(09-22-2021 10:09 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:54 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:46 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:23 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:17 PM)VCE Wrote:  Agreed. Worse football and probably worse bball.

Pluck an okay football and bad bball school along w/ a really bad football school w/ okay bball. Cool we'll take UNT and UTSA. I still don't see why they'd leave other than AFA is used to sending Lax and Hockey to the east for all their games.

If AFA and CSU leave I suspect we'll stand pat. To convince anyone from Texas to join we may have to commit to taking four instead of two. In the OP's scenario of the AAC taking Rice, those four would be UNT, UTSA, Texas State and UTEP. That would dilute our own football and basketball significantly and give us a lot of new mouths to feed.

I don't know why it would need to be 4. UNT and UTSA or UTEP would be happy to join, gets us a foot in Texas w/ solid fb teams (not UTEP) wasn't UNT good in bball recently too. I'd go to 12 w/ a contract coming and Boise looking at a B12 invite. I don't think any FBS conf. should be at 10 unless there are no options.

I agree. 12 is just right for the MW. We will need a school that plays baseball also if AF leaves

Which of UTSA, UNT dont have baseball? UTEP is no. Rice is yes. 12 keeps Boise in the east and gets them gms w/ Texas schools. Even at 14 I'm sure Boise could ask to stay in the east and put Utah St. in the west if they want those Tx gms.

If the AAC decides to go with the “market” grab for schools that are very new to DI football, have little fan support, even worse football, strictly to hope they grow, this will end terribly badly for them.

If you want to hold onto the P6 narrative, it takes winning football teams, with history, brand, and a passionate fan base. Brand matters in this move. Because once the rubber meets the road and football actually starts to get played, you’ll see that P6 narrative disappear pretty quickly with the beat downs that will ensue.

You’ve got to go after good football teams. Yes academics and budget matter. Budget will come with the move. The Board of trustees at each school will have to agree to that commitment pending the move. But brand and good football are necessary if the AAC wants to keep its foothold in a P6 world.

Rice may be the one school that can get in without good football, and that’s due to a top 10 academic ranking, as well as an actual brand name associated with it. Throw in the old SWC and baseball and they could make the cut.

Other than that, you’ve got some of the top 1/2 of the MWC on the left coast, and you’ve got Army, Marshall, UAB, App State on the East.
You could make a case for Southern Miss and Louisiana also.

(09-22-2021 10:14 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:09 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:54 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:46 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:23 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Pluck an okay football and bad bball school along w/ a really bad football school w/ okay bball. Cool we'll take UNT and UTSA. I still don't see why they'd leave other than AFA is used to sending Lax and Hockey to the east for all their games.

If AFA and CSU leave I suspect we'll stand pat. To convince anyone from Texas to join we may have to commit to taking four instead of two. In the OP's scenario of the AAC taking Rice, those four would be UNT, UTSA, Texas State and UTEP. That would dilute our own football and basketball significantly and give us a lot of new mouths to feed.

I don't know why it would need to be 4. UNT and UTSA or UTEP would be happy to join, gets us a foot in Texas w/ solid fb teams (not UTEP) wasn't UNT good in bball recently too. I'd go to 12 w/ a contract coming and Boise looking at a B12 invite. I don't think any FBS conf. should be at 10 unless there are no options.

I agree. 12 is just right for the MW. We will need a school that plays baseball also if AF leaves

Which of UTSA, UNT dont have baseball? UTEP is no. Rice is yes. 12 keeps Boise in the east and gets them gms w/ Texas schools. Even at 14 I'm sure Boise could ask to stay in the east and put Utah St. in the west if they want those Tx gms.

UNT doesn’t play baseball. UTSA does and NMSU also.

(09-22-2021 10:16 PM)ThunderDent Wrote:  If the AAC decides to go with the “market” grab for schools that are very new to DI football, have little fan support, even worse football, strictly to hope they grow, this will end terribly badly for them.

If you want to hold onto the P6 narrative, it takes winning football teams, with history, brand, and a passionate fan base. Brand matters in this move. Because once the rubber meets the road and football actually starts to get played, you’ll see that P6 narrative disappear pretty quickly with the beat downs that will ensue.

You’ve got to go after good football teams. Yes academics and budget matter. Budget will come with the move. The Board of trustees at each school will have to agree to that commitment pending the move. But brand and good football are necessary if the AAC wants to keep its foothold in a P6 world.

Rice may be the one school that can get in without good football, and that’s due to a top 10 academic ranking, as well as an actual brand name associated with it. Throw in the old SWC and baseball and they could make the cut.

Other than that, you’ve got some of the top 1/2 of the MWC on the left coast, and you’ve got Army, Marshall, UAB, App State on the East.
You could make a case for Southern Miss and Louisiana also.

I don't get how Army is still a no. They can compete now and could be in a conf. w/ Navy and AFA. You could still make Army/Navy a non conf. gm after the conf. title game.

How many times I have to say this?

Air Force no
Colorado State no
UAB no
Rice no
Army no
North Texas no
Georgia State no
ODU no

None of them have a name beand in football right now, and fan basr is not great in some.

(09-22-2021 10:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:14 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:09 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:54 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:46 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  If AFA and CSU leave I suspect we'll stand pat. To convince anyone from Texas to join we may have to commit to taking four instead of two. In the OP's scenario of the AAC taking Rice, those four would be UNT, UTSA, Texas State and UTEP. That would dilute our own football and basketball significantly and give us a lot of new mouths to feed.

I don't know why it would need to be 4. UNT and UTSA or UTEP would be happy to join, gets us a foot in Texas w/ solid fb teams (not UTEP) wasn't UNT good in bball recently too. I'd go to 12 w/ a contract coming and Boise looking at a B12 invite. I don't think any FBS conf. should be at 10 unless there are no options.

I agree. 12 is just right for the MW. We will need a school that plays baseball also if AF leaves

Which of UTSA, UNT dont have baseball? UTEP is no. Rice is yes. 12 keeps Boise in the east and gets them gms w/ Texas schools. Even at 14 I'm sure Boise could ask to stay in the east and put Utah St. in the west if they want those Tx gms.

UNT doesn’t play baseball. UTSA does and NMSU also.

So do La. Tech and Louisiana.

(09-22-2021 10:19 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  I don't get how Army is still a no. They can compete now and could be in a conf. w/ Navy and AFA. You could still make Army/Navy a non conf. gm after the conf. title game.

So Army FB would join a conference with Navy FB and then only play Navy OOC?

Quote:I cannot believe AF and CSU want to join the AAC. I really don't see how that benefits either school or conference.

I could only see AF thinking about it due to Navy being in the AAC. But they still play each other every year. It's not like the military schools have always had a hunger to share conferences or something. I just see it as AAC hitting those two up (among others) -- not that they're knocking on AAC's door wanting to jump in.

Especially since, by default, the AAC is going to pick up from the Sun Belt & CUSA -- and/or maybe Buffalo from the MAC -- and losing Cinci/UCF/Houston even replaced by solid G5s -- doesn't put them superior over MW anymore (even though it's always been close). So jumping ship to go there.... I don't see the benefit. Unless one's talking about TV & other contracts giving more money to the AAC, until they run out & need to be revamped. But even then -- don't see how it'd be worth it for MW teams to jump ship over there unless they've always wanted out or something.

(09-22-2021 10:51 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:19 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  I don't get how Army is still a no. They can compete now and could be in a conf. w/ Navy and AFA. You could still make Army/Navy a non conf. gm after the conf. title game.

So Army FB would join a conference with Navy FB and then only play Navy OOC?

How else could you schedule the game after the conf. title gm? something has to give. Play it thanksgiving wk end or have it not mess w/ the conf standings. say Navy is 6-1 and SMU is 7-1 in conf. w/ a loss to Navy, SMU gets in because Navy/Army is the wk after the conf. title gm? Makes more sense for the gm to count as a non conf. gm.

The Big 12 threatening to expand even more hangs like a Sword of Damocles over the Group of 5 conferences. We're not even close to the end of this cycle. While speculation is nice and all, there is way too much uncertainty to try to guess out an end game right now.

You guys jumped on that post like hungry dogs on red meat. Problem is part of it was spoiled (very inaccurate) and some are getting ready to be REALLY sick.

(09-22-2021 11:38 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:51 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:19 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  I don't get how Army is still a no. They can compete now and could be in a conf. w/ Navy and AFA. You could still make Army/Navy a non conf. gm after the conf. title game.

So Army FB would join a conference with Navy FB and then only play Navy OOC?

How else could you schedule the game after the conf. title gm? something has to give. Play it thanksgiving wk end or have it not mess w/ the conf standings. say Navy is 6-1 and SMU is 7-1 in conf. w/ a loss to Navy, SMU gets in because Navy/Army is the wk after the conf. title gm? Makes more sense for the gm to count as a non conf. gm.

You're missing the point. You say that Navy FB being in the conference is a reason Army should want to join. But if they never play in conference, what's the point? Additionally, as an independent, Army has the greatest scheduling freedom of the 3 academies, so it's not as if it's difficult for them to schedule both Navy and Air Force.

The benefit that people in this thread are missing is that AFA wants to recruit and promote AFA beyond the Mountain West. Not being in conference with Navy (and Army) means they most burn two non-conference games to maintain the CC trophy. AFA needs Colorado State to come over because they would like to maintain the instate rivalry as well. By joining with Colorado State they have gained a non conference slot going forward. If Army was to join the AAC down the line, they would gain another Non Conference game.

Colorado State on the other hand is looking to emulate Colorado's sucess in the old Big 12. Leaning into more talent rich Texas, CSU has the opportunity to change thier outlook and be more competitive against Colorado than the MW footprint allows. Will there be an opening in Texas with Oklahoma and Texas recruiting more in the SEC footprint, that remains to be seen, but its not a huge risk. CSU would be welcomed back into the MW as they are in the heart of the conference, so why not bet on yourself. The MW has accepted members back after they have intended to leave. Its not a stretch to see them do it after they left.

(09-22-2021 10:09 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:54 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:46 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:23 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:17 PM)VCE Wrote:  Agreed. Worse football and probably worse bball.

Pluck an okay football and bad bball school along w/ a really bad football school w/ okay bball. Cool we'll take UNT and UTSA. I still don't see why they'd leave other than AFA is used to sending Lax and Hockey to the east for all their games.

If AFA and CSU leave I suspect we'll stand pat. To convince anyone from Texas to join we may have to commit to taking four instead of two. In the OP's scenario of the AAC taking Rice, those four would be UNT, UTSA, Texas State and UTEP. That would dilute our own football and basketball significantly and give us a lot of new mouths to feed.

I don't know why it would need to be 4. UNT and UTSA or UTEP would be happy to join, gets us a foot in Texas w/ solid fb teams (not UTEP) wasn't UNT good in bball recently too. I'd go to 12 w/ a contract coming and Boise looking at a B12 invite. I don't think any FBS conf. should be at 10 unless there are no options.

I agree. 12 is just right for the MW. We will need a school that plays baseball also if AF leaves

Okay, let’s assume the MWC loses AFA and CSU, targets returning to 12 and wants replacements in Texas.

In that scenario I think the first add is North Texas. The second is UTSA, but if the AAC has already taken the Roadrunners then I’d go with Texas State over UTEP.

I’d also invite Grand Canyon as an Olymoic sports counterpart to Hawaii.

Finally, I’d go with a north/south divisional alignment instead of the traditional east/west. In football each school would have an 8-game conference schedule consisting of division opponents, one fixed crossover matchup and two rotating crossover games.

Here’s the proposed football divisional alignment with the fixed crossover opponents paired:

North/South
San Jose State/Hawaii
Fresno State/San Diego State
Nevada/UNLV
Utah State/New Mexico
Boise State/North Texas
Wyoming/UTSA

This arrangement sets up most of the conference’s key rivalry games to be played annually, including San Jose State-Hawaii, San Jose State-Fresno State, Fresno State-San Diego State, Fresno State-Boise State, Boise State-Nevada, Nevada-UNLV, Utah State-Wyoming, and North Texas-UTSA.

The conference would be adding a strong basketball school in Grand Canyon that would bridge the gap between California/Nevada and New Mexico/Texas.

Everyone would have logical travel partners for Olympic sports:
San Jose State-Fresno State
Nevada-Boise State
Utah State-Wyoming
San Diego State-UNLV
Grand Canyon-New Mexico
North Texas-UTSA

The MWC would end up with a media presence in the following top-100 metro areas:
4 - Dallas/Fort Worth
11 - Phoenix
17 - San Diego
24 - San Antonio
29 - Las Vegas
35 - San Jose
47 - Salt Lake City
54 - Honolulu
56 - Fresno
61 - Albuquerque
77 - Boise

Finally in a worse-case scenario, where the Big 12 circles back later and poaches both Boise State and San Diego State, it would be easy to backfill with Montana in the north and UTEP in the south.

(09-23-2021 06:36 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Okay, let’s assume the MWC loses AFA and CSU, targets returning to 12 and wants replacements in Texas.

In that scenario I think the first add is North Texas. The second is UTSA, but if the AAC has already taken the Roadrunners then I’d go with Texas State over UTEP.

I’d also invite Grand Canyon as an Olympic sports counterpart to Hawaii.

I disagree about the importance of 12 members, I think 10 can be perfect if it’s the right 10. Losing CSU/AFA — if it happens — is not a crushing blow. If the MWC sees a coherent strategy to add new teams in Texas (or anywhere), then yeah go for it. But don’t add teams just for the sake of 12.

If MWC does make a play for Texas, consider UTSA and TXST as a pair. That is a major growth area, demographically and economically, and those 2 can both be a big part of it. I think that would be an “iron sharpens iron” scenario for both. Also, it’s a quick (~60 min.) trip by bus from 1 to the other on road-trips in basketball.

If a non-football member is considered, I would look at U/Denver or Seattle U. ahead of Grand Canyon. Yes, Denver needs to show they’re serious about MBB. I think they would do so if asked. But GC is worth a look, yes

There is a lot of concern that the AAC contract will be cut because of the 3 BIG 12 departures

Is there not similar concern the MWC contract will be cut if Air Force and Colorado St leave?

(09-22-2021 09:45 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 08:52 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 08:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 08:42 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Air Force, Colorado State, and UAB are rumored to be close to finalizing the deal to join the AAC.

Purely baffling if true for those two.

It's about Air Force and playing Navy and eastern exposure. Colorado State is along for the ride.

I don't get the love for CSU or Rice. Air Force and UAB makes sense. To me. if AAC wants another Texas team, UTSA or North Texas makes more sense to me than Rice for quality football. Does Rice really bring in the Houston market? As for CSU, if the goal is for large market not quality. Why not go for

• Ga State Atlanta and easy drive to Birmingham.
• ODU for tide water area, natural rival for ECU,
• FAU West Palm/Bocca/Miami (East coast version of USF)
• UTSA -San Antonio Tx
• UNC-Charlotte
  

My logic would go after strong football not large markets. Good football wins every time. Just my opinion, if they want to keep the P6 marketing campaign.

• App St with a larger budget, will only continue to get better.
• Coastal Carolina appears to be committed to football,
• Louisiana Rajun Cajuns,
• Marshall every college fan knows their story
• La Tech
• FAU - Appears to be building upon Lane Kiffen's rebuild
  

I don't think CSU is a market play. The market is a plus, but their budget is the draw. CSU spends 55m/year on athletics. Ga. State spends 38m. Marshall spends 33m. ODU spends 50m, but the Tidewater area eyeballs (and I know someone will debate this) are mostly split between VT and ECU at this point, so it's not necessarily a new market like Denver is.

(09-23-2021 07:58 AM)solohawks Wrote:  There is a lot of concern that the AAC contract will be cut because of the 3 BIG 12 departures

Is there not similar concern the MWC contract will be cut if Air Force and Colorado St leave?

Define “similar”, LOL.

UC, UCF, and UH are/were the 3 biggest brands by far in the AAC.

AFA/CSU are good brands imho but they do not stand above the rest of the MWC. Certainly not the same dynamic.

(09-23-2021 07:58 AM)solohawks Wrote:  There is a lot of concern that the AAC contract will be cut because of the 3 BIG 12 departures

Is there not similar concern the MWC contract will be cut if Air Force and Colorado St leave?

Depends on who you ask.

AAC Fans:
-UCF, Houston, and Cincy were valuable, but did not represent TX/OU value compared to the remaining teams
-AFA and CSU represent the #3 and #4 most valuable properties in the MWC
-MWC will take a haircut if they leave

MWC Fans:
-UCF, Houston, and Cincinnati made up 99.2% of the media value
-AAC loot from ESPN will drop to $27/year after they depart
-MWC is now more valuable than the AAC
-CSU and AFA are worthless

(09-22-2021 10:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  How many times I have to say this?

Air Force no
Colorado State no
UAB no
Rice no
Army no
North Texas no
Georgia State no
ODU no

None of them have a name beand in football right now, and fan basr is not great in some.

Tipping the old peach schnapps late night again, are we?