(05-07-2022 10:08 PM)46566 Wrote:  I honestly at least right now see Boise State losing it's extra payout the next tv contract. The only option for any remaining school is a P5 invite to either the PAC 12 or Big 12. I don't see any value going to the AAC for any school. Boise State can't go Indy unless it wants it's sports in the Big West. Air Force might be able to go to the summit with Northern Colorado if it goes Indy.

That's a bit of a catch-22. It's like saying "My only option now is to become a chemist. I don't see any value in going to school to study chemistry".

If Boise and SDSU hadn't back out a decade ago, would either of them be headed to the Big 12 right now?

(05-09-2022 05:40 AM)NeighSayer Wrote:  Neither Air Force nor Colorado State have the same level of national interest as Boise State.They lacked the leverage to pull their own “sweetheart” deals.

The reaction from the MWC when the rumors were floated that the Falcons and Rams were leaving for the AAC? “Glad we don’t have to deal with cut blocks from the triple option anymore.” The reaction when word got out that the Broncos were rethinking their move to the Big East when that conference fell apart? “Come back and save our TV deal…we’ll even separate your home games from the rest of the contract and give you a bigger cut.”

BTW, the notion that Boise State’s added payment will go away is flat-out wrong. Commissioner Thompson floated that idea, but President Tromp quickly shut that nonsense down. Our attorneys made it very clear to the MWC that the terms for our return to the league guaranteed our bigger cut in perpetuity; any breach of that contract will cost the MWC dearly. The league backed off of that position in a hurry. Pretty lousy way to treat your conference bell cow —Thompson should be fired for even suggesting it.

I agree that the $1.8m bonus to Boise isn't going anywhere. It will be there so long as Boise in the MW.

That said, a couple of things:

1) Boise may have made a small error themselves in that 2016 deal: the terms call for a bonus of a flat $1.8m, not something that is proportional with the value of the contract. So if the MW gets $15m a year from TV, Bouse gets $1.8m off the top. But if the deal rises to $100m a year from TV, Boise still gets $1.8m off the top. The amount stays the same, but the proportional value falls.

That's basically what happened in 2020, when the MW deal rose from about $15m a year to $45m a year, such that the TV payout tripled. In the old deal, Boise's bonus alone was close to double what other MW schools were getting in total TV payout, now it is less than 50% more. Still a lot more, but not nearly as much more.

IIRC, reports said that Boise tried to correct that by suggesting to the MW commissioner that their bonus rise proportionally as well, but the MW rejected that, and it may have been that request that prompted the MW to try and take away the bonus entirely.

In any event, as MW deals go up, the proportional value of that bonus will continue to fall.

2) Let's face it - the MW isn't actually as dependent on Boise as it was 10 years ago, because Boise isn't what it was 5-10 years ago. Since 2013, Boise has only won 3 of the 9 MW titles. Yes, more than anyone else but not dominant.

From 2002-2011, Boise finished in the AP top 20 eight times, with four of those in the top 10. Since 2012, Boise has finished in the AP top 20 twice, and never in the top 10. Boise hasn't had an AP top 20 finish since 2014. It has scraped in between 20-25 three times since then.

But bottom line is, while Boise has far from fallen off a cliff, they just aren't what they were in terms of national presence when the sweetheart deals were agreed to in 2012 and 2016.

So IMO, while Boise has every right to demand what is owed them by the legal terms of the deal, they really don't have much of a "moral" claim to that bonus anymore. Or at least not as large of one. Maybe it should be about $1m now?

(05-09-2022 07:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 05:40 AM)NeighSayer Wrote:  Neither Air Force nor Colorado State have the same level of national interest as Boise State.They lacked the leverage to pull their own “sweetheart” deals.

The reaction from the MWC when the rumors were floated that the Falcons and Rams were leaving for the AAC? “Glad we don’t have to deal with cut blocks from the triple option anymore.” The reaction when word got out that the Broncos were rethinking their move to the Big East when that conference fell apart? “Come back and save our TV deal…we’ll even separate your home games from the rest of the contract and give you a bigger cut.”

BTW, the notion that Boise State’s added payment will go away is flat-out wrong. Commissioner Thompson floated that idea, but President Tromp quickly shut that nonsense down. Our attorneys made it very clear to the MWC that the terms for our return to the league guaranteed our bigger cut in perpetuity; any breach of that contract will cost the MWC dearly. The league backed off of that position in a hurry. Pretty lousy way to treat your conference bell cow —Thompson should be fired for even suggesting it.

I agree that the $1.8m bonus to Boise isn't going anywhere. It will be there so long as Boise in the MW.

That said, a couple of things:

1) Boise may have made a small error themselves in that 2016 deal: the terms call for a bonus of a flat $1.8m, not something that is proportional with the value of the contract. So if the MW gets $15m a year from TV, Bouse gets $1.8m off the top. But if the deal rises to $100m a year from TV, Boise still gets $1.8m off the top. The amount stays the same, but the proportional value falls.

That's basically what happened in 2020, when the MW deal rose from about $15m a year to $45m a year, such that the TV payout tripled. In the old deal, Boise's bonus alone was close to double what other MW schools were getting in total TV payout, now it is less than 50% more. Still a lot more, but not nearly as much more.

IIRC, reports said that Boise tried to correct that by suggesting to the MW commissioner that their bonus rise proportionally as well, but the MW rejected that, and it may have been that request that prompted the MW to try and take away the bonus entirely.

In any event, as MW deals go up, the proportional value of that bonus will continue to fall.

2) Let's face it - the MW isn't actually as dependent on Boise as it was 10 years ago, because Boise isn't what it was 5-10 years ago. Since 2013, Boise has only won 3 of the 9 MW titles. Yes, more than anyone else but not dominant.

From 2002-2011, Boise finished in the AP top 20 eight times, with four of those in the top 10. Since 2012, Boise has finished in the AP top 20 twice, and never in the top 10. Boise hasn't had an AP top 20 finish since 2014. It has scraped in between 20-25 three times since then.

But bottom line is, while Boise has far from fallen off a cliff, they just aren't what they were in terms of national presence when the sweetheart deals were agreed to in 2012 and 2016.

So IMO, while Boise has every right to demand what is owed them by the legal terms of the deal, they really don't have much of a "moral" claim to that bonus anymore. Or at least not as large of one. Maybe it should be about $1m now?

I agree that a mistake was made by not negotiating a set percentage. You did your homework, so you know the original deal was set up to boost any MWC program that made waives nationally, as bonus money was awarded based on nationally televised games. Boise State was guaranteed a large number of those games due to selling our home games in a separate package. Eventually, the West teams complained that the Mountain teams were getting more of those bonus checks because the divisional teams played the Broncos more often, so the league approached Boise State with a fixed bonus instead (which should have been a percentage, as you rightly point out). There is talk, though, of doing away with divisions in 2023. I would support a return to the nationally televised games bonus system.

While the Harsin years were okay, his leadership style tended to drive assistant coaches away. I think that lack of continuity manifested itself on the field. Still a good program, but not as consistent as before. Avalos’ first year was tough, but he was cleaning up after the previous tenant. Now that he has a year under his belt, I expect the Broncos to rise again under Avalos’ watch.

(05-09-2022 07:51 AM)NeighSayer Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 07:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 05:40 AM)NeighSayer Wrote:  Neither Air Force nor Colorado State have the same level of national interest as Boise State.They lacked the leverage to pull their own “sweetheart” deals.

The reaction from the MWC when the rumors were floated that the Falcons and Rams were leaving for the AAC? “Glad we don’t have to deal with cut blocks from the triple option anymore.” The reaction when word got out that the Broncos were rethinking their move to the Big East when that conference fell apart? “Come back and save our TV deal…we’ll even separate your home games from the rest of the contract and give you a bigger cut.”

BTW, the notion that Boise State’s added payment will go away is flat-out wrong. Commissioner Thompson floated that idea, but President Tromp quickly shut that nonsense down. Our attorneys made it very clear to the MWC that the terms for our return to the league guaranteed our bigger cut in perpetuity; any breach of that contract will cost the MWC dearly. The league backed off of that position in a hurry. Pretty lousy way to treat your conference bell cow —Thompson should be fired for even suggesting it.

I agree that the $1.8m bonus to Boise isn't going anywhere. It will be there so long as Boise in the MW.

That said, a couple of things:

1) Boise may have made a small error themselves in that 2016 deal: the terms call for a bonus of a flat $1.8m, not something that is proportional with the value of the contract. So if the MW gets $15m a year from TV, Bouse gets $1.8m off the top. But if the deal rises to $100m a year from TV, Boise still gets $1.8m off the top. The amount stays the same, but the proportional value falls.

That's basically what happened in 2020, when the MW deal rose from about $15m a year to $45m a year, such that the TV payout tripled. In the old deal, Boise's bonus alone was close to double what other MW schools were getting in total TV payout, now it is less than 50% more. Still a lot more, but not nearly as much more.

IIRC, reports said that Boise tried to correct that by suggesting to the MW commissioner that their bonus rise proportionally as well, but the MW rejected that, and it may have been that request that prompted the MW to try and take away the bonus entirely.

In any event, as MW deals go up, the proportional value of that bonus will continue to fall.

2) Let's face it - the MW isn't actually as dependent on Boise as it was 10 years ago, because Boise isn't what it was 5-10 years ago. Since 2013, Boise has only won 3 of the 9 MW titles. Yes, more than anyone else but not dominant.

From 2002-2011, Boise finished in the AP top 20 eight times, with four of those in the top 10. Since 2012, Boise has finished in the AP top 20 twice, and never in the top 10. Boise hasn't had an AP top 20 finish since 2014. It has scraped in between 20-25 three times since then.

But bottom line is, while Boise has far from fallen off a cliff, they just aren't what they were in terms of national presence when the sweetheart deals were agreed to in 2012 and 2016.

So IMO, while Boise has every right to demand what is owed them by the legal terms of the deal, they really don't have much of a "moral" claim to that bonus anymore. Or at least not as large of one. Maybe it should be about $1m now?

I agree that a mistake was made by not negotiating a set percentage. You did your homework, so you know the original deal was set up to boost any MWC program that made waives nationally, as bonus money was awarded based on nationally televised games. Boise State was guaranteed a large number of those games due to selling our home games in a separate package. Eventually, the West teams complained that the Mountain teams were getting more of those bonus checks because the divisional teams played the Broncos more often, so the league approached Boise State with a fixed bonus instead (which should have been a percentage, as you rightly point out). There is talk, though, of doing away with divisions in 2023. I would support a return to the nationally televised games bonus system.

While the Harsin years were okay, his leadership style tended to drive assistant coaches away. I think that lack of continuity manifested itself on the field. Still a good program, but not as consistent as before. Avalos’ first year was tough, but he was cleaning up after the previous tenant. Now that he has a year under his belt, I expect the Broncos to rise again under Avalos’ watch.

I don't think the national TV games system will return. Administrators like certainty, and the Boise bonus was fluctuating wildly. IIRC, in just four years, it ranged between $1.6m and $2.2m. And of course that fluctuation affected everyone else in the MW as well. That's a headache for administrators at all schools, including Boise. So there was a logic to fixing it at a set amount that would allow for budget planning across the board. Of course, Boise should have insisted on a fixed percentage that would mean their bonus would rise as TV deals rose, but that didn't happen and so now $1.8m is what it is, for better or worse.

I do hope that Boise become a dominant team again. College football is more fun with Boise in the national mix as kind of a wild-card against the Power schools. They always were a great story doing what they were doing.

(05-09-2022 06:48 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 10:08 PM)46566 Wrote:  I honestly at least right now see Boise State losing it's extra payout the next tv contract. The only option for any remaining school is a P5 invite to either the PAC 12 or Big 12. I don't see any value going to the AAC for any school. Boise State can't go Indy unless it wants it's sports in the Big West. Air Force might be able to go to the summit with Northern Colorado if it goes Indy.

That's a bit of a catch-22. It's like saying "My only option now is to become a chemist. I don't see any value in going to school to study chemistry".

If Boise and SDSU hadn't back out a decade ago, would either of them be headed to the Big 12 right now?

It's hard to say specifically the rollout of the move would have changed the landscape to much. Would the AAC have a Texas focus or try to build a proper Western division and divide Texas schools in between the conferences?
If it was football only (I think it was) how would dumping their sports help/hurt them? Would San Diego State still get the same quality of basketball recruit in the Big West as they do in the mountain west? If they don't win in a downgraded conference it looks bad. At least BYU had Gonzaga and Saint Mary to play in the WCC.

