(05-05-2017 12:34 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 10:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]And FWIW, "Power Conference" was a BCS-era term that applied to bowl contracts, but it died w/ the BCS. Instead, "Group" was briefly used to describe conferences w/ a huge media deal and "Gang" was used to describe those that didn't. But those terms were too similar, especially in football, so the "Power Conference" nomenclature was resurrected to replace the term "Group."
To further prove the distinction, the AAC was a Power Conference in the last year of the BCS, but it's never been referred to as a "Power Conference" under the current setup.
no matter what yo try and claim the bolded statement is 100% false
the term "power conference" did not die with the BCS it only became stronger and much more meaningful and much more used than in the past
the terms BCS and AQ died with the BCS
there is simply nothing for you to argue that will change this FACT
nobody discusses the "gang of five" Vs the "group of 5"
there is no other term for the power conferences in use now other than P5 with the P coming from the word POWER
the terms that dies with the BCS were BCS and AQ.....the terms that became the terms used by everyone post BCS were P5 and G5 for Power 5 and Group of 5 with the P coming from POWER and the G coming from Group
what terms are you trying to say that everyone uses for the P5 now?
do you have any term at all that ANYONE of relevance has used for the P5 other than power conference or P5 in the post BCS/AQ era
I suppose we could use the terms Former BCS/AQ Conferences With The Exception Of The Old Big East/AAC
but somehow at least to me FBCS/AQCWTEOTOBEAAC just does not rioll off the tongue
neither does The Conferences That Were Never BCS/AC With The Exception Of The AAC That Had One Year Of The Old BE AQ
again perhaps it is just me, but TCTWNBCS/AQWTEOTAACTHOYOTOBEAQ just doesn't seem to roll off the tongue either
I have never seen a discussion of the FBCS/AQCWTEOTOBEAAC Vs TCTWNBCS/AQWTEOTAACTHOYOTOBEAQ
but I have seen a million discussions on this forum and across the WWW discussing the P5 and the G5 with everyone (except apparently one) understanding that P is for "power 5" or "power conferences"
again what term are you claiming is in use now that pretty much no one else on earth uses since you claim the term "power conferences" died with the BCS/AQ era......never mind that the terms BCS/AQ that were used frequently during that era are the terms that are no longer relevant
also excluding the fact that in the BCS/AQ era the BCA/AQ conferences still had one vote per conference just like all the non-BCS/AQ and never mind that back then the financial differences coming from the BCS/AQ and the associated games were not nearly as substantial and the financial differences with the $50 million per year P% playoff payment and the NY6 payments
which goes to the irrefutable FACT that the P5 conferences "power conferences" have only become MORE POWERFUL post BCS/AQ and since they are also no longer BCS/AQ conferences because the BCS/AQ is gone......well they terms BCS/AQ died and the term POWER 5 or POWER CONFERENCE or P% have instead become the terms USED NOW
"...'Power Conference' was a BCS-era term that applied to bowl contracts, but it died w/ the BCS. Instead,
'Group' was briefly used to describe conferences w/ a huge media deal and 'Gang' was used to describe those that didn't.
But those terms were too similar, especially in football,
so the "Power Conference" nomenclature was resurrected to replace the term 'Group.'"
That's what I wrote. Writing War and Peace to argue that the term "Power Conference" is still used today and that nobody argues about Group of 5 vs. Gang of 5 was made irrelevant by the bolded words.
I didn't write anything that's wrong. Heck, I didn't even write anything controversial. The term "Power Conference" was 100% used to describe AQ BCS conferences. Additionally, there was 100% a period where everything was in flux (~summer of 2011), and 5 conference commissioners met to hammer out their demands for a new football post season. If you go back and read articles from the time, they very rarely (if ever) reference the term "Power Conference." They might call the Big East a former "Power Conference" when discussing how it used to have a AQ BCS bid, but that's it. Instead, those conference commissioners were 100% called the "Group of 5," and the term "Gang of 5" soon followed to describe the 5 conference commissioners who were not included in the group. But g5 vs G5 was far too confusing, and the terms blurred. So, the old "Power Conference" nomenclature was resurrected.
Your War and Peace is, was, and as far as I can tell, always will be overwhelmingly irrelevant. Like I said in an earlier post, re-evaluate your position.
(05-05-2017 01:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]"...'Power Conference' was a BCS-era term that applied to bowl contracts, but it died w/ the BCS. Instead, 'Group' was briefly used to describe conferences w/ a huge media deal and 'Gang' was used to describe those that didn't. But those terms were too similar, especially in football, so the "Power Conference" nomenclature was resurrected to replace the term 'Group.'"
Using "Group of Five" for the five conference with individual CFP deals had an even larger problem than some people in the media calling the five (remaining) "non-Contract-bowl" FBS conference the "Gang of Five" ... that is that some of the
people directly describing the CFP negotiations themselves called the five "other" FBS conferences the "Group of Five", for the obvious reason that they were negotiating
as a group.
Using the exact same term for the opposite halves of FBS could not stand. Since it was
necessary to report on the Group of Five
as a group whenever talking about the details of the CFP, and because they were arriving at formal agreements to divide up millions of dollars, the more formal sounding "Group of Five" stuck for the "non-Contract-Bowl" group, and the "Gang of Five" didn't.
(05-04-2017 09:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).
I get it but what happens when five or ten years later AAC isn't invited into "the club"?
I believe in under-promise and over-deliver. I don't think the odds favor being able to deliver all 12 members of AAC into "the club".
I said this elsewhere. To be clear---their not getting invited to the "club" (at least in my lifetime). Aresco has his schools committed to building a power 6 conference. Clearly, the belief within the conference is there is value in developing into a league that would be widely considered to be near P5 quality.
Ive heard enough interviews with Mohajir to know he preaches building toward the schools you want to be with. What happens if ASU is still in the Sunbelt in 5 years, but is a vastly improved sports program? You think the fans are going to force him out? That's silly.
lol....If you guys did that I hope we grab him I like your AD better than ours.
Terry never says we want join conference X.
He says we need to do 1, 2, 3 to be like the schools we measure ourselves against.
Aresco says we are using the P5 as our measuring stick and this is what we have to do to measure up it is a very different thing from saying get in the club.
(05-04-2017 09:24 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 08:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 04:46 PM)Shox Wrote: [ -> ]Laugh all you want, but it is pretty damn refreshing to be in a conference that is actively trying to better itself. As long as we have USF. Cinci, Houston, UCONN, and SMU, all ex members of the cartel, WE have a case.
Not one of those schools were in "the club" when the BCS formed. The one that was Temple, you didn't mention was in and sent packing after seven years of the BCS. Cincinnati, UConn and USF were backfill seven years after the BCS started. Houston, SMU, and UCF got one year as backfill additions.
Conferences can try to better themselves without setting out a goal that is essentially impossible to achieve.
Houston and SMU were in the club.
There was no analogous club when they were in SWC. No special voting rights group, no crazy money post-season partnership of all the elite leagues.
(05-04-2017 11:09 AM)stxrunner Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 09:51 AM)BigHouston Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2017 05:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]Power Conference = conference's w/ high media payouts
The AAC is correct in that there are 6 of them. But the AAC isn't one. The 6 are:
1. SEC
2. Big Ten
3. ACC
4. PAC 12
5. Big XII
6. ???
FIFY ^^^
The NEWbigeast does NOT have football
Look at it this way... Is like purchasing a vehicle with no engine in it.
Here's how I see it, if the Nbigeast wants view themselves as a power conference than man up with football but even if they did, they'll be a league full of startups... Not gonna happen, well, not in this life time at least.
The Big East makes more TV money for just basketball than the G5 leagues do for both football and basketball. I personally think that makes them smart as opposed to some amorphous "man up" macho crap being propagated by the G5 conferences. Once again, the Big East make more TV money than the G5... and that's basically the only scoreboard that matters in conference realignment. It would be more fruitful if the G5 leagues would quit whining about it and/or pretend that they're more powerful simply because that they have football and figure out WHY the Big East is valued more in the marketplace for just basketball when the G5 teams are hemorrhaging trying to compete in FBS football.
The Big East found a valuable niche and they maximized their value in such niche with consistent branding and institutional fit, whereas the G5 leagues are hodgepodge leagues that are still deluding themselves in believing that they can ever achieve power status. There might very well be a handful of individual G5 *schools* that have a legitimate shot of moving up to power status, but people need to quit pretending that there will EVER be a thing known as the "Power 6" or "Power 7" or anything more than the current Power 5. A power conference (such as the Big 12) is more likely to be wiped out than a G5 conference ever getting elevated.
Except the criteria he stated was conferences that have high TV contracts. The nBE has less than a quarter of the TV contract of the lowest P5. They can't realistically be in that discussion.
I said this in another thread and everyone claimed I was crazy......
Compare the Big East and AAC for a moment. The Big East makes like 4 mil per team and the AAC makes like 2 mil per team. The AAC has much better exposure being on ESPN.
Now compare that to the Big 10 teams who are making over 30+ million per team in media payouts. I'm not sure in what reality 4 million is comparing to 30+ and counting.....with much more exposure.
(05-05-2017 08:47 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 11:09 AM)stxrunner Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 09:51 AM)BigHouston Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2017 05:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]Power Conference = conference's w/ high media payouts
The AAC is correct in that there are 6 of them. But the AAC isn't one. The 6 are:
1. SEC
2. Big Ten
3. ACC
4. PAC 12
5. Big XII
6. ???
FIFY ^^^
The NEWbigeast does NOT have football
Look at it this way... Is like purchasing a vehicle with no engine in it.
Here's how I see it, if the Nbigeast wants view themselves as a power conference than man up with football but even if they did, they'll be a league full of startups... Not gonna happen, well, not in this life time at least.
The Big East makes more TV money for just basketball than the G5 leagues do for both football and basketball. I personally think that makes them smart as opposed to some amorphous "man up" macho crap being propagated by the G5 conferences. Once again, the Big East make more TV money than the G5... and that's basically the only scoreboard that matters in conference realignment. It would be more fruitful if the G5 leagues would quit whining about it and/or pretend that they're more powerful simply because that they have football and figure out WHY the Big East is valued more in the marketplace for just basketball when the G5 teams are hemorrhaging trying to compete in FBS football.
The Big East found a valuable niche and they maximized their value in such niche with consistent branding and institutional fit, whereas the G5 leagues are hodgepodge leagues that are still deluding themselves in believing that they can ever achieve power status. There might very well be a handful of individual G5 *schools* that have a legitimate shot of moving up to power status, but people need to quit pretending that there will EVER be a thing known as the "Power 6" or "Power 7" or anything more than the current Power 5. A power conference (such as the Big 12) is more likely to be wiped out than a G5 conference ever getting elevated.
Except the criteria he stated was conferences that have high TV contracts. The nBE has less than a quarter of the TV contract of the lowest P5. They can't realistically be in that discussion.
I said this in another thread and everyone claimed I was crazy......
Compare the Big East and AAC for a moment. The Big East makes like 4 mil per team and the AAC makes like 2 mil per team. The AAC has much better exposure being on ESPN.
Now compare that to the Big 10 teams who are making over 30+ million per team in media payouts. I'm not sure in what reality 4 million is comparing to 30+ and counting.....with much more exposure.
I don't think anyone is saying that the Big East is equal to the P5 in terms of power. However, they are definitely maximizing their revenue in the other sport that has any relevance for TV purposes (basketball). That obviously cannot be said for the G5 leagues.
And yes, ESPN inherently provides more exposure, but a test pattern on ESPN could probably draw high ratings compared to FS1. The mistake waaaaaaay too many G5 fans make are thinking that the higher G5 ratings on ESPN have anything to do with the G5 leagues themselves. It's simply the power of the ESPN platform... which means that the G5 leagues will get zero credit for those ratings when it comes to negotiate new contracts. The people in the TV business know when a league actually brings people to a channel as opposed to the channel bringing a league to the people. The former group (the P5 leagues) gets paid a huge premium, whereas the latter gets paid like a commodity. The general belief among TV people is that the Big East falls into the former category at least for basketball (which is why the Big East gets paid the way that it gets paid).
(05-05-2017 09:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2017 08:47 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 11:09 AM)stxrunner Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 09:51 AM)BigHouston Wrote: [ -> ]FIFY ^^^
The NEWbigeast does NOT have football
Look at it this way... Is like purchasing a vehicle with no engine in it.
Here's how I see it, if the Nbigeast wants view themselves as a power conference than man up with football but even if they did, they'll be a league full of startups... Not gonna happen, well, not in this life time at least.
The Big East makes more TV money for just basketball than the G5 leagues do for both football and basketball. I personally think that makes them smart as opposed to some amorphous "man up" macho crap being propagated by the G5 conferences. Once again, the Big East make more TV money than the G5... and that's basically the only scoreboard that matters in conference realignment. It would be more fruitful if the G5 leagues would quit whining about it and/or pretend that they're more powerful simply because that they have football and figure out WHY the Big East is valued more in the marketplace for just basketball when the G5 teams are hemorrhaging trying to compete in FBS football.
