The selfish side of me wouldn't mind WSU, since that is where I currently live. Would not mind at all seeing my team come to town every year or so.

But, if the money ain't there, it ain't.

(11-23-2014 09:15 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  short answer to all this: no

The long and short of it: Hell No.

(11-23-2014 01:23 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  The selfish side of me wouldn't mind WSU, since that is where I currently live. Would not mind at all seeing my team come to town every year or so.

But, if the money ain't there, it ain't.

Wichita is a nice little city. I used to date a girl who was from there.

(11-23-2014 08:53 AM)True Bearcat Wrote:  No the American needs to be a football first, and football centric conference. It does not need to go down the path the BIG EAST did we all know how that ends, and it did not end well for CINCINNATI.

I agree. Adding non-football schools looks like something patched together and detracts from football.

I understand the concern about our bottom half and their rpi, but the solution to that is for the bottom to improve, not use what many would consider a gimmick.

I think the AAC needs to take pride in what it is and be stable. We don't want to be a league with schools coming and going.

Well, actually I understand the "going" part of that, lol, but for now stability is the key I think.

(11-23-2014 08:33 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  How would you guys feel about the AAC adding 2-4 non-football members to bolster our basketball?
Thoughts?

No more basketball-onlys!!!

West: BYU, SDSU, Fresno, Colorado State

North: UCONN, Temple, Navy, Cincinnati

Southeast: ECU, USF, UCF, Tulane

Mid-America: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis

Non-Football: Gonzaga (West), UMASS (North), VCU (Southeast), Wichita State (Mid-America)

(11-23-2014 01:39 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 08:33 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  How would you guys feel about the AAC adding 2-4 non-football members to bolster our basketball?
Thoughts?

No more basketball-onlys!!!

Yep, we need to build a comprehensive FOOTBALL conference. I love basketball, but it's meaningless in today's athletic landscape.

I think the AAC could add up to 3 non-football schools without it affecting the conferences ability to look out for its best interests. Three basketball schools vs 12 all sports schools is never going to replicate the same conflicting dynamic that the Big East faced with 8 football schools vs 8 basketball schools. If we grabbed Wichita, VCU---and maybe one more solid A-10 school, we would really shore up basketball and give the Comference the depth required to take a loss of a school like UConn or Cinci and still be able to raid the A-10 for replacements.

Personally, I think it's worth doing because I can see we are a long long way from ever going to being considered a power conference in football. We can be a respectable little football conference at some point----but being considered a power football conference may never be in the cards. However---- We CAN be a top 3 power conference in basketball (we already are close). Why not be a power where we can? Besides----where is it written that adding a few powerful basketball programs to cement our position as a top basketball conference somehow precludes us from continuing to grow our football brand? Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

(11-24-2014 03:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the AAC could add up to 3 non-football schools without it affecting the conferences ability to look out for its best interests. Three basketball schools vs 11 all sports schools and 1 football only is never going to replicate the same conflicting dynamic that the Big East 8 football schools vs 8 basketball schools created. if we grabbed Wichita, VCU---and maybe one more solid A-10 school, we would really shore up basketball and give the Comference the depth required to take a loss of a school like UConn or Cinci and still be able to raid the A-10 for replacements.

Personally, I think it's worth doing because I can see we are never going to be a power conference on football. We can be a respectable little football conference---but never a power football conference. We CAN be a top 3 power conference in basketball (we already are close). Why not be a power where we can? Adding a few powerful basketball programs to cement our position as a top basketball conference does not preclude us from continuing to grow our football brand.

No basketball only schools imo, i'm already upset with Navy as a football only member.

Georgetown??

(11-24-2014 03:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the AAC could add up to 3 non-football schools without it affecting the conferences ability to look out for its best interests. Three basketball schools vs 12 all sports schools is never going to replicate the same conflicting dynamic that the Big East faced with 8 football schools vs 8 basketball schools. If we grabbed Wichita, VCU---and maybe one more solid A-10 school, we would really shore up basketball and give the Comference the depth required to take a loss of a school like UConn or Cinci and still be able to raid the A-10 for replacements.

Personally, I think it's worth doing because I can see we are a long long way from ever going to being considered a power conference in football. We can be a respectable little football conference at some point----but being considered a power football conference may never be in the cards. However---- We CAN be a top 3 power conference in basketball (we already are close). Why not be a power where we can? Besides----where is it written that adding a few powerful basketball programs to cement our position as a top basketball conference somehow precludes us from continuing to grow our football brand? Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

Since we are already the conference that no one can name the teams in it, let's further complicate the American. Why can't we build what we have? A basketball power conference doesn't help us or make us more money, but more teams does take away money. We are trying to build a brand. I don't get the fascination with adding basketball only schools to the conference that was the BE before it blew up because of this same problem, and those schools had more name power then the schools everyone wants to add.

(11-24-2014 06:19 AM)AGuyIn_Water Wrote:  Georgetown??

What? So Georgetown is going to join the weaker version of a conference it just left and leave all the Catholics behind?

It's all wine and roses when you have the defending national champion.

From what I've seen so far, this league will be lucky to get 3 bids this year. Let's revisit this "basketball" issue if say we get 2 bids this season and none of our schools makes the Sweet 16.

(11-24-2014 10:19 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  It's all wine and roses when you have the defending national champion.

From what I've seen so far, this league will be lucky to get 3 bids this year. Let's revisit this "basketball" issue if say we get 2 bids this season and none of our schools makes the Sweet 16.

It's going to be a down year, but that will change. These things happen.

(11-23-2014 01:46 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  West: BYU, SDSU, Fresno, Colorado State

North: UCONN, Temple, Navy, Cincinnati

Southeast: ECU, USF, UCF, Tulane

Mid-America: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis

Non-Football: Gonzaga (West), UMASS (North), VCU (Southeast), Wichita State (Mid-America)

That would be a pretty sweet league. Turn into a 6-9 bid league every year. Football would be very solid too. I doubt Umass would come for football only though so there would have to be another hoops team willing to take that slot.

How about this???

West: BYU, SDSU, Fresno, Colorado State, Boise State, UNLV

Central: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, Cincy, Navy

Eastern: UCONN, Temple, ECU, USF, UCF, Tulane

Non-Football: Gonzaga (West), VCU (East), Wichita State (Central)

18 football members
20 for hoops

ESPN willing to pay some coin? This would keep the pods working for Olympic sports to reduce travel but still allow all these timezones for mass viewership.

1. Agree that any Catholic university (such as SLU) added to the American would instantly become a prime poaching target for the Big East. Best to avoid that, IMHO.

2. Adding more than one non-football member, or possibly -- Possibly two -- creates the kind of "us" -vs.- "them" mentality seen in the Old Big East, which split up into separate, hostile camps. Why invite that drama all over again?

3. If one or two non-football members (and to repeat: two would be the absolute maximum) are going to be invited, they need to be more than just good MBB teams and solid athletic programs. They need to be GREAT athletic programs that have proven their worth in MBB over a period of years and clearly strengthen the American Athletic Conference. Wichita State and VCU are both on the fence of that criteria, IMHO. I'd be willing to listen to someone who wants to make that pitch, but at least for now, I'm not completely sold on it.

(11-24-2014 12:52 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 01:46 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  West: BYU, SDSU, Fresno, Colorado State

North: UCONN, Temple, Navy, Cincinnati

Southeast: ECU, USF, UCF, Tulane

Mid-America: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis

Non-Football: Gonzaga (West), UMASS (North), VCU (Southeast), Wichita State (Mid-America)

That would be a pretty sweet league. Turn into a 6-9 bid league every year. Football would be very solid too. I doubt Umass would come for football only though so there would have to be another hoops team willing to take that slot.

How about this???

West: BYU, SDSU, Fresno, Colorado State, Boise State, UNLV

Central: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, Cincy, Navy

Eastern: UCONN, Temple, ECU, USF, UCF, Tulane

Non-Football: Gonzaga (West), VCU (East), Wichita State (Central)

18 football members
20 for hoops

ESPN willing to pay some coin? This would keep the pods working for Olympic sports to reduce travel but still allow all these timezones for mass viewership.

I'm game.

(11-24-2014 08:23 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the AAC could add up to 3 non-football schools without it affecting the conferences ability to look out for its best interests. Three basketball schools vs 12 all sports schools is never going to replicate the same conflicting dynamic that the Big East faced with 8 football schools vs 8 basketball schools. If we grabbed Wichita, VCU---and maybe one more solid A-10 school, we would really shore up basketball and give the Comference the depth required to take a loss of a school like UConn or Cinci and still be able to raid the A-10 for replacements.

Personally, I think it's worth doing because I can see we are a long long way from ever going to being considered a power conference in football. We can be a respectable little football conference at some point----but being considered a power football conference may never be in the cards. However---- We CAN be a top 3 power conference in basketball (we already are close). Why not be a power where we can? Besides----where is it written that adding a few powerful basketball programs to cement our position as a top basketball conference somehow precludes us from continuing to grow our football brand? Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

Since we are already the conference that no one can name the teams in it, let's further complicate the American. Why can't we build what we have? A basketball power conference doesn't help us or make us more money, but more teams does take away money. We are trying to build a brand. I don't get the fascination with adding basketball only schools to the conference that was the BE before it blew up because of this same problem, and those schools had more name power then the schools everyone wants to add.

So then---whats it matter? We have no identity---you said it yourself. May as well add a few solid teams to make the league a power presence in a revenue high profile sport that CAN establish a strong public identity. How exactly does that preclude building what we have? If we add Wichita and VCU---is Tulane going to curl up in a ball and stop developing the program? Is Memphis going to stop pumping money into athletics? Is ECU going to stop trying to build up its basketball program? That's a silly straw dog argument. We can add teams AND build what we have. Its not an "either" "or" choice.

Adding basketball schools actually cuts the pie FAR less than adding all sports schools. We get about 7 million for basketball. A full basketball share is $636,000. Adding 2 basketball teams means we lose less than 100K per school. If the added RPI from having Wichita and VCU in the league gets an extra team or two in the tournament---we MAKE money on the deal. Plus the Big East has proven that we CAN increase our market value by having better basketball.

We are a G5 league. Its my contention that if we really care about being perceived as a power league---then we leave no method of increasing our market value unused. If we are not willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the perception and value of the conference---then we really are not all that committed anyway.

(11-24-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 08:23 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the AAC could add up to 3 non-football schools without it affecting the conferences ability to look out for its best interests. Three basketball schools vs 12 all sports schools is never going to replicate the same conflicting dynamic that the Big East faced with 8 football schools vs 8 basketball schools. If we grabbed Wichita, VCU---and maybe one more solid A-10 school, we would really shore up basketball and give the Comference the depth required to take a loss of a school like UConn or Cinci and still be able to raid the A-10 for replacements.

Personally, I think it's worth doing because I can see we are a long long way from ever going to being considered a power conference in football. We can be a respectable little football conference at some point----but being considered a power football conference may never be in the cards. However---- We CAN be a top 3 power conference in basketball (we already are close). Why not be a power where we can? Besides----where is it written that adding a few powerful basketball programs to cement our position as a top basketball conference somehow precludes us from continuing to grow our football brand? Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

Since we are already the conference that no one can name the teams in it, let's further complicate the American. Why can't we build what we have? A basketball power conference doesn't help us or make us more money, but more teams does take away money. We are trying to build a brand. I don't get the fascination with adding basketball only schools to the conference that was the BE before it blew up because of this same problem, and those schools had more name power then the schools everyone wants to add.

So then---whats it matter? We have no identity---you said it yourself. May as well add a few solid teams to make the league a power presence in a revenue high profile sport that CAN establish a strong public identity. How exactly does that preclude building what we have? If we add Wichita and VCU---is Tulane going to curl up in a ball and stop developing the program? Is Memphis going to stop pumping money into athletics? Is ECU going to stop trying to build up its basketball program? That's a silly straw dog argument. We can add teams AND build what we have. Its not an "either" "or" choice.

Adding basketball schools actually cuts the pie FAR less than adding all sports schools. We get about 7 million for basketball. A full basketball share is $636,000. Adding 2 basketball teams means we lose less than 100K per school. If the added RPI from having Wichita and VCU in the league gets an extra team or two in the tournament---we MAKE money on the deal. Plus the Big East has proven that we CAN increase our market value by having better basketball.

We are a G5 league. Its my contention that if we really care about being perceived as a power league---then we leave no method of increasing our market value unused. If we are not willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the perception and value of the conference---then we really are not all that committed anyway.

You continue what we are building. It's only been two years but we do have momentum.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

Basketball doesn't matter