Whether they succeed or fail with this move.....one cannot deny this will be an interesting "Case Study" of what is possible in this era. Most of us believe you absolutely need to be in a Power conference to succeed. Let Uconn test this theory for us all........

(06-28-2019 12:39 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:28 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:13 PM)esayem Wrote:  The only reason UConn football got anywhere was due to the basketball program. Football ended up taking them away from their basketball history, and what made them great and unique in the first place.

I feel happy for UConn. They moved into a power conference and made it stronger. I am also of the belief football as an Independent will be more and more sustainable with time and the advancement of streaming technology.

I believe it’s a gamble. I hope it works out for them. Just an interesting call to make when you are operating at a 40 million dollar deficit.

Yep. I was with esayem up until the last sentence to which I completely disagree. I certainly don't think independence is going to benefit UConn FB and I don't think advancing streaming technology will make any difference whatsoever for their burial.

Same. I think FBS football was a mistake for UConn -- too little, too late. The fact that it pulled them away from their basketball success just made it more egregious.

(06-28-2019 09:38 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:10 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:23 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  Giving Cincy and Temple the invites now to get to 16 would be hilarious after what UConn just did.

If conference leadership did that, I might start believing that theory that The ACC is still mad about that lawsuit.

Back during the old BE days, after Louisville, Cincy and USF came along, do you remember the constant threads that were started by Uconn fans boasting about their superiority of the BE and constantly calling themselves the "lead dog" or the "big dog." Seeing these latest developments the last 7years, there is no question that the lead dog was NOT UConn.

Well, 5 dogs from that pack were poached by P5 conferences and UConn wasn't one of them.

(06-28-2019 07:09 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:38 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:10 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:23 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  Giving Cincy and Temple the invites now to get to 16 would be hilarious after what UConn just did.

If conference leadership did that, I might start believing that theory that The ACC is still mad about that lawsuit.

Back during the old BE days, after Louisville, Cincy and USF came along, do you remember the constant threads that were started by Uconn fans boasting about their superiority of the BE and constantly calling themselves the "lead dog" or the "big dog." Seeing these latest developments the last 7years, there is no question that the lead dog was NOT UConn.

Well, 5 dogs from that pack were poached by P5 conferences and UConn wasn't one of them.

I count 9 dogs. Miami, VT, BC, WVU, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Louisville, and ND.

(06-28-2019 07:38 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:09 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:38 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:10 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:23 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  Giving Cincy and Temple the invites now to get to 16 would be hilarious after what UConn just did.

If conference leadership did that, I might start believing that theory that The ACC is still mad about that lawsuit.

Back during the old BE days, after Louisville, Cincy and USF came along, do you remember the constant threads that were started by Uconn fans boasting about their superiority of the BE and constantly calling themselves the "lead dog" or the "big dog." Seeing these latest developments the last 7years, there is no question that the lead dog was NOT UConn.

Well, 5 dogs from that pack were poached by P5 conferences and UConn wasn't one of them.

I count 9 dogs. Miami, VT, BC, WVU, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Louisville, and ND.

Yet, out of all that group, the Huskies are the only true dogs. Just sayin'.



From your list I see a weather phenomenon, a turkey buzzard, an American symbolic bird, a moonshiner, a cat, a fruit, does Rutgers even deserve mention?, another bird, and brawling Gaelic guy.

Only UConn is a "dog"...in more ways than one of course.

Rutgers = red, feudal soldiers?

(06-28-2019 07:51 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:38 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:09 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:38 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:10 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  If conference leadership did that, I might start believing that theory that The ACC is still mad about that lawsuit.

Back during the old BE days, after Louisville, Cincy and USF came along, do you remember the constant threads that were started by Uconn fans boasting about their superiority of the BE and constantly calling themselves the "lead dog" or the "big dog." Seeing these latest developments the last 7years, there is no question that the lead dog was NOT UConn.

Well, 5 dogs from that pack were poached by P5 conferences and UConn wasn't one of them.

I count 9 dogs. Miami, VT, BC, WVU, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Louisville, and ND.

Yet, out of all that group, the Huskies are the only true dogs. Just sayin'.



From your list I see a weather phenomenon, a turkey buzzard, an American symbolic bird, a moonshiner, a cat, a fruit, does Rutgers even deserve mention?, another bird, and brawling Gaelic guy.

Only UConn is a "dog"...in more ways than one of course.

You could have al least said, "a very tasty" fruit.

(06-28-2019 08:54 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Rutgers = red, feudal soldiers?

More like Rutgers = struggling actors waiting tables at a horrific concept restaurant


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWxzv-dZ-BI

(06-24-2019 09:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’m prettttyy sure Ohio State didn’t suffer AT ALL during the time Cincinnati was in a BCS conference, so that argument is a big fail.

A wise strategy would be to NOT increase competition for Pitt and Louisville on the recruiting trail by promoting another school in their general region.

This isn’t rocket science, we don’t need teams rejected by the Big XII eating our pie without bringing any more to the round table! C’mon man!

Well... there you go again.

If the B12 hadn't added 1 second to their championship game in 2009 so that Texas could win, that would have been UC playing Alabama in the BCS title game.

You don't think O$U wasn't sweating that out?

We only had seven years in a BCS conference and went from nothing to practically the top. Just think what we could accomplish if we could ever get a chance to be in a good place for a long time.

Heck, our football program might even get to be as good as... North Carolina's.

(07-01-2019 11:40 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’m prettttyy sure Ohio State didn’t suffer AT ALL during the time Cincinnati was in a BCS conference, so that argument is a big fail.

A wise strategy would be to NOT increase competition for Pitt and Louisville on the recruiting trail by promoting another school in their general region.

This isn’t rocket science, we don’t need teams rejected by the Big XII eating our pie without bringing any more to the round table! C’mon man!

Well... there you go again.

If the B12 hadn't added 1 second to their championship game in 2009 so that Texas could win, that would have been UC playing Alabama in the BCS title game.

You don't think O$U wasn't sweating that out?

We only had seven years in a BCS conference and went from nothing to practically the top. Just think what we could accomplish if we could ever get a chance to be in a good place for a long time.

Heck, our football program might even get to be as good as... North Carolina's.

Good lawd, that would have been ugly! Especially considering how UF exposed Cincinnati to the world 51-24.

Look man, I’ve complemented your school before, I don’t have an axe to grind. My only agenda is that the ACC doesn’t need your school whatsoever. Sorry, nothing personal, all business. And logic. Business and logic.

* Also, you guys had a coach that has gone on to be successful at Notre Dame for like 10 years. I don’t think the success was just because you were in a BCS conference. You had Kelly, who is an elite coach.

(07-01-2019 09:31 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 11:40 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’m prettttyy sure Ohio State didn’t suffer AT ALL during the time Cincinnati was in a BCS conference, so that argument is a big fail.

A wise strategy would be to NOT increase competition for Pitt and Louisville on the recruiting trail by promoting another school in their general region.

This isn’t rocket science, we don’t need teams rejected by the Big XII eating our pie without bringing any more to the round table! C’mon man!

Well... there you go again.

If the B12 hadn't added 1 second to their championship game in 2009 so that Texas could win, that would have been UC playing Alabama in the BCS title game.

You don't think O$U wasn't sweating that out?

We only had seven years in a BCS conference and went from nothing to practically the top. Just think what we could accomplish if we could ever get a chance to be in a good place for a long time.

Heck, our football program might even get to be as good as... North Carolina's.

Good lawd, that would have been ugly! Especially considering how UF exposed Cincinnati to the world 51-24.

Look man, I’ve complemented your school before, I don’t have an axe to grind. My only agenda is that the ACC doesn’t need your school whatsoever. Sorry, nothing personal, all business. And logic. Business and logic.

* Also, you guys had a coach that has gone on to be successful at Notre Dame for like 10 years. I don’t think the success was just because you were in a BCS conference. You had Kelly, who is an elite coach.

I wonder how that game against Florida would have gone if Kelly had stayed at Cincy for another couple of weeks and coached the Bearcats in the Sugar Bowl. I suspect Florida would still have won but that score would have been much less lop-sided. Even so, Cincy hung 24 points on the Gators. Only two other teams (LSU and Georgia) exceeded that in 2010.

It was a huge letdown for the kids whose 12-0 regular season performance propelled Kelly into his dream job (the coach actually showed up briefly at UC's senior dinner wearing a Notre Dame tie). What a sphincter.

