Buster Faulkner's offense against David Dean and Rance Gillespie's "option" offense.

(05-21-2017 02:43 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Buster Faulkner's offense against David Dean and Rance Gillespie's "option" offense.

So true....

(05-21-2017 06:56 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  Of course you guys are going crush a P6 campaign by AAC. Its in your best interest that no one move up from their current static positions. This is especially true of the Sun Belt Commish. It does not reflect very very highly on him when Aresco is getting all the press for his league. Karl would be very happy to maintain the status quo as it means he does not have to answer to his own share holders.

Aresco is creating a narrative that the AAC does not belong with the G5. Its starting to work as many sports writers are saying the AAC is an in between league, which it really is at the moment.

In the end, a Sun Belt commish who is nervous about being left behind, will never publicly congratulate Aresco or the AAC for a job well done. Neither will Sun Belt fans but that is to be expected.

You guys keep pretending that you can wish this P6 thing into existence. We'll talk to you in a few years when the next contract comes and you're making the same amount we are.

You have to give them credit for persistence. No one is buying it for a second. The few so called "sport reporters" they claim are buying in are just trying to fill the off season. The rest of the world just chuckles and pats them on the head.

(05-21-2017 06:56 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  Of course you guys are going crush a P6 campaign by AAC. Its in your best interest that no one move up from their current static positions. This is especially true of the Sun Belt Commish. It does not reflect very very highly on him when Aresco is getting all the press for his league. Karl would be very happy to maintain the status quo as it means he does not have to answer to his own share holders.

Aresco is creating a narrative that the AAC does not belong with the G5. Its starting to work as many sports writers are saying the AAC is an in between league, which it really is at the moment.

In the end, a Sun Belt commish who is nervous about being left behind, will never publicly congratulate Aresco or the AAC for a job well done. Neither will Sun Belt fans but that is to be expected.

Assuming there's no less money why would we care? P5 dragging the likes of the AAC is no financial windfall given the current arrangement. Less money for the G5
is the likely outcome.

(05-19-2017 01:36 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 01:19 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  From the Horses Mouth....."There is NO Power 6."

Sun Belt needs AAC more than AAC needs Sun Belt. Of course Sun Belt Commish is going to be upset that AAC is trying to campaign for a different designation. AAC has no incentive to set its oars in the waters with the other 4.

Like it or not, the AAC is part of the G5 contractually through 2025. I get Aresco trying to separate from the G5 for the purpose of a more lucrative TV deal, but when it comes to playoff football and playoff revenue the AAC is in the same boat as the rest of the G5.

What Ive never figured out is what anyone thinks the G5 sticking together will do. We have zero leverage apart or together. If we did, the G5 wouldn't be stuck at the children's table. The only upgrade the G5 is going to get in the bowl system is the one the G5 pays for. Until the G5 as a whole (or an individual G5 conference), sets aside enough money to create bowls with payouts large enough to attract high selections from the P5---the G5 post season (other than the access bowl) will continue to exist exclusively within the very bottom rungs of the bowl system.

At the very least, every G5 champ should have a post season destination that is clearly superior to the bowls the rest of the teams from the conference will participate in. Right now---thats not the case. There's virtually no difference between the bowl a G5 champ gets and the bowl the 4th place team in the same conference gets. Personally, I think that's part of the problem with the G5 TV values. Because there is little reward for winning a G5 conference, there is reduced interest in the conference races. If the Sunbelt Champ was going to the Gator Bowl---to play a 9 win SEC team---or to the MAC Champ was going to the Pinstripe Bowl to play a 9 win Big10 team----there would be more interest in the how these conference races played out. The prize at the end of the season would give the race context and serve as a catalyst to create drama and interest.

(05-22-2017 01:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What Ive never figured out is what anyone thinks the G5 sticking together will do. We have zero leverage apart or together. If we did, the G5 wouldnt be stuck at the childrens table. The only upgrade the G5 is going to get in the bowl system is the one the G5 pays for. Until the G5 as a whole (or an individual G5 conference), sets aside enough money to create bowls with payouts large enough to attract high selections from the P5---the G5 post season (other than the access bowl) will continue to exist exclusively within the very bottom rungs of the bowl system.

