Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
Author Message
UTEPDallas Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,730
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 108
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #61
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
Probably he meant Big East basketball money is comparable to P5 basketball money which makes sense. The P5 get the lion share of tv money from football, probably they get $4-7 million based in basketball.
05-04-2017 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UConnHusky Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,039
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 121
I Root For: Danny Hurley
Location: Not at Pitt
Post: #62
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 02:50 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Probably he meant Big East basketball money is comparable to P5 basketball money which makes sense. The P5 get the lion share of tv money from football, probably they get $4-7 million based in basketball.

That is probably what he meant. That, however, still wouldn't make the Big East a power conference in my book as the term only applies to football. Plus, at the next television contract negotiation, the AAC could very well get a total contract that is more than the Big East schools now get (similar to the Big East money in hoop and more total due to football). Only time will tell.
05-04-2017 03:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,345
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 939
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #63
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 04:21 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-04-2017 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #64
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 02:40 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 01:22 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 11:02 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 09:51 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  FIFY ^^^

The NEWbigeast does NOT have football

Look at it this way... Is like purchasing a vehicle with no engine in it.

Here's how I see it, if the Nbigeast wants view themselves as a power conference than man up with football but even if they did, they'll be a league full of startups... Not gonna happen, well, not in this life time at least.

The Big East makes more TV money for just basketball than the G5 leagues do for both football and basketball. I personally think that makes them smart as opposed to some amorphous "man up" macho crap being propagated by the G5 conferences. Once again, the Big East make more TV money than the G5... and that's basically the only scoreboard that matters in conference realignment. It would be more fruitful if the G5 leagues would quit whining about it and/or pretend that they're more powerful simply because that they have football and figure out WHY the Big East is valued more in the marketplace for just basketball when the G5 teams are hemorrhaging trying to compete in FBS football.

The Big East found a valuable niche and they maximized their value in such niche with consistent branding and institutional fit, whereas the G5 leagues are hodgepodge leagues that are still deluding themselves in believing that they can ever achieve power status. There might very well be a handful of individual G5 *schools* that have a legitimate shot of moving up to power status, but people need to quit pretending that there will EVER be a thing known as the "Power 6" or "Power 7" or anything more than the current Power 5. A power conference (such as the Big 12) is more likely to be wiped out than a G5 conference ever getting elevated.

Like I mentioned above... The NEWbigeast doesn't have football.

As many ways as you love to skin/defend this cat (NEWbigeast), football is far more important to any true power league.

^^corrected your mistake

No. Money is what makes a conference s power conference.

The Big East makes a ton of money. Therefore they're a power conference. If the AAC made 20-30 million a year, they'd be a power conference, too.

Big East BB probably makes more TV money than any other conference.

The Big East doesn't make anywhere near 20-30 million per year per school. Sure, the $4mm or so per Big East school is better than what the AAC gets, but it isn't anywhere near P5 money. So, calling the Big East a power conference based on money isn't really right.

The term "power conference" technically only applies to football and there are currently only five conferences that play football and have the money. The Big East may have results in basketball that rival (or beat) certain "power" conferences, but I still wouldn't call them a power conference.

AAC basketball may soon catch up to Big East basketball and get comparable money. Both conferences could be two of the better basketball conferences. Neither will still be a power conference.

No. $5 million per year is equivalent to $25 million per year for basketball and football (~80% of the ACC's contract is football-driven, and the ACC is a close comp).

So yes, the BE is very much effectively in the $20-30 mm range, and the AAC isn't. That's the difference. If the AAC made $20-30 million, it would be a Power Conference.

And FWIW, "Power Conference" was a BCS-era term that applied to bowl contracts, but it died w/ the BCS. Instead, "Group" was briefly used to describe conferences w/ a huge media deal and "Gang" was used to describe those that didn't. But those terms were too similar, especially in football, so the "Power Conference" nomenclature was resurrected to replace the term "Group."

