I wouldn't say the AAC should raid the Mountain West. I'd say they need to merge the best of what's left and do it sooner than later, as in by 2015 kickoff. Football drives the bus now. BYU isn't going to be available forever. They'd be one of your main chips. Boise State has a new coaching staff. They may not even be a top 50 program the way things are shaking down. With more cable networks, the need for content is going to boost other sports, so eventually someone is going to take UConn, Cincy, USF or Memphis. Cincy, Memphis and UConn are all going to continue to be basketball powers. All have very solid coaches not looking to leave.

If I was the AAC, I'd talk to the MW about a merger, grab BYU, start wooing WV once GOR expires or find a way to pay some of that off and get them early. I'd find at least one more power school to grab (Texas Tech? Kansas State? predicting a bit of a tumble of the Big 12 if/when Texas finally moves on). If you act fast, you may not lose UConn, Cincy, USF and Memphis.

Let's see the NCAA change the rule to allow top 2 in conference title, then make a mega conference. Else, the AAC just gets pecked away with every rumble that happens.

(06-06-2014 07:57 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Summer is obviously here. More time to rehash realignment proposals that are mostly wishful thinking. The reality is that the AAC isn't in a position to raid the MWC and the MWC isn't in a position to raid the AAC. Both conferences are on the outside looking in, and reshuffling their memberships from an arrangement that makes geographic sense to one that doesn't won't change that. If BYU were to join the MWC or AAC, that might shift the balance between them marginally, but BYU is too proud to give up independence to join a G5 conference.

I think both the MWC and AAC are mainly focused on raising their competitive profiles with the members they have. It's not interesting to talk about but that's the way it is.

Hawaii, it's not about what makes geographic sense. If "geographic sense" had value the MAC would make 10X more than any other G5 conference. Its not about "raiding" this conference or that. Its about a group of schools deciding to group together in order to have a realistic chance of being included in an eventual D4. Its about a group of schools trying to generate enough value doing something different to hang on. Most of the schools that make up the G5 are not going to be playing in the top level of football a couple of decades from now. The group of 5 conferences in their current configuration have no chance to keep up. None.

Its either do something different or get demoted in 10-20 years. So many people have their heads in the clouds thinking there is something magical about a G5 regional conference or that something will change in a few years to make their regional conference worth 20 million a team. Theres 3 decades of media contract history that proves there is no such magic. The best we can hope for right now is to attain an old Big East status. The old Big East made about 3 million a year per school in media money while the other power conference schools were making about 3-5 times that amount. It would be better to make a third of what the power conferences make rather than 10%---but you're still going to have a tough time keeping up.

(06-06-2014 09:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 07:57 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Summer is obviously here. More time to rehash realignment proposals that are mostly wishful thinking. The reality is that the AAC isn't in a position to raid the MWC and the MWC isn't in a position to raid the AAC. Both conferences are on the outside looking in, and reshuffling their memberships from an arrangement that makes geographic sense to one that doesn't won't change that. If BYU were to join the MWC or AAC, that might shift the balance between them marginally, but BYU is too proud to give up independence to join a G5 conference.

I think both the MWC and AAC are mainly focused on raising their competitive profiles with the members they have. It's not interesting to talk about but that's the way it is.

Hawaii, it's not about what makes geographic sense. If "geographic sense" had value the MAC would make 10X any other G5 conference. Its not about "raiding" this conference or that. Its about a group of schools that have a realistic chance of being included in an eventual D4. Its about a group of schools trying to generate enough value doing something different to hang on. Most of the schools that make up the G5 are not going to be playing in the top level of football a couple of decades from now. The current 5 conferences in this configuration have no chance to keep up. None.

Its either do something different or get demoted in 10-20 years. So many people have their heads in the clouds thinking there is something magical about a G5 regional conference. Theres 3 decades of media contract history that proves there is not.

BYU to AAC football only(east)
Army to AAC football only(west with Navy)
Add one all other sports but football witchita st or St Louis(13th member) all sports in west for Navy football only.

Had BYU not gone independent, we would have a national "Best Of" conference called the Big East, and we'd be in a P6 scenario. BYU is the geographic lynchpin for creating a national "Best Of" conference which blurs the boundary between have and have nots. Whenever BYU comes close to becoming disillusioned with independence and opens talks with the AAC or MWC, the P5 will throw them a scheduling bone to preserve the status quo.

All BYU, UCONN, and Cinci need to do is announce that they intend to form a new conference, and a few P5 invites will drop down to stop this from happening. It's no coincidence that when the MWC began to challenge the status quo, the two best programs were taken to the P5. I think BYU's independence and the resultant collapse of the Old BigEast was an unexpected bonus for the P5 in the most recent round of realignment.

I cannot wait till football season!

(06-06-2014 02:02 PM)Chappy Wrote:  EAST
Army*
Connecticut
East Carolina
Navy*
South Florida
Temple
UCF

WEST
BYU
Cincinnati
Houston
Memphis
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

*football only

If this were to happen, and there was deregulation of the championship games and the ACC went to 3 permanent partners who would each team have as partners?

I'll take a shot at a few that seem logical.

Army* - Navy
BYU
Central Florida - South Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut - Temple
East Carolina
Houston - SMU,
Memphis
Navy* - Army, SMU,
SMU - Houston, SMU
South Florida - Central Florida
Temple - Connecticut
Tulane
Tulsa - SMU or Houston,

(06-06-2014 09:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 07:57 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Summer is obviously here. More time to rehash realignment proposals that are mostly wishful thinking. The reality is that the AAC isn't in a position to raid the MWC and the MWC isn't in a position to raid the AAC. Both conferences are on the outside looking in, and reshuffling their memberships from an arrangement that makes geographic sense to one that doesn't won't change that. If BYU were to join the MWC or AAC, that might shift the balance between them marginally, but BYU is too proud to give up independence to join a G5 conference.

I think both the MWC and AAC are mainly focused on raising their competitive profiles with the members they have. It's not interesting to talk about but that's the way it is.

Hawaii, it's not about what makes geographic sense. If "geographic sense" had value the MAC would make 10X more than any other G5 conference. Its not about "raiding" this conference or that. Its about a group of schools deciding to group together in order to have a realistic chance of being included in an eventual D4. Its about a group of schools trying to generate enough value doing something different to hang on. Most of the schools that make up the G5 are not going to be playing in the top level of football a couple of decades from now. The group of 5 conferences in their current configuration have no chance to keep up. None.

Its either do something different or get demoted in 10-20 years. So many people have their heads in the clouds thinking there is something magical about a G5 regional conference or that something will change in a few years to make their regional conference worth 20 million a team. Theres 3 decades of media contract history that proves there is no such magic. The best we can hope for right now is to attain an old Big East status. The old Big East made about 3 million a year per school in media money while the other power conference schools were making about 3-5 times that amount. It would be better to make a third of what the power conferences make rather than 10%---but you're still going to have a tough time keeping up.

I think the difference in our viewpoints -- and I do respect your viewpoint, I just don't happen to agree with it -- is that you think some subset of the "best" AAC and MWC schools could land more TV money and achieve more competitive success than the AAC or MWC as currently constituted. I don't think any set of schools in either conference is sufficiently superior to the rest in terms of media attractiveness or football prowess to achieve that outcome. They look a lot more like each other than they look like the P5 schools.

(06-06-2014 11:59 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 07:57 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Summer is obviously here. More time to rehash realignment proposals that are mostly wishful thinking. The reality is that the AAC isn't in a position to raid the MWC and the MWC isn't in a position to raid the AAC. Both conferences are on the outside looking in, and reshuffling their memberships from an arrangement that makes geographic sense to one that doesn't won't change that. If BYU were to join the MWC or AAC, that might shift the balance between them marginally, but BYU is too proud to give up independence to join a G5 conference.

I think both the MWC and AAC are mainly focused on raising their competitive profiles with the members they have. It's not interesting to talk about but that's the way it is.

Hawaii, it's not about what makes geographic sense. If "geographic sense" had value the MAC would make 10X more than any other G5 conference. Its not about "raiding" this conference or that. Its about a group of schools deciding to group together in order to have a realistic chance of being included in an eventual D4. Its about a group of schools trying to generate enough value doing something different to hang on. Most of the schools that make up the G5 are not going to be playing in the top level of football a couple of decades from now. The group of 5 conferences in their current configuration have no chance to keep up. None.

Its either do something different or get demoted in 10-20 years. So many people have their heads in the clouds thinking there is something magical about a G5 regional conference or that something will change in a few years to make their regional conference worth 20 million a team. Theres 3 decades of media contract history that proves there is no such magic. The best we can hope for right now is to attain an old Big East status. The old Big East made about 3 million a year per school in media money while the other power conference schools were making about 3-5 times that amount. It would be better to make a third of what the power conferences make rather than 10%---but you're still going to have a tough time keeping up.

I think the difference in our viewpoints -- and I do respect your viewpoint, I just don't happen to agree with it -- is that you think some subset of the "best" AAC and MWC schools could land more TV money and achieve more competitive success than the AAC or MWC as currently constituted. I don't think any set of schools in either conference is sufficiently superior to the rest in terms of media attractiveness or football prowess to achieve that outcome. They look a lot more like each other than they look like the P5 schools.

And I leave open the possibility you could be absolutely correct. We know the regional non-AQ configuration pays nothing after 2 decades of the current Bowl Coalition/BCS landscape. Will a best of the rest pay more? Maybe. Maybe not. If you have one choice and you know it does not work, with time running out, maybe its time to give the other option a try. Look at it this way, we have run the ball up the middle the entire game and we are losing 30-3. With the 4th quarter rolling around, maybe its time to try the forward pass. Sure, it might not work either--but I think its worth a try.

(06-07-2014 01:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 11:59 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I think the difference in our viewpoints -- and I do respect your viewpoint, I just don't happen to agree with it -- is that you think some subset of the "best" AAC and MWC schools could land more TV money and achieve more competitive success than the AAC or MWC as currently constituted. I don't think any set of schools in either conference is sufficiently superior to the rest in terms of media attractiveness or football prowess to achieve that outcome. They look a lot more like each other than they look like the P5 schools.

And I leave open the possibility you could be absolutely correct. We know the regional non-AQ configuration pays nothing after 2 decades of the current Bowl Coalition/BCS landscape. Will a best of the rest pay more? Maybe. Maybe not. If you have one choice and you know it does not work, with time running out, maybe its time to give the other option a try. Look at it this way, we have run the ball up the middle the entire game and we are losing 30-3. With the 4th quarter rolling around, maybe its time to try the forward pass. Sure, it might not work either--but I think its worth a try.

That's reasonable.

(06-06-2014 07:57 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Summer is obviously here. More time to rehash realignment proposals that are mostly wishful thinking. The reality is that the AAC isn't in a position to raid the MWC and the MWC isn't in a position to raid the AAC. Both conferences are on the outside looking in, and reshuffling their memberships from an arrangement that makes geographic sense to one that doesn't won't change that. If BYU were to join the MWC or AAC, that might shift the balance between them marginally, but BYU is too proud to give up independence to join a G5 conference.

I think both the MWC and AAC are mainly focused on raising their competitive profiles with the members they have. It's not interesting to talk about but that's the way it is.

With the series BYU is getting as an independent they are largely in the same position. They don't need to join a conference.

The biggest alignment problem out there at present is between CUSA/SBC which have overlapping footprints. The AAC has some overlap with CUSA/SBC but the programs in the AAC have a lot more tradition across the board making them a clear step up and power conference candidates.

If a change is going to happen in G5 alignment its not going to be until 2018 in advance of the next set of bowl agreements. Most of the G5 deals are running until 2020 as well aside from CUSA and the MAC.

Quote:— The focus of the meetings was on improving the conference, not changing it. “This was probably the first time in three, if not four, years that we didn’t spend an inordinate amount of time on membership — who’s coming, who’s leaving, are we going to play divisions?” Thompson said. “It was so refreshing not to have to address membership. The stability was encouraging to say the least. We spent just a lot of time on how we now can grow the league. We talk about SWOT — strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. And we’ve had a document that’s really been sitting on the shelf for two years. We’ve been so immersed in just surviving and having a league that now we can get back to how do we get better.”

— The presidents discussed the need for strategic scheduling in football and basketball to enhance postseason opportunities but did not reach any conclusions. “Play good competition and win games — that’s ultimately how we’ll make our mark,” Thompson said. “We had a record six bowls last year. If we could play in a New Year’s Eve bowl in the new College Football Playoff, that’s the goal. That’s the destination, and how do we position ourselves to get there.”

— The Mountain West would like to partner with the American Athletic Conference in scheduling. “I don’t know what that means,” Thompson said. “Conceptually, we think those are good opponents.”

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/06/04...rylink=cpy

That definitely says any MWC-AAC type coast-2-coast conference is not on anybodies agenda.

Boise State made 3.7 million last year in the MWC. The revenue would have to be double in the AAC for a coast-2-coast idea to be revisited, IMO.

AAC West- (BYU Football)
AAC East- Army (Football only)

(06-07-2014 08:13 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

Quote:— The focus of the meetings was on improving the conference, not changing it. “This was probably the first time in three, if not four, years that we didn’t spend an inordinate amount of time on membership — who’s coming, who’s leaving, are we going to play divisions?” Thompson said. “It was so refreshing not to have to address membership. The stability was encouraging to say the least. We spent just a lot of time on how we now can grow the league. We talk about SWOT — strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. And we’ve had a document that’s really been sitting on the shelf for two years. We’ve been so immersed in just surviving and having a league that now we can get back to how do we get better.”

— The presidents discussed the need for strategic scheduling in football and basketball to enhance postseason opportunities but did not reach any conclusions. “Play good competition and win games — that’s ultimately how we’ll make our mark,” Thompson said. “We had a record six bowls last year. If we could play in a New Year’s Eve bowl in the new College Football Playoff, that’s the goal. That’s the destination, and how do we position ourselves to get there.”

— The Mountain West would like to partner with the American Athletic Conference in scheduling. “I don’t know what that means,” Thompson said. “Conceptually, we think those are good opponents.”

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/06/04...rylink=cpy

That definitely says any MWC-AAC type coast-2-coast conference is not on anybodies agenda.

Boise State made 3.7 million last year in the MWC. The revenue would have to be double in the AAC for a coast-2-coast idea to be revisited, IMO.

Of course, nobody else in the league makes as much as Boise, so you would simply undermine the league by taking other schools making less. Once the league is undermined, Boise would probably come. Part of my idea is to pick up teams that sit in states with no P5 representation (Wyoming, Hawaii, UNLV, NM all make sense). The idea is to gain inclusion in D4 by having a single large G5 conference that fills in the TV holes (states with no p5's), provides a home for the academies, while providing most of the most recognizable G5 names (many of which are in big cities).

(06-07-2014 08:52 AM)The Real LHS81 Wrote:  AAC West- (BYU Football)
AAC East- Army (Football only)

^
This

(06-07-2014 08:52 AM)The Real LHS81 Wrote:  AAC West- (BYU Football)
AAC East- Army (Football only)

Wrong

Army joins Navy in the western division

BYU does not want a yearly series with SMU,Tulane,Tulsa

BYU want UConn,Cinn,USF,UCF and ECU

They want want entry to the national championship series and they will not get it by playing SMU,TULANE,Navy and Army.They could rejoin MWC and get the same type of competition.

Travel costs are not significant since they want football only.

(06-07-2014 10:13 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 08:52 AM)The Real LHS81 Wrote:  AAC West- (BYU Football)
AAC East- Army (Football only)

Wrong

Army joins Navy in the western division

BYU does not want a yearly series with SMU,Tulane,Tulsa

BYU want UConn,Cinn,USF,UCF and ECU

They want want entry to the national championship series and they will not get it by playing SMU,TULANE,Navy and Army.They could rejoin MWC and get the same type of competition.

Travel costs are not significant since they want football only.

Wrong. . . no difference between UConn, USF, ECU and SMU, Tulane, Navy.

How bout beating SMU first, before stating UConn football is better than SMU football. . . Actually, how bout UConn football get out of the AAC basement, before saying it's better than any other AAC football program

(06-07-2014 10:13 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 08:52 AM)The Real LHS81 Wrote:  AAC West- (BYU Football)
AAC East- Army (Football only)

Wrong

Army joins Navy in the western division

BYU does not want a yearly series with SMU,Tulane,Tulsa

BYU want UConn,Cinn,USF,UCF and ECU

They want want entry to the national championship series and they will not get it by playing SMU,TULANE,Navy and Army.They could rejoin MWC and get the same type of competition.

Travel costs are not significant since they want football only.

Pretty sure BYU wants neither of these, or they would have joined the AAC already.

(06-07-2014 11:11 AM)prp Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 10:13 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 08:52 AM)The Real LHS81 Wrote:  AAC West- (BYU Football)
AAC East- Army (Football only)

Wrong

Army joins Navy in the western division

BYU does not want a yearly series with SMU,Tulane,Tulsa

BYU want UConn,Cinn,USF,UCF and ECU

They want want entry to the national championship series and they will not get it by playing SMU,TULANE,Navy and Army.They could rejoin MWC and get the same type of competition.

Travel costs are not significant since they want football only.

Pretty sure BYU wants neither of these, or they would have joined the AAC already.

Exactly! They are not going to join a conference that is perceived lower than Utah's. Now, if Utah were an independent the Utes would not be considered a P5 opponent either, so BYU can still say that.

(06-07-2014 11:09 AM)The Real LHS81 Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 10:13 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 08:52 AM)The Real LHS81 Wrote:  AAC West- (BYU Football)
AAC East- Army (Football only)

Wrong

Army joins Navy in the western division

BYU does not want a yearly series with SMU,Tulane,Tulsa

BYU want UConn,Cinn,USF,UCF and ECU

They want want entry to the national championship series and they will not get it by playing SMU,TULANE,Navy and Army.They could rejoin MWC and get the same type of competition.

Travel costs are not significant since they want football only.

Wrong. . . no difference between UConn, USF, ECU and SMU, Tulane, Navy.

How bout beating SMU first, before stating UConn football is better than SMU football. . . Actually, how bout UConn football get out of the AAC basement, before saying it's better than any other AAC football program

Didn't UConn go to a BCS bowl not too long ago?

(06-07-2014 12:11 PM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 11:09 AM)The Real LHS81 Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 10:13 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 08:52 AM)The Real LHS81 Wrote:  AAC West- (BYU Football)
AAC East- Army (Football only)

Wrong

Army joins Navy in the western division

BYU does not want a yearly series with SMU,Tulane,Tulsa

BYU want UConn,Cinn,USF,UCF and ECU

They want want entry to the national championship series and they will not get it by playing SMU,TULANE,Navy and Army.They could rejoin MWC and get the same type of competition.

Travel costs are not significant since they want football only.

Wrong. . . no difference between UConn, USF, ECU and SMU, Tulane, Navy.

How bout beating SMU first, before stating UConn football is better than SMU football. . . Actually, how bout UConn football get out of the AAC basement, before saying it's better than any other AAC football program

Didn't UConn go to a BCS bowl not too long ago?

Normally, I don't like playing the "what happened yesterday" game. It has nothing to do with what's going on right now! But, I'll play it now. . . SMU>>>> NFL HOF Raymond Berry, Doak Walker, Eric Dickerson.>>>> SMU NCAA Champs in the mid 1930's.>>>> SMU finished with the #2 ranking in 1982.>>> SMU played in BCS bowls against BCS opponents before there was a BCS.

Now that I've finished, it has nothing to do with current situation that SMU finds itself in now.