The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(12-29-2020 09:50 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  Not in favor of adding Boise as a one-off addition. I would say yes to Boise State ONLY if they were to come into the AAC with San Diego State and BYU. Then you could have a Western Division with Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Boise, SDSU and BYU. East is Navy, Temple, ECU, Memphis, USF, UCF and Cincy. If Navy prefers to stay in the West, Tulane moves to the East, giving UC a trip to either New Orleans or Orlando every year. Under this scenario, Mountain West is dead, and AAC becomes a true national conference with both good basketball and football. Of course, adding three new mouths to feed means the ESPN TV rights deal would need to be renegotiated, but SDSU, Boise and BYU would presumably bring enough additional eyeballs to make an upward revision feasible.

This makes too much sense which means it won't happen.. byu, bsu, sdsu are the only teams I would personally ever consider touching (I'd do vcu basketball only)

These people on the AAC board talking about colorado state, unlv, uab, etc crack me up. We already have tulsa, tulane, and ecu. We don't need any more dead weight

I guess I don’t understand, why not Boise? The conference needs to add a 12th football member, unless I’m missing something. There are some better options, but not many. I know people think the waiver can get extended forever, but I guess I just don’t buy that.

Now adding a 13th and 14th members sounds ridiculous to me, because there are too many moving parts. The TV deal was set up for 12. Adding 13 and 14 would probably blow the whole thing up.

(12-29-2020 10:29 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  I guess I don’t understand, why not Boise? The conference needs to add a 12th football member, unless I’m missing something. There are some better options, but not many. I know people think the waiver can get extended forever, but I guess I just don’t buy that.

Now adding a 13th and 14th members sounds ridiculous to me, because there are too many moving parts. The TV deal was set up for 12. Adding 13 and 14 would probably blow the whole thing up.

I think people are suggesting 14 because they're trying to completely gut the MW and make the AAC the "guaranteed" winner of the g5 NY6 bowl

(12-29-2020 10:29 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  I guess I don’t understand, why not Boise? The conference needs to add a 12th football member, unless I’m missing something. There are some better options, but not many. I know people think the waiver can get extended forever, but I guess I just don’t buy that.

Now adding a 13th and 14th members sounds ridiculous to me, because there are too many moving parts. The TV deal was set up for 12. Adding 13 and 14 would probably blow the whole thing up.

If we go beyond 12 it would have to be with ESPN’s blessing and them willing to increase the revenue. It’s why we A.) should have done this 1-2 years ago and B.) should have signed a shorter deal (say ~6 yrs). That would have put us in better position to have a better media deal this time while also getting an opportunity to renegotiate a better deal again in a few years.

I hope we do add BYU and Boise and even SDSU, but if it reduces our media deal, we just can afford to add all 3 until much later into the contract.

The goal for UC should be to get into a P5 league. If that's the goal, leave Boise (and everyone else) where they are.

(12-29-2020 11:13 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  The goal for UC should be to get into a P5 league. If that's the goal, leave Boise (and everyone else) where they are.

That’s the goal, but considering there is no guarantee we will get to a P5 conference they should also do everything they can to better position the conference they are in moving forward.

(12-29-2020 11:32 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 11:13 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  The goal for UC should be to get into a P5 league. If that's the goal, leave Boise (and everyone else) where they are.

That’s the goal, but considering there is no guarantee we will get to a P5 conference they should also do everything they can to better position the conference they are in moving forward.

Our P5 targets are ACC and B12. Boise's targets would be P12 and B12.

We are trending up, Boise trending down. No need to give them a life line. Unless there is a good #12 ditching Tulsa or Tulane would be good. Ten teams, play 9 conference and 3 OOC.

As Darryl Parks used to say on 700 WLW “Rating and Revenue”. Simply put if BSU does not add to both of these (not just ratings) than the answer is no. If they do the AAC has to consider it.

It wouldn’t add revenue to anyone but Boise. Not in only year 1 of a 10 year ESPN deal.

(12-30-2020 09:16 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It wouldn’t add revenue to anyone but Boise. Not in only year 1 of a 10 year ESPN deal.

I don't disagree with you, but don't they have to add a 12th member anyways?

The CCG waiver is not going to be yanked if the B12 stays at 10. Not sure the ESPN contract requires it.

School me here. I thought the waiver had something to do with the uneven divisions.

There is a rule that says you must have 12 teams to hold a CCG. B12 opened the door for that to be discarded.

This is straight from NCAA.org

Quote: Football Bowl Subdivision conferences with fewer than 12 members will be able to hold a conference championship football game in addition to the allowed 12 regular-season games, the Division I Council decided Wednesday, and such conferences will have two ways to meet scheduling requirements.

Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game.

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

So sounds like they tailored it to fit the B12. AAC would need to go to 12 unless they played 10 conference games unless the waiver holds.

(12-30-2020 09:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So sounds like they tailored it to fit the B12. AAC would need to go to 12 unless they played 10 conference games unless the waiver holds.

Thanks Rath. So it sounds like the AAC needs to go to 12, or hope the NCAA does them a solid.

(12-30-2020 06:28 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 11:32 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 11:13 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  The goal for UC should be to get into a P5 league. If that's the goal, leave Boise (and everyone else) where they are.

That’s the goal, but considering there is no guarantee we will get to a P5 conference they should also do everything they can to better position the conference they are in moving forward.

Our P5 targets are ACC and B12. Boise's targets would be P12 and B12.

We are trending up, Boise trending down. No need to give them a life line. Unless there is a good #12 ditching Tulsa or Tulane would be good. Ten teams, play 9 conference and 3 OOC.

I think it improved the conference and with no guarantee of a P5 invite I would prefer we play on the best conference possible. Personally, I would think we would be ahead of Boise in potential P5 invites when you consider academics, media market, recruiting grounds, etc... I guess an argument could be made they have a stronger brand, but this isn’t our first NY6 and as you say, we are trending up and they are trending down.

Maybe I’m naive but I guess I’m not overly concerned they get a spot and we don’t.

(12-30-2020 06:24 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 06:28 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 11:32 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 11:13 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  The goal for UC should be to get into a P5 league. If that's the goal, leave Boise (and everyone else) where they are.

That’s the goal, but considering there is no guarantee we will get to a P5 conference they should also do everything they can to better position the conference they are in moving forward.

Our P5 targets are ACC and B12. Boise's targets would be P12 and B12.

We are trending up, Boise trending down. No need to give them a life line. Unless there is a good #12 ditching Tulsa or Tulane would be good. Ten teams, play 9 conference and 3 OOC.

I think it improved the conference and with no guarantee of a P5 invite I would prefer we play on the best conference possible. Personally, I would think we would be ahead of Boise in potential P5 invites when you consider academics, media market, recruiting grounds, etc... I guess an argument could be made they have a stronger brand, but this isn’t our first NY6 and as you say, we are trending up and they are trending down.

Maybe I’m naive but I guess I’m not overly concerned they get a spot and we don’t.

One disagreement is The B12 does not care about academics as proved by inviting WVU. The ACC also does not care as proved by inviting UL.

The SEC does not care. Only the B10 and P12 do to a degree.

When is ESPN gonna write the AAC a fat check for standing pat like the BXII did?

(12-30-2020 10:13 PM)CRex43 Wrote:  When is ESPN gonna write the AAC a fat check for standing pat like the BXII did?

The B12 had a clause that meant more teams more money so ESPN did a deal, no new teams but some more money. I doubt the AAC has such a clause.

(12-30-2020 07:12 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  As Darryl Parks used to say on 700 WLW “Rating and Revenue”. Simply put if BSU does not add to both of these (not just ratings) than the answer is no. If they do the AAC has to consider it.

I read someplace that each of us dies three times: first, when your heart stops beating, second, when your physical remains are buried or cremated, and third, sometime after the last memory of you is evoked.

And now, out of the blue, a blast from the past. I never thought I'd hear anyone quoting Darrell Parks, but your post is proof that, in at least one other person's memory, Darrell Parks is still alive (but only if you spell Darrell correctly). Darrell Parks lives!

The summer before my freshman year at UC, I worked at a Shell station in East Hyde Park. This was in 1959, back when we flunkies still pumped gas, checked oil, and washed customers' windshields. Darrell Parks was a regular customer, and I dealt with him often (he drove a Cadillac), but for the life of me, I can't remember one memorable thing he ever said either off-camera or on.

"Fill 'er up," maybe?