The Big East found a valuable niche and they maximized their value in such niche with consistent branding and institutional fit, whereas the G5 leagues are hodgepodge leagues that are still deluding themselves in believing that they can ever achieve power status. There might very well be a handful of individual G5 *schools* that have a legitimate shot of moving up to power status, but people need to quit pretending that there will EVER be a thing known as the "Power 6" or "Power 7" or anything more than the current Power 5. A power conference (such as the Big 12) is more likely to be wiped out than a G5 conference ever getting elevated.
Except the criteria he stated was conferences that have high TV contracts. The nBE has less than a quarter of the TV contract of the lowest P5. They can't realistically be in that discussion.
I said this in another thread and everyone claimed I was crazy......
Compare the Big East and AAC for a moment. The Big East makes like 4 mil per team and the AAC makes like 2 mil per team. The AAC has much better exposure being on ESPN.
Now compare that to the Big 10 teams who are making over 30+ million per team in media payouts. I'm not sure in what reality 4 million is comparing to 30+ and counting.....with much more exposure.
I don't think anyone is saying that the Big East is equal to the P5 in terms of power. However, they are definitely maximizing their revenue in the other sport that has any relevance for TV purposes (basketball). That obviously cannot be said for the G5 leagues.
And yes, ESPN inherently provides more exposure, but a test pattern on ESPN could probably draw high ratings compared to FS1. The mistake waaaaaaay too many G5 fans make are thinking that the higher G5 ratings on ESPN have anything to do with the G5 leagues themselves. It's simply the power of the ESPN platform... which means that the G5 leagues will get zero credit for those ratings when it comes to negotiate new contracts. The people in the TV business know when a league actually brings people to a channel as opposed to the channel bringing a league to the people. The former group (the P5 leagues) gets paid a huge premium, whereas the latter gets paid like a commodity. The general belief among TV people is that the Big East falls into the former category at least for basketball (which is why the Big East gets paid the way that it gets paid).
A couple of caveats. Its still entirely possible that the AAC and the Big East are actually very similar in "value"---the real difference being that the AAC took less money to be on a premium platform while the Big East took a monetary premium to be on an inferior platform. Its also worth noting that the game isn't over yet. The Big East deal is 12 years where as the AAC deal is only about half as long. The AAC could very well still exceed the Big East earnings while staying on a premium platform---we will have to wait and see how the second half of the comparison develops.
(05-05-2017 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2017 09:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2017 08:47 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 11:09 AM)stxrunner Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]The Big East makes more TV money for just basketball than the G5 leagues do for both football and basketball. I personally think that makes them smart as opposed to some amorphous "man up" macho crap being propagated by the G5 conferences. Once again, the Big East make more TV money than the G5... and that's basically the only scoreboard that matters in conference realignment. It would be more fruitful if the G5 leagues would quit whining about it and/or pretend that they're more powerful simply because that they have football and figure out WHY the Big East is valued more in the marketplace for just basketball when the G5 teams are hemorrhaging trying to compete in FBS football.
The Big East found a valuable niche and they maximized their value in such niche with consistent branding and institutional fit, whereas the G5 leagues are hodgepodge leagues that are still deluding themselves in believing that they can ever achieve power status. There might very well be a handful of individual G5 *schools* that have a legitimate shot of moving up to power status, but people need to quit pretending that there will EVER be a thing known as the "Power 6" or "Power 7" or anything more than the current Power 5. A power conference (such as the Big 12) is more likely to be wiped out than a G5 conference ever getting elevated.
Except the criteria he stated was conferences that have high TV contracts. The nBE has less than a quarter of the TV contract of the lowest P5. They can't realistically be in that discussion.
I said this in another thread and everyone claimed I was crazy......
Compare the Big East and AAC for a moment. The Big East makes like 4 mil per team and the AAC makes like 2 mil per team. The AAC has much better exposure being on ESPN.
Now compare that to the Big 10 teams who are making over 30+ million per team in media payouts. I'm not sure in what reality 4 million is comparing to 30+ and counting.....with much more exposure.
I don't think anyone is saying that the Big East is equal to the P5 in terms of power. However, they are definitely maximizing their revenue in the other sport that has any relevance for TV purposes (basketball). That obviously cannot be said for the G5 leagues.
