Cliff’s notes version please

(11-07-2019 08:41 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Cliff’s notes version please

UAB to be introduced as new AAC member on Monday.

The AAC should not consider chop block teams. Enough of these knee plowers.

(11-07-2019 08:41 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Cliff’s notes version please

Ok, I've cut 5 paragraphs.

(11-07-2019 07:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 05:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:03 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I was with you until the last paragraph. I imagine the CCG is too valuable to let go, and we will take a compromise 12th team to save it, as a last resort. But probably football only, like CSU or SDSU. And maybe just keep basketball at 11.

I dont disagree---but its clear that he has been non-committal about its existence beyond the next two years (and not just in this interview). I think it comes down to a decision about the lesser of three possible evils in 2 years. If AF, BYU, or Army are all still uninterested in 2 years---then we will have to decide which of these unpleasant things we will have to deal with---

1) Add a team that dilutes the brand (permanent condition that we will all be stuck with forever)

or

2) No CCG (a temporary condition).

or

3) Play uneven divisions (another temporary condition).


Of the 3, I suspect we will end up landing on #3 as it is a "temporary condition", has the least downside for the conference, and is sustainable for several years (remember what he said about how long the Big10 played with 11 teams).

I have heard Aresco say twice no unbalanced divisions. I think we take a compromise football only.

And I would be shocked if we drop the CCG.

Yes he has and he is correct. He also stated today that the league likes 12 and would like to get back to divisions. So--why are we at still 11? Well---I suspect its because he has also said just as many times that league does not want to add a team that dilutes the league. So, I think its clear that if such a team existed--we'd be at 12. Thus, we have chosen the current course for the reason that it pushes off the need to permanently add a team while keeping the CCG intact. Playing uneven divisions does the same thing, though less elegantly.

That said, I dont think its going to matter because I think, unlike a few years ago, the support for a permanent rule change allowing divisionless CCG's is now is there. I dont think we will be forced to make an addition we will regret.

LOL, we already made 3.

lol. We are like a chain smoker trying to quit.

(11-07-2019 09:14 PM)geef Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 08:41 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Cliff’s notes version please

UAB to be introduced as new AAC member on Monday.

Rookie doesn’t know about Tuesdays.

(11-07-2019 06:08 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 05:57 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 03:22 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Stepping back, what are the criteria used for candidate evaluation?

My guess:
1. Value added to media deal.
2. Likelihood to win at a high level in the future (based on past results, facilities, and donor and fan support).
3. Expenses incurred (e.g., travel). Dovetails with geography.
4. Willingness to pay entry fee and take less media share for a period of time.
5. Academics.

We'll get back to you..

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Georgia St...we already know most of the answers.

1. Value added to media deal. ZERO.

2. Likelihood to win at a high level in the future (based on past results, facilities, and donor and fan support). Not Likely

3. Expenses incurred (e.g., travel). Dovetails with geography. Fits geographically.

4. Willingness to pay entry fee and take less media share for a period of time. ???

5. Academics. ??? I don't know anything about their academics

USNWR Tier One
Carnegie Tier I

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(11-07-2019 08:41 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Cliff’s notes version please

We are going to be P6

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

(11-07-2019 02:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Aresco is interesting in that he doesn't like getting backed into a corner on issues. When UConn moved down, he said that 11 teams, no divisions and a championship (like the big 12, but w/o the round robin) would be our best chance to crown the best champion. I agree with this.

Now that he only has a 2-year waiver and will likely HAVE to pick up a football member, he's talking about how we all love divisions and would like to get back to them. And if we add a MAC/CUSA team, they are definitely a powerhouse program on the rise.

If the legislation actually ends up changing, he will have wanted 11 teams and no divisions all along and doesn't recall any mention of wanting divisions back and divisions are stupid and no teams were worth adding.

No matter what happens, it was what he was hoping for, and we're all very pleased.

He is an attorney.

Indy/G4 add options: BYU, Boise, Air Force, Army. Army’s the only one that fits geographically and they’re the ones most adamant on staying indy.
We will not and should not rush another addition. We’re still dealing with the last round of impulse adds (ECU, Tulane, Tulsa) although Tulane looks like they’ve finally rounded that corner if they can keep the momentum (thank God bc I love me some NOLA). I still think dropping a team if we don’t get a quality add is the best route, while Tulsa has barely been more competitive in conference than ECU it’s not by much, ECU actually gets fan support and Tulsa is a geographic outlier.

TLDR: we still have projects to complete, don’t add a start up / drop Tulsa

(11-07-2019 10:18 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 06:08 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 05:57 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 03:22 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Stepping back, what are the criteria used for candidate evaluation?

My guess:
1. Value added to media deal.
2. Likelihood to win at a high level in the future (based on past results, facilities, and donor and fan support).
3. Expenses incurred (e.g., travel). Dovetails with geography.
4. Willingness to pay entry fee and take less media share for a period of time.
5. Academics.

We'll get back to you..

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Georgia St...we already know most of the answers.

1. Value added to media deal. ZERO.

2. Likelihood to win at a high level in the future (based on past results, facilities, and donor and fan support). Not Likely

3. Expenses incurred (e.g., travel). Dovetails with geography. Fits geographically.

4. Willingness to pay entry fee and take less media share for a period of time. ???

5. Academics. ??? I don't know anything about their academics

USNWR Tier One
Carnegie Tier I

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Unfortunately for Georgia St...points 1 & 2 disqualify you from consideration of any other factors.

(11-07-2019 04:23 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  No suprise ECU fans clamoring for Appy State, ODU, GSU and/or UAB.

No one I know wants anything to do with that fyi. Even when Terry Holland was pushing for them in C-USA there were lots of ECU fans that didn't want to touch that with a ten foot pole. So you're quite wrong. A couple of people on this message are not a representative sample.

(11-07-2019 05:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If AF, BYU, or Army are all still uninterested in 2 years---then we will have to decide which of these unpleasant things we have to deal with---

1) Add a team that dilutes the brand (permanent condition that we will all be stuck with forever)
2) No CCG (a temporary condition).
3) Play uneven divisions (another temporary condition).

Of the 3, I suspect we will end up landing on #3 as it is a "temporary condition", has the least downside for the conference, and is sustainable for several years.

I have heard Aresco say twice no unbalanced divisions. I think we take a compromise football only.

And I would be shocked if we drop the CCG.

He ... stated today that the league likes 12 and would like to get back to divisions. So--why are we at still 11?

Well---I suspect its because he has also said just as many times that league does not want to add a team that dilutes the league. So, I think its clear that if such a team existed--we'd be at 12. ...Playing uneven divisions does the same thing, though less elegantly.

.
The three options listed above ((1) add a team that dilutes the brand, (2) no CCG, (3) uneven divisions) are incomplete, because there are other possible options:

3) Add a team that does not dilute the brand.

4) NCAA grants a rule change, allowing CCG with 11 teams, no divisions.

5) Play a 10 game round-robin schedule (an option, albeit a poor one)

.
Q: Are Army, BYU, and AF the only teams that won't dilute the brand?

A: No. Several other FB-only teams would expand the AAC footprint, play a better brand of football than UConn and enhance national recognition/brand or the academic stature of the AAC:

1 & 2. SDSU (7-1) & Boise St. (7-1) (Both have solid national recognition & FB programs; both showed interest in the AAC in 2013).

3. Utah State (Increased national recognition as Utah's representative in the MWC; played 6 bowl games in the past 7 seasons); recognition also increasing in NCAA basketball. Adds Rocky Mountain Region.

4. Colorado State (Nationally recognized, well known brand; adds Rocky Mountain Region)).

5. University of Buffalo: FBS Flagship and only FBS SUNY university: 440,000 enrollment; AAU member; R1 research status; strong academics; taps into greater New York and northeastern U.S. market region. 2018 MAC East Division Championship.

Add UMass to just to troll UConn.

Really don’t want to drop CCG. It’s a great opportunity for the AAC to get exposure as the last two championship games have been great television and would be a shame to get rid of it.

(11-07-2019 11:16 PM)JRR_IV Wrote:  Really don’t want to drop CCG. It’s a great opportunity for the AAC to get exposure as the last two championship games have been great television and would be a shame to get rid of it.

It’s also part of our ESPN contract

(11-07-2019 11:21 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 11:16 PM)JRR_IV Wrote:  Really don’t want to drop CCG. It’s a great opportunity for the AAC to get exposure as the last two championship games have been great television and would be a shame to get rid of it.

It’s also part of our ESPN contract

No CCG isn't going to happen.
- extension of waiver or rule change 11 teams divisionless, CCG between top 2
- 12th team added, divisions, CCG
- no waiver or rule change, no 12th team added, play uneven divisions with CCG between division champs. This is less than ideal because you have two of eleven teams with 7 games when everyone else has 8 (and those two have scheduling challenges so their unhappy) and it is just hard for conference schedule makers...but that is worst case and it has a CCG

How is "no CCG" even a discussion. It's not in the possible outcomes.

I think we have to face the reality of likely adding the best available school in two years.

(11-07-2019 11:42 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I think we have to face the reality of likely adding the best available school in two years.

i doubt that...we are getting a desire-able team or we'll stay at 11...

aresco made it clear we want to go back to 12...but also made it clear he is willing to wait as long as possible till we get the right fit and stated even beyond the 2

i took the interview as a preferences for 12 not a need for 12

(11-07-2019 10:26 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 10:18 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 06:08 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 05:57 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 03:22 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Stepping back, what are the criteria used for candidate evaluation?

My guess:
1. Value added to media deal.
2. Likelihood to win at a high level in the future (based on past results, facilities, and donor and fan support).
3. Expenses incurred (e.g., travel). Dovetails with geography.
4. Willingness to pay entry fee and take less media share for a period of time.
5. Academics.

We'll get back to you..

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Georgia St...we already know most of the answers.

1. Value added to media deal. ZERO.

2. Likelihood to win at a high level in the future (based on past results, facilities, and donor and fan support). Not Likely

3. Expenses incurred (e.g., travel). Dovetails with geography. Fits geographically.

4. Willingness to pay entry fee and take less media share for a period of time. ???

5. Academics. ??? I don't know anything about their academics

USNWR Tier One
Carnegie Tier I

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Unfortunately for Georgia St...points 1 & 2 disqualify you from consideration of any other factors.

#8 DMA

Currently sitting at 6-2 , in a position win our conference.

Anyone else here beat Tennessee and Army this year? Anyone Buehler?




BTW after having heard this interview...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk