What a strange thread this has become...

(07-21-2018 04:26 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 12:56 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  then give me plan to make inventory stronger & deeper

Who says we need to make inventory stronger and deeper?

Using this season as an example there are at least 10 weeks of the 13 week season where there is a game that should be good enough for NBC OTA...and some weeks we have multiple games that would be good enough.

Week 1: Wake Forest at Tulane (Marginal game for OTA)
Week 2: Arizona at Houston, Georgia Tech at USF
Week 3: No Good Home Games
Week 4: FAU at UCF (Might be marginal game for OTA)
Week 5: Pitt at UCF
Week 6: SMU at UCF
Week 7: UCF at Memphis
Week 8: Cincinnati at Temple
Week 9: USF at Houston
Week 10: Navy at Cincinnati, Houston at SMU
Week 11: Navy at UCF, Temple at Houston
Week 12: USF at Temple
Week 13: UCF at USF, Houston at Memphis

Keep in mind that these are based on how good teams were last year and how good they are expected to be again this year. The OTA games later in the year can always be changed based on actual results. TV is usually only locked down for the first three weeks of the season, and televised games on week 4 - 13 are usually determined 7 - 12 days prior to the game.

I looked up Week 3 in an attempt to call BS......and yes, it's surprisingly terrible from a home-team perspective.

thank you
now, how does AAC beef up that sch

Since we're talking about the NEXT contract, don't forget that the primary rights winner gets one Navy home game each year, and ND at Navy in '20, '22, '24. Added them into the "2018 as representative of future years" below - picked Houston at Navy, since Memphis game is up against our OTA OOCs. Could be Temple game the week prior too, but I'd go w UCF-Memphis first.

(07-21-2018 04:26 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 12:56 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  then give me plan to make inventory stronger & deeper

Who says we need to make inventory stronger and deeper?

Using this season as an example there are at least 10 weeks of the 13 week season where there is a game that should be good enough for NBC OTA...and some weeks we have multiple games that would be good enough.

Week 1: Wake Forest at Tulane (Marginal game for OTA)
Week 2: Arizona at Houston, Georgia Tech at USF
Week 3: No Good Home Games
Week 4: FAU at UCF (Might be marginal game for OTA)
Week 5: Pitt at UCF
Week 6: SMU at UCF
Week 7: UCF at Memphis
Week 8: Houston at Navy, Cincinnati at Temple
Week 9: ND at Navy, USF at Houston
Week 10: Navy at Cincinnati, Houston at SMU
Week 11: Navy at UCF, Temple at Houston
Week 12: USF at Temple
Week 13: UCF at USF, Houston at Memphis

Keep in mind that these are based on how good teams were last year and how good they are expected to be again this year. The OTA games later in the year can always be changed based on actual results. TV is usually only locked down for the first three weeks of the season, and televised games on week 4 - 13 are usually determined 7 - 12 days prior to the game.

(07-22-2018 08:42 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  thank you
now, how does AAC beef up that sch

Schedule one of the week 2 games for week 3 instead. Bob's your uncle.

(07-22-2018 08:42 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  thank you
now, how does AAC beef up that sch

1. We certainly don't beef up that schedule by adding UMASS.

2. Without even changing the teams we play, the conference and schools can work together to try and arrange all schedules so that there are no empty weeks without a single good game for OTA.

3. Our bottom level teams have to get stronger...no way around that.

4. Our better teams have to schedule at least one P6 home game per year. I'm looking at you Memphis.

(07-10-2018 04:07 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  great data collection. Really puts into detail how far behind lower tier conferences like MWC, Sun Belt, and MAC are.

Yes and No? The AAC markets are metropolises compared to most of the G5. We are talking Memphis, Orlando, Tampa, Houston etc. compared to Dekalb, Ypsilanti, Athens, and Oxford.

Also the size and money the Universities have is crazy comparatively. Even compared to most of the P5... the AAC has major, major Universities.

The AAC as a tweener should have even better numbers than they do taking into account the pure SIZE of everything. The school with the 2nd most students in the country is UCF correct? Shouldn't they have the 2nd largest stadium in college football and the 2nd most fans? Or at least ball park top 25?

