(03-13-2017 06:35 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  How long ago was that quote? Things change quickly. Getting hoops better has no impact on football.

Last week

What about revive the old New Big East expansion and MWC-CUSA merger talks from 2011/2012, but now in the form of AAC-MWC affiliation?

Boise and SDSU were headed to the Big East to join 75% of the current AAC lineup. UNLV, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado St., and Air Force were looking to join up with the other 25% of the current AAC (and a few others). They obviously backed off of these mergers, but there is still tons of synergy to be had.

AAC adds Wichita St., VCU, and Dayton; MWC adds Gonzaga, BYU, and St. Mary's.

AAC (14): AAC plus Wichita St., VCU, Dayton
MWC(14): MWC plus BYU, Gonzaga, St. Mary's

Down the stretch, have cross-conference flex games to further bolster RPIs and to guarantee some quality wins and quality losses for the resumes. Cincinnati v. Gonzaga; SMU v. St. Mary's, etc. (like the old schedule openings for ESPN's Bracket Busters)

You get get better RPIs and more quality wins and losses in each of the conferences:
- Cincinnati(12), SMU(15), VCU(19), Dayton(28), Wichita St.(31), Houston(57), UCF(70)
- Gonzaga(8), St. Mary's(17), Nevada(29), CSU(65), BYU(66), Boise (74), Fresno (76)

Then, the AAC and MWC tournaments would again see a bunch of quality matchups right before Selection Committee time.

The AAC and MWC would see EIGHT combined bids, with a chance for Houston, CSU, BYU, or UCF to qualify (with higher RPI and more quality opportunities). That is Power. None of these schools or conferences can get there by itself. But combined, there are tremendous synergies. SMU and Cincinnati would get more respect from the Committee, and finish with higher seeds.

The new AAC and MWC would see 18-24 or more credits among 28 schools, instead of among 56 schools (AAC plus MWC plus A10 plus WCC plus MVC). And, the TV money is likely excellent, with the improved conferences and highly-ranked flex game matchups. And, great brands against each other: Gonzaga-Cincinnati, UConn-UNLV, SMU-BYU, Dayton-St. Mary's, Memphis-New Mexico (especially when some of these programs get their acts together...).

For football, include some OOC scheduling for TV matchups and bowl affiliations - shared spots v. better and more P5 opponents and against each other:
- NY6 (future AAC/MWC contract with Fiesta or Cotton Bowl)
- Holiday (v. PAC/B1G)
- Liberty (v. SEC/B12)
- Military (v. ACC)
- Las Vegas (v. PAC)
- Armed Forces (v. B12)
- Heart of Dallas (v. B1G/SEC)
- Hawaii (MWC v. AAC)
- Miami Beach (AAC v. MWC)
- Texas or New Orleans (AAC v. MWC)

(03-13-2017 02:29 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Problem league had this year is that name programs like UConn, Memphis and Temple had bad years. We need those schools winning and with top 50 RPIs.

This...get those three back in Top 25

Wichita won't add much if anything to a contract. They are not a huge brand.

(03-13-2017 05:09 PM)rosewater Wrote:  Little difference than the old Big East. In the old Big East there was a 50/50 split in the voting between football and nonfootball members. The nonfootball members were able to hold out on any new additions like UCF because of this voting block. They did not want to see their profits cut and they did not want to associate with UCF. They could not see the importance of a strong football side instead they favored adding Georgetown or Villanova to the football equation. They clearly could not see the issue. Today, a basketball addition under the current dynamics will not provide enough voting power to offset the will of the football teams.

Eh, that's not quite accurate. The non-football teams saw the issue just fine, they simply acted in their own collective self-interest. Without blaming any specific programs, at a certain point it stopped being worth it to those schools to accommodate the football-playing members with football-focused additions. Breaking off and adding X, Butler, and Creighton secured their status as the sixth high-major basketball conference and got them a media deal that pays the equivalent of a non-football P5 share. Given that, and that they just put 70% of their membership into the tournament, it's hard to criticize the results.

It is what it is, the football schools did what was best for them and the non-football schools did the same. I don't think any of the current Big East are having second thoughts.

(03-13-2017 05:47 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  how about UCONN fire your loser coach and hire a real coach...lets start with that

My guess is the most accomplished coach in the conference isn't going anywhere unless/until Magic hires him to coach the Lakers.

(03-13-2017 06:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  What about revive the old New Big East expansion and MWC-CUSA merger talks from 2011/2012, but now in the form of AAC-MWC affiliation?

Boise and SDSU were headed to the Big East to join 75% of the current AAC lineup. UNLV, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado St., and Air Force were looking to join up with the other 25% of the current AAC (and a few others). They obviously backed off of these mergers, but there is still tons of synergy to be had.

AAC adds Wichita St., VCU, and Dayton; MWC adds Gonzaga, BYU, and St. Mary's.

AAC (14): AAC plus Wichita St., VCU, Dayton
MWC(14): MWC plus BYU, Gonzaga, St. Mary's

Down the stretch, have cross-conference flex games to further bolster RPIs and to guarantee some quality wins and quality losses for the resumes. Cincinnati v. Gonzaga; SMU v. St. Mary's, etc. (like the old schedule openings for ESPN's Bracket Busters)

You get get better RPIs and more quality wins and losses in each of the conferences:
- Cincinnati(12), SMU(15), VCU(19), Dayton(28), Wichita St.(31), Houston(57), UCF(70)
- Gonzaga(8), St. Mary's(17), Nevada(29), CSU(65), BYU(66), Boise (74), Fresno (76)

Then, the AAC and MWC tournaments would again see a bunch of quality matchups right before Selection Committee time.

The AAC and MWC would see EIGHT combined bids, with a chance for Houston, CSU, BYU, or UCF to qualify (with higher RPI and more quality opportunities). That is Power. None of these schools or conferences can get there by itself. But combined, there are tremendous synergies. SMU and Cincinnati would get more respect from the Committee, and finish with higher seeds.

The new AAC and MWC would see 18-24 or more credits among 28 schools, instead of among 56 schools (AAC plus MWC plus A10 plus WCC plus MVC). And, the TV money is likely excellent, with the improved conferences and highly-ranked flex game matchups. And, great brands against each other: Gonzaga-Cincinnati, UConn-UNLV, SMU-BYU, Dayton-St. Mary's, Memphis-New Mexico (especially when some of these programs get their acts together...).

For football, include some OOC scheduling for TV matchups and bowl affiliations - shared spots v. better and more P5 opponents and against each other:
- NY6 (future AAC/MWC contract with Fiesta or Cotton Bowl)
- Holiday (v. PAC/B1G)
- Liberty (v. SEC/B12)
- Military (v. ACC)
- Las Vegas (v. PAC)
- Armed Forces (v. B12)
- Heart of Dallas (v. B1G/SEC)
- Hawaii (MWC v. AAC)
- Miami Beach (AAC v. MWC)
- Texas or New Orleans (AAC v. MWC)

Todge!?

(03-13-2017 07:30 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  What about revive the old New Big East expansion and MWC-CUSA merger talks from 2011/2012, but now in the form of AAC-MWC affiliation?

Boise and SDSU were headed to the Big East to join 75% of the current AAC lineup. UNLV, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado St., and Air Force were looking to join up with the other 25% of the current AAC (and a few others). They obviously backed off of these mergers, but there is still tons of synergy to be had.

AAC adds Wichita St., VCU, and Dayton; MWC adds Gonzaga, BYU, and St. Mary's.

AAC (14): AAC plus Wichita St., VCU, Dayton
MWC(14): MWC plus BYU, Gonzaga, St. Mary's

Down the stretch, have cross-conference flex games to further bolster RPIs and to guarantee some quality wins and quality losses for the resumes. Cincinnati v. Gonzaga; SMU v. St. Mary's, etc. (like the old schedule openings for ESPN's Bracket Busters)

You get get better RPIs and more quality wins and losses in each of the conferences:
- Cincinnati(12), SMU(15), VCU(19), Dayton(28), Wichita St.(31), Houston(57), UCF(70)
- Gonzaga(8), St. Mary's(17), Nevada(29), CSU(65), BYU(66), Boise (74), Fresno (76)

Then, the AAC and MWC tournaments would again see a bunch of quality matchups right before Selection Committee time.

The AAC and MWC would see EIGHT combined bids, with a chance for Houston, CSU, BYU, or UCF to qualify (with higher RPI and more quality opportunities). That is Power. None of these schools or conferences can get there by itself. But combined, there are tremendous synergies. SMU and Cincinnati would get more respect from the Committee, and finish with higher seeds.

