There is a P5, no such thing as a P6, but if it helps your self esteem, call yourselves a P6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-19-2017 01:56 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  There is a P5, no such thing as a P6, but if it helps your self esteem, call yourselves a P6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is actually no official "P5". There is also no real "Charlie Tuna". There is no real talking Gieco Lizard. There is no real "Flo" from Progressive. It's marketing and its marketing that's aimed at ultimately improving the perception, tv ratings, and pay check of the conference. It's not really aimed at a handful of message board critics who think the Sunbelt and AAC are the "same". It's basically designed to differentiate the AAC from the rest of the G5 in the minds of the opinion shapers and general public. In that respect--it's been pretty reasonably effective in the short time since it's unveiling.

(07-19-2017 02:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 01:56 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  There is a P5, no such thing as a P6, but if it helps your self esteem, call yourselves a P6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is actually no official "P5". There is also no real "Charlie Tuna". There is no real talking Gieco Lizard. There is no real "Flo" from Progressive. It's marketing and its marketing that's aimed at ultimately improving the perception, tv ratings, and pay check of the conference. It's not really aimed at a handful of message board critics who think the Sunbelt and AAC are the "same". It's basically designed to differentiate the AAC from the rest of the G5 in the minds of the opinion shapers and general public. In that respect--it's been pretty reasonably effective in the short time since it's unveiling.

laughable reply

trying to say there is no "P5" is a joke when there are marked differences between the P5 and G5

1. NCAA votes

2. $27.5 to $40 million per year guaranteed NY6 Bowl Games

3. TV contracts

and the P5 does not even need to go out and "market" themselves that way because the people you claim the idiotic "P6" campaign is aimed at know the differences I listed above and understand why they matter and why the AAC is not close to those types of things and even if there is slight distance from any other G5 conference for a year or two that does not make up for the light years worth of distance from the P5

and the "message board critics" are the only ones even talking about this and more importantly mocking it because the "opinion shapers" already know it is a joke and give it no credence and the general public either does not care or continues to see the G5 as the G5 and the P5 as well apart from ANY of the G5 and helmet stickers and some easily dismissed talking points are not going to change their opinion

(07-19-2017 02:51 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 02:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 01:56 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  There is a P5, no such thing as a P6, but if it helps your self esteem, call yourselves a P6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is actually no official "P5". There is also no real "Charlie Tuna". There is no real talking Gieco Lizard. There is no real "Flo" from Progressive. It's marketing and its marketing that's aimed at ultimately improving the perception, tv ratings, and pay check of the conference. It's not really aimed at a handful of message board critics who think the Sunbelt and AAC are the "same". It's basically designed to differentiate the AAC from the rest of the G5 in the minds of the opinion shapers and general public. In that respect--it's been pretty reasonably effective in the short time since it's unveiling.

laughable reply

trying to say there is no "P5" is a joke when there are marked differences between the P5 and G5

1. NCAA votes

2. $27.5 to $40 million per year guaranteed NY6 Bowl Games

3. TV contracts

and the P5 does not even need to go out and "market" themselves that way because the people you claim the idiotic "P6" campaign is aimed at know the differences I listed above and understand why they matter and why the AAC is not close to those types of things and even if there is slight distance from any other G5 conference for a year or two that does not make up for the light years worth of distance from the P5

and the "message board critics" are the only ones even talking about this and more importantly mocking it because the "opinion shapers" already know it is a joke and give it no credence and the general public either does not care or continues to see the G5 as the G5 and the P5 as well apart from ANY of the G5 and helmet stickers and some easily dismissed talking points are not going to change their opinion

Swings and misses.

I never said there weren't differences. I said there is no "official" P5. It's a made up term. The AAC is generally accepted to be the 6th best conference. The P6 thing is just a marketing campaign. Your claim that the message boarders are the only people talking about it is easily refuted by the multiple articles posted just in this thread. Here is another from today---

https://www.thedailystampede.com/2017/7/...conference

As I have said many times---its a marketing campaign designed to differentiate the AAC from the rest of the G5 and has no real chance ito make the AAC a true power conference (at least in my lifetime). That said, as long as it appears to be improving the perception of the AAC, the P6 marketing push will continue. I wouldn't look for it to end anytime soon.

