(05-03-2022 11:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 10:11 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 07:49 AM)b2b Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line here... UC, UH and UCF are leaving in 2023. Exit fees will be negotiated and neither party will get everything they want. The AAC3 might or might not get games against OU/UT depending on schedules and departure dates. The Big 12 media deal, even after after OU/UT leave will most likely still be triple or more what the AAC current deal is. New Big 12 NCAA revenues will dwarf the AAC's. When the AAC deal gets renegotiated in 8 years or so the 8 legacy members are likely looking at a serious haircut. It sucks but that's reality. Anybody that believes otherwise is living in a fantasy land or just trolling.
As an aside I expect the SBC media deal to increase by the time the next AAC deal is being negotiated. How much each league's deal projects in each direction is anyone's guess right now.
I imagine people said the same in 2013....
Exactly. Its an unwritten story at this time. If the schools invest and do well on the field of play---there is no reason the AAC cant continue its ascendancy---with everyone earning more in the next deal. On the other hand, if the new schools fail to do what is necessary to turn some of their "potential" into reality---then the AAC might face difficulties in negotiating a subsequent deal that gets everyone at least 7 million+ using equal revenue sharing. This version of the AAC has nearly a decade of guaranteed high level ESPN exposure to make a name for themselves.
"high level exposure" ... None of that is guaranteed. Regarding 2013... In 2011 the Big East was offered a $15M-ish per football team deal iirc. They rejected it. So yeah... $7M would be a pretty big haircut from that. Lesser brands means less money.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
(05-03-2022 11:35 AM)b2b Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 11:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 10:11 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 07:49 AM)b2b Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line here... UC, UH and UCF are leaving in 2023. Exit fees will be negotiated and neither party will get everything they want. The AAC3 might or might not get games against OU/UT depending on schedules and departure dates. The Big 12 media deal, even after after OU/UT leave will most likely still be triple or more what the AAC current deal is. New Big 12 NCAA revenues will dwarf the AAC's. When the AAC deal gets renegotiated in 8 years or so the 8 legacy members are likely looking at a serious haircut. It sucks but that's reality. Anybody that believes otherwise is living in a fantasy land or just trolling.
As an aside I expect the SBC media deal to increase by the time the next AAC deal is being negotiated. How much each league's deal projects in each direction is anyone's guess right now.
I imagine people said the same in 2013....
Exactly. Its an unwritten story at this time. If the schools invest and do well on the field of play---there is no reason the AAC cant continue its ascendancy---with everyone earning more in the next deal. On the other hand, if the new schools fail to do what is necessary to turn some of their "potential" into reality---then the AAC might face difficulties in negotiating a subsequent deal that gets everyone at least 7 million+ using equal revenue sharing. This version of the AAC has nearly a decade of guaranteed high level ESPN exposure to make a name for themselves.
"high level exposure" ... None of that is guaranteed. Regarding 2013... In 2011 the Big East was offered a $15M-ish per football team deal iirc. They rejected it. So yeah... $7M would be a pretty big haircut from that. Lesser brands means less money.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
it is guaranteed.. the tv contract in regards to exposure wasnt changed ..its is guranteed till the end of the deal
thats not apples to apples in your big east take
literally everyone was saying the aac was going to get a major paycut from the ~2-3mil per.. there were numrous poster saying it was nuts, crazy and insane to think the aac new deal in 2019 would be increased (i reposted a couple of them last year lol for some fun hot take look back)
(05-03-2022 11:07 AM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 10:11 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 07:49 AM)b2b Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line here... UC, UH and UCF are leaving in 2023. Exit fees will be negotiated and neither party will get everything they want. The AAC3 might or might not get games against OU/UT depending on schedules and departure dates. The Big 12 media deal, even after after OU/UT leave will most likely still be triple or more what the AAC current deal is. New Big 12 NCAA revenues will dwarf the AAC's. When the AAC deal gets renegotiated in 8 years or so the 8 legacy members are likely looking at a serious haircut. It sucks but that's reality. Anybody that believes otherwise is living in a fantasy land or just trolling.
