(01-14-2016 10:49 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 05:16 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  @ChuckCarltonDMN 2m2 minutes ago
Basically, Big 12 viewed title game with 10 and a guaranteed rematch as potentially better than expansion at the moment.

Gonna be funny when its a rematch and knocks both teams out of the playoff

It could happen in any conference.

(01-14-2016 11:42 AM)TforTempleU Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 10:36 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 01:13 AM)TforTempleU Wrote:  Looks like we get to spend more time together, grow as a league and groom some rivalries. I'm happy about this news, however I can imagine there are quite a few Cincy fans getting ready to jump off a bridge.

Seems to me like I've seen quite a bit of posturing about the B12 by SOME Houston, Memphis, and UConn fans - even USF, UCF. It's not really fair to single out UC fans.

I'm not hating on UC fans, I'd be upset too. I'm just saying because UC was always the name to come up in expansion talks.

Got ya!

I'm not sure there have even been any expansion talks though - more like "how can we avoid expansion?" talks.

(01-14-2016 10:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 09:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The "no" vote by the AAC is very easy to explain: A majority of the schools in this conference see themselves as Big 12 expansion targets, and thus wanted to see the Big 12 forced to expand.

The idea that the AAC is an all-for-one unity league is an Aresco fan-boy fantasy. Not a single member sees the AAC as a destination. All of us want out of the AAC as soon as possible, that's why the vote was "no".

I'm agree that it's not an all for one league. I also know that no more than 3 or 4 schools had any shot at getting those invites and at this point every school president already knows if they are being seriously considered or not. They don't need a rumor mill--they either ARE having serious mutual interest conversations with the Big12 or they ARE NOT. There is no guess work. They know if they have been recommended by the expansion committee or not. So, logically, there should be a majority of AAC schools that know they are out of the running. So, yes, I find the vote curious.

Logically, it stands to reason that since the vote was 'no', you should reconsider your beliefs about how many AAC schools believe that they are seriously in the running for P5 expansion. Especially since you aren't privy to what has gone on via back channels, who has actually had 'serious conversations' with P5 (personally, I don't think anyone has), etc.

You may think some of our schools are mistaken or even delusional, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what they believe and aspire to. And let's face it, things can change quickly. E.g., last year, nobody was mentioning USF and everyone was mentioning UCF as possible Big 12 targets. Now, thanks to UCF going into the football toilet and USF having a bit of a resurgence, at least as many mentions of USF are being made now as of UCF. Every school wants a P5 invite so hopes are likely to outweigh reality, and the No vote is a clear indicator of what our schools believe.

Or it could just mean the UConn AD voted for UConns best interest (as UConn has been a fairly likely target). We are all crabs in a bucket when it come to desiring a P5 invite. That said, the investments that are being made by AAC schools attempting to make themselves attractive P5 candidates clearly are lifting the AAC as a group. It's an unintended consequence, but it's also undeniable. Ironic that the desire to leave the AAC is the force most responsible for the leagues improcpvement,

I think it extremely unlikely that the UConn AD would "go rogue" and vote different from what he was instructed to do by the conference.

(01-14-2016 10:35 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  A couple of observations that have not been mentioned.

1) It is entirely conceivable that the AAC voted no for the same reason the ACC voted no...because it wanted the option of playing its top 2 teams against each other in its champ game, and not just its two division winners. Why? Because of the Access Bowl slot. If USF had won the division, it would have played in Houston (not Temple) and if it won, the league would have lost a lot of money. Making sure your two best teams play each other would help in terms of the Access Bowl, and if one team was unbeaten, maybe even a playoff berth.

It is likely that expansion (while the elephant in the room) was never even considered in the AAC vote.

Expansion, meaning the opportunity to join a P5 league, is obviously of massive concern to most if not all AAC schools, so it is hard to believe that this didn't factor massively into the way schools cast their votes within the AAC conference on how the AAC should vote in the NCAA meeting.

As for wanting what the ACC wanted, there simply is no indication that the AAC ever has wanted that option, and there's no reason we would have kept quiet about it if we did.

So the overwhelming odds are that the "no" vote reflected the desire of a majority of AAC schools to force the Big 12 to expand, so as to advance each school's chances of being promoted to P5.

(01-14-2016 11:42 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 10:49 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 05:16 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  @ChuckCarltonDMN 2m2 minutes ago
Basically, Big 12 viewed title game with 10 and a guaranteed rematch as potentially better than expansion at the moment.

Gonna be funny when its a rematch and knocks both teams out of the playoff

It could happen in any conference.

It hasnt. Higher probability in a 10 team conf

With all I've read on this rule being passed, I see the Big 12 as circling the bottom of the bowl. UT will not sing another contract with the Big 12. I hope the other schools have a place to land because they're about to get the boot.

No expansion means UT cut the Big 12's throat. That's my take on this.

(01-14-2016 08:27 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  With all I've read on this rule being passed, I see the Big 12 as circling the bottom of the bowl. UT will not sing another contract with the Big 12. I hope the other schools have a place to land because they're about to get the boot.

No expansion means UT cut the Big 12's throat. That's my take on this.

If it does happen, we're less likely to see the leftovers go anywhere else and more likely to see the Big 12 get filled with the AAC's best. When it all settles it'll be teams like Baylor and TCU who are still homeless in the same way that when the Big East collapsed we had UConn, USF, and Cincinnati as the leftovers.

(01-15-2016 11:16 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  If it does happen, we're less likely to see the leftovers go anywhere else and more likely to see the Big 12 get filled with the AAC's best. When it all settles it'll be teams like Baylor and TCU who are still homeless in the same way that when the Big East collapsed we had UConn, USF, and Cincinnati as the leftovers.

That depends entirely upon whether the leftover Big XII schools have any Grant of Rights money to dangle. If the departing Big XII schools have enough votes to disband the conference, there won't be and that is probably why those same schools don't won't to expand and add anti-disband votes.

(01-13-2016 09:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The "no" vote by the AAC is very easy to explain: A majority of the schools in this conference see themselves as Big 12 expansion targets, and thus wanted to see the Big 12 forced to expand.

The idea that the AAC is an all-for-one unity league is an Aresco fan-boy fantasy. Not a single member sees the AAC as a destination. All of us want out of the AAC as soon as possible, that's why the vote was "no".

For a change, I actually think you are correct.

(01-13-2016 11:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 09:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The "no" vote by the AAC is very easy to explain: A majority of the schools in this conference see themselves as Big 12 expansion targets, and thus wanted to see the Big 12 forced to expand.

The idea that the AAC is an all-for-one unity league is an Aresco fan-boy fantasy. Not a single member sees the AAC as a destination. All of us want out of the AAC as soon as possible, that's why the vote was "no".

I'm agree that it's not an all for one league. I also know that no more than 3 or 4 schools had any shot at getting those invites and at this point every school president already knows if they are being seriously considered or not. They don't need a rumor mill--they either ARE having serious mutual interest conversations with the Big12 or they ARE NOT. There is no guess work. They know if they have been recommended by the expansion committee or not. So, logically, there should be a majority of AAC schools that know they are out of the running. So, yes, I find the vote curious.

You're only considering the B12, and only now. The ACC has been talking to schools about expansion, too (although their plan has now been shot down). But until the vote, other AAC teams, besides just the ones talking to the B12, had P5 aspirations. And some probably are wishing for future opportunities, too. So, the majority told Aresco to vote against it.

(01-14-2016 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 10:35 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  A couple of observations that have not been mentioned.

1) It is entirely conceivable that the AAC voted no for the same reason the ACC voted no...because it wanted the option of playing its top 2 teams against each other in its champ game, and not just its two division winners. Why? Because of the Access Bowl slot. If USF had won the division, it would have played in Houston (not Temple) and if it won, the league would have lost a lot of money. Making sure your two best teams play each other would help in terms of the Access Bowl, and if one team was unbeaten, maybe even a playoff berth.

It is likely that expansion (while the elephant in the room) was never even considered in the AAC vote.

Expansion, meaning the opportunity to join a P5 league, is obviously of massive concern to most if not all AAC schools, so it is hard to believe that this didn't factor massively into the way schools cast their votes within the AAC conference on how the AAC should vote in the NCAA meeting.

As for wanting what the ACC wanted, there simply is no indication that the AAC ever has wanted that option, and there's no reason we would have kept quiet about it if we did.

So the overwhelming odds are that the "no" vote reflected the desire of a majority of AAC schools to force the Big 12 to expand, so as to advance each school's chances of being promoted to P5.

You are reaching with that assumption. In terms of this vote, my scenario is highly more likely for the CONFERENCE'S vote. There is virtually no way the AAC voted no because it wanted the Big 12 to expand. That type of assertion has agenda written all over it.

And you are right that there is no way the UConn President's vote was only for their own benefit. No way.

(01-13-2016 09:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  So the overwhelming odds are that the "no" vote reflected the desire of a majority of AAC schools to force the Big 12 to expand, so as to advance each school's chances of being promoted to P5.

Sadly I think this is it. It's an embarrassing look for the conference and reflects unrealistic expectations -- there are 3 schools max with potential to get a Big XII invite but they convinced at least 3 more to join them. Maybe the eastern schools were sucking up to the ACC.

The ACC only voted no because they wanted full deregulation and not the compromise. Perhaps this was the same thinking of the AAC?

The version that passed did not help the ACC at all.

(01-14-2016 11:42 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 10:49 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 05:16 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  @ChuckCarltonDMN 2m2 minutes ago
Basically, Big 12 viewed title game with 10 and a guaranteed rematch as potentially better than expansion at the moment.

Gonna be funny when its a rematch and knocks both teams out of the playoff

It could happen in any conference.

Or two teams from the same conference playing each other in a bowl...ohhh forgot that already happened.

(01-15-2016 02:18 PM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:42 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 10:49 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 05:16 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  @ChuckCarltonDMN 2m2 minutes ago
Basically, Big 12 viewed title game with 10 and a guaranteed rematch as potentially better than expansion at the moment.

Gonna be funny when its a rematch and knocks both teams out of the playoff

It could happen in any conference.

Or two teams from the same conference playing each other in a bowl...ohhh forgot that already happened.

Hey the Mountain West is stronger because they are weaker. Lol.

(01-15-2016 01:55 PM)Gaetano01 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 09:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  So the overwhelming odds are that the "no" vote reflected the desire of a majority of AAC schools to force the Big 12 to expand, so as to advance each school's chances of being promoted to P5.

Sadly I think this is it. It's an embarrassing look for the conference and reflects unrealistic expectations -- there are 3 schools max with potential to get a Big XII invite but they convinced at least 3 more to join them. Maybe the eastern schools were sucking up to the ACC.

I don't believe 6 teams collaborated on the vote, so they could take a stab at a lottery situation among themselves.

Its just too absurd. Those are highly educated human beings. That would be a checkers move, and it doesn't fit the M.O.

(01-15-2016 01:47 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 10:35 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  A couple of observations that have not been mentioned.

1) It is entirely conceivable that the AAC voted no for the same reason the ACC voted no...because it wanted the option of playing its top 2 teams against each other in its champ game, and not just its two division winners. Why? Because of the Access Bowl slot. If USF had won the division, it would have played in Houston (not Temple) and if it won, the league would have lost a lot of money. Making sure your two best teams play each other would help in terms of the Access Bowl, and if one team was unbeaten, maybe even a playoff berth.

It is likely that expansion (while the elephant in the room) was never even considered in the AAC vote.

Expansion, meaning the opportunity to join a P5 league, is obviously of massive concern to most if not all AAC schools, so it is hard to believe that this didn't factor massively into the way schools cast their votes within the AAC conference on how the AAC should vote in the NCAA meeting.

As for wanting what the ACC wanted, there simply is no indication that the AAC ever has wanted that option, and there's no reason we would have kept quiet about it if we did.

