(12-15-2019 04:35 PM)spenser Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 04:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 03:53 PM)Agust Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 03:00 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Agree, common sense tells you the contract will be adjusted for ANY team leaving...some teams however can trigger a renegotiation. The AAC was never going to be able to split an extra share.

this is what i was stating earlier but when you think of it

it means uconn basketball was worth 8 million
unless it was 6 mil and they just paid us 2 just to keep the football on.

Common sense should also tell you that it is a little more complex than "1/12th of the contract back, please."
If it was that simple, it would be done, not be a process that Aresco was talking about rolling up our sleeves and getting to.

The contract isn't written as $6.94M per team per year for 12 teams. The contract is written as $83.3M per year for a long list of inventory - x games on Thurs/Fri; y games per network on Saturday; z games on ESPN+; a basketball games by network on weeknights; b basketball games by network on weekends; c basketball games on ESPN+; all the other stuff; etc.
If football was 75% of the value of the media contract and UConn was only a Friday night ESPN2 game and all the rest Plus...the adjustment might come out less than $6.94M per year.

Great explanation. To further it some each week we were supplying ESPN with. Tier 1 Saturday ABC/ESPN games. Tier 2 Friday night ESPN/Saturday ESPN 2 games. Tier 3 ESPN 2 mid week games. Tier 4 being ESPN + games.

So for the most part we will be loosing Tier 4 games, UConn was not good, so low payout. Other thing is reslotting so games up a Tier and reworking future schedule were Uconn was to be against a marquee team in one of the ESPN slots.

Example Uconn vs ECU on ESPN + inventory is not going to loose us anything from the deal. But UConn vs Memphis Bball on ESPN one week now needs rework, so a day that had Cincy vs Houston and Temple vs Wichita is split to fit time slots.

If we can still fill the big slots and work it so its 1 less ESPN+ game we will probably be between a quarter and half a share loss.

Uhhh... Yes it will. We just lost all of the Uconn Market as far as purchasing ESPN+. Now maybe a certain percentage of those fans will purchase anyway (for other viewing opportunities), but I'm betting ESPN is not happy about losing the incentive for all those Connecticutians to purchase ESPN+. But if it tells you anything, I have not, nor will I, subscribe to the SECnetwork or the ACCnetwork. No interest for that kind of money per month.

(12-15-2019 06:51 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 05:10 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 01:41 PM)mustangxc Wrote:  My preference is to add BYU football only and move on. However, if we were to do a more expansive addition add BYU, Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, and San Diego State.

East:
Navy
Temple
Cincinnati
East Carolina
UCF
USF
Memphis
Tulane

West:
SMU
Houston
Tulsa
BYU
Boise State
Colorado State
Air Force
San Diego State

Not sure, but I would think that Navy would rather be in the West and travel to San Diego every year, largest US Navel base is in San Diego. Naval Base San Diego is the principal homeport of the Pacific Fleet.

All this is obviously hugely hypothetical and barely worth discussing, but ...

If you bring in Air Force, then Navy and AF HAVE to be in same division. Otherwise they're permanent cross-division and the stupider/bigger you make this the harder that one off schedule special gets.
Navy would be happy to go to San Diego every other year. Practically an extra home game - Navy was a better draw than SDSU in the Poinsettia Bowl.
Also, we would love to keep going to Texas. We love Tennessee, too, and would miss Florida in a larger conference with fewer cross-division games, but would prefer West in these fantastical constructs.

In broader terms, the LARGER the footprint, the more Navy likes it. We are a national program and a national brand. Part of the resistance to the long courtship from the Big East was the hesitancy to be limited to a "regional" (i.e. it has a direction in the name) conference. On the other hand, when the 2011-12 vision of the Big East was a national conference, that was better for Navy.

You don't have to have them in seperate divisions, they could play it out of conference. I do like the idea of 3 pods with an academy in each pod though. Lastly, Navy vs SDSU should absolutely be an annual game if possible. It would garner national attention every year and be good for both programs.

(12-15-2019 07:12 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 04:35 PM)spenser Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 04:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 03:53 PM)Agust Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 03:00 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Agree, common sense tells you the contract will be adjusted for ANY team leaving...some teams however can trigger a renegotiation. The AAC was never going to be able to split an extra share.

this is what i was stating earlier but when you think of it

it means uconn basketball was worth 8 million
unless it was 6 mil and they just paid us 2 just to keep the football on.