It's not wrong to want to elevate your programs to be national powers but a UCF fan calling me the little guy doesn't hurt my feelings. (Just an example, not calling out anyone or any specific fan). Look at the built in disadvantage WMU has for example. The extraordinary season they had for a directional small market school is even more impressive from the circumstances their school is in. We all expect that from Houston and UCF.

So are we small time? Yes.
Why aren't you bigger time?

(07-22-2018 05:25 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 04:07 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  great data collection. Really puts into detail how far behind lower tier conferences like MWC, Sun Belt, and MAC are.

Yes and No? The AAC markets are metropolises compared to most of the G5. We are talking Memphis, Orlando, Tampa, Houston etc. compared to Dekalb, Ypsilanti, Athens, and Oxford.

Also the size and money the Universities have is crazy comparatively. Even compared to most of the P5... the AAC has major, major Universities.

The AAC as a tweener should have even better numbers than they do taking into account the pure SIZE of everything. The school with the 2nd most students in the country is UCF correct? Shouldn't they have the 2nd largest stadium in college football and the 2nd most fans? Or at least ball park top 25?

It's not wrong to want to elevate your programs to be national powers but a UCF fan calling me the little guy doesn't hurt my feelings. (Just an example, not calling out anyone or any specific fan). Look at the built in disadvantage WMU has for example. The extraordinary season they had for a directional small market school is even more impressive from the circumstances their school is in. We all expect that from Houston and UCF.

So are we small time? Yes.
Why aren't you bigger time?

You can't take something like that in isolation and extrapolate a conclusion without taking into account all of the other factors.

- UCF is a young university with a very young alumni base and not as much history.
- Not being in the "Power" 5 automatically makes a school less interesting to some bandwagon sports fans and unfortunately even some UCF students.
- UCF has only been in the FBS division 22 years and didn't really start taking athletics seriously until Steve Orsini became our AD in 2002. So, in reality we have only had about 15 years where UCF alumni and local sports fans could actually see the university being serious about being good in athletics.

So asking us to have the 2nd largest stadium in the country (or even in the top 25) isn't really realistic. I think we have accomplished a lot in our short time.

BTW...I was very impressed with WMU and what they accomplished that year. The NY6 game against Wisconsin was competitive and not the blowout that all the "Power" 5 homers always expect.

(07-22-2018 06:21 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 05:25 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 04:07 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  great data collection. Really puts into detail how far behind lower tier conferences like MWC, Sun Belt, and MAC are.

Yes and No? The AAC markets are metropolises compared to most of the G5. We are talking Memphis, Orlando, Tampa, Houston etc. compared to Dekalb, Ypsilanti, Athens, and Oxford.

Also the size and money the Universities have is crazy comparatively. Even compared to most of the P5... the AAC has major, major Universities.

The AAC as a tweener should have even better numbers than they do taking into account the pure SIZE of everything. The school with the 2nd most students in the country is UCF correct? Shouldn't they have the 2nd largest stadium in college football and the 2nd most fans? Or at least ball park top 25?

It's not wrong to want to elevate your programs to be national powers but a UCF fan calling me the little guy doesn't hurt my feelings. (Just an example, not calling out anyone or any specific fan). Look at the built in disadvantage WMU has for example. The extraordinary season they had for a directional small market school is even more impressive from the circumstances their school is in. We all expect that from Houston and UCF.

So are we small time? Yes.
Why aren't you bigger time?

You can't take something like that in isolation and extrapolate a conclusion without taking into account all of the other factors.

- UCF is a young university with a very young alumni base and not as much history.
- Not being in the "Power" 5 automatically makes a school less interesting to some bandwagon sports fans and unfortunately even some UCF students.
- UCF has only been in the FBS division 22 years and didn't really start taking athletics seriously until Steve Orsini became our AD in 2002. So, in reality we have only had about 15 years where UCF alumni and local sports fans could actually see the university being serious about being good in athletics.

So asking us to have the 2nd largest stadium in the country (or even in the top 25) isn't really realistic. I think we have accomplished a lot in our short time.

