(07-13-2019 03:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-13-2019 11:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 09:51 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 09:25 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 09:30 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The AAC is probably amenable to that. Especially if you up the $10M to $11M, what Louisville and Rutgers paid to get out early. Can UConn accept that, though--about 13 months to kickoff of the 2020 football season, and UConn needs 7-8 games, including at least 2 FBS home games and I think at least 3 FBS road games. Tick tock.

I'm pretty sure the AAC would be okay with UConn leaving after this year, based on the Syracuse/ Pitt/ Louisville / Rutgers precedents. (I don't think UConn wants to bring up with WVU precedent.)


You misspelled "UConn is not trying to jailbreak the bylaws (unless maybe they really have to), and is instead negotiating for an earlier exit than the bylaws allow."


Those schools weren't asking to keep a major sport in the Big East as an Affiliate Member though. Especially one that they were terrible at.

UConn football may be trash, but the UConn athletic program, including basketball, is a valuable asset, which is why a better conference is taking them and imposing a huge exit fee on them if they jump to a P5 league.


The AAC doesn't want UConn football without UConn basketball. When the rich guy divorces the young trophy wife, she stops sleeping with him, and he cuts off the credit cards.

That doesn't impact the divorce settlement negotiations. He can't claim that she wants the divorce because she stopped sleeping with him.

Short of cancelling games scheduled for this season, I think the AAC is willing to see UConn leave ASAP. $10m exit fee, plus a million or two to not have to go to court to jailbreak the 27 months.

JBragg,

Might I ask how you define "which is why a 'better conference' "? ... asks the arrogant, effete and "tired or homer-ism" you-know-what poster who is new to this board.

Just curious.

Schools leave worse conferences for better conferences. QED. (Exception: UMKC *thought* the WAC was a better conference than the Summit. They were wrong.)

So:
PAC, B1G, SEC > XII.
B1G > ACC.
B1G, ACC, XII, BE > AAC.
And B1G, ACC, XII > BE (Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, WVU, Rutgers left the Big East)

Also AAC> CUSA, MAC, A-10, MVC; BE > A-10, MVC, AAC. Oh and MWC > WAC. Arguably MWC > AAC, but geography was a big factor there.

I guess my thought is this, JBragg: How do we define “better”?

There is no doubt the Big East is a “better fit” overall for UConn than the AAC, and that is why the university is moving. Good for them. They should.

But “better” can be defined many ways. Some would say the American is “better” than the Big East in various metrics and that the Big East is “better” than the American in other metrics. It’s very subjective. Conferences can be judged by the average endowment or graduation rate of their collective members. They can judged by, for example, the collective total number professional schools of their members. They be judged by Olympic sports (particularly baseball and women’s hoops but to a growing extent soccer). They can be judged by their annual budgets.

One could argue the Big East is "better" now than it was when it had all the schools that have since left. Others might argue it is "worse" than what it was. It's a matter of personal approach.

I see on the board the occasional “we’re better than you” mindset (from both Big East and AAC posters) and just scratch my head. True, every fair and reasonable follower of college sports knows Big East men’s hoops is better than that of the AAC (though not substantially). We can all agree on that. But generalizations that the Big East is “better” or the AAC is “better” … puzzling. I’m not suggesting you were oversimplifying but that was my impression.

Anyway, thanks for responding.

I thought I was pretty clear about that. It's a pretty objective metric: Which conferences can take schools from which other conferences. It's a prison-yard type pecking order. The Big Ten is above the ACC because they could get Maryland to defect from the ACC to the Big Ten. The SEC is above the Big 12 because they got Texas A&M and Missouri. The PAC is above the Big 12 because they took Colorado.

But the Big 12 is not above the ACC, because the Big 12 tried and failed to get Clemson and Florida State. The Big Ten and SEC are not as far above the ACC as some people thought, because the Big Ten shook the tree and couldn't get any of the North Carolina-Virginia group to defect.

The Big East is above the AAC because 8 of 11 schools in the Big East chose to leave the AAC schools behind to be in the Big East. On the other hand, everyone in the AAC except Wichita tried to be in the Big East Conference.

I fully understand the pecking order concept but to compare the BE and the AAC is challenging given the football factor.

Again, and as noted, the way you are defining "better" is one of many ways to do so. Nothing wrong with that. But there are other ways that some folks would use to give the edge to the AAC (for example, the American plays I-A football and the BE does not).

