(06-15-2021 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:48 PM)Maize Wrote:  The bottom line is no way the AAC adds Boise...and when the new CFP is approved-(Greg Sankey the Commissioner of the SEC & Jack Swarbrick the Notre Dame AD was on the committee that came up with the 12 School Model so it pretty much a done deal) the big winners along with the Big Ten & SEC is the AAC.

Next they will be pushing to make their current waiver permanent....

Im not sure why you think that. Boise would still be an excellent addition to the AAC. That said, if it takes adding a whole "western wing" to lure them---then no---I dont think that probably makes sense given the new proposed CFP format.

Now I see what you’re was talking bout with the conferences

https://twitter.com/petethamel/status/14...63746?s=21

(06-15-2021 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 03:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 01:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Ok, before we all start printing up banners and such about the AAC meeting the old BCS standards for an AQ conference, I googled up just exactly what those standards were.

There's a lot of complicated detail that I'm not 100% sure I follow without duplicatign the math, which even I'm not obsessive enough to do.

But the part I can follow pretty easily is that, to achieve AQ status, a non-AQ conference had to be top 6 by the metrics.

So the AAC can beat their chest that they're in the top 6 by pretty much any metric you can come up with, but----so what? We knew the AAC is No. 6. The question is, are they closer to #5 or #7? And waving around the old BCS rules that were designed to keep the Big East in and the Mountain West out don't move that needle.

https://www.espn.com/blog/ncfnation/post...ed-sort-of

Frankly---that doesnt really make sense either. The Big East didnt earn nearly as much as the other 5 power conferences and didnt typically outperform the other 5 in the rankings back in the BCS era. Given that the AAC is the smoking hulk of the old Big East---perhaps the best comparison would be---"How does the current AAC compare to the old Big East performance in their last few years?". If the AAC performance is on a par with the old Big East---Thats probably the most reasonable and fair basis by which Aresco could make the claim the AAC deserves "P6" status.

The Big East between 2005 - 2012 was much better relative to the other AQ conferences than the AAC is to the P5. For example, in 2009, the Big East was the #2 football conference in the MC, behind only the SEC. Now yes, the next year, in 2010, the Big East was #6, last place among the AQ. But in both 2011 and 2012 it was #5, ahead of the ACC.

Between 2005 - 2012, the Big East, according to the MC and before 2008 Sagarin (MC didn't report conference rankings until 2009) was only the worst AQ conference twice in those 8 years. It frequently finished ahead of at least one of the other AQ conferences.

The Big East, even the BE from 2005 on, was clearly a AQ-level conference on the football field. The AAC has never been close to being that.

I will counter somewhat, Quo.

I feel Big East football between 2005 and 2015 was — relative to the other AQ conferences than the AAC currently is to the P5 — "much better" (as you note) in some seasons and simply only "better" in the other seasons.

I would also add that although Big East football (and I followed it rather closely back then due to Cincinnati being a member) was an AQ-level league in results, it was not nearly as much so in resources compared to the more traditional power leagues with massive statewide fan bases and huge football budgets.

I'm not sure you're countering me at all, LOL. The second part of your post is basically identical to mine - the 2005+ Big East lacked brand value compared to the other AQ and thus had a much smaller media deal, though back then everyone's media deal was small so it didn't matter much. E.g., in 2007, the SEC distributed about $9 million to its schools, so just not much money by today's standards.

The first part is about the same too - the Big East ranged from much better to better than the AAC relative to the other power leagues.

I just added that if you look at that in-toto, it amounts to the Big East being clearly a power-level performer on the football field during that time, whereas the AAC never has been.

Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but I see you noted in your original post, Quo, the following:

The Big East between 2005 - 2012 was much better relative to the other AQ conferences than the AAC is to the P5.

In your reply to my post, you note this:

...the Big East ranged from much better to better than the AAC relative to the other power league.

If you had originally posted ranged from much better to better , I would not have offered the counter.

And though the Big East football money wasn't great back then (you are correct), the league was still an AQ and part of the BCS. And it greatly benefited from that. As such, the BE should have been better related to the other "power leagues" of that era than the AAC is related to the AQ leagues of today.

But even if the Big East were vastly better in relation to the big boy leagues of that time period compared to how good (or not so good) the AAC is compared to the P5 of today, there was still an unfair and misguided perception (and I recall this well living in SEC territory and rooting for Vanderbilt) that the Big East was hugely inferior to the "real" conferences and their massive fan bases and blueblood members.

So since the Big East of that time was perceived (by many) as inferior to the big boys, the fact that it was (relatively speaking) "better to much better" than the AAC is to the big boys of today is, well, ... not much to get excited about.

And as a long-time Cincinnati and Vanderbilt fan (and DePaul fan who recently debated fellow Nashvillians who feel the current Big East is not a power league) that is the cynic in me speaking.

Sorry for the negativity. I like both the Big East and the AAC, as I see them as "underdogs" to an extent. I do agree with you overall and continue to enjoy reading your posts.

(06-15-2021 03:01 PM)chidave Wrote:  They [Army] went 9-3, (1-2) AAC last year. 5-8 (0-1) in 2019, 11-2 (2-0) including hanging 70 on Houston in the bowl in 2018, and 10-3 (2-1) in 2017. I think they'd be just fine competitively, as long as Monken is there.

That being said they seem to be happy as an Indy.

Thing is, Army always has among the three lightest offensive lines in FBS college football, often the lightest, due to having to have offensive linemen that are able to march double time for an extended period of time through the country with a pack.

While with the right coaching their lines can compete with teams with substantially bigger lines, their experience when they were in the CUSA ... and today's AAC is an upgrade on that version of the CUSA ... was that over the season it wore them down. And last I saw figures, the AAC has the heaviest average lines in the Go5. Indeed, on the figures I say (which was several years ago), just on the size of the line, UCF would not look out of place in the Big Ten list.

Really, if Army was in a position that they felt they HAD to join a conference, my guess is the Sunbelt would be the best pick for them. But they don't, and they can get the national schedule they like much better as an independent than in any Go5 conference.

(06-16-2021 12:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 03:01 PM)chidave Wrote:  They [Army] went 9-3, (1-2) AAC last year. 5-8 (0-1) in 2019, 11-2 (2-0) including hanging 70 on Houston in the bowl in 2018, and 10-3 (2-1) in 2017. I think they'd be just fine competitively, as long as Monken is there.

That being said they seem to be happy as an Indy.

Thing is, Army always has among the three lightest offensive lines in FBS college football, often the lightest, due to having to have offensive linemen that are able to march double time for an extended period of time through the country with a pack.

While with the right coaching their lines can compete with teams with substantially bigger lines, their experience when they were in the CUSA ... and today's AAC is an upgrade on that version of the CUSA ... was that over the season it wore them down. And last I saw figures, the AAC has the heaviest average lines in the Go5. Indeed, on the figures I say (which was several years ago), just on the size of the line, UCF would not look out of place in the Big Ten list.

Really, if Army was in a position that they felt they HAD to join a conference, my guess is the Sunbelt would be the best pick for them. But they don't, and they can get the national schedule they like much better as an independent than in any Go5 conference.

I do think they believe they are better off hand picking a customized schedule that includes a few interesting challenges along with a few easier games to minimize the season long grinding attrition---works best for them. I like Army and I'd kinda hate for the AAC to be the reason they sucked. Frankly, I think Army would probably be just fine---but its irrelevant as they clearly arent interested or it would have happened by now. As I've said before---if our buffet of #12 options consists only of G5's and indy's (not including ND and Army of course) east of the Rockies---the AAC will likely be at 11 for some time. The only realignment news the AAC could possibly generate that makes any sense at all is VCU as a non-football addition (which I think would go along way toward shoring up a good deal of the actual damage the league suffered when UConn left).

From a competitive standpoint, the 2005-2013 (some might say 2012) Big East was every bit as strong as the other BCS leagues. Where they lagged was revenue and resources because they didn’t have any blue blood anchor schools to drive up the overall value of the league.

The ACC was the real problem. Conventional wisdom was that the the 2004 and 2005 adds would have elevated the league but in the 2005-2012 period the league’s best brands were all in slumps and the MWC was coming out ahead of them in the rankings.

You also had that awful Big Ten season where Ohio St and Penn St (both in the same division) were under bowl bans (to this day I’m still mad that Ohio St didn’t take a voluntary ban the year prior when they were 6-6 so the 12-0 team the next year would be eligible). They sent a 3rd place Wisconsin team to to Indy and they upset Nebraska.

Had their not been expansion among the BCS from 2010-2014 it would have been interesting to see what trajectory the MWC would have taken. Conventional wisdom says that right before the next BCS evaluation period they bring in Boise and maybe 2 others from the top of the WAC standings (Fresno & Nevada—or maybe Houston to keep TCU company). Would that have been enough to force open the club doors for the upstart league?

(06-15-2021 10:12 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 03:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 01:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Frankly---that doesnt really make sense either. The Big East didnt earn nearly as much as the other 5 power conferences and didnt typically outperform the other 5 in the rankings back in the BCS era. Given that the AAC is the smoking hulk of the old Big East---perhaps the best comparison would be---"How does the current AAC compare to the old Big East performance in their last few years?". If the AAC performance is on a par with the old Big East---Thats probably the most reasonable and fair basis by which Aresco could make the claim the AAC deserves "P6" status.

The Big East between 2005 - 2012 was much better relative to the other AQ conferences than the AAC is to the P5. For example, in 2009, the Big East was the #2 football conference in the MC, behind only the SEC. Now yes, the next year, in 2010, the Big East was #6, last place among the AQ. But in both 2011 and 2012 it was #5, ahead of the ACC.

Between 2005 - 2012, the Big East, according to the MC and before 2008 Sagarin (MC didn't report conference rankings until 2009) was only the worst AQ conference twice in those 8 years. It frequently finished ahead of at least one of the other AQ conferences.

The Big East, even the BE from 2005 on, was clearly a AQ-level conference on the football field. The AAC has never been close to being that.

I will counter somewhat, Quo.

I feel Big East football between 2005 and 2015 was — relative to the other AQ conferences than the AAC currently is to the P5 — "much better" (as you note) in some seasons and simply only "better" in the other seasons.

I would also add that although Big East football (and I followed it rather closely back then due to Cincinnati being a member) was an AQ-level league in results, it was not nearly as much so in resources compared to the more traditional power leagues with massive statewide fan bases and huge football budgets.

I'm not sure you're countering me at all, LOL. The second part of your post is basically identical to mine - the 2005+ Big East lacked brand value compared to the other AQ and thus had a much smaller media deal, though back then everyone's media deal was small so it didn't matter much. E.g., in 2007, the SEC distributed about $9 million to its schools, so just not much money by today's standards.

The first part is about the same too - the Big East ranged from much better to better than the AAC relative to the other power leagues.

I just added that if you look at that in-toto, it amounts to the Big East being clearly a power-level performer on the football field during that time, whereas the AAC never has been.

Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but I see you noted in your original post, Quo, the following:

The Big East between 2005 - 2012 was much better relative to the other AQ conferences than the AAC is to the P5.

In your reply to my post, you note this:

...the Big East ranged from much better to better than the AAC relative to the other power league.

If you had originally posted ranged from much better to better , I would not have offered the counter.

And though the Big East football money wasn't great back then (you are correct), the league was still an AQ and part of the BCS. And it greatly benefited from that. As such, the BE should have been better related to the other "power leagues" of that era than the AAC is related to the AQ leagues of today.

But even if the Big East were vastly better in relation to the big boy leagues of that time period compared to how good (or not so good) the AAC is compared to the P5 of today, there was still an unfair and misguided perception (and I recall this well living in SEC territory and rooting for Vanderbilt) that the Big East was hugely inferior to the "real" conferences and their massive fan bases and blueblood members.

So since the Big East of that time was perceived (by many) as inferior to the big boys, the fact that it was (relatively speaking) "better to much better" than the AAC is to the big boys of today is, well, ... not much to get excited about.

And as a long-time Cincinnati and Vanderbilt fan (and DePaul fan who recently debated fellow Nashvillians who feel the current Big East is not a power league) that is the cynic in me speaking.

Sorry for the negativity. I like both the Big East and the AAC, as I see them as "underdogs" to an extent. I do agree with you overall and continue to enjoy reading your posts.

Alright:

1) Point taken about the "range" thing. And I agree with your "range" description.

2) About the first bolded part: I agree that as an official AQ conference the Big East had an advantage that the AAC does not, such that we should expect the BE to have performed better than the AAC does today. But IMO that is kind of another issue. The other poster I originally responded to said that the relevant metric for the AAC's "P6" claim was how the current AAC compares to the Big East:

"How does the current AAC compare to the old Big East performance in their last few years?". If the AAC performance is on a par with the old Big East---Thats probably the most reasonable and fair basis by which Aresco could make the claim the AAC deserves "P6" status."

So that's why I responded the way I did, comparing the AAC to the Big East of the late-BCS period. Now, if you think there should be some kind of adjustment to the comparison based on AQ vs non-AQ status, then make that case. But I don't think that's called for, because the issue here is "is the AAC performing like a "P", not whether it is performing better than it should given that it is non-AQ or something. IIRC, that's the reality the WAC and MW faced in the late 2000s when they were making a case for AQ status, the standard was such that they were expected to be #6 on some criteria, meaning as good or better than at least one existing AQ conference, even though they had the handicap of not being AQ.

