(02-17-2022 06:50 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:14 PM)panite Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 09:46 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 01:29 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The MWC gets consistently lower ratings and has worse time slots to remedy the gap. I'm not really concerned about them surpassing us contractually.

I agree that there's little chance that the MW can pull up to the AAC in media revenue.

But, it's not inconceivable. Right now, the gap is IIRC about $2.5 million per year - the AAC is making about $6.5m per school, the MW about $4m per school.

But, the MW will be up for a re-up in 2026, and the AAC still might take a haircut for losing UCF, Cincy and Houston.

That said, the MW does face its own problem, as in 2026 the issue of Boise making more than the rest of the conference could come to a boil again, threatening that conference.

We'll just have to see.

It has already been stated that the AAC remaining schools are not taking a paycut and will each get around 7 million a year. Doubt the MWC schools could make a 2.5-3 million jump

Isn't that just to finish the current contract. The next contract could potentially be lower with more mouths to feed after UCF, Houston, and Cinn leave.

Also while the current contract is running, the remaining AAC members might make up deficits to get to their current 7 million dollar portion through the departing member fees, and from initiation fees from the new members coming in.

Hmmm the next contract won’t the 2032 season, who knows what the league will look like and who the new flagships will be by then. So trying to assign a lower value on something that will happen 10 years from now seems kind of nonsense.

Agree - a lot could change over the next 10 years.

Potential positives include:

• It's quite possible that some UTSA, UAB, or N. Texas teams may finish some seasons in the top 25 in the years ahead, helping to fill the gap left by UC, UCF, & UH.
  .
• It's equally possible that a couple of AAC remainers will step into UC, UCF, or UH's shoes. Navy and Memphis have both had teams in the final top 25 in recent years.
  .
• G5 conferences' broadcasting revenues have been increasing over the past half-decade, and this trend may be likely to continue.
  .
• The addition of 6 southern schools could boost viewership more than expected, due to their teams' increased visibility on ESPN. Tulane is an example of a southern AAC school that has had stronger than expected viewership in bowl seasons.
  

Potential concerns include:

• Viewership is likely to take at least a temporary hit when UC, UH, & UCF depart, and no one knows if or when it will bounce back.
  .
• Memphis and possibly SMU or USF could be poached by the Big 12, dealing another blow to the conference's rankings and viewership.
  .
• It isn't clear how ESPN will respond if the Big 12 takes Memphis (& SMU?). The AAC could drop down to 12 members, or unknown replacements could be added.
  .
• Each time the AAC has lost teams, ESPN has renegotiated total revenue downward, and the AAC has gotten weaker as a result.
  

There are also a variety of other unknowns. For example, if the Big12, Big Ten, ACC, and PAC all decide to become 16-team conferences, the AAC could lose more than two or three members, and there could be a merger of conferences (e.g., AAC/MWC, AAC/CUSA).

.

(02-18-2022 07:01 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:50 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:14 PM)panite Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 09:46 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree that there's little chance that the MW can pull up to the AAC in media revenue.

But, it's not inconceivable. Right now, the gap is IIRC about $2.5 million per year - the AAC is making about $6.5m per school, the MW about $4m per school.

But, the MW will be up for a re-up in 2026, and the AAC still might take a haircut for losing UCF, Cincy and Houston.

That said, the MW does face its own problem, as in 2026 the issue of Boise making more than the rest of the conference could come to a boil again, threatening that conference.

We'll just have to see.

It has already been stated that the AAC remaining schools are not taking a paycut and will each get around 7 million a year. Doubt the MWC schools could make a 2.5-3 million jump

Isn't that just to finish the current contract. The next contract could potentially be lower with more mouths to feed after UCF, Houston, and Cinn leave.

Also while the current contract is running, the remaining AAC members might make up deficits to get to their current 7 million dollar portion through the departing member fees, and from initiation fees from the new members coming in.

Hmmm the next contract won’t the 2032 season, who knows what the league will look like and who the new flagships will be by then. So trying to assign a lower value on something that will happen 10 years from now seems kind of nonsense.

Agree - a lot could change over the next 10 years.

Potential positives include:

• It's quite possible that some UTSA, UAB, or N. Texas teams may finish some seasons in the top 25 in the years ahead, helping to fill the gap left by UC, UCF, & UH.
  .
• It's equally possible that a couple of AAC remainers will step into UC, UCF, or UH's shoes. Navy and Memphis have both had teams in the final top 25 in recent years.
  .
• G5 conferences' broadcasting revenues have been increasing over the past half-decade, and this trend may be likely to continue.
  .
• The addition of 6 southern schools could boost viewership more than expected, due to their teams' increased visibility on ESPN. Tulane is an example of a southern AAC school that has had stronger than expected viewership in bowl seasons.
  

Potential concerns include:

• Viewership is likely to take at least a temporary hit when UC, UH, & UCF depart, and no one knows if or when it will bounce back.
  .
• Memphis and possibly SMU or USF could be poached by the Big 12, dealing another blow to the conference's rankings and viewership.
  .
• It isn't clear how ESPN will respond if the Big 12 takes Memphis (& SMU?). The AAC could drop down to 12 members, or unknown replacements could be added.
  .
• Each time the AAC has lost teams, ESPN has renegotiated total revenue downward, and the AAC has gotten weaker as a result.
  

There are also a variety of other unknowns. For example, if the Big12, Big Ten, ACC, and PAC all decide to become 16-team conferences, the AAC could lose more than two or three members, and there could be a merger of conferences (e.g., AAC/MWC, AAC/CUSA).

.

An AAC / MWC merger is not going to happen. No MWC school will join a perceived weaker AAC conference at that point. Aresco couldn't draw a MWC school out for the AAC when Houston, Cinn, and UCF announced that they were leaving in this realignment. The MWC would actually be in a stronger position to pick off a couple of AAC schools if more AAC schools leave down the line. A CUSA / AAC merger would put the AAC below/on the bottom of the MWC, the Sunbelt Conference, and even potentially below the MAC. If the AAC gets cherry picked again by 2 schools, it remains at 12 (have the Navy/Wichita combo) for the conference. If it loses 3 schools, it will have to cherry pick the Sunbelt or pick up an independent to get back to 12 with the Navy/Wichita combo.

(02-18-2022 09:36 AM)panite Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 07:01 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:50 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:14 PM)panite Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 09:46 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  It has already been stated that the AAC remaining schools are not taking a paycut and will each get around 7 million a year. Doubt the MWC schools could make a 2.5-3 million jump

Isn't that just to finish the current contract. The next contract could potentially be lower with more mouths to feed after UCF, Houston, and Cinn leave.

Also while the current contract is running, the remaining AAC members might make up deficits to get to their current 7 million dollar portion through the departing member fees, and from initiation fees from the new members coming in.

Hmmm the next contract won’t the 2032 season, who knows what the league will look like and who the new flagships will be by then. So trying to assign a lower value on something that will happen 10 years from now seems kind of nonsense.

Agree - a lot could change over the next 10 years.

Potential positives include:

• It's quite possible that some UTSA, UAB, or N. Texas teams may finish some seasons in the top 25 in the years ahead, helping to fill the gap left by UC, UCF, & UH.
  .
• It's equally possible that a couple of AAC remainers will step into UC, UCF, or UH's shoes. Navy and Memphis have both had teams in the final top 25 in recent years.
  .
• G5 conferences' broadcasting revenues have been increasing over the past half-decade, and this trend may be likely to continue.
  .
• The addition of 6 southern schools could boost viewership more than expected, due to their teams' increased visibility on ESPN. Tulane is an example of a southern AAC school that has had stronger than expected viewership in bowl seasons.
  

Potential concerns include:

• Viewership is likely to take at least a temporary hit when UC, UH, & UCF depart, and no one knows if or when it will bounce back.
  .
• Memphis and possibly SMU or USF could be poached by the Big 12, dealing another blow to the conference's rankings and viewership.
  .
• It isn't clear how ESPN will respond if the Big 12 takes Memphis (& SMU?). The AAC could drop down to 12 members, or unknown replacements could be added.
  .
• Each time the AAC has lost teams, ESPN has renegotiated total revenue downward, and the AAC has gotten weaker as a result.
  

There are also a variety of other unknowns. For example, if the Big12, Big Ten, ACC, and PAC all decide to become 16-team conferences, the AAC could lose more than two or three members, and there could be a merger of conferences (e.g., AAC/MWC, AAC/CUSA).

.

An AAC / MWC merger is not going to happen. No MWC school will join a perceived weaker AAC conference at that point. Aresco couldn't draw a MWC school out for the AAC when Houston, Cinn, and UCF announced that they were leaving in this realignment. The MWC would actually be in a stronger position to pick off a couple of AAC schools if more AAC schools leave down the line. A CUSA / AAC merger would put the AAC below/on the bottom of the MWC, the Sunbelt Conference, and even potentially below the MAC. If the AAC gets cherry picked again by 2 schools, it remains at 12 (have the Navy/Wichita combo) for the conference. If it loses 3 schools, it will have to cherry pick the Sunbelt or pick up an independent to get back to 12 with the Navy/Wichita combo.

Once again who knows what will happen, you are assuming the AAC will lose more teams and the MWC will stay intact.
All we can say right now is that the AAC going into 2023 is better financially and exposure wise than any non P league and will be as competitive on the field also.

(02-18-2022 10:13 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 09:36 AM)panite Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 07:01 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:50 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:14 PM)panite Wrote:  Isn't that just to finish the current contract. The next contract could potentially be lower with more mouths to feed after UCF, Houston, and Cinn leave.

Also while the current contract is running, the remaining AAC members might make up deficits to get to their current 7 million dollar portion through the departing member fees, and from initiation fees from the new members coming in.

Hmmm the next contract won’t the 2032 season, who knows what the league will look like and who the new flagships will be by then. So trying to assign a lower value on something that will happen 10 years from now seems kind of nonsense.

Agree - a lot could change over the next 10 years.

Potential positives include:

• It's quite possible that some UTSA, UAB, or N. Texas teams may finish some seasons in the top 25 in the years ahead, helping to fill the gap left by UC, UCF, & UH.
  .
• It's equally possible that a couple of AAC remainers will step into UC, UCF, or UH's shoes. Navy and Memphis have both had teams in the final top 25 in recent years.
  .
• G5 conferences' broadcasting revenues have been increasing over the past half-decade, and this trend may be likely to continue.
  .
• The addition of 6 southern schools could boost viewership more than expected, due to their teams' increased visibility on ESPN. Tulane is an example of a southern AAC school that has had stronger than expected viewership in bowl seasons.
  

Potential concerns include:

• Viewership is likely to take at least a temporary hit when UC, UH, & UCF depart, and no one knows if or when it will bounce back.
  .
• Memphis and possibly SMU or USF could be poached by the Big 12, dealing another blow to the conference's rankings and viewership.
  .
• It isn't clear how ESPN will respond if the Big 12 takes Memphis (& SMU?). The AAC could drop down to 12 members, or unknown replacements could be added.
  .
• Each time the AAC has lost teams, ESPN has renegotiated total revenue downward, and the AAC has gotten weaker as a result.
  

There are also a variety of other unknowns. For example, if the Big12, Big Ten, ACC, and PAC all decide to become 16-team conferences, the AAC could lose more than two or three members, and there could be a merger of conferences (e.g., AAC/MWC, AAC/CUSA).

.

An AAC / MWC merger is not going to happen. No MWC school will join a perceived weaker AAC conference at that point. Aresco couldn't draw a MWC school out for the AAC when Houston, Cinn, and UCF announced that they were leaving in this realignment. The MWC would actually be in a stronger position to pick off a couple of AAC schools if more AAC schools leave down the line. A CUSA / AAC merger would put the AAC below/on the bottom of the MWC, the Sunbelt Conference, and even potentially below the MAC. If the AAC gets cherry picked again by 2 schools, it remains at 12 (have the Navy/Wichita combo) for the conference. If it loses 3 schools, it will have to cherry pick the Sunbelt or pick up an independent to get back to 12 with the Navy/Wichita combo.

Once again who knows what will happen, you are assuming the AAC will lose more teams and the MWC will stay intact.
All we can say right now is that the AAC going into 2023 is better financially and exposure wise than any non P league and will be as competitive on the field also.

The real problem is the NIL. Money and athletes.

(02-18-2022 07:01 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:50 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:14 PM)panite Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 09:46 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree that there's little chance that the MW can pull up to the AAC in media revenue.

But, it's not inconceivable. Right now, the gap is IIRC about $2.5 million per year - the AAC is making about $6.5m per school, the MW about $4m per school.

But, the MW will be up for a re-up in 2026, and the AAC still might take a haircut for losing UCF, Cincy and Houston.

That said, the MW does face its own problem, as in 2026 the issue of Boise making more than the rest of the conference could come to a boil again, threatening that conference.

We'll just have to see.

It has already been stated that the AAC remaining schools are not taking a paycut and will each get around 7 million a year. Doubt the MWC schools could make a 2.5-3 million jump

Isn't that just to finish the current contract. The next contract could potentially be lower with more mouths to feed after UCF, Houston, and Cinn leave.

Also while the current contract is running, the remaining AAC members might make up deficits to get to their current 7 million dollar portion through the departing member fees, and from initiation fees from the new members coming in.

Hmmm the next contract won’t the 2032 season, who knows what the league will look like and who the new flagships will be by then. So trying to assign a lower value on something that will happen 10 years from now seems kind of nonsense.

Agree - a lot could change over the next 10 years.

Potential positives include:

• It's quite possible that some UTSA, UAB, or N. Texas teams may finish some seasons in the top 25 in the years ahead, helping to fill the gap left by UC, UCF, & UH.
  .
• It's equally possible that a couple of AAC remainers will step into UC, UCF, or UH's shoes. Navy and Memphis have both had teams in the final top 25 in recent years.
  .
• G5 conferences' broadcasting revenues have been increasing over the past half-decade, and this trend may be likely to continue.
  .
• The addition of 6 southern schools could boost viewership more than expected, due to their teams' increased visibility on ESPN. Tulane is an example of a southern AAC school that has had stronger than expected viewership in bowl seasons.
  

Potential concerns include:

• Viewership is likely to take at least a temporary hit when UC, UH, & UCF depart, and no one knows if or when it will bounce back.
  .
• Memphis and possibly SMU or USF could be poached by the Big 12, dealing another blow to the conference's rankings and viewership.
  .
• It isn't clear how ESPN will respond if the Big 12 takes Memphis (& SMU?). The AAC could drop down to 12 members, or unknown replacements could be added.
  .
• Each time the AAC has lost teams, ESPN has renegotiated total revenue downward, and the AAC has gotten weaker as a result.
  

There are also a variety of other unknowns. For example, if the Big12, Big Ten, ACC, and PAC all decide to become 16-team conferences, the AAC could lose more than two or three members, and there could be a merger of conferences (e.g., AAC/MWC, AAC/CUSA).

.

UAB viewership numbers interest me. Nearly every Birmingham market TV was tuned in for the UAB vs BYU game. I think was a top 5 viewed non-NY6 bowl? Correct me if wrong tho. Regardless, CBSSN doesn’t show up on Nielsens either so you really can’t gauge interest. The biggest CUSA game of the season, UAB vs. UTSA, was on ESPN+. I wonder what a UAB vs. Memphis or UAB vs. SMU game could do. I bet most of Alabama would watch, provided it didn’t coincide with Bama or Auburn. Which brings me to a question, if these new adds somehow *DID* bring more eyes than expected, is there potential to renegotiate the contract to give the new additions a higher payout? Since the new additions are getting smaller payouts

(03-01-2022 08:06 AM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 07:01 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:50 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:14 PM)panite Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 09:46 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  It has already been stated that the AAC remaining schools are not taking a paycut and will each get around 7 million a year. Doubt the MWC schools could make a 2.5-3 million jump

Isn't that just to finish the current contract. The next contract could potentially be lower with more mouths to feed after UCF, Houston, and Cinn leave.

Also while the current contract is running, the remaining AAC members might make up deficits to get to their current 7 million dollar portion through the departing member fees, and from initiation fees from the new members coming in.

Hmmm the next contract won’t the 2032 season, who knows what the league will look like and who the new flagships will be by then. So trying to assign a lower value on something that will happen 10 years from now seems kind of nonsense.

Agree - a lot could change over the next 10 years.

Potential positives include:

• It's quite possible that some UTSA, UAB, or N. Texas teams may finish some seasons in the top 25 in the years ahead, helping to fill the gap left by UC, UCF, & UH.
  .
• It's equally possible that a couple of AAC remainers will step into UC, UCF, or UH's shoes. Navy and Memphis have both had teams in the final top 25 in recent years.
  .
• G5 conferences' broadcasting revenues have been increasing over the past half-decade, and this trend may be likely to continue.
  .
• The addition of 6 southern schools could boost viewership more than expected, due to their teams' increased visibility on ESPN. Tulane is an example of a southern AAC school that has had stronger than expected viewership in bowl seasons.
  

Potential concerns include:

• Viewership is likely to take at least a temporary hit when UC, UH, & UCF depart, and no one knows if or when it will bounce back.
  .
• Memphis and possibly SMU or USF could be poached by the Big 12, dealing another blow to the conference's rankings and viewership.
  .
• It isn't clear how ESPN will respond if the Big 12 takes Memphis (& SMU?). The AAC could drop down to 12 members, or unknown replacements could be added.
  .
• Each time the AAC has lost teams, ESPN has renegotiated total revenue downward, and the AAC has gotten weaker as a result.
  

There are also a variety of other unknowns. For example, if the Big12, Big Ten, ACC, and PAC all decide to become 16-team conferences, the AAC could lose more than two or three members, and there could be a merger of conferences (e.g., AAC/MWC, AAC/CUSA).

.

UAB viewership numbers interest me. Nearly every Birmingham market TV was tuned in for the UAB vs BYU game. I think was a top 5 viewed non-NY6 bowl? Correct me if wrong tho. Regardless, CBSSN doesn’t show up on Nielsens either so you really can’t gauge interest. The biggest CUSA game of the season, UAB vs. UTSA, was on ESPN+. I wonder what a UAB vs. Memphis or UAB vs. SMU game could do. I bet most of Alabama would watch, provided it didn’t coincide with Bama or Auburn. Which brings me to a question, if these new adds somehow *DID* bring more eyes than expected, is there potential to renegotiate the contract to give the new additions a higher payout? Since the new additions are getting smaller payouts

I doubt it. Even though the new schools are getting less than the old, They all are getting pretty big raises over what they had before. Add that to the increased exposure they are all in a good place for the next few years while riding out AAC current contract.

That being said, if I remember correctly there is a built-in look see date. I doubt ESPN would change anything unless, it included an extension of years.

(03-01-2022 08:06 AM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 07:01 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:50 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:14 PM)panite Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 09:46 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  It has already been stated that the AAC remaining schools are not taking a paycut and will each get around 7 million a year. Doubt the MWC schools could make a 2.5-3 million jump

Isn't that just to finish the current contract. The next contract could potentially be lower with more mouths to feed after UCF, Houston, and Cinn leave.

Also while the current contract is running, the remaining AAC members might make up deficits to get to their current 7 million dollar portion through the departing member fees, and from initiation fees from the new members coming in.

Hmmm the next contract won’t the 2032 season, who knows what the league will look like and who the new flagships will be by then. So trying to assign a lower value on something that will happen 10 years from now seems kind of nonsense.

Agree - a lot could change over the next 10 years.