At the very least, every G5 champ should have a post season destination that is clearly superior to the bowls the rest of the teams from the conference will participate in. Right now---thats not the case. There's virtuay no difference between the bowl a G5 champ gets and the bowl the 4th place team in the same conference gets. Personally, I think thats part of the problem with the G5 TV values. Because there is iittle reward for winning a G5 conference, there is reduced interest in the conference races. If the Sunbelt Champ was going to the Gator Bowl---to play a 9 win SEC team---or to the MAC Champ was going to the Pinstripe Bowl to play a 9 win Big10 team----there would be more interest in the how these conference races played out. The prize at the end of the season would give the race context and serve as a catalyst to create drama and interest.

I agree. Good points. A G5 conference champion in football should get a decent bowl game against a P5 school. That seems like a reasonable outcome for the four G5 conference champions that do not make the access bowl.

(05-19-2017 01:36 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 01:19 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  From the Horses Mouth....."There is NO Power 6."

Sun Belt needs AAC more than AAC needs Sun Belt. Of course Sun Belt Commish is going to be upset that AAC is trying to campaign for a different designation. AAC has no incentive to set its oars in the waters with the other 4.

Nobody "needs" the AAC anymore than the AAC needs the rest of the G5. A name campaign just comes off as desperate. If you earn it on the field and court, people will change how they view you but no PR stunt can make that happen.

(05-21-2017 06:56 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  Of course you guys are going crush a P6 campaign by AAC. Its in your best interest that no one move up from their current static positions. This is especially true of the Sun Belt Commish. It does not reflect very very highly on him when Aresco is getting all the press for his league. Karl would be very happy to maintain the status quo as it means he does not have to answer to his own share holders.

Aresco is creating a narrative that the AAC does not belong with the G5. Its starting to work as many sports writers are saying the AAC is an in between league, which it really is at the moment.

In the end, a Sun Belt commish who is nervous about being left behind, will never publicly congratulate Aresco or the AAC for a job well done. Neither will Sun Belt fans but that is to be expected.

Nobody is saying that. I guess the campaign only works on those who really want to believe.

(05-21-2017 06:56 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  Of course you guys are going crush a P6 campaign by AAC. Its in your best interest that no one move up from their current static positions. This is especially true of the Sun Belt Commish. It does not reflect very very highly on him when Aresco is getting all the press for his league. Karl would be very happy to maintain the status quo as it means he does not have to answer to his own share holders.

Aresco is creating a narrative that the AAC does not belong with the G5. Its starting to work as many sports writers are saying the AAC is an in between league, which it really is at the moment.

In the end, a Sun Belt commish who is nervous about being left behind, will never publicly congratulate Aresco or the AAC for a job well done. Neither will Sun Belt fans but that is to be expected.

Not crushing to laugh at the laughable.
I have high regard for the AAC members but there is no such thing as the P6 and there are no indications that there ever will be. More likely the P5 becomes P4 than P6.

(05-22-2017 01:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What Ive never figured out is what anyone thinks the G5 sticking together will do. We have zero leverage apart or together. If we did, the G5 wouldn't be stuck at the children's table. The only upgrade the G5 is going to get in the bowl system is the one the G5 pays for. Until the G5 as a whole (or an individual G5 conference), sets aside enough money to create bowls with payouts large enough to attract high selections from the P5---the G5 post season (other than the access bowl) will continue to exist exclusively within the very bottom rungs of the bowl system.

At the very least, every G5 champ should have a post season destination that is clearly superior to the bowls the rest of the teams from the conference will participate in. Right now---thats not the case. There's virtually no difference between the bowl a G5 champ gets and the bowl the 4th place team in the same conference gets. Personally, I think that's part of the problem with the G5 TV values. Because there is little reward for winning a G5 conference, there is reduced interest in the conference races. If the Sunbelt Champ was going to the Gator Bowl---to play a 9 win SEC team---or to the MAC Champ was going to the Pinstripe Bowl to play a 9 win Big10 team----there would be more interest in the how these conference races played out. The prize at the end of the season would give the race context and serve as a catalyst to create drama and interest.

Together we can create bowl pairing that make better sense. There is no reason to have X bowl ties per league with specific bowls, makes better sense to have a pool of bowls and pairings set to reflect attractive match-ups and geography. As it is we end up with weird deals where a school gets sent far from its region.

(05-22-2017 08:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 01:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What Ive never figured out is what anyone thinks the G5 sticking together will do. We have zero leverage apart or together. If we did, the G5 wouldn't be stuck at the children's table. The only upgrade the G5 is going to get in the bowl system is the one the G5 pays for. Until the G5 as a whole (or an individual G5 conference), sets aside enough money to create bowls with payouts large enough to attract high selections from the P5---the G5 post season (other than the access bowl) will continue to exist exclusively within the very bottom rungs of the bowl system.

