(04-06-2015 10:27 AM)Downtown Shocker Brown Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No sense in adding any school that isn't worth more to TV than the average value of our current membership.

Only schools out there that fit the bill are Boise, BYU, and SDSU. And none have any interest in joining us.

What would you estimate that value to be? Those familiar with the AAC bylaws and current TV deal estimate that each school would be out $58k. While current NCAA credits would stay with the Valley, all new credits would go to the AAC. Meaning that each game that Wichita State plays in next year and going forward would be worth $242k dollars to the conference. Add in additional TV advertising that would result in having another Top 20 team in conference as well as ticket sales and it easily breaks even. That is if we only play one game.

It is a win win for everyone if this happens financially, and puts everyone in a better basketball conference.

Yeah, it's mind-boggling that people still can't wrap their minds around this relatively simple concept.

(04-06-2015 10:57 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 10:27 AM)Downtown Shocker Brown Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No sense in adding any school that isn't worth more to TV than the average value of our current membership.

Only schools out there that fit the bill are Boise, BYU, and SDSU. And none have any interest in joining us.

What would you estimate that value to be? Those familiar with the AAC bylaws and current TV deal estimate that each school would be out $58k. While current NCAA credits would stay with the Valley, all new credits would go to the AAC. Meaning that each game that Wichita State plays in next year and going forward would be worth $242k dollars to the conference. Add in additional TV advertising that would result in having another Top 20 team in conference as well as ticket sales and it easily breaks even. That is if we only play one game.

It is a win win for everyone if this happens financially, and puts everyone in a better basketball conference.

Yeah, it's mind-boggling that people still can't wrap their minds around this relatively simple concept.

Most people can. A couple of the typical gloom-n-doomers can't see it---but nothing new there.

(04-06-2015 10:27 AM)Downtown Shocker Brown Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No sense in adding any school that isn't worth more to TV than the average value of our current membership.

Only schools out there that fit the bill are Boise, BYU, and SDSU. And none have any interest in joining us.

What would you estimate that value to be? Those familiar with the AAC bylaws and current TV deal estimate that each school would be out $58k. While current NCAA credits would stay with the Valley, all new credits would go to the AAC. Meaning that each game that Wichita State plays in next year and going forward would be worth $242k dollars to the conference. Add in additional TV advertising that would result in having another Top 20 team in conference as well as ticket sales and it easily breaks even. That is if we only play one game.

It is a win win for everyone if this happens financially, and puts everyone in a better basketball conference.

Adding quality basketball content does increase the value. In the old C-USA we had Memphis as the lone upper level team. Now we have a bunch of made for tv teams. Add Wichita State and that gives ESPN even more quality basketball content. I'm sure WSU fans would go nuts getting Uconn in their house on a regular basis along with Memphis and others.

Cincy, Memphis, And Tulsa as former Valley members, UCONN and Temple as great programs, plus SMU and Larry Brown would all be popular teams. We average a sell out, so mostly second hand sites would benefit.

But hopefully we can continue our success and help push up some of the others attendance as well.

I agree to a WSU add if we get a western div going with the best of the mwc + BYU.

Renegotiate tv contaract and bowl games.

Create a new CCG game location in the middle if east vs west

No.

(04-06-2015 10:57 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 10:27 AM)Downtown Shocker Brown Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No sense in adding any school that isn't worth more to TV than the average value of our current membership.

Only schools out there that fit the bill are Boise, BYU, and SDSU. And none have any interest in joining us.

What would you estimate that value to be? Those familiar with the AAC bylaws and current TV deal estimate that each school would be out $58k. While current NCAA credits would stay with the Valley, all new credits would go to the AAC. Meaning that each game that Wichita State plays in next year and going forward would be worth $242k dollars to the conference. Add in additional TV advertising that would result in having another Top 20 team in conference as well as ticket sales and it easily breaks even. That is if we only play one game.

It is a win win for everyone if this happens financially, and puts everyone in a better basketball conference.

Yeah, it's mind-boggling that people still can't wrap their minds around this relatively simple concept.

Not to mention, a top20 team adds to our brand which equals better recruits and allows us to separate from G5's and not be relegated behind the nBE. Their fans will also travel for the conference tourney and maybe for some games in between, won;t add a ton but can't hurt.

It feels like the perfect match given Navy not playing Bball.

(04-06-2015 10:56 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Will u people let UMASS go for heaven sake!? Whats the matter with you!?

