(10-12-2019 06:19 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 06:16 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 03:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 03:26 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  My guess is that you get a 2 year waiver. You are at 11 due to circumstances beyond your control. But the Big boys all had to expand or play a round robin. They aren't giving the AAC any permanent advantage. So eventually you will have to contract by 1 and go to a round robin or add 1 to get to 12. Buffalo would be a good geographic and athletic match. BYU is the home run pick, but I doubt you can convince them. Boise would be a kill shot to the Mountain West, but I doubt it makes financial sense for Boise.

But was it beyond their control? UCONN suggested keeping its football there. And you can't say the AAC doesn't do partial memberships...

That is a legit point. In requesting a waiver, Aresco is basically asking the NCAA to overlook (and give their full assent to) the way the AAC has thus far rejected UConn for next season.

The NCAA is being put in a tough position on this. If they grant a waiver to the AAC, they are essentially rubber-stamping and giving full assent to the ejection of UConn. Question: Do they really want to give the green light to all conferences to eject a school for opting out for certain sports? There could be legal complications if UConn should threaten a lawsuit.

If they don't grant the waiver, the AAC itself - and potentially ESPN - could seek legal redress, insofar as waivers have been granted to conferences in the past. Question: Is the AAC's case unique, because the only reason the conference would drop to 11 in FB is that the AAC forced the drop by booting out UConn FB?

-----------

The most Solomonic decision that the NCAA could make would be to allow UConn FB to remain for at least another season or two, giving them time to make the transition to indy status, etc. Ideally, the AAC would add a 12th FB team within the next 2-3 years.

-----------

UConn probably could have helped their situation by making a more gradual transition to the BE, which would have given the AAC more time to find a 12th school for each sport.

So if the AAC does get a hard time for dismissing UConn FB, a counter-argument could be that the difficult situation the parties are dealing with was caused by UConn, not by the AAC.

I'd say both parties made mistakes. UConn was wrong to pull out so quickly, putting the AAC in a bind. The AAC was wrong to boot UConn FB without giving them time to make a transition. Also, the AAC shot itself in the foot by booting UConn so quickly, without having a solid candidate to take UConn's place.

Wtf are you talking about?

This is just a speculative point I'm raising for discussion purposes.

I'm asking interested readers, especially if they have any expertise in contractual matters, whether they think that UConn would have a case if they protest the rejection of their FB program.

It's entirely possible that no one would be having lawyers in on the discussions, but it is an interesting question for people interested in contracts in college sports.

I briefly presented, above, a brief but balanced argument from the AAC side, the UConn side, and the NCAA side.

My guess is that NCAA will strive to be a "Solomon" in this matter in some way, or at least that they could. 100% victory for the AAC would be to get an indefinite waiver. 100% victory for UConn would be to remain in AAC FB until they can find another conference to play in, or at least for the 2020 season. 100% victory for the NCAA would be to help the AAC without setting a precedent that any conference can boot any program the way that UConn FB is on its way to being booted.

One last question: Does anyone know whether - as far as contractual matters go - the contracts between AAC and each AAC member include any provisos or stipulations that would pertain to this issue??

Clearly, there are provisos for withdrawal (early or more gradually) from the conferences. But maybe there aren't any provisos for a school withdrawing only their BB & olympic sports. However, if there are such points in the contract, then UConn might have no case at all or basis for petitioning the NCAA.

Hopefully, it's in the contract that the AAC could do what it did in booting UCcnn FB. That would be enough to settle everything.

(10-12-2019 07:13 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 06:19 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 06:16 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 03:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 03:26 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  My guess is that you get a 2 year waiver. You are at 11 due to circumstances beyond your control. But the Big boys all had to expand or play a round robin. They aren't giving the AAC any permanent advantage. So eventually you will have to contract by 1 and go to a round robin or add 1 to get to 12. Buffalo would be a good geographic and athletic match. BYU is the home run pick, but I doubt you can convince them. Boise would be a kill shot to the Mountain West, but I doubt it makes financial sense for Boise.

