(08-20-2019 06:41 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 08:47 AM)Shox Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 08:15 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 05:41 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 09:24 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Boise seems less sensitive to kickoff time inconveniences. They built their initial brand awareness on those awkward time slots and payed it off with BCS wins. It seems they value the exposure more than the fan convenience. Can’t blame em goven their history. It’s been a good payoff for them.

They have a metro market which really helps IMO.

Boise is the 80th market in the US with only 710,000 people. For comparison, Denver (CSU) is 15th with 3.5 mil and San Diego is 17th with 3.3 mil.

But yet Boise pulls in a significantly much larger audience when on national TV, eyeballs matter! BYU and Boise will pay their own way and won't be a an anchor on our media deal. Air Force Football only should be able to pay its own way like Navy. Taking Colorado State is important because it is the glue that binds the other three together. Unfortunately though, they come in as a net loss to the media deal and the only hope is that Boise and BYU bring enough $$$ that ESPN will sign off and take the risk on CSU. To come into the AAC, CSU should be required to replace their junk basketball arena within 10 years. If we're going to take a chance on them, they need to put their balls on the line as well. Eustachy proved a successful program can work there, and a top 50 basketball program will go a long ways in helping cover the risk of adding them.

I'd consider taking a pinch out of the media deal in the short run in exchange for driving a stake into the MWC.

We shouldn't have to take a "pinch"... If those additions don't bring more money from ESPN then we shouldn't make those additions.

(08-16-2019 01:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  This gets interesting, but let me give the bottom line up front: nope.
Ten Boise or BYU late night games, and only one got 1.078 viewers. One out of ten.

Here are BYU's rated home games, all of which are that late-night window (BYUtv game not rated and NIU-BYU on ESPNU at 3:30 pm given an n.a. on sportsmediawatch):

N.Mex State, 17 NOV, ESPN2 10:20pm, 295k viewers
Hawaii, 13 OCT, ESPN2 10:30pm, 646k viewers
Utah St 5 OCT (Friday), ESPN2 9pm, 617k viewers
Cal 8 SEP, ESPN2 10:15pm, 586k viewers

Here are the mwc rated home games in that late-night window. The only other games in the mwc inventory with ratings/viewer data are the ccg and one 269k viewer afternoon ESPNU game; another 10 games on ESPNU and 1 on ESPNEWS across afternoon, evening, and late night windows are listed as "n.a."

USU-Boise 10:45pm, ESPN, 1.078 million
Fres-Boise 10:20pm (Fri), ESPN, 819k
UNLS-SDSU 10:30pm, ESPN2, 415k
Haw-Fres 11pm, ESPN2, 197k
CSU-Boise 9pm (Fri), ESPN2, 420k
Wyo-Fres 10:30pm, ESPNU, 128k
AF -USU 10:20pm, ESPN2, 277k
Wyo-UNM 10pm (wk 0), ESPN2, 464k

There is one AAC game that is a reasonable comp to thosE: Memphis SMU was on a Friday at 9pm on ESPN2, drawing 623k. That's a pretty run of the mill AAC game, behind only three BYU/mwc late night games - only behind one on ESPN2 rather than ESPN.
Otherwise, AAC had all the following games reflecting our sellable inventory greater than the ALL the mwc/BYU late night games:
AAC Champ, 4pm ABC 3.321 million
UCF-USF, 4pm (black Fri) ESPN 1.741 million
Cin-UCF, 8pm ABC 3.124 million
ND Navy 8pm CBS 2.447 million
USF Houston 3:30 ABC 2.035 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
UCF-Memphis 3:30 ABC 2.990 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
USF-Tulsa 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.170 million
FAU-UCF 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.295 million
Arizona-Houston noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)
GT-USF noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)

Our Thurs/Fri primetime slate gets more viewers and therefore is worth more to ABC/ESPN than all the late night viewers of BYU and the whole mwc combined.

Wow! Tha American has so much potential. When comparing to the MWC, is this representative of just population or emphasis on college sports or advanced cord-cutting?

Who cares how strong the brand name of Boise State is? Georgia State, and the Atlanta market may be more valuable.

(08-20-2019 07:00 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 06:41 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 08:47 AM)Shox Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 08:15 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 05:41 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They have a metro market which really helps IMO.

Boise is the 80th market in the US with only 710,000 people. For comparison, Denver (CSU) is 15th with 3.5 mil and San Diego is 17th with 3.3 mil.

But yet Boise pulls in a significantly much larger audience when on national TV, eyeballs matter! BYU and Boise will pay their own way and won't be a an anchor on our media deal. Air Force Football only should be able to pay its own way like Navy. Taking Colorado State is important because it is the glue that binds the other three together. Unfortunately though, they come in as a net loss to the media deal and the only hope is that Boise and BYU bring enough $$$ that ESPN will sign off and take the risk on CSU. To come into the AAC, CSU should be required to replace their junk basketball arena within 10 years. If we're going to take a chance on them, they need to put their balls on the line as well. Eustachy proved a successful program can work there, and a top 50 basketball program will go a long ways in helping cover the risk of adding them.

I'd consider taking a pinch out of the media deal in the short run in exchange for driving a stake into the MWC.

We shouldn't have to take a "pinch"... If those additions don't bring more money from ESPN then we shouldn't make those additions.

We should consider any option that materially benefits the long term interests of the AAC. Think of the short term cost as an investment.

(08-18-2019 10:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So, there isnt going to be a 2, 3, or 4 fold jump in the value of the MW deal like there was with the undervalued AAC. My guess is the new deal represents a moderate raise over the current payout—probably in the 25-50% increase... the MWC will walk away with a 20-25 million dollar deal.

According to the MWC 2017 Form 990, they made $13.7M from TV.

So $20M would be a 50% increase. IMO they don't get $25M.

(08-20-2019 07:09 AM)chess Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 01:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  This gets interesting, but let me give the bottom line up front: nope.
Ten Boise or BYU late night games, and only one got 1.078 viewers. One out of ten.

Here are BYU's rated home games, all of which are that late-night window (BYUtv game not rated and NIU-BYU on ESPNU at 3:30 pm given an n.a. on sportsmediawatch):

N.Mex State, 17 NOV, ESPN2 10:20pm, 295k viewers
Hawaii, 13 OCT, ESPN2 10:30pm, 646k viewers
Utah St 5 OCT (Friday), ESPN2 9pm, 617k viewers
Cal 8 SEP, ESPN2 10:15pm, 586k viewers

Here are the mwc rated home games in that late-night window. The only other games in the mwc inventory with ratings/viewer data are the ccg and one 269k viewer afternoon ESPNU game; another 10 games on ESPNU and 1 on ESPNEWS across afternoon, evening, and late night windows are listed as "n.a."

USU-Boise 10:45pm, ESPN, 1.078 million
Fres-Boise 10:20pm (Fri), ESPN, 819k
UNLS-SDSU 10:30pm, ESPN2, 415k
Haw-Fres 11pm, ESPN2, 197k
CSU-Boise 9pm (Fri), ESPN2, 420k
Wyo-Fres 10:30pm, ESPNU, 128k
AF -USU 10:20pm, ESPN2, 277k
Wyo-UNM 10pm (wk 0), ESPN2, 464k

There is one AAC game that is a reasonable comp to thosE: Memphis SMU was on a Friday at 9pm on ESPN2, drawing 623k. That's a pretty run of the mill AAC game, behind only three BYU/mwc late night games - only behind one on ESPN2 rather than ESPN.
Otherwise, AAC had all the following games reflecting our sellable inventory greater than the ALL the mwc/BYU late night games:
AAC Champ, 4pm ABC 3.321 million
UCF-USF, 4pm (black Fri) ESPN 1.741 million
Cin-UCF, 8pm ABC 3.124 million
ND Navy 8pm CBS 2.447 million
USF Houston 3:30 ABC 2.035 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
UCF-Memphis 3:30 ABC 2.990 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
USF-Tulsa 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.170 million
FAU-UCF 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.295 million
Arizona-Houston noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)
GT-USF noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)

Our Thurs/Fri primetime slate gets more viewers and therefore is worth more to ABC/ESPN than all the late night viewers of BYU and the whole mwc combined.

Wow! Tha American has so much potential. When comparing to the MWC, is this representative of just population or emphasis on college sports or advanced cord-cutting?

Who cares how strong the brand name of Boise State is? Georgia State, and the Atlanta market may be more valuable.

Two things:

1) That Ga State poo is some CUSA logic. Yes, the campus sits right in the middle of Atlanta, but most people would walk right by it without noticing, and the games aren't on TV in that market.

2) On its face, the analysis above seems skewed. So we're comparing our primetime slots to the MWC late night slots? If anything, we should be comparing our noon games with their late-night stuff.

(08-20-2019 09:15 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 07:09 AM)chess Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 01:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  This gets interesting, but let me give the bottom line up front: nope.
Ten Boise or BYU late night games, and only one got 1.078 viewers. One out of ten.

Here are BYU's rated home games, all of which are that late-night window (BYUtv game not rated and NIU-BYU on ESPNU at 3:30 pm given an n.a. on sportsmediawatch):

N.Mex State, 17 NOV, ESPN2 10:20pm, 295k viewers
Hawaii, 13 OCT, ESPN2 10:30pm, 646k viewers
Utah St 5 OCT (Friday), ESPN2 9pm, 617k viewers
Cal 8 SEP, ESPN2 10:15pm, 586k viewers

Here are the mwc rated home games in that late-night window. The only other games in the mwc inventory with ratings/viewer data are the ccg and one 269k viewer afternoon ESPNU game; another 10 games on ESPNU and 1 on ESPNEWS across afternoon, evening, and late night windows are listed as "n.a."

USU-Boise 10:45pm, ESPN, 1.078 million
Fres-Boise 10:20pm (Fri), ESPN, 819k
UNLS-SDSU 10:30pm, ESPN2, 415k
Haw-Fres 11pm, ESPN2, 197k
CSU-Boise 9pm (Fri), ESPN2, 420k
Wyo-Fres 10:30pm, ESPNU, 128k
AF -USU 10:20pm, ESPN2, 277k
Wyo-UNM 10pm (wk 0), ESPN2, 464k

There is one AAC game that is a reasonable comp to thosE: Memphis SMU was on a Friday at 9pm on ESPN2, drawing 623k. That's a pretty run of the mill AAC game, behind only three BYU/mwc late night games - only behind one on ESPN2 rather than ESPN.
Otherwise, AAC had all the following games reflecting our sellable inventory greater than the ALL the mwc/BYU late night games:
AAC Champ, 4pm ABC 3.321 million
UCF-USF, 4pm (black Fri) ESPN 1.741 million
Cin-UCF, 8pm ABC 3.124 million
ND Navy 8pm CBS 2.447 million
USF Houston 3:30 ABC 2.035 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
UCF-Memphis 3:30 ABC 2.990 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
USF-Tulsa 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.170 million
FAU-UCF 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.295 million
Arizona-Houston noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)
GT-USF noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)

Our Thurs/Fri primetime slate gets more viewers and therefore is worth more to ABC/ESPN than all the late night viewers of BYU and the whole mwc combined.

Wow! Tha American has so much potential. When comparing to the MWC, is this representative of just population or emphasis on college sports or advanced cord-cutting?

Who cares how strong the brand name of Boise State is? Georgia State, and the Atlanta market may be more valuable.

Two things:

1) That Ga State poo is some CUSA logic. Yes, the campus sits right in the middle of Atlanta, but most people would walk right by it without noticing, and the games aren't on TV in that market.

2) On its face, the analysis above seems skewed. So we're comparing our primetime slots to the MWC late night slots? If anything, we should be comparing our noon games with their late-night stuff.

The viewership numbers are what they are. It doesn’t matter what the slots are—those late slots are where the MW value is and those late slots don’t attract that many viewers. Since those late slots will never attract much viewership, the networks simply can’t pay as much to fill those slots. In the end—it’s about the difference in viewership between running a MW game and a rerun of Sports Center or a rerun of the Bama game (options that cost ESPN nothing).

(08-19-2019 11:35 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 10:54 AM)rebar619 Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 06:32 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 07:27 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  I agree with this and if that were to happen I hope it would be SDSU, AF (MW), and BYU to bring the AAC to 14 football playing members. I not sure CSU would be a good fit in a conference called "AMERICAN".

If our options lie with CSU or SDSU we absolutely take San Diego State.

They just released renderings of their new OCS. SDSU is probably the one G5 outside the AAC primed for success. Destination location, recruiting, no more NFL competition in a pro city hungry for sports.

Any chance they released how they are going to pay for it?

The stadium, not the art, I'm assuming they gave an undergrad a $100 bookstore giftcard for the water colors pic.


SDSU's stadium is a pipe dream that is never happening. Cal State board has already done a study and told them the extra housing and classrooms that was suppose to make this feasible are excessive and they won't be paying for them. All they've done by "stealing" the stadium is get themselves a lot of court dates, got rid of paying rent, and probably killed the Holiday Bowl which is hemorrhaging money.

They're also on the Pacific Ocean.

CSU brings the Denver market and an already built stadium. They also have been able to sing some nice series and have Colorado locked in. CSU, AFA, and BYU make a nice little group with history and workable travel.

Boise ain't getting invited. SDSU is to far and has too many issues and like three good seasons in their entire history. UCF has as many 10 win seasons in the AAC as SDSU has in their history, maybe more.

I havent seen someone talk so much out of their ass in a long time. SDSU has two powerful members on the CSU board. The CSU board supported the project from jump. SDSU FB will be playing in the new stadium in 2022, opening it against Arizona. Book it. Dont even get me started on the research and housing that will be around the stadium. Suffice to say that you are off on quite a bit of your info.

