(06-25-2021 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 06:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 12:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 07:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 11:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The one most willing to push the button always has the advantage. The AAC has literally been preaching since their very inception that they dont belong with the G4. They have the leverage to end the G5 stuff. I think they mean it and will blow up the deal if they are lumped in as part of the "G5".

Frankly, its not a big ask. They have earned more money under the existing CFP deal than any other G5. At this point----based on contracts----it is a demonstrable fact that the AAC has substantially more TV value than any of the other G5's (and that gap is MUCH larger than it was in 2012). Why would anyone think it's ok for the G4 to decide that the AAC has to negotiate its compensation as part of their group or that the AAC must make the exact same amount as each of the less valuable G4 conferences? Frankly, I dont think the P5 cares if the AAC negotiates its share value individually and I dont see any reason why the MAC, CUSA, SB, and MW cant be granted the same courtesy to individually negotiate their shares of pie as well. Im absolutely fine with that---and Im sure Aresco would be too. If every G5 conference is allowed to negotiate their share value as an individual conference---that seems pretty reasonable and fair. Honestly--the one thing the AAC really cares about in this negotiation is not being part of any of this "G5" mess---and this is probably the only chance they have to change it in the next decade or two. So--yes---I think they are more willing to push the button than anyone else at the table this time around.

I have no reason to believe that the AAC is more willing to push the nuclear button than anyone else. Heck, from press statements, it seems the PAC would be most willing. Aresco has just gone on the record gushing praise for the proposal, so it would look kind of bad if he started raising a ruckus about money. If that was going to be his play, his response about the PAC should have been more measured, as in "we strongly disagree with P5 autobids and endorse the top-six aspect of the proposal, but we also believe the AAC should receive yada yada yada in the upcoming negotiations".

Yes, the AAC wants to be regarded as separate. But so what? I don't see why a MAC commissioner will say to themselves "well the AAC has been publicly pushing for this for years and years, so by golly let's give it to them" especially when doing that will harm my conference both symbolically and financially (because the P5 isn't going to give up some of their share for the AAC's extra dough).

I also think the P5 would be reluctant to open a can of worms by giving the AAC substantially more based on media value, as the B1G is worth about $30 million more in media value each year than is the ACC or PAC.

Also, as I pointed out in another thread, the current CFP distribution model for the Gs does already have a pretty significant variable component. In 2017, the AAC got $25 million from the CFP, while the Sun Belt got $14 million. That's about 70% more for the AAC, a non-trivial amount.

So in the end, I expect a distribution model pretty similar to what we have now. Regardless of whether all five Gs sit down at the table as a group, or each is called in one by one to make its case. Which btw I think has no real value even symbolically.

But hey, I've been wrong before - e.g., I didn't think a 12 team playoff would be worth a lot more than the current CFP to TV and apparently it will be, and when Aresco signed the TV deal in 2019, I said I thought it almost surely would be enough to keep UConn from leaving. So we'll see.

This was posted before in another thread, but I just recently got around to actually listening to it. Its an interview with Karl Benson, former Sunbelt/WAC Commissioner. From the prospective of someone who was actually in the room (he basically was in the role Thompson has this time around), he describes the last CFP negotiations and the current dynamic in the current CFP negotiation with respect to the value of the G5.

Three things you might find interesting.

1) He says there are 3 groups negotiating this time around. The P5, the G4, and the AAC.

2) He seems somewhat pessimistic about the G5 doing as well financially in this negotiation as they did in 2012. He suggests this is probably one of the reasons the AAC is negotiating on an independent track this time around.

3) He indicates that the G5 was very much simply a quiet spectator in the room during the 2012 negotiations. Basically they had no power and no real input. To paraphrase---he said they werent going to oppose anything the P5 came up with---they were just "hoping" they would be included in whatever the P5 developed.

That is interesting. What happened in 2012 doesn't surprise me at all. That's why Aresco, who IIRC made a lot of noise during the CFP talks about "adding a seventh bowl" for the G5 did not get that. The P5 just decided what they were going to do, and giving the G5 an access spot in an existing NY6 bowl was a foregone conclusion given the bad publicity and antitrust saber-rattling in the Senate in the years leading up to that deal.

I suspect the same thing will happen this time around - the G5 will not get a percentage improvement. Maybe a small one but not much. Still, the G5 will do a lot better overall, simply because there seems that that there will be a lot more money. P5 are talking about their money tripling, so I expect G5 dollars to triple as well. Everyone will gain along the lines of their proportions from the CFP deal, with maybe a small percentage increase for the Gs.

I do not expect the AAC to cut a separate deal, as I see no reason why the P5 would want to give them a separate - meaning better - deal.

We shall see.

I absolutely think the AAC will cut a separate deal and I suspect the P5, who have the same belief that their conferences contribute more to CFP value than the G5, are likely to be sympathetic to the logic that a conference that usually wins the G5 access bowl slot and has a media deal larger than the rest of the G5 combined, deserves a larger slice of the pie than the other G5’s

We obviously disagree, but the cool thing is "we shall see" soon enough.

IMO, the P5 do not have the same regard for the AAC that we have for ourselves (LOL). Also, doing this would open a can of worms, because then the B1G could argue it is twice as valuable as the PAC, and demand more money too. I think the P5 are happy splitting equally among themselves, so will not make an exception for the AAC among the G5.

But ... we shall see. FWIW, I hope you are correct.