(06-14-2021 10:15 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:03 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:00 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:49 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:47 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  That’s objectively false for majority of the schools you listed.

Purdue draws 54k.
Indiana draws 41k.
Pitt draws 43k.
Baylor draws 45k.

Have you ever been to any of those stadiums? If they ever have anywhere close to those numbers then the people dress up as seats. And as far as I was referring, those schools are "power" only because they've been in the old boys club for so long. Outside of Baylor none of the others have truly performed at "power" status.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I’ve been to several games at Purdue and Indiana, including 4 each since 2017. Those include a sellout at both places where each seat was legitimately filled, so your use of “if they ever have anywhere close to those numbers then the people dress up as seats” is false, hyperbolic, and agenda-driven to put down other schools.

I've been to Purdue and Pittsburgh, neither were anywhere close to sellouts. Indiana, outside of the last several years, was only sold out when Ohio State, Michigan, or Penn State played in Bloomington.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Here’s pics from my seat of Northwestern @ Purdue 2018.

Here’s pics from my seat of Michigan St @ Indiana 2018.

Also attended recent sellouts at both stadiums (2017 Ohio St @ Indiana, 2017 Michigan @ Purdue), but posted pictures from games against Northwestern and Michigan St instead to show Purdue and Indiana are not schools with “little to no football fans” or “if they ever have anywhere close to those numbers then the people dress up as seats“.

(06-14-2021 09:31 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 04:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I came across a link.

College Football News: 5 year FBS attendance averages, from 2019

And my hypothesis was that the AAC plus BYU wouldn't measure up to the P5 conferences.

Another hypothesis is that P5 programs are defined less by their bottom feeders than by whether they have programs that can fill 100,000 seat stadiums. That hypothesis didn't do as well.

I picked top 10, top 25, top 50 to see what I would see.

Big Ten: 4 in the top 10, 7 in the top 25, 9 in the top 50
SEC: 5 in the top 10, 9 in the top 25, 13 in the top 50
Big 12: 1 in the top 10, 2 in top 25, 9 in the top 50
ACC: 3 in the top 25, 8 in the top 50
PAC: 3 in the top 25, 9 in the top 50
AAC plus BYU: 1 in the top 50 (BYU).

I also looked up the configurations of the Big East Football Conference

Old Big East (Miami Edition): 1 in top 25, 4 in top 50
Old Big East (Louisville Edition): 3 in top 50
New Big East (Boise State Edition): 2 in top 50. (3 if they had ever gotten BYU to sing on as #14)

The 100,000 mark basically limits you to the top 10 (a little less, actually). You can be a power conference without anybody filling a 100,000 seat stadium--otherwise it's just the B1G, the SEC and Texas. But you have to have a lot of schools putting 40-50,000 in the stands. Which BYU does, but the AAC doesn't. (ECU barely averaged 40,000.)

I dont necessarily disagree with that. I do think it is possible that AAC+BYU--or perhaps even Boise (or both) begins to get into an area where they start to look an awful lot like a Big East quality "power conference" post Miami raid. Its definitely not Big10 or SEC with 100K seat stadium anchor schools. But it definitely not a G5. Such a combo would be a significant league with substantial fan interest (especially in a potential 6-6 playoff format era)---which would make it not unlike the Big East in its later years.

One thing relavant to this conversation that I thought was worth noting. Tucked inside the "Automous Letter" Aresco recently sent the A5 schools requesting inclusion was the claim that the AAC would qualify as an AQ conference under the old BCS requirements that defined who was and who was not a AQ conference. I thought that was a pretty interesting tidbit when it comes to P5 arguments. Those requirements were actual written parameters (approved by the power conferences) for what would have mandated inclusion to the "P5" of that era.

The AAC will be the scrapiest of the little brothers, but they will still be a little brother. P5 is like an Oklahoma/Oregon/Michigan/Kansas while the G5 conferences are like Oklahoma St/Oregon St/Michigan St/Kansas St. They will rise up every now and then, but in the long run, they will still have little brother syndrome.

My sense is the AAC is neither fish nor fowl. It is a tweener league. It’s kinda stuck in the middle in its own tier. Thus, if you have something stuck in the middle of two tiers, it’s probably just as appropriate to group it with one of the two tiers as the other. Essentially, the AAC simply has a preference as to which group they would prefer to be grouped with. That said, if push came to shove, I suspect the AAC, would find it more acceptable to be grouped with neither the P5 or the G4 (occupying a middle tier of 1) if the only other option was to be grouped with the G4.

I think it’s going to be very interesting to see how the financial aspect of the new CFP proposal plays out. I have a feeling that the proposal will be similar to the old system in terms of monetary split between the G5 and P5—-But I think the AAC payout will no longer be part of a group payout with the rest of the G5.

(06-14-2021 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:31 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 04:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I came across a link.

College Football News: 5 year FBS attendance averages, from 2019

And my hypothesis was that the AAC plus BYU wouldn't measure up to the P5 conferences.

Another hypothesis is that P5 programs are defined less by their bottom feeders than by whether they have programs that can fill 100,000 seat stadiums. That hypothesis didn't do as well.

I picked top 10, top 25, top 50 to see what I would see.

Big Ten: 4 in the top 10, 7 in the top 25, 9 in the top 50
SEC: 5 in the top 10, 9 in the top 25, 13 in the top 50
Big 12: 1 in the top 10, 2 in top 25, 9 in the top 50
ACC: 3 in the top 25, 8 in the top 50
PAC: 3 in the top 25, 9 in the top 50
AAC plus BYU: 1 in the top 50 (BYU).

I also looked up the configurations of the Big East Football Conference

Old Big East (Miami Edition): 1 in top 25, 4 in top 50
Old Big East (Louisville Edition): 3 in top 50
New Big East (Boise State Edition): 2 in top 50. (3 if they had ever gotten BYU to sing on as #14)

The 100,000 mark basically limits you to the top 10 (a little less, actually). You can be a power conference without anybody filling a 100,000 seat stadium--otherwise it's just the B1G, the SEC and Texas. But you have to have a lot of schools putting 40-50,000 in the stands. Which BYU does, but the AAC doesn't. (ECU barely averaged 40,000.)

I dont necessarily disagree with that. I do think it is possible that AAC+BYU--or perhaps even Boise (or both) begins to get into an area where they start to look an awful lot like a Big East quality "power conference" post Miami raid. Its definitely not Big10 or SEC with 100K seat stadium anchor schools. But it definitely not a G5. Such a combo would be a significant league with substantial fan interest (especially in a potential 6-6 playoff format era)---which would make it not unlike the Big East in its later years.

One thing relavant to this conversation that I thought was worth noting. Tucked inside the "Automous Letter" Aresco recently sent the A5 schools requesting inclusion was the claim that the AAC would qualify as an AQ conference under the old BCS requirements that defined who was and who was not a AQ conference. I thought that was a pretty interesting tidbit when it comes to P5 arguments. Those requirements were actual written parameters (approved by the power conferences) for what would have mandated inclusion to the "P5" of that era.

The AAC will be the scrapiest of the little brothers, but they will still be a little brother. P5 is like an Oklahoma/Oregon/Michigan/Kansas while the G5 conferences are like Oklahoma St/Oregon St/Michigan St/Kansas St. They will rise up every now and then, but in the long run, they will still have little brother syndrome.

My sense is the AAC is neither fish nor fowl. It is a tweener league. It’s kinda stuck in the middle in its own tier. Thus, if you have something stuck in the middle of two tiers, it’s probably just as appropriate to group it with one of the two tiers as the other. Essentially, the AAC simply has a preference as to which group they would prefer to be grouped with. That said, if push came to shove, I suspect the AAC, would find it more acceptable to be grouped with neither the P5 or the G4 (occupying a middle tier of 1) if the only other option was to be grouped with the G4.

I think it’s going to be very interesting to see how the financial aspect of the new CFP proposal plays out. I have a feeling that the proposal will be similar to the old system in terms of monetary split between the G5 and P5—-But I think the AAC payout will no longer be part of a group payout with the rest of the G5.

IMO, the AAC is a tweener league, but more in the sense that say Salt Lake City is "between" San Francisco and New York. Yes, it's between them, but clearly closer to San Francisco (the G5). To me this is true in both a brand sense (as evidenced by media and bowl deals) and performance on the field (the AAC has finished behind other G5 in multiple years, has only barely pipped one P5 in one year.

So if we have to group the AAC, the G5 is objectively much more appropriate than the P5, though of course it is obvious why the AAC wants to be grouped with the P5.

(06-14-2021 10:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:31 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 04:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I came across a link.

College Football News: 5 year FBS attendance averages, from 2019

And my hypothesis was that the AAC plus BYU wouldn't measure up to the P5 conferences.

Another hypothesis is that P5 programs are defined less by their bottom feeders than by whether they have programs that can fill 100,000 seat stadiums. That hypothesis didn't do as well.

I picked top 10, top 25, top 50 to see what I would see.

Big Ten: 4 in the top 10, 7 in the top 25, 9 in the top 50
SEC: 5 in the top 10, 9 in the top 25, 13 in the top 50
Big 12: 1 in the top 10, 2 in top 25, 9 in the top 50
ACC: 3 in the top 25, 8 in the top 50
PAC: 3 in the top 25, 9 in the top 50
AAC plus BYU: 1 in the top 50 (BYU).

I also looked up the configurations of the Big East Football Conference

Old Big East (Miami Edition): 1 in top 25, 4 in top 50
Old Big East (Louisville Edition): 3 in top 50
New Big East (Boise State Edition): 2 in top 50. (3 if they had ever gotten BYU to sing on as #14)

The 100,000 mark basically limits you to the top 10 (a little less, actually). You can be a power conference without anybody filling a 100,000 seat stadium--otherwise it's just the B1G, the SEC and Texas. But you have to have a lot of schools putting 40-50,000 in the stands. Which BYU does, but the AAC doesn't. (ECU barely averaged 40,000.)

I dont necessarily disagree with that. I do think it is possible that AAC+BYU--or perhaps even Boise (or both) begins to get into an area where they start to look an awful lot like a Big East quality "power conference" post Miami raid. Its definitely not Big10 or SEC with 100K seat stadium anchor schools. But it definitely not a G5. Such a combo would be a significant league with substantial fan interest (especially in a potential 6-6 playoff format era)---which would make it not unlike the Big East in its later years.

One thing relavant to this conversation that I thought was worth noting. Tucked inside the "Automous Letter" Aresco recently sent the A5 schools requesting inclusion was the claim that the AAC would qualify as an AQ conference under the old BCS requirements that defined who was and who was not a AQ conference. I thought that was a pretty interesting tidbit when it comes to P5 arguments. Those requirements were actual written parameters (approved by the power conferences) for what would have mandated inclusion to the "P5" of that era.

The AAC will be the scrapiest of the little brothers, but they will still be a little brother. P5 is like an Oklahoma/Oregon/Michigan/Kansas while the G5 conferences are like Oklahoma St/Oregon St/Michigan St/Kansas St. They will rise up every now and then, but in the long run, they will still have little brother syndrome.

My sense is the AAC is neither fish nor fowl. It is a tweener league. It’s kinda stuck in the middle in its own tier. Thus, if you have something stuck in the middle of two tiers, it’s probably just as appropriate to group it with one of the two tiers as the other. Essentially, the AAC simply has a preference as to which group they would prefer to be grouped with. That said, if push came to shove, I suspect the AAC, would find it more acceptable to be grouped with neither the P5 or the G4 (occupying a middle tier of 1) if the only other option was to be grouped with the G4.

I think it’s going to be very interesting to see how the financial aspect of the new CFP proposal plays out. I have a feeling that the proposal will be similar to the old system in terms of monetary split between the G5 and P5—-But I think the AAC payout will no longer be part of a group payout with the rest of the G5.

IMO, the AAC is a tweener league, but more in the sense that say Salt Lake City is "between" San Francisco and New York. Yes, it's between them, but clearly closer to San Francisco (the G5). To me this is true in both a brand sense (as evidenced by media and bowl deals) and performance on the field (the AAC has finished behind other G5 in multiple years, has only barely pipped one P5 in one year.

So if we have to group the AAC, the G5 is objectively much more appropriate than the P5, though of course it is obvious why the AAC wants to be grouped with the P5.

I think if your read Aresco's letter, you may still believe they are not P5---its really hard to make a case they belong in the G5 anymore. They really arent even that close financially. In terms of media earnings---The AAC makes twice what the MW makes, 7 times what the MAC makes, and almost 18 times what the Sunbelt and CUSA make. The Pac12 makes about 3 times what the AAC makes in terms of media payout. The AAC really is in no man's land---well ahead the G4 and well behind the P5.

I like to consider myself as "militantly objective" as possible regarding my thoughts about sports, politics, music, religion, film, cities, juggling (had to throw that one in there), etc. Some of that is the journalist in me. And some of it is upbringing courtesy of my very open-minded and thoughtful elderly parents.

I have made countless posts on this board regarding my passion for Cincinnati and Memphis athletics (and I've also been very respectful and complimentary of the AAC). The American has done a fine job overall in multiple areas and continues to create some separation from the other four G5 members. I do not take it as an insult for the AAC to be a "G5." I consider both Cincy and Memphis as "major" college football programs (with "high major" basketball programs). But I'm not stupid. Comparing the AAC football programs collectively to those of the P5 (which are primarily massive state universities with huge fan bases and lots of money) simply makes no sense.

As noted "power" in football is overwhelmingly about resources and not results.

Hoops is different. It's more so about results. The Big East, I feel, is a power league because every one of its programs is (at the least) of major/high-major caliber (with UConn and Nova being bluebloods).

If, hypothetically, Memphis, Cincinnati, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Temple and Wichita left the AAC and aligned with VCU, BYU, Saint Louis, Dayton and Gonzaga ...bingo, that's a new 12-team "power" men's hoops league. But that's not going to happen.

I think you might describe the AAC as a collection of bottom-half P5 schools linked together in a conference that lacks the 2-4 high profile programs that pull in the tv revenue.

With a few exceptions (probably Tulsa and Tulane) I think most AAC schools would be decent middle of the pack schools in a P5 league.

I really don’t think anyone would notice if you swapped out anyone in the Big 12 not named Texas or Oklahoma with Houston, Memphis, or even SMU. I think the same goes with the ACC and Temple, ECU, UCF, USF, or Cincinnati.

They have the fabric to be a P5, they’re just missing the tent poles.

(06-14-2021 11:41 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:31 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont necessarily disagree with that. I do think it is possible that AAC+BYU--or perhaps even Boise (or both) begins to get into an area where they start to look an awful lot like a Big East quality "power conference" post Miami raid. Its definitely not Big10 or SEC with 100K seat stadium anchor schools. But it definitely not a G5. Such a combo would be a significant league with substantial fan interest (especially in a potential 6-6 playoff format era)---which would make it not unlike the Big East in its later years.

One thing relavant to this conversation that I thought was worth noting. Tucked inside the "Automous Letter" Aresco recently sent the A5 schools requesting inclusion was the claim that the AAC would qualify as an AQ conference under the old BCS requirements that defined who was and who was not a AQ conference. I thought that was a pretty interesting tidbit when it comes to P5 arguments. Those requirements were actual written parameters (approved by the power conferences) for what would have mandated inclusion to the "P5" of that era.

The AAC will be the scrapiest of the little brothers, but they will still be a little brother. P5 is like an Oklahoma/Oregon/Michigan/Kansas while the G5 conferences are like Oklahoma St/Oregon St/Michigan St/Kansas St. They will rise up every now and then, but in the long run, they will still have little brother syndrome.

My sense is the AAC is neither fish nor fowl. It is a tweener league. It’s kinda stuck in the middle in its own tier. Thus, if you have something stuck in the middle of two tiers, it’s probably just as appropriate to group it with one of the two tiers as the other. Essentially, the AAC simply has a preference as to which group they would prefer to be grouped with. That said, if push came to shove, I suspect the AAC, would find it more acceptable to be grouped with neither the P5 or the G4 (occupying a middle tier of 1) if the only other option was to be grouped with the G4.

