(02-16-2020 05:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  The ACC has probably its worst season in history and the AAC finishes .12 ahead in a computer ranking. Congrats?

Thanks!

(02-16-2020 05:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  The ACC has probably its worst season in history and the AAC finishes .12 ahead in a computer ranking. Congrats?

The AAC’s ranking will only get better without UConn’s metrics dragging them down.

(02-16-2020 04:37 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Massey Composite now has 102 rankings compiled, and the American remains ahead of the ACC.

#1 SEC 42.86
#2 B12 46.06
#3 B10 48.65
#4 P12 49.24
#5 AAC 60.28
#6 ACC 60.40
#7 mwc 74.59
#8 SunBelt 82.79
#9 Indies 84.72
#10 CUSA 91.08
#11 MAC 92.26

Nevermind where AAC currently is but for football strength purposes I like to see AAC climb to 50.00

(02-16-2020 05:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  The ACC has probably its worst season in history and the AAC finishes .12 ahead in a computer ranking. Congrats?

Yeah, exactly.

This is basically the peak of what the AAC can do. When the ACC, which usually isn’t very good to begin with, is even worse than usual, the AAC can be very slightly better.

(02-20-2020 03:48 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 05:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  The ACC has probably its worst season in history and the AAC finishes .12 ahead in a computer ranking. Congrats?

Yeah, exactly.

This is basically the peak of what the AAC can do. When the ACC, which usually isn’t very good to begin with, is even worse than usual, the AAC can be very slightly better.

Will remember this post.

(02-20-2020 03:48 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 05:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  The ACC has probably its worst season in history and the AAC finishes .12 ahead in a computer ranking. Congrats?

Yeah, exactly.

This is basically the peak of what the AAC can do. When the ACC, which usually isn’t very good to begin with, is even worse than usual, the AAC can be very slightly better.

I do not like the fact my Alma mater is in the AAC. That being said, I am going to have to disagree. As I mentioned above, just the subtraction of UConn will result in the rankings to go up. Second, the upper level programs like UC, UCF, Houston and Memphis will continue to be strong. Third, programs like SMU, Tulane and Temple continue to get better each year. Navy is a national brand that is solid most years and every so often they are exceptional. You have to remember the AAC is a very new conference, and for a lot of these teams not named UC and USF the money and media exposure has never been better. TBH, in this up coming season even the team that finishes last in the conference is going to be a pretty decent team.

(02-21-2020 05:23 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 03:48 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 05:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  The ACC has probably its worst season in history and the AAC finishes .12 ahead in a computer ranking. Congrats?

Yeah, exactly.

This is basically the peak of what the AAC can do. When the ACC, which usually isn’t very good to begin with, is even worse than usual, the AAC can be very slightly better.

Will remember this post.

... and even if he turns out to be correct, it is still rather astonishing that the AAC's best overlaps with the ACC's worst, any P5's worst.

(01-21-2020 03:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 01:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 01:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 11:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 11:32 AM)YNot Wrote:  You can't call the ACC a tweener because....Clemson.

The consistent presence in the top-10 rankings is still a distinguishing factor for the P5, along with the attendance, TV ratings, fan support, etc.:

Top-10
SEC = 4
B1G = 2
PAC = 1
ACC = 1
B12 = 1

But, the AAC has firmly established itself as a tweener...with another NY6 bid and FOUR teams in the final top-25.

It seems pretty clear that on the field, the ACC performed as a 'tweener' conference this year.

That's not a general trend, usually they are clearly P5 on the field as they are in all other ways (money, fans, etc.). But this year, their on field performance was a tweener.

The performance was better than "tweener". It was P5. That said, I also think there is obviously more to being a "P5" than on field performance. Money, exposure, attendance, brand, tv ratings, contract bowl, etc.

When you figure all that stuff in, I think the "tweener" designation is pretty accurate. The process of separating from the rest of the G5 appears to be continuing for the AAC. I think the concept of the AAC as a "tweener conference" is a viewpoint that is certainly becoming accepted by a growing portion of the fandom of college sports.

Big East 2.0 was a BCS conference, but it was also a "tweener." AAC is trying to get back to that "tweener" level.

Big East 2.0 was a full-fledged Power in terms of results on the field.

But they didn't survive did they? At some point what is fair to say is that the schools played like power teams, but the conference was structurally flawed. And you say that because one reason you call the Power 5 power conferences is because they've survived and they all have at least two national brands. Although the PAC has slipped far enough that their brands are showing age and the ACC the last couple of years has been down to 1 and is hoping that's just temporary.

The AAC has more competitive schools than the ACC, but lacks a national brand.

(02-21-2020 12:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 03:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 01:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 01:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 11:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It seems pretty clear that on the field, the ACC performed as a 'tweener' conference this year.

That's not a general trend, usually they are clearly P5 on the field as they are in all other ways (money, fans, etc.). But this year, their on field performance was a tweener.

The performance was better than "tweener". It was P5. That said, I also think there is obviously more to being a "P5" than on field performance. Money, exposure, attendance, brand, tv ratings, contract bowl, etc.

When you figure all that stuff in, I think the "tweener" designation is pretty accurate. The process of separating from the rest of the G5 appears to be continuing for the AAC. I think the concept of the AAC as a "tweener conference" is a viewpoint that is certainly becoming accepted by a growing portion of the fandom of college sports.

Big East 2.0 was a BCS conference, but it was also a "tweener." AAC is trying to get back to that "tweener" level.

Big East 2.0 was a full-fledged Power in terms of results on the field.

But they didn't survive did they? At some point what is fair to say is that the schools played like power teams, but the conference was structurally flawed. And you say that because one reason you call the Power 5 power conferences is because they've survived and they all have at least two national brands. Although the PAC has slipped far enough that their brands are showing age and the ACC the last couple of years has been down to 1 and is hoping that's just temporary.

The AAC has more competitive schools than the ACC, but lacks a national brand.

No question, which is why i prefaced my comment with "results on the field".

I AAC didn’t do well against the P5, they did well against the G5, and everything went according to plan in-conference.

The ACC didn’t do well against the P5, did do well against the G5, but beat up on one another.

The ACC did well against the AAC, 4-2 to be exact.

What do the computer rankings prove again?

These are great numbers, and numbers don't lie. Truth is, the AAC on the field demonstrably overlaps with at least the lower part of the 'P5'.

This will cause all the AAC detractors to dive for their keyboards and talk about TV $$, or contract NY bowls. That seems to be just about everyone who is not a fan of an AAC school. The G4 seem to not want the AAC to elevate, where in my opinion they should have the SAME attitude. Don't accept some artificial line of separation, some 'separate but equal' game among 10 BCS conferences. And of course the P5 don't want anyone crashing their cash cow party. And even some of the nBE fans just have an axe to grind regarding the AAC. AAC truly a lone wolf for now.

As I have said many times before, P status depends on your metric. While the media and message board folks may follow TV contracts, etc, to the average fan on the field results matter more. Meaning, while the AAC is routinely beating P5 teams, sometimes in major bowls, to argue some separation is ridiculous to most fans.

Reality is, the AAC is a project and it's doing exceptionally well for just 5 years in... at least in ratings, P5 W/L, and in major bowls. The TV $$, with the new big raise, are finally starting to approach old BE levels, and it's enough cash to really start to invest. If the wins and ratings keep on trajectory the AAC will distance itself from the G4 for sure, and has a 'chance' of making some dent in the P5 narrative. They will never, ever, get 25million/team season... but a locked NY bowl slot may be possible.

As said above, generally agree it's a tweener for now... but on the right upward course. Hopefully more realignment nonsense does not break it down before completion.

(02-21-2020 12:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  I AAC didn’t do well against the P5, they did well against the G5, and everything went according to plan in-conference.

The ACC didn’t do well against the P5, did do well against the G5, but beat up on one another.

The ACC did well against the AAC, 4-2 to be exact.

What do the computer rankings prove again?

That how much does the the ACC w/o Clemson is worth A5 except for the ESPiN money.

(02-21-2020 01:24 PM)Bull Wrote:  These are great numbers, and numbers don't lie. Truth is, the AAC on the field demonstrably overlaps with at least the lower part of the 'P5'.

This will cause all the AAC detractors to dive for their keyboards and talk about TV $$, or contract NY bowls. That seems to be just about everyone who is not a fan of an AAC school. The G4 seem to not want the AAC to elevate, where in my opinion they should have the SAME attitude. Don't accept some artificial line of separation, some 'separate but equal' game among 10 BCS conferences. And of course the P5 don't want anyone crashing their cash cow party. And even some of the nBE fans just have an axe to grind regarding the AAC. AAC truly a lone wolf for now.

As I have said many times before, P status depends on your metric. While the media and message board folks may follow TV contracts, etc, to the average fan on the field results matter more. Meaning, while the AAC is routinely beating P5 teams, sometimes in major bowls, to argue some separation is ridiculous to most fans.

Reality is, the AAC is a project and it's doing exceptionally well for just 5 years in... at least in ratings, P5 W/L, and in major bowls. The TV $$, with the new big raise, are finally starting to approach old BE levels, and it's enough cash to really start to invest. If the wins and ratings keep on trajectory the AAC will distance itself from the G4 for sure, and has a 'chance' of making some dent in the P5 narrative. They will never, ever, get 25million/team season... but a locked NY bowl slot may be possible.

As said above, generally agree it's a tweener for now... but on the right upward course. Hopefully more realignment nonsense does not break it down before completion.

To the average fan on the field, there is no difference between the AAC and the MWC. And not much between those two and the rest of the G5. The main reason is "fans on the field." The AAC doesn't have as many. And that is what "P" is about. Its about fan support and recognition. Sure they are a few legacy P5 programs, but as a whole the "P" programs are way ahead of the "G" in fan support.

(02-22-2020 01:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  To the average fan on the field, there is no difference between the AAC and the MWC. And not much between those two and the rest of the G5. The main reason is "fans on the field." The AAC doesn't have as many. And that is what "P" is about. Its about fan support and recognition. Sure they are a few legacy P5 programs, but as a whole the "P" programs are way ahead of the "G" in fan support.

There's a lot of truth in that. The "P" conferences are "P" because of fan support in all areas - attendance, donations, TV viewership, etc. That's what makes networks want to shower them with money and major bowls want to contract with them, which are the hallmarks of being a "P".

That gets obscured here sometimes because for whatever reason, this forum is disproportionately populated by supporters of G5 teams.