I thought it was a great speech until he got to this line:

"I say it's only a matter of time if we're capable of doing what we're capable of doing. I mean that firmly."

Uh, what?

Good job otherwise though. I watched the video of Craig Thompson's address at the MWC media day and there's no comparison. Aresco may have made some missteps when the AAC was getting off the ground but I think the conference is fortunate to have him as their commissioner.

(07-29-2014 07:21 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  That's a whole lot of talking to cover up for the fact his league lost his most marketable program (Louisville) and a school with lots of historic tradition (Rutgers).

Yes, they lost a school with a tradition of mismanaging their finances and being a steaming pile of turd on the football field.

(07-29-2014 12:22 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  COMMISSIONER ARESCO:

If you look at the last five years of the 11 teams we have here, as well as Navy, which will be joining next year, they've won against the follow be teams: from the ACC, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, North Carolina, NC State and Wake Forest. That's 12 of the 14 teams.

From the SEC, wins over South Carolina, Georgia Missouri, Mississippi State, Mississippi, and Vanderbilt.

From the Big 12, Baylor, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech, West Virginia, Iowa State.

From the Big Ten, Penn State, Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana.

From the PAC‑12, Oregon State and UCLA.

That's 37 of the 64 teams in our conferences that our members have defeated in the last five years alone and we also have multiple wins against Notre Dame.

Aresco listed 32 teams including Notre Dame, and said it was 37.

He listed a win in the last 5 years over Ole Miss. That's incorrect.



On the bright side, he omitted wins in the last 5 years against Wash St and Duke.

So the real total is 33 teams. BTW, American schools have won 76 games against P5 schools the last 5 years, which equals a 35% winning percentage. Less than 40% of all these games have been played at American home stadiums.

NIT = not include in Tournament !

The AAC is still pretty much where the Big East was. Better than the rest but never a real member of the power club either.

(07-29-2014 07:21 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  That's a whole lot of talking to cover up for the fact his league lost ... a school with lots of historic tradition (Rutgers).

What?

I am kind of curious as to why the OP thought posting this on a generalized discussion board was a sound idea unless he needed to make a point? It should be over on the AAC board I would think.

(07-29-2014 09:38 PM)texasorange Wrote:  I am kind of curious as to why the OP thought posting this on a generalized discussion board was a sound idea unless he needed to make a point? It should be over on the AAC board I would think.

He was trolling. I hate to accuse people of doing that, but that's what he was trying to do. He wanted everyone to get up in arms about the AAC. Why? I have no idea.

(07-29-2014 09:38 PM)texasorange Wrote:  I am kind of curious as to why the OP thought posting this on a generalized discussion board was a sound idea unless he needed to make a point? It should be over on the AAC board I would think.

Let's scan the board... we have topics on...
"ESPN: C-USA Commish Banowsky on "System" Realignment"
"Water Main Break Flooding UCLA Campus"
"SEC won't get 2 in "
"B12 continues football stadium upgrades"
"CUSA Standings, End of 2013"
"Corporate League"
"Does playing a college sport earn credits toward a degree?"

...but this isn't ok?

(07-29-2014 10:31 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 09:38 PM)texasorange Wrote:  I am kind of curious as to why the OP thought posting this on a generalized discussion board was a sound idea unless he needed to make a point? It should be over on the AAC board I would think.

Let's scan the board... we have topics on...
"ESPN: C-USA Commish Banowsky on "System" Realignment"
"Water Main Break Flooding UCLA Campus"
"SEC won't get 2 in "
"B12 continues football stadium upgrades"
"CUSA Standings, End of 2013"
"Corporate League"
"Does playing a college sport earn credits toward a degree?"

...but this isn't ok?

Well, this post seems to be a bit different from the posts you mention. It just feels like a "Look at us" post. The others you mentioned seemed like actual discussion starting point posts. Didn't mean to offend anyone...

Which does anyone think is more likely

1 - The AAC joins the P5 to become the P6. Having the other P5 share the money pot?

Or

2. The P5 has the B12 take 2-4 teams to nullify the AAC & MWC. Thus allowing a few schools to become Judas and stay at the P5?

I know where I would put my money.

(07-30-2014 07:53 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Which does anyone think is more likely

1 - The AAC joins the P5 to become the P6. Having the other P5 share the money pot?

Or

2. The P5 has the B12 take 2-4 teams to nullify the AAC & MWC. Thus allowing a few schools to become Judas and stay at the P5?

2. is more likely than 1. but other possibilities not listed are even more-likely.

Ok.. after scanning this thread I see that we have fans of Akron, Syracuse, Pitt and NC State who are bothered by Aresco's comments and the fact the thread was posted here.

Why is that the fans of teams who haven't done shyte lately (and who haven't fared well against some AAC teams lately) are always the ones who come around and throw rocks at AAC schools all the time?

(07-29-2014 09:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The AAC is still pretty much where the Big East was. Better than the rest but never a real member of the power club either.

I have a problem with this statement, although I tend to agree with your overall point.

If the Big East wasn't a "real member" of the power club when they had Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, BC, Cuse, et al...then of course the current makeup of the AAC doesn't constitute a "power" conference either.

However, look at the schools I just named as former Big East members. Would you call these schools "power" schools? Of course you would. Why? Just because they moved from one conference to another? If you think the ACC is a power conference (which I assume you do), they took almost half of the teams from the old Big East.

What is your reasoning there? The ACC surely thought at least half of the Big East conference was "power-worthy".

If that is your reasoning, then just slap a new title on the AAC and...voilà. Power conference.

(07-30-2014 08:25 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 09:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The AAC is still pretty much where the Big East was. Better than the rest but never a real member of the power club either.

I have a problem with this statement, although I tend to agree with your overall point.

If the Big East wasn't a "real member" of the power club when they had Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, BC, Cuse, et al...then of course the current makeup of the AAC doesn't constitute a "power" conference either.

However, look at the schools I just named as former Big East members. Would you call these schools "power" schools? Of course you would. Why? Just because they moved from one conference to another? If you think the ACC is a power conference (which I assume you do), they took almost half of the teams from the old Big East.

What is your reasoning there? The ACC surely thought at least half of the Big East conference was "power-worthy".

If that is your reasoning, then just slap a new title on the AAC and...voilà. Power conference.

For the most part, the ACC and the Big East were pretty much on a par with one another. That being said, I'm sure that fans of both those conferences always considered C-USA to be a step below them. The AAC is arguably more of a successor to the old C-USA than it is to the old Big East.

I, for one, have yet to identify a single metric that would argue in favor of a belief that the AAC as it is now constituted is on the same level with the P5 conferences as they are now constituted. But things change. I am confident that if, in five to ten years, those metrics change in the AAC's favor, the marketplace will give them their due.

(07-30-2014 07:53 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Which does anyone think is more likely

1 - The AAC joins the P5 to become the P6. Having the other P5 share the money pot?

Or

2. The P5 has the B12 take 2-4 teams to nullify the AAC & MWC. Thus allowing a few schools to become Judas and stay at the P5?

I know where I would put my money.

I put my money on #3 -- none of the above.

There are not two schools between the AAC and MWC that would generate enough of a bump in TV money to appease Texas and/or Oklahoma, let alone 4 schools.

(07-30-2014 08:25 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 09:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The AAC is still pretty much where the Big East was. Better than the rest but never a real member of the power club either.

I have a problem with this statement, although I tend to agree with your overall point.

If the Big East wasn't a "real member" of the power club when they had Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, BC, Cuse, et al...then of course the current makeup of the AAC doesn't constitute a "power" conference either.

However, look at the schools I just named as former Big East members. Would you call these schools "power" schools? Of course you would. Why? Just because they moved from one conference to another? If you think the ACC is a power conference (which I assume you do), they took almost half of the teams from the old Big East.

