(08-05-2014 12:11 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  I fully believe that the Group of 5 will INTEND and BEGIN to have full cost of attendance scholarship for all of their athletes...but how long will it last?

I couldn't find the link...but I remember a year or two ago someone posting that only 30 or so athletic departments operated in the black in any given year. For the lower half of Power 5, their revenue should still be increasing, so they can at least stay even financially (even if that means they're in the RED). But, if the revenue is NOT increasing for Group of 5, and they are already in the RED...how long can they maintain the financial pressure of these scholarships?

The new CFP deal distributes five times as much money to the G5 than the BCS deal. Even if you paid as much as $5,000 per athlete to all scholarship athletes that it only $1,000,000 a year which is more than covered by the new CFP revenue. If it is only headcount sports then you are talking about an even lower number.

G5 schools are not sitting around idly waiting for money to fall from the sky. They are seeking new revenue from broadcast rights and premium seating to put with the new revenue from the CFP.

None of this happened accidentally. The plan was clearly to share a larger percentage of the money this time around to make sure tha all of the G5 could increase benefits to athletes so the FBS formula stays in place.

(08-05-2014 12:34 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:11 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  I fully believe that the Group of 5 will INTEND and BEGIN to have full cost of attendance scholarship for all of their athletes...but how long will it last?

I couldn't find the link...but I remember a year or two ago someone posting that only 30 or so athletic departments operated in the black in any given year. For the lower half of Power 5, their revenue should still be increasing, so they can at least stay even financially (even if that means they're in the RED). But, if the revenue is NOT increasing for Group of 5, and they are already in the RED...how long can they maintain the financial pressure of these scholarships?

The new CFP deal distributes five times as much money to the G5 than the BCS deal. Even if you paid as much as $5,000 per athlete to all scholarship athletes that it only $1,000,000 a year which is more than covered by the new CFP revenue. If it is only headcount sports then you are talking about an even lower number.

G5 schools are not sitting around idly waiting for money to fall from the sky. They are seeking new revenue from broadcast rights and premium seating to put with the new revenue from the CFP.

None of this happened accidentally. The plan was clearly to share a larger percentage of the money this time around to make sure tha all of the G5 could increase benefits to athletes so the FBS formula stays in place.

Your analysis of the financial impact of cost of attendance is correct. While the financial gap between the G5 and P5 may be growing, the size of G5 budget deficits will not be. In that respect, cost of attendance shouldn't push anybody out of the FBS.

That isn't to say that no FBS school would use it as an excuse (rather than a reason) to justify de-emphasizing football. But if they were that ambivalent about committing to FBS, most of them wouldn't have moved up in the first place. And fully half of the G5 are relatively recent move ups and have a lot invested in that decision.

(08-05-2014 12:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 11:00 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 01:39 PM)Maize Wrote:  The advantage would come with exposure with their ESPN Contract over the type of exposure C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt would offer and it appears when it comes to pass Full Cost of Attendance that the AAC is going to offer across the board...if you are a HS Player and you had a offer from a AAC School that will have more games on the ESPN Platform and offers Full Cost of Attendance and a offer from a C-USA, MAC or Sunbelt school that doesn't which school would you go to...

Lmao! The MAC is kicking the AAC's butt in recruiting.

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9...=2&yr=2015

.

LMAO---Child please... The MAC doesn't "kick" anyones butt in recruiting. Class ratings include both points for quality and QUANTITY. Thus, you cant compare classes until the signing date when everyones class is complete without seriously skewing the data. Looking at completed classes---last years MAC recruting finished 9th----ahead of just one conference---the Sunbelt. Its been like that for the last 4 years at least. Last year, the AAC finished 6th. Yeah, I guess if you want to call beating one conference "kicking butt" then the MAC was a beast. I posted the links for the last 4 years of comparative recruiting data for complete classes just so you wont claim its some kind of anomaly.