(07-01-2019 09:31 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 11:40 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’m prettttyy sure Ohio State didn’t suffer AT ALL during the time Cincinnati was in a BCS conference, so that argument is a big fail.

A wise strategy would be to NOT increase competition for Pitt and Louisville on the recruiting trail by promoting another school in their general region.

This isn’t rocket science, we don’t need teams rejected by the Big XII eating our pie without bringing any more to the round table! C’mon man!

Well... there you go again.

If the B12 hadn't added 1 second to their championship game in 2009 so that Texas could win, that would have been UC playing Alabama in the BCS title game.

You don't think O$U wasn't sweating that out?

We only had seven years in a BCS conference and went from nothing to practically the top. Just think what we could accomplish if we could ever get a chance to be in a good place for a long time.

Heck, our football program might even get to be as good as... North Carolina's.

Good lawd, that would have been ugly! Especially considering how UF exposed Cincinnati to the world 51-24.

Look man, I’ve complemented your school before, I don’t have an axe to grind. My only agenda is that the ACC doesn’t need your school whatsoever. Sorry, nothing personal, all business. And logic. Business and logic.

* Also, you guys had a coach that has gone on to be successful at Notre Dame for like 10 years. I don’t think the success was just because you were in a BCS conference. You had Kelly, who is an elite coach.

Hmm...

You are concerned with Pitt and Louisville's recruiting area being crowded, yet there are three schools all sitting on each other's laps in the Raleigh-Durham area. That's logical.

You rag on us for losing to Tim Tebow's swansong Florida team by 27 after our coach abandoned us yet somehow forget that Ohio St. lost to Florida as well two years earlier... by 27. But they're legit and we got exposed. That's logical.

I think Louisville would LOVE to have their true rival back in their conference. That IS logical.

OK, you don't want us in. Fine.

But please forgive us for the red a$$ when we hear that we don't belong...somewhere... because we do.

The math still doesn't work. If Cincy got the ACC another $30 million and 1/2 went to existing members for some period of time... that works out to $1 million/per school. It's not worth the effort.

The LHN isn't going anywhere. Texas isn't giving up $20 million in free money. $20 million sounds like a lot, and considering UTs performance the last few years, maybe it is. When you consider that ND has a similar deal with NBC and other schools have tier3 packages, it's not that far off base.

If you want Texas in a ND-type deal, Texas keeps the LHN the same way ND keeps its NBC deal. Even if the payout from the ACC matched the payout from the B12 + LHN, the LHN is better for Texas. It is a UT branded network.

(07-02-2019 10:22 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  The math still doesn't work. If Cincy got the ACC another $30 million and 1/2 went to existing members for some period of time... that works out to $1 million/per school. It's not worth the effort.

The LHN isn't going anywhere. Texas isn't giving up $20 million in free money. $20 million sounds like a lot, and considering UTs performance the last few years, maybe it is. When you consider that ND has a similar deal with NBC and other schools have tier3 packages, it's not that far off base.

If you want Texas in a ND-type deal, Texas keeps the LHN the same way ND keeps its NBC deal. Even if the payout from the ACC matched the payout from the B12 + LHN, the LHN is better for Texas. It is a UT branded network.

...and unlike the Big XII, which (understandably) fights to keep conference games off of the LHN as much as possible, if Texas had a Notre Dame-type deal with the ACC, those Texas home games would ALWAYS be on the LHN. In fact, football inventory for the LHN would jump from 1 or 2 games a year now to as many as 8 or 9 games a year!



In fact, I discuss this and 2 other reasons (scheduling in state games, academic peers) why I think Texas to the ACC may make sense in today's blog post "Reasons Texas Might Join the ACC Someday"

If you did not commit to big time football by the mid 1980's you missed the cut.

Pure and simple.

Louisville was the school to make that commitment in time. Prior to them would be Florida State. It's difficult to put Arizona, ASU, and Utah into proper perspective considering they were in the Rockies.

ECU made the commitment before UConn.
Cincy was wishy washy for decades.

(07-02-2019 08:55 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:31 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 11:40 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’m prettttyy sure Ohio State didn’t suffer AT ALL during the time Cincinnati was in a BCS conference, so that argument is a big fail.

A wise strategy would be to NOT increase competition for Pitt and Louisville on the recruiting trail by promoting another school in their general region.

