(09-08-2020 11:23 AM)App10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 10:34 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 10:05 AM)App10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 07:53 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 07:40 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  The Big12-2 isn't hamstrung. The Big12-2 signed up for more money not to bring in any other team.

And the reality is that AAC Presidents are like ...we gud...

They are not looking to add anyone maybe any time soon. Even if the waiver doesn't continue I am sure they have contingencies to play a schedule like the B12. This is all great message board fodder but the reality that may make some fans throw up a little in their mouths is that until one or a handful of G5 schools that are cultural and geographic fits separate themselves from the pack nothing will change. Thats who #12 or #12-14 will be taken from. It's not going to be some schools 2 or 3 time zones away and especially not any tha have been building and spending for a power conference move.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

This post is kind of why i don’t get why App State isn’t mentioned as much as the schools who have said no to the AAC a million times. 61-17 in 6 years, 1 losing record in the last 2 decades, couple P5 wins (should have a couple more), and undefeated in bowl games. Obviously in the geographic location. We certainly have AAC quality facilities as it pertains to football.

Now I’m not saying App checks every box, but about the only ones we do not check i would say are academically related, our grad programs are a bit more limited and obviously we’re not in a metro area. But i do wonder how much the presidents would actually take that into account in this day and age. It’s also not like our academics are anything to scoff at, not like we’re a degree mill. I can also admit one of the things that could be a drawback is our budget compared to the AAC, but we do bring in the most revenue in the SBC. But I’ve said it before a couple times, if the conference is looking for strictly a candidate who boosts the football resume, then App would be a very strong candidate.

This isn’t meant as a “oh please consider my school!!” post, because obviously no one here has any control, but maybe this will allow you to stop driving yourselves insane thinking that BYU and Boise will ever join the AAC, or that the AAC wants a random California school, and get around to considering much more logical candidates.

The vast majority of the AAC are Tier One national research universities and are urban / metro schools. That is just a fact. Could the Presidents make a ECU exception? Perhaps. But history tells us that Presidents tend to want to invite schools that look like theirs and / or with whom they have a relationship.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I acknowledged this. The problem is what “Tier One national research university in a metro/urban area” is going to bring any kind of value to a contract that is based on football performance? While also being a geographic fit for the conference. Not trying to be harsh but it ain’t GAST, and that’s about the only school that fits the bill. I guess my entire point is there isn’t a slam dunk add if you’re an AAC president, i just don’t see how if you’re really looking to max out the TV contract (which is absolutely what determines Power Conference status) you try to add the best academic fit rather than the best football fit. If anyone is ever added to the conference I’m kinda willing to bet academics aren’t going to be the first piece of criteria looked at by the presidents.

1) a disclaimer...i am NOT talking about GSU.

2) I don't make the rules. Performance has nothing to do with realignment.

Missouri
Rutgers
Pitt

More often than not middling or not top performing programs at the time are taken. Institutional support is more important because a HC change can change a program quickly. So don't take Idaho for instance.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(09-08-2020 11:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:23 AM)App10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 10:34 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 10:05 AM)App10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 07:53 AM)panama Wrote:  And the reality is that AAC Presidents are like ...we gud...

They are not looking to add anyone maybe any time soon. Even if the waiver doesn't continue I am sure they have contingencies to play a schedule like the B12. This is all great message board fodder but the reality that may make some fans throw up a little in their mouths is that until one or a handful of G5 schools that are cultural and geographic fits separate themselves from the pack nothing will change. Thats who #12 or #12-14 will be taken from. It's not going to be some schools 2 or 3 time zones away and especially not any tha have been building and spending for a power conference move.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

This post is kind of why i don’t get why App State isn’t mentioned as much as the schools who have said no to the AAC a million times. 61-17 in 6 years, 1 losing record in the last 2 decades, couple P5 wins (should have a couple more), and undefeated in bowl games. Obviously in the geographic location. We certainly have AAC quality facilities as it pertains to football.

Now I’m not saying App checks every box, but about the only ones we do not check i would say are academically related, our grad programs are a bit more limited and obviously we’re not in a metro area. But i do wonder how much the presidents would actually take that into account in this day and age. It’s also not like our academics are anything to scoff at, not like we’re a degree mill. I can also admit one of the things that could be a drawback is our budget compared to the AAC, but we do bring in the most revenue in the SBC. But I’ve said it before a couple times, if the conference is looking for strictly a candidate who boosts the football resume, then App would be a very strong candidate.

This isn’t meant as a “oh please consider my school!!” post, because obviously no one here has any control, but maybe this will allow you to stop driving yourselves insane thinking that BYU and Boise will ever join the AAC, or that the AAC wants a random California school, and get around to considering much more logical candidates.

The vast majority of the AAC are Tier One national research universities and are urban / metro schools. That is just a fact. Could the Presidents make a ECU exception? Perhaps. But history tells us that Presidents tend to want to invite schools that look like theirs and / or with whom they have a relationship.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I acknowledged this. The problem is what “Tier One national research university in a metro/urban area” is going to bring any kind of value to a contract that is based on football performance? While also being a geographic fit for the conference. Not trying to be harsh but it ain’t GAST, and that’s about the only school that fits the bill. I guess my entire point is there isn’t a slam dunk add if you’re an AAC president, i just don’t see how if you’re really looking to max out the TV contract (which is absolutely what determines Power Conference status) you try to add the best academic fit rather than the best football fit. If anyone is ever added to the conference I’m kinda willing to bet academics aren’t going to be the first piece of criteria looked at by the presidents.

1) a disclaimer...i am NOT talking about GSU.

2) I don't make the rules. Performance has nothing to do with realignment.

Missouri
Rutgers
Pitt

More often than not middling or not top performing programs at the time are taken. Institutional support is more important because a HC change can change a program quickly. So don't take Idaho for instance.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Rules are different when you are the SEC or B10 etc. Alabama and Ohio State and Clemson can hide a bad team in your conference. AAC is fighting for respect at every corner you can't take on a Rutgers football type program.

(09-08-2020 12:03 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:23 AM)App10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 10:34 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 10:05 AM)App10 Wrote:  This post is kind of why i don’t get why App State isn’t mentioned as much as the schools who have said no to the AAC a million times. 61-17 in 6 years, 1 losing record in the last 2 decades, couple P5 wins (should have a couple more), and undefeated in bowl games. Obviously in the geographic location. We certainly have AAC quality facilities as it pertains to football.

Now I’m not saying App checks every box, but about the only ones we do not check i would say are academically related, our grad programs are a bit more limited and obviously we’re not in a metro area. But i do wonder how much the presidents would actually take that into account in this day and age. It’s also not like our academics are anything to scoff at, not like we’re a degree mill. I can also admit one of the things that could be a drawback is our budget compared to the AAC, but we do bring in the most revenue in the SBC. But I’ve said it before a couple times, if the conference is looking for strictly a candidate who boosts the football resume, then App would be a very strong candidate.

This isn’t meant as a “oh please consider my school!!” post, because obviously no one here has any control, but maybe this will allow you to stop driving yourselves insane thinking that BYU and Boise will ever join the AAC, or that the AAC wants a random California school, and get around to considering much more logical candidates.

The vast majority of the AAC are Tier One national research universities and are urban / metro schools. That is just a fact. Could the Presidents make a ECU exception? Perhaps. But history tells us that Presidents tend to want to invite schools that look like theirs and / or with whom they have a relationship.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I acknowledged this. The problem is what “Tier One national research university in a metro/urban area” is going to bring any kind of value to a contract that is based on football performance? While also being a geographic fit for the conference. Not trying to be harsh but it ain’t GAST, and that’s about the only school that fits the bill. I guess my entire point is there isn’t a slam dunk add if you’re an AAC president, i just don’t see how if you’re really looking to max out the TV contract (which is absolutely what determines Power Conference status) you try to add the best academic fit rather than the best football fit. If anyone is ever added to the conference I’m kinda willing to bet academics aren’t going to be the first piece of criteria looked at by the presidents.

1) a disclaimer...i am NOT talking about GSU.

2) I don't make the rules. Performance has nothing to do with realignment.

Missouri
Rutgers
Pitt

More often than not middling or not top performing programs at the time are taken. Institutional support is more important because a HC change can change a program quickly. So don't take Idaho for instance.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Rules are different when you are the SEC or B10 etc. Alabama and Ohio State and Clemson can hide a bad team in your conference. AAC is fighting for respect at every corner you can't take on a Rutgers football type program.

No they are not. CUSA took Charlotte when App was available. GSU got into to the SBC before App and GS. Going by performance in football alone those two should have been shoe ins to either conference. But performance can go up or down quickly and can improve with one or two hires. Think of where North Texas was a decade ago vs now. Memphis now vs 2011. ECU then and now. Fortunes can rise and fall. Presidents are Presidents first and the main thing they are looking for is is this school going to support athletics to the level of the conference? Do they fit with us geographically and institutionally? There are always exceptions especially when say half your conference leaves and you're just trying to stop the bleeding. But in a situation like the AAC's where they are not being pressured to add anyone you're likely going to see a slow methodical process that comes up with a clone of the majority of the current members.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(09-08-2020 12:03 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:23 AM)App10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 10:34 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 10:05 AM)App10 Wrote:  This post is kind of why i don’t get why App State isn’t mentioned as much as the schools who have said no to the AAC a million times. 61-17 in 6 years, 1 losing record in the last 2 decades, couple P5 wins (should have a couple more), and undefeated in bowl games. Obviously in the geographic location. We certainly have AAC quality facilities as it pertains to football.

Now I’m not saying App checks every box, but about the only ones we do not check i would say are academically related, our grad programs are a bit more limited and obviously we’re not in a metro area. But i do wonder how much the presidents would actually take that into account in this day and age. It’s also not like our academics are anything to scoff at, not like we’re a degree mill. I can also admit one of the things that could be a drawback is our budget compared to the AAC, but we do bring in the most revenue in the SBC. But I’ve said it before a couple times, if the conference is looking for strictly a candidate who boosts the football resume, then App would be a very strong candidate.

This isn’t meant as a “oh please consider my school!!” post, because obviously no one here has any control, but maybe this will allow you to stop driving yourselves insane thinking that BYU and Boise will ever join the AAC, or that the AAC wants a random California school, and get around to considering much more logical candidates.

The vast majority of the AAC are Tier One national research universities and are urban / metro schools. That is just a fact. Could the Presidents make a ECU exception? Perhaps. But history tells us that Presidents tend to want to invite schools that look like theirs and / or with whom they have a relationship.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I acknowledged this. The problem is what “Tier One national research university in a metro/urban area” is going to bring any kind of value to a contract that is based on football performance? While also being a geographic fit for the conference. Not trying to be harsh but it ain’t GAST, and that’s about the only school that fits the bill. I guess my entire point is there isn’t a slam dunk add if you’re an AAC president, i just don’t see how if you’re really looking to max out the TV contract (which is absolutely what determines Power Conference status) you try to add the best academic fit rather than the best football fit. If anyone is ever added to the conference I’m kinda willing to bet academics aren’t going to be the first piece of criteria looked at by the presidents.

1) a disclaimer...i am NOT talking about GSU.

2) I don't make the rules. Performance has nothing to do with realignment.

Missouri
Rutgers
Pitt

More often than not middling or not top performing programs at the time are taken. Institutional support is more important because a HC change can change a program quickly. So don't take Idaho for instance.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Rules are different when you are the SEC or B10 etc. Alabama and Ohio State and Clemson can hide a bad team in your conference. AAC is fighting for respect at every corner you can't take on a Rutgers football type program.

Exactly this. The AAC’s entire gameplan is to get to Power status, and the only way to theoretically do that is by getting good enough in the sport that it can’t be ignored, and most importantly, TV can’t ignore you. SEC, ACC, and B1G don’t have these problems to worry about. Comparing those situations to what the AAC is facing is apples and oranges.

(09-08-2020 12:33 PM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 12:03 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:23 AM)App10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 10:34 AM)panama Wrote:  The vast majority of the AAC are Tier One national research universities and are urban / metro schools. That is just a fact. Could the Presidents make a ECU exception? Perhaps. But history tells us that Presidents tend to want to invite schools that look like theirs and / or with whom they have a relationship.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I acknowledged this. The problem is what “Tier One national research university in a metro/urban area” is going to bring any kind of value to a contract that is based on football performance? While also being a geographic fit for the conference. Not trying to be harsh but it ain’t GAST, and that’s about the only school that fits the bill. I guess my entire point is there isn’t a slam dunk add if you’re an AAC president, i just don’t see how if you’re really looking to max out the TV contract (which is absolutely what determines Power Conference status) you try to add the best academic fit rather than the best football fit. If anyone is ever added to the conference I’m kinda willing to bet academics aren’t going to be the first piece of criteria looked at by the presidents.

1) a disclaimer...i am NOT talking about GSU.

2) I don't make the rules. Performance has nothing to do with realignment.

Missouri
Rutgers
Pitt

More often than not middling or not top performing programs at the time are taken. Institutional support is more important because a HC change can change a program quickly. So don't take Idaho for instance.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Rules are different when you are the SEC or B10 etc. Alabama and Ohio State and Clemson can hide a bad team in your conference. AAC is fighting for respect at every corner you can't take on a Rutgers football type program.

No they are not. CUSA took Charlotte when App was available. GSU got into to the SBC before App and GS. Going by performance in football alone those two should have been shoe ins to either conference. But performance can go up or down quickly and can improve with one or two hires. Think of where North Texas was a decade ago vs now. Memphis now vs 2011. ECU then and now. Fortunes can rise and fall. Presidents are Presidents first and the main thing they are looking for is is this school going to support athletics to the level of the conference? Do they fit with us geographically and institutionally? There are always exceptions especially when say half your conference leaves and you're just trying to stop the bleeding. But in a situation like the AAC's where they are not being pressured to add anyone you're likely going to see a slow methodical process that comes up with a clone of the majority of the current members.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Again, apples to oranges. CUSA wrongfully figured if they added UNCC then along with them would come the Charlotte TV market, thinking that would bump up the TV contract. Awful assumption by them. As far as GSU getting to the SBC prior to GS and App, you also have to consider that the admin at App was split about joining FBS for a couple years, and GS and App were only going to make the jump if it was done together.

AAC is also on the clock with the expiring waiver. I’m not as certain as you all seem to be that the NCAA is going to make an exception for the AAC.

(09-08-2020 12:45 PM)App10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 12:33 PM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 12:03 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:23 AM)App10 Wrote:  I acknowledged this. The problem is what “Tier One national research university in a metro/urban area” is going to bring any kind of value to a contract that is based on football performance? While also being a geographic fit for the conference. Not trying to be harsh but it ain’t GAST, and that’s about the only school that fits the bill. I guess my entire point is there isn’t a slam dunk add if you’re an AAC president, i just don’t see how if you’re really looking to max out the TV contract (which is absolutely what determines Power Conference status) you try to add the best academic fit rather than the best football fit. If anyone is ever added to the conference I’m kinda willing to bet academics aren’t going to be the first piece of criteria looked at by the presidents.

1) a disclaimer...i am NOT talking about GSU.

2) I don't make the rules. Performance has nothing to do with realignment.

Missouri
Rutgers
Pitt

More often than not middling or not top performing programs at the time are taken. Institutional support is more important because a HC change can change a program quickly. So don't take Idaho for instance.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Rules are different when you are the SEC or B10 etc. Alabama and Ohio State and Clemson can hide a bad team in your conference. AAC is fighting for respect at every corner you can't take on a Rutgers football type program.

No they are not. CUSA took Charlotte when App was available. GSU got into to the SBC before App and GS. Going by performance in football alone those two should have been shoe ins to either conference. But performance can go up or down quickly and can improve with one or two hires. Think of where North Texas was a decade ago vs now. Memphis now vs 2011. ECU then and now. Fortunes can rise and fall. Presidents are Presidents first and the main thing they are looking for is is this school going to support athletics to the level of the conference? Do they fit with us geographically and institutionally? There are always exceptions especially when say half your conference leaves and you're just trying to stop the bleeding. But in a situation like the AAC's where they are not being pressured to add anyone you're likely going to see a slow methodical process that comes up with a clone of the majority of the current members.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Again, apples to oranges. CUSA wrongfully figured if they added UNCC then along with them would come the Charlotte TV market, thinking that would bump up the TV contract. Awful assumption by them. As far as GSU getting to the SBC prior to GS and App, you also have to consider that the admin at App was split about joining FBS for a couple years, and GS and App were only going to make the jump if it was done together.

AAC is also on the clock with the expiring waiver. I’m not as certain as you all seem to be that the NCAA is going to make an exception for the AAC.

I honestly believe the AAC's backup plan is to simply go back to two football divisions, likely with Navy in the West. I'm not sure how that affects the conference scheduling, but the AAC can still have a CCG (without an exemption or rule change) as long as both divisions play a divisional round robin schedule.

So, Navy-Tulsa-SMU-Houston-Memphis-Tulane all play each other and Temple-Cincy-ECU-UCF-USF all play each other with the CCG participants coming from those two groups. May be a couple of teams play 7 or 9 conference games, but that is certainly a viable option.

(09-08-2020 12:35 PM)App10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 12:03 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:23 AM)App10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 10:34 AM)panama Wrote:  The vast majority of the AAC are Tier One national research universities and are urban / metro schools. That is just a fact. Could the Presidents make a ECU exception? Perhaps. But history tells us that Presidents tend to want to invite schools that look like theirs and / or with whom they have a relationship.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I acknowledged this. The problem is what “Tier One national research university in a metro/urban area” is going to bring any kind of value to a contract that is based on football performance? While also being a geographic fit for the conference. Not trying to be harsh but it ain’t GAST, and that’s about the only school that fits the bill. I guess my entire point is there isn’t a slam dunk add if you’re an AAC president, i just don’t see how if you’re really looking to max out the TV contract (which is absolutely what determines Power Conference status) you try to add the best academic fit rather than the best football fit. If anyone is ever added to the conference I’m kinda willing to bet academics aren’t going to be the first piece of criteria looked at by the presidents.

1) a disclaimer...i am NOT talking about GSU.

2) I don't make the rules. Performance has nothing to do with realignment.

Missouri
Rutgers
Pitt

More often than not middling or not top performing programs at the time are taken. Institutional support is more important because a HC change can change a program quickly. So don't take Idaho for instance.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Rules are different when you are the SEC or B10 etc. Alabama and Ohio State and Clemson can hide a bad team in your conference. AAC is fighting for respect at every corner you can't take on a Rutgers football type program.

Exactly this. The AAC’s entire gameplan is to get to Power status, and the only way to theoretically do that is by getting good enough in the sport that it can’t be ignored, and most importantly, TV can’t ignore you. SEC, ACC, and B1G don’t have these problems to worry about. Comparing those situations to what the AAC is facing is apples and oranges.

I am sure they have 10 contingencies that do not involve adding anyone

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(09-08-2020 12:53 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 12:45 PM)App10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 12:33 PM)panama Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 12:03 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 11:31 AM)panama Wrote:  1) a disclaimer...i am NOT talking about GSU.

2) I don't make the rules. Performance has nothing to do with realignment.

Missouri
Rutgers
Pitt

More often than not middling or not top performing programs at the time are taken. Institutional support is more important because a HC change can change a program quickly. So don't take Idaho for instance.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Rules are different when you are the SEC or B10 etc. Alabama and Ohio State and Clemson can hide a bad team in your conference. AAC is fighting for respect at every corner you can't take on a Rutgers football type program.

No they are not. CUSA took Charlotte when App was available. GSU got into to the SBC before App and GS. Going by performance in football alone those two should have been shoe ins to either conference. But performance can go up or down quickly and can improve with one or two hires. Think of where North Texas was a decade ago vs now. Memphis now vs 2011. ECU then and now. Fortunes can rise and fall. Presidents are Presidents first and the main thing they are looking for is is this school going to support athletics to the level of the conference? Do they fit with us geographically and institutionally? There are always exceptions especially when say half your conference leaves and you're just trying to stop the bleeding. But in a situation like the AAC's where they are not being pressured to add anyone you're likely going to see a slow methodical process that comes up with a clone of the majority of the current members.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Again, apples to oranges. CUSA wrongfully figured if they added UNCC then along with them would come the Charlotte TV market, thinking that would bump up the TV contract. Awful assumption by them. As far as GSU getting to the SBC prior to GS and App, you also have to consider that the admin at App was split about joining FBS for a couple years, and GS and App were only going to make the jump if it was done together.

AAC is also on the clock with the expiring waiver. I’m not as certain as you all seem to be that the NCAA is going to make an exception for the AAC.

I honestly believe the AAC's backup plan is to simply go back to two football divisions, likely with Navy in the West. I'm not sure how that affects the conference scheduling, but the AAC can still have a CCG (without an exemption or rule change) as long as both divisions play a divisional round robin schedule.

So, Navy-Tulsa-SMU-Houston-Memphis-Tulane all play each other and Temple-Cincy-ECU-UCF-USF all play each other with the CCG participants coming from those two groups. May be a couple of teams play 7 or 9 conference games, but that is certainly a viable option.

Probably not the worst idea.