(12-17-2017 06:10 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 12:43 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 11:13 AM)First Mate Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  He was supposed to do that 5 years ago, it's the main reason we hired him at such a high salary, and yet the contract he signed really couldn't have had less money. You or I could have bargained for it.

Point is, the maximum amount of TV money is really out of the commissioner's control. It's determined by market forces. A lousy commissioner can sign for way less than what a conference could command, but a good commissioner can't get you more than what the market will command. There's a pretty hard ceiling there.

If we do sign for a lot more $$$ in a couple years, it won't be because of genius Aresco negotiating, it will be because our schools have raised their market value by playing good football and drawing fan interest to the product.

The point of saying that is I’d rather have someone like Aresco with his experience in TV working on a new deal rather than someone with no background at all in TV. I personally think Aresco has been great for the AAC.

He was shrewd in getting us top notch (P5) exposure in the last deal even though we didn’t get the money.

There's no shrewdness in offering more product for less money. That's a win for the buyer not the seller. A buyer always wants more prodcut for less, not the seller. The way that went down was:

Aresco to NBC: We offer you 10 games for X amount of dollars.

NBC to Arescon: No, we'll give you X amount of dollars, but for 20 games.

Aresco: Er, how about 15 games for X amount of dollars?

NBC: No.

Aresco: Um, er, eh, OK.

And yet to some geniuses around here, that exchange was genius Aresco trading "money for exposure".

Only YOU would write this ^^^ overblown gross nonsense of Mike Aresco and AAC.

some people, obviously true fans of 'other' conferences... cant deal with the amazing success of the aac. so they spin, spin, spin...

Only tools can't admit that they are wrong...... so they create narratives where they have a backup excuse.

Case in point, "UCF wins, its because Auburn was unmotivated....... UCF loses, its because the AAC is inferior and doesn't belong"............. now the tool has a new narrative........ "AAC gets a great media contract, its only because the market dictated it and Aresco had nothing to do with the marketing of the conference or the negotiation........vs AAC got a crappy media contract and its because we have a crappy commissioner"

(12-17-2017 06:10 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 12:43 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 11:13 AM)First Mate Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  He was supposed to do that 5 years ago, it's the main reason we hired him at such a high salary, and yet the contract he signed really couldn't have had less money. You or I could have bargained for it.

Point is, the maximum amount of TV money is really out of the commissioner's control. It's determined by market forces. A lousy commissioner can sign for way less than what a conference could command, but a good commissioner can't get you more than what the market will command. There's a pretty hard ceiling there.

If we do sign for a lot more $$$ in a couple years, it won't be because of genius Aresco negotiating, it will be because our schools have raised their market value by playing good football and drawing fan interest to the product.

The point of saying that is I’d rather have someone like Aresco with his experience in TV working on a new deal rather than someone with no background at all in TV. I personally think Aresco has been great for the AAC.

He was shrewd in getting us top notch (P5) exposure in the last deal even though we didn’t get the money.

There's no shrewdness in offering more product for less money. That's a win for the buyer not the seller. A buyer always wants more prodcut for less, not the seller. The way that went down was:

Aresco to NBC: We offer you 10 games for X amount of dollars.

NBC to Arescon: No, we'll give you X amount of dollars, but for 20 games.

Aresco: Er, how about 15 games for X amount of dollars?

NBC: No.

Aresco: Um, er, eh, OK.

And yet to some geniuses around here, that exchange was genius Aresco trading "money for exposure".

Only YOU would write this ^^^ overblown gross nonsense of Mike Aresco and AAC.

some people, obviously true fans of 'other' conferences... cant deal with the amazing success of the aac. so they spin, spin, spin...

I wonder who that can be >>> Quo the NBE troll posing as a USF fan <<<. I wonder

(12-17-2017 06:58 PM)otown Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:10 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 12:43 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 11:13 AM)First Mate Wrote:  The point of saying that is I’d rather have someone like Aresco with his experience in TV working on a new deal rather than someone with no background at all in TV. I personally think Aresco has been great for the AAC.

He was shrewd in getting us top notch (P5) exposure in the last deal even though we didn’t get the money.

There's no shrewdness in offering more product for less money. That's a win for the buyer not the seller. A buyer always wants more prodcut for less, not the seller. The way that went down was:

Aresco to NBC: We offer you 10 games for X amount of dollars.

