(07-27-2019 07:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 04:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....while not understanding that if that bowl game was going to be profitable it would already exist because those that televise bowl games would make it happen to capture that profit

Yes, the "fund our own big bowl" thing has been a favorite of Coog's for several years, but that has always bothered me about it as well. If there really was an untapped opportunity, if there was say a $4m per team payout value to pitting the best AAC team not in the NY6 versus a #3 or #4 team from a P5, it stands to reason someone whose job it is to think of stuff like this would already have thunk it out.

So tiring. Asked and answered. Pitting a top P5 vs a top P5 maximizes profit. However, pitting a high level (often ranked G5) vs a ranked P5 works well too. Is it likely to make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5? Im happy to stipulate that the AAC Champ vs a top P5 probably wont make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5 (which is why no third party will every offer the AAC such a game). However, unless your submitting as a basic truth that a ranked P5 suddenly loses its entire fan base when pitted against a ranked G5 (which will also fail to bring any of its fans)---then there really isnt any case for the logic that such a game cant make a profit or at least break even.

Just some info to chew on--the P5 vs G5 access bowl seems to do pretty well. The Las Vegas Bowl with no P5's (just a 3 loss Houston and solid SDSU team) drew an TV audience of over 3 million. There is simply little reason to believe the AAC champ playing a high selection from a P5 (likely ranked) would not be reasonably successful self supporting game.

If the AAC believes it is in its interest to entice a ranked P5 team to play them in a proprietary bowl game, why do they need to use exit fees to pay for it? Why haven't they just assessed each of their members $500K each year to pay the P5 team? Maybe they just don't share your personal opinion of the value of that strategy.

And what happens when the AAC champion isn't available for that proprietary game because they qualified for the access bowl slot? Would the AAC members still think it's worth paying an unranked P5 team out of their own pockets something close to NY6 money just so they could say they got a P5 to play them? Or would they just decline to play in the access bowl in favor of their own?

I'm guessing there are very good reasons why this bowl doesn't already exist.

As far as the original question, it should be obvious why the negotiations came out closer to UConn's ambit claim than to the AAC's. The fallback to UConn leaving in 2020 is UConn leaving in 2021, which while not ideal for UConn would also give them some countervailing benefits, since putting together the FB schedule for 2021 will be a lot easier. There is very little countervailing benefit to the AAC to having UConn do two years of it's farewell tour rather than one.

So when the AAC demands $30m, UConn simply explains that at that price, leaving a year early isn't worth it to them, they are going to follow the regular by-laws notice period and pay the regular by-laws exit fee, and their counteroffer is their original ambit claim of $15m plus some BBall games.

(07-27-2019 08:03 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 04:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....while not understanding that if that bowl game was going to be profitable it would already exist because those that televise bowl games would make it happen to capture that profit

Yes, the "fund our own big bowl" thing has been a favorite of Coog's for several years, but that has always bothered me about it as well. If there really was an untapped opportunity, if there was say a $4m per team payout value to pitting the best AAC team not in the NY6 versus a #3 or #4 team from a P5, it stands to reason someone whose job it is to think of stuff like this would already have thunk it out.

So tiring. Asked and answered. Pitting a top P5 vs a top P5 maximizes profit. However, pitting a high level (often ranked G5) vs a ranked P5 works well too. Is it likely to make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5? Im happy to stipulate that the AAC Champ vs a top P5 probably wont make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5 (which is why no third party will every offer the AAC such a game). However, unless your submitting as a basic truth that a ranked P5 suddenly loses its entire fan base when pitted against a ranked G5 (which will also fail to bring any of its fans)---then there really isnt any case for the logic that such a game cant make a profit or at least break even.

Just some info to chew on--the P5 vs G5 access bowl seems to do pretty well. The Las Vegas Bowl with no P5's (just a 3 loss Houston and solid SDSU team) drew an TV audience of over 3 million. There is simply little reason to believe the AAC champ playing a high selection from a P5 (likely ranked) would not be reasonably successful self supporting game.

If the AAC believes it is in its interest to entice a ranked P5 team to play them in a proprietary bowl game, why do they need to use exit fees to pay for it? Why haven't they just assessed each of their members $500K each year to pay the P5 team? Maybe they just don't share your personal opinion of the value of that strategy.

