(06-07-2021 07:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 08:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 06:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  [quote='Stugray2' pid='17454064' dateline='1623012122']
Interesting. At the halfway point of the poll (but probably most votes in) there seem to be two camps, roughly as below.

50% are in favor of Boise State for all sports
6-8% favor Boise State for all sports if some of the women's team sports are excluded.
42-43% are against full membership, with some expressing opposition to even Football only membership (possibly 10%).

quote]

***************************************************************
Reply:

Apparently I misunderstood the options, as I assumed that those voting for no full membership meant no football membership either. I didn't vote, since I don't consider myself a fan of the AAC or any other conference (or team, for that matter). If I had voted it would have been for no membership at all for Boise if that had been an option.
But it doesn't matter what fans think. The only thing that matters is what the presidents think. And not just a majority of presidents - it takes a super majority, and I'm not at all sure that level of consensus exists.

Are you a fan of any pro sports organizations, ken d?

Not really. I'll watch pro sports when their playoffs start, though occasionally I'll watch the NFL on Sunday when I want to get in a good nap. I generally prefer to watch college sports, picking whatever game interests me the most in the moment regardless of what conference the teams are in.

Cool. I respect your right to take take that approach. My best friend is very similar.

(06-07-2021 08:49 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 05:47 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I voted "no restrictions" and am on record on this board with wanting the AAC to add Boise, San Diego State and one other MWC university/sports program.

...if I were a Tulane, Tulsa, Navy, SMU, Houston or Wichita fan, I might not want the addition of three MWC programs.

Actually, you might not mind. Why? Because in exchange for making longer flights to play western teams, they would make fewer flights east to play eastern teams.

It would be a net wash - - little, if any overall increase in mileage.

I adhere to the "strength in numbers" approach to college conferences and, as such, want the AAC to have 15 total members, as opposed to 12. Having said this, I realize I'm likely in the minority regarding the "strength in numbers" mindset.

You might not be in the minority. Strength of numbers made sense for the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC.
[/quote]


You make an interesting point about the flights to the east and west.

With everything on their plate. How high would the Athletic Conference be in a college president’s mind?

[quote='Stugray2' pid='17454064' dateline='1623012122']

At the halfway point of the poll (but probably most votes in) there seem to be two camps, roughly as below.

50% are in favor of Boise State for all sports

[quote]

Update: More people have voted, and now, 59% are in favor of Boise for all sports.

(06-07-2021 09:04 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 08:49 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 05:47 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I voted "no restrictions" and am on record on this board with wanting the AAC to add Boise, San Diego State and one other MWC university/sports program.

...if I were a Tulane, Tulsa, Navy, SMU, Houston or Wichita fan, I might not want the addition of three MWC programs.

Actually, you might not mind. Why? Because in exchange for making longer flights to play western teams, they would make fewer flights east to play eastern teams.

It would be a net wash - - little, if any overall increase in mileage.

I adhere to the "strength in numbers" approach to college conferences and, as such, want the AAC to have 15 total members, as opposed to 12. Having said this, I realize I'm likely in the minority regarding the "strength in numbers" mindset.

You might not be in the minority. Strength of numbers made sense for the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC.


You make an interesting point about the flights to the east and west.

I didn't realize people were opining on Navy over here.

Navy has the luxury of not having to worry about all-sports travel.
As long as it's in the Continental U.S., travel isn't a problem for Navy football and our charter partner Southwest (when we went to Hawaii in 2018, Southwest wasn't there yet, so we had to go commercial -- there was a good article in the Washington Post about everything the football ops staff did to minimize the impact...apparently not enough in that season of not quite right).
Navy has nothing against a broader footprint for AAC football -- if anything, the coast to coast nature of the Big East (including BSU and SDSU) when we negotiated our membership in 2011-2012 was a positive - we are a national programand actually would be against anything to limit the geography.
San Diego every other year? That's a resounding YES from Navy.

