I’m in the “Aresco is overpaid” camp. I don’t think they should be paying a low end P5 salary when the AAC’s income is no where near low P5 level.

Nothing against Aresco, but I think he costs more than what the AAC should be spending on a commissioner.

(06-09-2021 11:10 AM)vick mike Wrote:  Aresco has done a good job, I vote keep him. For the poster who said we were supposed to get $10-$15M per school, please don’t Bogart that joint, my friend.

The 10-15 million a school estimate was when Aresco was hired---when Notre Dame, Lousiville, Rutgers, and the C-7 were all still part of the conference. Keep in mind, the "expected low end" value of a Boise "football only" share was supposedly 6 million. In order for a "football only" share to be 6 million the all-sports schools needed to be getting 9 million. Like it or not---that 10-15 WAS the expectation for the presidents at the time Aresco was hired. I suspect that was because that lower end was around the prior offer the Big East had rejected. Regardless---paying a guy a 1.6 million for a commissioner in the summer of 2012 didnt seem out of line. Knowing what we do now--it makes much less sense for the AAC to pay a commissioner that much.

(06-09-2021 07:35 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:03 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I don’t know if anything/one could have saved the big east. I look at it as the cost of doing business. It’s easy to say, but hard to prove that someone else could have done just as good of a job making less money. He’s obviously a good negotiator, both for himself and the conference (couldn’t move the original contract, but the NY6 tie wouldn’t be a thing w/o him as none of the other G5 commissioners stepped up). You get what you pay for, and he works as hard as any of the top P5 commissioners. Would he work as hard if he was paid less? IDK what motivates him. Obviously, the schools are okay with his salary or it wouldn’t be approved.

Actually money is not a good indicator of extra motivation. Studies show motivation is much more intrinsically tied to purpose of job and whether or not someone feels appreciated in the job. Aresco seems to be purpose driven and dedicated to making this conference on par with the P5. So, imo, he is purpose driven. Oh, the money is of course important, but I believe Aresco is motivated by other things.

I truly don't know what motivates him, but won't knock him for what he's able to get...compensation wise. Just think those who assume anyone could the same results at a reduced cost are guessing, at best...

(06-09-2021 01:08 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:35 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:03 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I don’t know if anything/one could have saved the big east. I look at it as the cost of doing business. It’s easy to say, but hard to prove that someone else could have done just as good of a job making less money. He’s obviously a good negotiator, both for himself and the conference (couldn’t move the original contract, but the NY6 tie wouldn’t be a thing w/o him as none of the other G5 commissioners stepped up). You get what you pay for, and he works as hard as any of the top P5 commissioners. Would he work as hard if he was paid less? IDK what motivates him. Obviously, the schools are okay with his salary or it wouldn’t be approved.

Actually money is not a good indicator of extra motivation. Studies show motivation is much more intrinsically tied to purpose of job and whether or not someone feels appreciated in the job. Aresco seems to be purpose driven and dedicated to making this conference on par with the P5. So, imo, he is purpose driven. Oh, the money is of course important, but I believe Aresco is motivated by other things.

I truly don't know what motivates him, but won't knock him for what he's able to get...compensation wise. Just think those who assume anyone could the same results at a reduced cost are guessing, at best...

As are those that say a cheaper alternative would not have ended up with the same or perhaps even better results.

(06-09-2021 12:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Knowing what we do now--it makes much less sense for the AAC to pay a commissioner that much.

it makes perfect sense... we didnt pay aresco based on conference revenue expectations... aresco makes more than p5 commissioners who were guaranteed to make more as a conference...
we payed him to navigate the impossible... it was viewed as an almost near certainty that the big east would implode when he was hired (GoRs werent a thing then)...

80%+ of the posters here believe becoming a power conference is a near impossibility but want to get a generic salary commish to attempt to accomplish that

if every single president in the aac had the ability to look into the future and see where we are now, compared to where we were then 100% of them would sign the deal in a heart beat

(06-09-2021 01:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 01:08 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:35 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:03 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I don’t know if anything/one could have saved the big east. I look at it as the cost of doing business. It’s easy to say, but hard to prove that someone else could have done just as good of a job making less money. He’s obviously a good negotiator, both for himself and the conference (couldn’t move the original contract, but the NY6 tie wouldn’t be a thing w/o him as none of the other G5 commissioners stepped up). You get what you pay for, and he works as hard as any of the top P5 commissioners. Would he work as hard if he was paid less? IDK what motivates him. Obviously, the schools are okay with his salary or it wouldn’t be approved.

Actually money is not a good indicator of extra motivation. Studies show motivation is much more intrinsically tied to purpose of job and whether or not someone feels appreciated in the job. Aresco seems to be purpose driven and dedicated to making this conference on par with the P5. So, imo, he is purpose driven. Oh, the money is of course important, but I believe Aresco is motivated by other things.

I truly don't know what motivates him, but won't knock him for what he's able to get...compensation wise. Just think those who assume anyone could the same results at a reduced cost are guessing, at best...

As are those that say a cheaper alternative would not have ended up with the same or perhaps even better results.

Meh, the results are the results. What he achieved cant be discounted. Would have others come close, who knows?

ETA: Other G5 commissioners surely didn't make the mark if that’s the comparison base..

(06-09-2021 01:32 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 12:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Knowing what we do now--it makes much less sense for the AAC to pay a commissioner that much.

it makes perfect sense... we didnt pay aresco based on conference revenue expectations... aresco makes more than p5 commissioners who were guaranteed to make more as a conference...
we payed him to navigate the impossible... it was viewed as an almost near certainty that the big east would implode when he was hired (GoRs werent a thing then)...

80%+ of the posters here believe becoming a power conference is a near impossibility but want to get a generic salary commish to attempt to accomplish that

if every single president in the aac had the ability to look into the future and see where we are now, compared to where we were then 100% of them would sign the deal in a heart beat

Aresco was hired in the summer. All those articles are from the fall when the wholsale defections began....despite Aresco's leadership by the way. Again--my point is Aresco has not accomplished anything beyond what one would expect--nor has he accomplished less than one would expect. His first TV deal he got more than CUSA with a line up that was better than CUSA. Whats the basis for greatness there? Aresco lost a dozen schools in 3 months. Where's the greatness? He didnt stop a single defection. His rushed decision to add Tulane and ECU likely wrecked the western wing we were building. That was a clear misstep at the time.

