UConn needs a plan | Page 3 | The Boneyard

UConn needs a plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
nelsonmuntz said:
I would rather UConn athletics do something crazy and die fighting, then keep the status quo and die on its knees.
Expand ...
I would too.

There are manylevels of "do something crazy" with various levels of risk. There are smart people at UConn and other places trying to come up with creative solutions. Saying "let's try something crazy" isn't a plan, though.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Why on earth would any league pay UConn anywhere near a full share of revenue when UConn is only making $2MM a year now?
Expand ...

Also, lest you try to use our subsidy as rationale for our competitiveness with other schools, if you remove the subsidies UConn still outpaced the next closest G5 program in revenue (still Cincy) by over $15 Million and is right there with RU, Washington State and Utah in the rankings.

With Subsidy included:

48. UConn, $72.1 Million
49. Rutgers, $70.5 Million
50. Colorado, $67.8 Million
51. Oregon State, $64.8 Million
52. Washington State, $54.1 Million
53. Cincy, $52.5 Million

With Subsidies removed:

48. Oregon State, $58.3 Million
49. Colorado, $55.6 Million
50. Utah, $53.6 Million
51. Washington State, $48.1 Million
52. Rutgers, $47.2 Million
53. UConn, $44.7 Million
54, Cincy, $29.4 Million

Point is we are a P5 program regardless of where we are playing at the moment. To deviate from what we are doing right now is madness and will only put us at a competitive disadvantage in the long run.
 
NYUConn said:
Because, despite making peanuts in TV money, UConn generated $72 Million in revenue last year and was in the black. They generated more revenue than 5 current P5 programs and outpaced the second closest G5 program (Cincy) by $20 million.

Not to mention we are top-to-bottom one of the most successful and competitive Athletic Departments in the nation.

This idea that because we are making peanuts in TV money that we aren't a valuable property is insane and shows you either have a rudimentary understanding of the economics behind college athletics or are simply being willfully ignorant to prove your own misguided point.
Expand ...

$28 million of that revenue was university subsidy. In other words, it doesn't count.
 
NYUConn said:
Also, lest you try to use our subsidy as rationale for our competitiveness with other schools, if you remove the subsidies UConn still outpaced the next closest G5 program in revenue (still Cincy) by over $15 Million and is right there with RU, Washington State and Utah in the rankings.

With Subsidy included:

48. UConn, $72.1 Million
49. Rutgers, $70.5 Million
50. Colorado, $67.8 Million
51. Oregon State, $64.8 Million
52. Washington State, $54.1 Million
53. Cincy, $52.5 Million

With Subsidies removed:

48. Oregon State, $58.3 Million
49. Colorado, $55.6 Million
50. Utah, $53.6 Million
51. Washington State, $48.1 Million
52. Rutgers, $47.2 Million
53. UConn, $44.7 Million
54, Cincy, $29.4 Million

Point is we are a P5 program regardless of where we are playing at the moment. To deviate from what we are doing right now is madness and will only put us at a competitive disadvantage in the long run.
Expand ...

Some of that $44MM is from exit fees, and will be running off soon.

That said, i agree with your general point. Why shouldn't UConn make more in TV money if it is capable of generating this much revenue? There is clearly demand for the product, yet UConn gives it away.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Some of that $44MM is from exit fees, and will be running off soon.

That said, i agree with your general point. Why shouldn't UConn make more in TV money if it is capable of generating this much revenue? There is clearly demand for the product, yet UConn gives it away.
Expand ...

To your first point, of course subsidies count. Why wouldn't and shouldn't they? For starters nearly everyone in the P5 or G5 has a subsidy of some sort. These are state universities who serve the public interest. If the people of the state elect representatives who believe in these athletic programs and see fit to fund them to a certain level, why shouldn't that count towards revenue generated? When a state announces it's financials annually the money they take in from taxes is cited as revenue, so why should we all of a sudden categorize taxpayer money for UConn sports as something different?

Also, If you look at the American 990 that was posted elsewhere on the board, the amount of money the conference took in total from exit fees and entry fees in 2013 was just over $7 Million. Which means at best UConn is being subsidized to the tune of 1-2 million per year in exit fees at this point, so the bulk of that $44 million is earned revenue from our athletic department.

