(06-09-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The new conference consists only of the "cream" of the MWC, but the entirety of the AAC, including its dregs as well. The MWC cream is supposed to be willing to jettison its bottom six schools, but take on the weight of all the AAC schools, splitting the alleged gusher of new TV money 18 ways, not 12 ways. Funny stuff.

This is the part I don't get in these threads. I assume that no one is delusional enough to believe that the bottom of the AAC has more TV value than the top of the MWC, so either my assumption is wrong, or there's something else at work here, maybe it's AAC fans who don't want to start a civil war with other AAC fans by saying out loud that several teams should be left out.

If there was really enough money in this idea to make this worthwhile, there would be no reason to split it 18 ways instead of 12 or 10. So -- if there is really enough money to make big bucks out of this idea -- then form a new conference with five or six of each. Wait until UConn and Cincinnati have collected all of the money from Big East exit fees if necessary. Do they need autobids for the first five years? No. There are enough regular NCAA men's tournament teams there that the autobid is unneeded. They would also have enough baseball strength to not need an autobid there. And in women's hoops they'd have UConn who will probably get a #1 seed every year and will never ever care whether there's an autobid.

(06-10-2015 12:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The new conference consists only of the "cream" of the MWC, but the entirety of the AAC, including its dregs as well. The MWC cream is supposed to be willing to jettison its bottom six schools, but take on the weight of all the AAC schools, splitting the alleged gusher of new TV money 18 ways, not 12 ways. Funny stuff.

This is the part I don't get in these threads. I assume that no one is delusional enough to believe that the bottom of the AAC has more TV value than the top of the MWC, so either my assumption is wrong, or there's something else at work here, maybe it's AAC fans who don't want to start a civil war with other AAC fans by saying out loud that several teams should be left out.

If there was really enough money in this idea to make this worthwhile, there would be no reason to split it 18 ways instead of 12 or 10. So -- if there is really enough money to make big bucks out of this idea -- then form a new conference with five or six of each. Wait until UConn and Cincinnati have collected all of the money from Big East exit fees if necessary. Do they need autobids for the first five years? No. There are enough regular NCAA men's tournament teams there that the autobid is unneeded. They would also have enough baseball strength to not need an autobid there. And in women's hoops they'd have UConn who will probably get a #1 seed every year and will never ever care whether there's an autobid.

You would not have an autobid in ANY sport (and I think the waiting period is 7 years). The conference would also not be a signatory of the CFP agreement---thus would have no access to G5 access bowl slot or share in CFP revenues. That's a non-starter. In 12 years---when the CFP agreement is coming to an end---then, yeah, this would be the best solution. But for the next 12 years, the only viable road to an improved G5 conference is using either the AAC or the MW as the base conference and adding to it (subtraction is not an option because nobody is going to kick existing members out).

(06-09-2015 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im a realist. The only way to create the nationwide conference at this point in time is to build one using either the MW or the AAC as the base. Neither conference is going to kick out current members. That's just not going to happen. Yes, a "true" best of the rest would take the best from each conference. Unfortunately, reality of waiting 7 years for autobids and not being a signee of the CFP agreement means a totally NEW conference makes no sense at this juncture. To pick at current proposals that use and existing conference as a base is just another empty straw man argument that Quo and others like to make.

There isn't much realism here. Let's make the following assumptions, that sound realistic to me:

The average value of the top 6 AAC teams = $2.5m per year, of the bottom six the average value is $1.5m, collectively that adds up to an average of $2m per year, roughly the AAC media value.

Now let's say the average value of the top 6 MWC teams is also $2.5m per year, and of the bottom six just $1m per year (that comports with your AAC-fantasy belief that the bottom of the AAC is worth more than the bottom of the MWC). That values the current MWC at $1.75m per year.

If we do what you propose, and the top 6 of the MWC join to form an 18-team AAC, that raises the overall media value of the expanded AAC to .... $2.16m per year.

That's it, just $160k a year more per school for the AAC, just $310k for the MWC schools that leave.

That's chicken feed. Nobody in the MWC is going to leave their regional travel and rivalries behind to compete against ECU, USF, Tulane, etc. unless SERIOUS money is involved, Boise and SDSU in 2013 already proved that. A movement in value from $1.75m to $2.16m won't come close to cutting it.

Furthermore, such a move makes even less sense for the AAC cream, as their value would go up just $160k.

And yes, this new conference will dominate the Access slot. But, the impact of that is seriously diluted by having to divide that booty 18 ways. That's rough.

In contrast, a new conference made up of the best six from each would be worth $2.5m per school, which would increase the MWC schools almost 50% above what they get now and give the AAC cream a 25% boost, and the Access booty would just be divided 12 ways. That's probably worth it.

Bottom line: Carrying the bottom 6 of the AAC still drags this deal down, kills it.

You also talk about the set-in-stone nature of the CFP contract. That's debatable, but even if so, TV contracts exist as well. Nobody at ESPN is going to tear up the current AAC deal and renegotiate before 2020 over such a marginally small increase in value.

And you need to stop being unrealistic about the impact of being a "national" conference. There will be no "synergy effect" or somesuch of being national compared to regional. For example, the SEC and B1G are still very much regional conferences and yet make gigantic money. It's the brands you have not where they are located that matter. Far better to have Georgia, Auburn, and Florida in your conference (all located within 350 miles of each other) than to have SDSU, Tulane, and UConn, which span the nation. Regions don't matter, brands do. The reason the AAC makes more than the MAC is we have slightly bigger brand name schools, not because we are more sprawling.

If you are correct that the CFP is set in stone and that a new conference could not join, and that no conference will kick existing members out, then all that means is that there is no rational basis for the MWC or AAC to raid each other before 2025.

The only type of rearrangement that makes dollars and sense is a cream of each conference. If that truly is precluded by the CFP until 2025, then both sides will wait until then to act, because an arrangement in which the cream of one has to carry the dregs of the other simply doesn't make enough money to be worth it.

(06-10-2015 12:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The new conference consists only of the "cream" of the MWC, but the entirety of the AAC, including its dregs as well. The MWC cream is supposed to be willing to jettison its bottom six schools, but take on the weight of all the AAC schools, splitting the alleged gusher of new TV money 18 ways, not 12 ways. Funny stuff.

This is the part I don't get in these threads. I assume that no one is delusional enough to believe that the bottom of the AAC has more TV value than the top of the MWC, so either my assumption is wrong, or there's something else at work here, maybe it's AAC fans who don't want to start a civil war with other AAC fans by saying out loud that several teams should be left out.

If there was really enough money in this idea to make this worthwhile, there would be no reason to split it 18 ways instead of 12 or 10. So -- if there is really enough money to make big bucks out of this idea -- then form a new conference with five or six of each. Wait until UConn and Cincinnati have collected all of the money from Big East exit fees if necessary. Do they need autobids for the first five years? No. There are enough regular NCAA men's tournament teams there that the autobid is unneeded. They would also have enough baseball strength to not need an autobid there. And in women's hoops they'd have UConn who will probably get a #1 seed every year and will never ever care whether there's an autobid.

I think it's because they feel threatened after being the #3 G5 conference past year. In an effort to make the AAC the G5 rep, they need stronger teams and who else but to pull from the MW. Of course if the AAC got the auto-bid last year, they wouldn't be thinking about this.

The only team that would consider the AAC is Air Force if Navy and Army were in the same conference.

(06-10-2015 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im a realist. The only way to create the nationwide conference at this point in time is to build one using either the MW or the AAC as the base. Neither conference is going to kick out current members. That's just not going to happen. Yes, a "true" best of the rest would take the best from each conference. Unfortunately, reality of waiting 7 years for autobids and not being a signee of the CFP agreement means a totally NEW conference makes no sense at this juncture. To pick at current proposals that use and existing conference as a base is just another empty straw man argument that Quo and others like to make.

There isn't much realism here. Let's make the following assumptions, that sound realistic to me:

The average value of the top 6 AAC teams = $2.5m per year, of the bottom six the average value is $1.5m, collectively that adds up to an average of $2m per year, roughly the AAC media value.

Now let's say the average value of the top 6 MWC teams is also $2.5m per year, and of the bottom six just $1m per year (that comports with your AAC-fantasy belief that the bottom of the AAC is worth more than the bottom of the MWC). That values the current MWC at $1.75m per year.

If we do what you propose, and the top 6 of the MWC join to form an 18-team AAC, that raises the overall media value of the expanded AAC to .... $2.16m per year.

That's it, just $160k a year more per school for the AAC, just $310k for the MWC schools that leave.

That's chicken feed. Nobody in the MWC is going to leave their regional travel and rivalries behind to compete against ECU, USF, Tulane, etc. unless SERIOUS money is involved, Boise and SDSU in 2013 already proved that. A movement in value from $1.75m to $2.16m won't come close to cutting it.

Furthermore, such a move makes even less sense for the AAC cream, as their value would go up just $160k.

And yes, this new conference will dominate the Access slot. But, the impact of that is seriously diluted by having to divide that booty 18 ways. That's rough.

In contrast, a new conference made up of the best six from each would be worth $2.5m per school, which would increase the MWC schools almost 50% above what they get now and give the AAC cream a 25% boost, and the Access booty would just be divided 12 ways. That's probably worth it.

Bottom line: Carrying the bottom 6 of the AAC still drags this deal down, kills it.

You also talk about the set-in-stone nature of the CFP contract. That's debatable, but even if so, TV contracts exist as well. Nobody at ESPN is going to tear up the current AAC deal and renegotiate before 2020 over such a marginally small increase in value.

And you need to stop being unrealistic about the impact of being a "national" conference. There will be no "synergy effect" or somesuch of being national compared to regional. For example, the SEC and B1G are still very much regional conferences and yet make gigantic money. It's the brands you have not where they are located that matter. Far better to have Georgia, Auburn, and Florida in your conference (all located within 350 miles of each other) than to have SDSU, Tulane, and UConn, which span the nation. Regions don't matter, brands do. The reason the AAC makes more than the MAC is we have slightly bigger brand name schools, not because we are more sprawling.

If you are correct that the CFP is set in stone and that a new conference could not join, and that no conference will kick existing members out, then all that means is that there is no rational basis for the MWC or AAC to raid each other before 2025.

The only type of rearrangement that makes dollars and sense is a cream of each conference. If that truly is precluded by the CFP until 2025, then both sides will wait until then to act, because an arrangement in which the cream of one has to carry the dregs of the other simply doesn't make enough money to be worth it.

I agree with everything that you said, and I'll add that if you took the cream of both conferences, then I don't think that you would realize the full 2.5 mm for each team on average. That 2.5 number exists under the current paradigm where pretty much all of those schools are in the top half of their respective conferences. That can't happen when they join together. Half of them have to finish in the bottom half of their conference standings, which will hurt value. Instead of being worth 2.5 I'd bet half of them would drop down to 2.0. That then averages out to a 2.25 mm contract, which doesn't justify increasing travel expenses.

(06-10-2015 08:46 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 12:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The new conference consists only of the "cream" of the MWC, but the entirety of the AAC, including its dregs as well. The MWC cream is supposed to be willing to jettison its bottom six schools, but take on the weight of all the AAC schools, splitting the alleged gusher of new TV money 18 ways, not 12 ways. Funny stuff.

This is the part I don't get in these threads. I assume that no one is delusional enough to believe that the bottom of the AAC has more TV value than the top of the MWC, so either my assumption is wrong, or there's something else at work here, maybe it's AAC fans who don't want to start a civil war with other AAC fans by saying out loud that several teams should be left out.

If there was really enough money in this idea to make this worthwhile, there would be no reason to split it 18 ways instead of 12 or 10. So -- if there is really enough money to make big bucks out of this idea -- then form a new conference with five or six of each. Wait until UConn and Cincinnati have collected all of the money from Big East exit fees if necessary. Do they need autobids for the first five years? No. There are enough regular NCAA men's tournament teams there that the autobid is unneeded. They would also have enough baseball strength to not need an autobid there. And in women's hoops they'd have UConn who will probably get a #1 seed every year and will never ever care whether there's an autobid.

I think it's because they feel threatened after being the #3 G5 conference past year. In an effort to make the AAC the G5 rep, they need stronger teams and who else but to pull from the MW. Of course if the AAC got the auto-bid last year, they wouldn't be thinking about this.

The only team that would consider the AAC is Air Force if Navy and Army were in the same conference.

Marshall, Georgia Southern, Appalachian State, Towson, Youngstown State, Northern Illinois, Ohio U., Central Michigan, Toledo, Arkansas State, La. Tech, La.-Lafayette not strong teams?

(06-10-2015 08:46 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I think it's because they feel threatened after being the #3 G5 conference past year. In an effort to make the AAC the G5 rep, they need stronger teams and who else but to pull from the MW. Of course if the AAC got the auto-bid last year, they wouldn't be thinking about this.

The only team that would consider the AAC is Air Force if Navy and Army were in the same conference.

That's exactly it. Believe me, a year ago, when the AAC was seemingly riding high, if you had suggested that the AAC raid the MWC of its best schools, the overwhelming response from the AAC fans would have been "Hell no! Who needs them? We're the best G5, heck we're a Power conference as it is! Let the MWC, especially Boise, eat cake!".

But now a much different tune is being sung because of this past season's football results.

(06-09-2015 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 02:56 PM)billings Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 12:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 07:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 06:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The one constant over the past 3-4 years is the unlimited ability of AAC fanboys to overestimate their schools and the AAC. This notion that the AAC can 'raid' the MWC is just the latest in a long string.

About this issue, here's the most telling thing: Just a year ago, AAC fanboys would have taken umbrage, serious umbrage, at the notion that there was any benefit at all in raiding the MWC. Had anyone suggested that, they would have been met with "Raid the MWC? Why would we want to weaken ourselves doing that? We have all the brand name schools, we have all the ESPN exposure, we are going to win the Access Bowl spot every year. We are way above them. To hell with all of them, especially Boise, and good riddance!"

And if you had tried to point out possible benefits of raiding the MWC, you'd have been labeled a "troll" or somesuch.

But, now that AAC dreams of winning the Access Spot every year have been dashed (the typical AAC fan thought they'd win the Access spot 6/6 years between 2014-2019, at worst 5/6 if a fluke bad year happened), that the AAC really did miss Louisville on the field and that UCF, Cincy, Houston, and ECU did not exactly dominate the first year of G5 football, well then why suddenly it makes perfect sense to raid the MWC.

And now, if you correctly note that MWC schools have absolutely no incentive to join the AAC, that will get you labeled a "troll", or "hater" or somesuch.

The AAC fanboy is a mental amoeba, a shape-shifter. As soon as one pipe-dream dies, rather than soberly learning from that experience, he just conjures up a new one. It's hilarious ...

Except your wrong Quo. They do have an incentive to move if it is structured appropriately. Very few of them like the Boise deal which puts them at a significant competitive disadvantage.

Assuming conference deregulation...

If you did an 8-8-8 plan they would all come tomorrow. If you did a 7-7-7 plan they likely would come but not guaranteed. If you did Coogs 6-6-6 plan it would only work if 3-4 of the schools you dumped were from the AAC so a Boise follow up conference wouldn't be possible.

The problem with the AAC fans is not that the ideas were bad but they couldn't structure a win-win deal if they had to.

The problem with AAC fans *is* bad ideas. As I explained, just last year the great bulk of AAC fans wouldn't have wanted anything to do with any raid or merger with the MWC. They were full of themselves, having drank the Aresco kool-aid that the present lineup constituted a "power" conference and that the AAC would dominate G5 football.

But since Year One of the G5 didn't exactly confirm that, now many of these same folks are clamoring for a raid of the better MWC teams, and of course think these teams will be falling over themselves to join the mighty AAC. It's wishful thinking, but that's what you get from AAC fanboys.

Yeah I know, you think deregulation of CCGs will open up all kinds of exciting realignment possibilities what with triangular-shaped three-division setups or quadrophonic pods and the like.

But I'll believe any of that actually happening when I see it. Boise will still want to see the money and the AAC still won't show it, not because it doesn't make sense but because the pride runs too deep. But we'll see.

agree. what attackcoog and other AAC fanboys won't admit that to make their super nationwide conference they need to drop 4-6 schools out of the AAC to make any revenue up. They want to build this 18 team mess that will never fly and will lose money compared to where the AAC and MWC is now.

I think they get nervous that they will lose Cincy, Memphis, and maybe UCONN and then be back to the old CUSA league from whence they came and thus the nationwide dream lives on even though it has almost no chance of happening.

And many of the MW naysayers are afraid it will happen, leaving them behind with their old WAC buddies like New Mexico St and Idaho mired in a Sunbelt level conference.

Im a realist. The only way to create the nationwide conference at this point in time is to build one using either the MW or the AAC as the base. Neither conference is going to kick out current members. That's just not going to happen. Yes, a "true" best of the rest would take the best from each conference. Unfortunately, reality of waiting 7 years for autobids and not being a signee of the CFP agreement means a totally NEW conference makes no sense at this juncture. To pick at current proposals that use and existing conference as a base is just another empty straw man argument that Quo and others like to make.

Besides, all the AAC schools have budgets that would place them in the upper third of the MW. Some MW teams have budgets that are 50% of the AAC budgets. These schools with low budgets are eventually going to be an issue for the MW anyway. The big budgets in the AAC mean those schools always have a chance. Hell, Memphis is now mentioned in all the national G5 conferences built by fans---back when they were added to the AAC Memphis football was considered to be dead weight by many. Strong budgets mean you're never dead for long.

Adding a well balanced 6-team group of schools from the MW would create a very intriguing nationwide G5 conference that would be the odds on favorite to win the access bowl and would probably grab 5-9 NCAA bids a year. That would be a very attractive media property for a national sports network.


East

UConn
Cinci
Temple
UCF
USF
ECU

Central

Navy
Memphis
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

West

Boise
Fresno
SDSU
Air Force
UNLV
Col St or New Mexico



That's a very balanced conference with solid football, good basketball, and divisions that make sense.

For whom? Colorado State and Air Force are closer to your central teams than to the western teams. Your plan would not fly and I support the concept. You are just proving Quo correct.

(06-10-2015 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im a realist. The only way to create the nationwide conference at this point in time is to build one using either the MW or the AAC as the base. Neither conference is going to kick out current members. That's just not going to happen. Yes, a "true" best of the rest would take the best from each conference. Unfortunately, reality of waiting 7 years for autobids and not being a signee of the CFP agreement means a totally NEW conference makes no sense at this juncture. To pick at current proposals that use and existing conference as a base is just another empty straw man argument that Quo and others like to make.

There isn't much realism here. Let's make the following assumptions, that sound realistic to me:

The average value of the top 6 AAC teams = $2.5m per year, of the bottom six the average value is $1.5m, collectively that adds up to an average of $2m per year, roughly the AAC media value.

No way to know


Now let's say the average value of the top 6 MWC teams is also $2.5m per year, and of the bottom six just $1m per year (that comports with your AAC-fantasy belief that the bottom of the AAC is worth more than the bottom of the MWC). That values the current MWC at $1.75m per year.

Again--is it? The value of the entire conference is not based on the whole, but the top. See Texas and Oklahoma in the Big-12


If we do what you propose, and the top 6 of the MWC join to form an 18-team AAC, that raises the overall media value of the expanded AAC to .... $2.16m per year.

Don't forget the half continent multiplier effect. A half continent model double s the rate of pay of a more regional G5 model. Seems reasonable that a national model would at least double the value of the half continent model

That's it, just $160k a year more per school for the AAC, just $310k for the MWC schools that leave.

That's chicken feed. Nobody in the MWC is going to leave their regional travel and rivalries behind to compete against ECU, USF, Tulane, etc. unless SERIOUS money is involved, Boise and SDSU in 2013 already proved that. A movement in value from $1.75m to $2.16m won't come close to cutting it.

It is chicken feed. But I don't agree with your assumptions. That said, TCU left for the MW for less of a difference.


Furthermore, such a move makes even less sense for the AAC cream, as their value would go up just $160k.

And yes, this new conference will dominate the Access slot. But, the impact of that is seriously diluted by having to divide that booty 18 ways. That's rough.

Making the expanded AAC a defacto contract bowl conference. There is value in that fact which you do not address. Not to mention the expansion would create a basketball conference that is likely to land more NCAA bids annually than the Big East. The expanded AAC's basketball is likely to be of significant value.

In contrast, a new conference made up of the best six from each would be worth $2.5m per school, which would increase the MWC schools almost 50% above what they get now and give the AAC cream a 25% boost, and the Access booty would just be divided 12 ways. That's probably worth it.

Keep in mind, earning in the MW is variable. UNLV got barely a million dollars. Assuming pay in the AAC didn't change at all, they would see a doubling of their media payout.


Bottom line: Carrying the bottom 6 of the AAC still drags this deal down, kills it.

Wasn't Memphis part of the "bottom" before last season? The large budgets in the AAC--even at the bottom, make them viable teams in the expanded league.


You also talk about the set-in-stone nature of the CFP contract. That's debatable, but even if so, TV contracts exist as well. Nobody at ESPN is going to tear up the current AAC deal and renegotiate before 2020 over such a marginally small increase in value.

If you can find a majority of the conference reps willing to lower thier share of the CFP to let your new confernce join, then--yes, i could be altered---good luck with that,

And you need to stop being unrealistic about the impact of being a "national" conference. There will be no "synergy effect" or somesuch of being national compared to regional. For example, the SEC and B1G are still very much regional conferences and yet make gigantic money. It's the brands you have not where they are located that matter. Far better to have Georgia, Auburn, and Florida in your conference (all located within 350 miles of each other) than to have SDSU, Tulane, and UConn, which span the nation. Regions don't matter, brands do. The reason the AAC makes more than the MAC is we have slightly bigger brand name schools, not because we are more sprawling. Nope. They are all the same as you have reminded us so many times. You cant compare the G5 regionals with the P5 regionals. If the G5 had 100K fans cramming their stadiums, then yes---the G5 could be successful using the same P5 regional model. We have 35 years of data showing the regional model is failing the G5. It is what it is.

As I indicated in the previous posts, the regional model is failing the G5---that's not arguable. In 1997 CUSA team made half of what thier P5 counterparts earned. Less than 2 decades later they make barely 10% of thier P5 competition. Yes, the national model might not turn out to be better---but trying the national model is better than continuing to do something we KNOW doesn't work.


If you are correct that the CFP is set in stone and that a new conference could not join, and that no conference will kick existing members out, then all that means is that there is no rational basis for the MWC or AAC to raid each other before 2025. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the pretty good.

The only type of rearrangement that makes dollars and sense is a cream of each conference. If that truly is precluded by the CFP until 2025, then both sides will wait until then to act, because an arrangement in which the cream of one has to carry the dregs of the other simply doesn't make enough money to be worth it. The cream would be better. It just isn't possible right now.

(06-10-2015 10:25 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 02:56 PM)billings Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 12:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 07:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Except your wrong Quo. They do have an incentive to move if it is structured appropriately. Very few of them like the Boise deal which puts them at a significant competitive disadvantage.

Assuming conference deregulation...

If you did an 8-8-8 plan they would all come tomorrow. If you did a 7-7-7 plan they likely would come but not guaranteed. If you did Coogs 6-6-6 plan it would only work if 3-4 of the schools you dumped were from the AAC so a Boise follow up conference wouldn't be possible.

The problem with the AAC fans is not that the ideas were bad but they couldn't structure a win-win deal if they had to.

The problem with AAC fans *is* bad ideas. As I explained, just last year the great bulk of AAC fans wouldn't have wanted anything to do with any raid or merger with the MWC. They were full of themselves, having drank the Aresco kool-aid that the present lineup constituted a "power" conference and that the AAC would dominate G5 football.

But since Year One of the G5 didn't exactly confirm that, now many of these same folks are clamoring for a raid of the better MWC teams, and of course think these teams will be falling over themselves to join the mighty AAC. It's wishful thinking, but that's what you get from AAC fanboys.

Yeah I know, you think deregulation of CCGs will open up all kinds of exciting realignment possibilities what with triangular-shaped three-division setups or quadrophonic pods and the like.

But I'll believe any of that actually happening when I see it. Boise will still want to see the money and the AAC still won't show it, not because it doesn't make sense but because the pride runs too deep. But we'll see.

agree. what attackcoog and other AAC fanboys won't admit that to make their super nationwide conference they need to drop 4-6 schools out of the AAC to make any revenue up. They want to build this 18 team mess that will never fly and will lose money compared to where the AAC and MWC is now.

I think they get nervous that they will lose Cincy, Memphis, and maybe UCONN and then be back to the old CUSA league from whence they came and thus the nationwide dream lives on even though it has almost no chance of happening.

And many of the MW naysayers are afraid it will happen, leaving them behind with their old WAC buddies like New Mexico St and Idaho mired in a Sunbelt level conference.

Im a realist. The only way to create the nationwide conference at this point in time is to build one using either the MW or the AAC as the base. Neither conference is going to kick out current members. That's just not going to happen. Yes, a "true" best of the rest would take the best from each conference. Unfortunately, reality of waiting 7 years for autobids and not being a signee of the CFP agreement means a totally NEW conference makes no sense at this juncture. To pick at current proposals that use and existing conference as a base is just another empty straw man argument that Quo and others like to make.

Besides, all the AAC schools have budgets that would place them in the upper third of the MW. Some MW teams have budgets that are 50% of the AAC budgets. These schools with low budgets are eventually going to be an issue for the MW anyway. The big budgets in the AAC mean those schools always have a chance. Hell, Memphis is now mentioned in all the national G5 conferences built by fans---back when they were added to the AAC Memphis football was considered to be dead weight by many. Strong budgets mean you're never dead for long.

Adding a well balanced 6-team group of schools from the MW would create a very intriguing nationwide G5 conference that would be the odds on favorite to win the access bowl and would probably grab 5-9 NCAA bids a year. That would be a very attractive media property for a national sports network.


East

UConn
Cinci
Temple
UCF
USF
ECU

Central

Navy
Memphis
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

West

Boise
Fresno
SDSU
Air Force
UNLV
Col St or New Mexico



That's a very balanced conference with solid football, good basketball, and divisions that make sense.

For whom? Colorado State and Air Force are closer to your central teams than to the western teams. Your plan would not fly and I support the concept. You are just proving Quo correct.

The travel is little different than the original 9 team MW. In fact, even in the current set up, it seems I eliminated a 4000 mile trip to Hawaii for Fresno. The reality is, under your current arrangement---doesn't Fresno already fly to every team in my "west" division? I get that you may not like the idea. That's cool. But travel isn't really a very good reason to base your objection upon.

(06-10-2015 08:46 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 12:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The new conference consists only of the "cream" of the MWC, but the entirety of the AAC, including its dregs as well. The MWC cream is supposed to be willing to jettison its bottom six schools, but take on the weight of all the AAC schools, splitting the alleged gusher of new TV money 18 ways, not 12 ways. Funny stuff.

This is the part I don't get in these threads. I assume that no one is delusional enough to believe that the bottom of the AAC has more TV value than the top of the MWC, so either my assumption is wrong, or there's something else at work here, maybe it's AAC fans who don't want to start a civil war with other AAC fans by saying out loud that several teams should be left out.

If there was really enough money in this idea to make this worthwhile, there would be no reason to split it 18 ways instead of 12 or 10. So -- if there is really enough money to make big bucks out of this idea -- then form a new conference with five or six of each. Wait until UConn and Cincinnati have collected all of the money from Big East exit fees if necessary. Do they need autobids for the first five years? No. There are enough regular NCAA men's tournament teams there that the autobid is unneeded. They would also have enough baseball strength to not need an autobid there. And in women's hoops they'd have UConn who will probably get a #1 seed every year and will never ever care whether there's an autobid.

I think it's because they feel threatened after being the #3 G5 conference past year. In an effort to make the AAC the G5 rep, they need stronger teams and who else but to pull from the MW. Of course if the AAC got the auto-bid last year, they wouldn't be thinking about this.

The only team that would consider the AAC is Air Force if Navy and Army were in the same conference.

The year before that the AAC champ beat the Big-12 champ in the Fiesta Bowl. Yes, last year we had a bad year. It happens. Frankly, I still think the AAC will be the access bowl rep most years. I think that the MW will be the rep most years the AAC is not. Maybe it ends up being 50-50. It seems to me, that combining the two will mimic being in a true contract conference. Isnt that the where every G5 teams wants to be? It seems to me that G5 conference who's winner plays in a NYD bowl has far more media value than any other possible arrangement of G5's. That's what Im aiming at.

(06-10-2015 10:25 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  West

Boise
Fresno
SDSU
Air Force
UNLV
Col St or New Mexico



That's a very balanced conference with solid football, good basketball, and divisions that make sense.

For whom? Colorado State and Air Force are closer to your central teams than to the western teams. Your plan would not fly and I support the concept. You are just proving Quo correct.
[/quote]

?? AFA's 2015 schedule includes Boise, Fresno, CSU, and Navy. Switch out SJSU for SDSU and Utah St. for UNLV. What AFA would miss are the games against Wyoming and New Mexico. But, if Navy is a conference game, that gives AFA an OOC slot to schedule either.

CSU has ALL the hypothetical West teams on the 2015 schedule. All of them. Again, CSU would replace Utah St., Wyoming and New Mexico with perhaps Houston, Temple, and USF - but I don't think they would complain.

There isn't a ton of change from the status quo.

(06-10-2015 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In contrast, a new conference made up of the best six from each would be worth $2.5m per school, which would increase the MWC schools almost 50% above what they get now and give the AAC cream a 25% boost, and the Access booty would just be divided 12 ways. That's probably worth it.
...
And you need to stop being unrealistic about the impact of being a "national" conference. There will be no "synergy effect" or somesuch of being national compared to regional. For example, the SEC and B1G are still very much regional conferences and yet make gigantic money. It's the brands you have not where they are located that matter. Far better to have Georgia, Auburn, and Florida in your conference (all located within 350 miles of each other) than to have SDSU, Tulane, and UConn, which span the nation. Regions don't matter, brands do. The reason the AAC makes more than the MAC is we have slightly bigger brand name schools, not because we are more sprawling.
...

I agree that brands are much more important than potential markets when we're talking about TV $$ and contracts and ratings and such. The regionality aspect is overstated a bit - B1G expanded into New Jersey and Maryland - I would suggest DESPITE the Rutgers and Maryland brands. Likewise, the SEC expanded into Texas and Missouri - A&M and Mizzou's brands have improved with the move.

Also, the G5 game is on a completely separate level from the B1G and SEC - so, I wouldn't dismiss the national idea so readily.

One factor not entirely considered yet is whether Boise St., AFA, SDSU, etc. would see a substantial increase in ticket sales, sponsorships and donations if they are playing in a national American conference versus the status quo. I think they would.

(06-10-2015 10:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im a realist. The only way to create the nationwide conference at this point in time is to build one using either the MW or the AAC as the base. Neither conference is going to kick out current members. That's just not going to happen. Yes, a "true" best of the rest would take the best from each conference. Unfortunately, reality of waiting 7 years for autobids and not being a signee of the CFP agreement means a totally NEW conference makes no sense at this juncture. To pick at current proposals that use and existing conference as a base is just another empty straw man argument that Quo and others like to make.

There isn't much realism here. Let's make the following assumptions, that sound realistic to me:

The average value of the top 6 AAC teams = $2.5m per year, of the bottom six the average value is $1.5m, collectively that adds up to an average of $2m per year, roughly the AAC media value.

No way to know


Well, $2m is in fact the current AAC media value.

Now let's say the average value of the top 6 MWC teams is also $2.5m per year, and of the bottom six just $1m per year (that comports with your AAC-fantasy belief that the bottom of the AAC is worth more than the bottom of the MWC). That values the current MWC at $1.75m per year.

Again--is it? The value of the entire conference is not based on the whole, but the top. See Texas and Oklahoma in the Big-12


That's true for the Big 12, because Texas and OK are top-10 blue chip brands. There's nothing remotely like that in the AAC or MWC, with the possible exception of Boise, and Boise is already getting $5.3m from the MWC even without the Access spot, more than the AAC has proven willing to pay, as per Aresco's failure to keep them in January 2013.


If we do what you propose, and the top 6 of the MWC join to form an 18-team AAC, that raises the overall media value of the expanded AAC to .... $2.16m per year.

Don't forget the half continent multiplier effect. A half continent model double s the rate of pay of a more regional G5 model. Seems reasonable that a national model would at least double the value of the half continent model

The "continental multiplier effect" is a fantasy concept. No evidence it has any basis in reality.

That's it, just $160k a year more per school for the AAC, just $310k for the MWC schools that leave.

That's chicken feed. Nobody in the MWC is going to leave their regional travel and rivalries behind to compete against ECU, USF, Tulane, etc. unless SERIOUS money is involved, Boise and SDSU in 2013 already proved that. A movement in value from $1.75m to $2.16m won't come close to cutting it.

It is chicken feed. But I don't agree with your assumptions. That said, TCU left for the MW for less of a difference.


For an AQ conference. The AAC isn't that.

Furthermore, such a move makes even less sense for the AAC cream, as their value would go up just $160k.

And yes, this new conference will dominate the Access slot. But, the impact of that is seriously diluted by having to divide that booty 18 ways. That's rough.

Making the expanded AAC a defacto contract bowl conference. There is value in that fact which you do not address. Not to mention the expansion would create a basketball conference that is likely to land more NCAA bids annually than the Big East. The expanded AAC's basketball is likely to be of significant value.

I don't see value in that. "De Facto" isn't nearly the same thing as "guaranteed". The P5 will still split a minimum of $50m each off the top and this new AAC-MWC will still be G5.

In contrast, a new conference made up of the best six from each would be worth $2.5m per school, which would increase the MWC schools almost 50% above what they get now and give the AAC cream a 25% boost, and the Access booty would just be divided 12 ways. That's probably worth it.

Keep in mind, earning in the MW is variable. UNLV got barely a million dollars. Assuming pay in the AAC didn't change at all, they would see a doubling of their media payout.


The MWC, smartly, pays its top schools disproportionately more than other conferences. That makes it harder to raid them. It probably makes it impossible for the AAC to raid them. The whole reason they pay more was to lure Boise and SDSU back from the AAC, and it worked.

Bottom line: Carrying the bottom 6 of the AAC still drags this deal down, kills it.

Wasn't Memphis part of the "bottom" before last season? The large budgets in the AAC--even at the bottom, make them viable teams in the expanded league.


That's an AAC fantasy - "we're ALL strong!!!". All conferences have tops and bottoms. In the AAC, it's even spelled out: Temple, Houston, Cincy, and UConn are the top four. As a USF fan I don't like that, but it's reality.

The AAC has dregs, and they kill your proposed raid of the MWC.

You also talk about the set-in-stone nature of the CFP contract. That's debatable, but even if so, TV contracts exist as well. Nobody at ESPN is going to tear up the current AAC deal and renegotiate before 2020 over such a marginally small increase in value.

If you can find a majority of the conference reps willing to lower thier share of the CFP to let your new confernce join, then--yes, i could be altered---good luck with that,


On that point, I agree with you.

And you need to stop being unrealistic about the impact of being a "national" conference. There will be no "synergy effect" or somesuch of being national compared to regional. For example, the SEC and B1G are still very much regional conferences and yet make gigantic money. It's the brands you have not where they are located that matter. Far better to have Georgia, Auburn, and Florida in your conference (all located within 350 miles of each other) than to have SDSU, Tulane, and UConn, which span the nation. Regions don't matter, brands do. The reason the AAC makes more than the MAC is we have slightly bigger brand name schools, not because we are more sprawling. Nope. They are all the same as you have reminded us so many times. You cant compare the G5 regionals with the P5 regionals. If the G5 had 100K fans cramming their stadiums, then yes---the G5 could be successful using the same P5 regional model. We have 35 years of data showing the regional model is failing the G5. It is what it is.

As I indicated in the previous posts, the regional model is failing the G5---that's not arguable. In 1997 CUSA team made half of what thier P5 counterparts earned. Less than 2 decades later they make barely 10% of thier P5 competition. Yes, the national model might not turn out to be better---but trying the national model is better than continuing to do something we KNOW doesn't work.


It's not the "regional model" that is failing. The SEC, PAC, and B1G are still essentially regional conferences, and they are booming. It's the gap between the top brands and smaller brands that is widening, and the G5 consists of small brands - both the AAC and MWC.

A new conference of just the Best 12 might be worth significantly more than the current MWC or AAC, but forcing a hybrid to carry either's bottom six amounts to reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

If you are correct that the CFP is set in stone and that a new conference could not join, and that no conference will kick existing members out, then all that means is that there is no rational basis for the MWC or AAC to raid each other before 2025. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the pretty good.

I am letting the far from perfect be the enemy of the not good enough.

The only type of rearrangement that makes dollars and sense is a cream of each conference. If that truly is precluded by the CFP until 2025, then both sides will wait until then to act, because an arrangement in which the cream of one has to carry the dregs of the other simply doesn't make enough money to be worth it. The cream would be better. It just isn't possible right now.


Agreed. But problem is, what is possible isn't worth it.

BTW, what would the MWC exit fees for those leaving six be?

(06-10-2015 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im a realist. The only way to create the nationwide conference at this point in time is to build one using either the MW or the AAC as the base. Neither conference is going to kick out current members. That's just not going to happen. Yes, a "true" best of the rest would take the best from each conference. Unfortunately, reality of waiting 7 years for autobids and not being a signee of the CFP agreement means a totally NEW conference makes no sense at this juncture. To pick at current proposals that use and existing conference as a base is just another empty straw man argument that Quo and others like to make.

There isn't much realism here. Let's make the following assumptions, that sound realistic to me:

The average value of the top 6 AAC teams = $2.5m per year, of the bottom six the average value is $1.5m, collectively that adds up to an average of $2m per year, roughly the AAC media value.

No way to know


Well, $2m is in fact the current AAC media value.

Now let's say the average value of the top 6 MWC teams is also $2.5m per year, and of the bottom six just $1m per year (that comports with your AAC-fantasy belief that the bottom of the AAC is worth more than the bottom of the MWC). That values the current MWC at $1.75m per year.

Again--is it? The value of the entire conference is not based on the whole, but the top. See Texas and Oklahoma in the Big-12


That's true for the Big 12, because Texas and OK are top-10 blue chip brands. There's nothing remotely like that in the AAC or MWC, with the possible exception of Boise, and Boise is already getting $5.3m from the MWC even without the Access spot, more than the AAC has proven willing to pay, as per Aresco's failure to keep them in January 2013.


If we do what you propose, and the top 6 of the MWC join to form an 18-team AAC, that raises the overall media value of the expanded AAC to .... $2.16m per year.

Don't forget the half continent multiplier effect. A half continent model double s the rate of pay of a more regional G5 model. Seems reasonable that a national model would at least double the value of the half continent model

The "continental multiplier effect" is a fantasy concept. No evidence it has any basis in reality.

That's it, just $160k a year more per school for the AAC, just $310k for the MWC schools that leave.

That's chicken feed. Nobody in the MWC is going to leave their regional travel and rivalries behind to compete against ECU, USF, Tulane, etc. unless SERIOUS money is involved, Boise and SDSU in 2013 already proved that. A movement in value from $1.75m to $2.16m won't come close to cutting it.

It is chicken feed. But I don't agree with your assumptions. That said, TCU left for the MW for less of a difference.


For an AQ conference. The AAC isn't that.

Furthermore, such a move makes even less sense for the AAC cream, as their value would go up just $160k.

And yes, this new conference will dominate the Access slot. But, the impact of that is seriously diluted by having to divide that booty 18 ways. That's rough.

Making the expanded AAC a defacto contract bowl conference. There is value in that fact which you do not address. Not to mention the expansion would create a basketball conference that is likely to land more NCAA bids annually than the Big East. The expanded AAC's basketball is likely to be of significant value.

I don't see value in that. "De Facto" isn't nearly the same thing as "guaranteed". The P5 will still split a minimum of $50m each off the top and this new AAC-MWC will still be G5.

In contrast, a new conference made up of the best six from each would be worth $2.5m per school, which would increase the MWC schools almost 50% above what they get now and give the AAC cream a 25% boost, and the Access booty would just be divided 12 ways. That's probably worth it.

Keep in mind, earning in the MW is variable. UNLV got barely a million dollars. Assuming pay in the AAC didn't change at all, they would see a doubling of their media payout.


The MWC, smartly, pays its top schools disproportionately more than other conferences. That makes it harder to raid them. It probably makes it impossible for the AAC to raid them. The whole reason they pay more was to lure Boise and SDSU back from the AAC, and it worked.

Bottom line: Carrying the bottom 6 of the AAC still drags this deal down, kills it.

Wasn't Memphis part of the "bottom" before last season? The large budgets in the AAC--even at the bottom, make them viable teams in the expanded league.


That's an AAC fantasy - "we're ALL strong!!!". All conferences have tops and bottoms. In the AAC, it's even spelled out: Temple, Houston, Cincy, and UConn are the top four. As a USF fan I don't like that, but it's reality.

The AAC has dregs, and they kill your proposed raid of the MWC.

You also talk about the set-in-stone nature of the CFP contract. That's debatable, but even if so, TV contracts exist as well. Nobody at ESPN is going to tear up the current AAC deal and renegotiate before 2020 over such a marginally small increase in value.

If you can find a majority of the conference reps willing to lower thier share of the CFP to let your new confernce join, then--yes, i could be altered---good luck with that,


On that point, I agree with you.

And you need to stop being unrealistic about the impact of being a "national" conference. There will be no "synergy effect" or somesuch of being national compared to regional. For example, the SEC and B1G are still very much regional conferences and yet make gigantic money. It's the brands you have not where they are located that matter. Far better to have Georgia, Auburn, and Florida in your conference (all located within 350 miles of each other) than to have SDSU, Tulane, and UConn, which span the nation. Regions don't matter, brands do. The reason the AAC makes more than the MAC is we have slightly bigger brand name schools, not because we are more sprawling. Nope. They are all the same as you have reminded us so many times. You cant compare the G5 regionals with the P5 regionals. If the G5 had 100K fans cramming their stadiums, then yes---the G5 could be successful using the same P5 regional model. We have 35 years of data showing the regional model is failing the G5. It is what it is.

As I indicated in the previous posts, the regional model is failing the G5---that's not arguable. In 1997 CUSA team made half of what thier P5 counterparts earned. Less than 2 decades later they make barely 10% of thier P5 competition. Yes, the national model might not turn out to be better---but trying the national model is better than continuing to do something we KNOW doesn't work.


It's not the "regional model" that is failing. The SEC, PAC, and B1G are still essentially regional conferences, and they are booming. It's the gap between the top brands and smaller brands that is widening, and the G5 consists of small brands - both the AAC and MWC.

A new conference of just the Best 12 might be worth significantly more than the current MWC or AAC, but forcing a hybrid to carry either's bottom six amounts to reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

If you are correct that the CFP is set in stone and that a new conference could not join, and that no conference will kick existing members out, then all that means is that there is no rational basis for the MWC or AAC to raid each other before 2025. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the pretty good.

I am letting the far from perfect be the enemy of the not good enough.

The only type of rearrangement that makes dollars and sense is a cream of each conference. If that truly is precluded by the CFP until 2025, then both sides will wait until then to act, because an arrangement in which the cream of one has to carry the dregs of the other simply doesn't make enough money to be worth it. The cream would be better. It just isn't possible right now.


Agreed. But problem is, what is possible isn't worth it.

BTW, what would the MWC exit fees for those leaving six be?

Quick response.


1) TCU left CUSA for MW when both earned virtually the same amount (I wasn't referring to TCU leaving the MW for the Big East).

2) A premium exists for half-continent conferences over smaller more compact regional conferences at the G5 level. That's simply a fact. See MAC vs the AAC or MW. And before you say brand is the difference---half the MW is former WAC teams that made virtually nothing in the WAC.

3) Comparing the P5 version of regional conferences with the G5 experience is like comparing Disney World with the local traveling Carnival. We cant execute the same strategy as the P5 and expect the result to be anywhere near the same. We have tried it for decades through multiple contract cycles and the proof is in the pudding. The G5 regional conference does not work and will never succeed at generating media value. That's simply a proven fact at this point. That's not to say the national conference will definitely do better---but there is some reason to think it might, where as there is little justification thinking there will be any real improvement in closing the earnings gap between the G5 and P5 with the current G5 conference structures.

4) Yes, the top of the MW is better than the bottom of the AAC. But since you can't dump the bottom of either, its an irrelevant point. The best you can do is add the top of the AAC to the MW or vice versa. I choose adding the top of the MW to the AAC because the bigger budgets in the AAC make its bottom more upwardly mobile. Besides, having 12 teams in the east and central time zones makes more sense than having 12 teams in the west and just 6 sprinkled over the other 2/3's of the country (where most of the people actually live). A 6-6-6 allows for a more even distribution of schools across the country and more economical travel within divisions (where most of the minor sports will largely compete---thus cutting costs).

You know, guys, I think this one item here ends the whole AACMWC discussion.

(06-10-2015 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Boise is already getting $5.3m from the MWC even without the Access spot

Boise isn't going anywhere unless you get them a hefty increase over their MWC payday. They can't get that raise by joining the AAC or any AACMWC combination.

To get Boise $7 million/year in an equal distribution would require $84 million in total revenue distribution by a 12-team conference or $126 million/year for an 18-team conference. No conference outside the P5 is going to make annual distributions like that. As for unequal distribution, UConn and Cincinnati (and probably at least a few others) will never agree to give Boise 2 or 3 times the share that they're getting.

(06-10-2015 01:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  You know, guys, I think this one item here ends the whole AACMWC discussion.

(06-10-2015 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Boise is already getting $5.3m from the MWC even without the Access spot

Boise isn't going anywhere unless you get them a hefty increase over their MWC payday. They can't get that raise by joining the AAC or any AACMWC combination.

To get Boise $7 million/year in an equal distribution would require $84 million in total revenue distribution by a 12-team conference or $126 million/year for an 18-team conference. No conference outside the P5 is going to make annual distributions like that. As for unequal distribution, UConn and Cincinnati (and probably at least a few others) will never agree to give Boise 2 or 3 times the share that they're getting.

The thing is, a national AAC works with or without Boise. Does Boise still get 5.3 million when they are playing a conference schedule of San Jose St, New Mexico St, and Idaho? Maybe. Maybe not. Thus, Boise might jump just to avoid landing in a depleted conference. Plus, what happens to Boise recruiting if they are left behind? What happens when Boise isn't winning 90% of its games. There is a decent possibility Boise makes that leap if the others do---even though it's a lateral move in pay---simply because its safer.

(06-10-2015 01:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  You know, guys, I think this one item here ends the whole AACMWC discussion.

(06-10-2015 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Boise is already getting $5.3m from the MWC even without the Access spot

Boise isn't going anywhere unless you get them a hefty increase over their MWC payday. They can't get that raise by joining the AAC or any AACMWC combination.

To get Boise $7 million/year in an equal distribution would require $84 million in total revenue distribution by a 12-team conference or $126 million/year for an 18-team conference. No conference outside the P5 is going to make annual distributions like that. As for unequal distribution, UConn and Cincinnati (and probably at least a few others) will never agree to give Boise 2 or 3 times the share that they're getting.

AND, didn't the MWC give ALL the Fiesta Bowl payout to Boise St.?

Would the AAC give the payout to the participant as well? (I have no idea if the costs are so high enough that the entire payout is needed just to cover costs)...

(06-10-2015 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is, a national AAC works with or without Boise. Does Boise still get 5.3 million when they are playing a conference schedule of San Jose St, New Mexico St, and Idaho? Maybe. Maybe not. Thus, Boise might jump just to avoid landing in a depleted conference. Plus, what happens to Boise recruiting if they are left behind? What happens when Boise isn't winning 90% of its games. There is a decent possibility Boise makes that leap if the others do---even though it's a lateral move in pay---simply because its safer.

Interesting perspective. So, the AAC expansion angle could be to lure OTHER MWC schools to get away from the MWC structure that is currently dominated by Boise?

However, didn't SDSU make out fairly well last year too? Like $3+ million or so?

(06-10-2015 02:03 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is, a national AAC works with or without Boise. Does Boise still get 5.3 million when they are playing a conference schedule of San Jose St, New Mexico St, and Idaho? Maybe. Maybe not. Thus, Boise might jump just to avoid landing in a depleted conference. Plus, what happens to Boise recruiting if they are left behind? What happens when Boise isn't winning 90% of its games. There is a decent possibility Boise makes that leap if the others do---even though it's a lateral move in pay---simply because its safer.

Interesting perspective. So, the AAC expansion angle could be to lure OTHER MWC schools to get away from the MWC structure that is currently dominated by Boise?

However, didn't SDSU make out fairly well last year too? Like $3+ million or so?

Im thinking a nationwide conference will generate media value of 4-5 million per team. That wouldn't include CFP money, NCAA credits (this conference would do quite well there), bowl money, and other revenue streams. In other words, its a lateral move for Boise, but a nice bump in pay everyone else. Better yet, its guaranteed. It wont fluctuate from year to year based on TV appearances. Presidents are a conservative lot. They like steady even revenue streams. They value predictability.