(02-03-2022 10:45 AM)shocknawe Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 10:22 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 09:37 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 09:35 AM)panite Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 08:43 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  Rumors at the time, the Texas schools that were added to the AAC were having discussion with the MWC. I believe those talks did occur. The MWC thought they may loose AF & CSU at the time. When that didn't happen plus with a lacking revenue model that was nixed. The Texas block put that to rest for good limiting options down the road as you mentioned above.

Now we just wait to see who gets poached. I do think it's just as likely the MWC gets poached as the AAC. Primarily to help BYU taking markets from the MWC. Top candidates SDSU, CSU, AF, BSU, or Fresno. BSU not so much market, but reputation on the field. I know a lot here say Memphis and USF so it will be interesting what the TV exec's think. Contract averaging will be a huge issue so when the dust settles I think only two of the above will wind up in the Big 12.

Big 12 takes CSU (bridge to BYU) and USF (travel partner and more Florida recruiting if they have an OCS), if they expand after Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference. If the Pac - 12 expands east and takes 2 to 4 of the B-12 teams to get into the SW, then the G5 conferences blow up and start to attack each other again for survival.

Are we sure the Pac can pick off any conference? College football is a hard sale on the West Coast.

As long as they have USC, Washington and Oregon they will be attractive. They do need to expand into Central Time zone. The problem they have is that the number of schools that meet their academic criteria for expansion doesn’t help their football status.
On the AAC taking the Texas schools to block MWC expansion, I think it’s a good take. If as the poster said the Big12 expands to 14 or 16, you have to believe some MWC schools will also be targeted like Boise,CSU and/ or SDSU. If that’s 5he case I can see AAC looking more attractive to AF and CSU if not chosen by B12.

I think the above is a lot of fantasy. Sorry to disappoint but I think after TX and OU leave and UH UC and UCF join the big 12 then that will be it for a while.

i hope not. i would like to see Memphis, usf or smu join us. Temple and ECu are going in the wrong direction. I mean East.

(02-03-2022 08:43 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 11:48 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 03:40 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 03:06 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  What's the temperature on Aresco these day?
- He's on a Hot Seat
- He's Okay
- Love him

I think he is fine. He kept the remaining 8 with a tv contract that it’s best in money and exposure than any of the non power leagues.

The job Aresco has done since he took the helm considering all that he has faced has been as well as any one else could have done.

I believe when faced with some tough decisions in 2021, he performed very well again that will prove very smart over the long term keeping the AAC ahead of the G4.

"...keeping the AAC ahead of the G4?"

It's questionable whether the term "G4" was ever an appropriate one, and it's certainly irritating to MWC, MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt supporters.

The only time that the AAC ever came close to being regarded as a "P6" conference was in 2019, when the AAC had 4 teams in the NCAA tournament and 4 FB teams in the final AP top 25. Since then (in 2020, 21, and thus far in 2022), the AAC has only been a two-bid conference, and has only had one or two FB teams in the Final top 25.

The MWC has had as many FB teams in the Final AP top 25 as the AAC has had since 2019, and the MWC finished ahead of the AAC in the 2021 Massey Composite rankings (https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm).

Moreover, the Sun Belt had more football teams in the Final 2020 and 2021 Top 25 than either the AAC or MWC.

The MWC had as many basketball teams as the AAC had in the 2021 NCAA tournament, and the MWC currently has five basketball teams in the NET Top 50 (the AAC and C-USA have one apiece).

Thus, the term "G4" clearly didn't apply in 2020 or in 2021, it doesn't apply at this point in the 2021-22 basketball season, and there's no reason to expect that the AAC will have more top 25 teams than the MWC or Sun Belt during the 2022 football season.

Without UC, UH, and UCF, it's hard to imagine the AAC finishing ahead of the MWC or having more top 25 football teams than the Sun Belt will have on a regular basis. With Memphis and Wichita State struggling as they have recently, it's hard to envision the possibility that the AAC could maintain its current average of 3 NCAA bids per year after UH, UC, and UCF depart.

Further, it is widely expected that the AAC will be losing Memphis and, quite possibly SMU to the Big 12 in the next 5 or 6 years. Given this situation, it might be best for all concerned to leave these anachronistic terms (P6, G4) in the dustbin of history.

