(12-22-2020 12:49 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-22-2020 11:29 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-22-2020 01:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-22-2020 01:21 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Maybe it's the reason why the AAC has taken their time to fill UConn's replacement otherwise UAB or Old Dominion would've got the call by now. Probably there's been communication on both sides since UConn announced they were going back to the Big East and be an independent in football.....it's just that COVID-19 and the MWC cancelling football season in the summer accelerated those talks.

But the question is, does the AAC really want to get into that mess of football only schools? One thing is to have a service academy as one and another one to have a school that is hundreds of miles that shared a conference for four seasons with SMU and Tulsa. If all sports, the nearest school would be Wichita State and I find it hard to believe the Florida twins, Cincinnati and Temple would like the idea of having their Olympic sport teams travel all the way to Boise.

The WAC would make the most sense. Boise burned those bridges with the Big West in 2012 and probably Idaho would block Boise State in the Big Sky. Boise doesn't fit the WCC profile but maybe BYU might vouch for them. This is more of a "Boise needs the AAC more than the other way around" situation.

The AAC has been very clear on this. There currently appears to be only 4 G5/Indy schools that have the kind of football programs that would instantly add substantial value to the AAC on the very first day they join the conference. Those are BYU, Boise, Army, and probably Air Force. Every other possible addition would be more of a gamble---a project so to speak--where you are gambling on a school's potential--essentially rolling the dice on the chance the school will develop into a "top half of the league" type program and not a bottom of the league anchor. The league did not panic. It wisely opted to not gamble. The AAC has opted not to make a move until one of those 4 value adding programs showed interest--or until another program developed enough organically to make it the type of program that adds value to the league on day one of its membership.

So--to me--its no surprise that the AAC was clearly interested when one of its 4 viable "plug and play" options indicated interest. If Boise can find a place for its olympic sports---this is almost certain to happen.

There's a fifth school that would add immediate value in football: San Diego State. They're not a gamble at all; they've won 90 games in the past 10 years.

And SDSU is getting a new stadium.

And SDSU is the best institutional fit in the G5 except maybe Georgia State, Colorado State, or FIU. Very similar to Temple, Houston, Cincinnati, USF, UCF, Memphis.

And Navy would LOVE playing in San Diego. There's 100,000 active duty sailors and marines stationed there.

And finally: SDSU has great basketball. Anyone would love to have their non-football sports.

I think Boise is trying to make this happen.

That's the tone I got from the quotes in the article. FB only which may change if more western teams are interested. SDSU would absolutely be interested and was pissed when they were forced back to the MWC by Boise during the last realignment shuffle. If it seals the deal with SDSU & BYU I think it'd be worth giving Boise full membership. IIRC last time around the main reason BYU didn't join was that we were unable to come to terms on their tv network/rights.

The AAC has already dominated the NY6 spot, adding Boise would further cement that as they're 1 of 2 non AAC teams to get the NY6 access bowl. 2014 Boise, 2015 Houston, 2016 Western Michigan, 2017 UCF, 2018 UCF, 2019 Memphis, 2020 Cincinnati. This will be taken into account when the CFP contract is being redrawn and the playoff expanded. Aresco is now publicly lobbying for an autobid in an expanded CFP. The bowls would prefer the AAC to a G5 at large. Especially if the AAC then has BYU, Boise & SDSU in their membership.