It’s been a damn sad year for ECU. For the AAC not so much.

(11-20-2017 01:05 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 12:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 11:31 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The AAC of today is the MWC of yesteryear: good at the top, mediocre to horrible from the middle to the bottom.

Ehhh. All conferences are horrible at the bottom. The legit comparison is how does the bottom and middle compare to the middle and bottom of other conferences. Tulsa, one of the bottom teams lost 54-51 to Toledo, beat UL-L 66-42, and lost ot New Mexico 16-13. Another bottom team (Cinci) beat Miami Ohio 21-17 and Austin Peavy (but got smoked by Marshall and Michigan losing by 2 or more TD's). Tulane beat Army and Grambling--but lost to FIU.

So, the bottom of the AAC seems to win against the bottom teams from other conferences and mostly loses to the better teams from other conferences. Really, other than UConn---the bottom of the AAC isnt bad at all in comparison to the bottom of other G5's.

The difference is the other G5 conferences are not claiming to be a power conference. The only one that did was the MWC which often took jabs on the Big East and claimed to be the 7th AQ league (sounds familiar?) And that was a MWC that had a better trio at the top and beat multiple AQ schools than what the AAC has.

MWC never had a top trio at top though. When Boise Joined, Utah left. BYU was at best mid teens in that period. Also frankly, tough to compare BCS ratings with what we have now.

In the 7 years with BYU, Utah, and TCU together- the league had 12 top 25 teams end of bowl year.

(11-20-2017 01:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:05 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 12:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 11:31 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The AAC of today is the MWC of yesteryear: good at the top, mediocre to horrible from the middle to the bottom.

Ehhh. All conferences are horrible at the bottom. The legit comparison is how does the bottom and middle compare to the middle and bottom of other conferences. Tulsa, one of the bottom teams lost 54-51 to Toledo, beat UL-L 66-42, and lost ot New Mexico 16-13. Another bottom team (Cinci) beat Miami Ohio 21-17 and Austin Peavy (but got smoked by Marshall and Michigan losing by 2 or more TD's). Tulane beat Army and Grambling--but lost to FIU.

So, the bottom of the AAC seems to win against the bottom teams from other conferences and mostly loses to the better teams from other conferences. Really, other than UConn---the bottom of the AAC isnt bad at all in comparison to the bottom of other G5's.

The difference is the other G5 conferences are not claiming to be a power conference. The only one that did was the MWC which often took jabs on the Big East and claimed to be the 7th AQ league (sounds familiar?) And that was a MWC that had a better trio at the top and beat multiple AQ schools than what the AAC has.

MWC never had a top trio at top though. When Boise Joined, Utah left. BYU was at best mid teens in that period. Also frankly, tough to compare BCS ratings with what we have now.

In the 7 years with BYU, Utah, and TCU together- the league had 12 top 25 teams end of bowl year.

There were really only 2 years that the MWC was really pushing a really strong trio in the top 3. Like you said hard to compare BCS and CFP rankings but...

For AP rankings - In 08 Utah finished 13-0 and #2, TCU finished 11-2 and #7, BYU 10-3 and #25

In 09 TCU finished 12-1 and #6, BYU 11-2 and #12, Utah 10-3 and #18.

(11-20-2017 01:05 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 12:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 11:31 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The AAC of today is the MWC of yesteryear: good at the top, mediocre to horrible from the middle to the bottom.

Ehhh. All conferences are horrible at the bottom. The legit comparison is how does the bottom and middle compare to the middle and bottom of other conferences. Tulsa, one of the bottom teams lost 54-51 to Toledo, beat UL-L 66-42, and lost ot New Mexico 16-13. Another bottom team (Cinci) beat Miami Ohio 21-17 and Austin Peavy (but got smoked by Marshall and Michigan losing by 2 or more TD's). Tulane beat Army and Grambling--but lost to FIU.

So, the bottom of the AAC seems to win against the bottom teams from other conferences and mostly loses to the better teams from other conferences. Really, other than UConn---the bottom of the AAC isnt bad at all in comparison to the bottom of other G5's.

The difference is the other G5 conferences are not claiming to be a power conference. The only one that did was the MWC which often took jabs on the Big East and claimed to be the 7th AQ league (sounds familiar?) And that was a MWC that had a better trio at the top and beat multiple AQ schools than what the AAC has.

Yes, but the argument was that the AAC was poor at the bottom. The bottom of the AAC is beating the bottom of the other G5's and loses to the top teams in the G5. Thats pretty much how the power conferences do---their bottom teams routinely lose to the top teams in the G5 and generally beat the bottom teams from the G5.

That said, Ive been pretty candid that I think the P6 campaign is really more of an marketing effort to differentiate the AAC from the other G5's (thus increasing media value) than it is any real effort to become part of the cartel.

(11-20-2017 01:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:05 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 12:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 11:31 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The AAC of today is the MWC of yesteryear: good at the top, mediocre to horrible from the middle to the bottom.

Ehhh. All conferences are horrible at the bottom. The legit comparison is how does the bottom and middle compare to the middle and bottom of other conferences. Tulsa, one of the bottom teams lost 54-51 to Toledo, beat UL-L 66-42, and lost ot New Mexico 16-13. Another bottom team (Cinci) beat Miami Ohio 21-17 and Austin Peavy (but got smoked by Marshall and Michigan losing by 2 or more TD's). Tulane beat Army and Grambling--but lost to FIU.

So, the bottom of the AAC seems to win against the bottom teams from other conferences and mostly loses to the better teams from other conferences. Really, other than UConn---the bottom of the AAC isnt bad at all in comparison to the bottom of other G5's.

The difference is the other G5 conferences are not claiming to be a power conference. The only one that did was the MWC which often took jabs on the Big East and claimed to be the 7th AQ league (sounds familiar?) And that was a MWC that had a better trio at the top and beat multiple AQ schools than what the AAC has.

MWC never had a top trio at top though. When Boise Joined, Utah left. BYU was at best mid teens in that period. Also frankly, tough to compare BCS ratings with what we have now.

In the 7 years with BYU, Utah, and TCU together- the league had 12 top 25 teams end of bowl year.

The MWC had Utah, TCU and BYU. The first two were competitive most of the time (3-1 in BCS bowls) and BYU still had football prestige along with a large fanbase. Then they had a 4th school that was decent, sometimes it was New Mexico, sometimes Air Force and then a huge drop off with UNLV and SDSU being the bottom feeders. The AAC is in the same boat. They're clearly the best G5 conference hands down, it's not even close. Just like the MWC was from 2005-11.

(11-20-2017 02:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:05 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 12:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 11:31 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The AAC of today is the MWC of yesteryear: good at the top, mediocre to horrible from the middle to the bottom.

Ehhh. All conferences are horrible at the bottom. The legit comparison is how does the bottom and middle compare to the middle and bottom of other conferences. Tulsa, one of the bottom teams lost 54-51 to Toledo, beat UL-L 66-42, and lost ot New Mexico 16-13. Another bottom team (Cinci) beat Miami Ohio 21-17 and Austin Peavy (but got smoked by Marshall and Michigan losing by 2 or more TD's). Tulane beat Army and Grambling--but lost to FIU.

So, the bottom of the AAC seems to win against the bottom teams from other conferences and mostly loses to the better teams from other conferences. Really, other than UConn---the bottom of the AAC isnt bad at all in comparison to the bottom of other G5's.

The difference is the other G5 conferences are not claiming to be a power conference. The only one that did was the MWC which often took jabs on the Big East and claimed to be the 7th AQ league (sounds familiar?) And that was a MWC that had a better trio at the top and beat multiple AQ schools than what the AAC has.

Yes, but the argument was that the AAC was poor at the bottom. The bottom of the AAC is beating the bottom of the other G5's and loses to the top teams in the G5. Thats pretty much how the power conferences do---their bottom teams routinely lose to the top teams in the G5 and generally beat the bottom teams from the G5.

That said, Ive been pretty candid that I think the P6 campaign is really more of an marketing effort to differentiate the AAC from the other G5's (thus increasing media value) than it is any real effort to become part of the cartel.

The MWC claimed to be the 7th AQ league and its motto was "Above the Rest" (meaning the other nonAQs). The cartel made sure it didn't go anywhere and sadly the same will happen to the AAC. It's a travesty that an AAC school only makes 10% of what Rutgers will get in the Big Ten. It's even worse for the other G5s.

