Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
Author Message
cmett003 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,318
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 15
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #1
Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
Schools like BYU, Army, ODU, Boise St, Liberty and Air Force among others have been thrown out as potential AAC expansion candidates. All have different positives and negatives. Rank your top 10 criteria points based on importance. These are currently in no particular order (stick to just 10)

- Football stadium size
- Football attendance
- Bowl appearances
- Athletic Budget
- Market size
- Student population
- School prestige
- Geographic Location
- School academics
- Brand/name recognition
- Athletics History
- Basketball Attendance
- Basketball arena size
- NCAA Tournament appearances
- Potential Rivalries/travel partners
- Competition and Practice Facilities
- Olympic sports success
- Recent TV Appearances
- Located in good recruiting area
- Other
06-28-2019 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Kit-Cat Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,580
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #2
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
Football HC Salaries

BYU 2,000,000
Colorado St. 2,000,000
Air Force 1,400,000
Army 1,200,000
UAB 1,000,000
Old Dominion 750,000
Southern Miss 700,000
Buffalo 600,000

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/CFBCoachesSalaries.htm

That Colorado St might get some play as an AAC candidate since they already spend like an AAC team. New stadium with a 41,000 seat capacity.
06-28-2019 09:24 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UABGrad Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,626
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 71
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
(06-28-2019 09:24 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Football HC Salaries

BYU 2,000,000
Colorado St. 2,000,000
Air Force 1,400,000
Army 1,200,000
UAB 1,000,000
Old Dominion 750,000
Southern Miss 700,000
Buffalo 600,000

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/CFBCoachesSalaries.htm

That Colorado St might get some play as an AAC candidate since they already spend like an AAC team. New stadium with a 41,000 seat capacity.

Bill Clark 1,450,000

https://patch.com/alabama/birmingham-al/...ric-season
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2019 09:35 PM by UABGrad.)
06-28-2019 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sierrajip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,893
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 55
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
Who ESPiN wants to pay for.
06-28-2019 09:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,539
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 220
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #5
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
From the AAC's (Big East Football's) first go-around, markets were deemed the priority (even over on-field success). After UConn's departure, and the assumed continued goal of an eventual guaranteed NY6 bowl access, the AAC needs to find the right football candidate that can slide in and continue building the football brand of the American. Thankfully, geography is not a huge importance - since the AAC already spans half the country, and Memphis can easily slide into the East if another western member is added. Additionally, academics has never been a huge requirement for the current membership of schools.

Since there are no slam-dunk candidates, and assuming Air Force, Army, Boise State, BYU, Colorado State and San Diego State are all off the table, the AAC can afford to call-up a member that can check several candidate boxes, but can acquire (or elevate) more of them with the additional AAC TV payouts under the duration of the next ESPN deal. Finally, no candidate can demonstrate that they have "written off" basketball, ala ECU/Tulane. Any new member needs to be football-first, but capable of having a competitive men's basketball program every now and then.

1. Football Market
2. Football Attendance
3. Football Success
4. Football Stadium Size
5. Market
6. Enrollment
7. Athletic Budget
8. Men's Basketball Success
9. Men's Basketball Attendance
10. Men's Basketball Arena Size

From those requirements, I would rank the candidates as follows:

1. UAB (new football stadium, commitment to football, solid men's basketball history and huge football market/recruiting area)
2. Marshall (steady and continued success in football; decent men's basketball with solid fan support)
3. Old Dominion (largest non-AAC/MWC athletic budget; strong men's basketball resume; rising football program)
Wild Cards: Georgia State and Southern Mississippi (both huge football recruiting areas that would immensely benefit from AAC revenue and exposure).
06-28-2019 11:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,287
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 162
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #6
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
(06-28-2019 09:24 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Football HC Salaries

BYU 2,000,000
Colorado St. 2,000,000
Air Force 1,400,000
Rice 1,000,000
UAB 1,000,000
Old Dominion 750,000
Southern Miss 700,000
Buffalo 600,000

