Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capitalized?
Author Message
Milwaukee Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,787
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 212
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #61
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-29-2022 07:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 05:22 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 06:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  "I think we’re getting a little caught up with the language of brands..."

"Your best brands are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top brands..."

True, we are caught up with the language of brands, and as long as we're caught up in that language, it may be helpful to clarify that there is a difference worth noting between a (generic) "brand" and a "brand name" (see below).

For example, there are different (generic) "brands" of "football" (American football is one, soccer is another, and rugby is a third generic brand of football).


The main point is that, rather than referring (broadly) to "brands" in these discussions, we're actually referring more specifically to the schools/teams' "brand names."

Thus, to rephrase the statements above,

"Your best (brand names) are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top (brand names)..."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It's also interesting to note that there seem to be two definitions of a brand name in college athletics:

1) Historical legacy (dating back multiple decades; e.g., Indiana MBB), and

2) "Winning," or "whoever is hot" (e.g., Gonzaga).


1. Legacy: There are many examples of FB and BB schools/programs that have a brand name associated with a well-established legacy of success, even though they are not currently "winning" or "hot."

---For example, WKU is ranked #21st on the CBS list of the greatest college basketball programs of all time, even though they haven't appeared in the last 8 NCAA tournaments.

---Notably, a school may have a legacy in football or basketball, or both.

---Thus, in the arena of collegiate athletics, "Duke" has a brand name due in particular to its men's basketball program.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time/

2. "Winning:" Just as there are "legacy" programs that aren't "hot," there are "hot" programs that don't have a legacy dating back more than a decade.

---For example, most observers of the sport would agree that Appalachian State has established at least an incipient brand name for itself in college football circles (but not in basketball), due to having won an average of 10 wins per season in their 8 years as an FBS program.


.

Why the two ways of defining of "brand name" in collegiate sports matter with regard to this discussion:

1. From the standpoint of historical legacy, the AAC has had, and will continue to have a number of "brand names," including:
  • Navy - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1924 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • SMU - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1936 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • Tulane - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1932 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • Rice - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1938 Cotton Bowl.
    .
  • Memphis - ranked #34th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
    .
  • Temple - ranked #24th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
    .
  • Wichita St. - ranked #60th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.

2. In addition, recent "brand names" from the standpoint of winning have included:
  • Navy - top 25 football teams in 2019 & 2015; 7 bowl games (5-2) since 2011.
    .
  • Memphis - top 25 FB teams in 2019, 2017, 2014, & 7 bowl games since 2011.
    .
  • UTSA - top 25 football team in December, 2021 AP poll.
    .
  • Memphis - 2022 NCAA tournament team; 2021 NIT championship team.
    .
  • Wichita St. - 8 NCAA tournament teams since 2011 (2012-2018 & 2021).
    .
  • Recent NCAA tournament teams: UAB (2022), UNT (2021), Temple (2019).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Definitions of the generic term "brand" and the more specific term, "brand name:"

Generic definitions of "brand:"

": a public image, reputation, or identity conceived of as something to be marketed or promoted"

: a characteristic or distinctive kind
e.g., "a lively brand of theater"


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

Definition of "brand-name"

1: of or relating to a brand name
brand-name products
2: having a well-known and usually highly regarded or marketable name

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand%20name

NOTE: "Brand" may also refer to a "make" (as in manufacturer) of a product (e.g., a vehicle, such as a "Ram" truck).

Your definition and list of "brand names" isn't very exclusive. Ipana is a brand name toothpaste by your definition.

You don't even have to be very good in sports to be on it. You certainly don't have to be very valuable. Just the occasional good season will do. But being on your list won't get you an invitation to play with the big dogs.

Value is relative, the AAC remainers are worth ~$7 million per year to ESPN, and three of them are said to be on the Big 12's "short list" for their expansion round two.

.
05-29-2022 07:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
THUNDERStruck73 Offline
Complete Jackass
*

Posts: 13,166
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 981
I Root For: Herd, Our Lady, & Heels
Location: Huntington, WV
Post: #62
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-29-2022 07:48 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 07:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 05:22 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 06:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  "I think we’re getting a little caught up with the language of brands..."

"Your best brands are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top brands..."

True, we are caught up with the language of brands, and as long as we're caught up in that language, it may be helpful to clarify that there is a difference worth noting between a (generic) "brand" and a "brand name" (see below).

For example, there are different (generic) "brands" of "football" (American football is one, soccer is another, and rugby is a third generic brand of football).


The main point is that, rather than referring (broadly) to "brands" in these discussions, we're actually referring more specifically to the schools/teams' "brand names."

Thus, to rephrase the statements above,

"Your best (brand names) are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top (brand names)..."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It's also interesting to note that there seem to be two definitions of a brand name in college athletics:

1) Historical legacy (dating back multiple decades; e.g., Indiana MBB), and

2) "Winning," or "whoever is hot" (e.g., Gonzaga).


1. Legacy: There are many examples of FB and BB schools/programs that have a brand name associated with a well-established legacy of success, even though they are not currently "winning" or "hot."

---For example, WKU is ranked #21st on the CBS list of the greatest college basketball programs of all time, even though they haven't appeared in the last 8 NCAA tournaments.

---Notably, a school may have a legacy in football or basketball, or both.

---Thus, in the arena of collegiate athletics, "Duke" has a brand name due in particular to its men's basketball program.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time/

2. "Winning:" Just as there are "legacy" programs that aren't "hot," there are "hot" programs that don't have a legacy dating back more than a decade.

---For example, most observers of the sport would agree that Appalachian State has established at least an incipient brand name for itself in college football circles (but not in basketball), due to having won an average of 10 wins per season in their 8 years as an FBS program.


.

Why the two ways of defining of "brand name" in collegiate sports matter with regard to this discussion:

1. From the standpoint of historical legacy, the AAC has had, and will continue to have a number of "brand names," including:
  • Navy - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1924 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • SMU - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1936 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • Tulane - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1932 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • Rice - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1938 Cotton Bowl.
    .
  • Memphis - ranked #34th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
    .
  • Temple - ranked #24th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
    .
  • Wichita St. - ranked #60th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.

2. In addition, recent "brand names" from the standpoint of winning have included:
  • Navy - top 25 football teams in 2019 & 2015; 7 bowl games (5-2) since 2011.
    .
  • Memphis - top 25 FB teams in 2019, 2017, 2014, & 7 bowl games since 2011.
    .
  • UTSA - top 25 football team in December, 2021 AP poll.
    .
  • Memphis - 2022 NCAA tournament team; 2021 NIT championship team.
    .
  • Wichita St. - 8 NCAA tournament teams since 2011 (2012-2018 & 2021).
    .
  • Recent NCAA tournament teams: UAB (2022), UNT (2021), Temple (2019).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Definitions of the generic term "brand" and the more specific term, "brand name:"

Generic definitions of "brand:"

": a public image, reputation, or identity conceived of as something to be marketed or promoted"

: a characteristic or distinctive kind
e.g., "a lively brand of theater"


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

Definition of "brand-name"

1: of or relating to a brand name
brand-name products
2: having a well-known and usually highly regarded or marketable name

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand%20name

NOTE: "Brand" may also refer to a "make" (as in manufacturer) of a product (e.g., a vehicle, such as a "Ram" truck).

Your definition and list of "brand names" isn't very exclusive. Ipana is a brand name toothpaste by your definition.

You don't even have to be very good in sports to be on it. You certainly don't have to be very valuable. Just the occasional good season will do. But being on your list won't get you an invitation to play with the big dogs.

Value is relative, the AAC remainers are worth ~$7 million per year to ESPN, and three of them are said to be on the Big 12's "short list" for their expansion round two.

.

It was worth $7mm per school WITH Houston, Cincy, and UCF. Take those schools away and add 6 more mouths…. Watch that tv deal plummet.
05-29-2022 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #63
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-29-2022 07:48 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 07:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 05:22 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 06:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  "I think we’re getting a little caught up with the language of brands..."

"Your best brands are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top brands..."

True, we are caught up with the language of brands, and as long as we're caught up in that language, it may be helpful to clarify that there is a difference worth noting between a (generic) "brand" and a "brand name" (see below).

For example, there are different (generic) "brands" of "football" (American football is one, soccer is another, and rugby is a third generic brand of football).


The main point is that, rather than referring (broadly) to "brands" in these discussions, we're actually referring more specifically to the schools/teams' "brand names."

Thus, to rephrase the statements above,

"Your best (brand names) are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top (brand names)..."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It's also interesting to note that there seem to be two definitions of a brand name in college athletics:

1) Historical legacy (dating back multiple decades; e.g., Indiana MBB), and

2) "Winning," or "whoever is hot" (e.g., Gonzaga).


1. Legacy: There are many examples of FB and BB schools/programs that have a brand name associated with a well-established legacy of success, even though they are not currently "winning" or "hot."

---For example, WKU is ranked #21st on the CBS list of the greatest college basketball programs of all time, even though they haven't appeared in the last 8 NCAA tournaments.

---Notably, a school may have a legacy in football or basketball, or both.

---Thus, in the arena of collegiate athletics, "Duke" has a brand name due in particular to its men's basketball program.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time/

2. "Winning:" Just as there are "legacy" programs that aren't "hot," there are "hot" programs that don't have a legacy dating back more than a decade.

---For example, most observers of the sport would agree that Appalachian State has established at least an incipient brand name for itself in college football circles (but not in basketball), due to having won an average of 10 wins per season in their 8 years as an FBS program.


.

Why the two ways of defining of "brand name" in collegiate sports matter with regard to this discussion:

1. From the standpoint of historical legacy, the AAC has had, and will continue to have a number of "brand names," including:
  • Navy - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1924 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • SMU - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1936 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • Tulane - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1932 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • Rice - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1938 Cotton Bowl.
    .
  • Memphis - ranked #34th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
    .
  • Temple - ranked #24th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
    .
  • Wichita St. - ranked #60th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.

2. In addition, recent "brand names" from the standpoint of winning have included:
  • Navy - top 25 football teams in 2019 & 2015; 7 bowl games (5-2) since 2011.
    .
  • Memphis - top 25 FB teams in 2019, 2017, 2014, & 7 bowl games since 2011.
    .
  • UTSA - top 25 football team in December, 2021 AP poll.
    .
  • Memphis - 2022 NCAA tournament team; 2021 NIT championship team.
    .
  • Wichita St. - 8 NCAA tournament teams since 2011 (2012-2018 & 2021).
    .
  • Recent NCAA tournament teams: UAB (2022), UNT (2021), Temple (2019).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Definitions of the generic term "brand" and the more specific term, "brand name:"

Generic definitions of "brand:"

": a public image, reputation, or identity conceived of as something to be marketed or promoted"

: a characteristic or distinctive kind
e.g., "a lively brand of theater"


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

Definition of "brand-name"

1: of or relating to a brand name
brand-name products
2: having a well-known and usually highly regarded or marketable name

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand%20name

NOTE: "Brand" may also refer to a "make" (as in manufacturer) of a product (e.g., a vehicle, such as a "Ram" truck).

Your definition and list of "brand names" isn't very exclusive. Ipana is a brand name toothpaste by your definition.

You don't even have to be very good in sports to be on it. You certainly don't have to be very valuable. Just the occasional good season will do. But being on your list won't get you an invitation to play with the big dogs.

Value is relative, the AAC remainers are worth ~$7 million per year to ESPN, and three of them are said to be on the Big 12's "short list" for their expansion round two.

.

If that was the case, it seems that the AAC wouldn't have needed to backfill to replace the departing schools. It could have just stayed at 8, and collected that $7m per school.

The AAC took on six new mouths to feed because it needed those mouths to keep the aggregate money at a level where they could then cut the new schools out of a full share, leaving a full share of $7m for the remainers.
05-29-2022 04:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #64
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-28-2022 06:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 05:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 04:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 03:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 03:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I am just a loudmouth on the internet, but I have a plausible explanation.
1. ESPN has a policy (foolish in this case, but a policy) against imposing haircuts on leagues. (This part is conjecture)
--They'll do a lot to avoid reducing the contracted payouts. Reducing the contract to reflect the new value of the AAC is a last resort, barely an option in ESPN's planning process unless a league "forces ESPN's hand" (conjecture) UConn leaving led to a 1/12 reduction, the remaining 11 were "made whole". (Also conjecture)
2. ESPN blessed the expansion to 14, as the most valuable possible configuration of a post-UC/UH/UCF/UConn AAC. (Conjecture as well)
--more chum for ESPN+, low-audience games, but more more more live content.
--more "lottery tickets." In any given year, there are a couple of top 25 G5 teams, and ESPN owning 14 AAC teams plus 14 Sun Belt teams plus 12 MAC teams increases the odds that a 9-0 G5 team fills a spot on ESPN2 instead of FS1 or CBS-SN.
3. All it takes is for the 6 new AAC teams to take half-shares, 8 + 6*0.5 = 11.

Me? I'd have used the gutting of the AAC to rethink the entire contract, negotiate a voiding of the more valuable back-end years of the deal. But taht doesn't seem to be what ESPN did. I think a lot of your non-AAC AD friends think the way I do. But it only matters what ESPN thinks. And I don't think we have an example of ESPN reducing the value of an existing TV contract as a result of realignment.

I think the bolded explains it. In reality, the AAC did not remain whole, not in the per-school sense that counts.

Who's counting? SMU, Tulsa, Wichita, Tulane, Memphis, ECU, Temple, Navy and South Florida remained whole. The 6 AAC noobs are better-than-whole.

That's more important, really, than our petty scoreboarding of MWC vs AAC average payouts.


Quote:With the gross ESPN payout the same (reportedly) while conference size increases from 11 to 14, the AAC per school payout was cut from $7m per school per year to $5.5m.

The AAC remainers just internally decided to make the six noobs bear the total cost of that, sparing themselves. But the conference as a whole is at a $5.5m per school payout now, not $7m.

Phrased that way, it's evidence that there is some value to the 6th and 7th most valuable football game, even if there are more people watching in the stands (which is not that many to start with) than watching from their couches.

That seems pretty unlikely to me. Seems more likely to me that corporate suits blindly followed a policy taht no longer makes sense in new conditions.

But we do have a data point for the value of more inventory-for-inventory's sake.

About the bolded, I have no illusions that anything we say on this forum about AAC vs MW matters to anyone outside of this forum, LOL.

But since we do compare conference payout, IMO it makes sense to be accurate. And as a result of the 'realignment' of 2021, I think it is accurate to say that the AAC payout is now $5.5m per school, down from $7m per school.

I think it's more accurate to divide the AAC into 2 groups. The AAC leftovers are at $7M per, ahead of the MWC. The AAC noobs are at $3.5M per, barely ahead of the MWC except for Boise. And below that are the payouts for the Sun Belt, MAC and CUSA.

Disagree. IMO, the conference per school payout is just the aggregate amount paid to the conference divided by the number of numbers of the conference, with adjustments only if a conference has partial members.

For the AAC, as of 2023, that's $5.5m per school. The fact that the AAC has internally decided to pay different schools different amounts is just that, an internal thing, but of no relevance in a conference vs conference comparison.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2022 04:51 PM by quo vadis.)
05-29-2022 04:51 PM
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: #65
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-29-2022 04:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 06:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 05:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 04:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 03:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the bolded explains it. In reality, the AAC did not remain whole, not in the per-school sense that counts.

Who's counting? SMU, Tulsa, Wichita, Tulane, Memphis, ECU, Temple, Navy and South Florida remained whole. The 6 AAC noobs are better-than-whole.

That's more important, really, than our petty scoreboarding of MWC vs AAC average payouts.


Quote:With the gross ESPN payout the same (reportedly) while conference size increases from 11 to 14, the AAC per school payout was cut from $7m per school per year to $5.5m.

The AAC remainers just internally decided to make the six noobs bear the total cost of that, sparing themselves. But the conference as a whole is at a $5.5m per school payout now, not $7m.

Phrased that way, it's evidence that there is some value to the 6th and 7th most valuable football game, even if there are more people watching in the stands (which is not that many to start with) than watching from their couches.

That seems pretty unlikely to me. Seems more likely to me that corporate suits blindly followed a policy taht no longer makes sense in new conditions.

But we do have a data point for the value of more inventory-for-inventory's sake.

About the bolded, I have no illusions that anything we say on this forum about AAC vs MW matters to anyone outside of this forum, LOL.

But since we do compare conference payout, IMO it makes sense to be accurate. And as a result of the 'realignment' of 2021, I think it is accurate to say that the AAC payout is now $5.5m per school, down from $7m per school.

I think it's more accurate to divide the AAC into 2 groups. The AAC leftovers are at $7M per, ahead of the MWC. The AAC noobs are at $3.5M per, barely ahead of the MWC except for Boise. And below that are the payouts for the Sun Belt, MAC and CUSA.

Disagree. IMO, the conference per school payout is just the aggregate amount paid to the conference divided by the number of numbers of the conference, with adjustments only if a conference has partial members.

For the AAC, as of 2023, that's $5.5m per school. The fact that the AAC has internally decided to pay different schools different amounts is just that, an internal thing, but of no relevance in a conference vs conference comparison.

The fact that the AAC remainers are being paid ~$7 million/year is certainly of relevance to them, to the network, and to sports journalists.

.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2022 05:10 PM by Milwaukee.)
05-29-2022 05:09 PM
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: #66
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-29-2022 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 07:48 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 07:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 05:22 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(05-28-2022 06:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  "I think we’re getting a little caught up with the language of brands..."

"Your best brands are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top brands..."

True, we are caught up with the language of brands, and as long as we're caught up in that language, it may be helpful to clarify that there is a difference worth noting between a (generic) "brand" and a "brand name" (see below).

For example, there are different (generic) "brands" of "football" (American football is one, soccer is another, and rugby is a third generic brand of football).


The main point is that, rather than referring (broadly) to "brands" in these discussions, we're actually referring more specifically to the schools/teams' "brand names."

Thus, to rephrase the statements above,

"Your best (brand names) are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top (brand names)..."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It's also interesting to note that there seem to be two definitions of a brand name in college athletics:

1) Historical legacy (dating back multiple decades; e.g., Indiana MBB), and

2) "Winning," or "whoever is hot" (e.g., Gonzaga).


1. Legacy: There are many examples of FB and BB schools/programs that have a brand name associated with a well-established legacy of success, even though they are not currently "winning" or "hot."

---For example, WKU is ranked #21st on the CBS list of the greatest college basketball programs of all time, even though they haven't appeared in the last 8 NCAA tournaments.

---Notably, a school may have a legacy in football or basketball, or both.

---Thus, in the arena of collegiate athletics, "Duke" has a brand name due in particular to its men's basketball program.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time/

2. "Winning:" Just as there are "legacy" programs that aren't "hot," there are "hot" programs that don't have a legacy dating back more than a decade.

---For example, most observers of the sport would agree that Appalachian State has established at least an incipient brand name for itself in college football circles (but not in basketball), due to having won an average of 10 wins per season in their 8 years as an FBS program.


.

Why the two ways of defining of "brand name" in collegiate sports matter with regard to this discussion:

1. From the standpoint of historical legacy, the AAC has had, and will continue to have a number of "brand names," including:
  • Navy - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1924 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • SMU - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1936 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • Tulane - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1932 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • Rice - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1938 Cotton Bowl.
    .
  • Memphis - ranked #34th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
    .
  • Temple - ranked #24th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
    .
  • Wichita St. - ranked #60th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.

2. In addition, recent "brand names" from the standpoint of winning have included:
  • Navy - top 25 football teams in 2019 & 2015; 7 bowl games (5-2) since 2011.
    .
  • Memphis - top 25 FB teams in 2019, 2017, 2014, & 7 bowl games since 2011.
    .
  • UTSA - top 25 football team in December, 2021 AP poll.
    .
  • Memphis - 2022 NCAA tournament team; 2021 NIT championship team.
    .
  • Wichita St. - 8 NCAA tournament teams since 2011 (2012-2018 & 2021).
    .
  • Recent NCAA tournament teams: UAB (2022), UNT (2021), Temple (2019).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Definitions of the generic term "brand" and the more specific term, "brand name:"

Generic definitions of "brand:"

": a public image, reputation, or identity conceived of as something to be marketed or promoted"

: a characteristic or distinctive kind
e.g., "a lively brand of theater"


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

Definition of "brand-name"

1: of or relating to a brand name
brand-name products
2: having a well-known and usually highly regarded or marketable name

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand%20name

NOTE: "Brand" may also refer to a "make" (as in manufacturer) of a product (e.g., a vehicle, such as a "Ram" truck).

Your definition and list of "brand names" isn't very exclusive. Ipana is a brand name toothpaste by your definition.

You don't even have to be very good in sports to be on it. You certainly don't have to be very valuable. Just the occasional good season will do. But being on your list won't get you an invitation to play with the big dogs.

Value is relative, the AAC remainers are worth ~$7 million per year to ESPN, and three of them are said to be on the Big 12's "short list" for their expansion round two.

.

If that was the case, it seems that the AAC wouldn't have needed to backfill to replace the departing schools. It could have just stayed at 8, and collected that $7m per school.

That's a pretty good example of a non sequitur.
05-29-2022 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #67
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-29-2022 05:11 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 07:48 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 07:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(05-29-2022 05:22 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  True, we are caught up with the language of brands, and as long as we're caught up in that language, it may be helpful to clarify that there is a difference worth noting between a (generic) "brand" and a "brand name" (see below).

For example, there are different (generic) "brands" of "football" (American football is one, soccer is another, and rugby is a third generic brand of football).


The main point is that, rather than referring (broadly) to "brands" in these discussions, we're actually referring more specifically to the schools/teams' "brand names."

Thus, to rephrase the statements above,

"Your best (brand names) are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."

"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top (brand names)..."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It's also interesting to note that there seem to be two definitions of a brand name in college athletics:

1) Historical legacy (dating back multiple decades; e.g., Indiana MBB), and

2) "Winning," or "whoever is hot" (e.g., Gonzaga).


1. Legacy: There are many examples of FB and BB schools/programs that have a brand name associated with a well-established legacy of success, even though they are not currently "winning" or "hot."

---For example, WKU is ranked #21st on the CBS list of the greatest college basketball programs of all time, even though they haven't appeared in the last 8 NCAA tournaments.

---Notably, a school may have a legacy in football or basketball, or both.

---Thus, in the arena of collegiate athletics, "Duke" has a brand name due in particular to its men's basketball program.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time/

2. "Winning:" Just as there are "legacy" programs that aren't "hot," there are "hot" programs that don't have a legacy dating back more than a decade.

---For example, most observers of the sport would agree that Appalachian State has established at least an incipient brand name for itself in college football circles (but not in basketball), due to having won an average of 10 wins per season in their 8 years as an FBS program.


.

Why the two ways of defining of "brand name" in collegiate sports matter with regard to this discussion:

1. From the standpoint of historical legacy, the AAC has had, and will continue to have a number of "brand names," including:
  • Navy - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1924 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • SMU - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1936 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • Tulane - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1932 Rose Bowl.
    .
  • Rice - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1938 Cotton Bowl.
    .
  • Memphis - ranked #34th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
    .
  • Temple - ranked #24th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
    .
  • Wichita St. - ranked #60th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.

2. In addition, recent "brand names" from the standpoint of winning have included:
  • Navy - top 25 football teams in 2019 & 2015; 7 bowl games (5-2) since 2011.
    .
  • Memphis - top 25 FB teams in 2019, 2017, 2014, & 7 bowl games since 2011.
    .
  • UTSA - top 25 football team in December, 2021 AP poll.
    .
  • Memphis - 2022 NCAA tournament team; 2021 NIT championship team.
    .
  • Wichita St. - 8 NCAA tournament teams since 2011 (2012-2018 & 2021).
    .
  • Recent NCAA tournament teams: UAB (2022), UNT (2021), Temple (2019).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Definitions of the generic term "brand" and the more specific term, "brand name:"

Generic definitions of "brand:"

": a public image, reputation, or identity conceived of as something to be marketed or promoted"

: a characteristic or distinctive kind
e.g., "a lively brand of theater"


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

Definition of "brand-name"

1: of or relating to a brand name
brand-name products
2: having a well-known and usually highly regarded or marketable name

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand%20name

NOTE: "Brand" may also refer to a "make" (as in manufacturer) of a product (e.g., a vehicle, such as a "Ram" truck).

Your definition and list of "brand names" isn't very exclusive. Ipana is a brand name toothpaste by your definition.

You don't even have to be very good in sports to be on it. You certainly don't have to be very valuable. Just the occasional good season will do. But being on your list won't get you an invitation to play with the big dogs.

Value is relative, the AAC remainers are worth ~$7 million per year to ESPN, and three of them are said to be on the Big 12's "short list" for their expansion round two.

.

If that was the case, it seems that the AAC wouldn't have needed to backfill to replace the departing schools. It could have just stayed at 8, and collected that $7m per school.

That's a pretty good example of a non sequitur.

Eh, in the previous post I replied to, you claimed that the AAC remainers are worth $7m a year to ESPN. But what's the basis for saying that?

Right now, with UCF/Houston/Cincy in the fold, and excluding the six schools to join in 2023, ESPN is paying the AAC a lump sum of about $76m per year for media rights. That works out to about $7m per school for the 11 football schools.

Now, if reports are correct, starting in 2023, once UCF/C/UH are gone and the six CUSA noobs are on board, ESPN will still be paying the same $76m per year to the AAC, which works out to about $5.5m per school for the 14 football schools.

Now, from what I've seen reported, the *AAC* has decided to divide that pie unequally, such that the remainers will stay at around $7m per school while the noobs will get $3.5m per school. The key being that this is an AAC determination, not an ESPN determination.

For your statement to be correct, it would have to be true that ESPN specified that of that $76m, $56m was to be divided among the remainers, while $20m is to be divided among the six noobs. That would be *ESPN* valuing the remainers at $7m per school.

But as far I've read, nobody has said that. All reports I've read indicate that the AAC itself made that determination. So the correct statement is that the *AAC* is valuing its remainers at $7m per school and its noobs at $3.5m per school. And that makes sense, as why would ESPN care how the AAC divides that money? It could care less who gets what, that's an internal issue for the AAC to decide.

Not ESPN.

Of course, if you have other information about who decided how the pie was to be divided, well, I'd love to hear it.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2022 05:46 PM by quo vadis.)
05-29-2022 05:41 PM
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: #68
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capitalized?
I predict that Air Force will STILL be in the AAC eventually.

They initiated contact this time, and besides liking the superior ESPN TV deal they also wanted to play in Texas (and make NAVY a conference game).

The deal was blown up when Thamel stirred up concerns in their alumni base with his early reveal.

The best thing Aresco did was sign a 12-year deal.

It's very likely a lot will change in the MWC by the time they have to reconfigure their much shorter television package.

With no divisions, is there even a need to bring in a second team - if the AAC just brings in Air Force?

07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2022 01:49 AM by TroyTBoy.)
05-31-2022 01:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AztecNation Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 212
Joined: Oct 2021
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Aztecs
Location:
Post: #69
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capitalized?
Other than SMU none of those Texas schools are really worth changing conferences for. I'd imagine AFA could schedule decent Texas schools OOC if that is a priority. MW tv deal also ends soon so they will have flexibility on that (something the AAC doesn't). Only point I agree with is AFA may prefer Navy/Army to be conference games to open up OOC slots.
05-31-2022 03:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #70
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-31-2022 03:57 AM)AztecNation Wrote:  Other than SMU none of those Texas schools are really worth changing conferences for. I'd imagine AFA could schedule decent Texas schools OOC if that is a priority. MW tv deal also ends soon so they will have flexibility on that (something the AAC doesn't). Only point I agree with is AFA may prefer Navy/Army to be conference games to open up OOC slots.

Yeah, seems like the AFA supporters were very strongly against joining the AAC. IIRC, the reaction among the alumni base seemed pretty strong, they really blanched at the idea of joining the AAC. I don't see that changing. Why a Colorado-based school would want to join CUSA 4.0 or whatever is not easy to discern.

As you say, SMU is the only Texas school in the AAC worth associating with. And IMO, not all that worth it.

Aresco tied the AAC in to a "meh" TV deal for 12 long years, and the AAC just added six low-value CUSA teams to a remainder rump that lacks its top three brands. The new AAC is a big step down from the old AAC, and AFA never had any interest in the old AAC.
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2022 07:36 AM by quo vadis.)
05-31-2022 07:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,216
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 221
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #71
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-31-2022 01:48 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  I predict that Air Force will STILL be in the AAC eventually.

They initiated contact this time, and besides liking the superior ESPN TV deal they also wanted to play in Texas (and make NAVY a conference game).

The deal was blown up when Thamel stirred up concerns in their alumni base with his early reveal.

The best thing Aresco did was sign a 12-year deal.

It's very likely a lot will change in the MWC by the time they have to reconfigure their much shorter television package.

With no divisions, is there even a need to bring in a second team - if the AAC just brings in Air Force?

07-coffee3

How much will AF increase the tv package and how many BB credits will they contribute to the bottom line? Is AF worth 7 million + in additional revenue to equal what the remaining schools are receiving? The AAC already has 14 future mouths to feed. Will an AF addition keep the TV revenue payout at 7 million or even increase it in the next package. If Boise remains in the MWC and the other range schools remain there too, there is no way AF makes the move anyway. 07-coffee3
05-31-2022 07:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Utgrizfan Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 588
Joined: Sep 2021
Reputation: 44
I Root For: Utah, Army, Montana
Location: Utah
Post: #72
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capitalized?
The only way I could ever see Air Force ever wanting to leave for the AAC would be if Army joined as well, have all 3 teams in the same Conference/Division freeing up more OOC games for recruiting. Even then I feel it would be a long shot, Both them and Colorado state made the right call staying in the MWC. I Personally could see in a few seasons a couple of the schools wanting to leave due to it being now overcrowded
05-31-2022 11:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #73
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-31-2022 11:30 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  The only way I could ever see Air Force ever wanting to leave for the AAC would be if Army joined as well, have all 3 teams in the same Conference/Division freeing up more OOC games for recruiting. Even then I feel it would be a long shot, Both them and Colorado state made the right call staying in the MWC. I Personally could see in a few seasons a couple of the schools wanting to leave due to it being now overcrowded

The thing is, I don't recall any interest on the part of Army or Air Force wanting to join the AAC at this time *last* year, before the AAC lost its three top brands and backfilled with a pile of CUSA flotsam.

