(04-12-2015 10:30 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I could buy 15 is the new 16 with 3 pods of 5 and a 2 game playoff

Big 10 - Uconn
ACC- Cincy
SEC- WVU

Big 12- BYU, cut a deal with the sec/wv
pac 12- stand

3 out of the 5 leagues get the bonus playoff being at 15. Than Pac 12 and big 12 could merge with a football only setup of 24 teams, 4 pods of 6 and a 2 game playoff…bring in 2 MWC school's into the big 12. In the end you got 4 champs for the playoffs.

WVU is better than BYU in every respect. Why would the B12 just give them away?

(04-12-2015 08:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 07:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 03:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  I would have to say that Arkansas and Missouri ceded to the Big 12 wouldn't hurt the SEC's bottom line at all.

Actually the loss of Missouri would hurt. It is essentially a one school state of 6 million. Arkansas would be debatable. Losing a Mississippi School, or Vanderbilt wouldn't affect the SEC monetarily. Auburn is top 10 in revenue annually (sometimes 11th), and those are the only duplicated footprint schools. Vanderbilt would hurt academically.

JR you are looking at dollars and I'm looking at "fit".
Actually if it were up to me, I would move out Vanderbilt too and add West Virginia.

Nah, we'd swap you Vanderbilt for Virginia Tech straight up. Or, we could swap you Vanderbilt for N.C. State and you would throw in some cash and oh let's say two bowl tie ins for 5 years. How about that?

For Vanderbilt, we wouldn't even give you Boston College.
Virginia Tech would cost you Florida. I admit that NC State isn't worth much, but worth at least a Georgia or Tennessee.
But at least you get West Virginia

No thanks. The deposit on sofas alone is prohibitive not to mention the fines and tax on moonshine seized.

(04-12-2015 08:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  Virginia Tech would cost you Florida.

Post of the year.

(04-12-2015 04:25 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Any chance the Big Ten is also talking to Missouri? The SEC is the only league without a GOR, correct? Perhaps the Big Ten sees UConn and Missouri as the only viable expansion options, as the ACC and Big 12 GOR agreements are iron-clad. Obviously the Big Ten passed on Mizzou earlier and although there's no guarantee they would leave the SEC, in my mind they are probably the only school who would consider it.

The SEC doesn't have an exit fee. But because of the new network, it effectively has a GOR.

(04-12-2015 12:58 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:34 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You don't need 16 with the new CCG rules coming. 16 is good if you go to divisions.

Who said the Big Ten really wants CCG autonomy? They said they like their models beyond 14. They also said they're considering additional affiliate memberships in certain sports.

I don't think UConn's in this conference for anything more than ice hockey. Some schools are going to make for darned sure that if UConn ever wants to be in the Big Ten in everything, that football stadium is on its campus. They held Rutgers to it, and it was one of the things held against Pitt. Mountains aren't moved for UConn. Sorry, folks.

UConn is in a unique situation. I won't go into a five page explanation, but Hartford is the best location for a stadium for many reasons. An on-campus stadium would be problematic.

Ironically, available land is not one of the problems. At 4,200 acres, UConn has a top five campus in terms of size.

There was nothing wrong with Penn State the institution when it approached Big Ten leaders back in the day...Big Ten school athletic directors and coaches hated the location and venues. Imagine if the school parked its sports in someplace more agreeable logistically, like Harrisburg or Hershey, or in Allentown or even Philly...how would that have impacted things?

I don't necessarily disagree that schools need their own venues or need to have them on or near enough their premises, but I know the Big Ten has held others to that standard. And it may have made more sense for Rutgers, or even Maryland, to park their revenue sports over in nearby Newark and Balt-DC respectively...conference brass would have none of it.

Rentschler Field's location, on top of the lack of the AAU thing, that sounds like too much against UConn for the Big Ten I know. If UConn was an Ivy League school, or a research juggernaut with inroads to all the best grants (basically a Johns Hopkins of the Hartford region), and its brand as big as Notre Dame or USC, I could see the Big Ten moving mountains for that. As is, though?

