(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:36 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  I suspect if we could buy in we would have done it by now. Why else create the crappy Miami beach bowl if we could just buy in?

Your right, but the Miami Beach Bowl did not have to be crappy. A lot of the legacy money should have gone to it or another new AAC Bowl to get a decent SEC/Big 12/B10 opponent. Read the posts from 4 years ago when we were talking about this subject. We all had good ideas but somehow it didn't happen....

Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

Right now, under Aresco, I'd say the AAC is currently 1-2-1 in big decisions.

1) We blew the western wing expansion. It was there for the taking, but rather than take what was good---we tried to hold out for the perfect (BYU/AF). When we took a string of defections, the relative strength of the two conferences shifted back to even---eliminating the AAC advantage. Had the AAC made the move to take Fresno and CSU earlier---the game would have been over for the MW. Rule number one---you always finish off an opponent when you have him on the ropes. Instead, we got caught showboating. As a side note---the AAC should have brokered a deal moving all the western AAC teams into the WAC---that way the "football only" memberships in the west would not have been so problematic and unattractive. The whole expansion was badly handled and counts as a loss. the AAC decision record goes to "0-1".

2) The TV contract was terrible on money---but gave us near P5 exposure. Its not a loss---but its not a win either. This is a tie. Aresco's AAC tenure moves to 0-1-1 on big decisions.

3) The Miami Beach Bowl is established. We stepped up to the plate and took a chance. But we failed to follow through with any cash from the realignment fund to make it a showcase bowl. The payout needed to be high enough to attract a nice P5 opponent. The G5 created a lot of bowls in this time period (2013), but they all missed the mark. The G5 already had plenty of crappy bowls---what they never understood is what they really needed was a few GOOD bowls. So we made the same mistake. What makes it really inexcusable is the AAC was the only conference with the money to make it happen and we didn't do it. Another loss. Aresco moves to 0-2-1 on big decisions.


4) Wichita. A no brainer. Finally a win! I think going big with VCU and Dayton is better---but adding Wichita was a sure fire win. 1-2-1.

So that's the AAC record right now under Aresco....1-2-1. One win, two losses, and one tie. The next contract will either move him to .500 or put his reign way behind the 8-ball at 1-3-1.

I disagree,
#1 We were not going to get more than 2 mil on TV. even if we had added 4 to 6 from MWC. at 2 mil it made no sense for either side. Had we added them we would be flying all over gods creation for no more money. I think we won when Boise bolted. 1-0-0

#2. Agree, small win, we are ahead of MWC because of this deal. short term exposure needed most. 2-0-0

#3. Miami bowl was never going to get a decent P5 school. The P5 went down the list and put P5 vs P5 on docket as far as possible. Had we paid more maybe... we could have gotten an ACC or SEC 10 or 11.
We already play most of those teams that are available. If we got out of it not losing much $$ I would call it even, but will call a very small loss. 2-1-0

#4. WSU on paper as of today is big win. 3-1-0

Boise State and SDSU had to pay us millions too. 4-1-0

Honestly without a large sum of money the coast to coast league makes no sense. Boise State isn't the same team anymore either.

Huh?

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:36 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  I suspect if we could buy in we would have done it by now. Why else create the crappy Miami beach bowl if we could just buy in?

Your right, but the Miami Beach Bowl did not have to be crappy. A lot of the legacy money should have gone to it or another new AAC Bowl to get a decent SEC/Big 12/B10 opponent. Read the posts from 4 years ago when we were talking about this subject. We all had good ideas but somehow it didn't happen....

Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

Right now, under Aresco, I'd say the AAC is currently 1-2-1 in big decisions.

1) We blew the western wing expansion. It was there for the taking, but rather than take what was good---we tried to hold out for the perfect (BYU/AF). When we took a string of defections, the relative strength of the two conferences shifted back to even---eliminating the AAC advantage. Had the AAC made the move to take Fresno and CSU earlier---the game would have been over for the MW. Rule number one---you always finish off an opponent when you have him on the ropes. Instead, we got caught showboating. As a side note---the AAC should have brokered a deal moving all the western AAC teams into the WAC---that way the "football only" memberships in the west would not have been so problematic and unattractive. The whole expansion was badly handled and counts as a loss. the AAC decision record goes to "0-1".

2) The TV contract was terrible on money---but gave us near P5 exposure. Its not a loss---but its not a win either. This is a tie. Aresco's AAC tenure moves to 0-1-1 on big decisions.

3) The Miami Beach Bowl is established. We stepped up to the plate and took a chance. But we failed to follow through with any cash from the realignment fund to make it a showcase bowl. The payout needed to be high enough to attract a nice P5 opponent. The G5 created a lot of bowls in this time period (2013), but they all missed the mark. The G5 already had plenty of crappy bowls---what they never understood is what they really needed was a few GOOD bowls. So we made the same mistake. What makes it really inexcusable is the AAC was the only conference with the money to make it happen and we didn't do it. Another loss. Aresco moves to 0-2-1 on big decisions.


4) Wichita. A no brainer. Finally a win! I think going big with VCU and Dayton is better---but adding Wichita was a sure fire win. 1-2-1.

So that's the AAC record right now under Aresco....1-2-1. One win, two losses, and one tie. The next contract will either move him to .500 or put his reign way behind the 8-ball at 1-3-1.

I disagree,
#1 We were not going to get more than 2 mil on TV. even if we had added 4 to 6 from MWC. at 2 mil it made no sense for either side. Had we added them we would be flying all over gods creation for no more money. I think we won when Boise bolted. 1-0-0

#2. Agree, small win, we are ahead of MWC because of this deal. short term exposure needed most. 2-0-0

#3. Miami bowl was never going to get a decent P5 school. The P5 went down the list and put P5 vs P5 on docket as far as possible. Had we paid more maybe... we could have gotten an ACC or SEC 10 or 11.
We already play most of those teams that are available. If we got out of it not losing much $$ I would call it even, but will call a very small loss. 2-1-0

#4. WSU on paper as of today is big win. 3-1-0

1. MWC expansion: lost. 0-1. Had 2 MWC teams in the hand SDSU & Boise. Then Aresco went public on BYU, which embarrassed the conference when BYU didn't budge. Then Air Force, when Air Force wasn't coming because of Front range loyalty. By the end UNLV then Fresno and at one point even Nevada was considered. Very embarrassing and damaging as then Boise/SDSU backed out. Aresco 0-1

2. media deal. Terrible money at 1.7 million per year (except Navy who makes more) but great exposure and 6 years which isn't too long. Tie. 0-1-1

3. Miami Beach Bowl : Aresco really talked this bowl up as a potential "show case" bowl for the AAC. We had lots of BE LEGACY money to spend on getting a good P5 opponent. Aresco didn't use that money for it. Got a lousy bowl. Fail. Loss. 0-2-1

4. Wichita St: looks like a good move unless they start football. If they start up football and play in the AAC, it'll be a huge loss. I'm going to believe no football for the shockers. Great hoops and baseball. Win.
1-2-1

6. P6 stickers campaign: Dumb, waste of time. Fight for bowls, not for a non-existent group. Loss. 1-3-1

Aresco is 1-3-1 so far.

BillyBob may just be the most objective fan forum poster on the internet.

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Your right, but the Miami Beach Bowl did not have to be crappy. A lot of the legacy money should have gone to it or another new AAC Bowl to get a decent SEC/Big 12/B10 opponent. Read the posts from 4 years ago when we were talking about this subject. We all had good ideas but somehow it didn't happen....

Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

Right now, under Aresco, I'd say the AAC is currently 1-2-1 in big decisions.

1) We blew the western wing expansion. It was there for the taking, but rather than take what was good---we tried to hold out for the perfect (BYU/AF). When we took a string of defections, the relative strength of the two conferences shifted back to even---eliminating the AAC advantage. Had the AAC made the move to take Fresno and CSU earlier---the game would have been over for the MW. Rule number one---you always finish off an opponent when you have him on the ropes. Instead, we got caught showboating. As a side note---the AAC should have brokered a deal moving all the western AAC teams into the WAC---that way the "football only" memberships in the west would not have been so problematic and unattractive. The whole expansion was badly handled and counts as a loss. the AAC decision record goes to "0-1".

2) The TV contract was terrible on money---but gave us near P5 exposure. Its not a loss---but its not a win either. This is a tie. Aresco's AAC tenure moves to 0-1-1 on big decisions.

3) The Miami Beach Bowl is established. We stepped up to the plate and took a chance. But we failed to follow through with any cash from the realignment fund to make it a showcase bowl. The payout needed to be high enough to attract a nice P5 opponent. The G5 created a lot of bowls in this time period (2013), but they all missed the mark. The G5 already had plenty of crappy bowls---what they never understood is what they really needed was a few GOOD bowls. So we made the same mistake. What makes it really inexcusable is the AAC was the only conference with the money to make it happen and we didn't do it. Another loss. Aresco moves to 0-2-1 on big decisions.


4) Wichita. A no brainer. Finally a win! I think going big with VCU and Dayton is better---but adding Wichita was a sure fire win. 1-2-1.

So that's the AAC record right now under Aresco....1-2-1. One win, two losses, and one tie. The next contract will either move him to .500 or put his reign way behind the 8-ball at 1-3-1.

I disagree,
#1 We were not going to get more than 2 mil on TV. even if we had added 4 to 6 from MWC. at 2 mil it made no sense for either side. Had we added them we would be flying all over gods creation for no more money. I think we won when Boise bolted. 1-0-0

#2. Agree, small win, we are ahead of MWC because of this deal. short term exposure needed most. 2-0-0

#3. Miami bowl was never going to get a decent P5 school. The P5 went down the list and put P5 vs P5 on docket as far as possible. Had we paid more maybe... we could have gotten an ACC or SEC 10 or 11.
We already play most of those teams that are available. If we got out of it not losing much $$ I would call it even, but will call a very small loss. 2-1-0

#4. WSU on paper as of today is big win. 3-1-0

1. MWC expansion: lost. 0-1. Had 2 MWC teams in the hand SDSU & Boise. Then Aresco went public on BYU, which embarrassed the conference when BYU didn't budge. Then Air Force, when Air Force wasn't coming because of Front range loyalty. By the end UNLV then Fresno and at one point even Nevada was considered. Very embarrassing and damaging as then Boise/SDSU backed out. Aresco 0-1

2. media deal. Terrible money at 1.7 million per year (except Navy who makes more) but great exposure and 6 years which isn't too long. Tie. 0-1-1

3. Miami Beach Bowl : Aresco really talked this bowl up as a potential "show case" bowl for the AAC. We had lots of BE LEGACY money to spend on getting a good P5 opponent. Aresco didn't use that money for it. Got a lousy bowl. Fail. Loss. 0-2-1

4. Wichita St: looks like a good move unless they start football. If they start up football and play in the AAC, it'll be a huge loss. I'm going to believe no football for the shockers. Great hoops and baseball. Win.
1-2-1

6. P6 stickers campaign: Dumb, waste of time. Fight for bowls, not for a non-existent group. Loss. 1-3-1

Aresco is 1-3-1 so far.

BillyBob may just be the most objective fan forum poster on the internet.

Because he is wrong on every account? Let's be honest the AAC is light years in front of the mwc in exposure, play, budgets, etc.

(04-24-2017 10:01 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

Right now, under Aresco, I'd say the AAC is currently 1-2-1 in big decisions.

1) We blew the western wing expansion. It was there for the taking, but rather than take what was good---we tried to hold out for the perfect (BYU/AF). When we took a string of defections, the relative strength of the two conferences shifted back to even---eliminating the AAC advantage. Had the AAC made the move to take Fresno and CSU earlier---the game would have been over for the MW. Rule number one---you always finish off an opponent when you have him on the ropes. Instead, we got caught showboating. As a side note---the AAC should have brokered a deal moving all the western AAC teams into the WAC---that way the "football only" memberships in the west would not have been so problematic and unattractive. The whole expansion was badly handled and counts as a loss. the AAC decision record goes to "0-1".

2) The TV contract was terrible on money---but gave us near P5 exposure. Its not a loss---but its not a win either. This is a tie. Aresco's AAC tenure moves to 0-1-1 on big decisions.

