(12-05-2018 08:19 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 08:04 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:59 PM)TTT Wrote:  The AAC is the really just CUSA

CUSA is really just the Sunbelt-A

The Sunbelt is really just Sunbelt-B

That being said, CUSA must make noise by scheduling and beating manageable P5's....the Kentucky's, Boston College's, Kansas State's, Indiana's, Cal's, Vandy's, Virginia's, Iowa State's, Purdue's, Oregon State's of the world. These goals are attainable. Then you finish the reg season with 4-5 teams with 8+ wins, and a couple with 10+ wins...and those 7 teams with wins vs the P5 types mentioned above already under their belts AND some either ranked in the T20-25 range or right outside the T25.

At a minimum, every year the conf. championship game needs to be TWO T25 ranked division winners battling it out on national television.

Good Post.

The AAC worth will be determined during the next TV contract. All this marketing won’t mean much and they will see a slight increase to cover their productions cost on ESPN+.

And you know this because......

Straight from a ESPN TV exec. Don’t kid yourself the AAC board like AttackCoog are so far detached from reality it is quite comical

(12-05-2018 07:32 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:52 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 07:11 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 08:24 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 08:06 AM)nastybunch Wrote:  You are absolutely wrong, man. The results of doing just what you have stated has already proved to be our downfall.

Well, it definitely hasn't helped the MAC by playing mid-week football games. Their attendance or their perception. They just get to semi-feel good about being on TV.

The advantage the AAC had is they were not starting from rock bottom. They were already sitting midway between the P5 and G5, plus were built from a former BCS conference.

As a league, we need 4 teams that are consistently battling for top spot in the conference. These should be our biggest brands. We need 4 teams that are consistently at the bottom. That is the only way to generate real noise and be capable of contending for a NY6 spot.

I haven't checked, but this season may be our worst in attendance. We are trending in the wrong direction and that looks bad when negotiating a TV contract.

Built from a former BCS conference? LOL What does that even mean?

I mean the Big East was an AQ conference and Cincinnati, South Florida and UCONN were all members of the Big East, Louisville and Ruthers too, obviously they've left for the ACC and B1G, but they were part of the formation of the AAC.

The Big East was laughed at when it had WVU, Syracuse, etc. Having UCONN 1-AA football team, Bobby Huggins (FIRED DUI) & South Florida’s Geographic location isn’t exactly something to brag about. Rutgers sucked in the Big East and it’s an absolute JOKE that school is in the Big 10. Louisville is good when they have shady Pitino and you see what happens when he is gone. ACC’s problem now anyway.

My comment was geared towards the Big East. When all the idiots on this board were bragging about “moving up” to the Big East we called them out and said the AQ was fleeting. Obviously on the basketball side they have had their strength but football wise they are just as rock bottom as any other conference. The ONLY reason there is even an “access bowl” was so the CFP could avoid a lawsuit. If it was up to Roy Kramer and Co. The undefeated UCF team would be playing in the Bahamas Bowl.

As you say, in the 2013-2014 season, the last year of the BCS and the first year of the AAC, the AAC as successor to the BE was still an AQ conference and its champ was placed in the Fiesta Bowl.

Not sure on what basis you claim that "football wise they are just as rock bottom as any other conference." By any metric--poll rankings, NY6 bowls (3 of 5 Access Bowls have been AAC teams, and it has thus far won every single one), TV ratings, budgets, etc.--it has consistently outperformed other G5 conferences.

(12-05-2018 04:35 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 07:07 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 02:49 AM)Lizard Breath Wrote:  We gottta go to ESPN & basically give them 2 years of free football to get our brand out there. Flex our teams into a Wednesday game. So we have the best product on the field and people start to become familiar with cusa. We have no choice. We need to spread our brand. On those games wear the best uniforms and crowds need to come out. Come up with a nickname like macnation has but for cusa. After 2 years see where we are at. Then maybe we could get a decent deal. We need this so bad espn+ is awful, be in is awful, our Champ games aren't on espn. Let's make Wednesday cusa football night, have 4 teams play. Start off rivalry games and then go to the teams with best records. That's what needs to be done. Or have team not play on Saturday but play right before Monday night foootball & get rid of the million shows they have for pre game.

LOL

WINNING gets you attention. Having a TV already in place and then benefiting from an already signed deal like the AAC has is just dumb luck. Look at the ratings. It’s not like people are watching anything other than UCF & ANY SCHOOL can get eyes on them if they keep winning.

Nicknames? Seriously???
2 years of free football on ESPN???

Seriously WTF

The AAC has 6-8 schools regularily garnering payable viewers. UCF, Memphis, Navy, USF, Houston, Cincinnati, Temple, SMU and who ever they play.

*Understanding that there was NO TV deal in place when the AAC negotiated current status.*

ETA: Payable viewers = Nielsen ratings

AAC games are consistently bottom ratings on ESPN.

Do you think ESPN pay the Big 12 not to invite AAC schools only to turn around and give the AAC more money. Really think about it....

My source inside ESPN has said it will be MWC type deal with slight increas to cover ESPN plus

(12-05-2018 08:30 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 07:32 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 09:52 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 07:11 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 08:24 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  Well, it definitely hasn't helped the MAC by playing mid-week football games. Their attendance or their perception. They just get to semi-feel good about being on TV.

The advantage the AAC had is they were not starting from rock bottom. They were already sitting midway between the P5 and G5, plus were built from a former BCS conference.

As a league, we need 4 teams that are consistently battling for top spot in the conference. These should be our biggest brands. We need 4 teams that are consistently at the bottom. That is the only way to generate real noise and be capable of contending for a NY6 spot.

I haven't checked, but this season may be our worst in attendance. We are trending in the wrong direction and that looks bad when negotiating a TV contract.

Built from a former BCS conference? LOL What does that even mean?

I mean the Big East was an AQ conference and Cincinnati, South Florida and UCONN were all members of the Big East, Louisville and Ruthers too, obviously they've left for the ACC and B1G, but they were part of the formation of the AAC.

The Big East was laughed at when it had WVU, Syracuse, etc. Having UCONN 1-AA football team, Bobby Huggins (FIRED DUI) & South Florida’s Geographic location isn’t exactly something to brag about. Rutgers sucked in the Big East and it’s an absolute JOKE that school is in the Big 10. Louisville is good when they have shady Pitino and you see what happens when he is gone. ACC’s problem now anyway.

My comment was geared towards the Big East. When all the idiots on this board were bragging about “moving up” to the Big East we called them out and said the AQ was fleeting. Obviously on the basketball side they have had their strength but football wise they are just as rock bottom as any other conference. The ONLY reason there is even an “access bowl” was so the CFP could avoid a lawsuit. If it was up to Roy Kramer and Co. The undefeated UCF team would be playing in the Bahamas Bowl.

As you say, in the 2013-2014 season, the last year of the BCS and the first year of the AAC, the AAC as successor to the BE was still an AQ conference and its champ was placed in the Fiesta Bowl.

Not sure on what basis you claim that "football wise they are just as rock bottom as any other conference." By any metric--poll rankings, NY6 bowls (3 of 5 Access Bowls have been AAC teams, and it has thus far won every single one), TV ratings, budgets, etc.--it has consistently outperformed other G5 conferences.

The AAC was 2-12 vs G5 in bowl games. Herbstriet mention this and Brett McMurphy.

Like someone said if we had a really good team or 2 and were on TV it would bolster our conference and give us some leverage. NIU had an undefeated season and they play on weeknights averaging near 2 million viewers. We need exposure, wins, and hopefully or eventually our own network or a deal with a network. But the MAC gets paid 800k per week. A good deal would be to get exposure on a watched network, a very good team and paid 1m per week. In order for that to happen we might have to take some big chances. Because we r getting passed up left and right.

(12-05-2018 08:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 04:35 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 07:07 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 02:49 AM)Lizard Breath Wrote:  We gottta go to ESPN & basically give them 2 years of free football to get our brand out there. Flex our teams into a Wednesday game. So we have the best product on the field and people start to become familiar with cusa. We have no choice. We need to spread our brand. On those games wear the best uniforms and crowds need to come out. Come up with a nickname like macnation has but for cusa. After 2 years see where we are at. Then maybe we could get a decent deal. We need this so bad espn+ is awful, be in is awful, our Champ games aren't on espn. Let's make Wednesday cusa football night, have 4 teams play. Start off rivalry games and then go to the teams with best records. That's what needs to be done. Or have team not play on Saturday but play right before Monday night foootball & get rid of the million shows they have for pre game.

LOL

WINNING gets you attention. Having a TV already in place and then benefiting from an already signed deal like the AAC has is just dumb luck. Look at the ratings. It’s not like people are watching anything other than UCF & ANY SCHOOL can get eyes on them if they keep winning.

Nicknames? Seriously???
2 years of free football on ESPN???

Seriously WTF

The AAC has 6-8 schools regularily garnering payable viewers. UCF, Memphis, Navy, USF, Houston, Cincinnati, Temple, SMU and who ever they play.

*Understanding that there was NO TV deal in place when the AAC negotiated current status.*

ETA: Payable viewers = Nielsen ratings

AAC games are consistently bottom ratings on ESPN.

Do you think ESPN pay the Big 12 not to invite AAC schools only to turn around and give the AAC more money. Really think about it....

My source inside ESPN has said it will be MWC type deal with slight increas to cover ESPN plus

AAC games have consistently outdrawn a number of Big12, Big10, and Pac10 games, and in no games have they been last on Espn. Hell, Memphis-Tulane had double the viewership of Iowa State-TCU.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

Yes, Espn will not pay the Big12 price of $25 million per school to the AAC when they can get the entire league for $50 million, i.e., $5 million per school.

Your , ahem, "source" needs to be better informed.

(12-05-2018 09:54 PM)Lizard Breath Wrote:  Like someone said if we had a really good team or 2 and were on TV it would bolster our conference and give us some leverage. NIU had an undefeated season and they play on weeknights averaging near 2 million viewers. We need exposure, wins, and hopefully or eventually our own network or a deal with a network. But the MAC gets paid 800k per week. A good deal would be to get exposure on a watched network, a very good team and paid 1m per week. In order for that to happen we might have to take some big chances. Because we r getting passed up left and right.

Who is passing is up? We are all viewed the same clearly....Look at how UCF has been treated, we all have no chance to get into playoffs, not much difference between any of the 5 conferences except we are all not privileged enough to be in the big boy conference for football...

(12-06-2018 06:27 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 08:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 04:35 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 07:07 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 02:49 AM)Lizard Breath Wrote:  We gottta go to ESPN & basically give them 2 years of free football to get our brand out there. Flex our teams into a Wednesday game. So we have the best product on the field and people start to become familiar with cusa. We have no choice. We need to spread our brand. On those games wear the best uniforms and crowds need to come out. Come up with a nickname like macnation has but for cusa. After 2 years see where we are at. Then maybe we could get a decent deal. We need this so bad espn+ is awful, be in is awful, our Champ games aren't on espn. Let's make Wednesday cusa football night, have 4 teams play. Start off rivalry games and then go to the teams with best records. That's what needs to be done. Or have team not play on Saturday but play right before Monday night foootball & get rid of the million shows they have for pre game.

LOL

WINNING gets you attention. Having a TV already in place and then benefiting from an already signed deal like the AAC has is just dumb luck. Look at the ratings. It’s not like people are watching anything other than UCF & ANY SCHOOL can get eyes on them if they keep winning.

Nicknames? Seriously???
2 years of free football on ESPN???

Seriously WTF

The AAC has 6-8 schools regularily garnering payable viewers. UCF, Memphis, Navy, USF, Houston, Cincinnati, Temple, SMU and who ever they play.

*Understanding that there was NO TV deal in place when the AAC negotiated current status.*

ETA: Payable viewers = Nielsen ratings

AAC games are consistently bottom ratings on ESPN.

Do you think ESPN pay the Big 12 not to invite AAC schools only to turn around and give the AAC more money. Really think about it....

My source inside ESPN has said it will be MWC type deal with slight increas to cover ESPN plus

AAC games have consistently outdrawn a number of Big12, Big10, and Pac10 games, and in no games have they been last on Espn. Hell, Memphis-Tulane had double the viewership of Iowa State-TCU.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

Yes, Espn will not pay the Big12 price of $25 million per school to the AAC when they can get the entire league for $50 million, i.e., $5 million per school.

Your , ahem, "source" needs to be better informed.

Memphis-Tulane was on ESPN2 on a Friday (less competition). Iowa State-TCU was on a Saturday on ESPNU. There are plenty of good examples of AAC ratings. I would not count that comparison as one.

At least the AAC is pushing the enveloped and trying to get their brand out there and show the country that they have a good brand of football.

C-USA does absolutely nothing. And its killing this conference. Not one team would pass up a better opportunity to stay in this conference.

(12-06-2018 09:18 AM)cmett003 Wrote:  At least the AAC is pushing the enveloped and trying to get their brand out there and show the country that they have a good brand of football.

C-USA does absolutely nothing. And its killing this conference. Not one team would pass up a better opportunity to stay in this conference.

That is true of any team in any conference that isn't the SEC.

(12-06-2018 10:36 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 09:18 AM)cmett003 Wrote:  At least the AAC is pushing the enveloped and trying to get their brand out there and show the country that they have a good brand of football.

C-USA does absolutely nothing. And its killing this conference. Not one team would pass up a better opportunity to stay in this conference.

That is true of any team in any conference that isn't the SEC.

I agree the SEC is probably considered the best conference. But that doesnt mean that C-USA cant do something to make it the best version of itself. This conference is trending downward and C-USA is doing nothing to right the ship, if you cant see that then you are blind.

(12-06-2018 10:45 AM)cmett003 Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 10:36 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 09:18 AM)cmett003 Wrote:  At least the AAC is pushing the enveloped and trying to get their brand out there and show the country that they have a good brand of football.

C-USA does absolutely nothing. And its killing this conference. Not one team would pass up a better opportunity to stay in this conference.

That is true of any team in any conference that isn't the SEC.

I agree the SEC is probably considered the best conference. But that doesnt mean that C-USA cant do something to make it the best version of itself. This conference is trending downward and C-USA is doing nothing to right the ship, if you cant see that then you are blind.

I agree with you. I was just saying that any team in most any conference would jump at the chance to improve their situation. Just because the AAC is marketing itself as P6 doesn't mean that they would all stay together if the ACC or Big XII came calling. They would bolt just like any of us would bolt for the AAC.

We are all the same in football, does not matter...... what makes me mad is CUSA does nothing to help our basketball teams....Every year one of our teams proves its good enough to knock off a privileged school in NCAA tournament, but we might as well be playing hoops on MARS with lack of anything CUSA does...WE ALL HAVE A CHANCE IN BASKETBALL TO AT LEAST GET TO FINAL FOUR UNLIKE FOOTBALL, WAKE UP CUSA!!!

(12-06-2018 10:53 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  We are all the same in football, does not matter...... what makes me mad is CUSA does nothing to help our basketball teams....Every year one of our teams proves its good enough to knock off a privileged school in NCAA tournament, but we might as well be playing hoops on MARS with lack of anything CUSA does...WE ALL HAVE A CHANCE IN BASKETBALL TO AT LEAST GET TO FINAL FOUR UNLIKE FOOTBALL, WAKE UP CUSA!!!

Until these teams (bold) give a crap about basketball and create better environments for games and make them more competitive and stop playing DIII schools, they are going to continue to drag down C-USA basketball. Top half of the league is competitive as any outside the P5.

2017 Attendance per game
MTSU 6,774
ODU 6,346
UTEP 6,155
WKU 5,487
Marshall 5,485
Charlotte 4,008
UAB 3,729
La Tech 3,447
North Texas 2,644
Rice 2,295
Southern Miss 2,139
FIU 1,267
FAU 1,188
UTSA 1,146

As bad as Troy’s arena is for basketball (and it does look like it warped out of D2), I fear USM’s arena maybe even worse and USM really lacks the funds to renovate Reed Green Coliseum. Even when USM does get a good coach (see Larry Eustachy), they don’t stay long because trying to recruit when you have crappy facilities is definitely not a winning proposition and very difficult.

(12-06-2018 06:27 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 08:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 04:35 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 07:07 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 02:49 AM)Lizard Breath Wrote:  We gottta go to ESPN & basically give them 2 years of free football to get our brand out there. Flex our teams into a Wednesday game. So we have the best product on the field and people start to become familiar with cusa. We have no choice. We need to spread our brand. On those games wear the best uniforms and crowds need to come out. Come up with a nickname like macnation has but for cusa. After 2 years see where we are at. Then maybe we could get a decent deal. We need this so bad espn+ is awful, be in is awful, our Champ games aren't on espn. Let's make Wednesday cusa football night, have 4 teams play. Start off rivalry games and then go to the teams with best records. That's what needs to be done. Or have team not play on Saturday but play right before Monday night foootball & get rid of the million shows they have for pre game.

LOL

WINNING gets you attention. Having a TV already in place and then benefiting from an already signed deal like the AAC has is just dumb luck. Look at the ratings. It’s not like people are watching anything other than UCF & ANY SCHOOL can get eyes on them if they keep winning.

Nicknames? Seriously???
2 years of free football on ESPN???

Seriously WTF

The AAC has 6-8 schools regularily garnering payable viewers. UCF, Memphis, Navy, USF, Houston, Cincinnati, Temple, SMU and who ever they play.

*Understanding that there was NO TV deal in place when the AAC negotiated current status.*

ETA: Payable viewers = Nielsen ratings

AAC games are consistently bottom ratings on ESPN.

Do you think ESPN pay the Big 12 not to invite AAC schools only to turn around and give the AAC more money. Really think about it....

My source inside ESPN has said it will be MWC type deal with slight increas to cover ESPN plus

AAC games have consistently outdrawn a number of Big12, Big10, and Pac10 games, and in no games have they been last on Espn. Hell, Memphis-Tulane had double the viewership of Iowa State-TCU.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

Yes, Espn will not pay the Big12 price of $25 million per school to the AAC when they can get the entire league for $50 million, i.e., $5 million per school.

Your , ahem, "source" needs to be better informed.

Not comparable, if you look at comparables Buffalo and Ohio weeknight game had better rating than a Houston-Tulane weeknight game. And The MAC game was on ESPN2.

I see no AAC games in the top 10 college games. All I see is AAC games consistently at the bottom with MAC and Sunbelt games. BTW The Big 12 crushes the AAC in ratings.

I have no inside source but I know there will be less competition for AAC games and as bad as ESPN financials have been to DIS, they won’t be giving the AAC a 4x current deal raise

(12-06-2018 12:51 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 06:27 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 08:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 04:35 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 07:07 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  LOL

WINNING gets you attention. Having a TV already in place and then benefiting from an already signed deal like the AAC has is just dumb luck. Look at the ratings. It’s not like people are watching anything other than UCF & ANY SCHOOL can get eyes on them if they keep winning.

Nicknames? Seriously???
2 years of free football on ESPN???

Seriously WTF

The AAC has 6-8 schools regularily garnering payable viewers. UCF, Memphis, Navy, USF, Houston, Cincinnati, Temple, SMU and who ever they play.

*Understanding that there was NO TV deal in place when the AAC negotiated current status.*

ETA: Payable viewers = Nielsen ratings

AAC games are consistently bottom ratings on ESPN.

Do you think ESPN pay the Big 12 not to invite AAC schools only to turn around and give the AAC more money. Really think about it....

My source inside ESPN has said it will be MWC type deal with slight increas to cover ESPN plus

AAC games have consistently outdrawn a number of Big12, Big10, and Pac10 games, and in no games have they been last on Espn. Hell, Memphis-Tulane had double the viewership of Iowa State-TCU.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

Yes, Espn will not pay the Big12 price of $25 million per school to the AAC when they can get the entire league for $50 million, i.e., $5 million per school.

Your , ahem, "source" needs to be better informed.

Not comparable, if you look at comparables Buffalo and Ohio weeknight game had better rating than a Houston-Tulane weeknight game. And The MAC game was on ESPN2.

I see no AAC games in the top 10 college games. All I see is AAC games consistently at the bottom with MAC and Sunbelt games. BTW The Big 12 crushes the AAC in ratings.

I have no inside source but I know there will be less competition for AAC games and as bad as ESPN financials have been to DIS, they won’t be giving the AAC a 4x current deal raise

I love how you cherry pick games to compare to CUSA and MAC ratings.

Here's a simple question: has a CUSA 3.0 game EVER received higher than a 2.0 rating? 3.4M viewers or more? Bowls included?