I'd say the middle tier of the AAC is pretty decent:

- Houston (6-4, 4-3 in AAC) beat Arizona by 3 points (7-4, 5-3 in PAC) and lost to Texas Tech by 3 points (5-6, 2-6 in B12).
- Navy (6-4, 4-3 in AAC) annihilated FAU (7-0 in CUSA) and looked pretty competitive on the road at #9 Notre Dame (9-2, 7 point loss)
- SMU (6-5, 3-4 in AAC) smashed North Texas (6-1 in CUSA) and Arkansas St. (5-1 in Sun Belt).
- Tulane (5-6, 3-4 in AAC) beat Army (8-3), but was outmatched at FIU (4-3 in CUSA).
- Temple (5-6, 3-4 in AAC) lost to Army (8-3) in overtime and beat UMass (4-7).

The AAC middle tier hasn't beaten #3 Oklahoma, #9 Notre Dame, or #10 TCU...but neither have most other middle-road or bottom-feeding P5 teams.

The AAC middle tier is larger than the old MWC middle tier. As mentioned, the old MWC was usually the top-3 plus another decent team - whether that was Air Force, Colorado St., or New Mexico. The AAC has 3 ranked teams and 3 or 4 teams that make up that middle tier.

EDIT: FWIW, this is precisely why I was calling for the MWC to add Boise, Fresno, and Houston a decade ago. That would have given the MWC a legitimate 3 or 4 teams at the top and 3 or 4 teams in the middle tier each season. THAT would have looked very much like the BCS conferences - and miles ahead of the pre-realignment Big East.

(11-20-2017 01:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:05 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 12:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 11:31 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The AAC of today is the MWC of yesteryear: good at the top, mediocre to horrible from the middle to the bottom.

Ehhh. All conferences are horrible at the bottom. The legit comparison is how does the bottom and middle compare to the middle and bottom of other conferences. Tulsa, one of the bottom teams lost 54-51 to Toledo, beat UL-L 66-42, and lost ot New Mexico 16-13. Another bottom team (Cinci) beat Miami Ohio 21-17 and Austin Peavy (but got smoked by Marshall and Michigan losing by 2 or more TD's). Tulane beat Army and Grambling--but lost to FIU.

So, the bottom of the AAC seems to win against the bottom teams from other conferences and mostly loses to the better teams from other conferences. Really, other than UConn---the bottom of the AAC isnt bad at all in comparison to the bottom of other G5's.

The difference is the other G5 conferences are not claiming to be a power conference. The only one that did was the MWC which often took jabs on the Big East and claimed to be the 7th AQ league (sounds familiar?) And that was a MWC that had a better trio at the top and beat multiple AQ schools than what the AAC has.

MWC never had a top trio at top though. When Boise Joined, Utah left. BYU was at best mid teens in that period. Also frankly, tough to compare BCS ratings with what we have now.

In the 7 years with BYU, Utah, and TCU together- the league had 12 top 25 teams end of bowl year.

so 14 to 21 years ago, the MWC which looked nothing like todays MWC was tough?

(11-20-2017 02:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The MWC claimed to be the 7th AQ league and its motto was "Above the Rest" (meaning the other nonAQs). The cartel made sure it didn't go anywhere and sadly the same will happen to the AAC. It's a travesty that an AAC school only makes 10% of what Rutgers will get in the Big Ten. It's even worse for the other G5s.

History has shown that only schools get promoted, not conferences. So the AAC is fighting a very uphill battle.

(11-21-2017 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 02:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The MWC claimed to be the 7th AQ league and its motto was "Above the Rest" (meaning the other nonAQs). The cartel made sure it didn't go anywhere and sadly the same will happen to the AAC. It's a travesty that an AAC school only makes 10% of what Rutgers will get in the Big Ten. It's even worse for the other G5s.

History has shown that only schools get promoted, not conferences. So the AAC is fighting a very uphill battle.

That's what I used to tell MWC fans ten years ago and that's what I tell AAC fans today. The cartel will cherry pick the school(s) they want and leave the rest behind.

(11-20-2017 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 09:55 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 08:57 AM)Chappy Wrote:  13% below the lowest P5 and 14% ahead of the next best G5. 18% behind the combined P5, and 17% ahead of the combined "G4". Not quite a power conference on the field, but ahead of the rest of the G5 by the same amount that we trail the big boys.

So, we're still in "tweener" land.

Except for real, and not just in our own minds.

Depends on what we mean by "for real". In terms of on-field performance, yes. But in terms of actual status within the money and power structure, we're still firmly G5, and let's face it, that matters far more than performance on the field.

After all, the "P" stands for "Power", not "Performance".

Well, what are we talking about exactly? Autonomy? +1 postseason access? Because if it's the latter, money and power should be irrelevant.

(11-21-2017 11:52 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 02:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The MWC claimed to be the 7th AQ league and its motto was "Above the Rest" (meaning the other nonAQs). The cartel made sure it didn't go anywhere and sadly the same will happen to the AAC. It's a travesty that an AAC school only makes 10% of what Rutgers will get in the Big Ten. It's even worse for the other G5s.

History has shown that only schools get promoted, not conferences. So the AAC is fighting a very uphill battle.

That's what I used to tell MWC fans ten years ago and that's what I tell AAC fans today. The cartel will cherry pick the school(s) they want and leave the rest behind.

Here is the thing--at this point, with rising P5 values, you'd need to be worth almost 50 million to prevent the dilution of the per team pay out in the Big10. Probably would need to be worth 30 million in the SECt ot be added without creating dilution (close to that in the other P5 conferences). So today, the threshold at which poaching a team from a developing conference makes sense is much different than it was in the past. Just look no further than the Big12 non-expansion decision last year.

So, in a conference like the AAC where there is almost a parity among the value of most of the schools, you can get to the 40-50K average attendance range with a 15-20 million per team media value range and still not offer any attractive P5 poaching targets.

I'd say by most any definition, a conference with an average attendance of 40K and with a per team payout of 15-20 million would be viewed as a low end power conference and certainly would be considered as something other than a run of the mill G5. Obviously, the AAC isnt anywhere near that yet--but it is a plausible avenue that really hasn't existed in the past simply due to the massive separation in earnings that has slowly developed between the P5 and non-power conferences. Basically, there isnt much risk of high performing AAC schools being poached with the P5 payouts at thier current levels.

(11-21-2017 12:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 11:52 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 02:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The MWC claimed to be the 7th AQ league and its motto was "Above the Rest" (meaning the other nonAQs). The cartel made sure it didn't go anywhere and sadly the same will happen to the AAC. It's a travesty that an AAC school only makes 10% of what Rutgers will get in the Big Ten. It's even worse for the other G5s.

History has shown that only schools get promoted, not conferences. So the AAC is fighting a very uphill battle.

That's what I used to tell MWC fans ten years ago and that's what I tell AAC fans today. The cartel will cherry pick the school(s) they want and leave the rest behind.

Here is the thing--at this point, with rising P5 values, you'd need to be worth almost 50 million to prevent the dilution of the per team pay out in the Big10. Probably would need to be worth 30 million in the SECt ot be added without creating dilution (close to that in the other P5 conferences). So today, the threshold at which poaching a team from a developing conference makes sense is much different than it was in the past. Just look no further than the Big12 non-expansion decision last year.

So, in a conference like the AAC where there is almost a parity among the value of most of the schools, you can get to the 40-50K average attendance range with a 15-20 million per team media value range and still not offer any attractive P5 poaching targets.

I'd say by most any definition, a conference with an average attendance of 40K and with a per team payout of 15-20 million would be viewed as a low end power conference and certainly would be considered as something other than a run of the mill G5. Obviously, the AAC isnt anywhere near that yet--but it is a plausible avenue that really hasn't existed in the past simply due to the massive separation in earnings that has slowly developed between the P5 and non-power conferences. Basically, there isnt much risk of high performing AAC schools being poached with the P5 payouts at thier current levels.

That's a lot of ifs.

The MWC met the criteria to become the 7th AQ league. It didn't happen. And no, you're not getting $15-20 million per school. That's wishful thinking. Best case scenario, you'll get a good raise, probably an extra $1 million per school, still way better than the other G5s though. If history has shown us is if you're labeled as a power league, you'll get paid. If you're not, you'll get the leftovers. It's been going on since the Alliance days which was the precursor to the BCS and I don't see it changing anytime soon. I just feel like I'm in a time machine saying exactly the same thing to MWC fans.

The MWC's mistake was failing to proactively take advantage of its opportunities when they would have counted. If the MWC had added Boise St., Fresno St., and Houston in 2008, the conference would have met every metric to be included as a BCS conference via the exemption process. Huge bump in perception and value! And, the MWC would have grown its market and distribution further into California and Texas and added a quality conference championship game. Horrible miss on that one.

Then, even when Utah bailed to the PAC, the conference would have had a much better chance to retain BYU. TCU, Boise, and SDSU to the Big East never happens. And, even when the Big 12 selected TCU, SMU would have been an easy back-fill.

And, then, there would have been a possible affiliation between the Big East/AAC and the MWC - if needed to keep an automatic NY6 bid together.

I believe there will be another opportunity to consider in fewer than 2 years; when the AAC, MWC, and BYU media contracts are all up for renewal after the 2019 football season.

(11-21-2017 01:53 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 12:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 11:52 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 02:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The MWC claimed to be the 7th AQ league and its motto was "Above the Rest" (meaning the other nonAQs). The cartel made sure it didn't go anywhere and sadly the same will happen to the AAC. It's a travesty that an AAC school only makes 10% of what Rutgers will get in the Big Ten. It's even worse for the other G5s.

History has shown that only schools get promoted, not conferences. So the AAC is fighting a very uphill battle.

That's what I used to tell MWC fans ten years ago and that's what I tell AAC fans today. The cartel will cherry pick the school(s) they want and leave the rest behind.

Here is the thing--at this point, with rising P5 values, you'd need to be worth almost 50 million to prevent the dilution of the per team pay out in the Big10. Probably would need to be worth 30 million in the SECt ot be added without creating dilution (close to that in the other P5 conferences). So today, the threshold at which poaching a team from a developing conference makes sense is much different than it was in the past. Just look no further than the Big12 non-expansion decision last year.

So, in a conference like the AAC where there is almost a parity among the value of most of the schools, you can get to the 40-50K average attendance range with a 15-20 million per team media value range and still not offer any attractive P5 poaching targets.

I'd say by most any definition, a conference with an average attendance of 40K and with a per team payout of 15-20 million would be viewed as a low end power conference and certainly would be considered as something other than a run of the mill G5. Obviously, the AAC isnt anywhere near that yet--but it is a plausible avenue that really hasn't existed in the past simply due to the massive separation in earnings that has slowly developed between the P5 and non-power conferences. Basically, there isnt much risk of high performing AAC schools being poached with the P5 payouts at thier current levels.

That's a lot of ifs.

The MWC met the criteria to become the 7th AQ league. It didn't happen. And no, you're not getting $15-20 million per school. That's wishful thinking. Best case scenario, you'll get a good raise, probably an extra $1 million per school, still way better than the other G5s though. If history has shown us is if you're labeled as a power league, you'll get paid. If you're not, you'll get the leftovers. It's been going on since the Alliance days which was the precursor to the BCS and I don't see it changing anytime soon. I just feel like I'm in a time machine saying exactly the same thing to MWC fans.

Thats actually not true. The MW never completely met all three BCS criteria required to become AQ. They only able to meet 2 of the 3 criteria in their applications. So they only qualified if the BCS gave them a waiver--which the BCS never chose to do.

As for there being a lot of "ifs'" in my statement--I agree. Again, I dont think the "P6" thing is anything more than a clever marketing campaign designed to differentiate the AAC from the other G5's and create more viewer interest in the product. I was simply pointing out that the with the power conferences essentially "full" with very high payouts---poaching G5's is far less attractive and the dynamic of stability is now in place for a conference to actually "develop" into something more than a feeder conference. I mean, just getting to an average of 40K in football attendance would take a decade of steady growth at the very least (probably longer). So, what I described would be a very slow process developing over multiple TV deals.

(11-21-2017 02:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 01:53 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 12:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 11:52 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  History has shown that only schools get promoted, not conferences. So the AAC is fighting a very uphill battle.

That's what I used to tell MWC fans ten years ago and that's what I tell AAC fans today. The cartel will cherry pick the school(s) they want and leave the rest behind.

Here is the thing--at this point, with rising P5 values, you'd need to be worth almost 50 million to prevent the dilution of the per team pay out in the Big10. Probably would need to be worth 30 million in the SECt ot be added without creating dilution (close to that in the other P5 conferences). So today, the threshold at which poaching a team from a developing conference makes sense is much different than it was in the past. Just look no further than the Big12 non-expansion decision last year.

So, in a conference like the AAC where there is almost a parity among the value of most of the schools, you can get to the 40-50K average attendance range with a 15-20 million per team media value range and still not offer any attractive P5 poaching targets.

I'd say by most any definition, a conference with an average attendance of 40K and with a per team payout of 15-20 million would be viewed as a low end power conference and certainly would be considered as something other than a run of the mill G5. Obviously, the AAC isnt anywhere near that yet--but it is a plausible avenue that really hasn't existed in the past simply due to the massive separation in earnings that has slowly developed between the P5 and non-power conferences. Basically, there isnt much risk of high performing AAC schools being poached with the P5 payouts at thier current levels.

That's a lot of ifs.

The MWC met the criteria to become the 7th AQ league. It didn't happen. And no, you're not getting $15-20 million per school. That's wishful thinking. Best case scenario, you'll get a good raise, probably an extra $1 million per school, still way better than the other G5s though. If history has shown us is if you're labeled as a power league, you'll get paid. If you're not, you'll get the leftovers. It's been going on since the Alliance days which was the precursor to the BCS and I don't see it changing anytime soon. I just feel like I'm in a time machine saying exactly the same thing to MWC fans.

Not true. The MW never completely met all three BCS criteria required to become AQ. They only able to meet 2 of the 3 criteria in their applications. So they only qualified if the BCS gave them a waiver--which the BCS never chose to do.

As for there being a lot of "ifs'" in my statement--I agree. Again, I dont think the "P6" thing is anything more than a clever marketing campaign designed to differentiate the AAC from the other G5's and create more viewer interest in the product. I was simply pointing out that the with the power conferences essentially "full" with very high payouts---poaching G5's is far less attractive and the dynamic of stability is now in place for a conference to actually "develop" into something more than a feeder conference. I mean, just getting to an average of 40K in football attendance would take a decade of steady growth at the very least (probably longer). So, what I described would be a very slow process.

True. They met two of three criteria with the possibility of an exemption for the third one and if I'm not mistaken, they were going to try but at that point Utah, TCU and BYU were leaving and the BCS was going away plus Boise State alone was not enough.

The question is, would schools like UConn, Cincinnati and Houston wait ten or twenty years for this steady growth to happen? My gut tells me no. I don't have anything against the AAC, I think it's the best of the rest and its basketball is solid but only time will tell if any of this will materialize. At worst you'll be the WAC of the 80's and early 90's, C-USA 1.0 or the MWC from 2005-11. Not a bad place to be.

(11-21-2017 12:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 11:52 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 02:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The MWC claimed to be the 7th AQ league and its motto was "Above the Rest" (meaning the other nonAQs). The cartel made sure it didn't go anywhere and sadly the same will happen to the AAC. It's a travesty that an AAC school only makes 10% of what Rutgers will get in the Big Ten. It's even worse for the other G5s.

History has shown that only schools get promoted, not conferences. So the AAC is fighting a very uphill battle.

That's what I used to tell MWC fans ten years ago and that's what I tell AAC fans today. The cartel will cherry pick the school(s) they want and leave the rest behind.

Here is the thing--at this point, with rising P5 values, you'd need to be worth almost 50 million to prevent the dilution of the per team pay out in the Big10. Probably would need to be worth 30 million in the SECt ot be added without creating dilution (close to that in the other P5 conferences). .... Basically, there isnt much risk of high performing AAC schools being poached with the P5 payouts at thier current levels.

I agree with this, though we did see the Big 12 clearly toy with the idea last year.

But remember, the main engine of P5 realignment in recent years hasn't been first-order invites from developing conferences, it's been P5 poaching each other. The ACC and B1G raiding the Big East, the SEC and B1G and PAC raiding the Big 12, the B1G raiding the ACC. Raids on developing conferences then came via falling dominos as raided conferences back-filled from lesser conferences.

The only non-AQ that i recall being promoted to Power level in the past 10 years without being backfill was the PAC inviting Utah in 2010, and even they are a tweener case because the PAC obviously settled on them after being rebuffed by the Big 12 Texas schools.

Since P5 schools are by definition already valued at $30m or $40m or whatever by media, those burgeoning TV deals don't represent the same barriers to entry for P5 on P5 raiding as they do for P5 directly inviting G5.

But it's also clear that once a P5 is raided they are likely to then dip down to G5 level to backfill, and the big TV deals don't stop that either, as that membership slot is already being paid for by the network. The sole exception to this that i know of is at the G5 level, where ESPN can actually reduce or eliminate its AAC contract should some of four designated schools exit the conference and be replaced by others.

So ... that threat is still very much alive to the AAC and MWC.

(11-21-2017 02:56 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 02:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 01:53 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 12:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 11:52 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  That's what I used to tell MWC fans ten years ago and that's what I tell AAC fans today. The cartel will cherry pick the school(s) they want and leave the rest behind.

Here is the thing--at this point, with rising P5 values, you'd need to be worth almost 50 million to prevent the dilution of the per team pay out in the Big10. Probably would need to be worth 30 million in the SECt ot be added without creating dilution (close to that in the other P5 conferences). So today, the threshold at which poaching a team from a developing conference makes sense is much different than it was in the past. Just look no further than the Big12 non-expansion decision last year.

So, in a conference like the AAC where there is almost a parity among the value of most of the schools, you can get to the 40-50K average attendance range with a 15-20 million per team media value range and still not offer any attractive P5 poaching targets.

I'd say by most any definition, a conference with an average attendance of 40K and with a per team payout of 15-20 million would be viewed as a low end power conference and certainly would be considered as something other than a run of the mill G5. Obviously, the AAC isnt anywhere near that yet--but it is a plausible avenue that really hasn't existed in the past simply due to the massive separation in earnings that has slowly developed between the P5 and non-power conferences. Basically, there isnt much risk of high performing AAC schools being poached with the P5 payouts at thier current levels.

That's a lot of ifs.

The MWC met the criteria to become the 7th AQ league. It didn't happen. And no, you're not getting $15-20 million per school. That's wishful thinking. Best case scenario, you'll get a good raise, probably an extra $1 million per school, still way better than the other G5s though. If history has shown us is if you're labeled as a power league, you'll get paid. If you're not, you'll get the leftovers. It's been going on since the Alliance days which was the precursor to the BCS and I don't see it changing anytime soon. I just feel like I'm in a time machine saying exactly the same thing to MWC fans.

Not true. The MW never completely met all three BCS criteria required to become AQ. They only able to meet 2 of the 3 criteria in their applications. So they only qualified if the BCS gave them a waiver--which the BCS never chose to do.

As for there being a lot of "ifs'" in my statement--I agree. Again, I dont think the "P6" thing is anything more than a clever marketing campaign designed to differentiate the AAC from the other G5's and create more viewer interest in the product. I was simply pointing out that the with the power conferences essentially "full" with very high payouts---poaching G5's is far less attractive and the dynamic of stability is now in place for a conference to actually "develop" into something more than a feeder conference. I mean, just getting to an average of 40K in football attendance would take a decade of steady growth at the very least (probably longer). So, what I described would be a very slow process.

True. They met two of three criteria with the possibility of an exemption for the third one and if I'm not mistaken, they were going to try but at that point Utah, TCU and BYU were leaving and the BCS was going away plus Boise State alone was not enough.

The question is, would schools like UConn, Cincinnati and Houston wait ten or twenty years for this steady growth to happen? My gut tells me no. I don't have anything against the AAC, I think it's the best of the rest and its basketball is solid but only time will tell if any of this will materialize. At worst you'll be the WAC of the 80's and early 90's, C-USA 1.0 or the MWC from 2005-11. Not a bad place to be.

Given a choice--no. But thats my entire point--I dont think they are going to have a choice because no AAC school appears as if it will be worth 30-50 million to a P5 conference anytime soon. Thus, there wont be any P5 conference giving them "come hither" looks until they can increase the per team pay out of a P5 conference. That stasis is what could give a conference like the AAC time to develop into something more.

(11-19-2017 02:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 08:57 AM)Chappy Wrote:  The P5 haven't been able to beat our top teams either. The #8 team in the country barely slipped past our 4th or 5th best team last night.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, though... The p6 thing is strictly a marketing ploy, and I think it's working.

W% vs non-conference teams:

SEC - 86%
B1G - 76%
B12 - 67%
P12 - 77%
ACC - 71%

"P5" - 76%

AAC - 58%

"G4" - 41%

MAC - 44%
MWC - 44%
USA - 43%
SBC - 34%

13% below the lowest P5 and 14% ahead of the next best G5. 18% behind the combined P5, and 17% ahead of the combined "G4". Not quite a power conference on the field, but ahead of the rest of the G5 by the same amount that we trail the big boys.

3 Top 25 schools.

We are making progress, and that's with 2 of the 3 old Big East school's football teams in the crapper right now. Progress is being made, and with 1/10th the resources that the power schools have. Give it another few years. We're getting there.

Are those win percents just for this year?

In any case, non-conference records alone don't tell you very much. You need to look at the quality of the opponents.

Yes, they are just this season. Source: http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

Conference Seasons are remembered by what the top teams did. AAC is having a great year.