Unfortunately for UConn, it does speak directly to the relative strength of your candidacy when you are pinning your hopes on the success of your women's basketball program. That would be like picking a big football upset because your team has an All-American punter.

Another epic fail DR.

Pointing to the TV ratings the UConn WBB program achieves is nothing to laugh at. At the end of the day the school and sport really doesn't matter. That is just a difference is jerseys. If people watch it it's valuable. Doesn't matter if it's porn, WBB, or cat videos.

UConn WBB has value, especially to a conference network.

Keep the stupidity coming DR.

(02-15-2017 04:15 AM)connecticutguy Wrote:  The UConn women's basketball game this week -- which increased the team's winning streak to 100 -- was lucrative for ESPN. According to the Hartford Courant, "The South Carolina-UConn game was the highest-rated college basketball game on ESPN2 this season — men or women — and earned a 14.3 rating for the Hartford-New Haven market. The game also was the most streamed of any televised, regular season, women's college basketball game ever."

Now maybe Connecticut-based ESPN should realize it needs to support UConn's move into the ACC or B10 -- and not as some have speculated -- work against the university. The state has been very generous to ESPN.It's time for some of that goodwill to go the other way.

They are where they deserve to be... until they learn to play football.

(02-16-2017 12:23 PM)p23570 Wrote:  At the end of the day the school and sport really doesn't matter.

UConn WBB has value, especially to a conference network.

Keep the stupidity coming DR.

which is it ...

CONTRADICTION IN TERMS

(02-16-2017 12:23 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Another epic fail DR.

Pointing to the TV ratings the UConn WBB program achieves is nothing to laugh at. At the end of the day the school and sport really doesn't matter. That is just a difference is jerseys. If people watch it it's valuable. Doesn't matter if it's porn, WBB, or cat videos.

UConn WBB has value, especially to a conference network.

Keep the stupidity coming DR.

In P conferences basketball of any kind is lucky if it represents 25% of revenue and in most it is more like 20%, and that is for the men's game. The best women's teams don't draw what the men do.

My point here is that if the football program doesn't pay its way into a conference it doesn't matter how great the men's or women's basketball numbers are. You don't screw around with 80% of your budget to augment 20% of it. That's plain stupid!

UConn matters to any basketball conference, but does not meet the Mendoza line for inclusion in any relevant football conference. That's the long and short of this matter. Whether or not a product draws for a conference network, which is even less of a % of the total value of a product and dependent upon subscribers, is irrelevant. If UConn's women draw so much then they should put them on pay per view. But no major conference is going to take Connecticut based upon their prowess in women's basketball. It's a nice plus if they contribute to football.

The P conferences are driven by Football. UConn has been very successful in mens basketball too but it wasnt enough to get them in a P5 league. Womens bball is not the answer. Big East is your best bet.

I'm beginning to wonder if there should be a forum just for talk about UConn realignment, separate from this one. Or would that just duplicate the Boneyard?

(12-31-1969 11:07 PM)ken d
70242' Wrote:  I'm beginning to wonder if there should be a forum just for talk about UConn realignment, separate from this one. Or would that just duplicate the Boneyard?

You really have to hand it to the UConn folks.
They have tried just about every angle imaginable to make themselves seem attractive to any P5 fan that would listen in hopes of justifying their inclusion in a P5 conference.

UCONN sucks/doesn't matter/is insignificant/is non-P5 worthy...yet consistently has the most threads with the greatest amount of views/posts.

Better to be talked about than completely ignored.

(02-16-2017 01:54 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  UCONN sucks/doesn't matter/is insignificant/is non-P5 worthy...yet consistently has the most threads with the greatest amount of views/posts.

Better to be talked about than completely ignored.

Nobody here with any credibility thinks that UConn sucks. Your post is hyperbole that only obfuscates the issue. You were a recent addition to FBS in football. The program has not matured into one that can average the attendance, or command the TV audience that the Big 10 / SEC / or even ACC would require. Football is 80% plus of most conferences revenue package.

Nobody here thinks UConn is anything but stellar in basketball with regards to both the men's and women's teams. It is solid academically, but it wants to be a part of organizations that derive the vast majority of their income from football. They can't include a program unless that program can at least equal the current contract value of the other schools in the conference.

What you and other Husky fans bemoan and call trolling, or call insulting, or insinuate is a disingenuous stance by others, is merely nothing but a business matter. When UConn athletics pay their own way there will be conferences that want your school in their membership roster. But until that happens they don't.

And that is the long and short of that matter. All of this is about revenue. Add to the revenue and you are in. Detract from the revenue and you are not. And 80% of the revenue is earned on the gridiron! It is what it is and it has absolutely nothing to do with how great you are in that part of athletics that earns 20% or less of a conference's revenue total.

(02-15-2017 08:13 AM)connecticutguy Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 08:05 AM)3BNole Wrote:  The major problem for UCONN with the ACC is that their football program would dilute the football product and ACC basketball is already saturated, both men's and women's. At this point in time, there really isn't new that they would bring. If they ever do come in, it would be paired with ND as a full fledged member.

I have nothing but respect for Florida State and their outstanding athletic programs and strong academics. But give UConn football a chance under Head Coach Randy Edsall again. UConn may not be able to beat Florida State or Clemson next fall, but chances are strong the football program will soon be competitive with most of the ACC.

Edsall wasn't all that competitive the last time he coached in the ACC.

(02-16-2017 01:54 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  UCONN sucks/doesn't matter/is insignificant/is non-P5 worthy...yet consistently has the most threads with the greatest amount of views/posts.

Better to be talked about than completely ignored.

95% of the UConn threads are started by the same dude (under a couple different user names). Usually you'll get the one BC fan who exists on this board to chime in for 10-20 posts, a couple of the Rutgers and Syracuse guys, your own fans and the rest from the usual suspects of expansionistas.

As a Cincinnati fan I can certainly relate to the frustration UConn fans feel. I have nothing but respect for the Huskies who out of necessity, have become a basketball rival of ours.

(02-16-2017 01:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 12:23 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Another epic fail DR.

Pointing to the TV ratings the UConn WBB program achieves is nothing to laugh at. At the end of the day the school and sport really doesn't matter. That is just a difference is jerseys. If people watch it it's valuable. Doesn't matter if it's porn, WBB, or cat videos.

UConn WBB has value, especially to a conference network.

Keep the stupidity coming DR.

In P conferences basketball of any kind is lucky if it represents 25% of revenue and in most it is more like 20%, and that is for the men's game. The best women's teams don't draw what the men do.

My point here is that if the football program doesn't pay its way into a conference it doesn't matter how great the men's or women's basketball numbers are. You don't screw around with 80% of your budget to augment 20% of it. That's plain stupid!

UConn matters to any basketball conference, but does not meet the Mendoza line for inclusion in any relevant football conference. That's the long and short of this matter. Whether or not a product draws for a conference network, which is even less of a % of the total value of a product and dependent upon subscribers, is irrelevant. If UConn's women draw so much then they should put them on pay per view. But no major conference is going to take Connecticut based upon their prowess in women's basketball. It's a nice plus if they contribute to football.

I don't think we can take a typical approach using other WBB programs to compare to UConn WBB. It's a different animal altogether IMO.

Specifically when we get into conference networks UConn WBB is probably even more valuable than most mens BB programs.

I believe it was 2 years ago UConn had a WBB game with better TV ratings than 7 of OU's football games that year. That caught my attention.

At the end of the day TV is about content people want to watch, doesn't matter the sport, school, or conference as long as people watch on TV.

Here is an example.
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-wome...story.html
e No. 100 wasn't the only large number for Geno Auriemma's team Monday night.

The South Carolina-UConn game was the highest-rated college basketball game on ESPN2 this season — men or women — and earned a 14.3 rating for the Hartford-New Haven market. The game also was the most streamed of any televised, regular season, women's college basketball game ever.

The best part about UConn and BYU is they compliment the Big 12's largely football focused fanbases during a time of year when TV content is needed. I understand football is great and "drives the bus" but when it comes to confernce network programming that is 13 Saturdays of content plus some other stuff like coaches shows, spring games, etc... There are still a lot of days left in the year and I personally see a lot of upside for UConn WBB in a conference network.

(02-16-2017 03:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 12:23 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Another epic fail DR.

Pointing to the TV ratings the UConn WBB program achieves is nothing to laugh at. At the end of the day the school and sport really doesn't matter. That is just a difference is jerseys. If people watch it it's valuable. Doesn't matter if it's porn, WBB, or cat videos.

UConn WBB has value, especially to a conference network.

Keep the stupidity coming DR.

In P conferences basketball of any kind is lucky if it represents 25% of revenue and in most it is more like 20%, and that is for the men's game. The best women's teams don't draw what the men do.

My point here is that if the football program doesn't pay its way into a conference it doesn't matter how great the men's or women's basketball numbers are. You don't screw around with 80% of your budget to augment 20% of it. That's plain stupid!

UConn matters to any basketball conference, but does not meet the Mendoza line for inclusion in any relevant football conference. That's the long and short of this matter. Whether or not a product draws for a conference network, which is even less of a % of the total value of a product and dependent upon subscribers, is irrelevant. If UConn's women draw so much then they should put them on pay per view. But no major conference is going to take Connecticut based upon their prowess in women's basketball. It's a nice plus if they contribute to football.

I don't think we can take a typical approach using other WBB programs to compare to UConn WBB. It's a different animal altogether IMO.

Specifically when we get into conference networks UConn WBB is probably even more valuable than most mens BB programs.

I believe it was 2 years ago UConn had a WBB game with better TV ratings than 7 of OU's football games that year. That caught my attention.

At the end of the day TV is about content people want to watch, doesn't matter the sport, school, or conference as long as people watch on TV.

Here is an example.
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-wome...story.html
e No. 100 wasn't the only large number for Geno Auriemma's team Monday night.

The South Carolina-UConn game was the highest-rated college basketball game on ESPN2 this season — men or women — and earned a 14.3 rating for the Hartford-New Haven market. The game also was the most streamed of any televised, regular season, women's college basketball game ever.

The best part about UConn and BYU is they compliment the Big 12's largely football focused fanbases during a time of year when TV content is needed. I understand football is great and "drives the bus" but when it comes to confernce network programming that is 13 Saturdays of content plus some other stuff like coaches shows, spring games, etc... There are still a lot of days left in the year and I personally see a lot of upside for UConn WBB in a conference network.

That's terrific! Really! But the last time it happened was in 2010 or 7 years ago. To help a conference network (rough equivalent of ESPN2) you would need at least 14 of those games a year out of the Huskies team. It is still a fraction of the total basketball package which is a fraction of a P conferences total revenue, and then it represents 1 event. Even if it happened 5 times a season it wouldn't be enough.

There are only a handful of women's basketball programs in the nation that are revenue sports. Kudos to Connecticut as they own the best of them. Tennessee probably makes revenue. Notre Dame might. A couple in the ACC and PAC might as well. But that's about it. Claiming the highest rating between what at the time were arguably two of the best and most competitive programs as a reason for a conference move is like claiming that Appalachian State ( a great, but small program) deserves an invitation to a P conference because once in 7 years they beat a Michigan and get a great rating for the game.

Life just doesn't work that way. You are asking this board to accept an argument that is built on 1/30th of the UConn Women's schedule, which is not even half of Connecticut's basketball revenue since the men make more, which is only 20% tops of the total revenue of the Big 10 which next year will earn 41.5 million per school and then claiming that your football program will cover the rest. Does the UConn basketball programs combined earn 8.3 million a year in broadcast revenue? That game you tout would be 1/30th of 2/5ths of the entire revenue of Connecticut basketball on a generous estimate.

I checked they earned $13,564,000 combined last year. The men earned more than the women so 2/5ths was about right. But here's the kicker, combined the two basketball programs lost $1,500,000 for the 2016 season. Oh yeah, if I'm Delany there's nothing like getting a piece of a negative number.

Think about that.

(02-16-2017 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 03:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 12:23 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Another epic fail DR.

Pointing to the TV ratings the UConn WBB program achieves is nothing to laugh at. At the end of the day the school and sport really doesn't matter. That is just a difference is jerseys. If people watch it it's valuable. Doesn't matter if it's porn, WBB, or cat videos.

UConn WBB has value, especially to a conference network.

Keep the stupidity coming DR.

In P conferences basketball of any kind is lucky if it represents 25% of revenue and in most it is more like 20%, and that is for the men's game. The best women's teams don't draw what the men do.

My point here is that if the football program doesn't pay its way into a conference it doesn't matter how great the men's or women's basketball numbers are. You don't screw around with 80% of your budget to augment 20% of it. That's plain stupid!

UConn matters to any basketball conference, but does not meet the Mendoza line for inclusion in any relevant football conference. That's the long and short of this matter. Whether or not a product draws for a conference network, which is even less of a % of the total value of a product and dependent upon subscribers, is irrelevant. If UConn's women draw so much then they should put them on pay per view. But no major conference is going to take Connecticut based upon their prowess in women's basketball. It's a nice plus if they contribute to football.

