(06-20-2017 07:33 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 06:44 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Total and complete nonsense

The AAC does NOT need another league (G4's) to hold hands and make itself attractive... All of AAC current accomplishments, league tv ratings results is sufficient enough to fetch a better tv deal.

And no, we don't need one, two, three or four mwc members either. My

Exactly, We will get 3.5 to 3.75 mil next deal, MWC will stay in 1.5 to 1.75 range. CUSA, and the Belt will stay below the 1 mil #.

There will not be a American conference if that is that what the American receives. Too much data out not to go to open market and receive at least a $60 million from a variety of sources if ESPN doesn't hit that specific number in the early period. Anything lower than $5million a year will make UConn, Cincinnati, and Houston a flight risk or at the very least push for some sort of membership changes or unequal revenue sharing.

My prediction has the American earning in the 5 million to 8 million range which is 60 million to 100 million in revenue a year for a 12 year period. I also believe the Mountain West will get somewhere in the 3 to 6 million range per school.

(06-20-2017 08:14 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 07:33 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 06:44 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Total and complete nonsense

The AAC does NOT need another league (G4's) to hold hands and make itself attractive... All of AAC current accomplishments, league tv ratings results is sufficient enough to fetch a better tv deal.

And no, we don't need one, two, three or four mwc members either. My

Exactly, We will get 3.5 to 3.75 mil next deal, MWC will stay in 1.5 to 1.75 range. CUSA, and the Belt will stay below the 1 mil #.

There will not be a American conference if that is that what the American receives. Too much data out not to go to open market and receive at least a $60 million from a variety of sources if ESPN doesn't hit that specific number in the early period. Anything lower than $5million a year will make UConn, Cincinnati, and Houston a flight risk or at the very least push for some sort of membership changes or unequal revenue sharing.

My prediction has the American earning in the 5 million to 8 million range which is 60 million to 100 million in revenue a year for a 12 year period. I also believe the Mountain West will get somewhere in the 3 to 6 million range per school.

I seriously doubt Houston will ever push for uneven revenue sharing, such behavior is not in our DNA... We fight this together.

But you right, bearcatlawjd2... It has to be over 5mil... Mike Aresco and everyone in the AAC must continue the Power6 push.

(06-20-2017 08:14 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 07:33 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 06:44 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Total and complete nonsense

The AAC does NOT need another league (G4's) to hold hands and make itself attractive... All of AAC current accomplishments, league tv ratings results is sufficient enough to fetch a better tv deal.

And no, we don't need one, two, three or four mwc members either. My

Exactly, We will get 3.5 to 3.75 mil next deal, MWC will stay in 1.5 to 1.75 range. CUSA, and the Belt will stay below the 1 mil #.

There will not be a American conference if that is that what the American receives. Too much data out not to go to open market and receive at least a $60 million from a variety of sources if ESPN doesn't hit that specific number in the early period. Anything lower than $5million a year will make UConn, Cincinnati, and Houston a flight risk or at the very least push for some sort of membership changes or unequal revenue sharing.

My prediction has the American earning in the 5 million to 8 million range which is 60 million to 100 million in revenue a year for a 12 year period. I also believe the Mountain West will get somewhere in the 3 to 6 million range per school.

1) where exactly are they going to go?
2) ucf was in the original 10 team Big East offer for $13 million. Not sure how but our whole league is valued at $20 million when they were ready to pay us $13 million ourselves.

(06-20-2017 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:28 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:01 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 04:35 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 09:18 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  and yet the B1G just got an upgrade for half their content, the ACC will have a brand new network, and the SEC is seeing record profits in a deal that was started at the beginning of cable cutting.

These conferences, though much more valuable, exist in the same economy as we do. Value will still be valuable, and we've proven value. A raise is necessary just to get to where we should have been in the first place, without instability or Navy. Now we have all 3

Without Houston last season we had just 1 all AAC contest that drew over a million viewers - the AAC championship game. Saying the B10 exists in the same economy that we do is like saying diamonds exist in the same economy with polished stones. I'm sure you're right but not certain what it proves. If we get 3.5 million I'd be very happy, just don't see it.

USF-Temple was ALSO over 1 million.
And saying "without Houston" is pointless. Setting up unrealistic conditions to dismiss three of our in-conference games out of hand.

OK lets pretend that Houston season last year was typical and lets add Houston --- that's what 5 games total over a million? How does that 5 compare with the numbers in the P5s. No I haven't checked but it has to be laughable to even compare the two. Sure Houston was the AACs only real national draw last season after beating Oklahoma at the beginning of the season and looking strong after that. If they or another AAC team repeats that maybe we'll have 5 again.

