Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,893
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2350
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #241
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-27-2022 07:58 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(04-27-2022 07:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 10:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  Memphis was a Southern Independent considered on the same level as Miami, Florida State, and Southern Miss. Those four along with Houston all applied for SEC membership over the years dating back to the 50’s and had members sponsor them.

Georgia Tech, Tulane, South Carolina, and Virginia Tech voluntarily joined those Southern Independent ranks for various reasons. Later, Louisville, UR, W&M, ECU, and others did as well.

The first group holds the distinction as the original Southern Indy powers though.

Eh, if we are talking 1970s and before, Miami and FSU were IMO clearly above Memphis even then. They did occasionally eek in to a national conversation before the 1970s, but Memphis never did.

I was a CFB fan in the 1970s. Despite being ranked occasionally before then, FSU was regarded as coming basically out of close to nowhere when Bowden took over and they quickly got good at the end of that decade. Most said "who the heck are they"?

So IMO, their *national* presence, what history is based on, was low before then, and Memphis didn't even have that visibility.

You and I are about the same age, QV. And I clearly recall Memphis having respectable visibility in the 1970s related to Miami and Florida State. As I recall, college football preview annuals Athlon (at which I would eventually work), Lindy's and Street & Smith's each gave about the same amount of "journalistic real estate" in their respective mags to FSU, Miami and then-Memphis State during the 1970s. As esayem noted, Memphis (and Louisville and Southern Miss, for that matter) were all considered "major Southern indies" by those mags. Ironically, not being affiliated back then with a "inferior conference" (i.e., C-USA and the AAC) actually helped Memphis football in terms of public respect, perception and credibility.

You can see here that Miami did not particularly shine during the 1960s and 1970s. FSU was better than Miami and Memphis — but nowhere near the power it would become.

Miami was much closer to Memphis during this time than it was to, say, Oklahoma. And Florida State (I saw FSU play in Memphis in the 1980s still had a good ways to go).

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...index.html

Interesting. I thought I recalled hearing about Miami at times during the late 1960s and early 1970s, but my memory is often faulty, so I looked the AP poll history up.

As you can see, in the late 60s and early 70s, Miami was occasionally ranked, which was even more important then than now because it was a Top 20, not a Top 25. Memphis as we know was never ranked in the AP poll during this time:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...polls.html

To my surprise, the same is true of FSU - some ranked teams during that time frame:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...polls.html

This jibes with my vague memory of having a smidge of awareness of Miami during that time. But none of Memphis.

Not that what I remember matters, LOL. As I said, I never heard of FSU before Bowden, but they had made an AP impact before then.

But IMO, this shows that these schools were more visible, not in the same zone, as Memphis.
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2022 08:37 AM by quo vadis.)
04-27-2022 08:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,038
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1165
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #242
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-27-2022 07:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 10:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  Memphis was a Southern Independent considered on the same level as Miami, Florida State, and Southern Miss. Those four along with Houston all applied for SEC membership over the years dating back to the 50’s and had members sponsor them.

Georgia Tech, Tulane, South Carolina, and Virginia Tech voluntarily joined those Southern Independent ranks for various reasons. Later, Louisville, UR, W&M, ECU, and others did as well.

The first group holds the distinction as the original Southern Indy powers though.

Eh, if we are talking 1970s and before, Miami and FSU were IMO clearly above Memphis even then. They did occasionally eek in to a national conversation before the 1970s, but Memphis never did.

I was a CFB fan in the 1970s. Despite being ranked occasionally before then, FSU was regarded as coming basically out of close to nowhere when Bowden took over and they quickly got good at the end of that decade. Most said "who the heck are they"?

So IMO, their *national* presence, what history is based on, was low before then, and Memphis didn't even have that visibility.

Powers might be a strong term, but they were playing college football at the University Division level in 1960. Memphis hosted #1 Ole Miss that year, for instance. They routinely played the SEC Mississippi schools and some ACC opponents like Wake and South Carolina. Mixed in were other Indys and MVC squads.

In the 60’s, their schedule looked more G5 than P5, I’ll give you that.
04-27-2022 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #243
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-27-2022 08:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-27-2022 07:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 10:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  Memphis was a Southern Independent considered on the same level as Miami, Florida State, and Southern Miss. Those four along with Houston all applied for SEC membership over the years dating back to the 50’s and had members sponsor them.

Georgia Tech, Tulane, South Carolina, and Virginia Tech voluntarily joined those Southern Independent ranks for various reasons. Later, Louisville, UR, W&M, ECU, and others did as well.

The first group holds the distinction as the original Southern Indy powers though.

Eh, if we are talking 1970s and before, Miami and FSU were IMO clearly above Memphis even then. They did occasionally eek in to a national conversation before the 1970s, but Memphis never did.