At the very least, every G5 champ should have a post season destination that is clearly superior to the bowls the rest of the teams from the conference will participate in. Right now---thats not the case. There's virtually no difference between the bowl a G5 champ gets and the bowl the 4th place team in the same conference gets. Personally, I think that's part of the problem with the G5 TV values. Because there is little reward for winning a G5 conference, there is reduced interest in the conference races. If the Sunbelt Champ was going to the Gator Bowl---to play a 9 win SEC team---or to the MAC Champ was going to the Pinstripe Bowl to play a 9 win Big10 team----there would be more interest in the how these conference races played out. The prize at the end of the season would give the race context and serve as a catalyst to create drama and interest.

Together we can create bowl pairing that make better sense. There is no reason to have X bowl ties per league with specific bowls, makes better sense to have a pool of bowls and pairings set to reflect attractive match-ups and geography. As it is we end up with weird deals where a school gets sent far from its region.

They "try" to do that every season. Its not really a G5 issue (the P5 has their share of it as well). I certainly wouldnt think it's something that the AAC "P6 marketing campaign" would stymie. What gets in the way of these interesting matchps is bowl ties and the preferences of many fan bases (probably most fanbases) to play a P5 6-6/7-5 team whenever the opportunity arises. If there was decent money placed on the table to create these interesting pairings --they would get locked in.

Frankly, the ratings for some of the bowl games featuring top preforming G5 teams have been quite good of late. The general public seems to be interested in watching these high win total G5's either against one another or against high performing P5's. You;d think some young network exec would see an opportunity there.

(05-22-2017 01:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What Ive never figured out is what anyone thinks the G5 sticking together will do. We have zero leverage apart or together. If we did, the G5 wouldn't be stuck at the children's table. The only upgrade the G5 is going to get in the bowl system is the one the G5 pays for. Until the G5 as a whole (or an individual G5 conference), sets aside enough money to create bowls with payouts large enough to attract high selections from the P5---the G5 post season (other than the access bowl) will continue to exist exclusively within the very bottom rungs of the bowl system.

At the very least, every G5 champ should have a post season destination that is clearly superior to the bowls the rest of the teams from the conference will participate in. Right now---thats not the case. There's virtually no difference between the bowl a G5 champ gets and the bowl the 4th place team in the same conference gets. Personally, I think that's part of the problem with the G5 TV values. Because there is little reward for winning a G5 conference, there is reduced interest in the conference races. If the Sunbelt Champ was going to the Gator Bowl---to play a 9 win SEC team---or to the MAC Champ was going to the Pinstripe Bowl to play a 9 win Big10 team----there would be more interest in the how these conference races played out. The prize at the end of the season would give the race context and serve as a catalyst to create drama and interest.

I know the AAC doesn't have as many money games as other G5 conferences, but if we all stick together, we could agree to take no less than $2 million for future money games and the P5 teams would have no choice to pay it or schedule a home and home.

Great points being made by all. The P5 needs the G5. They have to fill schedules and as long as they continue to try to distance themselves the G5 should make them pay through the nose.

(05-22-2017 09:04 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 01:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What Ive never figured out is what anyone thinks the G5 sticking together will do. We have zero leverage apart or together. If we did, the G5 wouldn't be stuck at the children's table. The only upgrade the G5 is going to get in the bowl system is the one the G5 pays for. Until the G5 as a whole (or an individual G5 conference), sets aside enough money to create bowls with payouts large enough to attract high selections from the P5---the G5 post season (other than the access bowl) will continue to exist exclusively within the very bottom rungs of the bowl system.

At the very least, every G5 champ should have a post season destination that is clearly superior to the bowls the rest of the teams from the conference will participate in. Right now---thats not the case. There's virtually no difference between the bowl a G5 champ gets and the bowl the 4th place team in the same conference gets. Personally, I think that's part of the problem with the G5 TV values. Because there is little reward for winning a G5 conference, there is reduced interest in the conference races. If the Sunbelt Champ was going to the Gator Bowl---to play a 9 win SEC team---or to the MAC Champ was going to the Pinstripe Bowl to play a 9 win Big10 team----there would be more interest in the how these conference races played out. The prize at the end of the season would give the race context and serve as a catalyst to create drama and interest.

I know the AAC doesn't have as many money games as other G5 conferences, but if we all stick together, we could agree to take no less than $2 million for future money games and the P5 teams would have no choice to pay it or schedule a home and home.

The money games are not just a factor of demand and supply. They have to be able to make money on them. ArkStfan would have a better idea, but my guess is there's a relatively short list of schools that can pay 2 million for a buy game and make good money on it. There are probably a few that could probably pay a lot more than 2 million and still do just fine as they have 100K seats that will be filled. But not every P5 has 100K fans buying tickets. In fact, there's probably not all that many that even average over 70K.

Who knows? Maybe that works to create more home and homes with the G5. On the other hand, it might just create more incentive to do more home-and-homes with P5s or to bring back FCS body bag games.

(05-22-2017 08:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 08:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 01:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What Ive never figured out is what anyone thinks the G5 sticking together will do. We have zero leverage apart or together. If we did, the G5 wouldn't be stuck at the children's table. The only upgrade the G5 is going to get in the bowl system is the one the G5 pays for. Until the G5 as a whole (or an individual G5 conference), sets aside enough money to create bowls with payouts large enough to attract high selections from the P5---the G5 post season (other than the access bowl) will continue to exist exclusively within the very bottom rungs of the bowl system.

At the very least, every G5 champ should have a post season destination that is clearly superior to the bowls the rest of the teams from the conference will participate in. Right now---thats not the case. There's virtually no difference between the bowl a G5 champ gets and the bowl the 4th place team in the same conference gets. Personally, I think that's part of the problem with the G5 TV values. Because there is little reward for winning a G5 conference, there is reduced interest in the conference races. If the Sunbelt Champ was going to the Gator Bowl---to play a 9 win SEC team---or to the MAC Champ was going to the Pinstripe Bowl to play a 9 win Big10 team----there would be more interest in the how these conference races played out. The prize at the end of the season would give the race context and serve as a catalyst to create drama and interest.

Together we can create bowl pairing that make better sense. There is no reason to have X bowl ties per league with specific bowls, makes better sense to have a pool of bowls and pairings set to reflect attractive match-ups and geography. As it is we end up with weird deals where a school gets sent far from its region.

They "try" to do that every season. Its not really a G5 issue (the P5 has their share of it as well). I certainly wouldnt think it's something that the AAC "P6 marketing campaign" would stymie. What gets in the way of these interesting matchps is bowl ties and the preferences of many fan bases (probably most fanbases) to play a P5 6-6/7-5 team whenever the opportunity arises. If there was decent money placed on the table to create these interesting pairings --they would get locked in.

Frankly, the ratings for some of the bowl games featuring top preforming G5 teams have been quite good of late. The general public seems to be interested in watching these high win total G5's either against one another or against high performing P5's. You;d think some young network exec would see an opportunity there.

With a few exceptions, deals don't get worked and pick orders create messes.

For example this year Montgomery and Mobile wanted the same match-up. Troy vs. Toledo, AState wanted to play in either Alabama bowl, App State wanted to play in Orlando. The word AState had was that whichever bowl ended up without that match-up was taking AState vs. Ohio, Cure in Orlando was going to pit App and UCF, and USA was headed to Tucson with a deal being brokered to send Idaho to Boise.

Mobile had second selection of Sun Belt and second selection of MAC while Montgomery had 1st (after NY6) of MAC and third of the Sun Belt.
So Mobile took Troy and Montgomery took Toledo. Neither would budge.
Looking over what was left of MAC, Mobile took Ohio. AState and Toledo had already played in the regular season so they went with App even though they had hoped to let App go elsewhere after going to Montgomery the year before.

Meanwhile Cure hasn't scouted Arkansas State and is now looking at South Alabama and calls AState to say they are passing and the assistant AD says he is surprised given the presale numbers they had submitted, bowl director is like "What presale numbers, we didn't see anything from you". They dig around, find the report and invite AState.

This isn't 1985 any more, the bowls no longer hold the leverage if the conferences exert it. Toledo and Troy should have met. App should have been in Orlando and AState should have played Ohio.

Now I have no beef with how it turned out and our people loved the Cure Bowl and felt it was well done but the pairings could have been even better.