I find it funny that the most opinionated people on message boards who supposedly "laugh" at this are G4 fans. The top 5 conferences don't get irritated because they know the AAC is not better......but those G4 fanboys.......they just can't get over the salt.

The entire PX concept is stupid.

(07-19-2017 04:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The entire PX concept is stupid.

Why? There are a very clearly defined group within the CFP that receive a much larger share of the revenue pool.

And the NCAA has very clearly defined a group that can pass legislation on its own.

(07-19-2017 04:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The entire PX concept is stupid.

Why is it stupid? Yes, P5 is a made up term........ but one cannot deny the separation with regards to autonomy, money, and contracts bowls. How else do you differentiate? P6 is simply stating the distinct differences between the AAC and the G4.

(07-19-2017 08:50 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think that when this guaranteed slot for the G5 was created during the CFP negotiations, that it was more or less expected to be a shoe-in slot for the Big East/AAC. Aresco even celebrated it as such. Sure, maybe Boise might get it every few years,

Jeah, by winning the Big East Football Conference/ AAC.

Quote:but other than that, it was created almost as a quasi-guarantee for the AAC. Obviously, it hasn't worked out that way so far.
.......

No, evidence for a real benefit is when team (or conference) A is ranked above or gets a bid over B when A is 9-2 while B is 10-1. That does happen, but so far the AAC hasn't pulled that off.

Who got the bid when Marshall was 12-1 against the worst schedule in FBS or something?

I do think that the Marshal team is a bad example considering that they are an anomaly of having never played one power teams that year. On top of that they did not play really good non-power teams as well during the season and still had a FCS school on the schedule.

That is an anomaly and should not be used as any standard. As an example WMU last year had two Big 10 schools on the schedule and one non-power school that has tended to be pretty decent in Georgia Southern. That is way better of an OOC schedule and most G5 schools tend to have schedules closer to that in general than Marshall from that year. Most schools play at least one if not two power conferences schools a season and in many cases one or more of those games are on teh road increasing the difficulty. Marshal was an outlier.

(07-19-2017 05:13 PM)otown Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 04:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The entire PX concept is stupid.

Why is it stupid? Yes, P5 is a made up term........ but one cannot deny the separation with regards to autonomy, money, and contracts bowls. How else do you differentiate? P6 is simply stating the distinct differences between the AAC and the G4.

There is no G4 either, there is a G5, but AAC fans have an inferiority complex about the P5, when in fact he AAC is inferior.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-19-2017 10:18 AM)otown Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 07:23 PM)otown Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:40 AM)Bull Wrote:  Do people even read before they post here? the article is not saying the aac *IS* a P5 conference... and that's why coaches are still getting poached. The article is saying that the start of a very long process is underway... and so far so good.


"No, there's no seat at the Power Five table right now. No, there probably won't be anytime between now and the end of the College Football Playoff contract in 2025. That's not the point. At least, it shouldn't be."

Here's what the author says about the goal of the P6 campaign:

"Instead of a playoff spot, the AAC is hoping that the perception it creates by championing itself as the most powerful Group of Five conference will help its champion earn that benefit of the doubt when the selection committee places teams in bowl games and gives its top-ranked Group of Five team a spot in the vaunted New Year's Six."

There are two things wrong with this. First, the AAC's campaign is not about positioning itself as the most powerful G5 conference. The whole concept of "P6" is that the AAC is NOT a member of the G5 at all, but rather should be regarded as a Power conference.

Second, if he's right about the goal of the campaign, to get the benefit of the doubt in CFP deliberations about which G5 school gets the NY6 Bowl bid, the available evidence suggests it has NOT worked, as the AAC has gotten the NY6 bid only 1 time in the 3 years it has been available. Heck, it failed to get that bid this past year, when it was easily the best of the G5 conferences during the regular season.

So this article seems a lot of poofery with nothing to back it up.