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9...=2&yr=2014

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9...=2&yr=2013

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9...=2&yr=2012

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9...=2&yr=2011

To be fair, I don't see the cost of attendance making much difference for the AAC as I think every G5 is going to do that. I do think the ESPN TV deal that places 90% of AAC games on national television could be a significant factor for many recruits. I also think the AAC's long list of bowl ties will help as well. Yes, the AAC bowls are not all that glamorous, but with 7-8 bowl ties a year, any AAC team that wins 6 games is going to a bowl. The rest of the G5 cant say that.

@MAC_Crootin: Per @Rivals RB Arthur Thompkins (@ArtThompkins_5) has committed to Toledo. Help offers from multiple MAC schools, Cincinnati and Indiana.

(08-04-2014 02:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 01:49 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 01:39 PM)Maize Wrote:  The advantage would come with exposure with their ESPN Contract over the type of exposure C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt would offer and it appears when it comes to pass Full Cost of Attendance that the AAC is going to offer across the board...if you are a HS Player and you had a offer from a AAC School that will have more games on the ESPN Platform and offers Full Cost of Attendance and a offer from a C-USA, MAC or Sunbelt school that doesn't which school would you go to...

But the MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt (at least the MAC) is going to be offering the same cost of attendance as the AAC. You can pull up last week's video with Steinbrecher saying the MAC absolutely supports Full Cost of Attendance across the board if you need to. The AAC steals no MAC recruits and many times the MAC is stealing Big Ten recruits who want to play and be on a winning team from specifically Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois.

As far as television, I can't wait until the MAC announces our new deal. Thats all I'll say.

.

???
A bunch of Cincy commits have MAC offers. What is stealing? To me that is flipping a kid 2 days before NSD. How many Miami commits have UC or Big offers? Cincy is the only AAC school recruiting Ohio and Michigan to any extent anyway, kinda a moot point.

They keep rollin' in. Today's:

@MAC_Crootin: Per @Rivals RB Arthur Thompkins (@ArtThompkins_5) has committed to Toledo. Help offers from multiple MAC schools, Cincinnati and Indiana.

.

(08-05-2014 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:34 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:11 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  I fully believe that the Group of 5 will INTEND and BEGIN to have full cost of attendance scholarship for all of their athletes...but how long will it last?

I couldn't find the link...but I remember a year or two ago someone posting that only 30 or so athletic departments operated in the black in any given year. For the lower half of Power 5, their revenue should still be increasing, so they can at least stay even financially (even if that means they're in the RED). But, if the revenue is NOT increasing for Group of 5, and they are already in the RED...how long can they maintain the financial pressure of these scholarships?

The new CFP deal distributes five times as much money to the G5 than the BCS deal. Even if you paid as much as $5,000 per athlete to all scholarship athletes that it only $1,000,000 a year which is more than covered by the new CFP revenue. If it is only headcount sports then you are talking about an even lower number.

G5 schools are not sitting around idly waiting for money to fall from the sky. They are seeking new revenue from broadcast rights and premium seating to put with the new revenue from the CFP.

None of this happened accidentally. The plan was clearly to share a larger percentage of the money this time around to make sure tha all of the G5 could increase benefits to athletes so the FBS formula stays in place.

Your analysis of the financial impact of cost of attendance is correct. While the financial gap between the G5 and P5 may be growing, the size of G5 budget deficits will not be. In that respect, cost of attendance shouldn't push anybody out of the FBS.

That isn't to say that no FBS school would use it as an excuse (rather than a reason) to justify de-emphasizing football. But if they were that ambivalent about committing to FBS, most of them wouldn't have moved up in the first place. And fully half of the G5 are relatively recent move ups and have a lot invested in that decision.

Exactly. I think some may also use it as an excuse to stay in FCS despite the advantages that FBS membership offer. There certainly isn't going to be a push for G5 schools to go back to FCS as the Big Sky commissioner so hilariously predicted. ODU, App St., Ga. So., UTSA, TX ST, UNCC, etc. all knew this was likely to come but they jumped in the FBS boat despite some remarkable FCS accomplishments.

The P5 already have huge advantages in recruiting but there are scholarship limits and a finite number of athletes available to sign ever year. The elite P5 programs will still get the lion's share of highly regarded recruits and the top G5 schools will pick off recruits from the lower tier P5 schools.

(08-05-2014 03:00 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:34 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:11 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  I fully believe that the Group of 5 will INTEND and BEGIN to have full cost of attendance scholarship for all of their athletes...but how long will it last?

I couldn't find the link...but I remember a year or two ago someone posting that only 30 or so athletic departments operated in the black in any given year. For the lower half of Power 5, their revenue should still be increasing, so they can at least stay even financially (even if that means they're in the RED). But, if the revenue is NOT increasing for Group of 5, and they are already in the RED...how long can they maintain the financial pressure of these scholarships?

The new CFP deal distributes five times as much money to the G5 than the BCS deal. Even if you paid as much as $5,000 per athlete to all scholarship athletes that it only $1,000,000 a year which is more than covered by the new CFP revenue. If it is only headcount sports then you are talking about an even lower number.

G5 schools are not sitting around idly waiting for money to fall from the sky. They are seeking new revenue from broadcast rights and premium seating to put with the new revenue from the CFP.

None of this happened accidentally. The plan was clearly to share a larger percentage of the money this time around to make sure tha all of the G5 could increase benefits to athletes so the FBS formula stays in place.

Your analysis of the financial impact of cost of attendance is correct. While the financial gap between the G5 and P5 may be growing, the size of G5 budget deficits will not be. In that respect, cost of attendance shouldn't push anybody out of the FBS.

That isn't to say that no FBS school would use it as an excuse (rather than a reason) to justify de-emphasizing football. But if they were that ambivalent about committing to FBS, most of them wouldn't have moved up in the first place. And fully half of the G5 are relatively recent move ups and have a lot invested in that decision.

Exactly. I think some may also use it as an excuse to stay in FCS despite the advantages that FBS membership offer. There certainly isn't going to be a push for G5 schools to go back to FCS as the Big Sky commissioner so hilariously predicted. ODU, App St., Ga. So., UTSA, TX ST, UNCC, etc. all knew this was likely to come but they jumped in the FBS boat despite some remarkable FCS accomplishments.

The P5 already have huge advantages in recruiting but there are scholarship limits and a finite number of athletes available to sign ever year. The elite P5 programs will still get the lion's share of highly regarded recruits and the top G5 schools will pick off recruits from the lower tier P5 schools.

Especially when those presidents believe that the advantages of FBS membership accrue only, or primarily, to athletic departments and not the academic side of the university. I believe there are a lot of presidents who are sympathetic to that point of view.

(08-05-2014 03:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:00 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:34 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:11 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  I fully believe that the Group of 5 will INTEND and BEGIN to have full cost of attendance scholarship for all of their athletes...but how long will it last?

I couldn't find the link...but I remember a year or two ago someone posting that only 30 or so athletic departments operated in the black in any given year. For the lower half of Power 5, their revenue should still be increasing, so they can at least stay even financially (even if that means they're in the RED). But, if the revenue is NOT increasing for Group of 5, and they are already in the RED...how long can they maintain the financial pressure of these scholarships?

The new CFP deal distributes five times as much money to the G5 than the BCS deal. Even if you paid as much as $5,000 per athlete to all scholarship athletes that it only $1,000,000 a year which is more than covered by the new CFP revenue. If it is only headcount sports then you are talking about an even lower number.

G5 schools are not sitting around idly waiting for money to fall from the sky. They are seeking new revenue from broadcast rights and premium seating to put with the new revenue from the CFP.

None of this happened accidentally. The plan was clearly to share a larger percentage of the money this time around to make sure tha all of the G5 could increase benefits to athletes so the FBS formula stays in place.

Your analysis of the financial impact of cost of attendance is correct. While the financial gap between the G5 and P5 may be growing, the size of G5 budget deficits will not be. In that respect, cost of attendance shouldn't push anybody out of the FBS.

That isn't to say that no FBS school would use it as an excuse (rather than a reason) to justify de-emphasizing football. But if they were that ambivalent about committing to FBS, most of them wouldn't have moved up in the first place. And fully half of the G5 are relatively recent move ups and have a lot invested in that decision.

Exactly. I think some may also use it as an excuse to stay in FCS despite the advantages that FBS membership offer. There certainly isn't going to be a push for G5 schools to go back to FCS as the Big Sky commissioner so hilariously predicted. ODU, App St., Ga. So., UTSA, TX ST, UNCC, etc. all knew this was likely to come but they jumped in the FBS boat despite some remarkable FCS accomplishments.

The P5 already have huge advantages in recruiting but there are scholarship limits and a finite number of athletes available to sign ever year. The elite P5 programs will still get the lion's share of highly regarded recruits and the top G5 schools will pick off recruits from the lower tier P5 schools.

Especially when those presidents believe that the advantages of FBS membership accrue only, or primarily, to athletic departments and not the academic side of the university. I believe there are a lot of presidents who are sympathetic to that point of view.

No question that there are presidents who don't appreciate the value of athletics for a university.

(08-05-2014 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 09:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 08:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 06:09 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Per Matt's media website, the old contract guaranteed 24 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. The new contract calls for a minimum of 28 across those platforms...including 3 ABC games. If my math is correct, that's a 16% increase. ESPN has set the non-sat and first 3 weeks schedule (like they do the power teams as I understand it). By my count (per theamerican.org ), 11 are scheduled for ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 with 5 on the U, plus 2 more that will be either 2 or U. That leaves a minimum of 10 games yet to be scheduled to fulfill the contract...including 1 ABC game. I guess that's about one Sat. game per week or so. There will also be additional coverage via NEWS. IIRC, they're even showing an AAC/FCS game this year. NEWS and ESPN3 games do not count toward the minimum guarantee.

It is nice that ESPN News games do not count towards the 28, as News is essentially equal to U.

Problem is, everyone has good exposure, all of these AAC games will face stiff competition, and just because a game is on doesnt mean anyone is watching.

The calibre of the games will determine how much exposure is realized.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The games cant be watched if they are not on a network in your area--thus, national broadcasts reach more people. Additionally, games on unfamiliar networks get watched by FAR FEWER people than games on more well known networks. One need only look at the game ratings for games on Fox Sports-1 or ESPN-News. Both were venues that are not familiar to most sports viewers who are looking for a game to watch and their ratings were pathetic (P5 and G5 alike).

CUSA's largest outlet is CBS-Sports (which is the lowest level outlet for AAC games). The Sunbelt is mostly relegated to ESPN-3. The MAC has regular weeknight games with little competition---which is a nice niche---but they have limited coverage beyond that. The MW has the closest level of coverage to the AAC.

You can say everyone has "good" coverage---but that doesn't make it true. Ask any coach---the most common question they get from recruits is "How often are you on ESPN?".

No question, being on a good network is usually a necessary condition to getting good exposure. But it's not a sufficient condition, as just because a game is on a particular platform doesn't mean anyone is watching. And particularly for G5, local coverage matters more than national because G5 don't tend to have much of a national fan base. How many people in California care about Tulane vs UCF or Akron vs Arkansas State? What matters more to those schools is their regional coverage not whether theoretically someone in Alaska can watch on cable channel 227.

Bottom line: is there evidence in the recruiting rankings that the AAC schools being able to answer that question with "28 times on the ESPN family" has gained a boost from this allegedly great 'exposure' advantage over MAC, MWC, etc. or that the AAC has gained on the P5? I am not sure.

Also, there is the issue of P5 exposure. AAC games will be on these various ESPN platforms but if Temple vs Tulsa is on ESPNU at the same time that Georgia vs Texas AM is on CBS and Nebraska vs Penn State is on ESPN, how many eyeballs are actually going to be attracted? It is an important question because ultimately that is what drives the money.

You are talking two different things. Network media money depends on ratings. Recruiting does not. Recruits do not know nor do they care how mich your media contract pays. Since I suspect all G5's will be offering similar benefit packages (all G5s will likely be offering much less than than P5 benefit packages)---I'm going to assume that money isn't going to make much difference in G5 recruiting (and the AAC makes more money than any other G5 conference even if it was a factor).

Recruits LOVE the idea of being on ESPN. Recruits LOVE the idea of being on national tv vs regional. Recruits LOVE the idea that if they win 6 games they are guranteed a bowl (which the AAC's 7-8 bowl ties pretty much guarantees---something the other G5's do not). Additionally, the AAC has (or is building) some of the best facilities in the G5. Will these advantageous mean the AAC will win every recruiting battle? No, of course not. However, i do think these advantages will give the AAC the kind of leg up they need to win far more of these recruiting battles than they lose.

Recruits do love being on ESPN, but do they love being on any ESPN family channel or the flagship station? Probably the latter.

In any event, if you are correct we should see this in the recruiting rankings.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-05-2014 10:56 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 09:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 08:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 06:09 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Per Matt's media website, the old contract guaranteed 24 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. The new contract calls for a minimum of 28 across those platforms...including 3 ABC games. If my math is correct, that's a 16% increase. ESPN has set the non-sat and first 3 weeks schedule (like they do the power teams as I understand it). By my count (per theamerican.org ), 11 are scheduled for ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 with 5 on the U, plus 2 more that will be either 2 or U. That leaves a minimum of 10 games yet to be scheduled to fulfill the contract...including 1 ABC game. I guess that's about one Sat. game per week or so. There will also be additional coverage via NEWS. IIRC, they're even showing an AAC/FCS game this year. NEWS and ESPN3 games do not count toward the minimum guarantee.

It is nice that ESPN News games do not count towards the 28, as News is essentially equal to U.

Problem is, everyone has good exposure, all of these AAC games will face stiff competition, and just because a game is on doesnt mean anyone is watching.

The calibre of the games will determine how much exposure is realized.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The games cant be watched if they are not on a network in your area--thus, national broadcasts reach more people. Additionally, games on unfamiliar networks get watched by FAR FEWER people than games on more well known networks. One need only look at the game ratings for games on Fox Sports-1 or ESPN-News. Both were venues that are not familiar to most sports viewers who are looking for a game to watch and their ratings were pathetic (P5 and G5 alike).

CUSA's largest outlet is CBS-Sports (which is the lowest level outlet for AAC games). The Sunbelt is mostly relegated to ESPN-3. The MAC has regular weeknight games with little competition---which is a nice niche---but they have limited coverage beyond that. The MW has the closest level of coverage to the AAC.

You can say everyone has "good" coverage---but that doesn't make it true. Ask any coach---the most common question they get from recruits is "How often are you on ESPN?".

No question, being on a good network is usually a necessary condition to getting good exposure. But it's not a sufficient condition, as just because a game is on a particular platform doesn't mean anyone is watching. And particularly for G5, local coverage matters more than national because G5 don't tend to have much of a national fan base. How many people in California care about Tulane vs UCF or Akron vs Arkansas State? What matters more to those schools is their regional coverage not whether theoretically someone in Alaska can watch on cable channel 227.

Why would slapping a G5 tag on a school make them value regional exposure over national press? I agree that if a school is regional in nature from alumni to students to athletes to appeal, then commensurate visibility probably fulfills their goals. However, that wasn't the case for the schools in the AAC when they were in CUSA, so why would it be now just b/c they are called G5? Tulane, Tulsa, SMU and Navy recruit students nationally. Even lowly Memphis recruits more out of area athletes than could be serviced via regional coverage. The schools...for the most part...have or aspire to have national reach in academia and/or athletics.