3) About the second bolded part: No question, despite their AQ-level performance on the field, the post-raids football** Big East of 2005-2012 was constantly disparaged as the "runt" of the AQ litter, and commentators from all over frequently called for their ouster from AQ status. That was the reality. The derogatory term "Big Least" appeared in the media pretty frequently.

To me, that does speak to a success of Aresco: Today, IMO the AAC has in no way shape or form - either in brand sense (as evidenced by recent media and bowl deals) or field performance sense - performed anywhere like a "power" conference, and yet Aresco has managed to create the impression at least in some media minds that it does merit some consideration as a "P".

In contrast, the Big East did perform like a "P" league on arguably the most merit-based metric, on field and on court performance, and yet the impression in the minds of fans and media nationwide back then was that it was a sorry excuse for an AQ league and should be dropped from that group.

The Big East of 2005+ was better on the field than it was at media relations and propaganda. The AAC under Aresco has arguably been the reverse. And in today's environment, impressions are often more important then 'reality'. Impressions can morph in to reality.


** the post-2005 basketball Big East had no such issue. It was feared and respected by all as maybe the best hoops conferences.

(06-16-2021 06:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, that does speak to a success of Aresco: Today, IMO the AAC has in no way shape or form - either in brand sense (as evidenced by recent media and bowl deals) or field performance sense - performed anywhere like a "power" conference, and yet Aresco has managed to create the impression at least in some media minds that it does merit some consideration as a "P".

Which ones? All google pulls up are articles reporting that the AAC P6 propaganda campaign exists, that the American WANTS to be considered a P6, helmet stickers, etc. I don't see any results that look like journalists opinioning "Yeah, they have a good point, hashtag P6wer"

(06-15-2021 08:48 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:48 PM)Maize Wrote:  The bottom line is no way the AAC adds Boise...and when the new CFP is approved-(Greg Sankey the Commissioner of the SEC & Jack Swarbrick the Notre Dame AD was on the committee that came up with the 12 School Model so it pretty much a done deal) the big winners along with the Big Ten & SEC is the AAC.

Next they will be pushing to make their current waiver permanent....

Im not sure why you think that. Boise would still be an excellent addition to the AAC. That said, if it takes adding a whole "western wing" to lure them---then no---I dont think that probably makes sense given the new proposed CFP format.

If you must take a 12th school ok with Boise...but as you said above...deregulation of how conferences decide their champions make it a moot point.

The current 11 school AAC is a very good league in the revenue sports. Build on what you currently have and just one less mouth to feed.

On a side note...UConn probably wishes they could change their mind. But that is now water under the bridge.

The Big 12 and SBC have done very well by having just 10 members to split money. The new CFP contract should do nothing but increase that financial benefit for both conferences.

(06-16-2021 07:48 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 06:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, that does speak to a success of Aresco: Today, IMO the AAC has in no way shape or form - either in brand sense (as evidenced by recent media and bowl deals) or field performance sense - performed anywhere like a "power" conference, and yet Aresco has managed to create the impression at least in some media minds that it does merit some consideration as a "P".

Which ones? All google pulls up are articles reporting that the AAC P6 propaganda campaign exists, that the American WANTS to be considered a P6, helmet stickers, etc. I don't see any results that look like journalists opinioning "Yeah, they have a good point, hashtag P6wer"

I think Quo meant some media have suggested (while perhaps not directly using the term "power") the AAC has characteristics of a "power league" in general (and not football specifically). He qualified by using "merit some consideration." Seems a reasonable way to frame it as related to "some media" (as QV again effectively qualifies).

(06-16-2021 06:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 10:12 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 03:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 01:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big East between 2005 - 2012 was much better relative to the other AQ conferences than the AAC is to the P5. For example, in 2009, the Big East was the #2 football conference in the MC, behind only the SEC. Now yes, the next year, in 2010, the Big East was #6, last place among the AQ. But in both 2011 and 2012 it was #5, ahead of the ACC.

Between 2005 - 2012, the Big East, according to the MC and before 2008 Sagarin (MC didn't report conference rankings until 2009) was only the worst AQ conference twice in those 8 years. It frequently finished ahead of at least one of the other AQ conferences.

The Big East, even the BE from 2005 on, was clearly a AQ-level conference on the football field. The AAC has never been close to being that.

I will counter somewhat, Quo.

I feel Big East football between 2005 and 2015 was — relative to the other AQ conferences than the AAC currently is to the P5 — "much better" (as you note) in some seasons and simply only "better" in the other seasons.

I would also add that although Big East football (and I followed it rather closely back then due to Cincinnati being a member) was an AQ-level league in results, it was not nearly as much so in resources compared to the more traditional power leagues with massive statewide fan bases and huge football budgets.

I'm not sure you're countering me at all, LOL. The second part of your post is basically identical to mine - the 2005+ Big East lacked brand value compared to the other AQ and thus had a much smaller media deal, though back then everyone's media deal was small so it didn't matter much. E.g., in 2007, the SEC distributed about $9 million to its schools, so just not much money by today's standards.

The first part is about the same too - the Big East ranged from much better to better than the AAC relative to the other power leagues.

I just added that if you look at that in-toto, it amounts to the Big East being clearly a power-level performer on the football field during that time, whereas the AAC never has been.

Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but I see you noted in your original post, Quo, the following:

The Big East between 2005 - 2012 was much better relative to the other AQ conferences than the AAC is to the P5.

In your reply to my post, you note this:

...the Big East ranged from much better to better than the AAC relative to the other power league.

If you had originally posted ranged from much better to better , I would not have offered the counter.

And though the Big East football money wasn't great back then (you are correct), the league was still an AQ and part of the BCS. And it greatly benefited from that. As such, the BE should have been better related to the other "power leagues" of that era than the AAC is related to the AQ leagues of today.

But even if the Big East were vastly better in relation to the big boy leagues of that time period compared to how good (or not so good) the AAC is compared to the P5 of today, there was still an unfair and misguided perception (and I recall this well living in SEC territory and rooting for Vanderbilt) that the Big East was hugely inferior to the "real" conferences and their massive fan bases and blueblood members.

So since the Big East of that time was perceived (by many) as inferior to the big boys, the fact that it was (relatively speaking) "better to much better" than the AAC is to the big boys of today is, well, ... not much to get excited about.

And as a long-time Cincinnati and Vanderbilt fan (and DePaul fan who recently debated fellow Nashvillians who feel the current Big East is not a power league) that is the cynic in me speaking.

Sorry for the negativity. I like both the Big East and the AAC, as I see them as "underdogs" to an extent. I do agree with you overall and continue to enjoy reading your posts.

Alright:

1) Point taken about the "range" thing. And I agree with your "range" description.

2) About the first bolded part: I agree that as an official AQ conference the Big East had an advantage that the AAC does not, such that we should expect the BE to have performed better than the AAC does today. But IMO that is kind of another issue. The other poster I originally responded to said that the relevant metric for the AAC's "P6" claim was how the current AAC compares to the Big East:

"How does the current AAC compare to the old Big East performance in their last few years?". If the AAC performance is on a par with the old Big East---Thats probably the most reasonable and fair basis by which Aresco could make the claim the AAC deserves "P6" status."

So that's why I responded the way I did, comparing the AAC to the Big East of the late-BCS period. Now, if you think there should be some kind of adjustment to the comparison based on AQ vs non-AQ status, then make that case. But I don't think that's called for, because the issue here is "is the AAC performing like a "P", not whether it is performing better than it should given that it is non-AQ or something. IIRC, that's the reality the WAC and MW faced in the late 2000s when they were making a case for AQ status, the standard was such that they were expected to be #6 on some criteria, meaning as good or better than at least one existing AQ conference, even though they had the handicap of not being AQ.

3) About the second bolded part: No question, despite their AQ-level performance on the field, the post-raids football** Big East of 2005-2012 was constantly disparaged as the "runt" of the AQ litter, and commentators from all over frequently called for their ouster from AQ status. That was the reality. The derogatory term "Big Least" appeared in the media pretty frequently.

To me, that does speak to a success of Aresco: Today, IMO the AAC has in no way shape or form - either in brand sense (as evidenced by recent media and bowl deals) or field performance sense - performed anywhere like a "power" conference, and yet Aresco has managed to create the impression at least in some media minds that it does merit some consideration as a "P".

In contrast, the Big East did perform like a "P" league on arguably the most merit-based metric, on field and on court performance, and yet the impression in the minds of fans and media nationwide back then was that it was a sorry excuse for an AQ league and should be dropped from that group.

The Big East of 2005+ was better on the field than it was at media relations and propaganda. The AAC under Aresco has arguably been the reverse. And in today's environment, impressions are often more important then 'reality'. Impressions can morph in to reality.


** the post-2005 basketball Big East had no such issue. It was feared and respected by all as maybe the best hoops conferences.

Excellent post. Agree overall. However, I might take slight exception to this comment:

"Today, IMO the AAC has in no way shape or form - either in brand sense (as evidenced by recent media and bowl deals) or field performance sense - performed anywhere like a "power" conference."

If I'm not mistaken, AAC football recently had three teams in the Top 25 (and another getting votes). For that specific time (albeit briefly), the league was "power-esque" in football.

But overall, I'm with you.