(06-27-2019 10:36 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote: (06-27-2019 08:52 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote: Quote:Aresco also said he doesn’t believe the school’s departure will hurt his league. He said no decisions have been made on whether the AAC will seek to replace UConn, though he said there have been a number of inquiries from other schools.
He also said the league would not prioritize the Northeast if it does decide to bring on a new member, emphasizing the AAC is a national brand.
“We’re moving forward,” he said. “None of our goals have changed one bit from this. We feel very confident because we’re strong and we’ve been strong. We’re focused on the future and this is not going to change anything for us in that regard.”
https://apnews.com/77e2027d1e5b4e6d975d8...ce=Twitter
Replace a Land Grant...….with another Land Grant.
Aresco opened the door for every program from the other G5 conferences to convince the AAC that their program is the best fit. Colorado State has some things going for it, but I doubt they would accept a football only invitation if they are the only western program extended an invitation. They are just too far away to be an all sports member, and I doubt they want to be the program out on an island.
In the end the AAC will narrow their list to large public universities, from large media markets, that are proving they are investing in the athletics at a level similar to the members of the AAC. If BYU and Army say no, than there are only about 5 or 6 programs between the MWC and C-USA that will get a serious look. The rest are only getting lip service.
if they were smart they would look at anything but gross budget and they would instead look at ticket sales and contributions over multiple years and at the budget without academic subsidies and without student fees
then they would look at total program debt and cost to service that debt and the overall facilities
it is really not all that impressive or sustainable to have a very large amount of debt related to new facilities that just caught a program up to the lower baseline of the GS combined with high academic subsidies, high student fees and low contributions and low ticket sales
I am not going to name a particular program, but there is one in the AAC now catching heat because their administration is looking to have some of the new TV money lessen the academic side subsidy which is what many other programs would do if they "moved up"
just like the Big 12 understood that many of the programs wanting to get in the Big 12 would also do when they got Big 12 conference money.....their budgets would not be what they are now + big new conference money they would have been new conference money combined with a reduction in unsustainable academic side subsidies.....not to mention most that did the "current budget + new conference money" calculation did not even take out any of the money they get from their current conference from the current budget before adding in new conference money
the result of looking at what would be a sustainable budget was adding programs that would have been at the absolute bottom of P5 budgets even with some very high remaining academic side subsidies and with high debt loads already in place before any additional facilities upgrades for (lower level) P5 standards
the AAC needs to look at longer term members and their ability to sustain their program not their ability to run up debt and a prayer and then come swim in the shallow end while barely treading water there