I was a CFB fan in the 1970s. Despite being ranked occasionally before then, FSU was regarded as coming basically out of close to nowhere when Bowden took over and they quickly got good at the end of that decade. Most said "who the heck are they"?

So IMO, their *national* presence, what history is based on, was low before then, and Memphis didn't even have that visibility.

Powers might be a strong term, but they were playing college football at the University Division level in 1960. Memphis hosted #1 Ole Miss that year, for instance. They routinely played the SEC Mississippi schools and some ACC opponents like Wake and South Carolina. Mixed in were other Indys and MVC squads.

In the 60’s, their schedule looked more G5 than P5, I’ll give you that.

They were on a totally different trajectory than say MAC schools in those decades.
04-27-2022 08:46 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,275
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 939
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #244
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
Also worth noting on this "Memphis football in the 1960s and 1970s" theme:

The city of Memphis constructed Memphis Memorial Stadium (the Liberty Bowl) in the 1960s to, in part, accommodate the Tiger football program. It seated about 50,000 upon opening. Very respectable. And the Tigers drew fairly well back in those days (just like they do now).

Florida State joined the Metro Conference in 1976 (with Memphis already a member).

Memphis football was considered "major" back then by most sources. True, the program was at the "bottom" of the major grouping. But it was "in the club." Independence had its benefits.
04-27-2022 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,275
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 939
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #245
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-27-2022 08:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-27-2022 07:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 10:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  Memphis was a Southern Independent considered on the same level as Miami, Florida State, and Southern Miss. Those four along with Houston all applied for SEC membership over the years dating back to the 50’s and had members sponsor them.

Georgia Tech, Tulane, South Carolina, and Virginia Tech voluntarily joined those Southern Independent ranks for various reasons. Later, Louisville, UR, W&M, ECU, and others did as well.

The first group holds the distinction as the original Southern Indy powers though.

Eh, if we are talking 1970s and before, Miami and FSU were IMO clearly above Memphis even then. They did occasionally eek in to a national conversation before the 1970s, but Memphis never did.

I was a CFB fan in the 1970s. Despite being ranked occasionally before then, FSU was regarded as coming basically out of close to nowhere when Bowden took over and they quickly got good at the end of that decade. Most said "who the heck are they"?

So IMO, their *national* presence, what history is based on, was low before then, and Memphis didn't even have that visibility.

Powers might be a strong term, but they were playing college football at the University Division level in 1960. Memphis hosted #1 Ole Miss that year, for instance. They routinely played the SEC Mississippi schools and some ACC opponents like Wake and South Carolina. Mixed in were other Indys and MVC squads.

In the 60’s, their schedule looked more G5 than P5, I’ll give you that.

But those schedules (as I look back) look much more P5 than the Tigers recent slates. League membership, in some respects, has hurt Memphis football.
04-27-2022 08:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,275
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 939
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #246
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-27-2022 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-27-2022 07:58 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(04-27-2022 07:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 10:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  Memphis was a Southern Independent considered on the same level as Miami, Florida State, and Southern Miss. Those four along with Houston all applied for SEC membership over the years dating back to the 50’s and had members sponsor them.

Georgia Tech, Tulane, South Carolina, and Virginia Tech voluntarily joined those Southern Independent ranks for various reasons. Later, Louisville, UR, W&M, ECU, and others did as well.

The first group holds the distinction as the original Southern Indy powers though.

Eh, if we are talking 1970s and before, Miami and FSU were IMO clearly above Memphis even then. They did occasionally eek in to a national conversation before the 1970s, but Memphis never did.

I was a CFB fan in the 1970s. Despite being ranked occasionally before then, FSU was regarded as coming basically out of close to nowhere when Bowden took over and they quickly got good at the end of that decade. Most said "who the heck are they"?

So IMO, their *national* presence, what history is based on, was low before then, and Memphis didn't even have that visibility.

You and I are about the same age, QV. And I clearly recall Memphis having respectable visibility in the 1970s related to Miami and Florida State. As I recall, college football preview annuals Athlon (at which I would eventually work), Lindy's and Street & Smith's each gave about the same amount of "journalistic real estate" in their respective mags to FSU, Miami and then-Memphis State during the 1970s. As esayem noted, Memphis (and Louisville and Southern Miss, for that matter) were all considered "major Southern indies" by those mags. Ironically, not being affiliated back then with a "inferior conference" (i.e., C-USA and the AAC) actually helped Memphis football in terms of public respect, perception and credibility.

You can see here that Miami did not particularly shine during the 1960s and 1970s. FSU was better than Miami and Memphis — but nowhere near the power it would become.

Miami was much closer to Memphis during this time than it was to, say, Oklahoma. And Florida State (I saw FSU play in Memphis in the 1980s still had a good ways to go).

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...index.html

Interesting. I thought I recalled hearing about Miami at times during the late 1960s and early 1970s, but my memory is often faulty, so I looked the AP poll history up.

As you can see, in the late 60s and early 70s, Miami was occasionally ranked, which was even more important then than now because it was a Top 20, not a Top 25. Memphis as we know was never ranked in the AP poll during this time:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...polls.html

To my surprise, the same is true of FSU - some ranked teams during that time frame:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...polls.html

This jibes with my vague memory of having a smidge of awareness of Miami during that time. But none of Memphis.

Not that what I remember matters, LOL. As I said, I never heard of FSU before Bowden, but they had made an AP impact before then.

But IMO, this shows that these schools were more visible, not in the same zone, as Memphis.


There is no question that Florida State and Miami football have always been both perceived and actually superior to Memphis football. I agree they were more visible than Memphis.

My point, perhaps poorly made, is that Memphis football in "the old days" of the 1950s thorough 1979 — before full-scale racial integration, major league realignment and ESPN/TV — was a part of the same group as FSU and Miami, i.e., "major Southern indies." True, Memphis football did not get the same level of national attention and it was at the bottom of that grouping. But it was "part of the club" back then and, as such, in the "same zone" (as you note) to an extent.

And, as noted, Memphis did finish ranked No. 14 in the UPI Coaches Poll in 1963.

Memphis leaders made a mistake in the 1980s by not anticipating the massive changes coming to college sports, changes driven by football. And by the 1990s ... it was too late.

Enough about my Tigers, QV. Time to head to the office.

Enjoy the day.

04-cheers
04-27-2022 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,893
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2350
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #247
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-27-2022 09:06 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(04-27-2022 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-27-2022 07:58 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(04-27-2022 07:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 10:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  Memphis was a Southern Independent considered on the same level as Miami, Florida State, and Southern Miss. Those four along with Houston all applied for SEC membership over the years dating back to the 50’s and had members sponsor them.

Georgia Tech, Tulane, South Carolina, and Virginia Tech voluntarily joined those Southern Independent ranks for various reasons. Later, Louisville, UR, W&M, ECU, and others did as well.

The first group holds the distinction as the original Southern Indy powers though.

Eh, if we are talking 1970s and before, Miami and FSU were IMO clearly above Memphis even then. They did occasionally eek in to a national conversation before the 1970s, but Memphis never did.

I was a CFB fan in the 1970s. Despite being ranked occasionally before then, FSU was regarded as coming basically out of close to nowhere when Bowden took over and they quickly got good at the end of that decade. Most said "who the heck are they"?

So IMO, their *national* presence, what history is based on, was low before then, and Memphis didn't even have that visibility.

You and I are about the same age, QV. And I clearly recall Memphis having respectable visibility in the 1970s related to Miami and Florida State. As I recall, college football preview annuals Athlon (at which I would eventually work), Lindy's and Street & Smith's each gave about the same amount of "journalistic real estate" in their respective mags to FSU, Miami and then-Memphis State during the 1970s. As esayem noted, Memphis (and Louisville and Southern Miss, for that matter) were all considered "major Southern indies" by those mags. Ironically, not being affiliated back then with a "inferior conference" (i.e., C-USA and the AAC) actually helped Memphis football in terms of public respect, perception and credibility.

You can see here that Miami did not particularly shine during the 1960s and 1970s. FSU was better than Miami and Memphis — but nowhere near the power it would become.

Miami was much closer to Memphis during this time than it was to, say, Oklahoma. And Florida State (I saw FSU play in Memphis in the 1980s still had a good ways to go).

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...index.html

Interesting. I thought I recalled hearing about Miami at times during the late 1960s and early 1970s, but my memory is often faulty, so I looked the AP poll history up.

As you can see, in the late 60s and early 70s, Miami was occasionally ranked, which was even more important then than now because it was a Top 20, not a Top 25. Memphis as we know was never ranked in the AP poll during this time:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...polls.html

To my surprise, the same is true of FSU - some ranked teams during that time frame:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...polls.html

This jibes with my vague memory of having a smidge of awareness of Miami during that time. But none of Memphis.

Not that what I remember matters, LOL. As I said, I never heard of FSU before Bowden, but they had made an AP impact before then.

But IMO, this shows that these schools were more visible, not in the same zone, as Memphis.


There is no question that Florida State and Miami football have always been both perceived and actually superior to Memphis football. I agree they were more visible than Memphis.

My point, perhaps poorly made, is that Memphis football in "the old days" of the 1950s thorough 1979 — before full-scale racial integration, major league realignment and ESPN/TV — was a part of the same group as FSU and Miami, i.e., "major Southern indies." True, Memphis football did not get the same level of national attention and it was at the bottom of that grouping. But it was "part of the club" back then and, as such, in the "same zone" (as you note) to an extent.

