So what's next?

[DoctorWho85]

If the Big XII doesn't expand, UConn's best remaining option is staying put due to neither the ACC or B1G expanding in the foreseeable future. This isn't going to be a death sentence to UCONN'S athletic department, it'll just be a little tight. We've all lived like that at one time. But when the Big XII inevitably implodes when Texas, Texas Tech, OU and OSU, UConn along with some other AAC members can combined with the lefts overs and be a pretty damn good conference. Better than the ACC at bare minimum

 

[gioff23]

This entire thread is a giant

Click, bait, nothing more.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

That part is potentially realistic - but there are plenty of schools in the AAC where the tier 3 value is
just about zero.

Piecing together conferences of the schools you want to invite to a football only confederation not so much.

I want the football only conference I described for two reasons:

1) more and better regional matchups which will be important to selling to outlets like NESN and SNY. It also reduces costs and travel times. If UConn has to choose between playing Tulane and Tulsa or UMass and Temple, i am choosing UMass and Temple.

2) Better potential for Top 25 matchups later in the year. This is simple math of pulling from a bigger group of schools.

 

[MASSconn]

This entire thread is a giant

Click, bait, nothing more.

How on earth is this click bait? Well we have another member of the head in their a$# crew. This is a serious issue that should be discussed

 

[Jae-VT]

Here is the loose concept of an idea I posted about 5 months ago. Let's start with the AAC and MWC. Split it into 6 pods instead of 4 divisions.

Southeast: USF, UCF, ECU, Memphis
Southwest: Houston, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU
Northeast: UConn, Temple, Navy, Cincinnati

Pacific: Hawaii, SDSU, Fresno, SJSU
Mountain: Nevada, UNLV, Boise, Utah State
High Plains: New Mexico, Colorado State, Wyoming, Air Force

Play own pod every year. Play 1 team from other adjacent pod every year. Then set up tiers for the entire grouping, and play similar strata teams for 2 or 3 games every year. Or just play own pod plus 4 strata games. This works better if BYU, Army and UMass are in it, but I don't want to burn a lot of brain cells on the pods, just want to talk about the idea.

So let's say UConn is good (Diaco learns what that thing with numbers that is counting down is for), UConn's schedule could be:

Pod: Temple, Navy, Cincinnati - these become our rivalry games
SMU
USF
Strata Games: BYU, Houston, SDSU
4 OOC

If UConn was not as good, those strata games may be ECU, Colorado State and Nevada. In that case, we are no worse off than we are now.

You could even leave the last two dates of the season open for each team, 1 home, 1 away, that would be filled with the strata matchups once they were set, say 11/1 every season.

If you take this scheduling philosophy, you could theoretically pull in all the G5 conferences. Unless UConn sucked, it would never play a Sun Belt school, but if a Sun Belt school had a monster year, it could provide a good late season matchup of two teams receiving votes or maybe even ranked. This would also provide a Top 15 G5 school a way to get a late season win over a ranked opponent, and give them a better chance at a playoff bid.

This combined affiliation would sell maybe 6 games per team as Tier 1 and Tier 2 content, and leave half the schedule to the individual schools to sell on their own.

Both the AAC and MW would have to forego hosting a conference championship game if they were to go to a pod system. This might, theoretically, allow another G5 conference that does host a conference championship game to surpass a team from the AAC and MW in the final standings of the CFP rankings since they could always point to the 13th data point.

 

[TRest]

I want the football only conference I described for two reasons:

1) more and better regional matchups which will be important to selling to outlets like NESN and SNY. It also reduces costs and travel times. If UConn has to choose between playing Tulane and Tulsa or UMass and Temple, i am choosing UMass and Temple.

2) Better potential for Top 25 matchups later in the year. This is simple math of pulling from a bigger group of schools.

If we really want yearly matches with UMass, we can make it happen. There aren't any other regional teams that are available other than Army.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

If we really want yearly matches with UMass, we can make it happen. There aren't any other regional teams that are available other than Army.

Temple, UMass, Army, Navy. and maybe stretching as far as Cincinnati. Most of the AAC schedule is worthless to UConn as annual matchups, so we don't need them on our schedule every year.

 

[uconNYC]

Temple, UMass, Army, Navy. and maybe stretching as far as Cincinnati. Most of the AAC schedule is worthless to UConn as annual matchups, so we don't need them on our schedule every year.

Wouldn't mind a scheduling alliance with Temple, UMass, Army, Navy and maybe BYU. Would need to find 7 more games each season. 4 would come via FBS opponents early in the season. 1 FCS. and then 2 from MAC/SunBelt

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I'd rather play nearly all of the AAC schools besides Army and UMass.

