Let me preface this by saying that the point of this post is to maximize AAC TV revenue, so the scheduling model being used is a Rivals+SOS model. Divisions force good programs to play more bad programs than is necessary, resulting in fewer Tier 1 & Tier 2 games for broadcast partners. Under this model, each team would have 2-3 permanent rivalry games they play every year, and the rest of their conference games would be determined by the prior season's standings.

West: SDSU/BYU/Boise (SDSU/Navy)
SW: Houston/SMU/Tulsa
SE: UCF/USF/ECU (ECU/Temple)
South: Cincinnati, Memphis, Tulane
NE: Temple, Navy (Navy/SDSU, Temple/ECU)

The result of this format is that rivalry games are protected and excessive travel is curtailed. For example, in an 8 game conference schedule with one guaranteed road game vs SDSU/Boise, BYU would only have to travel east of the Rockies 3 times.

Now, the point of the SOS-based scheduling model is two-fold:

1-To maximize opportunity for a CFP bid. The disadvantage of playing in a G5 conference is that opportunities to impress the CFP committee are limited. By maximizing games against respected G5 programs (and in turn limiting games against bad G5 programs) a potential AAC Champion could have a shot at the CFP. Now, this could also backfire and result in more losses for the AAC Champ, but its a risk worth taking if it means an undefeated champ has a shot at a CFP spot.

2-To maximize Tier 1 & Tier 2 TV games. It is no secret that UCF-Boise, BYU-Cincinnati, Houston-Memphis, etc. are more attractive to TV partners than ECU-Tulsa. So the way to maximize TV revenue is to have an inventory of games with more T1 & T2 offerings. Here is the breakdown:
Tier 1: Games among the "brand" programs in the conference (including CCG): UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston, Navy (BYU, Boise)
Tier 2: When T1 teams play other "good" teams in the conference or when those good teams play each other (SMU, Temple, SDSU)
Tier 3: All other games owned by the conference TV rights

Here is a breakdown of T1/T2/T3 games under the current AAC deal (2019) that is worth $7M per team, compared to the New SOS Model:
Current: T1=18, T2=9, T3=46
New: T1=27, T2=29, T3=29

By going to the new model the AAC would have as many T1 games as they have for T1 & T2 combined currently. And the total number of T1 & T2 games would double, while significantly decreasing the number of T3 games. This is how a conference increases its TV revenue. Under this model the AAC could offer quality content to fill Thursday night, Friday night, and two Saturday slots. Which brings us to the next way the AAC could be increasing revenue.

The additions of BYU, Boise & SDSU bring a brand new broadcast window (10 EST) for the AAC TV partners. And this is the importance of having all 3 programs in the AAC, to solidify the window on a weekly basis. Right now the Pac-12 owns this time slot, but they are exclusively regional. In the AAC you will have east coast and central teams playing in the late games as well, meaning more national interest.

So, let's look at some numbers
Current AAC TV Revenue: $83M/yr ($12.5M/yr for BB/other sports) = $71M/yr for football only or $5.9M per team
The core value of a TV deal is the conference's inventory of T1 & T2 games (T1 = 58%, T2 = 29%, T3 = 11%)
>Under the current AAC TV deal, partners are actually paying the same for T1 & T2 games because there are so few T2 games (approx $2.3M per game)
>Using the same flawed payout for both T1 & T2 games, the new total of the FB Only Deal would be $130M or $9.3M per team
>However a more fair analysis of the current numbers would be $3.5M for T1 games & $1.6M for T2 games, which results in $161M or $11.5M per team

Now $11.5M per team ($12.5 for BB members), is a nice increase for the conference until you consider what adding BYU & Boise do for the AAC's positioning and branding. Currently the AAC calls itself the "P6" conference, but they're constantly looking over their shoulder worrying about another G5 champion stealing the NY6 bid. The additions of BYU, Boise & SDSU eliminate this concern. Not only would the AAC be bringing in Boise (its only consistent threat for the NY6 bid) to the conference, in BYU they'd be adding a program with a history and tradition that extends well beyond the current core of programs in the league. And the AAC would be cementing itself firmly above the rest of the G5. Here is one way to measure the impact of adding BYU, Boise & SDSU to the AAC:

