(12-11-2018 12:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 12:35 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  If UConn goes who’s called up to replace them?

Army and a non-FB school as a tandem like they did with Wichita and Navy?

Who’d be your pick?

Army if they could get them. If not, they might do UMass to stay in New England.

:)

(12-11-2018 12:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I voted no because university administrators tend to be risk averse.

I think it would be an interesting gamble.

UConn has leverage via men's and women's basketball to structure some good football deals, NMSU, UMass, Liberty, BYU have schedule holes to plug.

UConn find a path to telecast football and hoops fans will be happier and hopefully open their checkbooks.

I don't believe it is a death knell for P5 hopes to take control of your branding and I'm not sure framing UConn football vs AAC football is great for UConn's brand unless UConn starts winning their division.

But I don't see the administration taking the risk.

I agree with Ark St, I think UConn could make it work, especially it UMass were to remain independent as well.

UConn would probably prefer to be in the Big East for all other sports so the only issue is football.

UMass would be a perfect season ending game for both schools. Liberty would play them and you gotta think Army would too. Liberty, Army, UMass, and UConn all being independent would be help all schools in November scheduling.

The only issue remaining would be $$ and fear of change. If admins could make the $ balance out and get over the fact they are doing something different, it would be worth it IMO

(12-11-2018 01:13 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 12:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I voted no because university administrators tend to be risk averse.

I think it would be an interesting gamble.

UConn has leverage via men's and women's basketball to structure some good football deals, NMSU, UMass, Liberty, BYU have schedule holes to plug.

UConn find a path to telecast football and hoops fans will be happier and hopefully open their checkbooks.

I don't believe it is a death knell for P5 hopes to take control of your branding and I'm not sure framing UConn football vs AAC football is great for UConn's brand unless UConn starts winning their division.

But I don't see the administration taking the risk.

I agree with Ark St, I think UConn could make it work, especially it UMass were to remain independent as well.

UConn would probably prefer to be in the Big East for all other sports so the only issue is football.

UMass would be a perfect season ending game for both schools. Liberty would play them and you gotta think Army would too. Liberty, Army, UMass, and UConn all being independent would be help all schools in November scheduling.

The only issue remaining would be $$ and fear of change. If admins could make the $ balance out and get over the fact they are doing something different, it would be worth it IMO

Yea, it's doable, but it would require a big shift in organizational thinking that I don't think is there yet (the GOR could be a game changer, but I don't think it ultimately comes to fruition) and it would remain ungodly expensive (there's no solution for that short of dropping the program, though). Indefinite series with UMass alternating between Hartford and Amherst. Army at Yankee Stadium, every. single. year. Series with BYU, even if it means once every four years UConn moves a home game to Yankee Stadium or Citi Field. Wildcard independent team or G5. There's your November schedule. Get 3 P5 teams on the docket, an FCS team, and 4 G5 programs and you're done without significantly worse drawing power than you had before.

(12-11-2018 12:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 12:35 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  If UConn goes who’s called up to replace them?

Army and a non-FB school as a tandem like they did with Wichita and Navy?

Who’d be your pick?

Army if they could get them. If not, they might do UMass to stay in New England.

What's the value to staying in New England? And what says "American" better than Army and Navy?

(12-11-2018 02:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 12:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 12:35 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  If UConn goes who’s called up to replace them?

Army and a non-FB school as a tandem like they did with Wichita and Navy?

Who’d be your pick?

Army if they could get them. If not, they might do UMass to stay in New England.

What's the value to staying in New England? And what says "American" better than Army and Navy?

Agreed. The first calls would need to be to Boise State (football-only), BYU (football-only), Army (football-only), or to Air Force (football-only). San Diego State and Fresno State, even as football-only members, simply do not carry the same national attention or viewership that those four programs would. You would not need all four schools to join, just one. If none want to accept, or if the money simply isn't there, then the AAC should just stick with 11 members in football and basketball. In football, they can go to division-less schedules and block the games based on anticipated strength the year before (while grouping the weaker teams together at the bottom). In basketball, they can go to a full-round robin (much like the power conferences will end up doing).

If any of the invitations are accepted, and in order to reduce the impact that the bottom of the basketball league would have, they could look at adding a non-football member within the footprint such as VCU.

(12-11-2018 01:32 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 01:13 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 12:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I voted no because university administrators tend to be risk averse.

I think it would be an interesting gamble.

UConn has leverage via men's and women's basketball to structure some good football deals, NMSU, UMass, Liberty, BYU have schedule holes to plug.

UConn find a path to telecast football and hoops fans will be happier and hopefully open their checkbooks.

I don't believe it is a death knell for P5 hopes to take control of your branding and I'm not sure framing UConn football vs AAC football is great for UConn's brand unless UConn starts winning their division.

But I don't see the administration taking the risk.

I agree with Ark St, I think UConn could make it work, especially it UMass were to remain independent as well.

UConn would probably prefer to be in the Big East for all other sports so the only issue is football.

UMass would be a perfect season ending game for both schools. Liberty would play them and you gotta think Army would too. Liberty, Army, UMass, and UConn all being independent would be help all schools in November scheduling.

The only issue remaining would be $$ and fear of change. If admins could make the $ balance out and get over the fact they are doing something different, it would be worth it IMO

Yea, it's doable, but it would require a big shift in organizational thinking that I don't think is there yet (the GOR could be a game changer, but I don't think it ultimately comes to fruition) and it would remain ungodly expensive (there's no solution for that short of dropping the program, though). Indefinite series with UMass alternating between Hartford and Amherst. Army at Yankee Stadium, every. single. year. Series with BYU, even if it means once every four years UConn moves a home game to Yankee Stadium or Citi Field. Wildcard independent team or G5. There's your November schedule. Get 3 P5 teams on the docket, an FCS team, and 4 G5 programs and you're done without significantly worse drawing power than you had before.

It really is going to come down to the AAC tv contract. What will the AAC offer UConn and will UConn be subjected to Tier 2 status. If the AAC contract is at or about what they could make doing Big East/Indy then why move? However if the payout is not there or the AAC wants to put UConn on a lower tier then I could see.a push to be made to make the move.

I dont think nervous admins do it if the AAC gives them a viable alternative

(12-11-2018 02:35 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It really is going to come down to the AAC tv contract. What will the AAC offer UConn and will UConn be subjected to Tier 2 status. If the AAC contract is at or about what they could make doing Big East/Indy then why move? However if the payout is not there or the AAC wants to put UConn on a lower tier then I could see.a push to be made to make the move.

I dont think nervous admins do it if the AAC gives them a viable alternative

Nah, there's no realistic amount the AAC will get that solves UConn's financial woes, and you can't fix football's funding problem with the Big East payout either. The grant of rights and it's implication on UConn's theoretical chase for a P5 spot is going to be way, way more impactful than whether the AAC gets $4 million per team or $8 million per.

It's a thread started by a PC fan, who just lost to UMass, who lost to Holy Cross and Harvard, and now everybody on the board is going to be mad at UConn fans. and I gotta say I didn't do anything.

The Memphis and UCF fans are already blaming us.

(12-11-2018 02:50 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  It's a thread started by a PC fan, who just lost to UMass, who lost to Holy Cross and Harvard, and now everybody on the board is going to be mad at UConn fans. and I gotta say I didn't do anything.

The Memphis and UCF fans are already blaming us.

Billybobby started the thread and he is an ECU fan.

(12-11-2018 02:32 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If none want to accept, or if the money simply isn't there, then the AAC should just stick with 11 members in football and basketball. In football, they can go to division-less schedules and block the games based on anticipated strength the year before (while grouping the weaker teams together at the bottom).

Based on the new CCG rule, 11 is not an option. You can have a CCG if 1) you have divisions that play round robin or if 2) you play a league-wide round robin.

I don't *think* there's a way to make the math work for 2 divisions of 5 and 6. (Because one division needs 5 *4 = 20 cross-division games and the other division needs 6 *3 = 18 cross-division games)

EDIT: That's a big part of the reason that the AAC has been saying they'd replace 1 member, but not 2.

(12-11-2018 03:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 02:32 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If none want to accept, or if the money simply isn't there, then the AAC should just stick with 11 members in football and basketball. In football, they can go to division-less schedules and block the games based on anticipated strength the year before (while grouping the weaker teams together at the bottom).

