Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="jostar1, post: 5082357, member: 1737"] Frank the Tank's take on CSNBBS: "At the same time, I think it’s far from crazy compared to what we’ve seen up to this point in conference realignment. It’s actually what a lot of people are begging for overall: UConn would place its football program in a league that is the best (or maybe only) option for them as of now, but keep basketball and all of their other sports with their traditional rivals and within their home region. We’ve been talking about places like UTSA on this forum as if they’re predestined to be powers (e.g. a UCF-like trajectory), but that’s not exactly a guarantee at all. For as poor as UConn has performed on-the-field over the years, they still have enough pull as an athletic department to regularly get multiple power conference teams per year to visit their stadium. Even brands like Boise State haven’t been able to do that. It’s not just a function of UConn being able to schedule more games as an independent, either (as you can compare their schedules to UMass). UConn likely has enough wherewithal to schedule 2-3 P4 opponents per year, which would give UConn 1-2 P4 home games per year. That’s pretty immediate value to a non-power conference TV contract. It’s also the least disruptive move from a geographic standpoint. Yes, we will make fun of UConn somehow being in both the Big East and Pac-12 at the same time, but football-only for UConn is honestly a way easier geographic situation than, say, USF joining the Pac-12 for all-sports. I would say that Memphis all-sports is more valuable than UConn football-only, but if you take a step back, are Tulane, USF and UTSA really any more valuable brand-wise than UConn football-only, particularly when UConn is probably adding 1-2 P4 home games per year to the TV package? Everyone needs to put aside their image of on-the-field UConn football performance and look at the branding and TV metrics." [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach