(05-05-2017 05:15 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 04:51 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 09:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If they want to aim high then good for them.

What it really means is that they want to become attractive enough that

1) ESPN is willing to pay them +20mil/team for their TV rights

2) A major NY6 Bowl wants their champ for an auto bid

I would say to do that their goal needs to be a conference avg attendance of 50k or better and just continue to improve attendance facilities and support.

Also note: The current P conferences have NOTHING to do with achieving those goals. It's entirely on the AAC schools to achieve these goals (as they should be)

That is becoming less and less meaningful. Don't get me wrong, better attendance plus higher ticket prices makes for a better athletic department for an individual school; however, it doesn't matter a hill of beans for TV rights payouts. Now access to the lesser bowls is attendance driven, but the biggest bowls and the TV rights fees are based on eyeballs on the screen.

If I was the AAC, I'd be most concerned with marketing themselves to improve their attractiveness to people to want to watch them on TV or streaming it to a device. That's your big bang for your buck. WGAF about whether you have access to the crappy Dick Toucher's bowl or the more coveted Slap Ass bowl. If you're not playing in the NY6 bowls, it's meaningless.

Home attendance makes more money for the athletic department than the media deals, even in the power conferences. Well, it's probably relatively close for the likes of Washington St., Wake Forest, Kansas, and Duke who have sub-30K attendance, but most Power schools, and especially the big dogs, make beaucoup bucks from the season ticket sales, donations, and gate revenue that are directly related to attendance.

KU had $20 million in ticket sales in 2015 so basketball matters as well....UConn the highest in the AAC was $10 million

even the lowest levels of the PAC 12 with the exception of WSU were still $2 million or so higher than that and UConn was well ahead of the rest of the AAC

so ticket sales matter for sure, but basketball sales can push a top program with a strong following way up there

I'm really trying to wrap my head on the AAC calling themselves a P6. I understand the P5's make a shitload of money and the AAC feels they should be labeled a P6 because of the money they bring in. But the P5 is really slang for the Autonomy 5 which gets more voting rights than all the G5 combined. When the day comes and the AAC gets included in that Autonomy group for more voting rights they will actually be a P6 but before that its just not possible.

It's just a mission/vision statement. We may never make it there; we might get ripped apart like the Mountain West before us. But we are not going to quietly accept a role as second-class citizens. Well, except for ECU basketball, which wants to ride the Lebo train to the grave.

(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.

Back in 1980 every FBS school was paid the same base amount and had a bowl to send its conference champion. The blueblood schools used scheduling as a discretionary tool to control the national conversation and unlimited scholarships. Built huge stadiums and generated revenue on ticket sales.

ESPN is the one who has generated the power conference concept by willing to throw more cash at conferences for expanding to fuel their egos. They have their lemmings on TV say power conference this and power conference that.

The AAC is the corpse left over. Houston, SMU were left behind from the SWC-B12 merger. UConn, UC and USF left out of the ACC-B12 mop up of the BE FB conference. They were left out of the power consolidation grab.

But the left outs are not non-BCS, non-AQ or mid major. They are G5 with is something distinctly different from a D1 mid major conference. The definition of a G5 conference it has some characteristics of a P5 but does not have the governing status or media contracts of the P5. It's the tweener grouping between the P5's and mid major DI schools. They are in FBS and their champ does go to a NY6 bowl game. It all sounds very tweener.

The AAC is further away from the P5 than what the MWC 1.0 was to the BCS. They don't represent a major geographic region and aren't nipping at the heels of the ACC like MWC 1.0 was for the PAC in both FB/BB. They would be better served trying to mop up all of the top basketball schools they can which they started doing with Wichita State to guarantee their long term survival.

MWC was gonna be on the heals of the PAC 12 until the head coaches were taken away.

UNR
Boise State
San Diego State
Colorado State
Fresno State

All in recent years have lost their head coaches to P5 schools. The next could be Wyoming's as well.

(05-06-2017 01:11 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  MWC was gonna be on the heals of the PAC 12 until the head coaches were taken away.

UNR
Boise State
San Diego State
Colorado State
Fresno State

All in recent years have lost their head coaches to P5 schools. The next could be Wyoming's as well.

MWC 2.0 has San Jose St and Utah St.

Schools the MWC sneered at back in the 1.0 days but they wanted to kill the WAC for whatever reason.

The MWC could have been a major conference. I think they were too conservative with expansion. I know they didn't want to be bogged down with the left behind WAC schools but they also had room to expand. Even if Houston didn't want to come over, Fresno State was a solid program last decade and they took way too long pulling the trigger on Boise. They could have given Hawai'I an ultimatum to be football only or not at all. Maybe they could even inquire if Memphis would be willing to go east if a BCS spot was imperative. That's a solid 12-team league that would be BCS worthy.

