UNC wants to increase their athletic revenue by 40%

[WestCoastHusky]

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/04/unc-ad-i-want-to-increase-athletic.html

They are at $70M right now, which is about where we are. They want to go to $100M a year. In the ACC? Not gonna happen. What does this mean? Who knows but I know two conferences where they can get that kind of money. Hopefully, this is start of something soon.

 

[B1GEast]

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/04/unc-ad-i-want-to-increase-athletic.html

They are at $70M right now, which is about where we are. They want to go to $100M a year. In the ACC? Not gonna happen. What does this mean? Who knows but I know two conferences where they can get that kind of money. Hopefully, this is start of something soon.

Very interesting article, it appears UNC may try to become the Texas of the ACC, if I were Swofford, I'd be a little worried. They have no intention of going to the B1G, the SEC is a possibility, but I think they want to be more like Texas and maybe hijack the ACC. We shall see.

 

[whaler11]

It's just more evidence that the entire NCAA model will implode at some point. The idea improved ticket sales will generate that revenue? They were like 100,000 tickets short of capacity in football and m basketball. At $30 a head that covers 10% of what they want.

When I lived locally women's basketball games were free to walk in.

 

[HuskyFan16]

Well.. it is a Tuesday.

 

[Fishy]

UNC has options.

1) Merge with a Middle-Eastern oil power. UNC? UAE? Love connection?
2) Raise ticket prices to men's basketball games from $32 to $3,250 per game. Also, sell heroine.
3) Murder NC State and take their revenue. Then do the same to Wake Forest.
4) If Notre Dame is a guide, every Big East school the ACC takes raises their revenue by $1M per team. Raid the Big East for 300 more schools.
5) Win PowerBall. Annually.

Or, 6) Just call Jim Delaney.

 

[djct1999]

UNC has options.

1) Merge with a Middle-Eastern oil power. UNC? UAE? Love connection?
2) Raise ticket prices to men's basketball games from $32 to $3,250 per game. Also, sell heroine.
3) Murder NC State and take their revenue. Then do the same to Wake Forest.
4) If Notre Dame is a guide, every Big East school the ACC takes raises their revenue by $1M per team. Raid the Big East for 300 more schools.
5) Win PowerBall. Annually.

Or, 6) Just call Jim Delaney.

7) Recognize you are the backbone of the conference and highly coveted, use that leverage into bullying Swofford into granting you each and every one of your demands, generate your desired revenue, all while remaining in the conference you really want to be in.

 

[UConn Dan]

"There are growth opportunities." Read: We going to the highest bidder biatches!

 

[SubbaBub]

Message has two purposes. One to float the possibility of leaving the ACC. The second is a cry for attention in order to entice a better deal from the other ACC schools.

Expect to hear a similar song from FSU.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[uconndogs]

Yeah, I agree. The ACC has a major issue and I don't think the likes of Virginia, Clemson, FSU are going to sit around and wonder if UNC is going to start flexxing their muscle. I think the SEC or BiG will end up with some of these folks at some point.

That all said, college sports is really ducked. The NCAA is toothless and we're heading right down the path of a hand full of schools being minor league programs for the NFL and NBA. And, frankly, at that point why not just watch the NFL and NBA?

 

[geordi]

. And, frankly, at that point why not just watch the NFL and NBA?

Well for starters, the NBA stinks.

 

[uconndogs]

Well for starters, the NBA stinks.

Agree. And if there end up being 40-50 college programs playing at the highest levels, college basketball will look just like that only with less overall talent.

My point is simply that college football and basketball is heading down the path of haves and have nots. A limited number of programs, say anywhere from 40 to 60, may end up grabbing all the loot and using it to attract all the talent and say duck you to the NCAA. At that point, for me anyway, college athletics loses most of it's appeal and I will work on my handicap (which needs a lot of work btw).

 

[CAHUSKY]

Agree. And if there end up being 40-50 college programs playing at the highest levels, college basketball will look just like that only with less overall talent.

My point is simply that college football and basketball is heading down the path of haves and have nots. A limited number of programs, say anywhere from 40 to 60, may end up grabbing all the loot and using it to attract all the talent and say duck you to the NCAA. At that point, for me anyway, college athletics loses most of it's appeal and I will work on my handicap (which needs a lot of work btw).

Im of the same mind. Ive always loved the pomp and circumstance of college sports; the traditional rivalries, the crazy students in the crowd, the bands, etc. etc. It looks like the professionalization of college sports is well under way and might cause me to lose interest as well.

 

[John Greene]

From conversations with the two guys I know connected with the SEC I get the impression that UNC is very attractive to them. They believe they have the top sport brand, not college sport brand but overall sport brand, in every state except the recently admitted TX and MO. Even in FL they believe that UF trumps all of the pro teams in the state and is head and shoulders above FSU, etc. They believe (right or wrong) that in the SEC A&M will pass UT in the future. Missou was a hard choice for them since they see little chance of it becoming the dominant brand. In their view UNC would give them the top brand in a rapidly growing state.

 

[B1GEast]

From conversations with the two guys I know connected with the SEC I get the impression that UNC is very attractive to them. They believe they have the top sport brand, not college sport brand but overall sport brand, in every state except the recently admitted TX and MO. Even in FL they believe that UF trumps all of the pro teams in the state and is head and shoulders above FSU, etc. They believe (right or wrong) that in the SEC A&M will pass UT in the future. Missou was a hard choice for them since they see little chance of it becoming the dominant brand. In their view UNC would give them the top brand in a rapidly growing state.

John, the question is, can they live without dook.

 

[John Greene]

John, the question is, can they live without dook.

If your question is can UNC live without Duke, on that I have no idea. I do know that the SEC certainly can. In their opinion a package deal of Duke and UNC would not be attractive. What is funny is they see Duke and UConn in a similar light when it comes to perceived shortcoming while ignoring the fact that UNC is in the same position in many respects with the exception of being the top brand in a good market. That makes UNC different in their eyes.

They see Duke and UCONN as BB first schools with no history of success in FB. They also believe that neither will be able to develop above average FB programs. To them a FB first school can have success in BB but not the other way around. One opinion was 'the next time a BB school builds a top FB program will be the first time'. Another comment was 'why do we need another Kentucky we already have the original'.

On the market side they believe both have a 'nice following' but not a dominant presence in a desirable market. In UConn's case they believe we are 3rd or 4th in overall market clout among sport teams in CT, remember they are talking both college and pro. We are seen as behind the Yankees, Red Sox, and probably the Giants. They put Giants ahead of UCONN because of Fairfield County.

 

[upstater]

From conversations with the two guys I know connected with the SEC I get the impression that UNC is very attractive to them. They believe they have the top sport brand, not college sport brand but overall sport brand, in every state except the recently admitted TX and MO. Even in FL they believe that UF trumps all of the pro teams in the state and is head and shoulders above FSU, etc. They believe (right or wrong) that in the SEC A&M will pass UT in the future. Missou was a hard choice for them since they see little chance of it becoming the dominant brand. In their view UNC would give them the top brand in a rapidly growing state.

The more rope you give people, the closer they get to hanging themselves. A&M over UT? No.

 

[upstater]

If your question is can UNC live without Duke, on that I have no idea. I do know that the SEC certainly can. In their opinion a package deal of Duke and UNC would not be attractive. What is funny is they see Duke and UConn in a similar light when it comes to perceived shortcoming while ignoring the fact that UNC is in the same position in many respects with the exception of being the top brand in a good market. That makes UNC different in their eyes.

They see Duke and UCONN as BB first schools with no history of success in FB. They also believe that neither will be able to develop above average FB programs. To them a FB first school can have success in BB but not the other way around. One opinion was 'the next time a BB school builds a top FB program will be the first time'. Another comment was 'why do we need another Kentucky we already have the original'.

On the market side they believe both have a 'nice following' but not a dominant presence in a desirable market. In UConn's case they believe we are 3rd or 4th in overall market clout among sport teams in CT, remember they are talking both college and pro. We are seen as behind the Yankees, Red Sox, and probably the Giants. They put Giants ahead of UCONN because of Fairfield County.

I'm not even sure what BB first means. How about Stanford? Are they BB first or FB first? What makes Duke any different than Stanford?

 

[CL82]

On the market side they believe both have a 'nice following' but not a dominant presence in a desirable market. In UConn's case they believe we are 3rd or 4th in overall market clout among sport teams in CT, remember they are talking both college and pro. We are seen as behind the Yankees, Red Sox, and probably the Giants. They put Giants ahead of UCONN because of Fairfield County.

Then they haven't done the research.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If your question is can UNC live without Duke, on that I have no idea. I do know that the SEC certainly can. In their opinion a package deal of Duke and UNC would not be attractive. What is funny is they see Duke and UConn in a similar light when it comes to perceived shortcoming while ignoring the fact that UNC is in the same position in many respects with the exception of being the top brand in a good market. That makes UNC different in their eyes.

They see Duke and UCONN as BB first schools with no history of success in FB. They also believe that neither will be able to develop above average FB programs. To them a FB first school can have success in BB but not the other way around. One opinion was 'the next time a BB school builds a top FB program will be the first time'. Another comment was 'why do we need another Kentucky we already have the original'.

On the market side they believe both have a 'nice following' but not a dominant presence in a desirable market. In UConn's case they believe we are 3rd or 4th in overall market clout among sport teams in CT, remember they are talking both college and pro. We are seen as behind the Yankees, Red Sox, and probably the Giants. They put Giants ahead of UCONN because of Fairfield County.

I think this is pretty much on the money. However, if I run the SEC, there is good reason to see UNC differently. Duke's stadium holds less than 34k. UNC's holds almost 63k. It's a flagship state school in a rapidly growing state, with quite a solid recruiting situation. Incompetence is the only think holding them back from being comparable to Georgia or Florida...or at least Tennessee. South Carolina hadn't done much until joining the SEC, and really until Spurrier. The upside for UNC is very high, certainly much higher than ours or Duke's.

By the way, UConn is behind the Giants for sure, and probably the Patriots as well.

 

[UCFBfan]

On the market side they believe both have a 'nice following' but not a dominant presence in a desirable market. In UConn's case they believe we are 3rd or 4th in overall market clout among sport teams in CT, remember they are talking both college and pro. We are seen as behind the Yankees, Red Sox, and probably the Giants. They put Giants ahead of UCONN because of Fairfield County.

I'd just be curious about this. The only way I can find a decent way to gauge the level of clout/interest between these 4 teams would be this. If CT residents had a choice between one network what would it be? YES, to watch the Yankess, NESN, to watch the Red Sox, or SNY/ESPN/whatever network UConn may be playing on, to watch UConn. Professional Football is an entirely different beast and I dunno about that. I just remember the outcry that was had when SNY got the rights to carry UConn games and many cable providers didn't have SNY on their packages. Within a week or so, if I remember correctly, every CT cable provider announced that SNY would be available at the start of football season (I think the announcement was made over the summer of the partnership). Would the same happen for NESN or YES? I truly don't know....I just think that while we are a state between two major sport cities, Boston and NY, there is a strong desire to watch and follow UConn athletics. An interesting thought. Thanks for the insight John.

 

[John Greene]

I'm not even sure what BB first means. How about Stanford? Are they BB first or FB first? What makes Duke any different than Stanford?

Not sure about Stanford but, and this is not scientific, a BB first school could be defined as any school where the number of conversations and posts on both the MBB and WBB boards exceed those on the FB board.

 

[CAHUSKY]

I'm not even sure what BB first means. How about Stanford? Are they BB first or FB first? What makes Duke any different than Stanford?

A consistently good basketball program?

 

[upstater]

A consistently good basketball program?

But Stanford was as bad as Duke at fball. Back then, Mike Montgomery actually had them winning games. They went from BBall first to a football school.

 

[CAHUSKY]

But Stanford was as bad as Duke at fball. Back then, Mike Montgomery actually had them winning games. They went from BBall first to a football school.

When i was growing up Stanford went to 2 Rose Bowls with Jim Plunkett and and then had success again in the 80's with Elway. I guess they were a football school, then a basketball school and then a football school. Or, i guess maybe they are one of the schools that just have a pretty balanced athletic program .They seem to win the sears cup every year so i guess they are damned good at a lot of stuff.

 

[upstater]

Eh, well, Duke was really good at football in the 1950s and 1960s. Bball? Not so much.