Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CaffeinatedCoog

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,195 profile views
  1. I understand---Im just saying that the marketing of "New Coke" wasnt the problem. The New Coke product was the problem. One theory thats been floated in the years since was the whole thing was designed to make it easy to switch from sugar to corn syrup. Supposedly when they brought back the "Classic Coke" (that was the first step toward New Coke eventually getting dumped), they brought it back with corn syrup which saved the company a crap load of money over sugar. I never heard anything about that at the time--but I guess its possible. The only formula fiddling I was aware during the New Coke period was that the Houston Bottlers got special permission from Atlanta to increase the amount of carbonation in New Coke to try to make it more like the original formulation. It didnt make any difference.
  2. Shrug. We make 2 milliion a year now. We will make 2 or 3 tiimes more than that next year even using your figures. The AAC will make some progress in closing the gap. Thats simply a fact. lol....Will that last very long---probably not. But despite your wild flailing about---like it or not---the gap will narrow next year. Not sure why you seem so bothered by that. The MW is signing a new deal. Perhaps they will do just as well. We will soon see.
  3. I am not "equating" anything. I am comparing (those words do not mean the same thing). Yes, as the 10 year old deal and the new AAC deal are the only known facts at this time---yes---I am comparing those figures to one another. Its the only data known. All deals have differing dates so whining about signing dates is silly. Its a fallacy in any comparison of contract deals. That said, I readily acknowledge that the comparison could (and likely will) change radically once the Pac12 negotiates a new deal.
  4. While this is looked at as a marketing failure---its actually more of a product failure. Coke changed the actual product and were forced to go back to the old formulation by popular demand. I actually worked for Houston Coca Cola Bottling at the time. lol---I was just an account manager at the time, but it was a horrible period to work for the company---especially for the first month following the change because the original talking points we got from corporate was something to the effect that "New Coke was the only Coke and the old formula would no longer be available". Customers didnt like that talking point at all. There were people who took their Coca Cola very seriously and there were several times when I was confronted by consumers who were so angry I though it might turn violent. Crazy times.
  5. lol---so you want me to compare a known contract to one that isnt known? Nice 7th grade logic there. Look, obviously, the numbers are likely to change down the line when the Pac12 gets a new deal. Ive already stipulated to that fact. Im simply pointing out that the AAC has moved into a financial position that resembles the old Big East's media position with respect to other AQ conferences in the BCS days (the Big East media deal was only about 1/3 of the other power conference media deals of that time). Ive also stipulated that the AAC is not a power conference and that the money is actually the easiest hurdle to clear in terms of getting to the P5 level. Getting on their level in teams of attendance, major bowls, CFP contract bowl inclusion, autonomy, etc will all be much harder to attain than getting a better TV deal. If you look at my past posts I think you will find Im pretty realistic about what the AAC is and what it isnt. The MW used to market itself as "Above The Rest". Same thing. The AAC can very reasonably argue that is the 6th best of the 10 FBS conferences. You can market the AAC as "The best of the bottom 5 conferences in FBS" or you can market the AAC as "One of the top 6 conference in FBS". While both are true----It doesnt take much marketing savy to see one sounds much better than the other.
  6. Nope. Where on earth are you getting that? Im arguing that the AAC has closed the financial gap from getting 10X less than the Pac12 to getting around 3X less than the Pac12.
  7. . lol---Yup----No G5 conference can afford to do that---Worrying about the years we dont get a 50 million dollar payout from one bowl is kind of a first world problem.
  8. Doesnt have to as nobody is saying its equal. Its always going to be roughly 3x behind. You'll actually lose ground in real dollars-----but It will certainly be less than 10X behind---which is roughly where the AAC is now in terms of payout. lol...I didnt select "7X "as the method of comparison----somebody else did.
  9. Wrong. The gap will shrink---certainly in year one of the new AAC deal. All deals are graduated, so the gap will stay generally similar throughout the current deals. That said, I agree with you that all bets are off when the Pac12 does their next deal.
  10. That must be before Pac12 Network expenses. The per team payout per that article is only 31.3 million---meaning conference operations soaked up 121.4 million. Much of that has to be costs associated with the network. At any rate, the AAC currently averaging around 5 million a team in conference payout. But in 2020, that will rise to around 9-10 a team. When you look at per team payouts its only going to be about 3X more than the AAC makes in 2020. That said, I like the P6 narrative, but I see it as more of a marketing program. The AAC isnt at a P5 level---but I do think its making progress and the P6 marketing has caught on enough with the talking heads that it helps drive consumer awareness (which helps imrpove attendance, ratings, image, perception, etc).
  11. Then if your using total conference payout, the AAC schools will be making around 9-10 million each in total revenue in 2020. That means the Pac12 would be making roughly 3X the AAC revenue---nowhere near the 7X figure the poster claimed.
  12. The Pac12 makes 7 times what the AAC makes? Not sure how you got there. They are closer to 10 times the current AAC money in 2019, but that gap will fall to just 3X in 2020. For the record, the Pac12 gets about 20 million a team from media deals with FOX and ESPN. They only make an extra million or two each from the Pac12 network. That’s nowhere near 49 million each. The Big10 doesnt even make that much from media. In the old BCS system, the other AQ conference teams were making 15 million each or so from media while the Big East teams only made about 4 million each. So, a gap of 3-4X between power conferences is not unprecedented. That said, the difference in media pay is probably the easiest hurdle for the AAC to clear to be considered a power conference. Major bowl access, average attendance, and autonomous powers are all much tougher hills to climb in its effort to be considered a power conference. It’s nowhere near where it needs to be in those categories.
  13. To be fair, thats something thats a little different in the AAC. There really is no "standard bearer". Wasnt that long ago UCF went 0-12. Its actually a pretty balanced league. UCF had a couple of really exceptional years---but Houston, Cinci, Temple, Navy, Memphis, and now SMU have all "carried the flag" at some point in the leagues short history. Heck, even Tulane is showing signs of life in Nola. It may not be as good for building a national bell cow school, but I think the fact that the winner could really come from anywhere in any given year makes things more fun. That parity may cost them an access bowl slot at some point---but as long as the programs take care of business in OOC---the parity wont hurt the league too much.
  14. Thats the only reason I think there is any chance. That western division would be all academies or private schools with Houston being the lone traditional public institution.
  15. It is. But geographic sustainability assumes there are interesting geographic peers to partner with. Sam Houston State is 40 minute drive from Texas A&M. I doubt the two will ever be a conference together. Most of the AAC members are schools that just missed the cut for the power conferences that control their region. Thus, these schools were left with just two choices---neither of them all that great. They could partner with nearby non-peer schools that aren't very good---resulting in a crappy uninteresting league with easy travel. Or---they could partner with true peer schools that are similar---but much farther away---resulting in a high quality league--that has little cohesion. It is what it is. Sometimes you just have make the best of your situation and pick your poison. I think UConn made the right decision. They were fooling themselves thinking that their football was ever going to look enticing to a power conference. The Big East will be an outstanding home for them. Their future is basketball. They will stumble through a few 1 or 2 win indy seasons in an empty football stadium. In 3 years their lease on the stadium in Hartford ends. I bet they drop to FCS shortly thereafter.