(04-18-2017 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 11:42 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Interesting side note regarding Tier 3 coverage. ASN has merged with 2 other companies. Expect better quality and streaming options. I know that they covered some of our games last year.

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...2d759.html

http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2017/4/13...reaming-g5

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...39656.html

Of course, they don't pay a dime for rights. Nice supplemental coverage, but they arent an option for purposes of bidding up rights values. Netflix has also reiterated their position that, unlike Twitter and Amazon, they wont be getting in the sports rights bidding game. As Ive said before, anyone thinking streamers will be riding to the rescue with a big AAC bid will be sorely disappointed. The traditional broadcast networks remain the only ones bidding decent money. Streamers continue to pay a fraction of what cable/OTA networks pay for rights.

Not now but they could later as they establish themselves.

(04-18-2017 12:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 11:42 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Interesting side note regarding Tier 3 coverage. ASN has merged with 2 other companies. Expect better quality and streaming options. I know that they covered some of our games last year.

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...2d759.html

http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2017/4/13...reaming-g5

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...39656.html

Of course, they don't pay a dime for rights. Nice supplemental coverage, but they arent an option for purposes of bidding up rights values. Netflix has also reiterated their position that, unlike Twitter and Amazon, they wont be getting in the sports rights bidding game. As Ive said before, anyone thinking streamers will be riding to the rescue with a big AAC bid will be sorely disappointed. The traditional broadcast networks remain the only ones bidding decent money. Streamers continue to pay a fraction of what cable/OTA networks pay for rights.

Not now but they could later as they establish themselves.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Their entire reason for existence is their ability to undercut the price of cable. If they start paying more for rights, their price will have to rise and their primary attraction to cord cutters vanishes. Its the same reason I don't think cable is going to disappear. They will eventually fight back with skinny bundles and al a carte pricing which will neutralize the biggest advantage streamers currently enjoy.

(04-18-2017 12:25 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  I just don't understand all of this 3.5mil-5mil lowball pessimistic talk. I've mentioned this in some older threads but I think we should try to get 60mil per year from NBC Ota for 1-2 games on Saturdays, then 40-60 mil per year from espn for all they really want and need from us Thurs and fri night games, then I'd package the rest of our fball games with a large amount of bball games for either cbsports/Ota for another 40mil. Boom 140-160mil/ 12-15mil per team. Then go with a streaming service for everything else for whatever we can get 12-24 mil per year. The trick is to monetize packages by offering certain networks only what they actually need. Espn only really needed a portion of all of the rights that we sold them and CBS sports actually loves our content, and for some reason I think that NBC will come in a more serious manner next time. We really should no longer look to espn to be our main partner while maintaining a cordial relationship

When can try for anything we want. The bottom line is that somebody else is going to determine our value, not us. We aren't in position of strength right now (ie, horrible starting point). I don't think you understand how this works.

(04-18-2017 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 11:42 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Interesting side note regarding Tier 3 coverage. ASN has merged with 2 other companies. Expect better quality and streaming options. I know that they covered some of our games last year.

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...2d759.html

http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2017/4/13...reaming-g5

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...39656.html

Of course, they don't pay a dime for rights. Nice supplemental coverage, but they arent an option for purposes of bidding up rights values. Netflix has also reiterated their position that, unlike Twitter and Amazon, they wont be getting in the sports rights bidding game. As Ive said before, anyone thinking streamers will be riding to the rescue with a big AAC bid will be sorely disappointed. The traditional broadcast networks remain the only ones bidding decent money. Streamers continue to pay a fraction of what cable/OTA networks pay for rights.

Not now but they could later as they establish themselves.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Their entire reason for existence is their ability to undercut the price of cable. If they start paying more for rights, their primary attraction to cord cutters vanishes.

This^^^^

I'd also cringe to tell people "oh watching our game on youtube or netflix".

(04-18-2017 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 11:42 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Interesting side note regarding Tier 3 coverage. ASN has merged with 2 other companies. Expect better quality and streaming options. I know that they covered some of our games last year.

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...2d759.html

http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2017/4/13...reaming-g5

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...39656.html

Of course, they don't pay a dime for rights. Nice supplemental coverage, but they arent an option for purposes of bidding up rights values. Netflix has also reiterated their position that, unlike Twitter and Amazon, they wont be getting in the sports rights bidding game. As Ive said before, anyone thinking streamers will be riding to the rescue with a big AAC bid will be sorely disappointed. The traditional broadcast networks remain the only ones bidding decent money. Streamers continue to pay a fraction of what cable/OTA networks pay for rights.

Not now but they could later as they establish themselves.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Their entire reason for existence is their ability to undercut the price of cable. If they start paying more for rights, their price will have to rise and their primary attraction to cord cutters vanishes. Its the same reason I don't think cable is going to disappear. They will eventually fight back with skinny bundles and al a carte pricing which will neutralize the biggest advantage streamers currently enjoy.

Depends how much money they could make. Depends on how much bang for the buck their advertisers are getting. It remains to be seen.

Regarding a la carte, that's probably really bad news for the AAC. We just don't have the fanbase required for them to make money.

(04-18-2017 12:25 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  I just don't understand all of this 3.5mil-5mil lowball pessimistic talk. I've mentioned this in some older threads but I think we should try to get 60mil per year from NBC Ota for 1-2 games on Saturdays, then 40-60 mil per year from espn for all they really want and need from us Thurs and fri night games, then I'd package the rest of our fball games with a large amount of bball games for either cbsports/Ota for another 40mil. Boom 140-160mil/ 12-15mil per team. Then go with a streaming service for everything else for whatever we can get 12-24 mil per year. The trick is to monetize packages by offering certain networks only what they actually need. Espn only really needed a portion of all of the rights that we sold them and CBS sports actually loves our content, and for some reason I think that NBC will come in a more serious manner next time. We really should no longer look to espn to be our main partner while maintaining a cordial relationship

I hope you're right, but we'd need multiple bidders to get the price up. For all we know, ESPN might have another 'match' clause where they don't have to outbid, just match.

(04-18-2017 10:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:34 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 08:11 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:05 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  Cord cutting and over paying conferences isn't AAC's fault.

If the American makes less than $$8 million each per season on its next tv deal I will consider it a failure.

You're not being rational if you think that. "Fault" has ZERO to do with anything. Networks aren't in the charity business. They're in it to make as much money as possible. The market will decide what the AAC is worth.

My point or blame if you would is towards TV networks realizing or except the mistakes they continue to make, overpaying lazy products vs the real true worth.

I mean, how on earth a team in a crappy zero market town like Lubbock for example earn more than almost the entire AAC with markets like Philadelphia Houston Dallas Memphis Orlando etc., is beyond me

Is the 2nd paragraph serious? It's because they have MUCH BETTER brands like Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and TCU are coming to town. Even with Texas Tech's "crappy zero market" they have more fans than everybody in this conference. Market doesn't mean a damn thing if people aren't paying attention.

Even though TT has all those great brands/teams coming to town, ECU almost averages as many 'fans' showing up to games as TT and we just had the worst year in recent memory (44k+ which is the most outside of P5 & BYU last year). Yes, attendance smack. Not really just responding to an assertion.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...ight-year/

The AAC has a lot of factors swinging in our direction this time around which I won't rehash but the biggest and most important factor is stability. Our stability is better than ever and we need to capitalize off that. I saw someone post in another thread that we should consider signing a temporary GOR at least for the next 5-8 years since it doesn't look like there will be any p5 expansion before that anyway. Then we could sign a fairly short term TV contract and virtually guarantee that our product would remain the same throughout the term of such an agreement. That would help us maximize our value.

(04-18-2017 10:36 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 07:52 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 05:51 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Relatively speaking, we are worth at least $10 million per school. I am sure we won't get that though. $5-$7 million is my guess.

How do you come up with that number? We are a good lead in material but rarely ever espn prime time material. We have the ability to get multiple teams in the top 25 though and ABC afternoon coverage. That is worth something along with Navy's value.

I'm guessing guaranteed equal exposure and $3.5 million. We still have a few teams that offer almost zero to the tv deal.

You mean like half of the teams in the so called "power 5", who rake in 20M+ in TV dollars by simply by joining a conference 50 years ago and now being a long time member of a conference that became a so called P5 conference. What makes them so worthy.

Wake Forest football, catch the fever!

(04-18-2017 12:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:25 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  I just don't understand all of this 3.5mil-5mil lowball pessimistic talk. I've mentioned this in some older threads but I think we should try to get 60mil per year from NBC Ota for 1-2 games on Saturdays, then 40-60 mil per year from espn for all they really want and need from us Thurs and fri night games, then I'd package the rest of our fball games with a large amount of bball games for either cbsports/Ota for another 40mil. Boom 140-160mil/ 12-15mil per team. Then go with a streaming service for everything else for whatever we can get 12-24 mil per year. The trick is to monetize packages by offering certain networks only what they actually need. Espn only really needed a portion of all of the rights that we sold them and CBS sports actually loves our content, and for some reason I think that NBC will come in a more serious manner next time. We really should no longer look to espn to be our main partner while maintaining a cordial relationship

That's basically what I think. I dont see it being as high as what you are saying---but I do think 5-10 is likely IMHO. The issue is with the realignment fund playing out, we need 5-6 for most of us to just break even with current revenue. The legacy Big East teams need nearly 10 million a year to break even. If its less, that might not be enough to maintain the current conference configuration. Which brings about an interesting question---If we are danger of disbanding, would ESPN pay more to keep the AAC viable since ESPN is left in the worst position if the AAC vanishes (remember, ESPN needs the best of the AAC games to replace the Big10 inventory they lost to FOX)?

I happen to think 8-10 ml per is the floor, utah I honestly think anything less than twice the nbe money should be rejected. If we can break our rights into atleast 3 parts we can get paid right. 40-60 mil apiece from three of the four networks is chump change for getting a year worth of decent live programming and that's not even including streaming. I think some people are so insecure that they've bought into the "AAC isn't any different from the other g5 crap", yet we now have the ratings that prove and stability that prove otherwise.

(04-18-2017 01:01 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:25 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  I just don't understand all of this 3.5mil-5mil lowball pessimistic talk. I've mentioned this in some older threads but I think we should try to get 60mil per year from NBC Ota for 1-2 games on Saturdays, then 40-60 mil per year from espn for all they really want and need from us Thurs and fri night games, then I'd package the rest of our fball games with a large amount of bball games for either cbsports/Ota for another 40mil. Boom 140-160mil/ 12-15mil per team. Then go with a streaming service for everything else for whatever we can get 12-24 mil per year. The trick is to monetize packages by offering certain networks only what they actually need. Espn only really needed a portion of all of the rights that we sold them and CBS sports actually loves our content, and for some reason I think that NBC will come in a more serious manner next time. We really should no longer look to espn to be our main partner while maintaining a cordial relationship

That's basically what I think. I dont see it being as high as what you are saying---but I do think 5-10 is likely IMHO. The issue is with the realignment fund playing out, we need 5-6 for most of us to just break even with current revenue. The legacy Big East teams need nearly 10 million a year to break even. If its less, that might not be enough to maintain the current conference configuration. Which brings about an interesting question---If we are danger of disbanding, would ESPN pay more to keep the AAC viable since ESPN is left in the worst position if the AAC vanishes (remember, ESPN needs the best of the AAC games to replace the Big10 inventory they lost to FOX)?

I happen to think 8-10 ml per is the floor, utah I honestly think anything less than twice the nbe money should be rejected. If we can break our rights into atleast 3 parts we can get paid right. 40-60 mil apiece from three of the four networks is chump change for getting a year worth of decent live programming and that's not even including streaming. I think some people are so insecure that they've bought into the "AAC isn't any different from the other g5 crap", yet we now have the ratings that prove and stability that prove otherwise.

I also agree that our current stability is key. We need to band together and all 'buy in' in order to garner the type of tv contract we deserve.

(04-18-2017 12:58 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 10:36 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 07:52 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 05:51 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Relatively speaking, we are worth at least $10 million per school. I am sure we won't get that though. $5-$7 million is my guess.

How do you come up with that number? We are a good lead in material but rarely ever espn prime time material. We have the ability to get multiple teams in the top 25 though and ABC afternoon coverage. That is worth something along with Navy's value.

I'm guessing guaranteed equal exposure and $3.5 million. We still have a few teams that offer almost zero to the tv deal.

You mean like half of the teams in the so called "power 5", who rake in 20M+ in TV dollars by simply by joining a conference 50 years ago and now being a long time member of a conference that became a so called P5 conference. What makes them so worthy.

Wake Forest football, catch the fever!

Wake Forest has little value, but FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc have enough value to offset them and still get $20 million.

(04-18-2017 12:54 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 10:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:34 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 08:11 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:05 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  Cord cutting and over paying conferences isn't AAC's fault.

If the American makes less than $$8 million each per season on its next tv deal I will consider it a failure.

You're not being rational if you think that. "Fault" has ZERO to do with anything. Networks aren't in the charity business. They're in it to make as much money as possible. The market will decide what the AAC is worth.

My point or blame if you would is towards TV networks realizing or except the mistakes they continue to make, overpaying lazy products vs the real true worth.

I mean, how on earth a team in a crappy zero market town like Lubbock for example earn more than almost the entire AAC with markets like Philadelphia Houston Dallas Memphis Orlando etc., is beyond me

Is the 2nd paragraph serious? It's because they have MUCH BETTER brands like Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and TCU are coming to town. Even with Texas Tech's "crappy zero market" they have more fans than everybody in this conference. Market doesn't mean a damn thing if people aren't paying attention.

