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

[WestCoastHusky]

It still feels like a combination of personal animosity and ignorance. That Cal was invited to the ACC and not UConn is irrational in the extreme. I understand the elite academic profile for Cal-Stanford, but other than Golf and Tennis, they don't add anything athletically at this point and the travel burden is extreme. It's not like UConn would downgrade the ACC academically.

This is a hard decision to fathom. It would be really nice to hear how the ACC presidents came to this decision when they invited SMU, Cal, and Stanford over Uconn.

 

[Chuck]

This is a hard decision to fathom. It would be really nice to hear how the ACC presidents came to this decision when they invited SMU, Cal, and Stanford over Uconn.

It's been said a number of times that the people making the decisions are terrible business people. They run institutions that would generally lose money if they didn't have: i) state/federal funding; ii) generous benefactors (what other companies get donations from the public); and iii) customers that borrowed money that couldn't be discharged in bankruptcy to purchase their services.

I didn't really believe that in the past, but I've come around to it. I think they are like that idiot casual fan you know who thinks they know everything because they read a tweet here and there. It's like they believe the negative narratives about UConn, but also believe all the positive narratives about everyone else.

 

[buddy]

ESPN could have gotten UConn into the ACC. They control the money.

 

[UConnJim]

I remain amazed that somehow we can do all of these things, plus get to a bowl game and sell tickets at a volume that inspires that bowl to bring us back again immediately and we are still outside of the power structure.

Like, how?

UConn hasn't gotten an invite because they haven't been serious about football until recently.

Can we all agree that college football coaching salaries have been going up? Of course they have by a lot, but, until recently, not at UConn. Look at this run:

Randy Edsall: $1.55 million in 2010. Pasqualoni hired at $1.5 million in 2011.
Paul Pasqualoni: $1.7 million in 2013. Diaco hired at $1.5 million for 2014.
Bob Diaco: $1.8 million in 2017. Edsall hired at $1 million in 2017
Randy Edsall: $1.3 million in 2021. Mora hired at $1.5 million.

So, in 11 years, the UConn head coaching salary was flat during a time of surging head coaching salaries. And, Mora was the first head coach since Edsall 1.0 to get higher pay than his predecessor. (Yes, the hiring of PP, Diaco, and Edsall 2.0 were a disaster, but the administration bears some fault for not raising the comp.)

I understand that the UConn AD was in a tight financial position during this time, but football was the driver of conference realignment and UConn had to find a way to invest. I do believe UConn is investing in football now.

 

[ninety-nine]

UConn hasn't gotten an invite because they haven't been serious about football until recently.

Can we all agree that college football coaching salaries have been going up? Of course they have by a lot, but, until recently, not at UConn. Look at this run:

Randy Edsall: $1.55 million in 2010. Pasqualoni hired at $1.5 million in 2011.
Paul Pasqualoni: $1.7 million in 2013. Diaco hired at $1.5 million for 2014.
Bob Diaco: $1.8 million in 2017. Edsall hired at $1 million in 2017
Randy Edsall: $1.3 million in 2021. Mora hired at $1.5 million.

So, in 11 years, the UConn head coaching salary was flat during a time of surging head coaching salaries. And, Mora was the first head coach since Edsall 1.0 to get higher pay than his predecessor. (Yes, the hiring of PP, Diaco, and Edsall 2.0 were a disaster, but the administration bears some fault for not raising the comp.)

I understand that the UConn AD was in a tight financial position during this time, but football was the driver of conference realignment and UConn had to find a way to invest. I do believe UConn is investing in football now.

True, but also with the caveat that if UConn had money available from a power conference, it would be able to invest a lot of money in football. We're being judged as if we don't have one hand tied behind our backs.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

This is a hard decision to fathom. It would be really nice to hear how the ACC presidents came to this decision when they invited SMU, Cal, and Stanford over Uconn.

Added carriage fees for the ACC Network in large, new ACC markets (TX and CA)?

 

[CL82]

All anybody cares about is football. And we are stuck in purgatory until we've burned off all the stink of Diaco and Edsall.

There is a lot of stink left to burn, unfortunately.