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-...011917.pdf

Quote:New CSU Campus Not Warranted at This Time.
As with UC, our analysis indicates CSU has ample capacity to accommodate its projected enrollment growth of 15,000 additional students between now and 2024-25. If they used their existing facilities during the fall and spring terms according to legislative guidelines, they could accommodate an additional 31,000 students. If CSU campuses used their existing facilities during the summer term according to legislative guidelines, CSU could accommodate another 61,000 additional students. Such results indicate CSU has considerable existing capacity even without building out existing campuses to their planned capacities. Were CSU to begin adding new facilities according to those long-range plans, it could accommodate another 139,000 students. Between reaching current capacity and building out to planned capacity, CSU could serve a total of more than 200,000 additional students. Given the magnitude of these results, various assumptions could be changed (such as assuming higher demographically driven enrollment growth or expanding eligibility policies) and CSU still likely would have ample physical capacity. Even using a different set of regions does not dramatically alter these results (as discussed in the box on the next page).

Here's the conclusion:

Quote:CONCLUSION
Under current state policy, UC and CSU are projected to experience modest enrollment growth over the next decade. The state has many options to accommodate this growth at existing campuses, including by increasing the use of existing facilities and constructing new facilities. Because these options can accommodate all projected growth, we believe a new campus is not warranted at this time.

.

SDSU West is a fraud and a scam.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

Quote:But what happens if Measure G passes – is SDSU the dog that catches the car?

Right off the bat, the university expects to need $550 million to build a new stadium and begin preparing the land. SDSU officials have repeatedly promised they will not raise student tuition or fees, but they are uncertain or secretive about how exactly everything would play out.


The university remains coy or perhaps just uncertain about how and when it would actually transform the site.

In early 2016, SDSU’s chief financial officer, Tom McCarron, told a SoccerCity investor in an email that the university wouldn’t need student housing in the near future and wouldn’t want units in Mission Valley. In spring 2017, Bob Schulz, the university’s vice president for real estate assets, said the university would build a new football stadium soon but wouldn’t need the whole site for another 30-50 years, though he quickly walked back that statement.

Now, the university is talking with more clear and consistent urgency.

“The university has needs today – demand today for housing, demand today for research space,” Gina Jacobs, an SDSU assistant vice president, said in a recent interview.


The university plans to work with private partners to develop Mission Valley. These deals, known as public-private partnerships, shield universities from some risks and can help prop up a university’s bottom line. SDSU expects to get over $200,000 this year from a new dorm built this way by Alabama-based Capstone Development Partners.

“The university is behaving like a private buyer of this real estate,” Kratzer said.

Let's just say since this is all a matter of public record and California is known for legal entanglements, never mind the legitimacy of the proposition which the city has indicated they are still considering further legal action on. That the legislature sets the agenda and budget, I would say doesn't have half the chance never does.

Hate to tell you bud, but you are way behind the 8ball on this. What you are citing is dated information. To keep it simple, the LAO report you posted is based on academic space use from the 60's. This has already been worked out with the CSU Board. Regarding paying for the project, the stadium will be paid for with revenue bonds and the rest of the project will be done with P3 (private public partnerships). You are dragging up all of the same garbage that the Soccer City people did in the election last year and has been dispelled. The mayor was interviewed last night and said a purchase and sale agreement for SDSU to purchase the land will be done by the end of this year.

The new stadium will open in 2022 against Arizona. Book it.

(Sorry to hijack the thread everyone, my apologies)

(08-20-2019 10:43 AM)rebar619 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 11:35 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 10:54 AM)rebar619 Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 06:32 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  If our options lie with CSU or SDSU we absolutely take San Diego State.

They just released renderings of their new OCS. SDSU is probably the one G5 outside the AAC primed for success. Destination location, recruiting, no more NFL competition in a pro city hungry for sports.

Any chance they released how they are going to pay for it?

The stadium, not the art, I'm assuming they gave an undergrad a $100 bookstore giftcard for the water colors pic.


SDSU's stadium is a pipe dream that is never happening. Cal State board has already done a study and told them the extra housing and classrooms that was suppose to make this feasible are excessive and they won't be paying for them. All they've done by "stealing" the stadium is get themselves a lot of court dates, got rid of paying rent, and probably killed the Holiday Bowl which is hemorrhaging money.

They're also on the Pacific Ocean.

CSU brings the Denver market and an already built stadium. They also have been able to sing some nice series and have Colorado locked in. CSU, AFA, and BYU make a nice little group with history and workable travel.

Boise ain't getting invited. SDSU is to far and has too many issues and like three good seasons in their entire history. UCF has as many 10 win seasons in the AAC as SDSU has in their history, maybe more.

I havent seen someone talk so much out of their ass in a long time. SDSU has two powerful members on the CSU board. The CSU board supported the project from jump. SDSU FB will be playing in the new stadium in 2022, opening it against Arizona. Book it. Dont even get me started on the research and housing that will be around the stadium. Suffice to say that you are off on quite a bit of your info.

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-...011917.pdf

Quote:New CSU Campus Not Warranted at This Time.
As with UC, our analysis indicates CSU has ample capacity to accommodate its projected enrollment growth of 15,000 additional students between now and 2024-25. If they used their existing facilities during the fall and spring terms according to legislative guidelines, they could accommodate an additional 31,000 students. If CSU campuses used their existing facilities during the summer term according to legislative guidelines, CSU could accommodate another 61,000 additional students. Such results indicate CSU has considerable existing capacity even without building out existing campuses to their planned capacities. Were CSU to begin adding new facilities according to those long-range plans, it could accommodate another 139,000 students. Between reaching current capacity and building out to planned capacity, CSU could serve a total of more than 200,000 additional students. Given the magnitude of these results, various assumptions could be changed (such as assuming higher demographically driven enrollment growth or expanding eligibility policies) and CSU still likely would have ample physical capacity. Even using a different set of regions does not dramatically alter these results (as discussed in the box on the next page).

Here's the conclusion:

Quote:CONCLUSION
Under current state policy, UC and CSU are projected to experience modest enrollment growth over the next decade. The state has many options to accommodate this growth at existing campuses, including by increasing the use of existing facilities and constructing new facilities. Because these options can accommodate all projected growth, we believe a new campus is not warranted at this time.

.

SDSU West is a fraud and a scam.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

Quote:But what happens if Measure G passes – is SDSU the dog that catches the car?

Right off the bat, the university expects to need $550 million to build a new stadium and begin preparing the land. SDSU officials have repeatedly promised they will not raise student tuition or fees, but they are uncertain or secretive about how exactly everything would play out.


The university remains coy or perhaps just uncertain about how and when it would actually transform the site.

In early 2016, SDSU’s chief financial officer, Tom McCarron, told a SoccerCity investor in an email that the university wouldn’t need student housing in the near future and wouldn’t want units in Mission Valley. In spring 2017, Bob Schulz, the university’s vice president for real estate assets, said the university would build a new football stadium soon but wouldn’t need the whole site for another 30-50 years, though he quickly walked back that statement.

Now, the university is talking with more clear and consistent urgency.

“The university has needs today – demand today for housing, demand today for research space,” Gina Jacobs, an SDSU assistant vice president, said in a recent interview.


The university plans to work with private partners to develop Mission Valley. These deals, known as public-private partnerships, shield universities from some risks and can help prop up a university’s bottom line. SDSU expects to get over $200,000 this year from a new dorm built this way by Alabama-based Capstone Development Partners.

“The university is behaving like a private buyer of this real estate,” Kratzer said.

