(08-20-2019 02:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(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:  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.

You enjoy taking beatings? I would think that after Slhnavy dropped the hammer on you once with the ratings numbers I told you how to find you would at least be more cautious.

BYU's premium is structured in the contract, they get paid less for crap games and more when they host good teams. The contract isn't an average for each game over a certian amount of years it is an accumulative pay for all games in that particular year. Each game is independently valued based on opponent and television channel/time slot. It is not what you think of as a standard contract.

Think of it this way, the conference contracts you are use to are actually salaried employees. BYU is an independent contractor/flat rate worker, they get paid based on the job done and its expected value. The total of their paid for work is what they earn annually from their media deal which is why it can range, why inflation is irrelevant (they are paying for it now), and why it is already at a premium.

Further you made a logical mistake because some conferences have seen their media money go down not up and the MWC itself seems unlikely to get an increase worthy of the inflation rate since its last contract.

But carry on. Also at this point it's pretty obvious you need to do basic research and quit asking people to force feed you stuff.

Use the forum search option on here and look up media contract. There are pages and pages of discussions about all of this, ratings, who is getting paid what, how it works, what other similar live events (wwe and Ufc most often but others as well) get, how chord cutting and market pressures are affecting the money, etc. Lots of links and sources for you in those threads.

(08-20-2019 03:03 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(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:  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.

BYU's premium is structured in the contract, they get paid less for crap games and more when they host good teams.

When you say they were already paid a premium that phrase can be construed to mean payed above market. I don’t believe that is the case.

Quote:The contract isn't an average for each game over a certian amount of years it is an accumulative pay for all games in that particular year. Each game is independently valued based on opponent and television channel/time slot. It is not what you think of as a standard contract.

I never said it was a standard contract. I’ve been pretty clear on that. They get paid differently for each game. Whether it’s tied to network picking up each game and whether it’s more about the specific opponent is left unclear from published reports.

All we’re officially told from a long time ago:

“Financial terms of the BYU-ESPN deal were not released, but estimates put it anywhere between $800,000 and $1.2 million per home game.”

Whether that was a sliding scale for Early contract pay per game to late contract years or whether that’s flat for every year is also left unclear from published reports.

Quote:Further you made a logical mistake because some conferences have seen their media money go down not up and the MWC itself seems unlikely to get an increase worthy of the inflation rate since its last contract.

The MWC isn’t a big draw. I qualified what I said based on what kind of draw the tv programming offered is. The MAC and Sun Belt don’t get any real spikes but the AAC did because they were a draw just as I expected. Much in the same way P5 leagues get adjustments like that. Given BYU’s Fanbase and their unique positioning to prop up late time slots should ESPN lose the P12 rights in a few years I would think they are on the AAC side of that equation.

Quote:But carry on. Also at this point it's pretty obvious you need to do basic research and quit asking people to force feed you stuff.

Use the forum search option on here and look up media contract. There are pages and pages of discussions about all of this, ratings, who is getting paid what, how it works, what other similar live events (wwe and Ufc most often but others as well) get, how chord cutting and market pressures are affecting the money, etc. Lots of links and sources for you in those threads.

So you still can’t bring yourself to find ONE article where Holmoe was saying the pay would be the same?

You can’t find ONE to back up your earlier claim?

Until you do there is no reason to assume a tv contract that payed more than the old AAC deal amount per school wouldn’t at least get an inflation bump.

Example: Old contract had a big matchup at 1.2M per game. New is 1.2 multiplied by whatever inflation adjustment they have. Technically the same kind of deal but the financials are a bit bigger.

(08-20-2019 03:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 03:03 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

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

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

BYU's premium is structured in the contract, they get paid less for crap games and more when they host good teams.

When you say they were already paid a premium that phrase can be construed to mean payed above market. I don’t believe that is the case.

Quote:The contract isn't an average for each game over a certian amount of years it is an accumulative pay for all games in that particular year. Each game is independently valued based on opponent and television channel/time slot. It is not what you think of as a standard contract.

I never said it was a standard contract. I’ve been pretty clear on that. They get paid differently for each game. Whether it’s tied to network picking up each game and whether it’s more about the specific opponent is left unclear from published reports.

All we’re officially told from a long time ago:

“Financial terms of the BYU-ESPN deal were not released, but estimates put it anywhere between $800,000 and $1.2 million per home game.”

Whether that was a sliding scale for Early contract pay per game to late contract years or whether that’s flat for every year is also left unclear from published reports.

Quote:Further you made a logical mistake because some conferences have seen their media money go down not up and the MWC itself seems unlikely to get an increase worthy of the inflation rate since its last contract.

The MWC isn’t a big draw. I qualified what I said based on what kind of draw the tv programming offered is. The MAC and Sun Belt don’t get any real spikes but the AAC did because they were a draw just as I expected. Much in the same way P5 leagues get adjustments like that. Given BYU’s Fanbase and their unique positioning to prop up late time slots should ESPN lose the P12 rights in a few years I would think they are on the AAC side of that equation.

Look at the ratings numbers BYU isn't any better than the MWC, both will be lucky to keep the same rate, although in BYU's case that rate is baked in by opponent, not by BYU, meaning ESPN bases the value of BYU on who they are playing, which is another reason why they could increase their pay by joining the AAC.

Quote:But carry on. Also at this point it's pretty obvious you need to do basic research and quit asking people to force feed you stuff.

Use the forum search option on here and look up media contract. There are pages and pages of discussions about all of this, ratings, who is getting paid what, how it works, what other similar live events (wwe and Ufc most often but others as well) get, how chord cutting and market pressures are affecting the money, etc. Lots of links and sources for you in those threads.

So you still can’t bring yourself to find ONE article where Holmoe was saying the pay would be the same?

You can’t find ONE to back up your earlier claim?

Until you do there is no reason to assume a tv contract that payed more than the old AAC deal amount per school wouldn’t at least get an inflation bump.

Example: Old contract had a big matchup at 1.2M per game. New is 1.2 multiplied by whatever inflation adjustment they have. Technically the same kind of deal but the financials are a bit bigger.

No, what I am saying is you have been proven wrong repeatedly in this thread. Multiple times we have provided sources for you showing you are wrong. Multiple times now I have directed you to search this forum and read through repeated threads that discuss this ad nauseam with article references. It's like when a 3 year old keeps asking about dinosaurs and you don't want to take the time to keep educating them so you give them an encyclopedia of dinosaurs.

Go do the research, I'm not holding your hand after simple well known facts on the board have been repeatedly sourced and proven to you. Just go read the threads that have the info and citations in them so the rest of us can speculate on the future.

Also the BYU media contract is done per the BYU AD and the Dessert paper and SLC have a lot more info, the last year was reportedly just over 4 million which works out to about 700k a game, which is just another point that inflation isn't in the contract.

(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.

My main intention was to show the BYU, Boise, mwc viewership numbers to shoot down a couple of pieces of "conventional wisdom" that are actually wrong.
"BYU would be worth a bajillion dollars to us!" No, look at their viewers - they're worth what ESPN has been paying them. Those viewers are 7.77% of the AAC's, and their reported $4.5M-$6M ESPN contract would be 5.4%-7.2% of AAC's ESPN contract.

"Boise or BYU will automatically get a million viewers late night," was right in this thread. Nope, one out of 10 BYU/Boise games got that. (That was one driver of including the multiple games that weren't apples-to-apples: we get a million routinely, every team in the AAC.)

"Those late-night windows are unique/valuable, and don't compete with the SEC/BIG/ACC, so BYU/mwc gonna get paid tons." Remember, there were mwc honks predicting that the AAC would take a paycut because we didn't have those valuable late-night windows. Meanwhile Aresco kept saying that our ability to deliver numbers on Thursday/Friday was very valuable to Disney. Those past discussions are why I included my final line.

A very big IF, but if ESPN thought that the latenight windows would actually be ADDITIVE to the AAC contract because it is capacity and timeslots we don't have today...then breaking even when bringing on three teams (increase media rights by 3x the eleven member amount plus offset the dilution of CFP money) would require those latenight windows to have twice the viewership/value that they do.

(08-20-2019 02:53 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I agree with 1845 Bear on this one.
Can't stop a WMU-like dark horse from coming on.

Let the mwc wither on the vine.

(08-20-2019 03:47 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 03:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 03:03 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

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

BYU's premium is structured in the contract, they get paid less for crap games and more when they host good teams.

When you say they were already paid a premium that phrase can be construed to mean payed above market. I don’t believe that is the case.

Quote:The contract isn't an average for each game over a certian amount of years it is an accumulative pay for all games in that particular year. Each game is independently valued based on opponent and television channel/time slot. It is not what you think of as a standard contract.

I never said it was a standard contract. I’ve been pretty clear on that. They get paid differently for each game. Whether it’s tied to network picking up each game and whether it’s more about the specific opponent is left unclear from published reports.

All we’re officially told from a long time ago:

“Financial terms of the BYU-ESPN deal were not released, but estimates put it anywhere between $800,000 and $1.2 million per home game.”

Whether that was a sliding scale for Early contract pay per game to late contract years or whether that’s flat for every year is also left unclear from published reports.

Quote:Further you made a logical mistake because some conferences have seen their media money go down not up and the MWC itself seems unlikely to get an increase worthy of the inflation rate since its last contract.

The MWC isn’t a big draw. I qualified what I said based on what kind of draw the tv programming offered is. The MAC and Sun Belt don’t get any real spikes but the AAC did because they were a draw just as I expected. Much in the same way P5 leagues get adjustments like that. Given BYU’s Fanbase and their unique positioning to prop up late time slots should ESPN lose the P12 rights in a few years I would think they are on the AAC side of that equation.

Look at the ratings numbers BYU isn't any better than the MWC, both will be lucky to keep the same rate, although in BYU's case that rate is baked in by opponent, not by BYU, meaning ESPN bases the value of BYU on who they are playing, which is another reason why they could increase their pay by joining the AAC.[/b]

Quote:But carry on. Also at this point it's pretty obvious you need to do basic research and quit asking people to force feed you stuff.

Use the forum search option on here and look up media contract. There are pages and pages of discussions about all of this, ratings, who is getting paid what, how it works, what other similar live events (wwe and Ufc most often but others as well) get, how chord cutting and market pressures are affecting the money, etc. Lots of links and sources for you in those threads.

So you still can’t bring yourself to find ONE article where Holmoe was saying the pay would be the same?

You can’t find ONE to back up your earlier claim?

Until you do there is no reason to assume a tv contract that payed more than the old AAC deal amount per school wouldn’t at least get an inflation bump.

Example: Old contract had a big matchup at 1.2M per game. New is 1.2 multiplied by whatever inflation adjustment they have. Technically the same kind of deal but the financials are a bit bigger.

No, what I am saying is you have been proven wrong repeatedly in this thread. Multiple times we have provided sources for you showing you are wrong. Multiple times now I have directed you to search this forum and read through repeated threads that discuss this ad nauseam with article references. It's like when a 3 year old keeps asking about dinosaurs and you don't want to take the time to keep educating them so you give them an encyclopedia of dinosaurs.

Go do the research, I'm not holding your hand after simple well known facts on the board have been repeatedly sourced and proven to you. Just go read the threads that have the info and citations in them so the rest of us can speculate on the future.

I am asking you to back up your claim.

I’ve searched for ANYTHING where Holmoe said the money was staying the same. No luck.

You made the claim. Back it up.

Quote:Also the BYU media contract is done per the BYU AD and the Dessert paper and SLC have a lot more info,

They mentioned they can’t announce until the bowl details are ironed out. I don’t doubt that they are close to announcing- I doubt that any of the reports have mentioned a thing about payout in any credible way.

Quote:the last year was reportedly just over 4 million which works out to about 700k a game, which is just another point that inflation isn't in the contract.

I didn’t see any 2018 official splits on their revenue but I did see some for 2017 and 2016.

Between this data for 2017 revenue of 79,644,919
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

And this official BYU donor information of pegging tv/radio rights at 6% of that

https://twitter.com/andysplatz/status/11...94880?s=21

You get 4.778M or an extreme low of 4.38 if we multiplied by 5.5% to account for any beneficial rounding up.

Now they had only 4 home games picked up by ABC/ESPN in a terrible 2017 season.

Wisconsin was ABC
Utah was ESPN2
Boise and Portland St were ESPN

The rest weren’t home games or dropped to BYUtv.

So initially the math would imply 1.09-1.19 per game. But still let’s be generous here and really lowball this thing.

Let’s assume a likely way too high 500k for each of the two BYUtv games and that radio was 7% of their tv/radio revenue.

The really low end here is 861k per game or 768k if we use 5.5% instead of a full 6%.


Conclusions:
1- The real number is probably very close to that 1M for the 2017 year. You basically get almost that by dropping the two BYUtv games to 250k apiece.

2- This exercise says nothing about whether they’ll adjust the pay for inflation upon renewal.

3- If they weren’t going to provide some adjustment why would espn pick up the extra year instead of locking in a low rate for a long time? Seems like a bad business move.

(08-20-2019 04:33 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 03:47 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 03:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 03:03 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  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.


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

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.

BYU's premium is structured in the contract, they get paid less for crap games and more when they host good teams.

