(12-22-2020 09:30 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-22-2020 09:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-21-2020 02:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-21-2020 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 04:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  ^This x10. I know some harp on Aresco’s salary, but his beating the drum has changed perception enough to result in millions more $ per year than otherwise may/would have been with a less vocal commish.

I agree Aresco is an energetic cheerleader for the conference. I'm not sure what this worth, though, in this situation. For example, a couple days ago, he banged the drum loudly for Cincy to be strongly considered for the playoffs, and that did attract a lot of attention. Even ESPN's talking heads had segments talking about the worthiness of Cincy and the plight of the G5.

But, once the CCGs were played, that basically dissipated. Yesterday and today, to the extent there is controversy about the CFP rankings at all, it is centered on Notre Dame getting in vs Texas AM. Cincy is basically not involved in that. And the reason is, the underwhelming performance vs Tulsa in the CCG.

This leads me to believe that perceptions for the AAC are strong when the public themselves sees a strong case. A few days ago, there was a belief that Cincy had gone 8-0 in a dominant fashion and thus the CFP was doing them wrong by inching them backwards from 7 to 9 in the recent rankings. But, there was also an expectation that they would confirm that by dominating Tulsa. That didn't happen, so almost instantly the surge for Cincy seemed to quell.

This leads me to think that it doesn't seem too matter much what the commissioner says. The public - the college football public - is watching and drawing its own conclusions.

Here's USAToday national cfb writer overnight between the ccgs and the committee selections:

Here he is after the selections, as Barta talked about Cincinnati:

Here's The Athletic today, featuring Aresco:

Here's Mandel, during the selection show:

Did someone say UCF was Cincy's best win?

If you're going to quote that post, you need to admit you were (as usual) wrong with your take which I bolded.

Learn how to message board.

In the spirit of Christmas charity, I will go ahead and answer your question before you fix yourself. Yes. UCF is ranked ahead of Army, as of now and the time of the exchange you're referencing, even if you can't properly quote it.. Army is also neck and neck in the rankings with two or three other Cincy AAC wins. So when you used evocative "very best" language and were wrong to boot, you needed to be called on it.

Tell you what - how about a wager.
If Army is ranked ahead of UCF after the bowls, and therefore a better Cincy win, I'll stop posting for two months.
If Army is still a better win for Cincy than UCF you'll go back to the exile to the conference realignment silly forum.

Looks like Coastal's best win just obliterated Cincy's best win. But like I said, I thought I was doing Cincy a favor by calling Army their best win. UCF did not seem like much to me and well, tonight's game was supportive of that view.

PS - About the bolded, if you think a few tweets/articles mean that there is still a sustained outcry for Cincy in the playoffs, have at it. I do not.

PSS - About the wager, sure but with some conditions. First, I think you messed up your wording - you meant to say if UCF is still ahead of Army and thus Cincy's best win, I am exiled, right? Second, by "rankings" we have to mean the human polls. Computers are useless this year. Third, it has to be an equal wager. So whoever loses does not post on this AAC forum for 60 days, not permanently.

If neither is ranked in the polls, we look at "others receiving votes", if neither gets those, wager is voided. So to summarize ... If UCF is ahead of Army in the combined AP and Coaches polls post-bowls, I exit here for 60 days. If Army is ahead of UCF in the same, you exit for 60 days. Deal?