As an aside I expect the SBC media deal to increase by the time the next AAC deal is being negotiated. How much each league's deal projects in each direction is anyone's guess right now.
I imagine people said the same in 2013....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't those people have been completely accurate? According to this article the 2013 contract was 6 times less than what was presented by ESPN prior to the flight of schools leaving the conference.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ights-deal
they were saying we we were getting a pay cut in 2019 deal from the 2013 deal
(05-03-2022 11:57 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ]it is guaranteed.. the tv contract in regards to exposure wasnt changed ..its is guranteed till the end of the deal
thats not apples to apples in your big east take
literally everyone was saying the aac was going to get a major paycut from the ~2-3mil per.. there were numrous poster saying it was nuts, crazy and insane to think the aac new deal in 2019 would be increased (i reposted a couple of them last year lol for some fun hot take look back)
You're also not comparing apples to apples. The AAC was made up of the same members from 2013-2019 except for the addition of WSU in 2017. The AAC will undergo a significant transformation soon. The AAC8 + CUSA6 will have to outperform expectations from now until the end of this TV deal just to maintain. In other words the CUSA6 in particular will have to PROVE that they're worth significantly more than $2M per. Also, the CUSA6 aren't going to accept 2nd class citizenship for long so the next deal will be split evenly. I think it's possible that the TV deal increases overall but the AAC8 end up with a decrease compared to what they're getting now.
(05-03-2022 12:32 PM)b2b Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 11:57 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ]it is guaranteed.. the tv contract in regards to exposure wasnt changed ..its is guranteed till the end of the deal
thats not apples to apples in your big east take
literally everyone was saying the aac was going to get a major paycut from the ~2-3mil per.. there were numrous poster saying it was nuts, crazy and insane to think the aac new deal in 2019 would be increased (i reposted a couple of them last year lol for some fun hot take look back)
You're also not comparing apples to apples. The AAC was made up of the same members from 2013-2019 except for the addition of WSU in 2017. The AAC will undergo a significant transformation soon. The AAC8 + CUSA6 will have to outperform expectations from now until the end of this TV deal just to maintain. In other words the CUSA6 in particular will have to PROVE that they're worth significantly more than $2M per. Also, the CUSA6 aren't going to accept 2nd class citizenship for long so the next deal will be split evenly. I think it's possible that the TV deal increases overall but the AAC8 end up with a decrease compared to what they're getting now.
Exactly.
It is human nature to avoid harsh truths. The truth is the CUSA schools offer nothing (except UAB) and they must improve by somehow realizing or expanding their potential.
Currently, many fans of legacy member schools are in denial and some fans from the new schools over value their present contributions.
The sooner we face the problem, the quicker we can address the problem.
(05-03-2022 09:42 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 07:49 AM)b2b Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line here... UC, UH and UCF are leaving in 2023. Exit fees will be negotiated and neither party will get everything they want. The AAC3 might or might not get games against OU/UT depending on schedules and departure dates. The Big 12 media deal, even after after OU/UT leave will most likely still be triple or more what the AAC current deal is. New Big 12 NCAA revenues will dwarf the AAC's. When the AAC deal gets renegotiated in 8 years or so the 8 legacy members are likely looking at a serious haircut. It sucks but that's reality. Anybody that believes otherwise is living in a fantasy land or just trolling.
As an aside I expect the SBC media deal to increase by the time the next AAC deal is being negotiated. How much each league's deal projects in each direction is anyone's guess right now.
Agree on everything but the AAC vs SBC comparison.
The AAC contract goes into 31-32 season
The SBC contract goes into 30-31 season.
So at least until that 2030-31 season ALL AAC members including the newcomers will make more than SBC. Unless the AAC contract gets changed by more departures by that time but that could also happen to SBC
That’s 8 years of both leagues proving on the field and in ratings who is more valuable.
Given the current inflation rate, re-signing for a reduced value in 2032 could result in the same headline dollar number. Leaving everyone to continue arguing.
