(03-30-2021 08:58 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 08:36 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 07:58 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Can somebody explain exactly how these credits/payouts work both for the team in the tournament and for the conference at large. I've always heard about this stuff but never understood really how it worked. Thanks!

Each game played by a team gives the conference a payout. Those are paid out ~250-k - 300k a year for 6 years (amount changes each year). So each game is worth 1.5-1.8 million. The conference then decides how to split out the pay. I believe the AAC does an equal split.

This year credits so far are:
Wichita: 1 Credit
Houston: 5 Credits

Oh I see, so we are still receiving payouts from 2015 and every yr since then? That's pretty cool and didn't realize it was such a sizeable amount of money. Probably helps out these non-football conferences that rely on these credits that have little to no TV contracts.

You have inadvertently shown why the CFP is a bubble that will pop.

What you just realized is why so many more schools play division 1 basketball than FBS or division 1 football. It is far more profitable to be a basketball school than a football school. It's the difference between playing the lotto and playing Texas hold 'em in trying to make money.

Because football only has six or seven home games and basketball may have 20 the difference in attendance is negligible, in pure ratings of eyes on tv it's not much different, in access the difference has always been huge in basketball's favor. Considering what the NCAA tournament pays out compared to bowls (which have now been hoarded to a handful of teams) and you need only one good player in basketball to turn a program around, it starts getting to the point where you wonder why anyone besides Alabama and Texas try to even play football. Basketball is cheaper, its return is higher, turn around happen fast and during down times it drags less on the budget (also why women's basketball continues to thrive and nearly every school has one) and in good times the pay off is crazy.

Even the return on alum donations, freshman application, and the quality of the student applicant is about equal with first round, second round, final four run to a low level bowl, a name bowl, and a NY6.

The problem is Joe Q Public like you have no idea of the underlying economics. You see big stadiums, big games, and the ESPN hype machine of game day because essentially all the games happen on one day, versus the marathons.of short sprints that is the college season. Bowl seasons length also helps hide this since it goes roughly the same length of time as the Dance but has 60% of the games, with ESPN desperate to hype everyone of them since they own them. So if you don't ever actually look what's going on and the underlying costs of football, it seems like football is the golden ticket. In reality for its level playing field and foundational differences in costs and returns basketball is where it is at.

Which again is why there are far more division 1 basketball schools than football.

(03-30-2021 09:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 07:03 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  If the committee slots the AAC for two bids (and that is what they seem to want to do), adding teams does nothing more than add in-conference competition for those bids.

If we did something like take VCU from the A10, the committee would likely simply take away a slot from the A10 and award it to the AAC. As I mentioned earlier—we got 4 just a few years ago—so it’s not like we are locked at 2. That’s just silly. Besides—I suspect the performance of the AAC this year will earn it a bit more Committee respect in the future.

We just need to have 6 or 7 conference teams that regularly field NCAA bid worthy teams to form the core of the basketball conference. Memphis, Cinci, Houston, Wichita, and VCU seems like a good strong core. Our middle belt of SMU, Tulsa, UCF, Temple etc can hopefully provide a couple more bubble teams each year. I do think it’s important to replace the basketball strength the conference lost when UConn left. I’d prefer to do that by adding a someone like VCU—a team that definitely adds to the NCAA bid worthy core of the AAC without having any adverse affect on AAC football. I might even look at adding VCU and Dayton. While I can see how that could be a worthy move, I’m much less sure about the wisdom of that multi-school option than the one team addition of VCU.

How was UConn's perceived strength though? After 2015 they were .500 or below every yr. I mean they have the brand name I guess, but that was all. VCU seems like the no-brainer addition that could bring at least as good if not more success than UConn (since 2015 at least).

(03-30-2021 10:00 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 09:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 07:03 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  If the committee slots the AAC for two bids (and that is what they seem to want to do), adding teams does nothing more than add in-conference competition for those bids.

If we did something like take VCU from the A10, the committee would likely simply take away a slot from the A10 and award it to the AAC. As I mentioned earlier—we got 4 just a few years ago—so it’s not like we are locked at 2. That’s just silly. Besides—I suspect the performance of the AAC this year will earn it a bit more Committee respect in the future.

We just need to have 6 or 7 conference teams that regularly field NCAA bid worthy teams to form the core of the basketball conference. Memphis, Cinci, Houston, Wichita, and VCU seems like a good strong core. Our middle belt of SMU, Tulsa, UCF, Temple etc can hopefully provide a couple more bubble teams each year. I do think it’s important to replace the basketball strength the conference lost when UConn left. I’d prefer to do that by adding a someone like VCU—a team that definitely adds to the NCAA bid worthy core of the AAC without having any adverse affect on AAC football. I might even look at adding VCU and Dayton. While I can see how that could be a worthy move, I’m much less sure about the wisdom of that multi-school option than the one team addition of VCU.

How was UConn's perceived strength though? After 2015 they were .500 or below every yr. I mean they have the brand name I guess, but that was all. VCU seems like the no-brainer addition that could bring at least as good if not more success than UConn (since 2015 at least).

UCONN's strength was 4 national titles within most people's current lifetime. What they did in conference was largely irrelevant to anyone not involved in those conferences. They got in the tourney and did damage more often than not.

(03-30-2021 10:04 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 10:00 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 09:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 07:03 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  If the committee slots the AAC for two bids (and that is what they seem to want to do), adding teams does nothing more than add in-conference competition for those bids.

If we did something like take VCU from the A10, the committee would likely simply take away a slot from the A10 and award it to the AAC. As I mentioned earlier—we got 4 just a few years ago—so it’s not like we are locked at 2. That’s just silly. Besides—I suspect the performance of the AAC this year will earn it a bit more Committee respect in the future.

We just need to have 6 or 7 conference teams that regularly field NCAA bid worthy teams to form the core of the basketball conference. Memphis, Cinci, Houston, Wichita, and VCU seems like a good strong core. Our middle belt of SMU, Tulsa, UCF, Temple etc can hopefully provide a couple more bubble teams each year. I do think it’s important to replace the basketball strength the conference lost when UConn left. I’d prefer to do that by adding a someone like VCU—a team that definitely adds to the NCAA bid worthy core of the AAC without having any adverse affect on AAC football. I might even look at adding VCU and Dayton. While I can see how that could be a worthy move, I’m much less sure about the wisdom of that multi-school option than the one team addition of VCU.

How was UConn's perceived strength though? After 2015 they were .500 or below every yr. I mean they have the brand name I guess, but that was all. VCU seems like the no-brainer addition that could bring at least as good if not more success than UConn (since 2015 at least).

UCONN's strength was 4 national titles within most people's current lifetime. What they did in conference was largely irrelevant to anyone not involved in those conferences. They got in the tourney and did damage more often than not.

Yup 4 titles in one lifetime means recognition, especially for 90% of fans who are casual and mainly watch March madness.

It means that beating UConn carried weight even when they were finish eighth

(03-30-2021 10:00 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 09:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 07:03 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  If the committee slots the AAC for two bids (and that is what they seem to want to do), adding teams does nothing more than add in-conference competition for those bids.

If we did something like take VCU from the A10, the committee would likely simply take away a slot from the A10 and award it to the AAC. As I mentioned earlier—we got 4 just a few years ago—so it’s not like we are locked at 2. That’s just silly. Besides—I suspect the performance of the AAC this year will earn it a bit more Committee respect in the future.

We just need to have 6 or 7 conference teams that regularly field NCAA bid worthy teams to form the core of the basketball conference. Memphis, Cinci, Houston, Wichita, and VCU seems like a good strong core. Our middle belt of SMU, Tulsa, UCF, Temple etc can hopefully provide a couple more bubble teams each year. I do think it’s important to replace the basketball strength the conference lost when UConn left. I’d prefer to do that by adding a someone like VCU—a team that definitely adds to the NCAA bid worthy core of the AAC without having any adverse affect on AAC football. I might even look at adding VCU and Dayton. While I can see how that could be a worthy move, I’m much less sure about the wisdom of that multi-school option than the one team addition of VCU.

How was UConn's perceived strength though? After 2015 they were .500 or below every yr. I mean they have the brand name I guess, but that was all. VCU seems like the no-brainer addition that could bring at least as good if not more success than UConn (since 2015 at least).

Unfortunately, other than year one, UConn was in a down cycle for most of their time in the AAC. So, other than their year one national title run---VCU is a better than even replacement for the "on-the-court" strength we got out of UConn during most of UConn's stay in the AAC. Unfortunately, the lost brand value that occurred when UConn left really cant be as easily replaced--but VCU is a strong brand and at least replaces some of the basketball cache we lost when UConn exited for the Big East. In my opinion, VCU is basically the best option available for the AAC.

