(11-07-2017 01:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 01:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 12:19 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 12:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Personally, I think its a great marketing campaign aimed at product differentiation. End the concept that all G5 widgets are the same by making yours more popular and desired than others. Basically, the marketing campaign is designed to drive viewership interest, increase ratings, and improve demand for the next AAC TV contract. That said, long term I can easily see the AAC moving to a middle tier by itself---kind of becoming the BYU of conferences.

No telling where that could lead. I think it was Bill Gates that once said something to the effect that 'We tend to overestimate the amount of change coming in the next 2 years, but underestimate the change coming over the next 10 years'.

Again, not mad at the intent, but you cannot tell me that if the roles were reversed, you wouldn't find the helmet stickers, at minimum, amusing.

If you succeed in carving out some legitimate middle ground, you'll still be on the wrong side if the oft rumored breakaway ever comes to fruition.

Admittedly, I don't see the breakaway happening, but if it happens, they won't be looking to grow that group, if anything it will get smaller.

Depends on the time horizon and the trends. My feeling is that the P5 conferences have maxed out their ceilings. If thats true---then the vast majority of the future growth in college football is going to come from the smaller G5 schools that have yet to maximize their potential. Thats the main reason I dont think a split is coming. I dont think the networks want it. I cant think of a single instance where a network has purposely decided to ditch about 1/3 of a affluent college educated audience....along with most of the higher growth segment of the audience......and thats what happens to FBS football if the P5 split from the G5.

1/3?

Viewing audiences aren't spread out evenly amongst FBS schools you know.

They aren't going to ditch anyone. They do want to consolidate the higher marketable schools so they can pay them less overall but more per team. Then they'll turn around and offer the rest much less knowing they have the most valuable properties already and the value of what's left is severely diminished.

Correct. Thats why I used 1/3. The G5 represents half the teams in FBS, but much less than half the audience (might even be less than 1/3---I was probably being charitable--maybe its just 20-25%). The idea is the same. Networks geek out if they lose 5% of an audience over some controversy. They arent going to be interested in losing 20-25% of an affluent college educated audience---especially if thats the portion of the audience where most of the future growth lies.