SF Husky
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11,338
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 295
I Root For: UCONN
Location: |
RE: The pressure on John Marinatto
(08-05-2011 12:53 PM)cuseroc Wrote: (08-05-2011 09:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (08-04-2011 06:25 PM)CatsClaw Wrote: Academics WAS NOT a reason for BC leaving. BC actually almost stayed (they stayed around long enough to help support Cincinnati getting into the conference). BC would have stayed if the Big East football schools had split off and formed an All-Sports conference. BC and Syracuse were leading the charge (with Syracuse calling Cincinnati personally and asking out opinion, I'm sure Louisville got the same call). I tell people outside of the Big East that you have a skewed view because you look at the Big East as week. Saying that BC wouldn't come back even if the Big East doubled the money is ridiculous and naive. If the Big East doubled the money BC would be here, as would several other ACC schools. The legal "bad blood" died off years ago. A new TV deal would assure the Big East's stability for years to come because it would allow the schools to build themselves and the conference up, while allowing us to form our own network. If the Big East formed out own All-Sports Conference, signed a monster TV deal and started our own Network would BC come back? Why wouldn't they since the Big East would be just as stable, if not more stable, then the ACC. Heck, you can easily say that the ACC is only secure for the next few years. Once that contract is up the SEC and Big Ten will come calling for them.
When I talk about stability, it's with respect to whether your most valuable members are ever going to leave. The MAC is completely stable because no one else wants their members. Does it make the MAC more valuable than the unstable Big 12? If the Big Ten and SEC, who can offer more money than anyone long-term, want ACC members in the first place, doesn't that show the inherent underlying value of a number of those ACC schools?
Where I think the ACC is stable is that the core of the ACC - UNC/Duke/UVA - will never leave, which in turn means that VT isn't ever going to leave due to politics. (I really hope no one thinks UVA is going to let VT walk away to make more money in the SEC after the Cavaliers threw themselves in front of the original ACC expansion train due to political pressure.) I also don't see Miami or Florida State ever leaving, which means the ACC will always have 2nd and 3rd biggest players in the Florida market, both of whom have national brand names. The schools that we're talking about possibly being most ripe for the picking from the ACC - Maryland, BC, Clemson, etc. - have value, yet those schools aren't critical to the survival of the ACC. All of those schools are the ACC equivalents of Missouri - they have nice markets on paper, but their views of how valuable they are in the scheme of things are vastly skewed. The Big 12 is only unstable to the extent that its anchor of UT would leave, so as long as UT doesn't leave, it's going to live. In turn, the ACC might have weaker loyalty on the fringes, but I think a lot of people are underestimating how strongly tied its anchors are to the conference.
In contrast, can you honestly say that even if the BE gets the deal that everyone is hoping for next year that Syracuse would still turn down an invite to join the Big Ten or ACC if asked? Rutgers? Pitt? West Virginia? Would Louisville turn down an invite to the Big 12? (If there's any move down the line that non-Louisville BE fans should worry about, it's that one much more than the Northeastern schools.) Those are core schools for the BE that are at a legitimate risk of moving that could very well kill the league.
Now, I don't believe the BE is weak. I've said over and over again that all of this conference realignment talk this year is really just a mental masturbation. None of the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC have any real reason to expand for the next decade, which means that the Big 12 and Big East are going to be perfectly fine during that time period. To the extent that conferences will make moves, they're going to be looking at the mid-2020s as the next step in realignment (if there's any at all), because that's when the SEC is going to be truly free to make moves and that's probably when the Big Ten will have its next new deal end, as well.
What I'm saying is that no one should equate extra TV dollars into being able to suddenly add whoever they want. It's certainly a big factor, but it's not the *only* factor. Plenty of schools have made moves to not take the most TV money. UT would've made more if it had gone to the Pac-16. ND could make more TV money tomorrow if it joins the Big Ten and the Irish leadership knows it. Miami itself was guaranteed more money from the BE in a Texas-type TV deal if it turned down the 2003 ACC offer.
Look, I'm admittedly as guilty as anyone about talking about the importance of TV money - I had been stressing that for years when others were talking about "geography", "fit" and "culture" when it came to expansion. Now, it's as if though the pendulum has swung in the complete opposite direction, where people now assume that schools *only* care about TV money. It's simply not true. The inertia in college sports is incredibly strong. I can't think of a better deal than the Pac-16 that would've triggered a massive realignment - Larry Scott truly put together a package that made sense financially AND politically. The fact the Pac-16 deal didn't get done when it was perfectly tailor-made to get the biggest fish of them all - Texas - to move, speaks volumes to how difficult it is for schools to leave their own nests (especially those schools that have real control over their conferences like UT, UNC/Duke, etc.).
LOL, Frank.  I can honestly say that if the BE got the deal that everyone wants that SU would turn down an acc invite. So would Rutgers, so would Pitt. Its foolish to think differently. Your statement shows how little regard and respect that you have for the BE and you are DEAD WRONG. SU may not turn down an invite from the Big 10, but the acc is not the Big 10, neither does it provide the stability of the Big 10 or revenues. You maybe correct that the BE will be making more money temporarily tha the acc. But that temporary period is at least 10 years.[b]
If the BE is getting $7 or 8 million more per year per team, over a 10 year period, its going to be hard for any team in the acc to turn away that kind of money in these difficult financial times. Im sure some would. But they would think long and hard about it. I also believe that the BE is still working on its own network. Marrinato was quated saying that he feels that the BE could get the same type of deal that the Pac 10 got. He said this when they first announce their tv network partners.
Having your own tv network is another way to create stability.
This and the fact that WVU, UL and UCONN already generate more revenue than 8 ACC schools NOW with this pathetic BE TV contract. That gap will only getting wider with BE's new TV contract. Why would UCONN ever leave for the ACC unless half other NE schools come with us?
What would be the motivation to leave for the ACC? Playing in a southern conference as a northern team for less money? Money was the MAIN factor why BCU left and the new BE TV contract will address that. People at BCU that claim they left for academics need to get a reality check. Things won't work unless our nearby rivals go with us. You just don't leave your close by rivals unless there is boatload of money waiting. ACC can't offer that. PAC-12, B1G and SEC can offer that.
Frank is wrong about the B1G expansion and Frank is wrong about the stability of the ACC. Once BE signs the new deal, ACC would be ripe for picking if there are further expansion talks from other conferences. Most ACC schools would bail if there are better offers out there just like most schools in other conferences.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2011 10:42 AM by SF Husky.)
|
|