Most universities are like evangelical churches: theoretically their mission seeks to embrace the whole world. My point was that given the actual limited, regional appeal of G5 programs it isn't much of a practical advantage to AAC schools vs say MAC schools to have more national platforms.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-05-2014 03:17 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:00 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:34 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  The new CFP deal distributes five times as much money to the G5 than the BCS deal. Even if you paid as much as $5,000 per athlete to all scholarship athletes that it only $1,000,000 a year which is more than covered by the new CFP revenue. If it is only headcount sports then you are talking about an even lower number.

G5 schools are not sitting around idly waiting for money to fall from the sky. They are seeking new revenue from broadcast rights and premium seating to put with the new revenue from the CFP.

None of this happened accidentally. The plan was clearly to share a larger percentage of the money this time around to make sure tha all of the G5 could increase benefits to athletes so the FBS formula stays in place.

Your analysis of the financial impact of cost of attendance is correct. While the financial gap between the G5 and P5 may be growing, the size of G5 budget deficits will not be. In that respect, cost of attendance shouldn't push anybody out of the FBS.

That isn't to say that no FBS school would use it as an excuse (rather than a reason) to justify de-emphasizing football. But if they were that ambivalent about committing to FBS, most of them wouldn't have moved up in the first place. And fully half of the G5 are relatively recent move ups and have a lot invested in that decision.

Exactly. I think some may also use it as an excuse to stay in FCS despite the advantages that FBS membership offer. There certainly isn't going to be a push for G5 schools to go back to FCS as the Big Sky commissioner so hilariously predicted. ODU, App St., Ga. So., UTSA, TX ST, UNCC, etc. all knew this was likely to come but they jumped in the FBS boat despite some remarkable FCS accomplishments.

The P5 already have huge advantages in recruiting but there are scholarship limits and a finite number of athletes available to sign ever year. The elite P5 programs will still get the lion's share of highly regarded recruits and the top G5 schools will pick off recruits from the lower tier P5 schools.

Especially when those presidents believe that the advantages of FBS membership accrue only, or primarily, to athletic departments and not the academic side of the university. I believe there are a lot of presidents who are sympathetic to that point of view.

No question that there are presidents who don't appreciate the value of athletics for a university.

And oftentimes they are correct, in that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-05-2014 02:04 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 02:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 01:49 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 01:39 PM)Maize Wrote:  The advantage would come with exposure with their ESPN Contract over the type of exposure C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt would offer and it appears when it comes to pass Full Cost of Attendance that the AAC is going to offer across the board...if you are a HS Player and you had a offer from a AAC School that will have more games on the ESPN Platform and offers Full Cost of Attendance and a offer from a C-USA, MAC or Sunbelt school that doesn't which school would you go to...

But the MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt (at least the MAC) is going to be offering the same cost of attendance as the AAC. You can pull up last week's video with Steinbrecher saying the MAC absolutely supports Full Cost of Attendance across the board if you need to. The AAC steals no MAC recruits and many times the MAC is stealing Big Ten recruits who want to play and be on a winning team from specifically Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois.

As far as television, I can't wait until the MAC announces our new deal. Thats all I'll say.

.

???
A bunch of Cincy commits have MAC offers. What is stealing? To me that is flipping a kid 2 days before NSD. How many Miami commits have UC or Big offers? Cincy is the only AAC school recruiting Ohio and Michigan to any extent anyway, kinda a moot point.

They keep rollin' in. Today's:

@MAC_Crootin: Per @Rivals RB Arthur Thompkins (@ArtThompkins_5) has committed to Toledo. Help offers from multiple MAC schools, Cincinnati and Indiana.

.

You didn't answer any questions though. You guys gotta fix your awful football and bball attendance. Good luck with that. Like I said every commit we have from Ohio and Michigan has MAC offers galore. You we gonna kick sand up you a s s again this year.

