Jump to content
BSUTOP25

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

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, RSF said:

Your numbers dont work.  For the AAC deal to rise 12 million a year to match the Pac 12, it would have to start at 0-12 million for the 1st year.  Aint happening.

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.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RSF said:

Btw...the Pac 12 holds back revenue each year as a sort of rainy day fund for years when revenue doesnt meet expectations and in those years when the Rose Bowl revenue isnt available.  They can afford to do that.

.  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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 1:05 PM, Tulsa Guy said:

You guys are spoiled.   Oklahoma U ran wild with Bud WIlkerson and BSU ran wild with Peterson.  Those days are over with.  Good coaching, redshirting, the strength rooms, and the modern and up to date stadiums at all schools make it difficult to win each and every football game.  Kansas State beat OU and OU was very, very, very lucky to survive Iowa State this Saturday (just as BSU was fortunate to beat WY).  Remember when KSU and ISU were doormats not all that long ago?.

Enjoy your victory over Wyoming...the team fought for a hard earned victory.  That's definitely worth celebrating.

Lol... It's mostly sarcasm you twit... Take your Pollyanna bullshit* to a board where you understand the culture, and where those in the culture can actually stand you. 😊

Share this post


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

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).    

Are you arguing that the AAC is equal to the PAC12!?!

Share this post


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

It wasnt a claim but a verified fact.  Yours is a claim...and its flawed. The Pac 12 numbers will continue to rise as well.  Their tier 1 media revenue alone goes up 12 million each year.  A 6% rise has been the historical benchmark, which for them would be 30 million.  And the AAC media deal will not start at 84 million the 1st year.  Thats the 12 yr average.  All the media deals are graduated.  The 84 million wont happen until year 6...by which time the Pac 12 will have a whole new deal.  And the gap will grow further, not shrink.

I think their whole conference starting from the top down is conditioned to use separate accounting and performance metrics from the rest of the world.

If the math doesn’t add up, just change the math and narrative and hope nobody notices and publish the material immediately for “branding”.

  • Like 2
  • Cheers 1

Share this post


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

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.    

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.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

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).    

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, utenation said:

I'm reinforcing one thing. Your claim: "So the AAC is not only performing at the level/exceeding old Big East but the MWC with TCU, Utah, and BYU."

You are completely wrong here... Now you are saying the past is irrelevant... So make your mind up bubba.. Are you comparing the past or present? 

 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Question for the AAC fans:  @Did I hear a WOOSH?, @Tulsa Guy @UofMTigers

Are you guys (and all of the AAC fans) seriously arguing that the AAC has surpassed the PAC12 in national prestige, in football and basketball?   Why?

And why are the AAC fans fixated on the PAC12 for some reason?

 

My understanding is that the PAC12 and AAC both have poor fan attendance (Stanford is getting like 2,000 fans out per football game), but isn't the PAC12 still a lot higher than the AAC?

Oregon and Utah football are both ranked higher than any AAC team.  And Arizona basketball (thanks to cheating) is ranked higher than any AAC team.  So why are you guys fixated on the PAC12?

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.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Are you arguing that the AAC is equal to the PAC12!?!

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.   

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×