To you naysayers. I'll believe him before, I believe ya'll. Because it's all about the money. As far as the P5 are concerned the article by CBS Sports, pretty much says so.

Quote

"If money equals power, however, then the answer is a resounding yes. Sixty-five found the right side of the television revenue line, even if 30 or so aren't all that powerful." CBS Article where quote came from

The American needs to get on the rightside of the TV revenue money ledger, he understands this and is working hard to get that equation right. With his expertise, I'm sure he knows what type of money the American can get in the future, if things go according to plan. If the American shows this on the field of play; as well as the amount of eyeballs it attracts watching its games, then it will be the defacto P6. Aresco will get'er done.

So .... if I'm reading you right, the plan is to get a TV contract that pays each of our members 25 to 30 million a year and we'll be as powerful as the P5. Ingenious.

(05-29-2014 04:23 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  So .... if I'm reading you right, the plan is to get a TV contract that pays each of our members 25 to 30 million a year and we'll be as powerful as the P5. Ingenious.

Aresco: "We need more TV Money so that we can be P5"

TV Networks: "Go f___ yourself."

Fans....we need more fans.

(05-29-2014 04:23 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  So .... if I'm reading you right, the plan is to get a TV contract that pays each of our members 25 to 30 million a year and we'll be as powerful as the P5. Ingenious.

Crawl... Walk... Run... It's more appropriate, IMO.

Alright, so we need more AAC fans to be Nielsen TV families.

I don't see this ever being a power conference. The goal is to not be mentioned in the same breath with the MW, SB, CUSA, and MAC. Can we close the gap enough with the power conferences that we create some space between us and the rest of the G5. That should be the current goal.

Get to where we earn around half of what the P5 earn. Get to a 40K+ attendance average for the league. Establish a signature bowl for the conference where winning the AAC championship actually means you go to higher quality bowl than the 5th place finisher. In fact, we need to get to where at least the first and second place teams generally see a ranked opponent (or at least a 9-3/8-4 type P5 squad). All these goals are possible. If we can get these goals met and the playoffs expand to 8 in the futures, life in the AAC wouldn't be all that bad.

If the West (new division lineup) had the fan support that the East teams do, the AAC could probably command a bigger TV package. But the west has too many teams who draw flies to their games or don't watch these teams on TV.

I go back to the abysmal TV ratings in the Houston market for the huge, ESPN2 primetime game last year between UCF and Houston.

(05-29-2014 04:34 PM)UConnFB Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 04:23 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  So .... if I'm reading you right, the plan is to get a TV contract that pays each of our members 25 to 30 million a year and we'll be as powerful as the P5. Ingenious.

Aresco: "We need more TV Money so that we can be P5"

TV Networks: "Go f___ yourself."

"Good grief."

(05-29-2014 05:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The goal is to not be mentioned in the same breath with the MW, SB, CUSA, and MAC.

We're not. I can't remember the last time one of those conferences won a BCS bowl game and the Hoops National Championships in the same year (because they've never come remotely close) Those accomplishments speak to National relevance.

(05-29-2014 05:33 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 05:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The goal is to not be mentioned in the same breath with the MW, SB, CUSA, and MAC.

We're not. I can't remember the last time one of those conferences won a BCS bowl game and the Hoops National Championships in the same year (because they've never come remotely close) Those accomplishments speak to National relevance.

I don't disagree---but "G5" is a commonly used phrase. Plus, every poster on the other G5 boards pounds home the "we are all the same" argument. When we our media contract pays us around half of what the P5 makes---they wont be able to say that. When the AAC averages 40K in attendance---they wont be able to say that. When the AAC champ is guaranteed a solid signiture bowl for its post season destination---they wont be able to say that. When "G5" becomes "G4"----we will have succeeded.

(05-29-2014 05:23 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  If the West (new division lineup) had the fan support that the East teams do, the AAC could probably command a bigger TV package. But the west has too many teams who draw flies to their games or don't watch these teams on TV.

