(05-23-2017 12:35 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 12:12 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 11:01 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 08:02 AM)otown Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 12:55 AM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  Why is all this so difficult to understand? Two rep points earned.

.

because the antagonist turned out to be a fraud with no plan of his own. all bark, no bite. a little chihuahua so to speak. kept the thread going for quite some time though

You and I got into one heated exchange on the CUSA board a couple of years ago and you want to carry it over to here…. Moreover, if you look at everyone that I responded to in this thread, nobody “demand” an answer from me like you did. I also did not “demand” answers from my brother board members; instead, I offered them a challenge and was willing to give rep points if they accepted the challenge—which I honored….

great memory about the cusa board. i honestly dont recall.

once again, i am very curious about what you would have done differently in aresco's shoes. you have been lighting him up on this thread, and id love to hear what you would have done differently given the circumstances....... your entire argument holds no water unless you can at least back up your criticism of his job.

You were literally unforgettable after that encounter…..

wonderful. im glad i had that impression on you. cant say the same for you

so, you gonna step up to the plate? if not, its ok, just doesnt do your argument any favors. hopefully this encounter doesnt provoke nightmares for you like our last, so ill go easy

(05-23-2017 12:48 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 12:35 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 12:12 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 11:01 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 08:02 AM)otown Wrote:  because the antagonist turned out to be a fraud with no plan of his own. all bark, no bite. a little chihuahua so to speak. kept the thread going for quite some time though

You and I got into one heated exchange on the CUSA board a couple of years ago and you want to carry it over to here…. Moreover, if you look at everyone that I responded to in this thread, nobody “demanded” an answer from me like you did. I also did not “demand” answers from my brother board members; instead, I offered them a challenge and was willing to give rep points if they accepted the challenge—which I honored….

great memory about the cusa board. i honestly dont recall.

once again, i am very curious about what you would have done differently in aresco's shoes. you have been lighting him up on this thread, and id love to hear what you would have done differently given the circumstances....... your entire argument holds no water unless you can at least back up your criticism of his job.

You were literally unforgettable after that encounter…..

wonderful. im glad i had that impression on you. cant say the same for you

so, you gonna step up to the plate? if not, its ok, just doesnt do your argument any favors. hopefully this encounter doesnt provoke nightmares for you like our last, so ill go easy

I did not post in this thread to engage in an “argument,” so I have nothing to prove. Furthermore, I will not get into another “argument” with you—which is what occurred on the CUSA board a couple of years ago. In addition to this, the fact that you view what I’ve posted in this thread as an “argument” further substantiates how pointless it would be for me to attempt having a constructive conversation with you….

(05-24-2017 09:53 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 12:48 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 12:35 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 12:12 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 11:01 AM)Underdog Wrote:  You and I got into one heated exchange on the CUSA board a couple of years ago and you want to carry it over to here…. Moreover, if you look at everyone that I responded to in this thread, nobody “demanded” an answer from me like you did. I also did not “demand” answers from my brother board members; instead, I offered them a challenge and was willing to give rep points if they accepted the challenge—which I honored….

great memory about the cusa board. i honestly dont recall.

once again, i am very curious about what you would have done differently in aresco's shoes. you have been lighting him up on this thread, and id love to hear what you would have done differently given the circumstances....... your entire argument holds no water unless you can at least back up your criticism of his job.

You were literally unforgettable after that encounter…..

wonderful. im glad i had that impression on you. cant say the same for you

so, you gonna step up to the plate? if not, its ok, just doesnt do your argument any favors. hopefully this encounter doesnt provoke nightmares for you like our last, so ill go easy

I did not post in this thread to engage in an “argument,” so I have nothing to prove. Furthermore, I will not get into another “argument” with you—which is what occurred on the CUSA board a couple of years ago. In addition to this, the fact that you view what I’ve posted in this thread as an “argument” further substantiates how pointless it would be for me to attempt having a constructive conversation with you….

