(12-08-2017 12:44 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 12:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 11:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 11:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly, Im not convinced standing pat at 11 isnt a better move. Its not like the Big10 didnt do it for almost 20 years.
You can't have 11 teams and a CCG. CCG needs either divisions, or a full round robin. The only possible way to work it would be one division having more conference games than the other, and even then I'm not sure.
AAC would either fold when UConn called their bluff, or reach out to UMass or NMSU, or Liberty as an affiliate, or Charlotte or ODU or who knows as a full member.
Actually you can. The exact language of the new recently adopted CCG rule (that allowed CCG's with fewer than 12 teams) now addresses that. While defining the divisional CCG option, it says something to the effect that the conference must play a round robin with two divisions that are as "equal" in size as "possible". Obviously, this new altered language (that didnt exist in the original CCG rule) is there to address odd numbered leagues. Its a pain in the butt for scheduling--but as I said, the Big10 did it for 20 years. Cutting loose a low end football squad means football money gets split fewer ways and SOS improves--so there is an incentive for trhe AAC to go to 11 in the event of a UConn jump to the BE.
Personally, unless the AAC next TV deal is below 3 million a team I dont think there will be enough financial incentive for UConn to throw their football program under a bus. If the new deal is over 4 million, UConn actually loses money with the move. I dont think UConn is going anywhere.
It's not a rules problem, it's a math problem. If the East Division has 5 teams, they play a round robin 4 games each. They each need 4 cross-division games, for a total of 16 games. The West Division has 6 teams each, they play a round robin 5 games each, need 3 games each, for a total of 18 cross-division games. So either 2 East division teams play 9 conference games, or 2 West division teams play 7 games.
The MAC didn't have this problem when they had 13 teams because they just ignored the round-robin part of the rule. Maybe the AAC could do that, I don't know. It's not like anyone would run screaming to the NCAA that the AAC was "cheating"--what's the Latin opposite of "qui bono?" Who's harmed? Really the only harm is to the schools who would be trying to fill UConn's spot, which means that CUSA would support the AAC's waiver--they're the likeliest to get poached.
Thats what Im saying. The language indicating the 2 divisions must be as "equal" as possible pretty much IS the waiver. Its kinda like saying--do your best to comply.
(12-08-2017 01:44 PM)UConnHusky Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 09:12 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2017 12:58 PM)Bogg Wrote: [ -> ]One thing that definitely won't happen is the AAC giving UConn an agreement to stay as an affiliate ahead of time, as they'd be out the door before the ink was dry on the agreement.
Agreed, the AAC would bluster about "no partial memberships", etc. in order to try and scare UConn in to thinking if they put their hoops in the Big East, their football would get booted from the AAC.
But if UConn calls their bluff and puts hoops in the Big East, IMO the AAC would not carry through on the threat, realizing that booting UConn football would harm the conference.
You see, I disagree with that 100%. That would make the conference look extremely week.
Sorry but I don't see how losing a program that is 27-58 in the last 7 years would harm the conference. In a area that doesn't give a rip about college football. They could get Army to replace them who is 30-54 same period and give them the same area locally(and much more nationally). Or they could replace them with someone like Old Dominion located much closer to their footprint who is 26-23 since moving up. Or even a UTSA who would then allow Navy to move to the east.
IMO, you significantly underestimate the value of UConn. UConn is the only state flagship in the AAC, and one of the four "class A" schools that the networks said were particularly valuable when our contract was signed in 2013. UConn's athletic budget is P5-level and they are a top-60 national university academically.
UConn basketball wins titles, but football always drives the bus, and UConn football is, in my view, way more valuable than Army or Old Dominion or anyone else that the AAC could replace them with. It has to do with national brand recognition and geography in the NYC area, has nothing to do with how UConn has done on the field recently.
I couldn't have said it better. Brand, fan base size, and television market are more important than current on field performance. You can always get better but you can't change your location and you can't reinvent your brand overnight.
UConn doesn't have a brand in college football.
(12-08-2017 02:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 12:44 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 12:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 11:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 11:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly, Im not convinced standing pat at 11 isnt a better move. Its not like the Big10 didnt do it for almost 20 years.
You can't have 11 teams and a CCG. CCG needs either divisions, or a full round robin. The only possible way to work it would be one division having more conference games than the other, and even then I'm not sure.
AAC would either fold when UConn called their bluff, or reach out to UMass or NMSU, or Liberty as an affiliate, or Charlotte or ODU or who knows as a full member.
Actually you can. The exact language of the new recently adopted CCG rule (that allowed CCG's with fewer than 12 teams) now addresses that. While defining the divisional CCG option, it says something to the effect that the conference must play a round robin with two divisions that are as "equal" in size as "possible". Obviously, this new altered language (that didnt exist in the original CCG rule) is there to address odd numbered leagues. Its a pain in the butt for scheduling--but as I said, the Big10 did it for 20 years. Cutting loose a low end football squad means football money gets split fewer ways and SOS improves--so there is an incentive for trhe AAC to go to 11 in the event of a UConn jump to the BE.
Personally, unless the AAC next TV deal is below 3 million a team I dont think there will be enough financial incentive for UConn to throw their football program under a bus. If the new deal is over 4 million, UConn actually loses money with the move. I dont think UConn is going anywhere.
It's not a rules problem, it's a math problem. If the East Division has 5 teams, they play a round robin 4 games each. They each need 4 cross-division games, for a total of 16 games. The West Division has 6 teams each, they play a round robin 5 games each, need 3 games each, for a total of 18 cross-division games. So either 2 East division teams play 9 conference games, or 2 West division teams play 7 games.
The MAC didn't have this problem when they had 13 teams because they just ignored the round-robin part of the rule. Maybe the AAC could do that, I don't know. It's not like anyone would run screaming to the NCAA that the AAC was "cheating"--what's the Latin opposite of "qui bono?" Who's harmed? Really the only harm is to the schools who would be trying to fill UConn's spot, which means that CUSA would support the AAC's waiver--they're the likeliest to get poached.
Thats what Im saying. The language indicating the 2 divisions must be as "equal" as possible pretty much IS the waiver. Its kinda like saying--do your best to comply.
Or they would just do a bro league a solid and change the rule, like they did for the Big 12.
(12-08-2017 02:01 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:44 PM)UConnHusky Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 09:12 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed, the AAC would bluster about "no partial memberships", etc. in order to try and scare UConn in to thinking if they put their hoops in the Big East, their football would get booted from the AAC.
But if UConn calls their bluff and puts hoops in the Big East, IMO the AAC would not carry through on the threat, realizing that booting UConn football would harm the conference.
You see, I disagree with that 100%. That would make the conference look extremely week.
Sorry but I don't see how losing a program that is 27-58 in the last 7 years would harm the conference. In a area that doesn't give a rip about college football. They could get Army to replace them who is 30-54 same period and give them the same area locally(and much more nationally). Or they could replace them with someone like Old Dominion located much closer to their footprint who is 26-23 since moving up. Or even a UTSA who would then allow Navy to move to the east.
IMO, you significantly underestimate the value of UConn. UConn is the only state flagship in the AAC, and one of the four "class A" schools that the networks said were particularly valuable when our contract was signed in 2013. UConn's athletic budget is P5-level and they are a top-60 national university academically.
UConn basketball wins titles, but football always drives the bus, and UConn football is, in my view, way more valuable than Army or Old Dominion or anyone else that the AAC could replace them with. It has to do with national brand recognition and geography in the NYC area, has nothing to do with how UConn has done on the field recently.
I couldn't have said it better. Brand, fan base size, and television market are more important than current on field performance. You can always get better but you can't change your location and you can't reinvent your brand overnight.
UConn doesn't have a brand in college football.
Most people don't even know we have a football team....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(12-08-2017 01:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 09:12 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2017 12:58 PM)Bogg Wrote: [ -> ]One thing that definitely won't happen is the AAC giving UConn an agreement to stay as an affiliate ahead of time, as they'd be out the door before the ink was dry on the agreement.
Agreed, the AAC would bluster about "no partial memberships", etc. in order to try and scare UConn in to thinking if they put their hoops in the Big East, their football would get booted from the AAC.
But if UConn calls their bluff and puts hoops in the Big East, IMO the AAC would not carry through on the threat, realizing that booting UConn football would harm the conference.
You see, I disagree with that 100%. That would make the conference look extremely week.
Sorry but I don't see how losing a program that is 27-58 in the last 7 years would harm the conference. In a area that doesn't give a rip about college football. They could get Army to replace them who is 30-54 same period and give them the same area locally(and much more nationally). Or they could replace them with someone like Old Dominion located much closer to their footprint who is 26-23 since moving up. Or even a UTSA who would then allow Navy to move to the east.
IMO, you significantly underestimate the value of UConn. UConn is the only state flagship in the AAC, and one of the four "class A" schools that the networks said were particularly valuable when our contract was signed in 2013.
So was Temple. It ain't because of their football. The value of an average Big East basketball program is $4M a year, as of 2012. VAlue UConn basketball at the same number, and the value of UConn football is somewhere between $0 and $16M a year, depending on what the rest of the league is worth.
Things aren't so compartmentalized, there are spillover effects. E.g., Notre Dame basketball doesn't have the same cache as Notre Dame football, but it has a lot more cache than that of basketball programs with similar levels of success but no football legacy - because the football brand value has rubbed off to an extent on their other sports.
UConn's basketball teams gave them notoriety and name recognition, but that rubbed off on to football. Combine that with UConn football's own success, such as winning a Big East title and going to the Fiesta Bowl, and UConn football has value above anything the AAC could replace them with - IMHO.
(12-08-2017 02:01 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:44 PM)UConnHusky Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 09:12 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed, the AAC would bluster about "no partial memberships", etc. in order to try and scare UConn in to thinking if they put their hoops in the Big East, their football would get booted from the AAC.
But if UConn calls their bluff and puts hoops in the Big East, IMO the AAC would not carry through on the threat, realizing that booting UConn football would harm the conference.
You see, I disagree with that 100%. That would make the conference look extremely week.
Sorry but I don't see how losing a program that is 27-58 in the last 7 years would harm the conference. In a area that doesn't give a rip about college football. They could get Army to replace them who is 30-54 same period and give them the same area locally(and much more nationally). Or they could replace them with someone like Old Dominion located much closer to their footprint who is 26-23 since moving up. Or even a UTSA who would then allow Navy to move to the east.
IMO, you significantly underestimate the value of UConn. UConn is the only state flagship in the AAC, and one of the four "class A" schools that the networks said were particularly valuable when our contract was signed in 2013. UConn's athletic budget is P5-level and they are a top-60 national university academically.
UConn basketball wins titles, but football always drives the bus, and UConn football is, in my view, way more valuable than Army or Old Dominion or anyone else that the AAC could replace them with. It has to do with national brand recognition and geography in the NYC area, has nothing to do with how UConn has done on the field recently.
I couldn't have said it better. Brand, fan base size, and television market are more important than current on field performance. You can always get better but you can't change your location and you can't reinvent your brand overnight.
UConn doesn't have a brand in college football.
That isn't exactly how branding works. Schools forge a brand for themselves at both the school level and at the athletic department level in its entirety. Brands aren't created for individual sports (and, if they are, then it means that a school has a pretty cr*ppy branding campaign).
Either way, even though our football stinks, it still gets a fair amount of viewers. That is all that matters. Maybe they are watching for the comedy value of it? LOL
(12-08-2017 01:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:37 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:00 PM)Mestophalies Wrote: [ -> ]This subject always makes me laugh. The catholic schools split off in hopes of taking ND with them. When ND left them and said get lost, they began pining for UConn and haven't stopped since. 
Catholic schools didn't want Notre Dame. The football schools did. Notre Dame tried to get the C7 to take them with them for the year so they didn't have to play basketball in the AAC.
I don't remember that happening.
Quote:Paid extra to get into the ACC for that season.
Paid who? They didn't pay a dime in exit fees.
Quote:The football schools got played big time in that arrangement...like the football scheduling arrangements that never worked out...
The old Big East football schools wanted Notre Dame badly--there was the eternal pipe dream of Notre Dame football joining. The Catholic schools appreciated having Notre Dame in the Big East, and vice versa--Notre Dame was the fundamental reason that the hybrid happened, they refused to choose sides, so neither group had 6-schools-for-5 years which was the rule back then.
I don't remember anything about Notre Dame wanting to play C7 basketball for a year.
ND going with C7 for a year was mentioned. I don't think it was officially proposed but I do remember someone floating the idea. C7 wasn't interested. the ACC agreed to take ND a yearly
(12-08-2017 02:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 02:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:50 PM)Mestophalies Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:00 PM)Mestophalies Wrote: [ -> ]This subject always makes me laugh. The catholic schools split off in hopes of taking ND with them. When ND left them and said get lost, they began pining for UConn and haven't stopped since.
That's silly. Notre Dame announced they were leaving the Big East for the ACC in September, 2012 - before Rutgers and Louisville left and before Boise and SDSU reneged on their agreement to join - and well before the C7 decided to split.
So when the C7 split, it would have been the ACC that Notre Dame would have had to leave to join the new Big East, and nobody thought that would happen. Crazy.
And we've never "pined" for UConn, save in the sense that we naturally miss UConn and our other former Big East compatriots - Syracuse and Pittsburgh. It would be great to get all of them back, but we have no illusions about anyone currently in a true Power conference joining the Big East.
UConn? We have hopes, because the AAC obviously isn't a power conference. 
Please, the C7 were already in talks with Fox prior to ND announcing they'd be departing. You can drop the USF and return LSU to your account. No one buys you as a USF fan any more.
Links? I follow Georgetown hoops very closely, and never heard any serious buzz about leaving until well after ND left for the ACC.
And what on earth does this have to do with USF anyway? 
Then you were not paying attention. I was hearing stuff about if way back in the summer 2012. We talked openly about it right here.
Oh i was paying attention. And not only did ND bail long before the C7 had made up their minds to do the same, at no time did the C7 ever think ND was going anywhere with them.
(12-08-2017 09:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 02:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 02:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:50 PM)Mestophalies Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]That's silly. Notre Dame announced they were leaving the Big East for the ACC in September, 2012 - before Rutgers and Louisville left and before Boise and SDSU reneged on their agreement to join - and well before the C7 decided to split.
So when the C7 split, it would have been the ACC that Notre Dame would have had to leave to join the new Big East, and nobody thought that would happen. Crazy.
And we've never "pined" for UConn, save in the sense that we naturally miss UConn and our other former Big East compatriots - Syracuse and Pittsburgh. It would be great to get all of them back, but we have no illusions about anyone currently in a true Power conference joining the Big East.
UConn? We have hopes, because the AAC obviously isn't a power conference.
Please, the C7 were already in talks with Fox prior to ND announcing they'd be departing. You can drop the USF and return LSU to your account. No one buys you as a USF fan any more.
Links? I follow Georgetown hoops very closely, and never heard any serious buzz about leaving until well after ND left for the ACC.
And what on earth does this have to do with USF anyway?
Then you were not paying attention. I was hearing stuff about if way back in the summer 2012. We talked openly about it right here.
Oh i was paying attention. And not only did ND bail long before the C7 had made up their minds to do the same, at no time did the C7 ever think ND was going anywhere with them.
Not quite true. My assumption before Notre Dame went to the ACC was that, in case of a split, Notre Dame would go with the CYO League instead of the Coast To Coast Conference with Boise STate and SDSU, just because the CCC would push Notre Dame for full membership. I figured that Notre Dame wouldn't get the deal they got from the ACC from anybody because they hadn't gotten it from anybody.
(12-08-2017 09:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 09:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 02:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 02:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2017 01:50 PM)Mestophalies Wrote: [ -> ]Please, the C7 were already in talks with Fox prior to ND announcing they'd be departing. You can drop the USF and return LSU to your account. No one buys you as a USF fan any more.
Links? I follow Georgetown hoops very closely, and never heard any serious buzz about leaving until well after ND left for the ACC.
And what on earth does this have to do with USF anyway?
Then you were not paying attention. I was hearing stuff about if way back in the summer 2012. We talked openly about it right here.
Oh i was paying attention. And not only did ND bail long before the C7 had made up their minds to do the same, at no time did the C7 ever think ND was going anywhere with them.
Not quite true. My assumption before Notre Dame went to the ACC was that, in case of a split, Notre Dame would go with the CYO League instead of the Coast To Coast Conference with Boise STate and SDSU, just because the CCC would push Notre Dame for full membership. I figured that Notre Dame wouldn't get the deal they got from the ACC from anybody because they hadn't gotten it from anybody.
While you always want to be affiliated with Notre Dame, I always thought i new the Irish well enough to know that they weren't going to be associated with anything but a Power league. Sure, the ACC was able to squeeze more out of them than the Big East was able to, because with the Big East collapsing, ND had fewer options. But I never imagined they would go with a no-football Catholic Big East that was no longer a football power, meaning an actual power conference.
But that's all a difference of subjective opinions and speculations. The real bottom line here is that "Mephistopheles'" assertion was shot to shreds, because Notre Dame left the Big East for the ACC well before the C7 actually decided to leave the Big East too. There simply is zero way that when the C7 were actually making the decision to leave, that they could have had any hopes/illusions that an ACC-affiliated ND would join them.
That was just a bitter assertion by a NBE - hating AAC partisan who likes to fantasize that the Big East, not the AAC, had membership hopes and dreams dashed. In reality, it was the Aresco conference, i.e., "TheRestGo" conference that was left in tatters by bailouts.
(12-09-2017 12:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]While you always want to be affiliated with Notre Dame, I always thought i new the Irish well enough to know that they weren't going to be associated with anything but a Power league. Sure, the ACC was able to squeeze more out of them than the Big East was able to, because with the Big East collapsing, ND had fewer options. But I never imagined they would go with a no-football Catholic Big East that was no longer a football power, meaning an actual power conference.
I didn't think they were going to have that option. Up until the ACC-ND deal was announced, everything from the Big 10 and ACC was that they were only interested in full members. And I didn't think the other 9 Big 12 members wanted to set the precedent for Texas to go indy while keeping their nonfootball sports in the Big 12.
(Cuse - Pitt), (ND), (C7), (Rutgers - B10, L'Ville - ACC) 