Miami (Oh) Yeah !
All American
Posts: 4,616
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 141
I Root For: Collar Popping
Location:
|
McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
|
|
07-11-2013 05:19 PM |
|
ohio1317
Moderator
Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - AAC bowl lineup will be no better than MWC
To be fair, I didn't get that same impression. He said, "bowl lineup still TBA for American, media rights $ about same, don't have excessive travel costs & keep all sports in same league." For those two, everything on there except bowls made more sense with the Mountain West and the bowls line-up is still work in progress for now.
|
|
07-11-2013 05:22 PM |
|
CliftonAve
Heisman
Posts: 21,880
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1171
I Root For: Jimmy Nippert
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - AAC bowl lineup will be no better than MWC
|
|
07-11-2013 05:31 PM |
|
RobUCF
1st String
Posts: 1,337
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 104
I Root For: UCF
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
|
RE: McMurphy - AAC bowl lineup will be no better than MWC
(07-11-2013 05:22 PM)ohio1317 Wrote: To be fair, I didn't get that same impression. He said, "bowl lineup still TBA for American, media rights $ about same, don't have excessive travel costs & keep all sports in same league." For those two, everything on there except bowls made more sense with the Mountain West and the bowls line-up is still work in progress for now.
I agree, all McMurphy stated was that the AAC bowl lineup was TBA and with other considerations (travel costs, keeping sports in same league, etc.), they do not regret their choice. Nowhere did he state that the AAC bowl lineup will not be better...
|
|
07-11-2013 05:31 PM |
|
monarchman
1st String
Posts: 1,639
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - AAC bowl lineup will be no better than MWC
Misleading thread title.
"Bowl lineup still TBA for American" says it all.
|
|
07-11-2013 05:40 PM |
|
Attackcoog
Moderator
Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
Boise is going to make 3 million a year probably. That's more than they would have earned in the AAC and they done have the extensive travel and they don't throw their Olympic sports under a bus. Keep in mind, Boise was going to have to pay about 900K in travel subsidies a year just to be in the modest little Big West conference. The move to stay in the MW makes a lot of sense for them regardless of the final bowl outcome.
SDSU doesn't get as much of a financial boost, but they probably are better off too--especially if the AAC wasn't going to add anymore western teams.
|
|
07-11-2013 06:02 PM |
|
johnbragg
Five Minute Google Expert
Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
Is it rude to say that Boise isn't concerned with the MWC bowls besides the Las Vegas and maybe Poinsettia? They're not going to be playing in the New Mexico Bowl or Armed Forces Bowl, or substituting for a 5-7 UH in the Hawaii Bowl.
You could always say, though, that AAC + Boise would have had better bowls than AAC or MWC + Boise.
|
|
07-11-2013 07:14 PM |
|
BullsFanInTX
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,485
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 338
I Root For: USF
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
McMurphy's opinions only. Nowhere does he state he is speaking for Boise and SDSU. They probably are glad to be in MWC, despite AAC having (potentially) better bowls. Mainly due to all sports being in one conf.
|
|
07-11-2013 07:28 PM |
|
BullsFanInTX
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,485
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 338
I Root For: USF
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
(07-11-2013 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Boise is going to make 3 million a year probably. That's more than they would have earned in the AAC and they done have the extensive travel and they don't throw their Olympic sports under a bus. Keep in mind, Boise was going to have to pay about 900K in travel subsidies a year just to be in the modest little Big West conference. The move to stay in the MW makes a lot of sense for them regardless of the final bowl outcome.
SDSU doesn't get as much of a financial boost, but they probably are better off too--especially if the AAC wasn't going to add anymore western teams.
Tulsa's prez stated that when they joined they would make 3.5-4 mil a year in AAC. Aresco has stated several times AAC revenue is under reported. We have never seen a firm figure for revenues.
|
|
07-11-2013 07:30 PM |
|
UConn-SMU
often wrong, never in doubt
Posts: 12,961
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 373
I Root For: the AAC
Location: Fuzzy's Taco Shop
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
Two reasons why they could be happier in the MWC than the AAC:
1) Travel expenses.
2) Easier path to a conference championship.
|
|
07-11-2013 07:46 PM |
|
Hokie Mark
Hall of Famer
Posts: 23,724
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
less travel is obvious, but not having to find a separate home(s) for your other sports is also a big factor, IMO. This way Boise & SDSU can play all sports in the Mtn West.
|
|
07-11-2013 07:49 PM |
|
OrangeCrush22
Heisman
Posts: 6,426
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
Staying in the MWC is huge for their non-football sports, specifically basketball. Their programs would have died in the Big West. Eight of eleven MWC members have basketball arenas exceeding 10k in capacity, four of which exceed 15k. The Big West has one of nine members with a capacity exceeding 10k (Hawaii).