This isn’t rocket science, we don’t need teams rejected by the Big XII eating our pie without bringing any more to the round table! C’mon man!

Well... there you go again.

If the B12 hadn't added 1 second to their championship game in 2009 so that Texas could win, that would have been UC playing Alabama in the BCS title game.

You don't think O$U wasn't sweating that out?

We only had seven years in a BCS conference and went from nothing to practically the top. Just think what we could accomplish if we could ever get a chance to be in a good place for a long time.

Heck, our football program might even get to be as good as... North Carolina's.

Good lawd, that would have been ugly! Especially considering how UF exposed Cincinnati to the world 51-24.

Look man, I’ve complemented your school before, I don’t have an axe to grind. My only agenda is that the ACC doesn’t need your school whatsoever. Sorry, nothing personal, all business. And logic. Business and logic.

* Also, you guys had a coach that has gone on to be successful at Notre Dame for like 10 years. I don’t think the success was just because you were in a BCS conference. You had Kelly, who is an elite coach.

Hmm...

You are concerned with Pitt and Louisville's recruiting area being crowded, yet there are three schools all sitting on each other's laps in the Raleigh-Durham area. That's logical.

You rag on us for losing to Tim Tebow's swansong Florida team by 27 after our coach abandoned us yet somehow forget that Ohio St. lost to Florida as well two years earlier... by 27. But they're legit and we got exposed. That's logical.

I think Louisville would LOVE to have their true rival back in their conference. That IS logical.

OK, you don't want us in. Fine.

But please forgive us for the red a$$ when we hear that we don't belong...somewhere... because we do.

Yes there are 3 schools in the triangle and I’m pretty sure Duke and NC State don’t have anyone on their same recruiting sheets. Anyway, that doesn’t even matter though, the point is those three schools have been in the conference for 50+ years. Totally different situation than consciously adding a school in this climate.*

So what Ohio State got torched by Chris Leak? They moved on, your team did not after they lost their coach. What are you saying here? Your team is an equal to Ohio State? If your conference adds Marshall you’ll be more like the MAC than the Big Ten.

Louisville would love to play their true rival, UK, during rivalry week. Guess what, the ACC membership made that happen. Louisville hasn’t gone out of their way to schedule you guys because that rivalry was always a marriage of convenience. Same with Louisville vs. Memphis.

Cincinnati does not belong in the ACC. Maybe you can get into the Big XII, but I’d rank you behind BYU and Houston. Good luck.



*This matters much less at the G5 level.

The Keg of Nails trophy needs to happen at least occassionally. UC and the other AAC members need to stick with each other and build their own power conference from the ground up. Think 10, 20 years down the road, build up rivalries with each other, win those OOC games, get those NY6 bowls, earn that respect.

(06-27-2019 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 03:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 02:42 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  You got it.

No need to tinker. And, if you do, shoot above what you have. Don't settle (for purgatory).

There is the "corporate merger strategy" vis-a-vis Fuhrer Mickey reshuffling assets he more or less owns outright in the three big conferences. But if you think the NCAA is a dark side just wait until you see what Disney can do.

Every dog has his day. Disney's (ESPN's) venture into conference networks is going to bite them in the not too distant future. What they have unwittingly done (in an effort to cut their overhead) is to require each school in the SEC and ACC to be able to produce their own games. That's going to come in quite handy with the rise of streaming. In the future conferences (like the SEC already does) will sell their T1 to the best possible national platform they can get, likely split up their T2 and market it to several outlets, and sell their T3 on their own cutting Mickey Mouse out as the middle man.

I would argue that ESPN's power is past its peak and that losing leverage over a region to expand markets is not in any conference's best interest for the future because when we market our own T3 rights having some leverage over our own market will be key to acquiring more favorable advertising rates (along with actual viewers of course).

Hail JR!

I realize that this is simply an offshoot of the main topic of this thread but frankly, this is the most interesting topic in it.

Agreed on the bolded part above. But doesn't the streaming model have the same issue as cable in that it requires subscribers? Streaming is going blazes now because 1) it is still in its infancy; 2) we can imagine it morphing into anything we want; and 3) it is still perceived as cheaper than cable.

But with the upcoming explosion of streaming channels what looks like a la carte paradise now I think will eventually become oversaturation and result in higher costs/higher subscription fees for stand-alone streaming channels to the point perhaps that some will even wish the old cable model didn't fall apart.

Anyway I suspect bundling will likely be the future of streaming (as it eventually was for cable) and it is hard to imagine now at this moment in time a company better prepared for such a future than Disney - with channels like Disney+ (family entertainment), ESPN+ (sports) and Hulu (more adult-oriented entertainment). And by the time both the SEC and ACC are out from under the Mouse's thumb entirely their best bet might very well be Disney depending upon how streaming actually shakes out by the early 2030s. In other words, don't be so quick to count Disney out.

Like with most things, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-02-2019 05:34 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 03:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 02:42 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  You got it.

No need to tinker. And, if you do, shoot above what you have. Don't settle (for purgatory).

There is the "corporate merger strategy" vis-a-vis Fuhrer Mickey reshuffling assets he more or less owns outright in the three big conferences. But if you think the NCAA is a dark side just wait until you see what Disney can do.

Every dog has his day. Disney's (ESPN's) venture into conference networks is going to bite them in the not too distant future. What they have unwittingly done (in an effort to cut their overhead) is to require each school in the SEC and ACC to be able to produce their own games. That's going to come in quite handy with the rise of streaming. In the future conferences (like the SEC already does) will sell their T1 to the best possible national platform they can get, likely split up their T2 and market it to several outlets, and sell their T3 on their own cutting Mickey Mouse out as the middle man.

I would argue that ESPN's power is past its peak and that losing leverage over a region to expand markets is not in any conference's best interest for the future because when we market our own T3 rights having some leverage over our own market will be key to acquiring more favorable advertising rates (along with actual viewers of course).

Hail JR!

I realize that this is simply an offshoot of the main topic of this thread but frankly, this is the most interesting topic in it.

Agreed on the bolded part above. But doesn't the streaming model have the same issue as cable in that it requires subscribers? Streaming is going blazes now because 1) it is still in its infancy; 2) we can imagine it morphing into anything we want; and 3) it is still perceived as cheaper than cable.

But with the upcoming explosion of streaming channels what looks like a la carte paradise now I think will eventually become oversaturation and result in higher costs/higher subscription fees for stand-alone streaming channels to the point perhaps that some will even wish the old cable model didn't fall apart.

Anyway I suspect bundling will likely be the future of streaming (as it eventually was for cable) and it is hard to imagine now at this moment in time a company better prepared for such a future than Disney - with channels like Disney+ (family entertainment), ESPN+ (sports) and Hulu (more adult-oriented entertainment). And by the time both the SEC and ACC are out from under the Mouse's thumb entirely their best bet might very well be Disney depending upon how streaming actually shakes out by the early 2030s. In other words, don't be so quick to count Disney out.

Like with most things, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

Sure that's a possible outcome. Bundling may be with us in one iteration or another for the foreseeable future. What I was honing in on is that most T3 material is not that valuable to begin with relative to the national and regional telecasts, but if schools have to monetize a product via T3 then should that product become less profitable to the network mitigating its value to the school then the schools should produce their own stream and market it themselves. That way they get to keep a larger portion of an otherwise downwardly trending product. The appeal of the SECN is that literally you get most T3 games of the SEC essentially bundled into one package of channels. That's the value. So for $5 or $6 bucks a month I get all f the extra baseball, basketball, and football games I want without having to log into them.

I don't care much for ESPN+ which carries a good many softball and some baseball games for the conference. The quality of the picture and the delay bother me, especially when the crawler tells me a score before I can see it happen.

Maybe it's an old guy thing, but that's how I see it.

I agree that as it proliferates it will become both tedious and passe'.

(07-02-2019 04:37 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The Keg of Nails trophy needs to happen at least occassionally. UC and the other AAC members need to stick with each other and build their own power conference from the ground up. Think 10, 20 years down the road, build up rivalries with each other, win those OOC games, get those NY6 bowls, earn that respect.

A solid rivalry, with a solid trophy. It should happen, and I think it will sometime in the near future. If the Big XII decided to expand, I think Cincy is a no brainer add ... and then the intra-power-5 (or is it inter-power-5? I always get that mixed up) match up would make it happen more frequently.

I feel for Cincy, because there by the grace of God go I ...

I also don't see a way in the ACC for them right now either.