When you say they were already paid a premium that phrase can be construed to mean payed above market. I don’t believe that is the case.

Quote:The contract isn't an average for each game over a certian amount of years it is an accumulative pay for all games in that particular year. Each game is independently valued based on opponent and television channel/time slot. It is not what you think of as a standard contract.

I never said it was a standard contract. I’ve been pretty clear on that. They get paid differently for each game. Whether it’s tied to network picking up each game and whether it’s more about the specific opponent is left unclear from published reports.

All we’re officially told from a long time ago:

“Financial terms of the BYU-ESPN deal were not released, but estimates put it anywhere between $800,000 and $1.2 million per home game.”

Whether that was a sliding scale for Early contract pay per game to late contract years or whether that’s flat for every year is also left unclear from published reports.

Quote:Further you made a logical mistake because some conferences have seen their media money go down not up and the MWC itself seems unlikely to get an increase worthy of the inflation rate since its last contract.

The MWC isn’t a big draw. I qualified what I said based on what kind of draw the tv programming offered is. The MAC and Sun Belt don’t get any real spikes but the AAC did because they were a draw just as I expected. Much in the same way P5 leagues get adjustments like that. Given BYU’s Fanbase and their unique positioning to prop up late time slots should ESPN lose the P12 rights in a few years I would think they are on the AAC side of that equation.

Look at the ratings numbers BYU isn't any better than the MWC, both will be lucky to keep the same rate, although in BYU's case that rate is baked in by opponent, not by BYU, meaning ESPN bases the value of BYU on who they are playing, which is another reason why they could increase their pay by joining the AAC.[/b]

Quote:But carry on. Also at this point it's pretty obvious you need to do basic research and quit asking people to force feed you stuff.

Use the forum search option on here and look up media contract. There are pages and pages of discussions about all of this, ratings, who is getting paid what, how it works, what other similar live events (wwe and Ufc most often but others as well) get, how chord cutting and market pressures are affecting the money, etc. Lots of links and sources for you in those threads.

So you still can’t bring yourself to find ONE article where Holmoe was saying the pay would be the same?

You can’t find ONE to back up your earlier claim?

Until you do there is no reason to assume a tv contract that payed more than the old AAC deal amount per school wouldn’t at least get an inflation bump.

Example: Old contract had a big matchup at 1.2M per game. New is 1.2 multiplied by whatever inflation adjustment they have. Technically the same kind of deal but the financials are a bit bigger.

No, what I am saying is you have been proven wrong repeatedly in this thread. Multiple times we have provided sources for you showing you are wrong. Multiple times now I have directed you to search this forum and read through repeated threads that discuss this ad nauseam with article references. It's like when a 3 year old keeps asking about dinosaurs and you don't want to take the time to keep educating them so you give them an encyclopedia of dinosaurs.

Go do the research, I'm not holding your hand after simple well known facts on the board have been repeatedly sourced and proven to you. Just go read the threads that have the info and citations in them so the rest of us can speculate on the future.

I am asking you to back up your claim.

I’ve searched for ANYTHING where Holmoe said the money was staying the same. No luck.

You made the claim. Back it up.
No you're being the 3 year old I gave the encyclopedia about dinosaurs asking me to prove triceratops weren't real, rather than using the encyclopedia.

Quote:Also the BYU media contract is done per the BYU AD and the Dessert paper and SLC have a lot more info,

They mentioned they can’t announce until the bowl details are ironed out. I don’t doubt that they are close to announcing- I doubt that any of the reports have mentioned a thing about payout in any credible way.
That was the announcement, that's all there will be. For the last time BYU does not put their numbers out officially. The media contract is done. The bowls are seperate

Quote:the last year was reportedly just over 4 million which works out to about 700k a game, which is just another point that inflation isn't in the contract.

I didn’t see any 2018 official splits on their revenue but I did see some for 2017 and 2016.

Between this data for 2017 revenue of 79,644,919
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

And this official BYU donor information of pegging tv/radio rights at 6% of that

https://twitter.com/andysplatz/status/11...94880?s=21

You get 4.778M or an extreme low of 4.38 if we multiplied by 5.5% to account for any beneficial rounding up.

Now they had only 4 home games picked up by ABC/ESPN in a terrible 2017 season.

Wisconsin was ABC
Utah was ESPN2
Boise and Portland St were ESPN

The rest weren’t home games or dropped to BYUtv.

So initially the math would imply 1.09-1.19 per game. But still let’s be generous here and really lowball this thing.

