(08-03-2014 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 11:59 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 02:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  With 20/20 hindsight, I think it was a tactical and strategic mistake for the AAC to have invited Tulane, Tulsa and Navy. If those three spots had been left for BYU, Boise and SDSU they would have had a chance at a coast to coast conference whose numbers are pretty close to ACC numbers.

BYU
Boise
SDSU
Houston
SMU
Memphis
USF
UCF
ECU
UConn
Cincy
Temple

Combined power rating 70, average FB attendance 36K, average hoops attendance 8K, potential for up to 6 NCAAT bids. Six members from the Mississippi River west, and six to the east. Even if you can't persuade the three western schools to join you, you still have a very viable league without sacrificing too much in media markets, and only nine mouths to feed.

How is Tulane a bad invite?

Let's say ECU goes undefeated for three straight seasons what happens? A pat on the back.

Let's say Tulane does the same. Tons and tons of bandwagon fans from New Orleans jump on board and you will likely start hearing the Big 12 being interested in them because of their market.

And how in the world is Navy as football only a bad invite?

Tulsa may have been a bad invite but Tulsa has great teams around the board probably more so than anyone else in the AAC.

Not really any three team available that can trump those three.

Yes, though Tulane has been an athletic backwater for decades, they are still an old college name that everyone has heard of. If they got good some of that old mystique would revive.

Bottom line is that they have a modicum of old school residual football brand value that not only ECU but all other AAC schools save for SMU lack as well. They were a good invite.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Let me ask you this. If the other nine AAC schools were given a choice today of any three out of BYU, Boise, SDSU, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy, with a guarantee that whoever they invite would accept, which three would they pick?

(08-03-2014 01:56 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 11:59 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 02:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  With 20/20 hindsight, I think it was a tactical and strategic mistake for the AAC to have invited Tulane, Tulsa and Navy. If those three spots had been left for BYU, Boise and SDSU they would have had a chance at a coast to coast conference whose numbers are pretty close to ACC numbers.

BYU
Boise
SDSU
Houston
SMU
Memphis
USF
UCF
ECU
UConn
Cincy
Temple

Combined power rating 70, average FB attendance 36K, average hoops attendance 8K, potential for up to 6 NCAAT bids. Six members from the Mississippi River west, and six to the east. Even if you can't persuade the three western schools to join you, you still have a very viable league without sacrificing too much in media markets, and only nine mouths to feed.

How is Tulane a bad invite?

Let's say ECU goes undefeated for three straight seasons what happens? A pat on the back.

Let's say Tulane does the same. Tons and tons of bandwagon fans from New Orleans jump on board and you will likely start hearing the Big 12 being interested in them because of their market.

And how in the world is Navy as football only a bad invite?

Tulsa may have been a bad invite but Tulsa has great teams around the board probably more so than anyone else in the AAC.

Not really any three team available that can trump those three.

Yes, though Tulane has been an athletic backwater for decades, they are still an old college name that everyone has heard of. If they got good some of that old mystique would revive.

Bottom line is that they have a modicum of old school residual football brand value that not only ECU but all other AAC schools save for SMU lack as well. They were a good invite.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Let me ask you this. If the other nine AAC schools were given a choice today of any three out of BYU, Boise, SDSU, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy, with a guarantee that whoever they invite would accept, which three would they pick?

BYU football only

(08-03-2014 01:56 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 11:59 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 02:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  With 20/20 hindsight, I think it was a tactical and strategic mistake for the AAC to have invited Tulane, Tulsa and Navy. If those three spots had been left for BYU, Boise and SDSU they would have had a chance at a coast to coast conference whose numbers are pretty close to ACC numbers.

BYU
Boise
SDSU
Houston
SMU
Memphis
USF
UCF
ECU
UConn
Cincy
Temple

Combined power rating 70, average FB attendance 36K, average hoops attendance 8K, potential for up to 6 NCAAT bids. Six members from the Mississippi River west, and six to the east. Even if you can't persuade the three western schools to join you, you still have a very viable league without sacrificing too much in media markets, and only nine mouths to feed.

How is Tulane a bad invite?

Let's say ECU goes undefeated for three straight seasons what happens? A pat on the back.

Let's say Tulane does the same. Tons and tons of bandwagon fans from New Orleans jump on board and you will likely start hearing the Big 12 being interested in them because of their market.

And how in the world is Navy as football only a bad invite?

Tulsa may have been a bad invite but Tulsa has great teams around the board probably more so than anyone else in the AAC.

Not really any three team available that can trump those three.

Yes, though Tulane has been an athletic backwater for decades, they are still an old college name that everyone has heard of. If they got good some of that old mystique would revive.

Bottom line is that they have a modicum of old school residual football brand value that not only ECU but all other AAC schools save for SMU lack as well. They were a good invite.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Let me ask you this. If the other nine AAC schools were given a choice today of any three out of BYU, Boise, SDSU, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy, with a guarantee that whoever they invite would accept, which three would they pick?

I think they would take Navy, Tulane, and BYU.

They should take Tulane and Navy only. Tulsa is a head scratcher on any level. And while BYU and Boise have football brand value I was always opposed to the 'western wing' concept, think the geographic dispersion is too great.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-03-2014 01:56 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 11:59 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 02:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  With 20/20 hindsight, I think it was a tactical and strategic mistake for the AAC to have invited Tulane, Tulsa and Navy. If those three spots had been left for BYU, Boise and SDSU they would have had a chance at a coast to coast conference whose numbers are pretty close to ACC numbers.

BYU
Boise
SDSU
Houston
SMU
Memphis
USF
UCF
ECU
UConn
Cincy
Temple

Combined power rating 70, average FB attendance 36K, average hoops attendance 8K, potential for up to 6 NCAAT bids. Six members from the Mississippi River west, and six to the east. Even if you can't persuade the three western schools to join you, you still have a very viable league without sacrificing too much in media markets, and only nine mouths to feed.

How is Tulane a bad invite?

Let's say ECU goes undefeated for three straight seasons what happens? A pat on the back.

Let's say Tulane does the same. Tons and tons of bandwagon fans from New Orleans jump on board and you will likely start hearing the Big 12 being interested in them because of their market.

And how in the world is Navy as football only a bad invite?

Tulsa may have been a bad invite but Tulsa has great teams around the board probably more so than anyone else in the AAC.

Not really any three team available that can trump those three.

Yes, though Tulane has been an athletic backwater for decades, they are still an old college name that everyone has heard of. If they got good some of that old mystique would revive.

Bottom line is that they have a modicum of old school residual football brand value that not only ECU but all other AAC schools save for SMU lack as well. They were a good invite.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Let me ask you this. If the other nine AAC schools were given a choice today of any three out of BYU, Boise, SDSU, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy, with a guarantee that whoever they invite would accept, which three would they pick?

Navy and BYU are certain selections. Number 3 would be a toss up. Given the recent history, not sure if Boise would be the selection. They are not on your list--but I could see any of Air Force, New Mexico, or Colorado St being more attractive to those 9 AAC members than the remaining selections from your list. New Mexico and Colorado State would both be interesting all-sports additions. If it were left to me--I'd take Navy, BYU, and New Mexico (all-sports).

That said, Ive been very impressed with the money Tulane is pouring into athletics. As unpopular as that pick has been---it may end up working out quite well in the long run.

(07-31-2014 07:17 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 06:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 06:38 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 06:31 PM)MJG Wrote:  Six out of nine BCS crashers won with Utah being the most impressive.
My guess is the ACCESS Bowl is devalued because of the playoffs .
The BCS bowls were all even despite only one being for the championship.
The Access Bowl becomes tallest midget because its not a semi final .

1. Once again the BCS is Dead...you have 5 leagues with High Revenue Bowl Tie-Ins due to Market Forces...5 leagues that don't.

2. Truth of the matter is if you're a Bowl Game that particular year you're not hosting a Semifinals or the CFP Title Game then you are just an exhibition game...this year the Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Peach Bowl and Cotton Bowl are the tallest midgets...next year it will be the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Peach Bowl and Sugar Bowl are the tallest midgets....

That is technically true, but not practically true. E.g., last year, the Sugar Bowl was just an exhibition, in that it had no bearing on who won the national title, but surely Oklahoma got a lot more publicity and prestige mileage - important things - from playing in and winning it as compared to if they had won the Copper Bowl.

The big bowls with the big names still have a prominence factor.

That is last year...Right now we are entering a brand new era...just a hunch nobody will care that much about any other Post Season College Football Game that is not the Semifinal or Title Game.

This. The bowls will start to reduce as more money is poured into an expanded playoff by the networks.

(08-03-2014 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 09:42 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 08:39 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 10:24 PM)Underdog Wrote:  What's flawed is thinking that the ACC, B10, SEC, B12, and PAC 12 determine a power conference. It's the networks that make this distinction. FOX overpaid for the B12 in order to maintain the status of and possess a power conference. NBC could have done the same for the American if it wanted a power conference. The $$$ the networks are willing to pay a conference makes this distinction in my opinion….

They thought they could get us on the cheap. For the same money we got a better platform. NBC underbid and aresco was under the gun to take a deal. The period was not long enough for a true negotiation


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Let's face it: Every network had the opportunity to bid on the AAC contract. That is the whole reason Aresco spurned ESPN in October 2012 during their exclusive window, so he could take the contract to the open market.

And the open market offered $2m per school.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Again that was after the Boise experiment fell through. I believe espn offered less than what we ended up with and he went out and got some bids. He did not renegotiate as the exposure and shorter term were preferable in addition to the big boy brand. The offers were low because practically everyone was untested on a national stage with regard to ratings. We traded bucks for exposure with an eye to cash in on better brand equity later. It's the oldest trick in the book for promotion and advertising.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The problem with the 'traded bucks for exposure' argument is that there is no evidence the AAC was offered more bucks than it signed for, and you can't trade something you never had to begin with.

I do agree the contract dollars were low because the AAC schools lacked a track record of national appeal (particularly on the football side). If that appeal grows the dollars will, too.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I think Quo is right... The only reason from my understanding that we got more exposure is because NBC offered more and ESPN had the right to match its offer. The conference decided to go with ESPN because it’s a better sports platform. NBC should have offered more money because it definitely needs the sports content we offer to try and compete with CBS, ABC, FOX, ESPN, B10 Network, PAC 12 Network, and the SEC Network. This is why it’s imperative for the American to attempt a coast-to-coast conference for our next TV deal that would provide NBC and NBCSHD with sports in every time zone to broadcast.

(08-03-2014 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 10:24 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 01:10 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The P6 is a flawed concept that Aresco likes to spout because he's paid to make his teams happy.

There aint a way in earth it would actually happen. P5 isn't splitting the dollars anymore.

What's flawed is thinking that the ACC, B10, SEC, B12, and PAC 12 determine a power conference. It's the networks that make this distinction. FOX overpaid for the B12 in order to maintain the status of and possess a power conference. NBC could have done the same for the American if it wanted a power conference. The $$$ the networks are willing to pay a conference makes this distinction in my opinion….

Yes, but networks do not do so arbitrarily. I mean sure, NBC could have offered the AAC $20 million per school, just like i could offer to pay McDonalds $200 for a egg mcmuffin. But i wouldn't because it is not worth it.

There is no objective evidence that the Big 12 is overpayed or the AAC underpaid. Network contract dollars do not create value they reflect it. The Big 12 is paid big bucks because FOX knows their games are popular and will draw advertisers who want their products exposed to their large audience base.

Now do networks sometimes make bad deals they regret? Sure. But i have seen no inkling that FOX regrets their Big 12 deal.




Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I will not get off topic with you in this thread about the B12 being overpaid. Since this has been discussed in the past, I will refer you to another thread if you want to continue this topic:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-640116-page-12.html

A lot of whining about nothing. The number of athletes on P5 and G5 rosters isn't changing. As long as the G5 programs improve facilities, training and recruiting and HS football keeps improving then Cinderella is as alive as ever. Th P5 programs could come out in fur coats and "bling" but that doesn't make them better at football.

(08-04-2014 09:14 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  A lot of whining about nothing. The number of athletes on P5 and G5 rosters isn't changing. As long as the G5 programs improve facilities, training and recruiting and HS football keeps improving then Cinderella is as alive as ever. Th P5 programs could come out in fur coats and "bling" but that doesn't make them better at football.

If anything if/when Full Cost of Attendance comes about and if the AAC is the only league in the Second 5 doing it across the board it will be an advantage for them. That and the fact they have the most exposure of the Second 5 Leagues on the World Wide Leader...it will give them a Recruiting Advantage over Second 5 schools...that is their competition now...

(08-04-2014 09:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:14 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  A lot of whining about nothing. The number of athletes on P5 and G5 rosters isn't changing. As long as the G5 programs improve facilities, training and recruiting and HS football keeps improving then Cinderella is as alive as ever. Th P5 programs could come out in fur coats and "bling" but that doesn't make them better at football.

If anything if/when Full Cost of Attendance comes about and if the AAC is the only league in the Second 5 doing it across the board it will be an advantage for them. That and the fact they have the most exposure of the Second 5 Leagues on the World Wide Leader...it will give them a Recruiting Advantage over Second 5 schools...that is their competition now...

MAC Commish last week at media day said the MAC fully supports full cost of attendance. I believe the CUSA commish has said the same. Only the MWC waffled in that he said the MWC may be on a school by school basis and Hawaii was acting like they would not.