(04-13-2015 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 12:58 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:34 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You don't need 16 with the new CCG rules coming. 16 is good if you go to divisions.

Who said the Big Ten really wants CCG autonomy? They said they like their models beyond 14. They also said they're considering additional affiliate memberships in certain sports.

I don't think UConn's in this conference for anything more than ice hockey. Some schools are going to make for darned sure that if UConn ever wants to be in the Big Ten in everything, that football stadium is on its campus. They held Rutgers to it, and it was one of the things held against Pitt. Mountains aren't moved for UConn. Sorry, folks.

UConn is in a unique situation. I won't go into a five page explanation, but Hartford is the best location for a stadium for many reasons. An on-campus stadium would be problematic.

Ironically, available land is not one of the problems. At 4,200 acres, UConn has a top five campus in terms of size.

There was nothing wrong with Penn State the institution when it approached Big Ten leaders back in the day...Big Ten school athletic directors and coaches hated the location and venues. Imagine if the school parked its sports in someplace more agreeable logistically, like Harrisburg or Hershey, or in Allentown or even Philly...how would that have impacted things?

I don't necessarily disagree that schools need their own venues or need to have them on or near enough their premises, but I know the Big Ten has held others to that standard. And it may have made more sense for Rutgers, or even Maryland, to park their revenue sports over in nearby Newark and Balt-DC respectively...conference brass would have none of it.

Rentschler Field's location, on top of the lack of the AAU thing, that sounds like too much against UConn for the Big Ten I know. If UConn was an Ivy League school, or a research juggernaut with inroads to all the best grants (basically a Johns Hopkins of the Hartford region), and its brand as big as Notre Dame or USC, I could see the Big Ten moving mountains for that. As is, though?

I understand having a concern about the attributes of a stadium, but who cares where it is?

I don't think an on-campus stadium would be impossible for UConn if that is what Big Ten membership required. I honestly think the state would build it and the highway to get to it, if we had to, to get in. I also don't think we'd have any problem filling it with a Big Ten schedule, even though it would be harder to get to for everyone in the state, except the students. So while the Big Ten may not move mountains for UConn, I think the state of CT would move mountains for UConn and the Big Ten.

(04-13-2015 11:15 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I don't think an on-campus stadium would be impossible for UConn if that is what Big Ten membership required. I honestly think the state would build it and the highway to get to it, if we had to, to get in. I also don't think we'd have any problem filling it with a Big Ten schedule, even though it would be harder to get to for everyone in the state, except the students. So while the Big Ten may not move mountains for UConn, I think the state of CT would move mountains for UConn and the Big Ten.

While it is not Big 10 in nature, the SEC requires a capacity of 73,000 for new members. The visiting fan base of SEC schools are given the right of refusal of 14,000 and most schools take them all. All of our schools play on campus and that is nice for tailgating, but I'm not sure it would make that much difference as along as the site is accessible and amenable to the fans. If the Big 10 want's enhanced facilities then I'm sure for it for similar reasons to those of the SEC. Visiting tickets are a big perk which wealthier alumni pay for. The travel crowds are usually very nice people and not the ones who cause trouble. That's why they like to travel and why we like to have them.

The Big doesn't need Syracuse, Buffalo or Army to get all the $ from New York. The combination of Rutgers and UConn would do that. The Combination of UConn and UMass would bring all of the New England $. That's if the state of Massachusetts actually mandates that UMass at Amherst is the de facto "UMass". Then you have two schools "UMass and UConn", both closing in on AAU status and both bringing in huge dollars in Cable Carriage Fees as well as gaining the required viewership % in New York to obtain their Carriage Fees as well.

It would be a huge get for the B1G.

(04-13-2015 11:15 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I don't think an on-campus stadium would be impossible for UConn if that is what Big Ten membership required. I honestly think the state would build it and the highway to get to it, if we had to, to get in. I also don't think we'd have any problem filling it with a Big Ten schedule, even though it would be harder to get to for everyone in the state, except the students. So while the Big Ten may not move mountains for UConn, I think the state of CT would move mountains for UConn and the Big Ten.

Maybe that could happen. I know with a Big 10 schedule, UConn would need a 60,000+ seat stadium. Against Michigan, we sold 42,500 tickets (?) and it could have been many, many more.

(04-13-2015 09:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 11:15 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I don't think an on-campus stadium would be impossible for UConn if that is what Big Ten membership required. I honestly think the state would build it and the highway to get to it, if we had to, to get in. I also don't think we'd have any problem filling it with a Big Ten schedule, even though it would be harder to get to for everyone in the state, except the students. So while the Big Ten may not move mountains for UConn, I think the state of CT would move mountains for UConn and the Big Ten.

Maybe that could happen. I know with a Big 10 schedule, UConn would need a 60,000+ seat stadium. Against Michigan, we sold 42,500 tickets (?) and it could have been many, many more.

I don't know if that's true. But if it is, that's a reason why UConn wants the B1G and not a reason why the B1G should want UConn. In essence, what you are saying is that people in Connecticut aren't interested in watching the Huskies play, but they are interested in watching schools like Michigan play. I don't believe I would use that argument to plead my case to the B1G presidents.

(04-14-2015 09:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 11:15 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I don't think an on-campus stadium would be impossible for UConn if that is what Big Ten membership required. I honestly think the state would build it and the highway to get to it, if we had to, to get in. I also don't think we'd have any problem filling it with a Big Ten schedule, even though it would be harder to get to for everyone in the state, except the students. So while the Big Ten may not move mountains for UConn, I think the state of CT would move mountains for UConn and the Big Ten.

Maybe that could happen. I know with a Big 10 schedule, UConn would need a 60,000+ seat stadium. Against Michigan, we sold 42,500 tickets (?) and it could have been many, many more.

I don't know if that's true. But if it is, that's a reason why UConn wants the B1G and not a reason why the B1G should want UConn. In essence, what you are saying is that people in Connecticut aren't interested in watching the Huskies play, but they are interested in watching schools like Michigan play. I don't believe I would use that argument to plead my case to the B1G presidents.

I don't mean to butt in but I took him to mean that with tougher competition and better revenue UCONN football would be alot more interesting to their fanbase. I mean how many games would Michigan sellout if they were in the MAC ,with MAC tv revenue ?

(04-14-2015 09:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 11:15 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I don't think an on-campus stadium would be impossible for UConn if that is what Big Ten membership required. I honestly think the state would build it and the highway to get to it, if we had to, to get in. I also don't think we'd have any problem filling it with a Big Ten schedule, even though it would be harder to get to for everyone in the state, except the students. So while the Big Ten may not move mountains for UConn, I think the state of CT would move mountains for UConn and the Big Ten.

Maybe that could happen. I know with a Big 10 schedule, UConn would need a 60,000+ seat stadium. Against Michigan, we sold 42,500 tickets (?) and it could have been many, many more.

I don't know if that's true. But if it is, that's a reason why UConn wants the B1G and not a reason why the B1G should want UConn. In essence, what you are saying is that people in Connecticut aren't interested in watching the Huskies play, but they are interested in watching schools like Michigan play. I don't believe I would use that argument to plead my case to the B1G presidents.

UConn had the same fan interest for football that Rutgers did.

Rutgers was invited.

The comparison of Uconn to places like Iowa St in this thread is not looking closely at the market.

In case people didn't know this, UConn is the only show in the state, no pro sports. There are 3.5 million residents. While the Hartford TV market is about 30th nationally, 1/3rd of the state is actually located in New York City's DMA. That might not be relevant for over-the-air broadcasts and ratings, but when it comes to cableTV and cable channels like BTN, it is VERY relevant.

One example: While it was in the OldBE, UConn owned its 3rd tier rights for women's bball. The BE didn't own them. UConn sold the rights for a few million a year to SNY (Sportschannel NY). At the time, SNY was available in the state to premium sports tier cable subscribers for $1.60 a month. Only 10% of subscribers had the package. Some cable systems in the eastern part of the state didn't even have SNY because they only carried the NY Mets. When SNY added UConn's 3rd tier (the BE kept the men's $$ but UConn kept the women's), SNY was moved to BASIC cable and also added to systems without SNY. This meant that every cable household in CT (between 1m and 1.5m) now paid SNY monthly for UConn 3rd tier rights. The monthly fee was jacked up to $2.50+.

This deal had an impact not only on Conn. cable systems, but also in New York state, where SNY has a big presence. For instance, check out this thread:

http://syracusefan.com/threads/looks-lik...yed.40752/

The UConn women's bball team preempted Syracuse men's game against Providence.

Then consider this: the auxiliary income from the UConn shows on SNY outside of sports (i.e. pre and post game shows, coaches' shows, etc.) drove up revenues for IMG, which produced those shows and sold ads. When UConn listed its royalties and ad sales on USA Today's database, they were in the mid 20m range, which was 2x as much as the next top team in the BE, that being Louisville.

UConn's strength is its market.

Consider the ACC's choice of Louisville over UConn. While Ville has better football, it's in the south, and it has intense interest locally (which explains the ACC's choice over UConn), the market is 1/3rd the size of Connecticut, AND a lot of the intense interest comes from UK fans.

Someone recently pointed out that Louisville's market did a 44 and 47 rating for the national championship men's bball games, tops in the nation for 2 straight years when Ville and UK were in the game, while Conn. only did a 33 rating for UConn's champ games. But the demographics in Conn. are different than the Ville market. Not only are there more people, but the average per capita in Louisville is $18k, while the average per capita in Connecticut is $56k. Advertisers care about such numbers. I'm sure the comparison to Iowa st's market would benefit UConn as well. The per capita income is also what allowed SNY to charge so much for basic cable in Conn.

Not to mention this fact: the UConn women did a 4.7 in NYC in the women's champ game, which was a top 10 number nationally. Consider that this literally means that more people in NYC watched the women's champ game than people in Louisville watched the Ville men's champ game.

That's the power of markets right there.

I don't think it's impossible UConn makes it in, but I also think they have a lot bigger hurdles. Rutgers was invited, but there were a lot of factors which got us to that point that are no longer relevant.

1. Penn State was always on an island. That fact became very dangerous when the ACC invited most the major east coast teams and became Notre Dame's main opponent. Long run, the Big Ten was going to lose the area and quite possibly Penn State if they didn't do something while they still had the advantage.

2. The Big Ten looked at a lot of east coast teams. From the indications out there, it seems Maryland was a definite. Rutgers got in as #14, but if one of the others in the ACC that the Big Ten was looking for had jumped, it probably would have been at Rutgers expense.

My point is basically that it's going to be a bigger hurdle for UConn to get in. It's not impossible and maybe the TV values dictate it, but it's something I'll be surprised (not shocked, but definitely surprised) about if true at this point. UConn doesn't have the advantage of the Big Ten knowing it has to look east to keep Penn State or the advantage of it having one team and needing another to go with it. Further, they put a lot of work into the schedules and they announced quite a few years out. While they can certainly change the schedules, I suspect the conference figured it was done by posting out so many years in advance (when most conferences don't bother more than a year or two). I'm pretty sure I also remember a quote where they said expansion was going from active status to alert status (in contrast to most the 2000s where it was both inactive and un-alert).

(04-14-2015 09:14 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 11:15 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I don't think an on-campus stadium would be impossible for UConn if that is what Big Ten membership required. I honestly think the state would build it and the highway to get to it, if we had to, to get in. I also don't think we'd have any problem filling it with a Big Ten schedule, even though it would be harder to get to for everyone in the state, except the students. So while the Big Ten may not move mountains for UConn, I think the state of CT would move mountains for UConn and the Big Ten.

Maybe that could happen. I know with a Big 10 schedule, UConn would need a 60,000+ seat stadium. Against Michigan, we sold 42,500 tickets (?) and it could have been many, many more.

I don't know if that's true. But if it is, that's a reason why UConn wants the B1G and not a reason why the B1G should want UConn. In essence, what you are saying is that people in Connecticut aren't interested in watching the Huskies play, but they are interested in watching schools like Michigan play. I don't believe I would use that argument to plead my case to the B1G presidents.

UConn had the same fan interest for football that Rutgers did.

Rutgers was invited.

I'll grant that they were close. UConn averaged 35K attendance in the four years before Rutgers went to the B1G, while Rutgers averaged 46K. Membership in the B1G helped the Knights, with an increase in average attendance of nearly 9%.

UConn would no doubt have a bigger increase, since their attendance had declined to 30K by 2013. If you put a 9-10% increase on top of its highest attendance number during that 4 year period, you would get up to around 42K. That sounds reasonable, based on the 42K that showed up for Michigan - one of the top drawing teams in the Big Ten. Schools like Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue and Indiana, who would be in the same division as UConn, would probably draw considerably fewer.

That's not to say the B1G wouldn't be huge for UConn. But it wouldn't justify a 60K seat stadium.

Simply put, it's no accident the B1G planned it's first NYC tourney and waitied until 2018 to have it. Plenty of time to have a school that actually packs that arena in the conference. You put good UConn and MD teams in there, sprinkle some rutgers and PSU fans and then hammer it with Indy, Mich, MsU, tOSU etc fans on top and put on a show. Then you simply wait a couple years for the BE contract to die off meanwhile your performance and money driver make it a easy sell for MSG to become B1G

As has been stated many times, the Big 10 wants nothing to do with UConn.

(04-14-2015 09:42 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I don't think it's impossible UConn makes it in, but I also think they have a lot bigger hurdles. Rutgers was invited, but there were a lot of factors which got us to that point that are no longer relevant.

1. Penn State was always on an island. That fact became very dangerous when the ACC invited most the major east coast teams and became Notre Dame's main opponent. Long run, the Big Ten was going to lose the area and quite possibly Penn State if they didn't do something while they still had the advantage.

2. The Big Ten looked at a lot of east coast teams. From the indications out there, it seems Maryland was a definite. Rutgers got in as #14, but if one of the others in the ACC that the Big Ten was looking for had jumped, it probably would have been at Rutgers expense.

My point is basically that it's going to be a bigger hurdle for UConn to get in. It's not impossible and maybe the TV values dictate it, but it's something I'll be surprised (not shocked, but definitely surprised) about if true at this point. UConn doesn't have the advantage of the Big Ten knowing it has to look east to keep Penn State or the advantage of it having one team and needing another to go with it. Further, they put a lot of work into the schedules and they announced quite a few years out. While they can certainly change the schedules, I suspect the conference figured it was done by posting out so many years in advance (when most conferences don't bother more than a year or two). I'm pretty sure I also remember a quote where they said expansion was going from active status to alert status (in contrast to most the 2000s where it was both inactive and un-alert).

Your points are well taken. The argument that UConn would have been as good a choice as Rutgers may be true. But if your plan was to take only one of the two teams that might give you access to a single market you are interested in, once you have made your choice the team you didn't pick is no longer attractive. If you are the Big Ten, with Rutgers, you got what you were after.

If, after they weren't selected, UConn had demonstrated that it could deliver another market (New England), that could be taken into account for the next Big Ten decision. Instead, UConn has shown that they couldn't even deliver their own market without the benefit of being in a BCS conference. Their attendance has steadily declined since 2010, reaching a low of 27K in 2014. This is during a period in which the school was (or should have been) highly motivated to make a good showing for potential suitors.

The only two games in which they drew more than 30K last year were their premier OOC opponents. Against BYU in their opener they pulled in 35,150 and a couple of weeks later Boise State drew 30,098. Both of these games were played before UConn's dismal record hurt attendance further as the lost season wore on.

UConn's only hope at this point to get into a P5 conference would appear to hinge on that conference not caring about what they bring to the table in football. That goes strongly against the grain.

All UCONN needs is P5 Presidents/Commissioners to read this board. Once they see how many non-UCONN fans care so much about all things UCONN-related, they'll be begging the Huskies to join.