You claim that Aresco did a bad job. Others claim that he did not given the circumstances. You all go back and forth. Sorry if you don't want to call it an argument to get out of putting on the table why you think he did a bad job given the circumstances. Others pointed out specific timelines for you regarding our previous contract that would completely refute your "perspective." However, it speaks volumes that you can't back up you belief about Aresco with facts. Bringing up some self perceived injustice from an "argument" with me from years ago that I honestly don't remember, nor do I have the time to lookup, is just deflecting the thread at hand. I am sorry that you are upset that you were called out on your opinion regarding Aresco's job performance and don't want to back it up with facts of what you would have done different given the circumstance at the time. Others already pointed out the timeline regarding our expired bball contract.

(05-24-2017 10:43 AM)otown Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 09:53 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 12:48 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 12:35 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 12:12 PM)otown Wrote:  great memory about the cusa board. i honestly dont recall.

once again, i am very curious about what you would have done differently in aresco's shoes. you have been lighting him up on this thread, and id love to hear what you would have done differently given the circumstances....... your entire argument holds no water unless you can at least back up your criticism of his job.

You were literally unforgettable after that encounter…..

wonderful. im glad i had that impression on you. cant say the same for you

so, you gonna step up to the plate? if not, its ok, just doesnt do your argument any favors. hopefully this encounter doesnt provoke nightmares for you like our last, so ill go easy

I did not post in this thread to engage in an “argument,” so I have nothing to prove. Furthermore, I will not get into another “argument” with you—which is what occurred on the CUSA board a couple of years ago. In addition to this, the fact that you view what I’ve posted in this thread as an “argument” further substantiates how pointless it would be for me to attempt having a constructive conversation with you….

You claim that Aresco did a bad job. Others claim that he did not given the circumstances. You all go back and forth. Sorry if you don't want to call it an argument to get out of putting on the table why you think he did a bad job given the circumstances. Others pointed out specific timelines for you regarding our previous contract that would completely refute your "perspective." However, it speaks volumes that you can't back up you belief about Aresco with facts. Bringing up some self perceived injustice from an "argument" with me from years ago that I honestly don't remember, nor do I have the time to lookup, is just deflecting the thread at hand. I am sorry that you are upset that you were called out on your opinion regarding Aresco's job performance and don't want to back it up with facts of what you would have done different given the circumstance at the time. Others already pointed out the timeline regarding our expired bball contract.

Being “called out” is one thing. However, name calling is totally different. You sarcastically called me a “hot shot” in your 1st post in this thread—which is not a constructive way to initially interject yourself into an ongoing conversation. You also referred to me in your 2nd post as being, “All hot air...........exposed…a fraud.” Not to mention your 4th post: “the antagonist turned out to be a fraud with no plan of his own. all bark, no bite. a little chihuahua so to speak.” You have a very distasteful way—at best—on how you addressed me directly and indirectly; yet, I still remained respectful to you.

Furthermore, name calling and belittling other board members won’t encourage a response from them. Also, you are totally unaware of the fact that I gave rep points to others in this thread (not including Attackcoog for his answer) that you consider an “argument.” Nevertheless, regarding the topic of what Aresco could have done to improve our product before taking it to market; you overlooked one answer I gave in post #10 which is a basic business principal that should never be disregarded—but was by him….

I find it difficult to believe that the Presidents would have agreed to no tv deal had Aresco backed that plan. Hindsight is 20/20 and the AAC probably would have been able to get a better deal with those first year results in the books. How much, however, is anybody's guess as the league was still in transition with teams coming and going. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that administrators from member schools would have entertained a bball season hiatus from tv as a viable option.

The team A/B designation is one of the most misinterpreted things to come out of those negotiations. It wasn't an ESPN clause, but carryover from NBC. Specifically, to protect Comcast RSNs located in areas where schools were rumored to be flight risks. I know I saw it discussed on twitter at the time between the talking heads who were supposedly in the know, but don't recall whether or not they wrote or blogged about it. Aresco even addressed it in one of those first interviews after it came out saying he'd work to remove it from subsequent contracts.

(05-24-2017 11:49 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I find it difficult to believe that the Presidents would have agreed to no tv deal had Aresco backed that plan. Hindsight is 20/20 and the AAC probably would have been able to get a better deal with those first year results in the books. How much, however, is anybody's guess as the league was still in transition with teams coming and going. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that administrators from member schools would have entertained a bball season hiatus from tv as a viable option.

The team A/B designation is one of the most misinterpreted things to come out of those negotiations. It wasn't an ESPN clause, but carryover from NBC. Specifically, to protect Comcast RSNs located in areas where schools were rumored to be flight risks. I know I saw it discussed on twitter at the time between the talking heads who were supposedly in the know, but don't recall whether or not they wrote or blogged about it. Aresco even addressed it in one of those first interviews after it came out saying he'd work to remove it from subsequent contracts.

I'll give you that... +1.... However, there is no way he should have allowed an unnamed product to be taken to the networks. He has too much experience in tv to make such an inexcusable mistake. If he had explained the magnitude of making such a mistake to the presidents, they would have at least delayed until our product was named.

I have to disagree with your "A/B designation" comment. If you can provide a link that another FBS conference had a network place schools into certain groups, I'll rep you +2....

Well, Thanks for the point, but honestly I'm not a person that pays attention to that sort of thing...not even sure how to give or take them away.

I guess I'm still scratching my head as to why the team A/B is something to slam/credit Aresco for in the first place. I mean, if in fact, the next contract rolls around and the clause is not in there, should he receive high praise? Personally, I wouldn't give it to him either way (in that is a big deal to be celebrated or bemoaned). To me, it's more of a non-starter. It was a product of a unique situation. All contracts have membership change clauses. Some more interesting than others as the big 12 witnessed this summer.

If, in fact, some teams were more coveted or held in higher esteem from a network perspective as some here tried to make the case for when the news first came out, then it stands to reason that those teams should dominate or receive special tv consideration over the course of the contract. However, when you examine the data, it doesn't bear out that way. Now, if the next contract has more generic language in its' membership change clause, does that mean team A schools are any less valuable? Of course, not. It'll just be a product of the current situation which is exponentially more stable and immaterial to a newtwork w/o regional affiliates (assuming ESPN extension). Again, no credit to Aresco IMO.

(05-24-2017 01:47 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Well, Thanks for the point, but honestly I'm not a person that pays attention to that sort of thing...not even sure how to give or take them away.

I guess I'm still scratching my head as to why the team A/B is something to slam/credit Aresco for in the first place. I mean, if in fact, the next contract rolls around and the clause is not in there, should he receive high praise? Personally, I wouldn't give it to him either way (in that is a big deal to be celebrated or bemoaned). To me, it's more of a non-starter. It was a product of a unique situation. All contracts have membership change clauses. Some more interesting than others as the big 12 witnessed this summer.

If, in fact, some teams were more coveted or held in higher esteem from a network perspective as some here tried to make the case for when the news first came out, then it stands to reason that those teams should dominate or receive special tv consideration over the course of the contract. However, when you examine the data, it doesn't bear out that way. Now, if the next contract has more generic language in its' membership change clause, does that mean team A schools are any less valuable? Of course, not. It'll just be a product of the current situation which is exponentially more stable and immaterial to a newtwork w/o regional affiliates (assuming ESPN extension). Again, no credit to Aresco IMO.

I’m only speculating with the following response: I honestly think if we had the “American” name going into negotiations, the grouping of schools likely would not have occurred. Most tv contracts have some type of composition clause that addresses schools either joining or leaving a conference. Thus, for ESPN to take an extra step to place our schools into two groups causes me to believe that the lack of a name brought extra concern to our product’s stability….

Fair enough, though I feel it is pertinent to point out that the Team A/B split originated with NBC, not ESPN. According to media reports and Aresco interviews of the time, ESPN exercised their "right to match" clause. Meaning, the contract was matched word for word and, as such, that clause couldn't be changed. Which, when you think about made sense for NBC as they were planning on Comcast airing regional games. It's much more of a non-starter for ESPN as that is not their distribution model. Now, if the next contract rolls around with that clause still in tact, then eyebrows need to raise IMO.

(05-24-2017 12:49 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 11:49 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I find it difficult to believe that the Presidents would have agreed to no tv deal had Aresco backed that plan. Hindsight is 20/20 and the AAC probably would have been able to get a better deal with those first year results in the books. How much, however, is anybody's guess as the league was still in transition with teams coming and going. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that administrators from member schools would have entertained a bball season hiatus from tv as a viable option.

The team A/B designation is one of the most misinterpreted things to come out of those negotiations. It wasn't an ESPN clause, but carryover from NBC. Specifically, to protect Comcast RSNs located in areas where schools were rumored to be flight risks. I know I saw it discussed on twitter at the time between the talking heads who were supposedly in the know, but don't recall whether or not they wrote or blogged about it. Aresco even addressed it in one of those first interviews after it came out saying he'd work to remove it from subsequent contracts.

I'll give you that... +1.... However, there is no way he should have allowed an unnamed product to be taken to the networks. He has too much experience in tv to make such an inexcusable mistake. If he had explained the magnitude of making such a mistake to the presidents, they would have at least delayed until our product was named.

I have to disagree with your "A/B designation" comment. If you can provide a link that another FBS conference had a network place schools into certain groups, I'll rep you +2....

Underdog do you have a back ground in business? If so I respectfully am having a hard time following your logic in terms of what Aresco should or should not have done.

First year companies ( of which the AAC was when Aresco started to negotiate for tv rights) are funded based on a number of things. Leadership model, product viability, market potential etc etc.

ESPN was essentially an angel donor who took a chance on a group of schools who had never played in a league together and who were competing in a fast changing sports landscape .

I would actually argue that had Aresco not been the AAC commish we would have done much worse as ESPN was giving AResco a vote of confidence as much as they were the schools in the AAC.

Aresco cannot bend market forces when there are millions of dollars of revenue at stake
Espn is not simply going to give the AAC what it wants because a commish says so.

(05-24-2017 02:41 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 12:49 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 11:49 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I find it difficult to believe that the Presidents would have agreed to no tv deal had Aresco backed that plan. Hindsight is 20/20 and the AAC probably would have been able to get a better deal with those first year results in the books. How much, however, is anybody's guess as the league was still in transition with teams coming and going. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that administrators from member schools would have entertained a bball season hiatus from tv as a viable option.

The team A/B designation is one of the most misinterpreted things to come out of those negotiations. It wasn't an ESPN clause, but carryover from NBC. Specifically, to protect Comcast RSNs located in areas where schools were rumored to be flight risks. I know I saw it discussed on twitter at the time between the talking heads who were supposedly in the know, but don't recall whether or not they wrote or blogged about it. Aresco even addressed it in one of those first interviews after it came out saying he'd work to remove it from subsequent contracts.

I'll give you that... +1.... However, there is no way he should have allowed an unnamed product to be taken to the networks. He has too much experience in tv to make such an inexcusable mistake. If he had explained the magnitude of making such a mistake to the presidents, they would have at least delayed until our product was named.

I have to disagree with your "A/B designation" comment. If you can provide a link that another FBS conference had a network place schools into certain groups, I'll rep you +2....

Underdog do you have a back ground in business? If so I respectfully am having a hard time following your logic in term of what Aresco should or should not have done.

First year companies ( of which the AAC was when Aresco started to negotiate for tv rights) are funded based on a number of things. Leadership model, product viability, market potential etc etc.

ESPN was essentially an angel donor who took a chance on a group of schools who had never played in a league together and who were competing in a fast changing sports landscape .

I would actually argue that had Aresco not been the AAC commish we would have done much worse as ESPN was giving AResco a vote of confidence as much as they were the schools in the AAC.

Aresco cannot bend market forces when there are millions of dollars of revenue at stake
Espn is not simply going to give the AAC what it wants because a commish says so.

Have the school presidents name our product before taking it to market. It's really that simple....

(05-24-2017 02:41 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 12:49 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 11:49 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I find it difficult to believe that the Presidents would have agreed to no tv deal had Aresco backed that plan. Hindsight is 20/20 and the AAC probably would have been able to get a better deal with those first year results in the books. How much, however, is anybody's guess as the league was still in transition with teams coming and going. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that administrators from member schools would have entertained a bball season hiatus from tv as a viable option.