NBC to Arescon: No, we'll give you X amount of dollars, but for 20 games.

Aresco: Er, how about 15 games for X amount of dollars?

NBC: No.

Aresco: Um, er, eh, OK.

And yet to some geniuses around here, that exchange was genius Aresco trading "money for exposure".

Only YOU would write this ^^^ overblown gross nonsense of Mike Aresco and AAC.

some people, obviously true fans of 'other' conferences... cant deal with the amazing success of the aac. so they spin, spin, spin...

Only tools can't admit that they are wrong...... so they create narratives where they have a backup excuse.

Case in point, "UCF wins, its because Auburn was unmotivated....... UCF loses, its because the AAC is inferior and doesn't belong"............. now the tool has a new narrative........ "AAC gets a great media contract, its only because the market dictated it and Aresco had nothing to do with the marketing of the conference or the negotiation........vs AAC got a crappy media contract and its because we have a crappy commissioner"

Exactly

Based on conference strength this league is doing extremely well

But what is more remarkable to me is how this league continues to climb up, defeat challange obstacles and over come them with such a poor grossly crappy tv deal.

(12-17-2017 11:51 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  Every time I see posts like TROLLquo above reminds me how wrong everyone was about this league... A dead walking conference, I recall reading almost everywhere.

There's no one out there who would come close in matching what Mike Aresco has and will continue to achieve for the AAC.

Totally wrong. First, everyone knew the AAC would be a decent football league, just about where we are now. As for basketball, we've been a disappointment. Not Aresco's fault, but we've been worse than expectations.

As for the intangible quality of "league", we have none. We are an amalgamation of the best football/basketball programs east of the Rockies that couldn't find a home in a Power conference. There is no league unity, all of us would bail for a Power league in a hot minute if we could.

Second, what has Aresco achieved for this league? Our bowl lineup is awful, and so is our TV deal. Now maybe it's true that nobody else could have done any better. But it also means very few could have done worse.

The only good deal Aresco has ever signed has been his two contracts. He is very well paid, we are not. We could have gotten the same performance from another commissioner for 1/3 the money.

(12-18-2017 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 11:51 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  Every time I see posts like TROLLquo above reminds me how wrong everyone was about this league... A dead walking conference, I recall reading almost everywhere.

There's no one out there who would come close in matching what Mike Aresco has and will continue to achieve for the AAC.

The only good deal Aresco has ever signed has been his two contracts. He is very well paid, we are not. We could have gotten the same performance from another commissioner for 1/3 the money.

ok, this is now pathological. get help.

(12-17-2017 06:38 PM)First Mate Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 11:13 AM)First Mate Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 11:29 AM)First Mate Wrote:  He will help us w the tv contract bc of his history with TV.

He was supposed to do that 5 years ago, it's the main reason we hired him at such a high salary, and yet the contract he signed really couldn't have had less money. You or I could have bargained for it.

Point is, the maximum amount of TV money is really out of the commissioner's control. It's determined by market forces. A lousy commissioner can sign for way less than what a conference could command, but a good commissioner can't get you more than what the market will command. There's a pretty hard ceiling there.

If we do sign for a lot more $$$ in a couple years, it won't be because of genius Aresco negotiating, it will be because our schools have raised their market value by playing good football and drawing fan interest to the product.

The point of saying that is I’d rather have someone like Aresco with his experience in TV working on a new deal rather than someone with no background at all in TV. I personally think Aresco has been great for the AAC.

He was shrewd in getting us top notch (P5) exposure in the last deal even though we didn’t get the money.

There's no shrewdness in offering more product for less money. That's a win for the buyer not the seller. A buyer always wants more prodcut for less, not the seller. The way that went down was:

Aresco to NBC: We offer you 10 games for X amount of dollars.

NBC to Arescon: No, we'll give you X amount of dollars, but for 20 games.

Aresco: Er, how about 15 games for X amount of dollars?

NBC: No.

Aresco: Um, er, eh, OK.

And yet to some geniuses around here, that exchange was genius Aresco trading "money for exposure".

That’s a load of crap. No one said Aresco traded money for exposure.

Actually, that's been said about 5 billion times around here.

And every time it's been said, it's been wrong.

(12-17-2017 06:58 PM)otown Wrote:  Only tools can't admit that they are wrong...... so they create narratives where they have a backup excuse.

