Realignment revisited - The beginning of the end for Big East football (ESPN - Adelson) | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Realignment revisited - The beginning of the end for Big East football (ESPN - Adelson)

Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,804
Reaction Score
8,958
ESPN engineered both raids on the Big East because it thought it could save a few bucks by carving out the "most attractive" teams and putting them in the ACC so ESPN would not have to pay two conferences full price. It backfired badly on ESPN. Looking back on the 16 team Big East from 2011, where did everyone go:

ACC: Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Notre Dame (hoops plus some football)
Big 10: Rutgers
Big 12: WVU
New Big East (C7): Villanova, Seton Hall, Georgetown, Providence, St. Johns, Depaul, Marquette, eventually UConn

Left behind: Cincinnati, USF, UConn football

The raid worked out great for all but USF, Cincinnati, and UConn football. And of course ESPN, who ended up paying more money for less content than they would have gotten if they had just paid a fair contract to the Big East.
ESPN destroyed the old Big East. Same thing is happening now. It would be the ultimate karma to see ACC ripped to pieces by B1G and the SEC. The raid is coming, and it is just a matter of time. The only thing saving the ACC right now is that GOR, and the fact that ESPN got ACC content cheap relatively vs SEC and the B1G. Teams like BCU are just leaches, so they will be in danger when the SEC and B1G start raiding.
 

RU

Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction Score
8
The funny part out of all of this is the impact of markets is diminished with streaming.
In the mean time the Big Ten is paying its members $54 million per year! Thank you Rutgers, thank you Maryland. The new B1G contract in 2024/2025 is forecast to be even better. So I don't get how streaming is hurting conference payouts.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,804
Reaction Score
8,958
In the mean time the Big Ten is paying its members $54 million per year! Thank you Rutgers, thank you Maryland. The new B1G contract in 2024/2025 is forecast to be even better. So I don't get how streaming is hurting conference payouts.
Streaming companies like Amazon, Hulu, Facebook, Google etc will change this model. These tech companies might not care about conferences. They will be focusing on individual teams since streaming made it possible to charge for content based on individual subscriptions. Teams with huge fanbases will benefit while teams with small fanbases will be left behind.

It is just a matter of time before teams like Clemson don't want to share their money with teams like BCU and Wake. This is why you see SEC going after super conference now since these bluebloods provide each other with good content just by playing each other. It won't be long before those guys drop leeches like Vandy and Miss St. I can see a future where more teams going independent signing individual deals with streaming companies vs. being in conferences.
 

RU

Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction Score
8
Agree that if true those schools will go independent because most conferences, ACC, B1G, SEC, P12 all share revenue. I could see Penn St leave the fold of its own volition but I doubt Ohio St, Michigan and the rest of the Big Ten would split. Once you're in the conference, you own a share of it (BTN) and you're in for good. There's more to the B1G than sports.
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Messages
2,054
Reaction Score
10,934
In the mean time the Big Ten is paying its members $54 million per year! Thank you Rutgers, thank you Maryland. The new B1G contract in 2024/2025 is forecast to be even better. So I don't get how streaming is hurting conference payouts.
Diminished. It isnt the future. It is a declining share of the total. Still making money, but the next deal won’t be as big.

I don’t think Espn is happy with any of its deals except the SEC.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
4,925
Reaction Score
19,071
In the mean time the Big Ten is paying its members $54 million per year! Thank you Rutgers, thank you Maryland. The new B1G contract in 2024/2025 is forecast to be even better. So I don't get how streaming is hurting conference payouts.
The conference network linear subscriber numbers are/will be in decline due to cable cord cutting. Rutgers brought the NYC market due to cable carriage policies, but will those people buy a streaming cable network? Definitely not in the same numbers.

So, the LT question is will conference networks be able to switch cable bundle subs to streaming? With the SEC adding Texas and Oklahoma, I would argue the SEC will be in a strong position to manage the transition.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,804
Reaction Score
8,958
The conference network linear subscriber numbers are/will be in decline due to cable cord cutting. Rutgers brought the NYC market due to cable carriage policies, but will those people buy a streaming cable network? Definitely not in the same numbers.

So, the LT question is will conference networks be able to switch cable bundle subs to streaming? With the SEC adding Texas and Oklahoma, I would argue the SEC will be in a strong position to manage the transition.
The future will be with the streaming model. Schools with huge fanbase willing to pay the monthly subscription fees still be valuable. At some point, B1G network won't be able to get guaranteed money in markets just being on cable, which is why getting RU and Maryland might be a mistake looking back.

SEC getting Texas and OU is huge boost to the SEC network. ESPN will be able to add bunch of paid subscribers to ESPN+ with this move. How will B1G react? The only logical move is to raid the PAC-12 to get CA schools plus Oregon and Washington. Fox will need to boost its app using B1G content if it wants to compete with ESPN+.

The next logical move for some schools will be going to indy if they can earn more money partnering with tech companies like Amazon, Hulu, Facebook etc.vs. staying in a conference. Big schools will form partnerships with other big schools to set up something like the current NFL model. I can see schools like Texas doing just that.

No matter how we spin it, college football is transitioning into a NFL model in the long run whether we like it or not. I think the Uconn model is actually a preview of the future where schools stay in conferences for Olympic sports while going indy for football and/or basketball. The only issue with Uconn is we need to get a much much much better football only media deal as an indy vs what we got now.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,515
Reaction Score
206,309
At some point, B1G network won't be able to get guaranteed money in markets just being on cable, which is why getting RU and Maryland might be a mistake looking back.
How so? It was a cash grab. When you have the opportunity to pick up $30 million + for a decade or more, why would you walk away from that? I also think it enhances their brand value by associating them with the B1G.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,070
Reaction Score
11,661
Just throwing this out there: the streaming services stand to make huge $$$ if (when) consolidation occurs. Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etal started out as "friends & family" plans. My wife pays for Amazon Prime, & one of my sons pays for the Netflix & Disney bundles. Already there is word that the services are taking steps to discard the multiple user bundles. With properties such as the SEC or BTN the streaming services will only offer a la carte plans to ensure maximum profit margins.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
22,198
Reaction Score
4,346
Re#2 - I think Syracuse was a Plaintiff also, but our A.G. led the charge. Gene DeFilippo of BC made a point of this. (see below - article written a year before we got snubbed in the 2011 ACC expansion.) The lawsuit was 18 years ago, but it still haunts us...


Bad Blood, Old Lawsuits Could Threaten Future of UConn Football​

By Brian F. on May 1, 2010, 8:52pm EDT 11

 TWEET SHARE PIN
It has been nearly seven years since Boston College left the Big East for the ACC, yet bad blood still remains between BC and UConn. Could this bad blood - stemming from the bitter divorce between New England’s two Division I football programs - threaten the future of Connecticut Huskies football?
Despite numerous calls by UConn to bury the hatchet and renew a New England football rivalry, Boston College Athletic Director Gene DeFilippo has refused to return the Huskies’ call. Connecticut head coach Randy Edsall, a former BC assistant coach under Tom Coughlin, has stated several times that he would love to play BC, saying that such a game would be great for New England. DeFilippo maintains that he won’t schedule the Huskies so long as he’s AD.
During a live chat hosted in 2006, DeFilippo unequivocally stated "There are no plans to play UConn in football or in basketball any time in the future."
It is clear that so long as Gene DeFilippo and school president William Leahy remain at BC, the Eagles and Huskies won’t play each other in either football or basketball. But just how did BC become so hostile towards its neighbor to the south?
Rewind the tape back to 2003. On October 12, the presidents of the 11 program Atlantic Coast Conference, having already raided the Big East by adding Miami and Virginia Tech, voted to add Boston College as the league’s twelfth member. BC’s decision to leave the Big East for the ACC was met with much disappointment from the Big East programs left behind.
One program in particular, the University of Connecticut, decided that mere disappointment wasn’t enough. Led by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the remaining Big East member schools - Rutgers, Pittsburgh, West Virginia and Connecticut - brought suit against the ACC, BC and Miami for improper disclosure of confidential information and conspiring to weaken the Big East.
At the time, the University of Connecticut had made critical investments in their school’s football program to support their move to college football’s top division in 2000. These investments included a $91.2 million dollar investment in Rentschler Field, a new 40,000 seat, off-campus football stadium. Blumenthal claimed that BC and Miami’s jump to the ACC would result in a write-down on these investments and a loss of TV broadcast revenue.
The lawsuit against the ACC was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, while BC was eventually exonerated by a declaratory judgment from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Even though the lawsuits were dismissed in court, a secret out-of-court settlement was later reached. It was disclosed that each remaining Big East school received $1 million, after the Hartford Courant filed a Freedom of Information request to obtain the settlement documents. The $1 million figure hardly covered the plaintiff’s collective expenses incurred from over two years of litigation.

While Blumenthal’s lawsuit against Boston College, Miami and the ACC never went to trial, his decision to bring suit could have a profound impact on the future of UConn athletics.
Fast forward to present day. The Big Ten Conference has been shopping the idea of conference expansion for several months, a move that could trigger a tectonic shift in college football’s conference alignment. What first started as idle offseason speculation has quickly snowballed into serious consideration on the part of the Big Ten to expand the conference from anywhere from one to five programs.
The problem for UConn is that, even under the most ambitious Big Ten Conference expansion proposals - 5 team expansion to a 16 team mega-conference - UConn hasn’t made the Big Ten’s short list.
In fact, if the Big Ten decides that expanding to 14 or 16 teams is in their best interest, this likely means the death of the Big East as a football conference. High on the Big Ten’s expansion wish list are Rutgers, Pittsburgh and Syracuse. If all three of these Big East programs decide to make the move to the Big Ten, UConn could quickly find themselves without a home in college football.
In order to protect their football investment, UConn would be left with precious few options in terms of joining another conference. Big East football would likely cease to exist, and the only remaining BCS conferences that represent any sort of geographical fit would be the ACC or the SEC. Less desirable options would include joining Conference USA, the MAC or becoming a football independent. However, joining a lesser conference such as Conference USA or the MAC would prove costly to UConn, as these avenues would preclude the Huskies from profiting from the financial windfall that comes from being a member of one of college football’s six BCS conferences.
It’s entirely plausible that in a scenario where the Big Ten poaches three current Big East programs, UConn could find itself going back to the ACC, hat in hand, asking to join the conference they once sued.
When the ACC decided to expand back in 2003, the league required that two-thirds of the school presidents vote in favor of expansion. If UConn decided to pursue joining the ACC, it seems unlikely that they would garner the necessary votes to be admitted to the conference; especially with the bad blood between BC and UConn stemming from the Blumenthal lawsuit.
Without a BCS conference home, the long-term viability of BC’s neighboring New England football program would be very much in doubt. Blumenthal’s decision to sue the ACC could ultimately cost the UConn football program much more than the legal fees incurred in the original lawsuit.


Re: #3 Herbst had great SEC connections. I didn't think she was particularly connected to "Tobacco Road". In any event, Jurich went all out and LV got the nod. I think we could have been more proactive then. (like "hair on fire" pro-active...)

Re: Football

How many independents have really made it? N.D. and?

Re: BB

Well, we did it for hoops. I hope it works out!
BTW, don't get me wrong, the AAC was a conference of "misfit toys" for us. Just shows you how


difficult the scene is right now.

Good God, do you really assume everything everybody tells you in life is true? You must be wonderful to discuss politics with.

Fact -- BC didn't want us in the Big East for competition in shared television and recruiting markets. Fact -- Presidents of universities aren't idiots. They understand that Dick Blumenthal was lawyer for UConn, and was merely the face of the litigation because all of the clients in his group -- including WVU and Louisville and Pitt WHOSE PRESIDENT WAS IN CHARGE OF THE COMMITTEE THAT DECIDED TO SUE -- decided Connecticut was the best place to bring suit. Fact -- if you are expecting BC to say "we decided not to use the excuse that it's about Blumenthal, but instead were honest and damn the antitrust laws, we don't want UConn in our conference" than you are stupid.

We are not in the ACC today because our inclusion wasn't viewed favorably by enough schools. It's not because university presidents had their little bitty feelings hurt because a lawyer on the other side of a lawsuit was mean to them.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,515
Reaction Score
206,309
(Posted in a different thread yesterday, but I'll stick it in here too.)

The whole BCU/UConn thing comes up enough that a remedial lesson might be helpful. Here's the link to the original Boston Globe article. This is quote of the relevant part:

Enough was enough, and a master plan was devised to bring ACC basketball back to the top. The only real target was the Big East, for geographical and competitive reasons.

The first target was Syracuse, which had been on the original ACC expansion list eight years ago. The Orangemen, like BC, were disappointed when they didn’t make the final cut, passed over for Virginia Tech and Miami. Under coach Jim Boeheim, Syracuse was clearly one of the elite basketball teams in the country and would boost the ACC’s stature in that sport.

The second target was Connecticut, which was part of the Northeast footprint the ACC wanted, and was coming off the daily double of a BCS bid in football and a championship in men’s basketball (the third for Jim Calhoun). In addition, the women’s basketball program under Geno Auriemma had established itself as the most dominant in the sport over the past 15 years.

While Syracuse presented no problem, UConn did - to BC,
which was still fuming over what it perceived to be vitriolic comments made when BC was finally invited to join the ACC and started competing in 2005. UConn and Pittsburgh filed a lawsuit against BC, and Calhoun made comments about never playing BC again. DeFilippo does not deny that BC opposed the inclusion of UConn. “We didn’t want them in,’’ he said. “It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.’’

Turning to Pittsburgh, BC officials argued that Pittsburgh, with a stronger tradition in football, as well as a long-established - though dormant - rivalry with the Eagles, would be a better fit.

Although BC and UConn are the only FBS schools in New England, BC officials were reluctant to give UConn any more credence. Membership in the ACC would do that. UConn had already reached milestones that BC had not - including national championships in men’s and women’s basketball and a BCS bid in football.

Duke and North Carolina, who have thrived as rivals and neighbors, didn’t quite understand the passion behind BC’s argument, but Pittsburgh seemed like a reasonable alternative. Under Jamie Dixon, Pittsburgh had established itself as a national power in men’s basketball, so the Tobacco Road contingent didn’t argue. Calls were made and invitations were accepted.


Veteran Big East observers could only shake their heads at the irony. Pittsburgh, led by president Mark Nordenberg, was one of BC’s strongest critics when it left the Big East. It blasted BC when it left after being rejected by the ACC the first time and then regrouping with the other Big East schools to formulate a battle plan for survival, with Nordenberg describing BC as the “fox in the henhouse.’’
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
3,121
Reaction Score
9,571
(Posted in a different thread yesterday, but I'll stick it in here too.)

The whole BCU/UConn thing comes up enough that a remedial lesson might be helpful. Here's the link to the original Boston Globe article. This is quote of the relevant part:

Enough was enough, and a master plan was devised to bring ACC basketball back to the top. The only real target was the Big East, for geographical and competitive reasons.

The first target was Syracuse, which had been on the original ACC expansion list eight years ago. The Orangemen, like BC, were disappointed when they didn’t make the final cut, passed over for Virginia Tech and Miami. Under coach Jim Boeheim, Syracuse was clearly one of the elite basketball teams in the country and would boost the ACC’s stature in that sport.

The second target was Connecticut, which was part of the Northeast footprint the ACC wanted, and was coming off the daily double of a BCS bid in football and a championship in men’s basketball (the third for Jim Calhoun). In addition, the women’s basketball program under Geno Auriemma had established itself as the most dominant in the sport over the past 15 years.

While Syracuse presented no problem, UConn did - to BC,
which was still fuming over what it perceived to be vitriolic comments made when BC was finally invited to join the ACC and started competing in 2005. UConn and Pittsburgh filed a lawsuit against BC, and Calhoun made comments about never playing BC again. DeFilippo does not deny that BC opposed the inclusion of UConn. “We didn’t want them in,’’ he said. “It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.’’

Turning to Pittsburgh, BC officials argued that Pittsburgh, with a stronger tradition in football, as well as a long-established - though dormant - rivalry with the Eagles, would be a better fit.

Although BC and UConn are the only FBS schools in New England, BC officials were reluctant to give UConn any more credence. Membership in the ACC would do that. UConn had already reached milestones that BC had not - including national championships in men’s and women’s basketball and a BCS bid in football.

Duke and North Carolina, who have thrived as rivals and neighbors, didn’t quite understand the passion behind BC’s argument, but Pittsburgh seemed like a reasonable alternative. Under Jamie Dixon, Pittsburgh had established itself as a national power in men’s basketball, so the Tobacco Road contingent didn’t argue. Calls were made and invitations were accepted.


Veteran Big East observers could only shake their heads at the irony. Pittsburgh, led by president Mark Nordenberg, was one of BC’s strongest critics when it left the Big East. It blasted BC when it left after being rejected by the ACC the first time and then regrouping with the other Big East schools to formulate a battle plan for survival, with Nordenberg describing BC as the “fox in the henhouse.’’
Thanks. This is a good post and much needed refresher for me.
Now I am going to light my hair on fire knowing UConn was #2 for ACC expansion. Damn I really wish Blumenthal didn’t push that lawsuit which amounted to nothing but an obstacle for UConn getting the ACC invite.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,515
Reaction Score
206,309
Thanks. This is a good post and much needed refresher for me.
Now I am going to light my hair on fire knowing UConn was #2 for ACC expansion. Damn I really wish Blumenthal didn’t push that lawsuit which amounted to nothing but an obstacle for UConn getting the ACC invite.
It kept Syracuse in the BE which was needed and it got each of the Plaintiffs $1M. I actually think Jim Calhoun saying he would not play BC was probably a mistake in hindsight. But in the end, they didn’t want competition. I’m not sure anything we did would have changed that.
 

Online statistics

Members online
225
Guests online
3,088
Total visitors
3,313

Forum statistics

Threads
155,802
Messages
4,032,093
Members
9,865
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom