Potential Big Ten/Big East Basketball Challenge

[AZHuskiePop]

Holy f---.

Where'd we find this genius?

Thanks for the compliment coming from you It means so much.
The antithesis of genius is unreasoned solutionless blind criticism.
Something at which you seem to excel
At least my genius is borne from the frustration of our current predictiment. What is your pathetic excuse.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[TRest]

Forget the Big Ten - that was never on the table.

The ACC was a mix of bad luck, bad timing, some hard feelings and a healthy dose of spite. But in the end, it might have come down to our hiring a lethargic Coach P and UL hiring the dude who hired the dude who owned Teddy Bridgewater and the rest of south Florida.

In retrospect, despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of words of advice we've endured from our visitors, the best thing we could have done post-Edsall was shade a few corners or throw big bucks at a fallen angel like Petrino or Leach or a fourth or fifth Stoops brother.

Interesting that the story didn't look very hard at why Clint Hurtt is such a great recruiter. And how the hell UL could steal him away from the U. I hope the Ville is a poison pill the ACC is going to regret for years to come. It will beat them at basketball and flirt with the death penalty in football. The U has been nothing but an embarrassment since joining the ACC, have some more where that came from.

 

[uconnbill]

I can't believe you're still pushing the whole carriage fees angle. You're totally ignoring the pro teams that are on SNY and acting as if UConn is driving the entire $2.55 /subscriber value. If you really want to make that claim I guess you should add FSD(Fox Sports Detroit) to BTN since there's some T3 Michigan content there too

If UConn content is such a slam dunk why did you guys sell out the licensing rights to SNY (I can't find the exact numbers on-line) and then divide that money equally to all Big East conference members that stabbed you in the back?

SNY was not in the majority of Connecticut before taking on UCONN football and basketball. So yes UCONN did improve SNY reach into Connecticut greatly.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Why is it so difficult for some here to accept the fact that Frank is right on a lot of his points. We are not so obvious a choice as we would like to believe. I have said it many times in the past, the perception of UConn outside of CT is not overwhelming. If we were as strong as some think we would have been taken by either the B1G or ACC by now. If BC was able to stop us when it came down to us or Pitt it is because most ACC schools did not see much of a difference between us and Pitt. The fact that we see a vast difference does not matter. If the B1G took RU over us it is because the majority of schools there thought they were a better pick. No amount of complaining about the fact that "they don't bring the NYC market" matters. RU was considered a better choice by the B1G. This may bother a lot of us but, there it is. UConn needs to improve FB fast while maintaining MBB (WBB does not matter) and then hopefully the perception will change.

Nobody knows why uconn is left out. Connect the dots all you want but that doesn't mean you are presenting facts.
Listening to someone repeatedly state opinion as if they were facts gets annoying.

Uconn needs to win and get in the national discussion, just like Utah, Boise, and tcu. I think Boise is in a similar situation where they've earned the right to be in the big boy discussion but because of location have limited choices or are considered a safety option for a conference should thing fall apart.

 

[CL82]

Thank you pointing out these metrics. For all of the hype of the ACC, the Big Ten has led the nation in *basketball* attendance for over 30 years *straight*. I will be the first to admit that the Big Ten has some real football programs demographically, but there's a quite a bit of East Coast bias going on here when looking at the Big Ten (or for that matter, the strength of a school like Kansas and what they mean nationally) in terms of basketball, where the branding of the ACC (outside of Duke and UNC, who are absolutely 2 massive national draws) and old Big East schools is overrated and the intensity, tradition and recruiting areas of the Midwestern schools are simultaneously getting underrated here. Indiana, even in the depths of their horrid stretch in the Sampson/Crean transition, still sold out 17,000 seats per game WIN OR LOSE. And to be clear, I hate those guys, but I'm not ever going to question their loyalty (which in turn allows them to have the financial resources to get back to national power status relatively quickly). Wisconsin sells out 18,000 seats per game win or lose. Ohio State is doing the same win or lose (and they're the ultimate "football" school). Can UConn say that with its *basketball* attendance? I know that they can't because I see threads on here complaining about it (and this is a UConn fan group). Schools like Georgetown are even farther from that standard despite their brand name. That's what I mean by pointing out how there's a pretty massive difference in how people follow power schools outside of the Northeast that I still don't think a lot of people here quite understand.

UConn was selling out pretty much every game in the 90's (for both men's and woman's basketball) until three factors took the bloom off the rose a bit. The first was some poor ticket pricing and seat assignment policies and the second was the availability of every game on tv, and the third was the emergence of low cost big flat screen TV's which give a decent viewing experience.