(03-30-2021 10:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 10:00 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 09:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 07:03 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  If the committee slots the AAC for two bids (and that is what they seem to want to do), adding teams does nothing more than add in-conference competition for those bids.

If we did something like take VCU from the A10, the committee would likely simply take away a slot from the A10 and award it to the AAC. As I mentioned earlier—we got 4 just a few years ago—so it’s not like we are locked at 2. That’s just silly. Besides—I suspect the performance of the AAC this year will earn it a bit more Committee respect in the future.

We just need to have 6 or 7 conference teams that regularly field NCAA bid worthy teams to form the core of the basketball conference. Memphis, Cinci, Houston, Wichita, and VCU seems like a good strong core. Our middle belt of SMU, Tulsa, UCF, Temple etc can hopefully provide a couple more bubble teams each year. I do think it’s important to replace the basketball strength the conference lost when UConn left. I’d prefer to do that by adding a someone like VCU—a team that definitely adds to the NCAA bid worthy core of the AAC without having any adverse affect on AAC football. I might even look at adding VCU and Dayton. While I can see how that could be a worthy move, I’m much less sure about the wisdom of that multi-school option than the one team addition of VCU.

How was UConn's perceived strength though? After 2015 they were .500 or below every yr. I mean they have the brand name I guess, but that was all. VCU seems like the no-brainer addition that could bring at least as good if not more success than UConn (since 2015 at least).

Unfortunately, other than year one, UConn was in a down cycle for most of their time in the AAC. So, other than their year one national title run---VCU is a better than even replacement for the "on-the-court" strength we got out of UConn during most of UConn's stay in the AAC. Unfortunately, the lost brand value that occurred when UConn left really cant be as easily replaced--but VCU is a strong brand and at least replaces some of the basketball cache we lost when UConn exited for the Big East. In my opinion, VCU is basically the best option available for the AAC.

I agree, and that is my point... what did UConn do in the AAC (their first yr aside)? They did not bring the NCAA credits we had hoped they would. We rarely saw top, ranked matchups between UConn and Cincy, or Memphis, or Wichita St, etc. VCU is the best team available and seems like the eastern version of WSU to me.

It would be nice if we had made something out of that CBI Championship. Losing Yetna last year and then COVID...I swear USF men's basketball must be cursed or something. It makes no sense either. The women are strong every year. There's zero reason that with our facilities that we shouldn't be a bubble team at least every year.

(03-30-2021 09:06 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 09:01 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 08:54 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  Here are are the AAC Tournament credits per year
2015- 3
2016-5
2017-3
2018-5
2019-7
2020-NA
2021-6
Total for 6 years 29 at 300k per credit is 8.7 million per year divided by 11 comes out to 790k yearly per team

That's pretty good. I definitely agree with others in adding another team or two, however, wouldn't that be more ways to divide the credits? Though I guess the rationale is getting 3-4 (or more) teams in the tournament every yr.

Yes, you have to bring in someone that can add credits otherwise it dilutes the pool. Wichita was brought in for that reason. While we haven't lived up to our past expectations, we still have brought in 2 additional credits in the 3 possible tournaments since being in the conference.

If we can average 4 teams a year, with only 2 games being won total by all 4 teams, you are looking at nearly 10 million a year for the conference by the time the 6th year rolls around.

$337K this year (I can provide a link to a good article if asked, but it is not the definitive NCAA truth). I got $9.777million for $888.8k for each of 11 schools.

Someone else posited 8 units a year if you add the right teams. Assuming the conference made that happen tomorrow, and assuming those 8 units per year, and using this year's per unit value (it actually goes up about 3% every year)...there would be a one-year drop per school and a second year bounce back to today's numbers per school, while 8 units per year were still going along with the lower numbers from 2015, 2016, etc. But by 2027, averaging 8 units per year, 48 units divided by 14 schools would be up to $1.156million per school - an increase of over a quarter million per school.

But wait...those 2015-2021 lower numbers average 5 units per year in years (since UConn's championship) for which there is consensus around these parts that AAC basketball underperformed. What if the eleven schools could average the six we see this year? Well, slh, we won't have a Final Four run every year. No, but three bids, one bowing out first game, one going 0-1 and one going to the Sweet Sixteen is six units. Can the league do that consistently without underperforming? 36 units (six per year for six years) divided by 11 schools would be $1.103million per school.
14 schools getting 8 units a year nets each school $52,500 per year over 11 schools getting 6 units per year with those parameters. I hope they're not too far flung to make softball etc cost that much more.

To those calling for VCU and the like, how will they perform with more competition. It took WSU a little while to acclimate to the increased level of competition. They are finally on the upswing again but it is no guarantee a new team will automatically be top tear in this conference.

(03-30-2021 03:27 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 10:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 10:01 PM)pesik Wrote:  a final 4 run from 2018 was worth 8 mill... i dont know the payout this year

I read somewhere that the 2021 credits will be worth 330K a year. That seems high---but if its correct, that makes each credit worth a total payout of 1.98 million. Five credits would be worth nearly 10 million. Wichita earned a credit as well this year--so this years 6 credits should contribute about 2 million a year to the AAC annually for 6 years. I think these 6 credits will replace the credits from the 2014-2015 season that would age out this year. We had two teams in the Dance that year (Cinci and SMU). SMU lost game one and Cinci lost in game 2 (3 total credits). So, we have 6 credits replacing 3 credits. What we need is more seasons like 2015-2016. We sent four teams to the tournament that year. We got almost as many credits that season (5) despite only winning one game in the tournament. Had a couple of those teams had some success---the credits that year would have quickly ballooned.

The key is to get a bunch of teams in on a consistent basis and have at least one or two each year go on a nice run. Thats how you really start piling up big stacks of credits. If you do that, the money can be substantial. If you can average 8 credits a year, your looking at somewhere between 15 and 16 million a year in revenue. Thats almost 3 times what we make from placing a team in the access bowl....so, its kind of a nice shot in the arm.

That may be one of the strongest arguments there is for expanding the AAC to 14 teams, and adding 4 NCAA caliber basketball schools, and doing it as soon as possible.

One could even make the case - on that basis alone - that failing to replace UConn's basketball program is a form of managerial malpractice by the conference - not Aresco, but the conference itself.

Four more "basketball" schools is the last thing the AAC needs unless they're also "football" schools. A demonstrable commitment to both revenue sports is essential. Support for the Olympic sports is also desirable. Unless you like one-trick ponies or are enthralled with the New Big East, balance is crucial.

As always, the trick is to identify candidates which have demonstrated that they have the means and the will to maintain such a balance. Good luck with that.

(03-30-2021 01:34 PM)maccoog Wrote:  To those calling for VCU and the like, how will they perform with more competition. It took WSU a little while to acclimate to the increased level of competition. They are finally on the upswing again but it is no guarantee a new team will automatically be top tear in this conference.

We more likely just need more of the teams to pull their weight. WSU while "took a little while to acclimate to the increased level of competition" still has all Top half finishes in the conference (2nd, 6th, 4th, 1st so far) and Tourney Appearances in 2 of 3 years that the tourney was held (plus was likely in the year that it got cancelled). We have 11 schools, we shouldn't need to add more teams to get more than 2-3 in the tourney.

(03-30-2021 01:34 PM)maccoog Wrote:  To those calling for VCU and the like, how will they perform with more competition. It took WSU a little while to acclimate to the increased level of competition. They are finally on the upswing again but it is no guarantee a new team will automatically be top tear in this conference.

Well-first off---they already play in the A-10, which has sent more teams to the NCAA Dance annually they we have of late. Secondly---when your looking at schools that get to the Dance almost every year and generally win one or more games once they are there playing against the top teams in the nation---you dont have to worry too much about how they will perform in a stronger conference.

(03-30-2021 01:38 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 03:27 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 10:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 10:01 PM)pesik Wrote:  a final 4 run from 2018 was worth 8 mill... i dont know the payout this year

I read somewhere that the 2021 credits will be worth 330K a year. That seems high---but if its correct, that makes each credit worth a total payout of 1.98 million. Five credits would be worth nearly 10 million. Wichita earned a credit as well this year--so this years 6 credits should contribute about 2 million a year to the AAC annually for 6 years. I think these 6 credits will replace the credits from the 2014-2015 season that would age out this year. We had two teams in the Dance that year (Cinci and SMU). SMU lost game one and Cinci lost in game 2 (3 total credits). So, we have 6 credits replacing 3 credits. What we need is more seasons like 2015-2016. We sent four teams to the tournament that year. We got almost as many credits that season (5) despite only winning one game in the tournament. Had a couple of those teams had some success---the credits that year would have quickly ballooned.

The key is to get a bunch of teams in on a consistent basis and have at least one or two each year go on a nice run. Thats how you really start piling up big stacks of credits. If you do that, the money can be substantial. If you can average 8 credits a year, your looking at somewhere between 15 and 16 million a year in revenue. Thats almost 3 times what we make from placing a team in the access bowl....so, its kind of a nice shot in the arm.

That may be one of the strongest arguments there is for expanding the AAC to 14 teams, and adding 4 NCAA caliber basketball schools, and doing it as soon as possible.

One could even make the case - on that basis alone - that failing to replace UConn's basketball program is a form of managerial malpractice by the conference - not Aresco, but the conference itself.

Four more "basketball" schools is the last thing the AAC needs unless they're also "football" schools. A demonstrable commitment to both revenue sports is essential. Support for the Olympic sports is also desirable. Unless you like one-trick ponies or are enthralled with the New Big East, balance is crucial.

As always, the trick is to identify candidates which have demonstrated that they have the means and the will to maintain such a balance. Good luck with that.

Yeah---4 more basketball schools is getting into that range where you're not using the hybrid model in a "judicious manner". Im definitely ok with one--perhaps even 2 more---non-football schools. Thats pretty much as far as I think its safe to go. The idea is to add a "boost" to the basketball side of the conference while having no negative affect on the football side. You cant let that "non-football" percentage get to high or they could potentially form a voting block large enough to stop certain all-sports additions they dont like--but might be incredibly valuable to the football side. You dont want to get into that kind of situation.

(03-30-2021 01:34 PM)maccoog Wrote:  To those calling for VCU and the like, how will they perform with more competition. It took WSU a little while to acclimate to the increased level of competition. They are finally on the upswing again but it is no guarantee a new team will automatically be top tear in this conference.

WSU finished 3rd in the AAC in their very first yr! Wouldn't say they needed time to acclimate; they were 14-4 in conference play.

(03-30-2021 03:27 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 10:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 10:01 PM)pesik Wrote:  a final 4 run from 2018 was worth 8 mill... i dont know the payout this year

I read somewhere that the 2021 credits will be worth 330K a year. That seems high---but if its correct, that makes each credit worth a total payout of 1.98 million. Five credits would be worth nearly 10 million. Wichita earned a credit as well this year--so this years 6 credits should contribute about 2 million a year to the AAC annually for 6 years. I think these 6 credits will replace the credits from the 2014-2015 season that would age out this year. We had two teams in the Dance that year (Cinci and SMU). SMU lost game one and Cinci lost in game 2 (3 total credits). So, we have 6 credits replacing 3 credits. What we need is more seasons like 2015-2016. We sent four teams to the tournament that year. We got almost as many credits that season (5) despite only winning one game in the tournament. Had a couple of those teams had some success---the credits that year would have quickly ballooned.

The key is to get a bunch of teams in on a consistent basis and have at least one or two each year go on a nice run. Thats how you really start piling up big stacks of credits. If you do that, the money can be substantial. If you can average 8 credits a year, your looking at somewhere between 15 and 16 million a year in revenue. Thats almost 3 times what we make from placing a team in the access bowl....so, its kind of a nice shot in the arm.

That may be one of the strongest arguments there is for expanding the AAC to 14 teams, and adding 4 NCAA caliber basketball schools, and doing it as soon as possible.

One could even make the case - on that basis alone - that failing to replace UConn's basketball program is a form of managerial malpractice by the conference - not Aresco, but the conference itself.

Name four NCAA caliber basketball schools that are both available willing and worth splitting the pie four more ways

(03-30-2021 02:51 PM)UAB Schnauzer Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 03:27 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 10:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 10:01 PM)pesik Wrote:  a final 4 run from 2018 was worth 8 mill... i dont know the payout this year

I read somewhere that the 2021 credits will be worth 330K a year. That seems high---but if its correct, that makes each credit worth a total payout of 1.98 million. Five credits would be worth nearly 10 million. Wichita earned a credit as well this year--so this years 6 credits should contribute about 2 million a year to the AAC annually for 6 years. I think these 6 credits will replace the credits from the 2014-2015 season that would age out this year. We had two teams in the Dance that year (Cinci and SMU). SMU lost game one and Cinci lost in game 2 (3 total credits). So, we have 6 credits replacing 3 credits. What we need is more seasons like 2015-2016. We sent four teams to the tournament that year. We got almost as many credits that season (5) despite only winning one game in the tournament. Had a couple of those teams had some success---the credits that year would have quickly ballooned.

The key is to get a bunch of teams in on a consistent basis and have at least one or two each year go on a nice run. Thats how you really start piling up big stacks of credits. If you do that, the money can be substantial. If you can average 8 credits a year, your looking at somewhere between 15 and 16 million a year in revenue. Thats almost 3 times what we make from placing a team in the access bowl....so, its kind of a nice shot in the arm.

That may be one of the strongest arguments there is for expanding the AAC to 14 teams, and adding 4 NCAA caliber basketball schools, and doing it as soon as possible.

One could even make the case - on that basis alone - that failing to replace UConn's basketball program is a form of managerial malpractice by the conference - not Aresco, but the conference itself.

Name four NCAA caliber basketball schools that are both available willing and worth splitting the pie four more ways

VCU---maybe Dayton---thats about all I can think of....and Im not even all that sure about Dayton. Kinda goes back to what I said before, the hybrid model can be an excellent tool to improve a conference--but its use must be very thoughtful and judicious.

(03-29-2021 10:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The key is to get a bunch of teams in on a consistent basis and have at least one or two each year go on a nice run. Thats how you really start piling up big stacks of credits.

And now you know why the committee places G5 teams in the same bracket to eliminate the possibility of multiple members of a said conference going on long runs. They eliminate each other.

(03-30-2021 09:52 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 08:58 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 08:36 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 07:58 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Can somebody explain exactly how these credits/payouts work both for the team in the tournament and for the conference at large. I've always heard about this stuff but never understood really how it worked. Thanks!

Each game played by a team gives the conference a payout. Those are paid out ~250-k - 300k a year for 6 years (amount changes each year). So each game is worth 1.5-1.8 million. The conference then decides how to split out the pay. I believe the AAC does an equal split.

This year credits so far are:
Wichita: 1 Credit
Houston: 5 Credits

Oh I see, so we are still receiving payouts from 2015 and every yr since then? That's pretty cool and didn't realize it was such a sizeable amount of money. Probably helps out these non-football conferences that rely on these credits that have little to no TV contracts.

You have inadvertently shown why the CFP is a bubble that will pop.

What you just realized is why so many more schools play division 1 basketball than FBS or division 1 football. It is far more profitable to be a basketball school than a football school. It's the difference between playing the lotto and playing Texas hold 'em in trying to make money.

Because football only has six or seven home games and basketball may have 20 the difference in attendance is negligible, in pure ratings of eyes on tv it's not much different, in access the difference has always been huge in basketball's favor. Considering what the NCAA tournament pays out compared to bowls (which have now been hoarded to a handful of teams) and you need only one good player in basketball to turn a program around, it starts getting to the point where you wonder why anyone besides Alabama and Texas try to even play football. Basketball is cheaper, its return is higher, turn around happen fast and during down times it drags less on the budget (also why women's basketball continues to thrive and nearly every school has one) and in good times the pay off is crazy.

Even the return on alum donations, freshman application, and the quality of the student applicant is about equal with first round, second round, final four run to a low level bowl, a name bowl, and a NY6.

The problem is Joe Q Public like you have no idea of the underlying economics. You see big stadiums, big games, and the ESPN hype machine of game day because essentially all the games happen on one day, versus the marathons.of short sprints that is the college season. Bowl seasons length also helps hide this since it goes roughly the same length of time as the Dance but has 60% of the games, with ESPN desperate to hype everyone of them since they own them. So if you don't ever actually look what's going on and the underlying costs of football, it seems like football is the golden ticket. In reality for its level playing field and foundational differences in costs and returns basketball is where it is at.

Which again is why there are far more division 1 basketball schools than football.

ESPN pays us $83million to play football on their network. Okay... 67% of that, at least by conservative estimates. So $56milion. I guarantee you, you shut down AAC football tomorrow, every bit of that $56million evaporates.

So according to a previous post in this thread, we get, under the best circumstances, $10million a year for tournament credits. You add that to the $27million, and you come to $37million per year for the whole conference for basketball.

Even leaving out any income from bowl payouts and the CFP scraps (our CFP share varies depending on if we make the Access Slot Bowl), $56million is still > than $37million.

In summation, we make more than twice as much on football as we do on basketball.

ETA: Just went and checked it out here: https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sport...ution.aspx
That $56MM(ESPN) + $22.4MM (Thanks Cincy for the extra $4MM... Thanks Tigers from the year before) = $78MM, and that doesn't include any other bowl income.

Bueller? Bueller? Is this thing on????


That's what I thought...

(03-30-2021 03:31 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 09:52 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 08:58 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 08:36 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 07:58 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Can somebody explain exactly how these credits/payouts work both for the team in the tournament and for the conference at large. I've always heard about this stuff but never understood really how it worked. Thanks!

Each game played by a team gives the conference a payout. Those are paid out ~250-k - 300k a year for 6 years (amount changes each year). So each game is worth 1.5-1.8 million. The conference then decides how to split out the pay. I believe the AAC does an equal split.

This year credits so far are:
Wichita: 1 Credit
Houston: 5 Credits

Oh I see, so we are still receiving payouts from 2015 and every yr since then? That's pretty cool and didn't realize it was such a sizeable amount of money. Probably helps out these non-football conferences that rely on these credits that have little to no TV contracts.

You have inadvertently shown why the CFP is a bubble that will pop.

What you just realized is why so many more schools play division 1 basketball than FBS or division 1 football. It is far more profitable to be a basketball school than a football school. It's the difference between playing the lotto and playing Texas hold 'em in trying to make money.

Because football only has six or seven home games and basketball may have 20 the difference in attendance is negligible, in pure ratings of eyes on tv it's not much different, in access the difference has always been huge in basketball's favor. Considering what the NCAA tournament pays out compared to bowls (which have now been hoarded to a handful of teams) and you need only one good player in basketball to turn a program around, it starts getting to the point where you wonder why anyone besides Alabama and Texas try to even play football. Basketball is cheaper, its return is higher, turn around happen fast and during down times it drags less on the budget (also why women's basketball continues to thrive and nearly every school has one) and in good times the pay off is crazy.

Even the return on alum donations, freshman application, and the quality of the student applicant is about equal with first round, second round, final four run to a low level bowl, a name bowl, and a NY6.

The problem is Joe Q Public like you have no idea of the underlying economics. You see big stadiums, big games, and the ESPN hype machine of game day because essentially all the games happen on one day, versus the marathons.of short sprints that is the college season. Bowl seasons length also helps hide this since it goes roughly the same length of time as the Dance but has 60% of the games, with ESPN desperate to hype everyone of them since they own them. So if you don't ever actually look what's going on and the underlying costs of football, it seems like football is the golden ticket. In reality for its level playing field and foundational differences in costs and returns basketball is where it is at.

Which again is why there are far more division 1 basketball schools than football.

ESPN pays us $83million to play football on their network. Okay... 67% of that, at least by conservative estimates. So $56milion. I guarantee you, you shut down AAC football tomorrow, every bit of that $56million evaporates.

So according to a previous post in this thread, we get, under the best circumstances, $10million a year for tournament credits. You add that to the $27million, and you come to $37million per year for the whole conference for basketball.

Even leaving out any income from bowl payouts and the CFP scraps (our CFP share varies depending on if we make the Access Slot Bowl), $56million is still > than $37million.

In summation, we make more than twice as much on football as we do on basketball.

ETA: Just went and checked it out here: https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sport...ution.aspx
That $56MM(ESPN) + $22.4MM (Thanks Cincy for the extra $4MM... Thanks Tigers from the year before) = $78MM, and that doesn't include any other bowl income.

*Sigh

Now do how much it costs us to play football versus basketball.

I again point out to you the obvious answer not the rah rah fan but football! How many schools play FBS football? How many play Division 1 basketball?

Can you name a school who plays football but not basketball?

80+ scholarships and a much bigger staff

13 scholarships four coaches

I am sure all these university presidents just don't get it. Never mind you made a ton of assumptions and ignored points like the similarities in raw numbers over a season in every catagory but football contracts handed out by ESPN and an underperforming basketball tournament time period.

I will wait for your examples of football only division one schools. I mean we have basketball, wrestling, baseball, and hockey division 1 only. There has to be a football one right, I mean it's a gold mine right