(09-22-2019 08:23 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 07:03 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 12:48 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 11:58 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 11:35 PM)thespywhozaggedme Wrote:  Our perennial bottom feeder team, one of the most moribund programs in FBS for the last 15 years just went into the stadium of an SEC team as a 24 point underdog and beat them And looked damn good doing it too.

They beat Arkansas. Whoopity ******* do. They also lost to perennial AAC bottom feeder Tulsa by 18 points at home last week. Tulsa also beat the best team in the MWC today. UCF's loss hurt and Temples was embarrassing but the AAC is still ahead of the MWC as the 6th best conference.

We had two bad seasons and we’re “perennial bottom feeders?”
You’re insane.

No you've had three bad seasons in five years in the American. Yall have had one good season and one mediocre season where you made a bowl but finished 4th in the division. Yall dont look that bad this year but I still think you finish 5th in the West (ahead of UH but behind everyone else).

Time to do a break down, by season. Seems to me that Tulane, SMU, and Navy have had ~ as many bad seasons as Tulsa has had. The only perennial strong teams were Memphis and Houston. Tulsa's been generally around the middle of the pack.

Also, it may be to clarify that we're talking about 6 seasons (2013 through 2018 = 6), not 5 seasons.

The main thing is that this board doesn't exist for trash talking AAC rivals, bur rather talking about topics of common interest.

I really wasnt talking **** about Tulsa just stating a fact about their play in the American. Here are Tulsa's win totals from every year they've been in the American (which to clarify is 5 years not 6, they weren't a member in 2013).

2014 2-10 (2-6)
2015 6-7 (3-5)
2016 10-3 (6-2)
2017 2-10 (1-7)
2018 3-9 (2-6)

They have not been as bad in the American as SJSU, however I still dont think its incorrect to say they've been a bottom feeder in this conference. They've had one good year, one mediocre year, and three bad years. They've had a losing conference record 4 of their 5 years. They've been bad. They look better this year and for the sake of reiterating I'm not trying to **** on them, I'll fully admit they look better than my Cougars. All i was trying to do with my post earlier was clap back at the MWC troll, by pointing out that our conference is deep too. In fact one of our worst teams (historically) is 2-0 against their conference, including and 18 point road when against SJSU, the same team he was trying to pump up.

If the dollars work, I support adding another member in football and/or basketball.

(09-21-2019 11:38 PM)STLWAVE Wrote:  AAC is 7-12 vs other top6 conferences after 4 weeks


MW is 8-10

Pac is 10-9

ACC is 7-7


Sadly this is not the year for the p6 campaign.....

Perhaps---but if quality wins matter----then the AAC is the only G5 with wins over ranked P5's this year. #21 Maryland and #25 TCU both fell to AAC teams.

Unless it's Army or Air Force, it will not be a football only Addition.

VCU will not be added unless a football only addition is made.

BYU - Not leaving Independent to join the AAC (Don't Give a $hit about other conference).

ARMY - Will not join any Conference.

Air Force - Still questionable?

The AAC is not willing to add any of the Universities name throughout the 100's of threads here with potential, at least not yet.

BS-u is a non-starter!!!!!

In conclusion: This is the reason Michael Aresco keeps saying that "We are happy at 11"

(09-22-2019 09:23 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  Unless it's Army or Air Force, it will not be a football only Addition.

VCU will not be added unless a football only addition is made.

BYU - Not leaving Independent to join the AAC (Don't Give a $hit about other conference).

ARMY - Will not join any Conference.

Air Force - Still questionable?

The AAC is not willing to add any of the Universities name throughout the 100's of threads here with potential, at least not yet.

BS-u is a non-starter!!!!!

In conclusion: This is the reason Michael Aresco keeps saying that "We are happy at 11"

Why is it necessary adding a football school before adding a basketball school? They are different sports. The degree of value added should be the determinate factor, IMO.

(09-22-2019 09:29 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 09:23 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  Unless it's Army or Air Force, it will not be a football only Addition.

VCU will not be added unless a football only addition is made.

BYU - Not leaving Independent to join the AAC (Don't Give a $hit about other conference).

ARMY - Will not join any Conference.

Air Force - Still questionable?

The AAC is not willing to add any of the Universities name throughout the 100's of threads here with potential, at least not yet.

BS-u is a non-starter!!!!!

In conclusion: This is the reason Michael Aresco keeps saying that "We are happy at 11"

Why is it necessary adding a football school before adding a basketball school? They are different sports. The degree of value added should be the determinate factor, IMO.

I personally would agree with you, but I don't believe that the Conference leadership feels the same way.

