ESPN should have made it clear to the ACC that based on the dollars, UConn made the most sense. That way, it would have been evident to the ACC that they were all taking less money because of BCs obstinacy. They should have never moved on to Pitt in that meeting because of the obstruction. It should have been made clear that ESPN was willing to pay MORE for UConn than the others. And that by leaving Uconn behind, the others would be LOSING money. ESPN gets $60 million + in tax subsidies from the state. It could spare $12 million of that by passing it on to the ACC schools (and thereby locking that conference down tight!)
This is the major problem.
Uconn may have the metrics, but as we have all recognized, they have never blown out the competition (Ville and Pitt). Only ESPN could make the case that UConn was a slam dunk (and ESPN had the logic behind it to make the case, i.e. tier 3 rights, licenses and sponsorships). This is where the state and the school blew it.
Ville got in because of better football and support. Pitt got in because there was enough resistance to adding Uconn. The ONLY card that UConn had at the time was superior metrics and the advocate for UConn, in that case, should have been ESPN.
The fans here that think ESPN doesn't advocate are naive in the extreme. ESPN advocates in the way that the vast majority of Americans understand, and that is, THE BOTTOM LINE. ESPN advocates by rewarding the ACC with extra money every time it adds a new school, as though Pitt and Cuse are worth more to the ACC than the average ACC team. That's advocacy right there. The problem is, it's advocacy AGAINST UConn.
Sorry, but I disagree with much of what you are saying.
1) Most everyone outside of the Uconn fan base feels that ESPN has NO right to interfere with negotions by offering more money to include Uconn over another team (Pitt, Cuse, Ville). Most people outside of Connecticut actually believe this would be more negative than positive. It was discussed heavily last week and I think most people on this board agree that the ESPN tax breaks are not related to ESPN providing support for Uconn and that those tax breaks are very important for ESPN and other companies. Those tax breaks alone have brought several new businesses into the area to boost the economy. As I previously said, if ESPN and Uconn have a good relationship, ESPN should help Uconn by providing scholorship money, buy stadium / weight room / building naming rights, and work with undergrads and graduates by offering jobs. But ESPN does not owe it to Uconn to openly enter into bad business practices that may create possible lawsuits or a bad reputation. ESPN owes it to its shareholders to broker the best deal it can.
2) I think the metrics are being a little overvalued especially with respect to NYC. Metrics are important, but the teams that Uconn was competing against had similar enough metrics to Uconn that metrics were not going to be the deciding factor. My personal opinion of NYC is that it poorly follows any particular college sports team. I think you will find that much of NYC follows more "national" teams (ie. Notre Dame, PSU, etc.) than it does its local teams. Also, with Cuse in the fold, that gives the TV carriers the right to get into NYC if it requires a local team. And I don't think you can say the Uconn had superior metrics to the competition. I'm not going to speak for Cuse or Ville, but Pittsburgh is in a larger market, more TVs, larger football stadium, better football following, better football tradition, more research funding, AAU. I think many of these metrics are being applied to realignment.
3) Football tradition is much more important than many on this board want to believe. Pitt football was aweful for about 20 years from mid 1980s to early 2000s. Since then, Pitt has had a few above average seasons, but nothing special to speak about. At first thought, you would say Pitt has very little football tradition. After anouncing that Pitt would be playing FSU on Labor Day, the Pitt and FSU boards have been flooded with talk about the game and about the history between Pitt and FSU. Pitt only played FSU 4 times in the late 70s early 80s, but a few of those games had national championship imlications. With the exception of WVU and PSU, I did not realize that any national tradition still existed for Pitt football. FSU and Pitt fans have hundreds of threads about these old games as if they were played last year. You can make all the jokes you want about Pitt choking lately, but that does not erase the football tradition that has already been created. I have heard some similar thoughts about Cuse and its football tradition. On the other hand, Ville has created some new buzz becaue they have won recently, but not the buzz about previous 20-30 year old games. My point is that I think football tradition is the biggest hurdle Uconn is facing and only time and winning can help create it.
4) One last thing that I have not seen talked about. At the time when Ville was chosen over Uconn, much of the ACC and myself included wanted Ville. Many people did not want Ville over Uconn because of metrics or recent success. At the time the ACC was fighting to survive. The B1G had just poached the ACC. It was about survival. If the ACC took Uconn, Big 12 would take Ville and Cincy. If the ACC took Ville, the ACC could then take Uconn with Cincy at a later date. I actually expected that to all take place within a few weeks. I would prefer to have both Uconn and Ville in the ACC with Pitt. I would probably prefer to have Uconn over Ville if only getting to choose one. But at the time when Ville was chosen, many thought that this was the best way to halt the Big 12 expansion and thought that Uconn would be added in the near future as well. In hindsight, this did not play out as many saw it, but I think that choosing Ville had as much to do with location and the Big 12 than to do with metrics and recent success.
Feel free to rip me apart, as I am just trying to voice an outside opinion on realignment.