Based on the new CCG rule, 11 is not an option. You can have a CCG if 1) you have divisions that play round robin or if 2) you play a league-wide round robin.

I don't *think* there's a way to make the math work for 2 divisions of 5 and 6. (Because one division needs 5 *4 = 20 cross-division games and the other division needs 6 *3 = 18 cross-division games)

EDIT: That's a big part of the reason that the AAC has been saying they'd replace 1 member, but not 2.

Yes, the MAC had to apply for a waiver every year they played 6/7 divisions, with a gap in the bigger division round robin. But that was because Temple abandoned the MAC ... setting up divisions to create the problem might make the waiver harder to get.

(12-11-2018 03:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 02:32 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If none want to accept, or if the money simply isn't there, then the AAC should just stick with 11 members in football and basketball. In football, they can go to division-less schedules and block the games based on anticipated strength the year before (while grouping the weaker teams together at the bottom).

Based on the new CCG rule, 11 is not an option. You can have a CCG if 1) you have divisions that play round robin or if 2) you play a league-wide round robin.

I don't *think* there's a way to make the math work for 2 divisions of 5 and 6. (Because one division needs 5 *4 = 20 cross-division games and the other division needs 6 *3 = 18 cross-division games)

EDIT: That's a big part of the reason that the AAC has been saying they'd replace 1 member, but not 2.

They would have to get a waiver like the MAC did when they had 13. The MAC hated having 13 though so I dont think an odd number would be worth it

(12-11-2018 10:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 03:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 02:32 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If none want to accept, or if the money simply isn't there, then the AAC should just stick with 11 members in football and basketball. In football, they can go to division-less schedules and block the games based on anticipated strength the year before (while grouping the weaker teams together at the bottom).

Based on the new CCG rule, 11 is not an option. You can have a CCG if 1) you have divisions that play round robin or if 2) you play a league-wide round robin.

I don't *think* there's a way to make the math work for 2 divisions of 5 and 6. (Because one division needs 5 *4 = 20 cross-division games and the other division needs 6 *3 = 18 cross-division games)

EDIT: That's a big part of the reason that the AAC has been saying they'd replace 1 member, but not 2.

Yes, the MAC had to apply for a waiver every year they played 6/7 divisions, with a gap in the bigger division round robin. But that was because Temple abandoned the MAC ... setting up divisions to create the problem might make the waiver harder to get.

Didn’t realize the MAC had to apply to a waiver every year when Temple and UMASS were members.
Wait what years were they at 13 again?

(12-12-2018 07:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 10:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 03:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 02:32 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If none want to accept, or if the money simply isn't there, then the AAC should just stick with 11 members in football and basketball. In football, they can go to division-less schedules and block the games based on anticipated strength the year before (while grouping the weaker teams together at the bottom).

Based on the new CCG rule, 11 is not an option. You can have a CCG if 1) you have divisions that play round robin or if 2) you play a league-wide round robin.

I don't *think* there's a way to make the math work for 2 divisions of 5 and 6. (Because one division needs 5 *4 = 20 cross-division games and the other division needs 6 *3 = 18 cross-division games)

EDIT: That's a big part of the reason that the AAC has been saying they'd replace 1 member, but not 2.

Yes, the MAC had to apply for a waiver every year they played 6/7 divisions, with a gap in the bigger division round robin. But that was because Temple abandoned the MAC ... setting up divisions to create the problem might make the waiver harder to get.

Didn’t realize the MAC had to apply to a waiver every year when Temple and UMASS were members.
Wait what years were they at 13 again?

I actually haven't checked (and am too lazy/busy to do so) when the complete division rule went into effect, so when the MAC first had to apply for a waiver, but the Temple/UMass imbalanced divisions was 2007-2015.

The Buffalo imbalanced divisions was 1998-2001 (Marshall and Northern Illinois both rejoined the year before, bringing the MAC up to 12), resolved by inviting UCF as an affiliate, and then UCF and Marshall left the same year so things stayed balanced until Temple applied after getting kicked out of the old Big East. Then UMass was invited to balance the divisions again, but Temple got offered by the old Big East again and left the same year that UMass arrived.