I've been thinking 10, but with the rumors of additional Big 12 expansion and such, I'm thinking they may go with 12. That would also boost inventory to keep the value of the TV deal up some.

I'll repeat what I said in another thread:

When UConn left, the AAC was very unenthusiastic about realistically available candidates to join. Unless that strong opinion was driven by the departing schools, then we should assume it's still the opinion of the remaining schools.

And if that is still the conference consensus, then the AAC

-- might give strong consideration to adding only one new member

-- will likely end up with two because having 10 football teams is more convenient for multiple reasons

-- is unlikely to add four new members.

(09-12-2021 04:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I'll repeat what I said in another thread:

When UConn left, the AAC was very unenthusiastic about realistically available candidates to join. Unless that strong opinion was driven by the departing schools, then we should assume it's still the opinion of the remaining schools.

And if that is still the conference consensus, then the AAC

-- might give strong consideration to adding only one new member

-- will likely end up with two because having 10 football teams is more convenient for multiple reasons

-- is unlikely to add four new members.

That’s the logic that has been driving my belief in 10, but I think the circumstances are now different in two key ways. First, the specter of further Big 12 expansion has already been mentioned and at least one AAC team will be involved if that occurs. Second, there are no brands that can replace the departing schools, so inventory quantity will need to be increased to maximize revenue.

My prediction is Rice, UAB, UTSA, and either Old Dominion, Ga State, or Charlotte. Not the picks I would make, but that’s what I think they’ll do.

(09-12-2021 04:12 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  I've been thinking 10, but with the rumors of additional Big 12 expansion and such, I'm thinking they may go with 12. That would also boost inventory to keep the value of the TV deal up some.

I am operating under the assumption that ESPN values the C-USA schools at near zero since the entirety of the C-USA TV deal is worth less than 1 team's share of the current AAC deal. So I find it hard to believe the value per team does anything but go down with each additional C-USA team you add.

(09-12-2021 04:26 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 04:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I'll repeat what I said in another thread:

When UConn left, the AAC was very unenthusiastic about realistically available candidates to join. Unless that strong opinion was driven by the departing schools, then we should assume it's still the opinion of the remaining schools.

And if that is still the conference consensus, then the AAC

-- might give strong consideration to adding only one new member

-- will likely end up with two because having 10 football teams is more convenient for multiple reasons

-- is unlikely to add four new members.

That’s the logic that has been driving my belief in 10, but I think the circumstances are now different in two key ways. First, the specter of further Big 12 expansion has already been mentioned and at least one AAC team will be involved if that occurs. Second, there are no brands that can replace the departing schools, so inventory quantity will need to be increased to maximize revenue.

My prediction is Rice, UAB, UTSA, and either Old Dominion, Ga State, or Charlotte. Not the picks I would make, but that’s what I think they’ll do.

How does quantity increase revenue per team unless ESPN values that quantity? Sure they might pay slightly more for 12 teams vs 10, but are they gonna pay enough more to keep the payout per team the same for 12 vs 10? I highly doubt it. Let's say they'd pay 4 million per team for 10 teams. Are they going to increase the deal 8 million a year to add 2 more C-USA teams when the entire C-USA deal doesn't pay 8 million a year?

If the American is going to survive it has to go big. 14 or 16 programs. Anything less than that and it’s ripe for the picking. There is no clear consensus amongst the AAC presidents in which path they should take, markets or performance.

This causes a lot of mistrust and divides a league that is already on shaky ground. MWC may poach Tulsa and SMU. The Big 12 will definitely add Memphis and another program Tulane/USF after OU/Texas are out of the league.

At that point does the American make sense for Temple or ECU? Does UAB or Marshall want to be in a league with none of the desired members still there?

While the AAC is the strongest G5 league it is also the most unstable.

(09-12-2021 03:42 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 03:25 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I voted "12." I'm starting to think that having another program in North Carolina could prove helpful to the AAC. North Carolina is now No. 9 nationally in population. It's a very important "college sports state," and having two American programs from it could be a positive. In addition, adding Charlotte or App State could help (in part, at least) jump-start the East Carolina football program. The in-state rivalry element might generate a buzz. The future AAC needs the Pirates strong on the gridiron. When ECU is good, the program's attendance is impressive.

Now, if it came down to the AAC having to choose between App State and Charlotte ... that would be a tough call. Many AAC fans (I assume) would want Appy for football reasons. But there is much about Charlotte that I find appealing.

Why would either of those schools in the AAC help "jumpstart" ECU? If anything it would make local recruiting harder putting those schools on equal conference footing. There's no logic as to how that helps ECU football be better. ECU can and is playing those 2 OOC. ECU gets jumpstarted by figuring out its own issues and winning football games not by increasing its local recruiting competition even further.

Those are fair points. I guess I thought an intrastate rivalry among two programs sharing a league in a state with a large population and that loves football might generate lots of interest. Perhaps I'm wrong.

(09-12-2021 04:52 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  If the American is going to survive it has to go big. 14 or 16 programs. Anything less than that and it’s ripe for the picking. There is no clear consensus amongst the AAC presidents in which path they should take, markets or performance.

This causes a lot of mistrust and divides a league that is already on shaky ground. MWC may poach Tulsa and SMU. The Big 12 will definitely add Memphis and another program Tulane/USF after OU/Texas are out of the league.

At that point does the American make sense for Temple or ECU? Does UAB or Marshall want to be in a league with none of the desired members still there?

While the AAC is the strongest G5 league it is also the most unstable.

Why would Tulsa and SMU pay over 10 million to join the MWC? Even in your nonsense scenario of Tulsa and SMU going to the MWC and Memphis and USF going to the B12 why would ECU/Temple/whoever else is left give up their share of at that point probably over 100 million in exit fees to join leagues that pay almost zero (UCONN paid 17 million to leave early so I'll operate under the assumption everyone who left would end up paying at least 15 million so 7x15=105 million in exit fees)? No other league even has a deal that total value is worth what those exit fees would be. No one has ever offered a single math equation that even makes an AAC team going to the MWC worth it much less teams who wouldn't even have a MWC landing spot agree to dissolve the league.

(09-12-2021 04:52 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  If the American is going to survive it has to go big. 14 or 16 programs. Anything less than that and it’s ripe for the picking. There is no clear consensus amongst the AAC presidents in which path they should take, markets or performance.

This causes a lot of mistrust and divides a league that is already on shaky ground. MWC may poach Tulsa and SMU. The Big 12 will definitely add Memphis and another program Tulane/USF after OU/Texas are out of the league.

At that point does the American make sense for Temple or ECU? Does UAB or Marshall want to be in a league with none of the desired members still there?

While the AAC is the strongest G5 league it is also the most unstable.

Regardless of whether the AAC is further poached by the Big 12 (not likely in the near future) or the MWC (doubt this will happen either), I think its remaining membership will still include more valuable media properties than CUSA or the Sun Belt and therefore it will still be in position to backfill from those conferences. Hence I don't see an imperative for the AAC to expand by more than two at this time.

Having said that, I admit making the same argument about the Big 12 and was totally wrong. I think the difference is that the Big 12 had a larger pool of candidates to choose from that it (and its media partners) had determined could preserve or even enhance rather than detract from the conference's remaining per-member value.

(09-12-2021 05:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 04:52 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  If the American is going to survive it has to go big. 14 or 16 programs. Anything less than that and it’s ripe for the picking. There is no clear consensus amongst the AAC presidents in which path they should take, markets or performance.

This causes a lot of mistrust and divides a league that is already on shaky ground. MWC may poach Tulsa and SMU. The Big 12 will definitely add Memphis and another program Tulane/USF after OU/Texas are out of the league.

At that point does the American make sense for Temple or ECU? Does UAB or Marshall want to be in a league with none of the desired members still there?

While the AAC is the strongest G5 league it is also the most unstable.

Why would Tulsa and SMU pay over 10 million to join the MWC? Even in your nonsense scenario of Tulsa and SMU going to the MWC and Memphis and USF going to the B12 why would ECU/Temple/whoever else is left give up their share of at that point probably over 100 million in exit fees to join leagues that pay almost zero (UCONN paid 17 million to leave early so I'll operate under the assumption everyone who left would end up paying at least 15 million so 7x15=105 million in exit fees)? No other league even has a deal that total value is worth what those exit fees would be. No one has ever offered a single math equation that even makes an AAC team going to the MWC worth it much less teams who wouldn't even have a MWC landing spot agree to dissolve the league.

Maybe there are program hoping there is no conference to pay exit fees too. The university presidents can decide to waive exit fees if they deem it necessary.

(09-12-2021 04:26 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 04:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I'll repeat what I said in another thread:

When UConn left, the AAC was very unenthusiastic about realistically available candidates to join. Unless that strong opinion was driven by the departing schools, then we should assume it's still the opinion of the remaining schools.

And if that is still the conference consensus, then the AAC

-- might give strong consideration to adding only one new member

-- will likely end up with two because having 10 football teams is more convenient for multiple reasons

-- is unlikely to add four new members.

That’s the logic that has been driving my belief in 10, but I think the circumstances are now different in two key ways. First, the specter of further Big 12 expansion has already been mentioned and at least one AAC team will be involved if that occurs. Second, there are no brands that can replace the departing schools, so inventory quantity will need to be increased to maximize revenue.

My prediction is Rice, UAB, UTSA, and either Old Dominion, Ga State, or Charlotte. Not the picks I would make, but that’s what I think they’ll do.

IMO the idea of the Big 12 adding more teams is understandable from the point of view of fans whose teams might benefit, but still wishful thinking. I see no significant benefit to the Big 12 to splitting revenue more than 12 ways. On top of that, every school in CUSA or SBC, or even the MAC, will still be available two or four or six years from now, so there's no rush to over-add.

So I go back to the fact that the AAC schools didn't like the candidate pool very much two years ago, and probably haven't changed their minds.

(09-12-2021 05:18 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 04:52 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  If the American is going to survive it has to go big. 14 or 16 programs. Anything less than that and it’s ripe for the picking. There is no clear consensus amongst the AAC presidents in which path they should take, markets or performance.

This causes a lot of mistrust and divides a league that is already on shaky ground. MWC may poach Tulsa and SMU. The Big 12 will definitely add Memphis and another program Tulane/USF after OU/Texas are out of the league.

At that point does the American make sense for Temple or ECU? Does UAB or Marshall want to be in a league with none of the desired members still there?

While the AAC is the strongest G5 league it is also the most unstable.

Regardless of whether the AAC is further poached by the Big 12 (not likely in the near future) or the MWC (doubt this will happen either), I think its remaining membership will still include more valuable media properties than CUSA or the Sun Belt and therefore it will still be in position to backfill from those conferences. Hence I don't see an imperative for the AAC to expand by more than two at this time.

Having said that, I admit making the same argument about the Big 12 and was totally wrong. I think the difference is that the Big 12 had a larger pool of candidates to choose from that it (and its media partners) had determined could preserve or even enhance rather than detract from the conference's remaining per-member value.

What valued properties are out there? Compared to who was in the American when it was first formed.

AAC outgoing members:
UFC
Houston
Cincinnati

AAC potential members

Zero deliver what those three do. Hell multiple teams don’t bring what UCF, Houston or Cincinnati do. The four of the five most valuable G5 properties just left for the Big12. Three of those came from the American. You can’t replace that.

(09-12-2021 05:18 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 05:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 04:52 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  If the American is going to survive it has to go big. 14 or 16 programs. Anything less than that and it’s ripe for the picking. There is no clear consensus amongst the AAC presidents in which path they should take, markets or performance.

This causes a lot of mistrust and divides a league that is already on shaky ground. MWC may poach Tulsa and SMU. The Big 12 will definitely add Memphis and another program Tulane/USF after OU/Texas are out of the league.

At that point does the American make sense for Temple or ECU? Does UAB or Marshall want to be in a league with none of the desired members still there?

While the AAC is the strongest G5 league it is also the most unstable.

Why would Tulsa and SMU pay over 10 million to join the MWC? Even in your nonsense scenario of Tulsa and SMU going to the MWC and Memphis and USF going to the B12 why would ECU/Temple/whoever else is left give up their share of at that point probably over 100 million in exit fees to join leagues that pay almost zero (UCONN paid 17 million to leave early so I'll operate under the assumption everyone who left would end up paying at least 15 million so 7x15=105 million in exit fees)? No other league even has a deal that total value is worth what those exit fees would be. No one has ever offered a single math equation that even makes an AAC team going to the MWC worth it much less teams who wouldn't even have a MWC landing spot agree to dissolve the league.

Maybe there are program hoping there is no conference to pay exit fees too. The university presidents can decide to waive exit fees if they deem it necessary.

I'm sure the departing programs would prefer to not pay exit fees but for example, the 3 schools that just announced their departures no longer have AAC voting rights. To dissolve the league you'd need to before any announcement was made have a vote to dissolve the league and hit whatever voting threshold that is, and even then that would be ugly as hell because you'd have 1 or 2 schools screwed over who'd probably sue for collusion and breach of contract and probably would have a case.

(09-12-2021 04:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I'll repeat what I said in another thread:

When UConn left, the AAC was very unenthusiastic about realistically available candidates to join. Unless that strong opinion was driven by the departing schools, then we should assume it's still the opinion of the remaining schools.

And if that is still the conference consensus, then the AAC

-- might give strong consideration to adding only one new member

-- will likely end up with two because having 10 football teams is more convenient for multiple reasons

-- is unlikely to add four new members.

One reason to stay small was the hope some Big12 members might fall to them if that conference imploded with the exit of Texas and others. It didnt play out that way. Futhermore---it now appears the stable P5 environment may not be so stable....so a bit larger membership might make more sense now than it would have when there was little expecatation that members might be poached. Now--it might make more sense to develop a bench within the conference for future quality depth. Im not suggesting getting into "super-conference" territory---but 12 makes sense to me.

(09-12-2021 05:23 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 05:18 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 04:52 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  If the American is going to survive it has to go big. 14 or 16 programs. Anything less than that and it’s ripe for the picking. There is no clear consensus amongst the AAC presidents in which path they should take, markets or performance.

This causes a lot of mistrust and divides a league that is already on shaky ground. MWC may poach Tulsa and SMU. The Big 12 will definitely add Memphis and another program Tulane/USF after OU/Texas are out of the league.

At that point does the American make sense for Temple or ECU? Does UAB or Marshall want to be in a league with none of the desired members still there?

While the AAC is the strongest G5 league it is also the most unstable.

Regardless of whether the AAC is further poached by the Big 12 (not likely in the near future) or the MWC (doubt this will happen either), I think its remaining membership will still include more valuable media properties than CUSA or the Sun Belt and therefore it will still be in position to backfill from those conferences. Hence I don't see an imperative for the AAC to expand by more than two at this time.

Having said that, I admit making the same argument about the Big 12 and was totally wrong. I think the difference is that the Big 12 had a larger pool of candidates to choose from that it (and its media partners) had determined could preserve or even enhance rather than detract from the conference's remaining per-member value.

What valued properties are out there? Compared to who was in the American when it was first formed.

AAC outgoing members:
UFC
Houston
Cincinnati

AAC potential members

Zero deliver what those three do. Hell multiple teams don’t bring what UCF, Houston or Cincinnati do. The four of the five most valuable G5 properties just left for the Big12. Three of those came from the American. You can’t replace that.

Of course you can't, that's why you see no consensus on who should be added and why the AAC has been sitting at 11 for 2 years now. That doesn't offer any reason though why the AAC would dissolve. Just the 50 million or so they are going to collect from the 3 departing members is worth more than multiple years' shares of the other eastern G5 leagues TV deals in total. No one is giving that money up.

It depends on whether Navy is happy with one Texas add and one Eastern add. If Rice or UTSA is needed to keep Navy happy with their division, and Rice/UTSA plus UAB is seen as sufficiently as a sufficiently broad conference footprint to keep Navy happy, then it could well be 10.

I believe for the next decade the ACC, Big 10, SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12 are done shifting.

I also don't believe that the MW will raid the AAC or vice versa, and I don't think Army will join the AAC. Therefore, you need to minimize brand damage and keep Navy happy. Ultimately, I think the AAC will add UAB and Rice.

(09-12-2021 11:31 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-11-2021 10:07 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m going with 10 because:

I think the MWC schools are happy where they are

I don’t think that C-USA/SBC has anyone that is going to raise the tv value for the other 8.

I agree with you, for those two reasons and one other: it keeps the AAC’s membership small enough to preserve the possibility of adding an all-sports western wing a few years in the future, if the new AAC performs well in football and if for some reason the MWC falters and some its members decide they want out.

I predict UAB and Marshall will be added in the next 30 days.

Staying put in the MWC is nice and all but their biggest drawback remains... TV eyeballs results will continue to hunt them.

(09-12-2021 05:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 04:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I'll repeat what I said in another thread:

When UConn left, the AAC was very unenthusiastic about realistically available candidates to join. Unless that strong opinion was driven by the departing schools, then we should assume it's still the opinion of the remaining schools.

And if that is still the conference consensus, then the AAC

-- might give strong consideration to adding only one new member

-- will likely end up with two because having 10 football teams is more convenient for multiple reasons

-- is unlikely to add four new members.

One reason to stay small was the hope some Big12 members might fall to them if that conference imploded with the exit of Texas and others. It didnt play out that way. Futhermore---it now appears the stable P5 environment may not be so stable....so a bit larger membership might make more sense now than it would have when there was little expecatation that members might be poached. Now--it might make more sense to develop a bench within the conference for future quality depth. Im not suggesting getting into "super-conference" territory---but 12 makes sense to me.

There's an argument for that, but if the idea here is to predict what the AAC will do, as opposed to recommending what they do -- then if they were sincere two years ago in their disdain for the candidate pool, then they won't be enthusiastic enough about it today to add more than two.