(06-10-2015 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im thinking a nationwide conference will generate media value of 4-5 million per team. That wouldn't include CFP money, NCAA credits (this conference would do quite well there), bowl money, and other revenue streams. In other words, its a lateral move for Boise, but a nice bump in pay everyone else. Better yet, its guaranteed. It wont fluctuate from year to year based on TV appearances. Presidents are a conservative lot. They like steady even revenue streams. They value predictability.

I don't disagree, but from where do you derive the $4-5 million per team prediction? That's $72-90 million for the entire 18-team conference. Don't the current MWC and AAC conference combined earn about $72 million per year?

(06-10-2015 02:03 PM)YNot Wrote:  However, didn't SDSU make out fairly well last year too? Like $3+ million or so?

SDSU's distribution from the MWC last year was "in the neighborhood of $3.15-$3.25 million." I haven't seen anything about what they received this year.

Other MWC schools with a lot of football TV appearances did well this year. "Thompson said Fresno State will get $4.9 million this year, with Nevada and Utah State expected to get more than $4 million."

(06-10-2015 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im a realist. The only way to create the nationwide conference at this point in time is to build one using either the MW or the AAC as the base. Neither conference is going to kick out current members. That's just not going to happen. Yes, a "true" best of the rest would take the best from each conference. Unfortunately, reality of waiting 7 years for autobids and not being a signee of the CFP agreement means a totally NEW conference makes no sense at this juncture. To pick at current proposals that use and existing conference as a base is just another empty straw man argument that Quo and others like to make.

There isn't much realism here. Let's make the following assumptions, that sound realistic to me:

The average value of the top 6 AAC teams = $2.5m per year, of the bottom six the average value is $1.5m, collectively that adds up to an average of $2m per year, roughly the AAC media value.

Now let's say the average value of the top 6 MWC teams is also $2.5m per year, and of the bottom six just $1m per year (that comports with your AAC-fantasy belief that the bottom of the AAC is worth more than the bottom of the MWC). That values the current MWC at $1.75m per year.

If we do what you propose, and the top 6 of the MWC join to form an 18-team AAC, that raises the overall media value of the expanded AAC to .... $2.16m per year.

That's it, just $160k a year more per school for the AAC, just $310k for the MWC schools that leave.

That's chicken feed. Nobody in the MWC is going to leave their regional travel and rivalries behind to compete against ECU, USF, Tulane, etc. unless SERIOUS money is involved, Boise and SDSU in 2013 already proved that. A movement in value from $1.75m to $2.16m won't come close to cutting it.

Furthermore, such a move makes even less sense for the AAC cream, as their value would go up just $160k.

And yes, this new conference will dominate the Access slot. But, the impact of that is seriously diluted by having to divide that booty 18 ways. That's rough.

In contrast, a new conference made up of the best six from each would be worth $2.5m per school, which would increase the MWC schools almost 50% above what they get now and give the AAC cream a 25% boost, and the Access booty would just be divided 12 ways. That's probably worth it.

Bottom line: Carrying the bottom 6 of the AAC still drags this deal down, kills it.

You also talk about the set-in-stone nature of the CFP contract. That's debatable, but even if so, TV contracts exist as well. Nobody at ESPN is going to tear up the current AAC deal and renegotiate before 2020 over such a marginally small increase in value.

And you need to stop being unrealistic about the impact of being a "national" conference. There will be no "synergy effect" or somesuch of being national compared to regional. For example, the SEC and B1G are still very much regional conferences and yet make gigantic money. It's the brands you have not where they are located that matter. Far better to have Georgia, Auburn, and Florida in your conference (all located within 350 miles of each other) than to have SDSU, Tulane, and UConn, which span the nation. Regions don't matter, brands do. The reason the AAC makes more than the MAC is we have slightly bigger brand name schools, not because we are more sprawling.

If you are correct that the CFP is set in stone and that a new conference could not join, and that no conference will kick existing members out, then all that means is that there is no rational basis for the MWC or AAC to raid each other before 2025.

The only type of rearrangement that makes dollars and sense is a cream of each conference. If that truly is precluded by the CFP until 2025, then both sides will wait until then to act, because an arrangement in which the cream of one has to carry the dregs of the other simply doesn't make enough money to be worth it.

So to support Coog I think you make sense in terms of regional rivalries and compact conferences, and increasing your chance at both the access bowl and playoff by have a 3 division conference.

But to your point Boise would actually lose money since their uneven split nets them around 4-5 in TV value a year. So the whole idea falls apart if Boise has enough left to stay in the MWC. You really have to take 8-10 members of the MWC to make Boise come.

(06-10-2015 02:47 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im thinking a nationwide conference will generate media value of 4-5 million per team. That wouldn't include CFP money, NCAA credits (this conference would do quite well there), bowl money, and other revenue streams. In other words, its a lateral move for Boise, but a nice bump in pay everyone else. Better yet, its guaranteed. It wont fluctuate from year to year based on TV appearances. Presidents are a conservative lot. They like steady even revenue streams. They value predictability.

I don't disagree, but from where do you derive the $4-5 million per team prediction? That's $72-90 million for the entire 18-team conference. Don't the current MWC and AAC conference combined earn about $72 million per year?

Combined media pay for the two conferences as currently comprised is only about 40 million. However, I see the small compact MAC earns 1 million a team per year. The larger half-continent MW and AAC each earn about 2 million per team. So, my contention is doubling the conference footprint, should result in a double of the media value.

A second thing to note is the Big East is getting 4 million per team for JUST basketball. The combined AAC/MW would likely deliver the same or more NCAA bids per year. So, the expanded AAC should also see increased value from its basketball product.

Another thing---a slight increase would be expected due to the increasing value in athletic rights and extra value per team would be expected via adding just the most valuable 6 MW teams without having to carry the less valuable schools.

Finally, the resulting conference should get the access bowl virtually every year. Thus, a conference that plays in a NYD bowl virtually every year will gain in value as its champion is generally headed to a post season destination of significance. Essentially, the conference would be a defacto 6th "contract" conference.

