They say there is a P5...all I will say in 2012-2013 the BIG EAST won it BCS Bowl Game and the Men's & Women National Basketball Title...in 2013-2014 the American-(The True Successor to the BIG EAST) won it BCS Bowl Game and won the 2013-2014 Men's and Women Basketball Title...to make that feat even more impressive the Men's National Basketball title was won by it 4th place Regular Season team-(no disrespect for UConn just showing how good the league was in it Top 5).

well Power is in terms of the following:

1. Can the conference regularly have a team competing for the MNC?
2. Does the conference have strong anchor bowls?
3. Does the conference have (perceived) value on TV?

ON the field results weren't considered for the duration of Big East 2.0 -- it was the perception that the league wouldn't last without Miami and Va Tech. I do think that the Big East/American is weak in having teams that can regularly compete for the MNC, but presently if you're not Ohio State or in the SEC you're not going to do that anyway.

(04-11-2014 10:06 AM)megadrone Wrote:  well Power is in terms of the following:

1. Can the conference regularly have a team competing for the MNC?
2. Does the conference have strong anchor bowls?
3. Does the conference have (perceived) value on TV?

ON the field results weren't considered for the duration of Big East 2.0 -- it was the perception that the league wouldn't last without Miami and Va Tech. I do think that the Big East/American is weak in having teams that can regularly compete for the MNC, but presently if you're not Ohio State or in the SEC you're not going to do that anyway.

I think we can answer yes to points #1 and #3. Point #2 is a problem. We have nothing even close to an anchor bowl. I continue to maintain that making the opponent payout for the conference owned Miami Bowl around 3 million (4 million total--3 million to opponent and 1 million to AAC champ) will make the bowl attractive to a decent P5 selection. Perhaps, we can get the Miami Bowl included in the same shared bowl pool as the Liberty Bowl. The money could come from our 12 million dollar cut of CFP money. Keep in mind, as a conference owned bowl, the conference would stand to offset this expenditure through the sale of tickets and tv rights. So in the final analysis, it likely wouldn't cost us much to finance our own anchor bowl. The best part of such an arrangement is that it places the AAC in control of most of the key factors that would work against our search for an AAC anchor bowl.

In order to make the AAC football championship mean something--we have to give the championship context. There has to be a brass ring for winning the AAC title. If the AAC champ doesn't get the G5 BCS slot, a trip to the Miltary Bowl to face the ACC #7-10 selection isn't much of a prize. The lack of a signature bowl for its champion is the biggest chink in the AAC's image.

"power" is a term of wealth not athletic accomplishment.

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  "power" is a term of wealth not athletic accomplishment.

According to who? Source or is this your opinion. I have never heard a credible source other than message board posters say power is tied to wealth. To me power means strong. And performance on the field is strong for the AAC.

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  "power" is a term of wealth not athletic accomplishment.

Exactly.

(04-11-2014 10:37 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  "power" is a term of wealth not athletic accomplishment.

According to who? Source or is this your opinion. I have never heard a credible source other than message board posters say power is tied to wealth. To me power means strong. And performance on the field is strong for the AAC.

The Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules...thats just how it is.

(04-11-2014 10:37 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  "power" is a term of wealth not athletic accomplishment.

According to who? Source or is this your opinion. I have never heard a credible source other than message board posters say power is tied to wealth. To me power means strong. And performance on the field is strong for the AAC.

SAN DIEGO -- An unofficial straw poll of hundreds of delegates at the NCAA Convention in San Diego shows they support Division I athletics moving toward a model that would grant more autonomy to the five conferences with the most resources -- the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC.

According to the Number 1 Source in all sports ESPN

SOURCE-MOST AWESOMIST SPORTS NETWORK EVER!!!

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:06 AM)megadrone Wrote:  well Power is in terms of the following:

1. Can the conference regularly have a team competing for the MNC?
2. Does the conference have strong anchor bowls?
3. Does the conference have (perceived) value on TV?

ON the field results weren't considered for the duration of Big East 2.0 -- it was the perception that the league wouldn't last without Miami and Va Tech. I do think that the Big East/American is weak in having teams that can regularly compete for the MNC, but presently if you're not Ohio State or in the SEC you're not going to do that anyway.

I think we can answer yes to points #1 and #3. Point #2 is a problem. We have nothing even close to an anchor bowl. I continue to maintain that making the opponent payout for the conference owned Miami Bowl around 3 million (4 million total--3 million to opponent and 1 million to AAC champ) will make the bowl attractive to a decent P5 selection. Perhaps, we can get the Miami Bowl included in the same shared bowl pool as the Liberty Bowl. The money could come from our 12 million dollar cut of CFP money. Keep in mind, as a conference owned bowl, the conference would stand to offset this expenditure through the sale of tickets and tv rights. So in the final analysis, it likely wouldn't cost us much to finance our own anchor bowl. The best part of such an arrangement is that it places the AAC in control of most of the key factors that would work against our search for an AAC anchor bowl.

In order to make the AAC football championship mean something--we have to give the championship context. There has to be a brass ring for winning the AAC title. If the AAC champ doesn't get the G5 BCS slot, a trip to the Miltary Bowl to face the ACC #7-10 selection isn't much of a prize. The lack of a signature bowl for its champion is the biggest chink in the AAC's image.

What team from the American can regularly compete for teh National Championship? Even in 2.0, WVU got close one year, and Cincinnati got close one year. I don't see UCF (yet) or Cincy in that position. The Big East didn't have that team close to the top consistently since Miami/Va Tech around the turn of the century.

Can the American produce a team, every year, that's ranked in the top 10, or at least in the top 15?

(04-11-2014 11:08 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:06 AM)megadrone Wrote:  well Power is in terms of the following:

1. Can the conference regularly have a team competing for the MNC?
2. Does the conference have strong anchor bowls?
3. Does the conference have (perceived) value on TV?

ON the field results weren't considered for the duration of Big East 2.0 -- it was the perception that the league wouldn't last without Miami and Va Tech. I do think that the Big East/American is weak in having teams that can regularly compete for the MNC, but presently if you're not Ohio State or in the SEC you're not going to do that anyway.

I think we can answer yes to points #1 and #3. Point #2 is a problem. We have nothing even close to an anchor bowl. I continue to maintain that making the opponent payout for the conference owned Miami Bowl around 3 million (4 million total--3 million to opponent and 1 million to AAC champ) will make the bowl attractive to a decent P5 selection. Perhaps, we can get the Miami Bowl included in the same shared bowl pool as the Liberty Bowl. The money could come from our 12 million dollar cut of CFP money. Keep in mind, as a conference owned bowl, the conference would stand to offset this expenditure through the sale of tickets and tv rights. So in the final analysis, it likely wouldn't cost us much to finance our own anchor bowl. The best part of such an arrangement is that it places the AAC in control of most of the key factors that would work against our search for an AAC anchor bowl.

In order to make the AAC football championship mean something--we have to give the championship context. There has to be a brass ring for winning the AAC title. If the AAC champ doesn't get the G5 BCS slot, a trip to the Miltary Bowl to face the ACC #7-10 selection isn't much of a prize. The lack of a signature bowl for its champion is the biggest chink in the AAC's image.

What team from the American can regularly compete for teh National Championship? Even in 2.0, WVU got close one year, and Cincinnati got close one year. I don't see UCF (yet) or Cincy in that position. The Big East didn't have that team close to the top consistently since Miami/Va Tech around the turn of the century.

Can the American produce a team, every year, that's ranked in the top 10, or at least in the top 15?

I agree I think the one problem for us never being considered a power conference is because it is near impossible to reach the playoff for our teams in FB. Also, we do not have a direct tie in to one of the big bowls either. Still, I feel that every one will perceive this league more towards the p5 than the g5. TV money will be much better next contract if no more teams leave and there is stability. IMO I feel this league will end up sending almost all of the teams into the p5 withing the next 15 years. If their is true stability and conference realignment is done, then I could see this league earning the respect in both FB and bball to be included into the p6 starting with tv money and then better relationships with the bigger conferences to get a major bowl tie in and a bball challenge with say sec or something. Just my opinion and a lot of different things could happen. For the near future we are a tweener between p5 and g5

(04-11-2014 10:37 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  "power" is a term of wealth not athletic accomplishment.

According to who? Source or is this your opinion. I have never heard a credible source other than message board posters say power is tied to wealth. To me power means strong. And performance on the field is strong for the AAC.

It really wasn't. Our performance on the football field this past year was just plain lousy, a big drop from that of the Big East. Don't let UCF beating Baylor fool you about that.

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  "power" is a term of wealth not athletic accomplishment.

Kids believe anything and everything... The Internet has spoken

(04-11-2014 10:37 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  "power" is a term of wealth not athletic accomplishment.

According to who? Source or is this your opinion. I have never heard a credible source other than message board posters say power is tied to wealth. To me power means strong. And performance on the field is strong for the AAC.

This

(04-11-2014 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:37 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  "power" is a term of wealth not athletic accomplishment.

According to who? Source or is this your opinion. I have never heard a credible source other than message board posters say power is tied to wealth. To me power means strong. And performance on the field is strong for the AAC.

Don't let UCF beating Baylor fool you about that.

Sure quo, whatever you say

POWER
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power

(04-11-2014 03:14 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:37 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  "power" is a term of wealth not athletic accomplishment.

According to who? Source or is this your opinion. I have never heard a credible source other than message board posters say power is tied to wealth. To me power means strong. And performance on the field is strong for the AAC.

Don't let UCF beating Baylor fool you about that.

Sure quo, whatever you say

All of the objective indices show that we were a bad football conference last year, a real disappointment.

And that was with Louisville, the team that carried our banner nationally most of the year and had the best OOC results, the only kind that count.

You can live in an AAC-homer sunshine land if you like, but you are delusional if you think anyone outside of AAC campuses thinks we were a good football league in our first year.

(04-11-2014 03:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 03:14 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:37 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  "power" is a term of wealth not athletic accomplishment.

According to who? Source or is this your opinion. I have never heard a credible source other than message board posters say power is tied to wealth. To me power means strong. And performance on the field is strong for the AAC.

Don't let UCF beating Baylor fool you about that.

Sure quo, whatever you say

All of the objective indices show that we were a bad football conference last year, a real disappointment.

And that was with Louisville, the team that carried our banner nationally most of the year and had the best OOC results, the only kind that count.

You can live in an AAC-homer sunshine land if you like, but you are delusional if you think anyone outside of AAC campuses thinks we were a good football league in our first year.

Oh please... You spout so much nonsense in the AAC board its becoming unreadable now.

(04-11-2014 10:06 AM)megadrone Wrote:  well Power is in terms of the following:

1. Can the conference regularly have a team competing for the MNC?
2. Does the conference have strong anchor bowls?
3. Does the conference have (perceived) value on TV?

ON the field results weren't considered for the duration of Big East 2.0 -- it was the perception that the league wouldn't last without Miami and Va Tech. I do think that the Big East/American is weak in having teams that can regularly compete for the MNC, but presently if you're not Ohio State or in the SEC you're not going to do that anyway.

Power= suck on field, make $$ on TV. It is the Big 10 way.

(04-11-2014 06:05 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:06 AM)megadrone Wrote:  well Power is in terms of the following:

1. Can the conference regularly have a team competing for the MNC?
2. Does the conference have strong anchor bowls?
3. Does the conference have (perceived) value on TV?

ON the field results weren't considered for the duration of Big East 2.0 -- it was the perception that the league wouldn't last without Miami and Va Tech. I do think that the Big East/American is weak in having teams that can regularly compete for the MNC, but presently if you're not Ohio State or in the SEC you're not going to do that anyway.

Power= suck on field, make $$ on TV. It is the Big 10 way.

The B1G is not nearly as bad on the field as people think. IIRC, they won 12 BCS bowl games during that era.