And what happens when the AAC champion isn't available for that proprietary game because they qualified for the access bowl slot? Would the AAC members still think it's worth paying an unranked P5 team out of their own pockets something close to NY6 money just so they could say they got a P5 to play them? Or would they just decline to play in the access bowl in favor of their own?

I'm guessing there are very good reasons why this bowl doesn't already exist.

The AAC membership wouldnt be paying the P5 team out of their pocket (which is what a $500K assessment would be). What Im proposing is the creation of a quality bowl, which will be owned by the AAC, and which should make a profit. If the bowl makes a profit---then it actually doesn't cost the members anything. In this case, UConn will pay for the start up costs of the high level bowl----something that will yield long lasting results and which they are unlikely to ever get otherwise. The money will more than cover the start up costs and provide a large cushion to insure the bowl is financially stable. If it works as it should, the bowl should become self sufficient very quickly and even spin off a small annual profit.

Do the schools agree with me? Who knows? But they cant whine about their lack bowl opportunities if they arent willing to invest in themselves. I mean--if they wont---why should they expect anyone else to?

When our schools are operating at deficits, UConn's exit fee will be used to reduce them.

Not invested back into a "potential" bowl game for a league that has no grant of rights tying it together.

And if it happens that way, it won't be wrongheaded or dumb or shortsighted.

This league exists to benefit its members. Not the other way around.

(07-27-2019 08:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  When our schools are operating at deficits, UConn's exit fee will be used to reduce them.

Not invested back into a "potential" bowl game for a league that has no grant of rights tying it together.

And if it happens that way, it won't be wrongheaded or dumb or shortsighted.

This league exists to benefit its members. Not the other way around.

Investing is never dumb. Running annual deficits every year and thinking a one time windfall is going to fix it is the very definition of dumb and short sighted. The deficit will just be back the next year and no permanent benefit will accrue to the school or athletic department. The bowl would be there year after year. Look, I have no illusions that the membership will select anything other than the immediate satisfaction option. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether that is really the "best" option.

(07-27-2019 08:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 08:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  When our schools are operating at deficits, UConn's exit fee will be used to reduce them.

Not invested back into a "potential" bowl game for a league that has no grant of rights tying it together.

And if it happens that way, it won't be wrongheaded or dumb or shortsighted.

This league exists to benefit its members. Not the other way around.

Investing is never dumb. Running annual deficits every year and thinking a one time windfall is going to fix it is the very definition of dumb and short sighted. The deficit will just be back the next year and no permanent benefit will accrue to the school or athletic department. The bowl would be there year after year. Look, I have no illusions that the membership will select anything other than the immediate satisfaction option. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether that is really the "best" option.

Investing is never dumb? Tell that to the AAF, or whatever that league called itself. And who said the exit fees from UConn were going to fix members' annual deficits? What you are proposing might seem like investing to you. AAC members might just see it as gambling, with the odds stacked against them. However they see it, it's their money, not ours. We don't get a vote.

(07-27-2019 09:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 08:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 08:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  When our schools are operating at deficits, UConn's exit fee will be used to reduce them.

Not invested back into a "potential" bowl game for a league that has no grant of rights tying it together.

And if it happens that way, it won't be wrongheaded or dumb or shortsighted.

This league exists to benefit its members. Not the other way around.

Investing is never dumb. Running annual deficits every year and thinking a one time windfall is going to fix it is the very definition of dumb and short sighted. The deficit will just be back the next year and no permanent benefit will accrue to the school or athletic department. The bowl would be there year after year. Look, I have no illusions that the membership will select anything other than the immediate satisfaction option. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether that is really the "best" option.

Investing is never dumb? Tell that to the AAF, or whatever that league called itself. And who said the exit fees from UConn were going to fix members' annual deficits? What you are proposing might seem like investing to you. AAC members might just see it as gambling, with the odds stacked against them. However they see it, it's their money, not ours. We don't get a vote.

Agree. But we are allowed to have a full throated opinion.

(07-27-2019 07:59 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 03:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 03:14 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....just curious, while the AAC was caving, where exactly did the 30 million dollar starting point come from? The answer---it was basically pulled out thin air based on the Big East new exit fee. There was very little to support it. Basically, the AAC got a 70% premium over the normal exit fee to allow waiving the 27 month waiting period. I think thats more than reasonable and higher than I expected.

