(02-12-2013 10:51 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  The problem with being Indy in today's day and age is two fold...TV and Bowls. Unless you get offered a contract like BYU did or ND has or even Navy has in CBSSports, its impossible to make TV money as an Indy.

And the Bowls...you have to have access to a Bowl if you are Indy and most of them are tied to conferences.

If you can get past those two hurdles like BYU has and in a lesser extent Navy has, then you can do it...however you will still end up with a not so desirable overall home schedule. Army and Navy routinely bring in FCS, Sun Belt and MAC type programs to fill their home schedule.

Army and Navy could play larger names and schedule them, but they aren't going to win many. They have to play FCS, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA to have any hope of bowl eligibility.

(02-11-2013 01:02 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:58 PM)e-bethMSU Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:47 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:20 PM)e-bethMSU Wrote:  if 20-23 is the contract (i know this is just an offer - but its the first real number we have had), then long term, this conference will wither away as the exit fee money runs out.

i still think we need southern miss

It is being said that the existing BE contract stipulates that the TV revenue can not be re-packaged in a more profitable format. The BE has to get out of that stipulation by either ESPN not matching the NBC contract offer or by the nBE changing the terms in the new contract.

The conference won't wither away because the next deal (after this one) would be able to give full market value. Of course, that may be the time when a UConn or whoever actually moves to another league. But as time goes by, TV revenue increases, it has again and again. Some folks say someone's TV contract will go down....that's nonsense unless there are difficult contract requirements such as this one.

Of course, isn't that the whole point of exit fee's anyway....so if you leave, the others receive some compensation for your departure and the loss of value that the conference takes? That's why I find it amazing that everyone just piled on through this thread and didn't take into account the exit fee revenue that will be distributed.

That being said...no one in the nBE is going to lose any money, they will gain. USF, Cincy, and UConn are going to receive the most exit fee money and the TV revenue will be shared (which will be an increase for the new members)....as well the nonBCS share is going up so that even with the loss of AQ status, at worst for the three originals, they break even.

As well no other league outside the Power 5 can match what the nBE will pay out...even the C7 hybrid scenario because the loss of exit fee money as well as the decreased payout of the nBCS of those other leagues (MWC or MAC). Sure Boise and SDSU went away, but they weren't all in...and Boise had to pay the BE anyway.

But who wants facts to get in the way of a good story. The conference will obviously implode.

nothing keeps this contract from being full market value. nbc (or whoever) makes their best offer - which espn would have to match to keep the rights - or the new network gets the rights. there is no incentive for anyone (other than espn) to low-ball the contract.

If they aren't allowed to break up what networks are bidding on, they can't get full value....see ESPN owns 1st, 2nd and 3rd tier rights to the Big East and the NBC number is for that....not one price for the champ game, another for first tier, another for second tier and another for 3rd.

Isn't it kind of funny that the ESPN article didn't explain that. They aren't giving you all the information because they have "sensational journalism" down to an art form.

Your economics professor needs to slap you around for this statement.

If its worth a lot more in pieces than as a whole, the winning bidder simply turns around and sells off the pieces to others. Because that's the case - the bidders would increase their offers up to the value that they think they could get for re-selling the pieces and selling advertising for the pieces they keep. Nothing in packaging the entire rights in one bundle keeps the buyer from making full best use of the rights after they buy it. Therefore, if NBC offers $23 million - but CBS or FOX thinks its worth more, then CBS or FOX simply outbid NBC. The only unique feature here is that ESPN can then match the best offer to get the package (they don't have to beat it).

So if NBC thinks it worth $23 million, and CBS thinks its worth $35 million, and FOX thinks its worth $40 million - then FOX is willing to make the highest offer. They may all be correctly estimating the package's value - based on what it would be worth to them and how they plan to use it. You don't have to have a "conspiracy to under-value the BigEast" to come up with different estimates.

But if ESPN thinks its worth up to $50 million to them, then they only have to match FOX's offer to get the package. In a true "free market" (no right to match agreement) - they would be required to beat the FOX offer to win, but still would not have to pay the full value it would have to ESPN in order to win the rights package (this is where profits come from). So if FOX offers $40 million, ESPN could get the package for $40,000,001 and the rest is their profit. As it is, they would only need to match the $40 million - not beat it (a difference as little as a single dollar). This could be as little as a dollar off of "market value" - so its almost no market restriction at all. In neither case would ESPN pay the BigEast $50 million.

The BigEast will essentially get "market value" for the rights package because its being sold in a market with almost no meaningful restrictions.

(02-12-2013 01:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:25 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 12:48 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  This can't be serious about the "marquee" game starting in 2014 will be UConn vs. Cincinnati or USF?

Cincy vs. USF, Cincy vs. ECU, USF vs UCF, ECU vs. UCF, Houston vs. Cincy, etc. will all be more of a "marquee" game than what was mentioned. UCONN isn't marquee in football.

Neither is anybody in C-USA not named Casey Keenum. UConn sports are of interest to about 3.5M people in CT. That doesn't sound like much, but it beats anybody else in the league. They're the only Aresco LEague school that's not in a power-conference school's shadow. They've also been to a major bowl. So has Cincinnati. None of the others have.

Maybe any of those games is better in a given year because someone is ranked, but none of them is obviously a better matchup year-in and year-out.

The bolded is an opinion, not fact.

My opinion...I agree they are better known, but that in no way equates to them being a better match-up ("marquee") year in and year out. I guess we can agree to disagree.

Have any of the other schools been to major bowls(post-SWC)?
Are any of the other schools the biggest college sports brand in their area?
Does ESPN or ABC or CBS or Fox or NBC show the other schools games?

Does any of what UCONN has done in the recent past mean much to the average sports fan? Heck, most never thought UCONN belonged in the major bowl. So, no I don't think the majority of the college sports viewers deem UCONN any different than most of the incoming schools. I wish they were thought of the way you present it. It would really help our conference. Unfortunately, I think very few see it from your angle.

(02-12-2013 02:41 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:25 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 12:48 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  This can't be serious about the "marquee" game starting in 2014 will be UConn vs. Cincinnati or USF?

Cincy vs. USF, Cincy vs. ECU, USF vs UCF, ECU vs. UCF, Houston vs. Cincy, etc. will all be more of a "marquee" game than what was mentioned. UCONN isn't marquee in football.

Neither is anybody in C-USA not named Casey Keenum. UConn sports are of interest to about 3.5M people in CT. That doesn't sound like much, but it beats anybody else in the league. They're the only Aresco LEague school that's not in a power-conference school's shadow. They've also been to a major bowl. So has Cincinnati. None of the others have.

Maybe any of those games is better in a given year because someone is ranked, but none of them is obviously a better matchup year-in and year-out.

The bolded is an opinion, not fact.

My opinion...I agree they are better known, but that in no way equates to them being a better match-up ("marquee") year in and year out. I guess we can agree to disagree.

Have any of the other schools been to major bowls(post-SWC)?
Are any of the other schools the biggest college sports brand in their area?
Does ESPN or ABC or CBS or Fox or NBC show the other schools games?

Does any of what UCONN has done in the recent past mean much to the average sports fan? Heck, most never thought UCONN belonged in the major bowl. So, no I don't think the majority of the college sports viewers deem UCONN any different than most of the incoming schools. I wish they were thought of the way you present it. It would really help our conference. Unfortunately, I think very few see it from your angle.

That's true. But to huff and puff and say, UConn vs Cinci isn't the marquee game, you should have at least one game that's clearly better.

Shall we agree, sadly, that the Aresco League simply has no marquee games?

(02-12-2013 01:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:25 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 12:48 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  This can't be serious about the "marquee" game starting in 2014 will be UConn vs. Cincinnati or USF?

Cincy vs. USF, Cincy vs. ECU, USF vs UCF, ECU vs. UCF, Houston vs. Cincy, etc. will all be more of a "marquee" game than what was mentioned. UCONN isn't marquee in football.

Neither is anybody in C-USA not named Casey Keenum. UConn sports are of interest to about 3.5M people in CT. That doesn't sound like much, but it beats anybody else in the league. They're the only Aresco LEague school that's not in a power-conference school's shadow. They've also been to a major bowl. So has Cincinnati. None of the others have.

Maybe any of those games is better in a given year because someone is ranked, but none of them is obviously a better matchup year-in and year-out.

The bolded is an opinion, not fact.

My opinion...I agree they are better known, but that in no way equates to them being a better match-up ("marquee") year in and year out. I guess we can agree to disagree.

Have any of the other schools been to major bowls(post-SWC)?
Are any of the other schools the biggest college sports brand in their area?
Does ESPN or ABC or CBS or Fox or NBC show the other schools games?

As for the "major bowl" it was accomplished due to an autobid and a down year in the Big East. 8-5 and an average BCS computer ranking of 43 isn't anything to brag about when Houston went 12-1 with a 26 ranking and Cincy has been ranked higher 4 of the last 5 years?

Biggest brand in their area is UConn's edge.

TV carriers depends on which league teams play in.

(02-12-2013 02:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 02:41 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:25 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Neither is anybody in C-USA not named Casey Keenum. UConn sports are of interest to about 3.5M people in CT. That doesn't sound like much, but it beats anybody else in the league. They're the only Aresco LEague school that's not in a power-conference school's shadow. They've also been to a major bowl. So has Cincinnati. None of the others have.

Maybe any of those games is better in a given year because someone is ranked, but none of them is obviously a better matchup year-in and year-out.

The bolded is an opinion, not fact.

My opinion...I agree they are better known, but that in no way equates to them being a better match-up ("marquee") year in and year out. I guess we can agree to disagree.

Have any of the other schools been to major bowls(post-SWC)?
Are any of the other schools the biggest college sports brand in their area?
Does ESPN or ABC or CBS or Fox or NBC show the other schools games?

Does any of what UCONN has done in the recent past mean much to the average sports fan? Heck, most never thought UCONN belonged in the major bowl. So, no I don't think the majority of the college sports viewers deem UCONN any different than most of the incoming schools. I wish they were thought of the way you present it. It would really help our conference. Unfortunately, I think very few see it from your angle.

That's true. But to huff and puff and say, UConn vs Cinci isn't the marquee game, you should have at least one game that's clearly better.

Shall we agree, sadly, that the Aresco League simply has no marquee games?

I already listed games that were better. Games that, IMO, the average fan would have far more interest in. But it is just my opinion. With that said...yes, I do agree the league has no true "marquee" games.

(02-12-2013 03:10 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  I already listed games that were better. Games that, IMO, the average fan would have far more interest in. But it is just my opinion. With that said...yes, I do agree the league has no true "marquee" games.

And I gave reasons that the "average fan" would see UConn and Cincy as more marquee than USF, UCF, ECU etc. But it was really a waste of time for both of us.

(02-12-2013 03:21 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 03:10 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  I already listed games that were better. Games that, IMO, the average fan would have far more interest in. But it is just my opinion. With that said...yes, I do agree the league has no true "marquee" games.

And I gave reasons that the "average fan" would see UConn and Cincy as more marquee than USF, UCF, ECU etc. But it was really a waste of time for both of us.

Discussing differing opinions is no waste of time...unless your objective/intent is to move someone to your side. That's when discussions lose their attractiveness in my opinion. I only hope for people to understand my side, not agree with it.

(02-12-2013 02:05 PM)nert Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 01:02 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:58 PM)e-bethMSU Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:47 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:20 PM)e-bethMSU Wrote:  if 20-23 is the contract (i know this is just an offer - but its the first real number we have had), then long term, this conference will wither away as the exit fee money runs out.

i still think we need southern miss

It is being said that the existing BE contract stipulates that the TV revenue can not be re-packaged in a more profitable format. The BE has to get out of that stipulation by either ESPN not matching the NBC contract offer or by the nBE changing the terms in the new contract.

