(11-08-2019 12:42 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 10:26 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 10:18 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 06:08 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 05:57 PM)panama Wrote:  We'll get back to you..

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Georgia St...we already know most of the answers.

1. Value added to media deal. ZERO.

2. Likelihood to win at a high level in the future (based on past results, facilities, and donor and fan support). Not Likely

3. Expenses incurred (e.g., travel). Dovetails with geography. Fits geographically.

4. Willingness to pay entry fee and take less media share for a period of time. ???

5. Academics. ??? I don't know anything about their academics

USNWR Tier One
Carnegie Tier I

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Unfortunately for Georgia St...points 1 & 2 disqualify you from consideration of any other factors.

#8 DMA

Currently sitting at 6-2 , in a position win our conference.

Anyone else here beat Tennessee and Army this year? Anyone Buehler?




BTW after having heard this interview...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

One team is 3-6 and the other is 4-5

(11-07-2019 10:25 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Indy/G4 add options: BYU, Boise, Air Force, Army. Army’s the only one that fits geographically and they’re the ones most adamant on staying indy.
We will not and should not rush another addition. We’re still dealing with the last round of impulse adds (ECU, Tulane, Tulsa) although Tulane looks like they’ve finally rounded that corner if they can keep the momentum (thank God bc I love me some NOLA). I still think dropping a team if we don’t get a quality add is the best route, while Tulsa has barely been more competitive in conference than ECU it’s not by much, ECU actually gets fan support and Tulsa is a geographic outlier.

TLDR: we still have projects to complete, don’t add a start up / drop Tulsa

ECU, Tulane, Tulsa weren't "impulse adds." We had to get back to 12, and the C7 still had votes, and favored Tulane and Tulsa, while limiting ECU to football only. Until the C7 bailed, too, lol.

They were the best we could get after everybody we wanted turned us down (BYU, Army, Air Force, Boise, SDSU, etc.)

(11-08-2019 12:46 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 12:42 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 10:26 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 10:18 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 06:08 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  Georgia St...we already know most of the answers.

1. Value added to media deal. ZERO.

2. Likelihood to win at a high level in the future (based on past results, facilities, and donor and fan support). Not Likely

3. Expenses incurred (e.g., travel). Dovetails with geography. Fits geographically.

4. Willingness to pay entry fee and take less media share for a period of time. ???

5. Academics. ??? I don't know anything about their academics

USNWR Tier One
Carnegie Tier I

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Unfortunately for Georgia St...points 1 & 2 disqualify you from consideration of any other factors.

#8 DMA

Currently sitting at 6-2 , in a position win our conference.

Anyone else here beat Tennessee and Army this year? Anyone Buehler?




BTW after having heard this interview...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

One team is 3-6 and the other is 4-5

Is that like going 4-0 OOC vs. teams that are a combined 13-19?



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(11-08-2019 12:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 10:25 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Indy/G4 add options: BYU, Boise, Air Force, Army. Army’s the only one that fits geographically and they’re the ones most adamant on staying indy.
We will not and should not rush another addition. We’re still dealing with the last round of impulse adds (ECU, Tulane, Tulsa) although Tulane looks like they’ve finally rounded that corner if they can keep the momentum (thank God bc I love me some NOLA). I still think dropping a team if we don’t get a quality add is the best route, while Tulsa has barely been more competitive in conference than ECU it’s not by much, ECU actually gets fan support and Tulsa is a geographic outlier.

TLDR: we still have projects to complete, don’t add a start up / drop Tulsa

ECU, Tulane, Tulsa weren't "impulse adds." We had to get back to 12, and the C7 still had votes, and favored Tulane and Tulsa, while limiting ECU to football only. Until the C7 bailed, too, lol.

They were the best we could get after everybody we wanted turned us down (BYU, Army, Air Force, Boise, SDSU, etc.)

Very Familiar...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(11-08-2019 01:19 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 12:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 10:25 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Indy/G4 add options: BYU, Boise, Air Force, Army. Army’s the only one that fits geographically and they’re the ones most adamant on staying indy.
We will not and should not rush another addition. We’re still dealing with the last round of impulse adds (ECU, Tulane, Tulsa) although Tulane looks like they’ve finally rounded that corner if they can keep the momentum (thank God bc I love me some NOLA). I still think dropping a team if we don’t get a quality add is the best route, while Tulsa has barely been more competitive in conference than ECU it’s not by much, ECU actually gets fan support and Tulsa is a geographic outlier.

TLDR: we still have projects to complete, don’t add a start up / drop Tulsa

ECU, Tulane, Tulsa weren't "impulse adds." We had to get back to 12, and the C7 still had votes, and favored Tulane and Tulsa, while limiting ECU to football only. Until the C7 bailed, too, lol.

They were the best we could get after everybody we wanted turned us down (BYU, Army, Air Force, Boise, SDSU, etc.)

Very Familiar...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Except back in 2012-2013 you absolutely had to have at least 12 members to sponsor a CCG. Now, you dont need 12. Yes, an 11 member conference might mean more clunky scheduling---but the reality is you no longer have to make forced "warm body" adds just to get to 12. Once the AAC proposes a rule change and it passes---there will be even less reason to make "warm body" additions.

(11-08-2019 01:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 01:19 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 12:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 10:25 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Indy/G4 add options: BYU, Boise, Air Force, Army. Army’s the only one that fits geographically and they’re the ones most adamant on staying indy.
We will not and should not rush another addition. We’re still dealing with the last round of impulse adds (ECU, Tulane, Tulsa) although Tulane looks like they’ve finally rounded that corner if they can keep the momentum (thank God bc I love me some NOLA). I still think dropping a team if we don’t get a quality add is the best route, while Tulsa has barely been more competitive in conference than ECU it’s not by much, ECU actually gets fan support and Tulsa is a geographic outlier.

TLDR: we still have projects to complete, don’t add a start up / drop Tulsa

ECU, Tulane, Tulsa weren't "impulse adds." We had to get back to 12, and the C7 still had votes, and favored Tulane and Tulsa, while limiting ECU to football only. Until the C7 bailed, too, lol.

They were the best we could get after everybody we wanted turned us down (BYU, Army, Air Force, Boise, SDSU, etc.)

Very Familiar...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Except back in 2012-2013 you absolutely had to have at least 12 members to sponsor a CCG. Now, you dont need 12. Yes, an 11 member conference might mean more clunky scheduling---but the reality is you no longer have to make forced "warm body" adds just to get to 12. Once the AAC proposes a rule change and it passes---there will be even less reason to make "warm body" additions.

I"ll stop interrupting your prayer. ..

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(11-08-2019 02:21 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 01:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 01:19 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 12:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 10:25 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Indy/G4 add options: BYU, Boise, Air Force, Army. Army’s the only one that fits geographically and they’re the ones most adamant on staying indy.
We will not and should not rush another addition. We’re still dealing with the last round of impulse adds (ECU, Tulane, Tulsa) although Tulane looks like they’ve finally rounded that corner if they can keep the momentum (thank God bc I love me some NOLA). I still think dropping a team if we don’t get a quality add is the best route, while Tulsa has barely been more competitive in conference than ECU it’s not by much, ECU actually gets fan support and Tulsa is a geographic outlier.

TLDR: we still have projects to complete, don’t add a start up / drop Tulsa

ECU, Tulane, Tulsa weren't "impulse adds." We had to get back to 12, and the C7 still had votes, and favored Tulane and Tulsa, while limiting ECU to football only. Until the C7 bailed, too, lol.

They were the best we could get after everybody we wanted turned us down (BYU, Army, Air Force, Boise, SDSU, etc.)

Very Familiar...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Except back in 2012-2013 you absolutely had to have at least 12 members to sponsor a CCG. Now, you dont need 12. Yes, an 11 member conference might mean more clunky scheduling---but the reality is you no longer have to make forced "warm body" adds just to get to 12. Once the AAC proposes a rule change and it passes---there will be even less reason to make "warm body" additions.

I"ll stop interrupting your prayer. ..

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

You apparently have a prayer, too, or you wouldn't be here every day.

Lol...i have been on here since 2009
Calm down. You don't actually have a vote you know, right?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(11-07-2019 04:40 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:23 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  No suprise ECU fans clamoring for Appy State, ODU, GSU and/or UAB.

Negative on all fronts. I'd be least pissed about UAB I guess. Adding App State or ODU would pretty much kill the recruiting advantage we still have over them in place that we recruit heavily.

UAB is not a good choice, but the best of those 4. GSU (doesn't matter which GSU you're talking about) is garbage.

