Restructuring Division 1

[CTFAN4LIFE]

It goes without saying that ESPN is the enemy of UConn athletics and has gone out of its way to keep UConn down. They did it with the ACC more than a decade ago and more recently with the Big 12.

I don't think it's that cut and dried. While the TV networks have a very loud voice with its conference partners, ultimately the conference members/school presidents cast the final yay/nay vote. From all that was reported, ESPN actually was in favor of UConn going to the Big12 and was agreeing to pay full share but Fox was not (which makes sense because it would have greatly devalued Big East basketball).

 

[CL82]

I never said that the state HAD to give ESPN tax breaks or it would leave, just that ESPN has the ultimate upper hand in negotiations, other states/countries are always wooing companies to move in, and by extension that it behooves the state to provide tax breaks to retain ESPN. That is the economic reality/environment.

Honestly, you need to read your own posts more carefully.

Traditionally tax breaks are given to incentivize investment within a community. Thus an entity looking to expand, and having a choice of several different sites might receive a tax break as part of the incentive choose site X over sight Y. The notion that tax breaks are a continuing extortion over a state is a fallacy, particularly when an institution would have to give up billions of dollars of infrastructure to move. Believe me, ESPN isn't "going into a negotiation" with the state and saying we want tax breaks or we will abandon billions of dollars of infrastructure just to spite you. They'd be laughed out of the room.

 

[CL82]

I don't think it's that cute and dried. While the TV networks have a very loud voice with its conference partners, ultimately the conference members/school presidents cast the final yay/nay vote. From all that was reported, ESPN actually was in favor of UConn going to the Big12 and was agreeing to pay full share but Fox was not (which makes sense because it would have greatly devalued Big East basketball).

Presuming that everyone acts in their own economic best interest, then whomever is writing the checks makes the decisions. If ESPN is prepared to pay a sufficient amount, such that Connecticut's share of conference revenue is paid for in full, plus a material amount of money. In addition to that would go to each conference member, they would have the votes. It really is that simple. The problem is that math gets more difficult as conference paths increase.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Miami? Are you serious? It would be cheaper to buy every ESPN employee a new car than it would be to move the facilities to Miami. LOL.

Stop - did I say they would move more to Miami? Nope.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Honestly, you need to read your own posts more carefully.

Traditionally tax breaks are given to incentivize investment within a community. Thus an entity looking to expand, and having a choice of several different sites might receive a tax break as part of the incentive choose site X over sight Y. The notion that tax breaks are a continuing extortion over a state is a fallacy, particularly when an institution would have to give up billions of dollars of infrastructure to move. Believe me, ESPN isn't "going into a negotiation" with the state and saying we want tax breaks or we will abandon billions of dollars of infrastructure just to spite you. They'd be laughed out of the room.

GE leveraged a 2015 $1.5 billion tax hike in Connecticut to spark a competitive bidding war between states. CEO Jeff Immelt issued a public ultimatum, forcing Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy to hold emergency sessions to walk back corporate tax increases, while GE simultaneously held "closed-door" negotiations with over 40 potential locations.
The Negotiating Outcomes
Massachusetts: Won the bid by offering a $145 million incentive package ($120 million in state grants and $25 million in city property tax relief). They also provided "concierge services," including expedited infrastructure upgrades and relocation assistance.
Connecticut: Despite offering to match incentives and roll back tax changes, they lost the headquarters. GE cited the state's "unpredictable" fiscal climate and a lack of the "digital talent ecosystem" found in Boston.
GE ultimately moved its headquarters to Boston's Seaport District in 2016.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Presuming that everyone acts in their own economic best interest, then whomever is writing the checks makes the decisions. If ESPN is prepared to pay a sufficient amount, such that Connecticut's share of conference revenue is paid for in full, plus a material amount of money. In addition to that would go to each conference member, they would have the votes. It really is that simple. The problem is that math gets more difficult as conference paths increase.

The school presidents do have the ultimate say. They get input from media partners. Often that input is within a dialogue where the media partner says if you expand by 2 teams here is our list of say 4 or 5 schools that we would like. The schools take that input and the assessment moves forward and then decisions are made votes are taken and the conference does or doesn't take on new schools. While the conference has to get media partner buy-in, it's not totally driven by the media partner. He'll, it was widely reported that ESPN was pissed that the ACC brought on SMU and Calford.