Let's just say since this is all a matter of public record and California is known for legal entanglements, never mind the legitimacy of the proposition which the city has indicated they are still considering further legal action on. That the legislature sets the agenda and budget, I would say doesn't have half the chance never does.

Hate to tell you bud, but you are way behind the 8ball on this. What you are citing is dated information. To keep it simple, the LAO report you posted is based on academic space use from the 60's. This has already been worked out with the CSU Board. Regarding paying for the project, the stadium will be paid for with revenue bonds and the rest of the project will be done with P3 (private public partnerships). You are dragging up all of the same garbage that the Soccer City people did in the election last year and has been dispelled. The mayor was interviewed last night and said a purchase and sale agreement for SDSU to purchase the land will be done by the end of this year.

The new stadium will open in 2022 against Arizona. Book it.

(Sorry to hijack the thread everyone, my apologies)

Unhunh....because you said so right? That study was done specifically based on the need for education. The state of california and in particular its university system has major budget issues right now (and for a while). The state legislature isn't approving a several 100m dollar project because SDSU wants a new stadium. Especially not with a study that clearly states it isn't needed. If you think that citizens aren't going to continue to challange this in court, well then you are living in a special kind of fantasy land.

Never mind the bonds and the private partnerships you don't have yet...

But hey I was just blowing smoke earlier and now it's this isn't true...all based on your say so.

Get some actual facts or get out. I'm well aware of the delusions of SDSU's football program. After Rocky struggles to get you to bowl eligible again the program will return to it's natural state. In 2022 we will be talking about how SDSU has plans for the stadium, how they had a couple good years in football and had an ok basketball program under Fisher.

(08-20-2019 08:25 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 07:00 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 06:41 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 08:47 AM)Shox Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 08:15 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  Boise is the 80th market in the US with only 710,000 people. For comparison, Denver (CSU) is 15th with 3.5 mil and San Diego is 17th with 3.3 mil.

But yet Boise pulls in a significantly much larger audience when on national TV, eyeballs matter! BYU and Boise will pay their own way and won't be a an anchor on our media deal. Air Force Football only should be able to pay its own way like Navy. Taking Colorado State is important because it is the glue that binds the other three together. Unfortunately though, they come in as a net loss to the media deal and the only hope is that Boise and BYU bring enough $$$ that ESPN will sign off and take the risk on CSU. To come into the AAC, CSU should be required to replace their junk basketball arena within 10 years. If we're going to take a chance on them, they need to put their balls on the line as well. Eustachy proved a successful program can work there, and a top 50 basketball program will go a long ways in helping cover the risk of adding them.

I'd consider taking a pinch out of the media deal in the short run in exchange for driving a stake into the MWC.

We shouldn't have to take a "pinch"... If those additions don't bring more money from ESPN then we shouldn't make those additions.

We should consider any option that materially benefits the long term interests of the AAC. Think of the short term cost as an investment.

Boise doesn't bring anything short-term or long-term. So obvious reasons are never getting an invite anyway, but their ratings definitely don't say we should add them.

(08-20-2019 11:03 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 10:43 AM)rebar619 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 11:35 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 10:54 AM)rebar619 Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Any chance they released how they are going to pay for it?

The stadium, not the art, I'm assuming they gave an undergrad a $100 bookstore giftcard for the water colors pic.


SDSU's stadium is a pipe dream that is never happening. Cal State board has already done a study and told them the extra housing and classrooms that was suppose to make this feasible are excessive and they won't be paying for them. All they've done by "stealing" the stadium is get themselves a lot of court dates, got rid of paying rent, and probably killed the Holiday Bowl which is hemorrhaging money.

They're also on the Pacific Ocean.

CSU brings the Denver market and an already built stadium. They also have been able to sing some nice series and have Colorado locked in. CSU, AFA, and BYU make a nice little group with history and workable travel.

Boise ain't getting invited. SDSU is to far and has too many issues and like three good seasons in their entire history. UCF has as many 10 win seasons in the AAC as SDSU has in their history, maybe more.

I havent seen someone talk so much out of their ass in a long time. SDSU has two powerful members on the CSU board. The CSU board supported the project from jump. SDSU FB will be playing in the new stadium in 2022, opening it against Arizona. Book it. Dont even get me started on the research and housing that will be around the stadium. Suffice to say that you are off on quite a bit of your info.

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-...011917.pdf

Quote:New CSU Campus Not Warranted at This Time.
As with UC, our analysis indicates CSU has ample capacity to accommodate its projected enrollment growth of 15,000 additional students between now and 2024-25. If they used their existing facilities during the fall and spring terms according to legislative guidelines, they could accommodate an additional 31,000 students. If CSU campuses used their existing facilities during the summer term according to legislative guidelines, CSU could accommodate another 61,000 additional students. Such results indicate CSU has considerable existing capacity even without building out existing campuses to their planned capacities. Were CSU to begin adding new facilities according to those long-range plans, it could accommodate another 139,000 students. Between reaching current capacity and building out to planned capacity, CSU could serve a total of more than 200,000 additional students. Given the magnitude of these results, various assumptions could be changed (such as assuming higher demographically driven enrollment growth or expanding eligibility policies) and CSU still likely would have ample physical capacity. Even using a different set of regions does not dramatically alter these results (as discussed in the box on the next page).

Here's the conclusion:

Quote:CONCLUSION
Under current state policy, UC and CSU are projected to experience modest enrollment growth over the next decade. The state has many options to accommodate this growth at existing campuses, including by increasing the use of existing facilities and constructing new facilities. Because these options can accommodate all projected growth, we believe a new campus is not warranted at this time.

.

SDSU West is a fraud and a scam.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

Quote:But what happens if Measure G passes – is SDSU the dog that catches the car?

Right off the bat, the university expects to need $550 million to build a new stadium and begin preparing the land. SDSU officials have repeatedly promised they will not raise student tuition or fees, but they are uncertain or secretive about how exactly everything would play out.


The university remains coy or perhaps just uncertain about how and when it would actually transform the site.

In early 2016, SDSU’s chief financial officer, Tom McCarron, told a SoccerCity investor in an email that the university wouldn’t need student housing in the near future and wouldn’t want units in Mission Valley. In spring 2017, Bob Schulz, the university’s vice president for real estate assets, said the university would build a new football stadium soon but wouldn’t need the whole site for another 30-50 years, though he quickly walked back that statement.

Now, the university is talking with more clear and consistent urgency.

“The university has needs today – demand today for housing, demand today for research space,” Gina Jacobs, an SDSU assistant vice president, said in a recent interview.


The university plans to work with private partners to develop Mission Valley. These deals, known as public-private partnerships, shield universities from some risks and can help prop up a university’s bottom line. SDSU expects to get over $200,000 this year from a new dorm built this way by Alabama-based Capstone Development Partners.

“The university is behaving like a private buyer of this real estate,” Kratzer said.

Let's just say since this is all a matter of public record and California is known for legal entanglements, never mind the legitimacy of the proposition which the city has indicated they are still considering further legal action on. That the legislature sets the agenda and budget, I would say doesn't have half the chance never does.

Hate to tell you bud, but you are way behind the 8ball on this. What you are citing is dated information. To keep it simple, the LAO report you posted is based on academic space use from the 60's. This has already been worked out with the CSU Board. Regarding paying for the project, the stadium will be paid for with revenue bonds and the rest of the project will be done with P3 (private public partnerships). You are dragging up all of the same garbage that the Soccer City people did in the election last year and has been dispelled. The mayor was interviewed last night and said a purchase and sale agreement for SDSU to purchase the land will be done by the end of this year.

The new stadium will open in 2022 against Arizona. Book it.

(Sorry to hijack the thread everyone, my apologies)

Unhunh....because you said so right? That study was done specifically based on the need for education. The state of california and in particular its university system has major budget issues right now (and for a while). The state legislature isn't approving a several 100m dollar project because SDSU wants a new stadium. Especially not with a study that clearly states it isn't needed. If you think that citizens aren't going to continue to challange this in court, well then you are living in a special kind of fantasy land.

Never mind the bonds and the private partnerships you don't have yet...

But hey I was just blowing smoke earlier and now it's this isn't true...all based on your say so.

Get some actual facts or get out. I'm well aware of the delusions of SDSU's football program. After Rocky struggles to get you to bowl eligible again the program will return to it's natural state. In 2022 we will be talking about how SDSU has plans for the stadium, how they had a couple good years in football and had an ok basketball program under Fisher.

Damn, someone has their panties in a bind. You sound to me like someone that has some issues. Show me on this doll where SDSU touched you...
You can cherry pick what dated information you want, thats fine. For those interested there is plenty out there that is counter what you are citing. Frankly I dont have the time to go back and rehash all of this, especially with someone that clearly has an agenda and will just deny anything I present to them.
For anyone that is interested this is a good place to start:
http://missionvalley.sdsu.edu/
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spo...renderings
For clarity on this last link, Measure G is the what voters approved in Nov 2018 for SDSU to purchase the land needed for campus expansion and a new stadium.
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/jul/25/sd...rsement-r/

Now, back to the fact the MWC media deal will be worth nothing...

SDSU in a pee wee league stadium is still way better than UCONN

(08-20-2019 09:15 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 07:09 AM)chess Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 01:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  This gets interesting, but let me give the bottom line up front: nope.
Ten Boise or BYU late night games, and only one got 1.078 viewers. One out of ten.

Here are BYU's rated home games, all of which are that late-night window (BYUtv game not rated and NIU-BYU on ESPNU at 3:30 pm given an n.a. on sportsmediawatch):

N.Mex State, 17 NOV, ESPN2 10:20pm, 295k viewers
Hawaii, 13 OCT, ESPN2 10:30pm, 646k viewers
Utah St 5 OCT (Friday), ESPN2 9pm, 617k viewers
Cal 8 SEP, ESPN2 10:15pm, 586k viewers

Here are the mwc rated home games in that late-night window. The only other games in the mwc inventory with ratings/viewer data are the ccg and one 269k viewer afternoon ESPNU game; another 10 games on ESPNU and 1 on ESPNEWS across afternoon, evening, and late night windows are listed as "n.a."

USU-Boise 10:45pm, ESPN, 1.078 million
Fres-Boise 10:20pm (Fri), ESPN, 819k
UNLS-SDSU 10:30pm, ESPN2, 415k
Haw-Fres 11pm, ESPN2, 197k
CSU-Boise 9pm (Fri), ESPN2, 420k
Wyo-Fres 10:30pm, ESPNU, 128k
AF -USU 10:20pm, ESPN2, 277k
Wyo-UNM 10pm (wk 0), ESPN2, 464k

There is one AAC game that is a reasonable comp to thosE: Memphis SMU was on a Friday at 9pm on ESPN2, drawing 623k. That's a pretty run of the mill AAC game, behind only three BYU/mwc late night games - only behind one on ESPN2 rather than ESPN.
Otherwise, AAC had all the following games reflecting our sellable inventory greater than the ALL the mwc/BYU late night games:
AAC Champ, 4pm ABC 3.321 million
UCF-USF, 4pm (black Fri) ESPN 1.741 million
Cin-UCF, 8pm ABC 3.124 million
ND Navy 8pm CBS 2.447 million
USF Houston 3:30 ABC 2.035 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
UCF-Memphis 3:30 ABC 2.990 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
USF-Tulsa 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.170 million
FAU-UCF 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.295 million
Arizona-Houston noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)
GT-USF noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)

Our Thurs/Fri primetime slate gets more viewers and therefore is worth more to ABC/ESPN than all the late night viewers of BYU and the whole mwc combined.

Wow! Tha American has so much potential. When comparing to the MWC, is this representative of just population or emphasis on college sports or advanced cord-cutting?

Who cares how strong the brand name of Boise State is? Georgia State, and the Atlanta market may be more valuable.

Two things:

1) That Ga State poo is some CUSA logic. Yes, the campus sits right in the middle of Atlanta, but most people would walk right by it without noticing, and the games aren't on TV in that market.

2) On its face, the analysis above seems skewed. So we're comparing our primetime slots to the MWC late night slots? If anything, we should be comparing our noon games with their late-night stuff.

not entirely true... 10 pm et is 8 pm MT (Local Prime Time), good comparison,,, I think that there is very little interest in most MW games... BSU, USU, AF, and SDSU have a football following and maybe a few others from time to time... Another 3-4 with good basketball following and the rest is dead weight... $15-20 MM max.. and only two teams worth inviting IF BYU comes... Otherwise a full member from Texas or east of the Mississippi.

(08-20-2019 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 09:15 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 07:09 AM)chess Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 01:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  This gets interesting, but let me give the bottom line up front: nope.
Ten Boise or BYU late night games, and only one got 1.078 viewers. One out of ten.

Here are BYU's rated home games, all of which are that late-night window (BYUtv game not rated and NIU-BYU on ESPNU at 3:30 pm given an n.a. on sportsmediawatch):

N.Mex State, 17 NOV, ESPN2 10:20pm, 295k viewers
Hawaii, 13 OCT, ESPN2 10:30pm, 646k viewers
Utah St 5 OCT (Friday), ESPN2 9pm, 617k viewers
Cal 8 SEP, ESPN2 10:15pm, 586k viewers

Here are the mwc rated home games in that late-night window. The only other games in the mwc inventory with ratings/viewer data are the ccg and one 269k viewer afternoon ESPNU game; another 10 games on ESPNU and 1 on ESPNEWS across afternoon, evening, and late night windows are listed as "n.a."

