Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
Author Message
8BitPirate Offline
A Man of Wealth and Taste
*

Posts: 5,337
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 489
I Root For: ECU
Location: ITB
Post: #401
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
Just gonna leave this here. See those planes in Denver from some key MWC schools, Provo and Dallas. It's happening.
[Image: March-World-small.gif]
11-27-2020 12:49 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCGrad1992 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,770
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 2265
I Root For: Bearcats U
Location: North Carolina
Post: #402
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
I don't know about Boise but something tells me BYU wishes they were playing in the AAC Chip game this year...
11-27-2020 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1622
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #403
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 12:44 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'm not here to argue with any of you. I will 100% admit that BYU/Army/Air Force/Boise are better ads than Marshall right now. Outside of that, I don't think there's any comparison. Marshall is EASILY the next best, and honestly, only BYU is better as an All Sports invite.

Marshall is well within the conference footprint. A great travel partner for Cincy, we are an R2 research institution, we have a Top 75 media market (that we actually own/control), and we have national name recognition which helps us draw eyeballs outside of our media market.

Our average attendance was down last year, but a lot of people were basically going on strike to get rid of our head coach. We have proven we can easily average 28k/game with an AAC schedule, that's also while we were down at the time. So we could possibly do better if we were winning with an AAC schedule. We have sold out multiple games with P5 opponents over the last few years.

In basketball, we might not have the banners, but we do have the support and have improved over the last few years. We average around 6,000/game which is easily in the top half of AAC. Our attendance would DRASTICALLY increase with an AAC schedule.

Someone asked for TV ratings against other AAC teams. Here are a few from our recent bowl games.

Our last 6 bowl games have an average rating of 1.89 million viewers. I would say that's pretty dang good.

2019 Gasparilla Bowl vs UCF 1.15 million
2018 Gasparilla Bowl vs USF 1.75 million
2017 New Mexico Bowl vs Colorado St 1.21 million

2015 St Petersburg Bowl vs UCONN 2.4 million
2014 Boca Raton Bowl vs NIU 2.25 million
2013 Military Bowl vs Maryland 2.58 million

Our job at Marshall is to continue winning, finishing in the Top 25, and go on another run like we did in the MAC. Getting an AAC invite would be great, but if not, being the Boise St of CUSA wouldn't be so bad either.

I hope I don't come off as too negative in this reply - that is not my intent.
First and foremost, good on ya for being proud of your school. And you are right that Marshall is a recognizable name - obviously the history that was just commemorated, FCS success, possibly the template for moving up and being successful, some memorable names / moments like Moss, Leftwich in that GMAC bowl.
And having said all that, in fact, the stats you cite show why Marshall would be dilutive to the AAC not additive. Marshall does have a recognizable brand and the reasons they're not the choice to add show why very few WOULD be a good choice to add.

You mention 28k attendance...the 11 AAC football schools averaged 30,285 in 2019. They averaged 30,544 2015-2019. 28k would lower the AAC's average attendance.

You said that 1.89 million viewers for bowl games is pretty dang good.
In 2019, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2019 AAC bowls averaged 1.97 million viewers without Memphis' Cotton Bowl, 2.57 million with it.
In 2018, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2018 AAC bowls averaged 2.26 million without UCF's Fiesta Bowl, 3.299 million with the Fiesta.
In 2017 AAC bowls averaged 2.303 million viewers without UCF's Peach Bowl, 3.171 million with the Peach.
In 2016 AAC bowls averaged 2.145 million viewers.
In 2015 UConn's St Petersburg Bowl vs Marshall with 2.4 million viewers was the fourth best viewership of the AAC's eight bowls. Ahead of the 2.166 million viewer average without Houston's Peach Bowl. AAC bowls including the Peach averaged 2.596 million viewers.

Marshall is good for a G4 in a lot of measures, but would be a net negative to add to the AAC. Again, not slamming Marshall or your opinion, but as a case study Marshall is a good example for why so few programs would be a net positive to add.
11-27-2020 04:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,542
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 149
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #404
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 04:00 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 12:44 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'm not here to argue with any of you. I will 100% admit that BYU/Army/Air Force/Boise are better ads than Marshall right now. Outside of that, I don't think there's any comparison. Marshall is EASILY the next best, and honestly, only BYU is better as an All Sports invite.

Marshall is well within the conference footprint. A great travel partner for Cincy, we are an R2 research institution, we have a Top 75 media market (that we actually own/control), and we have national name recognition which helps us draw eyeballs outside of our media market.

Our average attendance was down last year, but a lot of people were basically going on strike to get rid of our head coach. We have proven we can easily average 28k/game with an AAC schedule, that's also while we were down at the time. So we could possibly do better if we were winning with an AAC schedule. We have sold out multiple games with P5 opponents over the last few years.

In basketball, we might not have the banners, but we do have the support and have improved over the last few years. We average around 6,000/game which is easily in the top half of AAC. Our attendance would DRASTICALLY increase with an AAC schedule.

Someone asked for TV ratings against other AAC teams. Here are a few from our recent bowl games.

Our last 6 bowl games have an average rating of 1.89 million viewers. I would say that's pretty dang good.

2019 Gasparilla Bowl vs UCF 1.15 million
2018 Gasparilla Bowl vs USF 1.75 million
2017 New Mexico Bowl vs Colorado St 1.21 million

2015 St Petersburg Bowl vs UCONN 2.4 million
2014 Boca Raton Bowl vs NIU 2.25 million
2013 Military Bowl vs Maryland 2.58 million

Our job at Marshall is to continue winning, finishing in the Top 25, and go on another run like we did in the MAC. Getting an AAC invite would be great, but if not, being the Boise St of CUSA wouldn't be so bad either.

I hope I don't come off as too negative in this reply - that is not my intent.
First and foremost, good on ya for being proud of your school. And you are right that Marshall is a recognizable name - obviously the history that was just commemorated, FCS success, possibly the template for moving up and being successful, some memorable names / moments like Moss, Leftwich in that GMAC bowl.
And having said all that, in fact, the stats you cite show why Marshall would be dilutive to the AAC not additive. Marshall does have a recognizable brand and the reasons they're not the choice to add show why very few WOULD be a good choice to add.

You mention 28k attendance...the 11 AAC football schools averaged 30,285 in 2019. They averaged 30,544 2015-2019. 28k would lower the AAC's average attendance.

You said that 1.89 million viewers for bowl games is pretty dang good.
In 2019, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2019 AAC bowls averaged 1.97 million viewers without Memphis' Cotton Bowl, 2.57 million with it.
In 2018, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2018 AAC bowls averaged 2.26 million without UCF's Fiesta Bowl, 3.299 million with the Fiesta.
In 2017 AAC bowls averaged 2.303 million viewers without UCF's Peach Bowl, 3.171 million with the Peach.
In 2016 AAC bowls averaged 2.145 million viewers.
In 2015 UConn's St Petersburg Bowl vs Marshall with 2.4 million viewers was the fourth best viewership of the AAC's eight bowls. Ahead of the 2.166 million viewer average without Houston's Peach Bowl. AAC bowls including the Peach averaged 2.596 million viewers.

Marshall is good for a G4 in a lot of measures, but would be a net negative to add to the AAC. Again, not slamming Marshall or your opinion, but as a case study Marshall is a good example for why so few programs would be a net positive to add.

I agree with herdfan129.

The counter-arguments in response to his post were not very persuasive.

For example:

To use an old expression, "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the AAC's average attendance of 30,285 and Marshall's reported average attendance against AAC opponents. Although it's true that "28k would lower the AAC's average attendance," it would only lower the AAC's average attendance by a total of 190 fans (.006%) per game.

Marshall's average non-NY6 bowl viewership was only ~15% lower than the average viewership of the AAC's non-NY6 bowls during the same period, and their average bowl viewership of 1,890,000 is nothing to sneeze at.

These minor differences are not nearly substantive enough to exclude a team from a conference.

Far more important is the fact that Marshall's record since the inception of the AAC would place them in the top tier of the AAC.

Marshall is probably the next best FB add for the AAC, after BYU, Army, Air Force, and Boise State. In fact, in terms of the average strength of their program over the past 10 years, Marshall may be #2 after Boise State.

Why? Because the data suggest that, with the exception of UCF and Cincinnati, Boise State and Marshall have been the two non-P5 FB schools that have finished the most seasons in the AP Top 35 since the AAC came into existence in 2013.

Boise State has finished all 7 seasons (2013-2019) in the AP Top 35 (top 25 plus "others receiving votes"). UCF is next on the list with four finishes in the top 35. Marshall (currently #17) and Cincinnati (currently #10) are close behind, having finished in the top 35 three times since 2013 in addition to their current rankings. Air Force (3 top 35 finishes, but currently unranked) Army (2 top 35 finishes) and BYU (0 top 35 finishes) trail behind Marshall, as do Appalachian State (3; currently unranked), San Diego State (3; currently unranked), and 9 of the 11 current AAC teams (Memphis (3, currently unranked), Navy (2), Temple (2), Houston (1), SMU (1), USF (1), Tulsa (1), Tulane (0), & ECU (0)).

.

