(06-06-2021 01:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 10:33 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:38 PM)colohank Wrote:  What's the fascination with Boise? It's a mediocre school in the hinterlands which has no historic rivalry with any AAC member. Let it go, folks.

I've seen this attitude from fans of other AAC schools on my own publication before, and I think it is categorically insane.

Dying on the hill of "BOISE IS TOO FAR IT ISN'T FAIR TO OUR ATHLETES" feels strange to me, given the geographic makeup of the rest of this league (you already make Olympic teams fly from Tampa to Cincinnati to Tulsa to Philly, is another two hours on a flight once a year really THAT big of a deal?)...but I can at least understand that.

Dying on the hill that Boise isn't good enough is just not accurate on any level. And trying to make any appeal to history, in THIS league, feels equally ignorant.

Well FWIW my position is kind of a combination of the two: IMO, Boise isn't good enough in a brand-value sense to warrant the extra travel distance. If they were located in Alabama, fine, add them, but in Boise Idaho? No.

If they were I don't know, as valuable as Notre Dame, well then we should fly to Nome Alaska to have them in our league. But they aren't. So I don't think ESPN would throw us any more dollars, or at least any more dollars worth missing, if Boise joined. They just aren't a game-changer to me in terms of dollars.

Also, I'd rather have Boise as an opponent and beat them out for the G5 autobid spot than have them under our tent. That's just competitively more fun for me **. I say the AAC should continue to bury Boise. They seem to be kind of on the ropes to me competitively, struggle to win the MW most years these days. They spurned us 9 years ago and are now sort of struggling, seemingly on a downward trajectory, so why pull their coals out the fire when the return doesn't seem so great for us?




** It's kind of like when I was a Lakers fan in the 1980s. I would have *hated* it if somehow in say 1985 we managed to sign Larry Bird away from the Celtics, and then with Magic and Larry won the next five championships. What made winning those titles fun back then was beating Larry Bird. That made the title worth winning, that you were competing against an equal, or maybe someone even better than you.

There's a problem with your analogy. To use your analogy for the AAC and MW---you have to consider that neither Boston or the Lakers are making the playoff in the current scenario (as thats how FBS works for the MW and AAC). So, maybe adding Bird to Magic's squad might make get the Lakers over the hump. It certainly would give the AAC more respect should the access bowl ever be converted into a "G5 playoof slot" in an expanded 8-team CFP.

Besides, if you want Boise to continue to be the bad guy---thats ok. Even if they are in the AAC---you still need to beat them to claim the brass ring (which could very well be a "G5 playoff slot" in the future). I keep going back to the most basic question of conference building. With limited pieces on the board---you can either build using the concept of Geography over Brand---or you can build choosing Brand over Geography. The entire concept of the AAC has always been Brand over Geography. Thats worked out pretty well so far. I see no reason to change that philosophy.

I don't see brand and geography being categorical, either/or things. To me, geography is, all else equal, preferable. But brand is something that can create inequalities, at which point it becomes a matter of weighing them. Generally speaking, brand is more important and should be - I'd recommend we fly to Hawaii for games if Hawaii was equal in brand value to Notre Dame. But that doesn't mean geography is irrelevant - if we had our choice of a Notre Dame located in Hawaii or one located in Alabama, well it should be the one in Alabama.

So it's a tradeoff, and as I explained above, I don't see Boise's value being enough to offset their lousy geography.

And that's before I get to my gut feral desire to see Boise twist in the wind in a fading conference. Beating them in the AAC wouldn't be the same. I want to see them fade away out west, in the bed they made 9 years ago.

I agree with your entire first paragraph. The issue lies in the bolded type. All else is not equal. None of the eastern G5 alternatives is viewed as "equal" to Boise in terms of "brand" (and its not close). Furthermore, lets not pretend the AAC presidents have formed this opinion in an echo chamber. They no doubt have been told this by ESPN, Aresco, their own AD's, and media experts. Im sure these same sources have told them independent Army is the only one that might could be considered a viable eastern alternative---and Army isnt interested.

What Im saying about the AAC presidents is not opinion. It is a fact. We know its fact because if the AAC presidents thought otherwise---one of those alternative eastern G5 options would already be an AAC member. Its just that simple. The reality is adding any team other than BYU, Army, Boise, or perhaps Air Force---would represent a clear and obvious step backwards for the AAC....which is why the AAC currently remains at 11 almost 2 full years after UConn announced its intent to leave for the Big East.