UConn

[waggy]

Count me on the no additions side of things. Personally the BE was kinda too big with 11 schools, but you do it for the right programs like UConn, or say Notre Dame. But not Gonzaga.

[drudy23]

If UConn is out, the big East needs to throw the kitchen sink at a program like Gonzaga, at least for basketball.

Or Duke.

[drudy23]

If you've ever seen UConn play a football game, there's no chance they will be Big 12 ready in 6 years. The talent gap is immense, as they are roughly the equivalent of a D2 program. It will also likely take resources away from hoops to bridge that enormous gap. Then you run the risk of having a mediocre football program, and a basketball program that you rip from the pinnacle of the sport.

Money talks, but they're never going to be a threat in the Big 12 in football.

[MHettel]

If you've ever seen UConn play a football game, there's no chance they will be Big 12 ready in 6 years. The talent gap is immense, as they are roughly the equivalent of a D2 program. It will also likely take resources away from hoops to bridge that enormous gap. Then you run the risk of having a mediocre football program, and a basketball program that you rip from the pinnacle of the sport.

Money talks, but they're never going to be a threat in the Big 12 in football.

Do you think that is their goal? To compete in the upper half of the B12? Or is it to just grab a seat in the never ending game of musical chairs.

[JTG]

Do you think that is their goal? To compete in the upper half of the B12? Or is it to just grab a seat in the never ending game of musical chairs.

They are not ND. They can't be independent in football. It's either go to a league with football or drop the sport, or do Pioneer.

[paulxu]

Is part of it the B12 wanting presence in the NE, and trying to keep up with the SEC and B10?

[xudash]

Do you think that is their goal? To compete in the upper half of the B12? Or is it to just grab a seat in the never ending game of musical chairs.

THAT should be the real question and the primary focus here: WHAT IS THE TRUE NET VALUE OF SUCH A SEAT?

Let’s start with a key premise: successful sports ( i.e. football and basketball, primarily), provide a front porch for a University. Successful programs build brand and brand awareness, leading to more applications on the one hand and more contributions on the other.

So, what kind of investment is required in order to operate successfully here? Obviously, football is different from basketball. Look at how smaller, private schools, including a number of Catholic schools, have leveraged basketball to build national awareness; to build their brands. Yes, it’s all relative: football and bigger schools lead to bigger brands and more awareness, but that does not discount the fact that Xavier, in our case, has become a national university drawing from across the country, helped by its success in basketball.

Football gets a lot more complicated. In fact, I will submit that it has become unsolvable for any program outside of the SEC and B1G. We already know that there are about 20 programs in total that can be said to operate on a profitable (surplus) basis. They come from those two conferences, as well as South Bend, Indiana. There are even programs in those two conferences that move forward by the grace of their shares of lucrative media agreements.

Big 12 and ACC programs? IMHO, a brutal outlook for them long term. The COSTS required to make that seat valuable are high and getting higher and they don’t go away. Those conferences are guaranteed one seat each in the new 12-team playoff system. That’s it. You don’t make it through a conference championship game, then welcome to the weed-eater bowl. What is the value of that “front porch“ overtime considering the amount of investment required to even give your program a chance of operating at that level?

Having noted that, there is no doubt that you get to say that you are in the game and that you have a seat. It’s just more likely that certain programs - actually, a large number of programs by mathematical reality - will find themselves operating in the middle of the pack or the bottom end of these conferences. Looking at this objectively, and using UC as an example, I cannot see where they are well positioned to compete for a Big 12 conference championship moving forward. I see them finding it hard to operate above .500 seasons year in and year out. What might attendance look like at Nippert in 2030, following years of middling performance?

If I haven’t put you to sleep yet, let’s now bring UCONN into the conversation. UCONN makes UC look like a juggernaut. How much money will it take to enable the Huskies to go to Provo in seven years to keep from losing by four touchdowns to Utah?

The seat will only be valuable if it is accompanied by winning!

Yet UCONN leadership is hell-bent on obtaining the seat. They already operate from a substantial deficit position. The amount of money that is going to be required to get them to even a respectable level is substantial. Hurley cannot possibly be happy about this idea.

Cost:Benefit. The costs are rather staggering. The benefit isn’t exactly clear, and it will or will not come in a period of flux and instability, and it may very well damage UCONN’s true flagship sport.

[OTRMUSKIE]

F UCONN, the Beast allowed them back in only to say thanks but now
We are leaving you. College sports is OOC. Paying the players only going to get worse. I say in the next 5 years there will be a lot less fans of the over 40 crowd. I’m getting pretty sick and tired of where this is heading.

[drudy23]

THAT should be the real question and the primary focus here: WHAT IS THE TRUE NET VALUE OF SUCH A SEAT?

Let’s start with a key premise: successful sports ( i.e. football and basketball, primarily), provide a front porch for a University. Successful programs build brand and brand awareness, leading to more applications on the one hand and more contributions on the other.