(08-05-2014 05:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 10:56 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 09:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 08:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It is nice that ESPN News games do not count towards the 28, as News is essentially equal to U.

Problem is, everyone has good exposure, all of these AAC games will face stiff competition, and just because a game is on doesnt mean anyone is watching.

The calibre of the games will determine how much exposure is realized.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The games cant be watched if they are not on a network in your area--thus, national broadcasts reach more people. Additionally, games on unfamiliar networks get watched by FAR FEWER people than games on more well known networks. One need only look at the game ratings for games on Fox Sports-1 or ESPN-News. Both were venues that are not familiar to most sports viewers who are looking for a game to watch and their ratings were pathetic (P5 and G5 alike).

CUSA's largest outlet is CBS-Sports (which is the lowest level outlet for AAC games). The Sunbelt is mostly relegated to ESPN-3. The MAC has regular weeknight games with little competition---which is a nice niche---but they have limited coverage beyond that. The MW has the closest level of coverage to the AAC.

You can say everyone has "good" coverage---but that doesn't make it true. Ask any coach---the most common question they get from recruits is "How often are you on ESPN?".

No question, being on a good network is usually a necessary condition to getting good exposure. But it's not a sufficient condition, as just because a game is on a particular platform doesn't mean anyone is watching. And particularly for G5, local coverage matters more than national because G5 don't tend to have much of a national fan base. How many people in California care about Tulane vs UCF or Akron vs Arkansas State? What matters more to those schools is their regional coverage not whether theoretically someone in Alaska can watch on cable channel 227.

Why would slapping a G5 tag on a school make them value regional exposure over national press? I agree that if a school is regional in nature from alumni to students to athletes to appeal, then commensurate visibility probably fulfills their goals. However, that wasn't the case for the schools in the AAC when they were in CUSA, so why would it be now just b/c they are called G5? Tulane, Tulsa, SMU and Navy recruit students nationally. Even lowly Memphis recruits more out of area athletes than could be serviced via regional coverage. The schools...for the most part...have or aspire to have national reach in academia and/or athletics.

Most universities are like evangelical churches: theoretically their mission seeks to embrace the whole world. My point was that given the actual limited, regional appeal of G5 programs it isn't much of a practical advantage to AAC schools vs say MAC schools to have more national platforms.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The attraction national network broadcasts is 3-fold. At the top of the list--it drives a larger more diverse nationwide enrollment by exposing the name of the school in a positive light outside its regional area. Second---it does the same thing for athletic recruiting by broadening and expanding the recruiting base Finally--it does the same thing for casual fans. At first, few casual fans will watch AAC games outside of thier normal viewing areas. However, as fans get used to stumbling across AAC games, they will get used to seeing these teams on TV and they will become more likely to tune in when one of these AAC schools get on a roll. Over time, this is how schools build a nationwide fan base and grow thier ratings outside of thier regional fan base. It takes time. Alabamas rating don't all come from Alabama. It takes time to build a fan base and no AAC team is likely to ever match Bama's fanbase, but the AAC schools can certain grow thier fanbases larger than they are. The first step in building a larger fanbase is getting the games where they can be seen outside of a schools normal region. Bottom line--- It's simply impossible to grow a fanbase beyond your local footprint if your games are not readily accessible to viewers outside of your region.

Message deleted

(08-05-2014 11:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 05:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 10:56 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 09:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No question, being on a good network is usually a necessary condition to getting good exposure. But it's not a sufficient condition, as just because a game is on a particular platform doesn't mean anyone is watching. And particularly for G5, local coverage matters more than national because G5 don't tend to have much of a national fan base. How many people in California care about Tulane vs UCF or Akron vs Arkansas State? What matters more to those schools is their regional coverage not whether theoretically someone in Alaska can watch on cable channel 227.