I'd prefer Army and UMass over a Maine or Towson, but I think most AAC teams aside from Tulsa and Tulane are usually a) better and b) generate more interest.

 

[Yawkey Way]

I'd prefer Army and UMass over a Maine or Towson, but I think most AAC teams aside from Tulsa and Tulane are usually a) better and b) generate more interest.

A Umass- Uconn football game each year will generate" more interest" throughout New England than a Uconn- Cincy ( or Houston ) game will, imo.... especially within the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

 

[Hoophound]

Tulsa deserves respect. I agree, they are small time but they put pretty good teams on the field and court and have strong academics. We aren't a match because we've crossed paths so few times over the years and they aren't a big name in any sport, but they are solid. Tulane is terrible in sports but they were once in a major conference and are also good academically. I really can't say I'd rather play UMass than either of those schools. The only real benefit I see in playing UMass is to do it at the Rent so a few Mass residents would buy some tickets. Still, I'm really not sure if they'd sell more than a couple thousand.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

A Umass- Uconn football game each year will generate" more interest" throughout New England than a Uconn- Cincy ( or Houston ) game will, imo.... especially within the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

UMass does absolutely nothing to enhance our position In CR
I suspect the bus will come around again and having a viable football program is the only currently available ticket .
The AAC is our best football option by far if intact. I suspect you might even get other Quality programs if you wanted them . I can see this conference being a deal at a minimum of double or maximum of 5 times it's current contract. That puts it in a category all by itself.
Schools will be clamoring to join.
The only three programs in the Mountain West of any interest are ,CSU,and maybe New Mexico . But too a degree your media partner will dictate expansion or status quo.

 

[Vuce]

A Umass- Uconn football game each year will generate" more interest" throughout New England than a Uconn- Cincy ( or Houston ) game will, imo.... especially within the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Not in CT it won't. Not even close.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

A Umass- Uconn football game each year will generate" more interest" throughout New England than a Uconn- Cincy ( or Houston ) game will, imo.... especially within the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Seriously? Why not get Vermont to reinstate football and resurrect the Yankee Conference? Geez, that's how UConn got in this mess . . . by aiming for quaint and regional rather than national.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I could never understand the distain for Tulane
They might be the most prestigious school in the AAC academically, AAU , the highest ratio of applicants to openings in the country. They also have a substantial endowment and have the oldest and in some aspects one of the most prestigious medical schools in the South. They also have a long history of competition on the big stage The SEC and Big 12 schools are fallback schools for a typical Tulane applicant.
Think of them as the AAC's Nortwestern or SEC's Vandy.
Having a Tulane increases the prestige of the conference.
If UConn had their :
AAU status ,
Endowment
And many years Football at the highest level
I suspect the CR board would be non existent.

 

[kyleslamb]

I truly believe UConn is in the Big Ten or ACC in 2025. If everyone agrees the Big 12 is on its death bed, then it stands to reason we're heading to four power conference. That means somewhere between 16-20 schools in four leagues. At that point, there's no way UConn is left out one of those two leagues by then. I know that's still several years away and it might suck in the meantime, but I just can't see any way you folks would be left out if the Big 12 goes under.

 

[whaler11]

The disdain for Tulane is simple. They suck at everything and they are so unpopular they didn't even have a radio deal for their basketball team when they joined the conference.

If you are hanging onto the fantasy that UConn is ever going to be in the Big 10 - God Bless.

With all the questions on revenue why would the new P4 grow the total number of teams. They will be throwing Wake Forest and Boston College overboard before they let new schools into the club.

 

[Redding Husky]

Maybe so. But Here are the schools I think each league would rate ahead of UConn.

ACC: Texas. Oklahoma.
B1G: Texas, Oklahoma. Kansas. ISU is a close call.
Pac: all of them, but Pac wouldn't want anyone but: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas maybe TCU. It would take TT if that meant getting UT.
SEC. all of them, but SEC wouldn't want anyone but: Texas, Oklahoma, OK State, KU, K-State maybe TCU.

TT goes P5 only if linked to Texas.
Baylor is hosed.
ISU, OK State, TCU and K State are probably hosed.

There is no feeding frenzy ready to happen for those 7 schools.

Texas and Oklahoma will leave eventually. That will set off a chain of events with dozens of potential results. And picking the "common sense" outcome will inevitably be wrong.

 

[buddy]

I truly believe UConn is in the Big Ten or ACC in 2025. If everyone agrees the Big 12 is on its death bed, then it stands to reason we're heading to four power conference. That means somewhere between 16-20 schools in four leagues. At that point, there's no way UConn is left out one of those two leagues by then. I know that's still several years away and it might suck in the meantime, but I just can't see any way you folks would be left out if the Big 12 goes under.

There needs to be a grassroots effort to remove the BTN from sports packages in New England, and NYC. No need for anyone to pay for something they never watch. Then, and only then, the B1G might look at UConn. Otherwise forget it. That they even tolerate Rutgers shows that the B1G administrators are bigger whores than anyone could imagine.

 

[dayooper]

There needs to be a grassroots effort to remove the BTN from sports packages in New England, and NYC. No need for anyone to pay for something they never watch. Then, and only then, the B1G might look at UConn. Otherwise forget it. That they even tolerate Rutgers shows that the B1G administrators are bigger whores than anyone could imagine.

Really? You actually think that the grassroots effort will be able to break the contract with the cable companies? The only thing you can do is cancel your cable and stream or try one of the skinny bundles the satillite companies are promoting. Making a big stink about the issue surely will "force" the Big10 into taking UConn. It is a sure fire way to get what you want, just ask Blumenthal how forcing the issue worked for UConn.

As far as Rutgers goes, they are in the NYC DMA (the only FBS school that is) and they give plenty of money to the Big10. If you call that whoring, then go right a head. The Big10 Presidents couldn't give two poops about their athletic prowess. All they care about is the money and exposure in NYC. Rutgers give them both.

While I try to be empathetic toward your position, it gets really hard when I see crap like this.

 

[buddy]

Really? You actually think that the grassroots effort will be able to break the contract with the cable companies? The only thing you can do is cancel your cable and stream or try one of the skinny bundles the satillite companies are promoting. Making a big stink about the issue surely will "force" the Big10 into taking UConn. It is a sure fire way to get what you want, just ask Blumenthal how forcing the issue worked for UConn.

As far as Rutgers goes, they are in the NYC DMA (the only FBS school that is) and they give plenty of money to the Big10. If you call that whoring, then go right a head. The Big10 Presidents couldn't give two poops about their athletic prowess. All they care about is the money and exposure in NYC. Rutgers give them both.

While I try to be empathetic toward your position, it gets really hard when I see crap like this.

It has been stated that the only reason Rutgers is in the B1G is because of the many cable boxes that they bring. I really would love a survey of how many homes in the NYC DMA and well as the rest of New England and New York State actually watch the BTN. People are paying for a channel they don't watch or need. Why am I forced to pay for the BTN to get a sports package if I am not interested in any its programming? If UConn was in the B1G, then I would pay for it gladly. Without such, there is absolutely no need. If one wishes to make a statement, talk with your wallet. Zip it and people will take notice. Cable companies will take notice. Athletic conferences will take notice. Do you think I would pay to watch the ACC Network as well. No. Things will then change quickly. No one forcing any issue here and no one is making a big stink. It is time for the oppressed to rise up. I am just saying that certain programming shouldn't be forced upon someone as part of a sports package if it is never watched. I am venturing to say that the BTN is rarely if ever watched in the NYC DMA as well as the rest of New York State and New England. And yes, the B1G whored themselves out when they took Rutgers.

 

[JeepCSC]

Pretty sure only caring about money is the urban dictionary definition of whoring.

 

[huskymedic]

Big10 Presidents couldn't give two poops about their athletic prowess. All they care about is the money and exposure in NYC. Rutgers give them both.

^^^ This ^^^

http://deadspin.com/the-big-ten-got-exactly-what-it-wanted-in-rutgers-1787628419

>>By signing on Rutgers, the conference’s lucrative television network was able to lock down deals with Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cablevision, bringing the Big Ten Network, which is majority owned by Fox, to basic packages in the New York and New Jersey markets. The expansion to the Tri-Statearea, as well as Washington, D.C., was tagged with a $1 subscription fee for customers—up from the normal 44 cents. With Maryland and Rutgers games being broadcast in the two markets, viewership increased from 52 million to 60 million in a year’s time, per the Baltimore Sun. More viewers, more ads—going for $4,000 per 30-second slot—and ultimately, more money. The conference’s payout from its Cablevision deal alone was up nearly $18 million in 2015, totaling $31.7 million, according to AdAge.<<

>>All that really matters to the Big Ten and its network is that the Scarlet Knights replaced an FCS or weak cross-conference foe on the schedules of Big Ten members, meaning the league’s top teams can register another guaranteed victory, only now it counts as a Power Five conference win and mutes the voices of those bemoaning the pay-small-schools-for-wins system. Would league officials prefer Rutgers was good and strong and an actual Division I team? Yes. But they also recognize that preference is not necessary to deem the move a success.<<

 

[kyleslamb]

