he wrote an article about NFL network and college football.
C-USA signed 4 yr deal with NFL network.
after 1 yr NFL network stop broadcasting C-USA games,
however C-USA getting paid for 4 yrs.

He mentioned that MAC & SB games will have games on NFL network.
Seems kinda strange with C-USA and thier huge markets did not work out.

Should the AAC be concerned

The problem for the AAC is they overexpanded, just like C-USA 3.0. No offense to a school like Charlotte or even UNT but those schools would have been there to be groomed in another conference and strengthen the AAC at a later time. You add too many Rice's and FAU's and you water down your product chasing markets.

It's not even out of the realm of possibility the Sun Belt passes the AAC in football, both a demerit to the AAC and compliment to the development for the Belt.

If you're gonna chase markets, you need a mix of established programs and markets. That's what the Big 12 did in it's most recent expansion. And you also don't overexpand, which is generally over 12 unless you're like the SEC loading up on brands or the B1G trying to get into New York and DC. Now the AAC is stuck with a number of programs that can most politely considered not dynamic in football and NET anchors in basketball.

Finally, who cares about markets when half your games are on a streaming service? With more teams, more games will be on ESPN+. Defeats the whole purpose of expanding to a major market. And I didn't even mention market penetration. The AAC overexpanded and shouldn't have chased only markets.

(05-30-2022 01:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The problem for the AAC is they overexpanded, just like C-USA 3.0. No offense to a school like Charlotte or even UNT but those schools would have been there to be groomed in another conference and strengthen the AAC at a later time. You add too many Rice's and FAU's and you water down your product chasing markets.

It's not even out of the realm of possibility the Sun Belt passes the AAC in football, both a demerit to the AAC and compliment to the development for the Belt.

If you're gonna chase markets, you need a mix of established programs and markets. That's what the Big 12 did in it's most recent expansion. And you also don't overexpand, which is generally over 12 unless you're like the SEC loading up on brands or the B1G trying to get into New York and DC. Now the AAC is stuck with a number of programs that can most politely considered not dynamic in football and NET anchors in basketball.

Finally, who cares about markets when half your games are on a streaming service? With more teams, more games will be on ESPN+. Defeats the whole purpose of expanding to a major market. And I didn't even mention market penetration. The AAC overexpanded and shouldn't have chased only markets.

Nailed it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(05-30-2022 07:24 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 01:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The problem for the AAC is they overexpanded, just like C-USA 3.0. No offense to a school like Charlotte or even UNT but those schools would have been there to be groomed in another conference and strengthen the AAC at a later time. You add too many Rice's and FAU's and you water down your product chasing markets.

It's not even out of the realm of possibility the Sun Belt passes the AAC in football, both a demerit to the AAC and compliment to the development for the Belt.

If you're gonna chase markets, you need a mix of established programs and markets. That's what the Big 12 did in it's most recent expansion. And you also don't overexpand, which is generally over 12 unless you're like the SEC loading up on brands or the B1G trying to get into New York and DC. Now the AAC is stuck with a number of programs that can most politely considered not dynamic in football and NET anchors in basketball.

Finally, who cares about markets when half your games are on a streaming service? With more teams, more games will be on ESPN+. Defeats the whole purpose of expanding to a major market. And I didn't even mention market penetration. The AAC overexpanded and shouldn't have chased only markets.

Nailed it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Agree spot on.

A schools presence in a large market is not sufficient for success. Schools in large markets joined the CUSA and expected good TV contracts. When they did not get lucrative contracts they blamed conference leaders. There have been many comments on CUSA's forum indicating the problem was Judy's fault. You must have a good product before it can be sold.

What makes the AAC different was expecting large investments from the schools that joined and getting them to some extent. As example, UH has spent hundreds of millions of dollars. It was not just one facility. It was all. UH is spending far more on coaches than it has ever done before. Other AAC members are also spending more than previously. A school spending $10million per year on coaches will probably have more success than a school that spends $3million.

Schools joining the AAC have committed to spending more. Not all original AAC schools made large investments. It remains to be seened if the new members will.

Perhaps, it's not just being in a large market. A school also must have the capacity and will to spend large amounts.

Some MWC members are investing. CSU and SDSU have new stadiums. Hawaii and SJSU will soon have new ones. It will be interesting to see if they will increase other spending.

Here are the listed viewers for the CUSA NFL Network games in 2019:

10/26, 3:30p FIU-MID TENN 25,000
10/19, 3:30p SO MISS-LA TECH n.a.
9/28, 3:30p FAU-CHA n.a.
9/21, 3:30p S ALA-UAB n.a.
9/14, 3:30p ARMY-UTSA 142,000
9/7, 3:30p GRAMB-LA TECH n.a.

(05-30-2022 09:04 AM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  A schools presence in a large market is not sufficient for success. Schools in large markets joined the CUSA and expected good TV contracts. When they did not get lucrative contracts they blamed conference leaders. There have been many comments on CUSA's forum indicating the problem was Judy's fault. You must have a good product before it can be sold.

What makes the AAC different was expecting large investments from the schools that joined and getting them to some extent. As example, UH has spent hundreds of millions of dollars. It was not just one facility. It was all. UH is spending far more on coaches than it has ever done before. Other AAC members are also spending more than previously. A school spending $10million per year on coaches will probably have more success than a school that spends $3million.

Schools joining the AAC have committed to spending more. Not all original AAC schools made large investments. It remains to be seened if the new members will.

Perhaps, it's not just being in a large market. A school also must have the capacity and will to spend large amounts.

Some MWC members are investing. CSU and SDSU have new stadiums. Hawaii and SJSU will soon have new ones. It will be interesting to see if they will increase other spending.

This.
The discourse here would pick up a notch if those shouting MARKETZ!1!! would realize that the American went after BUDGETS. The schools committing to invest and succeed.

Lo and behold even Rice announces a $100 million drive for athletics (alongside another $100 million drive for like school stuff). Much-maligned Charlotte is now going to double stadium capacity.

The only omission from the top of CUSA spending is ODU, and on the commitment front...tell me about their 2020 football season?

BUDGETS, that would be #1 Conn & #2 Liberty.
100 million to Rice is 20 bucks.
Charlotte can't fill up what they got. Hey let's double it.
Charlotte is the 7th div-1a school in NC, NC does't even like FB

(05-30-2022 01:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The problem for the AAC is they overexpanded, just like C-USA 3.0. No offense to a school like Charlotte or even UNT but those schools would have been there to be groomed in another conference and strengthen the AAC at a later time. You add too many Rice's and FAU's and you water down your product chasing markets.

It's not even out of the realm of possibility the Sun Belt passes the AAC in football, both a demerit to the AAC and compliment to the development for the Belt.

If you're gonna chase markets, you need a mix of established programs and markets. That's what the Big 12 did in it's most recent expansion. And you also don't overexpand, which is generally over 12 unless you're like the SEC loading up on brands or the B1G trying to get into New York and DC. Now the AAC is stuck with a number of programs that can most politely considered not dynamic in football and NET anchors in basketball.

Finally, who cares about markets when half your games are on a streaming service? With more teams, more games will be on ESPN+. Defeats the whole purpose of expanding to a major market. And I didn't even mention market penetration. The AAC overexpanded and shouldn't have chased only markets.

About the bolded ...... yep. We over-expanded.

At most, given that the MW schools wouldn't come, we should have added just two schools, three at most. And we should have taken established programs, not "market projects".

CUSA chased markets in 2012, and they went down the drain with them. I fear we will too.

(05-30-2022 04:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 01:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The problem for the AAC is they overexpanded, just like C-USA 3.0. No offense to a school like Charlotte or even UNT but those schools would have been there to be groomed in another conference and strengthen the AAC at a later time. You add too many Rice's and FAU's and you water down your product chasing markets.

It's not even out of the realm of possibility the Sun Belt passes the AAC in football, both a demerit to the AAC and compliment to the development for the Belt.

If you're gonna chase markets, you need a mix of established programs and markets. That's what the Big 12 did in it's most recent expansion. And you also don't overexpand, which is generally over 12 unless you're like the SEC loading up on brands or the B1G trying to get into New York and DC. Now the AAC is stuck with a number of programs that can most politely considered not dynamic in football and NET anchors in basketball.

Finally, who cares about markets when half your games are on a streaming service? With more teams, more games will be on ESPN+. Defeats the whole purpose of expanding to a major market. And I didn't even mention market penetration. The AAC overexpanded and shouldn't have chased only markets.

About the bolded ...... yep. We over-expanded.

At most, given that the MW schools wouldn't come, we should have added just two schools, three at most. And we should have taken established programs, not "market projects".

CUSA chased markets in 2012, and they went down the drain with them. I fear we will too.

they chased short term dollars for the OG AAC.

They over expanded as Cinci will see some familiar faces in 2025

(05-30-2022 09:41 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 04:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 01:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The problem for the AAC is they overexpanded, just like C-USA 3.0. No offense to a school like Charlotte or even UNT but those schools would have been there to be groomed in another conference and strengthen the AAC at a later time. You add too many Rice's and FAU's and you water down your product chasing markets.

It's not even out of the realm of possibility the Sun Belt passes the AAC in football, both a demerit to the AAC and compliment to the development for the Belt.

If you're gonna chase markets, you need a mix of established programs and markets. That's what the Big 12 did in it's most recent expansion. And you also don't overexpand, which is generally over 12 unless you're like the SEC loading up on brands or the B1G trying to get into New York and DC. Now the AAC is stuck with a number of programs that can most politely considered not dynamic in football and NET anchors in basketball.

Finally, who cares about markets when half your games are on a streaming service? With more teams, more games will be on ESPN+. Defeats the whole purpose of expanding to a major market. And I didn't even mention market penetration. The AAC overexpanded and shouldn't have chased only markets.

About the bolded ...... yep. We over-expanded.

At most, given that the MW schools wouldn't come, we should have added just two schools, three at most. And we should have taken established programs, not "market projects".

CUSA chased markets in 2012, and they went down the drain with them. I fear we will too.

they chased short term dollars for the OG AAC.

Yes, and short-sighted, IMO.

(05-30-2022 10:24 PM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  

Okay, here is something that all these gloom and doom threads are missing......

The American Athletic Conference is not Conference USA, I repeat; the AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE IS NOT CONFERENCE USA!

Base all the doom and gloom on what the AAC has done, not on what the other G4's have done.

You're right, it's a combination of C-USA 2.0 and AAC 1.0, with none of the heavy hitters (granted, Memphis did make a NY6).

(05-30-2022 11:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 10:24 PM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  

Okay, here is something that all these gloom and doom threads are missing......

The American Athletic Conference is not Conference USA, I repeat; the AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE IS NOT CONFERENCE USA!

Base all the doom and gloom on what the AAC has done, not on what the other G4's have done.

You're right, it's a combination of C-USA 2.0 and AAC 1.0, with none of the heavy hitters (granted, Memphis did make a NY6).

Thanks for proving my point.

None of those schools were 'heavy hitters ' before the AAC.

(05-31-2022 06:17 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 11:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 10:24 PM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  

Okay, here is something that all these gloom and doom threads are missing......

The American Athletic Conference is not Conference USA, I repeat; the AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE IS NOT CONFERENCE USA!

Base all the doom and gloom on what the AAC has done, not on what the other G4's have done.

You're right, it's a combination of C-USA 2.0 and AAC 1.0, with none of the heavy hitters (granted, Memphis did make a NY6).

Thanks for proving my point.

None of those schools were 'heavy hitters ' before the AAC.

Well, Cincy had gone to two BCS bowls before joining the AAC. Houston had been ranked in the top 5 of the BCS a year before joining the AAC, and UCF had won CUSA (when it was better) and beat Georgia in a bowl game the year before joining the AAC.

Not exactly "heavy hitters" in the SEC sense, but not UAB, Charlotte, UTSA, North Texas, FAU or Rice either.

That said, i am not gloom and doom, because to feel gloomy you have to be in a good position to begin with. USF hasn't had that since 2011.

(05-31-2022 07:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 06:17 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 11:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 10:24 PM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  

Okay, here is something that all these gloom and doom threads are missing......

The American Athletic Conference is not Conference USA, I repeat; the AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE IS NOT CONFERENCE USA!

Base all the doom and gloom on what the AAC has done, not on what the other G4's have done.

You're right, it's a combination of C-USA 2.0 and AAC 1.0, with none of the heavy hitters (granted, Memphis did make a NY6).

Thanks for proving my point.

None of those schools were 'heavy hitters ' before the AAC.

Well, Cincy had gone to two BCS bowls before joining the AAC. Houston had been ranked in the top 5 of the BCS a year before joining the AAC, and UCF had won CUSA (when it was better) and beat Georgia in a bowl game the year before joining the AAC.

Not exactly "heavy hitters" in the SEC sense, but not UAB, Charlotte, UTSA, North Texas, FAU or Rice either.

That said, i am not gloom and doom, because to feel gloomy you have to be in a good position to begin with. USF hasn't had that since 2011.

2011? So you mean 2016 and 2017 weren’t good years for USF? 41-4, two teams that finished ranked isn’t good

(05-31-2022 07:56 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 07:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 06:17 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 11:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 10:24 PM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  

Okay, here is something that all these gloom and doom threads are missing......

The American Athletic Conference is not Conference USA, I repeat; the AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE IS NOT CONFERENCE USA!

Base all the doom and gloom on what the AAC has done, not on what the other G4's have done.

You're right, it's a combination of C-USA 2.0 and AAC 1.0, with none of the heavy hitters (granted, Memphis did make a NY6).

Thanks for proving my point.

None of those schools were 'heavy hitters ' before the AAC.

Well, Cincy had gone to two BCS bowls before joining the AAC. Houston had been ranked in the top 5 of the BCS a year before joining the AAC, and UCF had won CUSA (when it was better) and beat Georgia in a bowl game the year before joining the AAC.

Not exactly "heavy hitters" in the SEC sense, but not UAB, Charlotte, UTSA, North Texas, FAU or Rice either.

That said, i am not gloom and doom, because to feel gloomy you have to be in a good position to begin with. USF hasn't had that since 2011.

2011? So you mean 2016 and 2017 weren’t good years for USF? 41-4, two teams that finished ranked isn’t good

They were good years for us (really, the last half of 2015 to the first half of 2018, a period of three years, we went 35-6 over that time), and I enjoyed those teams. But my intent was to comment on USF in the context of the conference situation, and to me, USF hasn't had a good conference situation since the day Syracuse and Pitt said they were leaving the Big East for the ACC in September, 2011.

That has cast a pall over everything since, to me, including the good years on the field under Taggart.

(05-30-2022 09:50 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  They over expanded as Cinci will see some familiar faces in 2025

Yeah, one thing I've learned from following realignment for a is that this group of schools (old SWC's, Eastern Indy's of the 80's-90s) never get away from each other for too long. Occasionally somebody seems to get left behind for good though (USM). Hopefully ECU doesn't eventually join the permanently left behind group.

(05-30-2022 11:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 10:24 PM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  

Okay, here is something that all these gloom and doom threads are missing......

The American Athletic Conference is not Conference USA, I repeat; the AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE IS NOT CONFERENCE USA!

Base all the doom and gloom on what the AAC has done, not on what the other G4's have done.

You're right, it's a combination of C-USA 2.0 and AAC 1.0, with none of the heavy hitters (granted, Memphis did make a NY6).

Yeah because Houston was so much more of a heavy hitter than Memphis. Thanks for the mention though.