If you want to criticize the AAC---I'd criticize them on how they use that 17 million. If they had any brains, they would set aside that 17 million into a fund, add 500K-1 million a year to it over the next 6 years and have over 20 million sitting in an account in 2024 when the negotiations begin for the next bowl cycle and CFP. They would be in an excellent position to use that 20+ million to create a new anchor bowl for their champion with a high enough payout to attract a high selection from a P5 (or pool of P5's). Thats a much wiser and longer term investment for the cash than a one time 1.4 million dollar distribution to the members. So, if they just do a simple distribution of the cash to the members---I think they deserve criticism for not thinking bigger and using the funds to accomplish a very important and difficult to accomplish part of their "p6" strategic plan. It would also mark the second time this same group pf players failed to invest real money in their own future post seasons when they have sufficient cash on hand to do it. Its not a decision that results in instant satisfaction---but it is the right for the long term future development of the conference.

I don’t get the logic behind giving away YOUR money to a P5. No amount of money is going to make the P5 treat the AAC as equals.

Your not giving anything away--nor or you asking anyone in the P5 to treat the AAC as an "equal" in the CFP. You are simply investing in running your own high end non-CFP bowl and paying a P5 the market rate to attract a fairly high selection from a P5 as the bowl opponent. In other words, the AAC would own this bowl. Most major bowls that typically have ranked schools playing make money. I see no reason that a bowl with the AAC champ vs a high P5 pick wouldn't do just fine financially. Thus not only are you providing the conference with something nobody is very likely to just hand them (a slot in a high end non-CFP bowl)---you very likely create a long term future stream of conference income (albeit--a relatively small stream).

A conference-owned bowl game is not necessarily a cash cow, but it might make money. There is no reason the AAC shouldn't entrepreneurial. Find a warm weather city that likes tourism; invite a cold weather B1G team.
ESPN could schedule an attractive game against yours if they wanted to discourage you. But bowl games are just exhibition football and football fans will watch them.

Honestly---making consistent money would be a nice bonus--but not really the main goal. It would be nice if the game spins off enough for the AAC team to have a nice payout and have the bowl be self-sustaining with a little profit. For a G5, getting a quality bowl game against a high pick from a P5 is almost impossible. Really--outside of the access bowl--it doesnt exist. Landing such a game in the current environment can only be done using some sort of innovative out of the box strategy. This is an excellent opportunity for the AAC if they recognize it.

That Cincinnati journalist is an idiot. The AAC didn’t cave. This was an amicable divorce with settlement terms that benefitted all parties.

AAC perks:
- an extra $5mm in addition to the $12mm 27 month exit notice fee that takes this news story off of the front burner as a distraction
- no long term media distractions with chat about how losing UConn hoops (men and women) hurts the conference
- Penny Hardaway gets to establish Memphis as a premier national program and THE premier AAC program without background chatter about losing a marquee blue blood opponent
- no more UConn football dragging down the conference strength

UConn perks:
- get out of the AAC early without a painful and ugly extended slate of road trips against hostile fans
- get back to NYC area centric b-ball faster to enhance our recruiting
- save several million a year on travel (our travel budget was actually $7mm per year - I am connected enough to university administration to verify that)
- Renew decades old rivalries against Villanova, Georgetown, Providence, etc.
- create our own destiny in football versus having to recruit directly against Florida and Texas type schools

Mutual perks:
- 4 home and home series for men’s and women’s hoop to maintain mutual exposure and keep some blooming rivalries alive
- A long term series against Memphis - Penny Hardaway and Dan Hurley both benefit from the strength of schedule from this. Also, there is now drama and theater to be had with these schools since we have “parted ways”. The rivalry that we never “quite” cultivated together in the AAC as conference mates may actually become one now as “ex” conference mates
- Since this was amicable, a willingness to schedule other games in hoop (men’s and women’s) to boost our respective RPIs
- An understanding that if AAC teams throw us a bone to help us schedule our new independent slate, we will return the favor wherever possible to fill in gaps when an AAC team loses a team due to a contract buyout and needs a game.

This wasn’t about exacting revenge and making UConn regret it. It was about acting like adults and finding a solution that benefits everyone.

(07-27-2019 08:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 08:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  When our schools are operating at deficits, UConn's exit fee will be used to reduce them.

Not invested back into a "potential" bowl game for a league that has no grant of rights tying it together.

And if it happens that way, it won't be wrongheaded or dumb or shortsighted.

This league exists to benefit its members. Not the other way around.

Investing is never dumb. Running annual deficits every year and thinking a one time windfall is going to fix it is the very definition of dumb and short sighted. The deficit will just be back the next year and no permanent benefit will accrue to the school or athletic department. The bowl would be there year after year. Look, I have no illusions that the membership will select anything other than the immediate satisfaction option. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether that is really the "best" option.

I don't necessarily disagree with the principle, but, you're asking the tiger to lose its stripes. AAC could have done this with the C7 split money, but it hoarded it for its members, giving remaining long-time members a bigger cut.

Two of those schools who got a favored share are still there. And, let's not forget that UConn really pushed the exit issue into overdrive once it exhausted its favorable share. At no time any of those schools decide to maybe rethink that cut to portion out and save for something bigger and better down the road. And, we have an associate football member who is not fully sharing its pot with the rest of the conference in Navy.

This group isn't tight like the Big Ten, PAC, and SEC are with each other. I agree with the earlier comment about this being like the MWC when it had Utah, BYU, and TCU making it difficult for the group to work cohesively for a long-term outcome. This is a situational, stepping stone conference. It's a destination for only a few currently within it.

(07-27-2019 08:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 08:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  When our schools are operating at deficits, UConn's exit fee will be used to reduce them.

Not invested back into a "potential" bowl game for a league that has no grant of rights tying it together.

And if it happens that way, it won't be wrongheaded or dumb or shortsighted.

This league exists to benefit its members. Not the other way around.

Investing is never dumb.

This is only true if you define bad investments out of "investing" ... but the future is always uncertain and so we can never know whether an investment (real or financial) is a good one until after the fact.

Certainly any schools that end up leaving the AAC before the brand equity benefits of the bowl game start accruing would regret the investment.

(07-27-2019 07:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 04:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....while not understanding that if that bowl game was going to be profitable it would already exist because those that televise bowl games would make it happen to capture that profit

Yes, the "fund our own big bowl" thing has been a favorite of Coog's for several years, but that has always bothered me about it as well. If there really was an untapped opportunity, if there was say a $4m per team payout value to pitting the best AAC team not in the NY6 versus a #3 or #4 team from a P5, it stands to reason someone whose job it is to think of stuff like this would already have thunk it out.

So tiring. Asked and answered. Pitting a top P5 vs a top P5 maximizes profit. However, pitting a high level (often ranked G5) vs a ranked P5 works well too. Is it likely to make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5? Im happy to stipulate that the AAC Champ vs a top P5 probably wont make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5 (which is why no third party will every offer the AAC such a game). However, unless your submitting as a basic truth that a ranked P5 suddenly loses its entire fan base when pitted against a ranked G5 (which will also fail to bring any of its fans)---then there really isnt any case for the logic that such a game cant make a profit or at least break even.

Just some info to chew on--the P5 vs G5 access bowl seems to do pretty well. The Las Vegas Bowl with no P5's (just a 3 loss Houston and solid SDSU team) drew an TV audience of over 3 million. There is simply little reason to believe the AAC champ playing a high selection from a P5 (likely ranked) would not be reasonably successful self supporting game.

I don't think this "answers" my question, as it still begs the question of why some network hasn't proposed just such a thing? Just because a network a P5 vs P5 game doesn't mean they can't arrange your thing to, but nobody is.

Also, a big iffy for this would the "AAC champ" thing. So far during the CFP, the AAC champ has been in the NY6 three out of five times, so had this bowl existed those years, it would have only featured the AAC champ twice. And once you take out the champ, there is often a steep dropoff to the #2 AAC team. E.g., last year, the AAC champ was #8. The second place AAC team was ... unranked.

The uncertainty about the AAC champ actually playing in the game would IMO be a significant negative.

Ok. Lets use your logic. If we both agree that a P5 vs P5 maximizes profit---why would a third party seek to pay a high payout to create a P5 v G5 game? The only reason for the AAC to do it is because it is in the best interests of the AAC. There is no other party who will put together a game that makes less because its good for the AAC. That is why there is currently no such game and its the same reason why it is folly to wait for someone to create such a game for the AAC. Its never going to happen.

As for the absence of the AAC champ (if champ makes the access bowl)--the runner up would have been a ranked team every year but 2016. So, still a very interesting game. You could also make it so its the highest ranked available team (just in case a 2nd place team in the other division is actually higher ranked than the CCG loser).

For the five years of the CFP, the second-best AAC team in the CFP rankings has been unranked, 20, 24, 25 and unranked. That's not very compelling, IMO.

As for the main point, it shouldn't matter if the most profitable opportunity is P5 vs P5. If a P5 vs top AAC team looks *profitable*, then someone will step up to exploit that opportunity. That's why all kinds of opportunities are invested in not just the seemingly most profitable one. They aren't mutually exclusive. But nobody has, not even the AAC brass who stand the most to benefit. Maybe you are just the smartest guy in the room and have figured out something nobody else has?

(07-27-2019 10:09 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  That Cincinnati journalist is an idiot. The AAC didn’t cave. This was an amicable divorce with settlement terms that benefitted all parties.

AAC perks:
- an extra $5mm in addition to the $12mm 27 month exit notice fee that takes this news story off of the front burner as a distraction
- no long term media distractions with chat about how losing UConn hoops (men and women) hurts the conference
- Penny Hardaway gets to establish Memphis as a premier national program and THE premier AAC program without background chatter about losing a marquee blue blood opponent
- no more UConn football dragging down the conference strength

UConn perks:
- get out of the AAC early without a painful and ugly extended slate of road trips against hostile fans
- get back to NYC area centric b-ball faster to enhance our recruiting
- save several million a year on travel (our travel budget was actually $7mm per year - I am connected enough to university administration to verify that)
- Renew decades old rivalries against Villanova, Georgetown, Providence, etc.
- create our own destiny in football versus having to recruit directly against Florida and Texas type schools

Mutual perks:
- 4 home and home series for men’s and women’s hoop to maintain mutual exposure and keep some blooming rivalries alive
- A long term series against Memphis - Penny Hardaway and Dan Hurley both benefit from the strength of schedule from this. Also, there is now drama and theater to be had with these schools since we have “parted ways”. The rivalry that we never “quite” cultivated together in the AAC as conference mates may actually become one now as “ex” conference mates
- Since this was amicable, a willingness to schedule other games in hoop (men’s and women’s) to boost our respective RPIs
- An understanding that if AAC teams throw us a bone to help us schedule our new independent slate, we will return the favor wherever possible to fill in gaps when an AAC team loses a team due to a contract buyout and needs a game.

This wasn’t about exacting revenge and making UConn regret it. It was about acting like adults and finding a solution that benefits everyone.

Perfectly put. The split seemingly is fine (or at least sufficiently fine) for both parties — as it should be.

The American did not cave. No one in their right mind thought we would get 30 mil. 17 plus the games in BB was more than fair for both sides. As for spending the money on a Bowl, I think that is a horrid Idea. It just takes money the AAC schools need to continue growing and sending it straight to the P5.

I agree. No caving, fair settlement to all involved.

1. I don't think the AAC caved. I think it was a good deal for both parties.

2. I don't think the financials are there for an AAC owned bowl game.

Let's say you start with $25million. The AAC champ should be in a bowl that pays $5million plus. I understand the theory of the AAC paying itself. However, if the AAC doesn't distribute the payout for their team they are essentially forcing the AAC champ to play for free. The other schools don't get their cut (using what ever distribution model the AAC has). Why wouldn't you want the AAC champ to go to an outside bowl and bring in new money instead of moving existing money up and down the balance sheet?

So, you have $5million per team and let's say $2.5million for expenses (which I think is really cheap). $12.5 million total expenses. For income you have ticket sales, broadcast rights and a naming sponsor. I don't see $12.5 million in revenue for this game.

If you have $25million there are better investments than gambling on a bowl game.

(07-27-2019 08:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 08:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  When our schools are operating at deficits, UConn's exit fee will be used to reduce them.

Not invested back into a "potential" bowl game for a league that has no grant of rights tying it together.

And if it happens that way, it won't be wrongheaded or dumb or shortsighted.

This league exists to benefit its members. Not the other way around.

Investing is never dumb. Running annual deficits every year and thinking a one time windfall is going to fix it is the very definition of dumb and short sighted. The deficit will just be back the next year and no permanent benefit will accrue to the school or athletic department. The bowl would be there year after year. Look, I have no illusions that the membership will select anything other than the immediate satisfaction option. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether that is really the "best" option.

For the record, nobody's budget deficit is going to go away off of these bumps to distribution. It'll be about an extra 450-500k per member for the first two years and then an extra 90k or so for the six years after that.

As with any divorce (and just like the C7/Football separation) it is in the best interests of both parties to separate and move on in the respective pursuits.

The Big 12 used the exit fees left behind from departing members to help purchase and facilitate West Virginia's entrance into the league (from the Big East). I wonder if the AAC will do the same with another member.

(07-28-2019 10:24 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  As with any divorce (and just like the C7/Football separation) it is in the best interests of both parties to separate and move on in the respective pursuits.

The Big 12 used the exit fees left behind from departing members to help purchase and facilitate West Virginia's entrance into the league (from the Big East). I wonder if the AAC will do the same with another member.

Doubt it. If any one wants to join the AAC they can pay their own fees. The B-12 was desperate to keep the conference together and needed WV ASAP. L'Ville wanted to give the BE at least one year notice when WV was willing to jump right away and deal with the exit fees in court down the road. There is no sense of urgency to add another member to the AAC right now. Whoever joins can meet the time requirement to leave their old conference behind at the minimum cost to do so.

(07-28-2019 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the "fund our own big bowl" thing has been a favorite of Coog's for several years, but that has always bothered me about it as well. If there really was an untapped opportunity, if there was say a $4m per team payout value to pitting the best AAC team not in the NY6 versus a #3 or #4 team from a P5, it stands to reason someone whose job it is to think of stuff like this would already have thunk it out.

So tiring. Asked and answered. Pitting a top P5 vs a top P5 maximizes profit. However, pitting a high level (often ranked G5) vs a ranked P5 works well too. Is it likely to make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5? Im happy to stipulate that the AAC Champ vs a top P5 probably wont make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5 (which is why no third party will every offer the AAC such a game). However, unless your submitting as a basic truth that a ranked P5 suddenly loses its entire fan base when pitted against a ranked G5 (which will also fail to bring any of its fans)---then there really isnt any case for the logic that such a game cant make a profit or at least break even.

Just some info to chew on--the P5 vs G5 access bowl seems to do pretty well. The Las Vegas Bowl with no P5's (just a 3 loss Houston and solid SDSU team) drew an TV audience of over 3 million. There is simply little reason to believe the AAC champ playing a high selection from a P5 (likely ranked) would not be reasonably successful self supporting game.

I don't think this "answers" my question, as it still begs the question of why some network hasn't proposed just such a thing? Just because a network a P5 vs P5 game doesn't mean they can't arrange your thing to, but nobody is.

Also, a big iffy for this would the "AAC champ" thing. So far during the CFP, the AAC champ has been in the NY6 three out of five times, so had this bowl existed those years, it would have only featured the AAC champ twice. And once you take out the champ, there is often a steep dropoff to the #2 AAC team. E.g., last year, the AAC champ was #8. The second place AAC team was ... unranked.

The uncertainty about the AAC champ actually playing in the game would IMO be a significant negative.

Ok. Lets use your logic. If we both agree that a P5 vs P5 maximizes profit---why would a third party seek to pay a high payout to create a P5 v G5 game? The only reason for the AAC to do it is because it is in the best interests of the AAC. There is no other party who will put together a game that makes less because its good for the AAC. That is why there is currently no such game and its the same reason why it is folly to wait for someone to create such a game for the AAC. Its never going to happen.

As for the absence of the AAC champ (if champ makes the access bowl)--the runner up would have been a ranked team every year but 2016. So, still a very interesting game. You could also make it so its the highest ranked available team (just in case a 2nd place team in the other division is actually higher ranked than the CCG loser).

For the five years of the CFP, the second-best AAC team in the CFP rankings has been unranked, 20, 24, 25 and unranked. That's not very compelling, IMO.

As for the main point, it shouldn't matter if the most profitable opportunity is P5 vs P5. If a P5 vs top AAC team looks *profitable*, then someone will step up to exploit that opportunity. That's why all kinds of opportunities are invested in not just the seemingly most profitable one. They aren't mutually exclusive. But nobody has, not even the AAC brass who stand the most to benefit. Maybe you are just the smartest guy in the room and have figured out something nobody else has?

But they ARE mutually exclusive. All the top selections from the P5 are currently in P5 vs P5 games. If the AAC vs high end P5 game occurs—that P5 has to come come from an existing P5 vs P5 game.