I thought the realignment of the 90's put college football on a pretty good level.

2003 was the watershed lineups IMO.

SEC w/12
B12 w/12 -Classic B12 lineup.
B1G w/11 -Would have been perfect on todays 20 game basketball schedules.
PAC w/10
ACC w/9 -Round Robin ACC.
BE w/8 -Classic BE lineup
MWC w/8
CUSA w/11 -Including Louisville + TCU
MAC w/14 -Including Marshall + UCF
WAC w/9
SBC w/9 -I think they had 9 back then.

When BC moved to the ACC it was a weird move at the time. Today its not so weird with Syracuse, Pitt and ND also in the ACC.

Now you have a bunch of non-traditional moves in P land.

Maryland in the B1G.
West Virginia in the B12.
Missouri in the SEC.
TAMU in the SEC.
Colorado in the PAC.

G land did better with its moves.

-Solved the MWC/WAC split by merging. Boise, Fresno, Nevada were for a long time better than Colorado St, UNM and Wyoming.

-Found a nice landing spot for Temple in the AAC after having to deal with weird split conference membership situation for decades.

-United UCF with USF finally in a conference after decades of USF out front a step ahead in the realignment race.

-SBC was able to drain the FCS swamp of some of its best programs.

(01-15-2018 11:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 09:44 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  AAC has to take baby steps to improve bowls
there 12 bowls that pay between 1 & 2 million

Military & Birmingham pay 2 million
Detriot pays 1.8, ACC hates this game
Dallas pays 1.65, never gets both tie-ins
Armed Forces pay 1.55 vs MWC [army]
Mobile pays 1.5 bump ACC down
INDY pays 1.4, back-up for SEC
St Pete, NM & Boise pay 1 million

Honestly, there is little hope of the AAC getting a slot against a relatively high selection from a P5 conference in any existing bowl. For that to happen, a bowl would have to give up a P5 vs P5 tie to create an AAC Champ vs a P5 tie. Not gunna happen.

The AAC would have to do something creative. Either, create a new bowl with a payout high enough to attract a high pick from the P5....or get ESPN to place the AAC in a major bowl as part of the TV deal (this could even be some sort moving slot that rotates between several bowls like the Liberty/Belk/Texas). I of course would love for it to happens---but that negotiation is going to be very tough sledding for Aresco.

My cue to trot out a potential solution. Target the PAC and B12 who are more geographically challenged when it comes to bowls. Make it a mini contract of games.

Las Vegas: PAC #4 vs. MWC #1
Sun: PAC #5 vs. CUSA #1
Liberty: B12 #4 vs. AAC #1
Independence: B12 #5 vs. SBC #1

Of course this P5 tie-in would drop in pecking order in years where the PAC/B12 send multiple teams to the CFP. But it should be high enough to stay P5 even in lean years.

MAC doesn't have the fans or geography for securing a larger bowl. But the MAC could then send its champion to a NY6 bowl or could backfill for one of the conferences doing so.

With this years G5, non-CFP champions.

Las Vegas: PAC #4 vs. Boise St.
Sun: PAC #5 vs. Florida Atlantic
Liberty: B12 #4 vs. Toledo
Independence: B12 #5 vs. Appalachian St

(01-15-2018 11:57 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I thought the realignment of the 90's put college football on a pretty good level.

2003 was the watershed lineups IMO.

SEC w/12
B12 w/12 -Classic B12 lineup.
B1G w/11 -Would have been perfect on todays 20 game basketball schedules.
PAC w/10
ACC w/9 -Round Robin ACC.
BE w/8 -Classic BE lineup
MWC w/8
CUSA w/11 -Including Louisville + TCU
MAC w/14 -Including Marshall + UCF
WAC w/9
SBC w/9 -I think they had 9 back then.

When BC moved to the ACC it was a weird move at the time. Today its not so weird with Syracuse, Pitt and ND also in the ACC.

The ACC would have been happy to stay at 11 with the additions of Miami and Virginia Tech, but other conferences blocked them from starting a championship game without 12 teams. Adding Boston College and Syracuse seemed crazy at the time, but I didn't know Syracuse had been a target for some ten years at that point.

Quote:Now you have a bunch of non-traditional moves in P land.

Maryland in the B1G.
West Virginia in the B12.
Missouri in the SEC.
TAMU in the SEC.
Colorado in the PAC.

I definitely agree with the first three, but Texas A&M and Colorado were targets for their current conferences for some time (or at least rumored). Colorado was never really at home in the Big 8/12 and A&M had a long history of playing SEC teams and leaning towards the east. Although, I was still a bit surprised A&M broke away from Texas.

(01-16-2018 12:01 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 09:44 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  AAC has to take baby steps to improve bowls
there 12 bowls that pay between 1 & 2 million

Military & Birmingham pay 2 million
Detriot pays 1.8, ACC hates this game
Dallas pays 1.65, never gets both tie-ins
Armed Forces pay 1.55 vs MWC [army]
Mobile pays 1.5 bump ACC down
INDY pays 1.4, back-up for SEC
St Pete, NM & Boise pay 1 million

Honestly, there is little hope of the AAC getting a slot against a relatively high selection from a P5 conference in any existing bowl. For that to happen, a bowl would have to give up a P5 vs P5 tie to create an AAC Champ vs a P5 tie. Not gunna happen.

The AAC would have to do something creative. Either, create a new bowl with a payout high enough to attract a high pick from the P5....or get ESPN to place the AAC in a major bowl as part of the TV deal (this could even be some sort moving slot that rotates between several bowls like the Liberty/Belk/Texas). I of course would love for it to happens---but that negotiation is going to be very tough sledding for Aresco.

My cue to trot out a potential solution. Target the PAC and B12 who are more geographically challenged when it comes to bowls. Make it a mini contract of games.

Las Vegas: PAC #4 vs. MWC #1
Sun: PAC #5 vs. CUSA #1
Liberty: B12 #4 vs. AAC #1
Independence: B12 #5 vs. SBC #1

Of course this P5 tie-in would drop in pecking order in years where the PAC/B12 send multiple teams to the CFP. But it should be high enough to stay P5 even in lean years.

MAC doesn't have the fans or geography for securing a larger bowl. But the MAC could then send its champion to a NY6 bowl or could backfill for one of the conferences doing so.

With this years G5, non-CFP champions.

Las Vegas: PAC #4 vs. Boise St.
Sun: PAC #5 vs. Florida Atlantic
Liberty: B12 #4 vs. Toledo
Independence: B12 #5 vs. Appalachian St

Maybe Im missing something---but I dont see the motivation for the power conferences to do any of that. Unless the G5 is adding money to the payout of an existing G5 bowl in order to lure a P5 team into the game---I just dont see anything like that happening.

Lets say the G5 approached NBC with the idea of a 3 bowl "Champions Series".

#2 G5 champ vs high P5 selection (G5 gets 1 million/P5 gets 4 million)

#3 G5 champ vs high P5 selection (G5 gets 1 million/P5 gets 4 million)

#4 G5 champ vs the #5 G5 champ (ecah gets 1 million)

Total cost 12 million. Thats 3 games that likely do well. Post Christmas dates in the week leading up to the NCG. Maybe NBC passes---but then Amazon raises an eyebrow and says hmmmmmm....

(01-15-2018 12:41 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 11:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-14-2018 07:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  I've been a fan of college football since a time when games on TV were rare, they were all in black and white, and all players played on both offense and defense. Now, 60 years later, I'd say college football has never been better than it is today.

Back then, nobody was talking about "major" and "minor" programs and conferences. But the number of schools who were legitimate contenders was pretty small. Schools like Alabama could keep competitors from getting better by giving scholarships to everybody in sight, then burying them deep on the bench so they couldn't play for somebody else.

Does ESPN deserve all the credit for the strides we have made since those days? Not all of it, but surely a lot of it.

I'm not quite at 60 years but I remember only two games being on most Saturday's. If you lived in Central Arkansas that meant a SWC game in the morning followed by an ABC game of the week which was generally a SWC or Big 8 game. Big 10 you saw Ohio State vs. Michigan and not much else. SEC generally Bama-Tenn or the Iron Bowl and not much else. Pac-8 you saw USC-UCLA, independents you saw Penn St and Pitt. If you lived in eastern Arkansas and could pick up Memphis TV you could see an SEC game and an ABC game that was generally SEC or SWC or Big 8. If you lived close enough to Jonesboro you could get the SWC morning game on Jonesboro TV and SEC on Memphis.

Later with WTBS we could get a night game!

After the ABC game you had the Prudential scoreboard show that would have highlights from the ABC regional games you didn't see and sometimes ABC would send a cameraman to someone like ECU that was ranked or a game with a ranked big conference team that wasn't on TV and send a few highlights in.

When ABC sent a crew to film highlights of an Arkansas State game in 1975 it got mentioned by the Jonesboro Sun, Arkansas Gazette, Arkansas Democrat, Memphis Commercial-Appeal, and Memphis Press-Scimitar just getting highlights on national TV was news.

Bowl games? Not only were there fewer bowl games but in most markets you couldn't even watch all of the few that existed. If a bowl was on the Mizlou Network it was the whims of the local station managers to determine if you would get to see it.