BTW...I was very impressed with WMU and what they accomplished that year. The NY6 game against Wisconsin was competitive and not the blowout that all the "Power" 5 homers always expect.

I get that history and tradition means more than pure numbers. It was a half sarcastic retort. Lots of what I hear on this board from the "P6" boasters, like to make fun of the little guy in the G4. My above post was a witted response to them.

We all know that MACtion looks sad with no butts in the seats, CUSA has no identity anymore, the SBC is a stepping stone for FCS schools, the MWC envies the AAC's early achievements, and the AAC think they have a 2017 national title. All of these conferences have worth themselves though. No one in the "G4" has necessarily fallen IMO.

The sport has changed vastly in the last 10 years! MOST teams are on an upward trajectory. From new facilities, to more bowl games, to increased exposure from uniform swag... The "G4" isn't falling behind, rather the AAC just has a built in advantage from size, and some schools even previously being in the Big East. The AAC is moving forward faster than the "G4".

A school from Amherst Mass or Laramie Wyoming can still do well, but pressure mounts without the $$$ for the recruiting tools. By the time a new workout room is funded and built, stadium concessions and meeting rooms need improved to keep up with the teams who have MORE $$$. Ferris State is chasing EMU who is chasing UC who is chasing Tennessee who is chasing Alabama.

The AAC is blessed with being a middle pack from the near-start of inception. Ya'll can maybe push for a playoff bid in the coming years if success continues. The MAC relies on a long stable history to just stay relevant. An Access Bowl is the goal for all of the G5. Even the AAC....and will be the goal until the AAC gets an auto bid to a NY6 bowl. One thing that is a FACT is that the AAC will get an auto bid before the MAC, CUSA, MWC, or SBC. That IS something to be proud of.

(07-22-2018 07:32 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 06:21 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 05:25 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 04:07 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  great data collection. Really puts into detail how far behind lower tier conferences like MWC, Sun Belt, and MAC are.

Yes and No? The AAC markets are metropolises compared to most of the G5. We are talking Memphis, Orlando, Tampa, Houston etc. compared to Dekalb, Ypsilanti, Athens, and Oxford.

Also the size and money the Universities have is crazy comparatively. Even compared to most of the P5... the AAC has major, major Universities.

The AAC as a tweener should have even better numbers than they do taking into account the pure SIZE of everything. The school with the 2nd most students in the country is UCF correct? Shouldn't they have the 2nd largest stadium in college football and the 2nd most fans? Or at least ball park top 25?

It's not wrong to want to elevate your programs to be national powers but a UCF fan calling me the little guy doesn't hurt my feelings. (Just an example, not calling out anyone or any specific fan). Look at the built in disadvantage WMU has for example. The extraordinary season they had for a directional small market school is even more impressive from the circumstances their school is in. We all expect that from Houston and UCF.

So are we small time? Yes.
Why aren't you bigger time?

You can't take something like that in isolation and extrapolate a conclusion without taking into account all of the other factors.

- UCF is a young university with a very young alumni base and not as much history.
- Not being in the "Power" 5 automatically makes a school less interesting to some bandwagon sports fans and unfortunately even some UCF students.
- UCF has only been in the FBS division 22 years and didn't really start taking athletics seriously until Steve Orsini became our AD in 2002. So, in reality we have only had about 15 years where UCF alumni and local sports fans could actually see the university being serious about being good in athletics.

So asking us to have the 2nd largest stadium in the country (or even in the top 25) isn't really realistic. I think we have accomplished a lot in our short time.

BTW...I was very impressed with WMU and what they accomplished that year. The NY6 game against Wisconsin was competitive and not the blowout that all the "Power" 5 homers always expect.

I get that history and tradition means more than pure numbers. It was a half sarcastic retort. Lots of what I hear on this board from the "P6" boasters, like to make fun of the little guy in the G4. My above post was a witted response to them.

We all know that MACtion looks sad with no butts in the seats, CUSA has no identity anymore, the SBC is a stepping stone for FCS schools, the MWC envies the AAC's early achievements, and the AAC think they have a 2017 national title. All of these conferences have worth themselves though. No one in the "G4" has necessarily fallen IMO.

The sport has changed vastly in the last 10 years! MOST teams are on an upward trajectory. From new facilities, to more bowl games, to increased exposure from uniform swag... The "G4" isn't falling behind, rather the AAC just has a built in advantage from size, and some schools even previously being in the Big East. The AAC is moving forward faster than the "G4".

A school from Amherst Mass or Laramie Wyoming can still do well, but pressure mounts without the $$$ for the recruiting tools. By the time a new workout room is funded and built, stadium concessions and meeting rooms need improved to keep up with the teams who have MORE $$$. Ferris State is chasing EMU who is chasing UC who is chasing Tennessee who is chasing Alabama.

The AAC is blessed with being a middle pack from the near-start of inception. Ya'll can maybe push for a playoff bid in the coming years if success continues. The MAC relies on a long stable history to just stay relevant. An Access Bowl is the goal for all of the G5. Even the AAC....and will be the goal until the AAC gets an auto bid to a NY6 bowl. One thing that is a FACT is that the AAC will get an auto bid before the MAC, CUSA, MWC, or SBC. That IS something to be proud of.

I don't forsee the AAC getting an auto bid anytime soon. Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl will maintain their historic conference affiliations. Orange Bowl will maintain their affiliation with the ACC and refuses to consider taking a non "Power" team.

No way the Fiesta Bowl would associate with a conference so far away. Peach Bowl would be perfect for AAC, but I think they will want to see the AAC grow and maintain consistency or at least another 7-8 years (coinciding with the end of the current CFB Playoff contracts) before seriously considering that.

(07-19-2018 12:44 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 09:40 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 06:42 AM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 03:52 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 06:53 PM)glay83 Wrote:  Great work! Shows how far we are ahead of G5 conferences, but also how far behind we are of P5. I believe American is on the rise and proud UCF is a member.

The methodology makes our comparison to the P5 look worse because P5 have more games on the premiere networks. If a game is put on ABC or Fox OTS, it gets better viewership than if the same game were on ESPN/FS1.

P5 have a lot of games on ABC/CBS/Fox OTA channels which always draw the highest viewership. I think the AAC only had two regular season games on those channels last year.

Same with ESPN...it has more viewers than ESPN 2...which has more viewers than ESPNU & ESPN news, and the P5 have more games on ESPN. AAC sometimes get ESPN, but a lot of our content is on ESPN2 or lower which created lower viewership.


A UCF fan did a detailed analysis of AAC games vs P5 and further divided it into network and timeslot. So, for example, in comparing viewership of AAC games on ESPN 2 in the 7:00/7:30 PM Saturday timeslot, they are only compared to P5 games on ESPN 2 in the 7:00/7:30 PM timeslot.

He found that the AAC games on average drew between 40% and 70% of the viewers that P5 games drew in the same timeslot on the same network.

This is the analysis that indicates a big increase in the next deal to somewhere around $15M.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

^^^this^^^I understand how and why some would rather err on the side of getting another lowball contract, but there's just to many objective indicators including actual conference administrators who are in the know that are openly signaling that something good is about to happen contract wise. These things together are making me very confident of at least a 10mil+ contract. All I have to say is NBC COME ON DOWN. On a side note I'd really be grateful if someone would convince that I'm to optimistic about this because I really don't want to have my heart ripped out next January lolol

I feel like the only way we would get that kind of loot is if one of the networks that traditionally pays big dollars for A5 football drops one of those conferences, opting to get us for a little less. Otherwise, I don't know what budget that kind of money for us would come from.

Did I miss something? What is "A5 football?" Are you referring to autonomy? Using "autonomy" in place of "power" as in A5 instead of P5? If this is so, I like it.

(07-10-2018 03:36 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Football viewership. I went through the data from http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ for regular season and conference championship games (not bowl games/CFP). For each conference, I looked at: viewers in all games involving conference teams (and per game average); viewers of conference controlled games (and per game average); viewers of intra-conference games (and per game average).

