Warde to CBSSports: 'Move on' from realignment

[upstater]

I disagree on this. Uconn was no different... Had any conference showed interest in Uconn, they would have gone as well. The flip side to this is that maybe Uconn leadership realized the only real option they had was to hold the BE together as long as they could because they could see the writing on the wall.

When Syr and Pitt left, Uconn made it pretty clear they wanted in to the ACC.

If you look at Herbst's actions of late, it's pretty clear she has an agenda. While the timing is later than most would like, she is clearly on a road to somewhere not named the AAC.

I think noeynox is saying that UConn didn't press the issue in a desperate effort to get out. We are talking about ESPN here.

 

[UPitt]

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.

 

[UPitt]

My personal opinion is that the ESPN tax breaks should be a dead issue. It is unrealated to conference realignment and unrelated to ESPN's support of Uconn. It is solely related to jobs and economic growth and has been very successful in doing so.

ESPN has every right to financially support Uconn throught donations, scholorships, and employment, but not to broker deals with athletic conferences to include Uconn as that is a conflict of interest.

The State of Connecticut government should be much more involved in lobbying other states and school Presidents to expand to include Uconn into a major conference. Other states have used this approach and it has been effective.

 

[upstater]

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).

We've been over this. How many times must you respond to something already discussed? ESPN already interferes by topping off the ACC and thereby creates a perverse incentive for the ACC to continue its raids in the pursuit of more money! To say that ESPN doesn't interfere is naive in the extreme. They interfered (according to even ACC people) in way that damaged UConn. UConn has better TV metrics than Pitt (and Lousville too!) and on that basis alone, ESPN would have been more within their right to point out that it would make MORE money if UConn were the choice.

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.

You're making stuff up now.

ESPN owes it to its shareholders to broker the best deal it can.

Precisely--UConn's metrics make more money!

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.

Run the numbers. UConn's Tier 3 rights and licenses and sponsorships when it came to coaches shows and the like were almost $25 million. $10m more than Louisville. They dwarfed the BE. They were the highest!

And I don't think you can say the Uconn had superior metrics to the competition.

It did!

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.

I think you're fooling yourself with this. FSU was incensed about football expansion last time because of Pitt and Cuse. UConn wouldn't have helped that either.

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.

Maybe because FSU threatened to blow s--- up!??!

Feel free to rip me apart, as I am just trying to voice an outside opinion on realignment.

I don't even know why you posted. You did this last week, and never once responded to what people are saying. here you go again. Sorry to be a dick--but at the very least, respond to the arguments people are making. You never do. You skip right over them, just like last week. What else could you expect but a response like my own? Given that?

 

[UPitt]

I don't even know why you posted. You did this last week, and never once responded to what people are saying. here you go again. Sorry to be a --but at the very least, respond to the arguments people are making. You never do. You skip right over them, just like last week. What else could you expect but a response like my own? Given that?

Please ask me a question and I will respond. I am glad you are passionate, but it is important to have a level head if you want to improve the situation. I think I have been respectful and would like to continue to post, but if you would prefer to not here my opinion then let me know.

I will agree to drop the ESPN involvement issue. I have respectfully disagreed with your opinion and I do not think either one of us are going to change our minds.

I dissagree with the metrics argument. Every team is better than another at this group of metrics vs this group of metrics. Thats why I threw out a few expamples. My point with the metrics is that I think they are important, but that they are not the clear driving force. Escpecially in areas that carry pro sports, the college teams seem to suffer (Pitt included, Steelers sell out 70000+ every game for 30 years, Pitt has sold out 1 season at 65000 in the past 10 years)

Lastly, I am not the first person to talk about the importance of football tradition in realignment. And say what you want about Pitt football tradition, but it claims 9 national championships (1976 being the latest), and had one of the best team in football in the early 80s (ranked #1 a few of the years). Pitt may not be a football powerhouse, but it does have a history of football tradition and the same can be said of Cuse.

 

[upstater]

Please ask me a question and I will respond. I am glad you are passionate, but it is important to have a level head if you want to improve the situation. I think I have been respectful and would like to continue to post, but if you would prefer to not here my opinion then let me know.

I will agree to drop the ESPN involvement issue. I have respectfully disagreed with your opinion and I do not think either one of us are going to change our minds.

You haven't disagreed with what I was saying. You've skipped over the point many of us have been making altogether. This is what we've been saying (and I'll repost it): 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. 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. The fans here that think ESPN doesn't advocate are naive. 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. This is exactly what MORE money implies. That's advocacy right there. The problem is, it's advocacy AGAINST UConn.

I dissagree with the metrics argument.

How can you disagree with money? It's a fact, not an argument. UConn's money was the highest in the old BE.

Lastly, I am not the first person to talk about the importance of football tradition in realignment. And say what you want about Pitt football tradition, but it claims 9 national championships (1976 being the latest), and had one of the best team in football in the early 80s (ranked #1 a few of the years). Pitt may not be a football powerhouse, but it does have a history of football tradition and the same can be said of Cuse.

Florida State was the school reported to be unimpressed by the addition of Cuse and Pitt football. They were reported as far back as 2011 by the Baltimore sun as starting an internal committee because of what they perceived as a watering down of the football league. This exploded a year later (prior to Maryland and Rutgers leaving) when the FSU chair of the board accused Tobacco Road of orienting their focus on basketball with expansion instead of football.

 

[UPitt]

Florida State was the school reported to be unimpressed by the addition of Cuse and Pitt football. They were reported as far back as 2011 by the Baltimore sun as starting an internal committee because of what they perceived as a watering down of the football league. This exploded a year later (prior to Maryland and Rutgers leaving) when the FSU chair of the board accused Tobacco Road of orienting their focus on basketball with expansion instead of football.

I did not skip over your point. Your point is that ESPN should offer more money to the ACC to include Uconn over Pitt/Cuse/Ville/anyone. How much more money should ESPN offer? Why should they offer more (local ties, product value, tax breaks,)?

 

[UPitt]

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.

I believe your argument is that because ESPN is offered tax breaks in excess of 60 million, ESPN should offer an extra 12 million to the ACC so Uconn will be chosen over Pitt. Am I correct?

I strongly dissagree with this. The ESPN tax breaks are unrealated to conference realignment and solely related to jobs and economics. Unless Uconn would produce an additional 12 million in revenue as compared to Pitt, I think it would be unethical and bad business make that offer to the ACC. Shareholders do not want ESPN to overpay by 12 million a year.

 

[pj]

UConn is clearly better than all of those schools on the B1G's metrics, because it brings a much larger cable market -- not only #30 Hartford - New Haven, but New London and Fairfield County which if added in would make us a top 15 media market, plus penetration into New York and Massachusetts. Flagship state university, respected academics, soon to be AAU. High level basketball which is huge for cable networks. Basically, on B1G metrics UConn is a top 40 school nationally, better than most of the ACC. (And Frank, yes, Rutgers scored higher than UConn on B1G metrics thanks to being the flagship university of a state with 9 mn people plus being geographically close to Manhattan. No one is disputing that. That doesn't dent UConn's attractiveness; now that Rutgers is in the B1G UConn becomes more attractive due to the presence of a geographically contiguous rival.)

The ACC had very different metrics and you could argue that on the ACC's metrics UConn-Pitt-Louisville-Syracuse-BC were a five-way tie. However, the ACC seems to have consistently taken a short-sighted approach -- always inviting the team with the greatest recent success (Miami, BC in the post-Flutie era, Louisville this year with a BCS bowl team and a national championship contender in bball, Syracuse with Boeheim basketball success) and/or teams that they think are attractive to the rival du jour (eg Louisville which was a backup plan of the B12) or have political backing (Va Tech) rather than following a long-term strategy.

 

[CL82]

Re: UPitt, member since 4/30/2013 and only posts about ESPN....hmmn ...

ZLS, that you?

 

[upstater]

I believe your argument is that because ESPN is offered tax breaks in excess of 60 million, ESPN should offer an extra 12 million to the ACC so Uconn will be chosen over Pitt. Am I correct?

I strongly dissagree with this. The ESPN tax breaks are unrealated to conference realignment and solely related to jobs and economics. Unless Uconn would produce an additional 12 million in revenue as compared to Pitt, I think it would be unethical and bad business make that offer to the ACC. Shareholders do not want ESPN to overpay by 12 million a year.

Again, the metrics are there for all to see. At the very least, don't top off the ACC like they did. How is Pitt worth more than the average of, say, Virginia and Clemson? When Pitt and Cuse joined they renegotiated and offered the ACC more. Was hat fiduciary duty? Or was that something else entirely? We know what that was--had nothing to do with ESPN's bottom line, and was not supported by any metric either. It was the cutthroat business of NCAA realignment. This is what you're missing.

 

[upstater]

I did not skip over your point. Your point is that ESPN should offer more money to the ACC to include Uconn over Pitt/Cuse/Ville/anyone. How much more money should ESPN offer? Why should they offer more (local ties, product value, tax breaks,)?

They should offer more for two reasons.

1. Because UConn's TV metrics are better than any of the teams they were up against.
2. To preserve good ties with the state instead of contributing to the possible destruction of the state's flagship's athletic department.

Pretty simple stuff here.

 

[upstater]

I believe your argument is that because ESPN is offered tax breaks in excess of 60 million, ESPN should offer an extra 12 million to the ACC so Uconn will be chosen over Pitt. Am I correct?

I strongly dissagree with this. The ESPN tax breaks are unrealated to conference realignment and solely related to jobs and economics. Unless Uconn would produce an additional 12 million in revenue as compared to Pitt, I think it would be unethical and bad business make that offer to the ACC. Shareholders do not want ESPN to overpay by 12 million a year.

You still don't get it. You constantly pass over the fact that ESPN topped off the ACC with each expansion, thereby creating the conditions by which UConn got left behind. You are hiding behind this phony idea that ESPN is trying to do its fiduciary duty to shareholders when the facts show that ESPN raised its payout from 12-13 million per team to 20 million per team. That wasn't doing its fiduciary duty. That was a huge waste of money. What it was doing was playing the cutthroat realignment game. That's how the state should interpret it. ESPN triggered and funded a game that badly damaged a state institution. I have no idea why you repeatedly pass over this.

 

[UPitt]

They should offer more for two reasons.

1. Because UConn's TV metrics are better than any of the teams they were up against.
2. To preserve good ties with the state instead of contributing to the possible destruction of the state's flagship's athletic department.

Pretty simple stuff here.

1. If just based on TV markets alone, how is the Hartford and New Haven area which is ranked at 30th, a better market than Pittsburgh (not including the suburbs) which is ranked at 24th?
(http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_Market_Profiles_Nielsen_Household_DMA_Ranks2.pdf)

If you considering surrounding markets including NYC and Boston, Uconn has competition for those markets (8 pro plus college teams). An area like Pittsburgh (3 pro, 0 college) or Louisville (o pro, 1 college) may lack as many surrounding markets, but also does not have as much compitition for those markets.

Can we agree that the metrics for TV ratings are not a clear black and white? No one knows which markets will catch on best before the realignment takes place. That would take years of studying and these decisions were made in days based on opinions. I think Uconn has great value to add to a conference but I do not think that the metrics alone showed them to be the above and beyond clear best choice.

2. I do not think that ESPN has gone out of its way to exclude Uconn. My understanding that ESPN had nothing to do with choosing the teams. The only promise was that ESPN would be required to renegotiate the contract to fair market if the ACC expanded. The ACC would be worth about 18-20 mil per team with or without the new teams, but ESPN had a contract in place for 13 mil. By adding teams it was required that the contract be re-evaluated. This included the new teams as well as the existing teams. This expansion allowed the ACC to renegotiate its poor deal it signed a few years ago before the 5 year look in window for renegotiation. The contract does not say that if you add a team we will pay everyone an extra million, or conferences would have 50 teams each. Instead the contract calls for re-evaluating the conference as a whole.

As for shareholders and ESPN, they would have prefered to continue to pay the ACC 12-13 mil a year, but the contract had terms that required the contract to be updated to fair market for everyone in the league if a single team was added. I do not see this as ESPN topping off the ACC with money just to throw away money, but more of a smart business move by the ACC to re-evaluate all of the current teams to fair market value. The ACC took advantage of contract wording and has used it to there advantage. This has cost ESPN and its shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you think ESPN wants to pay an extra 100-150 million a year to carry a few Pitt and Cuse football games? Absolutely Not, and I this ESPN did a poor job representing its shareholders with respect to the increase in ACC value, but contracts are a part of business and the ACC won this round against ESPN.

You also talked about ESPN triggering and funding realignment that badly damaged Uconn. Had ESPN and the ACC agreed to 17-20 mil per team, the ACC would not have expanded because expansion would add no value. Had the Big East accepted the ESPN offer, the Big East would not have folded. Then the PAC 12 offer drove up values. Had FOX not overbid on the Big 12 and soon to overbid on the B1G, the ACC would not need to add teams to renegotiate and earn equal money. I think a lot factors forced the ACC to expand and use a contractual clause to re-evaluate all ACC teams, but I don't think ESPN is to blame for the increase in ACC money or for the failing of the Big East.

 

[upstater]

1. If just based on TV markets alone, how is the Hartford and New Haven area which is ranked at 30th, a better market than Pittsburgh (not including the suburbs) which is ranked at 24th?
(http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_Market_Profiles_Nielsen_Household_DMA_Ranks2.pdf)

If you considering surrounding markets including NYC and Boston, Uconn has competition for those markets (8 pro plus college teams). An area like Pittsburgh (3 pro, 0 college) or Louisville (o pro, 1 college) may lack as many surrounding markets, but also does not have as much compitition for those markets.

You're using DMA's instead of cable, and the world of college sports is a cable world (i.e. ESPN, B1G, etc.). 50% of Connecticut is in another DMA, a very big one. If you put all the cable TV sets in the state together, you get a much bigger number and a much bigger market. Pittsburgh, by the way, despite your claim there are no other colleges in its market, has a heavy PSU presence.

The metrics I'm really referring to are bottom line metrics for ratings. Conn. sports are often the highest rated shows on TV in the state. Including women's bball. This is precisely the reason why UConn earns $25 million a year in licensing and tier 3 rights. The school's coach's shows, tier 3 rights, plus women's contract with SNY nets the school a huge amount, about $10 more than Louisville for instance. This is real money.


2. I do not think that ESPN has gone out of its way to exclude Uconn. My understanding that ESPN had nothing to do with choosing the teams.

Your understanding neglects what BCs AD was quoted as saying in the Boston Globe. It also neglects the fact that the new additions caused the ACCs per team value to go up by $7 million + which is absurd.

Since you continue ignoring the main point, I'll put it to you directly and see if you answer it for once:

Do you believe that guided the ACC in the selection of schools?
Do you believe that ESPN topping off the ACC encouraged the conference to keep expanding?

We believe the answers to both are yes. ESPN funds the expansion of the ACC (and therefore the destruction and subsequent underfunding of the BE).

Instead the contract calls for re-evaluating the conference as a whole.

Anyone who believes Pitt, Cuse, and Ville are worth $7 million more when added to UNC and the like is near delusional.

As for shareholders and ESPN, they would have prefered to continue to pay the ACC 12-13 mil a year, but the contract had terms that required the contract to be updated to fair market for everyone in the league if a single team was added.

Updating doesn't mean adding $7 million. Either way, ESPN keeps the contract.

I do not see this as ESPN topping off the ACC with money just to throw away money, but more of a smart business move by the ACC to re-evaluate all of the current teams to fair market value.

You totally miss the flipside. Which is what happens to the teams left behind and how such moving of money from one side of the ledger to the other creates conditions which hurt a school like UConn, which has higher metrics. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's a business practice that damages an institution inside a state which gives $60m in subsidies to ESPN every year. This is precisely why people here believe ESPN behaves like an enemy of UConn.

 

[specialisthusky]

1. If just based on TV markets alone, how is the Hartford and New Haven area which is ranked at 30th, a better market than Pittsburgh (not including the suburbs) which is ranked at 24th?
(http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_Market_Profiles_Nielsen_Household_DMA_Ranks2.pdf)

No professional competition such as Steelers in Pitt. Plus our market is not split with fans of competing teams such as PSU and WVU.

If you considering surrounding markets including NYC and Boston, Uconn has competition for those markets (8 pro plus college teams). An area like Pittsburgh (3 pro, 0 college) or Louisville (o pro, 1 college) may lack as many surrounding markets, but also does not have as much compitition for those markets.

Why are we comparing NYC and Boston? Those areas don't influence the number 30 media market. 30. That number itself beats Louisville and Cuse and is 6 behind Pitt.

These areas only increase the possibility of greater UConn influence. How can that possibly be a bad thing to have no competition in your own media market, but the number 1 and 4 (what's Boston? I am guessing) markets are also nearby?
Can we agree that the metrics for TV ratings are not a clear black and white? No one knows which markets will catch on best before the realignment takes place. That would take years of studying and these decisions were made in days based on opinions. I think Uconn has great value to add to a conference but I do not think that the metrics alone showed them to be the above and beyond clear best choice.

Well isn't this pretty much the whole point of what was being discussed? The whole argument Upstater and others are making is UConn's media/tv/academic/athletic metrics were enough for ESPN to say "We Want UCONN."

 

[UPitt]

Again, the metrics are there for all to see. At the very least, don't top off the ACC like they did. How is Pitt worth more than the average of, say, Virginia and Clemson? Pitt is not more valuable, and in fact is probably less valuable. The ACC as a whole may be less valuable with Pitt and Syracuse included, but the ACC as a whole was re-evaluated. This means the FSU, Clemson, UNC, Virginia, and the rest are all worth more than they were 3 -4 years ago when the contract was originally signed. When Pitt and Cuse joined they renegotiated and offered the ACC more. Was hat fiduciary duty? It was a contractual committment. I am sure this was bad for ESPN and the shareholders bottom line, but it was a contractual agreement to look at the ACC as whole and re-evaluate the value. ESPN got burned by the ACC on this deal. Or was that something else entirely? I do think that ESPN was aware of the clause to re-evaluate and may have worked with the ACC to help them up the payout. Without this increase, ESPN may have lost the ACC teams to FOX leagues such as the B1G and Big 12. We know what that was--had nothing to do with ESPN's bottom line, and was not supported by any metric either. It was the cutthroat business of NCAA realignment. This is what you're missing. I am not missing that realignment has been cut throat. It has ruined rivalries and left teams behind. But do not blame ESPN for holding up there end of the contract and looking out for there best interests.

 

[UPitt]

I honestly believe that the ACC would have prefered to renegotiate the contract to about 18 mil/year without adding any schools, but per the contract it was required to add at least one to be renegotiated. If every Big East school said NO, ECU would have increased the payout per school based on the contract.

 

[upstater]

It's $7 million more!

Come on. You can't paint that any other way. ESPN (whatever the pressures are) is taking part in a process that has absolutely little to do with metrics and evaluations and more to do with threats and implied leverage, and their part in this process (from the initial moment they kicked off realignment by signaling to the ACC -- per internal ACC people -- that they would make more money by raiding the BE) has been to the detriment of a state institution from which they receive state welfare. If ESPN were a lighter company without billions in infrastructure on a massive campus, this might all be ignored. But since the state can wield influence with the $60 million it gives ESPN, we're saying that ESPN should have used its influence and the reason and logic that show UConn is a bigger money-maker than the others (it is!) in order to convey to the ACC that indeed UConn's media rights are worth more (they are). You think that's somehow underhanded, which is absurd, because ESPN has done the same for every single school admitted (given an assessment). ESPN should have feared a loss of subsidies given the way it badly handled the ACC contract.

 

[UPitt]

Specialisthusky, My point with the markets metrics is that it is not black and white. Pittsburgh may have a larger immeadiate market than Uconn, but Uconn has larger surrounding markets. Pittsburgh has 3 immeadiate pro teams to compete with and PSU has a presence, where as Uconn has 0 immeadiate pro teams, but 8 pro teams in NYC and 4 pro teams in Boston as well as college teams to compete with in the surrounding markets.

I don't think any metrics will show that one market is far superior to the other. They are just too different to make a fair comparison using one single metric.

 

[UPitt]

It's $7 million more!

ESPN should have feared a loss of subsidies given the way it badly handled the ACC contract.

ESPN does not fear losing its subsidies and tax benefits. Those tax benefits are untouchable and we (including ESPN, CT, and UConn) all know they will not even face the threat of losing them. Those tax benefits are far to valuable to Connecticut as they have help create a boom of companies to move into the state.

 

[upstater]

ESPN does not fear losing its subsidies and tax benefits. Those tax benefits are untouchable and we (including ESPN, CT, and UConn) all know they will not even face the threat of losing them. Those tax benefits are far to valuable to Connecticut as they have help create a boom of companies to move into the state.

Same old s--- from you. You have no idea what ESPN's campus even looks like. It's bizarre that it's been explained to you so many times, and here you are again.

 

[UPitt]

Same old s--- from you. You have no idea what ESPN's campus even looks like. It's bizarre that it's been explained to you so many times, and here you are again. I'm done with your trolling. Go on, have to dumb last word.

Take a picture for me. I bet it look likes a huge complex of buildings with a huge parking lot. I bet they employ a large amount of people. I am not argueing about how large ESPN is and how difficult it is to move the operations. I am not arguein about the importance of ESPN to the local area and how important the tax benefits are to ESPN. ESPN values the tax breaks at $60 million dollars (value per your post). Those tax breaks are important but realatively small amounts compared to the size of ESPN and the State Budget.

I am not suggesting that ESPN will move, or even threaten to move if tax breaks are removed.

What I am suggesting is that ESPN will not lose its Tax benefits and subsidies for the following reasons:

1) Part of the tax benefit is promised to ESPN for life per an agreement to expand.

2) The tax break has ESPN and Connecticut on very good terms and wouldn't want to strain them.

3) But most importantly, removing or threatening to remove the ESPN tax breaks is bad for our future business. Those tax breaks have pushed several other companies to move into the area. If those tax breaks are removed it will discourage future growth by ESPN as well as the rest of the businesses interested in expanding or moving into Connecticut.

 

[UPitt]

I'm done with your trolling. Go on, have to dumb last word.

Upstarter, I have said nothing negative about you, your school, or teams. I have given my honest opinion and you do not seem to want to hear it.

Would you prefer that I never post on your board again?

 

[upstater]

The nature of the tax breaks and the size of the campus have all been addressed in the previous thread by multiple posters. Your assumptions are incorrect.

 

[UPitt]

The nature of the tax breaks and the size of the campus have all been addressed in the previous thread by multiple posters. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Maybe i am missing something. I have agreed with you that ESPN is very large and is not going to pack up and leave. Please see my comment below and let me know what assumptions are incorrect.

What I am suggesting is that ESPN will not lose its Tax benefits and subsidies for the following reasons:

1) Part of the tax benefit is promised to ESPN for life per an agreement to expand.

2) The tax break has ESPN and Connecticut on very good terms and wouldn't want to strain them.

3) But most importantly, removing or threatening to remove the ESPN tax breaks is bad for our future business. Those tax breaks have pushed several other companies to move into the area. If those tax breaks are removed it will discourage future growth by ESPN as well as the rest of the businesses interested in expanding or moving into Connecticut.

 

[upstater]

The nature of the tax breaks and the size of the campus have all been addressed in the previous thread by multiple posters. Your assumptions are incorrect.

 

[husky91]

Manuel is such a fool

We get $2mm/year, is that the end game??

This guy is such a clown, suprised he has a job, but he works for the state officially, so that is rhetorical I guess

Manuel in answering these kinds of questions can approach the answers in one of two ways- the Whit Babcock/Cincy AD way, which basically boils down to saying "We will do whatever it takes to make ourselves attractive to other conferences by hook or by crook" or the Warde Manuel way, which is to pretend it doesn't matter.

Who knows what he is really thinking? Although Manuel isn't a particularly strong speaker, it's gems like this that make me scratch my head,

"You can look at increase of media, what other conferences are doing with cable networks, though we don't have that."

As they say, no sh$t sherlock. That's why it does matter.