(04-26-2019 09:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:32 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 12:47 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 10:58 AM)Pirate1989 Wrote:  Funny throwing shade on the ESPN+ thing. The AAC will still have many games on the regular TV channels. And, the AAC schools will still be bringing in $7-$8 Million/season versus the MWC which may be lucky to make what they make now ($1.1 Million) or a slight increase. AAC superior in all ways.

AAC has enough cash and exposure to pull coaches from the rest of the G5, and that is what really counts in the big scheme of things. Not P5 money, but at least a clear demarcation line.

Not all of the other programs....

According to the last numbers published, the AAC programs spend between $1-$4 million annually for their head coaches, and between $1.7-2.7 million on their assistant coaching staffs. That is very impressive and certainly more than any other conference, but there are programs outside of the AAC spending within those same parameters. From the MWC... Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, and Wyoming. And from C-USA.... North Texas.

So, I would amend you comment and say that the AAC and those 5 programs can and do poach coaches from the other G5 programs.

You realize those numbers are all from before the media deal bump? You are pointing out that the AAC is already paying top dollar at 2m. Now they have even more dollars to spend on it at 7.5m

It is unlikely anyone besides Boise St will remain within touching distance.

Perhaps, but I am stating what the reality is right now. Of course the AAC will gain even more of an advantage in funding, but that does not necessarily equate to an increase in salaries. Last I heard Tulsa was planning on spending less on athletics, and let the bump in media money make up the difference.

I think it will still boil down to each university's leadership and available resources. I believe all 5 of the programs I listed can and will maintain the pace the AAC sets. If I had to pick programs that might fall off, I would say San Diego State and Fresno State. Being in California could hinder their ability to continue throwing more money at their athletics. I know North Texas is currently negotiating raises for Seth Littrell and his coaching staff, so I'm confident we won't be dropping out of this arms race.

I am not attacking you or even trying to start anything with you, but.... this just reads denial.

(04-27-2019 09:35 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 10:02 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  We need a border wall between us and the G4. And I want all G4 visitors to have visas.

I will sit as the head of Visa granting.

The mwc window lickers are looking in on this thread and then running back to their treehouse to talk about it.

Everyone should look sharp and try to write with precision and clarity. They WILL mis-characterize what is said here, by their betters, but their cheetah flips get more amusing the more they have to stretch the truth and torture logic.

This^^^

(04-27-2019 11:37 AM)Radicalman7 Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 09:35 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 10:02 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  We need a border wall between us and the G4. And I want all G4 visitors to have visas.

I will sit as the head of Visa granting.

The mwc window lickers are looking in on this thread and then running back to their treehouse to talk about it.

Everyone should look sharp and try to write with precision and clarity. They WILL mis-characterize what is said here, by their betters, but their cheetah flips get more amusing the more they have to stretch the truth and torture logic.

This^^^

Our board is even more eloquent than theirs. P6 is real.

(04-27-2019 12:09 PM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 11:37 AM)Radicalman7 Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 09:35 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 10:02 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  We need a border wall between us and the G4. And I want all G4 visitors to have visas.

I will sit as the head of Visa granting.

The mwc window lickers are looking in on this thread and then running back to their treehouse to talk about it.

Everyone should look sharp and try to write with precision and clarity. They WILL mis-characterize what is said here, by their betters, but their cheetah flips get more amusing the more they have to stretch the truth and torture logic.

This^^^

Our board is even more eloquent than theirs. P6 is real.

Than Bruin guy is pretty much a joke. He thinks they are going to be valued based on the Pac12. The same guy has a thread on there claiming that the top AAC bowl in 2020-2026 is the Hawaii Bowl. The funny thing is not a single conference has even announced their official bowl line up for the 2020-2026 cycle. Turns out, he apparently thinks McMurphy article that appeared a few weeks ago was a complete and total list of all the upcoming bowl changes for the cycle. The dudes kind of a moron.

(04-27-2019 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 12:09 PM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 11:37 AM)Radicalman7 Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 09:35 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 10:02 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  We need a border wall between us and the G4. And I want all G4 visitors to have visas.

I will sit as the head of Visa granting.

The mwc window lickers are looking in on this thread and then running back to their treehouse to talk about it.

Everyone should look sharp and try to write with precision and clarity. They WILL mis-characterize what is said here, by their betters, but their cheetah flips get more amusing the more they have to stretch the truth and torture logic.

This^^^

Our board is even more eloquent than theirs. P6 is real.

Than Bruin guy is pretty much a joke. He thinks they are going to be valued based on the Pac12. The same guy has a thread on there claiming that the top AAC bowl in 2020-2026 is the Hawaii Bowl. The funny thing is not a single conference has even announced their official bowl line up for the 2020-2026 cycle. Turns out, he apparently thinks McMurphy article that appeared a few weeks ago was a complete and total list of all the upcoming bowl changes for the cycle. The dudes kind of a moron.

yeah, he's only dug in deeper since our new contract was announced...

(04-26-2019 09:46 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:32 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 12:47 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  AAC has enough cash and exposure to pull coaches from the rest of the G5, and that is what really counts in the big scheme of things. Not P5 money, but at least a clear demarcation line.

Not all of the other programs....

According to the last numbers published, the AAC programs spend between $1-$4 million annually for their head coaches, and between $1.7-2.7 million on their assistant coaching staffs. That is very impressive and certainly more than any other conference, but there are programs outside of the AAC spending within those same parameters. From the MWC... Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, and Wyoming. And from C-USA.... North Texas.

So, I would amend you comment and say that the AAC and those 5 programs can and do poach coaches from the other G5 programs.

You realize those numbers are all from before the media deal bump? You are pointing out that the AAC is already paying top dollar at 2m. Now they have even more dollars to spend on it at 7.5m

It is unlikely anyone besides Boise St will remain within touching distance.

Perhaps, but I am stating what the reality is right now. Of course the AAC will gain even more of an advantage in funding, but that does not necessarily equate to an increase in salaries. Last I heard Tulsa was planning on spending less on athletics, and let the bump in media money make up the difference.

I think it will still boil down to each university's leadership and available resources. I believe all 5 of the programs I listed can and will maintain the pace the AAC sets. If I had to pick programs that might fall off, I would say San Diego State and Fresno State. Being in California could hinder their ability to continue throwing more money at their athletics. I know North Texas is currently negotiating raises for Seth Littrell and his coaching staff, so I'm confident we won't be dropping out of this arms race.

Even in the right now you're behind, as is everyone else, but we're talking the future.

Lol. You're not in the arms race. Doesn't C-USA make negative for its media deal?

You heard wrong, or more likely heard what you wanted to believe. C-USA teams were never even in the MWC's rearview and they're about to get lapped.

No. North Texas is currently better than some programs in the AAC. Did you not see the whooping we put on SMU last season.

This isn't about C-USA or the MWC. I was resonding to the claim that AAC programs will be able to poach coaches from the rest of the G5. Right now that isn't entirely true. The 5 programs I listed are all currently paying within the amounts of programs in the AAC. So, those 5 programs can and protect themselves from being poached by AAC programs.

Last season North Texas had some coaches poached, but none were snatched away by AAC programs (Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, & Southern Cal).

(04-27-2019 11:35 AM)Radicalman7 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:32 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 12:47 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  AAC has enough cash and exposure to pull coaches from the rest of the G5, and that is what really counts in the big scheme of things. Not P5 money, but at least a clear demarcation line.

Not all of the other programs....

According to the last numbers published, the AAC programs spend between $1-$4 million annually for their head coaches, and between $1.7-2.7 million on their assistant coaching staffs. That is very impressive and certainly more than any other conference, but there are programs outside of the AAC spending within those same parameters. From the MWC... Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, and Wyoming. And from C-USA.... North Texas.

So, I would amend you comment and say that the AAC and those 5 programs can and do poach coaches from the other G5 programs.

