(01-09-2016 06:53 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  LOL.

As we all know, the poaching of Boise State and SDSU by the Big East failed. It fell apart because it made no sense. The expectation that a bunch of former Conference USA schools were going to earn a big payday by reassembling under a new banner was delusional. As soon as it became clear that the money wasn't there to justify playing in an eastern conference, the Broncos backed out, and the Aztecs had no choice but to follow.

And that turned out to be the right decision, as just a year ago it was the MWC that went to the Access Bowl and earned the payout for being the top G5 conference.

One down year in football hardly means the MWC is now an "absolute mess" or that the AAC could convince any MWC school to defect, particularly given that it is the AAC and not the MWC that is at high risk of losing two of its best programs to the Big 12.

It didn't fail. Kustra/Boise State was trying to get Mike Aresco to offer a similar deal that the MWC brokered at the expense of the rest of the conference. He balked. San Diego State wanted to stay in the AAC but reluctantly stayed in the West.

The AAC would have never achieved the success of this year if they would have bent over for Boise State. The NAVY brass particularly have come out publicly against that attempt by Kustra.

There was only one group of schools that were so desperate. The former WAC members that are now residing in the shell of the old MWC. Hawaii is one of those desperate programs, going so far as to accept even less $$ to have teams travel to Hawaii.

It wasn't an accident that MWC teams were losing to the dregs of college football this year. The MWC OOC performance this year was non-competitive. To infer that it was just "a bad year" is blindly tiptoeing through the forest.

Even if the AAC loses 1 or 2 schools, the quality of the programs still in the conference (as well as the exposure the conference is getting) is head and shoulders above what the WAC dregs can counter with.

You gave in to Boise because you had no choice. The AAC obviously did have a choice. Now that Boise is floundering, your optimism that it was just a bad year sounds desperate and out of touch. You've pushed all your chips onto one boat that is showing its age. Boise's run has hit the rocks. You should be worrying about the current CUSA.

Baby steps.

If the goal is to add two why not UCF (2nd largest university) and USF?

(01-09-2016 07:32 PM)FloridaState1990 Wrote:  If the goal is to add two why not UCF (2nd largest university) and USF?

As good as any.

As Mike Aresco said, it's beachfront property. However, competitively it's a tough sell right now. Like I said regarding UCONN, I don't think the Big 12 is going to add a struggling football program. Unlike UCONN though, UCF/USF opens up recruiting in fertile grounds.

We'll see

(01-09-2016 07:38 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 07:32 PM)FloridaState1990 Wrote:  If the goal is to add two why not UCF (2nd largest university) and USF?

As good as any.

As Mike Aresco said, it's beachfront property. However, competitively it's a tough sell right now. Like I said regarding UCONN, I don't think the Big 12 is going to add a struggling football program. Unlike UCONN though, UCF/USF opens up recruiting in fertile grounds.

We'll see

Who exactly is the struggling football program these days? Pretty sure one school went to a Bowl game while the other went 0-12...

(01-09-2016 07:42 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 07:38 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 07:32 PM)FloridaState1990 Wrote:  If the goal is to add two why not UCF (2nd largest university) and USF?

As good as any.

As Mike Aresco said, it's beachfront property. However, competitively it's a tough sell right now. Like I said regarding UCONN, I don't think the Big 12 is going to add a struggling football program. Unlike UCONN though, UCF/USF opens up recruiting in fertile grounds.

We'll see

Who exactly is the struggling football program these days? Pretty sure one school went to a Bowl game while the other went 0-12...

Very true

When it comes to realignment though, conference moves have historically been made by programs that are playing on New Years day (Utah, TCU, Louisville). Rutgers was the exception.

If the Big 12-2 expands, they'll be doing it from a positon of weakness. Conference strength is probably more vital now (in the CFP era) than ever. It's obvious they are trying to put their best foot forward to put their teams in one of those top 4 spots.

Whoever gets chosen is going to be scrutinized as a quality football school.

None of the MWC went 0-12 this year.

MWC did have some good close games this year against P5 schools, but were blah against G5 and FCS schools.

Hawaii beat Colorado
Hawaii made sure their Big 10 opponent did not treat them like Portland State did to North Texas.
UNR scored many points against Texas A&M.
San Diego State played a close game against their P5 opponent.
Colorado State almost beat Colorado and Minnesota.
Air Force played Michigan State tough but lost 35-21.

I would not say close loses and all that as a bad year. I say that it is a win that MWC got the props for playing good games.
Utah State also played Utah close. Some of the AAC schools lost by large margins against P5 schools.

(01-09-2016 06:53 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 06:08 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 03:27 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  If the Big 12 expands eastward I think the AAC's loss would embolden the MWC to attempt its own expansion move. The first step would be to invite the top two western programs passed over by the Big 12, i.e. BYU and Houston. The sales pitch would be that their addition to the MWC coupled with the AAC's loss of Cincinnati and either Memphis or UConn would position the MWC as the top G5 conference. If that doesn't work, the next step would be to offer "all or none" invitations to UTEP and Houston, and potentially to SMU and UTSA.

Either way the MWC has stated it wants a presence in Texas, where the prize is clearly Houston.

The AAC may try to counter by inviting some combination of current MWC members, but that hasn't worked before and there's no reason to think a weakened AAC could pull it off. Probably the best the AAC can hope for is that Houston will stand with it despite the disappointment of being passed over, which is certainly possible.

The AAC/BE has poached the MWC before, and I'm sure the AAC can poach the MWC right now if it wanted (taking into consideration the success of this season and the upcoming media negotiations) but I doubt any overtures have been made from the AAC to any MWC teams in years...

The MWC is a mess... An absolute mess... You're incredibly blind if you don't think that there are MWC teams who'd rather align with teams like NAVY in the East as opposed to a chump share with Boise in the West.

The AAC should look at revisiting an MWC poach. I doubt they can reach a consensus to go above 12.

LOL.

As we all know, the poaching of Boise State and SDSU by the Big East failed. It fell apart because it made no sense. The expectation that a bunch of former Conference USA schools were going to earn a big payday by reassembling under a new banner was delusional. As soon as it became clear that the money wasn't there to justify playing in an eastern conference, the Broncos backed out, and the Aztecs had no choice but to follow.

And that turned out to be the right decision, as just a year ago it was the MWC that went to the Access Bowl and earned the payout for being the top G5 conference.

One down year in football hardly means the MWC is now an "absolute mess" or that the AAC could convince any MWC school to defect, particularly given that it is the AAC and not the MWC that is at high risk of losing two of its best programs to the Big 12.

Why would any MWC schools want to join a conference with Tulsa, Tulane, UConn., USF and Temple when they were a bunch of losers in football? I suspect Temple will be brought back down to earth next year. Memphis would take a nose dive after both coaches are gone. AAC schools are having issues keeping their own coaches to keep themselves relevant year after year.

(01-09-2016 08:22 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Some of the AAC schools lost by large margins against P5 schools.

Those programs just hired very good coaches.

The MWC's losses against really bad teams speaks louder than their close loss moral victories against those autonomy schools.

(01-09-2016 08:28 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 08:22 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Some of the AAC schools lost by large margins against P5 schools.

Those programs just hired very good coaches.

The MWC's losses against really bad teams speaks louder than their close loss moral victories against those autonomy schools.

Who was better in bowl games? MWC>AAC.

Same thread, different day.

(01-09-2016 08:27 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 06:53 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 06:08 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 03:27 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  If the Big 12 expands eastward I think the AAC's loss would embolden the MWC to attempt its own expansion move. The first step would be to invite the top two western programs passed over by the Big 12, i.e. BYU and Houston. The sales pitch would be that their addition to the MWC coupled with the AAC's loss of Cincinnati and either Memphis or UConn would position the MWC as the top G5 conference. If that doesn't work, the next step would be to offer "all or none" invitations to UTEP and Houston, and potentially to SMU and UTSA.

Either way the MWC has stated it wants a presence in Texas, where the prize is clearly Houston.

The AAC may try to counter by inviting some combination of current MWC members, but that hasn't worked before and there's no reason to think a weakened AAC could pull it off. Probably the best the AAC can hope for is that Houston will stand with it despite the disappointment of being passed over, which is certainly possible.

The AAC/BE has poached the MWC before, and I'm sure the AAC can poach the MWC right now if it wanted (taking into consideration the success of this season and the upcoming media negotiations) but I doubt any overtures have been made from the AAC to any MWC teams in years...

The MWC is a mess... An absolute mess... You're incredibly blind if you don't think that there are MWC teams who'd rather align with teams like NAVY in the East as opposed to a chump share with Boise in the West.

The AAC should look at revisiting an MWC poach. I doubt they can reach a consensus to go above 12.

LOL.

As we all know, the poaching of Boise State and SDSU by the Big East failed. It fell apart because it made no sense. The expectation that a bunch of former Conference USA schools were going to earn a big payday by reassembling under a new banner was delusional. As soon as it became clear that the money wasn't there to justify playing in an eastern conference, the Broncos backed out, and the Aztecs had no choice but to follow.

And that turned out to be the right decision, as just a year ago it was the MWC that went to the Access Bowl and earned the payout for being the top G5 conference.

One down year in football hardly means the MWC is now an "absolute mess" or that the AAC could convince any MWC school to defect, particularly given that it is the AAC and not the MWC that is at high risk of losing two of its best programs to the Big 12.

Why would any MWC schools want to join a conference with Tulsa, Tulane, UConn., USF and Temple when they were a bunch of losers in football? I suspect Temple will be brought back down to earth next year. Memphis would take a nose dive after both coaches are gone. AAC schools are having issues keeping their own coaches to keep themselves relevant year after year.

We can't all be football juggernauts like Arkansas Tech.

(01-09-2016 08:27 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Why would any MWC schools want to join a conference with Tulsa, Tulane, UConn., USF and Temple when they were a bunch of losers in football? I suspect Temple will be brought back down to earth next year. Memphis would take a nose dive after both coaches are gone. AAC schools are having issues keeping their own coaches to keep themselves relevant year after year.

Fritz, Frost, Norvell, and even Montgomery, are not a bad collection of incoming coaches.

Back to Earth?? Those schools are succeeding at a higher level now because they've all made investments. BIG investments.

The AAC has succeeded because they've fostered a culture of investment. This isn't the same Tulane. It's not the same Temple.

For the AAC to retain Tom Herman and Matt Rhule, that speaks volumes about the perception in the conference.

You're living in the BCS era obviously.

(01-09-2016 02:41 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 12:57 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 12:48 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Big 12 Would be smart to add BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and Memphis to get to 14.

If that happens I think the American would be more east coast oriented. They would probably add UMass, Old Dominion, and GA Southern to get back to 12. SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane on an island could lead to them leaving and the American adding Army, Marshall, and App State

Don't think this is possible. I think if they add 4 they have to renegotiate the TV contract which they don't want.

I thought I read last summer they could add 4 without redoing the TV deal.

If their contract is for a fixed dollar amount, no matter how many teams, then adding four members just reduces the per school take even further, and makes the value per team for a CCG even less. If they are currently getting $17 million per team, going to 14 would reduce that payout to $13.5 million unless their media partners cough up more money.

Right now, they are facing the prospect of a new contract with the B1G, and any money they add to the Big 12's deal is money they don't have for the B1G. With financial pressure being exerted by Disney, ESPN isn't likely to dig very deep for G5 schools with questionable drawing power. The Big 12 would be lucky to break even if they expand by two. No chance if they go beyond that unless they do it by adding at least a couple of marquee P5 teams.

BYU, Memphis, UCF, USF, Boise, Colo St, East Carolina, etc. are not candidates.

The only candidates are UConn, Cincy and Houston.

(01-09-2016 07:58 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 07:42 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 07:38 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 07:32 PM)FloridaState1990 Wrote:  If the goal is to add two why not UCF (2nd largest university) and USF?

As good as any.

As Mike Aresco said, it's beachfront property. However, competitively it's a tough sell right now. Like I said regarding UCONN, I don't think the Big 12 is going to add a struggling football program. Unlike UCONN though, UCF/USF opens up recruiting in fertile grounds.

We'll see

Who exactly is the struggling football program these days? Pretty sure one school went to a Bowl game while the other went 0-12...

Very true

When it comes to realignment though, conference moves have historically been made by programs that are playing on New Years day (Utah, TCU, Louisville). Rutgers was the exception.

If the Big 12-2 expands, they'll be doing it from a positon of weakness. Conference strength is probably more vital now (in the CFP era) than ever. It's obvious they are trying to put their best foot forward to put their teams in one of those top 4 spots.

Whoever gets chosen is going to be scrutinized as a quality football school.

Louisville was struggling thru 4 years of Kragthorpe when they were tagged. Syracuse, BC, Pitt were not very familiar at all with New Year's Bowl games, at least since the Tony Dorsett years (35 years)

They target Army and Air Force. When those say no, they invite Rice and UMass.

If the AAC lost UConn and Cincy, i believe they would either

ADD Rice and Old Dominion, moving Memphis to the East

OR

Expand to 16 doing the coast to coast conference goal
SDSU, Boise, Air Force, Rice, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Navy

Houston, Memphis, Temple, ECU, UCF, USF, ODU, USM

SDSU, Boise, Air Force and Navy would be Football Only

I dont think army will ever join the AAC. Doing so would force the army navy game to move from the week after championship week to most likely rivalry weekend the week before the championship game. The value in the army navy game is two prestigious schools having an exclusive timeslot. Forcing that game to compete against a plethora of in state rivalry games with likely national title implications impacts its worth the prestigious exclusivity they currently have.

The premise is losing UC and UConn to the B12. So the focus should be what happens next in the AAC. To me, going from 12 to 10 and then to 14 or 16 makes no sense. It would be an overreaction to a perceived loss in power. Don't get me wrong. Losing those two programs would be a big blow but not lethal. There are programs like Temple, Houston, Memphis, UCF and ECU that attract regional followings, plus a national following in Navy. Since the losses would be from the East the natural impulse should be to replace in the East. Old Dominion connects the South Atlantic with the Mid-Atlantic and northwards. UMass probably is not ready to make the next step but it is a flagship school. Buffalo may be another option and may be more ready to jump than UMass. Then there's that G5 Superpower, NIU. Maybe replacements come from the MAC and Buffalo/Northern Illinois jump through.

In the end, I think the AAC would make a more conventional move.

(01-09-2016 09:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 02:41 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 12:57 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 12:48 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Big 12 Would be smart to add BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and Memphis to get to 14.

If that happens I think the American would be more east coast oriented. They would probably add UMass, Old Dominion, and GA Southern to get back to 12. SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane on an island could lead to them leaving and the American adding Army, Marshall, and App State

Don't think this is possible. I think if they add 4 they have to renegotiate the TV contract which they don't want.

I thought I read last summer they could add 4 without redoing the TV deal.

If their contract is for a fixed dollar amount, no matter how many teams, then adding four members just reduces the per school take even further, and makes the value per team for a CCG even less. If they are currently getting $17 million per team, going to 14 would reduce that payout to $13.5 million unless their media partners cough up more money.

Right now, they are facing the prospect of a new contract with the B1G, and any money they add to the Big 12's deal is money they don't have for the B1G. With financial pressure being exerted by Disney, ESPN isn't likely to dig very deep for G5 schools with questionable drawing power. The Big 12 would be lucky to break even if they expand by two. No chance if they go beyond that unless they do it by adding at least a couple of marquee P5 teams.

The B-12 deal, that has already been signed, says that the networks will keep the pro-rata shares for the ten team Big12 at their current rate if the conference expands to 12 members. In other words, ESPN/Fox have already committed to paying an extra 20 million each for whichever 2 schools the Big12 chooses to expand with (per Oklahoma president Boren). So, this isn't a situation where the Big-12 has to hope the networks will be willing to pay extra. This is a situation where the contracts have already been signed and the networks have already committed to pay extra in writing during the last contract negotiation. So, the current B12 schools will not see their individual media checks decrease due to adding two new members. However, the monies that the current members receive from bowls, the CFP, and NCAA tournament credits WILL decrease due to being split 12 ways rather than 10.