The new AAC and MWC would see 18-24 or more credits among 28 schools, instead of among 56 schools (AAC plus MWC plus A10 plus WCC plus MVC). And, the TV money is likely excellent, with the improved conferences and highly-ranked flex game matchups. And, great brands against each other: Gonzaga-Cincinnati, UConn-UNLV, SMU-BYU, Dayton-St. Mary's, Memphis-New Mexico (especially when some of these programs get their acts together...).

For football, include some OOC scheduling for TV matchups and bowl affiliations - shared spots v. better and more P5 opponents and against each other:
- NY6 (future AAC/MWC contract with Fiesta or Cotton Bowl)
- Holiday (v. PAC/B1G)
- Liberty (v. SEC/B12)
- Military (v. ACC)
- Las Vegas (v. PAC)
- Armed Forces (v. B12)
- Heart of Dallas (v. B1G/SEC)
- Hawaii (MWC v. AAC)
- Miami Beach (AAC v. MWC)
- Texas or New Orleans (AAC v. MWC)

Todge!?

No Dem Coogs but oddly the poster is a Cougar fan

(03-13-2017 06:35 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  How long ago was that quote? Things change quickly. Getting hoops better has no impact on football.

It also has no impact on the current and future TV deal. So why are we advocating adding more mouths to feed for zero additional dollars again?

(03-13-2017 07:16 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 05:09 PM)rosewater Wrote:  Little difference than the old Big East. In the old Big East there was a 50/50 split in the voting between football and nonfootball members. The nonfootball members were able to hold out on any new additions like UCF because of this voting block. They did not want to see their profits cut and they did not want to associate with UCF. They could not see the importance of a strong football side instead they favored adding Georgetown or Villanova to the football equation. They clearly could not see the issue. Today, a basketball addition under the current dynamics will not provide enough voting power to offset the will of the football teams.

Eh, that's not quite accurate. The non-football teams saw the issue just fine, they simply acted in their own collective self-interest. Without blaming any specific programs, at a certain point it stopped being worth it to those schools to accommodate the football-playing members with football-focused additions. Breaking off and adding X, Butler, and Creighton secured their status as the sixth high-major basketball conference and got them a media deal that pays the equivalent of a non-football P5 share. Given that, and that they just put 70% of their membership into the tournament, it's hard to criticize the results.

It is what it is, the football schools did what was best for them and the non-football schools did the same. I don't think any of the current Big East are having second thoughts.

(03-13-2017 05:47 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  how about UCONN fire your loser coach and hire a real coach...lets start with that

My guess is the most accomplished coach in the conference isn't going anywhere unless/until Magic hires him to coach the Lakers.

Eh what was inaccurate? You put a bunch of gobblety goop that has nothing to do with my post. This is about voting prior to breakup.

(03-13-2017 02:29 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Problem league had this year is that name programs like UConn, Memphis and Temple had bad years. We need those schools winning and with top 50 RPIs.

Just to put that in perspective, we suffered our worst loss in 70+years this year and are missing post season play for the most consecutive years in the last 30 years.....I am away from stats/records, but I believe both those are correct.

I remember how depressing the late 60s were with Hank Iba's son as coach, but we weren't losing games at historic levels because of the style of play.

.....all of that with a future HOF type coach.

I feel pretty confident the Husky fans could testify to a similar historic comparison.

(03-13-2017 10:24 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:35 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  How long ago was that quote? Things change quickly. Getting hoops better has no impact on football.

It also has no impact on the current and future TV deal. So why are we advocating adding more mouths to feed for zero additional dollars again?

Not Zero. Having WSU this year would have netted you an additional NCAA Unit which is ~250k PER win this year that WSU gets in the tourney per year for the next 6 years. So you are incorrect with your flailing around of the Zero number that you like to throw out.

When we are talking about making the AAC stronger, we have to look at long term stability of a program - what is "tried and true". All the schools we've been talking about - WSU, Dayton especially, have been mentioned because they have the tradition and the "want to" to stay not just relevant, but at the top of the food chain. All we have to do is go to a website and check their history to see that.

I can say this, WSU wants in this league and they want in badly because the MVC isn't just imploding, its exploding. They have all the resources; billionaire donors, great facilities, loyal and ardent fanbase, historical success in virtually every sport they play, a perfect geographical fit. On and on. I assume Dayton has that as well. If a team with those credentials wants into a conference and the conference has room, its madness not to allow the "marriage" to happen.

(03-13-2017 05:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 04:55 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:28 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  The NCAA clearly weighs 90% on named victories. Since as a league the bottom can be bad we have to add Wichita State and look at VCU and Dayton. The wins are limited because we currently don't have that level of strength. That would show more style wins for the committee. Once Memphis and UConn are back we can match the Big East.

Not this sh*t again!! Aresco said we aren't inviting bball only schools. He even specifically pointed to the oBE as a model to not follow.

For once, Aresco is right. Those of us who lived through the OBE with the divided focus know it's a loser model.

Sure, if Kentucky or Duke wants to put their basketball only in the AAC, then yes we roll out the red carpet. But short of those impossibilities, the answer should be a firm "no" to anyone not committed to both football and hoops.

If a single non-football schools is capable of bringing down our conference then the conference has no chance of surviving anyway. Adding another top flight team like Wichita deepens the top of the conference making the conference more capable of maintaining a high status despite one or two of the top core teams having a down year. Football playing schools would outnumber non-football schools 11-1. Really---what detrimental "dynamic" can possibly be created with a voting block of one?

This irrational fear of non-football schools is like beaten wife syndrome. Thier ex beat them so now in thier mind getting married leads to wife beating. The assumed conclusion is not supported by fact despite thier "experience".

Here is the reality. Non power NCAA bids have gone from 11 in 2013 to 4 in 2017. The increasing size of P5 conferences have them taking more bids and playing non-power schools less. That makes it harder for non-power schools to get high RPI's. Conference schedules are becoming an anchor for the RPI's of the top teams in non-P5 leagues. The only way to combat this effect is to get as many high end non-power basketball programs under one roof as possible. That way, the conference schedule actually helps the RPI's of the top teams from that group (like it does in a P5 conference) as opposed to scuttling their chances. Adding Wichita is a step in the right direction---but I'd add 3 (Wichita, VCU, and Dayton). We need to act NOW so that we insure we are the conference that the better basketball schools gravitate to.

(03-13-2017 04:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 04:01 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 02:07 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  One problem is the bottom of the league dragging down the RPIs. Uconn and Memphis were both top 100 kenpom teams, but outside the top 100 in RPI... Top 100 wins are a factor on teamsheets and this makes a big difference. Houston is top 50 kenpom, but outside top 50 RPI... again that's 2 more victories for UC and SMU against top 50 competition.

The other issue is we need Temple/UConn/Memphis to be better. Those teams should be at least around the top 50 almost every year. If We can get USF/Tulane/ECU to be top 150 teams and get Temple/UConn/Memphis back to top 50 type teams all of a sudden there are a lot of opportunities for good wins and you lose the RPI killer games.

While I wish my alma mater didn't suck out loud the last two years....the problem with the top of the league under-performing that the bottom of the league holding them down. When UCONN, UC, Memphis and Temple are rolling they are typically easy at large bid decisions for the selection committee.

It's not either/or, it's both. When our Bulls are lousy, that hurts the conference. And when expected powers like UConn and Memphis don't measure up, that hurts the conference as well.

But personally, I'm always more concerned about USF than the conference. I'd rather the AAC get one bid, as long as it is USF, than get 6 bids, and none of them are USF.

USF really needs to step up our basketball, it's embarrassing that our basketball is so bad these days. We have to stop using the "Florida is football country!" excuse. Not only do Florida and FSU have good hoops, Florida Gulf Coast does for crissakes, and UCF is much better than us. We are a shambles, no excuses.

Basketball has the potential to be good b/c it has good facilities which it didn't enjoy in the past and plays in a good conference. W are bad because we hired a bad basketball coach, who apparently cheated in addition to being bad. It happens...USF is hardly the only place that has made bad coaching decisions.

Gregory has a chance to turn it around and build it the right way.

BTW, UCF is better than USF...this year. Let's see if they can sustain the success. It wasn't that long ago we were a few buckets and bad call away from the Sweet 16, so it's not like you can't win at USF. We just have to win and sustain it to take the program to the next level. That has been tough...

(03-14-2017 11:53 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 04:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 04:01 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 02:07 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  One problem is the bottom of the league dragging down the RPIs. Uconn and Memphis were both top 100 kenpom teams, but outside the top 100 in RPI... Top 100 wins are a factor on teamsheets and this makes a big difference. Houston is top 50 kenpom, but outside top 50 RPI... again that's 2 more victories for UC and SMU against top 50 competition.

The other issue is we need Temple/UConn/Memphis to be better. Those teams should be at least around the top 50 almost every year. If We can get USF/Tulane/ECU to be top 150 teams and get Temple/UConn/Memphis back to top 50 type teams all of a sudden there are a lot of opportunities for good wins and you lose the RPI killer games.

While I wish my alma mater didn't suck out loud the last two years....the problem with the top of the league under-performing that the bottom of the league holding them down. When UCONN, UC, Memphis and Temple are rolling they are typically easy at large bid decisions for the selection committee.

It's not either/or, it's both. When our Bulls are lousy, that hurts the conference. And when expected powers like UConn and Memphis don't measure up, that hurts the conference as well.

But personally, I'm always more concerned about USF than the conference. I'd rather the AAC get one bid, as long as it is USF, than get 6 bids, and none of them are USF.

USF really needs to step up our basketball, it's embarrassing that our basketball is so bad these days. We have to stop using the "Florida is football country!" excuse. Not only do Florida and FSU have good hoops, Florida Gulf Coast does for crissakes, and UCF is much better than us. We are a shambles, no excuses.

Basketball has the potential to be good b/c it has good facilities which it didn't enjoy in the past and plays in a good conference. W are bad because we hired a bad basketball coach, who apparently cheated in addition to being bad. It happens...USF is hardly the only place that has made bad coaching decisions.

Gregory has a chance to turn it around and build it the right way.

BTW, UCF is better than USF...this year. Let's see if they can sustain the success. It wasn't that long ago we were a few buckets and bad call away from the Sweet 16, so it's not like you can't win at USF. We just have to win and sustain it to take the program to the next level. That has been tough...

I didn't mean to imply that winning hoops at USF is impossible, far from that. As you note, history shows that it has been possible, we just need to take the steps to do it again. Within reason, I'm looking forward to a turnaround sooner rather than later.

(03-13-2017 09:28 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  The NCAA clearly weighs 90% on named victories. Since as a league the bottom can be bad we have to add Wichita State and look at VCU and Dayton. The wins are limited because we currently don't have that level of strength. That would show more style wins for the committee. Once Memphis and UConn are back we can match the Big East.

And Temple. Temple needs to bounce back.

.

(03-14-2017 11:53 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 04:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 04:01 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 02:07 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  One problem is the bottom of the league dragging down the RPIs. Uconn and Memphis were both top 100 kenpom teams, but outside the top 100 in RPI... Top 100 wins are a factor on teamsheets and this makes a big difference. Houston is top 50 kenpom, but outside top 50 RPI... again that's 2 more victories for UC and SMU against top 50 competition.

The other issue is we need Temple/UConn/Memphis to be better. Those teams should be at least around the top 50 almost every year. If We can get USF/Tulane/ECU to be top 150 teams and get Temple/UConn/Memphis back to top 50 type teams all of a sudden there are a lot of opportunities for good wins and you lose the RPI killer games.

While I wish my alma mater didn't suck out loud the last two years....the problem with the top of the league under-performing that the bottom of the league holding them down. When UCONN, UC, Memphis and Temple are rolling they are typically easy at large bid decisions for the selection committee.

It's not either/or, it's both. When our Bulls are lousy, that hurts the conference. And when expected powers like UConn and Memphis don't measure up, that hurts the conference as well.

But personally, I'm always more concerned about USF than the conference. I'd rather the AAC get one bid, as long as it is USF, than get 6 bids, and none of them are USF.

USF really needs to step up our basketball, it's embarrassing that our basketball is so bad these days. We have to stop using the "Florida is football country!" excuse. Not only do Florida and FSU have good hoops, Florida Gulf Coast does for crissakes, and UCF is much better than us. We are a shambles, no excuses.

Basketball has the potential to be good b/c it has good facilities which it didn't enjoy in the past and plays in a good conference. W are bad because we hired a bad basketball coach, who apparently cheated in addition to being bad. It happens...USF is hardly the only place that has made bad coaching decisions.

Gregory has a chance to turn it around and build it the right way.

BTW, UCF is better than USF...this year. Let's see if they can sustain the success. It wasn't that long ago we were a few buckets and bad call away from the Sweet 16, so it's not like you can't win at USF. We just have to win and sustain it to take the program to the next level. That has been tough...

I think you can win at USF. The problem has been winning consistently and building a program.
There is no reason that USF shouldn't be in the middle of this conference consistently and going to NCAA once every 4-5 years. We aren't going to be a UConn, UC etc but we should be better than we have been.

(03-14-2017 10:13 AM)rabidTU2 Wrote:  I can say this, WSU wants in this league and they want in badly because the MVC isn't just imploding, its exploding.

Huh? The Valley has lost one team since Tulsa left in 1995, Creighton. The conference is more than stable. Does that mean schools aren't looking to better themselves? Of course not, just like Houston, UConn and UC looking to move up to the BCS, schools like Wichita State want to move up the pecking order while they are hot. WSU didn't make a tourney between 1988 and 2006, and only one between 1988 and 2012. They are on a roll now, they should try to take advantage of it.

As for the Valley, they had a down year. It happens. They will bounce back. To say the league is imploding/exploding, is just a bunch of hooey.

(03-14-2017 05:47 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 07:16 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 05:09 PM)rosewater Wrote:  Little difference than the old Big East. In the old Big East there was a 50/50 split in the voting between football and nonfootball members. The nonfootball members were able to hold out on any new additions like UCF because of this voting block. They did not want to see their profits cut and they did not want to associate with UCF. They could not see the importance of a strong football side instead they favored adding Georgetown or Villanova to the football equation. They clearly could not see the issue. Today, a basketball addition under the current dynamics will not provide enough voting power to offset the will of the football teams.

Eh, that's not quite accurate. The non-football teams saw the issue just fine, they simply acted in their own collective self-interest. Without blaming any specific programs, at a certain point it stopped being worth it to those schools to accommodate the football-playing members with football-focused additions. Breaking off and adding X, Butler, and Creighton secured their status as the sixth high-major basketball conference and got them a media deal that pays the equivalent of a non-football P5 share. Given that, and that they just put 70% of their membership into the tournament, it's hard to criticize the results.

It is what it is, the football schools did what was best for them and the non-football schools did the same. I don't think any of the current Big East are having second thoughts.

(03-13-2017 05:47 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  how about UCONN fire your loser coach and hire a real coach...lets start with that

My guess is the most accomplished coach in the conference isn't going anywhere unless/until Magic hires him to coach the Lakers.

Eh what was inaccurate? You put a bunch of gobblety goop that has nothing to do with my post. This is about voting prior to breakup.

It's not accurate to say that the C7 didn't understand the importance of football or the variables at play in the whole conference realignment saga. If anything, they had their finger on the pulse of what was happening and played a poor hand pretty well, salvaging a high-major basketball conference that pays high-major money (remember, in a P5 conference they'd only be getting a basketball-only share, and likely a reduced one at that) out of the dissolution of the OBE. They voted the way they did because, a few years out, it turns out they were right.

Adding Wichita State would not add instability for the American. It would add stability in a consistent, basketball-first program, with resources and tremendous fan support and - most importantly - within the footprint of the league.

Adding WSU wouldn't be like adding a group of non-football schools; it is adding one school to compliment the football-only arrangement of Navy. One school will not tilt the balance away from being a football-first conference the way it is currently constructed.

The only concern about WSU would be who replaces Gregg Marshall if/when he decides to move on. If they hire the wrong replacement, Wichita State could go back to being the way they were from 1988 - 2011 - a period where they only had one tournament appearance.

(03-14-2017 08:30 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 10:24 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:35 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  How long ago was that quote? Things change quickly. Getting hoops better has no impact on football.

It also has no impact on the current and future TV deal. So why are we advocating adding more mouths to feed for zero additional dollars again?

Not Zero. Having WSU this year would have netted you an additional NCAA Unit which is ~250k PER win this year that WSU gets in the tourney per year for the next 6 years. So you are incorrect with your flailing around of the Zero number that you like to throw out.

K