So, what kind of investment is required in order to operate successfully here? Obviously, football is different from basketball. Look at how smaller, private schools, including a number of Catholic schools, have leveraged basketball to build national awareness; to build their brands. Yes, it’s all relative: football and bigger schools lead to bigger brands and more awareness, but that does not discount the fact that Xavier, in our case, has become a national university drawing from across the country, helped by its success in basketball.

Football gets a lot more complicated. In fact, I will submit that it has become unsolvable for any program outside of the SEC and B1G. We already know that there are about 20 programs in total that can be said to operate on a profitable (surplus) basis. They come from those two conferences, as well as South Bend, Indiana. There are even programs in those two conferences that move forward by the grace of their shares of lucrative media agreements.

Big 12 and ACC programs? IMHO, a brutal outlook for them long term. The COSTS required to make that seat valuable are high and getting higher and they don’t go away. Those conferences are guaranteed one seat each in the new 12-team playoff system. That’s it. You don’t make it through a conference championship game, then welcome to the weed-eater bowl. What is the value of that “front porch“ overtime considering the amount of investment required to even give your program a chance of operating at that level?

Having noted that, there is no doubt that you get to say that you are in the game and that you have a seat. It’s just more likely that certain programs - actually, a large number of programs by mathematical reality - will find themselves operating in the middle of the pack or the bottom end of these conferences. Looking at this objectively, and using UC as an example, I cannot see where they are well positioned to compete for a Big 12 conference championship moving forward. I see them finding it hard to operate above .500 seasons year in and year out. What might attendance look like at Nippert in 2030, following years of middling performance?

If I haven’t put you to sleep yet, let’s now bring UCONN into the conversation. UCONN makes UC look like a juggernaut. How much money will it take to enable the Huskies to go to Provo in seven years to keep from losing by four touchdowns to Utah?

The seat will only be valuable if it is accompanied by winning!

Yet UCONN leadership is hell-bent on obtaining the seat. They already operate from a substantial deficit position. The amount of money that is going to be required to get them to even a respectable level is substantial. Hurley cannot possibly be happy about this idea.

Cost:Benefit. The costs are rather staggering. The benefit isn’t exactly clear, and it will or will not come in a period of flux and instability, and it may very well damage UCONN’s true flagship sport.

Agree.

When UC flipped the script to football, it put the basketball program in no man's land for a decade. They went from having a great national basketball brand, to having two relatively average programs today. It probably worked out for them from a $ perspective, but likely not significantly as both programs are still both middle of the pack in each respective sport. And they were in a much more favorable spot than UConn is with football. It would take UConn 10+ years to even get them to relevancy in football.

[xudash]

Agree.

When UC flipped the script to football, it put the basketball program in no man's land for a decade. They went from having a great national basketball brand, to having two relatively average programs today. It probably worked out for them from a $ perspective, but likely not significantly as both programs are still both middle of the pack in each respective sport. And they were in a much more favorable spot than UConn is with football. It would take UConn 10+ years to even get them to relevancy in football.

It simply amazes me that most fans seem to focus in on conference/media payouts without considering the rest of the income statement that comes along with these athletic businesses ...... er, athletic programs for student-athletes. I go back to the point that there are truly only about 20 of these large all-sports athletic departments that operate on a net surplus basis.

THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO PLAY "COLLEGE FOOTBALL" AT THIS LEVEL, YOUR EXPENSES ARE GOING TO GO UP, AND RATHER DRAMATICALLY. I'm talking about operating expenses here. Capital expenditures/improvements are an entirely different matter, and can really send an athletic department into "orbit."

Think about UC's new indoor football practice facility. About $140 million. I have no doubt that it will be a nice facility. What I don't get is that it is parked close to a stadium that only seats about 40,000 people. Pumping money like that into a program that has such game day revenue limitations kind of baffles my mind. Of course, they believe they HAVE TO DO IT. They have to stay in the game, because their academic world will come to an end if they can't play football well. They'll continue to pump on student fees to help fund the department, and they'll continue to pump on alumni donations to help with NIL, etc.

But what happens when it goes into full employment / revenue sharing mode? We'll have to put up with that, too, but without the ball and chain of non-SEC/B1G football around our necks.

Even a university that has grown to 41k students only has so much fundraising bandwidth. $70 million into Nippert. $140 million into the new practice facility. 5.3 Arena received its lipstick on a pig renovation. I wonder where Wes Miller's practice facility for hoops stands at this point.

Then you have UCONN, which is facing a $175 million facelift to their crappy off campus stadium, or a new build on campus that will be a hell of a lot more than that.

All of this in order to where a badge on your chest that says you are a member of the distant 3rd best conference in the United States. Nice.

But they have to do it. You know, because of the REVENUE.