Question for Frank the Tank

[frankthetank]

I understand that if Texas wishes to join the B1G it will happen and perhaps Oklahoma and/or Kansas and/or Missouri ride the coattails. However ....

A quote from Frank's blog ...

The overall message from the Big Ten today is that it’s going full steam ahead in heading to the East Coast. I’ve long been confident that the strategy will work around leveraging Maryland to get into the Washington, DC and Baltimore markets (which will only be further aided by adding Johns Hopkins as an affiliate member), yet the New York City portion of this cycle of expansion and bowl contracts will determine whether Big Ten is going to end up being the second most powerful sports entity in America after the NFL in 10 years or we’ll be sitting around wondering why the conference had chased after cable network fool’s gold. There’s a better chance for the former to occur than what a lot of conference realignment skeptics believe, but the latter could certainly still happen.

A quote from Frank's Q & A ...

A larger issue might be whether Oklahoma coming *alone* without Oklahoma State is truly possible since the Big Ten wouldn't be willing to add OSU in a package deal (similar to how the conference would only want Kansas without Kansas State). I've spoken with a lot of OU and KU fans that believe that they could drop their respective in-state brothers if necessary, but I'm not quite sure of that whenever state politicians and high profile boosters like T. Boone Pickens inevitably get involved when there's a viable threat to their special interests out there.

Delany has made it clear that the B1G desires to be a bi-regional conference with eastward expansion and penetration into the NYC market a goal.
How does moving further into the Midwest accomplish this goal?
Those in charge of OU/OSU and KU/KSU respectively have made it clear that separation of each school from its in-state partner is not a desirable option.
I find it hard to believe that OU and KU to the B1G will happen unless OSU and KSU are taken care of which means basically going to the SEC or PAC 12.
How likely are either of these conferences to want these schools without OU and KU? Perhaps I am wrong but not likely in my opinion.
Again, I understand that if Texas wishes to join the B1G that is a game changer; however, short of that I am still trying to see how OU and KU to the B1G will happen.

I know people on this board don't necessarily want to hear this, but moving east in and of itself is NOT the goal of the Big Ten. That's the mistaken assumption that I keep seeing on this board a lot. Now, if the Big Ten gets who it believes to be the right schools in the east, then yes, it wants to move in that direction. That doesn't mean moving east for the sake of moving east, though.

Gordon Gee's remarks to Ohio State's athletic council were certainly insensitive, but it also provided a rare glimpse into the Big Ten's thinking that wasn't covered up by PR-speak and general "we're monitoring the landscape" platitudes. He said multiple times that Kansas and Missouri were high on his list, but the reason why the Big Ten didn't go that direction initially was that they were hoping for a breakup of the ACC and that "making a T" going toward the southeast was what the Big Ten was really after. When the Big Ten says "We want to go East", in my mind, that means UVA and UNC. Those are the two Eastern schools that the Big Ten really wants.

If the Big Ten can't get those two, though, that doesn't mean that the conference is simply going to add other eastern pieces for the sake of geography. This is a league that still wants to make a lot of money, and making a lot of money still ultimately means maintaining a great product. In the event that ACC schools are off the table, then schools like Kansas are absolutely high (if not on top) of the list. (Whatever happens with Missouri, I don't think anyone is leaving the SEC, so what the Big Ten's thoughts on them at this point are largely irrelevant.) KU is an AAU school with a massive fan base and the bluest of the blue blood basketball programs. You can't get any more blue blood than James Naismith starting up your basketball program. Also, KU's market isn't really the state of Kansas - it's both Kansas and the western half of Missouri (as KU is directly in the KC market, only it's on the Kansas side of the border). (And lest you think that I have any personal affinity for that school, that's absolutely not the case. I loathe those guys and wish nothing but bad things to happen to that team with the tiny exception that I'd slightly favor them over the even worse Duke. However, my personal viewpoint should have little to do with how they objectively should be valued in conference realignment.) Unless the Big Ten also wants to add Iowa State (which makes zero financial sense) and assuming that they aren't adding Mizzou or any ACC schools, there aren't any other contiguous AAU options for school #16. Good for UConn? I don't necessarily think so because if the Big Ten starts going down the proverbial well of looking at non-AAU members, then Oklahoma is sitting right there, and they're arguably a more valuable version of the Nebraska program that the Big Ten just added (more recent success, larger immediate home state market, and effectively a home team in the massive football-crazy Dallas market, so OU is the closest addition that gets you legit access to the state of Texas without actually being in Texas). The Big Ten spent the time and money to commission a study on Oklahoma for conference realignment, so this isn't exactly a stretch.

Yes, the Big Ten wanted to get a presence in the New York market, which is why they added Rutgers. However, the standards are much higher for schools #15 and #16. Essentially, schools #15 and #16 have to make markets almost irrelevant, where they're powerful enough additions that the Big Ten Network transforms from a regional network to a legit national network. That's what OU and KU can do better than anyone once you get past the obvious Notre Dame/Texas-types. Just look at what the Big Ten would be football-wise by slotting OU (along with KU) in the West Division and then incorporating KU into the basketball league. (Yes, I know that UConn has been stellar at basketball, as well, but KU is one of the few basketball brands strong enough where that can legitimately compensate for a lack of football success. Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA are also on that very short list. Everyone else, even schools like Louisville, Syracuse, Michigan State and UConn that have had elite programs every bit as successful as those blue bloods over the past 20 years, are on the "What have you done for me lately?" list where basketball doesn't count that much.)

In essence, I believe that the Big Ten would prefer to add UVA and UNC over OU and KU, but if they can't add UVA and UNC (which is more likely than not in my mind, particularly UNC), then I could certainly see OU and KU being the next targets. The main drawbacks to OU and KU are more political - making the very large assumption that any grant of rights issues are resolved, I think both of those schools would take a Big Ten invite in a heartbeat if they're left to their own devices, but they might not be able to act alone if they have to bring their in-state brothers of OSU and KSU with them (which would be non-starters for the Big Ten).

