(09-21-2021 07:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 04:19 PM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:38 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  My answer to that question is "probably nothing, but I also think somebody else could have achieved the same, and for a lot lower salary".

IIRC, Aresco gets paid between $1.5m and $2m a year. IMO, we could have been getting the same results, in terms of TV deals and bowl contracts, for what the other G5 have been paying - e.g., the Sun Belt pays its commissioner about $600,000 a year. The MW pays its commissioner about the same, maybe a bit more.

IMO, the AAC commissioner, whoever he or she is, should be making no more than $750k a year. There just isn't a lot of room to add value for us. We are what we are, a G5 league.

Now, if he can convince the top MW teams - like Boise, SDSU and Air Force - to join us? IMO, he will be going above and beyond what is expected, and will merit the salary. But if it's just another case of "what else could he have done"?, then ....

I agree with a lot of that. If he pulls off the MWC teams he's absolutely worth what he's paid and the extension. If he adds the random collection of schools anyone else could have pulled off then it's hard to justify why you are paying him basically what P5 commissioners are paid. Now what I'll give him credit for is I think he made a choice on the first TV deal to maximize short term exposure over short term dollars that the MWC and C-USA didn't do and it was correct. The marketing value of those games was worth way more than another 1-2 million per team you maybe could have squeezed out of the deal.

Eh, I have a differing view of that. To summarize:

1) I'm not sure Aresco ever had any other option. That is, I'm not sure there ever was an alternative deal on the table whereby NBC was saying "we will give you more money to televise fewer of your games".

Which IMO is kind of a screwy concept to begin with. I mean, imagine going to a baker to buy donuts, and the baker says here are two deals: you can have 12 donuts for $5 or six donuts for $8. I think you'd look at him like he's crazy right? Or maybe ask, are those twelve donuts the same as the six, or are they four-day old moldy donuts? Because otherwise it's obvious the baker would want to sell fewer donuts for more dollars, and a buyer would want to buy more donuts for fewer dollars. We were a baker that sold more donuts (games) for fewer dollars, LOL.

Because if NBC was offering to pay $3m per school for 40 games (more money, less exposure) instead of a hypothetical $2m per school for 60 games (less money, more exposure), then it would seem to make sense that we would take the $3m deal, and then turn around and sell the games NBC doesn't want for even more money.

So I've never bought the "traded money for exposure" view. I've never seen documentation of it, and on its face it seems nonsensical to me. But maybe there are things I don't know about it?

2) If the issue is ESPN exposure, it bears noting that Aresco initally spurned ESPN during the exclusive negotiating window and then signed a deal with the fledgling NBCSN network. Now, ESPN did match the deal, and Aresco surely knew ESPN had the right to match it, but he could not have known they would match it. ESPN could have just not matched the offer and we would have been 'stuck' on NBCSN. If being with The Mothership was so important, that was an IMO risky way to go about doing it. Why couldn't we have just negotiated that same deal with ESPN to begin with? But maybe that's why I don't make the big commissioner bucks.

3) In any event "exposure" is a concept, like "cable markets" that IMO didn't age very well. It's a very 2012 kind of concept. Because nowadays, streaming has become a big thing, so basically everyone has 'exposure'. In 2012, there was a big deal made about being on a national cable channel, but Smart TVs soon came along as did streaming, and so now we have a 2020 deal that has a significant streaming component. In 2012, it was regarded as a big deal if your game was televised nationally at all. Now, just about every FBS game is available nationally, and the bragging is reduced to "well our game is on ESPNu while your game is on ESPN+!", as if it is harder for me to click the ESPN+ link on my Roku TV as the ESPNu link. Yeah, I know ratings are still higher on some channels than others, but it just isn't the thing it was in 2012.

4) Finally, even if added exposure was potentially a thing the first few years of the 2013 contract, I'm not sure how much good that exposure did us. Some AAC schools seemed to increase in value over the past 8 years, but many of us treaded water or went backwards. My USF definitely went backwards, despite having a lot more exposure than we did under the Big East TV deal. I would say your ECU went backwards as well - neither USF or ECU are as prominent in stature as we were in 2012, IMO. I think that is true of Temple and UConn as well.

Think about that: In 2012, the TV deal we signed stipulated four higher-value "Group A" members whose departure could trigger ESPN renegotiating the deal. Who were those four? Cincy, UConn, Temple and Houston. Would anyone say that two of those, Temple and UConn, are as valuable now as in 2012?

Even a school like UCF, probably the first school that comes to mind when we think of schools that raised their profile in the AAC, isn't IMO a clear-cut case. UCF came in to the AAC on a big upswing. In their very first year, 2013, UCF won the AAC title and a BCS bowl game. They also drew 42,000 fans in attendance. That's pretty much where they are right now.

So I'm just not sure how much good the 2012 TV deal reflected especially wise bargaining, or how much good it did our member schools. Some seem to have benefitted, others no. What I think is known for sure is that we were paid little money for it, it was a nice bargain for ESPN given our TV ratings.

What I remember is that it went out to bid, NBC offered their contract with low dollars and all the exposure and ESPN agreed to match it. Aresco went with ESPN because of the platform (gave us more potential eyeballs). It was the right move. Not a hard decision. It did pay off.

That's something else I've always been a bit fuzzy about. I thought the matching clause meant that ESPN automatically retained the Big East/AAC rights by matching whatever deal was reached with another network, meaning Aresco and the AAC did not have a choice in the matter. That the only role Aresco had was the right to peruse the ESPN offer to make sure it "matched" what NBC offered and presumably the AAC could challenge ESPN if wanted to dispute that ESPN was in fact matching the NBC offer. But I don't recall for sure. This ESPN article by McMurphy from back then seems to indicate that ESPN got the rights merely by matching.

"Last month, ESPN matched an offer made by NBC Sports Network and was awarded the Big East's media rights. Because ESPN is the primary rights holder, it was able to retain the conference's media rights simply by matching the league's best offer."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ng-sources

Yes this is how it went down. ESPN had some kind of right of first refusal to match any outside offer and they did. It was NBC who offered all the TV windows. Aresco may have negotiated that part of it. Don't think those kind of details were ever disclosed.

(09-21-2021 10:28 PM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 07:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 04:19 PM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:38 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I agree with a lot of that. If he pulls off the MWC teams he's absolutely worth what he's paid and the extension. If he adds the random collection of schools anyone else could have pulled off then it's hard to justify why you are paying him basically what P5 commissioners are paid. Now what I'll give him credit for is I think he made a choice on the first TV deal to maximize short term exposure over short term dollars that the MWC and C-USA didn't do and it was correct. The marketing value of those games was worth way more than another 1-2 million per team you maybe could have squeezed out of the deal.

Eh, I have a differing view of that. To summarize:

1) I'm not sure Aresco ever had any other option. That is, I'm not sure there ever was an alternative deal on the table whereby NBC was saying "we will give you more money to televise fewer of your games".

Which IMO is kind of a screwy concept to begin with. I mean, imagine going to a baker to buy donuts, and the baker says here are two deals: you can have 12 donuts for $5 or six donuts for $8. I think you'd look at him like he's crazy right? Or maybe ask, are those twelve donuts the same as the six, or are they four-day old moldy donuts? Because otherwise it's obvious the baker would want to sell fewer donuts for more dollars, and a buyer would want to buy more donuts for fewer dollars. We were a baker that sold more donuts (games) for fewer dollars, LOL.

Because if NBC was offering to pay $3m per school for 40 games (more money, less exposure) instead of a hypothetical $2m per school for 60 games (less money, more exposure), then it would seem to make sense that we would take the $3m deal, and then turn around and sell the games NBC doesn't want for even more money.

So I've never bought the "traded money for exposure" view. I've never seen documentation of it, and on its face it seems nonsensical to me. But maybe there are things I don't know about it?

2) If the issue is ESPN exposure, it bears noting that Aresco initally spurned ESPN during the exclusive negotiating window and then signed a deal with the fledgling NBCSN network. Now, ESPN did match the deal, and Aresco surely knew ESPN had the right to match it, but he could not have known they would match it. ESPN could have just not matched the offer and we would have been 'stuck' on NBCSN. If being with The Mothership was so important, that was an IMO risky way to go about doing it. Why couldn't we have just negotiated that same deal with ESPN to begin with? But maybe that's why I don't make the big commissioner bucks.

3) In any event "exposure" is a concept, like "cable markets" that IMO didn't age very well. It's a very 2012 kind of concept. Because nowadays, streaming has become a big thing, so basically everyone has 'exposure'. In 2012, there was a big deal made about being on a national cable channel, but Smart TVs soon came along as did streaming, and so now we have a 2020 deal that has a significant streaming component. In 2012, it was regarded as a big deal if your game was televised nationally at all. Now, just about every FBS game is available nationally, and the bragging is reduced to "well our game is on ESPNu while your game is on ESPN+!", as if it is harder for me to click the ESPN+ link on my Roku TV as the ESPNu link. Yeah, I know ratings are still higher on some channels than others, but it just isn't the thing it was in 2012.

4) Finally, even if added exposure was potentially a thing the first few years of the 2013 contract, I'm not sure how much good that exposure did us. Some AAC schools seemed to increase in value over the past 8 years, but many of us treaded water or went backwards. My USF definitely went backwards, despite having a lot more exposure than we did under the Big East TV deal. I would say your ECU went backwards as well - neither USF or ECU are as prominent in stature as we were in 2012, IMO. I think that is true of Temple and UConn as well.

Think about that: In 2012, the TV deal we signed stipulated four higher-value "Group A" members whose departure could trigger ESPN renegotiating the deal. Who were those four? Cincy, UConn, Temple and Houston. Would anyone say that two of those, Temple and UConn, are as valuable now as in 2012?

Even a school like UCF, probably the first school that comes to mind when we think of schools that raised their profile in the AAC, isn't IMO a clear-cut case. UCF came in to the AAC on a big upswing. In their very first year, 2013, UCF won the AAC title and a BCS bowl game. They also drew 42,000 fans in attendance. That's pretty much where they are right now.

So I'm just not sure how much good the 2012 TV deal reflected especially wise bargaining, or how much good it did our member schools. Some seem to have benefitted, others no. What I think is known for sure is that we were paid little money for it, it was a nice bargain for ESPN given our TV ratings.

What I remember is that it went out to bid, NBC offered their contract with low dollars and all the exposure and ESPN agreed to match it. Aresco went with ESPN because of the platform (gave us more potential eyeballs). It was the right move. Not a hard decision. It did pay off.

That's something else I've always been a bit fuzzy about. I thought the matching clause meant that ESPN automatically retained the Big East/AAC rights by matching whatever deal was reached with another network, meaning Aresco and the AAC did not have a choice in the matter. That the only role Aresco had was the right to peruse the ESPN offer to make sure it "matched" what NBC offered and presumably the AAC could challenge ESPN if wanted to dispute that ESPN was in fact matching the NBC offer. But I don't recall for sure. This ESPN article by McMurphy from back then seems to indicate that ESPN got the rights merely by matching.

"Last month, ESPN matched an offer made by NBC Sports Network and was awarded the Big East's media rights. Because ESPN is the primary rights holder, it was able to retain the conference's media rights simply by matching the league's best offer."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ng-sources

Yes this is how it went down. ESPN had some kind of right of first refusal to match any outside offer and they did. It was NBC who offered all the TV windows. Aresco may have negotiated that part of it. Don't think those kind of details were ever disclosed.

FWIW, I have no doubt that Aresco negotiated the TV windows with NBC. He was the one who was doing the negotiating, or his staff. But it was under his auspices one way or the other.

The one thing I was, and maybe still am, uncertain about is, when ESPN notified us that they were exercising their right to 'match' the NBC offer, did the AAC (Aresco) have a choice as to whether to take the ESPN match or reject it in favor of the NBC bid, or by contract did we have to take the ESPN match? I think it was the latter.

(09-21-2021 08:54 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I concede that is evidence that there was debate about whether the MW or AAC was the better league, four tweets is good enough for me. The AAC has proven to be the better league.

I just don't know how much Aresco had to do with that. You talk about culture and P6, but I'm not sure what P6 has accomplished for the AAC.

The AAC schools were all "climbers" with dreams of bigger things for their athletics so I'm not sure schools like UCF, Houston, Cincy, Temple, ECU, USF etc. needed to be stoked by a commissioner to make investments or put forth effort to do better. Houston and Tulane did build new stadiums but IIRC those were in the works before Aresco.

Beyond squishier concepts like culture, when I look at the brass-tacks outcomes, like two TV deals and a bowl deal, I was underwhelmed by all three. The 2012 deal was a peanuts deal IMO, the 2020 deal was IMO on the light side money-wise (I was predicting about $8m per school) and I was surprised by the length for which we are tied in to that amount. And IMO the 2019 bowl deal was a kind of dud, not much better than some of the other G5 bowl deals. There was a lot of talk about "P", but when it came time to close a deal we typically ended up with pure-G, IMO. Now maybe nobody could have done better, and I think it is likely nobody could have done better. For all the puffery about P6, it seems like the outside world wasn't really convinced and they mostly treated us like what we are, a G-league. But I do think we could have achieved the same results for half what we paid, and are paying, the commissioner.

