Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,063
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1260
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #41
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-18-2021 03:12 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(04-18-2021 01:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 04:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  This will clarify why the AAC needs to add another good football school to achieve football power conference and "autonomy" status:

The P5 conferences have had an average of 3.6 football teams per conference in the Final AP Top 25 in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

In comparison, the AAC has only had an average of 2.33 football teams in the Final AP Top 25 over the past three seasons.


Moreover, three G5 conferences and the small group of FB independents had as many or more teams in the Final Top 25 than the AAC had in 2020.

Aresco wants the AAC out of the "G" group. That's nice, but it's easier to make the case that the AAC doesn't belong in the "G" group than to make the case it belongs in the "A/P" group. And that's the real issue.

What the AAC has done is establish itself as an overall "tweener" kind of football league. But, one that is closer to the other G5 than the P5. In the seven years of the CFP, the AAC has finished ahead of a single P5 conference one time, and by the smallest of margins. In contrast, the AAC has twice finished behind other G5 conferences, and by larger margins. And in reality, it's likely they finished second among G5 conferences in 2020 as well, as the Sun Belt seems to have had a better season, though with wonky computers due to poor datasets we'll never know for sure.

Aresco is pushing for all the right things, but he's been arguing for 8 years that we don't belong in the "G" group and nothing has come of it.

Have any other "G" conferences finished ahead of any p5 conferences? And the two times we didn't finish at the top of the G conferences, was that behind the same G conference both times?

I'm not sure about 2014, the first year of the CFP. In the Massey Composite, the AAC actually finished third. But I do not know whether we finished second or third in the official CFP rankings of the G5 conferences.

The CFP doesn't really announce that, IIRC. Who the top conference was just sort of filters in to the media at a certain point. But I've never seen the top-to-bottom rankings.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2021 06:34 PM by quo vadis.)
04-18-2021 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,063
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1260
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #42
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-18-2021 02:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-18-2021 01:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 04:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  This will clarify why the AAC needs to add another good football school to achieve football power conference and "autonomy" status:

The P5 conferences have had an average of 3.6 football teams per conference in the Final AP Top 25 in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

In comparison, the AAC has only had an average of 2.33 football teams in the Final AP Top 25 over the past three seasons.


Moreover, three G5 conferences and the small group of FB independents had as many or more teams in the Final Top 25 than the AAC had in 2020.

Aresco wants the AAC out of the "G" group. That's nice, but it's easier to make the case that the AAC doesn't belong in the "G" group than to make the case it belongs in the "A/P" group. And that's the real issue.

What the AAC has done is establish itself as an overall "tweener" kind of football league. But, one that is closer to the other G5 than the P5. In the seven years of the CFP, the AAC has finished ahead of a single P5 conference one time, and by the smallest of margins. In contrast, the AAC has twice finished behind other G5 conferences, and by larger margins. And in reality, it's likely they finished second among G5 conferences in 2020 as well, as the Sun Belt seems to have had a better season, though with wonky computers due to poor datasets we'll never know for sure.

Aresco is pushing for all the right things, but he's been arguing for 8 years that we don't belong in the "G" group and nothing has come of it.

I think thats an excellent point. Its also one that should not be overlooked. The first step in moving toward P6 status is to break away from boat anchor G5 perception. In terms of perception---I think we are moving toward BYU "tweener" territory. Thats measurable progress. Also---I doubt the AAC finished second in 2020. That said, I wouldnt be surprised if the Sunbelt finishes ahead of the MW.

IIRC, the AAC finished first in the official 2020 CFP G5 conference rankings. But that's based on computers that were operating with limited information because of the small supply of OOC games. Lucky break for us, IMO.

