What are the differences between the AAC with 16 members-4 new members from the West and the WAC-16 (1996-1998)? Why didn't the WAC 16 work but the AAC 16 would? I go back and forth on having a western division but the WAC expansion of 1996 is what I always go back to; I'm undecided. The original WAC members decided to blow up the idea after only 2 years. Why do you "pro-western" expansion guys think it would be different this time?

Simple, you don't have 16 teams. You top out at 12, 14 max.

Of course now that ship has sailed, but if you wanted to do 16 now, you could only get away with it if you were guaranteed playoff access.

That would be enough money to satisfy all the members and keep some sort of cohesion.

I should have added the schools that were in the WAC-16 from 1996-1998:
BYU
Utah
Wyoming
New Mexico
UTEP
Colorado St
Fresno St
Air Force
Hawaii
San Diego St
Tulsa
SMU
TCU
Rice
UNLV
San Jose St

(05-22-2014 12:10 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  Simple, you don't have 16 teams. You top out at 12, 14 max.

Of course now that ship has sailed, but if you wanted to do 16 now, you could only get away with it if you were guaranteed playoff access.

That would be enough money to satisfy all the members and keep some sort of cohesion.

We're at 12 now. How do you add BYU, Boise St, San Diego St and Air Force without getting to 16?

(05-22-2014 12:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:10 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  Simple, you don't have 16 teams. You top out at 12, 14 max.

Of course now that ship has sailed, but if you wanted to do 16 now, you could only get away with it if you were guaranteed playoff access.

That would be enough money to satisfy all the members and keep some sort of cohesion.

We're at 12 now. How do you add BYU, Boise St, San Diego St and Air Force without getting to 16?

You get in your time machine and go back to before Tulane/ECU were invited

(05-22-2014 12:14 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:10 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  Simple, you don't have 16 teams. You top out at 12, 14 max.

Of course now that ship has sailed, but if you wanted to do 16 now, you could only get away with it if you were guaranteed playoff access.

That would be enough money to satisfy all the members and keep some sort of cohesion.

We're at 12 now. How do you add BYU, Boise St, San Diego St and Air Force without getting to 16?

You get in your time machine and go back to before Tulane/ECU were invited

Why not Tulane and Tulsa? But I'm pretty sure your answer is: don't do a western wing at this point right?

(05-22-2014 12:17 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:14 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:10 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  Simple, you don't have 16 teams. You top out at 12, 14 max.

Of course now that ship has sailed, but if you wanted to do 16 now, you could only get away with it if you were guaranteed playoff access.

That would be enough money to satisfy all the members and keep some sort of cohesion.

We're at 12 now. How do you add BYU, Boise St, San Diego St and Air Force without getting to 16?

You get in your time machine and go back to before Tulane/ECU were invited

Why not Tulane and Tulsa? But I'm pretty sure your answer is: don't do a western wing at this point right?

I'd rather we have expanded West than invited Tulsa/Tulane/ECU.

If we're going to expand West now, it's pretty much pointless without BYU involved.

(05-22-2014 12:19 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:17 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:14 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:10 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  Simple, you don't have 16 teams. You top out at 12, 14 max.

Of course now that ship has sailed, but if you wanted to do 16 now, you could only get away with it if you were guaranteed playoff access.

That would be enough money to satisfy all the members and keep some sort of cohesion.

We're at 12 now. How do you add BYU, Boise St, San Diego St and Air Force without getting to 16?

You get in your time machine and go back to before Tulane/ECU were invited

Why not Tulane and Tulsa? But I'm pretty sure your answer is: don't do a western wing at this point right?

I'd rather we have expanded West than invited Tulsa/Tulane/ECU.

If we're going to expand West now, it's pretty much pointless without BYU involved.

The league is to dilited as this point. Should have taken the best 6 from the east and the best 6 from the west.

(05-22-2014 12:26 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:19 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:17 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:14 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  We're at 12 now. How do you add BYU, Boise St, San Diego St and Air Force without getting to 16?

You get in your time machine and go back to before Tulane/ECU were invited

Why not Tulane and Tulsa? But I'm pretty sure your answer is: don't do a western wing at this point right?

I'd rather we have expanded West than invited Tulsa/Tulane/ECU.

If we're going to expand West now, it's pretty much pointless without BYU involved.

The league is to dilited as this point. Should have taken the best 6 from the east and the best 6 from the west.

Not sure how its diluted. Every team in the AAC has a higher athletic budget than the MWC sans Boise and the conference is in bigger eastern markets. We don't want 6 teams from the west because there arent 6 teams good enough. You add BYU, Boise, SDSU, and UNLV and call it a day.

(05-22-2014 12:26 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:19 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:17 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:14 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  We're at 12 now. How do you add BYU, Boise St, San Diego St and Air Force without getting to 16?

You get in your time machine and go back to before Tulane/ECU were invited

Why not Tulane and Tulsa? But I'm pretty sure your answer is: don't do a western wing at this point right?

I'd rather we have expanded West than invited Tulsa/Tulane/ECU.

If we're going to expand West now, it's pretty much pointless without BYU involved.

The league is to dilited as this point. Should have taken the best 6 from the east and the best 6 from the west.

There was a critical juncture in all of this. Right when Louisville and Rutgers announced their intention to leave the Big East (Late November 2012), the league consisted of the following:

Houston
SMU
Memphis
Temple
UConn
Cinci
USF
UCF
Boise State
SDSU
(Navy pending)

We could/should have made an aggressive play for 2-3 more MWC teams to cripple that conference and put ourselves firmly next in line for the P5, but instead we sat back and played it safe. A real mistake on Aresco's part.

(05-22-2014 12:28 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:26 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:19 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:17 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:14 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  You get in your time machine and go back to before Tulane/ECU were invited

Why not Tulane and Tulsa? But I'm pretty sure your answer is: don't do a western wing at this point right?

I'd rather we have expanded West than invited Tulsa/Tulane/ECU.

If we're going to expand West now, it's pretty much pointless without BYU involved.

The league is to dilited as this point. Should have taken the best 6 from the east and the best 6 from the west.

Not sure how its diluted. Every team in the AAC has a higher athletic budget than the MWC sans Boise and the conference is in bigger eastern markets. We don't want 6 teams from the west because there arent 6 teams good enough. You add BYU, Boise, SDSU, and UNLV and call it a day.

I'm talking about the athletic qualities, not how big your budget is. The adds that were made were not made with making a "best of the rest conf". Which is fine if thats what you are going for.

(05-22-2014 12:33 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:26 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:19 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:17 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:14 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  You get in your time machine and go back to before Tulane/ECU were invited

Why not Tulane and Tulsa? But I'm pretty sure your answer is: don't do a western wing at this point right?

I'd rather we have expanded West than invited Tulsa/Tulane/ECU.

If we're going to expand West now, it's pretty much pointless without BYU involved.

The league is to dilited as this point. Should have taken the best 6 from the east and the best 6 from the west.

There was a critical juncture in all of this. Right when Louisville and Rutgers announced their intention to leave the Big East (Late November 2012), the league consisted of the following:

Houston
SMU
Memphis
Temple
UConn
Cinci
USF
UCF
Boise State
SDSU
(Navy pending)

We could/should have made an aggressive play for 2-3 more MWC teams to cripple that conference and put ourselves firmly next in line for the P5, but instead we sat back and played it safe. A real mistake on Aresco's part.

Yeah he was in love with BYU. That has never worked out well for anyone lol. At that point i was looking for a Fresno/UNLV invite. But depending on who you listen to they said no.

BYU was the cause of the downfall of the WAC-16. Well...the main cause...other issue were surfacing but a conference without BYU is more stable.

(05-22-2014 12:34 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:28 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:26 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:19 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:17 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why not Tulane and Tulsa? But I'm pretty sure your answer is: don't do a western wing at this point right?

I'd rather we have expanded West than invited Tulsa/Tulane/ECU.

If we're going to expand West now, it's pretty much pointless without BYU involved.

The league is to dilited as this point. Should have taken the best 6 from the east and the best 6 from the west.

Not sure how its diluted. Every team in the AAC has a higher athletic budget than the MWC sans Boise and the conference is in bigger eastern markets. We don't want 6 teams from the west because there arent 6 teams good enough. You add BYU, Boise, SDSU, and UNLV and call it a day.

I'm talking about the athletic qualities, not how big your budget is. The adds that were made were not made with making a "best of the rest conf". Which is fine if thats what you are going for.

