(03-27-2021 01:51 PM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 01:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2021 05:51 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  If you were to give our current conference commissioner a grade in each of these categories, how would you rate him:

(1) TV Contract Agreement
(2) CFP Power Six Campaign
(3) NCAA Basketball Tournament Strategy
(4) College Football Bowl Ties & Creation
(5) AAC Conference/Alignment Expansion

Just wondering what everyone thinks of the job he has done. Personally, I like the fact that we’ve been the Access Bowl representative for 5 of the last 8 years. But that’s more a function of the individual school rather than the commissioner. Beyond that I can find very little positive to say ...

I think he has done about as well as anyone possibly could given the current college sports landscape. As a spokesman and campaigner for the conference he is head and shoulders above any other commissioner. On the whole, Ive been very pleased with his performance as a commissioner.

That said, I do agree a bit with Quo on the Aresco salary issue. When Aresco was hired, the assumption was we would continue as the AQ Big East, with an income of around 10-15 million a school. Thats not where we ended up. Because there is a glass ceiling on the non-power conferences, Im not sure it makes sense to pay nearly 2 or 3 times what every other G5 commissioner makes--especially when one considers the AAC commissioner---no matter who he is---probably cant accomplish substantially more than the MW or MAC commissioners. The college landscape is what it is.

I would obviously not be for cutting his salary at this point---but the commissioner compensation issue is something that should be addressed when he retires and we need to select a new commissioner. Most G5 commissioners make half to a third of Aresco's salary. The Big 12 commissioner makes makes a little over twice as much as Aresco---but the Big 12 teams each see a conference distribution that is more than 4 times the size of the AAC conference distribution. There is no point in paying 1.6 million for the next commissioner unless we are a real P6 with P6 level compensation.

We would not get a commissioner with Aresco's chops by paying less. If he navigates this conference in to the CFP system before he retires it will be worth every penny. The next guy can be paid less for being on auto-pilot.

Probably not---but I dont think we necessarily "need" those "chops" given our standing. For all his connections, our best guaranteed annual bowl tie is the Military vs the 8th place finisher in the ACC. Dont get me wrong---I dont blame him for that. I dont think there is a candidate around that would have done any better....which is kinda my point. The continental plates of college football will have to shift before the situation is going to change significantly for the AAC---until it does---we could have George Washington and Mike Slive as co-commissioners and it wouldnt change a thing with respect to our post season bowl line up or our ESPN media deal. That said---I do like the idea of a guy with the ability to sell the conference effectively. So, I'd look for a guy with some vision, personality, and salesmanship ability. I think you need to look for someone with a mix of management and "on air" broadcast media experience.

(03-27-2021 02:18 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 02:04 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  

(03-26-2021 06:46 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  A+ for always screwing Memphis with the refs

Hahaha ... “ let’s try to be objective about this.” Personally, I was a little disappointed in the contract negotiations especially since they alienated UConn. Also, I’m a little disappointed in his ability to get us more involved with the middle tier bowl games (I.e., Liberty, Independence, etc). We’ve been in the Access Bowl Game 5 out of 8 years, but we can’t arrange tie-ins with bowl games that are taking 11th & 12th place teams from Power 5 conferences ...

1) geno already confirmed uconn had been trying to leave way before the tv stuff.. said they had gotten close once earlier but the big east reject the idea then...
- uconn was frustrated becuase they couldnt sublicense to SUNY, and thought it was all going to espn+... espn's exec flat said they were willing to sublicense to suny

2) if aresco could have gotten us legtimate bowls, with p5 you honestly think he wouldnt have... its the p5 that dont want bowls with us!!!! he cant force them.. do you really think access bowl gets would change their opinion??
again compared to the other g5, our bowls are worlds better

the same things with the basketball challenges, we 100% want one with a power conference, they dont want one with us ..somethings he just cant control

That’s the point ... “ESPN would be sub-licensing something that UConn had been successful at sub-licensing prior too. I think most college athletic departments would be weighing their options if you usurped one of their primary revenue streams.” If the MWC could make exception for Boise State in its Access Bowl finances, you’re going to tell me we couldn’t excepted UConn’s sub-license contract in the negotiations. Just saying ... .

With regard to the mid-tier bowl games, notwithstanding the fact that statement is not true, that sounds like about a “C” with respect to the the suggested performance rubric. We’ve played Auburn, Wake Forest, and Iowa State in bowl games. Not to mention, Penn State in the Cotton Bowl last year. The pipe dream is expecting the AAC to give you a tie to the Orange Bowl vs. their champion ... .

(03-27-2021 01:32 PM)pesik Wrote:  If you were to give our current conference commissioner a grade in each of these categories, how would you rate him:

(1) TV Contract Agreement A-
(2) CFP Power Six Campaign A+
(3) NCAA Basketball Tournament Strategy C
(4) College Football Bowl Ties & Creation B
(5) AAC Conference/Alignment Expansion A

Some things are beyond his controll i added that to my response

1) love everything about the contract from a "realistic" standpoint .. the "-" is because i did not love the length. but then again espn might not have offered so much on a short term deal..

2) campaign was absolutely genius, the best thing he's done... it changed the narrative how we are percieved

3) basketball, this is where i think he could improve, the conference has a very handoffs approach when it comes to basketball... no scheduling mandates, done nothing creative to boost teams... theyve done nothing bad either.... so just a nuetral

4) its easy to complain about our bowl tie ins, then you look at the other g5 bowl tie ins, remove the unrealistic glasses and we are in decent position

5) biggest win is that he didnt rush to make a bad addition...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you are looking for positives but ... ignor(ed) his 2 biggest strengths

6) Conference culture and growth- A++
7) Conference advocacy - A+

(1) TV Contract Agreement A-
(2) CFP Power Six Campaign A- (running out of gas)
(3) NCAA Basketball Tournament Strategy (needs a boost) B-
(4) College Football Bowl Ties & Creation B/B+
(5) AAC Conference/Alignment Expansion B (must replace UConn)
(6) Conference culture and growth B (culture A, growth B-)
(7) Conference advocacy A

.

Aresco has been a dedicated Commissioner, and has done a good job of helping the conference get established, working to improve athletic programs, adding Wichita State, negotiating a much better broadcasting deal, and improving bowl ties.

Considering the constraints placed upon him by conference schools (e.g., those that refused to sign a broadcasting grant of rights), it's hard to think of anybody who could have done the job much better.

.

B+

B when its football season and an F when its basketball season. He basically ghosted us this whole season.

The Pandemic grossly handcuffed Aresco this season so rating him for this season too is not fair.

I give him a solid B

i give Aresco an A+. the only thing I didn't much was the contract length. it may pay off in the long run but for now ESPN is paying pennies on the dollar for this conference. it has handicapped us from getting one of the missing pieces a la SDSU, Boise, BYU...etc

(03-27-2021 01:32 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-26-2021 05:51 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  If you were to give our current conference commissioner a grade in each of these categories, how would you rate him:

(1) TV Contract Agreement A-
(2) CFP Power Six Campaign A+
(3) NCAA Basketball Tournament Strategy C
(4) College Football Bowl Ties & Creation B
(5) AAC Conference/Alignment Expansion A

Just wondering what everyone thinks of the job he has done. Personally, I like the fact that we’ve been the Access Bowl representative for 5 of the last 8 years. But that’s more a function of the individual school rather than the commissioner. Beyond that I can find very little positive to say ...

Some things are beyond his controll i added that to my response

1) love everything about the contract from a "realistic" standpoint .. the "-" is because i did not love the length. but then again espn might not have offered so much on a short term deal..

2) campaign was absolutely genius, the best thing he's done... it changed the narrative how we are percieved

3) basketball, this is where i think he could improve, the conference has a very handoffs approach when it comes to basketball... no scheduling mandates, done nothing creative to boost teams... theyve done nothing bad either.... so just a nuetral

4) its easy to complain about our bowl tie ins, then you look at the other g5 bowl tie ins, remove the unrealistic glasses and we are in decent position

5) biggest win is that he didnt rush to make a bad addition...
--------------------------------------------------

you are looking for positives but then picked the criteria ..ignoring his 2 biggest strengths

-- Conference culture and growth- A++

-- Conference advocacy - A+

This, although knowing that football is the money driver, basketball was not to be as important in his view.

(03-28-2021 06:58 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 01:32 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-26-2021 05:51 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  If you were to give our current conference commissioner a grade in each of these categories, how would you rate him:

(1) TV Contract Agreement A-
(2) CFP Power Six Campaign A+
(3) NCAA Basketball Tournament Strategy C
(4) College Football Bowl Ties & Creation B
(5) AAC Conference/Alignment Expansion A

Just wondering what everyone thinks of the job he has done. Personally, I like the fact that we’ve been the Access Bowl representative for 5 of the last 8 years. But that’s more a function of the individual school rather than the commissioner. Beyond that I can find very little positive to say ...

Some things are beyond his controll i added that to my response

1) love everything about the contract from a "realistic" standpoint .. the "-" is because i did not love the length. but then again espn might not have offered so much on a short term deal..

2) campaign was absolutely genius, the best thing he's done... it changed the narrative how we are percieved

3) basketball, this is where i think he could improve, the conference has a very handoffs approach when it comes to basketball... no scheduling mandates, done nothing creative to boost teams... theyve done nothing bad either.... so just a nuetral

4) its easy to complain about our bowl tie ins, then you look at the other g5 bowl tie ins, remove the unrealistic glasses and we are in decent position

5) biggest win is that he didnt rush to make a bad addition...
--------------------------------------------------

you are looking for positives but then picked the criteria ..ignoring his 2 biggest strengths

-- Conference culture and growth- A++

-- Conference advocacy - A+

This, although knowing that football is the money driver, basketball was not to be as important in his view.

You can say that, but how long has the contract been completed? Oh, I forgot ... “the contract situation reopened at ESPN’s leisure when UConn left the conference!” If football is the only thing that matters, why didn’t ESPN just say ... “you’re getting shorted $8M/yr until you find an adequate replacement in college football”? Exactly, how much is AFA getting a year in the MWC anyway?

(03-28-2021 12:32 PM)Agust Wrote:  i give Aresco an A+. the only thing I didn't much was the contract length. it may pay off in the long run but for now ESPN is paying pennies on the dollar for this conference. it has handicapped us from getting one of the missing pieces a la SDSU, Boise, BYU...etc

not really - if ESPN wanted the AAC to add one, or more, of those teams, it would happen, regardless of the AAC contract

(03-29-2021 01:13 AM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  

(03-28-2021 06:58 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 01:32 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-26-2021 05:51 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  If you were to give our current conference commissioner a grade in each of these categories, how would you rate him:

(1) TV Contract Agreement A-
(2) CFP Power Six Campaign A+
(3) NCAA Basketball Tournament Strategy C
(4) College Football Bowl Ties & Creation B
(5) AAC Conference/Alignment Expansion A

Just wondering what everyone thinks of the job he has done. Personally, I like the fact that we’ve been the Access Bowl representative for 5 of the last 8 years. But that’s more a function of the individual school rather than the commissioner. Beyond that I can find very little positive to say ...

Some things are beyond his controll i added that to my response

1) love everything about the contract from a "realistic" standpoint .. the "-" is because i did not love the length. but then again espn might not have offered so much on a short term deal..

2) campaign was absolutely genius, the best thing he's done... it changed the narrative how we are percieved

3) basketball, this is where i think he could improve, the conference has a very handoffs approach when it comes to basketball... no scheduling mandates, done nothing creative to boost teams... theyve done nothing bad either.... so just a nuetral

4) its easy to complain about our bowl tie ins, then you look at the other g5 bowl tie ins, remove the unrealistic glasses and we are in decent position

5) biggest win is that he didnt rush to make a bad addition...
--------------------------------------------------

you are looking for positives but then picked the criteria ..ignoring his 2 biggest strengths

-- Conference culture and growth- A++

-- Conference advocacy - A+

This, although knowing that football is the money driver, basketball was not to be as important in his view.

You can say that, but how long has the contract been completed? Oh, I forgot ... “the contract situation reopened at ESPN’s leisure when UConn left the conference!” If football is the only thing that matters, why didn’t ESPN just say ... “you’re getting shorted $8M/yr until you find an adequate replacement in college football”? Exactly, how much is AFA getting a year in the MWC anyway?

The contract isn’t open. Everything was settled long ago with no material change in that schools are making the same amount as before according to both Aresco and Rudd.

(03-29-2021 05:27 AM)dave108 Wrote:  

(03-28-2021 12:32 PM)Agust Wrote:  i give Aresco an A+. the only thing I didn't much was the contract length. it may pay off in the long run but for now ESPN is paying pennies on the dollar for this conference. it has handicapped us from getting one of the missing pieces a la SDSU, Boise, BYU...etc

not really - if ESPN wanted the AAC to add one, or more, of those teams, it would happen, regardless of the AAC contract

Yes..if ESPN wanted us to...not if we wanted too. That's why I said we are handicapped at making the moves we need.

(03-29-2021 06:13 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 01:13 AM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  

(03-28-2021 06:58 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 01:32 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-26-2021 05:51 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  If you were to give our current conference commissioner a grade in each of these categories, how would you rate him:

(1) TV Contract Agreement A-
(2) CFP Power Six Campaign A+
(3) NCAA Basketball Tournament Strategy C
(4) College Football Bowl Ties & Creation B
(5) AAC Conference/Alignment Expansion A

Just wondering what everyone thinks of the job he has done. Personally, I like the fact that we’ve been the Access Bowl representative for 5 of the last 8 years. But that’s more a function of the individual school rather than the commissioner. Beyond that I can find very little positive to say ...

--------------------------------------------------

you are looking for positives but then picked the criteria ..ignoring his 2 biggest strengths

-- Conference culture and growth- A++

-- Conference advocacy - A+

This, although knowing that football is the money driver, basketball was not to be as important in his view.

You can say that, but how long has the contract been completed? Oh, I forgot ... “the contract situation reopened at ESPN’s leisure when UConn left the conference!” If football is the only thing that matters, why didn’t ESPN just say ... “you’re getting shorted $8M/yr until you find an adequate replacement in college football”? Exactly, how much is AFA getting a year in the MWC anyway?

The contract isn’t open. Everything was settled long ago with no material change in that schools are making the same amount as before according to both Aresco and Rudd.

Well, I guess it would be appropriate to retract my comment about the status of the contract. However, it does make you wonder why we don’t have more basketball challenges like the SEC, B1G, and Big East to help increase the top tier teams in the conference qualify for the NCAA B’Ball tournament ... ?

(1) TV Contract Agreement ©
Value was too low and length of contract was too long.


(2) CFP Power Six Campaign (B)
He made a good case with verifiable data and good, logical arguments


(3) NCAA Basketball Tournament Strategy (???)
Don't think the commissioner has much to do with that. Even if he does, I couldn't tell you what that strategy is.


(4) College Football Bowl Ties & Creation (D)
Our bowls suck.


(5) AAC Conference/Alignment Expansion (B)
Holding at 11 football schools is the right decision. Adding Wichita St was a good idea. Nothing else he can do.

Even though the individual grades are not that impressive, I also think he is doing the best he can under the circumstances and don't think anyone else could have done any better.

(03-26-2021 06:52 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I'd give him a B. He hasn't exactly moved the P6 needle like we'd hoped, but the conference needs to deliver more and more (and the depth in all sports must improve) before the AAC is taken as a power conference.

My big problem here is that he hasn't found #12 and restored the divisions. He has options but seems terrified of pulling the trigger.

He's not responsible for pulling the trigger, his job is to present the options

(03-27-2021 09:48 AM)Nameless Wrote:  1.) B- : The exposure is solid but the conference is worth more than it is being paid and the length of the deal is pretty long.

2.) A- : While some people scoff at the "P6" moniker, it's clearly been effective. Even some of the talking heads will use it during broadcasts which means it's gaining acceptance.

3.) B : I'm not really sure what is being asked here tbh. But if it's referring to how many bids the conference receives and whether he could do something to improve the number, I'll say B. The conference has tried to make the good teams all play each other twice each season. Not really sure what else he could do as commissioner. Top teams in the league have all taken turns being down so it's not really his fault the league doesn't receive 4+ bids more often.

4.) A : I don't know a ton about bowl scheduling so take this with a grain of salt. But I know he helped secure the Fenway Bowl and the AAC always seems to have a solid bowl lineup with a chance to scalp numerous "P5's." Can't complain there

5.) A : WSU was a great and much needed addition to the league. I believe he brought in Navy as well? Tough to argue against that addition. Most importantly, he's taking his time replacing UConn and not rushing to fill the void with a school that may be a decent option but could ultimately back fire. I like how he's holding out for Boise, SDSU, BYU, etc.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^

(03-28-2021 06:58 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 01:32 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-26-2021 05:51 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  If you were to give our current conference commissioner a grade in each of these categories, how would you rate him:

(1) TV Contract Agreement A-
(2) CFP Power Six Campaign A+
(3) NCAA Basketball Tournament Strategy C
(4) College Football Bowl Ties & Creation B
(5) AAC Conference/Alignment Expansion A

Just wondering what everyone thinks of the job he has done. Personally, I like the fact that we’ve been the Access Bowl representative for 5 of the last 8 years. But that’s more a function of the individual school rather than the commissioner. Beyond that I can find very little positive to say ...

Some things are beyond his controll i added that to my response

1) love everything about the contract from a "realistic" standpoint .. the "-" is because i did not love the length. but then again espn might not have offered so much on a short term deal..

2) campaign was absolutely genius, the best thing he's done... it changed the narrative how we are percieved

3) basketball, this is where i think he could improve, the conference has a very handoffs approach when it comes to basketball... no scheduling mandates, done nothing creative to boost teams... theyve done nothing bad either.... so just a nuetral

4) its easy to complain about our bowl tie ins, then you look at the other g5 bowl tie ins, remove the unrealistic glasses and we are in decent position

5) biggest win is that he didnt rush to make a bad addition...
--------------------------------------------------

you are looking for positives but then picked the criteria ..ignoring his 2 biggest strengths

-- Conference culture and growth- A++

-- Conference advocacy - A+

This, although knowing that football is the money driver, basketball was not to be as important in his view.

He understands the value of BB NCAA credits to the conference better than any of us ever will

(03-30-2021 12:53 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 09:48 AM)Nameless Wrote:  1.) B- : The exposure is solid but the conference is worth more than it is being paid and the length of the deal is pretty long.

2.) A- : While some people scoff at the "P6" moniker, it's clearly been effective. Even some of the talking heads will use it during broadcasts which means it's gaining acceptance.

3.) B : I'm not really sure what is being asked here tbh. But if it's referring to how many bids the conference receives and whether he could do something to improve the number, I'll say B. The conference has tried to make the good teams all play each other twice each season. Not really sure what else he could do as commissioner. Top teams in the league have all taken turns being down so it's not really his fault the league doesn't receive 4+ bids more often.

4.) A : I don't know a ton about bowl scheduling so take this with a grain of salt. But I know he helped secure the Fenway Bowl and the AAC always seems to have a solid bowl lineup with a chance to scalp numerous "P5's." Can't complain there

5.) A : WSU was a great and much needed addition to the league. I believe he brought in Navy as well? Tough to argue against that addition. Most importantly, he's taking his time replacing UConn and not rushing to fill the void with a school that may be a decent option but could ultimately back fire. I like how he's holding out for Boise, SDSU, BYU, etc.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^

^^^^ This ^^^^

I'll tag on here too.

(03-29-2021 07:10 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 06:13 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 01:13 AM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  

(03-28-2021 06:58 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(03-27-2021 01:32 PM)pesik Wrote:  --------------------------------------------------

you are looking for positives but then picked the criteria ..ignoring his 2 biggest strengths

-- Conference culture and growth- A++

-- Conference advocacy - A+

This, although knowing that football is the money driver, basketball was not to be as important in his view.

You can say that, but how long has the contract been completed? Oh, I forgot ... “the contract situation reopened at ESPN’s leisure when UConn left the conference!” If football is the only thing that matters, why didn’t ESPN just say ... “you’re getting shorted $8M/yr until you find an adequate replacement in college football”? Exactly, how much is AFA getting a year in the MWC anyway?

The contract isn’t open. Everything was settled long ago with no material change in that schools are making the same amount as before according to both Aresco and Rudd.

Well, I guess it would be appropriate to retract my comment about the status of the contract. However, it does make you wonder why we don’t have more basketball challenges like the SEC, B1G, and Big East to help increase the top tier teams in the conference qualify for the NCAA B’Ball tournament ... ?

The SEC “scheduling alliance” is better than nothing. PAC conversations broke down, but it’s apparent Aresco has been/is working in that direction. I’m not a fan girl, but understand the challenges facing the conference.

(03-30-2021 12:49 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(03-26-2021 06:52 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I'd give him a B. He hasn't exactly moved the P6 needle like we'd hoped, but the conference needs to deliver more and more (and the depth in all sports must improve) before the AAC is taken as a power conference.

My big problem here is that he hasn't found #12 and restored the divisions. He has options but seems terrified of pulling the trigger.

He's not responsible for pulling the trigger, his job is to present the options

That appears to be the case, though at times it has been surprising that the AAC hasn't given more authority to this Commissioner, given the fact that they're paying him the salary of a mover and a shaker.

Based on Aresco's earliest comments after the UConn announcement, the AAC Presidents decided on their own to try to stand pat with 11 teams and not to actively contact add any schools - because they didn't want to cause any tensions within any conferences that might lose schools.

So all Aresco was permitted to do was announce that he would talk to any schools that were interested, but not initiate anything, and that was the status quo until we learned late in 2020 about the talks with Boise St., which may have suggested a change of direction.

Then, in his 2021 news conferences, Aresco really stunned some AAC fans by announcing what amounted to a complete change in priorities and tactics. Not only is the conference not interested in staying put with 11 teams, but now it is willing to go so far as to state publicly that it sees expansion as the logical step toward autonomous status.

I believe that Commissioner Aresco has been chomping at the bit to get busy and start trying to make something happen, but that he only got the go-ahead from the conference within the past 6 months. Perhaps the football season had something to do with it. Whatever it was, a couple of swing votes on the board of the AAC finally realized that the American lost whatever Power 6 momentum it might have had and needs to take action.

If that analysis is correct, it's the conference Presidents, not the Commissioner that is to blame for the things that some have criticized Aresco for.

.