(02-09-2015 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  One point the AAC that is consistently missed on these boards is the AAC has more tradition than the other G5 conferences and that is essentially what is holding this conference together.

What tradition does the AAC have? As a conference, these schools have been together for a year. No tradition there, save some of them used to duke it out in C-USA at various times. Hardly the stuff of Ivy and Oak Trees. And individual schools? Houston, Tulane, and SMU have legacies in P5 conferences, but all of that was generations ago, long forgotten by everyone else. And some of the bigger names, like UConn, USF, and UCF have no football history at all to speak of.

I think he meant teams that individually have history in FBS like ECU, Houston, SMU, Tulane, etc....Compare that to the ODU's UNCC, Georgia State's of the world and it's a big difference.

(02-09-2015 10:08 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 07:49 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's gotta be a little insulting to the other G5 conferences with the commish of the AAC trying to act like his league is above and beyond the rest of you (especially after the results of last season) and when he lumps his league in with the "other 5 conferences" he sure isnt talking about the MWC and CUSA.

To be fair the AAC & MWC are above the other G5 leagues in Fan Support and exposure....

Spot on! The MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA are barely better than the Football Championship Subdivision" (FCS) teams.

(02-09-2015 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 10:35 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Out of all the G5 conferences, the AAC appears to have the worst of the "Little Man Syndrome". Why Aersco can rant all he wants, the AAC in ther first year finished 3rd in G5 ratings.

That does seem to be true. Aresco seems to make a lot of bold proclamations about being a "power" conference. Maybe I am just missing it, but I don't see the commissioners of the other G5, even the MWC, constantly trying to make propaganda points about being "power", etc.

None of those other conferences will ever come close to a basketball National Championship, mens or womens, either (in the same year as a BCS win). The AACs first year stacked up very favorably to most autonomous conferences, much less the other 4.

(02-09-2015 02:38 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 10:08 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 07:49 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's gotta be a little insulting to the other G5 conferences with the commish of the AAC trying to act like his league is above and beyond the rest of you (especially after the results of last season) and when he lumps his league in with the "other 5 conferences" he sure isnt talking about the MWC and CUSA.

To be fair the AAC & MWC are above the other G5 leagues in Fan Support and exposure....

Spot on! The MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA are barely better than the Football Championship Subdivision" (FCS) teams.

For the simple fact many of those schools in the MAC, Sunbelt & C-USA are very recent call up from the FCS Level...

(02-09-2015 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  There's nothing wrong with Aresco's comments. It's a big part of his job to improve the "brand" of the AAC, as he puts it, and his comments are a sales pitch, which again is just part of his job.

But the other G5 commissioners don't seem to do it. Does that mean they aren't doing their jobs?

Propaganda becomes ridiculous and backfires when the constant harping doesn't accord with reality.

They don't have the achievements to back their claims.

Aresco does. (MBB Natty WBB Natty, BCS bowl, etc)

(02-09-2015 10:08 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 07:49 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's gotta be a little insulting to the other G5 conferences with the commish of the AAC trying to act like his league is above and beyond the rest of you (especially after the results of last season) and when he lumps his league in with the "other 5 conferences" he sure isnt talking about the MWC and CUSA.

To be fair the AAC & MWC are above the other G5 leagues in Fan Support and exposure....

Which comes full circle and irritates some (the amount of media attention the AAC receives).

Sometimes, the value of exposure gets overlooked, but it can be very important to the growth of these institutions. Here's a snippet from an article about the redevelopment of the area around the UofM.

Quote:Thanks to new marketing and recruitment initiatives as well as its place in the American Athletic Conference, Zettergren says the U of M has received more than 14,000 applications for fall 2015, an increase of more than 300 percent from 2013. So far, 5,300 admissions for the upcoming school year represent a 200 percent increase from two years ago.

http://www.highgroundnews.com/features/U...C+and+more

Little Mike at least realizes that 3-18 against the P5 won't cut it.

The insecurity is hilarious. What do expect him to say? The man is doing his job. AAC has much more upside then any other conference. Every school is investing millions.

(02-09-2015 01:08 PM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 12:58 PM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 10:07 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The AAC has more potential than the others, I expect to see them take control of the access spot.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

I don't know - Boise has the easiest route.

And so does the champion of the MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt.

