(10-13-2020 01:02 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 12:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  These are the 2 “big” AAC models I could see working:

14———
East: Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulane
West: Navy*, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, AFA, BYU, Boise St
Non-fb: Wich St (West)

14 would be a lot more likely than 16.

BYU is the only potential FB member with a good BB program.

To have 14 members in all sports, there would probably have to be at least two non-FB members, perhaps VCU and Dayton.

P5 (Top 50) Quality FB Programs:

1. Cincinnati
2. BYU*
3. Memphis
4. UCF
5. Boise*
6. Navy
7. Air Force*
8. Houston
9. SMU


P5 (Major 7) Quality MBB Programs:

1. Cincinnati
2. Memphis
3. Houston
4. Wichita State
5. VCU*
6. Dayton*
7. BYU*

The AAC could receive as many as 7 (rather than max 4) NCAA bids.

Jed,

I feel Temple, Tulsa and SMU are major MBB programs. That would yield 10 on the above list — which would be strong.

(10-13-2020 03:07 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 01:02 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 12:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  These are the 2 “big” AAC models I could see working:

14———
East: Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulane
West: Navy*, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, AFA, BYU, Boise St
Non-fb: Wich St (West)

BYU is the only potential FB member with a good BB program.

To have 14 members in all sports, there would probably have to be at least two non-FB members, perhaps VCU and Dayton.

P5 (Top 50) Quality FB Programs:

1. Cincinnati
2. BYU*
3. Memphis
4. UCF
5. Boise*
6. Navy
7. Air Force*
8. Houston
9. SMU


P5 (Major 7) Quality MBB Programs:

1. Cincinnati
2. Memphis
3. Houston
4. Wichita State
5. VCU*
6. Dayton*
7. BYU*

The AAC could receive as many as 7 (rather than max 4) NCAA bids.

Jed,

I feel Temple, Tulsa and SMU are major MBB programs. That would yield 10 on the above list — which would be strong.

True, their track records are comparable with many of the P5 and Big East programs, although Temple and Tulsa have some work to do.

I was just listing those that seemed to give the conference the strongest chance of increasing the maximum number of AAC bids from 4 to 7.

(10-13-2020 08:04 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 03:07 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 01:02 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 12:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  These are the 2 “big” AAC models I could see working:

14———
East: Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulane
West: Navy*, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, AFA, BYU, Boise St
Non-fb: Wich St (West)

BYU is the only potential FB member with a good BB program.

To have 14 members in all sports, there would probably have to be at least two non-FB members, perhaps VCU and Dayton.

P5 (Top 50) Quality FB Programs:

1. Cincinnati
2. BYU*
3. Memphis
4. UCF
5. Boise*
6. Navy
7. Air Force*
8. Houston
9. SMU


P5 (Major 7) Quality MBB Programs:

1. Cincinnati
2. Memphis
3. Houston
4. Wichita State
5. VCU*
6. Dayton*
7. BYU*

The AAC could receive as many as 7 (rather than max 4) NCAA bids.

Jed,

I feel Temple, Tulsa and SMU are major MBB programs. That would yield 10 on the above list — which would be strong.

True, their track records are comparable with many of the P5 and Big East programs, although Temple and Tulsa have some work to do.

I was just listing those that seemed to give the conference the strongest chance of increasing the maximum number of AAC bids from 4 to 7.

Ah, that makes sense.

(09-07-2020 08:58 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 06:26 AM)ThunderDent Wrote:  People know Southern Miss for playing anyone, anytime, anywhere. Rivalries with Memphis and Tulane are pluses.

I don't. They're the third choice in Mississippi behind Mississippi and Mississippi State. Can anyone in Memphis or Tulane acknowledge Southern Miss as a rival to them?

If all of D1 schools were on a level playing field moneywise, I'd love to be in a league w/ UAB and USM just for the fact that those are easily drivable road games. Same with Ark St and MTSU. Easy drives. Heck, even throw So Alabama in the mix because Mobile is an easy drive and the beach is close. As of now, we get -
Cincy 8hrs
NOLA- 6.5 hrs or take the train
Tulsa - 6.5 hrs
Dallas 8 hrs

But, it is what it is. Happy with what he have going in AAC now. Once the playoff expands (it will, too much $$$ not to), they'll have to give 1 of 8 spots to a G5.

I would do a lot of things (lots) for AQ, but I don't really see how water down quality to the tune of a 24 team conference is something ESPN would pay 2x our current money per team for.

