Fishy
Elite Premium Poster
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 18,241
- Reaction Score
- 133,019
Good, let's hope we can pull that sled across the finish line. Mush, Huskies, Mush!
You are almost too stupid to post here.
Good, let's hope we can pull that sled across the finish line. Mush, Huskies, Mush!
On the other hand going from the beast of the east to some other conference and dominating it while making tens of millions of dollars more would enhance the brand. I think I get what you're saying, though. We are UConn. No one has a better men's or women's basketball Pedigree than us over the last 25 years. We should not be reduced to conference realignment expansion pitch of "take us we're free!" That said, I don't know how choosy you can be if they're may only be one life but left.Going from being the Beasts of the East/Big East and owning The Garden to being less than second class citizens in some other conference would destroy the UConn brand, we would be looked at as a laughingstock.
Tell me will be correct, though I'm not willing to concede the point yet. I would like to think that there is a path for us, even if it isn't readily apparent.The reality of the situation is that schools are very aware that it’s over for the back of the pack schools. As soon as freaking Oregon decided to sell itself to the Big Ten for a half-share, it was over - there are no more full share seats out there. Relegation, at least in terms of UConn gaining equal footing financially with our peers, is permanent.
Hmmm I thought it was. “Next”What’s the difference between making next to nothing and nothing.
Nothing.
There are IQ requirements to post here. We will lose 2/3rds of the BY !!!!You are almost too stupid to post here.
Hey, he said "almost". It's a pretty low bar.There are IQ requirements to post here. We will lose 2/3rds of the BY !!!!
And, donations. UConn needs to go all in on hiring top people to focus on donations for athletics as well as for the academic side.It’s a hard concept to understand.
We essentially give our rights away for free in this market. I keep seeing mentions about our brand value - we give our brand away for nothing. Fox pays exactly the same for the UConn brand as it does for the Seton Hall brand.
Two ways to make money in this game - television rights and the gate.
Our TV rights are nothing and the state takes most of the gate, so what’s the value of the brand again?
If broadcast rights were the sole measure of brand value, you'd be correct. But our brand value contributes to our LeerField/IMG contract, Nike contract, , and yes the gate, even if we are in an extraordinarily unfavorable deal with the state. So, I think your grape isn't so much with our brand value, but with the fact that we haven't effectively monetized it.It’s a hard concept to understand.
We essentially give our rights away for free in this market. I keep seeing mentions about our brand value - we give our brand away for nothing. Fox pays exactly the same for the UConn brand as it does for the Seton Hall brand.
Two ways to make money in this game - television rights and the gate.
Our TV rights are nothing and the state takes most of the gate, so what’s the value of the brand again?
Old time football fans will recall SMU was a power in the old SW football conference.. Booster payments to players cost them suspensions and scholarships and very nearly a NCAA death sentence Because after they were caught paying one or two players , they decided to continue to pay the other players to buy their silence .They were caught again . When they resumed playing a depleted squad mostly walk on’s their first win was against Div 1AA UConn. A game I unfortunately watched .This. SMU boosters can support the program for years which is why they can join up for nothing for a few years.
True giving our media rights away as a football only is pretty inexpensive.It’s a hard concept to understand.
We essentially give our rights away for free in this market. I keep seeing mentions about our brand value - we give our brand away for nothing. Fox pays exactly the same for the UConn brand as it does for the Seton Hall brand.
Two ways to make money in this game - television rights and the gate.
Our TV rights are nothing and the state takes most of the gate, so what’s the value of the brand again?
It's hard to belive this board could hit a new low, but why in the world would you throw our canine friends under the bus here by comparing them to Boneyard posters?It actually makes you a golden retriever.
UConn should approach the PAC 4 with a football only conference like this, and honestly you don't even need the central division (and can replace USF with Army). I posted the following a week ago:
West
Stanford (Olympic in WCC)
Cal (Olympic in WCC)
OSU (Olympic in WCC)
WSU (Olympic in WCC)
East
UConn (Olympic in Big East)
Army (Olympic in Patriot)
Navy (Olympic in Patriot)
Temple (Olympic in A10 or Big East)
Would be an interesting football conference that has no impact on basketball/Olympic. Could even get some baseball series with Stanford/Cal/OSU...
