I want Gonzaga. Get on it Aresco.

(04-07-2015 10:38 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  I want Gonzaga. Get on it Aresco.

I'm with you... I believe however if we add the following programs, AAC basketball will be darn scary good x 2.

Gonzaga
Wichita State
VCU/UMass

(04-07-2015 10:38 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  I want Gonzaga. Get on it Aresco.

We have them at home next year

(04-07-2015 04:32 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:20 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link

Quote:The move would directly impact the Big 12 and ACC, which developed the legislation. The Big 12, which is the only Power Five league without a championship game, is merely seeking the option of staging such a contest with 10 teams. The ACC's ultimate intentions with a 14-team league in football, one which already holds a championship game, are not clear.

Current NCAA rules state a league must have at least 12 teams in order to play a conference title game. Those teams also must play a round-robin within each division.

If this is true, P5 expansion is off the table.

Time to shore up the best of the G5 status, and maximize our CFP contention.

We need that 4 pod setup asap.

Why?

Addition by subtraction.

Everyone knows the At Large slot is going to be between the MWC and AAC every year, if we take away the quality programs from the MWC, whats to stop that bid from being ours every year?

Not a big deal my friend, but I don't think that term fits this instance.

All this talk of mega expansion is ridiculous. The best way to maximize the value of the AAC is for the current 11/12 members to step up their level of commitment and performance on the field/court. When programs attract more eyeballs, TV networks make more money, and so too do the member schools.

As for the deregulation, the AAC needs to seriously examine their plan for split-division alignment. If deregulation gives conference the option to determines how they stage or select the participants for their conference championship game, the AAC should take advantage by sending the 2 highest ranking members to their conference championship game.

The conference should go to a 9 conference game schedule based on 3x3x3 format, and not allow members to engage in FCS scheduling.

Schedule POD A:
UCONN
Temple
Cincinnati
E. Carolina

Schedule POD B:
Memphis
Tulane
S.Florida
C.Florida

Schedule POD C:
SMU
Tulsa
Houston
Navy

Every season play 3 games vs your POD, and every 2 seasons play 3 games vs other 2 POD's. Every season you play all but 2 members.

The PODS are only for scheduling purposes, there would not be a divisional setup for as long as the conference is not required to conduct business with split divisions.

Most importantly, sending the highest ranked members to the conference championship game will also promote competitive OOC scheduling. The CFP Committee recognizes OOC SOS.

TX

(04-07-2015 11:55 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:32 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:20 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link

Quote:The move would directly impact the Big 12 and ACC, which developed the legislation. The Big 12, which is the only Power Five league without a championship game, is merely seeking the option of staging such a contest with 10 teams. The ACC's ultimate intentions with a 14-team league in football, one which already holds a championship game, are not clear.

Current NCAA rules state a league must have at least 12 teams in order to play a conference title game. Those teams also must play a round-robin within each division.

If this is true, P5 expansion is off the table.

Time to shore up the best of the G5 status, and maximize our CFP contention.

We need that 4 pod setup asap.

Why?

Addition by subtraction.

Everyone knows the At Large slot is going to be between the MWC and AAC every year, if we take away the quality programs from the MWC, whats to stop that bid from being ours every year?

Not a big deal my friend, but I don't think that term fits this instance.

Sure it does! When we add, they subtract! It's simple math!

You would have to allow some FCS scheduling with a 9 game conference schedule. Some teams have construction bonds that require 6 home games per year to service, and UCF for one couldn't even get a Sunbelt team to sign up for a home game this year. Lower tier ACC teams are already ducking G5 games by creating extra pseudo conference games.

(04-07-2015 09:17 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Good god, has this board gone mad?!?

Guys, the AAC doesn't need anyone from the mwc... All we need is 1-3 Olympic only program/s

Wichita State
Gonzaga
VCU/UMass

Totally agree with this. Pick up VCU, maybe a Davidson, for Oly sports and be done with it.

You increase your NCAA bids 1-2 per year. Football is fine. We just need a team to go 12-1 or 13-0 and we've got a shot at the playoff. Joining with the MW, does nothing for football unless the powers give us an auto-bid. Which isn't going to happen.

(04-07-2015 02:25 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:20 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link

Quote:The move would directly impact the Big 12 and ACC, which developed the legislation. The Big 12, which is the only Power Five league without a championship game, is merely seeking the option of staging such a contest with 10 teams. The ACC's ultimate intentions with a 14-team league in football, one which already holds a championship game, are not clear.

Current NCAA rules state a league must have at least 12 teams in order to play a conference title game. Those teams also must play a round-robin within each division.

If this is true, P5 expansion is off the table.

Time to shore up the best of the G5 status, and maximize our CFP contention.

We need that 4 pod setup asap.

I disagree that P5 expansion is off the table, but it definitely makes the Big 12 less likely to expand in the short-term.

As for AAC expansion, I am all for it. But if a program is not at least one of the top 10 G5 schools outside of the AAC when looking at the whole picture of academics, fan support, market, facilities, and athletic prestige/success... I don't want anything to do with them. Our targets should be BYU and the upper half of the Mountain West.

I agree, if the Big12 decides on a conference network they'll need inventory and as you mentioned the ACC could go get one more if ND says no. Otherwise is done unless dog eat dog within the P5.

What is more likely, a merger of the entire AAC-MWC, or selected Power Programs in the G5 forming a 'best of the rest' 6th conference? It seems generally pretty easy and straightforward to merge the conferences. Much political angst and potholes the other route...

(04-08-2015 10:02 AM)Bull Wrote:  What is more likely, a merger of the entire AAC-MWC, or selected Power Programs in the G5 forming a 'best of the rest' 6th conference? It seems generally pretty easy and straightforward to merge the conferences. Much political angst and potholes the other route...

I'd rather pull the top 6 MW programs and divide the AAC into East, Central, and West divisions. I wouldn't mind adding VCU and UMass or Richmond as Basketball onlys in the East, Wichita to the Central, and BYU Olympics to the West. I would add a 3 to 5 game scheduling agreement for football with BYU.

That would make the AAC the first nationwide collegiate athletic conference. It would create an AAC that carried inventory for virtually all the most recognizable G5 names. It would create a league that has a regional rooting interest for virtually any location in the US. Its champion would virtually have a hammer lock on the G5 access bowl slot, making the AAC a de facto contract bowl conference. With the significant additions of UNLV, SDSU, New Mexico, Wichita, VCU, BYU, and UMass (or Richmond)---the AAC would become one of the most powerful and dominant basketball leagues in the nation. Again---in basketball the AAC would offer a regional rooting interest for most any college basketball fan located anywhere in the US.

A national conference would be the perfect property for a national cable sports network. If you want to build a major niche for the AAC that will make it a valuable TV property and a significant presence in college athletics---this is the path. In fact, going nationwide is the only path still available for G5's to make themselves relevant.

I agree, a straight on merger with the MW would be easier. But it would also be less profitable. It would however accomplish the same goal of making the AAC a significant presence on the college athletics landscape---it would just dilute the financial gain of the move more than adding a 6-team division along with a few select basketball members. However, if that is the only way to make it happen, then I do it. But only after a 6-team MW division has proven unattainable.

If you are Boise State, who largely drives the bus in the MWC, are you in favor of another merger? Just a few years on the heels of our last failed 'national conference' attempt?

Boise may see themselves in a great position, with the easiest pathway to the Access bowl (in a weakened MWC), that only gets harder if we merge the conferences. Now Boise only has to be ranked ahead of the AAC champ. Not hard, if we're all beating up on each other. But the CCG carries more risk for Boise.

(04-08-2015 11:11 AM)Bull Wrote:  If you are Boise State, who largely drives the bus in the MWC, are you in favor of another merger? Just a few years on the heels of our last failed 'national conference' attempt?

Boise may see themselves in a great position, with the easiest pathway to the Access bowl (in a weakened MWC), that only gets harder if we merge the conferences. Now Boise only has to be ranked ahead of the AAC champ. Not hard, if we're all beating up on each other. But the CCG carries more risk for Boise.

Well, an undefeated Marshall or NIU that runs through a weak MAC or CUSA could still theoretically take the slot.

By merging conferences, the SOS that would be tacked on would probably allow for a 3 loss MWC+AAC team to beat out an undefeated from the others. Thus making the new conference a de facto power conference.

Rather than seeing this as an excuse to expand, I look at it as a reason to rethink the divisional setup and guarantee that our best two teams are in the title game.

For instance, say the top two teams in what is currently the East are 8-0 and 7-1 in conference play but the West champ is 5-3. You run a risk of your 8-0 school losing to a 5-3 squad and get knocked out of access bowl talk. That 7-1 school could hypothetically be ranked higher than the next-best G5 school in the rankings, but since they weren't a conference champ, they get skipped.

Do away with the divisions and have the top two teams in the standings (or better yet, see if you can get the playoff committee to tell you who your top two programs are) to play for the conference title.

(04-08-2015 11:11 AM)Bull Wrote:  If you are Boise State, who largely drives the bus in the MWC, are you in favor of another merger? Just a few years on the heels of our last failed 'national conference' attempt?

Boise may see themselves in a great position, with the easiest pathway to the Access bowl (in a weakened MWC), that only gets harder if we merge the conferences. Now Boise only has to be ranked ahead of the AAC champ. Not hard, if we're all beating up on each other. But the CCG carries more risk for Boise.

The thing is, I think the other 5 teams that would be involved benefit from leaving. Schools do what is in their own individual best interests. So if Fresno, Air Force, New Mexico, SDSU, and UNLV all leave to join the AAC West (where they make more money), is Boise going to stay behind and play San Jose St, Idaho, and New Mexico St? Somehow, I doubt it. I think Boise is going to be looking to jump on that train once they see it's going to leave the station with or without them.

Im just happy that UC is in this dumpster fire conference for the long haul.

(04-08-2015 01:31 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  Im just happy that UC is in this dumpster fire conference for the long haul.

A Tulsa fan who is infatuated with Cincinnati. Interesting.

(04-08-2015 01:31 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  Im just happy that UC is in this dumpster fire conference for the long haul.

(04-08-2015 01:31 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  Im just happy that UC is in this dumpster fire conference for the long haul.

Nice to see you finally were broken and can admit the AAC is a dumpsterfire.

(04-07-2015 04:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:20 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link

Quote:The move would directly impact the Big 12 and ACC, which developed the legislation. The Big 12, which is the only Power Five league without a championship game, is merely seeking the option of staging such a contest with 10 teams. The ACC's ultimate intentions with a 14-team league in football, one which already holds a championship game, are not clear.

Current NCAA rules state a league must have at least 12 teams in order to play a conference title game. Those teams also must play a round-robin within each division.

If this is true, P5 expansion is off the table.

Time to shore up the best of the G5 status, and maximize our CFP contention.

We need that 4 pod setup asap.

Why?

Exactly. All a 4 pod set up does is make it harder to determine which 2 pod champs should be in the CCG. With 3 pods, you just have to eliminate one--plus its easier to preserve and encourage rivalries.

What actually is kind of an interesting idea is to go with 3 6-team pods and a 7 game conference schedule. That gives you 5 games in your pod, one game vs each of the other pods, and one extra opportunity to schedule a P5 OOC game. That's one way to potentially allow conference members to upgrade their schedules. The down side is that it causes unbalanced home-away conference schedules.

I made a reddit post based on your idea.

Let's see how it pans out.

Oh and 9 > 7, in terms of conference games.