(10-22-2019 03:42 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(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.

Really. Show me the head to head numbers with SEC games vs other conference games in the same time slot on the same day. You and I both know those SEC numbers will dwarf the other viewers in Birmingham. Birmingham is a large city, so sure, some viewers will watch other games---but by and large---when the SEC is on---Birmingham is a largely loyal SEC audience.

(10-22-2019 03:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 03:42 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(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.

Really. Show me the head to head numbers with SEC games vs other conference games in the same time slot on the same day. You and I both know those SEC numbers will dwarf the other viewers in Birmingham. Birmingham is a large city, so sure, some viewers will watch other games---but by and large---when the SEC is on---Birmingham is a largely loyal SEC audience.

You show it to me since you're the one that agreed with Wutnot that all Birmingham watches is the SEC.

(10-22-2019 06:00 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 03:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 03:42 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

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

(10-22-2019 01:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  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.

Really. Show me the head to head numbers with SEC games vs other conference games in the same time slot on the same day. You and I both know those SEC numbers will dwarf the other viewers in Birmingham. Birmingham is a large city, so sure, some viewers will watch other games---but by and large---when the SEC is on---Birmingham is a largely loyal SEC audience.

You show it to me since you're the one that agreed with Wutnot that all Birmingham watches is the SEC.

Thats what I thought. Its basic common sense that SEC viewers would by far dominate the head to head ratings in Birmingham viewership. If you want to argue against conventional wisdom---then you have the burden of proof.

I highly doubt UAB gets the 12th spot.

Yes, UAB will be playing in a new stadium, but I'm almost certain that it is the city's stadium. I honestly don't know of UAB building any new facilities. Plus, UAB isn't among the top programs in C-USA in athletic budget or coaches salaries, and far from being one of the best among G5 candidates.

If they are going to take a CUSA school then UAB would be the best overall candidate with a new stadium and good basketball.

ODU would be a good pickup as well but ECU might try to veto them to protect their turf.

If I were AAC I would look at GA St. killer market, solid hoops, new stadium, and football program that is trending upwards

(10-22-2019 07:20 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 07:14 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I do think UAB ends up being #12, but I wholeheartedly agree that the AAC should wait out it’s waiver period and see what the potential candidates end up doing. I cannot envision Army, Air Force, Boise State or BYU (each whom should be considered top candidates) coming.

Personally, I am confused why there is so much resistance to a UAB but general acceptance to a Colorado State. UAB is in a better football recruiting area, both have new state of art stadiums, UAB has more successful basketball history, both are on same tier in national academic rankings and UAB is within the AAC footprint (which is already spread out as is). Colorado State would force a team west, where UAB wouldn’t, assuming divisions are kept of course.

Previous history with some of the AAC teams posters that still believe the Alabama BOT would shutdown UAB Football again if given the opportunity. The BOT has already stated publicly that they would support a UAB move to the AAC but some AAC posters don't believe it.

In a sense it's a valid argument but I would think if UAB was to seriously be considered Aresco and the school's presidents would definitely consult with the Alabama BOT for a vote of confidence.

It is just wishful thinking of UAB fans want their school going to the AAC. There are cold feet from other conferences including the AAC if the Alabama BOTs decide to kill the football program again. I would just pass on them for a while.

Why I picked ODU was that they are closer to ECU which they could pair up with them.

(10-22-2019 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

That was their only year since 2002 without at least 6 losses. Its why he got the Florida job. He took a bad program and got 10 wins.

Pulling up the 2015 record book Colorado St. is bottom 20 all time at .475.

Who was below them? The historical dregs of FBS. And some of these schools who were new to FBS have probably passed them (since it doesn't take much to improve on those low winning %s).

MAC-Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, Kent St.
Sun Belt-Georgia St., La-Monroe
CUSA-FAU, FIU, UAB, Rice, UTEP
MWC-UNLV, New Mexico
Indy-New Mexico St.
AAC-Tulane, Temple
P5-Indiana, Iowa St., Kansas St., Northwestern

(10-22-2019 07:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

That was their only year since 2002 without at least 6 losses. Its why he got the Florida job. He took a bad program and got 10 wins.

Pulling up the 2015 record book Colorado St. is bottom 20 all time at .475.

Who was below them? The historical dregs of FBS. And some of these schools who were new to FBS have probably passed them (since it doesn't take much to improve on those low winning %s).

MAC-Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, Kent St.
Sun Belt-Georgia St., La-Monroe
CUSA-FAU, FIU, UAB, Rice, UTEP
MWC-UNLV, New Mexico
Indy-New Mexico St.
AAC-Tulane, Temple
P5-Indiana, Iowa St., Kansas St., Northwestern

C'mon. 475 is 5.7 wins a year. Thats pretty average. I looked it up a while back. I think I went back 20 years and they were a few games under .500 for that period. I call that basically average. Look, Im not saying they are great---but they will be around .500 with a really good year here and there and a really bad year here and there. Most of the eastern options are a drag on basketball, football, or both. Thats why I like the idea of splitting the bid rather than looking for a single full member---or just standing pat at 11.

(10-22-2019 07:29 AM)panama Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 07:14 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I do think UAB ends up being #12, but I wholeheartedly agree that the AAC should wait out it’s waiver period and see what the potential candidates end up doing. I cannot envision Army, Air Force, Boise State or BYU (each whom should be considered top candidates) coming.

Personally, I am confused why there is so much resistance to a UAB but general acceptance to a Colorado State. UAB is in a better football recruiting area, both have new state of art stadiums, UAB has more successful basketball history, both are on same tier in national academic rankings and UAB is within the AAC footprint (which is already spread out as is). Colorado State would force a team west, where UAB wouldn’t, assuming divisions are kept of course.

Assume certain things all things being equal.

#12 ...

Will look culturally like the majority of the schools in the conference. Presidents decide and they like things they can quantify and understand. Most of the schools are city school large research universities or city school privates. The majority are Carnegie and USNWR Tier I.

Will not be a western school. They will all have their individual reasons but you can summarize it as the money is not there to justify leaving rivals behind and to increase travel. Ask yourself, will school X's fans care about seeing a home game against school Y from two timezones or 3000 miles away.

Will not be in a city or state with a current member. This would seem to be obvious.

Will not be a Service Academy. One is comfortable in Independence and the other is a Western school. If that theory had legs and there was mutual interest we wouldnt be having this discussion. They would have been added the day after UConn announced.



When you take that and maybe a couple of other obvious factors into account you can quickly come up with a short list.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I disagree with your Western component until we see what the MWC TV deal is. If it is awful, then the monetary reasons may be there. But I otherwise agree with your assessment of the characteristics of the school. That pretty much leaves us with (in alphabetical order):

- Air Force
- Buffalo
- Colorado State [technically a small outlier due to its non-metro location]
- FIU
- Georgia State
- New Mexico
- Rice
- UAB
- UMass [technically a small outlier due to its non-metro location]
- UTSA

Somewhat lesser fits institutionally:

- Charlotte
- FAU
- North Texas
- Old Dominion
- UTEP

Those are really the schools that fit the AAC profile as urban Carnegie I public research universities with the exception of Rice and Air Force who match the other institutional profiles. Unless we go some wildcard route like the FB-only, the next member is almost certainly in that list.

UAB, St. Louis, Dayton

Feel the power..

I want to throw a wild-card out there: New Mexico

We haven't discussed them really in these threads. It's not a huge market - 47th. But they have a strong basketball history, and they're an institutional fit. So far as football, it has struggled for the most part, but joining the AAC would give New Mexico a leg-up on their regional competition and much better access to Texas recruiting. It's a state flagship school, which has merit unto itself, especially if the AAC is going to want to call on political muscle down the road.

(10-22-2019 08:00 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 07:29 AM)panama Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 07:14 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I do think UAB ends up being #12, but I wholeheartedly agree that the AAC should wait out it’s waiver period and see what the potential candidates end up doing. I cannot envision Army, Air Force, Boise State or BYU (each whom should be considered top candidates) coming.

Personally, I am confused why there is so much resistance to a UAB but general acceptance to a Colorado State. UAB is in a better football recruiting area, both have new state of art stadiums, UAB has more successful basketball history, both are on same tier in national academic rankings and UAB is within the AAC footprint (which is already spread out as is). Colorado State would force a team west, where UAB wouldn’t, assuming divisions are kept of course.

Assume certain things all things being equal.

#12 ...

Will look culturally like the majority of the schools in the conference. Presidents decide and they like things they can quantify and understand. Most of the schools are city school large research universities or city school privates. The majority are Carnegie and USNWR Tier I.

Will not be a western school. They will all have their individual reasons but you can summarize it as the money is not there to justify leaving rivals behind and to increase travel. Ask yourself, will school X's fans care about seeing a home game against school Y from two timezones or 3000 miles away.

Will not be in a city or state with a current member. This would seem to be obvious.