That's two coaches ago. I think a good bit of that stank has burned off. We will see how Candle does. His rebuilding of the program, both coaching staff and players, in a very short window was impressive. How good they will be awaits to be seen.

 

[CL82]

ESPN could have gotten UConn into the ACC. They control the money.

I feel like you are trolling here, buddy, but you're not wrong. They could have.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Two things:

1) Football is not nearly the driver it was 20 years ago. Football loses mountains of money for most schools just so they can get their asses kicked anyway. This is why programs like BCU and Syracuse are not trying.

2) Recruiting regions don’t matter. Like really do not fudging matter at all.

Cal, Stanford and SMU basically agreed to cover their own costs and they all have big endowments. UConn could never afford those kinds of deals.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Two things:

1) Football is not nearly the driver it was 20 years ago. Football loses mountains of money for most schools just so they can get their asses kicked anyway. This is why programs like BCU and Syracuse are not trying.

2) Recruiting regions don’t matter. Like really do not fudging matter at all.

Cal, Stanford and SMU basically agreed to cover their own costs and they all have big endowments. UConn could never afford those kinds of deals.

You do realize that the university has been subsidizing the AD to the level of 25-50m annually, right? Very similar to other universities. Lets say UConn gets into a P* conference at a 50% media share initially and concurrently needs to increase FB expenditures to compete at a higher level. Let's say the media rights bring in another 15m over what they get from the BE. They'll spend 10-15m more for FB until they get to over the 50% mark. From there it's likely net positive to be able to reduce the university subsidy a bit. Whether people believe the university should subsidize the AD is up for debate but across the nation, most flagship university presidents believe there is a net positive effect to subsidize athletics due to the impact it has on student applications, student profile, research grants, donations, the local economy, and civic and legislative pride, etc. Think about a UConn without big time/D1 athletics. It'd be UConn of 1980. Not many would sign up for that given where the university is situated in so many aspects currently.

 

[buddy]

I feel like you are trolling here, buddy, but you're not wrong. They could have.

Not trolling at all. Just fed up with the injustice. You really believe UCF, Cinci, BC. Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, Minnesota, are better than UConn? The powers that be keep shifting everything on UConn. First football was no good, the fiesta bowl appearance was just luck. Then football is good, but oh, you don't play anyone good, that's why you win. Same for basketball now. Two seed? You guys don't deserve that. You didn't play a tough schedule like power schools do! Why are we forced to play UConn at Gampel in the women's tournament? Even though we stink, we shouldn't be in the same bracket as UConn. This was the women's basketball coach of Syracuse's complaint. No one responded by telling her to lobby to get UConn in the ACC and they won't be in the same bracket at tournament time.

I stand by my complaint. It is ESPN that keeps UConn out. They could have used UConn as a bargaining tool in a positive way.

 

[CL82]

Not trolling at all. Just fed up with the injustice. You really believe UCF, Cinci, BC. Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, Minnesota, are better than UConn? The powers that be keep shifting everything on UConn. First football was no good, the fiesta bowl appearance was just luck. Then football is good, but oh, you don't play anyone good, that's why you win. Same for basketball now. Two seed? You guys don't deserve that. You didn't play a tough schedule like power schools do! Why are we forced to play UConn at Gampel in the women's tournament? Even though we stink, we shouldn't be in the same bracket as UConn. This was the women's basketball coach of Syracuse's complaint. No one responded by telling her to lobby to get UConn in the ACC and they won't be in the same bracket at tournament time.

I stand by my complaint. It is ESPN that keeps UConn out. They could have used UConn as a bargaining tool in a positive way.

Yeah, I actually have never heard that narrative at all and it's not consistent with my recollection of what happened. As I've said before, I don't think ESPN is keeping us out so much as they have zero incentive to get us in. Those are two different things.

 

[Fishy]

You do realize that the university has been subsidizing the AD to the level of 25-50m annually, right?

In their first year in the ACC, California made more in conference revenue at half-rations than UConn made in the Big East - $11M vs $8M. They're also getting three years of "Calimony" from UCLA which is $10M a year. The University of California system also gave Cal athletics $15M to help the transition to the ACC.

So basically, Cal is getting $45M over three years from the system to help them adjust. That's basically a half-decade of our conference earnings.

Even so, they're still running massive deficits that can't entirely be sourced to the ACC. They had a $24M deficit and $44M in direct support from the school - so, essentially, a $68M deficit. (Impact from the move from the P12 to the ACC....rights fees dropped from $25M to $11M. Travel increased by $4M. Basically, $18m impact.) I

Say UConn takes the same deal. (30% rev share over seven years). We'd likely break even on the Big East vs ACC exchange. More revenue, but offset by travel. (Conservative - we'd likely sell some more football tickets with an ACC slate.) That's doable.

If we took the SMU deal, well, we can't take the SMU deal. (Zero rev share over nine years.) SMU raised $200M from donors to deal with it - I don't see us being able to do that unless more of you have oil wells in your yard than I think.

 

[Fishy]

Yeah, I actually have never heard that narrative at all and it's not consistent with my recollection of what happened. As I've said before, I don't think ESPN is keeping us out so much as they have zero incentive to get us in. Those are two different things.

In terms of the ACC, I am sure ESPN has no interest in UConn for the same reason that they likely had no interest in Cal, Stanford and SMU....they don't want to spend more money on the ACC. Even if they were interested in UConn, they cannot put the ACC in a headlock and say, take these guys.

They were rumored to have been in favor of UConn moving to the Big 12 which makes some sense. They're not paying full freight for the B12 and it gives them a new property in UConn men's and women's hoop. (Of course, as is our luck, Fox no doubt did not want to triple what UConn received in rights payments while simultaneously damaging another one of their properties, the Big East.)

My guess these days is that ESPN would be very happy if no one expanded again.

 

[JVN]

In terms of the ACC, I am sure ESPN has no interest in UConn for the same reason that they likely had no interest in Cal, Stanford and SMU....they don't want to spend more money on the ACC. Even if they were interested in UConn, they cannot put the ACC in a headlock and say, take these guys.

They were rumored to have been in favor of UConn moving to the Big 12 which makes some sense. They're not paying full freight for the B12 and it gives them a new property in UConn men's and women's hoop. (Of course, as is our luck, Fox no doubt did not want to triple what UConn received in rights payments while simultaneously damaging another one of their properties, the Big East.)

My guess these days is that ESPN would be very happy if no one expanded again.

100% this. My recollection is that ESPN was not on board with adding SMU and Calford, but they were contractually obligated to pro rata the ACC for this expansion.

 

[Fishy]

100% this. My recollection is that ESPN was not on board with adding SMU and Calford, but they were contractually obligated to pro rata the ACC for this expansion.

Yep. That expansion was a s * * * sandwich for ESPN.

 

[king conn]

Not trolling at all. Just fed up with the injustice. You really believe UCF, Cinci, BC. Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, Minnesota, are better than UConn? The powers that be keep shifting everything on UConn. First football was no good, the fiesta bowl appearance was just luck. Then football is good, but oh, you don't play anyone good, that's why you win. Same for basketball now. Two seed? You guys don't deserve that. You didn't play a tough schedule like power schools do! Why are we forced to play UConn at Gampel in the women's tournament? Even though we stink, we shouldn't be in the same bracket as UConn. This was the women's basketball coach of Syracuse's complaint. No one responded by telling her to lobby to get UConn in the ACC and they won't be in the same bracket at tournament time.

I stand by my complaint. It is ESPN that keeps UConn out. They could have used UConn as a bargaining tool in a positive way.

The state should have used UConn as a bargaining tool for the tax breaks they handed out.

 

[Fishy]

On ESPN and UConn.....

 

[JVN]

On ESPN and UConn.....

View attachment 118610

"A lifeline for its floundering football program" unfortunately is the narrative that UConn needs to overcome. Hopefully we've made some progress in the year and a half since this article was published, with more to come.

 

[Fishy]

"A lifeline for its floundering football program" unfortunately is the narrative that UConn needs to overcome. Hopefully we've made some progress in the year and a half since this article was published, with more to come.

I don't think it matters what we do, that will always be the perception.

 

[CL82]

In terms of the ACC, I am sure ESPN has no interest in UConn for the same reason that they likely had no interest in Cal, Stanford and SMU....they don't want to spend more money on the ACC. Even if they were interested in UConn, they cannot put the ACC in a headlock and say, take these guys.

