that Kansas was studied by the Big Ten.

I understand this rationale for Kansas being a candidate for the B1G but, aside from the Big 12 GOR, there is still the issue of whether Kansas and Kansas State are even severable as was discussed earlier. I have to wander if this issue may have been why the B1G did not move forward with Kansas as well as Oklahoma for that matter since there is the issue of whether Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are even severable.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

As it regards all of the above, is there any benefit to UCONN of being comparatively unencumbered financially vis-a-vis a future selection process?

 

[upstater]

Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Indiana and UCLA.

That's the full list of schools where basketball may actually matter for power conference realignment. As multi-generational blue bloods, those are the 6 schools that move the meter nationally year-in and year-out whether they win or lose. Everyone beyond those 6 is effectively interchangeable with a "What have you done for me lately?" standard, whether it's fair or not. And believe me, I have no personal affection for *any* of those schools, so it's certainly not because I support them. I'm just saying that it wasn't an accident that Kansas was studied by the Big Ten.

Won 3 national championships.

UConn is a national name for the top talent and most fans. Forde recently put the school in the top 5 of bluebloods. And again--Kansas doesn't have the market. Football territory is worse than UConn's.

 

[B1GALUM]

As it regards all of the above, is there any benefit to UCONN of being comparatively unencumbered financially vis-a-vis a future selection process?

I think UCONN being unencumbered - at least with respect to not being tied to another school (KU to KSU and OU to OSU) - would be of benefit. However, I think UCONN will need to be a member of the AAU based on comments made by B1G presidents regarding any future members. I know PJ has spoken to this issue and it sound like UCONN is taking steps to make this happen. I think the other challenge for UCONN even if AAU, while not being tied to another school, is who would be #16 to UCONN being #15. Missouri - no interest from the B1G to this point and question if would leave SEC, Kansas - tied to KSU + Big 12 GOR, Oklahoma - tied to OSU + Big 12 GOR, ACC teams - not based on desire by all to now sign GOR. I would be surprised if B1G goes to #15 without a #16.

 

[whaler11]

I understand that people don't like the reality that Frank expresses.

Notice how much he is posting here - because it's the last place still talking about this topic.

Please forget Missouri, the Big 10 doesn't want them and no one is leaving the SEC anyway.

The Big 10 is not expanding for the sake of expanding. UConn has one angle into the Big 10: if Rutgers can't get the BTN onto cable in NYC at the rate the network needs.

Seriously you can take two years off and watch the television negotiations. No one available makes UConn acceptable as 16 to the Big 10 unless UConn gets the BTN over the hump in NYC.

When the ACC circled the wagons the Big 10 and SEC put down their swords. Unless you think the Big 12 can be convinced to take UConn with South Florida or Cincinnati it's over for now.

UConn fans need to support the hell out of the team in the AAC and get over the fact they are on the outside looking in - because if they don't the programs will be dead before anyone is interested.

 

[Adios]

Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Indiana and UCLA.

That's the full list of schools where basketball may actually matter for power conference realignment. As multi-generational blue bloods, those are the 6 schools that move the meter nationally year-in and year-out whether they win or lose. Everyone beyond those 6 is effectively interchangeable with a "What have you done for me lately?" standard, whether it's fair or not. And believe me, I have no personal affection for *any* of those schools, so it's certainly not because I support them. I'm just saying that it wasn't an accident that Kansas was studied by the Big Ten.

Duke is NOT a multi-generational blue-blood. Their first championship was 8 years before UConn. Somehow, they just have loads of bandwagon fans. But so does UConn! We're in the top 10.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...hile-unc-drops-to-number-three-144848635.html

We definitely have the most popular women's basketball program.

 

[noeynox]

Sadly, whaler there appears to be a portion of fans that seem to want to show Herbst, and Warde, that this conference is unacceptable by not going to games.

Now is the time for UConn to go all out marketing its sports instate and pick up/create new fans. I felt they should have done this from day one in the Big East for football, but whatever, that ship sailed. Lets pick it up from here

 

[upstater]

Duke is NOT a multi-generational blue-blood. Their first championship was 8 years before UConn. Somehow, they just have loads of bandwagon fans. But so does UConn! We're in the top 10.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...hile-unc-drops-to-number-three-144848635.html

We definitely have the most popular women's basketball program.

It's a good point about Duke. They had success in the early 60s, and had some really good players back then, but they are a Coach K. construction. They are definitely a blue blood, but they came up a notch in the 80s. In the 50s and 60s, they experienced some success, more than UConn, but we're talking about the difference between the F4 and F8. They had 2 or 3 great players in that period, but UConn also had Toby Kimball and Wes Bialoskunia. Both schools ramped it up during the 1980s. UConn actually started out the decade well by winning in a very tough BE, but then they went into a 5 year drought. It's been all uphill since then.

 

[upstater]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...hile-unc-drops-to-number-three-144848635.html

Very interesting link as well. Kansas is not in the same national consciousness, but they are a blue blood.

On the other hand, the Harris poll has been knocked around pretty badly. A few years ago, they polled fans in NYC about football, and overwhelmingly Notre Dame was the favorite team with Penn State close behind. UConn was third ahead of Rutgers and Syracuse. So.... who knows?

 

[UPitt]

Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Indiana and UCLA.

That's the full list of schools where basketball may actually matter for power conference realignment. As multi-generational blue bloods, those are the 6 schools that move the meter nationally year-in and year-out whether they win or lose. Everyone beyond those 6 is effectively interchangeable with a "What have you done for me lately?" standard, whether it's fair or not. And believe me, I have no personal affection for *any* of those schools, so it's certainly not because I support them. I'm just saying that it wasn't an accident that Kansas was studied by the Big Ten.

Completely agree. Win or lose, these are big 6 basketball schools, with Duke to a slightly lesser extent than the rest. These are the only schools that will carry that "National" following win or lose. For everyone else, they have a following if they are winning. Some have a better following than others, but they have to be winning to make the "national" TV coverage. Kentucky and UNC both stunk this year but I heard those two names mentioned more than anyone else. Kentucky made front page of national news when they lose to Robert Morris in the NIT. Then again the following day when they landed the #1 basketball recruit. Then again when Louisville won the title, with everyone comparing Louisville to Kentucky and how Kentucky has reloaded for next year. Because realignment is about football money, only these few schools may be able to have a basketball impact on realignment.

Texas, OSU, MSU, Mich, Florida, Marquette, Gonzaga, Butler, Uconn, Memphis, Georgetown, Louisville, Villinova, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, and about 20 to 30 more all fall in the group that has had some recent success. Without being a homer, what does UConn's basketball program have to offer that the others don't. Now compare UConn or anyone else in that group to the big 6 mentioned above and think about who you saw more times on ESPN or any other national sports news. Realignment is not about being fair. It is about TV time. TV time is a direct correlation to ratings. Ratings equal dollars. More dollars drives realignment. Thats the loop.
As for Duke, they are the lucky little brother. Duke is only in this group because of UNC. If not for the close proximity to UNC and the ESPN created and overhyped rivalry, Duke would be on the level of Wake Forest.

 

[Waquoit]

Pitt hoop is a literally a national joke, I mean choke.

 

[noeynox]

Pitt hoops belongs in the same grouping with RU hoops, not UCONN.

 

[zls44]

Texas, OSU, MSU, Mich, Florida, Marquette, Gonzaga, Butler, Uconn, Memphis, Georgetown, Louisville, Villinova, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, and about 20 to 30 more all fall in the group that has had some recent success. Without being a homer, what does UConn's basketball program have to offer that the others don't.

Math must be tough.

 

[The Funster]

of the group that UPitt mentioned: Texas, OSU, MSU, Mich, UConn and the Cuse would make up the next tier.

 

[UPitt]

I didn't respond to bash Uconn basketball, I actually think several members of this board do a very good job explaining the realignment landscape. I agree that Pitt and a few others in that group have not accomplished what Uconn has, but I think you may have missed the point. The point is that only a few schools have a basketball team that will drive realignment, and those schools don't include Uconn, Pitt, or the rest of that list. What I trying to explain is that the B1G and ACC are not going to add Uconn because they won 3 titles. Uconn has a lot more to offer that those 3 titles.

I would love to see Uconn added to the ACC. I think Uconn offers a strong eastern school near 2 major cities. They also offer good acedemics and research partners for universities. They also offer TV sets to sell media rights too. These are the positives that will put Uconn in the B1G or ACC.

 

[UPitt]

If realignment was driven by basketball, Georgetown would have been added to the B1G instead of Maryland, and St. Johns over Rutgers.

 

[WestHartHusk]

If realignment was driven by basketball, Georgetown would have been added to the B1G instead of Maryland, and St. Johns over Rutgers.

And UConn over both. We have come to accept that our basketball dominance will not alone get us into a better conference, we are just hoping to maintain it as a "tie-breaker" or "+1" if/when our football programs starts breathing again.

It is worth noting that I have seen several studies where our mens team is about 6 or 7th nationally in terms of fanbase, and of course the women are #1. Again, just plus 1's, but better than negatives.

 

[pj]

If UConn can continue playing basketball at the level Jim Calhoun reached, ie a national championship every 5 years, then UConn basketball by itself would justify a major conference invitation.

But, the large market we bring is the main selling point.

 

[upstater]

Without being a homer, what does UConn's basketball program have to offer that the others don't. Now compare UConn or anyone else in that group to the big 6 mentioned above and think about who you saw more times on ESPN or any other national sports news.

How can you ask that question and then turn around and say you did not intend to knock UConn bball?

Strange.

 

[upstater]

of the group that UPitt mentioned: Texas, OSU, MSU, Mich, UConn and the Cuse would make up the next tier.