If you were the fan of a MAC team living in LA you'd never see your team on TV. If you were a Pac-8 fan living on the east coast and your team wasn't USC or UCLA you might see them every few years and even then maybe only in a bowl game.

Today, outside of a smattering of games on conference subscription only websites and Pac-12 Network games, I can watch every FBS team play and if the mood were to strike a good number of FCS and Division II schools.

In 2016 Western Michigan as undefeated MAC champion could go play #8 Wisconisin in the Cotton Bowl in 1986 if they had done that they would have played San Jose State in Fresno in the California Bowl.

In 1968 and 1969 the WAC champion couldn't land a bowl bid.

In 1980 five I-A conference champs didn't play in a bowl (MAC - Central Michigan, PCAA/Big West - Long Beach State, MoValley - Tulsa, Southern - Furman, and of course Ivy - Yale). A total of 8 schools that weren't on probation and weren't in the Ivy didn't make a bowl with 8 or 9 wins.

No way I'd turn the clock back.

Ten years ago, Missouri at Ole Miss game wasn't even on television.

One year, think it was 05 or 06, the South Carolina/Clemson game wasn’t even on TV in South Carolina

(01-15-2018 07:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats not really what Im talking about--well, with possibly the exception of the Fiesta Bowl. Sure, the G5 has created bowls--but they have concentrated almost entirely on creating low end games to make sure no 6-6 G5 was left out. Where they totally missed the boat was not investing in any high end games that would serve as a quality post season destination for a G5 conference champion.

When we were in the SWC--the season was all about getting to the Cotton Bowl. Getting ranked was cool and all---but a season was successful if you got to the Cotton Bowl. That was the goal. The AAC has nothing like that. Its access bowl or bust in the AAC. Fall short of the Peach, and you get a run down crumbling stadium in Birmingham

Let's face it: For a conference, it is of more benefit to make sure your 6-6 teams have a bowl to go to than that your first or second place team has a better bowl to go to. Is it really that big a deal that the top AAC team (if not in the NY6) goes to the Military Bowl or the Birmingham Bowl and not the Gator Bowl or the Texas Bowl?

But bowl-eligible teams missing out? That's disheartening.

FWIW, I think the current AAC situation is similar to the old SWC: AAC teams want to make an NY6 bowl, that is the goal, what motivates you during the season, just like making the Cotton Bowl was for the 1980s SWC.

Absolutely disagree. What's disheartening is when the 6th place 6-6 AAC team essentially goes to the same quality of bowl as the 12-1 AAC champ. That outcome devalues your league championship. In addition, it removes the context that might drive television interest in your conference race. The current AAC situation is only like the old SWC situation if you beileve the AAC is a 65 team 5 division conferece with no CCG. If there is no difference in how the champion and 6-6 team are rewarded---the championship becomes fairly inconsequential.

See, to me, the AAC conference championship IS fairly inconsequential, by its nature. It means you beat out 11 other G5 schools in games among those schools. Eh.

That's why on the AAC board (well, before whiners got me booted), I tended to laugh at Houston/Temple/UCF fans who thumped their chest about their trophy cases having AAC championship trophies and pointed their fingers about USF having an "empty trophy case", when in fact our case is filled with six bowl trophies, each of which I value as much as an AAC champion trophy.

So since I don't find much value in an AAC title, it doesn't bother me if the AAC champ goes to the Military Bowl, and yes, I'll feel the same way when USF wins an AAC title as well.

But bowls are a big deal. IMO, there's a big difference from having your season end on say November 25th, done with, see you 9 long months from now, while other schools get to play a bowl game a month later, even if it is a purely rink-dink bowl. That's one month where your season is still alive, you have a game to look forward to, a game possibly against an interesting OOC opponent, a game on national TV, and where you are getting some press coverage. To me, making sure every AAC team that is technically NCAA eligible actually gets to do that is important.

And there you have it. Though I disagree with why. Its inconsequential because there is no reward for winning it. When the winner of CUSA goes to the Mr Potato Bowl to play a 6-6 Akron (like just happened)--its hard to explain to fans why that championship mattered.

You know, the Cotton Bowl had no tie to the other side of the bowl. If you won the SWC--all you knew was you were going to the Cotton Bowl to play a good team. So, it wasnt even like the Rose where a Big10 team knew they would be facing a Pac12 champ. Didnt matter. Years ago the motto for one UH season was "Think Cotton". Wasnt hard. We thought that every year. The fans of every SWC team did.

The SWC wasn't unique, the SEC was the same way - win it and you go to the Sugar Bowl to play an unknown opponent, and the Big 8 too - win it and you go to the Orange Bowl. And fans at big Big 8 games would throw oranges on the field to indicate where their team was going. It was a big deal.

