(12-21-2019 07:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 05:48 PM)Off_The_Hook Wrote:  .
Thread after thread after thread are created with the same speculation involving some form of Air Force, Boise, BYU, Army, SDSU and CSU.

You're going to have to extend your list because none of those teams are coming here.

BYU, AF, and Army remain the AAC's only real viable football playing targets.

.
"None of those teams (including Air Force, SDSU and CSU) are coming here..."

This claim regarding AF, SDSU, and CSU may not have any basis in fact, and may or may not amount to anything beyond speculation. If there is any info supporting this claim, please let us know.

"BYU, AF, and Army remain the AAC's only real viable football playing targets."

1) Why don't you consider SDSU and CSU viable targets?

2) Why are BYU and Army still on your list of viable targets?

I doubt if ESPN has any interest in destroying the mountain west. They are more interested in the SEC package they just outbidded on.

(12-21-2019 09:26 PM)Crazier Wrote:  I doubt if ESPN has any interest in destroying the mountain west. They are more interested in the SEC package they just outbidded on.

Perhaps, but they still have a strong incentive to add FB and BB viewership regions to replace UConn's regional viewership.

(12-21-2019 09:35 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 09:26 PM)Crazier Wrote:  I doubt if ESPN has any interest in destroying the mountain west. They are more interested in the SEC package they just outbidded on.

Perhaps, but they still have a strong incentive to add FB and BB viewership regions to replace UConn's regional viewership.

Does any conference bring that kind of viewership that ESPiN does not own? The CFP is all that matters now, and they have the players they need.

(12-21-2019 07:56 PM)Off_The_Hook Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 07:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 05:48 PM)Off_The_Hook Wrote:  Thread after thread after thread are created with the same speculation involving some form of Air Force, Boise, BYU, Army, SDSU and CSU.

You're going to have to extend your list because none of those teams are coming here.

Few of those programs add legitimate value, viewership, and prestige in football. The one or two that have all those qualities the AAC covets has no interest in joining the AAC. You are simply wasting your time with this.

I'm thinking you're looking at a CUSA/MAC member like App State, which won't enjoy full revenue sharing until year 5 or 6 and pair that with a solid mid major bball addition.

I doubt it. If your goal is being seen as "P6"---then there isnt really a football school east of the Rockies that will do much for that effort. While I understand that the P6 thing is really marketing---it is important in putting the league in the best position possible when the CFP is renegotiated in 6 years.

Now, sure---there are some teams that win located east of the Rockies. But there arent any schools east of the Rockies with the kind of significant brand, budget, ratings, and/or support to really help build up the "P6" conference image. Whoever you add from east of the Rockies is going to look much more like the bottom schools of the AAC than they would represent its top. You get stronger as a conference by adding to the top---or at least the middle. You don't generally improve your league by adding to the bottom of the conference.

So, BYU, AF, and Army remain the AAC's only real viable football playing targets. Absent them, then I could see a key non-football addition like VCU getting in if they are interested. If not---the AAC is probably better off standing pat until they can add a school (be it as a full , "football only", or non-football member) that represents the upper half of the league.

BYU isn't coming, they inked a deal already with AAC/ESPN fully knowing they will need to replace UConn, among other reasons.

Neither Air Force nor Army are "P6" moves. Sure, eyeballs and probably can market the whole "American Athletic Conference" branding, but as far as football is concerned, not a great move. And there are several more significant issues that would need to be addressed. Neither are legitimate options right now. And honestly, not sure either are terribly interested.

I'm not saying App State is the best option, but if the conference has to add one, they will have to go with something like that for football and mid-major add in bball. Everyone in this thread, past threads, and in future threads continue to focus on programs that will not be making that move for one reason or another. There is no obvious addition here.

BYU's deal can be folded in to the AAC at any time. It is what we did with Navy. They ain't coming until the Big 12 door shuts fully on them. Meanwhile if the CFP expands to 8 with a 5-1-2 model, then BYU may have a different view of the AAC. Best AAC strategy is to be patient and keep winning against the P5.

(12-21-2019 07:56 PM)Off_The_Hook Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 07:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 05:48 PM)Off_The_Hook Wrote:  Thread after thread after thread are created with the same speculation involving some form of Air Force, Boise, BYU, Army, SDSU and CSU.

You're going to have to extend your list because none of those teams are coming here.

Few of those programs add legitimate value, viewership, and prestige in football. The one or two that have all those qualities the AAC covets has no interest in joining the AAC. You are simply wasting your time with this.

I'm thinking you're looking at a CUSA/MAC member like App State, which won't enjoy full revenue sharing until year 5 or 6 and pair that with a solid mid major bball addition.

I doubt it. If your goal is being seen as "P6"---then there isnt really a football school east of the Rockies that will do much for that effort. While I understand that the P6 thing is really marketing---it is important in putting the league in the best position possible when the CFP is renegotiated in 6 years.

