.
If Commissioner Aresco and the AAC leadership (Presidents, Trustees) would be interested in making a FB-only membership proposal to BYU that might generate sufficient interest on their part to lead to an ongoing discussion, the outline of a plan sketched out below might be an effective way to proceed:
NOTE: This was originally posted in a somewhat-related thread, but clearly merits a thread of its own.
I: Establish a joint consensus, as an organization, that the only reason why BYU would strongly consider joining the AAC would be as part of a strategic plan of their own to propel themselves (i.e., BYU) toward power conference status.
II: The AAC Commissioner would invite BYU to discuss a proposal for them to join the AAC, based on a foundational agreement that, by joining, BYU could advance toward power conference status in one of two ways:
A) By affiliating with the AAC, BYU could assist the AAC to develop, gradually, into a full-fledged (P6/A6) power conference, thereby becoming a member/affiliate of a power conference, itself.
This would include a contingency plan stipulating that, if the addition of BYU and a 12th BB school isn't sufficient to advance the AAC toward P6/A6 status (e.g., a substantial increase in network revenue per school) by a date certain, the conference would agree to pursue expansion to 13 or 14 teams per sport via the addition of one or more top 30 quality FB schools and one or more NCAA tournament quality BB schools.
B) Alternatively (e.g., if the AAC should fail to advance toward P6/A6 status), by joining the conference, BYU would have the opportunity to increase their national stature - - by competing for conference championships and advancing to NY6 bowls - - which could assist BYU to become an affiliate (like Notre Dame/ACC) or member of an existing P5 conference.
.
Some might ask what benefit there might be in such an agreement for the upper-tier AAC FB and BB schools:
Unless the AAC leadership has abandoned their strategic plan to become a full-fledged P6/A6 conference, and unless they are willing to wait 1-3 decades to make the painstaking year-over-year upgrades that would be necessary to bring them nearer to attaining that goal, the surest way to make more rapid progress toward P6/A6 status would be to replace UConn with a FB program with the stature and brand recognition of BYU - - which Commissioner Aresco has stated that the conference would be very interested in adding as a member.
The upper-tier AAC FB and BB schools would benefit from such an agreement in exactly the same way that BYU would, by setting in motion a plan that would ensure movement toward power conference status via (I) an immediate increase in the number of P5-quality AAC FB and BB teams, going forward, and (II - if replacing UConn with BYU and a quality BB school isn't sufficient to advance the strategic plan) a contingency plan to add one or more quality FB/BB schools.
(11-29-2020 02:38 PM)Tulsa Guy Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2020 02:30 PM)jedclampett Wrote: [ -> ]
NOTE: The following is a continuation of a discussion that began in another thread, but is more pertinent here.
.
If Commissioner Aresco and the AAC leadership (Presidents, Trustees) were really on the ball with respect to their expressed interests in BYU and their long-term strategic plan for the conference, this might be an effective way to proceed:
I: Establish a joint consensus, as an organization, that the only reason why BYU would strongly consider joining the AAC would be as part of a strategic plan of their own to propel themselves (i.e., BYU) toward power conference status.
II: The AAC Commissioner would invite BYU to discuss a proposal for them to join the AAC, based on a foundational agreement that, by joining, BYU could advance toward power conference status in one of two ways:
A) By affiliating with the AAC, BYU could assist the AAC to develop, gradually, into a full-fledged (P6/A6) power conference.
This would include a contingency plan stipulating that, if the addition of BYU and a 12th BB school isn't sufficient to advance the AAC toward P6/A6 status (e.g., a substantial increase in network revenue per school) by a date certain, the conference would agree to pursue expansion to 13 or 14 teams per sport via the addition of one or more top 30 quality FB schools and one or more NCAA tournament quality BB schools.
B) Alternatively (e.g., if the AAC should fail to advance toward P6/A6 status), by joining the conference, BYU would have the opportunity to increase their national stature - - by competing for conference championships and advancing to NY6 bowls - - which would probably lassist them to become an affiliate (like Notre Dame/ACC) or member of an existing P5 conference.
Neither BYU or Boise State will join AAC until there is an AAC binding agreement. Why join the AAC when it might implode in a few years by losing its best teams to B12 expansion? Everyone is going to have to wait until the B12 renegotiates its TV contract and makes its decision on expansion. Then, and only then, is a binding agreement possible...but I am not sure about that if some AAC schools feel there is an opportunity to move up to a P5 conference.
Apparently, there are only 3 or 4 schools that have objected to a binding agreement, because they don't want to foreclose on the possibility of a P5 invitation before 2026.
However, the actual probability that they will receive a P5 invitation is likely to be rather slight.
Let's begin with Cincinnati. Of the top-tier AAC schools, Cincinnati is the only school that has maintained fairly consistent P5-quality FB and BB programs over the past few years. However, despite their successes, Cincy isn't necessarily a highly attractive expansion option from the standpoint of the ACC, Big Ten, PAC-12, or SEC.
Why? Because the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC are all rather full at present, with 14-15 teams apiece. No AAC school - - not even Cincy (the top FB and only all-time elite AAC BB school) - - would be certain enough to generate more value than they would cost in future conference payouts to persuade the current members of the Big Ten and SEC to raid the AAC. Moreover, Cincy is neither a highly/academically prestigious school, nor an AAU institution, and these are regarded as important considerations for all of the P5 conferences.
With 15 teams, the ACC may have the least interest in a further expansion, which would make it even harder than it already is for ACC teams to compete in FB and BB, and it is questionable whether the top AAC school would provide more value than they would cost.
With respect to the PAC-12 (9 AAU schools), Cincy is unlikely to be an expansion option, given that it is not located in the Pacific, Mountain, or Central time zone. For that matter, none of the AAC schools is in the Pacific or Mountain time zone, none (except Tulane) is an AAU school, and few, if any fit the overall academic or cultural profile of the PAC-12.
..............................................................................................................
That leaves the Big 12 as the P5 conference that would be most likely to expand by inviting Cincy or one or more of the other AAC schools.
.
The major question with respect to the Big 12 is whether the benefits of expansion would outweigh the costs, with the main cost being the reduction in annual revenue, per school, due to being required to allocate ~$40+ million per year to any expansion members.
What we know, most definitely at present, is that the Big 12 gave the idea of expanding very thorough consideration in 2016, going so far as to winnow down a list of potential expansion candidates and review their credentials, including some AAC schools. Their decision was to reject the proposal to expand, with one of the major reasons for their decision being a cost/benefit analysis, which indicated that the costs of expansion would outweigh the potential benefits. Another factor was that they were able to proceed as a full-fledged P5/A5 conference, to hold a conference FB championship, and to maintain their NY6 automatic qualification status.
Unless the value that would be added to the "benefits" side of the cost/benefit analysis has increased sufficiently since 2016, or unless the Big 12 has undergone a change of mind regarding their priorities going forward, it is unlikely that any AAC school will be invited to join the Big 12 before 2026.
[color=#1E90FF]If the Big 12 were to expand, which team or teams would they select, not including Cincinnati (which might be the strongest potential FB/BB candidate as of mid-2020)?
Houston would seem like the best regional and cultural fit, due to their location and former membership in the Southwest Conference. However Houston's FB program would probably have to scale back up to P5 quality within the next year or two for UH to have any chance of being given serious consideration.
Memphis might be given strong consideration, due in part to location (roughly equidistant between Big 12 schools such as Iowa State, WVU, Kansas, and Oklahoma) and the near-P5 quality of their FB program. However, Memphis has been knocked out of the CFB top 25 and hasn't been impressive in 2020, while their BB program has yet to establish itself as having the potential to maintain consistent NCAA tournament quality.
UCF would perhaps be the last of the four likeliest contenders (if SMU is ruled out, due to their history of NCAA FB/BB sanctions). However, UCF has lost 3 FB games in 2020, is not a top 25 contender, and hasn't contended for an AAC FB championship or finished in the FB top 20 since 2018. UCF has only had one BB team in the NCAA tournament since 2006, and the geographical distance involved with UCF as an all-sports member would add significantly to the cost-side of the equation for the Big 12.
That would seem to leave Cincinnati as the AAC school with the strongest (or only realistic) chance to get a Big 12 invitation. However, Cincinnati was rejected as a potential Big 12 member when they were considered (summer/fall 2016), despite the fact that their BB program's record of success was just as solid as it is today, while their FB program had actually won a higher percentage of their games in recent years (69.7%) than it has won since that time (63.2%). Although the 2018-20 Bearcats have had an outstanding FB record, this alone might not be enough to persuade the Big 12 that the benefits of adding Cincinnati would outweigh the costs.
One of the "cost" factors is the fact that Cincinnati isn't a perfect fit with the Big 12, geographically or culturally, and doesn't bring the advantages of being an AAU or academically prestigious school. In addition, the Big 12 may be wary of adding another former Big East FB school that, like WVU, might have difficulty maintaining a P5 level FB program in the Big 12.
..............................................................................................................
In summary, with the possible exception of Cincinnati, no AAC school currently has what would be widely considered a P5 quality football and basketball program. The other AAC schools that have resisted making a binding broadcasting agreement (e.g., Houston, UCF, and Memphis) have had either a P5 quality football or basketball program, but not both.
For these reasons, unless the Big 12 were to unexpectedly make a complete about-face with respect to Cincinnati, should the FB Bearcats maintain a top 15 or top 20 FB program over the next few years, it seems very unlikely that they will reverse their 2016 decision not to invite any AAC schools to join the Big 12.
..............................................................................................................
Based on this line of reasoning, there would be a very compelling argument for the 4 AAC schools that have resisted the idea of making a binding broadcasting agreement to consider suspending their resistance to the idea or holding it in abeyance long enough to enter into at least preliminary discussions with BYU's leadership along the lines set forth above.
Specifically, any objections that BYU might have about considering an affiliation with the AAC, due to the resistance of four AAC schools to make a binding broadcasting agreement could be set aside by all concerned long enough to determine whether there is strong enough interest to proceed with detailed discussions.
A strong argument could be made to the leaders of those four AAC schools that, as with the old adage that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," it makes little sense for those four schools to hold out for a low probability event (getting an unexpected invitation to join a P5 by 2026) when they could benefit substantially in the short, medium, and long-term from a much higher probability event (i.e., if BYU were to show a strong inclination to join the AAC).
Another way of putting it is that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary since the Big 12's 2016 decision not to expand, there appears to be no factual evidence to support maintaining an unwillingness to at least consider discussing a proposal to replace Connecticut with a strong and high viewership FB school such as BYU, even if that were to require a willingness to rescind a prior decision not to make any binding broadcasting agreements. To foreclose on the possibility of making a strong move toward eventual power conference status, based on nothing more than a magical hope for what currently appears to be an improbable outcome would be folly.
Was this a test of how many shades of blue you could put in one thread?
Regardless, let the discussion continue apace...
Not a fan of this due to travel..but..BYU does bring in more cred to the league.
Aresco said he's not doing football only. That's probably why they're not in the AAC yet. I don't get that on his part. BYU for football, VCU for basketball and we have a solid league all around
(11-29-2020 06:38 PM)IamYourDad Wrote: [ -> ]Aresco said he's not doing football only. That's probably why they're not in the AAC yet. I don't get that on his part. BYU for football, VCU for basketball and we have a solid league all around
Not to go all "Source? Link?" on you and be that guy, but I wasn't tracking he'd said that.
No, he said UConn couldn’t do football-only. And if UConn had been winning 10 football games a year, they probably would have been allowed to stay.
No football only.
You start doing these deals and all of the sudden you've got a big east-esque basketball faction on your hands.
All in or go away.
(11-29-2020 07:57 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote: [ -> ]No football only.
You start doing these deals and all of the sudden you've got a big east-esque basketball faction on your hands.
All in or go away.
This. Hybrid conferences don't work. We added WSU only because we have Navy as FB only.
I don't see any problem with having two football-only schools. I would add BYU for football only and keep 10 all-sports members. That way we are 10 full members including football. 2 football only and 1 olympic sports member in Wichita State.
I think BYU is fine football only. Gets the football side back to 12, move Memphis or Tulane to the East. Avoids the increased travel having BYU all-sports would create.
(11-29-2020 07:21 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2020 06:38 PM)IamYourDad Wrote: [ -> ]Aresco said he's not doing football only. That's probably why they're not in the AAC yet. I don't get that on his part. BYU for football, VCU for basketball and we have a solid league all around
Not to go all "Source? Link?" on you and be that guy, but I wasn't tracking he'd said that.
I don't recall that, either.
I'm not going to harp on the whole 'hybrid conference' problem - you've heard it before.
But the only way this works is if
a) the AAC officially becomes the sixth power conference as a direct result and
b) the playoffs don't expand past 8.
If a doesn't happen then we are ripe for long term problems that I've already discussed, and if b does then it opens the very real problem that the conference isn't needed to get into the playoffs, negating the only real reason. Either one of these means that BYU is looking at other options and understandably so.
I just think we are better bringing in a lesser known brand that makes more sense in almost every way and building like we have been. It's served us well so far, let's just continue to push.
There are probably several schools in the AAC that will never agree
to a grant-of-rights agreement unless some company agrees to pay
P5 level money. Even then some may say no.
You can write millions of more words with many more ideas. That will not change any thing.
(11-29-2020 07:21 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2020 06:38 PM)IamYourDad Wrote: [ -> ]Aresco said he's not doing football only. That's probably why they're not in the AAC yet. I don't get that on his part. BYU for football, VCU for basketball and we have a solid league all around
Not to go all "Source? Link?" on you and be that guy, but I wasn't tracking he'd said that.
I did some digging and I stand semi corrected actually, my memory on this was cloudy. He was asked this directly on a BYU talk show and stated "We are open but not committed to it". Which likely means no for most teams. Sorry about that guys. The link is below and he discusses it at 10:00. The entire interview is good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNRnBATKrk0
(11-29-2020 07:26 PM)Chappy Wrote: [ -> ]No, he said UConn couldn’t do football-only. And if UConn had been winning 10 football games a year, they probably would have been allowed to stay.
Exactly. If BYU wanted in as a football only its a done deal. The only reason BYU isnt in is because they do not wish to join right now. I think there may indeed be some resistance within the membership to another non-football school---but if VCU wants to join---I think we'd be idiots not to take them. VCU is a basketball program that would certainly be among the best in the AAC and actually performed better than UConn since the start of the AAC (with the obvious exception of UConns championship year).
(11-29-2020 09:05 PM)SMUleopold Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not going to harp on the whole 'hybrid conference' problem - you've heard it before.
But the only way this works is if
a) the AAC officially becomes the sixth power conference as a direct result and
b) the playoffs don't expand past 8.
If a doesn't happen then we are ripe for long term problems that I've already discussed, and if b does then it opens the very real problem that the conference isn't needed to get into the playoffs, negating the only real reason. Either one of these means that BYU is looking at other options and understandably so.
I just think we are better bringing in a lesser known brand that makes more sense in almost every way and building like we have been. It's served us well so far, let's just continue to push.
Im going to touch on this once and be done with it. The hybrid didnt kill the Big East. Money killed the Big East. Every team that left made more money by leaving. Its just that simple.
The long term problem with AAC is money. Every school will leave for a P5 conference where they make more money. If this becomes a half-and-half hybrid like the Big East (not advocating anything even close to that by the way)---it wont matter--because the result would be the best football conference and best basketball conference we can be (which probably means more money as well). Nobody will be leaving such a conference unless they get a P5 invite (and they would leave for that today--which is why there is not going to be a grant of rights).
I have absolutely no idea how some on this board will demand we make moves that will propel us toward being considered a power conference and then in the very next sentence discuss adding teams no P5 would ever want on their schedule. Its absolutely inexplicable logic. We arent going to take a step closer to the P5 by adding a random Sunbelt/CUSA team with a slightly above average football program and a horrific basketball program. Adding someone just because they will say "yes" simply makes the AAC look desperate while watering down the quality of both of our primary revenue sports.
For goodness sakes, if you refuse to deal with a hybrid add---then at least be patient enough until a program with quality football AND basketball---that is ready to compete in the top half of the league on day one---rises from the G4 scrum.
(11-30-2020 01:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2020 09:05 PM)SMUleopold Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not going to harp on the whole 'hybrid conference' problem - you've heard it before.
But the only way this works is if
a) the AAC officially becomes the sixth power conference as a direct result and
b) the playoffs don't expand past 8.
If a doesn't happen then we are ripe for long term problems that I've already discussed, and if b does then it opens the very real problem that the conference isn't needed to get into the playoffs, negating the only real reason. Either one of these means that BYU is looking at other options and understandably so.
I just think we are better bringing in a lesser known brand that makes more sense in almost every way and building like we have been. It's served us well so far, let's just continue to push.
Im going to touch on this once and be done with it. The hybrid didnt kill the Big East. Money killed the Big East. Every team that left made more money by leaving. Its just that simple.
The long term problem with AAC is money. Every school will leave for a P5 conference where they make more money. If this becomes a half-and-half hybrid like the Big East (not advocating anything even close to that by the way)---it wont matter--because the result would be the best football conference and best basketball conference we can be (which probably means more money as well). Nobody will be leaving such a conference unless they get a P5 invite (and they would leave for that today--which is why there is not going to be a grant of rights).
I have absolutely no idea how some on this board will demand we make moves that will propel us toward being considered a power conference and then in the very next sentence discuss adding teams no P5 would ever want on their schedule. Its absolutely inexplicable logic. We arent going to take a step closer to the P5 by adding a random Sunbelt/CUSA team with a slightly above average football program and a horrific basketball program. Adding someone just because they will say "yes" simply makes the AAC look desperate while watering down the quality of both of our primary revenue sports.
For goodness sakes, if you refuse to deal with a hybrid add---then at least be patient enough until a program with quality football AND basketball---that is ready to compete in the top half of the league on day one---rises from the G4 scrum.
Kind of. Your point about "the money" is absolutely spot-on. But there was a little more to it.
The (Old) Big East was hampered by dis-similar schools with dis-similar agendas, and this is where the "Hybrid" factors in. But it wasn't merely the Basketball/Football issue-- you had a divergence in school type as well. And it was a 50/50 type arrangement, where each side was worried about losing their balance while trying to out-maneuver the "other side." If you want to see a conference that is similarly hamstrung by divergent identifies and priorities, check out the Missouri Valley Conference (I'm sure the Shocker fans can help with this one...).
I don't think that's what we're talking about with the AAC, but we could hamstring ourselves in other ways if we keep adding divergent types of schools to the mix...and again, I'm not talking football/basketball here. It's good to have a bit of diversity in a conference, but if the issue arose between the "State" (public) Universities and the "Private" Universities, where the priorities of one side conflicted with the priorities of the other, and there was a narrow balance between the numbers...then you could see a similar issue that affected the (old) Big East arise.
(11-30-2020 01:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2020 09:05 PM)SMUleopold Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not going to harp on the whole 'hybrid conference' problem - you've heard it before.
But the only way this works is if
a) the AAC officially becomes the sixth power conference as a direct result and
b) the playoffs don't expand past 8.
If a doesn't happen then we are ripe for long term problems that I've already discussed, and if b does then it opens the very real problem that the conference isn't needed to get into the playoffs, negating the only real reason. Either one of these means that BYU is looking at other options and understandably so.
I just think we are better bringing in a lesser known brand that makes more sense in almost every way and building like we have been. It's served us well so far, let's just continue to push.
Im going to touch on this once and be done with it. The hybrid didnt kill the Big East. Money killed the Big East. Every team that left made more money by leaving. Its just that simple.
The long term problem with AAC is money. Every school will leave for a P5 conference where they make more money. If this becomes a half-and-half hybrid like the Big East (not advocating anything even close to that by the way)---it wont matter--because the result would be the best football conference and best basketball conference we can be (which probably means more money as well). Nobody will be leaving such a conference unless they get a P5 invite (and they would leave for that today--which is why there is not going to be a grant of rights).
I have absolutely no idea how some on this board will demand we make moves that will propel us toward being considered a power conference and then in the very next sentence discuss adding teams no P5 would ever want on their schedule. Its absolutely inexplicable logic. We arent going to take a step closer to the P5 by adding a random Sunbelt/CUSA team with a slightly above average football program and a horrific basketball program. Adding someone just because they will say "yes" simply makes the AAC look desperate while watering down the quality of both of our primary revenue sports.
For goodness sakes, if you refuse to deal with a hybrid add---then at least be patient enough until a program with quality football AND basketball---that is ready to compete in the top half of the league on day one---rises from the G4 scrum.
Wrong.
If the BE wasn't "hybrid" we'd still be in it right now and you would still be CUSA.
The C7 basketball only schools didn't like the Tulane add (which was for football) so they banded together and walked. If they all played football they'd still be here with us instead of you.
It was only their good fortune and that Fox was looking for content that they got as good of a deal that they did. We gave them the "Big East" name to keep the money so that helped their cause a lot.
To say that the left for more money is wrong. They only got their money after they left.