(09-07-2016 02:45 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  It couldn't matter one iota less if the OP thinks ODU "deserves" to be in the discussion.

Take a look around at the last five years of realignment and tell me how many of the moves were the most "deserving" candidates. By FlyHawk's pro Marshall centric qualifications, I'd say at least half of all realignment moves have been made with "more deserving" candidates out there.

One thing is for sure, the "market" strategy doesn't work for the G5, I sure hope other conference like the MW and AAC took note of our failure. So if you don't put market high on a perch, what are you going to put up there? Overall program? support? competitiveness? budget? Too many unknowns of what a conference will be looking for from here on out.

Assuming Houston goes to the Big XII, the AAC drops to 10 full-time members.

The AAC should strongly consider adding Marshall in the east, and geographically friendly LA Tech, USM and Rice in the west. This adds 4 good football brands to the AAC, while simultaneously strengthening the quality of football in AAC west.

(09-08-2016 11:31 AM)herdinva Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 02:45 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  It couldn't matter one iota less if the OP thinks ODU "deserves" to be in the discussion.

Take a look around at the last five years of realignment and tell me how many of the moves were the most "deserving" candidates. By FlyHawk's pro Marshall centric qualifications, I'd say at least half of all realignment moves have been made with "more deserving" candidates out there.

One thing is for sure, the "market" strategy doesn't work for the G5, I sure hope other conference like the MW and AAC took note of our failure. So if you don't put market high on a perch, what are you going to put up there? Overall program? support? competitiveness? budget? Too many unknowns of what a conference will be looking for from here on out.

If "market" is the only real positive you have you're correct it's proven to be a failure. Now if the positives and negatives are relatively similar then I'd probably use market as a tiebreaker if I were a decision maker. For me budget and fan base would be the top 2 qualifications I'd be looking for. At the G5 level TV deals are only going to be a small part of the overall athletic budget, so expecting just changing leagues to cause a large budget growth is not realistic. I'd want to add programs who are already towards the upper end of G5 budgets.

(09-08-2016 11:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:31 AM)herdinva Wrote:  [quote='MTPiKapp' pid='13546114' dateline='1473277510']
It couldn't matter one iota less if the OP thinks ODU "deserves" to be in the discussion.

Take a look around at the last five years of realignment and tell me how many of the moves were the most "deserving" candidates. By FlyHawk's pro Marshall centric qualifications, I'd say at least half of all realignment moves have been made with "more deserving" candidates out there.

One thing is for sure, the "market" strategy doesn't work for the G5, I sure hope other conference like the MW and AAC took note of our failure. So if you don't put market high on a perch, what are you going to put up there? Overall program? support? competitiveness? budget? Too many unknowns of what a conference will be looking for from here on out.

If "market" is the only real positive you have you're correct it's proven to be a failure. Now if the positives and negatives are relatively similar then I'd probably use market as a tiebreaker if I were a decision maker. For me budget and fan base would be the top 2 qualifications I'd be looking for. At the G5 level TV deals are only going to be a small part of the overall athletic budget, so expecting just changing leagues to cause a large budget growth is not realistic. I'd want to add programs who are already towards the upper end of G5 budgets.
[/quote

You would have a problem is that is the case. No one currently in CUSA or even the MW (other than a few select schools) etc comes even close to the bottom member of the AAC. I would also be leery of a budget that is heavily subsidized because a budget of that nature is misleading and always changing due to state dollars and/or students not wanting to pay the extra tuition. Who knows though.

(09-08-2016 12:10 PM)herdinva Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:31 AM)herdinva Wrote:  [quote='MTPiKapp' pid='13546114' dateline='1473277510']
It couldn't matter one iota less if the OP thinks ODU "deserves" to be in the discussion.

Take a look around at the last five years of realignment and tell me how many of the moves were the most "deserving" candidates. By FlyHawk's pro Marshall centric qualifications, I'd say at least half of all realignment moves have been made with "more deserving" candidates out there.

One thing is for sure, the "market" strategy doesn't work for the G5, I sure hope other conference like the MW and AAC took note of our failure. So if you don't put market high on a perch, what are you going to put up there? Overall program? support? competitiveness? budget? Too many unknowns of what a conference will be looking for from here on out.

If "market" is the only real positive you have you're correct it's proven to be a failure. Now if the positives and negatives are relatively similar then I'd probably use market as a tiebreaker if I were a decision maker. For me budget and fan base would be the top 2 qualifications I'd be looking for. At the G5 level TV deals are only going to be a small part of the overall athletic budget, so expecting just changing leagues to cause a large budget growth is not realistic. I'd want to add programs who are already towards the upper end of G5 budgets.
[/quote

You would have a problem is that is the case. No one currently in CUSA or even the MW (other than a few select schools) etc comes even close to the bottom member of the AAC. I would also be leery of a budget that is heavily subsidized because a budget of that nature is misleading and always changing due to state dollars and/or students not wanting to pay the extra tuition. Who knows though.

I don't believe that is accurate. I read on these boards somewhere that had the budgets and attendance of CUSA and AAC teams. UTEP, ODU and Marshall compared favorably. I seem to recall that UTEP and ODU at least would be in the middle of the AAC, and very comparable to the upper end once UConn, UH and Cincy leave. UConn was the outlier for them.

(09-08-2016 12:10 PM)herdinva Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:31 AM)herdinva Wrote:  [quote='MTPiKapp' pid='13546114' dateline='1473277510']
It couldn't matter one iota less if the OP thinks ODU "deserves" to be in the discussion.

Take a look around at the last five years of realignment and tell me how many of the moves were the most "deserving" candidates. By FlyHawk's pro Marshall centric qualifications, I'd say at least half of all realignment moves have been made with "more deserving" candidates out there.

One thing is for sure, the "market" strategy doesn't work for the G5, I sure hope other conference like the MW and AAC took note of our failure. So if you don't put market high on a perch, what are you going to put up there? Overall program? support? competitiveness? budget? Too many unknowns of what a conference will be looking for from here on out.

If "market" is the only real positive you have you're correct it's proven to be a failure. Now if the positives and negatives are relatively similar then I'd probably use market as a tiebreaker if I were a decision maker. For me budget and fan base would be the top 2 qualifications I'd be looking for. At the G5 level TV deals are only going to be a small part of the overall athletic budget, so expecting just changing leagues to cause a large budget growth is not realistic. I'd want to add programs who are already towards the upper end of G5 budgets.
[/quote

You would have a problem is that is the case. No one currently in CUSA or even the MW (other than a few select schools) etc comes even close to the bottom member of the AAC. I would also be leery of a budget that is heavily subsidized because a budget of that nature is misleading and always changing due to state dollars and/or students not wanting to pay the extra tuition. Who knows though.

Well that's why I'm in favor of the AAC adding as few as possible, if anyone at all. Yeah I agree I'd be leery of a budget that was all subsidy, but pretty much all G5's are gonna have at a minimum a 30% subsidy. The only one under 40% in C-USA is USM, so for me unless you are up there in the 75-80% range I wouldn't automatically view that as a deal breaker. So I think it would be fair to look at who produces the most revenue minus subsidy. Just for fun I looked at C-USA and the top 3 are ODU at 15.5 mil, USM and 15.2 mil, and Marshall at 14.8 mil.

Just for comparison sake ECU according to the same website produces 30.8 mil of revenue not including subsidy.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

(09-08-2016 12:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:10 PM)herdinva Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:31 AM)herdinva Wrote:  [quote='MTPiKapp' pid='13546114' dateline='1473277510']
It couldn't matter one iota less if the OP thinks ODU "deserves" to be in the discussion.

Take a look around at the last five years of realignment and tell me how many of the moves were the most "deserving" candidates. By FlyHawk's pro Marshall centric qualifications, I'd say at least half of all realignment moves have been made with "more deserving" candidates out there.

One thing is for sure, the "market" strategy doesn't work for the G5, I sure hope other conference like the MW and AAC took note of our failure. So if you don't put market high on a perch, what are you going to put up there? Overall program? support? competitiveness? budget? Too many unknowns of what a conference will be looking for from here on out.

If "market" is the only real positive you have you're correct it's proven to be a failure. Now if the positives and negatives are relatively similar then I'd probably use market as a tiebreaker if I were a decision maker. For me budget and fan base would be the top 2 qualifications I'd be looking for. At the G5 level TV deals are only going to be a small part of the overall athletic budget, so expecting just changing leagues to cause a large budget growth is not realistic. I'd want to add programs who are already towards the upper end of G5 budgets.
[/quote

You would have a problem is that is the case. No one currently in CUSA or even the MW (other than a few select schools) etc comes even close to the bottom member of the AAC. I would also be leery of a budget that is heavily subsidized because a budget of that nature is misleading and always changing due to state dollars and/or students not wanting to pay the extra tuition. Who knows though.

Well that's why I'm in favor of the AAC adding as few as possible, if anyone at all. Yeah I agree I'd be leery of a budget that was all subsidy, but pretty much all G5's are gonna have at a minimum a 30% subsidy. The only one under 40% in C-USA is USM, so for me unless you are up there in the 75-80% range I wouldn't automatically view that as a deal breaker. So I think it would be fair to look at who produces the most revenue minus subsidy. Just for fun I looked at C-USA and the top 3 are ODU at 15.5 mil, USM and 15.2 mil, and Marshall at 14.8 mil.

Just for comparison sake ECU according to the same website produces 30.8 mil of revenue not including subsidy.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

If you want a real eye opener, look up the subsidy for all in the MAC and money made..................wow.

Doesn't surprise me ODU is a little ahead, waiting line for season tickets, high attendance in basketball. USM and MU always been about the same of each other. I would say ECU probably makes the most in the AAC in actual revenue due to high attendance in football and of course we know how makes the least..........

(09-08-2016 12:48 PM)herdinva Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:10 PM)herdinva Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:31 AM)herdinva Wrote:  [quote='MTPiKapp' pid='13546114' dateline='1473277510']
It couldn't matter one iota less if the OP thinks ODU "deserves" to be in the discussion.

Take a look around at the last five years of realignment and tell me how many of the moves were the most "deserving" candidates. By FlyHawk's pro Marshall centric qualifications, I'd say at least half of all realignment moves have been made with "more deserving" candidates out there.

One thing is for sure, the "market" strategy doesn't work for the G5, I sure hope other conference like the MW and AAC took note of our failure. So if you don't put market high on a perch, what are you going to put up there? Overall program? support? competitiveness? budget? Too many unknowns of what a conference will be looking for from here on out.

If "market" is the only real positive you have you're correct it's proven to be a failure. Now if the positives and negatives are relatively similar then I'd probably use market as a tiebreaker if I were a decision maker. For me budget and fan base would be the top 2 qualifications I'd be looking for. At the G5 level TV deals are only going to be a small part of the overall athletic budget, so expecting just changing leagues to cause a large budget growth is not realistic. I'd want to add programs who are already towards the upper end of G5 budgets.
[/quote

You would have a problem is that is the case. No one currently in CUSA or even the MW (other than a few select schools) etc comes even close to the bottom member of the AAC. I would also be leery of a budget that is heavily subsidized because a budget of that nature is misleading and always changing due to state dollars and/or students not wanting to pay the extra tuition. Who knows though.

Well that's why I'm in favor of the AAC adding as few as possible, if anyone at all. Yeah I agree I'd be leery of a budget that was all subsidy, but pretty much all G5's are gonna have at a minimum a 30% subsidy. The only one under 40% in C-USA is USM, so for me unless you are up there in the 75-80% range I wouldn't automatically view that as a deal breaker. So I think it would be fair to look at who produces the most revenue minus subsidy. Just for fun I looked at C-USA and the top 3 are ODU at 15.5 mil, USM and 15.2 mil, and Marshall at 14.8 mil.

Just for comparison sake ECU according to the same website produces 30.8 mil of revenue not including subsidy.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

If you want a real eye opener, look up the subsidy for all in the MAC and money made..................wow.

Doesn't surprise me ODU is a little ahead, waiting line for season tickets, high attendance in basketball. USM and MU always been about the same of each other. I would say ECU probably makes the most in the AAC in actual revenue due to high attendance in football and of course we know how makes the least..........

Only the public schools are listed but the one who makes the highest by far is UCONN. The one in the AAC who does the worst actually surprises me it's Houston at only 18.8 million in revenue minus subsidy. Kinda shocking to me they have the highest subsidy % in the AAC, and the only one over 50% that's listed.

(09-08-2016 01:14 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:48 PM)herdinva Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:10 PM)herdinva Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  One thing is for sure, the "market" strategy doesn't work for the G5, I sure hope other conference like the MW and AAC took note of our failure. So if you don't put market high on a perch, what are you going to put up there? Overall program? support? competitiveness? budget? Too many unknowns of what a conference will be looking for from here on out.

If "market" is the only real positive you have you're correct it's proven to be a failure. Now if the positives and negatives are relatively similar then I'd probably use market as a tiebreaker if I were a decision maker. For me budget and fan base would be the top 2 qualifications I'd be looking for. At the G5 level TV deals are only going to be a small part of the overall athletic budget, so expecting just changing leagues to cause a large budget growth is not realistic. I'd want to add programs who are already towards the upper end of G5 budgets.
[/quote

You would have a problem is that is the case. No one currently in CUSA or even the MW (other than a few select schools) etc comes even close to the bottom member of the AAC. I would also be leery of a budget that is heavily subsidized because a budget of that nature is misleading and always changing due to state dollars and/or students not wanting to pay the extra tuition. Who knows though.

Well that's why I'm in favor of the AAC adding as few as possible, if anyone at all. Yeah I agree I'd be leery of a budget that was all subsidy, but pretty much all G5's are gonna have at a minimum a 30% subsidy. The only one under 40% in C-USA is USM, so for me unless you are up there in the 75-80% range I wouldn't automatically view that as a deal breaker. So I think it would be fair to look at who produces the most revenue minus subsidy. Just for fun I looked at C-USA and the top 3 are ODU at 15.5 mil, USM and 15.2 mil, and Marshall at 14.8 mil.

Just for comparison sake ECU according to the same website produces 30.8 mil of revenue not including subsidy.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

If you want a real eye opener, look up the subsidy for all in the MAC and money made..................wow.

Doesn't surprise me ODU is a little ahead, waiting line for season tickets, high attendance in basketball. USM and MU always been about the same of each other. I would say ECU probably makes the most in the AAC in actual revenue due to high attendance in football and of course we know how makes the least..........

Only the public schools are listed but the one who makes the highest by far is UCONN. The one in the AAC who does the worst actually surprises me it's Houston at only 18.8 million in revenue minus subsidy. Kinda shocking to me they have the highest subsidy % in the AAC, and the only one over 50% that's listed.

That may change with their success. If they can fill their stadium regularly, it would change it for any of us. That's a lot of money just there to be had. Same goes for MU, we attend well, but if we maxed our stadium and arena, budget would increase in the 30s easily. I was thinking of the private when I said who makes the least. Can't prove it obviously though.

(09-07-2016 12:21 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  Pretty sure that the best bowl opponents CUSA faces is teams from the AAC.

Why continue to play Charlotte when we could plat ECU again?

This is a no brainer in every way.

I would never join a conf based on bowl games. I don't want to play Tulane, id rather play Southern Miss.

(09-07-2016 02:38 PM)polkhigh Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:12 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:00 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I don't know why we ever moved to FBS with the way some of you think. I bet those of you against this move would have just given up on football in 1970.

Nope. Actually, I would want a valid reason to move. While basketball is better which teams will be gone and then will it still be? Football? Pretty sure it's a 4 team playoff and the AAC has just as much access as any school not a so called "power" 5

What a super fan... More Money, better TV, better schedule, better bowls, better perception, better fan interest....

More money based on a deal they already have in place. That will dwindle like the rest of college football. Better TV? LOL. Dead horse can be beaten over there with the other 65 year olds. Better schedule is pure speculation and can and will change from year to year unless you just like those teams better then that's pure opinion. Better perception is also pure opinion that can and will change from year to year. Better fan interest? What even is that?

(09-08-2016 11:31 AM)herdinva Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 02:45 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  It couldn't matter one iota less if the OP thinks ODU "deserves" to be in the discussion.

Take a look around at the last five years of realignment and tell me how many of the moves were the most "deserving" candidates. By FlyHawk's pro Marshall centric qualifications, I'd say at least half of all realignment moves have been made with "more deserving" candidates out there.

One thing is for sure, the "market" strategy doesn't work for the G5, I sure hope other conference like the MW and AAC took note of our failure. So if you don't put market high on a perch, what are you going to put up there? Overall program? support? competitiveness? budget? Too many unknowns of what a conference will be looking for from here on out.

It's actually playing out to be content. That's why the Big 12 and even other so called "power" 5 Confs are considering getting bigger. Each wanting or having their own network and with a network the content that will fill it. Of course the Playoff that will soon be expanding to 8 teams helps too with money. Do t be surprised to see the Big 10 get bigger and the PAC 12 go 14. Bigger is better. The WAC16 was ahead of its time. LOL

Don't wanna leave unless Char, USM, WKU or MTSU come with us

(09-08-2016 03:34 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 02:38 PM)polkhigh Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:12 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:00 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I don't know why we ever moved to FBS with the way some of you think. I bet those of you against this move would have just given up on football in 1970.

Nope. Actually, I would want a valid reason to move. While basketball is better which teams will be gone and then will it still be? Football? Pretty sure it's a 4 team playoff and the AAC has just as much access as any school not a so called "power" 5

What a super fan... More Money, better TV, better schedule, better bowls, better perception, better fan interest....

More money based on a deal they already have in place. That will dwindle like the rest of college football. Better TV? LOL. Dead horse can be beaten over there with the other 65 year olds. Better schedule is pure speculation and can and will change from year to year unless you just like those teams better then that's pure opinion. Better perception is also pure opinion that can and will change from year to year. Better fan interest? What even is that?

Better tv isn't even debatable.

(09-08-2016 04:34 PM)MarshallHerdFanz Wrote:  Don't wanna leave unless Char, USM, WKU or MTSU come with us

Love USM everyone else....

(09-07-2016 12:12 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:00 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I don't know why we ever moved to FBS with the way some of you think. I bet those of you against this move would have just given up on football in 1970.

Nope. Actually, I would want a valid reason to move. While basketball is better which teams will be gone and then will it still be? Football? Pretty sure it's a 4 team playoff and the AAC has just as much access as any school not a so called "power" 5

It's sure that at least 1 maybe 2 AAC will get the Big12 invite. Now there are rumors the MWC is considering inviting two AAC teams. If 4 AAC teams leave it will look a lot like CUSA v2 plus Temple and UCONN (for now).

(09-08-2016 03:30 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:21 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  Pretty sure that the best bowl opponents CUSA faces is teams from the AAC.

Why continue to play Charlotte when we could plat ECU again?

This is a no brainer in every way.

I would never join a conf based on bowl games. I don't want to play Tulane, id rather play Southern Miss.

That could be a problem then---because there is a really good chance that S Miss wont be here anymore. That's the problem when you're actually involved in a realignment scenario. Its messy and its fluid. You rarely have a choice between your current conference as it is and the new conference. You're really choosing between what will be leftover after the raid if you stay---or moving on to the new conference. Essentially, status quo really isn't a choice. You can stay, but there will be "change" involved either way.

(09-08-2016 11:53 AM)HogDawg Wrote:  Assuming Houston goes to the Big XII, the AAC drops to 10 full-time members.

The AAC should strongly consider adding Marshall in the east, and geographically friendly LA Tech, USM and Rice in the west. This adds 4 good football brands to the AAC, while simultaneously strengthening the quality of football in AAC west.

That's the best plan I've seen yet. It also ensures the dominant G5 conference every year. If it's Cincinnati, do the same thing but swap Rice for WKU. Shore the league up with good football that people want to watch. Screw markets.

(09-08-2016 03:30 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:21 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  Pretty sure that the best bowl opponents CUSA faces is teams from the AAC.

Why continue to play Charlotte when we could plat ECU again?

This is a no brainer in every way.

I would never join a conf based on bowl games. I don't want to play Tulane, id rather play Southern Miss.

The point is that if we play well all season and get a bowl game, we are all crossing our fingers hoping we get to play one of the AAC teams. Why not play them every week?

I'd rather play Tulane than Charlotte, ODU or FIU.

(09-08-2016 08:02 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 03:30 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:21 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  Pretty sure that the best bowl opponents CUSA faces is teams from the AAC.

Why continue to play Charlotte when we could plat ECU again?

This is a no brainer in every way.

I would never join a conf based on bowl games. I don't want to play Tulane, id rather play Southern Miss.

The point is that if we play well all season and get a bowl game, we are all crossing our fingers hoping we get to play one of the AAC teams. Why not play them every week?

I'd rather play Tulane than Charlotte, ODU or FIU.

ODU has better fan support, historic/tourist destination, better in 3rd year of FBS than Tulane has been in 18 years, closer to Marshall for travel, better basketball. Saying you'd rather play Tulane just to make your point seems kind of silly. Sure, if the package includes former conference foes. But taken as a single game I'd choose ODU every time. And all these bowl games vs AAC you keep talking about, well, in reverse your big reward for being bowl eligible in the AAC is getting to play....CUSA.

I'm for going if we can, but both grasses have been hit with roundup. Theirs is just slightly more green.