AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco was interviewed on "Full Ride" on SiriusXM Wednesday. I caught most of it while I was driving in to DC. I haven't found a link, but I spent some time on the app transcribing it.
Single spaced, my transcript of the 29 minutes starts an eighth page. And Childers and Neuheisel really only asked five questions.

The nature of Aresco's long expositions makes it hard to do even an edited rundown.

Here are my highlights of it, though.

First, after initial greetings, Childers' opening question kind of backs up one thing I've said - the P6 narrative was sinking in with national media, rather than just being something for fanbois on this board.

Childers: "You've had a mission statement, you've been preaching for years about the quality of the league, I think the results certainly back it up, how pleased is the league office right now?"
Pulling P6 quotes from Aresco's first response:
Aresco: "...And clearly we're reaching that point when we could really really push hard on the P6 narrative and then of course in the summer you had the Texas Oklahoma move and I knew that would affect us. It's a shame though that ultimately we weren't an official P6 almost from the beginning...
...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four and but yet the three schools that are leaving felt that this whole P5 designation was important to them and why wouldn't they think that, and also the greener pastures maybe thinking they would get more money..."

Aresco gave each of the six future additions a positive mention, and "Those schools will benefit. And in addition to the revenue, there will be far more revenue for them, and they'll be able to spend that on recruiting and facilities and student-athlete health and welfare, so I think in the end it's going to elevate them, and I think they're pretty excited about that."

Aresco was as usual complimentary of the departing teams.
Aresco: "Obviously it's tough to replace teams like that, because five of our last six New Year's appearances have been those teams." And later, "But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker." And then near the end, "Certainly for years, UCF had tremendous teams, Houston had tremendous teams, Cincinnati last year -- Cincinnati's team last year might have been as good or better than this year's team..."

That middle one above was in response to Neuheisel asking about timelines of realigning. A little more of that exchange --
Neuheisel: It seems to me, Mike, and tell me if I'm reading this wrong, that you'd like this to happen quicker than later, sooner than later, where Bob Bowlsby of the Big 12 is trying to hold on to Oklahoma and Texas for as long as he can, unless they're willing to cough up the money that is required for their early exit. Am I reading that correctly? For you, would you rather have this happen quicker so that the college football fan can get reacclimated to what is the new look of the American Conference?
Aresco: Well, with our bylaws we have to be careful Rick... We have to be careful because our bylaws require those schools to stay until July 1 2024 and at this point i don't know what ultimately they're gonna do. Clearly if things move faster and they might, if they make a request to leave for a little earlier we would certainly negotiate that.
You can rebrand a little quicker. In 2013 we decided that we would want to move on pretty quickly and rebrand rather than have people talking about schools that were planning to leave.
But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker.

He talked a lot about the Playoff discussions:
- "...one thing I'll say at the outset, is that everybody in the room I really like. And I think, people talk about the differences of opinion, this and that. There is collegiality (no pun intended) in the room. On the other hand, there have been some pretty sharp exchanges because there have to be, but they're direct, and people -- just like realignment half the people in the room have been subject to realignment; we've all taken our bruises and delivered some too and it's unfortunate-- and yet we get along."
- "One, we have this 5+1 business. Kevin has been out there publically, Kevin Warren, talking about 5+1. That's a complete non-starter for us. It just is. It's not the way you run a playoff."
- "We have to, you know, we're fighting hard and we've been pretty adamant about it, and we have support among the "P5" and you could argue they're voting against their self-interest, but really what they're voting for is basic fairness, for equality. They don't feel that there should be this kind of advantage. Greg Sankey and Bob Bowlsby and Jack Swarbrick who represents Notre Dame they were on the small working group that came up with this plan. And they've been steadfast in their support, and I really admire the fact that they've done that..."
- "The issue for us, the issues that the ACC has cited, the NIL situation is unsettled and it really is the Wild West right now; you have the transfer portal and it's just really messy right now and there should probably be some structure to that; the Transformation Committee, Division I how it will be structured in the future. To me, those things are going to be there in a year, two years, three years. They may be there for a long, long time before they get settled, if they ever get settled to everyone's satisfaction and maybe they never will because people will always have differences. But that to me, that doesn't relate to the playoff, to me those issues are going to be there."
- "But something I want to clarify: we are trying to get something for the future Year 13 and beyond, 2026 and beyond. Whether we do a three year deal, six year deal, nine year deal, twelve, whatever. It's a new platform, it's a new protocol for the playoff. The only issue is once we've arrived at something, agreed on something, whether we could move it earlier, whether we could try to implement it a little earlier, in years 11-12, '24 '25."

There's more, lots more. But those are some of the soundbites that got my attention as I was battling DC traffic.

(02-01-2022 10:58 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco was interviewed on "Full Ride" on SiriusXM Wednesday. I caught most of it while I was driving in to DC. I haven't found a link, but I spent some time on the app transcribing it.
Single spaced, my transcript of the 29 minutes starts an eighth page. And Childers and Neuheisel really only asked five questions.

The nature of Aresco's long expositions makes it hard to do even an edited rundown.

Here are my highlights of it, though.

First, after initial greetings, Childers' opening question kind of backs up one thing I've said - the P6 narrative was sinking in with national media, rather than just being something for fanbois on this board.

Childers: "You've had a mission statement, you've been preaching for years about the quality of the league, I think the results certainly back it up, how pleased is the league office right now?"
Pulling P6 quotes from Aresco's first response:
Aresco: "...And clearly we're reaching that point when we could really really push hard on the P6 narrative and then of course in the summer you had the Texas Oklahoma move and I knew that would affect us. It's a shame though that ultimately we weren't an official P6 almost from the beginning...
...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four and but yet the three schools that are leaving felt that this whole P5 designation was important to them and why wouldn't they think that, and also the greener pastures maybe thinking they would get more money..."

Aresco gave each of the six future additions a positive mention, and "Those schools will benefit. And in addition to the revenue, there will be far more revenue for them, and they'll be able to spend that on recruiting and facilities and student-athlete health and welfare, so I think in the end it's going to elevate them, and I think they're pretty excited about that."

Aresco was as usual complimentary of the departing teams.
Aresco: "Obviously it's tough to replace teams like that, because five of our last six New Year's appearances have been those teams." And later, "But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker." And then near the end, "Certainly for years, UCF had tremendous teams, Houston had tremendous teams, Cincinnati last year -- Cincinnati's team last year might have been as good or better than this year's team..."

That middle one above was in response to Neuheisel asking about timelines of realigning. A little more of that exchange --
Neuheisel: It seems to me, Mike, and tell me if I'm reading this wrong, that you'd like this to happen quicker than later, sooner than later, where Bob Bowlsby of the Big 12 is trying to hold on to Oklahoma and Texas for as long as he can, unless they're willing to cough up the money that is required for their early exit. Am I reading that correctly? For you, would you rather have this happen quicker so that the college football fan can get reacclimated to what is the new look of the American Conference?
Aresco: Well, with our bylaws we have to be careful Rick... We have to be careful because our bylaws require those schools to stay until July 1 2024 and at this point i don't know what ultimately they're gonna do. Clearly if things move faster and they might, if they make a request to leave for a little earlier we would certainly negotiate that.
You can rebrand a little quicker. In 2013 we decided that we would want to move on pretty quickly and rebrand rather than have people talking about schools that were planning to leave.
But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker.

He talked a lot about the Playoff discussions:
- "...one thing I'll say at the outset, is that everybody in the room I really like. And I think, people talk about the differences of opinion, this and that. There is collegiality (no pun intended) in the room. On the other hand, there have been some pretty sharp exchanges because there have to be, but they're direct, and people -- just like realignment half the people in the room have been subject to realignment; we've all taken our bruises and delivered some too and it's unfortunate-- and yet we get along."
- "One, we have this 5+1 business. Kevin has been out there publically, Kevin Warren, talking about 5+1. That's a complete non-starter for us. It just is. It's not the way you run a playoff."
- "We have to, you know, we're fighting hard and we've been pretty adamant about it, and we have support among the "P5" and you could argue they're voting against their self-interest, but really what they're voting for is basic fairness, for equality. They don't feel that there should be this kind of advantage. Greg Sankey and Bob Bowlsby and Jack Swarbrick who represents Notre Dame they were on the small working group that came up with this plan. And they've been steadfast in their support, and I really admire the fact that they've done that..."
- "The issue for us, the issues that the ACC has cited, the NIL situation is unsettled and it really is the Wild West right now; you have the transfer portal and it's just really messy right now and there should probably be some structure to that; the Transformation Committee, Division I how it will be structured in the future. To me, those things are going to be there in a year, two years, three years. They may be there for a long, long time before they get settled, if they ever get settled to everyone's satisfaction and maybe they never will because people will always have differences. But that to me, that doesn't relate to the playoff, to me those issues are going to be there."
- "But something I want to clarify: we are trying to get something for the future Year 13 and beyond, 2026 and beyond. Whether we do a three year deal, six year deal, nine year deal, twelve, whatever. It's a new platform, it's a new protocol for the playoff. The only issue is once we've arrived at something, agreed on something, whether we could move it earlier, whether we could try to implement it a little earlier, in years 11-12, '24 '25."

There's more, lots more. But those are some of the soundbites that got my attention as I was battling DC traffic.

Thanks for the effort you put in this. Good read. The AAC will be fine and I think the playoff will expand based on the original plan.

A great commissioner. Will be interested to see this conference in a few years as well.

(02-01-2022 10:58 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco was interviewed on "Full Ride" on SiriusXM Wednesday. I caught most of it while I was driving in to DC. I haven't found a link, but I spent some time on the app transcribing it.
Single spaced, my transcript of the 29 minutes starts an eighth page. And Childers and Neuheisel really only asked five questions.

The nature of Aresco's long expositions makes it hard to do even an edited rundown.

Here are my highlights of it, though.

First, after initial greetings, Childers' opening question kind of backs up one thing I've said - the P6 narrative was sinking in with national media, rather than just being something for fanbois on this board.

Childers: "You've had a mission statement, you've been preaching for years about the quality of the league, I think the results certainly back it up, how pleased is the league office right now?"
Pulling P6 quotes from Aresco's first response:
Aresco: "...And clearly we're reaching that point when we could really really push hard on the P6 narrative and then of course in the summer you had the Texas Oklahoma move and I knew that would affect us. It's a shame though that ultimately we weren't an official P6 almost from the beginning...
...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four and but yet the three schools that are leaving felt that this whole P5 designation was important to them and why wouldn't they think that, and also the greener pastures maybe thinking they would get more money..."

Aresco gave each of the six future additions a positive mention, and "Those schools will benefit. And in addition to the revenue, there will be far more revenue for them, and they'll be able to spend that on recruiting and facilities and student-athlete health and welfare, so I think in the end it's going to elevate them, and I think they're pretty excited about that."

Aresco was as usual complimentary of the departing teams.
Aresco: "Obviously it's tough to replace teams like that, because five of our last six New Year's appearances have been those teams." And later, "But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker." And then near the end, "Certainly for years, UCF had tremendous teams, Houston had tremendous teams, Cincinnati last year -- Cincinnati's team last year might have been as good or better than this year's team..."

That middle one above was in response to Neuheisel asking about timelines of realigning. A little more of that exchange --
Neuheisel: It seems to me, Mike, and tell me if I'm reading this wrong, that you'd like this to happen quicker than later, sooner than later, where Bob Bowlsby of the Big 12 is trying to hold on to Oklahoma and Texas for as long as he can, unless they're willing to cough up the money that is required for their early exit. Am I reading that correctly? For you, would you rather have this happen quicker so that the college football fan can get reacclimated to what is the new look of the American Conference?
Aresco: Well, with our bylaws we have to be careful Rick... We have to be careful because our bylaws require those schools to stay until July 1 2024 and at this point i don't know what ultimately they're gonna do. Clearly if things move faster and they might, if they make a request to leave for a little earlier we would certainly negotiate that.
You can rebrand a little quicker. In 2013 we decided that we would want to move on pretty quickly and rebrand rather than have people talking about schools that were planning to leave.
But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker.

He talked a lot about the Playoff discussions:
- "...one thing I'll say at the outset, is that everybody in the room I really like. And I think, people talk about the differences of opinion, this and that. There is collegiality (no pun intended) in the room. On the other hand, there have been some pretty sharp exchanges because there have to be, but they're direct, and people -- just like realignment half the people in the room have been subject to realignment; we've all taken our bruises and delivered some too and it's unfortunate-- and yet we get along."
- "One, we have this 5+1 business. Kevin has been out there publically, Kevin Warren, talking about 5+1. That's a complete non-starter for us. It just is. It's not the way you run a playoff."
- "We have to, you know, we're fighting hard and we've been pretty adamant about it, and we have support among the "P5" and you could argue they're voting against their self-interest, but really what they're voting for is basic fairness, for equality. They don't feel that there should be this kind of advantage. Greg Sankey and Bob Bowlsby and Jack Swarbrick who represents Notre Dame they were on the small working group that came up with this plan. And they've been steadfast in their support, and I really admire the fact that they've done that..."
- "The issue for us, the issues that the ACC has cited, the NIL situation is unsettled and it really is the Wild West right now; you have the transfer portal and it's just really messy right now and there should probably be some structure to that; the Transformation Committee, Division I how it will be structured in the future. To me, those things are going to be there in a year, two years, three years. They may be there for a long, long time before they get settled, if they ever get settled to everyone's satisfaction and maybe they never will because people will always have differences. But that to me, that doesn't relate to the playoff, to me those issues are going to be there."
- "But something I want to clarify: we are trying to get something for the future Year 13 and beyond, 2026 and beyond. Whether we do a three year deal, six year deal, nine year deal, twelve, whatever. It's a new platform, it's a new protocol for the playoff. The only issue is once we've arrived at something, agreed on something, whether we could move it earlier, whether we could try to implement it a little earlier, in years 11-12, '24 '25."

There's more, lots more. But those are some of the soundbites that got my attention as I was battling DC traffic.

"...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four..."

?

With what he's had, he's done a pretty good job. Glad to hear the other folks in the room know they need to be more fair in the playoffs, we'll see how it plays out though.

(02-02-2022 09:11 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-01-2022 10:58 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco was interviewed on "Full Ride" on SiriusXM Wednesday. I caught most of it while I was driving in to DC. I haven't found a link, but I spent some time on the app transcribing it.
Single spaced, my transcript of the 29 minutes starts an eighth page. And Childers and Neuheisel really only asked five questions.

The nature of Aresco's long expositions makes it hard to do even an edited rundown.

Here are my highlights of it, though.

First, after initial greetings, Childers' opening question kind of backs up one thing I've said - the P6 narrative was sinking in with national media, rather than just being something for fanbois on this board.

Childers: "You've had a mission statement, you've been preaching for years about the quality of the league, I think the results certainly back it up, how pleased is the league office right now?"
Pulling P6 quotes from Aresco's first response:
Aresco: "...And clearly we're reaching that point when we could really really push hard on the P6 narrative and then of course in the summer you had the Texas Oklahoma move and I knew that would affect us. It's a shame though that ultimately we weren't an official P6 almost from the beginning...
...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four and but yet the three schools that are leaving felt that this whole P5 designation was important to them and why wouldn't they think that, and also the greener pastures maybe thinking they would get more money..."

Aresco gave each of the six future additions a positive mention, and "Those schools will benefit. And in addition to the revenue, there will be far more revenue for them, and they'll be able to spend that on recruiting and facilities and student-athlete health and welfare, so I think in the end it's going to elevate them, and I think they're pretty excited about that."

Aresco was as usual complimentary of the departing teams.
Aresco: "Obviously it's tough to replace teams like that, because five of our last six New Year's appearances have been those teams." And later, "But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker." And then near the end, "Certainly for years, UCF had tremendous teams, Houston had tremendous teams, Cincinnati last year -- Cincinnati's team last year might have been as good or better than this year's team..."

That middle one above was in response to Neuheisel asking about timelines of realigning. A little more of that exchange --
Neuheisel: It seems to me, Mike, and tell me if I'm reading this wrong, that you'd like this to happen quicker than later, sooner than later, where Bob Bowlsby of the Big 12 is trying to hold on to Oklahoma and Texas for as long as he can, unless they're willing to cough up the money that is required for their early exit. Am I reading that correctly? For you, would you rather have this happen quicker so that the college football fan can get reacclimated to what is the new look of the American Conference?
Aresco: Well, with our bylaws we have to be careful Rick... We have to be careful because our bylaws require those schools to stay until July 1 2024 and at this point i don't know what ultimately they're gonna do. Clearly if things move faster and they might, if they make a request to leave for a little earlier we would certainly negotiate that.
You can rebrand a little quicker. In 2013 we decided that we would want to move on pretty quickly and rebrand rather than have people talking about schools that were planning to leave.
But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker.

He talked a lot about the Playoff discussions:
- "...one thing I'll say at the outset, is that everybody in the room I really like. And I think, people talk about the differences of opinion, this and that. There is collegiality (no pun intended) in the room. On the other hand, there have been some pretty sharp exchanges because there have to be, but they're direct, and people -- just like realignment half the people in the room have been subject to realignment; we've all taken our bruises and delivered some too and it's unfortunate-- and yet we get along."
- "One, we have this 5+1 business. Kevin has been out there publically, Kevin Warren, talking about 5+1. That's a complete non-starter for us. It just is. It's not the way you run a playoff."
- "We have to, you know, we're fighting hard and we've been pretty adamant about it, and we have support among the "P5" and you could argue they're voting against their self-interest, but really what they're voting for is basic fairness, for equality. They don't feel that there should be this kind of advantage. Greg Sankey and Bob Bowlsby and Jack Swarbrick who represents Notre Dame they were on the small working group that came up with this plan. And they've been steadfast in their support, and I really admire the fact that they've done that..."
- "The issue for us, the issues that the ACC has cited, the NIL situation is unsettled and it really is the Wild West right now; you have the transfer portal and it's just really messy right now and there should probably be some structure to that; the Transformation Committee, Division I how it will be structured in the future. To me, those things are going to be there in a year, two years, three years. They may be there for a long, long time before they get settled, if they ever get settled to everyone's satisfaction and maybe they never will because people will always have differences. But that to me, that doesn't relate to the playoff, to me those issues are going to be there."
- "But something I want to clarify: we are trying to get something for the future Year 13 and beyond, 2026 and beyond. Whether we do a three year deal, six year deal, nine year deal, twelve, whatever. It's a new platform, it's a new protocol for the playoff. The only issue is once we've arrived at something, agreed on something, whether we could move it earlier, whether we could try to implement it a little earlier, in years 11-12, '24 '25."

There's more, lots more. But those are some of the soundbites that got my attention as I was battling DC traffic.

"...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four..."

?

I think it’s a stretch on his part, but I think he wasn’t just talking money wise but also exposure wise.

(02-02-2022 10:46 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 09:11 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-01-2022 10:58 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco was interviewed on "Full Ride" on SiriusXM Wednesday. I caught most of it while I was driving in to DC. I haven't found a link, but I spent some time on the app transcribing it.
Single spaced, my transcript of the 29 minutes starts an eighth page. And Childers and Neuheisel really only asked five questions.

The nature of Aresco's long expositions makes it hard to do even an edited rundown.

Here are my highlights of it, though.

First, after initial greetings, Childers' opening question kind of backs up one thing I've said - the P6 narrative was sinking in with national media, rather than just being something for fanbois on this board.

Childers: "You've had a mission statement, you've been preaching for years about the quality of the league, I think the results certainly back it up, how pleased is the league office right now?"
Pulling P6 quotes from Aresco's first response:
Aresco: "...And clearly we're reaching that point when we could really really push hard on the P6 narrative and then of course in the summer you had the Texas Oklahoma move and I knew that would affect us. It's a shame though that ultimately we weren't an official P6 almost from the beginning...
...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four and but yet the three schools that are leaving felt that this whole P5 designation was important to them and why wouldn't they think that, and also the greener pastures maybe thinking they would get more money..."

Aresco gave each of the six future additions a positive mention, and "Those schools will benefit. And in addition to the revenue, there will be far more revenue for them, and they'll be able to spend that on recruiting and facilities and student-athlete health and welfare, so I think in the end it's going to elevate them, and I think they're pretty excited about that."

Aresco was as usual complimentary of the departing teams.
Aresco: "Obviously it's tough to replace teams like that, because five of our last six New Year's appearances have been those teams." And later, "But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker." And then near the end, "Certainly for years, UCF had tremendous teams, Houston had tremendous teams, Cincinnati last year -- Cincinnati's team last year might have been as good or better than this year's team..."

That middle one above was in response to Neuheisel asking about timelines of realigning. A little more of that exchange --
Neuheisel: It seems to me, Mike, and tell me if I'm reading this wrong, that you'd like this to happen quicker than later, sooner than later, where Bob Bowlsby of the Big 12 is trying to hold on to Oklahoma and Texas for as long as he can, unless they're willing to cough up the money that is required for their early exit. Am I reading that correctly? For you, would you rather have this happen quicker so that the college football fan can get reacclimated to what is the new look of the American Conference?
Aresco: Well, with our bylaws we have to be careful Rick... We have to be careful because our bylaws require those schools to stay until July 1 2024 and at this point i don't know what ultimately they're gonna do. Clearly if things move faster and they might, if they make a request to leave for a little earlier we would certainly negotiate that.
You can rebrand a little quicker. In 2013 we decided that we would want to move on pretty quickly and rebrand rather than have people talking about schools that were planning to leave.
But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker.

He talked a lot about the Playoff discussions:
- "...one thing I'll say at the outset, is that everybody in the room I really like. And I think, people talk about the differences of opinion, this and that. There is collegiality (no pun intended) in the room. On the other hand, there have been some pretty sharp exchanges because there have to be, but they're direct, and people -- just like realignment half the people in the room have been subject to realignment; we've all taken our bruises and delivered some too and it's unfortunate-- and yet we get along."
- "One, we have this 5+1 business. Kevin has been out there publically, Kevin Warren, talking about 5+1. That's a complete non-starter for us. It just is. It's not the way you run a playoff."
- "We have to, you know, we're fighting hard and we've been pretty adamant about it, and we have support among the "P5" and you could argue they're voting against their self-interest, but really what they're voting for is basic fairness, for equality. They don't feel that there should be this kind of advantage. Greg Sankey and Bob Bowlsby and Jack Swarbrick who represents Notre Dame they were on the small working group that came up with this plan. And they've been steadfast in their support, and I really admire the fact that they've done that..."
- "The issue for us, the issues that the ACC has cited, the NIL situation is unsettled and it really is the Wild West right now; you have the transfer portal and it's just really messy right now and there should probably be some structure to that; the Transformation Committee, Division I how it will be structured in the future. To me, those things are going to be there in a year, two years, three years. They may be there for a long, long time before they get settled, if they ever get settled to everyone's satisfaction and maybe they never will because people will always have differences. But that to me, that doesn't relate to the playoff, to me those issues are going to be there."
- "But something I want to clarify: we are trying to get something for the future Year 13 and beyond, 2026 and beyond. Whether we do a three year deal, six year deal, nine year deal, twelve, whatever. It's a new platform, it's a new protocol for the playoff. The only issue is once we've arrived at something, agreed on something, whether we could move it earlier, whether we could try to implement it a little earlier, in years 11-12, '24 '25."

There's more, lots more. But those are some of the soundbites that got my attention as I was battling DC traffic.

"...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four..."

?

I think it’s a stretch on his part, but I think he wasn’t just talking money wise but also exposure wise.

Yeah, it's a stretch.
EVEN FOR ME...when I heard it I said "Did he just? No...yes he did."

And that's why I made sure to include it in these highlights.

(02-02-2022 11:41 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 10:46 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 09:11 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-01-2022 10:58 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco was interviewed on "Full Ride" on SiriusXM Wednesday. I caught most of it while I was driving in to DC. I haven't found a link, but I spent some time on the app transcribing it.
Single spaced, my transcript of the 29 minutes starts an eighth page. And Childers and Neuheisel really only asked five questions.

The nature of Aresco's long expositions makes it hard to do even an edited rundown.

Here are my highlights of it, though.

First, after initial greetings, Childers' opening question kind of backs up one thing I've said - the P6 narrative was sinking in with national media, rather than just being something for fanbois on this board.

Childers: "You've had a mission statement, you've been preaching for years about the quality of the league, I think the results certainly back it up, how pleased is the league office right now?"
Pulling P6 quotes from Aresco's first response:
Aresco: "...And clearly we're reaching that point when we could really really push hard on the P6 narrative and then of course in the summer you had the Texas Oklahoma move and I knew that would affect us. It's a shame though that ultimately we weren't an official P6 almost from the beginning...
...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four and but yet the three schools that are leaving felt that this whole P5 designation was important to them and why wouldn't they think that, and also the greener pastures maybe thinking they would get more money..."

Aresco gave each of the six future additions a positive mention, and "Those schools will benefit. And in addition to the revenue, there will be far more revenue for them, and they'll be able to spend that on recruiting and facilities and student-athlete health and welfare, so I think in the end it's going to elevate them, and I think they're pretty excited about that."

Aresco was as usual complimentary of the departing teams.
Aresco: "Obviously it's tough to replace teams like that, because five of our last six New Year's appearances have been those teams." And later, "But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker." And then near the end, "Certainly for years, UCF had tremendous teams, Houston had tremendous teams, Cincinnati last year -- Cincinnati's team last year might have been as good or better than this year's team..."

That middle one above was in response to Neuheisel asking about timelines of realigning. A little more of that exchange --
Neuheisel: It seems to me, Mike, and tell me if I'm reading this wrong, that you'd like this to happen quicker than later, sooner than later, where Bob Bowlsby of the Big 12 is trying to hold on to Oklahoma and Texas for as long as he can, unless they're willing to cough up the money that is required for their early exit. Am I reading that correctly? For you, would you rather have this happen quicker so that the college football fan can get reacclimated to what is the new look of the American Conference?
Aresco: Well, with our bylaws we have to be careful Rick... We have to be careful because our bylaws require those schools to stay until July 1 2024 and at this point i don't know what ultimately they're gonna do. Clearly if things move faster and they might, if they make a request to leave for a little earlier we would certainly negotiate that.
You can rebrand a little quicker. In 2013 we decided that we would want to move on pretty quickly and rebrand rather than have people talking about schools that were planning to leave.
But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker.

He talked a lot about the Playoff discussions:
- "...one thing I'll say at the outset, is that everybody in the room I really like. And I think, people talk about the differences of opinion, this and that. There is collegiality (no pun intended) in the room. On the other hand, there have been some pretty sharp exchanges because there have to be, but they're direct, and people -- just like realignment half the people in the room have been subject to realignment; we've all taken our bruises and delivered some too and it's unfortunate-- and yet we get along."
- "One, we have this 5+1 business. Kevin has been out there publically, Kevin Warren, talking about 5+1. That's a complete non-starter for us. It just is. It's not the way you run a playoff."
- "We have to, you know, we're fighting hard and we've been pretty adamant about it, and we have support among the "P5" and you could argue they're voting against their self-interest, but really what they're voting for is basic fairness, for equality. They don't feel that there should be this kind of advantage. Greg Sankey and Bob Bowlsby and Jack Swarbrick who represents Notre Dame they were on the small working group that came up with this plan. And they've been steadfast in their support, and I really admire the fact that they've done that..."
- "The issue for us, the issues that the ACC has cited, the NIL situation is unsettled and it really is the Wild West right now; you have the transfer portal and it's just really messy right now and there should probably be some structure to that; the Transformation Committee, Division I how it will be structured in the future. To me, those things are going to be there in a year, two years, three years. They may be there for a long, long time before they get settled, if they ever get settled to everyone's satisfaction and maybe they never will because people will always have differences. But that to me, that doesn't relate to the playoff, to me those issues are going to be there."
- "But something I want to clarify: we are trying to get something for the future Year 13 and beyond, 2026 and beyond. Whether we do a three year deal, six year deal, nine year deal, twelve, whatever. It's a new platform, it's a new protocol for the playoff. The only issue is once we've arrived at something, agreed on something, whether we could move it earlier, whether we could try to implement it a little earlier, in years 11-12, '24 '25."

There's more, lots more. But those are some of the soundbites that got my attention as I was battling DC traffic.

"...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four..."

?

I think it’s a stretch on his part, but I think he wasn’t just talking money wise but also exposure wise.

Yeah, it's a stretch.
EVEN FOR ME...when I heard it I said "Did he just? No...yes he did."

And that's why I made sure to include it in these highlights.

While it's a stretch...it is the truth that it's better than the other 4. We will see pretty soon what the MWC can do? The others are a distant 3.

(02-02-2022 01:20 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 11:41 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 10:46 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 09:11 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-01-2022 10:58 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco was interviewed on "Full Ride" on SiriusXM Wednesday. I caught most of it while I was driving in to DC. I haven't found a link, but I spent some time on the app transcribing it.
Single spaced, my transcript of the 29 minutes starts an eighth page. And Childers and Neuheisel really only asked five questions.

The nature of Aresco's long expositions makes it hard to do even an edited rundown.

Here are my highlights of it, though.

First, after initial greetings, Childers' opening question kind of backs up one thing I've said - the P6 narrative was sinking in with national media, rather than just being something for fanbois on this board.

Childers: "You've had a mission statement, you've been preaching for years about the quality of the league, I think the results certainly back it up, how pleased is the league office right now?"
Pulling P6 quotes from Aresco's first response:
Aresco: "...And clearly we're reaching that point when we could really really push hard on the P6 narrative and then of course in the summer you had the Texas Oklahoma move and I knew that would affect us. It's a shame though that ultimately we weren't an official P6 almost from the beginning...
...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four and but yet the three schools that are leaving felt that this whole P5 designation was important to them and why wouldn't they think that, and also the greener pastures maybe thinking they would get more money..."

Aresco gave each of the six future additions a positive mention, and "Those schools will benefit. And in addition to the revenue, there will be far more revenue for them, and they'll be able to spend that on recruiting and facilities and student-athlete health and welfare, so I think in the end it's going to elevate them, and I think they're pretty excited about that."

Aresco was as usual complimentary of the departing teams.
Aresco: "Obviously it's tough to replace teams like that, because five of our last six New Year's appearances have been those teams." And later, "But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker." And then near the end, "Certainly for years, UCF had tremendous teams, Houston had tremendous teams, Cincinnati last year -- Cincinnati's team last year might have been as good or better than this year's team..."

That middle one above was in response to Neuheisel asking about timelines of realigning. A little more of that exchange --
Neuheisel: It seems to me, Mike, and tell me if I'm reading this wrong, that you'd like this to happen quicker than later, sooner than later, where Bob Bowlsby of the Big 12 is trying to hold on to Oklahoma and Texas for as long as he can, unless they're willing to cough up the money that is required for their early exit. Am I reading that correctly? For you, would you rather have this happen quicker so that the college football fan can get reacclimated to what is the new look of the American Conference?
Aresco: Well, with our bylaws we have to be careful Rick... We have to be careful because our bylaws require those schools to stay until July 1 2024 and at this point i don't know what ultimately they're gonna do. Clearly if things move faster and they might, if they make a request to leave for a little earlier we would certainly negotiate that.
You can rebrand a little quicker. In 2013 we decided that we would want to move on pretty quickly and rebrand rather than have people talking about schools that were planning to leave.
But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker.

He talked a lot about the Playoff discussions:
- "...one thing I'll say at the outset, is that everybody in the room I really like. And I think, people talk about the differences of opinion, this and that. There is collegiality (no pun intended) in the room. On the other hand, there have been some pretty sharp exchanges because there have to be, but they're direct, and people -- just like realignment half the people in the room have been subject to realignment; we've all taken our bruises and delivered some too and it's unfortunate-- and yet we get along."
- "One, we have this 5+1 business. Kevin has been out there publically, Kevin Warren, talking about 5+1. That's a complete non-starter for us. It just is. It's not the way you run a playoff."
- "We have to, you know, we're fighting hard and we've been pretty adamant about it, and we have support among the "P5" and you could argue they're voting against their self-interest, but really what they're voting for is basic fairness, for equality. They don't feel that there should be this kind of advantage. Greg Sankey and Bob Bowlsby and Jack Swarbrick who represents Notre Dame they were on the small working group that came up with this plan. And they've been steadfast in their support, and I really admire the fact that they've done that..."
- "The issue for us, the issues that the ACC has cited, the NIL situation is unsettled and it really is the Wild West right now; you have the transfer portal and it's just really messy right now and there should probably be some structure to that; the Transformation Committee, Division I how it will be structured in the future. To me, those things are going to be there in a year, two years, three years. They may be there for a long, long time before they get settled, if they ever get settled to everyone's satisfaction and maybe they never will because people will always have differences. But that to me, that doesn't relate to the playoff, to me those issues are going to be there."
- "But something I want to clarify: we are trying to get something for the future Year 13 and beyond, 2026 and beyond. Whether we do a three year deal, six year deal, nine year deal, twelve, whatever. It's a new platform, it's a new protocol for the playoff. The only issue is once we've arrived at something, agreed on something, whether we could move it earlier, whether we could try to implement it a little earlier, in years 11-12, '24 '25."

There's more, lots more. But those are some of the soundbites that got my attention as I was battling DC traffic.

"...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four..."

?

I think it’s a stretch on his part, but I think he wasn’t just talking money wise but also exposure wise.

Yeah, it's a stretch.
EVEN FOR ME...when I heard it I said "Did he just? No...yes he did."

And that's why I made sure to include it in these highlights.

While it's a stretch...it is the truth that it's better than the other 4. We will see pretty soon what the MWC can do? The others are a distant 3.

The TV exposure is the only way to explain the context of that comment. Numbers wise it's much better than the G4, but not closer to P5 than to them.

(02-01-2022 10:58 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco was interviewed on "Full Ride" on SiriusXM Wednesday. I caught most of it while I was driving in to DC. I haven't found a link, but I spent some time on the app transcribing it.
Single spaced, my transcript of the 29 minutes starts an eighth page. And Childers and Neuheisel really only asked five questions.

The nature of Aresco's long expositions makes it hard to do even an edited rundown.

Here are my highlights of it, though.

First, after initial greetings, Childers' opening question kind of backs up one thing I've said - the P6 narrative was sinking in with national media, rather than just being something for fanbois on this board.

Childers: "You've had a mission statement, you've been preaching for years about the quality of the league, I think the results certainly back it up, how pleased is the league office right now?"
Pulling P6 quotes from Aresco's first response:
Aresco: "...And clearly we're reaching that point when we could really really push hard on the P6 narrative and then of course in the summer you had the Texas Oklahoma move and I knew that would affect us. It's a shame though that ultimately we weren't an official P6 almost from the beginning...
...we don't have quite the TV deal that they have, although we have a good one obviously a very very good one, much closer to the five than the other four and but yet the three schools that are leaving felt that this whole P5 designation was important to them and why wouldn't they think that, and also the greener pastures maybe thinking they would get more money..."

Aresco gave each of the six future additions a positive mention, and "Those schools will benefit. And in addition to the revenue, there will be far more revenue for them, and they'll be able to spend that on recruiting and facilities and student-athlete health and welfare, so I think in the end it's going to elevate them, and I think they're pretty excited about that."

Aresco was as usual complimentary of the departing teams.
Aresco: "Obviously it's tough to replace teams like that, because five of our last six New Year's appearances have been those teams." And later, "But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker." And then near the end, "Certainly for years, UCF had tremendous teams, Houston had tremendous teams, Cincinnati last year -- Cincinnati's team last year might have been as good or better than this year's team..."

That middle one above was in response to Neuheisel asking about timelines of realigning. A little more of that exchange --
Neuheisel: It seems to me, Mike, and tell me if I'm reading this wrong, that you'd like this to happen quicker than later, sooner than later, where Bob Bowlsby of the Big 12 is trying to hold on to Oklahoma and Texas for as long as he can, unless they're willing to cough up the money that is required for their early exit. Am I reading that correctly? For you, would you rather have this happen quicker so that the college football fan can get reacclimated to what is the new look of the American Conference?
Aresco: Well, with our bylaws we have to be careful Rick... We have to be careful because our bylaws require those schools to stay until July 1 2024 and at this point i don't know what ultimately they're gonna do. Clearly if things move faster and they might, if they make a request to leave for a little earlier we would certainly negotiate that.
You can rebrand a little quicker. In 2013 we decided that we would want to move on pretty quickly and rebrand rather than have people talking about schools that were planning to leave.
But we've enjoyed having Houston Cincinnati UCF in the conference and we've helped them with the platforms we've provided so its been a good relationship and if it continues another couple of years that's totally fine. If it doesn't and we can negotiate a settlement, then what you said holds true - we have a chance to rebrand a little quicker.

He talked a lot about the Playoff discussions:
- "...one thing I'll say at the outset, is that everybody in the room I really like. And I think, people talk about the differences of opinion, this and that. There is collegiality (no pun intended) in the room. On the other hand, there have been some pretty sharp exchanges because there have to be, but they're direct, and people -- just like realignment half the people in the room have been subject to realignment; we've all taken our bruises and delivered some too and it's unfortunate-- and yet we get along."
- "One, we have this 5+1 business. Kevin has been out there publically, Kevin Warren, talking about 5+1. That's a complete non-starter for us. It just is. It's not the way you run a playoff."
- "We have to, you know, we're fighting hard and we've been pretty adamant about it, and we have support among the "P5" and you could argue they're voting against their self-interest, but really what they're voting for is basic fairness, for equality. They don't feel that there should be this kind of advantage. Greg Sankey and Bob Bowlsby and Jack Swarbrick who represents Notre Dame they were on the small working group that came up with this plan. And they've been steadfast in their support, and I really admire the fact that they've done that..."
- "The issue for us, the issues that the ACC has cited, the NIL situation is unsettled and it really is the Wild West right now; you have the transfer portal and it's just really messy right now and there should probably be some structure to that; the Transformation Committee, Division I how it will be structured in the future. To me, those things are going to be there in a year, two years, three years. They may be there for a long, long time before they get settled, if they ever get settled to everyone's satisfaction and maybe they never will because people will always have differences. But that to me, that doesn't relate to the playoff, to me those issues are going to be there."
- "But something I want to clarify: we are trying to get something for the future Year 13 and beyond, 2026 and beyond. Whether we do a three year deal, six year deal, nine year deal, twelve, whatever. It's a new platform, it's a new protocol for the playoff. The only issue is once we've arrived at something, agreed on something, whether we could move it earlier, whether we could try to implement it a little earlier, in years 11-12, '24 '25."

There's more, lots more. But those are some of the soundbites that got my attention as I was battling DC traffic.

Great information as always from slhNavy91.

What's the temperature on Aresco these day?
- He's on a Hot Seat
- He's Okay
- Love him

(02-02-2022 03:06 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  What's the temperature on Aresco these day?
- He's on a Hot Seat
- He's Okay
- Love him

I think he is fine. He kept the remaining 8 with a tv contract that it’s best in money and exposure than any of the non power leagues.

(02-02-2022 03:40 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 03:06 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  What's the temperature on Aresco these day?
- He's on a Hot Seat
- He's Okay
- Love him

I think he is fine. He kept the remaining 8 with a tv contract that it’s best in money and exposure than any of the non power leagues.

The job Aresco has done since he took the helm considering all that he has faced has been as well as any one else could have done.

I believe when faced with some tough decisions in 2021, he performed very well again that will prove very smart over the long term keeping the AAC ahead of the G4. The Texas block strategy along with the demographic approach used to build this conference before will prove effective again. Keeping the MWC out of Texas was a great strategy that will keep the AAC closest competition at a distance allowing new members to build their programs.

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 03:40 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 03:06 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  What's the temperature on Aresco these day?
- He's on a Hot Seat
- He's Okay
- Love him

I think he is fine. He kept the remaining 8 with a tv contract that it’s best in money and exposure than any of the non power leagues.

The job Aresco has done since he took the helm considering all that he has faced has been as well as any one else could have done.

I believe when faced with some tough decisions in 2021, he performed very well again that will prove very smart over the long term keeping the AAC ahead of the G4.

"...keeping the AAC ahead of the G4?"

It's questionable whether the term "G4" was ever an appropriate one, and it's certainly irritating to MWC, MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt supporters.

The only time that the AAC ever came close to being regarded as a "P6" conference was in 2019, when the AAC had 4 teams in the NCAA tournament and 4 FB teams in the final AP top 25. Since then (in 2020, 21, and thus far in 2022), the AAC has only been a two-bid conference, and has only had one or two FB teams in the Final top 25.

The MWC has had as many FB teams in the Final AP top 25 as the AAC has had since 2019, and the MWC finished ahead of the AAC in the 2021 Massey Composite rankings (https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm).

Moreover, the Sun Belt had more football teams in the Final 2020 and 2021 Top 25 than either the AAC or MWC.

The MWC had as many basketball teams as the AAC had in the 2021 NCAA tournament, and the MWC currently has five basketball teams in the NET Top 50 (the AAC and C-USA have one apiece).

Thus, the term "G4" clearly didn't apply in 2020 or in 2021, it doesn't apply at this point in the 2021-22 basketball season, and there's no reason to expect that the AAC will have more top 25 teams than the MWC or Sun Belt during the 2022 football season.

Without UC, UH, and UCF, it's hard to imagine the AAC finishing ahead of the MWC or having more top 25 football teams than the Sun Belt will have on a regular basis. With Memphis and Wichita State struggling as they have recently, it's hard to envision the possibility that the AAC could maintain its current average of 3 NCAA bids per year after UH, UC, and UCF depart.

Further, it is widely expected that the AAC will be losing Memphis and, quite possibly SMU to the Big 12 in the next 5 or 6 years. Given this situation, it might be best for all concerned to leave these anachronistic terms (P6, G4) in the dustbin of history.

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  The Texas block strategy along with the demographic approach used to build this conference before will prove effective again. Keeping the MWC out of Texas was a great strategy that will keep the AAC closest competition at a distance allowing new members to build their programs.

It's hard to argue that adding UTSA, UAB, and North Texas was a mistake, given how their teams have performed. However, it remains to be seen whether "the demographic approach" - - which I assume refers to adding some schools in large, growing markets (e.g., FAU, Charlotte, Rice) rather than schools with higher quality programs (e.g., WKU, Marshall) - - will work out well for the conference.

Seems to me that the Big 12's approach - - which has been to add quality programs, regardless of market size (e.g., WVU) is the better way to go.

The 3 Texas schools were added because they tap into the DFW, Houston, and San Antonio areas, and would make it much easier for Air Force to join the AAC at some point.

Keeping the MWC out of Texas may or may not have been a consideration, but it sure could make life hard for the MWC if the Big 12 and PAC 12 decide to poach 4-6 MWC teams. Their only other expansion options might be UTEP, NMSU, Montana, Montana State, California State and Dakota Universities, most of which are currently FCS.

(02-02-2022 11:48 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 03:40 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 03:06 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  What's the temperature on Aresco these day?
- He's on a Hot Seat
- He's Okay
- Love him

I think he is fine. He kept the remaining 8 with a tv contract that it’s best in money and exposure than any of the non power leagues.

The job Aresco has done since he took the helm considering all that he has faced has been as well as any one else could have done.

I believe when faced with some tough decisions in 2021, he performed very well again that will prove very smart over the long term keeping the AAC ahead of the G4.

"...keeping the AAC ahead of the G4?"

It's questionable whether the term "G4" was ever an appropriate one, and it's certainly irritating to MWC, MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt supporters.

The only time that the AAC ever came close to being regarded as a "P6" conference was in 2019, when the AAC had 4 teams in the NCAA tournament and 4 FB teams in the final AP top 25. Since then (in 2020, 21, and thus far in 2022), the AAC has only been a two-bid conference, and has only had one or two FB teams in the Final top 25.

The MWC has had as many FB teams in the Final AP top 25 as the AAC has had since 2019, and the MWC finished ahead of the AAC in the 2021 Massey Composite rankings (https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm).

Moreover, the Sun Belt had more football teams in the Final 2020 and 2021 Top 25 than either the AAC or MWC.

The MWC had as many basketball teams as the AAC had in the 2021 NCAA tournament, and the MWC currently has five basketball teams in the NET Top 50 (the AAC and C-USA have one apiece).

Thus, the term "G4" clearly didn't apply in 2020 or in 2021, it doesn't apply at this point in the 2021-22 basketball season, and there's no reason to expect that the AAC will have more top 25 teams than the MWC or Sun Belt during the 2022 football season.

Without UC, UH, and UCF, it's hard to imagine the AAC finishing ahead of the MWC or having more top 25 football teams than the Sun Belt will have on a regular basis. With Memphis and Wichita State struggling as they have recently, it's hard to envision the possibility that the AAC could maintain its current average of 3 NCAA bids per year after UH, UC, and UCF depart.

Further, it is widely expected that the AAC will be losing Memphis and, quite possibly SMU to the Big 12 in the next 5 or 6 years. Given this situation, it might be best for all concerned to leave these anachronistic terms (P6, G4) in the dustbin of history.

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  The Texas block strategy along with the demographic approach used to build this conference before will prove effective again. Keeping the MWC out of Texas was a great strategy that will keep the AAC closest competition at a distance allowing new members to build their programs.

It's hard to argue that adding UTSA, UAB, and North Texas was a mistake, given how their teams have performed. However, it remains to be seen whether "the demographic approach" - - which I assume refers to adding some schools in large, growing markets (e.g., FAU, Charlotte, Rice) rather than schools with higher quality programs (e.g., WKU, Marshall) - - will work out well for the conference.

Seems to me that the Big 12's approach - - which has been to add quality programs, regardless of market size (e.g., WVU) is the better way to go.

The 3 Texas schools were added because they tap into the DFW, Houston, and San Antonio areas, and would make it much easier for Air Force to join the AAC at some point.

Keeping the MWC out of Texas may or may not have been a consideration, but it sure could make life hard for the MWC if the Big 12 and PAC 12 decide to poach 4-6 MWC teams. Their only other expansion options might be UTEP, NMSU, Montana, Montana State, California State and Dakota Universities, most of which are currently FCS.

Rumors at the time, the Texas schools that were added to the AAC were having discussion with the MWC. I believe those talks did occur. The MWC thought they may loose AF & CSU at the time. When that didn't happen plus with a lacking revenue model that was nixed. The Texas block put that to rest for good limiting options down the road as you mentioned above.

Now we just wait to see who gets poached. I do think it's just as likely the MWC gets poached as the AAC. Primarily to help BYU taking markets from the MWC. Top candidates SDSU, CSU, AF, BSU, or Fresno. BSU not so much market, but reputation on the field. I know a lot here say Memphis and USF so it will be interesting what the TV exec's think. Contract averaging will be a huge issue so when the dust settles I think only two of the above will wind up in the Big 12.

(02-03-2022 08:43 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 11:48 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 03:40 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 03:06 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  What's the temperature on Aresco these day?
- He's on a Hot Seat
- He's Okay
- Love him

I think he is fine. He kept the remaining 8 with a tv contract that it’s best in money and exposure than any of the non power leagues.

The job Aresco has done since he took the helm considering all that he has faced has been as well as any one else could have done.

I believe when faced with some tough decisions in 2021, he performed very well again that will prove very smart over the long term keeping the AAC ahead of the G4.

"...keeping the AAC ahead of the G4?"

It's questionable whether the term "G4" was ever an appropriate one, and it's certainly irritating to MWC, MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt supporters.

The only time that the AAC ever came close to being regarded as a "P6" conference was in 2019, when the AAC had 4 teams in the NCAA tournament and 4 FB teams in the final AP top 25. Since then (in 2020, 21, and thus far in 2022), the AAC has only been a two-bid conference, and has only had one or two FB teams in the Final top 25.

The MWC has had as many FB teams in the Final AP top 25 as the AAC has had since 2019, and the MWC finished ahead of the AAC in the 2021 Massey Composite rankings (https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm).

Moreover, the Sun Belt had more football teams in the Final 2020 and 2021 Top 25 than either the AAC or MWC.

The MWC had as many basketball teams as the AAC had in the 2021 NCAA tournament, and the MWC currently has five basketball teams in the NET Top 50 (the AAC and C-USA have one apiece).

Thus, the term "G4" clearly didn't apply in 2020 or in 2021, it doesn't apply at this point in the 2021-22 basketball season, and there's no reason to expect that the AAC will have more top 25 teams than the MWC or Sun Belt during the 2022 football season.

Without UC, UH, and UCF, it's hard to imagine the AAC finishing ahead of the MWC or having more top 25 football teams than the Sun Belt will have on a regular basis. With Memphis and Wichita State struggling as they have recently, it's hard to envision the possibility that the AAC could maintain its current average of 3 NCAA bids per year after UH, UC, and UCF depart.

Further, it is widely expected that the AAC will be losing Memphis and, quite possibly SMU to the Big 12 in the next 5 or 6 years. Given this situation, it might be best for all concerned to leave these anachronistic terms (P6, G4) in the dustbin of history.

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  The Texas block strategy along with the demographic approach used to build this conference before will prove effective again. Keeping the MWC out of Texas was a great strategy that will keep the AAC closest competition at a distance allowing new members to build their programs.

It's hard to argue that adding UTSA, UAB, and North Texas was a mistake, given how their teams have performed. However, it remains to be seen whether "the demographic approach" - - which I assume refers to adding some schools in large, growing markets (e.g., FAU, Charlotte, Rice) rather than schools with higher quality programs (e.g., WKU, Marshall) - - will work out well for the conference.

Seems to me that the Big 12's approach - - which has been to add quality programs, regardless of market size (e.g., WVU) is the better way to go.

The 3 Texas schools were added because they tap into the DFW, Houston, and San Antonio areas, and would make it much easier for Air Force to join the AAC at some point.

Keeping the MWC out of Texas may or may not have been a consideration, but it sure could make life hard for the MWC if the Big 12 and PAC 12 decide to poach 4-6 MWC teams. Their only other expansion options might be UTEP, NMSU, Montana, Montana State, California State and Dakota Universities, most of which are currently FCS.

Rumors at the time, the Texas schools that were added to the AAC were having discussion with the MWC. I believe those talks did occur. The MWC thought they may loose AF & CSU at the time. When that didn't happen plus with a lacking revenue model that was nixed. The Texas block put that to rest for good limiting options down the road as you mentioned above.

Now we just wait to see who gets poached. I do think it's just as likely the MWC gets poached as the AAC. Primarily to help BYU taking markets from the MWC. Top candidates SDSU, CSU, AF, BSU, or Fresno. BSU not so much market, but reputation on the field. I know a lot here say Memphis and USF so it will be interesting what the TV exec's think. Contract averaging will be a huge issue so when the dust settles I think only two of the above will wind up in the Big 12.

Big 12 takes CSU (bridge to BYU) and USF (travel partner and more Florida recruiting if they have an OCS), if they expand after Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference. If the Pac - 12 expands east and takes 2 to 4 of the B-12 teams to get into the SW, then the G5 conferences blow up and start to attack each other again for survival.

(02-03-2022 09:35 AM)panite Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 08:43 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 11:48 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 03:40 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  I think he is fine. He kept the remaining 8 with a tv contract that it’s best in money and exposure than any of the non power leagues.

The job Aresco has done since he took the helm considering all that he has faced has been as well as any one else could have done.

I believe when faced with some tough decisions in 2021, he performed very well again that will prove very smart over the long term keeping the AAC ahead of the G4.

"...keeping the AAC ahead of the G4?"

It's questionable whether the term "G4" was ever an appropriate one, and it's certainly irritating to MWC, MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt supporters.

The only time that the AAC ever came close to being regarded as a "P6" conference was in 2019, when the AAC had 4 teams in the NCAA tournament and 4 FB teams in the final AP top 25. Since then (in 2020, 21, and thus far in 2022), the AAC has only been a two-bid conference, and has only had one or two FB teams in the Final top 25.

The MWC has had as many FB teams in the Final AP top 25 as the AAC has had since 2019, and the MWC finished ahead of the AAC in the 2021 Massey Composite rankings (https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm).

Moreover, the Sun Belt had more football teams in the Final 2020 and 2021 Top 25 than either the AAC or MWC.

The MWC had as many basketball teams as the AAC had in the 2021 NCAA tournament, and the MWC currently has five basketball teams in the NET Top 50 (the AAC and C-USA have one apiece).

Thus, the term "G4" clearly didn't apply in 2020 or in 2021, it doesn't apply at this point in the 2021-22 basketball season, and there's no reason to expect that the AAC will have more top 25 teams than the MWC or Sun Belt during the 2022 football season.

Without UC, UH, and UCF, it's hard to imagine the AAC finishing ahead of the MWC or having more top 25 football teams than the Sun Belt will have on a regular basis. With Memphis and Wichita State struggling as they have recently, it's hard to envision the possibility that the AAC could maintain its current average of 3 NCAA bids per year after UH, UC, and UCF depart.

Further, it is widely expected that the AAC will be losing Memphis and, quite possibly SMU to the Big 12 in the next 5 or 6 years. Given this situation, it might be best for all concerned to leave these anachronistic terms (P6, G4) in the dustbin of history.

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  The Texas block strategy along with the demographic approach used to build this conference before will prove effective again. Keeping the MWC out of Texas was a great strategy that will keep the AAC closest competition at a distance allowing new members to build their programs.

It's hard to argue that adding UTSA, UAB, and North Texas was a mistake, given how their teams have performed. However, it remains to be seen whether "the demographic approach" - - which I assume refers to adding some schools in large, growing markets (e.g., FAU, Charlotte, Rice) rather than schools with higher quality programs (e.g., WKU, Marshall) - - will work out well for the conference.

Seems to me that the Big 12's approach - - which has been to add quality programs, regardless of market size (e.g., WVU) is the better way to go.

The 3 Texas schools were added because they tap into the DFW, Houston, and San Antonio areas, and would make it much easier for Air Force to join the AAC at some point.

Keeping the MWC out of Texas may or may not have been a consideration, but it sure could make life hard for the MWC if the Big 12 and PAC 12 decide to poach 4-6 MWC teams. Their only other expansion options might be UTEP, NMSU, Montana, Montana State, California State and Dakota Universities, most of which are currently FCS.

Rumors at the time, the Texas schools that were added to the AAC were having discussion with the MWC. I believe those talks did occur. The MWC thought they may loose AF & CSU at the time. When that didn't happen plus with a lacking revenue model that was nixed. The Texas block put that to rest for good limiting options down the road as you mentioned above.

Now we just wait to see who gets poached. I do think it's just as likely the MWC gets poached as the AAC. Primarily to help BYU taking markets from the MWC. Top candidates SDSU, CSU, AF, BSU, or Fresno. BSU not so much market, but reputation on the field. I know a lot here say Memphis and USF so it will be interesting what the TV exec's think. Contract averaging will be a huge issue so when the dust settles I think only two of the above will wind up in the Big 12.

Big 12 takes CSU (bridge to BYU) and USF (travel partner and more Florida recruiting if they have an OCS), if they expand after Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference. If the Pac - 12 expands east and takes 2 to 4 of the B-12 teams to get into the SW, then the G5 conferences blow up and start to attack each other again for survival.

Are we sure the Pac can pick off any conference? College football is a hard sale on the West Coast.

(02-03-2022 09:37 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 09:35 AM)panite Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 08:43 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 11:48 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  The job Aresco has done since he took the helm considering all that he has faced has been as well as any one else could have done.

I believe when faced with some tough decisions in 2021, he performed very well again that will prove very smart over the long term keeping the AAC ahead of the G4.

"...keeping the AAC ahead of the G4?"

It's questionable whether the term "G4" was ever an appropriate one, and it's certainly irritating to MWC, MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt supporters.

The only time that the AAC ever came close to being regarded as a "P6" conference was in 2019, when the AAC had 4 teams in the NCAA tournament and 4 FB teams in the final AP top 25. Since then (in 2020, 21, and thus far in 2022), the AAC has only been a two-bid conference, and has only had one or two FB teams in the Final top 25.

The MWC has had as many FB teams in the Final AP top 25 as the AAC has had since 2019, and the MWC finished ahead of the AAC in the 2021 Massey Composite rankings (https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm).

Moreover, the Sun Belt had more football teams in the Final 2020 and 2021 Top 25 than either the AAC or MWC.

The MWC had as many basketball teams as the AAC had in the 2021 NCAA tournament, and the MWC currently has five basketball teams in the NET Top 50 (the AAC and C-USA have one apiece).

Thus, the term "G4" clearly didn't apply in 2020 or in 2021, it doesn't apply at this point in the 2021-22 basketball season, and there's no reason to expect that the AAC will have more top 25 teams than the MWC or Sun Belt during the 2022 football season.

Without UC, UH, and UCF, it's hard to imagine the AAC finishing ahead of the MWC or having more top 25 football teams than the Sun Belt will have on a regular basis. With Memphis and Wichita State struggling as they have recently, it's hard to envision the possibility that the AAC could maintain its current average of 3 NCAA bids per year after UH, UC, and UCF depart.

Further, it is widely expected that the AAC will be losing Memphis and, quite possibly SMU to the Big 12 in the next 5 or 6 years. Given this situation, it might be best for all concerned to leave these anachronistic terms (P6, G4) in the dustbin of history.

(02-02-2022 04:39 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  The Texas block strategy along with the demographic approach used to build this conference before will prove effective again. Keeping the MWC out of Texas was a great strategy that will keep the AAC closest competition at a distance allowing new members to build their programs.

It's hard to argue that adding UTSA, UAB, and North Texas was a mistake, given how their teams have performed. However, it remains to be seen whether "the demographic approach" - - which I assume refers to adding some schools in large, growing markets (e.g., FAU, Charlotte, Rice) rather than schools with higher quality programs (e.g., WKU, Marshall) - - will work out well for the conference.

Seems to me that the Big 12's approach - - which has been to add quality programs, regardless of market size (e.g., WVU) is the better way to go.

The 3 Texas schools were added because they tap into the DFW, Houston, and San Antonio areas, and would make it much easier for Air Force to join the AAC at some point.

Keeping the MWC out of Texas may or may not have been a consideration, but it sure could make life hard for the MWC if the Big 12 and PAC 12 decide to poach 4-6 MWC teams. Their only other expansion options might be UTEP, NMSU, Montana, Montana State, California State and Dakota Universities, most of which are currently FCS.

Rumors at the time, the Texas schools that were added to the AAC were having discussion with the MWC. I believe those talks did occur. The MWC thought they may loose AF & CSU at the time. When that didn't happen plus with a lacking revenue model that was nixed. The Texas block put that to rest for good limiting options down the road as you mentioned above.

Now we just wait to see who gets poached. I do think it's just as likely the MWC gets poached as the AAC. Primarily to help BYU taking markets from the MWC. Top candidates SDSU, CSU, AF, BSU, or Fresno. BSU not so much market, but reputation on the field. I know a lot here say Memphis and USF so it will be interesting what the TV exec's think. Contract averaging will be a huge issue so when the dust settles I think only two of the above will wind up in the Big 12.

Big 12 takes CSU (bridge to BYU) and USF (travel partner and more Florida recruiting if they have an OCS), if they expand after Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference. If the Pac - 12 expands east and takes 2 to 4 of the B-12 teams to get into the SW, then the G5 conferences blow up and start to attack each other again for survival.

Are we sure the Pac can pick off any conference? College football is a hard sale on the West Coast.

As long as they have USC, Washington and Oregon they will be attractive. They do need to expand into Central Time zone. The problem they have is that the number of schools that meet their academic criteria for expansion doesn’t help their football status.
On the AAC taking the Texas schools to block MWC expansion, I think it’s a good take. If as the poster said the Big12 expands to 14 or 16, you have to believe some MWC schools will also be targeted like Boise,CSU and/ or SDSU. If that’s 5he case I can see AAC looking more attractive to AF and CSU if not chosen by B12.

(02-03-2022 10:22 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 09:37 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 09:35 AM)panite Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 08:43 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 11:48 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  "...keeping the AAC ahead of the G4?"

It's questionable whether the term "G4" was ever an appropriate one, and it's certainly irritating to MWC, MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt supporters.

The only time that the AAC ever came close to being regarded as a "P6" conference was in 2019, when the AAC had 4 teams in the NCAA tournament and 4 FB teams in the final AP top 25. Since then (in 2020, 21, and thus far in 2022), the AAC has only been a two-bid conference, and has only had one or two FB teams in the Final top 25.

The MWC has had as many FB teams in the Final AP top 25 as the AAC has had since 2019, and the MWC finished ahead of the AAC in the 2021 Massey Composite rankings (https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm).

Moreover, the Sun Belt had more football teams in the Final 2020 and 2021 Top 25 than either the AAC or MWC.

The MWC had as many basketball teams as the AAC had in the 2021 NCAA tournament, and the MWC currently has five basketball teams in the NET Top 50 (the AAC and C-USA have one apiece).

Thus, the term "G4" clearly didn't apply in 2020 or in 2021, it doesn't apply at this point in the 2021-22 basketball season, and there's no reason to expect that the AAC will have more top 25 teams than the MWC or Sun Belt during the 2022 football season.

Without UC, UH, and UCF, it's hard to imagine the AAC finishing ahead of the MWC or having more top 25 football teams than the Sun Belt will have on a regular basis. With Memphis and Wichita State struggling as they have recently, it's hard to envision the possibility that the AAC could maintain its current average of 3 NCAA bids per year after UH, UC, and UCF depart.

Further, it is widely expected that the AAC will be losing Memphis and, quite possibly SMU to the Big 12 in the next 5 or 6 years. Given this situation, it might be best for all concerned to leave these anachronistic terms (P6, G4) in the dustbin of history.


It's hard to argue that adding UTSA, UAB, and North Texas was a mistake, given how their teams have performed. However, it remains to be seen whether "the demographic approach" - - which I assume refers to adding some schools in large, growing markets (e.g., FAU, Charlotte, Rice) rather than schools with higher quality programs (e.g., WKU, Marshall) - - will work out well for the conference.

Seems to me that the Big 12's approach - - which has been to add quality programs, regardless of market size (e.g., WVU) is the better way to go.

The 3 Texas schools were added because they tap into the DFW, Houston, and San Antonio areas, and would make it much easier for Air Force to join the AAC at some point.

Keeping the MWC out of Texas may or may not have been a consideration, but it sure could make life hard for the MWC if the Big 12 and PAC 12 decide to poach 4-6 MWC teams. Their only other expansion options might be UTEP, NMSU, Montana, Montana State, California State and Dakota Universities, most of which are currently FCS.

Rumors at the time, the Texas schools that were added to the AAC were having discussion with the MWC. I believe those talks did occur. The MWC thought they may loose AF & CSU at the time. When that didn't happen plus with a lacking revenue model that was nixed. The Texas block put that to rest for good limiting options down the road as you mentioned above.

Now we just wait to see who gets poached. I do think it's just as likely the MWC gets poached as the AAC. Primarily to help BYU taking markets from the MWC. Top candidates SDSU, CSU, AF, BSU, or Fresno. BSU not so much market, but reputation on the field. I know a lot here say Memphis and USF so it will be interesting what the TV exec's think. Contract averaging will be a huge issue so when the dust settles I think only two of the above will wind up in the Big 12.

Big 12 takes CSU (bridge to BYU) and USF (travel partner and more Florida recruiting if they have an OCS), if they expand after Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference. If the Pac - 12 expands east and takes 2 to 4 of the B-12 teams to get into the SW, then the G5 conferences blow up and start to attack each other again for survival.

Are we sure the Pac can pick off any conference? College football is a hard sale on the West Coast.

As long as they have USC, Washington and Oregon they will be attractive. They do need to expand into Central Time zone. The problem they have is that the number of schools that meet their academic criteria for expansion doesn’t help their football status.
On the AAC taking the Texas schools to block MWC expansion, I think it’s a good take. If as the poster said the Big12 expands to 14 or 16, you have to believe some MWC schools will also be targeted like Boise,CSU and/ or SDSU. If that’s 5he case I can see AAC looking more attractive to AF and CSU if not chosen by B12.

I think the above is a lot of fantasy. Sorry to disappoint but I think after TX and OU leave and UH UC and UCF join the big 12 then that will be it for a while.

(02-03-2022 10:45 AM)shocknawe Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 10:22 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 09:37 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 09:35 AM)panite Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 08:43 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  Rumors at the time, the Texas schools that were added to the AAC were having discussion with the MWC. I believe those talks did occur. The MWC thought they may loose AF & CSU at the time. When that didn't happen plus with a lacking revenue model that was nixed. The Texas block put that to rest for good limiting options down the road as you mentioned above.

Now we just wait to see who gets poached. I do think it's just as likely the MWC gets poached as the AAC. Primarily to help BYU taking markets from the MWC. Top candidates SDSU, CSU, AF, BSU, or Fresno. BSU not so much market, but reputation on the field. I know a lot here say Memphis and USF so it will be interesting what the TV exec's think. Contract averaging will be a huge issue so when the dust settles I think only two of the above will wind up in the Big 12.

Big 12 takes CSU (bridge to BYU) and USF (travel partner and more Florida recruiting if they have an OCS), if they expand after Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference. If the Pac - 12 expands east and takes 2 to 4 of the B-12 teams to get into the SW, then the G5 conferences blow up and start to attack each other again for survival.

Are we sure the Pac can pick off any conference? College football is a hard sale on the West Coast.

As long as they have USC, Washington and Oregon they will be attractive. They do need to expand into Central Time zone. The problem they have is that the number of schools that meet their academic criteria for expansion doesn’t help their football status.
On the AAC taking the Texas schools to block MWC expansion, I think it’s a good take. If as the poster said the Big12 expands to 14 or 16, you have to believe some MWC schools will also be targeted like Boise,CSU and/ or SDSU. If that’s 5he case I can see AAC looking more attractive to AF and CSU if not chosen by B12.

I think the above is a lot of fantasy. Sorry to disappoint but I think after TX and OU leave and UH UC and UCF join the big 12 then that will be it for a while.

We shall see. Who knows how long it will take for future moves, but moves will eventually happen. History has shown us that changes are inevitable.
As I said in another thread the tv contracts coming up in next few years by BigTen, PAC and Big12 and how the ACC reacts to those contracts will say a lot about future changes and how soon or later they will happen.