(05-07-2017 11:28 AM)chess Wrote:  This is going to be interesting. The revenue produced by the P5 may be the nail that dooms us all. No non-P5 school will be able to pay a "Nick Saban" salary.

Most P5 schools can't either. The separation is real alright, but it's actually within the P5 itself, and it goes beyond conferences.

(05-07-2017 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 05:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).

I get it but what happens when five or ten years later AAC isn't invited into "the club"?

I believe in under-promise and over-deliver. I don't think the odds favor being able to deliver all 12 members of AAC into "the club".

What happens....??? We aren't invited to the club. Big deal. It's not like this marketing campaign is costing any more than any other stupid marketing campaign.

FWIW, I think the odds are somewhere around 0% that we become part of the club. It's about trying to build perception of a new league for the public more than anything.

But this campaign tells the average fan that it is in reach and achievable. That's not smart marketing.

There is a distinction between we are measuring our programs against Clemson and Ole Miss and we expect to do this year have the same access and treatment as Clemson and Ole Miss.

Eventually people start asking what happened to being in the club? Eventually the question is asked why haven't the president, AD and the coaches accomplished the mission. They are apparently the barrier to achieving the goal.

Sure it's achievable, in perception. The money and "NCAA vote share" aspect of this is irrelevant since the "average fan" doesn't have a clue about that stuff. If the AAC isn't the 6th best to the "average fan", who is?

(05-08-2017 09:35 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 05:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).

I get it but what happens when five or ten years later AAC isn't invited into "the club"?

I believe in under-promise and over-deliver. I don't think the odds favor being able to deliver all 12 members of AAC into "the club".

What happens....??? We aren't invited to the club. Big deal. It's not like this marketing campaign is costing any more than any other stupid marketing campaign.

FWIW, I think the odds are somewhere around 0% that we become part of the club. It's about trying to build perception of a new league for the public more than anything.

But this campaign tells the average fan that it is in reach and achievable. That's not smart marketing.

There is a distinction between we are measuring our programs against Clemson and Ole Miss and we expect to do this year have the same access and treatment as Clemson and Ole Miss.

Eventually people start asking what happened to being in the club? Eventually the question is asked why haven't the president, AD and the coaches accomplished the mission. They are apparently the barrier to achieving the goal.

Sure it's achievable, in perception. The money and "NCAA vote share" aspect of this is irrelevant since the "average fan" doesn't have a clue about that stuff. If the AAC isn't the 6th best to the "average fan", who is?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the AAC is not the 6th best conference. But, of the other nine, the AAC is much more like #7 - #10 than they are like #1 - #5. They are much further behind #5 than they are ahead of #7 (or even #10). You aren't going to change that reality with the smoke and mirrors of a marketing campaign. That has to happen in the arena.

And the trend isn't favorable, and new economic realities are more likely to accelerate that trend than reverse it. If that happens, then Aresco and the AAC just look like "the mouse that roared".

(05-08-2017 10:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 09:35 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 05:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I get it but what happens when five or ten years later AAC isn't invited into "the club"?

I believe in under-promise and over-deliver. I don't think the odds favor being able to deliver all 12 members of AAC into "the club".

What happens....??? We aren't invited to the club. Big deal. It's not like this marketing campaign is costing any more than any other stupid marketing campaign.

FWIW, I think the odds are somewhere around 0% that we become part of the club. It's about trying to build perception of a new league for the public more than anything.

But this campaign tells the average fan that it is in reach and achievable. That's not smart marketing.

There is a distinction between we are measuring our programs against Clemson and Ole Miss and we expect to do this year have the same access and treatment as Clemson and Ole Miss.

Eventually people start asking what happened to being in the club? Eventually the question is asked why haven't the president, AD and the coaches accomplished the mission. They are apparently the barrier to achieving the goal.

Sure it's achievable, in perception. The money and "NCAA vote share" aspect of this is irrelevant since the "average fan" doesn't have a clue about that stuff. If the AAC isn't the 6th best to the "average fan", who is?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the AAC is not the 6th best conference. But, of the other nine, the AAC is much more like #7 - #10 than they are like #1 - #5. They are much further behind #5 than they are ahead of #7 (or even #10). You aren't going to change that reality with the smoke and mirrors of a marketing campaign. That has to happen in the arena.