Why would slapping a G5 tag on a school make them value regional exposure over national press? I agree that if a school is regional in nature from alumni to students to athletes to appeal, then commensurate visibility probably fulfills their goals. However, that wasn't the case for the schools in the AAC when they were in CUSA, so why would it be now just b/c they are called G5? Tulane, Tulsa, SMU and Navy recruit students nationally. Even lowly Memphis recruits more out of area athletes than could be serviced via regional coverage. The schools...for the most part...have or aspire to have national reach in academia and/or athletics.

Most universities are like evangelical churches: theoretically their mission seeks to embrace the whole world. My point was that given the actual limited, regional appeal of G5 programs it isn't much of a practical advantage to AAC schools vs say MAC schools to have more national platforms.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The attraction national network broadcasts is 3-fold. At the top of the list--it drives a larger more diverse nationwide enrollment by exposing the name of the school in a positive light outside its regional area. Second---it does the same thing for athletic recruiting by broadening and expanding the recruiting base Finally--it does the same thing for casual fans. At first, few casual fans will watch AAC games outside of thier normal viewing areas. However, as fans get used to stumbling across AAC games, they will get used to seeing these teams on TV and they will become more likely to tune in when one of these AAC schools get on a roll. Over time, this is how schools build a nationwide fan base and grow thier ratings outside of thier regional fan base. It takes time. Alabamas rating don't all come from Alabama. It takes time to build a fan base and no AAC team is likely to ever match Bama's fanbase, but the AAC schools can certain grow thier fanbases larger than they are. The first step in building a larger fanbase is getting the games where they can be seen outside of a schools normal region. Bottom line--- It's simply impossible to grow a fanbase beyond your local footprint if your games are not readily accessible to viewers outside of your region.

I agree that all of this - better student and athlete recruiting, and developing more casual natonal fans and a brand-are theoretically possible advantages of national platforms. What i am less optimistic about is the odds of their tangible realization given the ever more crowded marketplace. There are seemingly a billion games being shown on many platforms. At a minimum, confrerence exposure cannot be judged in a vacuum but rather relative to that of the competition.

What might matter more is high profile stuff like being featured on ESPN shows like Sportscenter and Gameday. ESPN has a bias towards stuff they televise but they televise so much.

And in the case of the AAC, ESPN invested so little money in us that they are unlikely to feel the need to promote us as they do not need high ratings to make money on the deal. When the ESPN deal was signed many AAC fans were excited about all the promotion we would be getting now that we were an ESPN property but were then angry when ESPN bloggers ignored us and our web page was moribund. Not me, as it was predictable that ESPN would prioritize its bigger investments.

This is why i disagree with those who think 'high exposure/low dollar' deals are good: the low dollars are tangible, real , whereas the alleged benefits of exposure are far more theoretical and tenuous.



Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Que...the problem you're having is IMO comparing the AAC to the P5...gotta keep it in perceptive...while it will get overlooked in comparison to the P5 with the ESPN Deal it will get more attention than any other G5/Second 5 League which is their competition now...

(08-06-2014 06:49 AM)Maize Wrote:  Que...the problem you're having is IMO comparing the AAC to the P5...gotta keep it in perceptive...while it will get overlooked in comparison to the P5 with the ESPN Deal it will get more attention than any other G5/Second 5 League which is their competition now...

Maze, i think that even if you turn out to be correct it will be a pyrrhic victory for us - tallest midget under three feet. 😕

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-06-2014 03:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 06:49 AM)Maize Wrote:  Que...the problem you're having is IMO comparing the AAC to the P5...gotta keep it in perceptive...while it will get overlooked in comparison to the P5 with the ESPN Deal it will get more attention than any other G5/Second 5 League which is their competition now...

Maize, i think that even if you turn out to be correct it will be a pyrrhic victory for us - tallest midget under three feet. ?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Even with being the "Tallest Midget" with the pay distribution if/when the AAC wins the Access Slot 8 out of 12 years and with the Basketball Revenue the league will still be making plenty of cash...much more than every one else in that Second Five grouping which is the Current Status of the AAC in Football...still a Power League in Men's Basketball