Common sense should also tell you that it is a little more complex than "1/12th of the contract back, please."
If it was that simple, it would be done, not be a process that Aresco was talking about rolling up our sleeves and getting to.

The contract isn't written as $6.94M per team per year for 12 teams. The contract is written as $83.3M per year for a long list of inventory - x games on Thurs/Fri; y games per network on Saturday; z games on ESPN+; a basketball games by network on weeknights; b basketball games by network on weekends; c basketball games on ESPN+; all the other stuff; etc.
If football was 75% of the value of the media contract and UConn was only a Friday night ESPN2 game and all the rest Plus...the adjustment might come out less than $6.94M per year.

Great explanation. To further it some each week we were supplying ESPN with. Tier 1 Saturday ABC/ESPN games. Tier 2 Friday night ESPN/Saturday ESPN 2 games. Tier 3 ESPN 2 mid week games. Tier 4 being ESPN + games.

So for the most part we will be loosing Tier 4 games, UConn was not good, so low payout. Other thing is reslotting so games up a Tier and reworking future schedule were Uconn was to be against a marquee team in one of the ESPN slots.

Example Uconn vs ECU on ESPN + inventory is not going to loose us anything from the deal. But UConn vs Memphis Bball on ESPN one week now needs rework, so a day that had Cincy vs Houston and Temple vs Wichita is split to fit time slots.

If we can still fill the big slots and work it so its 1 less ESPN+ game we will probably be between a quarter and half a share loss.

Uhhh... Yes it will. We just lost all of the Uconn Market as far as purchasing ESPN+. Now maybe a certain percentage of those fans will purchase anyway (for other viewing opportunities), but I'm betting ESPN is not happy about losing the incentive for all those Connecticutians to purchase ESPN+. But if it tells you anything, I have not, nor will I, subscribe to the SECnetwork or the ACCnetwork. No interest for that kind of money per month.

I don't see ESPN+ being the success they are expecting it to be.

(12-15-2019 06:44 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  I've SWAGged this before and come out around $5-5.5M. Let's see what I come up with this time around...

Football is about 75% of the contract - plenty of comments to that effect around the time of UConn's departure. So from the average annual value (aav) of $83.3M, football is worth $62.5M and a "standard" contribution to the inventory on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN+ would be $5.2M. But UConn is substandard in delivering valuable inventory in football. 2018, one Friday night ESPN2 game hosting Navy at the Rent had 742k viewers and a visit to UCF had 322k viewers. Even with a desire to have UConn's name on the ESPN+, it's generous to say $2.5M for UConn's football.

Basketball's portion of the aav, then should be...$20.8M, with a "standard" basketball value being $1.75M. Say UConn's brand is worth one-and-a-half the standard...You can get that to $2.6M.

Maybe ESPN says the UConn WBB was worth $1M per year, because that was the price point they could sell it to SNY. You can MAYBE get UConn's value to ESPN up to $6M, but still short of the "Easy Button" answer of a straight 1/12th of the contract.

So if it takes a while to figure out the "adjustment" that's the negotiating that's going on.
"Someone else will give you that Friday night football content, all you're really losing is a small volume of ESPN+ games."
"Okay, but we need that basketball brand on the Plus for subscriptions AS WELL as more than their share on ESPN and ESPN2."

I'm not trying to get into a "thing" but, to expand on this, if I remember correctly the conference contract also called for a minimum number of women's basketball games on ESPN's TV networks, and I don't think I'm going overboard in saying it was likely envisioned that the UConn women would be involved in most of those slots. I'd expect ESPN's looking to adjust that number, while Aresco's not doing his job unless he objects to any reduction in AAC content on TV.

Now, the fact of the matter is someone needs to fill those time slots, so Aresco's argument is probably some version of the remaining AAC members being able to deliver that TV inventory through either their own women's teams or offsetting with additional men's games. ESPN may not feel that it makes sense to respond to UConn leaving the conference by increasing the promised number of men's basketball broadcasts (but then again, those slots need to be filled by someone so that may be exactly what happens). That's assuming Uconn's departure doesn't negatively impact the total number of men's broadcasts contracted for (once more - something has to go in those slots, so I don't think it's realistic to expect ESPN will just start wildly cutting the total basketball inventory beyond a portion of the guaranteed women's games).

(12-15-2019 06:56 PM)Penny1 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 01:41 PM)mustangxc Wrote:  My preference is to add BYU football only and move on. However, if we were to do a more expansive addition add BYU, Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, and San Diego State.

East:
Navy
Temple
Cincinnati
East Carolina
UCF
USF
Memphis
Tulane

West:
SMU
Houston
Tulsa
BYU
Boise State
Colorado State
Air Force
San Diego State

If they were to go to 16, which I highly doubt, it would be 4 quad divisions with 4 teams each.

Therefore teams would play 3 division games and 5 or 6 (if they were to go with a 9-game conference schedule) non division conference games.

Mercy! The concept of the WAC-16 with quadrants is reborn!

But just sit tight for the time being and play with 11 teams.

(12-15-2019 07:12 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 04:35 PM)spenser Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 04:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 03:53 PM)Agust Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 03:00 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Agree, common sense tells you the contract will be adjusted for ANY team leaving...some teams however can trigger a renegotiation. The AAC was never going to be able to split an extra share.

this is what i was stating earlier but when you think of it

it means uconn basketball was worth 8 million
unless it was 6 mil and they just paid us 2 just to keep the football on.

Common sense should also tell you that it is a little more complex than "1/12th of the contract back, please."
If it was that simple, it would be done, not be a process that Aresco was talking about rolling up our sleeves and getting to.

The contract isn't written as $6.94M per team per year for 12 teams. The contract is written as $83.3M per year for a long list of inventory - x games on Thurs/Fri; y games per network on Saturday; z games on ESPN+; a basketball games by network on weeknights; b basketball games by network on weekends; c basketball games on ESPN+; all the other stuff; etc.
If football was 75% of the value of the media contract and UConn was only a Friday night ESPN2 game and all the rest Plus...the adjustment might come out less than $6.94M per year.

Great explanation. To further it some each week we were supplying ESPN with. Tier 1 Saturday ABC/ESPN games. Tier 2 Friday night ESPN/Saturday ESPN 2 games. Tier 3 ESPN 2 mid week games. Tier 4 being ESPN + games.

So for the most part we will be loosing Tier 4 games, UConn was not good, so low payout. Other thing is reslotting so games up a Tier and reworking future schedule were Uconn was to be against a marquee team in one of the ESPN slots.

Example Uconn vs ECU on ESPN + inventory is not going to loose us anything from the deal. But UConn vs Memphis Bball on ESPN one week now needs rework, so a day that had Cincy vs Houston and Temple vs Wichita is split to fit time slots.

If we can still fill the big slots and work it so its 1 less ESPN+ game we will probably be between a quarter and half a share loss.

Uhhh... Yes it will. We just lost all of the Uconn Market as far as purchasing ESPN+. Now maybe a certain percentage of those fans will purchase anyway (for other viewing opportunities), but I'm betting ESPN is not happy about losing the incentive for all those Connecticutians to purchase ESPN+. But if it tells you anything, I have not, nor will I, subscribe to the SECnetwork or the ACCnetwork. No interest for that kind of money per month.

But it's not "market" per se, or the population of CT, like it was for Big10, ACC establishing networks and needing cable carriage fees. It's more strictly viewers or streamers. ESPN definitely would have had some UConn MBB and WBB on ESPN+ to get those subscriptions and my SWAG did try to account for that.

(12-15-2019 07:24 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 06:44 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  I've SWAGged this before and come out around $5-5.5M. Let's see what I come up with this time around...

Football is about 75% of the contract - plenty of comments to that effect around the time of UConn's departure. So from the average annual value (aav) of $83.3M, football is worth $62.5M and a "standard" contribution to the inventory on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN+ would be $5.2M. But UConn is substandard in delivering valuable inventory in football. 2018, one Friday night ESPN2 game hosting Navy at the Rent had 742k viewers and a visit to UCF had 322k viewers. Even with a desire to have UConn's name on the ESPN+, it's generous to say $2.5M for UConn's football.