MSU.

 

[upstater]

I encourage people to revisit the Harris Poll link. Many people here are suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Won 3 national championships.

UConn is a national name for the top talent and most fans. Forde recently put the school in the top 5 of bluebloods. And again--Kansas doesn't have the market. Football territory is worse than UConn's.

Football territory is worse? Are you serious? As an alumn of both schools, I can say that football is much bigger at KU than UConn and in the state of Kansas at the HS level than it is in CT or anywhere in New England. On a per captita basis, Kansas puts out a lot of football talent. Hell, Lawrence High alone is pretty impressive. As bad as the Jayhawks have been lately, the played in and won an Orange bowl in 2008, finishing ranked #8, so they have still done much more than UConn. Historically, there are older Orange Bowl wins and players like Gayle Sayers, John Riggins, Nolan Cromwell, Bobby Douglass and John Hadl (all born or raised in KS by the way).

UConn has a better direct DMA TV market, but KU carries several markets not their own (Lawrence-Topeka), including KC, Wichita and other small ones like Hutchinson. I also saw somewhere that the Jayhawk logo was the single most recognizable logo in all of college sports. They are still ahead on revenue as well.

As a UConn-KU fan, I'd love to see both go to the B1G, but I don't expect it. I think the B1G can afford one net basketball focused or market focused add and the other add must be a strong football program, more in the Nebraska mold.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Completely agree. Win or lose, these are big 6 basketball schools, with Duke to a slightly lesser extent than the rest. These are the only schools that will carry that "National" following win or lose. For everyone else, they have a following if they are winning. Some have a better following than others, but they have to be winning to make the "national" TV coverage. Kentucky and UNC both stunk this year but I heard those two names mentioned more than anyone else. Kentucky made front page of national news when they lose to Robert Morris in the NIT. Then again the following day when they landed the #1 basketball recruit. Then again when Louisville won the title, with everyone comparing Louisville to Kentucky and how Kentucky has reloaded for next year. Because realignment is about football money, only these few schools may be able to have a basketball impact on realignment.

Texas, OSU, MSU, Mich, Florida, Marquette, Gonzaga, Butler, Uconn, Memphis, Georgetown, Louisville, Villinova, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, and about 20 to 30 more all fall in the group that has had some recent success. Without being a homer, what does UConn's basketball program have to offer that the others don't. Now compare UConn or anyone else in that group to the big 6 mentioned above and think about who you saw more times on ESPN or any other national sports news. Realignment is not about being fair. It is about TV time. TV time is a direct correlation to ratings. Ratings equal dollars. More dollars drives realignment. Thats the loop.
As for Duke, they are the lucky little brother. Duke is only in this group because of UNC. If not for the close proximity to UNC and the ESPN created and overhyped rivalry, Duke would be on the level of Wake Forest.

I'm sorry but Uconn belongs with the blue-blood programs. ESPN will put Uconn on any chance they can.

 

[upstater]

Football territory is worse? Are you serious? As an alumn of both schools, I can say that football is much bigger at KU than UConn and in the state of Kansas at the HS level than it is in CT or anywhere in New England. On a per captita basis, Kansas puts out a lot of football talent. Hell, Lawrence High alone is pretty impressive. As bad as the Jayhawks have been lately, the played in and won an Orange bowl in 2008, finishing ranked #8, so they have still done much more than UConn. Historically, there are older Orange Bowl wins and players like Gayle Sayers, John Riggins, Nolan Cromwell, Bobby Douglass and John Hadl (all born or raised in KS by the way).

UConn has a better direct DMA TV market, but KU carries several markets not their own (Lawrence-Topeka), including KC, Wichita and other small ones like Hutchinson. I also saw somewhere that the Jayhawk logo was the single most recognizable logo in all of college sports. They are still ahead on revenue as well.

As a UConn-KU fan, I'd love to see both go to the B1G, but I don't expect it. I think the B1G can afford one net basketball focused or market focused add and the other add must be a strong football program, more in the Nebraska mold.

You're right that UConn's isn't better. I looked at this map just now:

On the other hand, I disagree with you about revenues and market. You're adding in TV conference revenue to overall revs. so it's like comparing apples to oranges. You need to compare base revs to get a true picture.

 

[pj]

Football territory is better in Kansas mainly because they are close to Texas and Oklahoma. That historical chart upstater showed has Connecticut at 41% of national average and Kansas at 65%, not a huge difference, and Connecticut is on the way up. Connecticut and Kansas have similar state populations. I wouldn't be surprised if Connecticut is producing as many blue chip recruits as Kansas within the next ten years.

But then consider that KU and K-State split their state, while UConn dominates Connecticut and has only two private schools as competition in the 7-state New York / New England area, and UConn has arguably a better local recruiting advantage and better prospects to become a football power than Kansas.

We just have to build the football program, and do whatever investment is necessary to get a better conference affiliation. We can be at Kansas's level.