I don't think we can take a typical approach using other WBB programs to compare to UConn WBB. It's a different animal altogether IMO.

Specifically when we get into conference networks UConn WBB is probably even more valuable than most mens BB programs.

I believe it was 2 years ago UConn had a WBB game with better TV ratings than 7 of OU's football games that year. That caught my attention.

At the end of the day TV is about content people want to watch, doesn't matter the sport, school, or conference as long as people watch on TV.

Here is an example.
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-wome...story.html
e No. 100 wasn't the only large number for Geno Auriemma's team Monday night.

The South Carolina-UConn game was the highest-rated college basketball game on ESPN2 this season — men or women — and earned a 14.3 rating for the Hartford-New Haven market. The game also was the most streamed of any televised, regular season, women's college basketball game ever.

The best part about UConn and BYU is they compliment the Big 12's largely football focused fanbases during a time of year when TV content is needed. I understand football is great and "drives the bus" but when it comes to confernce network programming that is 13 Saturdays of content plus some other stuff like coaches shows, spring games, etc... There are still a lot of days left in the year and I personally see a lot of upside for UConn WBB in a conference network.

That's terrific! Really! But the last time it happened was in 2010 or 7 years ago. To help a conference network (rough equivalent of ESPN2) you would need at least 14 of those games a year out of the Huskies team. It is still a fraction of the total basketball package which is a fraction of a P conferences total revenue, and then it represents 1 event. Even if it happened 5 times a season it wouldn't be enough.

There are only a handful of women's basketball programs in the nation that are revenue sports. Kudos to Connecticut as they own the best of them. Tennessee probably makes revenue. Notre Dame might. A couple in the ACC and PAC might as well. But that's about it. Claiming the highest rating between what at the time were arguably two of the best and most competitive programs as a reason for a conference move is like claiming that Appalachian State ( a great, but small program) deserves an invitation to a P conference because once in 7 years they beat a Michigan and get a great rating for the game.

Life just doesn't work that way. You are asking this board to accept an argument that is built on 1/30th of the UConn Women's schedule, which is not even half of Connecticut's basketball revenue since the men make more, which is only 20% tops of the total revenue of the Big 10 which next year will earn 41.5 million per school and then claiming that your football program will cover the cover the rest. Does the UConn basketball programs combined earn 8.3 million a year in broadcast revenue? That game you tout would be 1/30th of 2/5ths of the entire revenue of Connecticut basketball on a generous estimate.

I checked they earned $13,564,000 combined last year. The men earned more than the women so 2/5ths was about right. But here's the kicker, combined the two basketball programs lost $1,500,000 for the 2016 season. Oh yeah, if I'm Delany there's nothing like getting a piece of a negative number.

Think about that.

Those numbers are not accurate. UCONN doesn't report indirect revenues, which are totaled together on a separate line and not allocated to a specific sport. The figures do not include the contract with IMG Marketing and National Championship apparel sales (which are basically a yearly profit). UCONN MBB and WBB haven't been in the red in over a decade.

(02-16-2017 05:20 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 03:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 12:23 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Another epic fail DR.

Pointing to the TV ratings the UConn WBB program achieves is nothing to laugh at. At the end of the day the school and sport really doesn't matter. That is just a difference is jerseys. If people watch it it's valuable. Doesn't matter if it's porn, WBB, or cat videos.

UConn WBB has value, especially to a conference network.



Keep the stupidity coming DR.

In P conferences basketball of any kind is lucky if it represents 25% of revenue and in most it is more like 20%, and that is for the men's game. The best women's teams don't draw what the men do.

My point here is that if the football program doesn't pay its way into a conference it doesn't matter how great the men's or women's basketball numbers are. You don't screw around with 80% of your budget to augment 20% of it. That's plain stupid!

UConn matters to any basketball conference, but does not meet the Mendoza line for inclusion in any relevant football conference. That's the long and short of this matter. Whether or not a product draws for a conference network, which is even less of a % of the total value of a product and dependent upon subscribers, is irrelevant. If UConn's women draw so much then they should put them on pay per view. But no major conference is going to take Connecticut based upon their prowess in women's basketball. It's a nice plus if they contribute to football.

I don't think we can take a typical approach using other WBB programs to compare to UConn WBB. It's a different animal altogether IMO.

Specifically when we get into conference networks UConn WBB is probably even more valuable than most mens BB programs.

I believe it was 2 years ago UConn had a WBB game with better TV ratings than 7 of OU's football games that year. That caught my attention.

At the end of the day TV is about content people want to watch, doesn't matter the sport, school, or conference as long as people watch on TV.

Here is an example.
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-wome...story.html
e No. 100 wasn't the only large number for Geno Auriemma's team Monday night.

The South Carolina-UConn game was the highest-rated college basketball game on ESPN2 this season — men or women — and earned a 14.3 rating for the Hartford-New Haven market. The game also was the most streamed of any televised, regular season, women's college basketball game ever.

The best part about UConn and BYU is they compliment the Big 12's largely football focused fanbases during a time of year when TV content is needed. I understand football is great and "drives the bus" but when it comes to confernce network programming that is 13 Saturdays of content plus some other stuff like coaches shows, spring games, etc... There are still a lot of days left in the year and I personally see a lot of upside for UConn WBB in a conference network.

That's terrific! Really! But the last time it happened was in 2010 or 7 years ago. To help a conference network (rough equivalent of ESPN2) you would need at least 14 of those games a year out of the Huskies team. It is still a fraction of the total basketball package which is a fraction of a P conferences total revenue, and then it represents 1 event. Even if it happened 5 times a season it wouldn't be enough.

There are only a handful of women's basketball programs in the nation that are revenue sports. Kudos to Connecticut as they own the best of them. Tennessee probably makes revenue. Notre Dame might. A couple in the ACC and PAC might as well. But that's about it. Claiming the highest rating between what at the time were arguably two of the best and most competitive programs as a reason for a conference move is like claiming that Appalachian State ( a great, but small program) deserves an invitation to a P conference because once in 7 years they beat a Michigan and get a great rating for the game.

Life just doesn't work that way. You are asking this board to accept an argument that is built on 1/30th of the UConn Women's schedule, which is not even half of Connecticut's basketball revenue since the men make more, which is only 20% tops of the total revenue of the Big 10 which next year will earn 41.5 million per school and then claiming that your football program will cover the cover the rest. Does the UConn basketball programs combined earn 8.3 million a year in broadcast revenue? That game you tout would be 1/30th of 2/5ths of the entire revenue of Connecticut basketball on a generous estimate.

I checked they earned $13,564,000 combined last year. The men earned more than the women so 2/5ths was about right. But here's the kicker, combined the two basketball programs lost $1,500,000 for the 2016 season. Oh yeah, if I'm Delany there's nothing like getting a piece of a negative number.

Think about that.

Those numbers are not accurate. UCONN doesn't report indirect revenues, which are totaled together on a separate line and not allocated to a specific sport. The figures do not include the contract with IMG Marketing and National Championship apparel sales (which are basically a yearly profit). UCONN MBB and WBB haven't been in the red in over a decade.

http://www.college-sports.pointafter.com...Basketball

Remember that merchandise sales doesn't contribute to the value offered to a conference. That's the property of the school hence the reason it is separated from most revenue totals related to the conference.

It's a nice site. You'll have to enter University of Connecticut into the search and then scroll down to basketball. It gives the Net Profit or Loss for each combined sport, and you can segregate them by gender if you would like. But hey I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong. Your combined basketball programs didn't lose 1.5 million last year, they lost 1.6 million.

(02-16-2017 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 05:20 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 03:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In P conferences basketball of any kind is lucky if it represents 25% of revenue and in most it is more like 20%, and that is for the men's game. The best women's teams don't draw what the men do.

My point here is that if the football program doesn't pay its way into a conference it doesn't matter how great the men's or women's basketball numbers are. You don't screw around with 80% of your budget to augment 20% of it. That's plain stupid!

UConn matters to any basketball conference, but does not meet the Mendoza line for inclusion in any relevant football conference. That's the long and short of this matter. Whether or not a product draws for a conference network, which is even less of a % of the total value of a product and dependent upon subscribers, is irrelevant. If UConn's women draw so much then they should put them on pay per view. But no major conference is going to take Connecticut based upon their prowess in women's basketball. It's a nice plus if they contribute to football.

I don't think we can take a typical approach using other WBB programs to compare to UConn WBB. It's a different animal altogether IMO.

Specifically when we get into conference networks UConn WBB is probably even more valuable than most mens BB programs.

I believe it was 2 years ago UConn had a WBB game with better TV ratings than 7 of OU's football games that year. That caught my attention.

At the end of the day TV is about content people want to watch, doesn't matter the sport, school, or conference as long as people watch on TV.

Here is an example.
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-wome...story.html
e No. 100 wasn't the only large number for Geno Auriemma's team Monday night.

The South Carolina-UConn game was the highest-rated college basketball game on ESPN2 this season — men or women — and earned a 14.3 rating for the Hartford-New Haven market. The game also was the most streamed of any televised, regular season, women's college basketball game ever.

The best part about UConn and BYU is they compliment the Big 12's largely football focused fanbases during a time of year when TV content is needed. I understand football is great and "drives the bus" but when it comes to confernce network programming that is 13 Saturdays of content plus some other stuff like coaches shows, spring games, etc... There are still a lot of days left in the year and I personally see a lot of upside for UConn WBB in a conference network.

That's terrific! Really! But the last time it happened was in 2010 or 7 years ago. To help a conference network (rough equivalent of ESPN2) you would need at least 14 of those games a year out of the Huskies team. It is still a fraction of the total basketball package which is a fraction of a P conferences total revenue, and then it represents 1 event. Even if it happened 5 times a season it wouldn't be enough.

There are only a handful of women's basketball programs in the nation that are revenue sports. Kudos to Connecticut as they own the best of them. Tennessee probably makes revenue. Notre Dame might. A couple in the ACC and PAC might as well. But that's about it. Claiming the highest rating between what at the time were arguably two of the best and most competitive programs as a reason for a conference move is like claiming that Appalachian State ( a great, but small program) deserves an invitation to a P conference because once in 7 years they beat a Michigan and get a great rating for the game.

Life just doesn't work that way. You are asking this board to accept an argument that is built on 1/30th of the UConn Women's schedule, which is not even half of Connecticut's basketball revenue since the men make more, which is only 20% tops of the total revenue of the Big 10 which next year will earn 41.5 million per school and then claiming that your football program will cover the cover the rest. Does the UConn basketball programs combined earn 8.3 million a year in broadcast revenue? That game you tout would be 1/30th of 2/5ths of the entire revenue of Connecticut basketball on a generous estimate.

I checked they earned $13,564,000 combined last year. The men earned more than the women so 2/5ths was about right. But here's the kicker, combined the two basketball programs lost $1,500,000 for the 2016 season. Oh yeah, if I'm Delany there's nothing like getting a piece of a negative number.

Think about that.

Those numbers are not accurate. UCONN doesn't report indirect revenues, which are totaled together on a separate line and not allocated to a specific sport. The figures do not include the contract with IMG Marketing and National Championship apparel sales (which are basically a yearly profit). UCONN MBB and WBB haven't been in the red in over a decade.

http://www.college-sports.pointafter.com...Basketball

Remember that merchandise sales doesn't contribute to the value offered to a conference. That's the property of the school hence the reason it is separated from most revenue totals related to the conference.

Perhaps you have a vision/reading problem. Like I said UCONN does not report indirect revenue. You ignored the IMG marketing aspect, which is one of the top 20 in the country.

(02-16-2017 05:36 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 05:20 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 03:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  I don't think we can take a typical approach using other WBB programs to compare to UConn WBB. It's a different animal altogether IMO.

Specifically when we get into conference networks UConn WBB is probably even more valuable than most mens BB programs.

I believe it was 2 years ago UConn had a WBB game with better TV ratings than 7 of OU's football games that year. That caught my attention.

At the end of the day TV is about content people want to watch, doesn't matter the sport, school, or conference as long as people watch on TV.

Here is an example.
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-wome...story.html
e No. 100 wasn't the only large number for Geno Auriemma's team Monday night.

The South Carolina-UConn game was the highest-rated college basketball game on ESPN2 this season — men or women — and earned a 14.3 rating for the Hartford-New Haven market. The game also was the most streamed of any televised, regular season, women's college basketball game ever.

The best part about UConn and BYU is they compliment the Big 12's largely football focused fanbases during a time of year when TV content is needed. I understand football is great and "drives the bus" but when it comes to confernce network programming that is 13 Saturdays of content plus some other stuff like coaches shows, spring games, etc... There are still a lot of days left in the year and I personally see a lot of upside for UConn WBB in a conference network.

That's terrific! Really! But the last time it happened was in 2010 or 7 years ago. To help a conference network (rough equivalent of ESPN2) you would need at least 14 of those games a year out of the Huskies team. It is still a fraction of the total basketball package which is a fraction of a P conferences total revenue, and then it represents 1 event. Even if it happened 5 times a season it wouldn't be enough.

There are only a handful of women's basketball programs in the nation that are revenue sports. Kudos to Connecticut as they own the best of them. Tennessee probably makes revenue. Notre Dame might. A couple in the ACC and PAC might as well. But that's about it. Claiming the highest rating between what at the time were arguably two of the best and most competitive programs as a reason for a conference move is like claiming that Appalachian State ( a great, but small program) deserves an invitation to a P conference because once in 7 years they beat a Michigan and get a great rating for the game.

Life just doesn't work that way. You are asking this board to accept an argument that is built on 1/30th of the UConn Women's schedule, which is not even half of Connecticut's basketball revenue since the men make more, which is only 20% tops of the total revenue of the Big 10 which next year will earn 41.5 million per school and then claiming that your football program will cover the cover the rest. Does the UConn basketball programs combined earn 8.3 million a year in broadcast revenue? That game you tout would be 1/30th of 2/5ths of the entire revenue of Connecticut basketball on a generous estimate.

I checked they earned $13,564,000 combined last year. The men earned more than the women so 2/5ths was about right. But here's the kicker, combined the two basketball programs lost $1,500,000 for the 2016 season. Oh yeah, if I'm Delany there's nothing like getting a piece of a negative number.

Think about that.

Those numbers are not accurate. UCONN doesn't report indirect revenues, which are totaled together on a separate line and not allocated to a specific sport. The figures do not include the contract with IMG Marketing and National Championship apparel sales (which are basically a yearly profit). UCONN MBB and WBB haven't been in the red in over a decade.

http://www.college-sports.pointafter.com...Basketball

Remember that merchandise sales doesn't contribute to the value offered to a conference. That's the property of the school hence the reason it is separated from most revenue totals related to the conference.

Perhaps you have a vision/reading problem. Like I said UCONN does not report indirect revenue. You ignored the IMG marketing aspect, which is one of the top 20 in the country.

Auburn has a fat IMG contract as well that was switched for an even fatter FOX one. It is not part of the TV revenue, or athletic expense for a program. Your basketball teams spent 1.6 million more than they earned on Television contracts. Of course you make money off of your merchandise and licensing on your name. All schools do. But that money doesn't help you get into a conference because they don't get a cut of that. It's all yours.

But, that kind of contract is for all of the University Logos, Sports Insignia, etc. It is not basketball revenue per se. I have no doubt that UConn Athletics operate in the black, but your basketball doesn't operate in the black as a specific sport.

The argument is that your basketball would earn enough to make the Big 10 or ACC more money. Your football team would have to be able to cover 28.5 million dollars worth of inventory to the Big 10 to make them break even on an invitation.

In the ACC where revenue is approaching 30 million for next year your football team would only have to yield around 17 million to help them break even for an invitation, and admittedly in either conference your basketball would be worth more than 13.5 million combined because of brand vs brand competition, but I doubt that would jump up enough to cover your football revenue projections.

Again, I have nothing against U.Conn, had good friends who were alumni, and hope you guys make it into a P conference some day, but your football product will have to improve about 20 million dollars worth in revenue potential before that happens. Your hoops are at their zenith now.

(02-16-2017 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 03:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 12:23 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Another epic fail DR.

Pointing to the TV ratings the UConn WBB program achieves is nothing to laugh at. At the end of the day the school and sport really doesn't matter. That is just a difference is jerseys. If people watch it it's valuable. Doesn't matter if it's porn, WBB, or cat videos.

UConn WBB has value, especially to a conference network.

Keep the stupidity coming DR.

In P conferences basketball of any kind is lucky if it represents 25% of revenue and in most it is more like 20%, and that is for the men's game. The best women's teams don't draw what the men do.

My point here is that if the football program doesn't pay its way into a conference it doesn't matter how great the men's or women's basketball numbers are. You don't screw around with 80% of your budget to augment 20% of it. That's plain stupid!

UConn matters to any basketball conference, but does not meet the Mendoza line for inclusion in any relevant football conference. That's the long and short of this matter. Whether or not a product draws for a conference network, which is even less of a % of the total value of a product and dependent upon subscribers, is irrelevant. If UConn's women draw so much then they should put them on pay per view. But no major conference is going to take Connecticut based upon their prowess in women's basketball. It's a nice plus if they contribute to football.

I don't think we can take a typical approach using other WBB programs to compare to UConn WBB. It's a different animal altogether IMO.

