(08-28-2019 09:49 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 08:28 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  My opinion is that NCAA will grant a 3-4 year waiver. It's not AAC's fault that UConn left. This will give the AAC a few years to figure out what they want to do long term. If disapproved, then the AAC will move to add a new member by 2020, IMO. But again, it's not the AAC's fault that UConn left, and did not uphold the 27 month exit time, leaving the AAC with little time to find a solution.

So play uneven divisions. Allowing a waiver to the AAC to put their best two in a CCG gives them an unfair advantage to the other G5 conferences in vying for the Access Bowl bid. Losing UCONN has nothing to do with going divisionless and still have a CCG, it's not the odd number it's that you're too big to do a round robin without a 10 game schedule. Too big with UCONN, too big without UCONN. AAC doesn't want to add, fine. Play uneven divisions, MAC did it, CUSA did it. Or they could change the rules but giving a waiver to the AAC for this is unfair and has nothing to do with UCONN leaving.

Have you actually looked at what an 11 team unbalanced divisions would look like? It's much harder to do than 13 teams. You either can't play a round robin, or you can't have an 8 game schedule without playing someone twice, etc. It's a scheduling nightmare. Someone poster a thread on the scheduling options. Suggest taking a look at it. Could you do it, sure, but not without jumping through some serious hoops (ie, having some teams play 7 games and others 8 games, have some teams play 9 games and others 8, have some teams play opponents twice, etc).

https://csnbbs.com/thread-881008.html

I think divisionless is the future, though one not all conferences (SEC) will embrace. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. Is he confident because he has guarantees or because he wants the public on his side?

(08-28-2019 10:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:49 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 08:28 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  My opinion is that NCAA will grant a 3-4 year waiver. It's not AAC's fault that UConn left. This will give the AAC a few years to figure out what they want to do long term. If disapproved, then the AAC will move to add a new member by 2020, IMO. But again, it's not the AAC's fault that UConn left, and did not uphold the 27 month exit time, leaving the AAC with little time to find a solution.

So play uneven divisions. Allowing a waiver to the AAC to put their best two in a CCG gives them an unfair advantage to the other G5 conferences in vying for the Access Bowl bid. Losing UCONN has nothing to do with going divisionless and still have a CCG, it's not the odd number it's that you're too big to do a round robin without a 10 game schedule. Too big with UCONN, too big without UCONN. AAC doesn't want to add, fine. Play uneven divisions, MAC did it, CUSA did it. Or they could change the rules but giving a waiver to the AAC for this is unfair and has nothing to do with UCONN leaving.

Have you actually looked at what an 11 team unbalanced divisions would look like? It's much harder to do than 13 teams. You either can't play a round robin, or you can't have an 8 game schedule without playing someone twice, etc. It's a scheduling nightmare. Someone poster a thread on the scheduling options. Suggest taking a look at it. Could you do it, sure, but not without jumping through some serious hoops (ie, having some teams play 7 games and others 8 games, have some teams play 9 games and others 8, have some teams play opponents twice, etc).

https://csnbbs.com/thread-881008.html

Take a look again. Option 4 is what we did in CUSA, option 5 is what you want to do.
You'd need a waiver for either option but the uneven division one has been granted to the MAC and CUSA. Your situation is not unique.

I know from the outside people like to make fun of the big 12 set up, but as a fan it is actually pretty awesome. We play every team in football every year, and every team in basketball twice (home and home). I know divisions have been the reason expansion has happened a lot over the past 30 years, but it has actually been pretty awesome set up for the big 12. The AAC is in a weird spot with the 11th team. It would be hard to play 10 conference games at the expense of some big non-con games.

However, i do not really see why the NCAA should approve a waiver for more than a year or two. The biggest issue is that the AAC commissioner has already come out and said they are not going to expand. So the AAC is not really wanting this as a temporary waiver to help alleviate some expansion pains or to give them time to find another member. They are wanting to utilize it as a way to circumvent the 12 team rule. The NCAA members have voted on the current rule, so unless the AAC is actively moving toward adding a team I do not really see a reason for the NCAA to grant a waiver for more than a couple years. Budgeting for the next few years has already happened for some of these schools, so these schools are anticipating this revenue. Allowing a year or two buffer period, will allow the schools to get their finances in order for the following years. But if the conference chooses not to expand or go to round-robin, then I see no reason for an extended waiver.

(08-28-2019 08:28 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  My opinion is that NCAA will grant a 3-4 year waiver. It's not AAC's fault that UConn left. This will give the AAC a few years to figure out what they want to do long term. If disapproved, then the AAC will move to add a new member by 2020, IMO. But again, it's not the AAC's fault that UConn left, and did not uphold the 27 month exit time, leaving the AAC with little time to find a solution.

They could have let UConn be a football-only member for 2020, which gives both parties some time to work out their long-range plans. I get that UConn football isn’t great and the optics of letting them stay for another year might have been poor for the AAC, but it’s not as though they would have been doing this merely out of the goodness of their hearts. It would have been mutually beneficial. Now they have to hope the NCAA grants a waiver or else they’ll lose the CCG or have to scramble for a 12th football school.

The AAC may not have been responsible for UConn leaving but there was a perfectly viable option to remain in compliance with NCAA regulations regarding a CCG and they chose otherwise. So they bear some complicity in their current situation.

(08-28-2019 12:08 PM)MAcFroggy Wrote:  However, i do not really see why the NCAA should approve a waiver for more than a year or two. The biggest issue is that the AAC commissioner has already come out and said they are not going to expand. So the AAC is not really wanting this as a temporary waiver to help alleviate some expansion pains or to give them time to find another member. They are wanting to utilize it as a way to circumvent the 12 team rule. The NCAA members have voted on the current rule, so unless the AAC is actively moving toward adding a team I do not really see a reason for the NCAA to grant a waiver for more than a couple years. Budgeting for the next few years has already happened for some of these schools, so these schools are anticipating this revenue. Allowing a year or two buffer period, will allow the schools to get their finances in order for the following years. But if the conference chooses not to expand or go to round-robin, then I see no reason for an extended waiver.

Exactly, change the rule or find another solution.

(08-28-2019 12:08 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 08:28 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  My opinion is that NCAA will grant a 3-4 year waiver. It's not AAC's fault that UConn left. This will give the AAC a few years to figure out what they want to do long term. If disapproved, then the AAC will move to add a new member by 2020, IMO. But again, it's not the AAC's fault that UConn left, and did not uphold the 27 month exit time, leaving the AAC with little time to find a solution.

They could have let UConn be a football-only member for 2020, which gives both parties some time to work out their long-range plans. I get that UConn football isn’t great and the optics of letting them stay for another year might have been poor for the AAC, but it’s not as though they would have been doing this merely out of the goodness of their hearts. It would have been mutually beneficial. Now they have to hope the NCAA grants a waiver or else they’ll lose the CCG or have to scramble for a 12th football school.

The AAC may not have been responsible for UConn leaving but there was a perfectly viable option to remain in compliance with NCAA regulations regarding a CCG and they chose otherwise. So they bear some complicity in their current situation.

Or UMASS if they prefer. They'd be thrilled with a FB only invite and you can 86 them down the road as the SB did with Idaho and NMST

If the AAC gets a waiver, it will be temporary as others have said.

I don't see the AAC reeling in BYU, Army, or Air Force as a football only member. So, who do they add as an all sports member for 2023 of the following choices?

Buffalo
Charlotte
Georgia State
Marshall
Northern Illinois
Old Dominion
Southern Miss
UAB
UMass

I also don't see them adding one of the above schools as a football only member and then adding another basketball only like VCU. First off, where would any of those schools park their olympic sports without a serious conference downgrade? Also, it then starts to become even more of a Frankenconference than it already is (which is partially what killed the Big East, so why repeat that mistake).

(08-28-2019 11:19 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I think divisionless is the future, though one not all conferences (SEC) will embrace. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. Is he confident because he has guarantees or because he wants the public on his side?

I could honestly see divisionless working in the SEC as well. With 13 opposing teams, every school gets 3 permanent rivals and rotates the other 10 every year. You would play every school in a two year period and every school at home at least once in a four year college career.

(08-28-2019 12:08 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 08:28 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  My opinion is that NCAA will grant a 3-4 year waiver. It's not AAC's fault that UConn left. This will give the AAC a few years to figure out what they want to do long term. If disapproved, then the AAC will move to add a new member by 2020, IMO. But again, it's not the AAC's fault that UConn left, and did not uphold the 27 month exit time, leaving the AAC with little time to find a solution.

They could have let UConn be a football-only member for 2020, which gives both parties some time to work out their long-range plans. I get that UConn football isn’t great and the optics of letting them stay for another year might have been poor for the AAC, but it’s not as though they would have been doing this merely out of the goodness of their hearts. It would have been mutually beneficial. Now they have to hope the NCAA grants a waiver or else they’ll lose the CCG or have to scramble for a 12th football school.

The AAC may not have been responsible for UConn leaving but there was a perfectly viable option to remain in compliance with NCAA regulations regarding a CCG and they chose otherwise. So they bear some complicity in their current situation.

It seems like Aresco took UConn's leaving personally as it was clear that UConn's departure was a referendum on his TV deal. Since there was egg on his face with UConn publicly voicing their displeasure with it, Aresco got all Mafioso and was adamant that UConn not be permitted to stay.

So, while taking a defiant stance allowed him to defend his TV deal and allow himself to feel better, the AAC will now likely be forced to swallow a school that they likely don't want (or need). Leaving UConn football in place as a member for at least the short term, as you pointed out, would have been a win-win. Too bad that emotions in the AAC ran so high and got in the way.

(08-28-2019 10:19 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 10:12 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 08:28 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  My opinion is that NCAA will grant a 3-4 year waiver. It's not AAC's fault that UConn left. This will give the AAC a few years to figure out what they want to do long term.

That's my feeling too. The AAC will be given some leeway because it's not their fault a school left, and the other conferences will be disinclined to oppose some relief because they all know that could happen to them too, or at least most of them know that.

But I think those who believe the AAC will get permanent relief, in the form of a permanent waiver or rule change, are mistaken.

We shall see.

Then why don't they replace the departing team like every other conference has had to do?

It's clear what they are trying to do.

NCAA doesn't want to spark another round of realignment musical chairs. If the AAC adds a 12th team (and potentially a 13th and 14th), the team is likely to come from the MWC and/or CUSA. May be even the MAC or Sun Belt. Then, the raided conference(s) looks to backfill....it might be better to just let the AAC stay at 11 and let the rest of the G5 enjoy some relative stability for a while.

the "NCAA" has nothing to do with it

the NCAA is not some autonomous governing body that makes whatever decision it wants in matters like these

it gets voted on by the conferences and how those conferences vote is determined by the members

and the MWC, MAC, and Sunbelt have zero reason to give the ACC a more favorable CCG match up and they also have little fear of losing a member

and like in the past with the AAC voting no on deregulation to try and force the Big 12 to expand the CUSA is full of members that all think they will get the call to the AAC should they be forced to expand.....so a large number of those members will be voting to have their conference vote no on a waiver to try and force the AAC to have to expand.....because just like with the NCAA a conference is not something that just governs itself the members vote to make decisions

and none of the P5 give a damn about the AAC having to expand to have a CCG or what that might mean to other conferences losing a member.....they are more inclined to make it harder on the AAC to have a favorable CCG match up and to remind them that they are not "P6" the are G5 and liking it

there is no reason to give a waiver.....and again we are talking about a WAIVER from the tweets.....arresto already ran his mouth like an east coast larry scott and made it clear the AAC is not looking to expand now, next year, or the year after that or anytime soon

there is little chance the AAC will get an open ended waiver to just keep going with 11 teams as long as they want to......why would the ACC or Big 10 give that when the ACC cannot have the same (they were the ones that first pushed full deregulation) and the Big 10 is the one that pushed the rule about a full conference round robin if no divisions....and even if the Big 10 regrets that there is little to suggest they would show their regret by giving the AAC a waiver while the Big 10 still has to have divisions and division winners meet in the CCG

if arresto had an ounce of common sense or a brain he would have stated they were looking for a waiver while evaluating teams and then keep working for a full rule change

but as of now he has basically stated that the AAC is looking for something that other conferences cannot do and they are looking for that to be long term

and as to a long term rule change happening eventually...

the PAC 12 knows that 9 conference games screws them they will not change that because of TV money and probably because of the difficulty of decent OOC games out west

the Big 12 is too stupid to understand how poorly 9 conference games screws them (worse than any conference)

and the Big 10 has already expressed regret about the 10 game conference schedule and hinted that he SEC SEC SEC and ACC should play 9 conference games

the SEC SEC SEC will never go for 9 conference games and the ACC looked at it and is smart enough to understand what a poor idea it is

BUT...

there is a good chance that in the future if there is a rule change for CCGs that would be tied to playing 9 conference games to have the top teams in the conference meet in the CCG without playing a full conference round robin

the SEC SEC SEC would surly vote no, the ACC might vote for that, the Big 12 and PAC 12 might as well

BUT...

that screws the AAC in relation to Navy and Navy wanting 4 OOC games

so again arresto does not know what he is doing and has no idea what he is pushing for or what ramifications there will be to that push if he thinks he will get a 1 or 2 year waiver while working on a full rule change

because that full rule change might come with other issues like Navy and Navy perhaps deciding that the AAC is not the best place for them

and if Navy left sure 9 conference games would be easier for the AAC, but 9 conference games with only 10 teams is a disaster all the more so for a weaker conference that needs a team to go undefeated to even sniff a NY6 bowl game much less ever sniffing the playoffs....and that much worse with a guaranteed repeat CCG

(08-28-2019 10:54 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Houston's permanent rivals would be SMU and Memphis, according to our beat writer.

UCF-USF obv.

The rest are up for grabs.

We'll know by October whether the proposal will fly.

Of course that assumes they go with 2 permanent rivals. They could go with as many as 6 permanent rivals and still be able to play the other 4 teams 50% of the time.

(08-28-2019 12:31 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 12:08 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 08:28 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  My opinion is that NCAA will grant a 3-4 year waiver. It's not AAC's fault that UConn left. This will give the AAC a few years to figure out what they want to do long term. If disapproved, then the AAC will move to add a new member by 2020, IMO. But again, it's not the AAC's fault that UConn left, and did not uphold the 27 month exit time, leaving the AAC with little time to find a solution.

They could have let UConn be a football-only member for 2020, which gives both parties some time to work out their long-range plans. I get that UConn football isn’t great and the optics of letting them stay for another year might have been poor for the AAC, but it’s not as though they would have been doing this merely out of the goodness of their hearts. It would have been mutually beneficial. Now they have to hope the NCAA grants a waiver or else they’ll lose the CCG or have to scramble for a 12th football school.

The AAC may not have been responsible for UConn leaving but there was a perfectly viable option to remain in compliance with NCAA regulations regarding a CCG and they chose otherwise. So they bear some complicity in their current situation.

It seems like Aresco took UConn's leaving personally as it was clear that UConn's departure was a referendum on his TV deal. Since there was egg on his face with UConn publicly voicing their displeasure with it, Aresco got all Mafioso and was adamant that UConn not be permitted to stay.

So, while taking a defiant stance allowed him to defend his TV deal and allow himself to feel better, the AAC will now likely be forced to swallow a school that they likely don't want (or need). Leaving UConn football in place as a member for at least the short term, as you pointed out, would have been a win-win. Too bad that emotions in the AAC ran so high and got in the way.

In fairness to Aresco, all the evidence suggests that the AAC membership was in favor of not allowing UConn to remain for football either, so it's not like it's something he crammed down their throats.

That said, I agree with the general point. Let's face it, PRIDE and PRESTIGE is a major element in ALL aspects of a university, athletics included. UConn leaving was a slap not only at Aresco and his meh TV deal but also the entire conference.

And the AAC, arguably more than any other conference, has energized itself by having a "we're disrespected" chip on its shoulder. It's whole identity is tied up in the idea of a pirate conference challenging the status quo, not getting paid what it should, not being ranked how it should, being looked down on by the Power leagues and battling to change all that.

UConn slapped that chip off, so they struck a doubly-sore nerve.

(08-28-2019 12:21 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  If the AAC gets a waiver, it will be temporary as others have said.

I don't see the AAC reeling in BYU, Army, or Air Force as a football only member. So, who do they add as an all sports member for 2023 of the following choices?

Buffalo
Charlotte
Georgia State
Marshall
Northern Illinois
Old Dominion
Southern Miss
UAB
UMass

I also don't see them adding one of the above schools as a football only member and then adding another basketball only like VCU. First off, where would any of those schools park their olympic sports without a serious conference downgrade? Also, it then starts to become even more of a Frankenconference than it already is (which is partially what killed the Big East, so why repeat that mistake).

Marshall has the football record, UAB and Southern Miss have the relationship with most schools that goes back to the mid-90’s but Old Dominion has the better athletic department and location. Buffalo and UMass have the academics but geographically don’t make sense now that UConn is leaving. So my pick would be ODU.

The whole argument in regards to avoiding realignment is ridiculous. I doubt the MAC or CUSA are worried about losing anyone. They can always poach someone from the indy ranks or the Sun Belt.

They should just do uneven divisions. Might be a mess with some teams playing less/more games than others.

I don’t think either ESPN or the AAC want to add another member. Especially if BYU and Army aren’t available. Options after those are not very appealing.

(08-28-2019 12:21 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  If the AAC gets a waiver, it will be temporary as others have said.

I don't see the AAC reeling in BYU, Army, or Air Force as a football only member. So, who do they add as an all sports member for 2023 of the following choices?

Buffalo
Charlotte
Georgia State
Marshall
Northern Illinois
Old Dominion
Southern Miss
UAB
UMass

I also don't see them adding one of the above schools as a football only member and then adding another basketball only like VCU. First off, where would any of those schools park their olympic sports without a serious conference downgrade? Also, it then starts to become even more of a Frankenconference than it already is (which is partially what killed the Big East, so why repeat that mistake).

Depends on what kind of waiver it is. If its a divisionless waiver (which I dont think they will get), it would be temporary. If its the kind of waiver the MAC got---then it will be for as long as they are at 11 (as the current rule obviously intends for conferences with an odd number of members to be able to have a CCG).

I hope they get the waiver. Strictly by the way the rules are written, it should be denied but the NCAA typically saves that sort of response for a kid with a sick mother.

Frankly it was the intent to deregulate and make title games easier and each league ought to be able to find their own way as long as they play the lesser of full round robin or eight games.

(08-28-2019 01:42 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 12:21 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  If the AAC gets a waiver, it will be temporary as others have said.

I don't see the AAC reeling in BYU, Army, or Air Force as a football only member. So, who do they add as an all sports member for 2023 of the following choices?

Buffalo
Charlotte
Georgia State
Marshall
Northern Illinois
Old Dominion
Southern Miss
UAB
UMass

I also don't see them adding one of the above schools as a football only member and then adding another basketball only like VCU. First off, where would any of those schools park their olympic sports without a serious conference downgrade? Also, it then starts to become even more of a Frankenconference than it already is (which is partially what killed the Big East, so why repeat that mistake).

Marshall has the football record, UAB and Southern Miss have the relationship with most schools that goes back to the mid-90’s but Old Dominion has the better athletic department and location. Buffalo and UMass have the academics but geographically don’t make sense now that UConn is leaving. So my pick would be ODU.

If any of those schools were additive to the conference---they would have been invited. Until there is a choice that is not dilutive to value---there is no reason to expect the AAC wiil expand. The only addition I suspect is not dilutive at this time is VCU--and their addition would do nothing to address the football scheduling issue.

(08-28-2019 02:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 12:21 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  If the AAC gets a waiver, it will be temporary as others have said.

I don't see the AAC reeling in BYU, Army, or Air Force as a football only member. So, who do they add as an all sports member for 2023 of the following choices?

Buffalo
Charlotte
Georgia State
Marshall
Northern Illinois
Old Dominion
Southern Miss
UAB
UMass

I also don't see them adding one of the above schools as a football only member and then adding another basketball only like VCU. First off, where would any of those schools park their olympic sports without a serious conference downgrade? Also, it then starts to become even more of a Frankenconference than it already is (which is partially what killed the Big East, so why repeat that mistake).

Depends on what kind of waiver it is. If its a divisionless waiver (which I dont think they will get), it would be temporary. If its the kind of waiver the MAC got---then it will be for as long as they are at 11 (as the current rule obviously intends for conferences with an odd number of members to be able to have a CCG).

That's my guess of what will happen: a MAC-type unbalanced division waiver as opposed to a divisionless waiver.

For whatever reason (whether valid or not), there was significant opposition to the divisionless non-round robin format when the ACC (a P5 conference with real power) wanted it. I've gone through the reasons why I thought that happened elsewhere (particularly the opposition from the Big Ten). MAcFroggy made a good point that Aresco is on the record of NOT wanting to expand back to the 12, so the other conferences know that the AAC is really looking for a backdoor way for a permanent waiver in practicality as opposed to a true temporary waiver.

To be sure, maybe the mood has changed where the other conferences are now more open to divisionless non-round robin CCGs, as you saw the Big Ten back off a bit when it got shut out of the CFP last year. In that event, maybe the rule will actually get changed and this waiver issue will be made moot. I don't see why they would grant the AAC an exceptional favor with a waiver of the current rule, though.

It's one thing when you have at least twelve members and have uneven divisions. You meet the threshold for a CCG, you just don't get a true sense of even divisional play. If your conference is cool with it, why wouldn't it be cool with the other conferences? You met the threshold.

So uneven divisions aren't a unique issue for the AAC to places like CUSA and MAC. But, at 11 members? So, no chance for round robin, and you STILL want the CCG? Yeah, that's going to be a no. Suck it up, get a replacement. Or boot a member down to 10 and do round robin. Or do without.

And, I can see this not going over well with Navy after awhile should the conference move forward with eleven. That, sure, you're not going to completely lose games in the west, but, you are going to see less of them in the future because the other side of the conference lost a team, and rotation is going to reel Navy toward the east. This is a school that thought it was getting into a conference with AQ and then didn't. You watched as schools who courted you for years took a walk to other conferences. It thought it may have AFA in the conference. That didn't happen, either. You DID get to sit on the western side of your conference in the heart of your recruiting territory, but now that might not hold up for much longer, either, for rotation?

Deep down, I think there is no cause for concern. They'll expand. It's just going to take time to vet the replacement(s).

(08-28-2019 02:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 01:42 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 12:21 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  If the AAC gets a waiver, it will be temporary as others have said.

I don't see the AAC reeling in BYU, Army, or Air Force as a football only member. So, who do they add as an all sports member for 2023 of the following choices?

Buffalo
Charlotte
Georgia State
Marshall
Northern Illinois
Old Dominion
Southern Miss
UAB
UMass

I also don't see them adding one of the above schools as a football only member and then adding another basketball only like VCU. First off, where would any of those schools park their olympic sports without a serious conference downgrade? Also, it then starts to become even more of a Frankenconference than it already is (which is partially what killed the Big East, so why repeat that mistake).

Marshall has the football record, UAB and Southern Miss have the relationship with most schools that goes back to the mid-90’s but Old Dominion has the better athletic department and location. Buffalo and UMass have the academics but geographically don’t make sense now that UConn is leaving. So my pick would be ODU.

If any of those schools were additive to the conference---they would have been invited. Until there is a choice that is not dilutive to value---there is no reason to expect the AAC wiil expand. The only addition I suspect is not dilutive at this time is VCU--and their addition would do nothing to address the football scheduling issue.

If I was running the AAC, I'd look to see if Air Force and/or Colorado State would be willing to leave the MWC. I've been on the record that BYU and Army are pipe dreams for the AAC (e.g. people might as well suggest that the AAC add Notre Dame because that's just as likely), but it's not totally off-the-wall to suggest that Air Force could get persuaded to be in the same league as Navy for football. If Air Force were to be a football-only member, it could park its other sports in the WCC if necessary. Colorado State is also in a great super fast-growing region with new facilities. The geography also doesn't stretch credulity in the way that the Boise State/San Diego State-type proposals do.

I'd agree that all of the realistic football additions for the AAC that are east of the Mississippi River are really "meh". Basketball is a bit more interesting with VCU (as you've mentioned. I've always thought Florida Gulf Coast University is ripe to move far beyond the A-Sun (a good on-the-court program in fast growing affluent market that has no direct local pro or college sports competition). There are plenty of A-10 schools (e.g. Dayton, SLU) that have a lot of basketball value, too.