I think you know what Iam gettin At...

(07-30-2018 07:17 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  1/1/2014, Fiesta Bowl UCF 52, Baylor 42
12/31/2015, Peach Bowl, Houston 38, FSU 24
1/1/2018, Peach Bowl, UCF 34, Auburn 27

In football any AAC coach that sustains/builds solid success for a couple years will get a P5 job, see Herman, Rhule, Fuente, Frost., etc.

I all ways have to watch this chick floppin on the court a few times, very enjoyable

(07-30-2018 07:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 09:04 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The AAC is a conference with out a flagship school, it is a conference full of teams that were at one time in an A conference
Now that the AAC is swiftly becoming a strong and stable conference and even more so when an expected TV raise next year, it is unlikely to attract and existing flagship school
So this flagship school will have to come from within the AAC, this school or schools will have too be in the top 10 or 15 AP poll every year for many years and win a AP #1 a few times
Which schools are most likely to accomplish this flagship status:?

One of your criteria is to be "AP #1 a few times"?

No AAC school will ever be AP #1, so the answer to your question is "none of us".

I think a couple did that were not P5 schools.

USF and I believed Boise State did for one week under the old BCS system until they stumbled for one game. I think those are the last 2 non-P5 that ever reached the number 1 position. It does helped when chaos strikes in front of you to get there. Houston and UCF both came close recently.

The issue is depth and the AAC has a lot more of it than the MWC ever had.

It takes 3 programs playing consistent Top 20 ball like Big East 1.0 to drive that perception of power worthiness. VT had Beamer through all those years and his Top 10 rated defense. Miami Fl is a first tier job because of the recruiting potential. BCS status did wonders for the others in recruiting.

It's going to be tough getting that power perception without power status first IMO.

The problem with the AAC is its too spread out for any conference cohesion to occur. They could expand but they most likely lose money with expansion. I like army football only and VCU but army doesn't seem to have interest. Same thing with BYU and AFA football only but they don't have interest either. UAB, Rice and UMASS full membership could add some regional ties to the league.

MWC have also lost their head coaches to other conference. Some when they were in the WAC.

Boise State lost several head coaches and they still keep on winning.
Fresno State
San Diego State
UNR
Hawaii (June Jones to SMU)
Colorado State

Under the old WAC from mid 2000s to 2010, they had 4 teams that were ranked in the top 25 a lot. Boise, Fresno, Hawaii and UNR. Only Boise State continued winning while the others still struggle or one just came back on stage like Fresno last year. The p5 schools are making sure that both AAC and MWC stay down. It is becoming hard when you are starting getting good G5 teams at the top in all 5 G5.

(07-30-2018 08:11 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 09:04 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The AAC is a conference with out a flagship school, it is a conference full of teams that were at one time in an A conference
Now that the AAC is swiftly becoming a strong and stable conference and even more so when an expected TV raise next year, it is unlikely to attract and existing flagship school
So this flagship school will have to come from within the AAC, this school or schools will have too be in the top 10 or 15 AP poll every year for many years and win a AP #1 a few times
Which schools are most likely to accomplish this flagship status:?

One of your criteria is to be "AP #1 a few times"?

No AAC school will ever be AP #1, so the answer to your question is "none of us".

I think a couple did that were not P5 schools.

USF and I believed Boise State did for one week under the old BCS system until they stumbled for one game. I think those are the last 2 non-P5 that ever reached the number 1 position. It does helped when chaos strikes in front of you to get there. Houston and UCF both came close recently.

No, neither USF nor Boise has ever been #1 in the AP poll or BCS rankings.

That's a hard thing to do, only 41 schools have ever been #1 in the AP poll, going back to 1936. Being #1 seems like an easy thing, because every week *somebody* is #1, but it's not.

Of those schools, the only school currently in the G5 that has been #1 is SMU, and they haven't been #1 since 1950, and at that time, they were in a power conference.

Even very big names can go a long time without being #1. Texas, Georgia, and Florida haven't been #1 since GW Bush was President. Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, and Tennessee haven't been #1 since the Clinton administration.

The odds that any AAC team will ever be #1 is slim.

(07-29-2018 09:07 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  The AAC needs a team that can win multiple major bowls in 5 years. Not sure where we can find such a team?

That school exists and it is called the University of Central Florida.

(07-30-2018 08:11 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 09:04 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The AAC is a conference with out a flagship school, it is a conference full of teams that were at one time in an A conference
Now that the AAC is swiftly becoming a strong and stable conference and even more so when an expected TV raise next year, it is unlikely to attract and existing flagship school
So this flagship school will have to come from within the AAC, this school or schools will have too be in the top 10 or 15 AP poll every year for many years and win a AP #1 a few times
Which schools are most likely to accomplish this flagship status:?

One of your criteria is to be "AP #1 a few times"?

No AAC school will ever be AP #1, so the answer to your question is "none of us".

I think a couple did that were not P5 schools.

USF and I believed Boise State did for one week under the old BCS system until they stumbled for one game. I think those are the last 2 non-P5 that ever reached the number 1 position. It does helped when chaos strikes in front of you to get there. Houston and UCF both came close recently.

USF only got to #2.

I disagree that spread out geography hurts the AAC.

For instance Houston, Memphis, Temple, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Navy can be good all at the same time working with different recruiting bases.

It's just that as a G5, the AAC is always going to have multiple recruiting bases whereas out west where the talent is more limited it's easier for a coach to dominate G5 level recruiting in that region. Boise with all the WAC level players.

What would help the AAC if they could get a head coach that was like Frank Beamer winning consistently every year with a top defense. If ECU could be a program like that. It would also help if Tulane and Tulsa had the capacity to build up their programs.

(07-30-2018 09:21 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I disagree that spread out geography hurts the AAC.

For instance Houston, Memphis, Temple, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Navy can be good all at the same time working with different recruiting bases.

It's just that as a G5, the AAC is always going to have multiple recruiting bases whereas out west where the talent is more limited it's easier for a coach to dominate G5 level recruiting in that region. Boise with all the WAC level players.

What would help the AAC if they could get a head coach that was like Frank Beamer winning consistently every year with a top defense. If ECU could be a program like that. It would also help if Tulane and Tulsa had the capacity to build up their programs.

I think a conference can cover a large area (span half to 3/4 of the country), and grow fan interest over time as long as their divisions are fairly tight. But, no G5 conference seems to be structured that way.

(07-30-2018 09:46 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 09:21 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I disagree that spread out geography hurts the AAC.

For instance Houston, Memphis, Temple, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Navy can be good all at the same time working with different recruiting bases.

It's just that as a G5, the AAC is always going to have multiple recruiting bases whereas out west where the talent is more limited it's easier for a coach to dominate G5 level recruiting in that region. Boise with all the WAC level players.

What would help the AAC if they could get a head coach that was like Frank Beamer winning consistently every year with a top defense. If ECU could be a program like that. It would also help if Tulane and Tulsa had the capacity to build up their programs.

I think a conference can cover a large area (span half to 3/4 of the country), and grow fan interest over time as long as their divisions are fairly tight. But, no G5 conference seems to be structured that way.

I believe the issues that hold the AAC back from achieving Autonomy (or at least "Power") status go beyond just not having that "flagship" or tentpole member. Just as important, IMO, is the fact that half of the current AAC ranks in the bottom 50 of all FBS schools. That is, they rank lower than #80. The combination of those two things may be insurmountable.

The problem with supplementing AAC's membership with the top mountain and Pacific schools is that it is practically unworkable for most sports. And, it does nothing to address the underperfoming members. I think the top schools that have been mentioned here should consider breaking away from the AAC, and joining with a few of those western teams to form a new football only conference.

I had in mind Cincinnati, Temple, Navy,USF, UCF, Memphis and Houston from the AAC, Boise State and San Diego State from the MWC and BYU (now independent). This conference would still lack a tentpole, but neither would it have any weak members. On the whole, it would be much closer in strength to the P5 conferences, and would be head and shoulders above the remaining G5 conferences.

I could see it getting the blessing of the P5 to be given a host spot in the Cotton Bowl, guaranteeing its inclusion in the NY6. At this point, the remaining FBS conferences are so much weaker that it wouldn't be much of a problem, political or otherwise, to exclude them from any automatic bid to the NY6 or CFP (even an 8 team CFP).

Perhaps the new western members could all join the WCC for olympic sports. BYU is already there. Boise and SDSU are good geographical fits (less so cultural or institutional fits). But if the WCC could field a lineup that included Gonzaga, St Mary's, BYU, SDSU and Boise they would be a solid multibid basketball league.

In short, I don't think the AAC reaches its objectives through addition alone. They need some subtraction.

Ken I don’t agree with throwing away some of our schools and I don’t want to have western schools in a conference with Houston, just because I don’t want to watch games at 1am in the morning, UTEP would be ok
Recruiting is what will make the AAC a strong conference and I believe the AAC is becoming a bit more attractive for better recruits that see a better path to the NFL and this will be a nightmare for your A5 schools
Iam fully aware that recruiting trends don’t change much, but sometimes they do

(07-30-2018 08:33 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The problem with the AAC is its too spread out for any conference cohesion to occur. They could expand but they most likely lose money with expansion. I like army football only and VCU but army doesn't seem to have interest. Same thing with BYU and AFA football only but they don't have interest either. UAB, Rice and UMASS full membership could add some regional ties to the league.

Agree with the Army, BYU, Air Force assessment. No on UAB however So. Mississippi would add regional continuity bridging the Florida schools to Tulane, Memphis, and ECU. So. Mississippi, Rice, and UMASS add regional ties to the league but not enough value to expand the conference with them. Those three candidates could be considered as backfill candidates should the AAC get raided. As for now the AAC can stand pat with the FB and BB members it currently has and be successful and strong in both areas.

(07-30-2018 10:55 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Ken I don’t agree with throwing away some of our schools and I don’t want to have western schools in a conference with Houston, just because I don’t want to watch games at 1am in the morning, UTEP would be ok
Recruiting is what will make the AAC a strong conference and I believe the AAC is becoming a bit more attractive for better recruits that see a better path to the NFL and this will be a nightmare for your A5 schools
Iam fully aware that recruiting trends don’t change much, but sometimes they do

I'd say you aren't "throwing away" some schools. You are leaving them. Just like West Virginia and Louisville did. If Houston were to get invited to the Big 12 and accept, would you be throwing away the other 11 schools? The only difference is how many would be accepting membership in a new conference all at once.

And I bet all of those 7 AAC schools (with the possible exception of Navy) would accept an invite to a P5 conference if offered. It's cold blooded to be sure. But none of those who would accept an invitation would insist that every other member of the AAC get one as well.

(07-30-2018 10:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 09:46 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 09:21 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I disagree that spread out geography hurts the AAC.

For instance Houston, Memphis, Temple, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Navy can be good all at the same time working with different recruiting bases.

It's just that as a G5, the AAC is always going to have multiple recruiting bases whereas out west where the talent is more limited it's easier for a coach to dominate G5 level recruiting in that region. Boise with all the WAC level players.

What would help the AAC if they could get a head coach that was like Frank Beamer winning consistently every year with a top defense. If ECU could be a program like that. It would also help if Tulane and Tulsa had the capacity to build up their programs.

I think a conference can cover a large area (span half to 3/4 of the country), and grow fan interest over time as long as their divisions are fairly tight. But, no G5 conference seems to be structured that way.

I believe the issues that hold the AAC back from achieving Autonomy (or at least "Power") status go beyond just not having that "flagship" or tentpole member. Just as important, IMO, is the fact that half of the current AAC ranks in the bottom 50 of all FBS schools. That is, they rank lower than #80. The combination of those two things may be insurmountable.

The problem with supplementing AAC's membership with the top mountain and Pacific schools is that it is practically unworkable for most sports. And, it does nothing to address the underperfoming members. I think the top schools that have been mentioned here should consider breaking away from the AAC, and joining with a few of those western teams to form a new football only conference.

I had in mind Cincinnati, Temple, Navy,USF, UCF, Memphis and Houston from the AAC, Boise State and San Diego State from the MWC and BYU (now independent). This conference would still lack a tentpole, but neither would it have any weak members. On the whole, it would be much closer in strength to the P5 conferences, and would be head and shoulders above the remaining G5 conferences.

I could see it getting the blessing of the P5 to be given a host spot in the Cotton Bowl, guaranteeing its inclusion in the NY6. At this point, the remaining FBS conferences are so much weaker that it wouldn't be much of a problem, political or otherwise, to exclude them from any automatic bid to the NY6 or CFP (even an 8 team CFP).

Perhaps the new western members could all join the WCC for olympic sports. BYU is already there. Boise and SDSU are good geographical fits (less so cultural or institutional fits). But if the WCC could field a lineup that included Gonzaga, St Mary's, BYU, SDSU and Boise they would be a solid multibid basketball league.

In short, I don't think the AAC reaches its objectives through addition alone. They need some subtraction.

Other top quality teams?
Northern Illinois
James Madison
Arkansas State
Troy
Appalachian State
Toledo
Marshall
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
Fresno State
Western Michigan

I threw in the three FCS schools that have wins against P5 schools. The 2 Dakota schools would not have to move to another conference for their other sports. Not sure if the CAA will allow them to stay with their sports.

(07-30-2018 09:08 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 08:11 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 09:04 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The AAC is a conference with out a flagship school, it is a conference full of teams that were at one time in an A conference
Now that the AAC is swiftly becoming a strong and stable conference and even more so when an expected TV raise next year, it is unlikely to attract and existing flagship school
So this flagship school will have to come from within the AAC, this school or schools will have too be in the top 10 or 15 AP poll every year for many years and win a AP #1 a few times
Which schools are most likely to accomplish this flagship status:?

One of your criteria is to be "AP #1 a few times"?

No AAC school will ever be AP #1, so the answer to your question is "none of us".

I think a couple did that were not P5 schools.

USF and I believed Boise State did for one week under the old BCS system until they stumbled for one game. I think those are the last 2 non-P5 that ever reached the number 1 position. It does helped when chaos strikes in front of you to get there. Houston and UCF both came close recently.

USF only got to #2.

Correct. Received multiple #1 votes, but only got to #2. Been in the top 10 several times too. Got to #13 last year.

(07-30-2018 10:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  I believe the issues that hold the AAC back from achieving Autonomy (or at least "Power") status go beyond just not having that "flagship" or tentpole member. Just as important, IMO, is the fact that half of the current AAC ranks in the bottom 50 of all FBS schools. That is, they rank lower than #80. The combination of those two things may be insurmountable.

Tulsa and Tulane can fill the spots of good academic schools that everyone else beats up on. Every P5 conference has them. It's figuring out how to get UConn, ECU, and SMU back to solid football programs. If you can get 4-6 solid western football teams and have everyone in the conference except for the two bottom dweller that consistently fight for bowl-eligibility, the conference will improve its position. It's actually probably better to not have a flagship - if one program consistently finishes in the top 25, they become a prime target for P5 expansion.

Quote:The problem with supplementing AAC's membership with the top mountain and Pacific schools is that it is practically unworkable for most sports. And, it does nothing to address the underperfoming members. I think the top schools that have been mentioned here should consider breaking away from the AAC, and joining with a few of those western teams to form a new football only conference.

I had in mind Cincinnati, Temple, Navy,USF, UCF, Memphis and Houston from the AAC, Boise State and San Diego State from the MWC and BYU (now independent). This conference would still lack a tentpole, but neither would it have any weak members. On the whole, it would be much closer in strength to the P5 conferences, and would be head and shoulders above the remaining G5 conferences.

I could see it getting the blessing of the P5 to be given a host spot in the Cotton Bowl, guaranteeing its inclusion in the NY6. At this point, the remaining FBS conferences are so much weaker that it wouldn't be much of a problem, political or otherwise, to exclude them from any automatic bid to the NY6 or CFP (even an 8 team CFP).

The expanded AAC Olympic sports is workable. More on that below. The biggest roadblock is the conference championship format. With 14 or 16 teams in a nationwide conference, it's hard to rotate through the other division enough for others to care. With CCG deregulation, the AAC would have options to add western teams without looking like two separate conferences that happen to play a championship game.

Quote:Perhaps the new western members could all join the WCC for olympic sports. BYU is already there. Boise and SDSU are good geographical fits (less so cultural or institutional fits). But if the WCC could field a lineup that included Gonzaga, St Mary's, BYU, SDSU and Boise they would be a solid multibid basketball league.

In short, I don't think the AAC reaches its objectives through addition alone. They need some subtraction.

Create an AAC west division and include more Olympic sports members. For Olympic sports, the AAC could have three regional divisions - EAST, CENTRAL, WEST. For regular season Olympic sports, it would almost be like three smaller conferences that have a scheduling affiliation. But for branding and post-season it would be a strong, nationwide conference.

Olympic Sports Model:
EAST: UConn, Temple, ECU, USF, UCF, VCU, UMass
CENTRAL: Wichita, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Memphis, Tulane, Cincinnati
WEST: Boise, BYU, SDSU, Air Force, UNLV/CSU, Gonzaga, St. Mary's/NMSU?

For bball = 12-4-4 scheduling format. Only two 2-game out-of-division road trips per year.
For many other sports that only play 8-10 or fewer conference games, you limit cross-country travel and focus on divisions. For lower sports' conference championships, you could even have divisional(regional) tournaments that feed into the conference tournament quarterfinals or semifinals.

FOOTBALL
EAST: UConn, Temple, ECU, USF, UCF, Army (fball only)
CENTRAL: Cincinnati, SMU, Houston, Memphis, Tulane, Navy (fball only)
WEST: Boise, BYU, SDSU, Air Force, Tulsa, UNLV/CSU

5 divisional games plus 3 intra-divisional games. Stack the schedules so that Army, Navy, and Air Force play annually and perhaps to give Tulsa more frequent games against SMU, Houston, and Memphis. Football inventory for Thursday and Friday nights and 12pm to 10pm ET kickoffs on Saturday. The conference would have teams in California, Texas, and Florida and 6 of the top-10 states. Best available brands across the country.

This format enables each division to have at least one or two contenders with nice and shiny win-loss records - good for the polls and the perception of the conference. The two with the nicest and shiniest records and highest rankings meet in the CCG.

I lean for UNLV over CSU because of the new Vegas stadium and likelihood to re-gain its form in basketball.

Go after the Cotton Bowl bid or elevate the new Las Vegas bowl as the spot for your champion as a de facto NY7 bowl game. Even if not formally part of the NY6, opt out of the Group of 5 and avoid its label perceptions. Still NY6 access through the at large berths. Worst case scenario is a marquee New Years/Eve bowl for your champion against a ranked opponent.

(07-30-2018 11:47 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 10:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  I believe the issues that hold the AAC back from achieving Autonomy (or at least "Power") status go beyond just not having that "flagship" or tentpole member. Just as important, IMO, is the fact that half of the current AAC ranks in the bottom 50 of all FBS schools. That is, they rank lower than #80. The combination of those two things may be insurmountable.

Tulsa and Tulane can fill the spots of good academic schools that everyone else beats up on. Every P5 conference has them. It's figuring out how to get UConn, ECU, and SMU back to solid football programs. If you can get 4-6 solid western football teams and have everyone in the conference except for the two bottom dweller that consistently fight for bowl-eligibility, the conference will improve its position. It's actually probably better to not have a flagship - if one program consistently finishes in the top 25, they become a prime target for P5 expansion.

Quote:The problem with supplementing AAC's membership with the top mountain and Pacific schools is that it is practically unworkable for most sports. And, it does nothing to address the underperfoming members. I think the top schools that have been mentioned here should consider breaking away from the AAC, and joining with a few of those western teams to form a new football only conference.

I had in mind Cincinnati, Temple, Navy,USF, UCF, Memphis and Houston from the AAC, Boise State and San Diego State from the MWC and BYU (now independent). This conference would still lack a tentpole, but neither would it have any weak members. On the whole, it would be much closer in strength to the P5 conferences, and would be head and shoulders above the remaining G5 conferences.

I could see it getting the blessing of the P5 to be given a host spot in the Cotton Bowl, guaranteeing its inclusion in the NY6. At this point, the remaining FBS conferences are so much weaker that it wouldn't be much of a problem, political or otherwise, to exclude them from any automatic bid to the NY6 or CFP (even an 8 team CFP).

The expanded AAC Olympic sports is workable. More on that below. The biggest roadblock is the conference championship format. With 14 or 16 teams in a nationwide conference, it's hard to rotate through the other division enough for others to care. With CCG deregulation, the AAC would have options to add western teams without looking like two separate conferences that happen to play a championship game.

Quote:Perhaps the new western members could all join the WCC for olympic sports. BYU is already there. Boise and SDSU are good geographical fits (less so cultural or institutional fits). But if the WCC could field a lineup that included Gonzaga, St Mary's, BYU, SDSU and Boise they would be a solid multibid basketball league.

In short, I don't think the AAC reaches its objectives through addition alone. They need some subtraction.

Create an AAC west division and include more Olympic sports members. For Olympic sports, the AAC could have three regional divisions - EAST, CENTRAL, WEST. For regular season Olympic sports, it would almost be like three smaller conferences that have a scheduling affiliation. But for branding and post-season it would be a strong, nationwide conference.

Olympic Sports Model:
EAST: UConn, Temple, ECU, USF, UCF, VCU, UMass
CENTRAL: Wichita, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Memphis, Tulane, Cincinnati
WEST: Boise, BYU, SDSU, Air Force, UNLV/CSU, Gonzaga, St. Mary's/NMSU?

For bball = 12-4-4 scheduling format. Only two 2-game out-of-division road trips per year.
For many other sports that only play 8-10 or fewer conference games, you limit cross-country travel and focus on divisions. For lower sports' conference championships, you could even have divisional(regional) tournaments that feed into the conference tournament quarterfinals or semifinals.

FOOTBALL
EAST: UConn, Temple, ECU, USF, UCF, Army (fball only)
CENTRAL: Cincinnati, SMU, Houston, Memphis, Tulane, Navy (fball only)
WEST: Boise, BYU, SDSU, Air Force, Tulsa, UNLV/CSU

5 divisional games plus 3 intra-divisional games. Stack the schedules so that Army, Navy, and Air Force play annually and perhaps to give Tulsa more frequent games against SMU, Houston, and Memphis. Football inventory for Thursday and Friday nights and 12pm to 10pm ET kickoffs on Saturday. The conference would have teams in California, Texas, and Florida and 6 of the top-10 states. Best available brands across the country.

This format enables each division to have at least one or two contenders with nice and shiny win-loss records - good for the polls and the perception of the conference. The two with the nicest and shiniest records and highest rankings meet in the CCG.

I lean for UNLV over CSU because of the new Vegas stadium and likelihood to re-gain its form in basketball.

Go after the Cotton Bowl bid or elevate the new Las Vegas bowl as the spot for your champion as a de facto NY7 bowl game. Even if not formally part of the NY6, opt out of the Group of 5 and avoid its label perceptions. Still NY6 access through the at large berths. Worst case scenario is a marquee New Years/Eve bowl for your champion against a ranked opponent.

Cincinnati would be more on an island.

Why not 4 regions?

Midwest would have:
Cincinnati
Dayton
Toledo
Western Michigan
Northern Illinois
Western Kentucky
North Dakota State

Southern Mississippi replaces Cincinnati in the Central.

I rather have Fresno State instead of St. Mary's/New Mexico State. They are a better football program than New Mexico State.

(07-30-2018 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 08:11 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 09:04 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The AAC is a conference with out a flagship school, it is a conference full of teams that were at one time in an A conference
Now that the AAC is swiftly becoming a strong and stable conference and even more so when an expected TV raise next year, it is unlikely to attract and existing flagship school
So this flagship school will have to come from within the AAC, this school or schools will have too be in the top 10 or 15 AP poll every year for many years and win a AP #1 a few times
Which schools are most likely to accomplish this flagship status:?

One of your criteria is to be "AP #1 a few times"?

No AAC school will ever be AP #1, so the answer to your question is "none of us".

I think a couple did that were not P5 schools.

USF and I believed Boise State did for one week under the old BCS system until they stumbled for one game. I think those are the last 2 non-P5 that ever reached the number 1 position. It does helped when chaos strikes in front of you to get there. Houston and UCF both came close recently.

No, neither USF nor Boise has ever been #1 in the AP poll or BCS rankings.

That's a hard thing to do, only 41 schools have ever been #1 in the AP poll, going back to 1936. Being #1 seems like an easy thing, because every week *somebody* is #1, but it's not.

Of those schools, the only school currently in the G5 that has been #1 is SMU, and they haven't been #1 since 1950, and at that time, they were in a power conference.

Even very big names can go a long time without being #1. Texas, Georgia, and Florida haven't been #1 since GW Bush was President. Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, and Tennessee haven't been #1 since the Clinton administration.

The odds that any AAC team will ever be #1 is slim.

Just for the record, on non power teams making the top 5

USF was as high as #2 in 2007, but fell off quickly after. They were however a power conference school at the time.

Utah (MWC) finished the 2008 season ranked #2 after beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl

TCU (MWC) get as high as #3 during the 2009 season before losing to Boise St (WAC) in the Fiesta Bowl, who ended up finished #4 themselves.

Boise St was #2 for 3 consecutive weeks in 2010, then bounced back and forth between 3 and 4 before losing to Nevada on black friday.

TCU finished # 2 in the final poll in 2010, after their rose bowl victory.