I go back to the abysmal TV ratings in the Houston market for the huge, ESPN2 primetime game last year between UCF and Houston.

The "A" schools are the only reason the current contract is even as high as it is.

(05-29-2014 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 05:23 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  If the West (new division lineup) had the fan support that the East teams do, the AAC could probably command a bigger TV package. But the west has too many teams who draw flies to their games or don't watch these teams on TV.

I go back to the abysmal TV ratings in the Houston market for the huge, ESPN2 primetime game last year between UCF and Houston.

The "A" schools are the only reason the current contract is even as high as it is.

Sounds like those "A" schools pull a lot of weight.

(05-29-2014 05:57 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 05:23 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  If the West (new division lineup) had the fan support that the East teams do, the AAC could probably command a bigger TV package. But the west has too many teams who draw flies to their games or don't watch these teams on TV.

I go back to the abysmal TV ratings in the Houston market for the huge, ESPN2 primetime game last year between UCF and Houston.

The "A" schools are the only reason the current contract is even as high as it is.

Sounds like those "A" schools pull a lot of weight.

They look better after several pitchers of beer.

(05-29-2014 05:33 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 05:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The goal is to not be mentioned in the same breath with the MW, SB, CUSA, and MAC.

We're not. I can't remember the last time one of those conferences won a BCS bowl game and the Hoops National Championships in the same year (because they've never come remotely close) Those accomplishments speak to National relevance.

Yes, but in football, the American is going to be grouped right now right along with the others as far as most people and media are concerned. One BCS win is not going to cut it (we've seen too many non-AQs win too) and hoops is a different animal all together. It's a good first step, but only the first step in getting to where the conference is viewed completely differently by most than the other G5.

Let's look at the general media/public view of the conferences before the last round or realignment.
(note: I'm emphasizing media/general public. Everyone is different, but this is viewpoint I think held among the greatest number of people):

1-5. SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC-10, ACC (note: by the end, SEC was clearly viewed as the best with various arguments for and against the others as #2).
-
6. Big East: The Big East was an AQ conference, but was generally thought the weakest by far (accurately or not, I'm only talking perception here). They did surprisingly well in BCS games, but biggest names were only equal to the 2nd level big names in other conferences (although West Virginia just about closed that gap at their height).
-
7. Mountain West: Some viewed this as actually stronger than the Big East, but in general was seen by the late 00s as far and way the strongest non-AQ, but still aways from the AQs.
--
---
--
8-11. Conference USA, WAC, MAC, Sunbelt: To the general public without a rooting interest, these were all essentially the same. Conference USA and the WAC were viewed a bit better with more intense audiences (Boise State helping the WAC a lot), but really I don't think I know many people who would have thought all that much different about any of these conferences.


After realignment, the order went to more like this for at least the short term:

1-5: SEC, Big Ten, ACC, PAC-12, Big 12
---
---
---
6-10.American, Mountain West, Conference USA, MAC, Sunbelt (among closer observing fans, the American and Mountain West are far stronger, but among the general public, it's pretty much a wash at this point).


The American's goal over the next half decade to decade should be to clearly re-establish the middle tier that used to exist and they can do that. Sustained success or at least a few solid seasons for multiple teams (that part is key, it can't be one program) is the key. If you get that, then you put the American as the clear #6 and the effect of that is huge.

Seriously, nobody cares about "Who's number 6." Nobody but the BE and MW cared about it in the "old days," but now really nobody cares about it now.

(05-29-2014 06:17 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Seriously, nobody cares about "Who's number 6." Nobody but the BE and MW cared about it in the "old days," but now really nobody cares about it now.

#7 cares. And I'm thinking #'s 8 - 10 care if they're farsighted. But yes --- the distance, as it stands, between #'s 1-5 and the rest is just too great to cause much concern with the former.

(05-29-2014 05:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I don't see this ever being a power conference. The goal is to not be mentioned in the same breath with the MW, SB, CUSA, and MAC. Can we close the gap enough with the power conferences that we create some space between us and the rest of the G5. That should be the current goal.

Get to where we earn around half of what the P5 earn. Get to a 40K+ attendance average for the league. Establish a signature bowl for the conference where winning the AAC championship actually means you go to higher quality bowl than the 5th place finisher. In fact, we need to get to where at least the first and second place teams generally see a ranked opponent (or at least a 9-3/8-4 type P5 squad). All these goals are possible. If we can get these goals met and the playoffs expand to 8 in the futures, life in the AAC wouldn't be all that bad.

Expand into the West! That will destroy the American's main competition, the MWC, and get the "best of the rest" into the same conference. Ie, UCF, BYU, Boise St., Fresno, Cincinnati, etc.

Get Boise St., Fresno St., and San Diego St. out of the MWC and into the American, along with BYU, and you would become the de facto Group of 5 champion filling the CFP spot year in and year out. The American champion would indeed face a ranked team every year, because you would be playing in the Cotton, Peach or Fiesta Bowl against a top-10 team.

I also think you go after UNLV and Colorado St. to add the Las Vegas and Denver markets to the fold - and take them away from the MWC. The American would become a behemoth 20+ team conference, but pods and conference championship games would help to build rivalries and quality matchups for the TV deal and help to balance scheduling.

You could then add the Las Vegas and Poinsettia Bowls and perhaps another California-based bowl game (Fight Hunger Bowl?) and Texas Bowl (keep the Armed Forces Bowl annually?) into the conference. (It's only scheduled for 2014 and 2018 season right now - but perfect spot to play Big 12 and Big Ten opponents)

UNLV, San Diego St., and BYU really help to enhance AAC basketball too.

(05-29-2014 06:50 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 06:17 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Seriously, nobody cares about "Who's number 6." Nobody but the BE and MW cared about it in the "old days," but now really nobody cares about it now.

#7 cares. And I'm thinking #'s 8 - 10 care if they're farsighted. But yes --- the distance, as it stands, between #'s 1-5 and the rest is just too great to cause much concern with the former.

Really? Is it really that big a comfort, for instance, that SMU finished #65 in the NCAA tournament committee's mind last season? Do you think that #66 is fretting over that? Or that people in general are sitting there the week after "Selection Sunday" remembering SMU as "the first team out" of the tourney field?

All "number six" means is that you're conference is not in the "Power" picture. That's it. And before it's all over, likely that will expand to also encompass "number five" as well...

(05-29-2014 05:23 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  If the West (new division lineup) had the fan support that the East teams do, the AAC could probably command a bigger TV package. But the west has too many teams who draw flies to their games or don't watch these teams on TV.

I go back to the abysmal TV ratings in the Houston market for the huge, ESPN2 primetime game last year between UCF and Houston.

Not trying to make excuses here, the Houston media has a whole lot to do with the dismal tv numbers as you put it. There was no media buildup, the week prior to the game, and to be quite frank (no disrespect here the people don't know anything about the AAC schools, who your opponent is, does matter, it's a tough nut to crack) Houston is B12 and fast becoming SEC country. is there room for a third one ? The American has its work cut out to gain market share from Houston CFB fans, especially for teams that most are not familiar with. One of our teams getting into the PO and winning FB NC would help tremendously ( system being rigged, probably just a pipe dream) like UConn winning BB NC. With that said, can the situation be improved and turned around? Time will tell, it's going to take a concerted marketing effort to change things. The American is a young conference that's fast making a name for itself, so it has upside. How much upside anyone's guess. Adding BYU, Air Force, Army (if they would commit to being more competitive on the field) with a no. 16? Possibly drop several of our current members ( if it makes sense after doing some in depth market analysis) for a more promising 16 team reconfiguration. The American could be looking at 8-16 million per ( IMHO I believe it will be towards the middle or high end) in the next contract. It would put the American into a different category from the rest of the G5.