(09-10-2021 03:05 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 12:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I agree they really need to go back to 12---but the presidents have made it clear since 2019 that none of the schools presently available to them were appealing to them at all. They looked at all these same choices when UConn left in 2019 and determined that none of them added any value. At this point they must by rule take at least one because they will only have 7 full members (remember Navy is a "football only" member and does not count toward the mandatory 8 all-sports FBS teams a conference must have all play FBS football).

Unless the bolded part was driven by the departing schools, then we should assume it's still the opinion of the remaining schools.

And if that is still the conference consensus, then the AAC
-- might give strong consideration to adding only one new member (as you mention they have to add at least one)
-- will likely end up with two because having 10 football teams is more convenient for multiple reasons
-- is unlikely to add four new members.

Without either the MWC schools, Army, or some long shot that ESPN would pay more per school for 12 than 10 I don't see why the AAC would go beyond 10. I'm honestly surprised the B12 is actually going back to 12, but the 4 they are adding are very obvious additions that make sense, are very quality athletics programs, and in some cases might be worth more than current B12 members. Those additions don't exist for the AAC outside of the obvious and unlikely options. For me unless ESPN really wants to make it worth it to add more inventory once all the big swings say no I add UAB and be a 9 team conference. The only actual "wart" with UAB is lingering concerns that the Alabama BOG could try to pull some sh*t again, but being that they've built a brand new stadium I'm less and less worried about that by the day. Good academics, good recent football success, good basketball tradition, good market, makes sense location wise, and history with a lot of the schools. Past them though I think the warts are really bad with everyone. I think there is a collection of large market large enrollment schools with "potential" but none have tapped any of it yet. Get to 9 and figure out over the next few years which one of the group of ODU/Charlotte/Georgia State/FAU/UTSA etc actually figures it out. Right now no one can reasonably assess which one of those is gonna hit their potential and which ones are gonna just flounder.

(09-10-2021 08:22 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 08:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The problem that the AAC presidents had and apparently quite a few posters still have is that they believed the P6 hype when in reality the AAC even with the 4 most valuable now departed or soon to depart members was far closer to the mountain west and other G5 conferences then it was to any of the P5 conferences

While that is true for the AAC at the present time:

1) Down to 8 they have the most room to expand of the G5.
2) Moonshot candidate BYU is off the table. They were the dream #12.
3) They have a great relationship with ESPN and designed by them.

They could go C2C with only 4 MWC schools at this point.

West: SDSU, UNLV, Boise, AFA, Tulsa, SMU
East: Tulane, Memphis, ECU, USF, Navy, Temple

Think about that.

The relationship with ESPN is overvalued

All the AAC posters were convinced that this allegedly great relationship would allow them to poach the big 12 instead the big 12 took their most valuable properties

A coast to coast conference with the TV deal paying five or 6 million a year makes absolutely zero financial sense

If a from scratch coast to coast that dropped all the dead weight like Tulsa to Lane San Jose State etc. could be worth 10 to 15,000,000 but that’s not happening

(09-10-2021 08:32 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 08:22 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 08:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The problem that the AAC presidents had and apparently quite a few posters still have is that they believed the P6 hype when in reality the AAC even with the 4 most valuable now departed or soon to depart members was far closer to the mountain west and other G5 conferences then it was to any of the P5 conferences

While that is true for the AAC at the present time:

1) Down to 8 they have the most room to expand of the G5.
2) Moonshot candidate BYU is off the table. They were the dream #12.
3) They have a great relationship with ESPN and designed by them.

They could go C2C with only 4 MWC schools at this point.

West: SDSU, UNLV, Boise, AFA, Tulsa, SMU
East: Tulane, Memphis, ECU, USF, Navy, Temple

Think about that.

The relationship with ESPN is overvalued

All the AAC posters were convinced that this allegedly great relationship would allow them to poach the big 12 instead the big 12 took their most valuable properties

A coast to coast conference with the TV deal paying five or 6 million a year makes absolutely zero financial sense

If a from scratch coast to coast that dropped all the dead weight like Tulsa to Lane San Jose State etc. could be worth 10 to 15,000,000 but that’s not happening

If ESPN were to incentivize poaching the XII by 3-5 leftovers for future increased cash what about poaching the MWC for 4 members for future increased cash since they are owned by Fox/CBS?

Would ESPN be willing to put up 8-10 million per for it? Even if that number was 8 million it could force Boise's hand if SDSU, UNLV, AFA were all ready to sign off on the deal because technically the AAC could expand and do it without Boise. They others don't make as much as Boise does currently.

Appalachian State is the first school I would call as they're the only program in C-USA / Sun Belt / FBS Independents who's had a pulse the last decade.

Half of these programs are worse than a handful of FCS teams each year.

You already have enough garbage football teams, you don't need more.

(09-10-2021 08:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The problem that the AAC presidents had and apparently quite a few posters still have is that they believed the P6 hype when in reality the AAC even with the 4 most valuable now departed or soon to depart members was far closer to the mountain west and other G5 conferences then it was to any of the P5 conferences

What is that based on? Media contract is bigger, viewership is higher, on field results are better, and when a power conference called up 4 teams, 3 came from AAC and 0 came from all the other G5 combined.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about?

(09-10-2021 11:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 08:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The problem that the AAC presidents had and apparently quite a few posters still have is that they believed the P6 hype when in reality the AAC even with the 4 most valuable now departed or soon to depart members was far closer to the mountain west and other G5 conferences then it was to any of the P5 conferences

What is that based on? Media contract is bigger, viewership is higher, on field results are better, and when a power conference called up 4 teams, 3 came from AAC and 0 came from all the other G5 combined.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about?

When the Big XII was going to expand in 2016 the same thing would have happened. Its not like Aresco or the other conference mates made them into P5 expansion candidates.

So only the top brands are above and beyond the rest of the G5. The rest are no better than Boise, SD St or Marshall.

(09-10-2021 11:33 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 08:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The problem that the AAC presidents had and apparently quite a few posters still have is that they believed the P6 hype when in reality the AAC even with the 4 most valuable now departed or soon to depart members was far closer to the mountain west and other G5 conferences then it was to any of the P5 conferences

What is that based on? Media contract is bigger, viewership is higher, on field results are better, and when a power conference called up 4 teams, 3 came from AAC and 0 came from all the other G5 combined.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about?

When the Big XII was going to expand in 2016 the same thing would have happened. Its not like Aresco or the other conference mates made them into P5 expansion candidates.

So only the top brands are above and beyond the rest of the G5. The rest are no better than Boise, SD St or Marshall.

Marshall wasn't a top candidate for the AAC last time around so I don't know what has changed.

I doubt Aresco will go the direction of trying to remake CUSA 2.0 as that was a failure.

(09-10-2021 11:36 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:33 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 08:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The problem that the AAC presidents had and apparently quite a few posters still have is that they believed the P6 hype when in reality the AAC even with the 4 most valuable now departed or soon to depart members was far closer to the mountain west and other G5 conferences then it was to any of the P5 conferences

What is that based on? Media contract is bigger, viewership is higher, on field results are better, and when a power conference called up 4 teams, 3 came from AAC and 0 came from all the other G5 combined.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about?

When the Big XII was going to expand in 2016 the same thing would have happened. Its not like Aresco or the other conference mates made them into P5 expansion candidates.

So only the top brands are above and beyond the rest of the G5. The rest are no better than Boise, SD St or Marshall.

Marshall wasn't a top candidate for the AAC last time around so I don't know what has changed.

I doubt Aresco will go the direction of trying to remake CUSA 2.0 as that was a failure.

CUSA 2.0 was a failure? So why did AAC take 7 teams from it?

(09-10-2021 11:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 08:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The problem that the AAC presidents had and apparently quite a few posters still have is that they believed the P6 hype when in reality the AAC even with the 4 most valuable now departed or soon to depart members was far closer to the mountain west and other G5 conferences then it was to any of the P5 conferences

What is that based on? Media contract is bigger, viewership is higher, on field results are better, and when a power conference called up 4 teams, 3 came from AAC and 0 came from all the other G5 combined.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about?

Even with all of that, by every metric the AAC was closer to the other G5 teams than the P5. Hurray, tallest midget.

There was a $25+ million gap in media contract above, a few million below.

(09-10-2021 11:33 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 08:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The problem that the AAC presidents had and apparently quite a few posters still have is that they believed the P6 hype when in reality the AAC even with the 4 most valuable now departed or soon to depart members was far closer to the mountain west and other G5 conferences then it was to any of the P5 conferences

What is that based on? Media contract is bigger, viewership is higher, on field results are better, and when a power conference called up 4 teams, 3 came from AAC and 0 came from all the other G5 combined.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about?

When the Big XII was going to expand in 2016 the same thing would have happened. Its not like Aresco or the other conference mates made them into P5 expansion candidates.

So only the top brands are above and beyond the rest of the G5. The rest are no better than Boise, SD St or Marshall.

The problem with that argument is that the AAC wasn't formed in 2016. So you think the difference between them not being P5 candidates in 2013(they weren't) and being candidates in 2016 had nothing to do with performance of the AAC over its first few years?

(09-10-2021 11:40 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:36 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:33 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 08:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The problem that the AAC presidents had and apparently quite a few posters still have is that they believed the P6 hype when in reality the AAC even with the 4 most valuable now departed or soon to depart members was far closer to the mountain west and other G5 conferences then it was to any of the P5 conferences

What is that based on? Media contract is bigger, viewership is higher, on field results are better, and when a power conference called up 4 teams, 3 came from AAC and 0 came from all the other G5 combined.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about?

When the Big XII was going to expand in 2016 the same thing would have happened. Its not like Aresco or the other conference mates made them into P5 expansion candidates.

So only the top brands are above and beyond the rest of the G5. The rest are no better than Boise, SD St or Marshall.

Marshall wasn't a top candidate for the AAC last time around so I don't know what has changed.

I doubt Aresco will go the direction of trying to remake CUSA 2.0 as that was a failure.

CUSA 2.0 was a failure? So why did AAC take 7 teams from it?

CUSA 2.0 didn't earn a BCS bowl and didn't prevent itself from a massive raid by the AAC. Expanding with Rice, Marshall and UTEP were duds.

Aresco seems bent on not making the same mistake twice and going C2C while the opportunity presents itself.

(09-10-2021 11:46 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:33 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 08:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The problem that the AAC presidents had and apparently quite a few posters still have is that they believed the P6 hype when in reality the AAC even with the 4 most valuable now departed or soon to depart members was far closer to the mountain west and other G5 conferences then it was to any of the P5 conferences

What is that based on? Media contract is bigger, viewership is higher, on field results are better, and when a power conference called up 4 teams, 3 came from AAC and 0 came from all the other G5 combined.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about?

When the Big XII was going to expand in 2016 the same thing would have happened. Its not like Aresco or the other conference mates made them into P5 expansion candidates.

So only the top brands are above and beyond the rest of the G5. The rest are no better than Boise, SD St or Marshall.

The problem with that argument is that the AAC wasn't formed in 2016. So you think the difference between them not being P5 candidates in 2013(they weren't) and being candidates in 2016 had nothing to do with performance of the AAC over its first few years?

Cincinnati had already been in Big East. They probably should have been added with WV. AAC nothing to do with their eventual addition.

(09-10-2021 11:53 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:46 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:33 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 08:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The problem that the AAC presidents had and apparently quite a few posters still have is that they believed the P6 hype when in reality the AAC even with the 4 most valuable now departed or soon to depart members was far closer to the mountain west and other G5 conferences then it was to any of the P5 conferences

What is that based on? Media contract is bigger, viewership is higher, on field results are better, and when a power conference called up 4 teams, 3 came from AAC and 0 came from all the other G5 combined.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about?

When the Big XII was going to expand in 2016 the same thing would have happened. Its not like Aresco or the other conference mates made them into P5 expansion candidates.

So only the top brands are above and beyond the rest of the G5. The rest are no better than Boise, SD St or Marshall.

The problem with that argument is that the AAC wasn't formed in 2016. So you think the difference between them not being P5 candidates in 2013(they weren't) and being candidates in 2016 had nothing to do with performance of the AAC over its first few years?

Cincinnati had already been in Big East. They probably should have been added with WV. AAC nothing to do with their eventual addition.

Correct - Cincinnati and Houston were P5 type programs BEFORE the AAC. UCF was considered on an upward trended BEFORE the AAC (they did benefit greatly from the AAC).

(09-10-2021 11:57 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:53 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:46 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:33 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  What is that based on? Media contract is bigger, viewership is higher, on field results are better, and when a power conference called up 4 teams, 3 came from AAC and 0 came from all the other G5 combined.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about?

When the Big XII was going to expand in 2016 the same thing would have happened. Its not like Aresco or the other conference mates made them into P5 expansion candidates.

So only the top brands are above and beyond the rest of the G5. The rest are no better than Boise, SD St or Marshall.

The problem with that argument is that the AAC wasn't formed in 2016. So you think the difference between them not being P5 candidates in 2013(they weren't) and being candidates in 2016 had nothing to do with performance of the AAC over its first few years?

Cincinnati had already been in Big East. They probably should have been added with WV. AAC nothing to do with their eventual addition.

Correct - Cincinnati and Houston were P5 type programs BEFORE the AAC. UCF was considered on an upward trended BEFORE the AAC (they did benefit greatly from the AAC).

This doesn't make sense. When P5 conferences were choosing teams to call up, they decided not to call up these "P5" type programs at the time. Hell, all but 3 football teams in the Big East found a home. There were plenty of opportunities to pick up Cincy the last round.

Wait, I thought the AAC was poaching the Big XII’s best and brightest?!?!

(09-10-2021 11:47 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:40 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:36 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:33 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  What is that based on? Media contract is bigger, viewership is higher, on field results are better, and when a power conference called up 4 teams, 3 came from AAC and 0 came from all the other G5 combined.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about?

When the Big XII was going to expand in 2016 the same thing would have happened. Its not like Aresco or the other conference mates made them into P5 expansion candidates.

So only the top brands are above and beyond the rest of the G5. The rest are no better than Boise, SD St or Marshall.

Marshall wasn't a top candidate for the AAC last time around so I don't know what has changed.

I doubt Aresco will go the direction of trying to remake CUSA 2.0 as that was a failure.

CUSA 2.0 was a failure? So why did AAC take 7 teams from it?

CUSA 2.0 didn't earn a BCS bowl and didn't prevent itself from a massive raid by the AAC. Expanding with Rice, Marshall and UTEP were duds.

Aresco seems bent on not making the same mistake twice and going C2C while the opportunity presents itself.

No. They needed twelve for a CCG back then and those were the best options. What are you, new?

On another note, Aresco is Sisyphus. The boulder is west coast expansion.

Since Houston is one of the leaving school, I think Rice is an obvious choice. And then UAB to round out to 10 and stay at 10.

I don't think any 4 school western expansion is going to be more profitable than that.

(09-10-2021 01:27 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:57 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:53 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:46 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:33 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  When the Big XII was going to expand in 2016 the same thing would have happened. Its not like Aresco or the other conference mates made them into P5 expansion candidates.

So only the top brands are above and beyond the rest of the G5. The rest are no better than Boise, SD St or Marshall.

The problem with that argument is that the AAC wasn't formed in 2016. So you think the difference between them not being P5 candidates in 2013(they weren't) and being candidates in 2016 had nothing to do with performance of the AAC over its first few years?

Cincinnati had already been in Big East. They probably should have been added with WV. AAC nothing to do with their eventual addition.

Correct - Cincinnati and Houston were P5 type programs BEFORE the AAC. UCF was considered on an upward trended BEFORE the AAC (they did benefit greatly from the AAC).

This doesn't make sense. When P5 conferences were choosing teams to call up, they decided not to call up these "P5" type programs at the time. Hell, all but 3 football teams in the Big East found a home. There were plenty of opportunities to pick up Cincy the last round.

Either ESPN or TX/OU blocked that expansion. Maybe the money just wasnt there then.

(09-10-2021 01:38 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Since Houston is one of the leaving school, I think Rice is an obvious choice. And then UAB to round out to 10 and stay at 10.

I don't think any 4 school western expansion is going to be more profitable than that.

This is true. Doesn't make sense to take ODU and GSU until they string consecutive conference titles in Conf-USA and Sun Belt. App St has already proven itself though and would be an immediate boost for football. Coastal playing the way they did last year could bode well for them. I think the eastern schools are going to want some immediate football improvements to partner with an addition like Rice, which would only serve Tulane, SMU, Tulsa as opposed to the other conference members.

(09-10-2021 01:38 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Since Houston is one of the leaving school, I think Rice is an obvious choice. And then UAB to round out to 10 and stay at 10.

I don't think any 4 school western expansion is going to be more profitable than that.

I'd say the most profitable adds would be Rice, AFA, Army, Liberty. Rice gets you back into Houston, and the other 3 are all national followings. None of the other named candidates in this thread move the needle in the least bit, and most likely actually reduce profitability of the conference due to splitting the pie and not bringing in enough revenue. If anything, perhaps ODU since its already an associate in several sports in a heavily populated and influential region that can be a regional partner for Temple and Navy (and Army & Liberty if they were to join).