Just a thought. Would mac football or the cusa take UConn football?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-07-2017 02:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  But some of those 6 games are buy type basketball games that every team has. Also, all of those have conference play in October and November for football.

going indy will be extremely difficult.

Sure - you play 3 games against AE/NEC/Patriot-type schools and 3 good OOC games. That gives you three football games from the good OOC games. Indy football scheduling would basically be three blocks of four - four games against other indys, four against lower-tier G5 schools, and four against a mix of lower-tier P5 schools and desirable AAC/MW schools. Throw an FCS in there as matchups dictate. If UConn wants to take a buy game from the Ohio States of the world while they're at it, that's their choice. That's pretty doable.

(12-07-2017 11:16 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Most importantly, will UConn once again trust ESPN to make the best decision for them? Time will tell, I guess.

Do you really think ESPN wants to lose UConn to FS1?

(12-07-2017 01:16 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Agreed. What people are missing is that if the AAC doesn't get a pay increase on the TV contract this time or if it only gets one that matches what the Big East gets for basketball only, there is no risk to UConn waiting until 2023 to see if the ACC or B1G pan out and, if they don't, then move basketball to the Big East and football to independence. They would get more in TV money (even if the Indy deal was terrible) and have less travel cost by doing it that way.

UConn would pay $10M to leave a 4-bid American to go to a 5-bid Big East if the TV money was the same?

Doubtful.

(12-07-2017 02:23 PM)Huskypride Wrote:  Just a thought. Would mac football or the cusa take UConn football?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Both the MAC and CUSA are not fans of partial members based on what they have done (the MAC kicking out UMass for not joining the conference for all sports) and CUSA stating that it prefers a model where all members are full members.

Either way, UConn football in the MAC or CUSA would not be met in welcoming terms by our fanbase. It would be hard to get fired up over playing the schools in either of those conferences. I would prefer independence and never seeing a bowl game again just to play more exciting regular season opponents.

(12-07-2017 02:23 PM)Huskypride Wrote:  Just a thought. Would mac football or the cusa take UConn football?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't make sense for UConn. The Fox money as part of a jump to the BE would be more than those conferences get, and UConn probably doesn't want any part of those mid-week games anyway.

(12-07-2017 11:50 AM)Bogg Wrote:  Is this the exit fee pot you're referring to? Because that was a one-time money pile that's just about gone no matter what UConn does. They don't currently have any sort of sweetheart deal with the AAC that promises them an outsized share of revenue on a permanent basis.

Yeah, it's that one-time pile I'm referencing. No clue whether there was some special condition or proviso for them remaining with the conference else a forfeiture to any scale.

Where are the WSU fans who think the AAC is such a better conference than the Big East (or Big Pee as they call it like that makes any sense at all)?

(12-07-2017 02:43 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 01:16 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Agreed. What people are missing is that if the AAC doesn't get a pay increase on the TV contract this time or if it only gets one that matches what the Big East gets for basketball only, there is no risk to UConn waiting until 2023 to see if the ACC or B1G pan out and, if they don't, then move basketball to the Big East and football to independence. They would get more in TV money (even if the Indy deal was terrible) and have less travel cost by doing it that way.

UConn would pay $10M to leave a 4-bid American to go to a 5-bid Big East if the TV money was the same?

Doubtful.

Maybe, although I think the main qualification is that the Big East and the AAC getting the same amount of TV money in total is NOT the same because the Big East is getting paid that amount without football at all, while the AAC amount is for football and basketball together. The only way that the AAC TV contract can really the "same" as the Big East contract is if it's getting paid at least twice as much total in order to account for the inclusion of football.

The real comparison is if UConn football independence plus Big East money would be more than the total all-in amount they'd get from the AAC. Who knows one way or the other how that will shake out, but it's simply important to keep noting that the Big East contract is for basketball *only*. The total AAC future TV contract needs to be significantly more than that (e.g. twice as much or more) in order to be truly "equal" to the basketball-only Big East contract. The fact that the Big East is making more outright in TV dollars than the AAC with just basketball can't be emphasized enough (even if others want to discount how critical that point might be).

(12-07-2017 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 07:27 AM)Huskypride Wrote:  We had ton a of injuries last year. Our 3rd best player and a former 5* recruit is mostly likely out for the season again...combine that with a bad coach. We are a mess. I really don't think the big east would take us back. Unless we can prove that we can dominate the aac.

We would take you back in a hot minute. UConn is blood to the Big East, whether you are up or down.

Sure, but they've left the nest. It would be like the college grad moving back in with the parents--they're welcome to stay for as long as they want, but it's not what UConn really wants, and we understand that.

(And yes, it makes no sense for UConn institutionally. UConn basketball can be a national power from the AAC. They don't have a viable football option outside the AAC).

(12-07-2017 12:27 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  .....reasons.

Yes, that's why Aresco and the league presidents bent over backward to make special arrangements to get Boise STate football into the league.

Oh wait that didn't happen, even though there were all sorts of rational arguments for it, because it was seen as unfair and disrespectful by the presidents and a lot of the fanbases. Hmmm.

(12-07-2017 03:16 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:50 AM)Bogg Wrote:  Is this the exit fee pot you're referring to? Because that was a one-time money pile that's just about gone no matter what UConn does. They don't currently have any sort of sweetheart deal with the AAC that promises them an outsized share of revenue on a permanent basis.

Yeah, it's that one-time pile I'm referencing. No clue whether there was some special condition or proviso for them remaining with the conference else a forfeiture to any scale.

There was no reason for any such clause to begin with - it wasn't an inducement from the new members given to keep Cincy/USF/UConn to keep them as part of the conference. It was just a big pile of money available at a time when those three were the only fully vested members of the conference, and thus the only schools with any right to it, if I remember correctly.

Also, going off of memory here so I may have made this up, but I believe a big part of why the C7 was able to negotiate a split that left them with the name and tournament is that there was a brief window where they had a voting supermajority, and thus the technical ability to completely dissolve the conference.

(12-07-2017 03:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 02:43 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 01:16 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Agreed. What people are missing is that if the AAC doesn't get a pay increase on the TV contract this time or if it only gets one that matches what the Big East gets for basketball only, there is no risk to UConn waiting until 2023 to see if the ACC or B1G pan out and, if they don't, then move basketball to the Big East and football to independence. They would get more in TV money (even if the Indy deal was terrible) and have less travel cost by doing it that way.

UConn would pay $10M to leave a 4-bid American to go to a 5-bid Big East if the TV money was the same?

Doubtful.

Maybe, although I think the main qualification is that the Big East and the AAC getting the same amount of TV money in total is NOT the same because the Big East is getting paid that amount without football at all, while the AAC amount is for football and basketball together. The only way that the AAC TV contract can really the "same" as the Big East contract is if it's getting paid at least twice as much total in order to account for the inclusion of football.

The real comparison is if UConn football independence plus Big East money would be more than the total all-in amount they'd get from the AAC. Who knows one way or the other how that will shake out, but it's simply important to keep noting that the Big East contract is for basketball *only*. The total AAC future TV contract needs to be significantly more than that (e.g. twice as much or more) in order to be truly "equal" to the basketball-only Big East contract. The fact that the Big East is making more outright in TV dollars than the AAC with just basketball can't be emphasized enough (even if others want to discount how critical that point might be).

That is what I was saying as the Big East not having football is a given. If Big East hoop only money equals AAC money for football and basketball in the future, then the money that UConn would get as a football independent plus Big East hoop member would be more than what we would get by staying in the AAC. As you say, the AAC would probably have to pay slightly more than double what the Big East does to have the math come out in UConn's favor.

(12-07-2017 03:26 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Where are the WSU fans who think the AAC is such a better conference than the Big East (or Big Pee as they call it like that makes any sense at all)?

probably on the AAC board discussing more important things than this once a week rehashed NBE wet dream. SOS rehashed by the same posters. They'll be okay, they can comment on the new thread next week when you start the new one so you and certain posters can say this same "stuff" again. YOU know for such a lousy conference it's amazing how much people like you care, maybe that's why our ratings are so exceeding so well,,, hmm. sheesh! Lol

(12-07-2017 03:45 PM)Bogg Wrote:  There was no reason for any such clause to begin with - it wasn't an inducement from the new members given to keep Cincy/USF/UConn to keep them as part of the conference. It was just a big pile of money available at a time when those three were the only fully vested members of the conference, and thus the only schools with any right to it, if I remember correctly.

I don't disagree, but, the emboldened part is cause for some question, as the C7 was on board for the likes of Houston, SMU, UCF, and Temple, even though those guys were partially or soon to be aboard the group. IIRC, I think the three of them pulled seniority over the rest of the incoming group as a reason for extra money; "we should get more because we were here longer."

Again, I don't disagree...but, who's to say the conference doesn't sue just to see if they could collect a little extra off UConn? When has procedure really mattered in these moves, especially for this group, who basically sues EVERYONE once they announce their departure?

(12-07-2017 04:00 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 03:45 PM)Bogg Wrote:  There was no reason for any such clause to begin with - it wasn't an inducement from the new members given to keep Cincy/USF/UConn to keep them as part of the conference. It was just a big pile of money available at a time when those three were the only fully vested members of the conference, and thus the only schools with any right to it, if I remember correctly.

I don't disagree, but, the emboldened part is cause for some question, as the C7 was on board for the likes of Houston, SMU, UCF, and Temple, even though those guys were partially or soon to be aboard the group. IIRC, I think the three of them pulled seniority over the rest of the incoming group as a reason for extra money; "we should get more because we were here longer."

