(09-05-2020 08:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  One of the best pieces of advice I received from a mentor early in my career was that one should never try to show or tell people how good you are. Better that they should discover that for themselves. Then they will believe it.

You must be kidding. How do you explain online/TV commercials, advertisements, "hype," and marketing? Americans are constantly showing or telling each other how good, how rich, how skilled they are, where they went to college. You've got to "sell" yourself, your viewpoint, or whatever candidate, cause, or product you're promoting in order to get anywhere in this country.

The thread is not about being "braggadocious." That's an obvious red herring, and it's also an implied ad hominem. It's about putting the strongest case forward for taking bold action to meet the conference's strategic objectives. The people who are objecting to the AAC fans tooting their conference's horn are the same people who are opposed to replacing UConn or conference expansion of any kind.

Sometimes, it seems like there's about one-third of the AAC fans on the message boards that just want to sit around and complain about not being treated like a power conference, or think that it will somehow happen magically when someone realizes that we should get that kind of recognition, without being willing to lift a finger or raise their voices to do anything about it.

(09-06-2020 03:39 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  UConn MBB has left a gap in the middle of the pack of the AAC, but it is a gap that can certainly be filled, either by another program improving, or by adding a higher quality BB school. If another AAC program improves to mid-pack quality, the conference will stand still as the #7 conference among the Major 7 conferences. If a higher-quality BB school is added to take UConn's place, the ACC will have a chance to move up a notch or two in the Major 7 and to start sending 4+ teams to the NCAA ever year.

Even after the deterioration of the UConn MBB over the past decade, they would still be ranked ahead of any potential addition to the AAC as a replacement. And none of those possible candidates plays FBS football. The only way the AAC moves up in stature as a basketball conference is if some perennial Top 25 P5 schools defect from their current conference. Can you think of any who would do that?

If not, we are left with schools like VCU, Dayton, Davidson and the like. They aren't making the tourney field perennially now, and when they do get invited they are pretty much one and done.

I understand maintaining hope that some day your ship will come in. But at my age, I have to be realistic enough to realize it won't happen for the AAC in my lifetime. None of their current members are going to grow up to become Oklahoma or even Southern Cal anytime soon. And unless they do, P5 (or P6 in hoops) just isn't in the cards. Because having one grow up to be Kansas State or Missouri isn't going to make a difference.

UConn has about the same cachet as the so-called flagship institutions in the other New England states. The only thing that sets it apart is that its fans beat their chests about it.

(09-06-2020 07:58 PM)colohank Wrote:  UConn has about the same cachet as the so-called flagship institutions in the other New England states. The only thing that sets it apart is that its fans beat their chests about it.

That is crap...UMass is closest but still far behind but Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine are not even close.

(09-06-2020 07:58 PM)colohank Wrote:  UConn has about the same cachet as the so-called flagship institutions in the other New England states. The only thing that sets it apart is that its fans beat their chests about it.

So, in your opinion: Connecticut = Maine = Massachusetts = New Hampshire = Rhode Island = Vermont?

I think theres 2 distinct groups:
1) Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island
2) Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont

I would order them, if I had to:
1) Connecticut
2) Massachusetts
3) Rhode Island
4) Vermont
5) Maine
6) New Hampshire

(09-05-2020 06:39 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 04:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 03:41 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Considering that this is only the 7th year of the AAC's existence, I think the league can continue to improve its brand and competitiveness on the field. Scraping the UConn football dog poo from the bottom of the AAC shoe will certainly help in the latter. This season, due to COVID, could end up giving the AAC the most visibility and best postseason oppotunities that its ever had. I agree that talk is talk. Just go out and win.

UConn was a loss.

#1 was basketball. Having their women's and (although not in the last few years) their men's team raised the profile of the conference.
#2 was their flagship status. It was a name school and the premier school in their state. The rest of the schools are #2 at best in their state and usually 3rd or 4th or lower.
#3 was perception. UConn said the Big East was a better place.

The bottom 1/4th doesn't matter too much in perception. You need to have a strong top.

The flagship thing doesn’t mean a damn thing if you are in a state and region with little home grown talent. The fact of the matter is UConn just could not attract the talent that physically matched up with the athletes at schools in Florida, Texas and Ohio. I’ve said this before but it is better to be #2 in Ohio, #3 in PA, or #4-5 in Florida and Texas in recruiting than it is to be #1 in many states in this country.

Nebraska, Tennessee, Boise, Notre Dame. None of them have much home grown talent in their state in football. The Big 10 gets more players from Florida than the SEC does. Last time I saw, ACC got the most, Big 10 was 2nd and SEC was 3rd. College basketball is pretty much a national recruiting zone.

With good coaches, UConn has plenty of potential in football.

(09-06-2020 08:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 06:39 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 04:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 03:41 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Considering that this is only the 7th year of the AAC's existence, I think the league can continue to improve its brand and competitiveness on the field. Scraping the UConn football dog poo from the bottom of the AAC shoe will certainly help in the latter. This season, due to COVID, could end up giving the AAC the most visibility and best postseason oppotunities that its ever had. I agree that talk is talk. Just go out and win.

UConn was a loss.

#1 was basketball. Having their women's and (although not in the last few years) their men's team raised the profile of the conference.
#2 was their flagship status. It was a name school and the premier school in their state. The rest of the schools are #2 at best in their state and usually 3rd or 4th or lower.
#3 was perception. UConn said the Big East was a better place.

The bottom 1/4th doesn't matter too much in perception. You need to have a strong top.

The flagship thing doesn’t mean a damn thing if you are in a state and region with little home grown talent. The fact of the matter is UConn just could not attract the talent that physically matched up with the athletes at schools in Florida, Texas and Ohio. I’ve said this before but it is better to be #2 in Ohio, #3 in PA, or #4-5 in Florida and Texas in recruiting than it is to be #1 in many states in this country.

Nebraska, Tennessee, Boise, Notre Dame. None of them have much home grown talent in their state in football. The Big 10 gets more players from Florida than the SEC does. Last time I saw, ACC got the most, Big 10 was 2nd and SEC was 3rd. College basketball is pretty much a national recruiting zone.

With good coaches, UConn has plenty of potential in football.

Meh, after spending 15 seasons in a conference I just don’t see it. And to be honest, go on a UConn board and you’ll see that UConn has more believers on this forum than they do on their own. You guys are obsessed with the whole flagship college thing as it relates to football. Recruits aren’t sitting at home thinking “hmm.. I could go to this school here who consistently wins and has great coaching or I could go to UConn/UMass/Whatsamatta U. because they are a state flagship.

(09-06-2020 03:50 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The thread is not about being "braggadocious." That's an obvious red herring, and it's also an implied ad hominem. It's about putting the strongest case forward for taking bold action to meet the conference's strategic objectives. The people who are objecting to the AAC fans tooting their conference's horn are the same people who are opposed to replacing UConn or conference expansion of any kind.

I'm fine with replacing UConn - if we can add a school that is of equal or better value.

But, the AAC is in the position of "any school that wants to join us we don't need, and any school we want to join us isn't interested". Despite what UConn-haters might think, UConn was the only state flagship (a significant prestige factor, has zero to do with football) and one of the most valuable members of the conference.

Bottom line is, the only schools in the G5 that would be worth adding to fill UConn's spot would be a few schools way out west (Boise, BYU, Colorado State, SDSU) and they are bad fits geographically and have shown no interest in joining us. Nobody in C-USA the MAC or SBC is worth adding.

(09-06-2020 08:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  With good coaches, UConn has plenty of potential in football.

With good coaches, UConn has the potential to improve from a dumpster fire to mediocre. And any coach good enough to accomplish that will move on to greener pastures quickly, leaving the Huskies in a perpetual state of yoyoing between awful and not bad.

It is clear to me that the PTB at UConn figured this out when they decided to stake everything on having membership in the Big East restore them to their former glory in hoops. That's hardly a sure thing. Time will tell whether they have more NCAAT appearances in the BE than they could have had staying in the AAC.

(09-07-2020 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2020 03:50 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The thread is not about being "braggadocious." That's an obvious red herring, and it's also an implied ad hominem. It's about putting the strongest case forward for taking bold action to meet the conference's strategic objectives. The people who are objecting to the AAC fans tooting their conference's horn are the same people who are opposed to replacing UConn or conference expansion of any kind.

I'm fine with replacing UConn - if we can add a school that is of equal or better value.

But, the AAC is in the position of "any school that wants to join us we don't need, and any school we want to join us isn't interested". Despite what UConn-haters might think, UConn was the only state flagship (a significant prestige factor, has zero to do with football) and one of the most valuable members of the conference.

Bottom line is, the only schools in the G5 that would be worth adding to fill UConn's spot would be a few schools way out west (Boise, BYU, Colorado State, SDSU) and they are bad fits geographically and have shown no interest in joining us. Nobody in C-USA the MAC or SBC is worth adding.

IIRC, UConn was NOT one of the most valuable assets according to ESPN. if certain schools left, the contact could be diminished. Believe those schools included Houston, Cincinnati, USF, and UCF and maybe one other. Don't think UConn was included in that group.

UConn basketball was a loss, despite how mediocre to poor they had become in MBB. UConn football had gone past dumpster fire status. Other than padding the win totals of other teams, it was addition by subtraction in football.

(09-07-2020 11:35 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2020 03:50 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The thread is not about being "braggadocious." That's an obvious red herring, and it's also an implied ad hominem. It's about putting the strongest case forward for taking bold action to meet the conference's strategic objectives. The people who are objecting to the AAC fans tooting their conference's horn are the same people who are opposed to replacing UConn or conference expansion of any kind.

I'm fine with replacing UConn - if we can add a school that is of equal or better value.

But, the AAC is in the position of "any school that wants to join us we don't need, and any school we want to join us isn't interested". Despite what UConn-haters might think, UConn was the only state flagship (a significant prestige factor, has zero to do with football) and one of the most valuable members of the conference.

Bottom line is, the only schools in the G5 that would be worth adding to fill UConn's spot would be a few schools way out west (Boise, BYU, Colorado State, SDSU) and they are bad fits geographically and have shown no interest in joining us. Nobody in C-USA the MAC or SBC is worth adding.

IIRC, UConn was NOT one of the most valuable assets according to ESPN. if certain schools left, the contact could be diminished. Believe those schools included Houston, Cincinnati, USF, and UCF and maybe one other. Don't think UConn was included in that group.

UConn basketball was a loss, despite how mediocre to poor they had become in MBB. UConn football had gone past dumpster fire status. Other than padding the win totals of other teams, it was addition by subtraction in football.

IIRC, when the original TV deal was signed in 2013 with NBC, UConn was one of the four "Group A" teams whose departure would trigger a renegotiation.

As for the brand new deal, according to SBJ, the departure of any school would allow ESPN to renegotiate the TV deal. SBJ did say that ESPN was especially concerned about UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston or Cincy leaving, but the actual contract allows for new talks if any team left:

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/SB-B...06/24.aspx

(09-07-2020 11:35 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2020 03:50 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The thread is not about being "braggadocious." That's an obvious red herring, and it's also an implied ad hominem. It's about putting the strongest case forward for taking bold action to meet the conference's strategic objectives. The people who are objecting to the AAC fans tooting their conference's horn are the same people who are opposed to replacing UConn or conference expansion of any kind.

I'm fine with replacing UConn - if we can add a school that is of equal or better value.

But, the AAC is in the position of "any school that wants to join us we don't need, and any school we want to join us isn't interested". Despite what UConn-haters might think, UConn was the only state flagship (a significant prestige factor, has zero to do with football) and one of the most valuable members of the conference.

Bottom line is, the only schools in the G5 that would be worth adding to fill UConn's spot would be a few schools way out west (Boise, BYU, Colorado State, SDSU) and they are bad fits geographically and have shown no interest in joining us. Nobody in C-USA the MAC or SBC is worth adding.

IIRC, UConn was NOT one of the most valuable assets according to ESPN. if certain schools left, the contact could be diminished. Believe those schools included Houston, Cincinnati, USF, and UCF and maybe one other. Don't think UConn was included in that group.

UConn basketball was a loss, despite how mediocre to poor they had become in MBB. UConn football had gone past dumpster fire status. Other than padding the win totals of other teams, it was addition by subtraction in football.

Wrong. It was UConn, Temple, Cincinnati and Houston. No Florida schools.

Now UConn's value was probably from basketball.

And UConn has never got to be as much as a dumpster fire as Temple and Rutgers were when they were in the Big East. Rutgers usually lost to Temple. Temple had one season where they drew 17,000 fans---for the ENTIRE year!

(09-07-2020 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 11:35 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2020 03:50 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The thread is not about being "braggadocious." That's an obvious red herring, and it's also an implied ad hominem. It's about putting the strongest case forward for taking bold action to meet the conference's strategic objectives. The people who are objecting to the AAC fans tooting their conference's horn are the same people who are opposed to replacing UConn or conference expansion of any kind.

I'm fine with replacing UConn - if we can add a school that is of equal or better value.

But, the AAC is in the position of "any school that wants to join us we don't need, and any school we want to join us isn't interested". Despite what UConn-haters might think, UConn was the only state flagship (a significant prestige factor, has zero to do with football) and one of the most valuable members of the conference.

Bottom line is, the only schools in the G5 that would be worth adding to fill UConn's spot would be a few schools way out west (Boise, BYU, Colorado State, SDSU) and they are bad fits geographically and have shown no interest in joining us. Nobody in C-USA the MAC or SBC is worth adding.

IIRC, UConn was NOT one of the most valuable assets according to ESPN. if certain schools left, the contact could be diminished. Believe those schools included Houston, Cincinnati, USF, and UCF and maybe one other. Don't think UConn was included in that group.

UConn basketball was a loss, despite how mediocre to poor they had become in MBB. UConn football had gone past dumpster fire status. Other than padding the win totals of other teams, it was addition by subtraction in football.

Wrong. It was UConn, Temple, Cincinnati and Houston. No Florida schools.

Now UConn's value was probably from basketball.

And UConn has never got to be as much as a dumpster fire as Temple and Rutgers were when they were in the Big East. Rutgers usually lost to Temple. Temple had one season where they drew 17,000 fans---for the ENTIRE year!

UConn claimed 18K per game last year, but I saw a few shots of games at the Rent— there were maybe a few hundred at most. UConn won two games last year and got blown out in the rest like an FCS team. The beat Wagner (FCS) by three and beat equally woeful UMass. The year before they won one game, beating their FCS opponent by one point. UConn won 11 conference games in the American over 7 years, most of those were in the 2013 season when a lot of the schools were still transitioning from CUSA.

(09-07-2020 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 11:35 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2020 03:50 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The thread is not about being "braggadocious." That's an obvious red herring, and it's also an implied ad hominem. It's about putting the strongest case forward for taking bold action to meet the conference's strategic objectives. The people who are objecting to the AAC fans tooting their conference's horn are the same people who are opposed to replacing UConn or conference expansion of any kind.

I'm fine with replacing UConn - if we can add a school that is of equal or better value.

But, the AAC is in the position of "any school that wants to join us we don't need, and any school we want to join us isn't interested". Despite what UConn-haters might think, UConn was the only state flagship (a significant prestige factor, has zero to do with football) and one of the most valuable members of the conference.

Bottom line is, the only schools in the G5 that would be worth adding to fill UConn's spot would be a few schools way out west (Boise, BYU, Colorado State, SDSU) and they are bad fits geographically and have shown no interest in joining us. Nobody in C-USA the MAC or SBC is worth adding.

IIRC, UConn was NOT one of the most valuable assets according to ESPN. if certain schools left, the contact could be diminished. Believe those schools included Houston, Cincinnati, USF, and UCF and maybe one other. Don't think UConn was included in that group.

UConn basketball was a loss, despite how mediocre to poor they had become in MBB. UConn football had gone past dumpster fire status. Other than padding the win totals of other teams, it was addition by subtraction in football.

Wrong. It was UConn, Temple, Cincinnati and Houston. No Florida schools.

Now UConn's value was probably from basketball.

And UConn has never got to be as much as a dumpster fire as Temple and Rutgers were when they were in the Big East. Rutgers usually lost to Temple. Temple had one season where they drew 17,000 fans---for the ENTIRE year!

Maybe you are referring to the original AAC contract, but even then I think you are wrong, since it did not include UConn.

The deal that begins this year included UCF, Houston, Memphis, and Cincinnati as the single teams that would force a renegotiation of the deal by themselves. Otherwise it required multiple schools to force a renegotiation. UConn leaving did trigger an option for restructuring the current contract. The move either resulted in no change to individual team pay outs or possibly a small increase if overall value was not reduced one full share, which is what Aresco implied (probably a bit of spin) when he said it resulted in no significant changes.

UConn was not valuable in the 75-80% of the contract value (football) and had reduced value in the 18% that represented men's basketball while being almost entirely the 2% value that was women's basketball. Adding Dayton or VCU would replace a good portion of that 18% value losing UConn represents although not the clout of national championships. They would also tighten up geography while being relatively inexpensive. Wichita is looking at about 2m a year from the deal, a couple solid appearence in the NCAA and they contribute more in credits then they cost in media money, before taking into account media value/inventory they bring.

(09-07-2020 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm fine with replacing UConn - if we can add a school that is of equal or better value.

Bottom line is, the only schools in the G5 that would be worth adding to fill UConn's spot would be a few schools way out west (Boise, BYU, Colorado State, SDSU) and they are bad fits geographically and have shown no interest in joining us. Nobody in C-USA the MAC or SBC is worth adding.

This is where Commissioner Aresco did a great thing in getting the 11 team conference chip waiver for two seasons. There is no pressure to add a team for the sake of replacing UConn at this time. The last thing we needed was to add the best available "team x" and hope they can bring real value to the league. If, and I say IF, the AAC continues to improve it's on the field performance and continues to nab the NY6 bowl slot then some of the programs you mention may be more open to joining. A lot can happen in two more years. IMO, BYU would be the preferred choice because of their football history/brand followed by their consistency in winning hoops. I don't know of any other program out there that can bring that level of credibility on both fronts.

(09-07-2020 03:08 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm fine with replacing UConn - if we can add a school that is of equal or better value.

Bottom line is, the only schools in the G5 that would be worth adding to fill UConn's spot would be a few schools way out west (Boise, BYU, Colorado State, SDSU) and they are bad fits geographically and have shown no interest in joining us. Nobody in C-USA the MAC or SBC is worth adding.

This is where Commissioner Aresco did a great thing in getting the 11 team conference chip waiver for two seasons. There is no pressure to add a team for the sake of replacing UConn at this time. The last thing we needed was to add the best available "team x" and hope they can bring real value to the league. If, and I say IF, the AAC continues to improve it's on the field performance and continues to nab the NY6 bowl slot then some of the programs you mention may be more open to joining. A lot can happen in two more years. IMO, BYU would be the preferred choice because of their football history/brand followed by their consistency in winning hoops. I don't know of any other program out there that can bring that level of credibility on both fronts.

I agree, Aresco has managed this well. He's also managed the Covid situation well, keeping all the cats herded such that we don't have the chaos enveloping the B1G.

(09-07-2020 03:07 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 11:35 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2020 03:50 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The thread is not about being "braggadocious." That's an obvious red herring, and it's also an implied ad hominem. It's about putting the strongest case forward for taking bold action to meet the conference's strategic objectives. The people who are objecting to the AAC fans tooting their conference's horn are the same people who are opposed to replacing UConn or conference expansion of any kind.

I'm fine with replacing UConn - if we can add a school that is of equal or better value.

But, the AAC is in the position of "any school that wants to join us we don't need, and any school we want to join us isn't interested". Despite what UConn-haters might think, UConn was the only state flagship (a significant prestige factor, has zero to do with football) and one of the most valuable members of the conference.

Bottom line is, the only schools in the G5 that would be worth adding to fill UConn's spot would be a few schools way out west (Boise, BYU, Colorado State, SDSU) and they are bad fits geographically and have shown no interest in joining us. Nobody in C-USA the MAC or SBC is worth adding.

IIRC, UConn was NOT one of the most valuable assets according to ESPN. if certain schools left, the contact could be diminished. Believe those schools included Houston, Cincinnati, USF, and UCF and maybe one other. Don't think UConn was included in that group.

UConn basketball was a loss, despite how mediocre to poor they had become in MBB. UConn football had gone past dumpster fire status. Other than padding the win totals of other teams, it was addition by subtraction in football.

Wrong. It was UConn, Temple, Cincinnati and Houston. No Florida schools.

Now UConn's value was probably from basketball.

And UConn has never got to be as much as a dumpster fire as Temple and Rutgers were when they were in the Big East. Rutgers usually lost to Temple. Temple had one season where they drew 17,000 fans---for the ENTIRE year!

Maybe you are referring to the original AAC contract, but even then I think you are wrong, since it did not include UConn.

The deal that begins this year included UCF, Houston, Memphis, and Cincinnati as the single teams that would force a renegotiation of the deal by themselves. Otherwise it required multiple schools to force a renegotiation. UConn leaving did trigger an option for restructuring the current contract.

The "Group A" teams in the 2013 deal with NBC/ESPN were UConn, Temple, Cincy, and Houston:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...g-sources.

In the new 2020 deal, SBJ reported that ESPN could renegotiate the deal if any schools left, though the report said they were particularly concerned about UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston and Cincy possibly leaving. But the contract itself doesn't distinguish among any of the schools, there is no longer the Group A/B distinction.

(09-06-2020 08:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 06:39 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 04:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 03:41 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Considering that this is only the 7th year of the AAC's existence, I think the league can continue to improve its brand and competitiveness on the field. Scraping the UConn football dog poo from the bottom of the AAC shoe will certainly help in the latter. This season, due to COVID, could end up giving the AAC the most visibility and best postseason oppotunities that its ever had. I agree that talk is talk. Just go out and win.

UConn was a loss.

#1 was basketball. Having their women's and (although not in the last few years) their men's team raised the profile of the conference.
#2 was their flagship status. It was a name school and the premier school in their state. The rest of the schools are #2 at best in their state and usually 3rd or 4th or lower.
#3 was perception. UConn said the Big East was a better place.

The bottom 1/4th doesn't matter too much in perception. You need to have a strong top.

The flagship thing doesn’t mean a damn thing if you are in a state and region with little home grown talent. The fact of the matter is UConn just could not attract the talent that physically matched up with the athletes at schools in Florida, Texas and Ohio. I’ve said this before but it is better to be #2 in Ohio, #3 in PA, or #4-5 in Florida and Texas in recruiting than it is to be #1 in many states in this country.

Nebraska, Tennessee, Boise, Notre Dame. None of them have much home grown talent in their state in football. The Big 10 gets more players from Florida than the SEC does. Last time I saw, ACC got the most, Big 10 was 2nd and SEC was 3rd. College basketball is pretty much a national recruiting zone.

With good coaches, UConn has plenty of potential in football.

Probably why ND wants the deal with the ACC than with the BIG.

(09-06-2020 08:35 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-06-2020 07:58 PM)colohank Wrote:  UConn has about the same cachet as the so-called flagship institutions in the other New England states. The only thing that sets it apart is that its fans beat their chests about it.

So, in your opinion: Connecticut = Maine = Massachusetts = New Hampshire = Rhode Island = Vermont?

I think theres 2 distinct groups:
1) Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island
2) Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont

I would order them, if I had to:
1) Connecticut
2) Massachusetts
3) Rhode Island
4) Vermont
5) Maine
6) New Hampshire

Vermont was one of the original public ivies along with Cal, Michigan, Texas, UVA, William & Mary, Miami (O), UNC, etc. So unless they have declined since they dropped football, they would not be in the bottom half.

(09-07-2020 06:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 03:07 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 11:35 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm fine with replacing UConn - if we can add a school that is of equal or better value.

But, the AAC is in the position of "any school that wants to join us we don't need, and any school we want to join us isn't interested". Despite what UConn-haters might think, UConn was the only state flagship (a significant prestige factor, has zero to do with football) and one of the most valuable members of the conference.

Bottom line is, the only schools in the G5 that would be worth adding to fill UConn's spot would be a few schools way out west (Boise, BYU, Colorado State, SDSU) and they are bad fits geographically and have shown no interest in joining us. Nobody in C-USA the MAC or SBC is worth adding.

IIRC, UConn was NOT one of the most valuable assets according to ESPN. if certain schools left, the contact could be diminished. Believe those schools included Houston, Cincinnati, USF, and UCF and maybe one other. Don't think UConn was included in that group.

UConn basketball was a loss, despite how mediocre to poor they had become in MBB. UConn football had gone past dumpster fire status. Other than padding the win totals of other teams, it was addition by subtraction in football.

Wrong. It was UConn, Temple, Cincinnati and Houston. No Florida schools.

Now UConn's value was probably from basketball.

And UConn has never got to be as much as a dumpster fire as Temple and Rutgers were when they were in the Big East. Rutgers usually lost to Temple. Temple had one season where they drew 17,000 fans---for the ENTIRE year!

Maybe you are referring to the original AAC contract, but even then I think you are wrong, since it did not include UConn.

The deal that begins this year included UCF, Houston, Memphis, and Cincinnati as the single teams that would force a renegotiation of the deal by themselves. Otherwise it required multiple schools to force a renegotiation. UConn leaving did trigger an option for restructuring the current contract.

The "Group A" teams in the 2013 deal with NBC/ESPN were UConn, Temple, Cincy, and Houston:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...g-sources.

In the new 2020 deal, SBJ reported that ESPN could renegotiate the deal if any schools left, though the report said they were particularly concerned about UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston and Cincy possibly leaving. But the contract itself doesn't distinguish among any of the schools, there is no longer the Group A/B distinction.

And realistically, the AAC didn't have an 80/20 fb/bb split like the P5 in their first contract. They were getting paid similar to what the Big East was getting for basketball alone.