Interview with Delany | Page 5 | The Boneyard

Interview with Delany

Status
Not open for further replies.
IthacaMatt said:
Well, you're not playing the game right if you don't see why the Big 10 would want UVa. They have Maryland. Virginia is a populous state in a major media center. They would bring a lot of eyeballs on cable. You aggregate schools together and it's like a network effect - the more you have, the more energy it creates, the more benefit and usefulness you get out of the combination. Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio. It's like filling in states in an election map.
Expand ...

The only game I'm playing is football and UVA sucks at it, and they'll always be the b@st@rd step child in Frank Beamers backyard. They don't even have a basketball tradition like UCONN does. And do they really have a lot of eyeballs in rural Virginia ready to watch B1G football???? I don't think so. Oh that's right, Virginia does have men's indoor tennis and soccer. I forgot. LOL!!! I even doubt that those eyeballs in rural Virginia even have the money to afford cable to much less watch BTN programming. If the BTN consults marketing firms about advertising rates, what do you think they will tell them about Virginia vs Connecticut?
 
IthacaMatt said:
I agree with this. I think the issue is that there's really only 1 spot left in the ACC and they're hoping it will go to Notre Dame. The Big 10 still holds out hope for ND, too. That's why UConn is in limbo, IMO.

The only problem with Delany's reasoning (absorbing 2 schools first and then UConn in a next step) is that you have a bigger impact on perception by having that extra school, especially with the basketball profile of UConn. I think the Big 10 needs UConn more, to make an east coast product more desirable. I don't think the ACC needs UConn as much to get east coast viewers.

The Big 10 isn't going to get many eyeballs for hoops on the basis of Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland. And despite football being the major factor in terms of money paid out, the networks still need that programming to fill in from Thanksgiving to April.

To me, the Big 10 would complete its next round most successfully with UConn shoring up the east eyeballs and the hoops credentials, and stealing Oklahoma from the Big 12 to give them the football rivalry with Nebraska. That used to be a major one in college football and would be a great one for the league.
Expand ...


ND would be the 15th ACC football team, not the 16th.

I think that Jim "Ahab"Delany has finally gotten the message and has given up chasing ND, his great white whale.
 
The ACC isn't heading towards expansion unless.....Notre Dame decides to join or the SEC/Big Ten start plucking bits off down the road.

They don't have a network and the prospects of them getting the SEC Network deal they covet are somewhere between Never and Never Ever. ESPN's not going to lay out the cash for a network that's has a tentpole in North Carolina/Virginia and is boxed in by the SEC Network to the south and the Big Ten and general disinterest in the north.

Without a network, there's no cash in expansion for the ACC.
 
Last edited:
I disagree about the network thing. Everyone on this board, myself included, has underestimated Swofford's ability to get espn to pay up when espn didn't need to. Espn has two major conferences, the ACC and SEC, and cant afford to have either trail the pack. The Fox conferences are rising. I fully expect the ACC to get a major increase to their deal within 5 years. Maybe that is their own network, maybe it is just more money from ESPN.

Uconn needs to figure out a way to make us part of that increase.
 
I'd say you're drunk, but you're generally off the wall and no one can stay that drunk for that long.

ESPN has already let the ACC fall behind the SEC - that gap will never be made up and ESPN is not going to throw money in a hole so that the ACC can feel good about itself. They put a little cash into the pot to convince the group to sign away their rights for the next 14 years which keeps the band together, but also removes every ounce of leverage.

ESPN has SEC football and they've built a network off of it - they're not going to run up against their own property by trying to sell cable operators on a network that plays second fiddle everywhere but NC and Va.
 
Fishy said:
I figured the Virginia nitwit would be the first to get himself banned, but I see we have a horserace.

And UConn fans who live in Buffalo and have an affection for Penn State and endless pedantic arguments should also consider perhaps occasionally letting things go instead of beating them into the ground over and over and over and over again.
Expand ...

Fishy. I have no idea what I did to piss you off. But obviously I have. I'm gone. I have done nothing by try to promote UConn here and every other ACC board. But I post a lot and have worn out my welcome. Take Care.
 
.-.
btstimpy said:
Fishy. I have no idea what I did to piss you off. But obviously I have. I'm gone. I have done nothing by try to promote UConn here and every other ACC board. But I post a lot and have worn out my welcome. Take Care.
Expand ...

It is a UConn board.

It's not the ACC vs the Big Ten board, it's not the Virginia tennis board, we don't need chapter and verse as to why the ACC will outlive the next ice age and we don't need to witness Notre Dame and Big Ten fans acting like jilted girlfriends when in each other's presence.

Live inside the boundaries 90% of the time and everyone is fine.
 
btstimpy said:
Fishy. I have no idea what I did to piss you off. But obviously I have. I'm gone. I have done nothing by try to promote UConn here and every other ACC board. But I post a lot and have worn out my welcome. Take Care.
Expand ...
Take care yourself, Stimp. I like UVA and so wish you well. I didn't always agree with everything you had to say but found you a resourceful if occasionally irritating poster, a good supporter of UConn and able defender of your own school. While I prefer the B1G because of its strength and Swofford behaving as a very bad actor during realignment, maybe we'll yet be conference mates. Lurk for a while then come back fit and rested.
 
Fishy said:
I'd say you're drunk, but you're generally off the wall and no one can stay that drunk for that long.

ESPN has already let the ACC fall behind the SEC - that gap will never be made up and ESPN is not going to throw money in a hole so that the ACC can feel good about itself. They put a little cash into the pot to convince the group to sign away their rights for the next 14 years which keeps the band together, but also removes every ounce of leverage.

ESPN has SEC football and they've built a network off of it - they're not going to run up against their own property by trying to sell cable operators on a network that plays second fiddle everywhere but NC and Va.
Expand ...

ESPN didn't throw just a little cash into the pot. ESPN basically doubled the pot just because the ACC added Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and Notre Dame basketball, and dropped one of the league's best markets in Maryland. You can pull up all of our posts from 3 years ago, and you would find a lot of confidence on the ability of the Big East to secure a big contract and the potential jeopardy the ACC was facing with its 12 year deal at $150MM per year. ESPN didn't need to renegotiate that deal, yet bumped it to $300MM per year with the 3.5 additions and 1 subtraction I cited above, and in the process eliminated the old Big East.

One conference is not nearly enough content for ESPN, particularly when it comes to basketball, and the leagues where ESPN has a portion, like the Big 12, Big 10, and Pac 12, would seem to be migrating their content to other broadcast platforms. I would also be surprised if schools that had options, like UNC and UVa, did not build in a revenue based trapdoor into the GoR.

The ACC is going to be a survivor. They will be the #5 P5 league, but they will not fade away or even fall too far behind the other leagues. Swofford has pulled too many rabbits out of his hat to bet against him.
 
Last edited:
upstater said:
Well you said none. Louisville is top 10 now.
Expand ...

As I leave the room for a while, Upstater;

From the linked ESPN report....

Note...

....Louisville is #54 in combined basketball-football (and BB is Yum money...Cuse puts more fans in seats)

....the top four revenue producing basketball programs are all in the ACC

.....the #10 ranked basketball revenue producer is #71 when basketball and football programs are both ranked on revenue production.

Football doesn't just drive the bus, football owns the transit company.

I like jawing with you, Upstater, but Fishy has made it clear that I have overstayed my welcome. I am taking a break for another month or so....

See ya later alligator.


"If you’re interested, Louisville football comes in at #54 on the combined football/basketball revenue ranking.

Here’s a look at the top-10 highest-grossing basketball programs (with their rank among football programs in the second column):

Basketball Program Rank ....Basketball’s Rank Among Football and Basketball Programs School Revenue

1...22..Louisville$42,434,684
2...43..Syracuse$25,888,761
3...45..Duke$25,665,732
4...51..North Carolina$24,881,106
5...60..Kentucky$21,598,681
6...63..Arizona$20,749,807
7...66..Michigan State$19,807,794
8...68..Texas$18,478,467
9...70..Indiana$18,289,795
10..71..Ohio State$18,121,349

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2013/11/14/most-profitable-football-and-basketball-programs/
 
huskyrob1 said:
Can someone please tell me what UVA has that Delaney wants so bad for the B1G? And what does UVA have from a marketing the northeast/New England point of view? I mean if I know my history, the state of Virginia is and always has been a southern state with a lot of southern ties, ask General Lee if you don't believe me. And last but not least, what does UVA bring to the table that UCONN does not in terms of capturing the northeast/NYC market in a sports marketing arena????? Don't get me wrong, UVA is a decent school, on the northern border of the south, but I don't see Delaney getting all hot and bothered about adding them to the B1G. I mean Delaney opened an office in NYC, not in Richmond or Norfolk.
Expand ...

States contiguous to the B1G footprint, ranked by population:
1) New York, 19.6 million
2) Virginia, 8.2 million
3) Missouri, 6.0 million
4) Colorado, 5.2 million
5) Kentucky, 4.4 million
6) Kansas, 2.9 million
7) West Virginia, 1.9 million
11) Delaware, 0.9 million
9) South Dakota, 0.8 million
8) North Dakota, 0.7 million
10) Wyoming, 0.6 million

If expansion is driven by (a) revenue from cable and (b) lobbying power with the federal government for AAU/CIC, both of which mean they have to seek (1) population and (2) state flagship universities with loyalty beyond alumni, and if they want to expand contiguously for the sake of rational athletic rivalries and fan and athlete travel, that sets up a fairly clear set of priorities:

1) New York has no high level athletic universities and no university generally regarded as its state flagship. The closest to fitting, Buffalo, is poorly placed within the state, far from New York City.
2) New England is functionally contiguous and heavily populated (15 million). UConn provides Connecticut (3.6 million) plus penetration into New York City and the rest of New England.
3) Virginia is far and away the most attractive of the other contiguous states.
4) Missouri they've passed on, but maybe the B1G now considers that a mistake; however Missouri may be happy in the SEC.
5) Colorado - the Pac 12 with which the B1G is friendly has the state flagship; Colorado State could be a possibility but they wouldn't want the #2 university.
6) Kentucky is intriguing but is probably happy in the SEC.
7) Kansas is tied up with a GoR and is a small state, albeit with penetration out of state into Kansas City, Missouri.

The others are unattractive. Priority wise if I were Delany it might reasonably be (1) Virginia, (2) UConn, (3) Kentucky, (4) Missouri, (5) Kansas, (6) Buffalo or Stony Brook, (7) Colorado State.
 
.-.
billybud said:
As I leave the room for a while, Upstater;

From the linked ESPN report....

Note...

....Louisville is #54 in combined basketball-football (and BB is Yum money...Cuse puts more fans in seats)

....the top four revenue producing basketball programs are all in the ACC

.....the #10 ranked basketball revenue producer is #71 when basketball and football programs are both ranked on revenue production.

Football doesn't just drive the bus, football owns the transit company.

I like jawing with you, Upstater, but Fishy has made it clear that I have overstayed my welcome. I am taking a break for another month or so....

See ya later alligator.


"If you’re interested, Louisville football comes in at #54 on the combined football/basketball revenue ranking.

Here’s a look at the top-10 highest-grossing basketball programs (with their rank among football programs in the second column):

Basketball Program Rank ....Basketball’s Rank Among Football and Basketball Programs School Revenue

1...22..Louisville$42,434,684
2...43..Syracuse$25,888,761
3...45..Duke$25,665,732
4...51..North Carolina$24,881,106
5...60..Kentucky$21,598,681
6...63..Arizona$20,749,807
7...66..Michigan State$19,807,794
8...68..Texa 18,478,467
9...70..Indiana$18,289,795
10..71..Ohio State$18,121,349

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2013/11/14/most-profitable-football-and-basketball-programs/
Expand ...

The thing to remember is that Louisville was in a conference making $2m a year in TV money. Tack another $18m onto that, and Louisville's overall take of $95m goes to $115m, which vaults it into the top tier. And that's off the back of basketball. Then you say this is why the ACC took Louisville. Well, the ACC didn't take the best basketball program in the USA, and that's UConn. By the only measurement that counts: winning.
 
pj said:
States contiguous to the B1G footprint, ranked by population:
1) New York, 19.6 million
2) Virginia, 8.2 million
3) Missouri, 6.0 million
4) Colorado, 5.2 million
5) Kentucky, 4.4 million
6) Kansas, 2.9 million
7) West Virginia, 1.9 million
11) Delaware, 0.9 million
9) South Dakota, 0.8 million
8) North Dakota, 0.7 million
10) Wyoming, 0.6 million

If expansion is driven by (a) revenue from cable and (b) lobbying power with the federal government for AAU/CIC, both of which mean they have to seek (1) population and (2) state flagship universities with loyalty beyond alumni, and if they want to expand contiguously for the sake of rational athletic rivalries and fan and athlete travel, that sets up a fairly clear set of priorities:

1) New York has no high level athletic universities and no university generally regarded as its state flagship. The closest to fitting, Buffalo, is poorly placed within the state, far from New York City.
2) New England is functionally contiguous and heavily populated (15 million). UConn provides Connecticut (3.6 million) plus penetration into New York City and the rest of New England.
3) Virginia is far and away the most attractive of the other contiguous states.
4) Missouri they've passed on, but maybe the B1G now considers that a mistake; however Missouri may be happy in the SEC.
5) Colorado - the Pac 12 with which the B1G is friendly has the state flagship; Colorado State could be a possibility but they wouldn't want the #2 university.
6) Kentucky is intriguing but is probably happy in the SEC.
7) Kansas is tied up with a GoR and is a small state, albeit with penetration out of state into Kansas City, Missouri.

The others are unattractive. Priority wise if I were Delany it might reasonably be (1) Virginia, (2) UConn, (3) Kentucky, (4) Missouri, (5) Kansas, (6) Buffalo or Stony Brook, (7) Colorado State.
Expand ...
UCONN is much more attractive IMO, than Virginia. I would rank them UCONN, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, then Virginia. The B1G and it's BTN is about athletics, and it's purpose is to make money for all the AD's in the league. First of all do those 8.2 million people in Virginia have more disposable income than the Northeastern states? Answer, no! Connecticut, Mass, New Hampshire, New Jersey, all have higher per capita incomes than does Virginia. 2nd of all, Virginia is certainly not a flagship university from an athletic point of view, they have never been able to compete with Virginia Tech and their football program. Frank Beamer is the winningest active coach in college football for christs sake. UVA must also compete with West Virginia just across the border. That's like UCONN trying to compete with Notre Dame based in Danbury and Yale going back to D1 football. 3rdly, what does UVA bring to the table in the form of winning perennial football and basketball programs? Answer, ZILCH! I think UVA being attractive to the B1G is near the end of the line, however I do see it being very, very attractive because of it's academics and endowment to something like the Ivy league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj
huskyrob1 said:
UCONN is much more attractive IMO, than Virginia. I would rank them UCONN, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, then Virginia. The B1G and it's BTN is about athletics, and it's purpose is to make money for all the AD's in the league. First of all do those 8.2 million people in Virginia have more disposable income than the Northeastern states? Answer, no! Connecticut, Mass, New Hampshire, New Jersey, all have higher per capita incomes than does Virginia. 2nd of all, Virginia is certainly not a flagship university from an athletic point of view, they have never been able to compete with Virginia Tech and their football program. Frank Beamer is the winningest active coach in college football for christs sake. UVA must also compete with West Virginia just across the border. That's like UCONN trying to compete with Notre Dame based in Danbury and Yale going back to D1 football. 3rdly, what does UVA bring to the table in the form of winning perennial football and basketball programs? Answer, ZILCH! I think UVA being attractive to the B1G is near the end of the line, however I do see it being very, very attractive because of it's academics and endowment to something like the Ivy league.
Expand ...
I highly doubt that any athletic department's purpose is to make money. It is, more likely, to provide a rewarding experience for students. As far as Beamer is concerned, he hasn't been relevant since the BiG East, has he?
 
RegisteredUconn said:
I highly doubt that any athletic department's purpose is to make money. It is, more likely, to provide a rewarding experience for students. As far as Beamer is concerned, he hasn't been relevant since the BiG East, has he?
Expand ...
Your are either twisting my words or are weak on reading comprehension!!! I never said it's the purpose of the AD to make money, I said it's the purpose of the Big Ten Network to make money FOR athletic depts in the league. Do you see the difference in what you said and what I said? Maybe???????? Huh? Huh?
 
RegisteredUconn said:
I highly doubt that any athletic department's purpose is to make money. It is, more likely, to provide a rewarding experience for students. As far as Beamer is concerned, he hasn't been relevant since the BiG East, has he?
Expand ...

Not sure but I thought the sarcasm light was on.
 
IthacaMatt said:
This is forgetting that the original teams in 2003 were supposed to be Miami, BC and Syracuse, not Va. Tech. That would have eased BC's transition and have given them a rivalry type of football game.
Expand ...
It would have--but doesn't it say something about the differences between Swofford and Delany that the ACC raid went public, thus blowing the initial plans up, whereas the Nebraska-Rutgers-Maryland additions were all surprises?
 
.-.
huskyrob1 said:
Your are either twisting my words or are weak on reading comprehension!!! I never said it's the purpose of the AD to make money, I said it's the purpose of the Big Ten Network to make money FOR athletic depts in the league. Do you see the difference in what you said and what I said? Maybe???????? Huh? Huh?
Expand ...
I comprehended just fine, I just disagree. Read your post several times just to make sure you were distinguishing between the conference, its network, and the various member athletic depts. Here's my point: Making money is not the goal of any B1G member institution. The conference exists to support its institution athletic goals. Once again, making money is not the goal of any member institutions' athletic department. The athletic departments exists to support overall institutional goals. Since the conference exists to support the athletic departments (whose goal isn't to make), it is illogical that the goal of the conference (and its network) was to make money.

Here's an example of what I mean. This spring, the Storrs campus was home to back-to-back evenings of nationally televised, winning, championship basketball. That, I imagine, was a very rewarding experience for many students, a college highlight in fact. It wasn't the fact that money was made that made it memorable. A simple question: You can have the money those championships represent but no championships, or; you can have the championships but not the money. Which do you choose?

And, no, I wasn't being sarcastic. Conferences provide the contests that athletes seek. This is so fundamentally not about money that conferences dot the landscape at every level of competition, not just P5, and not just for the few revenue positive programs.
 
tzznandrew said:
It would have--but doesn't it say something about the differences between Swofford and Delany that the ACC raid went public, thus blowing the initial plans up, whereas the Nebraska-Rutgers-Maryland additions were all surprises?
Expand ...

Interesting point, tzz....I could be wrong, but I think part of the issue here was that the ACC was the first league to wade into this. No one had any experience with the crapstorm that such moves would unleash, and it appeared that the ACC did not really put much of a priority in keeping things quiet. A definate learning curve. Since then, all of the conferences learned from this expereience - which, IMO is why the B12, BiG, and the latest ACC moves were indeed surprises with no one having a clue until the ink was either dry or near-dry.
 
btstimpy said:
Fishy. I have no idea what I did to piss you off. But obviously I have. I'm gone. I have done nothing by try to promote UConn here and every other ACC board. But I post a lot and have worn out my welcome. Take Care.
Expand ...
Why would you leave and break Nicky's heart ?
 
Last edited:
That's about all I got out of it. He didn't say anything more newsworthy than that.
 
.-.
RegisteredUconn said:
I think Delany is counting on product (B1G sports) coupled with customer affinity (Rutgers/B10 alums) to drive demand.
Expand ...

Delany's plan is basically:

Give Rutgers money, lots of it (even in the beginning the share would be large compared to AAC money)
Put PSU/Mich in NYC metro as those are the two biggest B1G alumni bases in the area
Give it five years or so
Make more money

The idea is that by giving us the money needed to operate a real athletics department, we can go hire away a coach like Kliff Kingsbury from Texas Tech which is completely feasible with what he's making and what we're willing to pay next year. We've shown that a good RU team generates interest, even against non-name opponents like Louisville, West Virginia, and South Florida. With a good team against PSU and Michigan? The area would be jamming. It'd be a college sports frenzy the area hasn't seen since Army was good and always playing in NYC.

Is it a gamble? Yes. But the plan will take time.
 
Last edited:
JayRU09 said:
Delany's plan is basically:

Give Rutgers money, lots of it (even in the beginning the share would be large compared to AAC money)
Put PSU/Mich in NYC metro as those are the two biggest B1G alumni bases in the area
Give it five years or so
Make more money

The idea is that by giving us the money needed to operate a real athletics department, we can go hire away a coach like Kliff Kingsbury from Texas Tech which is completely feasible with what he's making and what we're willing to pay next year. We've shown that a good RU team generates interest, even against non-name opponents like Louisville, West Virginia, and South Florida. With a good team against PSU and Michigan? The area would be jamming. It'd be a college sports frenzy the area hasn't seen since Army was good and always playing in NYC.

Is it a gamble? Yes. But the plan will take time.
Expand ...
Good post, Jay, but you left out the most important step.

1. Rutgers...money...blah..blah
2. PSU/Mich...blah...alums...
3. 5 years...blah, blah, blah...
4. Bring in UConn and let the two schools kick the crap out of each other on Nat'l TV with a frenzied NYC audience.

Game, set, match, and exit for Swoffie and the Also-ran Collapsing Conference.
 
Well I mean, we're so far behind the ball in basketball that you guys could do that part for us.
 
JayRU09 said:
Well I mean, we're so far behind the ball in basketball that you guys could do that part for us.
Expand ...
Get a good coach. Syracuse could be poised for a quick slide down the irrelevancy pole when Boeheim steps down. We'll keep the Garden warm for you.
 
It's not even just needing a good coach. Facilities are awful here. We put all of our political capital into football and even that rubbed everyone the wrong way.

I don't know if Eddie is the right guy, but even if he is, it'll take about 5 years just to make the tournament. We're much closer in football, especially once we get a new coach.
 
RegisteredUconn said:
I comprehended just fine, I just disagree. Read your post several times just to make sure you were distinguishing between the conference, its network, and the various member athletic depts. Here's my point: Making money is not the goal of any B1G member institution. The conference exists to support its institution athletic goals. Once again, making money is not the goal of any member institutions' athletic department. The athletic departments exists to support overall institutional goals. Since the conference exists to support the athletic departments (whose goal isn't to make), it is illogical that the goal of the conference (and its network) was to make money.

Here's an example of what I mean. This spring, the Storrs campus was home to back-to-back evenings of nationally televised, winning, championship basketball. That, I imagine, was a very rewarding experience for many students, a college highlight in fact. It wasn't the fact that money was made that made it memorable. A simple question: You can have the money those championships represent but no championships, or; you can have the championships but not the money. Which do you choose?

And, no, I wasn't being sarcastic. Conferences provide the contests that athletes seek. This is so fundamentally not about money that conferences dot the landscape at every level of competition, not just P5, and not just for the few revenue positive programs.
Expand ...

OK genius, if that's the case then why does football drive the bus over all the other sports, so to speak, in conference expansion???? I can't wait to hear your answer.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,336
Messages
4,565,397
Members
10,465
Latest member
agiglax


Top Bottom