I hope for a slightly better bowl package next time, but don't see any Auto Access, or top flight choice for champ/2. Personally I would rather play any P5 school over a #2 Mac school. I was kind of hoping we would end up swapping the new tex bowl for HOD, that seems unlikely now.

While playing the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big XII, and PAC in bowl games provides interest and novelty- Until the American can secure higher bowl payouts, it may not matter. Playing for the minimum revenue is still playing for the minimum.

(09-14-2017 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:13 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Like I said, out bowls suck big time, but they are way better than the Sun Belt's, CUSA, and MAC's. We have 4 bowls with Power conference tie ins. They have zero. The MWC has one, I believe. Basically, every bowl that has a so called P5 tie in belongs to AAC. I like playing, for example, South Carolina in the Birmingham bowl.

Excluding the NY6, in 2014 we played 4 bowls vs P5, in 2015, we played 3 bowls vs P5, and last year, we played 2 bowls vs P5.

That's not a positive trend, and personally, I don't see much difference between playing say the #2 MAC team and the #11 SEC team in a toilet bowl like Birmingham.

Our bowl lineup is purely a G5 lineup, and it is IMO atrocious. Because it is a little better than C-USA's brings me no solace.

There is no "trend". Its goverened by the same bowl agreements that we signed at the start of this bowl cycle. Because we only have a partial tie in Ft Worth and the ACC only has a half tie in St Pete---the number of P5 post season games we play vs the P5 will change year to year. The ability of the P5 conferences tied to our games to fill thier lower end bowl slots is also a factor in the changing number of AAC P5 post season opponents (as is our ability to claim the access bowl).

This is part of the reason I expect there to be incremental improvement in the AAC post season in the next bowl cycle---but probably not a massive upgrade. Im thinking the most likely best case scenario is we get full ties to Ft Worth and the HOD, we get the ACC to go full time in St Pete, and we land the Indy Bowl vs a P5. Assuming the HOD and Ft Worth bowls both stay P5 vs G5---that would give us 5 bowls a year vs the P5. About the upper limit of possible success in this next bowl cycle would be to land our champ a place in the Liberty/Gator/Belk/Texas Bowl pool (even an annual rotating slot). But to be honest, landing a yearly slot in that Liberty/Belk/Gator/Texas pool would be a level of success for Aresco that is probably at the very limit of any of realistic expectations for the AAC. I think the improvement would be more like what I described---locking in 4/5 P5 post season matchups and maybe upgrading the G5 bowl locations and improving ease of travel for our G5 Bowls (for instance, adding the drivable "in footprint" fun destination of the NOLA Bowl and dumping expensive difficult to travel destinations like the Hawaii and Bahama Bowls).

I honestly expect incremental progress. Not expecting a home run in the next cycle (though Id gladly accept one).

If I read the Big10's release right, the switch is only for this year. And looking at the Big12 this year, it seems likely that they wont be able to fill their spot in the HoD again. So it may end up that CUSA plays in both bowls like last year.

(09-14-2017 01:07 PM)Magic95Fan Wrote:  If I read the Big10's release right, the switch is only for this year. And looking at the Big12 this year, it seems likely that they wont be able to fill their spot in the HoD again. So it may end up that CUSA plays in both bowls like last year.

Could be...or maybe not. I mean, at this time last year the HOD website said CUSA would be in the HOD Bowl THIS year. Frankly, I cant figure out why they would swap this year and not next year. What will be different next year? If its a grand idea this year---why is not a great idea next year? Secondly, I cant figure out why CUSA would do it. Doesnt seem to be much in it for CUSA---so I dont know why its even happening. I mean--shouldnt a swap benefit both conferences? The whole move is a little odd.

(09-14-2017 01:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:07 PM)Magic95Fan Wrote:  If I read the Big10's release right, the switch is only for this year. And looking at the Big12 this year, it seems likely that they wont be able to fill their spot in the HoD again. So it may end up that CUSA plays in both bowls like last year.

Could be...or maybe not. I mean, at this time last year the HOD website said CUSA would be in the HOD Bowl THIS year. Frankly, I cant figure out why they would swap this year and not next year. What will be different next year? If its a grand idea this year---why is not a great idea next year? Secondly, I cant figure out why CUSA would do it. Doesnt seem to be much in it for CUSA---so I dont know why its even happening. I mean--shouldnt a swap benefit both conferences? The whole move is a little odd.

I agree with this completely. Seems like it benefits the big 10 although as one other commented the big 12 isn't likely to fill it again so maybe Army is the better option. Still seems weird. Seems like something they would work out at bowl time to resolve versus issuing a statement now. Smells funny.

(09-14-2017 02:51 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:07 PM)Magic95Fan Wrote:  If I read the Big10's release right, the switch is only for this year. And looking at the Big12 this year, it seems likely that they wont be able to fill their spot in the HoD again. So it may end up that CUSA plays in both bowls like last year.

Could be...or maybe not. I mean, at this time last year the HOD website said CUSA would be in the HOD Bowl THIS year. Frankly, I cant figure out why they would swap this year and not next year. What will be different next year? If its a grand idea this year---why is not a great idea next year? Secondly, I cant figure out why CUSA would do it. Doesnt seem to be much in it for CUSA---so I dont know why its even happening. I mean--shouldnt a swap benefit both conferences? The whole move is a little odd.

I agree with this completely. Seems like it benefits the big 10 although as one other commented the big 12 isn't likely to fill it again so maybe Army is the better option. Still seems weird. Seems like something they would work out at bowl time to resolve versus issuing a statement now. Smells funny.

ESPN controls both bowls so don't put it past them to try to prop up the HOD bowl. However, neither the Big 10 or Big 12 have been able to fulfill that HOD spot. Maybe knowing another P5 school will be in the other slot they will move up the pecking order for this bowl vs some other bowl.

Hopefully, CUSA got some cash out of the deal and perhaps a good matchup. A MW team should be in play as we lost the Poinsettia Bowl and have had tie-ins to the Armed Forces bowl previously.

Total G4 move

(09-14-2017 01:07 PM)Magic95Fan Wrote:  If I read the Big10's release right, the switch is only for this year. And looking at the Big12 this year, it seems likely that they wont be able to fill their spot in the HoD again. So it may end up that CUSA plays in both bowls like last year.

The B-10 will continue to come short for it's bowl commitments if they stick to the 9 game conference schedule. The weaker sisters of the conference need at least 2 cupcakes on their schedules OOC to become bowl eligible for 6&6 seasons. Getting shellacked every year by the annual top three in each division doesn't help bowl eligibility for teams like Illinois, Purdue, North Western, Rutgers, Maryland, and Indiana.

(09-14-2017 10:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:13 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Like I said, out bowls suck big time, but they are way better than the Sun Belt's, CUSA, and MAC's. We have 4 bowls with Power conference tie ins. They have zero. The MWC has one, I believe. Basically, every bowl that has a so called P5 tie in belongs to AAC. I like playing, for example, South Carolina in the Birmingham bowl.

Excluding the NY6, in 2014 we played 4 bowls vs P5, in 2015, we played 3 bowls vs P5, and last year, we played 2 bowls vs P5.

That's not a positive trend, and personally, I don't see much difference between playing say the #2 MAC team and the #11 SEC team in a toilet bowl like Birmingham.

Our bowl lineup is purely a G5 lineup, and it is IMO atrocious. Because it is a little better than C-USA's brings me no solace.

There is no "trend". Its goverened by the same bowl agreements that we signed at the start of this bowl cycle.

I get that. But my point was it's inaccurate, as some have said, to say we have "four P5 bowls". We don't. We have two P5 bowls, Birmingham and the Military. We also have the possibility of two others, if the chips fall a certain way.

That's not four P5 tie-ins.

But I agree with you, any bowl improvement is likely to be incremental, because anything significant would almost surely require supplanting a P5 in a bowl, and that's wishful thinking.

(09-15-2017 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:13 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Like I said, out bowls suck big time, but they are way better than the Sun Belt's, CUSA, and MAC's. We have 4 bowls with Power conference tie ins. They have zero. The MWC has one, I believe. Basically, every bowl that has a so called P5 tie in belongs to AAC. I like playing, for example, South Carolina in the Birmingham bowl.

Excluding the NY6, in 2014 we played 4 bowls vs P5, in 2015, we played 3 bowls vs P5, and last year, we played 2 bowls vs P5.

That's not a positive trend, and personally, I don't see much difference between playing say the #2 MAC team and the #11 SEC team in a toilet bowl like Birmingham.

Our bowl lineup is purely a G5 lineup, and it is IMO atrocious. Because it is a little better than C-USA's brings me no solace.

There is no "trend". Its goverened by the same bowl agreements that we signed at the start of this bowl cycle.

I get that. But my point was it's inaccurate, as some have said, to say we have "four P5 bowls". We don't. We have two P5 bowls, Birmingham and the Military. We also have the possibility of two others, if the chips fall a certain way.

That's not four P5 tie-ins.

But I agree with you, any bowl improvement is likely to be incremental, because anything significant would almost surely require supplanting a P5 in a bowl, and that's wishful thinking.

I completely agree that claiming "4 P5 bowls a year" is an overstatement because at best it was more like "4 P5 bowls every other year". Getting to 4-6 P5 bowls EVERY year is the kind of "incremental" improvement I hope to see in the next bowl cycle. Something like this is about the best case we can REASONABLY expect---

Military vs ACC
Birmignham vs SEC
St Pete vs ACC (full tie for ACC)
Armed Forces Vs B12/B10
HOD vs Big12/B10
Indy vs SEC or ACC
Cure vs CUSA
NOLA vs SB


Thats 6 P5 bowls and 2 G5 bowls in popular destinations inside the conference footprint. If we need another---Boca vs CUSA or Frisco vs the MW would be options. An unexpected upside surprise would be some sort of rotating slot for the AAC champ in the Liberty/Belk/Gator/Music City/Texas Bowl pool. Something like that would be a huge upgrade for us (pretty much a long shot in my opinion).

(09-13-2017 09:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:58 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  G4 bowls

You think our bowls are better?

They are, simply because WE are there...

(09-15-2017 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:13 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Like I said, out bowls suck big time, but they are way better than the Sun Belt's, CUSA, and MAC's. We have 4 bowls with Power conference tie ins. They have zero. The MWC has one, I believe. Basically, every bowl that has a so called P5 tie in belongs to AAC. I like playing, for example, South Carolina in the Birmingham bowl.

Excluding the NY6, in 2014 we played 4 bowls vs P5, in 2015, we played 3 bowls vs P5, and last year, we played 2 bowls vs P5.

That's not a positive trend, and personally, I don't see much difference between playing say the #2 MAC team and the #11 SEC team in a toilet bowl like Birmingham.

Our bowl lineup is purely a G5 lineup, and it is IMO atrocious. Because it is a little better than C-USA's brings me no solace.

There is no "trend". Its goverened by the same bowl agreements that we signed at the start of this bowl cycle.

I get that. But my point was it's inaccurate, as some have said, to say we have "four P5 bowls". We don't. We have two P5 bowls, Birmingham and the Military. We also have the possibility of two others, if the chips fall a certain way.

That's not four P5 tie-ins.

But I agree with you, any bowl improvement is likely to be incremental, because anything significant would almost surely require supplanting a P5 in a bowl, and that's wishful thinking.

I completely agree that claiming "4 P5 bowls a year" is an overstatement because at best it was more like "4 P5 bowls every other year". Getting to 4-6 P5 bowls EVERY year is the kind of "incremental" improvement I hope to see in the next bowl cycle. Something like this is about the best case we can REASONABLY expect---

Military vs ACC
Birmignham vs SEC
St Pete vs ACC (full tie for ACC)
Armed Forces Vs B12/B10
HOD vs Big12/B10
Indy vs SEC or ACC

I'll grant HOD because hell, it's such a tangled mess of alignments I can't figure it out, LOL.

But not sure how we can grab Armed Forces, they're not going to boot out Army, and also the Independence is ACC vs SEC, so we're not getting that either. IMO, at least.

Aresco mentioned over the summer about trying to work something with the B1G. Foreshadowing? Wouldn't be the first time a bowl chose the AAC over CUSA...lots of previous relationships.

(09-15-2017 06:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Excluding the NY6, in 2014 we played 4 bowls vs P5, in 2015, we played 3 bowls vs P5, and last year, we played 2 bowls vs P5.

That's not a positive trend, and personally, I don't see much difference between playing say the #2 MAC team and the #11 SEC team in a toilet bowl like Birmingham.

Our bowl lineup is purely a G5 lineup, and it is IMO atrocious. Because it is a little better than C-USA's brings me no solace.

There is no "trend". Its goverened by the same bowl agreements that we signed at the start of this bowl cycle.

I get that. But my point was it's inaccurate, as some have said, to say we have "four P5 bowls". We don't. We have two P5 bowls, Birmingham and the Military. We also have the possibility of two others, if the chips fall a certain way.

That's not four P5 tie-ins.

But I agree with you, any bowl improvement is likely to be incremental, because anything significant would almost surely require supplanting a P5 in a bowl, and that's wishful thinking.

I completely agree that claiming "4 P5 bowls a year" is an overstatement because at best it was more like "4 P5 bowls every other year". Getting to 4-6 P5 bowls EVERY year is the kind of "incremental" improvement I hope to see in the next bowl cycle. Something like this is about the best case we can REASONABLY expect---

Military vs ACC
Birmignham vs SEC
St Pete vs ACC (full tie for ACC)
Armed Forces Vs B12/B10
HOD vs Big12/B10
Indy vs SEC or ACC

I'll grant HOD because hell, it's such a tangled mess of alignments I can't figure it out, LOL.

But not sure how we can grab Armed Forces, they're not going to boot out Army, and also the Independence is ACC vs SEC, so we're not getting that either. IMO, at least.

Well...we do have Navy.

(09-14-2017 01:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Secondly, I cant figure out why CUSA would do it. Doesnt seem to be much in it for CUSA---so I dont know why its even happening. I mean--shouldnt a swap benefit both conferences? The whole move is a little odd.

Here's all you need to know.

(09-15-2017 08:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 06:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There is no "trend". Its goverened by the same bowl agreements that we signed at the start of this bowl cycle.

I get that. But my point was it's inaccurate, as some have said, to say we have "four P5 bowls". We don't. We have two P5 bowls, Birmingham and the Military. We also have the possibility of two others, if the chips fall a certain way.

That's not four P5 tie-ins.

But I agree with you, any bowl improvement is likely to be incremental, because anything significant would almost surely require supplanting a P5 in a bowl, and that's wishful thinking.

I completely agree that claiming "4 P5 bowls a year" is an overstatement because at best it was more like "4 P5 bowls every other year". Getting to 4-6 P5 bowls EVERY year is the kind of "incremental" improvement I hope to see in the next bowl cycle. Something like this is about the best case we can REASONABLY expect---

Military vs ACC
Birmignham vs SEC
St Pete vs ACC (full tie for ACC)
Armed Forces Vs B12/B10
HOD vs Big12/B10
Indy vs SEC or ACC

I'll grant HOD because hell, it's such a tangled mess of alignments I can't figure it out, LOL.

But not sure how we can grab Armed Forces, they're not going to boot out Army, and also the Independence is ACC vs SEC, so we're not getting that either. IMO, at least.

Well...we do have Navy.

We do have Navy, but Navy is already affiliated (via us) with the Military Bowl, which is on their campus. I don't see Navy having two ties to "armed services" bowls and Army having zero.

This is a low-tier bowl so I doubt a P5 makes a firm commitment to it, I think next time around it will have the same type of hodge-podge that it has now, with the AAC being involved, since just about everyone is, LOL.