Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="JeepCSC, post: 1862996, member: 3214"] There seem to be multiple issues you all are working on, so I'll try again to be clear. I get it makes you sad that Wake Forest makes more than UConn when UConn appears more often on ESPN. But the fact is ESPN is not paying for UConn content or Wake Forest content. It is paying for ACC content and AAC content. If someone wanted to complain about Wake Forest, it would be the schools that Wake is directly taking money from, that are literally subsidizing Deacon sports. That is those contractually bound to Wake. Tulane and Tulsa are the ones they are keeping afloat with all the Huskies appearances on ESPN. If we are speaking only of who UConn is subsidizing as the word was intended, it is there one must look. Wake isn't being subsidized by UConn any more than UNC is subsidizing Tulsa. Even if money from the UNC-Duke game makes its way into Tulsa's coffers, that does not a subsidy make. The other issue seemed to be whether the ACC was being propped up by the AAC. That was a different charge, and one harder to discuss since we don't have access to ESPN's books. I decided to look at the numbers just for fun. Simply looking at the sheer difference in viewers brought in by the two conferences, I think it is probably a dead end though. Even with UConn involved, the ACC's difference in value is ginormous. The most watched UConn game in 2015 was with Duke. 18 games involving ACC teams beat it in ratings. The argument that is AAC is propping up the ACC just seems weird. UConn fans have a right to be mad at Swofford and ESPN and the world. But at least argue the points well. UConn is not subsidizing Wake, it is subsidizing Tulsa, and it's unlikely the profits on the AAC are being used to prop up the ACC. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach