(06-24-2019 09:59 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: I said this over on the "Main" conference board.
My "preference" (and that's all that it is) is that the AAC sever ties with Tulsa, go back down to 10 teams...play a full round-robin in football (that's the main issue here) and maybe even the "double round-robin" in basketball. That would allow true rivalries to develop and grow.
IMO, Tulsa doesn't "fit." They were added at a time when we thought (as a conference) we needed "Football Success" to bolster the new conference's image...Tulsa never lived up to that and we have "Football Success" with Houston, UCF, and UC. We also added Tulsa when we thought we needed 12 teams to get to a CCG...you can do that now with 10 and the round-robin in football. Tulsa has the smallest enrollment in the Conference, they have piss-poor attendance, and they are not "elite" in anything.
And, for the record, this is "how" you do this...you broker a contract with Tulsa to "go away." Yes, in the short-term it costs $$$, but in the long-term you recoup it. I don't know how much it would cost to make Tulsa go away; I'd start with the $10 Million UConn is going to pay in "exit fees" and start there. The Max would be whatever media money Tulsa has coming to them for the remainder of the Media deal...but even that would be an acceptable price for me because it would allow the Conference to GROW by having rivalries develop because we would now be playing each other home-and-away every year.
Just my opinion...but that's what I'd like to see happen.
Going to ten makes perfect sense from a scheduling standpoint until a really compelling candidate (like BYU, for example) signals that they'd like to join the AAC. Then we're back to eleven members anyway, might feel it's important to go to twelve again, and we're out whatever we paid Tulsa (or any other program that's currently looked down upon) to part company. Tulsa is a fine school academically. If they don't measure up athletically, then it might make more sense for the other conference members to give them a set number of years to improve and some kind of hand-up to help them achieve that goal. If they can't or won't improve, then at least they've been given a fair chance.
I don't like the idea of making any member school feel like an outcast. We've all been there at one time or another. I sure know what it felt like when UC was left behind in the last round of conference realignment.
Has BYU given any indication that they want to join the AAC?
Most of what I hear is fantasy talk... Colorado State has said at least on two occasions that they will not join the AAC under any circumstances, yet their name constantly pops up. Likewise with Army and Air Force. What gives people any realistic idea that "a compelling candidate" actually is out there?
Until and unless BYU publicly says they're "interested," I am assuming that they are NOT. So, ten (in football) is the sweet spot for this group. (In basketball and 'Olympic sports' 11 is fine, so I am totally good with Wichita State being on board.) As for being made to "feel an outcast..." Sorry, but I really don't think Tulsa is a good fit for this conference. I'm not being vindictive or nasty, I think the facts support me on this. I think schools like Tulane and ECU at least bring something to the table, even while they're not ideal "fits." Tulsa doesn't. (And UConn and Pitt fans didn't hesitate to point that out to UC "back in the day"...and right now if you read the UConn forums.) At least in my case, it's not "personal."
But like the UAB fan in the other thread, I get that any Tulsa fans reading this are going to...disagree...with my take. Which is fine; this is a "message board" in any case. You know what they say about the similarities between an opinion and a a**hole...
(06-24-2019 09:59 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: I said this over on the "Main" conference board.
My "preference" (and that's all that it is) is that the AAC sever ties with Tulsa, go back down to 10 teams...play a full round-robin in football (that's the main issue here) and maybe even the "double round-robin" in basketball. That would allow true rivalries to develop and grow.
IMO, Tulsa doesn't "fit." They were added at a time when we thought (as a conference) we needed "Football Success" to bolster the new conference's image...Tulsa never lived up to that and we have "Football Success" with Houston, UCF, and UC. We also added Tulsa when we thought we needed 12 teams to get to a CCG...you can do that now with 10 and the round-robin in football. Tulsa has the smallest enrollment in the Conference, they have piss-poor attendance, and they are not "elite" in anything.
And, for the record, this is "how" you do this...you broker a contract with Tulsa to "go away." Yes, in the short-term it costs $$$, but in the long-term you recoup it. I don't know how much it would cost to make Tulsa go away; I'd start with the $10 Million UConn is going to pay in "exit fees" and start there. The Max would be whatever media money Tulsa has coming to them for the remainder of the Media deal...but even that would be an acceptable price for me because it would allow the Conference to GROW by having rivalries develop because we would now be playing each other home-and-away every year.
Just my opinion...but that's what I'd like to see happen.
Going to ten makes perfect sense from a scheduling standpoint until a really compelling candidate (like BYU, for example) signals that they'd like to join the AAC. Then we're back to eleven members anyway, might feel it's important to go to twelve again, and we're out whatever we paid Tulsa (or any other program that's currently looked down upon) to part company. Tulsa is a fine school academically. If they don't measure up athletically, then it might make more sense for the other conference members to give them a set number of years to improve and some kind of hand-up to help them achieve that goal. If they can't or won't improve, then at least they've been given a fair chance.
I don't like the idea of making any member school feel like an outcast. We've all been there at one time or another. I sure know what it felt like when UC was left behind in the last round of conference realignment.
Has BYU given any indication that they want to join the AAC?
Most of what I hear is fantasy talk... Colorado State has said at least on two occasions that they will not join the AAC under any circumstances, yet their name constantly pops up. Likewise with Army and Air Force. What gives people any realistic idea that "a compelling candidate" actually is out there?
Until and unless BYU publicly says they're "interested," I am assuming that they are NOT. So, ten (in football) is the sweet spot for this group. (In basketball and 'Olympic sports' 11 is fine, so I am totally good with Wichita State being on board.) As for being made to "feel an outcast..." Sorry, but I really don't think Tulsa is a good fit for this conference. I'm not being vindictive or nasty, I think the facts support me on this. I think schools like Tulane and ECU at least bring something to the table, even while they're not ideal "fits." Tulsa doesn't. (And UConn and Pitt fans didn't hesitate to point that out to UC "back in the day"...and right now if you read the UConn forums.) At least in my case, it's not "personal."
But like the UAB fan in the other thread, I get that any Tulsa fans reading this are going to...disagree...with my take. Which is fine; this is a "message board" in any case. You know what they say about the similarities between an opinion and a a**hole...
Meanwhile, UMASS is wet-dream'n themselves with excitement over the past couple days about the AAC
(06-24-2019 09:59 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: I said this over on the "Main" conference board.
My "preference" (and that's all that it is) is that the AAC sever ties with Tulsa, go back down to 10 teams...play a full round-robin in football (that's the main issue here) and maybe even the "double round-robin" in basketball. That would allow true rivalries to develop and grow.
IMO, Tulsa doesn't "fit." They were added at a time when we thought (as a conference) we needed "Football Success" to bolster the new conference's image...Tulsa never lived up to that and we have "Football Success" with Houston, UCF, and UC. We also added Tulsa when we thought we needed 12 teams to get to a CCG...you can do that now with 10 and the round-robin in football. Tulsa has the smallest enrollment in the Conference, they have piss-poor attendance, and they are not "elite" in anything.
And, for the record, this is "how" you do this...you broker a contract with Tulsa to "go away." Yes, in the short-term it costs $$$, but in the long-term you recoup it. I don't know how much it would cost to make Tulsa go away; I'd start with the $10 Million UConn is going to pay in "exit fees" and start there. The Max would be whatever media money Tulsa has coming to them for the remainder of the Media deal...but even that would be an acceptable price for me because it would allow the Conference to GROW by having rivalries develop because we would now be playing each other home-and-away every year.
Just my opinion...but that's what I'd like to see happen.
Going to ten makes perfect sense from a scheduling standpoint until a really compelling candidate (like BYU, for example) signals that they'd like to join the AAC. Then we're back to eleven members anyway, might feel it's important to go to twelve again, and we're out whatever we paid Tulsa (or any other program that's currently looked down upon) to part company. Tulsa is a fine school academically. If they don't measure up athletically, then it might make more sense for the other conference members to give them a set number of years to improve and some kind of hand-up to help them achieve that goal. If they can't or won't improve, then at least they've been given a fair chance.
I don't like the idea of making any member school feel like an outcast. We've all been there at one time or another. I sure know what it felt like when UC was left behind in the last round of conference realignment.
Feelings? This is business.
I'd hate to think that every bottom line has a dollar sign in front of it. Some things are more important than money.
(06-24-2019 09:59 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: I said this over on the "Main" conference board.
My "preference" (and that's all that it is) is that the AAC sever ties with Tulsa, go back down to 10 teams...play a full round-robin in football (that's the main issue here) and maybe even the "double round-robin" in basketball. That would allow true rivalries to develop and grow.
IMO, Tulsa doesn't "fit." They were added at a time when we thought (as a conference) we needed "Football Success" to bolster the new conference's image...Tulsa never lived up to that and we have "Football Success" with Houston, UCF, and UC. We also added Tulsa when we thought we needed 12 teams to get to a CCG...you can do that now with 10 and the round-robin in football. Tulsa has the smallest enrollment in the Conference, they have piss-poor attendance, and they are not "elite" in anything.
And, for the record, this is "how" you do this...you broker a contract with Tulsa to "go away." Yes, in the short-term it costs $$$, but in the long-term you recoup it. I don't know how much it would cost to make Tulsa go away; I'd start with the $10 Million UConn is going to pay in "exit fees" and start there. The Max would be whatever media money Tulsa has coming to them for the remainder of the Media deal...but even that would be an acceptable price for me because it would allow the Conference to GROW by having rivalries develop because we would now be playing each other home-and-away every year.
Just my opinion...but that's what I'd like to see happen.
Going to ten makes perfect sense from a scheduling standpoint until a really compelling candidate (like BYU, for example) signals that they'd like to join the AAC. Then we're back to eleven members anyway, might feel it's important to go to twelve again, and we're out whatever we paid Tulsa (or any other program that's currently looked down upon) to part company. Tulsa is a fine school academically. If they don't measure up athletically, then it might make more sense for the other conference members to give them a set number of years to improve and some kind of hand-up to help them achieve that goal. If they can't or won't improve, then at least they've been given a fair chance.
I don't like the idea of making any member school feel like an outcast. We've all been there at one time or another. I sure know what it felt like when UC was left behind in the last round of conference realignment.
Has BYU given any indication that they want to join the AAC?
Most of what I hear is fantasy talk... Colorado State has said at least on two occasions that they will not join the AAC under any circumstances, yet their name constantly pops up. Likewise with Army and Air Force. What gives people any realistic idea that "a compelling candidate" actually is out there?
Until and unless BYU publicly says they're "interested," I am assuming that they are NOT. So, ten (in football) is the sweet spot for this group. (In basketball and 'Olympic sports' 11 is fine, so I am totally good with Wichita State being on board.) As for being made to "feel an outcast..." Sorry, but I really don't think Tulsa is a good fit for this conference. I'm not being vindictive or nasty, I think the facts support me on this. I think schools like Tulane and ECU at least bring something to the table, even while they're not ideal "fits." Tulsa doesn't. (And UConn and Pitt fans didn't hesitate to point that out to UC "back in the day"...and right now if you read the UConn forums.) At least in my case, it's not "personal."
But like the UAB fan in the other thread, I get that any Tulsa fans reading this are going to...disagree...with my take. Which is fine; this is a "message board" in any case. You know what they say about the similarities between an opinion and a a**hole...
Meanwhile, UMASS is wet-dream'n themselves with excitement over the past couple days about the AAC
Could there be a worse choice? They're in a recruiting wasteland, football is practically non-existent (or should be) and basketball has made one tourney appearance since 1998. Over half of their 9 tourney appearances were with Calipari. No way this ever makes sense.
Isn't the obvious answer to not add anyone? Just receive a higher payout per team from ESPN if possible?
Otherwise, the question should be "What does ESPN want?" since they seem to be such a powerful driver in college football. I don't like UCONN leaving, but at least they are getting out from ESPN's thumb.
06-24-2019 12:16 PM
BearcatMan
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
Posts: 24,212
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 590
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
(06-24-2019 12:16 PM)stpnum4 Wrote: Isn't the obvious answer to not add anyone? Just receive a higher payout per team from ESPN if possible?
Otherwise, the question should be "What does ESPN want?" since they seem to be such a powerful driver in college football. I don't like UCONN leaving, but at least they are getting out from ESPN's thumb.
That won't happen...at best they'll just pro-rate for 11 shares instead of 12.
(06-24-2019 09:59 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: I said this over on the "Main" conference board.
My "preference" (and that's all that it is) is that the AAC sever ties with Tulsa, go back down to 10 teams...play a full round-robin in football (that's the main issue here) and maybe even the "double round-robin" in basketball. That would allow true rivalries to develop and grow.
IMO, Tulsa doesn't "fit." They were added at a time when we thought (as a conference) we needed "Football Success" to bolster the new conference's image...Tulsa never lived up to that and we have "Football Success" with Houston, UCF, and UC. We also added Tulsa when we thought we needed 12 teams to get to a CCG...you can do that now with 10 and the round-robin in football. Tulsa has the smallest enrollment in the Conference, they have piss-poor attendance, and they are not "elite" in anything.
And, for the record, this is "how" you do this...you broker a contract with Tulsa to "go away." Yes, in the short-term it costs $$$, but in the long-term you recoup it. I don't know how much it would cost to make Tulsa go away; I'd start with the $10 Million UConn is going to pay in "exit fees" and start there. The Max would be whatever media money Tulsa has coming to them for the remainder of the Media deal...but even that would be an acceptable price for me because it would allow the Conference to GROW by having rivalries develop because we would now be playing each other home-and-away every year.
Just my opinion...but that's what I'd like to see happen.
Going to ten makes perfect sense from a scheduling standpoint until a really compelling candidate (like BYU, for example) signals that they'd like to join the AAC. Then we're back to eleven members anyway, might feel it's important to go to twelve again, and we're out whatever we paid Tulsa (or any other program that's currently looked down upon) to part company. Tulsa is a fine school academically. If they don't measure up athletically, then it might make more sense for the other conference members to give them a set number of years to improve and some kind of hand-up to help them achieve that goal. If they can't or won't improve, then at least they've been given a fair chance.
I don't like the idea of making any member school feel like an outcast. We've all been there at one time or another. I sure know what it felt like when UC was left behind in the last round of conference realignment.
Feelings? This is business.
I'd hate to think that every bottom line has a dollar sign in front of it. Some things are more important than money.
Yeah, probably. But one of things isn't Tulsa's feelings.
(06-24-2019 09:59 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: I said this over on the "Main" conference board.
My "preference" (and that's all that it is) is that the AAC sever ties with Tulsa, go back down to 10 teams...play a full round-robin in football (that's the main issue here) and maybe even the "double round-robin" in basketball. That would allow true rivalries to develop and grow.
IMO, Tulsa doesn't "fit." They were added at a time when we thought (as a conference) we needed "Football Success" to bolster the new conference's image...Tulsa never lived up to that and we have "Football Success" with Houston, UCF, and UC. We also added Tulsa when we thought we needed 12 teams to get to a CCG...you can do that now with 10 and the round-robin in football. Tulsa has the smallest enrollment in the Conference, they have piss-poor attendance, and they are not "elite" in anything.
And, for the record, this is "how" you do this...you broker a contract with Tulsa to "go away." Yes, in the short-term it costs $$$, but in the long-term you recoup it. I don't know how much it would cost to make Tulsa go away; I'd start with the $10 Million UConn is going to pay in "exit fees" and start there. The Max would be whatever media money Tulsa has coming to them for the remainder of the Media deal...but even that would be an acceptable price for me because it would allow the Conference to GROW by having rivalries develop because we would now be playing each other home-and-away every year.
Just my opinion...but that's what I'd like to see happen.
Going to ten makes perfect sense from a scheduling standpoint until a really compelling candidate (like BYU, for example) signals that they'd like to join the AAC. Then we're back to eleven members anyway, might feel it's important to go to twelve again, and we're out whatever we paid Tulsa (or any other program that's currently looked down upon) to part company. Tulsa is a fine school academically. If they don't measure up athletically, then it might make more sense for the other conference members to give them a set number of years to improve and some kind of hand-up to help them achieve that goal. If they can't or won't improve, then at least they've been given a fair chance.
I don't like the idea of making any member school feel like an outcast. We've all been there at one time or another. I sure know what it felt like when UC was left behind in the last round of conference realignment.
Has BYU given any indication that they want to join the AAC?
Most of what I hear is fantasy talk... Colorado State has said at least on two occasions that they will not join the AAC under any circumstances, yet their name constantly pops up. Likewise with Army and Air Force. What gives people any realistic idea that "a compelling candidate" actually is out there?
Until and unless BYU publicly says they're "interested," I am assuming that they are NOT. So, ten (in football) is the sweet spot for this group. (In basketball and 'Olympic sports' 11 is fine, so I am totally good with Wichita State being on board.) As for being made to "feel an outcast..." Sorry, but I really don't think Tulsa is a good fit for this conference. I'm not being vindictive or nasty, I think the facts support me on this. I think schools like Tulane and ECU at least bring something to the table, even while they're not ideal "fits." Tulsa doesn't. (And UConn and Pitt fans didn't hesitate to point that out to UC "back in the day"...and right now if you read the UConn forums.) At least in my case, it's not "personal."
But like the UAB fan in the other thread, I get that any Tulsa fans reading this are going to...disagree...with my take. Which is fine; this is a "message board" in any case. You know what they say about the similarities between an opinion and a a**hole...
Meanwhile, UMASS is wet-dream'n themselves with excitement over the past couple days about the AAC
UMass is worse FB than UConn and BB has not been good since Crooked Cal
(06-22-2019 07:56 PM)converrl Wrote: Smart move for UConn. the FB was rotting and a net loss for their AD. In this reconfiguration, they'll profit by playing elevated competition in MBB and will also benefit from the title IX reduction in women's scholarships for non-revenue sports. Gives them 2 revenue sports they can concentrate on: MBB and WBB.
Elevated competition is a bit of a stretch. They'll play schools closer to them who are not state flagship schools. The bigger issue if you're a Uconn fan is you're a state flagship university who aspired to play a fball schedule, and couldn't pull it off in spite of little competition for talent in the East. There is basically BC and Rutgers up there, and they struggled to put any kind of competitive team on the field in spite of a lot of investment. Their bigger issue is the loss of Jim Calhoun in all of this. Uconn was never Kentucky or Duke pulling in all the top talent. Calhoun made that program and developed kids. The reality is in the AAC or the new Big East they look a lot like St. John's after losing Lou C, or Gtown after JT senior stepped down. Going to a different league is not going to throw holy water on that reality.
They can use the money they save from dropping lodestone FB to hire a real coach--and he'll know that MBB is king at UCONN.
Interesting article from a BYU Football Bleacher Report...
Quote:Two situations where BYU should accept an AAC invite
UConn, one of the worst teams in the AAC just announced that they will leaving for the Big East, the conference that they came from just a few years ago, opening a spot(s) in the conference. The opening appears to be wide open to any P5 school, Army or BYU that wants to take the spot.
In most scenarios, I would say that BYU should not accept this offer. After all, BYU already makes P5 money, has an amazing future schedule in the future and has one of the best TV contracts in the nation. But there are two cases that I think that BYU should at least consider joining the AAC.
Three teams join
With the departure of UConn, now is the time that the AAC can make a move not only on one team but on three teams or more. It appears that the AAC is really trying to get to the P5 level and by essentially dropping the worst team and then gaining three really good teams, they could very well be considered in that conversation against the Big 12 and Pac 12 conferences
But they would have to specific teams, and one of them has to be Boise State. The other school would have to be another well recognized team that has spent significant time ranked in the past five years or so. Those teams would include Utah State, Appalachian State, Middle Tennessee, Army, or Air Force.
The conference could then be broken into two divisions geographically with:
West: BYU, Boise State, the third team added, Tulsa, Houston, Southern Methodist and Memphis
East: UCF, USF, East Carolina, Navy, Temple, Cincinnati and Tulane
BYU playing Boise State, Houston, Utah State/other quality program, Memphis and then two teams out of the east would give BYU at least five quality conference opponents plus three other games that would likely include Utah, another P5 and a G5 team.
This conference would be a security blanket for BYU once conference realignment happens in a few seasons and there would be no risk of BYU falling into a FCS or UMass/Liberty kind of situation.
Conference stays at twelve but BYU gets a lot of influence
This would take a lot of cooperation and probably wouldn’t happen but if BYU was able to keep the best four games each season that they have from 2023 on, and then play the eight AAC games, then I would say that BYU should listen.
The biggest complaint that I have heard to this point is that there is no way that BYU is going to buy out their games with the schools they already have scheduled. In the near future, BYU already has full schedules which would be really tough on the buyouts. But after 2022 BYU can work around that pretty easily.
The proposal would be that BYU Football doesn’t join until the 2023 season (other sports can join in 2021 when UConn leaves) and has the option to back out if invited by a P5 by then. The second half of the proposal would be that BYU gets to choose the four games they get to keep each season through 2027. That would look like this:
2023 – Virginia, Utah, USC and Arkansas:
Buyout Tennessee, UNLV and Stanford
2024 – Utah, NC State, Wyoming and UNLV
Buyout Hawaii and Georgia Southern
2025 – Hawaii, Stanford, Minnesota and Virginia (Utah in week zero under the Hawaii rule)
Buyout: None
2026 – Arizona and Virginia Tech
2027 – Arizona
2030 – Baylor
This option would only require five buyouts and would keep most of the games on the schedule. If this option was presented before BYU they should listen and consider joining the conference because again we don’t know what will happen after the conference realignment and which teams will be left in the dark.
I don't usually engage in this sort of thing, but the prospect of expanding to 14 is kind of interesting. The article suggests adding BYU, Boise State, and Utah State. However, the population of Logan, UT is only about 48,000. The Fort Collins (Colorado State) MSA has about 310,000 people, so I would substitute Colorado State.
West
BYU
Tulsa
Colorado State
Houston
SMU
Navy
Boise State
East
Cincinnati
ECU
Tulane
USF
UCF
Temple
Memphis
That... would actually be a pretty dang good conference, worthy of renegotiating the TV contract. And it would bring the Mountain West Conference to its knees.
I'd prefer BYU and almost any two teams from the MW East division (Boise, CSU, New Mexico, Air Force; Utah State and Wyoming, not so much). Those are all better picks than any team left in C-USA. imho.
/
The AAC Post UConn: What Is Your Preference?
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/YRhGAu0NZ6euNRuHb6/giphy.gif)