Notre Dame might also find this conference kind of attractive for a scheduling deal. Stanford, Army (at Yankee Stadium), Navy (at FedEx), UConn (at Fenway), Temple (at Lincoln). Could "leave" the ACC and park Olympics in the Big East.
If the ACC dissolves, why would FSU, Clemson and UNC accept “new financial terms” that will pale by comparison to what they could get in the SEC or BiG? They will not look back while exiting.If you're going to have Army and Navy, might as well take Air Force as well, and another Eastern team to balance.
Alternatively, if I'm ESPN maybe I try to satisfy the unhappiness of the bigger ACC schools and the mistakes in past realignment, by taking a page out of the plan to dissolve the Mountain West or American in order to free up teams from contracts for a re-arrangement with the Pac.
Let's say it takes 12 of 15 schools to dissolve the ACC. The 12 most valuable schools dissolve the ACC and recreate it, dropping the three weakest (BC, Cuse and Louisville?), adding Stanford, Cal, and UConn. ESPN provides new financial terms that are more acceptable to FSU, Clemson, UNC, and don't leave anyone else worse off. You may get a more stable conference with an uptick in revenue.
I wouldn’t really want to be in the ACC in that configurationIf you're going to have Army and Navy, might as well take Air Force as well, and another Eastern team to balance.
Alternatively, if I'm ESPN maybe I try to satisfy the unhappiness of the bigger ACC schools and the mistakes in past realignment, by taking a page out of the plan to dissolve the Mountain West or American in order to free up teams from contracts for a re-arrangement with the Pac.
Let's say it takes 12 of 15 schools to dissolve the ACC. The 12 most valuable schools dissolve the ACC and recreate it, dropping the three weakest (BC, Cuse and Louisville?), adding Stanford, Cal, and UConn. ESPN provides new financial terms that are more acceptable to FSU, Clemson, UNC, and don't leave anyone else worse off. You may get a more stable conference with an uptick in revenue.
I'm a realist, if there's no intervention and the couple of mega conferences split off and do their own thing for football we'll be left behind in football as will a bunch of other schools who think they have a seat at the table.
I'm certainly rooting against it. You seem to think we'll be left behind in football and basketball, I guess you're rooting for that outcome.
If the ACC dissolves, why would FSU, Clemson and UNC accept “new financial terms” that will pale by comparison to what they could get in the SEC or BiG? They will not look back while exiting.
You forgot the old SWC.By the way, it will be interesting to see how the Big 12 operates over time. Adding 8 new members and they have 2 other members who have been recent adds, TCU and West Virginia. There is little in common amongst the schools as they have come from PAC 12, old Big 12, AAC, independent, MWC, and they operate in 4 time zones (Arizona doesn’t use daylight savings time).
What tremendously bizarre additions.
Bad hoops, bad football, low fan engagement, and horrible geographic fit.
Just further cements that the ACC will blow apart at some point after the milk the last few possible dollars out of the current deal.
Syracuse and BC are bottom feeders who will be left out. They never supported UConn inclusion. Very short sided.What tremendously bizarre additions.
Bad hoops, bad football, low fan engagement, and horrible geographic fit.
Just further cements that the ACC will blow apart at some point after the milk the last few possible dollars out of the current deal.
UNC won't take partial shares unless it's part of a settlement with the ACC. OR/WA didn't have much choice, it was either rebuild the PAC or cut a deal with the ACC (if possible). UNC is wanted by both & doesn't have a problem staying in the ACCThis is all hypothetical and speculative, but (a) if Oregon and Washington took partial shares in the B1G, FSU, Clemson and UNC may not get full shares in the SEC or B1G either, and the ACC might be able to match their other offers; and (b) if the "new ACC" doesn't have equal revenue sharing among all schools but higher payouts for the top schools, which is what FSU wants, then that would help the top schools match SEC and B1G payouts in this "new ACC".
Again, I don't know that this could ever happen, just floating an idea.