Let’s assume a likely way too high 500k for each of the two BYUtv games and that radio was 7% of their tv/radio revenue.

The really low end here is 861k per game or 768k if we use 5.5% instead of a full 6%.


Conclusions:
1- The real number is probably very close to that 1M for the 2017 year. You basically get almost that by dropping the two BYUtv games to 250k apiece.

2- This exercise says nothing about whether they’ll adjust the pay for inflation upon renewal.

3- If they weren’t going to provide some adjustment why would espn pick up the extra year instead of locking in a low rate for a long time? Seems like a bad business move.

You are twisting awful hard here for confirmation bias and still can't quite get there. As I have said at least four times to you BYU's contract is done on a game by game dependent on who the opponent is and where it is shown. Each game has an independent value. You also are leaving out the fact that their radio/stream rights are worth quite a bit and including them but not including Memphis, UCF, or Cincinnati's to go with the AAC media pay outs.

(08-20-2019 04:53 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 04:33 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 03:47 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 03:18 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 03:03 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  BYU's premium is structured in the contract, they get paid less for crap games and more when they host good teams.

When you say they were already paid a premium that phrase can be construed to mean payed above market. I don’t believe that is the case.

Quote:The contract isn't an average for each game over a certian amount of years it is an accumulative pay for all games in that particular year. Each game is independently valued based on opponent and television channel/time slot. It is not what you think of as a standard contract.

I never said it was a standard contract. I’ve been pretty clear on that. They get paid differently for each game. Whether it’s tied to network picking up each game and whether it’s more about the specific opponent is left unclear from published reports.

All we’re officially told from a long time ago:

“Financial terms of the BYU-ESPN deal were not released, but estimates put it anywhere between $800,000 and $1.2 million per home game.”

Whether that was a sliding scale for Early contract pay per game to late contract years or whether that’s flat for every year is also left unclear from published reports.

Quote:Further you made a logical mistake because some conferences have seen their media money go down not up and the MWC itself seems unlikely to get an increase worthy of the inflation rate since its last contract.

The MWC isn’t a big draw. I qualified what I said based on what kind of draw the tv programming offered is. The MAC and Sun Belt don’t get any real spikes but the AAC did because they were a draw just as I expected. Much in the same way P5 leagues get adjustments like that. Given BYU’s Fanbase and their unique positioning to prop up late time slots should ESPN lose the P12 rights in a few years I would think they are on the AAC side of that equation.

Look at the ratings numbers BYU isn't any better than the MWC, both will be lucky to keep the same rate, although in BYU's case that rate is baked in by opponent, not by BYU, meaning ESPN bases the value of BYU on who they are playing, which is another reason why they could increase their pay by joining the AAC.[/b]

Quote:But carry on. Also at this point it's pretty obvious you need to do basic research and quit asking people to force feed you stuff.

Use the forum search option on here and look up media contract. There are pages and pages of discussions about all of this, ratings, who is getting paid what, how it works, what other similar live events (wwe and Ufc most often but others as well) get, how chord cutting and market pressures are affecting the money, etc. Lots of links and sources for you in those threads.

So you still can’t bring yourself to find ONE article where Holmoe was saying the pay would be the same?

You can’t find ONE to back up your earlier claim?

Until you do there is no reason to assume a tv contract that payed more than the old AAC deal amount per school wouldn’t at least get an inflation bump.

Example: Old contract had a big matchup at 1.2M per game. New is 1.2 multiplied by whatever inflation adjustment they have. Technically the same kind of deal but the financials are a bit bigger.

No, what I am saying is you have been proven wrong repeatedly in this thread. Multiple times we have provided sources for you showing you are wrong. Multiple times now I have directed you to search this forum and read through repeated threads that discuss this ad nauseam with article references. It's like when a 3 year old keeps asking about dinosaurs and you don't want to take the time to keep educating them so you give them an encyclopedia of dinosaurs.

Go do the research, I'm not holding your hand after simple well known facts on the board have been repeatedly sourced and proven to you. Just go read the threads that have the info and citations in them so the rest of us can speculate on the future.

I am asking you to back up your claim.

I’ve searched for ANYTHING where Holmoe said the money was staying the same. No luck.

You made the claim. Back it up.
No you're being the 3 year old I gave the encyclopedia about dinosaurs asking me to prove triceratops weren't real, rather than using the encyclopedia. [/b]

Quote:Also the BYU media contract is done per the BYU AD and the Dessert paper and SLC have a lot more info,

They mentioned they can’t announce until the bowl details are ironed out. I don’t doubt that they are close to announcing- I doubt that any of the reports have mentioned a thing about payout in any credible way.
That was the announcement, that's all there will be. For the last time BYU does not put their numbers out officially. The media contract is done. The bowls are seperate [/b]

Quote:the last year was reportedly just over 4 million which works out to about 700k a game, which is just another point that inflation isn't in the contract.

I didn’t see any 2018 official splits on their revenue but I did see some for 2017 and 2016.

Between this data for 2017 revenue of 79,644,919
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

And this official BYU donor information of pegging tv/radio rights at 6% of that

https://twitter.com/andysplatz/status/11...94880?s=21

You get 4.778M or an extreme low of 4.38 if we multiplied by 5.5% to account for any beneficial rounding up.

Now they had only 4 home games picked up by ABC/ESPN in a terrible 2017 season.

Wisconsin was ABC
Utah was ESPN2
Boise and Portland St were ESPN

The rest weren’t home games or dropped to BYUtv.

So initially the math would imply 1.09-1.19 per game. But still let’s be generous here and really lowball this thing.

Let’s assume a likely way too high 500k for each of the two BYUtv games and that radio was 7% of their tv/radio revenue.

The really low end here is 861k per game or 768k if we use 5.5% instead of a full 6%.


Conclusions:
1- The real number is probably very close to that 1M for the 2017 year. You basically get almost that by dropping the two BYUtv games to 250k apiece.

2- This exercise says nothing about whether they’ll adjust the pay for inflation upon renewal.

3- If they weren’t going to provide some adjustment why would espn pick up the extra year instead of locking in a low rate for a long time? Seems like a bad business move.

As I have said at least four times to you BYU's contract is done on a game by game dependent on who the opponent is and where it is shown. Each game has an independent value.

1- I have always said their value is variable based on which games get picked up and on what network. This isn’t a point of disagreement so no need to mischaracterize what I am claiming.


2- To assume that value they calculate for each game won’t adjust to keep up with inflation and the market when they do a long term extension is naive or wishful thinking on your part.

Quote: You also are leaving out the fact that their radio/stream rights are worth quite a bit and including them but not including Memphis, UCF, or Cincinnati's to go with the AAC media pay outs.

3- I made no comparison on radio rights. I simply had to go on a data point that included them in with the tv rights and tried to estimate/subtract that amount out to try to get to a standalone ESPN contract tv value for that year. We can argue over how much that is likely to be out of the total. My estimate assumed 1.3M for the BYUtv games and radio combined which gives a lower figure for the ABC/ESPN portion of that pay.

Given that the estimated value above per ESPN/abc game was likely around of just below a million per game even with BYUtv and radio accounting for a decent amount your earlier quote of 700k seems way too low especially since the only publicly reported details put the low payout per game at 800k.

3- At no point did I attempt to imply that aac teams don’t have radio deals. The only reason I touched the radio info at all is it’s the only “official”-ish BYU amounts we have and I tried to subtract radio out. Radio is going to stay the same in a conference or as an independent unless a specific league pools theirs that I am unaware of.

5- Once again- where is ANY source where Holmoe or anyone else claimed that the pay was staying the same? Can you back up your claim?

BYU is a big enough draw that it’s extremely unlikely that they’ll get no adjustment for inflation or for fair market value- same as I believed to be true about the AAC. If you have a link share it.

(08-20-2019 02:53 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  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.

I agree with this. Don't make the mistake of assuming that everything remains static. Even if you "gut" the MWC, *someone* has to win that conference. An unintended consequence might be that a Wyoming or Nevada (for example) becomes a consistent winner in the MWC and thus a potential rival for the NY6 bid.

(08-21-2019 05:24 AM)J Coog Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:53 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  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.

I agree with this. Don't make the mistake of assuming that everything remains static. Even if you "gut" the MWC, *someone* has to win that conference. An unintended consequence might be that a Wyoming or Nevada (for example) becomes a consistent winner in the MWC and thus a potential rival for the NY6 bid.

I would only raid the MWC if you had confidence that it would help the expanded AAC grab a couple of more P5-level bowl bids. With the right teams, the expanded AAC would be able to grab the Los Angeles Bowl against the PAC 12 and probably get the annual bids for the Armed Forces and First Responders Bowls against P5 opponents.

There would be a slight gain in the likelihood to secure the NY6 bowl, but a huge gain in adding 2 or 3 annual P5 bowl games to the AAC lineup.

But, the timing isn't great to grab the western bowl games with such expansion unless you were some able to make these bowl affiliations as part of the next bowl cycle. (Probably too late).

(08-21-2019 01:12 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 05:24 AM)J Coog Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:53 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  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.

I agree with this. Don't make the mistake of assuming that everything remains static. Even if you "gut" the MWC, *someone* has to win that conference. An unintended consequence might be that a Wyoming or Nevada (for example) becomes a consistent winner in the MWC and thus a potential rival for the NY6 bid.

I would only raid the MWC if you had confidence that it would help the expanded AAC grab a couple of more P5-level bowl bids. With the right teams, the expanded AAC would be able to grab the Los Angeles Bowl against the PAC 12 and probably get the annual bids for the Armed Forces and First Responders Bowls against P5 opponents.

There would be a slight gain in the likelihood to secure the NY6 bowl, but a huge gain in adding 2 or 3 annual P5 bowl games to the AAC lineup.

But, the timing isn't great to grab the western bowl games with such expansion unless you were some able to make these bowl affiliations as part of the next bowl cycle. (Probably too late).

The big key is what tangible benefit can you get in writing?

Tv contract boost & bowls are the two tangible ones that jump out to me. Does that dwarf splitting playoff/NY6 money more ways? Does it get hurt by travel cost? Tons of considerations to account for.

Kneecapping the MWC would help elevate the AAC as the favorite for the NY6 each year but you can argue the AAC is already there. If the AAC champ has the same resume as the other G5 champs it’s 90% of the time gonna go to the AAC team IMO.

(08-20-2019 02:53 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Agree that money has to work to add MWC teams.

Disagree odds of obtaining NY6 only slightly improved. The gap between the AAC and the G4 would widen materially. It would likely take an undefeated G4 school and two losses by an AAC school to deny the AAC a NY6 spot.

Furthermore, adding the right MWC schools would advance the P-6 initiative by better consolidating the "best of the rest" into one conference (a cause aided by UConn's defection).

(08-21-2019 01:44 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:53 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Agree that money has to work to add MWC teams.

Disagree odds of obtaining NY6 only slightly improved. The gap between the AAC and the G4 would widen materially. It would likely take an undefeated G4 school and two losses by an AAC school to deny the AAC a NY6 spot.

Disagree. Unbeaten from any G5 gets it over a team with a loss. A 1 Loss champ with a really weak SOS might get jumped by an AAC team though.

Quote:Furthermore, adding the right MWC schools would advance the P-6 initiative by better consolidating the "best of the rest" into one conference (a cause aided by UConn's defection).

Intangible benefits at best here and is that worth shaving each teams share of playoff money?

(08-21-2019 01:50 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 01:44 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:53 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

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

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

Agree that money has to work to add MWC teams.

Disagree odds of obtaining NY6 only slightly improved. The gap between the AAC and the G4 would widen materially. It would likely take an undefeated G4 school and two losses by an AAC school to deny the AAC a NY6 spot.

Disagree. Unbeaten from any G5 gets it over a team with a loss. A 1 Loss champ with a really weak SOS might get jumped by an AAC team though.

Quote:Furthermore, adding the right MWC schools would advance the P-6 initiative by better consolidating the "best of the rest" into one conference (a cause aided by UConn's defection).

Intangible benefits at best here and is that worth shaving each teams share of playoff money?

Again, I agree with you overall on this topic: Adding SOS is good, but increases risk that AAC champ's record could look less shiny; meanwhile you still have the risk of a WMU-like dark horse - weak, weak, weak schedule but undefeated.

However...in the leadup to championship games in 2016, the CFP committee was talking about 2-loss Navy over-taking undefeated WMU: "Look at a Western Michigan team that is very successful on the offensive side of the ball. At the same time they've only beaten two FBS teams with a winning record. Navy has three what the Selection Committee would look at quality wins over Houston, Memphis and Tulsa." If a two-loss AAC team could get that consideration to jump an undefeated, you're foolish to rule out a one-loss AAC team.

(08-21-2019 02:10 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 01:50 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 01:44 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:53 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

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

Agree that money has to work to add MWC teams.

Disagree odds of obtaining NY6 only slightly improved. The gap between the AAC and the G4 would widen materially. It would likely take an undefeated G4 school and two losses by an AAC school to deny the AAC a NY6 spot.

Disagree. Unbeaten from any G5 gets it over a team with a loss. A 1 Loss champ with a really weak SOS might get jumped by an AAC team though.

Quote:Furthermore, adding the right MWC schools would advance the P-6 initiative by better consolidating the "best of the rest" into one conference (a cause aided by UConn's defection).

Intangible benefits at best here and is that worth shaving each teams share of playoff money?

Again, I agree with you overall on this topic: Adding SOS is good, but increases risk that AAC champ's record could look less shiny; meanwhile you still have the risk of a WMU-like dark horse - weak, weak, weak schedule but undefeated.

However...in the leadup to championship games in 2016, the CFP committee was talking about 2-loss Navy over-taking undefeated WMU: "Look at a Western Michigan team that is very successful on the offensive side of the ball. At the same time they've only beaten two FBS teams with a winning record. Navy has three what the Selection Committee would look at quality wins over Houston, Memphis and Tulsa." If a two-loss AAC team could get that consideration to jump an undefeated, you're foolish to rule out a one-loss AAC team.

Every case is unique. So the possibility exists although I consider it unlikely.

I have a hard time thinking that they’ll stiffarm an unbeaten Cinderella story unless the schedule is simply a once in a decade disaster.

(08-21-2019 02:21 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 02:10 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 01:50 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 01:44 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 02:53 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  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.

Agree that money has to work to add MWC teams.

Disagree odds of obtaining NY6 only slightly improved. The gap between the AAC and the G4 would widen materially. It would likely take an undefeated G4 school and two losses by an AAC school to deny the AAC a NY6 spot.

Disagree. Unbeaten from any G5 gets it over a team with a loss. A 1 Loss champ with a really weak SOS might get jumped by an AAC team though.

Quote:Furthermore, adding the right MWC schools would advance the P-6 initiative by better consolidating the "best of the rest" into one conference (a cause aided by UConn's defection).

Intangible benefits at best here and is that worth shaving each teams share of playoff money?

Again, I agree with you overall on this topic: Adding SOS is good, but increases risk that AAC champ's record could look less shiny; meanwhile you still have the risk of a WMU-like dark horse - weak, weak, weak schedule but undefeated.

However...in the leadup to championship games in 2016, the CFP committee was talking about 2-loss Navy over-taking undefeated WMU: "Look at a Western Michigan team that is very successful on the offensive side of the ball. At the same time they've only beaten two FBS teams with a winning record. Navy has three what the Selection Committee would look at quality wins over Houston, Memphis and Tulsa." If a two-loss AAC team could get that consideration to jump an undefeated, you're foolish to rule out a one-loss AAC team.

Every case is unique. So the possibility exists although I consider it unlikely.

I have a hard time thinking that they’ll stiffarm an unbeaten Cinderella story unless the schedule is simply a once in a decade disaster.

Don't think the Navy case is unique. I think the strength of the league you play in will outweigh the glossy record of a MAC-like Cinderella in future years. AAC teams are beating P5 teams at a good clip, especially the top 5 or 6 in the AAC. Adding a strong team or two from the west seals the deal, IMHO.

So ... no news on the contract?

Yeah no from here on out it’s the AAC, or Boise getting the access bowl. The money and reputation gap is too wide between them and everyone else. Don’t think a Western Michigan has a chance in today’s AAC dominated G5.

Realistically I’d be shocked if the next couple access bowls feature anyone but these teams.

UCF
Temple
USF
Memphis
Houston
Cincinnati
Boise

(08-21-2019 05:52 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  Yeah no from here on out it’s the AAC, or Boise getting the access bowl. The money and reputation gap is too wide between them and everyone else. Don’t think a Western Michigan has a chance in today’s AAC dominated G5.

Realistically I’d be shocked if the next couple access bowls feature anyone but these teams.

UCF
Temple
USF
Memphis
Houston
Cincinnati
Boise

I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. The AAC and the top of the MWC should account for 8 of 10 easily though at worst.

(08-21-2019 06:24 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 05:52 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  Yeah no from here on out it’s the AAC, or Boise getting the access bowl. The money and reputation gap is too wide between them and everyone else. Don’t think a Western Michigan has a chance in today’s AAC dominated G5.

Realistically I’d be shocked if the next couple access bowls feature anyone but these teams.

UCF
Temple
USF
Memphis
Houston
Cincinnati
Boise

I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. The AAC and the top of the MWC should account for 8 of 10 easily though at worst.

And that's the risk to the AAC if they take a couple of MW schools. Then an undefeated WY or Fresno St (for instance) might take the NY6 bowl over a 1-2 loss AAC champ.