I don't see anything happening in the next year, there simply is not any good choices that are likely available. The new MWC deal is just over 1/2 of ours now. Once you consider buy out and buy in for new league, and likely less than full revenue share for a few years, I don't see any MWC team flipping. For the AAC, I see no one else worth adding, before we need to.

I would hope part of ESPN revision, would include a clause that they make the AAC whole with any replacement.

It is hard to imagine who the AAC would add, Buffalo, UAB, App St.,
Ga State, Charlotte, It would be for all sports, and there is no great add out there.

(01-12-2020 08:52 AM)tigerjeb Wrote:  Navy's radio PBP guy was asked point blank on Memphis radio before the Liberty Bowl about Navy's position on Air Force moving to the AAC & he said he could see no way that Navy would support that addition

Ummm...the AAC has pursued Air Force from the very start of its existence. Navy was aware and has been nothing but supportive of that pursuit. No idea why he would say such a thing. He might want to talk with his AD about that topic.

(01-12-2020 08:52 AM)tigerjeb Wrote:  Navy's radio PBP guy was asked point blank on Memphis radio before the Liberty Bowl about Navy's position on Air Force moving to the AAC & he said he could see no way that Navy would support that addition

that would be like asking Dave Woloshin about expansion...

(01-12-2020 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 08:52 AM)tigerjeb Wrote:  Navy's radio PBP guy was asked point blank on Memphis radio before the Liberty Bowl about Navy's position on Air Force moving to the AAC & he said he could see no way that Navy would support that addition

Ummm...the AAC has pursued Air Force from the very start of its existence. Navy was aware and has been nothing but supportive of that pursuit. No idea why he would say such a thing. He might want to talk with his AD about that topic.

Navy likes having the P6 advantage over our two biggest rivals. We often recruit directly against one another. Pointing to better bowls, better perception overall, and the second order effects of better money (facilities etc)is a good thing.

Benefit of having AF in the conference - and would require being permanently on the schedule - would be one more free game to schedule. But that's about it.

There's a pretty big space to occupy between "supporting" a move - cheerleading for it, actively advocating for it - and fighting against it or threatening to veto it. I suspect that's the space we officially inhabit.

How soon will we know what the revised tv deal will be?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(01-12-2020 09:53 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I don't see anything happening in the next year, there simply is not any good choices that are likely available. The new MWC deal is just over 1/2 of ours now. Once you consider buy out and buy in for new league, and likely less than full revenue share for a few years, I don't see any MWC team flipping. For the AAC, I see no one else worth adding, before we need to.

I would hope part of ESPN revision, would include a clause that they make the AAC whole with any replacement.

It is hard to imagine who the AAC would add, Buffalo, UAB, App St.,
Ga State, Charlotte, It would be for all sports, and there is no great add out there.

I agree. The AAC does not add anyone unless the conference or ESPiN says so.

(01-12-2020 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 08:52 AM)tigerjeb Wrote:  Navy's radio PBP guy was asked point blank on Memphis radio before the Liberty Bowl about Navy's position on Air Force moving to the AAC & he said he could see no way that Navy would support that addition

Ummm...the AAC has pursued Air Force from the very start of its existence. Navy was aware and has been nothing but supportive of that pursuit. No idea why he would say such a thing. He might want to talk with his AD about that topic.

yeah well he sounded pretty confident when he said it so just take it for what its worth

(01-12-2020 03:15 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  How soon will we know what the revised tv deal will be?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

04/01/2020

(01-12-2020 06:58 PM)tigerjeb Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 08:52 AM)tigerjeb Wrote:  Navy's radio PBP guy was asked point blank on Memphis radio before the Liberty Bowl about Navy's position on Air Force moving to the AAC & he said he could see no way that Navy would support that addition

Ummm...the AAC has pursued Air Force from the very start of its existence. Navy was aware and has been nothing but supportive of that pursuit. No idea why he would say such a thing. He might want to talk with his AD about that topic.

yeah well he sounded pretty confident when he said it so just take it for what its worth

I guess you never really know, but if thats the case, given the way we have pursued AF, it would have to mean Navy is an extreme minority voice on the issue. My guess is the truth is probably closer to the picture Navy91 painted.

(01-12-2020 08:19 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 03:15 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  How soon will we know what the revised tv deal will be?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

04/01/2020

There's always one in the group...

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Done deal, next Tuesday

(01-12-2020 12:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 08:52 AM)tigerjeb Wrote:  Navy's radio PBP guy was asked point blank on Memphis radio before the Liberty Bowl about Navy's position on Air Force moving to the AAC & he said he could see no way that Navy would support that addition

that would be like asking Dave Woloshin about expansion...

I believe Jeb is referring to MY call into Greg and Eli's show. I specifically asked if the Navy FANS were receptive to adding AF. IOW, HE has a drive-time radio show in DC (or possibly Annapolis?) area, and I was asking him if he had a sense of the FANS' opinion of this issue. He immediately answered as if he was reciting a rote response from the Navy admin. office. I took it to mean HE has a jaundice view of the AF add, so I took it with a grain of salt...

(01-12-2020 08:52 AM)tigerjeb Wrote:  Navy's radio PBP guy was asked point blank on Memphis radio before the Liberty Bowl about Navy's position on Air Force moving to the AAC & he said he could see no way that Navy would support that addition

What? No AF?

(01-12-2020 09:18 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 12:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 08:52 AM)tigerjeb Wrote:  Navy's radio PBP guy was asked point blank on Memphis radio before the Liberty Bowl about Navy's position on Air Force moving to the AAC & he said he could see no way that Navy would support that addition

that would be like asking Dave Woloshin about expansion...

I believe Jeb is referring to MY call into Greg and Eli's show. I specifically asked if the Navy FANS were receptive to adding AF. IOW, HE has a drive-time radio show in DC (or possibly Annapolis?) area, and I was asking him if he had a sense of the FANS' opinion of this issue. He immediately answered as if he was reciting a rote response from the Navy admin. office. I took it to mean HE has a jaundice view of the AF add, so I took it with a grain of salt...

Pete Medhurst, first and foremost, is a GREAT DUDE.
Secondly, he is a grinder and all over sports in the DC area. Navy PxP is his main gig, and not just football. I couldn't get to Saturday's hoops, caught the stream on Patriot League Network on Stadium, and was comforted by Pete's dulcet tones. (Sidebar, Patriot League can provide all sports streaming, but mwc or CUSA fans think ESPN+will cost AAC teams $2M?!?)
Another gig he does is on 106.7 the Fan in DC. He also started backup PxP for the Nats this season.

Anyway, if the question was posed as Navy FANS, see my earlier response - I would love having one more game to schedule, but have no interest in lifting our #2 rival when we have exposure and money advantages over them.

A formal USNA / NAAA position? Same reasoning applies, why give up an advantage to our rival. Years ago, when asked about a 9 game conference schedule, Niumat said his preference as football coach would be to keep ND and drop AF.
My guess is that the Superintendent in meetings of Presidents and Chet in meetings of ADs are not/not advocating for Air Force but would abstain or accede to unanimity rather than fight or veto AF.

(01-12-2020 10:33 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 09:18 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 12:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 08:52 AM)tigerjeb Wrote:  Navy's radio PBP guy was asked point blank on Memphis radio before the Liberty Bowl about Navy's position on Air Force moving to the AAC & he said he could see no way that Navy would support that addition

that would be like asking Dave Woloshin about expansion...

I believe Jeb is referring to MY call into Greg and Eli's show. I specifically asked if the Navy FANS were receptive to adding AF. IOW, HE has a drive-time radio show in DC (or possibly Annapolis?) area, and I was asking him if he had a sense of the FANS' opinion of this issue. He immediately answered as if he was reciting a rote response from the Navy admin. office. I took it to mean HE has a jaundice view of the AF add, so I took it with a grain of salt...

Pete Medhurst, first and foremost, is a GREAT DUDE.
Secondly, he is a grinder and all over sports in the DC area. Navy PxP is his main gig, and not just football. I couldn't get to Saturday's hoops, caught the stream on Patriot League Network on Stadium, and was comforted by Pete's dulcet tones. (Sidebar, Patriot League can provide all sports streaming, but mwc or CUSA fans think ESPN+will cost AAC teams $2M?!?)
Another gig he does is on 106.7 the Fan in DC. He also started backup PxP for the Nats this season.

Anyway, if the question was posed as Navy FANS, see my earlier response - I would love having one more game to schedule, but have no interest in lifting our #2 rival when we have exposure and money advantages over them.

A formal USNA / NAAA position? Same reasoning applies, why give up an advantage to our rival. Years ago, when asked about a 9 game conference schedule, Niumat said his preference as football coach would be to keep ND and drop AF.
My guess is that the Superintendent in meetings of Presidents and Chet in meetings of ADs are not/not advocating for Air Force but would abstain or accede to unanimity rather than fight or veto AF.

Is this mainly their football rivalry that you're referring to?

...or is it something much deeper rooted, going back through the decades to WWII or earlier?

There has long been a fierce competition between the branches of the armed services - especially for funding and weapons systems (e.g., U.S. Naval Air Force vs. U.S. Air Force in the area of aviation; strategic systems, branches of "Triad," etc.).

Also in command. For example, in the WWII Pacific Theater, a compromise between the branches was found to be necessary. The strategic operations were split into two areas: (1) The Central Pacific Command (Admiral Nimitz, CINCPAC, Navy/Marines), and (2) The South Pacific Command (General MacArthur, U.S. Army). There's a classic photo of the two of them making a presentation, standing in front of a large map of the Pacific, with an audience of one: Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was, no doubt, the ultimate mediator.

(01-13-2020 12:42 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 10:33 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 09:18 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 12:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 08:52 AM)tigerjeb Wrote:  Navy's radio PBP guy was asked point blank on Memphis radio before the Liberty Bowl about Navy's position on Air Force moving to the AAC & he said he could see no way that Navy would support that addition

that would be like asking Dave Woloshin about expansion...

I believe Jeb is referring to MY call into Greg and Eli's show. I specifically asked if the Navy FANS were receptive to adding AF. IOW, HE has a drive-time radio show in DC (or possibly Annapolis?) area, and I was asking him if he had a sense of the FANS' opinion of this issue. He immediately answered as if he was reciting a rote response from the Navy admin. office. I took it to mean HE has a jaundice view of the AF add, so I took it with a grain of salt...

Pete Medhurst, first and foremost, is a GREAT DUDE.
Secondly, he is a grinder and all over sports in the DC area. Navy PxP is his main gig, and not just football. I couldn't get to Saturday's hoops, caught the stream on Patriot League Network on Stadium, and was comforted by Pete's dulcet tones. (Sidebar, Patriot League can provide all sports streaming, but mwc or CUSA fans think ESPN+will cost AAC teams $2M?!?)
Another gig he does is on 106.7 the Fan in DC. He also started backup PxP for the Nats this season.

Anyway, if the question was posed as Navy FANS, see my earlier response - I would love having one more game to schedule, but have no interest in lifting our #2 rival when we have exposure and money advantages over them.

A formal USNA / NAAA position? Same reasoning applies, why give up an advantage to our rival. Years ago, when asked about a 9 game conference schedule, Niumat said his preference as football coach would be to keep ND and drop AF.
My guess is that the Superintendent in meetings of Presidents and Chet in meetings of ADs are not/not advocating for Air Force but would abstain or accede to unanimity rather than fight or veto AF.

Is this mainly their football rivalry that you're referring to?

...or is it something much deeper rooted, going back through the decades to WWII or earlier?

There has long been a fierce competition between the branches of the armed services - especially for funding and weapons systems (e.g., U.S. Naval Air Force vs. U.S. Air Force in the area of aviation; strategic systems, branches of "Triad," etc.).

Also in command. For example, in the WWII Pacific Theater, a compromise between the branches was found to be necessary. The strategic operations were split into two areas: (1) The Central Pacific Command (Admiral Nimitz, CINCPAC, Navy/Marines), and (2) The South Pacific Command (General MacArthur, U.S. Army). There's a classic photo of the two of them making a presentation, standing in front of a large map of the Pacific, with an audience of one: Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was, no doubt, the ultimate mediator.

Jed - In this instance I'm referring to the USNA-USAFA football rivalry. And it is "football," more than "sports." We play Army in EVERYTHING, but Air Force not so much...baseball has recently had a recurring early season series in Kinston, NC...basketball games are rare...

I would caution against conflating the Service Academies to the Services. Our little finishing schools are in very specific bubbles.

That's not to gainsay your point about larger inter-service rivalry. That runs the gamut from the tug-of-war between very different organizational cultures in joint commands to the big battles for big dollars in the Pentagon.

(01-12-2020 10:33 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 09:18 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 12:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 08:52 AM)tigerjeb Wrote:  Navy's radio PBP guy was asked point blank on Memphis radio before the Liberty Bowl about Navy's position on Air Force moving to the AAC & he said he could see no way that Navy would support that addition

that would be like asking Dave Woloshin about expansion...

I believe Jeb is referring to MY call into Greg and Eli's show. I specifically asked if the Navy FANS were receptive to adding AF. IOW, HE has a drive-time radio show in DC (or possibly Annapolis?) area, and I was asking him if he had a sense of the FANS' opinion of this issue. He immediately answered as if he was reciting a rote response from the Navy admin. office. I took it to mean HE has a jaundice view of the AF add, so I took it with a grain of salt...

Pete Medhurst, first and foremost, is a GREAT DUDE.
Secondly, he is a grinder and all over sports in the DC area. Navy PxP is his main gig, and not just football. I couldn't get to Saturday's hoops, caught the stream on Patriot League Network on Stadium, and was comforted by Pete's dulcet tones. (Sidebar, Patriot League can provide all sports streaming, but mwc or CUSA fans think ESPN+will cost AAC teams $2M?!?)
Another gig he does is on 106.7 the Fan in DC. He also started backup PxP for the Nats this season.

Anyway, if the question was posed as Navy FANS, see my earlier response - I would love having one more game to schedule, but have no interest in lifting our #2 rival when we have exposure and money advantages over them.

A formal USNA / NAAA position? Same reasoning applies, why give up an advantage to our rival. Years ago, when asked about a 9 game conference schedule, Niumat said his preference as football coach would be to keep ND and drop AF.
My guess is that the Superintendent in meetings of Presidents and Chet in meetings of ADs are not/not advocating for Air Force but would abstain or accede to unanimity rather than fight or veto AF.

What if it meant the difference between both of you being actual Power 6 teams, or NEITHER of you being Power 6 teams? IOW, what if inviting them (and Boise and BYU) meant that the American could get the Cotton Bowl to give us the auto-bid to their bowl, but a failure to get them to jump meant that the MWC was still strong enough to have a claim, relegating us both to G5 status?

(01-14-2020 12:34 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 10:33 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Anyway, if the question was posed as Navy FANS, see my earlier response - I would love having one more game to schedule, [size=large]but have no interest in lifting our #2 rival when we have exposure and money advantages over them.

A formal USNA / NAAA position? Same reasoning applies, why give up an advantage to our rival. Years ago, when asked about a 9 game conference schedule, Niumat said his preference as football coach would be to keep ND and drop AF.

My guess is that the Superintendent in meetings of Presidents and Chet in meetings of ADs are not/not advocating for Air Force but would abstain or accede to unanimity rather than fight or veto AF.

What if it meant the difference between both of you being actual Power 6 teams, or NEITHER of you being Power 6 teams? IOW, what if inviting them (and Boise and BYU) meant that the American could get the Cotton Bowl to give us the auto-bid to their bowl, but a failure to get them to jump meant that the MWC was still strong enough to have a claim, relegating us both to G5 status?

That's a really good point.

If Navy could encourage AF to make the switch, it could definitely help both programs to move, with the AAC, toward eventual P6/A6 status.

Since AFA wouldn't have any shot at P6/A6 status by remaining in the MWC, it would be in their interest to pursue P6/A6 status in the AAC.

Further, if AFA were to join the AAC, Army might become more amenable to joining, since the Black Knights would only have to play 6 conference games each season (plus vs Navy + AF, which they already play).

.
Programs with strong potential viewership in televised prime-time games (highlighted):

AAC East:

Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Temple, Memphis/Tulane, ECU (+Army)

AAC West:

SMU, Navy, Air Force, Houston, Tulane/Memphis, Tulsa

.
This might well pass muster for a P6/A6 FB conference, from ESPN's perspective:

Tier 1 FB Programs: Cincy, Memphis, UCF, Navy, SMU, Houston

Tier 2 FB Programs: Air Force, USF, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, ECU (+Army)

.
Another factor supporting a move to the AAC is that the NCAA might find it very different to turn down a joint AAC/ESPN proposal for elevation to full P6/A6 status, with both Navy and Air Force on board, especially if the package were to include Army, as well. The service academies might have that kind of pull.

(01-14-2020 06:54 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:34 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 10:33 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

Another factor supporting a move to the AAC is that the NCAA might find it very different to turn down a joint AAC/ESPN proposal for elevation to full P6/A6 status, with both Navy and Air Force on board, especially if the package were to include Army, as well. The service academies might have that kind of pull.

I think you are living in a fantasy world.

(01-14-2020 06:54 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:34 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 10:33 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Anyway, if the question was posed as Navy FANS, see my earlier response - I would love having one more game to schedule, [size=large]but have no interest in lifting our #2 rival when we have exposure and money advantages over them.

A formal USNA / NAAA position? Same reasoning applies, why give up an advantage to our rival. Years ago, when asked about a 9 game conference schedule, Niumat said his preference as football coach would be to keep ND and drop AF.

My guess is that the Superintendent in meetings of Presidents and Chet in meetings of ADs are not/not advocating for Air Force but would abstain or accede to unanimity rather than fight or veto AF.

What if it meant the difference between both of you being actual Power 6 teams, or NEITHER of you being Power 6 teams? IOW, what if inviting them (and Boise and BYU) meant that the American could get the Cotton Bowl to give us the auto-bid to their bowl, but a failure to get them to jump meant that the MWC was still strong enough to have a claim, relegating us both to G5 status?

That's a really good point.

If Navy could encourage AF to make the switch, it could definitely help both programs to move, with the AAC, toward eventual P6/A6 status.

Since AFA wouldn't have any shot at P6/A6 status by remaining in the MWC, it would be in their interest to pursue P6/A6 status in the AAC.

Further, if AFA were to join the AAC, Army might become more amenable to joining, since the Black Knights would only have to play 6 conference games each season (plus vs Navy + AF, which they already play).

.
Programs with strong potential viewership in televised prime-time games (highlighted):

AAC East:

Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Temple, Memphis/Tulane, ECU (+Army)

AAC West:

SMU, Navy, Air Force, Houston, Tulane/Memphis, Tulsa

.
This might well pass muster for a P6/A6 FB conference, from ESPN's perspective:

Tier 1 FB Programs: Cincy, Memphis, UCF, Navy, SMU, Houston

Tier 2 FB Programs: Air Force, USF, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, ECU (+Army)

.
Another factor supporting a move to the AAC is that the NCAA might find it very different to turn down a joint AAC/ESPN proposal for elevation to full P6/A6 status, with both Navy and Air Force on board, especially if the package were to include Army, as well. The service academies might have that kind of pull.

I think the general public considers AF & Army G5 & Navy just a step above like most of us.