Even though TT has all those great brands/teams coming to town, ECU almost averages as many 'fans' showing up to games as TT and we just had the worst year in recent memory (44k+ which is the most outside of P5 & BYU last year). Yes, attendance smack. Not really just responding to an assertion.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...ight-year/

The AAC has a lot of factors swinging in our direction this time around which I won't rehash but the biggest and most important factor is stability. Our stability is better than ever and we need to capitalize off that. I saw someone post in another thread that we should consider signing a temporary GOR at least for the next 5-8 years since it doesn't look like there will be any p5 expansion before that anyway. Then we could sign a fairly short term TV contract and virtually guarantee that our product would remain the same throughout the term of such an agreement. That would help us maximize our value.

Yes, stability is a very important factor. The AAC was worth more than our current contract even then. Who wanted a conference that no one thought was going to be around after one year. Our floor was set as artificially low as the NBE floor was set artificially high. I truly think we may be able to get the old big East last offer. Which was a bargain basement price even then but would be enough to catapult us away from the g4

I cannot believe that there are 18 people that think the AAC will get $5-8 million per school. There is nothing to indicate that sort of increase. I hope I am wrong. That would be a good indication for the rest of us.

(04-18-2017 01:24 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I cannot believe that there are 18 people that think the AAC will get $5-8 million per school. There is nothing to indicate that sort of increase. I hope I am wrong. That would be a good indication for the rest of us.

The AAC and MWC contracts are two completely different entities. Different time zones. Different TV windows. Different ratings histories. Different performance histories. As brands they are on opposite trajectories.

The MWC is in a nosedive.

(04-18-2017 01:30 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:24 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I cannot believe that there are 18 people that think the AAC will get $5-8 million per school. There is nothing to indicate that sort of increase. I hope I am wrong. That would be a good indication for the rest of us.

The AAC and MWC contracts are two completely different entities. Different time zones. Different TV windows. Different ratings histories. Different performance histories. As brands they are on opposite trajectories.

The MWC is in a nosedive.

Whatever you say. Still, people actually think you will get $5-8 million? Unreal. The trend is going in the opposite direction. People on this board remind me of the former CEO of Kodak, who couldn't see that the Kodak Photo was a dying product. Well, their HQs are a dilapidated mess on the side of a Highway in Massachusetts (seriously, drive by it. It is very symbolic of peoples inability or refusal to evolve).

(04-18-2017 01:38 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:30 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:24 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I cannot believe that there are 18 people that think the AAC will get $5-8 million per school. There is nothing to indicate that sort of increase. I hope I am wrong. That would be a good indication for the rest of us.

The AAC and MWC contracts are two completely different entities. Different time zones. Different TV windows. Different ratings histories. Different performance histories. As brands they are on opposite trajectories.

The MWC is in a nosedive.

Whatever you say. Still, people actually think you will get $5-8 million? Unreal. The trend is going in the opposite direction. People on this board remind me of the former CEO of Kodak, who couldn't see that the Kodak Photo was a dying product. Well, their HQs are a dilapidated mess on the side of a Highway in Massachusetts (seriously, drive by it. It is very symbolic of peoples inability or refusal to evolve).

Well you know fanhood and the g4s biggest nightmare would be the AAC getting paid what it's actually worth and being able to point to not only better performance and better ratings but a much better contract

(04-18-2017 01:38 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:30 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:24 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I cannot believe that there are 18 people that think the AAC will get $5-8 million per school. There is nothing to indicate that sort of increase. I hope I am wrong. That would be a good indication for the rest of us.

The AAC and MWC contracts are two completely different entities. Different time zones. Different TV windows. Different ratings histories. Different performance histories. As brands they are on opposite trajectories.

The MWC is in a nosedive.

Whatever you say. Still, people actually think you will get $5-8 million? Unreal. The trend is going in the opposite direction. People on this board remind me of the former CEO of Kodak, who couldn't see that the Kodak Photo was a dying product. Well, their HQs are a dilapidated mess on the side of a Highway in Massachusetts (seriously, drive by it. It is very symbolic of peoples inability or refusal to evolve).

The AAC and MWC contracts are two completely different entities. - No ****

Different time zones. - Yup, and that works in the MWs favor.

Different TV windows. - Agreed. See above. Look at ratings in the West. They are good.

Different ratings histories. - You mean Temple, Tulsa, USF, and Memphis drive ratings?

Different performance histories. - Not really. Eight teams of the AAC are former CUSA. One was so bad it was kicked out of a BCS conference. Another two (USF and UCONN) were left behind for many reasons, and another (Navy) is, well Navy.

As brands they are on opposite trajectories. - Not sure what "brands" you are referencing. Maybe Navy has a "brand." Maybe UCONN in basketball. Not sure who else.

The MWC is in a nosedive. - Intense words.

(04-18-2017 01:43 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:38 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:30 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:24 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I cannot believe that there are 18 people that think the AAC will get $5-8 million per school. There is nothing to indicate that sort of increase. I hope I am wrong. That would be a good indication for the rest of us.

The AAC and MWC contracts are two completely different entities. Different time zones. Different TV windows. Different ratings histories. Different performance histories. As brands they are on opposite trajectories.

The MWC is in a nosedive.

Whatever you say. Still, people actually think you will get $5-8 million? Unreal. The trend is going in the opposite direction. People on this board remind me of the former CEO of Kodak, who couldn't see that the Kodak Photo was a dying product. Well, their HQs are a dilapidated mess on the side of a Highway in Massachusetts (seriously, drive by it. It is very symbolic of peoples inability or refusal to evolve).

Well you know fanhood and the g4s biggest nightmare would be the AAC getting paid what it's actually worth and being able to point to not only better performance and better ratings but a much better contract

No, not really. I think the AAC will get a solid $3 million. This will be an indicator to the MW, which will get about $2 million. Those of you talking $5-10 million need to be prepared. Wouldn't want to see anyone do something cray cray.

(04-18-2017 01:38 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:30 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:24 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I cannot believe that there are 18 people that think the AAC will get $5-8 million per school. There is nothing to indicate that sort of increase. I hope I am wrong. That would be a good indication for the rest of us.

The AAC and MWC contracts are two completely different entities. Different time zones. Different TV windows. Different ratings histories. Different performance histories. As brands they are on opposite trajectories.

The MWC is in a nosedive.

Whatever you say. Still, people actually think you will get $5-8 million? Unreal. The trend is going in the opposite direction. People on this board remind me of the former CEO of Kodak, who couldn't see that the Kodak Photo was a dying product. Well, their HQs are a dilapidated mess on the side of a Highway in Massachusetts (seriously, drive by it. It is very symbolic of peoples inability or refusal to evolve).

It's not exactly a dying product when it gets P5 level exposure on ESPN presently.
The MWC hasn't been in the homes of half as many people because your TV deal doesn't have that reach. That's really the definition of a dying product.
Your commish is even flirting with a direction that would offer even less penetration.
The AAC has established a viewership. The basketball brand is well positioned going forward as a top league. The football conference as well, which keeps winning big games (with lots of eyeballs watching at home).
There will be a baseline, figuring in the contracts of certain bball only conferences, and having significant Olympics (the MWC is invisible in WBB and baseball). Everyone knows the last AAC contract was subsidized by the Big East war chest. There's a lot more to monetize than you keep telling yourself.

(04-18-2017 01:46 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:43 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:38 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:30 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:24 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I cannot believe that there are 18 people that think the AAC will get $5-8 million per school. There is nothing to indicate that sort of increase. I hope I am wrong. That would be a good indication for the rest of us.

The AAC and MWC contracts are two completely different entities. Different time zones. Different TV windows. Different ratings histories. Different performance histories. As brands they are on opposite trajectories.

The MWC is in a nosedive.

Whatever you say. Still, people actually think you will get $5-8 million? Unreal. The trend is going in the opposite direction. People on this board remind me of the former CEO of Kodak, who couldn't see that the Kodak Photo was a dying product. Well, their HQs are a dilapidated mess on the side of a Highway in Massachusetts (seriously, drive by it. It is very symbolic of peoples inability or refusal to evolve).

Well you know fanhood and the g4s biggest nightmare would be the AAC getting paid what it's actually worth and being able to point to not only better performance and better ratings but a much better contract

No, not really. I think the AAC will get a solid $3 million. This will be an indicator to the MW, which will get about $2 million. Those of you talking $5-10 million need to be prepared. Wouldn't want to see anyone do something cray cray.

The MWC wont get shhhhhhhheit because it doesn't want to play during hours that normal people watch FB.
Face it dude, the difference in exposure between the two conferences is night and day. Being in those windows has given the AAC the opportunity to develop an audience and a brand.
There are baseline numbers from other contracts that will be an indicator for different parts of the AAC contract.
MWC basketball is dead. MWC football is on life support.