I think it’s going to be very interesting to see how the financial aspect of the new CFP proposal plays out. I have a feeling that the proposal will be similar to the old system in terms of monetary split between the G5 and P5—-But I think the AAC payout will no longer be part of a group payout with the rest of the G5.

IMO, the AAC is a tweener league, but more in the sense that say Salt Lake City is "between" San Francisco and New York. Yes, it's between them, but clearly closer to San Francisco (the G5). To me this is true in both a brand sense (as evidenced by media and bowl deals) and performance on the field (the AAC has finished behind other G5 in multiple years, has only barely pipped one P5 in one year.

So if we have to group the AAC, the G5 is objectively much more appropriate than the P5, though of course it is obvious why the AAC wants to be grouped with the P5.

I think if your read Aresco's letter, you may still believe they are not P5---its really hard to make a case they belong in the G5 anymore. They really arent even that close financially. In terms of media earnings---The AAC makes twice what the MW makes, 7 times what the MAC makes, and almost 18 times what the Sunbelt and CUSA make. The Pac12 makes about 3 times what the AAC makes in terms of media payout. The AAC really is in no man's land---well ahead the G4 and well behind the P5.

I did read the letter. IMO there are two factors that determine "power" or "group" status. As "bill dazzle" notes in this thread, that status is essentially determined by brand value. There is also the "moral factor" of performance. And IMO, the AAC is much closer to the G5 than the P5.

Regarding brand value, the proportional argument doesn't make sense to me because it ignores raw gross numbers. For example, let's say you make $1 million a year, I make $1000 a year and some person Z makes 50 cents a year. Someone who likes proportions could argue that I was a true tweener between you and person Z, because while you make 1000 times more than me, I make 2000 times more than person Z. But obviously, whether someone is making a thousand bucks a year or 50 cents a year, they are both "poor", and you at a million bucks a year are rich. To me, I would in no way shape or form be in no man's land between you and Z, I would be huddled with Z in a homeless shelter while you are driving from your McMansion to your beach house in your 2021 Corvette Z06.

Yes, this is an extreme example, but I think it makes the point - IMO, the AAC's $10 million distribution is far closer in terms of practical college athletic "living standards" to the MW's $5 million, and even CUSA's $1 million, than it is to the PAC's $34 million. And that's with the AAC on a brand new deal, while the PAC is still earning from a 2011 deal that will soon be upgraded.

And sadly, the AAC bowl deals, also arrived at recently, is very much a G5 bowl deal. So to me, we have very recent brand value evidence, in the form of the 2019-2020 bowl and media deals, that while the AAC is clearly above the other Gs, it is still clearly much close to the Gs than the Ps, so that if it has to be included in one or the other, it would be with the Gs, not with the Ps.

As for performance, IMO the tip is when the AAC actually bothers to mention Houston's Final Four appearance this year, the AAC's only such appearance of the last six years, and that last prior appearance was by a team that is no longer in the AAC.

Football is not that much better. The AAC did have a monster 2019 in which it performed a smidge better than the ACC. But, that was as much a function of how awful the ACC was as how good the AAC was. The AAC and ACC both had a MC rating of 60, the next-closest P5 was 11 spots better than that at 49, the next-closest G was the MW at 74, so it was at least as fair to say that the ACC performed like a G/tweener than to say the AAC performed like a P. In 2018, the AAC wasn't even the best G5, and truth be told, we probably weren't the best G5 this past year either, the SBC was. We probably benefitted in the MC from computers that backfilled using last year's data due to lack of interconnections in the truncated virus season.

So IMO, while it is clear that the AAC is the best of the Gs, it is by no means anywhere near the Ps, so if I was a P, I would not be inclined to include the AAC among us.

Thus I stand by my SF - SLC - NY analogy, FWIW, admittedly not much as nobody in "power" is asking for my opinion, LOL.

I'm enjoying reading the posts withing this thread. Folks are keeping it fair and reasonable, and with a cordial tone.

How the media, casual fans and we hard-core fans use terms such as "mid-major," "major," "high-major" and "power" is a topic that continues to fascinate me.

Lots of varying views on this board regarding that topic. But it seems many of us are on the same page more so than we perhaps realize.

(06-14-2021 01:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think you might describe the AAC as a collection of bottom-half P5 schools linked together in a conference that lacks the 2-4 high profile programs that pull in the tv revenue.

With a few exceptions (probably Tulsa and Tulane) I think most AAC schools would be decent middle of the pack schools in a P5 league.

I really don’t think anyone would notice if you swapped out anyone in the Big 12 not named Texas or Oklahoma with Houston, Memphis, or even SMU. I think the same goes with the ACC and Temple, ECU, UCF, USF, or Cincinnati.

They have the fabric to be a P5, they’re just missing the tent poles.

This captures my perspective. Even with BYU, Boise, and SDSU, the 2019 CFB attendance data tell a similar story:

PAC 12
AVG = 45.4K
Median = 44.5K
High = 68K
Low = 28K

ACC
AVG = 47K
Median = 48K
High = 80K
Low = 25K

AAC+ (plus BYU, Boise, SDSU)
AVG = 32K
Median = 32K
High = 59K
Low = 18K


PAC 12
Washington 68K
USC - 59K
Oregon - 53K
ASU - 49K
Colorado 49K
Utah - 46K
UCLA - 43K
Cal - 42K
Arizona - 39K
Stanford - 37K
OSU - 32K
Washington St. - 28K

ACC
Clemson - 80k
Virginia Tech - 58K
NC State - 56K
FSU - 54K
Miami - 52K
UNC - 50K
Louisville - 49K
Virginia - 47K
Georgia Tech - 44K
Pitt- 43K
Syracuse - 42K
BC - 34K
Wake - 27K
Duke - 25K

AAC+
BYU - 59K
UCF - 43K
Memphis - 38K
Cincinnati - 36K
ECU - 33K
Boise State - 32K
Navy 32K
USF - 32K
SDSU - 29K
Temple - 29K
Houston - 25K
SMU - 23K
Tulane - 20K
Tulsa - 18K

(06-14-2021 01:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think you might describe the AAC as a collection of bottom-half P5 schools linked together in a conference that lacks the 2-4 high profile programs that pull in the tv revenue.

With a few exceptions (probably Tulsa and Tulane) I think most AAC schools would be decent middle of the pack schools in a P5 league.

I really don’t think anyone would notice if you swapped out anyone in the Big 12 not named Texas or Oklahoma with Houston, Memphis, or even SMU. I think the same goes with the ACC and Temple, ECU, UCF, USF, or Cincinnati.

They have the fabric to be a P5, they’re just missing the tent poles.

I think thats a pretty accurate summation.

(06-14-2021 01:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think you might describe the AAC as a collection of bottom-half P5 schools linked together in a conference that lacks the 2-4 high profile programs that pull in the tv revenue.

Or, as the old football Big East was reckoned in the days of the previous realignment of "Kings" and "Princes", a conference of Princes but no Kings.

If conferences were corporations, looking for investments that grow equity faster than debt, the AAC would have already been raided. Luckily for the AAC (if not the schools that would have received the invite), conferences are membership clubs, and a new pair of schools needs to raise the average revenue per incumbent school.

(06-14-2021 10:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But Triple A has an additional point, that the AAC could be a 'meat grinder', and that could hurt us, because for all the talk about SOS, the #1 factor in the committee's deliberations remains losses. An AAC champ with two or even one loss thanks to a 'meat grinder' conference schedule could very well be in peril vs an unbeaten Sun Belt champ.

And a good point that is. If I'm the AAC I'd be concerned that adding schools like Boise, BYU and SDSU (not that they would all agree to come) might only make it more likely that they have a two or three loss champion that costs them an access spot, while not improving the chances of doing better than a single opening road game in a 12 team CFP which you could have without those schools. The upside potential isn't nearly as good as the downside risk, IMO.

(06-14-2021 03:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But Triple A has an additional point, that the AAC could be a 'meat grinder', and that could hurt us, because for all the talk about SOS, the #1 factor in the committee's deliberations remains losses. An AAC champ with two or even one loss thanks to a 'meat grinder' conference schedule could very well be in peril vs an unbeaten Sun Belt champ.

And a good point that is. If I'm the AAC I'd be concerned that adding schools like Boise, BYU and SDSU (not that they would all agree to come) might only make it more likely that they have a two or three loss champion that costs them an access spot, while not improving the chances of doing better than a single opening road game in a 12 team CFP which you could have without those schools. The upside potential isn't nearly as good as the downside risk, IMO.

I think having minimal crossover between the 2 7-member divisions (just 1 or 2 games/yr) alleviates some of the meat grinder effect and gives you a good shot at a champ who is no worse than 11-2.

(06-14-2021 03:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But Triple A has an additional point, that the AAC could be a 'meat grinder', and that could hurt us, because for all the talk about SOS, the #1 factor in the committee's deliberations remains losses. An AAC champ with two or even one loss thanks to a 'meat grinder' conference schedule could very well be in peril vs an unbeaten Sun Belt champ.

And a good point that is. If I'm the AAC I'd be concerned that adding schools like Boise, BYU and SDSU (not that they would all agree to come) might only make it more likely that they have a two or three loss champion that costs them an access spot, while not improving the chances of doing better than a single opening road game in a 12 team CFP which you could have without those schools. The upside potential isn't nearly as good as the downside risk, IMO.

SOS is supposedly the #1 issue for the committee. Winning OOC games thus becomes the key for SOS. So, the meat grinder wont be an issue as long as your winning your key OOC games. If your not---then it probably doesnt matter how many losses your champ has as a conference champ from a league supplying a higher SOS will probably have a higher ranking. So, circling back---its good to have as many Boise's in your conference as possible because they will take care of business in OOC play.

(06-14-2021 02:35 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 01:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think you might describe the AAC as a collection of bottom-half P5 schools linked together in a conference that lacks the 2-4 high profile programs that pull in the tv revenue.

With a few exceptions (probably Tulsa and Tulane) I think most AAC schools would be decent middle of the pack schools in a P5 league.

I really don’t think anyone would notice if you swapped out anyone in the Big 12 not named Texas or Oklahoma with Houston, Memphis, or even SMU. I think the same goes with the ACC and Temple, ECU, UCF, USF, or Cincinnati.

They have the fabric to be a P5, they’re just missing the tent poles.

This captures my perspective. Even with BYU, Boise, and SDSU, the 2019 CFB attendance data tell a similar story:

PAC 12
AVG = 45.4K
Median = 44.5K
High = 68K
Low = 28K

ACC
AVG = 47K
Median = 48K
High = 80K
Low = 25K

AAC+ (plus BYU, Boise, SDSU)
AVG = 32K
Median = 32K
High = 59K
Low = 18K


PAC 12
Washington 68K
USC - 59K
Oregon - 53K
ASU - 49K
Colorado 49K
Utah - 46K
UCLA - 43K
Cal - 42K
Arizona - 39K
Stanford - 37K
OSU - 32K
Washington St. - 28K

ACC
Clemson - 80k
Virginia Tech - 58K
NC State - 56K
FSU - 54K
Miami - 52K
UNC - 50K
Louisville - 49K
Virginia - 47K
Georgia Tech - 44K
Pitt- 43K
Syracuse - 42K
BC - 34K
Wake - 27K
Duke - 25K

AAC+
BYU - 59K
UCF - 43K
Memphis - 38K
Cincinnati - 36K
ECU - 33K
Boise State - 32K
Navy 32K
USF - 32K
SDSU - 29K
Temple - 29K
Houston - 25K
SMU - 23K
Tulane - 20K
Tulsa - 18K

Miami, Florida cooks their books which I have seen half of their stadium far less than half full at times. Miami is not the power house in fan support for football for a long time. Florida, California and some parts of Texas is more in favor of soccer than football as culture changes.

(06-14-2021 04:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 03:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But Triple A has an additional point, that the AAC could be a 'meat grinder', and that could hurt us, because for all the talk about SOS, the #1 factor in the committee's deliberations remains losses. An AAC champ with two or even one loss thanks to a 'meat grinder' conference schedule could very well be in peril vs an unbeaten Sun Belt champ.

And a good point that is. If I'm the AAC I'd be concerned that adding schools like Boise, BYU and SDSU (not that they would all agree to come) might only make it more likely that they have a two or three loss champion that costs them an access spot, while not improving the chances of doing better than a single opening road game in a 12 team CFP which you could have without those schools. The upside potential isn't nearly as good as the downside risk, IMO.

SOS is supposedly the #1 issue for the committee. Winning OOC games thus becomes the key for SOS. So, the meat grinder wont be an issue as long as your winning your key OOC games. If your not---then it probably doesnt matter how many losses your champ has as a conference champ from a league supplying a higher SOS will probably have a higher ranking. So, circling back---its good to have as many Boise's in your conference as possible because they will take care of business in OOC play.

Yes, a team's SOS is just a direct function of the OOC games they play and win, and an indirect function of the OOC games their conference mates play and win. A conference that plays no OOC games, like the SEC and B1G last year, effectively has no SOS that can be compared with anyone else's. That's what made the ranking of the SEC and B1G teams in the CFP absurd last year. The committee was ranking them vs teams from other conferences purely based on reputation. There was literally nothing else objective to go on. Now of course, that doesn't mean their rankings weren't accurate, they probably were - especially in the case of the SEC, their bowl performance more than validated the lofty rankings. It's just that they weren't relying on anything objective to reach those ratings.

So particularly for the G5, OOC performance will be critical in determining who gets that sixth conference champ spot.

Tweener, mid-major, non-power, tallest midget……who cares. At the end of the day, no G5 is getting over $30 million a year per school, a guaranteed NY6 bowl spot, a seat at the table where decisions are made, endless free advertising during games, a CFP spot, secondary bowl tie-ins like the Gator, Sun, Alamo, Holiday, Texas, etc and a free pass when the conference is down. You can put lipstick on a pig all you want, at the end of the day it’s still a pig.

I can’t wait until football season starts.

(06-14-2021 07:09 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Tweener, mid-major, non-power, tallest midget……who cares. At the end of the day, no G5 is getting over $30 million a year per school, a guaranteed NY6 bowl spot, a seat at the table where decisions are made, endless free advertising during games, a CFP spot, secondary bowl tie-ins like the Gator, Sun, Alamo, Holiday, Texas, etc and a free pass when the conference is down. You can put lipstick on a pig all you want, at the end of the day it’s still a pig.

I can’t wait until football season starts.

lol....In a way---I kinda agree. If the 12 team playoff format gets approved---the whole P5-G5 thing is simply MUCH less important to me.

My biggest gripe with being stuck at G5 table was that the playoff was inaccessible. It didnt matter how many games you won or who you beat. In the new format---there is a legitimate path to playoffs from the AAC.

It kinda makes the whole P5-G5 thing much less of an issue. Sure, Id love to play Texas and Oklahoma every. Sure, Id love my school to be getting a 40 million dollar conference payout. But honestly---as long as my school can now make the playoff if we have a special year---then my biggest gripe about life outside of the traditional P5 is gone.

(06-14-2021 07:09 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Tweener, mid-major, non-power, tallest midget……who cares. At the end of the day, no G5 is getting over $30 million a year per school, a guaranteed NY6 bowl spot, a seat at the table where decisions are made, endless free advertising during games, a CFP spot, secondary bowl tie-ins like the Gator, Sun, Alamo, Holiday, Texas, etc and a free pass when the conference is down. You can put lipstick on a pig all you want, at the end of the day it’s still a pig.

Yeah, pretty much. I will believe that the AAC is not longer in the Group of Five when they are cashing a check straight from the CFP rather than a check based on the Go5 agreed system for splitting up the Go5's joint share.

Once the financial terms become public, it will be really simple. If the AAC negotiate on their own and get a bigger share than an even split of the other non Contract Bowl conferences, then they are a "tweener" conference. If they do even better and get the same base share as the current Contract Bowl conferences ... in a system where base share is big even to really matter ... then they have made their case and they are a power conference (even if least among equals).

And if the final result is that they are sharing rent in a group house, then they are still a "Group of" conference, even if they happen to have the best bedroom in the house.

Despite thousands of lines of text spilled in sports bulletin boards to the contrary, money talks and BS walks.

Quote: I can’t wait until football season starts.

Definitely.