(12-27-2020 12:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:20 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 08:45 AM)dave108 Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 12:29 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-25-2020 10:47 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Exactly. Some seem to act like if their school had BSU's alterative to make more $$ by staying put, they wouldn't have done it. And even then BSU PAID their exit fee not to come. It's business. And the AAC should do what's best for business, whatever that is

Except that's not what happened. Boise went from a team player to an attempted hostile take over. They did so and hung in the balance the SDSU move and the Navy move, so they could try and grab a bigger chunk of the money and attention then they deserved or had earned. They held SDSU hostage and would have been ok with pushing Navy out if that was the cost. At no point did they demonstrate they were team players and basically did exactly what Pittsburg did to the old big east knowing they had a safe harbor to do so.

When that attempt failed they found someone who was scared and agreed. Again rather than being a team player, they attempted to bully and control their conference regardless of its negative effect which by the way is reflected back on to Boise. When the conference had enough and made the decision to do what was best for all members not just what benefits Boise, Boise again tried to strong arm themselves into something they did not deserve or earn and play the AAC off against the MW in mirror of what they did before.

All the while they have failed to dominate their own conference even with advantages they robbed, much less pose a true threat to the AAC's dominance of the NY6. I worry more about BYU having a good schedule and a miracle season or two over the next years with the committee making them our NY6 opponent and trust me I don't lose sleep about that.

Money is one value of the relationship, but there are other things that also matter.

The most important point, rarely mentioned - DOES ESPN WANT THIS TO HAPPEN?
if so, it does, with maybe a little more money for all, and espn gets to (kinda) stick it to fox. if espn says no / could care less - it dies. nothing else really matters. its the age old golden rule.

ESPN will have a say, it will carry a lot of weight, but that is backwards to how this will work despite the wide held belief that ESPN calls the shot.

A team will approach the AAC, the AAC will take those they consider real possibilities and get feed back from ESPN. Then they will tell the ADs what ESPN thinks and it will go into their consideration. If ESPN indicates there will be zero change if we add them it will matter, if they agree to it at cost (UConn's portion) that will matter, or if it involves a bump that will matter. It will be important but it will get ranked in with things like fit, performance, geography, and three or four things each school will consider important.

If they don't at least agree to up the money to cover Boise then yeah it's not happening. Beyond that it will probably require a significant bump/cut to be the factor in consideration.

I doubt we see any bump. They didn’t kill us when UConn left—so we were treated pretty fairly given we are delivering less inventory than we originally contracted for and no longer have any connection to the biggest TV market in the country (New York). We’ll almost certainly stay at 7 million each per year. If there was one concession I could get from ESPN, it would not be a slight bump in money—it would be a shortening the term of the deal to 6 to 8 years (currently a 12 year deal).

I agree, except we are delivering on most of the inventory, the loss of NY and to a small extent WBB hurt. I am also of the opinion that we will not see a bump, nor do I think a cut is likely, or that ESPN wouldn't return the UConn portion for a solid add. I was just trying to point out what would allow ESPN to truly put their thumb on the scale. If they want to add a couple million or more the conference is going to be willing to overlook lots of issues. If they paycut the conference is going to find a lot of problems with the add.

I agree that we should try and shorten the deal even down to ten years makes it better to me. But eight seems about perfect for stability. I doubt that would be the case. I think regardless of who we add the only major changes to the TV deal will be if we go out and add three ti football for fourteen and a basketball school or something akin to that where we add multiple schools. One subtraction didn't cost us anything, one add won't and in fairness (depending on who of course, USC is worth a lot lol) shouldn't add.

(12-27-2020 12:42 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:20 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 08:45 AM)dave108 Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 12:29 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Except that's not what happened. Boise went from a team player to an attempted hostile take over. They did so and hung in the balance the SDSU move and the Navy move, so they could try and grab a bigger chunk of the money and attention then they deserved or had earned. They held SDSU hostage and would have been ok with pushing Navy out if that was the cost. At no point did they demonstrate they were team players and basically did exactly what Pittsburg did to the old big east knowing they had a safe harbor to do so.

When that attempt failed they found someone who was scared and agreed. Again rather than being a team player, they attempted to bully and control their conference regardless of its negative effect which by the way is reflected back on to Boise. When the conference had enough and made the decision to do what was best for all members not just what benefits Boise, Boise again tried to strong arm themselves into something they did not deserve or earn and play the AAC off against the MW in mirror of what they did before.

All the while they have failed to dominate their own conference even with advantages they robbed, much less pose a true threat to the AAC's dominance of the NY6. I worry more about BYU having a good schedule and a miracle season or two over the next years with the committee making them our NY6 opponent and trust me I don't lose sleep about that.

Money is one value of the relationship, but there are other things that also matter.