I think 4-5 million per team is a very conservative value (that's media distribution ONLY--bowls, CFP income, and NCAA credits would push the total conference distribution higher). I also believe the value of the conference would grow over time as it becomes the most recognized, the most dominate, most discussed, and the most watched G5 conference across the country. I think over a couple of contract cycles teams in the nationwide G5 conference could get as much as 50% of the media value of their P5 counterparts. That would be a huge win for these G5 schools. That's NEVER going to happen if the G5 continue to blunder along in these small regional conferences that have clearly proven they have very limited value to TV.

(06-10-2015 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im a realist. The only way to create the nationwide conference at this point in time is to build one using either the MW or the AAC as the base. Neither conference is going to kick out current members. That's just not going to happen. Yes, a "true" best of the rest would take the best from each conference. Unfortunately, reality of waiting 7 years for autobids and not being a signee of the CFP agreement means a totally NEW conference makes no sense at this juncture. To pick at current proposals that use and existing conference as a base is just another empty straw man argument that Quo and others like to make.

There isn't much realism here. Let's make the following assumptions, that sound realistic to me:

The average value of the top 6 AAC teams = $2.5m per year, of the bottom six the average value is $1.5m, collectively that adds up to an average of $2m per year, roughly the AAC media value.

No way to know


Well, $2m is in fact the current AAC media value.

Now let's say the average value of the top 6 MWC teams is also $2.5m per year, and of the bottom six just $1m per year (that comports with your AAC-fantasy belief that the bottom of the AAC is worth more than the bottom of the MWC). That values the current MWC at $1.75m per year.

Again--is it? The value of the entire conference is not based on the whole, but the top. See Texas and Oklahoma in the Big-12


That's true for the Big 12, because Texas and OK are top-10 blue chip brands. There's nothing remotely like that in the AAC or MWC, with the possible exception of Boise, and Boise is already getting $5.3m from the MWC even without the Access spot, more than the AAC has proven willing to pay, as per Aresco's failure to keep them in January 2013.


If we do what you propose, and the top 6 of the MWC join to form an 18-team AAC, that raises the overall media value of the expanded AAC to .... $2.16m per year.

Don't forget the half continent multiplier effect. A half continent model double s the rate of pay of a more regional G5 model. Seems reasonable that a national model would at least double the value of the half continent model

The "continental multiplier effect" is a fantasy concept. No evidence it has any basis in reality.

That's it, just $160k a year more per school for the AAC, just $310k for the MWC schools that leave.

That's chicken feed. Nobody in the MWC is going to leave their regional travel and rivalries behind to compete against ECU, USF, Tulane, etc. unless SERIOUS money is involved, Boise and SDSU in 2013 already proved that. A movement in value from $1.75m to $2.16m won't come close to cutting it.

It is chicken feed. But I don't agree with your assumptions. That said, TCU left for the MW for less of a difference.


For an AQ conference. The AAC isn't that.

Furthermore, such a move makes even less sense for the AAC cream, as their value would go up just $160k.

And yes, this new conference will dominate the Access slot. But, the impact of that is seriously diluted by having to divide that booty 18 ways. That's rough.

Making the expanded AAC a defacto contract bowl conference. There is value in that fact which you do not address. Not to mention the expansion would create a basketball conference that is likely to land more NCAA bids annually than the Big East. The expanded AAC's basketball is likely to be of significant value.

I don't see value in that. "De Facto" isn't nearly the same thing as "guaranteed". The P5 will still split a minimum of $50m each off the top and this new AAC-MWC will still be G5.

In contrast, a new conference made up of the best six from each would be worth $2.5m per school, which would increase the MWC schools almost 50% above what they get now and give the AAC cream a 25% boost, and the Access booty would just be divided 12 ways. That's probably worth it.

Keep in mind, earning in the MW is variable. UNLV got barely a million dollars. Assuming pay in the AAC didn't change at all, they would see a doubling of their media payout.


The MWC, smartly, pays its top schools disproportionately more than other conferences. That makes it harder to raid them. It probably makes it impossible for the AAC to raid them. The whole reason they pay more was to lure Boise and SDSU back from the AAC, and it worked.

Bottom line: Carrying the bottom 6 of the AAC still drags this deal down, kills it.

Wasn't Memphis part of the "bottom" before last season? The large budgets in the AAC--even at the bottom, make them viable teams in the expanded league.


That's an AAC fantasy - "we're ALL strong!!!". All conferences have tops and bottoms. In the AAC, it's even spelled out: Temple, Houston, Cincy, and UConn are the top four. As a USF fan I don't like that, but it's reality.

The AAC has dregs, and they kill your proposed raid of the MWC.

You also talk about the set-in-stone nature of the CFP contract. That's debatable, but even if so, TV contracts exist as well. Nobody at ESPN is going to tear up the current AAC deal and renegotiate before 2020 over such a marginally small increase in value.

If you can find a majority of the conference reps willing to lower thier share of the CFP to let your new confernce join, then--yes, i could be altered---good luck with that,


On that point, I agree with you.

And you need to stop being unrealistic about the impact of being a "national" conference. There will be no "synergy effect" or somesuch of being national compared to regional. For example, the SEC and B1G are still very much regional conferences and yet make gigantic money. It's the brands you have not where they are located that matter. Far better to have Georgia, Auburn, and Florida in your conference (all located within 350 miles of each other) than to have SDSU, Tulane, and UConn, which span the nation. Regions don't matter, brands do. The reason the AAC makes more than the MAC is we have slightly bigger brand name schools, not because we are more sprawling. Nope. They are all the same as you have reminded us so many times. You cant compare the G5 regionals with the P5 regionals. If the G5 had 100K fans cramming their stadiums, then yes---the G5 could be successful using the same P5 regional model. We have 35 years of data showing the regional model is failing the G5. It is what it is.

As I indicated in the previous posts, the regional model is failing the G5---that's not arguable. In 1997 CUSA team made half of what thier P5 counterparts earned. Less than 2 decades later they make barely 10% of thier P5 competition. Yes, the national model might not turn out to be better---but trying the national model is better than continuing to do something we KNOW doesn't work.


It's not the "regional model" that is failing. The SEC, PAC, and B1G are still essentially regional conferences, and they are booming. It's the gap between the top brands and smaller brands that is widening, and the G5 consists of small brands - both the AAC and MWC.

A new conference of just the Best 12 might be worth significantly more than the current MWC or AAC, but forcing a hybrid to carry either's bottom six amounts to reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

If you are correct that the CFP is set in stone and that a new conference could not join, and that no conference will kick existing members out, then all that means is that there is no rational basis for the MWC or AAC to raid each other before 2025. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the pretty good.

I am letting the far from perfect be the enemy of the not good enough.

The only type of rearrangement that makes dollars and sense is a cream of each conference. If that truly is precluded by the CFP until 2025, then both sides will wait until then to act, because an arrangement in which the cream of one has to carry the dregs of the other simply doesn't make enough money to be worth it. The cream would be better. It just isn't possible right now.


Agreed. But problem is, what is possible isn't worth it.

BTW, what would the MWC exit fees for those leaving six be?

A couple things to keep in mind.

The MWC doesn't pay it's top schools more just Boise. The other schools are subject to the whim of CBS Sports and if it chooses their games or not. In fact, being a top tier school not names Boise, increases your chances of being on CBS Sports and results in less not more revenue. This makes those schools vulnerable.

The value of the deal only lies in your ability to lock up the access spot and make it a predictable revenue stream. The best way to accomplish it is three divisions. Three divisions also keeps regional rivalries. But it also means you have to be able to force Boise's hand which is where Coog's cherry picking strategy fails.

(06-10-2015 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im a realist. The only way to create the nationwide conference at this point in time is to build one using either the MW or the AAC as the base. Neither conference is going to kick out current members. That's just not going to happen. Yes, a "true" best of the rest would take the best from each conference. Unfortunately, reality of waiting 7 years for autobids and not being a signee of the CFP agreement means a totally NEW conference makes no sense at this juncture. To pick at current proposals that use and existing conference as a base is just another empty straw man argument that Quo and others like to make.

There isn't much realism here. Let's make the following assumptions, that sound realistic to me:

The average value of the top 6 AAC teams = $2.5m per year, of the bottom six the average value is $1.5m, collectively that adds up to an average of $2m per year, roughly the AAC media value.

No way to know


Well, $2m is in fact the current AAC media value.

Now let's say the average value of the top 6 MWC teams is also $2.5m per year, and of the bottom six just $1m per year (that comports with your AAC-fantasy belief that the bottom of the AAC is worth more than the bottom of the MWC). That values the current MWC at $1.75m per year.

Again--is it? The value of the entire conference is not based on the whole, but the top. See Texas and Oklahoma in the Big-12


That's true for the Big 12, because Texas and OK are top-10 blue chip brands. There's nothing remotely like that in the AAC or MWC, with the possible exception of Boise, and Boise is already getting $5.3m from the MWC even without the Access spot, more than the AAC has proven willing to pay, as per Aresco's failure to keep them in January 2013.


If we do what you propose, and the top 6 of the MWC join to form an 18-team AAC, that raises the overall media value of the expanded AAC to .... $2.16m per year.

Don't forget the half continent multiplier effect. A half continent model double s the rate of pay of a more regional G5 model. Seems reasonable that a national model would at least double the value of the half continent model

The "continental multiplier effect" is a fantasy concept. No evidence it has any basis in reality.

That's it, just $160k a year more per school for the AAC, just $310k for the MWC schools that leave.

That's chicken feed. Nobody in the MWC is going to leave their regional travel and rivalries behind to compete against ECU, USF, Tulane, etc. unless SERIOUS money is involved, Boise and SDSU in 2013 already proved that. A movement in value from $1.75m to $2.16m won't come close to cutting it.

It is chicken feed. But I don't agree with your assumptions. That said, TCU left for the MW for less of a difference.


For an AQ conference. The AAC isn't that.

Furthermore, such a move makes even less sense for the AAC cream, as their value would go up just $160k.

And yes, this new conference will dominate the Access slot. But, the impact of that is seriously diluted by having to divide that booty 18 ways. That's rough.

Making the expanded AAC a defacto contract bowl conference. There is value in that fact which you do not address. Not to mention the expansion would create a basketball conference that is likely to land more NCAA bids annually than the Big East. The expanded AAC's basketball is likely to be of significant value.

I don't see value in that. "De Facto" isn't nearly the same thing as "guaranteed". The P5 will still split a minimum of $50m each off the top and this new AAC-MWC will still be G5.

In contrast, a new conference made up of the best six from each would be worth $2.5m per school, which would increase the MWC schools almost 50% above what they get now and give the AAC cream a 25% boost, and the Access booty would just be divided 12 ways. That's probably worth it.

Keep in mind, earning in the MW is variable. UNLV got barely a million dollars. Assuming pay in the AAC didn't change at all, they would see a doubling of their media payout.


The MWC, smartly, pays its top schools disproportionately more than other conferences. That makes it harder to raid them. It probably makes it impossible for the AAC to raid them. The whole reason they pay more was to lure Boise and SDSU back from the AAC, and it worked.

Bottom line: Carrying the bottom 6 of the AAC still drags this deal down, kills it.

Wasn't Memphis part of the "bottom" before last season? The large budgets in the AAC--even at the bottom, make them viable teams in the expanded league.


That's an AAC fantasy - "we're ALL strong!!!". All conferences have tops and bottoms. In the AAC, it's even spelled out: Temple, Houston, Cincy, and UConn are the top four. As a USF fan I don't like that, but it's reality.

The AAC has dregs, and they kill your proposed raid of the MWC.

You also talk about the set-in-stone nature of the CFP contract. That's debatable, but even if so, TV contracts exist as well. Nobody at ESPN is going to tear up the current AAC deal and renegotiate before 2020 over such a marginally small increase in value.

If you can find a majority of the conference reps willing to lower thier share of the CFP to let your new confernce join, then--yes, i could be altered---good luck with that,


On that point, I agree with you.

