(01-24-2017 02:18 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 11:23 AM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  Because we have zero real leverage.

Ohhh yeaahhh...DOH

What are you babbling about? What do you want?

Cheers!

(01-24-2017 02:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:26 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 01:49 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:07 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 06:51 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  I think that we should seriously consider buying Aresco out. We need someone that is a little more open-minded about our media partner alliance and has a proven track record for getting things done. Heck, I'd prefer Britton Banowsky than this guy's track record ...

You're kidding, right? How soon you forget Banowsky's ineptness from which the CUSA still hasn't recovered .....and related to the AAC contract, when the AAC TV deal was done, the choice was made for exposure & the AAC has arguably better exposure than the BE in BB & better FB exposure than any conference not P5 (& you could argue as good as a couple of P5 conferences). I'm not taking a position on Aresco, just stating the decision process choice at the time which the conference presidents preferred. The AAC will be in a different, better position next contract & should get a better deal. And in regards to BB, I just don't understand why the AAC doesn't invite WSU to complete the Navy membership - that too would give the AAC leverage next contract.

I was not saying that we should go a get Britton Banowsky, although CUSA's bowl agreements appear to be as good or better than ours at this moment. It kinda makes you wonder what he could do with a more marketable product.

I am saying, however, that we should start looking around for viable alternatives because Aresco does not appear to be getting the job done. Maybe someone should reach out, through a third party, to the guy who use be the commissioner for the Old Big East. See what he thinks about things that could be done to the boat back on course ...

The last commish of the Big East wasn't good so I don't think anyone would want to go down that road. With that said I think you keep Aresco until the next tv/bowl deals are negotiated. I think he has laid the groundwork for those deals which is why he originally signed a shorter deal. He gave the league a chance to establish itself with exposure. Now of course if that deal comes in really low or there isn't substantial improvement then I would agree it might be time to move on.

He's in his 60's. I don't think he plans to work forever. I suspect his tenure with the AAC will be relatively short regardless of the next contracts outcome.

I agree he won't be here forever but I think he sees the next deal through which will probably be negotiate in a year or so. I think if that deal doesn't improve dramatically then it won't be his choice to stay or leave. I personally like the guy and think he has fought hard for the league. Hopefully his work and the league are rewarded. Guess we shall see.

(01-24-2017 09:08 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:26 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 01:49 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:07 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  You're kidding, right? How soon you forget Banowsky's ineptness from which the CUSA still hasn't recovered .....and related to the AAC contract, when the AAC TV deal was done, the choice was made for exposure & the AAC has arguably better exposure than the BE in BB & better FB exposure than any conference not P5 (& you could argue as good as a couple of P5 conferences). I'm not taking a position on Aresco, just stating the decision process choice at the time which the conference presidents preferred. The AAC will be in a different, better position next contract & should get a better deal. And in regards to BB, I just don't understand why the AAC doesn't invite WSU to complete the Navy membership - that too would give the AAC leverage next contract.

I was not saying that we should go a get Britton Banowsky, although CUSA's bowl agreements appear to be as good or better than ours at this moment. It kinda makes you wonder what he could do with a more marketable product.

I am saying, however, that we should start looking around for viable alternatives because Aresco does not appear to be getting the job done. Maybe someone should reach out, through a third party, to the guy who use be the commissioner for the Old Big East. See what he thinks about things that could be done to the boat back on course ...

The last commish of the Big East wasn't good so I don't think anyone would want to go down that road. With that said I think you keep Aresco until the next tv/bowl deals are negotiated. I think he has laid the groundwork for those deals which is why he originally signed a shorter deal. He gave the league a chance to establish itself with exposure. Now of course if that deal comes in really low or there isn't substantial improvement then I would agree it might be time to move on.

He's in his 60's. I don't think he plans to work forever. I suspect his tenure with the AAC will be relatively short regardless of the next contracts outcome.

I agree he won't be here forever but I think he sees the next deal through which will probably be negotiate in a year or so. I think if that deal doesn't improve dramatically then it won't be his choice to stay or leave. I personally like the guy and think he has fought hard for the league. Hopefully his work and the league are rewarded. Guess we shall see.

Yeah, and he's getting paid very very well for his position. I would gander he makes at least 2 million a year while the MWC commish earns 500k, the MAC commish probably make 200k, Karl Benson of the Sun Bech probably makes 90k per year.
Cheers!

(01-24-2017 02:18 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 11:23 AM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  Because we have zero real leverage.

Ohhh yeaahhh...DOH

Ratings markers are leverage. Performance metrics are leverage. The AAC has built an audience. There is a record now that didn't exist in 2013.

(01-24-2017 10:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:08 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:26 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 01:49 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  I was not saying that we should go a get Britton Banowsky, although CUSA's bowl agreements appear to be as good or better than ours at this moment. It kinda makes you wonder what he could do with a more marketable product.

I am saying, however, that we should start looking around for viable alternatives because Aresco does not appear to be getting the job done. Maybe someone should reach out, through a third party, to the guy who use be the commissioner for the Old Big East. See what he thinks about things that could be done to the boat back on course ...

The last commish of the Big East wasn't good so I don't think anyone would want to go down that road. With that said I think you keep Aresco until the next tv/bowl deals are negotiated. I think he has laid the groundwork for those deals which is why he originally signed a shorter deal. He gave the league a chance to establish itself with exposure. Now of course if that deal comes in really low or there isn't substantial improvement then I would agree it might be time to move on.

He's in his 60's. I don't think he plans to work forever. I suspect his tenure with the AAC will be relatively short regardless of the next contracts outcome.

I agree he won't be here forever but I think he sees the next deal through which will probably be negotiate in a year or so. I think if that deal doesn't improve dramatically then it won't be his choice to stay or leave. I personally like the guy and think he has fought hard for the league. Hopefully his work and the league are rewarded. Guess we shall see.

Yeah, and he's getting paid very very well for his position. I would gander he makes at least 2 million a year while the MWC commish earns 500k, the MAC commish probably make 200k, Karl Benson of the Sun Bech probably makes 90k per year.
Cheers!

Couldn't care less what Aresco makes. The # is split 12 ways. The AAC is not in position to skimp at this time. The results the AAC has gotten on the field, court, and television ratings, have made his case. He wouldn't be talking if there was nothing to talk about. Right man, for the right conference, at the right time.

(01-25-2017 07:31 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:08 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:26 PM)PT_american Wrote:  The last commish of the Big East wasn't good so I don't think anyone would want to go down that road. With that said I think you keep Aresco until the next tv/bowl deals are negotiated. I think he has laid the groundwork for those deals which is why he originally signed a shorter deal. He gave the league a chance to establish itself with exposure. Now of course if that deal comes in really low or there isn't substantial improvement then I would agree it might be time to move on.

He's in his 60's. I don't think he plans to work forever. I suspect his tenure with the AAC will be relatively short regardless of the next contracts outcome.

I agree he won't be here forever but I think he sees the next deal through which will probably be negotiate in a year or so. I think if that deal doesn't improve dramatically then it won't be his choice to stay or leave. I personally like the guy and think he has fought hard for the league. Hopefully his work and the league are rewarded. Guess we shall see.

Yeah, and he's getting paid very very well for his position. I would gander he makes at least 2 million a year while the MWC commish earns 500k, the MAC commish probably make 200k, Karl Benson of the Sun Bech probably makes 90k per year.
Cheers!

Couldn't care less what Aresco makes. The # is split 12 ways. The AAC is not in position to skimp at this time. The results the AAC has gotten on the field, court, and television ratings, have made his case. He wouldn't be talking if there was nothing to talk about. Right man, for the right conference, at the right time.

Exactly- some ppl are so hung up on what Aresco makes. Who cares?? We are trying to be big time and compete with the power 5 conferences in every way. You have to spend money to make money. If we want a big time guy to run our league we have to pay competitively with the best leagues in the country.

He's got the experience let the man do his job. We will get a much better deal next time. We have already had a good deal with exposure now we need to get more money. I believe Aresco is the man to do it.

Take a look at this from the perspective of ESPN, who is apparently hemorrhaging money at the moment according to Disney. Sell off your marketable teams to networks who traditionally get lower ratings then ESPN while keeping the teams on ESPN that get low ratings anyway, then when the AAC comes asking for more money they use ratings against us.

(01-25-2017 09:40 AM)PirateJP Wrote:  Take a look at this from the perspective of ESPN, who is apparently hemorrhaging money at the moment according to Disney. Sell off your marketable teams to networks who traditionally get lower ratings then ESPN while keeping the teams on ESPN that get low ratings anyway, then when the AAC comes asking for more money they use ratings against us.

Actually, AAC ratings actually hold up rather well.

(01-25-2017 11:14 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 09:40 AM)PirateJP Wrote:  Take a look at this from the perspective of ESPN, who is apparently hemorrhaging money at the moment according to Disney. Sell off your marketable teams to networks who traditionally get lower ratings then ESPN while keeping the teams on ESPN that get low ratings anyway, then when the AAC comes asking for more money they use ratings against us.

Actually, AAC ratings actually hold up rather well.

Yeah--when on ESPN. How are rating measured for games such as last night's Houston game on CBS-SN? I've never gotten a clear answer on games on CBS-SN.
Cheers!

(01-25-2017 07:50 AM)First Mate Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 07:31 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:08 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  He's in his 60's. I don't think he plans to work forever. I suspect his tenure with the AAC will be relatively short regardless of the next contracts outcome.

I agree he won't be here forever but I think he sees the next deal through which will probably be negotiate in a year or so. I think if that deal doesn't improve dramatically then it won't be his choice to stay or leave. I personally like the guy and think he has fought hard for the league. Hopefully his work and the league are rewarded. Guess we shall see.

Yeah, and he's getting paid very very well for his position. I would gander he makes at least 2 million a year while the MWC commish earns 500k, the MAC commish probably make 200k, Karl Benson of the Sun Bech probably makes 90k per year.
Cheers!

Couldn't care less what Aresco makes. The # is split 12 ways. The AAC is not in position to skimp at this time. The results the AAC has gotten on the field, court, and television ratings, have made his case. He wouldn't be talking if there was nothing to talk about. Right man, for the right conference, at the right time.

Exactly- some ppl are so hung up on what Aresco makes. Who cares?? We are trying to be big time and compete with the power 5 conferences in every way. You have to spend money to make money. If we want a big time guy to run our league we have to pay competitively with the best leagues in the country.

He's got the experience let the man do his job. We will get a much better deal next time. We have already had a good deal with exposure now we need to get more money. I believe Aresco is the man to do it.

"Who cares what Aresco makes?"--Me. AAC shouldn't skimp; I couldn't agree more. When you get a person who gets results you pay him whatever you can. Aresco makes bank. Some of us aren't happy with the return on that money.

Cheers!

You guys have to quit putting you Conference and conference brothers down. Hell Rome was not built in a day. I still think you need to go to 16 teams by adding:

Boise State
Brigham Young
New Mexico
San Diego State

(01-25-2017 02:40 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  You guys have to quit putting you Conference and conference brothers down. Hell Rome was not built in a day. I still think you need to go to 16 teams by adding:

Boise State f
Brigham Young o
New Mexico Army f
San Diego State Air Force f

fify

Well Aresco has a chance to prove himself. The piontsetta bowl went boom, that leaves and available Big 10 team. Here's his chance to lock in a p5 team for the Miami bowl.

(01-25-2017 03:09 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  Well Aresco has a chance to prove himself. The piontsetta bowl went boom, that leaves and available Big 10 team. Here's his chance to lock in a p5 team for the Miami bowl.

What? No. The Holiday Bowl (B1G vs PAC) is still around. It's the Poinsettia Bowl (MWC vs ???) that's gone.

(01-25-2017 08:13 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:09 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  Well Aresco has a chance to prove himself. The piontsetta bowl went boom, that leaves and available Big 10 team. Here's his chance to lock in a p5 team for the Miami bowl.

What? No. The Holiday Bowl (B1G vs PAC) is still around. It's the Poinsettia Bowl (MWC vs ???) that's gone.

Yeah noticed. Never much paid attention to it or who played in it.

(01-25-2017 09:01 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:13 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:09 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  Well Aresco has a chance to prove himself. The piontsetta bowl went boom, that leaves and available Big 10 team. Here's his chance to lock in a p5 team for the Miami bowl.

What? No. The Holiday Bowl (B1G vs PAC) is still around. It's the Poinsettia Bowl (MWC vs ???) that's gone.

Yeah noticed. Never much paid attention to it or who played in it.

It was usually a MWC team vs Army/Navy with an occasional PAC team if there was an opening.

Cheers!