It has been stated that the only reason Rutgers is in the B1G is because of the many cable boxes that they bring. I really would love a survey of how many homes in the NYC DMA and well as the rest of New England and New York State actually watch the BTN. People are paying for a channel they don't watch or need. Why am I forced to pay for the BTN to get a sports package if I am not interested in any its programming? If UConn was in the B1G, then I would pay for it gladly. Without such, there is absolutely no need. If one wishes to make a statement, talk with your wallet. Zip it and people will take notice. Cable companies will take notice. Athletic conferences will take notice. Do you think I would pay to watch the ACC Network as well. No. Things will then change quickly. No one forcing any issue here and no one is making a big stink. It is time for the oppressed to rise up. I am just saying that certain programming shouldn't be forced upon someone as part of a sports package if it is never watched. I am venturing to say that the BTN is rarely if ever watched in the NYC DMA as well as the rest of New York State and New England. And yes, the B1G whored themselves out when they took Rutgers.

The average household well over 100 channels in their cable package. Everyone is literally paying for dozens of channels they don't watch or need. It's an easy argument to say that most sports fans watch the BTN more than the many cooking channels, news networks, reality stations, etc., that is littered throughout the dial. I'm in Ohio and I promise I'm watching the Pac-12 network a lot more than most of the other 200+ stations I have on my cable package.

 

[billybud]

Yep...you get about 100 channels hawking jewelry, vacuums, diet plans, etc...a handful of religious channels, Cspan, etc...and maybe a 16 channels that you actually watch.

 

[buddy]

The average household well over 100 channels in their cable package. Everyone is literally paying for dozens of channels they don't watch or need. It's an easy argument to say that most sports fans watch the BTN more than the many cooking channels, news networks, reality stations, etc., that is littered throughout the dial. I'm in Ohio and I promise I'm watching the Pac-12 network a lot more than most of the other 200+ stations I have on my cable package.

I don't watch either the BTN or PAC-12 network, but I am forced to have them if I want to watch other sports. I believe for all of us it is time to tell cable companies that we only want to pay for what we watch. I don't want my dollars supporting the P5 Conferences that are excluding UConn.

 

[kyleslamb]

I don't watch either the BTN or PAC-12 network, but I am forced to have them if I want to watch other sports. I believe for all of us it is time to tell cable companies that we only want to pay for what we watch. I don't want my dollars supporting the P5 Conferences that are excluding UConn.

Should others join you because you have a problem with paying for channels you don't watch or should they join you because you don't want your $1 a year going to the Big Ten until/unless UConn joins?

 

[dayooper]

If one wishes to make a statement, talk with your wallet. Zip it and people will take notice. Cable companies will take notice. Athletic conferences will take notice.

Assuming you are in CT, you are payining ten cents a month. At that ten cents a month that you are paying, no one notices either way. If you are in the NYC DMA, than you are paying about 80 cents a month.

No one forcing any issue here and no one is making a big stink. It is time for the oppressed to rise up. I am just saying that certain programming shouldn't be forced upon someone as part of a sports package if it is never watched. I am venturing to say that the BTN is rarely if ever watched in the NYC DMA as well as the rest of New York State and New England.

This happens all the time. It's why you are able to afford ESPN at $8 a month. People who watch Lifetime, Game Show Network and the cable news channels are subsidized by the sports channels and vice versa. It's how the game works. The skinny bundles and streaming will cost more money in the long run, but the "oppressed" people will have their way. Failure to see the long game by these companies will cost you and, more importantly me more money. I like my cable and internet rate. If we all went to all streaming, a new cable network would have to be developed or they would go with wireless. Right now, there are few data limits for hard wired connections (from the street to house, not in house wifi), but they have pretty hard limits for wireless. Once they have to upgrade the hard wire connections, your cost will skyrocket. Go to wireless? Hard data caps and pay by the gig.

I hope we come to a day when oppressed people are those that have to pay for the BTN but don't watch it.

 

[buddy]

Should others join you because you have a problem with paying for channels you don't watch or should they join you because you don't want your $1 a year going to the Big Ten until/unless UConn joins?

I have a problem with paying for channels that I don't watch. I will gladly pay for any conference network that UConn would be a part of. When SNY started broadcasting UConn games, people clamored for that station to be added. When ESPNU came about, people in CT clamored for it to be added to watch UConn. So, what makes you all think that people here want to pay for the BTN or future ACCN if UConn is not involved? It is one thing to electively select a station and another to have it forced upon one as part of a sports package.

 

[buddy]

Assuming you are in CT, you are payining ten cents a month. At that ten cents a month that you are paying, no one notices either way. If you are in the NYC DMA, than you are paying about 80 cents a month.

Multiple the 80 cents a month by the millions of cable subscribers in the NYC DMA who don't watch or want the BTN as it is a substantial amount. Add advertising losses as well, and the ballgame changes. I ask again, does anyone know how many people on average in the NYC DMA watch the BTN on a regular basis?