Will not be a Service Academy. One is comfortable in Independence and the other is a Western school. If that theory had legs and there was mutual interest we wouldnt be having this discussion. They would have been added the day after UConn announced.



When you take that and maybe a couple of other obvious factors into account you can quickly come up with a short list.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

So Buffalo is on the short list?

Might be but do they pass the campus visit test? I wonder who in the AAC would lobby for them...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-22-2019 08:28 AM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...c-expands/

clt says we would settle for aac if the sec doesn't happen soon

Maybe Big South...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-22-2019 08:36 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 07:59 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  UAB won't get into a new stadium till 2021. They are still in Legion Field.

And this means what?

*shrug*

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-22-2019 08:38 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 02:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  UAB is no where on that list because their football program is not safe.

Safe? Like located in a safe area of the city safe?

*DavidSt posts a list of the 340 safest schools in North America*

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-22-2019 09:00 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 07:29 AM)panama Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 07:14 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I do think UAB ends up being #12, but I wholeheartedly agree that the AAC should wait out it’s waiver period and see what the potential candidates end up doing. I cannot envision Army, Air Force, Boise State or BYU (each whom should be considered top candidates) coming.

Personally, I am confused why there is so much resistance to a UAB but general acceptance to a Colorado State. UAB is in a better football recruiting area, both have new state of art stadiums, UAB has more successful basketball history, both are on same tier in national academic rankings and UAB is within the AAC footprint (which is already spread out as is). Colorado State would force a team west, where UAB wouldn’t, assuming divisions are kept of course.

Assume certain things all things being equal.

#12 ...

Will look culturally like the majority of the schools in the conference. Presidents decide and they like things they can quantify and understand. Most of the schools are city school large research universities or city school privates. The majority are Carnegie and USNWR Tier I.

Will not be a western school. They will all have their individual reasons but you can summarize it as the money is not there to justify leaving rivals behind and to increase travel. Ask yourself, will school X's fans care about seeing a home game against school Y from two timezones or 3000 miles away.

Will not be in a city or state with a current member. This would seem to be obvious.

Will not be a Service Academy. One is comfortable in Independence and the other is a Western school. If that theory had legs and there was mutual interest we wouldnt be having this discussion. They would have been added the day after UConn announced.



When you take that and maybe a couple of other obvious factors into account you can quickly come up with a short list.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

That leaves:

UAB
Georgia Southern
Old Dominion

Realignment has historically shown a consistent ladder of movement, especially new(er) programs that are building their way up the chain. I, personally, would be surprised to see a program from the Sun Belt immediately get called up to the American. History has shown that there would need to be period of time in C-USA first that would precipitate an AAC invitation.

For example, Louisville went from being an Independent, to C-USA, to the Big East (and briefly the AAC) to the ACC. With the exception to Temple and Navy, every football member has had a stop in C-USA. I would guess if there ever was a 12th member in the AAC, it would probably come from C-USA.

Georgia Southern? Oookay...

Ashford stopping at CUSA , that was a long time ago. No longer applies.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-22-2019 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 06:00 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 03:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 03:42 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

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

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

Really. Show me the head to head numbers with SEC games vs other conference games in the same time slot on the same day. You and I both know those SEC numbers will dwarf the other viewers in Birmingham. Birmingham is a large city, so sure, some viewers will watch other games---but by and large---when the SEC is on---Birmingham is a largely loyal SEC audience.

You show it to me since you're the one that agreed with Wutnot that all Birmingham watches is the SEC.

Thats what I thought. Its basic common sense that SEC viewers would by far dominate the head to head ratings in Birmingham viewership. If you want to argue against conventional wisdom---then you have the burden of proof.

I said Birmingham peeps watch all college football and not just the SEC. Of course viewership will be predominantly SEC but to make the assumption it's just the SEC is not an accurate assessment period.

(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.

???

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-22-2019 06:51 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I highly doubt UAB gets the 12th spot.

Yes, UAB will be playing in a new stadium, but I'm almost certain that it is the city's stadium. I honestly don't know of UAB building any new facilities. Plus, UAB isn't among the top programs in C-USA in athletic budget or coaches salaries, and far from being one of the best among G5 candidates.

WTF are you talking about dude?

(10-22-2019 06:51 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I highly doubt UAB gets the 12th spot.

Yes, UAB will be playing in a new stadium, but I'm almost certain that it is the city's stadium. I honestly don't know of UAB building any new facilities. Plus, UAB isn't among the top programs in C-USA in athletic budget or coaches salaries, and far from being one of the best among G5 candidates.

You mean city stadiums like at least two AAC schools?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk