You guys are seriously on something if you think Gonzaga is ever gonna join the AAC other than in some minor affiliate sport. They may go east to join the Big East or A-10, they may join the MWC or some other western based conference but there's no way the Zags will ever be in the AAC and why would you want them to be? They're a one trick pony and won't always be good at that.

Gonzaga has seriously considered the Big East and Mark Few has expressed frustration with the lack of financial commitment by WCC schools.

To have a critical mass for a western division, which isn't realistic in the Big East or A-10, plus the opportunity to upgrade the conference affiliation and make more money and to compete with UConn, Wichita, Cincinnati, Memphis, etc. is not a pie-in-the-sky concept.

This sounds like something you would read at the sec board...
However, if we add I'd like to see
Nebraska
Arkansas
And call up Texas st
Who knows what 2023 might look like, this looks crazy right now but...

(07-07-2017 04:43 PM)YNot Wrote:  Gonzaga has seriously considered the Big East and Mark Few has expressed frustration with the lack of financial commitment by WCC schools.

To have a critical mass for a western division, which isn't realistic in the Big East or A-10, plus the opportunity to upgrade the conference affiliation and make more money and to compete with UConn, Wichita, Cincinnati, Memphis, etc. is not a pie-in-the-sky concept.

What you're missing is that they aren't an institutional fit. They're not a geographical fit either and while they can't exactly bus to anyone except Portland, at least WCC schools are a size and institutional fit except BYU to a certain extent. They're also in the same time zone.

there should be two divisions:

Leaders Division:
UC
UCONN
SMU
WSU
Temple

Losers Division:
USF
Tulane
Tulsa
UCF
Memphis
Houston


Each division plays itself three times.
The teams in the Leaders Division only have 12 conference games, allowing us to schedule a nice chunk of premium OOC Made for TV games. The teams in the Losers Division get 15 conference games which is better for them because they can't get good OOC teams to play them in home/away anyway.


We do throw the Losers Division a bone:
Teams from the Losers division plays at the Leaders division home once every three years, no return games.

You will notice no ECU: That's because they need to drop the sport.

Problem solved.

(07-07-2017 06:20 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  there should be two divisions:

Leaders Division:
UC
UCONN
SMU
WSU
Temple

Losers Division:
USF
Tulane
Tulsa
UCF
Memphis
Houston


Each division plays itself three times.
The teams in the Leaders Division only have 12 conference games, allowing us to schedule a nice chunk of premium OOC Made for TV games. The teams in the Losers Division get 15 conference games which is better for them because they can't get good OOC teams to play them in home/away anyway.


We do throw the Losers Division a bone:
Teams from the Losers division plays at the Leaders division home once every three years, no return games.

You will notice no ECU: That's because they need to drop the sport.

Problem solved.

Last week

(07-07-2017 06:33 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 06:20 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  there should be two divisions:

Leaders Division:
UC
UCONN
SMU
WSU
Temple

Losers Division:
USF
Tulane
Tulsa
UCF
Memphis
Houston


Each division plays itself three times.
The teams in the Leaders Division only have 12 conference games, allowing us to schedule a nice chunk of premium OOC Made for TV games. The teams in the Losers Division get 15 conference games which is better for them because they can't get good OOC teams to play them in home/away anyway.


We do throw the Losers Division a bone:
Teams from the Losers division plays at the Leaders division home once every three years, no return games.

You will notice no ECU: That's because they need to drop the sport.

Problem solved.

Last week

Sorry I wasn't there Pony. GTS had me locked in a room and I had to write "I will not troll" two million times on the walls, ceiling, and floor. It was miserable.

Was surrounded by true Arkansas folks for the first time. Interesting people

He should have made you do the Bart Simpson chalkboard gag. That never gets old, no not after almost 3 full decades.

(07-07-2017 10:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Current rules dont support that structure. In order to have a CCG you must do one of these two options---

Divide into TWO divisions and play a round robin within each division. Each division winner may then play in a CCG

OR

Play a round robin within the entire conference, where the top two finishers can then move on to a CCG

Basically, you have to play a round robin in the entire conference or a round robin within the divisions (and you are limited to just 2 divisions). In order to have a CCG with no divisions, the AAC would ahve to switch to an 11 game conference schedule. That aint going to happen.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

(07-07-2017 09:10 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  SBNation came up with an alternative to the B1G



This would gut the MWC, consolidate the best of the rest (for the most part) and make a solid case for $10MM / year / school. Not to mention all but locking up the NY6 bid every year. The abolishment of divisions means the best teams will definitely meet in the championship game.

The two best teams have played in the American Championship Game both times.

(07-07-2017 09:10 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  SBNation came up with an alternative to the B1G

I think the American should do this. Move to 16 teams, abolish divisions, have 9 conference games, hold the championship game between the two teams with the best records. All existing and budding rivalries could be saved, and every team would play every other team at least twice every 4 years (except for one outlier).

Here's my recommendations for alignments. Apologies to Tulsa, your rivalries don't really make sense.

Code:

UCF      | USF | ECU | Houston |
USF      | UCF | Cinci | UConn |
ECU      | UCF | Temple | Tulsa |
Tulane   | SMU | AFA | Navy |
Temple   | UConn | ECU | Tulsa |
UConn    | USF | Cinci | Temple |
Cinci    | USF | UConn | Memphis |
Memphis  | BYU | Houston | Cinci |
Houston  | Memphis | UCF | SMU |
Tulsa    | ECU | Temple | Boise |
SMU      | Tulane | Navy | Houston |
Navy     | AFA | SMU | Tulane |
BYU      | Boise | CSU | Memphis |
Boise    | BYU | CSU | Tulsa |
CSU      | AFA | BYU | Boise |
AFA      | Navy | Tulane | CSU |

Western adds would be FB only. From there we could decide to invite Olympic sports adds from a pool of maybe Dayton, VCU, and a few others, or stick to 12 in basketball.

This would gut the MWC, consolidate the best of the rest (for the most part) and make a solid case for $10MM / year / school. Not to mention all but locking up the NY6 bid every year. The abolishment of divisions means the best teams will definitely meet in the championship game.

NO!!!!!

(07-07-2017 10:38 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 10:31 AM)YNot Wrote:  9 conference games is too many. You need more opportunities to play the P5 in the OOC games without shooting yourself in the foot by the extra conference game. That 9th conference game will give half the conference an extra loss than there might have been otherwise.

That's valid, except for the fact that most of our OOC games are tougher than our conference games.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe for a few, probably not for most. Here is USF's non-conf schedule this year:

at San Jose State (4-8)
Div I-AA STONYBROOK
ILLINOIS (3-9)
UMASS (2-10)

Basically any conf game would be tougher than all 4 of those games.

(07-07-2017 03:16 PM)YNot Wrote:  So, the December 2012 story indicates that the Big East/AAC was trying to get to 15+ members, with Boise St. and SDSU - and Fresno and UNLV - on board. Tulane and ECU were set to join.

Tulsa didn't join until March 2013, about 3 months after Boise reversed course.

Funny, that Boise St. reversed its decision just two weeks after the Fresno/UNLV story.

I know Aresco has recently stated that expansion/realignment isn't really on the AAC's radar right now, but I assume the AAC is still willing to get to 16 members by adding 4 western schools...if the TV value is there.

If UC, UConn, and USF had known the C7 would split, they likely would have committed to a coast-to-coast conference:

“The current Big East football teams are getting antsy, and there are talks that Connecticut and Cincinnati are looking to start a new all-sports conference. Those two schools want to create a league that would span the United States, and include a few of the better Mountain West programs.”

https://www.mwcconnection.com/2012/12/14...conference

(07-09-2017 06:35 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 03:16 PM)YNot Wrote:  So, the December 2012 story indicates that the Big East/AAC was trying to get to 15+ members, with Boise St. and SDSU - and Fresno and UNLV - on board. Tulane and ECU were set to join.

Tulsa didn't join until March 2013, about 3 months after Boise reversed course.

Funny, that Boise St. reversed its decision just two weeks after the Fresno/UNLV story.

I know Aresco has recently stated that expansion/realignment isn't really on the AAC's radar right now, but I assume the AAC is still willing to get to 16 members by adding 4 western schools...if the TV value is there.

If UC, UConn, and USF had known the C7 would split, they likely would have committed to a coast-to-coast conference:

“The current Big East football teams are getting antsy, and there are talks that Connecticut and Cincinnati are looking to start a new all-sports conference. Those two schools want to create a league that would span the United States, and include a few of the better Mountain West programs.”

https://www.mwcconnection.com/2012/12/14...conference

That article is from 2012.

(07-09-2017 07:06 PM)panite Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 06:35 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 03:16 PM)YNot Wrote:  So, the December 2012 story indicates that the Big East/AAC was trying to get to 15+ members, with Boise St. and SDSU - and Fresno and UNLV - on board. Tulane and ECU were set to join.

Tulsa didn't join until March 2013, about 3 months after Boise reversed course.

Funny, that Boise St. reversed its decision just two weeks after the Fresno/UNLV story.

I know Aresco has recently stated that expansion/realignment isn't really on the AAC's radar right now, but I assume the AAC is still willing to get to 16 members by adding 4 western schools...if the TV value is there.

If UC, UConn, and USF had known the C7 would split, they likely would have committed to a coast-to-coast conference:

“The current Big East football teams are getting antsy, and there are talks that Connecticut and Cincinnati are looking to start a new all-sports conference. Those two schools want to create a league that would span the United States, and include a few of the better Mountain West programs.”

https://www.mwcconnection.com/2012/12/14...conference

That article is from 2012.

That's the period of time that YNot and I are discussing panite…. Read the bold font above in YNot’s post.

(07-07-2017 10:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Current rules dont support that structure. In order to have a CCG you must do one of these two options---

Divide into TWO divisions and play a round robin within each division. Each division winner may then play in a CCG

OR

Play a round robin within the entire conference, where the top two finishers can then move on to a CCG

Basically, you have to play a round robin in the entire conference or a round robin within the divisions (and you are limited to just 2 divisions). In order to have a CCG with no divisions, the AAC would ahve to switch to an 11 game conference schedule. That aint going to happen.

Honestly I'm surprised a 12 team conference hasn't gone full round robin with the entire conference. Have an FCS as opening week tuneup and then make every game after worthwhile. The SEC when at 12 would've likely been the first conference to do it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The Civil ConFLiCT must be preserved. I vote "No".