I think the deciding factor will be money. The amount of money will sway or not sway the deciding votes. Where I think think this money would come from is from the TV networks.

There will be some caveats with that money that may or may not be palatable to the Presidents.

It is about time slot filling. As the definitive low man of the totem, there would have to be odd time slots including Friday, Thursday maybe even some Wednesday games. Some of those games are going to be late night for the Eastern reaches.

It was an acceptance of this (and some winning ways) that got Boise to be an ESPN darling way back when. That was a big factor in how we "arrived on the scene". That and a blue field

(04-24-2021 09:01 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  I think the deciding factor will be money. The amount of money will sway or not sway the deciding votes.

True. Boise has had strong viewership, and viewership = $$$.

You know, when you consider the kind of money that Boise can help the AAC earn, we're talking about first doubling, then tripling and quadrupling each school's broadcasting revenue when the AAC achieves full power conference status. This would eventually translate into tens - - and two to three hundred million $$$ per decade by 2040 or 2050 for each AAC school.

Since that is what's at stake for Boise and the AAC, the short-sightedness of the Presidents who opposed full membership for BSU in December because they couldn't imagine any way of making it work for the conference is - - in hindsight - - absolutely mind-boggling!

.

Hopefully, it's beginning to dawn on them that there are plenty of effective measures that they could easily implement to add the Broncos teams (all sports) in a way that wouldn't be particularly inconvenient.

.

Just to convey some idea of the way that the addition of Boise would have a "multiplier" effect on ESPN's AAC FB viewership numbers, consider this:

2019 viewership numbers https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/2/

1) Boise averaged ~ 1 million viewers per game in 2019 (10 TV games).

2) ESPN broadcasted a number of games between the top AAC teams (e.g., Cincy, UCF, Navy, Memphis, & SMU) that had disappointing viewership. For example:

Cincy vs. Temple 11/23/19: 359,000 viewers
Cincy vs. Tulsa 10/19/10: "not available" (indicates low viewership)
Cincy vs. Houston 10/12/19: 261,000 viewers
UCF vs. Temple 10/26/19: 277,000 viewers
UCF vs. UConn 9/28/19: 322,000 viewers
Memphis vs. USF 11/23/19: "not available" (indicates low viewership)
Memphis vs. Houston 11/16/19: 292,000 viewers
Memphis vs. Tulsa 10/19/10: 192,000 viewers
Memphis vs. Temple 10/12/19: 232,000 viewers
Navy vs. Houston 11/30/19: 411,000 viewers
Navy vs. Tulsa 10/12/19: "not available" (indicates low viewership)
SMU vs. Tulane 11/30/19: "not available" (indicates low viewership)
SMU vs. Tulsa 10/5/19: 175,000 viewers
SMU vs. ECU 11/9/19: "not available" (indicates low viewership)

3) The highest-viewership regular season conference games tended to be those that pitted the top-tier AAC teams against each other. For example:

Cincy vs. Memphis 11/29/19: 2.51 million viewers
Cincy vs. UCF 10/4/19: 1.44 million viewers
Memphis vs. SMU 11/2/19: 2.95 million viewers

3) If ESPN had been able to broadcast FB games between each of these teams (Cincy, Memphis, UCF, SMU, Navy) and Boise State, rather than broadcasting their games vs. low viewership opponents, their viewership would have been increased by several million viewers.

4) If we assume, conservatively, that ESPN had been able to add 5 such games, and that they would have generated an average of 1.5 million viewers:

Cincy vs. Boise: 1,500,000 viewers
UCF vs. Boise: 1,500,000 viewers
Memphis vs. Boise: 1,500,000 viewers
SMU vs. Boise: 1,500,000 viewers
Navy vs. Boise: 1,500,000 viewers

5 game (1/2 season) viewership: 7.5 million viewers (a net increase of approximately 6 million viewers)

Those five games might well have averaged 2 milion viewers per game, and in that case, they would have generated 10 million AAC vs. AAC football viewers for ESPN in 2019 (a net increase of approximately 8.5 million viewers)

5) In addition, with Boise capable of averaging 1,000,000 viewers per game, ESPN would have also been able to generate another 5 million viewers.

6) If Boise had been in the AAC in 2019, ESPN's total AAC football viewership probably would have increased by approximately 10 to 15 million viewers.

.

I like your math. I am not sure it is the same assumptions and math that the networks use but either way, I think the networks do see some value in BSU. I think our viewership is down from what it used to be for a couple of reasons....

Our games are on CBS sports now and not ESPN. Thanks to the new contract with the MWC that we were not involved with negotiating even though our contract with the MWC says we get to do that on our own,

Second, BSU games are not like ND or Alabama or insert name of big power school here... We have some die hard fans that will watch no matter what but... part of our attraction is that we will get a lot of curious eyes. Been hearing a lot about this little school from no where, game is coming on after mine, I watch and see what all this hoopla is all about. Are they really any good, I will give them the eye test. Once again filling that void time, keeping eyes on sets that would have changed the channel. That approach actually won over additional fans and very much effected recruiting. Kids that sat up and watched us on the late game or weekday game.

By having some east coast-west coast competition in a late night time slot could be seen as pretty valuable which equates to dollars come contract time.

I was unaware that the AAC flatly turned down a full membership. I think we may have contacted them not the other way around. I may be wrong. but the rumor here is that they offered a FB only membership and we just could not make it work. (in an acceptable manner). It sounds like we really tried. I think some of the pressure was from Harsin saying take the FB offer other sports be damned. Maybe part of the reason he is gone. I do not know what all was said and to whom but I think there was a lot of sh!! being thrown around. Harsin does come across as being a bit egotistical and everybody is pissed at the MWC because they are screwing us over. If you listen to them we are the ones screwing them. the animosity is thick.

If we could not make an FB only offer work in that environment it is not going to happen. So... I am about as far removed from the AAC presidents as you can get so I really do not know anything about their response but conjecture here, at least what I heard (again I am a nobody and they have not been consulting me) was they would have to go back to the table and reevaluate how or even if they could go full membership as opposed to a "FB only no other sports" stance.

Just a reminder as to why we are here regarding college football:
NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...versities.

The rest of of the FBS teams can do the same thing to the "Bluebloods" that Oklahoma and Georgia did to the NCAA, and the supreme court would have to rule on it, they've set the precedence already.

Plenty to read here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=oklahoma...e&ie=UTF-8

(04-25-2021 09:47 AM)4xGrad Wrote:  I like your math. I am not sure it is the same assumptions and math that the networks use but either way, I think the networks do see some value in BSU. I think our viewership is down from what it used to be for a couple of reasons....

If anything, the original estimates might have been too conservative, since they didn't adequately factor in Boise's OOC viewership.

Here are revised estimates, assuming a 13-game season with a bowl game:

4 games vs. good AAC teams: (~1.5M viewers/game): 6 M viewers

4 games vs. lesser AAC teams: (~350K viewers/game): 1.4 M viewers

2 games vs. good OOC teams (~1.5 -2M viewers): 3-4 M viewers

1 game vs. average OOC team (~.75 M viewers): ~750,000 viewers

1 bowl game: (~2.25 M viewers): ~2.25 M viewers

Total: ~14 million viewers (range: 12-16 million viewers)
.

If Boise plays for the AAC championship: Add 2.5 M viewers

Total: ~16 million viewers (range: 14.5 to 18.5 million viewers)

.

The AAC's total FB viewership in 2019 appears to have been somewhere between ~40 and ~60 million viewers. If that is the case, and if Boise would have added ~14-16 million viewers, based on the above estimates, then the addition of Boise St. FB probably would have resulted in at least a 25% increase in ESPN's AAC's FB viewership in 2019.

ESPN could end up with a 20% to 25% increase in net income, and that would be quite a good return on their investment.

.

Quote:Our games are on CBS sports now and not ESPN. Thanks to the new contract with the MWC that we were not involved with negotiating even though our contract with the MWC says we get to do that on our own,

Good point. ESPN viewership might be higher.

Quote:Second, BSU games are not like ND or Alabama or insert name of big power school here... We have some die hard fans that will watch no matter what but... part of our attraction is that we will get a lot of curious eyes. Been hearing a lot about this little school from no where, game is coming on after mine, I watch and see what all this hoopla is all about. Are they really any good, I will give them the eye test. Once again filling that void time, keeping eyes on sets that would have changed the channel. That approach actually won over additional fans and very much effected recruiting. Kids that sat up and watched us on the late game or weekday game.

The viewership numbers register that kind of variability. Not a problem.

Quote:By having some east coast-west coast competition in a late night time slot could be seen as pretty valuable which equates to dollars come contract time.

Yep - - in fact, building AAC FB viewership in the westernmost time zones would be one of the pluses. The estimates above don't reflect that factor.

Quote:I was unaware that the AAC flatly turned down a full membership. I think we may have contacted them not the other way around. I may be wrong. but the rumor here is that they offered a FB only membership and we just could not make it work. (in an acceptable manner). It sounds like we really tried.

