Can we lure a Boise, BYU, etc?
I don't want boise personally. Byu and Army would probably bring $$ to the table (and certainly name recognition). I doubt Army would want to come though. Not really any solid options.
Boise can take a long walk off a short pier, they bailed on us, F-them.
Why would they bump our pay way up and when do you figure this is going to happen ?
(03-30-2014 06:36 PM)ncbeta Wrote: [ -> ]I don't want boise personally. Byu and Army would probably bring $$ to the table (and certainly name recognition). I doubt Army would want to come though. Not really any solid options.
Maybe what you want to do if you are the AAC is renegotiate on performances of the past year and then when 2018 comes around in advance of the next CFP and bowl cycle go ahead to expand for another boost.
That way the AAC can keep dipping for more TV cash every couple of years over tying a renegotiation to one nice expansion.
(03-30-2014 06:39 PM)CincyBro Wrote: [ -> ]Why would they bump our pay way up and when do you figure this is going to happen ?
It's not happening unless we add BYU, Army, or some untapped markets.....
(03-30-2014 06:39 PM)CincyBro Wrote: [ -> ]Why would they bump our pay way up and when do you figure this is going to happen ?
Because we have a look-in soon and I would imagine Aresco pushes for more money at that point. We have a short term tv contract.
As to why, performance, maturity of programs, more stability.....
Is the "look in" period anything more than an early exclusive negotiating window that ESPN has to offer an extension with new terms? Kind of like the Big East offer they made (that was rejected) in 2011?
(03-30-2014 06:45 PM)NBPirate Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2014 06:39 PM)CincyBro Wrote: [ -> ]Why would they bump our pay way up and when do you figure this is going to happen ?
Because we have a look-in soon and I would imagine Aresco pushes for more money at that point. We have a short term tv contract.
As to why, performance, maturity of programs, more stability.....
Army and Air Force....
(03-30-2014 06:46 PM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2014 06:45 PM)NBPirate Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2014 06:39 PM)CincyBro Wrote: [ -> ]Why would they bump our pay way up and when do you figure this is going to happen ?
Because we have a look-in soon and I would imagine Aresco pushes for more money at that point. We have a short term tv contract.
As to why, performance, maturity of programs, more stability.....
Army and Air Force....
I agree with this^.....
IF we could land Army, I think Air Force would consider joining. However, we would need a real all sports western division.....
(03-30-2014 06:37 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote: [ -> ]Boise can take a long walk off a short pier, they bailed on us, F-them.
Agree with this 110%. I also don't care much for BYU either and honestly don't think they care as much about $$$ amounts as people think.
All that said, I don't see ESPN bumping our pay way up.
(03-30-2014 06:45 PM)NBPirate Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2014 06:39 PM)CincyBro Wrote: [ -> ]Why would they bump our pay way up and when do you figure this is going to happen ?
Because we have a look-in soon and I would imagine Aresco pushes for more money at that point. We have a short term tv contract.
As to why, performance, maturity of programs, more stability.....
Army has said repeatedly they are not coming, BYU would join the Big 12 before the AAC and just as if UC or UConn would not cause any tv bump by joining, say, the Big 12, nobody joining the AAC next year would be a cause for any kind of a tv bump in pay. Sorry, just the way it is and why would ESPN want to raise our contract ?
Someone on the realignment board keeps saying Aresco is going to be in talks with ESPN about $$ very soon... I believe it was Redvolution, if you see this and would care to expand on it.
(03-30-2014 06:45 PM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]Is the "look in" period anything more than an early exclusive negotiating window that ESPN has to offer an extension with new terms? Kind of like the Big East offer they made (that was rejected) in 2011?
Yes. ESPN would not just bump our pay because they feel we deserve it. They would bump our pay in exchange for an extension of the contract length. If they bump it significantly, we will take it this time. We aint gunna be Mr Stupid no more.
So what would be considered a solid payday?
(03-30-2014 07:01 PM)ncbeta Wrote: [ -> ]Someone on the realignment board keeps saying Aresco is going to be in talks with ESPN about $$ very soon... I believe it was Redvolution, if you see this and would care to expand on it.
I was under the impression the look in was at the halfway point, which is still 2-3 years away. That said, ESPN can come to us anytime they want and say, "Hey, Mike---we like what we see and we would like to talk about an extension." If both parties agree to it---they can talk any time they want. If they don't come to a new agreement, the existing agreement would simply stay in place.
Why would they bump up our pay anytime soon
(03-30-2014 07:09 PM)ncbeta Wrote: [ -> ]So what would be considered a solid payday?
There's probably a difference between "solid" and "realistic". To me, 50% of what power conference schools earn is "solid". I'd put that at 10-12 million. "Realistic" is probably 4-7 million a school.
Add no one. Build the brand. Most people have no idea whom is in the American.
Add Army football and UMass all-sports...with a little luck we could get 3.5-4 million per team and maybe even up our already good exposure.