Aresco talks every now and then about making the AAC a power conference. How achievable is that? As best as I can tell, here are the criteria for becoming a so called power conference:

1) Automatic access to one of the NY6 bowls for your conf. alone.

2) Mega $$ TV deal (in the neighborhood of 20M per school or more).

3) Conference a member of the so called "autonomy" group.

4) Recognition by the media talking heads and pundits that you are a power conference.

So, what percentage do you give Aresco of EVER achieving these, and making AAC a power conf.?

How about partially achieving these? Achieve 1 of these. Achieve 2 of these. At what point can he legitimately claim AAC is a power conf.

Note: I would have put performance on the field, but it doesn't seem this is much of a factor. Maybe sustained performance helps Aresco achieve #'s 1 and 4 above?

Thoughts? If he wants to save this conf. long term, he needs to start pulling rabbits out of hats.

ZERO percent. Power conferences are defined by TV pay and bowl contracts. P5 conferences make upwards of $20M a year per school, with the best bowls. G5 schools make a tenth of that, or less.

The gap is caused by the top drawing teams each conference has. SEC = Bama, UGA, LSU, Florida, Auburn, etc. B12 = OU, UT. ACC = Clemson, FSU. And so on.

Until we snag a couple of those, we'll be G5. Not happening.

Clearly he won't achieve 'that'... but we don't need all that to be successful. Just 5-6 mil, better bowls, better TV $, a clear separation from the G4. Playoff access, but that's taken care of if it expands to 8. THOSE are very realistic goals and we are making great progress on this path... Man Houston beating FSU was just huge. HUGE!

(05-13-2016 10:40 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Aresco talks every now and then about making the AAC a power conference. How achievable is that? As best as I can tell, here are the criteria for becoming a so called power conference:

1) Automatic access to one of the NY6 bowls for your conf. alone.

If the Access bid is the AAC's 9 times out of 10, would that suffice? Under ours and the MWC's current makeup, this is not possible. But if we poach the right teams from the MWC...

2) Mega $$ TV deal (in the neighborhood of 20M per school or more).
PAC12 gets their money from having USC, UCLA, and (lately) Oregon. SEC has Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida. BXII has Oklahoma and Texas, B1G has Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. ACC has FSU and Clemson. Until we have a program of these calibers under our banner, $20 mill isn't attainable


3) Conference a member of the so called "autonomy" group.

I think this is a moot topic. If you have point 1 you are considered a member of the "Autonomy" group. Attainable by locking the G5 access bid

4) Recognition by the media talking heads and pundits that you are a power conference.

I think this should be your point 3 instead. But this is also a point that the Big East struggled with so this (of the possible options) will be the most difficult and long term topic to tackle

So, what percentage do you give Aresco of EVER achieving these, and making AAC a power conf.?

If you include point 2 (disregarding inflation in the next 20-30 years) 0%.

If you throw out point 2, that's dependent on the Big 12 locking up expansion for sure, allowing the AAC to grow in time. 50/50 I think

If the AAC is allowed to grow, the path to a lucrative contract and near permanent access to the access bid is through aggressive and targeted expansion. Here's what I propose:

• BYU's tv deal is for $4 million per year, and expires in 2018.
• Navy's tv deal with CBS expires at the same time (roughly)
• B12 expansion is locked up at 10 because a network cannot be formed. No need to expand, no one is going anywhere.
• Expand to 16, continuing the national model proposed from the early years of the AAC: Invite AFA (fb only), SDSU (all sports), BYU (all sports), and Wichita State (all sports).
• Arrange the conference thusly:
  National
  • BYU
  • SDSU
  • AFA
  • Navy
    
  Central
  • Houston
  • SMU
  • Tulsa
  • Wichita State
    
  Southeast
  • Tulane
  • ECU
  • UCF
  • USF
    
  Northeast
  • Memphis
  • UConn
  • Cinci
  • Temple
    
• 3 OOC games, 9 conference games (3 with your pod mate, 2x3 with the other pods, rotating home/away each year, swapping the 2 every 2 years, each team in the conference plays each other at their home once every 4 years)
• Highest CFP ranked pod champions play each other for the CCG (no semis). This ensures that the teams with the best possible record in the hardest non-P5 conference has the best chance to get the access bid. No other conference will have this advantage.
• Basketball is elite, with SDSU, Wichita State, BYU, UConn, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Houston, Cinci, and Memphis all high performing teams. NCAA credits will flow through the conference.
• Media markets of San Diego, Orlando, Tampa, New York, Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, The National Mormon fanbase, New Orleans... not to mention the largest markets in Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma...
  

With this arrangement, there's no way the AAC doesn't lock up that bid, rake in the money with NCAA credits, bowl access, and our tv deal. I bet ya this would enable us to even make an AAC network, with the largest media market access of any conference in existence. $10-$15 million, easy.

(05-13-2016 10:40 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Aresco talks every now and then about making the AAC a power conference. How achievable is that? As best as I can tell, here are the criteria for becoming a so called power conference:

1) Automatic access to one of the NY6 bowls for your conf. alone.

2) Mega $$ TV deal (in the neighborhood of 20M per school or more).

3) Conference a member of the so called "autonomy" group.

4) Recognition by the media talking heads and pundits that you are a power conference.

So, what percentage do you give Aresco of EVER achieving these, and making AAC a power conf.?

How about partially achieving these? Achieve 1 of these. Achieve 2 of these. At what point can he legitimately claim AAC is a power conf.

Note: I would have put performance on the field, but it doesn't seem this is much of a factor. Maybe sustained performance helps Aresco achieve #'s 1 and 4 above?

Thoughts? If he wants to save this conf. long term, he needs to start pulling rabbits out of hats.

Honestly---virtually zero possibility over the short term. That said, there are constructive moves that are very possible that could be done to vastly improve the AAC's current position on the very tilted college football landscape. The key is to plan and to be bold.


1) Win the access bowl slot most every year. Doing this would have the AAC playing every New Years Day, making it appear, to most casual fans, that the AAC is a power conference.

2) Vastly upgrade the payout of the Miami Bowl such that its payout is on a par with the Liberty, Gator, and Texas Bowls. If we do that, the goal would be to place it in the same pool as those bowls (thus receiving a #3 to #5 selection from a P5). That would give the AAC a respectable guaranteed post season destination for the AAC champ (or runner up when the AAC champ has the access bowl). This could be accomplished by using most of the money we get from the CFP "performance" pool and using it to build a fund for this purpose. We could build a fund worth as much as 10 million between now and the next bowl negotiation cycle. The truth is, a signature bowl game for the conference champ has always been a hallmark of a power conference.

3) Keep pouring money into the football and basketball programs. Having multiple ranked teams and having 3-6 NCAA bids a year increases the power conference perception. This is accomplished through having the best facilities outside of the P5 (thus getting better recruits) and spending the money necessary to obtain and retain top quality coaches. I would also add Wichita as an non-football member to give the AAC as 12 for football and 12 for basketball structure. I think Wichita would help by adding quality depth and by being another consistent NCAA bid winner.

4) Aresco must upgrade the contract payout sooner rather than later. We are not going to get 20 million--or even 15 million. Ten million a schools is the absolute top---and even that's probably unrealistic. Four to six might actually happen. Given that CUSA is going to make about 400K a team with its new contract, 4-6 million a team is still enough to separate us from the rest of the G5 and to give us at least enough extra money to be able to outspend all the other non-power schools.

5) Get Air Force and Army. That would add media value and finally give our spread out shotgun wedding conference an easily recognized trademark identity to coalesce around.

All that still wont make us a power conference. But I think that would make us a very different animal than we are today. I would say, these accomplishments would make us more of a tweener conference---sort of the modern day equivalent of the 1980's WAC or ACC.

Honestly of those 4, the easiest one to get would be #4 by continually beating P5 teams. However continually beating P5 teams is difficult to do over long term due to the differences in recruiting and money between G5 and P5.

Compared to the rest of the G5, we probably have a greatest chance of someone getting that open-G5 NY6 bid every year. I guess in a way, it becomes the AAC spot. Maybe if the AAC gets enough times in a row, they will just make it permanent? However, I doubt it.

#2 is near impossible due to our collective fan bases being relatively tiny compared to most of the P5 fan bases.

#4, I dont think it will change anything. If they come down to our "level" than they will no longer be autonomous.

Have to give the commish props though. He is a tireless promoter of this conference.

(05-13-2016 11:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:40 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Aresco talks every now and then about making the AAC a power conference. How achievable is that? As best as I can tell, here are the criteria for becoming a so called power conference:

1) Automatic access to one of the NY6 bowls for your conf. alone.

2) Mega $$ TV deal (in the neighborhood of 20M per school or more).

3) Conference a member of the so called "autonomy" group.

4) Recognition by the media talking heads and pundits that you are a power conference.

So, what percentage do you give Aresco of EVER achieving these, and making AAC a power conf.?

How about partially achieving these? Achieve 1 of these. Achieve 2 of these. At what point can he legitimately claim AAC is a power conf.

Note: I would have put performance on the field, but it doesn't seem this is much of a factor. Maybe sustained performance helps Aresco achieve #'s 1 and 4 above?

Thoughts? If he wants to save this conf. long term, he needs to start pulling rabbits out of hats.

Honestly---virtually zero possibility over the short term. That said, there are constructive moves that are very possible that could be done to vastly improve the AAC's current position on the very tilted college football landscape. The key is to plan and to be bold.


1) Win the access bowl slot most every year. Doing this would have the AAC playing every New Years Day, making it appear, to most casual fans, that the AAC is a power conference.

2) Vastly upgrade the payout of the Miami Bowl such that its payout is on a par with the Liberty, Gator, and Texas Bowls. If we do that, the goal would be to place it in the same pool as those bowls (thus receiving a #3 to #5 selection from a P5. That would give the AAC a respectable guaranteed post season destination for the AAC champ (or runner up when the AAC champ has the access bowl). This could be accomplished by using most of the money we get from the CFP "performance" pool and using it to build a fund for this purpose. We could build a fund worth as much as 10 million between now and the next bowl negotiation cycle. The truth is, a signature bowl game for the conference champ has always been a hallmark of a power conference.

3) Keep pouring money into the football and basketball programs. Having multiple ranked teams and having 3-6 NCAA bids a year increases the power conference perception. This is accomplished through having the best facilities outside of the P5 (thus getting better recruits) and spending the money necessary to obtain and retain top quality coaches. I would also add Wichita as an non-football member to give the AAC as 12 for football and 12 for basketball structure. I think Wichita would help by adding quality depth and by being another consistent NCAA bid winner.

4) Aresco must upgrade the contract payout sooner rather than later. We are not going to get 20 million--or even 15 million. Ten million a schools is the absolute top---and even that's probably unrealistic. Four to six might actually happen. Given that CUSA is going to make about 400K a team with its new contract, 4-6 million a team is still enough to separate us from the rest of the G5 and to give us at least enough extra money to be able to outspend all the other non-power schools.

5) Get Air Force and Army. That would add media value and finally give our spread out shotgun wedding conference an easily recognized trademark identity to coalesce around.

Combine your points with mine, and we got ourselves a winner. I don't think Army will ever come around, and I'm not sure about AFA either, but if we can get one or the other that would be a home run.

Bring in SDSU, BYU, and Wichita State with either Army or AFA, continue to incubate the Miami Beach Bowl, invest heavily in our programs, and nail the Access bid each and every time with the 16 team pod arrangement and there's no way we don't take the best path to the P6

EDIT: Also, as to the Wichita State add. I think they are a program worth taking a risk for, in this scenario. Aresco is adamant about no bball only schools, reaffirmed by his recent interviews. It's just not going to happen unless Wichita is in it for football too. The way I see it, we have to wait until 2019 for Navy and BYU's rights to role into ours anyway. Give them an invite for 2019 (3 years). It's a really quick schedule, but I think they can do it.

I know many will disagree but the issue that will prevent the AAC from ever being a power conference is the lack of multiple state flagship schools. I think that is the biggest indicator of the P5. They are dominated by large state flagship type schools with a handful of privates and city schools tossed in. Even the Big East had UConn, Rutgers, and WVU. That's why even though I understand the opposition to UMass, I think it's shortsighted.

(05-13-2016 11:37 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I know many will disagree but the issue that will prevent the AAC from ever being a power conference is the lack of multiple state flagship schools. I think that is the biggest indicator of the P5. They are dominated by large state flagship type schools with a handful of privates and city schools tossed in. Even the Big East had UConn, Rutgers, and WVU. That's why even though I understand the opposition to UMass, I think it's shortsighted.

My thoughts exactly. For better or worse p5's are comprised of state flagship land grant schools primarily.

(05-13-2016 11:48 AM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:37 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I know many will disagree but the issue that will prevent the AAC from ever being a power conference is the lack of multiple state flagship schools. I think that is the biggest indicator of the P5. They are dominated by large state flagship type schools with a handful of privates and city schools tossed in. Even the Big East had UConn, Rutgers, and WVU. That's why even though I understand the opposition to UMass, I think it's shortsighted.

My thoughts exactly. For better or worse p5's are comprised of state flagship land grant schools primarily.

The Mountain West has 4 state flagships. The Big Sky has several as well. Neither of those conferences is ever going to be a power conference. You have to have 2 or 3 "kingpin" programs to be a P5. Notre Dame, USC, and Clemson are not state flagships---but if they joined the AAC, we would easily become a P5 conference. The UMass average football attendance was around 11,000 for last year. That's not even within FBS requirements. They are about as far from being a kingpin program as they could possibly be.

The ONLY way the AAC will get kingpin programs is if P5 expansion ends. At that point, it would be possible to grow kingpin programs organically--but that takes decades. Right now, any AAC program that even began to approach that classification would simply be poached.

(05-13-2016 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:48 AM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:37 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I know many will disagree but the issue that will prevent the AAC from ever being a power conference is the lack of multiple state flagship schools. I think that is the biggest indicator of the P5. They are dominated by large state flagship type schools with a handful of privates and city schools tossed in. Even the Big East had UConn, Rutgers, and WVU. That's why even though I understand the opposition to UMass, I think it's shortsighted.

My thoughts exactly. For better or worse p5's are comprised of state flagship land grant schools primarily.

The Mountain West has 3 state flagships. The Big Sky has several as well. Neither of those conferences is ever going to be a power conference. You have to have 2 or 3 "kingpin" programs to be a P5. Notre Dame, USC, and Clemson are not state flagships---but if they joined the AAC, we would easily become a P5 conference.

The MWC was very close when they had state flagships and multiple competitive teams but it was BCS 6 and not P5 then. Big Sky is not FBS. I can't argue about the biggest of the big programs. I'm just saying, it's the one biggest commonality among the P5. I think if the AAC could get its hands on some of the state flagships from the MWC in addition to a UMass with its junk together, we'd have a much stronger argument.

(05-13-2016 12:27 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:48 AM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:37 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I know many will disagree but the issue that will prevent the AAC from ever being a power conference is the lack of multiple state flagship schools. I think that is the biggest indicator of the P5. They are dominated by large state flagship type schools with a handful of privates and city schools tossed in. Even the Big East had UConn, Rutgers, and WVU. That's why even though I understand the opposition to UMass, I think it's shortsighted.

My thoughts exactly. For better or worse p5's are comprised of state flagship land grant schools primarily.

The Mountain West has 3 state flagships. The Big Sky has several as well. Neither of those conferences is ever going to be a power conference. You have to have 2 or 3 "kingpin" programs to be a P5. Notre Dame, USC, and Clemson are not state flagships---but if they joined the AAC, we would easily become a P5 conference.

The MWC was very close when they had state flagships and multiple competitive teams but it was BCS 6 and not P5 then. Big Sky is not FBS. I can't argue about the biggest of the big programs. I'm just saying, it's the one biggest commonality among the P5. I think if the AAC could get its hands on some of the state flagships from the MWC in addition to a UMass with its junk together, we'd have a much stronger argument.

Your right, the MW came close to BCS inclusion because of performance (not because of make up). The old BCS system, as flawed and rigged as it was, did have a codified path, based on performance, that would allow a G5 conference to graduate up to an AQ conference. If you notice, the new CFP system has no such mechanism.

The MW missed out on being elevated because of the performance of the bottom half of the league. ts funny, because several of those state flagships were the exact reason the bottom of the league was so bad. Rather than make the MW more P5 like, they actually cost the conference a opportunity at being an AQ conference.

Just as an aside, ArkStfan claims that the MW and CUSA were offered an AQ BCS slot IF they would hold a playoff game between their two champs with the winner getting the AQ slot. The leagues declined. If true---that was, bar none, the dumbest decision in the history of college football. Its right up there with the Big East turning down Penn State.

To be short, there is no scenario where this happens. It's a lot more likely to become P4 and everyone else.

(05-13-2016 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 12:27 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:48 AM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:37 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I know many will disagree but the issue that will prevent the AAC from ever being a power conference is the lack of multiple state flagship schools. I think that is the biggest indicator of the P5. They are dominated by large state flagship type schools with a handful of privates and city schools tossed in. Even the Big East had UConn, Rutgers, and WVU. That's why even though I understand the opposition to UMass, I think it's shortsighted.

My thoughts exactly. For better or worse p5's are comprised of state flagship land grant schools primarily.

The Mountain West has 3 state flagships. The Big Sky has several as well. Neither of those conferences is ever going to be a power conference. You have to have 2 or 3 "kingpin" programs to be a P5. Notre Dame, USC, and Clemson are not state flagships---but if they joined the AAC, we would easily become a P5 conference.

The MWC was very close when they had state flagships and multiple competitive teams but it was BCS 6 and not P5 then. Big Sky is not FBS. I can't argue about the biggest of the big programs. I'm just saying, it's the one biggest commonality among the P5. I think if the AAC could get its hands on some of the state flagships from the MWC in addition to a UMass with its junk together, we'd have a much stronger argument.

Your right, the MW came close to BCS inclusion because of performance (not because of make up). The old BCS system, as flawed and rigged as it was, did have a codified path, based on performance, that would allow a G5 conference to graduate up to an AQ conference. If you notice, the new CFP system has no such mechanism.

The MW missed out on being elevated because of the performance of the bottom half of the league. ts funny, because several of those state flagships were the exact reason the bottom of the league was so bad. Rather than make the MW more P5 like, they actually cost the conference a opportunity at being an AQ conference.

Just as an aside, ArkStfan claims that the MW and CUSA were offered an AQ BCS slot IF they would hold a playoff game between their two champs with the winner getting the AQ slot. The leagues declined. If true---that was, bar none, the dumbest decision in the history of college football. Its right up there with the Big East turning down Penn State.

I don't know all of the background about what the criteria was to move up in the past, but my perception of the MWC was always higher due to the state flagships they had. I don't think I'm alone in that regard. I think if the AAC really wanted a western wing, Colorado St., Utah St., UNLV, Air Force, and Boise St. (only on equal terms) would be the prime targets. I never really saw the appeal of SDSU other than the city of SD. Obviously BYU should be courted too. I still think Aresco should be pursuing western expansion.

I think there is a little lost in translation here. When Aresco talks about being a Power conference I think he is thinking about being included in the autonomous rule making group. Currently only the "power" conferences are autonomous. Otherwise there is no set criteria or "club" for Power conferences except an auto bid to one of the NY6 bowls. So while the "power" conferences all have huge TV deals and make a ton of money the power moniker is really just a label used in the media and those conferences.

So to be a power conference

1) you need to be included in the autonomous group
2) everyone to agree to call you a "power" conference - probably tied to an autobid to the NY6 bowls

(05-13-2016 11:07 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  If the AAC is allowed to grow, the path to a lucrative contract and near permanent access to the access bid is through aggressive and targeted expansion. Here's what I propose:

• BYU's tv deal is for $4 million per year, and expires in 2018.
• Navy's tv deal with CBS expires at the same time (roughly)
• B12 expansion is locked up at 10 because a network cannot be formed. No need to expand, no one is going anywhere.
• Expand to 16, continuing the national model proposed from the early years of the AAC: Invite AFA (fb only), SDSU (all sports), BYU (all sports), and Wichita State (all sports).
• Arrange the conference thusly:
  National
  • BYU
  • SDSU
  • AFA
  • Navy
    
  Central
  • Houston
  • SMU
  • Tulsa
  • Wichita State
    
  Southeast
  • Tulane
  • ECU
  • UCF
  • USF
    
  Northeast
  • Memphis
  • UConn
  • Cinci
  • Temple
    
• 3 OOC games, 9 conference games (3 with your pod mate, 2x3 with the other pods, rotating home/away each year, swapping the 2 every 2 years, each team in the conference plays each other at their home once every 4 years)
• Highest CFP ranked pod champions play each other for the CCG (no semis). This ensures that the teams with the best possible record in the hardest non-P5 conference has the best chance to get the access bid. No other conference will have this advantage.
• Basketball is elite, with SDSU, Wichita State, BYU, UConn, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Houston, Cinci, and Memphis all high performing teams. NCAA credits will flow through the conference.
• Media markets of San Diego, Orlando, Tampa, New York, Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, The National Mormon fanbase, New Orleans... not to mention the largest markets in Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma...
  

With this arrangement, there's no way the AAC doesn't lock up that bid, rake in the money with NCAA credits, bowl access, and our tv deal. I bet ya this would enable us to even make an AAC network, with the largest media market access of any conference in existence. $10-$15 million, easy.

2 issues: ECU and Memphis should switch between NE and SE divisions (though I suspect neither would want anything with "north" in it)
Wichita State is not ready for FBS football.

(05-13-2016 01:10 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  I think there is a little lost in translation here. When Aresco talks about being a Power conference I think he is thinking about being included in the autonomous rule making group. Currently only the "power" conferences are autonomous. Otherwise there is no set criteria or "club" for Power conferences except an auto bid to one of the NY6 bowls. So while the "power" conferences all have huge TV deals and make a ton of money the power moniker is really just a label used in the media and those conferences.

So to be a power conference

1) you need to be included in the autonomous group
2) everyone to agree to call you a "power" conference - probably tied to an autobid to the NY6 bowls

Getting autonomy though will be really difficult.

(05-13-2016 11:07 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:40 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Aresco talks every now and then about making the AAC a power conference. How achievable is that? As best as I can tell, here are the criteria for becoming a so called power conference:

1) Automatic access to one of the NY6 bowls for your conf. alone.

If the Access bid is the AAC's 9 times out of 10, would that suffice? Under ours and the MWC's current makeup, this is not possible. But if we poach the right teams from the MWC...

2) Mega $$ TV deal (in the neighborhood of 20M per school or more).
PAC12 gets their money from having USC, UCLA, and (lately) Oregon. SEC has Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida. BXII has Oklahoma and Texas, B1G has Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. ACC has FSU and Clemson. Until we have a program of these calibers under our banner, $20 mill isn't attainable


3) Conference a member of the so called "autonomy" group.

I think this is a moot topic. If you have point 1 you are considered a member of the "Autonomy" group. Attainable by locking the G5 access bid

4) Recognition by the media talking heads and pundits that you are a power conference.

I think this should be your point 3 instead. But this is also a point that the Big East struggled with so this (of the possible options) will be the most difficult and long term topic to tackle

So, what percentage do you give Aresco of EVER achieving these, and making AAC a power conf.?

If you include point 2 (disregarding inflation in the next 20-30 years) 0%.

If you throw out point 2, that's dependent on the Big 12 locking up expansion for sure, allowing the AAC to grow in time. 50/50 I think

If the AAC is allowed to grow, the path to a lucrative contract and near permanent access to the access bid is through aggressive and targeted expansion. Here's what I propose:

• BYU's tv deal is for $4 million per year, and expires in 2018.
• Navy's tv deal with CBS expires at the same time (roughly)
• B12 expansion is locked up at 10 because a network cannot be formed. No need to expand, no one is going anywhere.
• Expand to 16, continuing the national model proposed from the early years of the AAC: Invite AFA (fb only), SDSU (all sports), BYU (all sports), and Wichita State (all sports).
• Arrange the conference thusly:
  National
  • BYU
  • SDSU
  • AFA
  • Navy
    
  Central
  • Houston
  • SMU
  • Tulsa
  • Wichita State
    
  Southeast
  • Tulane
  • ECU
  • UCF
  • USF
    
  Northeast
  • Memphis
  • UConn
  • Cinci
  • Temple
    
• 3 OOC games, 9 conference games (3 with your pod mate, 2x3 with the other pods, rotating home/away each year, swapping the 2 every 2 years, each team in the conference plays each other at their home once every 4 years)
• Highest CFP ranked pod champions play each other for the CCG (no semis). This ensures that the teams with the best possible record in the hardest non-P5 conference has the best chance to get the access bid. No other conference will have this advantage.
• Basketball is elite, with SDSU, Wichita State, BYU, UConn, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Houston, Cinci, and Memphis all high performing teams. NCAA credits will flow through the conference.
• Media markets of San Diego, Orlando, Tampa, New York, Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, The National Mormon fanbase, New Orleans... not to mention the largest markets in Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma...
  

With this arrangement, there's no way the AAC doesn't lock up that bid, rake in the money with NCAA credits, bowl access, and our tv deal. I bet ya this would enable us to even make an AAC network, with the largest media market access of any conference in existence. $10-$15 million, easy.

This is actually a really great idea. I wonder if Aresco is thinking along these lines. You and Attackcoog have some realistic options for upgrading AAC. I like this pod idea where the top 2 pods play for championship game, but even 2 divisions of 8 would work, as long as the right schools were in it. I also like the idea of winning the access bowl every year (obviously) and upgrading the Miami Beach bowl to a semi-major bowl. We need A destination for champ or runner up to play every year. As it is now, we have no idea where champ is going. That's got to change.

If the Big 12 is going to stand pat, then the AAC needs to make some creative moves.

(05-13-2016 12:35 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  To be short, there is no scenario where this happens. It's a lot more likely to become P4 and everyone else.

So that means give up and don't even try? What's the point then.

(05-13-2016 10:40 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Aresco talks every now and then about making the AAC a power conference. How achievable is that? As best as I can tell, here are the criteria for becoming a so called power conference:

1) Automatic access to one of the NY6 bowls for your conf. alone.

2) Mega $$ TV deal (in the neighborhood of 20M per school or more).

3) Conference a member of the so called "autonomy" group.

4) Recognition by the media talking heads and pundits that you are a power conference.

So, what percentage do you give Aresco of EVER achieving these, and making AAC a power conf.?

How about partially achieving these? Achieve 1 of these. Achieve 2 of these. At what point can he legitimately claim AAC is a power conf.

Note: I would have put performance on the field, but it doesn't seem this is much of a factor. Maybe sustained performance helps Aresco achieve #'s 1 and 4 above?

Thoughts? If he wants to save this conf. long term, he needs to start pulling rabbits out of hats.

Automatic access to the playoff and the NY6 bowls every year is all that matters. If you have that you've got a chance.