(06-06-2013 09:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Aresco has not been dealt cards worse than C-USA. They have the same geography and a far worse lineup of teams. So making excuses for him if C-USA ends up with a better bowl for it's champ doesn't work.

But assuming we'll have a worse bowl lineup than CUSA, when nothing is settled yet, does work?

(06-06-2013 09:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 09:39 AM)MrP3242 Wrote:  If the Liberty bowl can get a game between a Big 12 school and an Sec, Big 10 or Pac 12 school. What do you think they will do? They will sign on the dotted line fast, because the AAC doesn't sell out Stadiums, or fill up hotels and restaurants. Folks, It's all about money. Until we start to travel well as a conference We aren't going to obtain any big bowl games. It's not Mr. Aresco's fault that the schools in the AAC don't travel well. Cincinnati and ECU travel well, but that's about it. I don't know about Navy. Because of location some of the other G-5 conferences will pick up a few good bowl games, but not many. Boise State and BYU travel well. Plus, all this talk is premature. Let's see how it all plays out in the end. The AAC just might end up with a decent line up of bowl games. With the cards Mr. Aresco was dealt. He is doing a fine job. I sure as heck could not have done better. Yes, we are being beat up bad by the Big Boy Bully's who fill up stadiums and have a lot of money.

Houston has traveled fairly well of late. I suspect a few other AAC members travel better than you are giving them credit for. That said, lining up bowls against CUSA also rans in a baseball stadium is highly unlikely to improve the traveling reputations of any team in this league.

Let's just wait and see how the bowl line up plays out in the end.

(06-06-2013 09:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Aresco has not been dealt cards worse than C-USA. They have the same geography and a far worse lineup of teams. So making excuses for him if C-USA ends up with a better bowl for it's champ doesn't work.

Let's just wait and see how it all plays out in the end.

AAC vs ACC Belk BowlHow about this good news, SEC deal falls thru for the BELK Bowl, AAC in play

(06-06-2013 02:56 PM)Pirate1 Wrote:  AAC vs ACC Belk BowlHow about this good news, SEC deal falls thru for the BELK Bowl, AAC in play

So SEC in Liberty Bowl?

(06-06-2013 02:56 PM)Pirate1 Wrote:  AAC vs ACC Belk BowlHow about this good news, SEC deal falls thru for the BELK Bowl, AAC in play

Where does it say this. The article linked does not say that.

(06-06-2013 02:56 PM)Pirate1 Wrote:  AAC vs ACC Belk BowlHow about this good news, SEC deal falls thru for the BELK Bowl, AAC in play

"The Big East, which has broken away from its basketball partners and been rechristened as the American Athletic Conference, will play against the ACC in the Belk Bowl this upcoming season (which will be played on Dec. 28 at Bank of America Stadium). Webb said with East Carolina and Navy eventually joining the AAC, there has been some interest by the Belk Bowl in reworking its deal with the new conference, if one with the SEC fell through."
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/06/2...rylink=cpy

OK, Pirate1 said SEC deal fell through. It hasn't fallen through. IF, repeat IF SEC falls through, THEN AAC might be in play. IF....

Plus this article is a month old.

(06-06-2013 03:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 02:56 PM)Pirate1 Wrote:  AAC vs ACC Belk BowlHow about this good news, SEC deal falls thru for the BELK Bowl, AAC in play

Where does it say this. The article linked does not say that.

I don't think that the article says that either; or least I didn't see it, however it seems like the AAC will get that bowl if the SEC falls through; because the bowl wants Navy and East Carolina.

(06-06-2013 03:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 02:56 PM)Pirate1 Wrote:  AAC vs ACC Belk BowlHow about this good news, SEC deal falls thru for the BELK Bowl, AAC in play

Where does it say this. The article linked does not say that.

He is joking. THe article just says theres some interest in the AAC if the SEC tie falls through---but thats not going to happen.

(06-05-2013 03:28 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 03:18 PM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  Liberty Bowl poop or get off the pot!!!

They are waiting on this guy to call them back.

George Lapedis?

The comish of CUSA set up the Tex bowl deal months ago, at a time when BE was a dumpster fire. Arnesco didn't have that luxury. He stepped in and the bottom fell out. I actually think he made some good moves. The sea to sea Idea was stupid. He consolidated. Hurts short term, will be good long term. He didn't really resist the BB schools leaving. Once again, I think it hurts short term, may well be a benefit long term.

(06-06-2013 07:12 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The comish of CUSA set up the Tex bowl deal months ago, at a time when BE was a dumpster fire. Arnesco didn't have that luxury. He stepped in and the bottom fell out. I actually think he made some good moves. The sea to sea Idea was stupid. He consolidated. Hurts short term, will be good long term. He didn't really resist the BB schools leaving. Once again, I think it hurts short term, may well be a benefit long term.

Honestly I don't think the sea to sea idea was a bad one. If Boise St and SDSU had stayed that kills the MWC as a rival to the AAC as the top G5 conference and probably is enough to get the AAC the Las Vegas bowl and the Pointsetta bowl, which is better than what the AAC can get this cycle.

