I continue to shake my head a bit when posters note with specificity the AAC is losing its "top three brands."

"Brand" should not be defined solely by recent success but, rather, by many metrics (including history, notoriety, etc.). I note this fully aware the the Big 12 invited UC, UH and UCF largely due to football.

As a Memphis and Cincinnati fan who has followed college athletics for about 50 years, here is how I see "AAC brands" (I'm sure some of you will disagree):

The top brands for combining academics, athletics, history, national notoriety, intangibles, etc. are Houston and Cincinnati.

The top academic brands are Tulane and SMU — with USF, Temple and Cincinnati very respectable.

The top basketball brands are Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati and Temple — with Wichita, Tulsa and SMU very respectable.

The top football brands are Houston and Navy — with SMU and Cincy very respectable. (Note: I do not include UCF with these four due to the Knights relatively brief football history. But the UCF football "brand" is building quickly.)

The top "intangible" brand is Navy (not even close).

The top "sports only" brand (not factoring academics, history, intangibles, etc.) might just be UCF, which has made impressive strides in multiple sports during a relatively brief time period.

There is no question that, if you consider the big picture, Houston, Cincy and UCF are three of the AAC's top all-around (sports, academics, etc.) brands. But they are joined by SMU, Memphis, Temple and Navy and perhaps even USF.

In short, for posters to note, definitively, that the AAC is losing its "top three brands" could suggest those posters are either lazily taking an overly simplistic approach to assessing the overall AAC membership make-up ... or hope to see the AAC falter and enjoy taking an easy "jab" at the league.

In an effort to be accurate, comprehensive and reasonable, this poster will continue to note the AAC is losing "three of its top brands."

(05-28-2022 10:01 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I continue to shake my head a bit when posters note with specificity the AAC is losing its "top three brands."

"Brand" should not be defined solely by recent success but, rather, by many metrics (including history, notoriety, etc.). I note this fully aware the the Big 12 invited UC, UH and UCF largely due to football.

As a Memphis and Cincinnati fan who has followed college athletics for about 50 years, here is how I see "AAC brands" (I'm sure some of you will disagree):

The top brands for combining academics, athletics, history, national notoriety, intangibles, etc. are Houston and Cincinnati.

The top academic brands are Tulane and SMU — with USF, Temple and Cincinnati very respectable.

The top basketball brands are Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati and Temple — with Wichita, Tulsa and SMU very respectable.

The top football brands are Houston and Navy — with SMU and Cincy very respectable. (Note: I do not include UCF with these four due to the Knights relatively brief football history. But the UCF football "brand" is building quickly.)

The top "intangible" brand is Navy (not even close).

The top "sports only" brand (not factoring academics, history, intangibles, etc.) might just be UCF, which has made impressive strides in multiple sports during a relatively brief time period.

There is no question that, if you consider the big picture, Houston, Cincy and UCF are three of the AAC's top all-around (sports, academics, etc.) brands. But they are joined by SMU, Memphis, Temple and Navy and perhaps even USF.

In short, for posters to note, definitively, that the AAC is losing its "top three brands" could suggest those posters are either lazily taking an overly simplistic approach to assessing the overall AAC membership make-up ... or hope to see the AAC falter and enjoy taking an easy "jab" at the league.

In an effort to be accurate, comprehensive and reasonable, this poster will continue to note the AAC is losing "three of its top brands."

I get your point, and believe me, as a USF fan who "hates" UCF, I generally love arguments that knock them down a peg or two, but in this case I'm not entirely convinced.

The reason is, when we talk about conference realignment, we are talking primarily about athletics value. Other factors can matter, but the 800 pound gorilla factor is athletics, especially for a conference like the Big 12, which doesn't have the academic airs of an ACC, PAC or B1G.

For example, as an institution, Rice is much more prestigious than UCF. But UCF is more valuable as an athletic conference member. For an even more extreme example, Yale is a lot more prestigious than Ohio State, but Ohio State is far more valuable as a member of an (edit: athletic) conference.

For all the talk about "research consortiums" and all of that, at bottom, athletic conferences are first and foremost about athletics, not academics and other things.

So .... I think the notion that the nB12 took the AAC's "three top brands" is, within the relevant realm here (athletics), basically accurate.

Now I will agree that they weren't heads-shoulders better. It's not like UCF is LSU and Memphis is, well, Memphis. The nB12 could have taken SMU, USF and Memphis and not been all that far away IMO in value from what they got in Houston, UCF and Cincy. But still, they got the top three.

(05-28-2022 10:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 10:01 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I continue to shake my head a bit when posters note with specificity the AAC is losing its "top three brands."

"Brand" should not be defined solely by recent success but, rather, by many metrics (including history, notoriety, etc.). I note this fully aware the the Big 12 invited UC, UH and UCF largely due to football.

As a Memphis and Cincinnati fan who has followed college athletics for about 50 years, here is how I see "AAC brands" (I'm sure some of you will disagree):

The top brands for combining academics, athletics, history, national notoriety, intangibles, etc. are Houston and Cincinnati.

The top academic brands are Tulane and SMU — with USF, Temple and Cincinnati very respectable.

The top basketball brands are Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati and Temple — with Wichita, Tulsa and SMU very respectable.

The top football brands are Houston and Navy — with SMU and Cincy very respectable. (Note: I do not include UCF with these four due to the Knights relatively brief football history. But the UCF football "brand" is building quickly.)

The top "intangible" brand is Navy (not even close).

The top "sports only" brand (not factoring academics, history, intangibles, etc.) might just be UCF, which has made impressive strides in multiple sports during a relatively brief time period.

