All, let me start this off by saying that the point of this discussion is not to "name" the Teams that should be shown the door, but to discuss if the decision to move to 10 Teams is in the best interest of the Conference. Who those two teams is not "the topic", so please don't throw names out. It just will result is a Moderator locking the thread.

Is going to 10 Teams the best financial decision for the AAC? What do you say?

Deregulation of the Championship game is an opportunity the AAC should embrace. Why do WE have 12 members again?.....those were the rules at the time and a commonly accepted notion in the era of modern day college football (The minimum number of Teams needed for a Conference is 12). Seems the new number is "10".

The AAC should use the years left on its ESPN contract to determine which two teams get "voted off the Island". If your Team is consistently noncompetitive, You fail to meet meaningful attendance requirements, your TV ratings are the lowest on a regular basis....You got to go, no hard feelings.

Do you REALLY believe ESPN would reduce our contract because we discharged the two bottom teams? Those two bottom teams, whoever they are, are not moving the needle when it comes to TV $$$...plus or minus. They are however counted in a denominator for a simple math-problem. We need to reduce the denominator in the math equation.

Fortunately, all of our programs are doing the heavy lifting (sans ECU basketball) to be successful across the board.

Tulane is going to pass a few teams in the very near future. Great baseball and football hires (basketball is next)

There is a competitive vibe in the AAC that bodes well for the future.

Agree with you that this is a serious discussion and shouldn't be locked/moved (hence the thread I created).

I would rather move to 9 all sports members and pick up 2 established, tourney-quality basketball programs as non-football members.

(01-14-2016 12:21 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Agree with you that this is a serious discussion and shouldn't be locked/moved (hence the thread I created).

I would rather move to 9 all sports members and pick up 2 established, tourney-quality basketball programs as non-football members.

As far as historical success goes. UCONN would be one of those non-football members.

That would be a disaster if we ended up being poached.

(01-14-2016 12:17 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Fortunately, all of our programs are doing the heavy lifting (sans ECU basketball) to be successful across the board.

Tulane is going to pass a few teams in the very near future. Great baseball and football hires (basketball is next)

There is a competitive vibe in the AAC that bodes well for the future.

There is NOTHING to suggest that Tulane will "pass" anything in the near future. They could very well continue to be the "Rutgers" of the AAC...

(01-14-2016 12:22 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:21 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Agree with you that this is a serious discussion and shouldn't be locked/moved (hence the thread I created).

I would rather move to 9 all sports members and pick up 2 established, tourney-quality basketball programs as non-football members.

As far as historical success goes. UCONN would be one of those non-football members.

Hmm...I guess that means UCONN football would be independent. If that were the case, we would definitely seek out the Big East for all other sports. They are clearly superior to the AAC in basketball these days...

(01-14-2016 12:11 AM)EddieThePirate Wrote:  All, let me start this off by saying that the point of this discussion is not to "name" the Teams that should be shown the door, but to discuss if the decision to move to 10 Teams is in the best interest of the Conference. Who those two teams is not "the topic", so please don't throw names out. It just will result is a Moderator locking the thread.

Is going to 10 Teams the best financial decision for the AAC? What do you say?

Deregulation of the Championship game is an opportunity the AAC should embrace. Why do WE have 12 members again?.....those were the rules at the time and a commonly accepted notion in the era of modern day college football (The minimum number of Teams needed for a Conference is 12). Seems the new number is "10".

The AAC should use the years left on its ESPN contract to determine which two teams get "voted off the Island". If your Team is consistently noncompetitive, You fail to meet meaningful attendance requirements, your TV ratings are the lowest on a regular basis....You got to go, no hard feelings.

Do you REALLY believe ESPN would reduce our contract because we discharged the two bottom teams? Those two bottom teams, whoever they are, are not moving the needle when it comes to TV $$$...plus or minus. They are however counted in a denominator for a simple math-problem. We need to reduce the denominator in the math equation.

To the OP, this is largely about institutions and presidents make the decisions. You better be careful what you wish for. You would think that after being associated with high research institutions for 20 years you would realize that. Guess not. If it was up to your model we have the C-USA deal, flush with all of its minor bowl football programs and institutions. That said no one is getting kicked out, especially for want of a few hundred thousand a year, which is all that would be gained.

I can't see our presidents throwing almost 20% of our membership out. .....just one fan's opinion.

The request not to name teams to be thrown out lasted 11 words.

Sticking at 10 would be good IF we got poached. What we have right now seems to be working even with wild fluctuations in who is getting the results. Why would you **** up a working formula?

No, im not for kicking anyone out. But I do think we should take a hard look at the best strategy for our conference in the CFP selection committee landscape. The "its the way its always been done" reasoning needs to be tossed aside. For instance, one problem G5 teams face is SOS. A G5 champ, playing a full conference schedule and CCG will log 9 of its 13 games against G5 competition. Its going to be very difficult for any G5 to have an SOS that can propel them to the top 4 when their schedule includes 9 G5's.

By rule, in order to qualify to have a CCG, a conference must divide into equal divisions and play a round robin within those divisions. Technically, that means a 12 team conference would really only need to require its teams play 5 conference games to hold a CCG (just a divisional round robin). You'd want at least one cross divisional game to allow some sort of contact with the other division. So, its feasible for the AAC to have just 6 conference games. That would free its teams up to play as many as 6 OOC games (that's only one less "open" game than the Notre Dame has in their quasi "indy" relationship with the ACC).

This would allow the AAC teams the flexibility to schedule more P5s. It would allow the AAC to build scheduling agreements with BYU and Army (since the AAC would have open weeks later in the season). This would allow the AAC to challenge the top G5's from other conferences. Having more home and homes with P5's would increase our media value and increase our attractiveness to recruits. It would also land the AAC more prime time viewing slots on ESPN and ABC. It would give the conference more opportunities to shine on the big stage. My guess is ESPN would be pretty supportive of such an effort.

Realistically, we'd probably have to do one FCS buy game in order to maintain 6 home games because some of the top P5's would want 2-for-1's. Still, I think there is an opportunity there to differentiate this league from the other G5 conferences.

(01-14-2016 12:47 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  Sticking at 10 would be good IF we got poached. What we have right now seems to be working even with wild fluctuations in who is getting the results. Why would you **** up a working formula?

In my humble and simple opinion, that's the perfect answer. I'd hate to see us kick any member out, but if a couple left and the member presidents thought that the conference would be just as strong with only 10 members, that path makes perfect sense.

(01-14-2016 12:23 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  That would be a disaster if we ended up being poached.

Given the new regulations, Why would the AAC ever be poached? Think about it....No P5 conference will be accepting new members. This new rules shuts that door.

(01-14-2016 12:17 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Fortunately, all of our programs are doing the heavy lifting (sans ECU basketball) to be successful across the board.

Tulane is going to pass a few teams in the very near future. Great baseball and football hires (basketball is next)

There is a competitive vibe in the AAC that bodes well for the future.

Fortunately, all of our programs are doing the heavy lifting....be honest with yourself. That's not true, just look at the records the last three years.

And regarding ECU Basketball....we've never come in last place :)

Again, naming schools is not the point. Discussing the question about what's in the best financial interest of the conference is the topic.

(01-14-2016 12:37 AM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:11 AM)EddieThePirate Wrote:  All, let me start this off by saying that the point of this discussion is not to "name" the Teams that should be shown the door, but to discuss if the decision to move to 10 Teams is in the best interest of the Conference. Who those two teams is not "the topic", so please don't throw names out. It just will result is a Moderator locking the thread.

Is going to 10 Teams the best financial decision for the AAC? What do you say?

Deregulation of the Championship game is an opportunity the AAC should embrace. Why do WE have 12 members again?.....those were the rules at the time and a commonly accepted notion in the era of modern day college football (The minimum number of Teams needed for a Conference is 12). Seems the new number is "10".

The AAC should use the years left on its ESPN contract to determine which two teams get "voted off the Island". If your Team is consistently noncompetitive, You fail to meet meaningful attendance requirements, your TV ratings are the lowest on a regular basis....You got to go, no hard feelings.

Do you REALLY believe ESPN would reduce our contract because we discharged the two bottom teams? Those two bottom teams, whoever they are, are not moving the needle when it comes to TV $$$...plus or minus. They are however counted in a denominator for a simple math-problem. We need to reduce the denominator in the math equation.

To the OP, this is largely about institutions and presidents make the decisions. You better be careful what you wish for. You would think that after being associated with high research institutions for 20 years you would realize that. Guess not. If it was up to your model we have the C-USA deal, flush with all of its minor bowl football programs and institutions. That said no one is getting kicked out, especially for want of a few hundred thousand a year, which is all that would be gained.

"If it was up to your model we have the C-USA deal, flush with all of its minor bowl football programs and institutions"....How so? How is reducing the number of Teams, by discharging noncompetitive Teams, lead us to the "CUSA Model"? It doesn't.

So is that what happens during TV Negotiation? Our Commissioner reminding ESPN about Tulane's "Research Institution" status. Listen to yourself.....

We are are 12 because those were the rules at the time. Times changes, and so should we.

> Mod tells you not to make this topic again
> You make said topic again...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(01-14-2016 12:23 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  That would be a disaster if we ended up being poached.

Exactly right. This new rule will slow expansion, not end it. Had the BE added 2 FB only members 3 or 4 years before the last go round, the AAC might well still be a P6.
Go to 9 or 10 and you have little to no leeway with raids. at 12 you still have a base to build from.

(01-14-2016 08:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:23 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  That would be a disaster if we ended up being poached.

Exactly right. This new rule will slow expansion, not end it. Had the BE added 2 FB only members 3 or 4 years before the last go round, the AAC might well still be a P6.
Go to 9 or 10 and you have little to no leeway with raids. at 12 you still have a base to build from.

I'm having a hard time seeing this scenario....why would expansion not end? Why would P5 conferences continue to grow?

(01-14-2016 12:21 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Agree with you that this is a serious discussion and shouldn't be locked/moved (hence the thread I created).

I would rather move to 9 all sports members and pick up 2 established, tourney-quality basketball programs as non-football members.

Great post. I would go with 10 football members and a round robin schedule + Wichita State and VCU.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I like the AAC as is. I have been very surprised and pleased with how this has turned out so far. We are getting the rep as the best non P5 conference, and some nice rivalries are starting to form. I would love to see all the schools take the attitude that Tom Herman did, and say no thanks, I really like this school and conference, I am staying. But I still get the feeling that most schools are checking voice mails everyday, hoping they get a message from the Big 12.