Cincinnati to the Big 12?

[outsideobserver11]

After all the theatrics, is it all falling apart:

http://landgrantgauntlet.com/2016/09/26/is-big-12-expansion-falling-apart/

Poor Bearkittens. Et tu Brute - - West Virginia does NOT support their inclusion. There now appears to be a "Texas block" that is completely against them. And poor UCONN isn't even on the radar screen, according to that article.

Whether it happens or not, this guy is the absolute worst source for anything to do with conference realignment. For anybody that has followed it even just a little bit, he is the guy on twitter known as "the dude of west virginia"

[xudash]

Whether it happens or not, this guy is the absolute worst source for anything to do with conference realignment. For anybody that has followed it even just a little bit, he is the guy on twitter known as "the dude of west virginia"

Thanks for sharing that.

Notwithstanding that, if he's close to being right about the voting breakdown, it may not be happening at all. It does seem fractured at this point.

[GoMuskies]

Damn, Tom Jurich twists the knife into his old "friends" from Cincinnati. Ouch.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/what-if-the-big-12-had-chosen-louisville-over-west-virginia-during-realignment/

"I don't think they're going to do anything," Jurich said of the Big 12. "What do any of these [expansion candidates] bring?"

[X-band '01]

As did the TV executive:


Louisville won the lottery. There's no doubt about that. They could be like Cincinnati (today).

[xubrew]

I know how things have played out and why they played out that way, but if we could reshuffle everything and approach it from strictly an athletics point of view....

-West Virginia makes way more sense for the ACC than Louisville does. Pitt, Virginia, and Virginia Tech are all natural rivals, and they are formidable in football and basketball.

-Louisville makes far more sense for the SEC than Missouri does. They would have brought top notch basketball, which the SEC said then (and is still saying) that they aggressively wanted to grow. Their football team was formidable, and they would have probably become quick natural rivals with the likes of Vanderbilt, Tennessee, and of course Kentucky (whom they're already bitter rivals with anyway despite not being in the same conference).

-Mizzou could have just stayed in the Big Twelve. They haven't exactly been setting the world on fire in the SEC. Performance, interest, and attendance all seem to be down since joining the league. For their game against Georgia the other week the place wasn't even 75 percent full, and in basketball they could just unlock the doors and let everyone in for free and the place still wouldn't be half full.

I know how things happened and why they happened. I'm just saying that I think everyone would have been better off (at least from an athletic standpoint) had things happened a little differently.

But, there is some good news. Pitt and West Virginia are resuming the basketball Backyard Brawl next year!! Football returns in 2022

http://www.wvusports.com/page.cfm?story=30818

[BandAid]

I know how things have played out and why they played out that way, but if we could reshuffle everything and approach it from strictly an athletics point of view....

-West Virginia makes way more sense for the ACC than Louisville does. Pitt, Virginia, and Virginia Tech are all natural rivals, and they are formidable in football and basketball.

-Louisville makes far more sense for the SEC than Missouri does. They would have brought top notch basketball, which the SEC said then (and is still saying) that they aggressively wanted to grow. Their football team was formidable, and they would have probably become quick natural rivals with the likes of Vanderbilt, Tennessee, and of course Kentucky (whom they're already bitter rivals with anyway despite not being in the same conference).

-Mizzou could have just stayed in the Big Twelve. They haven't exactly been setting the world on fire in the SEC. Performance, interest, and attendance all seem to be down since joining the league. For their game against Georgia the other week the place wasn't even 75 percent full, and in basketball they could just unlock the doors and let everyone in for free and the place still wouldn't be half full.

I know how things happened and why they happened. I'm just saying that I think everyone would have been better off (at least from an athletic standpoint) had things happened a little differently.

But, there is some good news. Pitt and West Virginia are resuming the basketball Backyard Brawl next year!! Football returns in 2022

http://www.wvusports.com/page.cfm?story=30818

In Mizzou's defense, the university has been a bit of a dumpster fire in every imaginable way except actually having a dumpster fire.

[paulxu]

In Mizzou's defense, the university has been a bit of a dumpster fire in every imaginable way except actually having a dumpster fire.

Au contraire...

http://twitter.com/SJNPSports/status/700770990893068289/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Masterofreality]

I know how things have played out and why they played out that way, but if we could reshuffle everything and approach it from strictly an athletics point of view....

-West Virginia makes way more sense for the ACC than Louisville does. Pitt, Virginia, and Virginia Tech are all natural rivals, and they are formidable in football and basketball.

-Louisville makes far more sense for the SEC than Missouri does. They would have brought top notch basketball, which the SEC said then (and is still saying) that they aggressively wanted to grow. Their football team was formidable, and they would have probably become quick natural rivals with the likes of Vanderbilt, Tennessee, and of course Kentucky (whom they're already bitter rivals with anyway despite not being in the same conference).


There is no way in heaven, hell on earth or in any part of the Firmament that Kentucky ever would have let Louisville be considered for any spot EVER in the SEC. That is a never-never land.

Louisville should have been let into the Big 12 and WVA should have been in the ACC.

[xubrew]

There is no way in heaven, hell on earth or in any part of the Firmament that Kentucky ever would have let Louisville be considered for any spot EVER in the SEC. That is a never-never land.

Louisville should have been let into the Big 12 and WVA should have been in the ACC.

Kentucky wouldn't have liked it, but they couldn't have really stopped it if the rest of the conference wanted it. They're not powerful enough. Florida wouldn't have liked Florida State and South Carolina wouldn't have liked Clemson, but those schools wouldn't have been able to stop it if the rest of the league decided that's what they wanted. As far as I know Louisville never really pushed for inclusion, but the league did look at them. They wanted new states and a bigger footprint because of the SEC Network which is why they pretty much ruled out anyone from a state where the SECN was already going to be on the air anyway.

[GoMuskies]

Thank God WV got that Big XII spot. Couldn't have possibly worked out any better for Louisville.

[xubrew]

Yeah, really. Jurich can stop being bitter about it now and talking about it as if it were some tragic event.

[Lamont Sanford]

#hottestcollegeinamerica

HAHAHAHA! Sucks it Bearkitties.

[GoMuskies]

#hottestcollegeinamerica

I thought that was App State.

[ReturnOfTheMack]

#hottestcollegeinamerica

HAHAHAHA! Sucks it Bearkitties.

* #hottestcollegeinTHEAMERICAN

fixed it for you.

[BandAid]

Au contraire...

http://twitter.com/SJNPSports/status/700770990893068289/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Evidently I need to spread some love, so consider this public reps. That is too funny!

[THRILLHOUSE]

Just saw this pic on twitter, could just be a photoshop, or could be legit. Guess we'll find out later today.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu-3ZC5WAAAV_nM.jpg

[muskiefan82]

That's for the Irate 12. They are expanding to include more upset people.

[xudash]

Just saw this pic on twitter, could just be a photoshop, or could be legit. Guess we'll find out later today.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu-3ZC5WAAAV_nM.jpg

I'm betting it was a waste of ink and paper, assuming it isn't a photoshop thing:

Fox Sports President Eric Shanks in recent comments, concerning the Big 12: Shanks essentially warned that any expansion could wind up being a fatal decision for the conference.

Shanks: “We don’t think expansion in the Big 12 is a good idea for the conference. We think it will be dilutive to the product in the short term. In the long term, it’s probably harmful to the future of the conference. Who knows where expansion is going to go. Reading the smoke signals, [expansion talk has] cooled off. I don’t know why. We’re still in discussions with them. We still have a long way to go in the deal. We’ll work through it the best way that we can.”

The media partners are going to pay them in exchange for deleting the expansion clause from the existing agreement.

Otherwise, from an earlier press report on the announcement concerning the return of their conference championship game:

By bringing the championship game back, the conference expects to bring in $27-28 million more in revenue on an annual basis, per Dodd. This comes on the heels of a year when the conference saw 20 percent growth in revenue to $304 million, which was distributed evenly among the 10 programs and puts the Big 12 third nationally behind the SEC and Big Ten.

Overall, get paid for doing nothing expansion wise, allowing you more money and the benefit of not pissing off your media partners.

Texas and Oklahoma, in particular, then buy time. Time to consider the balance between being the biggest fishes in a comparatively smaller pond with less money and whatever damage that may do with respect to recruiting, etc. when it comes to performing against the B1G and SEC, in particular, versus joining one of those two power conferences and moving forward more as equal or lessor peers among the likes of the Ohio State's, Alabama's, etc. of the world.

[X-band '01]

Apparently it comes in BYU as well:

#BYUToBig12 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/byutobig12?f=tweets&vertical=default&src=hash)

[GoMuskies]

I could get behind BYU and UC to the Big XII. Particularly BYU. That's a big-time program that's a bit....eccentric. But I' like eccentric when it comes to college sports. So bring on the Coogs.

