(11-02-2019 05:42 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 08:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Recent article of East Carolina where Aresco indicates the ideal situation is to continue to obtain a waiver to stay at 11. If forced to expand however:

“There are only a handful of schools out there that would enhance the brand of this league,” Aresco said. “I think you would all agree that the league’s quality, the league’s brand is really rising and has been for the last several years. I think our “P6” campaign has gotten some traction. We think that we’ve really done a lot of things to achieve that level and the last thing we need to do is water down the brand, take a school that doesn’t fit what we’re trying to do.”

http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/sports/...af70e.html

This is nothing more than getting ahead on the justification for an add: “We were targeting them all along, they check all the boxes”, etc.

I think your wildly off target on this. No need to try so hard to avoid adding a team if the one we want is ready and willing. It appears right now that if UAB is the best answer, the AAC would rather not have to ask the question.

(11-03-2019 11:16 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  UAB gets mowed down by Tennessee in week 10

You know who beat Tennessee earlier this year?

Georgia State

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(11-03-2019 05:32 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 11:16 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  UAB gets mowed down by Tennessee in week 10

You know who beat Tennessee earlier this year?

Georgia State

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(11-03-2019 04:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2019 05:42 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 08:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Recent article of East Carolina where Aresco indicates the ideal situation is to continue to obtain a waiver to stay at 11. If forced to expand however:

“There are only a handful of schools out there that would enhance the brand of this league,” Aresco said. “I think you would all agree that the league’s quality, the league’s brand is really rising and has been for the last several years. I think our “P6” campaign has gotten some traction. We think that we’ve really done a lot of things to achieve that level and the last thing we need to do is water down the brand, take a school that doesn’t fit what we’re trying to do.”

http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/sports/...af70e.html

This is nothing more than getting ahead on the justification for an add: “We were targeting them all along, they check all the boxes”, etc.

I think your wildly off target on this. No need to try so hard to avoid adding a team if the one we want is ready and willing. It appears right now that if UAB is the best answer, the AAC would rather not have to ask the question.

UAB is only the best answer if you find the problems with inviting UAB acceptable. There are literally zero AAC programs facing the political problems staring UAB in the face. Add to that the current reality of all CUSA programs: they haven’t done squat in football. UAB somehow managed to lose by 23 to a transitioning Coastal Carolina in the same season they won a conference championship. They are 6-2 this season on the back of the second weakest schedule in the country, with zero wins against teams with winning records. CUSA as a whole only has one regular season win over a cartel program that finished with a winning record since the 2012 season (Southern Miss over a Kentucky team that finished 7-6 in 2016).

If you are the AAC, you probably end up picking someone from CUSA because of a wide variety of factors...but there is absolutely no reason to do it a single second before you are forced to. That is, unless someone in CUSA actually steps up and does something worthy of making the collective college athletics conscious forget how bad the conference has been over the last eight seasons.

Go look at CUSA schedules for 2020 and see who plays games against opponents that will move the needle if the CUSA team wins. That’s probably as good a list of potential AAC adds as anyone else’s.

If you think a CUSA team knocking off a top five blue blood in their home stadium and winning 11+ games isn’t going to immediately make the CSN shortlist for the AAC...well, just look at the title of this thread.

(11-03-2019 06:27 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 04:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2019 05:42 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 08:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Recent article of East Carolina where Aresco indicates the ideal situation is to continue to obtain a waiver to stay at 11. If forced to expand however:

“There are only a handful of schools out there that would enhance the brand of this league,” Aresco said. “I think you would all agree that the league’s quality, the league’s brand is really rising and has been for the last several years. I think our “P6” campaign has gotten some traction. We think that we’ve really done a lot of things to achieve that level and the last thing we need to do is water down the brand, take a school that doesn’t fit what we’re trying to do.”

http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/sports/...af70e.html

This is nothing more than getting ahead on the justification for an add: “We were targeting them all along, they check all the boxes”, etc.

I think your wildly off target on this. No need to try so hard to avoid adding a team if the one we want is ready and willing. It appears right now that if UAB is the best answer, the AAC would rather not have to ask the question.

UAB is only the best answer if you find the problems with inviting UAB acceptable. There are literally zero AAC programs facing the political problems staring UAB in the face. Add to that the current reality of all CUSA programs: they haven’t done squat in football. UAB somehow managed to lose by 23 to a transitioning Coastal Carolina in the same season they won a conference championship. They are 6-2 this season on the back of the second weakest schedule in the country, with zero wins against teams with winning records. CUSA as a whole only has one regular season win over a cartel program that finished with a winning record since the 2012 season (Southern Miss over a Kentucky team that finished 7-6 in 2016).

If you are the AAC, you probably end up picking someone from CUSA because of a wide variety of factors...but there is absolutely no reason to do it a single second before you are forced to. That is, unless someone in CUSA actually steps up and does something worthy of making the collective college athletics conscious forget how bad the conference has been over the last eight seasons.

Go look at CUSA schedules for 2020 and see who plays games against opponents that will move the needle if the CUSA team wins. That’s probably as good a list of potential AAC adds as anyone else’s.

If you think a CUSA team knocking off a top five blue blood in their home stadium and winning 11+ games isn’t going to immediately make the CSN shortlist for the AAC...well, just look at the title of this thread.

I dont disagree with anything in this. Last night Memphis put on a tremendous showcase of what the AAC wants to be every night. I think thats why there is likley very little desire to gamble on a project with long term potential right now. The existing AAC schools have all invested a great deal into their athletic programs and they are finally starting to see it pay off across the league. I think they would rather move forward with 11 than gamble on the uncertainty of a potential boom-or-bust candidate. If a sure thing fit like Army, BYU, or Air Force is available they will pull the trigger. If not, they will do whatever they have to do to avoid having to gamble on a school with "potential".

(11-03-2019 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 06:27 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 04:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2019 05:42 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 08:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Recent article of East Carolina where Aresco indicates the ideal situation is to continue to obtain a waiver to stay at 11. If forced to expand however:

“There are only a handful of schools out there that would enhance the brand of this league,” Aresco said. “I think you would all agree that the league’s quality, the league’s brand is really rising and has been for the last several years. I think our “P6” campaign has gotten some traction. We think that we’ve really done a lot of things to achieve that level and the last thing we need to do is water down the brand, take a school that doesn’t fit what we’re trying to do.”

http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/sports/...af70e.html

This is nothing more than getting ahead on the justification for an add: “We were targeting them all along, they check all the boxes”, etc.

I think your wildly off target on this. No need to try so hard to avoid adding a team if the one we want is ready and willing. It appears right now that if UAB is the best answer, the AAC would rather not have to ask the question.

UAB is only the best answer if you find the problems with inviting UAB acceptable. There are literally zero AAC programs facing the political problems staring UAB in the face. Add to that the current reality of all CUSA programs: they haven’t done squat in football. UAB somehow managed to lose by 23 to a transitioning Coastal Carolina in the same season they won a conference championship. They are 6-2 this season on the back of the second weakest schedule in the country, with zero wins against teams with winning records. CUSA as a whole only has one regular season win over a cartel program that finished with a winning record since the 2012 season (Southern Miss over a Kentucky team that finished 7-6 in 2016).

If you are the AAC, you probably end up picking someone from CUSA because of a wide variety of factors...but there is absolutely no reason to do it a single second before you are forced to. That is, unless someone in CUSA actually steps up and does something worthy of making the collective college athletics conscious forget how bad the conference has been over the last eight seasons.

Go look at CUSA schedules for 2020 and see who plays games against opponents that will move the needle if the CUSA team wins. That’s probably as good a list of potential AAC adds as anyone else’s.

If you think a CUSA team knocking off a top five blue blood in their home stadium and winning 11+ games isn’t going to immediately make the CSN shortlist for the AAC...well, just look at the title of this thread.

I dont disagree with anything in this. Last night Memphis put on a tremendous showcase of what the AAC wants to be every night. I think thats why there is likley very little desire to gamble on a project with long term potential right now. The existing AAC schools have all invested a great deal into their athletic programs and they are finally starting to see it pay off across the league. I think they would rather move forward with 11 than gamble on the uncertainty of a potential boom-or-bust candidate. If a sure thing fit like Army, BYU, or Air Force is available they will pull the trigger. If not, they will do whatever they have to do to avoid having to gamble on a school with "potential".

Just calm down and invite Boise State

(11-03-2019 08:03 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 06:27 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 04:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2019 05:42 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  This is nothing more than getting ahead on the justification for an add: “We were targeting them all along, they check all the boxes”, etc.

I think your wildly off target on this. No need to try so hard to avoid adding a team if the one we want is ready and willing. It appears right now that if UAB is the best answer, the AAC would rather not have to ask the question.

UAB is only the best answer if you find the problems with inviting UAB acceptable. There are literally zero AAC programs facing the political problems staring UAB in the face. Add to that the current reality of all CUSA programs: they haven’t done squat in football. UAB somehow managed to lose by 23 to a transitioning Coastal Carolina in the same season they won a conference championship. They are 6-2 this season on the back of the second weakest schedule in the country, with zero wins against teams with winning records. CUSA as a whole only has one regular season win over a cartel program that finished with a winning record since the 2012 season (Southern Miss over a Kentucky team that finished 7-6 in 2016).