My point is not that Aresco is a bad commissioner. He is not. In fact, I think he's quite good. That said--he hasnt done anything that would lead me to believe it couldnt have been accomplished by Thompson or Banowski if they had the same line up of schools to sell. In fact---WITH LESS to work with, Thompson outfoxed Aresco for the Boise and by doing so---put the final nail in the AAC western expansion and got back SDSU as an additional dividend. There is ample evidence to indicate we dont need to spend that much on a commissioner because the structural hurdles we face cant be overcome with a personable commissioner. Does anyone really believe Aresco is going to get the AAC an an unshared autobid to the expanded playoff? I wouldnt bet the rent money on that. That said---if he does get us an autobid--THEN I'd have to say it was MORE THAN worth it--but to date---I cant say paying 2 million a year for a commissioner has made any significant difference in our outcomes when it comes to the big ticket items. I would add---Aresco has learned a lot over the years. The way he added Wichita and has approached the UConn loss shows me is much more savvy than he was when he took over the conference in 2012. To be clear, Im not suggesting a pay cut or firing him. Im suggesting extending his current deal at the current rate. When he steps away---I suggest paying less than 2 million for the next guy. Its not really a very controversial position.

(06-09-2021 02:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 01:32 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 12:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Knowing what we do now--it makes much less sense for the AAC to pay a commissioner that much.

it makes perfect sense... we didnt pay aresco based on conference revenue expectations... aresco makes more than p5 commissioners who were guaranteed to make more as a conference...
we payed him to navigate the impossible... it was viewed as an almost near certainty that the big east would implode when he was hired (GoRs werent a thing then)...

80%+ of the posters here believe becoming a power conference is a near impossibility but want to get a generic salary commish to attempt to accomplish that

if every single president in the aac had the ability to look into the future and see where we are now, compared to where we were then 100% of them would sign the deal in a heart beat

Aresco was hired in the summer. All those articles are from the fall when the wholsale defections began....despite Aresco's leadership by the way. Again--my point is Aresco has not accomplished anything beyond what one would expect--nor has he accomplished less than one would expect. His first TV deal he got more than CUSA with a line up that was better than CUSA. Whats the basis for greatness there? Aresco lost a dozen schools in 3 months. Where's the greatness? He didnt stop a single defection. His rushed decision to add Tulane and ECU likely wrecked the western wing we were building. That was a clear misstep at the time.

My point is not that Aresco is a bad commissioner. He is not. In fact, I think he's quite good. That said--he hasnt done anything that would lead me to believe it couldnt have been accomplished by Thompson or Banowski if they had the same line up of schools to sell. In fact---WITH LESS to work with, Thompson outfoxed Aresco for the Boise and by doing so---put the final nail in the AAC western expansion and got back SDSU as an additional dividend. There is ample evidence to indicate we dont need to spend that much on a commissioner because the structural hurdles we face cant be overcome with a personable commissioner. Does anyone really believe Aresco is going to get the AAC an an unshared autobid to the expanded playoff? I wouldnt bet the rent money on that. That said---if he does get us an autobid--THEN I'd have to say it was MORE THAN worth it--but to date---I cant say paying 2 million a year for a commissioner has made any significant difference in our outcomes when it comes to the big ticket items. I would add---Aresco has learned a lot over the years. The way he added Wichita and has approached the UConn loss shows me is much more savvy than he was when he took over the conference in 2012. To be clear, Im not suggesting a pay cut or firing him. Im suggesting extending his current deal at the current rate. When he steps away---I suggest paying less than 2 million for the next guy. Its not really a very controversial position.

Well, everyone is welcome to their opinion...even when it’s wrong.

(06-09-2021 02:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Aresco was hired in the summer. All those articles are from the fall when the wholsale defections began....despite Aresco's leadership by the way. Again--my point is Aresco has not accomplished anything beyond what one would expect--nor has he accomplished less than one would expect. His first TV deal he got more than CUSA with a line up that was better than CUSA. Whats the basis for greatness there? Aresco lost a dozen schools in 3 months. Where's the greatness? He didnt stop a single defection. His rushed decision to add Tulane and ECU likely wrecked the western wing we were building. That was a clear misstep at the time.

My point is not that Aresco is a bad commissioner. He is not. In fact, I think he's quite good. That said--he hasnt done anything that would lead me to believe it couldnt have been accomplished by Thompson or Banowski if they had the same line up of schools to sell. In fact---WITH LESS to work with, Thompson outfoxed Aresco for the Boise and by doing so---put the final nail in the AAC western expansion and got back SDSU as an additional dividend. There is ample evidence to indicate we dont need to spend that much on a commissioner because the structural hurdles we face cant be overcome with a personable commissioner. Does anyone really believe Aresco is going to get the AAC an an unshared autobid to the expanded playoff? I wouldnt bet the rent money on that. That said---if he does get us an autobid--THEN I'd have to say it was MORE THAN worth it--but to date---I cant say paying 2 million a year for a commissioner has made any significant difference in our outcomes when it comes to the big ticket items. I would add---Aresco has learned a lot over the years. The way he added Wichita and has approached the UConn loss shows me is much more savvy than he was when he took over the conference in 2012. To be clear, Im not suggesting a pay cut or firing him. Im suggesting extending his current deal at the current rate. When he steps away---I suggest paying less than 2 million for the next guy. Its not really a very controversial position.

1 1000000% disagree

im not sure i agree w ith a single point even a little..

when i was reading your 1st paragraph my counter points was what you listed as a secondary paragraph, those back aresco not the other way around...

1) western expansion isnt dead, if aresco decided tomorrow we want western team, we can grab them (if we wanted all sprts)... its our choice not wanting boise, sdsu for logistic reasons

2) adding back Boise on a sweetheart deal was a horrible move by the MWC..as it has publicly factioned the mwc, there are lawsuits active right now between boise and the mwc about how long the sweetheart deal can last.. atleast 4 MWC have spoken out against the Boise deal publicly...the aac was offered that same sweetheart deal and we refused... there is no aac dividem we are united and stronger for it.... if you think "thompson outfoxed" the aac you have no clue ..that was a major aac win not the mwc

3) aresco had nothing to do with the school leaving, its ridiculous to even state, not even Jesus as a commish would have stopped members from turning down p5 invites... it is confirmed that Fox offered the c7 the mega deal to LEAVE the big east, that fox didnt want instability of the aac (at that time)... nothing was stopping that...
---- the leaving teams did have the power to dissolve the league without having to worry about buyout.. aresco navigated in a way we won

4) ecu and Tulane didn't ruin any western wing.... we offered unlv and fresno members while we had ecu and tulane ... Boise sabotaged the western wing... saying it had anything to do with Tulane and ecu is absurd and lacks reason.... ECU was also doing 9wins a season on 50k attendance during expansion, they were a good add at the time.. western wing just for western wing wasnt the point, it was about getting the best teams

5) you say he hasnt done anything but he established the power 6 campaign, the single greatest thing to happen to this conference.. it made people stop comparing us to the other group of 5.. no one publicly associates us with them anymore, which is the best thing for this league... id rather be the conference just falling short of being top tier, than the biggest kid in the kiddie pool

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

let me stop addressing the false takes in your response and address what i think is the most ridiculous part of your take... that if aresco and thompson switched places the results would have been the same...I have publicly said FOR YEARS that if we switched commissioners the mwc would likely be seen as the better league

in 2013 our leagues were seen as EQUALS- part of your point was that aresco had better schools, IT WASNT SEEN THAT WAY IN 2013!!!!. mwc has multiple state flagships .. according to the bcs computers the MWC was actually better the 1st few years

I'm a strong believer in CULTURE.. the leader sets the tone of what your league will be... (this is seen everywhere in life)
---in 2013 Thompson publicly acknowledged that the mwc goal isnt to compete with the p5, but ot be the bestg5 (still does to this day), says schools dont have to invest more than they had to. when stipends came to be he said every school has their own mission no one is required to do anything, when covid came was extremely quick to shut dwon everything (only to regret it later).. Thompson also prides himself that is isn't like that "other" league that goes to the media about everything.. their league motto is "be the peak" (a pun on their name, that no one knows about)

---aresco from the start even in our darkest preached that we will rise to the position of a power conference, even when we arguable weren't the best g5, he never waivered in saying we were a power conference to every media outlet who would take him.. he made it our identity.. every singe aac president and AD has rants where they spout aresco power talking points..tulsa (who has the smallest athletic budget) was insulted when asked if tulsa would do stipends, and ranted that we are a power league and thats what power leagues do (CULTURE!!!) "buy in" we've all bought into arescos vision and invested accordingly to compete with that vision

the idea that we'd have the same culture with thompson is ridiculous. he literally added san jose state, a low budget school and put no expectation on them to invest (sjsu wants to cut its budget even more)


---- ive had this conversation before, if aresco was the commissioner of the mwc, he would have gone on a media tour about the flagships of the MWC.. he would have 100% made some media campaign to exploit the pac 12 being so bad in all sports for the last 5 years to insinuate the MWC is the best conference in the WEST.. he wouldnt have taken sjsu or utah state without some commitment from them to invest.. the mwc has done nothing to address it flaws, done nothing to change its perceptions, openly accepts it place as a second class citizen.. their league was seen as the same as ours in 2013

its ridiculous, and i mean ridiculous to even imagine we'd have the same results with Thompson

you think we are overpaying him, but yet the people who are paying him and looking to extend him as long as possible... or is it that every aac president is an idiot

benson former sunbelt commish just 3 weeks aresco said what aresco was doing was smart, boise from an article just yesterday said it prefered aresco to thompson (despite the fact we sued each other)

(06-09-2021 04:13 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Aresco was hired in the summer. All those articles are from the fall when the wholsale defections began....despite Aresco's leadership by the way. Again--my point is Aresco has not accomplished anything beyond what one would expect--nor has he accomplished less than one would expect. His first TV deal he got more than CUSA with a line up that was better than CUSA. Whats the basis for greatness there? Aresco lost a dozen schools in 3 months. Where's the greatness? He didnt stop a single defection. His rushed decision to add Tulane and ECU likely wrecked the western wing we were building. That was a clear misstep at the time.

My point is not that Aresco is a bad commissioner. He is not. In fact, I think he's quite good. That said--he hasnt done anything that would lead me to believe it couldnt have been accomplished by Thompson or Banowski if they had the same line up of schools to sell. In fact---WITH LESS to work with, Thompson outfoxed Aresco for the Boise and by doing so---put the final nail in the AAC western expansion and got back SDSU as an additional dividend. There is ample evidence to indicate we dont need to spend that much on a commissioner because the structural hurdles we face cant be overcome with a personable commissioner. Does anyone really believe Aresco is going to get the AAC an an unshared autobid to the expanded playoff? I wouldnt bet the rent money on that. That said---if he does get us an autobid--THEN I'd have to say it was MORE THAN worth it--but to date---I cant say paying 2 million a year for a commissioner has made any significant difference in our outcomes when it comes to the big ticket items. I would add---Aresco has learned a lot over the years. The way he added Wichita and has approached the UConn loss shows me is much more savvy than he was when he took over the conference in 2012. To be clear, Im not suggesting a pay cut or firing him. Im suggesting extending his current deal at the current rate. When he steps away---I suggest paying less than 2 million for the next guy. Its not really a very controversial position.

1 1000000% disagree

im not sure i agree w ith a single point even a little..

when i was reading your 1st paragraph my counter points was what you listed as a secondary paragraph, those back aresco not the other way around...

1) western expansion isnt dead, if aresco decided tomorrow we want western team, we can grab them (if we wanted all sprts)... its our choice not wanting boise, sdsu for logistic reasons

2) adding back Boise on a sweetheart deal was a horrible move by the MWC..as it has publicly factions the mwc, there are lawsuit active right now between boise and the mwc about how long the sweetheart deal can last.. atleast 4 MWC have spoken out against the boise deal publicly...the aac was offered that same sweetheart deal and we refused... there is no aac divide we are united and stronger for it.... if you think "thompson outfoxed" the aac you have no clue ..that was a major aac win not the mwc

3) aresco had nothing to do with the school leaving, its ridiculous to even state, not even Jesus as a commish would stopping members from turning down p5 invites... it is confirmed that fox offered the c7 the mega deal to LEAVE the big east, that fox didnt want instability of the aac (at that time)... nothing was stopping that...
---- the leaving teams did have the power to dissolve the league without having to worry about buyout.. aresco navigated in a way we won

4) ecu and tulane didnt ruin any western wing.... we offered unlv and fresno members while we had ecu and tulane ... boise sabotaged the western wing... saying it had anything to do with tulane and ecu is absurd and lacks reason.... ECU was also doing 9wins a season on 50k attendance during expansion, they were a good add at the time.. western wing just for western wing wasnt the point, it was about getting the best teams

5) you say he hasnt done anything but he established the power 6 campaign, the single greatest thing to happen to this conference.. it made people stop comparing us to the other group of 5.. no one publicly associates us with them anymore, which is the best thing for this league... id rather be the conference just falling short of being top tier, than the biggest kid in the kiddie pool

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

let me stop addressing the false takes in your response and address what i think is the most ridiculous part of your take... that if aresco and thompson switched places the results would have been the same...I have publicly said FOR YEARS that if we switched commissioners the mwc would likely be seen as the better league

in 2013 our leagues were seen as EQUALS- part of your point was that aresco had better schools, IT WASNT SEEN THAT WAY IN 2013!!!!. mwc has multiple state flagships .. according to the bcs computers the MWC was actually better the 1st few years

I'm a strong believer in CULTURE.. the leader sets the tone of what your league will be... (this is seen everywhere in life)
---in 2013 Thompson publicly acknowledged that the mwc goal isnt to compete with the p5, but ot be the bestg5 (still does to this day), says schools dont have to invest more than they had to. when stipends came to be he said every school has their own mission no one is required to do anything, when covid came was extremely quick to shut dwon everything (only to regret it later).. Thompson also prides himself that is isn't like that "other" league that goes to the media about everything.. their league motto is "be the peak" (a pun on their name, that no one knows about)

---aresco from the start even in our darkest preached that we will rise to the position of a power conference, even when we arguable weren't the best g5, he never waivered in saying we were a power conference to every media outlet who would take him.. he made it our identity.. every singe aac president and AD has rants where they spout aresco power talking points..tulsa (who has the smallest athletic budget) was insulted when asked if tulsa would do stipends, and ranted that we are a power league and thats what power leagues do (CULTURE!!!) "buy in" we've all bought into arescos vision and invested accordingly to compete with that vision

the idea that we'd have the same culture with thompson is ridiculous. he literally added san jose state, a low budget school and put no expectation on them to invest (sjsu wants to cut its budget even more)


---- ive had this conversation before, if aresco was the commissioner of the mwc, he would have gone on a media tour about the flagships of the MWC.. he would have 100% made some media campaign to exploit the pac 12 being so bad in all sports for the last 5 years to insinuate the MWC is the best conference in the WEST.. he wouldnt have taken sjsu or utah state without some commitment from them to invest.. the mwc has done nothing to address it flaws, done nothing to change its perceptions, openly accepts it place as a second class citizen.. their league was seen as the same as ours in 2013

its ridiculous, and i mean ridiculous to even imagine we'd have the same results with Thompson

Its hard to argue with someone with so little basic knowledge whos willing to gaslight. Im not going to go through that entire Jed type essay you wrote---but I'll just address point one as an example. "The western expansion isnt dead, if aresco decided tomorrow we want western team, we can grab them (if we wanted all sports)... its our choice not wanting boise, sdsu for logistic reasons "

The thing is---WE ALREADY HAD Boise as a "football only" and lost them when Aresco was outfoxed by Thompson. The fact we MIGHT get them back down the line is irrelevant--but you want to gaslight everyone into thinking that Aresco should get credit for what MIGHT happen. Seriously? Thats your big rebuttal? When your logic is as tortured as that---there is really no point in trying to have a rational discussion.

That said---ive made it clear that I like Aresco as our conference commissioner and believe he is excellent at promoting the conference. I just dont think we should be paying 2 million to anyone because they cant really do all that much for us when it comes to the really big ticket items. A commissioner can help incrementally---but they arent going to get us a major bowl, a CFP autobid, a P5 media deal, or inclusion as an autonomous conference---and Im sorry but---ZERO evidence to the contrary exists. If you believe that he can---your simply not living in reality.

(06-09-2021 04:15 PM)pesik Wrote:  you think we are overpaying him, but yet the people who are paying him and looking to extend him as long as possible... or is it that every aac president is an idiot

benson former sunbelt commish just 3 weeks aresco said what aresco was doing was smart, boise from an article just yesterday said it prefered aresco to thompson (despite the fact we sued each other)

Reading comprehension is your friend. I have made it clear I am for extending his deal at the current rate. I have made it equally clear we should not be looking to pay his eventual replacement anywhere near that amount (unless we are on a par with P5 conferences with respect to revenue at that time). By the way, my point isnt that I like Thompson more than Aresco. I dont. My point is---it doesnt matter if its Aresco, Thompson, or Abraham Lincoln---the AAC still would not have a major bowl, a CFP auto-bid, a P5 sized media deal, or a seat at the autonomous conference table regardless of who the commissioner is.

(06-09-2021 05:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 04:13 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Aresco was hired in the summer. All those articles are from the fall when the wholsale defections began....despite Aresco's leadership by the way. Again--my point is Aresco has not accomplished anything beyond what one would expect--nor has he accomplished less than one would expect. His first TV deal he got more than CUSA with a line up that was better than CUSA. Whats the basis for greatness there? Aresco lost a dozen schools in 3 months. Where's the greatness? He didnt stop a single defection. His rushed decision to add Tulane and ECU likely wrecked the western wing we were building. That was a clear misstep at the time.

My point is not that Aresco is a bad commissioner. He is not. In fact, I think he's quite good. That said--he hasnt done anything that would lead me to believe it couldnt have been accomplished by Thompson or Banowski if they had the same line up of schools to sell. In fact---WITH LESS to work with, Thompson outfoxed Aresco for the Boise and by doing so---put the final nail in the AAC western expansion and got back SDSU as an additional dividend. There is ample evidence to indicate we dont need to spend that much on a commissioner because the structural hurdles we face cant be overcome with a personable commissioner. Does anyone really believe Aresco is going to get the AAC an an unshared autobid to the expanded playoff? I wouldnt bet the rent money on that. That said---if he does get us an autobid--THEN I'd have to say it was MORE THAN worth it--but to date---I cant say paying 2 million a year for a commissioner has made any significant difference in our outcomes when it comes to the big ticket items. I would add---Aresco has learned a lot over the years. The way he added Wichita and has approached the UConn loss shows me is much more savvy than he was when he took over the conference in 2012. To be clear, Im not suggesting a pay cut or firing him. Im suggesting extending his current deal at the current rate. When he steps away---I suggest paying less than 2 million for the next guy. Its not really a very controversial position.

1 1000000% disagree

im not sure i agree w ith a single point even a little..

when i was reading your 1st paragraph my counter points was what you listed as a secondary paragraph, those back aresco not the other way around...

1) western expansion isnt dead, if aresco decided tomorrow we want western team, we can grab them (if we wanted all sprts)... its our choice not wanting boise, sdsu for logistic reasons

2) adding back Boise on a sweetheart deal was a horrible move by the MWC..as it has publicly factions the mwc, there are lawsuit active right now between boise and the mwc about how long the sweetheart deal can last.. atleast 4 MWC have spoken out against the boise deal publicly...the aac was offered that same sweetheart deal and we refused... there is no aac divide we are united and stronger for it.... if you think "thompson outfoxed" the aac you have no clue ..that was a major aac win not the mwc

3) aresco had nothing to do with the school leaving, its ridiculous to even state, not even Jesus as a commish would stopping members from turning down p5 invites... it is confirmed that fox offered the c7 the mega deal to LEAVE the big east, that fox didnt want instability of the aac (at that time)... nothing was stopping that...
---- the leaving teams did have the power to dissolve the league without having to worry about buyout.. aresco navigated in a way we won

4) ecu and tulane didnt ruin any western wing.... we offered unlv and fresno members while we had ecu and tulane ... boise sabotaged the western wing... saying it had anything to do with tulane and ecu is absurd and lacks reason.... ECU was also doing 9wins a season on 50k attendance during expansion, they were a good add at the time.. western wing just for western wing wasnt the point, it was about getting the best teams

5) you say he hasnt done anything but he established the power 6 campaign, the single greatest thing to happen to this conference.. it made people stop comparing us to the other group of 5.. no one publicly associates us with them anymore, which is the best thing for this league... id rather be the conference just falling short of being top tier, than the biggest kid in the kiddie pool

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

let me stop addressing the false takes in your response and address what i think is the most ridiculous part of your take... that if aresco and thompson switched places the results would have been the same...I have publicly said FOR YEARS that if we switched commissioners the mwc would likely be seen as the better league

in 2013 our leagues were seen as EQUALS- part of your point was that aresco had better schools, IT WASNT SEEN THAT WAY IN 2013!!!!. mwc has multiple state flagships .. according to the bcs computers the MWC was actually better the 1st few years

I'm a strong believer in CULTURE.. the leader sets the tone of what your league will be... (this is seen everywhere in life)
---in 2013 Thompson publicly acknowledged that the mwc goal isnt to compete with the p5, but ot be the bestg5 (still does to this day), says schools dont have to invest more than they had to. when stipends came to be he said every school has their own mission no one is required to do anything, when covid came was extremely quick to shut dwon everything (only to regret it later).. Thompson also prides himself that is isn't like that "other" league that goes to the media about everything.. their league motto is "be the peak" (a pun on their name, that no one knows about)

---aresco from the start even in our darkest preached that we will rise to the position of a power conference, even when we arguable weren't the best g5, he never waivered in saying we were a power conference to every media outlet who would take him.. he made it our identity.. every singe aac president and AD has rants where they spout aresco power talking points..tulsa (who has the smallest athletic budget) was insulted when asked if tulsa would do stipends, and ranted that we are a power league and thats what power leagues do (CULTURE!!!) "buy in" we've all bought into arescos vision and invested accordingly to compete with that vision

the idea that we'd have the same culture with thompson is ridiculous. he literally added san jose state, a low budget school and put no expectation on them to invest (sjsu wants to cut its budget even more)


---- ive had this conversation before, if aresco was the commissioner of the mwc, he would have gone on a media tour about the flagships of the MWC.. he would have 100% made some media campaign to exploit the pac 12 being so bad in all sports for the last 5 years to insinuate the MWC is the best conference in the WEST.. he wouldnt have taken sjsu or utah state without some commitment from them to invest.. the mwc has done nothing to address it flaws, done nothing to change its perceptions, openly accepts it place as a second class citizen.. their league was seen as the same as ours in 2013

its ridiculous, and i mean ridiculous to even imagine we'd have the same results with Thompson

Its hard to argue with someone with so little basic knowledge whos willing to gaslight. Im not going to go through that entire Jed type essay you wrote---but I'll just address point one as an example. "The western expansion isnt dead, if aresco decided tomorrow we want western team, we can grab them (if we wanted all sports)... its our choice not wanting boise, sdsu for logistic reasons "

The thing is---WE ALREADY HAD Boise as a "football only" and lost them when Aresco was outfoxed by Thompson. The fact we MIGHT get them back down the line is irrelevant--but you want to gaslight everyone into thinking that Aresco should get credit for what MIGHT happen. Seriously? Thats your big rebuttal? When your logic is as tortured as that---there is really no point in trying to have a rational discussion.

That said---ive made it clear that I like Aresco as our conference commissioner and believe he is excellent at promoting the conference. I just dont think we should be paying 2 million to anyone because they cant really do all that much for us when it comes to the really big ticket items. A commissioner can help incrementally---but they arent going to get us a major bowl, a CFP autobid, a P5 media deal, or inclusion as an autonomous conference---and Im sorry but---ZERO evidence to the contrary exists. If you believe that he can---your simply not living in reality.

All right, class...
At some point in the MidArescoLithic era, the ancient scrolls start using "Jed-like" instead of "Todgian" to describe incomprehensibly voluminous scratchings.

Discuss, and give consideration to the role played by a mythical hero figure who Captained a ship on an interminable voyage of discovery

(06-09-2021 05:26 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 05:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 04:13 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Aresco was hired in the summer. All those articles are from the fall when the wholsale defections began....despite Aresco's leadership by the way. Again--my point is Aresco has not accomplished anything beyond what one would expect--nor has he accomplished less than one would expect. His first TV deal he got more than CUSA with a line up that was better than CUSA. Whats the basis for greatness there? Aresco lost a dozen schools in 3 months. Where's the greatness? He didnt stop a single defection. His rushed decision to add Tulane and ECU likely wrecked the western wing we were building. That was a clear misstep at the time.

My point is not that Aresco is a bad commissioner. He is not. In fact, I think he's quite good. That said--he hasnt done anything that would lead me to believe it couldnt have been accomplished by Thompson or Banowski if they had the same line up of schools to sell. In fact---WITH LESS to work with, Thompson outfoxed Aresco for the Boise and by doing so---put the final nail in the AAC western expansion and got back SDSU as an additional dividend. There is ample evidence to indicate we dont need to spend that much on a commissioner because the structural hurdles we face cant be overcome with a personable commissioner. Does anyone really believe Aresco is going to get the AAC an an unshared autobid to the expanded playoff? I wouldnt bet the rent money on that. That said---if he does get us an autobid--THEN I'd have to say it was MORE THAN worth it--but to date---I cant say paying 2 million a year for a commissioner has made any significant difference in our outcomes when it comes to the big ticket items. I would add---Aresco has learned a lot over the years. The way he added Wichita and has approached the UConn loss shows me is much more savvy than he was when he took over the conference in 2012. To be clear, Im not suggesting a pay cut or firing him. Im suggesting extending his current deal at the current rate. When he steps away---I suggest paying less than 2 million for the next guy. Its not really a very controversial position.

1 1000000% disagree

im not sure i agree w ith a single point even a little..

when i was reading your 1st paragraph my counter points was what you listed as a secondary paragraph, those back aresco not the other way around...

1) western expansion isnt dead, if aresco decided tomorrow we want western team, we can grab them (if we wanted all sprts)... its our choice not wanting boise, sdsu for logistic reasons

2) adding back Boise on a sweetheart deal was a horrible move by the MWC..as it has publicly factions the mwc, there are lawsuit active right now between boise and the mwc about how long the sweetheart deal can last.. atleast 4 MWC have spoken out against the boise deal publicly...the aac was offered that same sweetheart deal and we refused... there is no aac divide we are united and stronger for it.... if you think "thompson outfoxed" the aac you have no clue ..that was a major aac win not the mwc

3) aresco had nothing to do with the school leaving, its ridiculous to even state, not even Jesus as a commish would stopping members from turning down p5 invites... it is confirmed that fox offered the c7 the mega deal to LEAVE the big east, that fox didnt want instability of the aac (at that time)... nothing was stopping that...
---- the leaving teams did have the power to dissolve the league without having to worry about buyout.. aresco navigated in a way we won

4) ecu and tulane didnt ruin any western wing.... we offered unlv and fresno members while we had ecu and tulane ... boise sabotaged the western wing... saying it had anything to do with tulane and ecu is absurd and lacks reason.... ECU was also doing 9wins a season on 50k attendance during expansion, they were a good add at the time.. western wing just for western wing wasnt the point, it was about getting the best teams

5) you say he hasnt done anything but he established the power 6 campaign, the single greatest thing to happen to this conference.. it made people stop comparing us to the other group of 5.. no one publicly associates us with them anymore, which is the best thing for this league... id rather be the conference just falling short of being top tier, than the biggest kid in the kiddie pool

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

let me stop addressing the false takes in your response and address what i think is the most ridiculous part of your take... that if aresco and thompson switched places the results would have been the same...I have publicly said FOR YEARS that if we switched commissioners the mwc would likely be seen as the better league

in 2013 our leagues were seen as EQUALS- part of your point was that aresco had better schools, IT WASNT SEEN THAT WAY IN 2013!!!!. mwc has multiple state flagships .. according to the bcs computers the MWC was actually better the 1st few years

I'm a strong believer in CULTURE.. the leader sets the tone of what your league will be... (this is seen everywhere in life)
---in 2013 Thompson publicly acknowledged that the mwc goal isnt to compete with the p5, but ot be the bestg5 (still does to this day), says schools dont have to invest more than they had to. when stipends came to be he said every school has their own mission no one is required to do anything, when covid came was extremely quick to shut dwon everything (only to regret it later).. Thompson also prides himself that is isn't like that "other" league that goes to the media about everything.. their league motto is "be the peak" (a pun on their name, that no one knows about)

---aresco from the start even in our darkest preached that we will rise to the position of a power conference, even when we arguable weren't the best g5, he never waivered in saying we were a power conference to every media outlet who would take him.. he made it our identity.. every singe aac president and AD has rants where they spout aresco power talking points..tulsa (who has the smallest athletic budget) was insulted when asked if tulsa would do stipends, and ranted that we are a power league and thats what power leagues do (CULTURE!!!) "buy in" we've all bought into arescos vision and invested accordingly to compete with that vision

the idea that we'd have the same culture with thompson is ridiculous. he literally added san jose state, a low budget school and put no expectation on them to invest (sjsu wants to cut its budget even more)


---- ive had this conversation before, if aresco was the commissioner of the mwc, he would have gone on a media tour about the flagships of the MWC.. he would have 100% made some media campaign to exploit the pac 12 being so bad in all sports for the last 5 years to insinuate the MWC is the best conference in the WEST.. he wouldnt have taken sjsu or utah state without some commitment from them to invest.. the mwc has done nothing to address it flaws, done nothing to change its perceptions, openly accepts it place as a second class citizen.. their league was seen as the same as ours in 2013

its ridiculous, and i mean ridiculous to even imagine we'd have the same results with Thompson

Its hard to argue with someone with so little basic knowledge whos willing to gaslight. Im not going to go through that entire Jed type essay you wrote---but I'll just address point one as an example. "The western expansion isnt dead, if aresco decided tomorrow we want western team, we can grab them (if we wanted all sports)... its our choice not wanting boise, sdsu for logistic reasons "

The thing is---WE ALREADY HAD Boise as a "football only" and lost them when Aresco was outfoxed by Thompson. The fact we MIGHT get them back down the line is irrelevant--but you want to gaslight everyone into thinking that Aresco should get credit for what MIGHT happen. Seriously? Thats your big rebuttal? When your logic is as tortured as that---there is really no point in trying to have a rational discussion.

That said---ive made it clear that I like Aresco as our conference commissioner and believe he is excellent at promoting the conference. I just dont think we should be paying 2 million to anyone because they cant really do all that much for us when it comes to the really big ticket items. A commissioner can help incrementally---but they arent going to get us a major bowl, a CFP autobid, a P5 media deal, or inclusion as an autonomous conference---and Im sorry but---ZERO evidence to the contrary exists. If you believe that he can---your simply not living in reality.

All right, class...
At some point in the MidArescoLithic era, the ancient scrolls start using "Jed-like" instead of "Todgian" to describe incomprehensibly voluminous scratchings.

Discuss, and give consideration to the role played by a mythical hero figure who Captained a ship on an interminable voyage of discovery

Buy puts

(06-09-2021 05:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Reading comprehension is your friend. I have made it clear I am for extending his deal at the current rate. I have made it equally clear we should not be looking to pay his eventual replacement anywhere near that amount (unless we are on a par with P5 conferences with respect to revenue at that time). By the way, my point isnt that I like Thompson more than Aresco. I dont. My point is---it doesnt matter if its Aresco, Thompson, or Abraham Lincoln---the AAC still would not have a major bowl, a CFP auto-bid, a P5 sized media deal, or a seat at the autonomous conference table regardless of who the commissioner is.

the g5 autobowl was negotiated by aresco.... the original cfp has no g5 slot, and only atlarges.. aresoc used his influence to negotiate a g5 bowl, on the premise that he felt the aac would get it most years as a sample size of what the aac could do... i also dont care about major bowls they will be obsolete in 10 years, i just want us to be positioned well enough for realistic playoff paths

also no one is gaslighting you.. you are putting a bar extremely high and anyone who doesnt reach that extremely high bar has failed in distinquishing themselves.... "the AAC still would not have a major bowl, a CFP auto-bid, a P5 sized media deal, or a seat at the autonomous conference table " you are ignoring everything he did becuase he didnt reach super high bar in only 6 years.. ignoring the vast amounts of progress this league has made.

you said this "he hasnt done anything that would lead me to believe it couldnt have been accomplished by Thompson" (this is copy and paste)...i said i disagreed and gave my reasons... how is that gaslighting...you are pretending like you never stated this, that is the actual gaslighting

its like someone noting the vast amount of progress memphis football has made the last 7 years... but trying to discredit it because theyve never won a ny6...

(06-09-2021 05:26 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 05:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 04:13 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Aresco was hired in the summer. All those articles are from the fall when the wholsale defections began....despite Aresco's leadership by the way. Again--my point is Aresco has not accomplished anything beyond what one would expect--nor has he accomplished less than one would expect. His first TV deal he got more than CUSA with a line up that was better than CUSA. Whats the basis for greatness there? Aresco lost a dozen schools in 3 months. Where's the greatness? He didnt stop a single defection. His rushed decision to add Tulane and ECU likely wrecked the western wing we were building. That was a clear misstep at the time.

My point is not that Aresco is a bad commissioner. He is not. In fact, I think he's quite good. That said--he hasnt done anything that would lead me to believe it couldnt have been accomplished by Thompson or Banowski if they had the same line up of schools to sell. In fact---WITH LESS to work with, Thompson outfoxed Aresco for the Boise and by doing so---put the final nail in the AAC western expansion and got back SDSU as an additional dividend. There is ample evidence to indicate we dont need to spend that much on a commissioner because the structural hurdles we face cant be overcome with a personable commissioner. Does anyone really believe Aresco is going to get the AAC an an unshared autobid to the expanded playoff? I wouldnt bet the rent money on that. That said---if he does get us an autobid--THEN I'd have to say it was MORE THAN worth it--but to date---I cant say paying 2 million a year for a commissioner has made any significant difference in our outcomes when it comes to the big ticket items. I would add---Aresco has learned a lot over the years. The way he added Wichita and has approached the UConn loss shows me is much more savvy than he was when he took over the conference in 2012. To be clear, Im not suggesting a pay cut or firing him. Im suggesting extending his current deal at the current rate. When he steps away---I suggest paying less than 2 million for the next guy. Its not really a very controversial position.

1 1000000% disagree

im not sure i agree w ith a single point even a little..

when i was reading your 1st paragraph my counter points was what you listed as a secondary paragraph, those back aresco not the other way around...

1) western expansion isnt dead, if aresco decided tomorrow we want western team, we can grab them (if we wanted all sprts)... its our choice not wanting boise, sdsu for logistic reasons

2) adding back Boise on a sweetheart deal was a horrible move by the MWC..as it has publicly factions the mwc, there are lawsuit active right now between boise and the mwc about how long the sweetheart deal can last.. atleast 4 MWC have spoken out against the boise deal publicly...the aac was offered that same sweetheart deal and we refused... there is no aac divide we are united and stronger for it.... if you think "thompson outfoxed" the aac you have no clue ..that was a major aac win not the mwc

3) aresco had nothing to do with the school leaving, its ridiculous to even state, not even Jesus as a commish would stopping members from turning down p5 invites... it is confirmed that fox offered the c7 the mega deal to LEAVE the big east, that fox didnt want instability of the aac (at that time)... nothing was stopping that...
---- the leaving teams did have the power to dissolve the league without having to worry about buyout.. aresco navigated in a way we won

4) ecu and tulane didnt ruin any western wing.... we offered unlv and fresno members while we had ecu and tulane ... boise sabotaged the western wing... saying it had anything to do with tulane and ecu is absurd and lacks reason.... ECU was also doing 9wins a season on 50k attendance during expansion, they were a good add at the time.. western wing just for western wing wasnt the point, it was about getting the best teams

5) you say he hasnt done anything but he established the power 6 campaign, the single greatest thing to happen to this conference.. it made people stop comparing us to the other group of 5.. no one publicly associates us with them anymore, which is the best thing for this league... id rather be the conference just falling short of being top tier, than the biggest kid in the kiddie pool

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

let me stop addressing the false takes in your response and address what i think is the most ridiculous part of your take... that if aresco and thompson switched places the results would have been the same...I have publicly said FOR YEARS that if we switched commissioners the mwc would likely be seen as the better league

in 2013 our leagues were seen as EQUALS- part of your point was that aresco had better schools, IT WASNT SEEN THAT WAY IN 2013!!!!. mwc has multiple state flagships .. according to the bcs computers the MWC was actually better the 1st few years

I'm a strong believer in CULTURE.. the leader sets the tone of what your league will be... (this is seen everywhere in life)
---in 2013 Thompson publicly acknowledged that the mwc goal isnt to compete with the p5, but ot be the bestg5 (still does to this day), says schools dont have to invest more than they had to. when stipends came to be he said every school has their own mission no one is required to do anything, when covid came was extremely quick to shut dwon everything (only to regret it later).. Thompson also prides himself that is isn't like that "other" league that goes to the media about everything.. their league motto is "be the peak" (a pun on their name, that no one knows about)

---aresco from the start even in our darkest preached that we will rise to the position of a power conference, even when we arguable weren't the best g5, he never waivered in saying we were a power conference to every media outlet who would take him.. he made it our identity.. every singe aac president and AD has rants where they spout aresco power talking points..tulsa (who has the smallest athletic budget) was insulted when asked if tulsa would do stipends, and ranted that we are a power league and thats what power leagues do (CULTURE!!!) "buy in" we've all bought into arescos vision and invested accordingly to compete with that vision

the idea that we'd have the same culture with thompson is ridiculous. he literally added san jose state, a low budget school and put no expectation on them to invest (sjsu wants to cut its budget even more)


---- ive had this conversation before, if aresco was the commissioner of the mwc, he would have gone on a media tour about the flagships of the MWC.. he would have 100% made some media campaign to exploit the pac 12 being so bad in all sports for the last 5 years to insinuate the MWC is the best conference in the WEST.. he wouldnt have taken sjsu or utah state without some commitment from them to invest.. the mwc has done nothing to address it flaws, done nothing to change its perceptions, openly accepts it place as a second class citizen.. their league was seen as the same as ours in 2013

its ridiculous, and i mean ridiculous to even imagine we'd have the same results with Thompson

Its hard to argue with someone with so little basic knowledge whos willing to gaslight. Im not going to go through that entire Jed type essay you wrote---but I'll just address point one as an example. "The western expansion isnt dead, if aresco decided tomorrow we want western team, we can grab them (if we wanted all sports)... its our choice not wanting boise, sdsu for logistic reasons "

The thing is---WE ALREADY HAD Boise as a "football only" and lost them when Aresco was outfoxed by Thompson. The fact we MIGHT get them back down the line is irrelevant--but you want to gaslight everyone into thinking that Aresco should get credit for what MIGHT happen. Seriously? Thats your big rebuttal? When your logic is as tortured as that---there is really no point in trying to have a rational discussion.

That said---ive made it clear that I like Aresco as our conference commissioner and believe he is excellent at promoting the conference. I just dont think we should be paying 2 million to anyone because they cant really do all that much for us when it comes to the really big ticket items. A commissioner can help incrementally---but they arent going to get us a major bowl, a CFP autobid, a P5 media deal, or inclusion as an autonomous conference---and Im sorry but---ZERO evidence to the contrary exists. If you believe that he can---your simply not living in reality.

All right, class...
At some point in the MidArescoLithic era, the ancient scrolls start using "Jed-like" instead of "Todgian" to describe incomprehensibly voluminous scratchings.

Discuss, and give consideration to the role played by a mythical hero figure who Captained a ship on an interminable voyage of discovery

lol...and I did that without thinking about it. Has ToddRodge been bested?

Attackcoog: any commish could have done what aresco did for way less money, including the MWC commish

pesik: i disagree, and give my reasons (never did i mention you saying he was a bad commish-- simply noting you undermined what he's accomplished, not just anyone could have done it)

Attackcoog: why are you gaslighting me, I never said he was bad (something i never claimed you did)

Bottom line is; Boise State wanted a Sweetheart deal with the AAC. The AAC wouldn't cave and BSU used the same tactic on the MWC to see who would cave and they did.

That's the real story and no Thompson could not have done what Aresco did because he proved he would cave under pressure.

Ok now, shake hands and come out swinging!

(06-09-2021 05:52 PM)pesik Wrote:  Attackcoog: any commish could have done what aresco did for way less money, including the MWC commish

pesik: i disagree, and give my reasons (never did i mention you saying he was a bad commish-- simply noting you undermined what he's accomplished, not just anyone could have done it)

Attackcoog: why are you gaslighting me, I never said he was bad (something i never claimed you did)

lol...you're doing it again. I never accused you of claiming I said he was a bad commissioner.

(06-09-2021 06:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 05:52 PM)pesik Wrote:  Attackcoog: any commish could have done what aresco did for way less money, including the MWC commish

pesik: i disagree, and give my reasons (never did i mention you saying he was a bad commish-- simply noting you undermined what he's accomplished, not just anyone could have done it)

Attackcoog: why are you gaslighting me, I never said he was bad (something i never claimed you did)

lol...you're doing it again. I never accused you of claiming I said he was a bad commissioner.

is this a troll?? you are gaslighting while claiming to be gaslit...
youve added in most of your responses in some shape or form that you think aresco is a good commish and thats not the issue.. why even add that part then? if we both know thats not a issue why clarify that ..especially when 95% of my posts were talking about you undermining his accomplishments

what am I gaslighting you on then...be specific..

you think a mwc decision that led to multiple disputes within the mwc and a mwc lawsuit, is thompson outfoxing.. in the 2013 leaked emails aresco flat says taking the boise deal will lead to issues down the line for a team that might not even be king in a few years. boise isnt king anymore and mwc has issue from the sweetheart deal but "we were the ones outfoxed"...okay, how does that work