(04-01-2014 06:39 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 06:07 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 03:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 02:25 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I agree that this is a very good comparison. Critically for the American, though, it has raised its profile substantially from that of CUSA v1.0 by virtue of its history - evolving from the formerly AQ Big East Conference, so it has quote a bit more football cred out of the gate.

Agree---and it also has something else that the original CUSA never had---a near P5 level of television exposure.

Its hard to claim the same program is better. And I would say if Cincinnati is better, ECU is weaker, Houston is the same, Tulane is further removed from their 1998 season and so is weaker. USF and Memphis are the same. Tulsa didn't win the CUSA last year. They aren't as good as USM was in 2003. TCU was beginning a decade where they were top 10 in winning % (I think 4th) and would win 2 BCS bowls. UCF's one good season doesn't compare to that. UConn isn't as good as UL was in 2003. UAB and Temple are a wash in football. That leaves SMU which drags down the average. I would say AAC is weaker in football than the CUSA 2003-5, even if it is a little better overall in basketball. And all of the schools are a decade and a half into the non-BCS/BCS label which really created more of a gap between the now "P5" and "G5."

I think the AAC's hope is to build its basketball to keep them in the eye all year round and eliminate any basketball distinction between them and the P5 and use that publicity to help build the football programs.

Posting blind folded, but that's okay... Exposure is a huge advantage for every school who wants to succeed or compete with others... You and I know football is king in Texas and if no one is watching you on tv, how will anyone know you're better or not.

I know you don't want to hear this, but Houston has greatly improved... It's okay, you're a horn and I don't expect you to know.

With the increased exposure, how were TV ratings in Houston? How was attendance? Yes, I know UH fans either had to increase/decrease their travel by 5 miles playing at Reliant & BBVA but no reason to see a 3k drop from 2012.

Why does it matter to you what happens in Houston? You don't care about the program or the city, so you are better off just f*cking off.

(04-02-2014 10:42 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 06:39 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 06:07 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 03:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Agree---and it also has something else that the original CUSA never had---a near P5 level of television exposure.

Its hard to claim the same program is better. And I would say if Cincinnati is better, ECU is weaker, Houston is the same, Tulane is further removed from their 1998 season and so is weaker. USF and Memphis are the same. Tulsa didn't win the CUSA last year. They aren't as good as USM was in 2003. TCU was beginning a decade where they were top 10 in winning % (I think 4th) and would win 2 BCS bowls. UCF's one good season doesn't compare to that. UConn isn't as good as UL was in 2003. UAB and Temple are a wash in football. That leaves SMU which drags down the average. I would say AAC is weaker in football than the CUSA 2003-5, even if it is a little better overall in basketball. And all of the schools are a decade and a half into the non-BCS/BCS label which really created more of a gap between the now "P5" and "G5."

I think the AAC's hope is to build its basketball to keep them in the eye all year round and eliminate any basketball distinction between them and the P5 and use that publicity to help build the football programs.

Posting blind folded, but that's okay... Exposure is a huge advantage for every school who wants to succeed or compete with others... You and I know football is king in Texas and if no one is watching you on tv, how will anyone know you're better or not.

I know you don't want to hear this, but Houston has greatly improved... It's okay, you're a horn and I don't expect you to know.

With the increased exposure, how were TV ratings in Houston? How was attendance? Yes, I know UH fans either had to increase/decrease their travel by 5 miles playing at Reliant & BBVA but no reason to see a 3k drop from 2012.

Why does it matter to you what happens in Houston? You don't care about the program or the city, so you are better off just f*cking off.

Nice. Big said Houston has improved with the increased exposure and better opponents. I just wondered if TV ratings and attendance supported that idea?

(04-01-2014 11:52 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  When it comes time for the look-in period, the AAC should tell ESPiN "You can add as many years to the contract you wish, if the number does not say 220m/18m(ish) per, then go away and we'll talk in 3 years." I'd also add, "Just keep in mind, fellas, the number WILL go up. So you'd be well advised to "talk turkey" now." What are they gonna do that they haven't already done to this conference, under the scenario I just presented.

What they haven't already done is tell the AAC to put it where the sun don't shine. Which is what they would do if the AAC made a demand like that.

If, at the end of the current deal, the AAC could somehow get $5 million per school, they would be celebrating like they had just won the lottery.

The Big East more or less did that and we know what happened to the Big East.

(04-03-2014 02:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Big East more or less did that and we know what happened to the Big East.

Yes ... the old Big East that is, and what happened was the American ended up with the contract people are whinging about, and the "Big East" named handed over to someone else in return for leaving the rump of the old Big East with the NCAA unit income of the schools that left for the ACC.

The new Big East, by contrast, got an offer for a good amount of money, and so they took it, and now they aren't fussing about how to increase their media payment in the short term.

5-7 million is the aac goal....another season like this and I think it's attainable

It would almost be stupid for fox not to go after the AAC next time around. If they could get the AAC for all sports keep the Big East and improve on what they have with power conferences that would be formidable.

If the AAC keeps up the pace it's running at right now they will at a minimum see five million per full member when it's time to renegotiate. Anyone will watch a winner.

(04-02-2014 09:37 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 09:20 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 06:52 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  DefConn, no one is giving the American 18 mil. The P5 made sure of that when they kicked the BE out. If the American could jump it to 7 to 12 they should be ecstatic. That would put us in a true tweener spot. Enough above gang 5 for separation, and though way below P5 enough to stay competitive.

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^should never be allowed to happen^^^^^^^

Give the AAC 18m/220m now or pay more later. Aresco's got connections, allegedly; so why isn't he parroting the dollar amount I'm proposing? Oh, that's right, he and 8 of the 12 schools want to be a 2nd rate conference.

I really doubt your an actual Uconn fan. The AAC will never get 18 million. 5 to 10 is realistic with good basketball and decent football. I honestly don't think the Pac12 even should make that much money.

The key to a new contract is really what is included. First, it should not include any women's basketball. There is only one program worth any money, there is no reason they should be subsidizing the rest of the league in that sport - it was pretty much a give-away to ESPN.

Second, Tier 3 needs to be out. Some schools that have value in that (Memphis, UConn, Cinci), but they were sacrificed so that Tulsa could get another couple thousand dollars - that cannot happen again. I can't speak intelligently for Memphis/Cinci, but under our old contract, the women's Tier 3 rights were worth about ~$1.5m/year to SNY; I would have to assume the men are worth about $3M (maybe more after this season). So that is $4.5m right now, not counting football.

(03-30-2014 10:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  if i may say.....

the aac dodged a bullet on the sdsu/bsu thing

SDSU seems to be on the rise but historically are nothing. Special.

Boise made their name in bottom conferences which the MWC qualifies as after the top teams left. Boise is also bottom five academically in FBS .

UNLV and CSU are building new stadiums add them and New Mexico along with Air Force.

West divisions. East division

Air Force. Uconn
CSU. Cinncy
NEW MEXICO. Temple
UNLV. Navy
HOUSTON. ECU
SMU. Memphis
Tulsa. UCF
Tulane USF

Damn phone left teams in West East on right.

(04-06-2014 05:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  The key to a new contract is really what is included. First, it should not include any women's basketball. There is only one program worth any money, there is no reason they should be subsidizing the rest of the league in that sport - it was pretty much a give-away to ESPN.

Second, Tier 3 needs to be out. Some schools that have value in that (Memphis, UConn, Cinci), but they were sacrificed so that Tulsa could get another couple thousand dollars - that cannot happen again. I can't speak intelligently for Memphis/Cinci, but under our old contract, the women's Tier 3 rights were worth about ~$1.5m/year to SNY; I would have to assume the men are worth about $3M (maybe more after this season). So that is $4.5m right now, not counting football.

Not to sound too dense, but what school is SNY?

(04-06-2014 06:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 05:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  The key to a new contract is really what is included. First, it should not include any women's basketball. There is only one program worth any money, there is no reason they should be subsidizing the rest of the league in that sport - it was pretty much a give-away to ESPN.

Second, Tier 3 needs to be out. Some schools that have value in that (Memphis, UConn, Cinci), but they were sacrificed so that Tulsa could get another couple thousand dollars - that cannot happen again. I can't speak intelligently for Memphis/Cinci, but under our old contract, the women's Tier 3 rights were worth about ~$1.5m/year to SNY; I would have to assume the men are worth about $3M (maybe more after this season). So that is $4.5m right now, not counting football.

Not to sound too dense, but what school is SNY?

I think it's Sportsnet of New York.

(04-06-2014 07:32 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 06:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 05:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  The key to a new contract is really what is included. First, it should not include any women's basketball. There is only one program worth any money, there is no reason they should be subsidizing the rest of the league in that sport - it was pretty much a give-away to ESPN.

Second, Tier 3 needs to be out. Some schools that have value in that (Memphis, UConn, Cinci), but they were sacrificed so that Tulsa could get another couple thousand dollars - that cannot happen again. I can't speak intelligently for Memphis/Cinci, but under our old contract, the women's Tier 3 rights were worth about ~$1.5m/year to SNY; I would have to assume the men are worth about $3M (maybe more after this season). So that is $4.5m right now, not counting football.

