One thing I don't get ...

[temery]

I keep hearing the driving force behind these conference realignments is TV markets. UConn's demographics are apparently Boston and New York, and the ACC has both markets covered.

With BC, do they really have the Boston market covered? This is not a UConn fan's obligatory dig at BC ... I've seen better attendance at our soccer games than at BC basketball games, and there are far more open seats at their football games than we've ever had. Can TV viewership for BC games really be that much better than attendance at games?

My guess is the developing super conferences will quickly feel the pressure to create sub-conferences of schools closely resembling the conferences they absorbed. One ACC sub conference for primarily basketball schools, and one for the upper football schools. How long before the basketball schools believe they can do better on their own, and split off entirely? How long before the top ACC football schools realize the expansion has added nothing but more of the same (or less), and they start shopping for a better deal of their own?

I realize football is king, but a basketball conference with UConn, Syracuse, Duke, UNC, and two or three others from the old Big East would do better than the ACC football schools.

 

[SubbaBub]

The "Sully's will watch BC football if the.Sox, Celtics, or Bruins aren't playing. Other than transplants, I don't think Uconn penetrates the Boston Market, Springfield and Western Mass, maybe.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[SAMCRO]

I believe it is about # of homes who subscribe to cable, not whether it is being watched or not.

 

[uconnric]

We don't penetrate the Boston market at all, but Fairfield County is part of the NYC metro market. The ACC really doesn't have the NYC market covered. It's a B1G town on Saturday and will be more so with Rutgers.

 

[Carl Spackler]

UConn's demographic is Hartford/New Haven which, isn't shabby. We own our own market, and have good market reach into NYC and Boston, and ratings to back it up. If you're to believe what you hear and read, UConn is a financially secure institution, with indications of growth, rather than contraction (although Malloy is mandating I think a $150mill budget cut for 2013.) I understand that will go toward non-educational spending. The athletic department itself, if you're to believe the numbers, is also financially stable. The footbll coach salary is funded entirely out of athletic department money, FWIW, no state tax dollars. The only weakness UConn has, comes from years and years of poor leadership from the top down, in building up a powerful alumni base of contributors and an endowment for the university. Herbst, has addressed this full speed, and has very ambitious goals, and has shown progress. If she's able to reach the goals there, UConn, will be a much more powerful institution in the future. It's literally shocking, how little currency value UConn really had. A product of many things, and in my opinion, mostly because of the culture of a welfare state that state government has fostered for many years now. People don't give much back in this state, they take a lot. She's working hard at changing that though, for UConn. I give back to the school, always have.

That all said, UConn doesn't give the outward appearance of an institution in need of money, and perhaps, that might be a big reason, as to why the power players in all of this mess, haven't reached out to try to snatch UConn up. Just a thought.

Because money, and revenue streams - is what it's all about. That's the common denominator. Revenue streams. Not money in the bank, b/c the money that athletic departments are bringing in isn't getting funded into endowments, it's being spent.

Each different power players has their own reasons for making moves in the shifting landscape, based on that common denominator - revenue streams. The big 10, Delaney, has always been about market share, and cable TV money - since the mid 80s, and that court case I always bring up - he's had the vision, and foresight, and is the king now.

Swofford? I think is mainly a egotistical kind of motivation, and his goal,is simply to be the best athletic conference on the east coast, but he has to work based on the vote of his consitituents.

ANd with that, once you get to the real power brokers, I've become convinced that the majority of the decision making, ultimately comes down to simple ego, and power trips among a handful of very powerful individuals, that have little to no regulation and accountability for their actions....

other than demonstrating that whatever they deide, is done to for protecting and increasing revenue streams.

That supreme court case I always talk about - saw to this - to be the case with intercollegiate athletics.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The "Sully's will watch BC football if the.Sox, Celtics, or Bruins aren't playing. Other than transplants, I don't think Uconn penetrates the Boston Market, Springfield and Western Mass, maybe.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

This is mostly true. But when BC was in the Big East, Boston was a Big East town (UConn, Cuse and PC helping). Because BC is on an Island in the ACC, Boston is not an ACC town. I said several times before how BC has shot itself by opposing UConn in the past. Syracuse helps a little. Pitt not at all. To get mindshare, you need enough people who walk into a sportsbar and want to see the content. In Boston, whenyou had BC, PC, UConn and Syracuse grads, you had it. Now they don't. It's a pro town first, but it's also a college town, and to penetrate through the diversity of alumni and students, you need multiple schools.

 

[UConn9604]

My guess is the developing super conferences will quickly feel the pressure to create sub-conferences of schools closely resembling the conferences they absorbed. One ACC sub conference for primarily basketball schools, and one for the upper football schools. How long before the basketball schools believe they can do better on their own, and split off entirely? How long before the top ACC football schools realize the expansion has added nothing but more of the same (or less), and they start shopping for a better deal of their own?

One observer noted that this was the first out-of-the-ordinary conference addition, where all of the measurables favored one school and a league picked another school. I think that this add is the purest sign (even more so than Maryland or Rutgers to the Big Ten) that all conferences are concerned about is the bottom line, and history or reputation are less relevant or even irrelevant.

What that tells me is that you'll soon see someone kicked out of a conference. Not like Temple back in the day, where their addition expressly contemplated an eventual subtraction, but a legitimate, "see you later, nice knowing you," to a school that has been in a league for decades and did nothing wrong per se. Some of the candidates are pretty obvious, too (looking at you, bottom quartile of the Big 12).

 

[CL82]

When businesses start to struggle it is often hard to see it from the outside. Inside however little clues start to show, less cash for expansion, bonuses and salary, cutting of perks, less capital investment, etc. As cash gets tight competitive bidding for work gets difficult. A more flush competitor can afford a lower margin on a job, so the flow of income gets narrowed. From the outside things look okay but you start to see questionable decisions being made. Maybe they cut staff, or start bidding jobs that aren't in their wheelhouse, little things that are out of ordinary. At first you wonder if they have a new working model that you don't understand, but eventually you realize that they are in trouble. Cash flow continues to squeeze them until they make catastrophic decisions and eventually are purchased or fail to be competitive and close.

I suspect that the last two invites to the ACC are the start of the death spiral. ND is poison, as is anytime where you granted some members favored treatment (in this case allowing them to stay independent for football), abandoning a longstanding "all in" policy. The Louisville acquisition, abandons the academic excellence mantra that defined the conference. The ACC, like the Big East, was a basketball first conference in a football first world. Both needed to adjust to a changing world. Although the ACC has done a better job with positioning itself, the cracks have begun to show. FSU (and to a lesser extent Clemson and Georgia Tech) have different needs and are pushing the conference out of its niche. Believe me Duke and UNC can't be happy with addition of Louisville being shoved down their throats at the point of a gun. This is their conference and I don't believe that those institutions like ceding control one bit. I also believe that giving up the pretense of a conference built on academics will eat at them, ultimately impacting their loyalty. How much, though, is hard to say.

The ACC and the Big East are on the same road. The ACC should look ahead at the Big East in horror. That is where they are headed.

 

[ZooCougar]

The truth is that the media is lazy, they latch on to one data point and set a one size meets all methodology. And when they turn out to be wrong, they just say "of course, we knew this all along"!

There is no set methodology on realignment. It depends on the needs of the conference.

Conferences that aren't concerned about the strength of football can afford to add Rutgers and Maryland, Mizzou and Texas A&M and Colorado, because they are just looking to annex more markets.

The ACC's perceived need was apparently stronger football and stability . They perceived Louisville to be stronger in those departments.

The Big East just want's the best available warm bodies, even if they have a campus on Mars.

I keep hearing the driving force behind these conference realignments is TV markets. UConn's demographics are apparently Boston and New York, and the ACC has both markets covered.

With BC, do they really have the Boston market covered? This is not a UConn fan's obligatory dig at BC ... I've seen better attendance at our soccer games than at BC basketball games, and there are far more open seats at their football games than we've ever had. Can TV viewership for BC games really be that much better than attendance at games?

My guess is the developing super conferences will quickly feel the pressure to create sub-conferences of schools closely resembling the conferences they absorbed. One ACC sub conference for primarily basketball schools, and one for the upper football schools. How long before the basketball schools believe they can do better on their own, and split off entirely? How long before the top ACC football schools realize the expansion has added nothing but more of the same (or less), and they start shopping for a better deal of their own?

I realize football is king, but a basketball conference with UConn, Syracuse, Duke, UNC, and two or three others from the old Big East would do better than the ACC football schools.

 

[jrazz12]

When businesses start to struggle it is often hard to see it from the outside. Inside however little clues start to show, less cash for expansion, bonuses and salary, cutting of perks, less capital investment, etc. As cash gets tight competitive bidding for work gets difficult. A more flush competitor can afford a lower margin on a job, so the flow of income gets narrowed. From the outside things look okay but you start to see questionable decisions being made. Maybe they cut staff, or start bidding jobs that aren't in their wheelhouse, little things that are out of ordinary. At first you wonder if they have a new working model that you don't understand, but eventually you realize that they are in trouble. Cash flow continues to squeeze them until they make catastrophic decisions and eventually are purchased or fail to be competitive and close.

I suspect that the last two invites to the ACC are the start of the death spiral. ND is poison, as is anytime where you granted some members favored treatment (in this case allowing them to stay independent for football), abandoning a longstanding "all in" policy. The Louisville acquisition, abandons the academic excellence mantra that defined the conference. The ACC, like the Big East, was a basketball first conference in a football first world. Both needed to adjust to a changing world. Although the ACC has done a better job with positioning itself, the cracks have begun to show. FSU (and to a lesser extent Clemson and Georgia Tech) have different needs and are pushing the conference out of its niche. Believe me Duke and UNC can't be happy with addition of Louisville being shoved down their throats at the point of a gun. This is their conference and I don't believe that those institutions like ceding control one bit. I also believe that giving up the pretense of a conference built on academics will eat at them, ultimately impacting their loyalty. How much, though, is hard to say.

The ACC and the Big East are on the same road. The ACC should look ahead at the Big East in horror. That is where they are headed.

Adding Louisville will prove down the road to be an awful move.

Swofford is playing checkers while Delaney plays chess. And the Big East is still playing on the slide

 

[Durks07]

I keep hearing the driving force behind these conference realignments is TV markets. UConn's demographics are apparently Boston and New York, and the ACC has both markets covered.

With BC, do they really have the Boston market covered? This is not a UConn fan's obligatory dig at BC ... I've seen better attendance at our soccer games than at BC basketball games, and there are far more open seats at their football games than we've ever had. Can TV viewership for BC games really be that much better than attendance at games?

I presume without knowing for certain that the reason BC has the Boston market covered, not by their actual performance or genuine fan interest in the program, but rather that because they are the major athletic program in the Boston area. This ensures that their games are always going to be on TV in the market, providing an opportunity to increase subscriber fees. It doesn't seem to actually be about whether you actually own the market, but rather if you are a viable option within it. This is nothing more than pure speculation. I haven't seen data to back it up or say for sure that this is the case.

Take a look at Rutgers. No one can tell you with a straight face that they lock up the New York City market, but viola, look at their new position. The B1G is confident that they are going to force the cable providers to carry the B1G network on basic cable in this area. This forces every subscriber to pay for the B1G networks every month whether they watch it or not. I assume BC's position in the Boston market functions the same way. People in the region are paying for BC games whether they watch them or not.