American Athletic Conference

[1972Shocker]

How bad are things at Bradley? Bradley dropping men's tennis for financial/economic reasons flew under my radar screen.

http://shockernet.net/forum/showthread.php?19100-Shocker-Men-s-Tennis-2014-15&p=570078&viewfull=1#post570078

Apparently the coming cost of attendance stipends had a significant impact on this decision. Will the Valley as a whole be able to keep up in this new environment?

[Rlh04d]

Unfortunately those mediocre football games draw bigger tv ratings than good basketball games do. Even those run of the mill, meaningless 38 bowl games on espn draw better tv ratings than most ncaa basketball tournament games. It is sad. But college football draws better tv ratings than college basketball so that is where the money is and that is why a conference like the American continues to pursue it. There are some exceptions though, the WSU-Ku basketball game did draw better tv ratings than many of those meaningless lower tier bowl games: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/sp...ship.html?_r=1

No question football draws bigger TV ratings than basketball. That had nothing to do with my point.

My point is that low-level college football is not worth a ton, as evidenced by essentially every non-P5 (+Big East in the past) TV contract to this point. The MWC is a bit of an aberration, but they also have higher ratings than the AAC and benefit from a lack of west coast TV time zone product. I'd be interested to see the 2014 AAC TV ratings ... their 2013 ratings, with Louisville, were just 971,983 average viewers per game. The MAC was 792,583. If the AAC ratings declined close to the MAC ratings without Lousiville, that would be bad for their next TV contract. My point is also that I've yet to ever see a conference become a power conference by building through football ... yet I've seen a conference become a power conference by building through basketball.

There's also a larger financial benefit through NCAA tournament shares in basketball than there is participation in bowl games, except at the highest level. In basketball, every team has the opportunity to increase the conference NCAA payouts by increasing their product. In football, there's one "BCS" game spot for the highest-rated G5 champion, worth $4 million. That's actually somewhat low, when you factor in that a single NCAA tournament game is worth $1.6 million. Getting three teams into the NCAA tournament, all of which lose in the round of 64, would earn $4.8 million for their conference, more than the single spot for a G5 champion. Not to mention that football revenue would max out at $4 million since it's a single game, whereas in basketball that can increase several times over. From a post-season perspective, there's clearly more room for financial success for conferences in basketball than football.

Also, a strict ratings comparison between the two sports isn't that black and white, given that a basketball season holds ~three times as many games -- that's a significant amount of extra product.. Bowl games are also a different animal, regardless of who is playing in them.

[ripemupshocks]

Unfortunately those mediocre football games draw bigger tv ratings than good basketball games do. Even those run of the mill, meaningless 38 bowl games on espn draw better tv ratings than most ncaa basketball tournament games. It is sad. But college football draws better tv ratings than college basketball so that is where the money is and that is why a conference like the American continues to pursue it. There are some exceptions though, the WSU-Ku basketball game did draw better tv ratings than many of those meaningless lower tier bowl games: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/sp...ship.html?_r=1

I didn't see any AAC football teams listed in the article you linked to. But I did see teams like Iowa, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Auburn, Georgia, Notre Dame, LSU and Ole Miss; none of which are the low level FBS teams Rlh04d was referring to in his post. It doesn't matter which bowl games those P5 football teams play in, millions will watch.

[ShockerPrez]

No one gives a **** about UConn vs Cincinnati on a Thursday night.

Oh wait. Yeah. Vegas does.

Now I get it.

[UofMemphis]

I'd be the first to say I'm against adding several non-football members to the AAC. This thread proves what I've always said, we (football/non-football schools) simply don't think the same when it comes to NCAA athletics. Football will always drive the bus (at least in my lifetime) for us because from TV ratings, and season ticket potenial...to bowl money and TV money...there is so much cash to be made and exposure to be had. It's not a choice between football and basketball...we want to have the money from both.

That said, the AAC is already a hybrid conference with Navy being football only...I just don't see how a single non-football member, simply to balance out Navy, would be a problem. I would prefer WSU to be that team as you guys fit in perfectly with Tulsa, SMU, and Memphis from a geography standpoint...and offer the perfect counterpoint to Navy football.

my hope is/was that SMU (last year) and Temple (this year) being completely shafted would send a clear message to our Commish...we need a little more firepower in AAC hoops. (and the bottom needs to improve)

I feel for UAB...we have a lot of history. The MVC would be wise to grab them up quickly if they come on the market.

[shocker3]

nm

[RoyalShock]

I lol'd.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/sports/2015/04/14/wichita-state-big-east-conference/25759757/

[DwShock]

I lol'd.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/spo...ence/25759757/

That's some funny stuff.

[Shock Top]

I lol'd.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/spo...ence/25759757/

I would like to second their motion

[SHOCKvalue]

I lol'd.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/spo...ence/25759757/

Is it better to finish 9 out of 9 teams, or 10 out of 10 teams, MSU? Does it really matter?

[rrshock]

That is good. "And thus has nothing to do with back court mates Ron Baker and Fred Van Vleet returning". I lol'd too

[Dupe]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25157775/alabama-chancellor-considered-dropping-uab-football-as-early-as-2008

"The study suggested UAB would have lost money in the Missouri Valley and barely broke even in the Atlantic 10 by eliminating football. Another option of trying to be more competitive in football listed a net loss of $11.3 million.
UAB will likely be searching for a new conference soon since Conference USA membership requires playing football. C-USA is expected to make a decision in June, potentially leaving UAB as a lameduck member in the league for one last year in 2015-16. UAB has not publicly shown a financial model without C-USA revenue and what it could mean for the athletics department moving forward."


"The option for moving into the Missouri Valley without football estimated UAB would lose $54,691, given a $1.5 million loss in conference revenue. Men's track would have been added at a cost of $700,000, and additional travel expenses would have been $150,000 given the average distance of 642 miles between Birmingham and Missouri Valley members."

[ShocktheHawks]

I lol'd.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/spo...ence/25759757/

Hrrmmmm I berrieve a twade is in order.

[Ta town]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...-early-as-2008

I saw another option they studied back in 2008 was creating a new 8 team league. I like that Idea...

1. Wichita State
2. Virginia Commonwealth
3. Dayton
4. Saint Louis
5. Loyola (I really think they are going to keep improving)
6. Bradley (they are down, but have proven they are committed to basketball and they do have what 3G calls the fiscal and physical backing)
7. UAB
8. Belmont (could have been St.Joes, Richmond, George Washington but I think Belmont would help add another to the central location of the 8 team league)

[myopicraiderfan]

According to this study UAB Football was not a money loser.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12748159/uab-blazers-dropped-financial-reasons-made-money-study-finds