The collective power of the G5 might result in some better tv/radio contracts for all, but can egos be put aside to do this?

NO. no one cares about Cusa nor the belt, few care about Mac. and the MWC is yesterdays news.. AAC needs to go it alone.

Set aside egos in the Go5 conferences?

By the first piece of evidence:

(10-20-2017 08:27 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  NO. no one cares about Cusa nor the belt, few care about Mac. and the MWC is yesterdays news.. AAC needs to go it alone.

... if it were up to online commentators, it would clearly be impossible.

Now, you could say that if there was enough money on the table, that would overcome the egos where it matters, among the Presidents, and secondarily AD's, of the Universities in the conference.

But then, if that bump in media value was available by pooling them ... it seems that some potential partner would have tried to do that pooling.

So there probably isn't a substantial amount of synergy available from pooling Go5 rights.

Same reason the power conferences don't do it.

(10-20-2017 09:42 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Same reason the power conferences don't do it.

Apples and oranges.

AAC draws good ratings but there is no evidence suggesting they can get the carriage fee premiums the P5 receive.

Anyone who has paid any real attention to G5 contracts over the years knows the networks have a widget approach. MWC ditches ESPN fine, boost WAC a bit to take those weird time slots. CUSA ditches ESPN, fine give the MAC more money to give up late season Saturday football.

For all we know ESPN saw more value in denying NBC content than they saw in AAC content.

A CFA style contract would be a gold mine for AAC. With all the G5 under one contract no other G5 can be the replacement widget. A CFA style contract pays schools based on actual appearances based on network and time slot.

If the AAC is what AAC fans say it is, then AAC gets the best possible deal. There is no one undercutting them in G5 and they get the best network slots and reap the windfall.

AAC though would never NEVER go for that and gladly leave money on the table because the possibility exists that it might be some other conference grabbing a prime slot ruining the narrative.

(10-20-2017 01:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  The collective power of the G5 might result in some better tv/radio contracts for all, but can egos be put aside to do this?

Id think something like that would require that the AAC completely strike out during the next TV deal negotiation. I just dont think thats going to happen.

(10-20-2017 10:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 09:42 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Same reason the power conferences don't do it.

Apples and oranges.

AAC draws good ratings but there is no evidence suggesting they can get the carriage fee premiums the P5 receive.

Anyone who has paid any real attention to G5 contracts over the years knows the networks have a widget approach. MWC ditches ESPN fine, boost WAC a bit to take those weird time slots. CUSA ditches ESPN, fine give the MAC more money to give up late season Saturday football.

For all we know ESPN saw more value in denying NBC content than they saw in AAC content.

A CFA style contract would be a gold mine for AAC. With all the G5 under one contract no other G5 can be the replacement widget. A CFA style contract pays schools based on actual appearances based on network and time slot.

If the AAC is what AAC fans say it is, then AAC gets the best possible deal. There is no one undercutting them in G5 and they get the best network slots and reap the windfall.

AAC though would never NEVER go for that and gladly leave money on the table because the possibility exists that it might be some other conference grabbing a prime slot ruining the narrative.

The issue is I think the "G5 widget" thing has probably been functionally true in the past because there wasn't that much difference in ratings. The AAC really has shown an ability to post more high viewership games---and maybe just as importantly---have shown the ability to get more home games vs P5 schools in OOC play. Does the AAC have enough sway to create carriage issues? Probably not. But it has enough sway to deliver a solid audience to a network like NBC that doesnt have much college football and doesnt like spending super big. The ability to provide a solid audience might be more important in an era where the carriage model may be on the way out.

On the plus side, the network(s) would only have 1 contract to negotiate. I'm not sure that adds enough value to make the G5 conferences participate.

On the minus side, the AAC and MWC can get the same money as independent conferences. Why would they join a CFA and have to split that more ways?

I think if the G5 came together under one media agreement, they could make a little more money. They could give up non-conference scheduling to the network(s) to get the best match ups that the networks would pay for. It would likely result in games against schools they each may not care about or even want to avoid (Louisiana Tech versus Louisiana-Lafayette, Rice versus Houston, Cincinnati versus Ohio). Schools such as Louisiana-Monroe, San Jose State, etc. may lose out on exposure if they are perennially at the bottom of their standings and that is something they'd have to consider.

(10-20-2017 12:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 01:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  The collective power of the G5 might result in some better tv/radio contracts for all, but can egos be put aside to do this?

Id think something like that would require that the AAC completely strike out during the next TV deal negotiation. I just dont think thats going to happen.

They tried to do a merger with the MWC when they were virtually all in the CUSA. It still makes sense. Nationwide coverage. Enough games to have good games out there. 4 time zones giving you flexibility on start times. I don't think doing a joint deal with the other 3 makes sense.

(10-20-2017 08:44 PM)sportsrankings Wrote:  those 5 should play in the spring with FCS as June Jones suggested

There is traffic waiting for you to play in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(10-20-2017 12:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 10:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 09:42 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Same reason the power conferences don't do it.

Apples and oranges.

AAC draws good ratings but there is no evidence suggesting they can get the carriage fee premiums the P5 receive.

Anyone who has paid any real attention to G5 contracts over the years knows the networks have a widget approach. MWC ditches ESPN fine, boost WAC a bit to take those weird time slots. CUSA ditches ESPN, fine give the MAC more money to give up late season Saturday football.

For all we know ESPN saw more value in denying NBC content than they saw in AAC content.

A CFA style contract would be a gold mine for AAC. With all the G5 under one contract no other G5 can be the replacement widget. A CFA style contract pays schools based on actual appearances based on network and time slot.

If the AAC is what AAC fans say it is, then AAC gets the best possible deal. There is no one undercutting them in G5 and they get the best network slots and reap the windfall.

AAC though would never NEVER go for that and gladly leave money on the table because the possibility exists that it might be some other conference grabbing a prime slot ruining the narrative.

The issue is I think the "G5 widget" thing has probably been functionally true in the past because there wasn't that much difference in ratings. The AAC really has shown an ability to post more high viewership games---and maybe just as importantly---have shown the ability to get more home games vs P5 schools in OOC play. Does the AAC have enough sway to create carriage issues? Probably not. But it has enough sway to deliver a solid audience to a network like NBC that doesnt have much college football and doesnt like spending super big. The ability to provide a solid audience might be more important in an era where the carriage model may be on the way out.

That heightened profile for the AAC w/ better home OOC games is a direct result of being the 6th best FB conference replacing the former 6th best in the Big East.

I think this or something like it is more likely to happen if the American gets raided and loses several of its higher-profile schools. As-is, that league is built to be as attractive to television as possible instead of simply filling in spots with warm bodies to get a title game the way C-USA did when they got raided by the American. The American would definitely be attractive to someone like NBC wanting more Saturday content for NBCSN (which desperately needs it). Adding C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt to that equation feels more like free value for the buyer than any sort of additional leverage for the conferences in negotiations.

The G5 sch00ls d0 get m0re viewers than several ACC sch00ls. AAC needs t0 ditch TUlane and TUlsa and add sch00ls like Rice, uTSA, uTEp, La. TECH. Arkansas State, ohio, Toledo, N. IllInOis, MWC minus San J0se State, Eastern Washington, N. Dak0ta State, S. Dak0ta State, James Madison, Jacksonville State, Montana, Montana State, St0ny Br00ke, Mass., Army, p0rtland State, thr0w in s0me basketball sch00ls.

The AAC is 4-9 against the big boys.

The AAC hasn't done anything special. In the laws of realignment universe for every reaction there is an equal reaction.

Old FB power structure (pre-2010).
1. SEC
2. B12
3. PAC
4. B1G
5. ACC
6. BE
7. MWC
8. CUSA
9. WAC
10. MAC
11. SBC

New FB power structure.
1. SEC
2. B1G
3. PAC
4. ACC
5. B12
6. AAC
7. MWC
8. MAC
9. CUSA
10. SBC

The B1G and B12 flipped positions. AAC assumed the tweener position of the BE albeit outside of the power structure rather than in. MWC stayed in the same overall position but no longer the top non-P conference.

MAC was helped by the dissolution of the WAC and the watering down of CUSA to an entry level conference. The MAC now in the 8th position and has assumed a close to 1 million dollar per school TV that CUSA had before.

Realignment has helped some conferences more than others.

WAC was stronger than C-uSA. They were the same strength as MWC and Big East. The Big East sch00ls are the weaker teams in the ACC. WAC had 3 sch00ls in the t0P 25 at 0ne time.

(10-20-2017 01:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  The collective power of the G5 might result in some better tv/radio contracts for all, but can egos be put aside to do this?

What you need for a CFA type deal is solid coverage in the Pacific, Mountain, Central and Eastern timezones.

MWC of course is going to give you the Pacific and Mountain timezones. They are key in any conversation here.

The problem is more when you get into the Central timezone and the schools are all in different conferences. CUSA, AAC and SBC have about the same amount and even the MAC has 1 with NIU.

Then a second problem which is mentioned in this thread is the AAC doesn't really want or need this type of arrangement which I tend to agree. The AAC is unstable with most of the conference trying to get an invite somewhere else too.

The MWC and MAC both have a nice even 12 schools. What you need is for a new version of CUSA that is more heavily focused in the central timezone.

West: UTEP, UTSA, Rice, UNT, LaTech, Louisiana
East: A-State, WKU, MTSU, SoMiss, UAB, Marshall

One Texas division and 1 mid south division. Marshall stays in the mix because of their TV draw.

That would leave Charlotte, ODU, FAU, FIU then to go figure out something else. The G5 has those markets covered better already with Navy, UCF, USF and ECU.

The MWC, MAC, CUSA 4.0 could then pool their 36 teams into a CFA type deal where the games would be played on Saturdays. They could also negotiate bowls together.

#1 rated champ-CFP bowl
#2 rated champ-Holiday bowl
#3 rated champ-Independence Bowl

Make a deal to have only 5 bowl games per conference to try to restrict the supply and trade up with the AAC and the P5 on bowl slots.

The old CFA cut out the Big West and MAC like this. New CFA then likewise would cut out SBC, UMass, Liberty, NMSU, Charlotte, ODU, FAU, FIU.

To trigger something like this it will probably require a Miko type scenario where the PAC takes UT/TT, leaving the B12 at a weakened 8 schools, CFP giving the AAC an autobid, an 8 bowl CFP including Outback and Houston ect....many changes.

(10-21-2017 12:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  WAC was stronger than C-uSA. They were the same strength as MWC and Big East. The Big East sch00ls are the weaker teams in the ACC. WAC had 3 sch00ls in the t0P 25 at 0ne time.

No David. The WAC was close overall to CUSA in strength because they had Boise State but CUSA 2.0 was almost always ahead in the Sagarins. CUSA had the better TV deal all that time.

Big East 2.0 in some years was equal in strength to the ACC and on a bad year equal to the MWC (which was BYU, TCU, Utah and the dwarfs). The WAC was never anywhere close to the BE in overall strength.

Sorry buddy.

AAC-MWC aligning makes sense to try to cut out the others for the NY6 bowl bid, negotiating leverage, etc. But the group of 5 as a whole doesn't. Well it would make sense for Sun Belt, MAC, because they'd probably end up making more money then they currently do, but the AAC and the MWC would definitely lose money on the deal.