(09-20-2021 03:46 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:37 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  If this is the route the AAC goes, I think ECU will be miserable 10 years from now. Their ego might not let them admit though. They are all about football, but very few of the teams in this AAC 2.0 will have a similar mindset.

ECU is going to be miserable with it's conference situation 10 years from now no matter what the AAC does. That was set in stone when we didn't get in leagues with the other eastern independents. Joining your dream regional league won't make ECU happy now or 10 years from now, and I'm sure you'll say something like "then fine ECU is just never going to be happy" and yes you are correct ECU is never going to be happy with any league they are in and that's how it's destined to be.

Well I think the answer there is “grow where you’re planted” but don’t give up the goal.

**** changes, you just might not be around to see it.

(09-20-2021 03:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:18 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Im a huge fan of more regional conferences, but I'll play devil's advocate.

The AAC is by and large a southwestern conference all ready
Memphis, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, Wichita fit pretty well as a conference core. Navy loves the football only alignment playing the southwestern private schools. ECU, Temple, and USF are the real outliers. Colorado State, Air Force and UAB fit into that core 5 pretty well.

Also if the AAC had tried to stay East of Texas, they literally would have been Conference USA 2.0 after all the big names but Memphis left. There was no money in that type of Eastern/Central based conference then and there is no money in it now.

AAC is expanding with schools that fit their core.

USF is going to be an outlier anywhere
Temple belongs in a northeastern conference that does not exist and has decided that being an AAC outlier is better than the UConn/UMass model
ECU has always wanted to be in the best football conference possible and that is what the AAC is....the best football conference that they can possibly be in. I will say though that a Sunbelt with Marshall and USM in addition to App would look pretty good for ECU, if there wasn't so much discrepancy in the TV Money.

Whether that argument flies depends on who else gets added if CSU and AFA make the move. If it's UAB and Marshall, for example, the theory holds no water.

I'm with Frank the Tank and believe #12 will be Rice

Colorado St and Air Force will play in a division with schools in Houston, Dallas, Wichita, and Tulsa with Navy being in there for football

The Eastern division will have a southwestern flair with New Orleans and Memphis plus a Birmingham that is East but not too far east.

USF, Temple and ECU will be outliers but make sense for their own unique reasons.

In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

(09-20-2021 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:46 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:37 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  If this is the route the AAC goes, I think ECU will be miserable 10 years from now. Their ego might not let them admit though. They are all about football, but very few of the teams in this AAC 2.0 will have a similar mindset.

ECU is going to be miserable with it's conference situation 10 years from now no matter what the AAC does. That was set in stone when we didn't get in leagues with the other eastern independents. Joining your dream regional league won't make ECU happy now or 10 years from now, and I'm sure you'll say something like "then fine ECU is just never going to be happy" and yes you are correct ECU is never going to be happy with any league they are in and that's how it's destined to be.

Well I think the answer there is “grow where you’re planted” but don’t give up the goal.

**** changes, you just might not be around to see it.

In reality the goal is basically dead. ECU certainly could end up one day in the husk of the B12, but by that point in time it will be because it got raided to the point it looks like essentially what C-USA 1.0 and the AAC looked like when ECU got there. There's never going to be a formation of the dream eastern league with the eastern/southern indy's we used to play in the 80's and early 90's, all those schools got into power conferences except us, Temple (they did get there for a little while) and USM.

I think you have to look at the why of CUSA’s stumble.

Remember they ended up having to add NINE schools.

Three had never played a down of FBS football. Does that situation exist with AAC? Almost certainly not.

They added five Sun Belt schools and four of those schools were either down in football or trending downward, WKU being the exception.

They added La.Tech.

Fun fact, of the five Sun Belt schools, go back and look at their conference records their final two Sun Belt seasons vs first two seasons in CUSA. Four of the five improved. Why? Easier competition, because this was before free transfers, they hadn’t had time to upgrade their recruiting notably.

Air Force has been up down in the past five complete seasons. They won the division in 2015, and missed a division title at 7-1. CSU was just above average the first three years of that period and bad the last two with an ugly Covid season and not awesome start this year.

UAB is certainly on the upswing post resurrection.

I think it is quite plausible that absent a surprise, AAC’s four additions are going to look better than CUSA’s 9.

(09-20-2021 03:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:18 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Im a huge fan of more regional conferences, but I'll play devil's advocate.

The AAC is by and large a southwestern conference all ready
Memphis, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, Wichita fit pretty well as a conference core. Navy loves the football only alignment playing the southwestern private schools. ECU, Temple, and USF are the real outliers. Colorado State, Air Force and UAB fit into that core 5 pretty well.

Also if the AAC had tried to stay East of Texas, they literally would have been Conference USA 2.0 after all the big names but Memphis left. There was no money in that type of Eastern/Central based conference then and there is no money in it now.

AAC is expanding with schools that fit their core.

USF is going to be an outlier anywhere
Temple belongs in a northeastern conference that does not exist and has decided that being an AAC outlier is better than the UConn/UMass model
ECU has always wanted to be in the best football conference possible and that is what the AAC is....the best football conference that they can possibly be in. I will say though that a Sunbelt with Marshall and USM in addition to App would look pretty good for ECU, if there wasn't so much discrepancy in the TV Money.

Whether that argument flies depends on who else gets added if CSU and AFA make the move. If it's UAB and Marshall, for example, the theory holds no water.

I'm with Frank the Tank and believe #12 will be Rice

Colorado St and Air Force will play in a division with schools in Houston, Dallas, Wichita, and Tulsa with Navy being in there for football

The Eastern division will have a southwestern flair with New Orleans and Memphis plus a Birmingham that is East but not too far east.

USF, Temple and ECU will be outliers but make sense for their own unique reasons.

In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

You make no case really. The AAC could try to make some sort of geographically tight league with all these travel partners that on a map makes sense but that doesn't make the league even the slightest bit more stable. Ain't like the western leagues are pillars of stability. All of our leagues are as stable as the power leagues are. C-USA 2.0 would have "failed" in the exact same way if it's geography made perfect sense, because as soon as the Big East got raided they'd have taken the best and most valuable properties and left the league a barren husk.

(09-20-2021 03:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:18 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Im a huge fan of more regional conferences, but I'll play devil's advocate.

The AAC is by and large a southwestern conference all ready
Memphis, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, Wichita fit pretty well as a conference core. Navy loves the football only alignment playing the southwestern private schools. ECU, Temple, and USF are the real outliers. Colorado State, Air Force and UAB fit into that core 5 pretty well.

Also if the AAC had tried to stay East of Texas, they literally would have been Conference USA 2.0 after all the big names but Memphis left. There was no money in that type of Eastern/Central based conference then and there is no money in it now.

AAC is expanding with schools that fit their core.

USF is going to be an outlier anywhere
Temple belongs in a northeastern conference that does not exist and has decided that being an AAC outlier is better than the UConn/UMass model
ECU has always wanted to be in the best football conference possible and that is what the AAC is....the best football conference that they can possibly be in. I will say though that a Sunbelt with Marshall and USM in addition to App would look pretty good for ECU, if there wasn't so much discrepancy in the TV Money.

Whether that argument flies depends on who else gets added if CSU and AFA make the move. If it's UAB and Marshall, for example, the theory holds no water.

I'm with Frank the Tank and believe #12 will be Rice

Colorado St and Air Force will play in a division with schools in Houston, Dallas, Wichita, and Tulsa with Navy being in there for football

The Eastern division will have a southwestern flair with New Orleans and Memphis plus a Birmingham that is East but not too far east.

USF, Temple and ECU will be outliers but make sense for their own unique reasons.

In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

CUSA has two divisions both of which make sense as their own conference.

The AAC will have 9 core schools with 3 outliers

(09-20-2021 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:18 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Im a huge fan of more regional conferences, but I'll play devil's advocate.

The AAC is by and large a southwestern conference all ready
Memphis, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, Wichita fit pretty well as a conference core. Navy loves the football only alignment playing the southwestern private schools. ECU, Temple, and USF are the real outliers. Colorado State, Air Force and UAB fit into that core 5 pretty well.

Also if the AAC had tried to stay East of Texas, they literally would have been Conference USA 2.0 after all the big names but Memphis left. There was no money in that type of Eastern/Central based conference then and there is no money in it now.

AAC is expanding with schools that fit their core.

USF is going to be an outlier anywhere
Temple belongs in a northeastern conference that does not exist and has decided that being an AAC outlier is better than the UConn/UMass model
ECU has always wanted to be in the best football conference possible and that is what the AAC is....the best football conference that they can possibly be in. I will say though that a Sunbelt with Marshall and USM in addition to App would look pretty good for ECU, if there wasn't so much discrepancy in the TV Money.

Whether that argument flies depends on who else gets added if CSU and AFA make the move. If it's UAB and Marshall, for example, the theory holds no water.

I'm with Frank the Tank and believe #12 will be Rice

Colorado St and Air Force will play in a division with schools in Houston, Dallas, Wichita, and Tulsa with Navy being in there for football

The Eastern division will have a southwestern flair with New Orleans and Memphis plus a Birmingham that is East but not too far east.

USF, Temple and ECU will be outliers but make sense for their own unique reasons.

In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

You make no case really. The AAC could try to make some sort of geographically tight league with all these travel partners that on a map makes sense but that doesn't make the league even the slightest bit more stable. Ain't like the western leagues are pillars of stability. All of our leagues are as stable as the power leagues are. C-USA 2.0 would have "failed" in the exact same way if it's geography made perfect sense, because as soon as the Big East got raided they'd have taken the best and most valuable properties and left the league a barren husk.

We shall see. To your point, the power conferences may not be done yet. If CSU and AFA jump it's going to look a lot less smart if and when the Big 12 scoops up Memphis. They will be dealing with all of the downsides of the AAC's stretched geography with little if any tangible benefit to show for it.

To the OP’s question — if the AAC winds up doing what it looks like it is trying to do, then yes we are definitely taking the same (or similar) risk that C-USA took 8-9 years ago. And yes, AAC might end up paying the same (or similar) price that C-USA paid for it, if the hoped-for benefits/rewards of taking the risk don’t materialize.

But with that said: the fact that the schools of C-USA 3.0 couldn’t make it work, does not mean that the schools of AAC 2.0 won’t be able to make it work. We’ll see.

This isn't about football W/L or travel costs (which isn't Earth shattering at this level of play).

Think about the additions that people keep bringing up: CSU, AF, Rice, UAB, Army.

If rumors are true, then this reeks of SMU, Tulane, and Navy starting to pull strings and focusing on collecting the best institutions available that happen to play FBS ball. I wouldn't be shocked if we have some presidents in the AAC that have set some guidelines for Aresco to follow.

(09-20-2021 04:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:18 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Whether that argument flies depends on who else gets added if CSU and AFA make the move. If it's UAB and Marshall, for example, the theory holds no water.

I'm with Frank the Tank and believe #12 will be Rice

Colorado St and Air Force will play in a division with schools in Houston, Dallas, Wichita, and Tulsa with Navy being in there for football

The Eastern division will have a southwestern flair with New Orleans and Memphis plus a Birmingham that is East but not too far east.

USF, Temple and ECU will be outliers but make sense for their own unique reasons.

In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

You make no case really. The AAC could try to make some sort of geographically tight league with all these travel partners that on a map makes sense but that doesn't make the league even the slightest bit more stable. Ain't like the western leagues are pillars of stability. All of our leagues are as stable as the power leagues are. C-USA 2.0 would have "failed" in the exact same way if it's geography made perfect sense, because as soon as the Big East got raided they'd have taken the best and most valuable properties and left the league a barren husk.

We shall see. To your point, the power conferences may not be done yet. If CSU and AFA jump it's going to look a lot less smart if and when the Big 12 scoops up Memphis. They will be dealing with all of the downsides of the AAC's stretched geography with little if any tangible benefit to show for it.

I have countered this argument many times. CSU and Air Force, if they head to the AAC, will do so with the thinking that Boise will leave the MWC for the Big 12 with one AAC program (likely Memphis). At this point, Aresco can add another (or two or three) MWC programs to replace Memphis. Then CSU and Air Force are in a league that has a Central Time Zone feel and with lots of private schools (SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Navy and possibly Rice) and a Texas presence (which the MWC currently does not have but could establish, to be fair).

Again, and as I've posted: CSU and Air Force are likely viewing this as a long-term chess match of sorts. Today, there are seven comprehensive (i.e., football sponsoring) DI leagues of note: the P5 plus the AAC and MWC. Soon, there could be only six. And Colorado State and Air Force want to be a member of No. 6 (as do most programs in the AAC, MWC, Sun Belt, C-USA and MAC).

Think chess match. Multiple moves and scenarios.

(09-20-2021 04:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:18 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Whether that argument flies depends on who else gets added if CSU and AFA make the move. If it's UAB and Marshall, for example, the theory holds no water.

I'm with Frank the Tank and believe #12 will be Rice

Colorado St and Air Force will play in a division with schools in Houston, Dallas, Wichita, and Tulsa with Navy being in there for football

The Eastern division will have a southwestern flair with New Orleans and Memphis plus a Birmingham that is East but not too far east.

USF, Temple and ECU will be outliers but make sense for their own unique reasons.

In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

You make no case really. The AAC could try to make some sort of geographically tight league with all these travel partners that on a map makes sense but that doesn't make the league even the slightest bit more stable. Ain't like the western leagues are pillars of stability. All of our leagues are as stable as the power leagues are. C-USA 2.0 would have "failed" in the exact same way if it's geography made perfect sense, because as soon as the Big East got raided they'd have taken the best and most valuable properties and left the league a barren husk.

We shall see. To your point, the power conferences may not be done yet. If CSU and AFA jump it's going to look a lot less smart if and when the Big 12 scoops up Memphis. They will be dealing with all of the downsides of the AAC's stretched geography with little if any tangible benefit to show for it.

Again though you aren't offering any viable alternative the AAC should be trying to do. There is nothing that stops a raid of either the MWC or the AAC if the B12 decides to add more teams, and while losing Memphis wouldn't be good what if the 2 teams the B12 decides to add are Memphis and Boise? Which league is hurt more by that? Answer is the MWC, since they are the only team in either league that has their own carve out to get more revenue than the rest of their current conference members. Also because you guys have killed the WAC already there are almost no FBS schools in the mountain or pacific time zones, you either have to call up FCS teams, add NMSU, or stretch out the geography to be basically as whacky as the AAC's would be in this scenario. If they join the AAC and the AAC loses Memphis they can actually push to have another school that fits their geography better in either Texas or another of the front range schools and it doesn't necessarily get way worse for them.

How about the AAC absorb 9 of the 12 MWC schools. Everyone but Hawaii, Nevada and San Jose. Then you go with 2 divisions of 9 teams (say you add Appy State to the east) and then when the B12 takes Boise State and Memphis, you are left with 2 8-team divisions that only need minimal interaction between each other. 8 games in FB 7 in division and 1 other division. In basketball play everyone in your division home and away with 4 games for the other division. 2 home 2 away. So you only have to play 1 football game and 2 basketball games against the other side of the country.

You could take 10 MWC schools and not add one to the east but then one former MWC school would have to play in the eastern division and that's not fair to them.

(09-20-2021 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Im a huge fan of more regional conferences, but I'll play devil's advocate.

The AAC is by and large a southwestern conference all ready
Memphis, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, Wichita fit pretty well as a conference core. Navy loves the football only alignment playing the southwestern private schools. ECU, Temple, and USF are the real outliers. Colorado State, Air Force and UAB fit into that core 5 pretty well.

Also if the AAC had tried to stay East of Texas, they literally would have been Conference USA 2.0 after all the big names but Memphis left. There was no money in that type of Eastern/Central based conference then and there is no money in it now.

AAC is expanding with schools that fit their core.

USF is going to be an outlier anywhere
Temple belongs in a northeastern conference that does not exist and has decided that being an AAC outlier is better than the UConn/UMass model
ECU has always wanted to be in the best football conference possible and that is what the AAC is....the best football conference that they can possibly be in. I will say though that a Sunbelt with Marshall and USM in addition to App would look pretty good for ECU, if there wasn't so much discrepancy in the TV Money.

I know you are just being a devils advocate but…

Football is about rivalries. It would be foolish to abandon Temple (Philly is a top 5 tv market). ECU has a rabid fan base that will return when winning resumes. USF great academics, big tv market. Good academics. Every bit as much potential as UCF.

Why would the American abandon these schools for Colorado State and Air Force?

(09-20-2021 05:33 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I'm with Frank the Tank and believe #12 will be Rice

Colorado St and Air Force will play in a division with schools in Houston, Dallas, Wichita, and Tulsa with Navy being in there for football

The Eastern division will have a southwestern flair with New Orleans and Memphis plus a Birmingham that is East but not too far east.

USF, Temple and ECU will be outliers but make sense for their own unique reasons.

In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

You make no case really. The AAC could try to make some sort of geographically tight league with all these travel partners that on a map makes sense but that doesn't make the league even the slightest bit more stable. Ain't like the western leagues are pillars of stability. All of our leagues are as stable as the power leagues are. C-USA 2.0 would have "failed" in the exact same way if it's geography made perfect sense, because as soon as the Big East got raided they'd have taken the best and most valuable properties and left the league a barren husk.

We shall see. To your point, the power conferences may not be done yet. If CSU and AFA jump it's going to look a lot less smart if and when the Big 12 scoops up Memphis. They will be dealing with all of the downsides of the AAC's stretched geography with little if any tangible benefit to show for it.

I have countered this argument many times. CSU and Air Force, if they head to the AAC, will do so with the thinking that Boise will leave the MWC for the Big 12 with one AAC program (likely Memphis). At this point, Aresco can add another (or two or three) MWC programs to replace Memphis. Then CSU and Air Force are in a league that has a Central Time Zone feel and with lots of private schools (SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Navy and possibly Rice) and a Texas presence (which the MWC currently does not have but could establish, to be fair).

Again, and as I've posted: CSU and Air Force are likely viewing this as a long-term chess match of sorts. Today, there are seven comprehensive (i.e., football sponsoring) DI leagues of note: the P5 plus the AAC and MWC. Soon, there could be only six. And Colorado State and Air Force want to be a member of No. 6 (as do most programs in the AAC, MWC, Sun Belt, C-USA and MAC).

Think chess match. Multiple moves and scenarios.

Air Force and CSU had a long history with BYU and Utah and enjoyed playing with TCU in the MWC. They replaced BYU, Utah and TCU games with Utah State, Nevada, and SJSU. Air Force has played MWC conference games in Dallas. They're playing Army the next two years in Texas.

Denver is closer to Wichita and Tulsa than it is to Logan and Las Vegas. Houston and Dallas are closer to Denver than San Diego and San Jose.

Check out the Air Force and CSU football rosters.
https://csurams.com/sports/football/roster
https://goairforcefalcons.com/sports/football/roster

Air Force only has 8 California players. CSU only has 11 California players on roster. There are more players from Florida or Georgia. More than half their rosters come from states in the Central and Eastern time zones.

The problem isn't geography necessarily, although these budget schools having to pay cross country expenses isn't good. The problem will be who they invite just simply not being on the same tier as those already in the conference & those leaving it.

(09-20-2021 05:33 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I'm with Frank the Tank and believe #12 will be Rice

Colorado St and Air Force will play in a division with schools in Houston, Dallas, Wichita, and Tulsa with Navy being in there for football

The Eastern division will have a southwestern flair with New Orleans and Memphis plus a Birmingham that is East but not too far east.

USF, Temple and ECU will be outliers but make sense for their own unique reasons.

In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

You make no case really. The AAC could try to make some sort of geographically tight league with all these travel partners that on a map makes sense but that doesn't make the league even the slightest bit more stable. Ain't like the western leagues are pillars of stability. All of our leagues are as stable as the power leagues are. C-USA 2.0 would have "failed" in the exact same way if it's geography made perfect sense, because as soon as the Big East got raided they'd have taken the best and most valuable properties and left the league a barren husk.

We shall see. To your point, the power conferences may not be done yet. If CSU and AFA jump it's going to look a lot less smart if and when the Big 12 scoops up Memphis. They will be dealing with all of the downsides of the AAC's stretched geography with little if any tangible benefit to show for it.

Again though you aren't offering any viable alternative the AAC should be trying to do. There is nothing that stops a raid of either the MWC or the AAC if the B12 decides to add more teams, and while losing Memphis wouldn't be good what if the 2 teams the B12 decides to add are Memphis and Boise? Which league is hurt more by that? Answer is the MWC, since they are the only team in either league that has their own carve out to get more revenue than the rest of their current conference members. Also because you guys have killed the WAC already there are almost no FBS schools in the mountain or pacific time zones, you either have to call up FCS teams, add NMSU, or stretch out the geography to be basically as whacky as the AAC's would be in this scenario. If they join the AAC and the AAC loses Memphis they can actually push to have another school that fits their geography better in either Texas or another of the front range schools and it doesn't necessarily get way worse for them.

The AAC’s viable alternative is to take UAB and Marshall and stop. That way the conference wouldn’t be diluting football and basketball with two bottom-feeders in each sport (Colorado State and Rice in football, and Air Force and Rice in basketball), would have fewer members divvying up its TV revenue, and would be reducing instead of increasing travel costs.

(09-20-2021 06:02 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 05:33 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

You make no case really. The AAC could try to make some sort of geographically tight league with all these travel partners that on a map makes sense but that doesn't make the league even the slightest bit more stable. Ain't like the western leagues are pillars of stability. All of our leagues are as stable as the power leagues are. C-USA 2.0 would have "failed" in the exact same way if it's geography made perfect sense, because as soon as the Big East got raided they'd have taken the best and most valuable properties and left the league a barren husk.

We shall see. To your point, the power conferences may not be done yet. If CSU and AFA jump it's going to look a lot less smart if and when the Big 12 scoops up Memphis. They will be dealing with all of the downsides of the AAC's stretched geography with little if any tangible benefit to show for it.

I have countered this argument many times. CSU and Air Force, if they head to the AAC, will do so with the thinking that Boise will leave the MWC for the Big 12 with one AAC program (likely Memphis). At this point, Aresco can add another (or two or three) MWC programs to replace Memphis. Then CSU and Air Force are in a league that has a Central Time Zone feel and with lots of private schools (SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Navy and possibly Rice) and a Texas presence (which the MWC currently does not have but could establish, to be fair).

Again, and as I've posted: CSU and Air Force are likely viewing this as a long-term chess match of sorts. Today, there are seven comprehensive (i.e., football sponsoring) DI leagues of note: the P5 plus the AAC and MWC. Soon, there could be only six. And Colorado State and Air Force want to be a member of No. 6 (as do most programs in the AAC, MWC, Sun Belt, C-USA and MAC).

