(02-02-2014 01:11 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 12:54 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 02:49 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 02:27 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  12 FB schools and 3 Olympic schools. Being the old big east would be a compliment. They did pretty well over the decades.

3 basketball schools would have zero impact on FB and enhance hoops.

If anything, i'd much rather bring in BB only schools with the stipulation that if they can get a decent FBS program going they will get inclusion.

Mean like Villanova?

Even Univ Presidents can't be fully trusted...let alone a Commissioner as some would even fight for Div I-AA program with almost no support as long as they were a Basketball/Olympic member....

That's why you don't even allow that option and/or attract basketball only (Olympic sport schools), as you could have a Villanova/UMASS football "problem".

How is that a problem? If in the future a VCU type non-football AAC member wanted to join as a football playing member, you vote them down---just like they did with Nova. Unless the football schools want them, it ain't going to happen. Three "yes" votes out of 15 is a losing vote for expansion last time I checked. If a school like VCU were to be added in football, it would be because a majority of the FOOTBALL playing schools voted FOR it. The irrational fear of non-football members is totally out of control in some of you guys.

I don't want non fb members but if thats the direction we go, we might as well have tired to retain Gtown, Nova, Marquette, etc. Those guys kill anybody you all have thrown out.

My feelings around non-football programs are pretty well known.

However, I agree that this is the best proposal that's been made thus far.
1) the programs have been national powers for decades
2) the proposal at least has a stipulation that FBS football is the target for all incoming members

My opinion is that Kruciff always has reasonable, well thought out comments and this solidifies that view.

(02-02-2014 03:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 02:04 PM)eastside cat Wrote:  You are wrong. Non-football school degrade the league.

(02-02-2014 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 12:54 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 02:49 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  If anything, i'd much rather bring in BB only schools with the stipulation that if they can get a decent FBS program going they will get inclusion.

Mean like Villanova?

Even Univ Presidents can't be fully trusted...let alone a Commissioner as some would even fight for Div I-AA program with almost no support as long as they were a Basketball/Olympic member....

That's why you don't even allow that option and/or attract basketball only (Olympic sport schools), as you could have a Villanova/UMASS football "problem".

How is that a problem? If in the future a VCU type non-football AAC member wanted to join as a football playing member, you vote them down---just like they did with Nova. Unless the football schools want them, it ain't going to happen. Three "yes" votes out of 15 is a losing vote for expansion last time I checked. If a school like VCU were to be added in football, it would be because a majority of the FOOTBALL playing schools voted FOR it. The irrational fear of non-football members is totally out of control in some of you guys.

Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league. Only members who actually play FBS football can degrade the football league. The football league will be what the football teams make it.

Perhaps I'm "out of control"....or perhaps I have a grip on reality based on history. Anyone has the right to judge.

"Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league." .....metro, MVC, GMWC, BE, CUSA. None of which were successful in mixing football schools with non-football schools.

When someone presents a real reason why another conference will be successful in mixing disparate programs, I'll listen. Otherwise, I'll view the Sunbelt as the most successful long-standing conference for football/non-football programs and simply let history talk.

That's my opinion. You're entitled to yours.

(02-03-2014 03:53 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:11 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 12:54 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 02:49 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  If anything, i'd much rather bring in BB only schools with the stipulation that if they can get a decent FBS program going they will get inclusion.

Mean like Villanova?

Even Univ Presidents can't be fully trusted...let alone a Commissioner as some would even fight for Div I-AA program with almost no support as long as they were a Basketball/Olympic member....

That's why you don't even allow that option and/or attract basketball only (Olympic sport schools), as you could have a Villanova/UMASS football "problem".

How is that a problem? If in the future a VCU type non-football AAC member wanted to join as a football playing member, you vote them down---just like they did with Nova. Unless the football schools want them, it ain't going to happen. Three "yes" votes out of 15 is a losing vote for expansion last time I checked. If a school like VCU were to be added in football, it would be because a majority of the FOOTBALL playing schools voted FOR it. The irrational fear of non-football members is totally out of control in some of you guys.

I don't want non fb members but if thats the direction we go, we might as well have tired to retain Gtown, Nova, Marquette, etc. Those guys kill anybody you all have thrown out.

My feelings around non-football programs are pretty well known.

However, I agree that this is the best proposal that's been made thus far.
1) the programs have been national powers for decades
2) the proposal at least has a stipulation that FBS football is the target for all incoming members

My opinion is that Kruciff always has reasonable, well thought out comments and this solidifies that view.

Ironically, and I have kept this quiet for fear of encouraging the discussion, Wichita State actually has the facilities to add FBS football...

I spent a couple of summers in Wichita, doing a residency at Wesley Medical Center there. WSU was just up the road and Cessna Stadium was quietly decaying. It is a 30K facility, as is, and I thought they were going to demolish it. But apparently, the University administration decided to renovate the place. (I know the Kansas State Track and Field meet is held there...) I seriously doubt whether WSU could AFFORD to start playing FB again--they completely disbanded the program back in 1986-- but they...IN THEORY...could.

In addition, a couple of years back, VCU purchased the aging Richmond Municipal Stadium facility which led many to ponder if VCU was thinking of upgrading their FCS level program. But I don't know whatever happened there.

But yeah, OldTiger, I agree with your assessment.

EDIT-- I was incorrect. It was the University of Richmond that purchased Richmond City Stadium.

(02-03-2014 04:26 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Ironically, and I have kept this quiet for fear of encouraging the discussion, Wichita State actually has the facilities to add FBS football...
...
I seriously doubt whether WSU could AFFORD to start playing FB again--they completely disbanded the program back in 1986-- but they...IN THEORY...could.
...

Yes. Your university and the one that I cheer for have played WSU as conference members of the MVC. That stadium still sits there as is did when they disbanded the program.

When I look at WSU's football history, it looks like UCF and Tulane were their last 2 victories 29 years ago.

(02-03-2014 05:01 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 04:26 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Ironically, and I have kept this quiet for fear of encouraging the discussion, Wichita State actually has the facilities to add FBS football...
...
I seriously doubt whether WSU could AFFORD to start playing FB again--they completely disbanded the program back in 1986-- but they...IN THEORY...could.
...

Yes. Your university and the one that I cheer for have played WSU as conference members of the MVC. That stadium still sits there as is did when they disbanded the program.

When I look at WSU's football history, it looks like UCF and Tulane were their last 2 victories 29 years ago.

I know that the WSU team suffered a similar loss and legend as Marshall... Half of the football team, including the HC, was killed in a plane crash when one of the planes(1 of two chartered for that trip) crashed in Colorado...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Sta...lane_crash

(02-03-2014 04:10 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 03:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 02:04 PM)eastside cat Wrote:  You are wrong. Non-football school degrade the league.

(02-02-2014 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 12:54 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  Mean like Villanova?

Even Univ Presidents can't be fully trusted...let alone a Commissioner as some would even fight for Div I-AA program with almost no support as long as they were a Basketball/Olympic member....

That's why you don't even allow that option and/or attract basketball only (Olympic sport schools), as you could have a Villanova/UMASS football "problem".

How is that a problem? If in the future a VCU type non-football AAC member wanted to join as a football playing member, you vote them down---just like they did with Nova. Unless the football schools want them, it ain't going to happen. Three "yes" votes out of 15 is a losing vote for expansion last time I checked. If a school like VCU were to be added in football, it would be because a majority of the FOOTBALL playing schools voted FOR it. The irrational fear of non-football members is totally out of control in some of you guys.

Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league. Only members who actually play FBS football can degrade the football league. The football league will be what the football teams make it.

Perhaps I'm "out of control"....or perhaps I have a grip on reality based on history. Anyone has the right to judge.

"Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league." .....metro, MVC, GMWC, BE, CUSA. None of which were successful in mixing football schools with non-football schools.

When someone presents a real reason why another conference will be successful in mixing disparate programs, I'll listen. Otherwise, I'll view the Sunbelt as the most successful long-standing conference for football/non-football programs and simply let history talk.

That's my opinion. You're entitled to yours.

The Big East was successful enough to be AQ. CUSA version 1.0 was the most successful non-AQ hybrid. It manage to hav a 3-loss champion ranked at #14. No non-AQ 3-loss champ is getting anywhere near #14. That indicates that CUSA 1.0 had quite a bit of success. So saying there are no successful hybrid football leagues is wrong.

The best current example of a successful hybrid football league is the ACC. Notre Dame is a non-football member.

(02-03-2014 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 04:10 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 03:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 02:04 PM)eastside cat Wrote:  You are wrong. Non-football school degrade the league.

(02-02-2014 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  How is that a problem? If in the future a VCU type non-football AAC member wanted to join as a football playing member, you vote them down---just like they did with Nova. Unless the football schools want them, it ain't going to happen. Three "yes" votes out of 15 is a losing vote for expansion last time I checked. If a school like VCU were to be added in football, it would be because a majority of the FOOTBALL playing schools voted FOR it. The irrational fear of non-football members is totally out of control in some of you guys.

Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league. Only members who actually play FBS football can degrade the football league. The football league will be what the football teams make it.

Perhaps I'm "out of control"....or perhaps I have a grip on reality based on history. Anyone has the right to judge.

"Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league." .....metro, MVC, GMWC, BE, CUSA. None of which were successful in mixing football schools with non-football schools.

When someone presents a real reason why another conference will be successful in mixing disparate programs, I'll listen. Otherwise, I'll view the Sunbelt as the most successful long-standing conference for football/non-football programs and simply let history talk.

That's my opinion. You're entitled to yours.

The Big East was successful enough to be AQ. CUSA version 1.0 was the most successful non-AQ hybrid. It manage to hav a 3-loss champion ranked at #14. No non-AQ 3-loss champ is getting anywhere near #14. That indicates that CUSA 1.0 had quite a bit of success. So saying there are no successful hybrid football leagues is wrong.

The best current example of a successful hybrid football league is the ACC. Notre Dame is a non-football member.

To be precise about it, "The Big East"... WITH Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Miami... was successful enough to be "AQ." It should be noted that the "AQ" status was eliminated, in no small part, to EXCLUDE the disintegrating BE. Indeed, technically, there is no "AQ" status any longer, though the ACC, B10, B12, Pac 12, and SEC are guaranteed access.

And calling the ACC a "hybrid" conference is a stretch. Indeed, Notre Dame was added with at least the tacit expectation that ND football would, one day, be included in the conference. And, A SEAT FOR ND FOOTBALL WILL ALWAYS BE PRESERVED. That's one key reason the ACC has NOT (a) added a "FB only" member to offset ND, or (b) expanded to 16. Seat #15 will always be saved for the Irish, and presumably seat #16 will be reserved for the Irish to pick, assuming that will serve as an incentive for ND to join.

(02-03-2014 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 04:10 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 03:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 02:04 PM)eastside cat Wrote:  You are wrong. Non-football school degrade the league.

(02-02-2014 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  How is that a problem? If in the future a VCU type non-football AAC member wanted to join as a football playing member, you vote them down---just like they did with Nova. Unless the football schools want them, it ain't going to happen. Three "yes" votes out of 15 is a losing vote for expansion last time I checked. If a school like VCU were to be added in football, it would be because a majority of the FOOTBALL playing schools voted FOR it. The irrational fear of non-football members is totally out of control in some of you guys.

Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league. Only members who actually play FBS football can degrade the football league. The football league will be what the football teams make it.

Perhaps I'm "out of control"....or perhaps I have a grip on reality based on history. Anyone has the right to judge.

"Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league." .....metro, MVC, GMWC, BE, CUSA. None of which were successful in mixing football schools with non-football schools.

When someone presents a real reason why another conference will be successful in mixing disparate programs, I'll listen. Otherwise, I'll view the Sunbelt as the most successful long-standing conference for football/non-football programs and simply let history talk.

That's my opinion. You're entitled to yours.

The Big East was successful enough to be AQ. CUSA version 1.0 was the most successful non-AQ hybrid. It manage to hav a 3-loss champion ranked at #14. No non-AQ 3-loss champ is getting anywhere near #14. That indicates that CUSA 1.0 had quite a bit of success. So saying there are no successful hybrid football leagues is wrong.

The best current example of a successful hybrid football league is the ACC. Notre Dame is a non-football member.

I understand what you're saying. We simply disagree on how a conference should be assembled. I may have missed one but I believe that every conference with non-football/football members with the exception of the Sunbelt has either folded or given up on the non-football member approach.

You and I can argue for years and it will have exactly zero effect on how the AAC moves forward. I value the membership in the AAC and appreciate the value of having football playing members. If the conference decides to move in another direction; so be it. We'll all continue to be fans of our universities irrespective of the conference membership philosophy.

One way or another, we're sitting in a good position whether we add teams or not.

The way the AAC teams are performing in the basketball polls shows we really don't have any need to expand, be it football or basketball.

I think the reasoning behind Aresco and the powers that be is that adding more teams and more interests to a league beleaguered by infighting is not worth the return. The only OBVIOUS additions are the Academies, and they'd all be in now if they wanted to be.

I reserve that any AAC expansion will be preceded by one (or both) of two things:

P5 expansion causing AAC attrition -or- an obvious, valuable candidate arises from the G4, ala Boise State (though this argument would be greatly aided if that team is within or near our footprint)

One way or another, we have time on our side.

My intention in making this thread was more of a thought exercise, but at the same time it's fun to speculate.

(02-03-2014 06:29 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  One way or another, we're sitting in a good position whether we add teams or not.

The way the AAC teams are performing in the basketball polls shows we really don't have any need to expand, be it football or basketball.

I think the reasoning behind Aresco and the powers that be is that adding more teams and more interests to a league beleaguered by infighting is not worth the return. The only OBVIOUS additions are the Academies, and they'd all be in now if they wanted to be.

I reserve that any AAC expansion will be preceded by one (or both) of two things:

P5 expansion causing AAC attrition -or- an obvious, valuable candidate arises from the G4, ala Boise State (though this argument would be greatly aided if that team is within or near our footprint)

One way or another, we have time on our side.

My intention in making this thread was more of a thought exercise, but at the same time it's fun to speculate.

I agree that we're in a good position right now. I'd probably look at that a little differently if I was a UC, UConn, or USF fan based on the "neighborhood" 18 months ago VS now.

As I stated above this is probably the best thought out potential expansion thread based on the noted qualifiers and programs suggested.

(02-03-2014 07:13 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 06:29 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  One way or another, we're sitting in a good position whether we add teams or not.

The way the AAC teams are performing in the basketball polls shows we really don't have any need to expand, be it football or basketball.

I think the reasoning behind Aresco and the powers that be is that adding more teams and more interests to a league beleaguered by infighting is not worth the return. The only OBVIOUS additions are the Academies, and they'd all be in now if they wanted to be.

I reserve that any AAC expansion will be preceded by one (or both) of two things:

P5 expansion causing AAC attrition -or- an obvious, valuable candidate arises from the G4, ala Boise State (though this argument would be greatly aided if that team is within or near our footprint)

One way or another, we have time on our side.

My intention in making this thread was more of a thought exercise, but at the same time it's fun to speculate.

I agree that we're in a good position right now. I'd probably look at that a little differently if I was a UC, UConn, or USF fan based on the "neighborhood" 18 months ago VS now.

As I stated above this is probably the best thought out potential expansion thread based on the noted qualifiers and programs suggested.

Well thank you.

I'd really like to see this happen because, if I've learned anything in this excessively long cycle of realignment, long term success is not governed by on the field / court performance. Where in the original Big East expansion talks (some 2 years ago or something) people balked about a Villanova addition. I challenge you (not you in particular, but in general) to find anyone that legitimately thinks a better add could be found in that area. Same goes for Georgetown. They're definitely better than an ODU / UNCC / UMass addition.

(02-03-2014 05:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 04:10 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 03:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 02:04 PM)eastside cat Wrote:  You are wrong. Non-football school degrade the league.

Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league. Only members who actually play FBS football can degrade the football league. The football league will be what the football teams make it.

Perhaps I'm "out of control"....or perhaps I have a grip on reality based on history. Anyone has the right to judge.

"Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league." .....metro, MVC, GMWC, BE, CUSA. None of which were successful in mixing football schools with non-football schools.

When someone presents a real reason why another conference will be successful in mixing disparate programs, I'll listen. Otherwise, I'll view the Sunbelt as the most successful long-standing conference for football/non-football programs and simply let history talk.

That's my opinion. You're entitled to yours.

The Big East was successful enough to be AQ. CUSA version 1.0 was the most successful non-AQ hybrid. It manage to hav a 3-loss champion ranked at #14. No non-AQ 3-loss champ is getting anywhere near #14. That indicates that CUSA 1.0 had quite a bit of success. So saying there are no successful hybrid football leagues is wrong.

The best current example of a successful hybrid football league is the ACC. Notre Dame is a non-football member.

To be precise about it, "The Big East"... WITH Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Miami... was successful enough to be "AQ." It should be noted that the "AQ" status was eliminated, in no small part, to EXCLUDE the disintegrating BE. Indeed, technically, there is no "AQ" status any longer, though the ACC, B10, B12, Pac 12, and SEC are guaranteed access.

And calling the ACC a "hybrid" conference is a stretch. Indeed, Notre Dame was added with at least the tacit expectation that ND football would, one day, be included in the conference. And, A SEAT FOR ND FOOTBALL WILL ALWAYS BE PRESERVED. That's one key reason the ACC has NOT (a) added a "FB only" member to offset ND, or (b) expanded to 16. Seat #15 will always be saved for the Irish, and presumably seat #16 will be reserved for the Irish to pick, assuming that will serve as an incentive for ND to join.

Yes. That is correct. The collapse of the BE AQ had to do with the best known football teams leaving. The basketball teams coming or departing had not ONE THING to do with BE football's failure. Big East football failed because the best known football teams left and the remaining football schools were nowhere near adequate to maintain AQ status. Like I said--the performance of the AAC schools that actually play football will dictate what type of football league we have. Adding a couple non-football schools to strengthen basketball won't have a snot sliggin' thing to do with how successful the football side of the league is.

And Im glad you pointed out that the ACC is barely a hybrid. It proves you ARE actually capable of clearly seeing that the very minimal use of the hybrid concept is almost irrelevant. So why are you so freaked out when we talk about adding a non-football school or two? By your own admission, we'd barely be a hybrid as well.

Your response is the perfect example of how so many objections to the minimal use of the hybrid concept are based in emotion.

(02-03-2014 06:11 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 04:10 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 03:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 02:04 PM)eastside cat Wrote:  You are wrong. Non-football school degrade the league.

Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league. Only members who actually play FBS football can degrade the football league. The football league will be what the football teams make it.

Perhaps I'm "out of control"....or perhaps I have a grip on reality based on history. Anyone has the right to judge.

"Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league." .....metro, MVC, GMWC, BE, CUSA. None of which were successful in mixing football schools with non-football schools.

When someone presents a real reason why another conference will be successful in mixing disparate programs, I'll listen. Otherwise, I'll view the Sunbelt as the most successful long-standing conference for football/non-football programs and simply let history talk.

That's my opinion. You're entitled to yours.

The Big East was successful enough to be AQ. CUSA version 1.0 was the most successful non-AQ hybrid. It manage to hav a 3-loss champion ranked at #14. No non-AQ 3-loss champ is getting anywhere near #14. That indicates that CUSA 1.0 had quite a bit of success. So saying there are no successful hybrid football leagues is wrong.

The best current example of a successful hybrid football league is the ACC. Notre Dame is a non-football member.

I understand what you're saying. We simply disagree on how a conference should be assembled. I may have missed one but I believe that every conference with non-football/football members with the exception of the Sunbelt has either folded or given up on the non-football member approach.

You and I can argue for years and it will have exactly zero effect on how the AAC moves forward. I value the membership in the AAC and appreciate the value of having football playing members. If the conference decides to move in another direction; so be it. We'll all continue to be fans of our universities irrespective of the conference membership philosophy.

That a fact Jack!

Would a school like St. Louis be interested in moving from the A-10? They're pretty much on an island from the Eastern A-10 schools.

They fit the "large market" idea that the American is going for. They could fit in with neighbors like Tulsa and Memphis and the Western Schools.

And they're doing pretty well this year, a top 25 ranking and have only lost 2 games. Just a thought

(02-04-2014 10:01 AM)MichealBond Wrote:  Would a school like St. Louis be interested in moving from the A-10? They're pretty much on an island from the Eastern A-10 schools.

They fit the "large market" idea that the American is going for. They could fit in with neighbors like Tulsa and Memphis and the Western Schools.

And they're doing pretty well this year, a top 25 ranking and have only lost 2 games. Just a thought

IMO they fit the Big East footprint/member schools really well. That should be their final destination goal.

(02-04-2014 12:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 05:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 04:10 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 03:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league. Only members who actually play FBS football can degrade the football league. The football league will be what the football teams make it.

Perhaps I'm "out of control"....or perhaps I have a grip on reality based on history. Anyone has the right to judge.

"Non-football schools cannot degrade the football league." .....metro, MVC, GMWC, BE, CUSA. None of which were successful in mixing football schools with non-football schools.

When someone presents a real reason why another conference will be successful in mixing disparate programs, I'll listen. Otherwise, I'll view the Sunbelt as the most successful long-standing conference for football/non-football programs and simply let history talk.

That's my opinion. You're entitled to yours.

The Big East was successful enough to be AQ. CUSA version 1.0 was the most successful non-AQ hybrid. It manage to hav a 3-loss champion ranked at #14. No non-AQ 3-loss champ is getting anywhere near #14. That indicates that CUSA 1.0 had quite a bit of success. So saying there are no successful hybrid football leagues is wrong.

The best current example of a successful hybrid football league is the ACC. Notre Dame is a non-football member.

To be precise about it, "The Big East"... WITH Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Miami... was successful enough to be "AQ." It should be noted that the "AQ" status was eliminated, in no small part, to EXCLUDE the disintegrating BE. Indeed, technically, there is no "AQ" status any longer, though the ACC, B10, B12, Pac 12, and SEC are guaranteed access.

And calling the ACC a "hybrid" conference is a stretch. Indeed, Notre Dame was added with at least the tacit expectation that ND football would, one day, be included in the conference. And, A SEAT FOR ND FOOTBALL WILL ALWAYS BE PRESERVED. That's one key reason the ACC has NOT (a) added a "FB only" member to offset ND, or (b) expanded to 16. Seat #15 will always be saved for the Irish, and presumably seat #16 will be reserved for the Irish to pick, assuming that will serve as an incentive for ND to join.

Yes. That is correct. The collapse of the BE AQ had to do with the best known football teams leaving. The basketball teams coming or departing had not ONE THING to do with BE football's failure. Big East football failed because the best known football teams left and the remaining football schools were nowhere near adequate to maintain AQ status. Like I said--the performance of the AAC schools that actually play football will dictate what type of football league we have. Adding a couple non-football schools to strengthen basketball won't have a snot sliggin' thing to do with how successful the football side of the league is.

And Im glad you pointed out that the ACC is barely a hybrid. It proves you ARE actually capable of clearly seeing that the very minimal use of the hybrid concept is almost irrelevant. So why are you so freaked out when we talk about adding a non-football school or two? By your own admission, we'd barely be a hybrid as well.

Your response is the perfect example of how so many objections to the minimal use of the hybrid concept are based in emotion.

Completely. Missed. My. Point.

But whatever.

(02-04-2014 10:01 AM)MichealBond Wrote:  Would a school like St. Louis be interested in moving from the A-10? They're pretty much on an island from the Eastern A-10 schools.

They fit the "large market" idea that the American is going for. They could fit in with neighbors like Tulsa and Memphis and the Western Schools.

And they're doing pretty well this year, a top 25 ranking and have only lost 2 games. Just a thought

SLU has long been rumored to be a top target of the Big East's second expansion wave along with Dayton. I'd say they fit even better with the BE and it's extremely likely that's where they end up.