(05-22-2017 10:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 09:04 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 01:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What Ive never figured out is what anyone thinks the G5 sticking together will do. We have zero leverage apart or together. If we did, the G5 wouldn't be stuck at the children's table. The only upgrade the G5 is going to get in the bowl system is the one the G5 pays for. Until the G5 as a whole (or an individual G5 conference), sets aside enough money to create bowls with payouts large enough to attract high selections from the P5---the G5 post season (other than the access bowl) will continue to exist exclusively within the very bottom rungs of the bowl system.

At the very least, every G5 champ should have a post season destination that is clearly superior to the bowls the rest of the teams from the conference will participate in. Right now---thats not the case. There's virtually no difference between the bowl a G5 champ gets and the bowl the 4th place team in the same conference gets. Personally, I think that's part of the problem with the G5 TV values. Because there is little reward for winning a G5 conference, there is reduced interest in the conference races. If the Sunbelt Champ was going to the Gator Bowl---to play a 9 win SEC team---or to the MAC Champ was going to the Pinstripe Bowl to play a 9 win Big10 team----there would be more interest in the how these conference races played out. The prize at the end of the season would give the race context and serve as a catalyst to create drama and interest.

I know the AAC doesn't have as many money games as other G5 conferences, but if we all stick together, we could agree to take no less than $2 million for future money games and the P5 teams would have no choice to pay it or schedule a home and home.

The money games are not just a factor of demand and supply. They have to be able to make money on them. ArkStfan would have a better idea, but my guess is there's a relatively short list of schools that can pay 2 million for a buy game and make good money on it. There are probably a few that could probably pay a lot more than 2 million and still do just fine as they have 100K seats that will be filled. But not every P5 has 100K fans buying tickets. In fact, there's probably not all that many that even average over 70K.

Who knows? Maybe that works to create more home and homes with the G5. On the other hand, it might just create more incentive to do more home-and-homes with P5s or to bring back FCS body bag games.

People can hold their breath all they want, Wake Forest, Iowa State, and Washington State aren't coughing up $2 million a game. Kentucky offered AState a "home and home" but only if we agreed to play our "home" game in Nashville and countered with $1.8 million to go to Lexington and $1.8 million to go to Nashville. Short conversation.

(05-22-2017 10:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 09:04 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 01:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What Ive never figured out is what anyone thinks the G5 sticking together will do. We have zero leverage apart or together. If we did, the G5 wouldn't be stuck at the children's table. The only upgrade the G5 is going to get in the bowl system is the one the G5 pays for. Until the G5 as a whole (or an individual G5 conference), sets aside enough money to create bowls with payouts large enough to attract high selections from the P5---the G5 post season (other than the access bowl) will continue to exist exclusively within the very bottom rungs of the bowl system.

At the very least, every G5 champ should have a post season destination that is clearly superior to the bowls the rest of the teams from the conference will participate in. Right now---thats not the case. There's virtually no difference between the bowl a G5 champ gets and the bowl the 4th place team in the same conference gets. Personally, I think that's part of the problem with the G5 TV values. Because there is little reward for winning a G5 conference, there is reduced interest in the conference races. If the Sunbelt Champ was going to the Gator Bowl---to play a 9 win SEC team---or to the MAC Champ was going to the Pinstripe Bowl to play a 9 win Big10 team----there would be more interest in the how these conference races played out. The prize at the end of the season would give the race context and serve as a catalyst to create drama and interest.

I know the AAC doesn't have as many money games as other G5 conferences, but if we all stick together, we could agree to take no less than $2 million for future money games and the P5 teams would have no choice to pay it or schedule a home and home.

The money games are not just a factor of demand and supply. They have to be able to make money on them. ArkStfan would have a better idea, but my guess is there's a relatively short list of schools that can pay 2 million for a buy game and make good money on it. There are probably a few that could probably pay a lot more than 2 million and still do just fine as they have 100K seats that will be filled. But not every P5 has 100K fans buying tickets. In fact, there's probably not all that many that even average over 70K.

Who knows? Maybe that works to create more home and homes with the G5. On the other hand, it might just create more incentive to do more home-and-homes with P5s or to bring back FCS body bag games.

It seems that the going rate is almost $1.5M for a money game and is increasing. The lower P5's will be forced to do more home and homes. Especially if more conferences drop their FCS games. I'm hoping this happens (and it doesn't back fire somehow) and will allow GS to drop a money game and hopefully get that 1st P5 to visit our house.

So I'm guessing there weren't any surprises with respect to the football divisions,? I thought they were going to be announced yesterday or maybe I just missed it?