But was it beyond their control? UCONN suggested keeping its football there. And you can't say the AAC doesn't do partial memberships...

That is a legit point. In requesting a waiver, Aresco is basically asking the NCAA to overlook (and give their full assent to) the way the AAC has thus far rejected UConn for next season.

The NCAA is being put in a tough position on this. If they grant a waiver to the AAC, they are essentially rubber-stamping and giving full assent to the ejection of UConn. Question: Do they really want to give the green light to all conferences to eject a school for opting out for certain sports? There could be legal complications if UConn should threaten a lawsuit.

If they don't grant the waiver, the AAC itself - and potentially ESPN - could seek legal redress, insofar as waivers have been granted to conferences in the past. Question: Is the AAC's case unique, because the only reason the conference would drop to 11 in FB is that the AAC forced the drop by booting out UConn FB?

-----------

The most Solomonic decision that the NCAA could make would be to allow UConn FB to remain for at least another season or two, giving them time to make the transition to indy status, etc. Ideally, the AAC would add a 12th FB team within the next 2-3 years.

-----------

UConn probably could have helped their situation by making a more gradual transition to the BE, which would have given the AAC more time to find a 12th school for each sport.

So if the AAC does get a hard time for dismissing UConn FB, a counter-argument could be that the difficult situation the parties are dealing with was caused by UConn, not by the AAC.

I'd say both parties made mistakes. UConn was wrong to pull out so quickly, putting the AAC in a bind. The AAC was wrong to boot UConn FB without giving them time to make a transition. Also, the AAC shot itself in the foot by booting UConn so quickly, without having a solid candidate to take UConn's place.

Wtf are you talking about?

This is just a speculative point I'm raising for discussion purposes.

I'm asking interested readers, especially if they have any expertise in contractual matters, whether they think that UConn would have a case if they protest the rejection of their FB program.

It's entirely possible that no one would be having lawyers in on the discussions, but it is an interesting question for people interested in contracts in college sports.

I briefly presented, above, a brief but balanced argument from the AAC side, the UConn side, and the NCAA side.

My guess is that NCAA will strive to be a "Solomon" in this matter in some way, or at least that they could. 100% victory for the AAC would be to get an indefinite waiver. 100% victory for UConn would be to remain in AAC FB until they can find another conference to play in, or at least for the 2020 season. 100% victory for the NCAA would be to help the AAC without setting a precedent that any conference can boot any program the way that UConn FB is on its way to being booted.

One last question: Does anyone know whether - as far as contractual matters go - the contracts between AAC and each AAC member include any provisos or stipulations that would pertain to this issue??

Clearly, there are provisos for withdrawal (early or more gradually) from the conferences. But maybe there aren't any provisos for a school withdrawing only their BB & olympic sports. However, if there are such points in the contract, then UConn might have no case at all or basis for petitioning the NCAA.

Hopefully, it's in the contract that the AAC could do what it did in booting UCcnn FB. That would be enough to settle everything.

Obviously it’s in the contract they can’t pick and choose which sports are in our conference

Do you need a conference championship game? This is really what this is all about.

(10-12-2019 07:31 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Do you need a conference championship game? This is really what this is all about.

Yes. All the cool conferences have one. We want to be cool too.

(10-12-2019 07:31 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Do you need a conference championship game? This is really what this is all about.

Yup.

I think this is Aresco garnering support for the waiver. Hey G4, help us get this waiver and we won't raid one of your conferences. Not bad leverage to have, and why not use it.

There appears to be no slam dunk willing candidate. Or maybe a few years could help the candidate reschedule to make the transition easier. My guess is no slam dunk candidate.