Exactly. The best example of that on this forum has been the "Aresco traded money for exposure" crock used to rationalize the miserably peanuts TV deal he signed five years ago.

(12-18-2017 09:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:58 PM)otown Wrote:  Only tools can't admit that they are wrong...... so they create narratives where they have a backup excuse.

Exactly. The best example of that on this forum has been the "Aresco traded money for exposure" crock used to rationalize the miserably peanuts TV deal he signed five years ago.

The thing is you nor I have any info that suggests a person getting paid 1/3 of what Aresco is getting would have done the same. Maybe that person would have gotten less $ and even delivered less exposure as well. We are all just stating what ifs without any direct knowledge. The fact is we could have had Jim Delaney and the numbers likely wouldn't have been any different. So does that make Aresco good or bad in your opinion?? The league was being ripped apart at the time and the whole landscape was in chaos. I will save my opinion for the next deal where the league has stability and actual metrics to justify a price. Then we will see what Mr. Aresco does. I don't have any delusions about what the league will or won't get paid. I suspect it will be 5+ but again it is just a guess. I do know if he delivers a better deal you will be on here saying it was the result of the athletic directors and not him so I don't know if it even matters. I honestly never hear from any of the other commissioners and I don't hear them selling their leagues. Throw one of those clowns in charge and I suspect the next round of negotiations would go similar to the last round. He is tireless and is constantly creating talk and buzz about the league. That stuff takes time to build momentum long term. I think the league could be in much worse hands for sure.

I don't agree quo I think he's done a hell of a job with what he had.
Here Comes This glass half empty attitude that you had for years. This is supposed to be a good basketball league with UConn Temple Cincy Memphis.
Add in Witchita which is struggling a bit having a. Much harder schedule

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-18-2017 10:55 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:58 PM)otown Wrote:  Only tools can't admit that they are wrong...... so they create narratives where they have a backup excuse.

Exactly. The best example of that on this forum has been the "Aresco traded money for exposure" crock used to rationalize the miserably peanuts TV deal he signed five years ago.

The thing is you nor I have any info that suggests a person getting paid 1/3 of what Aresco is getting would have done the same. Maybe that person would have gotten less $ and even delivered less exposure as well. We are all just stating what ifs without any direct knowledge. The fact is we could have had Jim Delaney and the numbers likely wouldn't have been any different. So does that make Aresco good or bad in your opinion??

I agree that Delaney couldn't have gotten a TV deal any better than what Aresco got, though he probably would have gotten us slightly better bowls - Aresco did a poor job on the bowls.

But the C-USA commish would have done the same as well. Our TV deal was basically dictated to us by the networks, as we had near-zero bargaining power.

Bowls aside, I've always said that Aresco has done a decent enough job. He has just been massively over-paid to do it.

(12-18-2017 09:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:58 PM)otown Wrote:  Only tools can't admit that they are wrong...... so they create narratives where they have a backup excuse.

Exactly. The best example of that on this forum has been the "Aresco traded money for exposure" crock used to rationalize the miserably peanuts TV deal he signed five years ago.

Dude this level of nonsensical debate isn't even worth responding to anymore... We are winning on the field, we are winning in the ratings (which is where the exposure DOES matter...). TV contract is heading to negotiations. Very exciting time. Why harp on what you feel the old contract was, or was not? Answer, because our success is obviously killing you... Every time we win big somewhere/somehow it spins you up for awhile... it's comical.

If it makes you feel better to troll the AAC than have fun with it... keep on using vague terms like 'crock', 'miserable', and 'peanuts' and stay away from a logical fact based discussion... You are almost at the level of playground insults...

(12-18-2017 11:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:55 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:58 PM)otown Wrote:  Only tools can't admit that they are wrong...... so they create narratives where they have a backup excuse.

Exactly. The best example of that on this forum has been the "Aresco traded money for exposure" crock used to rationalize the miserably peanuts TV deal he signed five years ago.

The thing is you nor I have any info that suggests a person getting paid 1/3 of what Aresco is getting would have done the same. Maybe that person would have gotten less $ and even delivered less exposure as well. We are all just stating what ifs without any direct knowledge. The fact is we could have had Jim Delaney and the numbers likely wouldn't have been any different. So does that make Aresco good or bad in your opinion??

