(11-17-2017 11:08 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 10:52 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I doubt he said we will never add more bb schools. Stupid no to entertain the idea if networks wanted more good bb matchups.

Yeah, basically what I'm saying is do what the networks want, as long as we get $.

I hate to break it to you and your new bball-only adds friend from UCF, but Aresco has said repeatedly we're not going down the oBE rabbit hole again. He said that when the AAC was considering adding WSU, so believe him or not (your UCF friend sure doesn't), but that's what he said.

I don't know if you know this or not, but Aresco has worked on the TV side and knows what happened to the oBE you're so desperate to recreate. He also knows football "drives the bus" so adding more bball only schools is a losing proposition $$$$-wise.

(11-17-2017 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  We have the potential to be a top 3 hoops league with the right moves. Build up our brand in basketball.

No, no and no.

(11-17-2017 10:12 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:43 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:33 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  We have the potential to be a top 3 hoops league with the right moves. Build up our brand in basketball.

No, and it would be swell if you stopped starting crap threads like this. We are not going down the oBE rabbit hole again, no matter how hard you want the AAC to.

There is a huge difference between having 8 football schools/8 basketball schools and having 12 football/3 basketball.

It seems pretty obvious that a priority of the conference is competitiveness and geography. There is a strong possibility we will see two teams added from the three.

There is also a strong possibility that you're full of crap. Especially considering, when weighing whether or not to add Wichita, Aresco went on record as saying there'd be no more bball-only adds. We have Navy, and now we have WSU. I say that is enough.

You mean like how he said we weren't adding wsu forever?

I know you hate this idea and swore up and down that we wouldn't add wsu. But you were wrong.

(11-17-2017 10:40 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:43 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:33 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  We have the potential to be a top 3 hoops league with the right moves. Build up our brand in basketball.

No, and it would be swell if you stopped starting crap threads like this. We are not going down the oBE rabbit hole again, no matter how hard you want the AAC to.

There is a huge difference between having 8 football schools/8 basketball schools and having 12 football/3 basketball.

It seems pretty obvious that a priority of the conference is competitiveness and geography. There is a strong possibility we will see two teams added from the three.

There really isnt. CUSA 1.0 did that and the conference never had an identity. The American has built more identity in 3 years than CUSA 1.0 built in a decade.

Signed,

Memphis, Cincy, USF, ECU, and Tulane.



p.s.---In the end, the basketball schools not named DePaul and Marquette got screwed when CUSA 1.0 broke up. St Louis and Charlotte have never truly recovered.

bull****, lol there will be no tie votes from the basketball schools. There is not the religious ties between the bball schools. Cusa 1.0 did great, until the big east raid. Sorry Memphis got left behind but cusa 1.0 was a nationally recognized bball conference that got multiple bids every year.

(11-17-2017 11:16 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 11:08 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 10:52 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I doubt he said we will never add more bb schools. Stupid no to entertain the idea if networks wanted more good bb matchups.

Yeah, basically what I'm saying is do what the networks want, as long as we get $.

I hate to break it to you and your new bball-only adds friend from UCF, but Aresco has said repeatedly we're not going down the oBE rabbit hole again. He said that when the AAC was considering adding WSU, so believe him or not (your UCF friend sure doesn't), but that's what he said.

I don't know if you know this or not, but Aresco has worked on the TV side and knows what happened to the oBE you're so desperate to recreate. He also knows football "drives the bus" so adding more bball only schools is a losing proposition $$$$-wise.

Yet we added wsu and then he came out and said well this isn't an even split. The football votes still will make the decisions. That won't change, meanwhile you were screaming about splitting the pie more ways, how much is wsu costing us again?

I know you are scared to death of bball only schools being added and have PTSD over the one, but you should get yourself prepared, chances are very high that next year we will have added two Olympic only schools. We will pay all three schools less than what we pay for one football school, will tighten up our geography, add tourney teams, and add more games for TV. The TV inventory will push the media deal by making all 3 tiers more attractive. The bball schools will pay for themselves in tourny credits. The 12 football schools will easily out vote the 3 bball schools and we won't have an obe style conference just like Aresco said.

(11-17-2017 11:16 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 11:08 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 10:52 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I doubt he said we will never add more bb schools. Stupid no to entertain the idea if networks wanted more good bb matchups.

Yeah, basically what I'm saying is do what the networks want, as long as we get $.

I hate to break it to you and your new bball-only adds friend from UCF, but Aresco has said repeatedly we're not going down the oBE rabbit hole again. He said that when the AAC was considering adding WSU, so believe him or not (your UCF friend sure doesn't), but that's what he said.

I don't know if you know this or not, but Aresco has worked on the TV side and knows what happened to the oBE you're so desperate to recreate. He also knows football "drives the bus" so adding more bball only schools is a losing proposition $$$$-wise.

The final pre-split Big East was 16 full members, exactly half of which played football. We can't really go down that rabbit whole now unless we add Navy's other sports and then 11 more non-football members. So he's right, we won't go down that hole again. By the way, "bball-only adds" aren't a thing.

Additionally, how is adding more non-football members a losing proposition $$$$-wise if we do as I suggest, which is only add them if the TV partners want to pay more money for them? If they don't bring $$$$, they don't get added. Period.

We will never achieve true “POWER 6” status in football. However, it can be achieved in basketball. In fact, the nBE is the only non-FBS conference that I’ve heard referred to as a “Power” conference.

(11-17-2017 10:14 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:43 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:33 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  We have the potential to be a top 3 hoops league with the right moves. Build up our brand in basketball.

No, and it would be swell if you stopped starting crap threads like this. We are not going down the oBE rabbit hole again, no matter how hard you want the AAC to.

There is a huge difference between having 8 football schools/8 basketball schools and having 12 football/3 basketball.

It seems pretty obvious that a priority of the conference is competitiveness and geography. There is a strong possibility we will see two teams added from the three.

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

That said, there is no obvious No brainer addition like Wichita sitting out there right now. While I’m not philosophically adding a couple of additional good basketball programs, I’d prefer to wait until an obvious “cant lose” choice rises to the top.

Unless there's a "can't lose" football add out there, and no I don't consider BYU and Army "can't lose", then there will be no bball only adds. It's like you heard Aresco's quote and decided he was lying. Well if he's lying about that, what else is he lying about? Hmm.....

lol. He said he wasnt interested in adding Wichita until suddenly he was. All Im saying is I see absolutely nothing wrong with having 2 to 3 high quality olympic sports members. Where you get into trouble is giving them enough votes to control the conference or to block moves.

The Old Big East didn't fall apart over the basketball schools. If you remember the league was gutted by football expansion of the ACC and Big 12. The basketball schools didn't want to sit around and continue to lose members. Fox was there to offer $4 million to startup a network. I can't blame them at the time. Blame football expansion and not the church schools. Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, etc all had better conference offers from the ACC. Nothing you can do about that.

Now we can make the American a true basketball powerhouse. Let's see what the networks want.

(11-17-2017 09:06 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Wichita State is fine but once you start adding a ton of non-football schools you get into the same issues with conference governance that plagued the original CUSA and the last iteration of the Big East.

Exactly. This issue is a non-starter with Aresco and the league presidents, afaik. WSU is it, simply to get to 12 and balance out Navy on the FB side.

No more hybrid leagues. It never ends well. Agendas are different, payouts are different, and it always causes friction.

No

(11-17-2017 08:44 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  We have the potential to be a top 3 hoops league with the right moves. Build up our brand in basketball.

Is it May already?