(07-16-2019 09:31 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:15 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:05 AM)mlb Wrote:  Not enough schools travel in this conference. That's why you get ****** bowl tie ins. It is as simple as that.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I think that matters a lot, but more than that, ALL the bowls want 6-6 P5 teams over any of our schools. And the bowls, the P5 and ESPN make all the decisions.

Anybody who thinks Aresco or anybody else outside that cabal makes the decisions, just isn't thinking it through. To me, it's a miracle the non-P5 kept the NY6 slot (thanks solely to Aresco).

I agree our bowls got worse, but they are all lesser bowls no matter the mix, so who cares? All I care about is a bowl for my team, and the NY6 slot if we win the American.

Most of the 6-6 P5 schools travel better than 90% of the G5s. In this conference probably better than all except Navy, UC, UCF, Memphis and possibly Houston.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

SMU travelled well to Hawaii and Birmingham and we sold our allotments in Dallas and Frisco. We have wealthy alums so travel usually isn't a problem.

(07-16-2019 09:54 AM)mustangxc Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:31 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:15 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:05 AM)mlb Wrote:  Not enough schools travel in this conference. That's why you get ****** bowl tie ins. It is as simple as that.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I think that matters a lot, but more than that, ALL the bowls want 6-6 P5 teams over any of our schools. And the bowls, the P5 and ESPN make all the decisions.

Anybody who thinks Aresco or anybody else outside that cabal makes the decisions, just isn't thinking it through. To me, it's a miracle the non-P5 kept the NY6 slot (thanks solely to Aresco).

I agree our bowls got worse, but they are all lesser bowls no matter the mix, so who cares? All I care about is a bowl for my team, and the NY6 slot if we win the American.

Most of the 6-6 P5 schools travel better than 90% of the G5s. In this conference probably better than all except Navy, UC, UCF, Memphis and possibly Houston.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

SMU travelled well to Hawaii and Birmingham and we sold our allotments in Dallas and Frisco. We have wealthy alums so travel usually isn't a problem.

But you're the exception, not the rule.

(07-16-2019 09:19 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:56 AM)pesik Wrote:  omg "its a worse bowl line up"

*looks* ..its the exact same lineup with 1 p5 addition...

Only if you don’t know the difference between an annual tie and a rotating tie or the difference between an in footprint bowl and an out of footprint bowl.

we have 1 rotating tie-in and we had it in the last cycle....

explain why its worse..because its undeniably better....

you can say its not vastly improved, but how is it worse?

It's worse, terribly worse.

We have 3 bowls two eastern where no one other than Temple, Navy, and ECU are likely to travel to. We have the Hawaii bowl which is worthless, a huge travel expense and will get no viewership, no travelling fans, and a ****** mwc opponent. We have the Armed forces bowl 3/6 years and basically no other western footprint bowl.

We gave up p5 ties in Detroit and probably the Indy bowl to be part of a G5 rotation and lost the Gasparilla and Birmingham bowl which is now part of the g5 "pool" can't wait till 10-2 Temple plays 9-4 Toledo in the New Mexico bowl. Really prove how good.they are and I am sure fans will flock to it.

Essentially in February Aresco walked in told ESPN he was making 2m a year and signed the conference and p6 over to them. Pretty sure we sold our bowl line up to them as part of this 12 year deal so expect more of the same next bowl cycle too. This sort of bull**** is why I didnt want to be with ESPN. They have one goal, to maximize the p5 cfp return (they think it can be their March madness). They will make sure nothing threatens that and slowly kill us. Remember when they were going to talk nice about us because it's in the contract, when does that start?

Pathetic.
Can we please fire Aresco now and save ourselves 6m we will literally pay for nothing?

(07-16-2019 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:19 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:56 AM)pesik Wrote:  omg "its a worse bowl line up"

*looks* ..its the exact same lineup with 1 p5 addition...

Only if you don’t know the difference between an annual tie and a rotating tie or the difference between an in footprint bowl and an out of footprint bowl.

we have 1 rotating tie-in and we had it in the last cycle....

explain why its worse..because its undeniably better....

you can say its not vastly improved, but how is it worse?

Birmingham was a full tie to a P5 bowl (it still is)

St Pete was a full tie to a bowl with a partial P5 tie. (it still is)

Military was a full tie to a P5 bowl (it still is)

None of our P5 bowls were out of footprint. (we have the same p5 bowl tie ins +1)

We had only one G5 vs G5 out of footprint bowl—a partial Hawaii tie.

We now have 2 out of footprint g5 vs g5 bowls. I’m surprised we didn’t just grab the potato bowl while we were at it, (we will likely never send members to those bowls)

In addition to how it’s worse—it’s amazing the low hanging fruit we missed. We whiffed on NOLA (New Mexico we want—but not NOLA—really?). We blew a lay up for an annual game vs the Big10. We kept the lowest paying bowl in FBS. Blew an easy layup on the in footprint I-bowl, Those were three incredibly easy wide open opportunities for incremental (even significant) improvement. Very disappointing. For 1.8 million a year—it’s borderline incompetent. A potted plant could have landed the same line up,

bold part above

1) we have full tie ins with them, in the sense that we can put our members in every single year if we want...
it isnt a rotation....this might be your disconnect...we set upa system where we have tons of bowls with potentially good opponents..and then we get to chose who can produce the best opponents

2) new mexico vs nola...new mexico bowl has had drastically better opponents than nola..(likely middling sublet/c-usa) vs top 4 MWC team

3) what big 10 game are you talking about?

(07-16-2019 09:46 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:36 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:17 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Looks about the same to me. We’re still going to be in Birmingham and gasparilla and we’ve added Boston.

I don't think that can be assumed. It really depends on who else is involved in the pool. B'ham will work with Gasp. to select teams and we know the AAC 10th pick can go to one of B'ham/Gasp/First Responders.

its not a pool like that...we are primary partners with all those bowls...the announcements said we renewed contracts with them

we decided what we want till all our teams ae taken and then lower g4 will can choose which ones they want

we choose who we want to send,

That’s not how the NCAA bowl approval process works or how a pool works. We must be committed as the primary partner for certain years. Now—that could be simply on paper and a side deal exist allowing it to operate as you say—-but there is absolutely no evidence of that. More likely it’s a paper commitment that will largely be adhered to but will have flexibility to create the matchups ESPN wants to show in the bowls ESPN wants to showcase. Since ESPN owns all those bowls, the paper commitments are easy to trade.

(07-16-2019 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:19 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:56 AM)pesik Wrote:  omg "its a worse bowl line up"

*looks* ..its the exact same lineup with 1 p5 addition...

Only if you don’t know the difference between an annual tie and a rotating tie or the difference between an in footprint bowl and an out of footprint bowl.

we have 1 rotating tie-in and we had it in the last cycle....

explain why its worse..because its undeniably better....

you can say its not vastly improved, but how is it worse?

Birmingham was a full tie to a P5 bowl

St Pete was a full tie to a bowl with a partial P5 tie.

Military was a full tie to a P5 bowl

None of our P5 bowls were out of footprint.

We had only one G5 vs G5 out of footprint bowl—a partial Hawaii tie.

We now have 2 out of footprint g5 vs g5 bowls. I’m surprised we didn’t just grab the potato bowl while we were at it,

In addition to how it’s worse—it’s amazing the low hanging fruit we missed. We whiffed on NOLA (New Mexico we want—but not NOLA—really?). We blew a lay up for an annual game vs the Big10. We kept the lowest paying bowl in FBS. Blew an easy layup on the “in footprint” I-bowl. Those were three incredibly easy wide open opportunities for incremental (even significant) improvement. Very disappointing. For 1.8 million a year—it’s borderline incompetent. A potted plant could have landed the same line up,

Excellent break down. Oh and we joined the Myrtle Beach bowl which was suppose to be the best match up between the CUSA, MAC, Sunbelt team (AKA the g5 playoff).

Let that sink in and then tell me is the AAC decided its bowls or if ESPN made sure to limit our options for that sweet media pay out we got and to prevent us from competing to belong.

who made up this rotation BS, we dont have a rotation with anyone,

its a bowl ties where we get 1st choice and the g4 get our leftovers....

the acc has the same thing...they have a system that they have way more bowls than they need, but will pick and chose based on what suits them for the lower tier ones...and say they will chose xx from the selection of xx yearly

(07-16-2019 10:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:46 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:36 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:17 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Looks about the same to me. We’re still going to be in Birmingham and gasparilla and we’ve added Boston.

I don't think that can be assumed. It really depends on who else is involved in the pool. B'ham will work with Gasp. to select teams and we know the AAC 10th pick can go to one of B'ham/Gasp/First Responders.

its not a pool like that...we are primary partners with all those bowls...the announcements said we renewed contracts with them

we decided what we want till all our teams ae taken and then lower g4 will can choose which ones they want

we choose who we want to send,

That’s not how the NCAA bowl approval process works or how a pool works. We must be committed as the primary partner for certain years. Now—that could be simply on paper and a side deal exist allowing it to operate as you say—-but there is absolutely no evidence of that. More likely it’s a paper commitment that will largely be adhered to but will have flexibility to create the matchups ESPN wants to show in the bowls ESPN wants to showcase. Since ESPN owns all those bowls, the paper commitments are easy to trade,

who said it was a pool????? the announcement said it we just renewed contracts with that bowls

it makes no mention of any pool system..nor do any other g5 seem to announcing they are part of the pool

(07-16-2019 09:59 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:19 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:56 AM)pesik Wrote:  omg "its a worse bowl line up"

*looks* ..its the exact same lineup with 1 p5 addition...

Only if you don’t know the difference between an annual tie and a rotating tie or the difference between an in footprint bowl and an out of footprint bowl.

we have 1 rotating tie-in and we had it in the last cycle....

explain why its worse..because its undeniably better....

you can say its not vastly improved, but how is it worse?

Birmingham was a full tie to a P5 bowl (it still is)

St Pete was a full tie to a bowl with a partial P5 tie. (it still is)

Military was a full tie to a P5 bowl (it still is)

None of our P5 bowls were out of footprint. (we have the same p5 bowl tie ins +1)

We had only one G5 vs G5 out of footprint bowl—a partial Hawaii tie.

We now have 2 out of footprint g5 vs g5 bowls. I’m surprised we didn’t just grab the potato bowl while we were at it, (we will likely never send members to those bowls)

In addition to how it’s worse—it’s amazing the low hanging fruit we missed. We whiffed on NOLA (New Mexico we want—but not NOLA—really?). We blew a lay up for an annual game vs the Big10. We kept the lowest paying bowl in FBS. Blew an easy layup on the in footprint I-bowl, Those were three incredibly easy wide open opportunities for incremental (even significant) improvement. Very disappointing. For 1.8 million a year—it’s borderline incompetent. A potted plant could have landed the same line up,

bold part above

1) we have full tie ins with them, in the sense that we can put our members in every single year if we want...
it isnt a rotation....this might be your disconnect...we set upa system where we have tons of bowls with potentially good opponents..and then we get to chose who can produce the best opponents

2) new mexico vs nola...new mexico bowl has had drastically better opponents than nola..(likely middling sublet/c-usa) vs top 4 MWC team

3) what big 10 game are you talking about?

Quick Lanes was offered to us. If the selection process you are describing for the Group of 8 bowls is accurate— I’m more accepting of the lineup—but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that we get to pick our fav 4 selections every year from that group—and everyone else gets what’s left.

(07-16-2019 10:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quick Lanes was offered to us.

do you have any proove??
link please

aresco just 1 hour ago said the sole intention of this bowl lineup was to add as many p5 as possible the idea that we turned down a bowl with a p5 opponent isnt something we'd do and defies all part of logic

(07-16-2019 10:15 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quick Lanes was offered to us.

do you have any proove??
link please

aresco just 1 hour ago said the sole intention of this bowl lineup was to add as many p5 as possible the idea that we turned down a bowl with a p5 opponent isnt something we'd do and defines all part of logic

Aresco stated that it was offered to us in a radio interview but we had to turn it down because we were “full”. It was discussed a month ago or so in another thread.

(07-16-2019 10:07 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:46 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:36 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:17 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Looks about the same to me. We’re still going to be in Birmingham and gasparilla and we’ve added Boston.

I don't think that can be assumed. It really depends on who else is involved in the pool. B'ham will work with Gasp. to select teams and we know the AAC 10th pick can go to one of B'ham/Gasp/First Responders.

its not a pool like that...we are primary partners with all those bowls...the announcements said we renewed contracts with them

we decided what we want till all our teams ae taken and then lower g4 will can choose which ones they want

we choose who we want to send,

That’s not how the NCAA bowl approval process works or how a pool works. We must be committed as the primary partner for certain years. Now—that could be simply on paper and a side deal exist allowing it to operate as you say—-but there is absolutely no evidence of that. More likely it’s a paper commitment that will largely be adhered to but will have flexibility to create the matchups ESPN wants to show in the bowls ESPN wants to showcase. Since ESPN owns all those bowls, the paper commitments are easy to trade,

who said it was a pool????? the announcement said it we just renewed contracts with that bowls

it makes no mention of any pool system..nor do any other g5 seem to announcing they are part of the pool

Lol...really. We “renewed” a contract with a Myrtle Beach bowl that didn’t exist 6 years ago? We “renewed” a contract with the New Mexico Bowl? Quick, tell me which AAC team was sent to New Mexico last year. We renewed partnerships with some of these bowls—but clearly under different terms,

(07-16-2019 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:15 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quick Lanes was offered to us.

do you have any proove??
link please

aresco just 1 hour ago said the sole intention of this bowl lineup was to add as many p5 as possible the idea that we turned down a bowl with a p5 opponent isnt something we'd do and defines all part of logic

Aresco stated that it was offered to us in a radio interview but we had to turn it down because we were “full”. It was discussed a month ago or so in another thread.

okay i just did a bunch of digging in this forum..and this was the equivalent of the whisper game.. we were never offered the quick loans bowl

it started with this link:
https://watchstadium.com/news/college-fo...6-03-2019/

--it said that quick loans was coming open and we were the potential opponent...we got excited and thought we should land it
--and few threads later, a few people stated we will land it (based off themselves and wanting it)
-- a few threads/month later, mcmurphy posted a link of our likely bowl line up ... someone posted "we turned down the quick loans bowl for this"
-- everyone started quoting "we passed on quick loans"

there is no source on google or this forum where aresco says we turned down the quick loanes bowl...there is no source we were ever going to get it for sure, there are tweets from Mcmurphy that imply the mac was always the target

What I find funny is that we can't get a bowl in New Orleans or Memphis... and people blame this on Aresco. That shows that the schools have little to no power in their home market when it comes to ties to those organizers. A Tulane fan shouldn't be complaining about the bowl lineup when the bowl in your back yard doesn't want anything to do with your school.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

There are only two things that matter. A contract with a top end game (not happening yet if ever) and payouts from playing. If this lineup increases our payouts, which it does, then it's an improvement.

something i find interesting is how greedy we sound....and how the normally rationale people are the ones being irradic and just being mad for no reason

we have the same good bowls as the last cycle...we didnt get worse.... - we dont have rotation system...we have a selection system...all things considered i think is the better system...it looks like we have no commitment to stick within most of our bowl and have 8 bowl opponents to chose the best opponent from

it noted that rotation in the armed forces bowl...why wouldnt the announcement ignore the rest was a rotation?

in this system, if the acc cant fill its bowls ..we can send teams to the new mexico bowl vs an elite MWC team etc...

and the part about greed: if the p5 has enough bowl teams (big if) we could have 6 p5 opponents based on the year..
---the mwc currently has none now (maybe lands 1 pac 12)...the mac has 1..c-usa has 1 every other year..sunbelt has none


and the independence bowl vs the pac 12 is still being settled

(07-16-2019 11:03 AM)pesik Wrote:  something i find interesting is how greedy we sound....and how the normally rationale people are the ones being irradic and just being mad for no reason

we have the same good bowls as the last cycle...we didnt get worse.... - we dont have rotation system...we have a selection system...all things considered i think is the better system...it looks like we have no commitment to stick within most of our bowl and have 8 bowl opponents to chose the best opponent from

it noted that rotation in the armed forces bowl...why wouldnt the announcement ignore the rest was a rotation?

in this system, if the acc cant fill its bowls ..we can send teams to the new mexico bowl vs an elite MWC team etc...

and the part about greed: if the p5 has enough bowl teams (big if) we could have 6 p5 opponents based on the year..
---the mwc currently has none now (maybe lands 1 pac 12)...the mac has 1..c-usa has 1 every other year..sunbelt has none


and the independence bowl vs the pac 12 is still being settled

Pesik I will respond here I guess since I started the thread.

First I just wanted to share the info because it’s a milestone for us. What is it marking I don’t know now.

Going into 2019 was so hopeful and the trajectory of this Conference which I love was so good. Then it was like private Ryan said falling out of the ugly tree and hitting every branch. I was expecting better for media I wanted a gor, but then we lost my home state of Connecticut,and now I am saying ****** bowl pool. I am not excited about them and I am an AAC Homer cheerleader.

I am. It greeedy but sometimes you just have to stand up for yourselves about your quality. It’s just deflating I am so sick of all the aac hate, but it’s taking its toll. I am exhausted rooting for the aAC to succeed and now just want what’s best for ECU. I guess I have 5 years to slumber for awbike

(07-16-2019 10:48 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:15 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quick Lanes was offered to us.

do you have any proove??
link please

aresco just 1 hour ago said the sole intention of this bowl lineup was to add as many p5 as possible the idea that we turned down a bowl with a p5 opponent isnt something we'd do and defines all part of logic

Aresco stated that it was offered to us in a radio interview but we had to turn it down because we were “full”. It was discussed a month ago or so in another thread.

okay i just did a bunch of digging in this forum..and this was the equivalent of the whisper game.. we were never offered the quick loans bowl

it started with this link:
https://watchstadium.com/news/college-fo...6-03-2019/

--it said that quick loans was coming open and we were the potential opponent...we got excited and thought we should land it
--and few threads later, a few people stated we will land it (based off themselves and wanting it)
-- a few threads/month later, mcmurphy posted a link of our likely bowl line up ... someone posted "we turned down the quick loans bowl for this"
-- everyone started quoting "we passed on quick loans"

there is no source on google or this forum where aresco says we turned down the quick loanes bowl...there is no source we were ever going to get it for sure, there are tweets from Mcmurphy that imply the mac was always the target

He said it on the radio.

Go AAC. I love this conference. And I hate my iPhone 5.

(07-16-2019 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:19 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:56 AM)pesik Wrote:  omg "its a worse bowl line up"

*looks* ..its the exact same lineup with 1 p5 addition...

Only if you don’t know the difference between an annual tie and a rotating tie or the difference between an in footprint bowl and an out of footprint bowl.

we have 1 rotating tie-in and we had it in the last cycle....

explain why its worse..because its undeniably better....

you can say its not vastly improved, but how is it worse?

Birmingham was a full tie to a P5 bowl

St Pete was a full tie to a bowl with a partial P5 tie.

Military was a full tie to a P5 bowl

None of our P5 bowls were out of footprint.

We had only one G5 vs G5 out of footprint bowl—a partial Hawaii tie.

We now have 2 out of footprint g5 vs g5 bowls. I’m surprised we didn’t just grab the potato bowl while we were at it,

In addition to how it’s worse—it’s amazing the low hanging fruit we missed. We whiffed on NOLA (New Mexico we want—but not NOLA—really?). We blew a lay up for an annual game vs the Big10. We kept the lowest paying bowl in FBS. Blew an easy layup on the “in footprint” I-bowl. Those were three incredibly easy wide open opportunities for incremental (even significant) improvement. Very disappointing. For 1.8 million a year—it’s borderline incompetent. A potted plant could have landed the same line up,

I don't disagree with you, but Aresco must know what you know... so if you were to ask him what happened, what do you think he would say? There must be a reason. The P5 want to throw some bones to the SBC/cUSA/MAC/MWC?