(06-29-2018 11:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:36 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 08:51 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  Every AAC member over 45 million in revenue even before the new TV deal. We're starting to see some group separation in revenues between P6 and G4.

If anything it gives a lot of support to the idea of a tweener conference but certainly not a P6.

The AAC has members with revenues larger than members of the B12 and ACC, so I think it does.

It’s understandable that you want to think that.

A look at the conference totals and averages makes it impossible for any reasonable person to believe there is a P6.

Once the new TV deal is complete, I expect the AAC will sit firmly in between with a huge advantage over the MWC (it's already $14M).

(06-29-2018 12:00 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:36 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 08:51 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  Every AAC member over 45 million in revenue even before the new TV deal. We're starting to see some group separation in revenues between P6 and G4.

If anything it gives a lot of support to the idea of a tweener conference but certainly not a P6.

The AAC has members with revenues larger than members of the B12 and ACC, so I think it does.

It’s understandable that you want to think that.

A look at the conference totals and averages makes it impossible for any reasonable person to believe there is a P6.

Once the new TV deal is complete, I expect the AAC will sit firmly in between with a huge advantage over the MWC (it's already $14M).

Right, which would make us a "tweener" (as in "in between"), not a Power, not a Group.

(06-29-2018 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 12:00 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:36 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If anything it gives a lot of support to the idea of a tweener conference but certainly not a P6.

The AAC has members with revenues larger than members of the B12 and ACC, so I think it does.

It’s understandable that you want to think that.

A look at the conference totals and averages makes it impossible for any reasonable person to believe there is a P6.

Once the new TV deal is complete, I expect the AAC will sit firmly in between with a huge advantage over the MWC (it's already $14M).

Right, which would make us a "tweener" (as in "in between"), not a Power, not a Group.

That like being a little bit pregnant?

(06-29-2018 01:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 12:00 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:36 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  The AAC has members with revenues larger than members of the B12 and ACC, so I think it does.

It’s understandable that you want to think that.

A look at the conference totals and averages makes it impossible for any reasonable person to believe there is a P6.

Once the new TV deal is complete, I expect the AAC will sit firmly in between with a huge advantage over the MWC (it's already $14M).

Right, which would make us a "tweener" (as in "in between"), not a Power, not a Group.

That like being a little bit pregnant?

Oh please! Let's not get into a debate over at which point having a chance begins!

I think the AAC can reasonable make the case for tweener status. Not P6

Tweener doesn't get us anything.

(06-29-2018 02:26 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Tweener doesn't get us anything.

Well apparently it is getting you a better TV contract.

There are three dimensions to whether a conference is "power", "tweener", or "group". Those dimensions are results on the field, money from the CFP and media, and formal status as defined by NCAA autonomy status and CFP guaranteed NY6 bowl participation. Here's how the AAC currently stacks up:

1) Results: For the past three football seasons, the AAC has been a tweener. The AAC Sagariin rating has been just about equidistant between the closest P5 and the next closest G5.

2) Money: The AAC is as of now, firmly "group". Our media and CFP revenue, while tops in the G5, is far, far closer to the nearest group than the nearest P5 conference.

3) Status: The AAC is firmly "group", it is a "non-autonomy" conference exactly like the other G5 and it also does not have an automatic NY6 bowl bid.

A better TV deal could move the money dimension from "group" to "tweener" but even if so, the AAC will likely remain in the "group" category in terms of power for a while longer.

And unfortunately, of these dimensions, easily the least important is results on the field. In fact, one could argue that the ultimate expression of having "power" is the fact that you get showered with stuff even when your results on the field are terrible, or as Geno once said, "getting $30m just for showing up". That's Power.

(06-29-2018 09:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There are three dimensions to whether a conference is "power", "tweener", or "group". Those dimensions are results on the field, money from the CFP and media, and formal status as defined by NCAA autonomy status and CFP guaranteed NY6 bowl participation. Here's how the AAC currently stacks up:

1) Results: For the past three football seasons, the AAC has been a tweener. The AAC Sagariin rating has been just about equidistant between the closest P5 and the next closest G5.

2) Money: The AAC is as of now, firmly "group". Our media and CFP revenue, while tops in the G5, is far, far closer to the nearest group than the nearest P5 conference.

3) Status: The AAC is firmly "group", it is a "non-autonomy" conference exactly like the other G5 and it also does not have an automatic NY6 bowl bid.

