(10-18-2021 11:38 AM)HighlandsApp Wrote:  

(10-17-2021 09:01 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  North Texas May be headed to the MWC

Perhaps. But I think if a university has an option to upgrade into either the AAC or the mountain west probably going to go with the East Coast option.

Maybe. But the AAC is a market-driven conference. They're already in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro with SMU, and UNT isn't going to do all that much to improve in that. UTSA and Rice, by contrast, give them a presence in a different Texas metro that either don't already have or will soon lose.

So, if I had to make a bet, I would bet UNT is more likely to head west than east.

(10-15-2021 02:11 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 02:02 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 01:35 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 01:31 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 01:07 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  I have logical thoughts, but I cant help you understand them.

So the mighty Raigin' Cajuns, with their back to back to back winning seasons, are only managing 3500 more fans in the stands than UTSA? So they still dont have the support. I see.

I see you have trouble reading and comprehending. Pity.

What was so hard to comprehend about one Saturday game? That game was vs an FCS school one week after a major hurricane passed just east of us, 25K. Our lowest attended game? 17K on a Thursday vs a MAC team no one down here has heard of. That's still better than the pathetic 16K you drew for two Saturday games in a comfy domed stadium.

You want to talk about no support? Please tell me more about how in a city of 2.5 million people with very little other fall sports entertainment to speak of, and yet you can't even muster an average attendance of over 20K. You're coming off of a trip to a bowl game last year (remember who won that one?), and you're 6-0, and it's your homecoming vs an in-state conference foe, dear god it would be pretty friggin pathetic if you can't get 25K at that game. But in those circumstances, you should be doing way better.

Excuses are like ********... or something like that. I can use the excuse about our previous coach that ran our program into the ground. Before him, we were averaging close to 30k. So we both can play this game.

And I am just using your buddy's definition of no support regarding the University of Louisiana - Lafayette. Dont get your panties up in a bunch.

I have no friends on this board, and I don't know what university you are referring to, as no university goes by the name "University of Louisiana - Lafayette".

If you are referring to this initial exchange:

(10-15-2021 08:34 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 06:47 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 06:13 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  If Aresco truly believes what he's saying and joining the AAC is like winning the lottery nothing matters more than marketz. We'll find out soon enough if the Sun Belt experiment of traditional football focused small town universities will ultimately succeed or the marketz experiment has any merit. Aresco will be forcing the idea front and center. Who he'll be after is pretty obvious. Welcome USM and Marshall. We have a significant opportunity to prove him wrong.

There's just such a huge difference between schools in large urban centers who have lots of support (San Diego State, Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston, UCF) and those who are just in large urban areas without the support (Charlotte, UTSA, FIU, [Redacted]). Markets without the merit mean nothing.

Your argument went out of the window when you mentioned San Diego State, they are currently averaging 9303 per game.

Then you didn't even argue with "my buddy" regarding his comments about UTSA. You just refuted his point about SDSU being strongly supported by stating their attendance numbers for their "home games" in another metro that requires a 4 hour round trip. So not only did you not poke holes in his argument, but you didn't even directly refute the comments he made about UTSA. Good job at failing completely at what you came here to do.

If you dont even remember how this argument started, why are you even arguing at this point?

Because you posted misleading information about a program superior to yours in a meaningless attempt to try and prop up UTSA. I remember how the argument started, I quoted it for you on Friday; you did nothing at the time to refute the argument that UTSA doesn't get support when compared to SDSU. Shall I break it down for you again? 1) SDSU's attendance is historically better than yours through your entire tenure as FBS, and even more so in recent history, they were an appropriate example alongside UCF, Cincy, Houston, Memphis 2) SDSU's current attendance/stadium situation has nothing to do with the current health of their football team or university.
You had a decently attended game this past weekend, good job I suppose, although you should be doing better. If we need more crappy information on our board from a poster of another conference, we'll give you a shout. Otherwise, unless you have something constructive to add, you aren't needed here anymore.

(10-14-2021 11:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:00 AM)RamblinRedWolf Wrote:  Overall nothing new in the article but I thought the quote alone was worth the thread

https://www.smudailycampus.com/sports/aa...conference

"Aresco instead pointed to a new model. Instead of bringing in established schools, he believes the conference can survive by bringing in lesser schools and raising their profile once they are in the conference.

“I think what is sometimes overlooked is what the American Athletic Conference has done in elevating programs that may not have been at the level they’re at now,” Aresco said. “In terms of the conference, our goals and vision have not changed. I think once we reconstitute we’re going to continue our approach. As in trying to become an autonomous six conference.”

Link didn't work for me, but what I take from that quote is the AAC is going to end up taking schools that probably have accomplished almost nothing but have the desire and ability to spend at the AAC level. The AAC has to add teams that have the ability to run 50+ million dollar budgets, and honestly that's a pretty small list of schools not in the AAC/MWC.

What is it with you and budgets? Dollars don't line up and play football. They didn't line up and play football in September in Charlotte. Sure, it matters, but it isn't the end all be all.

Further than budgets, how are advertisers going to feel when their games are broadcast to millions less people thanks to the AAC's "potential" approach?

(10-18-2021 12:12 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:00 AM)RamblinRedWolf Wrote:  Overall nothing new in the article but I thought the quote alone was worth the thread

https://www.smudailycampus.com/sports/aa...conference

"Aresco instead pointed to a new model. Instead of bringing in established schools, he believes the conference can survive by bringing in lesser schools and raising their profile once they are in the conference.

“I think what is sometimes overlooked is what the American Athletic Conference has done in elevating programs that may not have been at the level they’re at now,” Aresco said. “In terms of the conference, our goals and vision have not changed. I think once we reconstitute we’re going to continue our approach. As in trying to become an autonomous six conference.”

Link didn't work for me, but what I take from that quote is the AAC is going to end up taking schools that probably have accomplished almost nothing but have the desire and ability to spend at the AAC level. The AAC has to add teams that have the ability to run 50+ million dollar budgets, and honestly that's a pretty small list of schools not in the AAC/MWC.

What is it with you and budgets? Dollars don't line up and play football. They didn't line up and play football in September in Charlotte. Sure, it matters, but it isn't the end all be all.

Further than budgets, how are advertisers going to feel when their games are broadcast to millions less people thanks to the AAC's "potential" approach?

Ok, point to the potential AAC additions that have decades of sustained success at the FBS level? Maybe Marshall, and I can point to how they were a below .500 team for the nearly decade they played in C-USA 2.0 with the majority of the schools they'd be in a league with in the AAC. They dominated the late 90's MAC, they dominated the very beginning of C-USA 3.0 with a bunch of schools that barely had football programs, and haven't even been dominating C-USA 3.0 recently. Every addition is a "potential" addition. There's no schools drawing 40k+ fans per game that have been proven winners at the FBS level for decades and proven TV draws for years.

(10-18-2021 01:46 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-18-2021 12:12 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:00 AM)RamblinRedWolf Wrote:  Overall nothing new in the article but I thought the quote alone was worth the thread

https://www.smudailycampus.com/sports/aa...conference

"Aresco instead pointed to a new model. Instead of bringing in established schools, he believes the conference can survive by bringing in lesser schools and raising their profile once they are in the conference.

“I think what is sometimes overlooked is what the American Athletic Conference has done in elevating programs that may not have been at the level they’re at now,” Aresco said. “In terms of the conference, our goals and vision have not changed. I think once we reconstitute we’re going to continue our approach. As in trying to become an autonomous six conference.”

Link didn't work for me, but what I take from that quote is the AAC is going to end up taking schools that probably have accomplished almost nothing but have the desire and ability to spend at the AAC level. The AAC has to add teams that have the ability to run 50+ million dollar budgets, and honestly that's a pretty small list of schools not in the AAC/MWC.

What is it with you and budgets? Dollars don't line up and play football. They didn't line up and play football in September in Charlotte. Sure, it matters, but it isn't the end all be all.

Further than budgets, how are advertisers going to feel when their games are broadcast to millions less people thanks to the AAC's "potential" approach?

Ok, point to the potential AAC additions that have decades of sustained success at the FBS level? Maybe Marshall, and I can point to how they were a below .500 team for the nearly decade they played in C-USA 2.0 with the majority of the schools they'd be in a league with in the AAC. They dominated the late 90's MAC, they dominated the very beginning of C-USA 3.0 with a bunch of schools that barely had football programs, and haven't even been dominating C-USA 3.0 recently. Every addition is a "potential" addition. There's no schools drawing 40k+ fans per game that have been proven winners at the FBS level for decades and proven TV draws for years.