Potential positives include:

• It's quite possible that some UTSA, UAB, or N. Texas teams may finish some seasons in the top 25 in the years ahead, helping to fill the gap left by UC, UCF, & UH.
  .
• It's equally possible that a couple of AAC remainers will step into UC, UCF, or UH's shoes. Navy and Memphis have both had teams in the final top 25 in recent years.
  .
• G5 conferences' broadcasting revenues have been increasing over the past half-decade, and this trend may be likely to continue.
  .
• The addition of 6 southern schools could boost viewership more than expected, due to their teams' increased visibility on ESPN. Tulane is an example of a southern AAC school that has had stronger than expected viewership in bowl seasons.
  

Potential concerns include:

• Viewership is likely to take at least a temporary hit when UC, UH, & UCF depart, and no one knows if or when it will bounce back.
  .
• Memphis and possibly SMU or USF could be poached by the Big 12, dealing another blow to the conference's rankings and viewership.
  .
• It isn't clear how ESPN will respond if the Big 12 takes Memphis (& SMU?). The AAC could drop down to 12 members, or unknown replacements could be added.
  .
• Each time the AAC has lost teams, ESPN has renegotiated total revenue downward, and the AAC has gotten weaker as a result.
  

There are also a variety of other unknowns. For example, if the Big12, Big Ten, ACC, and PAC all decide to become 16-team conferences, the AAC could lose more than two or three members, and there could be a merger of conferences (e.g., AAC/MWC, AAC/CUSA).

.

UAB viewership numbers interest me. Nearly every Birmingham market TV was tuned in for the UAB vs BYU game. I think was a top 5 viewed non-NY6 bowl? Correct me if wrong tho. Regardless, CBSSN doesn’t show up on Nielsens either so you really can’t gauge interest. The biggest CUSA game of the season, UAB vs. UTSA, was on ESPN+. I wonder what a UAB vs. Memphis or UAB vs. SMU game could do. I bet most of Alabama would watch, provided it didn’t coincide with Bama or Auburn. Which brings me to a question, if these new adds somehow *DID* bring more eyes than expected, is there potential to renegotiate the contract to give the new additions a higher payout? Since the new additions are getting smaller payouts

Honestly I though UAB dropped football a few years ago, when did they bring it back? I must have missed the return

(03-01-2022 08:06 AM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 07:01 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:50 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:14 PM)panite Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 09:46 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  It has already been stated that the AAC remaining schools are not taking a paycut and will each get around 7 million a year. Doubt the MWC schools could make a 2.5-3 million jump

Isn't that just to finish the current contract. The next contract could potentially be lower with more mouths to feed after UCF, Houston, and Cinn leave.

Also while the current contract is running, the remaining AAC members might make up deficits to get to their current 7 million dollar portion through the departing member fees, and from initiation fees from the new members coming in.

Hmmm the next contract won’t the 2032 season, who knows what the league will look like and who the new flagships will be by then. So trying to assign a lower value on something that will happen 10 years from now seems kind of nonsense.

Agree - a lot could change over the next 10 years.

Potential positives include:

• It's quite possible that some UTSA, UAB, or N. Texas teams may finish some seasons in the top 25 in the years ahead, helping to fill the gap left by UC, UCF, & UH.
  .
• It's equally possible that a couple of AAC remainers will step into UC, UCF, or UH's shoes. Navy and Memphis have both had teams in the final top 25 in recent years.
  .
• G5 conferences' broadcasting revenues have been increasing over the past half-decade, and this trend may be likely to continue.
  .
• The addition of 6 southern schools could boost viewership more than expected, due to their teams' increased visibility on ESPN. Tulane is an example of a southern AAC school that has had stronger than expected viewership in bowl seasons.
  

Potential concerns include:

• Viewership is likely to take at least a temporary hit when UC, UH, & UCF depart, and no one knows if or when it will bounce back.
  .
• Memphis and possibly SMU or USF could be poached by the Big 12, dealing another blow to the conference's rankings and viewership.
  .
• It isn't clear how ESPN will respond if the Big 12 takes Memphis (& SMU?). The AAC could drop down to 12 members, or unknown replacements could be added.
  .
• Each time the AAC has lost teams, ESPN has renegotiated total revenue downward, and the AAC has gotten weaker as a result.
  

There are also a variety of other unknowns. For example, if the Big12, Big Ten, ACC, and PAC all decide to become 16-team conferences, the AAC could lose more than two or three members, and there could be a merger of conferences (e.g., AAC/MWC, AAC/CUSA).

.

UAB viewership numbers interest me. Nearly every Birmingham market TV was tuned in for the UAB vs BYU game. I think was a top 5 viewed non-NY6 bowl? Correct me if wrong tho. Regardless, CBSSN doesn’t show up on Nielsens either so you really can’t gauge interest. The biggest CUSA game of the season, UAB vs. UTSA, was on ESPN+. I wonder what a UAB vs. Memphis or UAB vs. SMU game could do. I bet most of Alabama would watch, provided it didn’t coincide with Bama or Auburn. Which brings me to a question, if these new adds somehow *DID* bring more eyes than expected, is there potential to renegotiate the contract to give the new additions a higher payout? Since the new additions are getting smaller payouts

Tv viewership numbers will have to wait until the 2023 season when the new members move in and they start getting ESPN exposure. The big thing will be who are the top schools in that year that will be ranked and thus get more attention like an ABC exposure. Too early to tell right now.

(03-01-2022 12:16 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 08:06 AM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 07:01 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:50 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 06:14 PM)panite Wrote:  Isn't that just to finish the current contract. The next contract could potentially be lower with more mouths to feed after UCF, Houston, and Cinn leave.

Also while the current contract is running, the remaining AAC members might make up deficits to get to their current 7 million dollar portion through the departing member fees, and from initiation fees from the new members coming in.

Hmmm the next contract won’t the 2032 season, who knows what the league will look like and who the new flagships will be by then. So trying to assign a lower value on something that will happen 10 years from now seems kind of nonsense.

Agree - a lot could change over the next 10 years.

Potential positives include:

• It's quite possible that some UTSA, UAB, or N. Texas teams may finish some seasons in the top 25 in the years ahead, helping to fill the gap left by UC, UCF, & UH.
  .
• It's equally possible that a couple of AAC remainers will step into UC, UCF, or UH's shoes. Navy and Memphis have both had teams in the final top 25 in recent years.
  .
• G5 conferences' broadcasting revenues have been increasing over the past half-decade, and this trend may be likely to continue.
  .
• The addition of 6 southern schools could boost viewership more than expected, due to their teams' increased visibility on ESPN. Tulane is an example of a southern AAC school that has had stronger than expected viewership in bowl seasons.
  

Potential concerns include:

• Viewership is likely to take at least a temporary hit when UC, UH, & UCF depart, and no one knows if or when it will bounce back.
  .
• Memphis and possibly SMU or USF could be poached by the Big 12, dealing another blow to the conference's rankings and viewership.
  .
• It isn't clear how ESPN will respond if the Big 12 takes Memphis (& SMU?). The AAC could drop down to 12 members, or unknown replacements could be added.
  .
• Each time the AAC has lost teams, ESPN has renegotiated total revenue downward, and the AAC has gotten weaker as a result.
  