Just eye-balling the two conferences, what I can see is:

Pro-AAC/anti-SBC:

AAC won the H2H battle, going 3-1 vs the SBC

AAC had better record vs G5 ..... 6-4 compared to 9-8

Pro-SBC/anti-AAC:

SBC had a better bowl record, 4-1 compared to 1-5

SBC had better record vs FBS ...... 15-15 compared to 9-12

SBC had better record vs P5 ........ 3-1 compared to 1-4

To me, the SBC record was better overall. I would easily take their results over the AAC's if I could. But that's MO.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2021 09:48 AM by quo vadis.)
04-18-2021 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 3,570
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 249
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #43
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."
A few thoughts:

* Please post more, hammanjja. Well put.

* The Sun Belt was every bit as strong as the AAC in football this past year.

* I would rather be an AAC football member than a Sun Belt football member (or a member of any other G5 league for that matter) 10 days out of 10.

* The American is never going to be a "power football league" like the P5 conferences. "Power" in football is defined largely (and I have noted this many times on the board) by massive state universities with major academic/football budgets and big fan bases. That is not the AAC. And that's fine.

* The AAC goal in football is to be "more close" to the P5 than it typically is year in and out. The league likely will typically be "closer to" the other G5 more years than not. But the goal I note is worth pursuing.
04-18-2021 07:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,990
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 242
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #44
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."
Aresco is a fool if he thinks he is going to get de Jure autobid status for the AAC. It’s simply not happening and I’m saying that as a fan and champion for the AAC.

The best thing Aresco can do regarding expansion is to delay until 2024, when it will be easier to read the landscape of the P5 and the future direction of the CFP.

If the AAC remains intact in 2024, that’s when you try and pull in 3 gems out west and position the AAC to have a stranglehold on either the NY6 slot or the G5 slot in a 5-1-2 8-team playoff.

This might not be a popular stance, but I think it’s the most prudent.
04-18-2021 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HoustonRocks Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,057
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: HoustonCougars
Location:
Post: #45
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
There are many ways of comparing the AAC to other conferences, like:

Reaching NY6 Bowel
Viewer numbers
Attendance numbers
Budgets
OOC Wins

One metric, "Final AP Top 25", was chosen for discussion. That should not be evaluated without details. For example: 4 AAC schools have played in NY6 bowls. Every one of them has lost multiple football HCs to P5 conferences since 2013. None of them hired from a G4 school. The G4 keeps or fires their HCs because no P6 school wants them. How many G4 conference teams have done that?

The stated goal is to have more AAC schools consistently finish in the "Final AP Top 25". The proposed answer is to add a school. What potential school will consistently finish that high. Almost all G4 football teams would finish in the bottom half of the AAC. BYU has already rejected the AAC. Boise is undesirable in several ways.
04-18-2021 09:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fishpro10987 Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 996
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Temple
Location: Eugene, OR
Post: #46
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-18-2021 09:23 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Aresco is a fool if he thinks he is going to get de Jure autobid status for the AAC. It’s simply not happening and I’m saying that as a fan and champion for the AAC.

The best thing Aresco can do regarding expansion is to delay until 2024, when it will be easier to read the landscape of the P5 and the future direction of the CFP.

If the AAC remains intact in 2024, that’s when you try and pull in 3 gems out west and position the AAC to have a stranglehold on either the NY6 slot or the G5 slot in a 5-1-2 8-team playoff.

This might not be a popular stance, but I think it’s the most prudent.

I actually think this is how it is going to play out. Patience is the word of the day. CFP expansion is the event that triggers AAC expansion, presuming that it (CFP) happens.
04-18-2021 10:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
hammannja Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 12
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Houston Cougars
Location:
Post: #47
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
I agree that an AAC play-off auto-bid is 6-8+ years away at best barring a Big 12 implosion (which is incredibly doubtful even if Texas and Oklahoma leave . . . and each has their Texas Tech/Oklahoma State problem if they try to leave). I also agree that a G-5 auto-bid likely only happens with an 8-team play-off (if even then). An AAC New Years' game auto-bid, however, is much more realistic even without a designated anchor bowl.

