(04-12-2019 04:11 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Not sure BCS data is statistically relevant in the CFP era as teams and processes have changed. Agree with the poster bringing up 2016. There were plenty of MAC fans up in arms when the committee made the decision to delay selecting a G5 rep until after the Army/Navy game.

Have no dogs in this fight. But if the AAC keeps pointing to the BCS Year UCF to be counted with the CFP, hard to tell other conferences that there BCS appearance should not count.

CFP era, AAC has been the best G5 conference. No one should question that at all.

^agree, my comment was more from a predictive viewpoint. The datasets aren’t congruent/consistent and the methodology has changed making comparatives/conclusions problematic.

(04-11-2019 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 12:42 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The AAC is the best non power football and basketball conference and it’s not even close.

Actually, in football, the AAC and MWC have been very close. In the past five years, the AAC has been the #1 G5 conference 3 times, the MWC 2 times, including this past year.

The MWC and AAC have actually waged a very close battle on the field for football supremacy. There hasn't been any separation there.

I think both viewpoints can be correct. It’s a matter of perception vs. reality. The big pub for G5 teams/conferences comes from the NY6 bowl, the weekly CFP polls and subsequent media coverage. Without question, this is where the AAC has gained its best PR. The mass media doesn’t care a whit about final G5 standings, hence not much coverage is given or really known about in the “casual fan” realm. By casual, I’m thinking folks exposed to the CFP process.

(04-12-2019 06:02 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 04:11 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Not sure BCS data is statistically relevant in the CFP era as teams and processes have changed. Agree with the poster bringing up 2016. There were plenty of MAC fans up in arms when the committee made the decision to delay selecting a G5 rep until after the Army/Navy game.

Have no dogs in this fight. But if the AAC keeps pointing to the BCS Year UCF to be counted with the CFP, hard to tell other conferences that there BCS appearance should not count.

CFP era, AAC has been the best G5 conference. No one should question that at all.

Count them---dont count them. Doesnt really matter. For the topic at hand, what relevance would it have prior to the existence of the AAC? The discussion is focused on the question of whether or not the AAC has separated itself from the other non-power conferences. So, by its every nature, the discussion is about how the AAC has looked in comparison to the rest of the non-power conferences during its short existence. The point is the AAC has been playing on New Years Day in 4 of its 6 years. As Gulfcoastgal points out, that's really the main thing the general public remembers.

(04-12-2019 05:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 05:22 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 05:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 02:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 11:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  "History" shows that to be false? Really? Based on what? How many G5 teams have been to a BCS or CFP bowl game? Boise, Utah, Hawaii, TCU, UCF, Houston, NIU, and WMU. Thats it. And two of those arent even G5's anymore. So---6 G5 schools----and keep in mind, two of those remaining G5 teams make up 6 of the total BCS/CFP appearances. Sounds an awful lot like a handful of schools to me. Sure, theoretically---anyone can win it. The same can be said for the national championship---but how many times has a mid-tier team like Texas Tech or Miss St ever been in the CFP?

Here is what I will say. A G5 has essentially zero chance of making the CFP. However, a traditionally mid-to-lower P5 team really only has a slightly better chance (almost zero---but not quite) of making the CFP. There isnt all that much difference in their CFP situations in actual practice. On the other hand, a pretty good well funded G5 program has a legitimately reasonable shot at making a CFP bowl. In fact, I'd argue the top G5 programs have a better shot at making a CFP bowl than the traditionally mid-to-lower level P5 schools. However, Bullet---here's where I would agree with you. Any G5 who is funding their program very well has a decent shot of making an access bowl.

Obviously, Im not making a case to say the G5 have it better---they dont. Where the mid-to-lower P5 schools have a HUGE advantage over the top G5 schools (other than money) is they obviously play a much more attractive schedule and they will almost always end up at a MUCH better bowl at the end of every 6-win or better season.

Top ranked teams not currently in P5, starting with the BCS era
1998 Tulane
1999 Marshall
2000 Colorado St.
2001 Toledo
2002 Boise St.
2003 Miami (ohio)
2004 Boise St.
2005 non ranked
2006 Boise St.
2007 BYU
2008 Boise St.
2009 Cincinnati
2010 Boise St.
2011 Boise St.
2012 Utah St.
2013 UCF
2014 Boise St.
2015 Houston
2016 W. Michigan
2017 UCF
2018 UCF

6 times in 21 years it was AAC. 3 times it was current MAC. 1 time current CUSA (MAC at the time). 9 times current MWC. 1 time independent. 1 time none ranked.