And the trend isn't favorable, and new economic realities are more likely to accelerate that trend than reverse it. If that happens, then Aresco and the AAC just look like "the mouse that roared".

Interestly--some of the computer models show the AAC closer to the bottom of the P5 than to the nearest G5. Basically, looking at the goals, targets, and initiatives outlined in thier plan---I see no way any of it harms them and--if they attain any of those tatgets---I don't see how it can do anything but improve thier perception as well as thier financial position. The real key is if the plan is just lip service---or do they make real tangible efforts and investments aimed at accomplishing these goals and targets. For instance----lets see if minimal OOC scheduling requirements for basketball becomes a reality. That's the kind of real world steps a league that's serious about this plan can take that don't require money or NCAA changes.

(05-08-2017 10:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 09:35 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 05:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  What happens....??? We aren't invited to the club. Big deal. It's not like this marketing campaign is costing any more than any other stupid marketing campaign.

FWIW, I think the odds are somewhere around 0% that we become part of the club. It's about trying to build perception of a new league for the public more than anything.

But this campaign tells the average fan that it is in reach and achievable. That's not smart marketing.

There is a distinction between we are measuring our programs against Clemson and Ole Miss and we expect to do this year have the same access and treatment as Clemson and Ole Miss.

Eventually people start asking what happened to being in the club? Eventually the question is asked why haven't the president, AD and the coaches accomplished the mission. They are apparently the barrier to achieving the goal.

Sure it's achievable, in perception. The money and "NCAA vote share" aspect of this is irrelevant since the "average fan" doesn't have a clue about that stuff. If the AAC isn't the 6th best to the "average fan", who is?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the AAC is not the 6th best conference. But, of the other nine, the AAC is much more like #7 - #10 than they are like #1 - #5. They are much further behind #5 than they are ahead of #7 (or even #10). You aren't going to change that reality with the smoke and mirrors of a marketing campaign. That has to happen in the arena.

And the trend isn't favorable, and new economic realities are more likely to accelerate that trend than reverse it. If that happens, then Aresco and the AAC just look like "the mouse that roared".

Interestly--some of the computer models show the AAC closer to the bottom of the P5 than to the nearest G5. Basically, looking at the goals, targets, and initiatives outlined in thier plan---I see no way any of it harms them and--if they attain any of those tatgets---I don't see how it can do anything but improve thier perception as well as thier financial position. The real key is if the plan is just lip service---or do they make real tangible efforts and investments aimed at accomplishing these goals and targets. For instance----lets see if minimal OOC scheduling requirements for basketball becomes a reality. That's the kind of real world steps a league that's serious about this plan can take that don't require money or NCAA changes.

The problem is that you are mixing the metrics... "Being closer to the bottom of the P5 than the rest of the G5" is based off of on-the-field/on-the-court performance. Back in the day, the old WAC could make exactly the same claims and look where they are today.

The "Power"/"Autonomy" thing has NOTHING to do with actual performance. It's about money and power. The worst performing "P5" school is still getting exponentially more money and weighted voting power than the "best" performing "g5" school. It's what it is. Over time, even if the worst performing "Power" 5 conference and school will get those resources whether they win another game or not and the "g5" schools will NOT...whether they win all the bowl games in the world or not.

It is what it is. The old "Wacky WAC" that brought us wide-open passing attacks and Heisman trophies with the Detmers went away. It didn't matter how well they did on the field; as a matter of fact it probably hurt them over the long-haul because it made the PAC 10/12 and the Big 8/12 jealous of them and want to take them apart.

(05-08-2017 11:35 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 09:35 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  But this campaign tells the average fan that it is in reach and achievable. That's not smart marketing.

There is a distinction between we are measuring our programs against Clemson and Ole Miss and we expect to do this year have the same access and treatment as Clemson and Ole Miss.

Eventually people start asking what happened to being in the club? Eventually the question is asked why haven't the president, AD and the coaches accomplished the mission. They are apparently the barrier to achieving the goal.

Sure it's achievable, in perception. The money and "NCAA vote share" aspect of this is irrelevant since the "average fan" doesn't have a clue about that stuff. If the AAC isn't the 6th best to the "average fan", who is?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the AAC is not the 6th best conference. But, of the other nine, the AAC is much more like #7 - #10 than they are like #1 - #5. They are much further behind #5 than they are ahead of #7 (or even #10). You aren't going to change that reality with the smoke and mirrors of a marketing campaign. That has to happen in the arena.

And the trend isn't favorable, and new economic realities are more likely to accelerate that trend than reverse it. If that happens, then Aresco and the AAC just look like "the mouse that roared".

Interestly--some of the computer models show the AAC closer to the bottom of the P5 than to the nearest G5. Basically, looking at the goals, targets, and initiatives outlined in thier plan---I see no way any of it harms them and--if they attain any of those tatgets---I don't see how it can do anything but improve thier perception as well as thier financial position. The real key is if the plan is just lip service---or do they make real tangible efforts and investments aimed at accomplishing these goals and targets. For instance----lets see if minimal OOC scheduling requirements for basketball becomes a reality. That's the kind of real world steps a league that's serious about this plan can take that don't require money or NCAA changes.

The problem is that you are mixing the metrics... "Being closer to the bottom of the P5 than the rest of the G5" is based off of on-the-field/on-the-court performance. Back in the day, the old WAC could make exactly the same claims and look where they are today.

The "Power"/"Autonomy" thing has NOTHING to do with actual performance. It's about money and power. The worst performing "P5" school is still getting exponentially more money and weighted voting power than the "best" performing "g5" school. It's what it is. Over time, even if the worst performing "Power" 5 conference and school will get those resources whether they win another game or not and the "g5" schools will NOT...whether they win all the bowl games in the world or not.

It is what it is. The old "Wacky WAC" that brought us wide-open passing attacks and Heisman trophies with the Detmers went away. It didn't matter how well they did on the field; as a matter of fact it probably hurt them over the long-haul because it made the PAC 10/12 and the Big 8/12 jealous of them and want to take them apart.

"Autonomy" is a legislative designation and is the least important of the factors separating the P5 and G5. Given that any G5 can by rule adopt any of the autonomous legislation as soon as it is passed---it doesn't really make much difference in actual practice.

The reality is the AAC is saying we are #6---and its completely true. The "power" part probably will never be true---but, as Ive explained, I think the purpose is much more about differentiating the AAC from the rest of the G5 than it is about actually being accepted as a peer by the P5 cartel.

The old WAC was a solid conference but it lacked depth. On top of that, it was in the most sparsely populated portion of the country, which was bad for TV.

(05-08-2017 12:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:35 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 09:35 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Sure it's achievable, in perception. The money and "NCAA vote share" aspect of this is irrelevant since the "average fan" doesn't have a clue about that stuff. If the AAC isn't the 6th best to the "average fan", who is?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the AAC is not the 6th best conference. But, of the other nine, the AAC is much more like #7 - #10 than they are like #1 - #5. They are much further behind #5 than they are ahead of #7 (or even #10). You aren't going to change that reality with the smoke and mirrors of a marketing campaign. That has to happen in the arena.

And the trend isn't favorable, and new economic realities are more likely to accelerate that trend than reverse it. If that happens, then Aresco and the AAC just look like "the mouse that roared".

Interestly--some of the computer models show the AAC closer to the bottom of the P5 than to the nearest G5. Basically, looking at the goals, targets, and initiatives outlined in thier plan---I see no way any of it harms them and--if they attain any of those tatgets---I don't see how it can do anything but improve thier perception as well as thier financial position. The real key is if the plan is just lip service---or do they make real tangible efforts and investments aimed at accomplishing these goals and targets. For instance----lets see if minimal OOC scheduling requirements for basketball becomes a reality. That's the kind of real world steps a league that's serious about this plan can take that don't require money or NCAA changes.

The problem is that you are mixing the metrics... "Being closer to the bottom of the P5 than the rest of the G5" is based off of on-the-field/on-the-court performance. Back in the day, the old WAC could make exactly the same claims and look where they are today.

The "Power"/"Autonomy" thing has NOTHING to do with actual performance. It's about money and power. The worst performing "P5" school is still getting exponentially more money and weighted voting power than the "best" performing "g5" school. It's what it is. Over time, even if the worst performing "Power" 5 conference and school will get those resources whether they win another game or not and the "g5" schools will NOT...whether they win all the bowl games in the world or not.

It is what it is. The old "Wacky WAC" that brought us wide-open passing attacks and Heisman trophies with the Detmers went away. It didn't matter how well they did on the field; as a matter of fact it probably hurt them over the long-haul because it made the PAC 10/12 and the Big 8/12 jealous of them and want to take them apart.

"Autonomy" is a legislative designation and is the least important of the factors separating the P5 and G5. Given that any G5 can by rule adopt any of the autonomous legislation as soon as it is passed---it doesn't really make much difference in actual practice.

The reality is the AAC is saying we are #6---and its completely true. The "power" part probably will never be true---but, as Ive explained, I think the purpose is much more about differentiating the AAC from the rest of the G5 than it is about actually being accepted as a peer by the P5 cartel.

My question would be to whom are they aiming this message of differentiation? And to what purpose? Are they just trying to make their own fans feel better about themselves? Or make other G5 fans feel worse?

(05-08-2017 11:35 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 09:35 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  But this campaign tells the average fan that it is in reach and achievable. That's not smart marketing.

There is a distinction between we are measuring our programs against Clemson and Ole Miss and we expect to do this year have the same access and treatment as Clemson and Ole Miss.

Eventually people start asking what happened to being in the club? Eventually the question is asked why haven't the president, AD and the coaches accomplished the mission. They are apparently the barrier to achieving the goal.

Sure it's achievable, in perception. The money and "NCAA vote share" aspect of this is irrelevant since the "average fan" doesn't have a clue about that stuff. If the AAC isn't the 6th best to the "average fan", who is?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the AAC is not the 6th best conference. But, of the other nine, the AAC is much more like #7 - #10 than they are like #1 - #5. They are much further behind #5 than they are ahead of #7 (or even #10). You aren't going to change that reality with the smoke and mirrors of a marketing campaign. That has to happen in the arena.

And the trend isn't favorable, and new economic realities are more likely to accelerate that trend than reverse it. If that happens, then Aresco and the AAC just look like "the mouse that roared".

Interestly--some of the computer models show the AAC closer to the bottom of the P5 than to the nearest G5. Basically, looking at the goals, targets, and initiatives outlined in thier plan---I see no way any of it harms them and--if they attain any of those tatgets---I don't see how it can do anything but improve thier perception as well as thier financial position. The real key is if the plan is just lip service---or do they make real tangible efforts and investments aimed at accomplishing these goals and targets. For instance----lets see if minimal OOC scheduling requirements for basketball becomes a reality. That's the kind of real world steps a league that's serious about this plan can take that don't require money or NCAA changes.

The problem is that you are mixing the metrics... "Being closer to the bottom of the P5 than the rest of the G5" is based off of on-the-field/on-the-court performance. Back in the day, the old WAC could make exactly the same claims and look where they are today.

The "Power"/"Autonomy" thing has NOTHING to do with actual performance. It's about money and power. The worst performing "P5" school is still getting exponentially more money and weighted voting power than the "best" performing "g5" school. It's what it is. Over time, even if the worst performing "Power" 5 conference and school will get those resources whether they win another game or not and the "g5" schools will NOT...whether they win all the bowl games in the world or not.

It is what it is. The old "Wacky WAC" that brought us wide-open passing attacks and Heisman trophies with the Detmers went away. It didn't matter how well they did on the field; as a matter of fact it probably hurt them over the long-haul because it made the PAC 10/12 and the Big 8/12 jealous of them and want to take them apart.

the MWC killed off the WAC the Big 12 had nothing to do with it

TCU had been out of the WAC for over a decade when they left the MWC to go to the AAC before saying hasta to go to the Big 12

the MWC was already going to feed on the WAC no matter what because of losing Utah and because even if TCU had stayed in the AAC the MWC was still losing them and the MWC would have most likely lost Boise and SDSU as well because they would have not gone back on joining the AAC

so even the transitive action of the Big 12 taking TCU did not cause the MWC to take teams from the WAC because the MWC was going to take teams from the WAC no matter what to replace TCU going to the AAC and possibly Boise and SDSU if TCU had stayed in the AAC

and as for the silly idea of "well we are the 6th best conference so P6"......well yea the #7 conference just got P7 stickers and put out an Excel spread sheet and the #8 conference just got P8 stickers and put out a Word document

so it is now the P8 because there are 8 conferences (three of which have P# stickers) and they are the 6th, 7th and 8th best conferences....if we just get stickers for #9 and #10 we can have a P10

A spurious claim by the AAC.

The conference had 7 wins and 13 losses against "P5" teams, plus a win against Notre Dame.

The MWC tried to separate themselves from the nonAQs and they had a way better trio at the top than the AAC. At the end, the cartel picked their two best football schools and BYU got a lifeline from ESPN. The same thing more or less happened to the Big East.

The one thing nobody talks about is the whole Big XII expansion fiasco from last year. It really showed every AAC institution tried to make their best case (as they should) to leave for the Big XII. That might bite the AAC in the azz when it comes to the next tv deal negotiations. If I'm ESPN or any other outlet what would be my incentive in giving the AAC a raise when they've shown they can leave at the first opportunity? Even if they don't move up and/or get a substantial raise in tv rights, where else would the go? The MWC? C-USA? Of course not. It's not like you're the Big Ten where your biggest competitor is willing to open its wallet as in the case of FOX and the B1G. I can't see NBC and CBS doing it either. That's how it is in the G5 whether we like it or not. The poorest P5 school makes 90% more in tv money than the average AAC and MWC school. Let that sink in. There's be a couple of lucky G5 schools that might get the golden ticket to move up but for the vast majority of the G5, things are not looking good tv wise.

Doesn't ESPN need to fill inventory spots from the lost B1G inventory (that goes to FOX/FS1)? The ACC and SEC will not be able to fill these spots well because the SECN and upcoming ACCN need inventory too.

There will be a couple of spots each week on ESPN or ESPN2 that a B1G game would have previously filled. This will also trickle down to ESPNU inventory. So, there will be a modest *need* for good football inventory, for which the AAC is a perfect fit.

(05-08-2017 09:35 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 05:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).

I get it but what happens when five or ten years later AAC isn't invited into "the club"?

I believe in under-promise and over-deliver. I don't think the odds favor being able to deliver all 12 members of AAC into "the club".

What happens....??? We aren't invited to the club. Big deal. It's not like this marketing campaign is costing any more than any other stupid marketing campaign.

FWIW, I think the odds are somewhere around 0% that we become part of the club. It's about trying to build perception of a new league for the public more than anything.

But this campaign tells the average fan that it is in reach and achievable. That's not smart marketing.

There is a distinction between we are measuring our programs against Clemson and Ole Miss and we expect to do this year have the same access and treatment as Clemson and Ole Miss.

Eventually people start asking what happened to being in the club? Eventually the question is asked why haven't the president, AD and the coaches accomplished the mission. They are apparently the barrier to achieving the goal.

Sure it's achievable, in perception. The money and "NCAA vote share" aspect of this is irrelevant since the "average fan" doesn't have a clue about that stuff. If the AAC isn't the 6th best to the "average fan", who is?

The ACC.

(05-08-2017 02:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  My question would be to whom are they aiming this message of differentiation? And to what purpose? Are they just trying to make their own fans feel better about themselves? Or make other G5 fans feel worse?

The AAC is the youngest property in the marketplace, and as such building the brand and establishing a unique identity are obvious priorities. A couple of years ago, Aresco described the league as a tweener conference. I was kind of surprised at how quickly it caught on with the media. P5 1/2 was another one the talking heads liked to throw around. P6 takes it up a notch. Doubtful it catches on, but it may solidify tweener status. Aresco's not working in a vacuum; the presidents, ADs and coaches are behind it as well. Fans of those schools aren't happy with the status quo and would be more upset/disgruntled/irate had no effort been made to better their respective situations.

Is it in vain? Probably, but a tweet from a Memphis target caught my eye. Up until signing day, he had his offer list divided into two categories "power" and "fbs." He included AAC teams among his power offers. It's a little thing, but sometimes they make the biggest differences.

(05-08-2017 01:22 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The old WAC was a solid conference but it lacked depth. On top of that, it was in the most sparsely populated portion of the country, which was bad for TV.

The old WAC may have lacked depth but they had waaay better bowls and way better football and basketball attendence that the AAC does. It's quite noticeable when going back to and analyzing the WAC from 1962 to 1998. The fact that the Big East football conference was created in 1991 was because Miami was hot at the time, their depth was worse than the WAC's and 25% of the old Big East were the worst football schools in the country. (Rutgers and Temple) The ACC before Florida St was pretty bad as far as depth as well. The SWC, PAC and Big 8 held the WAC down while the Big 10 and SEC propped the ACC and Big East up. Politics.

(05-08-2017 05:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 01:22 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The old WAC was a solid conference but it lacked depth. On top of that, it was in the most sparsely populated portion of the country, which was bad for TV.

The old WAC may have lacked depth but they had waaay better bowls and way better football and basketball attendence that the AAC does. It's quite noticeable when going back to and analyzing the WAC from 1962 to 1998. The fact that the Big East football conference was created in 1991 was because Miami was hot at the time, their depth was worse than the WAC's and 25% of the old Big East were the worst football schools in the country. (Rutgers and Temple) The ACC before Florida St was pretty bad as far as depth as well. The SWC, PAC and Big 8 held the WAC down while the Big 10 and SEC propped the ACC and Big East up. Politics.

The upper 62.5% of the BE in the 90's was good, and the top part was extremely good. And even Pitt, who wasn't good at the time, had more history than the entire WAC combined.

It will be interesting to see what happens. As a fan, I hate noon games. I would not be surprised if you see a move by the ACC and ESPN to move the existing noon games to the B10 post 3pm slots. I think the primary openings will be at the noon ESPN/ABC slots.

(05-08-2017 05:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  The old WAC may have lacked depth but they had waaay better bowls and way better football and basketball attendence that the AAC does. It's quite noticeable when going back to and analyzing the WAC from 1962 to 1998.

The old WAC (that included Utah - BYU - SDSU etc) was a solid outfit. I'm not sure how to compare it to the current AAC but certainly it was a strong league, especially when Arizona and AZ State were on board ('62-'77)

(05-08-2017 05:58 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 05:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  The old WAC may have lacked depth but they had waaay better bowls and way better football and basketball attendence that the AAC does. It's quite noticeable when going back to and analyzing the WAC from 1962 to 1998.

The old WAC (that included Utah - BYU - SDSU etc) was a solid outfit. I'm not sure how to compare it to the current AAC but certainly it was a strong league, especially when Arizona and AZ State were on board ('62-'77)

The original WAC (ASU, AZ, BYU, CSU, UNM, Utah, Wyo, UTEP) covered only 6 states and had great rivalries. When the Arizona schools left, SDSU, Hawaii, and Air Force filled the gap well and great rivalries continued.

Back then, bowl games actually meant something. Only the conference champion and perhaps one other team from the WAC would actually play in a bowl. There were some great games, with the likes of Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St., SMU (when they were great), Texas, UCLA, Iowa, etc.

(05-08-2017 06:14 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 05:58 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 05:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  The old WAC may have lacked depth but they had waaay better bowls and way better football and basketball attendence that the AAC does. It's quite noticeable when going back to and analyzing the WAC from 1962 to 1998.

The old WAC (that included Utah - BYU - SDSU etc) was a solid outfit. I'm not sure how to compare it to the current AAC but certainly it was a strong league, especially when Arizona and AZ State were on board ('62-'77)

The original WAC (ASU, AZ, BYU, CSU, UNM, Utah, Wyo, UTEP) covered only 6 states and had great rivalries. When the Arizona schools left, SDSU, Hawaii, and Air Force filled the gap well and great rivalries continued.

Back then, bowl games actually meant something. Only the conference champion and perhaps one other team from the WAC would actually play in a bowl. There were some great games, with the likes of Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St., SMU (when they were great), Texas, UCLA, Iowa, etc.

Yep, I have some nostalgia about the WAC obviously as growing up in Iowa, we had several Holiday Bowls vs the WAC. Beat Wyoming and SDSU on last second field goals and one my favorite Iowa teams (went 10-1 and won at Ohio St) tied Ty Detmer led BYU. Detmer had won the Heisman the year before. I had great respect for the WAC in the 80's and 90's. Iowa lost at Hawaii one year and lost at Tulsa during the WAC 16 era....But bounced back and won at Penn St the next week for a top 15 finish including a 27-0 thrashing of Texas Tech in the bowl when I was living there haha..oh the memories....