(08-17-2016 06:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  I think people here don't see the reality of unsustainable athletic budgets inside the AAC.

If UConn has a viable plan to change the dynamic, they simply have to do it. With the GORs extending into the 2030s, these schools can't sustain life in the AAC.

This is a fact.

They need lifelines. I know this is an AAC board, but I don't think most of you want to face up to the fact that this conference can't sustain itself with these low revenues for very long.

Agree. The P5 will break away in a few years. Every school in this conference needs to get a golden ticket, or risk being left out and slowly sliding to what amounts to a lower division. Or dropping football.

(08-17-2016 06:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  I think people here don't see the reality of unsustainable athletic budgets inside the AAC.

If UConn has a viable plan to change the dynamic, they simply have to do it. With the GORs extending into the 2030s, these schools can't sustain life in the AAC.

This is a fact.

They need lifelines. I know this is an AAC board, but I don't think most of you want to face up to the fact that this conference can't sustain itself with these low revenues for very long.

I completely agree. If we are not offered a huge raise from ESPN, we need to at least get Tier 3 rights back for each school so at least there is an opportunity for increased revenue for schools that actually have television value in their own markets. For what ESPN is paying us, I don't care if it drops to CUSA level pay if we can keep the exposure and get Tier 3 back.

(08-17-2016 09:54 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  The Big East is getting TWICE as much TV money and they don't play FB. Over paying doesn't look like that. The value of something is how much someone is willing to pay for it. The TV networks set both conferences value.

Money is not the only value.

AAC traded money for exposure.

Everyone knows this. Aresco, a former CBS executive, had NBC give the AAC total exposure in the initial bid, and ESPN had to match it. This is why the conference ended up with its contract.

$2m more as a BE team means absolutely nothing to UConn. It doesn't make a difference.

UConn was on ESPN, ESPN2 and CBS (not CBSSN) 16 times 2 years ago, and 15 times last year. Only Kentucky, UNC, Duke and Kansas did better.

you'll have to forgive me if I seem to lack empathy for a football program that thinks its entitled to being in the P5 in spite of only having 6 winning seasons in FBS ever.

(08-17-2016 06:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  I think people here don't see the reality of unsustainable athletic budgets inside the AAC.

If UConn has a viable plan to change the dynamic, they simply have to do it. With the GORs extending into the 2030s, these schools can't sustain life in the AAC.

This is a fact.

They need lifelines. I know this is an AAC board, but I don't think most of you want to face up to the fact that this conference can't sustain itself with these low revenues for very long.

No one is denying that. We ar saying you'll be worse off indy.. No one has anywhere close to the athletic budget uconn has in the big east.. No one

P5 invite is uconn only chance at sustain

To go indy is to kill your football long-term...ND is the only team that can sustain indy

Your realistic best option is to stay in the AAC, wait for a playoff expansion and/or wait for a potential big 12 collapse in 2024

Understand how UConn may think their situation is unfair but it does prove FB drives the bus, but as I said several pages back I'm not sure U Conn or many folks in the NE believe it. Sure U Conn was content in the BE. They were in a good BB conference with BCS money & football about like the AAC in terms of on the field performance. But what caught UConn was a lack of commitment to & investment in FB & not a part of the c7. So they got left behind, like Memphis did when Cincy & Louisville got BE invites. It's lack of commitment that cost Memphis back then & is costing UConn now. The only difference really was UConn got BCS money for 10 yrs but didn't protect their position by investing in FB so they are right where everyone else is that hasn't historically invested in their FB program. So U Conn is faced with giving up FB vs a realization that there is very little they can do at this point with much less funding to improve their FB standing but still holding on to the prospect of a better plight that only FB can possibly provide.

Fat fingers on my cell phone caused an error showing 19 when it should have been 10 yrs BCS money.........

(08-17-2016 07:13 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Understand how UConn may think their situation is unfair but it does prove FB drives the bus, but as I said several pages back I'm not sure U Conn or many folks in the NE believe it. Sure U Conn was content in the BE. They were in a good BB conference with BCS money & football about like the AAC in terms of on the field performance. But what caught UConn was a lack of commitment to & investment in FB & not a part of the c7. So they got left behind, like Memphis did when Cincy & Louisville got BE invites. It's lack of commitment that cost Memphis back then & is costing UConn now. The only difference really was UConn got BCS money for 19 yrs but didn't protect their position by investing in FB so they are right where everyone else is that hasn't historically invested in their FB program. So U Conn is faced with giving up FB vs a realization that there is very little they can do at this point with much less funding to improve their FB standing but still holding on to the prospect of a better plight that only FB can possibly provide.

Thats a very grim scenario you have provided. I feel bad for uconn now.

