(08-19-2014 12:09 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 11:58 AM)ENCPir87769 Wrote:  I like the idea of adding BYU, Air Force, and Army. Just my opinion.

Let me preface this by saying I am not a Rams fan..... That said I think adding the following may make Air Force and then in turn Army come into the fold.

BYU, Air Force, Army, and Colorado State.

There seems to be this thing where Colorado State, Air Force, and Wyoming have a strong bond. Should AF and Colorado State sign long term agreements to continue to play Wyoming OOC and adding those two schools may overcome some reservations.

Adding AF with Navy already in the AAC may make Army finally commit.

If all three military academies are in the AAC, then the current OOC dilemma for Air Force dissipates. So, Air Force would be free to schedule CSU and Wyoming every year OOC - and it would still have 2 available OOC games.

The bigger issue is Olympic Sports. From AFA, it's 2 hours to CSU, 3 hours to Wyoming, and 5 hours to New Mexico. That's 3 road games each year only 2-5 hours away. That's hard to beat. And, that's why Air Force hasn't really seriously considered a new home yet.

So, the American might need to consider whether New Mexico or CSU would be needed to get to get AFA, and whether that is worth it. Ironically, I think CSU or New Mexico would jump at the chance to join the American -with or without each other or Air Force.

(08-19-2014 12:58 PM)YNot Wrote:  So, the American might need to consider whether New Mexico or CSU would be needed to get to get AFA, and whether that is worth it. Ironically, I think CSU or New Mexico would jump at the chance to join the American -with or without each other or Air Force.

That was my thinking of adding Colorado State. They are an ok program but one that could swing AF into the AAC.

Wyoming brings no value hence the agreement to play them OOC by both schools.

Words of former Tulane athletic director Chet Gladchuk now at Navy make sense.

I'm curious on people's opinions about how many schools is too many for one conference. 16 (basketball included) was not sustainable for the old Big East. It wasn't for the late 90's WAC, either, and the WAC eventually collapsed altogether, at least as a football league. It also dropped from a high-mid-major in the 90's to one of the lowest rated leagues in college basketball. Looking further back, the Southern Conference once consisted of the majority of the SEC and ACC, plus a handful of others, but it has been hemmoraging schools for decades.

On the other hand, leagues collapse for reasons other than being too big. For example, the Southwest Conference consisted of just 8 teams prior to Houston's entry in the 70's and after Arkansas's exit in the early 90's. It collapsed because of scandal, television interests, and internal conflict, not because it was too big.

Those are just some things to think about. Adding two more schools with BYU and someone else (take your pick among AFA, Army, Colorado State, UNLV, etc.) would bring the league to 14. Is that not as large as you would want the league to be without being concerned the league could be split? Would you be okay being in a league where it has to be divided into four pods with changing divisions, or where teams play teams from the opposite division no more than once every four years?

(08-19-2014 02:28 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Is that not as large as you would want the league to be without being concerned the league could be split? Would you be okay being in a league where it has to be divided into four pods with changing divisions, or where teams play teams from the opposite division no more than once every four years?

With the SEC's 6-1-1 schedule format, there will be teams that only play every 6 or 7 years. Not much cross-division conference affiliation other than the annual locked games.

IMO, 16 is better than 14 because you don't have to create two divisions. That was the WAC's downfall. They had 4-team scheduling pods, but then grouped the pods together such that they actually just created two 8-team divisions (that were supposed to change every 2 years, but it didn't last long enough for the full 4-year cycle because the founding MWC teams that were used to playing didn't and it became a big deal. And, the NCAA only had an 11-game season at the time, so they couldn't accommodate enough conference games and OOC games to make it work cleanly).

With four 4-team divisions, you can play the 3 teams in your division every year and then 2 teams from each of the other divisions, such that you have a 9-game conference schedule and play EVERYONE in the conference at least every other year. Frequency of play allows rivalries to form, which is key to conference strength and TV success.

The championship game could be the two best division winners - or just the two best teams, regardless of divisions.

If you schedule it properly, you could ensure that all teams play in either Texas or Florida every single year. This helps everyone in the conference with recruiting.

It also can work well for basketball. You play an 18-game schedule, with 6 games against the 3 teams in your division and then 12 games against the other 12 teams in the conference. For the conference tournament, you give the top 4 seeds to your 4 division winners and then seed from there, with a couple of play-in rounds spilling into the quarterfinals bracket.

And, with a larger 16-team footprint, the American could actually reach the main regions of our country and spread conference championship games, tournaments, and bowl games across the country. This is one reason why I'm in the BYU, Air Force, Army, and San Diego State camp. Those 4 teams bring in 4 good or great markets and would enhance AAC basketball.