(12-18-2020 12:16 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:15 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 04:06 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Maybe if Aresco drops that p6 schtick, it will happen.

Aresco is intolerable.

Worth every Penny

The AAC could get the same results for $600,000 or so a year, and not because Aresco does a bad job. He does about as good a job as anyone could. It's just that the nature of his position is such that he can't deliver more than about $600k worth of value to the conference per year. The nature of a G5 conference puts limits on how much TV value, bowl value etc. a commissioner can wrangle up.

It's kind of like if McDonalds decided to pay me $50 an hour to work the cash register and fry machine. I could be the best cash register and fry man the Fast Food industry has ever known, and I still would not be worth more than about $12 an hour, because that's all the value-creation possible in that position.

(12-18-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:16 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:15 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 04:06 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Maybe if Aresco drops that p6 schtick, it will happen.

Aresco is intolerable.

Worth every Penny

The AAC could get the same results for $600,000 or so a year, and not because Aresco does a bad job. He does about as good a job as anyone could. It's just that the nature of his position is such that he can't deliver more than about $600k worth of value to the conference per year. The nature of a G5 conference puts limits on how much TV value, bowl value etc. a commissioner can wrangle up.

It's kind of like if McDonalds decided to pay me $50 an hour to work the cash register and fry machine. I could be the best cash register and fry man the Fast Food industry has ever known, and I still would not be worth more than about $12 an hour, because that's all the value-creation possible in that position.

As a capitalist (and environmentalist) ... I approve this message.

(12-18-2020 08:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  I don’t think the 4 teams hosting a FBS playoff game in December will need to worry about attendance issues. I would set it where the losers of the games have their bowl landing spot scheduled as well.

lol. teams that lose in a playoff game in December won't be bowling. the players would balk at that 100%.

lulz

The playoffs aren't a bowl game, so why not play another game and go out potentially with a W and prepare for next season? Teams lose elimination games all the time and still go to a bowl ya big silly head.

(12-18-2020 08:51 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  I don’t think the 4 teams hosting a FBS playoff game in December will need to worry about attendance issues. I would set it where the losers of the games have their bowl landing spot scheduled as well.

lol. teams that lose in a playoff game in December won't be bowling. the players would balk at that 100%.

Right. They’ll play the QF on NYD (Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Rose) and play the SF Sat Jan 8-14 (Peach, Fiesta). You don’t want to lose fan bases before bowl season begins and the NFL’s schedule expansion opens up that second Saturday in January.

Winning two bowl games in one season is asinine.

(12-17-2020 02:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco was on the Finebaum show yesterday and had a few things to say:

"the deck is stacked"

Quote:"I never thought I'd say it, but if this continues, bring back the BCS and the computers because it would be a fairer system than what I'm seeing now," Aresco said. "This is the seventh year [of the CFP], and it does appear the deck is stacked against us and against other [Group of 5 teams]."

He has a good point. Glad to see him thinking outside the box, for a change.

(12-18-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:16 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:15 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 04:06 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Maybe if Aresco drops that p6 schtick, it will happen.

Aresco is intolerable.

Worth every Penny

The AAC could get the same results for $600,000 or so a year, and not because Aresco does a bad job. He does about as good a job as anyone could. It's just that the nature of his position is such that he can't deliver more than about $600k worth of value to the conference per year. The nature of a G5 conference puts limits on how much TV value, bowl value etc. a commissioner can wrangle up.

It's kind of like if McDonalds decided to pay me $50 an hour to work the cash register and fry machine. I could be the best cash register and fry man the Fast Food industry has ever known, and I still would not be worth more than about $12 an hour, because that's all the value-creation possible in that position.

I tend to agree---but the fact is--when I look at the other 4 G5 commissioners---I dont see them getting what we get out of Aresco. Look around. There are no G5 commissioners that are anywhere near as vocal or as actively high profile as Aresco. We see Aresco in the media FAR more than the other G5 commissioners. In fact, that's not just me saying that. One of Harsin's biggest gripes in that email to his AD was essentially that Thompson didnt get out there and beat the drum like Aresco.

What this tells me is we might be able to get someone for $600K to competently manage the conference---but they are unlikely to be as effective at perception building in the media sphere as Aresco. There is one guy I think would be fantastic as the AAC commissioner---but I doubt we could get him for $600K. Tim Brando would be my pick to replace Aresco---assuming he would even take the job at Aresco's salary.

(12-18-2020 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:16 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:15 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 04:06 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Maybe if Aresco drops that p6 schtick, it will happen.

Aresco is intolerable.

Worth every Penny

The AAC could get the same results for $600,000 or so a year, and not because Aresco does a bad job. He does about as good a job as anyone could. It's just that the nature of his position is such that he can't deliver more than about $600k worth of value to the conference per year. The nature of a G5 conference puts limits on how much TV value, bowl value etc. a commissioner can wrangle up.

It's kind of like if McDonalds decided to pay me $50 an hour to work the cash register and fry machine. I could be the best cash register and fry man the Fast Food industry has ever known, and I still would not be worth more than about $12 an hour, because that's all the value-creation possible in that position.

I tend to agree---but the fact is--when I look at the other 4 G5 commissioners---I dont see them getting what we get out of Aresco. Look around. There are no G5 commissioners that are anywhere near as vocal or as actively high profile as Aresco. We see Aresco in the media FAR more than the other G5 commissioners. In fact, that's not just me saying that. One of Harsin's biggest gripes in that email to his AD was essentially that Thompson didnt get out there and beat the drum like Aresco.

What this tells me is we might be able to get someone for $600K to competently manage the conference---but they are unlikely to be as effective at perception building in the media sphere as Aresco. There is one guy I think would be fantastic as the AAC commissioner---but I doubt we could get him for $600K. Tim Brando would be my pick to replace Aresco---assuming he would even take the job at Aresco's salary.

Brando would be fun

He has renamed the CFP the "P5 Invitational"

(12-18-2020 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:16 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:15 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 04:06 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Maybe if Aresco drops that p6 schtick, it will happen.

Aresco is intolerable.

Worth every Penny

The AAC could get the same results for $600,000 or so a year, and not because Aresco does a bad job. He does about as good a job as anyone could. It's just that the nature of his position is such that he can't deliver more than about $600k worth of value to the conference per year. The nature of a G5 conference puts limits on how much TV value, bowl value etc. a commissioner can wrangle up.

It's kind of like if McDonalds decided to pay me $50 an hour to work the cash register and fry machine. I could be the best cash register and fry man the Fast Food industry has ever known, and I still would not be worth more than about $12 an hour, because that's all the value-creation possible in that position.

I tend to agree---but the fact is--when I look at the other 4 G5 commissioners---I dont see them getting what we get out of Aresco. Look around. There are no G5 commissioners that are anywhere near as vocal or as actively high profile as Aresco. We see Aresco in the media FAR more than the other G5 commissioners. In fact, that's not just me saying that. One of Harsin's biggest gripes in that email to his AD was essentially that Thompson didnt get out there and beat the drum like Aresco.

What this tells me is we might be able to get someone for $600K to competently manage the conference---but they are unlikely to be as effective at perception building in the media sphere as Aresco. There is one guy I think would be fantastic as the AAC commissioner---but I doubt we could get him for $600K. Tim Brando would be my pick to replace Aresco---assuming he would even take the job at Aresco's salary.

I agree that Aresco is a great cheerleader, and he even seems to be influencing other commissioners in that regard - this past week we have seen the SBC commissioner, and even the SEC commissioner, speak out about the playoffs and NY6 in ways that typically only Aresco has.

Still, there probably isn't much monetary value in all that. At the end of the day, the TV deal and bowl deals are what they are, etc. Plus, that energy is probably pretty duplicable. We could hire a guy at $600k and say "see how Aresco used to talk us up in interviews? That's part of the job too".

(12-18-2020 10:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:51 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  I don’t think the 4 teams hosting a FBS playoff game in December will need to worry about attendance issues. I would set it where the losers of the games have their bowl landing spot scheduled as well.

lol. teams that lose in a playoff game in December won't be bowling. the players would balk at that 100%.

Right. They’ll play the QF on NYD (Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Rose) and play the SF Sat Jan 8-14 (Peach, Fiesta). You don’t want to lose fan bases before bowl season begins and the NFL’s schedule expansion opens up that second Saturday in January.

Winning two bowl games in one season is asinine.

