(01-10-2020 02:21 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 10:58 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 09:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-09-2020 11:42 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Considering it’s a shorter time period that pay is probably more competitive than the contract averages would suggest Vs the AAC deal. Remember almost all these deals are escalating year after year so the fall 2020-spring 2026 years would average less than the published averages for the AAC deal since the heavier 2026-2030+ years won’t be included.

With a 3% escalation, the AAC deal is still 6.3 million a year over the first 6 years, so its still notably higher.

True but it’s a narrower gap than published totals and it also assumes only a 3% escalation. I think we’ve seen them reported that low and as high as in the 5’s.

I ran 4% too. It only lowered it to 6.1.

Considering I thought I saw Boise projected at 5.7 that’s not a big gulf for the one program this really matters for.

Only if your using the average for the MW deal and the escalator estimate for the AAC deal. Thats comparing oranges to pears. That said, with the Boise "special deal", it was unlikely to ever be a big enough difference to overcome travel costs and the loss of prestige required to move Boise olympics to a smaller conference like the Big West or Big Sky. Frankly, with 3.9 million coming in for all not named Boise, Im not sure if CSU or AF would even be interested. The premium in payout and exposure is probably no longer large enough to motivate either school to make a move given the extra travel and loss of rivaly games. Given the abysmal replacement options remaining east of the Rockies----my guess is the AAC will be an 11 school football for quite some time. VCU (non-football invite) might be the only reasonable move for the AAC to make at this time.