Because UCF/Cincy, UCF/USF 2017, UCF/Memphis 2017, UCF/Memphis 2018, and UCF/Auburn all drew a 2.0 or better. Sometimes way better, such as UCF/Auburn or UCF/USF 2017 which had a massive 4.8M people tune in.

(12-06-2018 12:51 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 06:27 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 08:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 04:35 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 07:07 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  LOL

WINNING gets you attention. Having a TV already in place and then benefiting from an already signed deal like the AAC has is just dumb luck. Look at the ratings. It’s not like people are watching anything other than UCF & ANY SCHOOL can get eyes on them if they keep winning.

Nicknames? Seriously???
2 years of free football on ESPN???

Seriously WTF

The AAC has 6-8 schools regularily garnering payable viewers. UCF, Memphis, Navy, USF, Houston, Cincinnati, Temple, SMU and who ever they play.

*Understanding that there was NO TV deal in place when the AAC negotiated current status.*

ETA: Payable viewers = Nielsen ratings

AAC games are consistently bottom ratings on ESPN.

Do you think ESPN pay the Big 12 not to invite AAC schools only to turn around and give the AAC more money. Really think about it....

My source inside ESPN has said it will be MWC type deal with slight increas to cover ESPN plus

AAC games have consistently outdrawn a number of Big12, Big10, and Pac10 games, and in no games have they been last on Espn. Hell, Memphis-Tulane had double the viewership of Iowa State-TCU.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

Yes, Espn will not pay the Big12 price of $25 million per school to the AAC when they can get the entire league for $50 million, i.e., $5 million per school.

Your , ahem, "source" needs to be better informed.

Not comparable, if you look at comparables Buffalo and Ohio weeknight game had better rating than a Houston-Tulane weeknight game. And The MAC game was on ESPN2.

I see no AAC games in the top 10 college games. All I see is AAC games consistently at the bottom with MAC and Sunbelt games. BTW The Big 12 crushes the AAC in ratings.

I have no inside source but I know there will be less competition for AAC games and as bad as ESPN financials have been to DIS, they won’t be giving the AAC a 4x current deal raise

Head to head, on the same platform, I would expect most P5's to outperform similar games from the AAC. The reality is that the AAC performs close enough in most instances to P5 games that the AAC is going to be a very attractive "bang for the buck" property for other networks---especially since it can be obtained for just 20-25% of the price of a comparable P5 media package. One thing to note is that 10 or so AAC games had more than 1 million viewers each. Several were in excess of 2 million and 2 were in excess of 3 million. I think there was only on one other game in the G5 home game outside of the AAC that exceeded 1 million viewers. Additionally, while most of college football ratings have been falling, the AAC ratings have been growing. I think those 2 factors are going to be significant during negotiations. The investments at the individual school level and the marketing employed by the conference has done its job. It has combined to create a very attractive sports media property.

I don't think we have ever had a 3.4M viewer game. Of course we haven't had any Broadcast Network games, and very few games on ESPN (mostly 2, U, News, or worse).

There have been times when C-USA has drawn impressive numbers for the network. During the 2015 season, WKU vs. LSU was the highest drawing ESPNU game of the entire season (1.247M), beating out several P5 vs. P5 match-ups, some by more than double. LSU had another game that season on ESPNU, 763K against EMU. As far as I can tell, 1.247M is the highest rated game on ESPNU on the Sports Media Watch website. In 2014 WKU vs Marshall beat out UCF vs USF when the C-USA game was on FS1 and the AAC game on ESPN2. C-USA can draw some eyeballs when the offense's are clicking and we are on a network other than ESPN8 the Ocho. Unfortunately, that isn't happening right now.

(12-06-2018 12:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  As bad as Troy’s arena is for basketball (and it does look like it warped out of D2), I fear USM’s arena maybe even worse and USM really lacks the funds to renovate Reed Green Coliseum. Even when USM does get a good coach (see Larry Eustachy), they don’t stay long because trying to recruit when you have crappy facilities is definitely not a winning proposition and very difficult.

I have only seen Trojan Arena in photos, but it is a massaassive upgrade over their previous arena.

It very well may have been the worst division 1 facility I'd ever seen in any sport. Worse tham our baseball field pre renovation, worse than Lockhart Stadium(FAU's former home).