Other teams ranked-
1998 Air Force,
1999, Southern Miss,
2001 BYU
2002 Marshall,
2003 Boise, Bowling Green,
2004 Fresno, Navy,
2006 BYU,
2007 Cincinnati,
2008 Cincinnati, Hawaii, BYU,
2009 BYU, Central Michigan
2010 Nevada, UCF, Tulsa
2011 Houston, Southern Miss, Cincinnati
2012 Boise, San Jose, Northern Illinois
2014 Marshall, Memphis
2015 Navy, Western Kentucky
2016 USF, San Diego St.
2017 USF, Boise, Memphis
2018 Fresno, Army, Utah St., Boise, Cincinnati

So I count 8 AAC schools and 20 non-AAC schools ranked. So history says the idea that only a handful of schools can contend is utter nonsense.

lol...C'mon---seriously?? You're throwing out a 21 year old stat on an AAC confernece that is a whopping 6 years old? However, in the AAC's short existence, the AAC has played on NYD 4 of those 6 years. The AAC budgets are generally significantly higher than most of its competitors for the access bowl. There is a pretty decent chance that 66% rate of playing on NYD is a reasonably solid indicator of how the next 6 years will play out.

You don’t get to count the 2013 season since the AAC was part of the Big East autobid in the BCS final season. The AAC champ had a guaranteed spot regardless of record. However, the AAC has been to the NY6 three times with a 2-1 record which is very impressive for such a young conference.

I didnt say it did or didnt "count". I said we played on NYD 4 of the 6 years the AAC has been in existence. However, I would count it because the AAC existed at that time and because the UCF was the highest rated G5 school that year--so it would have gone to the access bowl even if the new CFP rules had been in effect. Its also important to note that UCF beat out 5 legacy Big East teams (most notably Louisville and Cinci) that were still playing in the AAC that year---so they earned that slot.

The AAC champion would’ve been in even with 4 losses. Remember Pitt (2004) and UConn (2010)? The CFP was still not in effect so UCF’s ranking is a moot point since UCF for BCS purposes was an AQ school for the 2013 season. Heck, a third of the current AAC (Tulsa, Tulane, East Carolina and Navy) were not even members yet while Louisville and Rutgers played a lame duck season. You were the Big East with a new name, period.

If you want to count UCF’s 2014 Fiesta Bowl as a NY6 Bowl for the AAC, fine but it should be with an asterisk next to it.

(04-12-2019 06:59 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 12:42 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The AAC is the best non power football and basketball conference and it’s not even close.

Actually, in football, the AAC and MWC have been very close. In the past five years, the AAC has been the #1 G5 conference 3 times, the MWC 2 times, including this past year.

The MWC and AAC have actually waged a very close battle on the field for football supremacy. There hasn't been any separation there.

I think both viewpoints can be correct. It’s a matter of perception vs. reality. The big pub for G5 teams/conferences comes from the NY6 bowl, the weekly CFP polls and subsequent media coverage. Without question, this is where the AAC has gained its best PR. The mass media doesn’t care a whit about final G5 standings, hence not much coverage is given or really known about in the “casual fan” realm. By casual, I’m thinking folks exposed to the CFP process.

Eh, he said the "AAC is the best ... and it's not close". That's a statement of reality, not perception, so that basically makes him ... wrong, LOL.

And while I agree that certainly the media does focus a lot on the NY6 slot, IMO a lot of that attention goes strictly to the school, the conference doesn't get much shine from it. E.g., UCF got an enormous amount of mainstream attention going to the NY6 the past two seasons, but I don't think this translated in to much AAC shine.

Bottom line is, however you slice it, I think the mainstream perception is that the AAC and MWC are the two best G5 football conferences, in that order, the AAC is #1 and the MWC is #1A, not that the AAC is clearly tops.

That's as of now.

(04-13-2019 12:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 06:02 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 04:11 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Not sure BCS data is statistically relevant in the CFP era as teams and processes have changed. Agree with the poster bringing up 2016. There were plenty of MAC fans up in arms when the committee made the decision to delay selecting a G5 rep until after the Army/Navy game.

Have no dogs in this fight. But if the AAC keeps pointing to the BCS Year UCF to be counted with the CFP, hard to tell other conferences that there BCS appearance should not count.

CFP era, AAC has been the best G5 conference. No one should question that at all.

Count them---dont count them. Doesnt really matter. For the topic at hand, what relevance would it have prior to the existence of the AAC? The discussion is focused on the question of whether or not the AAC has separated itself from the other non-power conferences. So, by its every nature, the discussion is about how the AAC has looked in comparison to the rest of the non-power conferences during its short existence. The point is the AAC has been playing on New Years Day in 4 of its 6 years. As Gulfcoastgal points out, that's really the main thing the general public remembers.

I think the public remembers teams - UCF has gotten a ton of shine for making the Peach and Fiesta Bowls the past two years - but I doubt the AAC has gotten much rub off from it. Conferences get rub offs when their membership is known and they have a public identity. The AAC has neither, and frankly, it doesn't help when the rep, in this case UCF, makes it all about themselves with very little touting of the conference.

E.g., after LSU beat UCF, even LSU touted the SEC. Several of their top players made (unfavorable) comments about how UCF's team and athletes compared to the SEC teams they face and this was widely reported.

I don't recall UCF doing much promoting of the AAC after their Auburn win or in the run-up to this Fiesta Bowl. They did have a very vigorous social media/propaganda operation this past year, but it was basically all about UCF. You wouldn't know from any of it whether they were AAC, Sun Belt, etc.

Can't blame them for that, btw, but that's how it was.

Beyond that, I think GCG is wrong - the media regards the AAC and MWC as the two best G5 football conferences, in that order. No separation. Which comports with factual reality too.

(04-13-2019 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Beyond that, I think GCG is wrong - the media regards the AAC and MWC as the two best G5 football conferences, in that order. No separation. Which comports with factual reality too.

This thread is about a podcast called "AP Top 25" with the AP national college football writer talking to the USA Today college football writer - a pretty good capture of "media" in my opinion.
They say AAC has separated from the G4, maybe the mwc is keeping the AAC in sight or not getting lapped. But their whole segment was about the AAC separating, not the AAC & mwc separating - revenue and markets/eyeballs being the reasonas much or more than on field.

(04-13-2019 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 12:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 06:02 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 04:11 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Not sure BCS data is statistically relevant in the CFP era as teams and processes have changed. Agree with the poster bringing up 2016. There were plenty of MAC fans up in arms when the committee made the decision to delay selecting a G5 rep until after the Army/Navy game.

Have no dogs in this fight. But if the AAC keeps pointing to the BCS Year UCF to be counted with the CFP, hard to tell other conferences that there BCS appearance should not count.

CFP era, AAC has been the best G5 conference. No one should question that at all.

Count them---dont count them. Doesnt really matter. For the topic at hand, what relevance would it have prior to the existence of the AAC? The discussion is focused on the question of whether or not the AAC has separated itself from the other non-power conferences. So, by its every nature, the discussion is about how the AAC has looked in comparison to the rest of the non-power conferences during its short existence. The point is the AAC has been playing on New Years Day in 4 of its 6 years. As Gulfcoastgal points out, that's really the main thing the general public remembers.

I think the public remembers teams - UCF has gotten a ton of shine for making the Peach and Fiesta Bowls the past two years - but I doubt the AAC has gotten much rub off from it. Conferences get rub offs when their membership is known and they have a public identity. The AAC has neither, and frankly, it doesn't help when the rep, in this case UCF, makes it all about themselves with very little touting of the conference.

E.g., after LSU beat UCF, even LSU touted the SEC. Several of their top players made (unfavorable) comments about how UCF's team and athletes compared to the SEC teams they face and this was widely reported.

I don't recall UCF doing much promoting of the AAC after their Auburn win or in the run-up to this Fiesta Bowl. They did have a very vigorous social media/propaganda operation this past year, but it was basically all about UCF. You wouldn't know from any of it whether they were AAC, Sun Belt, etc.

Can't blame them for that, btw, but that's how it was.

Beyond that, I think GCG is wrong - the media regards the AAC and MWC as the two best G5 football conferences, in that order. No separation. Which comports with factual reality too.

BTW---It seems to me the podcast guys are actually arguing that the separation will occur over the next few years as the extra money begins to allow the AAC to continue a trend to paying coaches more----which theoretically should allow the AAC to have better coaching and facilities top to bottom. Im not sure they are really saying "its here". I get the impression, they think its already begun and the new TV deal is the key to a clear and obvious separation happening over the next few years. Anyway---Thats what I got from their comments.

(04-13-2019 08:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 06:59 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 12:42 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The AAC is the best non power football and basketball conference and it’s not even close.

Actually, in football, the AAC and MWC have been very close. In the past five years, the AAC has been the #1 G5 conference 3 times, the MWC 2 times, including this past year.

The MWC and AAC have actually waged a very close battle on the field for football supremacy. There hasn't been any separation there.

I think both viewpoints can be correct. It’s a matter of perception vs. reality. The big pub for G5 teams/conferences comes from the NY6 bowl, the weekly CFP polls and subsequent media coverage. Without question, this is where the AAC has gained its best PR. The mass media doesn’t care a whit about final G5 standings, hence not much coverage is given or really known about in the “casual fan” realm. By casual, I’m thinking folks exposed to the CFP process.

Eh, he said the "AAC is the best ... and it's not close". That's a statement of reality, not perception, so that basically makes him ... wrong, LOL.

And while I agree that certainly the media does focus a lot on the NY6 slot, IMO a lot of that attention goes strictly to the school, the conference doesn't get much shine from it. E.g., UCF got an enormous amount of mainstream attention going to the NY6 the past two seasons, but I don't think this translated in to much AAC shine.

Bottom line is, however you slice it, I think the mainstream perception is that the AAC and MWC are the two best G5 football conferences, in that order, the AAC is #1 and the MWC is #1A, not that the AAC is clearly tops.

That's as of now.

Hahaha... Only you can come up with cute little things like this ^^^

When I think MWC....TCU, Boise, Utah, and BYU come to my mind, even though I’m aware they all didn’t play together in the conference at the same time that’s all I can really tell you about the MWC. They don’t get covered in the Central time zone.

The AAC on the other hand get blasted all over Central and Eastern time zone media as P6 “fakers” and upstart teams being ranked in big games like Houston, Temple, USF, UCF, Navy in recent years. I feel like it’s endless at least in my experience following CFB.

They have a huge media advantage on any other G5 and even though it’s not always positive media I feel like that’s gonna change with the new ESPN deal.

Also you can’t overstate the importance of most all their schools being located in a central or eastern major city.

(04-13-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 12:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 06:02 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 04:11 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Not sure BCS data is statistically relevant in the CFP era as teams and processes have changed. Agree with the poster bringing up 2016. There were plenty of MAC fans up in arms when the committee made the decision to delay selecting a G5 rep until after the Army/Navy game.

Have no dogs in this fight. But if the AAC keeps pointing to the BCS Year UCF to be counted with the CFP, hard to tell other conferences that there BCS appearance should not count.

CFP era, AAC has been the best G5 conference. No one should question that at all.

Count them---dont count them. Doesnt really matter. For the topic at hand, what relevance would it have prior to the existence of the AAC? The discussion is focused on the question of whether or not the AAC has separated itself from the other non-power conferences. So, by its every nature, the discussion is about how the AAC has looked in comparison to the rest of the non-power conferences during its short existence. The point is the AAC has been playing on New Years Day in 4 of its 6 years. As Gulfcoastgal points out, that's really the main thing the general public remembers.

I think the public remembers teams - UCF has gotten a ton of shine for making the Peach and Fiesta Bowls the past two years - but I doubt the AAC has gotten much rub off from it. Conferences get rub offs when their membership is known and they have a public identity. The AAC has neither, and frankly, it doesn't help when the rep, in this case UCF, makes it all about themselves with very little touting of the conference.

E.g., after LSU beat UCF, even LSU touted the SEC. Several of their top players made (unfavorable) comments about how UCF's team and athletes compared to the SEC teams they face and this was widely reported.

I don't recall UCF doing much promoting of the AAC after their Auburn win or in the run-up to this Fiesta Bowl. They did have a very vigorous social media/propaganda operation this past year, but it was basically all about UCF. You wouldn't know from any of it whether they were AAC, Sun Belt, etc.

Can't blame them for that, btw, but that's how it was.

Beyond that, I think GCG is wrong - the media regards the AAC and MWC as the two best G5 football conferences, in that order. No separation. Which comports with factual reality too.

BTW---It seems to me the podcast guys are actually arguing that the separation will occur over the next few years as the extra money begins to allow the AAC to continue a trend to paying coaches more----which theoretically should allow the AAC to have better coaching and facilities top to bottom. Im not sure they are really saying "its here". I get the impression, they think its already begun and the new TV deal is the key to a clear and obvious separation happening over the next few years. Anyway---Thats what I got from their comments.

The USAToday guy's takeaway at the end of the segment was "We [media] will call them G5. Aresco will keep talking about P6. But, yeah, there is a region they occupy by themselves."
Early on, Russo characterized the media deal as "There isnt a P6, this deal doesnt make it a P6, but it is step, small step, in that direction."

I've been saying it isnt about a playoff spot in '18, its about being in the playoff restructure in 2025. I've also said that the media deal was never the finish line but woul be an intermediate objective and a good measurement of progress (or lack).

So I personally am comfortable hearing this national media depiction of AAC separating from the G4.

(04-12-2019 02:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  Top ranked teams not currently in P5, starting with creation of the American:

2013 UCF
2014 Boise St.
2015 Houston
2016 W. Michigan
2017 UCF
2018 UCF

4 times in 6 years it was AAC. No other league more than once.

Other teams ranked in both AP & Coaches-
2014 Marshall, Memphis
2015 Navy
2016 USF, San Diego St.
2017 USF, Boise, Memphis
2018 Fresno, Army, Utah St., Boise, Cincinnati

Of the "other" category, I count 6 AAC schools and 6 G4 schools and one independent ranked.

So since the American formed, it has had 10 ranked football teams. The rest of the G4 have had 8 ranked teams combined. Independents had one ranked team. And the American has had the top ranked team 67% of the time.

FIFY

(04-13-2019 01:58 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 12:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 06:02 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Have no dogs in this fight. But if the AAC keeps pointing to the BCS Year UCF to be counted with the CFP, hard to tell other conferences that there BCS appearance should not count.

CFP era, AAC has been the best G5 conference. No one should question that at all.

Count them---dont count them. Doesnt really matter. For the topic at hand, what relevance would it have prior to the existence of the AAC? The discussion is focused on the question of whether or not the AAC has separated itself from the other non-power conferences. So, by its every nature, the discussion is about how the AAC has looked in comparison to the rest of the non-power conferences during its short existence. The point is the AAC has been playing on New Years Day in 4 of its 6 years. As Gulfcoastgal points out, that's really the main thing the general public remembers.

I think the public remembers teams - UCF has gotten a ton of shine for making the Peach and Fiesta Bowls the past two years - but I doubt the AAC has gotten much rub off from it. Conferences get rub offs when their membership is known and they have a public identity. The AAC has neither, and frankly, it doesn't help when the rep, in this case UCF, makes it all about themselves with very little touting of the conference.

E.g., after LSU beat UCF, even LSU touted the SEC. Several of their top players made (unfavorable) comments about how UCF's team and athletes compared to the SEC teams they face and this was widely reported.

I don't recall UCF doing much promoting of the AAC after their Auburn win or in the run-up to this Fiesta Bowl. They did have a very vigorous social media/propaganda operation this past year, but it was basically all about UCF. You wouldn't know from any of it whether they were AAC, Sun Belt, etc.

Can't blame them for that, btw, but that's how it was.

Beyond that, I think GCG is wrong - the media regards the AAC and MWC as the two best G5 football conferences, in that order. No separation. Which comports with factual reality too.

BTW---It seems to me the podcast guys are actually arguing that the separation will occur over the next few years as the extra money begins to allow the AAC to continue a trend to paying coaches more----which theoretically should allow the AAC to have better coaching and facilities top to bottom. Im not sure they are really saying "its here". I get the impression, they think its already begun and the new TV deal is the key to a clear and obvious separation happening over the next few years. Anyway---Thats what I got from their comments.

The USAToday guy's takeaway at the end of the segment was "We [media] will call them G5. Aresco will keep talking about P6. But, yeah, there is a region they occupy by themselves."
Early on, Russo characterized the media deal as "There isnt a P6, this deal doesnt make it a P6, but it is step, small step, in that direction."

I've been saying it isnt about a playoff spot in '18, its about being in the playoff restructure in 2025. I've also said that the media deal was never the finish line but woul be an intermediate objective and a good measurement of progress (or lack).

So I personally am comfortable hearing this national media depiction of AAC separating from the G4.

Pure solid valid points, slhNavy91

The impressive part for me is how solid the AAC has gotten in such a short time... Than again majority of all AAC programs have rich histories behind them so this well overdue bump in revenue shouldn't be a suprise to anyone.

(04-13-2019 01:58 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 12:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 06:02 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Have no dogs in this fight. But if the AAC keeps pointing to the BCS Year UCF to be counted with the CFP, hard to tell other conferences that there BCS appearance should not count.

CFP era, AAC has been the best G5 conference. No one should question that at all.

Count them---dont count them. Doesnt really matter. For the topic at hand, what relevance would it have prior to the existence of the AAC? The discussion is focused on the question of whether or not the AAC has separated itself from the other non-power conferences. So, by its every nature, the discussion is about how the AAC has looked in comparison to the rest of the non-power conferences during its short existence. The point is the AAC has been playing on New Years Day in 4 of its 6 years. As Gulfcoastgal points out, that's really the main thing the general public remembers.

I think the public remembers teams - UCF has gotten a ton of shine for making the Peach and Fiesta Bowls the past two years - but I doubt the AAC has gotten much rub off from it. Conferences get rub offs when their membership is known and they have a public identity. The AAC has neither, and frankly, it doesn't help when the rep, in this case UCF, makes it all about themselves with very little touting of the conference.

E.g., after LSU beat UCF, even LSU touted the SEC. Several of their top players made (unfavorable) comments about how UCF's team and athletes compared to the SEC teams they face and this was widely reported.

I don't recall UCF doing much promoting of the AAC after their Auburn win or in the run-up to this Fiesta Bowl. They did have a very vigorous social media/propaganda operation this past year, but it was basically all about UCF. You wouldn't know from any of it whether they were AAC, Sun Belt, etc.

Can't blame them for that, btw, but that's how it was.

Beyond that, I think GCG is wrong - the media regards the AAC and MWC as the two best G5 football conferences, in that order. No separation. Which comports with factual reality too.

BTW---It seems to me the podcast guys are actually arguing that the separation will occur over the next few years as the extra money begins to allow the AAC to continue a trend to paying coaches more----which theoretically should allow the AAC to have better coaching and facilities top to bottom. Im not sure they are really saying "its here". I get the impression, they think its already begun and the new TV deal is the key to a clear and obvious separation happening over the next few years. Anyway---Thats what I got from their comments.

The USAToday guy's takeaway at the end of the segment was "We [media] will call them G5. Aresco will keep talking about P6. But, yeah, there is a region they occupy by themselves."
Early on, Russo characterized the media deal as "There isnt a P6, this deal doesnt make it a P6, but it is step, small step, in that direction."

I've been saying it isnt about a playoff spot in '18, its about being in the playoff restructure in 2025. I've also said that the media deal was never the finish line but woul be an intermediate objective and a good measurement of progress (or lack).

So I personally am comfortable hearing this national media depiction of AAC separating from the G4.

Exactly, personally hope they just make it the best 8 teams period. Feel like after 2025 possible realignment and playoff restructure things are gonna be locked in for awhile CFB wise.

The original CUSA was the best outsider league. It had Louisville and TCU. It almost always won the Liberty bowl when paired against the MWC champ. It was a multi-bid basketball league.

After the Big East raided CUSA, the MWC added TCU and became the top outsider league with BYU, Utah and TCU leading the way in football, and Fisher at SDSU & Alford at New Mexico leading the way in basketball.

After the MWC lost BYU, Utah and TCU, the American was born and has been the dominant outsider league since its formation.

(04-13-2019 09:16 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Beyond that, I think GCG is wrong - the media regards the AAC and MWC as the two best G5 football conferences, in that order. No separation. Which comports with factual reality too.

This thread is about a podcast called "AP Top 25" with the AP national college football writer talking to the USA Today college football writer - a pretty good capture of "media" in my opinion.
They say AAC has separated from the G4, maybe the mwc is keeping the AAC in sight or not getting lapped. But their whole segment was about the AAC separating, not the AAC & mwc separating - revenue and markets/eyeballs being the reasonas much or more than on field.

I understand what the podcast said and what the original post in the thread said, but as you know, threads have a tendency to evolve in various directions.

I was replying specifically to a claim that the AAC has proven to be clearly the best G5 conference on the football field.

And we just haven't.

(04-13-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 12:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 06:02 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 04:11 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Not sure BCS data is statistically relevant in the CFP era as teams and processes have changed. Agree with the poster bringing up 2016. There were plenty of MAC fans up in arms when the committee made the decision to delay selecting a G5 rep until after the Army/Navy game.

Have no dogs in this fight. But if the AAC keeps pointing to the BCS Year UCF to be counted with the CFP, hard to tell other conferences that there BCS appearance should not count.

CFP era, AAC has been the best G5 conference. No one should question that at all.

Count them---dont count them. Doesnt really matter. For the topic at hand, what relevance would it have prior to the existence of the AAC? The discussion is focused on the question of whether or not the AAC has separated itself from the other non-power conferences. So, by its every nature, the discussion is about how the AAC has looked in comparison to the rest of the non-power conferences during its short existence. The point is the AAC has been playing on New Years Day in 4 of its 6 years. As Gulfcoastgal points out, that's really the main thing the general public remembers.

I think the public remembers teams - UCF has gotten a ton of shine for making the Peach and Fiesta Bowls the past two years - but I doubt the AAC has gotten much rub off from it. Conferences get rub offs when their membership is known and they have a public identity. The AAC has neither, and frankly, it doesn't help when the rep, in this case UCF, makes it all about themselves with very little touting of the conference.

E.g., after LSU beat UCF, even LSU touted the SEC. Several of their top players made (unfavorable) comments about how UCF's team and athletes compared to the SEC teams they face and this was widely reported.

I don't recall UCF doing much promoting of the AAC after their Auburn win or in the run-up to this Fiesta Bowl. They did have a very vigorous social media/propaganda operation this past year, but it was basically all about UCF. You wouldn't know from any of it whether they were AAC, Sun Belt, etc.

Can't blame them for that, btw, but that's how it was.

Beyond that, I think GCG is wrong - the media regards the AAC and MWC as the two best G5 football conferences, in that order. No separation. Which comports with factual reality too.

BTW---It seems to me the podcast guys are actually arguing that the separation will occur over the next few years as the extra money begins to allow the AAC to continue a trend to paying coaches more----which theoretically should allow the AAC to have better coaching and facilities top to bottom. Im not sure they are really saying "its here". I get the impression, they think its already begun and the new TV deal is the key to a clear and obvious separation happening over the next few years. Anyway---Thats what I got from their comments.

I agree with the podcasters. They didn't claim that the AAC was clearly better than the MWC on the football field. They did say that the new media money might allow the AAC to come to be so by being able to attract better coaches and facilities - which FWIW I agree with. Not sure it will happen but it certainly is a possible outcome.

The poster I disagreed with was UTEPDallas's claim in post #3 that the AAC was clearly the best G5 football conference, and i made that clear by quoting it.

That's the only one I was taking issue with.

(04-13-2019 01:58 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  The USAToday guy's takeaway at the end of the segment was "We [media] will call them G5. Aresco will keep talking about P6. But, yeah, there is a region they occupy by themselves."

Early on, Russo characterized the media deal as "There isnt a P6, this deal doesnt make it a P6, but it is step, small step, in that direction."

I've been saying it isnt about a playoff spot in '18, its about being in the playoff restructure in 2025. I've also said that the media deal was never the finish line but woul be an intermediate objective and a good measurement of progress (or lack).

So I personally am comfortable hearing this national media depiction of AAC separating from the G4.

I don't take issue with any of the facts you mention here.

The only thing I would put differently is the conclusion: For 7 years, we waited with bated breathe for the 2020 media deal, which was going to be the Great Leap Forward for the conference. Aresco himself just nine or so months ago said it would be in the P5 "range or conversation".

And now that this has happened, what it adds up to is a "small step in the direction" of being P6?

I mean, at this rate, we will actually be P6 when, in 2060?

Of course that would only be true if the P5 stands still while we inch towards them, but they aren't going to be doing that. As I've explained, because the P5 media deals have profit-sharing incentives for growth built in that the AAC's doesn't, the *closest* this media deal will bring us in relation to the P5 will actually be in year one, 2020. That year, we will make about $6.5m in media, and the ACC will make about $26m in media.

But after that, thanks to the ACCN, the ACC will almost surely see its media go up to considerably more than that, while the AAC creeps incrementally along to its peak of about $8m twelve long years from now. In just four or so years, the SEC and Big 12 will sign new deals with raises in them, etc.

Really, by 2023 or so, we will be even further behind the P5 media money-wise than we are now. This deal just allowed us to temporarily slow the rate at which the gap is growing, it really doesn't narrow the gap at all.

(04-13-2019 03:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 12:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 06:02 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Have no dogs in this fight. But if the AAC keeps pointing to the BCS Year UCF to be counted with the CFP, hard to tell other conferences that there BCS appearance should not count.

CFP era, AAC has been the best G5 conference. No one should question that at all.

Count them---dont count them. Doesnt really matter. For the topic at hand, what relevance would it have prior to the existence of the AAC? The discussion is focused on the question of whether or not the AAC has separated itself from the other non-power conferences. So, by its every nature, the discussion is about how the AAC has looked in comparison to the rest of the non-power conferences during its short existence. The point is the AAC has been playing on New Years Day in 4 of its 6 years. As Gulfcoastgal points out, that's really the main thing the general public remembers.

I think the public remembers teams - UCF has gotten a ton of shine for making the Peach and Fiesta Bowls the past two years - but I doubt the AAC has gotten much rub off from it. Conferences get rub offs when their membership is known and they have a public identity. The AAC has neither, and frankly, it doesn't help when the rep, in this case UCF, makes it all about themselves with very little touting of the conference.

E.g., after LSU beat UCF, even LSU touted the SEC. Several of their top players made (unfavorable) comments about how UCF's team and athletes compared to the SEC teams they face and this was widely reported.

I don't recall UCF doing much promoting of the AAC after their Auburn win or in the run-up to this Fiesta Bowl. They did have a very vigorous social media/propaganda operation this past year, but it was basically all about UCF. You wouldn't know from any of it whether they were AAC, Sun Belt, etc.

Can't blame them for that, btw, but that's how it was.

Beyond that, I think GCG is wrong - the media regards the AAC and MWC as the two best G5 football conferences, in that order. No separation. Which comports with factual reality too.

BTW---It seems to me the podcast guys are actually arguing that the separation will occur over the next few years as the extra money begins to allow the AAC to continue a trend to paying coaches more----which theoretically should allow the AAC to have better coaching and facilities top to bottom. Im not sure they are really saying "its here". I get the impression, they think its already begun and the new TV deal is the key to a clear and obvious separation happening over the next few years. Anyway---Thats what I got from their comments.

I agree with the podcasters. They didn't claim that the AAC was clearly better than the MWC on the football field. They did say that the new media money might allow the AAC to come to be so by being able to attract better coaches and facilities - which FWIW I agree with. Not sure it will happen but it certainly is a possible outcome.

The poster I disagreed with was UTEPDallas's claim in post #3 that the AAC was clearly the best G5 football conference, and i made that clear by quoting it.

That's the only one I was taking issue with.

Interesting point on perception as I listened yet again to this podcast. Russo said that for 2018, if you took Connelly's S&P+ or Sagarin, the mwc would probably be comparable to the AAC.
You and I have agreed that the mwc rated out better than the AAC in 2018*. After the clear top dog AAC UCF, not just the great year by the mwc top three, or the overall #1 in CFP calculations or Massey Composite, but the average MC ranking of top 4 edge mwc, middle 4 edge mwc, bottom 4 edge mwc. But these national media guys were starting at the AAC being better and the mwc possibly being comparable.
I submit that the perception in national media already favors the AAC, rather than the national media perception being equality.

* Where we disagree is in the weight of the results of 2018, an abnormally bad AAC year and an abnormally good mwc year.
2015, AAC was 15.7 spots above the MAC and 17.84 above the mwc, and within 14.2 of the lowest "P5"
2016, AAC was 9.78 spots above the mwc
2017, AAC was 17.12 spots above the mwc and within 14.98 of the lowest "P5"
2018 mwc was 2.59 spots above the AAC
I see that as the AAC being clearly better over four years