(05-03-2022 12:32 PM)b2b Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 11:57 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ]it is guaranteed.. the tv contract in regards to exposure wasnt changed ..its is guranteed till the end of the deal
thats not apples to apples in your big east take
literally everyone was saying the aac was going to get a major paycut from the ~2-3mil per.. there were numrous poster saying it was nuts, crazy and insane to think the aac new deal in 2019 would be increased (i reposted a couple of them last year lol for some fun hot take look back)
You're also not comparing apples to apples. The AAC was made up of the same members from 2013-2019 except for the addition of WSU in 2017. The AAC will undergo a significant transformation soon. The AAC8 + CUSA6 will have to outperform expectations from now until the end of this TV deal just to maintain. In other words the CUSA6 in particular will have to PROVE that they're worth significantly more than $2M per. Also, the CUSA6 aren't going to accept 2nd class citizenship for long so the next deal will be split evenly. I think it's possible that the TV deal increases overall but the AAC8 end up with a decrease compared to what they're getting now.
Which is exactly what I said. The future of the new AAC is unwritten. What is guarateed is about a decade of high level ESPN exposure for the conference. They need to show well during that period---but they will have a solid media stage from which to show their product---something the newly arriving CUSA schools have never really had. So there is some reason to be optimistic that the newbie high potential incoming schools actually have a new exposure catalyst that could be a real difference maker in igniting rapid improvement in those programs. While its true many of these programs that CUSA gambled on in 2012 were disapointments for that league---the media exposure angle was clearly at least one key ingredient to their development that was largely missing in CUSA---but would be present in the AAC.
(05-03-2022 11:13 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 11:07 AM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 10:11 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 07:49 AM)b2b Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line here... UC, UH and UCF are leaving in 2023. Exit fees will be negotiated and neither party will get everything they want. The AAC3 might or might not get games against OU/UT depending on schedules and departure dates. The Big 12 media deal, even after after OU/UT leave will most likely still be triple or more what the AAC current deal is. New Big 12 NCAA revenues will dwarf the AAC's. When the AAC deal gets renegotiated in 8 years or so the 8 legacy members are likely looking at a serious haircut. It sucks but that's reality. Anybody that believes otherwise is living in a fantasy land or just trolling.
As an aside I expect the SBC media deal to increase by the time the next AAC deal is being negotiated. How much each league's deal projects in each direction is anyone's guess right now.
I imagine people said the same in 2013....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't those people have been completely accurate? According to this article the 2013 contract was 6 times less than what was presented by ESPN prior to the flight of schools leaving the conference.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ights-deal
Big difference is that the original deal was never signed and the league composition changed to the point where the majority of league left.
The current situation is that only three members are leaving and is within the contract period. We already know that the remaining schools won’t lose money and that the newcomers are getting less.
So 2013 and 2023 are too completely different scenarios
I agree, the number of teams leaving to this point is far less than what happened with the Big East and the "hair cut" won't be nearly as significant as 6 times less than it would have been. But, if you look at the last wave of conference realignment you'll see that not only did the Big East's deal get cut, so did C-USA's, and we all know that the B-12 deal will decrease from what it would have been with Texas and Oklahoma leaving. So why would you expect the AAC's to stay the same? Edit: Also to add, I agree with those above that if the incoming teams can step it up then there is a possibility to avoid or minimize a "hair cut" but for now history points us the other way.
(05-03-2022 01:36 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 11:13 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 11:07 AM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 10:11 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 07:49 AM)b2b Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line here... UC, UH and UCF are leaving in 2023. Exit fees will be negotiated and neither party will get everything they want. The AAC3 might or might not get games against OU/UT depending on schedules and departure dates. The Big 12 media deal, even after after OU/UT leave will most likely still be triple or more what the AAC current deal is. New Big 12 NCAA revenues will dwarf the AAC's. When the AAC deal gets renegotiated in 8 years or so the 8 legacy members are likely looking at a serious haircut. It sucks but that's reality. Anybody that believes otherwise is living in a fantasy land or just trolling.
As an aside I expect the SBC media deal to increase by the time the next AAC deal is being negotiated. How much each league's deal projects in each direction is anyone's guess right now.
I imagine people said the same in 2013....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't those people have been completely accurate? According to this article the 2013 contract was 6 times less than what was presented by ESPN prior to the flight of schools leaving the conference.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ights-deal
Big difference is that the original deal was never signed and the league composition changed to the point where the majority of league left.
The current situation is that only three members are leaving and is within the contract period. We already know that the remaining schools won’t lose money and that the newcomers are getting less.
So 2013 and 2023 are too completely different scenarios
I agree, the number of teams leaving to this point is far less than what happened with the Big East and the "hair cut" won't be nearly as significant as 6 times less than it would have been. But, if you look at the last wave of conference realignment you'll see that not only did the Big East's deal get cut, so did C-USA's, and we all know that the B-12 deal will decrease from what it would have been with Texas and Oklahoma leaving. So why would you expect the AAC's to stay the same? Edit: Also to add, I agree with those above that if the incoming teams can step it up then there is a possibility to avoid or minimize a "hair cut" but for now history points us the other way.
Because the reason for the AAC to add 6 was for ESPN keeping the contract intact for the remaining schools. So no the remains AAC schools aren’t taking a paycut now and the league will have 8 years to show for next contract. The paycut is in the incoming schools making half of what the three leaving made. So ESPN gets more inventory for same amount of money.
(05-03-2022 01:58 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 01:36 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 11:13 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 11:07 AM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 10:11 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ]I imagine people said the same in 2013....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't those people have been completely accurate? According to this article the 2013 contract was 6 times less than what was presented by ESPN prior to the flight of schools leaving the conference.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ights-deal
Big difference is that the original deal was never signed and the league composition changed to the point where the majority of league left.
The current situation is that only three members are leaving and is within the contract period. We already know that the remaining schools won’t lose money and that the newcomers are getting less.
So 2013 and 2023 are too completely different scenarios
I agree, the number of teams leaving to this point is far less than what happened with the Big East and the "hair cut" won't be nearly as significant as 6 times less than it would have been. But, if you look at the last wave of conference realignment you'll see that not only did the Big East's deal get cut, so did C-USA's, and we all know that the B-12 deal will decrease from what it would have been with Texas and Oklahoma leaving. So why would you expect the AAC's to stay the same? Edit: Also to add, I agree with those above that if the incoming teams can step it up then there is a possibility to avoid or minimize a "hair cut" but for now history points us the other way.
Because the reason for the AAC to add 6 was for ESPN keeping the contract intact for the remaining schools. So no the remains AAC schools aren’t taking a paycut now and the league will have 8 years to show for next contract. The paycut is in the incoming schools making half of what the three leaving made. So ESPN gets more inventory for same amount of money.
Look at the bolded statement in b2b's post above that this discussion is in reply to - we are talking about what happens at the next re-negotiation (and yes it's all speculation), no-one has implied that it's getting cut now so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.
"I just think it is wrong"
This situation reminds of share cropping, but with a nasty twist. The share croppers prepare the soil, plant the seeds, cares for the crops as they are growing, collects the crops, takes them to the market. When the crops are sold, the land owner instead of sharing, tells the share croppers they owe him money.
Similarly, UC, UH, and UCF spent great amounts of money, built the AAC into a respected conference, brought more revenues than the remaining-8 had ever experienced, got a $7 million contract, and got little help from the remaining-8. They didn't even provide UH with a Q1 game in the past season. Then, the remaining-8 tells their benefactors they owe money.
If there was justice the remaining-8 would pay their benefactors. The
remaining-8 would not amount to much without them.
Karma will correct this situation with a vengeance.
(05-03-2022 02:09 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 01:58 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 01:36 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 11:13 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 11:07 AM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ]Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't those people have been completely accurate? According to this article the 2013 contract was 6 times less than what was presented by ESPN prior to the flight of schools leaving the conference.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ights-deal
Big difference is that the original deal was never signed and the league composition changed to the point where the majority of league left.
The current situation is that only three members are leaving and is within the contract period. We already know that the remaining schools won’t lose money and that the newcomers are getting less.
So 2013 and 2023 are too completely different scenarios
I agree, the number of teams leaving to this point is far less than what happened with the Big East and the "hair cut" won't be nearly as significant as 6 times less than it would have been. But, if you look at the last wave of conference realignment you'll see that not only did the Big East's deal get cut, so did C-USA's, and we all know that the B-12 deal will decrease from what it would have been with Texas and Oklahoma leaving. So why would you expect the AAC's to stay the same? Edit: Also to add, I agree with those above that if the incoming teams can step it up then there is a possibility to avoid or minimize a "hair cut" but for now history points us the other way.
Because the reason for the AAC to add 6 was for ESPN keeping the contract intact for the remaining schools. So no the remains AAC schools aren’t taking a paycut now and the league will have 8 years to show for next contract. The paycut is in the incoming schools making half of what the three leaving made. So ESPN gets more inventory for same amount of money.
Look at the bolded statement in b2b's post above that this discussion is in reply to - we are talking about what happens at the next re-negotiation (and yes it's all speculation), no-one has implied that it's getting cut now so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.
Because you brought it up, saying how the Big East got a cut. I responded to your post showing you the difference. So the reality is that the AAC now will have 8 years to prove themselves until next contract. So it wasn’t like the AAC 2013 that got the cut right from the start.
I’m fine with the remaining AAC members making the same as they were going to get and having 8 years before renegotiations.
(05-03-2022 02:57 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote: [ -> ]"I just think it is wrong"
This situation reminds of share cropping, but with a nasty twist. The share croppers prepare the soil, plant the seeds, cares for the crops as they are growing, collects the crops, takes them to the market. When the crops are sold, the land owner instead of sharing, tells the share croppers they owe him money.
Similarly, UC, UH, and UCF spent great amounts of money, built the AAC into a respected conference, brought more revenues than the remaining-8 had ever experienced, got a $7 million contract, and got little help from the remaining-8. They didn't even provide UH with a Q1 game in the past season. Then, the remaining-8 tells their benefactors they owe money.
If there was justice the remaining-8 would pay their benefactors. The
remaining-8 would not amount to much without them.
Karma will correct this situation with a vengeance.
"Share cropping, but nastier"
(05-03-2022 03:15 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 02:09 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 01:58 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 01:36 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 11:13 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ]Big difference is that the original deal was never signed and the league composition changed to the point where the majority of league left.
The current situation is that only three members are leaving and is within the contract period. We already know that the remaining schools won’t lose money and that the newcomers are getting less.
So 2013 and 2023 are too completely different scenarios
I agree, the number of teams leaving to this point is far less than what happened with the Big East and the "hair cut" won't be nearly as significant as 6 times less than it would have been. But, if you look at the last wave of conference realignment you'll see that not only did the Big East's deal get cut, so did C-USA's, and we all know that the B-12 deal will decrease from what it would have been with Texas and Oklahoma leaving. So why would you expect the AAC's to stay the same? Edit: Also to add, I agree with those above that if the incoming teams can step it up then there is a possibility to avoid or minimize a "hair cut" but for now history points us the other way.
Because the reason for the AAC to add 6 was for ESPN keeping the contract intact for the remaining schools. So no the remains AAC schools aren’t taking a paycut now and the league will have 8 years to show for next contract. The paycut is in the incoming schools making half of what the three leaving made. So ESPN gets more inventory for same amount of money.
Look at the bolded statement in b2b's post above that this discussion is in reply to - we are talking about what happens at the next re-negotiation (and yes it's all speculation), no-one has implied that it's getting cut now so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.
Because you brought it up, saying how the Big East got a cut. I responded to your post showing you the difference. So the reality is that the AAC now will have 8 years to prove themselves until next contract. So it wasn’t like the AAC 2013 that got the cut right from the start.
I’m fine with the remaining AAC members making the same as they were going to get and having 8 years before renegotiations.
I brought up the cut that the Big East received when it signed it's next contract, with the previous one expiring in 2013. You stated:
"We already know that the remaining schools won’t lose money and that the newcomers are getting less." - Again this discussion is about the next contract, in no way do we know that the remaining schools won't lose money when it's re-negotiated.
"So no the remains AAC schools aren’t taking a paycut now" - I'm quite aware of that, but no-one is talking about now.
I do agree that the incoming and remaining schools do have the advantage of time to elevate their programs. History, however, has shown that when the a conference loses schools to those higher up the pecking order, television contracts tend to go down at the next negotiation.
