(09-09-2013 10:53 AM)chrisiskingx Wrote:  Ah you sound like USF not wanting to let UCF in...

Gotcha though

You can stop right there. Aresco is only talking about Army and Air Force and those are the only two programs that I can ever remember him discussing.

I don't always troll...but when I do...it's always with ECU

(09-09-2013 11:05 AM)chrisiskingx Wrote:  I don't always troll...but when I do...it's always with ECU

Army will bring nothing to the AAC and only dilute the goal of good football. TO expand to 14 before six years is crazy. The only ones that make sense would be ODU and UNC-CHAR but they are not ready for primetime. These would be great 2020 targets.

(09-09-2013 10:37 AM)chrisiskingx Wrote:  What about... University of Charlotte?

Hell no.

(09-09-2013 08:02 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  But do they really increase our value? I don't think Navy and AF help the AAC and MWC TV deals very much and they actually play decent football.

Currently the Army/Navy game alone is worth 25% what the AAC total TV package is. To be fair I think it would be perfectly okay to sell that game by itself anyway and let them keep the money, it shows the value of those schools. Even if not good, they will still draw a certain audience. Hence why every Army and Navy home game is televised on CBS or CBS Sports.

(09-09-2013 08:48 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  I would assume Army and Navy would keep most of that money even if it was a conference game.

It is true that most likely Army/Navy would be left out of any revised contract. However the only knock on Army or Navy is if they can compete with other teams. Well to me that is not an issue. worst case scenario they are perpectual bottom dwellers. Well every conference has to have bottom dwellers anyway, right? Can you think of a better bottom dweller than either of those teams?

And that assumes the worse that they cannot compete.

(09-09-2013 10:44 AM)chrisiskingx Wrote:  Well isn't that a market? And if we're out scouting potential...I think they're a tad better than UMass in all aspects, plus them selling out their stadium although its one of the smaller stadiums in the country?

FIU has had crowds larger and is in a larger tv market so they would be one to consider as well. Probably could get them as a football only invite to boot.

(09-09-2013 03:23 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 10:44 AM)chrisiskingx Wrote:  Well isn't that a market? And if we're out scouting potential...I think they're a tad better than UMass in all aspects, plus them selling out their stadium although its one of the smaller stadiums in the country?

FIU has had crowds larger and is in a larger tv market so they would be one to consider as well. Probably could get them as a football only invite to boot.

After this past weekend of going to the UCF-FIU game i'll give a big HELL NO until they upgrade their crap facilities.

I've seen HIGH SCHOOL stadiums in better shape than FIU's at Alonso field.

Even the Jumbotron has this weird blue glitch line when watching replays.

I'd take FAU instead

(1) Speak with Houston and SMU to get their inputs. (2) I would like to see us go with 20 teams, 18 all sports by adding AFA, CSU, UNM, BSU, Fresno State, SDSU and either Wyoming, UTSA or UNLV.

I really thing that a merger will happen before 2020...

(09-09-2013 09:42 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  (1) Speak with Houston and SMU to get their inputs. (2) I would like to see us go with 20 teams, 18 all sports by adding AFA, CSU, UNM, BSU, Fresno State, SDSU and either Wyoming, UTSA or UNLV.

I really thing that a merger will happen before 2020...

You don't understand how close the western flank almost came to be

(09-09-2013 09:47 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 09:42 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  (1) Speak with Houston and SMU to get their inputs. (2) I would like to see us go with 20 teams, 18 all sports by adding AFA, CSU, UNM, BSU, Fresno State, SDSU and either Wyoming, UTSA or UNLV.

I really thing that a merger will happen before 2020...

You don't understand how close the western flank almost came to be

I wished we could have pulled it off. I think the only way it happens now is if it's the necessary to get a group of G-5 schools included in D-4.

Interesting statement that the AAC school presidents would not give in to Boise States request for special treatment regarding their football TV broadcast (like the MWC did).

UMass needs to get its head straight on athletics before given consideration

But boy, UMass has tons of upside!

