With Wichita State's commitment to keep Marshall, and the fact that they have an extensive history with Tulsa, and the fact that they have a historically good baseball program... I just think there is too much to like about adding the Shockers. For me, this new coaching contract is the tipping point.
They not only round out our numbers at 12, but they foster a tight knit culture among our membership, they have a good brand name, and they bring another market to our conference.

I really like the feel of this atmosphere in this vintage Wichita State vs. Tulsa matchup, from when X-Man played for Wichita.





Rivalries:
Wichita State - Tulsa
UCF - USF
Memphis - Cincinnati
Houston - SMU
ECU - NAVY
UCONN - Temple

I agree, but there is going to be a lot of hate on this thread...

If the AAC keeps all its members as it enters TV negotiations in 2018, then add the Shockers and go 12/12 if it helps us get more money from ESPN/expected tournament units than Wichita St would consume.

If it loses members before 2018, then we'll be having a whole different conversation.

I'd add Wichita St if the option presents itself, but I'd rather add UMass for all sports so UConn has an actual rivalry. UConn and Temple is not a rivalry and while the addition of Wichita St may help the conference RPI (unless they go on another 18 year tourney drought) it makes UConn an even further outlier in this conference.

That being said, I don't think the AAC is expanding anytime soon anyway.

(04-03-2015 06:27 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I'd add Wichita St if the option presents itself, but I'd rather add UMass for all sports so UConn has an actual rivalry. UConn and Temple is not a rivalry and while the addition of Wichita St may help the conference RPI (unless they go on another 18 year tourney drought) it makes UConn an even further outlier in this conference.

That being said, I don't think the AAC is expanding anytime soon anyway.

Wichita is a small TV market and would add nothing in the way of dollars. I agree they have a nice basketball program in a small state (2.9 million) which already has KSU & KU. Wichita State enrollment is just 15,000 and a small endowment. AAC has enough small schools already in Tulsa.

(04-03-2015 06:41 AM)kyucat Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 06:27 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I'd add Wichita St if the option presents itself, but I'd rather add UMass for all sports so UConn has an actual rivalry. UConn and Temple is not a rivalry and while the addition of Wichita St may help the conference RPI (unless they go on another 18 year tourney drought) it makes UConn an even further outlier in this conference.

That being said, I don't think the AAC is expanding anytime soon anyway.

Wichita is a small TV market and would add nothing in the way of dollars. I agree they have a nice basketball program in a small state (2.9 million) which already has KSU & KU. Wichita State enrollment is just 15,000 and a small endowment. AAC has enough small schools already in Tulsa.

AAC has the 2nd largest school in the country so UCF offsets Tulsa. As far as Wichita State, I doubt they come as a lone other sports team. We likely would need to add 3 to get to 14 Other sports teams. It wouldn't be a bad option if we picked up 3 more markets and get us more eyeballs.

At this point I'm not sure Wichita State would get all that much out of an affiliation with the ACC. They were on a real national telecast plenty this year. And I'm not talking Espn3 or the Ocho or whatever it is that half our games run on regionally.

Wichita State does have history with a handful of the league's current membership. Even though most conferences have moved away from division, bringing in Wichita State would allow the league to divide in half and provide a good basketball balance.

East: Cincinnati, Temple, UConn, ECU, UCF, USF
West: Memphis, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Tulane, Wichita State

Play everyone in your division twice, plus everyone in the other division once except for two crossover mirror games. This format would allow Cincinnati and Memphis to play twice a year and allow TV to maintain other made for TV games as well. Each year the conference tournament would rotate between an east and west site, Orlando and Memphis.

(04-03-2015 07:34 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  At this point I'm not sure Wichita State would get all that much out of an affiliation with the ACC. They were on a real national telecast plenty this year. And I'm not talking Espn3 or the Ocho or whatever it is that half our games run on regionally.

Not as much as you think. In Wichita's 18 conference games, only 7 were on ESPN,ESPN2,or ESPNU.

(04-03-2015 06:41 AM)kyucat Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 06:27 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I'd add Wichita St if the option presents itself, but I'd rather add UMass for all sports so UConn has an actual rivalry. UConn and Temple is not a rivalry and while the addition of Wichita St may help the conference RPI (unless they go on another 18 year tourney drought) it makes UConn an even further outlier in this conference.

That being said, I don't think the AAC is expanding anytime soon anyway.

Wichita is a small TV market and would add nothing in the way of dollars. I agree they have a nice basketball program in a small state (2.9 million) which already has KSU & KU. Wichita State enrollment is just 15,000 and a small endowment. AAC has enough small schools already in Tulsa.

Its 65th in the country in market size so its not exactly Mayberry

Been saying this for a while Wichita St has great basketball AND baseball. I'm not a baseball fan personally but they would help strengthen that sport even more.

(04-03-2015 07:34 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  At this point I'm not sure Wichita State would get all that much out of an affiliation with the ACC. They were on a real national telecast plenty this year. And I'm not talking Espn3 or the Ocho or whatever it is that half our games run on regionally.

What are you talking about? Every conference game was on one of the ESPN TV networks or CBS Sports Network.

(04-03-2015 07:34 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  At this point I'm not sure Wichita State would get all that much out of an affiliation with the ACC. They were on a real national telecast plenty this year. And I'm not talking Espn3 or the Ocho or whatever it is that half our games run on regionally.

Really? Why don't you list all those great MVC conference battles that were on national tv. I must have missed them somehow. Wichita would bolt in a split second for the AAC. The whole conference gets 40 events a year on ESPN3. The first year (2011) there 4 MVC basketball games televised along with 8 games from the league tournament. Who would ever want to leave a powerhouse media package like that?

http://www.kake.com/sports/headlines/Mis...54113.html

Someone please answer me this. Why would ESPN do it? Before we have endless threads about expansion and the million teams that we could add which in someones convoluted mind means well make more money, I ask you this... WHY WOULD ESPN DO IT?

They already own the broadcasting rights to just about every team discussed for expansion. They are getting them for dirt cheap right now. So why would they agree to pay more to move any team into the AAC? It makes no sense? They wont do it because their nice. Those of us in the Big East can affirm that.

It may make all the sense in the world to us in order to make a better AAC but were not the one that pays the bills. So before we make theoretical posts about addition and all of that jazz, I simply want one person to tell me why ESPN would be willing to move teams and pay more for a product they already own?

(04-03-2015 08:45 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Someone please answer me this. Why would ESPN do it? Before we have endless threads about expansion and the million teams that we could add which in someones convoluted mind means well make more money, I ask you this... WHY WOULD ESPN DO IT?

They already own the broadcasting rights to just about every team discussed for expansion. They are getting them for dirt cheap right now. So why would they agree to pay more to move any team into the AAC? It makes no sense? They wont do it because their nice. Those of us in the Big East can affirm that.

It may make all the sense in the world to us in order to make a better AAC but were not the one that pays the bills. So before we make theoretical posts about addition and all of that jazz, I simply want one person to tell me why ESPN would be willing to move teams and pay more for a product they already own?

Actually we do pay the bills, in part. Even if adding Wichita didn't boost the TV deal a single cent (which I seriously doubt) they'd add to the basketball strength, NCAA units, etc. They wouldn't get a full share of the TV anyway.

(04-03-2015 08:45 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Someone please answer me this. Why would ESPN do it? Before we have endless threads about expansion and the million teams that we could add which in someones convoluted mind means well make more money, I ask you this... WHY WOULD ESPN DO IT?

They already own the broadcasting rights to just about every team discussed for expansion. They are getting them for dirt cheap right now. So why would they agree to pay more to move any team into the AAC? It makes no sense? They wont do it because their nice. Those of us in the Big East can affirm that.

It may make all the sense in the world to us in order to make a better AAC but were not the one that pays the bills. So before we make theoretical posts about addition and all of that jazz, I simply want one person to tell me why ESPN would be willing to move teams and pay more for a product they already own?

They do it all the time. See the ACC for the latest example. That said, I think the OP was talking about adding them when renegotiation time rolls around. Aresco keeps mentioning talking to ESPN about our deal in a couple of years---though there is no early look in. The actual renegotiation period would begin in 4 years (agreement expires in 5).

(04-03-2015 08:45 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Someone please answer me this. Why would ESPN do it? Before we have endless threads about expansion and the million teams that we could add which in someones convoluted mind means well make more money, I ask you this... WHY WOULD ESPN DO IT?

They already own the broadcasting rights to just about every team discussed for expansion. They are getting them for dirt cheap right now. So why would they agree to pay more to move any team into the AAC? It makes no sense? They wont do it because their nice. Those of us in the Big East can affirm that.

It may make all the sense in the world to us in order to make a better AAC but were not the one that pays the bills. So before we make theoretical posts about addition and all of that jazz, I simply want one person to tell me why ESPN would be willing to move teams and pay more for a product they already own?

1 thing- the MVC tv deal is up after next season- so what you are saying may not be the case after next year.

(04-03-2015 08:46 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:45 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Someone please answer me this. Why would ESPN do it? Before we have endless threads about expansion and the million teams that we could add which in someones convoluted mind means well make more money, I ask you this... WHY WOULD ESPN DO IT?

They already own the broadcasting rights to just about every team discussed for expansion. They are getting them for dirt cheap right now. So why would they agree to pay more to move any team into the AAC? It makes no sense? They wont do it because their nice. Those of us in the Big East can affirm that.

It may make all the sense in the world to us in order to make a better AAC but were not the one that pays the bills. So before we make theoretical posts about addition and all of that jazz, I simply want one person to tell me why ESPN would be willing to move teams and pay more for a product they already own?

Actually we do pay the bills, in part. Even if adding Wichita didn't boost the TV deal a single cent (which I seriously doubt) they'd add to the basketball strength, NCAA units, etc. They wouldn't get a full share of the TV anyway.

Right. They would cost each school about 50K. The way I look at is this---would you pay $50K to be in a better basketball league? That's effectively what you would be doing if you add them prior to renegotiation. I have no problem with that because I think 50K for a better basketball league makes sense. Some may not.

(04-03-2015 06:41 AM)kyucat Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 06:27 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I'd add Wichita St if the option presents itself, but I'd rather add UMass for all sports so UConn has an actual rivalry. UConn and Temple is not a rivalry and while the addition of Wichita St may help the conference RPI (unless they go on another 18 year tourney drought) it makes UConn an even further outlier in this conference.

That being said, I don't think the AAC is expanding anytime soon anyway.

Wichita is a small TV market and would add nothing in the way of dollars. I agree they have a nice basketball program in a small state (2.9 million) which already has KSU & KU. Wichita State enrollment is just 15,000 and a small endowment. AAC has enough small schools already in Tulsa.

From the WSU board...

SHOCKvalue;559682 Wrote:I was bored, so I whipped up a spreadsheet laying out how WSU might fit into the AAC via various metrics. I'll spare everyone the minutia, and simmer it all down below:

(The assumption is that WSU makes the twelfth school in the totals below. AAC has 11 currently, plus Navy football.)


WSU Enrollment: 15,003 - 9th out of 12
Some big schools in the AAC, but many are just WSU on steroids (public commuter). WSU would be the smallest public. We're bigger than only Tulsa, SMU, and Tulane.


WSU Endowment: $259.7M - 9th out of 12
The bigger schools, and the private schools, push us down the list a bit. We do have a larger endowment than UCF, ECU, and Memphis.


Wichita TV Market (Wichita's Rank - Nielsen "TV Homes"): 65th - 441,760 - 11th out of 12
Not far behind Tulsa at 530,200 "TV Homes", and within reasonable distance of Memphis at 653,560 "TV Homes." Some pretty big cities in the AAC, although I'm not sure how closely those cities follow the sports of their ACC member.


WSU NCAA Tourney Total Appearances: 12 - 7th out of 12
Top third of the AAC has a lot of cred. Middle third is similar to us. Bottom third is like most of the MVC.


WSU NCAA Tourney Total Wins: 15 - 6th out of 12
Same as above. Top third of the AAC has a lot of cred. Middle third is similar to us. Bottom third is like most of the MVC.


WSU NCAA Tourney F4's: 2 - tied for 5th out of 12
Ranges from 6 to 0, with 5/12 schools having 0 F4's.


WSU NCAA Tourney E8's: 4 - 6th out of 12
Ranges from 11 to 0, with 4/12 schools having 0 E8's.


WSU NCAA Tourney S16's: 6 - 6th out of 12
Ranges from 16 to 0, with 4/12 schools having 0 S16's.


Koch Arena Capacity: 10,506 - 3rd or 4th out of 12, depending on how you handle UCONN's two site home arena arrangement
Only Memphis and UCONN's larger home arena are greatly larger than Koch. About half of the AAC has MVC sized arenas, surprisingly.


2013-2014 WSU Average Home Attendence (via NCAA): 10,732 - 2nd out of 12
SHOCKED at the weak attendance in the AAC. A lot of the schools would fit in quite well in the MVC in this regard. Also, as is already known by most, our attendance isn't an anomaly; our 10 year median attendance via NCAA figures sits at 10,410, or 99% capacity. When we sucked in the 90's Levitt Arena was still 3/4 full. AAC would assumedly be happy to have us from a butts-in-seats-on-TV context.


WSU Total Weeks Spent in AP Top 25: 128 - 5th out of 12
Kind of like the stats a few spots up. Top third of the AAC has a lot of cred. Middle third is similar to us. Bottom third pretty weak.


WSU Total Weeks Spent in AP Top 10: 128 - tied for 5th out of 12
Again... Top third of the AAC has a lot of cred. Middle third is similar to us. Bottom third pretty weak.


WSU MBB Revenues: $5.6M - 5th out of 12
Ranges from $9.5M to $2.8M.


WSU Total AD Revenues: $22.7M - 12 out of 12
Ranges from $71.2M to $24.1M. Both of those figures (high is UCONN, low is Cincy) are pretty decent outliers from the rest. The AAC median is $39.5, and considering these schools are spending anywhere from $10M to $25M on football, we conform quite well after adjustment.

(04-03-2015 08:18 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:34 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  At this point I'm not sure Wichita State would get all that much out of an affiliation with the ACC. They were on a real national telecast plenty this year. And I'm not talking Espn3 or the Ocho or whatever it is that half our games run on regionally.

Not as much as you think. In Wichita's 18 conference games, only 7 were on ESPN,ESPN2,or ESPNU.

Plus, this is "as good as it gets" for the MVC with N Iowa being ranked and earning an NCAA bid...