Current attendance by conference: Pac 12=46k, AAC=29.5k, MWC=23K
Adjustment based on realignment: Pac 12=46k, AAC=33.5k, MWC=21k
>And this is before any natural bump from an increase in quality games

So the AAC will go from solidly above (but still among) the G5s in attendance to solidly apart from the rest of the G5s in attendance, and actually exactly between the lowest P5 and the next highest G5. TV revenue should reflect this positioning. The Pac-12 distributes $29.5M annually and the MWC just signed a deal worth $3.75M annually. Based on those numbers the AAC should be at about $16.6M per team under this model, but $15M per team for football only seems like a fair number for a conference without the official designation as a "power" conference.

A conference with quality competition, protected regional rivalries, a TV payout in the neighborhood of $15M/yr, and a virtual guarantee of a NY6 bowl for winning the conference title seems like a great position for this group of programs to be in. Not to mention under this model the AAC could likely get 2-3 quality 2nd Tier bowl games in its lineup (Holiday, Liberty, Tangerine).

I prefer AFA over SDSU but I think 14 teams and a western presence is the way to go.

I appreciate your analysis. However, I think you need to take a more analytical approach. How are you coming to the conclusion of Tier 1 vs Tier 2 Vs Tier 3 games ? If you were using ratings or some metrics that would be preferable and add weight to your argument. Ratings are a little tough to use as a lone data point as exposure becomes a confounding variable ( being on espn is always going to get bigger ratings than being on Cbssn). You could also factor in metropolitan area population & attendance (nice job on the attendance figures). A short cut would search the web and use someone else’s metrics and systems with more complex methodologies. Otherwise thanks for the thoughtful original content

(09-01-2020 01:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I prefer AFA over SDSU but I think 14 teams and a western presence is the way to go.

Getting into CA is huge. SDSU is a priority. If you're talking about expanding beyond 14, you can take your pick of Air Force, Colorado State, UNLV, or Fresno State. But you have to add SDSU or you are killing the life blood (CA recruiting) of BYU & Boise. And keeping the AAC out of CA would be a huge missed opportunity in terms of revenue and recruiting footprint for the rest of the conference.

(09-01-2020 01:53 PM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  I appreciate your analysis. However, I think you need to take a more analytical approach. How are you coming to the conclusion of Tier 1 vs Tier 2 Vs Tier 3 games ? If you were using ratings or some metrics that would be preferable and add weight to your argument. Ratings are a little tough to use as a lone data point as exposure becomes a confounding variable ( being on espn is always going to get bigger ratings than being on Cbssn). You could also factor in metropolitan area population & attendance (nice job on the attendance figures). A short cut would search the web and use someone else’s metrics and systems with more complex methodologies. Otherwise thanks for the thoughtful original content

AAC inventory viewers 2019 - 28.6 million

BYU inventory viewers 2019 4.967 million
BSU viewers in mwc inventory 2019 4.675 million
SDSU viewers in mwc inventory 2019 1.08 million

Taking that as total increase is a little questionable - I took all the Boise mwc games as "in mwc inventory". But how much is additive vs just a replacement of existing AAC content? 550k is the CCG vs Hawaii, while the AAC CCG got 2.88 million. The best example of "additive" is the 1.18 million viewers for Wyoming at Boise because it was late night window.

But let's talk about the whole thing as an increase - best case value for those additions. 37% increase in viewers. A 37% increase in $ would theoreticall bump the average annual value from $83.3M to $114M...and then you divide that by 14 instead of 11, and get about $500k per school per year more.

Not exactly a blockbuster.

SDSU is the most appealing expansion candidate to me. Strong basketball and football, located in a major city, and a good fit institutionally. If they werent so far out of our current geographic footprint SDSU to the AAC would be a no brainer.

(09-01-2020 03:14 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  SDSU is the most appealing expansion candidate to me. Strong basketball and football, located in a major city, and a good fit institutionally. If they werent so far out of our current geographic footprint SDSU to the AAC would be a no brainer.

This^^^ most appealing overall.

(09-01-2020 03:22 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 03:14 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  SDSU is the most appealing expansion candidate to me. Strong basketball and football, located in a major city, and a good fit institutionally. If they werent so far out of our current geographic footprint SDSU to the AAC would be a no brainer.

This^^^ most appealing overall.

Has the best long-term potential, and do fit very well. But will them being in California be more of a negative than a positive?

San Diego women are worth the distance.

ESPN is not going to up the $$ for those schools, The AAC is hamstrung right now, just like the B12 is.

(09-01-2020 03:49 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  ESPN is not going to up the $$ for those schools, The AAC is hamstrung right now, just like the B12 is.

Nope, they could possibly get one that is already under the ESPN umbrella, BYU for example, or G4 member.

(09-01-2020 12:38 PM)CaliWG Wrote:  Let me preface this by saying that the point of this post is to maximize AAC TV revenue, so the scheduling model being used is a Rivals+SOS model. Divisions force good programs to play more bad programs than is necessary, resulting in fewer Tier 1 & Tier 2 games for broadcast partners. Under this model, each team would have 2-3 permanent rivalry games they play every year, and the rest of their conference games would be determined by the prior season's standings.

West: SDSU/BYU/Boise (SDSU/Navy)
SW: Houston/SMU/Tulsa
SE: UCF/USF/ECU (ECU/Temple)
South: Cincinnati, Memphis, Tulane
NE: Temple, Navy (Navy/SDSU, Temple/ECU)

The result of this format is that rivalry games are protected and excessive travel is curtailed. For example, in an 8 game conference schedule with one guaranteed road game vs SDSU/Boise, BYU would only have to travel east of the Rockies 3 times.

Now, the point of the SOS-based scheduling model is two-fold:

1-To maximize opportunity for a CFP bid. The disadvantage of playing in a G5 conference is that opportunities to impress the CFP committee are limited. By maximizing games against respected G5 programs (and in turn limiting games against bad G5 programs) a potential AAC Champion could have a shot at the CFP. Now, this could also backfire and result in more losses for the AAC Champ, but its a risk worth taking if it means an undefeated champ has a shot at a CFP spot.

2-To maximize Tier 1 & Tier 2 TV games. It is no secret that UCF-Boise, BYU-Cincinnati, Houston-Memphis, etc. are more attractive to TV partners than ECU-Tulsa. So the way to maximize TV revenue is to have an inventory of games with more T1 & T2 offerings. Here is the breakdown:
Tier 1: Games among the "brand" programs in the conference (including CCG): UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston, Navy (BYU, Boise)
Tier 2: When T1 teams play other "good" teams in the conference or when those good teams play each other (SMU, Temple, SDSU)
Tier 3: All other games owned by the conference TV rights

Here is a breakdown of T1/T2/T3 games under the current AAC deal (2019) that is worth $7M per team, compared to the New SOS Model:
Current: T1=18, T2=9, T3=46
New: T1=27, T2=29, T3=29

By going to the new model the AAC would have as many T1 games as they have for T1 & T2 combined currently. And the total number of T1 & T2 games would double, while significantly decreasing the number of T3 games. This is how a conference increases its TV revenue. Under this model the AAC could offer quality content to fill Thursday night, Friday night, and two Saturday slots. Which brings us to the next way the AAC could be increasing revenue.

The additions of BYU, Boise & SDSU bring a brand new broadcast window (10 EST) for the AAC TV partners. And this is the importance of having all 3 programs in the AAC, to solidify the window on a weekly basis. Right now the Pac-12 owns this time slot, but they are exclusively regional. In the AAC you will have east coast and central teams playing in the late games as well, meaning more national interest.

So, let's look at some numbers
Current AAC TV Revenue: $83M/yr ($12.5M/yr for BB/other sports) = $71M/yr for football only or $5.9M per team
The core value of a TV deal is the conference's inventory of T1 & T2 games (T1 = 58%, T2 = 29%, T3 = 11%)
>Under the current AAC TV deal, partners are actually paying the same for T1 & T2 games because there are so few T2 games (approx $2.3M per game)
>Using the same flawed payout for both T1 & T2 games, the new total of the FB Only Deal would be $130M or $9.3M per team
>However a more fair analysis of the current numbers would be $3.5M for T1 games & $1.6M for T2 games, which results in $161M or $11.5M per team

Now $11.5M per team ($12.5 for BB members), is a nice increase for the conference until you consider what adding BYU & Boise do for the AAC's positioning and branding. Currently the AAC calls itself the "P6" conference, but they're constantly looking over their shoulder worrying about another G5 champion stealing the NY6 bid. The additions of BYU, Boise & SDSU eliminate this concern. Not only would the AAC be bringing in Boise (its only consistent threat for the NY6 bid) to the conference, in BYU they'd be adding a program with a history and tradition that extends well beyond the current core of programs in the league. And the AAC would be cementing itself firmly above the rest of the G5. Here is one way to measure the impact of adding BYU, Boise & SDSU to the AAC:

Current attendance by conference: Pac 12=46k, AAC=29.5k, MWC=23K
Adjustment based on realignment: Pac 12=46k, AAC=33.5k, MWC=21k
>And this is before any natural bump from an increase in quality games

So the AAC will go from solidly above (but still among) the G5s in attendance to solidly apart from the rest of the G5s in attendance, and actually exactly between the lowest P5 and the next highest G5. TV revenue should reflect this positioning. The Pac-12 distributes $29.5M annually and the MWC just signed a deal worth $3.75M annually. Based on those numbers the AAC should be at about $16.6M per team under this model, but $15M per team for football only seems like a fair number for a conference without the official designation as a "power" conference.

A conference with quality competition, protected regional rivalries, a TV payout in the neighborhood of $15M/yr, and a virtual guarantee of a NY6 bowl for winning the conference title seems like a great position for this group of programs to be in. Not to mention under this model the AAC could likely get 2-3 quality 2nd Tier bowl games in its lineup (Holiday, Liberty, Tangerine).

Ya know... media is really overlooking this particular trend of Russian backed online cult - like realignment theroists.

If it were actually worth it and there were actual power conference dollars available , i.e. $30M plus per school, then this would have happened already.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(09-01-2020 02:46 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 01:53 PM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  I appreciate your analysis. However, I think you need to take a more analytical approach. How are you coming to the conclusion of Tier 1 vs Tier 2 Vs Tier 3 games ? If you were using ratings or some metrics that would be preferable and add weight to your argument. Ratings are a little tough to use as a lone data point as exposure becomes a confounding variable ( being on espn is always going to get bigger ratings than being on Cbssn). You could also factor in metropolitan area population & attendance (nice job on the attendance figures). A short cut would search the web and use someone else’s metrics and systems with more complex methodologies. Otherwise thanks for the thoughtful original content

AAC inventory viewers 2019 - 28.6 million

BYU inventory viewers 2019 4.967 million
BSU viewers in mwc inventory 2019 4.675 million
SDSU viewers in mwc inventory 2019 1.08 million

Taking that as total increase is a little questionable - I took all the Boise mwc games as "in mwc inventory". But how much is additive vs just a replacement of existing AAC content? 550k is the CCG vs Hawaii, while the AAC CCG got 2.88 million. The best example of "additive" is the 1.18 million viewers for Wyoming at Boise because it was late night window.

But let's talk about the whole thing as an increase - best case value for those additions. 37% increase in viewers. A 37% increase in $ would theoreticall bump the average annual value from $83.3M to $114M...and then you divide that by 14 instead of 11, and get about $500k per school per year more.

Not exactly a blockbuster.

One thing to keep in mind for SDSU & Boise is that CBSSN consumes all of their best content that ESPN doesn't have first rights to. Specifically, SDSU is not part of the ESPN deal and CBSSN gets first selections each year. This means under the current regime SDSU's best content will always been on unrated CBSSN, whereas all of Boise's MWC away games tend to be on CBSSN (not protected by ESPN deal). I'm not going to estimate what SDSU's numbers would be if they weren't under this contract, but I would say that there is a reason CBSSN tends to gobble up all our best games first.

You make the schedules too hard, with every strong team playing every strong team, and you schedule yourself out of the NY bowl game.

(09-01-2020 04:00 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 02:46 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 01:53 PM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  I appreciate your analysis. However, I think you need to take a more analytical approach. How are you coming to the conclusion of Tier 1 vs Tier 2 Vs Tier 3 games ? If you were using ratings or some metrics that would be preferable and add weight to your argument. Ratings are a little tough to use as a lone data point as exposure becomes a confounding variable ( being on espn is always going to get bigger ratings than being on Cbssn). You could also factor in metropolitan area population & attendance (nice job on the attendance figures). A short cut would search the web and use someone else’s metrics and systems with more complex methodologies. Otherwise thanks for the thoughtful original content

AAC inventory viewers 2019 - 28.6 million

BYU inventory viewers 2019 4.967 million
BSU viewers in mwc inventory 2019 4.675 million
SDSU viewers in mwc inventory 2019 1.08 million

Taking that as total increase is a little questionable - I took all the Boise mwc games as "in mwc inventory". But how much is additive vs just a replacement of existing AAC content? 550k is the CCG vs Hawaii, while the AAC CCG got 2.88 million. The best example of "additive" is the 1.18 million viewers for Wyoming at Boise because it was late night window.

But let's talk about the whole thing as an increase - best case value for those additions. 37% increase in viewers. A 37% increase in $ would theoreticall bump the average annual value from $83.3M to $114M...and then you divide that by 14 instead of 11, and get about $500k per school per year more.

Not exactly a blockbuster.

One thing to keep in mind for SDSU & Boise is that CBSSN consumes all of their best content that ESPN doesn't have first rights to. Specifically, SDSU is not part of the ESPN deal and CBSSN gets first selections each year. This means under the current regime SDSU's best content will always been on unrated CBSSN, whereas all of Boise's MWC away games tend to be on CBSSN (not protected by ESPN deal). I'm not going to estimate what SDSU's numbers would be if they weren't under this contract, but I would say that there is a reason CBSSN tends to gobble up all our best games first.

That's a valid point.
Navy guy isn't going to go negative on CBSSN, but the fact that they're not rated does create a blindspot - even more so for the mwc-CBSSN than for the AAC "Navy tier" because of the first selection aspect.

I don't see any Boise away conference games in the seven that contributed to Boise's numbers - reasonable assumption that all their in-conference away games got swept up by CBSSN.

SDSU has three games contributing, all on ESPN2, one Friday night and two Saturday late window.

(09-01-2020 04:29 PM)DrBox Wrote:  You make the schedules too hard, with every strong team playing every strong team, and you schedule yourself out of the NY bowl game.

Isn't the point to allow the cream to rise to the top? Is a best of the AAC schedule tougher than the Big 12's round robin? If the goal is to become a Power conference and/or have a shot at a CFP birth, you can't be afraid to play the best teams in your own G5 conference. Theoretically this could be UCF's schedule:

Georgia Tech
at North Carolina
FIU
Florida A&M
USF
at ECU
Memphis
at Cincinnati
Houston
at Navy
BYU
at Boise State

Looking at that schedule from a P5 perspective, does it look daunting? No. Does it have a bunch of solid games on it? Sure. But if UCF is really worthy of a CFP birth, they get through that schedule. And if they're really NY6 worthy, they get through that schedule with two losses at most.

(09-01-2020 02:46 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 01:53 PM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  I appreciate your analysis. However, I think you need to take a more analytical approach. How are you coming to the conclusion of Tier 1 vs Tier 2 Vs Tier 3 games ? If you were using ratings or some metrics that would be preferable and add weight to your argument. Ratings are a little tough to use as a lone data point as exposure becomes a confounding variable ( being on espn is always going to get bigger ratings than being on Cbssn). You could also factor in metropolitan area population & attendance (nice job on the attendance figures). A short cut would search the web and use someone else’s metrics and systems with more complex methodologies. Otherwise thanks for the thoughtful original content

AAC inventory viewers 2019 - 28.6 million

BYU inventory viewers 2019 4.967 million
BSU viewers in mwc inventory 2019 4.675 million
SDSU viewers in mwc inventory 2019 1.08 million

Taking that as total increase is a little questionable - I took all the Boise mwc games as "in mwc inventory". But how much is additive vs just a replacement of existing AAC content? 550k is the CCG vs Hawaii, while the AAC CCG got 2.88 million. The best example of "additive" is the 1.18 million viewers for Wyoming at Boise because it was late night window.

But let's talk about the whole thing as an increase - best case value for those additions. 37% increase in viewers. A 37% increase in $ would theoreticall bump the average annual value from $83.3M to $114M...and then you divide that by 14 instead of 11, and get about $500k per school per year more.

Not exactly a blockbuster.

You aren't addressing the fact that premium inventory increases exponentially every time you add 1 quality program, and in this case the AAC is adding 2. Instead of 1 Thu/Fri game & 1 Saturday game per week worthy of national television, the AAC could have 4 per week. That means Thu, Fri, Sat & Sat night inventory. More quality content = more $$$.

(09-01-2020 04:47 PM)CaliWG Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:29 PM)DrBox Wrote:  You make the schedules too hard, with every strong team playing every strong team, and you schedule yourself out of the NY bowl game.

Isn't the point to allow the cream to rise to the top? Is a best of the AAC schedule tougher than the Big 12's round robin? If the goal is to become a Power conference and/or have a shot at a CFP birth, you can't be afraid to play the best teams in your own G5 conference. Theoretically this could be UCF's schedule:

Georgia Tech
at North Carolina
FIU
Florida A&M
USF
at ECU
Memphis
at Cincinnati
Houston
at Navy
BYU
at Boise State

Looking at that schedule from a P5 perspective, does it look daunting? No. Does it have a bunch of solid games on it? Sure. But if UCF is really worthy of a CFP birth, they get through that schedule. And if they're really NY6 worthy, they get through that schedule with two losses at most.

So, all the top AAC teams beat up on each other such that the champion doesn't have a nice-and-shiny win-loss record or high ranking?.... that's how *UConn* played in the Fiesta Bowl....and a reason why Big East football lost its seat at the table.

(09-01-2020 02:25 PM)CaliWG Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 01:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I prefer AFA over SDSU but I think 14 teams and a western presence is the way to go.

Getting into CA is huge. SDSU is a priority. If you're talking about expanding beyond 14, you can take your pick of Air Force, Colorado State, UNLV, or Fresno State. But you have to add SDSU or you are killing the life blood (CA recruiting) of BYU & Boise. And keeping the AAC out of CA would be a huge missed opportunity in terms of revenue and recruiting footprint for the rest of the conference.

To much poop in the streets in Cali

(09-01-2020 07:51 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 02:25 PM)CaliWG Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 01:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I prefer AFA over SDSU but I think 14 teams and a western presence is the way to go.

Getting into CA is huge. SDSU is a priority. If you're talking about expanding beyond 14, you can take your pick of Air Force, Colorado State, UNLV, or Fresno State. But you have to add SDSU or you are killing the life blood (CA recruiting) of BYU & Boise. And keeping the AAC out of CA would be a huge missed opportunity in terms of revenue and recruiting footprint for the rest of the conference.

To much poop in the streets in Cali

Not in San Diego


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk