(10-22-2019 11:49 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:25 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 10:38 AM)YNot Wrote:  But, like it or not, UAB is not and has never really been nationally relevant. You can't unpack that reality.

Well this is certainly not true. Just check Google. And lets be clear, you didn't say what UAB has never been or will never be relevant in.

......

Football. Is not and hasn't been. Did I miss a season where they were a real contender for a BCS or NY6 bowl game?

I did not say will never be...that was my point. UAB would need to first become more relevant in football for the AAC to give them consideration.

The bold indicates that you are incorrect because we'll be considered regardless of that. But unless it's Boise or Northern Illinois then no other team would fit that criteria. BYU has the name cache' (but no recent post season success on the level you indicated) which is attractive to the AAC.

Who does ESPN want?

ESPN wants ratings. Invite UAB (Birmingham viewers) with the understanding that a couple of their home games would be on Thursday or Friday for ratings. Also an away game on Thursday or Friday.

(10-22-2019 12:44 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  Who does ESPN want?

ESPN wants ratings. Invite UAB (Birmingham viewers) with the understanding that a couple of their home games would be on Thursday or Friday for ratings. Also an away game on Thursday or Friday.

I don't see any evidence that ESPN wants UAB or that UAB would attract viewers to ESPN. Just because the Birmingham market is a fantastic college football market relative to its size doesn't mean great TV ratings for UAB. Has UAB even been on television this year?

Fans in Birmingham watch SEC football.

(10-22-2019 01:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:44 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  Who does ESPN want?

ESPN wants ratings. Invite UAB (Birmingham viewers) with the understanding that a couple of their home games would be on Thursday or Friday for ratings. Also an away game on Thursday or Friday.

I don't see any evidence that ESPN wants UAB or that UAB would attract viewers to ESPN. Just because the Birmingham market is a fantastic college football market relative to its size doesn't mean great TV ratings for UAB. Has UAB even been on television this year?

Fans in Birmingham watch SEC football.

This.

(10-22-2019 01:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:44 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  Who does ESPN want?

ESPN wants ratings. Invite UAB (Birmingham viewers) with the understanding that a couple of their home games would be on Thursday or Friday for ratings. Also an away game on Thursday or Friday.

I don't see any evidence that ESPN wants UAB or that UAB would attract viewers to ESPN. Just because the Birmingham market is a fantastic college football market relative to its size doesn't mean great TV ratings for UAB. Has UAB even been on television this year?

Fans in Birmingham watch SEC football.

Yet ESPN just paid a premium on an entire conference's rights where none of its members are the primary viewership option within their own state (with many not even the top option in their own market).

I think everyone would agree that if there was a slam-dunk addition option (and one where interested would be reciprocated), it would have happened already. The AAC, with a secured long-term deal, should look at expansion candidates that could, long-term, increase its value and brand awareness under the AAC banner, and (in turn) add value to the conference standing.

(10-22-2019 01:16 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 01:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:44 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  Who does ESPN want?

ESPN wants ratings. Invite UAB (Birmingham viewers) with the understanding that a couple of their home games would be on Thursday or Friday for ratings. Also an away game on Thursday or Friday.

I don't see any evidence that ESPN wants UAB or that UAB would attract viewers to ESPN. Just because the Birmingham market is a fantastic college football market relative to its size doesn't mean great TV ratings for UAB. Has UAB even been on television this year?

Fans in Birmingham watch SEC football.

Yet ESPN just paid a premium on an entire conference's rights where none of its members are the primary viewership option within their own state (with many not even the top option in their own market).

I think everyone would agree that if there was a slam-dunk addition option (and one where interested would be reciprocated), it would have happened already. The AAC, with a secured long-term deal, should look at expansion candidates that could, long-term, increase its value and brand awareness under the AAC banner, and (in turn) add value to the conference standing.

i can agree with this, but this is where the issues starts. there is no proof that any one particular school can be that long term added value for the AAC. some have good histories, but its now far outdated for the current landscape of college athletics, mostly there is too much inconsistency from every school, which only allows for guessing at best. and who wants to take bad/blind guesses about future conference mates.
thats where having another 2 years to build a more accurate trend is so important. it helps move the needle from bad guessing to a more good guess during this current environment.

(10-22-2019 01:16 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 01:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:44 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  Who does ESPN want?

ESPN wants ratings. Invite UAB (Birmingham viewers) with the understanding that a couple of their home games would be on Thursday or Friday for ratings. Also an away game on Thursday or Friday.