I follow multiple universities/athletic programs due to personal and family factors. But there is only one university for which I am truly passionate. I love everything about it: the campus, the architecture, the degree programs, the student diversity, the music offerings and the sports. It is a school located in a Power 5 league and it is a very influential university on many levels. And a very different type university (compared to most others in the P5) due to many factors. As such, the university I love has lots of detractors. And many of those folks — because they are fans of this power league in question — also sometimes are a bit lazily dismissive of the university I support and, frankly, of the Big East and the American (both of which have two schools I follow and want to do well). I sometimes have to "playfully defend" the quality of the BE and AAC (and the four schools in the two leagues) to these people. So, admittedly, I might be a bit sensitive regarding this topic.

I've read lots of your posts, JBragg, and you seem to be a fair and reasonable person. I probably somewhat misinterpreted your post (and, to be honest, I had been boozing when I posted) as being disrespectful. My bad.

We're probably on the same page about 90 percent.

All is good.

(07-13-2019 01:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-13-2019 07:43 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 09:25 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 09:30 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 08:49 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If UConn Football is really bringing negative value to the AAC brand, then why doesn't the AAC take the $10 million today and allow them to leave 7/1/20?

The AAC is probably amenable to that. Especially if you up the $10M to $11M, what Louisville and Rutgers paid to get out early. Can UConn accept that, though--about 13 months to kickoff of the 2020 football season, and UConn needs 7-8 games, including at least 2 FBS home games and I think at least 3 FBS road games. Tick tock.

I'm pretty sure the AAC would be okay with UConn leaving after this year, based on the Syracuse/ Pitt/ Louisville / Rutgers precedents. (I don't think UConn wants to bring up with WVU precedent.)

Quote: It allows a clean and easy separation between two parties that clearly do not want to associate with each other anymore. UConn is intentional in labeling 7/1/22 as its last end date in the AAC because it knows the conference wants nothing to do with its football program (Aresco has even publicly stated as such numerous times), and because the longer that UConn remains a full member, the longer their football association remains as well. Aresco has also repeatedly stated that football is what drives all of the AAC schools together; the longer the AAC keeps UConn, there will be a dead weight towards its football value.

You misspelled "UConn is not trying to jailbreak the bylaws (unless maybe they really have to), and is instead negotiating for an earlier exit than the bylaws allow."

Quote:I think Aresco may have actually tipped his hand by publicly declaring UConn can not remain as a football-only member; making such a declaration revealed that the league actually does not want UConn Football part of its league moving forward, and - in turn - provides UConn ammunition in court to argue that they do not need to pay more than the $10 million exit fee. When Syracuse/Pittsburgh/WVU/Rutgers/Louisville left the Big East, I do not think that John Marinatto ever publicly stated that they did not want those schools around anymore; thus, he was able to negotiate a slightly higher exit fee from the departing schools.

Those schools weren't asking to keep a major sport in the Big East as an Affiliate Member though. Especially one that they were terrible at.

UConn football may be trash, but the UConn athletic program, including basketball, is a valuable asset, which is why a better conference is taking them and imposing a huge exit fee on them if they jump to a P5 league.

Quote:Again, I think Aresco may have legally put himself and the AAC in a corner with his public comments about not wanting UConn Football. I don't think you publicly stipulate that you don't want - and will not allow - their football in the conference, but also demand they also pay a higher exit fee to leave the conference.

The AAC doesn't want UConn football without UConn basketball. When the rich guy divorces the young trophy wife, she stops sleeping with him, and he cuts off the credit cards.

That doesn't impact the divorce settlement negotiations. He can't claim that she wants the divorce because she stopped sleeping with him.

Short of cancelling games scheduled for this season, I think the AAC is willing to see UConn leave ASAP. $10m exit fee, plus a million or two to not have to go to court to jailbreak the 27 months.

JBragg,

Might I ask how you define "which is why a 'better conference' "? ... asks the arrogant, effete and "tired or homer-ism" you-know-what poster who is new to this board.

Just curious.

In this particular instance, it's the presence of a group of geographic/historical rivals and a sold-out conference tournament that half the fan base can get to via commuter rail. Also just the on-court results the last few years.

Exactly. While I happen to think the Big East is an objectively better basketball conference, the reality is these better vs worse viewpoints are often a relative answer that depends on the schools being asked. For Temple, its a no brainer that the AAC is better than the MW. For SDSU, its a no brainer that the MW is better than the AAC---Massey ratings dont matter for either of those opinions to be true for the schools in question. Geography and fit can matter as much as performance in determining these individual judgments.

Agree fully.

Goodbye unwanted fat the AAC is now "better"

here is how the letter should ready