(10-14-2020 02:45 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I would do a lot of things (lots) for AQ, but I don't really see how water down quality to the tune of a 24 team conference is something ESPN would pay 2x our current money per team for.

The mindset behind the benefit of a larger AAC is that the league would have more TV games (thus increasing marketing and visibility) and a better chance of securing the NY6 game each year. It's the old "strength in numbers" theory.

Now some folks, admittedly, would argue that to add too many programs to the American would dilute its brand.

(10-14-2020 03:02 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-14-2020 02:45 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I would do a lot of things (lots) for AQ, but I don't really see how water down quality to the tune of a 24 team conference is something ESPN would pay 2x our current money per team for.

The mindset behind the benefit of a larger AAC is that the league would have more TV games (thus increasing marketing and visibility) and a better chance of securing the NY6 game each year. It's the old "strength in numbers" theory.

Now some folks, admittedly, would argue that to add too many programs to the American would dilute its brand.

The problem with this logic is that it assumes that the numerator increases (e.g., if each new team is worth $3 million then you get 3 + 3 + 3 +3 .... = a larger number) without considering that the denominator is rising at the same rate.

Yes, if the 12-team AAC is now worth $6 million per school and it doubles in size with 12 more schools that are also worth $6m per school (say the cream of the other G5, Army and BYU) then the network would pay the AAC a total of $144 million each year, double the current $72 million each year.

But because that $144m would now be divided 24 ways, it would still just be .... $6m per school.

the G5 needs to build value “ more fans “ question is how to do this, i’ve often said the g5 needs it’s own playoffs and championship , a stand alone FBS league with tv exposure to rival what espn offers
to do this gG needs a tv deal but not with espn
look around and you will see that the money is there in other company’s
this invested money’s will not go to the individual schools as much as in the “ new network “ costs , of over some years this does in fact create more eyeballs then more money for schools and so on and so on
recruiting will follow tv exposure early and often

From an earlier thread on a related topic (January 2019):

(01-06-2019 01:01 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Here's my "ideal" G5 league, maximizing both football and basketball strength to become the ultimate tweener conference.

Football Pods

Pods rotate between two 8-team divisions in a 3-year cycle. Conference schedule is 8 games.

Pod 1: Air Force*, Army*, Houston, Navy*
Pod 2: Appalachian State*, Central Florida*, South Florida*, Temple
Pod 3: Boise State, BYU, San Diego State, Utah State
Pod 4: Cincinnati, Memphis, Toledo*, Western Michigan*

* = FB only

Basketball Pods

Each team plays its pod mates twice and all others once for an 18-game schedule.

Northeast: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Dayton, Temple
Northwest: Boise State, BYU, Gonzaga, Utah State
Southeast: Houston, Memphis, VCU, Wichita State
Southwest: New Mexico, San Diego State, St. Mary's, UNLV

I'm revising this to account for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 MBB seasons and the 2019 FB season. Top schools mainly judged on weighted mean Sagarin ratings over the last 10 years.

Full members (8): Boise State, BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, San Diego State, Temple, Utah State
Non-FB members (8): Davidson, Dayton, Gonzaga, Rhode Island, SMU, St. Mary's, VCU, Wichita State
FB-only affiliates (8): Air Force, Appalachian State, Arkansas State, Central Florida, Louisiana Tech, Navy, South Florida, Toledo

Football Pods
Pods rotate between two 8-team divisions in a 3-year cycle. Conference schedule is 8 games. Air Force and Navy get a protected crossover, of course.

East: Appalachian State, Central Florida, Memphis, South Florida
North: Cincinnati, Navy, Temple, Toledo
South: Air Force, Arkansas State, Houston, Louisiana Tech
West: Boise State, BYU, San Diego State, Utah State

Basketball Pods
Each team plays its pod mates twice and all others once for an 18-game schedule.

East: Davidson, Rhode Island, Temple, VCU
North: Cincinnati, Dayton, Memphis, Wichita State
South: BYU, Houston, SMU, Utah State
West: Boise State, Gonzaga, San Diego State, St. Mary's

(10-14-2020 08:49 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Here's my "ideal" G5 league, maximizing both football and basketball strength...

Full members (8): Boise State, BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, San Diego State, Temple, Utah State
Non-FB members (8): Davidson, Dayton, Gonzaga, Rhode Island, SMU, St. Mary's, VCU, Wichita State
FB-only affiliates (8): Air Force, Appalachian State, Arkansas State, Central Florida, Louisiana Tech, Navy, South Florida, Toledo

Football Pods
Pods rotate between two 8-team divisions in a 3-year cycle. Conference schedule is 8 games. Air Force and Navy get a protected crossover, of course.

