(06-27-2014 06:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:50 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  No, you aren't factoring in the value of the media deal that Boise brought. All schools are making more than if Boise had not rejoined.

cbssports after boise left released a statement that it wouldn't affect their tv deal and that they still planned on signing a 4/5 year extension with them for the exact same amount of money

cbssports last decent conference to air was the mwc (after the c-usa raid), even without boise..cbssports wasn't just going to stop airing college games, and no other realistic rights are opening for 6 years (they can't afford big 10)

and they weren't going to reduce the money as to give incentive to for teams to stay with the MWC
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/I...State.aspx
But a source said that the deal "does not affect CBS' four-year option after the deal is up." In other words, the MWC "likely won't be a free agent

boise didn't add any value to the MWC media deal it just robbed the smaller teams of close to a million.

The CBS deal did not change, but that's because the MWC was able to package Boise's games separately in a deal with ESPN:

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...agreement/

i get that but core deal which is the more majority of their tv money was basically unaffected by boises departure

the money from that deal was extremely small especially when divided, that deal was meant for boise's exposure (part of the "sweeheart" deal) that deal wasn't for profits

you are an aresco hater, but the right decision was made..we're all in this together

No way you give a team like Boise St a special deal unless the rest of the conference is hanging on by a thread.... Much Like the Texas and Big 12 deal. There is no way you can say the MWC wasn't hanging on by a thread when they gave them this deal. Not to mention Boise St really isn't that special and are in the middle of absolutely nowhere. If they ever have a couple of bad seasons because of a bad coach hire they will be buried for years out there in the Dakota's. Plus like someone mentioned before schools like Uconn who won 2 national titles will say I want a special deal for basketball. Giving Boise St any kind of deal would have cause the AAC to fall apart in a week I think.

(06-26-2014 07:44 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Just wondering: is there anyone -- Anyone At All -- in professional media who has claimed/argued/stated that the AAC made a mistake in not giving Boise State what it wanted?

Most who know Quo, realize that if the AAC HAD agreed to Boise State's insultingly ridiculous demands, Quo would now be pointing it out as a big mistake and proof of the AAC's inferiority.

(06-26-2014 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 06:04 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Only someone who hates the Big East-***-AAC would laugh out loud at one of the (many) tragic events in our short existence.

I'd hardly call it tragic that we didn't give Boise a sweetheart deal the season before Coach Pete moved on to UW.

Where would the MWC be without Boise and SDSU? Dead. Instead, they get a chunk of the media deal Boise negotiated with ESPN. Does Boise get more, sure, but remember, without Boise, the rest of the MWC would have got NONE of that money, and now they get some, so the MWC clearly benefited.

And here's how the "Boise Sweetheart" media bonus money was spread out last year:

Boise State: $1.6 million
Fresno State: $1.3 million
Wyoming: $1 million
San Diego State: $800,000
San Jose State: $600,000
New Mexico: $500,000
Air Force: $300,000
Utah State: $300,000
Nevada: $300,000
Colorado State: $0
Hawaii: $0
UNLV: $0

Hardly a massive giveaway to Boise.

Bottom line: While Boise benefits most, everyone in the MWC is making MORE media money than they would had Boise not re-joined the conference.

Thompson completely abused Aresco in luring Boise back.

You are completely out of your AAC-trolling mind, quo. The PRESIDENTS voted UNANIMOUSLY not to give Boise the deal they wanted. Aresco could have done nothing about it.

No good conference commissioner is the slave of the Presidents of the member schools. Effective commissioners lead their schools.

Yeah, right down the blind alley that you and very few others on earth thought we should go.

Quo, you really have lost your edge as a troll. People basically laugh at you here.

Wouldn't it be more fun just to stay in the other forums where you regularly slobber on the SEC and the P5? You get a lot more sympathy there.

(06-27-2014 08:08 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:44 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Just wondering: is there anyone -- Anyone At All -- in professional media who has claimed/argued/stated that the AAC made a mistake in not giving Boise State what it wanted?

