Boise COULD be feigning AAC interest in order to get the MWC to extend their sweet $$ deal with no intention to leave at all.

(12-31-2020 12:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 07:31 PM)YNot Wrote:  Where's David St when you need him?

That's just flagrant trolling, and it's not permitted by the hosts.

If you want to be critical, it would be better to simply write your critical comment and leave it like that. You might get an interesting response.

That's not trolling Jed.

(12-31-2020 11:14 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Boise COULD be feigning AAC interest in order to get the MWC to extend their sweet $$ deal with no intention to leave at all.

That’s a distinct possibility

The West Coast Conference is a conference of private religious institutions and prides itself in stability. The only change to membership since 1980 (when Seattle U left) was to add BYU in 2010. While BYU seems to have settled in with the WCC, there have been some rough spots where home fans didn't appreciate BYU fans filling their smaller arenas at basketball games sometimes even bordering on outnumbering the home fans (I don't think the institutions mind the increase in ticket sales though!). There was also concerns that BYU might use the WCC as a stepping stone to something bigger in a short time. 10 (almost moving into year 11) years later I think it has worked out fine for both the WCC and BYU. I think recruiting to a bigger conference would be easier for olympic sports but they seem to be dealing with that.

Adding Boise State (non-religious public institution) would be a change in strategy for the conference that could cause a disruption to the stability they enjoy as they may not share common goals or motivations. Gonzaga's success in basketball has already tugged at the "getting-along" of conference members. It is too bad the WAC fell so far from its previous standing.

(12-31-2020 11:25 AM)f1do Wrote:  The West Coast Conference is a conference of private religious institutions and prides itself in stability. The only change to membership since 1980 (when Seattle U left) was to add BYU in 2010. While BYU seems to have settled in with the WCC, there have been some rough spots where home fans didn't appreciate BYU fans filling their smaller arenas at basketball games sometimes even bordering on outnumbering the home fans (I don't think the institutions mind the increase in ticket sales though!). There was also concerns that BYU might use the WCC as a stepping stone to something bigger in a short time. 10 (almost moving into year 11) years later I think it has worked out fine for both the WCC and BYU. I think recruiting to a bigger conference would be easier for olympic sports but they seem to be dealing with that.

Adding Boise State (non-religious public institution) would be a change in strategy for the conference that could cause a disruption to the stability they enjoy as they may not share common goals or motivations. Gonzaga's success in basketball has already tugged at the "getting-along" of conference members. It is too bad the WAC fell so far from its previous standing.

The only MW school I could see the WCC considering is Air Force. Their small and high standards, they also have a ton of teams to help the WCC out as they are pretty close to minimum numbers in some sports.

Boise a school who takes almost anybody (as state schools are meant to) is not going to fit there. SDSU might get a look because of Olympic sports strength. Can't think of anyone else they would even answer the phone for in the MW.

(12-31-2020 11:19 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:14 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Boise COULD be feigning AAC interest in order to get the MWC to extend their sweet $$ deal with no intention to leave at all.

That’s a distinct possibility

Not very likely though. The other 11 schools in the MWC don't like the sweetheart deal that Boise got either.

(12-30-2020 02:56 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 11:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 11:27 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 09:42 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 09:30 AM)esayem Wrote:  The MWC seriously considered UTEP and Rice a few years ago, not NMSU. I don’t see that changing.

UTEP and Rice were serious about their desire to join; I don’t know how much thought the MWC gave their offer. Both of those programs have spent most of the past decade in the toilet.

Even if NMSU wasn’t Boise’s direct replacement there is a good possibility that the domino effect of Boise St leaving the MWC would result in NMSU leaving the WAC:

MWC replaces Boise with UTEP
C-USA replaces UTEP with an SBC school
SBC replaces lost school with NMSU

Why would a SBC team jump to the C-USA?

Texas State almost certainly would. Beyond that school, there isnt as much motivation for any other Sunbelt conference school to make that jump.

That would be driven by geography, not comps between leagues.

Texas State is the only SBC school that would consider a move to CUSA due to their geography. Even then, would they be willing to pay the exit and entrance fees to make that move? They would have to balance the upfront cost of those fees and lower conference payouts CUSA teams receive verses the lower travel costs and potential for greater ticket sales. it would take a long time to recoup those costs.

Would the better move for CUSA be to add Liberty or JMU to help out the schools in the East? If Texas State did go to CUSA, the SBC would add one of those two schools. or try to get some CUSA teams to move over. Nobody in the SBC would want to fly out to NMSU when the closest team is in Louisiana.

(12-31-2020 09:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Just as a reminder, those emails between the now ex-Boise AD and the AAC took place months ago. No current activity from either side. Doesn't look to me like anything is happening. Carry on, lol.

To me UAB would make the most sense as the next full member for the AAC. They were in the old CUSA with many of the members, they're good in both major sports, they're in a good sized city, and they're well within the footprint of the league.

(12-31-2020 12:00 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 09:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Just as a reminder, those emails between the now ex-Boise AD and the AAC took place months ago. No current activity from either side. Doesn't look to me like anything is happening. Carry on, lol.

To me UAB would make the most sense as the next full member for the AAC. They were in the old CUSA with many of the members, they're good in both major sports, they're in a good sized city, and they're well within the footprint of the league.

But they recently dropped football, they have no major bowl games, and they don't have the national reputation/recognition that Boise has.

(12-31-2020 12:03 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:00 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 09:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Just as a reminder, those emails between the now ex-Boise AD and the AAC took place months ago. No current activity from either side. Doesn't look to me like anything is happening. Carry on, lol.

To me UAB would make the most sense as the next full member for the AAC. They were in the old CUSA with many of the members, they're good in both major sports, they're in a good sized city, and they're well within the footprint of the league.

But they recently dropped football, they have no major bowl games, and they don't have the national reputation/recognition that Boise has.

Dropping football was forced on them, and thankfully that has been rectified. They have made a large commitment to football including a brand new stadium so they aren't going anywhere.

As for the bowl games, I'd say at least half of the conference hasn't been in a major bowl game in recent memory. Boise has only been to one major bowl in the last 11 years, and even that was 6 years ago.

(12-31-2020 12:03 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:00 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 09:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Just as a reminder, those emails between the now ex-Boise AD and the AAC took place months ago. No current activity from either side. Doesn't look to me like anything is happening. Carry on, lol.

To me UAB would make the most sense as the next full member for the AAC. They were in the old CUSA with many of the members, they're good in both major sports, they're in a good sized city, and they're well within the footprint of the league.

But they recently dropped football, they have no major bowl games, and they don't have the national reputation/recognition that Boise has.

Not to mention their addition makes the AAC just look more and more like reheated CUSA leftovers from 2011. That’s not a good look for an AAC that’s pushing a P6 narrative. That’s just one more reason the UConn replacement has to be a value adding choice like Boise, BYU, or Army. It can’t be a “let’s get the old CUSA band back together” pick. Part of UConns value was they were part of what made the AAC different and unique from CUSA. Thus, that aspect of the UConn contribution must be considered when replacing UConn.

(12-31-2020 12:11 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:03 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:00 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 09:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Just as a reminder, those emails between the now ex-Boise AD and the AAC took place months ago. No current activity from either side. Doesn't look to me like anything is happening. Carry on, lol.

To me UAB would make the most sense as the next full member for the AAC. They were in the old CUSA with many of the members, they're good in both major sports, they're in a good sized city, and they're well within the footprint of the league.

But they recently dropped football, they have no major bowl games, and they don't have the national reputation/recognition that Boise has.

Dropping football was forced on them, and thankfully that has been rectified. They have made a large commitment to football including a brand new stadium so they aren't going anywhere.

As for the bowl games, I'd say at least half of the conference hasn't been in a major bowl game in recent memory. Boise has only been to one major bowl in the last 11 years, and even that was 6 years ago.

Again, what is in it did the current AAC members? Does UAB add to Cincinnati’s or UCF’s bottom line? Does it get us to the CFP table?

(12-31-2020 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:03 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:00 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 09:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Just as a reminder, those emails between the now ex-Boise AD and the AAC took place months ago. No current activity from either side. Doesn't look to me like anything is happening. Carry on, lol.

To me UAB would make the most sense as the next full member for the AAC. They were in the old CUSA with many of the members, they're good in both major sports, they're in a good sized city, and they're well within the footprint of the league.

But they recently dropped football, they have no major bowl games, and they don't have the national reputation/recognition that Boise has.

Not to mention their addition makes the AAC just look more and more like reheated CUSA leftovers from 2011. That’s not a good look for an AAC that’s pushing a P6 narrative. That’s just one more reason the UConn replacement has to be a value adding choice like Boise, BYU, or Army. It can’t be a “let’s get the old CUSA band back together” pick. Part of UConns value was they were part of what made the AAC different and unique from CUSA. Thus, that aspect of the UConn contribution must be considered when replacing UConn.

BYU and Army have no need to join so you either have to meet Boise's demands or find someone else. There are very few schools who would fit in as a full member and meet the requirements you're talking about.

I think you're foolish to think the A5 will ever let you in as an equal. The best hope we have as G5 conferences is an expanded playoff.

(12-31-2020 12:20 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:03 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:00 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 09:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Just as a reminder, those emails between the now ex-Boise AD and the AAC took place months ago. No current activity from either side. Doesn't look to me like anything is happening. Carry on, lol.

To me UAB would make the most sense as the next full member for the AAC. They were in the old CUSA with many of the members, they're good in both major sports, they're in a good sized city, and they're well within the footprint of the league.

But they recently dropped football, they have no major bowl games, and they don't have the national reputation/recognition that Boise has.

Not to mention their addition makes the AAC just look more and more like reheated CUSA leftovers from 2011. That’s not a good look for an AAC that’s pushing a P6 narrative. That’s just one more reason the UConn replacement has to be a value adding choice like Boise, BYU, or Army. It can’t be a “let’s get the old CUSA band back together” pick. Part of UConns value was they were part of what made the AAC different and unique from CUSA. Thus, that aspect of the UConn contribution must be considered when replacing UConn.

BYU and Army have no need to join so you either have to meet Boise's demands or find someone else. There are very few schools who would fit in as a full member and meet the requirements your talking about.

Agree. To my knowledge both the AAC and Boise are good with a football only membership provided Boise can find a suitable home for their Olympic sports. I think Boise will find one early in 2021 when the Covid crises eases. They will continue talks with the Big West and WCC—but I don’t think those discussions will bear fruit. My sense is during the next few months the WAC’s planned expansion will succeed and will provide the WAC with the strength and stability required to make it a viable home for Boise Olympic sports.

If that does not occur—then I suspect the AAC continues to stand pat at 11. There is simply nobody beyond the AAC’s short list of candidates that adds enough value to be a viable #12 at this time. Over the next 10 years, that could change as some team with potential might develop—-but as of this second, nobody other than BYU, Boise, or Army (also possibly Air Force) makes sense for football.

(12-31-2020 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:20 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:03 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:00 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  To me UAB would make the most sense as the next full member for the AAC. They were in the old CUSA with many of the members, they're good in both major sports, they're in a good sized city, and they're well within the footprint of the league.

But they recently dropped football, they have no major bowl games, and they don't have the national reputation/recognition that Boise has.

Not to mention their addition makes the AAC just look more and more like reheated CUSA leftovers from 2011. That’s not a good look for an AAC that’s pushing a P6 narrative. That’s just one more reason the UConn replacement has to be a value adding choice like Boise, BYU, or Army. It can’t be a “let’s get the old CUSA band back together” pick. Part of UConns value was they were part of what made the AAC different and unique from CUSA. Thus, that aspect of the UConn contribution must be considered when replacing UConn.

BYU and Army have no need to join so you either have to meet Boise's demands or find someone else. There are very few schools who would fit in as a full member and meet the requirements your talking about.

Agree. To my knowledge both the AAC and Boise are good with a football only membership provided Boise can find a suitable home for their Olympic sports. I think Boise will find one early in 2021 when the Covid crises eases. They will continue talks with the Big West and WCC—but I don’t think those discussions will bear fruit. My sense is during the next few months the WAC’s planned expansion will succeed and will provide the WAC with the strength and stability required to make it a viable home for Boise Olympic sports.

If that does not occur—then I suspect the AAC continues to stand pat at 11. There is simply nobody beyond the AAC’s short list of candidates that adds enough value to be a viable #12 at this time. Over the next 10 years, that could change as some team with potential might develop—-but as on this second, nobody other than BYU, Boise, or Army (also possibly Air Force) makes sense for football.

(12-31-2020 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:20 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:03 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:00 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  To me UAB would make the most sense as the next full member for the AAC. They were in the old CUSA with many of the members, they're good in both major sports, they're in a good sized city, and they're well within the footprint of the league.

But they recently dropped football, they have no major bowl games, and they don't have the national reputation/recognition that Boise has.

Not to mention their addition makes the AAC just look more and more like reheated CUSA leftovers from 2011. That’s not a good look for an AAC that’s pushing a P6 narrative. That’s just one more reason the UConn replacement has to be a value adding choice like Boise, BYU, or Army. It can’t be a “let’s get the old CUSA band back together” pick. Part of UConns value was they were part of what made the AAC different and unique from CUSA. Thus, that aspect of the UConn contribution must be considered when replacing UConn.

BYU and Army have no need to join so you either have to meet Boise's demands or find someone else. There are very few schools who would fit in as a full member and meet the requirements your talking about.

Agree. To my knowledge both the AAC and Boise are good with a football only membership provided Boise can find a suitable home for their Olympic sports. I think Boise will find one early in 2021 when the Covid crises eases. They will continue talks with the Big West and WCC—but I don’t think those discussions will bear fruit. My sense is during the next few months the WAC’s planned expansion will succeed and will provide the WAC with the strength and stability required to make it a viable home for Boise Olympic sports.

If that does not occur—then I suspect the AAC continues to stand pat at 11. There is simply nobody beyond the AAC’s short list of candidates that adds enough value to be a viable #12 at this time. Over the next 10 years, that could change as some team with potential might develop—-but as of this second, nobody other than BYU, Boise, or Army (also possibly Air Force) makes sense for football.

Or Boise could become a full member and only play Olympic sports within their division except for a championship game. They could then fill out their remaining schedule with regional opponents. Or the AAC could go to 14 teams and add SDSU and BYU as well, as long as ESPN would pony up enough $ to make each schools return the same or more than before.

(12-31-2020 01:38 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:20 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:03 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  But they recently dropped football, they have no major bowl games, and they don't have the national reputation/recognition that Boise has.

Not to mention their addition makes the AAC just look more and more like reheated CUSA leftovers from 2011. That’s not a good look for an AAC that’s pushing a P6 narrative. That’s just one more reason the UConn replacement has to be a value adding choice like Boise, BYU, or Army. It can’t be a “let’s get the old CUSA band back together” pick. Part of UConns value was they were part of what made the AAC different and unique from CUSA. Thus, that aspect of the UConn contribution must be considered when replacing UConn.

BYU and Army have no need to join so you either have to meet Boise's demands or find someone else. There are very few schools who would fit in as a full member and meet the requirements your talking about.

Agree. To my knowledge both the AAC and Boise are good with a football only membership provided Boise can find a suitable home for their Olympic sports. I think Boise will find one early in 2021 when the Covid crises eases. They will continue talks with the Big West and WCC—but I don’t think those discussions will bear fruit. My sense is during the next few months the WAC’s planned expansion will succeed and will provide the WAC with the strength and stability required to make it a viable home for Boise Olympic sports.

If that does not occur—then I suspect the AAC continues to stand pat at 11. There is simply nobody beyond the AAC’s short list of candidates that adds enough value to be a viable #12 at this time. Over the next 10 years, that could change as some team with potential might develop—-but as of this second, nobody other than BYU, Boise, or Army (also possibly Air Force) makes sense for football.

Or Boise could become a full member and only play Olympic sports within their division except for a championship game. They could then fill out their remaining schedule with regional opponents. Or the AAC could go to 14 teams and add SDSU and BYU as well, as long as ESPN would pony up enough $ to make each schools return the same or more than before.

I dont think there is much desire for that. However, IF we HAD to add someone in the next few months---I'd prefer your solution to adding someone who is not on the short list. lol...but Im not so sure the AAC presidents agree with me if forced to add someone in the next few months. Covid has made a mess of a lot of athletic department budgets. A "football only" Boise membership means a negligible change in travel budgets...anything else has a lot more moving parts. School administrators tend to be a very risk adverse bunch.

I don't see any reason BYU would join the current iteration of the AAC.

They are independent primarily because Utah, their chief rival, is in a Power 5 conference. They can't afford to join a league with a lesser reputation and so until a Power league comes calling, they look better by remaining independent.

That move has thus far paid off as it seems the P5 has recognized them as a Power opponent for the purpose of non-conference scheduling.

We'll see what happens if the Big 12 implodes, but BYU has no motivation.

(12-31-2020 02:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't see any reason BYU would join the current iteration of the AAC.

They are independent primarily because Utah, their chief rival, is in a Power 5 conference. They can't afford to join a league with a lesser reputation and so until a Power league comes calling, they look better by remaining independent.

That move has thus far paid off as it seems the P5 has recognized them as a Power opponent for the purpose of non-conference scheduling.

We'll see what happens if the Big 12 implodes, but BYU has no motivation.

The counter to that is that BYU's realistic ceiling every year is some mediocre bowl game against a G5 opponent. They aren't making the playoff or getting an at-large NY6 bid over a P5 team. In the AAC, they at least can play for the NY6 bid and conference championship.

(12-31-2020 02:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't see any reason BYU would join the current iteration of the AAC.

They are independent primarily because Utah, their chief rival, is in a Power 5 conference. They can't afford to join a league with a lesser reputation and so until a Power league comes calling, they look better by remaining independent.

That move has thus far paid off as it seems the P5 has recognized them as a Power opponent for the purpose of non-conference scheduling.

We'll see what happens if the Big 12 implodes, but BYU has no motivation.

It is unlikely that the Big 12 will implode. And the Pac 12 doesn't want them. They have no other option other than independence, smaller bowls, no NY6 money or opportunities.