Question for Frank the Tank

[upstater]

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...").

all this I agree with

 

[pj]

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.

 

[woomba]

My numbers are from the USA Today DB . Your figures were from 2011 and I quoted the 2012 numbers.

As for why ACC passed on Rutgers initially, you have to remember that ACC's revenue model is different from the Big Ten and it's a basketball first conference.

Pitt was probably the best overall candidate out of the 3 for the ACC and then Syracuse got the nod over Rutgers due to Rutgers' craptastic BBall program. They probably would have taken Rutgers over Louisville after the Big Ten raided them for Maryland but the Big Ten beat them to it.

As for Kansas vs UConn - the Big Ten is currently confident that it can take on NYC w/o UConn so the Big Ten won't be making those type of comparisons when analyzing future expansion. If/when the Big Ten fails in taking NYC a few years from now perhaps they will reconsider.

 

[itgoeslike]

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).

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. The only schools that top them is Kentucky, Ohio State, UNC and a couple of others. UCONN even eclipses Michigan on a per year average (even though their deal is longer). In an article written earlier this week, ESPN's Eamonn Brennan says " UConn—one of the premiere brands of the last two decades. . . that has its apparel anywhere where Nike sells basketball anything." And like Kentucky, they are doing this with just basketball. Imagine if UCONN grows its football product. If you take UCONN's $25M in licensing revenue, back out the BE money, add in the B1G or B12 money, you get a pretty sizable chunk of cash. Does that school deserve to be left out of a power conference? Kansas is a national brand, but I think you look at them through mid-west colored glasses—Kansas isn't huge in South Florida but everybody knows UCONN. Where we do agree is that, unlike Kentucky and Kansas, UCONN needs to keep winning under a new coach to maintain or grow its brand.

Next, I agree that the B1G's preference is to secure UNC and UVA over UCONN. However, the Big's additions thus far have been schools under duress and/or had a beef with the power structure in their conference. It turns out plucking UVA has proven to be a lot harder. IF (it's a big if) the GOR's stay in place, UCONN is the next logical choice. I cringe when I hear that Rutgers was chosen to deliver the NYC market. Nothing against Rutgers, but I don't think any one school can get it done. Personally, I would love to see a B1G Eastern division that included UCONN, UVA, UNC, Maryland, Rutgers and Penn State.

Again IF (big if) the GORs stay in place, and at some point UCONN gets offered by the ACC, the B1g 10 will look silly allowing the ACC to have UCONN and Syracuse to capture NYC (Rutgers alone won't have a chance) and will relegate themselves as an also ran when it comes to elite basketball.

Heck, even this old post (which I'm sure you are familiar with) talks about the value UCONN would bring to a conference:

http://frankthetank.me/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/

Interestingly enough, once you back out the GOR schools, you are left with Missouri and UCONN.

 

[UPitt]

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?

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

 

[pj]

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

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

This is exactly right. The B1G can afford to be picky and UConn is a bit shy of its standards -- AAU primarily. If UConn had been AAU, the B1G might have invited us with Rutgers long before Maryland became available.

The ACC has had screwball metrics and unfathomable internal politics. Their choices have not been forward looking and they have allowed petty grievances and parochial greed to trump rational assessments of value. The ACC is as wracked by dissension as the Big East ten years ago, they are walking the Big East's path even to the point of taking Notre Dame as a partial member, they have most of the old Big East membership, and the ACC's rejection of UConn is a repeat of the Big East's rejection of Penn State. Refusing Penn State was a small time move by the northeastern private schools to prevent a major competitor from emerging, they let the competitor emerge in the B1G instead; and the ACC is repeating exactly that move for the same reasons, BC and Syracuse in particular hope to prevent UConn from emerging as a competitor. I predict the ACC will have the same problems the Big East had and I hope UConn ends up in the same place Penn State did.

 

[woomba]

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. The only schools that top them is Kentucky, Ohio State, UNC and a couple of others. UCONN even eclipses Michigan on a per year average (even though their deal is longer).

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

 

[UConnJim]

Why wasn't the BE more successful with football money and bowls given the presence in the "rich" Northeast and NYC? It really comes down to NYC loves a winner and private schools do not bring a market.

Rutgers has begun to turn the football program around (this is a > decade process), but let's be honest, Rutgers used to be one of the worst football programs in the country. UConn didn't play FBS football until a little over 10 years ago. Even though, UConn's football fan base has exploded over that time period given the start from FCS. Syracuse has been bad for almost a decade and they are a private school located further away from NYC than Rutgers, Penn St, UConn, Temple, Maryland, and BC. They won't bring NYC to the ACC and the fan base has stagnated for 20 years. BC is also a private school that is not "Massachusetts" university. Fan base has been stagnant for 20 years. Temple never invested in football and the results showed.

The two current or former BE programs that could generate wide support in the Northeast in football are Rutgers and UConn as the flagship universities of two states. Unfortunately, over the past 10 years, Rutgers was in program building mode and UConn was just entering FBS football. Rutgers has already passed BC and Syracuse in attendance and UConn has been in the same ballpark even though UConn has been FBS for only a decade. Clearly, both programs have substantial upside in football.

It was hard for the BE to get good bowls with stagnant fan bases at Syracuse and Pitt, a developing Rutgers, two newbies to FBS in UConn and USF, two schools with mediocre but improving football programs in Louisville and Cinci. Only WVU really offered what bowls wanted. A well established conference could afford to have a couple of development programs, but, unlike WVU, the "traditional" BE football programs, Pitt and Syracuse, were not strong enough programs to be attractive to bowls.

 

[itgoeslike]

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).

The ACC strategic needs are different than the Big Ten's strategic needs. Louisville was chosen for their likelihood as a Big12 target, for recent football success, and for political reasons (FSU and Clemson weren't crazy about adding a BB centric school). These reasons have nothing to do with the selection criteria for the Big Ten.

 

[upstater]

My numbers are from the USA Today DB . Your figures were from 2011 and I quoted the 2012 numbers.

As for why ACC passed on Rutgers initially, you have to remember that ACC's revenue model is different from the Big Ten and it's a basketball first conference.

Pitt was probably the best overall candidate out of the 3 for the ACC and then Syracuse got the nod over Rutgers due to Rutgers' craptastic BBall program. They probably would have taken Rutgers over Louisville after the Big Ten raided them for Maryland but the Big Ten beat them to it.

As for Kansas vs UConn - the Big Ten is currently confident that it can take on NYC w/o UConn so the Big Ten won't be making those type of comparisons when analyzing future expansion. If/when the Big Ten fails in taking NYC a few years from now perhaps they will reconsider.

1. Thanks for the link, for some reason the database here (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ollege-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1) only goes to 2011.

2. The ACC has to look at the future--they want an ACC netowrk. if they were only looking myopically at the next few years, then their decisions make sense.

3. I provided the link earlier in this thread that showed the first choices were UConn and Syracuse. Pitt fans even acknowledge that if you see some of their boards at the time.

4. I already went over the NYC/Conn. stuff. don't know why it doesn't get through.

 

[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.