The team A/B designation is one of the most misinterpreted things to come out of those negotiations. It wasn't an ESPN clause, but carryover from NBC. Specifically, to protect Comcast RSNs located in areas where schools were rumored to be flight risks. I know I saw it discussed on twitter at the time between the talking heads who were supposedly in the know, but don't recall whether or not they wrote or blogged about it. Aresco even addressed it in one of those first interviews after it came out saying he'd work to remove it from subsequent contracts.

I'll give you that... +1.... However, there is no way he should have allowed an unnamed product to be taken to the networks. He has too much experience in tv to make such an inexcusable mistake. If he had explained the magnitude of making such a mistake to the presidents, they would have at least delayed until our product was named.

I have to disagree with your "A/B designation" comment. If you can provide a link that another FBS conference had a network place schools into certain groups, I'll rep you +2....

Underdog do you have a back ground in business? If so I respectfully am having a hard time following your logic in term of what Aresco should or should not have done.

First year companies ( of which the AAC was when Aresco started to negotiate for tv rights) are funded based on a number of things. Leadership model, product viability, market potential etc etc.

ESPN was essentially an angel donor who took a chance on a group of schools who had never played in a league together and who were competing in a fast changing sports landscape .

I would actually argue that had Aresco not been the AAC commish we would have done much worse as ESPN was giving AResco a vote of confidence as much as they were the schools in the AAC.

Aresco cannot bend market forces when there are millions of dollars of revenue at stake
Espn is not simply going to give the AAC what it wants because a commish says so.

Part of the problem was that he had 3 real options:
1. Negotiate the whole package a year early, which he did
2. Do nothing, let the basketball deal expire, deal with a season with no TV deal or coverage for the bball, then negotiate the full package the following year (would have been devastating to the bball side of the conference)
3. Try to negotiate a one year extension for the bball contract with same media property or someone else, then go to open market following year for whole package

#2 Sounds completely unreasonable.
#3 Sounds plausible, but do we know that he didn't put feelers out for this initially? Secondly, does anybody think that we would have gotten the same coverage or worse than the old BE contract for bball if it was just a one year deal for bball?

One thing that I think people overlook a lot......... yes, our conference performed well initially......... but nobody knew that.......even Aresco didn't know. Who knows, we could have grossly under-performed on the field/court as well as in ratings that first year. Was that something that Aresco and the president's were willing to gamble with? Hindsight is always 20/20

People forget that Aresco is bound to what the Preesidents of the schools would want him to do.
First off the basketball contract had ended and football had one year.
There was no way in hell that UConn, UC and at that time UL were going to go into year with NO TV basketball contract. As someone said earlier you would have seen UC and UConn going Indy and placing their basketball with the C7. Had that happened the AAC would have ceased to exist. Houston and SMU would have taken the MWC offer. And the others would have to have settled going back to CUSA for even less money and tv coverage than we got now.
I know there was a deep fear of this happening at USF, UCF and Memphis because we had no alternative other than beg our way back to CUSA.
I'll judge him more on what he gets this time around than on the big turd he had back then. You don't know how close this league came to falling apart completely.

(05-24-2017 08:08 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  People forget that Aresco is bound to what the Preesidents of the schools would want him to do.

I truly believe that the presidents would have followed his advice if he had explained the importance of taking a named product to the networks.

First off the basketball contract had ended and football had one year.
There was no way in hell that UConn, UC and at that time UL were going to go into year with NO TV basketball contract. As someone said earlier you would have seen UC and UConn going Indy and placing their basketball with the C7. Had that happened the AAC would have ceased to exist. Houston and SMU would have taken the MWC offer. And the others would have to have settled going back to CUSA for even less money and tv coverage than we got now.

UC and UCONN were not leaving approximately $100 mil (I could be wrong about the $$$) behind to USF (UCF and Memphis) and going indy. Regarding Houston and SMU, that door was closed when Boise St and San Diego St went back to the MWC. Furthermore, there wasn’t enough $$ left in the MWC for it to be a viable option for Houston and SMU once that occurred.

I know there was a deep fear of this happening at USF, UCF and Memphis because we had no alternative other than beg our way back to CUSA.

You’re underestimating the presidents of USF, UCF, and Memphis…. With approximately $100 mil at their disposal, they simple would have imitated what USF, UConn, and UC ultimately did: Dismantle CUSA into the SBC…and dismantle the SBC into oblivion if necessary….

I'll judge him more on what he gets this time around than on the big turd he had back then. You don't know how close this league came to falling apart completely.

I remember the Tulsa interview Aresco gave some years ago when the school was invited. He said during the interview that at one point, he thought the conference wouldn’t make it. One of the interviewers asked him a question that reiterates my point regarding the importance of naming your product before taking it to market. Aresco was asked, “What’s the name of the conference?”—which he couldn’t answer…..

My comments are in bold font...

(05-24-2017 08:08 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  People forget that Aresco is bound to what the Preesidents of the schools would want him to do.
First off the basketball contract had ended and football had one year.
There was no way in hell that UConn, UC and at that time UL were going to go into year with NO TV basketball contract. As someone said earlier you would have seen UC and UConn going Indy and placing their basketball with the C7. Had that happened the AAC would have ceased to exist. Houston and SMU would have taken the MWC offer. And the others would have to have settled going back to CUSA for even less money and tv coverage than we got now.
I know there was a deep fear of this happening at USF, UCF and Memphis because we had no alternative other than beg our way back to CUSA.
I'll judge him more on what he gets this time around than on the big turd he had back then. You don't know how close this league came to falling apart completely.

Let me add to that. By that time, CUSA had already expanded to 14. So, CUSA's ability to absorb all the AAC schools would be limited. They were not going to 20+ schools. They could only have taken 2---maybe 4 schools max.

So, the reality is the left behind NCAA credits, exit fees, and liquidated damages (paid by the schools that failed to join after accepting invites) in the Big East realignment fund would have been used to pay CUSA exit fees for schools to rebuild the AAC into an viable conference. Marshall, S MIss, UAB, and Rice would have accepted invites in a second. Basically, it would have been the best if the 2011 CUSA lineup mixed with USF, Temple, and Navy.

(05-25-2017 11:36 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 08:08 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  People forget that Aresco is bound to what the Preesidents of the schools would want him to do.

I truly believe that the presidents would have followed his advice if he had explained the importance of taking a named product to the networks.

First off the basketball contract had ended and football had one year.
There was no way in hell that UConn, UC and at that time UL were going to go into year with NO TV basketball contract. As someone said earlier you would have seen UC and UConn going Indy and placing their basketball with the C7. Had that happened the AAC would have ceased to exist. Houston and SMU would have taken the MWC offer. And the others would have to have settled going back to CUSA for even less money and tv coverage than we got now.

UC and UCONN were not leaving approximately $100 mil (I could be wrong about the $$$) behind to USF (UCF and Memphis) and going indy. Regarding Houston and SMU, that door was closed when Boise St and San Diego St went back to the MWC. Furthermore, there wasn’t enough $$ left in the MWC for it to be a viable option for Houston and SMU once that occurred.

I know there was a deep fear of this happening at USF, UCF and Memphis because we had no alternative other than beg our way back to CUSA.

You’re underestimating the presidents of USF, UCF, and Memphis…. With approximately $100 mil at their disposal, they simple would have imitated what USF, UConn, and UC ultimately did: Dismantle CUSA into the SBC…and dismantle the SBC into oblivion if necessary….

I'll judge him more on what he gets this time around than on the big turd he had back then. You don't know how close this league came to falling apart completely.

I remember the Tulsa interview Aresco gave some years ago when the school was invited. He said during the interview that at one point, he thought the conference wouldn’t make it. One of the interviewers asked him a question that reiterates my point regarding the importance of naming your product before taking it to market. Aresco was asked, “What’s the name of the conference?”—which he couldn’t answer…..

My comments are in bold font...

Correct but in the process they would have lost Houston, SMU. As for the 100 million exit fees, understand that it was those fees that allowed the presidents of the AAC schools to accept the low TV deal for extra exposure because those exit fees allowed UC,USF and UConn to keep what they made in big east and the new schools to make MORE than they did in CUSA.
The big numbers will happen now when tjhose exit fees are done and all the money will have to come from tv rights

(05-25-2017 12:00 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 11:36 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 08:08 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  People forget that Aresco is bound to what the Preesidents of the schools would want him to do.

I truly believe that the presidents would have followed his advice if he had explained the importance of taking a named product to the networks.

First off the basketball contract had ended and football had one year.
There was no way in hell that UConn, UC and at that time UL were going to go into year with NO TV basketball contract. As someone said earlier you would have seen UC and UConn going Indy and placing their basketball with the C7. Had that happened the AAC would have ceased to exist. Houston and SMU would have taken the MWC offer. And the others would have to have settled going back to CUSA for even less money and tv coverage than we got now.

UC and UCONN were not leaving approximately $100 mil (I could be wrong about the $$$) behind to USF (UCF and Memphis) and going indy. Regarding Houston and SMU, that door was closed when Boise St and San Diego St went back to the MWC. Furthermore, there wasn’t enough $$ left in the MWC for it to be a viable option for Houston and SMU once that occurred.

I know there was a deep fear of this happening at USF, UCF and Memphis because we had no alternative other than beg our way back to CUSA.

You’re underestimating the presidents of USF, UCF, and Memphis…. With approximately $100 mil at their disposal, they simple would have imitated what USF, UConn, and UC ultimately did: Dismantle CUSA into the SBC…and dismantle the SBC into oblivion if necessary….

I'll judge him more on what he gets this time around than on the big turd he had back then. You don't know how close this league came to falling apart completely.

I remember the Tulsa interview Aresco gave some years ago when the school was invited. He said during the interview that at one point, he thought the conference wouldn’t make it. One of the interviewers asked him a question that reiterates my point regarding the importance of naming your product before taking it to market. Aresco was asked, “What’s the name of the conference?”—which he couldn’t answer…..

My comments are in bold font...

Correct but in the process they would have lost Houston, SMU. As for the 100 million exit fees, understand that it was those fees that allowed the presidents of the AAC schools to accept the low TV deal for extra exposure because those exit fees allowed UC,USF and UConn to keep what they made in big east and the new schools to make MORE than they did in CUSA.
The big numbers will happen now when tjhose exit fees are done and all the money will have to come from tv rights

Your point is "2" good... I forgot about that....

(05-25-2017 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 08:08 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  People forget that Aresco is bound to what the Preesidents of the schools would want him to do.
First off the basketball contract had ended and football had one year.
There was no way in hell that UConn, UC and at that time UL were going to go into year with NO TV basketball contract. As someone said earlier you would have seen UC and UConn going Indy and placing their basketball with the C7. Had that happened the AAC would have ceased to exist. Houston and SMU would have taken the MWC offer. And the others would have to have settled going back to CUSA for even less money and tv coverage than we got now.
I know there was a deep fear of this happening at USF, UCF and Memphis because we had no alternative other than beg our way back to CUSA.
I'll judge him more on what he gets this time around than on the big turd he had back then. You don't know how close this league came to falling apart completely.

Let me add to that. By that time, CUSA had already expanded to 14. So, CUSA's ability to absorb all the AAC schools would be limited. They were not going to 20+ schools. They could only have taken 2---maybe 4 schools max.

So, the reality is the left behind NCAA credits, exit fees, and liquidated damages (paid by the schools that failed to join after accepting invites) in the Big East realignment fund would have been used to pay CUSA exit fees for schools to rebuild the AAC into an viable conference. Marshall, S MIss, UAB, and Rice would have accepted invites in a second. Basically, it would have been the best if the 2011 CUSA lineup mixed with USF, Temple, and Navy.

Another accurate analysis as usual Attackcoog….

(05-22-2017 08:54 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 08:17 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  You need to clarify your "I Root For" line. Continually referencing "basic business principles" in posts defending "Big H" implies that you got your business degree at Houston, which doesn't help your argument.

I respectfully disagree with you. Please review my post to Big H again, and you will discover that we total disagree about the job Aresco has done. Therefore, I was not "defending 'Big H'"....

Underdog and I aren't equally agreeing with Aresco's performance. I say Aresco has done a pretty good job while Underdog believes quite the opposite.

I think Aresco can do a lot for this league, biggest challenge for the AAC IMO however is convincing every program to remain together and not publicly announce you want out.

Let's face it: The only lucrative contracts Aresco has signed the past 5+ years have been ... his own.