Why Not 14?

[adoraz]

No doubt UCF's run has helped AAC football, especially in regards to ratings, but it also may do more harm than good long term. The narrative has been "yeah UCF is doing great, but their schedule is a joke so they're not deserving of the playoffs". How is that good for the rest of the conference? Sure, they are solidly the best of the G5, but the plan was to be P6.

There's a monumental difference between UCF carrying the conference but not getting enough respect to participate in the playoffs, and a team like Nova not only getting the overall 1 seed but also winning it all.

UCF's run has only further divided the P5 from the G5.

[Savannah Jay]

I have a feeling they'll do ok. ABC picked it up.

ABC had it last year too. 3.4M viewers vs SEC 13.4M. That's only a 10,000,000 viewer difference but understand that may be "okay" by AAC standards. ABC needs to air something between the Big 12 and ACC. Notice none of the major conferences or networks want to compete with the SEC title game.

[stever20]

I have a feeling they'll do ok. ABC picked it up.

ABC had it last year too. 3.4M viewers vs SEC 13.4M. That's only a 10,000,000 viewer difference but understand that may be "okay" by AAC standards. ABC needs to air something between the Big 12 and ACC. Notice none of the major conferences or networks want to compete with the SEC title game.

Last year ABC had it at noon if memory serves me right.....

[GoldenWarrior11]

Comparing those teams that were in CUSA (whose TV deal back then was practically non-existant) to what they grew into once they had regular exposure, and paid for new facilities and better coaches, is a flawed comparison.
That comparison is precisely why the exposure was negotiated in the first place... To give those promoted teams a platform that they never had before.


GoldenWarrior11, TCU is a program that has benefitted from exposure. Do you think people are comparing them now to their CUSA days?


Something tells me ESPN doesn't have any plans to give the MAC and CUSA 4.0 any significant exposure bump in the near or distant future.

As for comparing the American Conference's ratings on other networks, ABC seems to be showing major AAC games and popping a rating each time. CBS took their basketball tournament.
To act like it's the network getting the rating doesn't seem supported by the other networks who are taking their games.

Time will tell.

It isn't actually, because they were behind the other power conferences then, and they are now (and will likely be again in the next cycle as well). TCU has benefited from exposure, but they have benefited more from being in a power conference. With the new revenue they have been able to cleanly pay for stadium upgrades, staff payment increases, and invest even more in men's basketball, which was non-existent before Jamie Dixon got there. None of that happens in a conference like the AAC, due to the television revenue that is generated.

You reference the MAC and C-USA, but ESPN has not had any of its network commentators and/or personalities bash those leagues or try and de-value it on-air in comparison to the other P5 conferences. They have done that repeatedly with the American, its own content - which is just puzzling to say the least.

To your last point, yes, the top of the league certainly does have value to general sports viewership, like all power conferences do. No one tunes into the B1G for Rutgers and Purdue; however, the B1G is getting paid power conference money. The AAC has not and is not, and will not be getting anywhere close to their annual payouts. Thus, the bottom of the league negatively impacts the conference as a whole much more than the bottom of a P5 conference. This, specifically, can relate to the ECUs, Tulanes, Tulsas, UConn (Football), USF (basketball), etc.

[ProprietyofLeyluken]

Comparing those teams that were in CUSA (whose TV deal back then was practically non-existant) to what they grew into once they had regular exposure, and paid for new facilities and better coaches, is a flawed comparison.
That comparison is precisely why the exposure was negotiated in the first place... To give those promoted teams a platform that they never had before.


GoldenWarrior11, TCU is a program that has benefitted from exposure. Do you think people are comparing them now to their CUSA days?


Something tells me ESPN doesn't have any plans to give the MAC and CUSA 4.0 any significant exposure bump in the near or distant future.

As for comparing the American Conference's ratings on other networks, ABC seems to be showing major AAC games and popping a rating each time. CBS took their basketball tournament.
To act like it's the network getting the rating doesn't seem supported by the other networks who are taking their games.

Time will tell.

It isn't actually, because they were behind the other power conferences then, and they are now (and will likely be again in the next cycle as well). TCU has benefited from exposure, but they have benefited more from being in a power conference. With the new revenue they have been able to cleanly pay for stadium upgrades, staff payment increases, and invest even more in men's basketball, which was non-existent before Jamie Dixon got there. None of that happens in a conference like the AAC, due to the television revenue that is generated.

You reference the MAC and C-USA, but ESPN has not had any of its network commentators and/or personalities bash those leagues or try and de-value it on-air in comparison to the other P5 conferences. They have done that repeatedly with the American, its own content - which is just puzzling to say the least.

To your last point, yes, the top of the league certainly does have value to general sports viewership, like all power conferences do. No one tunes into the B1G for Rutgers and Purdue; however, the B1G is getting paid power conference money. The AAC has not and is not, and will not be getting anywhere close to their annual payouts. Thus, the bottom of the league negatively impacts the conference as a whole much more than the bottom of a P5 conference. This, specifically, can relate to the ECUs, Tulanes, Tulsas, UConn (Football), USF (basketball), etc.

The interesting thing is the talking heads have actually had the (unintended... perhaps?) effect of drawing more eyes to the AAC product (as opposed to devaluing it).
What's that old saying... Just be sure to spell my name correctly.. Polarizing debates tend to draw people in.

That much was evident when Gameday went to UCF, and that night the game against Cincinnati drew well in the ratings.
ABC featured that game after the game between UCF and Temple popped a significant rating on Thursday/ESPN.


Simply put, outside of the football 5, there is no other conference that has been drawing these audiences. If UCF wins tomorrow, that'll be 4 out of 6 years they'd be featured on New Years day.


That's not a product that will be easily replaced.
Will it get the same amount as the F5? It doesn't need to.

[Xudash]

Comparing those teams that were in CUSA (whose TV deal back then was practically non-existant) to what they grew into once they had regular exposure, and paid for new facilities and better coaches, is a flawed comparison.
That comparison is precisely why the exposure was negotiated in the first place... To give those promoted teams a platform that they never had before.


GoldenWarrior11, TCU is a program that has benefitted from exposure. Do you think people are comparing them now to their CUSA days?


Something tells me ESPN doesn't have any plans to give the MAC and CUSA 4.0 any significant exposure bump in the near or distant future.

As for comparing the American Conference's ratings on other networks, ABC seems to be showing major AAC games and popping a rating each time. CBS took their basketball tournament.
To act like it's the network getting the rating doesn't seem supported by the other networks who are taking their games.

Time will tell.

It isn't actually, because they were behind the other power conferences then, and they are now (and will likely be again in the next cycle as well). TCU has benefited from exposure, but they have benefited more from being in a power conference. With the new revenue they have been able to cleanly pay for stadium upgrades, staff payment increases, and invest even more in men's basketball, which was non-existent before Jamie Dixon got there. None of that happens in a conference like the AAC, due to the television revenue that is generated.

You reference the MAC and C-USA, but ESPN has not had any of its network commentators and/or personalities bash those leagues or try and de-value it on-air in comparison to the other P5 conferences. They have done that repeatedly with the American, its own content - which is just puzzling to say the least.

To your last point, yes, the top of the league certainly does have value to general sports viewership, like all power conferences do. No one tunes into the B1G for Rutgers and Purdue; however, the B1G is getting paid power conference money. The AAC has not and is not, and will not be getting anywhere close to their annual payouts. Thus, the bottom of the league negatively impacts the conference as a whole much more than the bottom of a P5 conference. This, specifically, can relate to the ECUs, Tulanes, Tulsas, UConn (Football), USF (basketball), etc.

That's it right there. Improvement in the next AAC television contract isn't a given as we sit here today, but financial improvement in that contract doesn't matter, because any improvement will be immaterial for what is needed for true sustainability. The AAC will not end up with television money that will relieve the cross-funding issue, and all these schools cannot continue to bleed other parts of their institutions and their students drier or dry for the sake of keeping up appearances with their football programs.

The AAC absolutely needs a lot more than it's getting now, and it will not get there.

[paulxu]

If you have 31,500 posts on an AAC basketball forum...are you an AAC fan?

[Savannah Jay]

If you have 31,500 posts on an AAC basketball forum...are you an AAC fan?

If you have 31,500 posts on any forum you need a hobby. Or kids...

[GoldenWarrior11]

Will it get the same amount as the F5? It doesn't need to.

And that, right there, is the exact same train of thought that the top of the G5 has been following since 2013, when the unofficial split between the P5 and G5 occurred. "We don't need to be paid equal, we just need to be paid something close so that we are in the conversation - hopefully getting an invitation to the party which has already started. Between 2013 and 2019, when each AAC school will have been paid $1.7 million annually (over $25 million total) in television revenue, the P5 will have received that total figure annually per year. The B1G and SEC are making over $50 million per year. The Big 12 is getting nearly $40 million per year. The ACC and PAC are getting nearly over $30 million per year. So, for schools that overlap in these markets (for the American), that means the P5 institutions will have been paid between $280 and $350 million in that same time frame. For seven straight years, the P5 (and ND) are getting paid 400% of the revenue that the G5 earn on a per year basis. The remarkable component to those figures is that the G5 actually signed-off and agreed to the current CFP format, which effectively locked them out from ever realistically getting a playoff spot for one of their teams, further cementing their place within college football.

The top of the G5, even after the next TV deal, will still be paid peanuts compared to the P5, and continue to subsidize their athletic programs with state funded assistance, student subsidies and other forms of unnatural revenue production in order to "compete' with the P5 and "look" like they belong as one of the members. Many talk of an inevitable split, but - unfortunately - the split has already happened in college football. It happened in 2013 when UConn, Cincinnati and USF were "left behind" with the rest of the Conference USA call-ups. Unfortunately, there will likely be one more television cycle before there is an "official" break within FBS into two divisions, one that will better group the schools based on pay-outs, budgets, resources and history. Until that time, however, select schools will continue to spend what they are not earning in hopes of winning the lottery.

I genuinely fear for the administrators tasked with taking over some of these schools in a few years. They will be stuck with budgets hemorrhaged by unnatural and inflated revenue streams (like the state fundings and the student subsidies), then they will be stuck with the costs (and the resulting fallout). There will be substantial changes to how these schools operate their athletic programs, and it will almost certainly create disappointment to their students, alumni and fans.

[gosports1]

Most of us like adding UConn If they would drop football or go independent. If that's the case, can someone explain why UMass is never mentioned? Aren't both big, non-Jesuit public universities? I know that the Huskies have a MUCH BETTER resume but Amherst is in the Boston TV market, right?

UMass has been to exactly one NCAA Tournament in the past twenty seasons. Aside from Calipari's tenure at the school, the program has never advanced to the Round of 32.

Yeah, it is obvious they have no resume to speak of BUT they do have excellent name recognition, so wouldn't planting a BEast flag in a TV market the size of BOSTON, trump their lack of tourney appearances? They had some really competive teams in the A10 when X was there, so why couldn't they build a solid program if elevated to the BEast. That cache alone would vastly help recruiting and the ability to hire a top HC. I am not in anyway rooting for UMass to be added, it's just that the argument makes no sense. St. Louis is a constant favorite to be added and they have sucked forever. I guess the "Jesuit" aspect is a deal breaker in all cases except UConn.

it seems to me Vermont has had more recent successs than Umass the past few years