ECU absolutely fits in the "best of the rest".

The AAC really wouldn't lose anything by going to 20 teams and pretty much ensuring its spot in the P6. Add BYU, Boise, Fresno St., SDSU, UNLV, Colorado St., Utah St., and UNM and call it a day. The MWC would be essentially finished and the divide between the AAC and the next lowest conference would become huge.

(05-22-2014 12:37 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:34 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:28 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:26 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:19 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  I'd rather we have expanded West than invited Tulsa/Tulane/ECU.

If we're going to expand West now, it's pretty much pointless without BYU involved.

The league is to dilited as this point. Should have taken the best 6 from the east and the best 6 from the west.

Not sure how its diluted. Every team in the AAC has a higher athletic budget than the MWC sans Boise and the conference is in bigger eastern markets. We don't want 6 teams from the west because there arent 6 teams good enough. You add BYU, Boise, SDSU, and UNLV and call it a day.

I'm talking about the athletic qualities, not how big your budget is. The adds that were made were not made with making a "best of the rest conf". Which is fine if thats what you are going for.

ECU absolutely fits in the "best of the rest".

I'm open to having my mind changed, but considering all factors (beyond just football), I put ECU behind Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, and probably on par with UNLV when it comes to value to a conference.

(05-22-2014 12:38 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  The AAC really wouldn't lose anything by going to 20 teams and pretty much ensuring its spot in the P6. Add BYU, Boise, Fresno St., SDSU, UNLV, Colorado St., Utah St., and UNM and call it a day. The MWC would be essentially finished and the divide between the AAC and the next lowest conference would become huge.

Boise
SDSU
Fresno
UNLV
UNM
Hawaii

These are the programs that you want to add. The range schools AFA/CSU/WYO will not part ways. BYU is a no go for several reasons.....they are staying indy. The above schools give the best mix of market/football/b ball out west IMO.

To answer the question, why now if not then?

Then, the idea of a 16 team conference was a novelty. All other conferences were between 10 and 12 teams. The system in place worked. Bowls were the priority. Too many teams in the WAC had different athletic agendas. The WAC was a hodgepodge of teams.

Now, the playoff and its potential to expand has changed the thoughts. The ACC, B1G and SEC sit at 14 and could expand. The AAC and MWC together would be a hodge podge like the WAC was, but now there seems to be more of a strength in numbers mentality when it comes to media deals and dealing with the P5 who have expanded.

Now the playoff and its possible expansion to 8 or more make a 16 team conference make more sense (as long as the dollars are there). The division championship might end up being the first round of a future playoff system......who knows.

Makes more sense today, then it did 20 years ago (again, as long as the dollars are there).

My 2 cents.

(05-22-2014 12:41 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:37 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:34 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:28 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:26 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  The league is to dilited as this point. Should have taken the best 6 from the east and the best 6 from the west.

Not sure how its diluted. Every team in the AAC has a higher athletic budget than the MWC sans Boise and the conference is in bigger eastern markets. We don't want 6 teams from the west because there arent 6 teams good enough. You add BYU, Boise, SDSU, and UNLV and call it a day.

I'm talking about the athletic qualities, not how big your budget is. The adds that were made were not made with making a "best of the rest conf". Which is fine if thats what you are going for.

ECU absolutely fits in the "best of the rest".

I'm open to having my mind changed, but considering all factors (beyond just football), I put ECU behind Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, and probably on par with UNLV when it comes to value to a conference.

Please explain the factors, since you go beyond football, I'll say (beyond TV market)

(05-22-2014 12:37 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:34 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:28 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:26 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:19 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  I'd rather we have expanded West than invited Tulsa/Tulane/ECU.

If we're going to expand West now, it's pretty much pointless without BYU involved.

The league is to dilited as this point. Should have taken the best 6 from the east and the best 6 from the west.

Not sure how its diluted. Every team in the AAC has a higher athletic budget than the MWC sans Boise and the conference is in bigger eastern markets. We don't want 6 teams from the west because there arent 6 teams good enough. You add BYU, Boise, SDSU, and UNLV and call it a day.

I'm talking about the athletic qualities, not how big your budget is. The adds that were made were not made with making a "best of the rest conf". Which is fine if thats what you are going for.

ECU absolutely fits in the "best of the rest".

I don't disagree.