(01-25-2018 11:50 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 08:53 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.

Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.

If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize.

Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?

E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.

But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.

1. Actually READ my post and then respond to it. I go into how many of the better-than-bowl-rated games are conference controlled for '15 and '17. I acknowledge that Temple at Penn State is one thing and PennState at Temple is another and Temple in two AAC ccgs or UCF@Temple is yet another.

2. My having done that goes above and beyond what you and arkstfan were saying. You were talking about exposure and viewership. UCF's paycheck game at Michigan is still exposure. The perpetual ND series is good for Navy football recruiting and the Army-Navy game is a great commercial for the institution, period.
A. You started with "nice exposure for the G5" and I'm saying AWESOME for the "G4" but only good-not-great for the AAC
B. arkstfan said "Best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game," and that's where it doesn't matter that Army Navy doesn't get AAC any dollars. Or if you throw that out I got Navy ND and if you throw that out I STILL have Navy Houston or the AAC championship game. And it's not just Navy - I gave examples for SEVEN AAC schools.
C. You then doubled down on being wrong saying "double or even triple it's best audience for the year" and that is not true for any AAC bowl team. G4s maybe. But not my conference
You started talking about exposure and viewership, not whether the AAC team has inherent appeal or whether a certain rating will benefit in TV negotiations. To come back and split hairs that a game was or wasn't a "legit AAC game" is moving the goalposts.

3. Regarding 2016 since you asked. The only "piggyback" game of the six was UCF@ Michigan. Navy was the Army and ND games. Houston was Oklahoma at Houston. USF was their home game vs FSU - so AAC inventory in addition to being straight up exposure. Temple was the AAC championship and Memphis was Houston-Memphis on ABC on Black Friday.
Details for all three years, for AAC and G4s here:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-838636-post-150...id15000866

But mostly - actually read before replying.

That looks like an awful lot of verbiage to cop to what i asked - namely that the games you were referencing were either Army - Navy or games vs big-name P5, like Oklahoma, FSU, and Michigan, games which I explained shouldn't count -with the exception of Temple's AAC title game and Houston vs Memphis.

As for "actual reading", first, remember that this is a football forum. It's not anyone's job. Nobody is required to "read" your posts for every nitzy, pedantic, detail you put in them, such that when we overlook them you can shout "READ what i said"! When you start paying me to read your posts, then I'll be obligated to pay that kind of attention to their details, thanks.

Second, recall that in my prior post, I didn't single out the AAC. I said "Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience of the year ...".

Since typically means "in most cases", there was no reason for you to reply with AAC - specific examples, when I was talking about the G5 generally, the entire G5, and "typically" obviously leaves room for exceptions. Any and all AAC, or other G5 conference exceptions, were implied by my statement.

The only valid ground to contest what i said would be to look at the entirety of the G5, and if it is true that for entire population of G5, it is NOT typically the case that the bowl game doubles or triples their best regular audience, then I would stand corrected. But you didn't do that, you invoked just the AAC.

Once you did, taking the discussion out of the realm i was talking about, then it was entirely fair for me to dissect that claim by addressing whether the AAC teams were responsible for that exposure -that's not moving the goal post, it's just taking the analysis to a more detailed level, which is where you apparently wanted it to go when you took my "G5" comment and made it about the AAC.

So no, I am correct to note that it is misleading to mention Army-Navy, UCF - Michigan, etc. and compare them to bowl games. You were misleading and wrong to do so, so i properly rebuked you for that.

For some reason, you are a Navy fan with real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one i know of. So you bristled at that G5 statement, and hastened to reply that it isn't true of the AAC and you tied yourself in knots doing so. Too bad.

I was going to jump into this one but this caught my attention “For some reason, you are a Navy fan with a real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one I know of.” That’s exactly what I’ve always thought too. Never met any Navy fans like that either....but I have read a lot of AAC fans who write like that on this board every day.

I don't know why you would find it weird. Pretty straightforward.

Big East was after Navy for YEARS before we said yes. Annual talks. Pretty much a standing invitation.

When Navy took the decision to forego 130+ years of independence in 2011-2012, it wasn't for a couple bucks here or a couple bucks there.
We had our own contract with CBSSN, and we were a tentpole property for them. We had Army-Navy. We had Navy-NotreDame. We had bowl deals out to 2016 (our first two bowls in the AAC were honoring pre-existing agreements). Continuing those bowl deals and scheduling as an independent were getting harder, but weren't yet impossible. So why join a conference that was alternately depicted as impossible for us to compete in or dying on the vine?

Navy finally said yes to the Big East with the strategic goal of being on the right side of the next tectonic shift in the college football landscape in 2024-2025. Hmmm, what else has that strategic goal?
Navy's reason for being an AAC member today is about 100% overlap with the reason for the AAC P6 campaign.

You say "loyalty," if you asked me I'd use words along the lines of "committed to the strategic goal."