We seem to disagree about cause and effect: The ties to the Cotton, Sugar, and Orange bowls didn't make the SWC, SEC, and Big 8 titles important, they had those ties to those New Year's Day bowls because their titles were important.

The AAC title won't be important until the AAC is, and that's a matter of brand value, which IMO isn't going to change.

Until then, for the reasons I gave, better to invest in making sure all our bowl eligible teams get to play a bowl.

To Aresco's credit, after the initial bungle with Temple in 2014, he has succeeded in doing that.

(01-16-2018 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC title won't be important until the AAC is, and that's a matter of brand value, which IMO isn't going to change.

It is highly likely that if AAC were getting anywhere close to the P5 neighborhood in value it will mean AAC has members of value to a P5 league and will be invited to join, resetting the value of AAC.

(01-16-2018 11:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC title won't be important until the AAC is, and that's a matter of brand value, which IMO isn't going to change.

It is highly likely that if AAC were getting anywhere close to the P5 neighborhood in value it will mean AAC has members of value to a P5 league and will be invited to join, resetting the value of AAC.

Yes, and what will happen next is that the newcomers brought up to back-fill will claim the "new" AAC is now better off for having them, as they are really more valuable than the schools the P5 raided away from us.

(01-16-2018 11:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC title won't be important until the AAC is, and that's a matter of brand value, which IMO isn't going to change.

It is highly likely that if AAC were getting anywhere close to the P5 neighborhood in value it will mean AAC has members of value to a P5 league and will be invited to join, resetting the value of AAC.

I wonder about that these days. P5 schools are now receiving some really big conference payouts. Assuming relative parity among AAC schools---an individual AAC school would have to be worth 35 million (or more) just to cover their share of a P5 expansion (which only represents the break even point---that still wouldnt lead to any real motivation for P5 expansion). So, AAC schools could comfortably bring in 25 million a year each and still not necessarily be even remotely interesting as P5 expansion targets. Yet, at 25 million a team--I think that would have to be considered a "power conference".

What Im saying is the P5 now make so much money, that poaching might not be a danger for G5's until they have moved well past a earnings level where we would probably consider it "power confernece level" (or at least much more like a power conference than a non-power conference). I dont think the AAC (or any other G5) is in any danger of breaking 35 million a team in conference distribution anytime soon.

(01-16-2018 11:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 11:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC title won't be important until the AAC is, and that's a matter of brand value, which IMO isn't going to change.

It is highly likely that if AAC were getting anywhere close to the P5 neighborhood in value it will mean AAC has members of value to a P5 league and will be invited to join, resetting the value of AAC.

Yes, and what will happen next is that the newcomers brought up to back-fill will claim the "new" AAC is now better off for having them, as they are really more valuable than the schools the P5 raided away from us.

Interestingly, those remarks referred to fact that the new teams probably brought a better on the field product to the Big East than existed before. Based on the fist few years, they appear to have been far more right than wrong.

(01-15-2018 11:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 09:44 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  AAC has to take baby steps to improve bowls
there 12 bowls that pay between 1 & 2 million

Military & Birmingham pay 2 million
Detriot pays 1.8, ACC hates this game
Dallas pays 1.65, never gets both tie-ins
Armed Forces pay 1.55 vs MWC [army]
Mobile pays 1.5 bump ACC down
INDY pays 1.4, back-up for SEC
St Pete, NM & Boise pay 1 million

Honestly, there is little hope of the AAC getting a slot against a relatively high selection from a P5 conference in any existing bowl. For that to happen, a bowl would have to give up a P5 vs P5 tie to create an AAC Champ vs a P5 tie. Not gunna happen.

The AAC would have to do something creative. Either, create a new bowl with a payout high enough to attract a high pick from the P5....or get ESPN to place the AAC in a major bowl as part of the TV deal (this could even be some sort moving slot that rotates between several bowls like the Liberty/Belk/Texas). I of course would love for it to happens---but that negotiation is going to be very tough sledding for Aresco.

The old Big East was able to get better bowl games because it affiliated with Notre Dame. A creative way to improve the AAC bowl lineup would be to affiliate with Army and BYU. That's how the AAC could add two or three new bowl games against P5 opponents.

Tier 1

• Liberty v. B12 or SEC
  OR
• Las Vegas v. PAC
  [3 out of 6 years for either bowl; other years Liberty = B12-SEC and Vegas = PAC-MWC]
  

Tier 2

• Military v. ACC
• Birmingham v. SEC/B12
• Quick Lane v. B1G (MAC backup)
• Armed Forces v. B12/B1G/SEC (MWC/CUSA/Sun Belt backup or AAC v. Army/BYU)
• St. Pete/Gaspirilla v. ACC (CUSA/Sun Belt backup)
  

Tier 3

• Hawaii v. MWC (or AAC v. Army/BYU)
• Cure v. Sun Belt/MAC
• Frisco v. CUSA/MAC/MWC/Sun Belt
  

Outside of the NY6, the AAC/Army/BYU coalition could get 3-7 games against P5 opponents and up to 10 bowl games.

(01-16-2018 02:18 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 09:44 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  AAC has to take baby steps to improve bowls
there 12 bowls that pay between 1 & 2 million

Military & Birmingham pay 2 million
Detriot pays 1.8, ACC hates this game
Dallas pays 1.65, never gets both tie-ins
Armed Forces pay 1.55 vs MWC [army]
Mobile pays 1.5 bump ACC down
INDY pays 1.4, back-up for SEC
St Pete, NM & Boise pay 1 million

Honestly, there is little hope of the AAC getting a slot against a relatively high selection from a P5 conference in any existing bowl. For that to happen, a bowl would have to give up a P5 vs P5 tie to create an AAC Champ vs a P5 tie. Not gunna happen.

The AAC would have to do something creative. Either, create a new bowl with a payout high enough to attract a high pick from the P5....or get ESPN to place the AAC in a major bowl as part of the TV deal (this could even be some sort moving slot that rotates between several bowls like the Liberty/Belk/Texas). I of course would love for it to happens---but that negotiation is going to be very tough sledding for Aresco.

The old Big East was able to get better bowl games because it affiliated with Notre Dame. A creative way to improve the AAC bowl lineup would be to affiliate with Army and BYU. That's how the AAC could add two or three new bowl games against P5 opponents.

Tier 1

• Liberty v. B12 or SEC
  OR
• Las Vegas v. PAC
  [3 out of 6 years for either bowl; other years Liberty = B12-SEC and Vegas = PAC-MWC]
  

Tier 2

• Military v. ACC
• Birmingham v. SEC/B12
• Quick Lane v. B1G (MAC backup)
• Armed Forces v. B12/B1G/SEC (MWC/CUSA/Sun Belt backup or AAC v. Army/BYU)
• St. Pete/Gaspirilla v. ACC (CUSA/Sun Belt backup)
  

Tier 3

• Hawaii v. MWC (or AAC v. Army/BYU)
• Cure v. Sun Belt/MAC
• Frisco v. CUSA/MAC/MWC/Sun Belt
  

Outside of the NY6, the AAC/Army/BYU coalition could get 3-7 games against P5 opponents and up to 10 bowl games.

They were included in the BCS because they had lots of population and had some decent brands as well (most notably, Miami). Notre Dame probably helped as well. As for the AAC....Im not super optimistic for anything more than incremental improvement. My feeling is it will be something like getting more bowl games vs low end P5's and restricting the G5 bowls to destination cities insde the AAC footprint (no Hawaii or Bahama). Something like this would be reasonably obtainable outcome.

Military vs ACC
St Pete vs ACC (full time ACC tie--no more CUSA rotation)
Ft Worth vs Big12 (full time)
Heart of Dallas vs Big10 (full time)
Birmingham vs SEC (a new stadium will be adding to the games appeal)
Indy Bowl vs a rotating SEC/ACC tie

And then 2 of the these 3 G5 bowls
Cure vs CUSA
NOLA vs Sunbelt
maybe Frisco vs MW.. I like the opponent, but Dallas is less appealing than NOLA or Orlando. That said, our HQ is probably going to be in Dallas in a few years.

Thats 6 P5 games and a couple of G5 games in fun destination cities within the AAC footprint.

Assuming the supposition of the OP is correct, the operative date is June 2, 1984, the day that the US Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. That decision put television rights in the hands of the schools. Virtually every realignment decision made after that date has been driven by an effort to increase or protect the value of television rights fees.

(01-16-2018 01:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 11:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 11:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC title won't be important until the AAC is, and that's a matter of brand value, which IMO isn't going to change.

It is highly likely that if AAC were getting anywhere close to the P5 neighborhood in value it will mean AAC has members of value to a P5 league and will be invited to join, resetting the value of AAC.

Yes, and what will happen next is that the newcomers brought up to back-fill will claim the "new" AAC is now better off for having them, as they are really more valuable than the schools the P5 raided away from us.

Interestingly, those remarks referred to fact that the new teams probably brought a better on the field product to the Big East than existed before. Based on the fist few years, they appear to have been far more right than wrong.

Not even close. We'll leave basketball aside because that's an obvious rout in favor of the old Big East, but even on football terms alone, the old Big East was WAY better than the AAC. E.g., in the 8 years of the "rump" Big East, 2005 - 2012, the Big East was ranked (Sagarin) last among the six AQ conferences in only two of those years, 2005 and 2010. In 2006 and 2009, the Big East finished second behind the SEC, beating out the ACC, B1G, PAC, and Big 12.

IOW's, for six of those eight years, the Big East beat out at least one other AQ conference in terms of strength. In fact, it's Sagarin average for the entire eight years was better than the B1G and equal to the ACC. It was essentially tied for 4th among the six AQ conferences.

In contrast, the best the AAC has been able to do is argue that one year, this year, it was actually closer to the lowest-ranked P5 as it was to the nearest-ranked G5.

In football, the AAC has always, every year, been well behind the worst Power conference. In contrast, the Big East was usually better than the worst AQ conference. The Big "Least" was actually a full-fledged Power football conference on the field, the best the AAC can argue is that it is a tweener between the P5 and other G5.

(01-16-2018 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 01:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 11:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 11:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC title won't be important until the AAC is, and that's a matter of brand value, which IMO isn't going to change.

It is highly likely that if AAC were getting anywhere close to the P5 neighborhood in value it will mean AAC has members of value to a P5 league and will be invited to join, resetting the value of AAC.

Yes, and what will happen next is that the newcomers brought up to back-fill will claim the "new" AAC is now better off for having them, as they are really more valuable than the schools the P5 raided away from us.

Interestingly, those remarks referred to fact that the new teams probably brought a better on the field product to the Big East than existed before. Based on the fist few years, they appear to have been far more right than wrong.

Not even close. We'll leave basketball aside because that's an obvious rout in favor of the old Big East, but even on football terms alone, the old Big East was WAY better than the AAC. E.g., in the 8 years of the "rump" Big East, 2005 - 2012, the Big East was ranked (Sagarin) last among the six AQ conferences in only two of those years, 2005 and 2010. In 2006 and 2009, the Big East finished second behind the SEC, beating out the ACC, B1G, PAC, and Big 12.

IOW's, for six of those eight years, the Big East beat out at least one other AQ conference in terms of strength. In fact, it's Sagarin average for the entire eight years was better than the B1G and equal to the ACC. It was essentially tied for 4th among the six AQ conferences.

In contrast, the best the AAC has been able to do is argue that one year, this year, it was actually closer to the lowest-ranked P5 as it was to the nearest-ranked G5.

In football, the AAC has always, every year, been well behind the worst Power conference. In contrast, the Big East was usually better than the worst AQ conference. The Big "Least" was actually a full-fledged Power football conference on the field, the best the AAC can argue is that it is a tweener between the P5 and other G5.

Sagarin? Did the Big East rump win on NYD at a 100% pace? Not even close. The Big East was barely over .500 (8-7 in the BCS era). Your "not even close" mantra is silly. Frankly, the shocking poor showing of ECU and Cinci has hurt the AAC. If those 2 programs start playing anywhere near to their norms of the last decade or 2 and the league will be in excellent shape.

(01-16-2018 05:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 01:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 11:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 11:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  It is highly likely that if AAC were getting anywhere close to the P5 neighborhood in value it will mean AAC has members of value to a P5 league and will be invited to join, resetting the value of AAC.

Yes, and what will happen next is that the newcomers brought up to back-fill will claim the "new" AAC is now better off for having them, as they are really more valuable than the schools the P5 raided away from us.

Interestingly, those remarks referred to fact that the new teams probably brought a better on the field product to the Big East than existed before. Based on the fist few years, they appear to have been far more right than wrong.

Not even close. We'll leave basketball aside because that's an obvious rout in favor of the old Big East, but even on football terms alone, the old Big East was WAY better than the AAC. E.g., in the 8 years of the "rump" Big East, 2005 - 2012, the Big East was ranked (Sagarin) last among the six AQ conferences in only two of those years, 2005 and 2010. In 2006 and 2009, the Big East finished second behind the SEC, beating out the ACC, B1G, PAC, and Big 12.

IOW's, for six of those eight years, the Big East beat out at least one other AQ conference in terms of strength. In fact, it's Sagarin average for the entire eight years was better than the B1G and equal to the ACC. It was essentially tied for 4th among the six AQ conferences.

In contrast, the best the AAC has been able to do is argue that one year, this year, it was actually closer to the lowest-ranked P5 as it was to the nearest-ranked G5.

In football, the AAC has always, every year, been well behind the worst Power conference. In contrast, the Big East was usually better than the worst AQ conference. The Big "Least" was actually a full-fledged Power football conference on the field, the best the AAC can argue is that it is a tweener between the P5 and other G5.