There is no question that, if you consider the big picture, Houston, Cincy and UCF are three of the AAC's top all-around (sports, academics, etc.) brands. But they are joined by SMU, Memphis, Temple and Navy and perhaps even USF.

In short, for posters to note, definitively, that the AAC is losing its "top three brands" could suggest those posters are either lazily taking an overly simplistic approach to assessing the overall AAC membership make-up ... or hope to see the AAC falter and enjoy taking an easy "jab" at the league.

In an effort to be accurate, comprehensive and reasonable, this poster will continue to note the AAC is losing "three of its top brands."

I get your point, and believe me, as a USF fan who "hates" UCF, I generally love arguments that knock them down a peg or two, but in this case I'm not entirely convinced.

The reason is, when we talk about conference realignment, we are talking primarily about athletics value. Other factors can matter, but the 800 pound gorilla factor is athletics, especially for a conference like the Big 12, which doesn't have the academic airs of an ACC, PAC or B1G.

For example, as an institution, Rice is much more prestigious than UCF. But UCF is more valuable as an athletic conference member. For an even more extreme example, Yale is a lot more prestigious than Ohio State, but Ohio State is far more valuable as a member of an academic conference.

For all the talk about "research consortiums" and all of that, at bottom, athletic conferences are first and foremost about athletics, not academics and other things.

So .... I think the notion that the nB12 took the AAC's "three top brands" is, within the relevant realm here (athletics), basically accurate.

Now I will agree that they weren't heads-shoulders better. It's not like UCF is LSU and Memphis is, well, Memphis. The nB12 could have taken SMU, USF and Memphis and not been all that far away IMO in value from what they got in Houston, UCF and Cincy. But still, they got the top three.

Points valid and well made, QV.

I suppose there are three ways to define "brand" related to this topic.

* based overwhelmingly on football

* based overwhelmingly on athletics in general

* based on a balanced manner — with football, all other sports and academics/intangibles comprising a "three-headed metrics monster."

I prefer using the third definition. But I quickly admit I'm in the minority.

(05-27-2022 11:00 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 03:57 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 01:56 AM)46566 Wrote:  The planned AAC isn't the same AAC that any MWC would want to join. The value of the AAC contract is going to fall.

Not true.

Even though Cincinnati-Houston-UCF were written into the AAC contract as the bedrock of the deal, Aresco has gotten assurances from the WWL that the deal will basically stay the same for the incumbent teams (and the incoming programs will almost be making what MWC teams make... WITH BETTER EXPOSURE!)

Well, that's what he's saying in public. Other ADs in the industry, along with every television executive I've ever spoken to, do not believe him...and the AAC has declined to explain how or why their deal will stay the same. So color me skeptical.

Pete Thamel has broken more news stories than anybody in major college sports the last few years. So is he wrong and/or just writing what Aresco tells him?

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...44710.html

(05-28-2022 09:03 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 08:39 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  The upshot of all this is that - - with the membership increasing from 11 to 14 teams, it might be possible that the AAC's football viewership will not only match its viewership during the UC, UCF, and UH years, but may actually begin to exceed it by 2027 or certainly by 2030, if not sooner.

Leagues don’t lose their top-3 brands and increase viewership. And viewership is always declining for everything.

I may be overestimating how quickly the conference's viewership will bounce back, and there is a lot of competition for viewership.

On the other hand, CFB viewership remains very high, and there's an insatiable appetite for college football, which helps explain the fact that North Dakota State has played approximately one game per year with a million-plus viewers. Along the same lines, ESPN has made a huge investment in the MAC, Sun Belt, and AAC, and while they may have gone way out on a limb, it's equally possible that they chose to make that investment based on sound long-term viewership projections.

Regarding the so-called "top 3 brands," Houston has only won 56% of their football games over the past 3 seasons. Memphis, SMU, UAB, and UTSA have won 70%, 71%, 65%, and 60.5% of their games, respectively.

Similarly, "Cindy" and UCF have only won 58% and 54% of their basketball games over the past 3 seasons. Memphis, SMU, and Wichita State have won 68.5%, 67.5%, and 66.7% of their games, respectively, and UAB has won 70.8% of theirs.

Thus, while UC, UCF, and UH are certainly considered to be three of the better brands in the AAC, it would be an exaggeration to suggest that they are "head and shoulders above" the rest of the pack.

.

(05-28-2022 10:01 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I continue to shake my head a bit when posters note with specificity the AAC is losing its "top three brands."

"Brand" should not be defined solely by recent success but, rather, by many metrics (including history, notoriety, etc.). I note this fully aware the the Big 12 invited UC, UH and UCF largely due to football.

As a Memphis and Cincinnati fan who has followed college athletics for about 50 years, here is how I see "AAC brands" (I'm sure some of you will disagree):

The top brands for combining academics, athletics, history, national notoriety, intangibles, etc. are Houston and Cincinnati.

The top academic brands are Tulane and SMU — with USF, Temple and Cincinnati very respectable.

The top basketball brands are Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati and Temple — with Wichita, Tulsa and SMU very respectable.

The top football brands are Houston and Navy — with SMU and Cincy very respectable. (Note: I do not include UCF with these four due to the Knights relatively brief football history. But the UCF football "brand" is building quickly.)

The top "intangible" brand is Navy (not even close).

The top "sports only" brand (not factoring academics, history, intangibles, etc.) might just be UCF, which has made impressive strides in multiple sports during a relatively brief time period.

There is no question that, if you consider the big picture, Houston, Cincy and UCF are three of the AAC's top all-around (sports, academics, etc.) brands. But they are joined by SMU, Memphis, Temple and Navy and perhaps even USF.