It's an interesting question Frank. Just to continue it for the programs you've listed what are the ticket prices? What is there total revenue from attendance? Over 10k Connecticut fans consistently pay $25 per game (any seat one price) to watch the woman's team stomp an opponent. It's tough to question the depth of brand loyalty here.

 

[upstater]

UConn was selling out pretty much every game in the 90's (for both men's and woman's basketball) until three factors took the bloom off the rose a bit. The first was some poor ticket pricing and seat assignment policies and the second was the availability of every game on tv, and the third was the emergence of low cost big flat screen TV's which give a decent viewing experience.

It's an interesting question Frank. Just to continue it for the programs you've listed what are the ticket prices? What is there total revenue from attendance? Over 10k Connecticut fans consistently pay $25 per game (any seat one price) to watch the woman's team stomp an opponent. It's tough to question the depth of brand loyalty here.

I don't know who is right about this question about tix in the 1990s, but when I checked UConn's ticket sales for the last few decades, the top drawing year was 2006 (probably UConn's most talented team), and the draw was an average of 14k.

The 1990s are where we are now, 12,600 to 13,000. But with UConn, given the play between Hartford and Gampel (capacity 10,000) it's hard to say what is or isn't a sell out. An average of 14k could mean total sellouts in 2006. Or, when Gampel was at 8,000 in the 1990s, 12k-13k could also mean sellouts. It's hard to say.

I don't think we should be so concerned wither about 1k-2k fewer fans either when the bigger problems are the premium seating in the most visible areas. Game after game, we have posters here sitting up top where it's very loud, only to see people sipping champagne down below. Perkins instituted the same policies at Kansas when he left Uconn, he kicked one of Phog's grandchildren out of his courtside seats, and there was fury in Lawrence.

UConn could easily replicate what Duke does at Cameron, but there would be an expense to pay.

 

[Pudge]

Wow - I completely disagree with this. The ACC is the best basketball conference overall, but I don't think that there's any "fear" of ACC basketball whatsoever. Outside of the basketball blue bloods like Duke, UNC, Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky and UCLA, the best way to fund your basketball program is to have the most football money coming in possible. (See Ohio State, Michigan, and Florida as prime examples.) To the extent that there's "fear" on the part of the Big Ten, it's that they will be continuously fighting an uphill battle football-wise because so many of the top recruits come from the South (and specifically the SEC footprint). On the other hand, the Big Ten's footprint is probably the best pound-for-pound basketball recruiting territory of any power conference - see Chicago, Indiana, NY/NJ, Maryland/DC, etc. There is absolutely nothing structurally that prevents the Big Ten from competing at the highest level in basketball (regardless of how the ACC performs going forward), whereas there are very real and concrete demographic reasons why the Big Ten isn't getting the best football recruits.

At the same time, while football and basketball both require some type of combo of macro institutional strength and micro individual coaching, football prowess is much more dependent upon the institution (which is why how you invest is football matters so much more than any other sport), while basketball prowess is more dependent upon the individual coach. When push comes to shove, football recruits *generally* choose the institution over the coach, but basketball recruits *generally* choose the coach over the institution. (It's not 100% of the time since every individual kid is different in his decision-making, but that's how it generally bears out.) That's another reason why virtually no basketball program other the 6 blue bloods that I've mentioned really carry any weight in conference realignment - basketball is very much a coach-centric "What have you done for me lately?" sport, while football is all about long-term brand names that you can lock in and know will be able to provide value 10 or 20 years from now. Basketball branding simply doesn't get you very far unless you're a Duke/UNC/Kansas-type since it's a MUCH more fickle sport.

So, there's some real football fear on the part of the Big Ten - that's where the money is made and there are real demographic issues that are causing them to fall behind the SEC. There's absolutely NONE of that fear in basketball. If the Big Ten wanted some better basketball programs while still heading east and keeping with their academic requirements, they could have added Syracuse (at least back when they were still an AAU member) and Pitt in a heartbeat, but passed them over. Getting access to football recruits in New Jersey and Maryland was much more important in terms of the on-the-field/court aspect of these decisions (beyond TV markets and academics), with a side benefit that those are actually excellent basketball recruiting areas, to boot.

And look - I'm personally a hoops guy at heart. Frankly, I wish that the Big Ten did consider basketball more than it does in conference realignment (I actually argued for Syracuse as team #12 in the Big Ten back in the mid-2000s prior to anyone thinking about conference realignment), but that's just not how they're thinking. Basketball matters a little bit more to the Big Ten compared to other leagues because it provides BTN content, but football is still the massive golden goose by comparison (and it isn't even close).

Clueless.

Basketball can be, as we know, ONE COACH. Football $$ only take you so far. One Coach, like Calhoun, then sustained with a solid follow-up ... and WE ARE a Blue Blood.

