Take it for what is is worth. There is talk that Aresco with the backing of several AAC schools are making a push for adding Army, Air Force and Colorado State for if and when we lose 1 to 3 members. The idea that these 3 could be in a conference together with Navy may be enough to pry them away. Uconn likes the close proximity and potential rivalry with Army.

That would be a friggin home run. I'd say Aresco would completely deserve to flip the bat and watch the shot sail over the fence if he pulls that off.

Now that is 3 solid "names" to add.

(07-30-2016 06:13 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  Take it for what is is worth. There is talk that Aresco with the backing of several AAC schools are making a push for adding Army, Air Force and Colorado State for if and when we lose 1 to 3 members. The idea that these 3 could be in a conference together with Navy may be enough to pry them away. Uconn likes the close proximity and potential rivalry with Army.

If he can pull that off build a statue. We should invite them regardless of what happens w the Big12.

Our TV situation is saved if he pulls that off. Aresco is a TV guy he's knows what he's doing.

(07-30-2016 06:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That would be a friggin home run. I'd say Aresco would completely deserve to flip the bat and watch the shot sail over the fence if he pulls that off.

(07-30-2016 06:13 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  Take it for what is is worth. There is talk that Aresco with the backing of several AAC schools are making a push for adding Army, Air Force and Colorado State for if and when we lose 1 to 3 members. The idea that these 3 could be in a conference together with Navy may be enough to pry them away. Uconn likes the close proximity and potential rivalry with Army.

If he can pull this off, we will not be left behind.

If this happened, the AAC would be my favorite conference of all-time. I love the thought of the academies in conference play.

Along with Tulane, they'd seriously test the defenses of this conference with the option. That'd be 1/4th of the slate.

(07-30-2016 06:13 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  Take it for what is is worth. There is talk that Aresco with the backing of several AAC schools are making a push for adding Army, Air Force and Colorado State for if and when we lose 1 to 3 members. The idea that these 3 could be in a conference together with Navy may be enough to pry them away. Uconn likes the close proximity and potential rivalry with Army.

Would be a perfect scoop. Where is the 'talk' coming from?



Must realize that UCONN administration does not matter in this. Their fans will be on suicide watch. We need to add a fourth school steeped in psychiatric care for those folks.

.

Bring on Army...that's like sex panther to us! SMU v Army? 60% of the time, we'd win all the time! Yay...more potential close games!

******* option.

I've said all along and continue to say...the mwc and the aac should merge. It would become the best of the rest, it would basically be the conference that gets the NY6 bowl most years and that's the best you can hope for at this point. You take the 9 AAC schools left + add Army + four MWC to go to 14

I would add: Boise, AF, Col St, and UNLV

East:
ECU
UCONN
Army
Navy
USF
UCF
Temple

West:
Boise
AF
UNLV
Col. St
Tulsa
Tulane
SMU


that's a good conference and if UC were to be left behind, that is the conference I would accept moving forward

Adding Army, Air Force and CSU would be a stellar outcome, IF real. Army and Air Force should want to advance into a more competitive environment given the new more liberal rules on academy athletes, and CSU should want to enter the "P5 waiting room".

However, basketball would still need to be shored up. That would mean VCU, WSU and UMass. Of these, VCU is the only perfect add. WSU is not a ranked national university, and UMass would have to exclude football until they get their sh_t together.

All of that said, our future is largely in ESPN's hands. The Big 12 is screwing with them on this expansion, so it will be interesting to see how ESPN reacts.

Excellent Post

I presume this has been asked before, but I'm too lazy to use the search function, so here goes:

What is the attraction of Army?

I mean, from an institutional standpoint I get it: Army is a strong school with a rich heritage of academics and, in our grandparents' time, top athletics. The Navy-Army game is unlike any in any level of sports.

But their football has been, to put it charitably, poor. Since going 10-2 in 1996, they've had one winning season (7-6 in 2010). They've won 14 games in the past five years. The last coach to leave with a winning record there was Jim Young in the 1980s. Their national exposure is mostly limited to the Navy and Notre Dame games.

Maybe the ability to go pro without a lengthy service commitment helps them, but at the same time, Navy and Air Force have managed to build successful programs within those parameters.

I think you can make an argument for Army. My confusion is how people here act as though they're an immediate credibility boost and a far sight better than any team from CUSA (a conference they joined, were rarely competitive, then left). The way some people around here talk, you'd think they were the Eastern equivalent of BYU, a P5-quality program left in independent limbo. When in fact they've shown little tendency to be anything better than mediocre for most of the past 50 years).

I neither dislike nor don't respect Army. I'm trying to figure out what makes them THAT attractive a target.

(07-31-2016 12:57 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I presume this has been asked before, but I'm too lazy to use the search function, so here goes:

What is the attraction of Army?

I mean, from an institutional standpoint I get it: Army is a strong school with a rich heritage of academics and, in our grandparents' time, top athletics. The Navy-Army game is unlike any in any level of sports.

But their football has been, to put it charitably, poor. Since going 10-2 in 1996, they've had one winning season (7-6 in 2010). They've won 14 games in the past five years. The last coach to leave with a winning record there was Jim Young in the 1980s. Their national exposure is mostly limited to the Navy and Notre Dame games.

Maybe the ability to go pro without a lengthy service commitment helps them, but at the same time, Navy and Air Force have managed to build successful programs within those parameters.

I think you can make an argument for Army. My confusion is how people here act as though they're an immediate credibility boost and a far sight better than any team from CUSA (a conference they joined, were rarely competitive, then left). The way some people around here talk, you'd think they were the Eastern equivalent of BYU, a P5-quality program left in independent limbo. When in fact they've shown little tendency to be anything better than mediocre for most of the past 50 years).

I neither dislike nor don't respect Army. I'm trying to figure out what makes them THAT attractive a target.

National program-fans all around the country
TV loves the military academies and will pay more to televise their games
Political clout (if the P5 tries to break away one day in football they will not leave them behind)
Great tradition and history (not a winner lately but have been important in college football for decades)
Great stadium
Great academics
Opposing teams fans love playing Army (ECU always had great crowds when they came to play, more ticket sales, more money for host schools)
Great compliment to Navy, showcase for the conference
Army/Navy game (nothing more to say)

No other teams in the G5 can match this. Not even close. It doesn't matter what their recent records have been.

It all comes down the money. The AAC will get more money by adding Army. They will get less money if they add CUSA, Mac, or sun belt teams.

(07-31-2016 12:57 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I presume this has been asked before, but I'm too lazy to use the search function, so here goes:

What is the attraction of Army?

I mean, from an institutional standpoint I get it: Army is a strong school with a rich heritage of academics and, in our grandparents' time, top athletics. The Navy-Army game is unlike any in any level of sports.

But their football has been, to put it charitably, poor. Since going 10-2 in 1996, they've had one winning season (7-6 in 2010). They've won 14 games in the past five years. The last coach to leave with a winning record there was Jim Young in the 1980s. Their national exposure is mostly limited to the Navy and Notre Dame games.

Maybe the ability to go pro without a lengthy service commitment helps them, but at the same time, Navy and Air Force have managed to build successful programs within those parameters.

I think you can make an argument for Army. My confusion is how people here act as though they're an immediate credibility boost and a far sight better than any team from CUSA (a conference they joined, were rarely competitive, then left). The way some people around here talk, you'd think they were the Eastern equivalent of BYU, a P5-quality program left in independent limbo. When in fact they've shown little tendency to be anything better than mediocre for most of the past 50 years).

I neither dislike nor don't respect Army. I'm trying to figure out what makes them THAT attractive a target.

Simple answer: money, national prestige, viewership.

We all understand that Army is not very competitive, but the service academies hold the key to the most lucrative non-P5 contract out there. To have the entirety of the CIC teams completely in conference play? That alone is worth tens-of millions a year. Maybe upwards of $100 million.

Navy proved you can win at an Academy, and get eyeballs doing it too. Houston may have won the Fiesta Bowl, but Navy blew away every other team in the conference for viewership, and they're mostly not even on espn!

Even if they aren't winning, the academies demand respect. If I had the choice of poor football quality from, say, Charlotte, UMass, ODU, Marshall et al, or Army... i'm taking Army every single time.

Besides, outside of the gridiron, the opportunity for your University to have a direct connection to the Military Academies in terms of Academics, Research, Networking... the opportunities are endless.

(07-31-2016 12:57 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I presume this has been asked before, but I'm too lazy to use the search function, so here goes:

What is the attraction of Army?

I mean, from an institutional standpoint I get it: Army is a strong school with a rich heritage of academics and, in our grandparents' time, top athletics. The Navy-Army game is unlike any in any level of sports.

But their football has been, to put it charitably, poor. Since going 10-2 in 1996, they've had one winning season (7-6 in 2010). They've won 14 games in the past five years. The last coach to leave with a winning record there was Jim Young in the 1980s. Their national exposure is mostly limited to the Navy and Notre Dame games.

Maybe the ability to go pro without a lengthy service commitment helps them, but at the same time, Navy and Air Force have managed to build successful programs within those parameters.

I think you can make an argument for Army. My confusion is how people here act as though they're an immediate credibility boost and a far sight better than any team from CUSA (a conference they joined, were rarely competitive, then left). The way some people around here talk, you'd think they were the Eastern equivalent of BYU, a P5-quality program left in independent limbo. When in fact they've shown little tendency to be anything better than mediocre for most of the past 50 years).

I neither dislike nor don't respect Army. I'm trying to figure out what makes them THAT attractive a target.

Name the other schools that have negotiated their own national TV deal and bowl contracts that would also consider joining the AAC. Army is a prestigious institution, a great geographical fit and Michie isn't an empty morgue even in Army's worst seasons. That's why Army has been a top candidate going back to the Big East days. They may decline an invite again, however I hope they don't.

That would be the best move if the conference loses 3 teams.
You could have all three academies in one division with private schools and CSU.

Air Force and CSU would be all sports while Army would be football only.

(07-30-2016 07:22 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 06:13 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  

Would be a perfect scoop. Where is the 'talk' coming from?

Hogwash school of journalism..

(07-30-2016 07:22 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 06:13 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  Take it for what is is worth. There is talk that Aresco with the backing of several AAC schools are making a push for adding Army, Air Force and Colorado State for if and when we lose 1 to 3 members. The idea that these 3 could be in a conference together with Navy may be enough to pry them away. Uconn likes the close proximity and potential rivalry with Army.

Would be a perfect scoop. Where is the 'talk' coming from?



Must realize that UCONN administration does not matter in this. Their fans will be on suicide watch. We need to add a fourth school steeped in psychiatric care for those folks.

.

This man makes a good point.

If the scenario is BYU, Houston, UC, UM out the door and Colorado State a close miss on a P5 add wouldn't it be reasonable to think they'll be at the top of the list the next time the B12 expands?

Why bother with a 5 year move to the AAC?