(10-31-2018 01:09 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 12:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 12:29 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 11:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 10:15 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  As a practical matter how would Army-Navy work as a conference game? A lot of the prestige, and CBS TV money, comes from the fact that it is the only real FBS game played the weekend after the conference championship games. They would likely refuse to play each other prior to the second Saturday in December lest they lose the CBS money, so the only way that could work is if it is scheduled as a non-conference game. And the only way to prevent them from meeting in the regular season would be to put them in different divisions and make a rule where they could never play as cross-division rivals. Even then, if they won their divisions you’d ruin the prestige of the traditional game by having them play for a conference title the week before and then having a rematch the following week. Plus, in that scenario the the first game’s winner could lose the second time around after having secured the G5 access spot by winning the AAC, which would not be a good look for the G5. If they want to join a conference Army might better served by throwing in its lot with the eastern teams from the CUSA plus UMass, Liberty, and UConn, if they want to rejoin the Big East, in the event the Sun Belt and CUSA reconfigure into more regionally based leagues.

Thats the way I'd do it--but with a twist. I'd revise the TV deals so that IF Army and Navy ever meet in the CCG---the CCG is moved to the weekend AFTER Championship Saturday (the traditional Army-Navy game weekend) and is NOT part of the AAC TV deal. It's simply the traditional Army-Navy game, played at whatever neutral site that was already planned. The game would fall under the Army-Navy contract. The only difference from the normal Army-Navy game is the winner gets to claim the AAC Championship. Whoever owns the AAC rights simply doesnt get a CCG that year (and they know it going in so there is no penalty). Id stick the clause in the next TV deal so its there if Army ever decides to join.

That seems like the most obvious choice, though I think the rightsholder would still need some compensation for losing a conference title game on short notice, whether it's monetary or in future scheduling considerations. Especially since anything they replaced it with on championship weekend would have far fewer viewers and command far lesser ad rates.

Like I said, I'd get that clause done up front. That said, you can probably still get the deal done on the back end as well because the likelihood of both Army and Navy winning their divisions in any given year is pretty low--but the weekley payoff of getting those Army games (and half of the Commanders Cup games) more than makes up for it over the course of each season. At that point, if the AAC were to approach Air Force and one other MW team---the AAC could get all 3 academies into the fold. That would give both the conference and the rights holder a fantastic identity to sell the "American Conference" with. Great marketing tag line---the "P6 home of the academies" would give the spread out mish-mash AAC conference a traditional identity people could easily recognize and remember. Thats something the conference has always lacked.

The hangup for the rightsowner would be how to replace the game if it goes to CBS as the Army-Navy game? Let's say for the sake of simplicity that ESPN retains AAC rights. This year, the AAC title game is on ABC at 3:30 p.m. Saturday. The only game ESPN has this weekend in a similar time slot that it can move there is the SWAC game from ESPNU at 4:30 (in theory, the ACC could slide into that spot from its noon start or the MAC from its Friday night ESPN2 start, but that would be more difficult). I guess they could also move a college basketball or NBA game into that slot but it breaks up their football tripleheader.

You may be right that Army's addition to the conference improves the value of the AAC enough to a rightsholder that they can weather the potential loss of an AAC title game to Army-Navy. But they'd probably make sure to have their contingency plan well in place when they sign the deal (it's a lot easier if it's ESPN/ABC, since they have a lot more content at their disposal and can move an ESPN game to ABC, and ESPN game to ESPN2 and an ESPNU/SEC game to ESPN2 if need be).

Now watch Army and Navy dominate their divisions and keep the AAC title game from its rightholders four years in a row.

If that happened, it might be an issue for the next contract cycle. That said, if the rights holder is ESPN---I doubt it would really matter much. Last year ESPN had 4 championship games running head to head on ESPN Networks at the same time (that included the AAC CCG). ESPN was basically competing with themselves.
So, having just 3 CCG's going head to head at one time (rather than 4) would probably be fine---and the total audience for all 3 CCG's would probably be about the same as the total audience the 4 games would just tune into another CCG. I dont think it would be as big a deal as you might think. When the Big12 fee from 12 teams to 10--it lost its CCG, ESPN didnt dock them a dime.

Or, sell the CCG to CBS.

(10-28-2018 05:23 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Many here ignore the fact that the AAC was force into this G crap.

Apperently it needs to be reminded over over the strength of the AAC and where it stands among all FBS conferences.

1. SEC
2. B1G
3. ACC
4. PAC
5. B12













6. AAC

7. The
8. RE
9. S
10. T


Sorry but I don't see Army improving the AAC muchless compete in it.

FTFY

(10-27-2018 09:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Too many are acting like it’s the AAC’s choice. If Army wanted to join, the AAC would invite them 100% guaranteed - it’s not even a debate. Conference realignment is about prestige and money, which is what Army brings to the table much more than any other realistic option for a G5 conference. The reason why Army isn’t in the AAC is because Army wants to be independent. Asking whether a G5 league should add Army (or BYU) is like asking whether a P5 league should add Notre Dame: of course they should add them, but the league isn’t the one with the power. The question should be, “Should Army give up independence to join the AAC?” - the phrasing of that question accurately portrays the party that has the control and power here.

Sadly, this is true. Army and BYU would boost AAC football, but if either school wanted to be here, they already would be.

(10-31-2018 04:16 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Sadly this is true. Army and BYU would boost AAC football, but if either school wanted to be here, they already would be.

Any prospect of. BYU joining a Go5 conference went out the window when Utah joined the PAC12. BYU will never willingly join a lower tier than Utah unless coerced .... and Notre Dame's status protects them from that coercion.

Army says NO!!!!!!!

End of conversation!!!!!!!!

(10-31-2018 06:18 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 04:16 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Sadly this is true. Army and BYU would boost AAC football, but if either school wanted to be here, they already would be.

Any prospect of. BYU joining a Go5 conference went out the window when Utah joined the PAC12. BYU will never willingly join a lower tier than Utah unless coerced .... and Notre Dame's status protects them from that coercion.

Exactly. BYU actually isn’t struggling scheduling as an independent. They regularly schedule home-home series with power schools and average 5-6 power schools games per season against schools that regularly make bowl games. They also schedule about 1 AAC game and 3-5 MWC games including Boise St annually. Unfortunately, they don’t have the cache of Notre Dame but they are scheduling better as an independent than they would in a non-power conference.