(12-10-2018 01:41 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Here's the thing though with that. If the Big 12 sees some defections- it's not going to be 1 or 2. I think there would be a lot of pressure for the Big 12 to get totally wiped out. Where the 1-2 leftovers would join probably the AAC- making that stronger.....

I just don't see that many landing spots.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and maybe even OK St and TTU could probably all find new homes. Maybe West Virginia.

That still leaves Baylor, TCU, Kansas St, and Iowa State needing home and it's much more likely, IMO, that they just invite UCF/USF/Houston/Memphis and maybe 1 or 2 others (maybe Navy or a western school) than simply merging with the entire AAC

You see that's 6 if WVU is gone. You can bet that there would be pressure from the leaving schools to have 1-2 others leave as well- and disolving the conference... Makes the leaving schools a LOT more money.... No exit fees, keep NCAA tourney money.

(12-10-2018 01:41 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Here's the thing though with that. If the Big 12 sees some defections- it's not going to be 1 or 2. I think there would be a lot of pressure for the Big 12 to get totally wiped out. Where the 1-2 leftovers would join probably the AAC- making that stronger.....

I just don't see that many landing spots.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and maybe even OK St and TTU could probably all find new homes. Maybe West Virginia.

That still leaves Baylor, TCU, Kansas St, and Iowa State needing home and it's much more likely, IMO, that they just invite UCF/USF/Houston/Memphis and maybe 1 or 2 others (maybe Navy or a western school) than simply merging with the entire AAC

The Big 12 would still have a greater brand recognition (nationally) than the AAC at that point as well. There is no way that the Big 12 leftovers (whomever they would be) would just dissolve the league in order to be de-regulated to a lower conference.

(12-10-2018 01:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 01:41 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Here's the thing though with that. If the Big 12 sees some defections- it's not going to be 1 or 2. I think there would be a lot of pressure for the Big 12 to get totally wiped out. Where the 1-2 leftovers would join probably the AAC- making that stronger.....

I just don't see that many landing spots.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and maybe even OK St and TTU could probably all find new homes. Maybe West Virginia.

That still leaves Baylor, TCU, Kansas St, and Iowa State needing home and it's much more likely, IMO, that they just invite UCF/USF/Houston/Memphis and maybe 1 or 2 others (maybe Navy or a western school) than simply merging with the entire AAC

The Big 12 would still have a greater brand recognition (nationally) than the AAC at that point as well. There is no way that the Big 12 leftovers (whomever they would be) would just dissolve the league in order to be de-regulated to a lower conference.

I'm not saying the leftovers would want it. I'm saying the departing teams could leave en masse the same day and dissolve the conference..... There would be nothing the remaining teams could do about it.

(12-10-2018 01:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 01:41 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Here's the thing though with that. If the Big 12 sees some defections- it's not going to be 1 or 2. I think there would be a lot of pressure for the Big 12 to get totally wiped out. Where the 1-2 leftovers would join probably the AAC- making that stronger.....

I just don't see that many landing spots.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and maybe even OK St and TTU could probably all find new homes. Maybe West Virginia.

That still leaves Baylor, TCU, Kansas St, and Iowa State needing home and it's much more likely, IMO, that they just invite UCF/USF/Houston/Memphis and maybe 1 or 2 others (maybe Navy or a western school) than simply merging with the entire AAC

The Big 12 would still have a greater brand recognition (nationally) than the AAC at that point as well. There is no way that the Big 12 leftovers (whomever they would be) would just dissolve the league in order to be de-regulated to a lower conference.

Exactly.

Plus, like we saw from 2010-2013, realignment tends to be a lot more fluid. The Big 12 won't lose 8 members overnight.

This is just an example, but let's say Kansas/Texas up and move to the Big Ten overnight. Oklahoma and Oklahoma St then turn around and go to the SEC. At that point the remaining Big 12 schools are likely going to realize the reality of the situation and close ranks very quickly.

(12-10-2018 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 10:49 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 09:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The grant of rights for the AAC is a classic prisoner’s dilemma scenario. Individual schools have a self-interest in rejecting it even though the league overall would benefit from it. Tulsa will sign it sight unseen, but schools that still have a lottery ticket for the P5 (or a school like UConn that has the Big East option) are the ones faced with the real dilemma.