And yes, ESPN inherently provides more exposure, but a test pattern on ESPN could probably draw high ratings compared to FS1. The mistake waaaaaaay too many G5 fans make are thinking that the higher G5 ratings on ESPN have anything to do with the G5 leagues themselves. It's simply the power of the ESPN platform... which means that the G5 leagues will get zero credit for those ratings when it comes to negotiate new contracts. The people in the TV business know when a league actually brings people to a channel as opposed to the channel bringing a league to the people. The former group (the P5 leagues) gets paid a huge premium, whereas the latter gets paid like a commodity. The general belief among TV people is that the Big East falls into the former category at least for basketball (which is why the Big East gets paid the way that it gets paid).
A couple of caveats. Its still entirely possible that the AAC and the Big East are actually very similar in "value"---the real difference being that the AAC took less money to be on a premium platform while the Big East took a monetary premium to be on an inferior platform. Its also worth noting that the game isn't over yet. The Big East deal is 12 years where as the AAC deal is only about half as long. The AAC could very well still exceed the Big East earnings while staying on a premium platform---we will have to wait and see how the second half of the comparison develops.
This is true w/ 2 important notes:
1. It's unlikely because the C7 broke away. Had the values been similar, the C7 would have been less inclined to leave. Admittedly, this piece of evidence doesn't prove anything. It just suggests something.
2. The Big East only sold Olympic sports + basketball. The AAC sold everything. To get apples to apples, you have to back out the football portion of the AAC contract or you have to back out the cost of running a football program of comparable stature to the BE basketball programs (netted against actual AAC fb revenues). I'd be surprised if that difference can be completely explained by being on ESPN vs FS1 and/or having a shorter contract.
The C7 correctly believed that they could create an identity more aligned with the original vision of the Big East - universities with strong basketball in major cities without football. They also bet on themselves (and won) by believing they were more valuable as their own entity, and not dragged down by a number of programs with little-to-no basketball history/tradition, or very poor basketball success.
ESPN, Fox, NBC, CBS, et al, all had the opportunity to bid on either (or both) of the Big East/AAC when the opportunity arose. While ESPN had the right of matching with the AAC, no competitor made a higher value than what Fox paid for the Big East. Fox could have easily made the same offer to the AAC (they didn't). They could have gotten more content with the AAC. The fact that Fox made the offer for and paid for the Big East the amount it did should be pretty telling where the value of each brand respectively was.
(05-05-2017 12:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2017 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2017 09:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2017 08:47 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 11:09 AM)stxrunner Wrote: [ -> ]Except the criteria he stated was conferences that have high TV contracts. The nBE has less than a quarter of the TV contract of the lowest P5. They can't realistically be in that discussion.
I said this in another thread and everyone claimed I was crazy......
Compare the Big East and AAC for a moment. The Big East makes like 4 mil per team and the AAC makes like 2 mil per team. The AAC has much better exposure being on ESPN.
Now compare that to the Big 10 teams who are making over 30+ million per team in media payouts. I'm not sure in what reality 4 million is comparing to 30+ and counting.....with much more exposure.
I don't think anyone is saying that the Big East is equal to the P5 in terms of power. However, they are definitely maximizing their revenue in the other sport that has any relevance for TV purposes (basketball). That obviously cannot be said for the G5 leagues.
And yes, ESPN inherently provides more exposure, but a test pattern on ESPN could probably draw high ratings compared to FS1. The mistake waaaaaaay too many G5 fans make are thinking that the higher G5 ratings on ESPN have anything to do with the G5 leagues themselves. It's simply the power of the ESPN platform... which means that the G5 leagues will get zero credit for those ratings when it comes to negotiate new contracts. The people in the TV business know when a league actually brings people to a channel as opposed to the channel bringing a league to the people. The former group (the P5 leagues) gets paid a huge premium, whereas the latter gets paid like a commodity. The general belief among TV people is that the Big East falls into the former category at least for basketball (which is why the Big East gets paid the way that it gets paid).
A couple of caveats. Its still entirely possible that the AAC and the Big East are actually very similar in "value"---the real difference being that the AAC took less money to be on a premium platform while the Big East took a monetary premium to be on an inferior platform. Its also worth noting that the game isn't over yet. The Big East deal is 12 years where as the AAC deal is only about half as long. The AAC could very well still exceed the Big East earnings while staying on a premium platform---we will have to wait and see how the second half of the comparison develops.