Yep, but if you followed things last year, the committee certainly was looking for a way to leave an undefeated Marshall out. Who was it, WKU, did them a favor.

Marshall being left out last year had much more to do with who they played out of conference than in.

It is very similar to the way the committee treats mid-majors in basketball. You better put together a strong out of conference schedule if you want a shot. It is better to play a cartel school and lose than just beat up on cupcakes.

(02-09-2015 02:10 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 11:19 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 10:35 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 10:08 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 07:49 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's gotta be a little insulting to the other G5 conferences with the commish of the AAC trying to act like his league is above and beyond the rest of you (especially after the results of last season) and when he lumps his league in with the "other 5 conferences" he sure isnt talking about the MWC and CUSA.

To be fair the AAC & MWC are above the other G5 leagues in Fan Support and exposure....

Out of all the G5 conferences, the AAC appears to have the worst of the "Little Man Syndrome". Why Aersco can rant all he wants, the AAC in ther first year finished 3rd in G5 ratings. Until the Rose, Orange and Sugar die, a G5 conference will never move up. It is set just like the FCS, a conference can't move but a team might be able to move up if an opening occurs.

Now, I will say of all the G5 conferences, the AAC probably has the most attractive teams from the P5 to pick from. If the B12 doesn't get there waiver, I could see the last round of expansion kick-off. The only question, does the B12 go to 12 or 14.

My prediction, B12 picks off UCF and Cinci for the first round when the proposal is denied. Fox and ESPN will work to help make this happen. Probably during the 4th year of the CFP they will be eligible. If they were to go to 14, Mempjis and ECU as the other two. Bonus prediction, playoffs will stay at four for the first 12 years, we are already seeing that the NFL and NCAA don't play well together.

That goes to my statement and Fan Support-(ECU, UCF, UC & UConn) and Exposure-(ESPN Deal is IMO the best of the G5)...but you make a very valid point about the Little Man Syndrome...

ECU and UCF yes, the other 2 not so much. Both UC and UConn averaged 28k and 27k respectively this past season, which is not close to the P5 level.

Averaging 27K at an off-campus stadium, with a 2-10 record (coming off seasons of 5-7, 5-7, and 3-9), and in a conference with no more regional competition/rivals/ties (save Temple)...

Exactly how many other G5 programs could match/exceed that number if in UCONN's position...?

(02-09-2015 03:28 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Little Mike at least realizes that 3-18 against the P5 won't cut it.

Not to call you out (and not that this record is any better...) but the correct AAC vs. P5 2013-2014 is

8-34

And to your point, yes I agree that won't cut it.

The crying continues, wow.

(02-09-2015 03:50 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  Marshall being left out last year had much more to do with who they played out of conference than in.

46.23 = Marshall Sagarin OoC Opponents
55.00 = Marshall Sagarin All Opponents
58.84 = ECU Sagarin All Opponents
59.81 = Marshall Sagarin All Opponents EXCEPT Sub UofL for Rhode Is
61.19 = Marshall Sagarin All Opponents EXCEPT Sub ECU OoC instead
62.69 = Marshall Sagarin All Opponents EXCEPT Sub Boise OoC instead
66.49 = Boise Sagarin All Opponents

Too often we get into this thing where we think it's one not both. The numbers suggest the greatest area of opportunity for improvement for Marshall is, indeed, out-of-conference.

BUT.

Big but.

Even had Marshall played Louisville instead of URI... played midseason front runner ECU's OOC instead... even Boise's same OOC... Marshall still would have come up short in, at least, this fairly well-regarded, objective measure (Sagarin)... ie, Boise's regular season SOS still would have bested the Herd by a considerable number.

Shouldn't surprise... we're talking about 2/3 of the schedule in comparison to 1/3 of the schedule.

So, yeah, not one or the other, but both.

(02-09-2015 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To be sure, the AAC was the only conference that was demoted in status (unless you include the WAC, which was simply killed off entirely), so it's understandable that there's a lot more denial/posturing/complaining. The AAC (or more accurately, UConn, USF and Cincinnati) *lost* status, whereas everyone else is simply continuing with the status that they always had in the BCS era.

It's curious how you could describe the conference as being "demoted". Demoted from what exactly? They were never part of the BCS or the Power 5. The term "non-BCS" has now changed to "g5" - but it still means that you're not one of the "haves".