(08-17-2016 07:13 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Understand how UConn may think their situation is unfair but it does prove FB drives the bus, but as I said several pages back I'm not sure U Conn or many folks in the NE believe it. Sure U Conn was content in the BE. They were in a good BB conference with BCS money & football about like the AAC in terms of on the field performance. But what caught UConn was a lack of commitment to & investment in FB & not a part of the c7. So they got left behind, like Memphis did when Cincy & Louisville got BE invites. It's lack of commitment that cost Memphis back then & is costing UConn now. The only difference really was UConn got BCS money for 19 yrs but didn't protect their position by investing in FB so they are right where everyone else is that hasn't historically invested in their FB program. So U Conn is faced with giving up FB vs a realization that there is very little they can do at this point with much less funding to improve their FB standing but still holding on to the prospect of a better plight that only FB can possibly provide.

UConn did invest in the football program, upgrading to Division 1-A in a 2 year transitional period beginning in 2000 to full 1-A status and building a new stadium as a condition for joining the Big East as a football member. However, it takes time to build all the ingredients necessary to become big-time in football; time that they did not have to evolve the football program enough to become competitive with the football programs of their peer schools when the college football universe began to change with the defection of Miami, Va. Tech, and BC. The rest is bad history.

(08-17-2016 07:13 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Understand how UConn may think their situation is unfair but it does prove FB drives the bus, but as I said several pages back I'm not sure U Conn or many folks in the NE believe it. Sure U Conn was content in the BE. They were in a good BB conference with BCS money & football about like the AAC in terms of on the field performance. But what caught UConn was a lack of commitment to & investment in FB & not a part of the c7. So they got left behind, like Memphis did when Cincy & Louisville got BE invites. It's lack of commitment that cost Memphis back then & is costing UConn now. The only difference really was UConn got BCS money for 19 yrs but didn't protect their position by investing in FB so they are right where everyone else is that hasn't historically invested in their FB program. So U Conn is faced with giving up FB vs a realization that there is very little they can do at this point with much less funding to improve their FB standing but still holding on to the prospect of a better plight that only FB can possibly provide.

Now people are accusing Uconn of a lack of commitment to football. Wow. $60 million dollar IPF and hiring away a Brotles award winning assistant coach from Notre Dame just isn't cutting it anymore I guess.

I disagree that we have not invested since the move to FBS. We have state of the art facilities and became competitive in a BCS league quicker than anyone expected. The real mistake was waiting until 2000 to step up to the highest level. That was a huge mistake made by the state of CT and the university. We should have stepped up as soon as the Big East added football.

(08-17-2016 07:38 PM)jwawker Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:13 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Understand how UConn may think their situation is unfair but it does prove FB drives the bus, but as I said several pages back I'm not sure U Conn or many folks in the NE believe it. Sure U Conn was content in the BE. They were in a good BB conference with BCS money & football about like the AAC in terms of on the field performance. But what caught UConn was a lack of commitment to & investment in FB & not a part of the c7. So they got left behind, like Memphis did when Cincy & Louisville got BE invites. It's lack of commitment that cost Memphis back then & is costing UConn now. The only difference really was UConn got BCS money for 19 yrs but didn't protect their position by investing in FB so they are right where everyone else is that hasn't historically invested in their FB program. So U Conn is faced with giving up FB vs a realization that there is very little they can do at this point with much less funding to improve their FB standing but still holding on to the prospect of a better plight that only FB can possibly provide.

UConn did invest in the football program, upgrading to Division 1-A in a 2 year transitional period beginning in 2000 to full 1-A status and building a new stadium as a condition for joining the Big East as a football member. However, it takes time to build all the ingredients necessary to become big-time in football; time that they did not have to evolve the football program enough to become competitive with the football programs of their peer schools when the college football universe began to change with the defection of Miami, Va. Tech, and BC. The rest is bad history.

Are you saying those defections hurt uconn? Just curious but how exactly? Through recruiting, through perception etc?

(08-17-2016 07:38 PM)jwawker Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:13 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Understand how UConn may think their situation is unfair but it does prove FB drives the bus, but as I said several pages back I'm not sure U Conn or many folks in the NE believe it. Sure U Conn was content in the BE. They were in a good BB conference with BCS money & football about like the AAC in terms of on the field performance. But what caught UConn was a lack of commitment to & investment in FB & not a part of the c7. So they got left behind, like Memphis did when Cincy & Louisville got BE invites. It's lack of commitment that cost Memphis back then & is costing UConn now. The only difference really was UConn got BCS money for 19 yrs but didn't protect their position by investing in FB so they are right where everyone else is that hasn't historically invested in their FB program. So U Conn is faced with giving up FB vs a realization that there is very little they can do at this point with much less funding to improve their FB standing but still holding on to the prospect of a better plight that only FB can possibly provide.

