Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

The home for Big East hoops

Re: Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

Postby FenwayFriar » Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:14 pm

Bill Marsh wrote:
Jet915 wrote:What a mess UCONN football is, after giving Diaco an extension last year and raising his buyout from 800K to 3.4 million, he gets fired.


UConn seems anxious for its football program to get back to being competitive again. Even desperate. The last 2 coaches have been fired in 3 years or less. Doing that once is unusual. Doing it twice is unheard of. They really want to be positioned for a conference upgrade. Not having a football program that is competitive is a deal killer.

Equally important is attendance. UConn's early years in Big East Football routinely saw sell outs with average attendance at 40,000. For the third year in a row, average attendance was under 30,000 in 2016. Rumors here in Connecticut have been that season ticket sales are lagging even behind last year's pace. I think the AD felt he had to do something to revive flagging interest. No school has been hurt more by the demise of the old Big East than UConn.


Bill, I assume with the re-hire of Edsall today this is what you were talking about by re-energizing the fan base. Not being a UConn fan or Conn. resident, I would assume Edsall is a home run hire. He basically made the UConn football program and of course brought them to their infamous BCS Bowl. As Bill has been saying for a while, this hire certainly means UConn football ain't going anywhere soon and they're nowhere close to thinking about shutting down their FBS football program.
FenwayFriar
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:18 pm

Re: Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

Postby Bill Marsh » Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:22 pm

GoldenWarrior11 wrote:Many like to compare Rutgers and UConn within the realignment process, and while both schools do have similar comparisons in some regards (Northeast schools, former Big East schools, weak football programs), there are most definitely criteria that bumped and elevated Rutgers over UConn for the Big Ten expansion in 2011. For starters, Rutgers is an AAU school, a major requirement for acceptance into the B1G. While Nebraska is no longer an AAU member, they were when they were invited, and there are even quotes from prominent officials stating had Nebraska not been AAU, they were unlikely to be accepted in 2010. The B1G values academics at a high level, and while Rutgers has an overall weak athletics program - both current and historical - they brought the AAU label with them when they were invited, something UConn did not and does not have.

Rutgers, similar to UConn, but larger in size and state, is a national land grant university. Rutgers has over a $1 billion in endowment - over double that of UConn. They exceed them in alumni and student enrollment. They also have a much stronger recruiting area than UConn, as New Jersey is a rich and fertile area for basketball and football - just look at Michigan and Jabrill Peppers.

Finally, Rutgers allowed the B1G to market itself and gain access to the NJ/NY market for the B1G channel and content. Fans can argue until the apocalypse that Rutgers isn't a New York team, but the reality is that their new TV contract and exposure says otherwise. Along with Maryland, the B1G started to be shown in homes in New York City and Washington D.C. (thanks to Maryland), and allowed them to have the richest and most lucrative TV deal in history with both ESPN and Fox, thanks to the newfound access that Rutgers and Maryland allowed.

This is why Rutgers was a home run addition to the B1G, and why UConn will never be a member of the B1G. UConn does not meet the requirements for admission into the B1G (AAU), nor do they bring a large and contiguous state, nor would they would bring any additional bump in exposure or media money as the B1G's TV deal already accounts for New York/Northeast.

The long-term affect of B1G members - including and eventually Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers - earning nearly $50 million annually for their conference affiliation and TV deals, and UConn only making $1.7 million as part of the AAC/ESPN deal, the reality of football programs being left behind and left for dead is very real. Add in the fact that Penn State, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Boston College, St. Johns, Villanova, Georgetown, Seton Hall and Providence all will be making more in TV money for the foreseeable future, and the expected outcome for UConn athletics (but mostly just football) is bleak to say the least.


Almost all of what you say is true and you state it very well.

I will take exception with a couple of things.

1. The B1G has recently disavowed AAU as a requirement. Although they like to brag about it, a couple of their actions despite that. First is that despite Nebraska's AAU status when the joined B1G members knew that they were about to be booted and they themselves were voting for the requirements that disqualified Nebraska. They took the Cornhuskers anyway, so obviously AAU wasn't all that important to them despite what any of them may say publicly. Then there is the Norte Dame offers. ND is not AAU.

2. The fact that UConn is not now AAU does not mean that they never will be. To eliminate them as a candidate forever on that basis is not valid.

3. UConn does not bring a large or contiguous state although the distance between the CT and NJ borders are negligible. And the B1G has been repeatedly been rumored to have interest in other schools from states which are not contiguous. However, they do bring a state in which they are the only college or pro team, which is more valuable than a program which has instate competition like Kansas which has been a rumored target. In addition, CT is #1 in per capital income, increasing the value of its advertising beyond its 3.7 million population.

4. Your argument against UConn joining the B1G is valid only to the extent that it relates to the B1G itself. UConn is waiting on other P5 opportunities as well to which none of those arguments are valid.

5. Thedinancial argumentks relevant only to the extent that UConn doesn't come up with financing from other sources.
Bill Marsh
 
Posts: 4239
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:43 am

Re: Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

Postby Bill Marsh » Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:34 pm

FenwayFriar wrote:
Bill Marsh wrote:
Jet915 wrote:What a mess UCONN football is, after giving Diaco an extension last year and raising his buyout from 800K to 3.4 million, he gets fired.


UConn seems anxious for its football program to get back to being competitive again. Even desperate. The last 2 coaches have been fired in 3 years or less. Doing that once is unusual. Doing it twice is unheard of. They really want to be positioned for a conference upgrade. Not having a football program that is competitive is a deal killer.

Equally important is attendance. UConn's early years in Big East Football routinely saw sell outs with average attendance at 40,000. For the third year in a row, average attendance was under 30,000 in 2016. Rumors here in Connecticut have been that season ticket sales are lagging even behind last year's pace. I think the AD felt he had to do something to revive flagging interest. No school has been hurt more by the demise of the old Big East than UConn.


Bill, I assume with the re-hire of Edsall today this is what you were talking about by re-energizing the fan base. Not being a UConn fan or Conn. resident, I would assume Edsall is a home run hire. He basically made the UConn football program and of course brought them to their infamous BCS Bowl. As Bill has been saying for a while, this hire certainly means UConn football ain't going anywhere soon and they're nowhere close to thinking about shutting down their FBS football program.


My guess is that the Edsall hire will get a mixed reaction. Many were hoping for a young offensive minded coach who would create a high powered scoring machine to attract fans and go up against other high scoring offenses in the AAC. Edsall is a defense first coach. As a recycled coach, he doesn't bring the electricity and excitement that a new coach might bring. Despite having been around doe almost 20 years, he's not a big name, which doesn't help either.

On the positive side, he can hit the ground running on day one due to his familiarity with the campus and with the state. He already has connections and recruiting ties both in CT and in the East. The administration has been frustrated that Diaxo didn't show progress more quickly. They want to get this thing back on track. Immediately. I'm guessing that was the biggest thing in Edsall's favor. He has a better shot at a quick turnaround than anyone else.
Bill Marsh
 
Posts: 4239
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:43 am

Re: Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

Postby DudeAnon » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:16 pm

The Edsall hire was the safe one financially and football wise. His contract is $1m for 5 years and his $3m buyout decreases by $1 mil every year. Compare with Cincinnati's new head coach which is $2.3 million for six years. Buyout is $3.5 million and goes down by $500,000 annually.

So UCONN just chose to play it safe and cheap, interpret that as you will.
Xavier

2018 Big East Champs
User avatar
DudeAnon
 
Posts: 3013
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:52 pm

Re: Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

Postby milwaukeejedi1 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:40 pm

https://tmgcollegesports.com/2016/12/27/coaching-uconn-fb-could-be-risky-business/

COACHING UCONN FB COULD BE RISKY BUSINESS

...

"The failure of the Huskies to latch on to a Power 5 conference in the Big 12 last fall was a set back, mitigated only by the fact that the Big 12 didn’t pick ANY school.

Which left the Huskies in the uncomfortable position of choosing between remaining in the American Athletic Conference in all sports with a projected diminishing television revenue stream looming or making a move to rejoin the Big East in most other sports, without a real home for college football. And that move would also not generate a great deal of additional revenue.

The dilemma that Benedict and the UConn administration face is accepting the fact that UConn football might never be the signature athletic program UConn had hoped for when the decision was made to move from the FCS (1AA) to the FBS (1A) level in 2002.

One of the first questions that any coaching candidate that Benedict interviews must ask will be about the long range future for UConn football, in terms of not only commitment, but in which league they will compete (Mark Blaudschun)."
Last edited by milwaukeejedi1 on Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“I come from New York where, if you fall down, someone will pick you up by your wallet (Al McGuire).”

http://mufanatic.com/
User avatar
milwaukeejedi1
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 10:01 am

Re: Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

Postby Bluejay » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:41 pm

GumbyDamnit! wrote:
Devil's Advocate wrote:Off topic, but Osborne's final season was 97. In 94 Nebraska was the National Champion because they were really good, and probably got more votes than PSU because Penn St.'s defense was poor.

You are right that it wasn't Osbourne's swan song but it was his 1st NC. And absolutely that was a very good Nebraska team. The sentiment in PA was that he was given some consideration because of the fact that he was a great coach and had never won a NC. And no the PSU Def was not "poor" at all. Results below vs the ranked teams they faced that year:

#14 USC - 38-14
@ # 5 Michigan - 31-24
# 21 OSU - 63-14
# 12 Oregon (Rose Bowl) - 38-20

That team averaged 48.7 pts per game and scored quickly. Their D was on the field for a lot of possessions. So averaging 18 PPG against them vs the best teams they played is not poor IMO. It has always been some sour grapes for PSU fans b/c it was the 4th time that PSU went undefeated and were denied the NC (Pres Nixon of all people declared Texas NC one year when PSU and Texas were both undefeated). So, full disclosure as a long time PSU FB fan, there are def some feelings of being slighted in the process before.

It would have been a lot of fun seeing those teams meet in '94. Another reason why the Playoff system change was so important.


While there is no forgiving what Sandusky did, Nebraska didn't exactly have the moral high ground to be pointing fingers at others.

During that same time period, the track record of Nebraska players committing crimes, often against women, is pretty horrific as well. From Lawrence Phillips dragging his former girlfriend out of her apartment by her hair and then bouncing her head repeatedly off of the apartment complex's mailboxes, to Christian Peter's lengthy legal record of female assaults, that program was dirty, dirty, dirty. Phillips' punishment? Suspension for a couple of games, but able to return just in time for the national championship game! Way to lay down the law. Of course, Christian Peter didn't even get suspended at all. I didn't even mention Riley Washington who literally spent the offseason incarcerated, but that didn't endanger his playing time or status on the team one single bit. That is only scratching the surface as the number of criminals on those Nebraska teams was insane.
Last edited by Bluejay on Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bluejay
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:34 pm

Re: Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

Postby Bluejay » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:49 pm

Bill Marsh wrote:They were hardly in the lawsuit by themselves.


True, but they were the lead voice. I have no problem bringing the suit, but it isn't a wise choice if you are going to apply for membership in that conference in the future.

Bill Marsh wrote:As for fool's gold, it worked for Rutgers, a team that was 1-11 and drew only 19,000 fans at home as recently as 2002. And that season was no exception. They were a program that never mattered in the history of college football or in the Big East before UConn joined the football conference, and so were more or less at the same point back then.


You sort of sound like my kids. Just because somebody else does something, it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do and it certainly doesn't mean it is the right thing for you to do. UConn doesn't bring to the table some of the things that Rutgers brought to the table; it is a false comparison when taking the entirety of the two schools into account.

Basically, UCONN gambled and lost. Which is essentially what I said before.
User avatar
Bluejay
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:34 pm

Re: Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

Postby admin » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:33 pm

I removed a couple of the name calling posts that were completely unrelated to the thread and ask that everyone at least attempt to stay on topic.

Thanks.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:35 am

Re: Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

Postby gtmoBlue » Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:05 pm

My point being: Other top tier conferences have and probably will continue to "work the system" whether for the benefit of football or basketball. The Big East should enhance its' NCAA payouts by adding a couple of teams to boost the middle and help our case, as other conferences have done.

Yeah, yeah, just because Delany and the B1G jump off a bridge with Rutgers and Nebraska doesn't necessitate the BE doing likewise...I get it. But me and Br. Jelinek don't like the idea of leaving NCAA bucks on the table, that could go into Big East coffers.

I sure as hell didn't intend to start a football topic subthread, so youse guys can can the F5 chatter. :lol:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Nicholas Klein (1918)
"Top tier teams rarely have true "down" years and find a way to stay relevant every year." - Adoraz

Creighton
User avatar
gtmoBlue
 
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:59 am
Location: Latam

Re: Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

Postby Hall2012 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:55 pm

gtmoBlue wrote:My point being: Other top tier conferences have and probably will continue to "work the system" whether for the benefit of football or basketball. The Big East should enhance its' NCAA payouts by adding a couple of teams to boost the middle and help our case, as other conferences have done.

Yeah, yeah, just because Delany and the B1G jump off a bridge with Rutgers and Nebraska doesn't necessitate the BE doing likewise...I get it. But me and Br. Jelinek don't like the idea of leaving NCAA bucks on the table, that could go into Big East coffers.

I sure as hell didn't intend to start a football topic subthread, so youse guys can can the F5 chatter. :lol:


But it also means a couple more schools to split those tourney units with. If that extra school we get in the dance makes a nice run, then sure, it'll work out great! But if they go 1 and done (and let's be honest, if this school wouldn't have made it if not for us adding "free wins" to the conference, that's the likely scenario), our 10 schools will just end up losing money by having 2 more heads to feed. And if we don't get that extra team in at all? More money down that drain.
Seton Hall Pirates
Big East Tournament Champions: 1991, 1993, 2016
Big East Regular Season Champions: 1992, 1993, 2020
Hall2012
 
Posts: 3462
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Big East basketball message board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 25 guests