They were rumored to have been in favor of UConn moving to the Big 12 which makes some sense. They're not paying full freight for the B12 and it gives them a new property in UConn men's and women's hoop. (Of course, as is our luck, Fox no doubt did not want to triple what UConn received in rights payments while simultaneously damaging another one of their properties, the Big East.)

My guess these days is that ESPN would be very happy if no one expanded again.

My guess?There may be one more round of conference realignment where the P2 pick up one or two high value properties. After that, I think future conference alignment may be consolidation rather than expansion. Just a guess.

 

[History Geek]

On ESPN and UConn.....

View attachment 118610

Is that a year and a half year old article?

 

[Fishy]

My guess?There may be one more round of conference realignment where the P2 pick up one or two high value properties. After that, I think future conference alignment may be consolidation rather than expansion. Just a guess.

I suspect the P2, especially the B10, is discovering that bigger is not necessarily better. I won’t be surprised if the next round of realignment doesn’t involve much realigning. Might actually be good for us, who knows?

Is that a year and a half year old article?

It’s from the weeks prior to the Big 12 putting our talks on ice, so 2024-ish.

 

[Vowelguy]

Serious question: how does one consolidate? I mean, logistically. I always figured that most schools won't vote for it, knowing that if you start getting rid of schools, eventually you're the bottom on the totem pole.

The only possible exception I can see if someone is relatively new and bad, they could be viewed as "never one of us." So Rutgers and maybe Maryland. I can't see a 50-year member getting bounced from the B1G or SEC.

Unless you were talking about the B12 or ACC, where there's more desperation and less shared history.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

In their first year in the ACC, California made more in conference revenue at half-rations than UConn made in the Big East - $11M vs $8M. They're also getting three years of "Calimony" from UCLA which is $10M a year. The University of California system also gave Cal athletics $15M to help the transition to the ACC.

So basically, Cal is getting $45M over three years from the system to help them adjust. That's basically a half-decade of our conference earnings.

Even so, they're still running massive deficits that can't entirely be sourced to the ACC. They had a $24M deficit and $44M in direct support from the school - so, essentially, a $68M deficit. (Impact from the move from the P12 to the ACC....rights fees dropped from $25M to $11M. Travel increased by $4M. Basically, $18m impact.) I

Say UConn takes the same deal. (30% rev share over seven years). We'd likely break even on the Big East vs ACC exchange. More revenue, but offset by travel. (Conservative - we'd likely sell some more football tickets with an ACC slate.) That's doable.

If we took the SMU deal, well, we can't take the SMU deal. (Zero rev share over nine years.) SMU raised $200M from donors to deal with it - I don't see us being able to do that unless more of you have oil wells in your yard than I think.

We wouldn’t breakeven unless we wanted to get our butts handed to us. Unless we could figure out a way to play BCU and Syracuse every week, we would get bludgeoned in the ACC.

I have heard Pitt’s team was mid 30’s last year, which got them 8-4. What did UConn spend? $8? $10?

 

[JwittersPAC]

We wouldn’t breakeven unless we wanted to get our butts handed to us. Unless we could figure out a way to play BCU and Syracuse every week, we would get bludgeoned in the ACC.

I have heard Pitt’s team was mid 30’s last year, which got them 8-4. What did UConn spend? $8? $10?

You think UConn football spent $8 to $10 million on players last year? I would be surprise if it was even $5 million. I agree getting into the P4 may not solve the deficit issue since UConn would have to significantly increase the amount they spend on the football team not just for the players but on the staff as well,

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

You think UConn football spent $8 to $10 million on players last year? I would be surprise if it was even $5 million. I agree getting into the P4 may not solve the deficit issue since UConn would have to significantly increase the amount they spend on the football team not just for the players but on the staff as well,

If Pitt spent in the 30m's range for FB that would have been a combo of rev share and NIL. UConn for FB would have been around 10m for rev share and NIL; given what we heard from the AD and other sources. So, likely would need another 20m to compete with the middle/upper-middle of the ACC. That'd have to come from additional media revenue, CFP revenue share (both of which we basically get zero of today as an independent) and other sources like presumed added FB ticket sales maybe 1.5m), sponsorships, etc. So, not totally unreasonable to say that it would be close to net neutral. Lots of other ins and outs as well.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