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  The Texas block strategy along with the demographic approach used to build this conference before will prove effective again. Keeping the MWC out of Texas was a great strategy that will keep the AAC closest competition at a distance allowing new members to build their programs.

It's hard to argue that adding UTSA, UAB, and North Texas was a mistake, given how their teams have performed. However, it remains to be seen whether "the demographic approach" - - which I assume refers to adding some schools in large, growing markets (e.g., FAU, Charlotte, Rice) rather than schools with higher quality programs (e.g., WKU, Marshall) - - will work out well for the conference.

Seems to me that the Big 12's approach - - which has been to add quality programs, regardless of market size (e.g., WVU) is the better way to go.

The 3 Texas schools were added because they tap into the DFW, Houston, and San Antonio areas, and would make it much easier for Air Force to join the AAC at some point.

Keeping the MWC out of Texas may or may not have been a consideration, but it sure could make life hard for the MWC if the Big 12 and PAC 12 decide to poach 4-6 MWC teams. Their only other expansion options might be UTEP, NMSU, Montana, Montana State, California State and Dakota Universities, most of which are currently FCS.

Rumors at the time, the Texas schools that were added to the AAC were having discussion with the MWC. I believe those talks did occur. The MWC thought they may loose AF & CSU at the time. When that didn't happen plus with a lacking revenue model that was nixed. The Texas block put that to rest for good limiting options down the road as you mentioned above.

Now we just wait to see who gets poached. I do think it's just as likely the MWC gets poached as the AAC. Primarily to help BYU taking markets from the MWC. Top candidates SDSU, CSU, AF, BSU, or Fresno. BSU not so much market, but reputation on the field. I know a lot here say Memphis and USF so it will be interesting what the TV exec's think. Contract averaging will be a huge issue so when the dust settles I think only two of the above will wind up in the Big 12.

Yes we were definitely having discussions with MWC as well.

The choice was not just about the money, but the AAC was able to build a much better package right out of the gate for the new teams. Effectively we are each getting half of what the departing teams free up (since there’s six of us) and the regular contract bumps are probably going to be used to ramp us on up. Which is at least a 2x bump from where we were.

MWC did not have that flexibility. They weren’t losing anyone (yet) and had no leverage to bump their current network deal. If we’d gone to the MWC it would have been bare bones revenue until their next tv negotiation came up. And we probably would have taken that if it was our only option, but the AAC is a much better fit for us all around.

Plus this way we get four new Conference mates.
MWC could only offer us one.

(02-03-2022 11:04 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Plus this way we get four new Conference mates.
MWC could only offer us one.

What's really going to be interesting is if the Pac12 raids the Big12 taking Houston. You know if they want to come to Texas they have to go after them and probably Texas Tech. That will be a blow and the AAC will have more presence in Texas. The Big 12 can't replace them demographically. Contract averaging will be a huge problem.

(02-04-2022 12:16 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 11:04 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Plus this way we get four new Conference mates.
MWC could only offer us one.

What's really going to be interesting is if the Pac12 raids the Big12 taking Houston. You know if they want to come to Texas they have to go after them and probably Texas Tech. That will be a blow and the AAC will have more presence in Texas. The Big 12 can't replace them demographically. Contract averaging will be a huge problem.

Texas Tech doesn’t have the academics for the PAC 12.

Aresco clearly meant exposure on his comment about the AAC being closer to the P5 than the G5. Which is not how contracts are usually measured against one another, but for the AAC I think it is apropos. The TV deal is really phenomenal from that standpoint. Look at the ratings of the AAC vs MWC. And I would further argue that for the G5, exposure is probably the most important thing. The exposure from the 2m contract lead to the 7m contact. The fact that they get to keep their contract is going to be huge for the incoming teams who were wilting from the lack of sunlight in Conference USA.

This is definitely a step back for the AAC, but I think the TV deal puts them back on top even if the MWC's mid-term renegotiation has a higher topline amount on it.