I agree that Delaney couldn't have gotten a TV deal any better than what Aresco got, though he probably would have gotten us slightly better bowls - Aresco did a poor job on the bowls.

But the C-USA commish would have done the same as well. Our TV deal was basically dictated to us by the networks, as we had near-zero bargaining power.

Bowls aside, I've always said that Aresco has done a decent enough job. He has just been massively over-paid to do it.

Why do you know how much he makes bro??

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

The bowl lineup for this year is radically different than it was last year we lost the Cure Bowl which is okay with me because it's not on a national network

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-18-2017 11:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:55 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:58 PM)otown Wrote:  Only tools can't admit that they are wrong...... so they create narratives where they have a backup excuse.

Exactly. The best example of that on this forum has been the "Aresco traded money for exposure" crock used to rationalize the miserably peanuts TV deal he signed five years ago.

The thing is you nor I have any info that suggests a person getting paid 1/3 of what Aresco is getting would have done the same. Maybe that person would have gotten less $ and even delivered less exposure as well. We are all just stating what ifs without any direct knowledge. The fact is we could have had Jim Delaney and the numbers likely wouldn't have been any different. So does that make Aresco good or bad in your opinion??

I agree that Delaney couldn't have gotten a TV deal any better than what Aresco got, though he probably would have gotten us slightly better bowls - Aresco did a poor job on the bowls.

But the C-USA commish would have done the same as well. Our TV deal was basically dictated to us by the networks, as we had near-zero bargaining power.

Bowls aside, I've always said that Aresco has done a decent enough job. He has just been massively over-paid to do it.

You overestimate Banowsky and the other G5 commissioners.

(12-18-2017 11:59 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:58 PM)otown Wrote:  Only tools can't admit that they are wrong...... so they create narratives where they have a backup excuse.

Exactly. The best example of that on this forum has been the "Aresco traded money for exposure" crock used to rationalize the miserably peanuts TV deal he signed five years ago.

Dude this level of nonsensical debate isn't even worth responding to anymore... We are winning on the field, we are winning in the ratings (which is where the exposure DOES matter...). TV contract is heading to negotiations. Very exciting time. Why harp on what you feel the old contract was, or was not? Answer, because our success is obviously killing you... Every time we win big somewhere/somehow it spins you up for awhile... it's comical.

If it makes you feel better to troll the AAC than have fun with it... keep on using vague terms like 'crock', 'miserable', and 'peanuts' and stay away from a logical fact based discussion... You are almost at the level of playground insults...

This same clown is on the realignment board suggesting the AAC should look into a G5 playoff as it may offer more money. Lets all let that sink in. The biggest fraud fan of USF, who takes every opportunity to claim the AAC is worth peanuts, wants the AAC to look into teaming up with conferences that have a fraction of the viewership of the AAC because there may be more money in that venture. The guy is a total tool, a troll from the swamps of LSU. When there is another contract signed, and the media money is increased, I would love for Aresco to get a raise just so this pathological corndog loses sleep over the Aresco contract even more.

(12-17-2017 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 11:13 AM)First Mate Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 11:29 AM)First Mate Wrote:  He will help us w the tv contract bc of his history with TV.

He was supposed to do that 5 years ago, it's the main reason we hired him at such a high salary, and yet the contract he signed really couldn't have had less money. You or I could have bargained for it.

Point is, the maximum amount of TV money is really out of the commissioner's control. It's determined by market forces. A lousy commissioner can sign for way less than what a conference could command, but a good commissioner can't get you more than what the market will command. There's a pretty hard ceiling there.

If we do sign for a lot more $$$ in a couple years, it won't be because of genius Aresco negotiating, it will be because our schools have raised their market value by playing good football and drawing fan interest to the product.

The point of saying that is I’d rather have someone like Aresco with his experience in TV working on a new deal rather than someone with no background at all in TV. I personally think Aresco has been great for the AAC.

He was shrewd in getting us top notch (P5) exposure in the last deal even though we didn’t get the money.

There's no shrewdness in offering more product for less money. That's a win for the buyer not the seller. A buyer always wants more prodcut for less, not the seller. The way that went down was:

Aresco to NBC: We offer you 10 games for X amount of dollars.

NBC to Arescon: No, we'll give you X amount of dollars, but for 20 games.

Aresco: Er, how about 15 games for X amount of dollars?

NBC: No.

Aresco: Um, er, eh, OK.

And yet to some geniuses around here, that exchange was genius Aresco trading "money for exposure".

lol. Well...your sorta right. That conversation was really with ESPN. ESPN said we want it all---we will give you a few ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU slots, but most of your programming will be on ESPN3 because we want to make that platform more visible. We will give you a small premium for moving to ESPN3.

Aresco said--"No. We are a new league that needs to reach the largest audience possible. I think we need to see if NBC can give us better exposure."

The only reason we have the exposure we have is because he got it from NBC. Otherwise, we are the MAC with a few more ESPN2/ESPNU slots and a bigger paycheck.

(12-18-2017 12:02 PM)Stookey57 Wrote:  The bowl lineup for this year is radically different than it was last year we lost the Cure Bowl which is okay with me because it's not on a national network

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

We didn't lose it. We just left it unfilled so we could put a team in the Liberty.

When you have a dumpster fire for a conference on the verge of collapse, we ought to be glad we got anything worth real money.

We had nothing but a bunch of promoted schools with leftovers from the old BE. Now is a very different story, with history and numbers to show. I think Aresco has done a heck of a job, but his future will be is how he handles this next TV contract as it's our only chance to separate ourselves from the rest of the G5 and get closer to P5 money (and I realize we don't get P5 money).

(12-18-2017 12:01 PM)Stookey57 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:55 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:58 PM)otown Wrote:  Only tools can't admit that they are wrong...... so they create narratives where they have a backup excuse.

Exactly. The best example of that on this forum has been the "Aresco traded money for exposure" crock used to rationalize the miserably peanuts TV deal he signed five years ago.

The thing is you nor I have any info that suggests a person getting paid 1/3 of what Aresco is getting would have done the same. Maybe that person would have gotten less $ and even delivered less exposure as well. We are all just stating what ifs without any direct knowledge. The fact is we could have had Jim Delaney and the numbers likely wouldn't have been any different. So does that make Aresco good or bad in your opinion??

I agree that Delaney couldn't have gotten a TV deal any better than what Aresco got, though he probably would have gotten us slightly better bowls - Aresco did a poor job on the bowls.

But the C-USA commish would have done the same as well. Our TV deal was basically dictated to us by the networks, as we had near-zero bargaining power.

Bowls aside, I've always said that Aresco has done a decent enough job. He has just been massively over-paid to do it.

Why do you know how much he makes bro??

It's not a big secret - several media reports over the years have said he made about $1.7m per year, before he signed his extension last year.

(12-18-2017 12:33 PM)otown Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:59 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:58 PM)otown Wrote:  Only tools can't admit that they are wrong...... so they create narratives where they have a backup excuse.

Exactly. The best example of that on this forum has been the "Aresco traded money for exposure" crock used to rationalize the miserably peanuts TV deal he signed five years ago.

Dude this level of nonsensical debate isn't even worth responding to anymore... We are winning on the field, we are winning in the ratings (which is where the exposure DOES matter...). TV contract is heading to negotiations. Very exciting time. Why harp on what you feel the old contract was, or was not? Answer, because our success is obviously killing you... Every time we win big somewhere/somehow it spins you up for awhile... it's comical.

If it makes you feel better to troll the AAC than have fun with it... keep on using vague terms like 'crock', 'miserable', and 'peanuts' and stay away from a logical fact based discussion... You are almost at the level of playground insults...

This same clown is on the realignment board suggesting the AAC should look into a G5 playoff as it may offer more money. Lets all let that sink in. The biggest fraud fan of USF, who takes every opportunity to claim the AAC is worth peanuts, wants the AAC to look into teaming up with conferences that have a fraction of the viewership of the AAC because there may be more money in that venture. The guy is a total tool, a troll from the swamps of LSU. When there is another contract signed, and the media money is increased, I would love for Aresco to get a raise just so this pathological corndog loses sleep over the Aresco contract even more.

Only true trolls try to bring in discussions on board X on to board Y, but be that as it may: It does make perfect sense for the AAC and other G5 to look in to having their own playoff to see if it will bring in more money. Personally, I doubt it would, but there's no harm in investigating it, as all conferences should seek out ways to make more money, that's just common sense, yet you think that's some kind of radical idea.

Just goes to show how off the rocker you've fallen.