AAC fans only! (only AAC school alumni/fans should vote; others please don't).
Under what terms (restrictions) would you accept Boise State as a full member?
The poll asks which one team sport or combination of two team sports would you require Boise State place in another conference as an associate before you would find full membership acceptable.
Key Reference Points:
* Individual sports are not considered, as they are not scheduled by the conference, schools make their own schedules. The only conference sponsored event is the championship meet which all schools attend. It makes no difference how many schools or where they are located, all have to attend the same event. Boise State membership has no impact.
* NCAA requires Men's and Women's Basketball be played in the member conference, as these are considered "core" to the definition of full membership, so any exclusion of these is off the table.
* A contract clause can be written that allow a school to have sponsored sports in other conferences (e.g., Fairfield Men's Lacrosse plays in the CAA, not the MAAC)
* A contract clause can be written that stipulates a future team sport added to the school's list of sponsored sports will not automatically be granted membership in the conference. (Thinking baseball here, but could be any team sport)
No full membership, not even a partial membership.
But if you told me we HAD to have Boise in some capacity, then I would vote for "football only" as the only acceptable option.
But really, I hope we do not invite Boise in any way shape or form.
(06-05-2021 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]No full membership, not even a partial membership.
But if you told me we HAD to have Boise in some capacity, then I would vote for "football only" as the only acceptable option.
But really, I hope we do not invite Boise in any way shape or form.
No to full membership means Football only -- not acceptable for even Basketball (revenue sport with EPSN support).
But I'll take on advice to count your vote as not even football.
I voted softball only, just to see the poll results as they come in. I will discount my vote from the total, as I am not an AAC fan.
My aim is to understand how AAC fandom views the realistic options to gain Boise State football, as it's very unlikely Boise State can find a Basketball home comparable to their expectation, which a regular two bid conference. The sort of forces the AAC to take them on as a full member, although there is wiggle room on what that means to sports other than Men's and Women's Basketball.
(06-05-2021 03:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]No full membership, not even a partial membership.
But if you told me we HAD to have Boise in some capacity, then I would vote for "football only" as the only acceptable option.
But really, I hope we do not invite Boise in any way shape or form.
No to full membership means Football only -- not acceptable for even Basketball (revenue sport with EPSN support).
But I'll take on advice to count your vote as not even football.
I voted softball only, just to see the poll results as they come in. I will discount my vote from the total, as I am not an AAC fan.
My aim is to understand how AAC fandom views the realistic options to gain Boise State football, as it's very unlikely Boise State can find a Basketball home comparable to their expectation, which a regular two bid conference. The sort of forces the AAC to take them on as a full member, although there is wiggle room on what that means to sports other than Men's and Women's Basketball.
Is that because no one would have them, or because they wouldn't accept an invite with anyone that would?
(06-05-2021 03:10 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 03:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]No full membership, not even a partial membership.
But if you told me we HAD to have Boise in some capacity, then I would vote for "football only" as the only acceptable option.
But really, I hope we do not invite Boise in any way shape or form.
No to full membership means Football only -- not acceptable for even Basketball (revenue sport with EPSN support).
But I'll take on advice to count your vote as not even football.
I voted softball only, just to see the poll results as they come in. I will discount my vote from the total, as I am not an AAC fan.
My aim is to understand how AAC fandom views the realistic options to gain Boise State football, as it's very unlikely Boise State can find a Basketball home comparable to their expectation, which a regular two bid conference. The sort of forces the AAC to take them on as a full member, although there is wiggle room on what that means to sports other than Men's and Women's Basketball.
Is that because no one would have them, or because they wouldn't accept an invite with anyone that would?
I believe a conference like the Big West sees Boise State as not worth the headache. The WCC is not a cultural fit but the WAC and Big Sky would definitely be interested especially the WAC. I just don’t see Boise being interested in anything that’s not full membership with the Big West being the second best option.
What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.
I don't like Temple traveling across the Mississippi now but at least Texas is warm in the winter. Boise is cold and twice as far away. If Temple has to travel to Boise, they should just leave the AAC, even if it means the A-10.
(06-05-2021 03:25 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 03:10 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 03:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]No full membership, not even a partial membership.
But if you told me we HAD to have Boise in some capacity, then I would vote for "football only" as the only acceptable option.
But really, I hope we do not invite Boise in any way shape or form.
No to full membership means Football only -- not acceptable for even Basketball (revenue sport with EPSN support).
But I'll take on advice to count your vote as not even football.
I voted softball only, just to see the poll results as they come in. I will discount my vote from the total, as I am not an AAC fan.
My aim is to understand how AAC fandom views the realistic options to gain Boise State football, as it's very unlikely Boise State can find a Basketball home comparable to their expectation, which a regular two bid conference. The sort of forces the AAC to take them on as a full member, although there is wiggle room on what that means to sports other than Men's and Women's Basketball.
Is that because no one would have them, or because they wouldn't accept an invite with anyone that would?
I believe a conference like the Big West sees Boise State as not worth the headache. The WCC is not a cultural fit but the WAC and Big Sky would definitely be interested especially the WAC. I just don’t see Boise being interested in anything that’s not full membership with the Big West being the second best option.
I honestly don't see the WAC wanting more non football schools. I think they go the opposite and try to get rid of the ones that they have. At most they go the Sun Belt 12 football and 14 all sports. It depends on if the WACs FBS scheme works or not.
(06-05-2021 03:45 PM)46566 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 03:25 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 03:10 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 03:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]No full membership, not even a partial membership.
But if you told me we HAD to have Boise in some capacity, then I would vote for "football only" as the only acceptable option.
But really, I hope we do not invite Boise in any way shape or form.
No to full membership means Football only -- not acceptable for even Basketball (revenue sport with EPSN support).
But I'll take on advice to count your vote as not even football.
I voted softball only, just to see the poll results as they come in. I will discount my vote from the total, as I am not an AAC fan.
My aim is to understand how AAC fandom views the realistic options to gain Boise State football, as it's very unlikely Boise State can find a Basketball home comparable to their expectation, which a regular two bid conference. The sort of forces the AAC to take them on as a full member, although there is wiggle room on what that means to sports other than Men's and Women's Basketball.
Is that because no one would have them, or because they wouldn't accept an invite with anyone that would?
I believe a conference like the Big West sees Boise State as not worth the headache. The WCC is not a cultural fit but the WAC and Big Sky would definitely be interested especially the WAC. I just don’t see Boise being interested in anything that’s not full membership with the Big West being the second best option.
I honestly don't see the WAC wanting more non football schools. I think they go the opposite and try to get rid of the ones that they have. At most they go the Sun Belt 12 football and 14 all sports. It depends on if the WACs FBS scheme works or not.
I tend to agree that the WAC would not be interested in a non football school that is not even in there desired footprint. They have a football/FBS agenda and they will want to stick to it. So either Boise State comes with 2 other schools for all sports, or they don't come at all.
(06-05-2021 03:10 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 03:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]My aim is to understand how AAC fandom views the realistic options to gain Boise State football, as it's very unlikely Boise State can find a Basketball home comparable to their expectation, which a regular two bid conference. The sort of forces the AAC to take them on as a full member, although there is wiggle room on what that means to sports other than Men's and Women's Basketball.
Is that because no one would have them, or because they wouldn't accept an invite with anyone that would?
The only conferences in the West which get second bids are the Pac-12, MWC and WCC
Pac-12 is not on the table for any school not a major research University.
The MWC will boot Boise State if they don't keep football there, and probably never accept them back if they leave.
The WCC is extremely unlikely to take Boise State, as they are not private nor faith based, nor looking for permanent home (three strikes). They gave Boise State the most polite blow off, saying any expansion is on hold, you know Covid-19 and all.
The Big West doesn't seem interested in a rental either. Boise State didn't even bother contacting the Big Sky or WAC as they are not acceptable. These conferences don't work. AAC fans can talk themselves blue that they should one of these, but the impasse has been there for going on a decade. At some point you have to acknowledge these "options" are not options and not on the table.
When you distill it down to what is possible it's either Boise State stays in the MWC or the AAC finds a way to take their Olympic sports (or most of them) and their Basketball. Hence the poll. Is there a compromise position AAC could live with?
(06-05-2021 03:38 PM)colohank Wrote: [ -> ]What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.
Lol—virtually none of the AAC schools have any “historic rivalry” with any other member. The AAC is essentially something close to a best of the rest brands league. Everyone knew going in 2011 it would be brand over geography. Boise fits quite well into that template. At this time there are still only two choices in building a conference—-
Geography over Brand
Or
Brand over Geography.
We all made our choice in 2011. Nothing has changed.
BTW a bit of helper on sports there is wiggle room on. Schools that play the sports in question:
Softball (7): South Florida, UCF, ECU, Memphis, Houston, Tulsa, Wichita State
W Volleyball (11): all schools
W Soccer (9): South Florida, UCF, ECU, Temple, Cincy, Memphis, Houston, SMU, Tulsa
Softball is single round robin, 4 games Thursday to Saturday (24 total)
// expect AAC to move to back 3 games (21 total) as it was when UConn was the 8th, played Friday to Sunday
Volleyball is like Basketball, but only 16 games with Divisions (when UConn a member)
// games played Thursday and Saturday (October and November), double round-robin in Division, single for other Division
// Boise would be in west with Wichita State, Tulsa, SMU, Houston and either Memphis or Tulane (other moves East)
Soccer is single round robin play, Games on Thursday and Sunday in October
AAC does not schedule Tennis matches (some conferences do, others don't), schools make their own schedules.
(06-05-2021 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 03:38 PM)colohank Wrote: [ -> ]What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.
Lol—virtually none of the AAC schools have any “historic rivalry” with any other member. The AAC is essentially something close to a best of the rest brands league. Everyone knew going in 2011 it would be brand over geography. Boise fits quite well into that template. At this time there are still only two choices in building a conference—-
Geography over Brand
Or
Brand over Geography.
We all made our choice in 2011. Nothing has changed.
Two things have changed:
1) ESPN signing on to the AAC project, gave them $1.5-2m more than BSU gets in MWC, $3.3-$3.8m more than CSU gets.
2) Playoff Expansion likely to include a G5 spot. Boise in house brings the strongest competitor for that spot in-house
(06-05-2021 05:31 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 03:38 PM)colohank Wrote: [ -> ]What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.
Lol—virtually none of the AAC schools have any “historic rivalry” with any other member. The AAC is essentially something close to a best of the rest brands league. Everyone knew going in 2011 it would be brand over geography. Boise fits quite well into that template. At this time there are still only two choices in building a conference—-
Geography over Brand
Or
Brand over Geography.
We all made our choice in 2011. Nothing has changed.
Two things have changed:
1) ESPN signing on to the AAC project, gave them $1.5-2m more than BSU gets in MWC, $3.3-$3.8m more than CSU gets.
2) Playoff Expansion likely to include a G5 spot. Boise in house brings the strongest competitor for that spot in-house
Nothing has changed with respect to the AAC decision early on to go with "Brands" over "Geography" in selecting conference members. Boise is right in line with that "brand" over "geography" philosophy. The AAC has always largely chosen "brand" over "geography". There may have been a misstep here or there---but given the pieces available on the board---they have generally been moving toward the closest thing to a "best of the rest conference" outside of the P5.
I voted "no restrictions" and am on record on this board with wanting the AAC to add Boise, San Diego State and one other MWC university/sports program. To be fair, I realize that if the AAC goes to 14, Memphis and Cincinnati will be in the AAC East Division and will not have to travel extensively to Boise and San Diego. So if I were a Tulane, Tulsa, Navy, SMU, Houston or Wichita fan, I might not want the addition of three MWC programs.
I adhere to the "strength in numbers" approach to college conferences and, as such, want the AAC to have 15 total members, as opposed to 12.
Having said this, I realize I'm likely in the minority regarding the "strength in numbers" mindset. As a long-time fan of DePaul and a casual fan of Georgetown, I want the Big East to add three programs to get to 14. Many fans of Big East schools do not share my view.
mybe the OP should stay in his A5 lane...
Here’s a thought:
take Boise St as a football only and offer the Big Sky say $250,000 a year to take Boise for Olympic sports. Boise St kicks in $250,000 of their own.
I think half a million a year is more than enough incentive for the Big Sky to take in a school that’s in driving range of 7 out of 10 members.
(06-05-2021 07:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Here’s a thought:
take Boise St as a football only and offer the Big Sky say $250,000 a year to take Boise for Olympic sports. Boise St kicks in $250,000 of their own.
I think half a million a year is more than enough incentive for the Big Sky to take in a school that’s in driving range of 7 out of 10 members.
You’re assuming Boise State would be fine with moving its men’s basketball program from the 12th to the 22nd rated conference (based on 2021 NET rankings). That’s not a sound assumption.
(06-05-2021 07:48 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 07:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Here’s a thought:
take Boise St as a football only and offer the Big Sky say $250,000 a year to take Boise for Olympic sports. Boise St kicks in $250,000 of their own.
I think half a million a year is more than enough incentive for the Big Sky to take in a school that’s in driving range of 7 out of 10 members.
You’re assuming Boise State would be fine with moving its men’s basketball program from the 12th to the 22nd rated conference (based on 2021 NET rankings). That’s not a sound assumption.
I think they’d be willing to “slum it” in the 22nd best basketball conference if it meant maintaining their football revenue. The MWC has made it pretty clear there will be no more sweetheart deals so Boise is going to see a drastic decrease in revenue if they stay. AAC for football only could keep their media revenue in the range they’ve been accustomed to.
(06-05-2021 08:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 07:48 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 07:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Here’s a thought:
take Boise St as a football only and offer the Big Sky say $250,000 a year to take Boise for Olympic sports. Boise St kicks in $250,000 of their own.
I think half a million a year is more than enough incentive for the Big Sky to take in a school that’s in driving range of 7 out of 10 members.
You’re assuming Boise State would be fine with moving its men’s basketball program from the 12th to the 22nd rated conference (based on 2021 NET rankings). That’s not a sound assumption.
I think they’d be willing to “slum it” in the 22nd best basketball conference if it meant maintaining their football revenue. The MWC has made it pretty clear there will be no more sweetheart deals so Boise is going to see a drastic decrease in revenue if they stay. AAC for football only could keep their media revenue in the range they’ve been accustomed to.
Yes. But their new president, I'm not confident she is willing to go slum it again with Northern Colorado, Eastern Washington and Idaho State. Those are the same schools Boise ditched 25+ years ago.