(12-13-2015 12:09 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Why would ESPN give the AAC more money? They dont have too. Our one chip (small as it is) is exposure. ESPN gives us that. We arent going anywhere that will give us better exposure and ESPN knows it. So the conteact will stay the same.

I've been saying this for years since the supposed pile of money we were supposed to get from the fledgling NBCSN fell through. As a conference it would be huge mistake to trade our great exposure and goodwill we have EARNED from ESPN to move over to another network for just a one or two million per year.

I think that ESPN will step up a little bit...???maybe $5-million/year??...but even we got to $10-million/team it's still nowhere close to P5 money.

(12-12-2015 12:45 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-12-2015 12:37 PM)Enriquillo Wrote:  

(12-12-2015 11:14 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-12-2015 10:28 AM)Mestophalies Wrote:  News flash. BYU isn't in a P5 conference despite their history. The fact that they aren't should send up red flags in the back of everyone's mind.

Adding BYU isn't going to make this conference a Power conference but, it will expand out footprint and travel costs. So adding them without having an increased contract signed and in hand is just poor business to me.

Granted, ByU is not in a P5 conference, but they have all the ingredients. They are commonly withing the top 25. They regularly fill their 55000 seat stadium. They have a national following that gets the ratings. They would be an addition that immediately adds to the pie.

You have to ask yourself, does our media "partner", ESPN, really want to see a more valuable ACC (for example, by adding BYU)? Or do they want us to remain the good ol' economy product on their shelf?

ESPN will have enough trouble paying/renewing their existing P5 contracts. It may very well be the case that they like the AAC just as it is, and might secretly be against any moves that might mean a bigger payout.

If this is the case, then Aresco will need to decide whether he wants to continue selling dried spaghetti, on sale, at $0.65 a box, or whether he needs to be a "growth/risk" CEO and create something more compelling for the COMPETITORS of ESPN.

A lot could be riding on the B1G media contract negotiations.

If ESPN loses significant B1G inventory, ESPN's very next move may be to help the AAC add the pieces that will enhance the AAC - so ESPN can build inventory to replace the B1G loss.

If ESPN keeps significant B1G inventory, ESPN may have little room or resources to even renew the current AAC deal in 2019. In that instance, FOX may be the driver towards AAC expansion.

Good post.

If they hang on to B1G inventory, ESPN can be in cost cutting mode so who is to say that can we keep our deal never mind increase our TV contract. IF that is the case, we better hope that FOX elevates their game and ability to provide us exposure. Hard to beat having our essentially all of our games broadcast on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNU, ESPNNews, etc...

IMO exposure over the next 10 years is greater than a few extra bucks.

(12-10-2015 04:22 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If we want to elevate the conference, there is only one way---Build our fan bases so we have an average attendance approaching 40K a game. That creates a audience that simply becomes to large to ignore. Its too attractive to the networks and is large enough to support inclusion in major bowls.

The second thing we can do is upgrade the Miami Beach Bowl to a upper mid-tier bowl (similar to the Liberty, Gator, Texas, or Music City Bowl) with a solid opponent (a #3-5 selection from a P5---could be a rotating selection or part of a bowl pool). Having a guaranteed major bowl destination against a P5 power for the AAC champ will give the AAC championship race additional significance which will help to drive TV ratings.

The third thing we can do to improve our standing while we build our fan bases is to add members where it can help us. If we get the opportunity to add Air Force, BYU, or Army---we should. If we get the opportunity to add a swath of the better MW schools (say something more geographically viable like Air Force, Colorado St, New Mexico and SDSU)---we should definitely consider it. That said, we need to be careful who we add does not adversely affect our goal of approaching an average attendance of 40K. AF wouldn't hurt too bad, New Mexico can do 40Kish when they are good. Colorado St is a concern---but a new stadium might help turn that around.

An affiliation with BYU and Army would help the AAC with attendance, ratings, and the bowl lineup.

Attendance
Recent BYU road games at Houston, UConn, and UCF and Army games against UConn and Tulane illustrate the point:

- 2013 BYU @ Houston game (33K) had about the same attendance as Houston v. Rice and 10-15K better attendance than Houston's 2013 home games against SMU, Cincinnati, Memphis, USF.

- 2014 BYU @ UConn game (35K) had 8-12K better attendance than UConn's 2014 home games against Temple, UCF, Cincy, and SMU - and 5K better than Boise St. @ UConn.

- 2014 Army v. UConn in NYC (27K) was equal to Temple @ UConn and better than Cincy and SMU at UConn.

- 2015 Army @ UConn (28K) was better than UConn's home attendance versus Houston and ECU.

- 2014 BYU @ UCF game (41K) had 5-10K better attendance than UCF's 2014 home games against Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, and SMU...and about 5K better attendance than the UCF-USF in Tampa.

- 2015 Army @ Tulane (31K) had 5-10K better attendance than Tulane=s 2015 home games against Tulsa, UConn, Houston, UCF, and Duke.

And, FWIW, attendance at each of BYU's recent home games against UCF, Houston, and Cincinnati were 64K sell outs. ECU game was 60K and UConn game was 56K.

Ratings
Last year, the top TV ratings for non-P5 matchups included:

#1 Army-Navy (#1 almost every year)
#2 Boise St.-UConn
#3 Air Force-Army
#4 UConn-USF
#5 Fresno-Boise St.
#6 Fresno-Boise St. (MWC championship)
#7 BYU-UCF
#8 Houston-Cincinnati
#9 Utah St.-BYU
#10 UConn-BYU
#11 UCF-ECU
#12 Houston-BYU
#13 Fresno-New Mexico
#14 BYU-Boise St.
#15 UCF-Houston

This year, we are likely to see Army-Navy at #1 again. Also, Cincinnati and UConn @ BYU were in the top-5 of non-P5 broadcasts (These broadcasts are currently #1 and #3, but without Army-Navy game or ratings reported yet for Navy-Houston or AAC Championship).

#1 Army-Navy (likely)
#2 AAC Championship (likely)
#3 Houston-Navy (likely -on ABC)
#4 BYU-Cincinnati
#5 Cincinnati-Memphis
#6 BYU-UConn
#7Memphis-Tulsa
#8 Memphis-USF
#9 Temple-SMU
#10 NIU-BGSU (MAC Championship)
#11 BYU-Boise St.
#12 Boise St.-Air Force
#13 Toledo-NIU
#14 Memphis-Houston
#15 Temple-ECU

Bowl Lineup
To have BYU and Army available for bowl selection, AAC could improve its bowl lineup. I firmly believe the AAC/BYU/Army affiliation would land - Armed Forces Bowl versus a B1G/Big 12 opponent; Las Vegas Bowl versus PAC 12 opponent; and Poinsettia Bowl versus MWC (or PAC 12 opponent). [Las Vegas Bowl loves BYU, but would need a solid conference option. Each of BYU, Army, and Navy have had or will have their own contracts directly with the Poinsettia Bowl. Armed Forces Bowl would love to have Navy, Army, and AAC West schools available].

I also think the AAC would have a shot at bumping its way into either the Liberty or Texas bowl within the next 2-3 years.

While this absolutely benefits BYU and Army, it also adds TWO or THREE bowls against P5 opponents that can be touted as part of the AAC bowl lineup. It would likely be similar to the ND/ACC and PAC 12 bowl selection procedures, where a team can be selected for a bowl as long as their win-loss record is within one win of highest available team.

Here's what the AAC bowl lineup could look like with the BYU/Army affiliation:

Champion: NY6 (BYU/Army ineligible]

Tier 1
Liberty/Texas (v. SEC/B12)
Military (v. ACC)
Las Vegas (v. PAC 12)

Tier 2
Birmingham (v. SEC)
St. Petersburg (v. ACC/CUSA)
Armed Forces (v. B1G/B12)

Tier 3
Poinsettia (v. MWC)
Boca Raton (v. MAC)
Miami Beach (v. CUSA)
Cure (v. Sun Belt)

No affiliations.. either the team joins the conference, or no deal.

(12-13-2015 12:17 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 12:09 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Why would ESPN give the AAC more money? They dont have too. Our one chip (small as it is) is exposure. ESPN gives us that. We arent going anywhere that will give us better exposure and ESPN knows it. So the conteact will stay the same.

I've been saying this for years since the supposed pile of money we were supposed to get from the fledgling NBCSN fell through. As a conference it would be huge mistake to trade our great exposure and goodwill we have EARNED from ESPN to move over to another network for just a one or two million per year.

I think that ESPN will step up a little bit...???maybe $5-million/year??...but even we got to $10-million/team it's still nowhere close to P5 money.

That's true, but misleading. Yes, we get good exposure from ESPN, but the deals structure (low pay and ESPN gets all rights--of which a significant hunk is sublicensed to other networks or diverted to lowly ESPN-News) costs us significant income. We could move forwards with a deal that sells first tier to ESPN, while selling secondary deals with NBC-Sports, CBS-Sports, or Fox. We'd still have our primary exposure and have get a nice raise from the additional contracts with little or no degredation in exposure.

My guess is that ESPN doesn't want that, so they would bump the numbers up. Hell, the MAC got a 10 fold increase, all while the hand wringing over ESPN cost cutting was going on. Make no mistake, ESPN s still a cash cow and college football ratings have continued to rise over the last several years. ESPN may make cuts, but they are not about to scrimp on live sports content---that's the only reason they make money. They currently have most of the college content and are very likely to lose a portion of their Big-10 content to Fox. The ACC wants a network, which likely cost them a bit of ACC content as well. The AAC represents a very viable pool of quality replacement FBS content at a very reasonable price. Even if the AAC comes in at 10 million a team, that nothing compared to what the P5 contracts cost, and a pittance compared to the multi-billion dollar cost of pro sports content. Plus, it keeps what is becoming a fairly attractive media property out of the hands of NBC.

My guess is we will never get that far. Another successful years like 2015 and we will see Aresco and ESPN hammer out a nice extension that pays each team 6-10 million a year. Don't be surprised if its a stepped increase that builds each year and tops out in that 10 million a year range.