(07-03-2018 02:58 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 02:44 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Supply and Demand.

The AAC may be worth more than what is thrown at it, but the market doesn't agree. The market capacity is under 50 schools, probably about 40, but there are 65 power schools, and the American slots in behind that, numbers 66-77. That is at the back end of a 2nd tier.

A numbers game sheer and simple. ESPN will not bid against itself, so the American will get way less than they want or expect.

College sports are different from pro sports because there is a loyalty factor from students and alumni. You can't just cut out all but 40 teams and expect people who grew up rooting for East Carolina to root for UNC instead. Not going to happen.

The fact is that the TV ratings the AAC gets in the current environment with 130 FBS teams demonstrate that the league is underpaid. ESPN may not bid against itself, but there are other suitors out there they'll need to bid against.

You are making the "worthy" argument, as are most AAC supporters and Aresco Kool-Aid drinkers. I concede about 20 G5 schools are worthy and 20 P5 may not be. But the packaging of the products and the market forces of supply and demand are not always fair and equitable, and they do not distribute evenly.

We all see the market where a phone model may be only 5-10% better (if that) than it's rivals, but due to a combination of brand name value (marketing) and that desire for the best over merely good drive up the price of that phone to double it's rivals, and yet it outsells several of it's rival manufacturers combined. This results in a 10:1 revenue difference or more. Some of the competitors having to borrow large sums of money to stay in the game.

While some G5 schools have decent followings, as a group none of their conferences do. Not even the American. Excepting UConn, none is a flagship school. So none pick up that "state pride" type fan (ask any Alabaman, Oklahoman, Ohioan, Michigander, or Wisconsinite who didn't go to those flagship schools if they tune in when they play ... you just don't get that for directional State U or City U). Networks know this. It's no secret ESPN data and metrics dictated TCU (before they landed), Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, and Louisville out of the Big East, and B1G metrics said bring Rutgers in. The American product is less valuable than those assets that left. It is what it is.

Anyway when it comes to compensation, it is not dictated so much by the dedicated alumni fans, as it is by the big time casual fans. They can only handle so many teams. The power conferences have built those brands up. Every casual fan knows the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12, and even the core of the ACC. Maybe they forget Purdue or Wake Forest or Oregon State, but they know Florida State, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio State, USC, Washington, Penn State, Michigan, Oklahoma, Clemson and Notre Dame. Those are the schools they want to see play, those are the ones they will pay to see on TV. And they are the ones packaged in the power conferences, so that is where ALL the money will be allocated.

The AAC lines up after all those guys get paid. Like a border line starter in the NBA, they see the All Stars and potential All Stars drawing $25-35m salaries, and the ones with question mark stars or aging getting the mid-level at $5.2-8m. And then they line up for their share, producing 95% of the MLE guy, even 80% of the star player, but are told well I have a veteran minimum left for you, take it or leave it. That is the market place. Nothing different in the distribution of money for conferences.

If the American wants a bigger pay day, they are going to have to take a chance on something like Facebook or Amazon Prime or YouTube. ESPN and WatchESPN are overloaded with football games every Saturday in the fall. Asking them to pay you more because you deserve it is going to get the same sympathy those NBA minimum players get.

Again it has nothing to do with being worthy enough. Nobody in the American is a Penn State or an Alabama. You don't have Wisconsin vs Michigan or USC vs Stanford or Alabama vs Tennessee games on every weekend to take those high paying slots. So you will not get superstar pay. You don't even have Ohio State vs Rutgers or Oklahoma State vs West Virginia level games for the ESPN2 type channels. So there is no compelling reason to pay more.

You could always try the MAC strategy with weeknight November. Less competition for slots, so you might be worth more.

(07-03-2018 12:02 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 02:31 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 01:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 01:14 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  College football is actually a largely college educated affluent demographic.

Definitely college-educated but probably nowhere near as affluent as golf, whose median viewer is old and rich as ****. Luxury-item producers get a lot of bang for their buck trotting out their cars and watches on a random Senior PGA stop than they would for almost anything else, my guess would be.

