(04-09-2014 11:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Message getting through finally:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2014/story/_...-dream-big

When Detroit took BYU defensive end Ezekiel Ansah fifth overall, it marked the first time that two players who didn't play in power conferences (the American Athletic Conference, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) were selected in the top five.

If Central Florida quarterback Blake Bortles, a strong candidate to be this year's top overall pick, hadn't seen his school move from Conference USA into the AAC this past season, this potentially could've been the sixth time in the past 13 years that as many as three players from mid-majors or small schools were selected in the first round.

A more likely explanation is that the AAC was in fact an AQ conference this past season, but we'll see going forward.

(04-09-2014 07:21 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 11:37 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 11:20 AM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:07 AM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  Aresco has been great at getting the AAC message out there. I've seen his face all over the place. But one thing he hasn't mentioned is that the AAC is a power conference. Maybe he bought the line that there are only 5 power coferences. Maybe he was biding his time. Maybe he wasn't even sure yet. But now is the time for him to start beating this drum. Do you think the other 5 conferences are going to do it. Why let them set the agenda and narrative. Aresco needs to start touting the AAC even more now. Of course, I'm not talking about TV contract, but actual on the field/court performance and stating what is actually occurring...that the AAC is a power conference on the field/court where it matters.

Quo, above is the original post by Bulls fan in Texas. It's HIS OPINION. And many people here, myself included, happen to agree with that opinion. It's been said ad nauseam. What my very pointed question for you is, PAY ATTENTION, all things being equal, what would you have Aresco and the conference do differently that would bring a different, better result? Please, we wait with bated breath.

Quo, answer my question. All things being equal, what would you have Aresco and the conference do differently that would bring a different, better result?

Don't bother, I've asked this repeatedly... you'll just get some rant about how a 'trained monkey' would have done better, and how Aresco is 'overpaid'. Yet when you pin him down, he'll never come up with a single thing he'd have done differently. He always goes back to that same tired overpaid BS, as if that's the debate.

First, there's nothing "BS" about noting that Aresco is overpaid. It is an integral part of the issue of his performance, because job performance is always, in every field, evaluated in terms of pay. Job performance that is very acceptable if someone is making $8 an hour can be woefully inadequate if the individual is earning $30 an hour.

Second, another way I reply is with a question you also always fail to answer: "If the new commissioner was helpless about our situation, then why on earth did we bother to hire Aresco"? Why have a commissioner at all if external circumstances beyond his control determine our fate? Of course you ignore it because that is manifestly not the case. Aresco sat across from media companies and had a chance to negotiate. He sat at all those meetings with the other commissioners when the playoff system was being devised, and had a chance to negotiate. He met with numerous bowl representatives, and had a chance to negotiate.

He laid eggs everywhere he went.

Finally, the only BS in these debates is you replying to my claim that Aresco has performed awfully by demanding that *I* prove that someone else could have done better. That is ridiculous, because (a) it is an impossible thing to prove because nobody can know for sure whether other actions taken by other individuals would have produced different results, and (b) since Aresco IS in fact the commissioner, and it IS in fact the commissioner's job to produce good results for the conference, and Aresco has failed to do so, it is YOUR responsibility to "prove" that he did the best that could be done.

Bottom Line: Aresco's results on the performance metrics that matter - media money, AQ status, and bowl ties - has been dreadful. If you think nobody could have done better, than prove it.

Good luck with that.

Quo will you allow me to get into your a mind a little please, because you been making some intriguing arguments on this board, so now your Commish Quo Vadis of the BE, scenario you just loss SU, Pitt , WVU, Notre Dame losing UL, you have 2 malcontents schools who make it known every chance they get they want out of this lousy conference they keep saying, a ton of instability and somewhat continuing instability because of the malcontents schools, the national press is speculating if the conference will survive at all. Your think you have some stability, and your in the midst of negotiation a new TV contract you just find out, close to half of your conference schools are bailing, the C7, while in the midst of these negotiations. So you have 2 suitors wanting your business one low balls you and says will give your all the exposure you want on our network, the other is really not negotiating with you because they are waiting, to see what the competition offers first. Now Quo tell me this what brilliant strategy you would have pursued, to get a better deal. Don't give me as your answer, I would have come up with something better than Aresco, or that's is why we pay Aresco the big bucks to do.. give me Commish Quo's plan a rational, logical, well thought out strategy Commish Quo would have employed to get a different outcome. Sounds like you think things could have been different, so it sounds like you have some thoughts on what he could have done to make it different, I'm very interested in hearing yours in all sincerity.

First, you are wrong about that bolded part. If I thought I had a "brilliant strategy" for the AAC (or the SEC or B1G for that matter) then I would have applied for the commissioner's job's for those conferences. They pay a lot more than my current job, LOL. But I don't believe I'm qualified for those jobs.

But as an observer in the peanut gallery, I can put 2 + 2 together. The commissioner's job is a Chief Executive's job, a "buck stops here" job. It is not a job where you are allowed to dodge failure by whining about circumstances or blame the bad weather. You have bottom-line responsibility. That's why you get paid the big bucks. Since it is manifestly Aresco's job to get us good media deals, bowl ties, and playoff system positioning, and our deals in all those areas were awful, it makes sense to blame Aresco for failing to do a good job.

Second, I take issue with some of your description above. If Aresco was surprised in the middle of his negotiations that the C7 were leaving, then he was clueless, because those rumblings were everywhere and had been for months. Also, Aresco chose to blow off ESPN during the exclusive negotiating window in October of 2012. He was seemingly confident that we could get more by going to the 'open market', which didn't happen. And you have no reason to say that NBC "low balled" us. If NBC's offer was really a low-ball, then almost surely other suitors would have jumped in to beat it, which didn't happen either. Heck, why didn't FOX offer us the same $3+ million a year for our basketball that the Big East got for theirs? Why couldn't Aresco get them to offer it? And that's just one network.

Really, the only good call that Aresco did clearly make was choosing to accept ESPN's match of NBC's offer. That was good judgment, and FWIW it was made AGAINST the opinion of the vast majority of posters around here.

It is hilarious to see these hard-core AAC-sunshiners praising Aresco for signing with ESPN, and laughing at the Big East for "making the biggest mistake in athletics, spurning ESPN", when the clear consensus opinion on this forum 12+ months ago was that ESPN ("ESPiN") was the Devil and we should stick it to the Devil.

But even in that case, Aresco initially blundered by signing with NBC. It was his good fortune that ESPN decided to match, otherwise we would have been stuck with lousy money and NBC's "terrible" exposure. But fair is fair: If I don't allow Aresco to blame bad luck for his failed outcomes I can't invoke good luck to denigrate his good outcomes. He did get that job done. Still, the ESPN deal is overall awful, so it's not much to praise him for anyway.

And concerning other big issues: Aresco was in the room with the other commissioners when we were stripped of AQ access to the major bowls in the playoff system, he was in the room when it was decided we would get the same peanuts from the playoff system as the Sun Belt, and he was in all the rooms when our awful bowl lineup was negotiated.

He's responsible for all those bad outcomes, too. That's his job.