The planned AAC isn't the same AAC that any MWC would want to join. The value of the AAC contract is going to fall. By how much we don't know until we get Datta for the seasons after the schools move. The MWC might be the better overall college after the AAC loses it's best schools. The TV deal would not be a incentive to move in all sports. Even football only it would be hard finding Olympic Sports homes for other sports. Boise State couldn't find a home when they were looking at the AAC a few years ago I think.

(05-10-2022 01:56 AM)46566 Wrote:  The planned AAC isn't the same AAC that any MWC would want to join. The value of the AAC contract is going to fall.

Not true.

Even though Cincinnati-Houston-UCF were written into the AAC contract as the bedrock of the deal, Aresco has gotten assurances from the WWL that the deal will basically stay the same for the incumbent teams (and the incoming programs will almost be making what MWC teams make... WITH BETTER EXPOSURE!)

I think the mistake was for the MWC is to take their agreement away from Boise State to sell their home games to ESPN. Boise State is more valuable to ESPN then the other MWC to this date. Boise State is still tops since 2000 with the best winning record than any other G5 schools including the ones that will be joining the Big 12.

(05-15-2022 12:01 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the mistake was for the MWC is to take their agreement away from Boise State to sell their home games to ESPN. Boise State is more valuable to ESPN then the other MWC to this date. Boise State is still tops since 2000 with the best winning record than any other G5 schools including the ones that will be joining the Big 12.

Boise State hasn't won anything of note since 2014... and times are starting to dim a bit more now since they hired their former linebacker.

(05-15-2022 02:09 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(05-15-2022 12:01 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the mistake was for the MWC is to take their agreement away from Boise State to sell their home games to ESPN. Boise State is more valuable to ESPN then the other MWC to this date. Boise State is still tops since 2000 with the best winning record than any other G5 schools including the ones that will be joining the Big 12.

Boise State hasn't won anything of note since 2014... and times are starting to dim a bit more now since they hired their former linebacker.

Yes, Boise's results on the field, and value, have dulled a bit since the start of the CFP era. They haven't fallen totally off, are still the most valuable MW brand, but they have fallen off a bit.

The thing is, right now, neither side is happy. The MW would like to get rid of Boise's extra payment entirely, it chafes the other members, they are kicking themselves for making it "in perpetuity". Boise thinks the bonus should be proportional to the value of the current TV deal, not a flat amount, they are kicking themselves for agreeing to the flat sum.

But as long as Boise has no place better to go, they are stuck with each other, and the events of the past year have made it clear Boise has no place better to go. And really, both are better off with the status quo.

(05-15-2022 02:09 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(05-15-2022 12:01 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the mistake was for the MWC is to take their agreement away from Boise State to sell their home games to ESPN. Boise State is more valuable to ESPN then the other MWC to this date. Boise State is still tops since 2000 with the best winning record than any other G5 schools including the ones that will be joining the Big 12.

Boise State hasn't won anything of note since 2014... and times are starting to dim a bit more now since they hired their former linebacker.

Well, hey the last TV contract get signed in 2020 and it contains not just a carve-out for Boise's home games on Fox, but CBS insisted on a special provision that they got all of Boise State's Road games.

So based on the contract the TV networks are insisting upon, Boise is still special

(05-09-2022 08:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I do hope that Boise become a dominant team again. College football is more fun with Boise in the national mix as kind of a wild-card against the Power schools. They always were a great story doing what they were doing.

Boise upset the applecart more than they imagined in 2013.

By forcing the MWC to pay them more than the others, it really did tip the balance in favor of the AAC.

It really seemed like the AAC programs were unified in investing and challenging on the field (which they did). Those first few years of the American, everyone was working to generate value for the 2nd TV deal.

OTOH, in the MWC there was a lot of infighting (still is) which manifested in lawsuits and teams looking elsewhere.

(05-22-2022 02:02 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 08:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I do hope that Boise become a dominant team again. College football is more fun with Boise in the national mix as kind of a wild-card against the Power schools. They always were a great story doing what they were doing.

Boise upset the applecart more than they imagined in 2013.

By forcing the MWC to pay them more than the others, it really did tip the balance in favor of the AAC.

It really seemed like the AAC programs were unified in investing and challenging on the field (which they did). Those first few years of the American, everyone was working to generate value for the 2nd TV deal.

OTOH, in the MWC there was a lot of infighting (still is) which manifested in lawsuits and teams looking elsewhere.

Every school not in a P5 conference is looking elsewhere for bigger pay days.

Remember when CUSA and the MWC were trying to form an alliance???? No one cared. Not CBS, not FOX, not ESPN...Not the fans..

But yet, that is almost what the AAC is now. All over the map. The MWC has resisted that. Now that UCF, Cincy, and Houston are gone, the MWC looks smarter than they did a year ago.

Pretty sure the merger idea was completely from CUSA side. Sorta of like their plea to realign with the SBC before they were poached to hell.

(05-14-2022 03:57 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 01:56 AM)46566 Wrote:  The planned AAC isn't the same AAC that any MWC would want to join. The value of the AAC contract is going to fall.

Not true.

Even though Cincinnati-Houston-UCF were written into the AAC contract as the bedrock of the deal, Aresco has gotten assurances from the WWL that the deal will basically stay the same for the incumbent teams (and the incoming programs will almost be making what MWC teams make... WITH BETTER EXPOSURE!)

Well, that's what he's saying in public. Other ADs in the industry, along with every television executive I've ever spoken to, do not believe him...and the AAC has declined to explain how or why their deal will stay the same. So color me skeptical.

(05-22-2022 02:02 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 08:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I do hope that Boise become a dominant team again. College football is more fun with Boise in the national mix as kind of a wild-card against the Power schools. They always were a great story doing what they were doing.

Boise upset the applecart more than they imagined in 2013.

By forcing the MWC to pay them more than the others, it really did tip the balance in favor of the AAC.

It really seemed like the AAC programs were unified in investing and challenging on the field (which they did). Those first few years of the American, everyone was working to generate value for the 2nd TV deal.

OTOH, in the MWC there was a lot of infighting (still is) which manifested in lawsuits and teams looking elsewhere.

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure conference synergy works that way. For example, if I am an MW school looking to leave, wouldn't I invest a lot in my programs to make them more valuable to others? I can see conflict among programs as a spur to investment as much as cooperation. The MAC schools seem to be very unified and cooperative, and yet they also seem stagnant in terms of moving forward.

Heck, one could argue that the internal conflict made the MW better too. In 2013, I don't see what option the MW had but to pay Boise more. Boise was easily the big brand kahuna among the remaining schools, if they had left for the AAC, where would the MW have been? That really would have tipped the balance in favor of the AAC, just by reducing the MW to almost nothing.

IMO, the resentment about Boise has developed because over the past 8 years, other MW schools have gotten better, built up their brands, such that they don't perceive Boise as being worthy of that status anymore.

As for AAC vs MW more generally, if anything, I think the gap has been smaller than I thought it would be. Hoops-wise, the MW hasn't been much, but about what I expected. The AAC on the other hand has been considerably worse than I expected. I thought the AAC would be right there neck-and-neck with the new Big East, and they haven't come close to that, the new Big East has been far better.

Even on the field, the AAC and MW have been closer than IIRC I expected. If memory serves, circa 2013 I thought the AAC easily had the better roster of schools. It's surprised me that the MW has actually beaten the AAC in 3 of the 8 CFP years.

The one thing the AAC has done better than I recall expecting is with the Access spot. I expected the Access spot to basically be "Boise vs the AAC". So I am surprised Boise copped that slot only one time in eight years while the AAC has dominated it, six of eight years. I expected Boise to get that spot maybe 3 or 4 times in that period.

And I bet the MW did too, which is another reason why resentment of Boise has developed, I bet.

(05-27-2022 11:00 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 03:57 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 01:56 AM)46566 Wrote:  The planned AAC isn't the same AAC that any MWC would want to join. The value of the AAC contract is going to fall.

Not true.

Even though Cincinnati-Houston-UCF were written into the AAC contract as the bedrock of the deal, Aresco has gotten assurances from the WWL that the deal will basically stay the same for the incumbent teams (and the incoming programs will almost be making what MWC teams make... WITH BETTER EXPOSURE!)

Well, that's what he's saying in public. Other ADs in the industry, along with every television executive I've ever spoken to, do not believe him...and the AAC has declined to explain how or why their deal will stay the same. So color me skeptical.

I appreciate your insight, sources, and even your skepticism.

I'm a simple Navy guy, not a high falutin' big city reporter, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

UC-UH-UCF departing represent about 40% of the AAC's football viewership over the last five years.
(And not solely on the basis of name value - the AAC's top performing teams in a given year are ranked and in NY6 buzz so they get the slots on ABC instead of ESPN or ESPN instead of ESPN2 or ESPN2 instead of ESPNU and get the viewers. There are years for EACH of those three that they were not on top of the standings so they are barely a blip on AAC viewership.)

Going from 11 teams to 14 increases the inventory delivered to ESPN by 30%.
Lose a soft 40%, gain a firmer 30%...total payout remains.

(05-28-2022 08:03 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 11:00 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 03:57 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 01:56 AM)46566 Wrote:  The planned AAC isn't the same AAC that any MWC would want to join. The value of the AAC contract is going to fall.

Not true.

Even though Cincinnati-Houston-UCF were written into the AAC contract as the bedrock of the deal, Aresco has gotten assurances from the WWL that the deal will basically stay the same for the incumbent teams (and the incoming programs will almost be making what MWC teams make... WITH BETTER EXPOSURE!)

Well, that's what he's saying in public. Other ADs in the industry, along with every television executive I've ever spoken to, do not believe him...and the AAC has declined to explain how or why their deal will stay the same. So color me skeptical.

I appreciate your insight, sources, and even your skepticism.

I'm a simple Navy guy, not a high falutin' big city reporter, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

UC-UH-UCF departing represent about 40% of the AAC's football viewership over the last five years.
(And not solely on the basis of name value - the AAC's top performing teams in a given year are ranked and in NY6 buzz so they get the slots on ABC instead of ESPN or ESPN instead of ESPN2 or ESPN2 instead of ESPNU and get the viewers. There are years for EACH of those three that they were not on top of the standings so they are barely a blip on AAC viewership.)

Going from 11 teams to 14 increases the inventory delivered to ESPN by 30%.
Lose a soft 40%, gain a firmer 30%...total payout remains.

Some people may question whether the CUSA6 will make up for 3/4 of the lost football viewership, but their combined markets (metro areas) are much (over 80%) larger than the combined markets of the 3 departing teams, so it's possible that the 30% number is fairly accurate.

slhNavy91 has distinguished himself in a positive way by compiling a decade's worth of detailed viewership data in Excel spreadsheet format, so I certainly don't question his estimates here.

It's also interesting to conjecture that there may be a boost in viewership for the 2, 3, or 4 teams that step into UC, UCF, and UH's shoes.

For example, we know that Memphis and Navy have had viewership numbers just as high as UC, UCF, and UH's viewership numbers have been, when they were winning 10+ games per season.

It seems almost certain that there will be 2-4 programs that win 10+ games the very first season after UC, UCF, and UH depart, and that those programs will reap levels of viewership that are very highly similar to the viewership that we have become accustomed to seeing UC, UCF, and UH receiving.

The upshot of all this is that - - with the membership increasing from 11 to 14 teams, it might be possible that the AAC's football viewership will not only match its viewership during the UC, UCF, and UH years, but may actually begin to exceed it by 2027 or certainly by 2030, if not sooner.

.

(05-28-2022 08:39 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  The upshot of all this is that - - with the membership increasing from 11 to 14 teams, it might be possible that the AAC's football viewership will not only match its viewership during the UC, UCF, and UH years, but may actually begin to exceed it by 2027 or certainly by 2030, if not sooner.

Leagues don’t lose their top-3 brands and increase viewership. And viewership is always declining for everything.

(05-28-2022 09:03 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 08:39 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  The upshot of all this is that - - with the membership increasing from 11 to 14 teams, it might be possible that the AAC's football viewership will not only match its viewership during the UC, UCF, and UH years, but may actually begin to exceed it by 2027 or certainly by 2030, if not sooner.

Leagues don’t lose their top-3 brands and increase viewership. And viewership is always declining for everything.

Over the last five years of viewership, either total viewers or conference-controlled inventory, they're not "top-3." They are three of the top five or six.

If you use attendance as a metric for "brand" you have to say they are three of the top seven.

(But I agree that "exceed it by 2027 or 2030" is irrationally exuberant)