(03-02-2020 08:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (03-02-2020 07:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (03-02-2020 05:42 PM)JHS55 Wrote: The p6 narrative my have already run its course
I've always maintained that the real audience for the P6 campaign isn't the national media or fans or the P5 conferences, it's actually the AAC schools themselves. That is, IMO, the P6 campaign was developed by Aresco to market himself to the AAC schools, so that he can keep his high-paying job.
Aresco may not be good at negotiating bowl deals or media deals, but since day one he has shown a fine nose for sensing the temperature in the AAC room. The P6 campaign feeds the "chip on the shoulder" defiance that has characterized the league all along, actually inherited from the old Big East. That wounded sense of disrespect is probably the strongest, arguably the only, narrative that binds the schools. It is what caused UCF to put up a ridiculous 2017 national champions banner in their stadium AND, amazingly, why many USF fans actually supported them in that.
P6 may be scoffed at nationally, but it is Red Meat to the supporters of AAC schools, exactly what they want to hear, and thus keeps Aresco fully in the good graces of the members, and raking in that $2m+ salary despite delivering very little in terms of tangible results. In that regard, it has been extremely successful for him.
It has two components. The labeling is the consumption of fans and general public. The other is a legitimate strategic plan that sets goals that could very well lead to the AAC becoming a legit power conference over time. The second part is largely for internal consumption and is only relevant to the extent that the member schools actually execute the plan. Although both are public---hardly anyone outside of the school administrators have bothered to see what the actual strategic plan is.
Nah, when it was released, I read the strategic plan. It's not legit as it doesn't have timetables and measurables, which means it is nothing in that sense, just marketing.
That's especially true for the commissioner's activities. What I mean is, if you look at the plan and at what the
schools are collectively responsible for achieving on the court and field, there are some specifics, such as putting 4-6 teams in the NCAA tournament each year, averaging 75% of stadium capacity in football, having 2-4 teams ranked in the CFP top 25, having a .500 bowl record, stuff like that. Whatever else you may think about them, those are real tangible targets that performance can collectively be measured against.
But when it comes to the stuff that actually defines whether a conference is "P" or not - the media deal, the bowl deal (including contract status with a major bowl) and "autonomy" status in the NCAA - stuff which it is the commissioner's job for achieving, there is basically nothing specific and no timetable. I remember that I was rather stunned when i reached the end of the document and .... that's it? Where's the big section on getting a $20m a year media deal by 2025 or signing a contract bowl by 2020?
But nope, just IIRC the vaguest language about improving revenue. But absolutely zero that Aresco could be held accountable for or measured against.
So I stand by my claim that the actual purpose of the plan is Aresco job protection.
BTW, I found the plan and re-read it. It's as i remembered. There are like 5 pages with details on how the teams are supposed to perform on the field, but the last section "revenue generation", is just one paltry page filled with fluff.
http://theamerican.org/documents/2017/5/...df?id=1374