I think this Football centric viewpoint takes you far. Then you have to fill lots of hours. Contrary to what we have seen to date, OUR solid AD with the Name WBB matters ... plus excellence across sports (top Soccer, Baseball, etc). UConn can bring eyeballs. I think anyone suggesting Syracuse ... or Pitt ... misses the idea that you can grow this UConn brand and market far more than either of those. I think Syracuse is a huge illusion; it's really a CNY townie place with limited NYC buzz(even with the billboards and taxis). Rutgers? Some substance with a whole lot of hhooohhhaahh. We are valuable. And in Hoop ... we are going to be good for the foreseeable future, imo, because Kevin Ollie was a superb pick. Beilein. Matta. Crean. Izzo. Can you see Groce or Jordan or Turgeon or little Pitino ... near Ollie. Football dollars got Penn State how far?

 

[FriarJ]

In regards to the original topic; this BE/B1G thing is being way over-thought on this board. It's about one thing and one thing only and that is programming for Fox Sports 1 for the OOC scheduling. Connect the dots; Fox needs programming, they own the BE and they own the majority share of the BTN. Hey here's an ides, let's start a challenge between the only two conferences we own and put it on our new channel!

 

[SAMCRO]

actually Frank, the only thing that is obvious in CR is what has already happened.
nobody has been ahead of the curve until it's basically public knowledge.

So while you can look at the fact that uconn is on the outside looking in, you can't definitively speak of the reasons. And you certainly haven't proven to be ahead of any other source regarding potential moves. Right after ND agreed to terms with the ACC, the so called experts all suggested realignment was done. Now you speak as though your facts are the gospel and uconn fans are engaging in 'puffery'?

I appreciate your facts, and welcome your input. However, when you come here, it would also be helpful that you understand this is in fact a uconn board, and that most people here are biased towards uconn while others are simply self-hating husky fans. the real puffery is your presentation of assumptions, opinions, and loosely based facts as expertise and an ability to determine what's going to happen next.

drops mic!

 

[cardsfan123]

Interesting that the story didn't look very hard at why Clint Hurtt is such a great recruiter. And how the hell UL could steal him away from the U. I hope the Ville is a poison pill the ACC is going to regret for years to come. It will beat them at basketball and flirt with the death penalty in football. The U has been nothing but an embarrassment since joining the ACC, have some more where that came from.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Whether or not Hurtt is or isn't found guilty is no concern of mine. He has never been accused of any wrongdoing while at Louisville. You can wish upon a star all you like but the NCAA isn't bothering us anytime soon.

Speaking of which, didn't UConn have a postseason ban in basketball last year?

 

[upstater]

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Whether or not Hurtt is or isn't found guilty is no concern of mine. He has never been accused of any wrongdoing while at Louisville. You can wish upon a star all you like but the NCAA isn't bothering us anytime soon.

Speaking of which, didn't UConn have a postseason ban in basketball last year?

For APR scores. Something Ville football fell afoul of the previous year.

 

[cardsfan123]

For APR scores. Something Ville football fell afoul of the previous year.

That was Kragthorpe's doing, actually. He ran off so many players it killed the APR, and relied on jucos and transfers to fill the holes, some of whom never made it to campus. And even then, we only had a few scholarships reduced. We've never had a postseason ban to my knowledge.

 

[upstater]

That was Kragthorpe's doing, actually. He ran off so many players it killed the APR, and relied on jucos and transfers to fill the holes, some of whom never made it to campus. And even then, we only had a few scholarships reduced. We've never had a postseason ban to my knowledge.

You do realize that the rules were enforced retroactively on UConn, no? The only difference between UConn and Louisville when it comes to the APR is that the NCAA chose to enforce the ban one year and not the other. It's not like UConn did anything worse than Ville or Syracuse or many other schools for that matter. Heck, a school like Arkansas had an abysmal score, well below UConn's, but the NCAA gave it a waver because it improved its 2-year score a year later. UConn did the same thing but its appeal for a waiver was denied.

 

[woomba]

Not quite true - the rules applied retroactively to all schools.

However under the new rules UConn didn't meet the 2 year 930 average to avoid a ban while Arkansas did. You are correct in the 4-year averages between the two were almost the same though.

Louisville never averaged below a 4-year 900 score which is why they avoided a ban.

 

[upstater]

Not quite true - the rules applied retroactively to all schools.

However under the new rules UConn didn't meet the 2 year 930 average to avoid a ban while Arkansas did. You are correct in the 4-year averages between the two were almost the same though.

Louisville never averaged below a 4-year 900 score which is why they avoided a ban.

