(08-22-2013 10:12 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 09:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm extremely baffled by it. I think Aresco is a gigantic failure and a flat out liar. Only positive thing I can say about him is the AAC basketball TV deal is outstanding, but his football dealings have been nothing short of embarrassing on all levels.

Why would you be baffled? You know Tulame only puts 5-6K in the stands. You know a school like Temple doesn't accurately report their "real" attendance. Hell Temple won 8-9 games a couple years ago and didn't get one offer for a bowl game while other 6-6 teams got the nod. Its because they dont travel. They have no fan base. Same for SMU. Bowl games want schools that have traveling fans that will spend money buying merchandise and selling tickets.

On top of that, what do you really expect from a guy that is a first time commissioner? Did you think he was just going to come in and pick and choose what he wanted? He probably doesn't have many contacts in the business.

And finally, its about brand. The casual college sports fan doesn't know what the American conference even is. How can bowl committees sell advertising and do other business when nobody knows what the AAC is? Losing that Big East name was a huge blow. If you would have kept the name, the bowl games would have come easier because people can identify with the Big East name. You guys are essentially starting from scratch.

Do you really want me to quote the teams in C-USA that have zero fan base? Also the guy has been a TV exec in charge of college sports programing for something like 20 years he knows plenty of people or at least should know plenty of people.

(08-22-2013 10:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Do you really want me to quote the teams in C-USA that have zero fan base? Also the guy has been a TV exec in charge of college sports programing for something like 20 years he knows plenty of people or at least should know plenty of people.

So is this a vote of confidence for Aresco from you? Because you are like one of the main bashers of Aresco on the AAC Board. Constantly calling him a liar amongst other things.

I think you and others have completely overreacted to the AAC Bowl situation on your main board. And most of you (particularly ECU posters) have consistently just bad mouth Aresco since you were invited to the AAC. So you berate CUSA, berate the AAC; you guys aren't happy bout chit these days.

How about not raining on CUSA parade and let us enjoy our conference; a conference that ECU posters don't even want to be affiliated with anymore.

(08-22-2013 10:35 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 10:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Do you really want me to quote the teams in C-USA that have zero fan base? Also the guy has been a TV exec in charge of college sports programing for something like 20 years he knows plenty of people or at least should know plenty of people.

So is this a vote of confidence for Aresco from you? Because you are like one of the main bashers of Aresco on the AAC Board. Constantly calling him a liar amongst other things.

I think you and others have completely overreacted to the AAC Bowl situation on your main board. And most of you (particularly ECU posters) have consistently just bad mouth Aresco since you were invited to the AAC. So you berate CUSA, berate the AAC; you guys aren't happy bout chit these days.

How about not raining on CUSA parade and let us enjoy our conference; a conference that ECU posters don't even want to be affiliated with anymore.

No this is a vote of how bad I think Aresco has failed. He's a complete idiot and has butchered this situation so badly for the AAC. I'm not berating C-USA. I think Ban Ban did an amazing job with what he has to work with, and I think Aresco has done a horrific job with what he has to work with.

(08-21-2013 10:00 PM)Eagle in the gym Wrote:  I would have guessed Liberty, one Texas bowl for UH or SMU's ties, and New Orleans because of too lame. I do not get the model being used by AAC. Some of those fans enlighten me to the thinking, please, as 2013 and beyond college football is beyond my way of thinking.

I can say the most western 3 or 4 AAC teams are not looking at a pretty bowl picture. The closest primary AAC bowl tie to Houston is likely to be Birmingham (600 miles). The rest will be 1000 or more miles away. If we were not getting the Armed Forces Bowl, I would have thought we would have at least made a strong push for the NO Bowl just to have a nice low end bowl that an easy drive for the western schools. Instead, we either didn't push hard enough or flat turned them down (depending on who you believe). Either way, I just have to shake my head. Our loss is CUSA's gain. Personally, I think the New Orleans Bowl would be a blast.

(08-22-2013 10:38 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 10:35 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 10:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Do you really want me to quote the teams in C-USA that have zero fan base? Also the guy has been a TV exec in charge of college sports programing for something like 20 years he knows plenty of people or at least should know plenty of people.

So is this a vote of confidence for Aresco from you? Because you are like one of the main bashers of Aresco on the AAC Board. Constantly calling him a liar amongst other things.

I think you and others have completely overreacted to the AAC Bowl situation on your main board. And most of you (particularly ECU posters) have consistently just bad mouth Aresco since you were invited to the AAC. So you berate CUSA, berate the AAC; you guys aren't happy bout chit these days.

How about not raining on CUSA parade and let us enjoy our conference; a conference that ECU posters don't even want to be affiliated with anymore.

No this is a vote of how bad I think Aresco has failed. He's a complete idiot and has butchered this situation so badly for the AAC. I'm not berating C-USA. I think Ban Ban did an amazing job with what he has to work with, and I think Aresco has done a horrific job with what he has to work with.

See, I think Aresco talks too much but I honestly believe he is going to put the AAC into a good bowl situation. Like you, I agree with Aresco that the P-5 over extended themselves with bowl tie-ins and there will definitely be a couple left out there for the G-5 conferences to get in on.

If the AAC gets the backup for those leftovers then good job by him. But I like that CUSA still have six guaranteed tie-ins to include a bowl game with a million plus payout per team that replaces the Liberty and better destinations.

Hell if a team is going to lose money participating in a bowl game, you might as well lose it a great destination instead of a sucky one.

Calling us Too Lame. Class act.

We're fine with our bowl games. We play the P5 more than any other G5 conference and have as many tie ins as we'll probably need. The NOLA Bowl would've been nice for proximity and I imagine when Tulane gets off our asses it will come calling (in years) but the pay out for the NOLA Bowl is low.

The AAC is not getting any BCS bowls. This utter stupidity needs to stop. I don't know why people miss the fact that when the conference had WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, UCONN, USF, Cincy, Rutgers, and latter Temple the P5 voted to take their auto bid for their conference champion away because they were producing teams outside the top 15. UCONN going to the fiesta bowl unranked broke that camel's back.

Now you rename the conference and add a bunch of teams that were from a lower conference and have never sniffed a BCS bowl and somehow the P5 is going to change their mind? Where is that logic? It is CUSA plus Temple named AAC. Same teams and same low level of respect. Of those teams left in the AAC going forward from 2014 they only produced three teams finishing ranked times in the last 10 years.

2012 - Cincy (Coaches #22)
2011 - Houston (AP#18, Coaches#14, Harris#17, BCS#19), Cincy (AP#25, Harris#24)
2010 - UCF (AP#21, Coaches#20, BC#25, Harris#25), Tulsa (AP#24)
2009 - Cincy (AP#8, Coaches#9, Harris#4, BCS#4)
2008 - Cincy (AP#17, Coaches#17, Harris#12, BCS#12)
2007 - Cincy (AP#17, Coaches#20, Harris#20, BCS#22)
2006 - No ranked teams
2005 - No ranked teams
2004 - No ranked teams
2003 - No ranked teams
2002 - No ranked teams
2001 - No ranked teams
2000 - No ranked teams

So you see Cincinnati is the only team since 2000 that can boast a top 10 team or a team ranked in the top 15. Where is this quality that you AACers keep ranting about? Where is it? What is so appealing to the P5 to let you in? It isn't there Face it you are in the G5 like the rest of us no matter how much you cry and beg.

(08-22-2013 11:28 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  The AAC is not getting any BCS bowls. This utter stupidity needs to stop. I don't know why people miss the fact that when the conference had WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, UCONN, USF, Cincy, Rutgers, and latter Temple the P5 voted to take their auto bid for their conference champion away because they were producing teams outside the top 15. UCONN going to the fiesta bowl unranked broke that camel's back.

Now you rename the conference and add a bunch of teams that were from a lower conference and have never sniffed a BCS bowl and somehow the P5 is going to change their mind? Where is that logic? It is CUSA plus Temple named AAC. Same teams and same low level of respect. Of those teams left in the AAC going forward from 2014 they only produced three teams finishing ranked times in the last 10 years.

2012 - Cincy (Coaches #22)
2011 - Houston (AP#18, Coaches#14, Harris#17, BCS#19), Cincy (AP#25, Harris#24)
2010 - UCF (AP#21, Coaches#20, BC#25, Harris#25), Tulsa (AP#24)
2009 - Cincy (AP#8, Coaches#9, Harris#4, BCS#4)
2008 - Cincy (AP#17, Coaches#17, Harris#12, BCS#12)
2007 - Cincy (AP#17, Coaches#20, Harris#20, BCS#22)
2006 - No ranked teams
2005 - No ranked teams
2004 - No ranked teams
2003 - No ranked teams
2002 - No ranked teams
2001 - No ranked teams
2000 - No ranked teams

So you see Cincinnati is the only team since 2000 that can boast a top 10 team or a team ranked in the top 15. Where is this quality that you AACers keep ranting about? Where is it? What is so appealing to the P5 to let you in? It isn't there Face it you are in the G5 like the rest of us no matter how much you cry and beg.

This is the most randomly off topic post ever. Who are you even directing that at? -edit- I control f'd to see that ONE OF YOUR conference mates was the one to bring up the BCS. So your rant against AAC fans was extra pointless.

someone posted that the AAC believe they are getting a BCS game every year. I am tired of hearing that crap because it isn't going to happen. It was brought up so I gave my opinion. I don't care who brought it up, it was brought up.

(08-22-2013 11:28 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  The AAC is not getting any BCS bowls. This utter stupidity needs to stop. I don't know why people miss the fact that when the conference had WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, UCONN, USF, Cincy, Rutgers, and latter Temple the P5 voted to take their auto bid for their conference champion away because they were producing teams outside the top 15. UCONN going to the fiesta bowl unranked broke that camel's back.

Now you rename the conference and add a bunch of teams that were from a lower conference and have never sniffed a BCS bowl and somehow the P5 is going to change their mind? Where is that logic? It is CUSA plus Temple named AAC. Same teams and same low level of respect. Of those teams left in the AAC going forward from 2014 they only produced three teams finishing ranked times in the last 10 years.

2012 - Cincy (Coaches #22)
2011 - Houston (AP#18, Coaches#14, Harris#17, BCS#19), Cincy (AP#25, Harris#24)
2010 - UCF (AP#21, Coaches#20, BC#25, Harris#25), Tulsa (AP#24)
2009 - Cincy (AP#8, Coaches#9, Harris#4, BCS#4)
2008 - Cincy (AP#17, Coaches#17, Harris#12, BCS#12)
2007 - Cincy (AP#17, Coaches#20, Harris#20, BCS#22)
2006 - No ranked teams
2005 - No ranked teams
2004 - No ranked teams
2003 - No ranked teams
2002 - No ranked teams
2001 - No ranked teams
2000 - No ranked teams
So you see Cincinnati is the only team since 2000 that can boast a top 10 team or a team ranked in the top 15. Where is this quality that you AACers keep ranting about? Where is it? What is so appealing to the P5 to let you in? It isn't there Face it you are in the G5 like the rest of us no matter how much you cry and beg.

There's one minor flaw in your reasoning my Herd friend. With all the defections to the p5 someone in the g5 is going to rise to the top. An upset here and a run-of-the-conference table there and all of a sudden you've got a BCS buster on your hands. It happens every other year in the MAC, Houston and SMU have been on track for that and there's always Boise out west.

I know your point was to address the AAC, however, they have just as good a chance to come up with one of these busters' as anybody else, perhraps a little better (though their competition is better so it may be that much harder to run the table.

Point is, the vacuum created by these defections will be filled.

(08-22-2013 11:45 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  There's one minor flaw in your reasoning my Herd friend. With all the defections to the p5 someone in the g5 is going to rise to the top. An upset here and a run-of-the-conference table there and all of a sudden you've got a BCS buster on your hands. It happens every other year in the MAC, Houston and SMU have been on track for that and there's always Boise out west.

I know your point was to address the AAC, however, they have just as good a chance to come up with one of these busters' as anybody else, perhraps a little better (though their competition is better so it may be that much harder to run the table.

Point is, the vacuum created by these defections will be filled.

Stop being reasonable. THE AAC WILL SUCK FOREVER! YOU'LL REGRET LEAVING ME!

(08-22-2013 11:45 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 11:28 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  The AAC is not getting any BCS bowls. This utter stupidity needs to stop. I don't know why people miss the fact that when the conference had WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, UCONN, USF, Cincy, Rutgers, and latter Temple the P5 voted to take their auto bid for their conference champion away because they were producing teams outside the top 15. UCONN going to the fiesta bowl unranked broke that camel's back.

Now you rename the conference and add a bunch of teams that were from a lower conference and have never sniffed a BCS bowl and somehow the P5 is going to change their mind? Where is that logic? It is CUSA plus Temple named AAC. Same teams and same low level of respect. Of those teams left in the AAC going forward from 2014 they only produced three teams finishing ranked times in the last 10 years.

2012 - Cincy (Coaches #22)
2011 - Houston (AP#18, Coaches#14, Harris#17, BCS#19), Cincy (AP#25, Harris#24)
2010 - UCF (AP#21, Coaches#20, BC#25, Harris#25), Tulsa (AP#24)
2009 - Cincy (AP#8, Coaches#9, Harris#4, BCS#4)
2008 - Cincy (AP#17, Coaches#17, Harris#12, BCS#12)
2007 - Cincy (AP#17, Coaches#20, Harris#20, BCS#22)
2006 - No ranked teams
2005 - No ranked teams
2004 - No ranked teams
2003 - No ranked teams
2002 - No ranked teams
2001 - No ranked teams
2000 - No ranked teams
So you see Cincinnati is the only team since 2000 that can boast a top 10 team or a team ranked in the top 15. Where is this quality that you AACers keep ranting about? Where is it? What is so appealing to the P5 to let you in? It isn't there Face it you are in the G5 like the rest of us no matter how much you cry and beg.

There's one minor flaw in your reasoning my Herd friend. With all the defections to the p5 someone in the g5 is going to rise to the top. An upset here and a run-of-the-conference table there and all of a sudden you've got a BCS buster on your hands. It happens every other year in the MAC, Houston and SMU have been on track for that and there's always Boise out west.

I know your point was to address the AAC, however, they have just as good a chance to come up with one of these busters' as anybody else, perhraps a little better (though their competition is better so it may be that much harder to run the table.

Point is, the vacuum created by these defections will be filled.

I'm not entirely clear what point either of you are really trying to make, but you both are actually making two halves of a single point.

Some AAC fans have resorted to consoling themselves by claiming that either they or the MW (specifically Boise) will be the access bowl representative almost every year. As both of you have pointed out in different forms, the most compelling evidence for that is wishful thinking, as anyone from the G5 can upset a P5 team and go undefeated in conference and end up the highest ranked G5 school. Having a weaker conference schedule may even turn out to be an asset if you can beat the P5 teams on your out of conference schedule.

(08-22-2013 11:44 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  someone posted that the AAC believe they are getting a BCS game every year. I am tired of hearing that crap because it isn't going to happen. It was brought up so I gave my opinion. I don't care who brought it up, it was brought up.

My point was you called us crying beggars yet your conference mate made the comment. So...

(08-22-2013 12:01 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 11:44 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  someone posted that the AAC believe they are getting a BCS game every year. I am tired of hearing that crap because it isn't going to happen. It was brought up so I gave my opinion. I don't care who brought it up, it was brought up.

My point was you called us crying beggars yet your conference mate made the comment. So...

I guess nobody picked up that my comment was sarcasm. The fact is nobody is entitled to the access bowl, you have to earn it no matter what conference your in. To just assume most years a certain conference will be in it is unreasonable. We are all equals until somebody steps up and takes it, a fan of any team from UTSA to Cincy should expect that bowl every year otherwise what's the point of being a fan?

(08-22-2013 10:12 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 09:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm extremely baffled by it. I think Aresco is a gigantic failure and a flat out liar. Only positive thing I can say about him is the AAC basketball TV deal is outstanding, but his football dealings have been nothing short of embarrassing on all levels.

Why would you be baffled? You know Tulame only puts 5-6K in the stands. You know a school like Temple doesn't accurately report their "real" attendance. Hell Temple won 8-9 games a couple years ago and didn't get one offer for a bowl game while other 6-6 teams got the nod. Its because they dont travel. They have no fan base. Same for SMU. Bowl games want schools that have traveling fans that will spend money buying merchandise and selling tickets.

On top of that, what do you really expect from a guy that is a first time commissioner? Did you think he was just going to come in and pick and choose what he wanted? He probably doesn't have many contacts in the business.

And finally, its about brand. The casual college sports fan doesn't know what the American conference even is. How can bowl committees sell advertising and do other business when nobody knows what the AAC is? Losing that Big East name was a huge blow. If you would have kept the name, the bowl games would have come easier because people can identify with the Big East name. You guys are essentially starting from scratch.

By the time Tulane gets to the AAC they will have a new 30,000 seat on campus stadium open...I believe it will do wonders for them.

(08-22-2013 11:44 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  someone posted that the AAC believe they are getting a BCS game every year. I am tired of hearing that crap because it isn't going to happen. It was brought up so I gave my opinion. I don't care who brought it up, it was brought up.

Well in reality it will either be the MWC or the AAC most years. You have to believe that SOS will play a huge role in determining who makes it to the playoffs. Nothing against Conf USA, but it is about to lose it's best teams on paper, not withstanding Southern Miss.

This is not to say that they schools that will make up Conf USA will not get better, but until that happens Conf USA is going to have some catching up to do with the MWC and AAC. Is the AAC a power conference? no, but on paper it has some of the best teams in the G5. Conf USA needs to have a good year this year to fully separate itself from the Sun Belt. Remember we were ranked lower than the Belt last year. IMO it will take several years for Conf USA to understand what it has in the stable.

(08-22-2013 02:02 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 11:44 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  someone posted that the AAC believe they are getting a BCS game every year. I am tired of hearing that crap because it isn't going to happen. It was brought up so I gave my opinion. I don't care who brought it up, it was brought up.

Well in reality it will either be the MWC or the AAC most years. You have to believe that SOS will play a huge role in determining who makes it to the playoffs. Nothing against Conf USA, but it is about to lose it's best teams on paper, not withstanding Southern Miss.

This is not to say that they schools that will make up Conf USA will not get better, but until that happens Conf USA is going to have some catching up to do with the MWC and AAC. Is the AAC a power conference? no, but on paper it has some of the best teams in the G5. Conf USA needs to have a good year this year to fully separate itself from the Sun Belt. Remember we were ranked lower than the Belt last year. IMO it will take several years for Conf USA to understand what it has in the stable.

The thing about SOS is that it is really easy to figure out in football. Every conference in the land finishes .500 overall in conference games, so all you really have to do is calculate the results of a given conference against its out of conference schedule, minus FCS games. No matter what, the undefeated team with a P5 out of conference victory is the access bowl team. That is the wildcard that causes AAC and CUSA posters alike to qualify their answers. The real question is whether a one loss or Hawaii/Tulane-style undefeated is better than a one loss or Hawaii/Tulane from another conference. What measure will the committee use? Will they put more weight on an undefeated conference season, or accept a team that beat two P5 opponents out of conference but lost a conference game (I think this actually happened to Boise a few years ago)? Will the emphasis be on how tough a conference is as a whole (which is really just a measure of how the conference performed out of conference) or how good a team is in that conference (i.e. WAC Boise)?

What I am getting at is that you could easily postulate a situation that strongly favors a weaker conference schedule for a clearer path to the access bowl. Claiming "we deserve the access bowl slot every year because we are better" doesn't mean that you are going to get it (it also doesn't mean you are better if you get it, but let's not go into that), even in years in which your conference is clearly the best of the five. We aren't writing the rules. The P5 are writing the rules.

One argument I am not going to bother with is whether the AAC is actually better right now. Right now is irrelevant, the past can't be changed, and the future will be decided on the field. Good luck to the AAC on the field.

(08-22-2013 02:30 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 02:02 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 11:44 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  someone posted that the AAC believe they are getting a BCS game every year. I am tired of hearing that crap because it isn't going to happen. It was brought up so I gave my opinion. I don't care who brought it up, it was brought up.

Well in reality it will either be the MWC or the AAC most years. You have to believe that SOS will play a huge role in determining who makes it to the playoffs. Nothing against Conf USA, but it is about to lose it's best teams on paper, not withstanding Southern Miss.

This is not to say that they schools that will make up Conf USA will not get better, but until that happens Conf USA is going to have some catching up to do with the MWC and AAC. Is the AAC a power conference? no, but on paper it has some of the best teams in the G5. Conf USA needs to have a good year this year to fully separate itself from the Sun Belt. Remember we were ranked lower than the Belt last year. IMO it will take several years for Conf USA to understand what it has in the stable.

The thing about SOS is that it is really easy to figure out in football. Every conference in the land finishes .500 overall in conference games, so all you really have to do is calculate the results of a given conference against its out of conference schedule, minus FCS games. No matter what, the undefeated team with a P5 out of conference victory is the access bowl team. That is the wildcard that causes AAC and CUSA posters alike to qualify their answers. The real question is whether a one loss or Hawaii/Tulane-style undefeated is better than a one loss or Hawaii/Tulane from another conference. What measure will the committee use? Will they put more weight on an undefeated conference season, or accept a team that beat two P5 opponents out of conference but lost a conference game (I think this actually happened to Boise a few years ago)? Will the emphasis be on how tough a conference is as a whole (which is really just a measure of how the conference performed out of conference) or how good a team is in that conference (i.e. WAC Boise)?

What I am getting at is that you could easily postulate a situation that strongly favors a weaker conference schedule for a clearer path to the access bowl. Claiming "we deserve the access bowl slot every year because we are better" doesn't mean that you are going to get it (it also doesn't mean you are better if you get it, but let's not go into that), even in years in which your conference is clearly the best of the five. We aren't writing the rules. The P5 are writing the rules.

One argument I am not going to bother with is whether the AAC is actually better right now. Right now is irrelevant, the past can't be changed, and the future will be decided on the field. Good luck to the AAC on the field.

Math major or Actuary?

(08-22-2013 02:02 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  Well in reality it will either be the MWC or the AAC most years. IMO it will take several years for Conf USA to understand what it has in the stable.

First of all can you prove it be a reality? No you can't and that is why you play the game.

And that last comment is just plain ole idiotic and completely senseless.

I don't think about the AAC at all, if I can help it.