(10-12-2019 03:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 03:26 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  My guess is that you get a 2 year waiver. You are at 11 due to circumstances beyond your control. But the Big boys all had to expand or play a round robin. They aren't giving the AAC any permanent advantage. So eventually you will have to contract by 1 and go to a round robin or add 1 to get to 12. Buffalo would be a good geographic and athletic match. BYU is the home run pick, but I doubt you can convince them. Boise would be a kill shot to the Mountain West, but I doubt it makes financial sense for Boise.

But was it beyond their control? UCONN suggested keeping its football there. And you can't say the AAC doesn't do partial memberships...

Yes, the situation was created by UConn, a full member, informing the AAC that they were withdrawing from the AAC (per their letter to the conference). That said, I see no reason why fault needs to be established. The situation is the situation.

(10-12-2019 07:13 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 06:19 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 06:16 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 03:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 03:26 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  My guess is that you get a 2 year waiver. You are at 11 due to circumstances beyond your control. But the Big boys all had to expand or play a round robin. They aren't giving the AAC any permanent advantage. So eventually you will have to contract by 1 and go to a round robin or add 1 to get to 12. Buffalo would be a good geographic and athletic match. BYU is the home run pick, but I doubt you can convince them. Boise would be a kill shot to the Mountain West, but I doubt it makes financial sense for Boise.

But was it beyond their control? UCONN suggested keeping its football there. And you can't say the AAC doesn't do partial memberships...

That is a legit point. In requesting a waiver, Aresco is basically asking the NCAA to overlook (and give their full assent to) the way the AAC has thus far rejected UConn for next season.

The NCAA is being put in a tough position on this. If they grant a waiver to the AAC, they are essentially rubber-stamping and giving full assent to the ejection of UConn. Question: Do they really want to give the green light to all conferences to eject a school for opting out for certain sports? There could be legal complications if UConn should threaten a lawsuit.

If they don't grant the waiver, the AAC itself - and potentially ESPN - could seek legal redress, insofar as waivers have been granted to conferences in the past. Question: Is the AAC's case unique, because the only reason the conference would drop to 11 in FB is that the AAC forced the drop by booting out UConn FB?

-----------

The most Solomonic decision that the NCAA could make would be to allow UConn FB to remain for at least another season or two, giving them time to make the transition to indy status, etc. Ideally, the AAC would add a 12th FB team within the next 2-3 years.

-----------

UConn probably could have helped their situation by making a more gradual transition to the BE, which would have given the AAC more time to find a 12th school for each sport.

So if the AAC does get a hard time for dismissing UConn FB, a counter-argument could be that the difficult situation the parties are dealing with was caused by UConn, not by the AAC.

I'd say both parties made mistakes. UConn was wrong to pull out so quickly, putting the AAC in a bind. The AAC was wrong to boot UConn FB without giving them time to make a transition. Also, the AAC shot itself in the foot by booting UConn so quickly, without having a solid candidate to take UConn's place.

Wtf are you talking about?

This is just a speculative point I'm raising for discussion purposes.

I'm asking interested readers, especially if they have any expertise in contractual matters, whether they think that UConn would have a case if they protest the rejection of their FB program.

It's entirely possible that no one would be having lawyers in on the discussions, but it is an interesting question for people interested in contracts in college sports.

I briefly presented, above, a brief but balanced argument from the AAC side, the UConn side, and the NCAA side.

My guess is that NCAA will strive to be a "Solomon" in this matter in some way, or at least that they could. 100% victory for the AAC would be to get an indefinite waiver. 100% victory for UConn would be to remain in AAC FB until they can find another conference to play in, or at least for the 2020 season. 100% victory for the NCAA would be to help the AAC without setting a precedent that any conference can boot any program the way that UConn FB is on its way to being booted.

One last question: Does anyone know whether - as far as contractual matters go - the contracts between AAC and each AAC member include any provisos or stipulations that would pertain to this issue??

Clearly, there are provisos for withdrawal (early or more gradually) from the conferences. But maybe there aren't any provisos for a school withdrawing only their BB & olympic sports. However, if there are such points in the contract, then UConn might have no case at all or basis for petitioning the NCAA.