I've agreed with something I believe you posted here or in the general realignment forum. It is easier to raise a team up in the form of athletic success if they can provide the budget than bring a team's budget up / academics up if they are already pretty capped out.

That is why UAB and ODU would be perfect fits for the AAC. Rice could be if they even had a shred of care for sports success.

(10-18-2021 01:49 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(10-18-2021 01:46 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-18-2021 12:12 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:00 AM)RamblinRedWolf Wrote:  Overall nothing new in the article but I thought the quote alone was worth the thread

https://www.smudailycampus.com/sports/aa...conference

"Aresco instead pointed to a new model. Instead of bringing in established schools, he believes the conference can survive by bringing in lesser schools and raising their profile once they are in the conference.

“I think what is sometimes overlooked is what the American Athletic Conference has done in elevating programs that may not have been at the level they’re at now,” Aresco said. “In terms of the conference, our goals and vision have not changed. I think once we reconstitute we’re going to continue our approach. As in trying to become an autonomous six conference.”

Link didn't work for me, but what I take from that quote is the AAC is going to end up taking schools that probably have accomplished almost nothing but have the desire and ability to spend at the AAC level. The AAC has to add teams that have the ability to run 50+ million dollar budgets, and honestly that's a pretty small list of schools not in the AAC/MWC.

What is it with you and budgets? Dollars don't line up and play football. They didn't line up and play football in September in Charlotte. Sure, it matters, but it isn't the end all be all.

Further than budgets, how are advertisers going to feel when their games are broadcast to millions less people thanks to the AAC's "potential" approach?

Ok, point to the potential AAC additions that have decades of sustained success at the FBS level? Maybe Marshall, and I can point to how they were a below .500 team for the nearly decade they played in C-USA 2.0 with the majority of the schools they'd be in a league with in the AAC. They dominated the late 90's MAC, they dominated the very beginning of C-USA 3.0 with a bunch of schools that barely had football programs, and haven't even been dominating C-USA 3.0 recently. Every addition is a "potential" addition. There's no schools drawing 40k+ fans per game that have been proven winners at the FBS level for decades and proven TV draws for years.

I've agreed with something I believe you posted here or in the general realignment forum. It is easier to raise a team up in the form of athletic success if they can provide the budget than bring a team's budget up / academics up if they are already pretty capped out.

That is why UAB and ODU would be perfect fits for the AAC. Rice could be if they even had a shred of care for sports success.

History/Tradition/Winning/Attendance matter a ton to me. If I had my way I wouldn't want anyone added who didn't consistently draw at least 30k per game and have a long history of successful FBS football regardless of what town they are located in. Problem is that doesn't exist.

I would guess UAB, Charlotte, Rice and one more to AAC and then UNT and UTSA to MWC. USM to SBC. At that point Marshall can either add all the FCS teams they can dream of on the east coast or join the SBC.

No need in going past 12 teams. As has been stated by several on here. G5 conferences with more than 12 seem to fall apart. History has shown that 12 is a good number. Also G5 conferences really don't make enough to have more than 12. We either stay at 10 or go to 12. Let's stop the go to 14 talk.

(10-18-2021 11:42 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(10-18-2021 11:27 AM)JTApps1 Wrote:  If that's the route they choose then we should certainly take USM, Marshall, JMU, and one of UTSA, ODU, or WKU.

What's the harm in taking just USM and either Marshall or JMU? There's no urgency to go to 14. Large G5 conferences don't have a history of lasting long. But I think there is an urgency to go to 12, if for no other reason than to exert strength over a peer conference.

The other thing I wanted to say is that the prospect of being the only FBS conference besides the SEC to expand this round without also losing schools is significant. The SB wouldn't be covering up losses, but just flexing its muscles.

The WAC fell apart because half the league felt like they were far superior to the rest of the league. It's interesting that many of those schools are now back together again after the top 3 schools left the MWC. The league was also very spread out due to the geography of the western US.

CUSA is failing because they focused on markets instead of programs that were FBS worthy. They also had a large void in the middle of the league with only UAB in the geographic center of a large footprint. On top of that, they left ESPN to chase new media partners and ended up on nearly invisible platforms.