I don't expect you to respond......buuuuuttt.........AAC got the bid 1 time out of 3 chances..... and in the 2 that they were not selected, their top team had more loses during the regular season. Soooo...... quo...... I must ask........ if every conceivable media outlet expects the AAC to get the nod with an equal amount of loses to a candidate from one of the other conferences..........how exactly is it not working? The AAC gets the benefit.....other conferences have to have a better record, since tying the AAC will not get them in.

I think that when this guaranteed slot for the G5 was created during the CFP negotiations, that it was more or less expected to be a shoe-in slot for the Big East/AAC. Aresco even celebrated it as such. Sure, maybe Boise might get it every few years, but other than that, it was created almost as a quasi-guarantee for the AAC. Obviously, it hasn't worked out that way so far.

As for losses, it's not anywhere near the case that if two teams have the same record, the team that gets a bid over the other got any kind of psychic benefit from whoever made the selection. Oftentimes, one 9-2 team is clearly more deserving than another 9-2 team, usually because of schedule strength or somesuch.

No, evidence for a real benefit is when team (or conference) A is ranked above or gets a bid over B when A is 9-2 while B is 10-1. That does happen, but so far the AAC hasn't pulled that off. There just is no evidence so far that the CFP gives the AAC any kind of special boost in their rankings, and especially not based on this P6 campaign.

The author of the article just made an unjustified assertion, namely that the AAC's P6 campaign has created some kind of impression in the mind of the CFP that favors it. So far, there is no evidence for that.

Proof?

Look no further than 2016 CFP rankings.
Week 13: 2 loss Houston one slot behind 1 loss Boise. You bet your butt Houston would be ahead of them with equal loses. Zero loss WMU behind both.
Week 14: Houston and Boise lose, but Houston remains at 24 with 3 losses and Boise drops out with 2 losses. WMU now top and undefeated, but Navy slings onto their behinds with 2 loses.
Week 15: Navy get 3 loses and drops, but still ranked. Temple joins as being ranked with 3 loses. WMU still undefeated. Its clear based on the trend that if Navy would have won the final game, they would have hopped WMU with 2 losses.

How about 2014 rankings.
Boise got in over Marshal with more losses. I am sure that if the AAC didn't have a total disaster year, with equal losses, they would have been ahead of Boise

Bringing back the BCS era (yes, not quite apples to oranges), lets pretend AAC was not a BCS conference at the time
Week 16 UCF same amount of losses to Fresno State and NIU, but 5 slots ahead Fresno and 8 ahead of NIU.

So it seems to me that an AAC team seems to finish ahead of the MWC when tied and neck and neck when even one more loss. Same can be said with the MWC compared the MAC/Sunbelt/CUSA.

Quo, these are the facts. History shows the trends. You cannot use your personal bias against the facts, and the facts are in the historical trends. AAC has a one stroke handicap against the MWC and a 2 stroke handicap against the MAC/CUSA/Sunbelt.

So yes, the P6 is working. Its just that the AAC seems to consistently beat up on one onother. We have no clear top.

A couple of things wrong with your account. First, the "P6 campaign" can't have accounted for any edge the AAC got in 2015 or before, because the campaign was just launched last year. Heck, it wasn't formally launched until just a couple months ago, on May 1st, and informally it didn't go into effect until very late last season, IIRC the weekend of November 5th was when our teams started wearing "P6" patches on the helmets.

So that wipes out the great bulk of your timeline events right there.

As for Houston vs Boise last year, I agree that was instructive, but not in the way you think. Yes, Houston was breathing down Boise's neck during week 13, but they had the unique situation of having just beaten #5 Louisville, and also an earlier big win over a top-5 Oklahoma team. That's what it took on a AAC team's resume, two wins over top-5 ranked P5 powers (not very likely to happen again, eh?), and they were STILL ranked behind another G5 team from the MWC that had one fewer loss!

Not much evidence of an "AAC premium" there.

As for Navy, you aren't presenting facts, just your speculation about what you believe would have happened if they'd won the AAC title game. Yeah, you're "sure" that Navy would have jumped ahead, just like you're "sure" an AAC team in 2014 with same record as Boise woulda jumped them. Those aren't facts, they are woulda coulda shoulda wishful thinking.

You speak of facts, but here are the facts:

(1) The AAC has received just 1 of the 3 automatic NY6 bids despite expectations they would dominate the bid.

(2) No AAC team has yet received the bid while getting any kind of "AAC premium" over a team from any other G5 conference.

(3) So far, the only conference which has is the MWC, in 2014 Boise got the bid despite having a worse record than Marshall of C-USA.

(07-19-2017 05:14 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 08:50 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think that when this guaranteed slot for the G5 was created during the CFP negotiations, that it was more or less expected to be a shoe-in slot for the Big East/AAC. Aresco even celebrated it as such. Sure, maybe Boise might get it every few years,

Jeah, by winning the Big East Football Conference/ AAC.

Quote:but other than that, it was created almost as a quasi-guarantee for the AAC. Obviously, it hasn't worked out that way so far.
.......

No, evidence for a real benefit is when team (or conference) A is ranked above or gets a bid over B when A is 9-2 while B is 10-1. That does happen, but so far the AAC hasn't pulled that off.

Who got the bid when Marshall was 12-1 against the worst schedule in FBS or something?

I do think that the Marshal team is a bad example considering that they are an anomaly of having never played one power teams that year. On top of that they did not play really good non-power teams as well during the season and still had a FCS school on the schedule.

It's also a bad example in this context, because it's not an example of an AAC team getting the nod over a team from another G5 with a better record, it's an example of an MWC team getting it.

And IIRC, the MWC isn't running a P6 campaign.

(07-19-2017 06:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:18 AM)otown Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 07:23 PM)otown Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Here's what the author says about the goal of the P6 campaign:

"Instead of a playoff spot, the AAC is hoping that the perception it creates by championing itself as the most powerful Group of Five conference will help its champion earn that benefit of the doubt when the selection committee places teams in bowl games and gives its top-ranked Group of Five team a spot in the vaunted New Year's Six."

There are two things wrong with this. First, the AAC's campaign is not about positioning itself as the most powerful G5 conference. The whole concept of "P6" is that the AAC is NOT a member of the G5 at all, but rather should be regarded as a Power conference.

Second, if he's right about the goal of the campaign, to get the benefit of the doubt in CFP deliberations about which G5 school gets the NY6 Bowl bid, the available evidence suggests it has NOT worked, as the AAC has gotten the NY6 bid only 1 time in the 3 years it has been available. Heck, it failed to get that bid this past year, when it was easily the best of the G5 conferences during the regular season.

So this article seems a lot of poofery with nothing to back it up.

I don't expect you to respond......buuuuuttt.........AAC got the bid 1 time out of 3 chances..... and in the 2 that they were not selected, their top team had more loses during the regular season. Soooo...... quo...... I must ask........ if every conceivable media outlet expects the AAC to get the nod with an equal amount of loses to a candidate from one of the other conferences..........how exactly is it not working? The AAC gets the benefit.....other conferences have to have a better record, since tying the AAC will not get them in.

I think that when this guaranteed slot for the G5 was created during the CFP negotiations, that it was more or less expected to be a shoe-in slot for the Big East/AAC. Aresco even celebrated it as such. Sure, maybe Boise might get it every few years, but other than that, it was created almost as a quasi-guarantee for the AAC. Obviously, it hasn't worked out that way so far.

As for losses, it's not anywhere near the case that if two teams have the same record, the team that gets a bid over the other got any kind of psychic benefit from whoever made the selection. Oftentimes, one 9-2 team is clearly more deserving than another 9-2 team, usually because of schedule strength or somesuch.

No, evidence for a real benefit is when team (or conference) A is ranked above or gets a bid over B when A is 9-2 while B is 10-1. That does happen, but so far the AAC hasn't pulled that off. There just is no evidence so far that the CFP gives the AAC any kind of special boost in their rankings, and especially not based on this P6 campaign.

The author of the article just made an unjustified assertion, namely that the AAC's P6 campaign has created some kind of impression in the mind of the CFP that favors it. So far, there is no evidence for that.

Proof?

