(03-02-2018 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:58 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:28 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Another swing and miss. The term “Have nots” does not appear in the CFP agreement. Your conference is free to embrace that term as well.

Never said it did. Know what is listed in the contract? The American Athletic Conference. You know where it's listed? Amongst a gang of five conferences that are on their knees picking up crumbs from the carpet.

The terminology doesn't matter. The grouping of the AAC alongside the SBC, MAC, MWC & CUSA and separate from the B10, B12, PAC, SEC & ACC + Notre Dame is very real. Your conference agreed to it. Signed on the dotted line.

Lol. If terminology doesn’t matter, then your attack on P6 is kinda pointless. I think terminology does matter.

See your problem isn't the terminology though. If you had a problem with the G5/P5 terminology you wouldn't being using P6. You just don't like where your conference came down in the divide. But saying it's not so doesn't make it not so. This isn't about wins or losses, not about attendance or contributions it's about power brokering. That's where the P in P5 comes from and you guys just don't have it. You could beat Texas in every sport for 10 straight years and they could still buy and sell you. If the B12 had another embarrassing dog and pony show next year where they trotted out all the candidates for ascension and made them dance, you'd all come out and dance. I'd dance too if I thought my school had a chance. Why? Because you make tens of millions of dollars more on that side of the line. And I understand that your school is pretty close to that line, you can probably taste the milk and honey at times it's so close. But you're on the outside looking in. So there's really no point in arguing where the line is. The P6 as a marketing campaign? Meh. Kind of stupid. But that's just my opinion though.

As i've said before. Its marketing. The point is simply to differentiate the AAC product from the rest of the G5. The casual fan thinks P5 football is different. The key to increasing the AAC media value is to convince enough casual viewers that the AAC plays a brand of football thats worth watching because its "basically the 6th power conference".

Essentially thats what the marketing is designed to do. Instead of defining the AAC as the top of the bottom five--its strives to define the AAC as the bottom of the top 6.

The relative position is exactly the same, but the difference in perception might be the trigger that gets a casual fan to watch a tight game between a pair of top AAC teams rather than P5 game thats pretty much decided. Once they see a few games, the hope is they will see an interesting enough brand of ball that they opt to catch other AAC games in the future. Its a process.

Except everyone laughs at the marketing because it stupid. Not sure its having the effect you think it is.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk