I don't have a problem with this league, at all. It is very competitive in both major sports. Of course, that is something that hurts us in TV revenue, b/c we have no football powerhouses.

The ONLY issue we have is lack of revenue compared to the big boys, which might eventually relegate all of us to some second class division, or force us to drop out.

If it weren't for that little issue, I would be quite happy in this conference.

BTW, I think the linked article is poorly written. Examples: AAC Conference is redundant. Using "corp" for "core." Etc. Hard to take what they say seriously, and I don't for the most part.

(06-20-2015 11:59 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I wish schools would put aside their power five dreams and actually work on building this conference.

That is tantamount to asking schools to accept second-class status. No school with athletic aspirations will accept that.

Apparently nobody proofread this article.

Man we really beat a dead horse on some of these threads... but I'll play. Some simple truths:

1. Yeah, we'd all love to be in a P conference, and we'd all take the invite. So what? That should not reflect negatively in any fashion on our current conference. Except that we're not getting 20+ million per school that THEY are...

2. For what the AAC is, which is essentially the 'best of the rest', it's an EXCELLENT conference. Would anyone prefer the SBC, MAC, cUSA, etc etc.? Our success pisses off a few folks, which is why the same derogatory nonsense shows up on every thread.

3. We do have quite a bit of common history and rivalries. You see this in Florida, our western division, the north east, among former cUSA members. And that's a good thing. It's not exactly like we are 12 schools who never met before. It may be a new conference (which isn't a crime), but some of us know each other pretty well. I bristle at these comments that make it sound for convenience we were names picked out of a hat.

4. We've got a bit more gravitas than many would like to admit. Houston was in a 'Power' conference. So were UConn, Cinci and USF. UCF won a BCS bowl. We have, thanks to the Huskies, 2 recent BB national championships. And yes, this pisses off some folks here as well...

5. It's VERY impressive just how much we are investing in facilities across the conference. I won't reiterate the list. All this investment will certainly continue to elevate us collectively as a conference.

6. We have Navy. We have the Army Navy game. That's a HECK of a platform, which is why the MWC had an embarrassing hissy fit over it... Nuff' said, and go Midshipmen!!

7. Future is pretty bright, even if we don't get in the Power conferences. Meaning, we are poised to (thanks to the savvy of Aresco) to renegotiate in just another year or two. We can argue about what our increase may be day and night, but most of us understand the factors that drove our initial TV deal down, and why we took the exposure, what we've been doing with that opportunity. We should get a 'decent' bump, which will be enough to accomplish two goals: keep us light years above the G'4', and ensure we have enough $$$ to pay athletes and coaches to keep within 'striking distance' of the P5. Heck we are doing that now... and we WILL get a bump in pay to some degree.

8. The Access Bowl slot was almost single handedly due to the actions of Aresco. That was a pretty important 'get'. This next point is debatable, but if we keep the path as outlined above, we could see some sort of playoff access downstream. Maybe. I know it's going to be a struggle, but if the playoff expands to 8, this becomes a bit more likely. I don't know if we get this or not, but obviously we keep fighting.

(06-20-2015 11:59 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I wish schools would put aside their power five dreams and actually work on building this conference.

How does one "work on building this conference"? I mean this seriously. Apart from winning OOC games, showing well in bowl games and the NCAA BB tournament, and perhaps one team dominating the AAC year-in-and-year-out, what do you propose that our member schools should do "to build the conference"?

The fact is that there is not much that "we" can do to "build" the conference. Sign a "Grant of Rights"? Fine, find some network that wants to compensate for them and I might go along with that. Here's the trick...NOBODY is trying to work a GoR with the American. Should we only say "nice" things about the conference, our conference mates, and our situation. Well, golly...I don't know how to break it to you, but it's OTHER fan bases whose perception counts and all the "sunshine pumping" in the world on these pages isn't going to move the needle for those people.

I keep hearing this "We need to build the conference" line and I'm baffled. What should we do, exactly?

(06-20-2015 12:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 11:59 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I wish schools would put aside their power five dreams and actually work on building this conference.

That is tantamount to asking schools to accept second-class status. No school with athletic aspirations will accept that.

The schools building to leave are building the conf. For now everyone is here, working to get better, that is good for the conference.

(06-20-2015 01:33 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 11:59 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I wish schools would put aside their power five dreams and actually work on building this conference.

How does one "work on building this conference"? I mean this seriously. Apart from winning OOC games, showing well in bowl games and the NCAA BB tournament, and perhaps one team dominating the AAC year-in-and-year-out, what do you propose that our member schools should do "to build the conference"?

The fact is that there is not much that "we" can do to "build" the conference. Sign a "Grant of Rights"? Fine, find some network that wants to compensate for them and I might go along with that. Here's the trick...NOBODY is trying to work a GoR with the American. Should we only say "nice" things about the conference, our conference mates, and our situation. Well, golly...I don't know how to break it to you, but it's OTHER fan bases whose perception counts and all the "sunshine pumping" in the world on these pages isn't going to move the needle for those people.

I keep hearing this "We need to build the conference" line and I'm baffled. What should we do, exactly?

I feel the same. I don't see what any school or fan base can do to "build the conference." Same goes for any other conference, which is just an amalgam of whatever schools happen to belong.

The best way to build the conference is for each individual school to build its profile, by winning games, including tough OOC games, and improving its facilities and attendance.

The very things that then make it more appealing to a P5 conference, and perhaps eventually, a detriment to this one. A classic "Catch 22."

(06-20-2015 08:34 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 08:28 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 07:19 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 06:13 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  "The AAC will have to decide if it wants to be a paper tiger or a league of Champions. At this point it is unclear which of these options the conference will embrace. Stay tuned". http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/201...-they.html

I think one of the problems we have as a league is that very few schools have any interest in the well being of the league other than its platform as a launching pad to bigger things.

That is a positive...as almost every team is bettering themselves...by investing in their programs, building/renovating new facilities, etc...

Wouldn't a conf what teams like that vs those that they know they are stuck in a minor conf forever (i.e. MAC, SunBelt, and much of the MWC, CUSA, etc...) and are just trying to "get by" and just "exist"?

Who knew "not settling" is now considered a bad thing.

I dont think it bad that we want to move up,i just think it makes it harder to invest in the league.

Schools don't invest on a league, it's the rise in school value that raises the league value.
What's Texas doing to build the Big12 when it was looking at leaving or creating LHN? But its value as a school and staying that raised the value of Big12. You think Texas chose to remain in Big12 to help the conference?

True...Texas cares about TEXAS...be damn with helping other Big 12 schools...same for most major programs (FSU doesn't care about helping Wake Forest or Pitt or Syracuse, etc...)

This is turning out to be a pretty solid conference after we have success next year we will turn the tide the TV contract is excellent.
Navy is on board folks remember they bring a lot of respectability to this league

(06-20-2015 02:29 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 01:33 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 11:59 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I wish schools would put aside their power five dreams and actually work on building this conference.

How does one "work on building this conference"? I mean this seriously. Apart from winning OOC games, showing well in bowl games and the NCAA BB tournament, and perhaps one team dominating the AAC year-in-and-year-out, what do you propose that our member schools should do "to build the conference"?

The fact is that there is not much that "we" can do to "build" the conference. Sign a "Grant of Rights"? Fine, find some network that wants to compensate for them and I might go along with that. Here's the trick...NOBODY is trying to work a GoR with the American. Should we only say "nice" things about the conference, our conference mates, and our situation. Well, golly...I don't know how to break it to you, but it's OTHER fan bases whose perception counts and all the "sunshine pumping" in the world on these pages isn't going to move the needle for those people.

I keep hearing this "We need to build the conference" line and I'm baffled. What should we do, exactly?

I feel the same. I don't see what any school or fan base can do to "build the conference." Same goes for any other conference, which is just an amalgam of whatever schools happen to belong.

The best way to build the conference is for each individual school to build its profile, by winning games, including tough OOC games, and improving its facilities and attendance.

The very things that then make it more appealing to a P5 conference, and perhaps eventually, a detriment to this one. A classic "Catch 22."

Exactly. On an individual school level, the exact things that are required to garner come hither looks from a power conference are the same things that are required to "build this conference". If everyone is building up their school to make it "P5 worthy" then the conference as a whole benefits as the quality of it's membership improves.

1 all sports except football school we need I think we should stick to the city so we should invite Wichita State

(06-20-2015 09:11 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Some of you stubbornly refuse to admit the obvious... The AAC is a conference of convenience and necessity. It is not a conference that formed because we are "like minded schools" nor because we are a conference of "regional rivals." I'm not trying to take a swing at anyone in particular, it's just a reality.

If you want proof of this, look at the wide...almost absurd...variety of schools that people advance for possible expansion. The simple fact that the range of schools people "want" to add--from SDSU to UMASS--tells you that there is no coherent identity of the AAC. The only consistent thread in this conference is what we're not: we are all cast-offs from other conferences.

I would say we are "like minded" in that we are all committed to competing in athletics at the highest level. Its the only thing we actually do have in common as a group.

Accusing us of being of 'convenience and necessity' is just some vague notion meant to be negative, but we're not dissimilar at all to most other conferences. Except maybe the MAC. Notice the B12 taking WV? The B1G going from Nebraska to NYC? SEC pushing to Texas?

Sure, our expansion candidates spread far and wide, because we've decided collectively to adopt quality over a concise footprint. That's no problem at all for two reasons. First, we have these wonderful machines that enable it... called airplanes. Second, most of our schools are in major metro areas. Means direct flights. Try booking smooth travel from Morgantown to Waco or Lawrence Kansas! Hell, we want BYU and/or AFA... so we're not grinding our gears about footprint anymore...

We want the best possible expansion candidates. That's surely a positive, not a negative. We intend to be the sixth best conference.

(06-20-2015 04:27 PM)Bull Wrote:  Accusing us of being of 'convenience and necessity' is just some vague notion meant to be negative, but we're not dissimilar at all to most other conferences. Except maybe the MAC. Notice the B12 taking WV? The B1G going from Nebraska to NYC? SEC pushing to Texas?

Sure, our expansion candidates spread far and wide, because we've decided collectively to adopt quality over a concise footprint. That's no problem at all for two reasons. First, we have these wonderful machines that enable it... called airplanes. Second, most of our schools are in major metro areas. Means direct flights. Try booking smooth travel from Morgantown to Waco or Lawrence Kansas! Hell, we want BYU and/or AFA... so we're not grinding our gears about footprint anymore...

We want the best possible expansion candidates. That's surely a positive, not a negative. We intend to be the sixth best conference.

It's not an "accusation." It's a basic fact. Don't take it all personally. This conference, the AAC, only exists because of the exigencies that we all found ourselves in. That's true for the teams that moved "up" from CUSA, too.

(06-20-2015 05:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 04:27 PM)Bull Wrote:  Accusing us of being of 'convenience and necessity' is just some vague notion meant to be negative, but we're not dissimilar at all to most other conferences. Except maybe the MAC. Notice the B12 taking WV? The B1G going from Nebraska to NYC? SEC pushing to Texas?

Sure, our expansion candidates spread far and wide, because we've decided collectively to adopt quality over a concise footprint. That's no problem at all for two reasons. First, we have these wonderful machines that enable it... called airplanes. Second, most of our schools are in major metro areas. Means direct flights. Try booking smooth travel from Morgantown to Waco or Lawrence Kansas! Hell, we want BYU and/or AFA... so we're not grinding our gears about footprint anymore...

We want the best possible expansion candidates. That's surely a positive, not a negative. We intend to be the sixth best conference.

It's not an "accusation." It's a basic fact. Don't take it all personally. This conference, the AAC, only exists because of the exigencies that we all found ourselves in. That's true for the teams that moved "up" from CUSA, too.

I think that's a fact of every conference from the Metro years,CUSA,Big East and now AAC.

Here is the real list of P5 teams the struggle for identity. AAC teams aren't the only teams to struggle.
Duke football, Wake Forest, Pitt, Colorado, Washington St, Oregon St, Rutgers, Northwestern, Kentucky football, Vandy, Mississippi St, plus all MWC schools except Boise St.

(06-20-2015 07:02 PM)kyucat Wrote:  Here is the real list of P5 teams the struggle for identity. AAC teams aren't the only teams to struggle.
Duke football, Wake Forest, Pitt, Colorado, Washington St, Oregon St, Rutgers, Northwestern, Kentucky football, Vandy, Mississippi St, plus all MWC schools except Boise St.

A one team conference doesn't even qualify as one best of the rest. G

But you're spot-on on the power football wannabes garbage.

(06-20-2015 05:16 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 05:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 04:27 PM)Bull Wrote:  Accusing us of being of 'convenience and necessity' is just some vague notion meant to be negative, but we're not dissimilar at all to most other conferences. Except maybe the MAC. Notice the B12 taking WV? The B1G going from Nebraska to NYC? SEC pushing to Texas?

Sure, our expansion candidates spread far and wide, because we've decided collectively to adopt quality over a concise footprint. That's no problem at all for two reasons. First, we have these wonderful machines that enable it... called airplanes. Second, most of our schools are in major metro areas. Means direct flights. Try booking smooth travel from Morgantown to Waco or Lawrence Kansas! Hell, we want BYU and/or AFA... so we're not grinding our gears about footprint anymore...

We want the best possible expansion candidates. That's surely a positive, not a negative. We intend to be the sixth best conference.