Aresco has always said that the hybrid model of the "BIG EAST" is not what is the vision for this conference. That is more than likely the decision that the member Universities agreed to.

If you think about it, the BIG EAST was pretty competitive in every single spot, it was that hybrid model that cause Miami (FL) to leave because other Football playing members from the south would not be added and leave the BB schools at a disadvantage.

Imagine if Memphis Houston UCF, and USF were added as full embers ad Miami (FL) never left.

Miami (FL), VT, BC, Pitt, WV, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple (FB/UConn (BB), + Memphis, Houston, UCF, USF - Don't Think that the BIG EAST would have lost "Power" status even if the C-7 would have left.

I still like "The AMERICAN" better.

(09-22-2019 01:12 AM)bucblizzard Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 01:03 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 12:45 AM)bucblizzard Wrote:  yeah I said 0-2 in favor of AAC

That is such a large sample size, we should certainly crown the AAC king of the G5’s based on the vast amount of games between the 2 conferences.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I never stated that. What I quoted was talking about one game and my reference was about two games making the argument invalid.
I do know, and you do too, is that the AAC is the top conference outside of the A5. Why else would you G4ers be in here shouting that you are important too?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Boise is tje only MWC in the top 25, but we really won't know who the best MWC team is until conference play gets rolling for a few weeks.

The fact that Wyoming lost to Tulsa raises questions, but so does UCF's loss to Pitt, for that matter.

(09-22-2019 09:23 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  Unless it's Army or Air Force, it will not be a football only Addition.

VCU will not be added unless a football only addition is made.

BYU - Not leaving Independent to join the AAC (Don't Give a $hit about other conference).

ARMY - Will not join any Conference.

Air Force - Still questionable?

The AAC is not willing to add any of the Universities name throughout the 100's of threads here with potential, at least not yet.

BS-u is a non-starter!!!!!

In conclusion: This is the reason Michael Aresco keeps saying that "We are happy at 11"

Quoting Aresco is problematic, because hardly a word comes out of his mouth that isn't some kind of PR "spin." Not criticizing him - it's just his job to spin everything.

He says the AAC is "happy" at 11, which is true enough, but not extremely happy. We would be happier by doing another Navy/Wichita type addition.

Also, how happy is ESPN with "11?" My guess is that ESPN hates the fact that it isn't going to be getting its money's worth when it loses the UConn market (mainly for basketball).

Who drives the bus, ESPN or Aresco? I believe that ESPN drives the bus, because ESPN has paid for the bus, the gasoline, the driver, the mechanics, etc.

Sure, the AAC members will have to ratify any additions, but if ESPN asks them to add 1 or 2 members to get back to 12, it's 90% likely that AAC will go along with that suggestion.

It's simple math. ESPN loses money with only 11 schools, but can gain the money lost by UConn's departure by getting AACFB and AACBB back up to 12. There is no hurry right now, but by next summer, ESPN is probably going to start pushing to fill the UConn gap ASAP.

VCU is an easy decision, and VCU would clearly benefit from getting a couple million extra per year from the AAC. I could definitely see adding VCU taking place before a FB program is added, because it is a no-brainer. VCU also adds a sizable viewership market and fills a gap in the footprint.

FB is harder if BYU and Army decline the opportunity. But it's not that hard if AFA or Colorado State or SDSU would be interested. They all have much better FB programs than UConn had.

For that matter, there are quite a few other G5 schools with better FB programs than UConn. Most of the MWC schools have better FB teams than UConn has had, and a couple of them have large enough markets. Buffalo has been good and has a good market, would bring in a bunch of NY State viewers.

We know that a bunch of schools have been approaching Aresco, and such contacts will be ongoing. ESPN is probably very much involved, doing market research, having discussions. It would be surprising if they can't find a FB program that would add more than UConn FB added by 2020 or 2021. If I had to pick a member, it would probably be Air Force, which is not extremely far from Tulsa and Wichita and would have a terrific rival in Navy. In that case, Tulane would probably shift to the AAC East.

The "hybrid" model of the Big East that's been referred to is having some "all sports" schools and having an equally large number of non-FB schools. The problem with that model is that the interests of the 8 all sports schools were too different from the interests and remuneration of the non-FB BE schools.

The AAC isn't using the old Big East "hybrid" model. 10 AAC members are "all sports." Only 1 is FB only and 1 is non-FB (Navy & Wichita). The addition of Navy for FB and Wichita for BB was outstanding for the conference (much better than some of the all sports AAC members), and probably had a lot to do with the huge increase from ESPN.

If they could add another Navy and Wichita, the AAC might be well advised to jump at the opportunity. The next "Navy" could be the Air Force Academy, which would fit well into the AAC West with Tulsa, Houston, SMU, Navy, and Memphis. Travel distances wouldn't be much greater than they are in the MWC (e.g., Hawaii, San Diego), and they would get paid a heck of a lot more in compensation. The next "Wichita" could be VCU.

Interestingly, the plurality (50%) would prefer adding 1 FB only and 1 non-FB (e.g., VCU) at this point in the polling.

Only 12.5% of voters think there is a single "12th member" that should be added for all sports.

Still early though...

(09-22-2019 09:29 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 09:23 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  Unless it's Army or Air Force, it will not be a football only Addition.

VCU will not be added unless a football only addition is made.

BYU - Not leaving Independent to join the AAC (Don't Give a $hit about other conference).

ARMY - Will not join any Conference.

Air Force - Still questionable?

The AAC is not willing to add any of the Universities name throughout the 100's of threads here with potential, at least not yet.

BS-u is a non-starter!!!!!

In conclusion: This is the reason Michael Aresco keeps saying that "We are happy at 11"

Why is it necessary adding a football school before adding a basketball school? They are different sports. The degree of value added should be the determinate factor, IMO.

My thoughts are if you added a school just for Olympic sports now, then in the future you could only add FB only, limiting who could join. If you added a full member after, you would have an uneven number again and I don't think we would want to go down the road adding a third Olympic sports only to even it out again.
See Big East

UPDATE:

63% of respondents, thus far, think the AAC should have 12 member schools in each sport, not 11.

When Aresco says that the AAC is "happy at 11," it's just gamesmanship.

The truth is that the AAC is sort of "content for now," not really happy, and certainly not over-joyed.

Over-joyed would be something like Army or BYU and VCU.

(09-22-2019 09:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 11:38 PM)STLWAVE Wrote:  AAC is 7-12 vs other top6 conferences after 4 weeks


MW is 8-10

Pac is 10-9

ACC is 7-7


Sadly this is not the year for the p6 campaign.....

Perhaps---but if quality wins matter----then the AAC is the only G5 with wins over ranked P5's this year. #21 Maryland and #25 TCU both fell to AAC teams.

That doesn’t count, give me a break. It only counts if they are ranked at the end of the season.

(09-22-2019 11:27 PM)thespywhozaggedme Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 09:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 11:38 PM)STLWAVE Wrote:  AAC is 7-12 vs other top6 conferences after 4 weeks


MW is 8-10

Pac is 10-9

ACC is 7-7


Sadly this is not the year for the p6 campaign.....

Perhaps---but if quality wins matter----then the AAC is the only G5 with wins over ranked P5's this year. #21 Maryland and #25 TCU both fell to AAC teams.

That doesn’t count, give me a break. It only counts if they are ranked at the end of the season.

I think it does count - at least a little - even though we're only talking about two wins, because end of season rankings don't tell us how good the teams were when they played - only how good they are at the end.

So maybe it counts, but only counts "half." Still half of 2 is one and one is more than the other conference had.

Somebody will say that it only counts "one quarter" or "one eighth," but still, that's higher than 0.

My vote (add 1) is contingent upon that (ex. BYU) not changing to ex. (ex. some BS CUSA/MWC program).

Update: The water has muddied a bit. Now, 59% are in favor of adding 1 or 2 teams.

The rest favor staying at 11, which might indicate that many folks aren't optimistic about adding any quality members.

(09-22-2019 11:43 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 11:27 PM)thespywhozaggedme Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 09:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 11:38 PM)STLWAVE Wrote:  AAC is 7-12 vs other top6 conferences after 4 weeks


MW is 8-10

Pac is 10-9

ACC is 7-7


Sadly this is not the year for the p6 campaign.....

Perhaps---but if quality wins matter----then the AAC is the only G5 with wins over ranked P5's this year. #21 Maryland and #25 TCU both fell to AAC teams.

That doesn’t count, give me a break. It only counts if they are ranked at the end of the season.

I think it does count - at least a little - even though we're only talking about two wins, because end of season rankings don't tell us how good the teams were when they played - only how good they are at the end.

So maybe it counts, but only counts "half." Still half of 2 is one and one is more than the other conference had.

Somebody will say that it only counts "one quarter" or "one eighth," but still, that's higher than 0.

That's exactly my point. If you beat a team that is 3-0 and ranked #22 by feasting on cupcakes ooc, but then finished 4-8, did you beat a ranked team? Of course not.