(03-03-2020 10:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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

You're being far too cynical. Job protection is relative when the presidents are pleased with Aresco's performance---not to mention the guy is pretty close to retirement age. I dont think job protection is an issue for him. I wouldnt be surprised if Aresco retires a few years after the HQ move to Dallas.

(02-19-2020 01:20 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  There is no such thing as the G5!!!

Did you clear this comment with your fellow AAC'eers first before posting?

(03-01-2020 07:38 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 04:31 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 02:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  With the point of all this being?

Evidently eliminating the predictability of the end of the regular season inventory and losing the CCG weekend top-up. So, in the end, reducing actual direct media revenues to the conferences.

It seems to be addressing the question, "is it feasible to organize a Go5 championship in a way that does not interfere with the Access Bowl spot", rather, "is it feasible to organize a Go5 championship that can be expected to benefit all Go5 conferences."

The best fix, is to give AAC the access spot every year, and let the G4 have their championship.

I would think the G4 would want the AAC to get a contract bowl if an access bowl stays for the G4. Unless there's some significant slips it's the AAC's bowl.

(03-02-2020 12:02 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 10:14 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 09:20 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 07:38 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The best fix, is to give AAC the access spot every year, and let the G4 have their championship.

Note that you can well be "that's OUR Access Bowl spot" ...

... and you can also be "We AREN'T in 'the Group'", ...

... but you can't be both at once, since the Access Spot is the spot for the highest rated champion from the Group.

So be our guest, leave the Group behind. Just remember it also means leaving behind the Access Bowl spot that goes to a member of the Group.

Here's why you are wrong:
"P6" is about 2026 and the next iteration of the CFP.
"P6" isnt saying "Get us out of this "Group of 5" immediately!" It is saying "Don't press the easy button and lump us with those other four because we were at our nadir in conference perception when the current structure was established. If you judge the AAC and members on our merits on- and off-field, you will see that there is a solid case to be made that we have very little in common with those other four conferences; include us in the upper tier in the next CFP restructure."

In that sense taking the non-contract-bowl-conference NY6 slot year after year after year (four out of six hopefully turns into ten out of twelve) in the CURRENT construct is a key part of proving we are head and shoulders above those four and that should be recognized in the NEXT construct.

P6 and repeatedly taking the NY6 slot are perfectly congruous.

I didn't see the P6 marketing having a positive impact on AAC bowl negotiations.

If the AAC was on the verge of an auto slot for itself one would think it could have snagged a bowl for itself against a #2/#3 in the interim. Nothing remotely close to that happened.

Yes Aresco did a bad job with the bowl negotiations. I think it might be partly because we're the most poach-able conference, if there's conference expansion it's most likely AAC teams getting the invite, so the bowls want to make sure our current top programs are what they're getting.

But the goal for P6 is and always has been the next CFP contract. It will inevitably expand and the P6 campaign is about showing that the AAC belongs in that group instead of the G4 when that contract is drawn up.

(03-03-2020 10:48 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The G5 should never give up any access it has to the CFP/NY6 Bowls, however the G5 need to do a better job of ensuring it's champions that aren't playing in the access bowl still have quality match ups versus each other.

The G5 conferences need to select 4 bowls that will be the "G5 Showcase" bowls and feature the 4 conference champions not in the Access Bowl and 4 out of 5 conference runner ups. All 4 bowls won't have conference contracts and therefore are free to select teams based on what they think is most important ie proximity, ranking, ticket sales, brand recognition, etc.

This will be good for tv, fan support, and the bowl cities because it will ensure that G5 conference champions will have better, more interesting match ups.

This is not a G5 championship but a showcase where the G5 chooses its most prestigious bowl games and sends its best teams to those like the G5 version of the Cotton, Sugar, Rose, and Orange Bowls.

Unrealistic, as the G5 basically regard bowl games against 6-6 P5 teams as better and more prestigious than games vs 10-2 champs of other G5 conferences.

(03-03-2020 01:06 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Yes Aresco did a bad job with the bowl negotiations. I think it might be partly because we're the most poach-able conference, if there's conference expansion it's most likely AAC teams getting the invite, so the bowls want to make sure our current top programs are what they're getting.

But the goal for P6 is and always has been the next CFP contract. It will inevitably expand and the P6 campaign is about showing that the AAC belongs in that group instead of the G4 when that contract is drawn up.

Agree that Aresco did a bad job with the bowl negotiations, though I'm not sure how much poachability had to do with it. I don't think anyone, bowls included, expect any poaching in the 5 years before the next CFP deal is done, which coincides with the bowl deals.

As for P6, I'm not sure how the AAC is going to show it belongs in the contract group. It won't be via media deal value, as Aresco signed a $7m a year deal for 12 years, so that deal will still be in effect when the new CFP is drawn up. It won't be via bowl deals because the AAC just got a lousy bowl lineup so that is unlikely to improve by 2025 either. I've seen strange things in my life so I would never say never, but I don't see any kind of path to the "P" for the AAC.

(03-03-2020 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:48 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The G5 should never give up any access it has to the CFP/NY6 Bowls, however the G5 need to do a better job of ensuring it's champions that aren't playing in the access bowl still have quality match ups versus each other.

The G5 conferences need to select 4 bowls that will be the "G5 Showcase" bowls and feature the 4 conference champions not in the Access Bowl and 4 out of 5 conference runner ups. All 4 bowls won't have conference contracts and therefore are free to select teams based on what they think is most important ie proximity, ranking, ticket sales, brand recognition, etc.

This will be good for tv, fan support, and the bowl cities because it will ensure that G5 conference champions will have better, more interesting match ups.

This is not a G5 championship but a showcase where the G5 chooses its most prestigious bowl games and sends its best teams to those like the G5 version of the Cotton, Sugar, Rose, and Orange Bowls.

Unrealistic, as the G5 basically regard bowl games against 6-6 P5 teams as better and more prestigious than games vs 10-2 champs of other G5 conferences.

Correct. Why is that? Simple. Its different. The G5 largely plays a schedule against G5 teams. Certainly---after October a G5 schedule is likley EXCLUSIVELY against G5 teams. Thus, games against the P5 are more rare and more interesting. Think about it---which would be more interesting for a G5 team---a bowl game against a good team from another G5 conference or playing yet another game against a conference opponent? Different sells.

As far as how Aresco did arranging bowls for the AAC---no surprise there. Significantly changing the post season for a G5 requires that old traditional guys on bowl committee's change thier views. Not much chance of that. If you want to create a big "anchor bowl" game for a G5 conference, your going to have to do it yourself or with some real outside the box thinking. Its almost impossible to expect a big G5 vs P5 bowl game to emerge from the current bowl system negotiation process. Its just not going to happen. You either need to create your own game or convince a network to put up the money to do it. No current bowl is dropping a P5 tie to add a G5.

(03-03-2020 12:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You're being far too cynical. Job protection is relative when the presidents are pleased with Aresco's performance---not to mention the guy is pretty close to retirement age. I dont think job protection is an issue for him. I wouldnt be surprised if Aresco retires a few years after the HQ move to Dallas.

Eh. The plan was drawn up in 2016-2017, and we are now three years later, so at the time P6 was initiated, Aresco wasn't thinking about retirement. He seemed interested in collecting those $2m checks for several more years.

As for the presidents, I agree they are pleased with his performance and he has no current job security problems. IMO, that was what P6 was designed to achieve. As I said, I think it has worked spectacularly well for him, despite objectively mediocre job performance.

As long as we feel like we have to have our best team go to the access bowl we should have our best teams play a g5 Playoff yes and create our own bowls
If only we can get a network to gamble some money on our REAL playoff system instead of that other committee driven predetermined wannabe playoff crap fans would rather watch us instead
If we get to that point then a collegiate Super Bowl between the two FBS leagues would most certainly have to be played
I never watch A5 football games anymore, hmmm mybe 4or 5 years now
If I was a big billionaire, not a stanarded issue billionaire, I would start my own sports network and I would make an offer the g5 conferences could not refuse

(03-03-2020 01:06 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:02 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 10:14 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 09:20 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 07:38 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The best fix, is to give AAC the access spot every year, and let the G4 have their championship.

Note that you can well be "that's OUR Access Bowl spot" ...

... and you can also be "We AREN'T in 'the Group'", ...

... but you can't be both at once, since the Access Spot is the spot for the highest rated champion from the Group.

So be our guest, leave the Group behind. Just remember it also means leaving behind the Access Bowl spot that goes to a member of the Group.

Here's why you are wrong:
"P6" is about 2026 and the next iteration of the CFP.
"P6" isnt saying "Get us out of this "Group of 5" immediately!" It is saying "Don't press the easy button and lump us with those other four because we were at our nadir in conference perception when the current structure was established. If you judge the AAC and members on our merits on- and off-field, you will see that there is a solid case to be made that we have very little in common with those other four conferences; include us in the upper tier in the next CFP restructure."

In that sense taking the non-contract-bowl-conference NY6 slot year after year after year (four out of six hopefully turns into ten out of twelve) in the CURRENT construct is a key part of proving we are head and shoulders above those four and that should be recognized in the NEXT construct.

P6 and repeatedly taking the NY6 slot are perfectly congruous.

I didn't see the P6 marketing having a positive impact on AAC bowl negotiations.

If the AAC was on the verge of an auto slot for itself one would think it could have snagged a bowl for itself against a #2/#3 in the interim. Nothing remotely close to that happened.

Yes Aresco did a bad job with the bowl negotiations. I think it might be partly because we're the most poach-able conference, if there's conference expansion it's most likely AAC teams getting the invite, so the bowls want to make sure our current top programs are what they're getting.

But the goal for P6 is and always has been the next CFP contract. It will inevitably expand and the P6 campaign is about showing that the AAC belongs in that group instead of the G4 when that contract is drawn up.

The poach-able excuse was used on the AAC during the firs CFP negotiations, TV and bowls.

The fact is the AAC was going into the latest round of bowl negotiations in a much more stable and proven place yet didn't come away with any higher tier bowls.

The CFP will expand I agree with that. Let's say a 5-2-1 is offered. Its an upgrade over the access bowl. It raises the quality bar for the G5's representative. But I can't see the AAC having an autobid making it a 6-1-1.

(03-03-2020 08:14 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  As long as we feel like we have to have our best team go to the access bowl we should have our best teams play a g5 Playoff yes and create our own bowls
If only we can get a network to gamble some money on our REAL playoff system instead of that other committee driven predetermined wannabe playoff crap fans would rather watch us instead
If we get to that point then a collegiate Super Bowl between the two FBS leagues would most certainly have to be played
I never watch A5 football games anymore, hmmm mybe 4or 5 years now
If I was a big billionaire, not a stanarded issue billionaire, I would start my own sports network and I would make an offer the g5 conferences could not refuse

Well, big billionaires can afford to squander hundreds of millions on a fantasy whim (e.g. Mike Bloomberg for President) but others can't afford to, and a G5 playoff has very little natural value.

I agree that the cfp will expand but totally with out any g5 teams and when that happens what then for the g5 conferences?

(03-03-2020 08:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 08:14 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  As long as we feel like we have to have our best team go to the access bowl we should have our best teams play a g5 Playoff yes and create our own bowls
If only we can get a network to gamble some money on our REAL playoff system instead of that other committee driven predetermined wannabe playoff crap fans would rather watch us instead
If we get to that point then a collegiate Super Bowl between the two FBS leagues would most certainly have to be played
I never watch A5 football games anymore, hmmm mybe 4or 5 years now
If I was a big billionaire, not a stanarded issue billionaire, I would start my own sports network and I would make an offer the g5 conferences could not refuse

Well, big billionaires can afford to squander hundreds of millions on a fantasy whim (e.g. Mike Bloomberg for President) but others can't afford to, and a G5 playoff has very little natural value.

It totally has a lot of “ natural value “, what a lousy attitude to have and it is your opinion only of course

(03-03-2020 08:28 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:06 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:02 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 10:14 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 09:20 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Note that you can well be "that's OUR Access Bowl spot" ...

... and you can also be "We AREN'T in 'the Group'", ...

... but you can't be both at once, since the Access Spot is the spot for the highest rated champion from the Group.

So be our guest, leave the Group behind. Just remember it also means leaving behind the Access Bowl spot that goes to a member of the Group.

Here's why you are wrong:
"P6" is about 2026 and the next iteration of the CFP.
"P6" isnt saying "Get us out of this "Group of 5" immediately!" It is saying "Don't press the easy button and lump us with those other four because we were at our nadir in conference perception when the current structure was established. If you judge the AAC and members on our merits on- and off-field, you will see that there is a solid case to be made that we have very little in common with those other four conferences; include us in the upper tier in the next CFP restructure."

In that sense taking the non-contract-bowl-conference NY6 slot year after year after year (four out of six hopefully turns into ten out of twelve) in the CURRENT construct is a key part of proving we are head and shoulders above those four and that should be recognized in the NEXT construct.

P6 and repeatedly taking the NY6 slot are perfectly congruous.

I didn't see the P6 marketing having a positive impact on AAC bowl negotiations.

If the AAC was on the verge of an auto slot for itself one would think it could have snagged a bowl for itself against a #2/#3 in the interim. Nothing remotely close to that happened.

Yes Aresco did a bad job with the bowl negotiations. I think it might be partly because we're the most poach-able conference, if there's conference expansion it's most likely AAC teams getting the invite, so the bowls want to make sure our current top programs are what they're getting.

But the goal for P6 is and always has been the next CFP contract. It will inevitably expand and the P6 campaign is about showing that the AAC belongs in that group instead of the G4 when that contract is drawn up.

The poach-able excuse was used on the AAC during the firs CFP negotiations, TV and bowls.

The fact is the AAC was going into the latest round of bowl negotiations in a much more stable and proven place yet didn't come away with any higher tier bowls.

The CFP will expand I agree with that. Let's say a 5-2-1 is offered. Its an upgrade over the access bowl. It raises the quality bar for the G5's representative. But I can't see the AAC having an autobid making it a 6-1-1.

6-2 expansion and a G4 playoff.

(03-03-2020 08:46 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 08:28 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:06 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:02 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 10:14 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Here's why you are wrong:
"P6" is about 2026 and the next iteration of the CFP.
"P6" isnt saying "Get us out of this "Group of 5" immediately!" It is saying "Don't press the easy button and lump us with those other four because we were at our nadir in conference perception when the current structure was established. If you judge the AAC and members on our merits on- and off-field, you will see that there is a solid case to be made that we have very little in common with those other four conferences; include us in the upper tier in the next CFP restructure."

In that sense taking the non-contract-bowl-conference NY6 slot year after year after year (four out of six hopefully turns into ten out of twelve) in the CURRENT construct is a key part of proving we are head and shoulders above those four and that should be recognized in the NEXT construct.

P6 and repeatedly taking the NY6 slot are perfectly congruous.

I didn't see the P6 marketing having a positive impact on AAC bowl negotiations.

If the AAC was on the verge of an auto slot for itself one would think it could have snagged a bowl for itself against a #2/#3 in the interim. Nothing remotely close to that happened.

Yes Aresco did a bad job with the bowl negotiations. I think it might be partly because we're the most poach-able conference, if there's conference expansion it's most likely AAC teams getting the invite, so the bowls want to make sure our current top programs are what they're getting.

But the goal for P6 is and always has been the next CFP contract. It will inevitably expand and the P6 campaign is about showing that the AAC belongs in that group instead of the G4 when that contract is drawn up.

The poach-able excuse was used on the AAC during the firs CFP negotiations, TV and bowls.

The fact is the AAC was going into the latest round of bowl negotiations in a much more stable and proven place yet didn't come away with any higher tier bowls.

The CFP will expand I agree with that. Let's say a 5-2-1 is offered. Its an upgrade over the access bowl. It raises the quality bar for the G5's representative. But I can't see the AAC having an autobid making it a 6-1-1.

6-2 expansion and a G4 playoff.

CFP champion vs. Colley Matrix champion, winner take all

The AAC had momentum with UCF having back to back undefeated seasons right before negotiating its next round of bowl games.

Houston also had an impressive run for a couple of years.

Its getting more competitive for the AAC now that all those new CUSA/SBC programs have been around for a while building FBS level depth. What if one of those becomes the next Boise St? Appalachian St appears to be headed there.

I believe a lot of the higher salaries paid in the AAC are about the idea of impressing for a P5 opportunity. If it doesn't happen with the next 10 years they'll be under pressure to get salaries more in line with the G5.

(03-03-2020 08:43 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 08:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 08:14 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  As long as we feel like we have to have our best team go to the access bowl we should have our best teams play a g5 Playoff yes and create our own bowls
If only we can get a network to gamble some money on our REAL playoff system instead of that other committee driven predetermined wannabe playoff crap fans would rather watch us instead
If we get to that point then a collegiate Super Bowl between the two FBS leagues would most certainly have to be played
I never watch A5 football games anymore, hmmm mybe 4or 5 years now
If I was a big billionaire, not a stanarded issue billionaire, I would start my own sports network and I would make an offer the g5 conferences could not refuse

Well, big billionaires can afford to squander hundreds of millions on a fantasy whim (e.g. Mike Bloomberg for President) but others can't afford to, and a G5 playoff has very little natural value.

It totally has a lot of “ natural value “, what a lousy attitude to have and it is your opinion only of course

It's only your opinion that it has lots of natural value and you have zero evidence for that opinion.

Gosh lee you need evidence, my evidence is the g5 is FBS college football
Negative Nancy you are

(03-04-2020 02:24 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Gosh lee you need evidence, my evidence is the g5 is FBS college football
Negative Nancy you are

Just because something is "FBS college football" doesn't make it valuable. Why do you think so many G5 football programs are drowning in red ink and need huge student fees and transfers to stay in business?

Michigan got about $55m from the B1G last year. That's more money than the entire Sun Belt and CUSA received, all those schools put together. There are many extremely low-value FBS schools and conferences.

(03-03-2020 08:48 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  CFP champion vs. Colley Matrix champion, winner take all

This year's final Colley Matrix had App State and Memphis ranked ahead of Alabama.