Let's reverse the "Boise to AAC" hypothetical situation and say Cincinnati is showing interesting in the Mountain West.

Does the MWC want UC? My take: Yes. Now (and to be fair), that is an odd hypothetical.

And, admittedly, as a UC fan (and as a major appreciator of the city of Cincinnati), I admit I'm biased when I note that the MWC would almost certainly want UC for many reasons (including the overall prestige it would bring to the league). But the point is simple: Boise brings a certain cache that a conference such as the AAC would have to at least consider as an appeal.

It's not easy to have "sexy/cache" if you're a G5. The list of G5 league members is limited. Memphis (hoops/musical city, rather big fan base), Cincy (endowment, academics, hoops/football) (and, yes, I listed the two G5s I like first ... sorry — not really), UNLV, Air Force, BYU, Army, Navy, AppState, Houston, SMU, Temple, Boise (football), Marshall (football), San Diego State (city and football/hoops combo) offer that level of cache and sexiness (not to a P5 league looking to expand but, in theory, to other G5 leagues).

(12-23-2020 05:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The first part of this article is essentially lays out exactly why its an absolutely automatic "yes" for the AAC to add Boise as a "football only" member of they are interested. The below line pretty much sums it up.

Most Group of 5 schools — heck, many Power 5 ones as well — spend decades and untold millions looking to establish what Boise did long ago: tradition, culture, identity, brand. It would fair to say Boise State is the Notre Dame of the Group of 5.



https://footballscoop.com/news/bryan-har...from-here/

Ahhh no

Boise has that cached with people over 35 and under 50. People over 50 don't give them much consideration in the college landscape. People under 35 don't have the BCS controversy and Statue of Liberty burned into their head. The average high school player outside of the NW and California is mostly oblivious.

Y’all’s perspective is too recent. Conferences broke up from the 30s to 60s. SEC, ACC, PAC and Big 8 were all products of secessions much like MWC. Schools outgrew their mates. Or overexpanded. The number has stayed about the same because those are the schools with the most fan support. Even the SWC did some shedding of smaller members but that was back in the 20s.

Utah and TCU got to good to ignore. Louisville got good and made too much money to ignore. BYU was too difficult to deal with coupled with religion meant they could be ignored. Boise is viewed as a community college

It would be quite a story if Chris Petersen returned to Boise — still 56.

(12-23-2020 07:11 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 05:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The first part of this article is essentially lays out exactly why its an absolutely automatic "yes" for the AAC to add Boise as a "football only" member of they are interested. The below line pretty much sums it up.

Most Group of 5 schools — heck, many Power 5 ones as well — spend decades and untold millions looking to establish what Boise did long ago: tradition, culture, identity, brand. It would fair to say Boise State is the Notre Dame of the Group of 5.



https://footballscoop.com/news/bryan-har...from-here/

Ahhh no

Boise has that cached with people over 35 and under 50. People over 50 don't give them much consideration in the college landscape. People under 35 don't have the BCS controversy and Statue of Liberty burned into their head. The average high school player outside of the NW and California is mostly oblivious.

I don't think they're an unknown for today's high school students. Boise gets a lot of love from ESPN, and the smurf turf is recognizable.
For those potential recruits, yes they've faded since 2014 Fiesta, and statue of liberty in 2007 Fiesta may not resonate, but still some brand value with today's youngsters. Not as much but still there.

What is the obsession with a coast to coast G5 conference in football? The travel doesn’t work as it currently is. Why would you subject your students to that? They have some great rivalries out there with BYU and Utah St. Get a rotation with the PAC 12 North and call it a day.

(12-23-2020 07:11 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 05:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The first part of this article is essentially lays out exactly why its an absolutely automatic "yes" for the AAC to add Boise as a "football only" member of they are interested. The below line pretty much sums it up.

Most Group of 5 schools — heck, many Power 5 ones as well — spend decades and untold millions looking to establish what Boise did long ago: tradition, culture, identity, brand. It would fair to say Boise State is the Notre Dame of the Group of 5.



https://footballscoop.com/news/bryan-har...from-here/

Ahhh no

Boise has that cached with people over 35 and under 50. People over 50 don't give them much consideration in the college landscape. People under 35 don't have the BCS controversy and Statue of Liberty burned into their head. The average high school player outside of the NW and California is mostly oblivious.

I have to agree. Their brand is overhyped here for sure. I remember before them Marshall was the big “giant killer” or whatever. Well, after a cold spell Marshall is no different from Akron, minus the movie, which is now probably too old for high schoolers anyway.

Boise won 3 BCS bowls. Marshall never got to play in one. Boise elevated its brand to its own level, though it’ll gradually wane unless they get back to where they were.

Obviously Marshall doesn’t have the more recent cache, but they were one of the reasons teams like Boise State started to gain a bit of respect. They were both great 1-AA teams that moved up in the 90’s and Marshall went 13-0 in ‘99 and finished like 10th. There was just NO way a team like Marshall or BSU was sniffing a BCS bowl then. I’d put that Marshall team up against any of those Boise State teams.

The point is there was a “Boise State” before Boise State, and there will be one after. We can look in the record books and dig up obscure Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl appearances, but what do they matter with Father Time working against them?

(12-23-2020 08:40 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  What is the obsession with a coast to coast G5 conference in football? The travel doesn’t work as it currently is. Why would you subject your students to that? They have some great rivalries out there with BYU and Utah St. Get a rotation with the PAC 12 North and call it a day.

The identity of the AAC is to be a challenger conference. Being #6 in conference strength GREATLY overrides proximity. It's an airplane league, and is the opposite of the MAC.

(12-23-2020 08:35 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 07:11 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 05:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The first part of this article is essentially lays out exactly why its an absolutely automatic "yes" for the AAC to add Boise as a "football only" member of they are interested. The below line pretty much sums it up.

Most Group of 5 schools — heck, many Power 5 ones as well — spend decades and untold millions looking to establish what Boise did long ago: tradition, culture, identity, brand. It would fair to say Boise State is the Notre Dame of the Group of 5.



https://footballscoop.com/news/bryan-har...from-here/

Ahhh no

Boise has that cached with people over 35 and under 50. People over 50 don't give them much consideration in the college landscape. People under 35 don't have the BCS controversy and Statue of Liberty burned into their head. The average high school player outside of the NW and California is mostly oblivious.

I don't think they're an unknown for today's high school students. Boise gets a lot of love from ESPN, and the smurf turf is recognizable.
For those potential recruits, yes they've faded since 2014 Fiesta, and statue of liberty in 2007 Fiesta may not resonate, but still some brand value with today's youngsters. Not as much but still there.

Fair enough, the blue turf holds some resonance. I would contend that reality is by far closer to my assessment that that they are a ND of the G5. Which to be truthful seems to be the role of BYU.

(12-23-2020 09:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 07:11 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 05:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The first part of this article is essentially lays out exactly why its an absolutely automatic "yes" for the AAC to add Boise as a "football only" member of they are interested. The below line pretty much sums it up.

Most Group of 5 schools — heck, many Power 5 ones as well — spend decades and untold millions looking to establish what Boise did long ago: tradition, culture, identity, brand. It would fair to say Boise State is the Notre Dame of the Group of 5.



https://footballscoop.com/news/bryan-har...from-here/

Ahhh no

Boise has that cached with people over 35 and under 50. People over 50 don't give them much consideration in the college landscape. People under 35 don't have the BCS controversy and Statue of Liberty burned into their head. The average high school player outside of the NW and California is mostly oblivious.

I have to agree. Their brand is overhyped here for sure. I remember before them Marshall was the big “giant killer” or whatever. Well, after a cold spell Marshall is no different from Akron, minus the movie, which is now probably too old for high schoolers anyway.

And that "cold spell" is exactly why Boise isnt Marshall. Consistency. Boise has been winning at a high level in FBS for over 20 years. They have been to a bowl every single year since 1999 (they opted to sit out this year, but played in the CCG and could have had a bowl if they wanted). Boise finished ranked in the top 25 in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2019. The same people saying "Boise is waning" or they "arent that big a name" are the same people that will trumpet flavor of the month picks like UAB, Georgia St, App St, or Marshall as good options for the AAC #12 slot. Despite being a G5, Boise is a name instantly recognized by even casual college football fans. If the AAC has the opportunity to add Boise to its roster of teams---they would be silly not to capitalize on that opportunity.

(12-24-2020 01:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 09:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 07:11 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 05:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The first part of this article is essentially lays out exactly why its an absolutely automatic "yes" for the AAC to add Boise as a "football only" member of they are interested. The below line pretty much sums it up.

Most Group of 5 schools — heck, many Power 5 ones as well — spend decades and untold millions looking to establish what Boise did long ago: tradition, culture, identity, brand. It would fair to say Boise State is the Notre Dame of the Group of 5.



https://footballscoop.com/news/bryan-har...from-here/

Ahhh no

Boise has that cached with people over 35 and under 50. People over 50 don't give them much consideration in the college landscape. People under 35 don't have the BCS controversy and Statue of Liberty burned into their head. The average high school player outside of the NW and California is mostly oblivious.

I have to agree. Their brand is overhyped here for sure. I remember before them Marshall was the big “giant killer” or whatever. Well, after a cold spell Marshall is no different from Akron, minus the movie, which is now probably too old for high schoolers anyway.

