What about UConn and Navy or UConn and Temple to ACC? Would help with ACC TV

(03-20-2017 02:34 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  What WVU lacks in research and population, it more than makes up in longstanding football rivalries against Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers and a new rivalry against UConn. Adding UConn/WVU (or an alternative eastern school) would free up OSU, Indiana, MSU and Michigan to play the western schools in football on a more regular basis.

Not in football, although possibly in other sports. Two 8 team divisions would result in a reduction of cross division games from 3 to 2.

(03-20-2017 02:34 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  What WVU lacks in research and population, it more than makes up in longstanding football rivalries against Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers and a new rivalry against UConn. Adding UConn/WVU (or an alternative eastern school) would free up OSU, Indiana, MSU and Michigan to play the western schools in football on a more regular basis.

No, to all of those. Particularly trying to get more football games between Ohio St, the Michigans, and the West programs.

Big Ten tried the "we'll add a top football team with lots of tradition, in spite of being a low(er) research school in a small population state" approach with Nebraska. It has failed, other than women's volleyball.

Rutgers and Maryland were the correct adds, and additional adds probably need to be of that type.

(03-20-2017 02:42 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  What about UConn and Navy or UConn and Temple to ACC? Would help with ACC TV

Again, as part of the ACC's due diligence, they undoubtedly looked at this. They had professionals advising them on the ACCN. Just my guess , but I would think that the potential increase in cable box fees was more than offset by the fact that they could not get an increase in the value of the overall media rights to justify adding two new schools without existing members taking a haircut.

In the end, it's the money that talks. If going to 16 would have strengthened the Conference financially over the long-term, they would have acted accordingly, IMO. Once again, IMO, nobody would move that needle except for a ND or Texas.

(03-20-2017 12:39 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I agree with much of your analysis, however football independence just isn't viable except for programs with a national following (ND, BYU, service academies maybe). Scheduling becomes nearly impossible and this would be the death knell for UCONN football. Maybe they prefer that; who knows.

This gets tossed around a lot, but I'm not totally convinced that it's true. UMass and Liberty would sign up for annual series yesterday, and you should be able to get something on a recurring basis with Army too (maybe at Yankee Stadium in November every year - they did that a few years ago and it worked really well). If you could get a two-home, two-away scheduling arrangement with any one of the MAC/SBC/CUSA those seven plus your FCS game gives you a reliable 8 games every year and then you're just scheduling four "OOC" games every year, which isn't that much different than what you're doing now. Hell, maybe BYU agrees to an annual series in November that alternates between Provo and one of the NYC baseball stadiums just to get the New York games. Four CUSA teams, Army/UMass/Liberty/BYU, an FCS opponent, and three low-level P5 opponents is doable.

The ACC won't touch Liberty (for good reason).

UMass would not be a bad addition but with Boston College they don't really need to go there.

(03-20-2017 03:35 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  The ACC won't touch Liberty (for good reason).

UMass would not be a bad addition but with Boston College they don't really need to go there.

I'm talking about UConn putting together a schedule as an independent, not all (or even any) of those schools joining/affiliating with the ACC.

(03-20-2017 03:23 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 12:39 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I agree with much of your analysis, however football independence just isn't viable except for programs with a national following (ND, BYU, service academies maybe). Scheduling becomes nearly impossible and this would be the death knell for UCONN football. Maybe they prefer that; who knows.

This gets tossed around a lot, but I'm not totally convinced that it's true. UMass and Liberty would sign up for annual series yesterday, and you should be able to get something on a recurring basis with Army too (maybe at Yankee Stadium in November every year - they did that a few years ago and it worked really well). If you could get a two-home, two-away scheduling arrangement with any one of the MAC/SBC/CUSA those seven plus your FCS game gives you a reliable 8 games every year and then you're just scheduling four "OOC" games every year, which isn't that much different than what you're doing now. Hell, maybe BYU agrees to an annual series in November that alternates between Provo and one of the NYC baseball stadiums just to get the New York games. Four CUSA teams, Army/UMass/Liberty/BYU, an FCS opponent, and three low-level P5 opponents is doable.

Disadvantages:

• No/less potential CFB Playoff Money
• No Access Bowl slot
• No Bowl tie-ins. This could be an issue if the number of bowls goes down and there aren't any unfilled slots.
  

This would also assume that UCOnn could get a local TV contract (SNY would be willing but they'd get pre-empted for the Mets or have to schedule around the Mets). It could happen but I think the independent route moves UConn further away from a P5 slot should one become available.

(03-20-2017 02:42 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  What about UConn and Navy or UConn and Temple to ACC? Would help with ACC TV

Nah. We're full.

(03-20-2017 04:53 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 03:23 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 12:39 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I agree with much of your analysis, however football independence just isn't viable except for programs with a national following (ND, BYU, service academies maybe). Scheduling becomes nearly impossible and this would be the death knell for UCONN football. Maybe they prefer that; who knows.

This gets tossed around a lot, but I'm not totally convinced that it's true. UMass and Liberty would sign up for annual series yesterday, and you should be able to get something on a recurring basis with Army too (maybe at Yankee Stadium in November every year - they did that a few years ago and it worked really well). If you could get a two-home, two-away scheduling arrangement with any one of the MAC/SBC/CUSA those seven plus your FCS game gives you a reliable 8 games every year and then you're just scheduling four "OOC" games every year, which isn't that much different than what you're doing now. Hell, maybe BYU agrees to an annual series in November that alternates between Provo and one of the NYC baseball stadiums just to get the New York games. Four CUSA teams, Army/UMass/Liberty/BYU, an FCS opponent, and three low-level P5 opponents is doable.

Disadvantages:

• No/less potential CFB Playoff Money
• No Access Bowl slot
• No Bowl tie-ins. This could be an issue if the number of bowls goes down and there aren't any unfilled slots.
  

This would also assume that UCOnn could get a local TV contract (SNY would be willing but they'd get pre-empted for the Mets or have to schedule around the Mets). It could happen but I think the independent route moves UConn further away from a P5 slot should one become available.

I'm really not concerned about the access bowl - if being in a much more logical/lucrative basketball conference means once every 15-20 years UConn plays in the Las Vegas Bowl instead of the Fiesta Bowl, that's not much of a sacrifice (and that's assuming UConn can actually be the highest-rated G5 program once every decade and a half). Any lost revenue from the CFB playoff would be more than offset by the bump in revenue from the Big East and selling football independently, and you may even be able to get bowl tie-ins through CUSA or the Sun Belt.

As far as TV goes - they'd get bidders locally, like you said. I think they could even get Fox to toss them a little money to fill that noontime slot to grease the wheels on getting both basketball programs in-house. It's one thing to say that UConn doesn't bring an additional $25-30 million a year in added value to the ACC or B1G, but Fox would be getting the option to purchase all UConn sports a la carte for like $5-7 million (total, which would mean something like 500k-2.5mil for football on top of the BE money), which is much more reasonable.

(03-20-2017 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I guess that means the ACC will allow Texas to keep all revenue from the LHN, and perhaps even show some ACC contests in Austin on the network, with again Texas keeping all that revenue to themselves.

If the rumors are true that ESPN will not only be getting rid of ESPN News, but ESPN Classic, I don't see how the struggling Longhorn Network will survive.

(03-20-2017 07:34 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I guess that means the ACC will allow Texas to keep all revenue from the LHN, and perhaps even show some ACC contests in Austin on the network, with again Texas keeping all that revenue to themselves.

If the rumors are true that ESPN will not only be getting rid of ESPN News, but ESPN Classic, I don't see how the struggling Longhorn Network will survive.

It's this kind of thing that also makes me nervous about the American's next tv contract. With ESPN shedding personnel and possibly channels, I'm dubious of the idea that they're going to just up and double or triple the conference's payout in the middle of all that.

(03-20-2017 07:55 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 07:34 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I guess that means the ACC will allow Texas to keep all revenue from the LHN, and perhaps even show some ACC contests in Austin on the network, with again Texas keeping all that revenue to themselves.

If the rumors are true that ESPN will not only be getting rid of ESPN News, but ESPN Classic, I don't see how the struggling Longhorn Network will survive.

It's this kind of thing that also makes me nervous about the American's next tv contract. With ESPN shedding personnel and possibly channels, I'm dubious of the idea that they're going to just up and double or triple the conference's payout in the middle of all that.

Where are the articles about espn shuttering ESPNnews and espn classic? I've heard it mentioned here only.

(03-20-2017 08:03 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 07:55 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 07:34 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I guess that means the ACC will allow Texas to keep all revenue from the LHN, and perhaps even show some ACC contests in Austin on the network, with again Texas keeping all that revenue to themselves.

If the rumors are true that ESPN will not only be getting rid of ESPN News, but ESPN Classic, I don't see how the struggling Longhorn Network will survive.

It's this kind of thing that also makes me nervous about the American's next tv contract. With ESPN shedding personnel and possibly channels, I'm dubious of the idea that they're going to just up and double or triple the conference's payout in the middle of all that.

Where are the articles about espn shuttering ESPNnews and espn classic? I've heard it mentioned here only.
Cheers!

This is a 16-page thread about an expansion rumor that stems from a person on the internet posting on a separate forum that they talked to a guy who claims to know a guy that said the ACC might look at something. Fair to say we're all just bouncing ideas off each other. However, ESPN's revenue issues are well-known, and it's not exactly a stretch to think that those issues are likely to impact the next couple TV deal negotiations that come up.

If the LHN is generating good revenue in Texas markets -- and I see no reason why it wouldn't be -- they're not going to cut the channel.

(03-20-2017 08:14 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 08:03 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 07:55 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 07:34 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I guess that means the ACC will allow Texas to keep all revenue from the LHN, and perhaps even show some ACC contests in Austin on the network, with again Texas keeping all that revenue to themselves.

If the rumors are true that ESPN will not only be getting rid of ESPN News, but ESPN Classic, I don't see how the struggling Longhorn Network will survive.

It's this kind of thing that also makes me nervous about the American's next tv contract. With ESPN shedding personnel and possibly channels, I'm dubious of the idea that they're going to just up and double or triple the conference's payout in the middle of all that.

Where are the articles about espn shuttering ESPNnews and espn classic? I've heard it mentioned here only.
Cheers!

This is a 16-page thread about an expansion rumor that stems from a person on the internet posting on a separate forum that they talked to a guy who claims to know a guy that said the ACC might look at something. Fair to say we're all just bouncing ideas off each other. However, ESPN's revenue issues are well-known, and it's not exactly a stretch to think that those issues are likely to impact the next couple TV deal negotiations that come up.

Oh ok...I was googling it. Got ya.

(03-20-2017 09:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If the LHN is generating good revenue in Texas markets -- and I see no reason why it wouldn't be -- they're not going to cut the channel.

Texas wanted that channel to do more than just give them Texas. They already have that.

I've heard that this network is more than just struggling. And if ESPN is seriously considering shedding ESPN News AND Classic, I think the writing is on the wall for the Longhorn Network.

I could easily see a scenario, where ESPN tries to broker a situation where Texas gets an ND deal with the ACC, so that ESPN can bolster it's new ACC network in one of the biggest, and fastest growing states. And then Texas gets access throughout the ACC footprint by being a part of the ACC.

I think it's only a matter of time actually.

I see a merger between the big12 and the AAC except that Texas would not be allowed in the new super conference, Nebraska would take their place then the ACC invites Texas and they accept then ND becomes full ACC member and everything is just peachy and stable with the ACC until one day during a conference lunch everybody starts to realize that their stomachs are exploding and a bunch of little longhorns come clawing their way out and scurry away only to coalesce into a giant ego trip blob with longhorns leaving behind the skeletal remains that was once the great and stable ACC
Then just like that the SEC sees a great opportunity to add Texas to their conference and mint even more gold with their new found friends and proceed to rejoice in a great big luncheon when suddenly their stomachs EXPLODE! ... and then on to another conference and so on......"and now for something completely different"
Have fun boys...

(03-20-2017 10:27 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  Texas wanted that channel to do more than just give them Texas. They already have that.

I've heard that this network is more than just struggling. And if ESPN is seriously considering shedding ESPN News AND Classic, I think the writing is on the wall for the Longhorn Network.

Whether or not the writing is on the wall for the Longhorn Network is entirely due to the performance of the Longhorn Network ... I've just googled and read an article from 2015 that it was "going to" hit break-even in 2016, but I don't know if it did.

It's certainly conceivable that the LHN may start to show a modest profit for a while. But it seems likely that the month that the contract expires is the month the plug is pulled on the Longhorn network in its present form, unless there has been a renegotiation that changes the form of the network, because it seems likely that sometime in the 2020's, the erosion of cable revenue will put it back underwater again, and that time is will be underwater for good.

That may mean that as the end of the contracted period comes closer, the incentive on the part of Texas to find some alternative arrangement will be growing ... but the end of the contracted period is more than a decade in the future, and so we are a long way away from any incentive to start thinking through the end-game of the network.

ESPN is not obligated to anybody to provide ESPNU, ESPN News or ESPN Classic over the coming decade ... providing those networks is about the carriage they can get, their production costs, and the amount of low-incremental-cost programming that can be provided from sporting events which would otherwise be relegated to ESPN3. A smaller inventory in sporting events that can attract an audience after the needs of ESPN and ESPN2 are taken care, because ESPN is no longer willing to break the bank for content the way they were in 2010 with the LHN, combined with the challenge of negotiating carriage for the ACC Network (which also reduces the inventory for the lesser ESPN cable channels), makes it seem increasingly likely that the retrenching the number of cable channels is the profitable move.

Each retrenchment will, necessarily, increase the pool of available inventory of a given quality for each remaining channel, so rather than one retrenchment rapidly leading to another, it seems more likely that each retrenchment will be followed by a period of relative stability. IOW, a long, fighting retreat from one entrenched position to the next seems more likely than a sudden collapse.

One reason the LHN has such a small impact on the other channels goes to the core problem with the LHN, which is that it has such a limited inventory of games of interest. ESPN doesn't have very much incentive to pay UT-Austin any premium to buy out of the LHN obligation, because so little attractive inventory would be made available by that move.

See even espin is waking up with an exploding stomach and out comes a giant mega egotistical LHN and will soon be looking for its next host to infect...
Lookout bruceMcf, you could be next!