What's the difference between winning two bowl games and two playoffs games? It's the same thing, except you're attaching the tradition and history of the bowls to the playoffs games.

(12-18-2020 08:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  I don’t think the 4 teams hosting a FBS playoff game in December will need to worry about attendance issues. I would set it where the losers of the games have their bowl landing spot scheduled as well.

lol. teams that lose in a playoff game in December won't be bowling. the players would balk at that 100%.

Any senior or draft-eligible player who aspires to the NFL would be taking a needless risk if he plays in a bowl game that takes place after his team loses a playoff game. Anyone who doesn't understand that risk should go read about Jake Butt.

(12-18-2020 12:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:16 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:15 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Aresco is intolerable.

Worth every Penny

The AAC could get the same results for $600,000 or so a year, and not because Aresco does a bad job. He does about as good a job as anyone could. It's just that the nature of his position is such that he can't deliver more than about $600k worth of value to the conference per year. The nature of a G5 conference puts limits on how much TV value, bowl value etc. a commissioner can wrangle up.

It's kind of like if McDonalds decided to pay me $50 an hour to work the cash register and fry machine. I could be the best cash register and fry man the Fast Food industry has ever known, and I still would not be worth more than about $12 an hour, because that's all the value-creation possible in that position.

I tend to agree---but the fact is--when I look at the other 4 G5 commissioners---I dont see them getting what we get out of Aresco. Look around. There are no G5 commissioners that are anywhere near as vocal or as actively high profile as Aresco. We see Aresco in the media FAR more than the other G5 commissioners. In fact, that's not just me saying that. One of Harsin's biggest gripes in that email to his AD was essentially that Thompson didnt get out there and beat the drum like Aresco.

What this tells me is we might be able to get someone for $600K to competently manage the conference---but they are unlikely to be as effective at perception building in the media sphere as Aresco. There is one guy I think would be fantastic as the AAC commissioner---but I doubt we could get him for $600K. Tim Brando would be my pick to replace Aresco---assuming he would even take the job at Aresco's salary.

I agree that Aresco is a great cheerleader, and he even seems to be influencing other commissioners in that regard - this past week we have seen the SBC commissioner, and even the SEC commissioner, speak out about the playoffs and NY6 in ways that typically only Aresco has.

Still, there probably isn't much monetary value in all that. At the end of the day, the TV deal and bowl deals are what they are, etc. Plus, that energy is probably pretty duplicable. We could hire a guy at $600k and say "see how Aresco used to talk us up in interviews? That's part of the job too".

When the Big East reorganized in 2013, the league was very much on the outside looking in. Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Notre Dame, West Virginia and Rutgers all departed. UConn, Cincinnati and USF stayed with the football group. The C7 replaced them with Butler, Creighton and Xavier. At no time, has Val Ackerman push for or promote a "P6" campaign, or any marketing initiative that attempted to show that the Big East belonged with the top conferences in college basketball. Since being hired, all she has done is organize two challenges with the Big Ten and Big 12, extend (and help secure) MSG as our tournament site long-term, ensure a great TV package (and coverage) with Fox, and help facilitate UConn's return to the league. She accomplished none of that by arguing the system is not fair, or that the league is not treated equally or that its members do not have the same opportunities as other leagues. She allows the members' on-court performance to speak for itself and does less advocating herself.

I bring this up because the leadership and marketing plans from both the AAC and the Big East could not have gone more different, and both were literally cut from the same cloth. If Mike Aresco somehow latched onto the C7 and became the Big East commissioner, and utilized the same methods for promotion, I have zero doubt that the Big East is not viewed as favorably today. The disadvantaged little brother narrative can only be pushed for so long until the general audience gets tired of it. Sure, the involved stakeholders may like it, but if the public is the attempted target to have its minds changed, you cannot keep beating the same drum and expect a different tune.

(12-18-2020 01:44 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:16 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Worth every Penny

The AAC could get the same results for $600,000 or so a year, and not because Aresco does a bad job. He does about as good a job as anyone could. It's just that the nature of his position is such that he can't deliver more than about $600k worth of value to the conference per year. The nature of a G5 conference puts limits on how much TV value, bowl value etc. a commissioner can wrangle up.

It's kind of like if McDonalds decided to pay me $50 an hour to work the cash register and fry machine. I could be the best cash register and fry man the Fast Food industry has ever known, and I still would not be worth more than about $12 an hour, because that's all the value-creation possible in that position.

I tend to agree---but the fact is--when I look at the other 4 G5 commissioners---I dont see them getting what we get out of Aresco. Look around. There are no G5 commissioners that are anywhere near as vocal or as actively high profile as Aresco. We see Aresco in the media FAR more than the other G5 commissioners. In fact, that's not just me saying that. One of Harsin's biggest gripes in that email to his AD was essentially that Thompson didnt get out there and beat the drum like Aresco.

What this tells me is we might be able to get someone for $600K to competently manage the conference---but they are unlikely to be as effective at perception building in the media sphere as Aresco. There is one guy I think would be fantastic as the AAC commissioner---but I doubt we could get him for $600K. Tim Brando would be my pick to replace Aresco---assuming he would even take the job at Aresco's salary.

I agree that Aresco is a great cheerleader, and he even seems to be influencing other commissioners in that regard - this past week we have seen the SBC commissioner, and even the SEC commissioner, speak out about the playoffs and NY6 in ways that typically only Aresco has.

Still, there probably isn't much monetary value in all that. At the end of the day, the TV deal and bowl deals are what they are, etc. Plus, that energy is probably pretty duplicable. We could hire a guy at $600k and say "see how Aresco used to talk us up in interviews? That's part of the job too".

When the Big East reorganized in 2013, the league was very much on the outside looking in. Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Notre Dame, West Virginia and Rutgers all departed. UConn, Cincinnati and USF stayed with the football group. The C7 replaced them with Butler, Creighton and Xavier. At no time, has Val Ackerman push for or promote a "P6" campaign, or any marketing initiative that attempted to show that the Big East belonged with the top conferences in college basketball. Since being hired, all she has done is organize two challenges with the Big Ten and Big 12, extend (and help secure) MSG as our tournament site long-term, ensure a great TV package (and coverage) with Fox, and help facilitate UConn's return to the league. She accomplished none of that by arguing the system is not fair, or that the league is not treated equally or that its members do not have the same opportunities as other leagues. She allows the members' on-court performance to speak for itself and does less advocating herself.

I bring this up because the leadership and marketing plans from both the AAC and the Big East could not have gone more different, and both were literally cut from the same cloth. If Mike Aresco somehow latched onto the C7 and became the Big East commissioner, and utilized the same methods for promotion, I have zero doubt that the Big East is not viewed as favorably today. The disadvantaged little brother narrative can only be pushed for so long until the general audience gets tired of it. Sure, the involved stakeholders may like it, but if the public is the attempted target to have its minds changed, you cannot keep beating the same drum and expect a different tune.

Aresco isn't hurting his conference by making sales pitches, and as you mention his employers like it, so there's no harm done. The only limitation on his approach, like that of Craig Thompson and the MWC 10-15 years ago, is that who it helps most in the end is not the entire conference, but the teams that separate themselves from the rest of the conference. Utah and TCU might have benefited from Thompson's "We're the 7th BCS conference" sales pitch -- though, obviously, what helped them far more was just winning a ton of football games. But down the road, the sales pitch didn't provide much long-term benefit for the teams that remained in the MWC.

(12-18-2020 01:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The only limitation on his approach, like that of Craig Thompson and the MWC 10-15 years ago, is that who it helps most in the end is not the entire conference, but the teams that separate themselves from the rest of the conference. Utah and TCU might have benefited from Thompson's "We're the 7th BCS conference" sales pitch -- though, obviously, what helped them far more was just winning a ton of football games. But down the road, the sales pitch didn't provide much long-term benefit for the teams that remained in the MWC.

True enough. However, the examples of Utah and TCU may not be applicable, unless there is another major round of P5 conference realignment.

SEC has already signaled that it is going to stay put with their current 14 teams, and there have been no indications, to date, that any of the other P5 conferences are planning to expand between now and 2026.

(12-18-2020 01:44 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:16 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Worth every Penny

The AAC could get the same results for $600,000 or so a year, and not because Aresco does a bad job. He does about as good a job as anyone could. It's just that the nature of his position is such that he can't deliver more than about $600k worth of value to the conference per year. The nature of a G5 conference puts limits on how much TV value, bowl value etc. a commissioner can wrangle up.

It's kind of like if McDonalds decided to pay me $50 an hour to work the cash register and fry machine. I could be the best cash register and fry man the Fast Food industry has ever known, and I still would not be worth more than about $12 an hour, because that's all the value-creation possible in that position.

I tend to agree---but the fact is--when I look at the other 4 G5 commissioners---I dont see them getting what we get out of Aresco. Look around. There are no G5 commissioners that are anywhere near as vocal or as actively high profile as Aresco. We see Aresco in the media FAR more than the other G5 commissioners. In fact, that's not just me saying that. One of Harsin's biggest gripes in that email to his AD was essentially that Thompson didnt get out there and beat the drum like Aresco.

What this tells me is we might be able to get someone for $600K to competently manage the conference---but they are unlikely to be as effective at perception building in the media sphere as Aresco. There is one guy I think would be fantastic as the AAC commissioner---but I doubt we could get him for $600K. Tim Brando would be my pick to replace Aresco---assuming he would even take the job at Aresco's salary.

I agree that Aresco is a great cheerleader, and he even seems to be influencing other commissioners in that regard - this past week we have seen the SBC commissioner, and even the SEC commissioner, speak out about the playoffs and NY6 in ways that typically only Aresco has.

Still, there probably isn't much monetary value in all that. At the end of the day, the TV deal and bowl deals are what they are, etc. Plus, that energy is probably pretty duplicable. We could hire a guy at $600k and say "see how Aresco used to talk us up in interviews? That's part of the job too".

When the Big East reorganized in 2013, the league was very much on the outside looking in. Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Notre Dame, West Virginia and Rutgers all departed. UConn, Cincinnati and USF stayed with the football group. The C7 replaced them with Butler, Creighton and Xavier. At no time, has Val Ackerman push for or promote a "P6" campaign, or any marketing initiative that attempted to show that the Big East belonged with the top conferences in college basketball.

No question, Val Ackerman has been a Wonder Woman for the Big East. She's performed better than Aresco (and most other commissioners) by some distance, and she has done it while keeping a far lower profile.

(12-18-2020 01:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Aresco isn't hurting his conference by making sales pitches, and as you mention his employers like it, so there's no harm done. The only limitation on his approach, like that of Craig Thompson and the MWC 10-15 years ago, is that who it helps most in the end is not the entire conference, but the teams that separate themselves from the rest of the conference. Utah and TCU might have benefited from Thompson's "We're the 7th BCS conference" sales pitch -- though, obviously, what helped them far more was just winning a ton of football games. But down the road, the sales pitch didn't provide much long-term benefit for the teams that remained in the MWC.

That's a subtle point, and one not often made. I agree -

It does no harm to Purdue for the B1G commissioner to pump up Ohio State for a playoff spot, because (a) Ohio State is permanently above Purdue in the firmament anyway, and (b) Even though Ohio State is above Purdue, Ohio State and Purdue are both already in their terminal, destination conference, the same conference, so Purdue has nothing to fear from Ohio State being boosted. To the contrary, if Ohio State gains even more glory, that will benefit the B1G and Purdue will share in that.

But the AAC is different. Since the AAC is nobody's destination conference, with all members striving to position themselves for a P5 bid, it is definitely not in Houston or Tulsa or ECU interest to have the commissioner boost a UCF or a Cincy for a playoff spot, as there is little glory that those former schools will share in. Cincy or UCF will benefit tremendously, in the short run it could vault them clearly ahead of their conference mates, and in the long run position them to get the call-up to a P5 that all are competing for.

I got in trouble on other boards for openly saying that I have no desire to see UCF or Cincy or anyone else in the AAC other than USF reap national glory. But IMO, that is the obvious and natural position for a USF fan to take. Sure, I want the AAC rep to get the NY6 spot, because it brings in some extra money, but (unless it is USF of course) I do not want them to win. And I do not want an AAC school to make the playoffs at all, because that would be a super-boost to that program, which would come at the expense of USF. This is true not only of the AAC but all G5 conferences. These are "conferences of convenience", where all have a goal of being boosted out of some day, and your conference "mates" are your rivals for that.

This is a case where Aresco's interests do not necessarily agree with a school's interests. Aresco is paid by the AAC so he wants what is best for the AAC right now, and Cincy in the playoffs is best for the AAC right now, so he is cheerleading that. But USF has (or should have) a different view, and that view does not include a school like Cincy reaping that kind of national glory.

(12-18-2020 01:44 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:16 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Worth every Penny

The AAC could get the same results for $600,000 or so a year, and not because Aresco does a bad job. He does about as good a job as anyone could. It's just that the nature of his position is such that he can't deliver more than about $600k worth of value to the conference per year. The nature of a G5 conference puts limits on how much TV value, bowl value etc. a commissioner can wrangle up.

It's kind of like if McDonalds decided to pay me $50 an hour to work the cash register and fry machine. I could be the best cash register and fry man the Fast Food industry has ever known, and I still would not be worth more than about $12 an hour, because that's all the value-creation possible in that position.

I tend to agree---but the fact is--when I look at the other 4 G5 commissioners---I dont see them getting what we get out of Aresco. Look around. There are no G5 commissioners that are anywhere near as vocal or as actively high profile as Aresco. We see Aresco in the media FAR more than the other G5 commissioners. In fact, that's not just me saying that. One of Harsin's biggest gripes in that email to his AD was essentially that Thompson didnt get out there and beat the drum like Aresco.

What this tells me is we might be able to get someone for $600K to competently manage the conference---but they are unlikely to be as effective at perception building in the media sphere as Aresco. There is one guy I think would be fantastic as the AAC commissioner---but I doubt we could get him for $600K. Tim Brando would be my pick to replace Aresco---assuming he would even take the job at Aresco's salary.

I agree that Aresco is a great cheerleader, and he even seems to be influencing other commissioners in that regard - this past week we have seen the SBC commissioner, and even the SEC commissioner, speak out about the playoffs and NY6 in ways that typically only Aresco has.

Still, there probably isn't much monetary value in all that. At the end of the day, the TV deal and bowl deals are what they are, etc. Plus, that energy is probably pretty duplicable. We could hire a guy at $600k and say "see how Aresco used to talk us up in interviews? That's part of the job too".

When the Big East reorganized in 2013, the league was very much on the outside looking in. Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Notre Dame, West Virginia and Rutgers all departed. UConn, Cincinnati and USF stayed with the football group. The C7 replaced them with Butler, Creighton and Xavier. At no time, has Val Ackerman push for or promote a "P6" campaign, or any marketing initiative that attempted to show that the Big East belonged with the top conferences in college basketball. Since being hired, all she has done is organize two challenges with the Big Ten and Big 12, extend (and help secure) MSG as our tournament site long-term, ensure a great TV package (and coverage) with Fox, and help facilitate UConn's return to the league. She accomplished none of that by arguing the system is not fair, or that the league is not treated equally or that its members do not have the same opportunities as other leagues. She allows the members' on-court performance to speak for itself and does less advocating herself.

I bring this up because the leadership and marketing plans from both the AAC and the Big East could not have gone more different, and both were literally cut from the same cloth. If Mike Aresco somehow latched onto the C7 and became the Big East commissioner, and utilized the same methods for promotion, I have zero doubt that the Big East is not viewed as favorably today. The disadvantaged little brother narrative can only be pushed for so long until the general audience gets tired of it. Sure, the involved stakeholders may like it, but if the public is the attempted target to have its minds changed, you cannot keep beating the same drum and expect a different tune.

Ok... First off, the FOX deal was done long before Val Ackerman was even named as Big East commissioner---So she had nothing to do with getting the TV deal done.

Furthermore, the C7, as a group, were solidly accepted as high end basketball properties long before Val Ackerman stepped in the door---otherwise FOX isnt looking to hand the C7 (plus 3 unnamed future members) a 4 million dollar per team payout.

My point is your comparison isnt apples to apples---its comparing apples to apple seeds. These conferences were not "cut from the same cloth". Nine of the 12 AAC schools never played a single conference game against anyone in the C7. Most of the AAC was moving up from CUSA. So, lets look at their respective situations.

One commissioner was taking over a "new" conference that had a well known established "Big East" basketball name, where all 7 members had 30 years of shared basketball power conference pedigree, where a major lucrative TV deal was already done and in place. Val didnt really have "to do" anything when she showed up 6 months after the conferences inception. The conference was already accepted--so much so it was given a waiver so it didnt have to wait the required years for an NCAA auto-bid.

On the other hand, Aresco was taking over a piecemeal restructured conference---that lost 17 members in 6 months--lost its name, lost its AQ status, had an expiring TV deal, and was a completely unknown quantity to the media and public (to the point that many suggested the conference might not even exist by 2013).

Just sitting quietly in the office and making sure the phone got answered by the 3rd ring wasnt going to work as well for Aresco as it would for Ackerman. It was two completely different situations.

(12-18-2020 08:51 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  I don’t think the 4 teams hosting a FBS playoff game in December will need to worry about attendance issues. I would set it where the losers of the games have their bowl landing spot scheduled as well.

lol. teams that lose in a playoff game in December won't be bowling. the players would balk at that 100%.

Right. They’ll play the QF on NYD (Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Rose) and play the SF Sat Jan 8-14 (Peach, Fiesta). You don’t want to lose fan bases before bowl season begins and the NFL’s schedule expansion opens up that second Saturday in January.

IMO, it needs to be bigger than eight teams, but I suspect this is the most we could hope for with that bowl cartel hierarchy. A new structure shrinks or eliminates the other non-playoff major bowls, but, I think there’s a bit of a problem trying to get more bowls into the playoff system. Even if you rotated a cluster of bowls to support the semi-final round, and have designated few that only get the QF, I doubt you see a share of that spotlight.

Major bowls want nothing to do with non-major schools, and I suspect they don’t want to share with “lesser” bowls, either. That’s how and why we got the BCS and the marginally expanded CFP/NY6 structure. Even if you have these other big bowls who could be up to the job...I doubt some of those bowls want to share anything. I imagine the Orange doesn’t want another FL bowl in the rotation, even if there are 2-3 others who could be up for the job.

Bias is only part of this issue. I think the bowls are the worst and most troublesome part.

(12-18-2020 02:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:51 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 08:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  I don’t think the 4 teams hosting a FBS playoff game in December will need to worry about attendance issues. I would set it where the losers of the games have their bowl landing spot scheduled as well.

lol. teams that lose in a playoff game in December won't be bowling. the players would balk at that 100%.

Right. They’ll play the QF on NYD (Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Rose) and play the SF Sat Jan 8-14 (Peach, Fiesta). You don’t want to lose fan bases before bowl season begins and the NFL’s schedule expansion opens up that second Saturday in January.

IMO, it needs to be bigger than eight teams, but I suspect this is the most we could hope for with that bowl cartel hierarchy. A new structure shrinks or eliminates the other non-playoff major bowls, but, I think there’s a bit of a problem trying to get more bowls into the playoff system. Even if you rotated a cluster of bowls to support the semi-final round, and have designated few that only get the QF, I doubt you see a share of that spotlight.

Major bowls want nothing to do with non-major schools, and I suspect they don’t want to share with “lesser” bowls, either. That’s how and why we got the BCS and the marginally expanded CFP/NY6 structure. Even if you have these other big bowls who could be up to the job...I doubt some of those bowls want to share anything. I imagine the Orange doesn’t want another FL bowl in the rotation, even if there are 2-3 others who could be up for the job.

Bias is only part of this issue. I think the bowls are the worst and most troublesome part.

8 is about the best we are going to ever going to get.

(12-18-2020 02:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 01:44 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 12:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC could get the same results for $600,000 or so a year, and not because Aresco does a bad job. He does about as good a job as anyone could. It's just that the nature of his position is such that he can't deliver more than about $600k worth of value to the conference per year. The nature of a G5 conference puts limits on how much TV value, bowl value etc. a commissioner can wrangle up.

It's kind of like if McDonalds decided to pay me $50 an hour to work the cash register and fry machine. I could be the best cash register and fry man the Fast Food industry has ever known, and I still would not be worth more than about $12 an hour, because that's all the value-creation possible in that position.

I tend to agree---but the fact is--when I look at the other 4 G5 commissioners---I dont see them getting what we get out of Aresco. Look around. There are no G5 commissioners that are anywhere near as vocal or as actively high profile as Aresco. We see Aresco in the media FAR more than the other G5 commissioners. In fact, that's not just me saying that. One of Harsin's biggest gripes in that email to his AD was essentially that Thompson didnt get out there and beat the drum like Aresco.

What this tells me is we might be able to get someone for $600K to competently manage the conference---but they are unlikely to be as effective at perception building in the media sphere as Aresco. There is one guy I think would be fantastic as the AAC commissioner---but I doubt we could get him for $600K. Tim Brando would be my pick to replace Aresco---assuming he would even take the job at Aresco's salary.

I agree that Aresco is a great cheerleader, and he even seems to be influencing other commissioners in that regard - this past week we have seen the SBC commissioner, and even the SEC commissioner, speak out about the playoffs and NY6 in ways that typically only Aresco has.

Still, there probably isn't much monetary value in all that. At the end of the day, the TV deal and bowl deals are what they are, etc. Plus, that energy is probably pretty duplicable. We could hire a guy at $600k and say "see how Aresco used to talk us up in interviews? That's part of the job too".

When the Big East reorganized in 2013, the league was very much on the outside looking in. Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Notre Dame, West Virginia and Rutgers all departed. UConn, Cincinnati and USF stayed with the football group. The C7 replaced them with Butler, Creighton and Xavier. At no time, has Val Ackerman push for or promote a "P6" campaign, or any marketing initiative that attempted to show that the Big East belonged with the top conferences in college basketball. Since being hired, all she has done is organize two challenges with the Big Ten and Big 12, extend (and help secure) MSG as our tournament site long-term, ensure a great TV package (and coverage) with Fox, and help facilitate UConn's return to the league. She accomplished none of that by arguing the system is not fair, or that the league is not treated equally or that its members do not have the same opportunities as other leagues. She allows the members' on-court performance to speak for itself and does less advocating herself.

I bring this up because the leadership and marketing plans from both the AAC and the Big East could not have gone more different, and both were literally cut from the same cloth. If Mike Aresco somehow latched onto the C7 and became the Big East commissioner, and utilized the same methods for promotion, I have zero doubt that the Big East is not viewed as favorably today. The disadvantaged little brother narrative can only be pushed for so long until the general audience gets tired of it. Sure, the involved stakeholders may like it, but if the public is the attempted target to have its minds changed, you cannot keep beating the same drum and expect a different tune.

Ok... First off, the FOX deal was done long before Val Ackerman was even named as Big East commissioner---So she had nothing to do with getting the TV deal done.

Furthermore, the C7, as a group, were solidly accepted as high end basketball properties long before Val Ackerman stepped in the door---otherwise FOX isnt looking to hand the C7 (plus 3 unnamed future members) a 4 million dollar per team payout.

My point is your comparison isnt apples to oranges---its comparing apples to apple seeds.

When the Big East split, it was the common belief that the C7 schools and the AAC schools were on a par in terms of basketball value and performance. The best basketball conference was basically split right down the middle in terms of remaining brand names, success history etc. If anything I recall a slight expectation that the AAC would be a bit better. So the notion that the C7/Big East got the lion's share of the value is IMO just not accurate.

Ackerman did not negotiate the original FOX deal, but she has been an amazing commissioner ever since. Regarding answering the phone, IIRC when Ackerman took over, the Big East conference office was just her and a phone. Aresco and the AAC inherited the entire conference infrastructure, Ackerman had to build everything up from scratch. A June 2013 AP story quotes Ackerman as saying:

"“The office right now is me and my iPhone,” Ackerman said with a laugh before adding that the Big East will find temporary office space in New York City before establishing a permanent home in Manhattan."

Ackerman has really done an amazing job. The uncertainties related to the NBE were massive, it was a basketball league that had just lost Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, UConn and Cincy. To say the doubts were not seriously out about the NBE and that it was foreordained for success is IMO just not an accurate portrayal of reality. But Ackerman has made it work since day one.

I don’t disagree, Muskie, but that is pretty pathetic.

We’re talking about the SBC championship getting cancelled, and its impact on a school that went undefeated playing more games than most anyone in the country, and they still wouldn’t get a sniff in a 8-team model, with or without the SBC title outright. They already had no shot at the NY6 slot.

It is what it is, but, I get that this year will be benchmark for a lot of things in this level of the game.