The college football audience skews older as well if Im not mistaken....and its much larger. Point being---its a very nice demo (maybe not quite as good as golf---but very close and much larger).

So advertisors are not looking for the 24-54 year old male market? Oh wait that's exactly who they look for. Just to put an end to that terrible line of logic.

Beyond that it seems odd to me that the per viewer average is roughly the same across all those different sports. That actually indicates that the live viewer has a set value. Thus whether that viewer enjoys body slams or birdies is irrelevant, they as a live viewer are worth x dollars.

Also everyone seems to think ESPN just does what ever it wants. This is not the 1990s where ESPN was an exclusive sports channels. The number of competitors for viewers is up. Thus ESPN didn't give anything to fox anymore than they let NBC sign Notre Dame. They were out bid for them.

ESPN can not just fill in the AAC spots with the sec or acc. Those conferences are contracted to show a certain number of games on their channel which is why cable providers picked them up and made the network valuable. That content is not available.

At no point did I say that nobody wants the college football demographic. That's an inference of your creation. What I pointed out was that golf's demographic is very upper class and very willing to spend on high-end merchandise, so that makes them super attractive to advertisers, which means networks are willing to pay more for broadcast rights than their raw ratings would indicate otherwise. In response to this:

Quote:Ratings are what matters. It's amusing to me that people think otherwise. This is premium live content with 94 games over a million people. Discovery just dropped a truck load of money for golf with the expectance that it will have lower ratings. MLS, Priemer, UFC all get paid roughly the same amount per viewer as the "power" leagues do. Yet somehow that won't matter for the AAC? Ratings are all that matter to tv excecutives, especially live viewers who sit through commercials.

Ratings matter, but so do demographics. Are you expecting a better deal than the leagues/organizations that you quoted there?

Didn't you say you do media contracts? How are you so unaware of how advertising, the buying and selling of it, work in broadcasting? I'm not giving you a marketing course but if you don't understand that a million viewers equates to ad buys then it wouldn't matter if I did teach you the course.

Umm better? No. Those deals are all roughly a 100 million plus. Their numbers in comparison are equal to ours. I expect we will see a 100 million plus or 8-12 million a team.

(07-03-2018 12:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 11:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 10:54 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 04:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  https://www.nhregister.com/sports/articl...040265.php

1. Preliminary negotiations will begin with the new ESPN chief later this summer or early fall.
2. ESPN has a 30-day exclusive negotiating period expiring no later than February 2019.
3. There is a chance a new deal gets hammered out with ESPN by then. If so, it would likely include a restructuring of the final year of the current contract (2019-20).
4. In February 2019, the American can go to the open market.
5. Aresco says "a lot of different platforms have expressed interest" in American inventory.
6. If the American goes to the open market, ESPN does not have a right to match (i.e. "back-end leverage"). Rather ESPN has "front-end leverage." The American cannot accept less on the open market than what ESPN offers. This should ensure that ESPN makes its best offer before February 2019.
7. Aresco expects "multiples of what we got before" ($2M per school per year). This implies at least $6M per year per school.

What if ESPN decides with all of the cord cutting going on that it will offer the AAC exposure but only $850k MAC money for the contract?

The real question is will whatever TV contract be good enough for UConn to stay. If it hits 6, 8, 10 million per school then yes. If it's a low figure they will probably head to the Big East.

That is going to be the bar..greater than BE or worse.

The AAC has a proven track record of ratings at this point. If they offer 850K--some other network will gladly bid more for a solid product. I dont think thats something to even worry about. What I can see is 100 million dollar offer----with ESPN getting it all--the catch being there would be a reduction in total linear national TV slots. Basically, what Im afraid we might see is a very attractive financial offer (really too big to turn down)---which includes exactly the same ESPN slots we already get---but puts all else on ESPN+. Essentially, we'd lose all our CBS-Sports exposure and have it replaced with the much lower exposure via the new subscription based streaming ESPN+ platform. CBS-Sports isnt like being on ABC---but it is a national network with 55-60 million subscribers. It aint a bad platform compared to any streaming option. I think its fair to say significant credit for the steadily increasing AAC ratings and recognition is due to having so many nationally televised linear games (including those on CBS-Sports).

