(04-12-2019 05:54 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 02:37 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  Just a quick question: If the AAC brands themselves as a power conference, why don’t you drop trying to qualify for the G5 Access Bowl?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My first inclination was to channel Bryce Harper and tell you that's a clown question, bro, but I will actually address it in full.

P6 has never been saying we're the equal of the SEC or Big10 now; the P6 information campaign and the whole AAC strategic plan are saying we are closer to the five contract bowl conferences than to the other four, so if you are grouping us then group us with those five not the other four. The strategic plan talks in several places about doing the things the autonomous conferences do, not claiming autonomy we don't have. The goal is being on the right side of the NEXT restructure in 2025.
Similarly, not having a CFP bowl contract is kind of all wrapped up in it. Getting one was prominent in Aresco's press comments immediately after we signed our media contract.
So to your question, why would we step away from our access to the CFP New Years Six bowls (remember when it was frequently referred to as the Access Bowl slot?) It would be delusional, when in fact we know that we dont have a CFP Bowl contract. It would be impractical for throwing away money - and oh, by the way, CFP money is another scorekeeping method by which the AAC is ahead and separating.
And it would actually be COUNTERproductive to the whole P6 campaign. Consistently taking that slot is a GREAT way to prove that we're head and shoulders above the G4. Picture the CFP in another six years saying "We've had this NY6 bowl eleven years now, and you've taken it seven times. Lets get you a contract bowl, cut out the other four but give them their $13-18 million, and move into the future." I agree it's not very likely, but it is certainly conceivable. No, consistently taking the "G5" NY6 slot is perfectly compatible with the P6 campaign.

And in closing, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would like to say, that that was a clown question, bro.

(04-12-2019 03:24 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  Seems to me like we are more likely to have an upper-level football team. The middle and bottom of the conference, whoever that is in a given year (we've been at the top and the bottom), is pretty equal to the other G4 leagues. Overall, we have more fans in the stands and the games. The games are on TV more. We also get more overall P5 wins every year. Sometimes more than the other 4 conferences combined.

Well, actually, the data show that the AAC is better at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom year after year.
I looked at the final Massey Composite rankings, average ranking of top four, middle four, and bottom four for the five non-contract-bowl conferences. For fourteen team conference, omitted #5 and #10 to get a true middle. For a ten team conference, #4 and #7 got counted for both middle and top/bottom. With odd numbers I kept the top the top, kept the bottom the bottom, and gave the middle the benefit of the higher group of four possible. Oh, and I counted Navy with the AAC in 2014 (would have been fourth in the AAC at composite #58).

2018
Top 4: mwc 35, AAC 40, Belt 48.25, CUSA 59.25, MAC 64.25
Middle4: mwc 86, AAC 87, SBC 91.25, MAC 92.75, CUSA 93
Bottom 4: mwc 113.75, AAC 114.5 , SBC 117.25, MAC 121.5, CUSA 124.75

2017
Top 4: AAC 26, mwc 43.25, CUSA 59.5, MAC 59.75, SBC 69.5
Middle 4: AAC 65, MAC 87.75, CUSA 91, mwc 91.75, SBC 105.25
Bottom 4: AAC 107.5, mwc 117.25, MAC 117.75, SBC 119.75, CUSA 124.25

2016
Top 4: AAC 35.25. mwc 43.75, SBC 53.5, CUSA 55.75, MAC 57
Middle 4: AAC 65.75, mwc 74.75, SBC 87.75, MAC 95, CUSA 109.5
Bottom 4: AAC 106, mwc 111.75, SBC 115.25, MAC 115.75, CUSA 123.5

2015
Top 4: AAC 28.75, MAC 48, CUSA 52.25, mwc 57.75, SBC 64.75
Middle 4: AAC 70.5, MAC 80, mwc 89.5, CUSA 103.75, SBC 104.75
Bottom 4: AAC 109.25, mwc 116.5, MAC 116.5, SBC 119.25, CUSA 119.75

2014
Top 4: mwc 35.25, AAC 47.75, CUSA 48, MAC 69.5, SBC 74.5
Middle 4: AAC 80.5, mwc 84, CUSA 84.5, MAC 100, SBC 104
Bottom 4: mwc 110, CUSA 111.5, AAC 118.75, MAC 120.75, SBC 125.5

On 15 lines, AAC is #1 10 times, #2 four times, and #3 only once in the bottom four five years ago.
On 15 lines, mwc is #1 the other five times, with the AAC #2 80% of the lines mwc is #1. (mwc is #2 on 70% of the lines AAC is #1.) mwc is #3 on one line and #4 on two lines.

(04-12-2019 08:48 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 03:24 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  Seems to me like we are more likely to have an upper-level football team. The middle and bottom of the conference, whoever that is in a given year (we've been at the top and the bottom), is pretty equal to the other G4 leagues. Overall, we have more fans in the stands and the games. The games are on TV more. We also get more overall P5 wins every year. Sometimes more than the other 4 conferences combined.

Well, actually, the data show that the AAC is better at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom year after year.
I looked at the final Massey Composite rankings, average ranking of top four, middle four, and bottom four for the five non-contract-bowl conferences. For fourteen team conference, omitted #5 and #10 to get a true middle. For a ten team conference, #4 and #7 got counted for both middle and top/bottom. With odd numbers I kept the top the top, kept the bottom the bottom, and gave the middle the benefit of the higher group of four possible. Oh, and I counted Navy with the AAC in 2014 (would have been fourth in the AAC at composite #58).

2018
Top 4: mwc 35, AAC 40, Belt 48.25, CUSA 59.25, MAC 64.25
Middle4: mwc 86, AAC 87, SBC 91.25, MAC 92.75, CUSA 93
Bottom 4: mwc 113.75, AAC 114.5 , SBC 117.25, MAC 121.5, CUSA 124.75

2017
Top 4: AAC 26, mwc 43.25, CUSA 59.5, MAC 59.75, SBC 69.5
Middle 4: AAC 65, MAC 87.75, CUSA 91, mwc 91.75, SBC 105.25
Bottom 4: AAC 107.5, mwc 117.25, MAC 117.75, SBC 119.75, CUSA 124.25

2016
Top 4: AAC 35.25. mwc 41.25, SBC 53.5, CUSA 55.75, mwc 57
Middle 4: AAC 65.75, mwc 74.75, SBC 87.75, MAC 95, CUSA 109.5
Bottom 4: AAC 106, mwc 111.75, SBC 115.25, MAC 115.75, CUSA 123.5

2015
Top 4: AAC 28.75, MAC 48, CUSA 52.25, mwc 57.75, SBC 64.75
Middle 4: AAC 70.5, MAC 80, mwc 89.5, CUSA 103.75, SBC 104.75
Bottom 4: AAC 109.25, mwc 116.5, MAC 116.5, SBC 119.25, CUSA 119.75

2014
Top 4: mwc 35.25, AAC 47.75, CUSA 48, MAC 69.5, SBC 74.5
Middle 4: AAC 80.5, mwc 84, CUSA 84.5, MAC 100, SBC 104
Bottom 4: mwc 110, CUSA 111.5, AAC 118.75, MAC 120.75, SBC 125.5

On 15 lines, AAC is #1 10 times, #2 four times, and #3 only once in the bottom four five years ago.
On 15 lines, mwc is #1 the other five times, with the AAC #2 80% of the lines mwc is #1. (mwc is #2 on 70% of the lines AAC is #1.)

I admire you. I wish you would put this data on the realignment board sometimes to correct Quo on his bad and slanted "THE AAC AIN'T NUTHIN" rants.

(04-12-2019 10:27 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 08:48 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 03:24 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  Seems to me like we are more likely to have an upper-level football team. The middle and bottom of the conference, whoever that is in a given year (we've been at the top and the bottom), is pretty equal to the other G4 leagues. Overall, we have more fans in the stands and the games. The games are on TV more. We also get more overall P5 wins every year. Sometimes more than the other 4 conferences combined.

Well, actually, the data show that the AAC is better at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom year after year.
I looked at the final Massey Composite rankings, average ranking of top four, middle four, and bottom four for the five non-contract-bowl conferences. For fourteen team conference, omitted #5 and #10 to get a true middle. For a ten team conference, #4 and #7 got counted for both middle and top/bottom. With odd numbers I kept the top the top, kept the bottom the bottom, and gave the middle the benefit of the higher group of four possible. Oh, and I counted Navy with the AAC in 2014 (would have been fourth in the AAC at composite #58).

2018
Top 4: mwc 35, AAC 40, Belt 48.25, CUSA 59.25, MAC 64.25
Middle4: mwc 86, AAC 87, SBC 91.25, MAC 92.75, CUSA 93
Bottom 4: mwc 113.75, AAC 114.5 , SBC 117.25, MAC 121.5, CUSA 124.75

2017
Top 4: AAC 26, mwc 43.25, CUSA 59.5, MAC 59.75, SBC 69.5
Middle 4: AAC 65, MAC 87.75, CUSA 91, mwc 91.75, SBC 105.25
Bottom 4: AAC 107.5, mwc 117.25, MAC 117.75, SBC 119.75, CUSA 124.25

2016
Top 4: AAC 35.25. mwc 41.25, SBC 53.5, CUSA 55.75, mwc 57
Middle 4: AAC 65.75, mwc 74.75, SBC 87.75, MAC 95, CUSA 109.5
Bottom 4: AAC 106, mwc 111.75, SBC 115.25, MAC 115.75, CUSA 123.5

2015
Top 4: AAC 28.75, MAC 48, CUSA 52.25, mwc 57.75, SBC 64.75
Middle 4: AAC 70.5, MAC 80, mwc 89.5, CUSA 103.75, SBC 104.75
Bottom 4: AAC 109.25, mwc 116.5, MAC 116.5, SBC 119.25, CUSA 119.75

2014
Top 4: mwc 35.25, AAC 47.75, CUSA 48, MAC 69.5, SBC 74.5
Middle 4: AAC 80.5, mwc 84, CUSA 84.5, MAC 100, SBC 104
Bottom 4: mwc 110, CUSA 111.5, AAC 118.75, MAC 120.75, SBC 125.5

On 15 lines, AAC is #1 10 times, #2 four times, and #3 only once in the bottom four five years ago.
On 15 lines, mwc is #1 the other five times, with the AAC #2 80% of the lines mwc is #1. (mwc is #2 on 70% of the lines AAC is #1.)

I admire you. I wish you would put this data on the realignment board sometimes to correct Quo on his bad and slanted "THE AAC AIN'T NUTHIN" rants.

I post only reluctantly on other boards. For other conference/team boards, I figure it's their house, and other than comments on Navy, or calling me out by name (as one CUSA poster did) it's their business. The "conference realignment" board, well, conference realignment is the least common denominator of sports talk, plus that board's denizens already have their minds made up - there's not a lot to be gained there.
I already spend time on this board and Navy boards that I don't really have between work commute and family.

(04-11-2019 02:48 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  They keep mentioning MW due to Boise State of 5 years ago

They don't realize that MW is 2 Deep and AAC is 4-5 deep

At least for last year, the Mtn. was 3-deep

Fresno State (12-2, final ranking #18)
Utah State (11-2, #21-22)
Boise State (10-3, #23-24)

But there was a huge drop-off to #4.

And none of the 3 leaders had decent bowl games. Matchups were against Arizona State (7-5)
North Texas (9-3)
Boston College (7-5)

(04-12-2019 07:53 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 08:53 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 08:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Hey! Nice of you to come on over to the rich side of town. How about a Fresca <ruffles hair>.

Utah State fans drink Tab

My mom drank Fresca and Tab. Lol

President LBJ was obsessed with Fresca. For about 4-5 years, Fresca was the only choice you could get in all soda-vending machines in the White House.

(04-13-2019 07:06 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 07:53 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 08:53 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 08:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Hey! Nice of you to come on over to the rich side of town. How about a Fresca <ruffles hair>.

Utah State fans drink Tab

My mom drank Fresca and Tab. Lol

President LBJ was obsessed with Fresca. For about 4-5 years, Fresca was the only choice you could get in all soda-vending machines in the White House.

Too funny.

The AAC has definitely broke away from the “G4”. It makes us the tallest Lilliputian.

(04-11-2019 02:48 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 01:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The "MWC" has never really been "close" on the field. Maybe two years out of the past 5 they have been the closest to us out of the G4, but never "that" close. One or two of those years they were the worst G4 conference.

The AAC was a tweener conference a few years ago. Its beyond that now.

All I got out of the podcast is that just like most other Media outlets these guys are clueless about the AAC,,,

They Know about UCF due to the 2 great seasons and mention of possible playoff

They Know about Houston due to the 2 seasons with Herman and mention of possible playoff

They are aware of P6 campaign but refuse to accept it and still lump AAC with G5

They are aware of new contract snd raise but are clueless that the AAC was raped by ESPN on first contract

They keep mentioning MW due to Boise State of 5 years ago

They don't realize that MW is 2 Deep and AAC is 4-5 deep

In other words they. in reality, don't follow any conference not labeled as "P5"

They admitted that despite AAC separation from G4 they will still be lumped in with G5 and probably never with P6 at any time in the foreseeable future, and don't see a path for an AAC team to make Playoffs.

AP is a Joke!!!

the fact is...the narrative is changing.
Aresco and the "P6" campaign may have been funny to all the other conferences at first...until tv money was put behind our deal.
We're still a bit lesser than the P5 conferences..and greater than our G4 brethren.
NOT many of those schools who were laughing at us before at the "P6" moniker are laughing now.
We keep pushing the mantra and delivering results...the more the AAC's point gets across.