Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1066

The AAC commish receives $1.86 million salary per year ?????

Recommended Posts

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/aac-tv-deal-impact-future-college-football-rights-034901284.html

 

See the above article on the upcoming contract between the AAC and the thus far unnamed TV network. It is a somewhat interesting article by a former ESPN reporter, or perhaps a still ESPN reporter.  The most interesting part of the article is where he lists the salary of the ACC commish as $1.86 million bucks. I believe our glorious leader Hair receives $600 grand. $1.86 mill is more than any school in the MWC gets except perhaps Boise. 

Go figure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1066 said:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/aac-tv-deal-impact-future-college-football-rights-034901284.html

 

See the above article on the upcoming contract between the AAC and the thus far unnamed TV network. It is a somewhat interesting article by a former ESPN reporter, or perhaps a still ESPN reporter.  The most interesting part of the article is where he lists the salary of the ACC commish as $1.86 million bucks. I believe our glorious leader Hair receives $600 grand. $1.86 mill is more than any school in the MWC gets except perhaps Boise. 

Go figure

Mike A. gets paid more than his teams. Think about that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, roughrider said:

It's like cops.  Or teachers.   You get what you pay for. 

Aresco is equally as incompetent as Thompson and Thompson ain't overpaid. So if Aresco is actually making three times what Thompson gets, he either knows where some skeletons are buried or the AAC presidents are dumber than dirt.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Aresco is equally as incompetent as Thompson and Thompson ain't overpaid. So if Aresco is actually making three times what Thompson gets, he either knows where some skeletons are buried or the AAC presidents are dumber than dirt.

I own no Aresco t-shirts.  He's a TV exec masquerading as a commish.   We'll see if he's overpaid in the AAC's eyes though, soon.  If they gain any ground in the next TV negotiations he's worth more than Hair.  

And most presidents are dumber than dirt when it comes to athletics.  It's why I really liked Kustra who built academics up but loves athletics and knows their value to the school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
17 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Aresco is equally as incompetent as Thompson and Thompson ain't overpaid. So if Aresco is actually making three times what Thompson gets, he either knows where some skeletons are buried or the AAC presidents are dumber than dirt.

Why do you call Aresco incompetent? 

He's been the commissioner of the AAC for a lot shorter time period than Thompson.   The AAC, compared to the MWC, has managed to negotiate some pretty good bowl ties.  They are generally regarded as stronger in basketball and football.  I'd say the jury is out on him---whereas Thompson is a known failure.

We'll see if he can get them a big TV deal or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Why do you call Aresco incompetent? 

He's been the commissioner of the AAC for a lot shorter time period than Thompson.   The AAC, compared to the MWC, has managed to negotiate some pretty good bowl ties.  They are generally regarded as stronger in basketball and football.  I'd say the jury is out on him---whereas Thompson is a known failure.

We'll see if he can get them a big TV deal or not.

You make a great point about the bowl tie-ins so Aresco one-ups Thompson in that regard.

OTOH, as I explained several weeks ago, Aresco's pushing his bosses to add Tulane was far dumber than Thompson's advocacy of SJSU to the MW presidents.

So it's a push as to which is the worst commissioner.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
32 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

You make a great point about the bowl tie-ins so Aresco one-ups Thompson in that regard.

OTOH, as I explained several weeks ago, Aresco's pushing his bosses to add Tulane was far dumber than Thompson's advocacy of SJSU to the MW presidents.

So it's a push as to which is the worst commissioner.

I've never understood the hatred for Tulane.  Why are people so down on Tulane?  You think Tulane is worse than SJSU?!

Here is the thing about Tulane.  They have a desire (and means) to improve.  They did build a new on-campus stadium.  Modest yes.  But it is decent.  They also remodeled their basketball gym.

I'd say their facilities are not that bad.

https://tulanegreenwave.com/facilities/

 

Now, it just depends on if they spend the money to try and compete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, #1Stunner said:

I've never understood the hatred for Tulane.  Why are people so down on Tulane?  You think Tulane is worse than SJSU?!

Here is the thing about Tulane.  They have a desire (and means) to improve.  They did build a new on-campus stadium.  Modest yes.  But it is decent.  They also remodeled their basketball gym.

I'd say their facilities are not that bad.

https://tulanegreenwave.com/facilities/

 

Now, it just depends on if they spend the money to try and compete.

Because, like San Jose, they haven't had many successful seasons in their major sports. Since 2000 they have had 5 winning seasons in basketball and only 7 winning seasons in football since 1980. For sports success to be invited to a conference who believes they are big time, it was a head scratcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tulane is a fine school that would make a fine academic partner. But  we're talking athletic organizations.  Screwing your athletics so you can add a good academic school is stupid and appeases dumb ass presidents who should let their AD's run athletics.   Your school's academics should stand on their own but as BYU is proving, you need a solid conference around you to get the most out of your athletics.  

I'm glad they added Tulane though.  If they hadn't, we'd be in that conference for football and the big west for everything else.   Sorry to everyone here that we forced the Hair to add SJSU before we came slinking back.  It's on us. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wolfpack1 said:

Because, like San Jose, they haven't had many successful seasons in their major sports. Since 2000 they have had 5 winning seasons in basketball and only 7 winning seasons in football since 1980. For sports success to be invited to a conference who believes they are big time, it was a head scratcher.

Yes. Tulane is one of the finest academic schools in the country. However, unless you're the B1G, conference membership isn't about academics. Tulane may also have better facilities than SJSU. However, the criticism of Tulane's admission to the AAC isn't about that either. For the MW, adding SJSU was detrimental in that it puts one more mouth to be fed in the conference cart which does nothing to help pull it. In the case of Tulane, the nBE's addition of that school set in motion Boise's rescission of its acceptance to membership, which led to SDSU's doing the same, and which in all likelihood put a dagger into any chance of the nBE keeping the C7 in the fold. 

And remember HOW Tulane came to join. If all the rumors are accurate, Aresco got a call from the AD of UCF, which hadn't even joined the nBE yet, advocating the addition of Tulane. That AD also advocated that Aresco ask the opinion of the AD of SMU, another school which hadn't even joined yet. When SMU also said Tulane was God's gift to college sports, Aresco set up an emergency conference call of his bosses and supposedly pitched the thing as basically a fait accompli. Marquette's AD later publicly let it be known how upset his school was at the way it was handled and I can say from having had a source within SDSU's athletic department and an indirect source to Boise's athletic department that although as merely pending members for football only they knew they wouldn't have been allowed to vote on adding Tulane, each was pissed they not only weren't asked their opinion, they didn't even find out about the vote until after the fact.

And consider this. Six years down the road, had Boise and SDSU football stayed in and had C7 hoops stayed in, just how much more TV money would the AAC be looking at today compared to what it will be required to settle for?

Based on the above, I would be curious if anyone can name a single worse expansion decision. I honestly don't think there has been one even close to as bad over the last three or four decades.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say bowl tie-ins are more about geography than anything.  The schools in the AAC happen to be located in highly populated areas, and close to P5 schools.  That alone gives them more bowl opportunities than those of us in the West.  Has little to do with Aresco's competence or incompetence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
On 7/27/2018 at 12:23 PM, roughrider said:

Tulane is a fine school that would make a fine academic partner. But  we're talking athletic organizations.  Screwing your athletics so you can add a good academic school is stupid and appeases dumb ass presidents who should let their AD's run athletics.   Your school's academics should stand on their own but as BYU is proving, you need a solid conference around you to get the most out of your athletics.  

I'm glad they added Tulane though.  If they hadn't, we'd be in that conference for football and the big west for everything else.   Sorry to everyone here that we forced the Hair to add SJSU before we came slinking back.  It's on us. 

 

Great point, but even Boise, like BYU, is not in a "solid conference".  Look at 2011 to 2017. The only solid conferences are P5.

 

BOISE
73-19 (7 bowl appearances)

SDSU
64-29 (7 bowl appearances)

 

BYU - 2011-2017

56-35 (6 bowlappearances). 

 

USU
52-40 (6 bowl appearances)

AFA 
48-42 (5 bowl appearances)

CSU
46-43 (5 bowl appearances)

 

----Below .500 ---- CUTOFF -----

FRESNO
44-47 (4 bowl appearances)

NEVADA
40-48 (4 bowl appearances)

WYOMING
39-49 (3 bowl appearances)

SAN JOSE
36-50 (2 bowl appearances)

NEW MEXICO
31-56 (2 bowl appearances)

HAWAII
27-62 (1 bowl appearance)

UNLV
25-62 (1 bowl appearance)
 

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...