(01-02-2024 02:56 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 12:09 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 12:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 09:59 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(01-01-2024 04:00 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  That's the OP's schtick, criticize then dine and dash. The choice is whether he knows there was nothing Aresco could do and is just being a dick, or whether he genuinely believes what he posted and is stupid beyond measure.

We could have stood pat at 8, we could have added 1 or 2.

Agree.

IMO, what was done instead was a terrible, shortsighted mistake.

And if the TV contract specified we could not drop in numbers?

It depends on the contract terms and results of a financial analysis.

I would have preferred to stay at eight rather than expanding to the present list. However, if we must expand by three for media money purposes, then we should have invited the best performing schools possible even if it meant a tolerable media deal decrease. Better quality teams may have improved opportunities to earn money through the CFP, NCAA tourney credits, increased attendance, and better bowls and possibly more than make up for lost media money.

At the time, what three schools are you taking? Almost every school not in the AAC was going to come with some risk or worries.

(01-02-2024 07:03 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 02:56 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 12:09 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 12:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 09:59 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  We could have stood pat at 8, we could have added 1 or 2.

Agree.

IMO, what was done instead was a terrible, shortsighted mistake.

And if the TV contract specified we could not drop in numbers?

It depends on the contract terms and results of a financial analysis.

I would have preferred to stay at eight rather than expanding to the present list. However, if we must expand by three for media money purposes, then we should have invited the best performing schools possible even if it meant a tolerable media deal decrease. Better quality teams may have improved opportunities to earn money through the CFP, NCAA tourney credits, increased attendance, and better bowls and possibly more than make up for lost media money.

At the time, what three schools are you taking? Almost every school not in the AAC was going to come with some risk or worries.

The OP knew this, it's his schtick to say something inflammatory and stupid, and then leave.

(01-02-2024 07:03 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 02:56 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 12:09 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 12:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 09:59 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  We could have stood pat at 8, we could have added 1 or 2.

Agree.

IMO, what was done instead was a terrible, shortsighted mistake.

And if the TV contract specified we could not drop in numbers?

It depends on the contract terms and results of a financial analysis.

I would have preferred to stay at eight rather than expanding to the present list. However, if we must expand by three for media money purposes, then we should have invited the best performing schools possible even if it meant a tolerable media deal decrease. Better quality teams may have improved opportunities to earn money through the CFP, NCAA tourney credits, increased attendance, and better bowls and possibly more than make up for lost media money.

At the time, what three schools are you taking? Almost every school not in the AAC was going to come with some risk or worries.

At the time (or thereabouts) and other factors equal, I would have picked three of the best MWC schools. Failing that option (which proved unobtainable)., I would have selected App St and UAB for all sports and VCU or Dayton for BB and UTSA for FB. The metrics for such a league in most years would be much better than we endure now.

(01-02-2024 03:37 PM)Vonz90 Wrote:  This is really a funny topic in one very important way. Aresco was a key guy and all, but in the end the members approved everything he did. If he was doing something they didn't want, he would have been gone.

Maybe we should of expanded or not, I can see arguments both ways. However, the members looked at the options and agreed with that path. Aresco no doubt presented them, but it was far from his baby alone.

He is gone, with a lot of money as are many of the people who originally brought him in. How many have the same presidents from four years ago? Hell most of the teams have changed since he was hired.

Again no President is sitting over his shoulder checking on him, athletics is not that important. 10m in a pay out and 40-60m in spending doesn't register in schools doing 100s of millions in spending or a billion worth in the overall school. If the guy at a school with 4400 total students isn't no one at a school with 10k+ is.

Aresco was objectively bad almost horrible and got paid 2m+ to do it. We have schools roughly making that in tv money right now. Our former commish made as much money as some schools did off his incredible tv deal. Lost two schools who gave up money and then paid to get out. Its really not a good record.

(01-02-2024 08:16 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 07:03 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 02:56 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 12:09 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 12:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Agree.

IMO, what was done instead was a terrible, shortsighted mistake.

And if the TV contract specified we could not drop in numbers?

It depends on the contract terms and results of a financial analysis.

I would have preferred to stay at eight rather than expanding to the present list. However, if we must expand by three for media money purposes, then we should have invited the best performing schools possible even if it meant a tolerable media deal decrease. Better quality teams may have improved opportunities to earn money through the CFP, NCAA tourney credits, increased attendance, and better bowls and possibly more than make up for lost media money.

At the time, what three schools are you taking? Almost every school not in the AAC was going to come with some risk or worries.