 

[specialisthusky]

You could have just said "Uconn will never be in the B1G" Frank!

I think some of your points are too far based on assumptions.

"Yes, the Big Ten wanted to get a presence in the New York market, which is why they added Rutgers. However, the standards are much higher for schools #15 and #16. Essentially, schools #15 and #16 have to make markets almost irrelevant, where they're powerful enough additions that the Big Ten Network transforms from a regional network to a legit national network."

The last two moves have been SOLELY about markets. There is no team that makes markets irrelevant except Notre Dame who has spurned the Big forever. Maybe Texas, but they have the LHN which I don't see them giving up so easily. It's easy to say the B1G will go after a national precense, but it is alot harder to do so. If history is any indication when the media contract is up for renewal there is a good chance the B1G will expand to 16 to max inventory and money. Big 12 will (correct me if I am wrong) still be under contract and under a GOR, additionally Kansas, Ok, and UT all have state universities conencted to them that is going to make a quick escape to the B1G nearly impossible. Is that good for UConn? Probably not either because there would be no #16 still, but it's a glimmer of hope I guess.

"the standards are much higher for schools #15 and #16." That I can agree with...I mean the B1G took Rutgers .

In a perfect world for us. The SEC takes a run at Virginia Tech and another team for 16 to disrupt the ACC. UVA decides to go B1G and UConn is there for the taking while UNC tries to figure out if games against Duke NC State and WF are more important than joining the best overal conference in the country. Will it ever happen? I am starting to doubt it, but gotta #b1gharder on the USS Connecticut or I'll go crazy.

 

[upstater]

You could have just said "Uconn will never be in the B1G" Frank!

I think some of your points are too far based on assumptions.

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.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

I know people on this board don't necessarily want to hear this, but moving east in and of itself is NOT the goal of the Big Ten. That's the mistaken assumption that I keep seeing on this board a lot. Now, if the Big Ten gets who it believes to be the right schools in the east, then yes, it wants to move in that direction. That doesn't mean moving east for the sake of moving east, though.

Gordon Gee's remarks to Ohio State's athletic council were certainly insensitive, but it also provided a rare glimpse into the Big Ten's thinking that wasn't covered up by PR-speak and general "we're monitoring the landscape" platitudes. He said multiple times that Kansas and Missouri were high on his list, but the reason why the Big Ten didn't go that direction initially was that they were hoping for a breakup of the ACC and that "making a T" going toward the southeast was what the Big Ten was really after. When the Big Ten says "We want to go East", in my mind, that means UVA and UNC. Those are the two Eastern schools that the Big Ten really wants.

If the Big Ten can't get those two, though, that doesn't mean that the conference is simply going to add other eastern pieces for the sake of geography. This is a league that still wants to make a lot of money, and making a lot of money still ultimately means maintaining a great product. In the event that ACC schools are off the table, then schools like Kansas are absolutely high (if not on top) of the list. (Whatever happens with Missouri, I don't think anyone is leaving the SEC, so what the Big Ten's thoughts on them at this point are largely irrelevant.) KU is an AAU school with a massive fan base and the bluest of the blue blood basketball programs. You can't get any more blue blood than James Naismith starting up your basketball program. Also, KU's market isn't really the state of Kansas - it's both Kansas and the western half of Missouri (as KU is directly in the KC market, only it's on the Kansas side of the border). (And lest you think that I have any personal affinity for that school, that's absolutely not the case. I loathe those guys and wish nothing but bad things to happen to that team with the tiny exception that I'd slightly favor them over the even worse Duke. However, my personal viewpoint should have little to do with how they objectively should be valued in conference realignment.) Unless the Big Ten also wants to add Iowa State (which makes zero financial sense) and assuming that they aren't adding Mizzou or any ACC schools, there aren't any other contiguous AAU options for school #16. Good for UConn? I don't necessarily think so because if the Big Ten starts going down the proverbial well of looking at non-AAU members, then Oklahoma is sitting right there, and they're arguably a more valuable version of the Nebraska program that the Big Ten just added (more recent success, larger immediate home state market, and effectively a home team in the massive football-crazy Dallas market, so OU is the closest addition that gets you legit access to the state of Texas without actually being in Texas). The Big Ten spent the time and money to commission a study on Oklahoma for conference realignment, so this isn't exactly a stretch.

Yes, the Big Ten wanted to get a presence in the New York market, which is why they added Rutgers. However, the standards are much higher for schools #15 and #16. Essentially, schools #15 and #16 have to make markets almost irrelevant, where they're powerful enough additions that the Big Ten Network transforms from a regional network to a legit national network. That's what OU and KU can do better than anyone once you get past the obvious Notre Dame/Texas-types. Just look at what the Big Ten would be football-wise by slotting OU (along with KU) in the West Division and then incorporating KU into the basketball league. (Yes, I know that UConn has been stellar at basketball, as well, but KU is one of the few basketball brands strong enough where that can legitimately compensate for a lack of football success. Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA are also on that very short list. Everyone else, even schools like Louisville, Syracuse, Michigan State and UConn that have had elite programs every bit as successful as those blue bloods over the past 20 years, are on the "What have you done for me lately?" list where basketball doesn't count that much.)

In essence, I believe that the Big Ten would prefer to add UVA and UNC over OU and KU, but if they can't add UVA and UNC (which is more likely than not in my mind, particularly UNC), then I could certainly see OU and KU being the next targets. The main drawbacks to OU and KU are more political - making the very large assumption that any grant of rights issues are resolved, I think both of those schools would take a Big Ten invite in a heartbeat if they're left to their own devices, but they might not be able to act alone if they have to bring their in-state brothers of OSU and KSU with them (which would be non-starters for the Big Ten).

Apparently you know more about the B1G and expansion than the Michigan AD. He must be lying

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[UPitt]

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.