I believe Army's coach said they have no interest.
06-28-2019 11:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

freshtop Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,673
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 55
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
1.) ESPN's value of candidate
2.) Football Success
3.) Basketball Success
4.) Geography
5.) Budget
6.) Attendance in all major sports
7.) Market
8.) Facilities
9.) Enrollment
10.) Academics
06-29-2019 12:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,287
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 162
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #8
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
Remember, this is a Texas-based conference now that has some pretty damn good schools like Tulane, SMU, Cincinnati, and Tulsa. Who are those in their high towers going to vote for?
06-29-2019 12:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,448
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #9
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
- Football stadium size <- meaningless especially if they do not fill it
- Football attendance <- only meaningful if it is sustained and brings in good revneues
- Bowl appearances <- meaningless especially these days when anyone with a pulse makes a bowl and many lose money doing so
- Athletic Budget <- needs to be budget less subsidies for a meaningful comparison
- Market size <- meaningless if no one cares
- Student population <-meaningless if no one cares
- School prestige <- matters, but the AAC can't be too picky
- Geographic Location <- only matters in terms of not having an outlier island
- School academics <- they can't be too picky
- Brand/name recognition <- it is the AAC their choices are mostly the same
- Athletics History <- about where it belongs
- Basketball Attendance <- matters in terms of revenues it provides not warm bodies there for free
- Basketball arena size <-meaningless especially in the AAC
- NCAA Tournament appearances <- meaningful should be higher
- Potential Rivalries/travel partners <-meaningless especially in the cobbled together AAC
- Competition and Practice Facilities <- low priority
- Olympic sports success <- meaningful, but probably in the right spot
- Recent TV Appearances <- not that meaningful
- Located in good recruiting area <- meaningless
- Other


it should be:

Athletics Budget comparison without academic subsidies and student fees included

Sustained Ticket Sales Dollars....who cares if you have 35,000 fans there (for a dollar each) vs 25,000 there for $12 dollars each.....I would go with the one that actually delivers more dollars total in terms of ticket sales vs the one that delivers more fans for less revenue.....all the more so if the one delivering fewer fans with more revenue has sustained that for a number of years even in down years....it is never a selling point to say "let us in and our fans will show up or we can start to charge more because our fans will finally care enough to pay".....your fans don't care if they did they would be paying now

Sustained Donations....like above who cares if you had one big donation one time and many years of bad donations and likewise who cares if you have a bunch of cheap fans in the seats and low donations year in and year out vs donors that put their money up consistently.....it is NEVER a selling point to say "let is in and our donors will show up".....your donors do not care if they did they would be donating now

Debt Load.....if you have a massive amount of debt that needs to be compared among candidates it is not impressive to have a higher budget when a large portion of it goes to service debt and not to actual program support.....even less impressive if combined with high academic subsidies and high student fees

Main Facilities.....stajium size relative to the max projected fan support.....if say you can build to 50,000 seats who cares if you will only consistently fill 34,000 of them and on the flip side if you have 30,000 seats and consistently fill the place with low paying ticket buyers and you will need to take on more debt to expand (to get more low paying ticket buyers) that is not impressive......if you have 35,000 seats, your stajium is in good condition, it is modern enough, you get 32,000 consistent good price paying ticket buyers and you have some suites you consistently sell that is much more impressive than "we can load up the debt to build more cheap seats!"......all the more so with basketball

Secondary Facilities....if you have modern facilities that you have consistently upgraded, manageable debt, plans and a budget and donor support that consistently allows you to stay competitive in practice space and lover rooms ect that is much more impressive than "well we just went in debt up to our butt to build this and it is really nice, but now we have to pay for it"...no one hit wonders or those swinging for the fences or those looking to put on a lot of make up and turd polish to "just get the call" then "well after that the fans and donors will really show up!".....no they won't especially if you start to suck and all the more so if you generally suck and you are just having a good 4 or 5 year run in the middle of decades of mostly sucking

On The Field/Court Long Term Performance....much better to have a team that has a history of winning even through conference and coaching changes even if they are not at their best right now.....all the more so with the combined above factors of PAYING fan support and donors

Post Season Performance....that should come with the above, but there needs to be some ability to do something in the post season....a recent run of 5 bowl games where you are 1-4 and you have 8 bowl games in your history where you are 2-6 is not really that impressive and shows that you do well in a most likely really bad conference and then something happens like a coach leaves and it all falls apart......same with other sports besides football

Location relative to the foot print of the conference.....anyone on a island will not work for the AAC or for that team

Athletics Budget with a small sustainable student fee in place that is locked in and still without any academic side subsidies included.....academic side subsidies are wavering and probably long term unsustainable for many programs including ones in the AAC......approved small student fees that are clear to all and right on the fee bill are going to be much less likely to be cut at the behest of a new administration or state politics looking to control higher ed cost or get control of college athletics....of course in conjunction with debt load/debt service, fan and donor support and facilities condition/needs/maintenance/upgrade plans

other stuff like coaches salaries, recruiting grounds, media market size, enrollment, alumni size is meaningless because the AAC is not pulling recruits from any place because "come to the AAC" and who cares if a program with a good budget, good ticket sales and donor support manages to pay a coach a lot less especially if they keep him, replace him and continue with success or have the budget to pay him if needed

who cares if there are a billion people in your market and 10 million alumni if you have $1,000,000 in ticket sales and $1,000,000 in donations for a decade or more relative to other places with 4X that consistently for a decade.....your media market has spoken they do not care and your alumni have spoken they do not care and students only pay student fees generally they do not often pay for the actual tickets they get those for paying the fee

Academics the candidates are generally equal with the exception of Rice, The Academies, BYU, CSU and maybe a couple of others.....that should not matter as much as most of the factors above and should not come close to deciding one candidate over another unless all other factors are nearly equal
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2019 12:52 AM by TodgeRodge.)
06-29-2019 12:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,287
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 162
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #10
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
I think location matters quite a bit here. Yes, being on an island is not ideal (UConn just left and they were an island), but the candidate shouldn’t encroach on a member program and cause a bit too much competition. Unless, that team doesn’t recruit the same type of student athlete. For instance, having North Texas or UTSA would be more detrimental to Houston than Rice.

UAB, Southern Miss, and Rice stand out to me mainly due to their central location and history with current members. Rice has unlimited potential if they agree to spend a certain amount on their major sports. The football coach already makes a mil/year. They have three legit trophy games within the conference, plus Navy and Tulane would support them.

ODU and Marshall are interesting, but I wonder how ECU feels about ODU and Cincinnati about Marshall.
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2019 01:12 AM by esayem.)
06-29-2019 01:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,825
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 271
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #11
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
(06-29-2019 01:11 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think location matters quite a bit here. Yes, being on an island is not ideal (UConn just left and they were an island), but the candidate shouldn’t encroach on a member program and cause a bit too much competition. Unless, that team doesn’t recruit the same type of student athlete. For instance, having North Texas or UTSA would be more detrimental to Houston than Rice.

UAB, Southern Miss, and Rice stand out to me mainly due to their central location and history with current members. Rice has unlimited potential if they agree to spend a certain amount on their major sports. The football coach already makes a mil/year. They have three legit trophy games within the conference, plus Navy and Tulane would support them.

ODU and Marshall are interesting, but I wonder how ECU feels about ODU and Cincinnati about Marshall.

I've never heard any Houston fans express concerns about having to recruit against North Texas. Most seem to feel North Texas and SMU compete for the same resources in Dallas. I think it is fair to say, SMU has not locked up the Dallas G5 population the way the Cougars have in Houston. The truth is SMU is too small to win over the Dallas community, and North Texas, due to our size, will remain a thorn in their side.
06-29-2019 08:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

SuperFlyBCat Online
Legend
*

Posts: 44,777
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 1009
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #12
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
(06-29-2019 01:11 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think location matters quite a bit here. Yes, being on an island is not ideal (UConn just left and they were an island), but the candidate shouldn’t encroach on a member program and cause a bit too much competition. Unless, that team doesn’t recruit the same type of student athlete. For instance, having North Texas or UTSA would be more detrimental to Houston than Rice.

UAB, Southern Miss, and Rice stand out to me mainly due to their central location and history with current members. Rice has unlimited potential if they agree to spend a certain amount on their major sports. The football coach already makes a mil/year. They have three legit trophy games within the conference, plus Navy and Tulane would support them.

ODU and Marshall are interesting, but I wonder how ECU feels about ODU and Cincinnati about Marshall.

Although Marshall wins a lot it seems, small town small airport.
Virginia Beach, Newport, Hampton that is a metro area of 1.7 Million. And is a gold mine for football recruiting. Everyone around there has players from there on their team, UVA, UNC, ECU, NC State, VTech etc., everyone recruits there. ODU would have to get better, more consistent within the program. Lots of upside.

I think the AAC stays at 11, if they get the waiver or whatever is required to play a CCG.
06-29-2019 08:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zoocrew Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 602
Joined: Mar 2019
Reputation: 17
I Root For: PITT, NAVY, MBB
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
(06-29-2019 12:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  Remember, this is a Texas-based conference now that has some pretty damn good schools like Tulane, SMU, Cincinnati, and Tulsa. Who are those in their high towers going to vote for?

Temple actually > Cincy and Tulsa
06-29-2019 08:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigredmachine Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 4
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
College football attendance is down everywhere. TV drives the ship. Any addition needs to bring eyeballs and exposure to more people, resources, sponsors. NIU is the logical choice if they can get their act together. A winning tradition and close proximity to Chicago. The new governor is raising taxes broadly and that could alleviate local budget issues. Northern Illinois makes a lot of sense.
06-29-2019 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,980
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 307
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
(06-28-2019 09:42 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  Who ESPiN wants to pay for.