And that "cold spell" is exactly why Boise isnt Marshall. Consistency. Boise has been winning at a high level in FBS for over 20 years. They have been to a bowl every single year since 1999 (they opted to sit out this year, but played in the CCG and could have had a bowl if they wanted). Boise finished ranked in the top 25 in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2019. The same people saying "Boise is waning" or they "arent that big a name" are the same people that will trumpet flavor of the month picks like UAB, Georgia St, App St, or Marshall as good options for the AAC #12 slot. Despite being a G5, Boise is a name instantly recognized by even casual college football fans. If the AAC has the opportunity to add Boise to its roster of teams---they would be silly not to capitalize on that opportunity.

Well I can’t argue against their success and I am intrigued to see how they fair in the AAC if it happens. For the record, I think Rice is the best choice for a myriad of reasons I’ve illustrated before. Regardless, the AAC has nothing to lose with a Boise State football-only addition.

(12-24-2020 01:27 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 01:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 09:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 07:11 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 05:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The first part of this article is essentially lays out exactly why its an absolutely automatic "yes" for the AAC to add Boise as a "football only" member of they are interested. The below line pretty much sums it up.

Most Group of 5 schools — heck, many Power 5 ones as well — spend decades and untold millions looking to establish what Boise did long ago: tradition, culture, identity, brand. It would fair to say Boise State is the Notre Dame of the Group of 5.



https://footballscoop.com/news/bryan-har...from-here/

Ahhh no

Boise has that cached with people over 35 and under 50. People over 50 don't give them much consideration in the college landscape. People under 35 don't have the BCS controversy and Statue of Liberty burned into their head. The average high school player outside of the NW and California is mostly oblivious.

I have to agree. Their brand is overhyped here for sure. I remember before them Marshall was the big “giant killer” or whatever. Well, after a cold spell Marshall is no different from Akron, minus the movie, which is now probably too old for high schoolers anyway.

And that "cold spell" is exactly why Boise isnt Marshall. Consistency. Boise has been winning at a high level in FBS for over 20 years. They have been to a bowl every single year since 1999 (they opted to sit out this year, but played in the CCG and could have had a bowl if they wanted). Boise finished ranked in the top 25 in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2019. The same people saying "Boise is waning" or they "arent that big a name" are the same people that will trumpet flavor of the month picks like UAB, Georgia St, App St, or Marshall as good options for the AAC #12 slot. Despite being a G5, Boise is a name instantly recognized by even casual college football fans. If the AAC has the opportunity to add Boise to its roster of teams---they would be silly not to capitalize on that opportunity.

Well I can’t argue against their success and I am intrigued to see how they fair in the AAC if it happens. For the record, I think Rice is the best choice for a myriad of reasons I’ve illustrated before. Regardless, the AAC has nothing to lose with a Boise State football-only addition.

Really? That kinda surprises me. They would be near the bottom of my list of candidates. Just a couple of reasons. One---the AAC already has a team in Houston. Two---I think the AAC has to be very wary of the "getting the old band back together" CUSA stigma---which is why I think it would be smart to avoid any more old CUSA teams. Then there is the generally poor performance of the key Owl football and basketball programs. Plus, Rice is another very small school---which we already have several smaller private schools---a fact that probably doesnt get a bowl committee's juices roiling when it comes time to negotiate a bowl tie deal. .

Look, I dont want to pile on---I like Rice and usually try to attend at least one game a year there just because I like to support local teams. I always root for Rice when they arent playing an AAC team and I was happy to see them have some success this year. I just dont think Rice would be the best way to fill UConn's vacancy if we want to maximize the positive impact of filling that slot.

(12-23-2020 05:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  .

The first part of this article lays out exactly why its an absolutely automatic "yes" for the AAC to add Boise as a "football only" member of they are interested.

Agree, but if they can't find a conference to park their BB/olympic teams in, should the AAC let the opportunity pass, or should they agree to allow Boise in as a all-sports member for 2-3 years, with their transition reverting to FB-only after the 2-3 years expire?

It seems clear that the only thing that has stood in the way has been Boise's inability to get their BB/olympic teams into one of their preferred conferences.

If the AAC were to welcome them in for at least a year or two as a temporary all-sports member, that might bring them aboard, since it would give them time to work out a longer-term solution.

It seems very likely that the Big Sky Conf. would take them in as a BB/oly member, but Boise is reluctant, so they're not willing to make the FB switch to AAC yet. However, if they could park their other sports in the AAC for a year, their FB membership in the AAC would be a fait accompli', and at that point, if the Big Sky were their best available option, that's where they would have to go.

Boise St. would clearly prefer to find a BB/oly conference before joining the AAC, but if offered such an arrangement, they might go for it.

A strategy like that might get the job done, and it would cost the AAC nothing, except a few BB/olympic sports trips to Boise for one season.

Whattaya' think?

.

(12-23-2020 10:07 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 08:40 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  What is the obsession with a coast to coast G5 conference in football? The travel doesn’t work as it currently is. Why would you subject your students to that? They have some great rivalries out there with BYU and Utah St. Get a rotation with the PAC 12 North and call it a day.

The identity of the AAC is to be a challenger conference. Being #6 in conference strength GREATLY overrides proximity. It's an airplane league, and is the opposite of the MAC.

No... sixth best is not some crowing achievement. A coveted NY6 bowl with a “marquee rep” is not going to change the fortunes for an entire conference. Because that rep will be scooped up by a P5 in due course. Boise just needs to get a scheduling agreement with the PAC 12 or Big 12 for recruiting purposes and focus on winning their conference before going for greener pastures in a conference far far away. And the AAC is not a challenger conference. Bearcats have been a top program but it’s really year to year with those schools. UCF falling off is a perfect example. As soon as a program becomes consistent, they will get a call from the Big 12 or somewhere else needing a backfill.

Talk about overhyped on this forum— Rice gets more mentions on this board than they do people in the stands for their football and basketball games combined.

The only person who hypes Boise is DavidSt, and nobody listens to him.

(12-24-2020 01:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 01:27 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 01:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 09:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 07:11 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Ahhh no

Boise has that cached with people over 35 and under 50. People over 50 don't give them much consideration in the college landscape. People under 35 don't have the BCS controversy and Statue of Liberty burned into their head. The average high school player outside of the NW and California is mostly oblivious.

I have to agree. Their brand is overhyped here for sure. I remember before them Marshall was the big “giant killer” or whatever. Well, after a cold spell Marshall is no different from Akron, minus the movie, which is now probably too old for high schoolers anyway.

And that "cold spell" is exactly why Boise isnt Marshall. Consistency. Boise has been winning at a high level in FBS for over 20 years. They have been to a bowl every single year since 1999 (they opted to sit out this year, but played in the CCG and could have had a bowl if they wanted). Boise finished ranked in the top 25 in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2019. The same people saying "Boise is waning" or they "arent that big a name" are the same people that will trumpet flavor of the month picks like UAB, Georgia St, App St, or Marshall as good options for the AAC #12 slot. Despite being a G5, Boise is a name instantly recognized by even casual college football fans. If the AAC has the opportunity to add Boise to its roster of teams---they would be silly not to capitalize on that opportunity.

Well I can’t argue against their success and I am intrigued to see how they fair in the AAC if it happens. For the record, I think Rice is the best choice for a myriad of reasons I’ve illustrated before. Regardless, the AAC has nothing to lose with a Boise State football-only addition.

Really? That kinda surprises me. They would be near the bottom of my list of candidates. Just a couple of reasons. One---the AAC already has a team in Houston. Two---I think the AAC has to be very wary of the "getting the old band back together" CUSA stigma---which is why I think it would be smart to avoid any more old CUSA teams. Then there is the generally poor performance of the key Owl football and basketball programs. Plus, Rice is another very small school---which we already have several smaller private schools---a fact that probably doesnt get a bowl committee's juices roiling when it comes time to negotiate a bowl tie deal. .

Look, I dont want to pile on---I like Rice and usually try to attend at least one game a year there just because I like to support local teams. I always root for Rice when they arent playing an AAC team and I was happy to see them have some success this year. I just dont think Rice would be the best way to fill UConn's vacancy if we want to maximize the positive impact of filling that slot.

Agreed, I don't see the athletic value of Rice at all. They'd be way down my list if the AAC had to expand.

(12-24-2020 12:30 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 08:35 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 07:11 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 05:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The first part of this article is essentially lays out exactly why its an absolutely automatic "yes" for the AAC to add Boise as a "football only" member of they are interested. The below line pretty much sums it up.

Most Group of 5 schools — heck, many Power 5 ones as well — spend decades and untold millions looking to establish what Boise did long ago: tradition, culture, identity, brand. It would fair to say Boise State is the Notre Dame of the Group of 5.



https://footballscoop.com/news/bryan-har...from-here/

Ahhh no

Boise has that cached with people over 35 and under 50. People over 50 don't give them much consideration in the college landscape. People under 35 don't have the BCS controversy and Statue of Liberty burned into their head. The average high school player outside of the NW and California is mostly oblivious.

I don't think they're an unknown for today's high school students. Boise gets a lot of love from ESPN, and the smurf turf is recognizable.
For those potential recruits, yes they've faded since 2014 Fiesta, and statue of liberty in 2007 Fiesta may not resonate, but still some brand value with today's youngsters. Not as much but still there.

Fair enough, the blue turf holds some resonance. I would contend that reality is by far closer to my assessment that that they are a ND of the G5. Which to be truthful seems to be the role of BYU.

Actually, the blue turf has lost its novelty and is just annoying. Imagine if other teams went that route -- red turf in Cincy, purple at ECU, gold at CFU, etc. Gross.