(09-30-2015 03:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 02:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 02:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 12:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Assume Memphis and Cincy leave. So Houston is still there and SMU is still there.

Assume they recognize that UAB will eventually get back to what it was, perhaps better depending on future facility situation.

I think there are a lot more promising programs at this point than UAB. Just off the top of my head, Texas St, UTSA, Old Dominion, Arky St, UL-L are far more promising programs at this juncture. Even UMass and JMU appear to have more potential if they ever jump into FBS with both feet. UMass is half-azzing their way into FBS with no stadium plan and JMU seems to prefer being FCS--though it has the budget and support to be an attractive FBS program.

So Hypothetical, Memphis/Cincy leave for XII and AAC decides it will add two. Army and Air Force are out, the rest are open.

Who do you pick?

Your scenario is the main reason I think its stupid the AAC has not aggressively targeted 2-3 non-football schools to solidify the league as a basketball power. Add Wichita, VCU, and one other A-10 school and you really create a lot of basketball depth to the AAC. You cement its place as a power conference and allow it to take a hit like that without damaging its standing. It also gives the AAC far more options in a scenario like you present. If the AAC loses Memphis and Cinci, they have to really keep an eye on restocking the basketball side as well as the football side (assuming they don't go a completely different direction).

My first choice would be to approach 5 MW schools to create 5 team far west division and create a 15 team all sports conference with 3 5-team divisions (assuming that CCG games are deregulated).

If that's not an option, then the AAC has to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. What best benefits the member schools in a changing NCAA environment? Do they want to try to be the most powerful G5 conference (will that even be of any value in the future?), or do they want toward a new identity/niche that may help the member schools with attracting more and better students.

If you want the former--then the choice is large public schools with the best attendance and highest athletic budgets. These schools will have the money to hire top coaches and the fan bases to attract the best bowls possible for a G5 conference. Texas State, Old Dominion, and UL-L have potential if this is your goal.

If its the latter option (attracting more and better students), then the conference might decide to move toward a more exclusive identity based on strong academics--snob appeal, if you will. What would be left behind in your scenario, has pretty decent academics. Add AAU members like Rice and Buffalo to the existing members. Maybe even go larger by adding other top 100 academic schools like UMass and Miami of Ohio. If you go this route---Army might even be interested.

Fair enough, good points.

I don't think the AAC is ready to throw in the towel on football, though. Even if their basketball could really cement itself as a high-major by adding some teams from the A10 and competing head to head with the Big East.

Agree. I am a huge proponent of adding 2 or 3 non-football schools with strong basketball programs. Wichita, VCU, and one other. I don't think that making the basketball side stronger and continuing to build the football programs of the AAC are mutually exclusive goals.

The academic identity option is more a option if the P5 ever split from the G5.

(09-30-2015 04:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 03:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 02:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 02:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think there are a lot more promising programs at this point than UAB. Just off the top of my head, Texas St, UTSA, Old Dominion, Arky St, UL-L are far more promising programs at this juncture. Even UMass and JMU appear to have more potential if they ever jump into FBS with both feet. UMass is half-azzing their way into FBS with no stadium plan and JMU seems to prefer being FCS--though it has the budget and support to be an attractive FBS program.

So Hypothetical, Memphis/Cincy leave for XII and AAC decides it will add two. Army and Air Force are out, the rest are open.

Who do you pick?

Your scenario is the main reason I think its stupid the AAC has not aggressively targeted 2-3 non-football schools to solidify the league as a basketball power. Add Wichita, VCU, and one other A-10 school and you really create a lot of basketball depth to the AAC. You cement its place as a power conference and allow it to take a hit like that without damaging its standing. It also gives the AAC far more options in a scenario like you present. If the AAC loses Memphis and Cinci, they have to really keep an eye on restocking the basketball side as well as the football side (assuming they don't go a completely different direction).

My first choice would be to approach 5 MW schools to create 5 team far west division and create a 15 team all sports conference with 3 5-team divisions (assuming that CCG games are deregulated).

If that's not an option, then the AAC has to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. What best benefits the member schools in a changing NCAA environment? Do they want to try to be the most powerful G5 conference (will that even be of any value in the future?), or do they want toward a new identity/niche that may help the member schools with attracting more and better students.

If you want the former--then the choice is large public schools with the best attendance and highest athletic budgets. These schools will have the money to hire top coaches and the fan bases to attract the best bowls possible for a G5 conference. Texas State, Old Dominion, and UL-L have potential if this is your goal.

If its the latter option (attracting more and better students), then the conference might decide to move toward a more exclusive identity based on strong academics--snob appeal, if you will. What would be left behind in your scenario, has pretty decent academics. Add AAU members like Rice and Buffalo to the existing members. Maybe even go larger by adding other top 100 academic schools like UMass and Miami of Ohio. If you go this route---Army might even be interested.

Fair enough, good points.

I don't think the AAC is ready to throw in the towel on football, though. Even if their basketball could really cement itself as a high-major by adding some teams from the A10 and competing head to head with the Big East.

Agree. I am a huge proponent of adding 2 or 3 non-football schools with strong basketball programs. Wichita, VCU, and one other. I don't think that making the basketball side stronger and continuing to build the football programs of the AAC are mutually exclusive goals.

The academic identity option is more a option if the P5 ever split from the G5.

Well, what I meant by "not throwing in the towel on football" was that the AAC would still rather add strong football schools than non-football schools with strong bball.

(09-29-2015 09:52 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:39 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I agree with the notion of non football members to balance things out. They help save on travel costs, they dont get any football tv money, and they have the potential to increase the conferences ncaa tournament payout if they get a win or 2. I know the history with the old big east but 1 2 or even 3 non football members who are invited to the conference knowing football is top dog seems like it has some potential

Given recent history, I don't see the AAC ever adding multiple non-football members. Perhaps 1 to offset Navy football, but even that would be a tough sell for multiple member schools.

Yes. The only way that one to offset Navy football would get up would be persuading people that it was the unbalanced FB/BBall conference numbers that made it so problematic, and that argument only works in support of balanced FB/BBall numbers.

And even if that argument could be sold, the Old Big East experience would seem likely to rule out getting agreement to add a private school like Dayton, so it'd be pretty much either VCU or Wichita.

(10-01-2015 05:10 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:52 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:39 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I agree with the notion of non football members to balance things out. They help save on travel costs, they dont get any football tv money, and they have the potential to increase the conferences ncaa tournament payout if they get a win or 2. I know the history with the old big east but 1 2 or even 3 non football members who are invited to the conference knowing football is top dog seems like it has some potential

Given recent history, I don't see the AAC ever adding multiple non-football members. Perhaps 1 to offset Navy football, but even that would be a tough sell for multiple member schools.

Yes. The only way that one to offset Navy football would get up would be persuading people that it was the unbalanced FB/BBall conference numbers that made it so problematic, and that argument only works in support of balanced FB/BBall numbers.

And even if that argument could be sold, the Old Big East experience would seem likely to rule out getting agreement to add a private school like Dayton, so it'd be pretty much either VCU or Wichita.

I agree it would be a tough sell. Having a handful of non football members does not negatively effect a confernce imo. The big easts problem was they had two distinct amd equal in numbers factions that had different visions for thr conference. Throw in the foundation of the Big East as a basketball conference and you have a major issue brewing. The AAC does not have that. It was founded as a football first conference taking the best willing and able members outside the G5, many of whom had solid basketball credentials. Adding VCU amd Wichita fits that mold. Despite not having football they clearly run quailty basketball programs at the level of thr current AAC programs. Football is as solid as it can be in thr AAC so why not focus on priority #2 especially when the additions will help condense travel and have the possibility of increasing ncaa tourney revenue. My suggestion of Dayton was based on my belief the Big east does not really want this program and thus they would be a solid add that would likely accept is of no threat to leave unlike st loius which everyone seems to acknowledge as the consenus big east #11. Having 3 non football members is not going to threaten the conferences identity nor will it create a divide in the conference culture. The schools being added will all know and respect the place of football on the priority list

Wichita is interesting for its potential to be the Kansas equivalent to the Univ. of Tulsa.

They'd be good travel partners, as well. Just too bad they don't have FBS football.


A lot of MVFC fans want them to start FCS football and play in the MVFC. I just think that's a non-starter.

(09-29-2015 11:29 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Marshall possibly, depending on what they'd be looking to replace. UAB, not until they show stability with the football program and facilities.

I would hope UAB officials consider all aspects of changing conferences if the opportunity presented itself. Changing conferences for perception reasons isn't enough. It has to be a significant financial windfall and a potential 1-2 million dollars doesn't justify moving. Especially if you're talking about a conference potentially losing significant members and stability isn't guaranteed. A conference without UConn, Cincy and Memphis would be detrimental to the AAC financial outlook.

Sometimes you're just better off where you're at currently. But I also know common sense doesn't necessarily apply to realignment either.