The most important point, rarely mentioned - DOES ESPN WANT THIS TO HAPPEN?
if so, it does, with maybe a little more money for all, and espn gets to (kinda) stick it to fox. if espn says no / could care less - it dies. nothing else really matters. its the age old golden rule.

ESPN will have a say, it will carry a lot of weight, but that is backwards to how this will work despite the wide held belief that ESPN calls the shot.

A team will approach the AAC, the AAC will take those they consider real possibilities and get feed back from ESPN. Then they will tell the ADs what ESPN thinks and it will go into their consideration. If ESPN indicates there will be zero change if we add them it will matter, if they agree to it at cost (UConn's portion) that will matter, or if it involves a bump that will matter. It will be important but it will get ranked in with things like fit, performance, geography, and three or four things each school will consider important.

If they don't at least agree to up the money to cover Boise then yeah it's not happening. Beyond that it will probably require a significant bump/cut to be the factor in consideration.

I doubt we see any bump. They didn’t kill us when UConn left—so we were treated pretty fairly given we are delivering less inventory than we originally contracted for and no longer have any connection to the biggest TV market in the country (New York). We’ll almost certainly stay at 7 million each per year. If there was one concession I could get from ESPN, it would not be a slight bump in money—it would be a shortening the term of the deal to 6 to 8 years (currently a 12 year deal).

I agree, except we are delivering on most of the inventory, the loss of NY and to a small extent WBB hurt. I am also of the opinion that we will not see a bump, nor do I think a cut is likely, or that ESPN wouldn't return the UConn portion for a solid add. I was just trying to point out what would allow ESPN to truly put their thumb on the scale. If they want to add a couple million or more the conference is going to be willing to overlook lots of issues. If they paycut the conference is going to find a lot of problems with the add.

I agree that we should try and shorten the deal even down to ten years makes it better to me. But eight seems about perfect for stability. I doubt that would be the case. I think regardless of who we add the only major changes to the TV deal will be if we go out and add three ti football for fourteen and a basketball school or something akin to that where we add multiple schools. One subtraction didn't cost us anything, one add won't and in fairness (depending on who of course, USC is worth a lot lol) shouldn't add.

To me, the replacement of UConn is much more about the next deal than this one. For me--as of this minute---the best replacement we could realistically land appears to be Boise for "football only" and VCU for olympic sports.

Lets be honest---that creates a bunch of very interesting games on the AAC football and basketball schedule and thats what its really all about. Houston-Boise, Navy-Boise, Memphis-Boise, UCF-Boise, Cinci-Boise.....those will be very attractive TV games. We are talking about roughly 3 or 4 high quality "super-tier one" games like that a year added to the AAC schedule. Thats 33 to 44 times these games will have been on probably ABC or ESPN. Some of those games would have likely been classic memorable games and some bad blood likely pops up around the league due to these games among some groups of fans.....Thats how you build real media value or our next deal.

(12-27-2020 02:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:42 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:20 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 08:45 AM)dave108 Wrote:  The most important point, rarely mentioned - DOES ESPN WANT THIS TO HAPPEN?
if so, it does, with maybe a little more money for all, and espn gets to (kinda) stick it to fox. if espn says no / could care less - it dies. nothing else really matters. its the age old golden rule.

ESPN will have a say, it will carry a lot of weight, but that is backwards to how this will work despite the wide held belief that ESPN calls the shot.

A team will approach the AAC, the AAC will take those they consider real possibilities and get feed back from ESPN. Then they will tell the ADs what ESPN thinks and it will go into their consideration. If ESPN indicates there will be zero change if we add them it will matter, if they agree to it at cost (UConn's portion) that will matter, or if it involves a bump that will matter. It will be important but it will get ranked in with things like fit, performance, geography, and three or four things each school will consider important.

If they don't at least agree to up the money to cover Boise then yeah it's not happening. Beyond that it will probably require a significant bump/cut to be the factor in consideration.

I doubt we see any bump. They didn’t kill us when UConn left—so we were treated pretty fairly given we are delivering less inventory than we originally contracted for and no longer have any connection to the biggest TV market in the country (New York). We’ll almost certainly stay at 7 million each per year. If there was one concession I could get from ESPN, it would not be a slight bump in money—it would be a shortening the term of the deal to 6 to 8 years (currently a 12 year deal).

I agree, except we are delivering on most of the inventory, the loss of NY and to a small extent WBB hurt. I am also of the opinion that we will not see a bump, nor do I think a cut is likely, or that ESPN wouldn't return the UConn portion for a solid add. I was just trying to point out what would allow ESPN to truly put their thumb on the scale. If they want to add a couple million or more the conference is going to be willing to overlook lots of issues. If they paycut the conference is going to find a lot of problems with the add.