Again, I don't disagree...but, who's to say the conference doesn't sue just to see if they could collect a little extra off UConn? When has procedure really mattered in these moves, especially for this group, who basically sues EVERYONE once they announce their departure?

Don't you think Cincinnati, UConn and USF earned that money. Those three schools were three of five winningest programs in football from 2005-2012 and Cincinnati and UConn did their piece on the hardwood as well.

(12-07-2017 03:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 12:27 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  .....reasons.

Yes, that's why Aresco and the league presidents bent over backward to make special arrangements to get Boise STate football into the league.

Oh wait that didn't happen, even though there were all sorts of rational arguments for it, because it was seen as unfair and disrespectful by the presidents and a lot of the fanbases. Hmmm.

Making special arrangements to bring Boise State into the old Big East (which became the AAC) isn't quite apples to apples to letting UConn remain in the AAC (which is the old Big East and of which UConn is a founding member). Either way, there is a difference between making a sweetheart financial deal to benefit a single member (like Boise wanted and which was declined by the AAC) and letting a team remain as a football only member for whatever the financial cut amounts to for just that sport. The AAC has Navy as a football only and, in fact, there was a time that ECU was only going to be admitted as a football only member. So, just pay UConn what the cut would be for just football and call it a day. It isn't exactly "unfair" in that case.

I think that the AAC may end up with more than double the TV cash of the Big East and render this argument moot anyway. The AAC can only get better in hoop whereas I feel that we are seeing the best of what the new Big East will be now. Tack on solid AAC football and a lack of TV content at some networks and it could work out fairly respectably for the AAC. After all, the AAC isn't expecting anything near P5 money. $8mm to 10mm per school doesn't seem like an unreasonable request, though.

(12-07-2017 04:07 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Don't you think Cincinnati, UConn and USF earned that money. Those three schools were three of five winningest programs in football from 2005-2012 and Cincinnati and UConn did their piece on the hardwood as well.

I look at it this way...if you're one of the "special group" who leave and risk nuking the contract for a renegotiation, you're worth the money. But that also makes you a target for potential damages were you to leave and rock the boat.

(12-07-2017 04:00 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 03:45 PM)Bogg Wrote:  There was no reason for any such clause to begin with - it wasn't an inducement from the new members given to keep Cincy/USF/UConn to keep them as part of the conference. It was just a big pile of money available at a time when those three were the only fully vested members of the conference, and thus the only schools with any right to it, if I remember correctly.

I don't disagree, but, the emboldened part is cause for some question, as the C7 was on board for the likes of Houston, SMU, UCF, and Temple, even though those guys were partially or soon to be aboard the group. IIRC, I think the three of them pulled seniority over the rest of the incoming group as a reason for extra money; "we should get more because we were here longer."

Again, I don't disagree...but, who's to say the conference doesn't sue just to see if they could collect a little extra off UConn? When has procedure really mattered in these moves, especially for this group, who basically sues EVERYONE once they announce their departure?

I believe it's correct - I want to say there was a period of a couple weeks where there were going to only be 10 voting members of the OBE in the form of the C7, Cincy, and USF while several of the new adds were still something like "probationary" members (I have no idea what the actual term used was) and this didn't have voting privileges. As a result the non-football schools would ha e had more than the two-thirds majority necessary to blow up the conference entirely and leave the football schools without an autobid. Because of that the C7 negotiated their exit and the 3 remaining full members split up the money between them.

(12-07-2017 04:00 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 03:45 PM)Bogg Wrote:  There was no reason for any such clause to begin with - it wasn't an inducement from the new members given to keep Cincy/USF/UConn to keep them as part of the conference. It was just a big pile of money available at a time when those three were the only fully vested members of the conference, and thus the only schools with any right to it, if I remember correctly.

I don't disagree, but, the emboldened part is cause for some question, as the C7 was on board for the likes of Houston, SMU, UCF, and Temple, even though those guys were partially or soon to be aboard the group. IIRC, I think the three of them pulled seniority over the rest of the incoming group as a reason for extra money; "we should get more because we were here longer."

Again, I don't disagree...but, who's to say the conference doesn't sue just to see if they could collect a little extra off UConn? When has procedure really mattered in these moves, especially for this group, who basically sues EVERYONE once they announce their departure?

UConn, Cincy, and USF had a right to pull seniority for the extra money that resulted from selling the Big East name and giving up playing the tourney at MSG. Why? Because those three schools were members of the Big East, so it was their name to sell. The incoming schools had never played a single game in the Big East, so they really had no claim to an equal cut of the money resulting from the sale of the name. That is why they were understanding about UConn, Cincy, and USF taking the lion's share.