If you are the AAC, you probably end up picking someone from CUSA because of a wide variety of factors...but there is absolutely no reason to do it a single second before you are forced to. That is, unless someone in CUSA actually steps up and does something worthy of making the collective college athletics conscious forget how bad the conference has been over the last eight seasons.

Go look at CUSA schedules for 2020 and see who plays games against opponents that will move the needle if the CUSA team wins. That’s probably as good a list of potential AAC adds as anyone else’s.

If you think a CUSA team knocking off a top five blue blood in their home stadium and winning 11+ games isn’t going to immediately make the CSN shortlist for the AAC...well, just look at the title of this thread.

I dont disagree with anything in this. Last night Memphis put on a tremendous showcase of what the AAC wants to be every night. I think thats why there is likley very little desire to gamble on a project with long term potential right now. The existing AAC schools have all invested a great deal into their athletic programs and they are finally starting to see it pay off across the league. I think they would rather move forward with 11 than gamble on the uncertainty of a potential boom-or-bust candidate. If a sure thing fit like Army, BYU, or Air Force is available they will pull the trigger. If not, they will do whatever they have to do to avoid having to gamble on a school with "potential".

Just calm down and invite Boise State

lol...its interesting, but the logistics suck and Boise has a pretty good deal where they are. There would likely not be enough difference between the MW special deal money and the AAC money to make that upheaval worth while for Boise.

(11-03-2019 08:03 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 06:27 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 04:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-02-2019 05:42 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  This is nothing more than getting ahead on the justification for an add: “We were targeting them all along, they check all the boxes”, etc.

I think your wildly off target on this. No need to try so hard to avoid adding a team if the one we want is ready and willing. It appears right now that if UAB is the best answer, the AAC would rather not have to ask the question.

UAB is only the best answer if you find the problems with inviting UAB acceptable. There are literally zero AAC programs facing the political problems staring UAB in the face. Add to that the current reality of all CUSA programs: they haven’t done squat in football. UAB somehow managed to lose by 23 to a transitioning Coastal Carolina in the same season they won a conference championship. They are 6-2 this season on the back of the second weakest schedule in the country, with zero wins against teams with winning records. CUSA as a whole only has one regular season win over a cartel program that finished with a winning record since the 2012 season (Southern Miss over a Kentucky team that finished 7-6 in 2016).

If you are the AAC, you probably end up picking someone from CUSA because of a wide variety of factors...but there is absolutely no reason to do it a single second before you are forced to. That is, unless someone in CUSA actually steps up and does something worthy of making the collective college athletics conscious forget how bad the conference has been over the last eight seasons.

Go look at CUSA schedules for 2020 and see who plays games against opponents that will move the needle if the CUSA team wins. That’s probably as good a list of potential AAC adds as anyone else’s.

If you think a CUSA team knocking off a top five blue blood in their home stadium and winning 11+ games isn’t going to immediately make the CSN shortlist for the AAC...well, just look at the title of this thread.

I dont disagree with anything in this. Last night Memphis put on a tremendous showcase of what the AAC wants to be every night. I think thats why there is likley very little desire to gamble on a project with long term potential right now. The existing AAC schools have all invested a great deal into their athletic programs and they are finally starting to see it pay off across the league. I think they would rather move forward with 11 than gamble on the uncertainty of a potential boom-or-bust candidate. If a sure thing fit like Army, BYU, or Air Force is available they will pull the trigger. If not, they will do whatever they have to do to avoid having to gamble on a school with "potential".

Just calm down and invite Boise State

Boise might come with a couple other Western schools, but by themselves forget it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Remember the last Boise to an eastern conference experiment? I think the egg on some faces is still fresh.

(11-03-2019 09:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  Remember the last Boise to an eastern conference experiment? I think the egg on some faces is still fresh.

Air Force, New Mexico, and Colorado State are the only MW schools that have reasonably workable geography as one off additions.

Unless BYU wants to join, it is a permanent rule change or Georgia St. No more west teams. If Aresco believes otherwise, he is kissing up to ESPiN. He saw what happened when BSU wanted to join at the outset.

I would love to see a 5-school football-only addition to the AAC: Army (Patriot), Air Force (Summit or Mt West), BYU (WCC), Boise St (Big West, Big Sky, or Mt West), and San Diego St (same as Boise St). No need to add any non-football members unless someone stuck out and could geographically work like Saint Louis, VCU, or Dayton.

Football Divisions...
West: San Diego St, Boise St, BYU, Air Force, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Navy
East: Tulane, Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple, East Carolina, Central Florida, South Florida, Army

(11-03-2019 10:18 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  Unless BYU wants to join, it is a permanent rule change or Georgia St. No more west teams. If Aresco believes otherwise, he is kissing up to ESPiN. He saw what happened when BSU wanted to join at the outset.

I hope you guys spearhead the rule change, then we can all be happy. Unfortunately, the Big Ten is extremely scared of the ACC maximizing their schedule.

Full membership invites to Air Force, BYU, and Boise St. 14 football teams and a near lock on the G5 NY6 slot. Western schools aren’t on an island and full member status makes them feel invested in the overall success of the conference and secure that they won’t be cast aside.

At 9 full members and football only Hawaii the MWC has no need to expand. Realignment stops there and doesn’t trickle any further.

(11-04-2019 10:16 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Full membership invites to Air Force, BYU, and Boise St. 14 football teams and a near lock on the G5 NY6 slot. Western schools aren’t on an island and full member status makes them feel invested in the overall success of the conference and secure that they won’t be cast aside.

At 9 full members and football only Hawaii the MWC has no need to expand. Realignment stops there and doesn’t trickle any further.

That works for me and for Navy.

West: Boise St, BYU, Air Force, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Navy
East: Tulane, Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple, East Carolina, Central Florida, South Florida

Both Air Force and Navy play Army OOC but play each other in-division.

(11-04-2019 08:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 10:18 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  Unless BYU wants to join, it is a permanent rule change or Georgia St. No more west teams. If Aresco believes otherwise, he is kissing up to ESPiN. He saw what happened when BSU wanted to join at the outset.

I hope you guys spearhead the rule change, then we can all be happy. Unfortunately, the Big Ten is extremely scared of the ACC maximizing their schedule.

ACC stability is not in the Big Ten's interest. Plus, the Big Ten is not in favor of anything that would make it more palatable for ND to join the ACC in full. Perhaps it's spite: "If we can't land them, then neither will you."

However, if the Big Ten gets left out of the CFP yet again, Delany may spearhead the non-round-robin CCG rule change himself.

I bet the AAC could get San Diego St if they wanted.

They were very excited about that potential Big East-Big West Combo and were still trying to make it work after Boise bailed.

Throw in the even wider pay gap between the AAC and the MWC and the cost savings gained by joining the Big West bus league and they could very well take the offer this time

(11-04-2019 11:03 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I bet the AAC could get San Diego St if they wanted.

They were very excited about that potential Big East-Big West Combo and were still trying to make it work after Boise bailed.

Throw in the even wider pay gap between the AAC and the MWC and the cost savings gained by joining the Big West bus league and they could very well take the offer this time

I think both sides saw SDSU wouldnt work as a single ultra-outlier in an largely eastern US conference. The intent when Boise and SDSU were brought in was to build a western wing with 3 or 4 western members who, along with SMU and Houston---would form a reasonable western division. When that didnt pan out, it became clear that SDSU was better off as a full MW member rather than as a "football only" Big East member with their olympic sports in the far less prestigious Big West.

I think this time around any western adds outside of Air Force or BYU should be full all-sports additions. I doubt any MW school would consider a football only membership becasue the olympic options outside of the MW are not great. Thats why I see AF, Colorado St, and maybe New Mexico as the only geographically viable locations at this time (and even they are a bit of a stretch). So, if the AAC has to add a 12th, its probably one of those 3 MW schools---or one of the less "move up ready" eastern options. Frankly, if the rule change doesnt happen---I think the AAC would be better off just dealing with uneven divisions for a few years until an obvious choice for #12 becomes apparent.

(11-04-2019 10:21 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  ACC stability is not in the Big Ten's interest. Plus, the Big Ten is not in favor of anything that would make it more palatable for ND to join the ACC in full.

But the ACC is stable and I'm 99% sure ND would have no interest in joining the Big 10 if that situation ever presented itself.

(11-04-2019 08:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-03-2019 10:18 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  Unless BYU wants to join, it is a permanent rule change or Georgia St. No more west teams. If Aresco believes otherwise, he is kissing up to ESPiN. He saw what happened when BSU wanted to join at the outset.

I hope you guys spearhead the rule change, then we can all be happy. Unfortunately, the Big Ten is extremely scared of the ACC maximizing their schedule.

The AAC wanting the staus quo could tip the balance ... the American voted with the Big Ten the last time this conference championship game determination came up for vote.

SEC and ACC want to only play 8 conference games, and with 14 members, going divisionless makes it much easier to set up schedules where you get home and away with every conference member in a 4 year period.

Big Ten and PAC12 play 9 conference games, as does the Big XII, but for the Big XII it's a true round robin.