To further prove the distinction, the AAC was a Power Conference in the last year of the BCS, but it's never been referred to as a "Power Conference" under the current setup.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 04:22 PM by nzmorange.)
05-04-2017 04:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,431
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 575
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #65
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 11:09 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 09:51 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  
(05-03-2017 05:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Power Conference = conference's w/ high media payouts

The AAC is correct in that there are 6 of them. But the AAC isn't one. The 6 are:
1. SEC
2. Big Ten
3. ACC
4. PAC 12
5. Big XII
6. ???

FIFY ^^^

The NEWbigeast does NOT have football

Look at it this way... Is like purchasing a vehicle with no engine in it.

Here's how I see it, if the Nbigeast wants view themselves as a power conference than man up with football but even if they did, they'll be a league full of startups... Not gonna happen, well, not in this life time at least.

The Big East makes more TV money for just basketball than the G5 leagues do for both football and basketball. I personally think that makes them smart as opposed to some amorphous "man up" macho crap being propagated by the G5 conferences. Once again, the Big East make more TV money than the G5... and that's basically the only scoreboard that matters in conference realignment. It would be more fruitful if the G5 leagues would quit whining about it and/or pretend that they're more powerful simply because that they have football and figure out WHY the Big East is valued more in the marketplace for just basketball when the G5 teams are hemorrhaging trying to compete in FBS football.

The Big East found a valuable niche and they maximized their value in such niche with consistent branding and institutional fit, whereas the G5 leagues are hodgepodge leagues that are still deluding themselves in believing that they can ever achieve power status. There might very well be a handful of individual G5 *schools* that have a legitimate shot of moving up to power status, but people need to quit pretending that there will EVER be a thing known as the "Power 6" or "Power 7" or anything more than the current Power 5. A power conference (such as the Big 12) is more likely to be wiped out than a G5 conference ever getting elevated.

Except the criteria he stated was conferences that have high TV contracts. The nBE has less than a quarter of the TV contract of the lowest P5. They can't realistically be in that discussion.

It's obvious to everyone what the Big East is: A Power Basketball Conference.

Not really hard to suss out, eh? 07-coffee3
05-04-2017 04:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,431
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 575
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #66
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).

I agree that it's marketing, I just don't think it's effective marketing. There's really nothing new here: Aresco has been claiming the AAC is actually a "power" conference almost since Day One four years ago, or at least since early 2014, when the conference wasn't even a year old.

And nobody bought it that year, even though UCF won the Fiesta Bowl and UConn the basketball national title within a few months of each other, so why on earth is anyone going to believe it now?

It's stale wine poured into an old bottle. But apparently, it's all Aresco has to offer to justify his $1.7 million salary - the only thing about the AAC that is overpaid.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 04:39 PM by quo vadis.)
05-04-2017 04:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Shox Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 363
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 19
I Root For: Wichita State
Location:
Post: #67
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
Laugh all you want, but it is pretty damn refreshing to be in a conference that is actively trying to better itself. As long as we have USF. Cinci, Houston, UCONN, and SMU, all ex members of the cartel, WE have a case.
05-04-2017 04:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,402
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 91
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #68
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 04:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 11:09 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 09:51 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  
(05-03-2017 05:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Power Conference = conference's w/ high media payouts

The AAC is correct in that there are 6 of them. But the AAC isn't one. The 6 are:
1. SEC
2. Big Ten
3. ACC
4. PAC 12
5. Big XII
6. ???

FIFY ^^^

The NEWbigeast does NOT have football

Look at it this way... Is like purchasing a vehicle with no engine in it.

Here's how I see it, if the Nbigeast wants view themselves as a power conference than man up with football but even if they did, they'll be a league full of startups... Not gonna happen, well, not in this life time at least.

The Big East makes more TV money for just basketball than the G5 leagues do for both football and basketball. I personally think that makes them smart as opposed to some amorphous "man up" macho crap being propagated by the G5 conferences. Once again, the Big East make more TV money than the G5... and that's basically the only scoreboard that matters in conference realignment. It would be more fruitful if the G5 leagues would quit whining about it and/or pretend that they're more powerful simply because that they have football and figure out WHY the Big East is valued more in the marketplace for just basketball when the G5 teams are hemorrhaging trying to compete in FBS football.

The Big East found a valuable niche and they maximized their value in such niche with consistent branding and institutional fit, whereas the G5 leagues are hodgepodge leagues that are still deluding themselves in believing that they can ever achieve power status. There might very well be a handful of individual G5 *schools* that have a legitimate shot of moving up to power status, but people need to quit pretending that there will EVER be a thing known as the "Power 6" or "Power 7" or anything more than the current Power 5. A power conference (such as the Big 12) is more likely to be wiped out than a G5 conference ever getting elevated.

Except the criteria he stated was conferences that have high TV contracts. The nBE has less than a quarter of the TV contract of the lowest P5. They can't realistically be in that discussion.

It's obvious to everyone what the Big East is: A Power Basketball Conference.

Not really hard to suss out, eh? 07-coffee3

Competitively, they are a top level basketball conference. But that's not the discussion. Calling them a power conference is ALMOST as laughable as the AAC's P6 narrative. The nBE model without football makes it impossible to achieve that status. They are a very good at what they set out to do. Nothing more, nothing less. But calling them part of the P6? Stop it.
05-04-2017 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #69
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 04:54 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 04:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 11:09 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 09:51 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  FIFY ^^^

The NEWbigeast does NOT have football

Look at it this way... Is like purchasing a vehicle with no engine in it.

Here's how I see it, if the Nbigeast wants view themselves as a power conference than man up with football but even if they did, they'll be a league full of startups... Not gonna happen, well, not in this life time at least.

The Big East makes more TV money for just basketball than the G5 leagues do for both football and basketball. I personally think that makes them smart as opposed to some amorphous "man up" macho crap being propagated by the G5 conferences. Once again, the Big East make more TV money than the G5... and that's basically the only scoreboard that matters in conference realignment. It would be more fruitful if the G5 leagues would quit whining about it and/or pretend that they're more powerful simply because that they have football and figure out WHY the Big East is valued more in the marketplace for just basketball when the G5 teams are hemorrhaging trying to compete in FBS football.

The Big East found a valuable niche and they maximized their value in such niche with consistent branding and institutional fit, whereas the G5 leagues are hodgepodge leagues that are still deluding themselves in believing that they can ever achieve power status. There might very well be a handful of individual G5 *schools* that have a legitimate shot of moving up to power status, but people need to quit pretending that there will EVER be a thing known as the "Power 6" or "Power 7" or anything more than the current Power 5. A power conference (such as the Big 12) is more likely to be wiped out than a G5 conference ever getting elevated.

Except the criteria he stated was conferences that have high TV contracts. The nBE has less than a quarter of the TV contract of the lowest P5. They can't realistically be in that discussion.

It's obvious to everyone what the Big East is: A Power Basketball Conference.

Not really hard to suss out, eh? 07-coffee3

Competitively, they are a top level basketball conference. But that's not the discussion. Calling them a power conference is ALMOST as laughable as the AAC's P6 narrative. The nBE model without football makes it impossible to achieve that status. They are a very good at what they set out to do. Nothing more, nothing less. But calling them part of the P6? Stop it.

Their TV deal is 25% of the value of other power conferences, but they only sold 20% of the content of other conferences.

If you (or anybody else) wants to argue that the term "power conference" is condescending and stupid, then I won't argue against you. But if anyone wants to argue that it's not a financial term and/or that the BE doesn't meet that hurdle, then I whole-heartedly disagree.
05-04-2017 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,051
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #70
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 04:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  No. $5 million per year is equivalent to $25 million per year for basketball and football (~80% of the ACC's contract is football-driven, and the ACC is a close comp).

So yes, the BE is very much effectively in the $20-30 mm range, and the AAC isn't. That's the difference. If the AAC made $20-30 million, it would be a Power Conference.

And FWIW, "Power Conference" was a BCS-era term that applied to bowl contracts, but it died w/ the BCS. Instead, "Group" was briefly used to describe conferences w/ a huge media deal and "Gang" was used to describe those that didn't. But those terms were too similar, especially in football, so the "Power Conference" nomenclature was resurrected to replace the term "Group."