(05-03-2022 03:24 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 02:57 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote: [ -> ]"I just think it is wrong"
This situation reminds of share cropping, but with a nasty twist. The share croppers prepare the soil, plant the seeds, cares for the crops as they are growing, collects the crops, takes them to the market. When the crops are sold, the land owner instead of sharing, tells the share croppers they owe him money.
Similarly, UC, UH, and UCF spent great amounts of money, built the AAC into a respected conference, brought more revenues than the remaining-8 had ever experienced, got a $7 million contract, and got little help from the remaining-8. They didn't even provide UH with a Q1 game in the past season. Then, the remaining-8 tells their benefactors they owe money.
If there was justice the remaining-8 would pay their benefactors. The
remaining-8 would not amount to much without them.
Karma will correct this situation with a vengeance.
"Share cropping, but nastier"
It is one of the most absurd things ever posted on this forum, and that's really saying something.
(05-03-2022 04:04 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 03:15 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 02:09 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 01:58 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 01:36 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ]I agree, the number of teams leaving to this point is far less than what happened with the Big East and the "hair cut" won't be nearly as significant as 6 times less than it would have been. But, if you look at the last wave of conference realignment you'll see that not only did the Big East's deal get cut, so did C-USA's, and we all know that the B-12 deal will decrease from what it would have been with Texas and Oklahoma leaving. So why would you expect the AAC's to stay the same? Edit: Also to add, I agree with those above that if the incoming teams can step it up then there is a possibility to avoid or minimize a "hair cut" but for now history points us the other way.
Because the reason for the AAC to add 6 was for ESPN keeping the contract intact for the remaining schools. So no the remains AAC schools aren’t taking a paycut now and the league will have 8 years to show for next contract. The paycut is in the incoming schools making half of what the three leaving made. So ESPN gets more inventory for same amount of money.
Look at the bolded statement in b2b's post above that this discussion is in reply to - we are talking about what happens at the next re-negotiation (and yes it's all speculation), no-one has implied that it's getting cut now so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.
Because you brought it up, saying how the Big East got a cut. I responded to your post showing you the difference. So the reality is that the AAC now will have 8 years to prove themselves until next contract. So it wasn’t like the AAC 2013 that got the cut right from the start.
I’m fine with the remaining AAC members making the same as they were going to get and having 8 years before renegotiations.
I brought up the cut that the Big East received when it signed it's next contract, with the previous one expiring in 2013. You stated:
"We already know that the remaining schools won’t lose money and that the newcomers are getting less." - Again this discussion is about the next contract, in no way do we know that the remaining schools won't lose money when it's re-negotiated.
"So no the remains AAC schools aren’t taking a paycut now" - I'm quite aware of that, but no-one is talking about now.
I do agree that the incoming and remaining schools do have the advantage of time to elevate their programs. History, however, has shown that when the a conference loses schools to those higher up the pecking order, television contracts tend to go down at the next negotiation.
Ok glad you understood that, so now is your question then it’s about the AAC getting a paycut in 2032?
Because if that’s your question, no one can really answer it since that would be 9 years from now and will depend on many factors including 8 years of AAC performance which none of us knows what would be.
(05-03-2022 04:35 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 04:04 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 03:15 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 02:09 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 01:58 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ]Because the reason for the AAC to add 6 was for ESPN keeping the contract intact for the remaining schools. So no the remains AAC schools aren’t taking a paycut now and the league will have 8 years to show for next contract. The paycut is in the incoming schools making half of what the three leaving made. So ESPN gets more inventory for same amount of money.
Look at the bolded statement in b2b's post above that this discussion is in reply to - we are talking about what happens at the next re-negotiation (and yes it's all speculation), no-one has implied that it's getting cut now so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.
Because you brought it up, saying how the Big East got a cut. I responded to your post showing you the difference. So the reality is that the AAC now will have 8 years to prove themselves until next contract. So it wasn’t like the AAC 2013 that got the cut right from the start.
I’m fine with the remaining AAC members making the same as they were going to get and having 8 years before renegotiations.
I brought up the cut that the Big East received when it signed it's next contract, with the previous one expiring in 2013. You stated:
"We already know that the remaining schools won’t lose money and that the newcomers are getting less." - Again this discussion is about the next contract, in no way do we know that the remaining schools won't lose money when it's re-negotiated.
"So no the remains AAC schools aren’t taking a paycut now" - I'm quite aware of that, but no-one is talking about now.
I do agree that the incoming and remaining schools do have the advantage of time to elevate their programs. History, however, has shown that when the a conference loses schools to those higher up the pecking order, television contracts tend to go down at the next negotiation.
Ok glad you understood that, so now is your question then it’s about the AAC getting a paycut in 2032?
Because if that’s your question, no one can really answer it since that would be 9 years from now and will depend on many factors including 8 years of AAC performance which none of us knows what would be.
The clairvoyant hobo living in my basement would argue otherwise.
Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!
clt says the new teams are moving from a conference where our sports were on espn plus, cusa tv, Facebook, nfl network… now we are espn or espn plus for all sports.
Our AD has stated our recruiting is already improving after the AAC announcement.
(05-03-2022 04:41 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 04:35 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 04:04 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 03:15 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 02:09 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ]Look at the bolded statement in b2b's post above that this discussion is in reply to - we are talking about what happens at the next re-negotiation (and yes it's all speculation), no-one has implied that it's getting cut now so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.
Because you brought it up, saying how the Big East got a cut. I responded to your post showing you the difference. So the reality is that the AAC now will have 8 years to prove themselves until next contract. So it wasn’t like the AAC 2013 that got the cut right from the start.
I’m fine with the remaining AAC members making the same as they were going to get and having 8 years before renegotiations.
I brought up the cut that the Big East received when it signed it's next contract, with the previous one expiring in 2013. You stated:
"We already know that the remaining schools won’t lose money and that the newcomers are getting less." - Again this discussion is about the next contract, in no way do we know that the remaining schools won't lose money when it's re-negotiated.
"So no the remains AAC schools aren’t taking a paycut now" - I'm quite aware of that, but no-one is talking about now.
I do agree that the incoming and remaining schools do have the advantage of time to elevate their programs. History, however, has shown that when the a conference loses schools to those higher up the pecking order, television contracts tend to go down at the next negotiation.
Ok glad you understood that, so now is your question then it’s about the AAC getting a paycut in 2032?
Because if that’s your question, no one can really answer it since that would be 9 years from now and will depend on many factors including 8 years of AAC performance which none of us knows what would be.
The clairvoyant hobo living in my basement would argue otherwise.
Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!
Ask him for the next lotto numbers
(05-03-2022 04:44 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 04:41 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 04:35 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 04:04 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2022 03:15 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote: [ -> ]Because you brought it up, saying how the Big East got a cut. I responded to your post showing you the difference. So the reality is that the AAC now will have 8 years to prove themselves until next contract. So it wasn’t like the AAC 2013 that got the cut right from the start.
I’m fine with the remaining AAC members making the same as they were going to get and having 8 years before renegotiations.
I brought up the cut that the Big East received when it signed it's next contract, with the previous one expiring in 2013. You stated:
"We already know that the remaining schools won’t lose money and that the newcomers are getting less." - Again this discussion is about the next contract, in no way do we know that the remaining schools won't lose money when it's re-negotiated.
"So no the remains AAC schools aren’t taking a paycut now" - I'm quite aware of that, but no-one is talking about now.
I do agree that the incoming and remaining schools do have the advantage of time to elevate their programs. History, however, has shown that when the a conference loses schools to those higher up the pecking order, television contracts tend to go down at the next negotiation.
Ok glad you understood that, so now is your question then it’s about the AAC getting a paycut in 2032?
Because if that’s your question, no one can really answer it since that would be 9 years from now and will depend on many factors including 8 years of AAC performance which none of us knows what would be.
The clairvoyant hobo living in my basement would argue otherwise.
Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!
Ask him for the next lotto numbers
4,8,15,25,47, 42, to be fair though he has never specified WHICH year these will be the winning numbers. So for all I know this could not come to pass till the year 2100.
Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!