IMO, the AAC benefitted from the stability we had the past eight years. But to me, that was more the product of a stabilization of the P-league environment, not anything the AAC administration did. Just MO.

a retort to your main point - that "The AAC schools were all "climbers" with dreams of bigger things for their athletics " - they would have gron regardless
-- the MWC had a ton of climbers , so did c-usa (c-usa all expanded to climbers)
--there are tons of new stadiums in the MWC and C-usa.. you think it was "only" the aac team that had climbers??

the gap between every other g5 and the p5 has drastically widened since 2012... only the aac has closed the cap... is that a pure coincidence to you??

the mwc and aac were seen as equals in 2012...the mwc commish publicly says it cant compete with the p5, publicly say there teams doesnt have to invest (make right decisions for themselves). no ocnference wide objective to attain anything.. but hasnt grown much

the aac commish non stop preaches the aac will become a power conference, that everyone in the aac will invest, that conference-wide we will push to keep up with the jones'. a message reiterated by all aac administrators in the aac.. quotes that all the way reiterated to down to even recruits

one grew and one didn't.. that is a coincidence to you?

the top 3 transfer in basketball for next season on his commitment presser

i have said this a 1000 times.. the beauty of the p6 campaign was NEVER about instantly making the league a "power league"...the magic behind the campaign came in 2 ways ...first, it made it so every AAC made decisions to live up to that standard.. "we are all power conference and have to act like it"...this is just life in general where there are groups.. you make it okay to be cheap and not care.. someone will take you on your word and will not care and not invest, culture goes beyond just sports...

the second was it changed the narrative.. it went from "who is better, the aac or the mwc in the g5" to "how does the aac stack up to a power conference since they keep claiming they are"..... it cut our association with the g5, almost no one talks about the aac in regards to the other g5 in recent years ..

we've had this conversation for years, so i know you are never going to give aresco any credit.. and growth in the aac was a coincidence and good that came from his tenure, he just happened to be there... like i said i hope no one discredits you in your professional life like you do Aresco in his

complaining that he couldn't get us bowls like a power 5 makes no sense .. no one could.. you are mad he isnt a magician (drastically better bowls that the other g5 wasnt enough)....of what the league could have become in 2012 this one of the best realsitic scenerios

About the bolded parts:

First, yes, I do think the AAC had more "climbers" in 2012 than did the MW or CUSA or anyone else. I think schools were invited to the AAC because they were showing exceptional commitment to football and athletics.

Second, IMO it's not clear that P6 has succeeded even as a standard. Yes, some schools have been vigorous about investing and promoting their athletics, but other AAC schools have not. I mean, what has been the narrative around USF these past few weeks? That we squandered our opportunities and fell behind UCF because we were lazy about making commitments and investments in athletics.

Similarly, I think that for every AAC school that has enhanced itself noticeably the past eight years, there's another that has declined. ECU comes immediately to mind - like USF, they were IMO more prominent athletically 10 years ago than today. Temple, which was regarded as one of the most prominent schools at the dawn of the AAC (they were one of the four "Group A" schools in the original TV deal), has clearly fallen off. UConn, another "Group A" school, also does not have the profile it had back then either.

So IMO it is hard to make the case that P6 has exhorted AAC schools to rise en-masse in terms of investments and commitment and performance to meet the P6 standard. Some schools have done that, others have not, seems much more like an individual-institutional thing than something that the Conference has done.

The one area that I will agree P6 has been a success is in the area of general sports public propaganda, and I agree that is important. While some commentators have derided P6 and made fun of it, I don't think there's any doubt that P6 has elevated the AAC in the media, gotten the AAC mentioned in many conversations about the Power leagues, and has resulted in the AAC now being recognized as the consensus, no doubt about it, top G5 league. Kudos to Aresco for that.

But again, I doubt what that has added up to in terms of bottom-line results, such as the bowl and TV deals that have been signed. Again, one can argue that Aresco did the best he could do, or that anyone could do, and I tend to agree with that. But again, my issue isn't so much with the commissioner's performance but his pay relative to that performance. I think we are paying our commissioner way too much given the reality of how much value he or she can add to the league. Again, not aimed at Aresco, I would feel the same if we were paying Mike Slive or Jim Delany $1.8m a year too because I don't think they could have done much better. IMO, we could have gotten the same deals we have signed for about $750k a year in salary.

Because despite all the puffery about P6, in the circles that seem to matter, like TV and bowls and the like, we are treated like a "G". Even as recently as a month or so ago, when the "Alliance" was announced, we were once again on the "G" side of that line.

The NCAA governance structure also gave Autonomy to what is now the five Power Conferences putting a very clear and legal division between the $EC, Big 10, Pac-12, ACC, & Big XII from the American, Mountain West, Mid-American, Sun Belt, & Conference USA.

The nomenclature "Power Conference" was never meant to refer to competitiveness on the football field. It was in reference to level of governance in NCAA Division 1 affairs, which the AAC never achieved. It's not the AAC's fault. The five major conferences basically told the NCAA how it was going to be, and the other five conferences had no choice but to go along with it.

None of this is new. This explanation was from 2014:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-autonomy/

(09-22-2021 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:28 PM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 07:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 04:19 PM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Eh, I have a differing view of that. To summarize:

1) I'm not sure Aresco ever had any other option. That is, I'm not sure there ever was an alternative deal on the table whereby NBC was saying "we will give you more money to televise fewer of your games".

Which IMO is kind of a screwy concept to begin with. I mean, imagine going to a baker to buy donuts, and the baker says here are two deals: you can have 12 donuts for $5 or six donuts for $8. I think you'd look at him like he's crazy right? Or maybe ask, are those twelve donuts the same as the six, or are they four-day old moldy donuts? Because otherwise it's obvious the baker would want to sell fewer donuts for more dollars, and a buyer would want to buy more donuts for fewer dollars. We were a baker that sold more donuts (games) for fewer dollars, LOL.

Because if NBC was offering to pay $3m per school for 40 games (more money, less exposure) instead of a hypothetical $2m per school for 60 games (less money, more exposure), then it would seem to make sense that we would take the $3m deal, and then turn around and sell the games NBC doesn't want for even more money.

So I've never bought the "traded money for exposure" view. I've never seen documentation of it, and on its face it seems nonsensical to me. But maybe there are things I don't know about it?

2) If the issue is ESPN exposure, it bears noting that Aresco initally spurned ESPN during the exclusive negotiating window and then signed a deal with the fledgling NBCSN network. Now, ESPN did match the deal, and Aresco surely knew ESPN had the right to match it, but he could not have known they would match it. ESPN could have just not matched the offer and we would have been 'stuck' on NBCSN. If being with The Mothership was so important, that was an IMO risky way to go about doing it. Why couldn't we have just negotiated that same deal with ESPN to begin with? But maybe that's why I don't make the big commissioner bucks.

3) In any event "exposure" is a concept, like "cable markets" that IMO didn't age very well. It's a very 2012 kind of concept. Because nowadays, streaming has become a big thing, so basically everyone has 'exposure'. In 2012, there was a big deal made about being on a national cable channel, but Smart TVs soon came along as did streaming, and so now we have a 2020 deal that has a significant streaming component. In 2012, it was regarded as a big deal if your game was televised nationally at all. Now, just about every FBS game is available nationally, and the bragging is reduced to "well our game is on ESPNu while your game is on ESPN+!", as if it is harder for me to click the ESPN+ link on my Roku TV as the ESPNu link. Yeah, I know ratings are still higher on some channels than others, but it just isn't the thing it was in 2012.

4) Finally, even if added exposure was potentially a thing the first few years of the 2013 contract, I'm not sure how much good that exposure did us. Some AAC schools seemed to increase in value over the past 8 years, but many of us treaded water or went backwards. My USF definitely went backwards, despite having a lot more exposure than we did under the Big East TV deal. I would say your ECU went backwards as well - neither USF or ECU are as prominent in stature as we were in 2012, IMO. I think that is true of Temple and UConn as well.

Think about that: In 2012, the TV deal we signed stipulated four higher-value "Group A" members whose departure could trigger ESPN renegotiating the deal. Who were those four? Cincy, UConn, Temple and Houston. Would anyone say that two of those, Temple and UConn, are as valuable now as in 2012?

Even a school like UCF, probably the first school that comes to mind when we think of schools that raised their profile in the AAC, isn't IMO a clear-cut case. UCF came in to the AAC on a big upswing. In their very first year, 2013, UCF won the AAC title and a BCS bowl game. They also drew 42,000 fans in attendance. That's pretty much where they are right now.

So I'm just not sure how much good the 2012 TV deal reflected especially wise bargaining, or how much good it did our member schools. Some seem to have benefitted, others no. What I think is known for sure is that we were paid little money for it, it was a nice bargain for ESPN given our TV ratings.

What I remember is that it went out to bid, NBC offered their contract with low dollars and all the exposure and ESPN agreed to match it. Aresco went with ESPN because of the platform (gave us more potential eyeballs). It was the right move. Not a hard decision. It did pay off.

That's something else I've always been a bit fuzzy about. I thought the matching clause meant that ESPN automatically retained the Big East/AAC rights by matching whatever deal was reached with another network, meaning Aresco and the AAC did not have a choice in the matter. That the only role Aresco had was the right to peruse the ESPN offer to make sure it "matched" what NBC offered and presumably the AAC could challenge ESPN if wanted to dispute that ESPN was in fact matching the NBC offer. But I don't recall for sure. This ESPN article by McMurphy from back then seems to indicate that ESPN got the rights merely by matching.

"Last month, ESPN matched an offer made by NBC Sports Network and was awarded the Big East's media rights. Because ESPN is the primary rights holder, it was able to retain the conference's media rights simply by matching the league's best offer."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ng-sources

Yes this is how it went down. ESPN had some kind of right of first refusal to match any outside offer and they did. It was NBC who offered all the TV windows. Aresco may have negotiated that part of it. Don't think those kind of details were ever disclosed.

FWIW, I have no doubt that Aresco negotiated the TV windows with NBC. He was the one who was doing the negotiating, or his staff. But it was under his auspices one way or the other.

The one thing I was, and maybe still am, uncertain about is, when ESPN notified us that they were exercising their right to 'match' the NBC offer, did the AAC (Aresco) have a choice as to whether to take the ESPN match or reject it in favor of the NBC bid, or by contract did we have to take the ESPN match? I think it was the latter.

I think it was the latter also, but I can't be 100% sure of that.

(09-22-2021 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, yes, I do think the AAC had more "climbers" in 2012 than did the MW or CUSA or anyone else. I think schools were invited to the AAC because they were showing exceptional commitment to football and athletics.

Second, IMO it's not clear that P6 has succeeded even as a standard. Yes, some schools have been vigorous about investing and promoting their athletics, but other AAC schools have not. I mean, what has been the narrative around USF these past few weeks? That we squandered our opportunities and fell behind UCF because we were lazy about making commitments and investments in athletics.

Similarly, I think that for every AAC school that has enhanced itself noticeably the past eight years, there's another that has declined. ECU comes immediately to mind - like USF, they were IMO more prominent athletically 10 years ago than today. Temple, which was regarded as one of the most prominent schools at the dawn of the AAC (they were one of the four "Group A" schools in the original TV deal), has clearly fallen off. UConn, another "Group A" school, also does not have the profile it had back then either.

firstyour point that "not everyone enhanced" i completely disagree with that..everyone enhanced .. but at the end of the day, there are winners and losers in every conference ..there has to be a team that looks bad n every league...what you judge a conferences elevation by is the foundation (funding, recruiting)

this conversation actually directly overlaps with the conversation i was having with mwc/sunbelt fans on why the aac will still be the best g5 even after losing its top teams... the foundation of all the aac still vastly surpas the other leagues even with losing the top team. losing the top team doesn't mean the league will no longer have top teams (which is how many are interpreting it) it means we will have a new top team, and that new top team still vastly out recruits the other top teams of the to other g5.. the mwc will look better at first, like in 2012, but the aac will outrace them again

looking at your example:
USF- USF losing has had nothing to do with investing...but unfortunate choices in coach hires. from the inception of the aac till today, the best recruiting football team in the aac has been usf.. USF's top 2 historic basketball recruits were in the aac not in the big east (one was just last year)..your athletic budget has nearly doubled since the aac started
the elevation was the ability to get those recruits .. usf finding ways to lose with "more" doesnt mean they werent elevated ....
and to my earlier point app state is recruiting rank average is like 90-100, usf recruits in 45-65., if usf builds a winning culture, a winning usf will be better than a winning app state

ECU- a lesser extent with ECU, ecu's recruiting is actually drastically better in the aac than c-usa.. but not all teams elevate the same.. in c-usa pre 2012 NO ONE could recruit. when the capability to recruit opened in the aac, the flood gates open for ucf, memphis, cincy, houston and the likes.. an improved ECU recruiting was still less than those team (they didnt have flood gates to open)...but that doesnt mean they didnt elevate ..both starting and backup QBs at ECU turned down blue blood SEC offers.. stack ecu's roster vs a c-usa/sunbelt.. ecu roster "on paper" would look drastically better

Temple - was seen as one of the most prominent for basketball..and philly... they were a mid-tier MAC team when invited in football.. the best 5 year run in temple football history (90 YEARS) was in the AAC.. last year was their 1st losing season in 6years.. its is an unquestionable fact that temple was drastically elevated in the aac

--- big point: EVERYONE in the league was elevated...but that doesn't mean everyone is going to win...every league has to have a loser

and again you just found it a coincidence only the aac closed the gap? that all these "climbers" all grew coincidently at the exact same time? ,..and all the climbers in the other leagues just didnt?

(09-22-2021 01:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, yes, I do think the AAC had more "climbers" in 2012 than did the MW or CUSA or anyone else. I think schools were invited to the AAC because they were showing exceptional commitment to football and athletics.

Second, IMO it's not clear that P6 has succeeded even as a standard. Yes, some schools have been vigorous about investing and promoting their athletics, but other AAC schools have not. I mean, what has been the narrative around USF these past few weeks? That we squandered our opportunities and fell behind UCF because we were lazy about making commitments and investments in athletics.

Similarly, I think that for every AAC school that has enhanced itself noticeably the past eight years, there's another that has declined. ECU comes immediately to mind - like USF, they were IMO more prominent athletically 10 years ago than today. Temple, which was regarded as one of the most prominent schools at the dawn of the AAC (they were one of the four "Group A" schools in the original TV deal), has clearly fallen off. UConn, another "Group A" school, also does not have the profile it had back then either.

firstyour point that "not everyone enhanced" i completely disagree with that..everyone enhanced .. but at the end of the day, there are winners and losers in every conference ..there has to be a team that looks bad n every league...what you judge a conferences elevation by is the foundation (funding, recruiting)

this conversation actually directly overlaps with the conversation i was having with mwc/sunbelt fans on why the aac will still be the best g5 even after losing its top teams... the foundation of all the aac still vastly surpas the other leagues even with losing the top team. losing the top team doesn't mean the league will no longer have top teams (which is how many are interpreting it) it means we will have a new top team, and that new top team still vastly out recruits the other top teams of the to other g5.. the mwc will look better at first, like in 2012, but the aac will outrace them again

looking at your example:
USF- USF losing has had nothing to do with investing...but unfortunate choices in coach hires. from the inception of the aac till today, the best recruiting football team in the aac has been usf.. USF's top 2 historic basketball recruits were in the aac not in the big east (one was just last year)..your athletic budget has nearly doubled since the aac started
the elevation was the ability to get those recruits .. usf finding ways to lose with "more" doesnt mean they werent elevated ....
and to my earlier point app state is recruiting rank average is like 90-100, usf recruits in 45-65., if usf builds a winning culture, a winning usf will be better than a winning app state

ECU- a lesser extent with ECU, ecu's recruiting is actually drastically better in the aac than c-usa.. but not all teams elevate the same.. in c-usa pre 2012 NO ONE could recruit. when the capability to recruit opened in the aac, the flood gates open for ucf, memphis, cincy, houston and the likes.. an improved ECU recruiting was still less than those team (they didnt have flood gates to open)...but that doesnt mean they didnt elevate ..both starting and backup QBs at ECU turned down blue blood SEC offers.. stack ecu's roster vs a c-usa/sunbelt.. ecu roster "on paper" would look drastically better

Temple - was seen as one of the most prominent for basketball..and philly... they were a mid-tier MAC team when invited in football.. the best 5 year run in temple football history (90 YEARS) was in the AAC.. last year was their 1st losing season in 6years.. its is an unquestionable fact that temple was drastically elevated in the aac

--- big point: EVERYONE in the league was elevated...but that doesn't mean everyone is going to win...every league has to have a loser

and again you just found it a coincidence only the aac closed the gap? that all these "climbers" all grew coincidently at the exact same time? ,..and all the climbers in the other leagues just didnt?

Disagree. My point goes beyond wins and losses. Eight years ago, Temple was designated as one of the four "A-Group" teams in the TV deal. Would anyone put Temple anywhere near the top four today? Not IMO. They have declined.

To me, ECU and USF are clearly diminished. All the schools I mentioned are.

IMO, the notion that all AAC schools have elevated is just not tenable. Some went up, some went down.

It was an institutional thing, had IMO nothing to do with P6 campaigns and exhortations from the commissioner's office. I just don't see the evidence for that.

And I'm not even sure about the schools that enhanced themselves. UCF is clearly much higher-profile now than in 2012. But in 2013, when we were still an AQ conference under the old BCS regime, UCF won the conference and a BCS bowl game, and averaged 42,000 fans a game. That's basically where they are now, so to me they were growing fast before any "Aresco effect".

I just don't see what P6 produced, beyond the propaganda impact I mentioned above. Guess we have to agree to disagree.

(09-22-2021 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, yes, I do think the AAC had more "climbers" in 2012 than did the MW or CUSA or anyone else. I think schools were invited to the AAC because they were showing exceptional commitment to football and athletics.

Second, IMO it's not clear that P6 has succeeded even as a standard. Yes, some schools have been vigorous about investing and promoting their athletics, but other AAC schools have not. I mean, what has been the narrative around USF these past few weeks? That we squandered our opportunities and fell behind UCF because we were lazy about making commitments and investments in athletics.

Similarly, I think that for every AAC school that has enhanced itself noticeably the past eight years, there's another that has declined. ECU comes immediately to mind - like USF, they were IMO more prominent athletically 10 years ago than today. Temple, which was regarded as one of the most prominent schools at the dawn of the AAC (they were one of the four "Group A" schools in the original TV deal), has clearly fallen off. UConn, another "Group A" school, also does not have the profile it had back then either.

firstyour point that "not everyone enhanced" i completely disagree with that..everyone enhanced .. but at the end of the day, there are winners and losers in every conference ..there has to be a team that looks bad n every league...what you judge a conferences elevation by is the foundation (funding, recruiting)

this conversation actually directly overlaps with the conversation i was having with mwc/sunbelt fans on why the aac will still be the best g5 even after losing its top teams... the foundation of all the aac still vastly surpas the other leagues even with losing the top team. losing the top team doesn't mean the league will no longer have top teams (which is how many are interpreting it) it means we will have a new top team, and that new top team still vastly out recruits the other top teams of the to other g5.. the mwc will look better at first, like in 2012, but the aac will outrace them again

looking at your example:
USF- USF losing has had nothing to do with investing...but unfortunate choices in coach hires. from the inception of the aac till today, the best recruiting football team in the aac has been usf.. USF's top 2 historic basketball recruits were in the aac not in the big east (one was just last year)..your athletic budget has nearly doubled since the aac started
the elevation was the ability to get those recruits .. usf finding ways to lose with "more" doesnt mean they werent elevated ....
and to my earlier point app state is recruiting rank average is like 90-100, usf recruits in 45-65., if usf builds a winning culture, a winning usf will be better than a winning app state

ECU- a lesser extent with ECU, ecu's recruiting is actually drastically better in the aac than c-usa.. but not all teams elevate the same.. in c-usa pre 2012 NO ONE could recruit. when the capability to recruit opened in the aac, the flood gates open for ucf, memphis, cincy, houston and the likes.. an improved ECU recruiting was still less than those team (they didnt have flood gates to open)...but that doesnt mean they didnt elevate ..both starting and backup QBs at ECU turned down blue blood SEC offers.. stack ecu's roster vs a c-usa/sunbelt.. ecu roster "on paper" would look drastically better

Temple - was seen as one of the most prominent for basketball..and philly... they were a mid-tier MAC team when invited in football.. the best 5 year run in temple football history (90 YEARS) was in the AAC.. last year was their 1st losing season in 6years.. its is an unquestionable fact that temple was drastically elevated in the aac

--- big point: EVERYONE in the league was elevated...but that doesn't mean everyone is going to win...every league has to have a loser

and again you just found it a coincidence only the aac closed the gap? that all these "climbers" all grew coincidently at the exact same time? ,..and all the climbers in the other leagues just didnt?

Disagree. My point goes beyond wins and losses. Eight years ago, Temple was designated as one of the four "A-Group" teams in the TV deal. Would anyone put Temple anywhere near the top four today? Not IMO. They have declined.

To me, ECU and USF are clearly diminished. All the schools I mentioned are.

IMO, the notion that all AAC schools have elevated is just not tenable. Some went up, some went down.

It was an institutional thing, had IMO nothing to do with P6 campaigns and exhortations from the commissioner's office. I just don't see the evidence for that.

And I'm not even sure about the schools that enhanced themselves. UCF is clearly much higher-profile now than in 2012. But in 2013, when we were still an AQ conference under the old BCS regime, UCF won the conference and a BCS bowl game, and averaged 42,000 fans a game. That's basically where they are now, so to me they were growing fast before any "Aresco effect".

I just don't see what P6 produced, beyond the propaganda impact I mentioned above. Guess we have to agree to disagree.

The media contract was cheap, but it certainly had provisions requiring national broadcasts. Aresco knew we wouldn't get the money initially, but he knew he had to force ESPNs hand in guaranteed nationally televised games that can have the ratings tracked. He used NBC as a tool in this. This gave him a track record to reference to get a decent second contract.

With that being said, a team like UCF would have been buried the past 10 years not being noticed if we didn't have those national audience provisions in the contract. Sure, they would have been eventually seen toward the end of the season..... but they started becoming a fixture on ABC and ESPN during their good seasons starting in September.

(09-22-2021 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, yes, I do think the AAC had more "climbers" in 2012 than did the MW or CUSA or anyone else. I think schools were invited to the AAC because they were showing exceptional commitment to football and athletics.

Second, IMO it's not clear that P6 has succeeded even as a standard. Yes, some schools have been vigorous about investing and promoting their athletics, but other AAC schools have not. I mean, what has been the narrative around USF these past few weeks? That we squandered our opportunities and fell behind UCF because we were lazy about making commitments and investments in athletics.

Similarly, I think that for every AAC school that has enhanced itself noticeably the past eight years, there's another that has declined. ECU comes immediately to mind - like USF, they were IMO more prominent athletically 10 years ago than today. Temple, which was regarded as one of the most prominent schools at the dawn of the AAC (they were one of the four "Group A" schools in the original TV deal), has clearly fallen off. UConn, another "Group A" school, also does not have the profile it had back then either.

firstyour point that "not everyone enhanced" i completely disagree with that..everyone enhanced .. but at the end of the day, there are winners and losers in every conference ..there has to be a team that looks bad n every league...what you judge a conferences elevation by is the foundation (funding, recruiting)

this conversation actually directly overlaps with the conversation i was having with mwc/sunbelt fans on why the aac will still be the best g5 even after losing its top teams... the foundation of all the aac still vastly surpas the other leagues even with losing the top team. losing the top team doesn't mean the league will no longer have top teams (which is how many are interpreting it) it means we will have a new top team, and that new top team still vastly out recruits the other top teams of the to other g5.. the mwc will look better at first, like in 2012, but the aac will outrace them again

looking at your example:
USF- USF losing has had nothing to do with investing...but unfortunate choices in coach hires. from the inception of the aac till today, the best recruiting football team in the aac has been usf.. USF's top 2 historic basketball recruits were in the aac not in the big east (one was just last year)..your athletic budget has nearly doubled since the aac started
the elevation was the ability to get those recruits .. usf finding ways to lose with "more" doesnt mean they werent elevated ....
and to my earlier point app state is recruiting rank average is like 90-100, usf recruits in 45-65., if usf builds a winning culture, a winning usf will be better than a winning app state

ECU- a lesser extent with ECU, ecu's recruiting is actually drastically better in the aac than c-usa.. but not all teams elevate the same.. in c-usa pre 2012 NO ONE could recruit. when the capability to recruit opened in the aac, the flood gates open for ucf, memphis, cincy, houston and the likes.. an improved ECU recruiting was still less than those team (they didnt have flood gates to open)...but that doesnt mean they didnt elevate ..both starting and backup QBs at ECU turned down blue blood SEC offers.. stack ecu's roster vs a c-usa/sunbelt.. ecu roster "on paper" would look drastically better

Temple - was seen as one of the most prominent for basketball..and philly... they were a mid-tier MAC team when invited in football.. the best 5 year run in temple football history (90 YEARS) was in the AAC.. last year was their 1st losing season in 6years.. its is an unquestionable fact that temple was drastically elevated in the aac

--- big point: EVERYONE in the league was elevated...but that doesn't mean everyone is going to win...every league has to have a loser

and again you just found it a coincidence only the aac closed the gap? that all these "climbers" all grew coincidently at the exact same time? ,..and all the climbers in the other leagues just didnt?

Disagree. My point goes beyond wins and losses. Eight years ago, Temple was designated as one of the four "A-Group" teams in the TV deal. Would anyone put Temple anywhere near the top four today? Not IMO. They have declined.

To me, ECU and USF are clearly diminished. All the schools I mentioned are.

IMO, the notion that all AAC schools have elevated is just not tenable. Some went up, some went down.

It was an institutional thing, had IMO nothing to do with P6 campaigns and exhortations from the commissioner's office. I just don't see the evidence for that.

And I'm not even sure about the schools that enhanced themselves. UCF is clearly much higher-profile now than in 2012. But in 2013, when we were still an AQ conference under the old BCS regime, UCF won the conference and a BCS bowl game, and averaged 42,000 fans a game. That's basically where they are now, so to me they were growing fast before any "Aresco effect".

I just don't see what P6 produced, beyond the propaganda impact I mentioned above. Guess we have to agree to disagree.

Can't speak for the other schools, but I know from a rating standpoint, Temple had its highest FB recruiting class a year ago. Yet we were still ranked at like 8 or 9 in the AAC. I think Pesik is correct. The league as a whole has elevated. And I think Aresco has been mostly responsible for its stature. I know you are a contrarian on a lot of AAC issues. Add this to your list.

(09-22-2021 04:20 PM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, yes, I do think the AAC had more "climbers" in 2012 than did the MW or CUSA or anyone else. I think schools were invited to the AAC because they were showing exceptional commitment to football and athletics.

Second, IMO it's not clear that P6 has succeeded even as a standard. Yes, some schools have been vigorous about investing and promoting their athletics, but other AAC schools have not. I mean, what has been the narrative around USF these past few weeks? That we squandered our opportunities and fell behind UCF because we were lazy about making commitments and investments in athletics.

Similarly, I think that for every AAC school that has enhanced itself noticeably the past eight years, there's another that has declined. ECU comes immediately to mind - like USF, they were IMO more prominent athletically 10 years ago than today. Temple, which was regarded as one of the most prominent schools at the dawn of the AAC (they were one of the four "Group A" schools in the original TV deal), has clearly fallen off. UConn, another "Group A" school, also does not have the profile it had back then either.

firstyour point that "not everyone enhanced" i completely disagree with that..everyone enhanced .. but at the end of the day, there are winners and losers in every conference ..there has to be a team that looks bad n every league...what you judge a conferences elevation by is the foundation (funding, recruiting)

this conversation actually directly overlaps with the conversation i was having with mwc/sunbelt fans on why the aac will still be the best g5 even after losing its top teams... the foundation of all the aac still vastly surpas the other leagues even with losing the top team. losing the top team doesn't mean the league will no longer have top teams (which is how many are interpreting it) it means we will have a new top team, and that new top team still vastly out recruits the other top teams of the to other g5.. the mwc will look better at first, like in 2012, but the aac will outrace them again

looking at your example:
USF- USF losing has had nothing to do with investing...but unfortunate choices in coach hires. from the inception of the aac till today, the best recruiting football team in the aac has been usf.. USF's top 2 historic basketball recruits were in the aac not in the big east (one was just last year)..your athletic budget has nearly doubled since the aac started
the elevation was the ability to get those recruits .. usf finding ways to lose with "more" doesnt mean they werent elevated ....
and to my earlier point app state is recruiting rank average is like 90-100, usf recruits in 45-65., if usf builds a winning culture, a winning usf will be better than a winning app state

ECU- a lesser extent with ECU, ecu's recruiting is actually drastically better in the aac than c-usa.. but not all teams elevate the same.. in c-usa pre 2012 NO ONE could recruit. when the capability to recruit opened in the aac, the flood gates open for ucf, memphis, cincy, houston and the likes.. an improved ECU recruiting was still less than those team (they didnt have flood gates to open)...but that doesnt mean they didnt elevate ..both starting and backup QBs at ECU turned down blue blood SEC offers.. stack ecu's roster vs a c-usa/sunbelt.. ecu roster "on paper" would look drastically better

Temple - was seen as one of the most prominent for basketball..and philly... they were a mid-tier MAC team when invited in football.. the best 5 year run in temple football history (90 YEARS) was in the AAC.. last year was their 1st losing season in 6years.. its is an unquestionable fact that temple was drastically elevated in the aac

--- big point: EVERYONE in the league was elevated...but that doesn't mean everyone is going to win...every league has to have a loser

and again you just found it a coincidence only the aac closed the gap? that all these "climbers" all grew coincidently at the exact same time? ,..and all the climbers in the other leagues just didnt?

Disagree. My point goes beyond wins and losses. Eight years ago, Temple was designated as one of the four "A-Group" teams in the TV deal. Would anyone put Temple anywhere near the top four today? Not IMO. They have declined.

To me, ECU and USF are clearly diminished. All the schools I mentioned are.

IMO, the notion that all AAC schools have elevated is just not tenable. Some went up, some went down.

It was an institutional thing, had IMO nothing to do with P6 campaigns and exhortations from the commissioner's office. I just don't see the evidence for that.

And I'm not even sure about the schools that enhanced themselves. UCF is clearly much higher-profile now than in 2012. But in 2013, when we were still an AQ conference under the old BCS regime, UCF won the conference and a BCS bowl game, and averaged 42,000 fans a game. That's basically where they are now, so to me they were growing fast before any "Aresco effect".

I just don't see what P6 produced, beyond the propaganda impact I mentioned above. Guess we have to agree to disagree.

Can't speak for the other schools, but I know from a rating standpoint, Temple had its highest FB recruiting class a year ago. Yet we were still ranked at like 8 or 9 in the AAC. I think Pesik is correct. The league as a whole has elevated. And I think Aresco has been mostly responsible for its stature. I know you are a contrarian on a lot of AAC issues. Add this to your list.

Congratulations on your recent recruiting class, but IMO Temple, in terms of overall institutional athletic profile, has clearly been diminished during its time in the AAC. The same is true of USF.

When the original TV deal was signed in 2013, Temple was one of the four Group-A schools. Nobody would say Temple is Group-A now, would they? IIRC, in 2019 when the new deal was signed, which reportedly allows ESPN to renegotiate if anyone leaves, five schools were mentioned as being of concern as possible leavers to ESPN. None of them were Temple.

