Out West
Water Engineer
Posts: 18
Joined: Nov 2019
Reputation: 0
I Root For: TU OSU OU
Location: |
RE: Revised TV deal coming
(12-28-2019 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (12-28-2019 12:26 AM)jedclampett Wrote: (12-27-2019 10:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: .
There is no drop dead date or period of time when the AAC knocks off the “aloof act” and takes Blinn Jr College simply because they are kinda in the footprint and are willing to say “yes”.
The league already has a list. It is a very short list of teams that actually add value and help support the leagues P6 this initiative. We all know who those 3 or 4 teams are. If we can’t swing a deal to get one of those teams—then we will either continue on with a divisionless CCG (if a rule change happens) or we go temporarily to uneven divisions. Eventually a team that adds value and is interested will come along.
Bottom line—-there is no deadline.
Agree. Stay at 11.
.
Not entirely sure what you mean by "there is no deadline," given that there is certainly a "waiver deadline," at the end of the two-year waiver (conclusion of the 2021 FB season).
I gather that your point is that Commissioner Aresco has stated that the AAC could go on indefinitely with only 11 teams, after the 2 year waiver expires.
In other words, while there is a two-year waiver deadline, the conference doesn't have to respond by adding a 12th team, and thus doesn't have a deadline for adding a 12th team.
We don't disagree on that point. The conference could go on for years without adding a 12th team. All they'd have to do to have a sanctioned CCG is to move forward with an unbalanced East-West divisional arrangement.
.
However, many readers, including 65% of those who responded to a poll on the topic do consider the addition of a 12th team by 2022 to be a better option than going forward with 11 teams, for a lot of good reasons including balanced 6 team divisions, as well as adding viewership and recruiting regions, etc.
.
While it's true that the AAC could wait for years to find a school that meets the stated criteria (national brand recognition, etc.), it may turn out that the choices won't be any better 5 years from now than they are today. In that case, it might be better to select the best available candidate in 2 years and help them get up to speed - - if there is one that's acceptable to the member schools - - in the hope that it will become a highly valued member a year or two after joining the conference.
.
I also agree with the generally idea that there are only a relatively few schools that would come closest to meeting the conference's criteria.
But the word "few" is defined slightly differently by different people, and it's not entirely clear that Aresco's original description - suggesting that there were only a very few (BYU, Boise, & Army) - continues to apply now as it appeared to when he first spoke those words (last summer).
While the conference had an initial list (BYU, Army, Boise) immediately after UConn's departure was announced, the list may well have been updated since then.
No one seems to be sure, but many around here consider 1, 2, or all 3 of Army, BYU, and Boise to have more or less removed themselves from the AAC short list. Army seems extremely reluctant to join any conference after spending years in the basement of the C-USA. Boise & BYU have sweetheart deals with broadcasters and have little to gain from joining a(nother) P5 conference.
Many or most observers do consider Air Force, San Diego State, and Colorado State as at least potential AAC FB only members. All three may be more likely than BYU, Boise, and Army to have any potential interest in the AAC. The list may end there, but it is possible that the AAC would give serious consideration to a couple of others.
===========================================
.
So no, the AAC won't add a Blinn Jr. College or an FCS, and perhaps not any non-MWC FB school.
However, if AFA, SDSU, or CSU FB should express any interest in joining the AAC, Aresco could solve a number of problems all at the same time by inviting one of these schools to join as a FB only member.
-Balanced 6-6 divisions for optimal CCG
-Addition of a viewership/recruiting region
-Improved stature/recognition of a 12 (vs. 11) team conference
-Conference viability protection against future raid from P5s
.
One last point:
Aresco's point about national recognition or "brand" as a major requirement could possibly be satisfied by adding an AAU school with strong academic reputation. While most do not consider this likely, there are at least two AAU/R1 schools (SUNY-UB and Rice U.) that meet this criterion, one of which is a former member of a power conference (Rice U., a former member of the regionally dominant Southwest Conference, along with Houston and SMU).
Adding such a "brainiac" school would be comparable to adding a Northwestern, a Vanderbilt, a Duke (when Duke wasn't a FB power), or a UC/Berkeley. The only P5 conference that doesn't have such a FB school is the Big 12, with the possible exception of Kansas. All of these schools are strong national brands despite a lack of FB success, and Rice in particular would fit that bill, having filled that very role when it was in the once-dominant SWC.
Some have asked whether the top and middle tier AAC teams were better off having a UConn to help them build favorable W-L records, just as the Ohio States and Michigans benefit from having a Northwestern Rutgers on the schedule to trounce each season and they do have a point.
Again---the presidents arent adding a warm body also ran member just to reach a round number. That is a very bad permanent move that saddles the league with an additional bottom tier member that drags the league downward. They arent going to do that just to solve a temporary short term scheduling inconvenience. Its a bad move---and the presidents know it is. Furthermore---I suspect there is about a 99.9% chance that the rule change is going to pass---so your deadline concern (which isn't really a deadline at all since uneven divisions are our safety net option) becomes moot if the rule change passes.
|
|