Not to sound too dense, but what school is SNY?

I think it's Sportsnet of New York.

Correct. ECU is another good example, I have to imagine T3 football can be worth a few bucks to you guys.

I think the AAC is a fine conference, it won't ever be a power conference but there is no reason it can't get $5-$7 million per school for its next TV contract.

Stay on ESPN is probably the best move too.

I like the idea brought up earlier about adding the Front Range schools from the MWC, would have been better than adding Tulane and Tulsa IMO.

(04-06-2014 08:01 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 07:32 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 06:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 05:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  The key to a new contract is really what is included. First, it should not include any women's basketball. There is only one program worth any money, there is no reason they should be subsidizing the rest of the league in that sport - it was pretty much a give-away to ESPN.

Second, Tier 3 needs to be out. Some schools that have value in that (Memphis, UConn, Cinci), but they were sacrificed so that Tulsa could get another couple thousand dollars - that cannot happen again. I can't speak intelligently for Memphis/Cinci, but under our old contract, the women's Tier 3 rights were worth about ~$1.5m/year to SNY; I would have to assume the men are worth about $3M (maybe more after this season). So that is $4.5m right now, not counting football.

Not to sound too dense, but what school is SNY?

I think it's Sportsnet of New York.

Correct. ECU is another good example, I have to imagine T3 football can be worth a few bucks to you guys.

When we were indy we contracted with ESPN before joining Cusa. Not sure what kind of deal we got compared to other teams at the time...but we played a lot of big games. I'm younger and I find it amusing when I look for old clips because they're all on ESPN or ESPN2. Many on this board feel the opposite of you..I guess we'll see which games get picked up next year. So far 1 ESPN(ucf) and a ESPNU(UConn) at home.

I do feel like our regional fox sports network would pick up some Baseball games. They have in Cusa. Would be nice to have that extra $$.

If there is a new contract I want us to retain the rights to any sports they're not going to air, but I'm not sure how it works.

You know, after some thought I wonder if the AAC could become the 6th conference solution. Add UMass and Army to give the conference a decidedly east coast market then hit the MWC front and invite New Mexico, Colorado State, Air Force and see if that can lure BYU and hit pay dirt on the TV re-opener (maybe get $8-$10 million per school).

I know that's 18 teams, and some have mentioned a larger merger between the AAC and MWC as being viable, but why? The AAC can do it on their own. That may get ESPN to open up the deal and offer even better money for a 3 time zone product (the Pacific Time zone is a bridge too far and I don't think it's needed).

The value? 1) Army, Navy and Air Force in the same "American" conference; 2) Cincy, ECU, UCF, UH, BYU, Navy and Air Force provide a good football base; 3) Cincy, Memphis, UConn, UMass, New Mexico and BYU provide serious MBB chops. It also may get the endorsement of the P5 so they can split off and take the AAC along with them to avoid a lot of legal heartburn. Additionally it kills off the competition from the MWC, CUSA, Sun Belt, MAC and everyone else.

To survive you have to take out the competition, there's your blue print Mr. Aresco.

(04-07-2014 12:24 AM)Waterloo Wrote:  You know, after some thought I wonder if the AAC could become the 6th conference solution. Add UMass and Army ...

Hold up there ... why does Army want to be added again?

(1) Its the functional equivalent of the version of CUSA that they couldn't compete in and decided they had to leave ...

(2) ... and on top of that, losing the Army-Navy game from the post-CCG weekend, due to it being an in-conference game, therefore potentially affecting the CCG race, therefore having to be played before the CCG weekend.

If UMass + Army is the foundation for your plan, go back to the drawing board and draw up a new plan.

Given the push back by cable and satellite to stop paying more for content while they watch more and more people cut the cord I doubt anyone sees a big jump in future TV contracts.

The model is going to have to change before too long if the TV cash bubble pops

(03-30-2014 06:46 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 06:45 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 06:39 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Why would they bump our pay way up and when do you figure this is going to happen ?

Because we have a look-in soon and I would imagine Aresco pushes for more money at that point. We have a short term tv contract.

As to why, performance, maturity of programs, more stability.....

Army and Air Force....

I don't get the fascination with Army and Air Force...they add NOTHING

Army wouldn't even be all sports....why do you want sports teams with a low ceiling?

The #1 choice is BYU....they are what the American Conference needs.....

short of BYU, New Mexico and Colorado State would add to the West wing well, and eat in to the MW...