The AAC is a league with far more promise than originally expected

By JOSEPH NARDONE



When the version of the Big East Conference that most of us grew up on was in its last throws of life, Mike Aresco was the league’s commissioner. A former television network head honcho, the death of the Big East’s scorn was widely thrown on the shoulder of a man who was only overseeing the league for a very short time. Right or wrong, Aresco became the face of the death of one of the nation’s most historic and beloved leagues.

Fast-forward some time, add more objectivity, and while we can still point fingers at him, Aresco was no more or less to blame than the allure of football money. Say what you want about his plans to make the Big East a national brand, through football and the money it brings, but refusing to acknowledge the great idea behind his premise is lacking foresight.

Read the rest here: http://bustingbrackets.com/2014/04/17/aa...ng-future/

No mentioned of Fiesta Bowl. Called football season poor?

Yeah, total roundball douche comment. AAC football surprised a lot of people. But no need to let a few facts disrupt a good story. Proud of AAC basketball, but football got shat upon in this article.

(04-18-2014 10:24 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Yeah, total roundball douche comment. AAC football surprised a lot of people. But no need to let a few facts disrupt a good story. Proud of AAC basketball, but football got shat upon in this article.

Actually, his contention is that the first season of AAC football was no better or worse than the typical old Big East football----which was an AQ conference. That's probably fair. The old Big East was generally solid at the top, terrible at the bottom, and did pretty well in BCS games more often than not.

I actually think the article was a good one. I agree that our top football teams like UCF, and Cincy did not get enough love, but overall, the article was thoughtful and analytical. I know that people have been critical of our football deal, especially one or two posters from my school, but in terms of what other G5 tv contracts look like, it is the best of the rest.

I am pleasantly surprised at all of the good press that the AAC has recieved lately. No question we have some in the sports world intrigued by what is going on here. Aresco , imo, is like the turtle not the hare. His refusal to sound bitter in the press and to come across as a slime ball or used car salesman like most G5 commissioners do is a real plus. Aresco is the AAC's greatest cheerleader. We are fortunate to have someone who actually believes in the league they are leading. Ask our Conf USA brothers is they think the same about their leader right now.

There is no other G5 receiving the type of news and good press we are right now. Conf USA is in the midst of some serious soul searching right now( for the record I like Conf USA) , The Sun Belt is struggling to find a 12th member who wants to join the the league ( inviting Liberty would be a huge mistake imo, the Belt has great football potential though) The MAC( have no idea what the MAC's vision is) The MWC( struggling with an identity crisis, and if BYU comes to the American, there will be multiple teams scrambling to leave the MWC to come to the American)

In short, the AAC is building something that each of the schools can be proud to be a member. In fact, the strength of this league is that every member brings something to the table, and is not looking for the league to give them anything except for more exposure in tv land.

(04-18-2014 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually, his contention is that the first season of AAC football was no better or worse than the typical old Big East football----which was an AQ conference. That's probably fair. The old Big East was generally solid at the top, terrible at the bottom, and did pretty well in BCS games more often than not.

I somewhat disagree with you here. During the 2.0 era (Miami, VT, and BC gone, USF, UL and UC in) we generally had one terrible team (usually Cuse during the Robinson error), and solid throughout the rest of the conference with parity. Anyone could have beaten anyone else even though we had one or two strong teams throughout. 2006 was a great year for the conference with three highly ranked teams.

The Big East had that weird 6 year cycle ('98 Cuse - '04 Pitt- '10 UConn) of sending a non-deserving team to the BCS game. That drew the criticism.

That essay went off in about 38 different directions.

(04-18-2014 10:42 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  There is no other G5 receiving the type of news and good press we are right now. Conf USA is in the midst of some serious soul searching right now( for the record I like Conf USA) , The Sun Belt is struggling to find a 12th member who wants to join the the league ( inviting Liberty would be a huge mistake imo, the Belt has great football potential though) The MAC( have no idea what the MAC's vision is) The MWC( struggling with an identity crisis, and if BYU comes to the American, there will be multiple teams scrambling to leave the MWC to come to the American)

Hey, I think the AAC has earned the "best of the rest" conference reputation by their on field/court results this year. It gives us all a good target to develop to, but "soul searching?" I really don't think most C-USA folks feel that way. I think we understand we're middle of the pack, at best, but seem determined to grow to our potential. Whether that is equal to the AAc's performance this year, I have no idea, but we can certainly grow to compete with all G5 conferences in the future. My sense is that most CUSA folks recognize the great performance of the AAC but are focusing more on developing our own brand. We have a lot of that to do given our new membership.

just looking at the numbers from 05-12....
worst teams:
had 2 years with a 10 loss team(05, 07).
had 2 years with a 9 loss team(12, 08)
had 3 years with a 8 loss team(10,09,08)
had 1 year with a 7 loss team(11)

2nd worst teams:
had 5 years with 7 loss team(12,11,08,07,05)
had 3 years with 8 loss team(10,09,06)

had 1 year with 3 5-7 teams as worst teams.
had 3 years with 2 4-8 teams as worst teams

so generally speaking when AAC had worst teams(05, 07), next to worst was at least only with 7 losses. Had 3 years with 2 4-8 teams though.

This past year was worst one with 2 2-10 teams and 2 3-9 teams.

(04-18-2014 10:24 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  AAC football surprised a lot of people. But no need to let a few facts disrupt a good story.

The American had two great teams at the top (UCF and Louisville) and two impressive bowl victories (Fiesta Bowl win by UCF and UofL thrashing Miami in the RAB).

From an objective standpoint; however, there was also a lot of bad. The American's bowl record was 2-3 and the conference was pretty horrific at the bottom (e.g. 4 teams had 3 or fewer wins on the season).

I was impressed with the AAC. Jealous, too, of course.

The MW didn't do "bad"....just strong enough to still be considered one of the best after the power5.

Looking at all of FBS, still looks like not much difference between the 5 g5 conferences....until you look closer, then AAC has a small but noticeable lead over little argued #2 MW....who has a small lead over MAC/CUSA then Sunbelt.

Basketball, the American landed some great punches on the Big-6 conferences. I can really see American surpassing the Cath-BigEast. My MW will always be a top 3 to 10 basketball conference depending on the year....but seems the American is more consistent as I cannot see the American being the 10th best basketball conference any year like the mw was this year.

I'm trying to hate the AAC but too many commonalities to not hope both the MW and AAC continue a path toward the top of the NCAA sports mountain.

I too like CUSA and some teams in MAC and Belt....but I think only a certain amount will be allowed into the "next level" (whatever that ends up being)....I think the Power-5 are tired of 30 plus conferences so maybe a couple more they may stomach to take with them as another NCAA division. (hopefully we ALL stay in the NCAA, sans some governance autonomy).

(04-18-2014 11:06 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:24 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  AAC football surprised a lot of people. But no need to let a few facts disrupt a good story.

The American had two great teams at the top (UCF and Louisville) and two impressive bowl victories (Fiesta Bowl win by UCF and UofL thrashing Miami in the RAB).

From an objective standpoint; however, there was also a lot of bad. The American's bowl record was 2-3 and the conference was pretty horrific at the bottom (e.g. 4 teams had 3 or fewer wins on the season).

You have a valid point. No argument. My point is that the author goes to great lengths to talk about the poor expectations of the league's football programs, and then dismisses that the top two teams beat the snot out of a top 10 and top 20 program. That alone exceeded expectations. He puts is down then dismisses that we exceeded his own expectations. Only he lazily compares us to previous BE football results. Lazy journalism at best. Mean spirited elitism towards AAC football at worst. That's all I'm saying.

He properly rewarded AAC basketball at least.

"Syracuse and Pitt were leaving for the ACC. Two of the best basketball programs in the entire Big East, with Syracuse being a longstanding member of Big East awesomeness. Not only did all the then members of the Big East realize what a huge hit it was going to be to lose those programs, but Aresco was losing two potential football breadwinners."

This statement is laughable at best. Syracuse was horrendous in the old BE in the 00's most of the time. Pathetically bad. Pitt was mediocre, known as a team with unfulfilled talent.

(04-18-2014 11:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  just looking at the numbers from 05-12....
worst teams:
had 2 years with a 10 loss team(05, 07).
had 2 years with a 9 loss team(12, 08)
had 3 years with a 8 loss team(10,09,08)
had 1 year with a 7 loss team(11)

2nd worst teams:
had 5 years with 7 loss team(12,11,08,07,05)
had 3 years with 8 loss team(10,09,06)

had 1 year with 3 5-7 teams as worst teams.
had 3 years with 2 4-8 teams as worst teams

so generally speaking when AAC had worst teams(05, 07), next to worst was at least only with 7 losses. Had 3 years with 2 4-8 teams though.

This past year was worst one with 2 2-10 teams and 2 3-9 teams.

In the 05-12 period, Syracuse was the team most likely bringing up the rear in the Big East. Look up their record during this time period.

(04-18-2014 11:20 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  "Syracuse and Pitt were leaving for the ACC. Two of the best basketball programs in the entire Big East, with Syracuse being a longstanding member of Big East awesomeness. Not only did all the then members of the Big East realize what a huge hit it was going to be to lose those programs, but Aresco was losing two potential football breadwinners."

This statement is laughable at best. Syracuse was horrendous in the old BE in the 00's most of the time. Pathetically bad. Pitt was mediocre, known as a team with unfulfilled talent.

He was referring to basketball, not football. Neither program were horrendous or mediocre -- the only real knock on Pitt was that they never went far in the tournament.

(04-18-2014 11:23 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 11:20 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  "Syracuse and Pitt were leaving for the ACC. Two of the best basketball programs in the entire Big East, with Syracuse being a longstanding member of Big East awesomeness. Not only did all the then members of the Big East realize what a huge hit it was going to be to lose those programs, but Aresco was losing two potential football breadwinners."

This statement is laughable at best. Syracuse was horrendous in the old BE in the 00's most of the time. Pathetically bad. Pitt was mediocre, known as a team with unfulfilled talent.

He was referring to basketball, not football. Neither program were horrendous or mediocre -- the only real knock on Pitt was that they never went far in the tournament.

OK, sorry, guess I should read/pay attention before posting.

(04-18-2014 10:49 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually, his contention is that the first season of AAC football was no better or worse than the typical old Big East football----which was an AQ conference. That's probably fair. The old Big East was generally solid at the top, terrible at the bottom, and did pretty well in BCS games more often than not.

I somewhat disagree with you here. During the 2.0 era (Miami, VT, and BC gone, USF, UL and UC in) we generally had one terrible team (usually Cuse during the Robinson error), and solid throughout the rest of the conference with parity. Anyone could have beaten anyone else even though we had one or two strong teams throughout. 2006 was a great year for the conference with three highly ranked teams.

The Big East had that weird 6 year cycle ('98 Cuse - '04 Pitt- '10 UConn) of sending a non-deserving team to the BCS game. That drew the criticism.

Well, I wasnt a super hard core follower of Big East football at the time, but I do remember the league being referred to as Miami and the 7 dwarves during that period. The perception of the Big East football league as a whole was never that great---which is not really fair, but it was the overall perception. That said every conference has good years and bad years--but it seemed the BE was always singled out for its bad years.

(04-18-2014 10:06 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  The AAC is a league with far more promise than originally expected

By JOSEPH NARDONE



When the version of the Big East Conference that most of us grew up on was in its last throws of life, Mike Aresco was the league’s commissioner. A former television network head honcho, the death of the Big East’s scorn was widely thrown on the shoulder of a man who was only overseeing the league for a very short time. Right or wrong, Aresco became the face of the death of one of the nation’s most historic and beloved leagues.
Fast-forward some time, add more objectivity, and while we can still point fingers at him, Aresco was no more or less to blame than the allure of football money. Say what you want about his plans to make the Big East a national brand, through football and the money it brings, but refusing to acknowledge the great idea behind his premise is lacking foresight.

Read the rest here: http://bustingbrackets.com/2014/04/17/aa...ng-future/

bullshite meter red-lined right there. did not read

That site lets fans write, and this guy obviously is an old BE basketball fan. His writing style and grammatical errors are like chalk on a blackboard to me, and he absolutely gave short shrift to football.

I completely disagree that the AAC will be judged on its basketball, and not its football. That will become evident when the next TV contract negotiation rolls around.

But at least he admitted that the AAC was trending upward, with the C7 going in the opposite direction.

Not trying to say anything bad about ucf they had a great football season but the conference as a whole was like a usual big east season which is something that needs to change.