To further prove the distinction, the AAC was a Power Conference in the last year of the BCS, but it's never been referred to as a "Power Conference" under the current setup.

you have this backwards

the "power" does not come from the bowl tie in even if that pays a lot of money

1. the bowl tie in pats 2 out of 3 years not every year

2. the ACC gets $27.5 million for their bowl tie in and the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 get a chance to put another team in that bowl for a second tie in in addition to the Rose or Sugar

the Big 10, SEC SEC SEC, Big 12 and PAC 12 all get $40 million for their bowl tie in

so the ACC gets less for their single tie in than the Big 12 or PAC 12 get for their single tie in and the ACC gets less than the Big 10 or SEC SEC SEC for their primary time in and the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 get the same as the ACC for the secondary tie in

so that does not have "equality" or similarity in it yet all of those conferences are "P5" conferences

3. all of the P5 conferences get $50 million per year simply for the playoffs existing

4. the P5 conferences have more influence in the NCAA than the rest

5. "AQ" is the BCS era term that went away back when there were six BCS AQ conferences based on those conferences being in the BCS and agreeing to shift their conference winners away from historic bowl tie ins to make the #1 and #2 teams meet for the MNC and having a high paying bowl tie in without regard to the rank or record of their conference winner

6. when the BCS went away and "AQ" went away and the Big East went away is when the P5 conferences came to be

again based on getting the $50 million per year for the playoffs existing and then based on getting 2 votes with the NCAA instead of one

7. so AQ conferences went away and there were P5s left
05-04-2017 06:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,345
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 939
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #71
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 04:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).

I agree that it's marketing, I just don't think it's effective marketing. There's really nothing new here: Aresco has been claiming the AAC is actually a "power" conference almost since Day One four years ago, or at least since early 2014, when the conference wasn't even a year old.

And nobody bought it that year, even though UCF won the Fiesta Bowl and UConn the basketball national title within a few months of each other, so why on earth is anyone going to believe it now?

It's stale wine poured into an old bottle. But apparently, it's all Aresco has to offer to justify his $1.7 million salary - the only thing about the AAC that is overpaid.

Not really. It was a 24 page brochure showing how the AAC is trying to be a P5 conference. But what it really represents is a 24 page brochure explaining why the AAC isn't "just like the rest of the G5". He got everyone to read it and he got everyone discussing whether the AAC is a 6th power conference. Its not---but in continuing to drive the conversation and point out the things his conference is doing, he is effectively differentiating his "G5 widget" from all the other "widgets". Thats just marketing 101.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 07:49 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-04-2017 07:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,341
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #72
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).

I get it but what happens when five or ten years later AAC isn't invited into "the club"?

I believe in under-promise and over-deliver. I don't think the odds favor being able to deliver all 12 members of AAC into "the club".
05-04-2017 08:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,341
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #73
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 04:46 PM)Shox Wrote:  Laugh all you want, but it is pretty damn refreshing to be in a conference that is actively trying to better itself. As long as we have USF. Cinci, Houston, UCONN, and SMU, all ex members of the cartel, WE have a case.

Not one of those schools were in "the club" when the BCS formed. The one that was Temple, you didn't mention was in and sent packing after seven years of the BCS. Cincinnati, UConn and USF were backfill seven years after the BCS started. Houston, SMU, and UCF got one year as backfill additions.

Conferences can try to better themselves without setting out a goal that is essentially impossible to achieve.
05-04-2017 08:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,345
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 939
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #74
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 08:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 04:46 PM)Shox Wrote:  Laugh all you want, but it is pretty damn refreshing to be in a conference that is actively trying to better itself. As long as we have USF. Cinci, Houston, UCONN, and SMU, all ex members of the cartel, WE have a case.

Not one of those schools were in "the club" when the BCS formed. The one that was Temple, you didn't mention was in and sent packing after seven years of the BCS. Cincinnati, UConn and USF were backfill seven years after the BCS started. Houston, SMU, and UCF got one year as backfill additions.