I would suspect that at this time, even schools like USF, UCF, and Houston are likely to view their chances at joining a P5 in the forseeable future as very low.

Therefore, that suggests signing a GOR, as long as (a) the GOR itself has a forseeable expiration date, and (b) the money offered by TV for an AAC with a GOR is considerably better than an offer in the absence of one. So e.g. if the best network offer is a 10-year TV deal for $10m per team with a 10-year GOR, but $5m a year without one, sign.

I think there still a better than average chance that the Big 12 sees some defections next decade. If that happens, I have to think those 3 schools are the first three in line.

Here's the thing though with that. If the Big 12 sees some defections- it's not going to be 1 or 2. I think there would be a lot of pressure for the Big 12 to get totally wiped out. Where the 1-2 leftovers would join probably the AAC- making that stronger.....

If the B-12 blows up with the bluebloods leaving the remaining teams will pull the AAC teams it wants and continue with the B-12 brand name. The remaining AAC schools will take on schools like UMASS and the best of the CUSA / Sunbelt schools, and possibly Army to remain afloat as CUSA on Steroids as another G5 as opposed to a P6 conference.

(12-10-2018 01:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 01:41 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Here's the thing though with that. If the Big 12 sees some defections- it's not going to be 1 or 2. I think there would be a lot of pressure for the Big 12 to get totally wiped out. Where the 1-2 leftovers would join probably the AAC- making that stronger.....

I just don't see that many landing spots.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and maybe even OK St and TTU could probably all find new homes. Maybe West Virginia.

That still leaves Baylor, TCU, Kansas St, and Iowa State needing home and it's much more likely, IMO, that they just invite UCF/USF/Houston/Memphis and maybe 1 or 2 others (maybe Navy or a western school) than simply merging with the entire AAC

The Big 12 would still have a greater brand recognition (nationally) than the AAC at that point as well. There is no way that the Big 12 leftovers (whomever they would be) would just dissolve the league in order to be de-regulated to a lower conference.

And NCAA Tourney credits.

(12-10-2018 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 09:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The grant of rights for the AAC is a classic prisoner’s dilemma scenario. Individual schools have a self-interest in rejecting it even though the league overall would benefit from it. Tulsa will sign it sight unseen, but schools that still have a lottery ticket for the P5 (or a school like UConn that has the Big East option) are the ones faced with the real dilemma.

I would suspect that at this time, even schools like USF, UCF, and Houston are likely to view their chances at joining a P5 in the forseeable future as very low.

Therefore, that suggests signing a GOR, as long as (a) the GOR itself has a forseeable expiration date, and (b) the money offered by TV for an AAC with a GOR is considerably better than an offer in the absence of one. So e.g. if the best network offer is a 10-year TV deal for $10m per team with a 10-year GOR, but $5m a year without one, sign.

My guess is they won't even float a GOR vote unless they know they have the numbers for unanimous or overwhelming approval. Because the last thing the AAC needs at this point is to hold a vote and have only Tulsa and Wichita State in the yea column because everyone else has at least a flicker of ambition for a P5 (or Big East in UConn's case) invitation. Even if most everyone else acknowledges their chances of advancement are long-shot, they won't cede the point until it becomes as no-shot as Tulsa's.

As for a TV deal, I'd be willing to wager that whoever gets their media rights will have built-in triggers to dissolve or reopen the contract should x schools leave. Doesn't the current deal have something like that? Would a GOR really make the AAC as constructed so much more attractive to suitors that it'd result in a doubling of the offer? I have my doubts.

The other thing I noticed is that UConn's football recruiting for next year is really, really bad. They are ranked 129th in the nation with only a handful of commitments to next year's class (also dead last in the AAC) - and this is coming off the worst defensive season in FBS history. It is very possible (and likely) that they will be at the very bottom of the AAC once again next year. If football is truly the salvation for UConn to get into a power conference, is the AAC the best opportunity for them to have a successful football program. They are in the bottom half for coaching salaries in the AAC. Obviously, UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, Navy, Temple and Houston have all had strong success in the league, but has UConn been lapped by those programs to the point where they are unable to dig themselves out of the hole they currently find themselves in? UConn is on an island in the AAC, and with the other top programs recruiting well in Florida, Texas, Ohio, Tennessee and North Carolina, how can they realistically build and sustain a top-level program given those disadvantages (as well as the sustained success from the top of the AAC)?

