Jump to content

Archived

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

BSUTOP25

OT: UCF is absolute garbage. They’d be a .500 team in the MWC.

Recommended Posts

Guest #1Stunner
1 hour ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

National prestige? No, clearly not.  Look at their undeserving rankings.  On the field product? Yes, they are garbage.  They might get more fans in the stands in enough games to average more as a conference but we both know that’s just because they’ve got more of the market share and bigger name inter conference opponents. It’s really not by that much either.  If UCF played Stanford or even Oregon every week at home instead of Tulsa and f’ing UConn they’d have expanded their stadium by now...though it’s coming anyway.

Oregon just destroyed Memphis last night.

How can you seriously argue that the AAC is better than the PAC12.  The AAC has struggled with fan support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

National prestige? No, clearly not.  Look at their undeserving rankings.  On the field product? Yes, they are garbage.  They might get more fans in the stands in enough games to average more as a conference but we both know that’s just because they’ve got more of the market share and bigger name inter conference opponents. It’s really not by that much either.  If UCF played Stanford or even Oregon every week at home instead of Tulsa and f’ing UConn they’d have expanded their stadium by now...though it’s coming anyway.

All Time Series:  Tulsa has won 8 games.  UCF has won 3 games.  Tulsa is 7-1 against UCF in the last eight games.  Perhaps the reason Tulsa is driving down UCF's home attendance is that UCF fans don't want to watch a loss?

With 66,183 students and good football team, I have no doubt the UCF stadium needs expansion and UCF will fill it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
2 hours ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

National prestige? No, clearly not.  Look at their undeserving rankings.  On the field product? Yes, they are garbage.  They might get more fans in the stands in enough games to average more as a conference but we both know that’s just because they’ve got more of the market share and bigger name inter conference opponents. It’s really not by that much either.  If UCF played Stanford or even Oregon every week at home instead of Tulsa and f’ing UConn they’d have expanded their stadium by now...though it’s coming anyway.

Which AAC teams do you think are better than Oregon and Utah in football?

You seriously think that Oregon and Utah are "garbage" and "don't deserve their rankings"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AAC folks are starting to get a little desperate.

 

Utah was in the P12 title game last year, and the P12 is closer to the B10/SEC/B12 this year than they are the AAC.  And last year the gap was UUGE.  So if they're garbage, what does that make the AAC?

 

https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/compare2018-15.htm

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, utenation said:

I love how you are giving the AAC credit for a new contract and comparing those numbers but fail to acknowledge the P12 will also be getting a new contract in a few years and claim “its always going to be 3X behind”. Numbers you just don’t know but these media deals typically go up quite a bit for power conferences. 
 

I really hope you aren’t teaching 7th grade math somewhere because you really would be failing our youth. And I would hope the University of Houston isn’t turning out rocket scientists like yourself.

You really should just quit comparing yourself to power conferences. The AAC isn’t even on the radar.

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

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.   

Except they havent.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

The success of marketing campaign is based on performance metrics such as pipeline contribution, trackable influence, and measurable competitive brand positioning. Not by bullshit that people will look back on and ask "WTF were you thinking?" 

20190527_new-coke_CYMK_fullsize.jpg

 

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 hour ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

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.   

You are seriously equating next season's AAC TV contract with the PAC12 contract signed 10 years ago, and due for replacement in 2 years?

The AAC contract ESPN contract isn't even that much...  $7M per year ($5M after expenses), since it is heavy ESPN+.  

https://dailycampus.com/stories/2019/3/25/aac-and-espn-sign-new-12-year-media-rights-deal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

 

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.   

I suppose I might be able to find on the inter-webs but why did they ever think changing was a good idea in the first place.

And you're right, from an actual marketing standpoint, the whole snafu probably worked out well in the long run. "Coke" was like a worldwide story for awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

You are seriously equating next season's AAC TV contract with the PAC12 contract signed 10 years ago, and due for replacement in 2 years?

The AAC contract ESPN contract isn't even that much...  $7M per year ($5M after expenses), since it is heavy ESPN+.  

https://dailycampus.com/stories/2019/3/25/aac-and-espn-sign-new-12-year-media-rights-deal

 

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

You are seriously equating next season's AAC TV contract with the PAC12 contract signed 10 years ago, and due for replacement in 2 years?

The AAC contract ESPN contract isn't even that much...  $7M per year ($5M after expenses), since it is heavy ESPN+.  

https://dailycampus.com/stories/2019/3/25/aac-and-espn-sign-new-12-year-media-rights-deal

That 7M per team wont be achieved until year 6 or 7.

 

2 minutes ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

 

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.  

Given that there's much more data in this thread than that, I'm going to assume going forward that you're just being willfully obtuse.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RSF said:

That 7M per team wont be achieved until year 6 or 7.

 

Given that there's much more data in this thread than that, I'm going to assume going forward that you're just being willfully obtuse.

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

 

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.   

New Coke was a scheme that was launched from Coca Cola’s marketing department.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

I mean, none of them are good teams....this is Utah’s best year in a really long time but the PAC is just plain not good-worse than the AAC by many measures.  If Utah plays Cincy or Memphis they will lose.  That’s money in the bank.  

How much you wanna bet ?

Their d-line alone has a minumim of four and possibly 5 guys getting drafted next spring. 3 of those guys would have been drafted last year if they hadn't stayed for their senior season. 

That O-line is beast sized, athletic, and strong. They literally beat teams down over four quarters .

Utah is the team nobody  wants to play in the CFP. Even if you win, they will have beaten you down and you will have nothing left for the Championship.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, renoskier said:

 

And you're right, from an actual marketing standpoint, the whole snafu probably worked out well in the long run. "Coke" was like a worldwide story for awhile.

There is no such thing as good or bad publicity. There is only publicity.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

The MW is signing a new deal.  Perhaps they will do just as well.  We will soon see.  

No, they won't. 

To the media, Boise is a valuable asset and possibly SDSU because of it's potential SoCal market and late night scheduling slot. All other teams are not.

All I have to do is look at the broadcast outlets for the rest of the conference. It's mostly internet based or ESPN+, or EspnU.

There is very little demand even regionally for MW sports. Too many professional sports and Pac-12 teams.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

New Coke was a scheme that was launched from Coca Cola’s marketing department.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

I mean, none of them are good teams....this is Utah’s best year in a really long time but the PAC is just plain not good-worse than the AAC by many measures.  If Utah plays Cincy or Memphis they will lose.  That’s money in the bank.  

Hey @BSUTOP25, this is the “East Coast Sports Center” guy right?

He sounds very credible.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

I mean, none of them are good teams....this is Utah’s best year in a really long time but the PAC is just plain not good-worse than the AAC by many measures.  If Utah plays Cincy or Memphis they will lose.  That’s money in the bank.  

 

Your claim of the AAC outperforming the best days of the MWC - you do know that Utah had a pair of top 5 finishes in the 2000s, right?  Blowout win over Pitt in the '05 Fiesta Bowl and two td win over Alabama in '09 Sugar Bowl??   2nd in the final AP poll that year??? 

And TCU was ranked #2 in the final Coaches' poll in 2010. Won the 2011 Rose Bowl.  Just saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...