(04-22-2021 10:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 04:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The American members offers, collectively, better academics than some folks realize. For example, seven of the league's 12 members offer schools of medicine. Even Memphis, which is not very academically prestigious, offers a school of law and a college of engineering.

No question. Heck, five AAC schools are in the top 100 or so of the US News rankings.

But the thing is, there are also several between 100 and 200, and some in the 200s. So given that very broad spread, I am hard-pressed to think of schools that wouldn't qualify for the AAC on academic grounds. I guess maybe the limit is 300 or so? But no, because Boise falls outside of that range. Yes, I know Boise is an "exceptional" brand, but nevertheless, that's reaching pretty low.

The AAC just seems all over the map academically, with no rhyme or reason. That leads me to believe that academics just is not likely to be a big deal in any future expansion.

If I had to put a bracket around AAC academics, in terms of a drop-dead standard, I would say "US News top 300, with exceptions for exceptional brands". That's not much of a standard, IMO, though it would exclude some schools in other G5.

All of the full member schools are USNWR top 200 schools except ECU and Memphis. ECU was in the top 200 when added—it fell out over the last couple of years and hopefully will return. Memphis is the only one added that wasn’t in the top 200 when added—and it was considered to be very very strong brand in basketball.....that’s a big deal at a time when the C7 made up most of the schools that still had voting rights. Of the hybrid members—Navy has an impeccable and honorable academic reputation—it’s just very specialized. Wichita is an exception—but again, it’s an exception granted for very very high level performance and brand value in a revenue sport.

Now, other than Boise—-who’s the massive G5 football brand name with consistent spectacular on the field performance that’s going to earn a. academic exception from the AAC presidents? Boise—but that’s way out west. BYU, Air Force, Army, SDSU—all are either not interested or too far away—and none of those need an academic exception. East of the Rockies—-I don’t see anyone that has enough “brand value/stellar-the-field-performance” to even attract an AAC invite—much less an academic exception.....at least not right now...which is why the AAC remains at 11.

Wow, you felt strongly enough about this to post it twice, LOL. Well OK, it really seems like the only thing we disagree on is, you seem to think the AAC has an academic barrier of 200 with big exceptions for exceptional brands (Boise, Wichita), and I think it's 300 with the same.

And as you say, the viable candidates for expansion are so few, and none of them really provide a test case for our competing ideas, as they either fall in the under 200 range anyway, or outside of 300 but with exceptional brands.

FWIW, I think we should remain at 11 for as long as the exemption remains in place, which I expect to be permanent. I don't even think we need Boise, even for football only. IMO, Boise is on the downslope and they will continue to wilt. They are looking for a life jacket and we shouldn't provide them with one. And if the argument is "take them to remove them as a threat to get the NY6 spot", I'll note that Boise has only won the MW in 3 of their 9 years as members.

IMO, the AAC is in a strong position for what we are, and do not need to be desperate to get back to 12.

(04-22-2021 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 10:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 04:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The American members offers, collectively, better academics than some folks realize. For example, seven of the league's 12 members offer schools of medicine. Even Memphis, which is not very academically prestigious, offers a school of law and a college of engineering.

No question. Heck, five AAC schools are in the top 100 or so of the US News rankings.

But the thing is, there are also several between 100 and 200, and some in the 200s. So given that very broad spread, I am hard-pressed to think of schools that wouldn't qualify for the AAC on academic grounds. I guess maybe the limit is 300 or so? But no, because Boise falls outside of that range. Yes, I know Boise is an "exceptional" brand, but nevertheless, that's reaching pretty low.

The AAC just seems all over the map academically, with no rhyme or reason. That leads me to believe that academics just is not likely to be a big deal in any future expansion.

If I had to put a bracket around AAC academics, in terms of a drop-dead standard, I would say "US News top 300, with exceptions for exceptional brands". That's not much of a standard, IMO, though it would exclude some schools in other G5.

All of the full member schools are USNWR top 200 schools except ECU and Memphis. ECU was in the top 200 when added—it fell out over the last couple of years and hopefully will return. Memphis is the only one added that wasn’t in the top 200 when added—and it was considered to be very very strong brand in basketball.....that’s a big deal at a time when the C7 made up most of the schools that still had voting rights. Of the hybrid members—Navy has an impeccable and honorable academic reputation—it’s just very specialized. Wichita is an exception—but again, it’s an exception granted for very very high level performance and brand value in a revenue sport.

Now, other than Boise—-who’s the massive G5 football brand name with consistent spectacular on the field performance that’s going to earn a. academic exception from the AAC presidents? Boise—but that’s way out west. BYU, Air Force, Army, SDSU—all are either not interested or too far away—and none of those need an academic exception. East of the Rockies—-I don’t see anyone that has enough “brand value/stellar-the-field-performance” to even attract an AAC invite—much less an academic exception.....at least not right now...which is why the AAC remains at 11.

Wow, you felt strongly enough about this to post it twice, LOL. Well OK, it really seems like the only thing we disagree on is, you seem to think the AAC has an academic barrier of 200 with big exceptions for exceptional brands (Boise, Wichita), and I think it's 300 with the same.

And as you say, the viable candidates for expansion are so few, and none of them really provide a test case for our competing ideas, as they either fall in the under 200 range anyway, or outside of 300 but with exceptional brands.

FWIW, I think we should remain at 11 for as long as the exemption remains in place, which I expect to be permanent. I don't even think we need Boise, even for football only. IMO, Boise is on the downslope and they will continue to wilt. They are looking for a life jacket and we shouldn't provide them with one.

IMO, the AAC is in a strong position for what we are, and do not need to be desperate to get back to 12.

Lol. Not sure how I managed to double post—must have messed up some how when editing it. I went back and deleted the repeat. At any rate, yes—I do think the academic line is basically top 200—barring a school,having spectacular brand/performance worthy enough to earn an exception. Agree that we should just be patient until the right opportunity arises. No need to rush. It would be a mistake to cross our fingers and just roll the dice on a “school with potential”. Just be patient. Eventually a targeted school will decide they are interested or a clear and obvious value adding eastern G5 candidate will emerge from the scrum—-and that will be the time to name #12.

I also agree that the waiver will either be extended or the rule will be changed. However, even if that turns out to not be the case, the current existing rule allows a CCG with uneven divisions. I would continue on with 11–even without a waiver—as long as necessary if only “project” type expansion candidates are available. It makes no sense to pull the trigger until you have a candidate that adds value on Day one of membership.

I would be fine with the AAC staying at 11 (12 total members) IF men's hoops can improve. I'm somewhat encouraged by those prospects. I'm pleased with American football and baseball (though the latter has not been as strong this year as in past seasons).

On the academics theme, there are nine AAC members with very good to strong academics (listed in no particular order): Navy, SMU, Houston, USF, UCF, Cincinnati, Temple, Tulane and Tulsa (with ECU, Memphis and Wichita being the "bottom three" to round out the 12 members). Nine of 12 is very respectable.

As I have noted many times, there are seven NCAA DI leagues of major note outside the P5 if you combine athletics, academics and intangibles (locations, histories, brands, etc.): AAC, A10, Big East, C-USA, Ivy, Mountain West and WCC. Some might add the MAC, the Patriot and/or the Sun Belt.

I'm biased, true. But I would rank the American as perhaps superior to all if you consider, as noted, athletics, academics and intangibles (locations, histories, brands, etc.). Obviously, it's a very subjective thing.

(04-21-2021 10:28 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 11:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats a popular belief, but I dont see how it could be true. If you look at which members actually still had voting privileges at the time (just UConn, USF, Cinci, and the C7), the only way for Tulane to get an invite in late fall of 2012 was to capture no less than 5 of the 7 Catholic school votes. These are schools that were perfectly comfortable voting "no" at the same meeting when it came to giving ECU a full membership. So, they werent timid little souls. There may have been a C7 school that was unhappy with Tulane---but most of them seemed ok with it as the vast majority of the C7 clearly voted to give them an invite.

I think the issue was that Tulane had never (and arguably, has never) invested in basketball whereas the other entries (Memphis, Houston, SMU) had some basketball commitment and success.

Counterpoint: the issue is that way too much was invested in Tulane basketball.

(04-22-2021 08:09 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:28 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 11:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats a popular belief, but I dont see how it could be true. If you look at which members actually still had voting privileges at the time (just UConn, USF, Cinci, and the C7), the only way for Tulane to get an invite in late fall of 2012 was to capture no less than 5 of the 7 Catholic school votes. These are schools that were perfectly comfortable voting "no" at the same meeting when it came to giving ECU a full membership. So, they werent timid little souls. There may have been a C7 school that was unhappy with Tulane---but most of them seemed ok with it as the vast majority of the C7 clearly voted to give them an invite.

I think the issue was that Tulane had never (and arguably, has never) invested in basketball whereas the other entries (Memphis, Houston, SMU) had some basketball commitment and success.

Counterpoint: the issue is that way too much was invested in Tulane basketball.

Tulane admin didn't kick this under the rug like some other blue bloods would. That's the difference.

Tulane had good to great teams in the 90’s under Perry Clark.

(04-22-2021 08:20 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 08:09 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:28 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 11:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats a popular belief, but I dont see how it could be true. If you look at which members actually still had voting privileges at the time (just UConn, USF, Cinci, and the C7), the only way for Tulane to get an invite in late fall of 2012 was to capture no less than 5 of the 7 Catholic school votes. These are schools that were perfectly comfortable voting "no" at the same meeting when it came to giving ECU a full membership. So, they werent timid little souls. There may have been a C7 school that was unhappy with Tulane---but most of them seemed ok with it as the vast majority of the C7 clearly voted to give them an invite.

I think the issue was that Tulane had never (and arguably, has never) invested in basketball whereas the other entries (Memphis, Houston, SMU) had some basketball commitment and success.

Counterpoint: the issue is that way too much was invested in Tulane basketball.

Tulane admin didn't kick this under the rug like some other blue bloods would. That's the difference.

I would be interested in reading the article you posted, but unfortunately it is far too blurry to read. Can you post a url?

(04-23-2021 08:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  Tulane had good to great teams in the 90’s under Perry Clark.

Agree. Very good teams, indeed.

(04-23-2021 08:55 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 08:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  Tulane had good to great teams in the 90’s under Perry Clark.

Agree. Very good teams, indeed.

Jerald Honeycutt was legit.

Then again, those 5-6 years of Perry Clark led teams are the Zenith of Tulane basketball up to this point in history. Most years reflect well below .500 basketball and ~1,000 people in the stands for home games.

(04-23-2021 08:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  Tulane had good to great teams in the 90’s under Perry Clark.

I was at USF from 1990 - 1995 when both USF and Tulane were in the Metro Conference. Those Tulane teams were bruisers, usually a few thickly-built 6'8" and 6'9" guys along the front line. I remember USF, which had NCAA tournament teams in 1990 and 1992 battling against those Tulane teams, saw a few of them at our arena.

Unfortunately, from 1993 on we went way downhill while Tulane stayed good. But the Metro Conference those years was a tough, fun basketball league. Southern Miss was good, Charlotte was good, Louisville was good. It was just seven teams but tight-knit and good competition. When FSU and Cincy left in 1991, cutting the league to seven, things looked doomed, but the next year four of the seven made the NCAA tournament.

Good conference, until its dissolution in 1995. Almost like the Big East of the south.

(04-23-2021 11:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 08:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  Tulane had good to great teams in the 90’s under Perry Clark.

I was at USF from 1990 - 1995 when both USF and Tulane were in the Metro Conference. Those Tulane teams were bruisers, usually a few thickly-built 6'8" and 6'9" guys along the front line. I remember USF, which had NCAA tournament teams in 1990 and 1992 battling against those Tulane teams, saw a few of them at our arena.

Unfortunately, from 1993 on we went way downhill while Tulane stayed good. But the Metro Conference those years was a tough, fun basketball league. Southern Miss was good, Charlotte was good, Louisville was good. It was just seven teams but tight-knit and good competition. When FSU and Cincy left in 1991, cutting the league to seven, things looked doomed, but the next year four of the seven made the NCAA tournament.

Good conference, until its dissolution in 1995. Almost like the Big East of the south.

Hypothetically combine the 1993 versions of the Great Midwest of Cincinnati, Memphis, UAB, Marquette, Saint Louis, DePaul and Dayton and the Metro of Louisville, USF, Tulane, Southern Miss, Charlotte, Virginia Tech and VCU… and that’s one serious 14-team men’s hoops league.

(04-19-2021 12:34 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  The AAC is eyeing Boise State or Army instead of Rice or Buffalo. What does that tell you about their priorities? And that is more a reflection on this country’s priorities than the conference. What school’s diploma is the best in the long run?

AAC is eyeing Boise for a sports add.

I don't get the whole comingling of academics and sports. If SMU plays Boise in football this year, it doesn't mean that your students have to go over there and take a potato farming class.

The SEC would look way different if they gave a poo about academics. They'd look like the PAC-12.

(04-28-2021 07:24 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 12:34 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  The AAC is eyeing Boise State or Army instead of Rice or Buffalo. What does that tell you about their priorities? And that is more a reflection on this country’s priorities than the conference. What school’s diploma is the best in the long run?

AAC is eyeing Boise for a sports add.

I don't get the whole comingling of academics and sports. If SMU plays Boise in football this year, it doesn't mean that your students have to go over there and take a potato farming class.

The SEC would look way different if they gave a poo about academics. They'd look like the PAC-12.

Because you think of the university and its sports teams as seperate autonomous things.

Sports are a hand to the university body. While the hand may be fine with going in some boiling water, the rest of the body isn't so keen on it.

Especially the brain (boards & president) which seems to have a real problem with that whole boiling water. Unless the hand is capable of making the decision the brain is in charge.

Boise has zero shot, what ever any AD (AAC, Boise, ND) or Aresco tells you. They don't make the decisions, the presidents do and while college sports is big money spending, universities are the business generating the cash.

Presidents decide what happens to their university and who is associated with it. That means you can knock Liberty and Boise off for different reason, but the same outcome. The president's do not want associated with either. For good reasons.

(04-28-2021 07:52 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Presidents decide what happens to their university and who is associated with it. That means you can knock Liberty and Boise off for different reason, but the same outcome. The president's do not want associated with either. For good reasons.

What has changed since the last time they invited Boise State, while operating under their former name?

(04-28-2021 07:52 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 07:24 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 12:34 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  The AAC is eyeing Boise State or Army instead of Rice or Buffalo. What does that tell you about their priorities? And that is more a reflection on this country’s priorities than the conference. What school’s diploma is the best in the long run?

AAC is eyeing Boise for a sports add.

I don't get the whole comingling of academics and sports. If SMU plays Boise in football this year, it doesn't mean that your students have to go over there and take a potato farming class.

The SEC would look way different if they gave a poo about academics. They'd look like the PAC-12.

Because you think of the university and its sports teams as seperate autonomous things.

Sports are a hand to the university body. While the hand may be fine with going in some boiling water, the rest of the body isn't so keen on it.

Especially the brain (boards & president) which seems to have a real problem with that whole boiling water. Unless the hand is capable of making the decision the brain is in charge.

Boise has zero shot, what ever any AD (AAC, Boise, ND) or Aresco tells you. They don't make the decisions, the presidents do and while college sports is big money spending, universities are the business generating the cash.

Presidents decide what happens to their university and who is associated with it. That means you can knock Liberty and Boise off for different reason, but the same outcome. The president's do not want associated with either. For good reasons.

Well here are some US News rankings of MW conference members:

Air Force ........ "extremely competitive" to get in to
Colorado State.... #153
Fresno .............. #196
UNM ................. #187
SDST ................ #143
Wyoming ........... #196

Now, those aren't equal (save for Air Force) to the top 3-4 AAC schools, like Tulane and SMU, but they are all otherwise well within the mainstream of AAC academics, and they all fully associate with Boise.

(04-28-2021 07:52 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 07:24 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 12:34 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  The AAC is eyeing Boise State or Army instead of Rice or Buffalo. What does that tell you about their priorities? And that is more a reflection on this country’s priorities than the conference. What school’s diploma is the best in the long run?

AAC is eyeing Boise for a sports add.

I don't get the whole comingling of academics and sports. If SMU plays Boise in football this year, it doesn't mean that your students have to go over there and take a potato farming class.

The SEC would look way different if they gave a poo about academics. They'd look like the PAC-12.

Because you think of the university and its sports teams as seperate autonomous things.

Sports are a hand to the university body. While the hand may be fine with going in some boiling water, the rest of the body isn't so keen on it.

Especially the brain (boards & president) which seems to have a real problem with that whole boiling water. Unless the hand is capable of making the decision the brain is in charge.

Boise has zero shot, what ever any AD (AAC, Boise, ND) or Aresco tells you. They don't make the decisions, the presidents do and while college sports is big money spending, universities are the business generating the cash.

Presidents decide what happens to their university and who is associated with it. That means you can knock Liberty and Boise off for different reason, but the same outcome. The president's do not want associated with either. For good reasons.

I don't necessarily see them as completely separate autonomous things, but I would say that they have pretty separate operating groups. For instance, I don't see a scenario where Boise being added for football spurring a professor sharing agreement between any of our schools and that one just because we are now sharing the same referee pool.

Vanderbilt is a conference member for women's lacrosse. Maybe there was a big debate over there about their lacrosse team being associated with the likes of Memphis, or maybe they just thought it made sense logistically to partner up with us. I don't see how football has a different academic significance when deciding who to throw on the schedule.

(04-28-2021 08:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 07:52 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Presidents decide what happens to their university and who is associated with it. That means you can knock Liberty and Boise off for different reason, but the same outcome. The president's do not want associated with either. For good reasons.

What has changed since the last time they invited Boise State, while operating under their former name?

Exactly. The AAC would absolutely take Boise—-but Boise is an exception where the brand value and on the field performance of the Broncos overcomes any perceived academic shortcomings.

The AAC already has nerdy schools. We need winners on the field at this point.

If the conference wanted to go academic, it would look like Rice/Tulane/SMU/Tulsa/UConn (FB)/Army/Navy/Air Force. The AAC is not that lol.

(04-28-2021 08:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 08:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 07:52 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Presidents decide what happens to their university and who is associated with it. That means you can knock Liberty and Boise off for different reason, but the same outcome. The president's do not want associated with either. For good reasons.

What has changed since the last time they invited Boise State, while operating under their former name?

Exactly. The AAC would absolutely take Boise—-but Boise is an exception where the brand value and on the field performance of the Broncos overcomes any perceived academic shortcomings.

The difference is that when Boise was invited the Catholic 7 were still involved, Boise was football only, and the other schools like Tulane and Navy were holding their collective nose as well as being relative new comers with out a great deal of influence.

The catholic seven left, Tulsa who had been considered as a possible football only school entered as a full member. Boise got a prima Donna BYU attitude with out the history, reach, or support and everyone became an established member because there were only three members left over and while they were and are (minus UConn) in a position to lead they aren't in a position to dictate. The relationships (i.e. votes) are quite a different dynamic hell half the schools who approved Boise aren't and haven't been members of this conference some of them ever.

Hence why when things were falling apart and the Boise shenanigans began a full membership was considered to keep SDSU, as well as football only and the Big West. Those options proved unworkable and even now any western expansion talk from the AAC even with BYU is strictly football only while Boise wants all in.

SMU, Tulsa, Tulane and Navy are a considerable voting block who will be saddled with the Boise add and prefer to compete with each other because of a more equal playing field. This is why Air Force is a much more likely add. There are seven other votes, Temple is academically sensitive at the moment so we will say neutral. USF and UCF are quite a run away as is ECU but I could see all three voting yes. Cincinnati, Memphis, and Houston would likely be yeses. I assume the approval requires 3/4 and would be announced as a unanimous vote. However I could see any president (say a sensitive Temple?) siding with four teams who will be holding high academic standards while playing a diploma mill that make Houston and UCF look Ivy. No offense to either school who have raised their level of academic poweress especially as a state school but Tulane and maybe SMU belong in the same breath as Harvard. I don't see the votes. Say what you want about BYU and their honor code, academically they are pretty solid. They are better supported and have a better program than Boise. Army and Air Force easily pass muster. Everyone else has issues and that includes Boise. SDSU is too far, most the others don't clear the athletic bar, or Liberty who has the crap academics and the "honor code" issue.

This is also why I think CSU is only a tag along option to someone, they will only be taken if they are the most convient their academics aren't outstanding, their athletics aren't outstanding, they are essentially all foundation and potential.

Why is Temple "sensitive"?