3) The Miami Beach Bowl is established. We stepped up to the plate and took a chance. But we failed to follow through with any cash from the realignment fund to make it a showcase bowl. The payout needed to be high enough to attract a nice P5 opponent. The G5 created a lot of bowls in this time period (2013), but they all missed the mark. The G5 already had plenty of crappy bowls---what they never understood is what they really needed was a few GOOD bowls. So we made the same mistake. What makes it really inexcusable is the AAC was the only conference with the money to make it happen and we didn't do it. Another loss. Aresco moves to 0-2-1 on big decisions.


4) Wichita. A no brainer. Finally a win! I think going big with VCU and Dayton is better---but adding Wichita was a sure fire win. 1-2-1.

So that's the AAC record right now under Aresco....1-2-1. One win, two losses, and one tie. The next contract will either move him to .500 or put his reign way behind the 8-ball at 1-3-1.

I disagree,
#1 We were not going to get more than 2 mil on TV. even if we had added 4 to 6 from MWC. at 2 mil it made no sense for either side. Had we added them we would be flying all over gods creation for no more money. I think we won when Boise bolted. 1-0-0

#2. Agree, small win, we are ahead of MWC because of this deal. short term exposure needed most. 2-0-0

#3. Miami bowl was never going to get a decent P5 school. The P5 went down the list and put P5 vs P5 on docket as far as possible. Had we paid more maybe... we could have gotten an ACC or SEC 10 or 11.
We already play most of those teams that are available. If we got out of it not losing much $$ I would call it even, but will call a very small loss. 2-1-0

#4. WSU on paper as of today is big win. 3-1-0

1. MWC expansion: lost. 0-1. Had 2 MWC teams in the hand SDSU & Boise. Then Aresco went public on BYU, which embarrassed the conference when BYU didn't budge. Then Air Force, when Air Force wasn't coming because of Front range loyalty. By the end UNLV then Fresno and at one point even Nevada was considered. Very embarrassing and damaging as then Boise/SDSU backed out. Aresco 0-1

2. media deal. Terrible money at 1.7 million per year (except Navy who makes more) but great exposure and 6 years which isn't too long. Tie. 0-1-1

3. Miami Beach Bowl : Aresco really talked this bowl up as a potential "show case" bowl for the AAC. We had lots of BE LEGACY money to spend on getting a good P5 opponent. Aresco didn't use that money for it. Got a lousy bowl. Fail. Loss. 0-2-1

4. Wichita St: looks like a good move unless they start football. If they start up football and play in the AAC, it'll be a huge loss. I'm going to believe no football for the shockers. Great hoops and baseball. Win.
1-2-1

6. P6 stickers campaign: Dumb, waste of time. Fight for bowls, not for a non-existent group. Loss. 1-3-1

Aresco is 1-3-1 so far.

BillyBob may just be the most objective fan forum poster on the internet.

Because he is wrong on every account? Let's be honest the AAC is light years in front of the mwc in exposure, play, budgets, etc.

Exposure is debatable. Budgets, yes. Play......did you watch Bowl Season in 2015 and 2016? Apparently not.

With that, I am not sure why you think I am some MWC promoter. I don't really care. I just want what is best for SDSU. If SDSU wanted to join the AAC, we would. It would be a simple phone call, followed by negotiations, then we would join. Easy. Fact remains, it would be a bad decision to join the AAC financially. There is no benefit. Also, don't forget that the AAC will eventually lose teams. It is inevitable. We might as well wait for now.

(04-24-2017 10:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:01 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I disagree,
#1 We were not going to get more than 2 mil on TV. even if we had added 4 to 6 from MWC. at 2 mil it made no sense for either side. Had we added them we would be flying all over gods creation for no more money. I think we won when Boise bolted. 1-0-0

#2. Agree, small win, we are ahead of MWC because of this deal. short term exposure needed most. 2-0-0

#3. Miami bowl was never going to get a decent P5 school. The P5 went down the list and put P5 vs P5 on docket as far as possible. Had we paid more maybe... we could have gotten an ACC or SEC 10 or 11.
We already play most of those teams that are available. If we got out of it not losing much $$ I would call it even, but will call a very small loss. 2-1-0

#4. WSU on paper as of today is big win. 3-1-0

1. MWC expansion: lost. 0-1. Had 2 MWC teams in the hand SDSU & Boise. Then Aresco went public on BYU, which embarrassed the conference when BYU didn't budge. Then Air Force, when Air Force wasn't coming because of Front range loyalty. By the end UNLV then Fresno and at one point even Nevada was considered. Very embarrassing and damaging as then Boise/SDSU backed out. Aresco 0-1

2. media deal. Terrible money at 1.7 million per year (except Navy who makes more) but great exposure and 6 years which isn't too long. Tie. 0-1-1

3. Miami Beach Bowl : Aresco really talked this bowl up as a potential "show case" bowl for the AAC. We had lots of BE LEGACY money to spend on getting a good P5 opponent. Aresco didn't use that money for it. Got a lousy bowl. Fail. Loss. 0-2-1

4. Wichita St: looks like a good move unless they start football. If they start up football and play in the AAC, it'll be a huge loss. I'm going to believe no football for the shockers. Great hoops and baseball. Win.
1-2-1

6. P6 stickers campaign: Dumb, waste of time. Fight for bowls, not for a non-existent group. Loss. 1-3-1

Aresco is 1-3-1 so far.

BillyBob may just be the most objective fan forum poster on the internet.

Because he is wrong on every account? Let's be honest the AAC is light years in front of the mwc in exposure, play, budgets, etc.

Exposure is debatable. Budgets, yes. Play......did you watch Bowl Season in 2015 and 2016? Apparently not.

With that, I am not sure why you think I am some MWC promoter. I don't really care. I just want what is best for SDSU. If SDSU wanted to join the AAC, we would. It would be a simple phone call, followed by negotiations, then we would join. Easy. Fact remains, it would be a bad decision to join the AAC financially. There is no benefit. Also, don't forget that the AAC will eventually lose teams. It is inevitable. We might as well wait for now.

Arent you the same "fanhood" that starts threads on the MW Boards calling the AAC board "delusional". Yet, it's you who wins the award for "Most Delusional Post of the Month" with your glittering jewel of foolishness above.

Let me enlighten you. No----SDSU joining the AAC wouldn't be simple. In fact--It wouldn't happen at all. That ship has pretty much sailed. The only way SDSU makes any sense for the present AAC membership is if they can get 4 of their friends to join---and 2 of them have to be Boise and Air Force. Otherwise, its a "thank you for your interest, but no thanks" letter from the AAC. Nothing personal, just too far for too little at this point.

(04-24-2017 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:01 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  1. MWC expansion: lost. 0-1. Had 2 MWC teams in the hand SDSU & Boise. Then Aresco went public on BYU, which embarrassed the conference when BYU didn't budge. Then Air Force, when Air Force wasn't coming because of Front range loyalty. By the end UNLV then Fresno and at one point even Nevada was considered. Very embarrassing and damaging as then Boise/SDSU backed out. Aresco 0-1

2. media deal. Terrible money at 1.7 million per year (except Navy who makes more) but great exposure and 6 years which isn't too long. Tie. 0-1-1

3. Miami Beach Bowl : Aresco really talked this bowl up as a potential "show case" bowl for the AAC. We had lots of BE LEGACY money to spend on getting a good P5 opponent. Aresco didn't use that money for it. Got a lousy bowl. Fail. Loss. 0-2-1

4. Wichita St: looks like a good move unless they start football. If they start up football and play in the AAC, it'll be a huge loss. I'm going to believe no football for the shockers. Great hoops and baseball. Win.
1-2-1

6. P6 stickers campaign: Dumb, waste of time. Fight for bowls, not for a non-existent group. Loss. 1-3-1

Aresco is 1-3-1 so far.

BillyBob may just be the most objective fan forum poster on the internet.

Because he is wrong on every account? Let's be honest the AAC is light years in front of the mwc in exposure, play, budgets, etc.

Exposure is debatable. Budgets, yes. Play......did you watch Bowl Season in 2015 and 2016? Apparently not.

With that, I am not sure why you think I am some MWC promoter. I don't really care. I just want what is best for SDSU. If SDSU wanted to join the AAC, we would. It would be a simple phone call, followed by negotiations, then we would join. Easy. Fact remains, it would be a bad decision to join the AAC financially. There is no benefit. Also, don't forget that the AAC will eventually lose teams. It is inevitable. We might as well wait for now.

Arent you the same "fanhood" that starts threads on the MW Boards calling the AAC board "delusional". Yet, it's you who wins the award for "Most Delusional Post of the Month" with your glittering jewel of foolishness above.

Let me enlighten you. No----SDSU joining the AAC wouldn't be simple. In fact--It wouldn't happen at all. That ship has pretty much sailed. The only way SDSU makes any sense for the present AAC membership is if they can get 4 of their friends to join---and 2 of them have to be Boise and Air Force. Otherwise, its a "thank you for your interest, but no thanks" letter from the AAC. Nothing personal, just too far for too little at this point.

:winged eagle:

One phone call. Thats all.

(04-24-2017 10:51 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:01 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)fanhood Wrote:  BillyBob may just be the most objective fan forum poster on the internet.

Because he is wrong on every account? Let's be honest the AAC is light years in front of the mwc in exposure, play, budgets, etc.

Exposure is debatable. Budgets, yes. Play......did you watch Bowl Season in 2015 and 2016? Apparently not.

With that, I am not sure why you think I am some MWC promoter. I don't really care. I just want what is best for SDSU. If SDSU wanted to join the AAC, we would. It would be a simple phone call, followed by negotiations, then we would join. Easy. Fact remains, it would be a bad decision to join the AAC financially. There is no benefit. Also, don't forget that the AAC will eventually lose teams. It is inevitable. We might as well wait for now.

Arent you the same "fanhood" that starts threads on the MW Boards calling the AAC board "delusional". Yet, it's you who wins the award for "Most Delusional Post of the Month" with your glittering jewel of foolishness above.

Let me enlighten you. No----SDSU joining the AAC wouldn't be simple. In fact--It wouldn't happen at all. That ship has pretty much sailed. The only way SDSU makes any sense for the present AAC membership is if they can get 4 of their friends to join---and 2 of them have to be Boise and Air Force. Otherwise, its a "thank you for your interest, but no thanks" letter from the AAC. Nothing personal, just too far for too little at this point.

:winged eagle:

One phone call. Thats all.

Stop because it isn't specifically about SDSU

1) one phone call? A second would be with networks and they have shown little interest going coast to coast.

2) already have 12 members so adding SDSU would mean there has to be another viable candidate that would really increase the value to the league. That is your 3rd phone call to get someone big enough to also join and make a bloated league worth the hassle.

3) 3 time zones sound cool until i'm stuck watching a game past midnight or on your side 9am.

4) travel and no natural rivalries

It makes sense for the aac to stay put at 12 unless army wants to join and we need #14. Otherwise it is a huge league with no financial benefit. The coast to coast idea is dead. It needs to be. I'll take Army and Air Force or BYU, but after that it doesn't move the needle enough.

(04-24-2017 10:51 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:01 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)fanhood Wrote:  BillyBob may just be the most objective fan forum poster on the internet.

Because he is wrong on every account? Let's be honest the AAC is light years in front of the mwc in exposure, play, budgets, etc.

Exposure is debatable. Budgets, yes. Play......did you watch Bowl Season in 2015 and 2016? Apparently not.

With that, I am not sure why you think I am some MWC promoter. I don't really care. I just want what is best for SDSU. If SDSU wanted to join the AAC, we would. It would be a simple phone call, followed by negotiations, then we would join. Easy. Fact remains, it would be a bad decision to join the AAC financially. There is no benefit. Also, don't forget that the AAC will eventually lose teams. It is inevitable. We might as well wait for now.

Arent you the same "fanhood" that starts threads on the MW Boards calling the AAC board "delusional". Yet, it's you who wins the award for "Most Delusional Post of the Month" with your glittering jewel of foolishness above.

