(06-25-2019 05:05 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:23 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Your argument is unsound. I just don't have the time, patience, or desire to repeat to you why. Call that a victory if you like. Ciao.

so.. you are saying my argument, using actual history that ties directly to the subject at hand, is "unsound? " But your hyperbole, based not in history, fact, or logic, but on... "nuh- uh" is? GTFO.

And that is why, twice now, you have attempted t change the subject after throwing a tantrum. Because you don't know what you are talking about. Like not even a little bit.

I don't recall a tantrum. I don't care enough about the topic for that level of emotion anyway. My point is your argument is irrational. Even if there's history behind it, history is filled with irrational behavior, and college sports are no exception. I'm simply providing an objective viewpoint. Take it or leave it.

Your bad memory is also not my problem.

But yes I can leave your opinion in the trash, where it likely will be refused as not good enough.

(06-25-2019 06:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 05:06 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 05:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:55 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  No, they don't. They are not full members and do not get membership votes unless it's for a FB only invite. Please learn your own conferences bylaws.

Well, I seriously doubt that the old bylaws are still in effect. If they are, every committee has to somehow have equal numbers of football and nonfootball schools.

Okay then do you think Navy had a vote when Witchita was added?

Obviously I haven't seen the bylaws. One argument is, of course not, Wichita is nonfootball, Navy is football-only. The other argument is that the AAC is a partnership, and Navy is one of the partners, so you would consult them on a big move like adding Wichita.

I'd be shocked if Navy had a formal vote on the Wichita addition. I'd be surprised if they weren't consulted and informed.

They may or may not have a vote on "football matters." The old Big East bylaws had to do a lot of work to separate and delineate who made what decisions, all of which became obsolete with the split. It's very possible that the American Athletic Conference doesn't give its affiliates a vote at all--legally.

Being smart, however, you'd want to keep Navy informed and in the loop.

EDIT: We have no idea if Navy gets a vote on adding full members, football affiliates, etc. The internet used to have a PDF of the Big East-Boise State entry contract, that probably had language about whether or how Boise State would be consulted, and we could assume that Navy had the same clause. But I can't google it, and the links may well be broken.

IIRC in the old big east, the non-football schools did not have an official vote on football matters. And weren’t involved in day to day football details. But practically any membership matters involved everyone, football only or all member. Remember there was a time where tcu was “laughed off” as even a football only member, much less a full member. Obviously that was a full member thing, and not a football (only) decision.

There goes the P6 brand with out UConn BB. Nothing yells P6 like UMass, Marshall, Southern Mississippi, or UConn FB only for the AAC.

(06-25-2019 06:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 05:06 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 05:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:55 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  No, they don't. They are not full members and do not get membership votes unless it's for a FB only invite. Please learn your own conferences bylaws.

Well, I seriously doubt that the old bylaws are still in effect. If they are, every committee has to somehow have equal numbers of football and nonfootball schools.

Okay then do you think Navy had a vote when Witchita was added?

Obviously I haven't seen the bylaws. One argument is, of course not, Wichita is nonfootball, Navy is football-only. The other argument is that the AAC is a partnership, and Navy is one of the partners, so you would consult them on a big move like adding Wichita.

I'd be shocked if Navy had a formal vote on the Wichita addition. I'd be surprised if they weren't consulted and informed.

They may or may not have a vote on "football matters." The old Big East bylaws had to do a lot of work to separate and delineate who made what decisions, all of which became obsolete with the split. It's very possible that the American Athletic Conference doesn't give its affiliates a vote at all--legally.

Being smart, however, you'd want to keep Navy informed and in the loop.

EDIT: We have no idea if Navy gets a vote on adding full members, football affiliates, etc. The internet used to have a PDF of the Big East-Boise State entry contract, that probably had language about whether or how Boise State would be consulted, and we could assume that Navy had the same clause. But I can't google it, and the links may well be broken.

There is a huge difference between consulting and being part of making the decision. Sure they would talk to Navy about things but their voice would have less weight than those who would be voting. Now I would think Wichita would be more likely to have a vote than Navy especially if it's adding a full member since they are members in all sports but FB.

Going back to the original point the AD of a member who might not even have a vote or have a say in how ESPN and the AAC handle this is not the most reliable of information sources. If the Houston or Memphis AD came out and made a statement I would be much more inclined to give that more credence.

(06-25-2019 07:03 PM)panite Wrote:  There goes the P6 brand with out UConn BB. Nothing yells P6 like UMass, Marshall, Southern Mississippi, or UConn FB only for the AAC.

It is a major blow. Between the meh TV deal and UConn leaving, AAC puffery has suffered some big blows.

(06-25-2019 07:41 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 06:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 05:06 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 05:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:55 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  No, they don't. They are not full members and do not get membership votes unless it's for a FB only invite. Please learn your own conferences bylaws.

Well, I seriously doubt that the old bylaws are still in effect. If they are, every committee has to somehow have equal numbers of football and nonfootball schools.

Okay then do you think Navy had a vote when Witchita was added?

Obviously I haven't seen the bylaws. One argument is, of course not, Wichita is nonfootball, Navy is football-only. The other argument is that the AAC is a partnership, and Navy is one of the partners, so you would consult them on a big move like adding Wichita.

I'd be shocked if Navy had a formal vote on the Wichita addition. I'd be surprised if they weren't consulted and informed.

They may or may not have a vote on "football matters." The old Big East bylaws had to do a lot of work to separate and delineate who made what decisions, all of which became obsolete with the split. It's very possible that the American Athletic Conference doesn't give its affiliates a vote at all--legally.

Being smart, however, you'd want to keep Navy informed and in the loop.

EDIT: We have no idea if Navy gets a vote on adding full members, football affiliates, etc. The internet used to have a PDF of the Big East-Boise State entry contract, that probably had language about whether or how Boise State would be consulted, and we could assume that Navy had the same clause. But I can't google it, and the links may well be broken.

There is a huge difference between consulting and being part of making the decision. Sure they would talk to Navy about things but their voice would have less weight than those who would be voting. Now I would think Wichita would be more likely to have a vote than Navy especially if it's adding a full member since they are members in all sports but FB.

Going back to the original point the AD of a member who might not even have a vote or have a say in how ESPN and the AAC handle this is not the most reliable of information sources. If the Houston or Memphis AD came out and made a statement I would be much more inclined to give that more credence.

But the Navy AD still has more direct knowledge of the situation than McMurphy. When Gladchuk says the AAC will do this or will not do that, that's a pretty credible source. Sure he may be full of beans, but the same is true of Aresco or any power broker.

(06-25-2019 10:38 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 01:12 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Sorry but if the Big "12" can play a CCG with 10, then the AAC should get an 11 round robin waiver.

the Big XII Is in compliance with the CCG rules as is. The American, as-is, would not be.

Getting hung up on names is silly. The "American" has no teams in the mountain or pacific time zone. I mean that is silly.

Interestingly--UConn may need a waiver as well. Apparently there are ZERO FBS teams with openings in 2020. UConn will need to replace 8 games in 2020. Per NCAA rules---at least 8 of their 12 2020 opponents must be FBS and at least 4 of the FBS opponents must be played in UConns home stadium. My guess is its going to cost the Huskies some pretty significant dollars to put together a 2020 schedule and avoid the need for a waiver.


UConn AD David Benedict’s biggest problem will be filling that 2020 schedule when the Huskies suddenly have eight open dates. Brown said there are currently no FBS teams with open dates in that season. What UConn will need to do, he explained, is convince schools that are playing each other to instead play the Huskies.

https://apnews.com/583170fef0a14cbb9771bcdb0b1a8520

(06-25-2019 07:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:03 PM)panite Wrote:  There goes the P6 brand with out UConn BB. Nothing yells P6 like UMass, Marshall, Southern Mississippi, or UConn FB only for the AAC.

It is a major blow. Between the meh TV deal and UConn leaving, AAC puffery has suffered some big blows.

Quo,

No realistic and fair-minded AAC fan would not honestly acknowledge the loss of UConn is a blow to the league. It’s a major loss. And I know many fair and reasonable fans of the AAC — and the Big East, for that matter — because I follow two universities/athletic programs in each of the two conferences. The sober ones see the positives and negatives on all sides.

I told an AAC fan today (a “semi-homer” if I might say) that the loss of UConn could hurt men’s basketball recruiting in the league (the thinking being that Memphis, Cincy, WSU, Temple, Houston, etc. use that intra-league game with the Huskies as a lure for prospects). He understood. He was fair.

If you don’t want to temper your “dislike for AAC fanboys” mindset, that’s cool. That’s your business. But for an old-timer like me (I have followed college sports since the late 1960s) who dislikes homerism and fanboy-ism as much as you do — and considering I follow, for personal and family reasons, universities that are members of the AAC, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big Ten, the Big East, the SEC and Conference USA … sometimes your occasional posts highlighting your anti-AAC homerism border on odd (at the least). And I say that respectfully because I get the impression you and I are from the same generation and would enjoy having a beer and talking AAC and Big East sports. I also acknowledge you have posted positive comments about the AAC many times. Still, …

On that theme… I wish UConn nothing but the best. As a follower of two Big East programs, I’m happy to have them back in the conference. But as a follower of two AAC programs also, there is no way I would want UConn to stay in the AAC for football only unless it was of financial benefit to the AAC. And I’ve seen zero media reports that suggest keeping UConn for football only would be beneficial to the AAC. Zero.

Respectfully,

Bill Dazzle
a.k.a. The Rival Son

(06-25-2019 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 05:05 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 04:23 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Your argument is unsound. I just don't have the time, patience, or desire to repeat to you why. Call that a victory if you like. Ciao.

so.. you are saying my argument, using actual history that ties directly to the subject at hand, is "unsound? " But your hyperbole, based not in history, fact, or logic, but on... "nuh- uh" is? GTFO.

And that is why, twice now, you have attempted t change the subject after throwing a tantrum. Because you don't know what you are talking about. Like not even a little bit.

I don't recall a tantrum. I don't care enough about the topic for that level of emotion anyway. My point is your argument is irrational. Even if there's history behind it, history is filled with irrational behavior, and college sports are no exception. I'm simply providing an objective viewpoint. Take it or leave it.

Your bad memory is also not my problem.

But yes I can leave your opinion in the trash, where it likely will be refused as not good enough.

BTW, there was no need to get personal, but you went there time and again. I understand the argument from emotion can lead to ad hominem attacks, but they don't help your case. Best to stick to reason next time you try to win a debate with someone rather than petty insults.

(06-25-2019 08:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  UConn AD David Benedict’s biggest problem will be filling that 2020 schedule when the Huskies suddenly have eight open dates. Brown said there are currently no FBS teams with open dates in that season. What UConn will need to do, he explained, is convince schools that are playing each other to instead play the Huskies.

https://apnews.com/583170fef0a14cbb9771bcdb0b1a8520

Note they already have the Illini visiting and are visiting Indiana.

For instance, NMSU at Liberty Nov 30, NMSU has Nov2 Off and hosts Incarnate Word Nov 16. So schedule away at Liberty Nov 30, Home with NMSU either Nov 2nd or Nov 16th. 2 FBS games, one FBS home game down, 6 and 3 (respectively) to go. NMSU & Liberty might even ask them to do that, otherwise they play a Home and Away series in 2019.

Actually, if Liberty and NMSU were to agree to doing that with BOTH of their H/H series, that would be half of the requirement filled at a stroke, and those two wouldn't have to worry about the Home/Away balance of the remainder of their future scheduling agreements. It WOULD mean TWO H/H series in the season, but beggars/choosers/etc.

If UConn can do the same trick with a game scheduled at Army (UConn is already scheduled to visit UMass), they'll be able to get over the wire.

(06-26-2019 02:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 08:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  UConn AD David Benedict’s biggest problem will be filling that 2020 schedule when the Huskies suddenly have eight open dates. Brown said there are currently no FBS teams with open dates in that season. What UConn will need to do, he explained, is convince schools that are playing each other to instead play the Huskies.

https://apnews.com/583170fef0a14cbb9771bcdb0b1a8520

Note they already have the Illini visiting and are visiting Indiana.

For instance, NMSU at Liberty Nov 30, NMSU has Nov2 Off and hosts Incarnate Word Nov 16. So schedule away at Liberty Nov 30, Home with NMSU either Nov 2nd or Nov 16th. 2 FBS games, one FBS home game down, 6 and 3 (respectively) to go. NMSU & Liberty might even ask them to do that, otherwise they play a Home and Away series in 2019.

Actually, if Liberty and NMSU were to agree to doing that with BOTH of their H/H series, that would be half of the requirement filled at a stroke, and those two wouldn't have to worry about the Home/Away balance of the remainder of their future scheduling agreements. It WOULD mean TWO H/H series in the season, but beggars/choosers/etc.

If UConn can do the same trick with a game scheduled at Army (UConn is already scheduled to visit UMass), they'll be able to get over the wire.

I believe the Liberty-NM State home and home is this year and that they don't play each other in 2020. Nice idea, though. Liberty plays at Syracuse on 10/17/20. Liberty could reschedule with Syracuse for another year, play at UConn on that date, and UConn could play at Syracuse on another date (since the ACC schedule hasn't been set yet).

(06-25-2019 08:26 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:03 PM)panite Wrote:  There goes the P6 brand with out UConn BB. Nothing yells P6 like UMass, Marshall, Southern Mississippi, or UConn FB only for the AAC.

It is a major blow. Between the meh TV deal and UConn leaving, AAC puffery has suffered some big blows.

Quo,

No realistic and fair-minded AAC fan would not honestly acknowledge the loss of UConn is a blow to the league. It’s a major loss. And I know many fair and reasonable fans of the AAC — and the Big East, for that matter — because I follow two universities/athletic programs in each of the two conferences. The sober ones see the positives and negatives on all sides.

I told an AAC fan today (a “semi-homer” if I might say) that the loss of UConn could hurt men’s basketball recruiting in the league (the thinking being that Memphis, Cincy, WSU, Temple, Houston, etc. use that intra-league game with the Huskies as a lure for prospects). He understood. He was fair.

If you don’t want to temper your “dislike for AAC fanboys” mindset, that’s cool. That’s your business. But for an old-timer like me (I have followed college sports since the late 1960s) who dislikes homerism and fanboy-ism as much as you do — and considering I follow, for personal and family reasons, universities that are members of the AAC, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big Ten, the Big East, the SEC and Conference USA … sometimes your occasional posts highlighting your anti-AAC homerism border on odd (at the least). And I say that respectfully because I get the impression you and I are from the same generation and would enjoy having a beer and talking AAC and Big East sports. I also acknowledge you have posted positive comments about the AAC many times. Still, …

On that theme… I wish UConn nothing but the best. As a follower of two Big East programs, I’m happy to have them back in the conference. But as a follower of two AAC programs also, there is no way I would want UConn to stay in the AAC for football only unless it was of financial benefit to the AAC. And I’ve seen zero media reports that suggest keeping UConn for football only would be beneficial to the AAC. Zero.

Respectfully,

Bill Dazzle
a.k.a. The Rival Son

Dazzle, i respect your POV, and i am sure we could have a great convo over beers about college football.

But, IMO, one thing that makes talking about college football and other sportd over beer fun IS the woofing. The mindless chest thumping and ribbing and yes, trolling. Sure, that can be taken too far, but IMO sports isn't meant to be talked about in sombre, analytical, formal tones of a monthly Federal Reserve Board meeting. It's supposed to have a BS, food fight quality to it, even as we try to also make logical points, etc.

(06-25-2019 08:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Interestingly--UConn may need a waiver as well. Apparently there are ZERO FBS teams with openings in 2020. UConn will need to replace 8 games in 2020. Per NCAA rules---at least 8 of their 12 2020 opponents must be FBS and at least 4 of the FBS opponents must be played in UConns home stadium. My guess is its going to cost the Huskies some pretty significant dollars to put together a 2020 schedule and avoid the need for a waiver.


UConn AD David Benedict’s biggest problem will be filling that 2020 schedule when the Huskies suddenly have eight open dates. Brown said there are currently no FBS teams with open dates in that season. What UConn will need to do, he explained, is convince schools that are playing each other to instead play the Huskies.

https://apnews.com/583170fef0a14cbb9771bcdb0b1a8520

That is not good for them. How much will it cost to get the opponents for FOUR different games, to decide to not play each other, but to play UConn? Not only is that near impossible, but those games are likely part of series, meaning they essentially have to get those 8 teams to give up 8 games combined (8 teams, 2 games each) to play UConn (granted over a two year period).

I do not want to be in that room.

(06-25-2019 10:33 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Your bad memory is also not my problem.

But yes I can leave your opinion in the trash, where it likely will be refused as not good enough.

BTW, there was no need to get personal, but you went there time and again. I understand the argument from emotion can lead to ad hominem attacks, but they don't help your case. Best to stick to reason next time you try to win a debate with someone rather than petty insults.

First, I have not insulted you once. Feel free to show me where I did? If I insulted you, the entire board would be laughing at you, because I don't do that sort of thing half assed. You not understanding the difference between me attacking the merits of your post, and you personally, again not my concern. And again, nothing is emotional, except your unwillingness to accept you were wrong, and instead making up insults that did not occur, you change the subject and act as though your feelings were hurt. that is the very definition of "emotion," which you are guilty of. Yet you still have yet to defend the position YOU attacked from.

Rememberr this started from you calling my causes for concern for those suggestions moving forward "not as big of a deal as I made it out to be.," and that "no other conference or team would care" about who other teams play. Turns out, it is very much is as big of a deal as I made it out to be, and conferences and teams DO care, as I showed you, and from that point on, you made up feaux insults about you personally (not understanding it was a description of your logis, and not you), and continue making up things on this beaten path, instead of simply acknolidging you were wrong. Admit it and move up, but don't think you can just make up stuff, and change the subject, and none of us will catch it. Just admit it, and move on. It's not that hard.

(06-22-2019 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the AAC is smart and not emotional, they will let UConn football remain in the AAC.

Swallow the pride and do the smart thing.

Lol, how would this be smart?

Team A - Rarely has a winning season, has poor attendance, and makes the conference as a whole worse by existing. But they have a hot friend (basketball) that would not otherwise be there.

Team B - A lot of other teams have winning seasons, better attendance, and would instantly make the conference strong by at least posting 6-6 seasons.

no chance in hell that UConn is allowed to stay in the AAC......

Oh and something else to consider.... They might not be able to do a conference football only. You know the cost of that is like 4 basketball games typically(Temple had to play looks actually like 4-5).

So
20 game conference season
4-5 games vs football conference teams
1 Gavitt Game
1 Big 12 challenge game
4 Exempt tournament games

all of a sudden you're up to 30-31 games, which is the limit. Of those 31 games, only 13-14 are home games. Can't survive like that...... So I think they almost have got to go independent in football....

(06-22-2019 04:05 PM)billings Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 03:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 01:41 PM)billings Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 01:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Good points. But will the AAC be patient? Aresco seems to be quite emotional and his example has made the AAC an emotional, chip on shoulder conference.

They may not react rationally.

Quo, this may come as a surprise to you, but UConn leaving the AAC with what the last few seasons has been tepid basketball and a dumpster fire of football is an unexpected gift to the AAC and apparently ESPN sees it that way since it won't affect their current contract so the pie just got bigger for everyone else with about 9/11ths of a million in exit fees and one less share of the pie. Aresco and the conference have no reason to worry. They'll play Beverly Hillbillies and stand on the porch and wave bye. But they won't say, "Ya'll come back now, hear!"

Seems obvious UCONN will make more $$ in the Big East then by remaining in the AAC

Not really all that obvious. Its clear UConn is gambling a predicted increase in basketball ticket sales and a decrease in travel costs will more than make up the difference in media/CFP/Bowl money available in the AAC. Even assuming thats true, the 10 million dollar exit fee (and its only that low if they give a 27 month notice--which they have not) would seem to put any break even point more than a few years away. I think this is more about keeping their fans happy. As a Houston fan---I absolutely understand the burning desire of a fan base to get back to playing the teams that matter to them.

Frankly, I thought anything close to the break even point (including the exit fee) for the AAC TV deal would be enough to make the move financially unattractive. I thought as little as 3-4 million a team would probably keep UConn in the AAC. At 7 millon---I figured there was zero doubt they would stay. I vastly underestimated the desire to get back to their old rivals. This move is not financial. This is about keeping the majority of their fans happy. I realize now that the AAC probably had to hit a huge double digit 10+ million a team home run TV deal to keep UConn around. I clearly misread the tea leaves on this one.

The New AAC media deal was a bad deal for Uconn

""Some also noted how the AAC's new television deal with ESPN left UConn as a clear loser as it made Huskies games harder to watch for fans, which limits the exposure to potential recruits as well.""

Source: Bleacher report

Lol, you and MWCTEX are like the MWC hater team.

You guys only appear when the AAC has negative press.

(06-22-2019 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 01:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 01:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If this happens, beyond any specific impacts on media, it will be an enormous blow to AAC pride and prestige, and a big boost to the Big East.

1. It is why I said in the other thread that the AAC needs to wait 3 or 4 years when better additions may likely be available, or a partial merger of the AAC into a better brand conference is possible.

2. I think this move likely spells the demise of the UConn football program. They scaled it up in hopes of making a move up and if they return to a basketball only conference I think it goes away eventually.

Good points. But will the AAC be patient? Aresco seems to be quite emotional and his example has made the AAC an emotional, chip on shoulder conference.

They may not react rationally.

Quo, this may come as a surprise to you, but UConn leaving the AAC with what the last few seasons has been tepid basketball and a dumpster fire of football is an unexpected gift to the AAC and apparently ESPN sees it that way since it won't affect their current contract so the pie just got bigger for everyone else with about 9/11ths of a million in exit fees and one less share of the pie. Aresco and the conference have no reason to worry. They'll play Beverly Hillbillies and stand on the porch and wave bye. But they won't say, "Ya'll come back now, hear!"

JR, i bet the ESPN deal gets adjusted if UConn leaves.

Can we bet that you not post anything for 5 weeks?

(06-26-2019 11:25 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the AAC is smart and not emotional, they will let UConn football remain in the AAC.

Swallow the pride and do the smart thing.

Lol, how would this be smart?

Team A - Rarely has a winning season, has poor attendance, and makes the conference as a whole worse by existing. But they have a hot friend (basketball) that would not otherwise be there.

Team B - A lot of other teams have winning seasons, better attendance, and would instantly make the conference strong by at least posting 6-6 seasons.

I think he means that if no one is seemed suitable to makeup the money, AND they desire to keep a CCG, and cannot get a waiver to adapt, and the ways around the rules to host a CCG prove too problematic, it may be in their interests to keep UConn around to keep the CCG.

I am not sure I agree with it, but it is a reasonable point to make. His assumption is that there is no team B that fits your scenario, that the other members are happy with.

(06-26-2019 01:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 11:25 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the AAC is smart and not emotional, they will let UConn football remain in the AAC.

Swallow the pride and do the smart thing.

Lol, how would this be smart?

Team A - Rarely has a winning season, has poor attendance, and makes the conference as a whole worse by existing. But they have a hot friend (basketball) that would not otherwise be there.

Team B - A lot of other teams have winning seasons, better attendance, and would instantly make the conference strong by at least posting 6-6 seasons.

I think he means that if no one is seemed suitable to makeup the money, AND they desire to keep a CCG, and cannot get a waiver to adapt, and the ways around the rules to host a CCG prove too problematic, it may be in their interests to keep UConn around to keep the CCG.

I am not sure I agree with it, but it is a reasonable point to make. His assumption is that there is no team B that fits your scenario, that the other members are happy with.

No, that's me you're thinking of. "Sometimes the most reasonable situation is to have the ex keep living with you until the lease runs out". Football afilliate on a renewable one- or two-year contract.

Quo is on record as arguing that the AAC should keep UConn football because UConn is their only state flagship, NYC access, athletic budget, etc.