Originally Posted by jack72
"Any new member would have to add significant brand-building value to the league, Ackerman said, and geography, too, is another consideration."
Not sure what he means by geography, but I suspect he means a major metro area with lots of eyeballs and media exposure. Brand building, I am guessing he means a known school with a history of winning.
We meet those two in our own minds, but do we meet them in the minds of the current member teams?
|
Words like brand building, eyeballs, media exposure all translate into money. Will the Fox TV deal bring in significantly more money
per school after an addition? The current Fox deal amounts to $4-$5 million for each school. They are not going to add one or two schools to increase that figure by $250K per school, let's say....$750K might do it.
There are intangibles that we might not appreciate it, e.g., the network has its own needs....they need to fill time slots. If that were to become a problem for Fox they might put the screws to the BE indicating the value of their present deal is in jeopardy unless schools are added. In that case just maintaining what they now have could be incentive enough for the BE to add schools.
Suppose something like that happens and Fox pretty much leaves it up to BE to decide which two schools to add. At that point a school's reputation and overall cache come into play. The UD men are coming off a four year NCAA run. This year is a transition year. But we've got to get back on the NCAA track to sustain consistency PDQ. Likewise for the woman's BB program. UD has to be very attractive across the board...academics, facilities, a successful broad based athletics program....the whole package led by a widely recognized top-tier men's BB program. A tall order, indeed....and frankly, unlikely to happen.
Seems to me our best bet continues to be a strong(er) A10 that year-in and year-out is at least a three-bid league. and competitive with the BE. Why can't we do that? Neil understands aspects of that challenge that we do not. If there is one thing I would like to have Chris gain from his frequent interactions with Neil it is insight as to what makes the A10 "tick".... and what factors limit improvement, why can't bottom-feeders be given an ultimatum to invest in their programs, etc?
What we can learn from the American is this. While Power 5 FB drives the bus and a half dozen or so AAC schools would give anything to join a Power 5 conference, the conference and its schools are realistic. They refer to their conference as a "Power 6" and even have a logo to that effect. Most important, the AAC schools are investing and are succeeding. Three AAC schools finished in the FB Top 25 this year and emphasis is placed on strengthening BB, men's and women's.
I see no fundamental reason why the A10 cannot follow a similar approach. Invest to improve and win. To do so will require leadership. The A10 has a commissioner and a good commissioner matters. But that person is employed by the schools and responds to their needs/wants. Leadership has to come fro the top-tier A10 schools.
