We'll take $3M one back up QB and Boise to fade into the sunset. 2/3 on the board already...

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:15 AM)Bull Wrote:  I could care less about playing Boise State. Their run is over. SOS will be weak in a watered down MWC. Pay what you legally owe... no offense, bit it's too bad BSU is turning into another classless WV.

Agree with the posters above, it's getting spun into nonsense. The American *IS* the old Big East. Just sold the name. The C7 split and formed a *NEW* conference. Proof is the AQ status we held last season.

TCU paid up, and they didn't play a single game either. BSU will pay, period.

Also, wondering about all the MWC folks posting here? Take a look at the MWC board. It's a GHOST TOWN. That surely says something about the fanbase size, level of support or attention on the AAC as compared to the MWC.

Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

Just like in real life if you sign a contract there are cost to break.

I'd add, the population of these boards is as unbiased a measure of fan support as any other... Quo is free to disagree, but I was shocked at the lack of activity on the MWC side. The internet is available everywhere... tells me that IMHO we have huge fan support conpared to the MWC, and given their small markets it's perhaps to be expected.

(05-23-2014 07:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:40 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/22...687/&ihp=1

I still find it a shame the promise that the old Big East held for the Broncos dissipated; the national conference model would have been fun. I particulary was looking forward to tilts with Louisville, whose rise in football happened just prior to our own. Our 2004 Liberty Bowl against the Cardinals was a very competitive, back-and-forth game, with a hail mary as time expired falling incomplete to seal it for the 'Ville.

My guess is that this thing gets settled for under $2M.

Yup, I really wanted the western division that was planned with Boise, SDSU, BYU, and AF. I would have even been fine with Boise, SDSU, Fresno, and one other. I think the nationwide thing would have made the conference incredibly unique and over time, would have significantly seprated the earning power of the AAC from the rest of the G5.

Although I see the surface appeal, I'm glad it didn't happen. IMO, there is just too much cultural disparity. Nobody at Temple will ever get very excited about playing SDSU or Air Force in anything, and vice-versa. I do not believe we could build fan bases on that competition, and the media dollars would be marginally better at best.

The tightening-up of our footprint was one of the few positive unintended consequences to come out of that last round of raiding. Personally, I'd have been happier if we were able to sign Southern Miss and ULL as opposed to SMU and Tulsa as well.

I thought I was finally going to agree with something you said and then you wrote that last paragragh. I am with you about not going west though. I think the conference needs to focus on the eastern footprint and move on. We already have Tulane in the same market as ULL so that makes no sense. As the Big 10 has shown it is markets that increase dollars so having multiple teams in the same market doesn't help. And do you honestly think Sourthen Miss has more potential than SMU? There football team has been terrible and apprently you missed what SMU has become in basketball. The Dallas market is huge and we need to have the conference in that market. Did you not see the former president, various cowboy player/coaches and numerous others swarm the games at moody. That school has tremendous upside. They used to be in a power conference.

(05-23-2014 09:42 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 07:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:40 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/22...687/&ihp=1

I still find it a shame the promise that the old Big East held for the Broncos dissipated; the national conference model would have been fun. I particulary was looking forward to tilts with Louisville, whose rise in football happened just prior to our own. Our 2004 Liberty Bowl against the Cardinals was a very competitive, back-and-forth game, with a hail mary as time expired falling incomplete to seal it for the 'Ville.

My guess is that this thing gets settled for under $2M.

Yup, I really wanted the western division that was planned with Boise, SDSU, BYU, and AF. I would have even been fine with Boise, SDSU, Fresno, and one other. I think the nationwide thing would have made the conference incredibly unique and over time, would have significantly seprated the earning power of the AAC from the rest of the G5.

Although I see the surface appeal, I'm glad it didn't happen. IMO, there is just too much cultural disparity. Nobody at Temple will ever get very excited about playing SDSU or Air Force in anything, and vice-versa. I do not believe we could build fan bases on that competition, and the media dollars would be marginally better at best.

The tightening-up of our footprint was one of the few positive unintended consequences to come out of that last round of raiding. Personally, I'd have been happier if we were able to sign Southern Miss and ULL as opposed to SMU and Tulsa as well.

