(04-23-2017 09:32 PM)TheShocker Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 09:12 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 08:57 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Please stop with Ga State. Zero chance and they are lucky to be in the sunbelt. They have a real d-1 program down the road.

You are correct. The gap between Tulane and UCF/UCF is something I don't like...the other 3 "southern conferences" fill those gaps with Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi St (SEC) Southern Miss, UAB (CUSA) Arkansas St, South Alabama, Georgia St, Georgia Southern (Sun Belt). In the CUSA days we had USM and UAB to stay congruent.

Congruency doth not make relevancy; adding GSU, USM, UAB or Georgia Southern is a deal breaker for the AAC, when it comes to a better TV deal or P6 attainment.

I'm not saying I'm for adding any of them. I'm not. I do wish Southern Miss had the market size of Georgia St, they'd be an SEC candidate hahahaha. They are the only CUSA team I miss. Lots of history for most of us with them.

(04-23-2017 10:13 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 07:55 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Media markets are the key for the AAC. GSU delivers that and all the while works as a bridge between ECU and the Florida programs.

FFS, these 2 sentences..... It's like you've learned nothing. Georgia State doesn't deliver a ******* thing in Atlanta other than a shitton of diplomas to people who couldn't get into Georgia Tech or UGA or have to work. As far as being a "bridge" it's not close enough to any of those schools to work as a travel partner.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Two decades ago. Nobody gave a damn about UCF or USF. Now people take notice. GSU puts a large program within flight range. What other program in the region does that? What other program has the potential to become what UCF and USF have become? The facts are the facts. No P5 program is going to move down to the American except maybe Baylor being forced to. So the only thing that is left for the AAC to do is look for ways to grow its brand.

(04-23-2017 06:36 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:32 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:29 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:25 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Can the AAC "buy" an NY6 tie-in? Offer the bowl game 10, 20, 30 million? I think it would be a wise investment....

So the other leagues get like $6 million to play in the game and you want to pay $30 million? What? Our whole contract is barely over $20 million per year.

I just pulled those number out of thin air.

Just saying, is there a way we can get an NY6 bowl? Yeah it would suck to buy in but maybe after a few years of stomping some arse in that bowl we would flip the script and start getting paid. I'm just trying to think how we can crash the party.

I suspect if we could buy in we would have done it by now. Why else create the crappy Miami beach bowl if we could just buy in?

I believe I may have thought of a solution to our NY6 problems, which would guarantee us more access.

I am hoping this will lead to a permanent tie in to the Peach, Cotton, and Fiesta. Similar to what the old Big East had. A permanent tie in, but not to any particular bowl.

This would make is so the bowl wouldn't have to be tied to AAC all the time. They'd only get our champ 1 or 2 times every 6 years.

Hear this solution out. The issues are, number one, we can't really take away bid from the G4 (thus creating the need for a bid for the G4 AND us), and also the "P5" don't really want to give up their bids either, so we try to work within the existing system.

Make our bid performance based not tied to a NY6 bowl. The cotton, fiesta, or peach would have to take us max 2 years out of 6...if we qualified.

So it would work like this. In the years we are the highest among the G5 (or G4 plus us), we would automatically get the bid as usual. Nothing changes. Let's say that happens 3 times out of 6. So we are really only talking about how to get a bid the other 3 of 6 years. Make those 3 years performance based. If we are EITHER the top G4/5 OR ranked in the top 14 or 16, for example, we would earn a bid.

1 or 2 more years we would also get another bid...regardless of what the other G4 did.

So at most during the 6 year period we'd take a NY6, be earning one, once or twice, that we other wise wouldn't have gotten. Maybe you use this clause where there are the most at large spots in the NY6 pools as to not take away limited spots. Then in the next 6 year cycle you try for a permanent tie after you've more proven yourself (not that AAC hasn't already done that).

There are other ways of putting performance clauses in the NY6 contract that would get us more auto bids that would not upset apple cart.

(04-23-2017 10:41 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:36 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:32 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:29 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:25 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Can the AAC "buy" an NY6 tie-in? Offer the bowl game 10, 20, 30 million? I think it would be a wise investment....

So the other leagues get like $6 million to play in the game and you want to pay $30 million? What? Our whole contract is barely over $20 million per year.

I just pulled those number out of thin air.

Just saying, is there a way we can get an NY6 bowl? Yeah it would suck to buy in but maybe after a few years of stomping some arse in that bowl we would flip the script and start getting paid. I'm just trying to think how we can crash the party.

I suspect if we could buy in we would have done it by now. Why else create the crappy Miami beach bowl if we could just buy in?

I believe I may have thought of a solution to our NY6 problems, which would guarantee us more access.

I am hoping this will lead to a permanent tie in to the Peach, Cotton, and Fiesta. Similar to what the old Big East had. A permanent tie in, but not to any particular bowl.

This would make is so the bowl wouldn't have to be tied to AAC all the time. They'd only get our champ 1 or 2 times every 6 years.

Hear this solution out. The issues are, number one, we can't really take away bid from the G4 (thus creating the need for a bid for the G4 AND us), and also the "P5" don't really want to give up their bids either, so we try to work within the existing system.

Make our bid performance based not tied to a NY6 bowl. The cotton, fiesta, or peach would have to take us max 2 years out of 6...if we qualified.

So it would work like this. In the years we are the highest among the G5 (or G4 plus us), we would automatically get the bid as usual. Nothing changes. Let's say that happens 3 times out of 6. So we are really only talking about how to get a bid the other 3 of 6 years. Make those 3 years performance based. If we are EITHER the top G4/5 OR ranked in the top 14 or 16, for example, we would earn a bid.

1 or 2 more years we would also get another bid...regardless of what the other G4 did.

So at most during the 6 year period we'd take a NY6, be earning one, once or twice, that we other wise wouldn't have gotten. Maybe you use this clause where there are the most at large spots in the NY6 pools as to not take away limited spots. Then in the next 6 year cycle you try for a permanent tie after you've more proven yourself (not that AAC hasn't already done that).

There are other ways of putting performance clauses in the NY6 contract that would get us more auto bids that would not upset apple cart.

I guess but i don't see it happening.

(04-23-2017 10:38 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 10:13 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 07:55 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Media markets are the key for the AAC. GSU delivers that and all the while works as a bridge between ECU and the Florida programs.

FFS, these 2 sentences..... It's like you've learned nothing. Georgia State doesn't deliver a ******* thing in Atlanta other than a shitton of diplomas to people who couldn't get into Georgia Tech or UGA or have to work. As far as being a "bridge" it's not close enough to any of those schools to work as a travel partner.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Two decades ago. Nobody gave a damn about UCF or USF. Now people take notice. GSU puts a large program within flight range. What other program in the region does that? What other program has the potential to become what UCF and USF have become? The facts are the facts. No P5 program is going to move down to the American except maybe Baylor being forced to. So the only thing that is left for the AAC to do is look for ways to grow its brand.

Then give GSU 2 decades to see if they amount to anything. Even make it a decade. But as of right now, they have a long way to go. I do like the project to convert Turner field into their stadium though.

(04-23-2017 10:38 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 10:13 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 07:55 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Media markets are the key for the AAC. GSU delivers that and all the while works as a bridge between ECU and the Florida programs.

FFS, these 2 sentences..... It's like you've learned nothing. Georgia State doesn't deliver a ******* thing in Atlanta other than a shitton of diplomas to people who couldn't get into Georgia Tech or UGA or have to work. As far as being a "bridge" it's not close enough to any of those schools to work as a travel partner.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Two decades ago. Nobody gave a damn about UCF or USF. Now people take notice. GSU puts a large program within flight range. What other program in the region does that? What other program has the potential to become what UCF and USF have become? The facts are the facts. No P5 program is going to move down to the American except maybe Baylor being forced to. So the only thing that is left for the AAC to do is look for ways to grow its brand.

yeah and in 2 decades a better conference might care about GSU

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-22-2017 07:00 PM)AusTxPony Wrote:  Aren't Bowl game opponents up to the Bowl Committees? No matter what we are paid, the committees don't have to recognize a P6. I guess we could get a NY8 'guarantee' if that comes to fruition. The only benefit I see from more money is more money, period. Of course that helps. The only path to semi-parity I see is the breakup of the BigXII and them absorbing some of us or us absorbing all of the left overs and becoming P5th.

It makes a difference in the eyes of journalist. Haven't you noticed how BYU and Notre Dame's names are typically brought up during ESPN & Other Major Sports Network conversations about NYD6's Bowls every year?

Your ability to demand a higher payout than the smaller conferences is the tipping point for inclusion from a media/fan perception standpoint ...

(04-23-2017 06:16 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 05:54 PM)TheShocker Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 05:17 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  There is only way the American would have a chance to become a Power 6 conference - and this will never happen.

The only way is for the American to sign a Media Rights Deal similar to the one the ACC and Big XII have signed. This would guarantee some security and stability that the league as a whole desperately needs in order to grow as a conference by ensuring against a revolving-door type of membership that has eaten away at our membership for over two decades. It would force us to WORK TOGETHER and make our in-conference games actually MEAN SOMETHING.

But the bottom line is we don't want to pass up an opportunity to join a historically relevant conference with schools we our geographically closer to and in some cases have been in conferences with before, so it won't happen. Every last school in this conference - Every. One. - wants out. So we are stuck with each other.

The grant of rights would have to extend past 2025, or it's pointless; additionally, no AAC team would agree on a grant of rights (whether post 2025 or not).

Grant of rights only makes sense if we are talking like $10 million per year. We are going to get $3.5 to $4 million. Hopefully we can work in other perks. Like espn agreeing to push the p6 narrative and getting us better bowl matchups when they renew the bowl lineups. Espn owns a ton of bowl games.

I hope that you're talking about a "Football Only Contract" at $3.5M - $4M per team year ... If not, the Big East Conference is going to become just as big a threat to keeping the conference together as P5 conference expansion. JS ...

(04-23-2017 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:36 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:32 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:29 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:25 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Can the AAC "buy" an NY6 tie-in? Offer the bowl game 10, 20, 30 million? I think it would be a wise investment....

So the other leagues get like $6 million to play in the game and you want to pay $30 million? What? Our whole contract is barely over $20 million per year.

I just pulled those number out of thin air.

Just saying, is there a way we can get an NY6 bowl? Yeah it would suck to buy in but maybe after a few years of stomping some arse in that bowl we would flip the script and start getting paid. I'm just trying to think how we can crash the party.

I suspect if we could buy in we would have done it by now. Why else create the crappy Miami beach bowl if we could just buy in?

Your right, but the Miami Beach Bowl did not have to be crappy. A lot of the legacy money should have gone to it or another new AAC Bowl to get a decent SEC/Big 12/B10 opponent. Read the posts from 4 years ago when we were talking about this subject. We all had good ideas but somehow it didn't happen....

Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

Right now, under Aresco, I'd say the AAC is currently 1-2-1 in big decisions.

1) We blew the western wing expansion. It was there for the taking, but rather than take what was good---we tried to hold out for the perfect (BYU/AF). When we took a string of defections, the relative strength of the two conferences shifted back to even---eliminating the AAC advantage. Had the AAC made the move to take Fresno and CSU earlier---the game would have been over for the MW. Rule number one---you always finish off an opponent when you have him on the ropes. Instead, we got caught showboating. As a side note---the AAC should have brokered a deal moving all the western AAC teams into the WAC---that way the "football only" memberships in the west would not have been so problematic and unattractive. The whole expansion was badly handled and counts as a loss. the AAC decision record goes to "0-1".

2) The TV contract was terrible on money---but gave us near P5 exposure. Its not a loss---but its not a win either. This is a tie. Aresco's AAC tenure moves to 0-1-1 on big decisions.

3) The Miami Beach Bowl is established. We stepped up to the plate and took a chance. But we failed to follow through with any cash from the realignment fund to make it a showcase bowl. The payout needed to be high enough to attract a nice P5 opponent. The G5 created a lot of bowls in this time period (2013), but they all missed the mark. The G5 already had plenty of crappy bowls---what they never understood is what they really needed was a few GOOD bowls. So we made the same mistake. What makes it really inexcusable is the AAC was the only conference with the money to make it happen and we didn't do it. Another loss. Aresco moves to 0-2-1 on big decisions.


4) Wichita. A no brainer. Finally a win! I think going big with VCU and Dayton is better---but adding Wichita was a sure fire win. 1-2-1.

So that's the AAC record right now under Aresco....1-2-1. One win, two losses, and one tie. The next contract will either move him to .500 or put his reign way behind the 8-ball at 1-3-1.

(04-23-2017 10:55 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 10:38 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 10:13 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 07:55 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

yeah and in 2 decades a better conference might care about GSU

really!!! Like who??

(04-24-2017 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:36 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:32 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:29 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  So the other leagues get like $6 million to play in the game and you want to pay $30 million? What? Our whole contract is barely over $20 million per year.

I just pulled those number out of thin air.

Just saying, is there a way we can get an NY6 bowl? Yeah it would suck to buy in but maybe after a few years of stomping some arse in that bowl we would flip the script and start getting paid. I'm just trying to think how we can crash the party.

I suspect if we could buy in we would have done it by now. Why else create the crappy Miami beach bowl if we could just buy in?

Your right, but the Miami Beach Bowl did not have to be crappy. A lot of the legacy money should have gone to it or another new AAC Bowl to get a decent SEC/Big 12/B10 opponent. Read the posts from 4 years ago when we were talking about this subject. We all had good ideas but somehow it didn't happen....

Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

Right now, under Aresco, I'd say the AAC is currently 1-2-1 in big decisions.

1) We blew the western wing expansion. It was there for the taking, but rather than take what was good---we tried to hold out for the perfect (BYU/AF). When we took a string of defections, the relative strength of the two conferences shifted back to even---eliminating the AAC advantage. Had the AAC made the move to take Fresno and CSU earlier---the game would have been over for the MW. Rule number one---you always finish off an opponent when you have him on the ropes. Instead, we got caught showboating. As a side note---the AAC should have brokered a deal moving all the western AAC teams into the WAC---that way the "football only" memberships in the west would not have been so problematic and unattractive. The whole expansion was badly handled and counts as a loss. the AAC decision record goes to "0-1".

2) The TV contract was terrible on money---but gave us near P5 exposure. Its not a loss---but its not a win either. This is a tie. Aresco's AAC tenure moves to 0-1-1 on big decisions.

3) The Miami Beach Bowl is established. We stepped up to the plate and took a chance. But we failed to follow through with any cash from the realignment fund to make it a showcase bowl. The payout needed to be high enough to attract a nice P5 opponent. The G5 created a lot of bowls in this time period (2013), but they all missed the mark. The G5 already had plenty of crappy bowls---what they never understood is what they really needed was a few GOOD bowls. So we made the same mistake. What makes it really inexcusable is the AAC was the only conference with the money to make it happen and we didn't do it. Another loss. Aresco moves to 0-2-1 on big decisions.


4) Wichita. A no brainer. Finally a win! I think going big with VCU and Dayton is better---but adding Wichita was a sure fire win. 1-2-1.

So that's the AAC record right now under Aresco....1-2-1. One win, two losses, and one tie. The next contract will either move him to .500 or put his reign way behind the 8-ball at 1-3-1.

I disagree,
#1 We were not going to get more than 2 mil on TV. even if we had added 4 to 6 from MWC. at 2 mil it made no sense for either side. Had we added them we would be flying all over gods creation for no more money. I think we won when Boise bolted. 1-0-0

#2. Agree, small win, we are ahead of MWC because of this deal. short term exposure needed most. 2-0-0

#3. Miami bowl was never going to get a decent P5 school. The P5 went down the list and put P5 vs P5 on docket as far as possible. Had we paid more maybe... we could have gotten an ACC or SEC 10 or 11.
We already play most of those teams that are available. If we got out of it not losing much $$ I would call it even, but will call a very small loss. 2-1-0

#4. WSU on paper as of today is big win. 3-1-0

(04-23-2017 10:55 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 10:38 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 10:13 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 07:55 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Media markets are the key for the AAC. GSU delivers that and all the while works as a bridge between ECU and the Florida programs.

FFS, these 2 sentences..... It's like you've learned nothing. Georgia State doesn't deliver a ******* thing in Atlanta other than a shitton of diplomas to people who couldn't get into Georgia Tech or UGA or have to work. As far as being a "bridge" it's not close enough to any of those schools to work as a travel partner.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Two decades ago. Nobody gave a damn about UCF or USF. Now people take notice. GSU puts a large program within flight range. What other program in the region does that? What other program has the potential to become what UCF and USF have become? The facts are the facts. No P5 program is going to move down to the American except maybe Baylor being forced to. So the only thing that is left for the AAC to do is look for ways to grow its brand.

yeah and in 2 decades a better conference might care about GSU

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

2 decades ago ucf had Duante Culpepper and had 1 game over 50k attendance and two over 40k. They are more than 2 decades behind. Schools like odu will always be ahead. Having Ga Tech in the same town makes it an impossible task. Best of luck to them though.

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:36 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:32 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  I just pulled those number out of thin air.

Just saying, is there a way we can get an NY6 bowl? Yeah it would suck to buy in but maybe after a few years of stomping some arse in that bowl we would flip the script and start getting paid. I'm just trying to think how we can crash the party.

I suspect if we could buy in we would have done it by now. Why else create the crappy Miami beach bowl if we could just buy in?

Your right, but the Miami Beach Bowl did not have to be crappy. A lot of the legacy money should have gone to it or another new AAC Bowl to get a decent SEC/Big 12/B10 opponent. Read the posts from 4 years ago when we were talking about this subject. We all had good ideas but somehow it didn't happen....

Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

Right now, under Aresco, I'd say the AAC is currently 1-2-1 in big decisions.

1) We blew the western wing expansion. It was there for the taking, but rather than take what was good---we tried to hold out for the perfect (BYU/AF). When we took a string of defections, the relative strength of the two conferences shifted back to even---eliminating the AAC advantage. Had the AAC made the move to take Fresno and CSU earlier---the game would have been over for the MW. Rule number one---you always finish off an opponent when you have him on the ropes. Instead, we got caught showboating. As a side note---the AAC should have brokered a deal moving all the western AAC teams into the WAC---that way the "football only" memberships in the west would not have been so problematic and unattractive. The whole expansion was badly handled and counts as a loss. the AAC decision record goes to "0-1".

2) The TV contract was terrible on money---but gave us near P5 exposure. Its not a loss---but its not a win either. This is a tie. Aresco's AAC tenure moves to 0-1-1 on big decisions.

3) The Miami Beach Bowl is established. We stepped up to the plate and took a chance. But we failed to follow through with any cash from the realignment fund to make it a showcase bowl. The payout needed to be high enough to attract a nice P5 opponent. The G5 created a lot of bowls in this time period (2013), but they all missed the mark. The G5 already had plenty of crappy bowls---what they never understood is what they really needed was a few GOOD bowls. So we made the same mistake. What makes it really inexcusable is the AAC was the only conference with the money to make it happen and we didn't do it. Another loss. Aresco moves to 0-2-1 on big decisions.


4) Wichita. A no brainer. Finally a win! I think going big with VCU and Dayton is better---but adding Wichita was a sure fire win. 1-2-1.

So that's the AAC record right now under Aresco....1-2-1. One win, two losses, and one tie. The next contract will either move him to .500 or put his reign way behind the 8-ball at 1-3-1.

I disagree,
#1 We were not going to get more than 2 mil on TV. even if we had added 4 to 6 from MWC. at 2 mil it made no sense for either side. Had we added them we would be flying all over gods creation for no more money. I think we won when Boise bolted. 1-0-0

#2. Agree, small win, we are ahead of MWC because of this deal. short term exposure needed most. 2-0-0

#3. Miami bowl was never going to get a decent P5 school. The P5 went down the list and put P5 vs P5 on docket as far as possible. Had we paid more maybe... we could have gotten an ACC or SEC 10 or 11.
We already play most of those teams that are available. If we got out of it not losing much $$ I would call it even, but will call a very small loss. 2-1-0

#4. WSU on paper as of today is big win. 3-1-0

1. MWC expansion: lost. 0-1. Had 2 MWC teams in the hand SDSU & Boise. Then Aresco went public on BYU, which embarrassed the conference when BYU didn't budge. Then Air Force, when Air Force wasn't coming because of Front range loyalty. By the end UNLV then Fresno and at one point even Nevada was considered. Very embarrassing and damaging as then Boise/SDSU backed out. Aresco 0-1

2. media deal. Terrible money at 1.7 million per year (except Navy who makes more) but great exposure and 6 years which isn't too long. Tie. 0-1-1

3. Miami Beach Bowl : Aresco really talked this bowl up as a potential "show case" bowl for the AAC. We had lots of BE LEGACY money to spend on getting a good P5 opponent. Aresco didn't use that money for it. Got a lousy bowl. Fail. Loss. 0-2-1

4. Wichita St: looks like a good move unless they start football. If they start up football and play in the AAC, it'll be a huge loss. I'm going to believe no football for the shockers. Great hoops and baseball. Win.
1-2-1

6. P6 stickers campaign: Dumb, waste of time. Fight for bowls, not for a non-existent group. Loss. 1-3-1

Aresco is 1-3-1 so far.

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:36 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:32 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  I just pulled those number out of thin air.

Just saying, is there a way we can get an NY6 bowl? Yeah it would suck to buy in but maybe after a few years of stomping some arse in that bowl we would flip the script and start getting paid. I'm just trying to think how we can crash the party.

I suspect if we could buy in we would have done it by now. Why else create the crappy Miami beach bowl if we could just buy in?

Your right, but the Miami Beach Bowl did not have to be crappy. A lot of the legacy money should have gone to it or another new AAC Bowl to get a decent SEC/Big 12/B10 opponent. Read the posts from 4 years ago when we were talking about this subject. We all had good ideas but somehow it didn't happen....

Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

Right now, under Aresco, I'd say the AAC is currently 1-2-1 in big decisions.

1) We blew the western wing expansion. It was there for the taking, but rather than take what was good---we tried to hold out for the perfect (BYU/AF). When we took a string of defections, the relative strength of the two conferences shifted back to even---eliminating the AAC advantage. Had the AAC made the move to take Fresno and CSU earlier---the game would have been over for the MW. Rule number one---you always finish off an opponent when you have him on the ropes. Instead, we got caught showboating. As a side note---the AAC should have brokered a deal moving all the western AAC teams into the WAC---that way the "football only" memberships in the west would not have been so problematic and unattractive. The whole expansion was badly handled and counts as a loss. the AAC decision record goes to "0-1".

2) The TV contract was terrible on money---but gave us near P5 exposure. Its not a loss---but its not a win either. This is a tie. Aresco's AAC tenure moves to 0-1-1 on big decisions.

3) The Miami Beach Bowl is established. We stepped up to the plate and took a chance. But we failed to follow through with any cash from the realignment fund to make it a showcase bowl. The payout needed to be high enough to attract a nice P5 opponent. The G5 created a lot of bowls in this time period (2013), but they all missed the mark. The G5 already had plenty of crappy bowls---what they never understood is what they really needed was a few GOOD bowls. So we made the same mistake. What makes it really inexcusable is the AAC was the only conference with the money to make it happen and we didn't do it. Another loss. Aresco moves to 0-2-1 on big decisions.


4) Wichita. A no brainer. Finally a win! I think going big with VCU and Dayton is better---but adding Wichita was a sure fire win. 1-2-1.

So that's the AAC record right now under Aresco....1-2-1. One win, two losses, and one tie. The next contract will either move him to .500 or put his reign way behind the 8-ball at 1-3-1.

I disagree,
#1 We were not going to get more than 2 mil on TV. even if we had added 4 to 6 from MWC. at 2 mil it made no sense for either side. Had we added them we would be flying all over gods creation for no more money. I think we won when Boise bolted. 1-0-0

#2. Agree, small win, we are ahead of MWC because of this deal. short term exposure needed most. 2-0-0

#3. Miami bowl was never going to get a decent P5 school. The P5 went down the list and put P5 vs P5 on docket as far as possible. Had we paid more maybe... we could have gotten an ACC or SEC 10 or 11.
We already play most of those teams that are available. If we got out of it not losing much $$ I would call it even, but will call a very small loss. 2-1-0

#4. WSU on paper as of today is big win. 3-1-0

Boise State and SDSU had to pay us millions too. 4-1-0

Honestly without a large sum of money the coast to coast league makes no sense. Boise State isn't the same team anymore either.

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:36 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  I suspect if we could buy in we would have done it by now. Why else create the crappy Miami beach bowl if we could just buy in?

Your right, but the Miami Beach Bowl did not have to be crappy. A lot of the legacy money should have gone to it or another new AAC Bowl to get a decent SEC/Big 12/B10 opponent. Read the posts from 4 years ago when we were talking about this subject. We all had good ideas but somehow it didn't happen....

Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

Right now, under Aresco, I'd say the AAC is currently 1-2-1 in big decisions.

1) We blew the western wing expansion. It was there for the taking, but rather than take what was good---we tried to hold out for the perfect (BYU/AF). When we took a string of defections, the relative strength of the two conferences shifted back to even---eliminating the AAC advantage. Had the AAC made the move to take Fresno and CSU earlier---the game would have been over for the MW. Rule number one---you always finish off an opponent when you have him on the ropes. Instead, we got caught showboating. As a side note---the AAC should have brokered a deal moving all the western AAC teams into the WAC---that way the "football only" memberships in the west would not have been so problematic and unattractive. The whole expansion was badly handled and counts as a loss. the AAC decision record goes to "0-1".

2) The TV contract was terrible on money---but gave us near P5 exposure. Its not a loss---but its not a win either. This is a tie. Aresco's AAC tenure moves to 0-1-1 on big decisions.

3) The Miami Beach Bowl is established. We stepped up to the plate and took a chance. But we failed to follow through with any cash from the realignment fund to make it a showcase bowl. The payout needed to be high enough to attract a nice P5 opponent. The G5 created a lot of bowls in this time period (2013), but they all missed the mark. The G5 already had plenty of crappy bowls---what they never understood is what they really needed was a few GOOD bowls. So we made the same mistake. What makes it really inexcusable is the AAC was the only conference with the money to make it happen and we didn't do it. Another loss. Aresco moves to 0-2-1 on big decisions.


4) Wichita. A no brainer. Finally a win! I think going big with VCU and Dayton is better---but adding Wichita was a sure fire win. 1-2-1.

So that's the AAC record right now under Aresco....1-2-1. One win, two losses, and one tie. The next contract will either move him to .500 or put his reign way behind the 8-ball at 1-3-1.

I disagree,
#1 We were not going to get more than 2 mil on TV. even if we had added 4 to 6 from MWC. at 2 mil it made no sense for either side. Had we added them we would be flying all over gods creation for no more money. I think we won when Boise bolted. 1-0-0

#2. Agree, small win, we are ahead of MWC because of this deal. short term exposure needed most. 2-0-0

#3. Miami bowl was never going to get a decent P5 school. The P5 went down the list and put P5 vs P5 on docket as far as possible. Had we paid more maybe... we could have gotten an ACC or SEC 10 or 11.
We already play most of those teams that are available. If we got out of it not losing much $$ I would call it even, but will call a very small loss. 2-1-0

#4. WSU on paper as of today is big win. 3-1-0

Boise State and SDSU had to pay us millions too. 4-1-0

Honestly without a large sum of money the coast to coast league makes no sense. Boise State isn't the same team anymore either.

I keep hearing that Boise isn't same team anymore:
2014: Fiesta Bowl winner; 12-2
2015: underachieving yes, but still 9-4 with bowl win
2016: Finished 10-3 in an underrated and pretty tough MWC-Mountain Division. Beat 2 PAC teams and BYU.
2017: is ranked as high as #16 in one of the preseason media polls.

My top 2 access bowl bets this year are USF and Boise. Boise packs the Fiesta Bowl, that'll always give them an edge. If USF wins it, which access Bowl could they go to besides the Fiesta which won't work for them very well? Orange and Suger aren't options are they? Would USF fans travel to the Peach in big numbers?

(04-24-2017 08:22 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Your right, but the Miami Beach Bowl did not have to be crappy. A lot of the legacy money should have gone to it or another new AAC Bowl to get a decent SEC/Big 12/B10 opponent. Read the posts from 4 years ago when we were talking about this subject. We all had good ideas but somehow it didn't happen....

Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

I disagree,

Boise State and SDSU had to pay us millions too. 4-1-0

Honestly without a large sum of money the coast to coast league makes no sense. Boise State isn't the same team anymore either.

I keep hearing that Boise isn't same team anymore:
2014: Fiesta Bowl winner; 12-2
2015: underachieving yes, but still 9-4 with bowl win
2016: Finished 10-3 in an underrated and pretty tough MWC-Mountain Division. Beat 2 PAC teams and BYU.
2017: is ranked as high as #16 in one of the preseason media polls.

My top 2 access bowl bets this year are USF and Boise. Boise packs the Fiesta Bowl, that'll always give them an edge. If USF wins it, which access Bowl could they go to besides the Fiesta which won't work for them very well? Orange and Suger aren't options are they? Would USF fans travel to the Peach in big numbers?

Hasn't it already been decided which bowl has the G5 NY6 spot? I thought they rotated it.

(04-24-2017 08:36 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:22 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

I disagree,

Boise State and SDSU had to pay us millions too. 4-1-0

Honestly without a large sum of money the coast to coast league makes no sense. Boise State isn't the same team anymore either.

I keep hearing that Boise isn't same team anymore:
2014: Fiesta Bowl winner; 12-2
2015: underachieving yes, but still 9-4 with bowl win
2016: Finished 10-3 in an underrated and pretty tough MWC-Mountain Division. Beat 2 PAC teams and BYU.
2017: is ranked as high as #16 in one of the preseason media polls.

My top 2 access bowl bets this year are USF and Boise. Boise packs the Fiesta Bowl, that'll always give them an edge. If USF wins it, which access Bowl could they go to besides the Fiesta which won't work for them very well? Orange and Suger aren't options are they? Would USF fans travel to the Peach in big numbers?

Hasn't it already been decided which bowl has the G5 NY6 spot? I thought they rotated it.

I had heard it's The Fiesta Bowl. But maybe if USF wins Access Bowl there could be some dealing for another NY6?....as I don't think USF will bring the fans in large enough to make the AAC look good if it's the Fiesta Bowl.

(04-24-2017 09:15 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:36 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:22 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I disagree,

Boise State and SDSU had to pay us millions too. 4-1-0

Honestly without a large sum of money the coast to coast league makes no sense. Boise State isn't the same team anymore either.

I keep hearing that Boise isn't same team anymore:
2014: Fiesta Bowl winner; 12-2
2015: underachieving yes, but still 9-4 with bowl win
2016: Finished 10-3 in an underrated and pretty tough MWC-Mountain Division. Beat 2 PAC teams and BYU.
2017: is ranked as high as #16 in one of the preseason media polls.

My top 2 access bowl bets this year are USF and Boise. Boise packs the Fiesta Bowl, that'll always give them an edge. If USF wins it, which access Bowl could they go to besides the Fiesta which won't work for them very well? Orange and Suger aren't options are they? Would USF fans travel to the Peach in big numbers?

Hasn't it already been decided which bowl has the G5 NY6 spot? I thought they rotated it.

I had heard it's The Fiesta Bowl. But maybe if USF wins Access Bowl there could be some dealing for another NY6?....as I don't think USF will bring the fans in large enough to make the AAC look good if it's the Fiesta Bowl.

Everyone thought the same thing with ucf and $800-$1,000 flights going to Phoenix and driving isn't an option.

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:36 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 06:32 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  I just pulled those number out of thin air.

Just saying, is there a way we can get an NY6 bowl? Yeah it would suck to buy in but maybe after a few years of stomping some arse in that bowl we would flip the script and start getting paid. I'm just trying to think how we can crash the party.

I suspect if we could buy in we would have done it by now. Why else create the crappy Miami beach bowl if we could just buy in?

Your right, but the Miami Beach Bowl did not have to be crappy. A lot of the legacy money should have gone to it or another new AAC Bowl to get a decent SEC/Big 12/B10 opponent. Read the posts from 4 years ago when we were talking about this subject. We all had good ideas but somehow it didn't happen....

Its simple. It didn't happen because we didn't spend the money.

Right now, under Aresco, I'd say the AAC is currently 1-2-1 in big decisions.

1) We blew the western wing expansion. It was there for the taking, but rather than take what was good---we tried to hold out for the perfect (BYU/AF). When we took a string of defections, the relative strength of the two conferences shifted back to even---eliminating the AAC advantage. Had the AAC made the move to take Fresno and CSU earlier---the game would have been over for the MW. Rule number one---you always finish off an opponent when you have him on the ropes. Instead, we got caught showboating. As a side note---the AAC should have brokered a deal moving all the western AAC teams into the WAC---that way the "football only" memberships in the west would not have been so problematic and unattractive. The whole expansion was badly handled and counts as a loss. the AAC decision record goes to "0-1".

2) The TV contract was terrible on money---but gave us near P5 exposure. Its not a loss---but its not a win either. This is a tie. Aresco's AAC tenure moves to 0-1-1 on big decisions.

3) The Miami Beach Bowl is established. We stepped up to the plate and took a chance. But we failed to follow through with any cash from the realignment fund to make it a showcase bowl. The payout needed to be high enough to attract a nice P5 opponent. The G5 created a lot of bowls in this time period (2013), but they all missed the mark. The G5 already had plenty of crappy bowls---what they never understood is what they really needed was a few GOOD bowls. So we made the same mistake. What makes it really inexcusable is the AAC was the only conference with the money to make it happen and we didn't do it. Another loss. Aresco moves to 0-2-1 on big decisions.


4) Wichita. A no brainer. Finally a win! I think going big with VCU and Dayton is better---but adding Wichita was a sure fire win. 1-2-1.

So that's the AAC record right now under Aresco....1-2-1. One win, two losses, and one tie. The next contract will either move him to .500 or put his reign way behind the 8-ball at 1-3-1.

I disagree,
#1 We were not going to get more than 2 mil on TV. even if we had added 4 to 6 from MWC. at 2 mil it made no sense for either side. Had we added them we would be flying all over gods creation for no more money. I think we won when Boise bolted. 1-0-0

#2. Agree, small win, we are ahead of MWC because of this deal. short term exposure needed most. 2-0-0

#3. Miami bowl was never going to get a decent P5 school. The P5 went down the list and put P5 vs P5 on docket as far as possible. Had we paid more maybe... we could have gotten an ACC or SEC 10 or 11.
We already play most of those teams that are available. If we got out of it not losing much $$ I would call it even, but will call a very small loss. 2-1-0

#4. WSU on paper as of today is big win. 3-1-0

To be clear, the old western members were football only. So---flying "all over creation" means you'd be flying a little extra for one or two games a football season. Otherwise, travel would not change a bit for all other sports. If we had Bose, SDSU---along with 2 other MW schools--we'd have captured the G5 access slot 2 of 3 years and be 3-0 in BCS/CFP games during our existence. Not bad---and pretty much the undisputed top G5 league by a mile. In fact, with that line up, we probably win the access bowl most every year. Right now we are getting it a third of the time.

(04-24-2017 09:15 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:36 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:22 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:05 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I disagree,

Boise State and SDSU had to pay us millions too. 4-1-0

Honestly without a large sum of money the coast to coast league makes no sense. Boise State isn't the same team anymore either.

I keep hearing that Boise isn't same team anymore:
2014: Fiesta Bowl winner; 12-2
2015: underachieving yes, but still 9-4 with bowl win
2016: Finished 10-3 in an underrated and pretty tough MWC-Mountain Division. Beat 2 PAC teams and BYU.
2017: is ranked as high as #16 in one of the preseason media polls.

My top 2 access bowl bets this year are USF and Boise. Boise packs the Fiesta Bowl, that'll always give them an edge. If USF wins it, which access Bowl could they go to besides the Fiesta which won't work for them very well? Orange and Suger aren't options are they? Would USF fans travel to the Peach in big numbers?

Hasn't it already been decided which bowl has the G5 NY6 spot? I thought they rotated it.

I had heard it's The Fiesta Bowl. But maybe if USF wins Access Bowl there could be some dealing for another NY6?....as I don't think USF will bring the fans in large enough to make the AAC look good if it's the Fiesta Bowl.

The AAC can go to either the Peach or Fiesta. Both are open this year.