Excitement for the American Athletic Conference | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Excitement for the American Athletic Conference

Status
Not open for further replies.
whaler11 said:
This league has existed for decades. It's called Conference USA. Nobody has been excited about CUSA since 1988.
Expand ...


Conference USA didn't have UCONN.

And that is a bit deal.
 
Of the five games I am excited about this year, only one is an AAC game (I'm not counting Louisville and Rutgers as AAU).
 
Husky25 said:
Bottom line is that there are no rivals for UConn like there are for everyone else...yet. USF and Cinci because they are old Big East foe's, Temple because of Proximity, but where's respectful hatred between fan bases? Where's the stolen mascots? The tradition of playing the same team on Thanksgiving weekend? Fan bases make a rivalry, not a contrived trophy.

UConn's rival is Boston College. Pure and Simple and regardless if any games have been played over the last 10 years.
Expand ...
Welcome to college sports post CR. UConn is not alone in not having rivals anymore. Who's a conference rival for Louisville, WVU, Pitt, RU, Maryland, Missouri...? I can go on and on. The lacn of regional rivalries in conferences will be college footballs downfall (if it ever has one). College sports is built off rivalries and many have been destroyed over the almighty dollar.

Looking at the AAC, Cincy has no rival either.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
My post was mainly about football. We weren't winning too many recruiting battles with RU, or Pitt, when we were all in the big east. We did better against Cuse in that regard. Unless we replace P down the line with a dynamic recruiter, we are going to struggle against all those schools. We had recently made inroads against the likes of bcu and UMD recruiting wise, but I fear, its back to square one for us recruiting wise. Basketball will be fine as long as kevin ollie is here.
 
UCFBfan said:
Welcome to college sports post CR. UConn is not alone in not having rivals anymore. Who's a conference rival for Louisville, WVU, Pitt, RU, Maryland, Missouri...? I can go on and on. The lacn of regional rivalries in conferences will be college footballs downfall (if it ever has one). College sports is built off rivalries and many have been destroyed over the almighty dollar.

Looking at the AAC, Cincy has no rival either.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Expand ...

That's the same with BC in the ACC over the last 10 years. Disregard the ridiculous success of the areas' pro teams, BC is a distant 5th (if theyare even that high at all) in Boston. Part of the reason is that no team make their blood boil. They had no regional rival. They mutually and intentionally burned the bridge with UConn, and look at the nosedive their non-Hockey sports have taken. Unprecedented!

'Cuse and Pitt are closer to them geographically than their former closest geographic "rival" (Maryland), but not by much and the blood doesn't seem to get much higher than lukewarm. Now look at UConn. When they last played the score was pretty close but it was clear that BC was a half step faster (and better). Imagine if they played now? BC fans would come into the game with an air of false superiority based merely on conference affiliation, get punched in the month, and BOOM...a rivalry is reborn.

BC needs to get back on UConn's schedules. It's a no brainer. UMass as well but it is less important than BC.
 
.-.
Hoophound said:
I get excited periodically but the lack of money just kills my buzz. It isn't a viable long term home financially. No matter how good it ends up being, how can we get $10,000,000 or more per year, per school with members like ECU and Tulane? There just isn't enough juice there to ever merit a payday that will make The American a viable major conference. I sure hope I'm wrong.
Expand ...

This, I believe, is the correct view for a UConn stakeholder.

It's a NICE solid conference of OUR peer Football Programs. It does have some basketball solid Programs. So ... that's NOT awful. The folks getting all up in arms ... and saying that they aren't going to the games. Get lost.

But, the real key is the disparity in dollars from where we were; and the disparity in dollars where the bigger conferences are going. Bowl games. Championship access. It is a scary new world. I think we can build this Program to a good spot. We have the Market and we do AD well. We have National Championship quality Hoop .... Hockey will be good. But, this needs to be upwardly pushed economically within a few years ... or we are sunk.
 
UConnDan97 said:
I'm excited about the new league also, and I think that it is going to be better than most are giving it credit for. I'm still up at night clicking "refresh", praying for the news that we got into the B1G, but I believe that this will be a solid conference.

For those that think it is just C-USA, we've essentially taken that conference and switched out UAB/Marshall/UTEP for UConn/Cincy/USF. If people believe that is just a trivial switch, they are kidding themselves. (and in two years, you can add Rice for Navy)

Finally, I do agree that we would be better off with SDSU and Boise, even if it meant more travel. But that ship has sailed, like many other ships that we tried to get on board. I still believe that this ship will get us to our desired destination, barnacles and all...
Expand ...

I think WE would be better if we captured the best in the Mountain West also. That makes a very compelling argument ... watching a Boise team that is a solid 10-1 versus a Cincinnati at 10-1 is far better than Wake Forest v Syracuse. Someone would pay for that.
 
jbdphi said:
I'm not quite throwing up in my own mouth like many others are claiming they are when they look at our schedule.

On the other hand, I'm quite depressed that in what the majority here are calling a crappy conference, we are likely to have a losing record in football this year. I just can't fool myself into thinking we're going to be good this year. It would take a minor miracle.
Expand ...

The 2013 Schedule is far better than any we have ever come close to.

Going forward?
 
For what it's worth Maryland is a pretty decent amount closer to Boston than Pittsburgh is.
 
Pudge said:
I think WE would be better if we captured the best in the Mountain West also. That makes a very compelling argument ... watching a Boise team that is a solid 10-1 versus a Cincinnati at 10-1 is far better than Wake Forest v Syracuse. Someone would pay for that.
Expand ...

They actually wouldn't. This is why Boise State is still in Mountain West.
 
.-.
That's worth a little. I stand corrected. For some reason I was thinking Maryland was closer to D.C. and comparing the door to door drive time, considering Beltway Traffic and stops.
 
whaler11 said:
They actually wouldn't. This is why Boise State is still in Mountain West.
Expand ...

That's actually not accurate. People paying for the ACC contract aren't paying big money to see Syracuse vs. Wake Forest. They're paying to see Florida State vs. Clemson. Syracuse and Wake Forest just happen to be in their conference now.

If Syracuse was worth 20 million per year under all circumstances, the Big East would still be around...
 
whaler11 said:
They actually wouldn't. This is why Boise State is still in Mountain West.
Expand ...

That's your opinion. Don't continue to foist us on some greater knowledge ... when it's just an informed opinion. I grant you that you have read & understand a lot about the conferences and what's transpired. But, there is NO answer to what you posted. And, not only that, I think that answer could be far different in a few years once the Big Conferences get a little down the road. Boise is just a better viewing experience than a Vandy or a Mississippi State. If you are filling a content wall ... my OPINION is that there will be room for better Programs on some platform.
 
Pudge said:
That's your opinion. Don't continue to foist us on some greater knowledge ... when it's just an informed opinion. I grant you that you have read & understand a lot about the conferences and what's transpired. But, there is NO answer to what you posted. And, not only that, I think that answer could be far different in a few years once the Big Conferences get a little down the road. Boise is just a better viewing experience than a Vandy or a Mississippi State. If you are filling a content wall ... my OPINION is that there will be room for better Programs on some platform.
Expand ...

Huh? They were coming for the money and it turned out the money wasn't there. So they left and cut themselves a better deal with MWC.

Boise has a platform. UConn has a platform. They just aren't on platforms that television networks are willing to pay a premium for.

This is really a response to Dan: None of these schools have any value in a vacuum. It's all context dependent based on who you are associated with.

Syracuse didn't magically have more inherent value overnight. Rutgers doesn't have 15x the inherent value of UConn.

Syracuse is worth more in the ACC than the Big East or AAC. Same is true of UConn. So just because individual schools didn't drive contracts higher in their old league doesn't mean you try to affix the old value when the context changes.
 
Appreciate the optimism for the new conference! Well Guess what this conference has an auto BCS bid this year. Lets win it!
 
I'm excited for next year's schedule. I don't consider the AAC to be our long term home, so I'm looking forward to playing some new teams over the next few years. From a quality of football standpoint the teams we're bringing in are almost on par with who we're losing. June Jones is making a good program down in SMU, and ECF/UCF have been good on the field for a long time. Tulane and Memphis are duds, but I think one of the BE's problems since the first split was that we didn't have any real garbage teams like the other major conferences had. We had no Duke/Indiana/WashingtonState to bulk up the win column while all the other conferences had 2 or 3 teams like that. The closest we had was Syracuse. Cuse and Pitt were decent little rivalries but they were boring and I think SMU and Houston will be a lot more fun to watch than either of them. I think we just need to try our best to win a lot of games and play exciting football until we find a new home. I am worried about what our schedule will look like going forward. It's going to be nothing but MAC/CUSA teams so I think we should just try to schedule OOC as easy as possible. If we're going to be playing non conference games nobody cares about we might as well win them. It's not like a home and home against even a lousy power 5 team will be an option. If we rack up a lot of 9-10 win seasons it'll keep the fans interested until we leave and I think that needs to be our biggest goal.

In basketball I think we're easily a good enough brand to thrive in this conference and we'll be able to schedule interesting non conference match ups as we always have. Conference affiliation isn't as importance in basketball, as we've seen numerous teams thrive in conferences that nobody can name, and I think Kevin Ollie will have us dominating this riff raff for as long as he has to so we'll still be in the tournament every year. I hate losing the BE tournament, but we didn't lose that so much as it was destroyed so there's no point in lamenting it.

Overall I don't think we're in as bad a position a lot of you seem to think. The other BCS teams have always been making more money than us from their TV contracts and we've held up fine. Might as well enjoy watching some new teams in the meantime.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
Huh? They were coming for the money and it turned out the money wasn't there. So they left and cut themselves a better deal with MWC.

Boise has a platform. UConn has a platform. They just aren't on platforms that television networks are willing to pay a premium for.

This is really a response to Dan: None of these schools have any value in a vacuum. It's all context dependent based on who you are associated with.

Syracuse didn't magically have more inherent value overnight. Rutgers doesn't have 15x the inherent value of UConn.

Syracuse is worth more in the ACC than the Big East or AAC. Same is true of UConn. So just because individual schools didn't drive contracts higher in their old league doesn't mean you try to affix the old value when the context changes.
Expand ...

I'm glad your response to me says exactly what I was said to you, although I'm not sure why you felt you needed to re-say it.

It still doesn't mean that your initial statement was accurate. And for the record, it wasn't. Your original statement mentioned that nobody would pay for a 10-1 Boise versus a 10-1 Cincy. That's simply not true. I would guarantee that game would find itself in a national slot since it would have BCS implications (2013) or big bowl game / playoff game implications (2014 and beyond). People would certainly pay for that. What they wouldn't pay for is Boise - Tulane or SDSU - ECU. THAT'S why they didn't come...
 
UConnDan97 said:
I'm glad your response to me says exactly what I was said to you, although I'm not sure why you felt you needed to re-say it.

It still doesn't mean that your initial statement was accurate. And for the record, it wasn't. Your original statement mentioned that nobody would pay for a 10-1 Boise versus a 10-1 Cincy. That's simply not true. I would guarantee that game would find itself in a national slot since it would have BCS implications (2013) or big bowl game / playoff game implications (2014 and beyond). People would certainly pay for that. What they wouldn't pay for is Boise - Tulane or SDSU - ECU. THAT'S why they didn't come...
Expand ...

You can't buy individual games after you know what the teams records are, so it's a bit of a pointless statement to begin with. Networks had every opportunity to acquire the rights to Cincinnati and Boise and the league ended up embarrassed by how the negotiations went.

Nobody was willing to pay anything above spare change for the league - so the fact there there could be one specific matchup that might be interesting if both teams were 10-1 doesn't really say much.

I've been reading about the theoretical television potential of this league for a long time. It has proven to have none. It's time to stop pretending something that never existed still does.

Does it make sense that there is such of a revenue gulf between the AAC and ACC? Of course not: Their ratings aren't ten times higher, the games aren't ten times better.
 
We need cash. You can put a positive spin on the AAC all you want but it won't change the fact that we need to make money. The AAC payout is horrible. I could find more money in HFD's couch.
 
Count me as excited. The product on the field will be just as good as the Big East. Like another person said, the AAC is my favorite conference because UCONN plays in it. We just need to win.

Also playing in Texas every year could help recruiting, do we get Richard Lagow in the old Big East?
 
Hoophound said:
We need cash. You can put a positive spin on the AAC all you want but it won't change the fact that we need to make money. The AAC payout is horrible. I could find more money in HFD's couch.
Expand ...


I don't understand the obsession with money in amateur athletics. Are you suggesting that over the last 5 years BC has been more successful than Boise because they have made more money?
 
whaler11 said:
You can't buy individual games after you know what the teams records are, so it's a bit of a pointless statement to begin with. Networks had every opportunity to acquire the rights to Cincinnati and Boise and the league ended up embarrassed by how the negotiations went.

Nobody was willing to pay anything above spare change for the league - so the fact there there could be one specific matchup that might be interesting if both teams were 10-1 doesn't really say much.

I've been reading about the theoretical television potential of this league for a long time. It has proven to have none. It's time to stop pretending something that never existed still does.

Does it make sense that there is such of a revenue gulf between the AAC and ACC? Of course not: Their ratings aren't ten times higher, the games aren't ten times better.
Expand ...

I know you can't buy individual games. But individual games are most certainly what networks are looking at when making their bids.

You stated that the reason Boise stayed in the MW was because nobody would pay for the games. That's absolutely not true. The only reason that Boise stayed in the MW was because they were able to coerce the MW into giving them (and ONLY them) the same amount of money. When coupled with less travel, they made their decision to stay. But don't say that it was because they wouldn't have received better money, because they would have:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...te-mountain-west-conference-big-east/1801267/

(Note: even after the sweetheart deal, SDSU was still on the fence to join the Big East, knowing full well that they were not going to enjoy in the sweetheart deal)
 
.-.
UConnDan97 said:
I know you can't buy individual games. But individual games are most certainly what networks are looking at when making their bids.

You stated that the reason Boise stayed in the MW was because nobody would pay for the games. That's absolutely not true. The only reason that Boise stayed in the MW was because they were able to coerce the MW into giving them (and ONLY them) the same amount of money. When coupled with less travel, they made their decision to stay. But don't say that it was because they wouldn't have received better money, because they would have:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...te-mountain-west-conference-big-east/1801267/

(Note: even after the sweetheart deal, SDSU was still on the fence to join the Big East, knowing full well that they were not going to enjoy in the sweetheart deal)
Expand ...

So if networks are bidding thinking about individual games and the AAC offers were a joke doesn't that lead you to the conclusion that games like Cincinnati and Boise for example were not valued by television? Which is exactly what I said that upset you and Pudge to begin with.

Sorry you want to be pedantic about it... Boise State stayed in the MWC because nobody would pay any premium above and beyond the potential MWC money. Based on what they get on the open market television generally believes neither league has any value.

While there is a constant drumbeat here that somehow Boise has some value, their inclusion in either league didn't move the needle. So while Pudge can say Boise is more interesting or exciting than Mississippi State - that's great but doesn't much matter.
 
whaler11 said:
So if networks are bidding thinking about individual games and the AAC offers were a joke doesn't that lead you to the conclusion that games like Cincinnati and Boise for example were not valued by television? Which is exactly what I said that upset you and Pudge to begin with.

Sorry you want to be pedantic about it... Boise State stayed in the MWC because nobody would pay any premium above and beyond the potential MWC money. Based on what they get on the open market television generally believes neither league has any value.

While there is a constant drumbeat here that somehow Boise has some value, their inclusion in either league didn't move the needle. So while Pudge can say Boise is more interesting or exciting than Mississippi State - that's great but doesn't much matter.
Expand ...

What I'm saying to you is that THERE WAS a premium value that Boise brought to the Big East. I'm not sure why you are avoiding that fact. The Mountain West completely restructured their deal in order to bring back Boise, so that they would avoid conference death. The other teams of the league essentially agreed to take less money each in order to create the level of money that Boise was due to make in the Big East. So yes, there was a premium that Boise was going to bring to both the BE and the MW, and both groups recognized it. You are the last person to recognize that fact. Or the last one to admit it. I'm not sure which...
 
huskymedic said:
I'm sure it will be picked apart but here is an American PSA http://theamerican.org/showcase/?Archive=5

The American site is now live - content still being added.

Link showing where each of the sport's championships are planned on being played - http://theamerican.org/sports/2013/6/22/MBB_0622130547.aspx?id=3&
Expand ...

I think it's good.

At risk of sounding like I'm picking it apart, I wish they didn't put as much emphasis on Louisville as they did on this one. I know that they won the BBall title so we want to play that up, but it's only good for a year, and I think everyone knows that Louisville is outta here. The Rutgers cameos....I don't mind so much. I think it's because even the B1G can't believe that they're coming... ;)
 
UConnDan97 said:
What I'm saying to you is that THERE WAS a premium value that Boise brought to the Big East. I'm not sure why you are avoiding that fact. The Mountain West completely restructured their deal in order to bring back Boise, so that they would avoid conference death. The other teams of the league essentially agreed to take less money each in order to create the level of money that Boise was due to make in the Big East. So yes, there was a premium that Boise was going to bring to both the BE and the MW, and both groups recognized it. You are the last person to recognize that fact. Or the last one to admit it. I'm not sure which...
Expand ...

When you're referring to the Big East I'm not sure if you're referring to the current AAC contract or the hypothetical Big East that would've existed with Boise + SDSU.

Boise's payout in the new MWC is only marginally better than the AAC payout ($1.9M-$2.5M - probably will average $2.3M vs AAC's $2M). You're technically right that there was a Boise State premium but the premium is small and would have barely covered the additional logistical costs that Boise would incur playing out East, which is why they decided to stay local for essentially the same payout.

http://blogs.idahostatesman.com/boise-state-football-guaranteed-three-games-national-tv-bonus-games/
 
metsfan2323 said:
Count me as excited. The product on the field will be just as good as the Big East. Like another person said, the AAC is my favorite conference because UCONN plays in it. We just need to win.

Also playing in Texas every year could help recruiting, do we get Richard Lagow in the old Big East?
Expand ...

We did get Lagow in the Big East... the question is do we get the next Lagow in the AAC?
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,351
Messages
4,566,654
Members
10,469
Latest member
xxBlueChips


Top Bottom