(06-06-2013 07:29 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:12 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The comish of CUSA set up the Tex bowl deal months ago, at a time when BE was a dumpster fire. Arnesco didn't have that luxury. He stepped in and the bottom fell out. I actually think he made some good moves. The sea to sea Idea was stupid. He consolidated. Hurts short term, will be good long term. He didn't really resist the BB schools leaving. Once again, I think it hurts short term, may well be a benefit long term.

Honestly I don't think the sea to sea idea was a bad one. If Boise St and SDSU had stayed that kills the MWC as a rival to the AAC as the top G5 conference and probably is enough to get the AAC the Las Vegas bowl and the Pointsetta bowl, which is better than what the AAC can get this cycle.

Yup. If we could have grabbed Fresno, New Mexico, and UNLV--we would have had a great all-sports western division. I think it would have been a very interesting confernce and it would have been a confernece that was head and shoulders above any of the G-5 competetors. It would have asolutely dominated the non-AQ BCS slot to the extent that it would be a defacto AQ conference. Boise, Houston, SMU, Fresno, and SDSU would have comprised the likley western suspects for the non-AQ BCS slot. Basketball would have been replenished with solid basketball schools like SDSU, UNLV, and New Mexico. Heck, I think it woud be a fun conference.

:idea:Sorry I read it wrong, I thought I deleted that...wishful thinking on my part..

(06-06-2013 07:29 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:12 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The comish of CUSA set up the Tex bowl deal months ago, at a time when BE was a dumpster fire. Arnesco didn't have that luxury. He stepped in and the bottom fell out. I actually think he made some good moves. The sea to sea Idea was stupid. He consolidated. Hurts short term, will be good long term. He didn't really resist the BB schools leaving. Once again, I think it hurts short term, may well be a benefit long term.

Honestly I don't think the sea to sea idea was a bad one. If Boise St and SDSU had stayed that kills the MWC as a rival to the AAC as the top G5 conference and probably is enough to get the AAC the Las Vegas bowl and the Pointsetta bowl, which is better than what the AAC can get this cycle.

And those bowls still would not be destination for current AAC schools. The only reason to have gone coast to coast would had been.
1. The league would had gotten yearly control of the BCS bowl slot
2. The tv contract would had brought 5 million or more per school.

(06-06-2013 07:34 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:29 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:12 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The comish of CUSA set up the Tex bowl deal months ago, at a time when BE was a dumpster fire. Arnesco didn't have that luxury. He stepped in and the bottom fell out. I actually think he made some good moves. The sea to sea Idea was stupid. He consolidated. Hurts short term, will be good long term. He didn't really resist the BB schools leaving. Once again, I think it hurts short term, may well be a benefit long term.

Honestly I don't think the sea to sea idea was a bad one. If Boise St and SDSU had stayed that kills the MWC as a rival to the AAC as the top G5 conference and probably is enough to get the AAC the Las Vegas bowl and the Pointsetta bowl, which is better than what the AAC can get this cycle.

And those bowls still would not be destination for current AAC schools. The only reason to have gone coast to coast would had been.
1. The league would had gotten yearly control of the BCS bowl slot
2. The tv contract would had brought 5 million or more per school.

I think #1 would have likley happened. #2--probably was not in the cards. I think maybe 3 million was possible. But if the group looked stable, then 5 million or more may have been possbile at the mid-point look-in or by the time the first agreement came to an end. Oh, well. Best laid plans and such....

So, if people are going back in time, how about accepting ESPN's best offer at the close of the negotiating window instead of going through BS negotiations and hitting the "open" market. All of other BS was predicated by that fantastically stupid gambit.

(06-06-2013 07:47 PM)RedMountain Wrote:  So, if people are going back in time, how about accepting ESPN's best offer at the close of the negotiating window instead of going through BS negotiations and hitting the "open" market. All of other BS was predicated by that fantastically stupid gambit.

I don't think ESPN ever made an offer after the billion dollar offer was rejected by the old membership. Aresco supposedly opened at 300 million a year, but I don't think ESPN ever countered with a number.

(06-06-2013 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:47 PM)RedMountain Wrote:  So, if people are going back in time, how about accepting ESPN's best offer at the close of the negotiating window instead of going through BS negotiations and hitting the "open" market. All of other BS was predicated by that fantastically stupid gambit.

I don't think ESPN ever made an offer after the billion dollar offer was rejected by the old membership. Aresco supposedly opened at 300 million a year, but I don't think ESPN ever countered with a number.

I think some of the (what we called lowball at the time) TV revenue numbers of $40M/yr-$70M/yr for the conference may have actually been numbers from ESPN. We will likely never know. Yes, Aresco put in the $300M/yr offer with the complete knowledge that ESPN would never match it. If he had put out $100M and ESPN had accepted that, there might be a different look to the conference. Rutgers and Louisville still would have left, though.