Look no further than 2016 CFP rankings.
Week 13: 2 loss Houston one slot behind 1 loss Boise. You bet your butt Houston would be ahead of them with equal loses. Zero loss WMU behind both.
Week 14: Houston and Boise lose, but Houston remains at 24 with 3 losses and Boise drops out with 2 losses. WMU now top and undefeated, but Navy slings onto their behinds with 2 loses.
Week 15: Navy get 3 loses and drops, but still ranked. Temple joins as being ranked with 3 loses. WMU still undefeated. Its clear based on the trend that if Navy would have won the final game, they would have hopped WMU with 2 losses.

How about 2014 rankings.
Boise got in over Marshal with more losses. I am sure that if the AAC didn't have a total disaster year, with equal losses, they would have been ahead of Boise

Bringing back the BCS era (yes, not quite apples to oranges), lets pretend AAC was not a BCS conference at the time
Week 16 UCF same amount of losses to Fresno State and NIU, but 5 slots ahead Fresno and 8 ahead of NIU.

So it seems to me that an AAC team seems to finish ahead of the MWC when tied and neck and neck when even one more loss. Same can be said with the MWC compared the MAC/Sunbelt/CUSA.

Quo, these are the facts. History shows the trends. You cannot use your personal bias against the facts, and the facts are in the historical trends. AAC has a one stroke handicap against the MWC and a 2 stroke handicap against the MAC/CUSA/Sunbelt.

So yes, the P6 is working. Its just that the AAC seems to consistently beat up on one onother. We have no clear top.

A couple of things wrong with your account. First, the "P6 campaign" can't have accounted for any edge the AAC got in 2015 or before, because the campaign was just launched last year. Heck, it wasn't formally launched until just a couple months ago, on May 1st, and informally it didn't go into effect until very late last season, IIRC the weekend of November 5th was when our teams started wearing "P6" patches on the helmets.

So that wipes out the great bulk of your timeline events right there.

As for Houston vs Boise last year, I agree that was instructive, but not in the way you think. Yes, Houston was breathing down Boise's neck during week 13, but they had the unique situation of having just beaten #5 Louisville, and also an earlier big win over a top-5 Oklahoma team. That's what it took on a AAC team's resume, two wins over top-5 ranked P5 powers (not very likely to happen again, eh?), and they were STILL ranked behind another G5 team from the MWC that had one fewer loss!

Not much evidence of an "AAC premium" there.

As for Navy, you aren't presenting facts, just your speculation about what you believe would have happened if they'd won the AAC title game. Yeah, you're "sure" that Navy would have jumped ahead, just like you're "sure" an AAC team in 2014 with same record as Boise woulda jumped them. Those aren't facts, they are woulda coulda shoulda wishful thinking.

You speak of facts, but here are the facts:

(1) The AAC has received just 1 of the 3 automatic NY6 bids despite expectations they would dominate the bid.

(2) No AAC team has yet received the bid while getting any kind of "AAC premium" over a team from any other G5 conference.

(3) So far, the only conference which has is the MWC, in 2014 Boise got the bid despite having a worse record than Marshall of C-USA.

1. You are trying to make your point by looking at stats in a vacuum. Any peer reviewed study would get you blown out of the water.

2. Once again, you are looking at it in a vacuum. Unfortunately for you, the CFP does their rankings weekly, in fact, many weeks in advance. Plenty of facts there to back my claim. One can clearly demarcate a trend for an expected outcome based on those trends inserting one less loss.

3. You really have no statistical knowledge do you? You cannot look at the end result to prove or disprove the AAC handicap hypothesis without looking at how an outcome occurred and trends set in the study.

(07-19-2017 02:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 01:56 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  There is a P5, no such thing as a P6, but if it helps your self esteem, call yourselves a P6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is actually no official "P5". There is also no real "Charlie Tuna". There is no real talking Gieco Lizard. There is no real "Flo" from Progressive. It's marketing and its marketing that's aimed at ultimately improving the perception, tv ratings, and pay check of the conference. It's not really aimed at a handful of message board critics who think the Sunbelt and AAC are the "same". It's basically designed to differentiate the AAC from the rest of the G5 in the minds of the opinion shapers and general public. In that respect--it's been pretty reasonably effective in the short time since it's unveiling.

Actually Flo is real.

It's not what people think, it's what they feel.

From the AAC media days, I love this P6 campaign. Aresco knows what he is doing. This is a great article summing up the media days. Aresco is not claiming to be a P5 conference. The P6 is all about the separation from the G4. It is understandable that the G4 fans get irritated by this. It is because it hurts. It hurts, because the see their conferences happy about the status quo. They see their conferences accepting where they are currently. It hurts because their conference goals are to simply place a team in a NY6 bowl. They get upset when they see, what they deem as a peer, someone who has more ammo to work with, more resources to work with, and much more loftier goals. Aresco and the AAC have a plan to move on to greener pastures. On step at a time.

Yes, it involves snagging the Access bowl most years. But is also involves branding, which he is brilliantly doing with the P6.

Sure, people can say that they laugh at it, but its one hell of a marketing brand that he is creating.

It involves getting a substantial raise on the TV deal and negotiating from a much stronger level than he was at in the past. It involves having actual ratings to back up his claim that the AAC is worth $5 to 10 million a team.

It involves improving their bowls next go around. He publicly states that he wants and expects to be in a position to negotiate a contract bowl in 2025. He is also willing to get better bowls such at Russell Athletic, Gator, etc by offering a higher payout to the P5 team. It this type of thinking that will get the AAC places. What other G4 commissioner have you heard a peep from during the past few years? Any national news articles about them? Have they publicly stated their conference plans and goals. Have they stated that they expect to go into 2025 negotiating a contract bowl?

There is a plan in place. Quite frankly, when was the last time that anybody heard anything from Judy MacLeod, Karl Benson, or Jon Steinbrecher with regards to a true forward thinking plan to get their conferences to be closer to the current autonomous members?

So maybe that is why so many people are jealous of the marketing campaign. They are speaking from boats with no rudders.

https://www.thedailystampede.com/2017/7/...conference

(07-19-2017 07:47 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  It's not what people think it is what they feel.

Exactly. A lot of folks are feeling that the AAC is a P6 conference, even though they aren't thinking it.

They can call themselves the Q1 conference if they want....or just go with "not P5". Because bottom line..."not P5" is the reality here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(07-19-2017 07:36 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 02:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 01:56 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  There is a P5, no such thing as a P6, but if it helps your self esteem, call yourselves a P6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is actually no official "P5". There is also no real "Charlie Tuna". There is no real talking Gieco Lizard. There is no real "Flo" from Progressive. It's marketing and its marketing that's aimed at ultimately improving the perception, tv ratings, and pay check of the conference. It's not really aimed at a handful of message board critics who think the Sunbelt and AAC are the "same". It's basically designed to differentiate the AAC from the rest of the G5 in the minds of the opinion shapers and general public. In that respect--it's been pretty reasonably effective in the short time since it's unveiling.

Actually Flo is real.

Lol. No---Flo is a fictional character played by a real actress.

(07-19-2017 06:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 05:14 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 08:50 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think that when this guaranteed slot for the G5 was created during the CFP negotiations, that it was more or less expected to be a shoe-in slot for the Big East/AAC. Aresco even celebrated it as such. Sure, maybe Boise might get it every few years,

Jeah, by winning the Big East Football Conference/ AAC.

Quote:but other than that, it was created almost as a quasi-guarantee for the AAC. Obviously, it hasn't worked out that way so far.
.......

No, evidence for a real benefit is when team (or conference) A is ranked above or gets a bid over B when A is 9-2 while B is 10-1. That does happen, but so far the AAC hasn't pulled that off.

Who got the bid when Marshall was 12-1 against the worst schedule in FBS or something?

I do think that the Marshal team is a bad example considering that they are an anomaly of having never played one power teams that year. On top of that they did not play really good non-power teams as well during the season and still had a FCS school on the schedule.

It's also a bad example in this context, because it's not an example of an AAC team getting the nod over a team from another G5 with a better record, it's an example of an MWC team getting it.

And IIRC, the MWC isn't running a P6 campaign.

The MW already learned the lesson of trying to claim to be a power conference in the BCS days.