Investment levels across the conference are improving. Give it 10 to 15 years and there will be a gap.

The AAC is firmly G5 right now, but do take another look at the revenue table and notice the slow drift of even poor AAC teams to the top of the G5.

(05-22-2017 11:48 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Investment levels across the conference are improving. Give it 10 to 15 years and there will be a gap.

The AAC is firmly G5 right now, but do take another look at the revenue table and notice the slow drift of even poor AAC teams to the top of the G5.

The realignment fund money (built from exit fees and left behind NCAA credits) is being used to augment the AAC payout. That's helping with the athletic budgets. That realignment fund will soon be exhausted. That's why this next TV deal is pretty important. Its going to be a factor in determining future spending---heck, if its a bust, it may even determine if there is any point in the spread out AAC continuing as a conference.

(05-22-2017 12:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 11:48 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Investment levels across the conference are improving. Give it 10 to 15 years and there will be a gap.

The AAC is firmly G5 right now, but do take another look at the revenue table and notice the slow drift of even poor AAC teams to the top of the G5.

The realignment fund money (built from exit fees and left behind NCAA credits) is being used to augment the AAC payout. That's helping with the athletic budgets. That realignment fund will soon be exhausted. That's why this next TV deal is pretty important. Its going to be a factor in determining future spending---heck, if its a bust, it may even determine if there is any point in the spread out AAC continuing as a conference.

That's what people forget. Look at the gigantic surges in the (% wise) athletic department budgets of schools like Houston & ECU since the Big East money has started coming in. Look at the athletic department budgets back in 2011. This has been huge for us former CUSA schools but it will come down when the legacy money is depleted. Also, subsidies will probably go down. Houston has depended heavily on subsidies for all of the much needed facilities projects. This next media deal is very important as the AAC will have the optics of athletic department dollars shrinking in the next couple years if the media deal doesn't pick up that slack. Houston and ECU had smaller athletic department budgets than most of the MWC schools in 2011. Right now we have bigger budgets than them. Optics and perception game.

(05-22-2017 11:48 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Investment levels across the conference are improving. Give it 10 to 15 years and there will be a gap.

The AAC is firmly G5 right now, but do take another look at the revenue table and notice the slow drift of even poor AAC teams to the top of the G5.

That "investment" is from the Big East legacy money. The athletic department budgets didn't magically go up. That legacy money ends soon. Without a big media deal, it will be the opposite. Not a slow drift up, but a fast rush back to where everyone was before the legacy money.

(05-22-2017 01:25 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 11:48 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Investment levels across the conference are improving. Give it 10 to 15 years and there will be a gap.

The AAC is firmly G5 right now, but do take another look at the revenue table and notice the slow drift of even poor AAC teams to the top of the G5.

That "investment" is from the Big East legacy money. The athletic department budgets didn't magically go up. That legacy money ends soon. Without a big media deal, it will be the opposite. Not a slow drift up, but a fast rush back to where everyone was before the legacy money.

Thats why I keep saying the AAC isnt going to be accepting a low ball early renewal offer of 2 or 3 million from ESPN because that actually represents a signifcant revenue decline. If thats the offer, the AAC will go to the open market. If it cant do any better in the open market, then there probably isnt any real reason to continue flying all over the country for 2 million a team. Split into 2, much more regional conferences, they could probably get close to that same money while drastically reducing travel expenses. Problem is---you cant do that because the new confernece would have no NCAA autobids and no access to the CFP access game and money. So, the AAC would likely move to schedules that emphasize divisional scheduling with little crossover play. Might even add a few schools to make the divisions work better.

Bottom line, alot is riding on the next contract.

Yes, the AAC is somewhere in between the G5 and FCS

.

According to the proposed changes to this board, the answer is no.

(05-22-2017 01:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 01:25 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 11:48 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Investment levels across the conference are improving. Give it 10 to 15 years and there will be a gap.

The AAC is firmly G5 right now, but do take another look at the revenue table and notice the slow drift of even poor AAC teams to the top of the G5.

That "investment" is from the Big East legacy money. The athletic department budgets didn't magically go up. That legacy money ends soon. Without a big media deal, it will be the opposite. Not a slow drift up, but a fast rush back to where everyone was before the legacy money.

Thats why I keep saying the AAC isnt going to be accepting a low ball early renewal offer of 2 or 3 million from ESPN because that actually represents a signifcant revenue decline. If thats the offer, the AAC will go to the open market. If it cant do any better in the open market, then there probably isnt any real reason to continue flying all over the country for 2 million a team. Split into 2, much more regional conferences, they could probably get close to that same money while drastically reducing travel expenses. Problem is---you cant do that because the new confernece would have no NCAA autobids and no access to the CFP access game and money. So, the AAC would likely move to schedules that emphasize divisional scheduling with little crossover play. Might even add a few schools to make the divisions work better.

Bottom line, alot is riding on the next contract.

I have my doubts that the networks will increase the AAC deal as they keep pumping all of their (declining) dollars into professional sports and the P5. If the next AAC TV payout comes in lower, or even stays the same it could create a huge shakeup for the G5.

Just look at how much the CUSA AD's are now talking about realignment after their deal dropped last year. They were living off of money from exit fees and the old CUSA TV contract which is similar to what the AAC is doing now with Big East money. If the market isn't there to keep financing the league I could see the AAC adding a few top schools from the other leagues to create a better East/West alignment.

(05-22-2017 12:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 11:48 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Investment levels across the conference are improving. Give it 10 to 15 years and there will be a gap.

The AAC is firmly G5 right now, but do take another look at the revenue table and notice the slow drift of even poor AAC teams to the top of the G5.

The realignment fund money (built from exit fees and left behind NCAA credits) is being used to augment the AAC payout. That's helping with the athletic budgets. That realignment fund will soon be exhausted. That's why this next TV deal is pretty important. Its going to be a factor in determining future spending---heck, if its a bust, it may even determine if there is any point in the spread out AAC continuing as a conference.

Even if the AAC has to sign a TV deal that is only marginally better than the current one, it will continue as a conference because what other choice do its members have? As sucky as $2m with no legacy money will be, it still beats the alternative of being independent or joining the MAC.

And I don't think TV is going to offer the AAC more money just because AAC budgets - especially Cincy, USF, and UConn - have been augmented significantly the past 5 years by Big East legacy money and the AAC might threaten to dissolve if they don't get a lot more. The networks couldn't care less about that, that's the AAC's problem not theirs, and they only will offer what they think AAC is worth. If the AAC does get a giant raise, it will be strictly because TV thinks the ratings we've gotten the past 5 years justify it.

Attendance wise, no. AAC is closer to the worst conference than they are to the worst P5

Rank Division I FBS Teams Games Attendance Average
1. Southeastern 14 97 7,518,208 77,507
2. Big Ten 14 98 6,482,761 66,151
3. Big 12 10 66 3,797,046 57,531
4. Pac-12 12 77 3,855,634 50,073
5. Atlantic Coast 14 91 4,525,797 49,734
6. American 12 77 *2,434,050 31,611
7. Mountain West 12 76 1,833,973 24,131
8. Conference USA# 13 80 1,587,928 19,849
9. Sun Belt 11 63 *1,137,573 18,057
10. Mid-American# 12 72 1,180,137 16,391

(05-22-2017 03:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 12:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 11:48 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Investment levels across the conference are improving. Give it 10 to 15 years and there will be a gap.

The AAC is firmly G5 right now, but do take another look at the revenue table and notice the slow drift of even poor AAC teams to the top of the G5.

The realignment fund money (built from exit fees and left behind NCAA credits) is being used to augment the AAC payout. That's helping with the athletic budgets. That realignment fund will soon be exhausted. That's why this next TV deal is pretty important. Its going to be a factor in determining future spending---heck, if its a bust, it may even determine if there is any point in the spread out AAC continuing as a conference.

Even if the AAC has to sign a TV deal that is only marginally better than the current one, it will continue as a conference because what other choice do its members have? As sucky as $2m with no legacy money will be, it still beats the alternative of being independent or joining the MAC.

And I don't think TV is going to offer the AAC more money just because AAC budgets - especially Cincy, USF, and UConn - have been augmented significantly the past 5 years by Big East legacy money and the AAC might threaten to dissolve if they don't get a lot more. The networks couldn't care less about that, that's the AAC's problem not theirs, and they only will offer what they think AAC is worth. If the AAC does get a giant raise, it will be strictly because TV thinks the ratings we've gotten the past 5 years justify it.

Maybe. If its 2 million the media value concept behind a large footprint conference is essentially dead. You dont need to send volleyball across the nation for 2 million. Reorganization of the G5 would become a "when" not "if" proposition. That said, CUSA had slightly less travel and only made 1.4 million a team--so, maybe the schools prefer to stay with schools they perceive as "institutional peers". I think you'd do better at the gate and lower costs with little change in media value if the two AAC divisions simply became the core of two new smaller more regional conference (but that has other issues).

(05-22-2017 03:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Attendance wise, no. AAC is closer to the worst conference than they are to the worst P5

It's really true in all domains. E.g., even with the "great year" the AAC had this past season on the football field, its Sagarin rating was much closer to the nearest G5 conference than it was to the nearest P5 conference.

In both cases, attendance and performance, the AAC is about 1/3 of the way between the nearest G5 and the nearest P5, much closer to the former than the latter.

(05-22-2017 03:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Attendance wise, no. AAC is closer to the worst conference than they are to the worst P5

Rank Division I FBS Teams Games Attendance Average
1. Southeastern 14 97 7,518,208 77,507
2. Big Ten 14 98 6,482,761 66,151
3. Big 12 10 66 3,797,046 57,531
4. Pac-12 12 77 3,855,634 50,073
5. Atlantic Coast 14 91 4,525,797 49,734
6. American 12 77 *2,434,050 31,611
7. Mountain West 12 76 1,833,973 24,131
8. Conference USA# 13 80 1,587,928 19,849
9. Sun Belt 11 63 *1,137,573 18,057
10. Mid-American# 12 72 1,180,137 16,391

A counter-argument is that you have 8 or 9 AAC schools that get as good as or better attendance than the bottom quarter of the PAC, B12, and ACC. And, these average AAC schools are clearly ahead of the average MWC, CUSA, Sun Belt, and MAC schools that attract less than 20K crowds.

P5 schools like Duke, BC, Kansas, Stanford, Oregon St., etc. benefit greatly by their associations with Clemson, Florida St., Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA. So, most AAC metrics actually do look similar to many P5 schools; and, if Texas and Clemson or USC were in the conference, it would be difficult to discern the AAC metrics from those of the ACC, PAC, or B12 (especially considering that some AAC schools' would likely have better attendance with Texas or Clemson or USC visiting every other year).

Here are some 2016 attendance numbers:

Cal - 46,628
Colorado - 46,609
Utah - 46,506
Pitt - 46,076
Baylor - 45,838
TCU - 45,168
Stanford - 44,142
ECU - 44,113
Virginia - 39,292
Houston - 38,953
Oregon St. - 37,622
USF - 37,539
Memphis - 37,346
Cincinnati - 33,585
UCF - 35,802
Syracuse - 32,805
BC - 32,157
Washington St. - 31,675
Navy - 31,571
Duke - 29,895
Temple - 27,225
UConn - 26,796
Wake - 26,456
Kansas - 25,828

(05-22-2017 03:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 03:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Attendance wise, no. AAC is closer to the worst conference than they are to the worst P5

Rank Division I FBS Teams Games Attendance Average
1. Southeastern 14 97 7,518,208 77,507
2. Big Ten 14 98 6,482,761 66,151
3. Big 12 10 66 3,797,046 57,531
4. Pac-12 12 77 3,855,634 50,073
5. Atlantic Coast 14 91 4,525,797 49,734
6. American 12 77 *2,434,050 31,611
7. Mountain West 12 76 1,833,973 24,131
8. Conference USA# 13 80 1,587,928 19,849
9. Sun Belt 11 63 *1,137,573 18,057
10. Mid-American# 12 72 1,180,137 16,391

A counter-argument is that you have 8 or 9 AAC schools that get as good as or better attendance than the bottom quarter of the PAC, B12, and ACC. And, these average AAC schools are clearly ahead of the average MWC, CUSA, Sun Belt, and MAC schools that attract less than 20K crowds.