Most who know Quo, realize that if the AAC HAD agreed to Boise State's insultingly ridiculous demands, Quo would now be pointing it out as a big mistake and proof of the AAC's inferiority.

It is funny because in numerous threads QUO is very adament that western expansion was a mistake and was glad that it didn't work out but yet blames Aresco for it failing.

I mean the bottom line is SDSU would have never left if Boise didn't break the terms of our orginal deal and try to alter it to benefit them. That is why it didn't happen. I bet if we had BYU in the fold we could get SDSU tomorrow to join. They never wanted to stay in the MWC but did so as their only option. Boise wouldn't honor our orginal agreement with them and we wanted no parts of their revised plan so we walked away. Simple as that. We weren't raided. That is just pure lunacy.

Quo, can you (or anyone who knows) explain how the MWC's "bonus" thing works? Is a school's entire TV payout based on the bonus, or is that added to some additional base distribution?

As many big TV games as the AAC has had, I have to wonder why this conference does not have bonuses?

(06-27-2014 06:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:33 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You simply do not know what the definition of a "raid" is. Obviously, the "raider" offered a better deal than the "raidee", otherwise the school doesn't leave.

Ask yourself this. Could Boise State make more money with the MWC or with the American. I know the answer but I'm waiting for you to tongue tie yourself.

Boise tried to leverage their Brand and lost.

To exit, Boise has to cough up a $5m exit fee. That's equal to 2.5 years of AAC media money.

That shows you how much better they thought life in the MWC would be.

Boise does not have to cough up a $5 million dollar exit fee to the AAC, because Boise was never in the AAC. See you only pay an exit fee if you are actually in a conference, which is why Boise State owed the MWC an exit fee. The AAC sued Boise for $5 million dollars for backing out of a membership expansion agreement. That is a contract issue.

You are playing semantic games here. Boise agreed to join the Big East. Yes, the official join date was in the future, but from the moment they signed the admission agreement, they were in, and thus were subject to an exit fee.

Then they left the Big East. That is why they owe the AAC, the heir of the Big East, exit fee money. That is a "contract issue" just like any MWC exit fees Boised owed were. Calling it a "membership expansion agreement exit fee" is just euphemistic language for what it is: an exit fee.

It is not semantics and they were never in the AAC. An analogy that you may comprehend is when a person agrees to buy a house. If they chose not to go through with the deal the seller can sue them for the earnest money and any other reasonable costs that the seller may be out of in getting the house ready for the sale, which is usually just the earnest money.

Did the buyer actually own the home at any point? No. Yet the seller still had grounds to sue the buyer.

(06-27-2014 08:33 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Quo, can you (or anyone who knows) explain how the MWC's "bonus" thing works? Is a school's entire TV payout based on the bonus, or is that added to some additional base distribution?

As many big TV games as the AAC has had, I have to wonder why this conference does not have bonuses?

The MW bonus is 500k for a Saturday nationally televised game and 300k for a nationally televised game not on a Saturday. "Nationally televised" in this case is defined as being on ESPN, ESPN2, Fox, ABC, NBC, or CBS. CBS-Sports, NBC-Sports, ESPN-U, ESPN-News, ESPN-3, Fox Sports-1, and Fox Sports-2 do not count as nationally televised for the bonus (too few subscribers). I think 90 million subscribers is where the line was drawn. This is where Boise has an advantage. Thier games were sold as a package to ESPN, where as CBS-Sports has tier one rights to the rest of the conference. Furthermore, Boise is guaranteed at least 3 games on ESPN or ESPN2 in the contract terms. The rest of the league knows thier most attractive games for national TV must be passed on by CBS-Sports before they have a chance to earn the bonus.

As for the money, the bonus is paid put from 19 million dollar media contract. There is no base. After the season, the bonus is totaled and paid to each team that has earned a bonus. The remaining media monies are then devided equally.

(06-27-2014 07:07 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 06:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:50 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  No, you aren't factoring in the value of the media deal that Boise brought. All schools are making more than if Boise had not rejoined.

cbssports after boise left released a statement that it wouldn't affect their tv deal and that they still planned on signing a 4/5 year extension with them for the exact same amount of money

cbssports last decent conference to air was the mwc (after the c-usa raid), even without boise..cbssports wasn't just going to stop airing college games, and no other realistic rights are opening for 6 years (they can't afford big 10)

and they weren't going to reduce the money as to give incentive to for teams to stay with the MWC
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/I...State.aspx
But a source said that the deal "does not affect CBS' four-year option after the deal is up." In other words, the MWC "likely won't be a free agent

boise didn't add any value to the MWC media deal it just robbed the smaller teams of close to a million.

The CBS deal did not change, but that's because the MWC was able to package Boise's games separately in a deal with ESPN:

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...agreement/

i get that but core deal which is the more majority of their tv money was basically unaffected by boises departure

No Boise, no ESPN deal. That's a whole new deal brought to the MWC by Boise. Hard to argue with that, eh?

(06-27-2014 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 07:07 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 06:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:50 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  No, you aren't factoring in the value of the media deal that Boise brought. All schools are making more than if Boise had not rejoined.

cbssports after boise left released a statement that it wouldn't affect their tv deal and that they still planned on signing a 4/5 year extension with them for the exact same amount of money

cbssports last decent conference to air was the mwc (after the c-usa raid), even without boise..cbssports wasn't just going to stop airing college games, and no other realistic rights are opening for 6 years (they can't afford big 10)

and they weren't going to reduce the money as to give incentive to for teams to stay with the MWC
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/I...State.aspx
But a source said that the deal "does not affect CBS' four-year option after the deal is up." In other words, the MWC "likely won't be a free agent

boise didn't add any value to the MWC media deal it just robbed the smaller teams of close to a million.

The CBS deal did not change, but that's because the MWC was able to package Boise's games separately in a deal with ESPN:

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...agreement/

i get that but core deal which is the more majority of their tv money was basically unaffected by boises departure

No Boise, no ESPN deal. That's a whole new deal brought to the MWC by Boise. Hard to argue with that, eh?

dumb***

(06-27-2014 08:33 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Quo, can you (or anyone who knows) explain how the MWC's "bonus" thing works? Is a school's entire TV payout based on the bonus, or is that added to some additional base distribution?

As many big TV games as the AAC has had, I have to wonder why this conference does not have bonuses?

the MWC bonus works like this:

if a game of yours is picked for national tv (espn,abc,cbs,nbc or fox) you get a 500k bonus (300k if its not on saturday)

and no its not the entire payout, but its technically not an addition either

but the reason no one does it (hopefully not us) is because those bonus arent coming from thin air, everytime someone gets a bonus, that will be subtracted from the total conference tv revenue. you could argue boise is just getting what it deserves, others argue its incentive based, so you get what you earn. but the other side of the shoe is youre draining you conference mates and making it harder for them to get better giving them less resources to bring themselves. overtime it will start creating haves and have nots when certain teams start getting way more revenue than others and start getting competive advantages. if not already at some point it will cause friction within the conference when human nature kicks in that someone who is supposed to be your equal partner is getting a lot more than you.

ps the sweeetheart part of the deal for boise= by contract boise is guaranteed a minimmum 4 espn games by contract = 4 guaranteed bonuses every year. no one else in the MWC is guaranteed any

(06-27-2014 08:08 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:44 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Just wondering: is there anyone -- Anyone At All -- in professional media who has claimed/argued/stated that the AAC made a mistake in not giving Boise State what it wanted?

Most who know Quo, realize that if the AAC HAD agreed to Boise State's insultingly ridiculous demands, Quo would now be pointing it out as a big mistake and proof of the AAC's inferiority.

About Boise's deal, there was nothing insulting about it. The MWC, the whole conference, is clearly better off in terms of money and exposure than had they not made that deal. It's just that Boise benefited more than anyone else.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There's no god-given reason why more-valuable conference members have to subsidize less-valuable conference members.

Let me ask you this: What if Texas asked to join the AAC, and ESPN said that if they joined, it would re-write the AAC contract such that starting immediately the AAC with Texas would now get $10 million per school per year, up from the current $2 million. So instead of paying us $24 million a year for the conference (12 schools, including Texas, x 2 million), the deal would go up to $120 million per year (12 schools x 10m).

But, Texas says no, we want a much larger chunk. We want $32 million per year for us and the the other 11 AAC schools can split the remaining $88 million, or $8m per school.

Would it be worth it to pay Texas $32m per year to boost Memphis and USF from $2m a year to $8m a year?

In my book, hell yes. How about you?

(06-27-2014 09:00 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 08:33 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Quo, can you (or anyone who knows) explain how the MWC's "bonus" thing works? Is a school's entire TV payout based on the bonus, or is that added to some additional base distribution?

As many big TV games as the AAC has had, I have to wonder why this conference does not have bonuses?

the MWC bonus works like this:

if a game of yours is picked for national tv (espn,abc,cbs,nbc or fox) you get a 500k bonus (300k if its not on saturday games)

and no its not the entire payout, but its technically not an addition either

but the reason no one does it (hopefully not us) is because those bonus arent coming from thin air, everytime someone gets a bonus, that will be subtracted from the total conference tv revenue. you could argue boise is just getting what it deserves, others argue its incentive based, so you get what you earn. but the other side of the shoe is youre draining you conference mates and making it harder for them to get better giving them less resources to bring themselves. overtime it will start creating haves and have nots when certain teams start getting way more revenue than others and start getting competive advantages. if not already at some point it will cause friction within the conference when human nature kicks in that someone who is supposed to be your equal partner is getting a lot more than you.

ps the sweeetheart part of the deal for boise= by contract boise is guaranteed a minimmum 4 espn games by contract = 4 guaranteed bonuses every year. no one else in the MWC is guaranteed any

This is all correct, and yes, the deal does favor Boise. But again, look at the actual breakdown of bonuses paid last year. Boise got the most, but other schools got shares as well.

Boise is not "draining" other conference schools, it is merely not subsidizing them as much as they would be if the money was split evenly. Overall, the MWC reported more conference income, and more money paid to its schools, than in any non-BCS year ever.

(06-27-2014 09:00 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 08:33 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Quo, can you (or anyone who knows) explain how the MWC's "bonus" thing works? Is a school's entire TV payout based on the bonus, or is that added to some additional base distribution?

As many big TV games as the AAC has had, I have to wonder why this conference does not have bonuses?

the MWC bonus works like this:

if a game of yours is picked for national tv (espn,abc,cbs,nbc or fox) you get a 500k bonus (300k if its not on saturday)

and no its not the entire payout, but its technically not an addition either

but the reason no one does it (hopefully not us) is because those bonus arent coming from thin air, everytime someone gets a bonus, that will be subtracted from the total conference tv revenue. you could argue boise is just getting what it deserves, others argue its incentive based, so you get what you earn. but the other side of the shoe is youre draining you conference mates and making it harder for them to get better giving them less resources to bring themselves. overtime it will start creating haves and have nots when certain teams start getting way more revenue than others and start getting competive advantages. if not already at some point it will cause friction within the conference when human nature kicks in that someone who is supposed to be your equal partner is getting a lot more than you.

ps the sweeetheart part of the deal for boise= by contract boise is guaranteed a minimmum 4 espn games by contract = 4 guaranteed bonuses every year. no one else in the MWC is guaranteed any

Thank you Pesik, and Attackcoog as well. Agreed, if the bonus is not in addition to the contract money, then, yes, we are definitely doing it the right way.

Seems like we are getting underpaid relative to our acheivements (major bowl win, basketball NC), but what else is new?

(06-27-2014 08:24 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 06:04 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  I'd hardly call it tragic that we didn't give Boise a sweetheart deal the season before Coach Pete moved on to UW.