So the overwhelming odds are that the "no" vote reflected the desire of a majority of AAC schools to force the Big 12 to expand, so as to advance each school's chances of being promoted to P5.

You are reaching with that assumption. In terms of this vote, my scenario is highly more likely for the CONFERENCE'S vote. There is virtually no way the AAC voted no because it wanted the Big 12 to expand. That type of assertion has agenda written all over it.

You seem to think the CONFERENCE is an entity independent of the schools. It isn't.

My position is very consistent with the obvious notion that the vote reflected the will of the majority of schools, a will to join the P5.

(01-15-2016 10:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:47 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 10:35 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  A couple of observations that have not been mentioned.

1) It is entirely conceivable that the AAC voted no for the same reason the ACC voted no...because it wanted the option of playing its top 2 teams against each other in its champ game, and not just its two division winners. Why? Because of the Access Bowl slot. If USF had won the division, it would have played in Houston (not Temple) and if it won, the league would have lost a lot of money. Making sure your two best teams play each other would help in terms of the Access Bowl, and if one team was unbeaten, maybe even a playoff berth.

It is likely that expansion (while the elephant in the room) was never even considered in the AAC vote.

Expansion, meaning the opportunity to join a P5 league, is obviously of massive concern to most if not all AAC schools, so it is hard to believe that this didn't factor massively into the way schools cast their votes within the AAC conference on how the AAC should vote in the NCAA meeting.

As for wanting what the ACC wanted, there simply is no indication that the AAC ever has wanted that option, and there's no reason we would have kept quiet about it if we did.

So the overwhelming odds are that the "no" vote reflected the desire of a majority of AAC schools to force the Big 12 to expand, so as to advance each school's chances of being promoted to P5.

You are reaching with that assumption. In terms of this vote, my scenario is highly more likely for the CONFERENCE'S vote. There is virtually no way the AAC voted no because it wanted the Big 12 to expand. That type of assertion has agenda written all over it.

You seem to think the CONFERENCE is an entity independent of the schools. It isn't.

My position is very consistent with the obvious notion that the vote reflected the will of the majority of schools, a will to join the P5.

I guess if we suspend disbelief, and assume that the administration at multiple schools have no concept of risk assessment and voted on a wing and a prayer, that may make sense.

And, that may go in line with your extremely addle-minded conclusion.

However, that would require a level of collusion that would foster more mistrust among leadership than trust; and, as such, any rational person can see that your scenario is simply retarded.

(01-15-2016 10:42 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 10:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:47 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 10:35 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  A couple of observations that have not been mentioned.

1) It is entirely conceivable that the AAC voted no for the same reason the ACC voted no...because it wanted the option of playing its top 2 teams against each other in its champ game, and not just its two division winners. Why? Because of the Access Bowl slot. If USF had won the division, it would have played in Houston (not Temple) and if it won, the league would have lost a lot of money. Making sure your two best teams play each other would help in terms of the Access Bowl, and if one team was unbeaten, maybe even a playoff berth.

It is likely that expansion (while the elephant in the room) was never even considered in the AAC vote.

Expansion, meaning the opportunity to join a P5 league, is obviously of massive concern to most if not all AAC schools, so it is hard to believe that this didn't factor massively into the way schools cast their votes within the AAC conference on how the AAC should vote in the NCAA meeting.

As for wanting what the ACC wanted, there simply is no indication that the AAC ever has wanted that option, and there's no reason we would have kept quiet about it if we did.

So the overwhelming odds are that the "no" vote reflected the desire of a majority of AAC schools to force the Big 12 to expand, so as to advance each school's chances of being promoted to P5.

You are reaching with that assumption. In terms of this vote, my scenario is highly more likely for the CONFERENCE'S vote. There is virtually no way the AAC voted no because it wanted the Big 12 to expand. That type of assertion has agenda written all over it.

You seem to think the CONFERENCE is an entity independent of the schools. It isn't.

My position is very consistent with the obvious notion that the vote reflected the will of the majority of schools, a will to join the P5.

I guess if we suspend disbelief, and assume that the administration at multiple schools have no concept of risk assessment and voted on a wing and a prayer, that may make sense.

And, that may go in line with your extremely addle-minded conclusion.

However, that would require a level of collusion that would foster more mistrust among leadership than trust; and, as such, any rational person can see that your scenario is simply retarded.

As usual, Homer chimes in with idiocy.

What collusion would be needed? None. Each school wants P5 expansion, so instructs whoever is representing it on the AAC conference call or meeting on how to vote to say they want the conference to vote against the Big 12 proposal. It's an issue where the divergence of interests between Aresco and the member schools is apparent. Aresco wants to keep everyone down on the AAC farm, every school wants out. Aresco doesn't like the "no" vote, but he's not calling this shot, he is overridden by the aspirations to P5 membership of the schools.

The risk is easy enough to assess: Each school, or a majority at least, has aspirations of being in a better place than the Aresco League, namely a Power conference. So it is willing to risk seeing the AAC somewhat weakened for the chance to be one of the teams added by the Big 12 and thus see its situation dramatically strengthened. A Houston or USF or Temple thinks to itself "Yes, if the proposal passes, maybe two schools other than ours are selected by the Big 12, and then we are stuck in an Aresco League without current members X and Y and have to backfill with C-USA members A & B, but that risk is worth it for the chance that we might be one of the schools getting the magical phone call". So vote "No".

The P5-aspirations theory perfectly explains the AAC "No" vote. No explanation you or anyone else has offered comes even remotely close to doing so.

(01-16-2016 05:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 10:42 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 10:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:47 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Expansion, meaning the opportunity to join a P5 league, is obviously of massive concern to most if not all AAC schools, so it is hard to believe that this didn't factor massively into the way schools cast their votes within the AAC conference on how the AAC should vote in the NCAA meeting.

As for wanting what the ACC wanted, there simply is no indication that the AAC ever has wanted that option, and there's no reason we would have kept quiet about it if we did.

So the overwhelming odds are that the "no" vote reflected the desire of a majority of AAC schools to force the Big 12 to expand, so as to advance each school's chances of being promoted to P5.

You are reaching with that assumption. In terms of this vote, my scenario is highly more likely for the CONFERENCE'S vote. There is virtually no way the AAC voted no because it wanted the Big 12 to expand. That type of assertion has agenda written all over it.

You seem to think the CONFERENCE is an entity independent of the schools. It isn't.

My position is very consistent with the obvious notion that the vote reflected the will of the majority of schools, a will to join the P5.

I guess if we suspend disbelief, and assume that the administration at multiple schools have no concept of risk assessment and voted on a wing and a prayer, that may make sense.

And, that may go in line with your extremely addle-minded conclusion.

However, that would require a level of collusion that would foster more mistrust among leadership than trust; and, as such, any rational person can see that your scenario is simply retarded.

As usual, Homer chimes in with idiocy.

What collusion would be needed? None. Each school wants P5 expansion, so instructs whoever is representing it on the AAC conference call or meeting on how to vote to say they want the conference to vote against the Big 12 proposal. It's an issue where the divergence of interests between Aresco and the member schools is apparent. Aresco wants to keep everyone down on the AAC farm, every school wants out. Aresco doesn't like the "no" vote, but he's not calling this shot.

The risk is easy enough to assess: Each school, or a majority at least, has aspirations of being in a better place than the Aresco League, namely a Power conference. So it is willing to risk seeing the AAC somewhat weakened for the chance to be one of the teams added by the Big 12 and thus see its situation dramatically strengthened. A Houston or USF or Temple thinks to itself "Yes, if the proposal passes, maybe two schools other than ours are selected by the Big 12, and then we are stuck in an Aresco League without current members X and Y and have to backfill with C-USA members A & B, but that risk is worth it for the chance that we might be one of the schools getting the magical phone call". So vote "No".

The P5-aspirations theory perfectly explains the AAC "No" vote. No explanation you or anyone else has offered comes even remotely close to doing so.

That's not how things are run. Lol. Good on you for calling it a bull**** "theory"..