So it boggles me that some think they see AFA and/or Army joining the AAC at some time going forward, joining an inferior conference to the one they previously had no apparent interest in.

But hey, I've been wrong before. We'll see.
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2022 08:14 AM by quo vadis.)
06-01-2022 08:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b2b Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,596
Joined: May 2021
Reputation: 686
I Root For: My Family + ECU
Location: Land of Confusion
Post: #74
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(06-01-2022 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-31-2022 11:30 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  The only way I could ever see Air Force ever wanting to leave for the AAC would be if Army joined as well, have all 3 teams in the same Conference/Division freeing up more OOC games for recruiting. Even then I feel it would be a long shot, Both them and Colorado state made the right call staying in the MWC. I Personally could see in a few seasons a couple of the schools wanting to leave due to it being now overcrowded

The thing is, I don't recall any interest on the part of Army or Air Force wanting to join the AAC at this time *last* year, before the AAC lost its three top brands and backfilled with a pile of CUSA flotsam.

So it boggles me that some think they see AFA and/or Army joining the AAC at some time going forward, joining an inferior conference to the one they previously had no apparent interest in.

But hey, I've been wrong before. We'll see.

I guess the theory goes that the AAC is even weaker on the field w/ the bonus of more schools in Texas, a state that the academies supposedly like. I'm not saying that I agree with this but that's how the logic apparently goes.
06-01-2022 08:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,859
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 302
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #75
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-31-2022 01:48 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  I predict that Air Force will STILL be in the AAC eventually.

They initiated contact this time, and besides liking the superior ESPN TV deal they also wanted to play in Texas (and make NAVY a conference game).

The deal was blown up when Thamel stirred up concerns in their alumni base with his early reveal.

The best thing Aresco did was sign a 12-year deal.

It's very likely a lot will change in the MWC by the time they have to reconfigure their much shorter television package.

With no divisions, is there even a need to bring in a second team - if the AAC just brings in Air Force?

What is in it for Air Force? What do they gain? Air Force does not like to travel back east. Outside of their games with Army and Navy, they do not have a future road game scheduled east of the Mississippi. This season, 11 of their 12 games are played in the western region, with a neutral site game against Army in Arlington, Texas being the exception.

They have nationally televised games on CBS at home against Colorado and Navy, plus the Army game on CBS. The rest of their televised games will be on FOX, FS1, and CBSSN. From a television exposure standpoint, I don't see how ESPN improves on that. The TV money would probably be slightly better in the AAC, but once the MWC contract expires in 2025-2026, the MWC could pass them up. The AAC contract running through 2032 is not a good thing and the ESPN deal with the AAC is not a superior deal.

The only real value Air Force has is in football. They have had nine consecutive losing seasons in basketball and they are never going to be anything more than mediocre in basketball. Air Force would need to find a stable western conference for Olympic sports and that might not be easy. Air Force does not help the WCC in basketball. The options are limited and being in the MWC is probably the best place for them.
06-01-2022 10:42 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: #76
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(06-01-2022 10:42 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  "Air Force would need to find a stable western conference for Olympic sports and that might not be easy."

There are three stable western conferences for olympic sports that Air Force could probably take its pick from: The Big Sky, Summit, and WAC.

The Big Sky and Summit conferences both have Colorado teams, and the WAC has teams in nearby states.

It's hard to imagine any athletic conference turning down an application from one of the nation's major service academies.

The bigger questions are probably these:

1. Will Memphis depart from the AAC in the next few years, which would open up a $5 (5/7 of $7) million revenue stream for Air Force to step into in the next few years?

2. If so, would Air Force accept it, given that they had the opportunity to do so in 2021 and turned it down?

---That is, would the addition of 3 Texas schools make enough of a difference to persuade Air Force to join the American?

.
06-01-2022 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #77
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(06-01-2022 10:42 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(05-31-2022 01:48 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  I predict that Air Force will STILL be in the AAC eventually.

They initiated contact this time, and besides liking the superior ESPN TV deal they also wanted to play in Texas (and make NAVY a conference game).

The deal was blown up when Thamel stirred up concerns in their alumni base with his early reveal.

The best thing Aresco did was sign a 12-year deal.

It's very likely a lot will change in the MWC by the time they have to reconfigure their much shorter television package.

With no divisions, is there even a need to bring in a second team - if the AAC just brings in Air Force?

What is in it for Air Force? What do they gain? Air Force does not like to travel back east. Outside of their games with Army and Navy, they do not have a future road game scheduled east of the Mississippi. This season, 11 of their 12 games are played in the western region, with a neutral site game against Army in Arlington, Texas being the exception.

They have nationally televised games on CBS at home against Colorado and Navy, plus the Army game on CBS. The rest of their televised games will be on FOX, FS1, and CBSSN. From a television exposure standpoint, I don't see how ESPN improves on that. The TV money would probably be slightly better in the AAC, but once the MWC contract expires in 2025-2026, the MWC could pass them up. The AAC contract running through 2032 is not a good thing and the ESPN deal with the AAC is not a superior deal.

The only real value Air Force has is in football. They have had nine consecutive losing seasons in basketball and they are never going to be anything more than mediocre in basketball. Air Force would need to find a stable western conference for Olympic sports and that might not be easy. Air Force does not help the WCC in basketball. The options are limited and being in the MWC is probably the best place for them.

About the bolded, I agree that the MW is in a good TV position, with their rights coming up in just a couple of years, whereas Aresco locked the AAC to a "meh" deal for the next decade.

If any of the MW schools still had the AAC on their mind, and I very much doubt that, I expect they would at least wait to see how the new MW deal shakes out before making a move.
06-01-2022 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,859
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 302
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #78
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(06-01-2022 11:38 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(06-01-2022 10:42 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  "Air Force would need to find a stable western conference for Olympic sports and that might not be easy."

There are three stable western conferences for olympic sports that Air Force could probably take its pick from: The Big Sky, Summit, and WAC.

The Big Sky and Summit conferences both have Colorado teams, and the WAC has teams in nearby states.

It's hard to imagine any athletic conference turning down an application from one of the nation's major service academies.

The bigger questions are probably these:

1. Will Memphis depart from the AAC in the next few years, which would open up a $5 (5/7 of $7) million revenue stream for Air Force to step into in the next few years?

2. If so, would Air Force accept it, given that they had the opportunity to do so in 2021 and turned it down?

---That is, would the addition of 3 Texas schools make enough of a difference to persuade Air Force to join the American?

First, the AAC is a lateral move for Air Force, especially without Houston, Cincinnati, and UCF. Secondly, the Air Force makes about $4 million annually from their TV deal. If they get a bump to $5 million, which is the number you think they would get, is that worth it? I think the answer to that is obviously no, especially because they would need a new Olympic sports conference.

Air Force is already a member of the WAC for men's soccer and men's swimming & diving. That is the logical conference, but the WAC is far from stable. The Big Sky does offer men's soccer, baseball, or men's swimming & diving. The primary reason to be a member of the Big Sky is to play FCS football, which does not fit with Air Force. The Summit is not a western league. It is a Dakota league and not that appealing in any manner.
06-01-2022 12:35 PM
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: #79
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(06-01-2022 12:35 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(06-01-2022 11:38 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(06-01-2022 10:42 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  "Air Force would need to find a stable western conference for Olympic sports and that might not be easy."

There are three stable western conferences for olympic sports that Air Force could probably take its pick from: The Big Sky, Summit, and WAC.

The Big Sky and Summit conferences both have Colorado teams, and the WAC has teams in nearby states.

It's hard to imagine any athletic conference turning down an application from one of the nation's major service academies.

The bigger questions are probably these:

1. Will Memphis depart from the AAC in the next few years, which would open up a $5 (5/7 of $7) million revenue stream for Air Force to step into in the next few years?

2. If so, would Air Force accept it, given that they had the opportunity to do so in 2021 and turned it down?

---That is, would the addition of 3 Texas schools make enough of a difference to persuade Air Force to join the American?

First, the AAC is a lateral move for Air Force, especially without Houston, Cincinnati, and UCF. Secondly, the Air Force makes about $4 million annually from their TV deal. If they get a bump to $5 million, which is the number you think they would get, is that worth it? I think the answer to that is obviously no, especially because they would need a new Olympic sports conference.

You're forgetting that there are some advantages to joining the AAC, so it wouldn't be a lateral move. Yes, they'd get about $1 million more per year, and with so many western teams in the AAC, their football travel costs wouldn't be that different.

Another advantage is that they could schedule one more OOC game per season, since they'd be able to schedule Navy as a conference game, and that would give them the freedom to schedule more high quality opponents of their choice for their home games.

A third advantage is that playing in the AAC would vastly increase their viewership/exposure in the eastern and central time zones. In addition, it would open up new recruiting territory for them. They could become more of a national powerhouse than they are now.


(06-01-2022 12:35 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Air Force is already a member of the WAC for men's soccer and men's swimming & diving. That is the logical conference, but the WAC is far from stable. The Big Sky does offer men's soccer, baseball, or men's swimming & diving. The primary reason to be a member of the Big Sky is to play FCS football, which does not fit with Air Force. The Summit is not a western league. It is a Dakota league and not that appealing in any manner.

It doesn't matter if the Summit is "western" or a "plains" conference.

The point remains the same - - Air Force would have its pick between the WAC, the Big Sky, and the Summit conferences, and the travel distances for the Summit and Big Sky wouldn't be that different from what they'd be for the MWC and WAC.

Also, when you write that the Summit would not be "that appealing," you may be overlooking an important point - - it might be more appealing to Air Force than it may seem if they could play in a league that their teams would be more competitive in.

Take Army and Navy, for example - - they play their olympic sports in the Patriot League, which most MWC or AAC schools wouldn't consider very "appealing" either, but it appeals to Army and Navy, because their teams are more competitive in that league than they would be in the AAC, for example.

The truth is that no one knows what Air Force will do if they get another invitation, and no one even knows if there will be another opening for Air Force to join the American. A lot will depend on whether or not there is another round of P5 realignment. They seemed to come close to making the switch in 2021 and having more Texas teams might or might not make a difference next time around - - if there is a next time around.

.
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2022 01:10 PM by Milwaukee.)
06-01-2022 12:46 PM
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.