(04-15-2021 08:22 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 01:10 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

One certainly can't generalize about multi-year trends from one or two seasons, particularly coming off a highly atypical pandemic year.

However, there is one multi-year trend that wasn't affected by the pandemic - - and that is the steady trend toward more and more P5 teams in the Final AP and CFP Top 25 over the past 7 seasons.

....................# of non-P5 FB teams in Final AP Top 25:

2020..............8

2019..............7

2018..............6

2017..............4

2016..............3

2015..............3

2014..............3

2013..............1

.

The AAC's best year was 2019, with four AAC teams in the final AP Top 25. If this were to continue, the American might be able to maintain that it is head and shoulders above the other G5 conferences with some credibility.

However, on average, the AAC has only had 2.5 teams per year in the Final AP Top 25 over the past four seasons. The MWC isn't far behind with 1.75 Top 25 teams per season since 2017, and the SBC has averaged 1.5 final Top 25 teams in 2019 and 2020.

The AAC may not be in imminent danger of losing its reputation as the "top dog" in the G5, but that could change if there is continuing growth in the number of upper echelon G5 teams.

.

This is of importance because it wouldn't take much at this point for one of the other conferences, such as the SBC or the MWC, to attain parity with the AAC with respect to the number of upper echelon teams per conference.

If things get to that point, the American would have a harder time making the argument that it maintains a special status as the only "P6" football power conference, with the other G5 conferences being referred to as the "G4."

.

Q: Is the AAC leadership concerned about this potential problem?

A: The answer appears to be yes, since they have responded to the evolving situation by shifting their stance from being happy with 11 teams per sport to contacting Boise St. about joining the AAC (FB-only), and by announcing an intention to replace UConn and/or expand to 14 schools.


Q: What, if anything, can the American do about this situation?

A: There's nothing it can do to prevent another G5 conference from getting 2 or 3 FB teams per year into the final top 25. All it can do to maintain a dominant position is to increase the number of AAC teams the final top 25.

Q: How can they do that?

A: Two ways: (1) They can make a greater effort to elevated the quality of their football teams, and (2) They can add another strong football program.

Of the two, remedy #2 is far easier than remedy #1 is to accomplish. No amount of conference-led effort is likely to prevent teams such as Houston and Temple from slumping when they lose a fine Head Coach. Every school is already doing whatever it can to improve the competitiveness of its FB program. In contrast, remedy #2 simply requires persuading a high-quality FB school to join the conference.

Boise State even requested to join the AAC, and if they had joined, they would have bolstered the AAC's claim to be the top dog in the G5 and a FB power conference going forward. However, the AAC leadership turned down that request because it didn't want to grant Boise an all-sports membership.

It may live to regret that decision.

.

In January 2020 Boise State was unhappy with the mwc pushing back on the special deal (separate negotiation of BSU home games and more money going to BSU than other members) made upon the Broncos' return to the mwc in 2012. BSU made overtures to the AAC and explored other conference affiliations for non-football sports.
In September 2020 Boise State football coach and AD were unhappy with the mwc decision to cancel football due to the pandemic. These overtures were renewed.

Somehow these events were influenced by the final AP Top 25 of January 2021?
Fascinating.

The AP Top 25 of January 2020, the final for the 2019 season -- the one that might have some influence on events if we think about time as a linear progression -- had 4 AAC teams in the Top 25 (plus Boise and Appalachian State).
(Oh by the way, that is 6 and you say 7)

The AAC considering BSU for a football-only addition isn't any kind of stance shifting - It was good in December 2011, it would have been good immediately after UConn announced their departure in June 2019, and it was good in 2020. BSU (as a football only) has always been one of the few programs on the short list of those that would add value to the conference.

Yep, most likely will fall on deaf ears tho. I mostly skip and skim, but feel like all of this has been covered, corrected and clarified in multiple other threads.

One year isn’t a trend good or bad. Every year games are decided by dropped passes and bad calls...better to be lucky than not. Even if the AAC doesn’t get the NY6 game in a particular year, doesn’t mean the sky is falling or there’s no separation. Top teams in the AAC and Boise to some extent control their own destinies. The year the AAC finished as the fourth best FBS didn’t vault the conference ahead. Perception lags reality. Separation exists just like it does in the P5 noted by media deals and coverage, committee bias, recruiting perception and fanbase involvement. I’m sure there are categories. Those just came readily to mind for the major sports.

(04-15-2021 10:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 09:27 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 08:30 AM)fade2blac Wrote:  

(04-14-2021 11:32 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  All that matters is who gets that NY6 bowl bid.
2020 - Cincinnati- AAC
2019- Memphis- AAC
2018- UCF - AAC
2017- UCF- AAC
2016- W.Michigan- MAC
2015- Houston-AAC
2014- Boise- MWC

Why leave out 2013? It was the first year of the AAC and UCF won the Fiesta Bowl. I know it was the last year of the BCS but it should still be mentioned. AAC has owned the NY6/BCS slot since the AAC was formed.

Because that was not part of the NY6 bowls and playoff contract. UCF went that year as an automatic champion of the old BigEast. The league lost that automatic bid after that year.

True---BUT---we DID send a team to a NYD Bowl that year and IF the current CFP access bowl rules had been in effect in the 2013 season---the exact same UCF team would have been awarded the access bowl slot. Thus, I have no issue adding on the 2013 appearance since that appearance would have qualified under the current CFP rules governing the access bowl.

IMO, if you do that then you need to include all BCS appearances for consistency sake. With realignment, it’s cleaner to just use CFP as modern/current era data, but that’s just my take.

(04-15-2021 10:42 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 10:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 09:27 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 08:30 AM)fade2blac Wrote:  

(04-14-2021 11:32 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  All that matters is who gets that NY6 bowl bid.
2020 - Cincinnati- AAC
2019- Memphis- AAC
2018- UCF - AAC
2017- UCF- AAC
2016- W.Michigan- MAC
2015- Houston-AAC
2014- Boise- MWC

Why leave out 2013? It was the first year of the AAC and UCF won the Fiesta Bowl. I know it was the last year of the BCS but it should still be mentioned. AAC has owned the NY6/BCS slot since the AAC was formed.

Because that was not part of the NY6 bowls and playoff contract. UCF went that year as an automatic champion of the old BigEast. The league lost that automatic bid after that year.

True---BUT---we DID send a team to a NYD Bowl that year and IF the current CFP access bowl rules had been in effect in the 2013 season---the exact same UCF team would have been awarded the access bowl slot. Thus, I have no issue adding on the 2013 appearance since that appearance would have qualified under the current CFP rules governing the access bowl.

IMO, if you do that then you need to include all BCS appearances for consistency sake. With realignment, it’s cleaner to just use CFP as modern/current era data, but that’s just my take.

I would argue you dont include all BCS appearances other than 2013. The main reason is the AAC didnt exist before 2013---and thats what we are measuring here (The AAC vs the G4).

(04-15-2021 12:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 10:42 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 10:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 09:27 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 08:30 AM)fade2blac Wrote:  Why leave out 2013? It was the first year of the AAC and UCF won the Fiesta Bowl. I know it was the last year of the BCS but it should still be mentioned. AAC has owned the NY6/BCS slot since the AAC was formed.

Because that was not part of the NY6 bowls and playoff contract. UCF went that year as an automatic champion of the old BigEast. The league lost that automatic bid after that year.

True---BUT---we DID send a team to a NYD Bowl that year and IF the current CFP access bowl rules had been in effect in the 2013 season---the exact same UCF team would have been awarded the access bowl slot. Thus, I have no issue adding on the 2013 appearance since that appearance would have qualified under the current CFP rules governing the access bowl.

IMO, if you do that then you need to include all BCS appearances for consistency sake. With realignment, it’s cleaner to just use CFP as modern/current era data, but that’s just my take.

I would argue you dont include all BCS appearances other than 2013. The main reason is the AAC didnt exist before 2013---and thats what we are measuring here (The AAC vs the G4).

Too messy for me as the AAC was still BCS and included UL and Rutgers while CUSA still had ECU, Tulsa and Tulane. But as you say

(04-15-2021 10:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  First off why is anyone looking at AP polls when it comes to the NY6 bowls? You need to look at the Playoff poll which is what decides who gets the slot.

That's correct, if we assume that getting the NY6 slot is all that matters to AAC or any other conference's reputation. But I don't think it is. Bowl season clearly counts, when bowl season unfolds there is all kinds of coverage in sports media about which conferences proved themselves and which ones have faltered and been exposed, etc. And that adds or subtracts from the conference reputation. It's kind of like the way the NCAA tournament works for college basketball.

That said, I readily agree with those that say "one year does not a trend make" such that we shouldn't be drawing big conclusions from the AAC's relatively poor 2020 campaign. But it also cuts both ways - when the AAC had a banner year in 2019, was actually slightly better than the ACC, I do recall some (not you) making a big deal out of it and projecting those results in to the future as a likely trend, etc.

So we should be consistent about that.

(04-15-2021 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 10:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  First off why is anyone looking at AP polls when it comes to the NY6 bowls? You need to look at the Playoff poll which is what decides who gets the slot.

That's correct, if we assume that getting the NY6 slot is all that matters to AAC or any other conference's reputation. But I don't think it is. Bowl season clearly counts, when bowl season unfolds there is all kinds of coverage in sports media about which conferences proved themselves and which ones have faltered and been exposed, etc. And that adds or subtracts from the conference reputation. It's kind of like the way the NCAA tournament works for college basketball.

That said, I readily agree with those that say "one year does not a trend make" such that we shouldn't be drawing big conclusions from the AAC's relatively poor 2020 campaign. But it also cuts both ways - when the AAC had a banner year in 2019, was actually slightly better than the ACC, I do recall some (not you) making a big deal out of it and projecting those results in to the future as a likely trend, etc.

So we should be consistent about that.

I disagree. How many people care or remember what was a league’s bowl record or who won the Little Weiner Bowl in some town no one wants to visit.
Access to the playoffs and the high paying NY6 bowl is the crown jewel for fans, teams and conferences. Would you rather say your school won or played in Orange Bowl or played and won 6 St Petersburg or whatever is called now Bowls?

(04-15-2021 10:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  First off why is anyone looking at AP polls when it comes to the NY6 bowls? You need to look at the Playoff poll which is what decides who gets the slot.

In the 7 years of the deal which the AAC has taken 5, MWC 1, MAC 1, CUSA 0, SBC 0

Total ranked teams in final polls
AAC 13
MWC 6- Boise has 3 of them
SBC 3
MAC 1
CUSA 0

So the AAC has had more final ranked teams than all the others added together.

Anybody wanting to play games about what IF, the AAC team lost title game needs to also do so for the others. Boise in 2014 played a Fresno team with a losing record. A loss there and they lose that spot. Same can be said about Western Michigan which needed an interception leading by 6 to beat Ohio. Lose there and they don’t get the spot.

The facts are that the AAC has a higher chance of having two ranked teams in their championship every year than the others do.

I am all for adding Boise and going to 14 with BYU and SDSU. A 14 team league with 8 conference games means only two crossovers which leads to higher chance of both divisions champs not having faced each other and having higher ranks.

Excellent post, I totally agree with your thoughts about protecting the rankings of division champs by going all the way to 14. Only thing I have issue with is SDSU, or any California state school, for reasons I'm not allowed to say here. I would rather invite Colorado State or Utah State or Air Force.

(04-15-2021 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 10:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  First off why is anyone looking at AP polls when it comes to the NY6 bowls? You need to look at the Playoff poll which is what decides who gets the slot.

That's correct, if we assume that getting the NY6 slot is all that matters to AAC or any other conference's reputation. But I don't think it is. Bowl season clearly counts, when bowl season unfolds there is all kinds of coverage in sports media about which conferences proved themselves and which ones have faltered and been exposed, etc. And that adds or subtracts from the conference reputation. It's kind of like the way the NCAA tournament works for college basketball.

That said, I readily agree with those that say "one year does not a trend make" such that we shouldn't be drawing big conclusions from the AAC's relatively poor 2020 campaign. But it also cuts both ways - when the AAC had a banner year in 2019, was actually slightly better than the ACC, I do recall some (not you) making a big deal out of it and projecting those results in to the future as a likely trend, etc.

So we should be consistent about that.

Yes, let's look at AAC average team ranking in Massey Composite.
Over seven years of the CFP.
Relative to the best of the "G4" and relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference.

Massey Composite conference average team ranking, AAC relative to the best G4
2020.....2.94 better - CORRECTION 2.99
2019.....14.29 better
2018.....2.48 lower
2017.....17.12 better
2016.....9.78 better
2015.....14.3 better
2014.....7.2 lower

As the #6, five years out of seven, AAC averages 11.69 better
When not #6, only twice in the CFP, AAC averages 4.84 behind

AAC relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference
2020.....9.58 lower - CORRECTION 9.45
2019.....0.12 better
2018.....24.61 lower
2017.....14.98 lower
2016.....16.66 lower
2015.....14.2 lower
2014......48.73 lower - CORRECTION 35.2
On this one, I'll highlight that indeed 2014 and 2018 are the outliers. 2020 (caveat/disclaimer assumed for strange year) in fact was not a down year looking through this lens. Just an extreme outlier good year for the SunBelt (as 2018 was an outlier good year for the mwc in addition to an outlier bad year for the AAC).

Graph them out...there is a trendline for each. Closer to the "P5" and separating from the "G4"
Edited 28 April with corrections from quo vadis. Including adding updated graph

  AAC relative Massey Composite-trendlines.PNG (Size: 31.23 KB / Downloads: 17)
  AAC-relative-Massey-Composite-trendlines-20210428.PNG (Size: 31.19 KB / Downloads: 3)

.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(04-15-2021 07:58 PM)panama Wrote:  .

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Grogu like graph with trendlines?

(04-15-2021 08:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 07:58 PM)panama Wrote:  .

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Grogu like graph with trendlines?

Group like 15 paragraph end of the world posts...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(04-15-2021 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 01:10 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

One certainly can't generalize about multi-year trends from one or two seasons, particularly coming off a highly atypical pandemic year.

However, there is one multi-year trend that wasn't affected by the pandemic - - and that is the steady trend toward more and more P5 teams in the Final AP and CFP Top 25 over the past 7 seasons.

....................# of non-P5 FB teams in Final AP Top 25:

2020..............8

2019..............7

2018..............6

2017..............4

2016..............3

2015..............3

2014..............3

2013..............1

.

The AAC's best year was 2019, with four AAC teams in the final AP Top 25. If this were to continue, the American might be able to maintain that it is head and shoulders above the other G5 conferences with some credibility.

However, on average, the AAC has only had 2.5 teams per year in the Final AP Top 25 over the past four seasons. The MWC isn't far behind with 1.75 Top 25 teams per season since 2017, and the SBC has averaged 1.5 final Top 25 teams in 2019 and 2020.

The AAC may not be in imminent danger of losing its reputation as the "top dog" in the G5, but that could change if there is continuing growth in the number of upper echelon G5 teams.

.

This is of importance because it wouldn't take much at this point for one of the other conferences, such as the SBC or the MWC, to attain parity with the AAC with respect to the number of upper echelon teams per conference.

If things get to that point, the American would have a harder time making the argument that it maintains a special status as the only "P6" football power conference, with the other G5 conferences being referred to as the "G4."

.

Q: Is the AAC leadership concerned about this potential problem?

A: The answer appears to be yes, since they have responded to the evolving situation by shifting their stance from being happy with 11 teams per sport to contacting Boise St. about joining the AAC (FB-only), and by announcing an intention to replace UConn and/or expand to 14 schools.


Q: What, if anything, can the American do about this situation?

A: There's nothing it can do to prevent another G5 conference from getting 2 or 3 FB teams per year into the final top 25. All it can do to maintain a dominant position is to increase the number of AAC teams the final top 25.

Q: How can they do that?

A: Two ways: (1) They can make a greater effort to elevated the quality of their football teams, and (2) They can add another strong football program.

Of the two, remedy #2 is far easier than remedy #1 is to accomplish. No amount of conference-led effort is likely to prevent teams such as Houston and Temple from slumping when they lose a fine Head Coach. Every school is already doing whatever it can to improve the competitiveness of its FB program. In contrast, remedy #2 simply requires persuading a high-quality FB school to join the conference.

Boise State even requested to join the AAC, and if they had joined, they would have bolstered the AAC's claim to be the top dog in the G5 and a FB power conference going forward. However, the AAC leadership turned down that request because it didn't want to grant Boise an all-sports membership.

It may live to regret that decision.

.

No more than we regret the decision to not offer Boise a "special deal". If we are going to allow all sports western additions---it will have to be multiple additions and it will require a switch to scheduling that relies heavily on playing almost exclusively within eastern and western divisions. There are advantages and disadvantages to that---but its much more of a commitment for the AAC to go all sports in the west than it is to add a single western "football only" school. The hesitancy of the AAC to make that kind of commitment is not unreasonable.

Those are very valid points, and it's understandably not an easy decision, since there are pros and cons to each of the possible options.

But let me suggest a reason why it's not necessarily "much more of a commitment for the AAC to go all sports in the west than it is to add single western "football only" school:

As I understand the Commissioner's remarks, the conference wants one thing above all, at this point: To "get back to 12 schools."

I'm sure we'll agree on that point.

Further, adding Boise for all sports would satisfy that simple objective.

We'll agree on that too, but so the only dispute is whether it would involve "much more of a commitment from the conference."

I believe that - - if that is the only move that the conference wants to make - - there would be only one significant "commitment" to be concerned with, and that is the long travel time for the schools' basketball and olympic sports teams to and from Boise.

If we agree on that point, then let me point out that I have set up a new thread today, presenting a detailed plan for offsetting the increased distance of travel to Boise with a whole series of measures that would more than make up the difference.

It would simply involve shifting to divisional play and divisional scheduling, with basketball & olympic sports teams playing divisional foes twice and only playing cross-divisional foes once per season. In addition, there would be a slight increase in OOC games to offset a slight decrease in conference games (16, down from 18).

Don't know how the conference would respond to that, but let me also point out this fact:

Boise seems to be the only game in town. They would join the AAC, nobody else in the West would. The idea of them joining for FB-only is a non-starter. So saying "no" to Boise is a bit like cutting off one's own nose, despite one's face.

More accurately, "it's making the perfect the enemy of the good."

Adding Boise for FB-only would be the "perfect." Adding them for all-sports would be the good.

The only special commitment that would be involved in adding a Western team is the extra travel distance, and I have shown that a few simple measures, based on all the many benefits that could be obtained with divisional scheduling, could completely offset the effects of the travel distance to Boise.

I wonder what your response to that would be. I'm guessing that you may argue that schools such as Cincy might not want to reduce the number of basketball games they play with teams in the Central Time Zone, such as Houston and Wichita State.

If that's your response, my only counter-response would be that the conference has to make a choice - - either add Boise, because that's the only option for moving up to power conference stature, or don't add Boise because the schools don't want to have to play fewer games vs. teams in the next time zone.

It's a kind of Hobson's Choice. We can't have it both ways. In such cases, one usually goes with the essential (add Boise) vs. the optional (keep playing a full round-robin 20 game basketball schedule).

If the AAC doesn't become a power conference, it will be because they had a chance to make it happen, and just said, "it's not worth the sacrifices."

I hope that they will see that the benefits would far outweigh the inconveniences if they open up the path to power conference status.


.

(04-16-2021 08:41 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 01:10 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

One certainly can't generalize about multi-year trends from one or two seasons, particularly coming off a highly atypical pandemic year.

However, there is one multi-year trend that wasn't affected by the pandemic - - and that is the steady trend toward more and more P5 teams in the Final AP and CFP Top 25 over the past 7 seasons.

....................# of non-P5 FB teams in Final AP Top 25:

2020..............8

2019..............7

2018..............6

2017..............4

2016..............3

2015..............3

2014..............3

2013..............1

.

The AAC's best year was 2019, with four AAC teams in the final AP Top 25. If this were to continue, the American might be able to maintain that it is head and shoulders above the other G5 conferences with some credibility.

However, on average, the AAC has only had 2.5 teams per year in the Final AP Top 25 over the past four seasons. The MWC isn't far behind with 1.75 Top 25 teams per season since 2017, and the SBC has averaged 1.5 final Top 25 teams in 2019 and 2020.

The AAC may not be in imminent danger of losing its reputation as the "top dog" in the G5, but that could change if there is continuing growth in the number of upper echelon G5 teams.

.

This is of importance because it wouldn't take much at this point for one of the other conferences, such as the SBC or the MWC, to attain parity with the AAC with respect to the number of upper echelon teams per conference.

If things get to that point, the American would have a harder time making the argument that it maintains a special status as the only "P6" football power conference, with the other G5 conferences being referred to as the "G4."

.

Q: Is the AAC leadership concerned about this potential problem?

A: The answer appears to be yes, since they have responded to the evolving situation by shifting their stance from being happy with 11 teams per sport to contacting Boise St. about joining the AAC (FB-only), and by announcing an intention to replace UConn and/or expand to 14 schools.


Q: What, if anything, can the American do about this situation?

A: There's nothing it can do to prevent another G5 conference from getting 2 or 3 FB teams per year into the final top 25. All it can do to maintain a dominant position is to increase the number of AAC teams the final top 25.

Q: How can they do that?

A: Two ways: (1) They can make a greater effort to elevated the quality of their football teams, and (2) They can add another strong football program.

Of the two, remedy #2 is far easier than remedy #1 is to accomplish. No amount of conference-led effort is likely to prevent teams such as Houston and Temple from slumping when they lose a fine Head Coach. Every school is already doing whatever it can to improve the competitiveness of its FB program. In contrast, remedy #2 simply requires persuading a high-quality FB school to join the conference.

Boise State even requested to join the AAC, and if they had joined, they would have bolstered the AAC's claim to be the top dog in the G5 and a FB power conference going forward. However, the AAC leadership turned down that request because it didn't want to grant Boise an all-sports membership.

It may live to regret that decision.

.

No more than we regret the decision to not offer Boise a "special deal". If we are going to allow all sports western additions---it will have to be multiple additions and it will require a switch to scheduling that relies heavily on playing almost exclusively within eastern and western divisions. There are advantages and disadvantages to that---but its much more of a commitment for the AAC to go all sports in the west than it is to add a single western "football only" school. The hesitancy of the AAC to make that kind of commitment is not unreasonable.

Those are very valid points, and it's understandably not an easy decision, since there are pros and cons to each of the possible options.

But let me suggest a reason why it's not necessarily "much more of a commitment for the AAC to go all sports in the west than it is to add single western "football only" school:

As I understand the Commissioner's remarks, the conference wants one thing above all, at this point: To "get back to 12 schools."

I'm sure we'll agree on that point.

Further, adding Boise for all sports would satisfy that simple objective.

We'll agree on that too, but so the only dispute is whether it would involve "much more of a commitment from the conference."

I believe that - - if that is the only move that the conference wants to make - - there would be only one significant "commitment" to be concerned with, and that is the long travel time for the schools' basketball and olympic sports teams to and from Boise.

If we agree on that point, then let me point out that I have set up a new thread today, presenting a detailed plan for offsetting the increased distance of travel to Boise with a whole series of measures that would more than make up the difference.

It would simply involve shifting to divisional play and divisional scheduling, with basketball & olympic sports teams playing divisional foes twice and only playing cross-divisional foes once per season. In addition, there would be a slight increase in OOC games to offset a slight decrease in conference games (16, down from 18).

Don't know how the conference would respond to that, but let me also point out this fact:

Boise seems to be the only game in town. They would join the AAC, nobody else in the West would. The idea of them joining for FB-only is a non-starter. So saying "no" to Boise is a bit like cutting off one's own nose, despite one's face.

More accurately, "it's making the perfect the enemy of the good."

Adding Boise for FB-only would be the "perfect." Adding them for all-sports would be the good.

The only special commitment that would be involved in adding a Western team is the extra travel distance, and I have shown that a few simple measures, based on all the many benefits that could be obtained with divisional scheduling, could completely offset the effects of the travel distance to Boise.

I wonder what your response to that would be. I'm guessing that you may argue that schools such as Cincy might not want to reduce the number of basketball games they play with teams in the Central Time Zone, such as Houston and Wichita State.

If that's your response, my only counter-response would be that the conference has to make a choice - - either add Boise, because that's the only option for moving up to power conference stature, or don't add Boise because the schools don't want to have to play fewer games vs. teams in the next time zone.

It's a kind of Hobson's Choice. We can't have it both ways. In such cases, one usually goes with the essential (add Boise) vs. the optional (keep playing a full round-robin 20 game basketball schedule).

If the AAC doesn't become a power conference, it will be because they had a chance to make it happen, and just said, "it's not worth the sacrifices." so be it.

.

Regarding the bolded, we don't all agree.
The conference doesn't want "above all" to get to 12.

We can stay at 11 and stay on course to the strategic goals.
Adding Boise football-only is worth doing to progress to the strategic goals.
Adding Boise all-sports is not worth doing to progress to the strategic goals.

That's it.

I doubt that adding any non-power school, even Boise or BYU, would elevate the AAC to P-6 status. I think it's far more likely that one or two current AAC schools would get a promotion and leave for greener pastures, after which those left behind, including any recent additions, would be left in a weakened condition.

(04-16-2021 09:04 PM)colohank Wrote:  I doubt that adding any non-power school, even Boise or BYU, would elevate the AAC to P-6 status. I think it's far more likely that one or two current AAC schools would get a promotion and leave for greener pastures, after which those left behind, including any recent additions, would be left in a weakened condition.

Who and why would expand with AAC schools? I know some of our fans think that the Big12 is going to come calling and rescue them into the P5, but why would they? They are doing fine money wise with 10 teams and doubt any additions will bring them extra cash per school.

So the best shot this league has is to have the playoffs expand and get a seat in there, adding enough schools like Boise and BYU to officially separate ourselves from the other 4 conferences. More like 5-1-4. Not in P5 and not in G4

(04-16-2021 09:14 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 09:04 PM)colohank Wrote:  I doubt that adding any non-power school, even Boise or BYU, would elevate the AAC to P-6 status. I think it's far more likely that one or two current AAC schools would get a promotion and leave for greener pastures, after which those left behind, including any recent additions, would be left in a weakened condition.

Who and why would expand with AAC schools? I know some of our fans think that the Big12 is going to come calling and rescue them into the P5, but why would they? They are doing fine money wise with 10 teams and doubt any additions will bring them extra cash per school.

So the best shot this league has is to have the playoffs expand and get a seat in there, adding enough schools like Boise and BYU to officially separate ourselves from the other 4 conferences. More like 5-1-4. Not in P5 and not in G4

With or without Boise/BYU...make the case for the conference as a whole (assuming no last-decade realignment of picking off single schools) to be included in the next CFP structure formally, or to get a contract with the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta...hunh...sounds like a strategic plan...let's brand it with something like "P6"

(04-16-2021 09:18 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 09:14 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 09:04 PM)colohank Wrote:  I doubt that adding any non-power school, even Boise or BYU, would elevate the AAC to P-6 status. I think it's far more likely that one or two current AAC schools would get a promotion and leave for greener pastures, after which those left behind, including any recent additions, would be left in a weakened condition.

Who and why would expand with AAC schools? I know some of our fans think that the Big12 is going to come calling and rescue them into the P5, but why would they? They are doing fine money wise with 10 teams and doubt any additions will bring them extra cash per school.

So the best shot this league has is to have the playoffs expand and get a seat in there, adding enough schools like Boise and BYU to officially separate ourselves from the other 4 conferences. More like 5-1-4. Not in P5 and not in G4

With or without Boise/BYU...make the case for the conference as a whole (assuming no last-decade realignment of picking off single schools) to be included in the next CFP structure formally, or to get a contract with the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta...hunh...sounds like a strategic plan...let's brand it with something like "P6"

Oh I agree but I think Boise and BYU would move the needle on both of those.

(04-16-2021 09:20 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 09:18 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 09:14 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 09:04 PM)colohank Wrote:  I doubt that adding any non-power school, even Boise or BYU, would elevate the AAC to P-6 status. I think it's far more likely that one or two current AAC schools would get a promotion and leave for greener pastures, after which those left behind, including any recent additions, would be left in a weakened condition.

Who and why would expand with AAC schools? I know some of our fans think that the Big12 is going to come calling and rescue them into the P5, but why would they? They are doing fine money wise with 10 teams and doubt any additions will bring them extra cash per school.

So the best shot this league has is to have the playoffs expand and get a seat in there, adding enough schools like Boise and BYU to officially separate ourselves from the other 4 conferences. More like 5-1-4. Not in P5 and not in G4

With or without Boise/BYU...make the case for the conference as a whole (assuming no last-decade realignment of picking off single schools) to be included in the next CFP structure formally, or to get a contract with the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta...hunh...sounds like a strategic plan...let's brand it with something like "P6"

Oh I agree but I think Boise and BYU would move the needle on both of those.

Absolutely.
Those two are 50-67% of the list of instant "yes" adds.
And if they (or the other 1-2 instant "yes") aren't coming - because it takes two to tango - we stay the course with the current composition. Not as better as we would be with them, but still possible without them.

(04-16-2021 09:23 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 09:20 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 09:18 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 09:14 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 09:04 PM)colohank Wrote:  I doubt that adding any non-power school, even Boise or BYU, would elevate the AAC to P-6 status. I think it's far more likely that one or two current AAC schools would get a promotion and leave for greener pastures, after which those left behind, including any recent additions, would be left in a weakened condition.

Who and why would expand with AAC schools? I know some of our fans think that the Big12 is going to come calling and rescue them into the P5, but why would they? They are doing fine money wise with 10 teams and doubt any additions will bring them extra cash per school.

So the best shot this league has is to have the playoffs expand and get a seat in there, adding enough schools like Boise and BYU to officially separate ourselves from the other 4 conferences. More like 5-1-4. Not in P5 and not in G4

With or without Boise/BYU...make the case for the conference as a whole (assuming no last-decade realignment of picking off single schools) to be included in the next CFP structure formally, or to get a contract with the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta...hunh...sounds like a strategic plan...let's brand it with something like "P6"

Oh I agree but I think Boise and BYU would move the needle on both of those.

Absolutely.
Those two are 50-67% of the list of instant "yes" adds.
And if they (or the other 1-2 instant "yes") aren't coming - because it takes two to tango - we stay the course with the current composition. Not as better as we would be with them, but still possible without them.

Completely agree with you.

The media doesn't want a P6. Their promotion of other G4 schools to the extent successful serves to keep the AAC within the narrative they support.