A better TV deal could move the money dimension from "group" to "tweener" but even if so, the AAC will likely remain in the "group" category in terms of power for a while longer.

And unfortunately, of these dimensions, easily the least important is results on the field. In fact, one could argue that the ultimate expression of having being a "power" is the fact that you get showered with stuff even when your results on the field are terrible, or as Geno once said, "getting $30m just for showing up". That's Power.

Among the G5, the AAC has 7 schools in the top 10 in revenue from sources other than students/university transfers. The other three are MWC. In the top 20 add another 7 MWC, two Sun Belt and one CUSA.

There are two big gaps and one smaller gap as you run through the spectrum of G5 schools in athletics generated revenue.. A gap of more than $7 million between #1 UConn and #2 Cincinnati and a gap of $3.9 million between #18 Colorado State and #19 Old Dominion and $2 million between ODU and Louisiana Lafayette. From there on it is a gradual slide as you reach the dozen that don't generate $10 million on their own.

*

The AAC has 3 private schools and one academy not listed. To assume they fall outside other G5s defies common sense.

Even WSU who won't show in AAC until the 17/18 numbers are released self generates more than many G5s and that's w/o FB yet another problem with treating these numbers as real time for comparison purposes.

ETA: For comparison sake, a more accurate picture of 16/17 AAC men's and women's revenue can be derived by using DOE info where everyone but Navy is listed. Based on those numbers SMU, Tulane and Tulsa aren't nearly the outliers some assume them to be.

(06-29-2018 11:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Among the G5, the AAC has 7 schools in the top 10 in revenue from sources other than students/university transfers. The other three are MWC. In the top 20 add another 7 MWC, two Sun Belt and one CUSA.

I don't think there's much doubt that in terms of power and status *within* the G5, that the AAC and MWC lead the way, and in that order.

But that is clearly within the G5, not outside or separate from it.

(06-30-2018 05:43 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Based on those numbers SMU, Tulane and Tulsa aren't nearly the outliers some assume them to be.

SMU and Tulane have wealthy alumni bases so I'm not sure why anyone would think they are short in the donor/support category? That makes little sense.

Yeah, I forgot Temple isn't listed either. That's almost half the AAC. It's silly to think the privates plus Temple couldn't be at the top of the AAC or G5 in rev. and spending in any given year. Looking at the DOE figures, SMU reported +$57m and Temple +$52m rev. for the same athletic year. Though not apples to apples, those schools were "roughly" right up there with the biggest G5s in terms of rev. in 16/17.

(06-30-2018 09:17 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Yeah, I forgot Temple isn't listed either. That's almost half the AAC. It's silly to think the privates plus Temple couldn't be at the top of the AAC or G5 in rev. and spending in any given year. Looking at the DOE figures, SMU reported +$57m and Temple +$52m rev. for the same athletic year. Though not apples to apples, those schools were "roughly" right up there with the biggest G5s in terms of rev. in 16/17.

Except no one is saying Oh man Temple and SMU don't spend much and don't make much.
They are simply not involved in the conversation because any discussion of them is rank speculation in terms of the USA Today numbers.

Except that statisticians would invalidate any comparison that excludes close to half of the data points in a set...referencing posts here and elsewhere using these numbers as total or average AAC comparisons. Not that I am advocating that the AAC is P6, tweener or lower rung G5, just pointing out that using these data points alone is not representative of the AAC as a whole for the year 16/17.

(06-30-2018 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 09:17 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Yeah, I forgot Temple isn't listed either. That's almost half the AAC. It's silly to think the privates plus Temple couldn't be at the top of the AAC or G5 in rev. and spending in any given year. Looking at the DOE figures, SMU reported +$57m and Temple +$52m rev. for the same athletic year. Though not apples to apples, those schools were "roughly" right up there with the biggest G5s in terms of rev. in 16/17.

Except no one is saying Oh man Temple and SMU don't spend much and don't make much.
They are simply not involved in the conversation because any discussion of them is rank speculation in terms of the USA Today numbers.

Right. All we really know from the Equity in Athletics numbers is expenses. "Revenue" on that report does not include the data for ticket sales, donations, and subsidies from the university that the USA Today numbers provide. So unless there is real data from another source that we can all see, we are only speculating about whether the private school athletic departments get a large amount of donations, or whether the university general fund has to kick in a ton of money to keep the athletic department going, or whether there is some other funding source.