As for Aresco, I think he has performed about as well as anyone could have. I don't think former SEC commissioner Mike Slive or former B1G commissioner Jim Delany could have done any better.

My issue has always been what we pay our commissioner. Whether it is Aresco or Slive or Delany, IMO our commissioner should not be making $1.8m per year, they should be making half that. Because bottom line is we are a G5 league and make G5 money, so there's just not a lot of value that a commissioner can add to us, IMO.

IMO, there are many college athletic admins who could have negotiated and signed the same bowl and TV deals that we signed, and for half what we pay our current commissioner. Or less than half.

(09-22-2021 08:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Congratulations on your recent recruiting class, but IMO Temple, in terms of overall institutional athletic profile, has clearly been diminished during its time in the AAC. The same is true of USF.

When the original TV deal was signed in 2013, Temple was one of the four Group-A schools. Nobody would say Temple is Group-A now, would they? IIRC, in 2019 when the new deal was signed, which reportedly allows ESPN to renegotiate if anyone leaves, five schools were mentioned as being of concern as possible leavers to ESPN. None of them were Temple.

As for Aresco, I think he has performed about as well as anyone could have. I don't think former SEC commissioner Mike Slive or former B1G commissioner Jim Delany could have done any better.

My issue has always been what we pay our commissioner. Whether it is Aresco or Slive or Delany, IMO our commissioner should not be making $1.8m per year, they should be making half that. Because bottom line is we are a G5 league and make G5 money, so there's just not a lot of value that a commissioner can add to us, IMO.

IMO, there are many college athletic admins who could have negotiated and signed the same bowl and TV deals that we signed, and for half what we pay our current commissioner. Or less than half.

in the 80 years prior to the aac, temple had been to 4 bowl games total..and was most notable for being the team that was kicked out of the big east for having terrible athletic (media narrative)

in their 8 aac years in the aac theyve been to 5 bowl games, average 9wins a season from 2014-2019

the entire basis of your argument is the nbc deal that classified them as group A.. when any common sense would realize it was basketball and philly.. with any remote deeper analysis it would be common sense that temple didnt "fall out" of the top group but that teams in the bottom group drastically grew and caught up

"has clearly been diminished during its time in the AAC" is blatantly wrong in every facet of common sense ... the best years of temples football have been in the aac ...
please dont to try and fight for a bad point...

temple fans are telling you they elevated (and it obvious with any research).. but you are telling temple fans they are wrong and its obvious... and using bad logic to justify it

(09-22-2021 09:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 08:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Congratulations on your recent recruiting class, but IMO Temple, in terms of overall institutional athletic profile, has clearly been diminished during its time in the AAC. The same is true of USF.

When the original TV deal was signed in 2013, Temple was one of the four Group-A schools. Nobody would say Temple is Group-A now, would they? IIRC, in 2019 when the new deal was signed, which reportedly allows ESPN to renegotiate if anyone leaves, five schools were mentioned as being of concern as possible leavers to ESPN. None of them were Temple.

As for Aresco, I think he has performed about as well as anyone could have. I don't think former SEC commissioner Mike Slive or former B1G commissioner Jim Delany could have done any better.

My issue has always been what we pay our commissioner. Whether it is Aresco or Slive or Delany, IMO our commissioner should not be making $1.8m per year, they should be making half that. Because bottom line is we are a G5 league and make G5 money, so there's just not a lot of value that a commissioner can add to us, IMO.

IMO, there are many college athletic admins who could have negotiated and signed the same bowl and TV deals that we signed, and for half what we pay our current commissioner. Or less than half.

in the 80 years prior to the aac, temple had been to 4 bowl games total..and was most notable for being the team that was kicked out of the big east for having terrible athletic (media narrative)

in their 8 aac years sincei nthe aac, theyve been to 5 bowl games, average 9wins a season from 2014-2019

the entire basis of your argument is the nbc deal that classified them as group A.. when any common sense would realize it was basketball and philly.. with any remote deeper analysis it would be common sense that temple didnt "fall out" of the top group but that teams in the bottom group drastically grew and caught up

"has clearly been diminished during its time in the AAC" is blatantly wrong in every facet of common sense ... the best years of temples football have been in the aac ...
please dont to try and fight for a bad point...

Thank you.

The data point that is most important on Aresco is that the 8/9 remaining presidents voted to extend his contract and four (the ones whose schools are considered flight risks) provided statements of considerable support and gratitude for Aresco's work. Any other opinions are not worth the bandwidth they consume.

There is 0 doubt the AAC has risen, Whether called P6, Tweener 1, or King of the G's. it is on its own level.
Can it maintain that position, I believe it can, but it has to make the right moves right now. If they guess and move right now 5 years from now they will still be P6, Tweener1, or King of G5, even if they don't hit it big in the next few weeks I think they will be fighting MWC for best of the rest. If they blow it they make 3+ mil per team which is way ahead of 3 little G conf. If they hit a home run and come out making 6 mil + they are golden.

(09-22-2021 09:21 PM)pesik Wrote:  temple fans are telling you they elevated (and it obvious with any research).. but you are telling temple fans they are wrong and its obvious... and using bad logic to justify it

Hey, fans of schools will often tell you they feel elevated. I often feel that about USF.

But as someone who is neither pro- nor anti- Temple, I think Temple is clearly diminished compared to where they were at the dawn of the AAC.

And to me it's no answer to say "well that's because others rose up", because status is always relative. It was relative in 2012 and it is relative now. If others are passing you by you are falling behind even if you were moving faster than before. It's not like say, personal income, where I am better off if my salary went from 50k a year to 70k a year, even if my neighbors pay went from 40k a year to 90k a year the same time frame. His lifestyle doesn't impact mine and vice-versa.

But colleges are involved in a relative comparison. They compete for students, recruits, everything. So relative status is what matters, IMO.

Temple is IMO a diminished brand now. Nobody would say Temple is Group A, that's the valid metric IMO. ECU is too. USF is too. And as I said before, those schools that have improved themselves, it's by no means clear what AAC admins had to do with that. IIRC, all were on upward trajectories before the AAC. That's why they were invited to join.

To me, Aresco was successful with P6 as a propaganda device. He has convinced the media that the AAC is the clear-cut best G5 football conference, even though that is arguable (we weren't best in 2018, and we probably weren't best in 2020 either). That's something.

But again, my main issue isn't the commissioner's performance. I doubt anyone could have done better. We are what we are. It is how much we pay the commissioner, no matter who he or she is.