This is true w/ 2 important notes:
1. It's unlikely because the C7 broke away. Had the values been similar, the C7 would have been less inclined to leave. Admittedly, this piece of evidence doesn't prove anything. It just suggests something.
2. The Big East only sold Olympic sports + basketball. The AAC sold everything. To get apples to apples, you have to back out the football portion of the AAC contract or you have to back out the cost of running a football program of comparable stature to the BE basketball programs (netted against actual AAC fb revenues). I'd be surprised if that difference can be completely explained by being on ESPN vs FS1 and/or having a shorter contract.
Correct. As far as point #2 goes---Its virtually impossible to argue that Big East Basketball isn't more valuable than AAC basketball. Im speaking simply as to whether the assumption that the overall Big East value really exceeds the AAC overall value. Its a common assumption that the BE is more valuable---but it may not necessarily be as true as many assume when you consider the platform issue (and even if you conclude is currently true, that may not be so during the back half of the 12 year Big East contract).
The term "power conference" is a timeless term. I don't see how it can have been officially used at any time. It's basically a slang term.
(05-03-2017 09:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]If they want to aim high then good for them.
What it really means is that they want to become attractive enough that
1) ESPN is willing to pay them +20mil/team for their TV rights
2) A major NY6 Bowl wants their champ for an auto bid
I would say to do that their goal needs to be a conference avg attendance of 50k or better and just continue to improve attendance facilities and support.
Also note: The current P conferences have NOTHING to do with achieving those goals. It's entirely on the AAC schools to achieve these goals (as they should be)
That is becoming less and less meaningful. Don't get me wrong, better attendance plus higher ticket prices makes for a better athletic department for an individual school; however, it doesn't matter a hill of beans for TV rights payouts. Now access to the lesser bowls is attendance driven, but the biggest bowls and the TV rights fees are based on eyeballs on the screen.
If I was the AAC, I'd be most concerned with marketing themselves to improve their attractiveness to people to want to watch them on TV or streaming it to a device. That's your big bang for your buck. WGAF about whether you have access to the crappy Dick Toucher's bowl or the more coveted Slap Ass bowl. If you're not playing in the NY6 bowls, it's meaningless.
(05-04-2017 10:42 AM)shere khan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 10:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 09:50 AM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I will give Aresco credit, if the other G5 will let the AAC push the message, more power to them. Really surprised MAC and MWC have not come out challenging them. These commish's are letting down their respected conferences.
Actually, I think it makes more sense for the MAC, MWC et. al to simply keep quiet. It looks petty for them to respond. Instead, they can just let the broader media take their potshots at the AAC.
I understand why Aresco is trying to push this branding campaign (because fans tend to like bluster for the sake of bluster), but I don't think it's effective. It's the equivalent of just declaring yourself to be the fifth member of The Beatles or the 9th member of the Ivy League. No one believes it and excessive puffery ends up making the puffer actually look smaller. Whether the marketplace values the AAC or any other conference of being able to have an auto-NY6 bowl bid and a power-level TV contract is the only thing that matters in this game. The truly powerful never SAY that they have power (as that's actually a sign of weakness). Instead, they simply EXERCISE that power. Actions mean more than words.
The awful power schools say power all the time.
There are 20 real power football schools. There are 5 highly paid conferences.
The rest is just bullshite. So pick one of these 20 schools, kiss espns arse and know your role.
That's very much true, and also the primary reason why the NFL is my favorite professional football league. A school like Minnesota, for example, has basically the same chance to play in the playoff as any AAC school. The only difference between it and the AAC is the company it keeps. Otherwise from a pure sports POV, why in the world would you ever care to invest much time in CFB when you are more or less guaranteed the same grouping of teams ending up in the playoffs and NY6 bowls all the time? It's boring and laughable at the same time because CFB is a amateur of a sport as the NHL is...
(05-05-2017 04:51 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2017 09:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]If they want to aim high then good for them.
What it really means is that they want to become attractive enough that
1) ESPN is willing to pay them +20mil/team for their TV rights
2) A major NY6 Bowl wants their champ for an auto bid
I would say to do that their goal needs to be a conference avg attendance of 50k or better and just continue to improve attendance facilities and support.
Also note: The current P conferences have NOTHING to do with achieving those goals. It's entirely on the AAC schools to achieve these goals (as they should be)
That is becoming less and less meaningful. Don't get me wrong, better attendance plus higher ticket prices makes for a better athletic department for an individual school; however, it doesn't matter a hill of beans for TV rights payouts. Now access to the lesser bowls is attendance driven, but the biggest bowls and the TV rights fees are based on eyeballs on the screen.
If I was the AAC, I'd be most concerned with marketing themselves to improve their attractiveness to people to want to watch them on TV or streaming it to a device. That's your big bang for your buck. WGAF about whether you have access to the crappy Dick Toucher's bowl or the more coveted Slap Ass bowl. If you're not playing in the NY6 bowls, it's meaningless.
Home attendance makes more money for the athletic department than the media deals, even in the power conferences. Well, it's probably relatively close for the likes of Washington St., Wake Forest, Kansas, and Duke who have sub-30K attendance, but most Power schools, and especially the big dogs, make beaucoup bucks from the season ticket sales, donations, and gate revenue that are directly related to attendance.
(05-05-2017 01:27 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]The C7 correctly believed that they could create an identity more aligned with the original vision of the Big East - universities with strong basketball in major cities without football. They also bet on themselves (and won) by believing they were more valuable as their own entity, and not dragged down by a number of programs with little-to-no basketball history/tradition, or very poor basketball success.
ESPN, Fox, NBC, CBS, et al, all had the opportunity to bid on either (or both) of the Big East/AAC when the opportunity arose. While ESPN had the right of matching with the AAC, no competitor made a higher value than what Fox paid for the Big East. Fox could have easily made the same offer to the AAC (they didn't). They could have gotten more content with the AAC. The fact that Fox made the offer for and paid for the Big East the amount it did should be pretty telling where the value of each brand respectively was.
I think the Big East is a top 3 brand in college basketball. That said between the AAC and Big East only one was stable at the time of bidding. Networks literally had no idea what theyd get with the AAC at that time.
Sent from my SM-J700T using
CSNbbs mobile app
(05-04-2017 10:42 AM)shere khan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 10:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 09:50 AM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I will give Aresco credit, if the other G5 will let the AAC push the message, more power to them. Really surprised MAC and MWC have not come out challenging them. These commish's are letting down their respected conferences.
Actually, I think it makes more sense for the MAC, MWC et. al to simply keep quiet. It looks petty for them to respond. Instead, they can just let the broader media take their potshots at the AAC.
I understand why Aresco is trying to push this branding campaign (because fans tend to like bluster for the sake of bluster), but I don't think it's effective. It's the equivalent of just declaring yourself to be the fifth member of The Beatles or the 9th member of the Ivy League. No one believes it and excessive puffery ends up making the puffer actually look smaller. Whether the marketplace values the AAC or any other conference of being able to have an auto-NY6 bowl bid and a power-level TV contract is the only thing that matters in this game. The truly powerful never SAY that they have power (as that's actually a sign of weakness). Instead, they simply EXERCISE that power. Actions mean more than words.
The awful power schools say power all the time.
There are 20 real power football schools. There are 5 highly paid conferences.
The rest is just bullshite. So pick one of these 20 schools, kiss espns arse and know your role.
Illinois knows their role. Sniffing Ohio States jock strap.
Sent from my SM-J700T using
CSNbbs mobile app
(05-05-2017 05:15 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2017 04:51 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2017 09:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]If they want to aim high then good for them.
What it really means is that they want to become attractive enough that
1) ESPN is willing to pay them +20mil/team for their TV rights
2) A major NY6 Bowl wants their champ for an auto bid
I would say to do that their goal needs to be a conference avg attendance of 50k or better and just continue to improve attendance facilities and support.
Also note: The current P conferences have NOTHING to do with achieving those goals. It's entirely on the AAC schools to achieve these goals (as they should be)
That is becoming less and less meaningful. Don't get me wrong, better attendance plus higher ticket prices makes for a better athletic department for an individual school; however, it doesn't matter a hill of beans for TV rights payouts. Now access to the lesser bowls is attendance driven, but the biggest bowls and the TV rights fees are based on eyeballs on the screen.
If I was the AAC, I'd be most concerned with marketing themselves to improve their attractiveness to people to want to watch them on TV or streaming it to a device. That's your big bang for your buck. WGAF about whether you have access to the crappy Dick Toucher's bowl or the more coveted Slap Ass bowl. If you're not playing in the NY6 bowls, it's meaningless.
Home attendance makes more money for the athletic department than the media deals, even in the power conferences. Well, it's probably relatively close for the likes of Washington St., Wake Forest, Kansas, and Duke who have sub-30K attendance, but most Power schools, and especially the big dogs, make beaucoup bucks from the season ticket sales, donations, and gate revenue that are directly related to attendance.
No doubt. It's best for the school on an individual basis. However, having all the schools in the AAC try to procure 50K+ FB stadiums with jacked up season ticket sales and hefty seat licenses is a long term goal. The shorter term goal that is more attainable is to generate more interest in the programs. Chicken or the egg thing right? Do you invest in huge facilities and state of the art training complexes and hope that the recruits, wins and fans all come? Or do you have to find ways to win those games to generate fan interest and then invest with the improved revenue streams? Realistically, it's the latter. Telling at least half the AAC to improve your attendance to average 50K/game is impossible due to stadium sizes alone. I highly doubt major capital campaign to expand and/or purchase new stadiums happens.
(05-05-2017 05:46 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]No doubt. It's best for the school on an individual basis. However, having all the schools in the AAC try to procure 50K+ FB stadiums with jacked up season ticket sales and hefty seat licenses is a long term goal. The shorter term goal that is more attainable is to generate more interest in the programs. Chicken or the egg thing right? Do you invest in huge facilities and state of the art training complexes and hope that the recruits, wins and fans all come? Or do you have to find ways to win those games to generate fan interest and then invest with the improved revenue streams? Realistically, it's the latter. Telling at least half the AAC to improve your attendance to average 50K/game is impossible due to stadium sizes alone. I highly doubt major capital campaign to expand and/or purchase new stadiums happens.
Good point. A goal to get the average attendance to 35K and have half the conference at 40K+ and everyone in the conference above 30K attendance would be a stretch. (Can all AAC stadiums hold 30K attendance?)
(05-05-2017 05:58 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2017 05:46 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]No doubt. It's best for the school on an individual basis. However, having all the schools in the AAC try to procure 50K+ FB stadiums with jacked up season ticket sales and hefty seat licenses is a long term goal. The shorter term goal that is more attainable is to generate more interest in the programs. Chicken or the egg thing right? Do you invest in huge facilities and state of the art training complexes and hope that the recruits, wins and fans all come? Or do you have to find ways to win those games to generate fan interest and then invest with the improved revenue streams? Realistically, it's the latter. Telling at least half the AAC to improve your attendance to average 50K/game is impossible due to stadium sizes alone. I highly doubt major capital campaign to expand and/or purchase new stadiums happens.
Good point. A goal to get the average attendance to 35K and have half the conference at 40K+ and everyone in the conference above 30K attendance would be a stretch. (Can all AAC stadiums hold 30K attendance?)
No. Tulane has a little over 20,000 actual seats. Tulsa downsized a while back to around 30k. SMU about the same. ECU has the biggest at around 50k. USF and Temple don't have stadiums and play off campus at the NFL stadium in the areas.
(05-05-2017 05:40 PM)Hood-rich Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 10:42 AM)shere khan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 10:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2017 09:50 AM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I will give Aresco credit, if the other G5 will let the AAC push the message, more power to them. Really surprised MAC and MWC have not come out challenging them. These commish's are letting down their respected conferences.
Actually, I think it makes more sense for the MAC, MWC et. al to simply keep quiet. It looks petty for them to respond. Instead, they can just let the broader media take their potshots at the AAC.
I understand why Aresco is trying to push this branding campaign (because fans tend to like bluster for the sake of bluster), but I don't think it's effective. It's the equivalent of just declaring yourself to be the fifth member of The Beatles or the 9th member of the Ivy League. No one believes it and excessive puffery ends up making the puffer actually look smaller. Whether the marketplace values the AAC or any other conference of being able to have an auto-NY6 bowl bid and a power-level TV contract is the only thing that matters in this game. The truly powerful never SAY that they have power (as that's actually a sign of weakness). Instead, they simply EXERCISE that power. Actions mean more than words.
The awful power schools say power all the time.
There are 20 real power football schools. There are 5 highly paid conferences.
The rest is just bullshite. So pick one of these 20 schools, kiss espns arse and know your role.
Illinois knows their role. Sniffing Ohio States jock strap.
Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
Yep. And Depaul knows it's role. Sniffing and then licking Georgetown's jockstrap and then wearing it on their head.