Football is clearly the number one hurdle for Uconn. The basketball history and recent success are positives, but realignment has been centered around football tradition and recent football success to this point.

 

[upstater]

Football is clearly the number one hurdle for Uconn. The basketball history and recent success are positives, but realignment has been centered around football tradition and recent football success to this point.

Read Frank's post where the discussion is basketball. He is touting Kansas for bball. Sound like a football power to you?

 

[frankthetank]

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.

Well, I'd beg to differ. We've probably spent more time analyzing and reviewing data about what it would take to crack the NYC market on my blog over the past 3 years than any other subject and the conclusion has been, "It's a big-time risk no matter who you add." You could add Rutgers, Notre Dame, UConn, Syracuse and BC to the Big Ten on top of Penn State and Maryland and you *still* can't guarantee anything in the NYC market. This is in contrast to places like Kansas and Oklahoma - there might not be as many people there (although more than what a lot of people giving credit for since their fan bases legitimately spill over into Texas and Missouri in a stronger and more direct way than UConn spills over into NYC), but the difference is that the Big Ten Network can literally charge whatever it wants per subscriber there since a cable carrier will go out of business if it doesn't provide access to OU football and KU basketball. There's no guessing game there or in North Carolina with UNC (and even Virginia with UVA). The confidence level that the Big Ten has in those schools "delivering" their respective home markets is 100%. That's simply not the case in the Northeast. Rutgers got lucky by being in the right place in the right time in the right location when the Big Ten needed another school to come in with Maryland.

At the same time, if everything that you've stated is correct and means as much as you believe, then (a) how the heck did the Big East become the punching bag in conference realignment and (b) how has a school that provides such obvious value of UConn get passed over? Forget about whether you believe that UConn draws better in NYC than Rutgers or Syracuse - the Big East had ALL OF THEM (plus St. John's and Seton Hall on top of them) and made by far the least amount of TV money with the worst bowl tie-ins of the BCS conferences and was picked apart completely. The answer that what you perceive to be obvious (the NYC market is massive, UConn provides a big chunk of it plus the rest of Connecticut, and that means that this is easy money in the bag for the Big Ten) is *anything* but obvious. Frankly, the viability of the NYC market for college market is the furthest thing from obvious in all conference realignment. To be sure, there were some massive leadership problems with the old Big East, but that alone doesn't explain a lot of the underlying issues as to why the conference wasn't ever considered to be that valuable in the marketplace.

So, I'm very well aware of what matters in the NYC market. To the extent that you believe that I underplay UConn's impact in its home region, what I think is constantly and massively underplayed here a lot is just how much more college sports are followed elsewhere. It's not even in the same hemisphere. You may tell yourself that UConn has a good fan base with good TV ratings. And, if your sphere is comparing yourselves to Syracuse football or Rutgers basketball, you might be right. However, that's simply not the case compared to Kansas basketball or Oklahoma football (and that's both locally and nationally). Those are big-time brands with massive national fan bases and long histories that are contiguous to the Big Ten footprint. KU is even an AAU member while OU has almost the exact same level of graduate research activity (which is what the Big Ten cares more about than undergrad rankings) as UConn. So, if you don't take those two schools seriously as Big Ten targets, then I don't know what to tell you.

Look - I don't mean to be harsh. This isn't meant to knock UConn. There's a lot of value in the school academically, location-wise, and as a basketball brand. However, conference realignment decisions aren't made in a vacuum. You're competing with other schools that may have AAU membership, certain levels of national appeal, longer football histories, better football recruiting grounds, faster growing demographics, etc. Underestimating what other schools bring to the table while overestimating your own appeal WILL get you killed in conference realignment (and I absolutely believe that UConn underestimated Louisville in competing for that last ACC spot). The only way UConn has a chance to move up is to examine what schools like KU and OU (or even Louisville) are doing better than UConn at (whether it's football, still selling out stadiums even in down periods, etc.) and then eliminate those disadvantages to the best of your ability because assuming that what you have now is enough is simply not true (and that's only going to get exacerbated in the new Gang of Five world, as Rutgers, Syracuse, et. al at least had the old Big East's BCS AQ status to hang their hats on).

 

[woomba]

Kansas is probably as a good a comparison for UConn as any - both are basketball schools, in similar size states, poor recruiting grounds, mediocre football.

 

[UPitt]

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.

I think Uconn has a lot to offer to both the ACC and the B1G. But I agree with Frank that the B1G is not going to rush to conclusions to include a team on the east coast because it failed to land UVA and UNC. The B1G footprint allows it to access teams of the midwest as well, and some of those teams have more to add than Uconn. For the ACC, access to teams will primary be on the east coast only. Thus, Uconn seems to be a no brainer during the next expansion of the ACC.

 

[specialisthusky]

I think Uconn has a lot to offer to both the ACC and the B1G. But I agree with Frank that the B1G is not going to rush to conclusions to include a team on the east coast because it failed to land UVA and UNC. The B1G footprint allows it to access teams of the midwest as well, and some of those teams have more to add than Uconn. For the ACC, access to teams will primary be on the east coast only. Thus, Uconn seems to be a no brainer during the next expansion of the ACC.

I truly believe UConn will never be in the ACC.

 

[UPitt]

I dont have any better numbers than Nate does in that article, but man it seems like he pulling them out of his ass... google searches and a selection bias of people who have run across common census.... yup real reliable

I agree the report seems to be developed on less than perfect resources, but I think it shows that no college football team is popular enough to carry NYC. If Rutgers struggles for football covereage in NYC, then the B1G may see NYC as a lost cause for football. If Rutgers (and PSU, OSU, Mich) carry NYC enough to carry the B1G network, then Uconn becomes less viable. Uconn needs Rutgers to be popular enough to create interest in NYC, but not popular enough to hold it down.

 

[specialisthusky]

I agree the report seems to be developed on less than perfect resources, but I think it shows that no college football team is popular enough to carry NYC. If Rutgers struggles for football covereage in NYC, then the B1G may see NYC as a lost cause for football. If Rutgers (and PSU, OSU, Mich) carry NYC enough to carry the B1G network, then Uconn becomes less viable. Uconn needs Rutgers to be popular enough to create interest in NYC, but not popular enough to hold it down.

Or the B1G could just want to make inroads through basketball on its BTN which is what NYC really loves...

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Read Frank's post where the discussion is basketball. He is touting Kansas for bball. Sound like a football power to you?

My point exactly
The difference between us and Kansas is our Basketball Market is ten times bigger.They may be a more historic basketball name but we can change that with more success. People completely underestimate JC retirement.
UConn football has to tread water.
The perception of football will increase. in direct proportion to our basketball success. The power of humans to rationlize is amazing.
Frank seems to be a decent guy.
But his Congress of Vienna approch to CR is not how dynamics in real life occur. The adaption and exploitation to these changes .
will determine success or failure not the status quo.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

Well, I'd beg to differ. We've probably spent more time analyzing and reviewing data about what it would take to crack the NYC market on my blog over the past 3 years than any other subject and the conclusion has been, "It's a big-time risk no matter who you add." You could add Rutgers, Notre Dame, UConn, Syracuse and BC to the Big Ten on top of Penn State and Maryland and you *still* can't guarantee anything in the NYC market. This is in contrast to places like Kansas and Oklahoma - there might not be as many people there (although more than what a lot of people giving credit for since their fan bases legitimately spill over into Texas and Missouri in a stronger and more direct way than UConn spills over into NYC), but the difference is that the Big Ten Network can literally charge whatever it wants per subscriber there since a cable carrier will go out of business if it doesn't provide access to OU football and KU basketball. There's no guessing game there or in North Carolina with UNC (and even Virginia with UVA). The confidence level that the Big Ten has in those schools "delivering" their respective home markets is 100%. That's simply not the case in the Northeast. Rutgers got lucky by being in the right place in the right time in the right location when the Big Ten needed another school to come in with Maryland.

At the same time, if everything that you've stated is correct and means as much as you believe, then (a) how the heck did the Big East become the punching bag in conference realignment and (b) how has a school that provides such obvious value of UConn get passed over? Forget about whether you believe that UConn draws better in NYC than Rutgers or Syracuse - the Big East had ALL OF THEM (plus St. John's and Seton Hall on top of them) and made by far the least amount of TV money with the worst bowl tie-ins of the BCS conferences and was picked apart completely. The answer that what you perceive to be obvious (the NYC market is massive, UConn provides a big chunk of it plus the rest of Connecticut, and that means that this is easy money in the bag for the Big Ten) is *anything* but obvious. Frankly, the viability of the NYC market for college market is the furthest thing from obvious in all conference realignment. To be sure, there were some massive leadership problems with the old Big East, but that alone doesn't explain a lot of the underlying issues as to why the conference wasn't ever considered to be that valuable in the marketplace.

So, I'm very well aware of what matters in the NYC market. To the extent that you believe that I underplay UConn's impact in its home region, what I think is constantly and massively underplayed here a lot is just how much more college sports are followed elsewhere. It's not even in the same hemisphere. You may tell yourself that UConn has a good fan base with good TV ratings. And, if your sphere is comparing yourselves to Syracuse football or Rutgers basketball, you might be right. However, that's simply not the case compared to Kansas basketball or Oklahoma football (and that's both locally and nationally). Those are big-time brands with massive national fan bases and long histories that are contiguous to the Big Ten footprint. KU is even an AAU member while OU has almost the exact same level of graduate research activity (which is what the Big Ten cares more about than undergrad rankings) as UConn. So, if you don't take those two schools seriously as Big Ten targets, then I don't know what to tell you.

Look - I don't mean to be harsh. This isn't meant to knock UConn. There's a lot of value in the school academically, location-wise, and as a basketball brand. However, conference realignment decisions aren't made in a vacuum. You're competing with other schools that may have AAU membership, certain levels of national appeal, longer football histories, better football recruiting grounds, faster growing demographics, etc. Underestimating what other schools bring to the table while overestimating your own appeal WILL get you killed in conference realignment (and I absolutely believe that UConn underestimated Louisville in competing for that last ACC spot). The only way UConn has a chance to move up is to examine what schools like KU and OU (or even Louisville) are doing better than UConn at (whether it's football, still selling out stadiums even in down periods, etc.) and then eliminate those disadvantages to the best of your ability because assuming that what you have now is enough is simply not true (and that's only going to get exacerbated in the new Gang of Five world, as Rutgers, Syracuse, et. al at least had the old Big East's BCS AQ status to hang their hats on).

It's the same old stuff with you Frank. You did it again.

You talk about what the BTN charges, but neglect that SNY charges 2.5x in Ct. and the NYC market slice of what the BTN charges in Michigan. Why isn't BTN charging $2.5o per house in Michigan? Why isn't it as popular in Michigan as SNY is in CT and that slice of NYC? I mean, you're emphasizing what BTN could do in Kansas, and it can't even do in Michigan what SNY is already doing in Connecticut. Forgive me for finding that bizarre and totally absurd.

I don't even know why you're asking "How did UConn get left out?" It's been answered here a thousand times. UConn doesn't even qualify for the B1G on academics alone. As for the ACC, have you truly never read this article? http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket...-blocking-uconns-path-to-acc?urn=ncaab,wp5260

Everything is there. In the past, you've claimed UConn fans have this mistaken belief that BC blocked UConn. We're not making it up. I don't know what to tell you. It's like you never read articles about BC blocking UConn. Seriously, as much as you know about realignment (a ton more than any of us), I honestly have doubts as to whether you're clued in on this BC-UConn story, because so much of what you've said in the past gives me suspicion that you don't.

As for UConn's national brand for bball, it's great. Great ratings, great interest. There are a ton of articles out there putting UConn among the top 6 bluebloods in both accomplishment and interest. And you say I'm comparing UConn to Rutgers basketball. Seriously? Frankly, that's a pathetic statement coming from you. UConn's tier 3/licensing take is $24.8 million a year (on the back of a contract with IMG for $8 million for licensing related to coaches shows and such on SNY). This is because of basketball mainly, and shows the power of the brand.

 

[upstater]

I agree the report seems to be developed on less than perfect resources, but I think it shows that no college football team is popular enough to carry NYC. If Rutgers struggles for football covereage in NYC, then the B1G may see NYC as a lost cause for football. If Rutgers (and PSU, OSU, Mich) carry NYC enough to carry the B1G network, then Uconn becomes less viable. Uconn needs Rutgers to be popular enough to create interest in NYC, but not popular enough to hold it down.

BTN will be shown on cable networks. The DMA question is less relevant. In fact, Manhattan alone has several competing cable systems. This is why the important thing to look at is the states. Half of UConn's state market (i.e. Conn. residents) is in NYC. but that big slice pays a ton for SNY so that it can watch UConn sports. Taken altogether, you have 1 million TV households in Conn. watching UConn sports, in one of the richest demograhics in the nation. Quite apart from whether NYC watches UConn football or bball (it obviously takes interest in the latter), look at the Conn. market alone. Compar it to other markets. Compare UConn bball nationally to other brands. That's the value. And that value is evident in UConn's tier 3/licensing figures which are much higher than anyone else's in the old BE. They are $15m more than Rutgers. So, how could a region that's got smaller numbers than Rutgers' region generate so much in revenues. Two answers: the level of intensity of the fans, and the power of the national brand.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

BASKETBALL!

Good stats however a proper analysis of these stats with be extremely favorable to UConn.
Given the lack of history of the UConn football program and its lack of exploration of its Tri-state status. A couple of years of success in football coupled with the changing socio-ecomiic make up of this market point to an ability to if not capture be a major player.
What-if UConn had a football history simslar to Pitts
Thanks for the info.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

I would certainly not question Nate's numbers with respect to politics, but there's far more directly usable data sets for politics than there are for something as broad and general as "most popular football teams." The only set of data that could be used would be TV numbers, but even then those are very inexact in a lot of instances. I'm not going to tell you he's dead wrong in those numbers, but to hold them with the same weight as you would hold his political numbers would be incorrect.

 

[woomba]

UConn's $24.8M was for 2011 - it's down to $22.1M last year. Either figure would be either the second lowest or third lowest in the Big Ten ahead of just Rutgers and perhaps Northwestern (they don't release the numbers). Even if you get rid of BTN's $8M a year that 12th or 13th place ranking won't change.

You do a good job of explaining why UConn's stronger than Rutgers, but you have to realize that under the BTN model NJ's larger size + AAU + recruiting base makes it an easier sell to the Big Ten than Connecticut.

 

[UPitt]

Or the B1G could just want to make inroads through basketball on its BTN which is what NYC really loves...

NYC loves basketball, but football has driven realignment thus far. I think the stregnth of Uconn BB in NYC is a stronger selling point to the ACC than B1G.

Read Frank's post where the discussion is basketball. He is touting Kansas for bball. Sound like a football power to you?

I read his post again and Kansas has a lot to offer to the B1G. Kansas is in a special group of schools that offer national appeal for basketball year in and year out. I am a Uconn basketball fan, and I would consider Uconn to be a half tier below Kansas on the national stage. Kansas is AAU. Kansas has rivals within the B1G. Kansas carriers a new market. Kansas w/ Mizzou brings a package worth more than the teams individually. Kansas is a good partner with OU to entice OU. A combination of Kansas, Mizzou, Nebraska, OU, Texas, and Iowa offer a nice package of teams in the midwest should the B12 be targeted.

Frank was suggesting Kansas as a good fit in the B1G with a football partner from the midwest. If Uconn was AAU and had a good football partner from the east coast, Uconn would find it easier to land in both the B1G or ACC.

 

[frankthetank]

It's the same old stuff with you Frank. You did it again.

You talk about what the BTN charges, but neglect that SNY charges 2.5x in Ct. and the NYC market slice of what the BTN charges in Michigan. Why isn't BTN charging $2.5o per house in Michigan? Why isn't it as popular in Michigan as SNY is in CT and that slice of NYC? I mean, you're emphasizing what BTN could do in Kansas, and it can't even do in Michigan what SNY is already doing in Connecticut. Forgive me for finding that bizarre and totally absurd.

I don't even know why you're asking "How did UConn get left out?" It's been answered here a thousand times. UConn doesn't even qualify for the B1G on academics alone. As for the ACC, have you truly never read this article? http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket...-blocking-uconns-path-to-acc?urn=ncaab,wp5260

Everything is there. In the past, you've claimed UConn fans have this mistaken belief that BC blocked UConn. We're not making it up. I don't know what to tell you. It's like you never read articles about BC blocking UConn. Seriously, as much as you know about realignment (a ton more than any of us), I honestly have doubts as to whether you're clued in on this BC-UConn story, because so much of what you've said in the past gives me suspicion that you don't.

As for UConn's national brand for bball, it's great. Great ratings, great interest. There are a ton of articles out there putting UConn among the top 6 bluebloods in both accomplishment and interest. And you say I'm comparing UConn to Rutgers basketball. Seriously? Frankly, that's a pathetic statement coming from you. UConn's tier 3/licensing take is $24.8 million a year (on the back of a contract with IMG for $8 million for licensing related to coaches shows and such on SNY). This is because of basketball mainly, and shows the power of the brand.

I've seen the SNY argument many times here. SNY has the Mets, a Major League Baseball team in the immediately adjacent market that's providing well over 100 televised games per year. While UConn helped out SNY to get broader carriage in Connecticut in the areas that aren't in the NYC DMA, the argument about the carriage rate itself would only be comparable if the BTN also carried Tigers games in Michigan or Cubs games in Illinois (in both events, I assure you, would result in unbelievably high carriage rates in those areas). Pro sports RSNs charge very high rates across the country and SNY is consistent with that, so that figure isn't unique at all compared to similar situations (i.e. Comcast SportsNet Chicago's carriage in adjacent Iowa, the carriage of the LA-based RSNs in San Diego and Nevada, etc.). UConn deserves some credit for filling in some of the gaps in the state's overall carriage of SNY, but that carriage rate is directly in line with pro sports RSNs everywhere.

Now, I definitely understand why UConn is miffed about Rutgers, Syracuse and BC jumping to greener pastures considering UConn's track record. I would be the same if I were a UConn fan. However, UConn just isn't winning an argument against Kansas and Oklahoma at the national level at this time. I don't know why that's not being taken very seriously when a Big Ten president mentions one of those schools multiple times as a target in what were intended to be confidential remarks and both of those schools have been separately studied by the conference for expansion (while there hasn't ever been an indication that UConn has been studied).

That's what I mean by overestimating the value of your own school and underestimating the value of your competition, which is a recipe for disaster in conference realignment. Once again, UConn has a lot of value individually - I've stated that many times. However, even underestimating Cincinnati (much less legit national brand names like Oklahoma and Kansas) is something you guys can't afford to do and are whistling past the graveyard if you think otherwise. As I've said, I firmly believe that UConn completely underestimated Louisville... and believe me that there are quite a few schools in the Gang of Five (including several in the AAC) in pretty good markets that are spending the money to aim at becoming the next Louisville, TCU or Utah. Overconfidence is the *worst* thing that UConn can have right now - to the contrary, every wart (big or small) needs to be addressed because it will pretty much take perfection to get any power conference to proactively move in the current environment (and even if there is any movement, you might be looking at competing with many others for 1 or 2 spots).

 

[Durks07]

UConn's $24.8M was for 2011 - it's down to $22.1M last year. Either figure would be either the second lowest or third lowest in the Big Ten ahead of just Rutgers and perhaps Northwestern (they don't release the numbers). Even if you get rid of BTN's $8M a year that 12th or 13th place ranking won't change.

You do a good job of explaining why UConn's stronger than Rutgers, but you have to realize that under the BTN model NJ's larger size + AAU + recruiting base makes it an easier sell to the Big Ten than Connecticut.

I think we all understand (most of us anyway), that the B1G model prefers state flagships which are a slam dunk to receive coverage in their home markets. New Jersey, with it's population, and access into NYC (still hotly contested as to how much really), make it a valuable commodity even if their athletic programs are not strong. The carriage fees for a mediocre team in a state with 8+ million people will be massive. Having AAU status only clinches the deal, because the B1G does not want to compromise their academic prowess, and because they are the hunters in realignment, they do not have to.

My biggest gripe is that as a UConn fan, you are seeing what the "national" perception of the university really is, and it is not good. There is always something wrong with UConn at the worst possible time. Even worse, is it does not appear that ANYONE is speaking up on behalf of the university. UConn got outhustled by Louisville for a spot in the ACC, and even though it is possible that Louisville always was going to get the spot, the national beating UConn took just made me cringe.

It's frustrating to be overlooked, and to feel like you are allowing it to happen. I don't know or even really believe that this is the case, but it just feels that way. And to a fan base with 3 men's national championships, a trophy case stuffed with success, and a football program which has won two conference titles in football, and been to the BCS, it is a kick in the balls that is hard to take.

 

[upstater]

UConn's $24.8M was for 2011 - it's down to $22.1M last year. Either figure would be either the second lowest or third lowest in the Big Ten ahead of just Rutgers and perhaps Northwestern (they don't release the numbers). Even if you get rid of BTN's $8M a year that 12th or 13th place ranking won't change.

You do a good job of explaining why UConn's stronger than Rutgers, but you have to realize that under the BTN model NJ's larger size + AAU + recruiting base makes it an easier sell to the Big Ten than Connecticut.

Where did you get $22.1m figure?

I wasn't arguing that UConn is stronger than Rutgers. I don't think it is. I never did that. I compared the fan intensity and branding.

As for comparing UConn's figure to the B10, it's an apples to oranges comparison. You can only compare UConn to the old BE where every single school in the conference receives the same TV money. Then, any TV/licensing money over and above that is considered the result of the school's own brand and not anyone else's. There is NO DOUBT that UConn's TV money is going to fall now in the AAC. But we all know that. So, we're not comparing the AAC's TV package to the B1G's. Everyone knows the B1G schools make 15x as much.

Your point about Rutgers is an excellent one relating to my discussion with Frank here. He asks the question, why wasn't UConn picked up if it had so much value? I responded by referring to one instance of BC blocking them (even though there have been other instances). But the Rutgers' case provides another answer. Why was Rutgers passed over by the ACC if it had so much value, as Frank has been arguing? Why didn't Swofford see the value? Is it because the B1G made a huge mistake in adding Rutgers? Or is it because Swofford is a joker who can't see his arse from his elbow? He has presided over one bad decision after the other.

If we were going into a totally new conference expansion next year with the moved teams + UConn up for grabs, this is how I would rank them:

1. Rutgers
2. Maryland
3. UConn
4. Pittsburgh
5. Louisville
6. Syracuse
7. Boston College

Louisville vs. Pitt is the only one that gave me pause because Ville is going great now and Pitt is a huge question mark, but in terms of market and region and academics, Pitt has slightly more potential.

Is it any wonder that the B1G took the first two atop the list, while the ACC preferred #7 over all the others?

 

[FDNY99]

I want to see us in the B1G as much as anyone...but I think Frank is right when he says we need to get nice and cozy with the B-12 right now. That seems to be our best bet to get to the Big 5 Conference dance.

 

[frankthetank]

NYC loves basketball, but football has driven realignment thus far. I think the stregnth of Uconn BB in NYC is a stronger selling point to the ACC than B1G.



I read his post again and Kansas has a lot to offer to the B1G. Kansas is in a special group of schools that offer national appeal for basketball year in and year out. I am a Uconn basketball fan, and I would consider Uconn to be a half tier below Kansas on the national stage. Kansas is AAU. Kansas has rivals within the B1G. Kansas carriers a new market. Kansas w/ Mizzou brings a package worth more than the teams individually. Kansas is a good partner with OU to entice OU. A combination of Kansas, Mizzou, Nebraska, OU, Texas, and Iowa offer a nice package of teams in the midwest should the B12 be targeted.

Frank was suggesting Kansas as a good fit in the B1G with a football partner from the midwest. If Uconn was AAU and had a good football partner from the east coast, Uconn would find it easier to land in both the B1G or ACC.

Yes, that's exactly that I'm saying. Kansas is one of the very few schools where basketball can legitimately matter, and that also driven by the fact that it meets the academic requirements (AAU membership) and can be paired with OU (a football superpower) in theory. The UConn comparison is spot-on: if it were an AAU member and could bring along a Penn State-type football partner, then the equation obviously changes dramatically (but that's kind of like saying, "If my aunt was my uncle...").

 

[upstater]

NYC loves basketball, but football has driven realignment thus far. I think the stregnth of Uconn BB in NYC is a stronger selling point to the ACC than B1G.



I read his post again and Kansas has a lot to offer to the B1G. Kansas is in a special group of schools that offer national appeal for basketball year in and year out. I am a Uconn basketball fan, and I would consider Uconn to be a half tier below Kansas on the national stage. Kansas is AAU. Kansas has rivals within the B1G. Kansas carriers a new market. Kansas w/ Mizzou brings a package worth more than the teams individually. Kansas is a good partner with OU to entice OU. A combination of Kansas, Mizzou, Nebraska, OU, Texas, and Iowa offer a nice package of teams in the midwest should the B12 be targeted.

Frank was suggesting Kansas as a good fit in the B1G with a football partner from the midwest. If Uconn was AAU and had a good football partner from the east coast, Uconn would find it easier to land in both the B1G or ACC.

You're making me dizzy. UConn has national appeal yearly too. A lot of it. UConn has been consistent. It has a big fanbase now. Half tier below? What do you even mean by that. What rivals does Kansas have other than Nebraska? and what does AAU have to do with this discussion about basketball? I said from the outset that Uconn doesn't qualify for the B1G because ofits AAU status. Kansas is a new market? Yeah, one that is smaller than the new market that UConn brings (you do realize, I hope, that BTN is not going to get the cable subscribers in the NYC slice of Conn. nor the rest of it that it will get in NJ). Kansas / w/ Missouri? Missouri is not moving anywhere. We've discussed this before that the B1G requires a gradual by in by new members, which would mean Missouri foregoing $50m to $80m by making the switch. Why in the world is Missouri going to toss that much money into the wind? Entice OU? OU would run lickety split to the B1G if the B1g had any interest. It would happen instantly. When OU was rebuffed by the Pac12, it understood its position in the world pretty clearly.

I didn't disagree with Frank's point about Kansas being a prime candidate for B1G expansion. I disagreed with his comparison of UConn to Kansas.

 

[UPitt]

Where did you get $22.1m figure?

I wasn't arguing that UConn is stronger than Rutgers. I don't think it is. I never did that. I compared the fan intensity and branding.

As for comparing UConn's figure to the B10, it's an apples to oranges comparison. You can only compare UConn to the old BE where every single school in the conference receives the same TV money. Then, any TV/licensing money over and above that is considered the result of the school's own brand and not anyone else's. There is NO DOUBT that UConn's TV money is going to fall now in the AAC. But we all know that. So, we're not comparing the AAC's TV package to the B1G's. Everyone knows the B1G schools make 15x as much.

Your point about Rutgers is an excellent one relating to my discussion with Frank here. He asks the question, why wasn't UConn picked up if it had so much value? I responded by referring to one instance of BC blocking them (even though there have been other instances). But the Rutgers' case provides another answer. Why was Rutgers passed over by the ACC if it had so much value, as Frank has been arguing? Why didn't Swofford see the value? Is it because the B1G made a huge mistake in adding Rutgers? Or is it because Swofford is a joker who can't see his arse from his elbow? He has presided over one bad decision after the other.

If we were going into a totally new conference expansion next year with the moved teams + UConn up for grabs, this is how I would rank them:

1. Rutgers
2. Maryland
3. UConn
4. Pittsburgh
5. Louisville
6. Syracuse
7. Boston College

Louisville vs. Pitt is the only one that gave me pause because Ville is going great now and Pitt is a huge question mark, but in terms of market and region and academics, Pitt has slightly more potential.

Is it any wonder that the B1G took the first two atop the list, while the ACC preferred #7 over all the others?

It is very possible that B1G was talking with Rutgers and Maryland before Pitt and Cuse were added to the ACC, and thus Rutgers and Maryland may have chosen B1G over the ACC.

 

[frankthetank]

You're making me dizzy. UConn has national appeal yearly too. A lot of it. UConn has been consistent. It has a big fanbase now. Half tier below? What do you even mean by that. What rivals does Kansas have other than Nebraska? and what does AAU have to do with this discussion about basketball? I said from the outset that Uconn doesn't qualify for the B1G because ofits AAU status. Kansas is a new market? Yeah, one that is smaller than the new market that UConn brings (you do realize, I hope, that BTN is not going to get the cable subscribers in the NYC slice of Conn. nor the rest of it that it will get in NJ). Kansas / w/ Missouri? Missouri is not moving anywhere. We've discussed this before that the B1G requires a gradual by in by new members, which would mean Missouri foregoing $50m to $80m by making the switch. Why in the world is Missouri going to toss that much money into the wind? Entice OU? OU would run lickety split to the B1G if the B1g had any interest. It would happen instantly. When OU was rebuffed by the Pac12, it understood its position in the world pretty clearly.

I didn't disagree with Frank's point about Kansas being a prime candidate for B1G expansion. I disagreed with his comparison of UConn to Kansas.

Well, I agree that Mizzou is off the table. No one is leaving the SEC (just as no one is leaving the Big Ten).

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).

 

[upstater]

I've seen the SNY argument many times here. SNY has the Mets, a Major League Baseball team in the immediately adjacent market that's providing well over 100 televised games per year. While UConn helped out SNY to get broader carriage in Connecticut in the areas that aren't in the NYC DMA, the argument about the carriage rate itself would only be comparable if the BTN also carried Tigers games in Michigan or Cubs games in Illinois (in both events, I assure you, would result in unbelievably high carriage rates in those areas).

Tigers are popular in Michigan. Mets are not popular in Conn. Look at the ratings. .04 to 8 for UConn games. If you don't believe me, look at what SNY was charging when it ONLY showed the Mets. Look at how the price went skyrocketing when it picked up UConn. A world of difference. Comparing the Mets in Ct. to the Cubs in Illinois? That doesn't fly.

Pro sports RSNs charge very high rates across the country and SNY is consistent with that, so that figure isn't unique at all compared to similar situations (i.e. Comcast SportsNet Chicago's carriage in adjacent Iowa, the carriage of the LA-based RSNs in San Diego and Nevada, etc.). UConn deserves some credit for filling in some of the gaps in the state's overall carriage of SNY, but that carriage rate is directly in line with pro sports RSNs everywhere.

Do RSN's show college sports that are the top rated not only on cable but on all network TV as well? Does that also happen? Filling in gaps? Again, you severely underrate what is going on, and I question you all the time on this. You seem not to be entirely aware that UConn is the most popular thing going in the state of Connecticut. In fact, for SNY's entire market, including NY and NJ, a Conn. basketball game will knock all other head-to-head sports off the air, including syracuse men's bball.

I never disagreed with you point about Kansas being looked at seriously by the B1G. I think they should be (primarily because they are AAU). But you downplayed UConn's bball appeal in several ways that don't measure up to the actual metrics. That's what I responded to.

 

[specialisthusky]

I've seen the SNY argument many times here. SNY has the Mets, a Major League Baseball team in the immediately adjacent market that's providing well over 100 televised games per year. While UConn helped out SNY to get broader carriage in Connecticut in the areas that aren't in the NYC DMA, the argument about the carriage rate itself would only be comparable if the BTN also carried Tigers games in Michigan or Cubs games in Illinois (in both events, I assure you, would result in unbelievably high carriage rates in those areas). Pro sports RSNs charge very high rates across the country and SNY is consistent with that, so that figure isn't unique at all compared to similar situations (i.e. Comcast SportsNet Chicago's carriage in adjacent Iowa, the carriage of the LA-based RSNs in San Diego and Nevada, etc.). UConn deserves some credit for filling in some of the gaps in the state's overall carriage of SNY, but that carriage rate is directly in line with pro sports RSNs everywhere.

Now, I definitely understand why UConn is miffed about Rutgers, Syracuse and BC jumping to greener pastures considering UConn's track record. I would be the same if I were a UConn fan. However, UConn just isn't winning an argument against Kansas and Oklahoma at the national level at this time. I don't know why that's not being taken very seriously when a Big Ten president mentions one of those schools multiple times as a target in what were intended to be confidential remarks and both of those schools have been separately studied by the conference for expansion (while there hasn't ever been an indication that UConn has been studied).

That's what I mean by overestimating the value of your own school and underestimating the value of your competition, which is a recipe for disaster in conference realignment. Once again, UConn has a lot of value individually - I've stated that many times. However, even underestimating Cincinnati (much less legit national brand names like Oklahoma and Kansas) is something you guys can't afford to do and are whistling past the graveyard if you think otherwise. As I've said, I firmly believe that UConn completely underestimated Louisville... and believe me that there are quite a few schools in the Gang of Five (including several in the AAC) in pretty good markets that are spending the money to aim at becoming the next Louisville, TCU or Utah. Overconfidence is the *worst* thing that UConn can have right now - to the contrary, every wart (big or small) needs to be addressed because it will pretty much take perfection to get any power conference to proactively move in the current environment (and even if there is any movement, you might be looking at competing with many others for 1 or 2 spots).

I don't really get the overestimating part. We as fans are simply highlighting our strengths, the university is doing everything in its power to better itself (and attempting to be accepted as an AAU university in the process), and the state is doing everything in its budget to assist in that goal. That simply does not appear to be overestimating in my eyes.

Every school has weaknesses when looking at CR. Kansas is historically bad at FB, Oklahoma is isn't AAU. Neither have the markets that are available on the east coast. But unfortunately because UConn has been passed numerous times for varying reasons, its reputation has been damaged and opposing fans view our school as a net negative to the overall bottom line of these conferences. Forgive us as fans if we prefer to highlight our strengths such as our market location, state demand, basketball history, strong academics and fast rise in BCS football that simply refute that notion. When you look at the schools in the Big East that have found homes before UConn, you can make a case for every single one of them that UConn is of greater value based on market, academics, and athletics. That is not overestimating it can be factually and statiscally proven. The conferences had there reasons, but the case can absolutely be made.

UConn has been passed over nearly 10 times at this point in conference realignment. Overconfidence and overestimating isn't exactly what were feeling here.

 

[upstater]

It is very possible that B1G was talking with Rutgers and Maryland before Pitt and Cuse were added to the ACC, and thus Rutgers and Maryland may have chosen B1G over the ACC.

We know Maryland chose them over the ACC, but as for Rutgers, do you really believe this? If Rutgers received an offer from the ACC years ago and rejected it over the confidence that the B1G would invite it in the future, then heads should be examined. That news would have leaked out anyway.