Conferences can try to better themselves without setting out a goal that is essentially impossible to achieve.

No--but some were in the "club" for both precursors of the BCS---the Bowl Alliance and the Bowl Coalition--both of which were the BCS of their day (from around 92-97).
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 08:58 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-04-2017 08:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,345
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 939
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #75
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you guys are way overthinking this. I see it as marketing. It reminds me of the old Avis "We're #2---So we try harder" commercials. Essentially, it's the AAC saying "We're #6 (in a game where only the top 5 matter), so we try harder" (and here's our plan).

I get it but what happens when five or ten years later AAC isn't invited into "the club"?

I believe in under-promise and over-deliver. I don't think the odds favor being able to deliver all 12 members of AAC into "the club".

I said this elsewhere. To be clear---their not getting invited to the "club" (at least in my lifetime). Aresco has his schools committed to building a power 6 conference. Clearly, the belief within the conference is there is value in developing into a league that would be widely considered to be near P5 quality.


Ive heard enough interviews with Mohajir to know he preaches building toward the schools you want to be with. What happens if ASU is still in the Sunbelt in 5 years, but is a vastly improved sports program? You think the fans are going to force him out? That's silly.

lol....If you guys did that I hope we grab him I like your AD better than ours.
05-04-2017 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Online
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 18,968
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #76
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 08:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 04:46 PM)Shox Wrote:  Laugh all you want, but it is pretty damn refreshing to be in a conference that is actively trying to better itself. As long as we have USF. Cinci, Houston, UCONN, and SMU, all ex members of the cartel, WE have a case.

Not one of those schools were in "the club" when the BCS formed. The one that was Temple, you didn't mention was in and sent packing after seven years of the BCS. Cincinnati, UConn and USF were backfill seven years after the BCS started. Houston, SMU, and UCF got one year as backfill additions.

Conferences can try to better themselves without setting out a goal that is essentially impossible to achieve.

Houston and SMU were in the club.
05-04-2017 09:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #77
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 06:59 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 04:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  No. $5 million per year is equivalent to $25 million per year for basketball and football (~80% of the ACC's contract is football-driven, and the ACC is a close comp).

So yes, the BE is very much effectively in the $20-30 mm range, and the AAC isn't. That's the difference. If the AAC made $20-30 million, it would be a Power Conference.

And FWIW, "Power Conference" was a BCS-era term that applied to bowl contracts, but it died w/ the BCS. Instead, "Group" was briefly used to describe conferences w/ a huge media deal and "Gang" was used to describe those that didn't. But those terms were too similar, especially in football, so the "Power Conference" nomenclature was resurrected to replace the term "Group."

To further prove the distinction, the AAC was a Power Conference in the last year of the BCS, but it's never been referred to as a "Power Conference" under the current setup.

you have this backwards

the "power" does not come from the bowl tie in even if that pays a lot of money

1. the bowl tie in pats 2 out of 3 years not every year

2. the ACC gets $27.5 million for their bowl tie in and the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 get a chance to put another team in that bowl for a second tie in in addition to the Rose or Sugar

the Big 10, SEC SEC SEC, Big 12 and PAC 12 all get $40 million for their bowl tie in

so the ACC gets less for their single tie in than the Big 12 or PAC 12 get for their single tie in and the ACC gets less than the Big 10 or SEC SEC SEC for their primary time in and the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 get the same as the ACC for the secondary tie in

so that does not have "equality" or similarity in it yet all of those conferences are "P5" conferences

3. all of the P5 conferences get $50 million per year simply for the playoffs existing

4. the P5 conferences have more influence in the NCAA than the rest

5. "AQ" is the BCS era term that went away back when there were six BCS AQ conferences based on those conferences being in the BCS and agreeing to shift their conference winners away from historic bowl tie ins to make the #1 and #2 teams meet for the MNC and having a high paying bowl tie in without regard to the rank or record of their conference winner

6. when the BCS went away and "AQ" went away and the Big East went away is when the P5 conferences came to be

again based on getting the $50 million per year for the playoffs existing and then based on getting 2 votes with the NCAA instead of one

7. so AQ conferences went away and there were P5s left

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut...story.html

Read that article (or at least ctrl + F for "Power Conference") and look at the article's date. Next, compare that date to the end of the BCS. Then re-evaluate your position.

The term "Power Conference" was a BCS-era term.
05-04-2017 10:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,051
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #78
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 10:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 06:59 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 04:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  No. $5 million per year is equivalent to $25 million per year for basketball and football (~80% of the ACC's contract is football-driven, and the ACC is a close comp).

So yes, the BE is very much effectively in the $20-30 mm range, and the AAC isn't. That's the difference. If the AAC made $20-30 million, it would be a Power Conference.

And FWIW, "Power Conference" was a BCS-era term that applied to bowl contracts, but it died w/ the BCS. Instead, "Group" was briefly used to describe conferences w/ a huge media deal and "Gang" was used to describe those that didn't. But those terms were too similar, especially in football, so the "Power Conference" nomenclature was resurrected to replace the term "Group."

To further prove the distinction, the AAC was a Power Conference in the last year of the BCS, but it's never been referred to as a "Power Conference" under the current setup.

you have this backwards

the "power" does not come from the bowl tie in even if that pays a lot of money

1. the bowl tie in pats 2 out of 3 years not every year

2. the ACC gets $27.5 million for their bowl tie in and the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 get a chance to put another team in that bowl for a second tie in in addition to the Rose or Sugar

the Big 10, SEC SEC SEC, Big 12 and PAC 12 all get $40 million for their bowl tie in

so the ACC gets less for their single tie in than the Big 12 or PAC 12 get for their single tie in and the ACC gets less than the Big 10 or SEC SEC SEC for their primary time in and the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 get the same as the ACC for the secondary tie in

so that does not have "equality" or similarity in it yet all of those conferences are "P5" conferences

3. all of the P5 conferences get $50 million per year simply for the playoffs existing

4. the P5 conferences have more influence in the NCAA than the rest

5. "AQ" is the BCS era term that went away back when there were six BCS AQ conferences based on those conferences being in the BCS and agreeing to shift their conference winners away from historic bowl tie ins to make the #1 and #2 teams meet for the MNC and having a high paying bowl tie in without regard to the rank or record of their conference winner

6. when the BCS went away and "AQ" went away and the Big East went away is when the P5 conferences came to be

again based on getting the $50 million per year for the playoffs existing and then based on getting 2 votes with the NCAA instead of one

7. so AQ conferences went away and there were P5s left

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut...story.html

Read that article (or at least ctrl + F for "Power Conference") and look at the article's date. Next, compare that date to the end of the BCS. Then re-evaluate your position.

The term "Power Conference" was a BCS-era term.

just because something is in a news paper especially in these days and times that does not make it factual

the vast majority of people called them either BCS conferences or AQ conferences

and that does not change the fact that as of today what makes a P5 conference is not the bowl bid to a NY6 bowl it is getting paid $50 million a year based on the playoffs existing and it is getting to have two votes Vs 1 vote with the NCAA

that is what makes a "power conference" today and in the past before the playoffs there was no $50 million per year for simply being one of the BCS/AQ conferences, there was no two votes to one vote and the BCS bowls paid different amounts not close to what they pay out today much less the playoff payout (the $50 million a year automatically)

"power conference" is the term used NOW so the fact that you are trying to point to an article from the past to say "well it was used then so it died off when the BCS/AQ died off " pretty much flies in the face of the argument that "P5" and "Power Conference" is from the past and not relevant to today...because BCS/AQ is in fact what is not relevant TODAY and what DIED OFF

"power conference" and "P5" is used pretty much exclusively NOW so trying to say it went away back during what YOU called the BCS Era is refuting your own argument

no one uses "gang of 5" and "group of 5" TOGETHER especially when trying to use those terms to differentiate between the two

they would use "group of 5" for the G5 and P5 or "power conferences" for the P5

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

as shown by your same "source"

College football is increasingly a story of haves (the Power Five conferences) and have-nots (the Group of Five conferences). We know which one SDSU has always been.

even if that source used "power conference" in the past that would be much more rare Vs someone using AQ or BCS conference......and as the quote above says INCREASINGLY a story of haves which again means the term "power 5" or "P5" is more relevant today than ever and certainly did not die out with the end of the BCS/AQ era it in fact became much more common specifically because BCS and AQ were NOT relevant any longer with the end of the BCS Era
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 11:07 PM by TodgeRodge.)
05-04-2017 11:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #79
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 11:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 10:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 06:59 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 04:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  No. $5 million per year is equivalent to $25 million per year for basketball and football (~80% of the ACC's contract is football-driven, and the ACC is a close comp).

So yes, the BE is very much effectively in the $20-30 mm range, and the AAC isn't. That's the difference. If the AAC made $20-30 million, it would be a Power Conference.

And FWIW, "Power Conference" was a BCS-era term that applied to bowl contracts, but it died w/ the BCS. Instead, "Group" was briefly used to describe conferences w/ a huge media deal and "Gang" was used to describe those that didn't. But those terms were too similar, especially in football, so the "Power Conference" nomenclature was resurrected to replace the term "Group."

To further prove the distinction, the AAC was a Power Conference in the last year of the BCS, but it's never been referred to as a "Power Conference" under the current setup.

you have this backwards

the "power" does not come from the bowl tie in even if that pays a lot of money

1. the bowl tie in pats 2 out of 3 years not every year

2. the ACC gets $27.5 million for their bowl tie in and the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 get a chance to put another team in that bowl for a second tie in in addition to the Rose or Sugar

the Big 10, SEC SEC SEC, Big 12 and PAC 12 all get $40 million for their bowl tie in

so the ACC gets less for their single tie in than the Big 12 or PAC 12 get for their single tie in and the ACC gets less than the Big 10 or SEC SEC SEC for their primary time in and the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 get the same as the ACC for the secondary tie in

so that does not have "equality" or similarity in it yet all of those conferences are "P5" conferences

3. all of the P5 conferences get $50 million per year simply for the playoffs existing

4. the P5 conferences have more influence in the NCAA than the rest

5. "AQ" is the BCS era term that went away back when there were six BCS AQ conferences based on those conferences being in the BCS and agreeing to shift their conference winners away from historic bowl tie ins to make the #1 and #2 teams meet for the MNC and having a high paying bowl tie in without regard to the rank or record of their conference winner

6. when the BCS went away and "AQ" went away and the Big East went away is when the P5 conferences came to be

again based on getting the $50 million per year for the playoffs existing and then based on getting 2 votes with the NCAA instead of one

7. so AQ conferences went away and there were P5s left

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut...story.html

Read that article (or at least ctrl + F for "Power Conference") and look at the article's date. Next, compare that date to the end of the BCS. Then re-evaluate your position.

The term "Power Conference" was a BCS-era term.

just because something is in a news paper especially in these days and times that does not make it factual

the vast majority of people called them either BCS conferences or AQ conferences

and that does not change the fact that as of today what makes a P5 conference is not the bowl bid to a NY6 bowl it is getting paid $50 million a year based on the playoffs existing and it is getting to have two votes Vs 1 vote with the NCAA

that is what makes a "power conference" today and in the past before the playoffs there was no $50 million per year for simply being one of the BCS/AQ conferences, there was no two votes to one vote and the BCS bowls paid different amounts not close to what they pay out today much less the playoff payout (the $50 million a year automatically)

"power conference" is the term used NOW so the fact that you are trying to point to an article from the past to say "well it was used then so it died off when the BCS/AQ died off " pretty much flies in the face of the argument that "P5" and "Power Conference" is from the past and not relevant to today...because BCS/AQ is in fact what is not relevant TODAY and what DIED OFF

"power conference" and "P5" is used pretty much exclusively NOW so trying to say it went away back during what YOU called the BCS Era is refuting your own argument

no one uses "gang of 5" and "group of 5" TOGETHER especially when trying to use those terms to differentiate between the two

they would use "group of 5" for the G5 and P5 or "power conferences" for the P5

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

as shown by your same "source"

College football is increasingly a story of haves (the Power Five conferences) and have-nots (the Group of Five conferences). We know which one SDSU has always been.

even if that source used "power conference" in the past that would be much more rare Vs someone using AQ or BCS conference......and as the quote above says INCREASINGLY a story of haves which again means the term "power 5" or "P5" is more relevant today than ever and certainly did not die out with the end of the BCS/AQ era it in fact became much more common specifically because BCS and AQ were NOT relevant any longer with the end of the BCS Era

This is blowing my mind. Unless you think that paper lied about the date on which the article was written, I'm right. The term was used before the present structure was conceived. And it wasn't rarely used either.

And I fail to see the relevance of ~95% of what you've written in the last 2 replies, so I'm not even going to begin discussing whether it's right or not.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 11:16 PM by nzmorange.)
05-04-2017 11:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,051
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #80
RE: AAC declares it is a "Power 6" conference.
(05-04-2017 10:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  And FWIW, "Power Conference" was a BCS-era term that applied to bowl contracts, but it died w/ the BCS. Instead, "Group" was briefly used to describe conferences w/ a huge media deal and "Gang" was used to describe those that didn't. But those terms were too similar, especially in football, so the "Power Conference" nomenclature was resurrected to replace the term "Group."

To further prove the distinction, the AAC was a Power Conference in the last year of the BCS, but it's never been referred to as a "Power Conference" under the current setup.

no matter what yo try and claim the bolded statement is 100% false

the term "power conference" did not die with the BCS it only became stronger and much more meaningful and much more used than in the past

the terms BCS and AQ died with the BCS

there is simply nothing for you to argue that will change this FACT

nobody discusses the "gang of five" Vs the "group of 5"

there is no other term for the power conferences in use now other than P5 with the P coming from the word POWER

the terms that dies with the BCS were BCS and AQ.....the terms that became the terms used by everyone post BCS were P5 and G5 for Power 5 and Group of 5 with the P coming from POWER and the G coming from Group

what terms are you trying to say that everyone uses for the P5 now?

do you have any term at all that ANYONE of relevance has used for the P5 other than power conference or P5 in the post BCS/AQ era

I suppose we could use the terms Former BCS/AQ Conferences With The Exception Of The Old Big East/AAC

but somehow at least to me FBCS/AQCWTEOTOBEAAC just does not rioll off the tongue

neither does The Conferences That Were Never BCS/AC With The Exception Of The AAC That Had One Year Of The Old BE AQ

again perhaps it is just me, but TCTWNBCS/AQWTEOTAACTHOYOTOBEAQ just doesn't seem to roll off the tongue either

I have never seen a discussion of the FBCS/AQCWTEOTOBEAAC Vs TCTWNBCS/AQWTEOTAACTHOYOTOBEAQ

but I have seen a million discussions on this forum and across the WWW discussing the P5 and the G5 with everyone (except apparently one) understanding that P is for "power 5" or "power conferences"

again what term are you claiming is in use now that pretty much no one else on earth uses since you claim the term "power conferences" died with the BCS/AQ era......never mind that the terms BCS/AQ that were used frequently during that era are the terms that are no longer relevant

also excluding the fact that in the BCS/AQ era the BCA/AQ conferences still had one vote per conference just like all the non-BCS/AQ and never mind that back then the financial differences coming from the BCS/AQ and the associated games were not nearly as substantial and the financial differences with the $50 million per year P% playoff payment and the NY6 payments

which goes to the irrefutable FACT that the P5 conferences "power conferences" have only become MORE POWERFUL post BCS/AQ and since they are also no longer BCS/AQ conferences because the BCS/AQ is gone......well they terms BCS/AQ died and the term POWER 5 or POWER CONFERENCE or P% have instead become the terms USED NOW
(This post was last modified: 05-05-2017 12:39 AM by TodgeRodge.)
05-05-2017 12:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.