(05-04-2017 07:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).

I agree that it's marketing, I just don't think it's effective marketing. There's really nothing new here: Aresco has been claiming the AAC is actually a "power" conference almost since Day One four years ago, or at least since early 2014, when the conference wasn't even a year old.

And nobody bought it that year, even though UCF won the Fiesta Bowl and UConn the basketball national title within a few months of each other, so why on earth is anyone going to believe it now?

It's stale wine poured into an old bottle. But apparently, it's all Aresco has to offer to justify his $1.7 million salary - the only thing about the AAC that is overpaid.

Not really. It was a 24 page brochure showing how the AAC is trying to be a P5 conference. But what it really represents is a 24 page brochure explaining why the AAC isn't "just like the rest of the G5". He got everyone to read it and he got everyone discussing whether the AAC is a 6th power conference. Its not---but in continuing to drive the conversation and point out the things his conference is doing, he is effectively differentiating his "G5 widget" from all the other "widgets". Thats just marketing 101.

Will anybody be talking about it 5 days from now? I doubt it, so I doubt its been very effective.

It is an old saw for Aresco, trying to claim a distinction between the rest of the G5 and the AAC. Been at it since day one. Has it been effective? I'd say no, the AAC is still firmly regarded as G5.

(05-05-2017 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 09:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:47 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:09 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Big East makes more TV money for just basketball than the G5 leagues do for both football and basketball. I personally think that makes them smart as opposed to some amorphous "man up" macho crap being propagated by the G5 conferences. Once again, the Big East make more TV money than the G5... and that's basically the only scoreboard that matters in conference realignment. It would be more fruitful if the G5 leagues would quit whining about it and/or pretend that they're more powerful simply because that they have football and figure out WHY the Big East is valued more in the marketplace for just basketball when the G5 teams are hemorrhaging trying to compete in FBS football.

The Big East found a valuable niche and they maximized their value in such niche with consistent branding and institutional fit, whereas the G5 leagues are hodgepodge leagues that are still deluding themselves in believing that they can ever achieve power status. There might very well be a handful of individual G5 *schools* that have a legitimate shot of moving up to power status, but people need to quit pretending that there will EVER be a thing known as the "Power 6" or "Power 7" or anything more than the current Power 5. A power conference (such as the Big 12) is more likely to be wiped out than a G5 conference ever getting elevated.

Except the criteria he stated was conferences that have high TV contracts. The nBE has less than a quarter of the TV contract of the lowest P5. They can't realistically be in that discussion.

I said this in another thread and everyone claimed I was crazy......

Compare the Big East and AAC for a moment. The Big East makes like 4 mil per team and the AAC makes like 2 mil per team. The AAC has much better exposure being on ESPN.

Now compare that to the Big 10 teams who are making over 30+ million per team in media payouts. I'm not sure in what reality 4 million is comparing to 30+ and counting.....with much more exposure.

I don't think anyone is saying that the Big East is equal to the P5 in terms of power. However, they are definitely maximizing their revenue in the other sport that has any relevance for TV purposes (basketball). That obviously cannot be said for the G5 leagues.

And yes, ESPN inherently provides more exposure, but a test pattern on ESPN could probably draw high ratings compared to FS1. The mistake waaaaaaay too many G5 fans make are thinking that the higher G5 ratings on ESPN have anything to do with the G5 leagues themselves. It's simply the power of the ESPN platform... which means that the G5 leagues will get zero credit for those ratings when it comes to negotiate new contracts. The people in the TV business know when a league actually brings people to a channel as opposed to the channel bringing a league to the people. The former group (the P5 leagues) gets paid a huge premium, whereas the latter gets paid like a commodity. The general belief among TV people is that the Big East falls into the former category at least for basketball (which is why the Big East gets paid the way that it gets paid).

A couple of caveats. Its still entirely possible that the AAC and the Big East are actually very similar in "value"---the real difference being that the AAC took less money to be on a premium platform while the Big East took a monetary premium to be on an inferior platform. Its also worth noting that the game isn't over yet. The Big East deal is 12 years where as the AAC deal is only about half as long. The AAC could very well still exceed the Big East earnings while staying on a premium platform---we will have to wait and see how the second half of the comparison develops.

We know the bolded isn't true, because the AAC "took" the same money it is being paid by ESPN from NBCSN.

(05-06-2017 01:02 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).

I get it but what happens when five or ten years later AAC isn't invited into "the club"?

I believe in under-promise and over-deliver. I don't think the odds favor being able to deliver all 12 members of AAC into "the club".

I have to say I agree.

The idea of calling yourself a P6 validates the entire P5 concept that its a grouping that exists above and beyond other FBS conferences.

That's an important point, as it reflects a shift in rhetoric by Aresco. Early on, his propaganda was aimed at denying the existence of a P5/G5 gap. Now, he's acknowledging but claiming he's part of the more powerful grouping.

None of it works because none of it is true: There obviously IS a P5/G5 gap, both formally (TV contracts, bowl ties, etc.) and informally (we all know the SEC and MAC aren't the same in terms of power), and, the AAC is not a part of the Power grouping.

(05-07-2017 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 09:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:47 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:09 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  Except the criteria he stated was conferences that have high TV contracts. The nBE has less than a quarter of the TV contract of the lowest P5. They can't realistically be in that discussion.

I said this in another thread and everyone claimed I was crazy......

Compare the Big East and AAC for a moment. The Big East makes like 4 mil per team and the AAC makes like 2 mil per team. The AAC has much better exposure being on ESPN.

Now compare that to the Big 10 teams who are making over 30+ million per team in media payouts. I'm not sure in what reality 4 million is comparing to 30+ and counting.....with much more exposure.

I don't think anyone is saying that the Big East is equal to the P5 in terms of power. However, they are definitely maximizing their revenue in the other sport that has any relevance for TV purposes (basketball). That obviously cannot be said for the G5 leagues.

And yes, ESPN inherently provides more exposure, but a test pattern on ESPN could probably draw high ratings compared to FS1. The mistake waaaaaaay too many G5 fans make are thinking that the higher G5 ratings on ESPN have anything to do with the G5 leagues themselves. It's simply the power of the ESPN platform... which means that the G5 leagues will get zero credit for those ratings when it comes to negotiate new contracts. The people in the TV business know when a league actually brings people to a channel as opposed to the channel bringing a league to the people. The former group (the P5 leagues) gets paid a huge premium, whereas the latter gets paid like a commodity. The general belief among TV people is that the Big East falls into the former category at least for basketball (which is why the Big East gets paid the way that it gets paid).

A couple of caveats. Its still entirely possible that the AAC and the Big East are actually very similar in "value"---the real difference being that the AAC took less money to be on a premium platform while the Big East took a monetary premium to be on an inferior platform. Its also worth noting that the game isn't over yet. The Big East deal is 12 years where as the AAC deal is only about half as long. The AAC could very well still exceed the Big East earnings while staying on a premium platform---we will have to wait and see how the second half of the comparison develops.

We know the bolded isn't true, because the AAC "took" the same money it is being paid by ESPN from NBCSN.

Not true at all. Aresco has said many times they signed the NBC offer because it featured such great exposure. Apparently, the initial talks from ESPN during the exclusive period would have resulted in more money, but much less exposure than the old Big East contract with more games on ESPN-3. As a new league, the presidents believed it was crucial to have the maximum national broadcast exposure possible in order to establish itself with the public.

NBC low balled because, with the knowledge of the prior offer, they had little fear that ESPN would (or even could) match that level of exposure. They did not anticipate that the low bid actually made it cost effective to convert ESPN-News to a national live sports platform on Saturdays creating enough broadcast windows to match the NBC-Sports offer.

I think he got the idea when the P5 conferences saying that some of the AAC schools be treated like they are P5 opponents. It does not mean all the schools are considered a P5 type of school.

(05-07-2017 09:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Apparently, the initial talks from ESPN during the exclusive period would have resulted in more money, but much less exposure than the old Big East contract with and more games on ESPN-3.

1. Do we have a source on this? Because it seems like a claim that's solidified with the passage of time, without any real origin that I can find.

2. How much more money, exactly? And was that money to be split with the C-7? What you're describing would easily fit with a $100M offer for the planned hybrid league including the C7, Louisville, Rutgers and Boise State. (Aresco had to reject that kind of offer because it wouldn't have been enough to hold the league together.)

(05-07-2017 10:16 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think he got the idea when the P5 conferences saying that some of the AAC schools be treated like they are P5 opponents. It does not mean all the schools are considered a P5 type of school.

Agree, in football, they are referring to Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, Central Florida, Houston, Memphis, South Florida, and maybe Temple.

The American, in its current football configuration, has been in existence two years. Navy has been in the league two years. Both years, the American finished comfortably 6th among conferences. Here's the Massey Composite average conference ranking over the last two years:

SEC - 39 (the average SEC team finished 39th among all the polls gathered by Massey the last two years)
Pac 12 - 45
ACC - 48
Big 12 - 49
Big 10 - 49

American - 69

MWC - 83
MAC - 85
Sun Belt - 91
CUSA - 93

In addition, looking at the Massey Basketball composite, the American was 7th the last two years. Wichita State should strengthen the league. Next best among all-sport conferences is the MWC coming in 9th the last two years.

In the Massey Baseball composite, the American finished 5th and 6th the last two years and is on track to finish 5th this year. Next best among all sport conferences is CUSA coming in 7th and 9th and on track for 6th this year.

At least recently, the American is among the six best all-sport conferences in the nation, by quite a margin over those in the G4.

However, except for baseball in which is consistently better than the Big 10, the American trails the other Power 6 conferences in the three main men's sports.

This is going to be interesting. The revenue produced by the P5 may be the nail that dooms us all. No non-P5 school will be able to pay a "Nick Saban" salary.

(05-07-2017 10:18 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 09:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Apparently, the initial talks from ESPN during the exclusive period would have resulted in more money, but much less exposure than the old Big East contract with and more games on ESPN-3.

1. Do we have a source on this? Because it seems like a claim that's solidified with the passage of time, without any real origin that I can find.

2. How much more money, exactly? And was that money to be split with the C-7? What you're describing would easily fit with a $100M offer for the planned hybrid league including the C7, Louisville, Rutgers and Boise State. (Aresco had to reject that kind of offer because it wouldn't have been enough to hold the league together.)

1) Came primarily from Aresco's claims---though some board sources have also confirmed it (FWIW). On this board, I believe a pretty reliable Louisville booster/poster (who had no dog in the hunt), says he has an in the room source that says it was almost double the NBC offer but with much more ESPN-3. That kinda fits the lower end of the range being tossed around by "experts" quoted by McMurphy and Dodd at the time. So---its really a situation where there are no print sources that either confirm or disprove the claim. The reality is---you can believe Aresco or not believe him. But answer this----if there is no interest/value there----how do explain a non-power conference having an exposure level that rivals power conferences? Bottom line---2 million a team or 4 million a team----both are WAY lower than these teams were hoping for when they made the jump to the Big East. I think the presidents took a calculated gamble that for a new conference, a short term contract of 6 years with major exposure probably would set them up for a better pay day down the road and was worth taking a little less money now.

2) This was after the C7 left but before it was decided the new C7 "Big East" would actually begin in 2013. Thus, the C7 was only a factor in determing the value of the single year "bridge contract" that would sync the expirations for basketball and football contracts together.

(05-07-2017 10:31 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  The American, in its current football configuration, has been in existence two years. Navy has been in the league two years. Both years, the American finished comfortably 6th among conferences. Here's the Massey Composite average conference ranking over the last two years:

SEC - 39 (the average SEC team finished 39th among all the polls gathered by Massey the last two years)
Pac 12 - 45
ACC - 48
Big 12 - 49
Big 10 - 49

American - 69

MWC - 83
MAC - 85
Sun Belt - 91
CUSA - 93

In addition, looking at the Massey Basketball composite, the American was 7th the last two years. Wichita State should strengthen the league. Next best among all-sport conferences is the MWC coming in 9th the last two years.

In the Massey Baseball composite, the American finished 5th and 6th the last two years and is on track to finish 5th this year. Next best among all sport conferences is CUSA coming in 7th and 9th and on track for 6th this year.

At least recently, the American is among the six best all-sport conferences in the nation, by quite a margin over those in the G4.

However, except for baseball in which is consistently better than the Big 10, the American trails the other Power 6 conferences in the three main men's sports.

Computers do not take into account how teams will fare in football games since many G5 schools could be able to beat P5. It is the human factor that make it an unfair advantage in favor of P5 schools. They treat Kansas a better team than a North Dakota State or Boise State when in fact, Kansas is more down at the bottom feeders of FBS.

(05-06-2017 05:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).

I get it but what happens when five or ten years later AAC isn't invited into "the club"?

I believe in under-promise and over-deliver. I don't think the odds favor being able to deliver all 12 members of AAC into "the club".

What happens....??? We aren't invited to the club. Big deal. It's not like this marketing campaign is costing any more than any other stupid marketing campaign.

FWIW, I think the odds are somewhere around 0% that we become part of the club. It's about trying to build perception of a new league for the public more than anything.

But this campaign tells the average fan that it is in reach and achievable. That's not smart marketing.

There is a distinction between we are measuring our programs against Clemson and Ole Miss and we expect to do this year have the same access and treatment as Clemson and Ole Miss.

Eventually people start asking what happened to being in the club? Eventually the question is asked why haven't the president, AD and the coaches accomplished the mission. They are apparently the barrier to achieving the goal.

(05-07-2017 11:28 AM)chess Wrote:  This is going to be interesting. The revenue produced by the P5 may be the nail that dooms us all. No non-P5 school will be able to pay a "Nick Saban" salary.

Most of us couldn't pay Bear Bryant's salary when he was making less than the president of University of Alabama.

Matching head coach salaries isn't the problem.

The problem is when you can't offer a coordinator enough to consider leaving to become head coach.

(05-07-2017 09:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 09:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:47 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I said this in another thread and everyone claimed I was crazy......

Compare the Big East and AAC for a moment. The Big East makes like 4 mil per team and the AAC makes like 2 mil per team. The AAC has much better exposure being on ESPN.

Now compare that to the Big 10 teams who are making over 30+ million per team in media payouts. I'm not sure in what reality 4 million is comparing to 30+ and counting.....with much more exposure.

I don't think anyone is saying that the Big East is equal to the P5 in terms of power. However, they are definitely maximizing their revenue in the other sport that has any relevance for TV purposes (basketball). That obviously cannot be said for the G5 leagues.

And yes, ESPN inherently provides more exposure, but a test pattern on ESPN could probably draw high ratings compared to FS1. The mistake waaaaaaay too many G5 fans make are thinking that the higher G5 ratings on ESPN have anything to do with the G5 leagues themselves. It's simply the power of the ESPN platform... which means that the G5 leagues will get zero credit for those ratings when it comes to negotiate new contracts. The people in the TV business know when a league actually brings people to a channel as opposed to the channel bringing a league to the people. The former group (the P5 leagues) gets paid a huge premium, whereas the latter gets paid like a commodity. The general belief among TV people is that the Big East falls into the former category at least for basketball (which is why the Big East gets paid the way that it gets paid).

A couple of caveats. Its still entirely possible that the AAC and the Big East are actually very similar in "value"---the real difference being that the AAC took less money to be on a premium platform while the Big East took a monetary premium to be on an inferior platform. Its also worth noting that the game isn't over yet. The Big East deal is 12 years where as the AAC deal is only about half as long. The AAC could very well still exceed the Big East earnings while staying on a premium platform---we will have to wait and see how the second half of the comparison develops.

We know the bolded isn't true, because the AAC "took" the same money it is being paid by ESPN from NBCSN.

Not true at all. Aresco has said many times they signed the NBC offer because it featured such great exposure.

But ... NBCSN *wasn't* such great exposure, at least as it is being discussed here. It wasn't ESPN, hence was what many around here call a backwoods underexposed network.

Aresco signed for both peanuts money and peanuts exposure. Aresco face-saving spinning aside, that's what actually did happen.

(05-07-2017 10:31 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  The American, in its current football configuration, has been in existence two years. Navy has been in the league two years. Both years, the American finished comfortably 6th among conferences. Here's the Massey Composite average conference ranking over the last two years:

SEC - 39 (the average SEC team finished 39th among all the polls gathered by Massey the last two years)
Pac 12 - 45
ACC - 48
Big 12 - 49
Big 10 - 49

American - 69

MWC - 83
MAC - 85
Sun Belt - 91
CUSA - 93

In addition, looking at the Massey Basketball composite, the American was 7th the last two years. Wichita State should strengthen the league. Next best among all-sport conferences is the MWC coming in 9th the last two years.

In the Massey Baseball composite, the American finished 5th and 6th the last two years and is on track to finish 5th this year. Next best among all sport conferences is CUSA coming in 7th and 9th and on track for 6th this year.

At least recently, the American is among the six best all-sport conferences in the nation, by quite a margin over those in the G4.

However, except for baseball in which is consistently better than the Big 10, the American trails the other Power 6 conferences in the three main men's sports.

So are AAC teams going to wave foam fingers while shouting "We're #6"?

(05-07-2017 01:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 09:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 09:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't think anyone is saying that the Big East is equal to the P5 in terms of power. However, they are definitely maximizing their revenue in the other sport that has any relevance for TV purposes (basketball). That obviously cannot be said for the G5 leagues.

And yes, ESPN inherently provides more exposure, but a test pattern on ESPN could probably draw high ratings compared to FS1. The mistake waaaaaaay too many G5 fans make are thinking that the higher G5 ratings on ESPN have anything to do with the G5 leagues themselves. It's simply the power of the ESPN platform... which means that the G5 leagues will get zero credit for those ratings when it comes to negotiate new contracts. The people in the TV business know when a league actually brings people to a channel as opposed to the channel bringing a league to the people. The former group (the P5 leagues) gets paid a huge premium, whereas the latter gets paid like a commodity. The general belief among TV people is that the Big East falls into the former category at least for basketball (which is why the Big East gets paid the way that it gets paid).

A couple of caveats. Its still entirely possible that the AAC and the Big East are actually very similar in "value"---the real difference being that the AAC took less money to be on a premium platform while the Big East took a monetary premium to be on an inferior platform. Its also worth noting that the game isn't over yet. The Big East deal is 12 years where as the AAC deal is only about half as long. The AAC could very well still exceed the Big East earnings while staying on a premium platform---we will have to wait and see how the second half of the comparison develops.

We know the bolded isn't true, because the AAC "took" the same money it is being paid by ESPN from NBCSN.

Not true at all. Aresco has said many times they signed the NBC offer because it featured such great exposure.

But ... NBCSN *wasn't* such great exposure, at least as it is being discussed here. It wasn't ESPN, hence was what many around here call a backwoods underexposed network.

Aresco signed for both peanuts money and peanuts exposure. Aresco face-saving spinning aside, that's what actually did happen.

Having all your games on a national platform with 82 million subscribers with select games in NBC-Broadcast would be pretty good compared to most of your games on ESPN-3 with a smattering on ESPN-U. The current deal is even better than the exposure the last Media deal provided the old Big East (which was a BCS conference).

(05-07-2017 01:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 11:28 AM)chess Wrote:  This is going to be interesting. The revenue produced by the P5 may be the nail that dooms us all. No non-P5 school will be able to pay a "Nick Saban" salary.

Most of us couldn't pay Bear Bryant's salary when he was making less than the president of University of Alabama.

Matching head coach salaries isn't the problem.

The problem is when you can't offer a coordinator enough to consider leaving to become head coach.

Several coordinators at "Power" conference schools are making what Head Coaches used to make just ten years ago now.

HC salaries are indeed beyond reach for most "g" conference schools, but what happens when your HC is making LESS than coordinators...and soon maybe even assistants...at "Power" division programs???

Oh and it has happened already where a "g" level HC has left to take a lesser ranked (coordinator or assistant) at a "Power" division program.

(05-07-2017 06:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 11:28 AM)chess Wrote:  This is going to be interesting. The revenue produced by the P5 may be the nail that dooms us all. No non-P5 school will be able to pay a "Nick Saban" salary.

Most of us couldn't pay Bear Bryant's salary when he was making less than the president of University of Alabama.

Matching head coach salaries isn't the problem.

The problem is when you can't offer a coordinator enough to consider leaving to become head coach.

Several coordinators at "Power" conference schools are making what Head Coaches used to make just ten years ago now.

HC salaries are indeed beyond reach for most "g" conference schools, but what happens when your HC is making LESS than coordinators...and soon maybe even assistants...at "Power" division programs???

Oh and it has happened already where a "g" level HC has left to take a lesser ranked (coordinator or assistant) at a "Power" division program.

The separation is real.

(05-07-2017 06:53 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 06:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 11:28 AM)chess Wrote:  This is going to be interesting. The revenue produced by the P5 may be the nail that dooms us all. No non-P5 school will be able to pay a "Nick Saban" salary.

Most of us couldn't pay Bear Bryant's salary when he was making less than the president of University of Alabama.

Matching head coach salaries isn't the problem.

The problem is when you can't offer a coordinator enough to consider leaving to become head coach.

Several coordinators at "Power" conference schools are making what Head Coaches used to make just ten years ago now.

HC salaries are indeed beyond reach for most "g" conference schools, but what happens when your HC is making LESS than coordinators...and soon maybe even assistants...at "Power" division programs???

Oh and it has happened already where a "g" level HC has left to take a lesser ranked (coordinator or assistant) at a "Power" division program.

The separation is real.

I have been saying that for two years now. It's pure and simple economics.