I know we had 16 games over 1 million in 2015. I remember Aresco saying in an interview a few weeks ago we had something like 32 games over 1 million viewers in the last 3 years. 2016 was actually kind of a subpar year for over 1+ million viewer games for the AAC. Im thinking thats probably because some of our bigger draws failed to excel (Cinci, UCF, UConn, ECU, etc). 2015 was big because we had multiple ranked teams during much of the year. We should be capable of fielding 2-4 ranked teams over the course of most years.

You could line up any G5 team against an Ohio State or Notre Dame or any number of other P5 schools and draw north of a million. Why? Because its the P5 that's the draw not the other. So I'm not sure why you say "we" drew those crowds.

(06-20-2017 09:13 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:28 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:01 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 04:35 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Without Houston last season we had just 1 all AAC contest that drew over a million viewers - the AAC championship game. Saying the B10 exists in the same economy that we do is like saying diamonds exist in the same economy with polished stones. I'm sure you're right but not certain what it proves. If we get 3.5 million I'd be very happy, just don't see it.

USF-Temple was ALSO over 1 million.
And saying "without Houston" is pointless. Setting up unrealistic conditions to dismiss three of our in-conference games out of hand.

OK lets pretend that Houston season last year was typical and lets add Houston --- that's what 5 games total over a million? How does that 5 compare with the numbers in the P5s. No I haven't checked but it has to be laughable to even compare the two. Sure Houston was the AACs only real national draw last season after beating Oklahoma at the beginning of the season and looking strong after that. If they or another AAC team repeats that maybe we'll have 5 again.

I know we had 16 games over 1 million in 2015. I remember Aresco saying in an interview a few weeks ago we had something like 32 games over 1 million viewers in the last 3 years. 2016 was actually kind of a subpar year for over 1+ million viewer games for the AAC. Im thinking thats probably because some of our bigger draws failed to excel (Cinci, UCF, UConn, ECU, etc). 2015 was big because we had multiple ranked teams during much of the year. We should be capable of fielding 2-4 ranked teams over the course of most years.

You could line up any G5 team against an Ohio State or Notre Dame or any number of other P5 schools and draw north of a million. Why? Because its the P5 that's the draw not the other. So I'm not sure why you say "we" drew those crowds.

1. Part of P6ness is our ability to schedule home and homes above and beyond the G4s. Doesn't matter if 101% of the 2.4million viewers who watched ND at Navy in Jacksonville were Subway Irish fans. That was a Navy controlled game with drawing power for 2.4 million and CBS paid for it. Same for Louisville at Houston etc etc
2. I think your base assumption is flawed. What were the rati gs for Oklahoma a Houston relative to ULM Oklahoma? Navy ND does better than Army against the Irish. Possibly marginal differences, but still true.
These two aspects reinforce one another, too.

(06-20-2017 09:13 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:28 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:01 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 04:35 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Without Houston last season we had just 1 all AAC contest that drew over a million viewers - the AAC championship game. Saying the B10 exists in the same economy that we do is like saying diamonds exist in the same economy with polished stones. I'm sure you're right but not certain what it proves. If we get 3.5 million I'd be very happy, just don't see it.

USF-Temple was ALSO over 1 million.
And saying "without Houston" is pointless. Setting up unrealistic conditions to dismiss three of our in-conference games out of hand.

OK lets pretend that Houston season last year was typical and lets add Houston --- that's what 5 games total over a million? How does that 5 compare with the numbers in the P5s. No I haven't checked but it has to be laughable to even compare the two. Sure Houston was the AACs only real national draw last season after beating Oklahoma at the beginning of the season and looking strong after that. If they or another AAC team repeats that maybe we'll have 5 again.

I know we had 16 games over 1 million in 2015. I remember Aresco saying in an interview a few weeks ago we had something like 32 games over 1 million viewers in the last 3 years. 2016 was actually kind of a subpar year for over 1+ million viewer games for the AAC. Im thinking thats probably because some of our bigger draws failed to excel (Cinci, UCF, UConn, ECU, etc). 2015 was big because we had multiple ranked teams during much of the year. We should be capable of fielding 2-4 ranked teams over the course of most years.

You could line up any G5 team against an Ohio State or Notre Dame or any number of other P5 schools and draw north of a million. Why? Because its the P5 that's the draw not the other. So I'm not sure why you say "we" drew those crowds.

Because in 2015, we had 16 games in the AAC package that drew over one million viewers. Half of those games (8) were conference games (AAC vs AAC)---so no, there was no P5 to be found in half of those million plus games. How'd that happen? The AAC isn't the Big10, but it's better league games are capable of drawing a solid audience.

(06-20-2017 08:57 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  2) ucf was in the original 10 team Big East offer for $13 million. Not sure how but our whole league is valued at $20 million when they were ready to pay us $13 million ourselves.

Huh?

Are you talking about the offer the old Big East turned down to go to open market? Before Pitt, Syracuse and West Va left?

UCF was not in that league. USF was. Cincy and UConn too.

UCF joined the Big East on the same day Houston, SMU, Boise and SDSU did. I don't know exactly what WE turned down to go to open market and talk to NBC, but it wasn't $13M per school per year.

Remember back in Sept 2012 when McMurphy reported that estimates ranged as low as $60M per year for the Big East? The high end was $130M.

That was when the C7, Boise and SDSU were part of the equation. Rutgers and Louisville too, although Louisville had made no secret of its desire to leave.

Now we'd be happy with $60M per year.

PS Turns out that $130M was closer to accurate. $50M for the Big East. $22M for the American. Throw in what Louisville, Rutgers, Boise and SDSU make in their leagues, and the total exceeds $100M per year.

(06-21-2017 11:28 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 08:57 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  2) ucf was in the original 10 team Big East offer for $13 million. Not sure how but our whole league is valued at $20 million when they were ready to pay us $13 million ourselves.

Huh?

Are you talking about the offer the old Big East turned down to go to open market? Before Pitt, Syracuse and West Va left?

UCF was not in that league. USF was. Cincy and UConn too.

UCF joined the Big East on the same day Houston, SMU, Boise and SDSU did. I don't know exactly what WE turned down to go to open market and talk to NBC, but it wasn't $13M per school per year.

UCF and Memphis were part of the original deal, supposedly. I thought it was $11 million per year per team though.

The lineup would have been (with the C7)
Syracuse
Pitt
Cincinnati
Louisville
West Virginia
Memphis
UConn
USF
UCF
Rutgers

It's part of the reason why UCF fans hate Judy Genshaft so much, because in hindsight, her working to block UCF from the Big East was part of the reason this deal failed.

(06-21-2017 12:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 11:28 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 08:57 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  2) ucf was in the original 10 team Big East offer for $13 million. Not sure how but our whole league is valued at $20 million when they were ready to pay us $13 million ourselves.

Huh?

Are you talking about the offer the old Big East turned down to go to open market? Before Pitt, Syracuse and West Va left?

UCF was not in that league. USF was. Cincy and UConn too.

UCF joined the Big East on the same day Houston, SMU, Boise and SDSU did. I don't know exactly what WE turned down to go to open market and talk to NBC, but it wasn't $13M per school per year.

UCF and Memphis were part of the original deal, supposedly. I thought it was $11 million per year per team though.

The lineup would have been (with the C7)
Syracuse
Pitt
Cincinnati
Louisville
West Virginia
Memphis
UConn
USF
UCF
Rutgers

It's part of the reason why UCF fans hate Judy Genshaft so much, because in hindsight, her working to block UCF from the Big East was part of the reason this deal failed.

Correct...the specific amount is not confirmed but UCF was part of the ucf original Big East plan before the mass exits happened. That was around the time Villanova wanted a spot but Espn wanted ucf.

(06-21-2017 12:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 11:28 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 08:57 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  2) ucf was in the original 10 team Big East offer for $13 million. Not sure how but our whole league is valued at $20 million when they were ready to pay us $13 million ourselves.

Huh?

Are you talking about the offer the old Big East turned down to go to open market? Before Pitt, Syracuse and West Va left?

UCF was not in that league. USF was. Cincy and UConn too.

UCF joined the Big East on the same day Houston, SMU, Boise and SDSU did. I don't know exactly what WE turned down to go to open market and talk to NBC, but it wasn't $13M per school per year.

UCF and Memphis were part of the original deal, supposedly. I thought it was $11 million per year per team though.

The lineup would have been (with the C7)
Syracuse
Pitt
Cincinnati
Louisville
West Virginia
Memphis
UConn
USF
UCF
Rutgers

It's part of the reason why UCF fans hate Judy Genshaft so much, because in hindsight, her working to block UCF from the Big East was part of the reason this deal failed.

Memphis was not part of that group. They were adding UCF as FB only as the 9th school.

(06-21-2017 01:36 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 12:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 11:28 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 08:57 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  2) ucf was in the original 10 team Big East offer for $13 million. Not sure how but our whole league is valued at $20 million when they were ready to pay us $13 million ourselves.

Huh?

Are you talking about the offer the old Big East turned down to go to open market? Before Pitt, Syracuse and West Va left?

UCF was not in that league. USF was. Cincy and UConn too.

UCF joined the Big East on the same day Houston, SMU, Boise and SDSU did. I don't know exactly what WE turned down to go to open market and talk to NBC, but it wasn't $13M per school per year.

UCF and Memphis were part of the original deal, supposedly. I thought it was $11 million per year per team though.

The lineup would have been (with the C7)
Syracuse
Pitt
Cincinnati
Louisville
West Virginia
Memphis
UConn
USF
UCF
Rutgers

It's part of the reason why UCF fans hate Judy Genshaft so much, because in hindsight, her working to block UCF from the Big East was part of the reason this deal failed.

Memphis was not part of that group. They were adding UCF as FB only as the 9th school.

That is correct....9 team big east which had TCU at the time. My memory is returning. That was short lived because Villanova was throwing a fit to be included and some Big East members wanted more $$$.

Complete fantasy.

The full Big East without UCF turned down the ESPN offer in April 2011. By September 2011, Pitt and Syracuse bolted.

There was no offer in between. The Big East was waiting to go to open market. And there certainly was no invitation to UCF in between.

(06-21-2017 08:27 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Complete fantasy.

The full Big East without UCF turned down the ESPN offer in April 2011. By September 2011, Pitt and Syracuse bolted.

There was no offer in between. The Big East was waiting to go to open market. And there certainly was no invitation to UCF in between.

It was pushed by espn. No idea how close an offer really was. Villanova was pushing to take that spot. They whole thing blew up right after anyway.

(06-21-2017 08:27 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Complete fantasy.

The full Big East without UCF turned down the ESPN offer in April 2011. By September 2011, Pitt and Syracuse bolted.

There was no offer in between. The Big East was waiting to go to open market. And there certainly was no invitation to UCF in between.

That's how I remember it too. The 16 Big East schools (8 & 8) turned down the ESPN offer. TCU was invited in September, 2011, a few weeks later Pitt and Syracuse announced they were leaving for the ACC. UCF and Memphis had not been invited yet when the the ESPN offer was turned down

In September 2010, the Big East informally offered Villanova another chance (previous one came in the 1990s) to move up to FBS and play Big East football.

https://www.vuhoops.com/2010/09/10/footb...o-big-east

The Big East had done this before with UConn, so this was serious and Villanova took it seriously.

In November 2010, Blaudschun wrote the Big East would likely expand football from 8 to at least 10.

http://archive.boston.com/sports/college...st_agenda/

Notre Dame, TCU, Villanova and UCF were mentioned publicly as candidates in the article. Later articles would mention Houston (as a travel partner for TCU), Navy and East Carolina as possibilities.

Of course, Villanova already had an informal offer. And TCU was invited in December 2010 as an all sports member. UCF and the rest were never offered.

Villanova drug their heels on the Big East offer, studying where to play. They set a vote for April 12, 2011.

https://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2...rence-news

However, right before the vote (when it looked like Villanova would say "Yes"), several Big East members got cold feet. They were particularly concerned about Villanova's plan to play 18 miles off campus at PPL Park (now Talen Energy Stadium), a MLS venue with a capacity of 18K (Nova would expand it to 30K).

https://www.vuhoops.com/2011/4/11/210359...te-delayed

The next article makes clear the three opposed to Villanova were Pitt, Rutgers and West Va. Nova needed six out of eight football votes for an invitation, and only had five.

http://archive.boston.com/sports/college...s_leading/

The Big East rejected the ESPN offer several weeks later in May 2011 after the blockbuster Pac 12 deal was announced on May 4.

If the Big East had wanted to add UCF, Navy, ECU or Houston and accept the ESPN offer, it could have. It didn't. I guess if you looked at it through rose-colored glasses, you could say any one of those four schools could have been "worth" $11M per year as a part of that ESPN offer -- had the Big East pulled the trigger.

However, as we all know, the reason leagues get X per year is not because of the least attractive school. It's because of the top several most attractive schools.

At some point, ESPN began working with the ACC, Pitt and Syracuse to coordinate that move, which happened to the rest of the Big East's utter shock and dismay, four months later in September 2011.

One wonders if that move was being worked on before the Big East rejected the ESPN deal, or as a result of the deal's rejection.