I was think about this and I think it has to do with history. Most if of the programs in the American have been in "so-called" power conferences, BCS conferences, etc. This is the reason why these schools think they should be a P6 because history has shown they are. Let's take a look:

1) UConn - former BCS member in Big East Conference (BCS Bowl Appearance)
2) Cincinnati - former BCS member in Big East Conference (BCS Bowl Appearances)
3) UCF - former BCS member in American Conference (BCS Bowl Appearance)
4) South Florida - former BCS member in Big East Conference
5) Memphis - former BCS member in American Conference
6) Navy - Heisman winner and national championship, national power indy school, with history of big time bowl appearances
7) Houston - Heisman winner former member of SWC (power conference) and BCS member of American. Many large bowl appearances and victories. Plus NY6 bowl victory
8) SMU - Heisman winner, national championships, former member of SWC (power conference) and BCS member of American.
9) Temple - BCS member of Big East and American, and Sugar Bowl appearances
10) Tulane - Former SEC member with Sugar Bowl victories
11) ECU - long time southern independent, was a proposed member of the Metro football conference, Peach Bowl victory,
12) Tulsa - Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl appearances. Orange Bowl victory

I would imagine no G5 conference could say the same. The only conference close would be the MWC.

so your argument is "we are a power conference because we have a lot of schools that could not keep up or that were left behind"

does not compute

His suggestion is that the decision on who is above and below the line is not being made on merit, it is completely arbitrary or political. That totally computes.

I'm not saying the AAC will be successful in fighting this... or won't be 'kept down'... but you can't argue with on the field results or this membership.

The American was a Power conference when it was still called the Big East. Then all the "Power" Schools Left so now it's not.

(06-20-2017 08:21 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I was think about this and I think it has to do with history. Most if of the programs in the American have been in "so-called" power conferences, BCS conferences, etc. This is the reason why these schools think they should be a P6 because history has shown they are. Let's take a look:

1) UConn - former BCS member in Big East Conference (BCS Bowl Appearance)
2) Cincinnati - former BCS member in Big East Conference (BCS Bowl Appearances)
3) UCF - former BCS member in American Conference (BCS Bowl Appearance)
4) South Florida - former BCS member in Big East Conference
5) Memphis - former BCS member in American Conference
6) Navy - Heisman winner and national championship, national power indy school, with history of big time bowl appearances
7) Houston - Heisman winner former member of SWC (power conference) and BCS member of American. Many large bowl appearances and victories. Plus NY6 bowl victory
8) SMU - Heisman winner, national championships, former member of SWC (power conference) and BCS member of American.
9) Temple - BCS member of Big East and American, and Sugar Bowl appearances
10) Tulane - Former SEC member with Sugar Bowl victories
11) ECU - long time southern independent, was a proposed member of the Metro football conference, Peach Bowl victory,
12) Tulsa - Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl appearances. Orange Bowl victory

I would imagine no G5 conference could say the same. The only conference close would be the MWC.

(06-20-2017 08:40 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  so your argument is "we are a power conference because we have a lot of schools that could not keep up or that were left behind"

does not compute

I see a lot of past glory but not a whole lot recently.

In the immortal words of Janet Jackson....

"What have you done for me lately?"

Quote: Why the American calls it self a P6 school.

Because some Marketing Director had the bright idea to do so.....................

Why does this P6 thing bother so many of you? It is a marketing campaign for crying out loud.

Because 9 or 10 of the AAC members could replace half of the P5 schools and no one would notice. If you switched out Purdue for Cincinnati or Pitt for Temple or Wake Forest for ECU or Baylor for Houston or Vanderbilt for Memphis or Maryland for Navy or Rutgers for UConn, the AAC school would very much fit well as the substitute.

What the AAC lacks, and what defines the power conferences, are power schools. If you add Texas and Penn St. to the AAC, the AAC would be a power conference.

All the "former BCS member in American" are misleading. It was a one year overlap, and the BCS status had nothing to do w/ the team mentioned.

The same goes for Temple and Tulane. Temple was an outlier in the BE, so much so that they got the boot. Yes, Temple was brought back as WVU's replacement, but the conference had been completely gutted w/ WVU gone and Pitt and SU waiting for their 2 years to expire. As for Tulane, I love the school, but you might as well include Chicago and Sawanee.

But the SWC members, BE members, and Navy are legit - albeit, Navy is built to win in a different era.

(06-20-2017 09:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  All the "former BCS member in American" are misleading. It was a one year overlap, and the BCS status had nothing to do w/ the team mentioned.

The same goes for Temple and Tulane. Temple was an outlier in the BE, so much so that they got the boot. Yes, Temple was brought back as WVU's replacement, but the conference had been completely gutted w/ WVU gone and Pitt and SU waiting for their 2 years to expire. As for Tulane, I love the school, but you might as well include Chicago and Sawanee.

But the SWC members, BE members, and Navy are legit - albeit, Navy is built to win in a different era.