(02-06-2022 01:04 AM)parialex Wrote:  Aresco clearly meant exposure on his comment about the AAC being closer to the P5 than the G5. Which is not how contracts are usually measured against one another, but for the AAC I think it is apropos. The TV deal is really phenomenal from that standpoint. Look at the ratings of the AAC vs MWC. And I would further argue that for the G5, exposure is probably the most important thing. The exposure from the 2m contract lead to the 7m contact. The fact that they get to keep their contract is going to be huge for the incoming teams who were wilting from the lack of sunlight in Conference USA.

This is definitely a step back for the AAC, but I think the TV deal puts them back on top even if the MWC's mid-term renegotiation has a higher topline amount on it.

I’m pumped about the move, simply because we won’t have games on Stadium anymore.

(02-04-2022 12:16 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 11:04 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Plus this way we get four new Conference mates.
MWC could only offer us one.

What's really going to be interesting is if the Pac12 raids the Big12 taking Houston. You know if they want to come to Texas they have to go after them and probably Texas Tech. That will be a blow and the AAC will have more presence in Texas. The Big 12 can't replace them demographically. Contract averaging will be a huge problem.

Some ECU fans sure spend a lot of time worrying about a conference they will never be a part of.

(02-06-2022 01:04 AM)parialex Wrote:  Aresco clearly meant exposure on his comment about the AAC being closer to the P5 than the G5. Which is not how contracts are usually measured against one another, but for the AAC I think it is apropos. The TV deal is really phenomenal from that standpoint. Look at the ratings of the AAC vs MWC. And I would further argue that for the G5, exposure is probably the most important thing. The exposure from the 2m contract lead to the 7m contact. The fact that they get to keep their contract is going to be huge for the incoming teams who were wilting from the lack of sunlight in Conference USA.

This is definitely a step back for the AAC, but I think the TV deal puts them back on top even if the MWC's mid-term renegotiation has a higher topline amount on it.

I doubt the MWC will get more than 7 million a year per team in their new negotiations. I do agree that the AAC takes a step back in on the field success but hopefully with the increase exposure and money incoming schools continue to rise and the remaining eight step up and win as they have done in past. I have no doubt the AAC will dominate that NY6 bowl spot or playoff spot once new playoffs contract goes thru.

(02-06-2022 11:23 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 12:16 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 11:04 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Plus this way we get four new Conference mates.
MWC could only offer us one.

What's really going to be interesting is if the Pac12 raids the Big12 taking Houston. You know if they want to come to Texas they have to go after them and probably Texas Tech. That will be a blow and the AAC will have more presence in Texas. The Big 12 can't replace them demographically. Contract averaging will be a huge problem.

Some ECU fans sure spend a lot of time worrying about a conference they will never be a part of.

Bahahahahah!! Not worried one bit. I prefer the AAC. I like the conference and enjoy the games with much more eastern time zone presence. I'd rather stick to our neck of the woods. Does Big 12 movement effect the AAC? Possibly, that's the only reason I pay attention. I can honestly say I've never sat down and watched 4 quarters of Big 12 football. Completely uninterested!

(02-06-2022 10:59 AM)Blazer4Life14 Wrote:  

(02-06-2022 01:04 AM)parialex Wrote:  Aresco clearly meant exposure on his comment about the AAC being closer to the P5 than the G5. Which is not how contracts are usually measured against one another, but for the AAC I think it is apropos. The TV deal is really phenomenal from that standpoint. Look at the ratings of the AAC vs MWC. And I would further argue that for the G5, exposure is probably the most important thing. The exposure from the 2m contract lead to the 7m contact. The fact that they get to keep their contract is going to be huge for the incoming teams who were wilting from the lack of sunlight in Conference USA.

This is definitely a step back for the AAC, but I think the TV deal puts them back on top even if the MWC's mid-term renegotiation has a higher topline amount on it.

I’m pumped about the move, simply because we won’t have games on Stadium anymore.

...as one of the 'newbies', my biggest takeaway from the Aresco notes was the (somewhat obvious) fact that more $$$ for the new programs SHOULD advance their performances quite a bit, IF of course proper leadership for a given school is present (UAB is definitely in the best shape on that front since GB was at the helm). Here's hoping...

This line from your original post stood out to me:

"...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four ... "

I'd like to see how he explains that. IIRC, our deal is about $3m per year per school better than the MW deal. We're a lot farther than that from the nearest P5 deal.

(02-06-2022 06:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This line from your original post stood out to me:

"...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four ... "

I'd like to see how he explains that. IIRC, our deal is about $3m per year per school better than the MW deal. We're a lot farther than that from the nearest P5 deal.

As I said, that's a stretch even for as committed a P6 supporteras I am
Someone else (or more than one) mentioned exposure - that's certainly true - AAC is waaay ahead of G4s in that regard.

I could make a claim on contract money PROPORTIONALLY...AAC gets about 30% of primary media rights deal money as Big12, and SunBelt, even with unconfirmed recent plusup for ten members is about 16% of AAC...but mwc is like 45% of AAC...and that's kind of a weak argument anyway...

(02-06-2022 11:29 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  I doubt the MWC will get more than 7 million a year per team in their new negotiations. I do agree that the AAC takes a step back in on the field success but hopefully with the increase exposure and money incoming schools continue to rise and the remaining eight step up and win as they have done in past. I have no doubt the AAC will dominate that NY6 bowl spot or playoff spot once new playoffs contract goes thru.

The reason I think they might surpass the AAC is primarily because if the playoff expands to 12, they'll be the first major G5 to negotiate as a G5 with playoff relevance. The AAC will also be able to do that, but not until later.

(02-06-2022 09:17 PM)parialex Wrote:  

(02-06-2022 11:29 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  I doubt the MWC will get more than 7 million a year per team in their new negotiations. I do agree that the AAC takes a step back in on the field success but hopefully with the increase exposure and money incoming schools continue to rise and the remaining eight step up and win as they have done in past. I have no doubt the AAC will dominate that NY6 bowl spot or playoff spot once new playoffs contract goes thru.

The reason I think they might surpass the AAC is primarily because if the playoff expands to 12, they'll be the first major G5 to negotiate as a G5 with playoff relevance. The AAC will also be able to do that, but not until later.

Their contract comes up before any playoff access, so I doubt they do better than 7 million per team, they just don’t have the viewership the AAC has on the eastern and central time zones.

Their contract ends in 2025-26. The playoff won't be in effect by then, but participants in the negotiation will know what the format will be. I think it'll be pretty significant. The MWC and AAC will be due a pretty big bump I think.

(02-06-2022 09:34 PM)parialex Wrote:  Their contract ends in 2025-26. The playoff won't be in effect by then, but participants in the negotiation will know what the format will be. I think it'll be pretty significant. The MWC and AAC will be due a pretty big bump I think.

We will see by then if the MWC can take the place of the AAC as the top of the nonPower leagues. The MWC will need to take that NY6 bowl slot in 2023,2024 to show that, until that happens the AAC has shown they are better at that. The MWC can’t match tv viewership with AAC and that will hurt their tv contract just as it had hurt the PAC

A lot is going to ride on who gets the NY6 bids.

(02-06-2022 11:23 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 12:16 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 11:04 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Plus this way we get four new Conference mates.
MWC could only offer us one.

What's really going to be interesting is if the Pac12 raids the Big12 taking Houston. You know if they want to come to Texas they have to go after them and probably Texas Tech. That will be a blow and the AAC will have more presence in Texas. The Big 12 can't replace them demographically. Contract averaging will be a huge problem.

Some ECU fans sure spend a lot of time worrying about a conference they will never be a part of.

Not really. We would’ve liked the 3 teams to stay bc the AAC could’ve been better than the B12 moving fwd imo if everyone stayed together. Moving forward the AAC works fine for ECU.

These conferences have gone crazy we don’t need to be in a conference with the likes of Kansas State and Texas Tech lol. WVa would’ve been nice but other than them the geography just doesn’t work.

(02-06-2022 10:06 PM)parialex Wrote:  A lot is going to ride on who gets the NY6 bids.

"Bids" or "bid?"

Cincy will presumably be favored to get the 1/1/23 bid, so it seems likely that you're referring mainly to which conference gets the 1/1/24 NY6 bid.

The 1/1/25 bid may come to late to have any impact, because by the time that the team that earns that bid is determined, the 2025-26 broadcasting agreement may have already been signed, sealed, and delivered.

If that's what happens, conference rankings and # of top 25 teams per conference may have more of an impact than # of NY6 bids.

.