And you need to stop being unrealistic about the impact of being a "national" conference. There will be no "synergy effect" or somesuch of being national compared to regional. For example, the SEC and B1G are still very much regional conferences and yet make gigantic money. It's the brands you have not where they are located that matter. Far better to have Georgia, Auburn, and Florida in your conference (all located within 350 miles of each other) than to have SDSU, Tulane, and UConn, which span the nation. Regions don't matter, brands do. The reason the AAC makes more than the MAC is we have slightly bigger brand name schools, not because we are more sprawling. Nope. They are all the same as you have reminded us so many times. You cant compare the G5 regionals with the P5 regionals. If the G5 had 100K fans cramming their stadiums, then yes---the G5 could be successful using the same P5 regional model. We have 35 years of data showing the regional model is failing the G5. It is what it is.

As I indicated in the previous posts, the regional model is failing the G5---that's not arguable. In 1997 CUSA team made half of what thier P5 counterparts earned. Less than 2 decades later they make barely 10% of thier P5 competition. Yes, the national model might not turn out to be better---but trying the national model is better than continuing to do something we KNOW doesn't work.


It's not the "regional model" that is failing. The SEC, PAC, and B1G are still essentially regional conferences, and they are booming. It's the gap between the top brands and smaller brands that is widening, and the G5 consists of small brands - both the AAC and MWC.

A new conference of just the Best 12 might be worth significantly more than the current MWC or AAC, but forcing a hybrid to carry either's bottom six amounts to reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

If you are correct that the CFP is set in stone and that a new conference could not join, and that no conference will kick existing members out, then all that means is that there is no rational basis for the MWC or AAC to raid each other before 2025. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the pretty good.

I am letting the far from perfect be the enemy of the not good enough.

The only type of rearrangement that makes dollars and sense is a cream of each conference. If that truly is precluded by the CFP until 2025, then both sides will wait until then to act, because an arrangement in which the cream of one has to carry the dregs of the other simply doesn't make enough money to be worth it. The cream would be better. It just isn't possible right now.


Agreed. But problem is, what is possible isn't worth it.

BTW, what would the MWC exit fees for those leaving six be?

Quick response.


1) TCU left CUSA for MW when both earned virtually the same amount (I wasn't referring to TCU leaving the MW for the Big East).

IIRC, TCU left for the MWC right after five C-USA teams had bolted for the Big East and two more for the A-10, making C-USA far less desirable than it had been. Also, at the time C-USA's media contract was up for renewal in 2006, so TCU had every reason to believe the value would be in the toilet.

2) A premium exists for half-continent conferences over smaller more compact regional conferences at the G5 level. That's simply a fact. See MAC vs the AAC or MW. And before you say brand is the difference---half the MW is former WAC teams that made virtually nothing in the WAC.

Brand is always the difference. There is no premium. The MWC and AAC clearly have bigger names than the MAC.

3) Comparing the P5 version of regional conferences with the G5 experience is like comparing Disney World with the local traveling Carnival. We cant execute the same strategy as the P5 and expect the result to be anywhere near the same. We have tried it for decades through multiple contract cycles and the proof is in the pudding. The G5 regional conference does not work and will never succeed at generating media value. That's simply a proven fact at this point. That's not to say the national conference will definitely do better---but there is some reason to think it might, where as there is little justification thinking there will be any real improvement in closing the earnings gap between the G5 and P5 with the current G5 conference structures.

I don't think there is any reason to think a national conference that is weighted down with the dregs can do better.

4) Yes, the top of the MW is better than the bottom of the AAC. But since you can't dump the bottom of either, its an irrelevant point. The best you can do is add the top of the AAC to the MW or vice versa. I choose adding the top of the MW to the AAC because the bigger budgets in the AAC make its bottom more upwardly mobile. Besides, having 12 teams in the east and central time zones makes more sense than having 12 teams in the west and just 6 sprinkled over the other 2/3's of the country (where most of the people actually live). A 6-6-6 allows for a more even distribution of schools across the country and more economical travel within divisions (where most of the minor sports will largely compete---thus cutting costs).

I never made a "point" about the top off the MW being better than the bottom of the AAC - I thought that went without saying. What is relevant is: IMO, if you can't dump the bottom of BOTH, you can't create a conference that is worth either the top 6 AAC or top 6 MW teams leaving their conference for. So there is nothing to be done in that regard.

What would work is if the AAC could just take Boise. That would hugely increase the chances the AAC would get the Access slot, and at no extra cost. But we know the AAC can't do that. The MW smartly gave Boise a deal they can't refuse, and that the AAC can't match.

(06-10-2015 03:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Combined media pay for the two conferences as currently comprised is only about 40 million. However, I see the small compact MAC earns 1 million a team per year. The larger half-continent MW and AAC each earn about 2 million per team. So, my contention is doubling the conference footprint, should result in a double of the media value.

A second thing to note is the Big East is getting 4 million per team for JUST basketball. The combined AAC/MW would likely deliver the same or more NCAA bids per year. So, the expanded AAC should also see increased value from its basketball product.

Another thing---a slight increase would be expected due to the increasing value in athletic rights and extra value per team would be expected via adding just the most valuable 6 MW teams without having to carry the less valuable schools.

Finally, the resulting conference should get the access bowl virtually every year. Thus, a conference that plays in a NYD bowl virtually every year will gain in value as its champion is generally headed to a post season destination of significance. Essentially, the conference would be a defacto 6th "contract" conference.

I think 4-5 million per team is a very conservative value (that's media distribution ONLY--bowls, CFP income, and NCAA credits would push the total conference distribution higher). I also believe the value of the conference would grow over time as it becomes the most recognized, the most dominate, most discussed, and the most watched G5 conference across the country. I think over a couple of contract cycles teams in the nationwide G5 conference could get as much as 50% of the media value of their P5 counterparts. That would be a huge win for these G5 schools. That's NEVER going to happen if the G5 continue to blunder along in these small regional conferences that have clearly proven they have very limited value to TV.

"Combined media pay for the two conferences as currently comprised is only about 40 million. However, I see the small compact MAC earns 1 million a team per year. The larger half-continent MW and AAC each earn about 2 million per team. So, my contention is doubling the conference footprint, should result in a double of the media value."

Unless I misunderstand what you're trying to say, your contention is very, very wrong.

"A second thing to note is the Big East is getting 4 million per team for JUST basketball. The combined AAC/MW would likely deliver the same or more NCAA bids per year. So, the expanded AAC should also see increased value from its basketball product."

They may deliver the same number of bids, but 1) would they be willing to take the BIG EAST's level of exposure (or lack thereof), 2) would they deliver the same number of bids/team (I'm not sure how big your planned conference would be), 3) do they have the same level of passion for basketball, and 4) do they have teams with comparable prestige to BIG EAST teams?

"Thus, a conference that plays in a NYD bowl virtually every year will gain in value as its champion is generally headed to a post season destination of significance."

The CFP money is already being realized by these two conferences. You would just be splitting it slightly fewer ways. Unless I misunderstand what you're saying, you're double counting.

"I think over a couple of contract cycles teams in the nationwide G5 conference could get as much as 50% of the media value of their P5 counterparts."

Being nationwide severely hurts the odds of this happening. Barring special circumstances (i.e. Miami, UNC, ND, etc.), t's hard to passionately hate a school that's 3,000 miles away, but it's really, really easy to hate one that's 200 miles away.

(06-10-2015 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 08:46 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I think it's because they feel threatened after being the #3 G5 conference past year. In an effort to make the AAC the G5 rep, they need stronger teams and who else but to pull from the MW. Of course if the AAC got the auto-bid last year, they wouldn't be thinking about this.

The only team that would consider the AAC is Air Force if Navy and Army were in the same conference.

That's exactly it. Believe me, a year ago, when the AAC was seemingly riding high, if you had suggested that the AAC raid the MWC of its best schools, the overwhelming response from the AAC fans would have been "Hell no! Who needs them? We're the best G5, heck we're a Power conference as it is! Let the MWC, especially Boise, eat cake!".

But now a much different tune is being sung because of this past season's football results.

I will say in Coog's defense that he's been pitching this coast-to-coast G5 conference concept (passionately) for a long time. I don't think it's something he just came up with after the MWC landed the first Access Bowl bid.

(06-10-2015 06:39 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Being nationwide severely hurts the odds of this happening. Barring special circumstances (i.e. Miami, UNC, ND, etc.), t's hard to passionately hate a school that's 3,000 miles away, but it's really, really easy to hate one that's 200 miles away.

This is a point that's too easily overlooked. Coog said in one of his responses that MWC schools that came over to an expanded AAC could expect to see higher ticket sales and booster contributions. I don't think that can be assumed. Rivalries like Boise State-Nevada, Colorado State-Wyoming and Fresno State-SJSU have been intense over the years. They sell. I don't think games against any but the top AAC teams would sell better.

(06-10-2015 06:39 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 03:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Combined media pay for the two conferences as currently comprised is only about 40 million. However, I see the small compact MAC earns 1 million a team per year. The larger half-continent MW and AAC each earn about 2 million per team. So, my contention is doubling the conference footprint, should result in a double of the media value.

A second thing to note is the Big East is getting 4 million per team for JUST basketball. The combined AAC/MW would likely deliver the same or more NCAA bids per year. So, the expanded AAC should also see increased value from its basketball product.

Another thing---a slight increase would be expected due to the increasing value in athletic rights and extra value per team would be expected via adding just the most valuable 6 MW teams without having to carry the less valuable schools.

Finally, the resulting conference should get the access bowl virtually every year. Thus, a conference that plays in a NYD bowl virtually every year will gain in value as its champion is generally headed to a post season destination of significance. Essentially, the conference would be a defacto 6th "contract" conference.

I think 4-5 million per team is a very conservative value (that's media distribution ONLY--bowls, CFP income, and NCAA credits would push the total conference distribution higher). I also believe the value of the conference would grow over time as it becomes the most recognized, the most dominate, most discussed, and the most watched G5 conference across the country. I think over a couple of contract cycles teams in the nationwide G5 conference could get as much as 50% of the media value of their P5 counterparts. That would be a huge win for these G5 schools. That's NEVER going to happen if the G5 continue to blunder along in these small regional conferences that have clearly proven they have very limited value to TV.

"Combined media pay for the two conferences as currently comprised is only about 40 million. However, I see the small compact MAC earns 1 million a team per year. The larger half-continent MW and AAC each earn about 2 million per team. So, my contention is doubling the conference footprint, should result in a double of the media value."

Unless I misunderstand what you're trying to say, your contention is very, very wrong.

"A second thing to note is the Big East is getting 4 million per team for JUST basketball. The combined AAC/MW would likely deliver the same or more NCAA bids per year. So, the expanded AAC should also see increased value from its basketball product."

They may deliver the same number of bids, but 1) would they be willing to take the BIG EAST's level of exposure (or lack thereof), 2) would they deliver the same number of bids/team (I'm not sure how big your planned conference would be), 3) do they have the same level of passion for basketball, and 4) do they have teams with comparable prestige to BIG EAST teams?

"Thus, a conference that plays in a NYD bowl virtually every year will gain in value as its champion is generally headed to a post season destination of significance."

The CFP money is already being realized by these two conferences. You would just be splitting it slightly fewer ways. Unless I misunderstand what you're saying, you're double counting.

"I think over a couple of contract cycles teams in the nationwide G5 conference could get as much as 50% of the media value of their P5 counterparts."

Being nationwide severely hurts the odds of this happening. Barring special circumstances (i.e. Miami, UNC, ND, etc.), t's hard to passionately hate a school that's 3,000 miles away, but it's really, really easy to hate one that's 200 miles away.

Im not sure why you think being nationwide "hurts" tv value. When a national broadcaster televises a G5 game nationally, it goes EVERYWHERE. The problem is, a small regional G5 conference is barely a second banana in its own footprint---beyond its footprint, that same regional G5 conference is of zero interest. There is simply no "rooting interest" for a fan in California watching an AAC game for instance.

However, a national conference would have footprint that is nationwide. Thus, a game between UCF and UConn might hold at least some minimal level of interest in San Diego because they share a conference and the game could impact the conference standings. For the broadcaster, the game is going to be on TV in California and Philly regardless---so for that broadcaster, there is value in owning the rights of a national G5 conference rather than a regional G5. If there was some great value in the G5 being in small regional conferences---we would have seen it by now. No regional G5 conference gets much of anything for its rights. The regional conference is a failure for the G5. Time to try something else---or we will eventually simply be spent into oblivion by the more and more autonomous spending rules. Frankly, I just don't see where the participants in a national experiment have much to lose.

(06-10-2015 10:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 06:39 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Being nationwide severely hurts the odds of this happening. Barring special circumstances (i.e. Miami, UNC, ND, etc.), t's hard to passionately hate a school that's 3,000 miles away, but it's really, really easy to hate one that's 200 miles away.

This is a point that's too easily overlooked. Coog said in one of his responses that MWC schools that came over to an expanded AAC could expect to see higher ticket sales and booster contributions. I don't think that can be assumed. Rivalries like Boise State-Nevada, Colorado State-Wyoming and Fresno State-SJSU have been intense over the years. They sell. I don't think games against any but the top AAC teams would sell better.

Yes. I will concede there will be little help from traveling fans from far away---but that's largely the case in both the AAC and MW anyway due to distances. The teams are not all that close together.


That said, the divisions I have proposed would at least allow for some relatively close games. The thing about traveling fans is that it seems to not really be much of a factor. The conference with the most drivable games for traveling fans (MAC) also has the lowest attendance in all of FBS---by a fairly large margin. I know we get very few traveling fans in the AAC. SMU and Tulane bring a few. Just guessing, but given the distances in the west, I doubt traveling fans make much of a difference in MW ticket sales as it is.

(06-10-2015 10:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 06:39 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Being nationwide severely hurts the odds of this happening. Barring special circumstances (i.e. Miami, UNC, ND, etc.), t's hard to passionately hate a school that's 3,000 miles away, but it's really, really easy to hate one that's 200 miles away.

This is a point that's too easily overlooked. Coog said in one of his responses that MWC schools that came over to an expanded AAC could expect to see higher ticket sales and booster contributions. I don't think that can be assumed. Rivalries like Boise State-Nevada, Colorado State-Wyoming and Fresno State-SJSU have been intense over the years. They sell. I don't think games against any but the top AAC teams would sell better.

Yes. I will concede there will be little help from traveling fans from far away---but that's largely the case in both the AAC and MW anyway due to distances. The teams are not all that close together.


That said, the divisions I have proposed would at least allow for some relatively close games. The thing about traveling fans is that it seems to not really be much of a factor. The conference with the most drivable games for traveling fans (MAC) also has the lowest attendance in all of FBS---by a fairly large margin. I know we get very few traveling fans in the AAC. SMU and Tulane bring a few. Just guessing, but given the distances in the west, I doubt traveling fans make much of a difference in MW ticket sales as it is.

Being "too concentrated" is not the MAC's problem. It has other problems. For instance, schools like ECU are almost literally in Michigan's shadow, MACtion often occurs on weekdays, the conference lacks an established power (I know NIU is good, but they haven't been good for long), and so on.

That said, and I think that you're touching on the great flaw of the AAC. It's WAY to spread out and doesn't have a strong identity. It's the opposite of what built BIG EAST basketball, ACC basketball, SEC football, B1G football. All of those conferences have historically had very tight regional footprints with incredibly heated rivalries - to the point where virtually every game was a rivalry game with a lot on the line (I'm being slightly dramatic, but I'm not in left field). That inspires fans (not just visiting fans) to attend games, donate to schools,a nd demand excellence.

(06-10-2015 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 06:39 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Being nationwide severely hurts the odds of this happening. Barring special circumstances (i.e. Miami, UNC, ND, etc.), t's hard to passionately hate a school that's 3,000 miles away, but it's really, really easy to hate one that's 200 miles away.

This is a point that's too easily overlooked. Coog said in one of his responses that MWC schools that came over to an expanded AAC could expect to see higher ticket sales and booster contributions. I don't think that can be assumed. Rivalries like Boise State-Nevada, Colorado State-Wyoming and Fresno State-SJSU have been intense over the years. They sell. I don't think games against any but the top AAC teams would sell better.

Yes. I will concede there will be little help from traveling fans from far away---but that's largely the case in both the AAC and MW anyway due to distances. The teams are not all that close together.


That said, the divisions I have proposed would at least allow for some relatively close games. The thing about traveling fans is that it seems to not really be much of a factor. The conference with the most drivable games for traveling fans (MAC) also has the lowest attendance in all of FBS---by a fairly large margin. I know we get very few traveling fans in the AAC. SMU and Tulane bring a few. Just guessing, but given the distances in the west, I doubt traveling fans make much of a difference in MW ticket sales as it is.

Being "too concentrated" is not the MAC's problem. It has other problems. For instance, schools like ECU are almost literally in Michigan's shadow, MACtion often occurs on weekdays, the conference lacks an established power (I know NIU is good, but they haven't been good for long), and so on.

That said, and I think that you're touching on the great flaw of the AAC. It's WAY to spread out and doesn't have a strong identity. It's the opposite of what built BIG EAST basketball, ACC basketball, SEC football, B1G football. All of those conferences have historically had very tight regional footprints with incredibly heated rivalries - to the point where virtually every game was a rivalry game with a lot on the line (I'm being slightly dramatic, but I'm not in left field). That inspires fans (not just visiting fans) to attend games, donate to schools,a nd demand excellence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_We...#Rivalries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_At..._rivalries

There's no comparison. The MWC has at least half a dozen rivalries that exceed 50 games played.

The closest thing to a long-time rivalry in the AAC is Houston-Tulsa, which has been played 39 times. Navy-SMU has been played 16 times, ECU-UCF has been played 13 times, and UCF-USF has been played 6 times.

Anyone who wants to research further can go here:

http://football.stassen.com/records/opponent.html

What about some of the FCS schools that could be the next Boise State? We have a couple right now in Eastern Washington and North Dakota State as monsters ready to explode at the FBS level. They are better than some of the MWC and AAC schools. The only way to do a nationwide like conference is to drop the dead weight and replace them with the 2 FCS schools, Northern Illinois, Georgia Southern, Toledo, Marshall and Illinois State. It would mean that schools like U. Conn., USF, San Jose State, UNLV, New mexico, Wyoming, Temple, SMU, Tulane and Hawaii will be left behind.

(06-10-2015 10:29 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 08:46 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I think it's because they feel threatened after being the #3 G5 conference past year. In an effort to make the AAC the G5 rep, they need stronger teams and who else but to pull from the MW. Of course if the AAC got the auto-bid last year, they wouldn't be thinking about this.

The only team that would consider the AAC is Air Force if Navy and Army were in the same conference.

That's exactly it. Believe me, a year ago, when the AAC was seemingly riding high, if you had suggested that the AAC raid the MWC of its best schools, the overwhelming response from the AAC fans would have been "Hell no! Who needs them? We're the best G5, heck we're a Power conference as it is! Let the MWC, especially Boise, eat cake!".

But now a much different tune is being sung because of this past season's football results.

I will say in Coog's defense that he's been pitching this coast-to-coast G5 conference concept (passionately) for a long time. I don't think it's something he just came up with after the MWC landed the first Access Bowl bid.

I know. I am referring to the broad AAC fan base. On this issue I do not lump him in with that.

(06-11-2015 12:47 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 06:39 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Being nationwide severely hurts the odds of this happening. Barring special circumstances (i.e. Miami, UNC, ND, etc.), t's hard to passionately hate a school that's 3,000 miles away, but it's really, really easy to hate one that's 200 miles away.

This is a point that's too easily overlooked. Coog said in one of his responses that MWC schools that came over to an expanded AAC could expect to see higher ticket sales and booster contributions. I don't think that can be assumed. Rivalries like Boise State-Nevada, Colorado State-Wyoming and Fresno State-SJSU have been intense over the years. They sell. I don't think games against any but the top AAC teams would sell better.

Yes. I will concede there will be little help from traveling fans from far away---but that's largely the case in both the AAC and MW anyway due to distances. The teams are not all that close together.


That said, the divisions I have proposed would at least allow for some relatively close games. The thing about traveling fans is that it seems to not really be much of a factor. The conference with the most drivable games for traveling fans (MAC) also has the lowest attendance in all of FBS---by a fairly large margin. I know we get very few traveling fans in the AAC. SMU and Tulane bring a few. Just guessing, but given the distances in the west, I doubt traveling fans make much of a difference in MW ticket sales as it is.

Being "too concentrated" is not the MAC's problem. It has other problems. For instance, schools like ECU are almost literally in Michigan's shadow, MACtion often occurs on weekdays, the conference lacks an established power (I know NIU is good, but they haven't been good for long), and so on.

That said, and I think that you're touching on the great flaw of the AAC. It's WAY to spread out and doesn't have a strong identity. It's the opposite of what built BIG EAST basketball, ACC basketball, SEC football, B1G football. All of those conferences have historically had very tight regional footprints with incredibly heated rivalries - to the point where virtually every game was a rivalry game with a lot on the line (I'm being slightly dramatic, but I'm not in left field). That inspires fans (not just visiting fans) to attend games, donate to schools,a nd demand excellence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_We...#Rivalries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_At..._rivalries

There's no comparison. The MWC has at least half a dozen rivalries that exceed 50 games played.

The closest thing to a long-time rivalry in the AAC is Houston-Tulsa, which has been played 39 times. Navy-SMU has been played 16 times, ECU-UCF has been played 13 times, and UCF-USF has been played 6 times.

Anyone who wants to research further can go here:

http://football.stassen.com/records/opponent.html

Wow, I didn't realize how many MW games are of longstanding vintage. I knew the AAC was cobbled together and so lacked rivalries, but the difference between the AAC and MW on this is stark.

Good research.

(06-11-2015 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 12:47 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  This is a point that's too easily overlooked. Coog said in one of his responses that MWC schools that came over to an expanded AAC could expect to see higher ticket sales and booster contributions. I don't think that can be assumed. Rivalries like Boise State-Nevada, Colorado State-Wyoming and Fresno State-SJSU have been intense over the years. They sell. I don't think games against any but the top AAC teams would sell better.

Yes. I will concede there will be little help from traveling fans from far away---but that's largely the case in both the AAC and MW anyway due to distances. The teams are not all that close together.


That said, the divisions I have proposed would at least allow for some relatively close games. The thing about traveling fans is that it seems to not really be much of a factor. The conference with the most drivable games for traveling fans (MAC) also has the lowest attendance in all of FBS---by a fairly large margin. I know we get very few traveling fans in the AAC. SMU and Tulane bring a few. Just guessing, but given the distances in the west, I doubt traveling fans make much of a difference in MW ticket sales as it is.

Being "too concentrated" is not the MAC's problem. It has other problems. For instance, schools like ECU are almost literally in Michigan's shadow, MACtion often occurs on weekdays, the conference lacks an established power (I know NIU is good, but they haven't been good for long), and so on.

That said, and I think that you're touching on the great flaw of the AAC. It's WAY to spread out and doesn't have a strong identity. It's the opposite of what built BIG EAST basketball, ACC basketball, SEC football, B1G football. All of those conferences have historically had very tight regional footprints with incredibly heated rivalries - to the point where virtually every game was a rivalry game with a lot on the line (I'm being slightly dramatic, but I'm not in left field). That inspires fans (not just visiting fans) to attend games, donate to schools,a nd demand excellence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_We...#Rivalries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_At..._rivalries

There's no comparison. The MWC has at least half a dozen rivalries that exceed 50 games played.

The closest thing to a long-time rivalry in the AAC is Houston-Tulsa, which has been played 39 times. Navy-SMU has been played 16 times, ECU-UCF has been played 13 times, and UCF-USF has been played 6 times.

Anyone who wants to research further can go here:

http://football.stassen.com/records/opponent.html

Wow, I didn't realize how many MW games are of longstanding vintage. I knew the AAC was cobbled together and so lacked rivalries, but the difference between the AAC and MW on this is stark.

Good research.

Not surprising really considering 1/4 of the league hasn't played D1 football for 50 years. Memphis has played Cincinatti and Tulane 30+ times each. Not 50, but hardly strangers.

(06-11-2015 08:43 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 12:47 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yes. I will concede there will be little help from traveling fans from far away---but that's largely the case in both the AAC and MW anyway due to distances. The teams are not all that close together.


That said, the divisions I have proposed would at least allow for some relatively close games. The thing about traveling fans is that it seems to not really be much of a factor. The conference with the most drivable games for traveling fans (MAC) also has the lowest attendance in all of FBS---by a fairly large margin. I know we get very few traveling fans in the AAC. SMU and Tulane bring a few. Just guessing, but given the distances in the west, I doubt traveling fans make much of a difference in MW ticket sales as it is.

Being "too concentrated" is not the MAC's problem. It has other problems. For instance, schools like ECU are almost literally in Michigan's shadow, MACtion often occurs on weekdays, the conference lacks an established power (I know NIU is good, but they haven't been good for long), and so on.

That said, and I think that you're touching on the great flaw of the AAC. It's WAY to spread out and doesn't have a strong identity. It's the opposite of what built BIG EAST basketball, ACC basketball, SEC football, B1G football. All of those conferences have historically had very tight regional footprints with incredibly heated rivalries - to the point where virtually every game was a rivalry game with a lot on the line (I'm being slightly dramatic, but I'm not in left field). That inspires fans (not just visiting fans) to attend games, donate to schools,a nd demand excellence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_We...#Rivalries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_At..._rivalries

There's no comparison. The MWC has at least half a dozen rivalries that exceed 50 games played.

The closest thing to a long-time rivalry in the AAC is Houston-Tulsa, which has been played 39 times. Navy-SMU has been played 16 times, ECU-UCF has been played 13 times, and UCF-USF has been played 6 times.

Anyone who wants to research further can go here:

http://football.stassen.com/records/opponent.html

Wow, I didn't realize how many MW games are of longstanding vintage. I knew the AAC was cobbled together and so lacked rivalries, but the difference between the AAC and MW on this is stark.

Good research.

Not surprising really considering 1/4 of the league hasn't played D1 football for 50 years. Memphis has played Cincinatti and Tulane 30+ times each. Not 50, but hardly strangers.

I wasn't surprised by the AAC's lack of rivalries. I was surprised by the MW having so many.

(06-11-2015 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 12:47 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  This is a point that's too easily overlooked. Coog said in one of his responses that MWC schools that came over to an expanded AAC could expect to see higher ticket sales and booster contributions. I don't think that can be assumed. Rivalries like Boise State-Nevada, Colorado State-Wyoming and Fresno State-SJSU have been intense over the years. They sell. I don't think games against any but the top AAC teams would sell better.

Yes. I will concede there will be little help from traveling fans from far away---but that's largely the case in both the AAC and MW anyway due to distances. The teams are not all that close together.


That said, the divisions I have proposed would at least allow for some relatively close games. The thing about traveling fans is that it seems to not really be much of a factor. The conference with the most drivable games for traveling fans (MAC) also has the lowest attendance in all of FBS---by a fairly large margin. I know we get very few traveling fans in the AAC. SMU and Tulane bring a few. Just guessing, but given the distances in the west, I doubt traveling fans make much of a difference in MW ticket sales as it is.

Being "too concentrated" is not the MAC's problem. It has other problems. For instance, schools like ECU are almost literally in Michigan's shadow, MACtion often occurs on weekdays, the conference lacks an established power (I know NIU is good, but they haven't been good for long), and so on.

That said, and I think that you're touching on the great flaw of the AAC. It's WAY to spread out and doesn't have a strong identity. It's the opposite of what built BIG EAST basketball, ACC basketball, SEC football, B1G football. All of those conferences have historically had very tight regional footprints with incredibly heated rivalries - to the point where virtually every game was a rivalry game with a lot on the line (I'm being slightly dramatic, but I'm not in left field). That inspires fans (not just visiting fans) to attend games, donate to schools,a nd demand excellence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_We...#Rivalries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_At..._rivalries

There's no comparison. The MWC has at least half a dozen rivalries that exceed 50 games played.

The closest thing to a long-time rivalry in the AAC is Houston-Tulsa, which has been played 39 times. Navy-SMU has been played 16 times, ECU-UCF has been played 13 times, and UCF-USF has been played 6 times.

Anyone who wants to research further can go here:

http://football.stassen.com/records/opponent.html

Wow, I didn't realize how many MW games are of longstanding vintage. I knew the AAC was cobbled together and so lacked rivalries, but the difference between the AAC and MW on this is stark.

Good research.

Actually, Im surprised there are any rivalries at all in the AAC. Its largely a marriage of convenience. Its not based on geography. Its not based on long history of playing one another--UConn and Houston? This year is first time we've even played them. So yeah, not much history there.

Its more based upon commitment to athletics (as evidenced by the athletic budgets) and the common trait of being upwardly mobile (in terms of P5 conference affiliation). That said, I think any MW division that was snapped onto the current AAC would bring with it many of the rivalries that exist now (and those teams would be free to continue rivalries with their left behind MW friends in OOC play).

As far as rivalries go---familiarity breeds contempt. Give these AAC schools a few years in divisional play, and events will transpire to create some rivalries. For instance--Im looking forward to the UCF game this year. No reason I should given the location of the two schools. But for the last 2 years the UCF-UH game has been a tight close affair decided in the final seconds (both losses for UH). That's the kind of thing that starts to create some interest in fanbases. Given time, there will be certain games that will start to be more interesting to each school.

(06-11-2015 09:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I wasn't surprised by the AAC's lack of rivalries. I was surprised by the MW having so many.

Why were you surprised? Many of them are pretty isolated out there and prior to the MWC most of them were in some version of the WAC or Big West together.