(07-07-2021 11:08 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 10:14 AM)UAB Schnauzer Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 09:53 AM)rileylives Wrote:  I think with the potential 12 team playoff, and independent teams needing to migrate into conferences, the best possible add for AAC is going to be Army for football only.

Especially if Army and Navy can renegotiate a better deal strictly for themselves due to the fact Army versus Navy is a special game.

If that can happen, I would bet Army would be your natural number 12.

Army went that route in 2000 and it took them 15 years to recover

Seems wrong that Army/Navy would be a conference game. Why should the AAC make money off of a stored military tradition funded by federal taxes? That should be classified as a non conference game with all revenue going to scholarships or charity. Frankly, I wish Navy would go back to being independent for the same reasons. Why should the AAC (or MWC) profit off of our service academies?

Get off the "funded by federal taxes" line.

Navy football = $0 of taxes, no appropriated funds, not even the classification of non-appropriated government funds.

The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a 501.c.3 funded from generated revenues (ticket sales, conference distributions, sponsorships) and donations. The NAAA supports 33 varsity intercollegiate sports in support of the execution of the Naval Academy's mission "To develop midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically" and also supports some of the club sports in the Physical Mission also.

The NAAA has not quite driven the intermingling of funds down to $0 for all other sports -- some of the coaches/staff of non-revenue sports are on the USNA faculty in the PE Department or are Active Duty members, so some aspects of travel costs etc are inexctricable. But that's a couple million dollars out of a $40million+ budget (non-COVID-impacted-year). NAAA is less-subsidized than most autonomy conference schools' athletic departments.

If anything, rather than the Army-Navy game being funded, it funds the USNA physical mission. At the moment and after the new media deal kicks in, NAAA makes more $ from A-N than from AAC.

Army and Air Force are trying to get to the NAAA model but they are lagging a little.

(07-07-2021 11:53 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 11:08 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 10:14 AM)UAB Schnauzer Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 09:53 AM)rileylives Wrote:  I think with the potential 12 team playoff, and independent teams needing to migrate into conferences, the best possible add for AAC is going to be Army for football only.

Especially if Army and Navy can renegotiate a better deal strictly for themselves due to the fact Army versus Navy is a special game.

If that can happen, I would bet Army would be your natural number 12.

Army went that route in 2000 and it took them 15 years to recover

Seems wrong that Army/Navy would be a conference game. Why should the AAC make money off of a stored military tradition funded by federal taxes? That should be classified as a non conference game with all revenue going to scholarships or charity. Frankly, I wish Navy would go back to being independent for the same reasons. Why should the AAC (or MWC) profit off of our service academies?

Get off the "funded by federal taxes" line.

Navy football = $0 of taxes, no appropriated funds, not even the classification of non-appropriated government funds.

The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a 501.c.3 funded from generated revenues (ticket sales, conference distributions, sponsorships) and donations. The NAAA supports 33 varsity intercollegiate sports in support of the execution of the Naval Academy's mission "To develop midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically" and also supports some of the club sports in the Physical Mission also.

The NAAA has not quite driven the intermingling of funds down to $0 for all other sports -- some of the coaches/staff of non-revenue sports are on the USNA faculty in the PE Department or are Active Duty members, so some aspects of travel costs etc are inexctricable. But that's a couple million dollars out of a $40million+ budget (non-COVID-impacted-year). NAAA is less-subsidized than most autonomy conference schools' athletic departments.

If anything, rather than the Army-Navy game being funded, it funds the USNA physical mission. At the moment and after the new media deal kicks in, NAAA makes more $ from A-N than from AAC.

Army and Air Force are trying to get to the NAAA model but they are lagging a little.

No disrespect intended to the Naval Academy. I actually root for them. I live near Annapolis. My cousin was the starting QB for Midshipmen a couple decades ago. But them being in a rival conference makes it much harder to root for Navy. The service academies should be "America's" teams. When they are in conferences, it makes them adversaries in some regards and that just feels wrong. I never want to root against them, especially Navy, but now, sometimes I have to.

(07-07-2021 11:08 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 10:14 AM)UAB Schnauzer Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 09:53 AM)rileylives Wrote:  I think with the potential 12 team playoff, and independent teams needing to migrate into conferences, the best possible add for AAC is going to be Army for football only.

Especially if Army and Navy can renegotiate a better deal strictly for themselves due to the fact Army versus Navy is a special game.

If that can happen, I would bet Army would be your natural number 12.

Army went that route in 2000 and it took them 15 years to recover

Seems wrong that Army/Navy would be a conference game. Why should the AAC make money off of a stored military tradition funded by federal taxes? That should be classified as a non conference game with all revenue going to scholarships or charity. Frankly, I wish Navy would go back to being independent for the same reasons. Why should the AAC (or MWC) profit off of our service academies?

Just so that everyone is on the same page--as far as Im aware, the Army-Navy game earnings are not treated as shared revenue within the AAC. Its treated more like a stand alone neutral site game where Navy retains anything it gets from the event. This was agreed to before Navy joined the AAC (it was still the Big East at that time). I suspect that policy would not change if Army were ever to join the AAC.

(07-07-2021 03:09 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 11:53 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 11:08 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 10:14 AM)UAB Schnauzer Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 09:53 AM)rileylives Wrote:  I think with the potential 12 team playoff, and independent teams needing to migrate into conferences, the best possible add for AAC is going to be Army for football only.

Especially if Army and Navy can renegotiate a better deal strictly for themselves due to the fact Army versus Navy is a special game.

If that can happen, I would bet Army would be your natural number 12.

Army went that route in 2000 and it took them 15 years to recover

Seems wrong that Army/Navy would be a conference game. Why should the AAC make money off of a stored military tradition funded by federal taxes? That should be classified as a non conference game with all revenue going to scholarships or charity. Frankly, I wish Navy would go back to being independent for the same reasons. Why should the AAC (or MWC) profit off of our service academies?

Get off the "funded by federal taxes" line.

Navy football = $0 of taxes, no appropriated funds, not even the classification of non-appropriated government funds.

The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a 501.c.3 funded from generated revenues (ticket sales, conference distributions, sponsorships) and donations. The NAAA supports 33 varsity intercollegiate sports in support of the execution of the Naval Academy's mission "To develop midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically" and also supports some of the club sports in the Physical Mission also.

The NAAA has not quite driven the intermingling of funds down to $0 for all other sports -- some of the coaches/staff of non-revenue sports are on the USNA faculty in the PE Department or are Active Duty members, so some aspects of travel costs etc are inexctricable. But that's a couple million dollars out of a $40million+ budget (non-COVID-impacted-year). NAAA is less-subsidized than most autonomy conference schools' athletic departments.

If anything, rather than the Army-Navy game being funded, it funds the USNA physical mission. At the moment and after the new media deal kicks in, NAAA makes more $ from A-N than from AAC.

Army and Air Force are trying to get to the NAAA model but they are lagging a little.

No disrespect intended to the Naval Academy. I actually root for them. I live near Annapolis. My cousin was the starting QB for Midshipmen a couple decades ago. But them being in a rival conference makes it much harder to root for Navy. The service academies should be "America's" teams. When they are in conferences, it makes them adversaries in some regards and that just feels wrong. I never want to root against them, especially Navy, but now, sometimes I have to.

I get that. However, I don't think conference affiliation matters to me. I still treat the Army vs Navy game as special. Even if it were a conference game, it will always be special.

Anyone who has served feels this way.

One other Navy update. When are we EVER going to get a non-dbag Secretary of the Navy?

2019 fired
2020 new one makes poor choice to undermine popular captain
2021 new one tries to delay NFL dreams

Each new SON makes me think of the Spinal Tap drummer. They just need to find a non-jerk. Is being a total d-bag a prerequisite for the job?

Apparently the new SON Carlos Del Toro was only appointed last month, and it was not their call to prevent Cameron Kinley's NFL carrer. that was previous acting SON Thomas W. Harker.

(07-07-2021 03:09 PM)monarx Wrote:  No disrespect intended to the Naval Academy. I actually root for them. I live near Annapolis. My cousin was the starting QB for Midshipmen a couple decades ago. But them being in a rival conference makes it much harder to root for Navy. The service academies should be "America's" teams. When they are in conferences, it makes them adversaries in some regards and that just feels wrong. I never want to root against them, especially Navy, but now, sometimes I have to.

Example?

It is okay for anyone who wants to to root against Navy (or the other two).

We serve to give you that right...

(07-07-2021 07:16 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  It is okay for anyone who wants to to root against Navy (or the other two).

We serve to give you that right...

Don’t even act like you are the only ones who have served on this board. Period. End of file.

(07-07-2021 07:16 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  It is okay for anyone who wants to to root against Navy (or the other two).

We serve to give you that right...

Don’t you dare even act like you are the only ones who have ever served on this board. Period. End of file.

(06-11-2021 10:29 AM)HerdZoned Wrote:  Houston in the Phi Slamma Jamma days made it to 2 title games losing both in 1983 to NC State 54-52 and 1984 losing to Georgetown 84-75. Somehow the 1983 title game is remembered by everyone but the 1984 title game has to have everyone's memory jogged.

Phi Slamma Jama went to the Final Four three straight times, 82-84. People forget that as well.

(07-07-2021 08:49 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 07:16 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  It is okay for anyone who wants to to root against Navy (or the other two).

We serve to give you that right...

Don’t you dare even act like you are the only ones who have ever served on this board. Period. End of file.

That was tongue in cheek - lighten up Francis.

(07-07-2021 08:48 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 07:16 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  It is okay for anyone who wants to to root against Navy (or the other two).

We serve to give you that right...

Don’t even act like you are the only ones who have served on this board. Period. End of file.

There was nothing in that post even remotely indicating he was saying that.

(07-07-2021 04:30 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 03:09 PM)monarx Wrote:  No disrespect intended to the Naval Academy. I actually root for them. I live near Annapolis. My cousin was the starting QB for Midshipmen a couple decades ago. But them being in a rival conference makes it much harder to root for Navy. The service academies should be "America's" teams. When they are in conferences, it makes them adversaries in some regards and that just feels wrong. I never want to root against them, especially Navy, but now, sometimes I have to.

Example?

If/when they play a CUSA team. Or hypothetically if a CUSA team is undefeated and Navy is undefeated. Im going to want to see Navy go down so CUSA can make the playoff. If Navy losing dropped the AAC below CUSA in conference rankings so we got more money. Those are about the only times. Like i said, I root for them. My family member played for them. Go Navy, Beat Army etc. I just wish they were independent.

(07-07-2021 10:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 08:49 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 07:16 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  It is okay for anyone who wants to to root against Navy (or the other two).

We serve to give you that right...

Don’t you dare even act like you are the only ones who have ever served on this board. Period. End of file.

That was tongue in cheek - lighten up Francis.

Fair enough. I get a little sensitive to that because every male in my family (including me) have served in the military and some of us in law enforcement as well. I guess it’s just a trigger of mine. My bad man.

(07-07-2021 08:49 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 07:16 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  It is okay for anyone who wants to to root against Navy (or the other two).

We serve to give you that right...

Don’t you dare even act like you are the only ones who have ever served on this board. Period. End of file.

(07-09-2021 07:56 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 10:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 08:49 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 07:16 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  It is okay for anyone who wants to to root against Navy (or the other two).

We serve to give you that right...

Don’t you dare even act like you are the only ones who have ever served on this board. Period. End of file.

That was tongue in cheek - lighten up Francis.

Fair enough. I get a little sensitive to that because every male in my family (including me) have served in the military and some of us in law enforcement as well. I guess it’s just a trigger of mine. My bad man.

Thank You for your and your family's service.

(07-07-2021 09:46 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 09:39 AM)rileylives Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 08:57 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 06:40 AM)rileylives Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 01:12 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  
Good post. That’s what it comes down to. Majority of those AAC games were on the major Networks ABC, CBS, ESPN. That alone pretty much has a 2 million viewership floor considering it is play in every restaurant/bar across the country.

Now making an equal comparison, the AAC performs on par with the rest of the G5 on ESPN2, ESPNU. In fact if you look at Sports Media Watch, the AAC games on the lower networks are consistently at the bottom with the rest of the G5 games. Really no difference at all

That is why I am trying to show a G5 to G5 comp, you can't logically use games against P5 data. Last year the week of September 19th is the perfect example.

CUSA just doesn't have any national network games, none to the level of the AAC, and that's a credit to the American conference.

That week we had Marshall vs App State on CBS. It drew a 1.25 million rating. That same day Tulane and Navy drew a 1.35 million, very close comparison. However, also that same day they had UCF versus Georgia Tech, which drew over 3 million. Again I concede those are better numbers, however, logic would dictate that many would be Georgia Tech fans..

So all I'm doing is providing a logical scientific data approach to this, the American conference does well when the opportunities come up, but so does CUSA. Our issue is...we just don't get those same cracks at those opportunities.

I don't think September 19th demonstrates what you want it to demonstrate. App State Marshall had the SEC OTA spot and it lost its timeslot head to head against an AAC game. It was behind a AAC vs AAC game from a weaker noon OTA timeslot. It was also behind a noon ESPN AAC game.
You think that the UCF game viewers were there for GT? Here are all of GT's games 2020 back to 2018, ranked by viewers:
10/31/20, 3:30pND-GT ABC 3.77M
9/12/20, 3:30p GT–FSU* ABC 3.52M (weather delay)
9/19/20, 3:30p UCF-GT ABC 3.06M
12/26/18, 5:15pMIN-GT ESPN 2.686M (Detroit Bowl)
9/08/20, Noon GT–USF ABC 2.539M (rev. mirror with Arizona-Houston)
11/30/19, Noon UGA-GT ABC 2.35M
10/17/20, Noon CLEM-GT ABC 2.25M
9/22/18, 3:30p CLEM-GT ABC 1.808M
9/12/20, 7:30p GT–FSU* ESPN2 1.21M (weather delay continuation)
10/9/20, 7:00p LOU-GT ESPN 1.02M
10/05/18, 7:00pGT-LOU ESPN 996K (Friday night)
10/25/18, 7:30pGT-VT ESPN 968K (Thursday night)
11/21/19, 8:00pNC ST-GT ESPN 558K (Thursday night)
11/10/18, 7:00pMiami-GT ESPN2 551K
9/08/20, Noon GT–USF ESPN2 379k (reverse mirror with Arizona-Houston)

JUST looking at ABC Saturday afternoon games, UCF-GT did better than Clemson twice and UGA. Lagged ND, but all those viewers were ND not GT. Could say the same about FSU, OR point out that only 1/3 of those viewers returned for the post-delay resumption. When you look at data - good ABC Saturday comps - logic in fact does not dictate that many of the three million viewers were Georgia Tech fans.

Bigger picture than just 19 September 2020...you want "purely eyeballs" but you've also talked about Judy getting to a better deal. If you are talking about viewership in ANY context of making your deal with a network then it is totally about eyeballs on CONFERENCE CONTROLLED games, and throwing out ND@Navy or TxTech@Houston or Oklahoma@Tulane is silly.
If you are truly looking for some more esoteric inherent attractiveness to eyeballs, then you really need to isolate to timeslot vs timeslot - OTA at noon, OTA at 3:30, OTA at 7:30, OTA late night. ESPN games need to be divided between those four timeslots. Thursday night ESPN separated from Thursday night ESPN2, Friday night ESPN separated from Friday night ESPN2. Do you compare FS1 to ESPN or to ESPN2? Do you compare FS2 to ESPN2 or to ESPNU? And when you have those 27 separate categories for true honeycrisp apples to honeycrisp apples comparisons...you will not have all that many to compare against one another.

I just don't see a value to isolating non-contract-bowl-conference vs non-contract-bowl-conference games, especially with bowl games mixed in. If we don't know whether viewers were UCF or GT, then we can't credit Marshall for the (fewer) viewers of CBS in the same timeslot. Were they watching for App State or Marshall? Or just for CBS at 3:30 out of habit? We can't know. The same logic that throws away ND@Navy should throw away a SunBelt vs CUSA number as unknowable between conference viewers.
I would take intraconference as far more useful for "purely eyeballs." And I've previously shown the intraconference aggregates.

It lost a time slot because of Georgia Tech and other matchups within that time.

It does show a barometer of G5 teams on national tv, and it wasn't the lowest rated national CBS game that year.

I DO want to highlight, yes - AppSt Marshall did a LOT better than SDSU-Nevada in a 3:30 Saturday CBS 11/21 (and the viewership for three mwc Saturday noon CBS games this season will be interesting data to see...not to mention AF-Navy, 3:30 CBS 9/11/21)

Really hard to compare those games. When App St/Marshall played, the B1G and PAC weren't playing yet. Easier to get ratings with much less competition

(07-11-2021 12:45 AM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 09:46 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 09:39 AM)rileylives Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 08:57 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 06:40 AM)rileylives Wrote:  That is why I am trying to show a G5 to G5 comp, you can't logically use games against P5 data. Last year the week of September 19th is the perfect example.

CUSA just doesn't have any national network games, none to the level of the AAC, and that's a credit to the American conference.

That week we had Marshall vs App State on CBS. It drew a 1.25 million rating. That same day Tulane and Navy drew a 1.35 million, very close comparison. However, also that same day they had UCF versus Georgia Tech, which drew over 3 million. Again I concede those are better numbers, however, logic would dictate that many would be Georgia Tech fans..

So all I'm doing is providing a logical scientific data approach to this, the American conference does well when the opportunities come up, but so does CUSA. Our issue is...we just don't get those same cracks at those opportunities.

I don't think September 19th demonstrates what you want it to demonstrate. App State Marshall had the SEC OTA spot and it lost its timeslot head to head against an AAC game. It was behind a AAC vs AAC game from a weaker noon OTA timeslot. It was also behind a noon ESPN AAC game.
You think that the UCF game viewers were there for GT? Here are all of GT's games 2020 back to 2018, ranked by viewers:
10/31/20, 3:30pND-GT ABC 3.77M
9/12/20, 3:30p GT–FSU* ABC 3.52M (weather delay)
9/19/20, 3:30p UCF-GT ABC 3.06M
12/26/18, 5:15pMIN-GT ESPN 2.686M (Detroit Bowl)
9/08/20, Noon GT–USF ABC 2.539M (rev. mirror with Arizona-Houston)
11/30/19, Noon UGA-GT ABC 2.35M
10/17/20, Noon CLEM-GT ABC 2.25M
9/22/18, 3:30p CLEM-GT ABC 1.808M
9/12/20, 7:30p GT–FSU* ESPN2 1.21M (weather delay continuation)
10/9/20, 7:00p LOU-GT ESPN 1.02M
10/05/18, 7:00pGT-LOU ESPN 996K (Friday night)
10/25/18, 7:30pGT-VT ESPN 968K (Thursday night)
11/21/19, 8:00pNC ST-GT ESPN 558K (Thursday night)
11/10/18, 7:00pMiami-GT ESPN2 551K
9/08/20, Noon GT–USF ESPN2 379k (reverse mirror with Arizona-Houston)

JUST looking at ABC Saturday afternoon games, UCF-GT did better than Clemson twice and UGA. Lagged ND, but all those viewers were ND not GT. Could say the same about FSU, OR point out that only 1/3 of those viewers returned for the post-delay resumption. When you look at data - good ABC Saturday comps - logic in fact does not dictate that many of the three million viewers were Georgia Tech fans.

Bigger picture than just 19 September 2020...you want "purely eyeballs" but you've also talked about Judy getting to a better deal. If you are talking about viewership in ANY context of making your deal with a network then it is totally about eyeballs on CONFERENCE CONTROLLED games, and throwing out ND@Navy or TxTech@Houston or Oklahoma@Tulane is silly.
If you are truly looking for some more esoteric inherent attractiveness to eyeballs, then you really need to isolate to timeslot vs timeslot - OTA at noon, OTA at 3:30, OTA at 7:30, OTA late night. ESPN games need to be divided between those four timeslots. Thursday night ESPN separated from Thursday night ESPN2, Friday night ESPN separated from Friday night ESPN2. Do you compare FS1 to ESPN or to ESPN2? Do you compare FS2 to ESPN2 or to ESPNU? And when you have those 27 separate categories for true honeycrisp apples to honeycrisp apples comparisons...you will not have all that many to compare against one another.

I just don't see a value to isolating non-contract-bowl-conference vs non-contract-bowl-conference games, especially with bowl games mixed in. If we don't know whether viewers were UCF or GT, then we can't credit Marshall for the (fewer) viewers of CBS in the same timeslot. Were they watching for App State or Marshall? Or just for CBS at 3:30 out of habit? We can't know. The same logic that throws away ND@Navy should throw away a SunBelt vs CUSA number as unknowable between conference viewers.
I would take intraconference as far more useful for "purely eyeballs." And I've previously shown the intraconference aggregates.

It lost a time slot because of Georgia Tech and other matchups within that time.

It does show a barometer of G5 teams on national tv, and it wasn't the lowest rated national CBS game that year.

I DO want to highlight, yes - AppSt Marshall did a LOT better than SDSU-Nevada in a 3:30 Saturday CBS 11/21 (and the viewership for three mwc Saturday noon CBS games this season will be interesting data to see...not to mention AF-Navy, 3:30 CBS 9/11/21)

Really hard to compare those games. When App St/Marshall played, the B1G and PAC weren't playing yet. Easier to get ratings with much less competition

But you don't understand, We have no opportunity to get those games.

Our contract precludes us from being able to play on ESPN or national networks. It's a little bit of a rare bird. It won't happen again, but it does provide some insight, not a lot, but much more than our typical horrible Facebook / Stadium level TV games..