Just my opinion, but due to conferences splitting bowls and trying to avoid bowl fatigue, the six year agreements worked. IE: ACC/B10 with Gator/Music, BOBB 3 years CUSA and 3 years ACC. B10/B12 with the Dallas and Ft Worth bowls.

(04-24-2014 01:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:28 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:41 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:35 PM)UConnFB Wrote:  You sell the sponsorship with argument that a higher payout will produce a better matchup.

It's a chicken or the egg situation. I have my doubts why a sponsor would pay more on the premise that they might get a better matchup, the relationship typically works the other way int eh marketing world. We saw what happened when Aresco tried to sell this conference to NBCS and ESPN. Though, I concede after this year the value is higher, which sort of makes my point why he should have kept the bowl commitment time table as small as possible. I am sure this bowl would look a lot better to sponsors after the exposure the AAC received this year.

All bowls were 6 years commitments. It wouldn't do any good to have a 3 year commitment if all the conferences are all tied up with 6 years bowl commitments elsewhere. In other words, in 2016--there wont be any conferences open to sign a new commitment to the Miami Bowl as they are all still under contract to other bowls until the end of the current 6 year cycle.

As for increasing the bowl payout--that is part of the negotiation process. You don't raise the pay out publically until you know what you are paying for. You negotiate with a P5 conference to find a number where they say "yes" and then you raise your bowl payout to that number. By the way, both parties need not receive the same amount. The payout could be 4 million with the SEC school receiving 3 million and the AAC school receiving 1 million. The AAC school might have lower ticket and occupancy requirements making it a solid deal none the less.

The key is the Miami Bowl is the one place we can develop into a solid signature Bowl for the AAC without fear that another conference will take it away. We own it. Its not going anywhere.

Wait, what? All bowls might be six years (would like to see proof) but they are not all renegotiated the same year, no (again proof would help)?

Look it up. Every bowl just renegotiated its conference ties during the last year or so--all for 6 year periods. The only ones I am aware of that did not are new bowls that are still forming (the Cure Bowl in this case only signed a 5 year deal because it begins in 2015 rather than 2014--however its deal will end at the same time as the other bowls). There are some odd 1 and 2 year deals signed with some of the Indys like BYU and Army---but those are largely down in the context of a component in a 6 year bowl cycle.

I learned something new today.....

(04-24-2014 11:02 AM)natibeast21 Wrote:  Yeah makes total sense for Uconn to pay up to help schools that had nothing to do with their success this year

kinda like vandy getting a cut of money bama makes....oh wait...that does happen



because they are in the same conference. what a novel idea.

(04-24-2014 08:42 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:02 AM)natibeast21 Wrote:  Yeah makes total sense for Uconn to pay up to help schools that had nothing to do with their success this year

kinda like vandy getting a cut of money bama makes....oh wait...that does happen



because they are in the same conference. what a novel idea.

Yes. Because they ARE in the same conference. Tulsa, Tulane, and ECU are NOT in the AAC yet.

As of July 1, that changes.

(By the way, that works for Memphis' money as well... Memphis should feel absolutely free to share their tournament money with Tulane if they so desire...)