Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[CL82]

There are IQ requirements to post here. We will lose 2/3rds of the BY !!!!

Hey, he said "almost". It's a pretty low bar.

 

[UConnJim]

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?

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.

 

[UConnJim]

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).

 

[Storrs South]

 

[CL82]

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.

 

[JeepCSC]

I don't get SMU at all.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

This. SMU boosters can support the program for years which is why they can join up for nothing for a few years.

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 .
So when the merger with the Big 8 came they were so weak that ESPN dictated , they along with Houston , Rice , and TCU be left behind so it became the B12 . They only wanted 4 Texas schools . So it’s remains at 4 today . Ironically what their program was destroyed for is widely done .

 

[metsfan2323]

I don't get SMU at all.

I agree. Anyone who thinks they create a bridge for the ACC has never looked at a map. It's like creating a bridge from Boston to France via Bermuda. It's politics and I think it's more about politics than any of us realize. This whole conference realignment thing is just a good ole boys club.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

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?

True giving our media rights away as a football only is pretty inexpensive.
5 7 years of zero media
compensation for football, then we become a full paid member when we add BB.
That’s a win win
The increase in live gate will more than make up for it

 

[businesslawyer]

It actually makes you a golden retriever.

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?

 

[pj]

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 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.

 

[Viet Vet]

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.

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.

 

[Urcea]

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 configuration

 

[pj]

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.

What works on behalf of schools like UConn is the economics of bundling. It's just more valuable to have a bigger bundle than a smaller one, which is why cable has historically generated so much revenue.

If the top 40 schools or so broke off, they lose half the audience which roots for the next 160 schools. Those fans had their local rooting interest but considered themselves college football or college sports fans, and watched the name schools because of that. If their local rooting interest splits off, they never see the big name schools and lose interest.

The big name schools walked away with half the college football fan base but less revenue than they formerly had. The weaker half of the big name programs that used to go 9-3 are now playing tougher competition and going 5-7 or 4-8. They may start to bleed fan interest as well. We all know the casual fans who only root for winners.

Sports like basketball that can support many more schools don't fit that model, so what would follow is a further divorce of football from other sports. If football and basketball are economically divorced, then the natural next step is separate conferences for football and basketball (UConn being a leader in this). Moreover, there's no reason for the basketball schools to shoulder the burden of D2 and D3 sports alone, so basketball has reason to break away from the NCAA and make its own arrangements. You end up with football-only conferences, basketball-only conferences, and Olympic sports conferences.

The subsequent Balkanized sports world may fit the streaming paradigm better, but it won't give the kind of revenue that these superconferences currently have and hope to continue getting. It's only a matter of time before there starts to be downticks on the contracts. FSU's unhappiness, and Oregon's acceptance of a half-share in the B1G, are harbingers of things to come.

In that disrupted world, there will be less money, but the distribution will be more fair. The UConns of the world will migrate toward the college athletics mean, and end up with similar revenue to Syracuse, BC, Louisville, Pitt, Wake, NC State, Va Tech, Miami, West Virginia, etc.

 

[pj]

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.

This 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.

 

[businesslawyer]

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).

You forgot the old SWC.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

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.

 

[metsfan2323]

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.

Ridiculous additions for the ACC.

Also I fail to see the appeal for Stanford and Cal. How is going to the ACC for free better than trying to build a new PAC 12 and being paid approximately 12 million a year? It might even be a league they can win some games in.

None of this makes any sense which tells me it is all ESPN maneuvering behind the scenes trying to create what is best for their bottom line and long-term interests.

Welcome to the ESPN puppet show.

 

[Khal Drogo]

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.

 

[ramses 2.0]

This 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.

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 ACC

 

[coachcap]

I’m an idiot, but I’m happy. Does that make me a good Boneyarder or a bad Boneyarder?

If you have to ask, you know the answer

 

[bobbyinaz]

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 don’t think ESPN would orchestrate the implosion of the ACC, which it owns on the cheap thru 2036, in order to re-form it and pay it more

 

[UConnJim]

I don’t think ESPN would orchestrate the implosion of the ACC, which it owns on the cheap thru 2036, in order to re-form it and pay it more

An observation.

Big 10 has been partnered with FOX for the Big Ten Network. SEC and ACC has been partnered with ESPN for the SECN and ACCN. Pac 12 wasn't partnered with anyone for the Pac 12 Network. Big 12 had no conference network

When it came time for new media deals, Big 10 chose FOX, SEC chose ESPN, Big 12 chose FOX/ESPN, Pac 12 imploded.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

I don’t think ESPN would orchestrate the implosion of the ACC, which it owns on the cheap thru 2036, in order to re-form it and pay it more

That's why FSU is most likely stuck for the whole. Of course, Fox can change all that by getting B1G to invite FSU with current media pro rata payout.

 

[Punkbo]

If you have to ask, you know the answer

Thanks! I enjoy an unending stream of nonsensical comments so this place is perfect for me!