I thought I was finally going to agree with something you said and then you wrote that last paragragh. I am with you about not going west though. I think the conference needs to focus on the eastern footprint and move on. We already have Tulane in the same market as ULL so that makes no sense. As the Big 10 has shown it is markets that increase dollars so having multiple teams in the same market doesn't help. And do you honestly think Sourthen Miss has more potential than SMU? There football team has been terrible and apprently you missed what SMU has become in basketball. The Dallas market is huge and we need to have the conference in that market. Did you not see the former president, various cowboy player/coaches and numerous others swarm the games at moody. That school has tremendous upside. They used to be in a power conference.

Southern Miss/ULL over SMU/Tulsa is next level absurd. Um ULL is a Tier II school, poor access, small market and hasn't even made the jump to CUSA. Southern Miss is flat out broke and has no market. Jeez.

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:15 AM)Bull Wrote:  I could care less about playing Boise State. Their run is over. SOS will be weak in a watered down MWC. Pay what you legally owe... no offense, bit it's too bad BSU is turning into another classless WV.

Agree with the posters above, it's getting spun into nonsense. The American *IS* the old Big East. Just sold the name. The C7 split and formed a *NEW* conference. Proof is the AQ status we held last season.

TCU paid up, and they didn't play a single game either. BSU will pay, period.

Also, wondering about all the MWC folks posting here? Take a look at the MWC board. It's a GHOST TOWN. That surely says something about the fanbase size, level of support or attention on the AAC as compared to the MWC.

Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

The actual expenses were minimal. Nothing anywhere close to $5 million.

I know that's what they owe us and it won't bother me at all if we collect, but it won't bother me if we don't, either.

I don't like exit fees, it's a form of hostage-taking. If a school wants to leave, good luck to them.

(05-23-2014 09:30 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:15 AM)Bull Wrote:  I could care less about playing Boise State. Their run is over. SOS will be weak in a watered down MWC. Pay what you legally owe... no offense, bit it's too bad BSU is turning into another classless WV.

Agree with the posters above, it's getting spun into nonsense. The American *IS* the old Big East. Just sold the name. The C7 split and formed a *NEW* conference. Proof is the AQ status we held last season.

TCU paid up, and they didn't play a single game either. BSU will pay, period.

Also, wondering about all the MWC folks posting here? Take a look at the MWC board. It's a GHOST TOWN. That surely says something about the fanbase size, level of support or attention on the AAC as compared to the MWC.

Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

Just like in real life if you sign a contract there are cost to break.

I'd add, the population of these boards is as unbiased a measure of fan support as any other... Quo is free to disagree, but I was shocked at the lack of activity on the MWC side. The internet is available everywhere... tells me that IMHO we have huge fan support conpared to the MWC, and given their small markets it's perhaps to be expected.

They actually do have MWC board on another site. I still think this one has more traffic.

(05-23-2014 09:30 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:15 AM)Bull Wrote:  I could care less about playing Boise State. Their run is over. SOS will be weak in a watered down MWC. Pay what you legally owe... no offense, bit it's too bad BSU is turning into another classless WV.

Agree with the posters above, it's getting spun into nonsense. The American *IS* the old Big East. Just sold the name. The C7 split and formed a *NEW* conference. Proof is the AQ status we held last season.

TCU paid up, and they didn't play a single game either. BSU will pay, period.

Also, wondering about all the MWC folks posting here? Take a look at the MWC board. It's a GHOST TOWN. That surely says something about the fanbase size, level of support or attention on the AAC as compared to the MWC.

Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

Just like in real life if you sign a contract there are cost to break.

I'd add, the population of these boards is as unbiased a measure of fan support as any other... Quo is free to disagree, but I was shocked at the lack of activity on the MWC side. The internet is available everywhere... tells me that IMHO we have huge fan support conpared to the MWC, and given their small markets it's perhaps to be expected.

Quo is free to disagree ... and Quo is correct, as is proven by the fact that our board is much more popular than the B1G and SEC boards. Since those conferences obviously have far more fan support, that proves there is no relationship between conference popularity and # of posters on these boards.

Moral: Just because a measure is "unbiased" doesn't make it anywhere near accurate.

(05-23-2014 09:30 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:15 AM)Bull Wrote:  I could care less about playing Boise State. Their run is over. SOS will be weak in a watered down MWC. Pay what you legally owe... no offense, bit it's too bad BSU is turning into another classless WV.

Agree with the posters above, it's getting spun into nonsense. The American *IS* the old Big East. Just sold the name. The C7 split and formed a *NEW* conference. Proof is the AQ status we held last season.

TCU paid up, and they didn't play a single game either. BSU will pay, period.

Also, wondering about all the MWC folks posting here? Take a look at the MWC board. It's a GHOST TOWN. That surely says something about the fanbase size, level of support or attention on the AAC as compared to the MWC.

Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

Just like in real life if you sign a contract there are cost to break.

I'd add, the population of these boards is as unbiased a measure of fan support as any other... Quo is free to disagree, but I was shocked at the lack of activity on the MWC side. The internet is available everywhere... tells me that IMHO we have huge fan support conpared to the MWC, and given their small markets it's perhaps to be expected.

The MW fans have always been much more active on another board. They did begin to congregate here as well during the BE move west, but when that collapsed, they moved back to the original board.

This is where the MW BB fans seem to hang out. Its as active as this board, if not more so.

http://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?showforum=6

(05-23-2014 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:15 AM)Bull Wrote:  I could care less about playing Boise State. Their run is over. SOS will be weak in a watered down MWC. Pay what you legally owe... no offense, bit it's too bad BSU is turning into another classless WV.

Agree with the posters above, it's getting spun into nonsense. The American *IS* the old Big East. Just sold the name. The C7 split and formed a *NEW* conference. Proof is the AQ status we held last season.

TCU paid up, and they didn't play a single game either. BSU will pay, period.

Also, wondering about all the MWC folks posting here? Take a look at the MWC board. It's a GHOST TOWN. That surely says something about the fanbase size, level of support or attention on the AAC as compared to the MWC.

Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

The actual expenses were minimal. Nothing anywhere close to $5 million.

I know that's what they owe us and it won't bother me at all if we collect, but it won't bother me if we don't, either.

I don't like exit fees, it's a form of hostage-taking. If a school wants to leave, good luck to them.

It probably doesn't bother you because you aren't a fan of an AAC school. Any fan of one of our schools wants the money we are owed. What the hell are you talking about morals? Boise signed the contract and now boise needs to pay up

(05-23-2014 09:42 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 07:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:40 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/22...687/&ihp=1

I still find it a shame the promise that the old Big East held for the Broncos dissipated; the national conference model would have been fun. I particulary was looking forward to tilts with Louisville, whose rise in football happened just prior to our own. Our 2004 Liberty Bowl against the Cardinals was a very competitive, back-and-forth game, with a hail mary as time expired falling incomplete to seal it for the 'Ville.

My guess is that this thing gets settled for under $2M.

Yup, I really wanted the western division that was planned with Boise, SDSU, BYU, and AF. I would have even been fine with Boise, SDSU, Fresno, and one other. I think the nationwide thing would have made the conference incredibly unique and over time, would have significantly seprated the earning power of the AAC from the rest of the G5.

Although I see the surface appeal, I'm glad it didn't happen. IMO, there is just too much cultural disparity. Nobody at Temple will ever get very excited about playing SDSU or Air Force in anything, and vice-versa. I do not believe we could build fan bases on that competition, and the media dollars would be marginally better at best.

The tightening-up of our footprint was one of the few positive unintended consequences to come out of that last round of raiding. Personally, I'd have been happier if we were able to sign Southern Miss and ULL as opposed to SMU and Tulsa as well.

I thought I was finally going to agree with something you said and then you wrote that last paragragh. I am with you about not going west though. I think the conference needs to focus on the eastern footprint and move on. We already have Tulane in the same market as ULL so that makes no sense. As the Big 10 has shown it is markets that increase dollars so having multiple teams in the same market doesn't help.

ULL and Tulane are not in the same market.

And markets schmarkets. By that logic we should invite SMU rather than Alabama, because Dallas is a whole lot bigger market than Tuscaloosa as well. I think you can see the obvious flaw in that. I remember a couple years back that many Homers were talking about how it was a sure thing we were going to get paid $18m per school per year media money because, even though our schools weren't established powers, we "delivered" massive markets such as Tampa, Orlando, NYC, Cincinatti, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, etc.

We saw how that turned out. Apparently markets aren't every(any)thing.

The B1G can adopt its strategy because of the BTN, by which it can make money even if people don't watch the games. We can't. SMU and Tulsa are too far-afield. ULL is on the rise and USM won't be down for long, their football was good up until a couple of years ago.

IMO, their geographic synergy outweighs the other factors. Remember, we're not comparing USM to LSU here, we're comparing them to freaking Tulsa for crissakes, so the differences aren't that great.

Fine USM to Tulsa is advantage maybe USM. But ULL to SMU? That's a no brainer.

And it's going to look even dumber next year when SMU maybe goes far in the NCAA tourney.

(05-23-2014 10:13 AM)EastCarolinaU. Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:15 AM)Bull Wrote:  I could care less about playing Boise State. Their run is over. SOS will be weak in a watered down MWC. Pay what you legally owe... no offense, bit it's too bad BSU is turning into another classless WV.

Agree with the posters above, it's getting spun into nonsense. The American *IS* the old Big East. Just sold the name. The C7 split and formed a *NEW* conference. Proof is the AQ status we held last season.

TCU paid up, and they didn't play a single game either. BSU will pay, period.

Also, wondering about all the MWC folks posting here? Take a look at the MWC board. It's a GHOST TOWN. That surely says something about the fanbase size, level of support or attention on the AAC as compared to the MWC.

Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

The actual expenses were minimal. Nothing anywhere close to $5 million.

I know that's what they owe us and it won't bother me at all if we collect, but it won't bother me if we don't, either.

I don't like exit fees, it's a form of hostage-taking. If a school wants to leave, good luck to them.

It probably doesn't bother you because you aren't a fan of an AAC school. Any fan of one of our schools wants the money we are owed.

Maybe the fans of noob schools with no hopes for promotion do, but as a Bulls fan I don't want us hampered by a lame exit fee when the ACC or Big 12 come calling.

(05-23-2014 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:13 AM)EastCarolinaU. Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

The actual expenses were minimal. Nothing anywhere close to $5 million.

I know that's what they owe us and it won't bother me at all if we collect, but it won't bother me if we don't, either.

I don't like exit fees, it's a form of hostage-taking. If a school wants to leave, good luck to them.

It probably doesn't bother you because you aren't a fan of an AAC school. Any fan of one of our schools wants the money we are owed.

Maybe the fans of noob schools with no hopes for promotion do, but as a Bulls fan I don't want us hampered by a lame exit fee when the ACC or Big 12 come calling.

Dude, UH and UCF are "noob" schools that are probably ahead of USF in pecking order for expansion, so I'd temper my enthusiasm.

(05-23-2014 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 09:42 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 07:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:40 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/22...687/&ihp=1

I still find it a shame the promise that the old Big East held for the Broncos dissipated; the national conference model would have been fun. I particulary was looking forward to tilts with Louisville, whose rise in football happened just prior to our own. Our 2004 Liberty Bowl against the Cardinals was a very competitive, back-and-forth game, with a hail mary as time expired falling incomplete to seal it for the 'Ville.

My guess is that this thing gets settled for under $2M.

Yup, I really wanted the western division that was planned with Boise, SDSU, BYU, and AF. I would have even been fine with Boise, SDSU, Fresno, and one other. I think the nationwide thing would have made the conference incredibly unique and over time, would have significantly seprated the earning power of the AAC from the rest of the G5.

Although I see the surface appeal, I'm glad it didn't happen. IMO, there is just too much cultural disparity. Nobody at Temple will ever get very excited about playing SDSU or Air Force in anything, and vice-versa. I do not believe we could build fan bases on that competition, and the media dollars would be marginally better at best.

The tightening-up of our footprint was one of the few positive unintended consequences to come out of that last round of raiding. Personally, I'd have been happier if we were able to sign Southern Miss and ULL as opposed to SMU and Tulsa as well.

I thought I was finally going to agree with something you said and then you wrote that last paragragh. I am with you about not going west though. I think the conference needs to focus on the eastern footprint and move on. We already have Tulane in the same market as ULL so that makes no sense. As the Big 10 has shown it is markets that increase dollars so having multiple teams in the same market doesn't help.

ULL and Tulane are not in the same market.

And markets schmarkets. By that logic we should invite SMU rather than Alabama, because Dallas is a whole lot bigger market than Tuscaloosa as well. I think you can see the obvious flaw in that. I remember a couple years back that many Homers were talking about how it was a sure thing we were going to get paid $18m per school per year media money because, even though our schools weren't established powers, we "delivered" massive markets such as Tampa, Orlando, NYC, Cincinatti, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, etc.

We saw how that turned out. Apparently markets aren't every(any)thing.

The B1G can adopt its strategy because of the BTN, by which it can make money even if people don't watch the games. We can't. SMU and Tulsa are too far-afield. ULL is on the rise and USM won't be down for long, their football was good up until a couple of years ago.

IMO, their geographic synergy outweighs the other factors. Remember, we're not comparing USM to LSU here, we're comparing them to freaking Tulsa for crissakes, so the differences aren't that great.

As many have said and you don't seem to get the contract was signed during a period of great uncertainty. Hence the very low figure. I am by no means a homer but I think it will be vastly improved upon if the climate has settled down for realignment. Which is appears to have done.

I mean seriously SMU vs Southern Miss???? That isn't even close. SMU is a wealthy school with a brand in one of the largest cities in the states. I mean you can't be serious are you??? I used to think you liked to stir things up but now I am more along the lines that you just don't know anything.

Tulane and ULL not in the same market???? Do you consider Layfette a major city???? No I don't either. NO is the major city they both share which is why the New Orleans Bowl loves to have the Cajuns when they are bowl eligible since it is basically a home game for them. So yes they share the same market.

I mean the bottom line is we went with schools with names in large cities that have been neglected to some deegree but are making the committment to improve and also have the resources to improve via big donors in a lot of cases. Tulane has massive donors that ULL could only dream of.

(05-23-2014 09:30 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:15 AM)Bull Wrote:  I could care less about playing Boise State. Their run is over. SOS will be weak in a watered down MWC. Pay what you legally owe... no offense, bit it's too bad BSU is turning into another classless WV.

Agree with the posters above, it's getting spun into nonsense. The American *IS* the old Big East. Just sold the name. The C7 split and formed a *NEW* conference. Proof is the AQ status we held last season.

TCU paid up, and they didn't play a single game either. BSU will pay, period.

Also, wondering about all the MWC folks posting here? Take a look at the MWC board. It's a GHOST TOWN. That surely says something about the fanbase size, level of support or attention on the AAC as compared to the MWC.

Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

Just like in real life if you sign a contract there are cost to break.

I'd add, the population of these boards is as unbiased a measure of fan support as any other... Quo is free to disagree, but I was shocked at the lack of activity on the MWC side. The internet is available everywhere... tells me that IMHO we have huge fan support conpared to the MWC, and given their small markets it's perhaps to be expected.

smh... like this is the only conference oriented sports board out there.
http://www.mwcboard.com

Southern Miss is in no way better than Tulsa, other than they are further east. Endowment, market, fanbase, market, academic quality, facilties...you can make some convoluted argument that they might be equal in some departments, that's it.

As for ULL/USM vs SMU, that's just flat out dumb, and the discussion about markets and Alabama is beyond dumb. Adding schools are about two things, market and brand. Southern Miss and ULL add neither. You should call it a day with this foolishness.

(05-23-2014 11:05 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 09:30 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:15 AM)Bull Wrote:  I could care less about playing Boise State. Their run is over. SOS will be weak in a watered down MWC. Pay what you legally owe... no offense, bit it's too bad BSU is turning into another classless WV.

Agree with the posters above, it's getting spun into nonsense. The American *IS* the old Big East. Just sold the name. The C7 split and formed a *NEW* conference. Proof is the AQ status we held last season.

TCU paid up, and they didn't play a single game either. BSU will pay, period.

Also, wondering about all the MWC folks posting here? Take a look at the MWC board. It's a GHOST TOWN. That surely says something about the fanbase size, level of support or attention on the AAC as compared to the MWC.

Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

Just like in real life if you sign a contract there are cost to break.

I'd add, the population of these boards is as unbiased a measure of fan support as any other... Quo is free to disagree, but I was shocked at the lack of activity on the MWC side. The internet is available everywhere... tells me that IMHO we have huge fan support conpared to the MWC, and given their small markets it's perhaps to be expected.

smh... like this is the only conference oriented sports board out there.
http://www.mwcboard.com

Apologies, I'm sure there are legions of MWC fans out there in their huge markets who for some reason just dislike this board...

Seriously though, I think we all know there are many, many sports boards. I'm just observing that OUR mwc board is a ghost town. Surprised me a bit, that's all... I'm an AAC fan and I don't troll other boards very often.

(05-23-2014 11:05 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 09:30 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:15 AM)Bull Wrote:  I could care less about playing Boise State. Their run is over. SOS will be weak in a watered down MWC. Pay what you legally owe... no offense, bit it's too bad BSU is turning into another classless WV.

Agree with the posters above, it's getting spun into nonsense. The American *IS* the old Big East. Just sold the name. The C7 split and formed a *NEW* conference. Proof is the AQ status we held last season.

TCU paid up, and they didn't play a single game either. BSU will pay, period.

Also, wondering about all the MWC folks posting here? Take a look at the MWC board. It's a GHOST TOWN. That surely says something about the fanbase size, level of support or attention on the AAC as compared to the MWC.

Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

Just like in real life if you sign a contract there are cost to break.

I'd add, the population of these boards is as unbiased a measure of fan support as any other... Quo is free to disagree, but I was shocked at the lack of activity on the MWC side. The internet is available everywhere... tells me that IMHO we have huge fan support conpared to the MWC, and given their small markets it's perhaps to be expected.

smh... like this is the only conference oriented sports board out there.
http://www.mwcboard.com

Yep place is a ghost town LOL. Do some of you actually check this stuff out before you post it?

(05-23-2014 11:22 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:05 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 09:30 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Three points:

1) I likewise could care less if we ever play Boise. Agree that their run is over, who needs them?

2) While USF can always use more money and I will be happy if we cash another check, it also won't bother me if Boise doesn't pay a cent. They never played in the Big East/AAC so from a 'moral' POV I can't say that they owe us anything. There's nothing for me to be outraged about.

3) The population of these boards is meaningless. Heck, our board is the biggest conference board here, it has more posts than the B1G or SEC boards by far, but that doesn't mean the AAC is more popular than those conferences. For whatever reason, AAC fans have long congregated on this board.

There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

Just like in real life if you sign a contract there are cost to break.

I'd add, the population of these boards is as unbiased a measure of fan support as any other... Quo is free to disagree, but I was shocked at the lack of activity on the MWC side. The internet is available everywhere... tells me that IMHO we have huge fan support conpared to the MWC, and given their small markets it's perhaps to be expected.

smh... like this is the only conference oriented sports board out there.
http://www.mwcboard.com

Apologies, I'm sure there are legions of MWC fans out there in their huge markets who for some reason just dislike this board...

Seriously though, I think we all know there are many, many sports boards. I'm just observing that OUR mwc board is a ghost town. Surprised me a bit, that's all... I'm an AAC fan and I don't troll other boards very often.

The one here was established last year I believe. The MWC board has been going for a long time.

(05-23-2014 11:39 AM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:22 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:05 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 09:30 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  There was a big hassle when Boise backed out. Spent travel costs, time square billboard, and just overall damage of perception of backing out and playing us for a better mwc deal.

Just like in real life if you sign a contract there are cost to break.

I'd add, the population of these boards is as unbiased a measure of fan support as any other... Quo is free to disagree, but I was shocked at the lack of activity on the MWC side. The internet is available everywhere... tells me that IMHO we have huge fan support conpared to the MWC, and given their small markets it's perhaps to be expected.

smh... like this is the only conference oriented sports board out there.
http://www.mwcboard.com

Apologies, I'm sure there are legions of MWC fans out there in their huge markets who for some reason just dislike this board...

Seriously though, I think we all know there are many, many sports boards. I'm just observing that OUR mwc board is a ghost town. Surprised me a bit, that's all... I'm an AAC fan and I don't troll other boards very often.

The one here was established last year I believe. The MWC board has been going for a long time.

Nah, these have been around for a long time. This used to be the Big East board.