Disagree - if only for the reason that we'd lose our 3-4 ACC games per year. Bad for the football program and bad for the fans. Hard pass.
Wait, So Does everyone want to keep winning 5-7 games a year as an Indy playing random midmajors as opposed to winning 4-6 in a P4? I’m sorry but too bad I guess? Staying in the BE and Indy isn’t sustainable. Like he said the athletic dept is losing 30 mill per year. If there’s a possibility of earning more revenue we need to take it.
We are not competitive in football with a P4 schedule over the long term with current spending. Why do you think Mora had his outburst on investment in football? Why do you think SMU raised $200 million to invest in athletics which equals close to $20 to $25 million per year? Dave knows the math. Ask him and he will not agree with you at all. He has been doing conference call updates, so call into the next one and ask him if UConn can field a competitive P4 football program with our current investment.
We'd still be able to play at least two ACC games per year. If the PAC or AAC offered us a significantly better TV deal we need to strongly consider it. Next year's schedule is brutal and we won't have a Fagnano/Skyler Bell combo every year. Stacking a schedule full of P4 games when we can't compete financially for players is a recipe for losing.
Wow I can’t believe You’re actually saying we can’t afford to join a power conference without even knowing how much of a revenue share we’d get. that is the lamest argument I’ve ever heard in my life. Fine stay Indy playing other rando midmajors and the occasional ACC school if they’re feeling generous and if you’re lucky you can go to the Fenway bowl. Incredibly Lame and no upside. And more importantly How long can the school keep covering a $30 mill annual athletic deficit? Something will have to give eventually.
With 9 conf games, it'd be almost impossible to have the schedule flexibility to maintain ACC scheduling greater than one per year.
With all of the P4 conferences going to 9 conference games + 1 OOC P4, there will be less opportunities for UConn to play a P4 game. In the near future UConn will have less opportunities to play P4 games and therefore will have to play more G5 games anyway.
I want us to join a P4 conference, but UConn can't afford do it without a significant revenue share (not the SMU model) or a large investment by UConn donors. Do you think the ACC would want a UConn football program that invests significantly less than the even the lowest spending ACC school? Of course not.
That's fair.
this is where I think the ACC is in trouble. First, the ACC and SMU set an awful precedent by forgoing revenue share. SMU might be able to afford it but most programs can't, and it may only work for SMU in the ACC which is struggling. Second, it would make no sense to invite a program which would be set up to fail. The ACC would want a football program to succeed but that program can't succeed in the conference without revenue share.
I'd like to see a chart on where (over the past 10, 15, 20, 25 years) we sit in terms of spend on men's basketball compared to results. I'll wager that there are a number of schools ahead of us (some well ahead of us) in dollars spent but few who belong in the same conversation in terms of success.
I never said UConn should take the SMU deal, but we also have to be able to work with something less than a full share. I would expect a major increase in donors if we joined a P4.
We have zero leverage. Zero.
Then what’s the point in keeping up the charade? What good is beating Duke if we can’t join em? And how do we keep justifying losing $30mill per year if the investment will never pay off? Please don’t say a football only invite back to the American cause that is still a mid major charade where we’d keep hemorrhaging money with nothing to show besides an invite to the Cheribundi sour cherry bowl.
For sure its Eddie at the car wash
There is an argument and I think a rather strong one, that while this deal would absolutely suck, that joining the ACC cements UConn's rise to a top tier institution that would be very meaningful in the decades to come. And by meaningful, I mean it a form of economic development that could be very effective for the state over the next 30 to 50 years. If I was choosing economic development levers for the state, I would pull the 'UConn to the ACC subsidy lever.'
Agreed. I also think it is a mistake to judge the value of athletics merely by it's an annual balance sheet. Connecticut has propelled itself from being a mediocre regional school into the dominant public university of New England on the backs of successful athletics. The marketing value of a successful athletic department is enormous.
Right and if that is not enough, just look how the landscape has changed over the past 30 years for other schools. So many of the large state schools with high profile sports have made a dramatic rise in their academic profile and selectivity. And none of them are going backwards - their momentum is still on the up.
I want to use the dislike/angry emoji for your post not because I disagree with you, but because your words are totally spot on and reflect the absolute dire reality of our frail position. We have no white knight conference that outright would bring us in at an advantageous situation. We are in a catch 22 of needing more conference money to help fund our athletics, but that money (or conference) won't be coming our away anytime soon over the next several years. If we wish to survive, we have to take a big financial hit that may eventually turn into revenue, though at what cost to our atheletics...do we fade away the way Rutgers has? This s*** sandwich makes me sick.
The answer is yes, if you can get in.