Aresco is sticking with the P6 narrative.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/conn...c-plan.pdf

Maybe we're the "Power 6" because the best we can hope for out of our next TV contract is six figures.

Why would a small group of schools with a big pot of money want to split it up with more members?

Think about it from their perspective...

Doesn't make any sense.

The resources and expense to make and distribute that power point probably exceeds our TV revenue.

The Big 12's sh!t show realignment process and this weekend's NFL draft point more in the direction of a P4.

(05-01-2017 01:12 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  The resources and expense to make and distribute that power point probably exceeds our TV revenue.

Yeah, don't print those bad boys in color. Better yet, don't print them at all.

(05-01-2017 01:24 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 01:12 PM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  The resources and expense to make and distribute that power point probably exceeds our TV revenue.

Yeah, don't print those bad boys in color. Better yet, don't print them at all.

At least the Tangemen clock tower made it on page 2

The "main" board is thoroughly brain-washed on this issue... A number of people claim it's only "trolling" but I really do think a substantial number of people believe the hype.

I live outside the "American" conference footprint. All I will say is that whenever it's noticed...which is rarely...the "P6" stickers and talk are ridiculed. And I use that word purposefully; it's a source of downright ridicule. Other conference fans don't find it "cute" or endearing, they don't find it "scrappy." They simply laugh.

I really wish that UC wouldn't put the stickers on the helmets. The more you protest something like this, the more you're just admitting that you're not "in the club." Those stickers just make us look pathetic.

I think the P6 meme is more for the fans than anyone else. Got to keep fans thinking this matters or it's not worth the effort.

Id rather have them thinking big and falling short than anything else. Who cares if we get ridiculed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

The worst thing we (we being the conference as well as UC fans) can do is refer to ourselves as G5. A G5 school, G5 program, smaller school. While referring to schools like Wake, Purdue, NW, Vandy, WSU, PITT, etc as P5 programs.

We are a P5 program and school, stuck in a tweener conference. If anyone is gonna believe that, it's gotta start with us.

There's a handful of blueblood programs. Then us mixed with a BUNCH of schools in the middle, and then like Tulane and Wake Forest and a handful of others crawling on the bottom. Just because ESPN created a term based on TV contracts, doesn't mean we have to use it, or live by it. Coach Fickell sure as sh!t isn't living by it.

As for the conference putting this out, I don't mind it. It keeps the conversation going, and that can't hurt.

The Big 12 will be gone in a few years. These contracts with the networks have largely been failures for the majority of the P5. The Longhorn network is done. $65 mill and counting in the red since its inception. I've already heard they are likely going to open up expansion talks again in the next year but I think it's too little too late. The SEC and B1G will survive, probably get to 16 schools and the others will eventually split apart into smaller more regional conferences.

The problem with the P5 and G5 labeling in my view is that they are used incorrectly. They are not terms for teams, but for conferences. You look top to bottom in college football and there is no sudden drop in program strength anywhere, but instead you get a gradual changes as you go up or down the ladder (with no one locked into one place). The differences in conference strength isn't completely black and white either, but it is clearer and that is where talking about power 5 and Group of 5 makes some sense at least.

I think we will probably always have some terminology about the different conferences (it develops naturally), but think if we are going to have it, we need to use it right. To me, that means it is accurate to say Wake Forest (as an example) plays in a power 5 conference, but it is not accurate to say Wake Forest is a P5 school. That difference may be subtle, but I think it is important.

Not sure what people's issue is with this. Conference is aiming to be there with the big boys. On the field it's not there, but it's been easily a better league than the rest most of the time. I don't want the AAC to make it's goal to be the best of the rest.... it should aim higher and market accordingly. It should do everything it can to be viewed above the G5...even if it's not viewed as P5 level (and rightfully as of today). I doubt it ever has a P5 feel, but I have no problem with the league making that the target and pushing its programs to act accordingly.

(05-01-2017 04:49 PM)Marcus Wrote:  The Big 12 will be gone in a few years. These contracts with the networks have largely been failures for the majority of the P5. The Longhorn network is done. $65 mill and counting in the red since its inception. I've already heard they are likely going to open up expansion talks again in the next year but I think it's too little too late. The SEC and B1G will survive, probably get to 16 schools and the others will eventually split apart into smaller more regional conferences.

Bolded, I have this feeling as well. So, if offered I suspect it makes sense for UC to hitch it's wagon to any power conference for as long as it lasts and take advantage of the increased revenue and exposure before the next shift occurs.

UC likely holds the record for most success in basketball or football of any school in the country that has had memberships in so many conferences. Didn't Huggins joke about the fact that UC was in three different conferences just during his tenure? And of course that has since been followed by the Big East and AAC. Conference stability is not in our lexicon.

(05-01-2017 02:53 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  The worst thing we (we being the conference as well as UC fans) can do is refer to ourselves as G5. A G5 school, G5 program, smaller school. While referring to schools like Wake, Purdue, NW, Vandy, WSU, PITT, etc as P5 programs.

We are a P5 program and school, stuck in a tweener conference. If anyone is gonna believe that, it's gotta start with us.

There's a handful of blueblood programs. Then us mixed with a BUNCH of schools in the middle, and then like Tulane and Wake Forest and a handful of others crawling on the bottom. Just because ESPN created a term based on TV contracts, doesn't mean we have to use it, or live by it. Coach Fickell sure as sh!t isn't living by it.

As for the conference putting this out, I don't mind it. It keeps the conversation going, and that can't hurt.

Problem is that it's more than just a term. The designation is the difference between good bowl games and crap, and big media rights money and crap.

(05-02-2017 06:29 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 02:53 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  The worst thing we (we being the conference as well as UC fans) can do is refer to ourselves as G5. A G5 school, G5 program, smaller school. While referring to schools like Wake, Purdue, NW, Vandy, WSU, PITT, etc as P5 programs.

We are a P5 program and school, stuck in a tweener conference. If anyone is gonna believe that, it's gotta start with us.

There's a handful of blueblood programs. Then us mixed with a BUNCH of schools in the middle, and then like Tulane and Wake Forest and a handful of others crawling on the bottom. Just because ESPN created a term based on TV contracts, doesn't mean we have to use it, or live by it. Coach Fickell sure as sh!t isn't living by it.

As for the conference putting this out, I don't mind it. It keeps the conversation going, and that can't hurt.

Problem is that it's more than just a term. The designation is the difference between good bowl games and crap, and big media rights money and crap.

Don't care what you call yourself, when your league champ could go 12-1 and the best they can do is play in a Miami Bowl versus the Sunbelt on a weekday afternoon before Christmas the world fills in its own designations as appropriate.

http://theamerican.org/news/2013/12/5/FB...34743.aspx

(05-02-2017 06:29 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 02:53 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  The worst thing we (we being the conference as well as UC fans) can do is refer to ourselves as G5. A G5 school, G5 program, smaller school. While referring to schools like Wake, Purdue, NW, Vandy, WSU, PITT, etc as P5 programs.

We are a P5 program and school, stuck in a tweener conference. If anyone is gonna believe that, it's gotta start with us.

There's a handful of blueblood programs. Then us mixed with a BUNCH of schools in the middle, and then like Tulane and Wake Forest and a handful of others crawling on the bottom. Just because ESPN created a term based on TV contracts, doesn't mean we have to use it, or live by it. Coach Fickell sure as sh!t isn't living by it.

As for the conference putting this out, I don't mind it. It keeps the conversation going, and that can't hurt.

Problem is that it's more than just a term. The designation is the difference between good bowl games and crap, and big media rights money and crap.

Exactly. When UC was in the BCS 6 (old Big East) many would have argued it was the 6th of 6 in terms of football and conference revenue. And that was a big step up from C-USA. So reaching the #5 Power 5 looks pretty much the same at this point. Financially and in terms of overall prestige, it's still a steep fall from the worst P5 on the mountain to the best G5 way down in the canyon.