(01-26-2021 02:06 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 10:32 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 09:53 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 06:20 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 04:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  Even though Aresco's main point is that "nothing is happening" right now, he also noted that he really isn't free to talk about any of these things in any detail, which suggests that there may be a lot of interesting details that he can't talk about.

Aresco is well known for playing the cards extremely close to the vest. Hardly anyone heard a word about Wichita State joining the AAC until the news was announced. So, when he says that "it's possible" "down the road," that could mean anything ranging from '(even though there's nothing happening right now at this moment), there are schools that might possibly join in a year or two and might be in contact with us' to 'nothing means "absolutely nothing," and no prospects of anything developing.'

The truth is probably somewhere in between those two extremes, but his unequivocal, emphatic tone suggests that the conference would prefer to get back to 12 sooner, rather than later, and for that reason, it may be possible that "nothing happening right now" is a bit of an overstatement.

.

But what's most telling about Aresco's remarks are:

1) The fact that he made the strongest statement ever, since Connecticut's departure, indicating that the AAC not only wants to be back "at 12," but providing four separate reasons why the conference wants to replace Connecticut:

--a) "We enjoyed divisional play."

--b) "scheduling 11 teams...creates a lot of scheduling difficulties."

--c) "We cant provide ESPN with as much of the Thursday and Friday product as we'd like."

--d) One of the disadvantages of not having divisional play is that, as the season wore on, a lot of AAC fans were thinking about how their teams could have won their divisions, but they missed out on that feature of divisional play.

From the emphatic and unequivocal tone of these comments, Aresco's words suggest that the conference feels very strongly about wanting to replace Connecticut, and would prefer to be making continuing progress in that direction.

2) For perhaps the first time, Aresco mentioned the possibility of a full-fledged expansion beyond 12 teams, and acknowledged that the idea of expanding to 14 has at least been heard or suggested as a "reasonable" possibility.

.

Thus, while his words suggest that the possibility of adding Boise State (or SDSU) may be over for now, on indefinite hold, or (as he put it in a slightly earlier interview) "on the back burner"...

We have thus, it seems, learned something new:

The AAC is, for a number of different reasons, very strongly inclined and motivated to "get back to 12" and is likely to consider the idea of an eventual expansion to 14 to be at least "reasonable" [/color] and worthy of consideration, whether or not it is likely to occur within the foreseeable future. In fact, he went further than noting that the idea has been mentioned (i.e., "heard"), when he proceeded to state that ..."you have to be alert to the possibilities" (an imperative declaration).

His mention of not being able to provide ESPN with enough of the Thursday and Friday product suggests that there is some urgency having something to do with the AAC's partnership with ESPN. This might suggest the possibility that ESPN is actively encouraging the AAC to get back to 12 so that the network will have more content to provide on Thursdays and Fridays.

Jed, thats not new.
We always PREFERRED 12 teams and divisions. The whole time

Just can't add a net negative to get to twelve. Just want to avoid any perceived or self-imposed time pressure forcing a bad decision.

Talking about fourteen is new.

You and I may have always preferred 12 teams and divisions, but in the months after UConn announced their departure, Commissioner Aresco was whistling a very different tune. Perhaps he was just "whistling in the dark," but he continued to play that tune for over a year.

He was quoted more than once as saying that the AAC would be perfectly happy to go on indefinitely with 11 schools, and that all that would be needed was a waiver to play a championship game.

In fact, he made such a convincing case that he managed to persuade almost half of the posters on this message board that the conference would be better off with 11 FB & BB schools, indefinitely.

.

With a little effort, we could pull up his statements on the topic of 11 vs. 12 schools, and the quotations of Aresco would show that he didn't start to signal a change in tone until mid-way through 2020.

By mid-autumn, there was a discernable shift in tone, but only in these most recent interviews has he made it crystal clear that the American is now extremely emphatic about the importance of replacing Connecticut.

I'm guessing that they year of Covid has had something to do with the change in tone. The economics of broadcasting have changed, and ESPN has taken a hit, as have all the FBS universities.

I would disagree and have said so previously. The presidents are capable of having multiple preferences at the same time. These prefrences are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They can be complimentary. It can be true that the presidents prefer 12 and---at the same time---also prefer 11 to adding a team that reduces value or reduces the overall quality/perception of the league. In fact---it would be quite reasonable for both statements to likely be true of the presidents position on replacing UConn.

Look--leagues very rarely get the opportunity to replace their worst football program . This is a incredible opportunity to improve the league that must not be squandered.

The TONE from Aresco has always been we would prefer divisions BUT we would stand pat at eleven rather than add a program dilutive to the conference brand.

I agree with you and AttackCoog that this has been the substance and content of the conference's official position all along. The only place where there is disagreement among us and half of the readers on this board is about which programs would be too dilutive to the conference brand.

Some say CSU would be ok. Some say Nevada or SDSU or Air Force would be. Others insist that BYU, Boise, and Army are the only possible candidates. There is a remarkable lack of agreement about which schools would meet the conference's criteria. The list of people who know for sure seems to be very short.

.
BTW, the word "tone" above that was used to describe Aresco's comments, was referring to a psychological construct, known as "affective tone:"

"Affective tone is often the difference between what one says and the inflection with which they say it..."

https://psychologydictionary.org/affective-tone/

The reference to an apparent change in (affective) tone was based on his use of affective terms and the emphatic and unequivocal nature of Aresco's recent statements.

The official position (the substance and content of what was said), as stated by Aresco didn't change fundamentally, but his recent interview may have been the first in which he has itemized a series of detailed reasons why the conference is so hopeful to add a 12th team.

If he hadn't mentioned his specific concerns about providing the Thursday/Friday content for ESPN, his comments wouldn't have been quite as compelling as they were from the standpoint of affective tone.

I also found his comment about many in the AAC missing the competition for divisional championships to be compelling because of the emotion or affect that it referred to.

Another affective term that he emphasized was that "we liked" divisional play. "Liking" is an affective term.

Some people are unfamiliar with the concept of "affective tone," and may not be persuaded that concepts or terms such as "missing" or "liking" describe affective states or emotions. People can agree to disagree on this discussion of semantics.

That's enough psych. 101 for an entire year...