The schools I mentioned would result in a league that isn't much more spread out than the current league, and it would have fairly compact divisions. The vast majority would be football first with solid fan support. We also have good TV exposer with the ESPN deal. I also believe this group of schools have a similar mindset to one another.

(10-18-2021 02:59 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(10-18-2021 11:42 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(10-18-2021 11:27 AM)JTApps1 Wrote:  If that's the route they choose then we should certainly take USM, Marshall, JMU, and one of UTSA, ODU, or WKU.

What's the harm in taking just USM and either Marshall or JMU? There's no urgency to go to 14. Large G5 conferences don't have a history of lasting long. But I think there is an urgency to go to 12, if for no other reason than to exert strength over a peer conference.

The other thing I wanted to say is that the prospect of being the only FBS conference besides the SEC to expand this round without also losing schools is significant. The SB wouldn't be covering up losses, but just flexing its muscles.

The WAC fell apart because half the league felt like they were far superior to the rest of the league. It's interesting that many of those schools are now back together again after the top 3 schools left the MWC. The league was also very spread out due to the geography of the western US.

CUSA is failing because they focused on markets instead of programs that were FBS worthy. They also had a large void in the middle of the league with only UAB in the geographic center of a large footprint. On top of that, they left ESPN to chase new media partners and ended up on nearly invisible platforms.

The schools I mentioned would result in a league that isn't much more spread out than the current league, and it would have fairly compact divisions. The vast majority would be football first with solid fan support. We also have good TV exposer with the ESPN deal. I also believe this group of schools have a similar mindset to one another.

I think it all depends on how well ESPN, in our case, would be willing to support a larger conference. Right now 12 is probably the best number. 14 could be manageable if ESPN believes there are 4 teams value's who are enough. Don't see anything more than 4 ever happening.

(10-18-2021 02:59 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  The WAC fell apart because half the league felt like they were far superior to the rest of the league. It's interesting that many of those schools are now back together again after the top 3 schools left the MWC. The league was also very spread out due to the geography of the western US.

CUSA is failing because they focused on markets instead of programs that were FBS worthy. They also had a large void in the middle of the league with only UAB in the geographic center of a large footprint. On top of that, they left ESPN to chase new media partners and ended up on nearly invisible platforms.

The schools I mentioned would result in a league that isn't much more spread out than the current league, and it would have fairly compact divisions. The vast majority would be football first with solid fan support. We also have good TV exposer with the ESPN deal. I also believe this group of schools have a similar mindset to one another.

I disagree a bit that it wasn't a mistake to go to 14 instead 12, but I'm totally with you on the failed MaRkEt and PoTeNtIaL strategy.

The AAC is following the exact same failed strategy. Look at their candidates.

UAB -- Market, although this is one where it's a perfectly worthy addition
FAU -- Market. Some success
UTSA - Market. One solid season in its existence.
Charlotte -- Market. Barely any success ever.
ODU -- Market. Barely any success ever in FBS.
N. Texas -- Market. Barely any success since joining C-USA.
Rice -- Market. Academic gem without question, but half...hearted commitment to athletics.

The AAC is learning NOTHING from others' failures.

(10-18-2021 03:55 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(10-18-2021 02:59 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  The WAC fell apart because half the league felt like they were far superior to the rest of the league. It's interesting that many of those schools are now back together again after the top 3 schools left the MWC. The league was also very spread out due to the geography of the western US.

CUSA is failing because they focused on markets instead of programs that were FBS worthy. They also had a large void in the middle of the league with only UAB in the geographic center of a large footprint. On top of that, they left ESPN to chase new media partners and ended up on nearly invisible platforms.

The schools I mentioned would result in a league that isn't much more spread out than the current league, and it would have fairly compact divisions. The vast majority would be football first with solid fan support. We also have good TV exposer with the ESPN deal. I also believe this group of schools have a similar mindset to one another.

I disagree a bit that it wasn't a mistake to go to 14 instead 12, but I'm totally with you on the failed MaRkEt and PoTeNtIaL strategy.

The AAC is following the exact same failed strategy. Look at their candidates.

UAB -- Market, although this is one where it's a perfectly worthy addition
FAU -- Market. Some success
UTSA - Market. One solid season in its existence.
Charlotte -- Market. Barely any success ever.
ODU -- Market. Barely any success ever in FBS.
N. Texas -- Market. Barely any success since joining C-USA.
Rice -- Market. Academic gem without question, but half...hearted commitment to athletics.

The AAC is learning NOTHING from others' failures.

If "long term history of FBS success" should be the top priority then there's like what Marshall, USM, and La Tech maybe who have had any real FBS success that dates back before 2010.

The AAC is without a doubt in the middle of an existential crisis.

Who are they?
What do they *want* to be?
Can they actually achieve that with the available candidates?
What do they do if they can't actually attract their top candidates?
Are they *willing* to check their egos and adjust their vision?
If they can't have it their way are the member schools willing to go independent or assimilate into existing G5 conferences?

They were always a conference of tweeners.

The AAC is without a doubt in the middle of an existential crisis.

Who are they? Not who they think they are
What do they *want* to be? They want to be a power conference
Can they actually achieve that with the available candidates? No
What do they do if they can't actually attract their top candidates? They already have shown they can’t attract their top candidates.
Are they *willing* to check their egos and adjust their vision? Willing or not, it’s happening.
If they can't have it their way are the member schools willing to go independent or assimilate into existing G5 conferences? The Texas 2 are the only ones that have ever been to the promise land and kicked out, the rest have always been second class citizens like the rest of us.

They were always a conference of tweeners.

(10-18-2021 11:37 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(10-18-2021 10:58 AM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  I agree with those who state Charlotte is the second choice behind UAB. That's what my sources are saying as well.

After that, it's kind of a crapshoot. UNT, FAU, UTSA and Rice are mentioned, but I'm not getting a consensus.

Of course, all this is predicated by the Mountain West staying where they are.

"P6" has got to go if they add Charlotte. They have the smallest stadium in FBS and one of the smallest attendance in the subAdding that school is waving the white flag that you're no longer close to the power conferences. If that's who they want, then by all means, take them on in with open arms. But they've got to retire the "American Pow6r" nonsense if they add that school.

I am comfortable with App remaining in the Sun Belt, more so than at any point in App's tenure in the league. The AAC could very well have dominoes fall against them at any point. Memphis is a very realistic risk to go to the Big 12. USF and SMU are less of a risk to get invited to the Big 12, but they certainly would run not walk if given the opportunity. Navy at some point could easily decide to return to independence. Wichita State could take up an offer from the MW, as could Tulsa. Hard to say at this point. I am NOT saying the demise of the AAC is imminent. Odds are it will be okay. But with each departure, the league becomes less attractive to schools in more stable leagues like the MAC, MW, and SB to switch. And the schools who are joining clearly are not the top choices of the league. We know for a fact that four MW schools were offered membership, and I have no doubt Army football was offered as well. So UAB is, at best, their sixth choice.

Contrast that with the SB. It's likely to have at least the majority of its current membership in the league 10 years from now, as I stated in another post. App has a well established rivalry with Southern, rapidly growing rivalries with Coastal and Louisiana, and plenty of familiarity at this point with the rest of the league.

If indeed the AAC suffers all the potential losses I listed above, which, again, I think is against the odds, then I think it is perfectly possible for the Sun Belt to surpass the AAC in terms of off-the-field performance, stability, and even media value.

App, if, hypothetically, it does have an offer to go to the AAC, has to consider if it would wind up in the same situation Southern Miss and others in C-USA are in, which is a league that once had a clear upper hand over the SB but has fallen behind in time.

The SB has less risk to it. We know what the league is and what it will be. And college presidents tend to be risk-averse. The C-USA schools like Charlotte, by contrast, would be at a greater risk by staying in C-USA than they would in joining the AAC.

IN my opinion, that happened to CUSA for one reason. They varied from the formula. Leagues that get poached get poached from above and lose their top teams. The poached league, then turns around and promotes the top teams from the league below---and that league then has to rebuild. CUSA went an odd route this last round. They did not skim the top off the Sunbelt--instead they went more for "markets" and ignored quality/performance. Then they compounded that mistake by expanding to 14 teams with newbie FCS move ups and start up programs---again based entirely on markets. In doing this---CUSA voluntarily accepted the role as FBS incubator rather than a importer of developed talent FROM an entry level incubator. They accepted the risk of move ups that turn out to be busts.

Worse yet---that left the Sunbelt with almost all of its better performers---and it allowed the Sunbelt to pick off FCS move-ups that were not in big markets---but actually had performance levels indicative of solid FBS teams. If a conference isnt constantly raided---its best programs will begin to gain traction and the conference can progress and develop.

The lesson here to me is---if you lose your top teams---then dont try to get cute. Take the historical top brands from the conference below you---because if you dont---you are allowing that conference below you to continue to organically develop and prosper----and it might just surpass you.

(10-18-2021 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-18-2021 11:37 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(10-18-2021 10:58 AM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  I agree with those who state Charlotte is the second choice behind UAB. That's what my sources are saying as well.

After that, it's kind of a crapshoot. UNT, FAU, UTSA and Rice are mentioned, but I'm not getting a consensus.

Of course, all this is predicated by the Mountain West staying where they are.

"P6" has got to go if they add Charlotte. They have the smallest stadium in FBS and one of the smallest attendance in the subAdding that school is waving the white flag that you're no longer close to the power conferences. If that's who they want, then by all means, take them on in with open arms. But they've got to retire the "American Pow6r" nonsense if they add that school.

I am comfortable with App remaining in the Sun Belt, more so than at any point in App's tenure in the league. The AAC could very well have dominoes fall against them at any point. Memphis is a very realistic risk to go to the Big 12. USF and SMU are less of a risk to get invited to the Big 12, but they certainly would run not walk if given the opportunity. Navy at some point could easily decide to return to independence. Wichita State could take up an offer from the MW, as could Tulsa. Hard to say at this point. I am NOT saying the demise of the AAC is imminent. Odds are it will be okay. But with each departure, the league becomes less attractive to schools in more stable leagues like the MAC, MW, and SB to switch. And the schools who are joining clearly are not the top choices of the league. We know for a fact that four MW schools were offered membership, and I have no doubt Army football was offered as well. So UAB is, at best, their sixth choice.

Contrast that with the SB. It's likely to have at least the majority of its current membership in the league 10 years from now, as I stated in another post. App has a well established rivalry with Southern, rapidly growing rivalries with Coastal and Louisiana, and plenty of familiarity at this point with the rest of the league.

If indeed the AAC suffers all the potential losses I listed above, which, again, I think is against the odds, then I think it is perfectly possible for the Sun Belt to surpass the AAC in terms of off-the-field performance, stability, and even media value.

App, if, hypothetically, it does have an offer to go to the AAC, has to consider if it would wind up in the same situation Southern Miss and others in C-USA are in, which is a league that once had a clear upper hand over the SB but has fallen behind in time.

The SB has less risk to it. We know what the league is and what it will be. And college presidents tend to be risk-averse. The C-USA schools like Charlotte, by contrast, would be at a greater risk by staying in C-USA than they would in joining the AAC.

IN my opinion, that happened to CUSA for one reason. They varied from the formula. Leagues that get poached get poached from above and lose their top teams. The poached league, then turns around and promotes the top teams from the league below---and that league then has to rebuild. CUSA went an odd route this last round. They did not skim the top off the Sunbelt--instead they went more for "markets" and ignored quality/performance. Then they compounded that mistake by expanding to 14 teams with newbie FCS move ups and start up programs---again based entirely on markets. In doing this---CUSA voluntarily accepted the role as FBS incubator rather than a importer of developed talent FROM an entry level incubator. They accepted the risk of move ups that turn out to be busts.

Worse yet---that left the Sunbelt with almost all of its better performers---and it allowed the Sunbelt to pick off FCS move-ups that were not in big markets---but actually had performance levels indicative of solid FBS teams. If a conference isnt constantly raided---its best programs will begin to gain traction and the conference can progress and develop.

The lesson here to me is---if you lose your top teams---then dont try to get cute. Take the historical top brands from the conference below you---because if you dont---you are allowing that conference below you to continue to organically develop and prosper----and it might just surpass you.

That's exactly what appears to be imminent. Pete Thamel is reporting UAB (good choice), UNT, UTSA, Rice, Charlotte, and FAU are going to apply for the AAC, and likely be accepted.

M-a-R-k-E-t-Z

P-o-T-e-N-t-I-a-L