(09-01-2020 04:54 PM)CaliWG Wrote:  

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

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

AAC inventory viewers 2019 - 28.6 million

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

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

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

Not exactly a blockbuster.

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

ESPN ratings are in the toilet right now. That means Commercial rates will be down, which means they are hurting for $$. There is no reason for them to pay out 5 to 6 mil for new schools plus a raise for the 11 already in the AAC. Byu is the only add that could make $$$ sense and BYU isn't coming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good report. Your job is to get BYU to the table.

(09-02-2020 01:01 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good report. Your job is to get BYU to the table.

Agree. Good work!

Further, $15M/yr. is just the starting point. By 2032, an arrangement along these lines should generate the kind of revenue generated by the P5 conferences. In addition, ESPN has the lawyers, the power, the contacts, and the exact formula to turn an expanded AAC into an official NCAA autonomy and power conference.

BTW, would it have to be BYU, Boise, and SDSU? Not necessarily. Air Force and Appalachian State are of similar quality.

(09-02-2020 07:11 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 01:01 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  [quote='CaliWG' pid='16971521' dateline='1598981921']
Let me preface this by saying that the point of this post is to maximize AAC TV revenue, so the scheduling model being used is a Rivals+SOS model. Divisions force good programs to play more bad programs than is necessary, resulting in fewer Tier 1 & Tier 2 games for broadcast partners. Under this model, each team would have 2-3 permanent rivalry games they play every year, and the rest of their conference games would be determined by the prior season's standings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good report. Your job is to get BYU to the table.

Agree. Good work!

Further, $15M/yr. is just the starting point. By 2032, an arrangement along these lines should generate the kind of revenue generated by the P5 conferences. In addition, ESPN has the lawyers, the power, the contacts, and the exact formula to turn an expanded AAC into an official NCAA autonomy and power conference.

BTW, would it have to be BYU, Boise, and SDSU? Not necessarily. Air Force and Appalachian State are of similar quality.
[/quote

As much as I like Air Force and Appalachian State, I agree with CaliWG that BYU, BSU, and SDSU would bring the AAC a strong California presence and therefore strengthen the conference the most.

(09-02-2020 08:26 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 07:11 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 01:01 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  [quote='CaliWG' pid='16971521' dateline='1598981921']
Let me preface this by saying that the point of this post is to maximize AAC TV revenue, so the scheduling model being used is a Rivals+SOS model. Divisions force good programs to play more bad programs than is necessary, resulting in fewer Tier 1 & Tier 2 games for broadcast partners. Under this model, each team would have 2-3 permanent rivalry games they play every year, and the rest of their conference games would be determined by the prior season's standings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good report. Your job is to get BYU to the table.

Agree. Good work!

Further, $15M/yr. is just the starting point. By 2032, an arrangement along these lines should generate the kind of revenue generated by the P5 conferences. In addition, ESPN has the lawyers, the power, the contacts, and the exact formula to turn an expanded AAC into an official NCAA autonomy and power conference.

BTW, would it have to be BYU, Boise, and SDSU? Not necessarily. Air Force and Appalachian State are of similar quality.
[/quote

As much as I like Air Force and Appalachian State, I agree with CaliWG that BYU, BSU, and SDSU would bring the AAC a strong California presence and therefore strengthen the conference the most.

Go West young man, go West. : )

(09-02-2020 08:26 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 07:11 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 01:01 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  [quote='CaliWG' pid='16971521' dateline='1598981921']
Let me preface this by saying that the point of this post is to maximize AAC TV revenue, so the scheduling model being used is a Rivals+SOS model. Divisions force good programs to play more bad programs than is necessary, resulting in fewer Tier 1 & Tier 2 games for broadcast partners. Under this model, each team would have 2-3 permanent rivalry games they play every year, and the rest of their conference games would be determined by the prior season's standings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good report. Your job is to get BYU to the table.

Agree. Good work!

Further, $15M/yr. is just the starting point. By 2032, an arrangement along these lines should generate the kind of revenue generated by the P5 conferences. In addition, ESPN has the lawyers, the power, the contacts, and the exact formula to turn an expanded AAC into an official NCAA autonomy and power conference.

BTW, would it have to be BYU, Boise, and SDSU? Not necessarily. Air Force and Appalachian State are of similar quality.
[/quote

As much as I like Air Force and Appalachian State, I agree with CaliWG that BYU, BSU, and SDSU would bring the AAC a strong California presence and therefore strengthen the conference the most.

Adding BYU* and Boise would add a Utah and Idaho presence -- two low-population states with no recruiting potential. Adding SDSU would add a California presence, but nothing so strong as that of the existing Pac 12 teams.

*Yes, there's some LDS interest nationwide, but not on a Notre Dame scale.

(09-02-2020 09:53 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 08:26 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 07:11 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 01:01 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  [quote='CaliWG' pid='16971521' dateline='1598981921']
Let me preface this by saying that the point of this post is to maximize AAC TV revenue, so the scheduling model being used is a Rivals+SOS model. Divisions force good programs to play more bad programs than is necessary, resulting in fewer Tier 1 & Tier 2 games for broadcast partners. Under this model, each team would have 2-3 permanent rivalry games they play every year, and the rest of their conference games would be determined by the prior season's standings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good report. Your job is to get BYU to the table.

Agree. Good work!

Further, $15M/yr. is just the starting point. By 2032, an arrangement along these lines should generate the kind of revenue generated by the P5 conferences. In addition, ESPN has the lawyers, the power, the contacts, and the exact formula to turn an expanded AAC into an official NCAA autonomy and power conference.

BTW, would it have to be BYU, Boise, and SDSU? Not necessarily. Air Force and Appalachian State are of similar quality.
[/quote

As much as I like Air Force and Appalachian State, I agree with CaliWG that BYU, BSU, and SDSU would bring the AAC a strong California presence and therefore strengthen the conference the most.

Adding BYU* and Boise would add a Utah and Idaho presence -- two low-population states with no recruiting potential. Adding SDSU would add a California presence, but nothing so strong as that of the existing Pac 12 teams.

*Yes, there's some LDS interest nationwide, but not on a Notre Dame scale.

Check the BYU and Boise State rosters and see how many California players they have. Plus BYU put their Olympic sports in a California conference.

(09-02-2020 09:59 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 09:53 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 08:26 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 07:11 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 01:01 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  [quote='CaliWG' pid='16971521' dateline='1598981921']
Let me preface this by saying that the point of this post is to maximize AAC TV revenue, so the scheduling model being used is a Rivals+SOS model. Divisions force good programs to play more bad programs than is necessary, resulting in fewer Tier 1 & Tier 2 games for broadcast partners. Under this model, each team would have 2-3 permanent rivalry games they play every year, and the rest of their conference games would be determined by the prior season's standings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good report. Your job is to get BYU to the table.

Agree. Good work!

Further, $15M/yr. is just the starting point. By 2032, an arrangement along these lines should generate the kind of revenue generated by the P5 conferences. In addition, ESPN has the lawyers, the power, the contacts, and the exact formula to turn an expanded AAC into an official NCAA autonomy and power conference.

BTW, would it have to be BYU, Boise, and SDSU? Not necessarily. Air Force and Appalachian State are of similar quality.
[/quote

As much as I like Air Force and Appalachian State, I agree with CaliWG that BYU, BSU, and SDSU would bring the AAC a strong California presence and therefore strengthen the conference the most.

Adding BYU* and Boise would add a Utah and Idaho presence -- two low-population states with no recruiting potential. Adding SDSU would add a California presence, but nothing so strong as that of the existing Pac 12 teams.

*Yes, there's some LDS interest nationwide, but not on a Notre Dame scale.

Check the BYU and Boise State rosters and see how many California players they have. Plus BYU put their Olympic sports in a California conference.

Nearly half of Boise's scholarship players & nearly a fourth of BYU's scholarship players are from CA. The goal should be to expand the AAC's recruiting footprint, not dilute its existing footprint.

Not to mention, SDSU is on the way up. The new stadium is a coup for that program, especially now that they don't have a direct NFL competitor in that huge market anymore. And Socal recruiting is about as good as it gets anywhere in the country. Adding SDSU would be a boon to the conference. And having members in FL, TX, CA, OH & LA creates a distinct recruiting advantage as a G5 conference that none of the P5s even have.

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

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

AAC inventory viewers 2019 - 28.6 million

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

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

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

Not exactly a blockbuster.

Yeah---that $500K probably gets eaten up by increased travel expenses. That said, I like the additional late night exposure we could offer---so some of the benefit of such a move does transcend simple dollars. Over time, that exposure in every single time slot all day every Saturday begins to build name recognition and familiarity among the college football audience. Over time, being the only conference literally on TV from 11am to after midnight is a unique niche that has value. As the nationwide all day and all night exposure continues----the brand becomes more well known and more people become interested in the league---which leads eventually to a situation where increased dollars will follow. I see this kind of move as more of an investment with high end potential over the long haul rather than a move that results in instant gratification dollars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replace BSU with UNLV and it's a better deal, better TV markets and better institutional fit for the AAC.

Large Urban University, BYU is in the middle of nowhere with a 1 HR drive time from Slat Lake city Air port to BYU (Provo), BUY does not control the Utah market anymore but has a huge National following going for them.

TV Markets: San Diego, #29, Salt Lake City #30, Las Vegas #39, Boise Idaho #100

(09-02-2020 07:11 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 01:01 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good report. Your job is to get BYU to the table.

Agree. Good work!

Further, $15M/yr. is just the starting point. By 2032, an arrangement along these lines should generate the kind of revenue generated by the P5 conferences. In addition, ESPN has the lawyers, the power, the contacts, and the exact formula to turn an expanded AAC into an official NCAA autonomy and power conference.

BTW, would it have to be BYU, Boise, and SDSU? Not necessarily. Air Force and Appalachian State are of similar quality.

I am not sure of the infatuation with App State. They are a fine team and program...but I bet if I asked 50 random cfb fans what have you ever seen an APP State game and what state is it located at least 48 would say no to both.

Any team invited must be able to be in the top 4-5 of the league each year or why bother.

(09-02-2020 07:11 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 01:01 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good report. Your job is to get BYU to the table.

Agree. Good work!

Further, $15M/yr. is just the starting point. By 2032, an arrangement along these lines should generate the kind of revenue generated by the P5 conferences. In addition, ESPN has the lawyers, the power, the contacts, and the exact formula to turn an expanded AAC into an official NCAA autonomy and power conference.

BTW, would it have to be BYU, Boise, and SDSU? Not necessarily. Air Force and Appalachian State are of similar quality.

.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(09-02-2020 11:32 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replace BSU with UNLV and it's a better deal, better TV markets and better institutional fit for the AAC.

Large Urban University, BYU is in the middle of nowhere with a 1 HR drive time from Slat Lake city Air port to BYU (Provo), BUY does not control the Utah market anymore but has a huge National following going for them.

TV Markets: San Diego, #29, Salt Lake City #30, Las Vegas #39, Boise Idaho #100

UNLV gets you to Power Conference Status...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Exactly how does "UNLV gets you to Power Conference Status"?

(09-02-2020 11:32 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replace BSU with UNLV and it's a better deal, better TV markets and better institutional fit for the AAC.

Large Urban University, BYU is in the middle of nowhere with a 1 HR drive time from Slat Lake city Air port to BYU (Provo), BUY does not control the Utah market anymore but has a huge National following going for them.

TV Markets: San Diego, #29, Salt Lake City #30, Las Vegas #39, Boise Idaho #100

The value in college football doesn't correspond to market size, otherwise Rutgers would actually matter. It follows brands, passion & pageantry which is why schools in the South and the Rust Belt do matter. The Pac-12 & ACC have some of the biggest markets in the country and they have the lowest TV deals among the P5 conferences. If the AAC could consistently provide quality games in front of packed stadiums (even if they are smaller) the revenue would be there. This is why its important for programs like SDSU & Tulane to get more appropriately sized stadiums. Hopefully Temple & USF can do the same. CFB is a national television show, and the setting/environment of the game plays a huge role.

(09-02-2020 01:50 PM)CaliWG Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 11:32 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replace BSU with UNLV and it's a better deal, better TV markets and better institutional fit for the AAC.

Large Urban University, BYU is in the middle of nowhere with a 1 HR drive time from Slat Lake city Air port to BYU (Provo), BUY does not control the Utah market anymore but has a huge National following going for them.

TV Markets: San Diego, #29, Salt Lake City #30, Las Vegas #39, Boise Idaho #100

The value in college football doesn't correspond to market size, otherwise Rutgers would actually matter. It follows brands, passion & pageantry which is why schools in the South and the Rust Belt do matter. The Pac-12 & ACC have some of the biggest markets in the country and they have the lowest TV deals among the P5 conferences. If the AAC could consistently provide quality games in front of packed stadiums (even if they are smaller) the revenue would be there. This is why its important for programs like SDSU & Tulane to get more appropriately sized stadiums. Hopefully Temple & USF can do the same. CFB is a national television show, and the setting/environment of the game plays a huge role.

South and Rust Belt, no conference will come close to the SEC and the Big 10, anytime soon, The Big XII and/or PAC-12 Can still fail.

Las Vegas has all the glitter that exists in that state, and in the Case of Rutgers market does matter, they are the only team from the BIG EAST that the Big 10 ever considered.

Does UNLV have the glitter because I have never seen on of their games in all the time I have watched football

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Don't forget that UNLV was once one of the largest National brand before "Football started driving the bus", with exposure and some extra $$ they can easily be the Memphis of the southwest for this conference.

They can regain the basketball glory they once had and gradually elevate Football.

(09-02-2020 02:25 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  Don't forget that UNLV was once one of the largest National brand before "Football started driving the bus", with exposure and some extra $$ the can easily be the Memphis of the southwest for this conference.

They can regain the basketball glory they once had and gradually elevate Football.

UNLV would be my first choice for #15 if it ever came to that, followed by either Colorado State or Fresno State for #16. CSU because they demonstrated enough support to build a new stadium, and Fresno because they could easily average 40k if they were actually in a decent conference (and access to Norcal recruiting).

Regarding UNLV, they had the #1 football recruiting class in MWC for 2020. They are doing well with that right now.

In addition to selling the Raiders' stadium, they have just started/finished quite a bit of other facilities where they may now have the best football platform in the MWC.

For this, play your pod-mates four times each season (12 games) for all sports except mens hoops (service academies are football only spelled by a non-football school). Travel costs are reasonable:

East: Cincinnati, ECU, Temple, Army/VCU
SE: Memphis, UCF, USF, Tulane
SW: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Wichita State/Navy
West: Boise State, BYU, San Diego State, #4 undecided between UNLV or Air Force/Gonzaga