I am on record with this and will write it again:

Having Navy is HUGELY important to the AAC. I am 110 percent pleased to have Navy as a league mate. I will say the same thing about Wichita.

(05-01-2021 01:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

4xGrad Wrote:Navy, I am going to suggest that Trill House is a very young kid.

I'm going to back your suspicion up on that. Using the term "boomer" is a dead give-away.

Gen Z love that term.

increase fan base attendance
it’s how big our fan base becomes to know our strategy

USFFan

(05-01-2021 05:25 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I am on record with this and will write it again:

Having Navy is HUGELY important to the AAC. I am 110 percent pleased to have Navy as a league mate. I will say the same thing about Wichita.

I concur. Navy gives us a leg up above the other G4 conferences including the MWC in TV negotiations. They make a difference because of the Army v. Navy game. That game is the single most important game in the AAC negotiations. It ups the ante. It is always a well viewed game no matter the records of either team.

We need more must see TV. To me that is what BYU, Boise, plus one bring. Plus it is clearly head and shoulders above the rest with 14 teams who all contribute.

Boise and BYU are must-see TV? Maybe in the 1-15/I-84 corridor, but in the existing AAC footprint, I doubt many viewers give a hoot about either school or its fortunes.

(05-02-2021 03:51 PM)colohank Wrote:  Boise and BYU are must-see TV? Maybe in the 1-15/I-84 corridor, but in the existing AAC footprint, I doubt many viewers give a hoot about either school or its fortunes.

Most of the time I would say you are correct, UNTIL their fortunes intersect with AAC fortunes, such as they are playing each other or competing with each other for rankings and play off/ bowl appearance positioning. Then we are all watching each other... At least most of us.

I would think most on here will be watching UCF-BSU on sept.2... at least that is what I would guess. Does that effect Cincy directly... no but it will give an eyeball test that once Cincy plays UCF will open up all kinds of discussions and musings.

(05-02-2021 03:51 PM)colohank Wrote:  Boise and BYU are must-see TV? Maybe in the 1-15/I-84 corridor, but in the existing AAC footprint, I doubt many viewers give a hoot about either school or its fortunes.

You don't think that Cincinnati fans or Memphis fans or UCF fans or Navy fans would be interested in seeing their teams play Boise and BYU?

Seriously?

We won't have to wait long to find out, which we will when the viewership numbers for the Boise State - UCF game come out in September.

.

(05-02-2021 03:51 PM)colohank Wrote:  Boise and BYU are must-see TV? Maybe in the 1-15/I-84 corridor, but in the existing AAC footprint, I doubt many viewers give a hoot about either school or its fortunes.

Are you joking? Schedule a game with BYU at YOUR stadium, 1,500 miles from Provo. and re-assess this comment the next day.

I do agree that Boise with a harder schedule and worse record has way diminished value. BYU, however, will come in with a 1-6 record and fill a third of your stadium, which means that their fans everywhere else are watching on TV.

(05-02-2021 10:21 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  increase fan base attendance
it’s how big our fan base becomes to know our strategy

This can't be true. Panama comes over to this board with the gospel & tells us over & over it's just media market size that counts (apparently even if the schools don't garner any of said market).

(05-02-2021 07:11 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 03:51 PM)colohank Wrote:  Boise and BYU are must-see TV? Maybe in the 1-15/I-84 corridor, but in the existing AAC footprint, I doubt many viewers give a hoot about either school or its fortunes.

You don't think that Cincinnati fans or Memphis fans or UCF fans or Navy fans would be interested in seeing their teams play Boise and BYU?

I don't see the desirability of adding BYU and/or Boise. TV will not pony up much, if any, more money, and we do not need them to dominate a playoff spot in a 5-1-6 system.

They would just be two more mouths to feed, and two teams that could take away playoff spots from current AAC members, and they add massive travel distance.

The AAC would be throwing them a life-line to playoff relevance. I say let them drown.

(05-02-2021 04:19 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 03:51 PM)colohank Wrote:  Boise and BYU are must-see TV? Maybe in the 1-15/I-84 corridor, but in the existing AAC footprint, I doubt many viewers give a hoot about either school or its fortunes.

Most of the time I would say you are correct, UNTIL their fortunes intersect with AAC fortunes, such as they are playing each other or competing with each other for rankings and play off/ bowl appearance positioning. Then we are all watching each other... At least most of us.

I would think most on here will be watching UCF-BSU on sept.2... at least that is what I would guess. Does that effect Cincy directly... no but it will give an eyeball test that once Cincy plays UCF will open up all kinds of discussions and musings.

That may be true of all manner of unusual or occasional matchups (recent UC vs. UCLA home-and-home comes to mind), but it's not something upon which to build a conference.

(05-03-2021 08:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 07:11 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 03:51 PM)colohank Wrote:  Boise and BYU are must-see TV? Maybe in the 1-15/I-84 corridor, but in the existing AAC footprint, I doubt many viewers give a hoot about either school or its fortunes.

You don't think that Cincinnati fans or Memphis fans or UCF fans or Navy fans would be interested in seeing their teams play Boise and BYU?

I don't see the desirability of adding BYU and/or Boise. TV will not pony up much, if any, more money, and we do not need them to dominate a playoff spot in a 5-1-6 system.

They would just be two more mouths to feed, and two teams that could take away playoff spots from current AAC members, and they add massive travel distance.

The AAC would be throwing them a life-line to playoff relevance. I say let them drown.

As I see it, the only driver for expansion will be if the AAC is required to add a 12th team to get to divisions in order to have a championship game, because the rules continue to be either divisions with a full round robin or a full round robin without a division. There have been rumblings that some other conferences would also like to do away with divisions, so if we tap into that and thus aren't forced to add a 12th school to hold the championship game, I don't think we'll expand at all. If, however, we ARE forced to add schools, THEN I think there's considerable value in adding one (or more) of BYU, Boise, etc.

So many of us are putting the cart WAY in front of the horse, though...

USFFan

(05-02-2021 07:11 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 03:51 PM)colohank Wrote:  Boise and BYU are must-see TV? Maybe in the 1-15/I-84 corridor, but in the existing AAC footprint, I doubt many viewers give a hoot about either school or its fortunes.

You don't think that Cincinnati fans or Memphis fans or UCF fans or Navy fans would be interested in seeing their teams play Boise and BYU?

(05-03-2021 08:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't see the desirability of adding BYU and/or Boise. TV will not pony up much, if any, more money, and we do not need them to dominate a playoff spot in a 5-1-6 system.

They would just be two more mouths to feed, and two teams that could take away playoff spots from current AAC members, and they add massive travel distance.

The AAC would be throwing them a life-line to playoff relevance. I say let them drown.

That strikes me as being a somewhat preposterous thing to say, because of all the people who are writing about this, I've had the (perhaps incorrect) impression - up until now - that you had been following the news closely enough to know that it absolutely conflicts with what Commissioner Aresco has said on the subject in 2021.

However, i could be wrong. Perhaps you haven't read anything that he has been quoted as having said in 2021.

Besides, it doesn't really matter what I think. The only thing that does matter is what the leadership of the conference thinks, and it has been made clear that the conference leadership has put considerable effort into trying to bring Boise State into the conference.

Not only that, but Commissioner Aresco has also made it clear this year, for the first time, that the conference is actively considering the idea of expanding to 14 teams.

He mentioned it in the context of the conference's efforts to achieve autonomous and P6 conference status, and there was a clear suggestion that expansion might be a sine qua non for the conference if it wants to become an autonomous P6 conference.

So the most accurate response to your post is that, when you wrote what you wrote, you simple didn't realize that the conference has already decided to replace UConn.

(05-03-2021 09:58 AM)usffan Wrote:  As I see it, the only driver for expansion will be if the AAC is required to add a 12th team to get to divisions in order to have a championship game, because the rules continue to be either divisions with a full round robin or a full round robin without a division.

Gee, three responses from people who seem not to have read anything that Commissioner Aresco has said on this subject thus far in 2021!

I may be somewhat taken aback, but am not trying to mock or condemn anyone for not reading the Aresco pressers or interviews. People are busy with other stuff - - why should everybody know what Aresco has said on the subject in 2021?

This is all that needs to be said: what you and the others are being quoted as having said here simply flies in the face of all the recent indications that we have gotten that the conference strongly prefers to replace UConn. In fact, Commissioner Aresco came right out and stated that in one of his most recent press conferences/interviews that the conference has abandoned the idea of going forward with only 11 teams.

(05-03-2021 09:58 AM)usffan Wrote:  There have been rumblings that some other conferences would also like to do away with divisions, so if we tap into that and thus aren't forced to add a 12th school to hold the championship game, I don't think we'll expand at all.

This is the kind of thing that people were writing last Summer and Fall, before the news came out that the AAC had shown an active interest in adding Boise as a FB-only member of the conference last August and continuing through the Fall, and also before Aresco's statements making it clear that the conference wants/plans to replace UConn and has made it clear in recent weeks that it is considering the possibility of expanding to 14 FB and BB schools.

The three of you simply haven't had time to follow the news very closely - - that's all.

.

(05-03-2021 10:51 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  This is all that needs to be said: what you and the others are being quoted as having said here simply flies in the face of all the recent indications that we have gotten that the conference strongly prefers to replace UConn. In fact, Commissioner Aresco came right out and stated that in one of his most recent press conferences/interviews that the conference has abandoned the idea of going forward with only 11 teams.

This.
Is.
Incorrect.

(05-03-2021 11:30 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 10:51 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  This is all that needs to be said: what you and the others are being quoted as having said here simply flies in the face of all the recent indications that we have gotten that the conference strongly prefers to replace UConn. In fact, Commissioner Aresco came right out and stated that in one of his most recent press conferences/interviews that the conference has abandoned the idea of going forward with only 11 teams.

This.
Is.
Incorrect.

Glad someone is fact checking

(05-03-2021 11:30 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 10:51 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  This is all that needs to be said: what you and the others are being quoted as having said here simply flies in the face of all the recent indications that we have gotten that the conference strongly prefers to replace UConn. In fact, Commissioner Aresco came right out and stated that in one of his most recent press conferences/interviews that the conference has abandoned the idea of going forward with only 11 teams.

This.
Is.
Incorrect.

Exactly. The path has been explained numerous times. The conference "prefers" 12 members. The conference "prefers" divisional play. However, the conference has also made it crystal clear it is determined not to fill the slot until a candidate emerges that clearly and obviously adds value to the conference. The list of acceptable "value adding" candidates is short---BYU, Boise, Army, and probably Air Force. When asked specifically about legit candidates----Aresco often says something to the effect that "everybody knows the names---Im not going to into it, but everyone has a good idea who they are".

Until then, the conference has made it clear it will not settle on a lesser quality pick and that it is perfectly fine with playing with 11 teams until one of its value adding picks is available (or a new value adding pick develops from the currently non-value adding scrum---which would be years or decades from now). Thus, until one of those preferred picks is willing to join the AAC in the manner that we prefer (ie--they might have to be a "football only" member for it to make "value adding" sense to the AAC)---then I would not hold my breath when it comes to expecting that 12th slot invite to be announced anytime soon.

(04-21-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:54 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 12:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:49 AM)hammannja Wrote:  Within the discussion of college football play-off expansion, the goal of both the Big10 and the SEC may be to increase the chances of getting additional Big10 and SEC teams into the playoffs while not watering down the per game pay-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. It is likely not about some notion of access or fairness. A G-5 auto-bid might reasonably be perceived as counter-productive to their leagues' goals and picking an expanded format that removes this option as a possibility might be where the two most important conferences in college football settle. And if that's where these two conferences settle, I suspect that is where expansion will settle.

Totally unfair, yes. But the commissioners are charged by their Boards of Governors with thinking about the interests of their member schools, not the interests of college football as a whole. The same can be said for Aresco.

I tend to think that is correct, and it is a point that gets missed around here. On these boards, the overwhelming belief seems to be that an 8-team playoff with a 5-1-2 structure, one that guarantees an autobid to a G5 team, is the most likely outcome of playoff expansion. It's also a favorite of sportswriters, because it allows them to take a "populist stance" against the perceived established powers of the sport.

But I have my doubts, for the reason you expressed - that may not maximize the benefits to the SEC and B1G, the two 800-pound gorillas of college football.

That gets missed on football boards because 5-1-2 would obviously benefit the G5, and the AAC likely most of all, and of course on this forum and others around here, G5 and AAC fans tend to predominate. But that doesn't mean this view reflects the views of those who will make the decisions.

Seems like the Big 10 and SEC (the SEC at least) would be the most likely recipients of the 2 in that scenario. Doesn't seem like two more at-large opportunities would hurt them. The recipient last year would have been Texas A&M or Florida(assuming Oklahoma and USC are shifted into the mix with titles).

That's one way to look at it. Another is that a guaranteed spot for the G5 - or for any of the other P5 for that matter - could take a spot away from yet another SEC or B1G team.

Under 5-1-2, and using CFP rankings as a guide, in 2020, Florida would have missed the playoffs due to the PAC champ getting in. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs due to the G5 team (Memphis) getting in.

Those are sports those conferences may not want to give up, and thus prefer a straight-8 model or 5-3 model.

But with respect to Wisconsin---the Pac12 WOULD favor it because the Pac-12 champ would have been INCLUDED. The fact is, every P5 has been left out except the SEC. From a P5 standpoint, there will be 3 more slots open to P5's EVERY year than there are now. The problem the P5 has is the current argument that "the G5 is eligible for the playoff" will be dead after 12 years of the Selection Committee saying the undefeated G5's simply dont have the strength of schedule to be ranked that high. Effectively, the structure of the CFP is saying the G5 is not eligible. Furthermore, making it a 8 team playoff---while leaving the selection committee heavily tilted in favor of P5 representation simply makes it more likely that the 9th ranking slot will become the new G5 "glass ceiling" as promoting a G5 above that rank will cost a P5 conference a slot.

The problem is there is no real way to determine relative strength when a team wins all its games against a weaker schedule. All we know is they were better than everyone they played. What we HAVE seen is that when tested against top 10 P5 team's that did play a tough P5 schedule---these undefeated G5 teams are generally quite competitive and quite often win. Thus, in light of the fact G5's can do little to make their schedules look like a P5 schedule---and in light of fact that the top G5 representative when tested has proven worthy far more often than not---there is really no logical argument to continue with any system that will essentially forever lock out the top finisher of literally half of the FBS conferences.

Giving each P5 champion a playoff slot and awarding the top G5 champ a playoff slot (effectively treating the entire 65 member G5 the same as one power conference) may not be the perfect answer---but its far more reasonable and equitable than the current system. To me---its the only logical compromise that makes much sense.

I like a 6 team playoff with the top G-6 (Cincinnati) in play. The format of a bye for the top two teams means that the top G-6 (six seed) will be paired up against the three seed. Beating the three seed and advancing to playing the two seed would be a nice path to playing in the championship game.

(05-03-2021 01:24 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:54 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 12:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I tend to think that is correct, and it is a point that gets missed around here. On these boards, the overwhelming belief seems to be that an 8-team playoff with a 5-1-2 structure, one that guarantees an autobid to a G5 team, is the most likely outcome of playoff expansion. It's also a favorite of sportswriters, because it allows them to take a "populist stance" against the perceived established powers of the sport.

But I have my doubts, for the reason you expressed - that may not maximize the benefits to the SEC and B1G, the two 800-pound gorillas of college football.

That gets missed on football boards because 5-1-2 would obviously benefit the G5, and the AAC likely most of all, and of course on this forum and others around here, G5 and AAC fans tend to predominate. But that doesn't mean this view reflects the views of those who will make the decisions.

Seems like the Big 10 and SEC (the SEC at least) would be the most likely recipients of the 2 in that scenario. Doesn't seem like two more at-large opportunities would hurt them. The recipient last year would have been Texas A&M or Florida(assuming Oklahoma and USC are shifted into the mix with titles).

That's one way to look at it. Another is that a guaranteed spot for the G5 - or for any of the other P5 for that matter - could take a spot away from yet another SEC or B1G team.

Under 5-1-2, and using CFP rankings as a guide, in 2020, Florida would have missed the playoffs due to the PAC champ getting in. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs due to the G5 team (Memphis) getting in.

Those are sports those conferences may not want to give up, and thus prefer a straight-8 model or 5-3 model.

But with respect to Wisconsin---the Pac12 WOULD favor it because the Pac-12 champ would have been INCLUDED. The fact is, every P5 has been left out except the SEC. From a P5 standpoint, there will be 3 more slots open to P5's EVERY year than there are now. The problem the P5 has is the current argument that "the G5 is eligible for the playoff" will be dead after 12 years of the Selection Committee saying the undefeated G5's simply dont have the strength of schedule to be ranked that high. Effectively, the structure of the CFP is saying the G5 is not eligible. Furthermore, making it a 8 team playoff---while leaving the selection committee heavily tilted in favor of P5 representation simply makes it more likely that the 9th ranking slot will become the new G5 "glass ceiling" as promoting a G5 above that rank will cost a P5 conference a slot.

The problem is there is no real way to determine relative strength when a team wins all its games against a weaker schedule. All we know is they were better than everyone they played. What we HAVE seen is that when tested against top 10 P5 team's that did play a tough P5 schedule---these undefeated G5 teams are generally quite competitive and quite often win. Thus, in light of the fact G5's can do little to make their schedules look like a P5 schedule---and in light of fact that the top G5 representative when tested has proven worthy far more often than not---there is really no logical argument to continue with any system that will essentially forever lock out the top finisher of literally half of the FBS conferences.

Giving each P5 champion a playoff slot and awarding the top G5 champ a playoff slot (effectively treating the entire 65 member G5 the same as one power conference) may not be the perfect answer---but its far more reasonable and equitable than the current system. To me---its the only logical compromise that makes much sense.

I like a 6 team playoff with the top G-6 (Cincinnati) in play. The format of a bye for the top two teams means that the top G-6 (six seed) will be paired up against the three seed. Beating the three seed and advancing to playing the two seed would be a nice path to playing in the championship game.

Six teams sounds like it is probably among the least likely formats from what I just read. This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of ths the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion. Three interesting things---MOST CFP Management members (10 conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD) were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion. This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning. And of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

(05-03-2021 07:19 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 03:51 PM)colohank Wrote:  Boise and BYU are must-see TV? Maybe in the 1-15/I-84 corridor, but in the existing AAC footprint, I doubt many viewers give a hoot about either school or its fortunes.

Are you joking? Schedule a game with BYU at YOUR stadium, 1,500 miles from Provo. and re-assess this comment the next day.

I do agree that Boise with a harder schedule and worse record has way diminished value. BYU, however, will come in with a 1-6 record and fill a third of your stadium, which means that their fans everywhere else are watching on TV.

no kidding. BYU played at UC a few years ago, and I was amazed how many BYU fans were there. too bad it was when the senator was still (nominally) coaching, which led to BYU kicking the crap out of UC that day.