(08-31-2021 08:29 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:25 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 05:51 PM)pesik Wrote:  like stated in the other thread.. add enough to get to 10 (3 full members).... would attempt to lure dayton, vcu and saint louis aswell if it's those specific 4 (will likely still be able to offer way more money)

and start the 2013 process/movement all over again and hope for similar results

lol---they arent coming if all you have is Wichita. More likely Wichita goes to the MW or A-10 than the other way around. Honestly--if we lose those 4---its easier to get football back to where it still offers a reasonable counter balance to the Mountain West than it is to get basketball back to a something that would be a consistent multi-bid conference. Yeah--adding VCU, Dayton, and St Louis would probably get you in that ball park---but why would those schools pay exit/entry fees to move to the AAC when they are already in a multi-bid conference with lower travel costs? Not to mention the bottom of the AAC is probably going to get worse if you do whats necessary to fix football---which would likely be the priority. At that point, we probably arent earning enough money to make a "basketball only" share of the AAC pie worth the move.

money is money.....

we can 100% offer more money, likelly drastically more
the a10 reportedly distribute 5mill a year (rumored) with its tv deal (350k each)... that is change to us

even if we lost 50% of the conference value we'd still be around 4mil (likely over a mil for bball only)

also the a10 minus those teams isnt a multibid league.. the aac (minus the top 4) > a10 (minus the top 3)... why are we acting like temple isnt a top 25 historic program, tulsa and smu arent scrubs.. 80 % of the football options are decent in bball (gast, uab, marshall, umass, etc..) the one horrendous bball option is the one you are lobbying for in app state...

that last paragraph was unnecessary, this who convo started and ended with the fact that we can drastically increase their pay

Well---half is 3.5 million---and half would be generous. If we agree that most of the value for the AAC deal comes from the top half of the league, then the bottom half could be worth substantially less than the top half. But even if we assume half the value stays with the AAC----at 3.5 million---a "basketball share"---assuming its 30%---would be about 1 million. An A-10 school would net $650K more in the AAC---which likely gets burned up in increased travel costs. I'd also add that A-10 schools get to keep 75% of the NCAA credits they earn (its just 25% in the AAC). A credit is worth 330,000 this year. So, for a school that has earned a lot of credits like VCU--moving to the AAC would definitely be a negative in net revenue. For a team with no or just a few credits---any difference in net revenue would be minimal at best.....and thats before considering entry/exit fees and left behind NCAA credits. Our biggest drawing card for those teams was never really money---it was always offering a better league with Memphis, UConn, Cinci, Houston, and Wichita. That argument took a hit with UConn---but we still remained pretty solid at the top. Take Houston, Memphis, and Cinci out of that equation---and that "better league" argument simply no longer exists.

As for AppSt----Why not a football only invite? I'd be fine doing that for Marshall as well. They would definitely earn a lot more as a football only school in the AAC.
Using the hybrid keeps good football options from dragging down the basketball side of the conference.

dont agree with the top half comment, 1st is that navy is the most valuable aac asset ...2nd is that temple was literally named a top 4 team in the old deal... our league's values has never been based on any team(s).. you are confusing who is currently winning with intrinsic value

texas is the most valuable big 12 win or loss...that isnt the case in the aac,

switch the win totals of usf with ucf over the last 7 years and we'd be arguing that usf is one of the most valubale..same with smu, ecu, temple etc.. (not saying everyone has the same value, just saying the top 4 isnt over 50% of the conference value) and when the top of the league leaves, someone else is bound to win and be the new top and creating new value ..note smu is currently outrecruiting every one in the g5 with a coach unlikely to leave

also no one gambles with the revenue with jobs on the line... you take guaranteed money 100% of the time over ncaa credit..if any you take the guaranteed and lobby for rule changes in the new league

That NCAA money is guaranteed over the next 6 years...and they have gone to the tournament nearly every year for over a decade where they are. There is little motivation to screw up what aint broke. If we were selling the league we are right now---yeah---I think you might could sell that. But this discussion is based on Memphis, Cinci, and Houston being gone. Hard to sell whats left as a move up for highly successful basketball schools.

(08-31-2021 08:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:29 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:25 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol---they arent coming if all you have is Wichita. More likely Wichita goes to the MW or A-10 than the other way around. Honestly--if we lose those 4---its easier to get football back to where it still offers a reasonable counter balance to the Mountain West than it is to get basketball back to a something that would be a consistent multi-bid conference. Yeah--adding VCU, Dayton, and St Louis would probably get you in that ball park---but why would those schools pay exit/entry fees to move to the AAC when they are already in a multi-bid conference with lower travel costs? Not to mention the bottom of the AAC is probably going to get worse if you do whats necessary to fix football---which would likely be the priority. At that point, we probably arent earning enough money to make a "basketball only" share of the AAC pie worth the move.

money is money.....

we can 100% offer more money, likelly drastically more
the a10 reportedly distribute 5mill a year (rumored) with its tv deal (350k each)... that is change to us

even if we lost 50% of the conference value we'd still be around 4mil (likely over a mil for bball only)

also the a10 minus those teams isnt a multibid league.. the aac (minus the top 4) > a10 (minus the top 3)... why are we acting like temple isnt a top 25 historic program, tulsa and smu arent scrubs.. 80 % of the football options are decent in bball (gast, uab, marshall, umass, etc..) the one horrendous bball option is the one you are lobbying for in app state...

that last paragraph was unnecessary, this who convo started and ended with the fact that we can drastically increase their pay

Well---half is 3.5 million---and half would be generous. If we agree that most of the value for the AAC deal comes from the top half of the league, then the bottom half could be worth substantially less than the top half. But even if we assume half the value stays with the AAC----at 3.5 million---a "basketball share"---assuming its 30%---would be about 1 million. An A-10 school would net $650K more in the AAC---which likely gets burned up in increased travel costs. I'd also add that A-10 schools get to keep 75% of the NCAA credits they earn (its just 25% in the AAC). A credit is worth 330,000 this year. So, for a school that has earned a lot of credits like VCU--moving to the AAC would definitely be a negative in net revenue. For a team with no or just a few credits---any difference in net revenue would be minimal at best.....and thats before considering entry/exit fees and left behind NCAA credits. Our biggest drawing card for those teams was never really money---it was always offering a better league with Memphis, UConn, Cinci, Houston, and Wichita. That argument took a hit with UConn---but we still remained pretty solid at the top. Take Houston, Memphis, and Cinci out of that equation---and that "better league" argument simply no longer exists.

As for AppSt----Why not a football only invite? I'd be fine doing that for Marshall as well. They would definitely earn a lot more as a football only school in the AAC.
Using the hybrid keeps good football options from dragging down the basketball side of the conference.

dont agree with the top half comment, 1st is that navy is the most valuable aac asset ...2nd is that temple was literally named a top 4 team in the old deal... our league's values has never been based on any team(s).. you are confusing who is currently winning with intrinsic value

texas is the most valuable big 12 win or loss...that isnt the case in the aac,

switch the win totals of usf with ucf over the last 7 years and we'd be arguing that usf is one of the most valubale..same with smu, ecu, temple etc.. (not saying everyone has the same value, just saying the top 4 isnt over 50% of the conference value) and when the top of the league leaves, someone else is bound to win and be the new top and creating new value ..note smu is currently outrecruiting every one in the g5 with a coach unlikely to leave

also no one gambles with the revenue with jobs on the line... you take guaranteed money 100% of the time over ncaa credit..if any you take the guaranteed and lobby for rule changes in the new league

lol---and if ECU was Alabama they would be Alabama. lol---What hell kinda nonsense are you even speaking? The value is where the value is. ESPN isnt paying the Sunbelt like the SEC because the Sunbelt hasnt done what the SEC has done. It doesnt matter what the the Sunbelt MIGHT "do someday".

Good Lord. This is not rocket science. If most of the upper half of a conference leaves the value can plummet to far below half. See CUSA dropping from 1.4 million per team to 200K per team when many of these exact same teams exited that conference. Some of the CUSA teams we left behind are winning. So what? Are they earning half our value yet? Nope---not even close.

Are they winning though? Any teams in the top 25 throughout most of the season? NY6 bowl?

People will watch a winner and the winner of the "best of the rest" conference will draw eyes. That could be anyone in the AAC any given year.

There's no group of teams head and shoulders above the rest in terms of value.

Hell I haven't even met fans of most the teams outside of away games except maybe Cincinnati and thats just some girl I hooked up with once.

The value comes from casual fans pulling for Cinderella.

(08-31-2021 08:46 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:29 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:25 PM)pesik Wrote:  money is money.....

we can 100% offer more money, likelly drastically more
the a10 reportedly distribute 5mill a year (rumored) with its tv deal (350k each)... that is change to us

even if we lost 50% of the conference value we'd still be around 4mil (likely over a mil for bball only)

also the a10 minus those teams isnt a multibid league.. the aac (minus the top 4) > a10 (minus the top 3)... why are we acting like temple isnt a top 25 historic program, tulsa and smu arent scrubs.. 80 % of the football options are decent in bball (gast, uab, marshall, umass, etc..) the one horrendous bball option is the one you are lobbying for in app state...

that last paragraph was unnecessary, this who convo started and ended with the fact that we can drastically increase their pay

Well---half is 3.5 million---and half would be generous. If we agree that most of the value for the AAC deal comes from the top half of the league, then the bottom half could be worth substantially less than the top half. But even if we assume half the value stays with the AAC----at 3.5 million---a "basketball share"---assuming its 30%---would be about 1 million. An A-10 school would net $650K more in the AAC---which likely gets burned up in increased travel costs. I'd also add that A-10 schools get to keep 75% of the NCAA credits they earn (its just 25% in the AAC). A credit is worth 330,000 this year. So, for a school that has earned a lot of credits like VCU--moving to the AAC would definitely be a negative in net revenue. For a team with no or just a few credits---any difference in net revenue would be minimal at best.....and thats before considering entry/exit fees and left behind NCAA credits. Our biggest drawing card for those teams was never really money---it was always offering a better league with Memphis, UConn, Cinci, Houston, and Wichita. That argument took a hit with UConn---but we still remained pretty solid at the top. Take Houston, Memphis, and Cinci out of that equation---and that "better league" argument simply no longer exists.

As for AppSt----Why not a football only invite? I'd be fine doing that for Marshall as well. They would definitely earn a lot more as a football only school in the AAC.
Using the hybrid keeps good football options from dragging down the basketball side of the conference.

dont agree with the top half comment, 1st is that navy is the most valuable aac asset ...2nd is that temple was literally named a top 4 team in the old deal... our league's values has never been based on any team(s).. you are confusing who is currently winning with intrinsic value

texas is the most valuable big 12 win or loss...that isnt the case in the aac,

switch the win totals of usf with ucf over the last 7 years and we'd be arguing that usf is one of the most valubale..same with smu, ecu, temple etc.. (not saying everyone has the same value, just saying the top 4 isnt over 50% of the conference value) and when the top of the league leaves, someone else is bound to win and be the new top and creating new value ..note smu is currently outrecruiting every one in the g5 with a coach unlikely to leave

also no one gambles with the revenue with jobs on the line... you take guaranteed money 100% of the time over ncaa credit..if any you take the guaranteed and lobby for rule changes in the new league

lol---and if ECU was Alabama they would be Alabama. lol---What hell kinda nonsense are you even speaking? The value is where the value is. ESPN isnt paying the Sunbelt like the SEC because the Sunbelt hasnt done what the SEC has done. It doesnt matter what the the Sunbelt MIGHT "do someday".

Good Lord. This is not rocket science. If most of the upper half of a conference leaves the value can plummet to far below half. See CUSA dropping from 1.4 million per team to 200K per team when many of these exact same teams exited that conference. Some of the CUSA teams we left behind are winning. So what? Are they earning half our value yet? Nope---not even close.

Are they winning though? Any teams in the top 25 throughout most of the season? NY6 bowl?

People will watch a winner and the winner of the "best of the rest" conference will draw eyes. That could be anyone in the AAC any given year.

There's no group of teams head and shoulders above the rest in terms of value.

Hell I haven't even met fans of most the teams outside of away games except maybe Cincinnati and thats just some girl I hooked up with once.

The value comes from casual fans pulling for Cinderella.

Well Pesiks claim is when the best teams leave---somebody left in the old league still has to win the league and that winning will magically be valuable to the network. What he's missing is brands matter. You can build a brand---but it takes a lot of time. All Im trying to say is this league will be back to square one starting over in a lot of ways---and I say that as a fan of a school that could very well be among the schools who have endure a difficult conference rebuild.

(08-31-2021 08:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:29 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:25 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol---they arent coming if all you have is Wichita. More likely Wichita goes to the MW or A-10 than the other way around. Honestly--if we lose those 4---its easier to get football back to where it still offers a reasonable counter balance to the Mountain West than it is to get basketball back to a something that would be a consistent multi-bid conference. Yeah--adding VCU, Dayton, and St Louis would probably get you in that ball park---but why would those schools pay exit/entry fees to move to the AAC when they are already in a multi-bid conference with lower travel costs? Not to mention the bottom of the AAC is probably going to get worse if you do whats necessary to fix football---which would likely be the priority. At that point, we probably arent earning enough money to make a "basketball only" share of the AAC pie worth the move.

money is money.....

we can 100% offer more money, likelly drastically more
the a10 reportedly distribute 5mill a year (rumored) with its tv deal (350k each)... that is change to us

even if we lost 50% of the conference value we'd still be around 4mil (likely over a mil for bball only)

also the a10 minus those teams isnt a multibid league.. the aac (minus the top 4) > a10 (minus the top 3)... why are we acting like temple isnt a top 25 historic program, tulsa and smu arent scrubs.. 80 % of the football options are decent in bball (gast, uab, marshall, umass, etc..) the one horrendous bball option is the one you are lobbying for in app state...

that last paragraph was unnecessary, this who convo started and ended with the fact that we can drastically increase their pay

Well---half is 3.5 million---and half would be generous. If we agree that most of the value for the AAC deal comes from the top half of the league, then the bottom half could be worth substantially less than the top half. But even if we assume half the value stays with the AAC----at 3.5 million---a "basketball share"---assuming its 30%---would be about 1 million. An A-10 school would net $650K more in the AAC---which likely gets burned up in increased travel costs. I'd also add that A-10 schools get to keep 75% of the NCAA credits they earn (its just 25% in the AAC). A credit is worth 330,000 this year. So, for a school that has earned a lot of credits like VCU--moving to the AAC would definitely be a negative in net revenue. For a team with no or just a few credits---any difference in net revenue would be minimal at best.....and thats before considering entry/exit fees and left behind NCAA credits. Our biggest drawing card for those teams was never really money---it was always offering a better league with Memphis, UConn, Cinci, Houston, and Wichita. That argument took a hit with UConn---but we still remained pretty solid at the top. Take Houston, Memphis, and Cinci out of that equation---and that "better league" argument simply no longer exists.

As for AppSt----Why not a football only invite? I'd be fine doing that for Marshall as well. They would definitely earn a lot more as a football only school in the AAC.
Using the hybrid keeps good football options from dragging down the basketball side of the conference.

dont agree with the top half comment, 1st is that navy is the most valuable aac asset ...2nd is that temple was literally named a top 4 team in the old deal... our league's values has never been based on any team(s).. you are confusing who is currently winning with intrinsic value

texas is the most valuable big 12 win or loss...that isnt the case in the aac,

switch the win totals of usf with ucf over the last 7 years and we'd be arguing that usf is one of the most valubale..same with smu, ecu, temple etc.. (not saying everyone has the same value, just saying the top 4 isnt over 50% of the conference value) and when the top of the league leaves, someone else is bound to win and be the new top and creating new value ..note smu is currently outrecruiting every one in the g5 with a coach unlikely to leave

also no one gambles with the revenue with jobs on the line... you take guaranteed money 100% of the time over ncaa credit..if any you take the guaranteed and lobby for rule changes in the new league

lol---and if ECU was Alabama they would be Alabama. lol---What hell kinda nonsense are you even speaking? The value is where the value is. ESPN isnt paying the Sunbelt like the SEC because the Sunbelt hasnt done what the SEC has done. It doesnt matter what the the Sunbelt MIGHT "do someday".

Good Lord. This is not rocket science. If most of the upper half of a conference leaves the value can plummet to far below half. See CUSA dropping from 1.4 million per team to 200K per team when many of these exact same teams exited that conference. Some of the CUSA teams we left behind are winning. So what? Are they earning half our value yet? Nope---not even close.

I have a old friend who happens to be in the TT ath dept. He once told me recruiting the state of texas was like recruiting 5 normal states.
The L8 or whatever we call them need Houston right now. They totally lose a presence in a large portion of texas. Im not referring to tv markets either. UH and BYU are no brainers for this.

(08-31-2021 08:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:46 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:29 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well---half is 3.5 million---and half would be generous. If we agree that most of the value for the AAC deal comes from the top half of the league, then the bottom half could be worth substantially less than the top half. But even if we assume half the value stays with the AAC----at 3.5 million---a "basketball share"---assuming its 30%---would be about 1 million. An A-10 school would net $650K more in the AAC---which likely gets burned up in increased travel costs. I'd also add that A-10 schools get to keep 75% of the NCAA credits they earn (its just 25% in the AAC). A credit is worth 330,000 this year. So, for a school that has earned a lot of credits like VCU--moving to the AAC would definitely be a negative in net revenue. For a team with no or just a few credits---any difference in net revenue would be minimal at best.....and thats before considering entry/exit fees and left behind NCAA credits. Our biggest drawing card for those teams was never really money---it was always offering a better league with Memphis, UConn, Cinci, Houston, and Wichita. That argument took a hit with UConn---but we still remained pretty solid at the top. Take Houston, Memphis, and Cinci out of that equation---and that "better league" argument simply no longer exists.

As for AppSt----Why not a football only invite? I'd be fine doing that for Marshall as well. They would definitely earn a lot more as a football only school in the AAC.
Using the hybrid keeps good football options from dragging down the basketball side of the conference.

dont agree with the top half comment, 1st is that navy is the most valuable aac asset ...2nd is that temple was literally named a top 4 team in the old deal... our league's values has never been based on any team(s).. you are confusing who is currently winning with intrinsic value

texas is the most valuable big 12 win or loss...that isnt the case in the aac,

switch the win totals of usf with ucf over the last 7 years and we'd be arguing that usf is one of the most valubale..same with smu, ecu, temple etc.. (not saying everyone has the same value, just saying the top 4 isnt over 50% of the conference value) and when the top of the league leaves, someone else is bound to win and be the new top and creating new value ..note smu is currently outrecruiting every one in the g5 with a coach unlikely to leave

also no one gambles with the revenue with jobs on the line... you take guaranteed money 100% of the time over ncaa credit..if any you take the guaranteed and lobby for rule changes in the new league

lol---and if ECU was Alabama they would be Alabama. lol---What hell kinda nonsense are you even speaking? The value is where the value is. ESPN isnt paying the Sunbelt like the SEC because the Sunbelt hasnt done what the SEC has done. It doesnt matter what the the Sunbelt MIGHT "do someday".

Good Lord. This is not rocket science. If most of the upper half of a conference leaves the value can plummet to far below half. See CUSA dropping from 1.4 million per team to 200K per team when many of these exact same teams exited that conference. Some of the CUSA teams we left behind are winning. So what? Are they earning half our value yet? Nope---not even close.

Are they winning though? Any teams in the top 25 throughout most of the season? NY6 bowl?

People will watch a winner and the winner of the "best of the rest" conference will draw eyes. That could be anyone in the AAC any given year.

There's no group of teams head and shoulders above the rest in terms of value.

Hell I haven't even met fans of most the teams outside of away games except maybe Cincinnati and thats just some girl I hooked up with once.

The value comes from casual fans pulling for Cinderella.

Well Pesiks claim is when the best teams leave---somebody left in the old league still has to win the league and that winning will magically be valuable to the network. What he's missing is brands matter. You can build a brand---but it takes a lot of time. All Im trying to say is this league will be back to square one starting over in a lot of ways---and I say that as a fan of a school that could very well be among the schools who have endure a difficult conference rebuild.

bama has intrinsic value...i clearly referenced texas to make sure that no one made any bad ecu to bama takes.. texas could lose every game and would still be more valuable than every aac combined

you removed the very core of my point, and replaced it with rubbish... you twisted my point to mean "winning will magically be valuable to the network' which ridiculously missed my point

my point was that our brand values across the aac are not that big of a difference ... the top of the aac and the bottom of the aac brand wise is not that far apart..
the perception of who is worth the most just rises and falls based on who is winning

answer the question i asked... if ucf and usf traded wins the last 7 years would the brand value of each team be flipped... ..dont worry, i know you won't answer honestly, so ill answer... yes, usf would be seen as one of the most valuable aac teams

that was only 7 years (not that long), and ucf didnt win any {real} national titles in that span ..lets not act what ucf did would be impossible to replicate....

brands matter... and the tv networks said temple was a top 4 brand in the aac at launch.. if temple was winning ny6 games theyd be immensely valuable (ny6 you can get from just winning the aac)

let me put it a different way even though i think my point is very common sense..
if the aac doesnt lose a single member .. if ucf and memphis finish bottom 2 in the conference for the next 5 seasons, and usf and temple rotate between winning all the ny6 in that same 5 year span.. usf and temple would be seen as 2 of the most valuable teams in the conference carrying most of the conference value....and before any dumb Bama points are made, Bama could finish last in the aac for 10 years straight and still be the most valuable aac team... bama has a big intrinsic brand value gap beyond winning

(08-31-2021 07:54 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  No one in this conference has ever referred to any group of teams as "The Big 4".

bull****. ESPN told Aresco, if any one of Memphis, Cincy, UCF or Houston bolted, the terms of the contract would be re-nogotiated. Fact!

(08-31-2021 06:21 PM)Sea Pirate Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 06:10 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 05:44 PM)jaybird44 Wrote:  What if houston,cincinnati,ucf,and Memphis all go? What then? You stay at 7? LOL. Does conference die? I still think it could be good. Would navy stay? What is your thoughts?

The more AAC teams leave the more likely the remaining ask MWC teams to join and form a western wing.

This is more likely to happen than adding teams from CUSA or Sun Belt I know is not what some of you want to hear but is the way things will likely go.

Time will tell who is right.

They probably want to hurt the MWC and the AAC so it makes them look better…but still not a Big Money conference…just more than the Best of the Rest.
Agree with this. However, I don’t see the AAC losing 4 teams. The Big12 is going to make a lot less money no matter who they get. They will take BYU and Cincy and call it a day. Less mouths to feed.

(08-31-2021 08:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That NCAA money is guaranteed over the next 6 years...and they have gone to the tournament nearly every year for over a decade where they are. There is little motivation to screw up what aint broke. If we were selling the league we are right now---yeah---I think you might could sell that. But this discussion is based on Memphis, Cinci, and Houston being gone. Hard to sell whats left as a move up for highly successful basketball schools.

this is terrible logic and goes against what vcu has done this decade..

vcu left the CAA, gave up its final4 distribution to go to a badly raided a10

Michael Rao vcu's president..who is still vcu's president.... was asked about giving 5million in ncaa credits and paying more than the caa exit fees to leave really early, and then paying a 1mil a10 entrance fee

he said he did not care about short-term losses because he saw far greater returns in the future ...
he spearheaded the move that took the best of the caa to the a10

they were perfectly willing to screw with what wasnt broke this decade!!!! for a high risk conference

(08-31-2021 07:43 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Big 4?

More like Houston and its 3 sisters amirite?

(08-31-2021 06:24 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 06:21 PM)Sea Pirate Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 06:10 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 05:44 PM)jaybird44 Wrote:  What if houston,cincinnati,ucf,and Memphis all go? What then? You stay at 7? LOL. Does conference die? I still think it could be good. Would navy stay? What is your thoughts?

The more AAC teams leave the more likely the remaining ask MWC teams to join and form a western wing.

This is more likely to happen than adding teams from CUSA or Sun Belt I know is not what some of you want to hear but is the way things will likely go.

Time will tell who is right.

Agree with this. However, I don’t see the AAC losing 4 teams. The Big12 is going to make a lot less money no matter who they get. They will take BYU and Cincy and call it a day. Less mouths to feed.

Bingo. Some here want to see AAC gutted because is the only way their school has a chance to get in. But as you stated the Big12 is going to do the same thing the BigEast did, hold their noses and add as a few as needed to survive fir now, because they are looking at exits in next few years not long term affiliation with anyone they have to add. Going to 12-16 isn’t going to give them more money.
They will add 2 when OU and UT leave, they will NOT sign any GOR because they are looking to bail at first chance.

They could add the Big 4 (yes I'm using that as a reference now, lol) and force ESPN to pony up a new contract.

(08-31-2021 09:41 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:46 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:29 PM)pesik Wrote:  dont agree with the top half comment, 1st is that navy is the most valuable aac asset ...2nd is that temple was literally named a top 4 team in the old deal... our league's values has never been based on any team(s).. you are confusing who is currently winning with intrinsic value

texas is the most valuable big 12 win or loss...that isnt the case in the aac,

switch the win totals of usf with ucf over the last 7 years and we'd be arguing that usf is one of the most valubale..same with smu, ecu, temple etc.. (not saying everyone has the same value, just saying the top 4 isnt over 50% of the conference value) and when the top of the league leaves, someone else is bound to win and be the new top and creating new value ..note smu is currently outrecruiting every one in the g5 with a coach unlikely to leave

also no one gambles with the revenue with jobs on the line... you take guaranteed money 100% of the time over ncaa credit..if any you take the guaranteed and lobby for rule changes in the new league

lol---and if ECU was Alabama they would be Alabama. lol---What hell kinda nonsense are you even speaking? The value is where the value is. ESPN isnt paying the Sunbelt like the SEC because the Sunbelt hasnt done what the SEC has done. It doesnt matter what the the Sunbelt MIGHT "do someday".

Good Lord. This is not rocket science. If most of the upper half of a conference leaves the value can plummet to far below half. See CUSA dropping from 1.4 million per team to 200K per team when many of these exact same teams exited that conference. Some of the CUSA teams we left behind are winning. So what? Are they earning half our value yet? Nope---not even close.

Are they winning though? Any teams in the top 25 throughout most of the season? NY6 bowl?

People will watch a winner and the winner of the "best of the rest" conference will draw eyes. That could be anyone in the AAC any given year.

There's no group of teams head and shoulders above the rest in terms of value.

Hell I haven't even met fans of most the teams outside of away games except maybe Cincinnati and thats just some girl I hooked up with once.

The value comes from casual fans pulling for Cinderella.

Well Pesiks claim is when the best teams leave---somebody left in the old league still has to win the league and that winning will magically be valuable to the network. What he's missing is brands matter. You can build a brand---but it takes a lot of time. All Im trying to say is this league will be back to square one starting over in a lot of ways---and I say that as a fan of a school that could very well be among the schools who have endure a difficult conference rebuild.

bama has intrinsic value...i clearly referenced texas to make sure that no one made any bad ecu to bama takes.. texas could lose every game and would still be more valuable than every aac combined

you removed the very core of my point, and replaced it with rubbish... you twisted my point to mean "winning will magically be valuable to the network' which ridiculously missed my point

my point was that our brand values across the aac are not that big of a difference ... the top of the aac and the bottom of the aac brand wise is not that far apart..
the perception of who is worth the most just rises and falls based on who is winning

answer the question i asked... if ucf and usf traded wins the last 7 years would the brand value of each team be flipped... ..dont worry, i know you won't answer honestly, so ill answer... yes, usf would be seen as one of the most valuable aac teams

that was only 7 years (not that long), and ucf didnt win any {real} national titles in that span ..lets not act what ucf did would be impossible to replicate....

brands matter... and the tv networks said temple was a top 4 brand in the aac at launch.. if temple was winning ny6 games theyd be immensely valuable (ny6 you can get from just winning the aac)

let me put it a different way even though i think my point is very common sense..
if the aac doesnt lose a single member .. if ucf and memphis finish bottom 2 in the conference for the next 5 seasons, and usf and temple rotate between winning all the ny6 in that same 5 year span.. usf and temple would be seen as 2 of the most valuable teams in the conference carrying most of the conference value....and before any dumb Bama points are made, Bama could finish last in the aac for 10 years straight and still be the most valuable aac team... bama has a big intrinsic brand value gap beyond winning

If brand doesnt matter---only wins---then why after 8 years of winning without the CUSA defectors is CUSA still only making a third of what they made 8 years ago when we all were still there? Because brands matter.

(08-31-2021 07:06 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 05:51 PM)pesik Wrote:  like stated in the other thread.. add enough to get to 10 (3 full members).... would attempt to lure dayton, vcu and saint louis aswell if it's those specific 4 (will likely still be able to offer way more money)

and start the 2013 process/movement all over again and hope for similar results

lol---they arent coming if all you have is Wichita. More likely Wichita goes to the MW or A-10 than the other way around. Honestly--if we lose those 4---its easier to get football back to where it still offers a reasonable counter balance to the Mountain West that it would be to get basketball back to a something that would be a consistent multi-bid conference.

If 7 AAC schools are left they will just fill in with other schools. Same as the L8

Four would be a lot more hogs to feed from the same trough, which would be less than half as full as it was before with no grant of rights expected.

The Big 12's "best move probably is to squeeze as much money out of Oklahoma and Texas as possible before they leave and then add members."*

According to this story, BYU could be first in line:

*https://theathletic.com/2793207/2021/08/27/the-big-12-is-seriously-discussing-byu-sources-say-and-the-tv-numbers-are-in-the-cougars-favor/?source=twittered

(08-31-2021 05:50 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Easy

Temple- MAC
Tulane- SBC
USF- Cusa
Tulsa- MWC
SMU- ACC believe it or not
Navy - B1G with ND
ECU- indy with an agreement to play exclusively CUSA and SBC teams. Plus our annual P5 game against a regional foe.

Back when we were Indy in the past we played several P5s annually.

If the Big 12 remnants add 4 teams, BYU may be at the top of their list, according to this story:

The Big 12 is seriously discussing BYU, sources say, and the TV numbers are in the Cougars’ favor

"Big 12 sources tell The Athletic there’s one school they’re already seriously discussing: BYU."

https://theathletic.com/2793207/2021/08/...=twittered


If the Big 12 add 4 schools including BYU, the AAC could fill the gap this way:

1. Memphis or Houston
2. App. State (10.5 FB wins/yr since 2015) / VCU BB (25.3 wins/yr since 2007)
3. Navy (7.33 wins/yr in AAC) / Wichita State (25+ wins/yr, 2009-2020)
4. Marshall (8.5 FB wins/yr since 2013; 21.25 BB wins/yr, 2016-2020)
5. SMU (7.2 FB wins/yr since 2017; 21.4 BB wins/yr since 2014)
6. UAB (8.75 FB wins/yr since 2017; 20.5 BB wins/yr since 2015)
7. Tulsa
8. Tulane
9. USF
10. Temple
11. ECU

With those additions, the AAC might still be the top G5 conference.

(08-31-2021 11:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 09:41 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:46 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol---and if ECU was Alabama they would be Alabama. lol---What hell kinda nonsense are you even speaking? The value is where the value is. ESPN isnt paying the Sunbelt like the SEC because the Sunbelt hasnt done what the SEC has done. It doesnt matter what the the Sunbelt MIGHT "do someday".

Good Lord. This is not rocket science. If most of the upper half of a conference leaves the value can plummet to far below half. See CUSA dropping from 1.4 million per team to 200K per team when many of these exact same teams exited that conference. Some of the CUSA teams we left behind are winning. So what? Are they earning half our value yet? Nope---not even close.

Are they winning though? Any teams in the top 25 throughout most of the season? NY6 bowl?

People will watch a winner and the winner of the "best of the rest" conference will draw eyes. That could be anyone in the AAC any given year.

There's no group of teams head and shoulders above the rest in terms of value.

Hell I haven't even met fans of most the teams outside of away games except maybe Cincinnati and thats just some girl I hooked up with once.

The value comes from casual fans pulling for Cinderella.

Well Pesiks claim is when the best teams leave---somebody left in the old league still has to win the league and that winning will magically be valuable to the network. What he's missing is brands matter. You can build a brand---but it takes a lot of time. All Im trying to say is this league will be back to square one starting over in a lot of ways---and I say that as a fan of a school that could very well be among the schools who have endure a difficult conference rebuild.

bama has intrinsic value...i clearly referenced texas to make sure that no one made any bad ecu to bama takes.. texas could lose every game and would still be more valuable than every aac combined

you removed the very core of my point, and replaced it with rubbish... you twisted my point to mean "winning will magically be valuable to the network' which ridiculously missed my point

my point was that our brand values across the aac are not that big of a difference ... the top of the aac and the bottom of the aac brand wise is not that far apart..
the perception of who is worth the most just rises and falls based on who is winning

answer the question i asked... if ucf and usf traded wins the last 7 years would the brand value of each team be flipped... ..dont worry, i know you won't answer honestly, so ill answer... yes, usf would be seen as one of the most valuable aac teams

that was only 7 years (not that long), and ucf didnt win any {real} national titles in that span ..lets not act what ucf did would be impossible to replicate....

brands matter... and the tv networks said temple was a top 4 brand in the aac at launch.. if temple was winning ny6 games theyd be immensely valuable (ny6 you can get from just winning the aac)

let me put it a different way even though i think my point is very common sense..
if the aac doesnt lose a single member .. if ucf and memphis finish bottom 2 in the conference for the next 5 seasons, and usf and temple rotate between winning all the ny6 in that same 5 year span.. usf and temple would be seen as 2 of the most valuable teams in the conference carrying most of the conference value....and before any dumb Bama points are made, Bama could finish last in the aac for 10 years straight and still be the most valuable aac team... bama has a big intrinsic brand value gap beyond winning

If brand doesnt matter---only wins---then why after 8 years of winning without the CUSA defectors is CUSA still only making a third of what they made 8 years ago when we all were still there? Because brands matter.

do you read!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ill bold it for you...read the bolded part again

in every post i have note that brand matters...
i said but within the aac all the levels of our brand arent that far apart.... but that who is currently winning "within the aac" just has a perception of better value

notice the words "within the aac"

and then you retort with a nonsensical rebuttal and c-usa and saying brands dont matter .... it literally say "brands matter" in my response...

attackcoog why is it that all our conversations is me talking to a brick wall..you never address any counterpoints.. you just pick 1 point and keep restating it over and over even when countered, ignoring the counter

Pesik: exposure grows team, the aac has tons of exposure to grow teams and brands.. we should take teams with high potential the can grow in the aac even if they aren't great now

Attack respond: the idea of taking high potential worked horrendously for C-USA.. we should take the teams that are winning now

pesik: C-USA has one of the worst tv deals in the country that has no exposure whatsoever.. they have no means to grow teams. how things worked out in C-USA cannot be correlated to us in any way shape or form. The key was our exposure. there is already hard proof it works within this league (ucf, memphis etc.)

atttack respond: the idea of taking high potential worked horrendously for C-USA.. we should take the teams that are winning now {restating the exact point you already stated not really countering anything}

This is an example of literally every conversation i have with you: you don't have to agree but you are literally not countering anything at all...if you disagreed with my point, you'd state why you don't think the aac's exposure would help grow those teams, or why that growth might not be worth it. or how we have to strike now, for whatever reason, with winning teams and cant wait 3-5 years to bring up a team..something actually addressing my point...

literally the same thing now

pesik: the aac will still retain enough value to draw basketball-only members financially if we want to go that route

attack says: the top 4 aac teams carry way more than 50% of the brand value in the aac and are most of the conferences worth

pesik: i disagree i think within the aac, the brand values arent far apart, there is just a perception boost for who is currently winning.. that boost is not true brand value because it would go away if they started losing for a few years.. unlike someone like texas who would still be viewed as the most valuable even as a bottom feeder in any league

Attack says: are you saying brands dont matter .. winning doesn't create value .. compares ecu to bama

pesik say: brand do matter, I'm strictly talking within the aac.. i think most of our brand values within the aac arent far apart, there is just a perception boost for whoever are currently on top.. that most aac would be seen as extremely valuable with 3 or 4 year great runs

attack says: are you saying brands dont matter .. winning doesn't create value .. compares sunbelt to sec

YOU LITERALLY ARENT ADDRESSING MY POINT!!!!! its like talking to a brick wall.
if you wanted to counter my point you would be talking about why those 4 teams are worth over 50% of the league even if they were losing ..or how top 25 usf /top 25 temple aren't worth anything close top 25 ucf/top 25 Memphis ..etc...

no one was arguing that top 25 niu is worth the same as top 25 Michigan... we are aware brands matter...we are talking within the aac

(08-31-2021 07:56 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 07:54 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  No one in this conference has ever refered to any group of teams as "The Big 4".

Exactly, the AAC doesn’t have a top 4 that separates itself in value as much as UT/ OU separate from the L8

And once again there is very little chance the AAC loses 4 schools

Our Big 4 schedule is brutal this year. What does everybody else’s look like? We’ve got three of them on the road. …Not fair.

(09-01-2021 12:17 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 11:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 09:41 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 08:46 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Are they winning though? Any teams in the top 25 throughout most of the season? NY6 bowl?

People will watch a winner and the winner of the "best of the rest" conference will draw eyes. That could be anyone in the AAC any given year.

There's no group of teams head and shoulders above the rest in terms of value.

Hell I haven't even met fans of most the teams outside of away games except maybe Cincinnati and thats just some girl I hooked up with once.

The value comes from casual fans pulling for Cinderella.

Well Pesiks claim is when the best teams leave---somebody left in the old league still has to win the league and that winning will magically be valuable to the network. What he's missing is brands matter. You can build a brand---but it takes a lot of time. All Im trying to say is this league will be back to square one starting over in a lot of ways---and I say that as a fan of a school that could very well be among the schools who have endure a difficult conference rebuild.

bama has intrinsic value...i clearly referenced texas to make sure that no one made any bad ecu to bama takes.. texas could lose every game and would still be more valuable than every aac combined

you removed the very core of my point, and replaced it with rubbish... you twisted my point to mean "winning will magically be valuable to the network' which ridiculously missed my point

my point was that our brand values across the aac are not that big of a difference ... the top of the aac and the bottom of the aac brand wise is not that far apart..
the perception of who is worth the most just rises and falls based on who is winning

answer the question i asked... if ucf and usf traded wins the last 7 years would the brand value of each team be flipped... ..dont worry, i know you won't answer honestly, so ill answer... yes, usf would be seen as one of the most valuable aac teams

that was only 7 years (not that long), and ucf didnt win any {real} national titles in that span ..lets not act what ucf did would be impossible to replicate....

brands matter... and the tv networks said temple was a top 4 brand in the aac at launch.. if temple was winning ny6 games theyd be immensely valuable (ny6 you can get from just winning the aac)

let me put it a different way even though i think my point is very common sense..
if the aac doesnt lose a single member .. if ucf and memphis finish bottom 2 in the conference for the next 5 seasons, and usf and temple rotate between winning all the ny6 in that same 5 year span.. usf and temple would be seen as 2 of the most valuable teams in the conference carrying most of the conference value....and before any dumb Bama points are made, Bama could finish last in the aac for 10 years straight and still be the most valuable aac team... bama has a big intrinsic brand value gap beyond winning

If brand doesnt matter---only wins---then why after 8 years of winning without the CUSA defectors is CUSA still only making a third of what they made 8 years ago when we all were still there? Because brands matter.

do you read!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ill bold it for you...read the bolded part again

in every post i have note that brand matters...
i said but within the aac all the levels of our brand arent that far apart.... but that who is currently winning "within the aac" just has a perception of better value

notice the words "within the aac"

and then you retort with a nonsensical rebuttal and c-usa and saying brands dont matter .... it literally say "brands matter" in my response...

Lol—I keep saying that because you literally say—“brand matters” and then type two paragraphs explaining why it won’t matter this time. In fact. Im going to step away now as I don’t think you even need me anymore. You seem perfectly capable of continuing this debate all by yourself.

“Within the aac”… paragraph of why it won’t matter “within the aac”

Stop being daft!!

What the hell does sec have to do with this convo

(08-31-2021 06:10 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 05:44 PM)jaybird44 Wrote:  What if houston,cincinnati,ucf,and Memphis all go? What then? You stay at 7? LOL. Does conference die? I still think it could be good. Would navy stay? What is your thoughts?

The more AAC teams leave the more likely the remaining ask MWC teams to join and form a western wing.

This is more likely to happen than adding teams from CUSA or Sun Belt I know is not what some of you want to hear but is the way things will likely go.

Time will tell who is right.

(08-31-2021 06:27 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 06:24 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 06:21 PM)Sea Pirate Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 06:10 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 05:44 PM)jaybird44 Wrote:  What if houston,cincinnati,ucf,and Memphis all go? What then? You stay at 7? LOL. Does conference die? I still think it could be good. Would navy stay? What is your thoughts?

The more AAC teams leave the more likely the remaining ask MWC teams to join and form a western wing.

This is more likely to happen than adding teams from CUSA or Sun Belt I know is not what some of you want to hear but is the way things will likely go.

Time will tell who is right.

Agree with this. However, I don’t see the AAC losing 4 teams. The Big12 is going to make a lot less money no matter who they get. They will take BYU and Cincy and call it a day. Less mouths to feed.

Bingo. Some here want to see AAC gutted because is the only way their school has a chance to get in. But as you stated the Big12 is going to do the same thing the BigEast did, hold their noses and add as a few as needed to survive fir now, because they are looking at exits in next few years not long term affiliation with anyone they have to add. Going to 12-16 isn’t going to give them more money.
They will add 2 when OU and UT leave, they will NOT sign any GOR because they are looking to bail at first chance.

they are openly saying they are looking for 12...
said that even before texas and ou left they had members lobbying for 12

its not a lock or anything, but almost all credible sources point to 12 being the favorite, then 10, then 8, then 14

What they said before Texas and OU left is irrelevant now. Their whole world has been turned upside down. I’ve not see a consensus they will go to 12. I’ve mostly seen BYU as the front runner and not much past that.

Why would you add 4 teams and split less money? It could happen if the money is there at an equal rate atleast but I just don’t see it. Their shares will be going down a tremendous amount wo OU/Tx. Why would they take less of a share to add more than 2 teams?