Report: UConn Going To Big East For 2020-2021 Season

[WrenchFan69]

That's a lot of travel fro Gonzaga. Crazy for them to do that. Also, the NBE wanted to preserve integrity of the round robin. But an E-W split of:

EAST
Connecticut
Georgetown
Providence
St. John's
Seton Hall
Villanova

WEST
Butler
Creighton
DePaul
Gonzaga
Marquette
Xavier

Is a killer conference, though the history is loaded in the East.

New Big East v Old Big East just as much as West v East. If you can somehow get Gonzaga for basketball only you do this. Otherwise stay at 11.

 

[kansashusky]

Well, the travel angle will take a hit if this is true, but personally I would love to see Gonzaga.

I do wonder what's in it for Gonzaga though. They have the rep now and their coach is surely a big part of it, but playing cupcakes all season to create a gaudy record is just a free high seed into the NCAA for them.

Traveling across country is going to hurt that gaudy record badly.

Anyway, Gonzaga is in Spokane, not Seattle, so connecting flights all the way. I assume the same is true for Omaha and maybe Indianapolis.

So, half the league would be in Spokane, Omaha, Indiana, Chicago, Milwaukee and Cincinnati.

If they play 20 games, that's 10 games in our division, and 10 games against the west. That means 5 trips out west every season.

So--that's not the worst travel-wise.

So the way the coach put it to me was that Gonzaga has a finite amount of time to build their national brand before Few is done. They don't want to be a school that just had a great coach and dies because he retires. To do that they need to be in a better conference, so to them, the travel is worth it because they now have more credibility.

He also thought Gonzaga was looking for a tougher regular season schedule to get better for the tournament. They actually hurt themselves not playing a tough conference schedule.

 

[GoDAWGS]

Us leaving AAC football with no plan puts us at the mercy of others. Disadvantageously.

To everyone, I apologize for losing my cool earlier. Might just stick with Hockey East games here and there.

Being

Us being the worst team in college football history puts us at the mercy of others, are you seriously this delusional about the state of UConn football?

 

[B12]

Everyone here saw it, knows it. I'm not searching for it because you weren't here.

I totally accepted that UConn was not a good fit for the B12 at the time, but given the number of people in the state, and the affluence, and the fact that SNY was already skinning the hides off of viewers with not even a peep of complaint, this showed how much UConn was worth TV-wise.

That's about what I figured. I follow realignment closely. No school added value, which is why they did not expand. Sorry but if Houston, Cinci, or UConn added value to a p-5 they would be in one. They made the average value go down so nobody was added.

Big 12 gets just under 40 million per school, and no AAC schools have that much value.

Do you really think UConn is worth 40 million in the Big 12 but just settled for 5 million in the NBE?

If so WOW, that is delusion.

You must also think that the AAC is going to lose it's deal with ESPN and get a much lower payout over this, When in reality it probably makes both the AAC and NBE a stronger conference.

 

[B12]

Guessing you mean this one?
View attachment 44064

LOL, Good grief. That is hardly proof that UConn brings more than 30 million $ in value to the Big 12 TV deal.

 

[B12]

Well, the travel angle will take a hit if this is true, but personally I would love to see Gonzaga.

I do wonder what's in it for Gonzaga though. They have the rep now and their coach is surely a big part of it, but playing cupcakes all season to create a gaudy record is just a free high seed into the NCAA for them.

Traveling across country is going to hurt that gaudy record badly.

Anyway, Gonzaga is in Spokane, not Seattle, so connecting flights all the way. I assume the same is true for Omaha and maybe Indianapolis.

So, half the league would be in Spokane, Omaha, Indiana, Chicago, Milwaukee and Cincinnati.

If they play 20 games, that's 10 games in our division, and 10 games against the west. That means 5 trips out west every season.

So--that's not the worst travel-wise.

BYU makes more sense than Gonzaga. Direct flights to most NBE towns from SLC. Huge number of Mormons in those areas who will buy tickets.

BYU is a much bigger brand than Gonzaga in the grand scheme. And they almost got left in the WCC when Gonzaga considered leaving so there is bad blood.

 

[navery12]

LOL, Good grief. That is hardly proof that UConn brings more than 30 million $ in value to the Big 12 TV deal.

I don't care enough to read through pages of your back and forth. Just posting the picture he was referring to

 

[FromTheInside]

I don't know who you work for but I find it hard to take you seriously.

Here's why:

1. There was a presentation and analysis by a media firm hired by the B12 during their expansion push a few years ago that showed UConn was actually additive to the conference.
2. What held UConn back is that UConn was not culturally a B12 school (and bad football).
3. The ACC twice determined that UConn was additive to their bottom line when it initially chose UConn and Syracuse for expansion (before BC blackballed it) and then again a few years later, when UConn was "inked in" to use someone's famous words.

We have 3 instances here of UConn being a viable financial candidate for 2 different P5 conferences. It is very hard to believe an anonymous message board poster over a media/financial analysis (which I'm sure is still available on the web) and the ACC's people, who surely vetted UConn.

You may indeed be legit, but believing you would require my to believe these conferences did not do proper vetting of UConn.

1. There was no analysis by a media firm hired by the Big 12 that showed UConn was a net benefit to the conference, b/c we ARE the company that does analysis for the Big 12, ACC, SEC, and Big Ten. We don't do work for the Pac 12 or Big East. EVERY team analyzed failed to meet the minimum "value added" to extend a membership offer.

2. UConn isn't a fit for the Big 12, but cultural fit has been overlooked by every conference expanding. Utah & Colorado don't fit the Pac 12. Rutgers & Maryland don't fit the Big Ten. Missouri doesn't fit the SEC. Boston College doesn't fit the ACC.

3. You're right and wrong. The ACC absolutely felt UConn was a viable expansion candidate. However, it's not as straight forward as you believe it to be. The ACC wanted to expand b/c they wanted their own network. In order to get their own network, ESPN required (a) more inventory and (b) a signed Grant of Rights. So the ACC expanded with the belief that they'd make money by signing an all encompassing contract with ESPN (i.e. ESPN controlling all rights for all sports) with a conference network. As such, UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and West Virginia (the teams they vetted) weren't held to the same financial standard they would have had the goal not been to get the inventory required to land a conference network agreement with ESPN. Also, this was during the time the Big 12 was flirting with Clemson & Florida State through back channels. Though the Big 12 was unstable, they made significantly more than the ACC. That money + the flexibility of owning your own tier 3 rights was an attractive pitch. FSU's new President really wasn't interested, but key people at Clemson were. And, Miami reached out themselves to gauge the Big 12's interest in them (there was no interest from the Big 12). So the ACC wanted the Grant of Rights to lock everyone in. Point is, there were a lot of factors pushing the ACC to expand, secure Notre Dame, sign a Grant of Rights, protect against departures, and land a conference network.

As I mentioned above, though the ACC got what they wanted in terms of expansion, Notre Dame, etc, the conference network didn't work out. First, ESPN stonewalled them for 4 years before finally signing a developmental deal with a flexible launch date. ESPN then pushed that launch date out as far as was possible (3 years). So the money they thought they were going to get from expansion didn't materialize. And even now, with the ACC Network launching in 2 months, the ACC is still woefully behind the Big 12 in annual payout (and crazy far behind the SEC and Big Ten).

Now, the ACC has the benefit of hindsight. If expanding today, UConn wouldn't make the cut. Neither would Pitt, Boston College, et al. So it's not that the ACC didn't once think UConn was a financially viable addition, it's that today, they now have a different perspective and the benefit of hindsight. As I've said before, when expanding, any incoming member needs to add MORE $$$ to the conference's TV contract than they will receive once they are a full member. Otherwise, each current member will have to take a pay cut once the incoming member(s) becomes a full member. For the ACC to extend an invitation to UConn or any other program TODAY, that program would need to increase their ESPN contract by at least $30M/yr. The American Athletic's new contract will pay out approximately $84M/yr total. For UConn to be worth $30M+ per year, they would need to account for more than 35% of the AAC's new contract, with the other 11 teams accounting for less than 6% of the contract each. No doubt UConn is the most valuable or one of the most valuable members of the AAC. But they aren't accounting for 35% of the AAC's contract with the football program ranking in the bottom half of the conference in TV ratings. TV ratings are what drive the contract's values.

Anyway, I hope that adequately addresses your questions/concerns. Best wishes to you guys moving forward. Give it 3-4 years and you'll wonder why your leaders didn't make this move sooner rather than later. I can tell you, you absolutely will end up with more $$$ when the dust settles. That AAC contract is based on 2019 dollars, while the NBE contract is based on 2012 dollars. HUGE change in the market over the last 7 years.

 

[upstater]

Guessing you mean this one?
View attachment 44064

No, this was a .powerpoint prepared for and presented to B12 presidents. It was put together by the media firm they hired to make those assessments. Somehow, it got out into the public.

 

[upstater]

1. There was no analysis by a media firm hired by the Big 12 that showed UConn was a net benefit to the conference, b/c we ARE the company that does analysis for the Big 12, ACC, SEC, and Big Ten. We don't do work for the Pac 12 or Big East. EVERY team analyzed failed to meet the minimum "value added" to extend a membership offer.

2. UConn isn't a fit for the Big 12, but cultural fit has been overlooked by every conference expanding. Utah & Colorado don't fit the Pac 12. Rutgers & Maryland don't fit the Big Ten. Missouri doesn't fit the SEC. Boston College doesn't fit the ACC.

3. You're right and wrong. The ACC absolutely felt UConn was a viable expansion candidate. However, it's not as straight forward as you believe it to be. The ACC wanted to expand b/c they wanted their own network. In order to get their own network, ESPN required (a) more inventory and (b) a signed Grant of Rights. So the ACC expanded with the belief that they'd make money by signing an all encompassing contract with ESPN (i.e. ESPN controlling all rights for all sports) with a conference network. As such, UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and West Virginia (the teams they vetted) weren't held to the same financial standard they would have had the goal not been to get the inventory required to land a conference network agreement with ESPN. Also, this was during the time the Big 12 was flirting with Clemson & Florida State through back channels. Though the Big 12 was unstable, they made significantly more than the ACC. That money + the flexibility of owning your own tier 3 rights was an attractive pitch. FSU's new President really wasn't interested, but key people at Clemson were. And, Miami reached out themselves to gauge the Big 12's interest in them (there was no interest from the Big 12). So the ACC wanted the Grant of Rights to lock everyone in. Point is, there were a lot of factors pushing the ACC to expand, secure Notre Dame, sign a Grant of Rights, protect against departures, and land a conference network.

As I mentioned above, though the ACC got what they wanted in terms of expansion, Notre Dame, etc, the conference network didn't work out. First, ESPN stonewalled them for 4 years before finally signing a developmental deal with a flexible launch date. ESPN then pushed that launch date out as far as was possible (3 years). So the money they thought they were going to get from expansion didn't materialize. And even now, with the ACC Network launching in 2 months, the ACC is still woefully behind the Big 12 in annual payout (and crazy far behind the SEC and Big Ten).

Now, the ACC has the benefit of hindsight. If expanding today, UConn wouldn't make the cut. Neither would Pitt, Boston College, et al. So it's not that the ACC didn't once think UConn was a financially viable addition, it's that today, they now have a different perspective and the benefit of hindsight. As I've said before, when expanding, any incoming member needs to add MORE $$$ to the conference's TV contract than they will receive once they are a full member. Otherwise, each current member will have to take a pay cut once the incoming member(s) becomes a full member. For the ACC to extend an invitation to UConn or any other program TODAY, that program would need to increase their ESPN contract by at least $30M/yr. The American Athletic's new contract will pay out approximately $84M/yr total. For UConn to be worth $30M+ per year, they would need to account for more than 35% of the AAC's new contract, with the other 11 teams accounting for less than 6% of the contract each. No doubt UConn is the most valuable or one of the most valuable members of the AAC. But they aren't accounting for 35% of the AAC's contract with the football program ranking in the bottom half of the conference in TV ratings. TV ratings are what drive the contract's values.

Anyway, I hope that adequately addresses your questions/concerns. Best wishes to you guys moving forward. Give it 3-4 years and you'll wonder why your leaders didn't make this move sooner rather than later. I can tell you, you absolutely will end up with more $$$ when the dust settles. That AAC contract is based on 2019 dollars, while the NBE contract is based on 2012 dollars. HUGE change in the market over the last 7 years.

1. We saw the report here. What firm are you with?
2. Why don't Utah and Colorado fit the Pac-12? Ever been to U. Colorado? There are thousands of kids there from California. I struggle to think how this is a poor fit. It's close by, lots of California kids go there for school.
3. I struggle with your point about the ACC vs. the B12. We have here a conference that is up and down the heavily populated east coast in prime cities, and another conference that is on the sparsely populated plains. How could the value of the place with all the people be less? What kind of analysis are you doing?
4. At the time, the ACC was making $11m but that was a factor of their poor negotiations and infighting between everyone. The market in Connecticut speaks for itself versus the vast majority of that league. Only North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson and the Florida schools surpass it.
5. No one here is even discussing, and has discussed, the ACC adding UConn. No UConn fan believed that. Not last week, not the month before, etc. So it's irrelevant really.

 

[CL82]

1. There was no analysis by a media firm hired by the Big 12 that showed UConn was a net benefit to the conference, b/c we ARE the company that does analysis for the Big 12, ACC, SEC, and Big Ten. We don't do work for the Pac 12 or Big East. EVERY team analyzed failed to meet the minimum "value added" to extend a membership offer.

Yeah calling BS on this. You have shown yourself to be ignorant as to how ratings work, and wrong on the timeline on numerous issues. Profoundly so.

The ACC absolutely felt UConn was a viable expansion candidate. However, it's not as straight forward as you believe it to be. The ACC wanted to expand b/c they wanted their own network. In order to get their own network, ESPN required (a) more inventory and (b) a signed Grant of Rights. So the ACC expanded with the belief that they'd make money by signing an all encompassing contract with ESPN (i.e. ESPN controlling all rights for all sports) with a conference network. As such, UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and West Virginia (the teams they vetted) weren't held to the same financial standard they would have had the goal not been to get the inventory required to land a conference network agreement with ESPN.

Again your timing is off. You are conflating different expansion periods. If you actually had any expertise in the area whatsoever, you'd realize that.

Thank you for your interest in UConn Athletics.

 

[upstater]

That's about what I figured. I follow realignment closely. No school added value, which is why they did not expand. Sorry but if Houston, Cinci, or UConn added value to a p-5 they would be in one. They made the average value go down so nobody was added.

Big 12 gets just under 40 million per school, and no AAC schools have that much value.

Do you really think UConn is worth 40 million in the Big 12 but just settled for 5 million in the NBE?

If so WOW, that is delusion.

You must also think that the AAC is going to lose it's deal with ESPN and get a much lower payout over this, When in reality it probably makes both the AAC and NBE a stronger conference.

You clearly don't know how the TV money works.

I mean, under your reasoning, UConn was more valuable than all the ACC schools back when the BE earned more per school than the ACC.

But it doesn't work that way. It matters who you play. That's what drives ratings.

You're also looking at average payout for the B12, not individual school. Texas gets a lot more, we all know that. Not to mention that the payout is $34m average, not $40m.

Texas is the behemoth. Sure, you can average a big number when they take their huge cut.

Also, let's face it, when Texas leaves, what is Kansas St worth? Iowa St? These schools split a state which has fewer residents than Connecticut and a lot less affluence.

Not to mention the fact that even a school like WV didn't get a sniff from the ACC when the ACC was trying to grab UConn.

You guys can't have it both ways. You can't brag about the value of your schools (unless you're Texas or Oklahoma) when actual conferences have preferred schools like UConn, and UConn itself, over you when it came to media market.

 

[upstater]

Yeah calling BS on this. You have shown yourself to be ignorant as to how ratings work, and wrong on the timeline on numerous issues. Profoundly so.

Again your timing is off. You are conflating different expansion periods. If you actually had any expertise in the area whatsoever, you'd realize that.

Thank you for your interest in UConn Athletics.

The thread with the link that proves him wrong is on this very board from 2 or 3 years ago. I wish I had time to search for it, but I have to mow the lawn.

 

[olehead]

Georgetown and St Johns boards are ecstatic. Providence board is very confused/conflicted.

Chief cited as conclusive proof of the move on the Georgetown board:

View attachment 44026

Providence knows what time it is.

 

[olehead]

Blown out of proportion. Things have to take time. We're really 0-whatever with the ACC due to legacy programs. But to think the Big Ten has been interested in us and we run to the Big East is mind blowing.

Stating the obvious, if the fan base had some strong sense of a move to the Big Ten, that changes the game but where is this notion coming from?? Sounds like some ish.

 

[superjohn]

Stating the obvious, if the fan base had some strong sense of a move to the Big Ten, that changes the game but where is this notion coming from?? Sounds like some ish.

From his head.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Without reading all 46 pages, some quick thoughts:

1) A lot of the appeal of the Big East is backwards-looking, not forward-looking. You see it reflected in JC's comments ("was a special conference"). This is not the same conference we dominated in the 90's and 00's. By 2010, our main rivals were Pitt, Louisville, and Syracuse, who all left. Georgetown and St. John's are has-been programs.

2) That said, the slate of opponents, including Nova, Xavier, Seton Hall, Marquette, Butler, etc., is much more appealing than what we currently have in the AAC with ECU, Tulane, USF, etc. If we're going to fly half-way across the country, I'd rather face Creighton than Tulsa. We will miss out on decent rivalries with Cincy and burgeoning Memphis, but those are easily replaced.

3) Giving up on a chance of getting into the ACC or B1G -- our true peers in basketball -- is massively disappointing. Whether this was a worthwhile move depends on how much of a chance we would have had getting into a P5. If it was a 30% chance, we should have stuck it out in the AAC and rolled the dice. If it was a 5% chance, this is the right move. We'll probably never know.

4) I have a hard time caring about where football ends up. AAC, MAC, C-USA. Whatever. It doesn't make a difference.

 

[RyanFoul]

I think you better turn your ticket in.

He needs to get his money back at the door.

 

[olehead]

That's a lot of travel fro Gonzaga. Crazy for them to do that. Also, the NBE wanted to preserve integrity of the round robin. But an E-W split of:

EAST
Connecticut
Georgetown
Providence
St. John's
Seton Hall
Villanova

WEST
Butler
Creighton
DePaul
Gonzaga
Marquette
Xavier

Is a killer conference, though the history is loaded in the East.

Recent NCAA success lies in the West under this format.

 

[superjohn]

Without reading all 46 pages, some quick thoughts:

1) A lot of the appeal of the Big East is backwards-looking, not forward-looking. You see it reflected in JC's comments ("was a special conference"). This is not the same conference we dominated in the 90's and 00's. By 2010, our main rivals were Pitt, Louisville, and Syracuse, who all left. Georgetown and St. John's are has-been programs.

2) That said, the slate of opponents, including Nova, Xavier, Seton Hall, Marquette, Butler, etc., is much more appealing than what we currently have in the AAC with ECU, Tulane, USF, etc. If we're going to fly half-way across the country, I'd rather face Creighton than Tulsa. We will miss out on decent rivalries with Cincy and burgeoning Memphis, but those are easily replaced.

3) Giving up on a chance of getting into the ACC or B1G -- our true peers in basketball -- is massively disappointing. Whether this was a worthwhile move depends on how much of a chance we would have had getting into a P5. If it was a 30% chance, we should have stuck it out in the AAC and rolled the dice. If it was a 5% chance, this is the right move. We'll probably never know.

4) I have a hard time caring about where football ends up. AAC, MAC, C-USA. Whatever. It doesn't make a difference.

The Big East hasn't been the same Big East since about 1990, it is still an excellent basketball conference though. Big East died as a national power for all sports when they rejected Penn State in the early 80's.

 

[B12]

2. Why don't Utah and Colorado fit the Pac-12? Ever been to U. Colorado? There are thousands of kids there from California. I struggle to think how this is a poor fit. It's close by, lots of California kids go there for school.

Yep, Boulder is often referred to the Peoples Republic of Boulder in reference to California. Extremely liberal, perfect fit in the PAC. CU was always different than the Big 8 and 12 schools. They are right where they need to be.

Anyone who claims differently is not familiar with the situation.

 

[Adios]

The division amongst our "fans" is some of the most stupid behavior I've ever seen in collegiate athletics. And I say that as a UConn grad. Who cheers for success in all sports, as well as the school growing itself.

Big Ten fans who hang here are even blown away at our stupidity. I assume Big East fans know more about success in college athletics and development than Big Ten fans. Should have stayed the course. Other AAC schools have been paying the price to maintain the conference, as well.

We'll get to the "promised land" one day, but definitely not in my lifetime.

 

[McLovin]

Without reading all 46 pages, some quick thoughts:

1) A lot of the appeal of the Big East is backwards-looking, not forward-looking. You see it reflected in JC's comments ("was a special conference"). This is not the same conference we dominated in the 90's and 00's. By 2010, our main rivals were Pitt, Louisville, and Syracuse, who all left. Georgetown and St. John's are has-been programs.

2) That said, the slate of opponents, including Nova, Xavier, Seton Hall, Marquette, Butler, etc., is much more appealing than what we currently have in the AAC with ECU, Tulane, USF, etc. If we're going to fly half-way across the country, I'd rather face Creighton than Tulsa. We will miss out on decent rivalries with Cincy and burgeoning Memphis, but those are easily replaced.

3) Giving up on a chance of getting into the ACC or B1G -- our true peers in basketball -- is massively disappointing. Whether this was a worthwhile move depends on how much of a chance we would have had getting into a P5. If it was a 30% chance, we should have stuck it out in the AAC and rolled the dice. If it was a 5% chance, this is the right move. We'll probably never know.

4) I have a hard time caring about where football ends up. AAC, MAC, C-USA. Whatever. It doesn't make a difference.

Point 3 is the key point here.

 

[Horatio]

As a traumatized fan, I refuse to believe this until I see a press conference