(04-23-2013 10:07 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 09:20 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 07:58 AM)NewEnglandBull Wrote:  Why should they?

Because it's not only about football. In fact, beefing up football, which was presumed to be the solution and which has driven every decision, has proven to be futile. AAC football is demonstrably worth very little on the open market.

In the process of addressing football, basketball has been almost completely ignored. However it doesn't have to stay that way. At a minimum, adding VCU basketball + Olympic sports to complement Navy football would be a big upgrade in basketball. Beyond that George Mason and UMass provide other potential basketball upgrades to combine with the existing basketball powers which would make the conference more competitive both on the court and in the TV contract sweepstakes.

It seems to me that right now goal #1 for this conference should be to prove that it is a better basketball product than the Big East. If that can be done over the next 5 years, it could open up new opportunities that would benefit football as well as basketball.

I don't understand why people are having trouble understanding this. Adding non-FB members would accomplish multiple goals. They'd help gain more market penetration, cut down on travel, boost basketball RPI and help with NCAA revenues. They'd help with all of this without cutting the NCAA playoff revenue more ways.

I'm honestly baffled when people keep throwing more football teams in the expansion mix.

Exactly. Olympic adds are a cheap way to become more relevant.

(04-23-2013 01:24 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Because the hybrid conference DOES NOT WORK.

Period.
End-of-story.

So......

(8 football members) + (8 non-FB mmbers) + (1 everything but football member) = (11 Football members) + (1 non-FB member)

Got it.

(04-23-2013 02:05 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 01:24 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Because the hybrid conference DOES NOT WORK.

Period.
End-of-story.

So......

(8 football members) + (8 non-FB mmbers) + (1 everything but football member) = (11 Football members) + (1 non-FB member)

Got it.

You do know most conferneces have non football members---yes, its for minor sports, but to some extent, nearly every conference is a hybrid. The key is that it needs to stay very limited. I would say no more than 3-4 hybrid members. You dont want the hybrid members to ever become a majority or be able to block all sorts members that the footbal schools need.

If the TV dollars could be worked out, I'd add one more all-sports member...Southern Miss, Rice, UMass, Old Dominion [my preference]...whoever is the best add - if - Army would come as a football-only. Then we'd be at 14 for FB, 12 for all-sports. It'd be a much better set-up than the 12/11 model.

(04-23-2013 01:24 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:07 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 09:20 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 07:58 AM)NewEnglandBull Wrote:  Why should they?

Because it's not only about football. In fact, beefing up football, which was presumed to be the solution and which has driven every decision, has proven to be futile. AAC football is demonstrably worth very little on the open market.

In the process of addressing football, basketball has been almost completely ignored. However it doesn't have to stay that way. At a minimum, adding VCU basketball + Olympic sports to complement Navy football would be a big upgrade in basketball. Beyond that George Mason and UMass provide other potential basketball upgrades to combine with the existing basketball powers which would make the conference more competitive both on the court and in the TV contract sweepstakes.

It seems to me that right now goal #1 for this conference should be to prove that it is a better basketball product than the Big East. If that can be done over the next 5 years, it could open up new opportunities that would benefit football as well as basketball.

I don't understand why people are having trouble understanding this. Adding non-FB members would accomplish multiple goals. They'd help gain more market penetration, cut down on travel, boost basketball RPI and help with NCAA revenues. They'd help with all of this without cutting the NCAA playoff revenue more ways.

I'm honestly baffled when people keep throwing more football teams in the expansion mix.

Because the hybrid conference DOES NOT WORK.

Period.
End-of-story.

I think that the hybrid conference does not work if everyone is not on the same page. I see no reason why Witchita State, VCU, St Joes and LaSalle could not work in our league as Olympic-sport additions.

More football schools would pose a problem, granted. However, I sincerely think (as I have stated) that Old Dominion needs to be a team we take a serious look at. After them, Southern Miss and UMass should get a look.

I see no reason to be 12 in football but 11 in basketball.

Just add one for basketball, come out with the new logo, and move on.

(04-23-2013 08:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 08:34 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  *If the BIG EAST is worth $5 million/school for just basketball and olympics, the AAC has to be worth that for football, basketball, and olympics.

Well that statement has already been tested and proven to be wrong.

Well, we know a very unstable AAC is not worth 5 million. Now, is a more stable AAC worth more? Possibly. But since we manged to negotiate a deal when we were at our absolute weakest, we won't know for quite some time if we could have done better. At least our level of exposure appears to be in a range ussually only reserved for power conferences. So, despite our pathetic paycheck, to a general public who doesn't keep up with which conference makes more money, we will appear to be more of a 6th power conference than one of the 5 dwarves.

Boy, if there was ever a statement that explains why we got paid so little, this is it... It's as if fate somehow conspired events to get us the worst TV deal possible. NO ONE wanted to pay for us, thinking we were on the verge of falling apart. Hence, if stability comes out of the ACC deal yesterday, it's the best damn thing for us. Onward and upward.

Anyone who really thinks the Big East BB is worth more than AAC FB+BB in a sane, market driven world, free from the specter of schools leaving, is out of their mind. The Big East is presumed to be stable. We are not. My humble opinion.

(04-23-2013 05:00 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 08:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 08:34 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  *If the BIG EAST is worth $5 million/school for just basketball and olympics, the AAC has to be worth that for football, basketball, and olympics.

Well that statement has already been tested and proven to be wrong.

Well, we know a very unstable AAC is not worth 5 million. Now, is a more stable AAC worth more? Possibly. But since we manged to negotiate a deal when we were at our absolute weakest, we won't know for quite some time if we could have done better. At least our level of exposure appears to be in a range ussually only reserved for power conferences. So, despite our pathetic paycheck, to a general public who doesn't keep up with which conference makes more money, we will appear to be more of a 6th power conference than one of the 5 dwarves.

Boy, if there was ever a statement that explains why we got paid so little, this is it... It's as if fate somehow conspired events to get us the worst TV deal possible. NO ONE wanted to pay for us, thinking we were on the verge of falling apart. Hence, if stability comes out of the ACC deal yesterday, it's the best damn thing for us. Onward and upward.

Anyone who really thinks the Big East BB is worth more than AAC FB+BB in a sane, market driven world, free from the specter of schools leaving, is out of their mind. The Big East is presumed to be stable. We are not. My humble opinion.

That's how I feel.

(04-23-2013 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 02:05 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 01:24 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Because the hybrid conference DOES NOT WORK.

Period.
End-of-story.

So......

(8 football members) + (8 non-FB mmbers) + (1 everything but football member) = (11 Football members) + (1 non-FB member)

Got it.

You do know most conferneces have non football members---yes, its for minor sports, but to some extent, nearly every conference is a hybrid. The key is that it needs to stay very limited. I would say no more than 3-4 hybrid members. You dont want the hybrid members to ever become a majority or be able to block all sorts members that the footbal schools need.

I agree 100%. IMO, some of the basketball-only schools in the old BIG EAST added value. The problem was that there were so many basketball-only schools that they were able to hijack the conference's agenda. To be fair, the conference was originally a basketball-only conference, so it isn't fair to vilify (sp?) them, but had the conference been 2/3 football and 1/3 basketball, it would have survived and thrived. Hopefully the AAC will learn from the BIG EAST's mistakes.
Some partials create value, but too many partials destroy value.

I think the AAC would expand if they can get Army/BYU/Air Force to join.

One thing that has happened now that Idaho and NMSU have found homes is that BYU and Army are splitting the Independent CFP money 2 ways instead of 4 which is now roughly 875,000 per school.

Considering that once a conference moves beyond the 1 million dollar mark in CFP distribution that money is going to a raise pool since Army doesn't do anything in football it wouldn't benefit them to join a conference. There is some concern too I suppose about losing the 2.5 million a year from CBS if Army/Navy becomes a conference game.

BYU of course has its own TV deal with ESPN and a big enough following to force its way into an Access Bowl if ranked in the Top 15. Air Force is going to suckle on the new MWC TV deal for a while.

The next tier of schools is Rice, UMass and Old Dominion for the AAC. If the AAC ever lost Houston you know that Rice would be in and if they lost UConn then probably UMass. ODU I have always thought has a huge upside and is a natural rival for ECU like UCF/USF are.

One word: Renegotiate.

We're in no position to do it right now. However, IF The American (you're welcome, Providence) turns into a more valuable comodity over the next couple of years, THEN we'll be in a position to go back to ESPN and ask for more money in exchange for a term extension.

Lots of "ifs". I think adding VCU would be a step in the right direction.

(04-23-2013 11:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 05:00 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 08:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 08:34 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 10:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  *If the BIG EAST is worth $5 million/school for just basketball and olympics, the AAC has to be worth that for football, basketball, and olympics.

Well that statement has already been tested and proven to be wrong.

Well, we know a very unstable AAC is not worth 5 million. Now, is a more stable AAC worth more? Possibly. But since we manged to negotiate a deal when we were at our absolute weakest, we won't know for quite some time if we could have done better. At least our level of exposure appears to be in a range ussually only reserved for power conferences. So, despite our pathetic paycheck, to a general public who doesn't keep up with which conference makes more money, we will appear to be more of a 6th power conference than one of the 5 dwarves.

Boy, if there was ever a statement that explains why we got paid so little, this is it... It's as if fate somehow conspired events to get us the worst TV deal possible. NO ONE wanted to pay for us, thinking we were on the verge of falling apart. Hence, if stability comes out of the ACC deal yesterday, it's the best damn thing for us. Onward and upward.

Anyone who really thinks the Big East BB is worth more than AAC FB+BB in a sane, market driven world, free from the specter of schools leaving, is out of their mind. The Big East is presumed to be stable. We are not. My humble opinion.

That's how I feel.

Me too.

Everyone likes to blame the conference office for our poor contract but let's be honest, the majority of the conference is made of former C-USA schools and three Division I-A start ups. The open market barely got $1-million for C-USA.....so what why would TV pay significantly more money for essentially the same collection of teams but under a different name? Especially after RU, UL and perpetually fickle Boise program jump ship? It's amazing we got the contract we got for C-USA football and no flagship school. We gotta earn it on the field in football and basketball. We are in good shape in basketball....football is a different story.

Our job over the next 7 years is to improve our programs, live up to our potential and just flat out do more with less than anybody else b/c we are surely not going to have the money to compete with even the dregs of the 'power 5' conferences when it comes to resources.

We need everyone on this board to start pulling for each and the conference instead of the stupid pent up bitterness shown by some ECU fans or the victim card the three remaining BigEast football schools find so easy to play.

If anything else folks....take it out on the MWC. They are our enemy right now....not the ACC or ourselves.

Priorities folks....priorities!