$3M per year after the Cavs made a run at him. He is staying at UCONN.

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-mens...2424.story

$15M over 5 years. Between his salary and Geno's $2.15M per year, that's a lot of dollars. That's what elite programs do.

(05-19-2014 07:31 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  $3M per year after the Cavs made a run at him. He is staying at UCONN.

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-mens...2424.story

$15M over 5 years. Between his salary and Geno's $2.15M per year, that's a lot of dollars. That's what elite programs do.

Damn straight and only makes sense. No excuses.

Ollie leaving UConn never crossed my mind... Congrats UConn... Or should I say, congrats Ollie for that insane pay raise.

Good job.
From where did Ollie come? Was he a long time Calhoun assistant?

(05-19-2014 11:10 PM)DrBox Wrote:  Good job.
From where did Ollie come? Was he a long time Calhoun assistant?

No. Kevin Ollie played for UCONN and graduated from UCONN. He played 13 years in the NBA. He was a Calhoun assistant for 2 years before he got the head coaching job. He bleeds UCONN blue. I also believe he met his wife at UCONN.

I am pretty sure he would make a great NBA coach. He has years of experience in the NBA and he was a mentor to guys like LeBron and Kevin Durant. Both of those guys still speak highly of Ollie to this day. If guys like Steve Kerr, Jason Kidd, and Mark Jackson can coach in the NBA, I believe Ollie can too and that's why NBA teams will continue to come after him.

However, it will take a lot to get Ollie out of Storrs. I am glad UCONN is spending the money to keep Ollie. We have to spend like the big boys as we are one.

You're right - you have to pay like the big boys to play with the big boys.

Congrats on keeping Ollie. It's good to see a coach that loves his alma mater to the point that he's staying. yes, he's making a boatload of money, but he's earned it.

well done Uconn

(05-19-2014 09:06 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Ollie leaving UConn never crossed my mind... Congrats UConn... Or should I say, congrats Ollie for that insane pay raise.

I don't think he longed for the NBA, but when he was mentioned as a candidate at the Lakers, I think he had to listen. That is a different realm than just the NBA. For that matter I don't think Brad Stevens would have left college if it had not been Boston that offered him.

(05-20-2014 07:03 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  You're right - you have to pay like the big boys to play with the big boys...

And thank goodness we're finally in a conference where there are *some* other programs that do.

(05-20-2014 08:19 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 09:06 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Ollie leaving UConn never crossed my mind... Congrats UConn... Or should I say, congrats Ollie for that insane pay raise.

I don't think he longed for the NBA, but when he was mentioned as a candidate at the Lakers, I think he had to listen. That is a different realm than just the NBA. For that matter I don't think Brad Stevens would have left college if it had not been Boston that offered him.

Exactly, you don't want to burn any bridges and talking with NBA teams and being a serious candidate can only help in recruiting.

The biggest news to me is that Geno gets $2.15mm. I suppose there is a positive ROI but that is still much more than I would have guessed.

(05-20-2014 10:08 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  The biggest news to me is that Geno gets $2.15mm. I suppose there is a positive ROI but that is still much more than I would have guessed.

It's a huge revenue sport for us, and he's probably the best women's hoops coach of all time. Of course he gets paid accordingly.

Yeah Louisville's women's coach makes about $1 million a year, as it is a big revenue sport here as well. Our average attendance is close to 9500 per game with 189k total attendance. To put it in perspective, it would rank 4th in the AAC men's ranking just behind our men's team, Memphis, and UConn and 7th in the ACC (ahead of Duke, among others). It would be first in C-USA

But even with that, Walz' resume doesn't stack up to Geno. Geno earns his money.

(05-20-2014 10:08 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  The biggest news to me is that Geno gets $2.15mm. I suppose there is a positive ROI but that is still much more than I would have guessed.

UCONN women bball makes more money than half of the D1A FB schools, including some in the AAC. Geno is being paid fairly.

Also, UCONN women's tier-3 (not tier-1 or 2, but tier-3 rights against not so good teams) TV rights is being paid $1.14M per year by SNY. Comparing to AAC's $2M per year TV payout, UCONN is being way way way underpaid for our media rights. Aresco better fix that soon for the conference.

(05-20-2014 01:09 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 10:08 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  The biggest news to me is that Geno gets $2.15mm. I suppose there is a positive ROI but that is still much more than I would have guessed.

UCONN women bball makes more money than half of the D1A FB schools, including some in the AAC. Geno is being paid fairly.

Also, UCONN women's tier-3 (not tier-1 or 2, but tier-3 rights against not so good teams) TV rights is being paid $1.14M per year by SNY. Comparing to AAC's $2M per year TV payout, UCONN is being way way way underpaid for our media rights. Aresco better fix that soon for the conference.

I was just surprised with the salary, that's all.

Right to match was the deal killer IMO.

Right to match made the contract better. Without the right to match, you'd see the same deal monetarily, but with with games on NBC Sports, as opposed to ESPN Networks. All the right to match did was allow ESPN to match the terms, they initially balked at offering (timeslot guarantees). There was no downside to the right to match.

Lack of an interested third bidder was the problem.

(05-20-2014 03:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Right to match made the contract better. Without the right to match, you'd see the same deal monetarily, but with with games on NBC Sports, as opposed to ESPN Networks. All the right to match did was allow ESPN to match the terms, they initially balked at offering (timeslot guarantees). There was no downside to the right to match.

Lack of an interested third bidder was the problem.

Wait what? Right to match essentially turned it into a 1 bid deal? ESPN just sat back and waited. No? Now they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Right to match killed any possibility of a competitive bidding process. Still shocked Aresco allowed that to stand (or the lawyers thought it was a losing fight) for a league with no name and 8 new members.

(05-20-2014 03:34 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Right to match made the contract better. Without the right to match, you'd see the same deal monetarily, but with with games on NBC Sports, as opposed to ESPN Networks. All the right to match did was allow ESPN to match the terms, they initially balked at offering (timeslot guarantees). There was no downside to the right to match.

Lack of an interested third bidder was the problem.

Wait what? Right to match essentially turned it into a 1 bid deal? ESPN just sat back and waited. No? Now they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Right to match killed any possibility of a competitive bidding process. Still shocked Aresco allowed that to stand (or the lawyers thought it was a losing fight) for a league with no name and 8 new members.

No, that is not correct at all, nor remotely how it happened. ESPN was actually the HIGHEST bidder and offered about double what NBC did. They offered more money during the exclusive negogotiating period, and their offer after the AAC hit the free market was still higher than the NBC offer by a wide margin (but lower than the initial offer). However it had more syndicated and ESPN3 games, and much fewer guaranteed national TV games compared to the NBC offer. The AAC turned ESPN down in favor of a contract with NBC, because it offered more guaranteed national TV games on NBC Sports (it offered a few options on NBC Network, but no actual guarantees). There was actually a third offer, but it was even worse than the other two.

That is why you always hear people say the AAC and Aresco chose exposure over money: they did when they signed with NBC. They then presented the deal with NBC to ESPN, as per the right to match, and to everyone's surprise ESPN decided to match the terms, something NBC never expected would happen. The AAC ultimately decided to then sign with ESPN. They did not have to sign with ESPN with the right to match, but chose too because they preferred the exposure on ESPN Networks over NBC.

The right to match did no such thing. You mentioned this before, and we corrected you, but I guess you missed it. Without the right to match, the same process happens, only the AAC sticks with the deal they signed with NBC.

(05-20-2014 04:02 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:34 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Right to match made the contract better. Without the right to match, you'd see the same deal monetarily, but with with games on NBC Sports, as opposed to ESPN Networks. All the right to match did was allow ESPN to match the terms, they initially balked at offering (timeslot guarantees). There was no downside to the right to match.

Lack of an interested third bidder was the problem.

Wait what? Right to match essentially turned it into a 1 bid deal? ESPN just sat back and waited. No? Now they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Right to match killed any possibility of a competitive bidding process. Still shocked Aresco allowed that to stand (or the lawyers thought it was a losing fight) for a league with no name and 8 new members.

No, that is not correct at all, nor remotely how it happened. ESPN was actually the HIGHEST bidder and offered about double what NBC did. They offered more money during the exclusive negogotiating period, and their offer after the AAC hit the free market was still higher than the NBC offer by a wide margin (but lower than the initial offer). However it had more syndicated and ESPN3 games, and much fewer guaranteed national TV games compared to the NBC offer. The AAC turned ESPN down in favor of a contract with NBC, because it offered more guaranteed national TV games on NBC Sports (it offered a few options on NBC Network, but no actual guarantees). There was actually a third offer, but it was even worse than the other two.

That is why you always hear people say the AAC and Aresco chose exposure over money: they did when they signed with NBC. They then presented the deal with NBC to ESPN, as per the right to match, and to everyone's surprise ESPN decided to match the terms, something NBC never expected would happen. The AAC ultimately decided to then sign with ESPN. They did not have to sign with ESPN with the right to match, but chose too because they preferred the exposure on ESPN Networks over NBC.

The right to match did no such thing. You mentioned this before, and we corrected you, but I guess you missed it. Without the right to match, the same process happens, only the AAC sticks with the deal they signed with NBC.

aac obsessed
you louisville fans just wont leave will you

gotta give you credit, at least you didnt make an alias

The only one obsessed is you. Half your posts are about Louisville.

Funny how me educating someone on the process of the TV contract of which my team was a member of the conference of (and yours wasn't by the way) makes me "obsessed." SMH.