Now, sure---there are some teams that win located east of the Rockies. But there arent any schools east of the Rockies with the kind of significant brand, budget, ratings, and/or support to really help build up the "P6" conference image. Whoever you add from east of the Rockies is going to look much more like the bottom schools of the AAC than they would represent its top. You get stronger as a conference by adding to the top---or at least the middle. You don't generally improve your league by adding to the bottom of the conference.

So, BYU, AF, and Army remain the AAC's only real viable football playing targets. Absent them, then I could see a key non-football addition like VCU getting in if they are interested. If not---the AAC is probably better off standing pat until they can add a school (be it as a full , "football only", or non-football member) that represents the upper half of the league.

BYU isn't coming, they inked a deal already with AAC/ESPN fully knowing they will need to replace UConn, among other reasons.

Neither Air Force nor Army are "P6" moves. Sure, eyeballs and probably can market the whole "American Athletic Conference" branding, but as far as football is concerned, not a great move. And there are several more significant issues that would need to be addressed. Neither are legitimate options right now. And honestly, not sure either are terribly interested.

I'm not saying App State is the best option, but if the conference has to add one, they will have to go with something like that for football and mid-major add in bball. Everyone in this thread, past threads, and in future threads continue to focus on programs that will not be making that move for one reason or another. There is no obvious addition here.

Im kinda at a loss as to how you can blast Air Force and Army as not being "P6 moves" and then try to peddle anything in the Sunbelt, MAC, or CUSA as "better". But beyond that--you seem to be missing my primary point. If those top selections that add value are not available (and I agree that you may very well be correct that they are not interested), then the AAC's BEST option is to simply take nobody. Adding some random warm body just to hit a round number is the absolute worst move to make. I guess the thing you may not realize is that the AAC can have a CCG without adding anyone and without a rule change. It wont be ideal (requires unbalanced divisions and the hassle that entails), but its a temporary inconvenience until a legit replacement team (one that looks like a mid to upper level AAC team) emerges.

In other words---uneven divisions is a temporary negative. Making an unnecessarily rushed addition that drags down the conference is a permanent decision that the league is stuck with forever. So, better to deal with uneven divisions than to just grab a warm body simply because they are willing to say "yes".

I agree that the American doesn't have to add anybody right now. However, when the 2 year waiver expires, we have to add a 12th member. Or if ESPN is trying to play its powerball again on MWC, we might feel the pressure to add a 12th member.

But now? I think nothing will move the needle. Just wait and see... Patience...

(12-21-2019 09:26 PM)Crazier Wrote:  I doubt if ESPN has any interest in destroying the mountain west. They are more interested in the SEC package they just outbidded on.

I dont think ESPN has any interest in destroying the MW. I dont think they really think that way. That said, I DO think they would be interested in a little western time zone content---especially if its the upper tier of teams out that way and can be had at a reasonable price.

(12-21-2019 10:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 09:26 PM)Crazier Wrote:  I doubt if ESPN has any interest in destroying the mountain west. They are more interested in the SEC package they just outbidded on.

I dont think ESPN has any interest in destroying the MW. I dont think they really think that way. That said, I DO think they would be interested in a little western time zone content---especially if its the upper tier of teams out that way and can be had at a reasonable price.

Adding a western market is very beneficial to American. That will expand our market and viewship.

So ESPN can broadcast American Games all day from 12pm to 10:30pm plus weekday games. That will increase our TV $$.

SDSU? City of San Diego
BYU? City of Salt Lake City

Big market!

(12-21-2019 10:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 09:26 PM)Crazier Wrote:  I doubt if ESPN has any interest in destroying the mountain west. They are more interested in the SEC package they just outbidded on.

I dont think ESPN has any interest in destroying the MW. I dont think they really think that way. That said, I DO think they would be interested in a little western time zone content---especially if its the upper tier of teams out that way and can be had at a reasonable price.

Agree. ESPiN at the cheap.

(12-21-2019 09:24 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 07:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 05:48 PM)Off_The_Hook Wrote:  .
Thread after thread after thread are created with the same speculation involving some form of Air Force, Boise, BYU, Army, SDSU and CSU.

You're going to have to extend your list because none of those teams are coming here.

BYU, AF, and Army remain the AAC's only real viable football playing targets.

.
"None of those teams (including Air Force, SDSU and CSU) are coming here..."

This claim regarding AF, SDSU, and CSU may not have any basis in fact, and may or may not amount to anything beyond speculation. If there is any info supporting this claim, please let us know.

"BYU, AF, and Army remain the AAC's only real viable football playing targets."

1) Why don't you consider SDSU and CSU viable targets?

2) Why are BYU and Army still on your list of viable targets?

Viable targets have to do with adding value. Like Ive said---BYU/AF/Army may very well have no interest in coming (the odds are they probably aren't interested truth be told). My point is simply that the unwillingness of our most valued targets to join the AAC does nothing to increase the value of the possible options in the east. There is just nothing in the east that makes sense to add. Colorado St would be a reasonable addition---not great--but the geography works and they look reasonably like a middling level AAC team with respect to brand/budget/support/etc.

SDSU is even better---but that distance is just too much to deal with in my humble opinion (unless they are taken as part of a larger group of MW teams).

