(10-22-2019 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 01:16 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 01:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:44 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  Who does ESPN want?

ESPN wants ratings. Invite UAB (Birmingham viewers) with the understanding that a couple of their home games would be on Thursday or Friday for ratings. Also an away game on Thursday or Friday.

I don't see any evidence that ESPN wants UAB or that UAB would attract viewers to ESPN. Just because the Birmingham market is a fantastic college football market relative to its size doesn't mean great TV ratings for UAB. Has UAB even been on television this year?

Fans in Birmingham watch SEC football.

Yet ESPN just paid a premium on an entire conference's rights where none of its members are the primary viewership option within their own state (with many not even the top option in their own market).

I think everyone would agree that if there was a slam-dunk addition option (and one where interested would be reciprocated), it would have happened already. The AAC, with a secured long-term deal, should look at expansion candidates that could, long-term, increase its value and brand awareness under the AAC banner, and (in turn) add value to the conference standing.

Why? An addition is not required for any reason other than avoiding a minor scheduling issue. The MW gambled on San Jose State and lost. Now they are stuck with them for 100 years. If the move to pass a rule change fails, Im hoping this two year waiver will allow the AAC to clear their heads and realize there is zero reason gamble on a member simply to avoid a scheduling issue.

As I said before, patience is called for. Eventually a clearly deserving and obvious expansion candidate will present itself for the AAC---or the AAC will lose a member and become a more manageable 10 member conference. Either way---time will solve the scheduling issue. Rash or poorly considered actions will only make matters worse.

I know - that's what I previously said (that the AAC should wait on expansion until waiver expires). I'm saying that if the AAC evaluates expansion candidates, they will need to look at it through a different lens (who could provide value long-term vs. who has the established brand that can immediately add to the value) due to the established brands (Air Force, Army, Boise State, BYU) likely passing on an AAC membership (because if there was mutual interest, it likely would have happened already).