The AAC should raid the MWC instead of staying at 10.

Most likely outcomes in Chappy's opinion:

75% chance B12 just adds a championship game
15% chance B12 expands with BYU & Cincinnati (AAC loses 1 member)
9% chance B12 expands with Cincinnati and UConn (AAC loses 2 members)
1% chance B12 expands by more than 2 schools (aw, hell)


Army football is probably the only school outside of the P5 we could add that would have a measurable amount of TV value. They might be persuaded to join if Navy continues to have success in the American.

They obviously would be the best choice if we lost 1 member, because we would be at an even 12 football/10 basketball. We could then do a full round-robin for basketball without going above 18 games.

If Army refuses our offer, there's no clear answer from a TV revenue standpoint.

When looking at athletic budgets, outside of the Mountain West schools, ODU & UMass seem to be most prepared to pay-to-play. They also both fit the geography of our league quite well, adding new states while being pretty close to one or more current member.

(03-08-2016 08:17 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 07:40 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 05:57 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 11:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:42 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  UMass and Marshall --- if two

Time to arm the ejection seat.

Yep, with all of the threads knocking Marshall and their taking of non qualifiers etc, etc, how the heck are we taking them now? UMASS maybe if they make major improvements and commit tons of dollars to athletics, I also think it should be Northern Illinois if they are making the same commitments.

Marshall, Southern Miss, ODU, and Charlotte should be the only viable candidates.

Marshall: No props = no value
Southern Miss = best days are behind them
Charlotte=um why?
ODU=lack of brand value in Virginia. Players in 757 see ODU as a last stop.

We should just sit tight.

THIS. Not to mention none of these make any sense when academics are considered. None are USNWR top 200 schools or academies. No need to double the damage of a raid by also diluting the league your left with. Adding warm bodies is no longer necessary with deregulation. Maybe add Wichita as a non-football addition to shore up basketball and soldier on with 10 in football.

(03-08-2016 10:45 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  ... Half his league has been mentioned as possible Big 12 targets: Cincinnati, Houston, Connecticut, Memphis, Central Florida and South Florida.

And I suspect, in a few years after all this settles, this top half of the AAC will be in a conference with the bottom half of the remaining B12 schools.

Ive been saying this for almost 3 years. The LHN will be the deciding factor. It will either slowly push Texas out of the Big 12 and for greener pastures or it will be converted to the Big 12 network and be the conferences savior.... either way, the Big 12 will need markets for its new network or replacement teams for the departing.

I tend to think that they will fall apart within 10 years.

Youll end up with:
ISU, KSU, Kansas, Baylor, TCU, Houston and BYU
Uconn, Cinci, Memphis, West Virginia, Navy, USF and UCF

possibly 2 more if they go to 16, but I see those 14 as being almost definite, and honestly, its every bit as good as the ACC.

(03-08-2016 11:01 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:45 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  ... Half his league has been mentioned as possible Big 12 targets: Cincinnati, Houston, Connecticut, Memphis, Central Florida and South Florida.

And I suspect, in a few years after all this settles, this top half of the AAC will be in a conference with the bottom half of the remaining B12 schools.

Ive been saying this for almost 3 years. The LHN will be the deciding factor. It will either slowly push Texas out of the Big 12 and for greener pastures or it will be converted to the Big 12 network and be the conferences savior.... either way, the Big 12 will need markets for its new network or replacement teams for the departing.

I tend to think that they will fall apart within 10 years.

Youll end up with:
ISU, KSU, Kansas, Baylor, TCU, Houston and BYU
Uconn, Cinci, Memphis, West Virginia, Navy, USF and UCF

possibly 2 more if they go to 16, but I see those 14 as being almost definite, and honestly, its every bit as good as the ACC.

LHN network isn't going anywhere. Texas gets paid no matter how it performs. As stated earlier, TV viewing is changing...these existing contracts are just a saving grace for the schools...not the TV networks. The banking that a channel will have to be included in package is going away. The cutting the cable generation is coming...quickly.

Stand pat is better at this point than adding UMASS...and I do agree that is the school Aresco is referring to.

Reason being is UMASS needs to get itself together. Basketball just finished with a RPI of 181. Football was 3-9 in a fairly weak MAC.

I'm not against adding Army if they want in...not going to help the competiveness in football, but help TV numbers and ticket sales.

(03-08-2016 11:06 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:01 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:45 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  ... Half his league has been mentioned as possible Big 12 targets: Cincinnati, Houston, Connecticut, Memphis, Central Florida and South Florida.

And I suspect, in a few years after all this settles, this top half of the AAC will be in a conference with the bottom half of the remaining B12 schools.

Ive been saying this for almost 3 years. The LHN will be the deciding factor. It will either slowly push Texas out of the Big 12 and for greener pastures or it will be converted to the Big 12 network and be the conferences savior.... either way, the Big 12 will need markets for its new network or replacement teams for the departing.

I tend to think that they will fall apart within 10 years.

Youll end up with:
ISU, KSU, Kansas, Baylor, TCU, Houston and BYU
Uconn, Cinci, Memphis, West Virginia, Navy, USF and UCF

possibly 2 more if they go to 16, but I see those 14 as being almost definite, and honestly, its every bit as good as the ACC.

LHN network isn't going anywhere. Texas gets paid no matter how it performs. As stated earlier, TV viewing is changing...these existing contracts are just a saving grace for the schools...not the TV networks. The banking that a channel will have to be included in package is going away. The cutting the cable generation is coming...quickly.

If TV bundling does go away, then markets will be absolutely irrelevant. At that point, the valuable teams will be the ones that generate the most viewers, not the ones that can get a network into the most households.

(03-08-2016 11:22 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:06 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:01 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:45 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  ... Half his league has been mentioned as possible Big 12 targets: Cincinnati, Houston, Connecticut, Memphis, Central Florida and South Florida.

And I suspect, in a few years after all this settles, this top half of the AAC will be in a conference with the bottom half of the remaining B12 schools.

Ive been saying this for almost 3 years. The LHN will be the deciding factor. It will either slowly push Texas out of the Big 12 and for greener pastures or it will be converted to the Big 12 network and be the conferences savior.... either way, the Big 12 will need markets for its new network or replacement teams for the departing.

I tend to think that they will fall apart within 10 years.

Youll end up with:
ISU, KSU, Kansas, Baylor, TCU, Houston and BYU
Uconn, Cinci, Memphis, West Virginia, Navy, USF and UCF

possibly 2 more if they go to 16, but I see those 14 as being almost definite, and honestly, its every bit as good as the ACC.

LHN network isn't going anywhere. Texas gets paid no matter how it performs. As stated earlier, TV viewing is changing...these existing contracts are just a saving grace for the schools...not the TV networks. The banking that a channel will have to be included in package is going away. The cutting the cable generation is coming...quickly.

If TV bundling does go away, then markets will be absolutely irrelevant. At that point, the valuable teams will be the ones that generate the most viewers, not the ones that can get a network into the most households.

Exactly. If you have kids or teens or young professionals...look at them and how they view stuff. On their phone, Ipad, laptop and thru devices like Amazon Fire. The use of apps like HBO go and ESPN app are the way it is going. Consumer picks what they want to watch and when.

I have several friends who are at TimeWarner, they fear they are going out slowly like radio stations. They are holding on to old habits of the older generations...but know it is about to change.

(03-08-2016 11:28 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:22 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:06 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:01 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:45 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  ... Half his league has been mentioned as possible Big 12 targets: Cincinnati, Houston, Connecticut, Memphis, Central Florida and South Florida.

And I suspect, in a few years after all this settles, this top half of the AAC will be in a conference with the bottom half of the remaining B12 schools.

Ive been saying this for almost 3 years. The LHN will be the deciding factor. It will either slowly push Texas out of the Big 12 and for greener pastures or it will be converted to the Big 12 network and be the conferences savior.... either way, the Big 12 will need markets for its new network or replacement teams for the departing.

I tend to think that they will fall apart within 10 years.

Youll end up with:
ISU, KSU, Kansas, Baylor, TCU, Houston and BYU
Uconn, Cinci, Memphis, West Virginia, Navy, USF and UCF

possibly 2 more if they go to 16, but I see those 14 as being almost definite, and honestly, its every bit as good as the ACC.

LHN network isn't going anywhere. Texas gets paid no matter how it performs. As stated earlier, TV viewing is changing...these existing contracts are just a saving grace for the schools...not the TV networks. The banking that a channel will have to be included in package is going away. The cutting the cable generation is coming...quickly.

If TV bundling does go away, then markets will be absolutely irrelevant. At that point, the valuable teams will be the ones that generate the most viewers, not the ones that can get a network into the most households.

Exactly. If you have kids or teens or young professionals...look at them and how they view stuff. On their phone, Ipad, laptop and thru devices like Amazon Fire. The use of apps like HBO go and ESPN app are the way it is going. Consumer picks what they want to watch and when.

I have several friends who are at TimeWarner, they fear they are going out slowly like radio stations. They are holding on to old habits of the older generations...but know it is about to change.

I actually think this is going to be good for us---in fact it will be good for all the G5---but especially us.

In an un-bundled future, streaming and cable will be looked upon as the same thing by consumers. TV content is just TV content. They wont care how its delivered.

Via set top boxes and servers, the actual number of eyeballs watching an event or download stream will be available during and immediately after an event. Future conference contracts wont have a set amount for game rights (like 20 million per year)--instead they will have a rate per viewer. You will be paid based on actual views of your content. A set of eyeballs watching an Alabama game will be no more valuable than a set of eyballs watching UAB--so the rate per viewer will likely be pretty similar. Bottom line---Your conference will be paid by eyeballs delivered.

Right now, we deliver roughly 50% or more of the eyeballs of the P5 conferences, but we are paid 10% of their value. That gap would tighten up considerably in a environment where the actual exact number of viewers directly drives the compensation.

But that's a future that's still a long way away. Cable cutting is actually beginning to slow---and it was somewhat overblown to begin with. More than half the current subscribers are comfortable with it and they aren't cutting the cord. Another large percentage just likes cable better than dealing with slow loads, interruptions, auto-drops in picture quality, and other foibles of the streaming world. So, cables not going anywhere soon.

(03-08-2016 10:53 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The AAC should raid the MWC instead of staying at 10.

The AAC should attack the Borg...naw that wouldnt work out well either.

The idea that adding two G5's (any two G5's including BYU) actually adds to B12 stability is laughable IMO, I just don;t get it.......and yes I understand that Tulane stinks so no need to point out my fandom.

(03-08-2016 11:22 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:06 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:01 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:45 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  ... Half his league has been mentioned as possible Big 12 targets: Cincinnati, Houston, Connecticut, Memphis, Central Florida and South Florida.

And I suspect, in a few years after all this settles, this top half of the AAC will be in a conference with the bottom half of the remaining B12 schools.

Ive been saying this for almost 3 years. The LHN will be the deciding factor. It will either slowly push Texas out of the Big 12 and for greener pastures or it will be converted to the Big 12 network and be the conferences savior.... either way, the Big 12 will need markets for its new network or replacement teams for the departing.

I tend to think that they will fall apart within 10 years.

Youll end up with:
ISU, KSU, Kansas, Baylor, TCU, Houston and BYU
Uconn, Cinci, Memphis, West Virginia, Navy, USF and UCF

possibly 2 more if they go to 16, but I see those 14 as being almost definite, and honestly, its every bit as good as the ACC.

LHN network isn't going anywhere. Texas gets paid no matter how it performs. As stated earlier, TV viewing is changing...these existing contracts are just a saving grace for the schools...not the TV networks. The banking that a channel will have to be included in package is going away. The cutting the cable generation is coming...quickly.

If TV bundling does go away, then markets will be absolutely irrelevant. At that point, the valuable teams will be the ones that generate the most viewers, not the ones that can get a network into the most households.

Yeah but people in Iowa are not goin to just suddenly become fans of Troy or Temple. There is still some geographic association. I watch GSU on ESPN3, not Portland State.

(03-08-2016 11:58 AM)panama Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:53 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The AAC should raid the MWC instead of staying at 10.

The AAC should attack the Borg...naw that wouldnt work out well either.

It's funny how fans of low G5 conferences are worried about the AAC poaching the MWC.

Well... The AAC/BE did it before... if it makes dollars, it will make sense.

(03-08-2016 12:00 PM)panama Wrote:  Yeah but people in Iowa are not goin to just suddenly become fans of Troy or Temple. There is still some geographic association. I watch GSU on ESPN3, not Portland State.

That depends on what Temple's resume looks like that season. It's pretty much the same with anyone.

(03-08-2016 12:04 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:58 AM)panama Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:53 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The AAC should raid the MWC instead of staying at 10.

The AAC should attack the Borg...naw that wouldnt work out well either.

It's funny how fans of low G5 conferences are worried about the AAC poaching the MWC.

Well... The AAC/BE did it before... if it makes dollars, it will make sense.

LOL! You mistake my humor for worry. I do not see why any MWC would make that lateral move. What is there to gain. There is some geography to this. Does the average citizen of Philadelphia care if Temple plays Colorado State or Air Force? The reverse is also true. At some point beyond football someone will start asking why they are flying the tennis team 2000 miles.

(03-08-2016 12:07 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:00 PM)panama Wrote:  Yeah but people in Iowa are not goin to just suddenly become fans of Troy or Temple. There is still some geographic association. I watch GSU on ESPN3, not Portland State.

That depends on what Temple's resume looks like that season. It's pretty much the same with anyone.

Unless you become Boise and become this G5 with national interest then that isnt a reasonable assumption. For the vast majority of schools its still about regional interest.

(03-08-2016 12:11 PM)panama Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:04 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:58 AM)panama Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:53 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The AAC should raid the MWC instead of staying at 10.

The AAC should attack the Borg...naw that wouldnt work out well either.

It's funny how fans of low G5 conferences are worried about the AAC poaching the MWC.

Well... The AAC/BE did it before... if it makes dollars, it will make sense.

LOL! You mistake my humor for worry. I do not see why any MWC would make that lateral move. What is there to gain. There is some geography to this. Does the average citizen of Philadelphia care if Temple plays Colorado State or Air Force? The reverse is also true. At some point beyond football someone will start asking why they are flying the tennis team 2000 miles.

The MWC Champion just played the AAC #6 in a bowl.
Two of their programs played themselves.
Their TV Contract is rigged to provide more funds to Boise.
Many of their programs wont be competitive in the era of autonomy because they can't afford to be.

There are some hurdles, but there are also many unique opportunities to having a National conference, spanning every time zone.

Division play and creative scheduling will cut down on a lot of the travel.

It's anything but a lateral move. However, it ultimately comes down to what Aresco can sell the conference for. It's a good thing we have a TV guy at the helm.

Whether we'd stay at 10 or expand, I'm sure he'll make the best business decision.

(03-08-2016 12:19 PM)panama Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:07 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:00 PM)panama Wrote:  Yeah but people in Iowa are not goin to just suddenly become fans of Troy or Temple. There is still some geographic association. I watch GSU on ESPN3, not Portland State.

That depends on what Temple's resume looks like that season. It's pretty much the same with anyone.

Unless you become Boise and become this G5 with national interest then that isnt a reasonable assumption. For the vast majority of schools its still about regional interest.

I disagree. As we saw this year when the AAC placed four programs in the Top 25 at the same time, all the narratives surrounding NY6 and the CFP are part of a greater national narrative now.

Most people don't give a great deal of thought anymore to "pride games" unless its rivalry week.

It's all about jockeying for position in the bigger picture.

(03-08-2016 11:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:28 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:22 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:06 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:01 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Ive been saying this for almost 3 years. The LHN will be the deciding factor. It will either slowly push Texas out of the Big 12 and for greener pastures or it will be converted to the Big 12 network and be the conferences savior.... either way, the Big 12 will need markets for its new network or replacement teams for the departing.

I tend to think that they will fall apart within 10 years.

Youll end up with:
ISU, KSU, Kansas, Baylor, TCU, Houston and BYU
Uconn, Cinci, Memphis, West Virginia, Navy, USF and UCF

possibly 2 more if they go to 16, but I see those 14 as being almost definite, and honestly, its every bit as good as the ACC.

LHN network isn't going anywhere. Texas gets paid no matter how it performs. As stated earlier, TV viewing is changing...these existing contracts are just a saving grace for the schools...not the TV networks. The banking that a channel will have to be included in package is going away. The cutting the cable generation is coming...quickly.

If TV bundling does go away, then markets will be absolutely irrelevant. At that point, the valuable teams will be the ones that generate the most viewers, not the ones that can get a network into the most households.

Exactly. If you have kids or teens or young professionals...look at them and how they view stuff. On their phone, Ipad, laptop and thru devices like Amazon Fire. The use of apps like HBO go and ESPN app are the way it is going. Consumer picks what they want to watch and when.

I have several friends who are at TimeWarner, they fear they are going out slowly like radio stations. They are holding on to old habits of the older generations...but know it is about to change.

I actually think this is going to be good for us---in fact it will be good for all the G5---but especially us.

In an un-bundled future, streaming and cable will be looked upon as the same thing by consumers. TV content is just TV content. They wont care how its delivered.

Via set top boxes and servers, the actual number of eyeballs watching an event or download stream will be available during and immediately after an event. Future conference contracts wont have a set amount for game rights (like 20 million per year)--instead they will have a rate per viewer. You will be paid based on actual views of your content. A set of eyeballs watching an Alabama game will be no more valuable than a set of eyballs watching UAB--so the rate per viewer will likely be pretty similar. Bottom line---Your conference will be paid by eyeballs delivered.

Right now, we deliver roughly 50% or more of the eyeballs of the P5 conferences, but we are paid 10% of their value. That gap would tighten up considerably in a environment where the actual exact number of viewers directly drives the compensation.

But that's a future that's still a long way away. Cable cutting is actually beginning to slow---and it was somewhat overblown to begin with. More than half the current subscribers are comfortable with it and they aren't cutting the cord. Another large percentage just likes cable better than dealing with slow loads, interruptions, auto-drops in picture quality, and other foibles of the streaming world. So, cables not going anywhere soon.

You bring up some good points but I'm getting my info directly from media sources in cable TV (Time Warner) and radio (Greater Media). They are losing households daily. People who sell it and manage the companies in high roles.

In radio's case they thought XM was nothing to worry about...we know how that is ending.

TV/satellite knows that Google, Amazon and Apple are getting in the game. They know the consumer better than anyone else. The consumer is tired of paying for channels they don't need or watch...at an inflated price. A la carte is all ready here. Younger consumers just say I will jailbreak the tools or just go to a bar to watch games instead too.

Again, look at the kids and how they watch and consume media. It's Youtube, apps and devices...things they can pick up and move with them, watch anywhere. Can't do that with a TV and cable.

Schools like UCF with huge alumni bases will benefit from this new future, additionally us Non-P5's who are actually successful on the field...no matter where you are located (big city or small).

(03-08-2016 12:11 PM)panama Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:04 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:58 AM)panama Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:53 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The AAC should raid the MWC instead of staying at 10.

The AAC should attack the Borg...naw that wouldnt work out well either.

It's funny how fans of low G5 conferences are worried about the AAC poaching the MWC.

Well... The AAC/BE did it before... if it makes dollars, it will make sense.

LOL! You mistake my humor for worry. I do not see why any MWC would make that lateral move. What is there to gain. There is some geography to this. Does the average citizen of Philadelphia care if Temple plays Colorado State or Air Force? The reverse is also true. At some point beyond football someone will start asking why they are flying the tennis team 2000 miles.

lol...Nobody cares if San Jose plays Air Force or Colorado St. Nobody cares if Nevada or UNLV plays Wyoming or Colorado St. if they did, the G5 would be making more money. Now---if you can assemble all the academies under one roof---along with most of the better G5 programs---maybe you can create a made of TV league that will bring a few extra bucks....Maybe.