I'm on the BYU or nobody train. I'd rather go back to divisions and have stupid scheduling than add anyone else.

So sad that people do not realize that recruiting is just as important as ratings. Where was UCF in the MAC and CUSA. BYU is good at ratings but would Georgia State do as well if brought in the AAC. A coaching change could be all that it would take in the fourth best recruiting state. I keep hope that the waiver becomes rule, but if not, A west team is not necessarily the answer.

(11-08-2019 04:44 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:40 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:23 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  No suprise ECU fans clamoring for Appy State, ODU, GSU and/or UAB.

Negative on all fronts. I'd be least pissed about UAB I guess. Adding App State or ODU would pretty much kill the recruiting advantage we still have over them in place that we recruit heavily.

UAB is not a good choice, but the best of those 4. GSU (doesn't matter which GSU you're talking about) is garbage.

I'm on the BYU or nobody train. I'd rather go back to divisions and have stupid scheduling than add anyone else.

So sad that people do not realize that recruiting is just as important as ratings. Where was UCF in the MAC and CUSA. BYU is good at ratings but would Georgia State do as well if brought in the AAC. A coaching change could be all that it would take in the fourth best recruiting state. I keep hope that the waiver becomes rule, but if not, A west team is not necessarily the answer.

Aresco said geographic fit and cultural fit twice each before backtracking like the witness in a mob trial. One thing that seems constant in realignment is fans being ticked off at the choices presidents include their own make when they vote in news members.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(11-08-2019 05:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 04:44 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:40 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:23 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  No suprise ECU fans clamoring for Appy State, ODU, GSU and/or UAB.

Negative on all fronts. I'd be least pissed about UAB I guess. Adding App State or ODU would pretty much kill the recruiting advantage we still have over them in place that we recruit heavily.

UAB is not a good choice, but the best of those 4. GSU (doesn't matter which GSU you're talking about) is garbage.

I'm on the BYU or nobody train. I'd rather go back to divisions and have stupid scheduling than add anyone else.

So sad that people do not realize that recruiting is just as important as ratings. Where was UCF in the MAC and CUSA. BYU is good at ratings but would Georgia State do as well if brought in the AAC. A coaching change could be all that it would take in the fourth best recruiting state. I keep hope that the waiver becomes rule, but if not, A west team is not necessarily the answer.

Aresco said geographic fit and cultural fit twice each before backtracking like the witness in a mob trial. One thing that seems constant in realignment is fans being ticked off at the choices presidents include their own make when they vote in news members.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

ESPiN, unfortunately, may make that decision.

If we are taking a MWC team for the 2022 season, then that trigger needs to be pulled by June of 2021 at the latest so they can give one year's notice. So we have about 19 months to make a decision.

The exit fee to leave the MWC is two fold:

1. Waive final year's revenue
2. Pay fee of $5M or twice final year's revenue, whichever is more.

Assuming "revenue" means "distribution" (i.e. money actually received from the conference after expenses), the exit fee would be about $9-10M per the 2017 tax records (where $42.7M was distributed to MWC members)

(11-08-2019 06:04 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 05:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 04:44 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:40 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:23 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  No suprise ECU fans clamoring for Appy State, ODU, GSU and/or UAB.

Negative on all fronts. I'd be least pissed about UAB I guess. Adding App State or ODU would pretty much kill the recruiting advantage we still have over them in place that we recruit heavily.

UAB is not a good choice, but the best of those 4. GSU (doesn't matter which GSU you're talking about) is garbage.

I'm on the BYU or nobody train. I'd rather go back to divisions and have stupid scheduling than add anyone else.

So sad that people do not realize that recruiting is just as important as ratings. Where was UCF in the MAC and CUSA. BYU is good at ratings but would Georgia State do as well if brought in the AAC. A coaching change could be all that it would take in the fourth best recruiting state. I keep hope that the waiver becomes rule, but if not, A west team is not necessarily the answer.

Aresco said geographic fit and cultural fit twice each before backtracking like the witness in a mob trial. One thing that seems constant in realignment is fans being ticked off at the choices presidents include their own make when they vote in news members.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

ESPiN, unfortunately, may make that decision.

Stop praying.

Presidents with $1B operating budgets do t cowtow to ESPN. That's a message board urban legend.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(11-08-2019 06:24 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  If we are taking a MWC team for the 2022 season, then that trigger needs to be pulled by June of 2021 at the latest so they can give one year's notice. So we have about 19 months to make a decision.

The exit fee to leave the MWC is two fold:

1. Waive final year's revenue
2. Pay fee of $5M or twice final year's revenue, whichever is more.

Assuming "revenue" means "distribution" (i.e. money actually received from the conference after expenses), the exit fee would be about $9-10M per the 2017 tax records (where $42.7M was distributed to MWC members)

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(11-08-2019 12:42 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 10:26 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 10:18 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 06:08 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 05:57 PM)panama Wrote:  We'll get back to you..

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Georgia St...we already know most of the answers.

1. Value added to media deal. ZERO.

2. Likelihood to win at a high level in the future (based on past results, facilities, and donor and fan support). Not Likely

3. Expenses incurred (e.g., travel). Dovetails with geography. Fits geographically.

4. Willingness to pay entry fee and take less media share for a period of time. ???

5. Academics. ??? I don't know anything about their academics

USNWR Tier One
Carnegie Tier I

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Unfortunately for Georgia St...points 1 & 2 disqualify you from consideration of any other factors.

#8 DMA

Currently sitting at 6-2 , in a position win our conference.

Anyone else here beat Tennessee and Army this year? Anyone Buehler?




BTW after having heard this interview...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Let's not forget that D2 level GA St fan support....even Kennesaw St draws better.

(11-08-2019 06:54 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 06:04 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 05:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-08-2019 04:44 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 04:40 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Negative on all fronts. I'd be least pissed about UAB I guess. Adding App State or ODU would pretty much kill the recruiting advantage we still have over them in place that we recruit heavily.

UAB is not a good choice, but the best of those 4. GSU (doesn't matter which GSU you're talking about) is garbage.

I'm on the BYU or nobody train. I'd rather go back to divisions and have stupid scheduling than add anyone else.

So sad that people do not realize that recruiting is just as important as ratings. Where was UCF in the MAC and CUSA. BYU is good at ratings but would Georgia State do as well if brought in the AAC. A coaching change could be all that it would take in the fourth best recruiting state. I keep hope that the waiver becomes rule, but if not, A west team is not necessarily the answer.

Aresco said geographic fit and cultural fit twice each before backtracking like the witness in a mob trial. One thing that seems constant in realignment is fans being ticked off at the choices presidents include their own make when they vote in news members.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

ESPiN, unfortunately, may make that decision.

Stop praying.

Presidents with $1B operating budgets do t cowtow to ESPN. That's a message board urban legend.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Is that 'don't'.

(11-07-2019 02:51 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  App State

While Appalachian State is demographically similar to ECU, most schools in the AAC are urban/semi-urban institutions. Army (NYC area, football-only) would be the best option, IMO. Appalachian State is 90 minutes from a tier 3 airport. Just getting there would be a nightmare.

I still cant believe people are pushing for ANY team in the MAC, Sunbelt of CUSA. It ISNT happening. Not ONE single credible source has said they are an option. The MAC makes the most money at about $600K a team.

Yall do understand that ONE AAC team makes as much as the entire Sunbelt in a single year.

AAC team = $7 million

Sunbelt CONFERENCE - less than $5 million a year

So you want to add a school that has a market value of roughly $400,000 to our conference. I am seriously asking myself WTF some of you are thinking.

(11-08-2019 09:01 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  I still cant believe people are pushing for ANY team in the MAC, Sunbelt of CUSA. It ISNT happening. Not ONE single credible source has said they are an option. The MAC makes the most money at about $600K a team.

Yall do understand that ONE AAC team makes as much as the entire Sunbelt in a single year.

AAC team = $7 million

Sunbelt CONFERENCE - less than $5 million a year

So you want to add a school that has a market value of roughly $400,000 to our conference. I am seriously asking myself WTF some of you are thinking.

There is a strong possibility we will be forced to add the best available school and that school may presently reside in the MAC, CUSA, or Sunbelt.

(11-07-2019 02:43 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Doesn't sound like the AAC will be adding any CUSA/Belt/MAC members. It's gonna be FB only from MWC usual suspects, or somehow BYU/Army.

That is exactly what we should do. Regardless of what ppl say—-anyone from Cusa, Belt, MAC would be seen as a step down.