Bearcats? Meh, but I guess it would be good for the city of Cincinnati (not that I really care about the city of Cincinnati, but I'm trying to find some positive from it is the Bearcats get in).

[BMoreX]

I'm rooting for Uc and Houston to get invited so UCONN reconsiders their conference affiliation.

[GoMuskies]

Good point, but BYU and UC would do the same for them, really.

I think Villanova would make a fine football rival for UConn.

[muskiefan82]

2091

[Juice]

I'm rooting for Uc and Houston to get invited so UCONN reconsiders their conference affiliation.

But what is UConn going to do? The American won't take them just for football and nothing else, and they don't really have any bargaining power either to demand being a football only member and all other sports in the BE. They won't drop football or drop it down to 1-AA. They're stuck unless the Big 12 comes back to them someday or the ACC bails them out.

[MuskieXU]

But what is UConn going to do? The American won't take them just for football and nothing else, and they don't really have any bargaining power either to demand being a football only member and all other sports in the BE. They won't drop football or drop it down to 1-AA. They're stuck unless the Big 12 comes back to them someday or the ACC bails them out.

Theoretically they could seek a football only membership in a different conference. I dont think thats a likely scenario, but its possible I guess.

[paulxu]

Conf USA has an open slot.

[Juice]

Chip Brown ‏@ChipBrownHD 3m3 minutes ago
No new members were added to the #Big12 during today's Big 12 Board of Directors meeting, multiple sources tell http://HornsDigest.com .

[Juice]

Theoretically they could seek a football only membership in a different conference. I dont think thats a likely scenario, but its possible I guess.

Yeah but do you weaken your football conference to get in a better conference in every other sport? I don't know the answer to this.

[X-band '01]

2092

[surfxu]

Chip Brown ‏@ChipBrownHD 3m3 minutes ago
No new members were added to the #Big12 during today's Big 12 Board of Directors meeting, multiple sources tell http://HornsDigest.com .

Awww.... that's too bad... I feel for them.... OK, I'm over it now, jeez that didn't last long. I guess they are stuck to die on a vine and eventually be as relevant in football and basketball as Miami (OH) is... at least the Redhawks still have hockey... uc will have nothing. The YTG has got to be fuming. Wonder who he is going to blame this on? Tuberville could care less, he's just happy collecting a paycheck, living off the success of his Auburn days.

[Milhouse]

lol

[ammtd34]

Awww.... that's too bad... I feel for them.... OK, I'm over it now, jeez that didn't last long. I guess they are stuck to die on a vine and eventually be as relevant in football and basketball as Miami (OH) is... at least the Redhawks still have hockey... uc will have nothing. The YTG has got to be fuming. Wonder who he is going to blame this on? Tuberville could care less, he's just happy collecting a paycheck, living off the success of his Auburn days.

He was in Blind Side!

[drudy23]

So much for paying for those football luxury boxes and renovated Fifth Third Arena.

Bankrupt by 2025?

They need to pick...football or basketball. Pointless to be average in both, and they can't afford to be great in both. Pick one to be great at and do it.

[X-band '01]

The big free-for-all will come in 7-8 years when the grant of rights expires for the Big 12.

[GoMuskies]

The big free-for-all will come in 7-8 years when the grant of rights expires for the Big 12.

Good news UC fans: only 7-8 years until WV comes to join you in the AAC!

[Masterofreality]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha !!!!!! 2093

[fellahmuskie]

So much for paying for those football luxury boxes and renovated Fifth Third Arena.

Bankrupt by 2025?

They need to pick...football or basketball. Pointless to be average in both, and they can't afford to be great in both. Pick one to be great at and do it.

They can at least save face by leasing Nippert to FC Cincy. If they are smart enough to drop or downsize football, they could still come out okay.

[AviatorX]

They can at least save face by leasing Nippert to FC Cincy. If they are smart enough to drop or downsize football, they could still come out okay.

You think they should drop football?

[X-band '01]

You think they should drop football?

And get kicked out of the American? Surely UAB taught us a few lessons about a)conference bylaws where certain conferences do require a football program and b)having a Plan B. They're lucky that they just "paused" their program and got another lease on life when they decided that football would return in 2017.

[GoMuskies]

And get kicked out of the American?

They could go back to their Valley roots. It would be good fun to renew their heated 1960s/'70s rivalry with the Shockers.

[xubrew]

I'm rooting for Uc and Houston to get invited so UCONN reconsiders their conference affiliation.

UConn will not drop football, they will not downgrade football, and they will not join a conference that doesn't have FBS football. They don't want to be an affiliate football member of an FBS conference. They want to be full members.

I'm sure you want to know how I know that. Well, can you just take my word for it?? If not, then I don't blame you and won't try to argue the point any further. They're not coming to the Big East. They want FBS football, and are willing to be in a weaker basketball league that makes less money and has a worse TV deal in order to keep football. You could argue that isn't smart, but that's what the people who make those decisions have decided.

[GoMuskies]

UConn will not drop football, they will not downgrade football, and they will not join a conference that doesn't have FBS football. They don't want to be an affiliate football member.

I'm sure you want to know how I know that. Well, can you just take my word for it?? If not, then I don't blame you and won't try to argue the point any further. They're not coming to the Big East. They want FBS football, and are willing to be in a weaker basketball league that makes less money and has a worse TV deal in order to keep football. You could argue that isn't smart, but that's what the people who make those decisions have decided.

Regime change is never far away though, 'brew. I say we keep a seat warm for them. Particularly since I don't think we're interested in anyone else as an expansion candidate.

[fellahmuskie]

You think they should drop football?

If they end up getting a conference upgrade in 7-8 years from now, good for them. But if they don't, football is going to be a huge drain on resources for decades to come.

[BMoreX]

UConn will not drop football, they will not downgrade football, and they will not join a conference that doesn't have FBS football. They don't want to be an affiliate football member of an FBS conference. They want to be full members.

I'm sure you want to know how I know that. Well, can you just take my word for it?? If not, then I don't blame you and won't try to argue the point any further. They're not coming to the Big East. They want FBS football, and are willing to be in a weaker basketball league that makes less money and has a worse TV deal in order to keep football. You could argue that isn't smart, but that's what the people who make those decisions have decided.

Long-shot? Absolutely. Doesn't mean I can't hope for it to happen, just as I did when Xavier was in the A-10.

[xubrew]

Regime change is never far away though, 'brew. I say we keep a seat warm for them. Particularly since I don't think we're interested in anyone else as an expansion candidate.

If this is true, then I am very happy to hear it!

[X-band '01]

Regime change is never far away though, 'brew. I say we keep a seat warm for them. Particularly since I don't think we're interested in anyone else as an expansion candidate.

If FOX is already emptying their pockets to pay the Big 12 schools to NOT expand, where would they get money to entice UConn to join the Big East? I'd like to think that the Big East university presidents/ADs are smart enough to leave well enough alone.

[GoMuskies]

If FOX is already emptying their pockets to pay the Big 12 schools to NOT expand, where would they get money to entice UConn to join the Big East? I'd like to think that the Big East university presidents/ADs are smart enough to leave well enough alone.

At some point, UConn's not going to require any enticing other than a need to stop bleeding money chasing football glory that's not coming.

I sure hope the Big East presidents are smart enough to leave well enough along. Until someday when UConn finally decides they have to make a change.

[OH.X.MI]

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I don't get X fans being so happy about the Big 12 rejection. UC in a better conference is, in my opinion, better for the rivalry and better for us in the long run. I certainly would worry too much about them out-recruiting us so long as Mic is there. Don't get me wrong, I love beating UC ever year, but after a while a rivalry losses its muster if it becomes to one sided. And as a sports fan, I would love being able to go watch a high profile college football team (as in a visiting team, not UC) play without driving to Columbus or South Bend.

[GoMuskies]

Personally, I'd have been fine with them getting in. I think it's essentially neutral for Xavier whether UC improves conferences or not, and it's a plus to get to be able to mock their fans since they were led on and then shit on.

[X-band '01]

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I don't get X fans being so happy about the Big 12 rejection. UC in a better conference is, in my opinion, better for the rivalry and better for us in the long run. I certainly would worry too much about them out-recruiting us so long as Mic is there. Don't get me wrong, I love beating UC ever year, but after a while a rivalry losses its muster if it becomes to one sided. And as a sports fan, I would love being able to go watch a high profile college football team (as in a visiting team, not UC) play without driving to Columbus or South Bend.

What Xavier fans are happy about is that the Big East is far more stable than the Big 12 is right now. Hell, the freaking American is going to be more stable in 7-8 years, even if they're making less money. If I'm not named Texas, Oklahoma or even Kansas, I would not count on getting a life raft from the Big 10 or the SEC. I'm sure the Mountain West or American would be happy to extend invites if that conference dissolves.

