(04-04-2024 11:28 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 09:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 08:30 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:52 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 04:28 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Right!

It's like everybody except for almost half!

Ha ha ha (laughs in Standard Sunbelt Supremacy Scenario)

Woah now, never suggested that. Don't get too excited.

10/15 is 66.66%.

True, but the general point, Y-181, is that the bulk of the AAC members were not exclusively affiliated with the previous version of C-USA.

Original C-USA members Memphis (Missouri Valley, the Metro, The Great Midwest), Charlotte (A10), UAB (The Great Midwest), North Texas (MVC), Tulsa (WAC, MVC), Tulane (SEC and the Metro) and Rice (SWC) have league-membership histories that go beyond C-USA. This history helps differentiate these schools (and some would contend in a positive way) from most schools in the Belt and the current C-USA. Obviously, there are exceptions in both the Belt (USM in the Metro, for example) and the new-look C-USA (UTEP in the WAC, for example).

Add to the seven AAC schools I list the five that slhNavy 91 posted — South Florida, Navy, Army, Temple, and Wichita State (none of which has a C-USA membership background) — and you get an AAC with a nice diversity of member histories. It's a conference with its own identity.

It's too convenient to paint the current AAC as solely a C-USA-type league. I understand the temptation (particularly for Sun Belt fans who wish the AAC failure). But it just seems a bit misguided to do so.

USF did have a very brief stop in C-USA 1.0. Just long enough to dismay all ECU fans as they went from a not existing football program to in the Big East ahead of us in less than 10 years.

Good catch and my bad. I've corrected my post regarding USF.

And I will sheepishly raise my hand that I can't count. Wichita State was right there in the post, and I was still putting 14 in the denominator rather than 15. Yosef 181 has better math than I do.
And THEN there were the points people made about Army and USF.

But even with the connection, I think the conclusions frequently drawn by Sun Belt fans are flawed.

We're talking about commissioners: does anyone really think that School X or School Y or School Z, given the same conference mates, same contract, and same conditions wouldn't have better outcomes in a conference led by Aresco than by Banowski and McLeod? I hope we end up saying the same about Pernetti, of course.
And it ISN'T the same conditions. Using results under the Facebook and gas station TV contract to predict how schools might perform given the AAC's ESPN timeslots is ludicrous. 2023 AAC had the same viewership of conference controlled football games as 2022 AAC. Two of the new additions had more total viewers than the most viewed Sun Belt program, and UTSA had more viewers on the AAC contract than anyone did on the Sun Belt contract. Not to mention more money.
"The AAC is following CUSA's strategy from 2013" they say. Um, no, the American is following the strategy used by the BigEast/American in 2011-2012. That worked out okay.
The schtick of Marketz! really fails to account for the AAC's actual decision making.

If Yosef181 says he wasn't leaping to that conclusion, I'll take him at his word. But I will continue to poke fun at the facile equating of the new AAC to the CUSA of the last ten years in terms of outcomes.

(04-05-2024 04:24 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  ...

But even with the connection, I think the conclusions frequently drawn by Sun Belt fans are flawed.

We're talking about commissioners: does anyone really think that School X or School Y or School Z, given the same conference mates, same contract, and same conditions wouldn't have better outcomes in a conference led by Aresco than by Banowski and McLeod? I hope we end up saying the same about Pernetti, of course.
And it ISN'T the same conditions.

Aresco has been the best CUSA commissioner since Mike Slive, no question about it.

Just kidding.

Seriously, though, Aresco did a very good job of getting excellent exposure for the conference. I'm honestly jealous that the AAC gets national games on Friday nights and sometimes even Saturday afternoons while the Sun Belt gets Tuesdays. He seems like a super nice guy, and while there have been a few things that he's done that I don't like, he's led well.

Quote:Using results under the Facebook and gas station TV contract to predict how schools might perform given the AAC's ESPN timeslots is ludicrous. 2023 AAC had the same viewership of conference controlled football games as 2022 AAC. Two of the new additions had more total viewers than the most viewed Sun Belt program, and UTSA had more viewers on the AAC contract than anyone did on the Sun Belt contract. Not to mention more money.
"The AAC is following CUSA's strategy from 2013" they say. Um, no, the American is following the strategy used by the BigEast/American in 2011-2012. That worked out okay.
The schtick of Marketz! really fails to account for the AAC's actual decision making.

If Yosef181 says he wasn't leaping to that conclusion, I'll take him at his word. But I will continue to poke fun at the facile equating of the new AAC to the CUSA of the last ten years in terms of outcomes.

Color me shocked that the AAC had the same numbers with UTSA, UAB, & co. as it did with Cincy, UCF, and Houston. I knew it wouldn't completely fall apart with popular programs like Memphis still in, and with the rise of Tulane football, but those were the best three programs that the AAC just lost.

I still think the Sun Belt has a product that is going to draw eyeballs and W's in the long run, especially if the AAC loses more programs like Memphis, Tulane, USF, or others to rebuilding ACC. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy App State's 7-0 record as an FBS program against members of the AAC.

It's a nice rivalry between the AAC and Sun Belt that has developed.

(04-04-2024 05:58 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:21 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  What do you all think the new commish’s realistic goals should be?

His first goal (among others) should be to work toward being transparent related to 1. acknowledging that the AAC offers some members (Memphis, Tulane and USF, in particular) that want to move on to a better league (either an existing conference or one that has yet to be formed) and, on this note, 2. doing what he can to help facilitate that

Wait, Bill D, are you saying that Pernetti should *help* Memphis, Tulane, and USF get into other leagues? And that he should help these schools while saying, no, Charlotte, North Texas, and Tulsa, you're stuck with the rest? What exactly do you mean by this goal?

(This, by the way, is where message boards, and for that matter, emails and texts don't provide for the best communication compared to actual conversation. I'm sure I'm missing something here.)

Quote:Another goal should be to address the challenges that Temple and Wichita face given their far-flung locations and, in Temple's case, a "cultural disconnect" in relation to the league's other members.

Temple is indeed isolated, especially in all the non-gridiron sports where at least Navy and Army are fairly nearby. But what do you do about it? Please don't say expand with other northern schools like Buffalo or UMass or Delaware.

As a guy in ACC country, Temple in the AAC feels a lot like Boston College did before Syracuse and Pitt joined. Like, why are they in this southern based league? Oh how quaint it was when Boston was "isolated" from next-closest Maryland. Aren't we all looking forward to Stanford vs. Virginia? But I digress.

Wichita, by contrast, won't care about their isolation anymore the moment they start getting back to the NCAA tournament. They just need to win, I'm convinced.

Quote:Another: Conduct future AAC men's hoops tourneys in cities that will at least minimize the embarrassment of horrific attendance for which the league is notoriously known. Having the last tourney in Fort Worth was a joke.

Another: Be in frequent contact with Air Force for long-term planning purposes

Another: Assess the possibility of adding some schools that don't play football and that care about basketball (VCU at the top of the list).

Another: Have two all-sports schools as candidates ready to replace USF and Tulane if those two replace Clemson and Florida State in the ACC.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Memphis, Wichita State, Temple, FAU (these days), USF (this past season at least), and others have histories to be VERY proud of. They deserve better than what's happening in Fort Worth. More people should be going to the AAC tournament than to the SoCon or MAC tournament. More has to be taken into account than simply the highest bidding host because doing it that way is costly to the league's reputation.

Put it in New Orleans, or Memphis, or, thinking outside the box, in Las Vegas. Almost everyone has to fly to get to this league's tournament, anyway, and Vegas is one of the cheapest flights in the counrty with direct flights from all over. It's an attractive place for fans to visit. It's worth thinking about.

Re: Air Force. Nailed it. Never would have thought of that, but spot-on.

Re: Non-football schools, prioritize Dayton over anyone else, with VCU as a backup.

Re: Backup plans if the AAC loses schools, this absolutely must be one of the highest priorities.

(04-05-2024 07:21 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:58 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:21 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  What do you all think the new commish’s realistic goals should be?

His first goal (among others) should be to work toward being transparent related to 1. acknowledging that the AAC offers some members (Memphis, Tulane and USF, in particular) that want to move on to a better league (either an existing conference or one that has yet to be formed) and, on this note, 2. doing what he can to help facilitate that

Wait, Bill D, are you saying that Pernetti should *help* Memphis, Tulane, and USF get into other leagues? And that he should help these schools while saying, no, Charlotte, North Texas, and Tulsa, you're stuck with the rest? What exactly do you mean by this goal?

(This, by the way, is where message boards, and for that matter, emails and texts don't provide for the best communication compared to actual conversation. I'm sure I'm missing something here.)

Quote:Another goal should be to address the challenges that Temple and Wichita face given their far-flung locations and, in Temple's case, a "cultural disconnect" in relation to the league's other members.

Temple is indeed isolated, especially in all the non-gridiron sports where at least Navy and Army are fairly nearby. But what do you do about it? Please don't say expand with other northern schools like Buffalo or UMass or Delaware.

As a guy in ACC country, Temple in the AAC feels a lot like Boston College did before Syracuse and Pitt joined. Like, why are they in this southern based league? Oh how quaint it was when Boston was "isolated" from next-closest Maryland. Aren't we all looking forward to Stanford vs. Virginia? But I digress.

Wichita, by contrast, won't care about their isolation anymore the moment they start getting back to the NCAA tournament. They just need to win, I'm convinced.

Quote:Another: Conduct future AAC men's hoops tourneys in cities that will at least minimize the embarrassment of horrific attendance for which the league is notoriously known. Having the last tourney in Fort Worth was a joke.

Another: Be in frequent contact with Air Force for long-term planning purposes

Another: Assess the possibility of adding some schools that don't play football and that care about basketball (VCU at the top of the list).

Another: Have two all-sports schools as candidates ready to replace USF and Tulane if those two replace Clemson and Florida State in the ACC.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Memphis, Wichita State, Temple, FAU (these days), USF (this past season at least), and others have histories to be VERY proud of. They deserve better than what's happening in Fort Worth. More people should be going to the AAC tournament than to the SoCon or MAC tournament. More has to be taken into account than simply the highest bidding host because doing it that way is costly to the league's reputation.

Put it in New Orleans, or Memphis, or, thinking outside the box, in Las Vegas. Almost everyone has to fly to get to this league's tournament, anyway, and Vegas is one of the cheapest flights in the counrty with direct flights from all over. It's an attractive place for fans to visit. It's worth thinking about.

Re: Air Force. Nailed it. Never would have thought of that, but spot-on.

Re: Non-football schools, prioritize Dayton over anyone else, with VCU as a backup.

Re: Backup plans if the AAC loses schools, this absolutely must be one of the highest priorities.

Dayton sponsors non-scholarship football at the FCS level. I wonder if they would consider dropping football to invest more in football.

(04-04-2024 08:30 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:52 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 04:28 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 10:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  They didn't ask for their old friend Judy MacLeod to come back?

The only current AAC members that MacLeod didn't oversee in CUSA are South Florida, Navy, Army, Temple, and Wichita State.

Right!

It's like everybody except for almost half!

Ha ha ha (laughs in Standard Sunbelt Supremacy Scenario)

Woah now, never suggested that. Don't get too excited.

10/15 is 66.66%.

True, but the general point, Y-181, is that the bulk of the AAC members were not exclusively affiliated with the previous version of C-USA.

Original C-USA members USF (the Big East, the Metro), Memphis (Missouri Valley, the Metro, The Great Midwest), Charlotte (A10), UAB (The Great Midwest), North Texas (MVC), Tulsa (WAC, MVC), Tulane (SEC and the Metro) and Rice (SWC) have league-membership histories that go beyond C-USA. This history helps differentiate these schools (and some would contend in a positive way) from most schools in the Belt and the current C-USA. Obviously, there are exceptions in both the Belt (USM in the Metro, for example) and the new-look C-USA (UTEP in the WAC, for example).

Add to the seven AAC schools I list Navy, Army, Temple, and Wichita State (none of which has a C-USA membership background) — and you get an AAC with a nice diversity of member histories. It's a conference with its own identity.

It's too convenient to paint the current AAC as solely a C-USA-type league. I understand the temptation (particularly for Sun Belt fans who wish the AAC failure). But it just seems a bit misguided to do so.

Rice, Tulsa, and UNT weren’t original C-USA members, unless you’re referencing something else. From the inception of C-USA: Rice ended up in the WAC after the SWC, Tulsa was an Indy then WAC, and UNT went from 1-A Indy to I think the Big West to the Sun Belt.

(04-05-2024 06:54 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 04:24 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  ...

But even with the connection, I think the conclusions frequently drawn by Sun Belt fans are flawed.

We're talking about commissioners: does anyone really think that School X or School Y or School Z, given the same conference mates, same contract, and same conditions wouldn't have better outcomes in a conference led by Aresco than by Banowski and McLeod? I hope we end up saying the same about Pernetti, of course.
And it ISN'T the same conditions.

Aresco has been the best CUSA commissioner since Mike Slive, no question about it.

Just kidding.

Seriously, though, Aresco did a very good job of getting excellent exposure for the conference. I'm honestly jealous that the AAC gets national games on Friday nights and sometimes even Saturday afternoons while the Sun Belt gets Tuesdays. He seems like a super nice guy, and while there have been a few things that he's done that I don't like, he's led well.

Quote:Using results under the Facebook and gas station TV contract to predict how schools might perform given the AAC's ESPN timeslots is ludicrous. 2023 AAC had the same viewership of conference controlled football games as 2022 AAC. Two of the new additions had more total viewers than the most viewed Sun Belt program, and UTSA had more viewers on the AAC contract than anyone did on the Sun Belt contract. Not to mention more money.
"The AAC is following CUSA's strategy from 2013" they say. Um, no, the American is following the strategy used by the BigEast/American in 2011-2012. That worked out okay.
The schtick of Marketz! really fails to account for the AAC's actual decision making.

If Yosef181 says he wasn't leaping to that conclusion, I'll take him at his word. But I will continue to poke fun at the facile equating of the new AAC to the CUSA of the last ten years in terms of outcomes.

Color me shocked that the AAC had the same numbers with UTSA, UAB, & co. as it did with Cincy, UCF, and Houston. I knew it wouldn't completely fall apart with popular programs like Memphis still in, and with the rise of Tulane football, but those were the best three programs that the AAC just lost.

I still think the Sun Belt has a product that is going to draw eyeballs and W's in the long run, especially if the AAC loses more programs like Memphis, Tulane, USF, or others to rebuilding ACC. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy App State's 7-0 record as an FBS program against members of the AAC.

It's a nice rivalry between the AAC and Sun Belt that has developed.

Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe the poor performance of 2023 will repeat in 2024, rather than being like 2014 with a bounceback.

One of the biggest factors in overstating the doom of the AAC has been overstating the departures as some Big Three.

After 2023, the AAC has more weeks spent in the CFP Committee Rankings by the teams remaining than by the teams departed/departing.
Looking a little deeper:

By conference, Appearances in the 2014-2023 CFP Committee Rankings:
2024 American Athletic Conference 52 (48 from six out of seven legacy teams)
Departing AAC to Big 12 Teams: 47
Departing AAC to ACC team: 3
mountain west conference: 35
2022+ Sun Belt: 18
MAC: 8
CUSA: 3

They were never a 1-2-3 in viewers or in attendance. Even with on-field successes, they only became 1-2-3 in wins in the middle of their finsl season. The AAC was doing fine when UCF was 0-12 and when Cincinnati had Tubervillitis, and we can do well without them.

I like what the Sun Belt has done. It is a different model, and for me and my program regional is not the objective. But the Sun Belt has a lot of positives, and potential to grow even more. It is somewhat a shame that this is now an almost-zero-sum game

(04-05-2024 04:24 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  And I will sheepishly raise my hand that I can't count. Wichita State was right there in the post, and I was still putting 14 in the denominator rather than 15. Yosef 181 has better math than I do.
And THEN there were the points people made about Army and USF.

But even with the connection, I think the conclusions frequently drawn by Sun Belt fans are flawed.

We're talking about commissioners: does anyone really think that School X or School Y or School Z, given the same conference mates, same contract, and same conditions wouldn't have better outcomes in a conference led by Aresco than by Banowski and McLeod? I hope we end up saying the same about Pernetti, of course.
And it ISN'T the same conditions. Using results under the Facebook and gas station TV contract to predict how schools might perform given the AAC's ESPN timeslots is ludicrous. 2023 AAC had the same viewership of conference controlled football games as 2022 AAC. Two of the new additions had more total viewers than the most viewed Sun Belt program, and UTSA had more viewers on the AAC contract than anyone did on the Sun Belt contract. Not to mention more money.
"The AAC is following CUSA's strategy from 2013" they say. Um, no, the American is following the strategy used by the BigEast/American in 2011-2012. That worked out okay.
The schtick of Marketz! really fails to account for the AAC's actual decision making.

