(10-07-2013 06:16 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  If we agreed to this Bowl coalition we are in trouble with our Bowls. I have been a supporter of Aresco since we joined AAC. This Bowl situation is not good and worries me that Aresco has been spinning the h&ll out of the AAC's bowl position.

Aresco has spun the hell out of everything the past year. That is apparently what he is good for. If he were a girl, he'd be one of those clueless cheerleaders who continue to dance and shout and wave their pom-poms as the other team's DB returns an INT for a touchdown.

(10-07-2013 06:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 06:16 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  If we agreed to this Bowl coalition we are in trouble with our Bowls. I have been a supporter of Aresco since we joined AAC. This Bowl situation is not good and worries me that Aresco has been spinning the h&ll out of the AAC's bowl position.

Aresco has spun the hell out of everything the past year. That is apparently what he is good for. If he were a girl, he'd be one of those clueless cheerleaders who continue to dance and shout and wave their pom-poms as the other team's DB returns an INT for a touchdown.

+2 Classic.

(10-07-2013 10:54 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  The Military Bowl is the premier bowl of the AAC. Let that sink in for just a moment.

Laughing or crying would be equally appropriate responses.

(10-07-2013 04:37 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  How many times did Aresco mention that we were looking at the Miami bowl and that it would likely be against some of the power leagues? He never even hinted at the idea that it would be against Sun-USA or MAC, etc. Geeze louise.

Because that is exactly what he was TRYING to do, get a power league opponent. There was a media story or tweet last week that mentioned the AAC was a late comer to this G5 bowl alliance. Probably what the other poster said. We had no choice. This situation was forced on us by legal collusion between the P5 and the bowls.

I repeat. I don't give a damn about defending Aresco. I don't know him from Adam. But the crap situation we are in with TV money and bowl games is a direct result of actions by the P5, the TV networks and the bowls, not by something Aresco did or did not do.

Be mad at all of them first. That makes a helluva lot more sense.

(10-07-2013 07:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:37 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  How many times did Aresco mention that we were looking at the Miami bowl and that it would likely be against some of the power leagues? He never even hinted at the idea that it would be against Sun-USA or MAC, etc. Geeze louise.

Because that is exactly what he was TRYING to do, get a power league opponent. There was a media story or tweet last week that mentioned the AAC was a late comer to this G5 bowl alliance. Probably what the other poster said. We had no choice. This situation was forced on us by legal collusion between the P5 and the bowls.

I repeat. I don't give a damn about defending Aresco. I don't know him from Adam. But the crap situation we are in with TV money and bowl games is a direct result of actions by the P5, the TV networks and the bowls, not by something Aresco did or did not do.

Be mad at all of them first. That makes a helluva lot more sense.

I'd agree with the collusion statement, but the problem with Aresco is he likes to sugarcoat everything as if the nasty tasting medicine is really going to go down easier. I'd rather the guy talk worse case scenario and then let all of us be mildly surprised when something better than thought comes to fruition.

(10-07-2013 07:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:37 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  How many times did Aresco mention that we were looking at the Miami bowl and that it would likely be against some of the power leagues? He never even hinted at the idea that it would be against Sun-USA or MAC, etc. Geeze louise.

Because that is exactly what he was TRYING to do, get a power league opponent. There was a media story or tweet last week that mentioned the AAC was a late comer to this G5 bowl alliance. Probably what the other poster said. We had no choice. This situation was forced on us by legal collusion between the P5 and the bowls.

I repeat. I don't give a damn about defending Aresco. I don't know him from Adam. But the crap situation we are in with TV money and bowl games is a direct result of actions by the P5, the TV networks and the bowls, not by something Aresco did or did not do.

Be mad at all of them first. That makes a helluva lot more sense.

Sorry I have to disagree, I think maybe blame your previous commissoner and current. The problem is the Big East has bled teams to the ACC, BIG 12 and B1G. The Boise St, San Diego St and TCU were fiascos. Big East unfair or not, has had the perception of dying conference. Other than UCONN, all other schools came from C-USA. UCONN and Cinci were begging to get out before they basically had no where to go. Do you think if UCONN or Cinci were offered a P5 slot, they would bolt in a heart beat? Right now I think the question is who bolts from what conference when the B12 finally decides to go to 12. As I stated earlier, I think ECU, UCF, UCONN or CINCI will be the top choices to get WVU some east coast teams. The question which of the teams take the next step. I think this season will be a Blip for Cinci. They return back to form, then I believe it will be between UCF and ECU for the other slot with UCF having a slight edge due to the Florida market.

When conference start to go to 9 games within the conference like the P12 have and the SEC are considering, won't that make it more difficult for the P5 conferences to have 8 or 9 teams qualify, unless of course they go to 16 teams? If the lower tier of those conferences have teams that lose 1 or 2 games outside the conference, than reaching 6 wins makes it nearly impossible.

(10-07-2013 08:40 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  When conference start to go to 9 games within the conference like the P12 have and the SEC are considering, won't that make it more difficult for the P5 conferences to have 8 or 9 teams qualify, unless of course they go to 16 teams? If the lower tier of those conferences have teams that lose 1 or 2 games outside the conference, than reaching 6 wins makes it nearly impossible.

Prediction - New NCAA rule that allows 13th game for conferences with 14 teams that play 10 conference games. Requiring 7 wins for bowls. Allowing three OOC games with the FCS game still allowed to count.

The only reason to go to 9 games is if your conference has 14 or more teams. It would make sense for the AAC if 4 teams from the MWC joined.

(10-08-2013 07:58 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:40 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  When conference start to go to 9 games within the conference like the P12 have and the SEC are considering, won't that make it more difficult for the P5 conferences to have 8 or 9 teams qualify, unless of course they go to 16 teams? If the lower tier of those conferences have teams that lose 1 or 2 games outside the conference, than reaching 6 wins makes it nearly impossible.

Prediction - New NCAA rule that allows 13th game for conferences with 14 teams that play 10 conference games. Requiring 7 wins for bowls. Allowing three OOC games with the FCS game still allowed to count.

I'd love that predication to come true (I think) but it would turn the entire college football landscape upside down for it to come true.

should have got the new orleans bowl for the teams in the west need a
bowl in the west every year we dont have it.
the western teams wont like the line up at all.

(10-07-2013 07:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Be mad at all of them first. That makes a helluva lot more sense.

Very true, but simple-minded people must have their scapegoat when disappointed.

(10-10-2013 12:15 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 07:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Be mad at all of them first. That makes a helluva lot more sense.

Very true, but simple-minded people must have their scapegoat when disappointed.

The bowls prefer the P-5---virtually any P-5---to virtually any G-5. Frankly, I underestimated how strong that preference was. I thought that an AAC champ might be more attractive than the bottom end p5 bowl qualifiers. At this time, that simply doesn't appear to be true. There is simply nothing Aresco could have done about that.

The only thing within his power that was a pretty significant misstep was the NO Bowl. We needed that low level bowl in the west. Other than that, while our bowl line up pretty much stinks to high heaven, there is nothing Aresco (or anyone else) could have done to make any real difference. The fix was in before the first hand was dealt.

Military
Birmingham (BBVA)
St Pete (Beef)
Armed Forces/Hawai'i
Miami
Boca/Bahamas
------------
Liberty Bowl backup
Indy Bowl backup

Not the worst line up I've ever seen.

(10-10-2013 02:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Military
Birmingham (BBVA)
St Pete (Beef)
Armed Forces/Hawai'i
Miami
Boca/Bahamas
------------
Liberty Bowl backup
Indy Bowl backup

Not the worst line up I've ever seen.

The Indy backup could generate some P-5 match-ups for us. Also, there is an open year vs the Pac-12 in Vegas and at least one open year in the Heart of Dallas vs B-12/B1G that MIGHT be for us (at least we can hope for that).

(10-10-2013 02:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 02:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Military
Birmingham (BBVA)
St Pete (Beef)
Armed Forces/Hawai'i
Miami
Boca/Bahamas
------------
Liberty Bowl backup
Indy Bowl backup

Not the worst line up I've ever seen.

The Indy backup could generate some P-5 match-ups for us. Also, there is an open year vs the Pac-12 in Vegas and at least one open year in the Heart of Dallas vs B-12/B1G that MIGHT be for us (at least we can hope for that).

Yep, no shame in milking the backup spots...they can really pay off.

(10-10-2013 02:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Military
Birmingham (BBVA)
St Pete (Beef)
Armed Forces/Hawai'i
Miami
Boca/Bahamas
------------
Liberty Bowl backup
Indy Bowl backup

Not the worst line up I've ever seen.

Add the Poinsettia bowl in there somewhere. Navy likes that bowl so I don't see the American passing on the opened slots in that bowl after Navy plays there in 2014. BYU has contracted the 2015 slot and one more slot between 2016 and 2019. I would look for Army to try and get 2 of those remaining slots between 2016 and 2019 leaving 2 slots opened for the American and Navy. Army and BYU will probably try for slots in the G5 bowl pot too, to fill out their bowl schedules in the next 6 year cycle also. Look for Army and BYU in the Marlins Bowl against the American in the next 6 year cycle. The LCPB is still opened to be settled by year end too.

Future American:

1. Playoff (P5)
2. Military (ACC)
3. BOBB (ACC 3 - CUSA 3)
4. BBVA (SEC)
5. Armed Forces 3 / Hawaii 3 (Army, B-12, MWC, CUSA)
6. Marlins - G5 anchor (Army, BYU, G5)
7. LCPB (MAC)
8. Poinsettia 2 / Boca 2 / Bahamas 2 (MWC, G5)

Back up - Liberty, Indy, and Detroit. (P5)

11 possible destinations for a 12 team conference which will have at least 8 to 9 bowl eligible teams most years during the next 6 year contract.

(10-11-2013 03:31 AM)panite Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 02:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Military
Birmingham (BBVA)
St Pete (Beef)
Armed Forces/Hawai'i
Miami
Boca/Bahamas
------------
Liberty Bowl backup
Indy Bowl backup

Not the worst line up I've ever seen.

Add the Poinsettia bowl in there somewhere. Navy likes that bowl so I don't see the American passing on the opened slots in that bowl after Navy plays there in 2014. BYU has contracted the 2015 slot and one more slot between 2016 and 2019. I would look for Army to try and get 2 of those remaining slots between 2016 and 2019 leaving 2 slots opened for the American and Navy. Army and BYU will probably try for slots in the G5 bowl pot too, to fill out their bowl schedules in the next 6 year cycle also. Look for Army and BYU in the Marlins Bowl against the American in the next 6 year cycle. The LCPB is still opened to be settled by year end too.

Future American:

1. Playoff (P5)
2. Military (ACC)
3. BOBB (ACC 3 - CUSA 3)
4. BBVA (SEC)
5. Armed Forces 3 / Hawaii 3 (Army, B-12, MWC, CUSA)
6. Marlins - G5 anchor (Army, BYU, G5)
7. LCPB (MAC)
8. Poinsettia 2 / Boca 2 / Bahamas 2 (MWC, G5)

Back up - Liberty, Indy, and Detroit. (P5)

11 possible destinations for a 12 team conference which will have at least 8 to 9 bowl eligible teams most years during the next 6 year contract.

I am trying to figure out the 8-9 teams elgible. The AAC may not fill its allotment this season of 6 bowls. It loses it's two top teams. Brings in 3 teams, 2 that should be Bowl Elgible this season. However, the competition in the AAC is supposed to be more difficult. I think the MAC will get Detroit. I do think the AAC should forget about the Liberty and try to get Texas Bowl and Indy as backups. Those two are the most likely not to be filled with a P5 team. Look at the 15 team ACC, they are backups with only two bowls and they are only if extra teams are available. BOBB in off years and Birmingham next. So lets say Liberty is top back up, Independence is next and Detroit is third. If you were a bowl would you take the 2nd or 3rd back up slot for the ACC over the first Back up from another G5? From a business and risk perspective, that would be insane. You would be better off just having an open slot. It appears most G5 will be using the flexible model to place teams, not just the AAC.

(10-11-2013 08:42 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-11-2013 03:31 AM)panite Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 02:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Military
Birmingham (BBVA)
St Pete (Beef)
Armed Forces/Hawai'i
Miami
Boca/Bahamas
------------
Liberty Bowl backup
Indy Bowl backup

Not the worst line up I've ever seen.

Add the Poinsettia bowl in there somewhere. Navy likes that bowl so I don't see the American passing on the opened slots in that bowl after Navy plays there in 2014. BYU has contracted the 2015 slot and one more slot between 2016 and 2019. I would look for Army to try and get 2 of those remaining slots between 2016 and 2019 leaving 2 slots opened for the American and Navy. Army and BYU will probably try for slots in the G5 bowl pot too, to fill out their bowl schedules in the next 6 year cycle also. Look for Army and BYU in the Marlins Bowl against the American in the next 6 year cycle. The LCPB is still opened to be settled by year end too.

Future American:

1. Playoff (P5)
2. Military (ACC)
3. BOBB (ACC 3 - CUSA 3)
4. BBVA (SEC)
5. Armed Forces 3 / Hawaii 3 (Army, B-12, MWC, CUSA)
6. Marlins - G5 anchor (Army, BYU, G5)
7. LCPB (MAC)
8. Poinsettia 2 / Boca 2 / Bahamas 2 (MWC, G5)

Back up - Liberty, Indy, and Detroit. (P5)

11 possible destinations for a 12 team conference which will have at least 8 to 9 bowl eligible teams most years during the next 6 year contract.

I am trying to figure out the 8-9 teams elgible. The AAC may not fill its allotment this season of 6 bowls. It loses it's two top teams. Brings in 3 teams, 2 that should be Bowl Elgible this season. However, the competition in the AAC is supposed to be more difficult. I think the MAC will get Detroit. I do think the AAC should forget about the Liberty and try to get Texas Bowl and Indy as backups. Those two are the most likely not to be filled with a P5 team. Look at the 15 team ACC, they are backups with only two bowls and they are only if extra teams are available. BOBB in off years and Birmingham next. So lets say Liberty is top back up, Independence is next and Detroit is third. If you were a bowl would you take the 2nd or 3rd back up slot for the ACC over the first Back up from another G5? From a business and risk perspective, that would be insane. You would be better off just having an open slot. It appears most G5 will be using the flexible model to place teams, not just the AAC.

That's true to an extent. All are using a flexible model, but i believe only the AAC has its #1 uncommitted. The AAC #1 could go to any of it's bowls, but it doesn't have to. It's not specifically tied to any bowl. The MW #1 is tied to Vegas. The Sunbelt and MAC have tied thier #1's to each other in The Go Daddy Bowl. I believe CUSA has tied theirs to the HOD--but I'm not certain on that. At a minimum, the competition is certainly minimized should a plum slot open in a P5 bowl. I would think our #1 would look pretty good vs the other available backup choices.

(10-10-2013 01:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 12:15 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 07:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Be mad at all of them first. That makes a helluva lot more sense.

Very true, but simple-minded people must have their scapegoat when disappointed.

The bowls prefer the P-5---virtually any P-5---to virtually any G-5. Frankly, I underestimated how strong that preference was. I thought that an AAC champ might be more attractive than the bottom end p5 bowl qualifiers. At this time, that simply doesn't appear to be true. There is simply nothing Aresco could have done about that.

The only thing within his power that was a pretty significant misstep was the NO Bowl. We needed that low level bowl in the west. Other than that, while our bowl line up pretty much stinks to high heaven, there is nothing Aresco (or anyone else) could have done to make any real difference. The fix was in before the first hand was dealt.

Maybe. I agree that it would have been nice to add the NO Bowl, but we don't KNOW that Aresco made any kind of misstep, b/c we don't know any behind the scenes stuff.

As you said in the first part of the post, you (and many others) made the incorrect assumption that Aresco was screwing up the other bowl spots, until you realized the bowls were going to sign as many P5 teams as they could, in place of even the top G5 teams.

I have a hunch that something was going on to keep us out of the NO Bowl. For example, maybe a mutual agreement on the other new G5 bowls. JMO.