UConn did invest in the football program, upgrading to Division 1-A in a 2 year transitional period beginning in 2000 to full 1-A status and building a new stadium as a condition for joining the Big East as a football member. However, it takes time to build all the ingredients necessary to become big-time in football; time that they did not have to evolve the football program enough to become competitive with the football programs of their peer schools when the college football universe began to change with the defection of Miami, Va. Tech, and BC. The rest is bad history.

Yeah they didn't get much time but Uconn and USF got something ECU and Memphis never got: BCS money. Yeah, it was a for a short period, but at least for awhile they got paid. We (ECU) have never received a single favor even though we earned it by supporting our team. Is UCONN getting a raw deal? Probably. But I'm wondering why there is no outrage for schools like ECU who have totally gotten the shaft since this BCS/P5 garbage started 20 years ago (when UCONN was a D-1AA program)
Cheers!

(08-17-2016 07:47 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:38 PM)jwawker Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:13 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Understand how UConn may think their situation is unfair but it does prove FB drives the bus, but as I said several pages back I'm not sure U Conn or many folks in the NE believe it. Sure U Conn was content in the BE. They were in a good BB conference with BCS money & football about like the AAC in terms of on the field performance. But what caught UConn was a lack of commitment to & investment in FB & not a part of the c7. So they got left behind, like Memphis did when Cincy & Louisville got BE invites. It's lack of commitment that cost Memphis back then & is costing UConn now. The only difference really was UConn got BCS money for 19 yrs but didn't protect their position by investing in FB so they are right where everyone else is that hasn't historically invested in their FB program. So U Conn is faced with giving up FB vs a realization that there is very little they can do at this point with much less funding to improve their FB standing but still holding on to the prospect of a better plight that only FB can possibly provide.

UConn did invest in the football program, upgrading to Division 1-A in a 2 year transitional period beginning in 2000 to full 1-A status and building a new stadium as a condition for joining the Big East as a football member. However, it takes time to build all the ingredients necessary to become big-time in football; time that they did not have to evolve the football program enough to become competitive with the football programs of their peer schools when the college football universe began to change with the defection of Miami, Va. Tech, and BC. The rest is bad history.

Are you saying those defections hurt uconn? Just curious but how exactly? Through recruiting, through perception etc?

They hurt the Big East. All remaining members were hurt to a degree but the timing hurt UConn because it came right after we made the commitment to FBS.

(08-17-2016 07:47 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:38 PM)jwawker Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:13 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Understand how UConn may think their situation is unfair but it does prove FB drives the bus, but as I said several pages back I'm not sure U Conn or many folks in the NE believe it. Sure U Conn was content in the BE. They were in a good BB conference with BCS money & football about like the AAC in terms of on the field performance. But what caught UConn was a lack of commitment to & investment in FB & not a part of the c7. So they got left behind, like Memphis did when Cincy & Louisville got BE invites. It's lack of commitment that cost Memphis back then & is costing UConn now. The only difference really was UConn got BCS money for 19 yrs but didn't protect their position by investing in FB so they are right where everyone else is that hasn't historically invested in their FB program. So U Conn is faced with giving up FB vs a realization that there is very little they can do at this point with much less funding to improve their FB standing but still holding on to the prospect of a better plight that only FB can possibly provide.

UConn did invest in the football program, upgrading to Division 1-A in a 2 year transitional period beginning in 2000 to full 1-A status and building a new stadium as a condition for joining the Big East as a football member. However, it takes time to build all the ingredients necessary to become big-time in football; time that they did not have to evolve the football program enough to become competitive with the football programs of their peer schools when the college football universe began to change with the defection of Miami, Va. Tech, and BC. The rest is bad history.

Are you saying those defections hurt uconn? Just curious but how exactly? Through recruiting, through perception etc?

What peer programs? UConn had winning records against Pitt and Syracuse. It had even records with Louisville and Rutgers over that decade. It had blowout wins over Virginia and Iowa St. and Indiana and South Carolina (to pick a team from each conference), close wins over Baylor and Notre Dame.

It never beat a powerhouse program, but these were its peers, and it was a .500 school against them.

I could see UConn going to the Big East all sports but football and staying in the American. the American would keep them for football only and they would probably add Wichita

Sent from my N800 using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-17-2016 07:53 PM)Stooky57 Wrote:  I could see UConn going to the Big East all sports but football and staying in the American. the American would keep them for football only and they would probably add Wichita

Sent from my N800 using CSNbbs mobile app

Why would UConn leave if Wichita was added?

Let's be honest.. as a football only, UConn is just a body. A drain on the resources.

If this is about basketball, then Wichita is a start to addressing your beef.

Uconn has more nfl players than every big 12 candidate but Boise and more wins over power five teams than every big 12 candidate but UC, yet our carcass is picked apart on a daily basis on messages boards such as this one. If you can't see how the perception of UConn has been drastically affected by the Big East raids you just aren't paying attention.

(08-17-2016 07:13 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Understand how UConn may think their situation is unfair but it does prove FB drives the bus, but as I said several pages back I'm not sure U Conn or many folks in the NE believe it. Sure U Conn was content in the BE. They were in a good BB conference with BCS money & football about like the AAC in terms of on the field performance. But what caught UConn was a lack of commitment to & investment in FB & not a part of the c7. So they got left behind, like Memphis did when Cincy & Louisville got BE invites. It's lack of commitment that cost Memphis back then & is costing UConn now. The only difference really was UConn got BCS money for 19 yrs but didn't protect their position by investing in FB so they are right where everyone else is that hasn't historically invested in their FB program. So U Conn is faced with giving up FB vs a realization that there is very little they can do at this point with much less funding to improve their FB standing but still holding on to the prospect of a better plight that only FB can possibly provide.

Excellent post.

I would be curious to know what UConn would have done in the late-90's, regarding it's football program and elevation, if they knew/were told where they'd be today in 2016. Do they still elevate it in 2000 - knowing that instead of playing: Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Boston College, and West Virginia in football, Villanova, Georgetown, Notre Dame, St. Johns, Providence and Seton Hall in basketball, they are playing Houston, SMU, UCF, USF, Tulsa, Tulane, East Carolina, Memphis, and Temple?

FWIW - that's not a knock against any of those programs (each is better and more valuable today than at that point). However, none were/are regional rivals, none were/are land grant institutions, and none were particularly strong in either basketball or football in the late 90's (Memphis, ironically enough, was just coming off the Tic Price era).

Would they commit the same investments again? Would they pump even more into it earlier? Would they scrap it altogether? Curious to know what UConn fans think.

(08-17-2016 07:51 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:38 PM)jwawker Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:13 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Understand how UConn may think their situation is unfair but it does prove FB drives the bus, but as I said several pages back I'm not sure U Conn or many folks in the NE believe it. Sure U Conn was content in the BE. They were in a good BB conference with BCS money & football about like the AAC in terms of on the field performance. But what caught UConn was a lack of commitment to & investment in FB & not a part of the c7. So they got left behind, like Memphis did when Cincy & Louisville got BE invites. It's lack of commitment that cost Memphis back then & is costing UConn now. The only difference really was UConn got BCS money for 19 yrs but didn't protect their position by investing in FB so they are right where everyone else is that hasn't historically invested in their FB program. So U Conn is faced with giving up FB vs a realization that there is very little they can do at this point with much less funding to improve their FB standing but still holding on to the prospect of a better plight that only FB can possibly provide.

UConn did invest in the football program, upgrading to Division 1-A in a 2 year transitional period beginning in 2000 to full 1-A status and building a new stadium as a condition for joining the Big East as a football member. However, it takes time to build all the ingredients necessary to become big-time in football; time that they did not have to evolve the football program enough to become competitive with the football programs of their peer schools when the college football universe began to change with the defection of Miami, Va. Tech, and BC. The rest is bad history.

Yeah they didn't get much time but Uconn and USF got something ECU and Memphis never got: BCS money. Yeah, it was a for a short period, but at least for awhile they got paid. We (ECU) have never received a single favor even though we earned by supporting our team. Is UCONN getting a raw deal? Probably. But I'm wondering why there is no outrage for schools like ECU who have totally gotten the shaft since this BCS/P5 garbage started 20 years ago (when UCONN was a D-1A program)
Cheers!

The BCS money was never significant though. It amounted to less than $1m per school. Total payout for all sports in the BE was $7m.

People tend to forget that even the ACC was at $11m back then. They'll have to explain to us how FSU was worth $11m in 2009 but $30m now.

At the end of the day, it is UConn's 4 national championships in bball and the fact that it owns its state which makes people think it is P5 like.

(08-17-2016 07:57 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  Uconn has more nfl players than every big 12 candidate but Boise and more wins over power five teams than every big 12 candidate but UC, yet our carcass is picked apart on a daily basis on messages boards such as this one. If you can't see how the perception of UConn has been drastically affected by the Big East raids you just aren't paying attention.

How is going indy going to help the situation?

Your recruiting would rarely yield any more NFL players.

Its cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The AAC has only worked to prop up UConn... nothing less..

Frankly, I think we've all lucked out that the AAC has succeeded to the extent that it has. It hasn't been easy.