East: Appalachian State, Central Florida, Memphis, South Florida
North: Cincinnati, Navy, Temple, Toledo
South: Air Force, Arkansas State, Houston, Louisiana Tech
West: Boise State, BYU, San Diego State, Utah State

Basketball Pods
Each team plays its pod mates twice and all others once for an 18-game schedule.

East: Davidson, Rhode Island, Temple, VCU
North: Cincinnati, Dayton, Memphis, Wichita State
South: BYU, Houston, SMU, Utah State
West: Boise State, Gonzaga, San Diego State, St. Mary's

A conference with those teams would- - in 2018 and 2019.- - have had 6-7 teams in the Final FB AP Top 25, 4-5 teams in the Final MBB AP Top 25, and would have sent 8-10 teams into the NCAA tournament.

Only three of the five P5 conferences had that many Final AP Top 25 FB and MBB teams in 2018 and 2019.

(10-14-2020 03:02 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-14-2020 02:45 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I would do a lot of things (lots) for AQ, but I don't really see how water down quality to the tune of a 24 team conference is something ESPN would pay 2x our current money per team for.

The mindset behind the benefit of a larger AAC is that the league would have more TV games (thus increasing marketing and visibility) and a better chance of securing the NY6 game each year. It's the old "strength in numbers" theory.

Now some folks, admittedly, would argue that to add too many programs to the American would dilute its brand.

Yeah, but let's say for the sake of argument that ESPN has the contracts on all the schools mentioned (which they almost do, so already have a lot of these TV games). You're currently paying some 7m, some 4m, and some 500k. I don't think they want to lump them all together and pay them 20m each, particularly the ones that they are currently getting for 500k.

(10-15-2020 03:23 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(10-14-2020 03:02 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-14-2020 02:45 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I would do a lot of things (lots) for AQ, but I don't really see how water down quality to the tune of a 24 team conference is something ESPN would pay 2x our current money per team for.

The mindset behind the benefit of a larger AAC is that the league would have more TV games (thus increasing marketing and visibility) and a better chance of securing the NY6 game each year. It's the old "strength in numbers" theory.

Now some folks, admittedly, would argue that to add too many programs to the American would dilute its brand.

Yeah, but let's say for the sake of argument that ESPN has the contracts on all the schools mentioned (which they almost do, so already have a lot of these TV games). You're currently paying some 7m, some 4m, and some 500k. I don't think they want to lump them all together and pay them 20m each, particularly the ones that they are currently getting for 500k.

There is no doubt that increasing the AAC from 11 to, say, 14 would carry certain risks. Having each current American program paid less for the ESPN contract is one. But there could be some positives to AAC expansion also (including potentially more games on TV, more bowl tie-ins and a better chance for the NY6 slot).

(10-15-2020 09:54 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  There is no doubt that increasing the AAC from 11 to, say, 14 would carry certain risks. Having each current American program paid less for the ESPN contract is one. But there could be some positives to AAC expansion also (including potentially more games on TV, more bowl tie-ins and a better chance for the NY6 slot).

Good point. Expanding (adding 2 to 4 teams) has been a highly successful revenue-generating strategy for the ACC, B1G, PAC, and SEC. It wouldn't be risky if high quality members (e.g. BYU all-sports, AFA FB, VCU BB/Oly) could be added.

The conference could take the first step by replacing UConn, with the best available FB and BB schools. There would be practically no risk involved, since it wouldn't cut the payments per school and would be covered by the current agreement with ESPN.

Staying put at 11 schools would itself put the conference at risk, because the conference could easily lose a Tier 1 member to future realignment, and because the AAC's best chance to achieve its strategic goals may be lost if it fails to take decisive action.

If the AAC doesn't replace UConn, it will run the risk of becoming a perpetual G5 conference. Another concern is that the conference's viewership/market share and future earning potential may diminish (and has already been cut by at least 8%), due to UConn's departure.

While the upper-tier AAC schools are competitive with the P5 in FB and BB, the middle-tier AAC schools haven't tended to be as highly competitive. Adding 1 or more high-quality FB and BB programs would boost the stature and earning power of the conference.

.

Critics of the American Athletic Conference's current situation can point to the following concerns:

1) Only two AAC schools (Cincinnati & Memphis) currently have high quality FB and MBB programs.

2) Although UCF and SMU currently have top 30 FB programs, their MBB programs have had limited or inconsistent success (only 3 NCAA bids, between them, since 2013).

3) Houston has a NCAA-tournament quality MBB program, but it's not clear how long it will take their FB program to get back on track. Their FB Head Coach's W-L record at present is only 5-8.

4) Navy only won 3 FB games in 2018 (and is 2-2 in 2020), and Wichita is dealing with a coaching crisis. As a military academy, Navy's fortunes can be adversely affected, at times, by changeovers in personnel. Wichita's prospects may be somewhat uncertain in the wake of recent events.

5) The other five AAC schools (Tulsa, Temple, Tulane, USF, and ECU) have either had limited FB & BB success in recent years, have had recent setbacks (e.g., Temple MBB in 2019-20; Temple FB's mediocre scoring in 2019), are attempting to rebuild, or are going through coaching transitions.

.

SUMMARY:

AAC Tier 1 (9+ FB wins, NCAA tournament bids):

FB: Cincinnati, Memphis, & UCF

NOTE: Navy(in 2016 & 2019), SMU (2019/20), Houston & Temple (2015/16) had Tier 1 teams.

BB: Cincinnati, Houston, & WSU (now in a coaching crisis)

NOTE: Memphis (2019-20), Temple (in 2015-16 & 2018-19), & UCF (2018-19) had Tier 1 teams.

AAC Tier 2:

FB: Temple (2017-19), Houston (2017/18), SMU (2016-18), Tulane (2018/19), Navy (2017/20)

BB: SMU, Tulsa, Memphis (2017-18), Temple (in 2016-18), UCF (2017-18)

AAC Tier 3:

FB: Tulsa, ECU, USF, Tulane (2015, 2016), & Houston (2019)

BB: ECU, USF, Tulane, SMU (2017-18), & Temple (in 2019-20).

.

The number of high quality teams and the overall stature of the conference could be improved by replacing UConn with a quality all-sports school (e.g., BYU) or quality FB and BB schools (e.g., Air Force & VCU).

(10-16-2020 04:32 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 09:54 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  There is no doubt that increasing the AAC from 11 to, say, 14 would carry certain risks. Having each current American program paid less for the ESPN contract is one. But there could be some positives to AAC expansion also (including potentially more games on TV, more bowl tie-ins and a better chance for the NY6 slot).

Good point. Expanding (adding 2 to 4 teams) has been a highly successful revenue-generating strategy for the ACC, B1G, PAC, and SEC. It wouldn't be risky if high quality members (e.g. BYU all-sports, AFA FB, VCU BB/Oly) could be added.

We have to remember that expanding in 2011-2012 helped the ACC and SEC primarily because it allowed them to re-open bad deals they had signed with ESPN. In the case of the B1G, expansion in 2012 allowed them to achieve the strategic goals of penetrating the NE Corridor while blocking the ACC's bid to fully capture it, and increase revenues at a time when the cable subscription model was at its peak in terms of monetization. In neither case was it because the new schools suddenly raised the average value of the schools in the conference or created dynamic new synergies.

The most recent time a P5 had an opportunity to expand, the Big 12 in 2016, they decided it wasn't worth it.

Basically, there's zero evidence that addition will lead to multiplicative effects on revenue for low-value G5 schools. If the AAC could suddenly add Notre Dame, LSU and Texas, then yes, its contract value would suddenly be P5 level. But that's not happening.

Expanding (adding 2 to 4 teams) has been a highly successful revenue-generating strategy for the ACC, B1G, PAC, and SEC. It wouldn't be risky if high quality members (e.g. BYU all-sports, AFA FB, VCU BB/Oly) could be added.

The conference could take the first step by replacing UConn, with the best available FB and BB schools. There would be practically no risk involved, since it wouldn't cut the payments per school and would be covered by the current agreement with ESPN.

Staying put at 11 schools would itself put the conference at risk, because the conference could easily lose a Tier 1 member to future realignment, and because the AAC's best chance to achieve its strategic goals may be lost if it fails to take decisive action.

If the AAC doesn't replace UConn, it will run the risk of becoming a perpetual G5 conference. Another concern is that the conference's viewership/market share and future earning potential may diminish (and has already been cut by at least 8%), due to UConn's departure.

While the upper-tier AAC schools are competitive with the P5 in FB and BB, the middle-tier AAC schools haven't tended to be as highly competitive. Adding 1 or more high-quality FB and BB programs would boost the stature and earning power of the conference.

.

Critics of the American Athletic Conference's current situation can point to the following concerns:

1) Only two AAC schools (Cincinnati & Memphis) currently have high quality FB and MBB programs.

2) Although UCF and SMU currently have top 30 FB programs, their MBB programs have had limited or inconsistent success (only 3 NCAA bids, between them, since 2013).

3) Houston has a NCAA-tournament quality MBB program, but it's not clear how long it will take their FB program to get back on track. Their FB Head Coach's W-L record at present is only 5-8.

4) Navy only won 3 FB games in 2018 (and is 2-2 in 2020), and Wichita is dealing with a coaching crisis. As a military academy, Navy's fortunes can be adversely affected, at times, by changeovers in personnel. Wichita's prospects may be somewhat uncertain in the wake of recent events.

5) The other five AAC schools (Tulsa, Temple, Tulane, USF, and ECU) have either had limited FB & BB success in recent years, have had recent setbacks (e.g., Temple MBB in 2019-20; Temple FB's mediocre scoring in 2019), are attempting to rebuild, or are going through coaching transitions.

.

SUMMARY:

AAC Tier 1 (9+ FB wins, NCAA tournament bids):

FB: Cincinnati, Memphis, & UCF

NOTE: Navy(in 2016 & 2019), SMU (2019/20), Houston & Temple (2015/16) had Tier 1 teams.

BB: Cincinnati, Houston, & WSU (now in a coaching crisis)

NOTE: Memphis (2019-20), Temple (in 2015-16 & 2018-19), & UCF (2018-19) had Tier 1 teams.

AAC Tier 2:

FB: Temple (2017-19), Houston (2017/18), SMU (2016-18), Tulane (2018/19), Navy (2017/20)

BB: SMU, Tulsa, Memphis (2017-18), Temple (in 2016-18), UCF (2017-18)

AAC Tier 3:

FB: Tulsa, ECU, USF, Tulane (2015, 2016), & Houston (2019)

BB: ECU, USF, Tulane, SMU (2017-18), & Temple (in 2019-20).

.

The number of high quality teams and the overall stature of the conference could be improved by replacing UConn with a quality all-sports school (e.g., BYU) or quality FB and BB schools (e.g., Air Force & VCU).

(10-16-2020 01:00 PM)jedclampett Wrote:   Expanding (adding 2 to 4 teams) has been a highly successful revenue-generating strategy for the ACC, B1G, PAC, and SEC. It wouldn't be risky if high quality members (e.g. BYU all-sports, AFA FB, VCU BB/Oly) could be added.

Um, why did you repost this?

Most of the building blocks to be a de facto P6 are already there—you don’t need to add another dozen schools to the AAC to make that a reality.

Wait, why do the 4:32 AM & 1:00 PM posts say the same exact thing?

Regarding expansion of the AAC, what is in it for ESPN? Many on here are using the positives of adding inventory and content, and that is definitely a benefit for the AAC, but how does that benefit ESPN? They really don't need more content. Right now, the AAC is a nice complimentary package to their other conference deals that they already employ. ESPN paying more (in the form of new members) to add value to the AAC benefits the conference but not necessarily the network. Adding a plethora of non-football programs, again, creates the same perceived conflict (it undoubtedly helps the conference in program strength, value and content), but, right now, ESPN doesn't need more and, by appearances, very much enjoys the set-up and arrangement that the AAC is presently providing.

My point consistently has been if there was a member that the AAC could add right now, that would say yes to an invitation, that could increase the value of the AAC and bring value to ESPN, they would have already been added. There has been an opening in the AAC since June 2019. If BYU or Boise State wanted to come along, they would be in the AAC already. If Army or Air Force wanted to come along, they would be in the AAC already. If the AAC wanted to add non-football members in the form of Dayton, VCU, SLU, etc., due to the perceived financial increase from the A10 to AAC, they would have come along already.

I held this belief last summer and still hold it today in the Fall of 2020. If/when the AAC expands, it will come in the form of a full-member, and it will come from either C-USA or the Sun Belt. The national coast-to-coast monster conference did not come to fruition in 2010 because the value was not there from the networks, and - especially in the era of COVID - still is not there. The AAC already has a non-football member to balance Navy's inclusion, and none of the other service academies are coming along. I still view that the pod of schools that the AAC will pluck from includes: UAB, Georgia Southern, Old Dominion or, to a lesser extent, Appalachian State.

ESPN doesn’t stand to gain, only the conference, which is why we haven’t seen anything happen.

BYU, Boise St, and AFA could all earn their keep and wouldn’t hurt the per school payout. Army probably has enough national pull to do so too.