I am going from memory, but I remember hearing Wes Durham on Sports radio discussing how the ACC at the start of the BCS era was the only BCS confernce where Basketball was actually bring more revenue than football. At that time, I don't think there was a huge difference between the conferences. It was pretty amazing how the ACC was able to transform from Basketball as being the money maker to Football as being the money maker today. Logically, at the end of the BCS and start of the CFP. Many people who believe it would be a contraction to a Power 4, the ACC would likely be odd man out. Gotta give Swofford credit on since most people now think if a contraction occurs, it will be the B12 which has far more football history than the ACC.

(05-06-2017 04:20 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  It was pretty amazing how the ACC was able to transform from Basketball as being the money maker to Football as being the money maker today.

LOL, not really. Y'all just added FSU.

(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.

(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.

I think there could definitely be a negative aspect to it. The P5 *could* not take kindly to the move, believing that an outside group is attempting to infringe on its power, control and reputation. No one likes a mooch. What's to stop the P5 from collectively saying, "We don't need to schedule the AAC anymore - we can't afford to give them credibility or establishment because it could be more money we need to share with them. Let's schedule MAC, C-USA, MWC and Sun Belt schools as OOC "buy" games instead."

If that were to happen, the AAC, and its teams, effectively get frozen out - all because the AAC has now officially taken a branding where they feel they are deserving and entitled to be part of the big boy table.

(05-06-2017 05:02 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 04:20 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  It was pretty amazing how the ACC was able to transform from Basketball as being the money maker to Football as being the money maker today.

LOL, not really. Y'all just added FSU.

The football recruiting shifted away to the SEC.

FSU saved them until they were in a position to raid the Big East.

(05-06-2017 04:20 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I am going from memory, but I remember hearing Wes Durham on Sports radio discussing how the ACC at the start of the BCS era was the only BCS confernce where Basketball was actually bring more revenue than football. At that time, I don't think there was a huge difference between the conferences. It was pretty amazing how the ACC was able to transform from Basketball as being the money maker to Football as being the money maker today. Logically, at the end of the BCS and start of the CFP. Many people who believe it would be a contraction to a Power 4, the ACC would likely be odd man out. Gotta give Swofford credit on since most people now think if a contraction occurs, it will be the B12 which has far more football history than the ACC.

I know for a fact that the Big East brought in more money from basketball than football. Pretty sure they were the only BCS conference where that was true. In the last year of the Big East, they only got something like 4 million from media. The ACC got 15 million. The ACC was in a whole different league and that, Im sure, was entirely due to football. I pretty certain the ACC made more from football than basketball.

(05-06-2017 05:02 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 04:20 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  It was pretty amazing how the ACC was able to transform from Basketball as being the money maker to Football as being the money maker today.

LOL, not really. Y'all just added FSU.

FSU joined in 1991 and BCS started in 1998. So after seven years with FSU, ACC Basketball was still the money maker.

(05-06-2017 05:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 04:20 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I am going from memory, but I remember hearing Wes Durham on Sports radio discussing how the ACC at the start of the BCS era was the only BCS confernce where Basketball was actually bring more revenue than football. At that time, I don't think there was a huge difference between the conferences. It was pretty amazing how the ACC was able to transform from Basketball as being the money maker to Football as being the money maker today. Logically, at the end of the BCS and start of the CFP. Many people who believe it would be a contraction to a Power 4, the ACC would likely be odd man out. Gotta give Swofford credit on since most people now think if a contraction occurs, it will be the B12 which has far more football history than the ACC.

I know for a fact that the Big East brought in more money from basketball than football. Pretty sure they were the only BCS conference where that was true. In the last year of the Big East, they only got something like 4 million from media. The ACC got 15 million. The ACC was in a whole different league and that, Im sure, was entirely due to football. I pretty certain the ACC made more from football than basketball.

I will not say that BE Bball may not have been similar but as I said I went from memory off the Wes Durham interview. I will say I know he said the ACC basketball was the only power leage at that team where TV basketball made more money than football when BCS started. Wes Durham knows the ACC history very well. Remember, he was the one who stated the "40 million payout to the ACC if ESPN did not do the ACC Network." clause in the ESPN/ACC tv contract which apparently no other sport journalist new about. Basically, just causally mentioned it on the same sport show and it went viral.

Now, I don't know if he was refering to the current P5 or the old BCS. I thought the Big East have the same revenue type split. I will say prior to the start of the BCS, the Big East with Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, Miami ans VT was a far more desirable football conference for TV than the ACC was back then.

I will say, ACC out maneuvering the old Big East was easy to see, they really had too many teams with Basketball, so it was easy for the ACC to raid the Big East than vice versa. However, I did not think B12 at that time would ever be consider to be the conference that could go away before the ACC. If I ever can find that link, to that interview, I will post it.

(05-06-2017 05:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 04:20 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I am going from memory, but I remember hearing Wes Durham on Sports radio discussing how the ACC at the start of the BCS era was the only BCS confernce where Basketball was actually bring more revenue than football. At that time, I don't think there was a huge difference between the conferences. It was pretty amazing how the ACC was able to transform from Basketball as being the money maker to Football as being the money maker today. Logically, at the end of the BCS and start of the CFP. Many people who believe it would be a contraction to a Power 4, the ACC would likely be odd man out. Gotta give Swofford credit on since most people now think if a contraction occurs, it will be the B12 which has far more football history than the ACC.

I know for a fact that the Big East brought in more money from basketball than football. Pretty sure they were the only BCS conference where that was true. In the last year of the Big East, they only got something like 4 million from media. The ACC got 15 million. The ACC was in a whole different league and that, Im sure, was entirely due to football. I pretty certain the ACC made more from football than basketball.

The BE signed a contract shortly after losing BC, Miami, and VT. All 3 of those schools were great football commodities at the time. UC, UL, and USF were unproven commodities. We all know how it turned out. The BE was severely undervalued.

(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.

Back in 1980 every FBS school was paid the same base amount and had a bowl to send its conference champion. The blueblood schools used scheduling as a discretionary tool to control the national conversation and unlimited scholarships. Built huge stadiums and generated revenue on ticket sales.

ESPN is the one who has generated the power conference concept by willing to throw more cash at conferences for expanding to fuel their egos. They have their lemmings on TV say power conference this and power conference that.

The AAC is the corpse left over. Houston, SMU were left behind from the SWC-B12 merger. UConn, UC and USF left out of the ACC-B12 mop up of the BE FB conference. They were left out of the power consolidation grab.

But the left outs are not non-BCS, non-AQ or mid major. They are G5 with is something distinctly different from a D1 mid major conference. The definition of a G5 conference it has some characteristics of a P5 but does not have the governing status or media contracts of the P5. It's the tweener grouping between the P5's and mid major DI schools. They are in FBS and their champ does go to a NY6 bowl game. It all sounds very tweener.

The AAC is further away from the P5 than what the MWC 1.0 was to the BCS. They don't represent a major geographic region and aren't nipping at the heels of the ACC like MWC 1.0 was for the PAC in both FB/BB. They would be better served trying to mop up all of the top basketball schools they can which they started doing with Wichita State to guarantee their long term survival.

Wow, very clear way to put it, it's good to know where my team is, if Houston had a 200k seat stadium that sold out and was undeafeated all the time, it still would not be considered a p5er, kinda like the sign says" gotta have a membership card to get inside", ok fine by me, don't really like your club anyway, ill just make my own...

(05-05-2017 08:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  There was no analogous club when they were in SWC. No special voting rights group, no crazy money post-season partnership of all the elite leagues.

But they did have a major bowl tie-in for their champ. As far as I can tell, all but 2 AP national champions since 1950 (BYU 1984 and Notre Dame 1966) played in either the Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange or Fiesta Bowls.

(05-06-2017 04:20 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I am going from memory, but I remember hearing Wes Durham on Sports radio discussing how the ACC at the start of the BCS era was the only BCS confernce where Basketball was actually bring more revenue than football. At that time, I don't think there was a huge difference between the conferences. It was pretty amazing how the ACC was able to transform from Basketball as being the money maker to Football as being the money maker today. Logically, at the end of the BCS and start of the CFP. Many people who believe it would be a contraction to a Power 4, the ACC would likely be odd man out. Gotta give Swofford credit on since most people now think if a contraction occurs, it will be the B12 which has far more football history than the ACC.

I think only Florida State and Clemson are football, the rest are behind on money making when they struggle to sell tickets. They are behind the Big 12 in ticket sales. ACC and the PAC 12 have some schools losing money overall on sports. Even if the school does get more money from a tv network? They are losing money or in debt. Ask Michigan about them being heavily in debt?

(05-04-2017 04:54 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

(05-04-2017 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:51 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  FIFY ^^^

The NEWbigeast does NOT have football

Look at it this way... Is like purchasing a vehicle with no engine in it.

Here's how I see it, if the Nbigeast wants view themselves as a power conference than man up with football but even if they did, they'll be a league full of startups... Not gonna happen, well, not in this life time at least.

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.

It's obvious to everyone what the Big East is: A Power Basketball Conference.

Not really hard to suss out, eh?

Competitively, they are a top level basketball conference. But that's not the discussion. Calling them a power conference is ALMOST as laughable as the AAC's P6 narrative. The nBE model without football makes it impossible to achieve that status. They are a very good at what they set out to do. Nothing more, nothing less. But calling them part of the P6? Stop it.

I've never claimed the Big East is the 6th Power conference. There is only a P5, not a P6.

What I've said is that the Big East is a power *basketball* conference, which they are, and which is much different from saying they are part of a "P6".