(06-06-2021 02:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:32 AM)jaybird44 Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 11:59 PM)jaybird44 Wrote:  What Alaska Fairbanks or cambridge not being invited? What the heck let's get tel Aviv or Sri Lanka st. Flying out to boise st to play tennis or some other non revenue sport is insane. Not only does it not make sense but you are proving that you do not care about your athletes and your fans. I can see football and football only. AAC, you make no sense at all. Go after west virginia or just add Charlotte uab southern miss odu or army. Why not make Boise st football only and get vcu Dayton or st louis to be in the other sports. Boise st could put other sports in west coast conference

Lol. This is less realistic than anything any AAC fan has said. West Virginia? Seriously? Why not Notre Dame? Then you go from there to suggesting the bottom of CUSA East as candidates....

Look—-Boise as a “all sports” invite has its drawbacks—but at least they make the AAC more intriguing. I just don’t see how any of the other eastern G5’s do a thing to make the AAC more interesting.

Then play with 11. Frankly, I think your conference is overrated. You are okay, but you will never be a p5. You just won't and first chance they get, cincinnati,memphis,houston and the Florida's will leave. I believe you guys need to think out of the box. I would offer west virginia the world to come to the american and then go straight to TNT and you could probably get a contract, maybe some stability and you know west virginia is spending a ton of money on non-revenue sports and if you could convince them you are all in, you could get them and remember most of your squad were conference usa schools at one time and Charlotte would make a great fit for aac. Big city and fits right in the region. You guys are chasing PIPE DREAMS. Hey, it would be worth a shot.

I think we can can easily get to the point that the AAC is considered to be, perhaps not P5—but not G5 either. A tweener conference so to speak. Once you hit that milestone, it gets easier to see how the conference could slowly morph into a lower level power conference similar to the old Big East....but that could take a decade or two of consistently high performance.

That said, I much prefer a Boise “football only” invite. I’m also fine with standing pat at 11. I could even live with a full “all sports” Boise invite—-but it’s not my preferred choice. The 3-team western “all-sports package deal” seems too risky a play for the current situation. I’d rather sit tight than make a risky big move that might not be the game changer some expect it to be. I’m not saying it couldn’t work—-but I’m not convinced that’s the best move to make just yet.

I doubt the average college sports fan knows who’s in the G5. You have to be a fan of a G5 school or a hardcore college sports fan in order to know what G5 conference is the best and worst. Heck, ask any random guy at a sports bar in Seattle, Denver or Minneapolis who’s in the ACC Coastal division and he’ll have no clue. The average Joe is familiar with the schools that have always been elite like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State…..schools that once were winning lots of games like Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami and Florida State or the flavor of the month like Clemson.

The AAC is the best G5 in football and the best basketball league outside the P6 (P5 + Big East) but at the end, it still has the same limitations and stigma as the other four G5 conferences. Even the P5s not named the B1G and SEC deal with it. How often do you hear media pundits and fans slam Clemson for not playing anybody in the ACC, Oklahoma for not being challenged in the Big XII or the Pac-12 for being too weak?

(06-05-2021 08:44 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  And the Poll is meant for AAC alumni/fans not Big West or WAC or MWC or SEC or B1G or anyone else. If you voted and are not an AAC school first fan or alumni, please don't vote.

Respectfully, your OP specified AAC school fans, not AAC school first fans.

Hawaii isn’t the only team I root for. I’ve been a Navy fan from the day Kenny Niumatalolo took over as coach. (Kenny’s older brother was my best friend in high school and I’ve known Kenny since he was a little kid running around on the playground.) In my view having BSU in the AAC won’t benefit Navy, especially if it forces the Midshipmen to the eastern division.

(06-06-2021 11:57 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 08:44 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  And the Poll is meant for AAC alumni/fans not Big West or WAC or MWC or SEC or B1G or anyone else. If you voted and are not an AAC school first fan or alumni, please don't vote.

Respectfully, your OP specified AAC school fans, not AAC school first fans.

Hawaii isn’t the only team I root for. I’ve been a Navy fan from the day Kenny Niumatalolo took over as coach. (Kenny’s older brother was my best friend in high school and I’ve known Kenny since he was a little kid running around on the playground.). In my view having BSU in the AAC won’t benefit Navy, especially if it forces the Midshipmen to the eastern division.

I think in that scenario, Memphis would move to the East division that way Navy can play in Texas every year.

(06-06-2021 10:33 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:38 PM)colohank Wrote:  What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.

I've seen this attitude from fans of other AAC schools on my own publication before, and I think it is categorically insane.

Dying on the hill of "BOISE IS TOO FAR IT ISN'T FAIR TO OUR ATHLETES" feels strange to me, given the geographic makeup of the rest of this league (you already make Olympic teams fly from Tampa to Cincinnati to Tulsa to Philly, is another two hours on a flight once a year really THAT big of a deal?)...but I can at least understand that.

Dying on the hill that Boise isn't good enough is just not accurate on any level. And trying to make any appeal to history, in THIS league, feels equally ignorant.

Well FWIW my position is kind of a combination of the two: IMO, Boise isn't good enough in a brand-value sense to warrant the extra travel distance. If they were located in Alabama, fine, add them, but in Boise Idaho? No.

If they were I don't know, as valuable as Notre Dame, well then we should fly to Nome Alaska to have them in our league. But they aren't. So I don't think ESPN would throw us any more dollars, or at least any more dollars worth missing, if Boise joined. They just aren't a game-changer to me in terms of dollars.

Also, I'd rather have Boise as an opponent and beat them out for the G5 autobid spot than have them under our tent. That's just competitively more fun for me **. I say the AAC should continue to bury Boise. They seem to be kind of on the ropes to me competitively, struggle to win the MW most years these days. They spurned us 9 years ago and are now sort of struggling, seemingly on a downward trajectory, so why pull their coals out the fire when the return doesn't seem so great for us?




** It's kind of like when I was a Lakers fan in the 1980s. I would have *hated* it if somehow in say 1985 we managed to sign Larry Bird away from the Celtics, and then with Magic and Larry won the next five championships. What made winning those titles fun back then was beating Larry Bird. That made the title worth winning, that you were competing against an equal, or maybe someone even better than you.

(06-06-2021 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 02:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:32 AM)jaybird44 Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 11:59 PM)jaybird44 Wrote:  What Alaska Fairbanks or cambridge not being invited? What the heck let's get tel Aviv or Sri Lanka st. Flying out to boise st to play tennis or some other non revenue sport is insane. Not only does it not make sense but you are proving that you do not care about your athletes and your fans. I can see football and football only. AAC, you make no sense at all. Go after west virginia or just add Charlotte uab southern miss odu or army. Why not make Boise st football only and get vcu Dayton or st louis to be in the other sports. Boise st could put other sports in west coast conference

Lol. This is less realistic than anything any AAC fan has said. West Virginia? Seriously? Why not Notre Dame? Then you go from there to suggesting the bottom of CUSA East as candidates....

Look—-Boise as a “all sports” invite has its drawbacks—but at least they make the AAC more intriguing. I just don’t see how any of the other eastern G5’s do a thing to make the AAC more interesting.

Then play with 11. Frankly, I think your conference is overrated. You are okay, but you will never be a p5. You just won't and first chance they get, cincinnati,memphis,houston and the Florida's will leave. I believe you guys need to think out of the box. I would offer west virginia the world to come to the american and then go straight to TNT and you could probably get a contract, maybe some stability and you know west virginia is spending a ton of money on non-revenue sports and if you could convince them you are all in, you could get them and remember most of your squad were conference usa schools at one time and Charlotte would make a great fit for aac. Big city and fits right in the region. You guys are chasing PIPE DREAMS. Hey, it would be worth a shot.

I think we can can easily get to the point that the AAC is considered to be, perhaps not P5—but not G5 either. A tweener conference so to speak. Once you hit that milestone, it gets easier to see how the conference could slowly morph into a lower level power conference similar to the old Big East....but that could take a decade or two of consistently high performance.

That said, I much prefer a Boise “football only” invite. I’m also fine with standing pat at 11. I could even live with a full “all sports” Boise invite—-but it’s not my preferred choice. The 3-team western “all-sports package deal” seems too risky a play for the current situation. I’d rather sit tight than make a risky big move that might not be the game changer some expect it to be. I’m not saying it couldn’t work—-but I’m not convinced that’s the best move to make just yet.

I doubt the average college sports fan knows who’s in the G5. You have to be a fan of a G5 school or a hardcore college sports fan in order to know what G5 conference is the best and worst. Heck, ask any random guy at a sports bar in Seattle, Denver or Minneapolis who’s in the ACC Coastal division and he’ll have no clue. The average Joe is familiar with the schools that have always been elite like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State…..schools that once were winning lots of games like Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami and Florida State or the flavor of the month like Clemson.