At the time (or thereabouts) and other factors equal, I would have picked three of the best MWC schools. Failing that option (which proved unobtainable)., I would have selected App St and UAB for all sports and VCU or Dayton for BB and UTSA for FB. The metrics for such a league in most years would be much better than we endure now.

UAB and USTA the the only ones of those that ESPN would have paid for. I doubt UTSA would have come over for football only.

(01-02-2024 08:58 PM)Vonz90 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 08:16 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 07:03 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 02:56 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 12:09 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  And if the TV contract specified we could not drop in numbers?

It depends on the contract terms and results of a financial analysis.

I would have preferred to stay at eight rather than expanding to the present list. However, if we must expand by three for media money purposes, then we should have invited the best performing schools possible even if it meant a tolerable media deal decrease. Better quality teams may have improved opportunities to earn money through the CFP, NCAA tourney credits, increased attendance, and better bowls and possibly more than make up for lost media money.

At the time, what three schools are you taking? Almost every school not in the AAC was going to come with some risk or worries.

At the time (or thereabouts) and other factors equal, I would have picked three of the best MWC schools. Failing that option (which proved unobtainable)., I would have selected App St and UAB for all sports and VCU or Dayton for BB and UTSA for FB. The metrics for such a league in most years would be much better than we endure now.

UAB and USTA the the only ones of those that ESPN would have paid for. I doubt UTSA would have come over for football only.

I am unaware of any public source stating how much ESPN would pay for which schools, but I doubt it would be nothing. Concerning UTSA, they can decline if they have better options. The AAC would move to the next candidate like Army.

I freely admit I do not know the financial ramifications of selecting better performing schools. My concern is fixation on preserving the media deal ignored other possible revenue streams available to a higher quality league.

(12-28-2023 07:02 PM)otown Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 10:55 AM)msu35 Wrote:  I think we have to forgive the noobs this season. UTSA in football and FAU in basketball are the exception and not the rule. How did Houston, Cincy, and UCF do in the B12?

Cannot look at the newbies to the Big 12. They got their butts handed to them, because they suddenly played a P5 schedule with G5 recruits. That will change in the future as UCF just pulled in their highest rated class ever, pushed top 30 along with 8 to 9 four star players depending on site.

In a round about way, the CUSA6 got their butts handed to them as well because they were suddenly playing better competition in the AAC with CUSA recruits. I am sure they will do better over time.

There's more to it than just playing a P5 schedule with G5 recruits. There are also differences in the style of play. Gus Malzahn warned his players in the preseason that they would have to get better at winning close games. The Big XII, of course, is known for having high scoring games. We had blowout losses to Kansas State, Kansas, and West Virginia, but we also had the Baylor game where we gave up a big lead and lost by 1 point, lost to Oklahoma by 2 points, and lost to Texas Tech by 1 point. One of our wins was a blowout over Oklahoma State, the runner-up in the Big XII championship game. So we didn't have a great season, but I don't think the talent gap between us and the legacy Big XII members was as big as some might think. Who knows when we'll contend for a Big XII title (our chances increased for next season with the acquisition of KJ Jefferson from Arkansas), but we're also not going to become a perennial bottom feeder in this conference in football.

Getting back to talking about the new schools in the American, the new member that intrigues me the most is UTSA because it's a large school in a big Texas city that is coming off a good football season. It'll be interesting to see where their program goes over the next decade or so.

(12-28-2023 02:44 PM)Off_The_Hook Wrote:  This conference is horrendous and I have no idea how anyone can defend it. Objectively a terrible basketball conference. Football has dipped below the MWC and SBC. At this point just trying to figure out if we are above the MAC and CUSA, above CUSA only, or above neither.

you realize that Memphis beat the best team in the MWC right? Tulane prolly could have as well. (I mean not NOW...Tulane is gonna go back to being Tulane with new coaches..players..etc) Then beat a P5 team favored by 10 in the bowl game.
So how has the conference slipped?

(12-28-2023 08:56 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  New additions are a Combined 31-41 in football

In basketball the literal 5 worst records in the league. Would have been better off not expanding at all and only having 8 teams.

What a moronic choice of teams this was. Of course he retires. Kill the thing then run.

If AAC stayed at 8, ESPN would have given those 8 members a pay cut per member. There wouldn’t have been a large enough inventory of conference football and basketball games.

Anyway, AAC didn’t fall that much in basketball overall. They were always in the “next 5” group of basketball conferences with WCC, MWC, A10 and MVC…and still are.

Same with football. Used to be AAC and MWC wrestling for that “P6” spot. Now it’s AAC, MWC and SBC wrestling for #5. And I’m not talking about NY6 appearances. I’m talking about average conference football strength top to bottom.

Now, football and basketball attendance, it’s still MWC and AAC leading the way as G5 and MidMajor respectively. And same with conference TV revenues. Although, SBC kicked it up some with tv revenues on their current/new contract, iirc.

Every time a conference adds teams, the teams that were already there think they are way better than the incoming teams. Well sometimes its true for some time, but within a year or two, it adjust and everyone moves on. I remember watching many teams change conferences. Usually if you getting called up its for a simple reason, you are investing in getting better, and those investments have started to pay off in success in the record, stands and recruits, etc. And most teams then getting additional revenue that helps that continue.

Look at this year in Men's Basketball, right now 4 of the top 5 teams in the standings (on Jan 31) are new teams to the league, I wouldn't thought that could happen. Missouri joined the SEC and won the East in football multiple times in the first few years, Louisville moved up, multiple conferences and did well in football for a while. And what has surprised me was So Miss moving to SunBelt and going straight to the bottom (or pretty close to it).

I do think the teams already in the different conferences usually have too much a case of, "I am better than you" syndrome and quickly realize they have to fight just as hard if not harder, because those "newbies" don't care much about the past, they are looking to the future.

(02-01-2024 01:01 AM)Blazer14172 Wrote:  Every time a conference adds teams, the teams that were already there think they are way better than the incoming teams. Well sometimes its true for some time, but within a year or two, it adjust and everyone moves on. I remember watching many teams change conferences. Usually if you getting called up its for a simple reason, you are investing in getting better, and those investments have started to pay off in success in the record, stands and recruits, etc. And most teams then getting additional revenue that helps that continue.

Look at this year in Men's Basketball, right now 4 of the top 5 teams in the standings (on Jan 31) are new teams to the league, I wouldn't thought that could happen. Missouri joined the SEC and won the East in football multiple times in the first few years, Louisville moved up, multiple conferences and did well in football for a while. And what has surprised me was So Miss moving to SunBelt and going straight to the bottom (or pretty close to it).

I do think the teams already in the different conferences usually have too much a case of, "I am better than you" syndrome and quickly realize they have to fight just as hard if not harder, because those "newbies" don't care much about the past, they are looking to the future.

that does not necessarily mean the new teams are a major benefit to the conference

if the conference is no longer going to NY6 bowls on a consistent basis, if they are getting fewer teams in the NCAA tournament, and fewer teams in other NCAA playoffs then the conference as a whole did not really benefit from the new teams.....the new teams may have benefited, but that should not be the goal of existing members in the conference when they add teams.....their goal should be to benefit themselves and the conference first and if that is good for the new members well bonus

when you add in the two tier payout and the 2 years added to an already way too long contract there is even less benefit currently unless the new teams start doing things similar to the teams they replaced

otherwise the existing members of the conference could have missed NY6 bowls, and sent fewer teams to the NCAAs without new teams in the conference and without a two tier payout and a 2 year extension of a contract that was already too long

(02-01-2024 04:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 01:01 AM)Blazer14172 Wrote:  Every time a conference adds teams, the teams that were already there think they are way better than the incoming teams. Well sometimes its true for some time, but within a year or two, it adjust and everyone moves on. I remember watching many teams change conferences. Usually if you getting called up its for a simple reason, you are investing in getting better, and those investments have started to pay off in success in the record, stands and recruits, etc. And most teams then getting additional revenue that helps that continue.

Look at this year in Men's Basketball, right now 4 of the top 5 teams in the standings (on Jan 31) are new teams to the league, I wouldn't thought that could happen. Missouri joined the SEC and won the East in football multiple times in the first few years, Louisville moved up, multiple conferences and did well in football for a while. And what has surprised me was So Miss moving to SunBelt and going straight to the bottom (or pretty close to it).

I do think the teams already in the different conferences usually have too much a case of, "I am better than you" syndrome and quickly realize they have to fight just as hard if not harder, because those "newbies" don't care much about the past, they are looking to the future.

that does not necessarily mean the new teams are a major benefit to the conference

if the conference is no longer going to NY6 bowls on a consistent basis, if they are getting fewer teams in the NCAA tournament, and fewer teams in other NCAA playoffs then the conference as a whole did not really benefit from the new teams.....the new teams may have benefited, but that should not be the goal of existing members in the conference when they add teams.....their goal should be to benefit themselves and the conference first and if that is good for the new members well bonus

when you add in the two tier payout and the 2 years added to an already way too long contract there is even less benefit currently unless the new teams start doing things similar to the teams they replaced

otherwise the existing members of the conference could have missed NY6 bowls, and sent fewer teams to the NCAAs without new teams in the conference and without a two tier payout and a 2 year extension of a contract that was already too long

All this means is the left over AAC teams need to step up as well. They weren't the ones playing in NY6 bowls or going to NCAA tournaments. In that sense, they are the same as the former CUSA teams. The CUSA teams are holding their own in bball and had a team in the top 3 in football. It'll take time, but I think they are on a good path. If the left over AAC teams step up, we won't be having this conversation much longer.

Memphis is a weak team in a likely one bid conference. The Tiger’s failure has not been overcome by any member of the former CUSA6 to date save FAU. I hope I am wrong because Memphis needs tourney credits.

(02-01-2024 05:19 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 04:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 01:01 AM)Blazer14172 Wrote:  Every time a conference adds teams, the teams that were already there think they are way better than the incoming teams. Well sometimes its true for some time, but within a year or two, it adjust and everyone moves on. I remember watching many teams change conferences. Usually if you getting called up its for a simple reason, you are investing in getting better, and those investments have started to pay off in success in the record, stands and recruits, etc. And most teams then getting additional revenue that helps that continue.

Look at this year in Men's Basketball, right now 4 of the top 5 teams in the standings (on Jan 31) are new teams to the league, I wouldn't thought that could happen. Missouri joined the SEC and won the East in football multiple times in the first few years, Louisville moved up, multiple conferences and did well in football for a while. And what has surprised me was So Miss moving to SunBelt and going straight to the bottom (or pretty close to it).

I do think the teams already in the different conferences usually have too much a case of, "I am better than you" syndrome and quickly realize they have to fight just as hard if not harder, because those "newbies" don't care much about the past, they are looking to the future.

that does not necessarily mean the new teams are a major benefit to the conference

if the conference is no longer going to NY6 bowls on a consistent basis, if they are getting fewer teams in the NCAA tournament, and fewer teams in other NCAA playoffs then the conference as a whole did not really benefit from the new teams.....the new teams may have benefited, but that should not be the goal of existing members in the conference when they add teams.....their goal should be to benefit themselves and the conference first and if that is good for the new members well bonus

when you add in the two tier payout and the 2 years added to an already way too long contract there is even less benefit currently unless the new teams start doing things similar to the teams they replaced

otherwise the existing members of the conference could have missed NY6 bowls, and sent fewer teams to the NCAAs without new teams in the conference and without a two tier payout and a 2 year extension of a contract that was already too long

All this means is the left over AAC teams need to step up as well. They weren't the ones playing in NY6 bowls or going to NCAA tournaments. In that sense, they are the same as the former CUSA teams. The CUSA teams are holding their own in bball and had a team in the top 3 in football. It'll take time, but I think they are on a good path. If the left over AAC teams step up, we won't be having this conversation much longer.

In my opinion these conversations are destructive. Either your team is good (bout-it) or they're not. Save the boasting until after the season when a champion is crowned because if the newbies are that bad it'll show. Also if the legacy teams are that good it'll show as well. More than likely its a mixed bag ( some good newbies and some bad legacies and vice versa). Nothing wrong with banter but some of this stuff has been down right awful.

(02-01-2024 05:41 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Memphis is a weak team in a likely one bid conference. The Tiger’s failure has not been overcome by any member of the former CUSA6 to date save FAU. I hope I am wrong because Memphis needs tourney credits.

clt says fau is in, smu is likely in and Charlotte is fine with winning the aac tourney

we already did it in msoc

(02-01-2024 05:19 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 04:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 01:01 AM)Blazer14172 Wrote:  Every time a conference adds teams, the teams that were already there think they are way better than the incoming teams. Well sometimes its true for some time, but within a year or two, it adjust and everyone moves on. I remember watching many teams change conferences. Usually if you getting called up its for a simple reason, you are investing in getting better, and those investments have started to pay off in success in the record, stands and recruits, etc. And most teams then getting additional revenue that helps that continue.

Look at this year in Men's Basketball, right now 4 of the top 5 teams in the standings (on Jan 31) are new teams to the league, I wouldn't thought that could happen. Missouri joined the SEC and won the East in football multiple times in the first few years, Louisville moved up, multiple conferences and did well in football for a while. And what has surprised me was So Miss moving to SunBelt and going straight to the bottom (or pretty close to it).

I do think the teams already in the different conferences usually have too much a case of, "I am better than you" syndrome and quickly realize they have to fight just as hard if not harder, because those "newbies" don't care much about the past, they are looking to the future.

that does not necessarily mean the new teams are a major benefit to the conference

if the conference is no longer going to NY6 bowls on a consistent basis, if they are getting fewer teams in the NCAA tournament, and fewer teams in other NCAA playoffs then the conference as a whole did not really benefit from the new teams.....the new teams may have benefited, but that should not be the goal of existing members in the conference when they add teams.....their goal should be to benefit themselves and the conference first and if that is good for the new members well bonus

when you add in the two tier payout and the 2 years added to an already way too long contract there is even less benefit currently unless the new teams start doing things similar to the teams they replaced

otherwise the existing members of the conference could have missed NY6 bowls, and sent fewer teams to the NCAAs without new teams in the conference and without a two tier payout and a 2 year extension of a contract that was already too long

All this means is the left over AAC teams need to step up as well. They weren't the ones playing in NY6 bowls or going to NCAA tournaments. In that sense, they are the same as the former CUSA teams. The CUSA teams are holding their own in bball and had a team in the top 3 in football. It'll take time, but I think they are on a good path. If the left over AAC teams step up, we won't be having this conversation much longer.

Agree. Unrealistic expectations are placed on the new schools replacing the departed, when it's the leftovers who should be shouldering that burden. Points.

(02-01-2024 05:19 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 04:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 01:01 AM)Blazer14172 Wrote:  Every time a conference adds teams, the teams that were already there think they are way better than the incoming teams. Well sometimes its true for some time, but within a year or two, it adjust and everyone moves on. I remember watching many teams change conferences. Usually if you getting called up its for a simple reason, you are investing in getting better, and those investments have started to pay off in success in the record, stands and recruits, etc. And most teams then getting additional revenue that helps that continue.

Look at this year in Men's Basketball, right now 4 of the top 5 teams in the standings (on Jan 31) are new teams to the league, I wouldn't thought that could happen. Missouri joined the SEC and won the East in football multiple times in the first few years, Louisville moved up, multiple conferences and did well in football for a while. And what has surprised me was So Miss moving to SunBelt and going straight to the bottom (or pretty close to it).

I do think the teams already in the different conferences usually have too much a case of, "I am better than you" syndrome and quickly realize they have to fight just as hard if not harder, because those "newbies" don't care much about the past, they are looking to the future.

that does not necessarily mean the new teams are a major benefit to the conference

if the conference is no longer going to NY6 bowls on a consistent basis, if they are getting fewer teams in the NCAA tournament, and fewer teams in other NCAA playoffs then the conference as a whole did not really benefit from the new teams.....the new teams may have benefited, but that should not be the goal of existing members in the conference when they add teams.....their goal should be to benefit themselves and the conference first and if that is good for the new members well bonus

when you add in the two tier payout and the 2 years added to an already way too long contract there is even less benefit currently unless the new teams start doing things similar to the teams they replaced

otherwise the existing members of the conference could have missed NY6 bowls, and sent fewer teams to the NCAAs without new teams in the conference and without a two tier payout and a 2 year extension of a contract that was already too long

All this means is the left over AAC teams need to step up as well. They weren't the ones playing in NY6 bowls or going to NCAA tournaments. In that sense, they are the same as the former CUSA teams. The CUSA teams are holding their own in bball and had a team in the top 3 in football. It'll take time, but I think they are on a good path. If the left over AAC teams step up, we won't be having this conversation much longer.

I agree with your point overall - AAC dropped in conference rankings in football because EVERYONE lost out of conference. Costly losses all around. Everyone needs to be better next year - there is no reason multiple teams can’t make 2024 look more like 2015-2022 than 2023. EVERYONE needs to not lose to 4-8 or 5-7 Big12 teams, or a rival that's 5-3 in the mwc, or SEC teams that are two Ls out of their division race.

But about the bolded...
Tulane NY6 win (2022 season)
Memphis NY6 appearance (2019)

Other current AAC teams in the CFP rankings before/after CCG weekend:
Temple (2015,2016)
Navy (2015, 2016, 2019)
Memphis (2017 also)
Tulsa (2020)
UTSA (2022)
SMU (2023)
Tulane (2023)

That's almost all the legacy teams, six of eight, being firmly in the NY6 mix at CCG time.

(02-02-2024 10:52 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 05:19 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 04:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 01:01 AM)Blazer14172 Wrote:  Every time a conference adds teams, the teams that were already there think they are way better than the incoming teams. Well sometimes its true for some time, but within a year or two, it adjust and everyone moves on. I remember watching many teams change conferences. Usually if you getting called up its for a simple reason, you are investing in getting better, and those investments have started to pay off in success in the record, stands and recruits, etc. And most teams then getting additional revenue that helps that continue.

Look at this year in Men's Basketball, right now 4 of the top 5 teams in the standings (on Jan 31) are new teams to the league, I wouldn't thought that could happen. Missouri joined the SEC and won the East in football multiple times in the first few years, Louisville moved up, multiple conferences and did well in football for a while. And what has surprised me was So Miss moving to SunBelt and going straight to the bottom (or pretty close to it).

I do think the teams already in the different conferences usually have too much a case of, "I am better than you" syndrome and quickly realize they have to fight just as hard if not harder, because those "newbies" don't care much about the past, they are looking to the future.

that does not necessarily mean the new teams are a major benefit to the conference

if the conference is no longer going to NY6 bowls on a consistent basis, if they are getting fewer teams in the NCAA tournament, and fewer teams in other NCAA playoffs then the conference as a whole did not really benefit from the new teams.....the new teams may have benefited, but that should not be the goal of existing members in the conference when they add teams.....their goal should be to benefit themselves and the conference first and if that is good for the new members well bonus

when you add in the two tier payout and the 2 years added to an already way too long contract there is even less benefit currently unless the new teams start doing things similar to the teams they replaced

otherwise the existing members of the conference could have missed NY6 bowls, and sent fewer teams to the NCAAs without new teams in the conference and without a two tier payout and a 2 year extension of a contract that was already too long

All this means is the left over AAC teams need to step up as well. They weren't the ones playing in NY6 bowls or going to NCAA tournaments. In that sense, they are the same as the former CUSA teams. The CUSA teams are holding their own in bball and had a team in the top 3 in football. It'll take time, but I think they are on a good path. If the left over AAC teams step up, we won't be having this conversation much longer.

I agree with your point overall - AAC dropped in conference rankings in football because EVERYONE lost out of conference. Costly losses all around. Everyone needs to be better next year - there is no reason multiple teams can’t make 2024 look more like 2015-2022 than 2023. EVERYONE needs to not lose to 4-8 or 5-7 Big12 teams, or a rival that's 5-3 in the mwc, or SEC teams that are two Ls out of their division race.

But about the bolded...
Tulane NY6 win (2022 season)
Memphis NY6 appearance (2019)

Other current AAC teams in the CFP rankings before/after CCG weekend:
Temple (2015,2016)
Navy (2015, 2016, 2019)
Memphis (2017 also)
Tulsa (2020)
UTSA (2022)
SMU (2023)
Tulane (2023)

That's almost all the legacy teams, six of eight, being firmly in the NY6 mix at CCG time.

it is not necessary to beat P-5 schools for the AAC to regain primacy (although the win over Iowa St by Memphis was fun). The most important factor is victories over other G-5 schools.

2023 FB Regular Season Records Against other G-5's

Legacy
Tulane (2-0)
Memphis (2-0)
SMU (1-0)
Tulsa (1-0)
Temple (1-0)
USF (1-1)
ECU (0-2)
Navy (0-2)
Total (8 - 5 or 61.5%)

Former CUSA6
UTSA (1-1)
North Tx (1-1)
Rice (0 -1) (they beat P-5 Houston)
Charlotte (0-1)
FAU (0-1)
UAB (0-2)
Total (2 - 7 or 22.2%)

The AAC fell to 3rd among the G-5 and failed (barely) to secure the G5 NY6 Bowl slot. We all need to strive for improvement, but the former CUSA 6 group have further to go.

I am pleased with what I am reading about the recruiting and transfer haul by all AAC members and I hope it makes a difference.

This thread..... smh We can bad mouth other programs and ourselves when our play doesn't match or over inflated egos, or we can just say this is a tough basketball league and a bloody fist fight most nights.

(02-04-2024 10:41 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  This thread..... smh We can bad mouth other programs and ourselves when our play doesn't match or over inflated egos, or we can just say this is a tough basketball league and a bloody fist fight most nights.

The league is 100% tougher than it was given credit for.