(07-04-2019 02:46 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:19 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:09 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:01 PM)Mav Wrote:  Why would CSU give away their rivalries with Air Force and Wyoming? Even if they didn't have such deep ties to the MWC, it's not like the AAC is a huge upgrade from them, at least on the football field. Whatever they'd make in TV money they'd lose at the gate, since they'd be playing a bunch of schools their fanbase doesn't care about.

My question is why would the AAC want CSU? Anyone look at their standings in football and basketball? They generally suck.

Interest falls below all the pro teams and CU, so they are not a great draw either.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, this entire conversation seems like busybodies thinking that "(insert state name here) State" means you're a viable candidate to move up. Colorado State's mediocre at best in just about everything they do, and while the Denver market's growing like a weed, it's a very poor college sports market. Even when CU had top ten teams regularly, Broncos preview shows would get better ratings than Buffs football. Air Force would honestly make more sense if you're pulling someone from Colorado, and even that's a weird fit.

I think its an indication of just how bare the cupboard is. Its either an institutional fit (like CSU, that is similar in academics, budget, brand, and facilities as many AAC schools) that is a little on the soft side in athletic performance, or a school thats fairly strong in football--but doesnt really fit in other ways (bad basketball/weak academics/low budget/poor facilties/no brand/no market/etc), or take a team thats very underdeveloped and currently not really a match----but has good potential and location.

Thats why I think the best option this round is split the slot. The only option that makes 100% sense right now is add VCU. You can always circle back around to take another full member---or you might be better off adding a school that is good at football---but maybe doesnt fit the "perfect match" metrics the league may desire in its potential 12th full member.

Few posts illustrate the “grass is greener” attitude of the AAC board on this forum more eloquently than this one does. Schools that are thousands of miles from member schools and have no better academics, facilities, or other metrics than schools within the conference footprint are hot right now because...what, exactly?

The obvious answer is because you haven’t played them much, and that’s a very flimsy reason to want to make a long term commitment to having them in your conference.

CSU shares a lot of the characteristics of the typical AAC schools and just built a top of the line G5 stadium. Their location is not a huge negative. That state literally borders on the current AAC footprint. That said, I wouldnt call CSU a "hot" pick---just a reasonable option.

Look--the only flashy picks are Boise and BYU. Those are the biggest and most well known brands. For a multitude of reasons, I dont see either one being the next member of the AAC. Army and Air Force have the next biggest brands and tv appeal. Those are extreme long shots.

After that, every option has some good stuff on their resume and some not so good stuff. It just comes down to what "good stuff" and "not so good stuff" the presidents and ESPN decide to weigh most.

That said---CUSA 1.0 and 2.0 were both failed experiments. CUSA 1.0 was envisioned as a "basketball first" conference (sort of a Big East lite clone) that would leverage big city markets and add football to the mix. It had limited success, but never came close to its expected potential. CUSA 2.0 was an attempt to go more regional with a stronger football focus. It failed badly as well---never placed anyone in a major BCS bowl, saw its national TV exposure decline, and never was able to earn more media money than the Mountain West. The former CUSA teams currently in the AAC, for the first time in decades, have actually managed to achieve some measure of financial and athletic success with the spread out Frankenstein like "best of the rest" conference building philosophy that you are criticizing. However, while you seem to believe the regional "just take whatever team is in the footprint" concept is the way to go----it hasnt really performed well for non-power schools since the dawn of the Bowl Coalition/BCS/CFP era. So now that they have finally begun to experience some success with a different unorthodox model, there really should be a strong level of hesitancy among AAC administrators to slowly reforming CUSA 2.0 or CUSA 3.0 under the AAC name. It didnt work multiple times before---why would it work now?