P5 schools like Duke, BC, Kansas, Stanford, Oregon St., etc. benefit greatly by their associations with Clemson, Florida St., Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA. So, most AAC metrics actually do look similar to many P5 schools; and, if Texas and Clemson or USC were in the conference, it would be difficult to discern the AAC metrics from those of the ACC, PAC, or B12 (especially considering that some AAC schools' would likely have better attendance with Texas or Clemson or USC visiting every other year).

Here are some 2016 attendance numbers:

Cal - 46,628
Colorado - 46,609
Utah - 46,506
Pitt - 46,076
Baylor - 45,838
TCU - 45,168
Stanford - 44,142
ECU - 44,113
Virginia - 39,292
Houston - 38,953
Oregon St. - 37,622
USF - 37,539
Memphis - 37,346
Cincinnati - 33,585
UCF - 35,802
Syracuse - 32,805
BC - 32,157
Washington St. - 31,675
Navy - 31,571
Duke - 29,895
Temple - 27,225
UConn - 26,796
Wake - 26,456
Kansas - 25,828

When your argument is that the best of one league is better or as bad as the worst of another league, you have lost your argument.


No different than a poster claiming a school should be Division I because they match what the very worst school in DI does

(05-22-2017 04:06 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 03:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 03:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Attendance wise, no. AAC is closer to the worst conference than they are to the worst P5

Rank Division I FBS Teams Games Attendance Average
1. Southeastern 14 97 7,518,208 77,507
2. Big Ten 14 98 6,482,761 66,151
3. Big 12 10 66 3,797,046 57,531
4. Pac-12 12 77 3,855,634 50,073
5. Atlantic Coast 14 91 4,525,797 49,734
6. American 12 77 *2,434,050 31,611
7. Mountain West 12 76 1,833,973 24,131
8. Conference USA# 13 80 1,587,928 19,849
9. Sun Belt 11 63 *1,137,573 18,057
10. Mid-American# 12 72 1,180,137 16,391

A counter-argument is that you have 8 or 9 AAC schools that get as good as or better attendance than the bottom quarter of the PAC, B12, and ACC. And, these average AAC schools are clearly ahead of the average MWC, CUSA, Sun Belt, and MAC schools that attract less than 20K crowds.

P5 schools like Duke, BC, Kansas, Stanford, Oregon St., etc. benefit greatly by their associations with Clemson, Florida St., Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA. So, most AAC metrics actually do look similar to many P5 schools; and, if Texas and Clemson or USC were in the conference, it would be difficult to discern the AAC metrics from those of the ACC, PAC, or B12 (especially considering that some AAC schools' would likely have better attendance with Texas or Clemson or USC visiting every other year).

Here are some 2016 attendance numbers:

Cal - 46,628
Colorado - 46,609
Utah - 46,506
Pitt - 46,076
Baylor - 45,838
TCU - 45,168
Stanford - 44,142
ECU - 44,113
Virginia - 39,292
Houston - 38,953
Oregon St. - 37,622
USF - 37,539
Memphis - 37,346
Cincinnati - 33,585
UCF - 35,802
Syracuse - 32,805
BC - 32,157
Washington St. - 31,675
Navy - 31,571
Duke - 29,895
Temple - 27,225
UConn - 26,796
Wake - 26,456
Kansas - 25,828

When your argument is that the best of one league is better or as bad as the worst of another league, you have lost your argument.


No different than a poster claiming a school should be Division I because they match what the very worst school in DI does

I'm not trying to argue that the AAC is as good as P5 conference, but that its membership is closer to P5 schools than to the other G5 schools. The argument is that most of the AAC schools (75%) are interchangeable with a large portion of the P5 schools (bottom 40% of the ACC, PAC, and B12).

CUSA, Sun Belt, and MAC definitely cannot make this argument - they each may have 1 or 2 schools that could even think to make such a claim.

The MWC has 3 or 4 schools that might be interchangeable with certain P5 schools, but clearly has more dead weight that has much more in common with the average G5 school than the bottom tier of the P5.

(05-22-2017 04:16 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 04:06 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 03:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 03:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Attendance wise, no. AAC is closer to the worst conference than they are to the worst P5

Rank Division I FBS Teams Games Attendance Average
1. Southeastern 14 97 7,518,208 77,507
2. Big Ten 14 98 6,482,761 66,151
3. Big 12 10 66 3,797,046 57,531
4. Pac-12 12 77 3,855,634 50,073
5. Atlantic Coast 14 91 4,525,797 49,734
6. American 12 77 *2,434,050 31,611
7. Mountain West 12 76 1,833,973 24,131
8. Conference USA# 13 80 1,587,928 19,849
9. Sun Belt 11 63 *1,137,573 18,057
10. Mid-American# 12 72 1,180,137 16,391

A counter-argument is that you have 8 or 9 AAC schools that get as good as or better attendance than the bottom quarter of the PAC, B12, and ACC. And, these average AAC schools are clearly ahead of the average MWC, CUSA, Sun Belt, and MAC schools that attract less than 20K crowds.

P5 schools like Duke, BC, Kansas, Stanford, Oregon St., etc. benefit greatly by their associations with Clemson, Florida St., Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA. So, most AAC metrics actually do look similar to many P5 schools; and, if Texas and Clemson or USC were in the conference, it would be difficult to discern the AAC metrics from those of the ACC, PAC, or B12 (especially considering that some AAC schools' would likely have better attendance with Texas or Clemson or USC visiting every other year).

Here are some 2016 attendance numbers:

Cal - 46,628
Colorado - 46,609
Utah - 46,506
Pitt - 46,076
Baylor - 45,838
TCU - 45,168
Stanford - 44,142
ECU - 44,113
Virginia - 39,292
Houston - 38,953
Oregon St. - 37,622
USF - 37,539
Memphis - 37,346
Cincinnati - 33,585
UCF - 35,802
Syracuse - 32,805
BC - 32,157
Washington St. - 31,675
Navy - 31,571
Duke - 29,895
Temple - 27,225
UConn - 26,796
Wake - 26,456
Kansas - 25,828

When your argument is that the best of one league is better or as bad as the worst of another league, you have lost your argument.


No different than a poster claiming a school should be Division I because they match what the very worst school in DI does

I'm not trying to argue that the AAC is as good as P5 conference, but that its membership is closer to P5 schools than to the other G5 schools. The argument is that most of the AAC schools (75%) are interchangeable with a large portion of the P5 schools (bottom 40% of the ACC, PAC, and B12).

CUSA, Sun Belt, and MAC definitely cannot make this argument - they each may have 1 or 2 schools that could even think to make such a claim.

The MWC has 3 or 4 schools that might be interchangeable with certain P5 schools, but clearly has more dead weight that has much more in common with the average G5 school than the bottom tier of the P5.

The best of the AAC schools would still lower the average attendance of all P5 conferences. Again, saying your best is better than their worst is not convincing.


And, as the AVERAGE attendance shows, overall, AAC is closer to the Bottom of the G5 than to the bottom of the P5.

Heck, the AAC is closer to the top of the FCS average attendance leaders than the bottom of the P5.

(05-22-2017 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 03:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Attendance wise, no. AAC is closer to the worst conference than they are to the worst P5

It's really true in all domains. E.g., even with the "great year" the AAC had this past season on the football field, its Sagarin rating was much closer to the nearest G5 conference than it was to the nearest P5 conference.

In both cases, attendance and performance, the AAC is about 1/3 of the way between the nearest G5 and the nearest P5, much closer to the former than the latter.

My feeling, as it has always been---this is a marketing strategy. That said, the AAC looks much more like a "tweener conference" or a "tier of one" than it does P5 or G5. It clearly sits on the extreme edge of the bell curve if you include it in either of the P5 or G5.

(05-22-2017 04:29 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 04:16 PM)YNot Wrote:  I'm not trying to argue that the AAC is as good as P5 conference, but that its membership is closer to P5 schools than to the other G5 schools. The argument is that most of the AAC schools (75%) are interchangeable with a large portion of the P5 schools (bottom 40% of the ACC, PAC, and B12).

CUSA, Sun Belt, and MAC definitely cannot make this argument - they each may have 1 or 2 schools that could even think to make such a claim.

The MWC has 3 or 4 schools that might be interchangeable with certain P5 schools, but clearly has more dead weight that has much more in common with the average G5 school than the bottom tier of the P5.

The best of the AAC schools would still lower the average attendance of all P5 conferences. Again, saying your best is better than their worst is not convincing.


And, as the AVERAGE attendance shows, overall, AAC is closer to the Bottom of the G5 than to the bottom of the P5.

Heck, the AAC is closer to the top of the FCS average attendance leaders than the bottom of the P5.

Add Boston College, Duke, Wake, UVA, or Syracuse to any of the other P5 conferences and they would also lower the average attendance of all those P5 conferences. And yet, these schools get the "P5" distinction. Their association with the rest of the ACC is what makes them P5, not their metrics. If ECU, Houston, USF, Memphis, Cincinnati, or UCF replaced Wake Forest, Duke, BC, or Syracuse, the average ACC attendance would increase.

Put any of these schools in CUSA, MAC, or Sun Belt conference and they would easily be the top outlier for the conference.

(05-22-2017 04:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling, as it has always been---this is a marketing strategy. That said, the AAC looks much more like a "tweener conference" or a "tier of one" than it does P5 or G5. It clearly sits on the extreme edge of the bell curve if you include it in either of the P5 or G5.

they would not even be on the P5 curve and they would clearly be on the G5 curve

they are nowhere close to being "between" the P5 and G5

that is like saying that Round Rock is between Austin and dallas......technically you go through Round Rock to get to dallas from Austin, but no one on the planet would ever say "you know Round Rock......it is between dallas and Austin"

everyone on earth would say "you know Round Rock the suburb of Austin" or "Round Rock it is just north of Austin"

and if Round Rock was trying to claim that their metro numbers should be counted in with the DFW area or that they were somehow similar in climate or location to dallas Vs Austin everyone would just laugh

the aac has hardly put meaningful distance between themselves and the other G5 conferences and they are still clearly much closer to (and in many measures the same) as the other G5 than they are remotely close to the P5

(05-22-2017 04:48 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 04:29 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 04:16 PM)YNot Wrote:  I'm not trying to argue that the AAC is as good as P5 conference, but that its membership is closer to P5 schools than to the other G5 schools. The argument is that most of the AAC schools (75%) are interchangeable with a large portion of the P5 schools (bottom 40% of the ACC, PAC, and B12).

CUSA, Sun Belt, and MAC definitely cannot make this argument - they each may have 1 or 2 schools that could even think to make such a claim.

The MWC has 3 or 4 schools that might be interchangeable with certain P5 schools, but clearly has more dead weight that has much more in common with the average G5 school than the bottom tier of the P5.

The best of the AAC schools would still lower the average attendance of all P5 conferences. Again, saying your best is better than their worst is not convincing.


And, as the AVERAGE attendance shows, overall, AAC is closer to the Bottom of the G5 than to the bottom of the P5.

Heck, the AAC is closer to the top of the FCS average attendance leaders than the bottom of the P5.

Add Boston College, Duke, Wake, UVA, or Syracuse to any of the other P5 conferences and they would also lower the average attendance of all those P5 conferences. And yet, these schools get the "P5" distinction. Their association with the rest of the ACC is what makes them P5, not their metrics. If ECU, Houston, USF, Memphis, Cincinnati, or UCF replaced Wake Forest, Duke, BC, or Syracuse, the average ACC attendance would increase.

Put any of these schools in CUSA, MAC, or Sun Belt conference and they would easily be the top outlier for the conference.

when you are trying to make a claim about the standing of a CONFERENCE you do not do so by cherry picking some of the members of the conference and adding or subtracting them

you take the measure of the conference as a whole

I mean yea if you got rid of the lowest two football attendance schools in any conference and added in Michigan and tOSU or Alabama and A&M to replace them for football attendance you would see entirely new numbers for those averages

but of course in doing so you just prove that the conference as it is now does not measure up to what they are trying to claim because if it did you would not be adding and dropping programs to make pretend numbers to support an otherwise failed claim

MWC added Utah State and San Jose State who are 2 dead weights to some fans who will not go to watch their games. The fanbase went down because they lost TCU, Utah and BYU. They only made up with one with the best attendance, and that was Boise State. San Jose State does have the worst attendance that are usually below 15,000 average per year.