(08-04-2014 09:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:14 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  A lot of whining about nothing. The number of athletes on P5 and G5 rosters isn't changing. As long as the G5 programs improve facilities, training and recruiting and HS football keeps improving then Cinderella is as alive as ever. Th P5 programs could come out in fur coats and "bling" but that doesn't make them better at football.

If anything if/when Full Cost of Attendance comes about and if the AAC is the only league in the Second 5 doing it across the board it will be an advantage for them. That and the fact they have the most exposure of the Second 5 Leagues on the World Wide Leader...it will give them a Recruiting Advantage over Second 5 schools...that is their competition now...

Realistically, they aren't doing much recruiting against MWC schools now because of geography, and cost of attendance probably wouldn't change that. The AAC already has a huge recruiting advantage over the rest of the G5.

(08-04-2014 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:14 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  A lot of whining about nothing. The number of athletes on P5 and G5 rosters isn't changing. As long as the G5 programs improve facilities, training and recruiting and HS football keeps improving then Cinderella is as alive as ever. Th P5 programs could come out in fur coats and "bling" but that doesn't make them better at football.

If anything if/when Full Cost of Attendance comes about and if the AAC is the only league in the Second 5 doing it across the board it will be an advantage for them. That and the fact they have the most exposure of the Second 5 Leagues on the World Wide Leader...it will give them a Recruiting Advantage over Second 5 schools...that is their competition now...

Realistically, they aren't doing much recruiting against MWC schools now because of geography, and cost of attendance probably wouldn't change that. The AAC already has a huge recruiting advantage over the rest of the G5.

True...their advantage is over the C-USA, Sunbelt and MAC...What the AAC needs to do is due their due diligence in talent evaluation with their 3* Players-(only so many scholarships available for ACC, Big XII & SEC Schools their comp for the High Level 3* Borderline 4* players they no longer will get) ...luckily for them they still have access to the fertile recruiting grounds in Florida, Ohio and Texas...as long as the scholarship levels are the same they will be just fine...

(08-04-2014 10:08 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:14 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  A lot of whining about nothing. The number of athletes on P5 and G5 rosters isn't changing. As long as the G5 programs improve facilities, training and recruiting and HS football keeps improving then Cinderella is as alive as ever. Th P5 programs could come out in fur coats and "bling" but that doesn't make them better at football.

If anything if/when Full Cost of Attendance comes about and if the AAC is the only league in the Second 5 doing it across the board it will be an advantage for them. That and the fact they have the most exposure of the Second 5 Leagues on the World Wide Leader...it will give them a Recruiting Advantage over Second 5 schools...that is their competition now...

Realistically, they aren't doing much recruiting against MWC schools now because of geography, and cost of attendance probably wouldn't change that. The AAC already has a huge recruiting advantage over the rest of the G5.

True...their advantage is over the C-USA, Sunbelt and MAC...What the AAC needs to do is due their due diligence in talent evaluation with their 3* Players-(only so many scholarships available for ACC, Big XII & SEC Schools their comp for the High Level 3* Borderline 4* players they no longer will get) ...luckily for them they still have access to the fertile recruiting grounds in Florida, Ohio and Texas...as long as the scholarship levels are the same they will be just fine...

If I'm one of the top AAC teams, I'm going to forget about going head to head with the top P5 teams for the 4* kids. I'm going after the teams in the bottom half of their leagues with this recruiting pitch to the 3* kids: if you want a shot at playing in an access bowl, you have a better chance with us than you do with somebody like Mississippi State, Kentucky, UNC, NC State, etc. Their best shot is playing in Nashville or Charlotte. Win with us and we have a realistic shot at Miami or New Orleans.

(08-04-2014 10:26 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:08 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:14 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  A lot of whining about nothing. The number of athletes on P5 and G5 rosters isn't changing. As long as the G5 programs improve facilities, training and recruiting and HS football keeps improving then Cinderella is as alive as ever. Th P5 programs could come out in fur coats and "bling" but that doesn't make them better at football.

If anything if/when Full Cost of Attendance comes about and if the AAC is the only league in the Second 5 doing it across the board it will be an advantage for them. That and the fact they have the most exposure of the Second 5 Leagues on the World Wide Leader...it will give them a Recruiting Advantage over Second 5 schools...that is their competition now...

Realistically, they aren't doing much recruiting against MWC schools now because of geography, and cost of attendance probably wouldn't change that. The AAC already has a huge recruiting advantage over the rest of the G5.

True...their advantage is over the C-USA, Sunbelt and MAC...What the AAC needs to do is due their due diligence in talent evaluation with their 3* Players-(only so many scholarships available for ACC, Big XII & SEC Schools their comp for the High Level 3* Borderline 4* players they no longer will get) ...luckily for them they still have access to the fertile recruiting grounds in Florida, Ohio and Texas...as long as the scholarship levels are the same they will be just fine...

If I'm one of the top AAC teams, I'm going to forget about going head to head with the top P5 teams for the 4* kids. I'm going after the teams in the bottom half of their leagues with this recruiting pitch to the 3* kids: if you want a shot at playing in an access bowl, you have a better chance with us than you do with somebody like Mississippi State, Kentucky, UNC, NC State, etc. They're best shot is playing in Nashville or Charlotte. Win with us and we have a realistic shot at Miami or New Orleans.

Exactly....especially if you're giving the same amount in Full Cost....

(08-04-2014 10:08 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:14 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  A lot of whining about nothing. The number of athletes on P5 and G5 rosters isn't changing. As long as the G5 programs improve facilities, training and recruiting and HS football keeps improving then Cinderella is as alive as ever. Th P5 programs could come out in fur coats and "bling" but that doesn't make them better at football.

If anything if/when Full Cost of Attendance comes about and if the AAC is the only league in the Second 5 doing it across the board it will be an advantage for them. That and the fact they have the most exposure of the Second 5 Leagues on the World Wide Leader...it will give them a Recruiting Advantage over Second 5 schools...that is their competition now...

Realistically, they aren't doing much recruiting against MWC schools now because of geography, and cost of attendance probably wouldn't change that. The AAC already has a huge recruiting advantage over the rest of the G5.

True...their advantage is over the C-USA, Sunbelt and MAC...What the AAC needs to do is due their due diligence in talent evaluation with their 3* Players-(only so many scholarships available for ACC, Big XII & SEC Schools their comp for the High Level 3* Borderline 4* players they no longer will get) ...luckily for them they still have access to the fertile recruiting grounds in Florida, Ohio and Texas...as long as the scholarship levels are the same they will be just fine...

I don't know what recruiting advantage you are talking about. From an Arkansas State perspective, we've never really had an issue recruiting against the AAC. Its the SEC that steals our players...constantly.

(08-04-2014 10:49 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:08 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:14 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  A lot of whining about nothing. The number of athletes on P5 and G5 rosters isn't changing. As long as the G5 programs improve facilities, training and recruiting and HS football keeps improving then Cinderella is as alive as ever. Th P5 programs could come out in fur coats and "bling" but that doesn't make them better at football.

If anything if/when Full Cost of Attendance comes about and if the AAC is the only league in the Second 5 doing it across the board it will be an advantage for them. That and the fact they have the most exposure of the Second 5 Leagues on the World Wide Leader...it will give them a Recruiting Advantage over Second 5 schools...that is their competition now...

Realistically, they aren't doing much recruiting against MWC schools now because of geography, and cost of attendance probably wouldn't change that. The AAC already has a huge recruiting advantage over the rest of the G5.

True...their advantage is over the C-USA, Sunbelt and MAC...What the AAC needs to do is due their due diligence in talent evaluation with their 3* Players-(only so many scholarships available for ACC, Big XII & SEC Schools their comp for the High Level 3* Borderline 4* players they no longer will get) ...luckily for them they still have access to the fertile recruiting grounds in Florida, Ohio and Texas...as long as the scholarship levels are the same they will be just fine...

I don't know what recruiting advantage you are talking about. From an Arkansas State perspective, we've never really had an issue recruiting against the AAC. Its the SEC that steals our players...constantly.

I do not see the AAC having any advantage in recruiting head to head for players from Ala/Ga over teams from the Sun Belt and CUSA.

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...

(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.

.

(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...

All three leagues are going to be offering the same money, and all three have TV deals providing for the right to national broadcasts.

Most recruits are not going to understand the difference in when those games are. Every SBC Game is televised on an ESPN Platform. Sure...the AAC gets their games on the more noticeable platform, but they wont know that because no SBC school is going to admit it.

(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.

.

Same here. Sun Belt has already announced they fully support that measure across the board as well and will implement it once its passed.

As for recruiting...We run across a few AAC schools, but never an absolute ton. We beat out Louisville (I guess they may count ACC), ECU, Tulsa, and Memphis for recruits last year and lost one to Temple. Since we don't recruit Florida at all, generally the only schools we go up against are the Memphis and Tulsa's, who we've been recruiting against for years.

I've yet to see any real advantage that either school has gained in our recruiting battles. We've each signed about the same numbers in our battles.