Navy is built to win now. They have had a remarkable run the past 10-15 years. If you, for example only, put them in the ACC, they'd be competitive year in and year out. I know that sounds outrageous, but it's true. Would they win the conference, other than very special years, no, but they'd go from 4-4 to 6-2 frequently. Navy can ball.

And about Temple, I think they were brought back in before WVU left, but I could be wrong on that one. This Temple is not the old Big East Temple. This Temple is the kind of team that beats Penn State and plays Notre Dame to the wire.

If you put about 10 AAC schools in the ACC they would fit right in and compete. And the reason I know this, IS BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAPPENED. USF, Cincinnati, and UConn had no problem competing with Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, Rutgers and whoever else left for the better part of a decade. In the case of Syracuse...well USF, UC, and UConn regularly destroyed the Orange.

The ACC long term would deplete the Navy's depth. They would be a 0-3 win team in-conference

(06-20-2017 10:08 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  The ACC long term would deplete the Navy's depth. They would be a 0-3 win team in-conference

You couldn't be more wrong. I thought the same thing when Navy was brought in the AAC, but they proved me wrong. If Navy can compete with USF, UCF, Houston, Cincinnati, etc., then they can compete in the ACC. Navy played USF a heck of a lot tougher than Syracuse ever did, including the past 2 years when USF played Cuse. USF out-talented Syracuse by a mile.

No offense. Syracuse is making great strides under Babers.

(06-20-2017 10:11 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:08 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  The ACC long term would deplete the Navy's depth. They would be a 0-3 win team in-conference

You couldn't be more wrong. I thought the same thing when Navy was brought in the AAC, but they proved me wrong. If Navy can compete with USF, UCF, Houston, Cincinnati, etc., then they can compete in the ACC. Navy played USF a heck of a lot tougher than Syracuse ever did, including the past 2 years when USF played Cuse. USF out-talented Syracuse by a mile.

No offense. Syracuse is making great strides under Babers.

The problem isn't Navy vs. Syracuse. It's having to play FSU, Clemson, Louisville, NCSU (who could be pretty good this year), Miami/VT/UNC/etc., and then Syracuse.

(06-20-2017 10:03 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 09:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  All the "former BCS member in American" are misleading. It was a one year overlap, and the BCS status had nothing to do w/ the team mentioned.

The same goes for Temple and Tulane. Temple was an outlier in the BE, so much so that they got the boot. Yes, Temple was brought back as WVU's replacement, but the conference had been completely gutted w/ WVU gone and Pitt and SU waiting for their 2 years to expire. As for Tulane, I love the school, but you might as well include Chicago and Sawanee.

But the SWC members, BE members, and Navy are legit - albeit, Navy is built to win in a different era.

Navy is built to win now. They have had a remarkable run the past 10-15 years. If you, for example only, put them in the ACC, they'd be competitive year in and year out. I know that sounds outrageous, but it's true. Would they win the conference, other than very special years, no, but they'd go from 4-4 to 6-2 frequently. Navy can ball.

And about Temple, I think they were brought back in before WVU left, but I could be wrong on that one. This Temple is not the old Big East Temple. This Temple is the kind of team that beats Penn State and plays Notre Dame to the wire.

If you put about 10 AAC schools in the ACC they would fit right in and compete. And the reason I know this, IS BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAPPENED. USF, Cincinnati, and UConn had no problem competing with Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, Rutgers and whoever else left for the better part of a decade. In the case of Syracuse...well USF, UC, and UConn regularly destroyed the Orange.

You are wrong about Temple. They were 100% WVU's replacement.

Rutgers isn't in the ACC (and neither is WVU - but they ran the BE in the last decade). And I'll give you USF and UC destroying the Orange - we were historically bad, and UC and USF fielded legitimately good teams - but the sample size is tiny and throwing UConn in that group is a little much. The all time series is ~4-6, and SU is favored this year. Still, read my post, I said the SWC and BE teams are legit.

You're also over-building Navy (see above post)

(06-20-2017 09:28 AM)YNot Wrote:  Because 9 or 10 of the AAC members could replace half of the P5 schools and no one would notice. If you switched out Purdue for Cincinnati or Pitt for Temple or Wake Forest for ECU or Baylor for Houston or Vanderbilt for Memphis or Maryland for Navy or Rutgers for UConn, the AAC school would very much fit well as the substitute.

What the AAC lacks, and what defines the power conferences, are power schools. If you add Texas and Penn St. to the AAC, the AAC would be a power conference.

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^

There are maybe a dozen or so true "power" schools. The rest of the P5 largely draws its current standing by being associated in a conference with one or more of those true "power schools".

Like YNot said, add Oklahoma and Texas to the AAC and it becomes a power conference. Within a few years, the average attendance in the AAC would be similar to the current Big12. Meanwhile, my guess is that attendance within the reamains of the current Big12 would suddenly and inexplicably begin to decline almost immediately after the exit of Oklahoma and Texas....as would their pay check.....

(06-20-2017 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 09:28 AM)YNot Wrote:  Because 9 or 10 of the AAC members could replace half of the P5 schools and no one would notice. If you switched out Purdue for Cincinnati or Pitt for Temple or Wake Forest for ECU or Baylor for Houston or Vanderbilt for Memphis or Maryland for Navy or Rutgers for UConn, the AAC school would very much fit well as the substitute.

What the AAC lacks, and what defines the power conferences, are power schools. If you add Texas and Penn St. to the AAC, the AAC would be a power conference.

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^

There are maybe a dozen or so true "power" schools. The rest of the P5 largely draws its current standing by being associated in a conference with one or more of those true "power schools".

Like YNot said, add Oklahoma and Texas to the AAC and it becomes a power conference. Within a few years, the average attendance in the AAC would be similar to the current Big12. Meanwhile, my guess is that attendance within the reamains of the current Big12 would suddenly and inexplicably begin to decline almost immediately after the exit of Oklahoma and Texas....as would their pay check.....

As you said above. It's about association. The AAC unfortunately has no power schools to be associated with the be considered a power conference and to get power conference money. Same with the rest of the G5.

(06-20-2017 09:27 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Why does this P6 thing bother so many of you? It is a marketing campaign for crying out loud.

1) Because it's a lie.
2) Because it is arrogant.
3) Because it belittles fellow G5 schools
4) Because it pisses off P5 schools
5) Because it makes many in the American cringe knowing the above (they just smile/grimace, mouth shut)

Let's put it another way, who hasn't it offended?

The AAC's other problem is that whenever it has some excellent teams, the coach is poached by a P5 program. And, if there is ever an AAC program that sees sustained success, they will become a prime target for P5 expansion. So, it will be very difficult for the AAC to grow and retain any power football programs.

(06-20-2017 10:11 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:08 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  The ACC long term would deplete the Navy's depth. They would be a 0-3 win team in-conference

You couldn't be more wrong. I thought the same thing when Navy was brought in the AAC, but they proved me wrong. If Navy can compete with USF, UCF, Houston, Cincinnati, etc., then they can compete in the ACC. Navy played USF a heck of a lot tougher than Syracuse ever did, including the past 2 years when USF played Cuse. USF out-talented Syracuse by a mile.

No offense. Syracuse is making great strides under Babers.

I called on here somewhere that Navy would come on and immediately be successful in the AAC. They would probably fit in alright in the ACC as well. Their problem is that there is another team from the same option tree coaching lineage in the ACC. Many teams that Navy would play would see that offense twice every year, which ultimately exposes those teams to practicing for the option twice as long yearly, hurting both Navy and GT in the long term.

(06-20-2017 10:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:11 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:08 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  The ACC long term would deplete the Navy's depth. They would be a 0-3 win team in-conference

You couldn't be more wrong. I thought the same thing when Navy was brought in the AAC, but they proved me wrong. If Navy can compete with USF, UCF, Houston, Cincinnati, etc., then they can compete in the ACC. Navy played USF a heck of a lot tougher than Syracuse ever did, including the past 2 years when USF played Cuse. USF out-talented Syracuse by a mile.

No offense. Syracuse is making great strides under Babers.

The problem isn't Navy vs. Syracuse. It's having to play FSU, Clemson, Louisville, NCSU (who could be pretty good this year), Miami/VT/UNC/etc., and then Syracuse.

And Navy would routinely play at least .500 ball against those teams. Guaranteed. I see you haven't watched a whole lot of Navy ball the past few years. Navy under Keenan Reynolds a couple years ago, would have routed most of those teams...easily. There is a reason Navy has been a frequent visitor into the top 25 polls...they have earned it. Navy might be down slightly this year, because they have a new QB, but then again maybe not. Ken Nium can flat out coach, and his guys know their offense better than any team anywhere knows an offense. Navy beat Houston after Houston had beaten Oklahoma and Florida State, so yes, I do believe Navy can beat all of those teams. Not every year, but they can compete, and rather easily.

See, I thought exactly as you did when Navy was brought into AAC. I thought, they would never be able to compete, week in and week out, that they would be out-talented on a frequent basis, and that teams would get used to their offense. I thought they would get worn down by the daily grind.

I was wrong and you are too. These young men have more heart than just about anyone, what they have to go through being a midshipman and playing ball. You don't just roll over Navy.

Oh and by the way, ask Notre Dame how they do against Navy. Navy competes with ND all the time...why is that?

And by the way, in reference to your statement of: "The problem isn't Navy vs. Syracuse. It's having to play FSU, Clemson, Louisville, NCSU (who could be pretty good this year), Miami/VT/UNC/etc., and then Syracuse." USF has played (and beaten) all of the above teams except VT. Some many times. I've also watched USF play Navy. Navy could compete with all of the above.