I agree that we should try and shorten the deal even down to ten years makes it better to me. But eight seems about perfect for stability. I doubt that would be the case. I think regardless of who we add the only major changes to the TV deal will be if we go out and add three ti football for fourteen and a basketball school or something akin to that where we add multiple schools. One subtraction didn't cost us anything, one add won't and in fairness (depending on who of course, USC is worth a lot lol) shouldn't add.

To me, the replacement of UConn is much more about the next deal than this one. For me--as of this minute---the best replacement we could realistically land appears to be Boise for "football only" and VCU for olympic sports.

Lets be honest---that creates a bunch of very interesting games on the AAC football and basketball schedule and thats what its really all about. Houston-Boise, Navy-Boise, Memphis-Boise, UCF-Boise, Cinci-Boise.....those will be very attractive TV games. We are talking about roughly 3 or 4 high quality "super-tier one" games like that a year added to the AAC schedule. Thats 33 to 44 times these games will have been on probably ABC or ESPN. Some of those games would have likely been classic memorable games and some bad blood likely pops up around the league due to these games among some groups of fans.....Thats how you build real media value or our next deal.

The big question mark would be if the AAC added Boise football only for now, with the final objective of adding SDSU and BYU for all sports in future. If that’s the case adding a VCU for Olympic sports doesn’t happen.
So what’s more valuable long term
14 all sport league with BYU, Boise and SDSU or
A 12 team league with Boise/ VCU as the 12

(12-27-2020 03:14 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 02:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:42 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:20 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  ESPN will have a say, it will carry a lot of weight, but that is backwards to how this will work despite the wide held belief that ESPN calls the shot.

A team will approach the AAC, the AAC will take those they consider real possibilities and get feed back from ESPN. Then they will tell the ADs what ESPN thinks and it will go into their consideration. If ESPN indicates there will be zero change if we add them it will matter, if they agree to it at cost (UConn's portion) that will matter, or if it involves a bump that will matter. It will be important but it will get ranked in with things like fit, performance, geography, and three or four things each school will consider important.

If they don't at least agree to up the money to cover Boise then yeah it's not happening. Beyond that it will probably require a significant bump/cut to be the factor in consideration.

I doubt we see any bump. They didn’t kill us when UConn left—so we were treated pretty fairly given we are delivering less inventory than we originally contracted for and no longer have any connection to the biggest TV market in the country (New York). We’ll almost certainly stay at 7 million each per year. If there was one concession I could get from ESPN, it would not be a slight bump in money—it would be a shortening the term of the deal to 6 to 8 years (currently a 12 year deal).

I agree, except we are delivering on most of the inventory, the loss of NY and to a small extent WBB hurt. I am also of the opinion that we will not see a bump, nor do I think a cut is likely, or that ESPN wouldn't return the UConn portion for a solid add. I was just trying to point out what would allow ESPN to truly put their thumb on the scale. If they want to add a couple million or more the conference is going to be willing to overlook lots of issues. If they paycut the conference is going to find a lot of problems with the add.

I agree that we should try and shorten the deal even down to ten years makes it better to me. But eight seems about perfect for stability. I doubt that would be the case. I think regardless of who we add the only major changes to the TV deal will be if we go out and add three ti football for fourteen and a basketball school or something akin to that where we add multiple schools. One subtraction didn't cost us anything, one add won't and in fairness (depending on who of course, USC is worth a lot lol) shouldn't add.

To me, the replacement of UConn is much more about the next deal than this one. For me--as of this minute---the best replacement we could realistically land appears to be Boise for "football only" and VCU for olympic sports.

Lets be honest---that creates a bunch of very interesting games on the AAC football and basketball schedule and thats what its really all about. Houston-Boise, Navy-Boise, Memphis-Boise, UCF-Boise, Cinci-Boise.....those will be very attractive TV games. We are talking about roughly 3 or 4 high quality "super-tier one" games like that a year added to the AAC schedule. Thats 33 to 44 times these games will have been on probably ABC or ESPN. Some of those games would have likely been classic memorable games and some bad blood likely pops up around the league due to these games among some groups of fans.....Thats how you build real media value or our next deal.

The big question mark would be if the AAC added Boise football only for now, with the final objective of adding SDSU and BYU for all sports in future. If that’s the case adding a VCU for Olympic sports doesn’t happen.
So what’s more valuable long term
14 all sport league with BYU, Boise and SDSU or
A 12 team league with Boise/ VCU as the 12

I just dont think anyone wants to send volleyball from San Diego to Philly. I think those western teams are going to be "football only" members. That said--the conference we all agreed to join in fall of 2011 was expected to have 18 olympic sports members. Frankly, if we add quality members like VCU---the more the better. There is no down side. For now---we are at 11 football and 11 basketball. Getting to 12-12 with Boise and VCU seems like a solid improvement in overall quality and value for the two major AAC revenue sports.

(12-27-2020 12:42 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:20 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 08:45 AM)dave108 Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 12:29 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Except that's not what happened. Boise went from a team player to an attempted hostile take over. They did so and hung in the balance the SDSU move and the Navy move, so they could try and grab a bigger chunk of the money and attention then they deserved or had earned. They held SDSU hostage and would have been ok with pushing Navy out if that was the cost. At no point did they demonstrate they were team players and basically did exactly what Pittsburg did to the old big east knowing they had a safe harbor to do so.

When that attempt failed they found someone who was scared and agreed. Again rather than being a team player, they attempted to bully and control their conference regardless of its negative effect which by the way is reflected back on to Boise. When the conference had enough and made the decision to do what was best for all members not just what benefits Boise, Boise again tried to strong arm themselves into something they did not deserve or earn and play the AAC off against the MW in mirror of what they did before.

All the while they have failed to dominate their own conference even with advantages they robbed, much less pose a true threat to the AAC's dominance of the NY6. I worry more about BYU having a good schedule and a miracle season or two over the next years with the committee making them our NY6 opponent and trust me I don't lose sleep about that.

Money is one value of the relationship, but there are other things that also matter.

The most important point, rarely mentioned - DOES ESPN WANT THIS TO HAPPEN?
if so, it does, with maybe a little more money for all, and espn gets to (kinda) stick it to fox. if espn says no / could care less - it dies. nothing else really matters. its the age old golden rule.

ESPN will have a say, it will carry a lot of weight, but that is backwards to how this will work despite the wide held belief that ESPN calls the shot.

A team will approach the AAC, the AAC will take those they consider real possibilities and get feed back from ESPN. Then they will tell the ADs what ESPN thinks and it will go into their consideration. If ESPN indicates there will be zero change if we add them it will matter, if they agree to it at cost (UConn's portion) that will matter, or if it involves a bump that will matter. It will be important but it will get ranked in with things like fit, performance, geography, and three or four things each school will consider important.

If they don't at least agree to up the money to cover Boise then yeah it's not happening. Beyond that it will probably require a significant bump/cut to be the factor in consideration.

I doubt we see any bump. They didn’t kill us when UConn left—so we were treated pretty fairly given we are delivering less inventory than we originally contracted for and no longer have any connection to the biggest TV market in the country (New York). We’ll almost certainly stay at 7 million each per year. If there was one concession I could get from ESPN, it would not be a slight bump in money—it would be a shortening the term of the deal to 6 to 8 years (currently a 12 year deal).

I agree, except we are delivering on most of the inventory, the loss of NY and to a small extent WBB hurt. I am also of the opinion that we will not see a bump, nor do I think a cut is likely, or that ESPN wouldn't return the UConn portion for a solid add. I was just trying to point out what would allow ESPN to truly put their thumb on the scale. If they want to add a couple million or more the conference is going to be willing to overlook lots of issues. If they paycut the conference is going to find a lot of problems with the add.

I agree that we should try and shorten the deal even down to ten years makes it better to me. But eight seems about perfect for stability. I doubt that would be the case. I think regardless of who we add the only major changes to the TV deal will be if we go out and add three ti football for fourteen and a basketball school or something akin to that where we add multiple schools. One subtraction didn't cost us anything, one add won't and in fairness (depending on who of course, USC is worth a lot lol) shouldn't add.

If BYU is the 2nd of three members you want in than the third wouldn’t matter who it is... But if BYU remains so in love with being single than Boise plus ANY other two to the new future West division ONLY to satisfy budget friendly travel for Boise than this will be so far beyond unwise to AAC’s business bottom line.

In other words, no way ESPN bumps AAC’s current tv $$$ deal if BYU isn’t included in any new future AAC West division format... In fact, we will see everyone’s revenue share dwindled.

(12-27-2020 03:35 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:42 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:20 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 08:45 AM)dave108 Wrote:  The most important point, rarely mentioned - DOES ESPN WANT THIS TO HAPPEN?
if so, it does, with maybe a little more money for all, and espn gets to (kinda) stick it to fox. if espn says no / could care less - it dies. nothing else really matters. its the age old golden rule.

ESPN will have a say, it will carry a lot of weight, but that is backwards to how this will work despite the wide held belief that ESPN calls the shot.

A team will approach the AAC, the AAC will take those they consider real possibilities and get feed back from ESPN. Then they will tell the ADs what ESPN thinks and it will go into their consideration. If ESPN indicates there will be zero change if we add them it will matter, if they agree to it at cost (UConn's portion) that will matter, or if it involves a bump that will matter. It will be important but it will get ranked in with things like fit, performance, geography, and three or four things each school will consider important.

If they don't at least agree to up the money to cover Boise then yeah it's not happening. Beyond that it will probably require a significant bump/cut to be the factor in consideration.

I doubt we see any bump. They didn’t kill us when UConn left—so we were treated pretty fairly given we are delivering less inventory than we originally contracted for and no longer have any connection to the biggest TV market in the country (New York). We’ll almost certainly stay at 7 million each per year. If there was one concession I could get from ESPN, it would not be a slight bump in money—it would be a shortening the term of the deal to 6 to 8 years (currently a 12 year deal).

I agree, except we are delivering on most of the inventory, the loss of NY and to a small extent WBB hurt. I am also of the opinion that we will not see a bump, nor do I think a cut is likely, or that ESPN wouldn't return the UConn portion for a solid add. I was just trying to point out what would allow ESPN to truly put their thumb on the scale. If they want to add a couple million or more the conference is going to be willing to overlook lots of issues. If they paycut the conference is going to find a lot of problems with the add.

I agree that we should try and shorten the deal even down to ten years makes it better to me. But eight seems about perfect for stability. I doubt that would be the case. I think regardless of who we add the only major changes to the TV deal will be if we go out and add three ti football for fourteen and a basketball school or something akin to that where we add multiple schools. One subtraction didn't cost us anything, one add won't and in fairness (depending on who of course, USC is worth a lot lol) shouldn't add.

If BYU is the 2nd of three members you want in than the third wouldn’t matter who it is... But if BYU remains so in love with being single than Boise plus ANY other two to the new future West division ONLY to satisfy budget friendly travel for Boise than this will be so far beyond unwise to AAC’s business bottom line.

In other words, no way ESPN bumps AAC’s current tv $$$ deal if BYU isn’t included in any new future AAC West division format... In fact, we will see everyone’s revenue share dwindled.

Kinda what Im thinking. In my opinion, adding Boise would function as a lever into the west that makes it MORE likely that a BYU might agree to join in the future.

(12-27-2020 03:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 03:14 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 02:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:42 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 12:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I doubt we see any bump. They didn’t kill us when UConn left—so we were treated pretty fairly given we are delivering less inventory than we originally contracted for and no longer have any connection to the biggest TV market in the country (New York). We’ll almost certainly stay at 7 million each per year. If there was one concession I could get from ESPN, it would not be a slight bump in money—it would be a shortening the term of the deal to 6 to 8 years (currently a 12 year deal).

I agree, except we are delivering on most of the inventory, the loss of NY and to a small extent WBB hurt. I am also of the opinion that we will not see a bump, nor do I think a cut is likely, or that ESPN wouldn't return the UConn portion for a solid add. I was just trying to point out what would allow ESPN to truly put their thumb on the scale. If they want to add a couple million or more the conference is going to be willing to overlook lots of issues. If they paycut the conference is going to find a lot of problems with the add.

I agree that we should try and shorten the deal even down to ten years makes it better to me. But eight seems about perfect for stability. I doubt that would be the case. I think regardless of who we add the only major changes to the TV deal will be if we go out and add three ti football for fourteen and a basketball school or something akin to that where we add multiple schools. One subtraction didn't cost us anything, one add won't and in fairness (depending on who of course, USC is worth a lot lol) shouldn't add.

To me, the replacement of UConn is much more about the next deal than this one. For me--as of this minute---the best replacement we could realistically land appears to be Boise for "football only" and VCU for olympic sports.

Lets be honest---that creates a bunch of very interesting games on the AAC football and basketball schedule and thats what its really all about. Houston-Boise, Navy-Boise, Memphis-Boise, UCF-Boise, Cinci-Boise.....those will be very attractive TV games. We are talking about roughly 3 or 4 high quality "super-tier one" games like that a year added to the AAC schedule. Thats 33 to 44 times these games will have been on probably ABC or ESPN. Some of those games would have likely been classic memorable games and some bad blood likely pops up around the league due to these games among some groups of fans.....Thats how you build real media value or our next deal.

The big question mark would be if the AAC added Boise football only for now, with the final objective of adding SDSU and BYU for all sports in future. If that’s the case adding a VCU for Olympic sports doesn’t happen.
So what’s more valuable long term
14 all sport league with BYU, Boise and SDSU or
A 12 team league with Boise/ VCU as the 12

I just dont think anyone wants to send volleyball from San Diego to Philly. I think those western teams are going to be "football only" members. That said--the conference we all agreed to join in fall of 2011 was expected to have 18 olympic sports members. Frankly, if we add quality members like VCU---the more the better. There is no down side. For now---we are at 11 football and 11 basketball. Getting to 12-12 with Boise and VCU seems like a solid improvement in overall quality and value for the two major AAC revenue sports.

No one would have to send their Olympic sports from Boise to Philly in an all sports 14 team conference. Football and Men’s basketball could. The others you separate East/West
East
Temple, ECU,UCF, USF, UC, Memphis,Tulane
West
SDSU,BYU,Boise,Tulsa,SMU,Houston, Navy/Wichita State.

The move all depends on BYU making that move and for now it appears they won’t, but more money and a P6 could move that needle.

This is why if we add Boise I would see it as FB only with the stipulation of all sports if/when BYU joins in. In this picture there is no room for VCU unless we are going to ask Boise,SDSU to park their non football elsewhere.

Basketball wise I would say adding BYU,SDSU and Boise strengthens the league more than adding VCU

Yes I'm sure taking Boise will encourage BYU to come. Less money, more teams is a huge lure out of Independence. We take Boise there is no BYU, you are talking about CSU, AFA and SDSU as your other options for this far flung western wing that won't ever make non-revenue sense.

Id rather have Liberty for all sports than Boise

ECU fans coming for Boise as if they're from some cultural/geographic oasis



TBH I'm surprised its taken this long for BSU/BYU to smell the salts and join up.

(12-27-2020 05:49 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  Id rather have Liberty for all sports than Boise

This is as good as Will Rogers talking about how the Okies moving to California raised the IQ of both states.

(12-23-2020 08:59 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Just thought we should just dump our Boise obsession here for all eternity and not create a new thread every 10 minutes.

It is missing a Star Wars style opening credits scroll...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(12-27-2020 04:51 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Yes I'm sure taking Boise will encourage BYU to come. Less money, more teams is a huge lure out of Independence. We take Boise there is no BYU, you are talking about CSU, AFA and SDSU as your other options for this far flung western wing that won't ever make non-revenue sense.

Sometimes I wonder if BYU is even a college... My

I mean, if BYU can’t put one and two together and figure out how sexy ATTRACTIVE the AAC will become with them plus Boise in this league than we might as well ignore BYU from now on.

I’m finally beginning to understand how stubborn BYU really is

(12-27-2020 09:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 04:51 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Yes I'm sure taking Boise will encourage BYU to come. Less money, more teams is a huge lure out of Independence. We take Boise there is no BYU, you are talking about CSU, AFA and SDSU as your other options for this far flung western wing that won't ever make non-revenue sense.

Sometimes I wonder if BYU is even a college... My

I mean, if BYU can’t put one and two together and figure out how sexy ATTRACTIVE the AAC will become with them plus Boise in this league than we might as well ignore BYU from now on.

I’m finally beginning to understand how stubborn BYU really is

BYU may be an "immovable object," but what happens when an "immovable object" meets an "irresistible force?'

Q: What is the irresistible force?

A: It might be the force that kicks in if/when the CFP expands to 8 based on a 5-1-2 model, with the top G5 championship team being an automatic qualifier.

There's no way this season's BYU team would have gotten in ahead of the two at-large teams (ND and TAMU). Their only chance would have been to beat Cincy in the AAC Championship Game, which they might have been able to do.

That's all it would take. BYU picks up the phone and sets things into motion to join the AAC.

BTW: Whomever suggested that BYU would demur if Boise St. were to join has overlooked something important, which is that:

If both Boise State and BYU were to join the AAC, there would be a much greater potential benefit than getting access to a 5-1-2 CFP series.

Q: And what would that be?

A: By joining the AAC, they could help to propel the AAC into full-fledged P6/A6 status within the next 5-10 years.

(12-27-2020 10:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 09:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 04:51 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Yes I'm sure taking Boise will encourage BYU to come. Less money, more teams is a huge lure out of Independence. We take Boise there is no BYU, you are talking about CSU, AFA and SDSU as your other options for this far flung western wing that won't ever make non-revenue sense.

Sometimes I wonder if BYU is even a college... My

I mean, if BYU can’t put one and two together and figure out how sexy ATTRACTIVE the AAC will become with them plus Boise in this league than we might as well ignore BYU from now on.

I’m finally beginning to understand how stubborn BYU really is

BYU may be an "immovable object," but what happens when an "immovable object" meets an "irresistible force?'

Q: What is the irresistible force?

A: It might be the force that kicks in if/when the CFP expands to 8 based on a 5-1-2 model, with the top G5 championship team being an automatic qualifier.

There's no way this season's BYU team would have gotten in ahead of the two at-large teams (ND and TAMU). Their only chance would have been to beat Cincy in the AAC Championship Game, which they might have been able to do.

That's all it would take. BYU picks up the phone and sets things into motion to join the AAC.

BTW: Whomever suggested that BYU would demur if Boise St. were to join has overlooked something important, which is that:

If both Boise State and BYU were to join the AAC, there would be a much greater potential benefit than getting access to a 5-1-2 CFP series.

Q: And what would that be?

A: joining the AAC, they could help to propel the AAC into full-fledged P6/A6 status within the next 5-10 years.

My point exactly ^^^

AAC separation away from the G4’s is in the works and Boise showing interest in joining this league now confirms it.

(12-27-2020 10:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 09:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 04:51 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Yes I'm sure taking Boise will encourage BYU to come. Less money, more teams is a huge lure out of Independence. We take Boise there is no BYU, you are talking about CSU, AFA and SDSU as your other options for this far flung western wing that won't ever make non-revenue sense.

Sometimes I wonder if BYU is even a college... My

I mean, if BYU can’t put one and two together and figure out how sexy ATTRACTIVE the AAC will become with them plus Boise in this league than we might as well ignore BYU from now on.

I’m finally beginning to understand how stubborn BYU really is

BYU may be an "immovable object," but what happens when an "immovable object" meets an "irresistible force?'

Q: What is the irresistible force?

A: It might be the force that kicks in if/when the CFP expands to 8 based on a 5-1-2 model, with the top G5 championship team being an automatic qualifier.

There's no way this season's BYU team would have gotten in ahead of the two at-large teams (ND and TAMU). Their only chance would have been to beat Cincy in the AAC Championship Game, which they might have been able to do.

That's all it would take. BYU picks up the phone and sets things into motion to join the AAC.

BTW: Whomever suggested that BYU would demur if Boise St. were to join has overlooked something important, which is that:

If both Boise State and BYU were to join the AAC, there would be a much greater potential benefit than getting access to a 5-1-2 CFP series.

Q: And what would that be?

A: By joining the AAC, they could help to propel the AAC into full-fledged P6/A6 status within the next 5-10 years.

If BYU and Boise join, P6/A6 almost doesnt matter. The same SOS calculus that works against G5's in the CFP would work FOR the AAC when if comes to the highest ranking G5 champ auto-bid. You can already see it with the access bowl---and we dont even have BYU and Boise yet.

(12-28-2020 12:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 10:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 09:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 04:51 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Yes I'm sure taking Boise will encourage BYU to come. Less money, more teams is a huge lure out of Independence. We take Boise there is no BYU, you are talking about CSU, AFA and SDSU as your other options for this far flung western wing that won't ever make non-revenue sense.

Sometimes I wonder if BYU is even a college... My

I mean, if BYU can’t put one and two together and figure out how sexy ATTRACTIVE the AAC will become with them plus Boise in this league than we might as well ignore BYU from now on.

I’m finally beginning to understand how stubborn BYU really is

BYU may be an "immovable object," but what happens when an "immovable object" meets an "irresistible force?'

Q: What is the irresistible force?

A: It might be the force that kicks in if/when the CFP expands to 8 based on a 5-1-2 model, with the top G5 championship team being an automatic qualifier.

There's no way this season's BYU team would have gotten in ahead of the two at-large teams (ND and TAMU). Their only chance would have been to beat Cincy in the AAC Championship Game, which they might have been able to do.

That's all it would take. BYU picks up the phone and sets things into motion to join the AAC.

BTW: Whomever suggested that BYU would demur if Boise St. were to join has overlooked something important, which is that:

If both Boise State and BYU were to join the AAC, there would be a much greater potential benefit than getting access to a 5-1-2 CFP series.

Q: And what would that be?

A: By joining the AAC, they could help to propel the AAC into full-fledged P6/A6 status within the next 5-10 years.

If BYU and Boise join, P6/A6 almost doesnt matter. The same SOS calculus that works against G5's in the CFP would work FOR the AAC when if comes to the highest ranking G5 champ auto-bid. You can already see it with the access bowl---and we dont even have BYU and Boise yet.

True.

Yet, I have become so disgusted with the mockery of a sham that claims to be a playoff/championship series that I've lost interest in it altogether, and it would mean nothing to me if an AAC team were to win it once every 10 years (which is all I would expect, given how thoroughly OSU et al. have rigged it).

All I would care about is the attainment of A6/P6 status, which would be incredibly beneficial to the AAC universities in the long run, not only for athletics, but for the universities in every respects, and would help the AAC teams - including one's alma mater - to compete on a more equal playing field in decades to come.

Championships/shmanpionships. All I'm really focused on is getting to a few elite eights, or final fours, conference champeeeenhips, etc. etc. and eventually raking in the $$$ like a P5 conference for the benefit of all.

(12-28-2020 12:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 10:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 09:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 04:51 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Yes I'm sure taking Boise will encourage BYU to come. Less money, more teams is a huge lure out of Independence. We take Boise there is no BYU, you are talking about CSU, AFA and SDSU as your other options for this far flung western wing that won't ever make non-revenue sense.

Sometimes I wonder if BYU is even a college... My

I mean, if BYU can’t put one and two together and figure out how sexy ATTRACTIVE the AAC will become with them plus Boise in this league than we might as well ignore BYU from now on.

I’m finally beginning to understand how stubborn BYU really is

BYU may be an "immovable object," but what happens when an "immovable object" meets an "irresistible force?'

Q: What is the irresistible force?

A: It might be the force that kicks in if/when the CFP expands to 8 based on a 5-1-2 model, with the top G5 championship team being an automatic qualifier.

There's no way this season's BYU team would have gotten in ahead of the two at-large teams (ND and TAMU). Their only chance would have been to beat Cincy in the AAC Championship Game, which they might have been able to do.

That's all it would take. BYU picks up the phone and sets things into motion to join the AAC.

BTW: Whomever suggested that BYU would demur if Boise St. were to join has overlooked something important, which is that:

If both Boise State and BYU were to join the AAC, there would be a much greater potential benefit than getting access to a 5-1-2 CFP series.

Q: And what would that be?

A: By joining the AAC, they could help to propel the AAC into full-fledged P6/A6 status within the next 5-10 years.

If BYU and Boise join, P6/A6 almost doesnt matter. The same SOS calculus that works against G5's in the CFP would work FOR the AAC when if comes to the highest ranking G5 champ auto-bid. You can already see it with the access bowl---and we dont even have BYU and Boise yet.

I agree with this. The American's goal should not be "power/autonomous" status (I don't see the big boys "inviting" the AAC to join them at the buffet line). Rather, the American should make itself as strong as possible so that if the CFP structure moves to 5-1-2, the AAC is the de facto sixth power league and would land the G5 bid, say, eight out of 10 years.

(12-28-2020 02:15 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-28-2020 12:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 10:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 09:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 04:51 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Yes I'm sure taking Boise will encourage BYU to come. Less money, more teams is a huge lure out of Independence. We take Boise there is no BYU, you are talking about CSU, AFA and SDSU as your other options for this far flung western wing that won't ever make non-revenue sense.

Sometimes I wonder if BYU is even a college... My

I mean, if BYU can’t put one and two together and figure out how sexy ATTRACTIVE the AAC will become with them plus Boise in this league than we might as well ignore BYU from now on.

I’m finally beginning to understand how stubborn BYU really is

BYU may be an "immovable object," but what happens when an "immovable object" meets an "irresistible force?'

Q: What is the irresistible force?

A: It might be the force that kicks in if/when the CFP expands to 8 based on a 5-1-2 model, with the top G5 championship team being an automatic qualifier.

There's no way this season's BYU team would have gotten in ahead of the two at-large teams (ND and TAMU). Their only chance would have been to beat Cincy in the AAC Championship Game, which they might have been able to do.

That's all it would take. BYU picks up the phone and sets things into motion to join the AAC.

BTW: Whomever suggested that BYU would demur if Boise St. were to join has overlooked something important, which is that:

If both Boise State and BYU were to join the AAC, there would be a much greater potential benefit than getting access to a 5-1-2 CFP series.

Q: And what would that be?

A: By joining the AAC, they could help to propel the AAC into full-fledged P6/A6 status within the next 5-10 years.

If BYU and Boise join, P6/A6 almost doesnt matter. The same SOS calculus that works against G5's in the CFP would work FOR the AAC when if comes to the highest ranking G5 champ auto-bid. You can already see it with the access bowl---and we dont even have BYU and Boise yet.

True.

Yet, I have become so disgusted with the mockery of a sham that claims to be a playoff/championship series that I've lost interest in it altogether, and it would mean nothing to me if an AAC team were to win it once every 10 years (which is all I would expect, given how thoroughly OSU et al. have rigged it).

All I would care about is the attainment of A6/P6 status, which would be incredibly beneficial to the AAC universities in the long run, not only for athletics, but for the universities in every respects, and would help the AAC teams - including one's alma mater - to compete on a more equal playing field in decades to come.

Championships/shmanpionships. All I'm really focused on is getting to a few elite eights, or final fours, conference champeeeenhips, etc. etc. and eventually raking in the $$$ like a P5 conference for the benefit of all.

Is that a subtle Woody Allen reference (Bananas movie), Jed?

A concern during the Tulsa/UC game was the AAC would not have an unbeaten team and not get the NY6 game.

Adding BYU and/or BSU may mean the AAC gets the NY6 game less often.

Harsin might have just saved the AAC from a worse fate.