[xudash]

If FOX is already emptying their pockets to pay the Big 12 schools to NOT expand, where would they get money to entice UConn to join the Big East? I'd like to think that the Big East university presidents/ADs are smart enough to leave well enough alone.

band, you're talking about an extra $4 million per year to add UCONN, and UCONN would most decidedly improve the BE product.

Fox can afford that.

[X-band '01]

But again, the counterpoint is that UConn simply is not interested in going down that road. That would especially hold true if the American decides to go on offense and poach 2-4 Big 12 schools when the time is right.

[xudash]

At some point, UConn's not going to require any enticing other than a need to stop bleeding money chasing football glory that's not coming.

I sure hope the Big East presidents are smart enough to leave well enough along. Until someday when UConn finally decides they have to make a change.

It may or may not be the tipping point, but remember that, on top of everything else going on with UCONN's financial picture, the BE exit fee subsidy revenue runs out within two years. That's $5 million per annum. BTW, that holds true for UC as well.

The State of Connecticut is in bad shape with respect to its budget, rainy day fund and its position on the (tax) revenue side. It's the strategic value of maintaining the appearance of a big time athletic player and all that entails versus the bleak funding reality that is now propping that up, including the approaching loss of that additional $5 million per year.

Not a pretty site. Were it a chessboard, it would probably look like a King and two Pawns for UCONN, versus a fairly full board of pieces on the other side. At least in UC's case, we know its pieces would be black, but I digress.

[xudash]

But again, the counterpoint is that UConn simply is not interested in going down that road. That would especially hold true if the American decides to go on offense and poach 2-4 Big 12 schools when the time is right.

At which point would the time be right for the American to poach from the Big 12?

[X-band '01]

The end of the Big 12 Grant of Rights. I think it's 7 years from now, but it could be 8 years.

[xudash]

The end of the Big 12 Grant of Rights. I think it's 7 years from now, but it could be 8 years.

Okay. Rough numbers. UCONN is looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of $200+ million in subsidies for their athletic department alone BEFORE they reach that point.

The state's budget deficit last year exceeded $300 million.

They gapped it with their rainy day fund.

That fund now has less than $100 million in it.

Their revenue picture isn't pretty. Their business development climate is bad - - GE cited it as one of the reasons it's relocating its corporate headquarters out of Fairfield County (a gorgeous area) to Boston.

I absolutely understand and agree with you that they're not interested in dropping football or harming their present football status, but this isn't about INTEREST or it won't be soon enough; it will be about viable options - - viable options that will come due prior to 7 or 8 years from now.

[X-band '01]

UConn's best-case scenario involves making peace with Boston College, Pitt and Syracuse and getting an ACC invite.

[GoMuskies]

UConn's best-case scenario involves making peace with Boston College, Pitt and Syracuse and getting an ACC invite.

UConn doesn't have anything the ACC doesn't already have.

[Juice]

UConn's best-case scenario involves making peace with Boston College, Pitt and Syracuse and getting an ACC invite.

This is Uconn's only hope. Everything else is just a step down for them.

Also, I'd be surprised if the Big 12 exists in 7-8 years. I see Texas and Oklahoma blowing this all up way before then.

[xudash]

UConn's best-case scenario involves making peace with Boston College, Pitt and Syracuse and getting an ACC invite.

IF that's true, they're truly F'd.

BC will have nothing to do with that.

Besides, they already lost the ACC sweepstakes the first time around, and the ACC now is more inclined to sit tight and not draw from the G5 group, especially now that it nailed its media deal with ESPN.

[xubrew]

Regime change is never far away though, 'brew. I say we keep a seat warm for them. Particularly since I don't think we're interested in anyone else as an expansion candidate.


At some point, UConn's not going to require any enticing other than a need to stop bleeding money chasing football glory that's not coming.

I sure hope the Big East presidents are smart enough to leave well enough along. Until someday when UConn finally decides they have to make a change.

It would have to be a rather drastic regime change. Not just the president and AD, but the majority of the BOT.

I also don't think UConn is bleeding as much money as it appears. As I understand it, UConn classifies all of the money that they get in donations as just that. Donations. In other words, if someone donates $10,000 to women's basketball, they don't count that as revenue that's generated by women's basketball. In fact, that last time I checked UConn lost about $3 million a year on women's basketball, which may TECHNICALLY be true given how they report their finances, but in terms of it being PRACTICALLY true, it really isn't. Same with football. I don't know how much is donated to football, or donated because of football, but I'm almost certain that it is more than zero, so the amount of money they're reporting as a loss on football is probably misleading.

Again, I don't have the paperwork to reference this so I could be off, but I'm under the impression that UConn doesn't have any state funding that goes directly to athletics. Furthermore, I think the state wants them to have football. So, if the state wants it, and it's not costing the state any money, then chances are it won't be cut.

I don't think it's at all eminent. I'm not going to say under no circumstances will it ever happen, but I am going to say that I don't think it's at all realistic and we should not plan on it being a legitimate possible option.

[xubrew]

IF that's true, they're truly F'd.

BC will have nothing to do with that.

Besides, they already lost the ACC sweepstakes the first time around, and the ACC now is more inclined to sit tight and not draw from the G5 group, especially now that it nailed its media deal with ESPN.

Five years ago that was true. Now I'm not so sure. People change. BC and UConn both have rather new AD's, and they're both friends. They renewed the football series, and people said that would never happen. I don't think BC would stand in UConn's way if the rest of the ACC decided to expand again.

[MuskieXU]

I would tend to agree that UConn will not downgrade in football to join the BE in basketball, but from my perspective its not as crazy as some might think. Their football program is losing money fast. Their basketball program could be in real danger, especially if Ollie leaves which many expect in the near future. Competing for national championships in basketball helps the school in many ways (donations, applications, branding, etc) and if they think thats at risk by staying in the AAC, they should at least consider the Big East. Not to mention their womans program, which is one of a handful thats actually relevant. That said, joining the BE would be throwing in the towel for football and I dont think they do it. But there is a real risk of losing their powerhouse basketball status if they stay in the AAC and that would have huge implications for the school, so I think they should at least weigh the risk reward of joining the BE.

[GoMuskies]

Five years ago that was true. Now I'm not so sure. People change. BC and UConn both have rather new AD's, and they're both friends. They renewed the football series, and people said that would never happen. I don't think BC would stand in UConn's way if the rest of the ACC decided to expand again.

Plus, BC is a joke, and no one is going to BC and asking for their opinion on these sorts of matters these days. If they ever win another conference game in a major sport they might get some influence back.

[LA Muskie]

If this is true, then I am very happy to hear it!

It's very true. The only desire for Big East expansion emanates from Dayton. Which views us as a fallback option if they don't get the ACC invite they feel they deserve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xubrew]

It's very true. The only desire for Big East expansion emanates from Dayton. Which views us as a fallback option if they don't get the ACC invite they feel they deserve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll be all for adding Dayton to the Big East once we have two schools leave the league.

[xubrew]

It's worth noting that UConn has games on their football schedule as far out as 2023. You don't schedule that far ahead if you're even considering dropping your program. You don't get out of those games for free. They're not coming to the Big East. If people want to continue to discuss how they think it's likely that they will, then I will stand silent and let them discuss it. It's a message board, and discussions like that are what make it fun. But, they're not. They're REALLY not.

[GoMuskies]

I'll be all for adding Dayton to the Big East once we have two schools leave the league.

Me. too. As long as we're one of the schools that left!

[xudash]

It's worth noting that UConn has games on their football schedule as far out as 2023. You don't schedule that far ahead if you're even considering dropping your program. You don't get out of those games for free. They're not coming to the Big East. If people want to continue to discuss how they think it's likely that they will, then I will stand silent and let them discuss it. It's a message board, and discussions like that are what make it fun. But, they're not. They're REALLY not.

Do you know for a fact that a game that is longer than 4 years scheduling out doesn't have an out clause - - given that it is that far out and, therefore, probably would provide enough time for rescheduling?

Do you know for a fact that all game contracts DO NOT contain a clause that allows the school out of the contract without penalty if said school DROPS its football program, or allows them out from under such a situation without penalty, but within a period of x months of the scheduled game date?

Sorry, but I'm not sure I would go rumbling down that line of logic.

Otherwise, UCONN's athletic program is under pressure and heavy subsidies. I've already commented on the situation with the state. This news is not going to make moving forward an easy ride for UCONN.

Does UCONN want to focus on football and keep football as it exists: FBS status? Sure. Is that the right thing to do? Absolutely, from a strategic perspective, but only if they can find a way to afford to do it without damaging other parts of the school, and without hurting their basketball programs, in particular.

Can they do that without the damage? That's the question. Frankly, UCONN doesn't seem to have an obvious and clear path for getting there. It would be different, at least partially different if they only had to bridge about 3 to 4 years, perhaps. But 7 to 8 years is a lot of time to muddle forward in the environment that appears to exist today, especially as the P5 power forward, distancing themselves financially at the increment with each passing year.

One thing is for certain: it's going to be fun to watch from here, and that includes watching what Texas and Oklahoma cook-up along the way from here.

This outcome is just brutal for UCONN and UC, in particular.

[xubrew]

Do you know for a fact that a game that is longer than 4 years scheduling out doesn't have an out clause - - given that it is that far out and, therefore, probably would provide enough time for rescheduling?

Do you know for a fact that all game contracts DO NOT contain a clause that allows the school out of the contract without penalty if said school DROPS its football program, or allows them out from under such a situation without penalty, but within a period of x months of the scheduled game date?


Your typical football contract would not have any sort of an out clause like that. Even if there is time to reschedule, schools won't put something like that in there because it's a way to get money if a school backs out of it.

UAB ended up losing about $10 million when they cut their program in buy outs from games that had already been scheduled, instead of receiving payouts, they ended up owing buyouts, and they forfeited all of their revenue sharing from the league. They also lost money from their donors, and I'm under the impression that they would have been kicked out of Conference USA and owed each school close to $3 million in contractual damages over the course of four years for dropping the sport, which was one of the factors as to why they brought it back.

But, maybe you're right Dash. I haven't actually seen UConn's contracts. Maybe they have a clause in there that allows them to back out of a game without penalty even though that's not a normal thing to include. Maybe the American wouldn't be upset if one of their full members suddenly decided to cut a revenue sport, and would not seek damages for it. You'd have to suppose quite a bit, and most of those suppositions would require assuming things will happen that don't normally happen, but it is possible. I guess UConn could join the Big East if all that happened.

But think about this. The only FBS school that was a full FBS conference member that has cut or downgraded football in the last twenty plus years ended up bringing it back six months later when they saw how much it was going to cost them to NOT have football. The reason other schools haven't cut it is for that very reason. The only two ways you can really leave an FBS conference if you're a full member without paying through the nose is to have that conference dissolve, or to be invited to another FBS conference that pays more than what it will cost to leave your current one. Starting up football is expensive. I think we've learned from UAB that cutting FBS football is actually more expensive.

[xudash]

Point well made about UAB and the firestorm they walked into when they cut football.

I believe UCONN will keep football, at least they'll keep it absolutely as long as they can. I have no idea right now how long that might be.

[MuskieXU]

FWIW UConn released their B12 materials and in them they state "UConn would accept football-only membership, and subsequently would pursue membership in the Big East Conference for other sponsored sports currently competing in the American Athletic Conference." I wonder if the recent talks with the Big East were just in case this materialized, and I wonder what the Big East response was or wouldve been.

[GoMuskies]

FWIW UConn released their B12 materials and in them they state "UConn would accept football-only membership, and subsequently would pursue membership in the Big East Conference for other sponsored sports currently competing in the American Athletic Conference." I wonder if the recent talks with the Big East were just in case this materialized, and I wonder what the Big East response was or wouldve been.

Shit. Now my whole view of how this turmed out has been flipped on its head. Careful what you wish for I guess.

[xudash]

FWIW UConn released their B12 materials and in them they state "UConn would accept football-only membership, and subsequently would pursue membership in the Big East Conference for other sponsored sports currently competing in the American Athletic Conference." I wonder if the recent talks with the Big East were just in case this materialized, and I wonder what the Big East response was or wouldve been.

I doubt they would have put that info in the materials without having a clear indication from the Big East that joining the BE in all other sports would receive tower clearance from the Big East.

[BMoreX]

That's some pretty big news IMO.

[paulxu]

I doubt they would have put that info in the materials without having a clear indication from the Big East that joining the BE in all other sports would receive tower clearance from the Big East.

That would do away with the private/public institution argument regarding internal deliberations.

[xubrew]

I doubt they would have put that info in the materials without having a clear indication from the Big East that joining the BE in all other sports would receive tower clearance from the Big East.

You're probably right.

But, I can't help but think that UConn saying that they are willing to accept football only membership in the Big Twelve is kind of like Xavier saying they are willing to start up a football program if the Big Twelve asks them to join the league. I cannot imagine the B12 only wanting UConn's football program. But, I guess including that in the proposal materials can't hurt.

[GoMuskies]

That would do away with the private/public institution argument regarding internal deliberations.

I think it's always been a given that rule doesn't apply to UCONN. If they want in, they're in.

[MuskieXU]

You're probably right.

But, I can't help but think that UConn saying that they are willing to accept football only membership in the Big Twelve is kind of like Xavier saying they are willing to start up a football program if the Big Twelve asks them to join the league. I cannot imagine the B12 only wanting UConn's football program. But, I guess including that in the proposal materials can't hurt.

Yeah agreed. It was probably a hail mary. Never a realistic scenario but since UConn realized they weren't the favorite they put it in there realizing UC wouldnt do that, so if the B12 wanted to only add schools in football UConn might be able to sneak in with BYU.

[xubrew]

Actually, after thinking about it for a minute, that might make SOME sense. Maybe.

If they're an affiliate football member and not a full member, then the B12 essentially picks up a football team, but since they're not a full member they may not get a full share. Maybe UConn is saying they're willing to join for way less and only join in football. Other than that, saying they're willing to join as a football only member is almost laughable. It's like Penn State offering to join a conference as a basketball only member. What the hell is the point??

[Juice]

It makes perfect sense for UConn. They knew the Big 12 only was interested in schools for their football teams, and not the other sports. The other sports being included would be horrible financially on UConn and teams traveling to Connecticut. The Big 12 just needed other teams for football to get the higher payout from the networks.

What UConn forgot is that no one wants their shitty football program.

[LA Muskie]

I think it's always been a given that rule doesn't apply to UCONN. If they want in, they're in.
I think that's always been something that outsiders concocted as a material factor. I'm not saying it has never been a consideration. But it has never been anywhere near the top of the list.

[LA Muskie]

Also, I'd be surprised if the Big 12 exists in 7-8 years. I see Texas and Oklahoma blowing this all up way before then.
That notion certainly gets the talking heads talking. But I just don't see it. The Big XII is the 3rd most profitable conference in the country. They have been wildly successful, despite neither Texas nor OK being overwhelming (or Texas even being particularly good). Personally, I think they are exactly where they should be -- and that the conference is exactly what it should be. That's not to say someone somewhere might not make a stupid decision -- Texas in particular seems to think much more of itself than it deserves -- but I tend to think the next round of major realignment is at least one more round of TV deals away...

[paulxu]

What UConn forgot is that no one wants their shitty football program.

They were trying the Rutgers model.

[bleedXblue]

We've all be on this side of conference realignment at one point or another. Sucks for UC. IMHO they will never be big time in football until they accept the fact that Nippert is not the answer. Look at Louisville. Basically a nothing football program. They invest in a brand new venue and have added capacity that will be close to 65,000 after an expansion next year. UC has nowhere to go on campus.

[Juice]

We've all be on this side of conference realignment at one point or another. Sucks for UC. IMHO they will never be big time in football until they accept the fact that Nippert is not the answer. Look at Louisville. Basically a nothing football program. They invest in a brand new venue and have added capacity that will be close to 65,000 after an expansion next year. UC has nowhere to go on campus.

I think it's a little more than that. Louisville has the entire city's backing with no other D1 school and no professional sports in town or even the entire state. Their fans attend everything and all the money people spend to attend/watch games in the city go to that school. UC is 2nd in the state to OSU. They have to compete with Xavier, the Bengals, the Reds, etc.

[Caveat]

We've all be on this side of conference realignment at one point or another. Sucks for UC. IMHO they will never be big time in football until they accept the fact that Nippert is not the answer. Look at Louisville. Basically a nothing football program. They invest in a brand new venue and have added capacity that will be close to 65,000 after an expansion next year. UC has nowhere to go on campus.

Not even close to true. The future of live sports in America is lower-capacity / premium-experience. No one wants to pay top-dollar to sit in nosebleeds when they can watch the game on an HDTV at home for free with their own beer in the fridge.

And it's naive to think Louisville got into the ACC just because their football stadium has a lot of seats. They got into the ACC because their football program had a strong recent history of success, their basketball team plays in an NBA-caliber arena and is a yearly Top-10 team, and they've spent lots of money at ALL levels of their Athletic Department. UC, on the other hand, hadn't done major renovations to Nippert in years, was playing in a completely outdated arena for basketball, and was heavily leveraged in debt for just making the basic types of improvements to student-athlete facilities necessary to be in a major conference 15 years ago.

[Caveat]

That notion certainly gets the talking heads talking. But I just don't see it. The Big XII is the 3rd most profitable conference in the country. They have been wildly successful, despite neither Texas nor OK being overwhelming (or Texas even being particularly good). Personally, I think they are exactly where they should be -- and that the conference is exactly what it should be. That's not to say someone somewhere might not make a stupid decision -- Texas in particular seems to think much more of itself than it deserves -- but I tend to think the next round of major realignment is at least one more round of TV deals away...

The future of college athletics is uncertain because the future of live sports content distribution is uncertain. The reason this round of B12 expansion fell apart is because cable/satellite TV is hemorrhaging subscribers (especially on the low side of the key 18-49 demos) and the market isn't interested in passing the costs of another sports-conference network off to their customers or paying the startup costs involved with getting a new network up and running. The B12 was 5-10 years too late to the game on this.

It's difficult to predict what the landscape will look like in the mid 2020s when all these deals expire, but I'll all but guarantee you won't see networks like ESPN throwing huge money at them just for the sake of having content that ties people to a cable subscription.

[X-band '01]

I think it's a little more than that. Louisville has the entire city's backing with no other D1 school and no professional sports in town or even the entire state. Their fans attend everything and all the money people spend to attend/watch games in the city go to that school. UC is 2nd in the state to OSU. They have to compete with Xavier, the Bengals, the Reds, etc.

Yeah, because there are no Kentucky fans in Louisville...

[Juice]

Yeah, because there are no Kentucky fans in Louisville...

Ok fine, if you want to play that card that's fine. But you can't argue that the amount of support Louisville receives in its own city is much higher with less competition than UC receives in Cincinnati.

[xudash]

The future of college athletics is uncertain because the future of live sports content distribution is uncertain. The reason this round of B12 expansion fell apart is because cable/satellite TV is hemorrhaging subscribers (especially on the low side of the key 18-49 demos) and the market isn't interested in passing the costs of another sports-conference network off to their customers or paying the startup costs involved with getting a new network up and running. The B12 was 5-10 years too late to the game on this.

It's difficult to predict what the landscape will look like in the mid 2020s when all these deals expire, but I'll all but guarantee you won't see networks like ESPN throwing huge money at them just for the sake of having content that ties people to a cable subscription.

Your response leads me to believe we need a separate thread about the future of sports media deals and what that means for the Big East and Xavier.

Content will remain king, I presume.

The changes in the game will come in the area of technology transmission/distribution, I also presume.

I have to deduce that the power of each king will be a function of the number of the subjects he "attracts." In other words, smallish Catholic schools, notwithstanding that some of us are in the largest or at least sufficiently large media markets, are going to have to figure this out. I believe we have bright people in place who know what's coming. I just hope we have viable options.

I'll go to my grave believing that one key event in Xavier's history was getting into the Big East just as the newly formed Big East found itself at the right place and right time with Fox.

[xubrew]

I think it's a little more than that. Louisville has the entire city's backing with no other D1 school and no professional sports in town or even the entire state. Their fans attend everything and all the money people spend to attend/watch games in the city go to that school. UC is 2nd in the state to OSU. They have to compete with Xavier, the Bengals, the Reds, etc.


Yeah, because there are no Kentucky fans in Louisville...


Ok fine, if you want to play that card that's fine. But you can't argue that the amount of support Louisville receives in its own city is much higher with less competition than UC receives in Cincinnati.

I don't know if this is where X Band was going with this or not, but I personally feel that's kind of a cop out that only Cincinnati people seem to point to.

Washington is in Seattle and they get fantastic support. UCLA and USC are in Los Angeles. Pitt is in Pittsburgh. TCU is in the DFW area. Georgia Tech is in Atlanta and while they're pitiful now they draw very well when they're winning. Stanford and Cal are in the Bay Area. Arizona State is in Phoenix.

The notion that UC cannot generate interest because it's in a pro city is ludicrous. But, maybe it's kind of true. Cincinnati seems to be a city full of people that are only capable of being interested in one thing at a time, I guess. I think it's a piss poor excuse for explaining why there is a lack of interest, especially when even non P5 schools in pro cities like Houston and SMU and Temple (at least recently) seem to generate more interest than they do. It really is puzzling. They're football product isn't elite, but it isn't sucky either, and their basketball team is an NCAA Tournament regular. Why don't people support them??

[MuskieXU]

I don't know if this is where X Band was going with this or not, but I personally feel that's kind of a cop out that only Cincinnati people seem to point to.

Washington is in Seattle and they get fantastic support. UCLA and USC are in Los Angeles. Pitt is in Pittsburgh. TCU is in the DFW area. Georgia Tech is in Atlanta and while they're pitiful now they draw very well when they're winning. Stanford and Cal are in the Bay Area. Arizona State is in Phoenix.

The notion that UC cannot generate interest because it's in a pro city is ludicrous. But, maybe it's kind of true. Cincinnati seems to be a city full of people that are only capable of being interested in one thing at a time, I guess. I think it's a piss poor excuse for explaining why there is a lack of interest, especially when even non P5 schools in pro cities like Houston and SMU and Temple (at least recently) seem to generate more interest than they do. It really is puzzling. They're football product isn't elite, but it isn't sucky either, and their basketball team is an NCAA Tournament regular. Why don't people support them??

My take is this. Cincinnati is a cheap, conservative city. Unless the product on the field/court is truly something special, Cincinnatians are more than happy to sit on their couch and eat food and drink bud lights from their fridge. People use the "pro city" as an excuse but we dont support our pro teams particularly well either. Even with the Bengals being one of the best teams in the league over the past decade they are still towards the bottom of attendance. The Reds do a little better when theyre good but still no where near the top of the league. I dont think this is the only reason people dont go to games but I think simply being a cheap city is part of it.

To follow up here, Elder High School sells out a stadium of 10,000 on a regular basis. St X does the same. Hell, Elder/Colerain and St. X/Princeton brought 48,000 people to Paul Brown Stadium. The city is passionate about sports and football, and can certainly focus on more than one team at a time. The difference is high school football tickets are dirt cheap and UC football tickets are not.

[xudash]

I don't know if this is where X Band was going with this or not, but I personally feel that's kind of a cop out that only Cincinnati people seem to point to.

Washington is in Seattle and they get fantastic support. UCLA and USC are in Los Angeles. Pitt is in Pittsburgh. TCU is in the DFW area. Georgia Tech is in Atlanta and while they're pitiful now they draw very well when they're winning. Stanford and Cal are in the Bay Area. Arizona State is in Phoenix.

The notion that UC cannot generate interest because it's in a pro city is ludicrous. But, maybe it's kind of true. Cincinnati seems to be a city full of people that are only capable of being interested in one thing at a time, I guess. I think it's a piss poor excuse for explaining why there is a lack of interest, especially when even non P5 schools in pro cities like Houston and SMU and Temple (at least recently) seem to generate more interest than they do. It really is puzzling. They're football product isn't elite, but it isn't sucky either, and their basketball team is an NCAA Tournament regular. Why don't people support them??

UC historically has had second rate football. Then they had a spurt of good football for the time they were in the Big East. I don't mean "good" in the sense of owning the MAC kind of good; I mean good in the sense that they actually were performing at a middle of the road or better BCS level program. The problem with all that is that it all came too late. And as the ground really began to shake under their feet, they were way too slow to react, or they couldn't financially react, to the changes that were coming when the BCS imploded and took the old Big East with it. So, wa-la, they wake up only to find themselves back in mid-major football purgatory in the AAC.

I truly do like Nippert Stadium. I haven't been there since the renovation, which means I probably would be more impressed with it now as a stadium, in general. But, when it comes to big boy collegiate football, I cannot think of a more profoundly stupid move than to pump $80 million into a renovation and come away from that with 40k in total capacity. Please don't take the position that teams like Baylor have such facilities. So what? They're already in the club - for now. UC locked itself in with that move.

It didn't matter anyway, because UC still is much more of a commuter school than it is a tradition-laden school that has developed a rabid fan following over the decades. That is even apparently true for UC's basketball program, given how YTG does with the lack of people showing up to watch his head explode.

[paulxu]

Why don't people support them??

Meh.

https://queencitybeerleague.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/010112-mick-cronin-sw-pi_20120101215711352_660_320.jpg

[Masterofreality]

Well, well well. A pretty good Monday.

A) YOUR Cleveland Indians win Game 3 of the ALCS.
B) The BoreCats are stonewalled as they try to pass through the eye of the Needle to the Big 12.

Now the Clifton Cretins are relegated to permanent second class status. Hey SucKS! You put your least ugly foot forward and you were still found to Suck. How does THAT taste? May as well turn Nippert into the trash dump site that it has been impersonating for all these years. Meanwhile Xavier will sip champagne with royalty.