Where would the MWC be without Boise and SDSU? Dead. Instead, they get a chunk of the media deal Boise negotiated with ESPN. Does Boise get more, sure, but remember, without Boise, the rest of the MWC would have got NONE of that money, and now they get some, so the MWC clearly benefited.

And here's how the "Boise Sweetheart" media bonus money was spread out last year:

Boise State: $1.6 million
Fresno State: $1.3 million
Wyoming: $1 million
San Diego State: $800,000
San Jose State: $600,000
New Mexico: $500,000
Air Force: $300,000
Utah State: $300,000
Nevada: $300,000
Colorado State: $0
Hawaii: $0
UNLV: $0

Hardly a massive giveaway to Boise.

Bottom line: While Boise benefits most, everyone in the MWC is making MORE media money than they would had Boise not re-joined the conference.

Thompson completely abused Aresco in luring Boise back.

You are completely out of your AAC-trolling mind, quo. The PRESIDENTS voted UNANIMOUSLY not to give Boise the deal they wanted. Aresco could have done nothing about it.

No good conference commissioner is the slave of the Presidents of the member schools. Effective commissioners lead their schools.

Yeah, right down the blind alley that you and very few others on earth thought we should go.

You are incorrect. At the time, I was in favor of Boise joining us only if that managed to maintain our AQ status. The only reason we invited Boise was to keep AQ. Once we lost AQ anyway, I saw no reason to want Boise to stay. Too much geographic disparity.

(06-27-2014 08:48 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 06:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:33 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  Ask yourself this. Could Boise State make more money with the MWC or with the American. I know the answer but I'm waiting for you to tongue tie yourself.

Boise tried to leverage their Brand and lost.

To exit, Boise has to cough up a $5m exit fee. That's equal to 2.5 years of AAC media money.

That shows you how much better they thought life in the MWC would be.

Boise does not have to cough up a $5 million dollar exit fee to the AAC, because Boise was never in the AAC. See you only pay an exit fee if you are actually in a conference, which is why Boise State owed the MWC an exit fee. The AAC sued Boise for $5 million dollars for backing out of a membership expansion agreement. That is a contract issue.

You are playing semantic games here. Boise agreed to join the Big East. Yes, the official join date was in the future, but from the moment they signed the admission agreement, they were in, and thus were subject to an exit fee.

Then they left the Big East. That is why they owe the AAC, the heir of the Big East, exit fee money. That is a "contract issue" just like any MWC exit fees Boised owed were. Calling it a "membership expansion agreement exit fee" is just euphemistic language for what it is: an exit fee.

It is not semantics and they were never in the AAC. An analogy that you may comprehend is when a person agrees to buy a house. If they chose not to go through with the deal the seller can sue them for the earnest money and any other reasonable costs that the seller may be out of in getting the house ready for the sale, which is usually just the earnest money.

Did the buyer actually own the home at any point? No. Yet the seller still had grounds to sue the buyer.

It is TOTALLY semantics, because the issue here is whether we got raided or not. On that point, whether the MWC lured away a school that already had formally joined us (like ECU will in 3 days) or had agreed to join us but hadn't formally done so (like ECU as of now) matters NOT at all, because in either case, we would have suffered a school leaving us for a greener pasture, i.e., raided.

It is simply silly to argue, e.g., that if ECU left us today to join the MWC that this would be any different in terms of assessing conference power than if they left us a week from now, when they are a "formal" member of the AAC.

(06-26-2014 07:42 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 06:04 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 05:57 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  ROTFLAO!!!!!

Only someone who hates the Big East-***-AAC would laugh out loud at one of the (many) tragic events in our short existence.

I'd hardly call it tragic that we didn't give Boise a sweetheart deal the season before Coach Pete moved on to UW.

Where would the MWC be without Boise and SDSU? Dead. Instead, they get a chunk of the media deal Boise negotiated with ESPN. Does Boise get more, sure, but remember, without Boise, the rest of the MWC would have got NONE of that money, and now they get some, so the MWC clearly benefited.

And here's how the "Boise Sweetheart" media bonus money was spread out last year:

Boise State: $1.6 million
Fresno State: $1.3 million
Wyoming: $1 million
San Diego State: $800,000
San Jose State: $600,000
New Mexico: $500,000
Air Force: $300,000
Utah State: $300,000
Nevada: $300,000
Colorado State: $0
Hawaii: $0
UNLV: $0

Hardly a massive giveaway to Boise.

Bottom line: While Boise benefits most, everyone in the MWC is making MORE media money than they would had Boise not re-joined the conference.

Thompson completely abused Aresco in luring Boise back.

Well by your own comments the MWC would be dead without Boise and SDSU so they HAD to give Boise a lot more to come back.
The AAC did NOT have to give Boise that type of deal to survive and succeed.
So I'm glad that the AAC presidents and Aresco told Boise to take a hike. If that's called abuse in your book then you really need to read more. Abuse meant Thompson lured Boise back offering less.

I never understood why Thompson offered Boise the "sweet heart" media deal in the first place. When Boise left the old Big East (AAC) they had no choice but to go back to the MWC. The Pac 12 and the Big 12 were not going to take them in. Thompson was holding all the cards with regards to Boise and did not seem to know it! Aresco knew better than to offer Boise any deal. The choice was Boise's. "Take it or leave it."

Passing on Boise State's demands was smart by both Aresco and the AAC presidents. Special perks for Boise would have caused long term resentment from other members and eventually would have caused schools that are good in basketball to seek extra perks as well to compensate them for bringing in units from NCAA tourney success.

AAC members all have equality now and the same common goals, which brings up another point as to how Aresco is smart... a week ago he stated that there would be no "basketball only" schools admitted to this conference as it causes imbalance and creates separate agendas. He was 100% on the money (as we old Big East fans know all too well from our experience in dealing with the Catholic schools when the football schools considered adding additional football playing members only to have the C7 shoot it down).

Winner: Aresco by a mile!!!

(06-27-2014 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 08:08 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:44 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Just wondering: is there anyone -- Anyone At All -- in professional media who has claimed/argued/stated that the AAC made a mistake in not giving Boise State what it wanted?

Most who know Quo, realize that if the AAC HAD agreed to Boise State's insultingly ridiculous demands, Quo would now be pointing it out as a big mistake and proof of the AAC's inferiority.

About Boise's deal, there was nothing insulting about it. The MWC, the whole conference, is clearly better off in terms of money and exposure than had they not made that deal. It's just that Boise benefited more than anyone else.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There's no god-given reason why more-valuable conference members have to subsidize less-valuable conference members.

Let me ask you this: What if Texas asked to join the AAC, and ESPN said that if they joined, it would re-write the AAC contract such that starting immediately the AAC with Texas would now get $10 million per school per year, up from the current $2 million. So instead of paying us $24 million a year for the conference (12 schools, including Texas, x 2 million), the deal would go up to $120 million per year (12 schools x 10m).

But, Texas says no, we want a much larger chunk. We want $32 million per year for us and the the other 11 AAC schools can split the remaining $88 million, or $8m per school.

Would it be worth it to pay Texas $32m per year to boost Memphis and USF from $2m a year to $8m a year?

In my book, hell yes. How about you?

This is about as relevant as an AAC merging with the AFC West scenario.

Dewshe

(06-27-2014 09:36 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Passing on Boise State's demands was smart by both Aresco and the AAC presidents. Special perks for Boise would have caused long term resentment from other members and eventually would have caused schools that are good in basketball to seek extra perks as well to compensate them for bringing in units from NCAA tourney success.

AAC members all have equality now and the same common goals, which brings up another point as to how Aresco is smart... a week ago he stated that there would be no "basketball only" schools admitted to this conference as it causes imbalance and creates separate agendas. He was 100% on the money (as we old Big East fans know all too well from our experience in dealing with the Catholic schools when the football schools considered adding additional football playing members only to have the C7 shoot it down).

Winner: Aresco by a mile!!!

^ 100 % on the money.