Specifically when we get into conference networks UConn WBB is probably even more valuable than most mens BB programs.

I believe it was 2 years ago UConn had a WBB game with better TV ratings than 7 of OU's football games that year. That caught my attention.

At the end of the day TV is about content people want to watch, doesn't matter the sport, school, or conference as long as people watch on TV.

Here is an example.
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-wome...story.html
e No. 100 wasn't the only large number for Geno Auriemma's team Monday night.

The South Carolina-UConn game was the highest-rated college basketball game on ESPN2 this season — men or women — and earned a 14.3 rating for the Hartford-New Haven market. The game also was the most streamed of any televised, regular season, women's college basketball game ever.

The best part about UConn and BYU is they compliment the Big 12's largely football focused fanbases during a time of year when TV content is needed. I understand football is great and "drives the bus" but when it comes to confernce network programming that is 13 Saturdays of content plus some other stuff like coaches shows, spring games, etc... There are still a lot of days left in the year and I personally see a lot of upside for UConn WBB in a conference network.

That's terrific! Really! But the last time it happened was in 2010 or 7 years ago. To help a conference network (rough equivalent of ESPN2) you would need at least 14 of those games a year out of the Huskies team. It is still a fraction of the total basketball package which is a fraction of a P conferences total revenue, and then it represents 1 event. Even if it happened 5 times a season it wouldn't be enough.

There are only a handful of women's basketball programs in the nation that are revenue sports. Kudos to Connecticut as they own the best of them. Tennessee probably makes revenue. Notre Dame might. A couple in the ACC and PAC might as well. But that's about it. Claiming the highest rating between what at the time were arguably two of the best and most competitive programs as a reason for a conference move is like claiming that Appalachian State ( a great, but small program) deserves an invitation to a P conference because once in 7 years they beat a Michigan and get a great rating for the game.

Life just doesn't work that way. You are asking this board to accept an argument that is built on 1/30th of the UConn Women's schedule, which is not even half of Connecticut's basketball revenue since the men make more, which is only 20% tops of the total revenue of the Big 10 which next year will earn 41.5 million per school and then claiming that your football program will cover the rest. Does the UConn basketball programs combined earn 8.3 million a year in broadcast revenue? That game you tout would be 1/30th of 2/5ths of the entire revenue of Connecticut basketball on a generous estimate.

I checked they earned $13,564,000 combined last year. The men earned more than the women so 2/5ths was about right. But here's the kicker, combined the two basketball programs lost $1,500,000 for the 2016 season. Oh yeah, if I'm Delany there's nothing like getting a piece of a negative number.

Think about that.

There is a whole lot more to a conference network than 13 Saturdays of football.

TV ratings demonstrate that people watch UConn WBB, even more than men programs in some cases.

Conference networks need year round content people watch.

Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter the school or sport, if people watch it has value to a conference network.

This time of year there are not a whole lot of live sport events that have good TV viewer numbers. On a conference network more people will watch UConn WBB than OU mens BB. More people will watch BYU WVB than OkSU Baseball.

I have no idea why you think you can put a TV value on a program based on it's program budget profit/loss but that's not how TV works. TV is very simple, the more people watch the more value a product has. Thus Uconn WBB has value.

I'd go as far as saying I think UConn WBB is worth more to a conference network than Auburn men's BB as more people watch the UConn WBB games.

This has gone from dumb to SEC dumb. That' saying something.

So let's see if we can simplify this using rounded numbers. Say Auburn get a 10m paycheck from the SEC. We assume ESPN gt's it's half making an additional 10 million for a grand total of 20 million in value for Auburn content in the SEC network.

Here are the 2 different opinions.

JR believes that 80% of that valuation comes from football. That means 1 crappy FCS vs Auburn Football game and coaches shows, spring ball, etc... and that all the other non football content is worth about 20% of that.

Does anybody with a firing brain cell beleive an Auburn vs FCS football game and coaches shows is worth 16 million to ESPN? Didn't think so.

I believe that value to a confernce network is based on year round live programming which includes the monthly subscriptions paid and advertizing dollars. This means that Auburn baseball and basketball also provide significant value to ESPN as many games are on the SECN and that amounts to a lot of subscriber fees and advertising income that is outside football season. There is no way that 1 crappy football game is worth over 10 million $ as not that many people watch on TV.

I believe both UConn and BYU provide content that is ideal for conference networks. Popular enough people watch but not something that is going to be on ESPN or ESPN2.