In short, for posters to note, definitively, that the AAC is losing its "top three brands" could suggest those posters are either lazily taking an overly simplistic approach to assessing the overall AAC membership make-up ... or hope to see the AAC falter and enjoy taking an easy "jab" at the league.

In an effort to be accurate, comprehensive and reasonable, this poster will continue to note the AAC is losing "three of its top brands."

They took 2 schools with multiple NY6 appearances apiece in the past 5 years. Those 2 have a collective 7 BCS/NY6 appearances in 15 years.

The third school has both a NY6 and a Final Four appearance since 2015 and located in a top-5 market. Memphis is also right there but there was only room for 3.

More importantly, the university presidents making the decisions and network executives being consulted determined these were the 3 biggest brands. It doesn’t matter who IWULT or bill dazzle think are the top-3 brands — it matters what the people in charge think.

Academics aren’t the factor for the Big 12 as they are for the B1G, PAC, or ACC. It’s clear the decision was athletics-dominated for P5 survivability.

”Top-3 brands” might be a simplistic generalization, but one rooted in current reality from recent relevant athletics success and the decisions the people in power made. If the university presidents and network executives felt different schools represented the top-3 brands, then those schools would have been selected.

Asking schools in the MWC, such as New Mexico, Wyoming and San Jose States, to accept distribution cuts, in order to ingratiate financially other higher profile conference mates, is bad practice. It damages harmony and formally instills inequity.

(05-28-2022 11:39 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  Pete Thamel has broken more news stories than anybody in major college sports the last few years. So is he wrong and/or just writing what Aresco tells him?

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...44710.html

Pete wrote that the schools expect themselves to remain whole. I'm sure they do! I'm sure Aresco told them that. I know that other ADs that are not in the AAC do *not* believe that story, and I have not yet heard an explanation from a TV industry person (either that I've personally talked to, or that I've read elsewhere) explain how this is possible.

That's why I'm skeptical. But of course, since they know the paperwork better than any of us, they may know something we don't. It just hasn't been shared yet.

(05-28-2022 01:24 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 11:39 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  Pete Thamel has broken more news stories than anybody in major college sports the last few years. So is he wrong and/or just writing what Aresco tells him?

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...44710.html

Pete wrote that the schools expect themselves to remain whole. I'm sure they do! I'm sure Aresco told them that. I know that other ADs that are not in the AAC do *not* believe that story, and I have not yet heard an explanation from a TV industry person (either that I've personally talked to, or that I've read elsewhere) explain how this is possible.

I am just a loudmouth on the internet, but I have a plausible explanation.
1. ESPN has a policy (foolish in this case, but a policy) against imposing haircuts on leagues. (This part is conjecture)
--They'll do a lot to avoid reducing the contracted payouts. Reducing the contract to reflect the new value of the AAC is a last resort, barely an option in ESPN's planning process unless a league "forces ESPN's hand" (conjecture) UConn leaving led to a 1/12 reduction, the remaining 11 were "made whole". (Also conjecture)
2. ESPN blessed the expansion to 14, as the most valuable possible configuration of a post-UC/UH/UCF/UConn AAC. (Conjecture as well)
--more chum for ESPN+, low-audience games, but more more more live content.
--more "lottery tickets." In any given year, there are a couple of top 25 G5 teams, and ESPN owning 14 AAC teams plus 14 Sun Belt teams plus 12 MAC teams increases the odds that a 9-0 G5 team fills a spot on ESPN2 instead of FS1 or CBS-SN.
3. All it takes is for the 6 new AAC teams to take half-shares, 8 + 6*0.5 = 11.

Me? I'd have used the gutting of the AAC to rethink the entire contract, negotiate a voiding of the more valuable back-end years of the deal. But taht doesn't seem to be what ESPN did. I think a lot of your non-AAC AD friends think the way I do. But it only matters what ESPN thinks. And I don't think we have an example of ESPN reducing the value of an existing TV contract as a result of realignment.

(05-28-2022 03:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 01:24 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 11:39 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  Pete Thamel has broken more news stories than anybody in major college sports the last few years. So is he wrong and/or just writing what Aresco tells him?

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...44710.html

Pete wrote that the schools expect themselves to remain whole. I'm sure they do! I'm sure Aresco told them that. I know that other ADs that are not in the AAC do *not* believe that story, and I have not yet heard an explanation from a TV industry person (either that I've personally talked to, or that I've read elsewhere) explain how this is possible.

I am just a loudmouth on the internet, but I have a plausible explanation.
1. ESPN has a policy (foolish in this case, but a policy) against imposing haircuts on leagues. (This part is conjecture)
--They'll do a lot to avoid reducing the contracted payouts. Reducing the contract to reflect the new value of the AAC is a last resort, barely an option in ESPN's planning process unless a league "forces ESPN's hand" (conjecture) UConn leaving led to a 1/12 reduction, the remaining 11 were "made whole". (Also conjecture)
2. ESPN blessed the expansion to 14, as the most valuable possible configuration of a post-UC/UH/UCF/UConn AAC. (Conjecture as well)
--more chum for ESPN+, low-audience games, but more more more live content.
--more "lottery tickets." In any given year, there are a couple of top 25 G5 teams, and ESPN owning 14 AAC teams plus 14 Sun Belt teams plus 12 MAC teams increases the odds that a 9-0 G5 team fills a spot on ESPN2 instead of FS1 or CBS-SN.
3. All it takes is for the 6 new AAC teams to take half-shares, 8 + 6*0.5 = 11.