Basketball's portion of the aav, then should be...$20.8M, with a "standard" basketball value being $1.75M. Say UConn's brand is worth one-and-a-half the standard...You can get that to $2.6M.

Maybe ESPN says the UConn WBB was worth $1M per year, because that was the price point they could sell it to SNY. You can MAYBE get UConn's value to ESPN up to $6M, but still short of the "Easy Button" answer of a straight 1/12th of the contract.

So if it takes a while to figure out the "adjustment" that's the negotiating that's going on.
"Someone else will give you that Friday night football content, all you're really losing is a small volume of ESPN+ games."
"Okay, but we need that basketball brand on the Plus for subscriptions AS WELL as more than their share on ESPN and ESPN2."

I'm not trying to get into a "thing" but, to expand on this, if I remember correctly the conference contract also called for a minimum number of women's basketball games on ESPN's TV networks, and I don't think I'm going overboard in saying it was likely envisioned that the UConn women would be involved in most of those slots. I'd expect ESPN's looking to adjust that number, while Aresco's not doing his job unless he objects to any reduction in AAC content on TV.

Now, the fact of the matter is someone needs to fill those time slots, so Aresco's argument is probably some version of the remaining AAC members being able to deliver that TV inventory through either their own women's teams or offsetting with additional men's games. ESPN may not feel that it makes sense to respond to UConn leaving the conference by increasing the promised number of men's basketball broadcasts (but then again, those slots need to be filled by someone so that may be exactly what happens). That's assuming Uconn's departure doesn't negatively impact the total number of men's broadcasts contracted for (once more - something has to go in those slots, so I don't think it's realistic to expect ESPN will just start wildly cutting the total basketball inventory beyond a portion of the guaranteed women's games).

Valid.
Aresco and team will be talking up the value of USF or another good WBB replacing UConn WBB, and ESPN will be saying it doesn't compare.
How many viewers have big UConn WBB delivered on ESPN or ESPN2? And what's the marginal difference between that and a lesser AAC WBB or run of the mill AAC MBB game?
I'm back on my phone, so can't grab numbers quickly.
That's the negotiation around any "adjustment " and none of us message board bubbas will be in the room where it happens.
My major point is that it isn't simply "1/12th less"

No one, I mean no one gives two ***** about WBB. That's why there are no credits for it. Just saying.

(12-15-2019 07:03 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 02:25 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 01:41 PM)mustangxc Wrote:  My preference is to add BYU football only and move on. However, if we were to do a more expansive addition add BYU, Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, and San Diego State.

East:
Navy
Temple
Cincinnati
East Carolina
UCF
USF
Memphis
Tulane

West:
SMU
Houston
Tulsa
BYU
Boise State
Colorado State
Air Force
San Diego State

Your proposal literally screams DEATH for the MWC... And plus no way in the world AAC presidents vote in favor for Boise.

Yeah, that's the idea. You got a problem with that?

Regarding your second sentence, money and politics make for strange bedfellows.

I don't care what happens to the MWC really... I guess I've gotten used to hearing of the G4's quite a lot and the G3 doesn't sound/look pitiful enough. Hehe

3 out of AFA, BYU, CSU, BSU, Army football only plus VCU basketball is the way to go. Locks up last bid in an 8 team playoff, virtual P6. I believe ESPN would increase payout to $9-10m per team for that.

You cannot assume Conn FB will be bad for next 12 yrs. I always said the NE area has to be cultivated to college game. ESPN understands that. ESPN located in Conn, that would help with Conn in there pocket.
Losing more than 1/12, CFP money would make up difference & keep money the same.
In AAC favor, ESPN needs them for T2,

(12-15-2019 02:54 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Common sence told you adjustment for losing Conn.

I'm guessing spelling was your major at Bowling Green?

What do you care? Pay attention you might learn something

(12-15-2019 02:16 AM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 08:51 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 07:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Like I said, nobody in the Rockies and west coast will accept any invites from AAC. Too much hassles like spending more money to go east coast. I do not think Houston, SMU, Tulane and Tulsa will last long in the AAC. {1}Tulsa and Tulane have the worst attendance in the stands the past several years. Tulsa is under 4000 students while my alma mater in D2 have 12,000 students. I do not think you all get this. {2}Army tried with C-USA and it failed. Adding BYU or any MWC schools would be a failure. {3}You have to get ESPN to bump it up to $15 million per school a year before any of these schools will join.

Point {1} Tulane at 20271 is better than FIVE mwc schools. Tulsa 18741 only better than three in the mwc, but also better than HALF of CUSA, all but one of the MAC, and seven of ten Sun Belt.

Point {2} There were a lot of structural reasons Army failed in CUSA two decades ago. They have started addressing all of them. Possibly they're not ready yet for the AAC - still have two FCS on the schedule more often than not, and their three FBS wins this year came against teams with a total of eight wins. They still lag Navy in being ready for Power 6 competition (and Air Force does as well) STRUCTURALLY (things like an independent 501.c.3 athletic association, facilities, etc) but while it was in a season that may prove to be a flash-in-the-pan success, Army West Point's performance in the 2018 Armed Forces Bowl is solid evidence that what was true in 1998 is not necessarily true now. Even with three years of success, they probably don't have the scheduling challenges that Navy was facing in 2011-12 -- after years of Navy beating multiple BCS auto-qual conference teams, a LOT of schools weren't picking up the phone when they saw an Annapolis number.

Point {3} You are totally guessing on what the threshhold might be. For BYU, you're probably on target, but the pride/perception issues are more of a holdback for BYU than straight financials. For mwc schools who could find an Olympic sports landing place (AF, SDSU, BSU) the current $7M media plus consistent $1M more per school from CFP/bowls than the mwc...the numbers could very well work without getting to $15M. I'm guessing too, but actually looking at numbers instead of pulling ideas out of my hind end like you.

I appreciate your well thought out and considered points. We could add in several more. However, this guy is either just incompetent, 13 years old or a troll. We should just have copy pasta for these people. Tulane was added for a reason. Amazing Location to visit, fertile recruiting, elite academics, long history (sugar bowls, rose bowls, undefeated seasons, SEC championships), large endowment ($1B+), reasonable sized market and only LSU nearby. With minimal success, Tulane will see great momentum moving forward. . . As we see now with the 4th best recruiting class in the aac and multiple bowls in a row. Attendance comes with winning, it’s building now. Thanks for the support aac folks, and I hope ECU and Tulsa bounce back.

When three years ago or more when Tulsa and Tulane were losing so many games and were like New Mexico State and UMass? You did not have fans showing up to the games nor the tv ratings. For the past 10 years overall? Both schools were not winning the games like ECU. C-USA got burn by adding schools from large tv markets with schools that do have similar things that you have said about Tulane.

Amaizing location do not get you into a conference. Ask Boise State, BYU and San Diego State.
Having fertile grounds do not get you in a conference. Ask ODU, S. Miss., UAB, James Madison, Lamar and Jacksonville State? They all would love a spot at a higher up.
Elite academics do not get you in. Ask Rice about that.
Long history have booted a lot of schools from the better conferences for a long time now especially being from a power conference.
Many schools had undefeated seasons who are not in Tulane's position.
Large endowment can't buy your way to win. That is why Tulane is not in a power conference.

There are reasons that you can't go by with what you say now. Appalachian State would be a much better addition to the AAC over Tulsa and Tulane right now. The past few years, they are acting like Boise State.

(12-15-2019 08:05 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  No one, I mean no one gives two ***** about WBB. That's why there are no credits for it. Just saying.

UConn's men's basketball was also the content that will be missing from the ESPN lineup for content. Buffalo, Dayton and ODU been having 20+ wins the past few years better than UConn. Adding one of those schools would upped AAC's men's basketball quality production.

(12-16-2019 01:26 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 02:16 AM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 08:51 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 07:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Like I said, nobody in the Rockies and west coast will accept any invites from AAC. Too much hassles like spending more money to go east coast. I do not think Houston, SMU, Tulane and Tulsa will last long in the AAC. {1}Tulsa and Tulane have the worst attendance in the stands the past several years. Tulsa is under 4000 students while my alma mater in D2 have 12,000 students. I do not think you all get this. {2}Army tried with C-USA and it failed. Adding BYU or any MWC schools would be a failure. {3}You have to get ESPN to bump it up to $15 million per school a year before any of these schools will join.

Point {1} Tulane at 20271 is better than FIVE mwc schools. Tulsa 18741 only better than three in the mwc, but also better than HALF of CUSA, all but one of the MAC, and seven of ten Sun Belt.

Point {2} There were a lot of structural reasons Army failed in CUSA two decades ago. They have started addressing all of them. Possibly they're not ready yet for the AAC - still have two FCS on the schedule more often than not, and their three FBS wins this year came against teams with a total of eight wins. They still lag Navy in being ready for Power 6 competition (and Air Force does as well) STRUCTURALLY (things like an independent 501.c.3 athletic association, facilities, etc) but while it was in a season that may prove to be a flash-in-the-pan success, Army West Point's performance in the 2018 Armed Forces Bowl is solid evidence that what was true in 1998 is not necessarily true now. Even with three years of success, they probably don't have the scheduling challenges that Navy was facing in 2011-12 -- after years of Navy beating multiple BCS auto-qual conference teams, a LOT of schools weren't picking up the phone when they saw an Annapolis number.

Point {3} You are totally guessing on what the threshhold might be. For BYU, you're probably on target, but the pride/perception issues are more of a holdback for BYU than straight financials. For mwc schools who could find an Olympic sports landing place (AF, SDSU, BSU) the current $7M media plus consistent $1M more per school from CFP/bowls than the mwc...the numbers could very well work without getting to $15M. I'm guessing too, but actually looking at numbers instead of pulling ideas out of my hind end like you.

I appreciate your well thought out and considered points. We could add in several more. However, this guy is either just incompetent, 13 years old or a troll. We should just have copy pasta for these people. Tulane was added for a reason. Amazing Location to visit, fertile recruiting, elite academics, long history (sugar bowls, rose bowls, undefeated seasons, SEC championships), large endowment ($1B+), reasonable sized market and only LSU nearby. With minimal success, Tulane will see great momentum moving forward. . . As we see now with the 4th best recruiting class in the aac and multiple bowls in a row. Attendance comes with winning, it’s building now. Thanks for the support aac folks, and I hope ECU and Tulsa bounce back.

When three years ago or more when Tulsa and Tulane were losing so many games and were like New Mexico State and UMass? You did not have fans showing up to the games nor the tv ratings.For the past 10 years overall? Both schools were not winning the games like ECU. C-USA got burn by adding schools from large tv markets with schools that do have similar things that you have said about Tulane.

Amaizing location do not get you into a conference. Ask Boise State, BYU and San Diego State.
Having fertile grounds do not get you in a conference. Ask ODU, S. Miss., UAB, James Madison, Lamar and Jacksonville State? They all would love a spot at a higher up.
Elite academics do not get you in. Ask Rice about that.
Long history have booted a lot of schools from the better conferences for a long time now especially being from a power conference.
Many schools had undefeated seasons who are not in Tulane's position.
Large endowment can't buy your way to win. That is why Tulane is not in a power conference.

There are reasons that you can't go by with what you say now. Appalachian State would be a much better addition to the AAC over Tulsa and Tulane right now. The past few years, they are acting like Boise State.

You should stop now.

Three years ago Tulsa was a ten win team. We won CUSA and the west division several times. That was our fourth ten win season in a pretty short period.

Tulane voluntarily left the SEC, is a premier institution, in a great location, with a lot of history playing current AAC teams.

Academics matter Dave, Presidents not ADs vote on membership.
Location matters Dave.
Budget matters.
Support matters.
Market matters.

Appalachian State has none of it. They have a limited time in FBS and a couple seasons of success, that doesn't even get you a look.

Go home David you are even further out in left field than normal.

(12-16-2019 01:26 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 02:16 AM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 08:51 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 07:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Like I said, nobody in the Rockies and west coast will accept any invites from AAC. Too much hassles like spending more money to go east coast. I do not think Houston, SMU, Tulane and Tulsa will last long in the AAC. {1}Tulsa and Tulane have the worst attendance in the stands the past several years. Tulsa is under 4000 students while my alma mater in D2 have 12,000 students. I do not think you all get this. {2}Army tried with C-USA and it failed. Adding BYU or any MWC schools would be a failure. {3}You have to get ESPN to bump it up to $15 million per school a year before any of these schools will join.

Point {1} Tulane at 20271 is better than FIVE mwc schools. Tulsa 18741 only better than three in the mwc, but also better than HALF of CUSA, all but one of the MAC, and seven of ten Sun Belt.

Point {2} There were a lot of structural reasons Army failed in CUSA two decades ago. They have started addressing all of them. Possibly they're not ready yet for the AAC - still have two FCS on the schedule more often than not, and their three FBS wins this year came against teams with a total of eight wins. They still lag Navy in being ready for Power 6 competition (and Air Force does as well) STRUCTURALLY (things like an independent 501.c.3 athletic association, facilities, etc) but while it was in a season that may prove to be a flash-in-the-pan success, Army West Point's performance in the 2018 Armed Forces Bowl is solid evidence that what was true in 1998 is not necessarily true now. Even with three years of success, they probably don't have the scheduling challenges that Navy was facing in 2011-12 -- after years of Navy beating multiple BCS auto-qual conference teams, a LOT of schools weren't picking up the phone when they saw an Annapolis number.

Point {3} You are totally guessing on what the threshhold might be. For BYU, you're probably on target, but the pride/perception issues are more of a holdback for BYU than straight financials. For mwc schools who could find an Olympic sports landing place (AF, SDSU, BSU) the current $7M media plus consistent $1M more per school from CFP/bowls than the mwc...the numbers could very well work without getting to $15M. I'm guessing too, but actually looking at numbers instead of pulling ideas out of my hind end like you.

I appreciate your well thought out and considered points. We could add in several more. However, this guy is either just incompetent, 13 years old or a troll. We should just have copy pasta for these people. Tulane was added for a reason. Amazing Location to visit, fertile recruiting, elite academics, long history (sugar bowls, rose bowls, undefeated seasons, SEC championships), large endowment ($1B+), reasonable sized market and only LSU nearby. With minimal success, Tulane will see great momentum moving forward. . . As we see now with the 4th best recruiting class in the aac and multiple bowls in a row. Attendance comes with winning, it’s building now. Thanks for the support aac folks, and I hope ECU and Tulsa bounce back.

When three years ago or more when Tulsa and Tulane were losing so many games and were like New Mexico State and UMass? You did not have fans showing up to the games nor the tv ratings. For the past 10 years overall? Both schools were not winning the games like ECU. C-USA got burn by adding schools from large tv markets with schools that do have similar things that you have said about Tulane.

Amaizing location do not get you into a conference. Ask Boise State, BYU and San Diego State.
Having fertile grounds do not get you in a conference. Ask ODU, S. Miss., UAB, James Madison, Lamar and Jacksonville State? They all would love a spot at a higher up.
Elite academics do not get you in. Ask Rice about that.
Long history have booted a lot of schools from the better conferences for a long time now especially being from a power conference.
Many schools had undefeated seasons who are not in Tulane's position.
Large endowment can't buy your way to win. That is why Tulane is not in a power conference.

There are reasons that you can't go by with what you say now. Appalachian State would be a much better addition to the AAC over Tulsa and Tulane right now. The past few years, they are acting like Boise State.

Can we have people commenting on this board verify a college degree ? When has Tulane ever acted like boise ? Are you from USM too ? Living with the mayor of USM in a Nashville basement with his mom ?
Anyway after all of your trolling/nonsense: here we are. None of your examples check all of those boxes. Maybe just read a book.

(12-16-2019 01:50 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 01:26 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 02:16 AM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 08:51 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 07:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Like I said, nobody in the Rockies and west coast will accept any invites from AAC. Too much hassles like spending more money to go east coast. I do not think Houston, SMU, Tulane and Tulsa will last long in the AAC. {1}Tulsa and Tulane have the worst attendance in the stands the past several years. Tulsa is under 4000 students while my alma mater in D2 have 12,000 students. I do not think you all get this. {2}Army tried with C-USA and it failed. Adding BYU or any MWC schools would be a failure. {3}You have to get ESPN to bump it up to $15 million per school a year before any of these schools will join.

Point {1} Tulane at 20271 is better than FIVE mwc schools. Tulsa 18741 only better than three in the mwc, but also better than HALF of CUSA, all but one of the MAC, and seven of ten Sun Belt.

Point {2} There were a lot of structural reasons Army failed in CUSA two decades ago. They have started addressing all of them. Possibly they're not ready yet for the AAC - still have two FCS on the schedule more often than not, and their three FBS wins this year came against teams with a total of eight wins. They still lag Navy in being ready for Power 6 competition (and Air Force does as well) STRUCTURALLY (things like an independent 501.c.3 athletic association, facilities, etc) but while it was in a season that may prove to be a flash-in-the-pan success, Army West Point's performance in the 2018 Armed Forces Bowl is solid evidence that what was true in 1998 is not necessarily true now. Even with three years of success, they probably don't have the scheduling challenges that Navy was facing in 2011-12 -- after years of Navy beating multiple BCS auto-qual conference teams, a LOT of schools weren't picking up the phone when they saw an Annapolis number.

Point {3} You are totally guessing on what the threshhold might be. For BYU, you're probably on target, but the pride/perception issues are more of a holdback for BYU than straight financials. For mwc schools who could find an Olympic sports landing place (AF, SDSU, BSU) the current $7M media plus consistent $1M more per school from CFP/bowls than the mwc...the numbers could very well work without getting to $15M. I'm guessing too, but actually looking at numbers instead of pulling ideas out of my hind end like you.

I appreciate your well thought out and considered points. We could add in several more. However, this guy is either just incompetent, 13 years old or a troll. We should just have copy pasta for these people. Tulane was added for a reason. Amazing Location to visit, fertile recruiting, elite academics, long history (sugar bowls, rose bowls, undefeated seasons, SEC championships), large endowment ($1B+), reasonable sized market and only LSU nearby. With minimal success, Tulane will see great momentum moving forward. . . As we see now with the 4th best recruiting class in the aac and multiple bowls in a row. Attendance comes with winning, it’s building now. Thanks for the support aac folks, and I hope ECU and Tulsa bounce back.

When three years ago or more when Tulsa and Tulane were losing so many games and were like New Mexico State and UMass? You did not have fans showing up to the games nor the tv ratings.For the past 10 years overall? Both schools were not winning the games like ECU. C-USA got burn by adding schools from large tv markets with schools that do have similar things that you have said about Tulane.

Amaizing location do not get you into a conference. Ask Boise State, BYU and San Diego State.
Having fertile grounds do not get you in a conference. Ask ODU, S. Miss., UAB, James Madison, Lamar and Jacksonville State? They all would love a spot at a higher up.
Elite academics do not get you in. Ask Rice about that.
Long history have booted a lot of schools from the better conferences for a long time now especially being from a power conference.
Many schools had undefeated seasons who are not in Tulane's position.
Large endowment can't buy your way to win. That is why Tulane is not in a power conference.

There are reasons that you can't go by with what you say now. Appalachian State would be a much better addition to the AAC over Tulsa and Tulane right now. The past few years, they are acting like Boise State.

You should stop now.

Three years ago Tulsa was a ten win team. We won CUSA and the west division several times. That was our fourth ten win season in a pretty short period.

Tulane voluntarily left the SEC, is a premier institution, in a great location, with a lot of history playing current AAC teams.

Academics matter Dave, Presidents not ADs vote on membership.
Location matters Dave.
Budget matters.
Support matters.
Market matters.

Appalachian State has none of it. They have a limited time in FBS and a couple seasons of success, that doesn't even get you a look.

Go home David you are even further out in left field than normal.

Well said

(12-15-2019 10:00 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  What do you care? Pay attention you might learn something

Maybe that advice belongs to you.

(12-15-2019 07:32 PM)Out West Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 06:56 PM)Penny1 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 01:41 PM)mustangxc Wrote:  My preference is to add BYU football only and move on. However, if we were to do a more expansive addition add BYU, Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, and San Diego State.

East:
Navy
Temple
Cincinnati
East Carolina
UCF
USF
Memphis
Tulane

West:
SMU
Houston
Tulsa
BYU
Boise State
Colorado State
Air Force
San Diego State

If they were to go to 16, which I highly doubt, it would be 4 quad divisions with 4 teams each.

Therefore teams would play 3 division games and 5 or 6 (if they were to go with a 9-game conference schedule) non division conference games.

Mercy! The concept of the WAC-16 with quadrants is reborn!

But just sit tight for the time being and play with 11 teams.

oh fvck… here come the Pods....