Think chess match. Multiple moves and scenarios.

Air Force and CSU had a long history with BYU and Utah and enjoyed playing with TCU in the MWC. They replaced BYU, Utah and TCU games with Utah State, Nevada, and SJSU. Air Force has played MWC conference games in Dallas. They're playing Army the next two years in Texas.

Denver is closer to Wichita and Tulsa than it is to Logan and Las Vegas. Houston and Dallas are closer to Denver than San Diego and San Jose.

Check out the Air Force and CSU football rosters.
https://csurams.com/sports/football/roster
https://goairforcefalcons.com/sports/football/roster

Air Force only has 8 California players. CSU only has 11 California players on roster. There are more players from Florida or Georgia. More than half their rosters come from states in the Central and Eastern time zones.

A helpful post. Interesting info.

(09-20-2021 06:23 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 05:33 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

You make no case really. The AAC could try to make some sort of geographically tight league with all these travel partners that on a map makes sense but that doesn't make the league even the slightest bit more stable. Ain't like the western leagues are pillars of stability. All of our leagues are as stable as the power leagues are. C-USA 2.0 would have "failed" in the exact same way if it's geography made perfect sense, because as soon as the Big East got raided they'd have taken the best and most valuable properties and left the league a barren husk.

We shall see. To your point, the power conferences may not be done yet. If CSU and AFA jump it's going to look a lot less smart if and when the Big 12 scoops up Memphis. They will be dealing with all of the downsides of the AAC's stretched geography with little if any tangible benefit to show for it.

Again though you aren't offering any viable alternative the AAC should be trying to do. There is nothing that stops a raid of either the MWC or the AAC if the B12 decides to add more teams, and while losing Memphis wouldn't be good what if the 2 teams the B12 decides to add are Memphis and Boise? Which league is hurt more by that? Answer is the MWC, since they are the only team in either league that has their own carve out to get more revenue than the rest of their current conference members. Also because you guys have killed the WAC already there are almost no FBS schools in the mountain or pacific time zones, you either have to call up FCS teams, add NMSU, or stretch out the geography to be basically as whacky as the AAC's would be in this scenario. If they join the AAC and the AAC loses Memphis they can actually push to have another school that fits their geography better in either Texas or another of the front range schools and it doesn't necessarily get way worse for them.

If the Big 12 takes both Memphis and Boise State there will be no more reason for the remaining MWC members to join what’s left of the AAC than there is now. It’s not as if Aresco hasn’t tried in this round to take more than CSU and AFA, but every indication at the moment is that he’s failed. If so then CSU and AFA (if they jump) will be the high water mark of the AAC poaching from the MWC.

And let’s not forget that the Big 12 could elect to pass over Boise State again and go to 14 with Memphis and USF. If that happens CSU and AFA will not only end up worse off geographically but money-wise as well.

I understand why CSU and AFA are seriously entertaining the AAC’s offer, and they may very well take it. But they should do so with their eyes open. It’s a gamble.

To be clear, I'm not certain how seriously CSU and AFA are, indeed, considering this.

(09-20-2021 05:33 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I'm with Frank the Tank and believe #12 will be Rice

Colorado St and Air Force will play in a division with schools in Houston, Dallas, Wichita, and Tulsa with Navy being in there for football

The Eastern division will have a southwestern flair with New Orleans and Memphis plus a Birmingham that is East but not too far east.

USF, Temple and ECU will be outliers but make sense for their own unique reasons.

In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

You make no case really. The AAC could try to make some sort of geographically tight league with all these travel partners that on a map makes sense but that doesn't make the league even the slightest bit more stable. Ain't like the western leagues are pillars of stability. All of our leagues are as stable as the power leagues are. C-USA 2.0 would have "failed" in the exact same way if it's geography made perfect sense, because as soon as the Big East got raided they'd have taken the best and most valuable properties and left the league a barren husk.