Sagarin? Did the Big East rump win on NYD at a 100% pace? Not even close. The Big East was barely over .500 (8-7 in the BCS era). Your "not even close" mantra is silly. Frankly, the shocking poor showing of ECU and Cinci has hurt the AAC. If those 2 programs start playing anywhere near to their norms of the last decade or 2 and the league will be in excellent shape.

My "not even close" mantra is spot on.

The "rump" 2005 - 2012 Big East was a full-fledged Power conference, finishing well within the mix of AQ conferences over that 8 year period.

The AAC, sadly, has never been anywhere close to "power". In fact, in 2014 the AAC finished *third* among the *G5*, behind the MWC and C-USA!

Think about that: The 2005-2012 Big East never finished behind any non-AQ conferences, and 6 out of 8 years, beat out at least one Power conference, and for the eight years, finished ahead of the B1G and tied with the ACC.

In contrast, the AAC has never come close to finishing ahead of a Power conference, and has finished behind other G5 conferences!

As for bowls, that's laughable: The 2005 - 2012 Big East was a sterling 27 - 15 in bowl games. The Big East had a WINNING bowl record in 7 of those 8 years, including the last 7 in a row.

The AAC? This was the first year of its existence that the AAC didn't have a LOSING bowl record, and it barely eeked by at 4-3. The AAC is a sad 12-20 in bowl games.

A yawning chasm in performance: The old Big East was WAY better on the gridiron than the AAC has ever been.

(01-16-2018 07:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 05:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 01:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 11:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, and what will happen next is that the newcomers brought up to back-fill will claim the "new" AAC is now better off for having them, as they are really more valuable than the schools the P5 raided away from us.

Interestingly, those remarks referred to fact that the new teams probably brought a better on the field product to the Big East than existed before. Based on the fist few years, they appear to have been far more right than wrong.

Not even close. We'll leave basketball aside because that's an obvious rout in favor of the old Big East, but even on football terms alone, the old Big East was WAY better than the AAC. E.g., in the 8 years of the "rump" Big East, 2005 - 2012, the Big East was ranked (Sagarin) last among the six AQ conferences in only two of those years, 2005 and 2010. In 2006 and 2009, the Big East finished second behind the SEC, beating out the ACC, B1G, PAC, and Big 12.

IOW's, for six of those eight years, the Big East beat out at least one other AQ conference in terms of strength. In fact, it's Sagarin average for the entire eight years was better than the B1G and equal to the ACC. It was essentially tied for 4th among the six AQ conferences.

In contrast, the best the AAC has been able to do is argue that one year, this year, it was actually closer to the lowest-ranked P5 as it was to the nearest-ranked G5.

In football, the AAC has always, every year, been well behind the worst Power conference. In contrast, the Big East was usually better than the worst AQ conference. The Big "Least" was actually a full-fledged Power football conference on the field, the best the AAC can argue is that it is a tweener between the P5 and other G5.

Sagarin? Did the Big East rump win on NYD at a 100% pace? Not even close. The Big East was barely over .500 (8-7 in the BCS era). Your "not even close" mantra is silly. Frankly, the shocking poor showing of ECU and Cinci has hurt the AAC. If those 2 programs start playing anywhere near to their norms of the last decade or 2 and the league will be in excellent shape.

My "not even close" mantra is spot on.

The "rump" 2005 - 2012 Big East was a full-fledged Power conference, finishing well within the mix of AQ conferences over that 8 year period.

The AAC, sadly, has never been anywhere close to "power". In fact, in 2014 the AAC finished *third* among the *G5*, behind the MWC and C-USA!

Think about that: The 2005-2012 Big East never finished behind any non-AQ conferences, and 6 out of 8 years, beat out at least one Power conference, and for the eight years, finished ahead of the B1G and tied with the ACC.

In contrast, the AAC has never come close to finishing ahead of a Power conference, and has finished behind other G5 conferences!

As for bowls, that's laughable: The 2005 - 2012 Big East was a sterling 27 - 15 in bowl games. The Big East had a WINNING bowl record in 7 of those 8 years, including the last 7 in a row.

The AAC? This was the first year of its existence that the AAC didn't have a LOSING bowl record, and it barely eeked by at 4-3. The AAC is a sad 12-20 in bowl games.

A yawning chasm in performance: The old Big East was WAY better on the gridiron than the AAC has ever been.

And yet not a single old BE team has ever won the AAC. Not a single team that left the Big East rump has ever won its new power conference home. In fact, most of the teams that left the Big Est rump have been celler dwellers in their new homes. Odd that the first year of the AAC a southern team with talent recruited for CUSA finished ahead of Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Cinci, and USF...and then convincingly beat the Big 12 champ in a BCS bowl. Pretty impressive accomplishment for a group that "wasnt even close". Probably ranked behind all those teams in the computer.

(01-16-2018 09:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And yet not a single old BE team has ever won the AAC. Not a single team that left the Big East rump has ever won its new power conference home. In fact, most of the teams that left the Big Est rump have been celler dwellers in their new homes. Odd that the first year of the AAC a southern team with talent recruited for CUSA finished ahead of Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Cinci, and USF...and then convincingly beat the Big 12 champ in a BCS bowl. Pretty impressive accomplishment for a group that "wasnt even close". Probably ranked behind all those teams in the computer.

You say "ever" like the AAC has been around a long time. This is its 5th season.

(01-16-2018 09:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 07:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 05:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 01:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Interestingly, those remarks referred to fact that the new teams probably brought a better on the field product to the Big East than existed before. Based on the fist few years, they appear to have been far more right than wrong.

Not even close. We'll leave basketball aside because that's an obvious rout in favor of the old Big East, but even on football terms alone, the old Big East was WAY better than the AAC. E.g., in the 8 years of the "rump" Big East, 2005 - 2012, the Big East was ranked (Sagarin) last among the six AQ conferences in only two of those years, 2005 and 2010. In 2006 and 2009, the Big East finished second behind the SEC, beating out the ACC, B1G, PAC, and Big 12.

IOW's, for six of those eight years, the Big East beat out at least one other AQ conference in terms of strength. In fact, it's Sagarin average for the entire eight years was better than the B1G and equal to the ACC. It was essentially tied for 4th among the six AQ conferences.

In contrast, the best the AAC has been able to do is argue that one year, this year, it was actually closer to the lowest-ranked P5 as it was to the nearest-ranked G5.

In football, the AAC has always, every year, been well behind the worst Power conference. In contrast, the Big East was usually better than the worst AQ conference. The Big "Least" was actually a full-fledged Power football conference on the field, the best the AAC can argue is that it is a tweener between the P5 and other G5.

Sagarin? Did the Big East rump win on NYD at a 100% pace? Not even close. The Big East was barely over .500 (8-7 in the BCS era). Your "not even close" mantra is silly. Frankly, the shocking poor showing of ECU and Cinci has hurt the AAC. If those 2 programs start playing anywhere near to their norms of the last decade or 2 and the league will be in excellent shape.

My "not even close" mantra is spot on.

The "rump" 2005 - 2012 Big East was a full-fledged Power conference, finishing well within the mix of AQ conferences over that 8 year period.

The AAC, sadly, has never been anywhere close to "power". In fact, in 2014 the AAC finished *third* among the *G5*, behind the MWC and C-USA!

Think about that: The 2005-2012 Big East never finished behind any non-AQ conferences, and 6 out of 8 years, beat out at least one Power conference, and for the eight years, finished ahead of the B1G and tied with the ACC.

In contrast, the AAC has never come close to finishing ahead of a Power conference, and has finished behind other G5 conferences!

As for bowls, that's laughable: The 2005 - 2012 Big East was a sterling 27 - 15 in bowl games. The Big East had a WINNING bowl record in 7 of those 8 years, including the last 7 in a row.

The AAC? This was the first year of its existence that the AAC didn't have a LOSING bowl record, and it barely eeked by at 4-3. The AAC is a sad 12-20 in bowl games.

A yawning chasm in performance: The old Big East was WAY better on the gridiron than the AAC has ever been.

And yet not a single old BE team has ever won the AAC. Not a single team that left the Big East rump has ever won its new power conference home. In fact, most of the teams that left the Big Est rump have been celler dwellers in their new homes. Odd that the first year of the AAC a southern team with talent recruited for CUSA finished ahead of Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Cinci, and USF...and then convincingly beat the Big 12 champ in a BCS bowl. Pretty impressive accomplishment for a group that "wasnt even close". Probably ranked behind all those teams in the computer.

You're missing the point.

It's true that 2013 UCF, 2015 Houston, and 2017 UCF were all really good teams. None of that changes the fact that 2005 WVU, 2007 WVU, 2009 Cincinnati, and 2012 Louisville were also really good teams. How WVU, Cincinnati and Louisville have performed in their current leagues does not mean they didn't have really good teams in the Big East. Those teams proved themselves against good non-conference competition.

The difference is the depth. The AAC has had more dead weight and done much worse against major conferences.

The metrics are clear which league was better.

(01-16-2018 03:08 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Assuming the supposition of the OP is correct, the operative date is June 2, 1984, the day that the US Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. That decision put television rights in the hands of the schools. Virtually every realignment decision made after that date has been driven by an effort to increase or protect the value of television rights fees.

So true Neil! But, it's just very hard to the get the young folks to see that. It happened before many of them were born, and they just never experienced what it was like before College Football started dancing to a different tune than their fight song.