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 08:11 PM by OrangeCrush22.)
|
|
07-11-2013 08:10 PM |
|
Attackcoog
Moderator
Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
(07-11-2013 07:30 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: (07-11-2013 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Boise is going to make 3 million a year probably. That's more than they would have earned in the AAC and they done have the extensive travel and they don't throw their Olympic sports under a bus. Keep in mind, Boise was going to have to pay about 900K in travel subsidies a year just to be in the modest little Big West conference. The move to stay in the MW makes a lot of sense for them regardless of the final bowl outcome.
SDSU doesn't get as much of a financial boost, but they probably are better off too--especially if the AAC wasn't going to add anymore western teams.
Tulsa's prez stated that when they joined they would make 3.5-4 mil a year in AAC. Aresco has stated several times AAC revenue is under reported. We have never seen a firm figure for revenues.
I never said what the AAC revenue was, but I'll use your best number.
Keep in mind, Boise was football only. They would not have participated in NCAA basketball credits and would have only received a partial share of media money and exit fees. Whatever the AAC income is, Boise was only going to make about 70% of what the full members make. Same goes for SDSU. So even if we make 4 million each, Boise would have only received 2.8 million. Plus they would be paying 900K in travel subsidies in the Big West. So effectively, Boise would have been netting 1.9 million a year by the most optimistic figures floated by Tulsa.
That doesn't even count the extra travel costs and the demotion of their Olympic sports to the Big West. Without a western all sports AAC western division, the AAC's current media contract just didn't work for Boise. The move was made with the assumption that AAC schools would make at least 6.8 million a year--when we were no where near that number, the original strategy was dead.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 08:15 PM by Attackcoog.)
|
|
07-11-2013 08:12 PM |
|
johnbragg
Five Minute Google Expert
Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
(07-11-2013 08:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (07-11-2013 07:30 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: (07-11-2013 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Boise is going to make 3 million a year probably. That's more than they would have earned in the AAC and they done have the extensive travel and they don't throw their Olympic sports under a bus. Keep in mind, Boise was going to have to pay about 900K in travel subsidies a year just to be in the modest little Big West conference. The move to stay in the MW makes a lot of sense for them regardless of the final bowl outcome.
SDSU doesn't get as much of a financial boost, but they probably are better off too--especially if the AAC wasn't going to add anymore western teams.
Tulsa's prez stated that when they joined they would make 3.5-4 mil a year in AAC. Aresco has stated several times AAC revenue is under reported. We have never seen a firm figure for revenues.
I never said what the AAC revenue was, but I'll use your best number.
Keep in mind, Boise was football only. They would not have participated in NCAA basketball credits and would have only received a partial share of media money and exit fees. Whatever the AAC income is, Boise was only going to make about 70% of what the full members make. Same goes for SDSU. So even if we make 4 million each, Boise would have only received 2.8 million. Plus they would be paying 900K in travel subsidies in the Big West. So effectively, Boise would have been netting 1.9 million a year by the most optimistic figures floated by Tulsa.
That doesn't even count the extra travel costs and the demotion of their Olympic sports to the Big West. Without a western all sports AAC western division, the AAC's current media contract just didn't work for Boise. The move was made with the assumption that AAC schools would make at least 6.8 million a year--when we were no where near that number, the original strategy was dead.
Unless y'all were willing to kick in a significant bribe to Boise to stay, which you weren't.
|
|
07-11-2013 08:40 PM |
|
Wedge
Moderator
Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
(07-11-2013 07:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote: Is it rude to say that Boise isn't concerned with the MWC bowls besides the Las Vegas and maybe Poinsettia? They're not going to be playing in the New Mexico Bowl or Armed Forces Bowl, or substituting for a 5-7 UH in the Hawaii Bowl.
I could see Boise in a Hawaii Bowl every so often. If they're not cracking into the CFP, playing in the same two games every year will get old. They won't want to play in the Hawaii Bowl in a year when they play a regular-season game there, but Boise will have only one regular-season game at Hawaii every four years.
|
|
07-11-2013 09:03 PM |
|
BullsFanInTX
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,485
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 338
I Root For: USF
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
(07-11-2013 08:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (07-11-2013 07:30 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: (07-11-2013 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Boise is going to make 3 million a year probably. That's more than they would have earned in the AAC and they done have the extensive travel and they don't throw their Olympic sports under a bus. Keep in mind, Boise was going to have to pay about 900K in travel subsidies a year just to be in the modest little Big West conference. The move to stay in the MW makes a lot of sense for them regardless of the final bowl outcome.
