(06-15-2021 02:24 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 01:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 09:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 07:11 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  The AAC as it stands today would have BCS AQ status and is making their case for autonomy status.

(06-14-2021 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Apparently the old MW didnt "have a better product". It turns out the AAC has HIT ALL THREE of the criteria to qualify for an AQ slot as defined by the old BCS agreement. Thats something the old MW never accomplished. I thought that was an interesting tidbit buried in the letter Aresco wrote to the A5 conferences.

(06-14-2021 07:49 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  No offense to Utah, BYU and TCU but they are not a better product than the top of the AAC nor do they have the achievements of the top of the AAC. The MWC had 2/3, almost got there but didn't. The AAC has well surpassed all 3. The illusion of the AAC as a meager "group of" conference has been exposed. The only chance they don't join the club is if the top members, 3-5 of them, are poached.

Ok, before we all start printing up banners and such about the AAC meeting the old BCS standards for an AQ conference, I googled up just exactly what those standards were.

There's a lot of complicated detail that I'm not 100% sure I follow without duplicatign the math, which even I'm not obsessive enough to do.

But the part I can follow pretty easily is that, to achieve AQ status, a non-AQ conference had to be top 6 by the metrics.

So the AAC can beat their chest that they're in the top 6 by pretty much any metric you can come up with, but----so what? We knew the AAC is No. 6. The question is, are they closer to #5 or #7? And waving around the old BCS rules that were designed to keep the Big East in and the Mountain West out don't move that needle.

https://www.espn.com/blog/ncfnation/post...ed-sort-of

Frankly---that doesnt really make sense either. The Big East didnt earn nearly as much as the other 5 power conferences and didnt typically outperform the other 5 in the rankings back in the BCS era. Given that the AAC is the smoking hulk of the old Big East---perhaps the best comparison would be---"How does the current AAC compare to the old Big East performance in their last few years?". If the AAC performance is on a par with the old Big East---Thats probably the most reasonable and fair basis by which Aresco could make the claim the AAC deserves "P6" status.

The Big East between 2005 - 2012 was much better relative to the other AQ conferences than the AAC is to the P5. For example, in 2009, the Big East was the #2 football conference in the MC, behind only the SEC. Now yes, the next year, in 2010, the Big East was #6, last place among the AQ. But in both 2011 and 2012 it was #5, ahead of the ACC.

Between 2005 - 2012, the Big East, according to the MC and before 2008 Sagarin (MC didn't report conference rankings until 2009) was only the worst AQ conference twice in those 8 years. It frequently finished ahead of at least one of the other AQ conferences.

The Big East, even the BE from 2005 on, was clearly a AQ-level conference on the football field. The AAC has never been close to being that.

No it wasnt. Thats why it fell apart and the teams that were scattered are now tackling dummies everywhere.

GTFO you can say it 100000 times and it still wont be true.

Now and then, the facts - computers - say otherwise.

The Big East's problem was lack of brand value. It performed on the field like an AQ, but lacked the brand value so was looked down upon.

And when the performance on the field finally translated to value in the form of the 2011 ESPN offer, they dumbly turned it down.