Arkansas received a waiver.
Ville dipped below the previous year.
We say the rules were applied retroactively because UConn was the only school the rule change targeted. If the 2 year average were not gradually lowered, more schools would have been banned. Besides, they changed the rule and applied the ban before anything could be done about it, and though they gave teams waivers in previous years for improving, they didn't give teams waivers for that in a year they applied the ban retroactively. The thing was a joke.

 

[IthacaMatt]

NY/NJ? Maryland/DC?

Maryland is now LESS attractive to DC and Baltimore kids, not more. Georgetown is now less attractive too. I think MD is now on the outside while that talent will get funneled to the ACC. Actually, UConn and Syracuse have been very active in Maryland over the years, often snagging the best Maryland recruits like Carmelo, Rudy Gay, Josh Boone. NY/NJ? Based on Rutgers? Have you actually seen their bball?

Coach K. knows what he's talking about in this instance. He is exactly right. The B1G has historically played a very ugly brand of bball, and unless things change quickly, you're going to be hurt badly by the ACC. UConn and Syracuse will continue to recruit NY heavily. I don't see how the B1G imagines any opening whatsoever there.

Based on what?

He's suggesting that the new schools give them greater access to recruit those areas. Maryland is better than having no presence in the Baltimore / DC corridor, and Rutgers is better than having no team in NJ/NYC. Of course, beating a crap team in a city where no one watches them on TV is of limited value, but Delany doesn't seem to care about that.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I think it depends on whether ESPN retains its TV primacy. Obviously they are going to be pushing the ACC all the time. But if Fox gets traction, the B1G will be competitive. Of course they would benefit from having UConn, Kansas, Texas if they can get them.

This is a good point. And ESPN is really pushing it with how much they charge cable to carry their glut of networks. I read earlier today that live sports programming makes up $35-40/month of the cost of your monthly cable TV bill, out of the total of $69-99 that most carriers charge for the TV portion of your bill.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Still can't believe you guys dismiss it. Fees jumped from $1.45 to $2.50 with the addition of UConn. You act like that's nothing. NOT to mention the fees landed SNY on Basic. Not to mention the fact that additional cable systems picked itup. When you get 8+ ratings for bball and .4 for Mets, what the hell do you think people are paying for? Do you know anything about Conn. and the popularity of the Mets? We went through this before in the last thread. My God, what the hell is wrong with you people? The most hard-headed people out there.

Why did UConn sell its rights to the BE? Because it didn't want to join the MAC?

You ask the weirdest questions. Why is Michigan sharing with Northwestern?

True or false - the prices of all live sports programming increase every time they are up for renewal?

 

[upstater]

True or false - the prices of all live sports programming increase every time they are up for renewal?

They weren't up for renewal.

Second, cable systems put SNY on basic, when it was on an upper tier before.

Third, cable systems picked it up when they didn't even have SNY.

Four, UConn gets 8 ratings while the Mets do .4

Five, UConn bball kicks Cuse bball off the air on SNY not only in Conn. but everywhere SNY is shown.

http://syracusefan.com/threads/looks-like-the-prov-game-will-be-tape-delayed.40752/

 

[upstater]

He's suggesting that the new schools give them greater access to recruit those areas. Maryland is better than having no presence in the Baltimore / DC corridor, and Rutgers is better than having no team in NJ/NYC. Of course, beating a crap team in a city where no one watches them on TV is of limited value, but Delany doesn't seem to care about that.

DC is ACC territory. Kids there are not going to be flowing to the midwest unless they go to Md.

I just can't even imagine how adding Rutgers helps the B1G with NYC recruits.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Another golden nugget that should be posted in the AD's office. Maybe we can get Pacino to record it, like Any Given Sunday.

I really don't think he cares as he probably already looking for his next gig. Superstars are always in demand.**
The more things that come to light regarding the AAC media deal the more incompetent the UConn leaders look.
My guess is they took the short term monetary windfall figuring in three 3 years neither of them will be around. I original thought they had assurances of being somewhere else. But our president seems real comfortable were we are. Maybe she angling for the Tulane presidency.**
Guess who gets left holding the bag.
Why does the music from Camalot echo through my head when I think about UConn athletics.

**sarcasm
I will indicate the use of figures of speech to avoid stupid rebuttals

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[uconnfan68]

The B1G fears ACC basketball. The idea that playing schools that have been irrelevant in basketball for 20 years or more is going to help it on the East Coast is absurd. Not going to happen. B1G ball right now is experiencing an upsurge with Indiana, Ohio St., Michigan St, Michigan looking good. But the next recruiting cycle is only 3 years or so. Who knows what's going to happen then when the sheen on the current coaches might wear off from yet another postseason failure for the conference. If the ACC starts dominating, it won't be pretty. The B1G can show all the bball it wants on the BTN but eyes will be glued to the ACC instead.

To be clear...not my eyes.