(06-08-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  These threads always remind me of the cliche of a group of women always trying to find somebody to marry their single dude co-worker because it bothers them to no end that he's single. If the AAC finds somebody, they'll invite them to join. But they for damn sure won't marry UAB, or JMU, or Buffalo, or whoever, just because everybody else thinks they should be at 12.

USFFan

Only matters if the NCAA thinks they need to marry.

Or give up the CCG.

Or just play an unbalanced schedule...

(06-08-2021 04:26 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:07 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 11:04 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  jedclampett and JamesTKirk post on both the Realignment and AAC boards.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both post walls of words.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both bold a lot and use ellipses and those “one paragraph periods”.

Jed Clampett and James T Kirk are both early 1960s fictional TV characters.

jedclampett and JamesTKirk are the same person.

This is exactly what I was noticing lol

JamesTKirk has also posted in a couple of jedclampett's "would you support a G5 movement for a new NY7 bowl" threads on the other conference boards.
There are more stylistic similarities, too.
- Opening with "that's an interesting article" then going off on a tangent
- Saying "A lot of posters have shown interest..." which resulted in this beauty:

(06-01-2021 07:14 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(06-01-2021 02:37 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  C-USA fans have shown some interest in the idea.

There are 10 posts in this thread. Five of them are you. 4 more are mocking you or the idea and one guy said he'd support it. That's not some interest. That's a complete lack of interest.

- Misrepresenting Aresco's interview statements

But the blank line-period-blank line offset seen in this thread was what clinched it for me.

Also the whole “non-P5” narrative that he’s always trying to convey, the posts are almost exactly the same. Is having a bunch of sock accounts against the rules here?

(06-08-2021 05:25 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  These threads always remind me of the cliche of a group of women always trying to find somebody to marry their single dude co-worker because it bothers them to no end that he's single. If the AAC finds somebody, they'll invite them to join. But they for damn sure won't marry UAB, or JMU, or Buffalo, or whoever, just because everybody else thinks they should be at 12.

USFFan

Only matters if the NCAA thinks they need to marry.

Or give up the CCG.

Or just play an unbalanced schedule...

^ everyone keeps conveniently leaving that option out when they're advocating for their CUSA, Sunbelt or MAC school to be added. I believe there's 3 or 4 schools the AAC will add, unless they want to come the conference will stay at 11 and keep the CCG even if it means annoying conference scheduling.

(06-08-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  These threads always remind me of the cliche of a group of women always trying to find somebody to marry their single dude co-worker because it bothers them to no end that he's single. If the AAC finds somebody, they'll invite them to join. But they for damn sure won't marry UAB, or JMU, or Buffalo, or whoever, just because everybody else thinks they should be at 12.

USFFan

Only matters if the NCAA thinks they need to marry.

Or give up the CCG.

So your saying there might be a shotgun wedding.

(06-08-2021 05:51 PM)panite Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  These threads always remind me of the cliche of a group of women always trying to find somebody to marry their single dude co-worker because it bothers them to no end that he's single. If the AAC finds somebody, they'll invite them to join. But they for damn sure won't marry UAB, or JMU, or Buffalo, or whoever, just because everybody else thinks they should be at 12.

USFFan

Only matters if the NCAA thinks they need to marry.

Or give up the CCG.

So your saying there might be a shotgun wedding.

So BYU it is...

BYU and 11 wives

(06-08-2021 03:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  These threads always remind me of the cliche of a group of women always trying to find somebody to marry their single dude co-worker because it bothers them to no end that he's single. If the AAC finds somebody, they'll invite them to join. But they for damn sure won't marry UAB, or JMU, or Buffalo, or whoever, just because everybody else thinks they should be at 12.

USFFan

Most of those kinds of posts seem to be from fans of those wannabe schools.

It's like five years ago, most of the posts insisting that the Big 12 had to expand to, well, 12 weren't from Texas or Texas Tech or OU fans, they were from Houston and Memphis and yes, USF fans.

(06-08-2021 05:54 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:51 PM)panite Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  These threads always remind me of the cliche of a group of women always trying to find somebody to marry their single dude co-worker because it bothers them to no end that he's single. If the AAC finds somebody, they'll invite them to join. But they for damn sure won't marry UAB, or JMU, or Buffalo, or whoever, just because everybody else thinks they should be at 12.

USFFan

Only matters if the NCAA thinks they need to marry.

Or give up the CCG.

So your saying there might be a shotgun wedding.

So BYU it is...

BYU and 11 wives

(06-08-2021 12:39 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 12:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 11:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 11:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Looks like the AAC could be stuck at 11 for a long time. Aresco needs to get to work on that rule change.

If they need an affiliate to tide them over until the picture post-2024 is clear, there are several available.

That might be less likely than Boise. Waaaaaay too many issues. Nobody is leaving a conference for a temporary affiliate status---so that means it must be an indy. UConn is a hard no for obvious reasons. That leaves UMass, Liberty, and NM State. Then---you'll either have to buy out a bunch of indy games in order to immediately free up their schedule---or---you can wait several years for their schedule to open up---which would put you around the mid-2020's---and it would be sort of a "whats the point" endeavor once you get that far down the road.

No. It looks like the AAC is essentially an 11 team football/basketball league for the forseeable future.....unless Aresco finally decides to invite VCU.....

So UConn is a "hard no for obvious reasons" while UMass and NM State would be in play if you were Aresco?

You're missing the egos and politics. UConn embarrassed the AAC by ditching it for the Big East. So the last thing the AAC schools are going to do is let you have your basketball cake and eat your football cake too by letting football re-join the AAC. It's like John Travolta said in Pulp Fiction "if you give that nimrod $1500 I'm going to bust him on general principle" (or something like that).

Some things the ego just can't tolerate. Pride is a big factor in anything related to academia.

The AAC should host a reality show on an island where the eligible bachelor programs all vie for the 12th spot. Every week, they compete in games (not football) and a candidate program is voted off, until a final program remains. WHO will be “The Program”….

I’d like to believe Yosef would be a part of that, but he doesn’t do well off the mountain. So I’d either cheer for the pious bad boy - Liberty, the desperate virgin - Ga State, or the underdog - JMU.

(06-08-2021 03:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:53 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  I agree to some extent. Guess I was putting them in the same category as Tulane. Though they do have a recent history of excellent sports unlike Tulane. A football game between Buffalo and Tulane would be about as exciting as a Princeton vs Dartmouth game.

I'd actually tune in for a Buffalo vs Tulane football game. Tulane isn't a doormat anymore, they've been a 7-6 type team the past few years and their talent has upgraded. I'd think that would make for a good minor-level bowl game.

Buffalo does have some good fundamentals. But as "coog" said, they have zero brand value. They just have no name recognition at all. Save for Syracuse, NY state is just an empty wasteland for college athletics, in terms of national interest.

I would be fine with Buffalo for all-sports as the AAC's No. 12, but the points you and ACoog make are very valid, Quo.

I do like the thought of a university that 1. has strong academic clout in a highly populated state; and 2. brings a solid one-two punch in football and hoops. Thus, UB intrigues me.

Having grown up in and around New York City, my sense is that most New Yorkers hardly even consider Buffalo a part of the state. Their fan support is pretty local, and Buffalo isn't very big. This is a team that averages about 16K attendance for football. They are more likely to get support from Toronto than from Syracuse (much less the heavily populated part of New York which is NYC plus Long Island). And that one-two punch is from a lightweight, not a heavyweight.

I doubt the AAC gives them a second thought.

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:53 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  I agree to some extent. Guess I was putting them in the same category as Tulane. Though they do have a recent history of excellent sports unlike Tulane. A football game between Buffalo and Tulane would be about as exciting as a Princeton vs Dartmouth game.

I'd actually tune in for a Buffalo vs Tulane football game. Tulane isn't a doormat anymore, they've been a 7-6 type team the past few years and their talent has upgraded. I'd think that would make for a good minor-level bowl game.

Buffalo does have some good fundamentals. But as "coog" said, they have zero brand value. They just have no name recognition at all. Save for Syracuse, NY state is just an empty wasteland for college athletics, in terms of national interest.

Army is national interest.

Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.

I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.

And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?

(06-08-2021 05:34 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:25 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  These threads always remind me of the cliche of a group of women always trying to find somebody to marry their single dude co-worker because it bothers them to no end that he's single. If the AAC finds somebody, they'll invite them to join. But they for damn sure won't marry UAB, or JMU, or Buffalo, or whoever, just because everybody else thinks they should be at 12.

USFFan

Only matters if the NCAA thinks they need to marry.

Or give up the CCG.

Or just play an unbalanced schedule...

^ everyone keeps conveniently leaving that option out when they're advocating for their CUSA, Sunbelt or MAC school to be added. I believe there's 3 or 4 schools the AAC will add, unless they want to come the conference will stay at 11 and keep the CCG even if it means annoying conference scheduling.

…but I don’t think that is an option. I believe the MAC had a waiver and that’s why they kept trying to balance their divisions. Otherwise, why didn’t the ACC stick at 11 like they wanted to and use unbalanced divisions? And why does the American have a waiver now?

Buffalo? BUFFALO? Let's just forget about adding a quality brand. Dear Lord.

UAB>Marshall>Toledo>Buffalo

(06-08-2021 08:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:34 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:25 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  These threads always remind me of the cliche of a group of women always trying to find somebody to marry their single dude co-worker because it bothers them to no end that he's single. If the AAC finds somebody, they'll invite them to join. But they for damn sure won't marry UAB, or JMU, or Buffalo, or whoever, just because everybody else thinks they should be at 12.

USFFan

Only matters if the NCAA thinks they need to marry.

Or give up the CCG.

Or just play an unbalanced schedule...

^ everyone keeps conveniently leaving that option out when they're advocating for their CUSA, Sunbelt or MAC school to be added. I believe there's 3 or 4 schools the AAC will add, unless they want to come the conference will stay at 11 and keep the CCG even if it means annoying conference scheduling.

…but I don’t think that is an option. I believe the MAC had a waiver and that’s why they kept trying to balance their divisions. Otherwise, why didn’t the ACC stick at 11 like they wanted to and use unbalanced divisions? And why does the American have a waiver now?

The waiver simply allows the AAC to play a divisionless CCG without playing a full round robin within the conference. If the waiver is dropped, then the AAC can play uneven divisions. The new rule expressly provides for uneven divisions indicating they are legal as long as they are as close to even as possible. There is no rule that would stop a CCG because some teams played more conference games than others (there is no need for a waiver on that issue--its just inconvenient and unwieldy). Back when the MAC had it's waiver, the current language in the CCG rule addressing uneven divisions did not exist.

(06-08-2021 08:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:34 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:25 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  These threads always remind me of the cliche of a group of women always trying to find somebody to marry their single dude co-worker because it bothers them to no end that he's single. If the AAC finds somebody, they'll invite them to join. But they for damn sure won't marry UAB, or JMU, or Buffalo, or whoever, just because everybody else thinks they should be at 12.

USFFan

Only matters if the NCAA thinks they need to marry.

Or give up the CCG.

Or just play an unbalanced schedule...

^ everyone keeps conveniently leaving that option out when they're advocating for their CUSA, Sunbelt or MAC school to be added. I believe there's 3 or 4 schools the AAC will add, unless they want to come the conference will stay at 11 and keep the CCG even if it means annoying conference scheduling.

…but I don’t think that is an option. I believe the MAC had a waiver and that’s why they kept trying to balance their divisions. Otherwise, why didn’t the ACC stick at 11 like they wanted to and use unbalanced divisions? And why does the American have a waiver now?

We have a waiver now because unbalanced is a pain in the balls, and we'll take the waiver to make an easier schedule as long as they will let us. How is it not an option though? It's not outside the rules.

The ACC had some decent suitors to bring along. As has been said before, if BYU was interested we'd be happily at 12.

(06-08-2021 08:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:53 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  I agree to some extent. Guess I was putting them in the same category as Tulane. Though they do have a recent history of excellent sports unlike Tulane. A football game between Buffalo and Tulane would be about as exciting as a Princeton vs Dartmouth game.

I'd actually tune in for a Buffalo vs Tulane football game. Tulane isn't a doormat anymore, they've been a 7-6 type team the past few years and their talent has upgraded. I'd think that would make for a good minor-level bowl game.

Buffalo does have some good fundamentals. But as "coog" said, they have zero brand value. They just have no name recognition at all. Save for Syracuse, NY state is just an empty wasteland for college athletics, in terms of national interest.

Army is national interest.

Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.

I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.

And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?

I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?

But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.

Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.

And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this. So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.

I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.

(06-08-2021 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'd actually tune in for a Buffalo vs Tulane football game. Tulane isn't a doormat anymore, they've been a 7-6 type team the past few years and their talent has upgraded. I'd think that would make for a good minor-level bowl game.

Buffalo does have some good fundamentals. But as "coog" said, they have zero brand value. They just have no name recognition at all. Save for Syracuse, NY state is just an empty wasteland for college athletics, in terms of national interest.

Army is national interest.

Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.

I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.

And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?

I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?

But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.

Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.

And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this. So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.

I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.

I started watching college sports in about 1968-69 and have always looked at the three military academies (at least in football) with high regard. Of course, as you note, Army is not Ohio State or USC in football. But how many programs are? That's not a fare comparison. Rather, compare Army and Air Force football to, say, my Vanderbilt Commodore football program. Or even a better SEC football program such as Missouri. The prestige, the respect, the brand of Army and Air Force ... strong. I typically agree with you about 90 to 95 percent of the time, Quo. But not on this topic.

I would be thrilled to see the AAC add Air Force and Army (for football only). Then add BYU (for football only) and VCU (for all sports but football) and that is my dream AAC, with 14 football schools and 12 hoops programs. Alas, it's not going to happen.

(06-08-2021 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'd actually tune in for a Buffalo vs Tulane football game. Tulane isn't a doormat anymore, they've been a 7-6 type team the past few years and their talent has upgraded. I'd think that would make for a good minor-level bowl game.

Buffalo does have some good fundamentals. But as "coog" said, they have zero brand value. They just have no name recognition at all. Save for Syracuse, NY state is just an empty wasteland for college athletics, in terms of national interest.

Army is national interest.

Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.

I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.

And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?

I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?

But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.

Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.

And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this.

What has changed is your perspective. In the 1970s, you were watching, talking about, thinking about upper-level college football, what are now the P5 schools. Now, you're paying attention to what's now lower-FBS.

Notice that when the football independents coalesced into conferences, Army slotted into the original Conference USA, along with East Carolina.

Quote:So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.

I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.

Because, relative to the AAC, or any G-5 league, getting Army (or having Navy) would be a big deal. Compared to Ohio State or Arkansas or even Maryland or Purdue or Kansas State or Utah, it's not much. But those aren't the relevant comparisons--the relevant comparisons are UAB and SMU and Colorado State and Boise State and Troy and North Texas.

Maybe a half-dozen G5 schools are objectively stronger brands or programs. You can probably make a case for another half-dozen to a dozen. But the rest are clearly not as nationally relevant as Army or Navy or Air Force.

EDIT: And actually, if I remember right, when the Big 12 was looking to rebound after losing Colorado and Nebraska, and then Missouri, they reached out to Air Force. https://www.espn.com/blog/big12/post/_/i...-air-force

(06-08-2021 10:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  Army is national interest.

Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.

I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.

And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?

I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?

But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.

Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.

And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this.

What has changed is your perspective. In the 1970s, you were watching, talking about, thinking about upper-level college football, what are now the P5 schools. Now, you're paying attention to what's now lower-FBS.

Notice that when the football independents coalesced into conferences, Army slotted into the original Conference USA, along with East Carolina.

Quote:So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.

I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.

Because, relative to the AAC, or any G-5 league, getting Army (or having Navy) would be a big deal. Compared to Ohio State or Arkansas or even Maryland or Purdue or Kansas State or Utah, it's not much. But those aren't the relevant comparisons--the relevant comparisons are UAB and SMU and Colorado State and Boise State and Troy and North Texas.

Maybe a half-dozen G5 schools are objectively stronger brands or programs. You can probably make a case for another half-dozen to a dozen. But the rest are clearly not as nationally relevant as Army or Navy or Air Force.

Agree.

(06-08-2021 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'd actually tune in for a Buffalo vs Tulane football game. Tulane isn't a doormat anymore, they've been a 7-6 type team the past few years and their talent has upgraded. I'd think that would make for a good minor-level bowl game.

Buffalo does have some good fundamentals. But as "coog" said, they have zero brand value. They just have no name recognition at all. Save for Syracuse, NY state is just an empty wasteland for college athletics, in terms of national interest.

Army is national interest.

Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.

I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.

And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?

I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?

But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.

Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.

And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this. So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.

I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.

I think a lot of it has to do with getting the Army - Navy game under the conference umbrella, idk the figures but I'd guess that's a high value game that's highlighted every year.