(01-12-2019 10:18 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 05:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yep, it's nice to see my expectations confirmed - the MWC was the best G5 conference this year, not the AAC. I guess if there is a "P6" the MWC is the "6"?

That means in 5 years of the CFP, the AAC has been best 3 times, the MWC twice.

And yet the AAC has gotten the NY6 bid 3 times, and the MWC only once. The AAC still got the larger payout this year because of it.

You can poke fun at the P6 campaign all you want(and there are plenty of reasons to), but if the AAC is going to consistently make the most money from the networks and the CFP, then the campaign accomplished what I personally think the real goal was.

First, the AAC was getting the most TV and CFP money before the P6 campaign started, so you can't credit the P6 campaign for that.

Second, when talking P6, you have to distinguish between marketing puffery and reality. My post was about reality - for P6 to make any sense in an "on the field" sense, the AAC has to be performing on the field much more like the P5 conferences than the G4 conferences, and this year, that was completely not true. Since the AAC wasn't even the best G5 conference, the P6 campaign bore zero relation to on the field reality this season.

Marketing of course is different. Heck, CUSA has been maybe the worst FBS football conference the past 5 years, but if it claimed it was a Power conference equal on the field to the B1G anyway with the goal of being regarded by the media and public that way, and everyone believed it despite it being untrue, well then yes, the marketing is working. In this case, I don't think the P6 campaign is working, as nobody thinks of the AAC as a power football conference.

Obviously, the most important issue for the AAC right now is the media negotiations.

IIRC, the 30-day exclusive negotiating window with ESPN starts in just 20 days, on February 1st, so everything is about to hit the fan with that.