You realize those numbers are all from before the media deal bump? You are pointing out that the AAC is already paying top dollar at 2m. Now they have even more dollars to spend on it at 7.5m

It is unlikely anyone besides Boise St will remain within touching distance.

Perhaps, but I am stating what the reality is right now. Of course the AAC will gain even more of an advantage in funding, but that does not necessarily equate to an increase in salaries. Last I heard Tulsa was planning on spending less on athletics, and let the bump in media money make up the difference.

I think it will still boil down to each university's leadership and available resources. I believe all 5 of the programs I listed can and will maintain the pace the AAC sets. If I had to pick programs that might fall off, I would say San Diego State and Fresno State. Being in California could hinder their ability to continue throwing more money at their athletics. I know North Texas is currently negotiating raises for Seth Littrell and his coaching staff, so I'm confident we won't be dropping out of this arms race.

I am not attacking you or even trying to start anything with you, but.... this just reads denial.

I'm just posting what the numbers state. Right now these five programs are paying coaches and staffs within the same range as the programs in the AAC. That could change, but I'm sure some of these, if not all of these 5, will continue to try and keep up.

(04-27-2019 12:59 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:46 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:32 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Not all of the other programs....

According to the last numbers published, the AAC programs spend between $1-$4 million annually for their head coaches, and between $1.7-2.7 million on their assistant coaching staffs. That is very impressive and certainly more than any other conference, but there are programs outside of the AAC spending within those same parameters. From the MWC... Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, and Wyoming. And from C-USA.... North Texas.

So, I would amend you comment and say that the AAC and those 5 programs can and do poach coaches from the other G5 programs.

You realize those numbers are all from before the media deal bump? You are pointing out that the AAC is already paying top dollar at 2m. Now they have even more dollars to spend on it at 7.5m

It is unlikely anyone besides Boise St will remain within touching distance.

Perhaps, but I am stating what the reality is right now. Of course the AAC will gain even more of an advantage in funding, but that does not necessarily equate to an increase in salaries. Last I heard Tulsa was planning on spending less on athletics, and let the bump in media money make up the difference.

I think it will still boil down to each university's leadership and available resources. I believe all 5 of the programs I listed can and will maintain the pace the AAC sets. If I had to pick programs that might fall off, I would say San Diego State and Fresno State. Being in California could hinder their ability to continue throwing more money at their athletics. I know North Texas is currently negotiating raises for Seth Littrell and his coaching staff, so I'm confident we won't be dropping out of this arms race.

Even in the right now you're behind, as is everyone else, but we're talking the future.

Lol. You're not in the arms race. Doesn't C-USA make negative for its media deal?

You heard wrong, or more likely heard what you wanted to believe. C-USA teams were never even in the MWC's rearview and they're about to get lapped.

No. North Texas is currently better than some programs in the AAC. Did you not see the whooping we put on SMU last season.

This isn't about C-USA or the MWC. I was resonding to the claim that AAC programs will be able to poach coaches from the rest of the G5. Right now that isn't entirely true. The 5 programs I listed are all currently paying within the amounts of programs in the AAC. So, those 5 programs can and protect themselves from being poached by AAC programs.

Last season North Texas had some coaches poached, but none were snatched away by AAC programs (Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, & Southern Cal).

I smell jealousy all over the place in your post

(04-27-2019 01:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 11:35 AM)Radicalman7 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:32 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Not all of the other programs....

According to the last numbers published, the AAC programs spend between $1-$4 million annually for their head coaches, and between $1.7-2.7 million on their assistant coaching staffs. That is very impressive and certainly more than any other conference, but there are programs outside of the AAC spending within those same parameters. From the MWC... Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, and Wyoming. And from C-USA.... North Texas.

So, I would amend you comment and say that the AAC and those 5 programs can and do poach coaches from the other G5 programs.

You realize those numbers are all from before the media deal bump? You are pointing out that the AAC is already paying top dollar at 2m. Now they have even more dollars to spend on it at 7.5m

It is unlikely anyone besides Boise St will remain within touching distance.

Perhaps, but I am stating what the reality is right now. Of course the AAC will gain even more of an advantage in funding, but that does not necessarily equate to an increase in salaries. Last I heard Tulsa was planning on spending less on athletics, and let the bump in media money make up the difference.

I think it will still boil down to each university's leadership and available resources. I believe all 5 of the programs I listed can and will maintain the pace the AAC sets. If I had to pick programs that might fall off, I would say San Diego State and Fresno State. Being in California could hinder their ability to continue throwing more money at their athletics. I know North Texas is currently negotiating raises for Seth Littrell and his coaching staff, so I'm confident we won't be dropping out of this arms race.

I am not attacking you or even trying to start anything with you, but.... this just reads denial.

I'm just posting what the numbers state. Right now these five programs are paying coaches and staffs within the same range as the programs in the AAC. That could change, but I'm sure some of these, if not all of these 5, will continue to try and keep up.

For now...going to be near impossible as two years become four becomes six etc. and the financial disparity grows. Sorry bub...you make butter with a toothpick.

(04-27-2019 12:59 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:46 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:32 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Not all of the other programs....

According to the last numbers published, the AAC programs spend between $1-$4 million annually for their head coaches, and between $1.7-2.7 million on their assistant coaching staffs. That is very impressive and certainly more than any other conference, but there are programs outside of the AAC spending within those same parameters. From the MWC... Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, and Wyoming. And from C-USA.... North Texas.

So, I would amend you comment and say that the AAC and those 5 programs can and do poach coaches from the other G5 programs.

You realize those numbers are all from before the media deal bump? You are pointing out that the AAC is already paying top dollar at 2m. Now they have even more dollars to spend on it at 7.5m

It is unlikely anyone besides Boise St will remain within touching distance.

Perhaps, but I am stating what the reality is right now. Of course the AAC will gain even more of an advantage in funding, but that does not necessarily equate to an increase in salaries. Last I heard Tulsa was planning on spending less on athletics, and let the bump in media money make up the difference.

I think it will still boil down to each university's leadership and available resources. I believe all 5 of the programs I listed can and will maintain the pace the AAC sets. If I had to pick programs that might fall off, I would say San Diego State and Fresno State. Being in California could hinder their ability to continue throwing more money at their athletics. I know North Texas is currently negotiating raises for Seth Littrell and his coaching staff, so I'm confident we won't be dropping out of this arms race.

Even in the right now you're behind, as is everyone else, but we're talking the future.

Lol. You're not in the arms race. Doesn't C-USA make negative for its media deal?

You heard wrong, or more likely heard what you wanted to believe. C-USA teams were never even in the MWC's rearview and they're about to get lapped.

No. North Texas is currently better than some programs in the AAC. Did you not see the whooping we put on SMU last season.

This isn't about C-USA or the MWC. I was resonding to the claim that AAC programs will be able to poach coaches from the rest of the G5. Right now that isn't entirely true. The 5 programs I listed are all currently paying within the amounts of programs in the AAC. So, those 5 programs can and protect themselves from being poached by AAC programs.

Last season North Texas had some coaches poached, but none were snatched away by AAC programs (Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, & Southern Cal).

Lol. Bragging on one game in a first year's coach third game? Clearly you're keeping up.

When was the last time North Texas took a coach from the AAC? Any CUSA team? Never mind the increased national exposure that comes with the new deal and money. When have you done it with a much weaker AAC than will be here in another year?

There are 50+ non-p6 teams. You found five who are this year in range, maybe (I haven't checked your numbers). Since none of these schools can expect an influx of money or exposure it is unlikely they will keep up. Their budgets just don't match up and it isn't just in coaching salaries.

The AAC takes coaches from the G4. The G4 does not take coaches from the AAC. That's all you need to know.

(04-27-2019 01:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 11:35 AM)Radicalman7 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:32 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Not all of the other programs....

According to the last numbers published, the AAC programs spend between $1-$4 million annually for their head coaches, and between $1.7-2.7 million on their assistant coaching staffs. That is very impressive and certainly more than any other conference, but there are programs outside of the AAC spending within those same parameters. From the MWC... Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, and Wyoming. And from C-USA.... North Texas.

So, I would amend you comment and say that the AAC and those 5 programs can and do poach coaches from the other G5 programs.

You realize those numbers are all from before the media deal bump? You are pointing out that the AAC is already paying top dollar at 2m. Now they have even more dollars to spend on it at 7.5m

It is unlikely anyone besides Boise St will remain within touching distance.

Perhaps, but I am stating what the reality is right now. Of course the AAC will gain even more of an advantage in funding, but that does not necessarily equate to an increase in salaries. Last I heard Tulsa was planning on spending less on athletics, and let the bump in media money make up the difference.

I think it will still boil down to each university's leadership and available resources. I believe all 5 of the programs I listed can and will maintain the pace the AAC sets. If I had to pick programs that might fall off, I would say San Diego State and Fresno State. Being in California could hinder their ability to continue throwing more money at their athletics. I know North Texas is currently negotiating raises for Seth Littrell and his coaching staff, so I'm confident we won't be dropping out of this arms race.

I am not attacking you or even trying to start anything with you, but.... this just reads denial.

I'm just posting what the numbers state. Right now these five programs are paying coaches and staffs within the same range as the programs in the AAC. That could change, but I'm sure some of these, if not all of these 5, will continue to try and keep up.

How do we keep up with the p5 when they financially continue to massively outpace us? How can your schools keep up when you are not reaping the same financial benefits that we are. Like I said, it looks and quacks like denial.

My how things could have been different for the MWC. They were so close to qualifying as an AQ conference under the BCS formula. Then the defections, and now they have one or two power level programs and a few other decent but not great teams.

(04-26-2019 06:49 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 10:51 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 07:37 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 03:53 PM)Radicalman7 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 03:04 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  The lookin is setup as protection for ESPN. It isn't for...hey guys, you're doing great and we will like to offer $5 million each more just for the fun of it. They have us in a contract until 2030. They know expansion is a possibility in 2025 and this is clearly protection.

That makes little to no sense that it would be one way. Where are you getting this?

Makes perfect sense. The look-in isn't for just handing us more money when they have 6 years remaining. Disney isn't stupid. Who knows about the landscape in 6 years.

It’s obvious what’s its for, not sure why people don’t get it.

If the Big 12 gets stripped, ESPN can send 6 or 7 AAC teams to backfill it and go back to paying the AAC 1 mil a year if that. The money they save with the lookin would be sent directly to the media deal with the the new quasi Big 12. Eliminates a tweener conference by consolidating and saves ESPN money, easy as that.

We aren’t getting a sudden raise in 2025.

If the BIG XII "blows up", how many teams do people here think will leave??

I'd bet that ESPN will take what ever is left after the BIG XII "blows up" and add those teams to the AAC, give the AAC a $2 Million Raise and save a FORTUNE!

I expect 6 teams will remain from the Big 12. Add BYU, Boise and 8 teams from the AAC for a 16 teams conference.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-27-2019 01:29 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 12:59 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:46 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  You realize those numbers are all from before the media deal bump? You are pointing out that the AAC is already paying top dollar at 2m. Now they have even more dollars to spend on it at 7.5m

It is unlikely anyone besides Boise St will remain within touching distance.

Perhaps, but I am stating what the reality is right now. Of course the AAC will gain even more of an advantage in funding, but that does not necessarily equate to an increase in salaries. Last I heard Tulsa was planning on spending less on athletics, and let the bump in media money make up the difference.

I think it will still boil down to each university's leadership and available resources. I believe all 5 of the programs I listed can and will maintain the pace the AAC sets. If I had to pick programs that might fall off, I would say San Diego State and Fresno State. Being in California could hinder their ability to continue throwing more money at their athletics. I know North Texas is currently negotiating raises for Seth Littrell and his coaching staff, so I'm confident we won't be dropping out of this arms race.

Even in the right now you're behind, as is everyone else, but we're talking the future.

Lol. You're not in the arms race. Doesn't C-USA make negative for its media deal?

You heard wrong, or more likely heard what you wanted to believe. C-USA teams were never even in the MWC's rearview and they're about to get lapped.

No. North Texas is currently better than some programs in the AAC. Did you not see the whooping we put on SMU last season.

This isn't about C-USA or the MWC. I was resonding to the claim that AAC programs will be able to poach coaches from the rest of the G5. Right now that isn't entirely true. The 5 programs I listed are all currently paying within the amounts of programs in the AAC. So, those 5 programs can and protect themselves from being poached by AAC programs.

Last season North Texas had some coaches poached, but none were snatched away by AAC programs (Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, & Southern Cal).

I smell jealousy all over the place in your post

Not at all. I'm not over here and campaigning for a spot in the AAC, and I will not. In my opinion North Texas can meet all of their goals while playing in C-USA.

I like our division with Rice, UTEP, LA Tech, Southern Miss, UAB, and even UTSA. We have already signed home and home series with AAC West programs SMU, Houston, and Memphis.

Would it be nice to have the extra $7 million a year like the AAC? Yes, but that $7 million isn't going to keep us from being competitive in coaches salaries either.

(04-27-2019 01:45 PM)Radicalman7 Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 01:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 11:35 AM)Radicalman7 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 08:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  You realize those numbers are all from before the media deal bump? You are pointing out that the AAC is already paying top dollar at 2m. Now they have even more dollars to spend on it at 7.5m

It is unlikely anyone besides Boise St will remain within touching distance.

Perhaps, but I am stating what the reality is right now. Of course the AAC will gain even more of an advantage in funding, but that does not necessarily equate to an increase in salaries. Last I heard Tulsa was planning on spending less on athletics, and let the bump in media money make up the difference.

I think it will still boil down to each university's leadership and available resources. I believe all 5 of the programs I listed can and will maintain the pace the AAC sets. If I had to pick programs that might fall off, I would say San Diego State and Fresno State. Being in California could hinder their ability to continue throwing more money at their athletics. I know North Texas is currently negotiating raises for Seth Littrell and his coaching staff, so I'm confident we won't be dropping out of this arms race.

I am not attacking you or even trying to start anything with you, but.... this just reads denial.

I'm just posting what the numbers state. Right now these five programs are paying coaches and staffs within the same range as the programs in the AAC. That could change, but I'm sure some of these, if not all of these 5, will continue to try and keep up.

How do we keep up with the p5 when they financially continue to massively outpace us? How can your schools keep up when you are not reaping the same financial benefits that we are. Like I said, it looks and quacks like denial.

Most schools can't keep up, but there are certainly a few outside of the AAC that have the right combination of resources. I think there are a variety of reasons for this (economics of the state, regional growth, student population, university leadership, alumni population, location, donor support, facilities, ...).

Even though UNT was on an island when we played in the Sun Belt, and have lost all of the financial benefits joining C-USA provided, we have still managed to double our athletic budget in the last 10 years. With the facilities going up, others being remodeled, and our coaches salaries rising, I don't see our budget becoming stagnant. And, it wouldn't surprise me if our athletic budget doubled again over the next 10 seasons.

(04-27-2019 02:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 01:29 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 12:59 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:46 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
Perhaps, but I am stating what the reality is right now. Of course the AAC will gain even more of an advantage in funding, but that does not necessarily equate to an increase in salaries. Last I heard Tulsa was planning on spending less on athletics, and let the bump in media money make up the difference.

I think it will still boil down to each university's leadership and available resources. I believe all 5 of the programs I listed can and will maintain the pace the AAC sets. If I had to pick programs that might fall off, I would say San Diego State and Fresno State. Being in California could hinder their ability to continue throwing more money at their athletics. I know North Texas is currently negotiating raises for Seth Littrell and his coaching staff, so I'm confident we won't be dropping out of this arms race.

Even in the right now you're behind, as is everyone else, but we're talking the future.

Lol. You're not in the arms race. Doesn't C-USA make negative for its media deal?

You heard wrong, or more likely heard what you wanted to believe. C-USA teams were never even in the MWC's rearview and they're about to get lapped.

No. North Texas is currently better than some programs in the AAC. Did you not see the whooping we put on SMU last season.

This isn't about C-USA or the MWC. I was resonding to the claim that AAC programs will be able to poach coaches from the rest of the G5. Right now that isn't entirely true. The 5 programs I listed are all currently paying within the amounts of programs in the AAC. So, those 5 programs can and protect themselves from being poached by AAC programs.

Last season North Texas had some coaches poached, but none were snatched away by AAC programs (Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, & Southern Cal).

I smell jealousy all over the place in your post

Not at all. I'm not over here and campaigning for a spot in the AAC, and I will not. In my opinion North Texas can meet all of their goals while playing in C-USA.

I like our division with Rice, UTEP, LA Tech, Southern Miss, UAB, and even UTSA. We have already signed home and home series with AAC East programs SMU, Houston, and Memphis.

Would it be nice to have the extra $7 million a year like the AAC? Yes, but that $7 million isn't going to keep us from being competitive in coaches salaries either.

Oh, and facts:
N.Texas assistant coaches' pool is $1.72 million. Of the seven listed AAC schools, seventh place is $1.776 million. So for the Mean Green we have to start your logic train at "less than all of them" = "within the same parameters"
Boise would be in 4th place in the American and the other three mwc would be behind five of seven AAC.

Probably worse. Tulsa has one coach listed, at over $400k, the whole pool is probably healthy. Navy is probably near the top of the listed AAC schools: ten years ago Ivin Jasper was over $300k.

And soon the AAC schools will all be making more money.

(04-27-2019 02:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 01:29 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 12:59 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:46 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
Perhaps, but I am stating what the reality is right now. Of course the AAC will gain even more of an advantage in funding, but that does not necessarily equate to an increase in salaries. Last I heard Tulsa was planning on spending less on athletics, and let the bump in media money make up the difference.

I think it will still boil down to each university's leadership and available resources. I believe all 5 of the programs I listed can and will maintain the pace the AAC sets. If I had to pick programs that might fall off, I would say San Diego State and Fresno State. Being in California could hinder their ability to continue throwing more money at their athletics. I know North Texas is currently negotiating raises for Seth Littrell and his coaching staff, so I'm confident we won't be dropping out of this arms race.

Even in the right now you're behind, as is everyone else, but we're talking the future.

Lol. You're not in the arms race. Doesn't C-USA make negative for its media deal?

You heard wrong, or more likely heard what you wanted to believe. C-USA teams were never even in the MWC's rearview and they're about to get lapped.

No. North Texas is currently better than some programs in the AAC. Did you not see the whooping we put on SMU last season.

This isn't about C-USA or the MWC. I was resonding to the claim that AAC programs will be able to poach coaches from the rest of the G5. Right now that isn't entirely true. The 5 programs I listed are all currently paying within the amounts of programs in the AAC. So, those 5 programs can and protect themselves from being poached by AAC programs.

Last season North Texas had some coaches poached, but none were snatched away by AAC programs (Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, & Southern Cal).

I smell jealousy all over the place in your post

Not at all. I'm not over here and campaigning for a spot in the AAC, and I will not. In my opinion North Texas can meet all of their goals while playing in C-USA.

I like our division with Rice, UTEP, LA Tech, Southern Miss, UAB, and even UTSA. We have already signed home and home series with AAC East programs SMU, Houston, and Memphis.

Would it be nice to have the extra $7 million a year like the AAC? Yes, but that $7 million isn't going to keep us from being competitive in coaches salaries either.

And herein is the difference between G4 teams and teams in the AAC. Even now with a good media deal, every one of the teams of the AAC yearn for equality with the A5 and equal access to the playoffs whereas G4 are content with scraps and an Access Bowl.

(04-27-2019 03:18 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 02:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 01:29 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-27-2019 12:59 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:46 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Even in the right now you're behind, as is everyone else, but we're talking the future.

Lol. You're not in the arms race. Doesn't C-USA make negative for its media deal?

You heard wrong, or more likely heard what you wanted to believe. C-USA teams were never even in the MWC's rearview and they're about to get lapped.

No. North Texas is currently better than some programs in the AAC. Did you not see the whooping we put on SMU last season.

This isn't about C-USA or the MWC. I was resonding to the claim that AAC programs will be able to poach coaches from the rest of the G5. Right now that isn't entirely true. The 5 programs I listed are all currently paying within the amounts of programs in the AAC. So, those 5 programs can and protect themselves from being poached by AAC programs.

Last season North Texas had some coaches poached, but none were snatched away by AAC programs (Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, & Southern Cal).

I smell jealousy all over the place in your post

Not at all. I'm not over here and campaigning for a spot in the AAC, and I will not. In my opinion North Texas can meet all of their goals while playing in C-USA.

I like our division with Rice, UTEP, LA Tech, Southern Miss, UAB, and even UTSA. We have already signed home and home series with AAC East programs SMU, Houston, and Memphis.

Would it be nice to have the extra $7 million a year like the AAC? Yes, but that $7 million isn't going to keep us from being competitive in coaches salaries either.

Oh, and facts:
N.Texas assistant coaches' pool is $1.72 million. Of the seven listed AAC schools, seventh place is $1.776 million. So for the Mean Green we have to start your logic train at "less than all of them" = "within the same parameters"
Boise would be in 4th place in the American and the other three mwc would be behind five of seven AAC.

Probably worse. Tulsa has one coach listed, at over $400k, the whole pool is probably healthy. Navy is probably near the top of the listed AAC schools: ten years ago Ivin Jasper was over $300k.

And soon the AAC schools will all be making more money.

Okay. Both North Texas and ECU pay their staffs over $1.7 million a season, but ECU has a $50K advantage over UNT. North Texas pays our head coach $1.425 million a year, while ECU pays about $1.1 million. You can split straws if you want, but in the grand scheme there is no difference.

Again... There are five programs outside of the AAC that are paying within the same range. If the AAC wants to eliminate all of the competition, you need to raise your salaries and hope the 5 listed programs (Boise St., Fresno St., San Diego St., Wyoming, & North Texas) can't or don't try to match them.

(04-27-2019 02:09 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 06:49 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 10:51 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 07:37 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 03:53 PM)Radicalman7 Wrote:  That makes little to no sense that it would be one way. Where are you getting this?

Makes perfect sense. The look-in isn't for just handing us more money when they have 6 years remaining. Disney isn't stupid. Who knows about the landscape in 6 years.

It’s obvious what’s its for, not sure why people don’t get it.

If the Big 12 gets stripped, ESPN can send 6 or 7 AAC teams to backfill it and go back to paying the AAC 1 mil a year if that. The money they save with the lookin would be sent directly to the media deal with the the new quasi Big 12. Eliminates a tweener conference by consolidating and saves ESPN money, easy as that.

We aren’t getting a sudden raise in 2025.

If the BIG XII "blows up", how many teams do people here think will leave??

I'd bet that ESPN will take what ever is left after the BIG XII "blows up" and add those teams to the AAC, give the AAC a $2 Million Raise and save a FORTUNE!

I expect 6 teams will remain from the Big 12. Add BYU, Boise and 8 teams from the AAC for a 16 teams conference.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

Lets just be clear that 4 teams leaving the BIG XII is not "Blowing Up" that Conference or any other Conference.

Remember this... As soon as the ACC went to 14 teams every other A-5 Conference tried to do the same thing.

As soon as one of them goes to 16, so will the others... It's an "ARMS RACE".

But I don't see anything changing until the current CFP contract ends and a new playoff format is put into place.

IF it's 6 (1 from each A-5 and one at large) nothing will change, if 16 (highly doubtful) every conference and 4 at large then anything is possible.