The conference won't wither away because the next deal (after this one) would be able to give full market value. Of course, that may be the time when a UConn or whoever actually moves to another league. But as time goes by, TV revenue increases, it has again and again. Some folks say someone's TV contract will go down....that's nonsense unless there are difficult contract requirements such as this one.

Of course, isn't that the whole point of exit fee's anyway....so if you leave, the others receive some compensation for your departure and the loss of value that the conference takes? That's why I find it amazing that everyone just piled on through this thread and didn't take into account the exit fee revenue that will be distributed.

That being said...no one in the nBE is going to lose any money, they will gain. USF, Cincy, and UConn are going to receive the most exit fee money and the TV revenue will be shared (which will be an increase for the new members)....as well the nonBCS share is going up so that even with the loss of AQ status, at worst for the three originals, they break even.

As well no other league outside the Power 5 can match what the nBE will pay out...even the C7 hybrid scenario because the loss of exit fee money as well as the decreased payout of the nBCS of those other leagues (MWC or MAC). Sure Boise and SDSU went away, but they weren't all in...and Boise had to pay the BE anyway.

But who wants facts to get in the way of a good story. The conference will obviously implode.

nothing keeps this contract from being full market value. nbc (or whoever) makes their best offer - which espn would have to match to keep the rights - or the new network gets the rights. there is no incentive for anyone (other than espn) to low-ball the contract.

If they aren't allowed to break up what networks are bidding on, they can't get full value....see ESPN owns 1st, 2nd and 3rd tier rights to the Big East and the NBC number is for that....not one price for the champ game, another for first tier, another for second tier and another for 3rd.

Isn't it kind of funny that the ESPN article didn't explain that. They aren't giving you all the information because they have "sensational journalism" down to an art form.

Your economics professor needs to slap you around for this statement.

If its worth a lot more in pieces than as a whole, the winning bidder simply turns around and sells off the pieces to others. Because that's the case - the bidders would increase their offers up to the value that they think they could get for re-selling the pieces and selling advertising for the pieces they keep. Nothing in packaging the entire rights in one bundle keeps the buyer from making full best use of the rights after they buy it. Therefore, if NBC offers $23 million - but CBS or FOX thinks its worth more, then CBS or FOX simply outbid NBC. The only unique feature here is that ESPN can then match the best offer to get the package (they don't have to beat it).

So if NBC thinks it worth $23 million, and CBS thinks its worth $35 million, and FOX thinks its worth $40 million - then FOX is willing to make the highest offer. They may all be correctly estimating the package's value - based on what it would be worth to them and how they plan to use it. You don't have to have a "conspiracy to under-value the BigEast" to come up with different estimates.

But if ESPN thinks its worth up to $50 million to them, then they only have to match FOX's offer to get the package. In a true "free market" (no right to match agreement) - they would be required to beat the FOX offer to win, but still would not have to pay the full value it would have to ESPN in order to win the rights package (this is where profits come from). So if FOX offers $40 million, ESPN could get the package for $40,000,001 and the rest is their profit. As it is, they would only need to match the $40 million - not beat it (a difference as little as a single dollar). This could be as little as a dollar off of "market value" - so its almost no market restriction at all. In neither case would ESPN pay the BigEast $50 million.

The BigEast will essentially get "market value" for the rights package because its being sold in a market with almost no meaningful restrictions.

The unique feature is that they can't break anything up, they can only take a price for the whole thing, because that is how the existing contract stipulates, what ESPN has the right to match.

The money would be more if broken out. Because one network may ONLY have interest in the champ game (like ESPN) because it leads to its new BCS games. Aresco could give first dibs on "Friday Night" marquee game...one network may have a significant interest in THAT NIGHT rather than ALL of the inventory (which it doesn't need because it already owns plenty of inventory).

Those are just examples of why you make more money by breaking it out...because properties different networks have different priorities and different needs to fill. Google would be interested in third tier rights, as would ESPN because they have ESPN3. But CBS and NBC and Fox may not care about that.

(02-12-2013 02:05 PM)nert Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 01:02 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:58 PM)e-bethMSU Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:47 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:20 PM)e-bethMSU Wrote:  if 20-23 is the contract (i know this is just an offer - but its the first real number we have had), then long term, this conference will wither away as the exit fee money runs out.

i still think we need southern miss

It is being said that the existing BE contract stipulates that the TV revenue can not be re-packaged in a more profitable format. The BE has to get out of that stipulation by either ESPN not matching the NBC contract offer or by the nBE changing the terms in the new contract.

The conference won't wither away because the next deal (after this one) would be able to give full market value. Of course, that may be the time when a UConn or whoever actually moves to another league. But as time goes by, TV revenue increases, it has again and again. Some folks say someone's TV contract will go down....that's nonsense unless there are difficult contract requirements such as this one.

Of course, isn't that the whole point of exit fee's anyway....so if you leave, the others receive some compensation for your departure and the loss of value that the conference takes? That's why I find it amazing that everyone just piled on through this thread and didn't take into account the exit fee revenue that will be distributed.

That being said...no one in the nBE is going to lose any money, they will gain. USF, Cincy, and UConn are going to receive the most exit fee money and the TV revenue will be shared (which will be an increase for the new members)....as well the nonBCS share is going up so that even with the loss of AQ status, at worst for the three originals, they break even.

As well no other league outside the Power 5 can match what the nBE will pay out...even the C7 hybrid scenario because the loss of exit fee money as well as the decreased payout of the nBCS of those other leagues (MWC or MAC). Sure Boise and SDSU went away, but they weren't all in...and Boise had to pay the BE anyway.

But who wants facts to get in the way of a good story. The conference will obviously implode.

nothing keeps this contract from being full market value. nbc (or whoever) makes their best offer - which espn would have to match to keep the rights - or the new network gets the rights. there is no incentive for anyone (other than espn) to low-ball the contract.

If they aren't allowed to break up what networks are bidding on, they can't get full value....see ESPN owns 1st, 2nd and 3rd tier rights to the Big East and the NBC number is for that....not one price for the champ game, another for first tier, another for second tier and another for 3rd.

Isn't it kind of funny that the ESPN article didn't explain that. They aren't giving you all the information because they have "sensational journalism" down to an art form.

Your economics professor needs to slap you around for this statement.

If its worth a lot more in pieces than as a whole, the winning bidder simply turns around and sells off the pieces to others. Because that's the case - the bidders would increase their offers up to the value that they think they could get for re-selling the pieces and selling advertising for the pieces they keep. Nothing in packaging the entire rights in one bundle keeps the buyer from making full best use of the rights after they buy it. Therefore, if NBC offers $23 million - but CBS or FOX thinks its worth more, then CBS or FOX simply outbid NBC. The only unique feature here is that ESPN can then match the best offer to get the package (they don't have to beat it).

So if NBC thinks it worth $23 million, and CBS thinks its worth $35 million, and FOX thinks its worth $40 million - then FOX is willing to make the highest offer. They may all be correctly estimating the package's value - based on what it would be worth to them and how they plan to use it. You don't have to have a "conspiracy to under-value the BigEast" to come up with different estimates.

But if ESPN thinks its worth up to $50 million to them, then they only have to match FOX's offer to get the package. In a true "free market" (no right to match agreement) - they would be required to beat the FOX offer to win, but still would not have to pay the full value it would have to ESPN in order to win the rights package (this is where profits come from). So if FOX offers $40 million, ESPN could get the package for $40,000,001 and the rest is their profit. As it is, they would only need to match the $40 million - not beat it (a difference as little as a single dollar). This could be as little as a dollar off of "market value" - so its almost no market restriction at all. In neither case would ESPN pay the BigEast $50 million.

The BigEast will essentially get "market value" for the rights package because its being sold in a market with almost no meaningful restrictions.

Case in point.

A few years ago when the Valley was really on fire, CBS wanted to show the Valley tournament championship. They bought it from ESPN. It's my understanding that LHN/ESPN buys some content from Fox Sports.

There is actually a relatively liquid market in game rights.

One thing ESPN does with it's less valuable properties is impose territorial restrictions on the sale of unselected games. It prevents the creation of ad hoc national networks (ie. TV station in state 1 picks up the game then in turn resells to RSN's outside the region. If you run K-SmallTownTV station and you can get MASN and Altitude to pick up the game and all you do is retain X minutes of ad time, then the TV station can approach national buyers touting the number of homes and get more for that time and don't have to fill all the ad slots locally).

Imposing the restriction keeps national supply lower and forces MASN and Altitude to buy or produce content at a higher price.

(02-12-2013 05:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  One thing ESPN does with it's less valuable properties is impose territorial restrictions on the sale of unselected games. It prevents the creation of ad hoc national networks (ie. TV station in state 1 picks up the game then in turn resells to RSN's outside the region. If you run K-SmallTownTV station and you can get MASN and Altitude to pick up the game and all you do is retain X minutes of ad time, then the TV station can approach national buyers touting the number of homes and get more for that time and don't have to fill all the ad slots locally).

Imposing the restriction keeps national supply lower and forces MASN and Altitude to buy or produce content at a higher price.

Thus the beauty of the new ala carte MWC TV pacakge

(02-11-2013 05:56 PM)e-bethMSU Wrote:  with memphis, cincinnati, temple and connecticut, we don't "need" an NCAA autobid. any team that wins that conference will get a bid. in fact the conference will get more than one bid - probably 3 minimum.

You're missing the whole point of the auto bid for power conferences. Conferences don't necessarily want auto bids because they "need" them. Auto bids give a purpose to the postseason tournament, which is a big money maker. The tournament becomes kind of pointless when there's nothing to shoot for. With the auto bid, the tournament has focus and is very meaningful for bubble teams and teams who otherwise have no hope.

The auto bid becomes a big deal not when one of the expected teams wins it, but when one of the unexpected teams does. Had UConn, for example, lost in the first round of the Big East tournament 2 years ago, they might not have even been invited to the NCAA tournament. Instead, they solidified their NCAA bid and jump started a run to the national championship.

Bottom line is that the auto bid gives the conference a shot at an extra invitation to the tournament that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

(02-11-2013 04:23 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 04:11 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 03:44 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Either way, the C-7 are prepared to leave with or without any bball credits so dissolvement rids their exit fees and gets them bball credits. They are only 1 vote away right? They have lots of incentive to flip UConn and/or Cincy to achieve this. So basically the self-interest is still there because they are walking regardless, all they have to do is negotiate with UConn to give them some of the bball money from dissolvement and vote on their side. Then they keep bball money they are willing to walk from, dont pay exit fee, and UConn gets to join their conference with Big East name and pocket some extra money from C-7

What happens to UConn football?

MWC, Indy, CUSA. Who knows, but basketball is their main sport and its better to have that in a power conference and football in a non-power conference or indy then both in non-power conferences and get paid less too

Is there any UConn fan who agrees with this?

(02-15-2013 09:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 04:23 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 04:11 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 03:44 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Either way, the C-7 are prepared to leave with or without any bball credits so dissolvement rids their exit fees and gets them bball credits. They are only 1 vote away right? They have lots of incentive to flip UConn and/or Cincy to achieve this. So basically the self-interest is still there because they are walking regardless, all they have to do is negotiate with UConn to give them some of the bball money from dissolvement and vote on their side. Then they keep bball money they are willing to walk from, dont pay exit fee, and UConn gets to join their conference with Big East name and pocket some extra money from C-7

What happens to UConn football?

MWC, Indy, CUSA. Who knows, but basketball is their main sport and its better to have that in a power conference and football in a non-power conference or indy then both in non-power conferences and get paid less too

Is there any UConn fan who agrees with this?

Cutting the football program immediately may enable us to join the C7. There is absolutely no reason to play FBS football any more.
http://www.the-boneyard.com/threads/shut...own.33510/