 

[buddy]

The school presidents do have the ultimate say. They get input from media partners. Often that input is within a dialogue where the media partner says if you expand by 2 teams here is our list of say 4 or 5 schools that we would like. The schools take that input and the assessment moves forward and then decisions are made votes are taken and the conference does or doesn't take on new schools. While the conference has to get media partner buy-in, it's not totally driven by the media partner. He'll, it was widely reported that ESPN was pissed that the ACC brought on SMU and Calford.

ESPN controls the money. They can easily control who is in and who is out. SMU is playing for free, I believe. If ESPN insisted, Calford could have been stopped by ESPN saying they wouldn't pay for them. Yet they didn't. That would change the presidents minds. You can twist and turn it anyway you want, but ESPN has never supported UConn.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

ESPN controls the money. They can easily control who is in and who is out. SMU is playing for free, I believe. If ESPN insisted, Calford could have been stopped by ESPN saying they wouldn't pay for them. Yet they didn't. That would change the presidents minds. You can twist and turn it anyway you want, but ESPN has never supported UConn.

Please use facts instead of your thoughts... Again, you are disregarding reports that said the ACC went against the wishes of ESPN by adding SMU and Calford. The ACC did it because they wanted to add Texas and California carriage revenue for the ACC Network. ESPN did not have veto power and was not happy. It influenced ESPN's hardball stance on the look-in they held and executed with regards to the ESPN-ACC extension.

 

[CL82]

Please use facts instead of your thoughts... Again, you are disregarding reports that said the ACC went against the wishes of ESPN by adding SMU and Calford. The ACC did it because they wanted to add Texas and California carriage revenue for the ACC Network. ESPN did not have veto power and was not happy. It influenced ESPN's hardball stance on the look-in they held and executed with regards to the ESPN-ACC extension.

You do realize that ESPN chose to extend its contract with the ACC after the addition of Cal, stamford and SMU, right? It doesn't really jibe with your contention that they were opposed to the expansion.

"Please use facts instead of your thoughts." 😏

 

[buddy]

You do realize that ESPN chose to extend its contract with the ACC after the addition of Cal, stamford and SMU, right? It doesn't really jibe with your contention that they were opposed to the expansion.

"Please use facts instead of your thoughts." 😏

Thank you!

 

[CL82]

Thank you!

Lol, you don't need me to white knight you buddy.

 

[buddy]

Lol, you don't need me to white knight you buddy.

Just nice to see someone else on almost the same page. ESPN has the money and can control who a conference admits or denies.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

You do realize that ESPN chose to extend its contract with the ACC after the addition of Cal, stamford and SMU, right? It doesn't really jibe with your contention that they were opposed to the expansion.

"Please use facts instead of your thoughts." 😏

They were opposed to it but still renewed. Both are true.

 

[uconnbill]

My guess Division 1 will not include all the teams that are currently in SEC, BIG, ACC, B12. For example I could see the group not including teams like BC, Wake Forest, Northwestern, Rutgers, Syracuse, Cal, etc.

Disagree as the government, especially those in the states you are excluding. That will not happen.

 

[CL82]

They were opposed to it but still renewed. Both are true.

So do you have anything whatsoever except for "Your thoughts" that says they were opposed to the additions? That was the standard you were holding Buddy to, right?

 

[CL82]

Just nice to see someone else on almost the same page. ESPN has the money and can control who a conference admits or denies.

Pretty much. After the Big East got shived, it became where the power lies.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

So do you have anything whatsoever except for "Your thoughts" that says they were opposed to the additions? That was the standard you were holding Buddy to, right?

Yes... Per the ACC/ESPN agreement, the ACC had the power to add teams and the initial response by ESPN was cold to SMU/Calford and FSU, UNC, NC State, and Clemson were opposed. They negotiated it such that the three new schools got full ACC Network revenue but only partial shares from ESPN (SMU none at all and 30% for Calford for the first 7 years).

You keep saying ESPN is the judge and jury in a unilateral way but it's just not true. The conferences and their respective media partners are just that - partners. Neither holds all the cards and they know that they cannot bully the other party. One isn't successful without the other benefitting. They compromise with each other so as to create win-wins.

 

[CL82]

Yes... Per the ACC/ESPN agreement, the ACC had the power to add teams and the initial response by ESPN was cold to SMU/Calford and FSU, UNC, NC State, and Clemson were opposed. They negotiated it such that the three new schools got full ACC Network revenue but only partial shares from ESPN (SMU none at all and 30% for Calford for the first 7 years).

You keep saying ESPN is the judge and jury in a unilateral way but it's just not true. The conferences and their respective media partners are just that - partners. Neither holds all the cards and they know that they cannot bully the other party. One isn't successful without the other benefitting. They compromise with each other so as to create win-wins.

So I've asked you quite a few times what's your evidence that ESPN oppose the addition of California Stanford and SMU and every time you've evaded the question. You were very critical of @buddy because you felt he was only "giving his thoughts" rather than "the facts", but how is what you're doing any different?

So do you have anything to support your contention that ESPN opposed adding those teams or are we done?

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

So I've asked you quite a few times what's your evidence that ESPN oppose the addition of California Stanford and SMU and every time you've evaded the question. You were very critical of @buddy because you felt he was only "giving his thoughts" rather than "the facts", but how is what you're doing any different?

So do you have anything to support your contention that ESPN opposed adding those teams or are we done?

I guess you're too lazy, so here you go (and note the part about conference autonomy and ESPN not wanting to dictate):

Reports indicating ESPN was hesitant about Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) expansion stemmed from concerns over added costs and the value of new members, as ESPN aimed to avoid paying higher, prorated fees for schools that might not significantly increase viewership. Despite rumors, ESPN ultimately exercised its option to extend its media rights contract with the ACC through 2036.
Key points regarding the reports of ESPN and ACC expansion:
Financial Concerns: Reports suggested ESPN was not enthusiastic about adding more schools at a prorated price, as they were focused on maintaining profitability rather than expanding the conference's footprint.
Expansion Autonomy: Contrary to some narratives that ESPN drives all realignment, ESPN executives previously indicated they were careful not to be part of the expansion discussion, leaving those decisions to the conferences.
Contradictory Rumors: While some rumors in early 2024 suggested ESPN might not renew its contract due to expansion, by January 2025, it was confirmed that ESPN exercised its option to extend the partnership through 2036.
Stability Over Expansion: The focus shifted from expansion to stability, with the extension intended to keep the league secure amid legal challenges from Florida State and Clemson.
Shift in Strategy: The extension was partly driven by the ACC's commitment to creating better "marquee" matchups in football and men's basketball, utilizing top brands like Notre Dame.
Ultimately, the, reports that ESPN did not want expansion appear to have been based on financial caution, which was resolved by the long-term, stable extension of their existing media rights partnership.

 

[CL82]

I guess you're too lazy, so here you go (and note the part about conference autonomy and ESPN not wanting to dictate):

Reports indicating ESPN was hesitant about Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) expansion stemmed from concerns over added costs and the value of new members, as ESPN aimed to avoid paying higher, prorated fees for schools that might not significantly increase viewership. Despite rumors, ESPN ultimately exercised its option to extend its media rights contract with the ACC through 2036.
Key points regarding the reports of ESPN and ACC expansion:
Financial Concerns: Reports suggested ESPN was not enthusiastic about adding more schools at a prorated price, as they were focused on maintaining profitability rather than expanding the conference's footprint.
Expansion Autonomy: Contrary to some narratives that ESPN drives all realignment, ESPN executives previously indicated they were careful not to be part of the expansion discussion, leaving those decisions to the conferences.
Contradictory Rumors: While some rumors in early 2024 suggested ESPN might not renew its contract due to expansion, by January 2025, it was confirmed that ESPN exercised its option to extend the partnership through 2036.
Stability Over Expansion: The focus shifted from expansion to stability, with the extension intended to keep the league secure amid legal challenges from Florida State and Clemson.
Shift in Strategy: The extension was partly driven by the ACC's commitment to creating better "marquee" matchups in football and men's basketball, utilizing top brands like Notre Dame.
Ultimately, the, reports that ESPN did not want expansion appear to have been based on financial caution, which was resolved by the long-term, stable extension of their existing media rights partnership.

So you are living and dying on an AI summary of "contradictory rumors"? Really? That's it You really should read before you post.

Now see if you can actually find an actual objection by ESPN. We'll wait.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

So you are living and dying on an AI summary of "contradictory rumors"? Really? That's it You really should read before you post.

Now see if you can actually find an actual objection by ESPN. We'll wait.

I'm done with you on this. I bring actual reported info and you ignore it. You bring just opinion.

 

[CL82]

I'm done with you on this. I bring actual reported info and you ignore it. You bring just opinion.

No, you brought in an AI summary of rumors which conflicted with each other. Again, it's probably best if you actually read what AI generates before you post it.

 

[buddy]

ESPN has directly prevented UConn from admission to the Big 12 and the ACC. That is the fact.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

UConn should be doing everything it can to push football to split from the NCAA. That is one of the most realistic paths to a better conference situation.