Me? I'd have used the gutting of the AAC to rethink the entire contract, negotiate a voiding of the more valuable back-end years of the deal. But taht doesn't seem to be what ESPN did. I think a lot of your non-AAC AD friends think the way I do. But it only matters what ESPN thinks. And I don't think we have an example of ESPN reducing the value of an existing TV contract as a result of realignment.

I think the bolded explains it. In reality, the AAC did not remain whole, not in the per-school sense that counts. With the gross ESPN payout the same (reportedly) while conference size increases from 11 to 14, the AAC per school payout was cut from $7m per school per year to $5.5m.

The AAC remainers just internally decided to make the six noobs bear the total cost of that, sparing themselves. But the conference as a whole is at a $5.5m per school payout now, not $7m.

(05-28-2022 03:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 01:24 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 11:39 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  Pete Thamel has broken more news stories than anybody in major college sports the last few years. So is he wrong and/or just writing what Aresco tells him?

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...44710.html

Pete wrote that the schools expect themselves to remain whole. I'm sure they do! I'm sure Aresco told them that. I know that other ADs that are not in the AAC do *not* believe that story, and I have not yet heard an explanation from a TV industry person (either that I've personally talked to, or that I've read elsewhere) explain how this is possible.

I am just a loudmouth on the internet, but I have a plausible explanation.
1. ESPN has a policy (foolish in this case, but a policy) against imposing haircuts on leagues. (This part is conjecture)
--They'll do a lot to avoid reducing the contracted payouts. Reducing the contract to reflect the new value of the AAC is a last resort, barely an option in ESPN's planning process unless a league "forces ESPN's hand" (conjecture) UConn leaving led to a 1/12 reduction, the remaining 11 were "made whole". (Also conjecture)
2. ESPN blessed the expansion to 14, as the most valuable possible configuration of a post-UC/UH/UCF/UConn AAC. (Conjecture as well)
--more chum for ESPN+, low-audience games, but more more more live content.
--more "lottery tickets." In any given year, there are a couple of top 25 G5 teams, and ESPN owning 14 AAC teams plus 14 Sun Belt teams plus 12 MAC teams increases the odds that a 9-0 G5 team fills a spot on ESPN2 instead of FS1 or CBS-SN.
3. All it takes is for the 6 new AAC teams to take half-shares, 8 + 6*0.5 = 11.

Me? I'd have used the gutting of the AAC to rethink the entire contract, negotiate a voiding of the more valuable back-end years of the deal. But taht doesn't seem to be what ESPN did. I think a lot of your non-AAC AD friends think the way I do. But it only matters what ESPN thinks. And I don't think we have an example of ESPN reducing the value of an existing TV contract as a result of realignment.

The problem with "voiding the more valuable back-end years of the deal" is that if ESPN had done that, it would have made it more difficult to continue offering "balloon payments," in future negotiations with conferences.

As it is, the "balloon payments" approach (combined with the network's contractual right to renegotiate the broadcasting agreement on favorable terms) has already saved ESPN tens of $ millions - - for example - - because 4 of the 12 AAC schools that signed up for the 12-year broadcasting agreement are never going to receive the revenue from the most valuable back end years of the deal.

For that matter, ESPN could save additional tens of millions if the Big 12 were to take Memphis, SMU, and USF. In that event, they would only have to provide the "average $6.94 million/year" they agreed to provide to the five remaining AAC members (ECU, Navy/WSU, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa) - - assuming that all five of them remain in the conference through 2031-32. ESPN could end up saving well over a hundred $ million if enough of the original AAC schools depart for other conferences.

.

(05-28-2022 03:48 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 03:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 01:24 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 11:39 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  Pete Thamel has broken more news stories than anybody in major college sports the last few years. So is he wrong and/or just writing what Aresco tells him?

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...44710.html

Pete wrote that the schools expect themselves to remain whole. I'm sure they do! I'm sure Aresco told them that. I know that other ADs that are not in the AAC do *not* believe that story, and I have not yet heard an explanation from a TV industry person (either that I've personally talked to, or that I've read elsewhere) explain how this is possible.

I am just a loudmouth on the internet, but I have a plausible explanation.
1. ESPN has a policy (foolish in this case, but a policy) against imposing haircuts on leagues. (This part is conjecture)
--They'll do a lot to avoid reducing the contracted payouts. Reducing the contract to reflect the new value of the AAC is a last resort, barely an option in ESPN's planning process unless a league "forces ESPN's hand" (conjecture) UConn leaving led to a 1/12 reduction, the remaining 11 were "made whole". (Also conjecture)
2. ESPN blessed the expansion to 14, as the most valuable possible configuration of a post-UC/UH/UCF/UConn AAC. (Conjecture as well)
--more chum for ESPN+, low-audience games, but more more more live content.
--more "lottery tickets." In any given year, there are a couple of top 25 G5 teams, and ESPN owning 14 AAC teams plus 14 Sun Belt teams plus 12 MAC teams increases the odds that a 9-0 G5 team fills a spot on ESPN2 instead of FS1 or CBS-SN.
3. All it takes is for the 6 new AAC teams to take half-shares, 8 + 6*0.5 = 11.

Me? I'd have used the gutting of the AAC to rethink the entire contract, negotiate a voiding of the more valuable back-end years of the deal. But taht doesn't seem to be what ESPN did. I think a lot of your non-AAC AD friends think the way I do. But it only matters what ESPN thinks. And I don't think we have an example of ESPN reducing the value of an existing TV contract as a result of realignment.

The problem with "voiding the more valuable back-end years of the deal" is that if ESPN had done that, it would have made it more difficult to continue offering "balloon payments," in future negotiations with conferences.

