(10-24-2015 11:11 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:09 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:06 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:04 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 10:57 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Regardless, I believe we need to expand to add more good football and basketball schools while minimizing adding schools that are bad at one of the sports (E. Carolina in basketball, Tulane in both). Tulane was only adding because UConn wanted to buy an AAU vote to get into the B1G.
The best scenario in my mind is booting Tulane and adding BYU for all sports.

You are not a UConn fan. You are a Marshall fan using a UConn handle. No way any UConn fan is asking to have Marshall in their conference. UMass as a full memeber would be a much better addition than Marshall as a football only.

UMass has only had one or two winning seasons in basketball in the last twenty years, and almost all of the sports programs suck.

UMass fits the AAC profile. Large public tier 1 University and a natural rival to UConn and Temple. Basketball is decent and football can grow just like Temple's and Memphis. UMass just needs to build a football stadium or seriously upgrade the one that they have.

Having UMass in the AAC would be a kick in the balls to UConn as after all the CR UMass would be on our level when before they were about three levels below us conference-wise in both sports before.

Having Marshall in the conference would be a kick in the balls for every school that left CUSA to join the AAC, especially those schools that wanted to be rid of dead weight institutions that were not able to compete without the need of nonqualifiers. Rice would make more sense for the AAC than Marshall, but no one is calling for Rice.

The AAC doesn't need to expand. If anything I'd rather see Tulane get dropped for Marshall or Army (football only).

I'd like to see BYU and Boise State in the AAC, but I doubt they move. I doubt the conference will kick out Tulane or Tulsa, but they would both be better additions to the conference in terms of competitiveness (Marshall), and brand name (Army), plus both have had better attendance. Let's be honest, Army hasn't won a lot, but if you're going to have a football program that is at the bottom of the conference, Army is at least a bigger sell and better brand to offer than what Tulane and Tulsa do.

(10-24-2015 11:18 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  The AAC doesn't need to expand. If anything I'd rather see Tulane get dropped for Marshall or Army (football only).

Tulane is not getting dropped for Marshall. That is actually absurd. And Army already has a standing offer to join the AAC at time that they want.

Football games on

(10-24-2015 11:18 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:11 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:09 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:06 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:04 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  You are not a UConn fan. You are a Marshall fan using a UConn handle. No way any UConn fan is asking to have Marshall in their conference. UMass as a full memeber would be a much better addition than Marshall as a football only.

UMass has only had one or two winning seasons in basketball in the last twenty years, and almost all of the sports programs suck.

UMass fits the AAC profile. Large public tier 1 University and a natural rival to UConn and Temple. Basketball is decent and football can grow just like Temple's and Memphis. UMass just needs to build a football stadium or seriously upgrade the one that they have.

Having UMass in the AAC would be a kick in the balls to UConn as after all the CR UMass would be on our level when before they were about three levels below us conference-wise in both sports before.

Having Marshall in the conference would be a kick in the balls for every school that left CUSA to join the AAC, especially those schools that wanted to be rid of dead weight institutions that were not able to compete without the need of nonqualifiers. Rice would make more sense for the AAC than Marshall, but no one is calling for Rice.

What is the difference between a non qualifier and a JUCO

(10-24-2015 11:26 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:18 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:11 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:09 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:06 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  UMass has only had one or two winning seasons in basketball in the last twenty years, and almost all of the sports programs suck.

UMass fits the AAC profile. Large public tier 1 University and a natural rival to UConn and Temple. Basketball is decent and football can grow just like Temple's and Memphis. UMass just needs to build a football stadium or seriously upgrade the one that they have.

Having UMass in the AAC would be a kick in the balls to UConn as after all the CR UMass would be on our level when before they were about three levels below us conference-wise in both sports before.

Having Marshall in the conference would be a kick in the balls for every school that left CUSA to join the AAC, especially those schools that wanted to be rid of dead weight institutions that were not able to compete without the need of nonqualifiers. Rice would make more sense for the AAC than Marshall, but no one is calling for Rice.

What is the difference between a non qualifier and a JUCO

One went to college and the other can't spell college.

Btw, every guy that goes to JUCO is not necessarily a non-qualifier. Some guys go to JUCO, because they didn't have D1 offers out of high school. ECU's quarterback Blake Kemp went to JUCO, because he didn't have offers out of high school.

(10-24-2015 11:20 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:18 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  The AAC doesn't need to expand. If anything I'd rather see Tulane get dropped for Marshall or Army (football only).

Tulane is not getting dropped for Marshall. That is actually absurd. And Army already has a standing offer to join the AAC at time that they want.

I didn't say it will happen. Just saying I think the league would be better off without Tulane.

Though it's absurd for them to get dropped for Marshall, wouldn't you say Marshall is a better program? I don't understand why people are hating on Marshall, but I haven't been a huge follower of Marshall.

And when did Army get that offer? Why aren't they jumping on it?

Personally, I think Army being a conference bottom dweller (and let's be honest, Army has sucked), is A LOT better than Marshall, Tulane, Southern Miss, Whoever Else in this conference.

No need to go above 12 unless Army and BYU want to join, and at this point I don't think they do.

But perhaps if Army sees Navy doing well in the American, and if BYU enjoys their OOC AAC games and sees us land 3 or 4 teams in the final AP poll, they will both want to join in time for the next media deal.

(10-24-2015 10:06 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Here's what I'm thinking (9-game conference schedule, 2 power 5 opponents, 1 non-fcs opponent):
East:
UConn
Cincy
Temple
Tulane
USF
UCF
E. Carolina
Marshall (football-only)
West:
SMU
Houston
Navy
Memphis
Tulsa
BYU
Boise State (football-only)
Air Force (football-only)
16 in football, 12 in basketball

No.

(10-24-2015 11:48 AM)Chappy Wrote:  No need to go above 12 unless Army and BYU want to join, and at this point I don't think they do.

But perhaps if Army sees Navy doing well in the American, and if BYU enjoys their OOC AAC games and sees us land 3 or 4 teams in the final AP poll, they will both want to join in time for the next media deal.

BYU certainly enjoyed their AAC games. They went 3-0. Cheers!

Marshall would be great for ECU since they are best friends

(10-24-2015 11:40 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:20 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 11:18 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  The AAC doesn't need to expand. If anything I'd rather see Tulane get dropped for Marshall or Army (football only).

Tulane is not getting dropped for Marshall. That is actually absurd. And Army already has a standing offer to join the AAC at time that they want.

I didn't say it will happen. Just saying I think the league would be better off without Tulane.

Though it's absurd for them to get dropped for Marshall, wouldn't you say Marshall is a better program? I don't understand why people are hating on Marshall, but I haven't been a huge follower of Marshall.

And when did Army get that offer? Why aren't they jumping on it?

Personally, I think Army being a conference bottom dweller (and let's be honest, Army has sucked), is A LOT better than Marshall, Tulane, Southern Miss, Whoever Else in this conference.

Aresco and Navy have been pushing for Army and for that matter Air Force for a while now, but neither Army nor Air Force seem all that interested. Tulane is a good coach away from being very good. They have excellent recruiting grounds plenty of dollars, but they need to hire an up and coming coach.

As for Marshall they are in a league that they can compete in. They were not competitive in CUSA when the current AAC were in the league with them and wouldn't be competitive if there were recruiting requirements placed on them; which would make them a bottom dweller again. CUSA's profile is perfect for Marshall and it allows Marshall to recruit anyway that they want. On top of that Marshall has natural rivals in WKU and ODU. The only thing missing from CUSA is Appalachian State, which is Marshall's biggest rival.

Marshall has zero academics and a very small market that brings nothing of value to the AAC. Bring on BYU,Colorado State,Air Force and Army.

(10-24-2015 11:04 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 10:57 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 10:54 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 10:49 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 10:39 AM)pesik Wrote:  brand name? please stop, are you basing this off a movie

you have zero clue how expansion works

and i dont get how you are using marshalls 2 years of "above average" for their justification for a football invite in a dramatically weaken c-usa (prisoner of the moment)

but saying boise is terrible in basketball when they made the tourney 2 of the last 3 years

ill summarize it for you if we can get mwc we arent touching marshall...if we cant get mwc we probably still would pick marshall

You just contradicted yourself. If Marshall's good two years (more than that, but whatever) is not a good justification for them being in the conference, how is Boise State's two NCAAs in not just 3 three years but a long time a justification for their inclusion for basketball.

Anyway, I might agree with you about adding one other MWC instead of Marshall (for basketball) so trade UNLV and San Diego St. for Marshall and Air Force and have 14 in basketball (with the former) and Boise State and Navy are the two football-only schools in a 16-team football conference.

lol i was point out your contradiction...not adding one of my own

you have marshall as a good football despite it only being recent, but dont count boise as a good basketball despite them having alot of success recently

Regardless, I believe we need to expand to add more good football and basketball schools while minimizing adding schools that are bad at one of the sports (E. Carolina in basketball, Tulane in both). Tulane was only adding because UConn wanted to buy an AAU vote to get into the B1G.
The best scenario in my mind is booting Tulane and adding BYU for all sports.

You are not a UConn fan. You are a Marshall fan using a UConn handle that will not come to grips with the that Marshall can not compete in the AAC in any sport. No way any UConn fan is asking to have Marshall in their conference. UMass as a full memeber would be a much better addition than Marshall as a football only.

Lmao I was about to say the exact same thing

Canada has 35,000,000 residents. Huge untapped market

(10-24-2015 10:06 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Here's what I'm thinking (9-game conference schedule, 2 power 5 opponents, 1 non-fcs opponent):
East:
UConn
Cincy
Temple
Tulane
USF
UCF
E. Carolina
Marshall (football-only)
West:
SMU
Houston
Navy
Memphis
Tulsa
BYU
Boise State (football-only)
Air Force (football-only)
16 in football, 12 in basketball

Oregon is becoming known as the Napa Valley of pot growing. Has some of our strong stuff made it over to Connecticut? Just askin'.

.

The AAC should expand to include every division 1 football program because it makes about as much sense as any other expansion proposal I see on this board

Unless Aresco is aware of us losing programs that are important to the FB side of things, we don't expand until the Big 12 or ACC poaches a program.

However, if a western block of Boise, BYU, AFA with Army in the east wishes to consider FB only membership, then that is a conversation we have. Getting to 14 in that scenario insures us against future losses to the Big 12 / ACC.

Otherwise, we are what we are.

(10-24-2015 12:48 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Aresco and Navy have been pushing for Army and for that matter Air Force for a while now, but neither Army nor Air Force seem all that interested. Tulane is a good coach away from being very good. They have excellent recruiting grounds plenty of dollars, but they need to hire an up and coming coach.

So, how does hiring an "up and comer" mask the fact that Tulane doesn't have jock-friendly majors and that sorta' restricts what all a coach can do in regards to recruiting?

If it was that easy, Colorado would have figure it out with their PAC-12 dollars.

(10-24-2015 01:52 PM)AllPtsBulletin Wrote:  

(10-24-2015 12:48 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Aresco and Navy have been pushing for Army and for that matter Air Force for a while now, but neither Army nor Air Force seem all that interested. Tulane is a good coach away from being very good. They have excellent recruiting grounds plenty of dollars, but they need to hire an up and coming coach.

So, how does hiring an "up and comer" mask the fact that Tulane doesn't have jock-friendly majors and that sorta' restricts what all a coach can do in regards to recruiting?

If it was that easy, Colorado would have figure it out with their PAC-12 dollars.

What kid wants to go to a town called boulder.

What kid doesn't want to go to New Orleans