After all the hot air, this is truly the only answer...

USFFan
06-29-2019 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,044
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1264
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
(06-28-2019 11:30 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  From the AAC's (Big East Football's) first go-around, markets were deemed the priority (even over on-field success). After UConn's departure, and the assumed continued goal of an eventual guaranteed NY6 bowl access, the AAC needs to find the right football candidate that can slide in and continue building the football brand of the American. Thankfully, geography is not a huge importance - since the AAC already spans half the country, and Memphis can easily slide into the East if another western member is added. Additionally, academics has never been a huge requirement for the current membership of schools.

Since there are no slam-dunk candidates, and assuming Air Force, Army, Boise State, BYU, Colorado State and San Diego State are all off the table, the AAC can afford to call-up a member that can check several candidate boxes, but can acquire (or elevate) more of them with the additional AAC TV payouts under the duration of the next ESPN deal. Finally, no candidate can demonstrate that they have "written off" basketball, ala ECU/Tulane. Any new member needs to be football-first, but capable of having a competitive men's basketball program every now and then.

1. Football Market
2. Football Attendance
3. Football Success
4. Football Stadium Size
5. Market
6. Enrollment
7. Athletic Budget
8. Men's Basketball Success
9. Men's Basketball Attendance
10. Men's Basketball Arena Size

From those requirements, I would rank the candidates as follows:

1. UAB (new football stadium, commitment to football, solid men's basketball history and huge football market/recruiting area)
2. Marshall (steady and continued success in football; decent men's basketball with solid fan support)
3. Old Dominion (largest non-AAC/MWC athletic budget; strong men's basketball resume; rising football program)
Wild Cards: Georgia State and Southern Mississippi (both huge football recruiting areas that would immensely benefit from AAC revenue and exposure).

UAB is just a couple of years removed from decades of support so weak its program was almost killed. Like many, I was happy to see the fans rise up and rescue the program from the dead---but I think it would be wise to pass on UAB right now. I think it would be prudent to see if the program has really begun a long term sustained growth trend---or if this current success and support is just a blip and things return to the long term mean at UAB.

The way I see it---the AAC TV deal probably gives the AAC the ability to poach most any team from the G5---subject to geography and other factors that potentially could impact that ability. Assuming, standing pat at 11 is not an option---then I dont see much reason for the AAC to take a flyer on any school that would be considered a currently low performer with high potential. I'd expect the AAC to look more at schools that have a proven level of high performance in their current league. The truth is---pretty much any school at the G5 level has great "potential" to be much more than they currently are. "Potential" is not a characteristic unique to recent move-up's like Charlotte and ODU (or even UAB's unique case). Seems to me CUSA already gambled on the "potential" of Charlotte and ODU---how did that work out? To me, it just doesnt make a lot of sense for the AAC to double down on that exact same bet.
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2019 12:50 PM by Attackcoog.)
06-29-2019 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

DustMyBroom Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 340
Joined: Nov 2018
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
(06-28-2019 08:25 PM)cmett003 Wrote:  Schools like BYU, Army, ODU, Boise St, Liberty and Air Force among others have been thrown out as potential AAC expansion candidates. All have different positives and negatives. Rank your top 10 criteria points based on importance. These are currently in no particular order (stick to just 10)

- Football stadium size - This is essentially meaningless as a bare statistic. What’s important here is a demonstrated willingness to invest in the program through investing in the stadium. For example, “what percentage of seats are considered premium?” Another good one would be, what is the average distance to the nearest accessible restroom?”
- Football attendance - This statistic is meaningless because it just isn’t an apples to apples comparison. Why does Mississippi State sell so many more tickets than Southern Miss? That one is easy to answer: just look at the home schedules. You also have issues with artificial inflation.
- Bowl appearances - In terms of the AAC, this is a meaningless statistic. Recent bowl appearances against Cartel teams might have some small meaning.
- Athletic Budget - Overall budgets have little useful meaning because they are heavily subject to inflation by a variety of factors. One example is tuition costs. Under standard double entry bookkeeping, this should be a zero sum. Because of the system advocated by the NCAA, tuition costs actually count twice as a credit with no debit to balance it out. Thus, schools with high tuition costs (private schools that sponsor a lot of sports) tend to look like the spend a lot more money than they actually do. Another example is on-campus versus off-campus. On-campus facilities often have many of their expenses covered by academics. Because off-campus facilities are essentially not part of the university and are used exclusively for the athletic function, their expenses all count against the athletic department budget. The closest apples to apples comparison you will find would be in recruiting budgets. Even then, it’s only useful as a measure of willingness to invest, not as a measure of performance.
- Market size - Market size as a tool of evaluation is heavily dependent on market penetration. Memphis has done a decent job in capturing the attention of their market. Tulane...not so much.
- Student population - I assume this means enrollment. Not a bad comparative tool in itself, but it’s heavily subject to varying rates of participation. No one cares if you have 50,000 students if almost none of them are investing in your program.
- School prestige - What exactly is this supposed to be? There aren’t any blue bloods lining up to join the AAC, and the closest you’d get to the Ivy League is Rice, who is admittedly pretty close.
- Geographic Location - this one is important, but it shouldn’t outrank athletic and academic performance indicators. Use it to narrow the field of peers from whom to consider, then forget about it.
- School academics - This one often gets set aside during realignment, but most of the potential candidates are t1 academic institutions and some are also r1 Carnegie research institutes. It’s probably no more than a tiebreaker in the end.
- Brand/name recognition - important for value in the media deal, but very difficult to accurately assess.
- Athletics History - Historically strong athletic performers simply haven’t been favored during realignment.
- Basketball Attendance - same issues as with football, only less important.
- Basketball arena size - same issues as with football, only less important
- NCAA Tournament appearances - this is about 50% on the athletic department making an investment in the program and 50% on the coach the department hires. That makes it about 50% relevant.
- Potential Rivalries/travel partners - This should be far more important than it is, but, in today’s tv oriented conferences, no one cares about rivalry anymore.
- Competition and Practice Facilities - Practice facilities are a means of leveling the field. They won’t make a good program great or a bad program mediocre, but they can provide a ways toward the means. They are just tools that an athletic department can use to become more competitive. As comparative tools, they are especially useless: A poorly run athletic department can have great facilities, and still be bad. A well run athletic department is going to be competitive no matter what facilities it has.
- Olympic sports success -probably an even bigger non-factor in realignment than your local Avon lady’s opinion on realignment.
- Recent TV Appearances - everybody is on tv now
- Located in good recruiting area -this doesn’t hurt and might even be used to break a tie, but recruiting budgets are more important
- Other
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2019 12:39 PM by DustMyBroom.)
06-29-2019 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,319
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 442
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
There's only 1 criteria that matters, whoever ESPN says they value enough to be worth adding. I suspect that's an extremely short list of schools we already know probably won't say yes, and then it comes down to would ESPN rather have a little less inventory or pay more for less valuable inventory?
06-29-2019 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,044
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1264
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
(06-29-2019 01:17 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There's only 1 criteria that matters, whoever ESPN says they value enough to be worth adding. I suspect that's an extremely short list of schools we already know probably won't say yes, and then it comes down to would ESPN rather have a little less inventory or pay more for less valuable inventory?

lol...especially for us. We are ESPN's official "Thank you sir may I have another" conference.



(This post was last modified: 06-29-2019 01:43 PM by Attackcoog.)
06-29-2019 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,287
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 162
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #20
RE: Ranking criteria for potential AAC candidates
(06-29-2019 08:22 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(06-29-2019 01:11 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think location matters quite a bit here. Yes, being on an island is not ideal (UConn just left and they were an island), but the candidate shouldn’t encroach on a member program and cause a bit too much competition. Unless, that team doesn’t recruit the same type of student athlete. For instance, having North Texas or UTSA would be more detrimental to Houston than Rice.

UAB, Southern Miss, and Rice stand out to me mainly due to their central location and history with current members. Rice has unlimited potential if they agree to spend a certain amount on their major sports. The football coach already makes a mil/year. They have three legit trophy games within the conference, plus Navy and Tulane would support them.

ODU and Marshall are interesting, but I wonder how ECU feels about ODU and Cincinnati about Marshall.

Although Marshall wins a lot it seems, small town small airport.
Virginia Beach, Newport, Hampton that is a metro area of 1.7 Million. And is a gold mine for football recruiting. Everyone around there has players from there on their team, UVA, UNC, ECU, NC State, VTech etc., everyone recruits there. ODU would have to get better, more consistent within the program. Lots of upside.

I think the AAC stays at 11, if they get the waiver or whatever is required to play a CCG.

Right. Cincinnati has never shared a conference with Marshall, as far as I know. I just don’t see that happening. I would place ODU over Marshall.

On another note, there is a giant naval base in Norfolk. I imagine Navy games would be standing room only.
06-29-2019 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.