Hopefully, it's in the contract that the AAC could do what it did in booting UCcnn FB. That would be enough to settle everything.

Steve / Granger and all of your other alts,

Stick to polluting the Temple board with your idiocy.

Nobody that we would want wants to join.

(10-12-2019 06:16 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 03:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 03:26 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  My guess is that you get a 2 year waiver. You are at 11 due to circumstances beyond your control. But the Big boys all had to expand or play a round robin. They aren't giving the AAC any permanent advantage. So eventually you will have to contract by 1 and go to a round robin or add 1 to get to 12. Buffalo would be a good geographic and athletic match. BYU is the home run pick, but I doubt you can convince them. Boise would be a kill shot to the Mountain West, but I doubt it makes financial sense for Boise.

But was it beyond their control? UCONN suggested keeping its football there. And you can't say the AAC doesn't do partial memberships...

That is a legit point. In requesting a waiver, Aresco is basically asking the NCAA to overlook (and give their full assent to) the way the AAC has thus far rejected UConn for next season.

The NCAA is being put in a tough position on this. If they grant a waiver to the AAC, they are essentially rubber-stamping and giving full assent to the ejection of UConn. Question: Do they really want to give the green light to all conferences to eject a school for opting out for certain sports? There could be legal complications if UConn should threaten a lawsuit.

If they don't grant the waiver, the AAC itself - and potentially ESPN - could seek legal redress, insofar as waivers have been granted to conferences in the past. Question: Is the AAC's case unique, because the only reason the conference would drop to 11 in FB is that the AAC forced the drop by booting out UConn FB?

-----------

The most Solomonic decision that the NCAA could make would be to allow UConn FB to remain for at least another season or two, giving them time to make the transition to indy status, etc. Ideally, the AAC would add a 12th FB team within the next 2-3 years.

-----------

UConn probably could have helped their situation by making a more gradual transition to the BE, which would have given the AAC more time to find a 12th school for each sport.

So if the AAC does get a hard time for dismissing UConn FB, a counter-argument could be that the difficult situation the parties are dealing with was caused by UConn, not by the AAC.

I'd say both parties made mistakes. UConn was wrong to pull out so quickly, putting the AAC in a bind. The AAC was wrong to boot UConn FB without giving them time to make a transition. Also, the AAC shot itself in the foot by booting UConn so quickly, without having a solid candidate to take UConn's place.

lol...nope. Aresco is flat out asking for something nobody else can do (no conference with more than 9 members can hold a divisionless CCG with an 8 game conference schedule). Thats why the request for a divisionless CCG will be denied. The AAC WILL be granted a waiver which minimizes the scheduling issues surrounding uneven divisions. The waiver granted will last as long as the AAC needs it and is not at all controversial nor is it without precedent. Frankly, nobody else cares about it.

There is no concern about UConn football at the NCAA level. UConn was in complete control of the situation and was the one that upset the status quo....and franKly, as I said before—I dont see why "fault" matters.

(10-12-2019 03:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 03:26 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  My guess is that you get a 2 year waiver. You are at 11 due to circumstances beyond your control. But the Big boys all had to expand or play a round robin. They aren't giving the AAC any permanent advantage. So eventually you will have to contract by 1 and go to a round robin or add 1 to get to 12. Buffalo would be a good geographic and athletic match. BYU is the home run pick, but I doubt you can convince them. Boise would be a kill shot to the Mountain West, but I doubt it makes financial sense for Boise.

But was it beyond their control? UCONN suggested keeping its football there. And you can't say the AAC doesn't do partial memberships...

I most certainly can. In football. Navy doesn't play Olympic sports in a conference that plays D-1a football. And that would be the only comparable.

If a 1 loss AAC team Jumps an undefeated Boise for the NY6 bowl it would really set things in motion. At that point The calculus changes a statement is made about the aac and I think Boise, BYU and all the others suddenly want in.

Part of that depends on the AAC having 4-5 teams in the top 25. SMU, Cinci and Tulane leading the way and UCF, Memphis and temple climbing back in.

(10-12-2019 06:21 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  I halfway hope that they don’t approve it. I think staying at 11 is short sighted. We need to work down the list... BYU, Army, Boise, Air Force. We may find more takers than spots.

Still think going to 14 is a smart move.

Only if ESPN is willing to kick in an extra 21 mil per year. 0 reason to go to 14 if schools lose money on it.

(10-12-2019 09:19 PM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  If a 1 loss AAC team Jumps an undefeated Boise for the NY6 bowl it would really set things in motion. At that point The calculus changes a statement is made about the aac and I think Boise, BYU and all the others suddenly want in.

Part of that depends on the AAC having 4-5 teams in the top 25. SMU, Cinci and Tulane leading the way and UCF, Memphis and temple climbing back in.

In addition to 6-0 SMU, there are now four 5-1 AAC teams, 4-2 UCF, and 4-1 Navy (assuming they hold their lead over Tulsa).

Thus, 6 AAC teams have W-L % records of .667 or better. The AAC has a good chance of ending up with 4 teams in the top 25 or 30.

This, all by itself may change the calculus to some extent.

On the other hand, if no AAC team goes undefeated, Boise will almost certainly get the NY6 bowl nod, if they end up 12-0. They are clearly the highest ranked G5 team at this point.

(10-12-2019 09:59 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 09:19 PM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  If a 1 loss AAC team Jumps an undefeated Boise for the NY6 bowl it would really set things in motion. At that point The calculus changes a statement is made about the aac and I think Boise, BYU and all the others suddenly want in.

Part of that depends on the AAC having 4-5 teams in the top 25. SMU, Cinci and Tulane leading the way and UCF, Memphis and temple climbing back in.

In addition to 6-0 SMU, there are now four 5-1 AAC teams, 4-2 UCF, and 4-1 Navy (assuming they hold their lead over Tulsa).

Thus, 6 AAC teams have W-L % records of .667 or better. The AAC has a good chance of ending up with 4 teams in the top 25 or 30.

This, all by itself may change the calculus to some extent.

On the other hand, if no AAC team goes undefeated, Boise will almost certainly get the NY6 bowl nod, if they end up 12-0. They are clearly the highest ranked G5 team at this point.

But is that last point a certainty ? Does a 1 loss SMU or Memphis (both with a P5 win) and 4-5 top 25 wins not jump a Boise team who beat far fewer (if any) too 25 teams ? This is the whole P5 vs G5 argument, but now we’re trying to apply it to P6 vs G4. If it happens (big if) it would be a game changer

Or let’s say Tulane’s only loss was a competitive loss @ Auburn, who makes the playoff (a crazy big if). Tulane then wins the AAC championship after beating let’s say 4 teams that end up in the top 25. . . Is that enough ? These are hypotheticals, but also roll wave

(10-12-2019 09:52 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 06:21 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  I halfway hope that they don’t approve it. I think staying at 11 is short sighted. We need to work down the list... BYU, Army, Boise, Air Force. We may find more takers than spots.

Still think going to 14 is a smart move.

Only if ESPN is willing to kick in an extra 21 mil per year. 0 reason to go to 14 if schools lose money on it.

Totally agree that going to 14 is the best long-term plan to achieve power "P" status.

The idea of staying at 11 schools sounds more like a bargaining tactic than an optimal plan.

I take everything Aresco says with a grain of salt, because is has been somewhat non-transparent. For example, he's known to have been contacted by lots of G5 schools, perhaps most of them, and yet he hasn't said a single word about any of those conversations.

Also, the previous moves with Navy and Wichita came completely out of the blue - - nothing was announced until the expansions were announced. Aresco plays the cards very close to the vest. So it makes sense for him to tell everyone there is no intention to expand, while at the same time, Aresco has said that the door is obviously open for the few schools that the AAC would actually considering adding (BYU and 1 or 2 others).