It's not an "accusation." It's a basic fact. Don't take it all personally. This conference, the AAC, only exists because of the exigencies that we all found ourselves in. That's true for the teams that moved "up" from CUSA, too.

I think that's a fact of every conference from the Metro years,CUSA,Big East and now AAC.

Cuban Bull, that's what I've been saying (in one form or another) since we've joined this conference. Some of us have just moved in and out of a conference of "best available" non-members of big-conference athletics. ....and that's not a bad place to be. I understand that every program and its fans would like to be at the next level, but we're in the best possible situation without being "there".

Frankly, we'd all be better off as fans if realignment discussions were in the realignment forum and not this one. There are more lies and BS in those threads here than all the others combined.

(06-20-2015 01:08 PM)Bull Wrote:  Man we really beat a dead horse on some of these threads... but I'll play. Some simple truths:

OK, I'll play too. :):

1. Yeah, we'd all love to be in a P conference, and we'd all take the invite. So what? That should not reflect negatively in any fashion on our current conference. Except that we're not getting 20+ million per school that THEY are...

Yes, we'd all take the P5 invite.

But, concerning conference differences, there's more to it than just the $20 million (really, with CFP money, now well over $30m more than we get). Even if the money was the same between say the AAC and ACC, I'd rather USF be competing against FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, etc. than the AAC roster of schools. No offense to any other AAC schools, I'm sure they feel the same about USF, but P5 conferences have a more attractive roster of schools.


2. For what the AAC is, which is essentially the 'best of the rest', it's an EXCELLENT conference. Would anyone prefer the SBC, MAC, cUSA, etc etc.? Our success pisses off a few folks, which is why the same derogatory nonsense shows up on every thread.

Partially agree about us being "best of the rest". We are clearly better than CUSA/MAC/SB, but not the MWC. It's a "co-best" thing, and as I've said, given the geography compared to the MWC, the AAC is clearly the best G5 home for USF.


Concerning success, I see this past year as the real first year of the AAC. In 2013-2014 we were still an AQ conference, and still had Rutgers and Louisville, and especially since UofL was such a big part of our football and basketball success that 2013-2014 year. Yes, we didn't have Navy this past year either, but there's no reason to think Navy will have anywhere near the competitive impact that Louisville had, so 2014-2015 was our real first year.

And this past year we were absolutely Unsuccessful. We finished 3rd in the G5 football rankings, and were largely a non-entity in basketball, we got disrespected by the selection committee and our schools crapped out in the tournament.

Nobody was jealous of AAC "success" on the field this past year.

3. We do have quite a bit of common history and rivalries. You see this in Florida, our western division, the north east, among former cUSA members. And that's a good thing. It's not exactly like we are 12 schools who never met before. It may be a new conference (which isn't a crime), but some of us know each other pretty well. I bristle at these comments that make it sound for convenience we were names picked out of a hat.

Agreed. There are more ties and links among our members than people give credit for. Many of us have past histories in other conferences. For my part, i fondly remember USF competing against Tulane in basketball in the old Metro conference 20+ years ago. We do have ties.

4. We've got a bit more gravitas than many would like to admit. Houston was in a 'Power' conference. So were UConn, Cinci and USF. UCF won a BCS bowl. We have, thanks to the Huskies, 2 recent BB national championships. And yes, this pisses off some folks here as well...

I don't see who is pissed off by it, but yes, among the G5 conferences, we have more programs that ring a bell among P5 fans than any other. The MWC has the #1 bell-ringer in Boise, but if we made a list of the top 10 best-known G5 football programs, we would have the most of any G5 conference.

5. It's VERY impressive just how much we are investing in facilities across the conference. I won't reiterate the list. All this investment will certainly continue to elevate us collectively as a conference.

We shall see. Jury is out on what impact this will have. The money gap between us and the P5 will grow massively thanks to the CFP.

6. We have Navy. We have the Army Navy game. That's a HECK of a platform, which is why the MWC had an embarrassing hissy fit over it... Nuff' said, and go Midshipmen!!

We do have Navy, and Navy is a nationally known football team. Whether that rubs off on the AAC is yet to be seen. I seriously doubt the nation will ever view the Army-Navy game as an AAC event, but we shall see.

7. Future is pretty bright, even if we don't get in the Power conferences. Meaning, we are poised to (thanks to the savvy of Aresco) to renegotiate in just another year or two. We can argue about what our increase may be day and night, but most of us understand the factors that drove our initial TV deal down, and why we took the exposure, what we've been doing with that opportunity. We should get a 'decent' bump, which will be enough to accomplish two goals: keep us light years above the G'4', and ensure we have enough $$$ to pay athletes and coaches to keep within 'striking distance' of the P5. Heck we are doing that now... and we WILL get a bump in pay to some degree.

This one is a doozy.

1) IMO, the future is very dim for any school that doesn't get into a Power conference. The money gap is going to be overwhelming.

2) "Keep" us light-years ahead of the G4? This means we are way ahead right now, and is purely delusional. We are in NO meaningful way above the rest of the G5 right now, much less "light years" above them. That is plumb-crazy. We are firmly lumped with the G5. That is reality. Maybe Aresco can sign miracle deals that will put us way ahead of them, but as of now, nope.

3) Again, "keep" within striking distance implies we are within striking distance of the P5 right now, and in no meaningful way are we in this position.

Here's the sense that we are "between" the other G5 and the P5: If the P5 is at 10 and the G4 is at 1, then we are at about 2. Yes, technically 2 is "between" 1 and 10, but it is a helluva lot closer to 1 than 10.

8. The Access Bowl slot was almost single handedly due to the actions of Aresco. That was a pretty important 'get'. This next point is debatable, but if we keep the path as outlined above, we could see some sort of playoff access downstream. Maybe. I know it's going to be a struggle, but if the playoff expands to 8, this becomes a bit more likely. I don't know if we get this or not, but obviously we keep fighting.


It is simply fantasy to think only Aresco among the G5 commishes cared about the G5 getting some kind of Access to the Major Bowls. That issue was obviously in the air for everyone, heck it had already been thrashed out back in 2004, when the BCS was modified to give the non-AQ better access to the BCS bowls. So all the G5 commishes were pushing to get something like that built in to the CFP system, and the P5 were going to be amenable, because they remembered the political fallout from 2004 that forced them to modify the BCS to begin with.

If anything, Aresco almost bungled the Access slot. He pushed hard for a "7th bowl" that would be reserved for a G5 slot. If it wasn't for the other more level-headed G5 commishes, we may have lost out, as the 7th bowl concept was soundly rejected. And what was most astonishing is that it was shot down because TV wasn't interested, something the other commissioners knew but amazingly Aresco didn't, despite his TV background.

(06-21-2015 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 01:08 PM)Bull Wrote:  Man we really beat a dead horse on some of these threads... but I'll play. Some simple truths:

1. Yeah, we'd all love to be in a P conference, and we'd all take the invite. So what? That should not reflect negatively in any fashion on our current conference. Except that we're not getting 20+ million per school that THEY are...

2. For what the AAC is, which is essentially the 'best of the rest', it's an EXCELLENT conference. Would anyone prefer the SBC, MAC, cUSA, etc etc.? Our success pisses off a few folks, which is why the same derogatory nonsense shows up on every thread.

3. We do have quite a bit of common history and rivalries. You see this in Florida, our western division, the north east, among former cUSA members. And that's a good thing. It's not exactly like we are 12 schools who never met before. It may be a new conference (which isn't a crime), but some of us know each other pretty well. I bristle at these comments that make it sound for convenience we were names picked out of a hat.

4. We've got a bit more gravitas than many would like to admit. Houston was in a 'Power' conference. So were UConn, Cinci and USF. UCF won a BCS bowl. We have, thanks to the Huskies, 2 recent BB national championships. And yes, this pisses off some folks here as well...

5. It's VERY impressive just how much we are investing in facilities across the conference. I won't reiterate the list. All this investment will certainly continue to elevate us collectively as a conference.

6. We have Navy. We have the Army Navy game. That's a HECK of a platform, which is why the MWC had an embarrassing hissy fit over it... Nuff' said, and go Midshipmen!!

7. Future is pretty bright, even if we don't get in the Power conferences. Meaning, we are poised to (thanks to the savvy of Aresco) to renegotiate in just another year or two. We can argue about what our increase may be day and night, but most of us understand the factors that drove our initial TV deal down, and why we took the exposure, what we've been doing with that opportunity. We should get a 'decent' bump, which will be enough to accomplish two goals: keep us light years above the G'4', and ensure we have enough $$$ to pay athletes and coaches to keep within 'striking distance' of the P5. Heck we are doing that now... and we WILL get a bump in pay to some degree.

8. The Access Bowl slot was almost single handedly due to the actions of Aresco. That was a pretty important 'get'. This next point is debatable, but if we keep the path as outlined above, we could see some sort of playoff access downstream. Maybe. I know it's going to be a struggle, but if the playoff expands to 8, this becomes a bit more likely. I don't know if we get this or not, but obviously we keep fighting.

kudos excellent post.