Let me enlighten you. No----SDSU joining the AAC wouldn't be simple. In fact--It wouldn't happen at all. That ship has pretty much sailed. The only way SDSU makes any sense for the present AAC membership is if they can get 4 of their friends to join---and 2 of them have to be Boise and Air Force. Otherwise, its a "thank you for your interest, but no thanks" letter from the AAC. Nothing personal, just too far for too little at this point.

:winged eagle:

One phone call. Thats all.

Well---you're right about one thing. The negotiation would last one phone call.

My guess is your administration is more worried about having a football field to play on, rather than who they are going to play.

(04-24-2017 11:08 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:51 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:01 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Because he is wrong on every account? Let's be honest the AAC is light years in front of the mwc in exposure, play, budgets, etc.

Exposure is debatable. Budgets, yes. Play......did you watch Bowl Season in 2015 and 2016? Apparently not.

With that, I am not sure why you think I am some MWC promoter. I don't really care. I just want what is best for SDSU. If SDSU wanted to join the AAC, we would. It would be a simple phone call, followed by negotiations, then we would join. Easy. Fact remains, it would be a bad decision to join the AAC financially. There is no benefit. Also, don't forget that the AAC will eventually lose teams. It is inevitable. We might as well wait for now.

Arent you the same "fanhood" that starts threads on the MW Boards calling the AAC board "delusional". Yet, it's you who wins the award for "Most Delusional Post of the Month" with your glittering jewel of foolishness above.

Let me enlighten you. No----SDSU joining the AAC wouldn't be simple. In fact--It wouldn't happen at all. That ship has pretty much sailed. The only way SDSU makes any sense for the present AAC membership is if they can get 4 of their friends to join---and 2 of them have to be Boise and Air Force. Otherwise, its a "thank you for your interest, but no thanks" letter from the AAC. Nothing personal, just too far for too little at this point.

:winged eagle:

One phone call. Thats all.

Stop because it isn't specifically about SDSU

1) one phone call? A second would be with networks and they have shown little interest going coast to coast.

2) already have 12 members so adding SDSU would mean there has to be another viable candidate that would really increase the value to the league. That is your 3rd phone call to get someone big enough to also join and make a bloated league worth the hassle.

3) 3 time zones sound cool until i'm stuck watching a game past midnight or on your side 9am.

4) travel and no natural rivalries

It makes sense for the aac to stay put at 12 unless army wants to join and we need #14. Otherwise it is a huge league with no financial benefit. The coast to coast idea is dead. It needs to be. I'll take Army and Air Force or BYU, but after that it doesn't move the needle enough.

The aac already has the problems you just listed lol. Whats another far flung no geographical sense team really going to make?

No one in this league is natural rivals as is anyway. This league is pretty terrible when it comes to making it worth while to watch UH play uconn or some other far flung school.

(04-24-2017 12:30 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 11:08 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:51 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  Exposure is debatable. Budgets, yes. Play......did you watch Bowl Season in 2015 and 2016? Apparently not.

With that, I am not sure why you think I am some MWC promoter. I don't really care. I just want what is best for SDSU. If SDSU wanted to join the AAC, we would. It would be a simple phone call, followed by negotiations, then we would join. Easy. Fact remains, it would be a bad decision to join the AAC financially. There is no benefit. Also, don't forget that the AAC will eventually lose teams. It is inevitable. We might as well wait for now.

Arent you the same "fanhood" that starts threads on the MW Boards calling the AAC board "delusional". Yet, it's you who wins the award for "Most Delusional Post of the Month" with your glittering jewel of foolishness above.

Let me enlighten you. No----SDSU joining the AAC wouldn't be simple. In fact--It wouldn't happen at all. That ship has pretty much sailed. The only way SDSU makes any sense for the present AAC membership is if they can get 4 of their friends to join---and 2 of them have to be Boise and Air Force. Otherwise, its a "thank you for your interest, but no thanks" letter from the AAC. Nothing personal, just too far for too little at this point.

:winged eagle:

One phone call. Thats all.

Stop because it isn't specifically about SDSU

1) one phone call? A second would be with networks and they have shown little interest going coast to coast.

2) already have 12 members so adding SDSU would mean there has to be another viable candidate that would really increase the value to the league. That is your 3rd phone call to get someone big enough to also join and make a bloated league worth the hassle.

3) 3 time zones sound cool until i'm stuck watching a game past midnight or on your side 9am.

4) travel and no natural rivalries

It makes sense for the aac to stay put at 12 unless army wants to join and we need #14. Otherwise it is a huge league with no financial benefit. The coast to coast idea is dead. It needs to be. I'll take Army and Air Force or BYU, but after that it doesn't move the needle enough.

The aac already has the problems you just listed lol. Whats another far flung no geographical sense team really going to make?

No one in this league is natural rivals as is anyway. This league is pretty terrible when it comes to making it worth while to watch UH play uconn or some other far flung school.

Well, if Fanhood is right and the next contract is the same or less---we might see some changes to more regional configurations. The whole point of expanded footprints is maximizing TV value---if there is no TV money---then big footprints have no purpose.

I don't disagree with the Aresco assessment...however even with the MWC and Miami Beach Bowl supposed losses, at least he TRIED. So many conference commissioners just sit back and react.

My prediction was always that the American would go west and go to 16 (maybe 17 in football)...eventually...and be that P6 national coast to coast conference. If you think about it...the Wichita State add (1 school and Kansas market) actually plays into that prediction. Its a bridge to Colorado...which would be the next target. Colorado State is necessary to get Air Force...the American wants both.

So on that account, Aresco has added a quality next step western addition, got P5 level TV exposure, tried to create a quality Bowl and is looking forward to the next TV contract (which is somewhat based on performance), a big reason he is pushing the P6 label. He has also been the beneficiary of the Big 12 backing off.

I think he will look at another 6 year deal...to establish another base level above what he had (timing was bad last time). That will lead the MWC schools to re-assess their positions for financial purposes. If you can get into Colorado, you can get into Utah or Boise or Vegas or California. Kansas was a step in the right direction.

(04-24-2017 10:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:01 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I disagree,
#1 We were not going to get more than 2 mil on TV. even if we had added 4 to 6 from MWC. at 2 mil it made no sense for either side. Had we added them we would be flying all over gods creation for no more money. I think we won when Boise bolted. 1-0-0

#2. Agree, small win, we are ahead of MWC because of this deal. short term exposure needed most. 2-0-0

#3. Miami bowl was never going to get a decent P5 school. The P5 went down the list and put P5 vs P5 on docket as far as possible. Had we paid more maybe... we could have gotten an ACC or SEC 10 or 11.
We already play most of those teams that are available. If we got out of it not losing much $$ I would call it even, but will call a very small loss. 2-1-0

#4. WSU on paper as of today is big win. 3-1-0

1. MWC expansion: lost. 0-1. Had 2 MWC teams in the hand SDSU & Boise. Then Aresco went public on BYU, which embarrassed the conference when BYU didn't budge. Then Air Force, when Air Force wasn't coming because of Front range loyalty. By the end UNLV then Fresno and at one point even Nevada was considered. Very embarrassing and damaging as then Boise/SDSU backed out. Aresco 0-1

2. media deal. Terrible money at 1.7 million per year (except Navy who makes more) but great exposure and 6 years which isn't too long. Tie. 0-1-1

3. Miami Beach Bowl : Aresco really talked this bowl up as a potential "show case" bowl for the AAC. We had lots of BE LEGACY money to spend on getting a good P5 opponent. Aresco didn't use that money for it. Got a lousy bowl. Fail. Loss. 0-2-1

4. Wichita St: looks like a good move unless they start football. If they start up football and play in the AAC, it'll be a huge loss. I'm going to believe no football for the shockers. Great hoops and baseball. Win.
1-2-1

6. P6 stickers campaign: Dumb, waste of time. Fight for bowls, not for a non-existent group. Loss. 1-3-1

Aresco is 1-3-1 so far.

BillyBob may just be the most objective fan forum poster on the internet.

Because he is wrong on every account? Let's be honest the AAC is light years in front of the mwc in exposure, play, budgets, etc.

Exposure is debatable. Budgets, yes. Play......did you watch Bowl Season in 2015 and 2016? Apparently not.

With that, I am not sure why you think I am some MWC promoter. I don't really care. I just want what is best for SDSU. If SDSU wanted to join the AAC, we would. It would be a simple phone call, followed by negotiations, then we would join. Easy. Fact remains, it would be a bad decision to join the AAC financially. There is no benefit. Also, don't forget that the AAC will eventually lose teams. It is inevitable. We might as well wait for now.

Thank you for the compliment fanhood! I try. Since you gave me credit on being fair:
Exposure: AAC easy. Most games are ESPN channel, where MWC has most games on CBS-SN.

Budgets: The AAC. This used to be very tight, but last year the AAC schools budgets skyrocketed while some MWC schools budgets actually shrunk.

Play: I'd give the AAC the edge. Last year was a big year for the AAC, while the MWC-Mountain division was very good, the MWC-West Division was terrible. I think the MWC-Mountain will be fierce this year though. Colorado St is going to surprise.

Mwc problem is they are in low density areas and games are played when the east coast is asleep. There really isn't any changes that can be made. The value of the aac is going to continue to widen against the mwc.

(04-24-2017 01:46 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Mwc problem is they are in low density areas and games are played when the east coast is asleep. There really isn't any changes that can be made. The value of the aac is going to continue to widen against the mwc.

Exactly. There is a cap on the MW. Their advantage---They have late night inventory that is hard for the networks to replace. Their disadvantage---the late night inventory has a limited audience as 80% of the US audience is in bed. The networks will only play so much for inventory that's missing 80% of the country.

(04-24-2017 01:27 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:01 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  1. MWC expansion: lost. 0-1. Had 2 MWC teams in the hand SDSU & Boise. Then Aresco went public on BYU, which embarrassed the conference when BYU didn't budge. Then Air Force, when Air Force wasn't coming because of Front range loyalty. By the end UNLV then Fresno and at one point even Nevada was considered. Very embarrassing and damaging as then Boise/SDSU backed out. Aresco 0-1

2. media deal. Terrible money at 1.7 million per year (except Navy who makes more) but great exposure and 6 years which isn't too long. Tie. 0-1-1

3. Miami Beach Bowl : Aresco really talked this bowl up as a potential "show case" bowl for the AAC. We had lots of BE LEGACY money to spend on getting a good P5 opponent. Aresco didn't use that money for it. Got a lousy bowl. Fail. Loss. 0-2-1

4. Wichita St: looks like a good move unless they start football. If they start up football and play in the AAC, it'll be a huge loss. I'm going to believe no football for the shockers. Great hoops and baseball. Win.
1-2-1

6. P6 stickers campaign: Dumb, waste of time. Fight for bowls, not for a non-existent group. Loss. 1-3-1

Aresco is 1-3-1 so far.

BillyBob may just be the most objective fan forum poster on the internet.

Because he is wrong on every account? Let's be honest the AAC is light years in front of the mwc in exposure, play, budgets, etc.

Exposure is debatable. Budgets, yes. Play......did you watch Bowl Season in 2015 and 2016? Apparently not.

With that, I am not sure why you think I am some MWC promoter. I don't really care. I just want what is best for SDSU. If SDSU wanted to join the AAC, we would. It would be a simple phone call, followed by negotiations, then we would join. Easy. Fact remains, it would be a bad decision to join the AAC financially. There is no benefit. Also, don't forget that the AAC will eventually lose teams. It is inevitable. We might as well wait for now.

Thank you for the compliment fanhood! I try. Since you gave me credit on being fair:
Exposure: AAC easy. Most games are ESPN channel, where MWC has most games on CBS-SN.

Budgets: The AAC. This used to be very tight, but last year the AAC schools budgets skyrocketed while some MWC schools budgets actually shrunk.

Play: I'd give the AAC the edge. Last year was a big year for the AAC, while the MWC-Mountain division was very good, the MWC-West Division was terrible. I think the MWC-Mountain will be fierce this year though. Colorado St is going to surprise.

Exposure: CBS-SN is in less homes, but is still easily accessible. I just turn the channel. With that, I agree that the "casual viewer" will turn to ESPN, and not CBSSN. Then again, the casual viewer will simply change the channel when Tulsa is playing SMU, or USF is playing UCONN. So......not sure how to determine that.

Budgets: This is a factual statement. A lot will be determined in the next 3 to 5 years regarding the future.

Play: Cyclical, as always. The AAC proved (on the field) that the top of its conference is very similar CUSA, and MW (especially during Bowl Season). The MW West has been bad, but has the best team, and possibly program in SDSU. MW Mountain is very good, and was actually statistically better than the SEC East last year (Admittedly, statistics don't always tell the story though).

This year, literally four of six teams in the MW Mountain could win the conference (BSU, New Mexico, Air Force, Wyoming), and as you guys know, Air Force is still solid and respectable. Look out for New Mexico beating Tulsa this season.

The MW West will be improved with Hawaii on the rise. However, Fresno, SJSU, and Nevada are all rebuilding with new coaches.

For the rest.....See, reasonable posts, get good responses.

Irrational "P6" talk gets you laughed at.

(04-24-2017 02:18 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 01:27 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:01 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)fanhood Wrote:  BillyBob may just be the most objective fan forum poster on the internet.

Because he is wrong on every account? Let's be honest the AAC is light years in front of the mwc in exposure, play, budgets, etc.

Exposure is debatable. Budgets, yes. Play......did you watch Bowl Season in 2015 and 2016? Apparently not.

With that, I am not sure why you think I am some MWC promoter. I don't really care. I just want what is best for SDSU. If SDSU wanted to join the AAC, we would. It would be a simple phone call, followed by negotiations, then we would join. Easy. Fact remains, it would be a bad decision to join the AAC financially. There is no benefit. Also, don't forget that the AAC will eventually lose teams. It is inevitable. We might as well wait for now.

Thank you for the compliment fanhood! I try. Since you gave me credit on being fair:
Exposure: AAC easy. Most games are ESPN channel, where MWC has most games on CBS-SN.

Budgets: The AAC. This used to be very tight, but last year the AAC schools budgets skyrocketed while some MWC schools budgets actually shrunk.

Play: I'd give the AAC the edge. Last year was a big year for the AAC, while the MWC-Mountain division was very good, the MWC-West Division was terrible. I think the MWC-Mountain will be fierce this year though. Colorado St is going to surprise.

Exposure: CBS-SN is in less homes, but is still easily accessible. I just turn the channel. With that, I agree that the "casual viewer" will turn to ESPN, and not CBSSN. Then again, the casual viewer will simply change the channel when Tulsa is playing SMU, or USF is playing UCONN. So......not sure how to determine that.

Budgets: This is a factual statement. A lot will be determined in the next 3 to 5 years regarding the future.

Play: Cyclical, as always. The AAC proved (on the field) that the top of its conference is very similar CUSA, and MW (especially during Bowl Season). The MW West has been bad, but has the best team, and possibly program in SDSU. MW Mountain is very good, and was actually statistically better than the SEC East last year (Admittedly, statistics don't always tell the story though).

This year, literally four of six teams in the MW Mountain could win the conference (BSU, New Mexico, Air Force, Wyoming), and as you guys know, Air Force is still solid and respectable. Look out for New Mexico beating Tulsa this season.

The MW West will be improved with Hawaii on the rise. However, Fresno, SJSU, and Nevada are all rebuilding with new coaches.

For the rest.....See, reasonable posts, get good responses.

Irrational "P6" talk gets you laughed at.

My first thought - you put A LOT of emphasis on the bowl games, which are after all exhibitions. Houston's (and others') coaching change actually matters, as does Navy's injuries. I'll conced that last one as injuries are part of the game. But surely you remember the national narrative that bowl games outside the playoff don't mean anything - Fournette and others skipping them? You go the opposite direction and make them the sole datapoint for on-field performance...how about this: they are official games in the record and the stats do count, but how about we just look at them as one of 12 or 13 or 14 games?

So then we get to some neutral way of looking at the WHOLE season... how about the Massey Composite Rankings? So instead of a single datapoint like the CUSA runnerup holding the ball last to beat the AAC runnerup, we can look at September to December, top to bottom performance of the conferences.

Now I'll reframe your "The AAC proved (on the field) that the top of its conference is very similar CUSA, and MW" to something more true:
"The G4 conferences can have 1 or 2 top performers who rank with the AAC top, but the AAC top is better overall, the AAC middle is better, and the AAC bottom is above the bottom of the others."

MAC's WMU was the highest ranked non-contract-bowl-conference team - ahead of all AAC. Congrats. The MAC #2? Would be #5 in the AAC in rankings.
CUSA #2 beat a depleted Navy team...body of work, that #2CUSA ranked behind the AAC sixth-ranked Navy - below the AAC median.
mwc Boise and SDSU (ranked 32 and 37) comparable to AAC's USF and Temple (23 and 38), but the #3 AF would be #5 in the AAC.

That's at the top, at the bottom, AAC has 3 teams ranked in triple digits (heck, Big10 has 2 andACC/B12 each have one). mwc has 5 triple-digit-ranked teams, as does the MAC, both a worse cellar than the SunBelt (4 triple-digit-ranked teams) and CUSA has SEVEN teams ranked 109 or lower! EVERY G4 has one or more teams ranked below the lowest ranked AAC teams.

So, the mwc comes closest to the AAC of the G4s, especally at the top - congrats. That leads us back to P6. Remember P6 means "closer to the 5 contract-bowl-conferences" than to the G4.

MEAN MASSEY COMPOSITE RANKING
SEC 40.78
ACC 41.75
P12 46.09
B10 51.31
B12 52.02
AAC 68.68

mwc 78.46
SBC 87.04
MAC 88.45
CUSA 94.23

Again, congrats,mwc lifts itself above the other G4s by being WELL below the AAC, but not in fact farther below the AAC than the AAC is below the Big10 and Big12.

Oh, wait though, what about median?

MEDIAN MASSEY COMPOSITE RANKING:
ACC 28
B10 40
SEC 44.5
P12 45.5
B12 52.5
AAC 63.5

mwc 88
MAC 95
SBC 95
CUSA 109

Your "very similar" not actually very true, even at the top. Overall? On-field performance, yearlong body of work, top middle and bottom of conferences. AAC is closer to the five contract bowl conferences than to the G4

P6.
Just like attendance
And ratings/viewers.

P6

(04-26-2017 07:55 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 02:18 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 01:27 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:01 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Because he is wrong on every account? Let's be honest the AAC is light years in front of the mwc in exposure, play, budgets, etc.

Exposure is debatable. Budgets, yes. Play......did you watch Bowl Season in 2015 and 2016? Apparently not.

With that, I am not sure why you think I am some MWC promoter. I don't really care. I just want what is best for SDSU. If SDSU wanted to join the AAC, we would. It would be a simple phone call, followed by negotiations, then we would join. Easy. Fact remains, it would be a bad decision to join the AAC financially. There is no benefit. Also, don't forget that the AAC will eventually lose teams. It is inevitable. We might as well wait for now.

Thank you for the compliment fanhood! I try. Since you gave me credit on being fair:
Exposure: AAC easy. Most games are ESPN channel, where MWC has most games on CBS-SN.

Budgets: The AAC. This used to be very tight, but last year the AAC schools budgets skyrocketed while some MWC schools budgets actually shrunk.

Play: I'd give the AAC the edge. Last year was a big year for the AAC, while the MWC-Mountain division was very good, the MWC-West Division was terrible. I think the MWC-Mountain will be fierce this year though. Colorado St is going to surprise.

Exposure: CBS-SN is in less homes, but is still easily accessible. I just turn the channel. With that, I agree that the "casual viewer" will turn to ESPN, and not CBSSN. Then again, the casual viewer will simply change the channel when Tulsa is playing SMU, or USF is playing UCONN. So......not sure how to determine that.

Budgets: This is a factual statement. A lot will be determined in the next 3 to 5 years regarding the future.

Play: Cyclical, as always. The AAC proved (on the field) that the top of its conference is very similar CUSA, and MW (especially during Bowl Season). The MW West has been bad, but has the best team, and possibly program in SDSU. MW Mountain is very good, and was actually statistically better than the SEC East last year (Admittedly, statistics don't always tell the story though).

This year, literally four of six teams in the MW Mountain could win the conference (BSU, New Mexico, Air Force, Wyoming), and as you guys know, Air Force is still solid and respectable. Look out for New Mexico beating Tulsa this season.

The MW West will be improved with Hawaii on the rise. However, Fresno, SJSU, and Nevada are all rebuilding with new coaches.

For the rest.....See, reasonable posts, get good responses.

Irrational "P6" talk gets you laughed at.

My first thought - you put A LOT of emphasis on the bowl games, which are after all exhibitions. Houston's (and others') coaching change actually matters, as does Navy's injuries. I'll conced that last one as injuries are part of the game. But surely you remember the national narrative that bowl games outside the playoff don't mean anything - Fournette and others skipping them? You go the opposite direction and make them the sole datapoint for on-field performance...how about this: they are official games in the record and the stats do count, but how about we just look at them as one of 12 or 13 or 14 games?

So then we get to some neutral way of looking at the WHOLE season... how about the Massey Composite Rankings? So instead of a single datapoint like the CUSA runnerup holding the ball last to beat the AAC runnerup, we can look at September to December, top to bottom performance of the conferences.

Now I'll reframe your "The AAC proved (on the field) that the top of its conference is very similar CUSA, and MW" to something more true:
"The G4 conferences can have 1 or 2 top performers who rank with the AAC top, but the AAC top is better overall, the AAC middle is better, and the AAC bottom is above the bottom of the others."

MAC's WMU was the highest ranked non-contract-bowl-conference team - ahead of all AAC. Congrats. The MAC #2? Would be #5 in the AAC in rankings.
CUSA #2 beat a depleted Navy team...body of work, that #2CUSA ranked behind the AAC sixth-ranked Navy - below the AAC median.
mwc Boise and SDSU (ranked 32 and 37) comparable to AAC's USF and Temple (23 and 38), but the #3 AF would be #5 in the AAC.

That's at the top, at the bottom, AAC has 3 teams ranked in triple digits (heck, Big10 has 2 andACC/B12 each have one). mwc has 5 triple-digit-ranked teams, as does the MAC, both a worse cellar than the SunBelt (4 triple-digit-ranked teams) and CUSA has SEVEN teams ranked 109 or lower! EVERY G4 has one or more teams ranked below the lowest ranked AAC teams.

So, the mwc comes closest to the AAC of the G4s, especally at the top - congrats. That leads us back to P6. Remember P6 means "closer to the 5 contract-bowl-conferences" than to the G4.

MEAN MASSEY COMPOSITE RANKING
SEC 40.78
ACC 41.75
P12 46.09
B10 51.31
B12 52.02
AAC 68.68

mwc 78.46
SBC 87.04
MAC 88.45
CUSA 94.23

Again, congrats,mwc lifts itself above the other G4s by being WELL below the AAC, but not in fact farther below the AAC than the AAC is below the Big10 and Big12.

Oh, wait though, what about median?

MEDIAN MASSEY COMPOSITE RANKING:
ACC 28
B10 40
SEC 44.5
P12 45.5
B12 52.5
AAC 63.5

mwc 88
MAC 95
SBC 95
CUSA 109

Your "very similar" not actually very true, even at the top. Overall? On-field performance, yearlong body of work, top middle and bottom of conferences. AAC is closer to the five contract bowl conferences than to the G4

P6.
Just like attendance
And ratings/viewers.

P6

(04-24-2017 02:18 PM)fanhood Wrote:  Irrational "P6" talk gets you laughed at.

Nonsense. That's why we have these decals.



Actually, it all comes down to the money. The AAC is positioning itself for more revenue. Not up there with the rest of the P6 yet, but climbing. Sorry we had to leave you G4.

She said I'm sorry baby I'm leaving you tonight
I found someone new he's waitin' in the car outside
Ah honey how could you do it
We swore each other everlasting love
She said well yeah I know but when
We did; there was one thing we weren't
Really thinking of and that's money
Money changes everything
Money, money changes everything