[Lamont Sanford]

Well, well well. A pretty good Monday.

A) YOUR Cleveland Indians win Game 3 of the ALCS.
B) The BoreCats are stonewalled as they try to pass through the eye of the Needle to the Big 12.

Now the Clifton Cretins are relegated to permanent second class status. Hey SucKS! You put your least ugly foot forward and you were still found to Suck. How does THAT taste? May as well turn Nippert into the trash dump site that it has been impersonating for all these years. Meanwhile Xavier will sip champagne with royalty.

What he said! Suck it Bearkitties!!!

[xubrew]

I cannot think of a more profoundly stupid move than to pump $80 million into a renovation and come away from that with 40k in total capacity

They weren't looking to expand the overall capacity as much as they were looking to expand the premium and club seating.

Spending that kind of money to go from 35,000 to 40,000 in the hopes of being able to sell 5000 more walk up tickets would have been profoundly stupid, but that's not what they did. it's been a minute, but I believe the original plan was to have 18 suites that were the top of the top that cost $100k a year, and required an up front commitment of ten years. If they sold all of them right off the bat, that's $18 million of the $86 million right there. Other suites and club seats range from, I think $2500 a year to $16,000 a year.

But, that's not really the point I was making. UC has piss poor support for a program that's as good as they are. And, it's not so much at the suite and club level (because I've always felt those aren't really fans, but rather people looking to serve their business interests), but just at the level of the general fan. They're basketball team is good, but the arena isn't anywhere close to full. And, the football team is definitely worth the price of the ticket, yet no one goes. And, yeah, it's a commuter school, but so is Houston, and Boise State, and Memphis, and UCF, and USF, and Temple (well, not entirely sure about their campus housing situation), and others. Those schools are not in P5 conferences. Those schools (minus Boise) are in pro cities. Those schools draw very well for football when they win 7-8 games a year. Those schools have packed their basketball arenas in the years they've been in contention for an at-large bid. UC doesn't. And, when you ask why, they blame the Bengals. That's just absurd.

[Caveat]

Your response leads me to believe we need a separate thread about the future of sports media deals and what that means for the Big East and Xavier.

Content will remain king, I presume.

The changes in the game will come in the area of technology transmission/distribution, I also presume.

I have to deduce that the power of each king will be a function of the number of the subjects he "attracts." In other words, smallish Catholic schools, notwithstanding that some of us are in the largest or at least sufficiently large media markets, are going to have to figure this out. I believe we have bright people in place who know what's coming. I just hope we have viable options.

I'll go to my grave believing that one key event in Xavier's history was getting into the Big East just as the newly formed Big East found itself at the right place and right time with Fox.

Content is King, but the era of big money media contracts paid for by subscriber fees is over. The next phase of media rights deals is going to focus entirely on what consumers are willing to pay to see certain types of content. That means if the Big 12 (or the Big East, for that matter) wants to command $100s of millions of dollars per year, it better be able to generate that money back -- because the cord-cutter movement isn't going anywhere, and people (especially non-sports viewers) aren't going to keep pumping money into a system that charges them for ESPN, ESPN2, FS1 and NBCSN regardless of their interest in the channels.

[xudash]

They weren't looking to expand the overall capacity as much as they were looking to expand the premium and club seating.

Spending that kind of money to go from 35,000 to 40,000 in the hopes of being able to sell 5000 more walk up tickets would have been profoundly stupid, but that's not what they did. it's been a minute, but I believe the original plan was to have 18 suites that were the top of the top that cost $100k a year, and required an up front commitment of ten years. If they sold all of them right off the bat, that's $18 million of the $86 million right there. Other suites and club seats range from, I think $2500 a year to $16,000 a year.

But, that's not really the point I was making. UC has piss poor support for a program that's as good as they are. And, it's not so much at the suite and club level (because I've always felt those aren't really fans, but rather people looking to serve their business interests), but just at the level of the general fan. They're basketball team is good, but the arena isn't anywhere close to full. And, the football team is definitely worth the price of the ticket, yet no one goes. And, yeah, it's a commuter school, but so is Houston, and Boise State, and Memphis, and UCF, and USF, and Temple (well, not entirely sure about their campus housing situation), and others. Those schools are not in P5 conferences. Those schools (minus Boise) are in pro cities. Those schools draw very well for football when they win 7-8 games a year. Those schools have packed their basketball arenas in the years they've been in contention for an at-large bid. UC doesn't. And, when you ask why, they blame the Bengals. That's just absurd.

I guess I didn't elaborate sufficiently well. I understand the business model; I understand prioritizing premium seating solutions. My point was that they had to go full boat to have a chance: suites, premium seating sections, and probably additional capacity that would have at least taken the place to closer to what UL accomplished. Something just over 50k in total capacity to really "look the part." They didn't do that, probably because they couldn't do that both financially and from an engineering standpoint, yet they went ahead with what they did.

And support at suite level for a bad product will dry up, or at least get much dryer. My wife's firm used to split a box for the Jaguars. I practically couldn't stand going to a Jaguars game even with A/C, TV, food and drink, and a great view of the game. And that's for a bad NFL product.

Otherwise, I agree with you on your overall point about support for UC athletics. Again, they haven't had the decades of success and tradition in football that weave a fabric of strong fan loyalty into place. Their basketball success when Oscar was around was interrupted, partially revived under Huggins, but at an image cost, and now floats along with a comical tool leading that program.

The Big 12's decision not to expand with UC as one of the expansion teams is damn near tragic for UC athletics. That may be the ballgame. We more likely are headed for the 4 x 16 model than retaining five power conferences moving forward, especially if media economics dictate that.

That may crank up no sooner than 2023 when the B1G and SEC (the two true power players in all this) come up for new media deals. They'll have the Big 12 and ND sitting there facing their media rights deals in 2025. In other words, a relatively short 2 years further down the road.

Seven years in subordinated territory that involves financial disadvantages that are striking is a helluva hand to play in this poker game from here.

[LA Muskie]

I don't think we'll see 4x16. I used to, but not anymore.

Instead, think we'll see 4x12. I think the next big realignment movement will be consolidation by the "haves" and the jettisoning of the "have nots". To quality over quantity.

If Texas and Ok bolt the Big XII, I think that'll be the reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caveat]

Using raw seating capacity as a measure of anything other than the physical number of people that can fit in a building is misleading, especially in 2016. It's a crutch they use over at Bearcat Banter because of some need to believe there are/were issues with UC's candidacy to a P5 conference that money can solve; that if only some wealthy benefactor would have stepped forward and paid to add an upper deck to Nippert or to start renovations on 5/3, they'd be in right now.

The truth is that UC would be no better or worse an expansion candidate if Nippert sat 50,000 or 60,000. The thing holding UC back is that there simply aren't enough people -- local or nationwide -- who care about the program. The B12 ran the numbers and there were simply no schools out there (UC included) that would bring as much value back in a media deal as they would receive. The ONLY reason the B12 was even considering expanding was because they thought, initially, they could monetize their media rights the same way the B10 does -- with a dedicated channel that draws more revenue from subscriber fees inside the conference footprint. In that case, UC brings a region of people with them, who would all get charged for this cable channel regardless of their interest or affinity with the University of Cincinnati. Since the environment is openly hostile to that business model currently, UC had to sink or swim based on how many eyeballs would move with them to the B12 -- and the answer was a resounding "Not enough."

UC is paying for their decades of irrelevance as a football program and chronic under-funding of their athletic department. They let generations of alums, who could have been paying/donating customers, walk out the door with a degree having never set foot inside their football stadium. You can't make up for that kind of prolonged apathy with a few good seasons and some BCS bowl bids.

[xudash]

Content is King, but the era of big money media contracts paid for by subscriber fees is over. The next phase of media rights deals is going to focus entirely on what consumers are willing to pay to see certain types of content. That means if the Big 12 (or the Big East, for that matter) wants to command $100s of millions of dollars per year, it better be able to generate that money back -- because the cord-cutter movement isn't going anywhere, and people (especially non-sports viewers) aren't going to keep pumping money into a system that charges them for ESPN, ESPN2, FS1 and NBCSN regardless of their interest in the channels.

Yep. With you all the way on that. And it's all kind of scary, but relative I guess.

So, whether it's through a cable provider or network that directly ties up rights to content distribution, even if on an a la carte basis via PPV or through a paid television channel or via the Internet (pay to bring it up on your AppleTV as an example through their "channel" on AppleTv or simply through their app on your preferred device), how does a Xavier and the Big East in general "protect" a $4 million annual gross distribution per team?

The chord cutters will cut their cords on bundled cable packages, but (I trust) will stay have to pay for discreet premium content. Conferences aren't going to invest in their own transmission platforms due to cost. That partially explains even today's JV's between the likes of the B1G and SEC and their broadcast partners, as examples of that.

It's interesting isn't it? In the abstract, the technology seems to be splicing a lot more precision into who wants to watch what. It's like CPM rates are coming, or have already essentially come to television from the Internet.

Scary, but relative. Scary in that we have a comparatively smaller fan base from which to generate revenue. Relative in the sense that we don't have a football team, band, and a bunch of Title IX mandated sports to otherwise fund.

Taking FS1 viewership numbers and simply assuming as low as 50k viewers per game paying discreetly to watch each game at the Cintas Center. 16 home games for this coming season (excludes exhibition game); assume all home game revenue retained by home team (to keep this batty exercise simple). $5 per game ($80 to watch a season of Xavier basketball at the Cintas Center on a device if you don't otherwise show up in person). Gross Revenue = $4,000,000. Add in the value of the Big East Tournament at MSG, whatever that might become. Add in early season OOC tournament values, whatever they might become. Subtract broadcast partner expenses. Add back advertising revenue.

We had better retain and build a strong brand - - 50k assumption that pays money directly to watch.

Excuse me while I go have an early martini.

I'm not suggesting it will all come down this way. I have no idea how this is going to work out. I just wanted to sketch a general idea of what might be close - or not - to potentially coming down the pike.

CAVEAT, your insights would be appreciated.

[xudash]

I don't think we'll see 4x16. I used to, but not anymore.

Instead, think we'll see 4x12. I think the next big realignment movement will be consolidation by the "haves" and the jettisoning of the "have nots". To quality over quantity.

If Texas and Ok bolt the Big XII, I think that'll be the reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's interesting, and a good point.

So, my first reaction to that is that certain teams will feel even more badly then than what UCONN, UC and Houston feel today IF that comes true.

Teams like BC, Wake Forest, Vandy, Syracuse, Pitt, Oregon State, Baylor, TCU.

Let's see: 65 - 48 = 17. That's an initial list of 8, so 9 to go....

[muskiefan82]

So...the Big Eight became the Big 12 and has 10 teams.
The Big 10 has 14 teams.
The ATLANTIC COAST conference includes notable beachfront communities in Louisville, Pittsburgh, and South Bend
The Southeastern Conference includes a team from Texas. (It is at least South and in East Texas, I suppose)
The Big East includes Creighton which East only applies to if you are talking about the Rockies
The PAC-12 is the only one who gets it right. (assuming you are okay with calling Utah a Pacific state since it is at least on that side of the U.S.)

Institutions of higher learning? I need a math and geography safe space, I think.

[X-band '01]

I think you meant Colorado, not Utah.

[Caveat]

Yep. With you all the way on that. And it's all kind of scary, but relative I guess.

So, whether it's through a cable provider or network that directly ties up rights to content distribution, even if on an a la carte basis via PPV or through a paid television channel or via the Internet (pay to bring it up on your AppleTV as an example through their "channel" on AppleTv or simply through their app on your preferred device), how does a Xavier and the Big East in general "protect" a $4 million annual gross distribution per team?

The chord cutters will cut their cords on bundled cable packages, but (I trust) will stay have to pay for discreet premium content. Conferences aren't going to invest in their own transmission platforms due to cost. That partially explains even today's JV's between the likes of the B1G and SEC and their broadcast partners, as examples of that.

It's interesting isn't it? In the abstract, the technology seems to be splicing a lot more precision into who wants to watch what. It's like CPM rates are coming, or have already essentially come to television from the Internet.

Scary, but relative. Scary in that we have a comparatively smaller fan base from which to generate revenue. Relative in the sense that we don't have a football team, band, and a bunch of Title IX mandated sports to otherwise fund.

Taking FS1 viewership numbers and simply assuming as low as 50k viewers per game paying discreetly to watch each game at the Cintas Center. 16 home games for this coming season (excludes exhibition game); assume all home game revenue retained by home team (to keep this batty exercise simple). $5 per game ($80 to watch a season of Xavier basketball at the Cintas Center on a device if you don't otherwise show up in person). Gross Revenue = $4,000,000. Add in the value of the Big East Tournament at MSG, whatever that might become. Add in early season OOC tournament values, whatever they might become. Subtract broadcast partner expenses. Add back advertising revenue.

We had better retain and build a strong brand - - 50k assumption that pays money directly to watch.

Excuse me while I go have an early martini.

I'm not suggesting it will all come down this way. I have no idea how this is going to work out. I just wanted to sketch a general idea of what might be close - or not - to potentially coming down the pike.

CAVEAT, your insights would be appreciated.

The future of television and content distribution is in such flux right now that it's really difficult to peg how it will look in 5-10 years.

The first issue to solve is how ESPN / FOX / NBCSN plans to switch from a business model of "everyone pays, even if they don't watch" to "only interested people pay." The related question to that is how such digital business models will be priced, considering ESPN needs to mitigate revenue loss from fewer subscribers while also pricing in such a way that they maintain a robust audience for advertisers to target with commercials. History, for what it's worth in this uncharted territory, suggests that ESPN et. al. will probably find it difficult to build an audience with a price point outside of the $10-20 range, per month. I suppose there's a possibility of dynamic pricing, where consumers can pay for add-ons to their ESPN subscription based on what types of content they wish to specifically consume, but I still don't foresee a future where the average viewer is paying more than ~$25 per month for sports TV alone. Given that, it's entirely possible that some more niche products (like, say, the EPL or Big East basketball) might be better off taking rights in-house and selling their package at a lower price point and pocketing ALL of the revenue, v. selling their rights to ESPN and maybe only drawing $.50 or so per subscriber to their network.

The main takeaway from all this, as you correctly identify, is that the future of sports belongs to the teams, leagues, and conferences that draw the most eyeballs and command the most loyalty. At some point, consumers will get to make the choice of what they can and cannot live without, and any sports league that falls into the "can live without" column is going to wither and die.

If I were running a major conference, the first thing I'd be doing right now is building the framework for my own digital content distribution network -- with the sole goal of getting people used to the idea of paying some nominal fee for league content every month. Even if it's just $1 per month and all you get is digital secondary content (highlight shows, coach interviews, player interviews, behind the scenes type stuff), I think it's imperative to prepare your consumers for the upcoming revolution.

[XUMIOH12]

L O L at UC

[muskiefan82]

I think you meant Colorado, not Utah.

Nope. Utah is in the PAC-12, but Colorado is an even better example since they are even further away from the Pacific. I did forget about them.

[X-band '01]

Nope. Utah is in the PAC-12, but Colorado is an even better example since they are even further away from the Pacific. I did forget about them.

Even one of my best friends still thinks Colorado is part of the Big 12 for some reason.

[LA Muskie]

I think the notion of television "channels" (whether broadcast or cable) will soon be seen as an ancient paradigm. Ala Carte pricing and cord-cutting is just the next step in the complete transformation of the television industry. Traditional linear "channels" will become entirely dynamic distributors. You won't go to NBC4 to watch Blacklist at 10pm on Thursday nights. You won't even set your DVR to record it then so you can watch it Friday night. Content will be distributed and consumed on demand. There will be subscription, pay-per-view, and hybrid models. There will be ad-supported and (premium-priced) ad-free choices. At first the networks will fight to save their turf. But they are just middlemen, and they eventually will be squeezed out by the line-carriers (cable, satellite, phone).

Frankly, with Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Apple TV, NFL Sunday Ticket, HBO Now, Showtime Anytime, CBS All Access, etc., we're already there. The old paradigm still exists in parallel, but once people are comfortable with the new world order -- and once the networks/channels start losing their content monopoly -- the change will be quick and drastic.

[xudash]

I think the notion of television "channels" (whether broadcast or cable) will soon be seen as an ancient paradigm. Ala Carte pricing and cord-cutting is just the next step in the complete transformation of the television industry. Traditional "channels" will become entirely dynamic distributors. You won't go to NBC4 to watch Blacklist at 10pm on Thursday nights. You won't even set your DVR to record it then so you can watch it Friday night. Content will be distributed and consumed on demand. There will be subscription, pay-per-view, and hybrid models. There will be ad-supported and (premium-priced) ad-free choices. At first the networks will fight to save their turf. But they are just middlemen, and they eventually will be squeezed out by the line-carriers (cable, satellite, phone).

Frankly, with Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Apple TV, NFL Sunday Ticket, HBO Now, Showtime Anytime, CBS All Access, etc., we're already there. The old paradigm still exists in parallel, but once people are comfortable with the new world order -- and once the networks/channels start losing their content monopoly -- the change will be quick and drastic.

Excellent read. Thank you.

The first thing that popped into my mind after I read this was a question: what happens with network news organizations? Do they "content" themselves for marketing purposes? And who would pay for that where news otherwise is ubiquitous. Will they experience what print newspapers have been experiencing for years?

[Caveat]

I think the notion of television "channels" (whether broadcast or cable) will soon be seen as an ancient paradigm. Ala Carte pricing and cord-cutting is just the next step in the complete transformation of the television industry. Traditional "channels" will become entirely dynamic distributors. You won't go to NBC4 to watch Blacklist at 10pm on Thursday nights. You won't even set your DVR to record it then so you can watch it Friday night. Content will be distributed and consumed on demand. There will be subscription, pay-per-view, and hybrid models. There will be ad-supported and (premium-priced) ad-free choices. At first the networks will fight to save their turf. But they are just middlemen, and they eventually will be squeezed out by the line-carriers (cable, satellite, phone).

Frankly, with Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Apple TV, NFL Sunday Ticket, HBO Now, Showtime Anytime, CBS All Access, etc., we're already there. The old paradigm still exists in parallel, but once people are comfortable with the new world order -- and once the networks/channels start losing their content monopoly -- the change will be quick and drastic.

And it's going to be a tremendously disruptive process to sports leagues / conferences -- considering they've been overvalued for years on the theory that they were one of the last things keeping people attached to a cable subscription.

This should be *tremendously* worrying for the Big East, because they've been the poster child for this theory, given how FOX paid a premium for TV rights because they needed game inventory to fill time on their channel (which, like you said, is a dying concept) and to keep their channel on basic/first-tier cable packages (also a dying concept).

[LA Muskie]

Further proof that it's already starting: After my DirecTV bill grew to nearly $200/mo a few months ago, I called to cancel. In exchange I got an extreme discount (you can too...) and downgraded to the "basic" package. A month later I went to watch the US Open (tennis) on ESPN. The channel was dark. I called customer service. She initially thought the channel might have been blacked out (it was the first Sunday of the NFL season so "blackout" sports season had started...) until I explained that I wasn't trying to watch the NFL but instead a tennis tournament that shouldn't under any circumstances be blacked out. She agreed. So she looked into it further and discovered that ESPN is not part of my package. This was the first I had ever heard of ESPN not being part of any basic cable/satellite package. Also, it took me a month to discover it myself...

[Caveat]

Excellent read. Thank you.

The first thing that popped into my mind after I read this was a question: what happens with network news organizations? Do they "content" themselves for marketing purposes? And who would pay for that where news otherwise is ubiquitous. Will they experience what print newspapers have been experiencing for years?

The news channels aren't nearly as dependent on subscriber fees as the ESPN networks are.

CNN and FOX News both make ~$1 per subscriber (per month), v. ESPN which rakes in ~$6-$9 (depending on how many of the "ESPNs" you get). You can imagine that CNN and FOX might both survive charging customers $1 per month, charging directly through the app you have on your phone, if it gave you access to watch the news at any time. Or, conversely, both could go to dynamic pricing -- where there is some level of content that is delivered for free with additional (archive / on-demand) content behind a paywall.

The important thing to remember about all this is that it's going to be incredibly disruptive and will take a while for everyone to get a handle on how things will shake out. The old business model of content distribution is dying, but it's not like the demand for content is dying. Something will replace "business as usual," and the smart money is that it's something that no one has quite thought of yet. If you want some hints, watch how kids 16-24 consume media. Whatever is designed to fill the void left by cable will probably fit into their lifestyles, not yours.

[LA Muskie]

Excellent read. Thank you.

The first thing that popped into my mind after I read this was a question: what happens with network news organizations? Do they "content" themselves for marketing purposes? And who would pay for that where news otherwise is ubiquitous. Will they experience what print newspapers have been experiencing for years?
In the initial instance, I think we will see network-based subscription models (CBS is at the forefront of this). Down the road, I could see news-aggregated subscription models where you have access to news content from various sources.

Content will become king (as well it should). In that regard, bear in mind that every major broadcast network has its own studio -- and many of the best cable/premium networks do as well. And because content production requires development, overhead, talent and capital -- with respect to which the studios generally have an advantage -- they should be fine so long as they produce quality content.

[LA Muskie]

The news channels aren't nearly as dependent on subscriber fees as the ESPN networks are.

CNN and FOX News both make ~$1 per subscriber (per month), v. ESPN which rakes in ~$6-$9 (depending on how many of the "ESPNs" you get). You can imagine that CNN and FOX might both survive charging customers $1 per month, charging directly through the app you have on your phone, if it gave you access to watch the news at any time. Or, conversely, both could go to dynamic pricing -- where there is some level of content that is delivered for free with additional (archive / on-demand) content behind a paywall.

The important thing to remember about all this is that it's going to be incredibly disruptive and will take a while for everyone to get a handle on how things will shake out. The old business model of content distribution is dying, but it's not like the demand for content is dying. Something will replace "business as usual," and the smart money is that it's something that no one has quite thought of yet. If you want some hints, watch how kids 16-24 consume media. Whatever is designed to fill the void left by cable will probably fit into their lifestyles, not yours.
This is true. News content has distinct advantages over just about everything else: (i) it's very cheap; and (ii) it generally needs to be consumed in real time (at least compared to entertainment content).

[bleedXblue]

Not even close to true. The future of live sports in America is lower-capacity / premium-experience. No one wants to pay top-dollar to sit in nosebleeds when they can watch the game on an HDTV at home for free with their own beer in the fridge.

And it's naive to think Louisville got into the ACC just because their football stadium has a lot of seats. They got into the ACC because their football program had a strong recent history of success, their basketball team plays in an NBA-caliber arena and is a yearly Top-10 team, and they've spent lots of money at ALL levels of their Athletic Department. UC, on the other hand, hadn't done major renovations to Nippert in years, was playing in a completely outdated arena for basketball, and was heavily leveraged in debt for just making the basic types of improvements to student-athlete facilities necessary to be in a major conference 15 years ago.

This is ridiculous. The best fan experience has always been watching a live event in person. No one wants to sit in the nose bleed sections? They fill them up in many, many venues from college to professional programs. Yes, UL mainly got in b/c of their commitment to make football a much bigger emphasis. Sure of course other things helped too...but it was football and their commitment to make it big time that pushed them in front of many other schools that were competing for the last few Big 12 spots.

[LA Muskie]

This is ridiculous. The best fan experience has always been watching a live event in person. No one wants to sit in the nose bleed sections? They fill them up in many, many venues from college to professional programs. Yes, UL mainly got in b/c of their commitment to make football a much bigger emphasis. Sure of course other things helped too...but it was football and their commitment to make it big time that pushed them in front of many other schools that were competing for the last few Big 12 spots.
There is a lot of research showing that the decline in sports attendance has corresponded to the growth (and affordability) of larger, higher definition televisions. I was just having a conversation with some friends about this last weekend. Every single one of us preferred watching NFL football at home than at the stadium.

[muskiefan82]

So will we be going to an on-demand, product placement ad model to replace what exists now? I went ota and streaming 3 years ago and love it.I am all for everything being available to stream for a cost.

[LA Muskie]

So will we be going to an on-demand, product placement ad model to replace what exists now? I went ota and streaming 3 years ago and love it.I am all for everything being available to stream for a cost.
There definitely will be product placement baked in. But the primary drivers will be subscription and PPV fees. Think of the product placement ad revenue as the sugar on top.

[bleedXblue]

There is a lot of research showing that the decline in sports attendance has corresponded to the growth (and affordability) of larger, higher definition televisions. I was just having a conversation with some friends about this last weekend. Every single one of us preferred watching NFL football at home than at the stadium.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193420/regular-season-attendance-in-the-nfl-since-2006/

[DoubleD86]

There definitely will be product placement baked in. But the primary drivers will be subscription and PPV fees. Think of the product placement ad revenue as the sugar on top.

My worry: people think this is the best way for the consumer but I am not so sure. Right now, streaming and "content-driven subscription" models have to maintain their competitiveness with a lower rate due to the ease and high number of people with the traditional cable set up that they need to compete with. Once everything goes to a subscription based model, what's to keep the popular ones (ESPN, FOX, HBO, CBS, NBC, etc.) from raising prices to the point that to watch more than a couple you will be paying as much as you did for full cable subscriptions? I guess you could say the competition in the market, but I have read some arguments that claim the subscription based model will actually be more expensive (less valuable?) for consumers because the full cable packages have to subsidize the less popular with the more popular, so you get more content for less money in the long run.

It will be interesting, and maybe people are alright with paying slightly less or almost as much for more targeted content, but I don't think this is the slam dunk everyone acts like it is. It also doesn't help that I have a wide array of interests so I am one of the few who take advantage of a full cable subscription.