As it is, the "balloon payments" approach (combined with the network's contractual right to renegotiate the broadcasting agreement on favorable terms) has already saved ESPN tens of $ millions - - for example - - because 4 of the 12 AAC schools that signed up for the 12-year broadcasting agreement are never going to receive the revenue from the most valuable back end years of the deal.

For that matter, ESPN could save additional tens of millions if the Big 12 were to take Memphis, SMU, and USF. In that event, they would only have to provide the "average $6.94 million/year" they agreed to provide to the five remaining AAC members (ECU, Navy/WSU, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa) - - assuming that all five of them remain in the conference through 2031-32. ESPN could end up saving well over a hundred $ million if enough of the original AAC schools depart for other conferences.

.

Except that these deals are not negotiated or signed on a "per school per year" basis. It's total dollars for total inventory, payments to the conference per year with the escalator - 5% according to the Ozanian article discussed here previously (don't know how accurate that 5% is). https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian...9412267dc9
Sure, the University president(s) at the negotiating table are doing that division in their heads. But look at the release presser - it's all about # of games, on different networks in their family, in different days/timeslots.
Conversation was probably along the lines of
AAC: We don't have any slam dunk replacement candidates now that the mwc schools said no.
Disney: We agree.
AAC: So, the payout...
Disney: We're going to need more inventory - replace that quality with quantity.
AAC: So we can't take the best couple and stop at ten?
Disney: More inventory
AAC: So we need to go to twelve to keep the original payout?
Disney: More inventory
AAC: Okay, I guess we go up to fourteen.
Disney: That sounds reasonable - 30% more inventory than your 11-team conference delivers.
AAC: Okay, don't love it, but okay.
Disney: Oh, and we'd appreciate it if you avoid properties we already control, please.
AAC: Dangnabbit.

(05-28-2022 12:30 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 10:01 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I continue to shake my head a bit when posters note with specificity the AAC is losing its "top three brands."

"Brand" should not be defined solely by recent success but, rather, by many metrics (including history, notoriety, etc.). I note this fully aware the the Big 12 invited UC, UH and UCF largely due to football.

As a Memphis and Cincinnati fan who has followed college athletics for about 50 years, here is how I see "AAC brands" (I'm sure some of you will disagree):

The top brands for combining academics, athletics, history, national notoriety, intangibles, etc. are Houston and Cincinnati.

The top academic brands are Tulane and SMU — with USF, Temple and Cincinnati very respectable.

The top basketball brands are Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati and Temple — with Wichita, Tulsa and SMU very respectable.

The top football brands are Houston and Navy — with SMU and Cincy very respectable. (Note: I do not include UCF with these four due to the Knights relatively brief football history. But the UCF football "brand" is building quickly.)

The top "intangible" brand is Navy (not even close).

The top "sports only" brand (not factoring academics, history, intangibles, etc.) might just be UCF, which has made impressive strides in multiple sports during a relatively brief time period.

There is no question that, if you consider the big picture, Houston, Cincy and UCF are three of the AAC's top all-around (sports, academics, etc.) brands. But they are joined by SMU, Memphis, Temple and Navy and perhaps even USF.

In short, for posters to note, definitively, that the AAC is losing its "top three brands" could suggest those posters are either lazily taking an overly simplistic approach to assessing the overall AAC membership make-up ... or hope to see the AAC falter and enjoy taking an easy "jab" at the league.

In an effort to be accurate, comprehensive and reasonable, this poster will continue to note the AAC is losing "three of its top brands."

They took 2 schools with multiple NY6 appearances apiece in the past 5 years. Those 2 have a collective 7 BCS/NY6 appearances in 15 years.

The third school has both a NY6 and a Final Four appearance since 2015 and located in a top-5 market. Memphis is also right there but there was only room for 3.

More importantly, the university presidents making the decisions and network executives being consulted determined these were the 3 biggest brands. It doesn’t matter who IWULT or bill dazzle think are the top-3 brands — it matters what the people in charge think.

Academics aren’t the factor for the Big 12 as they are for the B1G, PAC, or ACC. It’s clear the decision was athletics-dominated for P5 survivability.

”Top-3 brands” might be a simplistic generalization, but one rooted in current reality from recent relevant athletics success and the decisions the people in power made. If the university presidents and network executives felt different schools represented the top-3 brands, then those schools would have been selected.

I'm a Cincinnati fan and would like to think UC is the "top of the top" brand in the AAC.

And Houston is Houston, with lots of football and hoops history and a recently established medical school. UCF is a fast-emerging player both academically and athletically. No criticisms of those two.

I suppose my complaint is that some posters (and I do not think you are one IWULT) use the "top three brands" designation while failing to acknowledge the AAC retains some quality brands (as I noted in the previous post). Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to this issue given 1. I'm a Memphis fan; and 2. I hugely respect the three military academies (and, as such, Navy).

Maybe, to be fair, posters on this board realize the AAC will, in fact, retain some quality brands and they are simply quickly typing "top three brands" to keep it simple with their posts. No big deal.

(05-28-2022 03:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 03:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 01:24 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 11:39 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  Pete Thamel has broken more news stories than anybody in major college sports the last few years. So is he wrong and/or just writing what Aresco tells him?

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...44710.html

Pete wrote that the schools expect themselves to remain whole. I'm sure they do! I'm sure Aresco told them that. I know that other ADs that are not in the AAC do *not* believe that story, and I have not yet heard an explanation from a TV industry person (either that I've personally talked to, or that I've read elsewhere) explain how this is possible.

I am just a loudmouth on the internet, but I have a plausible explanation.
1. ESPN has a policy (foolish in this case, but a policy) against imposing haircuts on leagues. (This part is conjecture)
--They'll do a lot to avoid reducing the contracted payouts. Reducing the contract to reflect the new value of the AAC is a last resort, barely an option in ESPN's planning process unless a league "forces ESPN's hand" (conjecture) UConn leaving led to a 1/12 reduction, the remaining 11 were "made whole". (Also conjecture)
2. ESPN blessed the expansion to 14, as the most valuable possible configuration of a post-UC/UH/UCF/UConn AAC. (Conjecture as well)
--more chum for ESPN+, low-audience games, but more more more live content.
--more "lottery tickets." In any given year, there are a couple of top 25 G5 teams, and ESPN owning 14 AAC teams plus 14 Sun Belt teams plus 12 MAC teams increases the odds that a 9-0 G5 team fills a spot on ESPN2 instead of FS1 or CBS-SN.
3. All it takes is for the 6 new AAC teams to take half-shares, 8 + 6*0.5 = 11.

Me? I'd have used the gutting of the AAC to rethink the entire contract, negotiate a voiding of the more valuable back-end years of the deal. But taht doesn't seem to be what ESPN did. I think a lot of your non-AAC AD friends think the way I do. But it only matters what ESPN thinks. And I don't think we have an example of ESPN reducing the value of an existing TV contract as a result of realignment.

I think the bolded explains it. In reality, the AAC did not remain whole, not in the per-school sense that counts.

Who's counting? SMU, Tulsa, Wichita, Tulane, Memphis, ECU, Temple, Navy and South Florida remained whole. The 6 AAC noobs are better-than-whole.

That's more important, really, than our petty scoreboarding of MWC vs AAC average payouts.

Quote:With the gross ESPN payout the same (reportedly) while conference size increases from 11 to 14, the AAC per school payout was cut from $7m per school per year to $5.5m.

The AAC remainers just internally decided to make the six noobs bear the total cost of that, sparing themselves. But the conference as a whole is at a $5.5m per school payout now, not $7m.

Phrased that way, it's evidence that there is some value to the 6th and 7th most valuable football game, even if there are more people watching in the stands (which is not that many to start with) than watching from their couches.

That seems pretty unlikely to me. Seems more likely to me that corporate suits blindly followed a policy taht no longer makes sense in new conditions.

But we do have a data point for the value of more inventory-for-inventory's sake.

End of the day it made no sense for CSU and AF to jump to the AAC. Games vs Nevada, Wyoming and Utah State for example are much better rivals then the Rams going out to play ECU and USF. The only AAC opponent that would make sense is Navy for AF but they play each other already. Both wanted to play more Texas schools, and since the AAC decided to be stupid and over expand there is a good possibility the MWC could snag a few of them in a few seasons.

(05-28-2022 04:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 03:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 03:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 01:24 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 11:39 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  Pete Thamel has broken more news stories than anybody in major college sports the last few years. So is he wrong and/or just writing what Aresco tells him?

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...44710.html

Pete wrote that the schools expect themselves to remain whole. I'm sure they do! I'm sure Aresco told them that. I know that other ADs that are not in the AAC do *not* believe that story, and I have not yet heard an explanation from a TV industry person (either that I've personally talked to, or that I've read elsewhere) explain how this is possible.

I am just a loudmouth on the internet, but I have a plausible explanation.
1. ESPN has a policy (foolish in this case, but a policy) against imposing haircuts on leagues. (This part is conjecture)
--They'll do a lot to avoid reducing the contracted payouts. Reducing the contract to reflect the new value of the AAC is a last resort, barely an option in ESPN's planning process unless a league "forces ESPN's hand" (conjecture) UConn leaving led to a 1/12 reduction, the remaining 11 were "made whole". (Also conjecture)
2. ESPN blessed the expansion to 14, as the most valuable possible configuration of a post-UC/UH/UCF/UConn AAC. (Conjecture as well)
--more chum for ESPN+, low-audience games, but more more more live content.
--more "lottery tickets." In any given year, there are a couple of top 25 G5 teams, and ESPN owning 14 AAC teams plus 14 Sun Belt teams plus 12 MAC teams increases the odds that a 9-0 G5 team fills a spot on ESPN2 instead of FS1 or CBS-SN.
3. All it takes is for the 6 new AAC teams to take half-shares, 8 + 6*0.5 = 11.

Me? I'd have used the gutting of the AAC to rethink the entire contract, negotiate a voiding of the more valuable back-end years of the deal. But taht doesn't seem to be what ESPN did. I think a lot of your non-AAC AD friends think the way I do. But it only matters what ESPN thinks. And I don't think we have an example of ESPN reducing the value of an existing TV contract as a result of realignment.

I think the bolded explains it. In reality, the AAC did not remain whole, not in the per-school sense that counts.

Who's counting? SMU, Tulsa, Wichita, Tulane, Memphis, ECU, Temple, Navy and South Florida remained whole. The 6 AAC noobs are better-than-whole.

That's more important, really, than our petty scoreboarding of MWC vs AAC average payouts.

Quote:With the gross ESPN payout the same (reportedly) while conference size increases from 11 to 14, the AAC per school payout was cut from $7m per school per year to $5.5m.

The AAC remainers just internally decided to make the six noobs bear the total cost of that, sparing themselves. But the conference as a whole is at a $5.5m per school payout now, not $7m.

Phrased that way, it's evidence that there is some value to the 6th and 7th most valuable football game, even if there are more people watching in the stands (which is not that many to start with) than watching from their couches.

That seems pretty unlikely to me. Seems more likely to me that corporate suits blindly followed a policy taht no longer makes sense in new conditions.

But we do have a data point for the value of more inventory-for-inventory's sake.

About the bolded, I have no illusions that anything we say on this forum about AAC vs MW matters to anyone outside of this forum, LOL.

But since we do compare conference payout, IMO it makes sense to be accurate. And as a result of the 'realignment' of 2021, I think it is accurate to say that the AAC payout is now $5.5m per school, down from $7m per school.

(05-28-2022 05:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 04:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 03:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 03:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 01:24 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  Pete wrote that the schools expect themselves to remain whole. I'm sure they do! I'm sure Aresco told them that. I know that other ADs that are not in the AAC do *not* believe that story, and I have not yet heard an explanation from a TV industry person (either that I've personally talked to, or that I've read elsewhere) explain how this is possible.

I am just a loudmouth on the internet, but I have a plausible explanation.
1. ESPN has a policy (foolish in this case, but a policy) against imposing haircuts on leagues. (This part is conjecture)
--They'll do a lot to avoid reducing the contracted payouts. Reducing the contract to reflect the new value of the AAC is a last resort, barely an option in ESPN's planning process unless a league "forces ESPN's hand" (conjecture) UConn leaving led to a 1/12 reduction, the remaining 11 were "made whole". (Also conjecture)
2. ESPN blessed the expansion to 14, as the most valuable possible configuration of a post-UC/UH/UCF/UConn AAC. (Conjecture as well)
--more chum for ESPN+, low-audience games, but more more more live content.
--more "lottery tickets." In any given year, there are a couple of top 25 G5 teams, and ESPN owning 14 AAC teams plus 14 Sun Belt teams plus 12 MAC teams increases the odds that a 9-0 G5 team fills a spot on ESPN2 instead of FS1 or CBS-SN.
3. All it takes is for the 6 new AAC teams to take half-shares, 8 + 6*0.5 = 11.

Me? I'd have used the gutting of the AAC to rethink the entire contract, negotiate a voiding of the more valuable back-end years of the deal. But taht doesn't seem to be what ESPN did. I think a lot of your non-AAC AD friends think the way I do. But it only matters what ESPN thinks. And I don't think we have an example of ESPN reducing the value of an existing TV contract as a result of realignment.

I think the bolded explains it. In reality, the AAC did not remain whole, not in the per-school sense that counts.

Who's counting? SMU, Tulsa, Wichita, Tulane, Memphis, ECU, Temple, Navy and South Florida remained whole. The 6 AAC noobs are better-than-whole.

That's more important, really, than our petty scoreboarding of MWC vs AAC average payouts.

Quote:With the gross ESPN payout the same (reportedly) while conference size increases from 11 to 14, the AAC per school payout was cut from $7m per school per year to $5.5m.

The AAC remainers just internally decided to make the six noobs bear the total cost of that, sparing themselves. But the conference as a whole is at a $5.5m per school payout now, not $7m.

Phrased that way, it's evidence that there is some value to the 6th and 7th most valuable football game, even if there are more people watching in the stands (which is not that many to start with) than watching from their couches.

That seems pretty unlikely to me. Seems more likely to me that corporate suits blindly followed a policy taht no longer makes sense in new conditions.

But we do have a data point for the value of more inventory-for-inventory's sake.

About the bolded, I have no illusions that anything we say on this forum about AAC vs MW matters to anyone outside of this forum, LOL.

But since we do compare conference payout, IMO it makes sense to be accurate. And as a result of the 'realignment' of 2021, I think it is accurate to say that the AAC payout is now $5.5m per school, down from $7m per school.

I think it's more accurate to divide the AAC into 2 groups. The AAC leftovers are at $7M per, ahead of the MWC. The AAC noobs are at $3.5M per, barely ahead of the MWC except for Boise. And below that are the payouts for the Sun Belt, MAC and CUSA.

I think we’re getting a little caught up with the language of brands. Your best brands are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning, particularly among the G5. Winning in football is also far more important than winning in basketball.

Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston football all did a fair amount of winning in the AAC which pushed them to the top of the list when a P5 needed replacements.

Likewise, in the new 14 school AAC, whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top brands. That could mean Memphis, ECU, USF, SMU, etc.

To the OP, I think Colorado St and AFA missed an opportunity when the AAC sought them out. It would have meant getting away from Boise and the assymetric MWC tv contract.

(05-28-2022 06:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  "I think we’re getting a little caught up with the language of brands..."

"Your best brands are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top brands..."

True, we are caught up with the language of brands, and as long as we're caught up in that language, it may be helpful to clarify that there is a difference worth noting between a (generic) "brand" and a "brand name" (see below).

For example, there are different (generic) "brands" of "football" (American football is one, soccer is another, and rugby is a third generic brand of football).


The main point is that, rather than referring (broadly) to "brands" in these discussions, we're actually referring more specifically to the schools/teams' "brand names."

Thus, to rephrase the statements above,

"Your best (brand names) are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top (brand names)..."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It's also interesting to note that there seem to be two definitions of a brand name in college athletics:

1) Historical legacy (dating back multiple decades; e.g., Indiana MBB), and

2) "Winning," or "whoever is hot" (e.g., Gonzaga).


1. Legacy: There are many examples of FB and BB schools/programs that have a brand name associated with a well-established legacy of success, even though they are not currently "winning" or "hot."

---For example, WKU is ranked #21st on the CBS list of the greatest college basketball programs of all time, even though they haven't appeared in the last 8 NCAA tournaments.

---Notably, a school may have a legacy in football or basketball, or both.

---Thus, in the arena of collegiate athletics, "Duke" has a brand name due in particular to its men's basketball program.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time/

2. "Winning:" Just as there are "legacy" programs that aren't "hot," there are "hot" programs that don't have a legacy dating back more than a decade.

---For example, most observers of the sport would agree that Appalachian State has established at least an incipient brand name for itself in college football circles (but not in basketball), due to having won an average of 10 wins per season in their 8 years as an FBS program.


.

Why the two ways of defining of "brand name" in collegiate sports matter with regard to this discussion:

1. From the standpoint of historical legacy, the AAC has had, and will continue to have a number of "brand names," including:

• Navy - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1924 Rose Bowl.
  .
• SMU - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1936 Rose Bowl.
  .
• Tulane - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1932 Rose Bowl.
  .
• Rice - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1938 Cotton Bowl.
  .
• Memphis - ranked #34th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
  .
• Temple - ranked #24th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
  .
• Wichita St. - ranked #60th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
  

2. In addition, recent "brand names" from the standpoint of winning have included:

• Navy - top 25 football teams in 2019 & 2015; 7 bowl games (5-2) since 2011.
  .
• Memphis - top 25 FB teams in 2019, 2017, 2014, & 7 bowl games since 2011.
  .
• UTSA - top 25 football team in December, 2021 AP poll.
  .
• Memphis - 2022 NCAA tournament team; 2021 NIT championship team.
  .
• Wichita St. - 8 NCAA tournament teams since 2011 (2012-2018 & 2021).
  .
• Recent NCAA tournament teams: UAB (2022), UNT (2021), Temple (2019).
  

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Definitions of the generic term "brand" and the more specific term, "brand name:"

Generic definitions of "brand:"

": a public image, reputation, or identity conceived of as something to be marketed or promoted"

: a characteristic or distinctive kind
e.g., "a lively brand of theater"


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

Definition of "brand-name"

1: of or relating to a brand name
brand-name products
2: having a well-known and usually highly regarded or marketable name

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand%20name

NOTE: "Brand" may also refer to a "make" (as in manufacturer) of a product (e.g., a vehicle, such as a "Ram" truck).

(05-29-2022 05:22 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 06:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  "I think we’re getting a little caught up with the language of brands..."

"Your best brands are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top brands..."

True, we are caught up with the language of brands, and as long as we're caught up in that language, it may be helpful to clarify that there is a difference worth noting between a (generic) "brand" and a "brand name" (see below).

For example, there are different (generic) "brands" of "football" (American football is one, soccer is another, and rugby is a third generic brand of football).


The main point is that, rather than referring (broadly) to "brands" in these discussions, we're actually referring more specifically to the schools/teams' "brand names."

Thus, to rephrase the statements above,

"Your best (brand names) are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top (brand names)..."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It's also interesting to note that there seem to be two definitions of a brand name in college athletics:

1) Historical legacy (dating back multiple decades; e.g., Indiana MBB), and

2) "Winning," or "whoever is hot" (e.g., Gonzaga).


1. Legacy: There are many examples of FB and BB schools/programs that have a brand name associated with a well-established legacy of success, even though they are not currently "winning" or "hot."

---For example, WKU is ranked #21st on the CBS list of the greatest college basketball programs of all time, even though they haven't appeared in the last 8 NCAA tournaments.

---Notably, a school may have a legacy in football or basketball, or both.

---Thus, in the arena of collegiate athletics, "Duke" has a brand name due in particular to its men's basketball program.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time/

2. "Winning:" Just as there are "legacy" programs that aren't "hot," there are "hot" programs that don't have a legacy dating back more than a decade.

---For example, most observers of the sport would agree that Appalachian State has established at least an incipient brand name for itself in college football circles (but not in basketball), due to having won an average of 10 wins per season in their 8 years as an FBS program.


.

Why the two ways of defining of "brand name" in collegiate sports matter with regard to this discussion:

1. From the standpoint of historical legacy, the AAC has had, and will continue to have a number of "brand names," including:

• Navy - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1924 Rose Bowl.
  .
• SMU - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1936 Rose Bowl.
  .
• Tulane - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1932 Rose Bowl.
  .
• Rice - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1938 Cotton Bowl.
  .
• Memphis - ranked #34th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
  .
• Temple - ranked #24th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
  .
• Wichita St. - ranked #60th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
  

2. In addition, recent "brand names" from the standpoint of winning have included:

• Navy - top 25 football teams in 2019 & 2015; 7 bowl games (5-2) since 2011.
  .
• Memphis - top 25 FB teams in 2019, 2017, 2014, & 7 bowl games since 2011.
  .
• UTSA - top 25 football team in December, 2021 AP poll.
  .
• Memphis - 2022 NCAA tournament team; 2021 NIT championship team.
  .
• Wichita St. - 8 NCAA tournament teams since 2011 (2012-2018 & 2021).
  .
• Recent NCAA tournament teams: UAB (2022), UNT (2021), Temple (2019).
  

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Definitions of the generic term "brand" and the more specific term, "brand name:"

Generic definitions of "brand:"

": a public image, reputation, or identity conceived of as something to be marketed or promoted"

: a characteristic or distinctive kind
e.g., "a lively brand of theater"


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

Definition of "brand-name"

1: of or relating to a brand name
brand-name products
2: having a well-known and usually highly regarded or marketable name

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand%20name

NOTE: "Brand" may also refer to a "make" (as in manufacturer) of a product (e.g., a vehicle, such as a "Ram" truck).

Your definition and list of "brand names" isn't very exclusive. Ipana is a brand name toothpaste by your definition.

You don't even have to be very good in sports to be on it. You certainly don't have to be very valuable. Just the occasional good season will do. But being on your list won't get you an invitation to play with the big dogs.