The money we received on average over the past 9 years is comparable to what those AAC teams got over the same time. The terms of the new AAC deal are very public. The links are provided above for you to read. I also factored in that a 16% raise from BYU’s previous estimated draw would be about the same as what is with the AAC deal. Bottom line, the money is comparable but the exposure would be a step down. Therefore the reason for joining is not based upon money.

Now, it would be for football only if just BYU or Boise joined. The only way all sports would be involved would be if you had Boise, SDSU, and BYU join and form a western 7 team division with Houston, Tulsa, SMU, and Wichita State (olympic sports)/Navy (football). At that point the geographic footprint would be largely the same as the MW was for us. You seem to forget we almost joined them with Boise and SDSU back in 2011 but didn’t because of TV rights issues. The issue was the ability to monetize those rights and not the specific amount of money per say.

In any event, BYU joining would necessitate amending the TV deals with ESPN whereupon our contribution of value would be assessed. Either way you have yet to provide an amount (let alone a credible estimate) of what we are getting in the new deal. My point is that it seems logical to assume that what BYU is getting in TV revenue is probably comparable to what the better football schools in the AAC and Boise are getting. If it wasn’t, then it is doubtful the gulf would be too great to bridge.

Now, to summarize my argument since you clearly have not taken the time to read what I said above: whether BYU joins the AAC has nothing to do with the money; it has everything to do with the exposure from the types of games we would get. As of present we are averaging 5-6 P5 games a year so there is no reason to join. Should our ability to schedule like that become impaired in the future, then the AAC becomes the landing spot.