Question for Frank the Tank

[woomba]

You keep on adding NYC as part of the UConn value proposition when BTN doesn't think it needs it. That's like Pitt saying that it should be considered when the Big Ten already has Penn State.

Now - Big Ten can certainly be proven wrong about NYC later but they certainly aren't going to be counting on UConn bringing in NYC when they are doing the analysis right now.

 

[upstater]

Let me add this about the whole BC blocking UConn issue. In late September of 2011, long before the Blaudschun article came out, there were a few message boards (Maryland, BC AND Rutgers) already buzzing about how BC was blocking UConn from being invited. Maryland and BC's boards got that info from insiders. The Rutgers board got that info from a Villanova guy who was ridiculing them for thinking hey should be invited over Pitt and Cuse, while the Rutgers fans totally disparaged UConn. The Villanova fan posting there broke down what had happened in a post that was point-for-point exactly the rendition that BC's AD Defilippo gave the Boston Globe two weeks later.

I mention this because here is where things get very interesting. The BC and Md boards started talking immediately about something much bigger going on. They said Pitt and Cuse would get invites, but that the ACC was now talking about a much bigger expansion. The ACC was talking to ND. If you remember all the insiders from Virginia at the time were reporting that ND was talking to the ACC. This is also about the time that Herbst and Malloy were going into TV/radio silence after bleating loudly in an attempt to get the nod over Pitt. Suddenly, there was silence. A UNC blog then reported that the ACC was looking at adding UConn and ND together, and that it would happen soon.

A week later after all this talk, BC's DeFilippo gives the interview to the BG. Many in Conn. focused on how he obstructed UConn. Many outside the state however focused on a poison pill that DeFilippo inserted into the conversation. He announced that ESPN had dictated to them what they were to do. This was coming off the BE's rejection of the ESPN TV offer. All around the country then you had people gawking at the prospect of ESPN dictating terms (and they were saying ESPN was pushing ND and UConn). On the BC board the morning after Blaudschun's article, the same BC guy who posted about Flipper blocking UConn 2 weeks earlier, wrote that ESPN, ACC HQ, and even Cuse and Pitt's AD were livid at the comments. He said Flipper was called in with Leahy and the BOT into a conference call with all the Presidents of the ACC and ADs (ESPN was not on the CC). Why were Cuse and Pitt livid? Why ESPN? Because the idea that they were conspiring to kill the BE for bball purposes had exposed them.

The upshot is this: DeFilippo's comment (buried in an article about BC obstructing UConn) also killed a much bigger expansion that was to include UConn and ND.

A few days after Flipper issued an apology for everything he said, Jeff Jacobs wrote an article about how his comments had actually helped UConn in the long run because they showed a kind of backroom dealing between the network and the schools.

In hindsight, Flipper's poison pill may be construed as intentional, since he might have guessed that his revelation put a stop to the ACC adding two more schools. But he was called crazy for his claims.

 

[upstater]

You keep on adding NYC as part of the UConn value proposition when BTN doesn't think it needs it. That's like Pitt saying that it should be considered when the Big Ten already has Penn State.

Now - Big Ten can certainly be proven wrong about NYC later but they certainly aren't going to be counting on UConn bringing in NYC when they are doing the analysis right now.

I don't. You keep confusing things. I emphasize Connecticut's market and Connecticut's slice of the NYC DMA. NYC/NJ is something entirely different.

 

[upstater]

What is your basis for these rankings? To date, conference realignment has been focus on football. Using a football tradition the rankings would look like this:

National Championships (total) (claimed):
1. Pittsburgh (11) (9)
2. Miami (9) (5)
3. Maryland (2) (1)
4. Syracuse (1) (1)
5. Boston College (0) (1)
5. Rutgers (1) (0)
7. Virginia Tech (0) (0)
7. Louisville (0) (0)
7. Uconn (0) (0)

Pro football HOF:
1. Pittsburgh (8)
2. Syracuse (6)
2. Miami (6)
4. Boston College (2)
4. Maryland (2)
6. Louisville (1)
6. Virginia Tech (1)
8. Rutgers (0)
8. Uconn (0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS
http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/colleges.aspx

Market and fan intensity. What the B1G cares about mostly, as evidenced by its inclusion of Rutgers and Maryland, two schools that have latent football value (as recruiting hotbeds) but which are not better on the field than the other schools on the list. Personally, I believe that both Maryland and Rutgers will continue to do badly in the B1G for many many years, especially after PSU leaves probation.

 

[upstater]

Michigan currently gets almost $52M annually in rights/licensing - so I think there's some fuzzy math going on here.

I never saw a breakdown of this either but maybe he's done the math. He says he backed out conference money. I still don't think he gets there by backing that conference money out, but the schools do get a lot closer once you do.

 

[SectionKK]

Frank, you say, "UConn just isn't winning an argument against Kansas and Oklahoma at the national level at this time." Perhaps "winning" is hard but on what set of metrics isn't UConn very comparable to these schools?

- UConn is as valuable as Kansas athletically, our market is larger (Connecticut 3.6 mn > Kansas 2.9 mn, NYC+Mass > eastern Missouri), Kansas wins on AAU status but we're close.

- UConn is weaker than Oklahoma in football but stronger in basketball, our market is larger (Connecticut 3.6 mn and wealthier ~ Oklahoma 3.8 mn, NYC+Mass tips balance), academically UConn beats Oklahoma.

I could see a slight difference depending on how much you value football and AAU, but the value is clearly similar. My belief is that basketball is important to the B1G as football, given the need for content on the BTN, the longer basketball season and 3x greater inventory; this will be especially true if the power conferences break away from the NCAA in basketball as they have in football.

Clearly UConn needs AAU status as that may be a dealbreaker for the B1G. Other than that, it's hard to see why you keep undervaluing us.

This is delusional. You can't cancel out how much of a difference there is between Oklahoma football and UConn football by saying that UConn is better at basketball. Football is so much more important than basketball that the two have no relation to each other. UConn is nowhere close to a football power (which is what OU is). It has no tradition. Its greatest "achievement" is becoming a co-champion of the worst BCS conference and getting blown out in a BCS game by none other than Oklahoma. Saying that it has a better basketball program than OU (which is true) doesn't do anything to change how little the football program is thought of , which, again, is what really matters. The amount of overestimating UConn's athletic department that I've seen here is crazy. I've lived in Connecticut for 8 years now and went to graduate school at UConn, and I feel like some people's estimation of where UConn athletics should be is completely divorced from reality.

There is a reason why, at every single step, UConn has been passed over. And it isn't just because the incompetent and also delusional Gene DeFilippo "blocked" UConn. It's because UConn has been playing real football for only about 10 years. It's done fairly well during this time, but that doesn't even come close to making up for that fact that is a complete newcomer to college football. It wasn't even on the ACC's radar in the 2003/2004 expansion that brought in Va. Tech, Miami and the BC. Then Pitt and 'Cuse have much greater football tradition, which is why they were chosen in the next round. And then, compared to even Louisville, UConn is seen as a lower program. That's it. So, comparing UConn to Oklahoma is laughable. You can gerrymander statistics all you want, but the two are not even close on the football field, which is where it counts.

 

[itgoeslike]

Michigan currently gets almost $52M annually in rights/licensing - so I think there's some fuzzy math going on here.

There's no fuzzy math going on. We are talking third tier rights (read the post). If you back out the Big Ten's TV deal and BE's TV deal from both schools you get numbers that are a lot closer. Also, at no point did I say that UCON's collective revenue was greater than Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or that UCONN was a bigger national brand. The fuzziness might be on the backside of your reading glasses. (smiley face)

 

[upstater]

This is delusional. You can't cancel out how much of a difference there is between Oklahoma football and UConn football by saying that UConn is better at basketball. Football is so much more important than basketball that the two have no relation to each other. UConn is nowhere close to a football power (which is what OU is). It has no tradition. Its greatest "achievement" is becoming a co-champion of the worst BCS conference and getting blown out in a BCS game by none other than Oklahoma. Saying that it has a better basketball program than OU (which is true) doesn't do anything to change how little the football program is thought of , which, again, is what really matters. The amount of overestimating UConn's athletic department that I've seen here is crazy. I've lived in Connecticut for 8 years now and went to graduate school at UConn, and I feel like some people's estimation of where UConn athletics should be is completely divorced from reality.

There is a reason why, at every single step, UConn has been passed over. And it isn't just because the incompetent and also delusional Gene DeFilippo "blocked" UConn. It's because UConn has been playing real football for only about 10 years. It's done fairly well during this time, but that doesn't even come close to making up for that fact that is a complete newcomer to college football. It wasn't even on the ACC's radar in the 2003/2004 expansion that brought in Va. Tech, Miami and the BC. Then Pitt and 'Cuse have much greater football tradition, which is why they were chosen in the next round. And then, compared to even Louisville, UConn is seen as a lower program. That's it. So, comparing UConn to Oklahoma is laughable. You can gerrymander statistics all you want, but the two are not even close on the football field, which is where it counts.

Some of what you say is true. A lot of what you say has been completely dismantled by links and evidence in the posts prior. If you take issue with those links and evidence, go ahead.

Frankly, I can't even see why you posted.

 

[SectionKK]

Some of what you say is true. A lot of what you say has been completely dismantled by links and evidence in the posts prior. If you take issue with those links and evidence, go ahead.

Frankly, I can't even see why you posted.

What in particular has been completely dismantled previously?

 

[CL82]

I agree. Frank really doesn't have a good grip on New York at all. Never once has he addressed what we've been saying here about SNY and UConn's presence. No matter about the blue bloods of basketball, what matters is now. What are you selling now? UConn is ripping it when it comes to those questions. Look at the licensing/tier 3 numbers. Those are undeniable. Look at the bball ratings. Undeniable. It's the most popular team in NYC.

The problem has always been football.

Louisville and Syracuse? Small markets with nowhere near the interest (nor success) in those teams that Conn. has in both the 29th biggest market and in the New York market. Frank continually underplays this.

To borrow another poster's quote: 'it's chess vs. checkers.'

I believe that Delaney and the B1g have a far better grasp of the metrics than the commentators. A common problem in any campaign is 'fighting the last war.' Thus we see the Maginot line of thinking that old names are best, that if you heard a team was a valuable commodity when you were a kid, the same must be true now. I think the B1G is the most forward looking of the conferences. Their acquisitions haven't been a random attempt to gather pieces but rather a strategic attempt to position themselves for the next 1/2 century. I have to believe that they have a very good grasp of our licensing and tier 3 numbers, and are likely well aware SNY got more penetration in Connecticut in 6 months by promising to broadcast woman's basketball, than they did since their inception with broadcasting Met's games.

I don't think Connecticut to the B1G is a slam dunk but I do think we are an interesting property that is on the table. Improve our football results (and correspondingly our attendance and tv ratings) and we've gone along way to become more attractive. Show that the State's investment in the university was justified by getting competitive research grants, (which potentially opens the door to the AAU) and we fit the B1Gs academic profile nicely.

While history is important, you can't go forward looking in the rear mirror. Either UConn's actions are random, or they are taking a very specific path to strengthen their profile. You won't find that living in the past, but for those who are projecting trend, it is there to be seen.

 

[upstater]

What in particular has been completely dismantled previously?

1. Then Pitt and 'Cuse have much greater football tradition, which is why they were chosen in the next round.
2. And then, compared to even Louisville, UConn is seen as a lower program.

And, I'd add #3 which was not brought up in this thread, but UConn's biggest accomplishment (getting blown out isn't) is wither dominating South Carolina in a bowl game or else beating ND at South Bend.

Now, instead of generalizing, can you go into the particulars of what we've already talked about for many pages in this thread?

 

[upstater]

To borrow another poster's quote: 'it's chess vs. checkers.' I believe that Delaney and the B1g have a far better grasp of the metrics than the commentators. A common problem in any campaign is 'fighting the last war.' Thus we see the Maginot line of thinking that old names are best, that if you heard a team was a valuable commodity when you were a kid, the same must be true now. I think the B1G is the most forward looking of the conferences. Their acquisitions haven't a random attempt to gather pieces but a strategic attempt to position themselves for the next 1/2 century. I have to believe they have a very good grasp of our licensing and tier 3 numbers, and are like well aware the SNY got more penetration in Connecticut in 6 months by promising to broadcast woman's basketball, than they did since their inception with broadcasting Met's games. I don't think Connecticut is a slam dunk but I do think we are an interesting property that is on the table. Improve our football results (and correspondingly our attendance and tv ratings) and we've gone along way to become more attractive. Show that the State's investment in the university was justified by getting competitive research grants, (which potentially opens the door to the AAU) and we fit the B1Gs academic profile nicely.

While history is important, you can't go forward looking in the rear mirror. Either UConn's actions are random, or they are taking a very specific path to strengthen their profile. You won't find that living in the past, but for those who are projecting trend, it is there to be seen.

very well put

 

[whaler11]

Where did the idea that SNY wasn't on in a good part of Connecticut prior to the UConn deals come from? The populated parts of the state Hartford and Fairfield County had SNY. The additions were north, east and southeast of Hartford.

 

[pj]

You keep on adding NYC as part of the UConn value proposition when BTN doesn't think it needs it. That's like Pitt saying that it should be considered when the Big Ten already has Penn State.

Now - Big Ten can certainly be proven wrong about NYC later but they certainly aren't going to be counting on UConn bringing in NYC when they are doing the analysis right now.

UConn clearly adds value in NYC. The BTN undoubtedly recognizes that. Now, waiting to see exactly what Rutgers brings to the table may help them evaluate what additional value UConn brings. So they may prefer to wait on UConn. But it's not going to be the case that Rutgers brings NYC completely and there is no value to adding another NYC metro area program.

 

[SectionKK]

1. Then Pitt and 'Cuse have much greater football tradition, which is why they were chosen in the next round.
2. And then, compared to even Louisville, UConn is seen as a lower program.

And, I'd add #3 which was not brought up in this thread, but UConn's biggest accomplishment (getting blown out isn't) is wither dominating South Carolina in a bowl game or else beating ND at South Bend.

Now, instead of generalizing, can you go into the particulars of what we've already talked about for many pages in this thread?

I did. My specific point was that UConn is not on the same level as Oklahoma. I think a major theme of this thread has been the idea that the B1G is only interested in expanding further eastward versus the idea that it will take the best programs it can, regardless of whether they come from the east or the Midwest.

My second point ties into what CL82 just expressed very well, which is that conferences should be more forward thinking and that history shouldn't matter as much. That is a defensible position to take, but it seems like at every single turn history and tradition (in football) have won out over upside and potential. So comparing the number of people who live in CT to the number of people living in OK is nice, but it misses what's really important.

 

[UPitt]

1. Then Pitt and 'Cuse have much greater football tradition, which is why they were chosen in the next round.
2. And then, compared to even Louisville, UConn is seen as a lower program.

And, I'd add #3 which was not brought up in this thread, but UConn's biggest accomplishment (getting blown out isn't) is wither dominating South Carolina in a bowl game or else beating ND at South Bend.

Now, instead of generalizing, can you go into the particulars of what we've already talked about for many pages in this thread?

1. Are you saying that Pitt and Cuse do not have a much greater football tradition than Uconn?

2. Are you saying that Lousiville does not have a better football program than Uconn?

3. Are you saying Uconn's greatest accomplishments are beatinig South Carolina in a bowl game and beating ND?

 

[frankthetank]

To borrow another poster's quote: 'it's chess vs. checkers.' I believe that Delaney and the B1g have a far better grasp of the metrics than the commentators. A common problem in any campaign is 'fighting the last war.' Thus we see the Maginot line of thinking that old names are best, that if you heard a team was a valuable commodity when you were a kid, the same must be true now. I think the B1G is the most forward looking of the conferences. Their acquisitions haven't a random attempt to gather pieces but a strategic attempt to position themselves for the next 1/2 century. I have to believe they have a very good grasp of our licensing and tier 3 numbers, and are like well aware the SNY got more penetration in Connecticut in 6 months by promising to broadcast woman's basketball, than they did since their inception with broadcasting Met's games. I don't think Connecticut is a slam dunk but I do think we are an interesting property that is on the table. Improve our football results (and correspondingly our attendance and tv ratings) and we've gone along way to become more attractive. Show that the State's investment in the university was justified by getting competitive research grants, (which potentially opens the door to the AAU) and we fit the B1Gs academic profile nicely.

While history is important, you can't go forward looking in the rear mirror. Either UConn's actions are random, or they are taking a very specific path to strengthen their profile. You won't find that living in the past, but for those who are projecting trend, it is there to be seen.

With all due respect, who did the Big Ten pick as #12 again? NEBRASKA. Small-market, low population growth, NEBRASKA. Why Nebraska? Football history, unparalleled tradition and arguably the most rabid and loyal fan base in college sports. The Big Ten would have likely stayed at 12 if the Pac-12 hadn't backed out of their alliance relationship (which Jim Delany believed would have given the conference the equivalent inventory that would have come with expanding on its own). Following that, when Notre Dame headed to the ACC as a non-football member, that's when the Big Ten was spurred to take action again. In fact, I think history and tradition are much bigger deals to the Big Ten than any other conference, including the ACC. Yes, the Big Ten wants markets, but it wants those blue blood credentials coming along with it. Tradition is inextricably part of the Big Ten's brand (and yes, Rutgers has "tradition" partly because its football program has been around forever) more than even the SEC. Look at how these guys are wedded to the Rose Bowl. Look at how these guys won't still won't play November night games even though TV partners would pay a ton for them. Look at how these guys still start their conference schedule after everyone else. Look at how Ohio State is just getting permanent lights installed in its stadium this year and rival Michigan still doesn't have them. (When they have night games, ABC/ESPN pays to truck in temporary lighting to cover stadiums with over 100,000 seats.)

Sure, potential matters (as evidenced by Rutgers chosen by the Big Ten), but there's some echo chamber thinking going on here if anyone thinks that's going to be enough if it comes down to competing with a football superpower like Oklahoma or an AAU member with the historical bloodlines of Kansas. Certainly, if UConn starts winning CFP bowl games and shows that its football program can draw in NYC viewers, then that can change things. Things aren't static, but tradition and old money *definitely* matter to the Big Ten. That's one of the most powerful parts of the Big Ten's brand.

 

[woomba]

There's no fuzzy math going on. We are talking third tier rights (read the post). If you back out the Big Ten's TV deal and BE's TV deal from both schools you get numbers that are a lot closer. Also, at no point did I say that UCON's collective revenue was greater than Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or that UCONN was a bigger national brand. The fuzziness might be on the backside of your reading glasses. (smiley face)

You stated :

I have to disagree with you about national brands. UCONN's third tier licensing deals puts it among the top 6 or 7 richest deals.

Even if you take out $24M (Big Ten contributions) from Michigan's $52M and UConn keeps ALL of its TV rights Michigan's $28M is still much, much higher than UConn's $22M. If that's not fuzzy math I'm not sure what is.

You can repeat the process with the other teams and I guarantee UConn won't be in the Top 6 or 7. Maybe top 20ish.

 

[upstater]

1. Are you saying that Pitt and Cuse do not have a much greater football tradition than Uconn?

2. Are you saying that Lousiville does not have a better football program than Uconn?

3. Are you saying Uconn's greatest accomplishments are beatinig South Carolina in a bowl game and beating ND?

NO, NO, and if you're talking about football, YES

 

[upstater]

I did. My specific point was that UConn is not on the same level as Oklahoma. I think a major theme of this thread has been the idea that the B1G is only interested in expanding further eastward versus the idea that it will take the best programs it can, regardless of whether they come from the east or the Midwest.

My second point ties into what CL82 just expressed very well, which is that conferences should be more forward thinking and that history shouldn't matter as much. That is a defensible position to take, but it seems like at every single turn history and tradition (in football) have won out over upside and potential. So comparing the number of people who live in CT to the number of people living in OK is nice, but it misses what's really important.

I couldn't disagree with you more about what is really important. OK isn't in the B1G, but Rutgers is.

I was simply questioning your conclusions earlier about the reasons Uconn was passed over. The links given and all the commentary here have refuted those positions pretty clearly, and we're on page 6 of this thread so I couldn't figure out why you were disputing them without ever getting into any particulars.

 

[upstater]

Where did the idea that SNY wasn't on in a good part of Connecticut prior to the UConn deals come from? The populated parts of the state Hartford and Fairfield County had SNY. The additions were north, east and southeast of Hartford.

No one claimed it wasn't on in a good part of Connecticut.

I claimed they jacked up their carriage fees once adding UConn. They did. They are now well over what they used to be in Connecticut. They are up 85 cents per sub.

Someone else claimed that SNY wasn't on basic cable prior to getting UConn. I can't speak for the rest of conn., but they are on AT&T basic cable and were not on it as of a few years ago. So, add basic cable x 2.50, new subscribers on new systems x 2.50, all previous subscribers x. 85, and you get the increased figure that corresponds to adding UConn.

Those are two pretty powerful points. In fact, the BTN makes those same kinds of arguments when it looks at new markets. Can it raise the carriage fee price? Can it get on basic cable so that every subscriber pays that price?

This is huge.

 

[CL82]

With all due respect, who did the Big Ten pick as #12 again? NEBRASKA. Small-market, low population growth, NEBRASKA. Why Nebraska? Football history, unparalleled tradition and arguably the most rabid and loyal fan base in college sports. The Big Ten would have likely stayed at 12 if the Pac-12 hadn't backed out of their alliance relationship (which Jim Delany believed would have given the conference the equivalent inventory that would have come with expanding on its own). Following that, when Notre Dame headed to the ACC as a non-football member, that's when the Big Ten was spurred to take action again. In fact, I think history and tradition are much bigger deals to the Big Ten than any other conference, including the ACC. Yes, the Big Ten wants markets, but it wants those blue blood credentials coming along with it. Tradition is inextricably part of the Big Ten's brand (and yes, Rutgers has "tradition" partly because its football program has been around forever) more than even the SEC. Look at how these guys are wedded to the Rose Bowl. Look at how these guys won't still won't play November night games even though TV partners would pay a ton for them. Look at how these guys still start their conference schedule after everyone else. Look at how Ohio State is just getting permanent lights installed in its stadium this year and rival Michigan still doesn't have them. (When they have night games, ABC/ESPN pays to truck in temporary lighting to cover stadiums with over 100,000 seats.)

Sure, potential matters (as evidenced by Rutgers chosen by the Big Ten), but there's some echo chamber thinking going on here if anyone thinks that's going to be enough if it comes down to competing with a football superpower like Oklahoma or an AAU member with the historical bloodlines of Kansas. Certainly, if UConn starts winning CFP bowl games and shows that its football program can draw in NYC viewers, then that can change things. Things aren't static, but tradition and old money *definitely* matter to the Big Ten. That's one of the most powerful parts of the Big Ten's brand.

When you have a chance to pick up a Nebraska, of course you do it. That was a pretty easy move to understand but how many other similar properties are out there for the taking? Rutgers is far more instructive of B1G reasoning.

No one not wearing scarlet was talking about Rutgers' tradition before the B1G dropped a bombshell by inviting them. No doubt the reason for that is that Rutgers' tradition was one of epic futility (with all due respect to our Scarlet Knight fans who drop by.) Yet now, you felt compelled to discuss RU's tradition as justification for its acquisition by the B1G. That's because you were fitting that square peg into the round hole of tradition driving the bus. RU was a worthwhile property because of potential to aid in the B1G's plans 10-20 years out. That's the level of analysis that is taking place. UConn is worthwhile looking at in that time frame. Its status as a land grant institution, the premier public institution in the state, makes it a decent potential fit for the B1G.

As you so aptly pointed out, the B1G is dripping with tradition. They don't need to buy it via conference offers. They need teams to bring eyeballs and cable access dollars. UConn is positioned nicely to bring that. The fact that it is likely to bring unparalleled athletic success in the sports like men's basketball in which the B1G is not dominant is a bonus.

 

[woomba]

Look at how Ohio State is just getting permanent lights installed in its stadium this year and rival Michigan still doesn't have them. (When they have night games, ABC/ESPN pays to truck in temporary lighting to cover stadiums with over 100,000 seats.)

Just a small correction but Michigan added permanent lightning in 2011 - the Under The Lights game in 2011 against ND was the first (and I think only time) it was used.

 

[upstater]

When you have a chance to pick up a Nebraska, of course you do it. That was a pretty easy move to understand but how many other similar properties are out there for the taking? Rutgers is far more instructive of B1G reasoning.

No one not wearing scarlet was talking about Rutgers' tradition before the B1G dropped a bombshell by inviting them. No doubt the reason for that is that Rutgers' tradition was one epic futility (with all due respect to our Scarlet Knight fans who drop by.) Yet now, you felt compelled to discuss RU's tradition as justification for its acquisition by the B1G. That's because you were fitting that square peg into the round hole of tradition driving the bus. RU was a worthwhile property because of potential to aid in the B1G's plans 10-20 years out. That's the level of analysis that is taking place. UConn is worthwhile looking at in that time frame. Its status as a land grant institution, the premier public institution in the state, makes it a decent potential fit for the B1G.

As you so aptly pointed out, the B1G is dripping with tradition. They don't need to buy it via conference offers. They need teams to bring eyeballs and cable access dollars. UConn is positioned nicely to bring that. The fact that it is likely to bring unparalleled athletic success in the sports like men's basketball that the B1G is not dominant is a bonus.

I think you are on target in this response. In fact, the sports economics specialist Andrew Zimbalist once said that Rutgers' losing tradition has rubbed off on the reputation of the school, with high school kids avoiding it despite its excellent academics. This was a discussion that involved marketing the school through sports. Zimbalist was point out that it works positively in 10% of the cases (such as BC or ND) but that in most cases it doesn't work, and that in some cases (Rutgers) the tradition is a detriment to the school's reputation.

 

[B1GALUM]

The one thing about OU is that they were never individually ever rebuffed. What the Pac-12 rejected was OU *and* Oklahoma State going together, which was effectively mandated by that state's powers-that-be. The Pac-12 and probably both the Big Ten and SEC would take an Oklahoma/Kansas combo pretty easily. The "little brother" schools that have political power, though, can be bigger holdups than any grant of rights agreements or academic requirements. That has always been one of my big caveats to a further Western expansion of the Big Ten - while I think the league very much likes OU and KU alone, they don't want anything to do with Oklahoma State and Kansas State (and the only place that seems to allow for the little brothers is the Big 12).

I think this is an absolutely vital issue. If OU (football brand) and KU (basketball brand and AAU member) were available to the B1G without OSU and KSU being an issue, then I can certainly see these two teams being the next in B1G expansion. However, this is an issue that is not going away. As you said 'The "little brother" schools that have political power, though, can be bigger holdups than any grant of rights agreements or academic requirements.' A home for OSU and KSU has to be found if OU and KU go B1G. Will the SEC or Pac12 take OSU and KSU so OU and KU can go B1G? I doubt it. So will OU and KU really ever be an option for the B1G?