All schools will have to rely on increased alumni donations moving forward to stay in the race. College athletics is failing and losing fans.

I 'd like to know why the AAC invited Tulsa and Tulane? Nothing special about these programs (to me at least). They both seem to have very small fan bases.

(08-09-2018 09:19 AM)ODUODUODU Wrote:  I 'd like to know why the AAC invited Tulsa and Tulane? Nothing special about these programs (to me at least). They both seem to have very small fan bases.

They definitely don't add much to the athletic side, but they are the top 2 schools for academics in the conference and New Orleans is a great recruiting area for football. Not saying these are great reasons, but they are some reasons.

P6????

(08-09-2018 09:44 AM)SouthernMiss3613 Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 09:19 AM)ODUODUODU Wrote:  I 'd like to know why the AAC invited Tulsa and Tulane? Nothing special about these programs (to me at least). They both seem to have very small fan bases.

They definitely don't add much to the athletic side, but they are the top 2 schools for academics in the conference and New Orleans is a great recruiting area for football. Not saying these are great reasons, but they are some reasons.

Yup. Gotta remember that university presidents make these decisions--and while many are sports fans---all of them relish the idea of rubbing elbows with academically elite schools. There is some evidence to support the idea that sharing a conference with high end academic schools actually aids in improving not just the academic perception of ones own school---but it actually tends to lead to improvements in academic performance and the academic ranking the school receives. To me---a sports league should be about sports---but I guess I thats just me.

More like PC conference, PayCut Conference.

First a pay cut in conference Revenue and now coaches pay cut from a member school.

Yep "power" conference

The "P6" marketing is really working Aresco!

(08-09-2018 09:03 AM)SVHerd Wrote:  All schools will have to rely on increased alumni donations moving forward to stay in the race. College athletics is failing and losing fans.

Schools aren't losing fans, the fanbase is just changing. The younger fans would rather stay home and watch the game from the comfort of their own couch rather than get up maybe drive an hour half two hours away, search for a parking place you have to pay 10-20 dollars for, maybe tailgate a lil, watch the game and then have to drive back home the 1 1/2 2 hour drive.

Now there are less younger people watching sports over all, in a recent poll I seen only 42% of college age (17-25) said they pay attention to college sports, same poll taken 13 years ago was 79%. When broken down by sport though football is basically the same 67% in the poll and 74% 13 years ago.

We have traditionally being one of the universities with the lowest pay in the country. Our new AD, football, and basketball head coaches all received a nice bump in pay compared to the previous three.

Maybe all three were being overpaid in the first place? Wouldn't be the first time that happened.

(08-09-2018 09:19 AM)ODUODUODU Wrote:  I 'd like to know why the AAC invited Tulsa and Tulane? Nothing special about these programs (to me at least). They both seem to have very small fan bases.

If they had stopped at 9 (not adding Tulane, East Carolina, or Tulsa), they may have had a stronger P6 argument.

(08-10-2018 05:11 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 09:19 AM)ODUODUODU Wrote:  I 'd like to know why the AAC invited Tulsa and Tulane? Nothing special about these programs (to me at least). They both seem to have very small fan bases.

If they had stopped at 9 (not adding Tulane, East Carolina, or Tulsa), they may have had a stronger P6 argument.

They don't have a P6 argument to begin with, stopping at 9 wouldn't change that. They may be tops among all G5 conferences, but they're still considerably closer to the Sun Belt than they are to any P5 member.

(08-10-2018 12:11 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  [quote='ESE84' pid='15424772' dateline='1533895895']


They don't have a P6 argument to begin with, stopping at 9 wouldn't change that. They may be tops among all G5 conferences, but they're still considerably closer to the Sun Belt than they are to any P5 member.

I think the P6 branding is an attempt to keep the unfair playoff system from becoming permanently baked-in and challenging the misperception that G5 schools can't compete on the field with P5 schools.

I think it benefits all G5 schools. Most other G5 conferences don't seem to be actively challenging the P5 status quo narrative. I also don't think the other G5 conferences should be offended by the AAC doing it. The target is the P5 conferences, not the G5.

Tulsa will be just fine even without the yearly $15m they will be getting in next years new networks deal and then the cfp money and when Houston wins the NY6 bowl the amount Tulsa will be receiving will be pushing $20m pretty much yearly
Put that in your pipe and smoke it

(08-10-2018 01:24 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:11 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  They don't have a P6 argument to begin with, stopping at 9 wouldn't change that. They may be tops among all G5 conferences, but they're still considerably closer to the Sun Belt than they are to any P5 member.

I think the P6 branding is an attempt to keep the unfair playoff system from becoming permanently baked-in and challenging the misperception that G5 schools can't compete on the field with P5 schools.

I think it benefits all G5 schools. Most other G5 conferences don't seem to be actively challenging the P5 status quo narrative. I also don't think the other G5 conferences should be offended by the AAC doing it. The target is the P5 conferences, not the G5.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't mean their argument is at all sound.

Again, the gap between the AAC and the P5 is larger than the gap between the AAC and the Sun Belt.

(08-10-2018 02:00 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 01:24 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:11 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  They don't have a P6 argument to begin with, stopping at 9 wouldn't change that. They may be tops among all G5 conferences, but they're still considerably closer to the Sun Belt than they are to any P5 member.

I think the P6 branding is an attempt to keep the unfair playoff system from becoming permanently baked-in and challenging the misperception that G5 schools can't compete on the field with P5 schools.

I think it benefits all G5 schools. Most other G5 conferences don't seem to be actively challenging the P5 status quo narrative. I also don't think the other G5 conferences should be offended by the AAC doing it. The target is the P5 conferences, not the G5.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't mean their argument is at all sound.

Again, the gap between the AAC and the P5 is larger than the gap between the AAC and the Sun Belt.

If there wasn't a gap there would be no reason to push it.

(08-10-2018 02:33 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 02:00 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 01:24 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:11 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  They don't have a P6 argument to begin with, stopping at 9 wouldn't change that. They may be tops among all G5 conferences, but they're still considerably closer to the Sun Belt than they are to any P5 member.

I think the P6 branding is an attempt to keep the unfair playoff system from becoming permanently baked-in and challenging the misperception that G5 schools can't compete on the field with P5 schools.

I think it benefits all G5 schools. Most other G5 conferences don't seem to be actively challenging the P5 status quo narrative. I also don't think the other G5 conferences should be offended by the AAC doing it. The target is the P5 conferences, not the G5.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't mean their argument is at all sound.

Again, the gap between the AAC and the P5 is larger than the gap between the AAC and the Sun Belt.

If there wasn't a gap there would be no reason to push it.

And you think putting a silly P6 sticker on helmet will change anything. First a decline in conference revenue and now a member school making pay cuts, it is clearly working.


It is all about money and the P5 schools aren’t sharing

(08-10-2018 05:11 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 09:19 AM)ODUODUODU Wrote:  I 'd like to know why the AAC invited Tulsa and Tulane? Nothing special about these programs (to me at least). They both seem to have very small fan bases.

If they had stopped at 9 (not adding Tulane, East Carolina, or Tulsa), they may have had a stronger P6 argument.

The private schools really do hurt them athletically. Temple and Navy can pull their weight, but the other three are a drag. They made a big mistake adding them. They should have grabbed Louisiana Tech and Southern Mississippi.

(08-10-2018 01:24 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:11 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  [quote='ESE84' pid='15424772' dateline='1533895895']


They don't have a P6 argument to begin with, stopping at 9 wouldn't change that. They may be tops among all G5 conferences, but they're still considerably closer to the Sun Belt than they are to any P5 member.

I think the P6 branding is an attempt to keep the unfair playoff system from becoming permanently baked-in and challenging the misperception that G5 schools can't compete on the field with P5 schools.

I think it benefits all G5 schools. Most other G5 conferences don't seem to be actively challenging the P5 status quo narrative. I also don't think the other G5 conferences should be offended by the AAC doing it. The target is the P5 conferences, not the G5.

I'm not sure if there's a tangible benefit to be had but it's definitely not being done for the benefit of all of G5. It's a calculated attempt to differentiate the AAC from the rest of the non-power conferences by an implied association with the power ones (at least casually). Which is fine, it's the conference's choice how to market itself, but the only way to get fans to buy in on the idea that there's not enough difference between the two levels to justify the oceanic gap in coverage and TV revenue is by beating them as much as possible, and that's something you can do no matter what you call yourself.

(08-10-2018 05:11 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 09:19 AM)ODUODUODU Wrote:  I 'd like to know why the AAC invited Tulsa and Tulane? Nothing special about these programs (to me at least). They both seem to have very small fan bases.

If they had stopped at 9 (not adding Tulane, East Carolina, or Tulsa), they may have had a stronger P6 argument.

9 is a weird number. 8 or 10 is much nicer.