Why the AAC wouldn't add a school like VCU, in the footprint, top tier basketball program seems to defy explanation, unless VCU has declined interest or the AAC schools don't want to add any partial members at this point.

ESPN has got to want to expand to at least 12 members, to replace the market lost by UConn's departure.

But perhaps ESPN would resist expansion to 14, since it would have to renegotiate contracts, unless two great candidates actively seek membership.

(10-12-2019 09:52 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 06:21 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  I halfway hope that they don’t approve it. I think staying at 11 is short sighted. We need to work down the list... BYU, Army, Boise, Air Force. We may find more takers than spots.

Still think going to 14 is a smart move.

Only if ESPN is willing to kick in an extra 21 mil per year. 0 reason to go to 14 if schools lose money on it.

I think they would. An expanded AAC with the best pieces of the MWC and maybe BYU, would make it so they don’t need to bid on the MWC at all.

(10-12-2019 10:51 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 09:52 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 06:21 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  I halfway hope that they don’t approve it. I think staying at 11 is short sighted. We need to work down the list... BYU, Army, Boise, Air Force. We may find more takers than spots.

Still think going to 14 is a smart move.

Only if ESPN is willing to kick in an extra 21 mil per year. 0 reason to go to 14 if schools lose money on it.

I think they would. An expanded AAC with the best pieces of the MWC and maybe BYU, would make it so they don’t need to bid on the MWC at all.

The MWC could still survive after losing a couple of teams, although their bargaining power might diminish somewhat. They could add independent New Mexico State, for example.

From ESPN's standpoint, the amount of $$ they can extract from a school's market is a critical factor.

AAC metro areas average somewhere close to 3 million in population whereas MWC metro areas average closer to 1 million. Only a few MWC metro areas have AAC sized markets, most notably SDSU. Air Force probably taps part of the Denver market - as does Colo St.- and might have a sizable national audience and would create synergies with Navy in FB.

BYU has a good market size, being near Salt Lake City.

Boise has a small market in Idaho, but has a somewhat broad regional following in FB and might help turn the AAC into a FB P5.

If one were ESPN, I think one could come up with a profitable 14 team expansion plan based on some of these schools, along with VCU for BB, maybe another BB school. Even more than it is now, it would be considered a uniquely "American" conference, with such a gigantic footprint.

(10-12-2019 06:24 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 03:26 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  My guess is that you get a 2 year waiver. You are at 11 due to circumstances beyond your control. But the Big boys all had to expand or play a round robin. They aren't giving the AAC any permanent advantage. So eventually you will have to contract by 1 and go to a round robin or add 1 to get to 12. Buffalo would be a good geographic and athletic match. BYU is the home run pick, but I doubt you can convince them. Boise would be a kill shot to the Mountain West, but I doubt it makes financial sense for Boise.

A 2 year waiver would seem to make sense, since it would give the conference enough time to expand up to 12 teams again.

Very unlikely the AAC drops any schools. That would involve a contract violation and would piss too many people off.

Buffalo might make sense to ESPN, because of the huge NY State market, which would maintain a decent presence in the NE U.S.

However, the AAC might be better off to add a FB only team from in or near the AAC footprint and VCU for BB & Olympic sports. A presence in Colorado (AFA or Colo State) would add a lucrative market and expand interest in the AAC in the rocky mountain states.

Buffalo is closer to Cleveland than to NYC. Not sure they benefit from NYC huge market argument.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Old Dominion should be the choice once Bobby Wilder and staff are removed.
*Mid Atlantic location
*Large and active fan base
*Largest and most underserved media market of all potential replacements
*Legendary recruiting region

(10-13-2019 09:21 AM)wave97 Wrote:  Old Dominion should be the choice once Bobby Wilder and staff are removed.
*Mid Atlantic location
*Large and active fan base
*Largest and most underserved media market of all potential replacements
*Legendary recruiting region

Hmmm?
Really?
Wut?!?
La que?!?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk