(03-11-2017 07:20 AM)emu steve Wrote: And Mountain West (geography). And Sun Belt (geography, etc.).
The Mountain West would seem like weird geography for Army, but it is still a broader footprint, in both California and the Mountain West ... and it would also free up one OOC game a year compared to anyone but the AAC, by putting them in conference with another Academy ... and yet would still leave Army/Navy OOC, which puts the Black Knights on TV in the weekend when nobody else is playing college football, which is another mark against the AAC for Army.
Between MWC footprint and MAC footprint, the MWC seems like it would have a slight edge, but not that great of one.
It's the CUSA and Sunbelt, with their sprawling footprints across the southeast and south central US which keep generating endless "re-arrange the CUSA/SBC teams into two conferences that make sense" discussions, which make the most sense for Army. Either one would leave Army with far fewer "holes" as far as a national footprint in any given year.
Even though Army was beat out of the old CUSA "with a stick" (literally leveraging the Hawaii road trip bonus game into a 0-13 record one year) ... that was the old CUSA, not the current CUSA. The current CUSA is probably the best fit among conferences, and then SBC after.
So most likely its: (1) Independence (2) daylight (3) CUSA (4) SBC (5) MWC (6) MAC (7) AAC
I put "daylight" at (2), since the gap between Independence and the best available conference is so big that it's really misleading to put any conference at the (2) spot. The gap between Independence and the "best available conference for Army's purposes" at least twice as big as the gap
between one conference and the next on the list.
Army would
suit the MAC so much, that people will keep raising Army as a potential MAC add, without considering why Army would ever want to accept an invitation.
(03-11-2017 12:54 PM)Bogg Wrote: I can't see UConn pursuing full football-only membership in one of the MAC/CUSA/SBC in the event they jumped to the NBE and the AAC refused to let them stay FB-only, simply because of the financials at play. If the jump did happen it would be because the OBE money is drying up and the American's new TV deal is looking like it'll come in flat rather than a sizeable bump (not saying that's currently the case, just what would need to happen).
So far, so good ... the new Big East have a more attractive financial deal than the AAC, so unless the new AAC deal is an upgrade, the new Big East plus additional cash for FB in some way, shape or form would be a financial step up.
Quote: In that case, UConn would probably need to preserve their current income stream as much as possible by moving to the Big East for their bigger basketball-only deal as well as the right to sell their football rights on the open market.
If the money for selling their football rights on the open market is there, then surely they would
like to. But that is an untested assumption. It might not be there, given that UConn is by no means an established strong brand name in FB ... not even in New England.
Quote: I'd imagine that, for Fox, getting the UConn men's and women's basketball programs under their roof for the same cost they'd otherwise pay for someone like St Louis or Richmond would be worth floating the football team with a deal that pays at least $1-2 million annually.
Except Fox could get, eg, St. Louis and Dayton
now, and so far prefers the existing Big East alignment. Part of the increment in value for UConn is taking the value per school of the expanded alignment to Fox over the value per school of the existing alignment. There's no guarantee that there
is $1m-$2m extra value.
And even if it is, why would Fox have to pay it? If UConn decides that it's time to abandon the future in the ACC ship of dreams for the reality of preserving their ability to recruit at a Power Conference level in BBall, why should Fox pay more
than they have to to UConn to make that happen?
Quote: Beefing up their their pool of teams from which they could draw noon kickoffs in the fall would just be gravy.
And for most of the schedule that UConn would put together as an independent, fairly thin gravy. Unless they spend more than they earn from the TV contract as the FB independent on game guarantees.
Quote: If UConn managed to get more than that, great, but if not in that scenario they'd still be bringing in 3 times what the current American deal pays.
And the bulk of that is the Big East deal. So they get more than what the current, and under this hypothesis prospective, AAC deal brings in, irrespective of what they do with their football.
Quote: Now, pursuing a scheduling alliance (ideally with bowl tie-ins) with a conference that includes games with the two basketball programs as a sweetener makes all kinds of sense, and could benefit both sides, but football-only membership doesn't (unless it's them just staying put in the American for football).
While asking to be accepted as a FB only affiliate in the AAC after abandoning the AAC for the new Big East would demonstrate quite a lot of chutzpah, it would seem to be one alternative not on offer.
On offer would be either FB independence and a modest top-up on the new Big East member distribution, or membership in the MAC and an even more modest top-up on the new Big East member distribution, but with better national TV exposure.
In making the decision between playing as an independent and playing in the MAC, they at least would be one school that could not complain about not playing at home on Saturday in November, since UConn playing as a FB independent would get precious few Saturday home games in November in any event.
I don't think it will happen. I think UConn will hold onto the future-ACC-membership pipe dream at least until through to the coming mid-2020's conference realignments.