(10-06-2021 08:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 08:12 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 07:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2021 07:12 PM)whittx Wrote:  So you are looking at FB only and not anything else.

Kind of, IMO that's the main thing to look at, plus, I am a believer in geography, and want the conference to go east.

A "holistic" approach is something you have to earn, be able to afford. Like the B1G, they are so rich and powerful they can afford to have 10 boxes you have to check in addition to great football and hoops, like AAU membership, research budget, US News rank, Diversity initiatives, Green Energy commitments, and the like.

The AAC? We just need to take schools that will make us a better football conference, IMO.

These schools of UAB, Georgia State, Rice, ULL, FAU, USA, USM will make your conference weaker in football.

There's some truth there, granted. But that's a big reason I prefer Marshall and App State.

2-3 Marshall who had a record of 40-57 when they were in C-USA 2.0 with a majority of the current AAC? That's the for sure improving FB add? Yes I'm pointing to really current results on the field, because any addition you think is going to for sure help football you have to point to really current FBS success because they don't have historical success.

Marshall been up and down in D1 for a long time. They were SoCon for a long while which SoCon was considered a Power Conference at one time. They have more winning seasons than UAB. Marshall is a known school while UAB is more new in football. North Dakota State could add a Boise State like team to your conference. They are a known product. If you want to add a startup football program? UTSA is the better choice. They could get P5 schools come to the Alamo Dome to play them.