What is your reasoning there? The ACC surely thought at least half of the Big East conference was "power-worthy".

If that is your reasoning, then just slap a new title on the AAC and...voilà. Power conference.

The problem with that is that it equates the Big East in 1991 to being equal to the Big East in its last 2 years and we all know thats not true.

As I said, the AAC is a lot like the Big East. Unquestionably able to compete with the P5 but lacking the power money and influence they have from big, powerful and wealthy fan bases. This was reflected in the Big East never getting a BCS bowl home that wanted them every year and likewise with no contract bowl desiring a relationship with the AAC.

This puts them in that same no mans land of above the rest of the G5 but not a member of the club either.

So naturally the AAC wants to "fight its way in" and thats fine. Grow your fan bases, grow your rivalries, grow your brand and eventually someone will take a chance on you because they believe you too can make them the big bucks. There is literally nothing the P5 can do to stop the Cotton, Peach or Orange Bowl from deciding to become a contract bowl with your champion or ESPN from offering you a big fat pay day for your TV rights.

I should also point out that while in similar circumstances, their paths are the opposite of each other. The Big East was a former power conference that had lost its glory while the AAC is a non-power conference that is growing into a potential power conference

(07-29-2014 09:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The AAC is still pretty much where the Big East was. Better than the rest but never a real member of the power club either.

Well now they are officially not a member of the power club.

In my mind, the Arkansas State AD answered where they stand compared to the other five Conferences .

He was asked if ASU would move to another G5 conference if asked, and he said they would move to AAC 'yesterday'. As far as the others they would have to crunch numbers and see.

(07-30-2014 08:52 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 08:25 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 09:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The AAC is still pretty much where the Big East was. Better than the rest but never a real member of the power club either.

I have a problem with this statement, although I tend to agree with your overall point.

If the Big East wasn't a "real member" of the power club when they had Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, BC, Cuse, et al...then of course the current makeup of the AAC doesn't constitute a "power" conference either.

However, look at the schools I just named as former Big East members. Would you call these schools "power" schools? Of course you would. Why? Just because they moved from one conference to another? If you think the ACC is a power conference (which I assume you do), they took almost half of the teams from the old Big East.

What is your reasoning there? The ACC surely thought at least half of the Big East conference was "power-worthy".

If that is your reasoning, then just slap a new title on the AAC and...voilà. Power conference.

The problem with that is that it equates the Big East in 1991 to being equal to the Big East in its last 2 years and we all know thats not true.

As I said, the AAC is a lot like the Big East. Unquestionably able to compete with the P5 but lacking the power money and influence they have from big, powerful and wealthy fan bases. This was reflected in the Big East never getting a BCS bowl home that wanted them every year and likewise with no contract bowl desiring a relationship with the AAC.

This puts them in that same no mans land of above the rest of the G5 but not a member of the club either.

So naturally the AAC wants to "fight its way in" and thats fine. Grow your fan bases, grow your rivalries, grow your brand and eventually someone will take a chance on you because they believe you too can make them the big bucks. There is literally nothing the P5 can do to stop the Cotton, Peach or Orange Bowl from deciding to become a contract bowl with your champion or ESPN from offering you a big fat pay day for your TV rights.

Very fair analysis.

Off topic, do you have an opinion on your former QB, Matt Davis? Do you think he can win the starting job at SMU without the experience in the Run N Shoot offense - bascially, is he talented/athletcially skilled enough to compensate for his lack of system knowledge?

Hey, I have no issue with the AAC. Just stating what I believe will happen. I believe the Peach may make a play for the ACC and Cotton for the B12 in the distant future. If the AAC could make the jump, the Orange would be a perfect fit for the AAC. I still believe the CCG will remain at 12 but how the teams are decided will be done by the conferences. That is why I think the B12 will grow for that reason.