The ONLY fb adds that help the AAC are Boise, BYU, AF, SDSU, and Fresno.


Basketball wise WSU, SDSU, VCU wouldnt hurt us.

I would maybe add Colorado State to that list.

(04-06-2015 12:37 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  No.

why?

Plus it will ease the impact of we lose some teams to the P5, which is going to happen sooner or later.

If its revenue neutral in the worst case scenario, it makes perfect sense to add them as a counter balance to Navy. As the P5/G5 gap keeps widening, any move that strengthens the overall athletic programs at AAC schools has to be on the table. Regional travel for non-revs has to come into play at some point. Depending on their progress in a few years, adding one of the F_Us and one of the GaS_s may make similar sense for teams east of the Mississippi and south of DC.

Add Army, go after Air Force and CSU. That gives the AAC 15 football, 13 basketball. Then add VCU, Wichita and BYU as non-football members. Make BYU sign a 6 game football contract per year.

Footabll goes to 5 team pods with 2 crossover with each pod, basketball/olympic is at two divisions of 8 that are pretty well balanced.

Now you have all three Academies in one conference, significantly improved basketball with VCU, Wichita, BYU and CSU, football has more interesting matchups, soccer is stronger with VCU, baseball is better with VCU and Wichita. Overall, I think thats a mix that can happen, is regionally balanced and adds value.

2015-16 Ridiculously Early Preseason Top 25 (and one)

10. WICHITA STATE

Notable players definitely gone: Darius Carter, Tekele Cotton
Others expected to leave: None
Notable players expected to return: Fred VanVleet, Ron Baker, Evan Wessel, Shaquille Morris, Rashard Kelly
Others expected to join the roster: Connor Frankamp, Markus McDuffie, Landry Shamet, Eric Hamilton, Tyrone Taylor
Why the Shockers are ranked here: Ron Baker could declare for the NBA Draft, which would drop Wichita State some. But, either way, the Shockers will have Gregg Marshall coaching the team and Fred VanVleet running the team, and that's a nice combination.

13. SMU

Notable players definitely gone: Yanick Moreira, Cannen Cunningham, Ryan Manuel
Others expected to leave: None
Notable players expected to return: Nic Moore, Markus Kennedy, Ben Moore, Sterling Brown, Ben Emelogu
Others expected to join the roster: Semi Ojeleye, Shake Milton, Cedrick Barefield
Why the Mustangs are ranked here: The reigning American Athletic Conference Player of the Year (Nic Moore) is back. That means SMU should make the NCAA Tournament in consecutive years for the first time since 1984 and 1985.


26. CINCINNATI

Notable players definitely gone: Jermaine Sanders
Others expected to leave:
Notable players expected to return: Octavius Ellis, Shaquille Thomas, Gary Clark, Troy Caupain, Farad Cobb, Quadri Moore, Coreontae DeBerry, Deshaun Morman, Kevin Johnson
Others expected to join the roster: Jacob Evans, Justin Jenifer
Why the Bearcats are ranked here: Mick Cronin should be back on the sideline next season, and he has a lot of tough and experienced players returning with him. The Bearcats will likely be the biggest threat to SMU in the American Athletic Conference.

(04-06-2015 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No sense in adding any school that isn't worth more to TV than the average value of our current membership.

Only schools out there that fit the bill are Boise, BYU, and SDSU. And none have any interest in joining us.

But adding Wichita is along the same theme - they would add revenue through units.

But at this point, I think that the AAC should still shoot for P6 inclusion. Yes, it's unlikely. Yes Cincy and U Conn (and maybe a couple of others) will get invites anyway. But to that end, BYU and Boise are musts. I'd round it out with SD State, Colo State and New Mexico. That at least gives the AAC the strongest collection of G5 universities (with some exceptions like Rice) and the best football teams:
East: ECU, UCF, USF, UC, U Conn, Memphis, Temple, Tulane
West: Hou, SMU, Tulsa, NM, CSU, Boise, BYU, SDSU
(academies welcome for football).
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. If the P5 officially closes its doors, there will be a bunch of shifting anyway.

(04-07-2015 10:36 AM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No sense in adding any school that isn't worth more to TV than the average value of our current membership.

Only schools out there that fit the bill are Boise, BYU, and SDSU. And none have any interest in joining us.

But adding Wichita is along the same theme - they would add revenue through units.

But at this point, I think that the AAC should still shoot for P6 inclusion. Yes, it's unlikely. Yes Cincy and U Conn (and maybe a couple of others) will get invites anyway. But to that end, BYU and Boise are musts. I'd round it out with SD State, Colo State and New Mexico. That at least gives the AAC the strongest collection of G5 universities (with some exceptions like Rice) and the best football teams:
East: ECU, UCF, USF, UC, U Conn, Memphis, Temple, Tulane
West: Hou, SMU, Tulsa, NM, CSU, Boise, BYU, SDSU
(academies welcome for football).
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. If the P5 officially closes its doors, there will be a bunch of shifting anyway.

Serious question: Why would BYU join the AAC when they're being viewed as a power conference for scheduling purposes?

Serious question #2: Why would the MW teams join the AAC and add all kinds of travel costs, plus essentially narrow their chances of winning a conference championship against more competition?

FWIW I'm in the camp of adding Wichita St. More likely than getting into a P6 is the P5 poaching the teams it finds most threatening, just to keep the AAC weak.

(04-07-2015 11:06 AM)mascotswinchampionships Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:36 AM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No sense in adding any school that isn't worth more to TV than the average value of our current membership.

Only schools out there that fit the bill are Boise, BYU, and SDSU. And none have any interest in joining us.

But adding Wichita is along the same theme - they would add revenue through units.

But at this point, I think that the AAC should still shoot for P6 inclusion. Yes, it's unlikely. Yes Cincy and U Conn (and maybe a couple of others) will get invites anyway. But to that end, BYU and Boise are musts. I'd round it out with SD State, Colo State and New Mexico. That at least gives the AAC the strongest collection of G5 universities (with some exceptions like Rice) and the best football teams:
East: ECU, UCF, USF, UC, U Conn, Memphis, Temple, Tulane
West: Hou, SMU, Tulsa, NM, CSU, Boise, BYU, SDSU
(academies welcome for football).
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. If the P5 officially closes its doors, there will be a bunch of shifting anyway.

Serious question: Why would BYU join the AAC when they're being viewed as a power conference for scheduling purposes? They wouldn't

Serious question #2: Why would the MW teams join the AAC and add all kinds of travel costs, plus essentially narrow their chances of winning a conference championship against more competition? They wouldn't

FWIW I'm in the camp of adding Wichita St. Agreed More likely than getting into a P6 is the P5 poaching the teams it finds most threatening, just to keep the AAC weak.

Football: Cincy, UCF, ECU, Houston, Navy, etc

Basketball: UConn, Cincy, Memphis, WSU, Temple, SMU, Tulsa

Yep, that works for me...

(04-07-2015 11:06 AM)mascotswinchampionships Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:36 AM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No sense in adding any school that isn't worth more to TV than the average value of our current membership.

Only schools out there that fit the bill are Boise, BYU, and SDSU. And none have any interest in joining us.

But adding Wichita is along the same theme - they would add revenue through units.

But at this point, I think that the AAC should still shoot for P6 inclusion. Yes, it's unlikely. Yes Cincy and U Conn (and maybe a couple of others) will get invites anyway. But to that end, BYU and Boise are musts. I'd round it out with SD State, Colo State and New Mexico. That at least gives the AAC the strongest collection of G5 universities (with some exceptions like Rice) and the best football teams:
East: ECU, UCF, USF, UC, U Conn, Memphis, Temple, Tulane
West: Hou, SMU, Tulsa, NM, CSU, Boise, BYU, SDSU
(academies welcome for football).
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. If the P5 officially closes its doors, there will be a bunch of shifting anyway.

Serious question: Why would BYU join the AAC when they're being viewed as a power conference for scheduling purposes?

Serious question #2: Why would the MW teams join the AAC and add all kinds of travel costs, plus essentially narrow their chances of winning a conference championship against more competition?

FWIW I'm in the camp of adding Wichita St. More likely than getting into a P6 is the P5 poaching the teams it finds most threatening, just to keep the AAC weak.

Two reasons.

One--a national conference spanning from sea to sea has at least some chance of either becoming a significant conference in terms of TV (and media earnings) and has a better chance of dominating the G5 access bowl, thus becoming a de facto "contract bowl" conference.

Two--The regional model is a failed model for the G5. It has been tried in multiple versions through multiple contract cycles, and not one G5 conference has ever risen to P5 status or earned more than 10% of the media earnings of a power conference (most earn significantly less than 10%). The regional conference model is falling farther behind in earnings---worse yet, it is falling behind at an accelerating rate. Its time to try something different or resign ourselves to eventually being left behind when the financial gap becomes too big in the future.

Think about this---in 1996 CUSA teams earned about 50% what power conferences were earning. Now those same teams are earning 5-10% of what power conference teams earn. The regional model is an utter and compete failure. Continuing down this same road with same failed strategy is not a plan---its is the definition of having no foresight.

Finally, in a future split, I do think some G5's will get to follow the P5. If any G5 conference is to be drug along with the P5 in a split scenario, it is almost certainly going to be a national entity that carries the biggest names in the G5.

(04-07-2015 11:06 AM)mascotswinchampionships Wrote:  Serious question: Why would BYU join the AAC when they're being viewed as a power conference for scheduling purposes? I don't know that they would. They are viewed as P6 for scheduling purposes, but so is Army, and don't get have enhanced access to a high paying bowl. So what exactly does that mean?. They aren't viewed as P6 for $ purposes.

Serious question #2: Why would the MW teams join the AAC and add all kinds of travel costs, plus essentially narrow their chances of winning a conference championship against more competition? It's a risk. But the downside is to be in the same position they are now in 5 years minus a couple of mill in additional travel. And those teams, aside from maybe Colo State, have no chance at P5 inclusion on their own merits. You can win all of the championships you want once your firmly embedded as a
g5.

FWIW I'm in the camp of adding Wichita St. More likely than getting into a P6 is the P5 poaching the teams it finds most threatening, just to keep the AAC weak.

I agree that is more likely.
Heck, I think there's also a chance that the Big 12 gets picked apart and some of those teams will be scrambling and left out. But there are no teams in the AAC that are overly threatening on the field. That's why we need to make a move (and the AAC is in a much stronger position to poach the MWC than vice-versa). What the AAC has are several really good programs, some high research universities and some highly selective universities, some of which are also high research. The universities are also well-funded. The AAC Universities that are likely to get bids on their own are the ones that have the strongest mix (like Cincy).

The only official P5 designation exists in auto spots to the top paying bowls. AAC needs one of those. The bottom line is that the teams are risking, what, an additional mill in travel costs per year for 5 years, for a perpetual annuity that would be much greater. Worth the risk, imo.
And, heck, I'm not so sure it's a risk. The eventual TV deal would be better and would cover those travel costs (and moreso).

I am personally intrigued by the possibility of Wichita State, honestly.

What they do with their Campus is amazing... Wichita State is a great Basketball school.

But aren't we forget something here? When we talked about adding possibilities of UMass or BYU or other possible candidates, we were being really picky eye on their overall school attribute, like Academics, location, alumni, football stadium and such and such. We were looking at a school bottom down.

That is why I think what Wichita State does on their Campus is really a big icing on the cake. Again, the power lies in the administrators or presidents' hand to add Wichita State or not...

Is Wichita State a one coach phenon like Butler? Is Wichita going to sustain the success overtime?

What is their master plan of investing the sports program overall? What is their Campus plan? Then at last, we can talk about Football. But now? Just Basketball...

Wichita State has a way to go... But I would not be surprised of anything that is happening...

(04-08-2015 09:43 AM)AGuyIn_Water Wrote:  I am personally intrigued by the possibility of Wichita State, honestly.

What they do with their Campus is amazing... Wichita State is a great Basketball school.

But aren't we forget something here? When we talked about adding possibilities of UMass or BYU or other possible candidates, we were being really picky eye on their overall school attribute, like Academics, location, alumni, football stadium and such and such. We were looking at a school bottom down.

That is why I think what Wichita State does on their Campus is really a big icing on the cake. Again, the power lies in the administrators or presidents' hand to add Wichita State or not...

Is Wichita State a one coach phenon like Butler? Is Wichita going to sustain the success overtime?

What is their master plan of investing the sports program overall? What is their Campus plan? Then at last, we can talk about Football. But now? Just Basketball...

Wichita State has a way to go... But I would not be surprised of anything that is happening...

Butler is not a one coach phenom. They have been consistently making NCAA tournaments for nearly 20 years, spanning 5 coaches. They went to the tournament this year and Brad Stevens' predecessor, Todd Lickliter, was the national coach of the year in 2007.