Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
Author Message
TheBasketBallOpinion Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Georgetown
Location:
Post: #1
Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/...840567001/

"Initial negotiations started earlier this month with the AAC asking for $30 million and UConn aiming for $15 million, sources with direct knowledge of the league told The Enquirer."

Huge win for UConn if the AAC did originally ask for $30M
07-27-2019 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,874
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 895
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #2
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 02:43 PM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/...840567001/

"Initial negotiations started earlier this month with the AAC asking for $30 million and UConn aiming for $15 million, sources with direct knowledge of the league told The Enquirer."

Huge win for UConn if the AAC did originally ask for $30M

If one side begins with a totally unreasonable "offer", it does not make it a win for the other side if the result is ultimately lower than that, but much closer to reality.

That $30 million opening offer was a pie in the sky, Monopoly money type offer. It had little to do with the governing documents and the established exit fee.
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2019 03:02 PM by TerryD.)
07-27-2019 03:02 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
lol....just curious, while the AAC was caving, where exactly did the 30 million dollar starting point come from? The answer---it was basically pulled out thin air based on the Big East new exit fee. There was very little to support it. Basically, the AAC got a 70% premium over the normal exit fee to allow waiving the 27 month waiting period. I think thats more than reasonable and higher than I expected.

If you want to criticize the AAC---I'd criticize them on how they use that 17 million. If they had any brains, they would set aside that 17 million into a fund, add 500K-1 million a year to it over the next 6 years and have over 20 million sitting in an account in 2024 when the negotiations begin for the next bowl cycle and CFP. They would be in an excellent position to use that 20+ million to create a new anchor bowl for their champion with a high enough payout to attract a high selection from a P5 (or pool of P5's). Thats a much wiser and longer term investment for the cash than a one time 1.4 million dollar distribution to the members. So, if they just do a simple distribution of the cash to the members---I think they deserve criticism for not thinking bigger and using the funds to accomplish a very important and difficult to accomplish part of their "p6" strategic plan. It would also mark the second time this same group pf players failed to invest real money in their own future post seasons when they have sufficient cash on hand to do it. Its not a decision that results in instant satisfaction---but it is the right one for the long term future development of the conference.
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2019 03:10 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-27-2019 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user
Fighting Muskie Online
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #4
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....just curious, while the AAC was caving, where exactly did the 30 million dollar starting point come from? The answer---it was basically pulled out thin air based on the Big East new exit fee. There was very little to support it. Basically, the AAC got a 70% premium over the normal exit fee to allow waiving the 27 month waiting period. I think thats more than reasonable and higher than I expected.

If you want to criticize the AAC---I'd criticize them on how they use that 17 million. If they had any brains, they would set aside that 17 million into a fund, add 500K-1 million a year to it over the next 6 years and have over 20 million sitting in an account in 2024 when the negotiations begin for the next bowl cycle and CFP. They would be in an excellent position to use that 20+ million to create a new anchor bowl for their champion with a high enough payout to attract a high selection from a P5 (or pool of P5's). Thats a much wiser and longer term investment for the cash than a one time 1.4 million dollar distribution to the members. So, if they just do a simple distribution of the cash to the members---I think they deserve criticism for not thinking bigger and using the funds to accomplish a very important and difficult to accomplish part of their "p6" strategic plan. It would also mark the second time this same group pf players failed to invest real money in their own future post seasons when they have sufficient cash on hand to do it. Its not a decision that results in instant satisfaction---but it is the right for the long term future development of the conference.

I don’t get the logic behind giving away YOUR money to a P5. No amount of money is going to make the P5 treat the AAC as equals.
07-27-2019 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 03:14 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....just curious, while the AAC was caving, where exactly did the 30 million dollar starting point come from? The answer---it was basically pulled out thin air based on the Big East new exit fee. There was very little to support it. Basically, the AAC got a 70% premium over the normal exit fee to allow waiving the 27 month waiting period. I think thats more than reasonable and higher than I expected.

If you want to criticize the AAC---I'd criticize them on how they use that 17 million. If they had any brains, they would set aside that 17 million into a fund, add 500K-1 million a year to it over the next 6 years and have over 20 million sitting in an account in 2024 when the negotiations begin for the next bowl cycle and CFP. They would be in an excellent position to use that 20+ million to create a new anchor bowl for their champion with a high enough payout to attract a high selection from a P5 (or pool of P5's). Thats a much wiser and longer term investment for the cash than a one time 1.4 million dollar distribution to the members. So, if they just do a simple distribution of the cash to the members---I think they deserve criticism for not thinking bigger and using the funds to accomplish a very important and difficult to accomplish part of their "p6" strategic plan. It would also mark the second time this same group pf players failed to invest real money in their own future post seasons when they have sufficient cash on hand to do it. Its not a decision that results in instant satisfaction---but it is the right for the long term future development of the conference.