(09-10-2013 05:35 AM)AGuyIn_Water Wrote:  UMass needs to get its head straight on athletics before given consideration

But boy, UMass has tons of upside!

Unfortunately, UMass is actually going backwards in football. Other than lip service, they are not doing anything concrete that will improve the situation.

One thing worth mentioning (didn't want to start a new topic for it). There are a few posters here who derided everything Aresco did, including saying that he should have waited to sign a new TV deal (which means going dark in basketball this year BTW). Just curious, a few weeks in, does anyone still think that would have been a good idea? Can you imagine what type of deal he would be looking at if he were trying to sell a TV package now?

And that my friends is why you don't sign a short term TV deal. If you think it's bad now, selling the contract right after two more teams left and the C7 split, imagine what the situation would be like trying the league to a network now?

(09-09-2013 12:11 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 11:05 AM)chrisiskingx Wrote:  I don't always troll...but when I do...it's always with ECU

Army will bring nothing to the AAC and only dilute the goal of good football. TO expand to 14 before six years is crazy. The only ones that make sense would be ODU and UNC-CHAR but they are not ready for primetime. These would be great 2020 targets.

Army brings money. CBS currently pays $5,000,000 per season to televise the Army Navy game.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/...in-sports/

The Forbes article title says it all, "Army Versus Navy: The Most Undervalued Television Deal In Sports"

(09-10-2013 10:26 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  One thing worth mentioning (didn't want to start a new topic for it). There are a few posters here who derided everything Aresco did, including saying that he should have waited to sign a new TV deal (which means going dark in basketball this year BTW). Just curious, a few weeks in, does anyone still think that would have been a good idea? Can you imagine what type of deal he would be looking at if he were trying to sell a TV package now?

And that my friends is why you don't sign a short term TV deal. If you think it's bad now, selling the contract right after two more teams left and the C7 split, imagine what the situation would be like trying the league to a network now?

Losing a few games early has no bearing on our network worth.

So you are saying that the American now is in a stronger position than it was seven months ago from a TV perspective? Also I am looking at attendance. And early perceptions. And viewership

Also, current state of affairs for a league struggling to be marquee most certainly does affect the network worth. For an established brand in a down cycle? You'd have a point. Case in point the Big Ten. But as a new brand, yes current state of affairs most certainly matters. Just look at the Big East circa 2003...

(09-10-2013 10:26 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  One thing worth mentioning (didn't want to start a new topic for it). There are a few posters here who derided everything Aresco did, including saying that he should have waited to sign a new TV deal (which means going dark in basketball this year BTW). Just curious, a few weeks in, does anyone still think that would have been a good idea? Can you imagine what type of deal he would be looking at if he were trying to sell a TV package now?

And that my friends is why you don't sign a short term TV deal. If you think it's bad now, selling the contract right after two more teams left and the C7 split, imagine what the situation would be like trying the league to a network now?

You mean we have less value now that the perception is that the ACC GOR has stabilized the situation? Can't say I agree with your view.

(09-10-2013 10:51 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  So you are saying that the American now is in a stronger position than it was seven months ago from a TV perspective? Also I am looking at attendance. And early perceptions. And viewership

Also, current state of affairs for a league struggling to be marquee most certainly does affect the network worth. For an established brand in a down cycle? You'd have a point. Case in point the Big Ten. But as a new brand, yes current state of affairs most certainly matters. Just look at the Big East circa 2003...

Not a great start, but the unanswered question is---What were the ratings for the televised games? If they were better than expected, we could very well be in an excellent position. I actually haven't seen any information on that.

(09-10-2013 11:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You mean we have less value now that the perception is that the ACC GOR has stabilized the situation? Can't say I agree with your view.

I mean less value because it is easier to sell potential than bad results. Even if a small sample size, it's the type that can kill you. Same thing happened to the old Big East. From 2005-2010 the league was great. But we never got over the perception hits from the awful 2004 season. One of my many reasons for hating Memphis.