The AAC is the best G5 in football and the best basketball league outside the P6 (P5 + Big East) but at the end, it still has the same limitations and stigma as the other four G5 conferences. Even the P5s not named the B1G and SEC deal with it. How often do you hear media pundits and fans slam Clemson for not playing anybody in the ACC, Oklahoma for not being challenged in the Big XII or the Pac-12 for being too weak?

I think you make a reasonable point. However, I would add that for the very casual relatively low information college football fan your talking about----what he see's on TV is what he is likely to consider "major college sports". If he see's the AAC teams all the time on ESPN and ABC---its more than likely he will assume those teams are "relevant". Those teams he never see's on TV---he probably does not consider relevant. So, all these casual fans really know is they see AAC games on ESPN and ABC all the time and see an AAC team on NYD more often than not. Over years and decades--that simple constant TV exposure gradually changes general perceptions Saturday after Saturday after Saturday---season after season. Its a slow process.

(06-06-2021 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 10:33 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:38 PM)colohank Wrote:  What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.

I've seen this attitude from fans of other AAC schools on my own publication before, and I think it is categorically insane.

Dying on the hill of "BOISE IS TOO FAR IT ISN'T FAIR TO OUR ATHLETES" feels strange to me, given the geographic makeup of the rest of this league (you already make Olympic teams fly from Tampa to Cincinnati to Tulsa to Philly, is another two hours on a flight once a year really THAT big of a deal?)...but I can at least understand that.

Dying on the hill that Boise isn't good enough is just not accurate on any level. And trying to make any appeal to history, in THIS league, feels equally ignorant.

Well FWIW my position is kind of a combination of the two: IMO, Boise isn't good enough in a brand-value sense to warrant the extra travel distance. If they were located in Alabama, fine, add them, but in Boise Idaho? No.

If they were I don't know, as valuable as Notre Dame, well then we should fly to Nome Alaska to have them in our league. But they aren't. So I don't think ESPN would throw us any more dollars, or at least any more dollars worth missing, if Boise joined. They just aren't a game-changer to me in terms of dollars.

Also, I'd rather have Boise as an opponent and beat them out for the G5 autobid spot than have them under our tent. That's just competitively more fun for me **. I say the AAC should continue to bury Boise. They seem to be kind of on the ropes to me competitively, struggle to win the MW most years these days. They spurned us 9 years ago and are now sort of struggling, seemingly on a downward trajectory, so why pull their coals out the fire when the return doesn't seem so great for us?




** It's kind of like when I was a Lakers fan in the 1980s. I would have *hated* it if somehow in say 1985 we managed to sign Larry Bird away from the Celtics, and then with Magic and Larry won the next five championships. What made winning those titles fun back then was beating Larry Bird. That made the title worth winning, that you were competing against an equal, or maybe someone even better than you.

i’ll bet you like boise’s Blue field

(06-06-2021 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 10:33 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:38 PM)colohank Wrote:  What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.

I've seen this attitude from fans of other AAC schools on my own publication before, and I think it is categorically insane.

Dying on the hill of "BOISE IS TOO FAR IT ISN'T FAIR TO OUR ATHLETES" feels strange to me, given the geographic makeup of the rest of this league (you already make Olympic teams fly from Tampa to Cincinnati to Tulsa to Philly, is another two hours on a flight once a year really THAT big of a deal?)...but I can at least understand that.

Dying on the hill that Boise isn't good enough is just not accurate on any level. And trying to make any appeal to history, in THIS league, feels equally ignorant.

Well FWIW my position is kind of a combination of the two: IMO, Boise isn't good enough in a brand-value sense to warrant the extra travel distance. If they were located in Alabama, fine, add them, but in Boise Idaho? No.

If they were I don't know, as valuable as Notre Dame, well then we should fly to Nome Alaska to have them in our league. But they aren't. So I don't think ESPN would throw us any more dollars, or at least any more dollars worth missing, if Boise joined. They just aren't a game-changer to me in terms of dollars.

Also, I'd rather have Boise as an opponent and beat them out for the G5 autobid spot than have them under our tent. That's just competitively more fun for me **. I say the AAC should continue to bury Boise. They seem to be kind of on the ropes to me competitively, struggle to win the MW most years these days. They spurned us 9 years ago and are now sort of struggling, seemingly on a downward trajectory, so why pull their coals out the fire when the return doesn't seem so great for us?




** It's kind of like when I was a Lakers fan in the 1980s. I would have *hated* it if somehow in say 1985 we managed to sign Larry Bird away from the Celtics, and then with Magic and Larry won the next five championships. What made winning those titles fun back then was beating Larry Bird. That made the title worth winning, that you were competing against an equal, or maybe someone even better than you.

There's a problem with your analogy. To use your analogy for the AAC and MW---you have to consider that neither Boston or the Lakers are making the playoff in the current scenario (as thats how FBS works for the MW and AAC). So, maybe adding Bird to Magic's squad might make get the Lakers over the hump. It certainly would give the AAC more respect should the access bowl ever be converted into a "G5 playoof slot" in an expanded 8-team CFP.

Besides, if you want Boise to continue to be the bad guy---thats ok. Even if they are in the AAC---you still need to beat them to claim the brass ring (which could very well be a "G5 playoff slot" in the future). I keep going back to the most basic question of conference building. With limited pieces on the board---you can either build using the concept of Geography over Brand---or you can build choosing Brand over Geography. The entire concept of the AAC has always been Brand over Geography. Thats worked out pretty well so far. I see no reason to change that philosophy.

(06-06-2021 10:33 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:38 PM)colohank Wrote:  What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.

I've seen this attitude from fans of other AAC schools on my own publication before, and I think it is categorically insane.

Dying on the hill of "BOISE IS TOO FAR IT ISN'T FAIR TO OUR ATHLETES" feels strange to me, given the geographic makeup of the rest of this league (you already make Olympic teams fly from Tampa to Cincinnati to Tulsa to Philly, is another two hours on a flight once a year really THAT big of a deal?)...but I can at least understand that.

Dying on the hill that Boise isn't good enough is just not accurate on any level. And trying to make any appeal to history, in THIS league, feels equally ignorant.

Dying on a hill? Now that's some hyperbole!

The distance from some existing AAC teams to Boise isn't the issue for the schools, but rather for fans. In most conferences, a football fan can jump in a car, enjoy a game at a rival's venue, and drive back home in the same day. From where I live in western Colorado, Boise is a 620-mile drive, and I live a lot closer to Boise than any AAC school. It's not like scooting up the road from Columbus to Ann Arbor or over to State College, from Norman to Lawrence, from Atlanta to Raleigh, from Seattle to Eugene, from Auburn to Knoxville, or from Cincy to Philly or Memphis.

In the AAC, boise would be an outlier geographically, culturally, and in most instances, academically. Yeah, Boise has had some success in football and has built something of a brand around it. So what? It's not a good fit.

The AAC should stay at eleven for as long as possible, and if obliged to expand, then it should add a worthy candidate within its already cumbersome, existing footprint.

(06-06-2021 12:41 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 10:33 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:38 PM)colohank Wrote:  What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.

I've seen this attitude from fans of other AAC schools on my own publication before, and I think it is categorically insane.

Dying on the hill of "BOISE IS TOO FAR IT ISN'T FAIR TO OUR ATHLETES" feels strange to me, given the geographic makeup of the rest of this league (you already make Olympic teams fly from Tampa to Cincinnati to Tulsa to Philly, is another two hours on a flight once a year really THAT big of a deal?)...but I can at least understand that.

Dying on the hill that Boise isn't good enough is just not accurate on any level. And trying to make any appeal to history, in THIS league, feels equally ignorant.

Dying on a hill? Now that's some hyperbole!

The distance from some existing AAC teams to Boise isn't the issue for the schools, but rather for fans. In most conferences, a football fan can jump in a car, enjoy a game at a rival's venue, and drive back home in the same day. From where I live in western Colorado, Boise is a 620-mile drive, and I live a lot closer to Boise than any AAC school. It's not like scooting up the road from Columbus to Ann Arbor or over to State College, from Norman to Lawrence, from Atlanta to Raleigh, from Seattle to Eugene, from Auburn to Knoxville, or from Cincy to Philly or Memphis.

In the AAC, boise would be an outlier geographically, culturally, and in most instances, academically. Yeah, Boise has had some success in football and has built something of a brand around it. So what? It's not a good fit.

The AAC should stay at eleven for as long as possible, and if obliged to expand, then it should add a worthy candidate within its already cumbersome, existing footprint.

Too late. lol...when Temple played Houston in the CCG in 2015, we sold 50 tickets to traveling Temple fans. Traveling fans arent filling up AAC stadiums. Each team pretty much relies on its own fanbase to fill its stadium. I agree---that is the downside of a spread out conference---but its a down side we already know and are dealing with. A 1000 miles away or 2500 miles away---it doesnt really matter. Once you're out of state or over 300-400 miles away---traveling fans cease to be much of a factor. Once the team is out of state or distance exceeds 300-400 miles---brand becomes a MUCH bigger driver of local interest and ticket sales than distance.

The AAC has already walked away from tight geography and the traveling fan. Instead---the AAC long ago made the decision to build the conference by selecting the best brand on the board. Its the only thing that makes sense now. Its not like they can suddenly create a tightly bunched rivalry packed conference with a single #12 selection. That ship sailed long ago.

adding boise isn’t going to improve AACs chances at the autonomous championship, heck there isn’t a football team that would do that g5 or a5

(06-06-2021 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 10:33 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:38 PM)colohank Wrote:  What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.

I've seen this attitude from fans of other AAC schools on my own publication before, and I think it is categorically insane.

Dying on the hill of "BOISE IS TOO FAR IT ISN'T FAIR TO OUR ATHLETES" feels strange to me, given the geographic makeup of the rest of this league (you already make Olympic teams fly from Tampa to Cincinnati to Tulsa to Philly, is another two hours on a flight once a year really THAT big of a deal?)...but I can at least understand that.

Dying on the hill that Boise isn't good enough is just not accurate on any level. And trying to make any appeal to history, in THIS league, feels equally ignorant.

Well FWIW my position is kind of a combination of the two: IMO, Boise isn't good enough in a brand-value sense to warrant the extra travel distance. If they were located in Alabama, fine, add them, but in Boise Idaho? No.

If they were I don't know, as valuable as Notre Dame, well then we should fly to Nome Alaska to have them in our league. But they aren't. So I don't think ESPN would throw us any more dollars, or at least any more dollars worth missing, if Boise joined. They just aren't a game-changer to me in terms of dollars.

Also, I'd rather have Boise as an opponent and beat them out for the G5 autobid spot than have them under our tent. That's just competitively more fun for me **. I say the AAC should continue to bury Boise. They seem to be kind of on the ropes to me competitively, struggle to win the MW most years these days. They spurned us 9 years ago and are now sort of struggling, seemingly on a downward trajectory, so why pull their coals out the fire when the return doesn't seem so great for us?




** It's kind of like when I was a Lakers fan in the 1980s. I would have *hated* it if somehow in say 1985 we managed to sign Larry Bird away from the Celtics, and then with Magic and Larry won the next five championships. What made winning those titles fun back then was beating Larry Bird. That made the title worth winning, that you were competing against an equal, or maybe someone even better than you.

There's a problem with your analogy. To use your analogy for the AAC and MW---you have to consider that neither Boston or the Lakers are making the playoff in the current scenario (as thats how FBS works for the MW and AAC). So, maybe adding Bird to Magic's squad might make get the Lakers over the hump. It certainly would give the AAC more respect should the access bowl ever be converted into a "G5 playoof slot" in an expanded 8-team CFP.

Besides, if you want Boise to continue to be the bad guy---thats ok. Even if they are in the AAC---you still need to beat them to claim the brass ring (which could very well be a "G5 playoff slot" in the future). I keep going back to the most basic question of conference building. With limited pieces on the board---you can either build using the concept of Geography over Brand---or you can build choosing Brand over Geography. The entire concept of the AAC has always been Brand over Geography. Thats worked out pretty well so far. I see no reason to change that philosophy.

I don't see brand and geography being categorical, either/or things. To me, geography is, all else equal, preferable. But brand is something that can create inequalities, at which point it becomes a matter of weighing them. Generally speaking, brand is more important and should be - I'd recommend we fly to Hawaii for games if Hawaii was equal in brand value to Notre Dame. But that doesn't mean geography is irrelevant - if we had our choice of a Notre Dame located in Hawaii or one located in Alabama, well it should be the one in Alabama.

So it's a tradeoff, and as I explained above, I don't see Boise's value being enough to offset their lousy geography.

And that's before I get to my gut feral desire to see Boise twist in the wind in a fading conference. Beating them in the AAC wouldn't be the same. I want to see them fade away out west, in the bed they made 9 years ago.

(06-06-2021 01:06 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  adding boise isn’t going to improve AACs chances at the autonomous championship, heck there isn’t a football team that would do that g5 or a5

I think if the AAC added Alabama they might have a chance at autonomous membership:) Of course there's a better chance of me dating Taylor Swift than that happening.

Boise on the decline? Maybe. They arent winning the MW every year, thats true. If winning the conference and making an NY6 bowl is the ONLY season considered a success, then they are not successful. Who knows if their new coach will keep them competitive.

They have 100 since wins joining the MW and have won nearly 80% of their games the past 5 seasons. Not bad.

(06-06-2021 01:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 10:33 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:38 PM)colohank Wrote:  What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.

I've seen this attitude from fans of other AAC schools on my own publication before, and I think it is categorically insane.

Dying on the hill of "BOISE IS TOO FAR IT ISN'T FAIR TO OUR ATHLETES" feels strange to me, given the geographic makeup of the rest of this league (you already make Olympic teams fly from Tampa to Cincinnati to Tulsa to Philly, is another two hours on a flight once a year really THAT big of a deal?)...but I can at least understand that.

Dying on the hill that Boise isn't good enough is just not accurate on any level. And trying to make any appeal to history, in THIS league, feels equally ignorant.

Well FWIW my position is kind of a combination of the two: IMO, Boise isn't good enough in a brand-value sense to warrant the extra travel distance. If they were located in Alabama, fine, add them, but in Boise Idaho? No.

If they were I don't know, as valuable as Notre Dame, well then we should fly to Nome Alaska to have them in our league. But they aren't. So I don't think ESPN would throw us any more dollars, or at least any more dollars worth missing, if Boise joined. They just aren't a game-changer to me in terms of dollars.

Also, I'd rather have Boise as an opponent and beat them out for the G5 autobid spot than have them under our tent. That's just competitively more fun for me **. I say the AAC should continue to bury Boise. They seem to be kind of on the ropes to me competitively, struggle to win the MW most years these days. They spurned us 9 years ago and are now sort of struggling, seemingly on a downward trajectory, so why pull their coals out the fire when the return doesn't seem so great for us?




** It's kind of like when I was a Lakers fan in the 1980s. I would have *hated* it if somehow in say 1985 we managed to sign Larry Bird away from the Celtics, and then with Magic and Larry won the next five championships. What made winning those titles fun back then was beating Larry Bird. That made the title worth winning, that you were competing against an equal, or maybe someone even better than you.

There's a problem with your analogy. To use your analogy for the AAC and MW---you have to consider that neither Boston or the Lakers are making the playoff in the current scenario (as thats how FBS works for the MW and AAC). So, maybe adding Bird to Magic's squad might make get the Lakers over the hump. It certainly would give the AAC more respect should the access bowl ever be converted into a "G5 playoof slot" in an expanded 8-team CFP.

Besides, if you want Boise to continue to be the bad guy---thats ok. Even if they are in the AAC---you still need to beat them to claim the brass ring (which could very well be a "G5 playoff slot" in the future). I keep going back to the most basic question of conference building. With limited pieces on the board---you can either build using the concept of Geography over Brand---or you can build choosing Brand over Geography. The entire concept of the AAC has always been Brand over Geography. Thats worked out pretty well so far. I see no reason to change that philosophy.

I don't see brand and geography being categorical, either/or things. To me, geography is, all else equal, preferable. But brand is something that can create inequalities, at which point it becomes a matter of weighing them. Generally speaking, brand is more important and should be - I'd recommend we fly to Hawaii for games if Hawaii was equal in brand value to Notre Dame. But that doesn't mean geography is irrelevant - if we had our choice of a Notre Dame located in Hawaii or one located in Alabama, well it should be the one in Alabama.

So it's a tradeoff, and as I explained above, I don't see Boise's value being enough to offset their lousy geography.

And that's before I get to my gut feral desire to see Boise twist in the wind in a fading conference. Beating them in the AAC wouldn't be the same. I want to see them fade away out west, in the bed they made 9 years ago.

I agree with your entire first paragraph. The issue lies in the bolded type. All else is not equal. None of the eastern G5 alternatives is viewed as "equal" to Boise in terms of "brand" (and its not close). Furthermore, lets not pretend the AAC presidents have formed this opinion in an echo chamber. They no doubt have been told this by ESPN, Aresco, their own AD's, and media experts. Im sure these same sources have told them independent Army is the only one that might could be considered a viable eastern alternative---and Army isnt interested.

What Im saying about the AAC presidents is not opinion. It is a fact. We know its fact because if the AAC presidents thought otherwise---one of those alternative eastern G5 options would already be an AAC member. Its just that simple. The reality is adding any team other than BYU, Army, Boise, or perhaps Air Force---would represent a clear and obvious step backwards for the AAC....which is why the AAC currently remains at 11 almost 2 full years after UConn announced its intent to leave for the Big East.

I’m inclined to take a wait and see approach on AAC expansion. The AAC needs to wait and see it there will be a P5 realignment circa 2024 and/or if there are changes to the CFP that would incentivize expansion.

If the Big 12 takes some hits, the AAC could easily lose 2-4 members. I think Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, and USF are the most likely to go.

At that point, the AAC will be adding C-USA/SBC schools to level out at 10 schools.

The poll suggests this decision is essentially a two horse race - either fans want Boise in the AAC straight up or they don't want them at all. If AAC presidents are equally divided in their opinion as to which is better, then the result will no soup for Boise.

(06-06-2021 01:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  The poll suggests this decision is essentially a two horse race - either fans want Boise in the AAC straight up or they don't want them at all. If AAC presidents are equally divided in their opinion as to which is better, then the result will no soup for Boise.

The poll didn't list football only. I assume "no full membership" doesn't rule out a football only membership. I think there would be way more support and less objection for a football only membership for BSU.

(06-06-2021 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 02:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:32 AM)jaybird44 Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lol. This is less realistic than anything any AAC fan has said. West Virginia? Seriously? Why not Notre Dame? Then you go from there to suggesting the bottom of CUSA East as candidates....

Look—-Boise as a “all sports” invite has its drawbacks—but at least they make the AAC more intriguing. I just don’t see how any of the other eastern G5’s do a thing to make the AAC more interesting.

Then play with 11. Frankly, I think your conference is overrated. You are okay, but you will never be a p5. You just won't and first chance they get, cincinnati,memphis,houston and the Florida's will leave. I believe you guys need to think out of the box. I would offer west virginia the world to come to the american and then go straight to TNT and you could probably get a contract, maybe some stability and you know west virginia is spending a ton of money on non-revenue sports and if you could convince them you are all in, you could get them and remember most of your squad were conference usa schools at one time and Charlotte would make a great fit for aac. Big city and fits right in the region. You guys are chasing PIPE DREAMS. Hey, it would be worth a shot.

I think we can can easily get to the point that the AAC is considered to be, perhaps not P5—but not G5 either. A tweener conference so to speak. Once you hit that milestone, it gets easier to see how the conference could slowly morph into a lower level power conference similar to the old Big East....but that could take a decade or two of consistently high performance.

That said, I much prefer a Boise “football only” invite. I’m also fine with standing pat at 11. I could even live with a full “all sports” Boise invite—-but it’s not my preferred choice. The 3-team western “all-sports package deal” seems too risky a play for the current situation. I’d rather sit tight than make a risky big move that might not be the game changer some expect it to be. I’m not saying it couldn’t work—-but I’m not convinced that’s the best move to make just yet.

I doubt the average college sports fan knows who’s in the G5. You have to be a fan of a G5 school or a hardcore college sports fan in order to know what G5 conference is the best and worst. Heck, ask any random guy at a sports bar in Seattle, Denver or Minneapolis who’s in the ACC Coastal division and he’ll have no clue. The average Joe is familiar with the schools that have always been elite like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State…..schools that once were winning lots of games like Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami and Florida State or the flavor of the month like Clemson.

The AAC is the best G5 in football and the best basketball league outside the P6 (P5 + Big East) but at the end, it still has the same limitations and stigma as the other four G5 conferences. Even the P5s not named the B1G and SEC deal with it. How often do you hear media pundits and fans slam Clemson for not playing anybody in the ACC, Oklahoma for not being challenged in the Big XII or the Pac-12 for being too weak?

I think you make a reasonable point. However, I would add that for the very casual relatively low information college football fan your talking about----what he see's on TV is what he is likely to consider "major college sports". If he see's the AAC teams all the time on ESPN and ABC---its more than likely he will assume those teams are "relevant". Those teams he never see's on TV---he probably does not consider relevant. So, all these casual fans really know is they see AAC games on ESPN and ABC all the time and see an AAC team on NYD more often than not. Over years and decades--that simple constant TV exposure gradually changes general perceptions Saturday after Saturday after Saturday---season after season. Its a slow process.

The problem is even if you’re on ESPN and ABC, the talking heads are talking about upcoming P5 games and once you make it to mid October, it’s all about who’s in the hunt for the four CFP spots. The AAC would never be in those conversations regardless if you’re on ESPN or CBS Sports Network.

As a UTEP fan I agree with your logic but as a Penn State grad who’s watched games with PSU fans, I’ve seen the reality on the other side and it’s basically all the G5’s are the same even though we all know on this boars is not true.

It's big state schools with lots of alumni vs smaller state schools or private schools with smaller alumni bases. Not many exceptions other than Notre Dame, BYU, Army, Navy, a few with national interest.

(06-06-2021 01:56 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 02:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:32 AM)jaybird44 Wrote:  Then play with 11. Frankly, I think your conference is overrated. You are okay, but you will never be a p5. You just won't and first chance they get, cincinnati,memphis,houston and the Florida's will leave. I believe you guys need to think out of the box. I would offer west virginia the world to come to the american and then go straight to TNT and you could probably get a contract, maybe some stability and you know west virginia is spending a ton of money on non-revenue sports and if you could convince them you are all in, you could get them and remember most of your squad were conference usa schools at one time and Charlotte would make a great fit for aac. Big city and fits right in the region. You guys are chasing PIPE DREAMS. Hey, it would be worth a shot.

I think we can can easily get to the point that the AAC is considered to be, perhaps not P5—but not G5 either. A tweener conference so to speak. Once you hit that milestone, it gets easier to see how the conference could slowly morph into a lower level power conference similar to the old Big East....but that could take a decade or two of consistently high performance.

That said, I much prefer a Boise “football only” invite. I’m also fine with standing pat at 11. I could even live with a full “all sports” Boise invite—-but it’s not my preferred choice. The 3-team western “all-sports package deal” seems too risky a play for the current situation. I’d rather sit tight than make a risky big move that might not be the game changer some expect it to be. I’m not saying it couldn’t work—-but I’m not convinced that’s the best move to make just yet.

I doubt the average college sports fan knows who’s in the G5. You have to be a fan of a G5 school or a hardcore college sports fan in order to know what G5 conference is the best and worst. Heck, ask any random guy at a sports bar in Seattle, Denver or Minneapolis who’s in the ACC Coastal division and he’ll have no clue. The average Joe is familiar with the schools that have always been elite like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State…..schools that once were winning lots of games like Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami and Florida State or the flavor of the month like Clemson.

The AAC is the best G5 in football and the best basketball league outside the P6 (P5 + Big East) but at the end, it still has the same limitations and stigma as the other four G5 conferences. Even the P5s not named the B1G and SEC deal with it. How often do you hear media pundits and fans slam Clemson for not playing anybody in the ACC, Oklahoma for not being challenged in the Big XII or the Pac-12 for being too weak?

I think you make a reasonable point. However, I would add that for the very casual relatively low information college football fan your talking about----what he see's on TV is what he is likely to consider "major college sports". If he see's the AAC teams all the time on ESPN and ABC---its more than likely he will assume those teams are "relevant". Those teams he never see's on TV---he probably does not consider relevant. So, all these casual fans really know is they see AAC games on ESPN and ABC all the time and see an AAC team on NYD more often than not. Over years and decades--that simple constant TV exposure gradually changes general perceptions Saturday after Saturday after Saturday---season after season. Its a slow process.

The problem is even if you’re on ESPN and ABC, the talking heads are talking about upcoming P5 games and once you make it to mid October, it’s all about who’s in the hunt for the four CFP spots. The AAC would never be in those conversations regardless if you’re on ESPN or CBS Sports Network.

As a UTEP fan I agree with your logic but as a Penn State grad who’s watched games with PSU fans, I’ve seen the reality on the other side and it’s basically all the G5’s are the same even though we all know on this boars is not true.

The real game changer on this is CFP expansion with a designated "G5 slot" (which I think is coming). Im sure there are fans that think all G5's are the same. lol...of course, there are plenty of SEC fans that think everything outside of the SEC is just white noise. Look---anyone thinking that building the AAC toward P6 status will be easy or quick is nuts. Can it happen---yeah---I think it can. But I'll also tell you that even if we assume consistently fantastic on the field performance its a decade away at best----and more likely decades away--if it ever happens at all. Frankly, IF the G5 gets a designated slot in the CFP---and the AAC can seperate itself enough from the G5 that it claims that playoff slot 90% of the time or so---that will be close enough to "P6" status for me to be satisfied with the AAC status. To me, at that point---I wont be all that bothered by being in the AAC for the long haul---whether its considered a "power conference" or not.