Instead of calling itself P6, why doesn't the AAC simply declare one of the bowls it already has a contract with an NY7 bowl?

(03-02-2018 12:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  Instead of calling itself P6, why doesn't the AAC simply declare one of the bowls it already has a contract with an NY7 bowl?

Because we already play the NY6 bowls by default?

(03-02-2018 11:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:32 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I can't blame Aresco for his P6 campaign, he is way-overpaid by the AAC to promote its interest, and it is in the interest of the AAC to be viewed as superior to the other G5 conferences. He's just doing his job.

That said, I don't blame Frazier either, because he is doing his job too. As much as Aresco might want to say that the P6 campaign is about "ourselves" and not the rest of the G5, when you say you are above the rest of the G5, which "P6" definitely does do, then you are doing something that harms NIU and the rest of the G5. Because instead of being behind just 5 conferences, Aresco is saying they are actually behind 6 conferences.

So Frazier is correctly combating the AAC's "P6" campaign because it does harm his conference/school interests.

I get where he's coming from in removing the top average performer (on field, ratings, budgets, salaries, attendance, recruiting...) the remaining collective average declines. As he is a proponent of a separate G5 playoff which would assumably have a separate collective TV deal, it is beneficial, maybe even necessary, to have the top conference (real or perceived) involved.

The AAC has been the top performing G5, but performance really has nothing to do with it. It wouldn't matter if it was the AAC or Sun Belt claiming it was "P6", the effect is the same: It implies that the other members of the G5 are below yet another conference, so it is an 'attack' so to speak, on their interests.

Then most every conference is doing it. The Mountain West tag line was “Above the Rest”. The Sunbelts is “together we rise” (Rise? Above who?). CUSA at one time used “Where champions are born”. They all suggest superiority. P6 is basically just a play on the popular made up P5/G5 term. It’s actually kinda clever.

It's not the same. "Above the rest' is amorphous and could just as easily apply to P5 as G5.

But the Aresco campaign is specific: it clearly is aimed at the other G5.

Thats not better---its even worse--becasue there is no metric that backs it up. The AAC is saying it is #6. Most people agree with that. Basically, the entire controversy revolves around the use of the word "Power" as a modifier. Honestly, its basically saying Pepsi doesnt like the Coca Cola ad campaign because it implies other soft drinks are less refreshing. Essentially, its an AD having a temper tantrum.

(03-02-2018 12:36 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  Instead of calling itself P6, why doesn't the AAC simply declare one of the bowls it already has a contract with an NY7 bowl?

Because we already play the NY6 bowls by default?

Due to the fact that you're a G5 conference.

Sunbelt just inked a new TV deal for more $$$ how much we don't know and more coverage,, Not hurting them.

(03-02-2018 12:50 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:36 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  Instead of calling itself P6, why doesn't the AAC simply declare one of the bowls it already has a contract with an NY7 bowl?

Because we already play the NY6 bowls by default?

Due to the fact that you're a G5 conference.

Of course, that term appears nowhere in the CFP agreement. We are a non-contract conference. G5 is a derogatory term—but your conference is free to embrace the term if you like. The AAC has chosen not to.

I think it's terrible how Aresco trolls the rest of college sports with his controversial statements.

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

(03-02-2018 12:50 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:36 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  Instead of calling itself P6, why doesn't the AAC simply declare one of the bowls it already has a contract with an NY7 bowl?

Because we already play the NY6 bowls by default?

Due to the fact that you're a G5 conference.

Of course, that term appears nowhere in the CFP agreement. We are a non-contract conference. G5 is a derogatory term—but your conference is free to embrace the term if you like. The AAC has chosen not to.

Right, You're listed by name in the "have not's" category.

The line was drawn. Labels are the very least of it.

(03-02-2018 03:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

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

(03-02-2018 12:50 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:36 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  Instead of calling itself P6, why doesn't the AAC simply declare one of the bowls it already has a contract with an NY7 bowl?

Because we already play the NY6 bowls by default?

Due to the fact that you're a G5 conference.

Of course, that term appears nowhere in the CFP agreement. We are a non-contract conference. G5 is a derogatory term—but your conference is free to embrace the term if you like. The AAC has chosen not to.

Right, You're listed by name in the "have not's" category.

The line was drawn. Labels are the very least of it.

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.

Quo just can’t help himself.

(03-02-2018 03:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

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

(03-02-2018 12:50 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:36 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Because we already play the NY6 bowls by default?

Due to the fact that you're a G5 conference.

Of course, that term appears nowhere in the CFP agreement. We are a non-contract conference. G5 is a derogatory term—but your conference is free to embrace the term if you like. The AAC has chosen not to.

Right, You're listed by name in the "have not's" category.

The line was drawn. Labels are the very least of it.

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.

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

(03-02-2018 03:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

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

(03-02-2018 12:50 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Due to the fact that you're a G5 conference.

Of course, that term appears nowhere in the CFP agreement. We are a non-contract conference. G5 is a derogatory term—but your conference is free to embrace the term if you like. The AAC has chosen not to.

Right, You're listed by name in the "have not's" category.

The line was drawn. Labels are the very least of it.

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.

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

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

(03-02-2018 03:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 02:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Of course, that term appears nowhere in the CFP agreement. We are a non-contract conference. G5 is a derogatory term—but your conference is free to embrace the term if you like. The AAC has chosen not to.

Right, You're listed by name in the "have not's" category.

The line was drawn. Labels are the very least of it.

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.

(03-02-2018 12:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:32 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I get where he's coming from in removing the top average performer (on field, ratings, budgets, salaries, attendance, recruiting...) the remaining collective average declines. As he is a proponent of a separate G5 playoff which would assumably have a separate collective TV deal, it is beneficial, maybe even necessary, to have the top conference (real or perceived) involved.

The AAC has been the top performing G5, but performance really has nothing to do with it. It wouldn't matter if it was the AAC or Sun Belt claiming it was "P6", the effect is the same: It implies that the other members of the G5 are below yet another conference, so it is an 'attack' so to speak, on their interests.

Then most every conference is doing it. The Mountain West tag line was “Above the Rest”. The Sunbelts is “together we rise” (Rise? Above who?). CUSA at one time used “Where champions are born”. They all suggest superiority. P6 is basically just a play on the popular made up P5/G5 term. It’s actually kinda clever.

It's not the same. "Above the rest' is amorphous and could just as easily apply to P5 as G5.

But the Aresco campaign is specific: it clearly is aimed at the other G5.

Thats not better---its even worse--becasue there is no metric that backs it up. The AAC is saying it is #6. Most people agree with that. Basically, the entire controversy revolves around the use of the word "Power" as a modifier. Honestly, its basically saying Pepsi doesnt like the Coca Cola ad campaign because it implies other soft drinks are less refreshing. Essentially, its an AD having a temper tantrum.

You might as well say Aresco is having a temper tantrum every time he complains about some slight from the Power group.

Bottom line: "P6" clearly raises the AAC above the other "G" conferences, so it is an attack on their interests. Therefore, it's not surprising some like Frazier are resisting, just like it isn't a surprise that Aresco takes umbrage at "P5" because that hurts the AAC.

(03-02-2018 11:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:57 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Being a P conference is not having to advertise that you're a P conference

Tell that to all the Bama fans who get so defensive when it is pointed out UCF won the national title per at least one legit (former BCS) poll.

Laughing at UCF isn't being 'defensive'.

Colley-Matrix isn't a poll, it's a computer, and it means nothing to be chosen #1 by a computer.

Heck, Alabama was chosen #1 in a bunch of computers last year after they lost the title game to Clemson. For UCF to claim a title on the basis of CM is beyond absurd.

Most SEC schools do the same thing.

To my knowledge, nobody in the SEC or any place else has claimed a national title based on anything but the BCS/CFP, or AP or coaches poll the past 45 years. All those cases where SEC and others make bizarro claims are from before 1975, when the polls voted before the bowls, and when other institutions were recognized as also being title designaters.

But UCF claims based on Colley-Matrix computer?

Who else does that? E.g. Alabama was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2016 (when they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game), but they don't claim that as a title.

You know when even Alabama declines to claim a title, it's truly bogus, LOL.

Notre Dame, like UCF, was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2012, they have never claimed that as a title.

This notion that Colley-Matrix alone means there is a "split title" is absurd.

Heck, the fact that CM had Alabama and Notre Dame #1 those years even after they lost the BCS/CFP title games tells us what we know about its credibility.

(03-02-2018 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC has been the top performing G5, but performance really has nothing to do with it. It wouldn't matter if it was the AAC or Sun Belt claiming it was "P6", the effect is the same: It implies that the other members of the G5 are below yet another conference, so it is an 'attack' so to speak, on their interests.

Then most every conference is doing it. The Mountain West tag line was “Above the Rest”. The Sunbelts is “together we rise” (Rise? Above who?). CUSA at one time used “Where champions are born”. They all suggest superiority. P6 is basically just a play on the popular made up P5/G5 term. It’s actually kinda clever.

It's not the same. "Above the rest' is amorphous and could just as easily apply to P5 as G5.

But the Aresco campaign is specific: it clearly is aimed at the other G5.

Thats not better---its even worse--becasue there is no metric that backs it up. The AAC is saying it is #6. Most people agree with that. Basically, the entire controversy revolves around the use of the word "Power" as a modifier. Honestly, its basically saying Pepsi doesnt like the Coca Cola ad campaign because it implies other soft drinks are less refreshing. Essentially, its an AD having a temper tantrum.

You might as well say Aresco is having a temper tantrum every time he complains about some slight from the Power group.

Bottom line: "P6" clearly raises the AAC above the other "G" conferences, so it is an attack on their interests. Therefore, it's not surprising some like Frazier are resisting, just like it isn't a surprise that Aresco takes umbrage at "P5" because that hurts the AAC.

P6 is just stupid because, unlike P5 and G5, it isn't a real thing. P5 fans laugh because it is stupid. Other G5 fans just shake their head because its stupid and is contrary to the goal of G5 gaining equal access in a rational post-season setup.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(03-02-2018 11:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:19 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:57 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Tell that to all the Bama fans who get so defensive when it is pointed out UCF won the national title per at least one legit (former BCS) poll.

Laughing at UCF isn't being 'defensive'.

Colley-Matrix isn't a poll, it's a computer, and it means nothing to be chosen #1 by a computer.

Tell that to UCF's banner.

You understand that anyone can create a banner, right?

I just created a USF is #1 banner. Does that count too?

Surely, for the past 40 years, since the AP and Coaches both decided to do their final polls after the bowls, the ONLY valid claim to a share of a national title is if either the coaches or AP poll selected you, or if you won the BCS or CFP.

Nebraska and Michigan 1997? That's a split title. Both can claim a share.

UCF? None of that.

We know other title claims from the past are bogus. That doesn't make UCF's any less bogus. It's B-O-G-U-S.

I would consider it the only valid claim, but opinions can differ. Those polls have their biases. One computer poll listed in the NCAA record book-Rothman's FACT often declared multiple national champions. 1977 was Notre Dame, Arkansas and Texas. Another non-computer system listed, the National Championship Foundation in 1981 had Clemson, Nebraska, Pitt, SMU and Texas. Note that Texas doesn't claim either of those.

In 1982 Penn St. was first in all but a couple of polls (Berryman had Nebraska and Helms had SMU), but SMU did have a better record than Penn St. 11-0-1 with only a tie to #8 Arkansas while Penn St. lost by 21 to #17 Alabama. Auburn could also point to 2004 where USC was unanimous but did get that title vacated. Auburn didn't get a chance to play. In both those cases, schools with a history of getting on probation were lower ranked (not that there weren't other good reasons for the rankings).

Schools can point to this or that, but ...

1977: Notre Dame has always been regarded as the consensus champions.

1982: Penn State has always been regarded as consensus champions.

Any claims by any other schools those years has never been regarded as quixotic, not to be taken seriously.

Since the mid-1970s, the only "split championships" have been those where the AP and Coaches polls differed, like in 1978 (USC and Alabama) and 1997 (Nebraska and Michigan).

Even in 1994, when Penn State was undefeated and won the Rose Bowl, such that there SHOULD have been a split title with Nebraska, there isn't, because UNL got the AP and Coaches votes. You get both, you're the champion, period.

If you don't have the AP or Coaches trophy, you don't have a claim on the title, that's the way it's been since both polls moved to after the final bowl games, around 1974.

(03-02-2018 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:38 AM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I didn't say I wouldn't laugh!

I just said I wouldn't have a problem with them trying to claim it.

I agree. FWIW, I don't care if ECU claims to be national champs for last year, it has just as much validity as UCF's claim, and neither impacts my day in any way.

It's just silly, though, like say the San Francisco 49ers claiming to be the "NFL Champs" even though Philly won the Super Bowl, because the Niners think they should have made the playoffs. It's just nonsense.

If San Francisco wants to make the playoffs all it has to do is win their games. UCF won all their games and wasn't allowed to compete for a National Championship. So it's not a good comparison.

When the 49ers go undefeated and don't make the playoffs let me know.

It's an excellent comparison. The NFL could have a 32-team playoff and the 49ers therefore could have been in it, just like the CFP could be a 32-team playoff and UCF would have been in it.

Both missed the playoffs by the rules that govern who does and doesn't get in.

But even if UCF had a claim to be in the playoffs, it's still ridiculous to try and claim that because you were kept out of the playoffs and should have been in, that means you can claim equality ("a national title") with whoever did make the playoffs and won them.

At that point, you're giving yourself credit for something you didn't actually do - win the playoffs.

No, they are just saying that its still an MNC. So they have a right to claim it. Nobody else went unbeaten. I think its silly, but your argument against it is wrong. The rules are not inclusive. They are stacked in favor of the P5. The committee is stacked in favor of the Big 10, SEC and Pac 12 (not that it has helped the P12 much).

They have no more right to claim a title than does Arkansas State or USF or Penn State. UCF agreed to the CFP system, and they didn't win the CFP playoff. Ohio State didn't either.

And unbeaten means zero, because of SOS, and because schools can actually pick several teams to be on their schedule, which isn't true in pro leagues.

It's really bizarro that anyone thinks that because they felt they should have been in the playoff but was excluded, that this means they can act as if they did beat two playoff teams to win the playoffs. Amazing, really.

Think about it: What if the 49ers would have made the playoffs if they won their last game, but they missed out because they lost their last game. But, they lost because the NFL agrees that a bad call was made and they should have won.

Does that mean that because the 49ers were screwed out of making the playoffs that they can claim they are champions, as if they actually won two playoff games and the Super Bowl even though they didn't actually do so?

Beyond dumb, eh?

(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:  

(03-02-2018 03:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Right, You're listed by name in the "have not's" category.

The line was drawn. Labels are the very least of it.

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.

(03-02-2018 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC has been the top performing G5, but performance really has nothing to do with it. It wouldn't matter if it was the AAC or Sun Belt claiming it was "P6", the effect is the same: It implies that the other members of the G5 are below yet another conference, so it is an 'attack' so to speak, on their interests.

Then most every conference is doing it. The Mountain West tag line was “Above the Rest”. The Sunbelts is “together we rise” (Rise? Above who?). CUSA at one time used “Where champions are born”. They all suggest superiority. P6 is basically just a play on the popular made up P5/G5 term. It’s actually kinda clever.

It's not the same. "Above the rest' is amorphous and could just as easily apply to P5 as G5.

But the Aresco campaign is specific: it clearly is aimed at the other G5.

Thats not better---its even worse--becasue there is no metric that backs it up. The AAC is saying it is #6. Most people agree with that. Basically, the entire controversy revolves around the use of the word "Power" as a modifier. Honestly, its basically saying Pepsi doesnt like the Coca Cola ad campaign because it implies other soft drinks are less refreshing. Essentially, its an AD having a temper tantrum.

You might as well say Aresco is having a temper tantrum every time he complains about some slight from the Power group.

Bottom line: "P6" clearly raises the AAC above the other "G" conferences, so it is an attack on their interests. Therefore, it's not surprising some like Frazier are resisting, just like it isn't a surprise that Aresco takes umbrage at "P5" because that hurts the AAC.

Splitting hairs. Basically, by that definition, any boast about ones conference is essentially an attack on the other conferences interests.