(As far as Air Force....they recruited for years on their conference membership in the WAC then mwc...no qualms about being in a better conference than them now. I am certain Navy is not campaigning for Air Force -- might stop short of a veto. Might not need a veto if we're talking all-sports - Air Force would not be additive in MBB, WBB, and probably a lot of other olympics)

Neither a single add (football-only or all-sports) nor a three-team add (football-only or all-sports) is a GUARANTEE of success of the P6 campaign -- formal inclusion in the next CFP structure or a contract, even a "tweener" contract, with a bowl that is in the next CFP's NYx. So a single team add needs to bring just over $9 million or a three-team add needs to bring just over $28 million to break even in the media + CFP $ prior to the next CFP restructure.
THAT point will be on the AD's or the VADM's talking points in any AAC meeting on the issue.

(06-06-2021 07:29 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 06:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 03:17 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

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

The problem is you think there’s going to be a P6. AAC fans remind me of MWC fans before 2010 who thought they were going to become the 7th AQ conference and even replace the Big East as AQ. I used to tell them on their board the cartel with ESPN’s blessing would never allow it and take their two or three best properties. Utah would get the call and Wyoming would not go anywhere. I was often accused of being a troll. The same will happen to the AAC if it ever gets that close. The cartel will move one or two schools maybe three out and have the likes of East Carolina and Tulsa stay as non power programs. It’s deja vu.

As for the G5 being included in an extended CFP, I wouldn’t hold my breath. The cartel and ESPN will pull the same BS when they created the BCS where a nonAQ had to be ranked in the top 6 to make qualify for a BCS berth. I can see the sane with an expanded CFP where the G5 rep would have to be ranked in the top 4 or 5. Not impossible but not easy either.

I get that reasoning. I just dont agree with it. I would agree it has always been that way since the 1984 Oklahoma Regents vs the NCAA case. But I think it USED to be that way because most power conferences only had 9 to 12 teams. Each team didnt make 50 million for conference distribution back when the college landscape sudenly erupted with conference expansion and team poaching. Back in the expansion heyday---a typical P5 school was making maybe 15-20 million each from media and may another 2 or 3 million from other conference income (NCAA credits, BCS, etc). Its very different now. I think we hacve reached the point of diminishing returns on expansion (the only exception being a Texas or Oklahoma level addition).

Just do the math. Virtually all the P5's have 14 members. Each conference member is getting a 35 to 55 million conference distribution share. Only about 65% of that share is coming from media. About a third is coming from "other sources" (NCAA credits and a big chunk from CFP).

Given those numbers, in order for a school to be worth adding, it cant be worth the "average" of the media contract for a conference. Lets just say that the average media value per school in a given P5 is 20 million and the total per team payout is for the conference is 30 million. If a school only has 20 million in media value---your media revenue might go up the 20 million----but the "other" portion of the payout doesnt automatically increase just because you add another team. Thus, the new team needs to bring in the FULL 30 MILLION of a share in JUST MEDIA VALUE in order to NOT have a negative affect on per team conference payout.

Now---that 30 million in media value---thats just to break even with an addition. Why would a P5 want to add scruffy AAC team to its elite super cool P5 when it just means breaking even? So, that new school needs to have enough media value that everyone gets a raise when they are added. Thats the only reason add a scruffy AAC school that at some point is going to show up on your schedule every year instead of a Texas or a Ohio St. Since conferences now have 14 members, just to add 1 million dollars to each teams payout---the new school needs to add 14 million in media value OVER THE FULL current member payout PLUS one extra million for the new school (a total of 15 million). So now, the scruffy AAC team needs to have 45 million in JUST MEDIA VALUE to be worth adding. How many AAC teams have 45 million in media value.....oh---by the way---did I mention that the conference needs two of those because they dont really want to expand and end up with an unwieldy odd number of members like the AAC is currently dealing with. So---which TWO AAC schools have a combined 90 million in JUST MEDIA VALUE?

In other words, the AAC could be easily find itself full of teams worth 15 to 25 million---which is very P5-ish---but still be absolutely hideously unattractive to the P5 in terms of poachable targets (kinda what the Big-12 figured out in 2016 by the way). This is why Im not so sure we havent entered a new era where it actually is possible to grow a conference into a a lower level power conference similar to the old Big East or the 1980's WAC.

Like I used to tell MWC fans over 10 years ago: “we’ll see”.

And to be clear---Im not saying it will happen. Im saying I think the landscape has changed enough that its now possible to for a conference to naturally develop without being poached. Frankly, I'd point out that I dont think the AAC has to necessarily become a full fledged P6 accepted by all in order to accomplish a substantial portion of its goals.

(06-06-2021 03:17 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

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

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

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

The problem is you think there’s going to be a P6. AAC fans remind me of MWC fans before 2010 who thought they were going to become the 7th AQ conference and even replace the Big East as AQ. I used to tell them on their board the cartel with ESPN’s blessing would never allow it and take their two or three best properties. Utah would get the call and Wyoming would not go anywhere. I was often accused of being a troll. The same will happen to the AAC if it ever gets that close. The cartel will move one or two schools maybe three out and have the likes of East Carolina and Tulsa stay as non power programs. It’s deja vu.

As for the G5 being included in an extended CFP, I wouldn’t hold my breath. The cartel and ESPN will pull the same BS when they created the BCS where a nonAQ had to be ranked in the top 6 to make qualify for a BCS berth. I can see the sane with an expanded CFP where the G5 rep would have to be ranked in the top 4 or 5. Not impossible but not easy either.

I view the 3 team add that was leaked/suggested in the Jersey Guy article the other week as a pre-emptive add to maintain the AAC's position should the top 2-3 teams get poached soon. If the AAC does not lose members I think they could make a solid argument for inclusion and a contract bowl with the Peach or Fiesta bowls. It'd be the AAC champion/#2 AAC if champion is in the CFP or a #3 or #4 with a current P5 conference. With existing P5's deemphasizing non playoff bowls there's a good argument to be had for the AAC.

A move that involves adding Boise St and/or one of the 3 team western expansions that have been suggested only makes sense if the membership of the P5 remain constant.

The instant the Big 12/ACC/PAC 12 get raided and need to dip into the G5 for replacements, then they are going to become the new tweener league and the AAC will no longer have that role. At which point, it would make sense for the AAC to try and remain as geographically compact as possible to reduce travel costs because revenue and NY6 access (or whatever the future equivalent is) is going to become more scarce.

(06-07-2021 10:55 AM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 03:17 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

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

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

The problem is you think there’s going to be a P6. AAC fans remind me of MWC fans before 2010 who thought they were going to become the 7th AQ conference and even replace the Big East as AQ. I used to tell them on their board the cartel with ESPN’s blessing would never allow it and take their two or three best properties. Utah would get the call and Wyoming would not go anywhere. I was often accused of being a troll. The same will happen to the AAC if it ever gets that close. The cartel will move one or two schools maybe three out and have the likes of East Carolina and Tulsa stay as non power programs. It’s deja vu.

As for the G5 being included in an extended CFP, I wouldn’t hold my breath. The cartel and ESPN will pull the same BS when they created the BCS where a nonAQ had to be ranked in the top 6 to make qualify for a BCS berth. I can see the sane with an expanded CFP where the G5 rep would have to be ranked in the top 4 or 5. Not impossible but not easy either.

I view the 3 team add that was leaked/suggested in the Jersey Guy article the other week as a pre-emptive add to maintain the AAC's position should the top 2-3 teams get poached soon. If the AAC does not lose members I think they could make a solid argument for inclusion and a contract bowl with the Peach or Fiesta bowls. It'd be the AAC champion/#2 AAC if champion is in the CFP or a #3 or #4 with a current P5 conference. With existing P5's deemphasizing non playoff bowls there's a good argument to be had for the AAC.

14 teams, 8 conference games is the best football structure right now. With 7 teams in each division and only 2 cross-division games, you have a better chance that your two division winners are both ranked with 10+ wins. That increases the value of the CCG and the ranking of the champion. A CCG that includes one of Boise-Houston-Navy and one of UCF-Cincy-Memphis is going to do well.

For Olympic sports, I still think EAST, CENTRAL and WEST divisions make logistical sense. Mostly regional intra-division games and limit the EAST-WEST regular season Olympic sports matchups...*maximum* of a single 2-game EAST-WEST road trip...and you could even completely avoid EAST-WEST matchups in some minor Olympic sports.

EAST: Temple, Cincy, ECU, UCF, USF, *VCU
CENTRAL: Wichita, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis
WEST: Boise, SDSU, CSU, *BYU, *Gonzaga, *St. Mary's/San Francisco

10 intradivision games, no more than 2 EAST-WEST road games (if that).

Consider to also invite *Dayton (or other A10) to EAST; *St. Louis to CENTRAL; both *St. Mary's & San Francisco (or other TBD) to WEST. That would give you 12 intradivision games with which to work.

A bball tournament rotation of Eastern, Central, and Vegas would be fantastic!

(06-07-2021 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A move that involves adding Boise St and/or one of the 3 team western expansions that have been suggested only makes sense if the membership of the P5 remain constant.

The instant the Big 12/ACC/PAC 12 get raided and need to dip into the G5 for replacements, then they are going to become the new tweener league and the AAC will no longer have that role. At which point, it would make sense for the AAC to try and remain as geographically compact as possible to reduce travel costs because revenue and NY6 access (or whatever the future equivalent is) is going to become more scarce.

Good point.

This should be the thinking of both Boise State and the American. They should wait to see what Oklahoma does or doesn't do in 2025, something we should know by Christmas 2024, and probably a few months earlier. Only when it's clear Oklahoma is staying would it make sense to consummate a marriage. Boise State knows they can't leave the MWC a second time and ever return.

If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12 for the SEC or B1G (good chance somebody goes with them like KU), then we could see a lot of shakeup down through G5. Both the MWC and AAC are likely to be impacted in some way.

It makes sense for both parties to wait 3 years to see how things shake out first.

(06-07-2021 12:44 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A move that involves adding Boise St and/or one of the 3 team western expansions that have been suggested only makes sense if the membership of the P5 remain constant.

The instant the Big 12/ACC/PAC 12 get raided and need to dip into the G5 for replacements, then they are going to become the new tweener league and the AAC will no longer have that role. At which point, it would make sense for the AAC to try and remain as geographically compact as possible to reduce travel costs because revenue and NY6 access (or whatever the future equivalent is) is going to become more scarce.

Good point.

This should be the thinking of both Boise State and the American. They should wait to see what Oklahoma does or doesn't do in 2025, something we should know by Christmas 2024, and probably a few months earlier. Only when it's clear Oklahoma is staying would it make sense to consummate a marriage. Boise State knows they can't leave the MWC a second time and ever return.

If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12 for the SEC or B1G (good chance somebody goes with them like KU), then we could see a lot of shakeup down through G5. Both the MWC and AAC are likely to be impacted in some way.

It makes sense for both parties to wait 3 years to see how things shake out first.

Very well put. Though I want the AAC to add three from the MWC now, your points make sense. Waiting is the best approach.

AND----END THREAD---


Dennis Dodd
@dennisdoddcbs
·
1h
I am told by several sources that the AAC is no longer pursuing Boise State. The opposite was true prior to Covid.
Boise State, American Athletic Conference evaluating Broncos joining league as 12th football member...
Boise State and the AAC have each had internal discussions about linking for college football
cbssports.com

(06-07-2021 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The instant the Big 12/ACC/PAC 12 get raided and need to dip into the G5 for replacements, then they are going to become the new tweener league and the AAC will no longer have that role. ...

And like the old Big East before the last raid, a Big12 that loses Oklahoma and another school but not Texas would be "least among equals" among the P5 rather than "first among equals" in the Go5.

However, as noted, this particular dimension of "how/when should the AAC fill its open spot" is now closed.

Mods you can close the thread.

Thanks everyone for participating.