The most likely current path to college football play-off expansion is a 6-team play-off. In my opinion, the AAC needs to figure out how to get some sort of conference-champion and Top 8 criteria into a six-team playoff scenario. If any conference champion is Top 8 (this includes the Pac-12, Big 10, AAC, MWC, etc. . . . and maybe even the ACC now that Trevor Lawrence is gone . . . heck, everyone but the SEC), then they get a spot in the play-off even over a higher-ranked second conference team. That should still almost always leave room for Alabama in the Alabama Invitationals in the event they are the second-best team in their conference.

At least that's my quick-and-dirty thought process . . .

As to autonomy, it seems so unlikely. The other 5 conferences got autonomy by the implicit threat that they would split away from the NCAA. The AAC can't make that threat. That leaves the AAC and possibly the Big East as the only new conferences that might want autonomy and this would entail a vote of the whole NCAA membership (or at least the Division I membership). Aresco asked the NCAA in 2013 to create criteria for gaining autonomy. I don't think it has happened, which means that it is unlikely to happen. Hopefully, Name, Image, and Likeness and other similar measures (e.g., loosened transfer rules) will make autonomy meaningless in the next few years.
04-18-2021 10:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cubanbull1 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 155
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 13
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #48
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."
There is a huge problem with what many are posting here on whether the AAC is Equal to the P5. Many keep posting rankings, wins vs G4 and P5 opponents but really miss the big picture on what it takes to be in that Power group. A BIG name with tradition and huge support. All of the Power leagues have it, the AAC does not.

You take Texas and OU out of Big12 and they are no longer a Power conference bringing in big tv money, they would be at best the AAC.

Since the AAC is not going to get one of those schools anchoring those Power leagues to join, in my book TV money wise it will never be in the same level money wise.

Now the AAC can continue to grow in wining on the field and increasing fan support that would lead to better bowl access, more tv money and CFP access but it would not match the other Power conferences.

That’s why I think most of the fans here realize that the best for the AAC would be the following
1. CFP to expand to 8 with a 5-1-2 break up where the best champion outside of P5 gets a bid and the AAC gets that as often as it currently gets the NY6 bowl.
2. Get a NY6 bowl tie in where our champ could land vs a Power opponent in the case we don’t get CFP spot
3. I think going to 14 and bringing in best football names out there it’s a must, to go to divisions and limit divisional crossover games to 2. This would make it more likely that our championship game would not be a rematch and have both teams ranked.
4. Adding BYU would be main target, they have better fan support than any AAC team or any other option out there, they also have a National Championship in their past., Boise would be second choice and my third would be SDSU because of location, name and support. Big question is would Boise and SDSU be able to put Olympic sports elsewhere as they were planning when joining Big East.

I think if the AAC can get 1,2 done and get ESPN to put in a few more dollars to get the three I mention, that it could happen as money wise and access wise would be comparable to what Boise and SDSU were ok with in Big East time.

But first domino will be CFP expansion, which Aresco said talks will start this year
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2021 08:39 AM by Cubanbull1.)
04-19-2021 08:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,312
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #49
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-18-2021 07:17 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The American is never going to be a "power football league" like the P5 conferences. "Power" in football is defined largely (and I have noted this many times on the board) by massive state universities with major academic/football budgets and big fan bases. That is not the AAC. And that's fine.

.

Question:

Would you have said the same about the Big East Football Conference - - that it was never going to be a "power football league?"

.

The reason why I ask is that if - - in your view - - the Big East either was (when it was a BCS conference) or could have become a "power football league," I'm wondering what, if anything, would make the American any less able than the Big East was to attain BCS status, for example.

.

Some would argue that the American came very close to matching the Big East's stature in 2019, when there were four AAC teams in the Final AP Top 25, and that it would be fully capable of maintaining that kind of stature with the addition of one or two strong football programs, such as Boise and BYU.

.


To make the comparisons easier, here are the W-L records of the top 5 Big East teams in 1993, 2001, and 2002:

Big East Final Standings in 1993:

1. WVU 11-1 (AP #7)
2. Miami 9-3 (AP #15)
3. BC 9-3 (AP #13)
4. VT 9-3 (AP #22)
5. Syracuse 6-4 (Massey Composite ranking not available)

Usually, a P5 team with a 6-4 record has gotten Massey Composite ranking of approximately #45. Generalizing from precedent, that would have resulted in an:

Average rank for the top five teams: #19.8


Big East Final Standings in 2001:

1. Miami 12-0 (AP #1)
2. Syracuse 10-3 (AP #14)
3. BC 8-4 (AP #21)
4. VT 8-4 (AP #18)
5. Pitt 7-5 (#38 in Massey Composite Rankings)

Average rank for the top five teams: #19.2

Big East Final Standings in 2002:

1. Miami 12-1 (AP #2)
2. WVU 9-4 (AP #25)
3. Pitt 9-4 (AP #19)
4. VT 10-4 (AP #18)
5. BC 9-4 (#33 in Massey Composite Rankings)

Average rank for the top five teams: #19.4

.

Note: These were the only three seasons that the Big East had four teams listed in the Final AP Top 25.

.

American Big East Final Standings in 2019:

1. Memphis 12-2 (AP #17)
2. Navy 11-2 (AP #20)
3. Cincy 11-3 (AP #21)
4. UCF 10-3 (AP #24)
5. SMU 10-3 (#30 in Massey Composite Rankings)

Average rank for the top five teams: #22.4

.

Now, let's compare them with the top five Big East teams in 2000, a more ordinary year for the conference:

1. Miami 11-1 (AP #1)
2. VT 11-1 (AP #6)
3. WVU 7-5 (#35 in Massey Composite Rankings)
4. Boston College 7-5 (#39 in Massey Composite Rankings)
5. Pitt 7-5 (#40 in Massey Composite Rankings)

.

It appears to me that, in it's best football season to date (two seasons ago), the American came near to attaining the loftiest heights that the Big East Football Conference attained in their twenty-two seasons, and that in its best years, the upper tier of the American has probably been about as strong, or perhaps slightly stronger than the upper tier of the Big East was in their more ordinary years.

.

What this comparison suggests to me is that the American is about one or, at most, two upper-echelon football programs away from attaining the same lofty heights that the Big East attained for much of its history as a football conference.

.

The question that remains is whether the Big East was the equivalent of a football "power conference."

I believe that the answer is yes, because the Big East was a full-fledged BCS conference.

I'm not sure if you do, or not, because you have said that you only consider a conference to be a "power conference" if it has "massive state universities and big fan bases."

The Big East had some large state universities, such as Cincinnati (46,000), Virginia Tech (36,000), Pitt (28,000), WVU (30,000), Temple (39,000), and UConn (27,000) and some medium-sized (Louisville, 21,500), and private universities, such as Syracuse (23,000), Miami (18,000) and BC (15,000).

The American has a number of large state universities, including UCF (69,500), USF (51,000), Cincinnati (46,000), Houston (46,000), Temple (39,000), ECU (29,000), and Memphis 22,000, as well as a small contingent of medium-sized and smaller universities (Wichita State (16,000), Tulane (14,000), SMU (12,000), Tulsa, and Navy.

For that matter, every P5 conference has some medium-sized (or smaller) and/or private universities, such as Northwestern (22,000), Duke (16,000), Vanderbilt (14,000), and Wake Forest (9,000).


.
04-19-2021 09:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,063
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1260
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #50
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-18-2021 07:17 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would rather be an AAC football member than a Sun Belt football member (or a member of any other G5 league for that matter) 10 days out of 10.

No question for USF or for any current AAC team that's for sure*.

I would also agree it is true for all SBC, CUSA and MAC schools. Not sure it is true for most MW schools, because of geography and cultural fit.


* Navy is a strange case, as they are clearly better off in the AAC than any other G5, but they do have a viable independent option nobody else has.
04-19-2021 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ultraviolet Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,330
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 165
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #51
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-18-2021 12:59 PM)hammannja Wrote:  Not a frequent poster, but a fairly dedicated lurker. This background is to state that like many of you, I have watched or listened to most of the Aresco public comments regarding the conference since its inception.

I think that when Aresco was referring to "strategy," he was referring to one or both of two things:

1. How does the AAC get an automatic bid in an expanded college football play-off or otherwise most advantage itself in an expanded play-off scenario.

2. How does the AAC become the sixth autonomy conference (which isn't necessarily the same as being the sixth "power" conference).

Each of these two things is separate and each requires (potentially) a different strategy to accomplish. While adding one or more strong football teams might facilitate the first of these two strategies, it would only be one small piece of the strategy. Moreover, it would likely have no impact on the second of these strategies.

If my thoughts are correct, other than talking about expansion, which this board does non-stop, I'm not sure any of us is close enough to the situation to offer constructive advice. As to the first strategy, we would have to know commissioner/president/AD sentiment and vote counts for various competing expansion plans and be able to tally this sentiment and vote counts to see if there is a path forward. In this vein of thought, someone might volunteer that the PAC 12 would likely be a definite proponent of expansion, but not necessarily of an AAC auto-bid. And after a few more of these generalized comments, we would likely run out of material to discuss.

For the second, we would have to know the same, plus the inner workings of the NCAA on submitting a proposal to change the legislative status of a conference from non-autonomous to autonomous. If this second strategy were easy, the conference would have done it already.

First, your post is way too mature and sober for this board, or most college sports message boards. It's better to be hyper emotional, prone to suggestion, willing to run with any conjecture as fact, be unpersuadable, blinded by hatred for other fans unless they agree with you and as a bonus you should also be a substance abuser.
04-19-2021 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,063
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1260
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #52
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 08:37 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  There is a huge problem with what many are posting here on whether the AAC is Equal to the P5. Many keep posting rankings, wins vs G4 and P5 opponents but really miss the big picture on what it takes to be in that Power group. A BIG name with tradition and huge support. All of the Power leagues have it, the AAC does not.

You take Texas and OU out of Big12 and they are no longer a Power conference bringing in big tv money, they would be at best the AAC.

Since the AAC is not going to get one of those schools anchoring those Power leagues to join, in my book TV money wise it will never be in the same level money wise.

I tend to agree, but there is on possible counter-vailing example: The Big East in 2011, right before the ACC raids.

In 2011, the Big East had no big name football teams. They did have a few quasi-names, like Syracuse and West Virginia and Pitt, but nobody that we woul call a blue-chip "anchor". And yet, ESPN made them a TV offer that was basically equivalent to what the ACC signed for the year before.

In destroying the Big East that year, the ACC did the rest of the "power" leagues a big favor, because the Big East had proved troublingly difficult to get rid of by normal means. Once the ACC took Miami and VT and BC, the other BCS power leagues clearly felt the Big East didn't belong, but they could never craft "merit" criteria to get rid of them, as the Big East kept performing well on the field. It quickly became apparent that any performance metrics that could get rid of the Big East from the BCS-AQ group would also possibly get rid of two or three other power leagues too, LOL. And then the offer from ESPN validated their media value too. All of that despite no anchor.

Of course, the one big structural difference between that Big East and the AAC is that the Big East had formal power status thanks to pre-existing contracts, whereas the AAC does not.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2021 10:08 AM by quo vadis.)
04-19-2021 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,063
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1260
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #53
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 09:10 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  The reason why I ask is that if - - in your view - - the Big East either was (when it was a BCS conference) or could have become a "power football league," I'm wondering what, if anything, would make the American any less able than the Big East was to attain BCS status, for example.

The Big East was able to be a Power league in the early inceptions of these formats (Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, then BCS) because they got Miami to join in 1990.

When Miami joined the Big East, they were arguably the "biggest name" in college football, and the most successful of recent years. And beyond even that success, their style and brashness made them "famous" in a cultural way that transcended college football. The Miami Hurricanes, circa 1990, had a greater national sports interest quotient than some NFL teams, I would reckon. At least right there with Notre Dame. So once the Big East signed Miami, it was impossible to exclude it from these various configurations.

So that's the definition of a big name "anchor" that "Cuban" was talking about.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2021 10:16 AM by quo vadis.)
04-19-2021 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,063
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1260
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #54
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-18-2021 10:35 PM)hammannja Wrote:  The most likely current path to college football play-off expansion is a 6-team play-off. In my opinion, the AAC needs to figure out how to get some sort of conference-champion and Top 8 criteria into a six-team playoff scenario. If any conference champion is Top 8 (this includes the Pac-12, Big 10, AAC, MWC, etc. . . . and maybe even the ACC now that Trevor Lawrence is gone . . . heck, everyone but the SEC), then they get a spot in the play-off even over a higher-ranked second conference team. That should still almost always leave room for Alabama in the Alabama Invitationals in the event they are the second-best team in their conference.

Interesting. When playoff expansion is discussed, it's almost always an 8-team model that is brought up. But, a desire for expansion is obviously not universal among the P5, otherwise we would probably have it right now.

So a six-team model could be a compromise among the various Power leagues. And in that case, as you say, it will be up to the AAC to try and maneuver for a format that gives us the best chance to get a team in to it.
04-19-2021 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 22,197
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 950
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #55
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."
Ha. 6 team playoff? You can forget it. that 6th space will be solely reserved for the #2 SEC team.
04-19-2021 10:55 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,312
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #56
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-18-2021 10:35 PM)hammannja Wrote:  I agree that an AAC play-off auto-bid is 6-8+ years away at best barring a Big 12 implosion (which is incredibly doubtful even if Texas and Oklahoma leave . . . and each has their Texas Tech/Oklahoma State problem if they try to leave). I also agree that a G-5 auto-bid likely only happens with an 8-team play-off (if even then). An AAC New Years' game auto-bid, however, is much more realistic even without a designated anchor bowl.

The most likely current path to college football play-off expansion is a 6-team play-off.

Of course, the problem with a 6-team playoff is that it gives an extra advantage to the teams that get the first round bye, making it hardly a fair competition.

Imagine a NCAA tournament with a pause in the action, rather than a standard quarter-final (elite eight) round, and with the two lowest-ranked teams simply being eliminated and with the top two teams getting a bye. Nobody would tolerate that, but that's exactly what a 6-team playoff would amount to.

Moreover, anything beyond a 4-team CFP is going to require an extra weekend. At that point, it makes more sense - - both in terms of competitive interest and in terms of viewership and income-earning potential from the standpoint of the NCAA - - to have all of the remaining playoff teams playing both weekends.

Thus, an 8-team playoff would be a much more satisfactory development. It would be fairer, it would generate more viewership income, and there is no down side to doing it, any more than there was a down-side to adding an entire additional round to the NCAA tournament.

Quote:As to autonomy, it seems so unlikely. The other 5 conferences got autonomy by the implicit threat that they would split away from the NCAA. The AAC can't make that threat.

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the fact that the NCAA set a precedent when it granted autonomy status to the 5 conferences.

Now that the precedent has been set, there are legal reasons why it would be difficult for the NCAA to prevent autonomy status from being granted to any conference that meets the same legal criteria that the 5 conferences met.

It wouldn't matter how such a decision would be made, because the decision itself would not be legally justifiable.

Quote:That leaves the AAC and possibly the Big East as the only new conferences that might want autonomy and this would entail a vote of the whole NCAA membership (or at least the Division I membership).

That's not necessarily the case. There are many other possibilities.

You mentioned one of them - - the Big East might also apply for autonomous status, and the next conference that does so might be the first of many.

Another possibility is that a group of FBS conferences might pool their resources and apply for autonomous conference status for all the FBS conferences.

......................................................................................................

You mentioned the possibility of a vote by all the conferences - or all the D1 conferences, but it is by no means clear that they will be satisfied with the continuation of the current two-tiered system, which favors the P5 conferences.

The possibility can't be ruled out that they might vote to extend the same autonomous privileges to all the D1 conferences, even if the P5 conferences were to renew their threat to bolt. At some point, they might decide that it's better to call their bluff.

The NCAA would not die. The NCAA tournament would still be highly popular. All 27 non-P5 conferences could be represented by both their regular season and tournament champions, with at least 12 at-large bids.

If the P5 conferences want to play their own basketball tournament, so be it. They've already grabbed 34 of the 46 at-large spots, as it is, so there wouldn't be much of a change.

......................................................................................................

Any of these things could happen, and any of them could enable the AAC to obtain autonomous status. We'll all be staying tuned, no doubt....

......................................................................................................


Quote:Aresco asked the NCAA in 2013 to create criteria for gaining autonomy. I don't think it has happened, which means that it is unlikely to happen.

That is a logical (actually illogical) "non sequitur", because the fact that it hasn't happened doesn't necessarily mean that it won't happen.

All we know is that there has been no public announcement of criteria being provided, per the AAC's request, hasn't happened yet. Perhaps there was a private response or conversation that we don't know about.

Regardless, the Commissioner has made it clear that the AAC is still in the process of working toward autonomy status, and that it's probably going to take at least another year or two before it will be ready to apply for autonomy status. This suggests the possibility that the Commissioner may received some feedback indicating that the American still has a ways to go before autonomy status criteria would be met.

The statement "I don't think it has happened, which means that it is unlikely to happen" could also be considered a type of (inverse) "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" type of argument of the form:

"Event B happened after event A; so therefore, A must have caused B."

However, in this case, the argument is that "event B (a detailed response to the request) didn't happen after event A, and therefore, if event A happens again, event B again won't happen, because something about event A (e.g., the request itself) resulted in event B not happening."

.

The point is none of us really know any of the details of what has transpired, so it's best not to jump to any conclusions at this point.

What we do know is that the Commissioner has stated that the effort to obtain autonomous status is an ongoing one, and that he has a good enough understanding of the criteria to know that it will probably take several years for the conference to meet the full criteria for autonomous status.

Requesting a list of criteria from the NCAA may well have been nothing more than a necessary step in order to build a legal case, rather than having been seriously intended to generate an itemized list of criteria. The actual criteria are not difficult to ascertain.

.

The criteria for autonomous status probably require the following:

*Replacement of UConn FB, BB, and olympic sports.

*Expansion to 14 teams per sport, which would require the backing of a major network (presumably ESPN).

*The expansion discussions would almost certainly require obtaining an agreement by the network to sponsor an application and negotiation for autonomous status for the expanded conference.

At the tortoise-like pace of change that we have become accustomed to, these criteria might take several years to meet. Realistically, the AAC may not be able to obtain autonomous status until 2031 or 2032, when the 12-year broadcasting deal is due to expire.

Most AAC fans would probably be ok with that kind of a timetable.

.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2021 11:17 AM by jedclampett.)
04-19-2021 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fishpro10987 Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 996
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Temple
Location: Eugene, OR
Post: #57
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-18-2021 10:35 PM)hammannja Wrote:  I agree that an AAC play-off auto-bid is 6-8+ years away at best barring a Big 12 implosion (which is incredibly doubtful even if Texas and Oklahoma leave . . . and each has their Texas Tech/Oklahoma State problem if they try to leave). I also agree that a G-5 auto-bid likely only happens with an 8-team play-off (if even then). An AAC New Years' game auto-bid, however, is much more realistic even without a designated anchor bowl.

The most likely current path to college football play-off expansion is a 6-team play-off. In my opinion, the AAC needs to figure out how to get some sort of conference-champion and Top 8 criteria into a six-team playoff scenario. If any conference champion is Top 8 (this includes the Pac-12, Big 10, AAC, MWC, etc. . . . and maybe even the ACC now that Trevor Lawrence is gone . . . heck, everyone but the SEC), then they get a spot in the play-off even over a higher-ranked second conference team. That should still almost always leave room for Alabama in the Alabama Invitationals in the event they are the second-best team in their conference.

At least that's my quick-and-dirty thought process . . .

As to autonomy, it seems so unlikely. The other 5 conferences got autonomy by the implicit threat that they would split away from the NCAA. The AAC can't make that threat. That leaves the AAC and possibly the Big East as the only new conferences that might want autonomy and this would entail a vote of the whole NCAA membership (or at least the Division I membership). Aresco asked the NCAA in 2013 to create criteria for gaining autonomy. I don't think it has happened, which means that it is unlikely to happen. Hopefully, Name, Image, and Likeness and other similar measures (e.g., loosened transfer rules) will make autonomy meaningless in the next few years.

Disagree. 6 is a nonstarter. The playoff needs a Cinderella, just like the BB championship. Highest G5 has to be in. Why leave the fanbases of half the schools with no team to root for (and therefore no reason to tune in)? It is a bad business model.
04-19-2021 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fishpro10987 Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 996
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Temple
Location: Eugene, OR
Post: #58
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 08:37 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  There is a huge problem with what many are posting here on whether the AAC is Equal to the P5. Many keep posting rankings, wins vs G4 and P5 opponents but really miss the big picture on what it takes to be in that Power group. A BIG name with tradition and huge support. All of the Power leagues have it, the AAC does not.

You take Texas and OU out of Big12 and they are no longer a Power conference bringing in big tv money, they would be at best the AAC.

Since the AAC is not going to get one of those schools anchoring those Power leagues to join, in my book TV money wise it will never be in the same level money wise.

Now the AAC can continue to grow in wining on the field and increasing fan support that would lead to better bowl access, more tv money and CFP access but it would not match the other Power conferences.

That’s why I think most of the fans here realize that the best for the AAC would be the following
1. CFP to expand to 8 with a 5-1-2 break up where the best champion outside of P5 gets a bid and the AAC gets that as often as it currently gets the NY6 bowl.
2. Get a NY6 bowl tie in where our champ could land vs a Power opponent in the case we don’t get CFP spot
3. I think going to 14 and bringing in best football names out there it’s a must, to go to divisions and limit divisional crossover games to 2. This would make it more likely that our championship game would not be a rematch and have both teams ranked.
4. Adding BYU would be main target, they have better fan support than any AAC team or any other option out there, they also have a National Championship in their past., Boise would be second choice and my third would be SDSU because of location, name and support. Big question is would Boise and SDSU be able to put Olympic sports elsewhere as they were planning when joining Big East.

I think if the AAC can get 1,2 done and get ESPN to put in a few more dollars to get the three I mention, that it could happen as money wise and access wise would be comparable to what Boise and SDSU were ok with in Big East time.

But first domino will be CFP expansion, which Aresco said talks will start this year

^This^


Most logical and best scenario for the AAC. This is the strategic plan. I do think there will be a way to include BSU and SDSU olymics if BYU comes along.
04-19-2021 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,312
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #59
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
.

No one seemed to take any notice of this, so I'd just like to repost it, because it makes an important point:

Big East Final Football Standings in 2002:

1. Miami 12-1 (AP #2)
2. WVU 9-4 (AP #25)
3. Pitt 9-4 (AP #19)
4. VT 10-4 (AP #18)
5. BC 9-4 (#33 in Massey Composite Rankings)

Average rank for the top five teams: #19.4

(Highest ranked top 5 in the history of the Big East Conference)

.

American Big East Final Standings in 2019:

1. Memphis 12-2 (AP #17)
2. Navy 11-2 (AP #20)
3. Cincy 11-3 (AP #21)
4. UCF 10-3 (AP #24)
5. SMU 10-3 (#30 in Massey Composite Rankings)

Average rank for the top five teams: #22.4

.

The Big East was a BCS conference, which is the nearest thing we have to a modern "power" conference, and the American proved in 2019 that, with another upper-echelon football school, it is capable of attaining that level of achievement.

.
04-19-2021 12:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tiger1983 Offline
BBA
*

Posts: 29,397
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 1102
I Root For: Tigers - GTG!
Location: Outside Belle Meade

DonatorsDonatorsDonators
Post: #60
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
I have long thought a “best of the rest” concept is the most feasible and rewarding option for the AAC.
04-19-2021 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.