I actually dont think having a large percentage of the AAC content on ESPN+ is a very good idea for a very young conference like the AAC----but I think we'd probably accept that deal in a second.

I think the problem why the AAC won't get much is not because of the eastern schools. It is a couple of western schools that lacked a fan base and tv viewership. Tulsa and Tulane are the worst with fan base and tv ratings. Could be the reason that they suck in almost all of their sports with losing records? Even UConn. get better support than those 2. I do think those 2 schools go back to conference USA and replaced them with Missouri State and UTSA. If not Missouri State? Southern Mississippi. Those three get better support. Or go to 14 with those three to the west and ODU on the east. ODU is already spending at the AAC levels.

Tell me what are those Tulsa ratings?
What about Tulane's?

Tulsa went 10-3 two years ago, finished top four in basketball twice and one game out of fourth the other year in basketball. We also we're first in Learfield cup for the AAC two years ago.

Missouri St? Bwahaha

At least Southern Miss had a real football program, not so much anymore, but even when they did they still weren't on Tulsa's level. Check the standings. They're also way behind in basketball, academics, facilities, budget, etc.

ODU and UTSA? Better support? Better anything?

(07-03-2018 03:17 PM)Chappy Wrote:  And here are the football championship games:

SEC - 13.47 million viewers
B1G - 12.82 million
B12 - 5.90 million
ACC - 5.43 million
P12 - 3.66 million
AAC - 3.39 million
MAC - 652K
MWC - 623K
C-USA - 255K
SBC - 225K

Below the P12, but WAAAAYYYY closer to them than #7 MAC.

The PAC was all alone (a positive) on Friday night (a negative)

AAC (ABC) competed directly with the Big Xii on Fox.

(07-03-2018 06:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 06:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The narrative that the AAC is a huge success story is mostly driven by AAC fans.

UCF was locked out of a Top 10 finish. The respect isn't there.

IMO, AAC football has been about as good as I expected it to be, but not quite as good as others did - I think most expected the AAC to get the NY6 bid every year. But it has had its moments in NY6 games and has generally been the best G5 football conference.

AAC basketball has been a clear disappointment. It was expected to be equal to (new) Big East basketball.

I would say this is a bit pessimistic but a fairly good synopsis.

(07-03-2018 08:28 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 03:17 PM)Chappy Wrote:  And here are the football championship games:

SEC - 13.47 million viewers
B1G - 12.82 million
B12 - 5.90 million
ACC - 5.43 million
P12 - 3.66 million
AAC - 3.39 million
MAC - 652K
MWC - 623K
C-USA - 255K
SBC - 225K

Below the P12, but WAAAAYYYY closer to them than #7 MAC.

The PAC was all alone (a positive) on Friday night (a negative)

AAC (ABC) competed directly with the Big Xii on Fox.

Ratings mostly are driven by the TV window IMO, aside from SEC/B1G.

I've been predicting about $6M per team for the new AAC TV contract (+/-). It's a gut feeling, but not without reasons...
1. The AAC has as many national football brands as all of the rest of the G4 conferences combined.
2. There are only 4 recognized football national championships among all of the G5 conferences - ALL of them are AAC teams.
3. When the Big XII considered G5 schools for expansion, which conference did they come from?

(07-03-2018 05:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 04:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 04:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 03:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There were no unknown quantities involved. There was ample data on what sort of interest each team had delivered in the way of viewers.

I agree. For six years, I have argued with fellow fans of AAC schools that say "we got a low-ball deal because the conference was unproven and unstable". As you say, all of these schools had been playing college football games, often against each other, and there was ample data as to what it was worth. And instability is easy to handle via opt-out clauses in the case that membership changes - which is what the 'group A' and 'group B' clauses were about.

I've always said our $20m a year deal was just the fair market value for our product at the time, but that I'd hope that as time went by, the schools would build their brands and become more valuable.

