(12-15-2016 01:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I am against adding Wichita St unless each existing member gains an increase in revenue with certainty. We need money.

I'm guessing this isn't the last shoe to drop. Funny timing considering Aresco was supposed to go to ESPN the first week of December.

My guess is they instructed him to do some things to justify more $$.

(12-15-2016 01:07 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:04 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  Is Wichita that big of a brand? Wouldn't VCU be a better market?

Wichita has pretty decent support. They tend to sell out their 10K seat arena on a semi-regular basis. Their national recognition is just a tad more relevant recently than VCU.

What if they lose their coach and/or don't sustain success?

(12-15-2016 01:10 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:07 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:04 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  Is Wichita that big of a brand? Wouldn't VCU be a better market?

Wichita has pretty decent support. They tend to sell out their 10K seat arena on a semi-regular basis. Their national recognition is just a tad more relevant recently than VCU.

What if they lose their coach and/or don't sustain success?

Koch Brothers love basketball. They will keep it funded and coincidentally started sponsoring SMU basketball last year

If it results in more revenue and ratings for my alma mater, I am down with it.

(12-15-2016 01:09 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I am against adding Wichita St unless each existing member gains an increase in revenue with certainty. We need money.

I'm guessing this isn't the last shoe to drop. Funny timing considering Aresco was supposed to go to ESPN the first week of December.

My guess is they instructed him to do some things to justify more $$.

I doubt grabbing the Wichita market was one of those things. They have a population of 400K.

(12-15-2016 01:07 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:04 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  Is Wichita that big of a brand? Wouldn't VCU be a better market?

Wichita has pretty decent support. They tend to sell out their 10K seat arena on a semi-regular basis. Their national recognition is just a tad more relevant recently than VCU.

By semi-regular do you mean every game? Cause they do.

http://goshockers.com/news/2016/6/8/mens...path=m_bkb

This would be a good move for the AAC. They're a national brand.

(12-15-2016 01:13 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:09 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I am against adding Wichita St unless each existing member gains an increase in revenue with certainty. We need money.

I'm guessing this isn't the last shoe to drop. Funny timing considering Aresco was supposed to go to ESPN the first week of December.

My guess is they instructed him to do some things to justify more $$.

I doubt grabbing the Wichita market was one of those things. They have a population of 400K.

It's not all markets. The next round will be about subscribers. This is going to streaming, not cable. Wichita brings eyeballs for basketball. Good inventory.

I still think we're going to make a play for some mountain schools.

(12-15-2016 01:09 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I am against adding Wichita St unless each existing member gains an increase in revenue with certainty. We need money.

I'm guessing this isn't the last shoe to drop. Funny timing considering Aresco was supposed to go to ESPN the first week of December.

My guess is they instructed him to do some things to justify more $$.

In the same vein, ESPN is probably orchestrating this move(s). If they're going to pay more, and they know they have too (should), they'll get as much out of it as they can. WSU is easy to leverage in. Solid performance, brand, location works for the AAC, and easy add w/ Navy being fb only. They're not tied to their conference in any way.

Adding Wichita is a no-brainer. It significantly strengthens basketball and they're a good geographical fit. I hope this gets done quickly.

(12-15-2016 01:15 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:13 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:09 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I am against adding Wichita St unless each existing member gains an increase in revenue with certainty. We need money.

I'm guessing this isn't the last shoe to drop. Funny timing considering Aresco was supposed to go to ESPN the first week of December.

My guess is they instructed him to do some things to justify more $$.

I doubt grabbing the Wichita market was one of those things. They have a population of 400K.

It's not all markets. The next round will be about subscribers. This is going to streaming, not cable. Wichita brings eyeballs for basketball. Good inventory.

I still think we're going to make a play for some mountain schools.

RE: the mountain schools, it would not surprise me either. If ESPN is moving the pieces anything is possible.

Awesome!

100% in favor of this, but why Bball only? We need their baseball too. Should be all sports BUT football.

Sorry to disagree but I don't want WSU in the American. The league should hold out for BYU and Boise St. Football drives revenue not basketball.
UCONN, ECU, USF, UCF going to Wichita for a baseball game is costly. AAC should just continue to build the current Basketball programs with great coaches and players.

(12-15-2016 01:33 PM)Chappy Wrote:  100% in favor of this, but why Bball only? We need their baseball too. Should be all sports BUT football.

I'm 99.9999% sure it would be Olympic sports. People use BB only meaning no football.

(12-15-2016 01:33 PM)Chappy Wrote:  100% in favor of this, but why Bball only? We need their baseball too. Should be all sports BUT football.

I am guessing they would be brought in for all Olympic sports (they would be a fine addition to baseball and since there are only 8 teams currently in the conference, the growth would be welcomed).

People, even media members, generally mislabel schools without football as Bball only. We used to see it all the time in the old Big East.

(12-15-2016 01:33 PM)kyucat Wrote:  UCONN, ECU, USF, UCF going to Wichita for a baseball game is costly. AAC should just continue to build the current Basketball programs with great coaches and players.

We already fly to all the other schools, and you get 3 baseball games on one trip.

(12-15-2016 01:36 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:33 PM)Chappy Wrote:  100% in favor of this, but why Bball only? We need their baseball too. Should be all sports BUT football.

I am guessing they would be brought in for all Olympic sports (they would be a fine addition to baseball and since there are only 8 teams currently in the conference, the growth would be welcomed).

People, even media members, generally mislabel schools without football as Bball only. We used to see it all the time in the old Big East.

Ah, good point.

(12-15-2016 01:33 PM)kyucat Wrote:  Sorry to disagree but I don't want WSU in the American. The league should hold out for BYU and Boise St. Football drives revenue not basketball.
UCONN, ECU, USF, UCF going to Wichita for a baseball game is costly. AAC should just continue to build the current Basketball programs with great coaches and players.

Adding WSU does not hinder us getting Army, Air Force, BYU, Boise state, etc. Those schools would be FB only anyway. Getting to 12 for Basketball seems logical plus we could use another baseball team.

(12-15-2016 01:16 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:09 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I am against adding Wichita St unless each existing member gains an increase in revenue with certainty. We need money.

I'm guessing this isn't the last shoe to drop. Funny timing considering Aresco was supposed to go to ESPN the first week of December.

My guess is they instructed him to do some things to justify more $$.

In the same vein, ESPN is probably orchestrating this move(s). If they're going to pay more, and they know they have too (should), they'll get as much out of it as they can. WSU is easy to leverage in. Solid performance, brand, location works for the AAC, and easy add w/ Navy being fb only. They're not tied to their conference in any way.

The article seems to indicate that this is not being done in coordination with a network, and that in the short term WSU would not add revenue (another mouth to feed). It seems, rather, that Aresco is looking to hobble together something more valuable with the HOPE that the networks give us a bigger pie into the medium term (next contract renewal). It's a gamble.

Wichita is certainly NOT a national brand - no more than Creighton is. But it would nonetheless elevate the perception of AAC basketball.

I agree that this probably means most or all Olympic sports as well.

Finally, if Aresco were getting bites from desirable MWC schools, he would not be floating trial balloons about WSU.

It amazes me every time I read one of these threads and see some young buck says "what if WSU doesn't stay good, we should add VCU". WSU is big time basketball and while it's had its ups and downs like any other program they've been a player on the top level for a long time. When I became a TU basketball fan back in the early '80s they were a top team with the likes of Antoine Carr, Cliff Levingston, and Xavier McDaniel. VCU was small time basketball in the Sun Belt and CAA until Shaka Smart arrived and took them To a FF (their first time past the round of 32 BTW). If not for that run the A-10 wouldn't have considered adding them. Is someone asked me which program would be likely to maintain success I would say WSU without a doubt.