(05-28-2017 11:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 01:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 08:43 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Sounds like you have a definition of "tweener" status in mind that revolves around media chatter and fan consensus. But if that's all it is, in what tangible sense has the AAC's status really been elevated?

Ultimately, "power" and "non-power", and thus "tweener" as well, revolve around the tangible factors of media dollars and NY6 bowl contracts, not what bloggers and sportswriters are chattering about a conference. Right now, the AAC is clearly a G5 on this criteria, so significant improvement on them is required for a meaningful tweener status.

For media dollars, that's pretty easy to quantify - tweener means too far above the G5 to be lumped with them, but too far below the P5 to be lumped with them. So if right now the typical G5 media deal is worth $1.5m a year and typical P5 is worth $20m a year, then something around $10m a year per school would be "tweener".

The bowl issue is harder, because in its purest form its either/or: You either have an NY6 contract (P5) or you don't (G5), there really is no tweener ground.

So maybe evidence of tweener would be a significant boost in the AAC's non-NY6 bowls? Maybe capturing a Gator Bowl or Sun Bowl as the designated spot for the highest-ranked AAC team not in the NY6?

Only the MWC makes 1.5 mil, the Mac is right at 1mil, and the other 2 considerably less than that. To me 5 to 6 mil separate you from G4. We wont get a NY6 bowl, but could possibly upgrade a little on others. At that point you are not part of the G4, nor the P5. It should put AAC in a good place to continue a break out from Gang.

OK, so let's say the average G5 media deal is $1m. That still means $10m for a meaningful "tweener" status, especially since the P5 average is rising.

I mean, if the P5 average is $25m, and the G5 average is $1m, then $6m would be a LOT closer to G5, hence not really much of a tweener.

Here are the deals--

AAC-20 million/1.8 million per team (Navy has thier own deal)
MW-19 million/1.7 per team (Hawaii has thier own deal)
MAC-10 million/833K a team
CUSA-2.8 million/200K a team
Sunbelt-unknown, generally thought to be less than a 1 million.

A 72 million dollar AAC deal (6 million a team) is a pretty big difference given the rest of the G5 would be averaging around 7 million a conference. On a percentage basis its 10 times the average G5, while the average P5 is about 4 times the 6 million amount. Its all how you look at it---but there its hard to say there wouldnt be a pretty decent gap on either side of the AAC---which is where the "tweener" description seems to make sense.

I see how you are trying to look at it, but IMO that's not the best way.

In short, you "can't eat a percentage". If the average G5 deal is $1m, or whatever peanut amount is most accurate, and the average P5 deal is $25m, then $6m is much closer in what counts, dollars, to the G5 to warrant calling it a 'tweener'.

FWIW, I think we can achieve that $6m or so in media money, and if you want to call it a tweener well OK. We'd still be have-not Bush league not Power, that's the reality we'd be in no matter what name we put on it.

IMO, the accurate label would be "Kings of the G5", which is like being Kings of the Junkyard, or somesuch.

It is what it is. With no "king" program, about the best the AAC can do is to carve out a niche as an interesting conference who's best is capable of competing with the best from the P5. I think in the early days Aresco was using the term "challenger" conference. Thats probably another good descriptor. Either way---assuming the money and on field performance creates a separation between the AAC and both the G5 and P5 ---then the "tweener" classification would have significant merit.

(05-28-2017 12:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 11:17 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you are driving from Miami to Seattle (3,297 miles), then Orlando is between the two and is closer to Seattle than Miami but it is still 3,097 miles to Seattle. When you get to Orlando you aren't going to run into a lot of people who are Mariners and Sounders fans, have the same coffee culture, etc.

Let's use that drive to Seattle from Miami analogy using total revenue.
The SEC level we will call Seattle, $0 is Miami.

Based on the most recent numbers out of the AAC, on our trip from $0 Miami to $639 million Seattle, the AAC is just south of Valdosta, Georgia still in Florida still nearly 2900 miles from Seattle.
The Big XII in gross revenue is around Omaha.
If the AAC wants to be seriously considered to be a peer to the Big XII and SEC revenue is going to have to get them to Kansas City... maybe an argument in St. Louis.

To even get in the conversation AAC revenue has to increase 3.5x if not 4x

The AAC isnt ever going to be competitive with the power conferences in income---at least not in my life time. Can the AAC feasibly get to where there is a significant gap between it and the rest of the G5---and a significant gap between it and the P5 above---I think that could happen. I think that could happen relatively soon. Will AAC income ever near the exact center between the G5 and P5? Maybe---perhaps even in my lifetime (assuming conference stability---which is not a given)---but that's extremely unlikely to happen on the next contract.

Toward the end of the BCS era but before Big East got gobbled like the little dots in Pacman the gap between the top AQ and Big East was roughly the gap between the Big East and CUSA/MWC and the CUSA/MWC gap to WAC/MAC/Sun Belt while less was still very significant.

It is entirely plausible a league can be somewhere halfway between the P group and remainder of the G group.

The grand mystery is what the economic model ends up rewarding as things transition. My suspicion is that smaller fan bases at the lower ends of AAC and MWC impair that goal more than local tv market sizes help.

(05-28-2017 09:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 07:51 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think the American can separate themselves as the best Group of 5 conference though with more NY6 appearances and more recognition. I think the Mountain West is the only big contender against them in that light, but the American is in a much better position. Long term, the American can become the most dominant G5 conference, but won't get the access every year.

The AAC has a much, much larger recruiting base to draw on than the MWC.

I've said it quite a few times but Utah and Colorado's move to the PAC has really hurt the MWC. They are sucking up the limited number of P5 level recruits in the western region.

APR requirements have hurt some in the MWC like Fresno and UNLV. Fresno had a great program before APR kicked in.

SDSU is taking a big hit over losing access to an NFL stadium too.

Couple corrections need to be made here:

Colorado was never in the MWC, they were in Big 12. Fresno did not fall off due to APR, they did a stupid thing and fired Pat Hill and have not been the same since. UNLV has always sucked but have hired a great coach in Sanchez and are turning it around. The stadium is still there in San Diego, but no one is sure what will happen there. One thing the MW have is a national power in Boise which is the top G5 team, period. Also last year the MW Mountain division was rated higher than the SEC East. And finally since 2010 Utah State has put more players in the NFL than any other G5 school.

As for the conference ranks, the P5 at this time are light years ahead of the rest. Of the G5, the AAC and MWC are far ahead of CUSA, SB, and the MAC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-20-2017 02:28 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Im hoping the AAC can become a true tweener like the WAC was.
The WAC had the Holiday Bowl for their champ to play a #2/3 team from the Big 10. The WAC was able to swap their Champion Bowl for the Cotton and Citrus in the 90's. The WAC had all their bowls vs "power schools". Copper & Freedom Bowls vs power teams and Hawaii Bowl vs power teams. The WAC was making 1/2 of the media money the "P conferences" were. Not 10 times less like today. When 8 WAC schools left to become the MWC in 1998, they earned 1 million a year per school. Compare that to the media deals of the PAC and ACC at the time. A True tweener.
Can the AAC become a tweener like the WAC was?

It is a tweener conference already and yes you started this thread 8 days ago.

(05-28-2017 12:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 11:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 01:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 08:43 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Only the MWC makes 1.5 mil, the Mac is right at 1mil, and the other 2 considerably less than that. To me 5 to 6 mil separate you from G4. We wont get a NY6 bowl, but could possibly upgrade a little on others. At that point you are not part of the G4, nor the P5. It should put AAC in a good place to continue a break out from Gang.

OK, so let's say the average G5 media deal is $1m. That still means $10m for a meaningful "tweener" status, especially since the P5 average is rising.

I mean, if the P5 average is $25m, and the G5 average is $1m, then $6m would be a LOT closer to G5, hence not really much of a tweener.

Here are the deals--

AAC-20 million/1.8 million per team (Navy has thier own deal)
MW-19 million/1.7 per team (Hawaii has thier own deal)
MAC-10 million/833K a team
CUSA-2.8 million/200K a team
Sunbelt-unknown, generally thought to be less than a 1 million.

A 72 million dollar AAC deal (6 million a team) is a pretty big difference given the rest of the G5 would be averaging around 7 million a conference. On a percentage basis its 10 times the average G5, while the average P5 is about 4 times the 6 million amount. Its all how you look at it---but there its hard to say there wouldnt be a pretty decent gap on either side of the AAC---which is where the "tweener" description seems to make sense.

I see how you are trying to look at it, but IMO that's not the best way.

In short, you "can't eat a percentage". If the average G5 deal is $1m, or whatever peanut amount is most accurate, and the average P5 deal is $25m, then $6m is much closer in what counts, dollars, to the G5 to warrant calling it a 'tweener'.

FWIW, I think we can achieve that $6m or so in media money, and if you want to call it a tweener well OK. We'd still be have-not Bush league not Power, that's the reality we'd be in no matter what name we put on it.

IMO, the accurate label would be "Kings of the G5", which is like being Kings of the Junkyard, or somesuch.

It is what it is. With no "king" program, about the best the AAC can do is to carve out a niche as an interesting conference who's best is capable of competing with the best from the P5. I think in the early days Aresco was using the term "challenger" conference. Thats probably another good descriptor. Either way---assuming the money and on field performance creates a separation between the AAC and both the G5 and P5 ---then the "tweener" classification would have significant merit.

IMO, for "tweener" to mean something, it would have to mean not just significant distance from the other G5 but also sufficient closeness to the P5 that the P5 themselves can "see" that gap.

I mean, if you look at the map, Phoenix is 370 miles closer to Miami than is Los Angeles. That's something, and if you live in California or Arizona and are planning a road trip to Florida, you are aware of that difference, it's a good six or seven more/less hours on the road.

But from Miami, they both just look like thousands of miles "out west". You wouldn't regard Phoenix as "between" LA and Miami.

(05-29-2017 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 12:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 11:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 01:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  OK, so let's say the average G5 media deal is $1m. That still means $10m for a meaningful "tweener" status, especially since the P5 average is rising.

I mean, if the P5 average is $25m, and the G5 average is $1m, then $6m would be a LOT closer to G5, hence not really much of a tweener.

Here are the deals--

AAC-20 million/1.8 million per team (Navy has thier own deal)
MW-19 million/1.7 per team (Hawaii has thier own deal)
MAC-10 million/833K a team
CUSA-2.8 million/200K a team
Sunbelt-unknown, generally thought to be less than a 1 million.

A 72 million dollar AAC deal (6 million a team) is a pretty big difference given the rest of the G5 would be averaging around 7 million a conference. On a percentage basis its 10 times the average G5, while the average P5 is about 4 times the 6 million amount. Its all how you look at it---but there its hard to say there wouldnt be a pretty decent gap on either side of the AAC---which is where the "tweener" description seems to make sense.

I see how you are trying to look at it, but IMO that's not the best way.

In short, you "can't eat a percentage". If the average G5 deal is $1m, or whatever peanut amount is most accurate, and the average P5 deal is $25m, then $6m is much closer in what counts, dollars, to the G5 to warrant calling it a 'tweener'.

FWIW, I think we can achieve that $6m or so in media money, and if you want to call it a tweener well OK. We'd still be have-not Bush league not Power, that's the reality we'd be in no matter what name we put on it.

IMO, the accurate label would be "Kings of the G5", which is like being Kings of the Junkyard, or somesuch.

It is what it is. With no "king" program, about the best the AAC can do is to carve out a niche as an interesting conference who's best is capable of competing with the best from the P5. I think in the early days Aresco was using the term "challenger" conference. Thats probably another good descriptor. Either way---assuming the money and on field performance creates a separation between the AAC and both the G5 and P5 ---then the "tweener" classification would have significant merit.

IMO, for "tweener" to mean something, it would have to mean not just significant distance from the other G5 but also sufficient closeness to the P5 that the P5 themselves can "see" that gap.

I mean, if you look at the map, Phoenix is 370 miles closer to Miami than is Los Angeles. That's something, and if you live in California or Arizona and are planning a road trip to Florida, you are aware of that difference, it's a good six or seven more/less hours on the road.

But from Miami, they both just look like thousands of miles "out west". You wouldn't regard Phoenix as "between" LA and Miami.

In 2009 the Big East had a 33 million media deal split between 8 football schools and 8 non-football schools. If the basketball schools got NOTHING (and we know thats not the case), the all sports schools would have only received 4.1 million a year. Id guess the all sports teams were getting about 3 million and the basketball schools were getting about 1 million.

In that same year (2009)---the Big10 was receiving 22 million a school. Its interesting that the Big East was "Phoenix" in 2009 for the purposes of your example.

Stewart Mandell just released the "V 3.0" of his "Pecking Order" of college football programs. He cut his rankings off at 66 because:
"It’s a harsh reality, but in the playoff era, every Group of 5 school — even standouts like Boise State and Houston — is seen as a peasant (or worse), so there’s no point listing them."

So, not even the top of the "g5" ranks as even "peasants" in his ranking system. Apparently he didn't get the "tweener" memo.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...chy-052517

(05-29-2017 10:27 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Stewart Mandell just released the "V 3.0" of his "Pecking Order" of college football programs. He cut his rankings off at 66 because:
"It’s a harsh reality, but in the playoff era, every Group of 5 school — even standouts like Boise State and Houston — is seen as a peasant (or worse), so there’s no point listing them."

So, not even the top of the "g5" ranks as even "peasants" in his ranking system. Apparently he didn't get the "tweener" memo.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...chy-052517

Im at a loss for why there's even a 20 team list of "peasants" given the above statement. He's more or less saying there is the Kings, barons, and knights---the rest are peasants...with most of the the G5 basically being lepers. And people wonder why the AAC is trying to differentiate its product.

(05-29-2017 12:11 AM)panite Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 02:28 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Im hoping the AAC can become a true tweener like the WAC was.
The WAC had the Holiday Bowl for their champ to play a #2/3 team from the Big 10. The WAC was able to swap their Champion Bowl for the Cotton and Citrus in the 90's. The WAC had all their bowls vs "power schools". Copper & Freedom Bowls vs power teams and Hawaii Bowl vs power teams. The WAC was making 1/2 of the media money the "P conferences" were. Not 10 times less like today. When 8 WAC schools left to become the MWC in 1998, they earned 1 million a year per school. Compare that to the media deals of the PAC and ACC at the time. A True tweener.
Can the AAC become a tweener like the WAC was?

It is a tweener conference already and yes you started this thread 8 days ago.

Now you are just flaming....I don't know what you find so interesting about my posts but thanks...I think?

(05-29-2017 10:55 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 12:11 AM)panite Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 02:28 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Im hoping the AAC can become a true tweener like the WAC was.
The WAC had the Holiday Bowl for their champ to play a #2/3 team from the Big 10. The WAC was able to swap their Champion Bowl for the Cotton and Citrus in the 90's. The WAC had all their bowls vs "power schools". Copper & Freedom Bowls vs power teams and Hawaii Bowl vs power teams. The WAC was making 1/2 of the media money the "P conferences" were. Not 10 times less like today. When 8 WAC schools left to become the MWC in 1998, they earned 1 million a year per school. Compare that to the media deals of the PAC and ACC at the time. A True tweener.
Can the AAC become a tweener like the WAC was?

It is a tweener conference already and yes you started this thread 8 days ago.

Now you are just flaming....I don't know what you find so interesting about my posts but thanks...I think?

Your welcome - the "8 days ago" was just a play on my timing error on your other thread. Explained myself on your other thread. Once again Happy Memorial Day.

(05-29-2017 10:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 12:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 11:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 01:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here are the deals--

AAC-20 million/1.8 million per team (Navy has thier own deal)
MW-19 million/1.7 per team (Hawaii has thier own deal)
MAC-10 million/833K a team
CUSA-2.8 million/200K a team
Sunbelt-unknown, generally thought to be less than a 1 million.

A 72 million dollar AAC deal (6 million a team) is a pretty big difference given the rest of the G5 would be averaging around 7 million a conference. On a percentage basis its 10 times the average G5, while the average P5 is about 4 times the 6 million amount. Its all how you look at it---but there its hard to say there wouldnt be a pretty decent gap on either side of the AAC---which is where the "tweener" description seems to make sense.

I see how you are trying to look at it, but IMO that's not the best way.

In short, you "can't eat a percentage". If the average G5 deal is $1m, or whatever peanut amount is most accurate, and the average P5 deal is $25m, then $6m is much closer in what counts, dollars, to the G5 to warrant calling it a 'tweener'.

FWIW, I think we can achieve that $6m or so in media money, and if you want to call it a tweener well OK. We'd still be have-not Bush league not Power, that's the reality we'd be in no matter what name we put on it.

IMO, the accurate label would be "Kings of the G5", which is like being Kings of the Junkyard, or somesuch.

It is what it is. With no "king" program, about the best the AAC can do is to carve out a niche as an interesting conference who's best is capable of competing with the best from the P5. I think in the early days Aresco was using the term "challenger" conference. Thats probably another good descriptor. Either way---assuming the money and on field performance creates a separation between the AAC and both the G5 and P5 ---then the "tweener" classification would have significant merit.

IMO, for "tweener" to mean something, it would have to mean not just significant distance from the other G5 but also sufficient closeness to the P5 that the P5 themselves can "see" that gap.

I mean, if you look at the map, Phoenix is 370 miles closer to Miami than is Los Angeles. That's something, and if you live in California or Arizona and are planning a road trip to Florida, you are aware of that difference, it's a good six or seven more/less hours on the road.

But from Miami, they both just look like thousands of miles "out west". You wouldn't regard Phoenix as "between" LA and Miami.

In 2009 the Big East had a 33 million media deal split between 8 football schools and 8 non-football schools. If the basketball schools got NOTHING (and we know thats not the case), the all sports schools would have only received 4.1 million a year. Id guess the all sports teams were getting about 3 million and the basketball schools were getting about 1 million.

In that same year (2009)---the Big10 was receiving 22 million a school. Its interesting that the Big East was "Phoenix" in 2009 for the purposes of your example.

Big difference: Media dollars are half of the "Power" equation. The other half is formal positioning in the BCS/CFP. In 2009, the Big East was 100% equal to the B1G in terms of formal positioning in the BCS, its champ was guaranteed a BCS bowl slot too. That's not true or going to be true of the AAC.

Also, the 2009 cutoff is kind of deceptive, in that the B1G had just signed new deals while the Big East was still working on an old one. In 2007, the B1G media deal was worth $8m per school, clearly above the Big East but not anything like AAC/P5 gap today. And in 2011, the Big East was offered $13m a year per school, again not that massively far from the $20m other powers were getting.

Neither in terms of formal positioning nor dollars will the AAC ever be in the same boat with the BCS-era Big East.

FWIW, in the Big East days, i never thought the Big East was a "tweener", I referred to us as the "runt of the AQ litter", because we were the worst-paid and we were looked down upon by the other AQ, some of whom were questioning whether we belonged. We clearly were the caboose of the AQ train in terms of money, power, and status. But we clearly were in the Big Boy club, a part of that train, not between it and the have-nots.