There are also a variety of other unknowns. For example, if the Big12, Big Ten, ACC, and PAC all decide to become 16-team conferences, the AAC could lose more than two or three members, and there could be a merger of conferences (e.g., AAC/MWC, AAC/CUSA).

.

UAB viewership numbers interest me. Nearly every Birmingham market TV was tuned in for the UAB vs BYU game. I think was a top 5 viewed non-NY6 bowl? Correct me if wrong tho. Regardless, CBSSN doesn’t show up on Nielsens either so you really can’t gauge interest. The biggest CUSA game of the season, UAB vs. UTSA, was on ESPN+. I wonder what a UAB vs. Memphis or UAB vs. SMU game could do. I bet most of Alabama would watch, provided it didn’t coincide with Bama or Auburn. Which brings me to a question, if these new adds somehow *DID* bring more eyes than expected, is there potential to renegotiate the contract to give the new additions a higher payout? Since the new additions are getting smaller payouts

Honestly I though UAB dropped football a few years ago, when did they bring it back? I must have missed the return

Strange to troll on this post out of all of the ones about UAB.

And if you’re serious, which I don’t think so but I’m not great at digital sarcasm, I’m assuming you’re not much of a football fan. At all.

(03-01-2022 03:19 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  ...if these new adds somehow *DID* bring more eyes than expected, is there potential to renegotiate the contract to give the new additions a higher payout? Since the new additions are getting smaller payouts

Can anyone think of an example of something like that happening?

I'm not sure if any conference has ever been able to renegotiate for more revenue in the middle of a broadcasting agreement.

---The conferences may not have the power to insist on renegotiating - - with the possible exception of an expansion in mid-stream - - because the network lawyers can say "Sorry, but WE HAVE A CONTRACT, and there are no provisions in it that would permit the member schools to seek an increase in revenue."

---Key point: the networks have insisted on contract provisions giving them the prerogative to insist on renegotiating on terms acceptable to the network any time the conference loses a member or seeks to expand.

---If there is a reduction in the number of member schools, the network has more leverage than the conference has, and is thus able to modify the terms of the agreement in a way that is at least slightly beneficial to the network.

------For example, ESPN came out way ahead when it insisted on renegotiating their deal with the AAC due to departures of UC, UH, & UCF.

---------They gave the AAC their permission to negotiate with CUSA or MWC, but not SBC or MAC - - schools (since it wouldn't benefit ESPN to permit additions of any SBC or MAC schools).

---------Their payments to the AAC will decrease because (a) they won't have to pay the scheduled $200 million to the 3 departing schools, and (b) they insisted on paying the 6 incoming CUSA schools far less than half the revenue that the departing schools would have received. Thus, they have cut their future payments to the AAC by at least $50 to $75 million (net).

---------ESPN also benefits from the deal because it expands the range of viewing options with the addition of 6 large market teams. Rather than having a limited menu of AAC games to offer (avg 4-5 conference games/wk), they will be able to offer their viewers a selection of 6-7 games per week (a 45% increase in viewing options), and rather than paying more, they'll be paying $50 to $75 less for the broadcasting rights.

---------ESPN will also save another $100 to $150 million by insisting that the AAC schools build/maintain their own broadcasting facilitiesand pay all the production costs (including the salaries for broadcast teams and production crews). This will hit the 6 incoming schools hardest, since these costs will cause them to lose a disproportionate share of their broadcasting revenue.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

---In the event of conference expansion, the conference members have never seemed to have the leverage to demand a revenue increase, because the network controls the purse strings and must assent to any expansion proposal.

---Thus, conferences that wish to expand, instead, have to express this to the network and hope that they will agree to participate in discussions with prospective members. The network may or may not grant their assent, or say "no, but we would be willing to consider adding school X, Y, or Z instead."

------It may be possible for P5 conferences to use such a tactic successfully, for example, as a ploy to boost their revenue stream in the middle of a broadcasting agreement.

------However, the G5 conferences don't have the required leverage to do that.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So it seems like the answer to your question above is probably "no," with respect to the AAC and the other G5 conferences, which have relatively little leverage with the networks.

The P5 conferences have had a lot more success in using their leverage, individually and collectively, to drive a hard bargain with the networks.

p.s. It would be interesting to know what kinds of renegotations took place when the SEC sought to boost their revenue by adding OU and UT.

---They signed their new broadcasting agreement a full year before OU and UT committed to the SEC. It's hard to imagine that the network(s) would have refused to an upward revision in their payments to the SEC schools at that point.

---The ACC and Big 10 schools may, similarly, have used their leverage to "persuade" the networks to an upward revision in their payments when they added members such as PSU, Nebraska, Miami, Syracuse, etc., even if some of these additions took place in the middle of a broadcasting agreement.

.

(03-01-2022 08:19 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  [quote='Engblazr' pid='18108606' dateline='1646165984']

---------Their payments to the AAC will decrease because (a) they won't have to pay the scheduled $200 million to the 3 departing schools, and (b) they insisted on paying the 6 incoming CUSA schools far less than half the revenue that the departing schools would have received. Thus, they have cut their future payments to the AAC by at least $50 to $75 million (net).

Interesting. This isn’t something I’ve heard before. From my understanding, the total payout is remaining the same and the 6 new additions will split half a share of the 3 leaving. Using a round $10 million currently per team to make the example easy to explain would be $30 million total for 3 teams. That would yield $5 million each for the 6 new additions. That’s what was widely speculated. However, I don’t find it very fair if UAB or UTSA, for instance, consistently draws in 2x the viewers of Tulsa or Temple to make half as much as them.

(03-01-2022 09:12 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 08:19 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  [quote='Engblazr' pid='18108606' dateline='1646165984']

---------Their payments to the AAC will decrease because (a) they won't have to pay the scheduled $200 million to the 3 departing schools, and (b) they insisted on paying the 6 incoming CUSA schools far less than half the revenue that the departing schools would have received. Thus, they have cut their future payments to the AAC by at least $50 to $75 million (net).

Interesting. This isn’t something I’ve heard before. From my understanding, the total payout is remaining the same and the 6 new additions will split half a share of the 3 leaving. Using a round $10 million currently per team to make the example easy to explain would be $30 million total for 3 teams. That would yield $5 million each for the 6 new additions. That’s what was widely speculated. However, I don’t find it very fair if UAB or UTSA, for instance, consistently draws in 2x the viewers of Tulsa or Temple to make half as much as them.

I don’t know where he got that from. Everything I have read says the payments to the remains 8 stays the same while the incoming schools will get less but increasing thru the contract years. If the 3 schools leaving got paid 7 million each that’s 21 million. If the incoming schools get 2.5 that’s 15 million so ESPN saves 6 million first year but that number gets lower as the years progress and the newcomers get more. But I haven’t seen actual numbers, so if anyone has it would love to see it.

(03-01-2022 09:36 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 09:12 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 08:19 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  [quote='Engblazr' pid='18108606' dateline='1646165984']

---------Their payments to the AAC will decrease because (a) they won't have to pay the scheduled $200 million to the 3 departing schools, and (b) they insisted on paying the 6 incoming CUSA schools far less than half the revenue that the departing schools would have received. Thus, they have cut their future payments to the AAC by at least $50 to $75 million (net).

Interesting. This isn’t something I’ve heard before. From my understanding, the total payout is remaining the same and the 6 new additions will split half a share of the 3 leaving. Using a round $10 million currently per team to make the example easy to explain would be $30 million total for 3 teams. That would yield $5 million each for the 6 new additions. That’s what was widely speculated. However, I don’t find it very fair if UAB or UTSA, for instance, consistently draws in 2x the viewers of Tulsa or Temple to make half as much as them.

I don’t know where he got that from. Everything I have read says the payments to the remains 8 stays the same while the incoming schools will get less but increasing thru the contract years. If the 3 schools leaving got paid 7 million each that’s 21 million. If the incoming schools get 2.5 that’s 15 million so ESPN saves 6 million first year but that number gets lower as the years progress and the newcomers get more. But I haven’t seen actual numbers, so if anyone has it would love to see it.

Engblzr fell for one of the classic blunders. We all know "Don't get involved in a land war in Asia" and "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line" but less known is "Don't directly engage with Milwaukee/jedclampett/JamesTKirk when he is randomly spouting off non-factual things."
(No, seriously, just avoid responding directly to that poster. You'll be happier.)

While we don't know specifics, all indications are that the ESPN-AAC deal was not cut. Common sense answer - while we might be losing 40% of football viewership with the departures, a 14-team AAC offers our primary media rights partner 30% more total inventory than the 11-team AAC.

The reports of payouts bear that out.
First - escalating contract. Anyone posting is guessing, BUT reasonable guesses about a twelve-year $1 Billion contract with escalations around 3-5% a year give you year one around $63 million to the conference and year twelve around $99 million to the conference.
So - look at what Pete Thamel reported: "the television revenue [for the six new members] will be more than $2 million at the start of the deal and rise significantly from there. Incumbent AAC members are still expected to average about $7 million annually over the course of the current ESPN television deal, which runs through 2031-32."
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-the-aac...15069.html

That TOTALLY maths out to
a. Total deal remains
b. "Half-share" for the new members STARTS at $2 to $2.5 million and ramps up to $4.5 million at the end of the deal
c. Incumbents' "full share" goes from $5.7 million last year and $6 million each THIS year to $9 million in the final year.
d. If you divide the twelfth year $99 million guess by fourteen members...there is a way to get everyone equitable around $7 million each in the last year of the contract...when the escalations reach the point where the incumbents' share hits $7 million, slow their increases and accelerate the new members' increases. In that scenario, the incumbent members' average over twelve years gets lower, below $7 million, but a billion divided by 12 years divided by twelve teams was a skosh below $7 million anyway...

The other major flaw in Milwaukee's point: ESPN has NO say in the conference decisions on distriubtion...That's our business.
Occam's Razor says that they drove the AAC to take six instead of stopping at two or four. But ESPN has no influence on how the conference distributes the ESPN money (or other money) in year 5 of the contract (the 2024-25 year when AAC conference composition changes take effect as of now UNLESS the three negotiate an earlier departure) or year 8 or year 12 of the contract.

Doesn't quite fall under Occam's Razor, but it passes the common sense check that ESPN put SunBelt teams off limits. Okay.
I PERSONALLY maybe would have liked, once we were taking six new members, for one or two of the six to have a snapshot value in football success. But that snapshot is ephemeral. Morons shout about "Marketz!!!" the better point is BUDGETZ. Rather than betting on one or two years in the rear view mirror of on-field/on-court success, the AAC is betting on decades into the future of INVESTMENT which should lead to on-field/on-court success.

(03-01-2022 09:12 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 08:19 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  [quote='Engblazr' pid='18108606' dateline='1646165984']

---------Their payments to the AAC will decrease because (a) they won't have to pay the scheduled $200 million to the 3 departing schools, and (b) they insisted on paying the 6 incoming CUSA schools far less than half the revenue that the departing schools would have received. Thus, they have cut their future payments to the AAC by at least $50 to $75 million (net).

Interesting. This isn’t something I’ve heard before. From my understanding, the total payout is remaining the same and the 6 new additions will split half a share of the 3 leaving. Using a round $10 million currently per team to make the example easy to explain would be $30 million total for 3 teams. That would yield $5 million each for the 6 new additions. That’s what was widely speculated.

Welcome to the AAC. It has been and will be a very good conference. Most of the discussion is pretty respectful and a lot of guys try to be supportive and root for other conference teams despite the various rivalries.

Please note that I wasn't trying to write anything that might discourage fans of the 6 incoming member schools. I went into more depth than necessary to try to explain the reasons why AAC/G5 conference members lack the leverage to tell the network that they're going to renegotiate their broadcasting agreement.

It seemed important to point out how unfair it is that the network can renegotiate itself a much better deal, while the conference can't do that. ESPN is the best there is in college sports broadcasting, so that's a positive, but seems to me that we should be aware of the fact that they've had 99% of the leverage in the discussions and have made out like bandits.

. . . .

BTW, if two incoming teams split the amount ($7M/yr) that would have gone to Cincinnati, they would each receive approx. $3.5 M/yr. minus the amount that they have to spend on broadcasting facilities and production costs. It's not $5 M/yr., but it's still a much better deal than the schools have in the CUSA, and your teams will get a lot more national/regional exposure on ESPN.

Good luck!

(03-02-2022 12:39 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 09:36 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 09:12 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 08:19 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  [quote='Engblazr' pid='18108606' dateline='1646165984']

---------Their payments to the AAC will decrease because (a) they won't have to pay the scheduled $200 million to the 3 departing schools, and (b) they insisted on paying the 6 incoming CUSA schools far less than half the revenue that the departing schools would have received. Thus, they have cut their future payments to the AAC by at least $50 to $75 million (net).

Interesting. This isn’t something I’ve heard before. From my understanding, the total payout is remaining the same and the 6 new additions will split half a share of the 3 leaving. Using a round $10 million currently per team to make the example easy to explain would be $30 million total for 3 teams. That would yield $5 million each for the 6 new additions. That’s what was widely speculated. However, I don’t find it very fair if UAB or UTSA, for instance, consistently draws in 2x the viewers of Tulsa or Temple to make half as much as them.

I don’t know where he got that from. Everything I have read says the payments to the remains 8 stays the same while the incoming schools will get less but increasing thru the contract years. If the 3 schools leaving got paid 7 million each that’s 21 million. If the incoming schools get 2.5 that’s 15 million so ESPN saves 6 million first year but that number gets lower as the years progress and the newcomers get more. But I haven’t seen actual numbers, so if anyone has it would love to see it.

Engblzr fell for one of the classic blunders. We all know "Don't get involved in a land war in Asia" and "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line" but less known is "Don't directly engage with Milwaukee/jedclampett/JamesTKirk when he is randomly spouting off non-factual things."
(No, seriously, just avoid responding directly to that poster. You'll be happier.)

While we don't know specifics, all indications are that the ESPN-AAC deal was not cut. Common sense answer - while we might be losing 40% of football viewership with the departures, a 14-team AAC offers our primary media rights partner 30% more total inventory than the 11-team AAC.

The reports of payouts bear that out.
First - escalating contract. Anyone posting is guessing, BUT reasonable guesses about a twelve-year $1 Billion contract with escalations around 3-5% a year give you year one around $63 million to the conference and year twelve around $99 million to the conference.
So - look at what Pete Thamel reported: "the television revenue [for the six new members] will be more than $2 million at the start of the deal and rise significantly from there. Incumbent AAC members are still expected to average about $7 million annually over the course of the current ESPN television deal, which runs through 2031-32."
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-the-aac...15069.html

That TOTALLY maths out to
a. Total deal remains
b. "Half-share" for the new members STARTS at $2 to $2.5 million and ramps up to $4.5 million at the end of the deal
c. Incumbents' "full share" goes from $5.7 million last year and $6 million each THIS year to $9 million in the final year.
d. If you divide the twelfth year $99 million guess by fourteen members...there is a way to get everyone equitable around $7 million each in the last year of the contract...when the escalations reach the point where the incumbents' share hits $7 million, slow their increases and accelerate the new members' increases. In that scenario, the incumbent members' average over twelve years gets lower, below $7 million, but a billion divided by 12 years divided by twelve teams was a skosh below $7 million anyway...

The other major flaw in Milwaukee's point: ESPN has NO say in the conference decisions on distriubtion...That's our business.
Occam's Razor says that they drove the AAC to take six instead of stopping at two or four. But ESPN has no influence on how the conference distributes the ESPN money (or other money) in year 5 of the contract (the 2024-25 year when AAC conference composition changes take effect as of now UNLESS the three negotiate an earlier departure) or year 8 or year 12 of the contract.

Doesn't quite fall under Occam's Razor, but it passes the common sense check that ESPN put SunBelt teams off limits. Okay.
I PERSONALLY maybe would have liked, once we were taking six new members, for one or two of the six to have a snapshot value in football success. But that snapshot is ephemeral. Morons shout about "Marketz!!!" the better point is BUDGETZ. Rather than betting on one or two years in the rear view mirror of on-field/on-court success, the AAC is betting on decades into the future of INVESTMENT which should lead to on-field/on-court success.

Well stated, as always

(01-15-2022 11:19 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  The 2021 average rankings of the future AAC vs the future Sun Belt:
Future AAC - 83.87
Future Sun Belt - 86.10

Great research, appreciate you putting that together.

This piece surprised me. I would have thought the gap was much greater. Going to be fun to see if SBC can continue improving, really need the western members to start pulling their weight.

(03-02-2022 01:12 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:19 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  The 2021 average rankings of the future AAC vs the future Sun Belt:
Future AAC - 83.87
Future Sun Belt - 86.10

Great research, appreciate you putting that together.

This piece surprised me. I would have thought the gap was much greater. Going to be fun to see if SBC can continue improving, really need the western members to start pulling their weight.

Let’s see what that average is in 2023 when it counts, but the biggest price is who has the highest ranked champion. No one cares about that average if your champion is not the one in the NY6 Bowl giving your conference national attention.

(03-02-2022 01:12 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:19 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  The 2021 average rankings of the future AAC vs the future Sun Belt:
Future AAC - 83.87
Future Sun Belt - 86.10

Great research, appreciate you putting that together.

This piece surprised me. I would have thought the gap was much greater. Going to be fun to see if SBC can continue improving, really need the western members to start pulling their weight.

Here's some more information to take into consideration. The AAC ended up essentially tied with the MWC for 6th place, behind the PAC-12 in 2021. Not one of it's strongest years, though we did have Cincy to celebrate.

What this shows is that, in 2021, when all the rankings are averaged together, the average AAC team was ranked 68/69th in the nation, while the average Sun Belt team was ranked 83/84th in the nation.

..Conf....Average Rank (Final 2021 Massey Composite Rankings)

1 SEC...........40.52
2 Big 12........41.34
3 Big 10........42.77
4 ACC...........58.11
5 Pac 12........68.02
6 MWC..........68.70
7 AAC...........68.92
8 FBSIndep...74.60
9 Sun Belt....83.44
10 CUSA.......90.19
11 MAC.........91.99


I definitely agree - it's good news that the future AAC would still be ranked ahead of the future Sun Belt.

However, it's not good news to learn that, while the current AAC finished the season 14.52 ranking points ahead of the Sun Belt in 2021, this would drop down to only a 2.23 point lead (future AAC vs the future Sun Belt).

"The 2021 average rankings of the future AAC vs the future Sun Belt:
Future AAC - 83.87
Future Sun Belt - 86.10"
86.10 - 83.87 = 2.23

.

Both confereences' rankings would drop, but the AAC's average ranking would drop by 14.89 points, while the Sun Belt's rankings would drop by only 2.66 points.

Rather than being 15 points behind the AAC in the rankings, the SBC would be close behind the AAC and could be in a position to pass the AAC, much like the MWC caught up and passed the AAC this season.

.

It's important to stay focused on the bright side and to be optimistic. I have become more optimistic this year, and am looking forward to the future of the conference.

I expect that there will be some surprising and uplifting developments after (in fact, fairly soon after) the changeover takes place.

However, the data we have now suggests that AAC may well find itself a 3-way battle with the MWC and SBC for years to come. Rather than being the perennial G5 representative in the NY6, the AAC may only get there once every 2 or 3 years.

.

I have done a similar analysis of the probable future of AAC basketball's rankings, and the results are fairly similar. The findings suggest that the AAC could lose its hold on 7th place and drop down into a 3-way battle for 8th place in the rankings with the WCC and A10.