Seven schools of C-USA II (Memphis, ECU, Houston, Tulane, UCF, Tulsa and SMU) have re-joined 2 members of C-USA I (Cincinnati and USF) - and are now called the AAC. C-USA was a "have-not" under both line-ups - and now the AAC is a "have-not". The 3 non-C-USA pieces of the AAC have either been drummed out of the BCS (Temple), created from scratch to fill that void for a few years (UConn) or were last a good program about 6 decades ago (Navy).

The hint of BCS pedigree held by the AAC: a few years for 3 (of the AAC's 12 programs) in a crumbling BigEast: Cincinnati had some success in FB in the BigEast - but UConn and USF were mostly non-entities in BigEast FB - and none were the reason the BigEast had BCS status.

The AAC is simply C-USA re-branded. The 7 C-USA II members just traded Marshall/UAB/SoMiss/Rice/UTEP for UConn/Cincinnati/USF/Temple/Navy.

Big deal.

The only thing the AAC has going for it is that the MWC is now less than it was before (due to Utah and TCU being called up - and BYU leaving). The MWC was clearly "the best of the rest" in most of the BCS years and now that title is up for grabs a bit. But so far, the AAC hasn't shown anything to suggest that it is the conference that will become a perennial favorite for that title. Had it not been for WKU, Marshall (one of the undesirable remnants of C-USA) would have played for the big pay day - instead of the MWC - but the AAC wasn't on the radar.

(02-09-2015 05:37 PM)nert Wrote:  It's curious how you could describe the conference as being "demoted". Demoted from what exactly? They were never part of the BCS or the Power 5.[/b]

Incorrect the BCS system folded into the CFB Playoff (P5/G5). The Big East was a part of the BCS and was not "invited" to the P5.

(02-09-2015 05:37 PM)nert Wrote:  The term "non-BCS" has now changed to "g5" - but it still means that you're not one of the "haves".

This is correct.

(02-09-2015 05:37 PM)nert Wrote:  Seven schools of C-USA II (Memphis, ECU, Houston, Tulane, UCF, Tulsa and SMU) have re-joined 2 members of C-USA I (Cincinnati and USF) - and are now called the AAC. C-USA was a "have-not" under both line-ups - and now the AAC is a "have-not".

Well for one Houston was a founding member of CUSA as were Memphis and Tulane. So to use your attempt at demeaning us we were "CUSA I"

Well again the AAC was an automatic qualifier in 2013. So again wrong. But to the point your are having trouble making yes the AAC (Big East) had been depleted so much they chose to slough us off so yes we were demoted.

(02-09-2015 05:37 PM)nert Wrote:  The 3 non-C-USA pieces of the AAC have either been drummed out of the BCS (Temple), created from scratch to fill that void for a few years (UConn) or were last a good program about 6 decades ago (Navy).

You could have an argument for Temple but UConn did win the Big East when all those schools that left were still here so you have to give that to them. As for Navy only being good 6 decades ago what are you watching? No Navy isn't Alabama but they are a very solid (and still are) program.

(02-09-2015 05:37 PM)nert Wrote:  The hint of BCS pedigree held by the AAC: a few years for 3 (of the AAC's 12 programs) in a crumbling BigEast: Cincinnati had some success in FB in the BigEast - but UConn and USF were mostly non-entities in BigEast FB - and none were the reason the BigEast had BCS status.

Fair statement. Although even if you discount UConn's Championship Cincy did very well in the Big East.

(02-09-2015 05:37 PM)nert Wrote:  The AAC is simply C-USA re-branded. The 7 C-USA II members just traded Marshall/UAB/SoMiss/Rice/UTEP for UConn/Cincinnati/USF/Temple/Navy.

Big deal.

How is that not an upgrade? Please explain.

(02-09-2015 05:37 PM)nert Wrote:  The only thing the AAC has going for it is that the MWC is now less than it was before (due to Utah and TCU being called up - and BYU leaving). The MWC was clearly "the best of the rest" in most of the BCS years and now that title is up for grabs a bit.

I wouldn't have ever called the MWC the best of the rest but they did have some solid teams and did some damage.

(02-09-2015 05:37 PM)nert Wrote:  But so far, the AAC hasn't shown anything to suggest that it is the conference that will become a perennial favorite for that title.

Ok in year 2 we don't have the hearts and minds.... Good for you. Come back in year 10, 11 or whatever and see where things stand. You may still be right but only time will tell.

(02-09-2015 05:37 PM)nert Wrote:  Had it not been for WKU, Marshall (one of the undesirable remnants of C-USA) would have played for the big pay day - instead of the MWC - but the AAC wasn't on the radar.

Marshalls SOS was TERRIBLE. With the slate they played in 2014 they were not getting in over Boise, and would have not over an undefeated AAC team either.

CUSA is hot garbage now.

I think the proof is in the pudding when it comes to what G-5 conference will be the superior conference. The AAC absolutely has the best potential to be best G-5 conference just based on markets alone. But with the uncertainty that surrounds the conference, the AAC growth and potential domination of the G-5 conferences will be stunt by instability. OTOH, the MWC has been the most stable and successful G-5 conference period. Mostly because of Boise in football but the basketball side has been very very good as well.

All of that said, you bark and growl you're the best all day but you prove it on the court and the field. In the first season of the new CFP, the AAC failed in that regard.

(02-09-2015 12:29 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  What this guy doesn't understand is without being in a Power conference its near impossible to crack a Top 50 recruiting class.

Cincinnati made back to back BCS games, and was widely considered a damn good team those years, with zero top 50 recruiting classes.

And, to be honest with you, these rating services suck. All that matters is win.

(02-09-2015 06:07 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  I think the proof is in the pudding when it comes to what G-5 conference will be the superior conference. The AAC absolutely has the best potential to be best G-5 conference just based on markets alone. But with the uncertainty that surrounds the conference, the AAC growth and potential domination of the G-5 conferences will be stunt by instability. OTOH, the MWC has been the most stable and successful G-5 conference period. Mostly because of Boise in football but the basketball side has been very very good as well.

All of that said, you bark and growl you're the best all day but you prove it on the court and the field. In the first season of the new CFP, the AAC failed in that regard.

MWC and basketball is nowhere close to the level of the AAC. The AAC has the defending champs afterall.

If you want to say thanks to BSU, ok. They are a great football program and continue to show that. To argue anything to do with basketball is a losing argument unless you are talking up the AAC.

(02-09-2015 06:11 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 06:07 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  I think the proof is in the pudding when it comes to what G-5 conference will be the superior conference. The AAC absolutely has the best potential to be best G-5 conference just based on markets alone. But with the uncertainty that surrounds the conference, the AAC growth and potential domination of the G-5 conferences will be stunt by instability. OTOH, the MWC has been the most stable and successful G-5 conference period. Mostly because of Boise in football but the basketball side has been very very good as well.

All of that said, you bark and growl you're the best all day but you prove it on the court and the field. In the first season of the new CFP, the AAC failed in that regard.

MWC and basketball is nowhere close to the level of the AAC. The AAC has the defending champs afterall.

If you want to say thanks to BSU, ok. They are a great football program and continue to show that. To argue anything to do with basketball is a losing argument unless you are talking up the AAC.

This. And the fact that the AAC is looking like a 3-4 bid league, despite it being a down year for Memphis and UCONN, is pretty telling...

(02-09-2015 05:37 PM)nert Wrote:  Had it not been for WKU, Marshall (one of the undesirable remnants of C-USA) would have played for the big pay day - instead of the MWC - but the AAC wasn't on the radar.

Marshall ranked one slot behind Boise even as an undefeated team. Logically, then, even if that 2-point conversion falls short for WKU, Marshall leapfrogging Boise would have required a third loss on the Broncos' part... or at minimum a piss-poor performance in one of their last two games while the Herd shellacked at least one. (Of course, and in fact, the Broncos romped over Utah State and Fresno State, while Marshall pulled out a win over La Tech.)

So, fact is, CUSA was better than most (including yours truly) thought they'd be, though mostly because Marshall was even better than most thought they were.

And fact is... even that being the case... MWC, or at least one division of MWC, was a clear cut above all of the other noncon5's.

Going into next season, MWC is the lead horse, and the next three have something to prove.... CUSA that they can sustain their 2014-15 success, AAC that they can distance themselves from their lackluster 2014-15, and MAC that they can get back to, at least, being better than SBC (... with all due respect to my SBC friends, btw).