I think we have, which is why I'm expecting an increase to around $7m per school. But I will never believe that we got an artificially low deal in 2012. We didn't.

Exactly what data existed? The CUSA teams in the AAC had not faced one another on a national Nielson rated network for almost a decade. Half their games were not even nationally televised (Fox Sports SW). I think they had an idea what USF, Cinci, and UConn brought. Navy was another CBS-Sports property who was probably somewhat of a mystery. So, Im sure they had some decent numbers for about 25% of the league. The rest was largely guestimates.

You don't think Nielsen collects data on cable networks that don't pay for their services? When you are subscriber paying enough you get data on every competitor.

Im sure they can get some data. But what is Fox-SW data going to tell you about Ohio or Florida? I think CBS-Sports had less than 50 million subscribers at the time (it may have still been called College Sports Network at the time). Anything they had on CBS-Sports would have been the best data they had---but I dont how well it would project for more developed platforms like NBC, ESPN, ABC, ESPN2, or even NBC-Sports.

I’m guessing “The American Network” on ESPN will be a thing soon

(07-03-2018 06:23 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  When we go back to 2012 the AAC faces a huge set of unknowns.

1) What will the AAC's place be in the future CFP system? It may be sharing an autobid with the MAC, MWC, CUSA, SBC but what is this new system going to look like in practice? How will it work with the committee?

2) How good will AAC basketball be? Will it be among the elite basketball conferences? Will it be better than the Big East.

Answers:

1) AAC has very little respect from the committee especially as teams reach the Top 15. Less respect than what MWC 1.0 was given.

2) It was thought Big East basketball might be on the level of the A10 within 5 years time but it was actually the AAC that turned out to be A10 level. Wichita State was added but the AAC was still 3 bid.

Conclusion:

The AAC may not be worth much more than what it is paid through ESPN currently. Per linear telecast its receiving MAC money now.

So the Big 12 Championship game is estimated to be worth $27-28 million (for one game), but the entire American TV package including a basketball championship game that had more viewers than the PAC 12 title game and a football championship game that went head-to-head with the $27-28 million Big 12 game and drew more than half as many viewers (3.39 million vs 5.9 million) is only worth $24 million? Okay.

(07-03-2018 04:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 04:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 03:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There were no unknown quantities involved. There was ample data on what sort of interest each team had delivered in the way of viewers.

I agree. For six years, I have argued with fellow fans of AAC schools that say "we got a low-ball deal because the conference was unproven and unstable". As you say, all of these schools had been playing college football games, often against each other, and there was ample data as to what it was worth. And instability is easy to handle via opt-out clauses in the case that membership changes - which is what the 'group A' and 'group B' clauses were about.

I've always said our $20m a year deal was just the fair market value for our product at the time, but that I'd hope that as time went by, the schools would build their brands and become more valuable.

I think we have, which is why I'm expecting an increase to around $7m per school. But I will never believe that we got an artificially low deal in 2012. We didn't.

Exactly what data existed? The CUSA teams in the AAC had not faced one another on a national Nielson rated network for almost a decade. Half their games were not even nationally televised (Fox Sports SW). I think they had an idea what USF, Cinci, and UConn brought. Navy was another CBS-Sports property who was probably somewhat of a mystery. So, Im sure they had some decent numbers for about 25% of the league. The rest was largely guestimates.

I don't think so. Nielsen ratings are nice but there is other data available to networks. USF, Cincy, and UConn had plenty of ratings history, and schools like UCF, Houston, ECU, and Memphis were on TV as well from time to time. Navy was too. And are you saying Tulsa, Temple, and SMU never were?

There's little doubt the various networks had a good idea about the worth of the AAC circa 2012. We got paid that. Since then, we've done a good job building our brands. I think that means a higher pay day, around $7m a school.

We shall see.

The truth about the AAC schools is that many of them are the same caliber as a lot of P5; they unfortunately lack a major national brand that anchors the league and hauls in the tv dollars.