USU-Boise 10:45pm, ESPN, 1.078 million
Fres-Boise 10:20pm (Fri), ESPN, 819k
UNLS-SDSU 10:30pm, ESPN2, 415k
Haw-Fres 11pm, ESPN2, 197k
CSU-Boise 9pm (Fri), ESPN2, 420k
Wyo-Fres 10:30pm, ESPNU, 128k
AF -USU 10:20pm, ESPN2, 277k
Wyo-UNM 10pm (wk 0), ESPN2, 464k

There is one AAC game that is a reasonable comp to thosE: Memphis SMU was on a Friday at 9pm on ESPN2, drawing 623k. That's a pretty run of the mill AAC game, behind only three BYU/mwc late night games - only behind one on ESPN2 rather than ESPN.
Otherwise, AAC had all the following games reflecting our sellable inventory greater than the ALL the mwc/BYU late night games:
AAC Champ, 4pm ABC 3.321 million
UCF-USF, 4pm (black Fri) ESPN 1.741 million
Cin-UCF, 8pm ABC 3.124 million
ND Navy 8pm CBS 2.447 million
USF Houston 3:30 ABC 2.035 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
UCF-Memphis 3:30 ABC 2.990 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
USF-Tulsa 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.170 million
FAU-UCF 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.295 million
Arizona-Houston noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)
GT-USF noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)

Our Thurs/Fri primetime slate gets more viewers and therefore is worth more to ABC/ESPN than all the late night viewers of BYU and the whole mwc combined.

Wow! Tha American has so much potential. When comparing to the MWC, is this representative of just population or emphasis on college sports or advanced cord-cutting?

Who cares how strong the brand name of Boise State is? Georgia State, and the Atlanta market may be more valuable.

Two things:

1) That Ga State poo is some CUSA logic. Yes, the campus sits right in the middle of Atlanta, but most people would walk right by it without noticing, and the games aren't on TV in that market.

2) On its face, the analysis above seems skewed. So we're comparing our primetime slots to the MWC late night slots? If anything, we should be comparing our noon games with their late-night stuff.

The viewership numbers are what they are. It doesn’t matter what the slots are—those late slots are where the MW value is and those late slots don’t attract that many viewers. Since those late slots will never attract much viewership, the networks simply can’t pay as much to fill those slots. In the end—it’s about the difference in viewership between running a MW game and a rerun of Sports Center or a rerun of the Bama game (options that cost ESPN nothing).

Live events do far better than studio shows or replays. That’s why they shove things like drag racing on late nights when they have no more inventory of sports people closely follow.

The MWC contract is Boise and the ten dwarves (Hawaii has their own regional tv deal) so I don’t for a second expect them to come close to AAC television pay. They should get an inflation bump though.

I expect a jump from BYU once the new deal is done though but we won’t know what they are getting until the post-announcement rumors start up much like we get the rumored numbers for ND or any conference.

(08-20-2019 11:08 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 08:25 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 07:00 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 06:41 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 08:47 AM)Shox Wrote:  But yet Boise pulls in a significantly much larger audience when on national TV, eyeballs matter! BYU and Boise will pay their own way and won't be a an anchor on our media deal. Air Force Football only should be able to pay its own way like Navy. Taking Colorado State is important because it is the glue that binds the other three together. Unfortunately though, they come in as a net loss to the media deal and the only hope is that Boise and BYU bring enough $$$ that ESPN will sign off and take the risk on CSU. To come into the AAC, CSU should be required to replace their junk basketball arena within 10 years. If we're going to take a chance on them, they need to put their balls on the line as well. Eustachy proved a successful program can work there, and a top 50 basketball program will go a long ways in helping cover the risk of adding them.

I'd consider taking a pinch out of the media deal in the short run in exchange for driving a stake into the MWC.

We shouldn't have to take a "pinch"... If those additions don't bring more money from ESPN then we shouldn't make those additions.

We should consider any option that materially benefits the long term interests of the AAC. Think of the short term cost as an investment.

Boise doesn't bring anything short-term or long-term. So obvious reasons are never getting an invite anyway, but their ratings definitely don't say we should add them.

I am not privy to relevant information (e.g., money offered by ESPN) for any of the MWC teams. However, eliminating the MWC potential threat has value and determining and weighing that value for the long term while factoring costs is a worthy exercise.

(08-20-2019 01:09 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 11:08 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 08:25 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 07:00 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 06:41 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I'd consider taking a pinch out of the media deal in the short run in exchange for driving a stake into the MWC.

We shouldn't have to take a "pinch"... If those additions don't bring more money from ESPN then we shouldn't make those additions.

We should consider any option that materially benefits the long term interests of the AAC. Think of the short term cost as an investment.

Boise doesn't bring anything short-term or long-term. So obvious reasons are never getting an invite anyway, but their ratings definitely don't say we should add them.

I am not privy to relevant information (e.g., money offered by ESPN) for any of the MWC teams. However, eliminating the MWC potential threat has value and determining and weighing that value for the long term while factoring costs is a worthy exercise.

How exactly are they a threat any more than the MAC or CUSA? The MAC has had two BCS/NY6 teams since 2012 and the MWC has had the same.

I don’t think they pose any real raiding threat as their time slots, media markets, and brands outside of Boise State don’t make for much appeal for the Western AAC teams. This isn’t the 2005-2011 MWC where TCU, BYU, and either Boise/Utah are drawing national respect as a top third of that league. Now it needs Fresno, SDSU, USU, etc and it’s not nearly as known.

To the extent any real threat exists I don’t think the risk/reward is even remotely close to warranting reducing payout to kneecap their threat.

(08-20-2019 12:09 PM)rebar619 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 11:03 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 10:43 AM)rebar619 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 11:35 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 10:54 AM)rebar619 Wrote:  I havent seen someone talk so much out of their ass in a long time. SDSU has two powerful members on the CSU board. The CSU board supported the project from jump. SDSU FB will be playing in the new stadium in 2022, opening it against Arizona. Book it. Dont even get me started on the research and housing that will be around the stadium. Suffice to say that you are off on quite a bit of your info.

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-...011917.pdf

Quote:New CSU Campus Not Warranted at This Time.
As with UC, our analysis indicates CSU has ample capacity to accommodate its projected enrollment growth of 15,000 additional students between now and 2024-25. If they used their existing facilities during the fall and spring terms according to legislative guidelines, they could accommodate an additional 31,000 students. If CSU campuses used their existing facilities during the summer term according to legislative guidelines, CSU could accommodate another 61,000 additional students. Such results indicate CSU has considerable existing capacity even without building out existing campuses to their planned capacities. Were CSU to begin adding new facilities according to those long-range plans, it could accommodate another 139,000 students. Between reaching current capacity and building out to planned capacity, CSU could serve a total of more than 200,000 additional students. Given the magnitude of these results, various assumptions could be changed (such as assuming higher demographically driven enrollment growth or expanding eligibility policies) and CSU still likely would have ample physical capacity. Even using a different set of regions does not dramatically alter these results (as discussed in the box on the next page).

Here's the conclusion:

Quote:CONCLUSION
Under current state policy, UC and CSU are projected to experience modest enrollment growth over the next decade. The state has many options to accommodate this growth at existing campuses, including by increasing the use of existing facilities and constructing new facilities. Because these options can accommodate all projected growth, we believe a new campus is not warranted at this time.

.

SDSU West is a fraud and a scam.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

Quote:But what happens if Measure G passes – is SDSU the dog that catches the car?

Right off the bat, the university expects to need $550 million to build a new stadium and begin preparing the land. SDSU officials have repeatedly promised they will not raise student tuition or fees, but they are uncertain or secretive about how exactly everything would play out.


The university remains coy or perhaps just uncertain about how and when it would actually transform the site.

In early 2016, SDSU’s chief financial officer, Tom McCarron, told a SoccerCity investor in an email that the university wouldn’t need student housing in the near future and wouldn’t want units in Mission Valley. In spring 2017, Bob Schulz, the university’s vice president for real estate assets, said the university would build a new football stadium soon but wouldn’t need the whole site for another 30-50 years, though he quickly walked back that statement.

Now, the university is talking with more clear and consistent urgency.

“The university has needs today – demand today for housing, demand today for research space,” Gina Jacobs, an SDSU assistant vice president, said in a recent interview.


The university plans to work with private partners to develop Mission Valley. These deals, known as public-private partnerships, shield universities from some risks and can help prop up a university’s bottom line. SDSU expects to get over $200,000 this year from a new dorm built this way by Alabama-based Capstone Development Partners.

“The university is behaving like a private buyer of this real estate,” Kratzer said.

Let's just say since this is all a matter of public record and California is known for legal entanglements, never mind the legitimacy of the proposition which the city has indicated they are still considering further legal action on. That the legislature sets the agenda and budget, I would say doesn't have half the chance never does.

Hate to tell you bud, but you are way behind the 8ball on this. What you are citing is dated information. To keep it simple, the LAO report you posted is based on academic space use from the 60's. This has already been worked out with the CSU Board. Regarding paying for the project, the stadium will be paid for with revenue bonds and the rest of the project will be done with P3 (private public partnerships). You are dragging up all of the same garbage that the Soccer City people did in the election last year and has been dispelled. The mayor was interviewed last night and said a purchase and sale agreement for SDSU to purchase the land will be done by the end of this year.

The new stadium will open in 2022 against Arizona. Book it.

(Sorry to hijack the thread everyone, my apologies)

Unhunh....because you said so right? That study was done specifically based on the need for education. The state of california and in particular its university system has major budget issues right now (and for a while). The state legislature isn't approving a several 100m dollar project because SDSU wants a new stadium. Especially not with a study that clearly states it isn't needed. If you think that citizens aren't going to continue to challange this in court, well then you are living in a special kind of fantasy land.

Never mind the bonds and the private partnerships you don't have yet...

But hey I was just blowing smoke earlier and now it's this isn't true...all based on your say so.

Get some actual facts or get out. I'm well aware of the delusions of SDSU's football program. After Rocky struggles to get you to bowl eligible again the program will return to it's natural state. In 2022 we will be talking about how SDSU has plans for the stadium, how they had a couple good years in football and had an ok basketball program under Fisher.

Damn, someone has their panties in a bind. You sound to me like someone that has some issues. Show me on this doll where SDSU touched you...
You can cherry pick what dated information you want, thats fine. For those interested there is plenty out there that is counter what you are citing. Frankly I dont have the time to go back and rehash all of this, especially with someone that clearly has an agenda and will just deny anything I present to them.
For anyone that is interested this is a good place to start:
http://missionvalley.sdsu.edu/
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spo...renderings
For clarity on this last link, Measure G is the what voters approved in Nov 2018 for SDSU to purchase the land needed for campus expansion and a new stadium.
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/jul/25/sd...rsement-r/

Now, back to the fact the MWC media deal will be worth nothing...

Lol so SDSU's personal website and water colors?

Let me know how that works out when the legislature writes the state budget. Again the state of California isn't spending 100s of millions on a new football stadium because SDSU wants it.

It's not even a good pipedream but those renderings make it real, right?

(08-20-2019 01:14 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 01:09 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 11:08 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 08:25 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 07:00 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  We shouldn't have to take a "pinch"... If those additions don't bring more money from ESPN then we shouldn't make those additions.

We should consider any option that materially benefits the long term interests of the AAC. Think of the short term cost as an investment.

Boise doesn't bring anything short-term or long-term. So obvious reasons are never getting an invite anyway, but their ratings definitely don't say we should add them.

I am not privy to relevant information (e.g., money offered by ESPN) for any of the MWC teams. However, eliminating the MWC potential threat has value and determining and weighing that value for the long term while factoring costs is a worthy exercise.

How exactly are they a threat any more than the MAC or CUSA? The MAC has had two BCS/NY6 teams since 2012 and the MWC has had the same.

I don’t think they pose any real raiding threat as their time slots, media markets, and brands outside of Boise State don’t make for much appeal for the Western AAC teams. This isn’t the 2005-2011 MWC where TCU, BYU, and either Boise/Utah are drawing national respect as a top third of that league. Now it needs Fresno, SDSU, USU, etc and it’s not nearly as known.

To the extent any real threat exists I don’t think the risk/reward is even remotely close to warranting reducing payout to kneecap their threat.

If BSU, BYU, and AF/VCU were to join the AAC, it doesn't matter what CUSA or MWC has done in the past. The AAC champion you need to lose 2-3 times to be taken after the MWC or CUSA champ. Essentially the AAC would own the NY6 bowl (and its payout) 4 out of every 5 years. There is some real monetary value to that.

(08-20-2019 01:07 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 09:15 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 07:09 AM)chess Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 01:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  This gets interesting, but let me give the bottom line up front: nope.
Ten Boise or BYU late night games, and only one got 1.078 viewers. One out of ten.

Here are BYU's rated home games, all of which are that late-night window (BYUtv game not rated and NIU-BYU on ESPNU at 3:30 pm given an n.a. on sportsmediawatch):

N.Mex State, 17 NOV, ESPN2 10:20pm, 295k viewers
Hawaii, 13 OCT, ESPN2 10:30pm, 646k viewers
Utah St 5 OCT (Friday), ESPN2 9pm, 617k viewers
Cal 8 SEP, ESPN2 10:15pm, 586k viewers

Here are the mwc rated home games in that late-night window. The only other games in the mwc inventory with ratings/viewer data are the ccg and one 269k viewer afternoon ESPNU game; another 10 games on ESPNU and 1 on ESPNEWS across afternoon, evening, and late night windows are listed as "n.a."

USU-Boise 10:45pm, ESPN, 1.078 million
Fres-Boise 10:20pm (Fri), ESPN, 819k
UNLS-SDSU 10:30pm, ESPN2, 415k
Haw-Fres 11pm, ESPN2, 197k
CSU-Boise 9pm (Fri), ESPN2, 420k
Wyo-Fres 10:30pm, ESPNU, 128k
AF -USU 10:20pm, ESPN2, 277k
Wyo-UNM 10pm (wk 0), ESPN2, 464k

There is one AAC game that is a reasonable comp to thosE: Memphis SMU was on a Friday at 9pm on ESPN2, drawing 623k. That's a pretty run of the mill AAC game, behind only three BYU/mwc late night games - only behind one on ESPN2 rather than ESPN.
Otherwise, AAC had all the following games reflecting our sellable inventory greater than the ALL the mwc/BYU late night games:
AAC Champ, 4pm ABC 3.321 million
UCF-USF, 4pm (black Fri) ESPN 1.741 million
Cin-UCF, 8pm ABC 3.124 million
ND Navy 8pm CBS 2.447 million
USF Houston 3:30 ABC 2.035 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
UCF-Memphis 3:30 ABC 2.990 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup)
USF-Tulsa 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.170 million
FAU-UCF 7pm (Fri) ESPN 1.295 million
Arizona-Houston noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)
GT-USF noon ABC 2.539 million (ABC-ESPN2 mirror setup vs other AAC game)

Our Thurs/Fri primetime slate gets more viewers and therefore is worth more to ABC/ESPN than all the late night viewers of BYU and the whole mwc combined.

Wow! Tha American has so much potential. When comparing to the MWC, is this representative of just population or emphasis on college sports or advanced cord-cutting?

Who cares how strong the brand name of Boise State is? Georgia State, and the Atlanta market may be more valuable.

Two things:

1) That Ga State poo is some CUSA logic. Yes, the campus sits right in the middle of Atlanta, but most people would walk right by it without noticing, and the games aren't on TV in that market.

2) On its face, the analysis above seems skewed. So we're comparing our primetime slots to the MWC late night slots? If anything, we should be comparing our noon games with their late-night stuff.

The viewership numbers are what they are. It doesn’t matter what the slots are—those late slots are where the MW value is and those late slots don’t attract that many viewers. Since those late slots will never attract much viewership, the networks simply can’t pay as much to fill those slots. In the end—it’s about the difference in viewership between running a MW game and a rerun of Sports Center or a rerun of the Bama game (options that cost ESPN nothing).

Live events do far better than studio shows or replays. That’s why they shove things like drag racing on late nights when they have no more inventory of sports people closely follow.

The MWC contract is Boise and the ten dwarves (Hawaii has their own regional tv deal) so I don’t for a second expect them to come close to AAC television pay. They should get an inflation bump though.

I expect a jump from BYU once the new deal is done though but we won’t know what they are getting until the post-announcement rumors start up much like we get the rumored numbers for ND or any conference.

Programming and ratings say otherwise, sportscenters get ratings as good as BYU and Boise late games.

ND and BYU are private entities, we get the numbers on conferences from the public institutions and FOIA requests. BYU's deal won't be a bump, it will be the same deal and the pay will depend on channel and opponent for each game. So 2021 should see an increase because of the opponents improvement. But they are already being paid a premium there won't be a bump.

(08-20-2019 02:35 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 01:07 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 09:15 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 07:09 AM)chess Wrote:  Wow! Tha American has so much potential. When comparing to the MWC, is this representative of just population or emphasis on college sports or advanced cord-cutting?

Who cares how strong the brand name of Boise State is? Georgia State, and the Atlanta market may be more valuable.

Two things:

1) That Ga State poo is some CUSA logic. Yes, the campus sits right in the middle of Atlanta, but most people would walk right by it without noticing, and the games aren't on TV in that market.

2) On its face, the analysis above seems skewed. So we're comparing our primetime slots to the MWC late night slots? If anything, we should be comparing our noon games with their late-night stuff.

The viewership numbers are what they are. It doesn’t matter what the slots are—those late slots are where the MW value is and those late slots don’t attract that many viewers. Since those late slots will never attract much viewership, the networks simply can’t pay as much to fill those slots. In the end—it’s about the difference in viewership between running a MW game and a rerun of Sports Center or a rerun of the Bama game (options that cost ESPN nothing).

Live events do far better than studio shows or replays. That’s why they shove things like drag racing on late nights when they have no more inventory of sports people closely follow.[/b]

The MWC contract is Boise and the ten dwarves (Hawaii has their own regional tv deal) so I don’t for a second expect them to come close to AAC television pay. They should get an inflation bump though.

I expect a jump from BYU once the new deal is done though but we won’t know what they are getting until the post-announcement rumors start up much like we get the rumored numbers for ND or any conference.

Programming and ratings say otherwise, sportscenters get ratings as good as BYU and Boise late games.

Prime time sportcenter probably does. What about comparable windows? That’s where you likely see a much bigger divide and they vote with their pocketbook since they pay fees for those games.

Quote:ND and BYU are private entities, we get the numbers on conferences from the public institutions and FOIA requests.

And people know roughly ND’s number because people leak. Same thing likely here

Quote:BYU's deal won't be a bump, it will be the same deal and the pay will depend on channel and opponent for each game. So 2021 should see an increase because of the opponents improvement. But they are already being paid a premium there won't be a bump.

1- The structure of variable pay based on which ESPN/abc channels pick up games is likely to remain

2- Your idea that the price they get for each type of appearance won’t get even a simple inflation adjustment flies in the face of the way 90+% of these contracts tend to be handled unless it’s a league with no draw. I’ll believe it when I see it in their case.

3- I still don’t see any link to a quote from Holmoe saying the pay was going to remain the same. Vaguely alluding to something isn’t citing a source- it’s asking someone to take your word for it.

4- Paying a Premium already on a contract from 2011? Lol

I could see that describing the first few seasons of independent status but now they get 2-3 P5’s, Boise, and the top of the MWC/AAC every year and a very manageable minimum broadcast number. That’s probably a fair value given it’s one solid Fanbase and a decent tv slate with flexible tv window mobility.

(08-20-2019 02:33 PM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 01:14 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 01:09 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 11:08 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 08:25 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  We should consider any option that materially benefits the long term interests of the AAC. Think of the short term cost as an investment.

Boise doesn't bring anything short-term or long-term. So obvious reasons are never getting an invite anyway, but their ratings definitely don't say we should add them.

I am not privy to relevant information (e.g., money offered by ESPN) for any of the MWC teams. However, eliminating the MWC potential threat has value and determining and weighing that value for the long term while factoring costs is a worthy exercise.

How exactly are they a threat any more than the MAC or CUSA? The MAC has had two BCS/NY6 teams since 2012 and the MWC has had the same.

I don’t think they pose any real raiding threat as their time slots, media markets, and brands outside of Boise State don’t make for much appeal for the Western AAC teams. This isn’t the 2005-2011 MWC where TCU, BYU, and either Boise/Utah are drawing national respect as a top third of that league. Now it needs Fresno, SDSU, USU, etc and it’s not nearly as known.

To the extent any real threat exists I don’t think the risk/reward is even remotely close to warranting reducing payout to kneecap their threat.

If BSU, BYU, and AF/VCU were to join the AAC, it doesn't matter what CUSA or MWC has done in the past. The AAC champion you need to lose 2-3 times to be taken after the MWC or CUSA champ. Essentially the AAC would own the NY6 bowl (and its payout) 4 out of every 5 years. There is some real monetary value to that.

Counterpoint-
A:

2016 saw the AAC beat itself up-

UH taken down by Navy & SMU

Memphis finished off Temple who lost twice prior

Temple gave USF their second loss

UH and Navy took out Tulsa


And it walks an unbeaten from a noticeably weaker G5 MAC. Raiding the MWC doesn’t prevent this and might make it a little more likely.

Counterpoint
B:

The AAC has had the NY6 bid 3 of the 5 years and had UH beaten SMU and Navy 2016 or had two teams in 2014 not been twice beaten in noncon the AAC probably takes those spot.

Raiding doesn’t change this setup IMO.


I think if the money works go Raid em, else don’t. Your odds of owning the NY6 maybe slightly improve and therefore shouldn’t be the driving factor.