(05-07-2021 11:37 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

' Wrote:Be careful about taking BYU sources for that.

The ESPN deal you keep talking about is football only, they also have a deal through the WCC for olympic sports that's signed to ESPN.

The football side of the deal is an ala carte deal. BYU is paid on a per home game basis depending on who they are playing (p5) and on what channel that game is broadcast. The total deal could exceed the AAC deal but only if the right games are scheduled and put on the highest level channel (ABC). Otherwise in a general year they will make slightly less or more than the current AAC pay out.

The WCC portion of the deal is considerably less than the AAC olympic pay out.

Neither case, as SLH pointed out, really effect BYU's bottom line enough to be much more that a tiny thumb on the scale. Their home revenue in both basketball and football is the larger chunk of their revenue.

BYU draws well against AAC teams, how chasing a conference championship would effect that is unknown but looking at other teams it usually boosts attendance.

BYU's pride is and has been the issue.

Haven't read through the last few pages here, so forgive me if this was addressed already, but this is not entirely true.

1) Yes, the BYU football deal is essentially *per game*. ESPN contracts at least four BYU home games a year, with an option for more, an option that has been picked up multiple times (including last year). The deal requires that at least three of those four games be aired on ABC, ESPN or ESPN2. BYU has played multiple games on ESPN's flagship every year of the deal, I believe.

2) The current deal, which was just extended to 2026, *does not require multiple ABC games to exceed the AAC deal*. The biggest reason for this is exactly what you mentioned...it matters who you play, and BYU's future schedules control the rights to multiple P5 home games a season.

Lets play out an example. We know exactly what the going rate to broadcast a typical Pac-12 game is in 2022. It's about $6.1 million dollars, since that is what ESPN/Fox pay to broadcast the 45 Tier 1 Pac-12 games, with Big Ten and SEC games worth even more. In 2021, BYU controls the TV rights to three of those games (PLUS an ACC game). Typically, BYU will control home rights to 3 P5 games a year. ESPN isnt paying BYU 6 million for the rights to those games, but the number for P5s in the new deal, I've heard, is closer to 2Mil a game, a huge win for both parties. Then you can see where 9M a season becomes a reasonable number.

You also have to remember that those numbers are going to skyrocket even more. The Pac-12, Big Ten and Big 12 will all go to market and sign new Tier 1 deals well before the AAC goes to market again, and BYU will go to market again in 2025-2026, meaning BYU's future home inventory (Stanford, Utah, Ole Miss, etc) will get only more valuable.

Add the fact that BYU would likely have to pay fees to get out of future scheduled games to join the AAC (most of these contracts, many i've personally reviewed) have no-penalty clauses for P5 conference membership but not for the AAC), and it's pretty clear...BYU would lose tier1 TV money, especially by 2026/2027, by joining the AAC...UNLESS BYU's membership trigged a massive revision of the existing contract, OR the AAC agreed to unequal revenue sharing.

There are other factors to consider as well...the current WCC arrangement gives byuTV broadcast rights for some Olympic sports and rebroadcast rights for other games that perhaps the AAC wouldn't want to do....and BYU's recruiting footprint isn't anywhere hear the AAC's.

Could BYU potentially be persuaded to join the AAC? Maaaaybe. It would almost certainly require significant concessions that I doubt member schools would want.

FWIW, tracking this stuff is my job.

1) ESPN is nice, but ABC games are what BYU releases their number for media money based on. i.e. when they claimed 10m that was if all five home games (espn can pick up a sixth but because BYU tv holds the rights to one game no matter what, the pay out is less for the dual coverage) were picked up by ABC and included strictly ranked p5 or equivelent teams in the contract. So for example from 2015-2019 the last half of their contract and extension they had one home game on ABC when they played Wisconsin. Meaning BYU has never come close to the number they release to the media. The deal does require the games to be played on ESPN/ESPN2 and has the option to be moved to OTA.

2) Their deal has never required ABC showings, this is one of the benefits of Aresco negotiating the exposure side so strongly over money, we the AAC are guarenteed a minimum of games. The new contract per the BYU AD is the old contract with some light modifications, meaning as before every game and what channel it is on decides the pay. BYU continues to have no guarenteed ABC slot, the same as before.

Again you are taking BYU's rosey outlook in your scenario and worse comparing apples to oranges. It is irrelevant what anyone pays for a PAC12 game, since the contract is for BYU home games and not PAC 12 p5 vs p5 games. BYU according to the in depth article written by their beat writer at most made 4.5m off their football under their old contract when he pulled out the numbers from their finacial records or roughly a little less than 1m per game. They won't make 2m a game unless it is a p5, ranked opponent that is carried on ABC which happened once in the 2015-2019 seasons.

Also just a reminder that BYU is signing deals that aren't all one for ones and using NMST to fill in that home hole schedule doesn't pay 2m on any real world scale. Also sky rocket? BYU signed their original deal and have for basically over a decade seen no change in its pay outs. Their AD on media day confirmed the old deal was the same as the new one. Because again it is a sliding scale based on who they play and what channel they play on, so come 2026 BYU will be resigning again for the same amount of money. With the recent covid and the complete destruction of their schedule last year assuming that any current games scheduled that were part of those deals happening in 2020 is on shaky ground especially considering how schools schedule a decade into the future.

You again confuse apples and oranges, BYU paying out to end contracts (many of which are in danger from the covid and long term scheduling) would not cause them to lose tv revenue money. Beyond that any change is unlikely to happen for a couple years when the schedule is the heaviest, they also have open dates that are workable and AAC.teams already scheduled. Their MWC games are also cheaper and the more likely games to go (along with other lower level conferences) than their p5s meaning their are two years in their future schedule that are real issues. Also postponement and rescheduling occur when needed meaning some games could simply be pushed out which will be the solution to some of the lost games last year.

BYU recruits nationally and to a certain extent internationally, so yes and no we are not near their recruiting grounds, but much like Navy, the LDS church uses the BYU athletics program to promote the bigger cause, which is.part of their argument for independence. The WCC BYUtv thing isn't an issue, because surprise BYU would be folded in under the deal by ESPN who operates the current WCC coverage and various side deals present.

For what it's worth your over paid and don't seem to be very well informed at what you are doing for your job. As SLH already explained to you earlier the total money involved between BYU independent football and BYU AAC football only, as he pointed out taking into account all revenue streams and leaving out comparisons that don't change between indy and conference that BYU would make more from AAC membership in revenue. Not very much difference and in the overall scheme of BYU's budget nothing but a fraction of a difference in favor of membership.

The issue for BYU in game revenue versus AAC and one to two extra p5 home games a year is probably greater than the media money difference and is a valid issue. I encourage you to use the search function on the AAC board and enter BYU where people like gulf coast gal and Slh sourced and broke down numbers and info that involved all of this including the previously mentioned article that broke out the actual pay per game BYU earned off their contract.

There is a ton of info there and it will get repetitive but it addresses most of your misconceptions and a lot of the points you brought up, including the scheduling issue.

For the record some of us have been following this since 2014 and keeping up.

(05-07-2021 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 04:44 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 04:35 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 04:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 04:24 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It has to be the right 14 teams. They start with Boise State and then add two more. Geography and academic stature and budget says under performing athletically Colorado State should be one of the other two. The idea would be to have three MWC schools in a division with SMU, Houston, Tulsa and Wichita State for Olympics. Note, San Diego State is actually not as bad a travel as Boise State, as flights are direct to more cities and it's actually an hour flight time closer as a result.

So I'd target Boise State, get them on board, and follow up with Colorado State and San Diego State, all as full members.

Based off what I've seen from SDSU's AD they aren't very interested after being left at the alter thanks to Boise last time.

They seemed to be very excited about the AAC/Big West Model that was planned

I think the Big West part is DOA. If San Diego State or Colorado State is to be brought on board (or Air Force or UNLV) the American has to take them in All Sports. The SDSU AD made it clear that they have no intention these days (unlike the 2011 plan) to park their Olympics in some one bid bus league.

The reality is the MWC and WCC are the only acceptable conferences in the West for schools at the level of the MWC Basketball. Joining the AAC means they get booted from the MWC and the WCC is not going to take a renter school that is neither private nor faith based. The Texas schools, Tulsa and Wichita State have to be OK flying West for Olympic sports.

Yep the Big West seems stable and content. I don't see any interest on either side at this point

Boise is not in a great position to try and recruit friends after they left SDSU at the alter.

I think the AAC would need to add four Western all sports schools that could share a division with the TX schools, Tulsa, and Wichita/Navy in order to make this work and operationally feasible

Here's an interesting angle to consider.

Im not so sure the 4 current AAC members in the West would be on board with a 3 to 5 team all sports addition from the MW. You see, the only way to have a conference this spread out would be to move to the extensive use of divisional play in non-revenue sports (perhaps even mens basketball as well). That means the cost of greatly increased olympic sports travel burden would largely fall JUST on those 4 western AAC teams--and the rest of the league would only be mildly affected (in fact, the rest of the leagues travel costs would likley fall). Unless there is some sort of revenue device to offset those considerable new costs for the existing western members---Im not sure the western 4 AAC schools would buy into the idea of 4 western "all sports" additions. Four "football only" additions would be no problem as it's just a couple of trips a year, but I dont know about 4 "all sports" additions from the MW. That might be a tough sell without some financial recognition of the substantially increased travel burden that would largely fall on just 4 programs while everyone else reaps the benefits of lower travel costs.

Could be. I think it's overstated. I note that, pre-Covid, Boise State's softball team travelled to tournaments in Texas and South Carolina; SDSU's women's soccer team played Miami, Long Island University and Texas Tech; BYU's women's volleyball has recently played in Wichita, North Carolina, and Wisconsin....and SDSU's women's rowing team is already in the AAC.

(05-07-2021 06:58 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 04:44 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 04:35 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 04:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Based off what I've seen from SDSU's AD they aren't very interested after being left at the alter thanks to Boise last time.

They seemed to be very excited about the AAC/Big West Model that was planned

I think the Big West part is DOA. If San Diego State or Colorado State is to be brought on board (or Air Force or UNLV) the American has to take them in All Sports. The SDSU AD made it clear that they have no intention these days (unlike the 2011 plan) to park their Olympics in some one bid bus league.

The reality is the MWC and WCC are the only acceptable conferences in the West for schools at the level of the MWC Basketball. Joining the AAC means they get booted from the MWC and the WCC is not going to take a renter school that is neither private nor faith based. The Texas schools, Tulsa and Wichita State have to be OK flying West for Olympic sports.

Yep the Big West seems stable and content. I don't see any interest on either side at this point

Boise is not in a great position to try and recruit friends after they left SDSU at the alter.

I think the AAC would need to add four Western all sports schools that could share a division with the TX schools, Tulsa, and Wichita/Navy in order to make this work and operationally feasible

Here's an interesting angle to consider.

Im not so sure the 4 current AAC members in the West would be on board with a 3 to 5 team all sports addition from the MW. You see, the only way to have a conference this spread out would be to move to the extensive use of divisional play in non-revenue sports (perhaps even mens basketball as well). That means the cost of greatly increased olympic sports travel burden would largely fall JUST on those 4 western AAC teams--and the rest of the league would only be mildly affected (in fact, the rest of the leagues travel costs would likley fall). Unless there is some sort of revenue device to offset those considerable new costs for the existing western members---Im not sure the western 4 AAC schools would buy into the idea of 4 western "all sports" additions. Four "football only" additions would be no problem as it's just a couple of trips a year, but I dont know about 4 "all sports" additions from the MW. That might be a tough sell without some financial recognition of the substantially increased travel burden that would largely fall on just 4 programs while everyone else reaps the benefits of lower travel costs.