(07-03-2018 07:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 02:58 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 02:44 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Supply and Demand.

The AAC may be worth more than what is thrown at it, but the market doesn't agree. The market capacity is under 50 schools, probably about 40, but there are 65 power schools, and the American slots in behind that, numbers 66-77. That is at the back end of a 2nd tier.

A numbers game sheer and simple. ESPN will not bid against itself, so the American will get way less than they want or expect.

College sports are different from pro sports because there is a loyalty factor from students and alumni. You can't just cut out all but 40 teams and expect people who grew up rooting for East Carolina to root for UNC instead. Not going to happen.

The fact is that the TV ratings the AAC gets in the current environment with 130 FBS teams demonstrate that the league is underpaid. ESPN may not bid against itself, but there are other suitors out there they'll need to bid against.

You are making the "worthy" argument, as are most AAC supporters and Aresco Kool-Aid drinkers. I concede about 20 G5 schools are worthy and 20 P5 may not be. But the packaging of the products and the market forces of supply and demand are not always fair and equitable, and they do not distribute evenly.

We all see the market where a phone model may be only 5-10% better (if that) than it's rivals, but due to a combination of brand name value (marketing) and that desire for the best over merely good drive up the price of that phone to double it's rivals, and yet it outsells several of it's rival manufacturers combined. This results in a 10:1 revenue difference or more. Some of the competitors having to borrow large sums of money to stay in the game.

While some G5 schools have decent followings, as a group none of their conferences do. Not even the American. Excepting UConn, none is a flagship school. So none pick up that "state pride" type fan (ask any Alabaman, Oklahoman, Ohioan, Michigander, or Wisconsinite who didn't go to those flagship schools if they tune in when they play ... you just don't get that for directional State U or City U). Networks know this. It's no secret ESPN data and metrics dictated TCU (before they landed), Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, and Louisville out of the Big East, and B1G metrics said bring Rutgers in. The American product is less valuable than those assets that left. It is what it is.

Anyway when it comes to compensation, it is not dictated so much by the dedicated alumni fans, as it is by the big time casual fans. They can only handle so many teams. The power conferences have built those brands up. Every casual fan knows the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12, and even the core of the ACC. Maybe they forget Purdue or Wake Forest or Oregon State, but they know Florida State, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio State, USC, Washington, Penn State, Michigan, Oklahoma, Clemson and Notre Dame. Those are the schools they want to see play, those are the ones they will pay to see on TV. And they are the ones packaged in the power conferences, so that is where ALL the money will be allocated.

The AAC lines up after all those guys get paid. Like a border line starter in the NBA, they see the All Stars and potential All Stars drawing $25-35m salaries, and the ones with question mark stars or aging getting the mid-level at $5.2-8m. And then they line up for their share, producing 95% of the MLE guy, even 80% of the star player, but are told well I have a veteran minimum left for you, take it or leave it. That is the market place. Nothing different in the distribution of money for conferences.

If the American wants a bigger pay day, they are going to have to take a chance on something like Facebook or Amazon Prime or YouTube. ESPN and WatchESPN are overloaded with football games every Saturday in the fall. Asking them to pay you more because you deserve it is going to get the same sympathy those NBA minimum players get.

Again it has nothing to do with being worthy enough. Nobody in the American is a Penn State or an Alabama. You don't have Wisconsin vs Michigan or USC vs Stanford or Alabama vs Tennessee games on every weekend to take those high paying slots. So you will not get superstar pay. You don't even have Ohio State vs Rutgers or Oklahoma State vs West Virginia level games for the ESPN2 type channels. So there is no compelling reason to pay more.

You could always try the MAC strategy with weeknight November. Less competition for slots, so you might be worth more.

Its not the worthy argument. Its the proven argument. The AAC has proven itself capable of delivering "X" audience. That ability is now a known factor as is the fact that its composition is unlikely to change for the next 6 years. There are simply more bidders for that kind of product than there were for the unproven unstable product in early 2013 before the ACC stabilized realignment by signing a GOR.

(07-04-2018 08:56 AM)nickp Wrote:  I’m guessing “The American Network” on ESPN will be a thing soon

lol...more like a button on ESPN-Plus.

(07-04-2018 11:56 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The truth about the AAC schools is that many of them are the same caliber as a lot of P5; they unfortunately lack a major national brand that anchors the league and hauls in the tv dollars.

But the same thing is true of other G5 schools as well. The "major national brand" anchors are really all that count.

Put Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State in the MAC and it would be a "power" conference as well. It doesn't matter who the supporting cast is.

(07-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 04:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 04:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 03:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There were no unknown quantities involved. There was ample data on what sort of interest each team had delivered in the way of viewers.

I agree. For six years, I have argued with fellow fans of AAC schools that say "we got a low-ball deal because the conference was unproven and unstable". As you say, all of these schools had been playing college football games, often against each other, and there was ample data as to what it was worth. And instability is easy to handle via opt-out clauses in the case that membership changes - which is what the 'group A' and 'group B' clauses were about.

I've always said our $20m a year deal was just the fair market value for our product at the time, but that I'd hope that as time went by, the schools would build their brands and become more valuable.

I think we have, which is why I'm expecting an increase to around $7m per school. But I will never believe that we got an artificially low deal in 2012. We didn't.

Exactly what data existed? The CUSA teams in the AAC had not faced one another on a national Nielson rated network for almost a decade. Half their games were not even nationally televised (Fox Sports SW). I think they had an idea what USF, Cinci, and UConn brought. Navy was another CBS-Sports property who was probably somewhat of a mystery. So, Im sure they had some decent numbers for about 25% of the league. The rest was largely guestimates.

I don't think so. Nielsen ratings are nice but there is other data available to networks. USF, Cincy, and UConn had plenty of ratings history, and schools like UCF, Houston, ECU, and Memphis were on TV as well from time to time. Navy was too. And are you saying Tulsa, Temple, and SMU never were?

There's little doubt the various networks had a good idea about the worth of the AAC circa 2012. We got paid that. Since then, we've done a good job building our brands. I think that means a higher pay day, around $7m a school.

We shall see.

Houston, UCF, and Temple are worth more today than when AAC formed.
That isn't a function of TV not having good data and shooting in the dark it is about Temple not being handy punchline to a joke about being inept in football, UCF won two CUSA football titles one with a four loss team and one with a three loss team. Houston went 1-2 in CUSA title game and won it with a 4 loss team, the only other league championship had been a decade earlier with a five loss team.

AAC will make more because the programs as a group have better value today.

(07-04-2018 02:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 04:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 04:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 03:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There were no unknown quantities involved. There was ample data on what sort of interest each team had delivered in the way of viewers.

I agree. For six years, I have argued with fellow fans of AAC schools that say "we got a low-ball deal because the conference was unproven and unstable". As you say, all of these schools had been playing college football games, often against each other, and there was ample data as to what it was worth. And instability is easy to handle via opt-out clauses in the case that membership changes - which is what the 'group A' and 'group B' clauses were about.

I've always said our $20m a year deal was just the fair market value for our product at the time, but that I'd hope that as time went by, the schools would build their brands and become more valuable.

I think we have, which is why I'm expecting an increase to around $7m per school. But I will never believe that we got an artificially low deal in 2012. We didn't.

Exactly what data existed? The CUSA teams in the AAC had not faced one another on a national Nielson rated network for almost a decade. Half their games were not even nationally televised (Fox Sports SW). I think they had an idea what USF, Cinci, and UConn brought. Navy was another CBS-Sports property who was probably somewhat of a mystery. So, Im sure they had some decent numbers for about 25% of the league. The rest was largely guestimates.

I don't think so. Nielsen ratings are nice but there is other data available to networks. USF, Cincy, and UConn had plenty of ratings history, and schools like UCF, Houston, ECU, and Memphis were on TV as well from time to time. Navy was too. And are you saying Tulsa, Temple, and SMU never were?

There's little doubt the various networks had a good idea about the worth of the AAC circa 2012. We got paid that. Since then, we've done a good job building our brands. I think that means a higher pay day, around $7m a school.

We shall see.

Houston, UCF, and Temple are worth more today than when AAC formed.
That isn't a function of TV not having good data and shooting in the dark it is about Temple not being handy punchline to a joke about being inept in football, UCF won two CUSA football titles one with a four loss team and one with a three loss team. Houston went 1-2 in CUSA title game and won it with a 4 loss team, the only other league championship had been a decade earlier with a five loss team.

AAC will make more because the programs as a group have better value today.

That is my belief as well. Several schools have done a good job of building value. Not all, ECU and Tulsa really haven't, but most of the newcomers have.

We are collectively more valuable than 6 years ago so will get paid more.

(07-04-2018 12:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not the worthy argument. Its the proven argument. The AAC has proven itself capable of delivering "X" audience. That ability is now a known factor as is the fact that its composition is unlikely to change for the next 6 years. There are simply more bidders for that kind of product than there were for the unproven unstable product in early 2013 before the ACC stabilized realignment by signing a GOR.

No AAC game delivers like Alabama-Tennessee, Penn State-Michigan, USC-Washington, Florida-Georgia, or any of a dozen other headline games in a given week. Even games like Cal-UCLA and Iowa-Minnesota have high appeal because of the long traditions, even when they are relatively meaningless. You just can't say that about Cincy-Temple or Houston-SMU.

The American has maybe half a dozen compelling games a year that could give 2nd channel (e.g., ESPN2) solid numbers in a given year -- these "best of the best" from the AAC are what you cite as evidence of being worthy of a larger contract. But it's not week in and week out. The same is pretty much true of several other G5 schools. But that does not justify a contract anywhere near the power conferences. The best G5 games are still when a top G5 is playing a good P5 (Navy-Notre Dame, Boise State-Washington, Houston-Oklahoma), which makes you wonder how much of that is simply the P5 school being on the bill (nearly all of it). Navy-ECU, Boise State-New Mexico, Houston-Tulsa are not going to deliver those ABC/ESPN premium numbers.

The American lacks those flagship U of <State>, lacks those 50 years of pedigree schools. And it lacks the base for support -- look at the donation and gate totals for the American schools and compare them to say the Big 12, it's not close.

The American does have a few more games of value than the other G5 conferences. But the question is, do those half dozen games ESPN might want to put on ESPN2 constitute enough value to bid up the entire conference package? The answer in the past is no, and I think it still is no. If they lose those 6 ESPN2 games, it's not a game changer for their lineup. There is always a Kentucky-Missouri, BC-NC State or Indiana-Iowa game they can air instead, and sometimes a meaningful G5 game from another conference they are not paying a premium for.

The reality is the current line up of the American is mostly old CUSA schools. And the value of the overwhelming bulk of their games is exactly that same level, 3rd or 4th channel overflow or ESPN3. Those UConn-SMU, USF-Tulsa, Memphis-ECU games have no more value than SDSU-Wyoming or Toledo-NIU. It is pure fantasy to think ESPN must pay a premium to load their inventory with these games.

This is why I say if you want any premium, you are going to have to consider YouTube or Facebook or Amazon Prime, who might want to pay for inventory, any inventory.

The causal fan is going to look at their listings and choose an SEC or B1G or B12 or P12 game of the week to watch, or if they are binging, two of them. They don;t have time to watch the 15th most compelling game of the week between some G5 schools, even if they are former CUSA schools like Memphis and ECU.

(07-03-2018 07:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 02:58 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 02:44 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Supply and Demand.

The AAC may be worth more than what is thrown at it, but the market doesn't agree. The market capacity is under 50 schools, probably about 40, but there are 65 power schools, and the American slots in behind that, numbers 66-77. That is at the back end of a 2nd tier.

A numbers game sheer and simple. ESPN will not bid against itself, so the American will get way less than they want or expect.

College sports are different from pro sports because there is a loyalty factor from students and alumni. You can't just cut out all but 40 teams and expect people who grew up rooting for East Carolina to root for UNC instead. Not going to happen.

