http://newsok.com/big-12-conference-anno...le/5465501

With the B12 being the latest conference to implement scheduling requirements, what is stopping the AAC from doing the same?

Everyone has to play two teams from the PAC12, B12, B10, ACC or SEC every year, no FCS games and BYU counts.

It could be another strategy for separating ourselves further from the MW, CUSA, SUN and MAC.

We don't have the leverage to make that happen.

I pass. This is killing college football.

(12-12-2015 11:13 AM)EddieThePirate Wrote:  http://newsok.com/big-12-conference-anno...le/5465501

With the B12 being the latest conference to implement scheduling requirements, what is stopping the AAC from doing the same?

Everyone has to play two teams from the PAC12, B12, B10, ACC or SEC every year, no FCS games and BYU counts.

It could be another strategy for separating ourselves further from the MW, CUSA, SUN and MAC.

If Navy, Cincinnati, and UConn count for the Big Ten's P5 requirement, then the line of thinking should be to establish that ALL AAC teams are P5-worthy.

So, the AAC would make itself look more like an equal if it was simply the same ONE P5 opponent requirement - and BYU and Army count.

Some AAC schools would currently lack leverage to still schedule 6 home games with one P5 opponent and no FCS. So, internally discourage FCS opponents, but don't prevent a team from playing FCS occasionally if needed to get 6 home games.

(12-12-2015 12:28 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-12-2015 11:13 AM)EddieThePirate Wrote:  http://newsok.com/big-12-conference-anno...le/5465501

With the B12 being the latest conference to implement scheduling requirements, what is stopping the AAC from doing the same?

Everyone has to play two teams from the PAC12, B12, B10, ACC or SEC every year, no FCS games and BYU counts.

It could be another strategy for separating ourselves further from the MW, CUSA, SUN and MAC.

If Navy, Cincinnati, and UConn count for the Big Ten's P5 requirement, then the line of thinking should be to establish that ALL AAC teams are P5-worthy.

So, the AAC would make itself look more like an equal if it was simply the same ONE P5 opponent requirement - and BYU and Army count.

Some AAC schools would currently lack leverage to still schedule 6 home games with one P5 opponent and no FCS. So, internally discourage FCS opponents, but don't prevent a team from playing FCS occasionally if needed to get 6 home games.

I think this is great thinking. Aresco can simply declare that AAC has mandated all members must schedule at least one p-5 and start declaring our own exceptions. It would send the message that we are structuring the same requirements. Which has been Arescos argument with the cost of attendance etc. we are the same as p-5 is the message! Love it

My only concern with mandates such as these is the unfavorable terms some teams might be required to accept in order to make it happen. For instance if a P5 team knows you have one open date and scheduling is not very wide open and require a P5 per conference rules then they can force you into a buy game. It creates a weaker bargaining position for our schools in the same way that the P5 vs P5 mandates create a stronger bargaining position for P5 vs G5 schools because there is less availability. We want to do things that enhance our ability to get better terms in contracts. I'd be fine with an unofficial policy that the school ADs and presidents would try to push behind the scenes.

I think if the conference was to have one basketball would be the best place to start.

I would not do away with playing FCS programs. Making a bowl game should be a priority for all AAC programs. The next thing would be to make a list of P5 programs that are easily beaten. Target those programs to increase the overall exposure.

(12-12-2015 12:58 PM)pablowow Wrote:  

(12-12-2015 12:28 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-12-2015 11:13 AM)EddieThePirate Wrote:  http://newsok.com/big-12-conference-anno...le/5465501

With the B12 being the latest conference to implement scheduling requirements, what is stopping the AAC from doing the same?

Everyone has to play two teams from the PAC12, B12, B10, ACC or SEC every year, no FCS games and BYU counts.

It could be another strategy for separating ourselves further from the MW, CUSA, SUN and MAC.

If Navy, Cincinnati, and UConn count for the Big Ten's P5 requirement, then the line of thinking should be to establish that ALL AAC teams are P5-worthy.

So, the AAC would make itself look more like an equal if it was simply the same ONE P5 opponent requirement - and BYU and Army count.

Some AAC schools would currently lack leverage to still schedule 6 home games with one P5 opponent and no FCS. So, internally discourage FCS opponents, but don't prevent a team from playing FCS occasionally if needed to get 6 home games.

I think this is great thinking. Aresco can simply declare that AAC has mandated all members must schedule at least one p-5 and start declaring our own exceptions. It would send the message that we are structuring the same requirements. Which has been Arescos argument with the cost of attendance etc. we are the same as p-5 is the message! Love it

The problem is that Navy, Cincy and UCONN are not permanent exceptions to the B1G's P5 rule. Just the the games currently scheduled. Nothing after that.

Perhaps a better strategy would be to require one game against either the MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt or Mtn West. Wins over those conferences would lend credibility to the idea that the AAC champ deserves the Access Bowl slot EVERY year - which is really goal #1.

TBH, if you guys can just keep the ball rolling after this year, I think yours will be viewed as CLEARLY better than those other (G5) conferences.

After than, goal #2 would be to get the so-called P5 leagues to recognize games against the AAC as meeting their strength of schedule requirements.

(12-12-2015 07:25 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(12-12-2015 12:58 PM)pablowow Wrote:  

(12-12-2015 12:28 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-12-2015 11:13 AM)EddieThePirate Wrote:  http://newsok.com/big-12-conference-anno...le/5465501

With the B12 being the latest conference to implement scheduling requirements, what is stopping the AAC from doing the same?

Everyone has to play two teams from the PAC12, B12, B10, ACC or SEC every year, no FCS games and BYU counts.

It could be another strategy for separating ourselves further from the MW, CUSA, SUN and MAC.

If Navy, Cincinnati, and UConn count for the Big Ten's P5 requirement, then the line of thinking should be to establish that ALL AAC teams are P5-worthy.

So, the AAC would make itself look more like an equal if it was simply the same ONE P5 opponent requirement - and BYU and Army count.

Some AAC schools would currently lack leverage to still schedule 6 home games with one P5 opponent and no FCS. So, internally discourage FCS opponents, but don't prevent a team from playing FCS occasionally if needed to get 6 home games.

I think this is great thinking. Aresco can simply declare that AAC has mandated all members must schedule at least one p-5 and start declaring our own exceptions. It would send the message that we are structuring the same requirements. Which has been Arescos argument with the cost of attendance etc. we are the same as p-5 is the message! Love it

The problem is that Navy, Cincy and UCONN are not permanent exceptions to the B1G's P5 rule. Just the the games currently scheduled. Nothing after that.

Interesting. You do realize that Navy has no future games scheduled against the Big Ten...

(12-12-2015 11:23 AM)Curumim Wrote:  I pass. This is killing college football.

Well, I'd agree with you, but it's really the Autonomous 5 that's killing college football.

(12-12-2015 11:13 AM)EddieThePirate Wrote:  http://newsok.com/big-12-conference-anno...le/5465501

With the B12 being the latest conference to implement scheduling requirements, [b]what is stopping the AAC from doing the same?

Everyone has to play two teams from the PAC12, B12, B10, ACC or SEC every year, no FCS games and BYU counts.

It could be another strategy for separating ourselves further from the MW, CUSA, SUN and MAC.

Because beggars cant be choosers...[/b]

If the P5 knew we "needed" 2 P5 games every year then our programs are put in an even worse position by having even less bargaining power in terms of getting more home games against the P5 because they know we need them. Unequal bargaining power and to what degree it exists are extremely important concerns. We don't want to give them any more bargaining power than what currently exists. We just need to continue to have on the field success to increase our leverage.

(12-12-2015 06:53 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I would not do away with playing FCS programs. Making a bowl game should be a priority for all AAC programs. The next thing would be to make a list of P5 programs that are easily beaten. Target those programs to increase the overall exposure.

Well that is one way I guess, but if we are going to want recognition searching out the weakest teams is being chicken IMO

nope, I like starting the season with an FCS cupcake...but we do have Mississippi and Kansas on the schedule.