RE: AAC Waiver Approved
Amazing the "my school should be picked" advocates in CUSA. First it was USM, then ODU, and now UAB.
Not happening, not now, not ever. Only two CUSA schools have budgets even near the low end of the AAC (Rice and ODU, with North Texas surprisingly rising). But they are still lower than every AAC school. Nobody adds a school to their conference who is below their average (and I mean after throwing out any high end or low end outliers). But that is just one metric. There are others about attendance, fan base, size of undergraduate class and so on. Plus you look at long term growth. In all these UAB fails, even if they have some nice buildings. USM also fails even more spectacularly.
There are two schools that actually improve the standing of the American out there: Boise State and BYU. They would slot in the upper half of the conference and compel ESPN to up the money to the conference, and improve the strength of the conference. That's it, end of story.
If they just want a warm body, a school with great long term potential, they'd tap Colorado State. While a bit of an open admission school like Texas Tech, Oklahoma State or Kansas State, their faculty and research levels are amazing and higher, and in a rapid growth state. But they don't just want a warm body (UAB folks claim to fame, they have a warm body at the exact geographic center of the AAC), they want a school that makes a difference in the CFP standing.
Could the AAC go for a "big" expansion of Boise State, San Diego State and Colorado State, both grabbing the best available G5 football school outside their conference and simultaneously neutering the MWC as an annoying challenger? Sure they could. Likely the MWC would counter at the minimum with a "skinny" expansion of UTEP (low lying fruit) to get back to at least 10 football schools, but they likely try for a "big" expansion to gain Texas from CUSA with North Texas and Rice, the latter already having flirted with the MWC. Should such radical moves happen, one could see CUSA dissolve, and that eastern group actually start a new more focused conference.
But I think "big" expansion is unlikely. At the end of the day, the value package is greatest for a "skinny" expansion of Boise State alone. All the other maneuvers are simply designed to try to avoid taking Boise State MB, WBB and WVB along with football (at the end of the day they can ask Boise to park SB in the Big Sky or WAC as an associate; WS is no big deal, a single Saturday match in Boise every other year, which doesn't cost class time; the others are just conference meets which would be unaffected). In the end I think the AAC will cave and tell their MBB, WBB and WVB coaches to just deal with a match in Boise on their schedule. The AAC can make it easier by pairing the MBB and WBB games in Boise to be the same schools, so it's just one flight and one hotel booking.
A "skinny" expansion is the only viable one, where ESPN would give the OK and up the money, as Boise State is a property they value. And I think they'd even help some on the travel cost, so invested are they in Boise State and also the American (it's small money to them, far less they they gain in the additional game inventory).
And a "skinny" response from the MWC of UTEP (or another Texas school such as Rice or UNT who might be more willing to jump) is the most likely. CUSA would likely stand pat at 13 or look for a football only associate under contract (UMass and NMSU are sitting there, but so too is Liberty) to stay at even numbers.
The skinny moves are pretty much independent of whatever Oklahoma and the Big 12 decide, and of what the media landscape looks like in a couple years. A big expansion seems unlikely as everyone will be waiting on the resolution of the Big 12 situation., where the American could be the one losing a member or two.
|
I hope UNT has something comparable when our athletic center expansion is finished.
![[Image: tenor.gif]](https://media1.tenor.com/images/4cd52e8ae32fc4bb305c2efddbdbca87/tenor.gif)