And why is UConn "giving it away" I invite you to look at my post on page 1 as to why your pipe dream plan of streaming UConn sports on Netflix is completely unworkable.
 
NYUConn said:
And why is UConn "giving it away" I invite you to look at my post on page 1 as to why your pipe dream plan of streaming UConn sports on Netflix is completely unworkable.
Expand ...

Because if UConn votes against something and loses the vote 13-1, they're giving it away.

#nelson'd
 
.-.
Exit 4 said:
Plan is rather simple. Remain in the AAC through the mid 2020s when hopefully there will be another serious round of CRA where we either upgrade our status (B1G or ACC expansion) or if the P5 narrows, we collect better conference mates to enhance the AAC. That's it. Nothing more to it.

As for funding, UConn may have to drop a couple sports in the years ahead. Facilities will no longer be improved at the same pace, coaching staffs will be paid less and we'll have more admin churn. That all said, we still can probably run a decent program even on a skinny G5 budget.
Expand ...
There are only so many sports that we can drop, but I think cross country is the first to go. It is not an olympic sport. The Big 5 (basketball, football, baseball, soccer, hockey) should all stay as well as the olympic sports (swimming & diving and track & field). Golf and tennis I think we should keep for now but reassess later.
 
There are ways to reduce spending. A) Stop buying motor scooters for athletes. B) Cut sports we can't afford to have (namely cross country and maybe golf and tennis). There are ways to increase revenue. A) Win in football which results in more season ticket holders and more revenue. B) Schedule even tougher in basketball. Instead of 7 brand name opponents out of 13 in the non-conference for basketball, we need a minumum of 9 every year (with the other four being UMass, URI, Fairfield, Quinnipica, or Ivys).
 
Exit 4 said:
We will run it like the university of Buffalo, Akron, Toledo, Tulsa and all the others who play at our level and have so for dozens of years w/o substantive tv money. They all do it and we will too. It boils down to coaches (salaries and head count) and facilities and we already have the facilities.
Expand ...
I mean you're post isn't off base but lumping us in with those schools makes me want to yarf.
 
UConn is going to feel the consequences of not addressing the revenue issue even if we are invited to the Big 12. The buy in is going to be enormous. Boise figured out a way to get a better deal, why can't we? I think about 2/3's of the AAC would be better off with no conference TV contract and selling their content on their own. In 3 pages, no one has been able to defend the AAC deal.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
UConn is going to feel the consequences of not addressing the revenue issue even if we are invited to the Big 12. The buy in is going to be enormous. Boise figured out a way to get a better deal, why can't we? I think about 2/3's of the AAC would be better off with no conference TV contract and selling their content on their own. In 3 pages, no one has been able to defend the AAC deal.
Expand ...
That's because no one is trying to defend it. UConn is getting hosed by the deal. In 3 pages and as many years, you haven't explained how to get out of the deal.
 
.-.
Hathaway and then Pasqualoni was a nightmare. We all know it. They are gone and the wreckage from them had a tangible effect on where we are today. UConn got screwed over a few ways in the CR game. I think the only thing we can expect UConn to do is to keep building the football brand, stay at the high level our other sports are at and continue to rise academically. Still, there is no guarantee. But that doesn't mean we bow our head and let the slide into irrelevance start now. No, we keep pushing. We have to keep looking for the break to come. I think it is defeatist to look at our situation as simply waiting for a conference to increase our rights fees from 2M to 25M. Clearly, most metrics point to UConn as a valuable media property. Perception says our FB does not move the needle. That can change if we build on Diaco's success last year. Can't quit. We have to keep pushing forward.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
UConn is going to feel the consequences of not addressing the revenue issue even if we are invited to the Big 12. The buy in is going to be enormous. Boise figured out a way to get a better deal, why can't we? I think about 2/3's of the AAC would be better off with no conference TV contract and selling their content on their own. In 3 pages, no one has been able to defend the AAC deal.
Expand ...

Are you just trolling?
Boise "got a better deal" because they switched conferences! It's not that hard.

So, in order to execute on your awesome comparative "plan", one of the following would have to happen:

1) The AAC would have to fold like the WAC did (I think i just got moist)
2) UConn would have to switch conferences (which would impact revenue further given GOR)
3) Unicorns. Lots of unicorns.

Unless you know of a way to break either our contract with the AAC, or the AAC TV contract in general, we will continue to ask WTF your point is.

Maybe a mod can just change the thread title to "Nelson needs a plan"
 
pepband99 said:
Are you just trolling?
Boise "got a better deal" because they switched conferences! It's not that hard.

So, in order to execute on your awesome comparative "plan", one of the following would have to happen:

1) The AAC would have to fold like the WAC did (I think i just got moist)
2) UConn would have to switch conferences (which would impact revenue further given GOR)
3) Unicorns. Lots of unicorns.

Unless you know of a way to break either our contract with the AAC, or the AAC TV contract in general, we will continue to ask WTF your point is.

Maybe a mod can just change the thread title to "Nelson needs a plan"
Expand ...

That's the thing people seem to forget in this situation: Boise LEFT the MWC to go to the Big East. They got enticed BACK to the MWC with this sweetheart deal.

It's not like Boise shrewdly negotiated this deal within the confines of an existing agreement within the MWC. They negotiated it as a way to come back in - which incidentally also cost them a couple of million in BE exit fees, so how much are they really making under this new deal?
 
pepband99 said:
Are you just trolling?
Boise "got a better deal" because they switched conferences! It's not that hard.

So, in order to execute on your awesome comparative "plan", one of the following would have to happen:

1) The AAC would have to fold like the WAC did (I think i just got moist)
2) UConn would have to switch conferences (which would impact revenue further given GOR)
3) Unicorns. Lots of unicorns.

Unless you know of a way to break either our contract with the AAC, or the AAC TV contract in general, we will continue to ask WTF your point is.

Maybe a mod can just change the thread title to "Nelson needs a plan"
Expand ...

If you think UConn is only worth $2MM a year, then why do you think any other league would ever invite UConn to join it?
 
NYUConn said:
You already posted this yesterday and people spent 1.5 pages answering you: UConn needs a plan

Maybe sit the next couple of plays out?
Expand ...

You didn't answer that question at all.

The logic here is stay the course until someone rescues us. The reality is that on the current course, UConn athletics will not exist in any form worth rescuing by 2025. Only the densest people don't see where the entire market is going: online streaming and school/conference control of their own content, instead of network control of content.

You are arguing for staying in the old, failing model for less money, instead of simply doing the obvious and embracing the future. Got it.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
You didn't answer that question at all.

The logic here is stay the course until someone rescues us. The reality is that on the current course, UConn athletics will not exist in any form worth rescuing by 2025. Only the densest people don't see where the entire market is going: online streaming and school/conference control of their own content, instead of network control of content.

You are arguing for staying in the old, failing model for less money, instead of simply doing the obvious and embracing the future. Got it.
Expand ...

This is how I am imagining you posting on this board.

anigif_enhanced-buzz-15951-1377626720-4.gif
 
nelsonmuntz said:
You didn't answer that question at all.

The logic here is stay the course until someone rescues us. The reality is that on the current course, UConn athletics will not exist in any form worth rescuing by 2025. Only the densest people don't see where the entire market is going: online streaming and school/conference control of their own content, instead of network control of content.

You are arguing for staying in the old, failing model for less money, instead of simply doing the obvious and embracing the future. Got it.
Expand ...

You keep contradicting yourself.

The "logic here" is stay the course. Period. It's not "until someone rescues us" exclusively, it's until we have some contractual leverage. The same "online streaming and school/conference control of their own content" solutions simply aren't available now, and won't be for a few years, if ever.

Give us a workable option, and it might be interesting. Otherwise, you're just a click baiting troll.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
If you think UConn is only worth $2MM a year, then why do you think any other league would ever invite UConn to join it?
Expand ...


way to not address the post. again. yawn.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
You didn't answer that question at all.

The logic here is stay the course until someone rescues us. The reality is that on the current course, UConn athletics will not exist in any form worth rescuing by 2025. Only the densest people don't see where the entire market is going: online streaming and school/conference control of their own content, instead of network control of content.

You are arguing for staying in the old, failing model for less money, instead of simply doing the obvious and embracing the future. Got it.
Expand ...
Again - how does UConn extricate itself from the current TV deal?
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,680
Messages
4,534,720
Members
10,408
Latest member
Bigo-Nel


Top Bottom