I don't see any evidence that ESPN wants UAB or that UAB would attract viewers to ESPN. Just because the Birmingham market is a fantastic college football market relative to its size doesn't mean great TV ratings for UAB. Has UAB even been on television this year?

Fans in Birmingham watch SEC football.

Yet ESPN just paid a premium on an entire conference's rights where none of its members are the primary viewership option within their own state (with many not even the top option in their own market).

I think everyone would agree that if there was a slam-dunk addition option (and one where interested would be reciprocated), it would have happened already. The AAC, with a secured long-term deal, should look at expansion candidates that could, long-term, increase its value and brand awareness under the AAC banner, and (in turn) add value to the conference standing.

Why? An addition is not required for any reason other than avoiding a minor scheduling issue. The MW gambled on San Jose State and lost. Now they are stuck with them for 100 years. If the move to pass a rule change fails, Im hoping this two year waiver will allow the AAC to clear their heads and realize there is zero reason to gamble on a member simply to avoid a scheduling issue.

As I said before, patience is called for. Eventually a clearly deserving and obvious expansion candidate will present itself for the AAC---or the AAC will lose a member and become a more manageable 10 member conference. Either way---time will solve the scheduling issue. Rash or poorly considered actions will only make matters worse.

(10-22-2019 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 01:16 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 01:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:44 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  Who does ESPN want?

ESPN wants ratings. Invite UAB (Birmingham viewers) with the understanding that a couple of their home games would be on Thursday or Friday for ratings. Also an away game on Thursday or Friday.

I don't see any evidence that ESPN wants UAB or that UAB would attract viewers to ESPN. Just because the Birmingham market is a fantastic college football market relative to its size doesn't mean great TV ratings for UAB. Has UAB even been on television this year?

Fans in Birmingham watch SEC football.

Yet ESPN just paid a premium on an entire conference's rights where none of its members are the primary viewership option within their own state (with many not even the top option in their own market).

I think everyone would agree that if there was a slam-dunk addition option (and one where interested would be reciprocated), it would have happened already. The AAC, with a secured long-term deal, should look at expansion candidates that could, long-term, increase its value and brand awareness under the AAC banner, and (in turn) add value to the conference standing.

Why? An addition is not required for any reason other than avoiding a minor scheduling issue. The MW gambled on San Jose State and lost. Now they are stuck with them for 100 years. If the move to pass a rule change fails, Im hoping this two year waiver will allow the AAC to clear their heads and realize there is zero reason gamble on a member simply to avoid a scheduling issue.

As I said before, patience is called for. Eventually a clearly deserving and obvious expansion candidate will present itself for the AAC---or the AAC will lose a member and become a more manageable 10 member conference. Either way---time will solve the scheduling issue. Rash or poorly considered actions will only make matters worse.

I know - that's what I previously said (that the AAC should wait on expansion until waiver expires). I'm saying that if the AAC evaluates expansion candidates, they will need to look at it through a different lens (who could provide value long-term vs. who has the established brand that can immediately add to the value) due to the established brands (Air Force, Army, Boise State, BYU) likely passing on an AAC membership (because if there was mutual interest, it likely would have happened already).

Discusssions about AAC expansion all seem to assume as a premise that the AAC is a monolithic entity, with all its members interested in furthering the common aims of the group. I really don't see much evidence of this. Instead, I see a lot of P5 wannabes trying to maneuver themselves into a moveup in class even if that means they would leave other members behind.

I can't find AAC bylaws regarding expansion decisions. More specifically, I am looking for bylaws that deal with what happens when current members leave, one way or another.

If they are like most conferences I have seen before, there are certain voting thresholds that govern these things. The departure of UConn, in other conferences, could trigger unexpected opportunities or risks. With 12 members, UConn could be seen as a barrier to taking any action that would require more than 75% of the membership. But with 11, 9 schools could now take actions that require the votes of 80% of the members.

Could nine members force dissolution of the AAC? If those nine were to persuade Boise State, BYU and San Diego State to join them in a new conference, they would have a virtual lock on the G5 schools capable of frequent access to the NY6. Indeed, they could arguably get a guaranteed NY6 berth for their champion - one of the hallmarks of a "P" conference. In the process, they would supplant the rest of the G5 from NY6 consideration unless one of their members be ranked in the Top Four - a highly unlikely possibility.

IMO, such a scenario is at least as likely as successfully inviting any G5 member that could strengthen the current AAC.

(10-22-2019 01:16 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 01:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:44 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  Who does ESPN want?

ESPN wants ratings. Invite UAB (Birmingham viewers) with the understanding that a couple of their home games would be on Thursday or Friday for ratings. Also an away game on Thursday or Friday.

I don't see any evidence that ESPN wants UAB or that UAB would attract viewers to ESPN. Just because the Birmingham market is a fantastic college football market relative to its size doesn't mean great TV ratings for UAB. Has UAB even been on television this year?

Fans in Birmingham watch SEC football.

Yet ESPN just paid a premium on an entire conference's rights where none of its members are the primary viewership option within their own state (with many not even the top option in their own market).

I think everyone would agree that if there was a slam-dunk addition option (and one where interested would be reciprocated), it would have happened already. The AAC, with a secured long-term deal, should look at expansion candidates that could, long-term, increase its value and brand awareness under the AAC banner, and (in turn) add value to the conference standing.

Premium is a very strong word.

He is correct that fans in AL and the Birmingham market are by and large watching SEC football. He is also correct that BYU would be the home run addition for the AAC.

Nonetheless, UAB does have growth potential. Some of the smaller schools in the state will end up shrinking or being closed. UA is focusing its growth plan on attracting out-of-state students. Auburn is also growing and I imagine their strategy isn't too dissimilar. Point being, in the long run more in-state kids will be funneled to UAB. At least, that's my theory.

There are no available schools at the moment that would elevate the AAC's profile with the exception of BYU. I don't think it's likely BYU shows up though unless the league has a really strong plan to access a ton of Western markets and elevate themselves to virtual Power status.

(10-22-2019 01:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  Discusssions about AAC expansion all seem to assume as a premise that the AAC is a monolithic entity, with all its members interested in furthering the common aims of the group. I really don't see much evidence of this. Instead, I see a lot of P5 wannabes trying to maneuver themselves into a moveup in class even if that means they would leave other members behind.

I can't find AAC bylaws regarding expansion decisions. More specifically, I am looking for bylaws that deal with what happens when current members leave, one way or another.

If they are like most conferences I have seen before, there are certain voting thresholds that govern these things. The departure of UConn, in other conferences, could trigger unexpected opportunities or risks. With 12 members, UConn could be seen as a barrier to taking any action that would require more than 75% of the membership. But with 11, 9 schools could now take actions that require the votes of 80% of the members.

Could nine members force dissolution of the AAC? If those nine were to persuade Boise State, BYU and San Diego State to join them in a new conference, they would have a virtual lock on the G5 schools capable of frequent access to the NY6. Indeed, they could arguably get a guaranteed NY6 berth for their champion - one of the hallmarks of a "P" conference. In the process, they would supplant the rest of the G5 from NY6 consideration unless one of their members be ranked in the Top Four - a highly unlikely possibility.

IMO, such a scenario is at least as likely as successfully inviting any G5 member that could strengthen the current AAC.

The bylaws are the old Big East bylaws (the AAC is simply a renaming of the old Big East corporate charter). There is no doubt there is little geographic or cultural cohesion to the AAC. They all want to move on to a P5 conference (a trait shared by every member of every G5 conference). That said, the AAC members do seem to have pulled together and committed to work together toward improving the conference (P6 inititive, retaining Aresco with a raise, the ESPN+ upgrades, etc). Ive seen no evidence that they wish to jettison anyone.

(10-22-2019 07:14 AM)panama Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  AAC ain’t getting Boise (king of the hill in MWC) or Air Force (won’t leave their long rivalries with front range comrades Wyoming, Colorado St and New Mexico. And BYU is a proud independent who loves Indy schedule full of p5 teams.
UAB or Marshall shall replace UCONN

It will not be Marshall

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

And it won't be a school that recently dropped football. (UAB).

1. Army if they want it.
2. Air Force if they want it.

After that its hard to say. I doubt they would go for CSU over an eastern school. USM, Marshall, maybe a MAC school.

(10-22-2019 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  1. Army if they want it.
2. Air Force if they want it.

After that its hard to say. I doubt they would go for CSU over an eastern school. USM, Marshall, maybe a MAC school.

Oh I think they definitely would. There just isnt much to pick from out east. ODU? UAB? Marshall? Colorado St starts looking pretty good once you see the alternatives. CSU is not a spectatcular add--but it is a very similar institutional fit, with a brand/history that fits, with a similar budget, similar facilities, and a performance track record that is at least acceptable in both revenue sports. I'd rather Air Force as a football only paired with VCU---but CSU would be miles ahead of every option east of the Rockies other than Army.

The AAC could arguably make itself strongest by booting a school and moving down to 10 members. I doubt they would do it, but it is an interesting thought. The question is, if the AAC was that bold, which school is most worthy of receiving the ax?

(10-22-2019 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  1. Army if they want it.
2. Air Force if they want it.

After that its hard to say. I doubt they would go for CSU over an eastern school. USM, Marshall, maybe a MAC school.

Oh I think they definitely would. There just isnt much to pick from out east. ODU? UAB? Marshall? Colorado St starts looking pretty good once you see the alternatives. CSU is not a spectatcular add--but it is a very similar institutional fit, with a brand/history that fits, with a similar budget, similar facilities, and a performance track record that is at least acceptable in both revenue sports. I'd rather Air Force as a football only paired with VCU---but CSU would be miles ahead of every option east of the Rockies other than Army.

Colorado St. is one of the worst football programs historically in FBS. They had a good period under Lubick. They have had 1 season more than 2 games above .500 since he left (and had at least 6 losses every year but 1). They had 7 under Lubick. Prior to him they had only 4 going back to 1950. They just aren't worth going so far west. They haven't been particularly good in basketball either.

I would guess Marshall and USM would both be better TV draws.

If bringing front range schools are what it takes to get CSU and Boise, why wouldn’t you go to 14? If you take any schools from the MWC you cripple the conference and it cannot stand next to the AAC.

(10-22-2019 02:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  1. Army if they want it.
2. Air Force if they want it.

After that its hard to say. I doubt they would go for CSU over an eastern school. USM, Marshall, maybe a MAC school.

Oh I think they definitely would. There just isnt much to pick from out east. ODU? UAB? Marshall? Colorado St starts looking pretty good once you see the alternatives. CSU is not a spectatcular add--but it is a very similar institutional fit, with a brand/history that fits, with a similar budget, similar facilities, and a performance track record that is at least acceptable in both revenue sports. I'd rather Air Force as a football only paired with VCU---but CSU would be miles ahead of every option east of the Rockies other than Army.

Colorado St. is one of the worst football programs historically in FBS. They had a good period under Lubick. They have had 1 season more than 2 games above .500 since he left (and had at least 6 losses every year but 1). They had 7 under Lubick. Prior to him they had only 4 going back to 1950. They just aren't worth going so far west. They haven't been particularly good in basketball either.

I would guess Marshall and USM would both be better TV draws.

That's actually not true. I mean---I'll stipulate CSU isnt a great football factory---but they arent among the worst in FBS like UAB or ODU. CSU was quite good just a few years a go under MaElwain. Won 10 games I believe in 2014. They basically are generally average with a really good year every so often and a really bad year every so often.

On the other hand---ODU has been a horrendous bust as an FBS program. UAB was a horrid mess for years before Clark and will return to cellar as soon as he leaves. UMass--horrible. Marshall is the only one with football program---but they weren't very good when they shared CUSA with many of the AAC teams and dont have much of a basketbal program (not to mention academics and budget issues). Like I said---they start looking pretty good when you look at the eastern options.

What you are really seeing is why my preference is just to deal with some relatively minor scheduling issues rather than settle for the "least bad" addition. At the very least---split the #12 slot into "non-football" and "football only" invites so you can minimize the negatives of adding another team.

If bringing front range schools are what it takes to get CSU and Boise, why wouldn’t you go to 14? If you take any schools from the MWC you cripple the conference and it cannot stand next to the AAC.

(10-22-2019 01:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 01:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:44 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  Who does ESPN want?

ESPN wants ratings. Invite UAB (Birmingham viewers) with the understanding that a couple of their home games would be on Thursday or Friday for ratings. Also an away game on Thursday or Friday.

I don't see any evidence that ESPN wants UAB or that UAB would attract viewers to ESPN. Just because the Birmingham market is a fantastic college football market relative to its size doesn't mean great TV ratings for UAB. Has UAB even been on television this year?

Fans in Birmingham watch SEC football.

This.

This.....is incorrect. And if you research it you would know this is incorrect. Birmingham watch all football and not just SEC Football.