(06-13-2021 08:45 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 08:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I get that, but that argument applies current norms to a future situation. If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't), then you can call one conference a power conference and one not, but it would make joining up pretty appealing.

You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.

Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."

Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.

That was kind of my point that you missed. If the AAC becomes a power conference by way of performance now that they are not locked out of the postseason ("autonomy" or not), then staying as the little brother independent is a moot point.

And yes, I was saying that IF the optimism is borne out, then BYU would be calling. It's why I used the IF above.