(06-28-2019 12:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

They arent really any farther away than UTEP is from much of the CUSA membership. Heck, LaTech spent years playing in the WAC as an all sports team. Is CSU's location ideal for an AAC all sports team? No, its probably not---but its workable.

It's not really any worse than UConns location was.

I think if this was Montana State it would be different. Colorado has 5.7 million people and they are close to Denver a major airline hub.

The irony is, Colorado isn't as far west as people think. I noticed this once when I had a layover in Denver, and the flight time from Louisville to Denver was roughly the same time as it was from Denver to Vegas. So I looked it up, and the distance between Louisville and Denver was only negligibly different than the distance from Denver to LA. Looking at it now, did you realize Denver is the same distance from Memphis as it is from LA? Denver to Cincinnati is only about 100 miles further than Denver to San Diego...

For Colorado State, not sure distance wise it is much different than the school it could replace. Question is, how the current members would feel?

Aside from ECU, for which commercial flight may be both long and indirect, combined with being the furthest away in flight paths, CSU is fairly convenient for most everyone as compared to UConn. It is actually closer to SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane, Wichita St, and Memphis than UConn is. Combing the major airport and airline routes there is only about an hour travel time difference between UCF/USF and CSU/UConn, which I only consider "even" since they must fly to everyone else, and they are generally far from everyone. So reallly only ECU, Cincy, and Temple feel the sting, in terms of extended travel time. But it's almost a fair trade, considering how many other teams see reduced travel.

(06-27-2019 09:06 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Where did he mention CSU?

He didn't. The OP could have called the thread "Aresco keeps the door open for Texas" or "Aresco keeps the door open for Cal-State Santa Barbara" and it would have been just as valid.

IOW's, zero to see here.

(06-28-2019 01:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Aside from ECU, for which commercial flight may be both long and indirect, combined with being the furthest away in flight paths, CSU is fairly convenient for most everyone as compared to UConn. It is actually closer to SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane, Wichita St, and Memphis than UConn is. Combing the major airport and airline routes there is only about an hour travel time difference between UCF/USF and CSU/UConn, which I only consider "even" since they must fly to everyone else, and they are generally far from everyone. So reallly only ECU, Cincy, and Temple feel the sting, in terms of extended travel time. But it's almost a fair trade, considering how many other teams see reduced travel.

Outside of Greenville and Wichita, every AAC city* has non-stop service on MULTIPLE airlines from Denver --- and that's just among the "Big 4" (Southwest, Delta, American, United). I'm not even counting the lower-cost airlines like Frontier.

Wichita only has service on United. Wichita to Fort Collins is also --- theoretically --- a bus trip, but a long one at 8 hours.

CSU is certainly a viable AAC candidate from a geography/accessibility POV.

* - this counts Annapolis as Baltimore.

There is a direct from Denver to RDU which is ECU’s airport when flying commercial

Same distance for Navy to get to BWI as for ECU to get to RDU

You should take San Jose, give you great access to Ca.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CSU isn't that far and probably easier to get to than Tulsa or Storrs.

To be sure, I am not sure Colorado State is the answer. But Colorado was in one Texas based conference for a almost two decades. What's different now?

(06-28-2019 02:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  To be sure, I am not sure Colorado State is the answer. But they were in one Texas based conference for a almost two decades. What's different now?

CSU would be able to keep the UConn football tradition alive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-28-2019 12:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

They arent really any farther away than UTEP is from much of the CUSA membership. Heck, LaTech spent years playing in the WAC as an all sports team. Is CSU's location ideal for an AAC all sports team? No, its probably not---but its workable.

I guess you could invite them as an all sports program. I just don't think they would accept it because they would be on an island. Trust me, that is not fun. BYU is a national brand. They could pull it off. And, Army is close to the AAC's footprint. Just don't see Colorado State being able to do it. Plus, the addition of a program already within the AAC footprint offers greater opportunity for fan friendly road games.

Like I said, I think the AAC would be smart to take their time and evaluate every large public G5 university in large metro areas, that are successful on the field, and committed to growing their athletic budgets. Only the AAC's large public universities have produced winning records over the last 2 season (UCF, Houston, Memphis, South Florida, & Temple). While none of their small private university has been able to produce back to back winning records. I do not think that is a coincidence, and I think the AAC leadership knows exactly what they are looking for in the next AAC member. It may take a year. It may take 5 years. But, I believe the AAC will add another program, and I think that program will be in the mold of a UCF, Houston, Memphis, South Florida, or Temple.

I'm firmly in the "Stay at 11" camp but AFA, Boise St and BYU/Colorado St would be an intriguing addition if ESPN was willing to pay for it. These 3 additions would offer up a 4th timeslot that could be taken advantage of. If the money isn't there then the money isn't there.

I don't see how the OP piece opens the door for CSU or anybody else not named Army or BYU, the latter two which Aresco has said several times the AAC would be interested in. But Army has again publicly said no, and BYU isn't talking. I think it's one of them or stay at 11, although I would be okay with CSU, personally.

(06-28-2019 07:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't see how the OP piece opens the door for CSU or anybody else not named Army or BYU, the latter two which Aresco has said several times the AAC would be interested in. But Army has again publicly said no, and BYU isn't talking. I think it's one of them or stay at 11, although I would be okay with CSU, personally.

I didn't see where Army publicly said no again.

Aresco was quoted ( my paraphrase) in the SLC paper as they would be willing to talk to BYU but BYU has to contact the AAC, so far no contact has been made. I got the inference from the article BYU is not interested.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-28-2019 03:31 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

They arent really any farther away than UTEP is from much of the CUSA membership. Heck, LaTech spent years playing in the WAC as an all sports team. Is CSU's location ideal for an AAC all sports team? No, its probably not---but its workable.

I guess you could invite them as an all sports program. I just don't think they would accept it because they would be on an island. Trust me, that is not fun. BYU is a national brand. They could pull it off. And, Army is close to the AAC's footprint. Just don't see Colorado State being able to do it. Plus, the addition of a program already within the AAC footprint offers greater opportunity for fan friendly road games.

Like I said, I think the AAC would be smart to take their time and evaluate every large public G5 university in large metro areas, that are successful on the field, and committed to growing their athletic budgets. Only the AAC's large public universities have produced winning records over the last 2 season (UCF, Houston, Memphis, South Florida, & Temple). While none of their small private university has been able to produce back to back winning records. I do not think that is a coincidence, and I think the AAC leadership knows exactly what they are looking for in the next AAC member. It may take a year. It may take 5 years. But, I believe the AAC will add another program, and I think that program will be in the mold of a UCF, Houston, Memphis, South Florida, or Temple.

Reasonable distances aren’t a big deal for the AAC. This is a spread out made for tv conference. It was never going to be the stuff of heated proximity based games between long time rivals. Heck—it was originally designed with Boise and SDSU as members (granted, football only members—but still it was planned out as a coast to coast conference).

(06-28-2019 02:45 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 01:19 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  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

Interesting point there is that two of the non-P5 schools with the healthiest athletic departments -- lowest annual deficits, decent total amount of ticket sales plus donations -- are Arkansas State and New Mexico.

I had not looked at the stAte numbers, but I had seen the UNM numbers (and was a bit surprised by them) and the USM numbers are pretty good on donations and ticket sales I cannot find their total program debt as of yet

those stAte numbers do look good as do the Louisiana numbers

right now I see there are some AAC members that are letting those that feel they are on the way out essentially set the narrative of who the "sexy" choice is or who the "big catch" would be and if some of the members that are almost certainly going to be in the AAC long term (no matter who leaves or does not leave) do not step up and gain control of the process they will probably find themselves making a really bad deal to add one or more of the "big names" and down the road it will harm the conference....and probably harm it way more than anything of any of the current members actually end up leaving....because that bad deal will probably involve letting the "big catch" leave with no consequences even if they go independent or make a lateral move

I think that happened with the TV contract as well and that is a major point of why UConn is leaving to set their own destiny (even with great risk) vs just being there and letting a few make short term choices with long term consequences because they feel that helps them GTFO the most while the others will be left with a big mess (or more likely they will all still be there down the road with a big mess and sniping at each other)

2.4 million owed in two more payments on the 2006 capital improvements. The last of these two payments is due at the end of May in 2021. Everything else has been paid for up front through donations and grants. State budget laws do not allow us to run a deficit and also severely restrict the size of our subsidy. We basically self generate 60+% of our income every single year.

(07-03-2019 11:30 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:45 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 01:19 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  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

Interesting point there is that two of the non-P5 schools with the healthiest athletic departments -- lowest annual deficits, decent total amount of ticket sales plus donations -- are Arkansas State and New Mexico.

I had not looked at the stAte numbers, but I had seen the UNM numbers (and was a bit surprised by them) and the USM numbers are pretty good on donations and ticket sales I cannot find their total program debt as of yet

those stAte numbers do look good as do the Louisiana numbers

right now I see there are some AAC members that are letting those that feel they are on the way out essentially set the narrative of who the "sexy" choice is or who the "big catch" would be and if some of the members that are almost certainly going to be in the AAC long term (no matter who leaves or does not leave) do not step up and gain control of the process they will probably find themselves making a really bad deal to add one or more of the "big names" and down the road it will harm the conference....and probably harm it way more than anything of any of the current members actually end up leaving....because that bad deal will probably involve letting the "big catch" leave with no consequences even if they go independent or make a lateral move

I think that happened with the TV contract as well and that is a major point of why UConn is leaving to set their own destiny (even with great risk) vs just being there and letting a few make short term choices with long term consequences because they feel that helps them GTFO the most while the others will be left with a big mess (or more likely they will all still be there down the road with a big mess and sniping at each other)

2.4 million owed in two more payments on the 2006 capital improvements. The last of these two payments is due at the end of May in 2021. Everything else has been paid for up front through donations and grants. State budget laws do not allow us to run a deficit and also severely restrict the size of our subsidy. We basically self generate 60+% of our income every single year.

The debt thing is a valid point. For instance, I believe virtually the entire 220+ million dollar CSU stadium was financed via debt. That means much (if not all) the increased revenue from the the CSU stadium is likley to end up going to cover debt service. If stadium revenue were to fall far enough below expectations---I suspect the new stadium could potentially even end up being a financial drain for a period.

That said, its silly to say the conference should be looking for schools that want to be in the AAC long term. First, thats like saying you want to draft a QB that wants nothing more than to be second string backup. Every G5 school's long term goal is to get into a conference with real access to the CFP.

What you want to look for is a school that has sustainable proven success in football, sustainable proven success in basketball, good facilities, a competitive budget, solid academics, good brand recognition, and the largest core of loyal fans available. It takes maybe 5 minutes of research to see that no team who would be interested has that total package at this time. However, you can get relatively close to adding that total package if you split the slot between a "football only" addition paired with a "non-football" school. Even then, assuming Boise/BYU/Army/AF/CSU say "no"----the football options are very limited.

It might be best to only do now what you know is a value added proposition. Add VCU to replace lost quality depth in basketball. It wont have the same brand impact as UConn---but VCU probably more than replaces the UConn performance over the last 5 years and is a very solid basketball brand name. For football---for now---do nothing. The loss of UConn football is actually addition by subtraction so the SOS and computer conference strength ratings for the AAC will improve---while preserving the AAC ability to add a school later if someone emerges from the pack as a clear and obvious #12.

I think this was an experiment by Kit-Cat to see if he could get Colorado State named in a realignment article.

(06-28-2019 01:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  No MWC school will go to the AAC as a football only. The fans at SDSU and Boise hated the idea of a downgrade in basketball to the Big West.

Well luckily the Big West isn't where they would be putting their sports. The WAC is, who if you add certain MW schools would be an equal or better basketball league and roughly the same travel. You get SoCal and Pheonix for recruiting plus your normal stomping grounds.

You take BYU, CSU, AFA and add them to the WAC and that's a pretty solid all conference at 10, lure Denver in and you get a nice compact western conference with good sports and solid markets plus the 20 game full round robin.

Not sure BYU would leave the WCC and high school gyms but they might.

(07-03-2019 12:36 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 01:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  No MWC school will go to the AAC as a football only. The fans at SDSU and Boise hated the idea of a downgrade in basketball to the Big West.

Well luckily the Big West isn't where they would be putting their sports. The WAC is, who if you add certain MW schools would be an equal or better basketball league and roughly the same travel. You get SoCal and Pheonix for recruiting plus your normal stomping grounds.

You take BYU, CSU, AFA and add them to the WAC and that's a pretty solid all conference at 10, lure Denver in and you get a nice compact western conference with good sports and solid markets plus the 20 game full round robin.

Not sure BYU would leave the WCC and high school gyms but they might.

Yeah, no.