(06-14-2021 06:34 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.

.... which is a reason why I don't think the AAC should invite BYU. To me, if the AAC just performs the way it has the past seven years, it should be able to achieve its achievable goals without Boise or BYU. We would just be throwing them a life-line and feeding their mouths for little to no benefit.

I wouldn't go that far. It's known that ESPN took at least a portion of a share from the UConn exit (a UConn share, mind you, but not zero). So for one, BYU's payout probably wouldn't be 100% funded by all of us taking a cut. Also, it can be argued that BYU has a fanbase that rivals the likes of Houston/Cincinnati/ECU, and would be among the top of the AAC.

Well, I do not think adding BYU would result in a pay cut, and I think it is clear that their fan base is bigger than that of any AAC team, including the ones you mention. They are a bigger national brand than any extant AAC team.

But I do not think they are bigger enough to justify anything more than a marginal increase in our media pay, so IMO given their prima donna attitude and distance out west, they are not "worth it" in an overall cost/benefit sense.