And, as noted, Memphis did finish ranked No. 14 in the UPI Coaches Poll in 1963.

Memphis leaders made a mistake in the 1980s by not anticipating the massive changes coming to college sports, changes driven by football. And by the 1990s ... it was too late.

Enough about my Tigers, QV. Time to head to the office.

Enjoy the day.

04-cheers

Thank you Bill,

Enjoy your day as well.

04-cheers
04-27-2022 09:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,603
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 430
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #248
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-27-2022 12:52 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 07:47 PM)e-parade Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 05:35 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 05:03 PM)e-parade Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 04:59 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  Actually, ESPN couldn't easily say "we'll give you a contract raise, to a $6 million average" and that would be a true raise on the contract...

Why not? For several reasons:
  • The schools that have been receiving $7m/year, on average, would be taking a pay cut, and some of them, such as Navy, wouldn't be eager to agree to that.
    .
  • Even if the AAC were to agree to that, some of the stronger AAC schools might respond by leaving the conference, like UConn did. Navy, for example, could follow Army's example and opt to go forward as an independent. Wichita State could do the same, and there might be others.
    .
  • Due to inflation, the amount that ESPN would offer the AAC in 2032, in inflation-adjusted dollars will be closer to $9 or $10m/yr.

.

Moreover, the value of the universities in a conference - - and the conference as a whole - - isn't based solely on the amount of revenue from the network that they signed up for. It's also based on how their teams perform in the interim, on their viewership, and on the conference's overall viewership.

If the AAC's viewership should grow by 10%, 15%, or 20%, the AAC could probably negotiate for a corresponding increase in revenue.

With 3 more teams than it currently has, there will be more AAC FB games to watch each weekend during conference play - - ~6.5 AAC games per week, on average (including byes). With only 11 teams, there have only been only 4.9 AAC FB games per week.

Thus, with 14 teams, ESPN will be able to broadcast 32.6% more AAC FB games per week (~6.5 vs. 4.9) than it has been able to broadcast , to date. That, alone, might be enough to boost their AAC viewership by 5% or 10%.

In addition, the AAC may have significant growth potential. Viewership may grow, year over year. That's certainly what ESPN is expecting - - otherwise, they wouldn't have agreed to broadcast the SBC, MAC, and AAC's games, while boosting the amount of revenue they agreed to pay all of the conference members.

.

I mean you can lay out as many scenarios as you want, but none of them do anything to negate my point of: the AAC is now in a weaker position to renegotiate their next contract than they were before.

That may be your opinion, but I believe that other readers will find my arguments more convincing than you did.

I'll add this observation - - what the AAC "is," right now, is moot, because the AAC "is" not renegotiating their next contract this year. They won't be renegotiating for another decade, and in a decade, with the probability of rising viewership and the revenue that goes along with it, the conference will be in a stronger negotiating position in 2031.

I may not be able to persuade you to stop describing the future (2031) AAC in the present tense, but other readers may be able to appreciate why it's important to focus on the future in such matters.

(04-26-2022 05:03 PM)e-parade Wrote:  Also you all have been saying "ESPN doesn't pay the schools, they pay the AAC!" so your first point of "it would be a pay cut for some of the schools" is a weird point and goes counter to the other point of not paying the schools directly. A raise for the AAC is a raise, even if it's not for the individuals.

When it comes to "weird" points, it seems weird to me that you consider it "weird" for another poster to emphasize that, in a free-enterprise, capitalistic society, not all schools are valued the same, since their viewership is not going to be the same.

The fact that $6m/yr (non-inflation adjusted dollars) would not be an increase but a pay cut for some of the schools is likely to be obvious enough to most readers who note that UConn left the AAC for that very reason. UConn knew that they could earn more income by playing basketball in the Big East, putting a clever independent FB schedule together, and saving $1m/yr or so in reduced travel costs. With their outstanding FB viewership, Navy, in particular, might easily do as UConn did if they get a paltry offer from ESPN.

.

It's very clear that you don't work on contract renegotiation, so I'm going to spell this out with numbers.

Using $100 million to make the math easier to demonstrate:

1) The current contract is for $100 million for 11 teams, that's a split of ~$9.1 million per team. In 10 years, they do well on viewership and improve to the point where ESPN says "great, here's a 50% increase from the previous contract" and it bumps it up to $150 million, or a split of ~$13.63 million per team.

2) The current contract is for $100 million for 14 teams, it's not split equally per team, but that doesn't matter too much to ESPN (some teams get the ~$9.1 million listed in example 1, the others split the remainder). The average per team is ~$7.14 million. In 10 years, they do just as well as the 11 teams in the previous example. They have the same number of games that will show up on the main networks (thank you templefootballfan in your post above saying it'll be 40), and get the same ratings. ESPN says "great, here's a 50% increase from the previous contract" and bumps it up to $150 million, or a split of ~$10.71 per team. ESPN is under no obligation to increase it any further simply because there are now more teams in the conference, it's a straight percentage increase on the overall contract.


In both scenarios the conference performs exactly as well as it otherwise would have, but in scenario 2 each team ends up with a smaller average by the time the new contract comes out simply because that's literally how math works. In order for the teams with the higher split currently to end up earning the same amount they otherwise would have if the original conference makeup stayed the same, the contract would have had to increase to ~190.9 million, or just over a 90% increase on the original contract.

In order to get that 90% + increase, the conference will need to perform MUCH better than they would have needed to at a smaller size.

In fact, if ESPN were to only offer a 25% increase on the contract (which yes, is in fact a raise for the conference despite what you want to say), the average would be $9 million and a drop of $100K for the remaining 8.


This isn't a matter of opinion.

You haven't made a convincing argument, and you're not omniscient - though you seem to think you are by presenting your case in absolute terms, and claiming to be an ultimate authority.

Just pounding away again and again on the same point, without showing any indication that you've considered the alternate perspectives suggests that you're looking at the situation in a very narrow way.

The unwillingness to even acknowledge the possibility that one or two of the CUSA6, such as UTSA could become a football powerhouse, like UCF - - or that there could be an unexpected spike in viewership that could boost broadcasting revenue in 2032 - - was surprising.[/i]

Your complete unwillingness to even consider the alternative perspectives, or to take a more comprehensive view at the situation will reveal the limitation of your cognitive approach to the matter to many readers. You've been preaching to the choir of pessimists and naysayers, but you haven't begun to persuade the optimistic AAC fans, nor will you if you just keep hammering away at the same point over and over again. We "grokked" it the first time.

.

Besides, neither one of us has a crystal ball. There's not much point in trying to predict what's going to happen ten years from now. 3 or 4 of the AAC remainers could be gone in 2032, and if that happens, average post-2032 per-school broadcasting revenue might decline, depending on the quality of the replacements, and on how well they would perform after joining.

On the other hand, the conference could be better off in 2032 if the AAC were to add two high football-viewership schools, such as Air Force and North Dakota State and pair them with a couple of great basketball (non-FB) schools.

When attempting to predict the future, there are three times as many types of unknowns as there are "known knowns" -- not only the "known unknowns," and the "unknown unknowns," but the mysterious and baffling "unknown knowns."





03-rotfl03-woohoo03-rotfl03-woohoo03-rotfl03-woohoo03-rotfl03-woohoo03-rotfl
.

This is like talking to a brick wall.

I am not saying the AAC cannot end up with a better contract or that none of the teams within it will turn into a powerhouse.

How hard is that to understand?

What I am saying: in order for the remaining 8 AAC members to end up with a contract as good as they could have gotten in an 11 team format, the 14 (really 15) team format will need to perform better than what the 11 team format would have.

If they perform exactly the same, the 8 will end up with less money than they would have at 11 teams.


I am not providing a "this is the only thing that can happen" scenario like you're implying. I am stating the fact that as you break down a contract across an increased pool of people to pay, you need to have a larger starting pool of money in order to have the same payment to each member. This has literally nothing to do with how the league will or will not perform. They very well could perform better than they would have otherwise, but that's not the point. The point is they will need to perform better than the 11 team league would have in order to get the same breakdown of money.


If you once again try and say "you're not making a point because you're ignoring that the teams could..." then it's clear you can't look at this as a purely financial exercise. Using my previous example it doesn't matter what the starting numbers were, percents are percents. If the 11 team AAC were to have gotten a 25% raise as a conference, it would have translated to a 25% raise across the board for all members. The 14 team AAC getting a 25% raise will result in 8 of the members having a smaller deal.


This has nothing to do with how the league will perform. I am not making that prediction. This is a simple numbers exercise to show that in order for the 8 to make as much as they would have with fewer teams, the league will need to perform much better. In fact, it's pretty simple to calculate if you use the actual numbers to calculate it. Just replace the numbers I have in my example with the real ones and slide them in here:


$8 million per year for 11 members = $88 million
50% raise = $16 million per 11 = $176 million

Unequal revenue for 14 members, but still $88 million
50% raise = $176 million
Equal revenue share = $12.57 million

To get to $16 million per team it would be $224 million, which is a 27% larger contract than the 50% raise. (224/176 = ~1.27 or 127%)


Why does that 27% number stick out? Because 14 is 27% larger than 11.

Again, this is not a prediction on how the conference will perform by any measure (be that ratings, bowl performance, or otherwise). This is simply to show that the conference will need to perform 27% better in their contract negotiations than they otherwise would have as the smaller conference in order to end up in as good a situation moving forward. The 6 newcomers will not vote themselves to be second class citizens moving forward, and they are a large enough voting block that they can prevent it (6/15 = 40%).


Please stop telling me to consider different scenarios in how the conference will perform. I'm not basing this on any of that and am not trying to predict any of it. The point is it's now going to require more of the AAC to get the same result for the remaining 8 members. It doesn't matter what scenarios you throw out for how the conference might perform or how they could otherwise improve their ratings, compared to an equal performance of the smaller conference it requires 27% more money in the contract, which is where the "it is now harder for them" I've been saying has come from.

If the conference makeup changes once again before the contract is negotiated again, then the exercise above can be recalculated to show what would be necessary once again. So again: it doesn't matter what will happen, this is just simple math.




If you believe the conference in its current makeup will get a contract at least 27% larger than the conference prior to this round of realignment would have, that's fine. I'm not telling you to think otherwise and I'm not predicting it won't happen. I'm just pointing out that the threshold is 27% larger.
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2022 09:37 AM by e-parade.)
04-27-2022 09:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ballantyneapp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,676
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation: 474
I Root For: App
Location:
Post: #249
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
I imagine once the final date, whether 2023 or 2024 is set for the departing 3, we'll start to see media outlets report on the negotiations between the AAC-ESPN.

i'm not even sure the reported halfshare-full share arrangement thats been rumored will end up working.

What incentive does ESPN have to keep the same payout given the market and we know they have a composition clause they can enforce. The AACs other options appear to be limited since ESPN pretty much controls the G5 market.
04-27-2022 09:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,038
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1165
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #250
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
If memory serves, Miami and Houston had Florida and Ole Miss’ (respectively) backing for SEC membership in the 50’s, but they fell short on votes. Miami pursued a national schedule and Houston turned their focus towards the SWC.

Florida State and Memphis State had Florida and Tennessee’s backing respectively, and were up for votes over the course of the next decade until the SEC shut the door on them with a 10-year anti-expansion memorandum ~1970.

I don’t remember the details on Southern Miss, but they always wanted in. Not sure if they made it to formal vote stage.

IMO, FSU and Memphis were definitely in the same category. FSU may have been ranked, but like Billy D Azzle said: Memphis had a 50k seater and played a better schedule than say MVC and MAC teams.

Also, Georgia Tech regretted Independence a few years later but had no shot at getting back in because the Miss schools held a grudge. This is despite Bear Bryant going to bat for the Engineers. Tech never applied for a formal vote because it wasn’t there and they weren’t about to be embarrassed. You can find lots of coverage on this from late 60’s to late 70’s when they decided to join the ACC.
04-27-2022 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Milwaukee Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,787
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 212
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #251
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-27-2022 09:20 AM)e-parade Wrote:  If you believe the conference in its current makeup will get a contract at least 27% larger than the conference prior to this round of realignment would have, that's fine. I'm not telling you to think otherwise and I'm not predicting it won't happen. I'm just pointing out that the threshold is 27% larger.

fine. we'll leave it at that.

I was just trying to suggest the possibility that the outcome could be more positive than some have suggested if things break the right way. Hopefully, they will.
04-27-2022 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,603
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 430
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #252
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-27-2022 09:58 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(04-27-2022 09:20 AM)e-parade Wrote:  If you believe the conference in its current makeup will get a contract at least 27% larger than the conference prior to this round of realignment would have, that's fine. I'm not telling you to think otherwise and I'm not predicting it won't happen. I'm just pointing out that the threshold is 27% larger.

fine. we'll leave it at that.

I was just trying to suggest the possibility that the outcome could be more positive than some have suggested if things break the right way. Hopefully, they will.

Which is an entirely possible scenario. I've never claimed otherwise, was just trying to point out what that would take in order to get there.
04-27-2022 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,275
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 939
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #253
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-27-2022 09:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  If memory serves, Miami and Houston had Florida and Ole Miss’ (respectively) backing for SEC membership in the 50’s, but they fell short on votes. Miami pursued a national schedule and Houston turned their focus towards the SWC.

Florida State and Memphis State had Florida and Tennessee’s backing respectively, and were up for votes over the course of the next decade until the SEC shut the door on them with a 10-year anti-expansion memorandum ~1970.

I don’t remember the details on Southern Miss, but they always wanted in. Not sure if they made it to formal vote stage.

IMO, FSU and Memphis were definitely in the same category. FSU may have been ranked, but like Billy D Azzle said: Memphis had a 50k seater and played a better schedule than say MVC and MAC teams.

Also, Georgia Tech regretted Independence a few years later but had no shot at getting back in because the Miss schools held a grudge. This is despite Bear Bryant going to bat for the Engineers. Tech never applied for a formal vote because it wasn’t there and they weren’t about to be embarrassed. You can find lots of coverage on this from late 60’s to late 70’s when they decided to join the ACC.

Some interesting stuff here, esayem. I recall some of this info but not all of it.

Southern independent football was a big deal in the 1960s through the 1980s. There were a good number of quality programs and they often scheduled one another.

I recall my father and I driving to Louisville to see the Cards play then-Memphis State in the 1980s at the old Fairgrounds/Cardinal Stadium. Good crowd. UL won at the end of the game, I seem to remember. Soon thereafter, UL athletics comprehensively started to gain steam — and then took off and left Memphis in the dust.

Southern Miss football was highly respected back then.
04-27-2022 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TroyTBoy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,252
Joined: May 2018
Reputation: 72
I Root For: Troy The Boy
Location:
Post: #254
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-26-2022 06:57 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  ESPN is on the hook for 40 FB games on TV.
that not gonna change.

with 14 schools, ESPN+ gains the extra games
ESPN+ loss content from C-USA
that's a wash

[Image: 3f2.jpeg]


Aresco is trying like mad to get the best settlement he can by the Big 12 three; so he can bring in the 6 new AAC programs with their inventory.

Everyone will fight it out for the linear ESPN/ABC spots, and the rest will go to streaming. It will be that added competition that will drive investment from the bottom-up.

Competition is what has made the American successful to this point. In some ways Aresco is anxious for that new blood to fuel more gains (as he counts the money from the B12 three).
04-28-2022 01:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ballantyneapp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,676
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation: 474
I Root For: App
Location:
Post: #255
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-28-2022 01:31 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 06:57 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  ESPN is on the hook for 40 FB games on TV.
that not gonna change.

with 14 schools, ESPN+ gains the extra games
ESPN+ loss content from C-USA
that's a wash

[Image: 3f2.jpeg]


Aresco is trying like mad to get the best settlement he can by the Big 12 three; so he can bring in the 6 new AAC programs with their inventory.

Everyone will fight it out for the linear ESPN/ABC spots, and the rest will go to streaming. It will be that added competition that will drive investment from the bottom-up.

Competition is what has made the American successful to this point. In some ways Aresco is anxious for that new blood to fuel more gains (as he counts the money from the B12 three).


Uhh the 40 games absolutely can change. ESPN has a composition clause that allows them to open up the contract. They can renegotiate terms. That includes payout and contracted games.
04-28-2022 08:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,893
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2350
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #256
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-28-2022 08:38 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  
(04-28-2022 01:31 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  
(04-26-2022 06:57 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  ESPN is on the hook for 40 FB games on TV.
that not gonna change.

with 14 schools, ESPN+ gains the extra games
ESPN+ loss content from C-USA
that's a wash

[Image: 3f2.jpeg]


Aresco is trying like mad to get the best settlement he can by the Big 12 three; so he can bring in the 6 new AAC programs with their inventory.

Everyone will fight it out for the linear ESPN/ABC spots, and the rest will go to streaming. It will be that added competition that will drive investment from the bottom-up.

Competition is what has made the American successful to this point. In some ways Aresco is anxious for that new blood to fuel more gains (as he counts the money from the B12 three).


Uhh the 40 games absolutely can change. ESPN has a composition clause that allows them to open up the contract. They can renegotiate terms. That includes payout and contracted games.

The reports I've read say ESPN was willing to keep the contract terms the same if the AAC added these six schools. True or not? I don't know.

But let's assume it is true. This is still a bad situation for the AAC legacy members, because now there are those 40 spots to be divided among 14 teams instead of 11.
04-28-2022 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Milwaukee Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,787
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 212
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #257
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-28-2022 10:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='ballantyneapp' pid='18213653' dateline='1651153081']
[quote='TroyTBoy' pid='18213437' dateline='1651127517']
[quote='templefootballfan' pid='18211352' dateline='1651017464']
ESPN is on the hook for 40 FB games on TV.
that not gonna change.

with 14 schools, ESPN+ gains the extra games
ESPN+ loss content from C-USA
that's a wash

Actually, ESPN's commitment is to broadcast a minimum of 40 football games on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or ABC.

They may opt to broadcast more than 40 AAC games, some or most seasons, if they believe that the AAC is likely to have a sufficient number of high viewership games.

With 27% more (11+3) teams than it has currently, it's possible that there will be more potentially high viewership matchups than there have been in an average AAC season.

Some obscure regular season games and some intra-conference games involving one relatively uncompetitive conference team have generated surprisingly high levels of viewership.

For example:

UAB vs. Jacksonville St. (2022) 841,000 viewers
Navy vs. Tulsa (2022) 684,000 viewers
NIU vs. Buffalo (2022) 516,000 viewers
EKU vs. Marshall (2021) 980,000 viewers
Ark. St. vs. Memphis (2021) 1.03 million viewers
SMU vs. Texas St. (2021) 1.23 million viewers
A. Peay vs. Central Ark. (2021) 501,000 viewers
Tulane vs. So. Ala. (2021) 516,000 viewers
UTSA vs. TX St. (2021) 476,000 viewers
Troy vs. MTSU (2021) 642,000 viewers
Navy vs. Tulane (2021) 1.35 million viewers
Georgia St. vs. Ark. St. (2021) 698,000 viewers

NOTE: In the case of inter-conference games, ESPN would own the rights to broadcast the games in which a team from one of the conferences they broadcast (e.g., the AAC, MAC, or SBC) is playing on their home field.

.
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2022 11:56 AM by Milwaukee.)
04-28-2022 11:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,603
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 430
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #258
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-28-2022 11:30 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(04-28-2022 10:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='ballantyneapp' pid='18213653' dateline='1651153081']
[quote='TroyTBoy' pid='18213437' dateline='1651127517']
[quote='templefootballfan' pid='18211352' dateline='1651017464']
ESPN is on the hook for 40 FB games on TV.
that not gonna change.

with 14 schools, ESPN+ gains the extra games
ESPN+ loss content from C-USA
that's a wash

Actually, ESPN's commitment is to broadcast a minimum of 40 football games on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or ABC.

They may opt to broadcast more than 40 AAC games, some or most seasons, if they believe that the AAC is likely to have a sufficient number of high viewership games.

.

Honest question since I don't know the details:

Is there a requirement for number of games on each network? Or would it be potentially possible for everything to be on the preferred ABC/ESPN or for everything to be on the less preferred ESPN2/ESPNU sets? Or instead of everything, just most in one place I suppose.
04-28-2022 11:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,893
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2350
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #259
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-28-2022 11:43 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(04-28-2022 11:30 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(04-28-2022 10:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='ballantyneapp' pid='18213653' dateline='1651153081']
[quote='TroyTBoy' pid='18213437' dateline='1651127517']
[quote='templefootballfan' pid='18211352' dateline='1651017464']
ESPN is on the hook for 40 FB games on TV.
that not gonna change.

with 14 schools, ESPN+ gains the extra games
ESPN+ loss content from C-USA
that's a wash

Actually, ESPN's commitment is to broadcast a minimum of 40 football games on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or ABC.

They may opt to broadcast more than 40 AAC games, some or most seasons, if they believe that the AAC is likely to have a sufficient number of high viewership games.

.

Honest question since I don't know the details:

Is there a requirement for number of games on each network? Or would it be potentially possible for everything to be on the preferred ABC/ESPN or for everything to be on the less preferred ESPN2/ESPNU sets? Or instead of everything, just most in one place I suppose.

The AAC press release announcing the 2019 deal said:

Football

A minimum of 40 regular-season telecasts per season on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, including at least 20 across ABC, ESPN and ESPN2 ....

https://theamerican.org/news/2019/3/27/g...nsion.aspx
04-28-2022 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,893
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2350
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #260
RE: At 14 teams, Will the AAC Maintain Dominance Over the NY6/Access Spot?
(04-28-2022 11:30 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(04-28-2022 10:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='ballantyneapp' pid='18213653' dateline='1651153081']
[quote='TroyTBoy' pid='18213437' dateline='1651127517']
[quote='templefootballfan' pid='18211352' dateline='1651017464']
ESPN is on the hook for 40 FB games on TV.
that not gonna change.

with 14 schools, ESPN+ gains the extra games
ESPN+ loss content from C-USA
that's a wash

Actually, ESPN's commitment is to broadcast a minimum of 40 football games on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or ABC.

They may opt to broadcast more than 40 AAC games, some or most seasons, if they believe that the AAC is likely to have a sufficient number of high viewership games.

This past season - with Cincy, UH and UCF in the fold, and with Cincy chasing a playoff spot, ESPN broadcast .... exactly 40 AAC games on its linear channels. Exactly the contract minimum. Breaking that down, 12 were on ESPN, 14 on ESPN 2.

They dumped 24 more AAC games, including games involving Cincy and UCF, on to ESPN+.

So ESPN+ was by far the single biggest outlet for AAC football games last season.

So you think with losing those three higher-value schools and picking up six flotsam and jetsam CUSA programs that that number (40 linear) might go up?

Wake me up when that happens.

07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2022 12:01 PM by quo vadis.)
04-28-2022 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.