I don’t get the logic behind giving away YOUR money to a P5. No amount of money is going to make the P5 treat the AAC as equals.

Your not giving anything away--nor or you asking anyone in the P5 to treat the AAC as an "equal" in the CFP. You are simply investing in running your own high end non-CFP bowl and paying a P5 the market rate to attract a fairly high selection from a P5 as the bowl opponent. In other words, the AAC would own this bowl. Most major bowls that typically have ranked schools playing make money. I see no reason that a bowl with the AAC champ vs a high P5 pick wouldn't do just fine financially. Thus not only are you providing the conference with something nobody is very likely to just hand them (a slot in a high end non-CFP bowl)---you very likely create a long term future stream of conference income (albeit--a relatively small stream).
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2019 03:43 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-27-2019 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #6
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....just curious, while the AAC was caving, where exactly did the 30 million dollar starting point come from? The answer---it was basically pulled out thin air based on the Big East new exit fee. There was very little to support it. Basically, the AAC got a 70% premium over the normal exit fee to allow waiving the 27 month waiting period. I think thats more than reasonable and higher than I expected.

If you want to criticize the AAC---I'd criticize them on how they use that 17 million. If they had any brains, they would set aside that 17 million into a fund, add 500K-1 million a year to it over the next 6 years and have over 20 million sitting in an account in 2024 when the negotiations begin for the next bowl cycle and CFP. They would be in an excellent position to use that 20+ million to create a new anchor bowl for their champion with a high enough payout to attract a high selection from a P5 (or pool of P5's). Thats a much wiser and longer term investment for the cash than a one time 1.4 million dollar distribution to the members. So, if they just do a simple distribution of the cash to the members---I think they deserve criticism for not thinking bigger and using the funds to accomplish a very important and difficult to accomplish part of their "p6" strategic plan. It would also mark the second time this same group pf players failed to invest real money in their own future post seasons when they have sufficient cash on hand to do it. Its not a decision that results in instant satisfaction---but it is the right one for the long term future development of the conference.

the AAC should absolutely do this and go to a 10 game conference schedule (because they are both such terrible ideas)

you put $17 million into investments and if you use the (now dated) formula that your money should double every 7 years then in six years (we will give the AAC the benefit of the doubt because "P6" and arresto) there would be $34 million

plus the $6 million additional per year placed in there for 6 years (that early year money will help the $17 million double in 6 years) and you have $40 million

then you use a 5% payout that most endowments and retirement funds use (4% better these days to be conservative) and that means you have $2 million per year to lure a P5 team to play the AAC and nothing left to pay the AAC team from that fund

yea I think that is a brilliant idea set aside $23 million in payouts (about $2 million per AAC member) over 6 years so that you can pay a P5 team $2 million to play you in a bowl game to prove you are "P6"

that payout to the P5 team would get you just about $100,000 over The Sunbowl payout......so you would definitely lure a "top" P5 team there...

so 8-4 Stanford or 7-6 Pitt!!!!
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2019 03:40 PM by TodgeRodge.)
07-27-2019 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 03:38 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....just curious, while the AAC was caving, where exactly did the 30 million dollar starting point come from? The answer---it was basically pulled out thin air based on the Big East new exit fee. There was very little to support it. Basically, the AAC got a 70% premium over the normal exit fee to allow waiving the 27 month waiting period. I think thats more than reasonable and higher than I expected.

If you want to criticize the AAC---I'd criticize them on how they use that 17 million. If they had any brains, they would set aside that 17 million into a fund, add 500K-1 million a year to it over the next 6 years and have over 20 million sitting in an account in 2024 when the negotiations begin for the next bowl cycle and CFP. They would be in an excellent position to use that 20+ million to create a new anchor bowl for their champion with a high enough payout to attract a high selection from a P5 (or pool of P5's). Thats a much wiser and longer term investment for the cash than a one time 1.4 million dollar distribution to the members. So, if they just do a simple distribution of the cash to the members---I think they deserve criticism for not thinking bigger and using the funds to accomplish a very important and difficult to accomplish part of their "p6" strategic plan. It would also mark the second time this same group pf players failed to invest real money in their own future post seasons when they have sufficient cash on hand to do it. Its not a decision that results in instant satisfaction---but it is the right one for the long term future development of the conference.

the AAC should absolutely do this and go to a 10 game conference schedule (because they are both such terrible ideas)

you put $17 million into investments and if you use the (now dated) formula that your money should double every 7 years then in six years (we will give the AAC the benefit of the doubt because "P6" and arresto) there would be $34 million

plus the $6 million additional per year placed in there for 6 years (that early year money will help the $17 million double in 6 years) and you have $40 million

then you use a 5% payout that most endowments and retirement funds use (4% better these days to be conservative) and that means you have $2 million per year to lure a P5 team to play the AAC and nothing left to pay the AAC team from that fund

yea I think that is a brilliant idea set aside $23 million in payouts (about $2 million per AAC member) over 6 years so that you can pay a P5 team $2 million to play you in a bowl game to prove you are "P6"

that payout to the P5 team would get you just about $100,000 over The Sunbowl payout......so you would definitely lure a "top" P5 team there...

so 8-4 Stanford or 7-6 Pitt!!!!

LOL. Good Lord----You really couldnt be any more clueless on this subject. Its not an endowment. Its a business.

1) The fund would only exist to provide start up costs and to cover any difference between any annual expenses and revenue (tickets sold, donations, sponsorships, TV revenue, etc) for the bowl. Currently the only financial responsibility for starting a bowl is a million dollar bond and TV deal. This bowl would be far more financially solvent than that.

2) The AAC team would be paid---but honestly----you do realize it doesnt really matter? The AAC OWNS the bowl. The AAC shares all bowl payouts every year. So, as owner of the bowl--the AAC would also get any profits from the bowl and would be responsible for any expenses from that bowl as well. Thus, any payout to the AAC team is basically just the AAC paying itself. No matter what it says in the marketing brochere---the AAC payout to the conference from the bowl is simply (all bowl revenues) minus (all bowl expenses, AAC team travel expenses, and P5 payout).

3) Once the bowl is solidly profitable, then a significant portion of the fund can be distributed back to the schools or--it can be reinvested into another game if so desired. If the bowl is not profitable, then as long as the fund spins off more than the loss, the bowl can exist forever requiring no further investment.


The reality is no third party is going to hand the AAC a quality bowl. They are going to have to do without---or provide a quality bowl opportunity for themselves.
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2019 04:26 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-27-2019 04:00 PM
Find all posts by this user
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #8
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So, if they just do a simple distribution of the cash to the members---I think they deserve criticism for not thinking bigger and using the funds to accomplish a very important and difficult to accomplish part of their "p6" strategic plan.

The issue there is that the top programs in the AAC see the conference not as their forever home, but as a launching pad. It's harder to sell them on spending money meant to help the conference's reputation 20 years down the road. The MWC had the same issue when Utah, BYU, and TCU were there.
07-27-2019 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 04:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So, if they just do a simple distribution of the cash to the members---I think they deserve criticism for not thinking bigger and using the funds to accomplish a very important and difficult to accomplish part of their "p6" strategic plan.

The issue there is that the top programs in the AAC see the conference not as their forever home, but as a launching pad. It's harder to sell them on spending money meant to help the conference's reputation 20 years down the road. The MWC had the same issue when Utah, BYU, and TCU were there.

Couldnt agree more. The funny thing is---for a majority of the members---the AAC is probably going to be a very long term home for them. We just dont know who exactly will be in that group....but its probably most of us.
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2019 04:17 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-27-2019 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user
Renandpat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,140
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Central State
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 02:43 PM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  "Initial negotiations started earlier this month with the AAC asking for $30 million and UConn aiming for $15 million, sources with direct knowledge of the league told The Enquirer."

Huge win for UConn if the AAC did originally ask for $30M

(07-27-2019 03:02 PM)TerryD Wrote:  [quote='TheBasketBallOpinion' pid='16213111' dateline='1564256589']

If one side begins with a totally unreasonable "offer", it does not make it a win for the other side if the result is ultimately lower than that, but much closer to reality.

That $30 million opening offer was a pie in the sky, Monopoly money type offer. It had little to do with the governing documents and the established exit fee.
There are two words which the AAC didn't want to hear as well..."Billable Hours". Fighting UConn over this would only enrich their law firm, not the membership.
07-27-2019 04:24 PM
Find all posts by this user
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #11
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 04:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 03:38 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....just curious, while the AAC was caving, where exactly did the 30 million dollar starting point come from? The answer---it was basically pulled out thin air based on the Big East new exit fee. There was very little to support it. Basically, the AAC got a 70% premium over the normal exit fee to allow waiving the 27 month waiting period. I think thats more than reasonable and higher than I expected.

If you want to criticize the AAC---I'd criticize them on how they use that 17 million. If they had any brains, they would set aside that 17 million into a fund, add 500K-1 million a year to it over the next 6 years and have over 20 million sitting in an account in 2024 when the negotiations begin for the next bowl cycle and CFP. They would be in an excellent position to use that 20+ million to create a new anchor bowl for their champion with a high enough payout to attract a high selection from a P5 (or pool of P5's). Thats a much wiser and longer term investment for the cash than a one time 1.4 million dollar distribution to the members. So, if they just do a simple distribution of the cash to the members---I think they deserve criticism for not thinking bigger and using the funds to accomplish a very important and difficult to accomplish part of their "p6" strategic plan. It would also mark the second time this same group pf players failed to invest real money in their own future post seasons when they have sufficient cash on hand to do it. Its not a decision that results in instant satisfaction---but it is the right one for the long term future development of the conference.

the AAC should absolutely do this and go to a 10 game conference schedule (because they are both such terrible ideas)

you put $17 million into investments and if you use the (now dated) formula that your money should double every 7 years then in six years (we will give the AAC the benefit of the doubt because "P6" and arresto) there would be $34 million

plus the $6 million additional per year placed in there for 6 years (that early year money will help the $17 million double in 6 years) and you have $40 million

then you use a 5% payout that most endowments and retirement funds use (4% better these days to be conservative) and that means you have $2 million per year to lure a P5 team to play the AAC and nothing left to pay the AAC team from that fund

yea I think that is a brilliant idea set aside $23 million in payouts (about $2 million per AAC member) over 6 years so that you can pay a P5 team $2 million to play you in a bowl game to prove you are "P6"

that payout to the P5 team would get you just about $100,000 over The Sunbowl payout......so you would definitely lure a "top" P5 team there...

so 8-4 Stanford or 7-6 Pitt!!!!

LOL. Good Lord----You really couldnt be any more clueless on this subject. Its not an endowment. Its a business.

1) The fund would only exist to provide start up costs and to cover any difference between any annual expenses and revenue (tickets sold, donations, sponsorships, TV revenue, etc) for the bowl. Currently the only financial responsibility for starting a bowl is a million dollar bond and TV deal. This bowl would be far more financially solvent than that.

2) The AAC team would be paid---but honestly----you do realize it doesnt really matter? The AAC OWNS the bowl. The AAC shares all bowl payouts every year. So, as owner of the bowl--the AAC would also get any profits from the bowl and would be responsible for any expenses from that bowl as well. Thus, any payout to the AAC team is basically just the AAC paying itself. No matter what it says in the marketing brochere---the AAC payout to the conference from the bowl is simply (all bowl revenues) minus (all bowl expenses, AAC team travel expenses, and P5 payout).

3) Once the bowl is solidly profitable, then a significant portion of the fund can be distributed back to the schools or--it can be reinvested into another game if so desired. If the bowl is not profitable, then as long as the fund spins off more than the loss, the bowl can exist forever requiring no further investment.


The reality is no third party is going to hand the AAC a quality bowl. They are going to have to do without---or provide a quality bowl opportunity for themselves.

being clueless is talking ab out putting away $23 million dollars to subsidize a bowl game and then talking about that bowl game being solidly profitable

while not understanding that if that bowl game was going to be profitable it would already exist because those that televise bowl games would make it happen to capture that profit

you live in that pretend world where everyone is out to hold the AAC down and the AAC does not get their "fair market value" (even though they just went to market with their TV rights) and that if the AAc can just do something to force those that pay money for media rights and bowl games to panic suddenly the money tree will blossom and cash will fall from the sky

when the reality is the AAC is getting the bowl games they get because that is what they are worth not because someone somewhere just does not want to give them a better game in spite of the (ridiculous) belief that there are massive profits being left on the table

it is the same ridiculous belief that having more teams in the Big 12 or PAC 12 that deliver zero dollars and zero cents for CFP money or Rose/Sugar Bowl money would somehow make that deficit up for the conference with a trip to the muffler bowl every year
07-27-2019 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 04:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 04:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 03:38 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....just curious, while the AAC was caving, where exactly did the 30 million dollar starting point come from? The answer---it was basically pulled out thin air based on the Big East new exit fee. There was very little to support it. Basically, the AAC got a 70% premium over the normal exit fee to allow waiving the 27 month waiting period. I think thats more than reasonable and higher than I expected.

If you want to criticize the AAC---I'd criticize them on how they use that 17 million. If they had any brains, they would set aside that 17 million into a fund, add 500K-1 million a year to it over the next 6 years and have over 20 million sitting in an account in 2024 when the negotiations begin for the next bowl cycle and CFP. They would be in an excellent position to use that 20+ million to create a new anchor bowl for their champion with a high enough payout to attract a high selection from a P5 (or pool of P5's). Thats a much wiser and longer term investment for the cash than a one time 1.4 million dollar distribution to the members. So, if they just do a simple distribution of the cash to the members---I think they deserve criticism for not thinking bigger and using the funds to accomplish a very important and difficult to accomplish part of their "p6" strategic plan. It would also mark the second time this same group pf players failed to invest real money in their own future post seasons when they have sufficient cash on hand to do it. Its not a decision that results in instant satisfaction---but it is the right one for the long term future development of the conference.

the AAC should absolutely do this and go to a 10 game conference schedule (because they are both such terrible ideas)

you put $17 million into investments and if you use the (now dated) formula that your money should double every 7 years then in six years (we will give the AAC the benefit of the doubt because "P6" and arresto) there would be $34 million

plus the $6 million additional per year placed in there for 6 years (that early year money will help the $17 million double in 6 years) and you have $40 million

then you use a 5% payout that most endowments and retirement funds use (4% better these days to be conservative) and that means you have $2 million per year to lure a P5 team to play the AAC and nothing left to pay the AAC team from that fund

yea I think that is a brilliant idea set aside $23 million in payouts (about $2 million per AAC member) over 6 years so that you can pay a P5 team $2 million to play you in a bowl game to prove you are "P6"

that payout to the P5 team would get you just about $100,000 over The Sunbowl payout......so you would definitely lure a "top" P5 team there...

so 8-4 Stanford or 7-6 Pitt!!!!

LOL. Good Lord----You really couldnt be any more clueless on this subject. Its not an endowment. Its a business.

1) The fund would only exist to provide start up costs and to cover any difference between any annual expenses and revenue (tickets sold, donations, sponsorships, TV revenue, etc) for the bowl. Currently the only financial responsibility for starting a bowl is a million dollar bond and TV deal. This bowl would be far more financially solvent than that.

2) The AAC team would be paid---but honestly----you do realize it doesnt really matter? The AAC OWNS the bowl. The AAC shares all bowl payouts every year. So, as owner of the bowl--the AAC would also get any profits from the bowl and would be responsible for any expenses from that bowl as well. Thus, any payout to the AAC team is basically just the AAC paying itself. No matter what it says in the marketing brochere---the AAC payout to the conference from the bowl is simply (all bowl revenues) minus (all bowl expenses, AAC team travel expenses, and P5 payout).

3) Once the bowl is solidly profitable, then a significant portion of the fund can be distributed back to the schools or--it can be reinvested into another game if so desired. If the bowl is not profitable, then as long as the fund spins off more than the loss, the bowl can exist forever requiring no further investment.


The reality is no third party is going to hand the AAC a quality bowl. They are going to have to do without---or provide a quality bowl opportunity for themselves.

being clueless is talking ab out putting away $23 million dollars to subsidize a bowl game and then talking about that bowl game being solidly profitable

while not understanding that if that bowl game was going to be profitable it would already exist because those that televise bowl games would make it happen to capture that profit

you live in that pretend world where everyone is out to hold the AAC down and the AAC does not get their "fair market value" (even though they just went to market with their TV rights) and that if the AAc can just do something to force those that pay money for media rights and bowl games to panic suddenly the money tree will blossom and cash will fall from the sky

when the reality is the AAC is getting the bowl games they get because that is what they are worth not because someone somewhere just does not want to give them a better game in spite of the (ridiculous) belief that there are massive profits being left on the table

it is the same ridiculous belief that having more teams in the Big 12 or PAC 12 that deliver zero dollars and zero cents for CFP money or Rose/Sugar Bowl money would somehow make that deficit up for the conference with a trip to the muffler bowl every year

LOL. So in other words, you could not refute a singe point of my post and admit you were clueless and are now having to make up straw man statements to refute. You really should have stopped when you were just a bit behind. Instead, you have simply laid bare your ignorance of the bowl process once again.

The reason that the AAC cannot get a top level bowl has nothing to do "with keeping the AAC down". It is about basic business. The reason that AAC cannot get a high level bowl is because any top level bowl paying enough to land a high level P5 is going to want to land a P5. The reason for this is bowl committees believe that the greatest profit can be earned by pitting to high level P5 against one another. They are probably correct. Therefore--you are very unlikely to ever see a high P5 vs the AAC champ bowl built by a third party. Hence--the reason I am suggesting that the AAC will need to do it for themselves if they want it to happen.

Will such a bowl maximize profit? Probably not. But it also doesnt have to maximize profit in order to serve the AAC primary purpose of creating a top quality anchor bowl for its champion (or runner up). All it has to do is make any profit, break even, or even just lose less than a couple of million a year at most. That said----I see little reason to believe it would not at least generate a moderate profit---making it a complete and total success for the AAC's main purpose.

Basically, your whole post is an irrational accusation that the AAC is demanding something it doesnt deserve---while my post describes a way for the AAC to invest in its future and simply build what it wants rather than hope some third party gives them a hand out. Not sure why you've chosen to lash out so irrationally.

The final portions of your post are just some gibberish and non-sense regarding things Ive never said. No need to respond to any of that tripe.
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2019 06:23 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-27-2019 06:15 PM
Find all posts by this user
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #13
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
there is no reason to think it would generate any profit at all

and I am not saying that the AAC is demanding anything I am just saying it is laughably idiotic to think that taking $23 million dollars from members pockets to try and get a Sunbowl type match up with a P5 team is a terrible idea and a terrible waste of badly needed money

you said the money would not be an endowment it would be used to subsidize the bowl so that is just a worse idea

take the money from AAC programs pockets, save it up for a few years, spend it on a few years worth of bowl games and then when out of money to subsidize that bowl game watch it go away just like all the other bowl games that are subsidized by city convention authorities and similar public entities once they figure out they are not making any profit

but as I said before the ACC should absolutely do it the P5 would welcome the money for a few years

you can't seem to grasp that lower level bowl games are often subsidized by cities and their convention and visitors authorities, teams often lose money buying tickets they are required to buy to participate (or if lucky the conference helps them break even), if there was money to be made ESPN would be trying to make it now, and because the AAC coughs up money for a bowl game that does not change any of the economics it just changes who is subsidizing it and any small profit there MIGHT be to make ESPN or some other broadcaster will take in exchange for showing the game.....or they will simply take that P5 opponent and place them in a game they own or control

while you are at it the AAC should start up a basketball tournament in the post season to try and play some P5 teams that do not go to the NCAAs.....that sounds like another financial winner
07-27-2019 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #14
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 04:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....while not understanding that if that bowl game was going to be profitable it would already exist because those that televise bowl games would make it happen to capture that profit

Yes, the "fund our own big bowl" thing has been a favorite of Coog's for several years, but that has always bothered me about it as well. If there really was an untapped opportunity, if there was say a $4m per team payout value to pitting the best AAC team not in the NY6 versus a #3 or #4 team from a P5, it stands to reason someone whose job it is to think of stuff like this would already have thunk it out.
07-27-2019 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 04:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....while not understanding that if that bowl game was going to be profitable it would already exist because those that televise bowl games would make it happen to capture that profit

Yes, the "fund our own big bowl" thing has been a favorite of Coog's for several years, but that has always bothered me about it as well. If there really was an untapped opportunity, if there was say a $4m per team payout value to pitting the best AAC team not in the NY6 versus a #3 or #4 team from a P5, it stands to reason someone whose job it is to think of stuff like this would already have thunk it out.

So tiring. Asked and answered. Pitting a top P5 vs a top P5 maximizes profit. However, pitting a high level (often ranked G5) vs a ranked P5 works well too. Is it likely to make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5? Im happy to stipulate that the AAC Champ vs a top P5 probably wont make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5 (which is why no third party will every offer the AAC such a game). However, unless your submitting as a basic truth that a ranked P5 suddenly loses its entire fan base when pitted against a ranked G5 (which will also fail to bring any of its fans)---then there really isnt any case for the logic that such a game cant make a profit or at least break even.

Just some info to chew on--the P5 vs G5 access bowl seems to do pretty well. The Las Vegas Bowl with no P5's (just a 3 loss Houston and solid SDSU team) drew an TV audience of over 3 million. There is simply little reason to believe the AAC champ playing a high selection from a P5 (likely ranked) would not be reasonably successful self supporting game. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2019 07:25 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-27-2019 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 06:35 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is no reason to think it would generate any profit at all

and I am not saying that the AAC is demanding anything I am just saying it is laughably idiotic to think that taking $23 million dollars from members pockets to try and get a Sunbowl type match up with a P5 team is a terrible idea and a terrible waste of badly needed money

you said the money would not be an endowment it would be used to subsidize the bowl so that is just a worse idea

take the money from AAC programs pockets, save it up for a few years, spend it on a few years worth of bowl games and then when out of money to subsidize that bowl game watch it go away just like all the other bowl games that are subsidized by city convention authorities and similar public entities once they figure out they are not making any profit

but as I said before the ACC should absolutely do it the P5 would welcome the money for a few years

you can't seem to grasp that lower level bowl games are often subsidized by cities and their convention and visitors authorities, teams often lose money buying tickets they are required to buy to participate (or if lucky the conference helps them break even), if there was money to be made ESPN would be trying to make it now, and because the AAC coughs up money for a bowl game that does not change any of the economics it just changes who is subsidizing it and any small profit there MIGHT be to make ESPN or some other broadcaster will take in exchange for showing the game.....or they will simply take that P5 opponent and place them in a game they own or control

while you are at it the AAC should start up a basketball tournament in the post season to try and play some P5 teams that do not go to the NCAAs.....that sounds like another financial winner

LOL. Nobody will show up to see a ranked P5? There you have it. Pure comedy gold. Your knowledge of bowls starts and ends at the end of your cereal spoon.
07-27-2019 07:36 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #17
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 07:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 04:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....while not understanding that if that bowl game was going to be profitable it would already exist because those that televise bowl games would make it happen to capture that profit

Yes, the "fund our own big bowl" thing has been a favorite of Coog's for several years, but that has always bothered me about it as well. If there really was an untapped opportunity, if there was say a $4m per team payout value to pitting the best AAC team not in the NY6 versus a #3 or #4 team from a P5, it stands to reason someone whose job it is to think of stuff like this would already have thunk it out.

So tiring. Asked and answered. Pitting a top P5 vs a top P5 maximizes profit. However, pitting a high level (often ranked G5) vs a ranked P5 works well too. Is it likely to make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5? Im happy to stipulate that the AAC Champ vs a top P5 probably wont make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5 (which is why no third party will every offer the AAC such a game). However, unless your submitting as a basic truth that a ranked P5 suddenly loses its entire fan base when pitted against a ranked G5 (which will also fail to bring any of its fans)---then there really isnt any case for the logic that such a game cant make a profit or at least break even.

Just some info to chew on--the P5 vs G5 access bowl seems to do pretty well. The Las Vegas Bowl with no P5's (just a 3 loss Houston and solid SDSU team) drew an TV audience of over 3 million. There is simply little reason to believe the AAC champ playing a high selection from a P5 (likely ranked) would not be reasonably successful self supporting game. 04-cheers

I don't think this "answers" my question, as it still begs the question of why some network hasn't proposed just such a thing? Just because a network a P5 vs P5 game doesn't mean they can't arrange your thing to, but nobody is.

Also, a big iffy for this would the "AAC champ" thing. So far during the CFP, the AAC champ has been in the NY6 three out of five times, so had this bowl existed those years, it would have only featured the AAC champ twice. And once you take out the champ, there is often a steep dropoff to the #2 AAC team. E.g., last year, the AAC champ was #8. The second place AAC team was ... unranked.

The uncertainty about the AAC champ actually playing in the game would IMO be a significant negative.
07-27-2019 07:40 PM
Find all posts by this user
BruceMcF Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,103
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 04:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....while not understanding that if that bowl game was going to be profitable it would already exist because those that televise bowl games would make it happen to capture that profit

Yes, the "fund our own big bowl" thing has been a favorite of Coog's for several years, but that has always bothered me about it as well. If there really was an untapped opportunity, ...

Nah, this is not about untapped opportunity, this is more about how Ocean Spray, Sun Maid and Land of Lakes exists ... as marketing cooperative corporations organized under the principles of member owns, member uses, member benefits. If you reckon shareholder capitalism doesn't work for you as well as a co-op would, you organize a co-op.

The AAC wouldn't be tapping an untapped opportunity, it would be using the payout it's engineered to shoulder aside another pig at the trough to grab a slice of the existing opportunity.

Heck, maybe the AAC could go beyond just looking at that analogy and and actually form a marketing co-op to run a bowl. Tax advantages to that as well ... since the way you handle any profits you don't want to keep as retained earnings is not to distribute them as a taxable dividend, but to rebate them to the owner-members ... for a marketing co-op, in the form of an bonus on top of the payment to members for purchases (in purchasing and service cooperatives, it's a discount applied to payments made by members).

The question is where it would be placed. IMNSHO trying to place it at the level of "first outside the NY6" would be a bit overambitious. It should be aiming for a step outside that.

And then there's where. If it's a pool for all P5 based on which one filled the fewest at-large spots, it's got to be somewhere everyone can get to. It also has to be a warm weather city or a covered stadium. So maybe somewhere St. Louis / New Orleans / Dallas ... which would all be less than ideal for the ACC or Pac-12, but I guess you can't make it ideal for one of those two without making it worse for the other one.
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2019 07:54 PM by BruceMcF.)
07-27-2019 07:43 PM
Find all posts by this user
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 07:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 07:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 04:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ....while not understanding that if that bowl game was going to be profitable it would already exist because those that televise bowl games would make it happen to capture that profit

Yes, the "fund our own big bowl" thing has been a favorite of Coog's for several years, but that has always bothered me about it as well. If there really was an untapped opportunity, if there was say a $4m per team payout value to pitting the best AAC team not in the NY6 versus a #3 or #4 team from a P5, it stands to reason someone whose job it is to think of stuff like this would already have thunk it out.

So tiring. Asked and answered. Pitting a top P5 vs a top P5 maximizes profit. However, pitting a high level (often ranked G5) vs a ranked P5 works well too. Is it likely to make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5? Im happy to stipulate that the AAC Champ vs a top P5 probably wont make as much as a top P5 vs a top P5 (which is why no third party will every offer the AAC such a game). However, unless your submitting as a basic truth that a ranked P5 suddenly loses its entire fan base when pitted against a ranked G5 (which will also fail to bring any of its fans)---then there really isnt any case for the logic that such a game cant make a profit or at least break even.

Just some info to chew on--the P5 vs G5 access bowl seems to do pretty well. The Las Vegas Bowl with no P5's (just a 3 loss Houston and solid SDSU team) drew an TV audience of over 3 million. There is simply little reason to believe the AAC champ playing a high selection from a P5 (likely ranked) would not be reasonably successful self supporting game. 04-cheers

I don't think this "answers" my question, as it still begs the question of why some network hasn't proposed just such a thing? Just because a network a P5 vs P5 game doesn't mean they can't arrange your thing to, but nobody is.

Also, a big iffy for this would the "AAC champ" thing. So far during the CFP, the AAC champ has been in the NY6 three out of five times, so had this bowl existed those years, it would have only featured the AAC champ twice. And once you take out the champ, there is often a steep dropoff to the #2 AAC team. E.g., last year, the AAC champ was #8. The second place AAC team was ... unranked.

The uncertainty about the AAC champ actually playing in the game would IMO be a significant negative.

Ok. Lets use your logic. If we both agree that a P5 vs P5 maximizes profit---why would a third party seek to pay a high payout to create a P5 v G5 game? The only reason for the AAC to do it is because it is in the best interests of the AAC. There is no other party who will put together a game that makes less because its good for the AAC. That is why there is currently no such game and its the same reason why it is folly to wait for someone to create such a game for the AAC. Its never going to happen.

As for the absence of the AAC champ (if champ makes the access bowl)--the runner up would have been a ranked team every year but 2016. So, still a very interesting game. You could also make it so its the highest ranked available team (just in case a 2nd place team in the other division is actually higher ranked than the CCG loser).
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2019 07:57 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-27-2019 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user
33laszlo99 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 262
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Bama
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Why did the American Athletic Conference cave to UConn
(07-27-2019 03:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 03:14 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-27-2019 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....just curious, while the AAC was caving, where exactly did the 30 million dollar starting point come from? The answer---it was basically pulled out thin air based on the Big East new exit fee. There was very little to support it. Basically, the AAC got a 70% premium over the normal exit fee to allow waiving the 27 month waiting period. I think thats more than reasonable and higher than I expected.

If you want to criticize the AAC---I'd criticize them on how they use that 17 million. If they had any brains, they would set aside that 17 million into a fund, add 500K-1 million a year to it over the next 6 years and have over 20 million sitting in an account in 2024 when the negotiations begin for the next bowl cycle and CFP. They would be in an excellent position to use that 20+ million to create a new anchor bowl for their champion with a high enough payout to attract a high selection from a P5 (or pool of P5's). Thats a much wiser and longer term investment for the cash than a one time 1.4 million dollar distribution to the members. So, if they just do a simple distribution of the cash to the members---I think they deserve criticism for not thinking bigger and using the funds to accomplish a very important and difficult to accomplish part of their "p6" strategic plan. It would also mark the second time this same group pf players failed to invest real money in their own future post seasons when they have sufficient cash on hand to do it. Its not a decision that results in instant satisfaction---but it is the right for the long term future development of the conference.

I don’t get the logic behind giving away YOUR money to a P5. No amount of money is going to make the P5 treat the AAC as equals.

Your not giving anything away--nor or you asking anyone in the P5 to treat the AAC as an "equal" in the CFP. You are simply investing in running your own high end non-CFP bowl and paying a P5 the market rate to attract a fairly high selection from a P5 as the bowl opponent. In other words, the AAC would own this bowl. Most major bowls that typically have ranked schools playing make money. I see no reason that a bowl with the AAC champ vs a high P5 pick wouldn't do just fine financially. Thus not only are you providing the conference with something nobody is very likely to just hand them (a slot in a high end non-CFP bowl)---you very likely create a long term future stream of conference income (albeit--a relatively small stream).

A conference-owned bowl game is not necessarily a cash cow, but it might make money. There is no reason the AAC shouldn't entrepreneurial. Find a warm weather city that likes tourism; invite a cold weather B1G team.
ESPN could schedule an attractive game against yours if they wanted to discourage you. But bowl games are just exhibition football and football fans will watch them.
07-27-2019 07:59 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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.