That may be all there was to it, but whether there was an actual "turn-down" of full membership or not, the fact remains that the AAC (obliviously) could have, but didn't offer an all-sports membership, which is, as in the British expression, "near enough as makes no difference" (i.e., "six of one and half a dozen of the other").

.

I guess I am getting old. I don't mind taking a little more time to get things right.

I don't run out and buy a car, I study all the options, pros and cons for each option, which can take me months of study and evaluation and consultation. I tend to be happier with my decisions these days.

I don't know but I hope that is what they are doing. Lots and lots of variables. lots and lots of possibilities. When I hear that Aresco came west and had meetings with BYU I read that as they are studying the options and possibilities. I see no reason to have to make a decision today. I expect to hear nothing until after the next football season at the earliest. Quite possibly latter than that. There are so many moving parts here and everyone involved has to be convinced of a common goal and a path to achieve it.

You and I may be able to come to agreement in a short time frame but with this kind of move we are talking literally thousands of people coming to agreement. Presidents, boards of trusties, athletic departments, donors, politicians... This is a heavy lift. I am impressed with Aresco. I think if anyone can do it he can.

(04-25-2021 12:27 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  I guess I am getting old. I don't mind taking a little more time to get things right.

I don't run out and buy a car, I study all the options, pros and cons for each option, which can take me months of study and evaluation and consultation. I tend to be happier with my decisions these days.

I don't know but I hope that is what they are doing. Lots and lots of variables. lots and lots of possibilities. When I hear that Aresco came west and had meetings with BYU I read that as they are studying the options and possibilities. I see no reason to have to make a decision today. I expect to hear nothing until after the next football season at the earliest. Quite possibly latter than that. There are so many moving parts here and everyone involved has to be convinced of a common goal and a path to achieve it.

You and I may be able to come to agreement in a short time frame but with this kind of move we are talking literally thousands of people coming to agreement. Presidents, boards of trusties, athletic departments, donors, politicians... This is a heavy lift. I am impressed with Aresco. I think if anyone can do it he can.

Understood. Very sensible points.

The reason I've become so impatient is because I feel that AAC fans have been a bunch of saps who have fallen for the perpetual "P6" song & dance - - this dog and pony show - - that's been playing and replaying like a broken record for the past 3-4 years, with no progress of any kind being made since Wichita State joined the conference in 2017. So I'm fed up with it, that's all.

I like Aresco, too, but whenever the conference Presidents decide to go into "turtle" mode and hide in their collective shell, then Aresco seems to be left "helplessly twisting in the wind," to turn a phrase, with no support from the conference and nothing gets done for months at a time.

Our alma maters thought that they were joining a power conference nearly a decade ago, when they decided to join the Big East, which was a full-fledged power conference. Then, the P5 conferences plundered one school after another; then the name was sold, UConn ended up with most of the cash from the sale, tainted the conference with their recruiting scandals and then ran off like a delinquent parent. Since then, the dream has been slipping farther and farther out of our grasp ever since then. This situation is no longer acceptable.

There are a bunch of AAC fans who have been very frustrated by the conference's lack of progress. We don't all agree on who is at fault or exactly what their mistakes have been, but, to paraphrase the classic film, Network, a lot of us have felt this way at times:

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!."

.

You ought to try being part of the Mountain West Conference.

You have the "p6" marketing... and we have ??? crickets?

You have something in the works.... At least being investigated... They are not sharing information (and to be honest it is fun to guess what it might be) but you can sure track movements the commissioner is taking, like showing up in Utah.

MWC rumor mill is... Well if they leave who we going to get? NDSU? SDSU?
Really? No talk at all about how do we position ourselves to take advantage of coming changes. It is all about how do we react if something happens to us.

Personally I like a proactive position. I think the discussions in the AAC are proactive not reactive. In the end they may or may not include BSU, but I think they will and I hope they will. I think BSU by itself has had a tendency to try and be proactive. One more thing that I think aligns us with the values of the AAC better than the MWC.

(04-25-2021 04:40 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  You ought to try being part of the Mountain West Conference.

You have the "p6" marketing... and we have ??? crickets?

You have something in the works.... At least being investigated... They are not sharing information (and to be honest it is fun to guess what it might be) but you can sure track movements the commissioner is taking, like showing up in Utah.

MWC rumor mill is... Well if they leave who we going to get? NDSU? SDSU?
Really? No talk at all about how do we position ourselves to take advantage of coming changes. It is all about how do we react if something happens to us.

Personally I like a proactive position. I think the discussions in the AAC are proactive not reactive. In the end they may or may not include BSU, but I think they will and I hope they will. I think BSU by itself has had a tendency to try and be proactive. One more thing that I think aligns us with the values of the AAC better than the MWC.

If I ran the conference I'd take BYU all sports to get to 12, if that didn't work... BSU, SDSU all sports, or BSU and any combination to get BYU... I don't particularly care for football only other than the academies.

(04-25-2021 06:31 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 04:40 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  You ought to try being part of the Mountain West Conference.

You have the "p6" marketing... and we have ??? crickets?

You have something in the works.... At least being investigated... They are not sharing information (and to be honest it is fun to guess what it might be) but you can sure track movements the commissioner is taking, like showing up in Utah.

MWC rumor mill is... Well if they leave who we going to get? NDSU? SDSU?
Really? No talk at all about how do we position ourselves to take advantage of coming changes. It is all about how do we react if something happens to us.

Personally I like a proactive position. I think the discussions in the AAC are proactive not reactive. In the end they may or may not include BSU, but I think they will and I hope they will. I think BSU by itself has had a tendency to try and be proactive. One more thing that I think aligns us with the values of the AAC better than the MWC.

If I ran the conference I'd take BYU all sports to get to 12, if that didn't work... BSU, SDSU all sports, or BSU and any combination to get BYU... I don't particularly care for football only other than the academies.

I would agree that BYU would be the diamond. If I were the AAC they are the first thing I would go after. Only problem is convincing BYU that they would appear to the world as an equal to Utah.... Not that they could get there but they were there the minute they signed the paperwork.

It is the pride of how they think they are perceived... oh, and remember nothing can be done on a Sunday. sounded like that might have been an issue with the big 12.

If we're getting crazy, then how about bribery instead? Get Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson to join the AAC. Get a deal in revenue similar to the Big 12. I'll use the 2019 revenue of the Big 12 ($439M rounded to $440) for this example. The current AAC 11 get $25M each and the rest ($165M) gets split between those three giving them $55M each. Our current teams get way more money and they get more than what they earn now.

(04-25-2021 11:22 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 09:47 AM)4xGrad Wrote:  I like your math. I am not sure it is the same assumptions and math that the networks use but either way, I think the networks do see some value in BSU. I think our viewership is down from what it used to be for a couple of reasons....

If anything, the original estimates might have been too conservative, since they didn't adequately factor in Boise's OOC viewership.

Here are revised estimates, assuming a 13-game season with a bowl game:

4 games vs. good AAC teams: (~1.5M viewers/game): 6 M viewers

4 games vs. lesser AAC teams: (~350K viewers/game): 1.4 M viewers

2 games vs. good OOC teams (~1.5 -2M viewers): 3-4 M viewers

1 game vs. average OOC team (~.75 M viewers): ~750,000 viewers

1 bowl game: (~2.25 M viewers): ~2.25 M viewers

Total: ~14 million viewers (range: 12-16 million viewers)
.

If Boise plays for the AAC championship: Add 2.5 M viewers

Total: ~16 million viewers (range: 14.5 to 18.5 million viewers)

.

The AAC's total FB viewership in 2019 appears to have been somewhere between ~40 and ~60 million viewers. If that is the case, and if Boise would have added ~14-16 million viewers, based on the above estimates, then the addition of Boise St. FB probably would have resulted in at least a 25% increase in ESPN's AAC's FB viewership in 2019.

ESPN could end up with a 20% to 25% increase in net income, and that would be quite a good return on their investment.

.

Quote:Our games are on CBS sports now and not ESPN. Thanks to the new contract with the MWC that we were not involved with negotiating even though our contract with the MWC says we get to do that on our own,

Good point. ESPN viewership might be higher.

Quote:Second, BSU games are not like ND or Alabama or insert name of big power school here... We have some die hard fans that will watch no matter what but... part of our attraction is that we will get a lot of curious eyes. Been hearing a lot about this little school from no where, game is coming on after mine, I watch and see what all this hoopla is all about. Are they really any good, I will give them the eye test. Once again filling that void time, keeping eyes on sets that would have changed the channel. That approach actually won over additional fans and very much effected recruiting. Kids that sat up and watched us on the late game or weekday game.

The viewership numbers register that kind of variability. Not a problem.

Quote:By having some east coast-west coast competition in a late night time slot could be seen as pretty valuable which equates to dollars come contract time.

Yep - - in fact, building AAC FB viewership in the westernmost time zones would be one of the pluses. The estimates above don't reflect that factor.

Quote:I was unaware that the AAC flatly turned down a full membership. I think we may have contacted them not the other way around. I may be wrong. but the rumor here is that they offered a FB only membership and we just could not make it work. (in an acceptable manner). It sounds like we really tried.

That may be all there was to it, but whether there was an actual "turn-down" of full membership or not, the fact remains that the AAC (obliviously) could have, but didn't offer an all-sports membership, which is, as in the British expression, "near enough as makes no difference" (i.e., "six of one and half a dozen of the other").

.

Okay, that's not how this works.

1. Bowls are not part of the conference inventory, not part of what the conference is selling to the networks, so they don't have any direct impact on a conference's primary media rights deal. So subtract that number.
1.A. I guess in negotiations, you can point to a bowl draw as overall brand value. However, bowls get what they get, largely based on timeslot/network -- I could give you a very good prediction of the bowls' ordinal viewership before matchups are even announced. Notre Dame or a specific spicy storyline might let me make an even better prediction of the bowls' viewership ordinal rankings after matchups are made. But Boise can't really make that case. Las Vegas Bowl gets good numbers because as the best game on opening Saturday of bowl season it gets on ABC/ESPN; having Boise doesn't move that needle (in fact CFP-era LV Bowls with BSU are a little behind CFP-era LV Bowls without BSU). Boise's other non-NY6 bowls have averaged a pretty pedestrian 1.703 million viewers, and Boise's Fiesta Bowl is middle of the pack in NY6 bowls with the so-called-G5 participant.

2. Boise wouldn't be additive to the AAC conference championship game. AAC CCGs have averaged 2.661 million viewers (that is, higher than your Boise estimate). mwc CCGs with Boise have averaged 1.032 million viewers. The only argument you could make would be that having Boise in the AAC CCG would make it have NY6 impact...but EVERY AAC CCG has had NY6 impact already.

3. Instead of counting all 12 of Boise's games, you have to look at what is actually added to the AAC conference inventory which is being sold to the network partner. Conferences sell to the networks their conference inventory -- the members' home games. So Boise's added value to the AAC contract would be their six home games (four AAC games, plus a BYU/"P5" and an FCS/G4 every year) and their marginal improvement over other AAC games in the four conference away games that they play that are already in the AAC inventory.
Boise, or BYU, or any Mountain/Pacific time zone addition DOES add value to the AAC contract in that those western home games can be in the fourth TV window -- that's an overall addition to the volume of content that the AAC can offer. The flip side of that coin, however, is that the late games don't get good viewership because the 2/3 of the population in the Eastern/Central time zones aren't staying up to watch them.
In the CFP era, Boise's home games vs "P5"/BYU average under a million viewers. Boise's away games vs "P5"/BYU average 1.313 million viewers -- that is, when most of America is awake, they do better. All Boise vs "P5"/BYU averaged 1.142 million viewers.
In the CFP era, Boise's games vs G4/UConn average 822k viewers.
In the CFP era, Boise's mwc games home and away average 603k viewers.

So...Boise's additive value for six home games should be 1 "P5"/BYU, 2 AAC premier games that look like a Boise home "P5"/BYU, 2 AAC games that look like a Boise mwc game, one choice G4 matchup or a good mwc rivalry-sustainment game. Just under 5 million viewers in the six added late night windows.
Boise's marginal add over four away AAC games in the AAC inventory is 2 AAC premier games that should look like a "P5"/BYU and 2 AAC games that should look like a Boise mwc game, relative to the average AAC vs AAC game. In 2019 AAC vs AAC averaged 578k viewers and in 2020 AAC vs AAC averaged 724k viewers - call it 651k viewers. A marginal gain of 880k viewers.
With several best case assumptions, notably that the best Boise-AAC matchups get timeslots and therefore viewership like Boise-"P5" matchups, the theoretical total increase of viewership of AAC inventory games is actually just under six million viewers. Not sixteen million, six million.
Don't get me wrong, that's good -- again, with some best-case assumptions in there -- but it is actually under 20% of the AAC's 2019 conference inventory viewership, not "over 25%" as you suggest.
Looking at the average annual value of the AAC-ESPN deal, subtracting UConn's value (my SWAG in multiple previous posts is ~$5 million per year, what with football being approximately 75% of the value and UConn providing less value in football but more value in basketball), and adding the dollars per viewer gain...it ends up worth about +$1 million per school per year. That's good. It's about 2.5% of Navy's annual athletics budget, less for the public schools whose budget numbers are public (i.e. in the USAToday database).

Not a slamdunk for viewership / dollars.

Definitely an advantage in perception/brand/looking stronger.
An advantage in separating from the G4 by taking a piece of their value and in the perception arena looking "Power" by doing what we want (much like adding Wichita State was).

Breaking down viewership numbers, yes good. Possibly very good. Not necessarily great. But the "ZOMG, Boise's viewers!!1!" take is very flawed.

(04-25-2021 04:40 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  You ought to try being part of the Mountain West Conference....

...Personally I like a proactive position. I think the discussions in the AAC are proactive not reactive. In the end they may or may not include BSU, but I think they will and I hope they will. I think BSU by itself has had a tendency to try and be proactive. One more thing that I think aligns us with the values of the AAC better than the MWC.

Do you frequent your BSU sports board, and if so, is there a sentiment similar to the part you wrote above amongst other (the majority of?) posters?

(04-25-2021 07:09 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 06:31 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 04:40 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  You ought to try being part of the Mountain West Conference.

You have the "p6" marketing... and we have ??? crickets?

You have something in the works.... At least being investigated... They are not sharing information (and to be honest it is fun to guess what it might be) but you can sure track movements the commissioner is taking, like showing up in Utah.

MWC rumor mill is... Well if they leave who we going to get? NDSU? SDSU?
Really? No talk at all about how do we position ourselves to take advantage of coming changes. It is all about how do we react if something happens to us.

Personally I like a proactive position. I think the discussions in the AAC are proactive not reactive. In the end they may or may not include BSU, but I think they will and I hope they will. I think BSU by itself has had a tendency to try and be proactive. One more thing that I think aligns us with the values of the AAC better than the MWC.

If I ran the conference I'd take BYU all sports to get to 12, if that didn't work... BSU, SDSU all sports, or BSU and any combination to get BYU... I don't particularly care for football only other than the academies.

I would agree that BYU would be the diamond. If I were the AAC they are the first thing I would go after. Only problem is convincing BYU that they would appear to the world as an equal to Utah.... Not that they could get there but they were there the minute they signed the paperwork.

It is the pride of how they think they are perceived... oh, and remember nothing can be done on a Sunday. sounded like that might have been an issue with the big 12.

I don't believe that Sundays are an issue, Football is hardly ever played on a Sunday, other money sports can easily be scheduled accordingly;, Example Schedule 3 game basketball series for Thursday, Friday , and Saturday or Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday if the WCC can work with BYU so can the AAC.

Your point about perception is the biggest obstacle that "BYU to the AAC" faces.

Perhaps learning if BSU and SDSU/CSU/AF/??? is the right combination to bring in BYU if the AAC had an CFP bid with combination "X" and an extended playoff.

Threatening to split unless we get more money is like a thirty year old threatening to move out of his parents basement if they don’t get better internet.

(04-25-2021 11:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 11:22 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 09:47 AM)4xGrad Wrote:  I like your math. I am not sure it is the same assumptions and math that the networks use but either way, I think the networks do see some value in BSU. I think our viewership is down from what it used to be for a couple of reasons....

If anything, the original estimates might have been too conservative, since they didn't adequately factor in Boise's OOC viewership.

Here are revised estimates, assuming a 13-game season with a bowl game:

4 games vs. good AAC teams: (~1.5M viewers/game): 6 M viewers

4 games vs. lesser AAC teams: (~350K viewers/game): 1.4 M viewers

2 games vs. good OOC teams (~1.5 -2M viewers): 3-4 M viewers

1 game vs. average OOC team (~.75 M viewers): ~750,000 viewers

1 bowl game: (~2.25 M viewers): ~2.25 M viewers

Total: ~14 million viewers (range: 12-16 million viewers)
.

If Boise plays for the AAC championship: Add 2.5 M viewers

Total: ~16 million viewers (range: 14.5 to 18.5 million viewers)

.

The AAC's total FB viewership in 2019 appears to have been somewhere between ~40 and ~60 million viewers. If that is the case, and if Boise would have added ~14-16 million viewers, based on the above estimates, then the addition of Boise St. FB probably would have resulted in at least a 25% increase in ESPN's AAC's FB viewership in 2019.

ESPN could end up with a 20% to 25% increase in net income, and that would be quite a good return on their investment.

.

Quote:Our games are on CBS sports now and not ESPN. Thanks to the new contract with the MWC that we were not involved with negotiating even though our contract with the MWC says we get to do that on our own,

Good point. ESPN viewership might be higher.

Quote:Second, BSU games are not like ND or Alabama or insert name of big power school here... We have some die hard fans that will watch no matter what but... part of our attraction is that we will get a lot of curious eyes. Been hearing a lot about this little school from no where, game is coming on after mine, I watch and see what all this hoopla is all about. Are they really any good, I will give them the eye test. Once again filling that void time, keeping eyes on sets that would have changed the channel. That approach actually won over additional fans and very much effected recruiting. Kids that sat up and watched us on the late game or weekday game.

The viewership numbers register that kind of variability. Not a problem.

Quote:By having some east coast-west coast competition in a late night time slot could be seen as pretty valuable which equates to dollars come contract time.

Yep - - in fact, building AAC FB viewership in the westernmost time zones would be one of the pluses. The estimates above don't reflect that factor.

Quote:I was unaware that the AAC flatly turned down a full membership. I think we may have contacted them not the other way around. I may be wrong. but the rumor here is that they offered a FB only membership and we just could not make it work. (in an acceptable manner). It sounds like we really tried.

That may be all there was to it, but whether there was an actual "turn-down" of full membership or not, the fact remains that the AAC (obliviously) could have, but didn't offer an all-sports membership, which is, as in the British expression, "near enough as makes no difference" (i.e., "six of one and half a dozen of the other").

.

Okay, that's not how this works.

1. Bowls are not part of the conference inventory, not part of what the conference is selling to the networks, so they don't have any direct impact on a conference's primary media rights deal. So subtract that number.
1.A. I guess in negotiations, you can point to a bowl draw as overall brand value. However, bowls get what they get, largely based on timeslot/network -- I could give you a very good prediction of the bowls' ordinal viewership before matchups are even announced. Notre Dame or a specific spicy storyline might let me make an even better prediction of the bowls' viewership ordinal rankings after matchups are made. But Boise can't really make that case. Las Vegas Bowl gets good numbers because as the best game on opening Saturday of bowl season it gets on ABC/ESPN; having Boise doesn't move that needle (in fact CFP-era LV Bowls with BSU are a little behind CFP-era LV Bowls without BSU). Boise's other non-NY6 bowls have averaged a pretty pedestrian 1.703 million viewers, and Boise's Fiesta Bowl is middle of the pack in NY6 bowls with the so-called-G5 participant.

2. Boise wouldn't be additive to the AAC conference championship game. AAC CCGs have averaged 2.661 million viewers (that is, higher than your Boise estimate). mwc CCGs with Boise have averaged 1.032 million viewers. The only argument you could make would be that having Boise in the AAC CCG would make it have NY6 impact...but EVERY AAC CCG has had NY6 impact already.

3. Instead of counting all 12 of Boise's games, you have to look at what is actually added to the AAC conference inventory which is being sold to the network partner. Conferences sell to the networks their conference inventory -- the members' home games. So Boise's added value to the AAC contract would be their six home games (four AAC games, plus a BYU/"P5" and an FCS/G4 every year) and their marginal improvement over other AAC games in the four conference away games that they play that are already in the AAC inventory.
Boise, or BYU, or any Mountain/Pacific time zone addition DOES add value to the AAC contract in that those western home games can be in the fourth TV window -- that's an overall addition to the volume of content that the AAC can offer. The flip side of that coin, however, is that the late games don't get good viewership because the 2/3 of the population in the Eastern/Central time zones aren't staying up to watch them.
In the CFP era, Boise's home games vs "P5"/BYU average under a million viewers. Boise's away games vs "P5"/BYU average 1.313 million viewers -- that is, when most of America is awake, they do better. All Boise vs "P5"/BYU averaged 1.142 million viewers.
In the CFP era, Boise's games vs G4/UConn average 822k viewers.
In the CFP era, Boise's mwc games home and away average 603k viewers.

So...Boise's additive value for six home games should be 1 "P5"/BYU, 2 AAC premier games that look like a Boise home "P5"/BYU, 2 AAC games that look like a Boise mwc game, one choice G4 matchup or a good mwc rivalry-sustainment game. Just under 5 million viewers in the six added late night windows.
Boise's marginal add over four away AAC games in the AAC inventory is 2 AAC premier games that should look like a "P5"/BYU and 2 AAC games that should look like a Boise mwc game, relative to the average AAC vs AAC game. In 2019 AAC vs AAC averaged 578k viewers and in 2020 AAC vs AAC averaged 724k viewers - call it 651k viewers. A marginal gain of 880k viewers.
With several best case assumptions, notably that the best Boise-AAC matchups get timeslots and therefore viewership like Boise-"P5" matchups, the theoretical total increase of viewership of AAC inventory games is actually just under six million viewers. Not sixteen million, six million.
Don't get me wrong, that's good -- again, with some best-case assumptions in there -- but it is actually under 20% of the AAC's 2019 conference inventory viewership, not "over 25%" as you suggest.
Looking at the average annual value of the AAC-ESPN deal, subtracting UConn's value (my SWAG in multiple previous posts is ~$5 million per year, what with football being approximately 75% of the value and UConn providing less value in football but more value in basketball), and adding the dollars per viewer gain...it ends up worth about +$1 million per school per year. That's good. It's about 2.5% of Navy's annual athletics budget, less for the public schools whose budget numbers are public (i.e. in the USAToday database).

Not a slamdunk for viewership / dollars.

Definitely an advantage in perception/brand/looking stronger.
An advantage in separating from the G4 by taking a piece of their value and in the perception arena looking "Power" by doing what we want (much like adding Wichita State was).

Breaking down viewership numbers, yes good. Possibly very good. Not necessarily great. But the "ZOMG, Boise's viewers!!1!" take is very flawed.

Navy, you are right about the numbers.

I think part of it is the competition. When we played UCON, Who cared. A lot of regular's did not care. It was going to be lopsided and had no significance to anything, unless somehow UCON pulled out a miracle.

There is also the issue of playing on CBS sports as opposed to ESPN.

These days, playing Fresno State has no national implication. Nevada, maybe it has a conference implication. Unless BSU is undefeated, nationally we are not registering. 1 loss early in the season, national interest wanes.

ESPN might be convinced to push for a 5-1-2 because it does create a scenario where the top teams from the non-P5 would actually be playing for a spot in the playoff... I am just thinking of my own viewing habits. There are a number of teams I would not go out of my way to watch unless the results would have some national implication. Please understand that I do not have a clue where ESPN falls on the issue.

Does BSU offer a lot of viewership. Probably not that more than the average AAC team unless we are doing well and the network is promoting the game. I think... again just supposition, that we would bring more viewership to the AAC than we do to the MWC simply because of competition and implications of the outcome.

I also think you will see us return to a much more exciting version of what we used to be under Andy Avalos and the new O coordinator Tim Plough. Acknowledging that remains to be seen and, as we have all experienced, coaches are not forever.

I think we may have a pretty good idea where BSU's near term competitiveness lies come September 2, and we do have Oklahoma State at home this year, another good measuring stick. I think our TV value will be in our competitiveness and any possible national implications it may or may not have.

Everybody needs that competitiveness and the visibility to build their own brand.
Navy is special. I mean that in a very positive way. Huge built-in viewership. Mostly for Army-Navy and ND- Navy. Everybody I know that served in the Navy, most that never went to the Academy, still take an interest in Navy.

My wife went to school in Oregon, not Fort Collins but she served in the Air Force for 12 years and yet she takes an interest when Air Force is playing.

My point though is that I think ESPN understand that if we played in the AAC we would pull more viewers than we do currently even if you subtracted the viewers the conference team brings to the table... which I would strongly suggest is considerably more than the MWC teams bring to the table.

(04-26-2021 03:26 PM)UAB Schnauzer Wrote:  Threatening to split unless we get more money is like a thirty year old threatening to move out of his parents basement if they don’t get better internet.

So Schnauzer, is that directed at me? BSU? If so you really have a swing and a miss in evaluating the situation.

The analogy that I believe is more appropriate is the 30 year old living in his parents basement paying $500.00 rent each month and the parents come and say we are going to start charging you $1000.00 a month. The 30 year old says... Okay I start looking for a place to move to, you obviously want me out.

(04-26-2021 10:20 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 04:40 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  You ought to try being part of the Mountain West Conference....

...Personally I like a proactive position. I think the discussions in the AAC are proactive not reactive. In the end they may or may not include BSU, but I think they will and I hope they will. I think BSU by itself has had a tendency to try and be proactive. One more thing that I think aligns us with the values of the AAC better than the MWC.

Do you frequent your BSU sports board, and if so, is there a sentiment similar to the part you wrote above amongst other (the majority of?) posters?

I think there is some. Mostly what I here is why aren't we in the AAC already. Somebody needs to make this happen. Then there is the, but maaaannn what about the travel? What about all sports. It has to be all sports. Is this why Harsin Left?
Glad Harsin left Andy is going to be soooo much better.

A couple of the boards are filled with a$$ hats though and I do not enjoy discussing anything with them. Others are pretty good. My favorite is OBNUG. But OBNUG is not set up like a board like this. Articles by some pretty decent guys that tend to be in the know more than most (they actually get press passes and talk to the coaches and players) and then comments that are usually pretty astute.

(04-22-2021 03:39 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  They will laugh

...until they pee themselves

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(04-22-2021 04:55 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 04:11 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 03:36 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  mybe we can force the A5 to triple the amount of cfp payouts to the g5 by proposing a g5 break away and or a g5 playoffs

extortion is the name of the game...

Extortion should always be in play/an option

Can we get pics of them with hookers and blow?

More plausible than OP

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk