Jump to content
jdgaucho

AAC fans are a sensitive lot

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, crixus said:

You're an AAC guy, what's the latest on the possibility of WSU bringing back football? It was mentioned on this board and others back in 2016. 

 

 

they're not...and if they ever do it'll be FCS (like Nova)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UofMTigers said:

they're not...and if they ever do it'll be FCS (like Nova)

I knew if they ever did it would be at the FCS level (for awhile), but I haven't heard anything since the President of Wichita State tweeted out this picture of a Shockers football helmet in 2016. I was hoping it would happen, but thanks for letting me know that it's not. 

Image result for wichita state football helmet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 8:32 PM, roughrider said:

I think it's a parallel to Boise State fans about 8-10 years ago;   rising up and playing at a higher level but it's all new and no one outside their camp was loving them up enough for their liking (the fans' liking) so the AAC fans feel slighted.  I mean, how can everyone not see how good we are?    They're full of themselves and it will take time for them to see the light. 

TAACF? 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been making educated guesses about how TV negotiations might play out for a while now.  @UofMTigers might consider informed speculation 'peddling' but I'm not selling anything nor am I traveling from town to town in a wagon or cart.

Yes, events have proceeded along the lines that I speculated that they would so if that is upsetting to you, get ready for a bit more.

Personally I can't imagine a scenario where the AAC does better in terms of monetary compensation for their TV rights and the MW does not also do better at the same time.  Conversely, if the AAC doesn't do well then the MW is unlikely to do well either because they are very similar television products.   Either both will do better or both will not - there aren't any plausible scenarios where the AAC does well and the MW doesn't, or vice versa, because both essentially are 'peddling' TV rights for comparable conferences.  The AAC is in a part of the country where more people regularly watch college football (but their games compete directly with games from the SEC and the ACC) while the MW is in a less populated part of the country which allows 7 PM + PST start times to be broadcast nationally in Window 4 at a time where the only competition is the Pac 12 (which is probably the worst 'Power 5' conference by a long shot right now).

My opinion is that ESPN has less interest in the AAC than the MW because ESPN hasn't yet sought to have formal discussions with the AAC while ESPN already had discussions with the MW and the MW refused their offer.  The more recent news reported in the article that I quoted is that the AAC has yet to even schedule talks with ESPN which certainly supports my speculation.

The only thing that I'm saying that AAC fans could be justified in getting offended about is that I doubt that ESPN will be the sports network who pays the AAC the increased dollar amount they seek for their media rights.  The MW is well positioned to take advantage of the AAC setting the market and re-upping with ESPN due to the MW playing Window 4 games, the MW hosting a number of Bowl games at their campus stadiums (more than any other FBS conference), and the Pac 12 network being a competitor to ESPN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bruininthebay said:

I've been making educated guesses about how TV negotiations for a while now.  @UofMTigers might consider educated speculation 'peddling' but I'm not selling anything nor am I traveling from town to town in a wagon or cart.

Yes, events have proceeded along the lines that I speculated that they would so if that is upsetting to you, get ready for a bit more.

Personally I can't imagine a scenario where the AAC does better in terms of monetary compensation for their TV rights and the MW does not also do better at the same time.  Conversely, if the AAC doesn't do well then the MW is unlikely to do well either because they are very similar television projects.   Either both will do better or both will not - there aren't any plausible scenarios where the AAC does well and the MW doesn't, or vice versa, because both essentially are 'peddling' TV rights for comparable conferences.  The AAC is in a part of the country where more people regularly watch college football (but their games compete directly with games from the SEC and the ACC) while the MW is in a less populated part of the country which allows 7 PM + PST start times to be broadcast nationally in Window 4 at a time where the only competition is the Pac 12 (which is probably the worst 'Power 5' conference by a long shot right now).

My opinion is that ESPN has less interest in the AAC than the MW because ESPN hasn't yet sought to have formal discussions with the AAC while ESPN already had discussions with the MW and the MW refused their offer.  The more recent news reported in the article that I quoted is that the AAC has yet to even schedule talks with ESPN which certainly supports my speculation.

The only thing that I'm saying that AAC fans would be justified in getting offended about is that I doubt that ESPN will be the sports network who pays the AAC the increased dollar amount they seek for their media rights while the MW is well positioned to take advantage of the AAC setting the market and re-upping with ESPN due to the MW playing Window 4 games, the MW hosting a number of Bowl games at their campus stadium (more than any other FBS conference) and the Pac 12 network being a competitor to ESPN.

Very interesting comments. The comment about the Window 4 games favoring the MWC is a good one. I was also unaware that the MWC had refused ESPNs latest offer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Window 4 is very important because a specific commercial license is required in a bar throughout the United States if that bar has a single TV larger than 55", more than four TVs, or is sufficiently large in floor space.  ESPN derives revenue from broadcasting college football in sports bars in addition to cable subscription fees and advertising.

https://www.consumerreports.org/consumerist/copyright-law-why-your-favorite-bar-cant-show-the-game-on-a-60-tv/

If you’ve got a TV pulling broadcast signals from the air, it’s completely legal to have that TV showing something — even the Super Bowl or World Series — in a bar or restaurant provided that:

  • You don’t charge an admission or cover fee,
  • The bar or restaurant in question has less than 3750 square feet of space,
  • No more than four screens are showing the broadcast, and
  • None of the televisions are larger than 55 inches.

Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

The upshot is that these licenses provide additional revenue to the media right's holder.   Viewer ratings don't account for more than a single 'viewer' per channel at a sports bar but every sports bar in the Central and Eastern Time zones that broadcasts college football until closing time at 2 AM has to pay for those media rights.  Each state regulates this a bit differently.

Boise State is a national brand because so many people in the East and Midwest have rooted for the Broncos until closing time at their local sports bar on at least one occasion.  The MW has a number of teams that can just as easily capture the nation with consistent winning in the same way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 10:52 AM, FresnoFacts said:

The AAC's P6 Strategic Plan included league goals they needed to meet so that, in their opinion, they would be considered a "Power" league. The Baseball goals (listed on page 13 at the link):

3.33 - A College World Series team

3.34 - NCAA Super Regional participant

3.35 - Host of NCAA Regionals and NCAA Super Regionals

http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/theamerican.sidearmsports.com/documents/2017/5/1/AACStrategyGuide_WEB_FINAL.pdf

By their own measures they are not a "Power" league yet in baseball, or for that matter in other sports.

As befits a former TV executive, for Aresco it's all about flash. Slick brochures, catchy phrases, THAT'S what matters. It's laughable how many intellectually challenged college sports fans buy that nonsense. But then again, this is the era of Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Window 4 anything like Windows 10? I'm :blink:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

 I was also unaware that the MWC had refused ESPNs latest offer. 

Here is the Hair commenting to the press on what they told CBS and ESPN when those networks made an offer to renew their TV deals.  

Advance the viewer to about two minute and twenty seconds and watch the video.  He states that they already declined to renew their offer under their current terms (CBS primary, ESPN secondary) and will "keep our powder dry" until 2019 at the earliest to see what develops. 

It will be much more certain what will happen with the AAC after February 2019 so the Hair appears to be pursuing the right strategy.

http://www.coloradoan.com/videos/sports/csu/football/2017/07/29/mw-weighs-tv-digital-options-commissioner-says/104107574/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of ending up sounding stupid myself, I actually think that's a good move on Thompson's part. If it's going to survive long term the MW must produce greater TV revenue from its constituent parts. If ESPN argues it won't pony up more ducats per member the way the MW is presently composed that would give the lion's share of the conference's membership cover to tell the deadwood they need to make a quantum improvement football and basketball programs immediately or get the heck out of Dodge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bruininthebay said:

I've been making educated guesses 

repeating the obvious ad nauseam is not an educated guess...It's been known ever since the AAC invited WSU that negotiations would take place AFTER getting the ESPN numbers for WSUs inaugural AAC season.

I'm hoping we'll be in negotiations by the time football season kicks off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UofMTigers said:

repeating the obvious ad nauseam is not an educated guess...It's been known ever since the AAC invited WSU that negotiations would take place AFTER getting the ESPN numbers for WSUs inaugural AAC season.

I'm hoping we'll be in negotiations by the time football season kicks off.

My understanding is that the AAC/ESPN exclusive 30 day negotiating window has to start before Feb 2019.

That means one side or the other might want to wait for 2018 football season results to use in negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that ESPN and the AAC have not even begun to have conversations should be concerning to the AAC. 

With that said, I have always believe that the floor is about $3 million, and their ceiling is about $5 million. Those on the AAC board expecting above $10 million are delusional. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An expected $6-$8 million floor is what I've seen posted there, Fanhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bruininthebay said:

Window 4 is very important because a specific commercial license is required in a bar throughout the United States if that bar has a single TV larger than 55", more than four TVs, or is sufficiently large in floor space.  ESPN derives revenue from broadcasting college football in sports bars in addition to cable subscription fees and advertising.

https://www.consumerreports.org/consumerist/copyright-law-why-your-favorite-bar-cant-show-the-game-on-a-60-tv/

If you’ve got a TV pulling broadcast signals from the air, it’s completely legal to have that TV showing something — even the Super Bowl or World Series — in a bar or restaurant provided that:

  • You don’t charge an admission or cover fee,
  • The bar or restaurant in question has less than 3750 square feet of space,
  • No more than four screens are showing the broadcast, and
  • None of the televisions are larger than 55 inches.

Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

The upshot is that these licenses provide additional revenue to the media right's holder.   Viewer ratings don't account for more than a single 'viewer' per channel at a sports bar but every sports bar in the Central and Eastern Time zones that broadcasts college football until closing time at 2 AM has to pay for those media rights.  Each state regulates this a bit differently.

 Boise State is a national brand because so many people in the East and Midwest have rooted for the Broncos until closing time at their local sports bar on at least one occasion.  The MW has a number of teams that can just as easily capture the nation with consistent winning in the same way.

Your last paragraph is sooooo untrue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just looking forward to watching the rationalizations on why the AAC totally doesn't/didn't need Boise State as a member after BSU goes to a 4th NY6 bowl this year.

Yes, yes...counting chickens before they're hatched and all that. It's a looong season. But if they can count an expansion of the P5 back into the P6 before it's hatched then all's fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I'm just looking forward to watching the rationalizations on why the AAC totally doesn't/didn't need Boise State as a member after BSU goes to a 4th NY6 bowl this year.

Yes, yes...counting chickens before they're hatched and all that. It's a looong season. But if they can count an expansion of the P5 back into the P6 before it's hatched then all's fair.

It's more likely that the P5 becomes the P4, than that there will ever be a P6.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DestinFlPackfan said:

Your last paragraph is sooooo untrue.

I'm definitely no expert but I remember reading an article in SI, the Sporting News or another such large circulation mag that attributed a lot of Boise's national following to the fact that school had welcomed midweek scheduling contrary to schools like SDSU and the MW as a whole for that matter. As such, particularly since Boise would usually beat the stuffing out of WAC opponents in those games, a lot of folks would see them in East Coast sports pubs. Again, I'm not an expert but doesn't that make some sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2018 at 9:08 AM, Bruininthebay said:

I've been making educated guesses about how TV negotiations might play out for a while now.  @UofMTigers might consider informed speculation 'peddling' but I'm not selling anything nor am I traveling from town to town in a wagon or cart.

Yes, events have proceeded along the lines that I speculated that they would so if that is upsetting to you, get ready for a bit more.

Personally I can't imagine a scenario where the AAC does better in terms of monetary compensation for their TV rights and the MW does not also do better at the same time.  Conversely, if the AAC doesn't do well then the MW is unlikely to do well either because they are very similar television products.   Either both will do better or both will not - there aren't any plausible scenarios where the AAC does well and the MW doesn't, or vice versa, because both essentially are 'peddling' TV rights for comparable conferences.  The AAC is in a part of the country where more people regularly watch college football (but their games compete directly with games from the SEC and the ACC) while the MW is in a less populated part of the country which allows 7 PM + PST start times to be broadcast nationally in Window 4 at a time where the only competition is the Pac 12 (which is probably the worst 'Power 5' conference by a long shot right now).

My opinion is that ESPN has less interest in the AAC than the MW because ESPN hasn't yet sought to have formal discussions with the AAC while ESPN already had discussions with the MW and the MW refused their offer.  The more recent news reported in the article that I quoted is that the AAC has yet to even schedule talks with ESPN which certainly supports my speculation.

The only thing that I'm saying that AAC fans could be justified in getting offended about is that I doubt that ESPN will be the sports network who pays the AAC the increased dollar amount they seek for their media rights.  The MW is well positioned to take advantage of the AAC setting the market and re-upping with ESPN due to the MW playing Window 4 games, the MW hosting a number of Bowl games at their campus stadiums (more than any other FBS conference), and the Pac 12 network being a competitor to ESPN.

Don't take the criticism personally. You remind me of myself the year I spent a fair amount of time on the SJSU board. I meant no harm but as an outsider, any time I said anything construed to be at all critical of SJSU, even when what I said was supported by facts, there was a small cadre of regulars who would lash out. I don't always agree with you either but I'm glad you're here because you bring some valuable info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SGF.  I developed my non-UCLA sports interest on the old SJSU board and recall your participation on that board. 

Hopefully you regain some optimism about SJSU because they find some way to demonstrate they are getting on the right track even if they aren't all the way to where they ought to be.

Personally I try to take an optimistic spin (especially when posting on a board which is not 'mine') because so many people take a negative slant when they post and I don't want to go to someone else's 'home' to spread negativity.

I'm also glad you participate here although I do sometimes disagree with you as well.

I have no issue with people expressing their opinions but if a post has no basis in fact or any explanation of why someone has the opinion that they do, then I don't see a need to respond to it. 

Anyone who is reasonably objective will immediately tell that person's opinion is worth the underlying information used to formulate it, so if there is no underlying thought to an opinion then it reflects on the poster, not myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×