Who actually brings value

[noeynox]

It's pretty simple - so long as UConn is in the AAC, ESPN is able to pay them peanuts while getting a big payout in return.

It makes sense for ESPN from a business perspective, but they're also slowly killing the athletic department. It's time for the state and UConn admins to push back.

slowly would have been when they started dismantling the Big East. At this point we are past the slowly point.

 

[upstater]

As for your actual complaint, it is the AAC robbing you. You are subsidizing ECU, Tulsa, etc. Wake Forest, BC are being subsidized by FSU, Carolina, and company.

That's the way the conferences look at it.

It is NOT the way ESPN looks at it.

 

[billybud]

Since 2000...

Iowa State has won 39 % of their games..... 81-123

.....vs BC who has won 58%....record 121-88

.....Rugers is 100-104 or 49% win rate

 

[upstater]

UConn IS NOT competing with current members of any P5....it is the aspiring members of a future P5 pick up that UConn is competing with.

Sure, there is little over all equity in football...that's why you have an FSU or Clemson making the same $$ as a Wake Forest...or a Wake Forest making a pot load more than UConn.

Or a team that doesn't make a bowl for some years splitting the conference bowl revenue....

There is no one denying that some of the teams that were not grandfathered in to a P5 may have more value alone than some P5 teams have standing alone. But, unless you are Notre Dame or Army, you aren't standing alone. You are in a product mix.

UConn and the AAC may have a beef with their media contract...was it a poorly negotiated contract? Was value not proportionate to revenue received?

But that beef is a completely different beef than attempting to compare "stand alone" values between a P5 member and UConn IMHO.

Go back and read Fishy's post. You missed his point entirely.

He is talking about the schools ESPN values most (i.e. the schools that get live games on the network).

 

[noeynox]

It's clear that some schools carry the load for others, but why should they? Why should Texas and Iowa St get the same piece of the pie, why should Michigan and Northwestern? Destroy all the football conferences and let every school negotiate their own TV deals. Then implement relegation and promotion model, with 48 - 64 teams in the top division

It is easy to say this, because we are on the outside looking in. I guarantee you no one on the inside of the cartel feels this way. Also no other G5 school, has come close to the success UConn has had in MensBB, WomensBB and FB, yes FB where we twice won a share of a BCS conference. We are in a very unique position where our success alone should dictate that we be competing at the highest level. Instead we've been relegated and one of the state's corporate partners has had their hands directly involved in that process.

 

[upstater]

Boston has appeared on

SNY vs Mass (ESPN sold game)
ESPN2 vs GT
ESPNU vs VT
ESPN vs Clemson
and will appear on ESPN2 vs FSU and maybe another game TBA

Wake Forest has played on ESPN, ESPNU and three games on the Regional Sports Network (sold to Raycom)

The Globetrotters needed the Generals...the ACC needs BC and Wake for their games.

Sure, it could be UConn or any other team in that place as a conference opponent, but Wake bought their shares 50 plus years ago.

So that is twice that BC appeared on the marquee networks.

And how does this post add anything to the discussion?

 

[billybud]

Teams in a conference are not valued as a "stand alone" but as part of a collection that has a value as a collection. Like a stock portfolio, the total worth is the sum of the parts.

If the AAC is not receiving the true value of that collection of programs, then the Commissioner did not negotiate as well as he could have.

And, if UConn is worth more individually than much of the AAC , that is the way that a conference contract balances and floats all boats. Texas is worth more than Iowa State, FSU is worth more than Wake Forest, Ohio State is worth more than Indiana.

 

[lne001]

Summary - ESPN is robbing us.

'Robbing' implies that something is being taken by force or threat of force. Clearly not the case here. UConn is a willing (if not happy) member of the AAC, and the AAC signed a contract with ESPN. All aspects seem consensual.

UConn and the AAC may have a beef with their media contract...was it a poorly negotiated contract? Was value not proportionate to revenue received?

I suspect the AAC got the best contract it could. If UConn is now receiving less revenue than before it was their decision. They are subsidizing other members of the AAC.

In closing, yes, UConn easily deserves to be in a P5 conference. Good luck.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

ESPN isn't paying for BC, they're paying for UNC/Duke in hoops and FSU/Clemson in football. BC/Wake is just an unfortunate byproduct in that.

ESPN isn't paying for ECU/Tulane in hoops, they're paying for UConn/Cincy and Houston/Navy in football.

You're comparing the best of the AAC with the absolute dregs of the ACC.

 

[Penfield]

@billybud if UConn switched places with BC or WF I guarantee we would have more than 6 games on ESPN or ESPN 2 so I'm not really sure what your point is

 

[JeepCSC]

That's the way the conferences look at it.

It is NOT the way ESPN looks at it.

ESPN looks at it by conference. They have to since that is what they pay for. It's not UConn being worth more than Wake Forest, it's the ACC being worth more than the AAC. UConn women get shown 18 times, Wake Forest men get shown 0. If that was the end of the story, you could say aha! But the fact is Louisville-Clemson got nearly 10 million viewers, and that is what Wake is being paid for.

Now there is truth in the fact that UConn is underpaid relative to their worth. But again, that is because you are subsidizing the rest of the AAC. Wake has nothing to do with it.

Interestingly, the old Big XII used to pay television appearance fees, it's a quick way to make conference mates unhappy.

 

[billybud]

So that is twice that BC appeared on the marquee networks.

And how does this post add anything to the discussion?

Are you sure that if you switched BC and UConn on the football schedule, that the results would be different? That UConn would appear on the "marquee networks" at a higher rate.

The weaker programs in a conference get TV time when playing the stronger programs....and UConn may not get any more time than BC or Wake did this year if switched....that was my point, although not strongly made.

 

[upstater]

'Robbing' implies that something is being taken by force or threat of force. Clearly not the case here. UConn is a willing (if not happy) member of the AAC, and the AAC signed a contract with ESPN. All aspects seem consensual.

I suspect the AAC got the best contract it could. If UConn is now receiving less revenue than before it was their decision. They are subsidizing other members of the AAC.

In closing, yes, UConn easily deserves to be in a P5 conference. Good luck.

How is it possible that some of you are totally missing the point? You are looking at this from the point of view of the conferences.

ESPN meanwhile is in the business of getting ratings.

From their point-of-view, they are going to show the most valuable properties on TV more.

So, take the NFL. The networks vie against each other to show the most popular teams. Yes, all teams get the same cut from the pie because they negotiate as one entity. But, the MORE valuable teams do NOT get a smaller cut than the LESS valuable teams.

Look at it from TVs perspective, not the conference perspective.

 

[billybud]

@billybud if UConn switched places with BC or WF I guarantee we would have more than 6 games on ESPN or ESPN 2 so I'm not really sure what your point is

And I am not sure about your "guarantee"...we all see through our fan glasses.

I see UConn and BC as pretty interchangeable on the TV schedule...but that is also, hnestly, from my perspective.

 

[noeynox]

Teams in a conference are not valued as a "stand alone" but as part of a collection that has a value as a collection. Like a stock portfolio, the total worth is the sum of the parts.

If the AAC is not receiving the true value of that collection of programs, then the Commissioner did not negotiate as well as he could have.

And, if UConn is worth more individually than much of the AAC , that is the way that a conference contract balances and floats all boats. Texas is worth more than Iowa State, FSU is worth more than Wake Forest, Ohio State is worth more than Indiana.

Do us a favor and beat feet. We don't need a collection of non UConn fans telling us we ain't worth .

 

[billybud]

I did not have an opinion about UConn (you read too fast)...I only state the fact that teams are valued as a collection in a conference...there is a conference value that is determined by the market.

I also stated that UConn fans are outraged because they see that UConn brings more stand alone value than other teams in a P5 conference. They do.

My statement says nothing about UConn...and is pretty unassailable. Teams receive the value of the collection of teams they play with in a conference (unless you are Notre Dame).

The Spartacus wasn't a bad chicken taco...discontinued by Taco Bell a long time past.

 

[JeepCSC]

How is it possible that some of you are totally missing the point? You are looking at this from the point of view of the conferences.

ESPN meanwhile is in the business of getting ratings.

From their point-of-view, they are going to show the most valuable properties on TV more.

So, take the NFL. The networks vie against each other to show the most popular teams. Yes, all teams get the same cut from the pie because they negotiate as one entity. But, the MORE valuable teams do NOT get a smaller cut than the LESS valuable teams.

Look at it from TVs perspective, not the conference perspective.

But all the teams are in the NFL, so every cut is the same. In your scenario, it would be if a XFL franchise got more viewers than the Browns, and then lamenting why the NFL team gets paid more. It's because of the Cowboys and Patriots, not the eyeballs the Browns bring.

That said, in a completely fair world, switching out Wake for UConn should theoretically involve a small bump in tv revenue (as 70-80% of the contract seems to be football, it wouldn't be a huge bump). And even if not, UConn fits well into the ACC and honestly that is what I would like to see when and if Notre Dame comes in. But until such time, train your ire towards your AAC mates. They are the ones you are subsidizing. Wake has their own sugar daddies, and you aren't one of them.

 

[Penfield]

@billybud I'm pretty sure this conversation is over your head.

 

[upstater]

ESPN looks at it by conference. They have to since that is what they pay for. It's not UConn being worth more than Wake Forest, it's the ACC being worth more than the AAC. UConn women get shown 18 times, Wake Forest men get shown 0. If that was the end of the story, you could say aha! But the fact is Louisville-Clemson got nearly 10 million viewers, and that is what Wake is being paid for.

Now there is truth in the fact that UConn is underpaid relative to their worth. But again, that is because you are subsidizing the rest of the AAC. Wake has nothing to do with it.

Interestingly, the old Big XII used to pay television appearance fees, it's a quick way to make conference mates unhappy.

No, they look at the bottom line.

If ESPN did it any other way, they would be showing the properties they pay more on the network.

ESPN wants ratings.

 

[upstater]

But all the teams are in the NFL, so every cut is the same. In your scenario, it would be if a XFL franchise got more viewers than the Browns, and then lamenting why the NFL team gets paid more. It's because of the Cowboys and Patriots, not the eyeballs the Browns bring.

That said, in a completely fair world, switching out Wake for UConn should theoretically involve a small bump in tv revenue (as 70-80% of the contract seems to be football, it wouldn't be a huge bump). And even if not, UConn fits well into the ACC and honestly that is what I would like to see when and if Notre Dame comes in. But until such time, train your ire towards your AAC mates. They are the ones you are subsidizing. Wake has their own sugar daddies, and you aren't one of them.

If the XFL got more viewers than the Browns, they would have a big contract with ESPN.

Again, we are talking about 40 games to 3. HUGE difference.

 

[upstater]

And I am not sure about your "guarantee"...we all see through our fan glasses.

I see UConn and BC as pretty interchangeable on the TV schedule...but that is also, hnestly, from my perspective.

And this is why UConn is on 40 times, while BC is on 3.

Because they are interchangeable.

Do you know how crazy that sounds?

 

[upstater]

Are you sure that if you switched BC and UConn on the football schedule, that the results would be different? That UConn would appear on the "marquee networks" at a higher rate.

The weaker programs in a conference get TV time when playing the stronger programs....and UConn may not get any more time than BC or Wake did this year if switched....that was my point, although not strongly made.

You just ignored everything.

 

[JeepCSC]

No, they look at the bottom line.

If ESPN did it any other way, they would be showing the properties they pay more on the network.

ESPN wants ratings.

Again, Wake Forest isn't the one getting paid. The ACC is the one getting paid. ESPN is paying for the ACC content, Wake Forest is merely the beneficiary.

 

[JeepCSC]

If the XFL got more viewers than the Browns, they would have a big contract with ESPN.

Again, we are talking about 40 games to 3. HUGE difference.

Unfortunately networks don't pay for individual teams. So one XFL's teams ratings being better than the Browns is irrelevant if the NFL's rating collectively are still 50 times bigger than the XFL's collectively.

 

[CTMike]

UConn's value is not in a vacuum. In a basket of deplorables, UConn is undervalued. In the ACC, UConn would be in a position to maximize value to a conference. From a TV network standpoint too, UConn would drive viewers to an ACCN. However ESPN seems to feel "why by the cow when we get the milk for free".

 

[upstater]

The whole AAC is currently scheduled for fewer than 20 games on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU....UConn is not scheduled for 40 football games on these channels...

Are you talking basketball?

Brainless

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Again, Wake Forest isn't the one getting paid. The ACC is the one getting paid. ESPN is paying for the ACC content, Wake Forest is merely the beneficiary.

This is very true but aside from the overarching point (which you are either deliberately ignoring or unable to comprehend) the ultimate end result of what you stated (in this environment where pursuit of further dollars takes precedent) will be schools like FSU asking themselves why schools like Wake & BC are getting the benefit of FSU's success. The next domino to fall here will be the P-5 schools who can't carry their own weight. The move to a P-4 world will be through cherry picking the best of the ACC & B-12.

 

[upstater]

Unfortunately networks don't pay for individual teams. So one XFL's teams ratings being better than the Browns is irrelevant if the NFL's rating collectively are still 50 times bigger than the XFL's collectively.

Wrong. If an XFL team were being shown 40 times, it would be making huge sums of money.

 

[lne001]

ESPN meanwhile is in the business of getting ratings. From their point-of-view, they are going to show the most valuable properties on TV more.

Actually ESPN is in the business of making money. Thus they show their best properties on their best channels at the best time slots. This is what drives advertising revenue. Football is thus the king, with a nod to men's basketball. Women's basketball draws little and makes little money. Putting UConn women's basketball on ESPN3 at 7:00 PM EST with 10 other women's games is not a significant revenue generator, no matter how many times they are on.

Any analysis which does not show advertising dollars generated is meaningless to ESPN.

 

[upstater]

Again, Wake Forest isn't the one getting paid. The ACC is the one getting paid. ESPN is paying for the ACC content, Wake Forest is merely the beneficiary.

It is about inventory for ESPN. ESPN wants high ratings. So it chooses the games that are most valuable to give it high ratings. That's the entire point. Don't Wake Forest us. UConn bball is shown 15 times on the marquee networks, which is more than anyone not named Kansas, Kentucky, UNC and Duke. When you add women's basketball to it, which gets as high ratings as the men, UConn's inventory doubles.Nothing to do with Wake Forest.