SDSU can come in as full sports member and distance will be an issue... Most of the non revenue sports have scheduled teams on the west coast (OOC) at one point or another.

IF SDSU was in the AAC every member can schedule and eastern team on the OOC and SDSU as a conference game... No one will be going to San Diego more than once a year for each conference sponsored sport.

NOT A BIG DEAL..

(12-22-2019 01:30 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  SDSU can come in as full sports member and distance will be an issue... Most of the non revenue sports have scheduled teams on the west coast (OOC) at one point or another.

IF SDSU was in the AAC every member can schedule and eastern team on the OOC and SDSU as a conference game... No one will be going to San Diego more than once a year for each conference sponsored sport.

NOT A BIG DEAL..

The administrators in 2013 did not agree with your analysis. They felt the distance was a BIG DEAL——and that was just for a “football only” SDSU membership. I can’t imagine what they would say about a lone outpost SDSU “all sports” membership. You’ll need to change their minds if your hoping for SDSU as a lone all sports western addition.

(12-21-2019 10:56 PM)Knightrogen Wrote:  I agree that the American doesn't have to add anybody right now. However, when the 2 year waiver expires, we have to add a 12th member. Or if ESPN is trying to play its powerball again on MWC, we might feel the pressure to add a 12th member.

But now? I think nothing will move the needle. Just wait and see... Patience...

Ding ding ding ding ding

(12-22-2019 01:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The administrators in 2013 ... felt the distance was a BIG DEAL——and that was just for a “football only” SDSU membership.

I can’t imagine what they would say about a lone outpost SDSU “all sports” membership. You’ll need to change their minds if your hoping for SDSU as a lone all sports western addition.

Agree that an all-sports SDSU was and is "a big deal," and not sure that they would be interested in joining AAC for FB only, although they could seize the opportunity to move Aztecs BB into the WAC, alongside Gonzaga and St. Mary's.

As far as FB-only SDSU itself being a big deal in 2013, however, the financial package has improved quite a bit since then, and Mike Aresco stated very clearly in his recent press conference that the AAC wouldn't hesitate to add a qualified FB-only member from the western time zones.

Thus perhaps SDSU FB membership could be feasible, if the parties involved would be willing to transition SDSU BB into the WAC.

(12-21-2019 10:56 PM)Knightrogen Wrote:  I agree that the American doesn't have to add anybody right now. However, when the 2 year waiver expires, we have to add a 12th member. Or if ESPN is trying to play its powerball again on MWC, we might feel the pressure to add a 12th member.

But now? I think nothing will move the needle. Just wait and see... Patience...

We do not have to add a 12th member when the waiver expires or ever to keep the CCG. At the end of the waiver if the rule hasn't been changed, we will have to play uneven divisions. Not desirable but better than adding a mouth to feed.

Does everyone understand we do not have to add a 12th member at the end of the waiver period?

(12-21-2019 10:56 PM)Knightrogen Wrote:  I agree that the American doesn't have to add anybody right now. However, when the 2 year waiver expires, we have to add a 12th member. Or if ESPN is trying to play its powerball again on MWC, we might feel the pressure to add a 12th member.

But now? I think nothing will move the needle. Just wait and see... Patience...

We (The AAC) do not need a waver or rule change to play with 11 teams and have a championship game.

We can ply 2 divisions West=6 Members and East=5 Members and play an U
"Unbalanced schedule" and the winner of the West will play rge winner of the East just like Memphis and Cincinnati did earlier this month.

(12-22-2019 08:34 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 10:56 PM)Knightrogen Wrote:  I agree that the American doesn't have to add anybody right now. However, when the 2 year waiver expires, we have to add a 12th member. Or if ESPN is trying to play its powerball again on MWC, we might feel the pressure to add a 12th member.

But now? I think nothing will move the needle. Just wait and see... Patience...

We do not have to add a 12th member when the waiver expires or ever to keep the CCG. At the end of the waiver if the rule hasn't been changed, we will have to play uneven divisions. Not desirable but better than adding a mouth to feed.

Does everyone understand we do not have to add a 12th member at the end of the waiver period?

lol should have read to the end of the thread before posting my last reply.

(12-22-2019 01:57 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(12-22-2019 08:34 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-21-2019 10:56 PM)Knightrogen Wrote:  I agree that the American doesn't have to add anybody right now. However, when the 2 year waiver expires, we have to add a 12th member. Or if ESPN is trying to play its powerball again on MWC, we might feel the pressure to add a 12th member.

But now? I think nothing will move the needle. Just wait and see... Patience...

We do not have to add a 12th member when the waiver expires or ever to keep the CCG. At the end of the waiver if the rule hasn't been changed, we will have to play uneven divisions. Not desirable but better than adding a mouth to feed.

Does everyone understand we do not have to add a 12th member at the end of the waiver period?

lol should have read to the end of the thread before posting my last reply.

Apparently it needs to be repeated on every page.

I like having the option of staying at 11... I thing getting to 14 with 3 out of BYU, BS-u, Air Force, SDSU, and Army/CSU would however result in more $$ per member.