If Yosef181 says he wasn't leaping to that conclusion, I'll take him at his word. But I will continue to poke fun at the facile equating of the new AAC to the CUSA of the last ten years in terms of outcomes.

About the group of CUSA-to-AAC "Power" chasers: it's the same schools with a very different media strategy (though with the same core concept).

Same schools: 12 out of 15 left CUSA in the last 20 years.

Different media strategy: Many of the current AAC members were in CUSA when the conference left ESPN. That decision by current AAC schools led to CUSA being on Facebook and Stadium, all while the schools who left ESPN while in CUSA rejoined ESPN in the AAC.

It was like they threw a match into their house, then moved into a fancier house across the street while they watched their former house burn. Then they watched some new people move into the burnt down house, and invited the ones they liked into their fancier house. Sure, people are trying to repair the burnt down house now, but it's not as nice as the fancier house.

When they were in CUSA: ESPN is bad
When they came to the AAC: ESPN is good

Same core concept: I'm sorry, but the "marketz" thing is true. You can't bring in UNC-Charlotte (Charlotte), Rice (Houston), Florida Atlantic (West Palm Beach/Miami), UTSA (San Antonio), and North Texas (Dallas) in one swoop and claim TV markets weren't a factor.

The AAC currently has 9 of the top 40 U.S. TV markets. That is absolutely intentional, to get the maximum payout possible in a system where markets affect pay.

1. New York (Army)
4. Philadelphia (Temple)
5. Dallas-Fort Worth (North Texas)
6. Houston (Rice)
12. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Sarasota (South Florida)
21. Charlotte (UNC-Charlotte)
29. Baltimore (Navy), with #9 Washington D.C. next door.
31. San Antonio (UTSA), with #35 Austin next door.
39. West Palm Beach-Fort Pierce (Florida Atlantic), with #18 Miami-Fort Lauderdale next door.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te...dia_market

Same schools, different media strategy, same core concept.

(04-05-2024 09:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe the poor performance of 2023 will repeat in 2024, rather than being like 2014 with a bounceback.

One of the biggest factors in overstating the doom of the AAC has been overstating the departures as some Big Three.

After 2023, the AAC has more weeks spent in the CFP Committee Rankings by the teams remaining than by the teams departed/departing.
Looking a little deeper:

By conference, Appearances in the 2014-2023 CFP Committee Rankings:
2024 American Athletic Conference 52 (48 from six out of seven legacy teams)
Departing AAC to Big 12 Teams: 47
Departing AAC to ACC team: 3
mountain west conference: 35
2022+ Sun Belt: 18
MAC: 8
CUSA: 3

They were never a 1-2-3 in viewers or in attendance. Even with on-field successes, they only became 1-2-3 in wins in the middle of their finsl season. The AAC was doing fine when UCF was 0-12 and when Cincinnati had Tubervillitis, and we can do well without them.

I like what the Sun Belt has done. It is a different model, and for me and my program regional is not the objective. But the Sun Belt has a lot of positives, and potential to grow even more. It is somewhat a shame that this is now an almost-zero-sum game

I don't think applying on-field stats from the 2010s is particularly relevant to today. How many AAC and SBC head coaches from 2015 are still in their same position at the same school today? How many players from 2015 are still with the same program today?

College teams change so fast that a team 8 years ago has little-to-no relevance to today's on-field product.

One thing that's clear to me from your post though is that the SBC is hot right now, riding some serious momentum in the last 3-5 years, a time period which is relevant to those programs today.

(04-06-2024 07:27 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 09:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe the poor performance of 2023 will repeat in 2024, rather than being like 2014 with a bounceback.

One of the biggest factors in overstating the doom of the AAC has been overstating the departures as some Big Three.

After 2023, the AAC has more weeks spent in the CFP Committee Rankings by the teams remaining than by the teams departed/departing.
Looking a little deeper:

By conference, Appearances in the 2014-2023 CFP Committee Rankings:
2024 American Athletic Conference 52 (48 from six out of seven legacy teams)
Departing AAC to Big 12 Teams: 47
Departing AAC to ACC team: 3
mountain west conference: 35
2022+ Sun Belt: 18
MAC: 8
CUSA: 3

They were never a 1-2-3 in viewers or in attendance. Even with on-field successes, they only became 1-2-3 in wins in the middle of their finsl season. The AAC was doing fine when UCF was 0-12 and when Cincinnati had Tubervillitis, and we can do well without them.

I like what the Sun Belt has done. It is a different model, and for me and my program regional is not the objective. But the Sun Belt has a lot of positives, and potential to grow even more. It is somewhat a shame that this is now an almost-zero-sum game

I don't think applying on-field stats from the 2010s is particularly relevant to today. How many AAC and SBC head coaches from 2015 are still in their same position at the same school today? How many players from 2015 are still with the same program today?

College teams change so fast that a team 8 years ago has little-to-no relevance to today's on-field product.

One thing that's clear to me from your post though is that the SBC is hot right now, riding some serious momentum in the last 3-5 years, a time period which is relevant to those programs today.

That's a good point about recency, I think.

I mean, of the remaining schools, the one with the most weeks in the CFP is Memphis, with 15 weeks. But Memphis hasn't spent a week in the CFP since 2019, going on 5 years ago.

The team with the second-most is Navy, with 12 weeks, but again they haven't appeared in the CFP since 2019 either. Neither has made an appearance this decade, a decade we are now 40% through.

Also, Tulsa logged six weeks in the CFP, all in one year, 2020, which was the covid year.

Even Houston, the weak sister of the three nB12 departures, with 11 weeks total in the CFP, spent time more recently in the CFP than any of the above three current AAC teams.

Tulane, with 11 appearances in the last couple years, is the only school with any kind of meaningful recent pedigree in the CFP, IMO.

Furthermore, there's the issue of how high a team is ranked. Cincy and UCF had an average CFP ranking of 13 and 15 respectively. In contrast, Memphis's average rank was 19 and Navy's was 22. Tulane's is 21. And Cincy and UCF had those higher averages despite spending more weeks in the CFP (20 and 17) than any of these current AAC teams

And the highest rank attained by any of those three current AAC teams was 13 (Memphis), for Navy and Tulane it was 15 and 16 respectively. Cincy and UCF both cracked the top 10.

I mean basically, UCF's *average* CFP ranking is about equal to the *peak* CFP ranking ever achieved by Navy and Tulane, and Cincy's average ranking is above the peak achieved by those two and Memphis as well. IMO they were each a far more impactful overall presence in the CFP than any of the remaining schools.

Finally, the AAC wasn't totally dominant over the other G5 to begin with, even with those departing schools. Discounting the covid year for paucity of OOC data, the AAC was the #1 ranked conference in the MC five teams in eight seasons (2015 - 2017, 2019, 2022), while the MW was #1 on three occasions (2014, 2018, 2021). The AAC may have won the propaganda war by getting a team in the CFP many more years, but while it was the best football conference while it had UCF, Cincy and Houston, it wasn't by a mile.

So IMO, you take those schools out, and you are in keen danger of having lost your title as "best".

We'll see.

Source for total weeks and average ranking data:

https://www.collegepollarchive.com/footb...-total.cfm

Source for recency data:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...polls.html

(04-05-2024 07:21 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:58 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:21 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  What do you all think the new commish’s realistic goals should be?

His first goal (among others) should be to work toward being transparent related to 1. acknowledging that the AAC offers some members (Memphis, Tulane and USF, in particular) that want to move on to a better league (either an existing conference or one that has yet to be formed) and, on this note, 2. doing what he can to help facilitate that

Wait, Bill D, are you saying that Pernetti should *help* Memphis, Tulane, and USF get into other leagues? And that he should help these schools while saying, no, Charlotte, North Texas, and Tulsa, you're stuck with the rest? What exactly do you mean by this goal?

(This, by the way, is where message boards, and for that matter, emails and texts don't provide for the best communication compared to actual conversation. I'm sure I'm missing something here.)

Quote:Another goal should be to address the challenges that Temple and Wichita face given their far-flung locations and, in Temple's case, a "cultural disconnect" in relation to the league's other members.

Temple is indeed isolated, especially in all the non-gridiron sports where at least Navy and Army are fairly nearby. But what do you do about it? Please don't say expand with other northern schools like Buffalo or UMass or Delaware.

As a guy in ACC country, Temple in the AAC feels a lot like Boston College did before Syracuse and Pitt joined. Like, why are they in this southern based league? Oh how quaint it was when Boston was "isolated" from next-closest Maryland. Aren't we all looking forward to Stanford vs. Virginia? But I digress.

Wichita, by contrast, won't care about their isolation anymore the moment they start getting back to the NCAA tournament. They just need to win, I'm convinced.

Quote:Another: Conduct future AAC men's hoops tourneys in cities that will at least minimize the embarrassment of horrific attendance for which the league is notoriously known. Having the last tourney in Fort Worth was a joke.

Another: Be in frequent contact with Air Force for long-term planning purposes

Another: Assess the possibility of adding some schools that don't play football and that care about basketball (VCU at the top of the list).

Another: Have two all-sports schools as candidates ready to replace USF and Tulane if those two replace Clemson and Florida State in the ACC.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Memphis, Wichita State, Temple, FAU (these days), USF (this past season at least), and others have histories to be VERY proud of. They deserve better than what's happening in Fort Worth. More people should be going to the AAC tournament than to the SoCon or MAC tournament. More has to be taken into account than simply the highest bidding host because doing it that way is costly to the league's reputation.

Put it in New Orleans, or Memphis, or, thinking outside the box, in Las Vegas. Almost everyone has to fly to get to this league's tournament, anyway, and Vegas is one of the cheapest flights in the counrty with direct flights from all over. It's an attractive place for fans to visit. It's worth thinking about.

Re: Air Force. Nailed it. Never would have thought of that, but spot-on.

Re: Non-football schools, prioritize Dayton over anyone else, with VCU as a backup.

Re: Backup plans if the AAC loses schools, this absolutely must be one of the highest priorities.

Just seeing MinR and I'm out the door. Will respond this weekend regarding what I meant by Pernetti "helping" Tulane, USF and Memphis find better league homes.

Enjoy the day

Bill

(04-06-2024 07:04 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 04:24 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  And I will sheepishly raise my hand that I can't count. Wichita State was right there in the post, and I was still putting 14 in the denominator rather than 15. Yosef 181 has better math than I do.
And THEN there were the points people made about Army and USF.

But even with the connection, I think the conclusions frequently drawn by Sun Belt fans are flawed.

We're talking about commissioners: does anyone really think that School X or School Y or School Z, given the same conference mates, same contract, and same conditions wouldn't have better outcomes in a conference led by Aresco than by Banowski and McLeod? I hope we end up saying the same about Pernetti, of course.
And it ISN'T the same conditions. Using results under the Facebook and gas station TV contract to predict how schools might perform given the AAC's ESPN timeslots is ludicrous. 2023 AAC had the same viewership of conference controlled football games as 2022 AAC. Two of the new additions had more total viewers than the most viewed Sun Belt program, and UTSA had more viewers on the AAC contract than anyone did on the Sun Belt contract. Not to mention more money.
"The AAC is following CUSA's strategy from 2013" they say. Um, no, the American is following the strategy used by the BigEast/American in 2011-2012. That worked out okay.
The schtick of Marketz! really fails to account for the AAC's actual decision making.

If Yosef181 says he wasn't leaping to that conclusion, I'll take him at his word. But I will continue to poke fun at the facile equating of the new AAC to the CUSA of the last ten years in terms of outcomes.

About the group of CUSA-to-AAC "Power" chasers: it's the same schools with a very different media strategy (though with the same core concept).

Same schools: 12 out of 15 left CUSA in the last 20 years.

Different media strategy: Many of the current AAC members were in CUSA when the conference left ESPN. That decision by current AAC schools led to CUSA being on Facebook and Stadium, all while the schools who left ESPN while in CUSA rejoined ESPN in the AAC.

It was like they threw a match into their house, then moved into a fancier house across the street while they watched their former house burn. Then they watched some new people move into the burnt down house, and invited the ones they liked into their fancier house. Sure, people are trying to repair the burnt down house now, but it's not as nice as the fancier house.

When they were in CUSA: ESPN is bad
When they came to the AAC: ESPN is good

Same core concept: I'm sorry, but the "marketz" thing is true. You can't bring in UNC-Charlotte (Charlotte), Rice (Houston), Florida Atlantic (West Palm Beach/Miami), UTSA (San Antonio), and North Texas (Dallas) in one swoop and claim TV markets weren't a factor.

The AAC currently has 9 of the top 40 U.S. TV markets. That is absolutely intentional, to get the maximum payout possible in a system where markets affect pay.

1. New York (Army)
4. Philadelphia (Temple)
5. Dallas-Fort Worth (North Texas)
6. Houston (Rice)
12. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Sarasota (South Florida)
21. Charlotte (UNC-Charlotte)
29. Baltimore (Navy), with #9 Washington D.C. next door.
31. San Antonio (UTSA), with #35 Austin next door.
39. West Palm Beach-Fort Pierce (Florida Atlantic), with #18 Miami-Fort Lauderdale next door.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te...dia_market

Same schools, different media strategy, same core concept.

Of course markets were a PART of the Big East strategy in 2011. And a PART of the American strategy ten years later, but just a part. Aresco quotes are all over the internet about choosing schools that committed to spending more to improve.

In 2011, after Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, and TCU announced departures/non-arrival, the initial invites were Houston, SMU, Memphis, and UCF as full members, and five football-only members Air Force, Navy, Boise State, BYU, SDSU. Later Temple's return. That was markets. Period. Yes it was also brands, but the shelves were a little more empty of "brands" ten years later.
And I would suggest that the overall view of that was negative, and yet it turned out okay for the conference and certainly for three of the six who accepted and kept the commitment.

The next round was Tulane -- brand, all-sports -- and ECU football-only. Honestly, the Pirates back then look the closest to the idea of in 2021 choosing various schools now in the Sun Belt instead of the six we did choose, and that worked out....well....

Then came the Catholic 7 split and Tulsa coming in and ECU upgrading to all-sports.

All THAT is what the moves of 2021 mimic, not "Derp derp derp, do what CUSA did in 2013."

AND 2014 we were left for dead. third best of the non-contract-bowl conferences. Didn't sniff the NY6 bid. If anything worse than in 2023. No guarantee we'll bounce back now, but there is a case we are BETTER off than ten years ago.

(04-06-2024 07:27 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 09:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe the poor performance of 2023 will repeat in 2024, rather than being like 2014 with a bounceback.

One of the biggest factors in overstating the doom of the AAC has been overstating the departures as some Big Three.

After 2023, the AAC has more weeks spent in the CFP Committee Rankings by the teams remaining than by the teams departed/departing.
Looking a little deeper:

By conference, Appearances in the 2014-2023 CFP Committee Rankings:
2024 American Athletic Conference 52 (48 from six out of seven legacy teams)
Departing AAC to Big 12 Teams: 47
Departing AAC to ACC team: 3
mountain west conference: 35
2022+ Sun Belt: 18
MAC: 8
CUSA: 3

They were never a 1-2-3 in viewers or in attendance. Even with on-field successes, they only became 1-2-3 in wins in the middle of their finsl season. The AAC was doing fine when UCF was 0-12 and when Cincinnati had Tubervillitis, and we can do well without them.

I like what the Sun Belt has done. It is a different model, and for me and my program regional is not the objective. But the Sun Belt has a lot of positives, and potential to grow even more. It is somewhat a shame that this is now an almost-zero-sum game

I don't think applying on-field stats from the 2010s is particularly relevant to today. How many AAC and SBC head coaches from 2015 are still in their same position at the same school today? How many players from 2015 are still with the same program today?

College teams change so fast that a team 8 years ago has little-to-no relevance to today's on-field product.

One thing that's clear to me from your post though is that the SBC is hot right now, riding some serious momentum in the last 3-5 years, a time period which is relevant to those programs today.

(04-06-2024 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 07:27 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 09:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe the poor performance of 2023 will repeat in 2024, rather than being like 2014 with a bounceback.

One of the biggest factors in overstating the doom of the AAC has been overstating the departures as some Big Three.

After 2023, the AAC has more weeks spent in the CFP Committee Rankings by the teams remaining than by the teams departed/departing.
Looking a little deeper:

By conference, Appearances in the 2014-2023 CFP Committee Rankings:
2024 American Athletic Conference 52 (48 from six out of seven legacy teams)
Departing AAC to Big 12 Teams: 47
Departing AAC to ACC team: 3
mountain west conference: 35
2022+ Sun Belt: 18
MAC: 8
CUSA: 3

They were never a 1-2-3 in viewers or in attendance. Even with on-field successes, they only became 1-2-3 in wins in the middle of their finsl season. The AAC was doing fine when UCF was 0-12 and when Cincinnati had Tubervillitis, and we can do well without them.

I like what the Sun Belt has done. It is a different model, and for me and my program regional is not the objective. But the Sun Belt has a lot of positives, and potential to grow even more. It is somewhat a shame that this is now an almost-zero-sum game

I don't think applying on-field stats from the 2010s is particularly relevant to today. How many AAC and SBC head coaches from 2015 are still in their same position at the same school today? How many players from 2015 are still with the same program today?

College teams change so fast that a team 8 years ago has little-to-no relevance to today's on-field product.

One thing that's clear to me from your post though is that the SBC is hot right now, riding some serious momentum in the last 3-5 years, a time period which is relevant to those programs today.

That's a good point about recency, I think.

I mean, of the remaining schools, the one with the most weeks in the CFP is Memphis, with 15 weeks. But Memphis hasn't spent a week in the CFP since 2019, going on 5 years ago.

The team with the second-most is Navy, with 12 weeks, but again they haven't appeared in the CFP since 2019 either. Neither has made an appearance this decade, a decade we are now 40% through.

Also, Tulsa logged six weeks in the CFP, all in one year, 2020, which was the covid year.

Tulane, with 11 appearances in the last couple years, is the only school with any kind of meaningful recent pedigree in the CFP, IMO.

Furthermore, there's the issue of how high a team is ranked. Cincy and UCF had an average CFP ranking of 13 and 15 respectively. In contrast, Memphis's average rank was 19 and Navy's was 22. Tulane's is 21.

The highest rank attained by any of those three teams was 13 (Memphis), for Navy and Tulane it was 15 and 16 respectively. Cincy and UCF both cracked the top 10.

I mean basically, UCF's *average* CFP ranking is about equal to the *peak* CFP ranking ever achieved by Navy and Tulane, and Cincy's average ranking is above the peak achieved by those two and Memphis as well.

Finally, the AAC wasn't totally dominant over the other G5 to begin with, even with those departing schools. Discounting the covid year for paucity of OOC data, the AAC was the #1 ranked conference in the MC five teams in eight seasons (2015 - 2017, 2019, 2022), while the MW was #1 on three occasions (2014, 2018, 2021). The AAC may have won the propaganda war by getting a team in the CFP many more years, but while it was the best football conference while it had UCF, Cincy and Houston, it wasn't by a mile.

So IMO, you take those schools out, and you are in keen danger of having lost your title as "best".

We'll see.

Source for total weeks and average ranking data:

https://www.collegepollarchive.com/footb...-total.cfm

Source for recency data:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...polls.html

Let me try and do the last five years succinctly. Tells a different story than quo wants to, and doesn't look like what Yosef 181 thinks is clear.

2019-2023 CFP rankings.
AAC (of 2024) - 30 weeks
Sun Belt (of '22 on) - 20 weeks
mwc - 14 weeks
CUSA - 4 weeks.

2023
AAC - 5 weeks (all Tulane)
CUSA - 4 weeks (all Liberty)

2022
AAC - 7 weeks (Tulane 6, UTSA 1)
Sun Belt 1 (Troy)

2021
mwc - 7 weeks (SDSU 6, Fresno State 1)
AAC 3 weeks (UTSA)
Sun Belt - 2 (Louisiana)

2020
Sun Belt 12 weeks (Coastal Carolina 5, Louisiana 4, Marshall 3)
AAC 5 weeks (Tulsa)
mwc 1 (SJSU)
CUSA 1 (Liberty)

2019
AAC 10 weeks (Memphis 6, Navy 4)
mwc 6 (Boise State)
Sun Belt 5 (Appalachian State)


There isn't a big, continuous three to five year rise for the Sun Belt -- there is one single good year. Don't get me wrong, those five years (and 2018 also) are overall a HECKUVA lot better than the years before, but it really is a stair step up and relatively flat performance in that six years, with 2020 an outlier even within those five (or six) years. (Like quo, I am talking Massey Composite conference average rankings here.) AND that year is one that people like quo want to discount.
Meanwhile, the AAC of 2024 has MORE weeks ranked by the committee in the last five years than in the first five years. Recency is actually in the AAC's favor. The three now Big12 teams have fewer in the last five years! (SMU does get all four departures ahead by a nose.) Of course the conference overall is not as good as before three of our top half teams and then a fourth depart. Duh. Which also means no longer clearly separated from the other four. But the new AAC is still advantaged, including some contributions from a new addition, and we're not dead yet.

(04-05-2024 07:21 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:58 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:21 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  What do you all think the new commish’s realistic goals should be?

His first goal (among others) should be to work toward being transparent related to 1. acknowledging that the AAC offers some members (Memphis, Tulane and USF, in particular) that want to move on to a better league (either an existing conference or one that has yet to be formed) and, on this note, 2. doing what he can to help facilitate that

Wait, Bill D, are you saying that Pernetti should *help* Memphis, Tulane, and USF get into other leagues? And that he should help these schools while saying, no, Charlotte, North Texas, and Tulsa, you're stuck with the rest? What exactly do you mean by this goal?

(This, by the way, is where message boards, and for that matter, emails and texts don't provide for the best communication compared to actual conversation. I'm sure I'm missing something here.)

Quote:Another goal should be to address the challenges that Temple and Wichita face given their far-flung locations and, in Temple's case, a "cultural disconnect" in relation to the league's other members.

Temple is indeed isolated, especially in all the non-gridiron sports where at least Navy and Army are fairly nearby. But what do you do about it? Please don't say expand with other northern schools like Buffalo or UMass or Delaware.

As a guy in ACC country, Temple in the AAC feels a lot like Boston College did before Syracuse and Pitt joined. Like, why are they in this southern based league? Oh how quaint it was when Boston was "isolated" from next-closest Maryland. Aren't we all looking forward to Stanford vs. Virginia? But I digress.

Wichita, by contrast, won't care about their isolation anymore the moment they start getting back to the NCAA tournament. They just need to win, I'm convinced.

Quote:Another: Conduct future AAC men's hoops tourneys in cities that will at least minimize the embarrassment of horrific attendance for which the league is notoriously known. Having the last tourney in Fort Worth was a joke.

Another: Be in frequent contact with Air Force for long-term planning purposes

Another: Assess the possibility of adding some schools that don't play football and that care about basketball (VCU at the top of the list).

Another: Have two all-sports schools as candidates ready to replace USF and Tulane if those two replace Clemson and Florida State in the ACC.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Memphis, Wichita State, Temple, FAU (these days), USF (this past season at least), and others have histories to be VERY proud of. They deserve better than what's happening in Fort Worth. More people should be going to the AAC tournament than to the SoCon or MAC tournament. More has to be taken into account than simply the highest bidding host because doing it that way is costly to the league's reputation.

Put it in New Orleans, or Memphis, or, thinking outside the box, in Las Vegas. Almost everyone has to fly to get to this league's tournament, anyway, and Vegas is one of the cheapest flights in the counrty with direct flights from all over. It's an attractive place for fans to visit. It's worth thinking about.

Re: Air Force. Nailed it. Never would have thought of that, but spot-on.

Re: Non-football schools, prioritize Dayton over anyone else, with VCU as a backup.

Re: Backup plans if the AAC loses schools, this absolutely must be one of the highest priorities.

Pernetti should make clear that he understands some AAC members are making efforts to leave the league if given the chance. As such, one of his goals is to make clear — both to his membership and to the media — that 1. he respects the rights of those members to have that desire and 2. he will not institute policies that will harm those efforts.

Clearly, he must be respectful of all the AAC members. Furthermore, he can't directly assist schools in their efforts to leave.

But the AAC (and Mountain West, for that matter) exist, in part, as "feeder conferences" to the all-sports power leagues. Pernetti's goal, related to that, should be to do nothing that harms that dynamic while simultaneously being respectful of those AAC members that have no desire to elevate (likely because they know their chances of a power league invite are even less than those league members that do want out).

(04-05-2024 07:38 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 07:21 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:58 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:21 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  What do you all think the new commish’s realistic goals should be?

His first goal (among others) should be to work toward being transparent related to 1. acknowledging that the AAC offers some members (Memphis, Tulane and USF, in particular) that want to move on to a better league (either an existing conference or one that has yet to be formed) and, on this note, 2. doing what he can to help facilitate that

Wait, Bill D, are you saying that Pernetti should *help* Memphis, Tulane, and USF get into other leagues? And that he should help these schools while saying, no, Charlotte, North Texas, and Tulsa, you're stuck with the rest? What exactly do you mean by this goal?

(This, by the way, is where message boards, and for that matter, emails and texts don't provide for the best communication compared to actual conversation. I'm sure I'm missing something here.)

Quote:Another goal should be to address the challenges that Temple and Wichita face given their far-flung locations and, in Temple's case, a "cultural disconnect" in relation to the league's other members.

Temple is indeed isolated, especially in all the non-gridiron sports where at least Navy and Army are fairly nearby. But what do you do about it? Please don't say expand with other northern schools like Buffalo or UMass or Delaware.

As a guy in ACC country, Temple in the AAC feels a lot like Boston College did before Syracuse and Pitt joined. Like, why are they in this southern based league? Oh how quaint it was when Boston was "isolated" from next-closest Maryland. Aren't we all looking forward to Stanford vs. Virginia? But I digress.

Wichita, by contrast, won't care about their isolation anymore the moment they start getting back to the NCAA tournament. They just need to win, I'm convinced.

Quote:Another: Conduct future AAC men's hoops tourneys in cities that will at least minimize the embarrassment of horrific attendance for which the league is notoriously known. Having the last tourney in Fort Worth was a joke.

Another: Be in frequent contact with Air Force for long-term planning purposes

Another: Assess the possibility of adding some schools that don't play football and that care about basketball (VCU at the top of the list).

Another: Have two all-sports schools as candidates ready to replace USF and Tulane if those two replace Clemson and Florida State in the ACC.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Memphis, Wichita State, Temple, FAU (these days), USF (this past season at least), and others have histories to be VERY proud of. They deserve better than what's happening in Fort Worth. More people should be going to the AAC tournament than to the SoCon or MAC tournament. More has to be taken into account than simply the highest bidding host because doing it that way is costly to the league's reputation.

Put it in New Orleans, or Memphis, or, thinking outside the box, in Las Vegas. Almost everyone has to fly to get to this league's tournament, anyway, and Vegas is one of the cheapest flights in the counrty with direct flights from all over. It's an attractive place for fans to visit. It's worth thinking about.

Re: Air Force. Nailed it. Never would have thought of that, but spot-on.

Re: Non-football schools, prioritize Dayton over anyone else, with VCU as a backup.

Re: Backup plans if the AAC loses schools, this absolutely must be one of the highest priorities.

Dayton sponsors non-scholarship football at the FCS level. I wonder if they would consider dropping football to invest more in football.

The AAC would have a much better chance — were it to seek only one A10 member — of luring VCU than Dayton. Even then, the chances would be modest. Now if Pernetti got bold and invited, say, Loyola, Saint Louis, Dayton and VCU (the thinking being each might feel more comfortable joining the AAC knowing that three others are moving too) ... that might work. But again, it's highly unlikely. I just don't see it.

(04-05-2024 07:46 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 08:30 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 05:52 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 04:28 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 10:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  They didn't ask for their old friend Judy MacLeod to come back?

The only current AAC members that MacLeod didn't oversee in CUSA are South Florida, Navy, Army, Temple, and Wichita State.

Right!

It's like everybody except for almost half!

Ha ha ha (laughs in Standard Sunbelt Supremacy Scenario)

Woah now, never suggested that. Don't get too excited.

10/15 is 66.66%.

True, but the general point, Y-181, is that the bulk of the AAC members were not exclusively affiliated with the previous version of C-USA.

Original C-USA members USF (the Big East, the Metro), Memphis (Missouri Valley, the Metro, The Great Midwest), Charlotte (A10), UAB (The Great Midwest), North Texas (MVC), Tulsa (WAC, MVC), Tulane (SEC and the Metro) and Rice (SWC) have league-membership histories that go beyond C-USA. This history helps differentiate these schools (and some would contend in a positive way) from most schools in the Belt and the current C-USA. Obviously, there are exceptions in both the Belt (USM in the Metro, for example) and the new-look C-USA (UTEP in the WAC, for example).

Add to the seven AAC schools I list Navy, Army, Temple, and Wichita State (none of which has a C-USA membership background) — and you get an AAC with a nice diversity of member histories. It's a conference with its own identity.

It's too convenient to paint the current AAC as solely a C-USA-type league. I understand the temptation (particularly for Sun Belt fans who wish the AAC failure). But it just seems a bit misguided to do so.

Rice, Tulsa, and UNT weren’t original C-USA members, unless you’re referencing something else. From the inception of C-USA: Rice ended up in the WAC after the SWC, Tulsa was an Indy then WAC, and UNT went from 1-A Indy to I think the Big West to the Sun Belt.

My fumble, esayem. Good catch.

(04-06-2024 07:04 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 04:24 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  And I will sheepishly raise my hand that I can't count. Wichita State was right there in the post, and I was still putting 14 in the denominator rather than 15. Yosef 181 has better math than I do.
And THEN there were the points people made about Army and USF.

But even with the connection, I think the conclusions frequently drawn by Sun Belt fans are flawed.

We're talking about commissioners: does anyone really think that School X or School Y or School Z, given the same conference mates, same contract, and same conditions wouldn't have better outcomes in a conference led by Aresco than by Banowski and McLeod? I hope we end up saying the same about Pernetti, of course.
And it ISN'T the same conditions. Using results under the Facebook and gas station TV contract to predict how schools might perform given the AAC's ESPN timeslots is ludicrous. 2023 AAC had the same viewership of conference controlled football games as 2022 AAC. Two of the new additions had more total viewers than the most viewed Sun Belt program, and UTSA had more viewers on the AAC contract than anyone did on the Sun Belt contract. Not to mention more money.
"The AAC is following CUSA's strategy from 2013" they say. Um, no, the American is following the strategy used by the BigEast/American in 2011-2012. That worked out okay.
The schtick of Marketz! really fails to account for the AAC's actual decision making.

If Yosef181 says he wasn't leaping to that conclusion, I'll take him at his word. But I will continue to poke fun at the facile equating of the new AAC to the CUSA of the last ten years in terms of outcomes.

About the group of CUSA-to-AAC "Power" chasers: it's the same schools with a very different media strategy (though with the same core concept).

Same schools: 12 out of 15 left CUSA in the last 20 years.

Different media strategy: Many of the current AAC members were in CUSA when the conference left ESPN. That decision by current AAC schools led to CUSA being on Facebook and Stadium, all while the schools who left ESPN while in CUSA rejoined ESPN in the AAC.

It was like they threw a match into their house, then moved into a fancier house across the street while they watched their former house burn. Then they watched some new people move into the burnt down house, and invited the ones they liked into their fancier house. Sure, people are trying to repair the burnt down house now, but it's not as nice as the fancier house.

When they were in CUSA: ESPN is bad
When they came to the AAC: ESPN is good

Same core concept: I'm sorry, but the "marketz" thing is true. You can't bring in UNC-Charlotte (Charlotte), Rice (Houston), Florida Atlantic (West Palm Beach/Miami), UTSA (San Antonio), and North Texas (Dallas) in one swoop and claim TV markets weren't a factor.

The AAC currently has 9 of the top 40 U.S. TV markets. That is absolutely intentional, to get the maximum payout possible in a system where markets affect pay.

1. New York (Army)
4. Philadelphia (Temple)
5. Dallas-Fort Worth (North Texas)
6. Houston (Rice)
12. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Sarasota (South Florida)
21. Charlotte (UNC-Charlotte)
29. Baltimore (Navy), with #9 Washington D.C. next door.
31. San Antonio (UTSA), with #35 Austin next door.
39. West Palm Beach-Fort Pierce (Florida Atlantic), with #18 Miami-Fort Lauderdale next door.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te...dia_market

Same schools, different media strategy, same core concept.

My criticism of some Sun Belt posters, Y-181, is that they are dismissive of the AAC for what they feel is a misguided emphasis on markets. They mock some league members for being located in big markets and having no fan support (which is worth constructive criticism, no doubt). But they fail to either see or acknowledge that the AAC members' locations are helpful (at least on paper) for football and basketball recruiting. The list of cities you note ... as a Memphis Tiger basketball fan, that's what I want to see.

As I've posted previously, markets can be valuable beyond fan base/attendance.

(04-05-2024 06:54 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 04:24 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  ...

But even with the connection, I think the conclusions frequently drawn by Sun Belt fans are flawed.

We're talking about commissioners: does anyone really think that School X or School Y or School Z, given the same conference mates, same contract, and same conditions wouldn't have better outcomes in a conference led by Aresco than by Banowski and McLeod? I hope we end up saying the same about Pernetti, of course.
And it ISN'T the same conditions.

Aresco has been the best CUSA commissioner since Mike Slive, no question about it.

Just kidding.

Seriously, though, Aresco did a very good job of getting excellent exposure for the conference. I'm honestly jealous that the AAC gets national games on Friday nights and sometimes even Saturday afternoons while the Sun Belt gets Tuesdays. He seems like a super nice guy, and while there have been a few things that he's done that I don't like, he's led well.

Quote:Using results under the Facebook and gas station TV contract to predict how schools might perform given the AAC's ESPN timeslots is ludicrous. 2023 AAC had the same viewership of conference controlled football games as 2022 AAC. Two of the new additions had more total viewers than the most viewed Sun Belt program, and UTSA had more viewers on the AAC contract than anyone did on the Sun Belt contract. Not to mention more money.
"The AAC is following CUSA's strategy from 2013" they say. Um, no, the American is following the strategy used by the BigEast/American in 2011-2012. That worked out okay.
The schtick of Marketz! really fails to account for the AAC's actual decision making.

If Yosef181 says he wasn't leaping to that conclusion, I'll take him at his word. But I will continue to poke fun at the facile equating of the new AAC to the CUSA of the last ten years in terms of outcomes.

Color me shocked that the AAC had the same numbers with UTSA, UAB, & co. as it did with Cincy, UCF, and Houston. I knew it wouldn't completely fall apart with popular programs like Memphis still in, and with the rise of Tulane football, but those were the best three programs that the AAC just lost.

I still think the Sun Belt has a product that is going to draw eyeballs and W's in the long run, especially if the AAC loses more programs like Memphis, Tulane, USF, or others to rebuilding ACC. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy App State's 7-0 record as an FBS program against members of the AAC.

It's a nice rivalry between the AAC and Sun Belt that has developed.

I agree. It helps the AAC that the Sun Belt is of quality — and vice versa.

(04-06-2024 09:45 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 07:27 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 09:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe the poor performance of 2023 will repeat in 2024, rather than being like 2014 with a bounceback.

One of the biggest factors in overstating the doom of the AAC has been overstating the departures as some Big Three.

After 2023, the AAC has more weeks spent in the CFP Committee Rankings by the teams remaining than by the teams departed/departing.
Looking a little deeper:

By conference, Appearances in the 2014-2023 CFP Committee Rankings:
2024 American Athletic Conference 52 (48 from six out of seven legacy teams)
Departing AAC to Big 12 Teams: 47
Departing AAC to ACC team: 3
mountain west conference: 35
2022+ Sun Belt: 18
MAC: 8
CUSA: 3

They were never a 1-2-3 in viewers or in attendance. Even with on-field successes, they only became 1-2-3 in wins in the middle of their finsl season. The AAC was doing fine when UCF was 0-12 and when Cincinnati had Tubervillitis, and we can do well without them.

I like what the Sun Belt has done. It is a different model, and for me and my program regional is not the objective. But the Sun Belt has a lot of positives, and potential to grow even more. It is somewhat a shame that this is now an almost-zero-sum game

I don't think applying on-field stats from the 2010s is particularly relevant to today. How many AAC and SBC head coaches from 2015 are still in their same position at the same school today? How many players from 2015 are still with the same program today?

College teams change so fast that a team 8 years ago has little-to-no relevance to today's on-field product.

One thing that's clear to me from your post though is that the SBC is hot right now, riding some serious momentum in the last 3-5 years, a time period which is relevant to those programs today.

(04-06-2024 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 07:27 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 09:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe the poor performance of 2023 will repeat in 2024, rather than being like 2014 with a bounceback.

One of the biggest factors in overstating the doom of the AAC has been overstating the departures as some Big Three.

After 2023, the AAC has more weeks spent in the CFP Committee Rankings by the teams remaining than by the teams departed/departing.
Looking a little deeper:

By conference, Appearances in the 2014-2023 CFP Committee Rankings:
2024 American Athletic Conference 52 (48 from six out of seven legacy teams)
Departing AAC to Big 12 Teams: 47
Departing AAC to ACC team: 3
mountain west conference: 35
2022+ Sun Belt: 18
MAC: 8
CUSA: 3

They were never a 1-2-3 in viewers or in attendance. Even with on-field successes, they only became 1-2-3 in wins in the middle of their finsl season. The AAC was doing fine when UCF was 0-12 and when Cincinnati had Tubervillitis, and we can do well without them.

I like what the Sun Belt has done. It is a different model, and for me and my program regional is not the objective. But the Sun Belt has a lot of positives, and potential to grow even more. It is somewhat a shame that this is now an almost-zero-sum game

I don't think applying on-field stats from the 2010s is particularly relevant to today. How many AAC and SBC head coaches from 2015 are still in their same position at the same school today? How many players from 2015 are still with the same program today?

College teams change so fast that a team 8 years ago has little-to-no relevance to today's on-field product.

One thing that's clear to me from your post though is that the SBC is hot right now, riding some serious momentum in the last 3-5 years, a time period which is relevant to those programs today.

That's a good point about recency, I think.

I mean, of the remaining schools, the one with the most weeks in the CFP is Memphis, with 15 weeks. But Memphis hasn't spent a week in the CFP since 2019, going on 5 years ago.

The team with the second-most is Navy, with 12 weeks, but again they haven't appeared in the CFP since 2019 either. Neither has made an appearance this decade, a decade we are now 40% through.

Also, Tulsa logged six weeks in the CFP, all in one year, 2020, which was the covid year.

Tulane, with 11 appearances in the last couple years, is the only school with any kind of meaningful recent pedigree in the CFP, IMO.

Furthermore, there's the issue of how high a team is ranked. Cincy and UCF had an average CFP ranking of 13 and 15 respectively. In contrast, Memphis's average rank was 19 and Navy's was 22. Tulane's is 21.

The highest rank attained by any of those three teams was 13 (Memphis), for Navy and Tulane it was 15 and 16 respectively. Cincy and UCF both cracked the top 10.

I mean basically, UCF's *average* CFP ranking is about equal to the *peak* CFP ranking ever achieved by Navy and Tulane, and Cincy's average ranking is above the peak achieved by those two and Memphis as well.

Finally, the AAC wasn't totally dominant over the other G5 to begin with, even with those departing schools. Discounting the covid year for paucity of OOC data, the AAC was the #1 ranked conference in the MC five teams in eight seasons (2015 - 2017, 2019, 2022), while the MW was #1 on three occasions (2014, 2018, 2021). The AAC may have won the propaganda war by getting a team in the CFP many more years, but while it was the best football conference while it had UCF, Cincy and Houston, it wasn't by a mile.

So IMO, you take those schools out, and you are in keen danger of having lost your title as "best".

We'll see.

Source for total weeks and average ranking data:

https://www.collegepollarchive.com/footb...-total.cfm

Source for recency data:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/sch...polls.html

Let me try and do the last five years succinctly. Tells a different story than quo wants to, and doesn't look like what Yosef 181 thinks is clear.

2019-2023 CFP rankings.
AAC (of 2024) - 30 weeks
Sun Belt (of '22 on) - 20 weeks
mwc - 14 weeks
CUSA - 4 weeks.

2023
AAC - 5 weeks (all Tulane)
CUSA - 4 weeks (all Liberty)

2022
AAC - 7 weeks (Tulane 6, UTSA 1)
Sun Belt 1 (Troy)

2021
mwc - 7 weeks (SDSU 6, Fresno State 1)
AAC 3 weeks (UTSA)
Sun Belt - 2 (Louisiana)

2020
Sun Belt 12 weeks (Coastal Carolina 5, Louisiana 4, Marshall 3)
AAC 5 weeks (Tulsa)
mwc 1 (SJSU)
CUSA 1 (Liberty)

2019
AAC 10 weeks (Memphis 6, Navy 4)
mwc 6 (Boise State)
Sun Belt 5 (Appalachian State)


There isn't a big, continuous three to five year rise for the Sun Belt -- there is one single good year. Don't get me wrong, those five years (and 2018 also) are overall a HECKUVA lot better than the years before, but it really is a stair step up and relatively flat performance in that six years, with 2020 an outlier even within those five (or six) years. (Like quo, I am talking Massey Composite conference average rankings here.) AND that year is one that people like quo want to discount.
Meanwhile, the AAC of 2024 has MORE weeks ranked by the committee in the last five years than in the first five years. Recency is actually in the AAC's favor. The three now Big12 teams have fewer in the last five years! (SMU does get all four departures ahead by a nose.) Of course the conference overall is not as good as before three of our top half teams and then a fourth depart. Duh. Which also means no longer clearly separated from the other four. But the new AAC is still advantaged, including some contributions from a new addition, and we're not dead yet.

Well FWIW, I'm not really interested in a specific AAC vs SBC comparison, which is why I didn't mention the SBC in my last post. It's more an "AAC vs the Field" kind of thing, because to me the key question is "will the AAC be the clear-cut tops football G5" as it was over the course of the eight seasons. So my post was focused on what the AAC has lost.

That's why I talked about what UCF and Cincy contributed, and IMO they contributed way more than anyone else in the AAC, hence they were a really major "Big Two" kind of loss (I agree with the notion that the leavers weren't a "Big 3", because Houston didn't make "Big" level contributions.

And really, looking at your recent data, all I see is "Tulane". Because only they have and UTSA have logged CFP weeks since the covid year of 2020 (which yes, I throw out for everyone, SBC included), and UTSA's weeks were all while in CUSA. I'm not confident looking at weeks logged in a lesser league as indicative of strength going forward. E.g., I'm not sure many in the nB12 are counting Cincy and UCF weeks in the CFP the past 6-7 years as indicative of nB12 strength going forward. Maybe they are, but like UTSA, Cincy and UCF logged zero weeks in the CFP in their inaugural years in their new, better leagues.

Also, as I said previously, there is also IMO the issue of not just weeks in the CFP but where those weeks were logged. As I noted, Cincy and UCF logged not only the most weeks, but penetrated significantly farther in the rankings. Not all weeks are equal I think, and it is clear that UCF and Cincy were much better. They really were a "Big Two" the last several years, IMO.

In the end, I end up with the statement from your post that I bolded above - yeah, the AAC has lost some top teams, so isn't clearly separated from the other Gs anymore. I agree.

The bottom line is, the AAC was the 3rd-best G5 last year. Was that an anomaly or will the AAC bounce back? Only time will tell. But IMO, there is ample reason for pessimism. Lose your Big Two and replace them with a pile of CUSA teams and what's to like?

For example, Tulane has been the banner-waver among the left-behinds the past two seasons, and they just lost the coach that built them. Tulane was nothing before Fritz. Does that mean the new guy can't keep them where they are or even improve? No. Is it likely though? IMO again No.

Another bad sign - look at your 2023 numbers. The AAC was by the MC and I believe most other metrics, the third-best conference. The SBC and MW were both clearly better overall. And yet the AAC logged the most weeks in the CFP, five, compared to four for CUSA and zero for the MW. IMO, that was a "legacy effect", it was a bias on the part of the CFP due to the AAC's past history of success. The CFP gave the AAC leader the benefit of the doubt, I think. But that is kind of like running on fumes. That won't last long I think and can't be counted on, if we have more years like last year.

The way I see it, if we look at the AAC teams that logged big weeks in the CFP, all are problematic going forward. UCF, Cincy and Houston? Gone. Navy and Memphis? Haven't logged a week in the 2020s. UTSA? Logged theirs while in CUSA. Tulsa? One year, the covid year four years ago. Tulane? Just lost the guy who single-handedly made them a winner the past two years.

So where are more weeks going to come from? It's not clear to me. Could my USF rise up? Or Memphis and Navy rebound and do so? Could UTSA duplicate CUSA success? Sure, all or some of that could happen, but it's not clear to me at all that it will, or is likely to.

Maybe last year was an anomaly. Maybe it wasn't. We'll see.

(04-06-2024 09:42 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 07:04 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  Same core concept: I'm sorry, but the "marketz" thing is true. You can't bring in UNC-Charlotte (Charlotte), Rice (Houston), Florida Atlantic (West Palm Beach/Miami), UTSA (San Antonio), and North Texas (Dallas) in one swoop and claim TV markets weren't a factor.

The AAC currently has 9 of the top 40 U.S. TV markets. That is absolutely intentional, to get the maximum payout possible in a system where markets affect pay.

1. New York (Army)
4. Philadelphia (Temple)
5. Dallas-Fort Worth (North Texas)
6. Houston (Rice)
12. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Sarasota (South Florida)
21. Charlotte (UNC-Charlotte)
29. Baltimore (Navy), with #9 Washington D.C. next door.
31. San Antonio (UTSA), with #35 Austin next door.
39. West Palm Beach-Fort Pierce (Florida Atlantic), with #18 Miami-Fort Lauderdale next door.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te...dia_market

Same schools, different media strategy, same core concept.

Of course markets were a PART of the Big East strategy in 2011. And a PART of the American strategy ten years later, but just a part. Aresco quotes are all over the internet about choosing schools that committed to spending more to improve.

All THAT is what the moves of 2021 mimic, not "Derp derp derp, do what CUSA did in 2013."

If what I wrote led to you to think "Derp derp derp, do what CUSA did in 2013", there isn't that much actual discussion happening here between you and me.

Markets absolutely matter to the AAC. The evidence is clear, as stated in a previous reply. You even pointed it out.

(04-06-2024 03:52 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  My criticism of some Sun Belt posters, Y-181, is that they are dismissive of the AAC for what they feel is a misguided emphasis on markets. They mock some league members for being located in big markets and having no fan support (which is worth constructive criticism, no doubt). But they fail to either see or acknowledge that the AAC members' locations are helpful (at least on paper) for football and basketball recruiting. The list of cities you note ... as a Memphis Tiger basketball fan, that's what I want to see.

As I've posted previously, markets can be valuable beyond fan base/attendance.

I'll call this out directly: The AAC (and CUSA) strategy was (and still is) a completely misguided emphasis on markets, and it's starting to show in conference rankings (yes, there's more to a conference than its top team, for anyone out there who thinks otherwise. Can't just ride the coattails of one successful school forever).

I hope you realize by now why fans of Sun Belt schools poke fun at the "marketz" strategy not working. That strategy screwed most of the SBC schools into being "left behind", schools which definitely had the merit at the time to move forward. You think App State wanted to move to the SBC from FCS? No, we wanted CUSA, but UNC-Charlotte, a school which didn't even have a football program at the time, was picked while we were told No. You think Southern Miss and Marshall wanted to stay in CUSA while over a dozen schools passed them in the realignment pecking order? Of course not, they watched interest in their programs decline because of it. You think 2010 football champions Troy and 2011 + 2012 football champions Arkansas State liked seeing market schools like North Texas and FAU being promoted while they were left behind? No, because Troy and Arkansas State were proving their worth with on-field results, that they had better programs than the market teams. North Texas had 8 consecutive losing seasons before moving to CUSA for more money. FAU had 4 consecutive losing seasons before moving to CUSA for more money. These schools were chosen for off-field reasons (marketz), not on-field results.

You better believe we're going to be happy about being better than the schools who wanted nothing to do with us (see my earlier links to Massey, Colley, and Bleacher Report's algorithm of AP Top 25 + FPI + bowl results). You better believe we're going to have a positive reaction when we rise above conferences who didn't want us.

And sure, recruiting locations are important, but that doesn't seem to be helping UNC-Charlotte, so...being in a city can't mean that much. To be fair, the same is true for Georgia State in the SBC, which only has 1 season of 8+ wins in 11 years.