Marshall would rank as a top tier football member of the AAC, in terms of the number of finishes in the AP top 35 since 2013:

AAC TIER 1 (3+ TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

1 UCF: 4 finishes (#7, #10, #12, #24) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
2 Cincinnati: 3 finishes (#21, #23, #35) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #7)
3 Memphis: 3 finishes (#17, #24, #25) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
4 Marshall: 3 finishes (#23, #29, #32) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #17)

AAC TIER 2 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

5 Navy: 2 finishes (#18, #20) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
6 USF: 2 finishes (#19, #21) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
7 Houston: 1 finish (#8) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
8 Tulsa: 1 finish (#34) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #24)
9 Temple: 2 finishes (#31, #33) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
10 SMU: 1 finish (#33) in AP Top 35 (currently #29)

AAC TIER 3 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013:

11 Tulane: 0 finishes in AP Top 35
12 ECU: 0 finishes in AP Top 35

.

Moreover, Marshall's 2020 viewership has been very solid. Marshall is one of a handful of non-P5 schools that have had two games with 998,000 or more viewers this season.

Cincinnati, BYU, UCF, Memphis, Navy, Arkansas State, and Houston are the only other non-P5 teams that have had two or more 2+ million-viewer/games.

Thus, Marshall would be a Tier 1 AAC FB program, not only in terms of the number of top 35 teams that they have fielded, but also in terms of the number of their games that have 998,000 or more viewers.

.

There is, thus, no basis in terms of viewership or the success of their football program to support the assertion that: "Marshall ...would be a net negative to add to the AAC."

The notion that replacing the worst FB program in the conference (UConn) with a top tier FB program would be a "net negative" is, at best, difficult to explain from the standpoint of ordinary logic.

To the contrary, Marshall would be a net positive from the standpoint of their FB viewership and the strength of their FB program.

In the words of the robot from Lost in Space, "That does not compute!"





(This post was last modified: 11-27-2020 08:44 PM by jedclampett.)
11-27-2020 08:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #405
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 08:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 04:00 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 12:44 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'm not here to argue with any of you. I will 100% admit that BYU/Army/Air Force/Boise are better ads than Marshall right now. Outside of that, I don't think there's any comparison. Marshall is EASILY the next best, and honestly, only BYU is better as an All Sports invite.

Marshall is well within the conference footprint. A great travel partner for Cincy, we are an R2 research institution, we have a Top 75 media market (that we actually own/control), and we have national name recognition which helps us draw eyeballs outside of our media market.

Our average attendance was down last year, but a lot of people were basically going on strike to get rid of our head coach. We have proven we can easily average 28k/game with an AAC schedule, that's also while we were down at the time. So we could possibly do better if we were winning with an AAC schedule. We have sold out multiple games with P5 opponents over the last few years.

In basketball, we might not have the banners, but we do have the support and have improved over the last few years. We average around 6,000/game which is easily in the top half of AAC. Our attendance would DRASTICALLY increase with an AAC schedule.

Someone asked for TV ratings against other AAC teams. Here are a few from our recent bowl games.

Our last 6 bowl games have an average rating of 1.89 million viewers. I would say that's pretty dang good.

2019 Gasparilla Bowl vs UCF 1.15 million
2018 Gasparilla Bowl vs USF 1.75 million
2017 New Mexico Bowl vs Colorado St 1.21 million

2015 St Petersburg Bowl vs UCONN 2.4 million
2014 Boca Raton Bowl vs NIU 2.25 million
2013 Military Bowl vs Maryland 2.58 million

Our job at Marshall is to continue winning, finishing in the Top 25, and go on another run like we did in the MAC. Getting an AAC invite would be great, but if not, being the Boise St of CUSA wouldn't be so bad either.

I hope I don't come off as too negative in this reply - that is not my intent.
First and foremost, good on ya for being proud of your school. And you are right that Marshall is a recognizable name - obviously the history that was just commemorated, FCS success, possibly the template for moving up and being successful, some memorable names / moments like Moss, Leftwich in that GMAC bowl.
And having said all that, in fact, the stats you cite show why Marshall would be dilutive to the AAC not additive. Marshall does have a recognizable brand and the reasons they're not the choice to add show why very few WOULD be a good choice to add.

You mention 28k attendance...the 11 AAC football schools averaged 30,285 in 2019. They averaged 30,544 2015-2019. 28k would lower the AAC's average attendance.

You said that 1.89 million viewers for bowl games is pretty dang good.
In 2019, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2019 AAC bowls averaged 1.97 million viewers without Memphis' Cotton Bowl, 2.57 million with it.
In 2018, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2018 AAC bowls averaged 2.26 million without UCF's Fiesta Bowl, 3.299 million with the Fiesta.
In 2017 AAC bowls averaged 2.303 million viewers without UCF's Peach Bowl, 3.171 million with the Peach.
In 2016 AAC bowls averaged 2.145 million viewers.
In 2015 UConn's St Petersburg Bowl vs Marshall with 2.4 million viewers was the fourth best viewership of the AAC's eight bowls. Ahead of the 2.166 million viewer average without Houston's Peach Bowl. AAC bowls including the Peach averaged 2.596 million viewers.

Marshall is good for a G4 in a lot of measures, but would be a net negative to add to the AAC. Again, not slamming Marshall or your opinion, but as a case study Marshall is a good example for why so few programs would be a net positive to add.

I agree with herdfan129.

The counter-arguments in response to his post were not very persuasive.

For example:

To use an old expression, "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the AAC's average attendance of 30,285 and Marshall's reported average attendance against AAC opponents. Although it's true that "28k would lower the AAC's average attendance," it would only lower the AAC's average attendance by a total of 190 fans (.006%) per game.

Marshall's average non-NY6 bowl viewership was only ~15% lower than the average viewership of the AAC's non-NY6 bowls during the same period, and their average bowl viewership of 1,890,000 is nothing to sneeze at.

These minor differences are not important enough to exclude a team from a conference.

Far more important is the fact that Marshall's record since the inception of the AAC would place them in the top tier of the AAC.

Marshall is probably the next best FB add for the AAC, after BYU, Army, Air Force, and Boise State. In fact, in terms of the average strength of their program over the past 10 years, Marshall may be #2 after Boise State.

Why? Because the data suggest that, with the exception of UCF and Cincinnati, Boise State and Marshall have been the two non-P5 FB schools that have finished the most seasons in the AP Top 35 since the AAC came into existence in 2013.

Boise State has finished all 7 seasons (2013-2019) in the AP Top 35 (top 25 plus "others receiving votes"). UCF is next on the list with four finishes in the top 35. Marshall (currently #17) and Cincinnati (currently #10) are close behind, having finished in the top 35 three times since 2013 in addition to their current rankings. Air Force (3 top 35 finishes, but currently unranked) Army (2 top 35 finishes) and BYU (0 top 35 finishes) trail behind Marshall, as do Appalachian State (3; currently unranked), San Diego State (3; currently unranked), and 9 of the 11 current AAC teams (Memphis (3, currently unranked), Navy (2), Temple (2), Houston (1), SMU (1), USF (1), Tulsa (1), Tulane (0), & ECU (0)).

.

Marshall would rank as a top tier football member of the AAC, in terms of the number of finishes in the AP top 35 since 2013:

AAC TIER 1 (3+ TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

1 UCF: 4 finishes (#7, #10, #12, #24) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
2 Cincinnati: 3 finishes (#21, #23, #35) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #7)
3 Memphis: 3 finishes (#17, #24, #25) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
4 Marshall: 3 finishes (#23, #29, #32) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #17)

AAC TIER 2 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

5 Navy: 2 finishes (#18, #20) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
6 USF: 2 finishes (#19, #21) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
7 Houston: 1 finish (#8) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
8 Tulsa: 1 finish (#34) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #24)
9 Temple: 2 finishes (#31, #33) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
10 SMU: 1 finish (#33) in AP Top 35 (currently #29)

AAC TIER 3 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013:

11 Tulane: 0 finishes in AP Top 35
12 ECU: 0 finishes in AP Top 35

You said--"These minor differences are not important enough to exclude a team from a conference."

What you seem to be missing is--the reasons cited also don't constitute a reason for conference members to take a pay cut in order to add a new member that actually slightly weakens the conference.

If your talking about adding a member that likely increases the long term value of the conference like BYU, Boise, or Army----it makes some sense to accept a small pay cut NOW in order to create a better product that will result in bigger dollars down the line. It makes no sense to take a small pay cut now in order to add a member that is unlikely to provide any future improvement in conference value (over and above the current value).

Honestly, the AAC likely isnt looking for a team that looks like the bottom or even the middle of the conference. This is an opportunity for the conference to give itself a real boost. The only way it can do that is to add a team that looks like the top of the conference. Frankly, there is no "one" team that does that (no single available school has a excellent football and excellent basketball). But adding one BYU/Boise/or Army as a "football only" member and as well as adding an "olympic sports only" addition like VCU would effectively accomplish the goal of adding to the "top of the conference" in both football and basketball.
(This post was last modified: 11-27-2020 08:35 PM by Attackcoog.)
11-27-2020 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,542
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 149
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #406
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 08:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 04:00 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 12:44 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'm not here to argue with any of you. I will 100% admit that BYU/Army/Air Force/Boise are better ads than Marshall right now. Outside of that, I don't think there's any comparison. Marshall is EASILY the next best, and honestly, only BYU is better as an All Sports invite.

Marshall is well within the conference footprint. A great travel partner for Cincy, we are an R2 research institution, we have a Top 75 media market (that we actually own/control), and we have national name recognition which helps us draw eyeballs outside of our media market.

Our average attendance was down last year, but a lot of people were basically going on strike to get rid of our head coach. We have proven we can easily average 28k/game with an AAC schedule, that's also while we were down at the time. So we could possibly do better if we were winning with an AAC schedule. We have sold out multiple games with P5 opponents over the last few years.

In basketball, we might not have the banners, but we do have the support and have improved over the last few years. We average around 6,000/game which is easily in the top half of AAC. Our attendance would DRASTICALLY increase with an AAC schedule.

Someone asked for TV ratings against other AAC teams. Here are a few from our recent bowl games.

Our last 6 bowl games have an average rating of 1.89 million viewers. I would say that's pretty dang good.

2019 Gasparilla Bowl vs UCF 1.15 million
2018 Gasparilla Bowl vs USF 1.75 million
2017 New Mexico Bowl vs Colorado St 1.21 million

2015 St Petersburg Bowl vs UCONN 2.4 million
2014 Boca Raton Bowl vs NIU 2.25 million
2013 Military Bowl vs Maryland 2.58 million

Our job at Marshall is to continue winning, finishing in the Top 25, and go on another run like we did in the MAC. Getting an AAC invite would be great, but if not, being the Boise St of CUSA wouldn't be so bad either.

I hope I don't come off as too negative in this reply - that is not my intent.
First and foremost, good on ya for being proud of your school. And you are right that Marshall is a recognizable name - obviously the history that was just commemorated, FCS success, possibly the template for moving up and being successful, some memorable names / moments like Moss, Leftwich in that GMAC bowl.
And having said all that, in fact, the stats you cite show why Marshall would be dilutive to the AAC not additive. Marshall does have a recognizable brand and the reasons they're not the choice to add show why very few WOULD be a good choice to add.

You mention 28k attendance...the 11 AAC football schools averaged 30,285 in 2019. They averaged 30,544 2015-2019. 28k would lower the AAC's average attendance.

You said that 1.89 million viewers for bowl games is pretty dang good.
In 2019, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2019 AAC bowls averaged 1.97 million viewers without Memphis' Cotton Bowl, 2.57 million with it.
In 2018, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2018 AAC bowls averaged 2.26 million without UCF's Fiesta Bowl, 3.299 million with the Fiesta.
In 2017 AAC bowls averaged 2.303 million viewers without UCF's Peach Bowl, 3.171 million with the Peach.
In 2016 AAC bowls averaged 2.145 million viewers.
In 2015 UConn's St Petersburg Bowl vs Marshall with 2.4 million viewers was the fourth best viewership of the AAC's eight bowls. Ahead of the 2.166 million viewer average without Houston's Peach Bowl. AAC bowls including the Peach averaged 2.596 million viewers.

Marshall is good for a G4 in a lot of measures, but would be a net negative to add to the AAC. Again, not slamming Marshall or your opinion, but as a case study Marshall is a good example for why so few programs would be a net positive to add.

I agree with herdfan129.

The counter-arguments in response to his post were not very persuasive.

For example:

To use an old expression, "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the AAC's average attendance of 30,285 and Marshall's reported average attendance against AAC opponents. Although it's true that "28k would lower the AAC's average attendance," it would only lower the AAC's average attendance by a total of 190 fans (.006%) per game.

Marshall's average non-NY6 bowl viewership was only ~15% lower than the average viewership of the AAC's non-NY6 bowls during the same period, and their average bowl viewership of 1,890,000 is nothing to sneeze at.

These minor differences are not important enough to exclude a team from a conference.

Far more important is the fact that Marshall's record since the inception of the AAC would place them in the top tier of the AAC.

Marshall is probably the next best FB add for the AAC, after BYU, Army, Air Force, and Boise State. In fact, in terms of the average strength of their program over the past 10 years, Marshall may be #2 after Boise State.

Why? Because the data suggest that, with the exception of UCF and Cincinnati, Boise State and Marshall have been the two non-P5 FB schools that have finished the most seasons in the AP Top 35 since the AAC came into existence in 2013.

Boise State has finished all 7 seasons (2013-2019) in the AP Top 35 (top 25 plus "others receiving votes"). UCF is next on the list with four finishes in the top 35. Marshall (currently #17) and Cincinnati (currently #10) are close behind, having finished in the top 35 three times since 2013 in addition to their current rankings. Air Force (3 top 35 finishes, but currently unranked) Army (2 top 35 finishes) and BYU (0 top 35 finishes) trail behind Marshall, as do Appalachian State (3; currently unranked), San Diego State (3; currently unranked), and 9 of the 11 current AAC teams (Memphis (3, currently unranked), Navy (2), Temple (2), Houston (1), SMU (1), USF (1), Tulsa (1), Tulane (0), & ECU (0)).

.

Marshall would rank as a top tier football member of the AAC, in terms of the number of finishes in the AP top 35 since 2013:

AAC TIER 1 (3+ TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

1 UCF: 4 finishes (#7, #10, #12, #24) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
2 Cincinnati: 3 finishes (#21, #23, #35) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #7)
3 Memphis: 3 finishes (#17, #24, #25) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
4 Marshall: 3 finishes (#23, #29, #32) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #17)

AAC TIER 2 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

5 Navy: 2 finishes (#18, #20) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
6 USF: 2 finishes (#19, #21) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
7 Houston: 1 finish (#8) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
8 Tulsa: 1 finish (#34) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #24)
9 Temple: 2 finishes (#31, #33) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
10 SMU: 1 finish (#33) in AP Top 35 (currently #29)

AAC TIER 3 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013:

11 Tulane: 0 finishes in AP Top 35
12 ECU: 0 finishes in AP Top 35

You said--"These minor differences are not important enough to exclude a team from a conference."

What you seem to be missing is--the reasons cited also don't constitute a reason for conference members to take a pay cut in order to add a new member that actually slightly weakens the conference.

If your talking about adding a member that likely increases the long term value of the conference like BYU, Boise, or Army----it makes some sense to accept a small pay cut NOW in order to create a better product that will result in bigger dollars down the line. It makes no sense to take a small pay cut now in order to add a member that is unlikely to provide any future improvement in conference value (over and above the current value).

Question: Why would the conference have to take a pay cut?

With a 12-year broadcasting agreement, and the fact that the amount that ESPN had set aside for UConn would be more than enough to allocate for a school such as Marshall, it's not clear why there would be a pay cut.

I suppose one could try to argue that Marshall FB won't generate the income that UConn FB would have generated for ESPN, but that argument would tend to be unsupported by the fact that Marshall has already had two of the highest viewership games among all non-P5 teams this season.

If I were an ESPN executive, I'd be looking at those numbers and thinking:

"You're darn tootin' that we'd like Marshall to become an AAC FB member! It'll generate far more revenue for ESPN than UConn FB would have done!"
(This post was last modified: 11-27-2020 08:58 PM by jedclampett.)
11-27-2020 08:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gulfcoastgal Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,299
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #407
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 08:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 04:00 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 12:44 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'm not here to argue with any of you. I will 100% admit that BYU/Army/Air Force/Boise are better ads than Marshall right now. Outside of that, I don't think there's any comparison. Marshall is EASILY the next best, and honestly, only BYU is better as an All Sports invite.

Marshall is well within the conference footprint. A great travel partner for Cincy, we are an R2 research institution, we have a Top 75 media market (that we actually own/control), and we have national name recognition which helps us draw eyeballs outside of our media market.

Our average attendance was down last year, but a lot of people were basically going on strike to get rid of our head coach. We have proven we can easily average 28k/game with an AAC schedule, that's also while we were down at the time. So we could possibly do better if we were winning with an AAC schedule. We have sold out multiple games with P5 opponents over the last few years.

In basketball, we might not have the banners, but we do have the support and have improved over the last few years. We average around 6,000/game which is easily in the top half of AAC. Our attendance would DRASTICALLY increase with an AAC schedule.

Someone asked for TV ratings against other AAC teams. Here are a few from our recent bowl games.

Our last 6 bowl games have an average rating of 1.89 million viewers. I would say that's pretty dang good.

2019 Gasparilla Bowl vs UCF 1.15 million
2018 Gasparilla Bowl vs USF 1.75 million
2017 New Mexico Bowl vs Colorado St 1.21 million

2015 St Petersburg Bowl vs UCONN 2.4 million
2014 Boca Raton Bowl vs NIU 2.25 million
2013 Military Bowl vs Maryland 2.58 million

Our job at Marshall is to continue winning, finishing in the Top 25, and go on another run like we did in the MAC. Getting an AAC invite would be great, but if not, being the Boise St of CUSA wouldn't be so bad either.

I hope I don't come off as too negative in this reply - that is not my intent.
First and foremost, good on ya for being proud of your school. And you are right that Marshall is a recognizable name - obviously the history that was just commemorated, FCS success, possibly the template for moving up and being successful, some memorable names / moments like Moss, Leftwich in that GMAC bowl.
And having said all that, in fact, the stats you cite show why Marshall would be dilutive to the AAC not additive. Marshall does have a recognizable brand and the reasons they're not the choice to add show why very few WOULD be a good choice to add.

You mention 28k attendance...the 11 AAC football schools averaged 30,285 in 2019. They averaged 30,544 2015-2019. 28k would lower the AAC's average attendance.

You said that 1.89 million viewers for bowl games is pretty dang good.
In 2019, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2019 AAC bowls averaged 1.97 million viewers without Memphis' Cotton Bowl, 2.57 million with it.
In 2018, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2018 AAC bowls averaged 2.26 million without UCF's Fiesta Bowl, 3.299 million with the Fiesta.
In 2017 AAC bowls averaged 2.303 million viewers without UCF's Peach Bowl, 3.171 million with the Peach.
In 2016 AAC bowls averaged 2.145 million viewers.
In 2015 UConn's St Petersburg Bowl vs Marshall with 2.4 million viewers was the fourth best viewership of the AAC's eight bowls. Ahead of the 2.166 million viewer average without Houston's Peach Bowl. AAC bowls including the Peach averaged 2.596 million viewers.

Marshall is good for a G4 in a lot of measures, but would be a net negative to add to the AAC. Again, not slamming Marshall or your opinion, but as a case study Marshall is a good example for why so few programs would be a net positive to add.

I agree with herdfan129.

The counter-arguments in response to his post were not very persuasive.

For example:

To use an old expression, "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the AAC's average attendance of 30,285 and Marshall's reported average attendance against AAC opponents. Although it's true that "28k would lower the AAC's average attendance," it would only lower the AAC's average attendance by a total of 190 fans (.006%) per game.

Marshall's average non-NY6 bowl viewership was only ~15% lower than the average viewership of the AAC's non-NY6 bowls during the same period, and their average bowl viewership of 1,890,000 is nothing to sneeze at.

These minor differences are not important enough to exclude a team from a conference.

Far more important is the fact that Marshall's record since the inception of the AAC would place them in the top tier of the AAC.

Marshall is probably the next best FB add for the AAC, after BYU, Army, Air Force, and Boise State. In fact, in terms of the average strength of their program over the past 10 years, Marshall may be #2 after Boise State.

Why? Because the data suggest that, with the exception of UCF and Cincinnati, Boise State and Marshall have been the two non-P5 FB schools that have finished the most seasons in the AP Top 35 since the AAC came into existence in 2013.

Boise State has finished all 7 seasons (2013-2019) in the AP Top 35 (top 25 plus "others receiving votes"). UCF is next on the list with four finishes in the top 35. Marshall (currently #17) and Cincinnati (currently #10) are close behind, having finished in the top 35 three times since 2013 in addition to their current rankings. Air Force (3 top 35 finishes, but currently unranked) Army (2 top 35 finishes) and BYU (0 top 35 finishes) trail behind Marshall, as do Appalachian State (3; currently unranked), San Diego State (3; currently unranked), and 9 of the 11 current AAC teams (Memphis (3, currently unranked), Navy (2), Temple (2), Houston (1), SMU (1), USF (1), Tulsa (1), Tulane (0), & ECU (0)).

.

Marshall would rank as a top tier football member of the AAC, in terms of the number of finishes in the AP top 35 since 2013:

AAC TIER 1 (3+ TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

1 UCF: 4 finishes (#7, #10, #12, #24) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
2 Cincinnati: 3 finishes (#21, #23, #35) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #7)
3 Memphis: 3 finishes (#17, #24, #25) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
4 Marshall: 3 finishes (#23, #29, #32) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #17)

AAC TIER 2 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

5 Navy: 2 finishes (#18, #20) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
6 USF: 2 finishes (#19, #21) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
7 Houston: 1 finish (#8) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
8 Tulsa: 1 finish (#34) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #24)
9 Temple: 2 finishes (#31, #33) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
10 SMU: 1 finish (#33) in AP Top 35 (currently #29)

AAC TIER 3 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013:

11 Tulane: 0 finishes in AP Top 35
12 ECU: 0 finishes in AP Top 35

Don’t care enough to check others, but know Memphis has received votes in other years...not that it matters much imo. Bowl viewership has zero bearing on conference contracts as they are negotiated separately per committee members who worked on the current deal. A better measure may be G5 season games over multiple years. I have no opinion one way or the other on specific teams, just clarifying which numbers are pertinent to media deals.
(This post was last modified: 11-27-2020 09:22 PM by gulfcoastgal.)
11-27-2020 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #408
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 08:55 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 08:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 04:00 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 12:44 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'm not here to argue with any of you. I will 100% admit that BYU/Army/Air Force/Boise are better ads than Marshall right now. Outside of that, I don't think there's any comparison. Marshall is EASILY the next best, and honestly, only BYU is better as an All Sports invite.

Marshall is well within the conference footprint. A great travel partner for Cincy, we are an R2 research institution, we have a Top 75 media market (that we actually own/control), and we have national name recognition which helps us draw eyeballs outside of our media market.

Our average attendance was down last year, but a lot of people were basically going on strike to get rid of our head coach. We have proven we can easily average 28k/game with an AAC schedule, that's also while we were down at the time. So we could possibly do better if we were winning with an AAC schedule. We have sold out multiple games with P5 opponents over the last few years.

In basketball, we might not have the banners, but we do have the support and have improved over the last few years. We average around 6,000/game which is easily in the top half of AAC. Our attendance would DRASTICALLY increase with an AAC schedule.

Someone asked for TV ratings against other AAC teams. Here are a few from our recent bowl games.

Our last 6 bowl games have an average rating of 1.89 million viewers. I would say that's pretty dang good.

2019 Gasparilla Bowl vs UCF 1.15 million
2018 Gasparilla Bowl vs USF 1.75 million
2017 New Mexico Bowl vs Colorado St 1.21 million

2015 St Petersburg Bowl vs UCONN 2.4 million
2014 Boca Raton Bowl vs NIU 2.25 million
2013 Military Bowl vs Maryland 2.58 million

Our job at Marshall is to continue winning, finishing in the Top 25, and go on another run like we did in the MAC. Getting an AAC invite would be great, but if not, being the Boise St of CUSA wouldn't be so bad either.

I hope I don't come off as too negative in this reply - that is not my intent.
First and foremost, good on ya for being proud of your school. And you are right that Marshall is a recognizable name - obviously the history that was just commemorated, FCS success, possibly the template for moving up and being successful, some memorable names / moments like Moss, Leftwich in that GMAC bowl.
And having said all that, in fact, the stats you cite show why Marshall would be dilutive to the AAC not additive. Marshall does have a recognizable brand and the reasons they're not the choice to add show why very few WOULD be a good choice to add.

You mention 28k attendance...the 11 AAC football schools averaged 30,285 in 2019. They averaged 30,544 2015-2019. 28k would lower the AAC's average attendance.

You said that 1.89 million viewers for bowl games is pretty dang good.
In 2019, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2019 AAC bowls averaged 1.97 million viewers without Memphis' Cotton Bowl, 2.57 million with it.
In 2018, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2018 AAC bowls averaged 2.26 million without UCF's Fiesta Bowl, 3.299 million with the Fiesta.
In 2017 AAC bowls averaged 2.303 million viewers without UCF's Peach Bowl, 3.171 million with the Peach.
In 2016 AAC bowls averaged 2.145 million viewers.
In 2015 UConn's St Petersburg Bowl vs Marshall with 2.4 million viewers was the fourth best viewership of the AAC's eight bowls. Ahead of the 2.166 million viewer average without Houston's Peach Bowl. AAC bowls including the Peach averaged 2.596 million viewers.

Marshall is good for a G4 in a lot of measures, but would be a net negative to add to the AAC. Again, not slamming Marshall or your opinion, but as a case study Marshall is a good example for why so few programs would be a net positive to add.

I agree with herdfan129.

The counter-arguments in response to his post were not very persuasive.

For example:

To use an old expression, "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the AAC's average attendance of 30,285 and Marshall's reported average attendance against AAC opponents. Although it's true that "28k would lower the AAC's average attendance," it would only lower the AAC's average attendance by a total of 190 fans (.006%) per game.

Marshall's average non-NY6 bowl viewership was only ~15% lower than the average viewership of the AAC's non-NY6 bowls during the same period, and their average bowl viewership of 1,890,000 is nothing to sneeze at.

These minor differences are not important enough to exclude a team from a conference.

Far more important is the fact that Marshall's record since the inception of the AAC would place them in the top tier of the AAC.

Marshall is probably the next best FB add for the AAC, after BYU, Army, Air Force, and Boise State. In fact, in terms of the average strength of their program over the past 10 years, Marshall may be #2 after Boise State.

Why? Because the data suggest that, with the exception of UCF and Cincinnati, Boise State and Marshall have been the two non-P5 FB schools that have finished the most seasons in the AP Top 35 since the AAC came into existence in 2013.

Boise State has finished all 7 seasons (2013-2019) in the AP Top 35 (top 25 plus "others receiving votes"). UCF is next on the list with four finishes in the top 35. Marshall (currently #17) and Cincinnati (currently #10) are close behind, having finished in the top 35 three times since 2013 in addition to their current rankings. Air Force (3 top 35 finishes, but currently unranked) Army (2 top 35 finishes) and BYU (0 top 35 finishes) trail behind Marshall, as do Appalachian State (3; currently unranked), San Diego State (3; currently unranked), and 9 of the 11 current AAC teams (Memphis (3, currently unranked), Navy (2), Temple (2), Houston (1), SMU (1), USF (1), Tulsa (1), Tulane (0), & ECU (0)).

.

Marshall would rank as a top tier football member of the AAC, in terms of the number of finishes in the AP top 35 since 2013:

AAC TIER 1 (3+ TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

1 UCF: 4 finishes (#7, #10, #12, #24) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
2 Cincinnati: 3 finishes (#21, #23, #35) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #7)
3 Memphis: 3 finishes (#17, #24, #25) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
4 Marshall: 3 finishes (#23, #29, #32) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #17)

AAC TIER 2 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

5 Navy: 2 finishes (#18, #20) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
6 USF: 2 finishes (#19, #21) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
7 Houston: 1 finish (#8) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
8 Tulsa: 1 finish (#34) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #24)
9 Temple: 2 finishes (#31, #33) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
10 SMU: 1 finish (#33) in AP Top 35 (currently #29)

AAC TIER 3 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013:

11 Tulane: 0 finishes in AP Top 35
12 ECU: 0 finishes in AP Top 35

You said--"These minor differences are not important enough to exclude a team from a conference."

What you seem to be missing is--the reasons cited also don't constitute a reason for conference members to take a pay cut in order to add a new member that actually slightly weakens the conference.

If your talking about adding a member that likely increases the long term value of the conference like BYU, Boise, or Army----it makes some sense to accept a small pay cut NOW in order to create a better product that will result in bigger dollars down the line. It makes no sense to take a small pay cut now in order to add a member that is unlikely to provide any future improvement in conference value (over and above the current value).

Question: Why would the conference have to take a pay cut?

With a 12-year broadcasting agreement, and the fact that the amount that ESPN had set aside for UConn would be more than enough to allocate for a school such as Marshall, it's not clear why there would be a pay cut.

I suppose one could try to argue that Marshall FB won't generate the income that UConn FB would have generated for ESPN, but that argument would tend to be unsupported by the fact that Marshall has already had two of the highest viewership games among all non-P5 teams this season.

If I were an ESPN executive, I'd be looking at those numbers and thinking:

"You're darn tootin' that we'd like Marshall to become an AAC FB member! It'll generate far more revenue for ESPN than UConn FB would have done!"

Well, we take a pay cut because the AAC income is more than the just the TV deal. Right now our share of the CFP/Bowl/NCAA Tournament revenue is cut 11 ways rather than 12. Im not sure, but I dont think our TV deal was even cut by the same amount as a full UConn share would have represented--so we are actually making a bit over 7 million each on the TV deal. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that adding Marshall would be seen as ESPN as being worth the entire amount we lost when UConn left. Keep in mind, ESPN already has the rights to some Marshall games if they want. In fact, if ESPN was truly of the "You're darn tootin' that we'd like Marshall" mindset----then they would have laid out the whopping 4 million or so it would have cost to buy ALL of CUSA (including all 8 Marshall conference games) rather than pay the AAC an extra 7 million to add Marshall.

Look, if the world were going to come to an end if the AAC didnt add a team---adding Marshall would NOT suddenly doom the league to drift aimlessly at the bottom of the G5. The league would carry on roughly the same manner as its current version---but thats not the point. The point is adding a team that looks like the bottom or middle of the league means we'd have missed a huge opportunity to substantially improve the quality and perception of the league. So, barring "the world is ending" scenario---there is currently no convincing reason for the AAC add a team that would not clearly and substantially increase the leagues value. Instead, we can keep our powder dry---while earning a bit more money---and bide our time until we have an opportunity to add a school that truly adds to the quality, perception, and media value of the AAC.
(This post was last modified: 11-27-2020 09:23 PM by Attackcoog.)
11-27-2020 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IamYourDad Offline
Banned

Posts: 660
Joined: Oct 2018
I Root For: UCF
Location: In your head
Post: #409
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 09:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 08:55 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 08:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 04:00 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  I hope I don't come off as too negative in this reply - that is not my intent.
First and foremost, good on ya for being proud of your school. And you are right that Marshall is a recognizable name - obviously the history that was just commemorated, FCS success, possibly the template for moving up and being successful, some memorable names / moments like Moss, Leftwich in that GMAC bowl.
And having said all that, in fact, the stats you cite show why Marshall would be dilutive to the AAC not additive. Marshall does have a recognizable brand and the reasons they're not the choice to add show why very few WOULD be a good choice to add.

You mention 28k attendance...the 11 AAC football schools averaged 30,285 in 2019. They averaged 30,544 2015-2019. 28k would lower the AAC's average attendance.

You said that 1.89 million viewers for bowl games is pretty dang good.
In 2019, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2019 AAC bowls averaged 1.97 million viewers without Memphis' Cotton Bowl, 2.57 million with it.
In 2018, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2018 AAC bowls averaged 2.26 million without UCF's Fiesta Bowl, 3.299 million with the Fiesta.
In 2017 AAC bowls averaged 2.303 million viewers without UCF's Peach Bowl, 3.171 million with the Peach.
In 2016 AAC bowls averaged 2.145 million viewers.
In 2015 UConn's St Petersburg Bowl vs Marshall with 2.4 million viewers was the fourth best viewership of the AAC's eight bowls. Ahead of the 2.166 million viewer average without Houston's Peach Bowl. AAC bowls including the Peach averaged 2.596 million viewers.

Marshall is good for a G4 in a lot of measures, but would be a net negative to add to the AAC. Again, not slamming Marshall or your opinion, but as a case study Marshall is a good example for why so few programs would be a net positive to add.

I agree with herdfan129.

The counter-arguments in response to his post were not very persuasive.

For example:

To use an old expression, "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the AAC's average attendance of 30,285 and Marshall's reported average attendance against AAC opponents. Although it's true that "28k would lower the AAC's average attendance," it would only lower the AAC's average attendance by a total of 190 fans (.006%) per game.

Marshall's average non-NY6 bowl viewership was only ~15% lower than the average viewership of the AAC's non-NY6 bowls during the same period, and their average bowl viewership of 1,890,000 is nothing to sneeze at.

These minor differences are not important enough to exclude a team from a conference.

Far more important is the fact that Marshall's record since the inception of the AAC would place them in the top tier of the AAC.

Marshall is probably the next best FB add for the AAC, after BYU, Army, Air Force, and Boise State. In fact, in terms of the average strength of their program over the past 10 years, Marshall may be #2 after Boise State.

Why? Because the data suggest that, with the exception of UCF and Cincinnati, Boise State and Marshall have been the two non-P5 FB schools that have finished the most seasons in the AP Top 35 since the AAC came into existence in 2013.

Boise State has finished all 7 seasons (2013-2019) in the AP Top 35 (top 25 plus "others receiving votes"). UCF is next on the list with four finishes in the top 35. Marshall (currently #17) and Cincinnati (currently #10) are close behind, having finished in the top 35 three times since 2013 in addition to their current rankings. Air Force (3 top 35 finishes, but currently unranked) Army (2 top 35 finishes) and BYU (0 top 35 finishes) trail behind Marshall, as do Appalachian State (3; currently unranked), San Diego State (3; currently unranked), and 9 of the 11 current AAC teams (Memphis (3, currently unranked), Navy (2), Temple (2), Houston (1), SMU (1), USF (1), Tulsa (1), Tulane (0), & ECU (0)).

.

Marshall would rank as a top tier football member of the AAC, in terms of the number of finishes in the AP top 35 since 2013:

AAC TIER 1 (3+ TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

1 UCF: 4 finishes (#7, #10, #12, #24) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
2 Cincinnati: 3 finishes (#21, #23, #35) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #7)
3 Memphis: 3 finishes (#17, #24, #25) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
4 Marshall: 3 finishes (#23, #29, #32) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #17)

AAC TIER 2 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

5 Navy: 2 finishes (#18, #20) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
6 USF: 2 finishes (#19, #21) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
7 Houston: 1 finish (#8) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
8 Tulsa: 1 finish (#34) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #24)
9 Temple: 2 finishes (#31, #33) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
10 SMU: 1 finish (#33) in AP Top 35 (currently #29)

AAC TIER 3 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013:

11 Tulane: 0 finishes in AP Top 35
12 ECU: 0 finishes in AP Top 35

You said--"These minor differences are not important enough to exclude a team from a conference."

What you seem to be missing is--the reasons cited also don't constitute a reason for conference members to take a pay cut in order to add a new member that actually slightly weakens the conference.

If your talking about adding a member that likely increases the long term value of the conference like BYU, Boise, or Army----it makes some sense to accept a small pay cut NOW in order to create a better product that will result in bigger dollars down the line. It makes no sense to take a small pay cut now in order to add a member that is unlikely to provide any future improvement in conference value (over and above the current value).

Question: Why would the conference have to take a pay cut?

With a 12-year broadcasting agreement, and the fact that the amount that ESPN had set aside for UConn would be more than enough to allocate for a school such as Marshall, it's not clear why there would be a pay cut.

I suppose one could try to argue that Marshall FB won't generate the income that UConn FB would have generated for ESPN, but that argument would tend to be unsupported by the fact that Marshall has already had two of the highest viewership games among all non-P5 teams this season.

If I were an ESPN executive, I'd be looking at those numbers and thinking:

"You're darn tootin' that we'd like Marshall to become an AAC FB member! It'll generate far more revenue for ESPN than UConn FB would have done!"

Well, we take a pay cut because the AAC income is more than the just the TV deal. Right now our share of the CFP/Bowl/NCAA Tournament revenue is cut 11 ways rather than 12. Im not sure, but I dont think our TV deal was even cut by the same amount as a full UConn share would have represented--so we are actually making a bit over 7 million each on the TV deal. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that adding Marshall would be seen as ESPN as being worth the entire amount we lost when UConn left. Keep in mind, ESPN already has the rights to some Marshall games if they want. In fact, if ESPN was truly of the "You're darn tootin' that we'd like Marshall" mindset----then they would have laid out the whopping 4 million or so it would have cost to buy ALL of CUSA (including all 8 Marshall conference games) rather than pay the AAC an extra 7 million to add Marshall.

Look, if the world were going to come to an end if the AAC didnt add a team---adding Marshall would NOT suddenly doom the league to drift aimlessly at the bottom of the G5. The league would carry on roughly the same manner as its current version---but thats not the point. The point is adding a team that looks like the bottom or middle of the league means we'd have missed a huge opportunity to substantially improve the quality and perception of the league. So, barring "the world is ending" scenario---there is currently no convincing reason for the AAC add a team that would not clearly and substantially increase the leagues value. Instead, we can keep our powder dry---while earning a bit more money---and bide our time until we have an opportunity to add a school that truly adds to the quality, perception, and media value of the AAC.

It's a sad reality, but it's the same argument for us joining the Big 12. The reason all of us want it so bad is because it benefits us and us only. We would be another mouth to feed to them. The only way any of us will ever be a P5 team is if we develop into that league. Cincy making the playoff would help a great deal in that respect
11-27-2020 09:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1622
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #410
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 08:58 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 08:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 04:00 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 12:44 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'm not here to argue with any of you. I will 100% admit that BYU/Army/Air Force/Boise are better ads than Marshall right now. Outside of that, I don't think there's any comparison. Marshall is EASILY the next best, and honestly, only BYU is better as an All Sports invite.

Marshall is well within the conference footprint. A great travel partner for Cincy, we are an R2 research institution, we have a Top 75 media market (that we actually own/control), and we have national name recognition which helps us draw eyeballs outside of our media market.

Our average attendance was down last year, but a lot of people were basically going on strike to get rid of our head coach. We have proven we can easily average 28k/game with an AAC schedule, that's also while we were down at the time. So we could possibly do better if we were winning with an AAC schedule. We have sold out multiple games with P5 opponents over the last few years.

In basketball, we might not have the banners, but we do have the support and have improved over the last few years. We average around 6,000/game which is easily in the top half of AAC. Our attendance would DRASTICALLY increase with an AAC schedule.

Someone asked for TV ratings against other AAC teams. Here are a few from our recent bowl games.

Our last 6 bowl games have an average rating of 1.89 million viewers. I would say that's pretty dang good.

2019 Gasparilla Bowl vs UCF 1.15 million
2018 Gasparilla Bowl vs USF 1.75 million
2017 New Mexico Bowl vs Colorado St 1.21 million

2015 St Petersburg Bowl vs UCONN 2.4 million
2014 Boca Raton Bowl vs NIU 2.25 million
2013 Military Bowl vs Maryland 2.58 million

Our job at Marshall is to continue winning, finishing in the Top 25, and go on another run like we did in the MAC. Getting an AAC invite would be great, but if not, being the Boise St of CUSA wouldn't be so bad either.

I hope I don't come off as too negative in this reply - that is not my intent.
First and foremost, good on ya for being proud of your school. And you are right that Marshall is a recognizable name - obviously the history that was just commemorated, FCS success, possibly the template for moving up and being successful, some memorable names / moments like Moss, Leftwich in that GMAC bowl.
And having said all that, in fact, the stats you cite show why Marshall would be dilutive to the AAC not additive. Marshall does have a recognizable brand and the reasons they're not the choice to add show why very few WOULD be a good choice to add.

You mention 28k attendance...the 11 AAC football schools averaged 30,285 in 2019. They averaged 30,544 2015-2019. 28k would lower the AAC's average attendance.

You said that 1.89 million viewers for bowl games is pretty dang good.
In 2019, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2019 AAC bowls averaged 1.97 million viewers without Memphis' Cotton Bowl, 2.57 million with it.
In 2018, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2018 AAC bowls averaged 2.26 million without UCF's Fiesta Bowl, 3.299 million with the Fiesta.
In 2017 AAC bowls averaged 2.303 million viewers without UCF's Peach Bowl, 3.171 million with the Peach.
In 2016 AAC bowls averaged 2.145 million viewers.
In 2015 UConn's St Petersburg Bowl vs Marshall with 2.4 million viewers was the fourth best viewership of the AAC's eight bowls. Ahead of the 2.166 million viewer average without Houston's Peach Bowl. AAC bowls including the Peach averaged 2.596 million viewers.

Marshall is good for a G4 in a lot of measures, but would be a net negative to add to the AAC. Again, not slamming Marshall or your opinion, but as a case study Marshall is a good example for why so few programs would be a net positive to add.

I agree with herdfan129.

The counter-arguments in response to his post were not very persuasive.

For example:

To use an old expression, "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the AAC's average attendance of 30,285 and Marshall's reported average attendance against AAC opponents. Although it's true that "28k would lower the AAC's average attendance," it would only lower the AAC's average attendance by a total of 190 fans (.006%) per game.

Marshall's average non-NY6 bowl viewership was only ~15% lower than the average viewership of the AAC's non-NY6 bowls during the same period, and their average bowl viewership of 1,890,000 is nothing to sneeze at.

These minor differences are not important enough to exclude a team from a conference.

Far more important is the fact that Marshall's record since the inception of the AAC would place them in the top tier of the AAC.

Marshall is probably the next best FB add for the AAC, after BYU, Army, Air Force, and Boise State. In fact, in terms of the average strength of their program over the past 10 years, Marshall may be #2 after Boise State.

Why? Because the data suggest that, with the exception of UCF and Cincinnati, Boise State and Marshall have been the two non-P5 FB schools that have finished the most seasons in the AP Top 35 since the AAC came into existence in 2013.

Boise State has finished all 7 seasons (2013-2019) in the AP Top 35 (top 25 plus "others receiving votes"). UCF is next on the list with four finishes in the top 35. Marshall (currently #17) and Cincinnati (currently #10) are close behind, having finished in the top 35 three times since 2013 in addition to their current rankings. Air Force (3 top 35 finishes, but currently unranked) Army (2 top 35 finishes) and BYU (0 top 35 finishes) trail behind Marshall, as do Appalachian State (3; currently unranked), San Diego State (3; currently unranked), and 9 of the 11 current AAC teams (Memphis (3, currently unranked), Navy (2), Temple (2), Houston (1), SMU (1), USF (1), Tulsa (1), Tulane (0), & ECU (0)).

.

Marshall would rank as a top tier football member of the AAC, in terms of the number of finishes in the AP top 35 since 2013:

AAC TIER 1 (3+ TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

1 UCF: 4 finishes (#7, #10, #12, #24) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
2 Cincinnati: 3 finishes (#21, #23, #35) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #7)
3 Memphis: 3 finishes (#17, #24, #25) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
4 Marshall: 3 finishes (#23, #29, #32) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #17)

AAC TIER 2 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

5 Navy: 2 finishes (#18, #20) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
6 USF: 2 finishes (#19, #21) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
7 Houston: 1 finish (#8) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
8 Tulsa: 1 finish (#34) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #24)
9 Temple: 2 finishes (#31, #33) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
10 SMU: 1 finish (#33) in AP Top 35 (currently #29)

AAC TIER 3 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013:

11 Tulane: 0 finishes in AP Top 35
12 ECU: 0 finishes in AP Top 35

Don’t care enough to check others, but know Memphis has received votes in other years...not that that matters much imo. Bowl viewership has zero bearing on conference contracts as they are negotiated separately per committee members who negotiated the current deal. A better measure may be G5 season games over multiple years. I have no opinion one way or the other on specific teams, just clarifying what numbers are pertinent to media deals.

Thanks, gulfcoastgal, for asking us to go back to the bigger picture.

2015-2020, the AAC has had 53 conference controlled games over 1 million viewers.
2015-2020, the AAC has had 23 intra-conference games over 1 million viewers.

In 2020, the Appalachian State at Marshall game got 1.25 million viewers.
In 2019, Marshall at Boise State got 1.38 million viewers - in the Boise/mwc inventory not the Marshall/CUSA inventory.
That's it from 2015-2020.

1 compared to 53.

Not additive.
Not a benefit.

Standing pat is better than a net negative.

Again, the point here is not to shade Marshall.
The point here is to attack the views of supposed AAC fans who think we should add programs which would not be a net gain.
(This post was last modified: 11-27-2020 09:40 PM by slhNavy91.)
11-27-2020 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
herdfan129 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,033
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 356
I Root For: Marshall & Liberty
Location:
Post: #411
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
No offense taken from me. My only point was we are the best choice outside of BYU/Army/Boise. I'm not saying you should add us, but the other three don't seem very interested. Obviously you will stay at 11 as long as possible. Who knows how long that will last.

Once again, in basketball, we average around 6,000/game in basketball. That would definitely increase in the AAC. We would average around 7,000 game with an AAC home schedule.

I also think you are looking at the TV viewing numbers wrong. Yes, that may be what the conference averaged each year, but what is the breakdown for each team over those years? I would bet we are in the top half. You all have much better bowl games against P5 teams, so naturally your viewership is going to be higher each season.

Either way, I have a lot of respect for most of the AAC schools/programs. I appreciate the kind words some of you have said about Marshall, and I appreciate the others for respectfully disagreeing as opposed to bashing our school.
11-27-2020 09:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUstang Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,513
Joined: Jan 2004
I Root For: SMU Mustangs
Location: Horseshoe Bay, Texas
Post: #412
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 09:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well, we take a pay cut because the AAC income is more than the just the TV deal. Right now our share of the CFP/Bowl/NCAA Tournament revenue is cut 11 ways rather than 12. Im not sure, but I dont think our TV deal was even cut by the same amount as a full UConn share would have represented--so we are actually making a bit over 7 million each on the TV deal. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that adding Marshall would be seen as ESPN as being worth the entire amount we lost when UConn left. Keep in mind, ESPN already has the rights to some Marshall games if they want. In fact, if ESPN was truly of the "You're darn tootin' that we'd like Marshall" mindset----then they would have laid out the whopping 4 million or so it would have cost to buy ALL of CUSA (including all 8 Marshall conference games) rather than pay the AAC an extra 7 million to add Marshall.

Look, if the world were going to come to an end if the AAC didnt add a team---adding Marshall would NOT suddenly doom the league to drift aimlessly at the bottom of the G5. The league would carry on roughly the same manner as its current version---but thats not the point. The point is adding a team that looks like the bottom or middle of the league means we'd have missed a huge opportunity to substantially improve the quality and perception of the league. So, barring "the world is ending" scenario---there is currently no convincing reason for the AAC add a team that would not clearly and substantially increase the leagues value. Instead, we can keep our powder dry---while earning a bit more money---and bide our time until we have an opportunity to add a school that truly adds to the quality, perception, and media value of the AAC.

We should keep our powder dry and stay at 11 members for as long as it takes, there is no reason to hurry.
11-27-2020 09:59 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IamYourDad Offline
Banned

Posts: 660
Joined: Oct 2018
I Root For: UCF
Location: In your head
Post: #413
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 09:52 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  No offense taken from me. My only point was we are the best choice outside of BYU/Army/Boise. I'm not saying you should add us, but the other three don't seem very interested. Obviously you will stay at 11 as long as possible. Who knows how long that will last.

Once again, in basketball, we average around 6,000/game in basketball. That would definitely increase in the AAC. We would average around 7,000 game with an AAC home schedule.

I also think you are looking at the TV viewing numbers wrong. Yes, that may be what the conference averaged each year, but what is the breakdown for each team over those years? I would bet we are in the top half. You all have much better bowl games against P5 teams, so naturally your viewership is going to be higher each season.

Either way, I have a lot of respect for most of the AAC schools/programs. I appreciate the kind words some of you have said about Marshall, and I appreciate the others for respectfully disagreeing as opposed to bashing our school.

Right back at you. You're currently ranked and undefeated so keep on going. Not a lot of teams in the nation can say that. I would not be opposed to adding you guys once the eventual waiver runs out, which it will. Plus we had a rivalry a while ago so that would be cool too. Best of luck to you going forward
11-27-2020 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1622
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #414
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 09:52 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  No offense taken from me. My only point was we are the best choice outside of BYU/Army/Boise. I'm not saying you should add us, but the other three don't seem very interested. Obviously you will stay at 11 as long as possible. Who knows how long that will last.

Once again, in basketball, we average around 6,000/game in basketball. That would definitely increase in the AAC. We would average around 7,000 game with an AAC home schedule.

I also think you are looking at the TV viewing numbers wrong. Yes, that may be what the conference averaged each year, but what is the breakdown for each team over those years? I would bet we are in the top half. You all have much better bowl games against P5 teams, so naturally your viewership is going to be higher each season.

Either way, I have a lot of respect for most of the AAC schools/programs. I appreciate the kind words some of you have said about Marshall, and I appreciate the others for respectfully disagreeing as opposed to bashing our school.

I'm looking forward to the Marshall-Navy home and home. That's the last re-scheduled vestige of our independent schedules. If memory serves, when we re-scheduled Marshall we dropped two "P5" home and homes (I think Minnesota and Iowa State, but I'm not going to look it up). Given the Jack Lengyel connection, I like that.

It is almost unfair to compare AAC viewers to any CUSA school because your exposure has been SO bad - BeIn games getting tens of thousands of viewers and even the NFL Network games not much better. But App State Marshall got 1.25 million in the CBS 3:30 timeslot, and just this year six different AAC teams have been in AAC vs AAC games with more viewers. It's just objective fact that we're better standing pat than adding any program that isn't actually additive.

If we have fans and tailgating by Labor Day, hit me up and I'll provide land nav to get you to the '91 tailgate and buy you a beverage.
11-27-2020 10:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
herdfan129 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,033
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 356
I Root For: Marshall & Liberty
Location:
Post: #415
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 10:34 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 09:52 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  No offense taken from me. My only point was we are the best choice outside of BYU/Army/Boise. I'm not saying you should add us, but the other three don't seem very interested. Obviously you will stay at 11 as long as possible. Who knows how long that will last.

Once again, in basketball, we average around 6,000/game in basketball. That would definitely increase in the AAC. We would average around 7,000 game with an AAC home schedule.

I also think you are looking at the TV viewing numbers wrong. Yes, that may be what the conference averaged each year, but what is the breakdown for each team over those years? I would bet we are in the top half. You all have much better bowl games against P5 teams, so naturally your viewership is going to be higher each season.

Either way, I have a lot of respect for most of the AAC schools/programs. I appreciate the kind words some of you have said about Marshall, and I appreciate the others for respectfully disagreeing as opposed to bashing our school.

I'm looking forward to the Marshall-Navy home and home. That's the last re-scheduled vestige of our independent schedules. If memory serves, when we re-scheduled Marshall we dropped two "P5" home and homes (I think Minnesota and Iowa State, but I'm not going to look it up). Given the Jack Lengyel connection, I like that.

It is almost unfair to compare AAC viewers to any CUSA school because your exposure has been SO bad - BeIn games getting tens of thousands of viewers and even the NFL Network games not much better. But App State Marshall got 1.25 million in the CBS 3:30 timeslot, and just this year six different AAC teams have been in AAC vs AAC games with more viewers. It's just objective fact that we're better standing pat than adding any program that isn't actually additive.

If we have fans and tailgating by Labor Day, hit me up and I'll provide land nav to get you to the '91 tailgate and buy you a beverage.

Yes sir. That's definitely on the bucket list of games to attend. I went to the Military Bowl when we beat Maryland in 2013, but I can't wait to be there for a Navy home game.

I hope you make the trip to Marshall when the time comes. I think you will be surprised how friendly and welcoming our fan base is. I'll be happy to buy you food and drinks if you are able to make the trip.
11-27-2020 11:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,107
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 499
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #416
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 09:59 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 09:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

We should keep our powder dry and stay at 11 members for as long as it takes, there is no reason to hurry.

This^
11-28-2020 12:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,542
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 149
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #417
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 09:35 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 08:58 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 08:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 04:00 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 12:44 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'm not here to argue with any of you. I will 100% admit that BYU/Army/Air Force/Boise are better ads than Marshall right now. Outside of that, I don't think there's any comparison. Marshall is EASILY the next best, and honestly, only BYU is better as an All Sports invite.

Marshall is well within the conference footprint. A great travel partner for Cincy, we are an R2 research institution, we have a Top 75 media market (that we actually own/control), and we have national name recognition which helps us draw eyeballs outside of our media market.

Our average attendance was down last year, but a lot of people were basically going on strike to get rid of our head coach. We have proven we can easily average 28k/game with an AAC schedule, that's also while we were down at the time. So we could possibly do better if we were winning with an AAC schedule. We have sold out multiple games with P5 opponents over the last few years.

In basketball, we might not have the banners, but we do have the support and have improved over the last few years. We average around 6,000/game which is easily in the top half of AAC. Our attendance would DRASTICALLY increase with an AAC schedule.

Someone asked for TV ratings against other AAC teams. Here are a few from our recent bowl games.

Our last 6 bowl games have an average rating of 1.89 million viewers. I would say that's pretty dang good.

2019 Gasparilla Bowl vs UCF 1.15 million
2018 Gasparilla Bowl vs USF 1.75 million
2017 New Mexico Bowl vs Colorado St 1.21 million

2015 St Petersburg Bowl vs UCONN 2.4 million
2014 Boca Raton Bowl vs NIU 2.25 million
2013 Military Bowl vs Maryland 2.58 million

Our job at Marshall is to continue winning, finishing in the Top 25, and go on another run like we did in the MAC. Getting an AAC invite would be great, but if not, being the Boise St of CUSA wouldn't be so bad either.

I hope I don't come off as too negative in this reply - that is not my intent.
First and foremost, good on ya for being proud of your school. And you are right that Marshall is a recognizable name - obviously the history that was just commemorated, FCS success, possibly the template for moving up and being successful, some memorable names / moments like Moss, Leftwich in that GMAC bowl.
And having said all that, in fact, the stats you cite show why Marshall would be dilutive to the AAC not additive. Marshall does have a recognizable brand and the reasons they're not the choice to add show why very few WOULD be a good choice to add.

You mention 28k attendance...the 11 AAC football schools averaged 30,285 in 2019. They averaged 30,544 2015-2019. 28k would lower the AAC's average attendance.

You said that 1.89 million viewers for bowl games is pretty dang good.
In 2019, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2019 AAC bowls averaged 1.97 million viewers without Memphis' Cotton Bowl, 2.57 million with it.
In 2018, the Gasparilla Bowl vs Marshall was the dead last worst viewed AAC bowl. 2018 AAC bowls averaged 2.26 million without UCF's Fiesta Bowl, 3.299 million with the Fiesta.
In 2017 AAC bowls averaged 2.303 million viewers without UCF's Peach Bowl, 3.171 million with the Peach.
In 2016 AAC bowls averaged 2.145 million viewers.
In 2015 UConn's St Petersburg Bowl vs Marshall with 2.4 million viewers was the fourth best viewership of the AAC's eight bowls. Ahead of the 2.166 million viewer average without Houston's Peach Bowl. AAC bowls including the Peach averaged 2.596 million viewers.

Marshall is good for a G4 in a lot of measures, but would be a net negative to add to the AAC. Again, not slamming Marshall or your opinion, but as a case study Marshall is a good example for why so few programs would be a net positive to add.

I agree with herdfan129.

The counter-arguments in response to his post were not very persuasive.

For example:

To use an old expression, "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the AAC's average attendance of 30,285 and Marshall's reported average attendance against AAC opponents. Although it's true that "28k would lower the AAC's average attendance," it would only lower the AAC's average attendance by a total of 190 fans (.006%) per game.

Marshall's average non-NY6 bowl viewership was only ~15% lower than the average viewership of the AAC's non-NY6 bowls during the same period, and their average bowl viewership of 1,890,000 is nothing to sneeze at.

These minor differences are not important enough to exclude a team from a conference.

Far more important is the fact that Marshall's record since the inception of the AAC would place them in the top tier of the AAC.

Marshall is probably the next best FB add for the AAC, after BYU, Army, Air Force, and Boise State. In fact, in terms of the average strength of their program over the past 10 years, Marshall may be #2 after Boise State.

Why? Because the data suggest that, with the exception of UCF and Cincinnati, Boise State and Marshall have been the two non-P5 FB schools that have finished the most seasons in the AP Top 35 since the AAC came into existence in 2013.

Boise State has finished all 7 seasons (2013-2019) in the AP Top 35 (top 25 plus "others receiving votes"). UCF is next on the list with four finishes in the top 35. Marshall (currently #17) and Cincinnati (currently #10) are close behind, having finished in the top 35 three times since 2013 in addition to their current rankings. Air Force (3 top 35 finishes, but currently unranked) Army (2 top 35 finishes) and BYU (0 top 35 finishes) trail behind Marshall, as do Appalachian State (3; currently unranked), San Diego State (3; currently unranked), and 9 of the 11 current AAC teams (Memphis (3, currently unranked), Navy (2), Temple (2), Houston (1), SMU (1), USF (1), Tulsa (1), Tulane (0), & ECU (0)).

.

Marshall would rank as a top tier football member of the AAC, in terms of the number of finishes in the AP top 35 since 2013:

AAC TIER 1 (3+ TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

1 UCF: 4 finishes (#7, #10, #12, #24) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
2 Cincinnati: 3 finishes (#21, #23, #35) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #7)
3 Memphis: 3 finishes (#17, #24, #25) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
4 Marshall: 3 finishes (#23, #29, #32) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #17)

AAC TIER 2 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013):

5 Navy: 2 finishes (#18, #20) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
6 USF: 2 finishes (#19, #21) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
7 Houston: 1 finish (#8) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
8 Tulsa: 1 finish (#34) in AP Top 35 (currently ranked #24)
9 Temple: 2 finishes (#31, #33) in AP Top 35 (not currently ranked)
10 SMU: 1 finish (#33) in AP Top 35 (currently #29)

AAC TIER 3 (1 OR 2 TOP 35 RANKINGS SINCE 2013:

11 Tulane: 0 finishes in AP Top 35
12 ECU: 0 finishes in AP Top 35

Don’t care enough to check others, but know Memphis has received votes in other years...not that that matters much imo. Bowl viewership has zero bearing on conference contracts as they are negotiated separately per committee members who negotiated the current deal. A better measure may be G5 season games over multiple years. I have no opinion one way or the other on specific teams, just clarifying what numbers are pertinent to media deals.



In 2019, Marshall at Boise State got 1.38 million viewers...

In 2020, the Appalachian State at Marshall game got 1.25 million viewers.

That's it.

Not quite...

There were actually a few more Marshall FB games that had more than 450,000 viewers between 2015 and 2020 (links below). In addition, it makes sense to extend the comparisons back to the first AAC season in 2013.

1. In 2013, Marshall vs. Rice had 449,000 viewers

2. In 2013, Marshall vs. Virginia Tech had 738,000 viewers

3. In 2013, Marshall vs. Maryland had 2,580,000 viewers

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college...rchived/4/

4. In 2014, Marshal vs. WKU had 463,000 viewers

5. In 2014, Marshall vs. Louisiana Tech had 725,000 viewers

6. In 2014, Marshall vs. N. Illinois had 2,225,000 viewers

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings-archived/3/

7. In 2015, Marshall vs. Purdue had 688,000 viewers

8. In 2015, Marshall vs. UConn had 2,400,000 viewers

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings-archived/2/

9. In 2017, Marshall vs. Middle Tennessee had 435,000 viewers

10. In 2017, Marshall vs. Colorado State had 1,212,000 viewers

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2017-college-football-tv-ratings/

11. In 2018, Marshall vs. USF had 1,750,000 viewers

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2018-co...v-ratings/


12. In 2019, Marshall vs. UCF had 1,150,000 million viewers

13. In 2019, Marshall - Boise State got 1,380,000 viewers.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/2/

14. In 2020, Marshall's game with EKU drew 980,000 viewers.

15. In 2020, the App. State - Marshall game got 1,250,000 viewers.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college...v-ratings/



(11-27-2020 09:35 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Not additive.
Not a benefit.

Standing pat is better than a net negative.

That does not compute!







.

On average, between 2013 and 2020, Marshall has played 1.875 games per season with 450,000 or more viewers, per season. They have posted solid viewership numbers over 7 of the 8 seasons (2013-2020).

.

NOTE: As one of the few remaining undefeated teams in the country, Marshall's viewership in the C-USA championship game and an expected bowl game are also likely to be in the million-plus range.
(This post was last modified: 11-28-2020 01:23 AM by jedclampett.)
11-28-2020 12:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #418
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
(11-27-2020 09:59 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  
(11-27-2020 09:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well, we take a pay cut because the AAC income is more than the just the TV deal. Right now our share of the CFP/Bowl/NCAA Tournament revenue is cut 11 ways rather than 12. Im not sure, but I dont think our TV deal was even cut by the same amount as a full UConn share would have represented--so we are actually making a bit over 7 million each on the TV deal. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that adding Marshall would be seen as ESPN as being worth the entire amount we lost when UConn left. Keep in mind, ESPN already has the rights to some Marshall games if they want. In fact, if ESPN was truly of the "You're darn tootin' that we'd like Marshall" mindset----then they would have laid out the whopping 4 million or so it would have cost to buy ALL of CUSA (including all 8 Marshall conference games) rather than pay the AAC an extra 7 million to add Marshall.

Look, if the world were going to come to an end if the AAC didnt add a team---adding Marshall would NOT suddenly doom the league to drift aimlessly at the bottom of the G5. The league would carry on roughly the same manner as its current version---but thats not the point. The point is adding a team that looks like the bottom or middle of the league means we'd have missed a huge opportunity to substantially improve the quality and perception of the league. So, barring "the world is ending" scenario---there is currently no convincing reason for the AAC add a team that would not clearly and substantially increase the leagues value. Instead, we can keep our powder dry---while earning a bit more money---and bide our time until we have an opportunity to add a school that truly adds to the quality, perception, and media value of the AAC.

We should keep our powder dry and stay at 11 members for as long as it takes, there is no reason to hurry.

That’s my view as well. It could very well end up that Marshall’s program grows into exactly what we want to add. All I’m saying is I’d rather wait until the development process creates a program that looks like the top of the league on the day they are added rather than adding a program with potential hoping they develop into a top of the league type athletic program. I’d also add—that if I HAD to pick a school now (and BYU/Army/Boise/AF are not available)—I’d still look hard at the hybrid add. Maybe someone like Marshall/AppSt as a football only with VCU as a Olympic member.

That said, my preference is to stay at 11 until an obvious unquestionably value adding number 12 is available.
(This post was last modified: 11-28-2020 02:27 AM by Attackcoog.)
11-28-2020 02:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUstang Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,513
Joined: Jan 2004
I Root For: SMU Mustangs
Location: Horseshoe Bay, Texas
Post: #419
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
I think that the NCAA waiver, which is now temporary for 2 years, will be made permanent at the end of that time. Why not? If not, we can still have a championship game with uneven divisions. Therefore there is no need to rush to add another team. As "Attackcoog" says, we should keep our powder dry. And wait for a team that will increase the value of the conference as a whole.
11-28-2020 08:52 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,216
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 221
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #420
RE: Boise poster claiming that Boise to AAC is a done deal
Just say no to Boise. They were invited once and backed out after joining. Now the MWC tries to take their special status (extra TV money) from them and they want to come back. Just say no and stick at 11 as long as the conference can. Travel is too far and they are not worth the mini me U. of Texas headache they pretend to be. 04-jawdrop 03-nutkick 03-banghead 04-rock 05-stirthepot COGS COGS 02-13-banana 02-13-banana 07-coffee3
11-28-2020 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.