Could be. I think it's overstated. I note that, pre-Covid, Boise State's softball team travelled to tournaments in Texas and South Carolina; SDSU's women's soccer team played Miami, Long Island University and Texas Tech; BYU's women's volleyball has recently played in Wichita, North Carolina, and Wisconsin....and SDSU's women's rowing team is already in the AAC.

Im just saying for a team like Houston---its farthest trip is Philly (a bit over 1500 miles). ECU would be around 1200 miles. No other 'all sports" school is over 1000 miles away. SDSU, and UNLV are both around 1500 miles---Boise is 1800 miles. If you added another western school its going to be around 1000-1800 miles depending on who you pick. The point is, in a divisional set up with 4 western members---fully half of Houston's trips now become 1200-1800 mile migrations where as before---such lengthy trips were fairly limited.

(05-07-2021 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 06:58 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 04:44 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 04:35 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I think the Big West part is DOA. If San Diego State or Colorado State is to be brought on board (or Air Force or UNLV) the American has to take them in All Sports. The SDSU AD made it clear that they have no intention these days (unlike the 2011 plan) to park their Olympics in some one bid bus league.

The reality is the MWC and WCC are the only acceptable conferences in the West for schools at the level of the MWC Basketball. Joining the AAC means they get booted from the MWC and the WCC is not going to take a renter school that is neither private nor faith based. The Texas schools, Tulsa and Wichita State have to be OK flying West for Olympic sports.

Yep the Big West seems stable and content. I don't see any interest on either side at this point

Boise is not in a great position to try and recruit friends after they left SDSU at the alter.

I think the AAC would need to add four Western all sports schools that could share a division with the TX schools, Tulsa, and Wichita/Navy in order to make this work and operationally feasible

Here's an interesting angle to consider.

Im not so sure the 4 current AAC members in the West would be on board with a 3 to 5 team all sports addition from the MW. You see, the only way to have a conference this spread out would be to move to the extensive use of divisional play in non-revenue sports (perhaps even mens basketball as well). That means the cost of greatly increased olympic sports travel burden would largely fall JUST on those 4 western AAC teams--and the rest of the league would only be mildly affected (in fact, the rest of the leagues travel costs would likley fall). Unless there is some sort of revenue device to offset those considerable new costs for the existing western members---Im not sure the western 4 AAC schools would buy into the idea of 4 western "all sports" additions. Four "football only" additions would be no problem as it's just a couple of trips a year, but I dont know about 4 "all sports" additions from the MW. That might be a tough sell without some financial recognition of the substantially increased travel burden that would largely fall on just 4 programs while everyone else reaps the benefits of lower travel costs.

Could be. I think it's overstated. I note that, pre-Covid, Boise State's softball team travelled to tournaments in Texas and South Carolina; SDSU's women's soccer team played Miami, Long Island University and Texas Tech; BYU's women's volleyball has recently played in Wichita, North Carolina, and Wisconsin....and SDSU's women's rowing team is already in the AAC.

Im just saying for a team like Houston---its farthest trip is Philly (a bit over 1500 miles). ECU would be around 1200 miles. No other 'all sports" school is over 1000 miles away. SDSU, and UNLV are both around 1500 miles---Boise is 1800 miles. If you added another western school its going to be around 1000-1800 miles depending on who you pick. The point is, in a divisional set up with 4 western members---fully half of Houston's trips now become 1200-1800 mile migrations where as before---such lengthy trips were fairly limited.

Good point. And Houston has always aligned themselves with Eastern and Central schools since.SWC ended. They might not like getting shifted to the far west

(05-07-2021 06:53 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 11:37 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

' Wrote:Be careful about taking BYU sources for that.

The ESPN deal you keep talking about is football only, they also have a deal through the WCC for olympic sports that's signed to ESPN.

The football side of the deal is an ala carte deal. BYU is paid on a per home game basis depending on who they are playing (p5) and on what channel that game is broadcast. The total deal could exceed the AAC deal but only if the right games are scheduled and put on the highest level channel (ABC). Otherwise in a general year they will make slightly less or more than the current AAC pay out.

The WCC portion of the deal is considerably less than the AAC olympic pay out.

Neither case, as SLH pointed out, really effect BYU's bottom line enough to be much more that a tiny thumb on the scale. Their home revenue in both basketball and football is the larger chunk of their revenue.

BYU draws well against AAC teams, how chasing a conference championship would effect that is unknown but looking at other teams it usually boosts attendance.

BYU's pride is and has been the issue.

Haven't read through the last few pages here, so forgive me if this was addressed already, but this is not entirely true.

1) Yes, the BYU football deal is essentially *per game*. ESPN contracts at least four BYU home games a year, with an option for more, an option that has been picked up multiple times (including last year). The deal requires that at least three of those four games be aired on ABC, ESPN or ESPN2. BYU has played multiple games on ESPN's flagship every year of the deal, I believe.

2) The current deal, which was just extended to 2026, *does not require multiple ABC games to exceed the AAC deal*. The biggest reason for this is exactly what you mentioned...it matters who you play, and BYU's future schedules control the rights to multiple P5 home games a season.

Lets play out an example. We know exactly what the going rate to broadcast a typical Pac-12 game is in 2022. It's about $6.1 million dollars, since that is what ESPN/Fox pay to broadcast the 45 Tier 1 Pac-12 games, with Big Ten and SEC games worth even more. In 2021, BYU controls the TV rights to three of those games (PLUS an ACC game). Typically, BYU will control home rights to 3 P5 games a year. ESPN isnt paying BYU 6 million for the rights to those games, but the number for P5s in the new deal, I've heard, is closer to 2Mil a game, a huge win for both parties. Then you can see where 9M a season becomes a reasonable number.

You also have to remember that those numbers are going to skyrocket even more. The Pac-12, Big Ten and Big 12 will all go to market and sign new Tier 1 deals well before the AAC goes to market again, and BYU will go to market again in 2025-2026, meaning BYU's future home inventory (Stanford, Utah, Ole Miss, etc) will get only more valuable.

Add the fact that BYU would likely have to pay fees to get out of future scheduled games to join the AAC (most of these contracts, many i've personally reviewed) have no-penalty clauses for P5 conference membership but not for the AAC), and it's pretty clear...BYU would lose tier1 TV money, especially by 2026/2027, by joining the AAC...UNLESS BYU's membership trigged a massive revision of the existing contract, OR the AAC agreed to unequal revenue sharing.

There are other factors to consider as well...the current WCC arrangement gives byuTV broadcast rights for some Olympic sports and rebroadcast rights for other games that perhaps the AAC wouldn't want to do....and BYU's recruiting footprint isn't anywhere hear the AAC's.

Could BYU potentially be persuaded to join the AAC? Maaaaybe. It would almost certainly require significant concessions that I doubt member schools would want.

FWIW, tracking this stuff is my job.

1) ESPN is nice, but ABC games are what BYU releases their number for media money based on. i.e. when they claimed 10m that was if all five home games (espn can pick up a sixth but because BYU tv holds the rights to one game no matter what, the pay out is less for the dual coverage) were picked up by ABC and included strictly ranked p5 or equivelent teams in the contract. So for example from 2015-2019 the last half of their contract and extension they had one home game on ABC when they played Wisconsin. Meaning BYU has never come close to the number they release to the media. The deal does require the games to be played on ESPN/ESPN2 and has the option to be moved to OTA.

2) Their deal has never required ABC showings, this is one of the benefits of Aresco negotiating the exposure side so strongly over money, we the AAC are guarenteed a minimum of games. The new contract per the BYU AD is the old contract with some light modifications, meaning as before every game and what channel it is on decides the pay. BYU continues to have no guarenteed ABC slot, the same as before.

Again you are taking BYU's rosey outlook in your scenario and worse comparing apples to oranges. It is irrelevant what anyone pays for a PAC12 game, since the contract is for BYU home games and not PAC 12 p5 vs p5 games. BYU according to the in depth article written by their beat writer at most made 4.5m off their football under their old contract when he pulled out the numbers from their finacial records or roughly a little less than 1m per game. They won't make 2m a game unless it is a p5, ranked opponent that is carried on ABC which happened once in the 2015-2019 seasons.

Also just a reminder that BYU is signing deals that aren't all one for ones and using NMST to fill in that home hole schedule doesn't pay 2m on any real world scale. Also sky rocket? BYU signed their original deal and have for basically over a decade seen no change in its pay outs. Their AD on media day confirmed the old deal was the same as the new one. Because again it is a sliding scale based on who they play and what channel they play on, so come 2026 BYU will be resigning again for the same amount of money. With the recent covid and the complete destruction of their schedule last year assuming that any current games scheduled that were part of those deals happening in 2020 is on shaky ground especially considering how schools schedule a decade into the future.

You again confuse apples and oranges, BYU paying out to end contracts (many of which are in danger from the covid and long term scheduling) would not cause them to lose tv revenue money. Beyond that any change is unlikely to happen for a couple years when the schedule is the heaviest, they also have open dates that are workable and AAC.teams already scheduled. Their MWC games are also cheaper and the more likely games to go (along with other lower level conferences) than their p5s meaning their are two years in their future schedule that are real issues. Also postponement and rescheduling occur when needed meaning some games could simply be pushed out which will be the solution to some of the lost games last year.

BYU recruits nationally and to a certain extent internationally, so yes and no we are not near their recruiting grounds, but much like Navy, the LDS church uses the BYU athletics program to promote the bigger cause, which is.part of their argument for independence. The WCC BYUtv thing isn't an issue, because surprise BYU would be folded in under the deal by ESPN who operates the current WCC coverage and various side deals present.

For what it's worth your over paid and don't seem to be very well informed at what you are doing for your job. As SLH already explained to you earlier the total money involved between BYU independent football and BYU AAC football only, as he pointed out taking into account all revenue streams and leaving out comparisons that don't change between indy and conference that BYU would make more from AAC membership in revenue. Not very much difference and in the overall scheme of BYU's budget nothing but a fraction of a difference in favor of membership.

The issue for BYU in game revenue versus AAC and one to two extra p5 home games a year is probably greater than the media money difference and is a valid issue. I encourage you to use the search function on the AAC board and enter BYU where people like gulf coast gal and Slh sourced and broke down numbers and info that involved all of this including the previously mentioned article that broke out the actual pay per game BYU earned off their contract.

There is a ton of info there and it will get repetitive but it addresses most of your misconceptions and a lot of the points you brought up, including the scheduling issue.

For the record some of us have been following this since 2014 and keeping up.

You typed a lot of opinions here. Why hasn’t BYU already made this decision if it was so easy? Um, you’re overpaid at being a message board poster and you make zero money doing that. Man, I can’t wait to source some AAAAC board info in an article.

The fact of the matter is, like Notre Dame, BYU could make more or equal money in a conference. The exception is they have a different mission. They have their own TV network. They’re attached to a giant money pile of a church. Oh, and they don’t need a conference. Especially one that doesn’t guarantee a playoff spot EVEN if they joined.

So thanks for your effort, but please sit back down at the end of the bench.

(05-07-2021 08:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im just saying for a team like Houston---its farthest trip is Philly (a bit over 1500 miles). ECU would be around 1200 miles. No other 'all sports" school is over 1000 miles away. SDSU, and UNLV are both around 1500 miles---Boise is 1800 miles. If you added another western school its going to be around 1000-1800 miles depending on who you pick. The point is, in a divisional set up with 4 western members---fully half of Houston's trips now become 1200-1800 mile migrations where as before---such lengthy trips were fairly limited.

Good point. And Houston has always aligned themselves with Eastern and Central schools since.SWC ended. They might not like getting shifted to the far west

Yep. When the SWC ended, and Rice, SMU, and TCU went to the WAC, Houston went east to help found Conference USA. They're not up for trips to Boise or San Diego unless there is something they can gain from it.

(05-07-2021 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im just saying for a team like Houston---its farthest trip is Philly (a bit over 1500 miles). ECU would be around 1200 miles. No other 'all sports" school is over 1000 miles away. SDSU, and UNLV are both around 1500 miles---Boise is 1800 miles. If you added another western school its going to be around 1000-1800 miles depending on who you pick. The point is, in a divisional set up with 4 western members---fully half of Houston's trips now become 1200-1800 mile migrations where as before---such lengthy trips were fairly limited.

I'm not arguing for or against this move, but I think distance is less of a concern as total travel time. For most sports, teams travel commercial. One huge advantage to being in Houston is that your teams can fly nonstop to more locations than just about anybody else, including Boise. In fact, the total flight time to Boise is 30 minutes longer for the Cougars than it is to Philadelphia, and actually shorter than the flight time to Hartford, which used to be in the AAC.

For USF, we can get commercial nonstops to San Diego, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City, which is more than I can say for getting into Greenville. Total travel time to Vegas is the same for us as it is for a game at ECU. So I don't see how distance is as big of a deal as is ease of travel.

USFFan

(05-07-2021 09:41 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im just saying for a team like Houston---its farthest trip is Philly (a bit over 1500 miles). ECU would be around 1200 miles. No other 'all sports" school is over 1000 miles away. SDSU, and UNLV are both around 1500 miles---Boise is 1800 miles. If you added another western school its going to be around 1000-1800 miles depending on who you pick. The point is, in a divisional set up with 4 western members---fully half of Houston's trips now become 1200-1800 mile migrations where as before---such lengthy trips were fairly limited.

I'm not arguing for or against this move, but I think distance is less of a concern as total travel time. For most sports, teams travel commercial. One huge advantage to being in Houston is that your teams can fly nonstop to more locations than just about anybody else, including Boise. In fact, the total flight time to Boise is 30 minutes longer for the Cougars than it is to Philadelphia, and actually shorter than the flight time to Hartford, which used to be in the AAC.

For USF, we can get commercial nonstops to San Diego, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City, which is more than I can say for getting into Greenville. Total travel time to Vegas is the same for us as it is for a game at ECU. So I don't see how distance is as big of a deal as is ease of travel.

USFFan

It’s not so much the length of any one trip—-it’s the total number of long trips. I can easily see 4 or even 5 western “football only additions”—-but playing in an all sports league with 4 or 5 western teams is a different proposition. Maybe the administrations of these school are ok with it— but I can easily see how they might not. I’m just throwing that out there for consideration.

From Houston, direct flights:

2:20 Denver then 1:10 bus to CSU
2:45 Las Vegas
2:50 Provo
3:00 San Diego
3:30 Boise

2:25 Orlando
2:20 Tampa
2:40 Cincinnati
3:15 Annapolis
3:40 Philadelphia
3:00 Raleigh then 1:45 bus to ECU

Going west is no worse for Houston, SMU and Tulsa (times are better for these two than Houston) than going east as far as travel time, actually a little better, except you come home late. But most likely you'd do a three day swing in the west, like you do in the east and just do classes virtually on Friday from the hotel rather than come home, as you'd get home way too late. Or if your pairing was Thursday at Wichita State or Tulsa, you'd come home and fly to Boise or some other western city on Saturday morning.

Boise and Colorado State are not too bad, just one hour time difference. But San Diego State would be hard, a two hour time difference, bring you team home around 3 in the morning instead of closer to midnight if you went east.

The sports affected would be Basketball, women's volleyball, men's (UNLV and SDSU sponsor) and women's soccer, Softball and Baseball (SDSU has a very strong baseball team, Boise State and Colorado State do not sponsor it). Soccer is not a big issue since most matches are on the weekend, usually single round robin. The league can help by scheduling matches closer to home for any mid-week games. Baseball with SDSU would be a challenge, as would softball with all of them. The other sports don;t matter as they are individual and only a conference championship match, everyone has the same weekend blocked off.

Travel distance affects not only teams, but also fans. In a regional, more centralized conference, it's not such a big deal to attend away-games. But how many folks are going to board a plane in Philadelphia to attend a game in Boise? And why would they? It's not as if any school in the AAC has a rivalry with Boise or with BYU or SDSU. No shared history at all. None. If the AAC is obliged to expand, then identify candidates that are within or close to the existing footprint.

(05-08-2021 12:38 AM)colohank Wrote:  Travel distance affects not only teams, but also fans. In a regional, more centralized conference, it's not such a big deal to attend away-games. But how many folks are going to board a plane in Philadelphia to attend a game in Boise? And why would they? It's not as if any school in the AAC has a rivalry with Boise or with BYU or SDSU. No shared history at all. None. If the AAC is obliged to expand, then identify candidates that are within or close to the existing footprint.

And why would that even matter? Its not like there are any rivalries in the AAC beyond UCF vs USF as it currently stands. There never have been a bunch of big AAC rivalry games and there likely won’t be any more developing in the future. The importance of conference games lies completely in how they impact the standings. So, while there will be important AAC games that the fans get up for—they will be driven by the conference race and the “big” games will change from year to year as different teams rise and fall.

Houston isn’t counting on Temple fans to fill seats in Houston and Temple isn’t counting on Houston fans to fill a bunch of seats in Philly. We are all on our own in this league. That’s just life is a spread out Frankenstein conference made from the best left over spare parts available.

The point is—-App St or UAB (Or any other randomly selected eastern G5) isnt going to be the secret missing ingredient thats going to suddenly provide a bunch of AAC rivalry games that everyone in the league will get all giddy about. It is what it is. The AAC is a very good spread out version of a “best of the rest” league. With the exit of UConn---AAC football has a chance to get even better. Its very rare that a league gets the opportunity to drop its worst team and replace them with a top level team. This is huge opportunity for the league. The AAC simply needs to embrace what it is and not worry too much about trying to be something it will never be. It has an excellent opportunity to become an even better “best of the rest” league—but it’s never going to be a tight rivalry filled regional league.

(05-07-2021 11:37 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  From Houston, direct flights:

2:20 Denver then 1:10 bus to CSU
2:45 Las Vegas
2:50 Provo
3:00 San Diego
3:30 Boise

2:25 Orlando
2:20 Tampa
2:40 Cincinnati
3:15 Annapolis
3:40 Philadelphia
3:00 Raleigh then 1:45 bus to ECU

Going west is no worse for Houston, SMU and Tulsa (times are better for these two than Houston) than going east as far as travel time, actually a little better, except you come home late. But most likely you'd do a three day swing in the west, like you do in the east and just do classes virtually on Friday from the hotel rather than come home, as you'd get home way too late. Or if your pairing was Thursday at Wichita State or Tulsa, you'd come home and fly to Boise or some other western city on Saturday morning.

Boise and Colorado State are not too bad, just one hour time difference. But San Diego State would be hard, a two hour time difference, bring you team home around 3 in the morning instead of closer to midnight if you went east.

The sports affected would be Basketball, women's volleyball, men's (UNLV and SDSU sponsor) and women's soccer, Softball and Baseball (SDSU has a very strong baseball team, Boise State and Colorado State do not sponsor it). Soccer is not a big issue since most matches are on the weekend, usually single round robin. The league can help by scheduling matches closer to home for any mid-week games. Baseball with SDSU would be a challenge, as would softball with all of them. The other sports don;t matter as they are individual and only a conference championship match, everyone has the same weekend blocked off.

Somehow, people fail to consider the time zone changes. LV and SDSU are two timezones difference for the western AAC teams.

Best 3 adds for the AAC at this point to get a twelfth FB member;

1. BYU FB only - remaining sports have a home in the WCC - won't make the move.

2. Boise St. FB only - can't find a suitable home for its remaining sports - wants all sports.

3. Air Force - can't find a suitable ACADEMIC conference for the rest of it's sports similar to Army and Navy in the Patriot league.

(05-08-2021 08:44 AM)panite Wrote:  Best 3 adds for the AAC at this point to get a twelfth FB member;

1. BYU FB only - remaining sports have a home in the WCC - won't make the move.

2. Boise St. FB only - can't find a suitable home for its remaining sports - wants all sports.

3. Air Force - can't find a suitable ACADEMIC conference for the rest of it's sports similar to Army and Navy in the Patriot league.

I agree with 1 and 2 above but not 3. I think the Summit League would be an acceptable academic fit for Air Force and about as geographically friendly as the MWC.

If we want to play realignment dominoes for a moment here’s a series of moves that could potentially play out:

- MVC expands to 12 with Murray State and UTA
- OVC backfills for Murray State with Western Illinois
- Summit League backfills for Western Illinois with Air Force (Falcon football goes to the AAC)
- MWC backfills for Air Force with NMSU (WAC stays pat with 12 remaining members)

To be clear, I’m not saying Air Force is particularly interested right now in moving football to the AAC. I’m just saying that if the AAC were looking to peel off an MWC school as a football-only member, Air Force would have the least problem finding a suitable home for its other sports.

(05-08-2021 09:27 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(05-08-2021 08:44 AM)panite Wrote:  Best 3 adds for the AAC at this point to get a twelfth FB member;

1. BYU FB only - remaining sports have a home in the WCC - won't make the move.

2. Boise St. FB only - can't find a suitable home for its remaining sports - wants all sports.

3. Air Force - can't find a suitable ACADEMIC conference for the rest of it's sports similar to Army and Navy in the Patriot league.

I agree with 1 and 2 above but not 3. I think the Summit League would be an acceptable academic fit for Air Force and about as geographically friendly as the MWC.

If we want to play realignment dominoes for a moment here’s a series of moves that could potentially play out:

- MVC expands to 12 with Murray State and UTA
- OVC backfills for Murray State with Western Illinois
- Summit League backfills for Western Illinois with Air Force (Falcon football goes to the AAC)
- MWC backfills for Air Force with NMSU (WAC stays pat with 12 remaining members)

To be clear, I’m not saying Air Force is particularly interested right now in moving football to the AAC. I’m just saying that if the AAC were looking to peel off an MWC school as a football-only member, Air Force would have the least problem finding a suitable home for its other sports.

I agree. I gotta think Denver and the Summit would be more than happy to host Air Force

(05-08-2021 12:05 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-08-2021 09:27 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(05-08-2021 08:44 AM)panite Wrote:  Best 3 adds for the AAC at this point to get a twelfth FB member;

1. BYU FB only - remaining sports have a home in the WCC - won't make the move.

2. Boise St. FB only - can't find a suitable home for its remaining sports - wants all sports.

3. Air Force - can't find a suitable ACADEMIC conference for the rest of it's sports similar to Army and Navy in the Patriot league.

I agree with 1 and 2 above but not 3. I think the Summit League would be an acceptable academic fit for Air Force and about as geographically friendly as the MWC.

If we want to play realignment dominoes for a moment here’s a series of moves that could potentially play out:

- MVC expands to 12 with Murray State and UTA
- OVC backfills for Murray State with Western Illinois
- Summit League backfills for Western Illinois with Air Force (Falcon football goes to the AAC)
- MWC backfills for Air Force with NMSU (WAC stays pat with 12 remaining members)

To be clear, I’m not saying Air Force is particularly interested right now in moving football to the AAC. I’m just saying that if the AAC were looking to peel off an MWC school as a football-only member, Air Force would have the least problem finding a suitable home for its other sports.

I agree. I gotta think Denver and the Summit would be more than happy to host Air Force

Not that FB coaches have any say in conference affiliation but the AFA coach did say in summer of 2019 that being in a conference with another service academy would free up ooc scheduling in a positive way. If he is thinking that way maybe he has some influence in the matter. Another conference than the MWC might be good for AFA non FB sports.

(05-08-2021 04:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well—by that measure—there are zero rivalries in the AAC beyond UCF vs USF. There never have been and there likely won’t be any in the future. The importance of conference games lies completely in how they impact the standings. So, there will be important games that the fans get up for in the AAC—but they will be driven by the conference race and the “big” games will change from year to year as different teams rise and fall.

This is exactly my point. Rivalries are not the concept of the AAC, nor is geography. The concept is to be the premier 'tweener conference, collecting all the want to be power schools who are locked out of the power conferences.

-- mind you Navy is a caveat, as they are not interested in being a power school, but rather it was a marriage for TV ratings.

The AAC has already collected every school that wants to be power, and invests heavily in athletics, east of the Rockies. That is why in 2011 (as the Big East) and now again, they are looking west. The want ambitious schools who want power rank. Air Force is not that, any talk of them belongs in the "we need another ECU, Tulane or Tulsa" category of thinking; and Army is simply to own the Army-Navy game, which you already have a 50% share, it doesn't help the power status of the conference. Whatever else you think of UConn they have Majors aspiration, only in basketball instead of football. Anyway, you are back looking at the same schools as in 2011.

Boise State is the top school, and we know the price. They looked around and determined that football only doesn't work for them, the Olympic options are just too poor. But they are very open to being the "West Virginia" of the American, using the Big 12 analogy. The question is does the "power 6" concept of adding the best football program (and pretty good Basketball program) outweigh the whines of women's soccer, volleyball and soccer coaches? Is "geography matters let's add Rice or Old Dominion instead" going to be the argument?

Boise State is the one that matters. To add any others, create a Western wing they need to be in place.

It needs to be remembered that Boise State is sort of friendless in the Mountain West. They sued the conference when the other 11 schools agreed to a contract they were not on board with and declared their demand for media separateness in perpetuity. The relationship with their peers and the conference is strictly transactional and power based. They made known their disdain for the California schools (and Hawaii and New Mexico as well), with Covid-19 philosophy being a similar separator as we saw in SLC and OVC that led to realignments there.

Going after San Diego State, BYU or anyone else is a completely different situation. Doesn't mean they wont try. But like the Pac-12 and the Texas-Oklahoma five, the AAC needs to have that fall back of one school only to get off the odd 11. Boise State in all sports is their equivalent of Utah for the Pac-12, although the parallel to West Virginia and the Big 12 is also there.

But I think we need to circle back to the original point, that the American is about becoming the de facto near power conference. The "project" of building a 14 or 16 school league with a western division doesn't make that much difference. Adding San Diego State, UNLV, Colorado State or for that matter BYU to some extent is about giving Boise State companions, not about gaining that power or near power status. They probably do not improve the per school TV package.

At the end of the day Boise State alone matters, the others don't. If they add Boise State, the odds are they would lose their appetite for a far western wing that doesn't really make a difference in their power status.


Note: Were I the American, and I decided I'd bite the bullet for Boise State in all sports, I'd throw in the caveat that their softball needs to find another home (I think they can in the Big Sky, which is down to 6, losing Southern Utah to the WAC, and it makes sense geographically and culturally). Scheduling that sports would be a horrible pain for both sides. Women's soccer is livable as like football it's single round robin, just one trip every other year on a Saturday to Boise. You really are only biting the bullet then on basketball --and Boise has a strong program-- and women's volleyball. Your scheduler can help by minimizing the Thursday trips to Boise for the eastern time zone schools, or placing some of them during school breaks, but everyone is going to have to accept getting stuck with a few of those. But softball is where I'd say no, take that somewhere else.

(05-08-2021 03:01 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(05-08-2021 12:05 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-08-2021 09:27 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(05-08-2021 08:44 AM)panite Wrote:  Best 3 adds for the AAC at this point to get a twelfth FB member;

1. BYU FB only - remaining sports have a home in the WCC - won't make the move.

2. Boise St. FB only - can't find a suitable home for its remaining sports - wants all sports.

3. Air Force - can't find a suitable ACADEMIC conference for the rest of it's sports similar to Army and Navy in the Patriot league.

I agree with 1 and 2 above but not 3. I think the Summit League would be an acceptable academic fit for Air Force and about as geographically friendly as the MWC.

If we want to play realignment dominoes for a moment here’s a series of moves that could potentially play out:

- MVC expands to 12 with Murray State and UTA
- OVC backfills for Murray State with Western Illinois
- Summit League backfills for Western Illinois with Air Force (Falcon football goes to the AAC)
- MWC backfills for Air Force with NMSU (WAC stays pat with 12 remaining members)

To be clear, I’m not saying Air Force is particularly interested right now in moving football to the AAC. I’m just saying that if the AAC were looking to peel off an MWC school as a football-only member, Air Force would have the least problem finding a suitable home for its other sports.

I agree. I gotta think Denver and the Summit would be more than happy to host Air Force

Not that FB coaches have any say in conference affiliation but the AFA coach did say in summer of 2019 that being in a conference with another service academy would free up ooc scheduling in a positive way. If he is thinking that way maybe he has some influence in the matter. Another conference than the MWC might be good for AFA non FB sports.

Air Force football would be a good addition. I’d be confident they’d have a couple willing options for a non-football sports home but I’m on board with the Summit. The WAC would always be an option and the Big Sky may as well. I’d also like them in the WCC but I think the chance of that far less likely.

(05-08-2021 03:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-08-2021 04:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well—by that measure—there are zero rivalries in the AAC beyond UCF vs USF. There never have been and there likely won’t be any in the future. The importance of conference games lies completely in how they impact the standings. So, there will be important games that the fans get up for in the AAC—but they will be driven by the conference race and the “big” games will change from year to year as different teams rise and fall.

This is exactly my point. Rivalries are not the concept of the AAC, nor is geography. The concept is to be the premier 'tweener conference, collecting all the want to be power schools who are locked out of the power conferences.

-- mind you Navy is a caveat, as they are not interested in being a power school, but rather it was a marriage for TV ratings.

The AAC has already collected every school that wants to be power, and invests heavily in athletics, east of the Rockies. That is why in 2011 (as the Big East) and now again, they are looking west. The want ambitious schools who want power rank. Air Force is not that, any talk of them belongs in the "we need another ECU, Tulane or Tulsa" category of thinking; and Army is simply to own the Army-Navy game, which you already have a 50% share, it doesn't help the power status of the conference. Whatever else you think of UConn they have Majors aspiration, only in basketball instead of football. Anyway, you are back looking at the same schools as in 2011.

Boise State is the top school, and we know the price. They looked around and determined that football only doesn't work for them, the Olympic options are just too poor. But they are very open to being the "West Virginia" of the American, using the Big 12 analogy. The question is does the "power 6" concept of adding the best football program (and pretty good Basketball program) outweigh the whines of women's soccer, volleyball and soccer coaches? Is "geography matters let's add Rice or Old Dominion instead" going to be the argument?

Boise State is the one that matters. To add any others, create a Western wing they need to be in place.

It needs to be remembered that Boise State is sort of friendless in the Mountain West. They sued the conference when the other 11 schools agreed to a contract they were not on board with and declared their demand for media separateness in perpetuity. The relationship with their peers and the conference is strictly transactional and power based. They made known their disdain for the California schools (and Hawaii and New Mexico as well), with Covid-19 philosophy being a similar separator as we saw in SLC and OVC that led to realignments there.

Going after San Diego State, BYU or anyone else is a completely different situation. Doesn't mean they wont try. But like the Pac-12 and the Texas-Oklahoma five, the AAC needs to have that fall back of one school only to get off the odd 11. Boise State in all sports is their equivalent of Utah for the Pac-12, although the parallel to West Virginia and the Big 12 is also there.

But I think we need to circle back to the original point, that the American is about becoming the de facto near power conference. The "project" of building a 14 or 16 school league with a western division doesn't make that much difference. Adding San Diego State, UNLV, Colorado State or for that matter BYU to some extent is about giving Boise State companions, not about gaining that power or near power status. They probably do not improve the per school TV package.

At the end of the day Boise State alone matters, the others don't. If they add Boise State, the odds are they would lose their appetite for a far western wing that doesn't really make a difference in their power status.


Note: Were I the American, and I decided I'd bite the bullet for Boise State in all sports, I'd throw in the caveat that their softball needs to find another home (I think they can in the Big Sky, which is down to 6, losing Southern Utah to the WAC, and it makes sense geographically and culturally). Scheduling that sports would be a horrible pain for both sides. Women's soccer is livable as like football it's single round robin, just one trip every other year on a Saturday to Boise. You really are only biting the bullet then on basketball --and Boise has a strong program-- and women's volleyball. Your scheduler can help by minimizing the Thursday trips to Boise for the eastern time zone schools, or placing some of them during school breaks, but everyone is going to have to accept getting stuck with a few of those. But softball is where I'd say no, take that somewhere else.

Ah, but that's kind of the rub. Although I'm not an NCAA bylaws hawk, the dogmatic belief is that all sports memberships means all sports other than football (at least those competing at the same level as the conference). Teams that have a single sport parked in other conferences only do so because their all sports conference doesn't sponsor that sport. If that's the case, then it doesn't seem possible for Boise to put softball in another conference.

I've long advocated for this vestige of a bygone era to be eliminated. It's fine for conferences that want to be together for all sports to do so, and I think for the most part the P5 probably would prefer for this to be the case for all of their sports. But it's freaking stupid for conferences to be forced to do this. It would make far more sense for sports like softball, baseball and basketball if the Texas schools in the AAC, Sun Belt and Conference USA were all in one conference instead of forcing Texas State and UT Arlington to have to fly to Conway, SC, UTSA and Rice to have to fly to Boca Raton, FL and Houston and SMU to have to fly to Philadelphia when they could all save serious money on travel by playing in a regionally based league.

USFFan

(05-08-2021 03:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  -- mind you Navy is a caveat, as they are not interested in being a power school, but rather it was a marriage for TV ratings.

What!?!

Navy joined the then-BCS-auto-qual Big East in 2012, with the expressed intent of remaining relevant at the highest levels of college football.

07 February 2012:
"The objective was to protect the relevance of Navy football as a program of continued national stature."
- Chet Gladchuk

"You have to think about the future of your program and as the college football landscape has changed I've been thinking. This has kept me up many a night. What's going to happen to us? Being a program on the outside looking in... but the one thing I was concerned about was thinking about the have's and have not's and I thought that drift was going to get wider and wider"
- Ken Niumatalolo

"But in the meantime the BIG EAST presents, as Kenny mentioned, a tremendous opportunity that allows us to move forward in a position and protect what we would call national relevance."
- Chet Gladchuk

"My analogy is in college sports there is a storm getting ready to come, a hurricane getting ready to come, and those that are in homes don't really worry about it. But it's the people that are on the outside looking in that need to find a place of refuge and that's why we discussed it and why I was right onboard with Chet. It's been great for us being an Independent, but with the landscape of college football changing, that's changed."
- Ken Niumatalolo

https://navysports.com/news/2012/2/7/tra..._2015.aspx


Public Service Announcement: If you're a regular poster on this forum, and you feel tempted to post about the service academies, please do yourself a favor, and instead view that as a Golden Opportunity to STFU, and thus avoid looking ignorant.
You're welcome.