SDSU doesn't get as much of a financial boost, but they probably are better off too--especially if the AAC wasn't going to add anymore western teams.
Tulsa's prez stated that when they joined they would make 3.5-4 mil a year in AAC. Aresco has stated several times AAC revenue is under reported. We have never seen a firm figure for revenues.
I never said what the AAC revenue was, but I'll use your best number.
Keep in mind, Boise was football only. They would not have participated in NCAA basketball credits and would have only received a partial share of media money and exit fees. Whatever the AAC income is, Boise was only going to make about 70% of what the full members make. Same goes for SDSU. So even if we make 4 million each, Boise would have only received 2.8 million. Plus they would be paying 900K in travel subsidies in the Big West. So effectively, Boise would have been netting 1.9 million a year by the most optimistic figures floated by Tulsa.
That doesn't even count the extra travel costs and the demotion of their Olympic sports to the Big West. Without a western all sports AAC western division, the AAC's current media contract just didn't work for Boise. The move was made with the assumption that AAC schools would make at least 6.8 million a year--when we were no where near that number, the original strategy was dead.
One thing your forgetting, AAC/BE TV money would been greater than it currently is had Boise and SDSU stayed in BE. How much more, we'll never know. We're using AAC figures based on a league currently without them.
|
|
07-11-2013 09:08 PM |
|
Bones N Skulls
2nd String
Posts: 296
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 9
I Root For: ECU
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
|
|
07-11-2013 09:21 PM |
|
Attackcoog
Moderator
Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
(07-11-2013 09:08 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: (07-11-2013 08:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (07-11-2013 07:30 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: (07-11-2013 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Boise is going to make 3 million a year probably. That's more than they would have earned in the AAC and they done have the extensive travel and they don't throw their Olympic sports under a bus. Keep in mind, Boise was going to have to pay about 900K in travel subsidies a year just to be in the modest little Big West conference. The move to stay in the MW makes a lot of sense for them regardless of the final bowl outcome.
SDSU doesn't get as much of a financial boost, but they probably are better off too--especially if the AAC wasn't going to add anymore western teams.
Tulsa's prez stated that when they joined they would make 3.5-4 mil a year in AAC. Aresco has stated several times AAC revenue is under reported. We have never seen a firm figure for revenues.
I never said what the AAC revenue was, but I'll use your best number.
Keep in mind, Boise was football only. They would not have participated in NCAA basketball credits and would have only received a partial share of media money and exit fees. Whatever the AAC income is, Boise was only going to make about 70% of what the full members make. Same goes for SDSU. So even if we make 4 million each, Boise would have only received 2.8 million. Plus they would be paying 900K in travel subsidies in the Big West. So effectively, Boise would have been netting 1.9 million a year by the most optimistic figures floated by Tulsa.
That doesn't even count the extra travel costs and the demotion of their Olympic sports to the Big West. Without a western all sports AAC western division, the AAC's current media contract just didn't work for Boise. The move was made with the assumption that AAC schools would make at least 6.8 million a year--when we were no where near that number, the original strategy was dead.
One thing your forgetting, AAC/BE TV money would been greater than it currently is had Boise and SDSU stayed in BE. How much more, we'll never know. We're using AAC figures based on a league currently without them.
I do think the money would have been better with Boise. My preference was an aggressive all sports westward push. I think if we had added Fresno, New Mexico, and UNLV to go with Boise and SDSU as all sports members, we would have made more money and been a more relevant league. Not only that, but I think we would have won the non-AQ slot so often that we would have been seen as a quasi-AQ league. It think it would have been a pretty good basketball league with UNLV, New Mexico, and SDSU out west. We could have even added VCU in the east and BYU in the west as Olympic only members. That league would have 8 bids most years.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 09:30 PM by Attackcoog.)
|
|
07-11-2013 09:29 PM |
|
Underdog
All American
Posts: 2,747
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 124
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 09:10 AM by Underdog.)
|
|
07-12-2013 09:05 AM |
|
CardinalJim
Welcome to The New Age
Posts: 16,476
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 2968
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Staffordsville, KY
|
RE: McMurphy - Boise and SDSU glad they didn't stick around AAC
Seriously?
Talk about stretching something for effect.
The American will be fine. Perhaps now, once all this conference realignment stuff settles down, The AAC will be able to grow into what The Big East has never been: a stable conference. Like Mick Cronin pointed out in the ESPN article. Most kids don't care what conference you are in. They are more concerned about how you can help them reach their dreams of making it to the next level. Most recruits can't tell you whose in a conference.
The reality all this conference realignment stuff is for the fans and media. It's the opportunity for the media have something to talk about while fans point fingers at each other.
CJ
|
|
07-12-2013 10:23 AM |
|