The AAC gets 12-22% of SEC/BIG10 viewership (up to 34.6% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 18-29% of ACC viewership (up to 41% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 25-43% of BigXII/PAC viewers over the season - as much as 58% for per game averages.

Conversely, G4 viewers of intra-conference games are 4-31% of AAC intra-conference games (higher for avg per rated game, but best G4 intra-conference per game average is 56.6% of AAC). G4s have 11-39% of AAC's viewers for all games (25-62% avg per rated game).

As a reminder, AAC Power 6 is not/not an assertion that the AAC is the equivalent of the SEC or Big10 today. P6 is an information campaign with the assertion that the AAC is closer to the five conferences ahead of us than the four behind us. The strategic goal of this information campaign is to improve the American and its members' chances of being on the right side of the next great shakeup in the college sports -- specifically college football -- landscape. The AAC's next media rights deal will be an interim objective, or an indicator of progress, for this campaign - it is neither the endstate nor a pre-requisite for P6.
Nor do we need to transform into the SEC overnight to achieve the strategic goal: we need to keep the five contract-bowl-conferences from separating from us, while at the same time separating from the other four.

Data for all games (avg per game); conference-controlled (apg); and conference games (apg).
SEC: 199,484,000 (3.2million); 166,916,000 (3.0 million); 138,767,000 (3.55million)
BIG10: 180,615,000 (2.86million); 156,679,000 (3.0million); 130,993,000 (3.27million)
ACC: 139,553,000 (2.4million); 117,703,000 (2.4million); 68,952,000 (2.0 million)
PAC12: 95,254,000 (1.76million); 85,907,000 (1.79million); 61,091,000 (1.65million)
BIG12: 93,660,000(1.7million); 72,583,000 (1.58million); 59,455,000(1.6million)
AAC: 40,675,000(.992million); 21,866,000(.729million); 17,044,000 (.631million)

MWC: 16,031,000(.616million); 7,724,000(.406million); 5,357,000 (.357million)
MAC: 10,467,000(.455million); 3,745,000 (.234million); 3,550,000 (.237million)
SBC: 5,209,000 (.401million); 2,280,000 (.253million); 1,314,000 (.164million)
CUSA:4,519,000 (.251 million); 2,657,000 (.177million); 717,000 (.071 million)

AAC's percentage of SEC: 20.3% (31%); 13.1% (24.3%); 12.2% (17.7%)
AAC's percentage of BIG10: 22.5% (34.6%); 13.9% (24.2%); 13% (19.3%)
AAC's percentage of ACC: 29.1% (41.3%); 18.5% (30.1%); 24.8% (31.6%)
AAC's percentage of PAC12: 42.7% (56.3%); 25.4% (40.7%); 27.8% (38.2%)
AAC's percentages of BIG12: 43.4% (58.3%); 30.1% (46.1%); 28.7% (39.4%)

MWC's percentage of AAC: 39.4% (62%); 35.3 (55.7%); 31.4% (56.6%)
MAC's percentage of AAC: 25.7% (45.8%); 17.1% (32.1%); 20.8% (37.5%)
SBC's percentage of AAC: 12.8% (40.4%); 10.4% (34.7%); 7.7% (26.0%)
CUSA's percentage of AAC: 11.1% (25.3%) 12.2% (17.8%); 4.2% (11.4%)

One thing to point out. If the AAC were considered a “Power” league these ratings would be higher just by the association. The fact that we are pulling these numbers wo the promotion of a “power” league and that label is pretty amazing.

The AAC is as good as the old BE which was considered “power” or “BCS”. We need to try to get back to that level of compensation.

If we get 10MM per team or more I think we inch closer to the same playing field as some of the other conferences and of course distance ourselves from the midgets more.

If there ever is a “breakaway” of the Power teams the AAC would be included imo.

Replying to bump with corrections on 05August2018 - in looking at my spreadsheet for another conversation, I realized that I omitted TxTech @ Houston in the AAC numbers. It was a reverse mirror game w an ACC game, but lists at 3.850 million viewers. I have changed the AAC numbers and the "all games" and ""conference-controlled games" percentages in the first post and below.

Football viewership. I went through the data from http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ for regular season and conference championship games (not bowl games/CFP). For each conference, I looked at: viewers in all games involving conference teams (and per game average); viewers of conference controlled games (and per game average); viewers of intra-conference games (and per game average).
[/align]
The AAC gets 12-24% of SEC/BIG10 viewership (up to 37.1% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 21-31% of ACC viewership (up to 44% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 27-47% of BigXII/PAC viewers over the season - as much as 62% for per game averages.

Conversely, G4 viewers of intra-conference games are 4-31% of AAC intra-conference games (higher for avg per rated game, but best G4 intra-conference per game average is 56.6% of AAC). G4s have 10-36% of AAC's viewers for all games (24-58% avg per rated game).

As a reminder, AAC Power 6 is not/not an assertion that the AAC is the equivalent of the SEC or Big10 today. P6 is an information campaign with the assertion that the AAC is closer to the five conferences ahead of us than the four behind us. The strategic goal of this information campaign is to improve the American and its members' chances of being on the right side of the next great shakeup in the college sports -- specifically college football -- landscape. The AAC's next media rights deal will be an interim objective, or an indicator of progress, for this campaign - it is neither the endstate nor a pre-requisite for P6.
Nor do we need to transform into the SEC overnight to achieve the strategic goal: we need to keep the five contract-bowl-conferences from separating from us, while at the same time separating from the other four.

Data for all games (avg per game); conference-controlled (apg); and conference games (apg).
SEC: 199,484,000 (3.2million); 166,916,000 (3.0 million); 138,767,000 (3.55million)
BIG10: 180,615,000 (2.86million); 156,679,000 (3.0million); 130,993,000 (3.27million)
ACC: 139,553,000 (2.4million); 117,703,000 (2.4million); 68,952,000 (2.0 million)
PAC12: 95,254,000 (1.76million); 85,907,000 (1.79million); 61,091,000 (1.65million)
BIG12: 93,660,000(1.7million); 72,583,000 (1.58million); 59,455,000(1.6million)
AAC: 40,675,000(.992million); 21,866,000(.729million); 17,044,000 (.631million)

MWC: 16,031,000(.616million); 7,724,000(.406million); 5,357,000 (.357million)
MAC: 10,467,000(.455million); 3,745,000 (.234million); 3,550,000 (.237million)
SBC: 5,209,000 (.401million); 2,280,000 (.253million); 1,314,000 (.164million)
CUSA:4,519,000 (.251 million); 2,657,000 (.177million); 717,000 (.071 million)

AAC's percentage of SEC: 22.3% (33.25%); 15.4% (27.7%); 12.2% (17.7%)
AAC's percentage of BIG10: 24.65% (37.1%); 16.4% (27.7%); 13% (19.3%)
AAC's percentage of ACC: 31.9% (44.2%); 21.8% (34.5%); 24.8% (31.6%)
AAC's percentage of PAC12: 46.7% (60%); 29.9% (46.3%); 27.8% (38.2%)
AAC's percentages of BIG12: 47.5% (62.3%); 35.4% (52.5%); 28.7% (39.4%)

MWC's percentage of AAC: 36% (58.1%); 30.0% (48.9%); 31.4% (56.6%)
MAC's percentage of AAC: 23.5% (42.9%); 14.6% (28.2%); 20.8% (37.5%)
SBC's percentage of AAC: 11.7% (37.8%); 8.9% (30.5%); 7.7% (26.0%)
CUSA's percentage of AAC: 10.1% (23.7%) 10.3% (21.3%); 4.2% (11.4%)

(07-24-2018 09:26 AM)First Mate Wrote:  One thing to point out. If the AAC were considered a “Power” league these ratings would be higher just by the association. The fact that we are pulling these numbers wo the promotion of a “power” league and that label is pretty amazing.

The AAC is as good as the old BE which was considered “power” or “BCS”. We need to try to get back to that level of compensation.

If we get 10MM per team or more I think we inch closer to the same playing field as some of the other conferences and of course distance ourselves from the midgets more.

If there ever is a “breakaway” of the Power teams the AAC would be included imo.

(08-05-2018 06:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Replying to bump with corrections on 05August2018 - in looking at my spreadsheet for another conversation, I realized that I omitted TxTech @ Houston in the AAC numbers. It was a reverse mirror game w an ACC game, but lists at 3.850 million viewers. I have changed the AAC numbers and the "all games" and ""conference-controlled games" percentages in the first post and below.

Football viewership. I went through the data from http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ for regular season and conference championship games (not bowl games/CFP). For each conference, I looked at: viewers in all games involving conference teams (and per game average); viewers of conference controlled games (and per game average); viewers of intra-conference games (and per game average).
[/align]
The AAC gets 12-24% of SEC/BIG10 viewership (up to 37.1% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 21-31% of ACC viewership (up to 44% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 27-47% of BigXII/PAC viewers over the season - as much as 62% for per game averages.

Conversely, G4 viewers of intra-conference games are 4-31% of AAC intra-conference games (higher for avg per rated game, but best G4 intra-conference per game average is 56.6% of AAC). G4s have 10-36% of AAC's viewers for all games (24-58% avg per rated game).

As a reminder, AAC Power 6 is not/not an assertion that the AAC is the equivalent of the SEC or Big10 today. P6 is an information campaign with the assertion that the AAC is closer to the five conferences ahead of us than the four behind us. The strategic goal of this information campaign is to improve the American and its members' chances of being on the right side of the next great shakeup in the college sports -- specifically college football -- landscape. The AAC's next media rights deal will be an interim objective, or an indicator of progress, for this campaign - it is neither the endstate nor a pre-requisite for P6.
Nor do we need to transform into the SEC overnight to achieve the strategic goal: we need to keep the five contract-bowl-conferences from separating from us, while at the same time separating from the other four.

Data for all games (avg per game); conference-controlled (apg); and conference games (apg).
SEC: 199,484,000 (3.2million); 166,916,000 (3.0 million); 138,767,000 (3.55million)
BIG10: 180,615,000 (2.86million); 156,679,000 (3.0million); 130,993,000 (3.27million)
ACC: 139,553,000 (2.4million); 117,703,000 (2.4million); 68,952,000 (2.0 million)
PAC12: 95,254,000 (1.76million); 85,907,000 (1.79million); 61,091,000 (1.65million)
BIG12: 93,660,000(1.7million); 72,583,000 (1.58million); 59,455,000(1.6million)
AAC: 40,675,000(.992million); 21,866,000(.729million); 17,044,000 (.631million)

MWC: 16,031,000(.616million); 7,724,000(.406million); 5,357,000 (.357million)
MAC: 10,467,000(.455million); 3,745,000 (.234million); 3,550,000 (.237million)
SBC: 5,209,000 (.401million); 2,280,000 (.253million); 1,314,000 (.164million)
CUSA:4,519,000 (.251 million); 2,657,000 (.177million); 717,000 (.071 million)

AAC's percentage of SEC: 22.3% (33.25%); 15.4% (27.7%); 12.2% (17.7%)
AAC's percentage of BIG10: 24.65% (37.1%); 16.4% (27.7%); 13% (19.3%)
AAC's percentage of ACC: 31.9% (44.2%); 21.8% (34.5%); 24.8% (31.6%)
AAC's percentage of PAC12: 46.7% (60%); 29.9% (46.3%); 27.8% (38.2%)
AAC's percentages of BIG12: 47.5% (62.3%); 35.4% (52.5%); 28.7% (39.4%)

MWC's percentage of AAC: 36% (58.1%); 30.0% (48.9%); 31.4% (56.6%)
MAC's percentage of AAC: 23.5% (42.9%); 14.6% (28.2%); 20.8% (37.5%)
SBC's percentage of AAC: 11.7% (37.8%); 8.9% (30.5%); 7.7% (26.0%)
CUSA's percentage of AAC: 10.1% (23.7%) 10.3% (21.3%); 4.2% (11.4%)

(07-24-2018 09:26 AM)First Mate Wrote:  One thing to point out. If the AAC were considered a “Power” league these ratings would be higher just by the association. The fact that we are pulling these numbers wo the promotion of a “power” league and that label is pretty amazing.

The AAC is as good as the old BE which was considered “power” or “BCS”. We need to try to get back to that level of compensation.

If we get 10MM per team or more I think we inch closer to the same playing field as some of the other conferences and of course distance ourselves from the midgets more.

If there ever is a “breakaway” of the Power teams the AAC would be included imo.

I do not know if this has been talked about, but if you notice the television ratings between conferences can be compared to the conference relative payouts. You can only use conference games for this illustration. If one uses inter conference games you compare apples to oranges. For instance, the Big 10/Sec roughly have 40 percent better ratings of the Pac and Big 12 and they receive approximately 40 percent more money, 31.5 to 51. https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/c...699041002/

It appears the Acc gets 80 percent of the money that the Big Ten gets and gets a very similar 75 percent of the ratings of the Big Ten Conference. There is definitely a correlation between the ratings as a percent and the amount of expected revenue. The Big 12 appears to be an outlier. They seem to have a little sweeter deal relative to their ratings. We should be getting one half to one third the money of the Pac. This would put us at ten million per school. And if the numbers hold true, look for the MWC to get half of our revenue.

AAC=$15m

(07-20-2018 01:37 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 12:56 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  then give me plan to make inventory stronger & deeper

I do like your plan of spreading out the OOC schedule. Like you said, most of our OOC games against the power conferences are within the first 3-4 weeks of the season.

What I don't agree with is adding a borderline FCS team as a scheduling partner, then putting that game front and center.

BYU is maybe the only non-power OOC team that might be a more watchable match-up than a regular conference game between two of our teams, and that's only the case when we happen to have a particularly boring slate.

You do know that a majority of teams schedule most of their non-conf games by the end of Sept...so it's hard to soresd them out.

Some ACC/SEC schools finish their season against an in-state non-conf rival, plus many SEC Teams play a powder cake puff Div I-AA game right before that season ending game.

(07-22-2018 11:40 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 12:44 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 09:40 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 06:42 AM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 03:52 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  The methodology makes our comparison to the P5 look worse because P5 have more games on the premiere networks. If a game is put on ABC or Fox OTS, it gets better viewership than if the same game were on ESPN/FS1.

P5 have a lot of games on ABC/CBS/Fox OTA channels which always draw the highest viewership. I think the AAC only had two regular season games on those channels last year.

Same with ESPN...it has more viewers than ESPN 2...which has more viewers than ESPNU & ESPN news, and the P5 have more games on ESPN. AAC sometimes get ESPN, but a lot of our content is on ESPN2 or lower which created lower viewership.


A UCF fan did a detailed analysis of AAC games vs P5 and further divided it into network and timeslot. So, for example, in comparing viewership of AAC games on ESPN 2 in the 7:00/7:30 PM Saturday timeslot, they are only compared to P5 games on ESPN 2 in the 7:00/7:30 PM timeslot.

He found that the AAC games on average drew between 40% and 70% of the viewers that P5 games drew in the same timeslot on the same network.

This is the analysis that indicates a big increase in the next deal to somewhere around $15M.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

^^^this^^^I understand how and why some would rather err on the side of getting another lowball contract, but there's just to many objective indicators including actual conference administrators who are in the know that are openly signaling that something good is about to happen contract wise. These things together are making me very confident of at least a 10mil+ contract. All I have to say is NBC COME ON DOWN. On a side note I'd really be grateful if someone would convince that I'm to optimistic about this because I really don't want to have my heart ripped out next January lolol

I feel like the only way we would get that kind of loot is if one of the networks that traditionally pays big dollars for A5 football drops one of those conferences, opting to get us for a little less. Otherwise, I don't know what budget that kind of money for us would come from.

Did I miss something? What is "A5 football?" Are you referring to autonomy? Using "autonomy" in place of "power" as in A5 instead of P5? If this is so, I like it.

<In James Earl-Jones voice>

"It is so."