The fact is that the TV ratings the AAC gets in the current environment with 130 FBS teams demonstrate that the league is underpaid. ESPN may not bid against itself, but there are other suitors out there they'll need to bid against.

You are making the "worthy" argument, as are most AAC supporters and Aresco Kool-Aid drinkers. I concede about 20 G5 schools are worthy and 20 P5 may not be. But the packaging of the products and the market forces of supply and demand are not always fair and equitable, and they do not distribute evenly.

We all see the market where a phone model may be only 5-10% better (if that) than it's rivals, but due to a combination of brand name value (marketing) and that desire for the best over merely good drive up the price of that phone to double it's rivals, and yet it outsells several of it's rival manufacturers combined. This results in a 10:1 revenue difference or more. Some of the competitors having to borrow large sums of money to stay in the game.

While some G5 schools have decent followings, as a group none of their conferences do. Not even the American. Excepting UConn, none is a flagship school. So none pick up that "state pride" type fan (ask any Alabaman, Oklahoman, Ohioan, Michigander, or Wisconsinite who didn't go to those flagship schools if they tune in when they play ... you just don't get that for directional State U or City U). Networks know this. It's no secret ESPN data and metrics dictated TCU (before they landed), Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, and Louisville out of the Big East, and B1G metrics said bring Rutgers in. The American product is less valuable than those assets that left. It is what it is.

Anyway when it comes to compensation, it is not dictated so much by the dedicated alumni fans, as it is by the big time casual fans. They can only handle so many teams. The power conferences have built those brands up. Every casual fan knows the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12, and even the core of the ACC. Maybe they forget Purdue or Wake Forest or Oregon State, but they know Florida State, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio State, USC, Washington, Penn State, Michigan, Oklahoma, Clemson and Notre Dame. Those are the schools they want to see play, those are the ones they will pay to see on TV. And they are the ones packaged in the power conferences, so that is where ALL the money will be allocated.

One point of contention: you say UCONN being a flagship is the only thing the AAC has going for it. Ok, so then do you think the MWC with 7 such schools: Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming and Hawaii plus Boise St, Colorado St and Utah St has more going for it than the AAC because they have 4 flagships and 3 second fiddles? Doubt it.

(07-03-2018 07:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  If the American wants a bigger pay day, they are going to have to take a chance on something like Facebook or Amazon Prime or YouTube. ESPN and WatchESPN are overloaded with football games every Saturday in the fall. Asking them to pay you more because you deserve it is going to get the same sympathy those NBA minimum players get.

Again it has nothing to do with being worthy enough. Nobody in the American is a Penn State or an Alabama. You don't have Wisconsin vs Michigan or USC vs Stanford or Alabama vs Tennessee games on every weekend to take those high paying slots. So you will not get superstar pay. You don't even have Ohio State vs Rutgers or Oklahoma State vs West Virginia level games for the ESPN2 type channels. So there is no compelling reason to pay more.

You could always try the MAC strategy with weeknight November. Less competition for slots, so you might be worth more.

Stu, the AAC games are already televised nationally on the Disney Family of Networks (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews) and on the CBS Sports Network. The AAC games are televised on the weekend. So a MAC strategy would be going backwards.

You may have missed some of the nationally televised games against schools like Penn State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, UCLA, Florida State, Louisville, South Carolina. These were AAC home games. All of them on ABC, with the exception of the Louisville game which was on ESPN.

They have already proven themselves worthy:

1) Three top 25 teams this season in football in 2017, which matched the PAC-12 and Big 12.
2} The only conference to win a national championship in both men's and women's basketball in the same season in the past five years.
3} Three top ten finishes in football (2013,2015, 2017)
4) Top five in baseball. One of six conferences with at least four tournament bids in baseball in 2018. The other five were power conferences.

They have outperformed their TV contract the past five seasons. They already have the exposure on TV through ESPN and CBS. This is about what they get paid for their performance. Any comparison to the MAC is ridiculous.