That's not too bad, but it will be somewhat challenging, and the AAC may or may not be able to send as many teams to the major tournaments as it has, to date.

I present these data because it seems best to know what the AAC is likely to be up against in the next few years. Sometimes, knowing how challenging things might be going forward can be a good thing.

Also, all of our calculations don't tell us anything about the positive effects of losing UCF, Cincy, and Houston (and the SBC and MWC aren't losing any teams, so they won't have any such benefits).

"Positive effects?"

Yes - positive effects, because when UC, UH, and UCF are gone, it will make it possible for the next tier of teams to win 10, 11, or 12 FB games or 25-30 BB games per season.

SMU, for example, will probably have 22-25 wins on Selection Sunday, but if they didn't have to play UH, UC, and UCF, they might well have 26-28 wins on Selection Sunday, and that would make them a lock for the NCAA tournament.

That's how these things work. An AAC team that winds up with 18 wins now, would probably wind up with 21-22 wins if they didn't have to play those 3 teams, AND THEY WILL MOVE UP IN THE RANKINGS, ACCORDINGLY.

AS A RESULT, THEIR RECRUITING, ATTENDANCE, AND VIEWERSHIP WILL IMPROVE, AND THEIR PROGRAM WILL GET STRONGER IN THE ENSUING YEARS.

.

The same thing will happen with football. A team that wins 7 or 8 games will win 9-11 games if they don't have to play Cincinnati and Houston or UCF.

That's why we can expect some positive developments almost immediately after UC, UH, and UCF begin playing in the Big 12.

.

Conversely, the competition is probably going to get a little tougher for UC, UH, and UCF teams when they join the Big 12. Their main reward is "el dinero."

Cincy or Houston or UCF might be able to maintain a top 10 or top 20 FB program, and Houston may be able to maintain a top 10 or top 20 BB program, but it might be a bit harder for all three of them to do so.

Their universities and students will be better off than they are now, but their teams might find encounter some rough sledding.

(02-12-2022 01:12 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 10:23 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 10:18 PM)Reggie Favre Wrote:  Ummm no

Post #7 says Yes.

Watching Sun Belt fans and The future AAC fans go to war about which conference is better is like watching Hank the angry drunken dwarf fight with Beetlejuice

Please, can the SBC be Beetlejuice? I love Beetlejuice. Dibs on the ghost with the most.

(03-02-2022 09:27 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 12:39 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 09:36 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 09:12 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 08:19 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  [quote='Engblazr' pid='18108606' dateline='1646165984']

---------Their payments to the AAC will decrease because (a) they won't have to pay the scheduled $200 million to the 3 departing schools, and (b) they insisted on paying the 6 incoming CUSA schools far less than half the revenue that the departing schools would have received. Thus, they have cut their future payments to the AAC by at least $50 to $75 million (net).

Interesting. This isn’t something I’ve heard before. From my understanding, the total payout is remaining the same and the 6 new additions will split half a share of the 3 leaving. Using a round $10 million currently per team to make the example easy to explain would be $30 million total for 3 teams. That would yield $5 million each for the 6 new additions. That’s what was widely speculated. However, I don’t find it very fair if UAB or UTSA, for instance, consistently draws in 2x the viewers of Tulsa or Temple to make half as much as them.

I don’t know where he got that from. Everything I have read says the payments to the remains 8 stays the same while the incoming schools will get less but increasing thru the contract years. If the 3 schools leaving got paid 7 million each that’s 21 million. If the incoming schools get 2.5 that’s 15 million so ESPN saves 6 million first year but that number gets lower as the years progress and the newcomers get more. But I haven’t seen actual numbers, so if anyone has it would love to see it.

Engblzr fell for one of the classic blunders. We all know "Don't get involved in a land war in Asia" and "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line" but less known is "Don't directly engage with Milwaukee/jedclampett/JamesTKirk when he is randomly spouting off non-factual things."
(No, seriously, just avoid responding directly to that poster. You'll be happier.)

While we don't know specifics, all indications are that the ESPN-AAC deal was not cut. Common sense answer - while we might be losing 40% of football viewership with the departures, a 14-team AAC offers our primary media rights partner 30% more total inventory than the 11-team AAC.

The reports of payouts bear that out.
First - escalating contract. Anyone posting is guessing, BUT reasonable guesses about a twelve-year $1 Billion contract with escalations around 3-5% a year give you year one around $63 million to the conference and year twelve around $99 million to the conference.
So - look at what Pete Thamel reported: "the television revenue [for the six new members] will be more than $2 million at the start of the deal and rise significantly from there. Incumbent AAC members are still expected to average about $7 million annually over the course of the current ESPN television deal, which runs through 2031-32."
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-the-aac...15069.html

That TOTALLY maths out to
a. Total deal remains
b. "Half-share" for the new members STARTS at $2 to $2.5 million and ramps up to $4.5 million at the end of the deal
c. Incumbents' "full share" goes from $5.7 million last year and $6 million each THIS year to $9 million in the final year.
d. If you divide the twelfth year $99 million guess by fourteen members...there is a way to get everyone equitable around $7 million each in the last year of the contract...when the escalations reach the point where the incumbents' share hits $7 million, slow their increases and accelerate the new members' increases. In that scenario, the incumbent members' average over twelve years gets lower, below $7 million, but a billion divided by 12 years divided by twelve teams was a skosh below $7 million anyway...

The other major flaw in Milwaukee's point: ESPN has NO say in the conference decisions on distriubtion...That's our business.
Occam's Razor says that they drove the AAC to take six instead of stopping at two or four. But ESPN has no influence on how the conference distributes the ESPN money (or other money) in year 5 of the contract (the 2024-25 year when AAC conference composition changes take effect as of now UNLESS the three negotiate an earlier departure) or year 8 or year 12 of the contract.

Doesn't quite fall under Occam's Razor, but it passes the common sense check that ESPN put SunBelt teams off limits. Okay.
I PERSONALLY maybe would have liked, once we were taking six new members, for one or two of the six to have a snapshot value in football success. But that snapshot is ephemeral. Morons shout about "Marketz!!!" the better point is BUDGETZ. Rather than betting on one or two years in the rear view mirror of on-field/on-court success, the AAC is betting on decades into the future of INVESTMENT which should lead to on-field/on-court success.

Well stated, as always

The thing is, we already have played two of the twelve football seasons under the "new" TV deal, and yet I don't think anyone knows what our media payout has been, for 2020-2021 (first year) or the current 2021-2022 year either.

Will be interesting, because that will tell us the 'range' of the deal for the legacy schools.

"Navy" seems to think it is pretty broad, starting at around $5m per school per year and ending up around $9m. My recollection is that it is a tighter range, more like $6m escalating to $8m.

I am curious.