If Pitt spent in the 30m's range for FB that would have been a combo of rev share and NIL. UConn for FB would have been around 10m for rev share and NIL; given what we heard from the AD and other sources. So, likely would need another 20m to compete with the middle/upper-middle of the ACC. That'd have to come from additional media revenue, CFP revenue share (both of which we basically get zero of today as an independent) and other sources like presumed added FB ticket sales maybe 1.5m), sponsorships, etc. So, not totally unreasonable to say that it would be close to net neutral. Lots of other ins and outs as well.

There are no “full shares” of media revenue unless something happens so that they need us as much as we need them. The Big 12’s discussion was on joining the Big 12 for basketball, then investing $10+ million of new money a year in football, play some games against Big 12 teams, and they would take a look in 2030. I thought that was a bad offer, and the Big 12 ended up pulling it anyway.

Let’s say we get the Calford deal of a 30% rev share, which after travel gets us a few million per year better than where we are now on a net basis, we would then have to spend $20+ million more every year to be Pitt-competitive. And I am sure any deal to join another league would have an investment requirement or we could be kicked out. That $20 million a year is impossible.

We need something to happen whereby the ACC or Big 12 need to backfill departing members. Or, a merger between the Big East and another conference. I actually think the merger is the most likely, but I have an open mind.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

There are no “full shares” of media revenue unless something happens so that they need us as much as we need them. The Big 12’s discussion was on joining the Big 12 for basketball, then investing $10+ million of new money a year in football, play some games against Big 12 teams, and they would take a look in 2030. I thought that was a bad offer, and the Big 12 ended up pulling it anyway.

Let’s say we get the Calford deal of a 30% rev share, which after travel gets us a few million per year better than where we are now on a net basis, we would then have to spend $20+ million more every year to be Pitt-competitive. And I am sure any deal to join another league would have an investment requirement or we could be kicked out. That $20 million a year is impossible.

We need something to happen whereby the ACC or Big 12 need to backfill departing members. Or, a merger between the Big East and another conference. I actually think the merger is the most likely, but I have an open mind.

I see your logic but I think where we differ is that I think we'd get more than the 30% share because of the strength of both of the basketball programs. Now, as part of the BE we get ~ 7m per year but I would imagine the combined value of the basketball programs is around 3 times that of the other BE schools given the ratings power (maybe 4 times but I won't assume that). Let's say we get a 50% share instead of 30%. That'd be .5x 40m so 20m versus the ~ 8m we get today from the BE and CBS Sports Network combined. That's a 12m lift. I'll be conservative and round it down to 10m. I re-looked at the ACC CFP revenue share and non-CFP participants get nothing so nothing there. Added FB ticket sales could bring another ~1.5m. Sponsorships will go up but how much? Last year it was 10m across the AD , so maybe another 2m seeing FB is likely minimal currently? Athletic donations would increase as well: currently ~ 52m annually so maybe another 5m (assuming a 10% lift but who knows). Would they increase the student fee which currently brings in 5m annually? Currently the university athletic subsidy is 32m annually - would they raise it another ~ 5m to cover the increased gap? It all feels somewhat reasonable given what would likely happen outside the Athletic Department in terms of endowment increases, university profile increases, etc.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I suspect the P2, especially the B10, is discovering that bigger is not necessarily better. I won’t be surprised if the next round of realignment doesn’t involve much realigning. Might actually be good for us, who knows?


It’s from the weeks prior to the Big 12 putting our talks on ice, so 2024-ish.

I think there is serious buyers remorse from the West Coast Big Ten schools. The fans seem to absolutely hate it. Even the Arizona schools were whining endlessly about the Big XII tournament being in KC. The PAC should have just stayed together and maybe been less pompous and expanded. We all know the ACC was arrogant, but the PAC took arrogance to another level, they were blind to reality.

Bigger isn't better and we all know what should be done.
Pac should reform and include BYU and maybe Boise.
Nebraska back to Big XII with Missouri. Colorado stays.
UConn, WVU and Cinci to ACC. Maryland and Rutgers should be there but won't be.