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...s/AAC.aspx

Here's a free link to the article that previously was behind a pay wall.

(12-10-2018 01:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 01:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 01:41 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Here's the thing though with that. If the Big 12 sees some defections- it's not going to be 1 or 2. I think there would be a lot of pressure for the Big 12 to get totally wiped out. Where the 1-2 leftovers would join probably the AAC- making that stronger.....

I just don't see that many landing spots.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and maybe even OK St and TTU could probably all find new homes. Maybe West Virginia.

That still leaves Baylor, TCU, Kansas St, and Iowa State needing home and it's much more likely, IMO, that they just invite UCF/USF/Houston/Memphis and maybe 1 or 2 others (maybe Navy or a western school) than simply merging with the entire AAC

The Big 12 would still have a greater brand recognition (nationally) than the AAC at that point as well. There is no way that the Big 12 leftovers (whomever they would be) would just dissolve the league in order to be de-regulated to a lower conference.

I'm not saying the leftovers would want it. I'm saying the departing teams could leave en masse the same day and dissolve the conference..... There would be nothing the remaining teams could do about it.

And the way the bylaws and GoR are structured, it does appear that it's set up that way. Once you hit time after the GoR, this assembly is bound by nothing.

Or, at the very least, the Big XII after the GoR is a conference without any guarantees from media partners. Sure, the conference could dissolve. But, if it doesn't, and just loses its best parts, it's just a conference name and nothing else. More likely, I think that's what happens, kind of like the SWC. The name belongs to someone or a few. With some or enough programs of interest, I'm sure it can fetch better money than any non-major currently, but it probably loses some of its bowl guarantees.

I still think there's enough meat on the Big XII bone without Texahoma 4 and Kansas, but the margin for error is so thin to get the next best schools that I doubt it's realized. You're talking Navy, BYU, Air Force, Houston, Cincy, UC/SF, UConn...all of that isn't going to happen.

(12-10-2018 12:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 10:49 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 09:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The grant of rights for the AAC is a classic prisoner’s dilemma scenario. Individual schools have a self-interest in rejecting it even though the league overall would benefit from it. Tulsa will sign it sight unseen, but schools that still have a lottery ticket for the P5 (or a school like UConn that has the Big East option) are the ones faced with the real dilemma.

I would suspect that at this time, even schools like USF, UCF, and Houston are likely to view their chances at joining a P5 in the forseeable future as very low.

Therefore, that suggests signing a GOR, as long as (a) the GOR itself has a forseeable expiration date, and (b) the money offered by TV for an AAC with a GOR is considerably better than an offer in the absence of one. So e.g. if the best network offer is a 10-year TV deal for $10m per team with a 10-year GOR, but $5m a year without one, sign.

I think there still a better than average chance that the Big 12 sees some defections next decade. If that happens, I have to think those 3 schools are the first three in line.

Here's the thing though with that. If the Big 12 sees some defections- it's not going to be 1 or 2. I think there would be a lot of pressure for the Big 12 to get totally wiped out. Where the 1-2 leftovers would join probably the AAC- making that stronger.....

Sh*t always rolls downhill in conference realignment. The old Big East football conference was down to 3 members and it was still able to poach at will from Conference USA. Even if the Big 12 has 1 or 2 leftovers in this nuclear scenario, they still have a ton of leverage in the form of preexisting contracts, exit fees, left behind NCAA Tournament credits and CFP revenue from the defectors, etc. A G5 league will get wiped out (similar to the WAC) instead. To be sure, the Big 12 may lose its power status (just as the AAC/old Big East did), but it is likely they will survive in some form if only because the defector fees and penalties still provide a large cushion compared to any G5 revenue stream.

The Big East did not lose those members all at once.

After Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, and TCU left in September/October 2011, the Big East still had 5 football members and 8 BBall-only members. They added Boise, SDSU, Navy, Houston, SMU, Memphis, UCF, and (4 months later) Temple.

It wasn't until a full year later in November 2012 that Rutgers and Louisville left. At that point most people figured the C7 would split off. Boise was weighing how to leave, but SDSU was still committed.

But there were still 10 committed Big East members: Cincy, UConn, USF, UCF, SMU, Houston, Memphis, Temple, Navy, and SDSU. These 10 members added ECU (football-only) and Tulane.

Boise didn't decide to leave until December 31st, and SDSU followed suit 2 weeks later. In April 2013, Tulsa was announced as SDSU's replacement.

My guess is that if the Big 12 dissolves, it will happen quickly than the Big East did because there's fewer dominoes that can fall.

(12-10-2018 12:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 10:49 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 09:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The grant of rights for the AAC is a classic prisoner’s dilemma scenario. Individual schools have a self-interest in rejecting it even though the league overall would benefit from it. Tulsa will sign it sight unseen, but schools that still have a lottery ticket for the P5 (or a school like UConn that has the Big East option) are the ones faced with the real dilemma.

I would suspect that at this time, even schools like USF, UCF, and Houston are likely to view their chances at joining a P5 in the forseeable future as very low.

Therefore, that suggests signing a GOR, as long as (a) the GOR itself has a forseeable expiration date, and (b) the money offered by TV for an AAC with a GOR is considerably better than an offer in the absence of one. So e.g. if the best network offer is a 10-year TV deal for $10m per team with a 10-year GOR, but $5m a year without one, sign.

I think there still a better than average chance that the Big 12 sees some defections next decade. If that happens, I have to think those 3 schools are the first three in line.

Here's the thing though with that. If the Big 12 sees some defections- it's not going to be 1 or 2. I think there would be a lot of pressure for the Big 12 to get totally wiped out. Where the 1-2 leftovers would join probably the AAC- making that stronger.....

Sh*t always rolls downhill in conference realignment. The old Big East football conference was down to 3 members and it was still able to poach at will from Conference USA. Even if the Big 12 has 1 or 2 leftovers in this nuclear scenario, they still have a ton of leverage in the form of preexisting contracts, exit fees, left behind NCAA Tournament credits and CFP revenue from the defectors, etc. A G5 league will get wiped out (similar to the WAC) instead. To be sure, the Big 12 may lose its power status (just as the AAC/old Big East did), but it is likely they will survive in some form if only because the defector fees and penalties still provide a large cushion compared to any G5 revenue stream.

Big East was down to five when UCF, SMU and Houston were poached.
Louisville, Cincinnati, UConn, Rutgers, and USF were all still in as were the Catholic schools.

If this deal gets done, and UConn bolts for the Big East, the American will either need to 1) add a school that (at least) plays football and keep the divisional structure, or 2) kick out one of the non-GOR members and adopt a Big 12 model of playing a full round robin in football with the top 2 teams facing each other in the title game.

(12-10-2018 01:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Whoa. Did anyone actually read the article? I can see why so many AAC representatives would be upset by it.

Essentially, the league - in its negotiations with ESPN - wants to maximize revenue (obviously) by signing a GOR. Clearly, that would prevent the top-level teams from ever jumping to a power conference. However, in order to compensate being handcuffed, the AAC (Aresco) is pushing for unequal revenue distribution, in order to compensate the top members. According to the article, UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston would be the schools that would be given a higher portion of the revenue, if a GOR were ever to be signed. That would mean that SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Temple and, ahem, UConn, would be given lower percentages of the next cut. Navy has its own special deal under the AAC contract.

Now, given these updates, a few thoughts: 1) I can see why Bowen at Memphis said what he did; someone is clearly leaking information about the negotiations to outside sources, and - given the news - it is most likely a representative/school that has not taken the proposal well. That is why Aresco needs to say something today to put out the fires. 2) If UConn were to receive a cut below the top schools, that would create substantial cause for them to seriously consider moving non-football sports to the Big East. UConn, and UC/USF, willingly took less money last go-around because of the exposure that ESPN provided and the war chest funds that the C7 left behind (which allowed them to take in a similar amount to the Big East contract). However, given that they have clearly been leaped by not just one school, but five total schools, that is a huge deterrent to them continuing to remain in a Southern-based league just for the sake of football (which is now confirmed what their value holds). 3) If UConn were to decide to join the Big East, it is very likely that Fox would increase the pay-out of the league's membership, given their men's basketball success, and the league's long-term extension with MSG yesterday. Couple that with their ability to fill MSG, and the additional games that would be added to the conference tournament, they would provide more value to the Big East than they would (under these reports) to the AAC. They also would save a ton of travel expenses for Olympic sports, guaranteed.

Very interesting developments, indeed.

Here's what this is like:

Suppose it's February 2010, and Mountain West commissioner Thompson is laying the groundwork for negotiating a new TV deal. He's got Utah with two recent undefeated seasons and BCS bowl wins, including a final poll position of #2 after they routed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. He's got TCU who has had several recent 10-win seasons and just played in a BCS bowl last month and finished ranked in the top 10. Thompson wants to keep those two schools around and increase his league's football TV value, so he offers TCU and Utah three times as much conference revenue as any other MWC school, as an inducement to get them to sign a 12-year GOR.

You are the president of Utah or TCU. Do you sign that GOR?

(12-10-2018 02:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 01:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Whoa. Did anyone actually read the article? I can see why so many AAC representatives would be upset by it.

Essentially, the league - in its negotiations with ESPN - wants to maximize revenue (obviously) by signing a GOR. Clearly, that would prevent the top-level teams from ever jumping to a power conference. However, in order to compensate being handcuffed, the AAC (Aresco) is pushing for unequal revenue distribution, in order to compensate the top members. According to the article, UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston would be the schools that would be given a higher portion of the revenue, if a GOR were ever to be signed. That would mean that SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Temple and, ahem, UConn, would be given lower percentages of the next cut. Navy has its own special deal under the AAC contract.

Now, given these updates, a few thoughts: 1) I can see why Bowen at Memphis said what he did; someone is clearly leaking information about the negotiations to outside sources, and - given the news - it is most likely a representative/school that has not taken the proposal well. That is why Aresco needs to say something today to put out the fires. 2) If UConn were to receive a cut below the top schools, that would create substantial cause for them to seriously consider moving non-football sports to the Big East. UConn, and UC/USF, willingly took less money last go-around because of the exposure that ESPN provided and the war chest funds that the C7 left behind (which allowed them to take in a similar amount to the Big East contract). However, given that they have clearly been leaped by not just one school, but five total schools, that is a huge deterrent to them continuing to remain in a Southern-based league just for the sake of football (which is now confirmed what their value holds). 3) If UConn were to decide to join the Big East, it is very likely that Fox would increase the pay-out of the league's membership, given their men's basketball success, and the league's long-term extension with MSG yesterday. Couple that with their ability to fill MSG, and the additional games that would be added to the conference tournament, they would provide more value to the Big East than they would (under these reports) to the AAC. They also would save a ton of travel expenses for Olympic sports, guaranteed.

Very interesting developments, indeed.

Here's what this is like:

Suppose it's February 2010, and Mountain West commissioner Thompson is laying the groundwork for negotiating a new TV deal. He's got Utah with two recent undefeated seasons and BCS bowl wins, including a final poll position of #2 after they routed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. He's got TCU who has had several recent 10-win seasons and just played in a BCS bowl last month and finished ranked in the top 10. Thompson wants to keep those two schools around and increase his league's football TV value, so he offers TCU and Utah three times as much conference revenue as any other MWC school, as an inducement to get them to sign a 12-year GOR.

You are the president of Utah or TCU. Do you sign that GOR?

A bit different because the conferences at that point were a lot smaller... Big Ten at 11, Big 12 at 12, SEC at 12, Pac 10 at 10. Now those conferences- Big Ten and SEC are at 14, Pac 12 at 12. ACC at 14/15.

(12-10-2018 02:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 02:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  You are the president of Utah or TCU. Do you sign that GOR?

A bit different because the conferences at that point were a lot smaller... Big Ten at 11, Big 12 at 12, SEC at 12, Pac 10 at 10. Now those conferences- Big Ten and SEC are at 14, Pac 12 at 12. ACC at 14/15.

And if UT/OU leave the Big 12, the four power conference will get even larger and have less room. The trend is toward consolidation.

In fact, if the American ever wanted to poach the Big 12 leftovers should UT/OU and others leave, having a GOR in place would allow it to happen.

(12-10-2018 02:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 01:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Whoa. Did anyone actually read the article? I can see why so many AAC representatives would be upset by it.

Essentially, the league - in its negotiations with ESPN - wants to maximize revenue (obviously) by signing a GOR. Clearly, that would prevent the top-level teams from ever jumping to a power conference. However, in order to compensate being handcuffed, the AAC (Aresco) is pushing for unequal revenue distribution, in order to compensate the top members. According to the article, UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston would be the schools that would be given a higher portion of the revenue, if a GOR were ever to be signed. That would mean that SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Temple and, ahem, UConn, would be given lower percentages of the next cut. Navy has its own special deal under the AAC contract.

Now, given these updates, a few thoughts: 1) I can see why Bowen at Memphis said what he did; someone is clearly leaking information about the negotiations to outside sources, and - given the news - it is most likely a representative/school that has not taken the proposal well. That is why Aresco needs to say something today to put out the fires. 2) If UConn were to receive a cut below the top schools, that would create substantial cause for them to seriously consider moving non-football sports to the Big East. UConn, and UC/USF, willingly took less money last go-around because of the exposure that ESPN provided and the war chest funds that the C7 left behind (which allowed them to take in a similar amount to the Big East contract). However, given that they have clearly been leaped by not just one school, but five total schools, that is a huge deterrent to them continuing to remain in a Southern-based league just for the sake of football (which is now confirmed what their value holds). 3) If UConn were to decide to join the Big East, it is very likely that Fox would increase the pay-out of the league's membership, given their men's basketball success, and the league's long-term extension with MSG yesterday. Couple that with their ability to fill MSG, and the additional games that would be added to the conference tournament, they would provide more value to the Big East than they would (under these reports) to the AAC. They also would save a ton of travel expenses for Olympic sports, guaranteed.

Very interesting developments, indeed.

Here's what this is like:

Suppose it's February 2010, and Mountain West commissioner Thompson is laying the groundwork for negotiating a new TV deal. He's got Utah with two recent undefeated seasons and BCS bowl wins, including a final poll position of #2 after they routed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. He's got TCU who has had several recent 10-win seasons and just played in a BCS bowl last month and finished ranked in the top 10. Thompson wants to keep those two schools around and increase his league's football TV value, so he offers TCU and Utah three times as much conference revenue as any other MWC school, as an inducement to get them to sign a 12-year GOR.

You are the president of Utah or TCU. Do you sign that GOR?

I would strongly argue no. If you are Utah or TCU, you may be getting more money, but you are still locked into a league that is not a power conference. If you believe you are a power-level program, you do not secure yourself in a non-power conference and eliminate a chance of getting an invitation. Additionally, while you may be getting more money from your success, you are really hurting your own conference by limiting the revenue they can receive and build their respective programs. If you are attempting to be a power program, being forced to play much weaker programs annually [in this case, Colorado State (3 wins in 2010), Wyoming (3 wins), UNLV (2 wins) and New Mexico (1 win)] does nothing to further help develop your brand or national recognition. Essentially, you are taking more money to continue playing weaker programs.

Today, UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston would be paid more money to essentially remain in a football league with ECU, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane and UConn, all of whom have consistently struggled and finished in the bottom of the AAC. By further creating separation within the conference, it actually does more harm for the top programs than good (at least in the long-term) since it cements and establishes that the bottom is clearly lower than the rest. Near-term, they obviously get more money which is a plus.

The unequal distribution is actually something I can see supported by the scared weaker football schools. A Wichita State (no football), Navy (own special deal), Tulsa, Tulane, ECU and even Temple -all of whom are not going anywhere- fear the American losing football relevance if the conference loses three or four of those aforementioned five stronger football schools. This is the Boise State (circa 2012) dilemma but with 5 schools instead of 1.

I can definitely see ESPN reluctant to commit bigger money without a GOR, especially if that is for a contract running past June 2025. And it's obvious the commissioner's office of the American would want a contract and GOR to run a dozen years to 2030 or longer.

This brings us to UConn. They would be fools to sign such a GOR, although I can see their Football contingent desperately lobbying to do just that, and Susan Herbst is as close to a fool on such matters as their is, and the school may be without a leader until late fall 2019. This could be her final, potentially catastrophic, athletic related decision. That Big East decision may come sooner than the 2025 date I hate suspected.

Then you come to the five beneficiaries of unequal distribution. All of them, save Memphis due to horrendous academic reputation, are serious replacement candidates - perhaps all four together - when OU and Texas leave the Big 12 in June 2025. I am not saying it will actually come to pass that they leave the Big 12, but for the five schools they have to have this clearly in mind. There is no doubt even a diminished Big 12 has far more appeal to these four schools than the American, and also for media value. (I mean you are playing KU, WVU, TCU, and oSu instead of Tulsa, Temple, ECU, and Tulane in football and basketball). Not even $10M per school per year is enough to justify a GOR with a move to the Big 12, even post Texas and OU in view. Only Memphis, who have no shot at the Big 12 (although their backers insist they do) would be wise to sign a GOR.

When I look it over, I think UCF, Houston, Cincy, UConn, and possibly even USF would not find it in their interest to sign a GOR, even if it meant $5M more per year. It's small money compared to the value of joining a power conference. But it makes huge sense for the rest, even with unequal distributions. And it makes huge sense for the league office and ESPN to have a GOR (even if it limits replacement expansion of the B12 to the likes of Colorado State and BYU). It only takes one to shoot it down, and I see four hard no's, maybe six.

(12-10-2018 02:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 02:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 01:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Whoa. Did anyone actually read the article? I can see why so many AAC representatives would be upset by it.

Essentially, the league - in its negotiations with ESPN - wants to maximize revenue (obviously) by signing a GOR. Clearly, that would prevent the top-level teams from ever jumping to a power conference. However, in order to compensate being handcuffed, the AAC (Aresco) is pushing for unequal revenue distribution, in order to compensate the top members. According to the article, UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston would be the schools that would be given a higher portion of the revenue, if a GOR were ever to be signed. That would mean that SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Temple and, ahem, UConn, would be given lower percentages of the next cut. Navy has its own special deal under the AAC contract.

Now, given these updates, a few thoughts: 1) I can see why Bowen at Memphis said what he did; someone is clearly leaking information about the negotiations to outside sources, and - given the news - it is most likely a representative/school that has not taken the proposal well. That is why Aresco needs to say something today to put out the fires. 2) If UConn were to receive a cut below the top schools, that would create substantial cause for them to seriously consider moving non-football sports to the Big East. UConn, and UC/USF, willingly took less money last go-around because of the exposure that ESPN provided and the war chest funds that the C7 left behind (which allowed them to take in a similar amount to the Big East contract). However, given that they have clearly been leaped by not just one school, but five total schools, that is a huge deterrent to them continuing to remain in a Southern-based league just for the sake of football (which is now confirmed what their value holds). 3) If UConn were to decide to join the Big East, it is very likely that Fox would increase the pay-out of the league's membership, given their men's basketball success, and the league's long-term extension with MSG yesterday. Couple that with their ability to fill MSG, and the additional games that would be added to the conference tournament, they would provide more value to the Big East than they would (under these reports) to the AAC. They also would save a ton of travel expenses for Olympic sports, guaranteed.

Very interesting developments, indeed.

Here's what this is like:

Suppose it's February 2010, and Mountain West commissioner Thompson is laying the groundwork for negotiating a new TV deal. He's got Utah with two recent undefeated seasons and BCS bowl wins, including a final poll position of #2 after they routed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. He's got TCU who has had several recent 10-win seasons and just played in a BCS bowl last month and finished ranked in the top 10. Thompson wants to keep those two schools around and increase his league's football TV value, so he offers TCU and Utah three times as much conference revenue as any other MWC school, as an inducement to get them to sign a 12-year GOR.

You are the president of Utah or TCU. Do you sign that GOR?

A bit different because the conferences at that point were a lot smaller... Big Ten at 11, Big 12 at 12, SEC at 12, Pac 10 at 10. Now those conferences- Big Ten and SEC are at 14, Pac 12 at 12. ACC at 14/15.

Not so different, really. The Big "12" has 10 members now and would expand if ESPN or Fox wanted them to and offered them enough money to make it profitable. Also, vacancies happen when P5 schools move around. TCU and WVU moved up because 4 schools had left the Big 12 for other conferences. Louisville moved up because Maryland left the ACC. All of them would have lost out if they had been handcuffed to their previous conference by a GOR.

(12-10-2018 02:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 02:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 02:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 01:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Whoa. Did anyone actually read the article? I can see why so many AAC representatives would be upset by it.

Essentially, the league - in its negotiations with ESPN - wants to maximize revenue (obviously) by signing a GOR. Clearly, that would prevent the top-level teams from ever jumping to a power conference. However, in order to compensate being handcuffed, the AAC (Aresco) is pushing for unequal revenue distribution, in order to compensate the top members. According to the article, UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston would be the schools that would be given a higher portion of the revenue, if a GOR were ever to be signed. That would mean that SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Temple and, ahem, UConn, would be given lower percentages of the next cut. Navy has its own special deal under the AAC contract.

Now, given these updates, a few thoughts: 1) I can see why Bowen at Memphis said what he did; someone is clearly leaking information about the negotiations to outside sources, and - given the news - it is most likely a representative/school that has not taken the proposal well. That is why Aresco needs to say something today to put out the fires. 2) If UConn were to receive a cut below the top schools, that would create substantial cause for them to seriously consider moving non-football sports to the Big East. UConn, and UC/USF, willingly took less money last go-around because of the exposure that ESPN provided and the war chest funds that the C7 left behind (which allowed them to take in a similar amount to the Big East contract). However, given that they have clearly been leaped by not just one school, but five total schools, that is a huge deterrent to them continuing to remain in a Southern-based league just for the sake of football (which is now confirmed what their value holds). 3) If UConn were to decide to join the Big East, it is very likely that Fox would increase the pay-out of the league's membership, given their men's basketball success, and the league's long-term extension with MSG yesterday. Couple that with their ability to fill MSG, and the additional games that would be added to the conference tournament, they would provide more value to the Big East than they would (under these reports) to the AAC. They also would save a ton of travel expenses for Olympic sports, guaranteed.

Very interesting developments, indeed.

Here's what this is like:

Suppose it's February 2010, and Mountain West commissioner Thompson is laying the groundwork for negotiating a new TV deal. He's got Utah with two recent undefeated seasons and BCS bowl wins, including a final poll position of #2 after they routed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. He's got TCU who has had several recent 10-win seasons and just played in a BCS bowl last month and finished ranked in the top 10. Thompson wants to keep those two schools around and increase his league's football TV value, so he offers TCU and Utah three times as much conference revenue as any other MWC school, as an inducement to get them to sign a 12-year GOR.

You are the president of Utah or TCU. Do you sign that GOR?

A bit different because the conferences at that point were a lot smaller... Big Ten at 11, Big 12 at 12, SEC at 12, Pac 10 at 10. Now those conferences- Big Ten and SEC are at 14, Pac 12 at 12. ACC at 14/15.

Not so different, really. The Big "12" has 10 members now and would expand if ESPN or Fox wanted them to and offered them enough money to make it profitable. Also, vacancies happen when P5 schools move around. TCU and WVU moved up because 4 schools had left the Big 12 for other conferences. Louisville moved up because Maryland left the ACC. All of them would have lost out if they had been handcuffed to their previous conference by a GOR.

Right.... BUT where before in the top 5 leagues there were 57 schools, there are now in those top 5 leagues 64/65. There's a lot fewer openings now than there were 8 years ago...