We shall see. To your point, the power conferences may not be done yet. If CSU and AFA jump it's going to look a lot less smart if and when the Big 12 scoops up Memphis. They will be dealing with all of the downsides of the AAC's stretched geography with little if any tangible benefit to show for it.

Again though you aren't offering any viable alternative the AAC should be trying to do. There is nothing that stops a raid of either the MWC or the AAC if the B12 decides to add more teams, and while losing Memphis wouldn't be good what if the 2 teams the B12 decides to add are Memphis and Boise? Which league is hurt more by that? Answer is the MWC, since they are the only team in either league that has their own carve out to get more revenue than the rest of their current conference members. Also because you guys have killed the WAC already there are almost no FBS schools in the mountain or pacific time zones, you either have to call up FCS teams, add NMSU, or stretch out the geography to be basically as whacky as the AAC's would be in this scenario. If they join the AAC and the AAC loses Memphis they can actually push to have another school that fits their geography better in either Texas or another of the front range schools and it doesn't necessarily get way worse for them.

Double post, please disregard.

(09-20-2021 06:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 05:33 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  In other words, a footprint that basically mirrors CUSA's, except that it will stretch even further north-south in addition to stretching just as far east-west.

I rest my case.

You make no case really. The AAC could try to make some sort of geographically tight league with all these travel partners that on a map makes sense but that doesn't make the league even the slightest bit more stable. Ain't like the western leagues are pillars of stability. All of our leagues are as stable as the power leagues are. C-USA 2.0 would have "failed" in the exact same way if it's geography made perfect sense, because as soon as the Big East got raided they'd have taken the best and most valuable properties and left the league a barren husk.

We shall see. To your point, the power conferences may not be done yet. If CSU and AFA jump it's going to look a lot less smart if and when the Big 12 scoops up Memphis. They will be dealing with all of the downsides of the AAC's stretched geography with little if any tangible benefit to show for it.

Again though you aren't offering any viable alternative the AAC should be trying to do. There is nothing that stops a raid of either the MWC or the AAC if the B12 decides to add more teams, and while losing Memphis wouldn't be good what if the 2 teams the B12 decides to add are Memphis and Boise? Which league is hurt more by that? Answer is the MWC, since they are the only team in either league that has their own carve out to get more revenue than the rest of their current conference members. Also because you guys have killed the WAC already there are almost no FBS schools in the mountain or pacific time zones, you either have to call up FCS teams, add NMSU, or stretch out the geography to be basically as whacky as the AAC's would be in this scenario. If they join the AAC and the AAC loses Memphis they can actually push to have another school that fits their geography better in either Texas or another of the front range schools and it doesn't necessarily get way worse for them.

The AAC’s viable alternative is to take UAB and Marshall and stop. That way the conference wouldn’t be diluting football and basketball with two bottom-feeders in each sport (Colorado State and Rice in football, and Air Force and Rice in basketball), would have fewer members divvying up its TV revenue, and would be reducing instead of increasing travel costs.

As for the longer term, per my previous post, there’s no reason to think that taking CSU and AFA will make it easier to peel away more MWC members if the Big 12 poaches both Memphis and Boise State.

I’ve played enough chess to know that scattering your pieces across the board is generally not the best strategy.

The AAC would not take CSU and AFA to make it easier to peel away more MWC members but, rather, to add prestige. Same with Rice, if that materializes. And that's how Aresco potentially gets Army down the road (though that will be tough, I admit; but Aresco has to try).

You might be correct on this. I would not say I will be proved right (I'm terrible at predicting anything, including what I might have for dinner tonight). But Aresco is attempting to injure his main competition (the MWC), just like the Big 12 did to the AAC taking UC, UH and UCF. That's how this chess game works. Plain and simple.