(01-14-2020 01:37 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  While I have somewhat of an affinity for USM / Marshall I would say Old Dominion should be looked at as a possibility for expansion if the need to expand is imminent.

1. Large market (Tidewater)
2. Recruiting hotbed
3. Natural rival for East Carolina
4. Location adds Virginia and ties the east side of the conference more together (Temple, Navy, ODU, ECU)
5. All sports could be added
6. Several NCAA tournament appearances in baseball, basketball, and other sports. A lot of potential in football as well.

ECU can play ODU without adding to the conference and losing our leg up in their market. We recruit Tidewater heavily, and are already second fiddle to VT. Don't go and give up your middle child status by elevating ODU.

UAB

(01-14-2020 02:07 PM)OptimisticCoach Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 09:48 AM)jwawker Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 09:05 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:40 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Waiting for Panama in 3, 2, 1.....

Georgia State, new stadium, largest available market in AAC footprint, largest available new recruiting area in AAC footprint, largest available student enrollment in AAC footprint...

Most of their expansion has occurred since 2000.

Just like SUNY Buffalo it would be a major mistake for the AAC to overlook Georgia State...

OK, now Que Panama

I live in Atlanta. All of those stats you mentioned may be true and would mean something if you were talking about Georgia Tech, but Georgia State gets zero buzz in this town.

Cincinnati use to Get NO buzz in Ohio much less Cincinnati and look at them now. They are the 2nd best team in the state. There are enough students and enough people around the city that rep Atlanta hard and would be more than willing to rep THEIR city's university.

GT is in ATL, UGA is an hour away. GA St gets nothing in ATL, no fans, no coverage, few wins. Just sucking on the public dole & costing GA citizens & students money.

(01-14-2020 03:20 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 01:37 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  While I have somewhat of an affinity for USM / Marshall I would say Old Dominion should be looked at as a possibility for expansion if the need to expand is imminent.

1. Large market (Tidewater)
2. Recruiting hotbed
3. Natural rival for East Carolina
4. Location adds Virginia and ties the east side of the conference more together (Temple, Navy, ODU, ECU)
5. All sports could be added
6. Several NCAA tournament appearances in baseball, basketball, and other sports. A lot of potential in football as well.

ECU can play ODU without adding to the conference and losing our leg up in their market. We recruit Tidewater heavily, and are already second fiddle to VT. Don't go and give up your middle child status by elevating ODU.

Wasn't born yesterday. I understand all that and stick with my opinion as you are certainly entitled to yours. Win and recruiting takes care of itself. ODU would certainly deserve consideration as much as any team in the OP's list . ️

My Top 5 would be App State, UAB, Georgia State, Buffalo and Marshall (gosh, it was great kicking the crap out of Marshall again in the bowl game). I don't believe Army or BYU are available.

I'd be interested in App State and Marshall as FB-only. I could also consider Southern Miss as FB-only, but they'd be 6th on my list. All three of those can find alternative conferences for their other sports because they a) don't add much value and b) create travel problems. UAB and Georgia State both have large airports in large metro areas that don't present a travel problem and have more growth potential imo. Buffalo similarly doesn't present travel concerns and their basketball has been really solid of late, plus they are an AAU school in a good market we don't currently have, and which the NFL is going to eventually abandon.

(01-14-2020 10:32 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 09:27 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  .
NONE.

To be "AAC-quality" let's ...say a team has to be average or median. That means:

On field: CONSISTENTLY ranked above the middle of FBS overall, #65. (AAC's 5-year average of Massey Composite Conference average is right there).

RESPONSE: The poll question asks if a team can improve enough to get to that point not whether they have already attained this standard.

Attendance: 29,000 (our conference 2019 average)

RESPONSE: Several non-MWC schools already meet this standard.

Budget: $55M (that's the median of the AAC schools listed in the USAToday database). Limit subsidies to our high of 55%, too.
Head Coach Salary consistently over $2M to keep from being poached by lousy autonomy-conference schools. That's about our median.

RESPONSE: A school's median budget can be increased, if necessary. State schools might be able to get a budget increase if the long-term increase in funding from the AAC would justify the outlay.

Beyond that, some of the AAC schools with below-median budgets have had very successful athletic programs. Further, Commissioner Aresco has never included above-median budgets on the list of AAC criteria.


Recruiting: A five year average that would put them in the AAC top half. (Summer of '18 that included BYU, 2 mwc, 1 MAC school, 1 CUSA)

RESPONSE: If you'd like to include this as a standard, you'll have to run a separate poll, because this poll is about what potential member schools will be able to do by improving in the coming years, not about what happened in the past 5 years.

I respectfully disagree on all of these points for a number of solid reasons. For one thing due diligence indicates that you may have judged the issue based on too little information. That's ok - - no one has enough time to collect all the pertinent data.

I get it that you would have preferred adding a "NONE" category in the poll, but it wouldn't have made sense to do so, because the premise of the poll question stipulates the conditions, which are that IF no MWC teams are available, WHICH other schools could possibly IMPROVE ENOUGH in the readers view to merit AAC membership in the future?

If you're correct, and if no MWC schools join the American, the AAC would have no options at all (even if they're willing to be a bit more flexible on standards than you have stipulated)- - other than imploding, losing its $7 M per school broadcasting deal, and merging with another conference - - if raided by P5 conferences.

On that point, I think you're in error. There are certainly basketball schools that fully meet the AAC criteria. In addition, there are almost certainly at least 2 or 3 FB schools that could improve enough to meet the criteria.

Some of the schools with recent bowl games and NCAA tournaments that might receive AAC consideration (e.g., SUNY Buffalo (31,546), Georgia State University (53,000; 33,000 on main campus), and UNC Charlotte (29,710) have enrollments that clearly exceed the AAC median of 29,000.

You've also overlooked the fact that there are some non-MWC FBS schools that are R1 quality research universities.

These include SUNY Buffalo (R1; AAU; State Flagship School; SUNY enrollment: 440,000), Georgia State University (R1; #3 in State University Flagship system; over 200,000 enrollment), and Rice University (admittedly not a strong FB or MBB contender, but AAU; R1 and former member of a top power conference (South West Conference; SWC).

As it turns out, Appalachian State, a Final AP Top 20 FB program, is part of the UNC system of universities and may thus meet more of the AAC's criteria than many of us had once supposed.

Okay, that was a quick fire after pondering this poll over my commute in this morning. I can expound a little.

Throughout this thread (and others, I believe) you talk about adding in order to be prepared for the AAC teams to be raided by "P5" conferences. That is a silly starting point.
The 2016 BigXII sham demonstrated that the autonomy conference with room for modest growth judged that none of the candidates added enough value to be worth the addition. If we're not enough value at $30M per school, how can we be enough value at $50M per school when their media deals are coming up?
That's when the AAC Strategic Plan, and the "P6" information campaign were rolled out -- AFTER that sham. With that mounting evidence that no one is going to get a single-school golden ticket, the AAC charted a course to stop being crabs in a bucket and find a way to be included on the right side of history in the next RESTRUCTURE (not "realignment") of the CFP and the contract bowls. That's the objective, because the ground truth argues AGAINST the 1,2,3 schools getting plucked away and needing to have a deeper AAC bench. We shouldn't spend time and intellectual effort worrying about "imploding, losing its $7 M per school broadcasting deal, and merging with another conference - - if raided by P5 conferences."
The possibility of Texas/Oklahoma leaving the BigXII or the contraction to "P4" and chaos -- those will be such fundamental game changers that planning to them is pointless and a waste of time.

No, rather than adding for the sake of adding numbers on the bench, as a contingency plan for a raid that is unlikely to ever come, everything should be about the strategic plan of being MORE like a "P5" so we are on the inside in 2026.

That's why I went for the averages/medians -- if a candidate is below our median, it by definition is pulling us down, not up.

(Oh by the way, one important detail: I was never talking about enrollment, rather "attendance" at football games.)

And looking at those medians, your question "which schools COULD improve enough?" is baked right in to my answer of "None."
I mean any school COULD improve. The community college down the street from me COULD improve enough. My daughters' DII / DIII schools COULD improve enough.
Not only do zero meet all these TODAY, I foresee zero meeting them in two years (if there is no rules change and we have a decision point on 12 vs 11 in two years), and I foresee zero meeting them on the cusp of 2025.

You mention budget as an area a little could CHOOSE to - one of these littles could double their spending...but you ignored the other part of that - most are already OVER the 55% subsidies that is the AAC's biggest. Your theory of a state school budget increase is an INCREASE of the negative indicator of having high subsidies/allocations. Marshall for instance would move from 48% subsidies/allocations to 78% to get up to our median $55M. No. Thanks.

If a candidate could prove in two years that it is at least on a trajectory to reach these standards in, say five years, let's start talking. But none will.

(01-14-2020 04:55 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 10:32 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 09:27 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  .
NONE.

To be "AAC-quality" let's ...say a team has to be average or median. That means:

On field: CONSISTENTLY ranked above the middle of FBS overall, #65. (AAC's 5-year average of Massey Composite Conference average is right there).

RESPONSE: The poll question asks if a team can improve enough to get to that point not whether they have already attained this standard.

Attendance: 29,000 (our conference 2019 average)

RESPONSE: Several non-MWC schools already meet this standard.

Budget: $55M (that's the median of the AAC schools listed in the USAToday database). Limit subsidies to our high of 55%, too.
Head Coach Salary consistently over $2M to keep from being poached by lousy autonomy-conference schools. That's about our median.

RESPONSE: A school's median budget can be increased, if necessary. State schools might be able to get a budget increase if the long-term increase in funding from the AAC would justify the outlay.

Beyond that, some of the AAC schools with below-median budgets have had very successful athletic programs. Further, Commissioner Aresco has never included above-median budgets on the list of AAC criteria.


Recruiting: A five year average that would put them in the AAC top half. (Summer of '18 that included BYU, 2 mwc, 1 MAC school, 1 CUSA)

RESPONSE: If you'd like to include this as a standard, you'll have to run a separate poll, because this poll is about what potential member schools will be able to do by improving in the coming years, not about what happened in the past 5 years.

I respectfully disagree on all of these points for a number of solid reasons. For one thing due diligence indicates that you may have judged the issue based on too little information. That's ok - - no one has enough time to collect all the pertinent data.

I get it that you would have preferred adding a "NONE" category in the poll, but it wouldn't have made sense to do so, because the premise of the poll question stipulates the conditions, which are that IF no MWC teams are available, WHICH other schools could possibly IMPROVE ENOUGH in the readers view to merit AAC membership in the future?

If you're correct, and if no MWC schools join the American, the AAC would have no options at all (even if they're willing to be a bit more flexible on standards than you have stipulated)- - other than imploding, losing its $7 M per school broadcasting deal, and merging with another conference - - if raided by P5 conferences.

On that point, I think you're in error. There are certainly basketball schools that fully meet the AAC criteria. In addition, there are almost certainly at least 2 or 3 FB schools that could improve enough to meet the criteria.

Some of the schools with recent bowl games and NCAA tournaments that might receive AAC consideration (e.g., SUNY Buffalo (31,546), Georgia State University (53,000; 33,000 on main campus), and UNC Charlotte (29,710) have enrollments that clearly exceed the AAC median of 29,000.

You've also overlooked the fact that there are some non-MWC FBS schools that are R1 quality research universities.

These include SUNY Buffalo (R1; AAU; State Flagship School; SUNY enrollment: 440,000), Georgia State University (R1; #3 in State University Flagship system; over 200,000 enrollment), and Rice University (admittedly not a strong FB or MBB contender, but AAU; R1 and former member of a top power conference (South West Conference; SWC).

As it turns out, Appalachian State, a Final AP Top 20 FB program, is part of the UNC system of universities and may thus meet more of the AAC's criteria than many of us had once supposed.

Okay, that was a quick fire after pondering this poll over my commute in this morning. I can expound a little.

Throughout this thread (and others, I believe) you talk about adding in order to be prepared for the AAC teams to be raided by "P5" conferences. That is a silly starting point.
The 2016 BigXII sham demonstrated that the autonomy conference with room for modest growth judged that none of the candidates added enough value to be worth the addition. If we're not enough value at $30M per school, how can we be enough value at $50M per school when their media deals are coming up?
That's when the AAC Strategic Plan, and the "P6" information campaign were rolled out -- AFTER that sham. With that mounting evidence that no one is going to get a single-school golden ticket, the AAC charted a course to stop being crabs in a bucket and find a way to be included on the right side of history in the next RESTRUCTURE (not "realignment") of the CFP and the contract bowls. That's the objective, because the ground truth argues AGAINST the 1,2,3 schools getting plucked away and needing to have a deeper AAC bench. We shouldn't spend time and intellectual effort worrying about "imploding, losing its $7 M per school broadcasting deal, and merging with another conference - - if raided by P5 conferences."
The possibility of Texas/Oklahoma leaving the BigXII or the contraction to "P4" and chaos -- those will be such fundamental game changers that planning to them is pointless and a waste of time.

No, rather than adding for the sake of adding numbers on the bench, as a contingency plan for a raid that is unlikely to ever come, everything should be about the strategic plan of being MORE like a "P5" so we are on the inside in 2026.

That's why I went for the averages/medians -- if a candidate is below our median, it by definition is pulling us down, not up.

(Oh by the way, one important detail: I was never talking about enrollment, rather "attendance" at football games.)

And looking at those medians, your question "which schools COULD improve enough?" is baked right in to my answer of "None."
I mean any school COULD improve. The community college down the street from me COULD improve enough. My daughters' DII / DIII schools COULD improve enough.
Not only do zero meet all these TODAY, I foresee zero meeting them in two years (if there is no rules change and we have a decision point on 12 vs 11 in two years), and I foresee zero meeting them on the cusp of 2025.

You mention budget as an area a little could CHOOSE to - one of these littles could double their spending...but you ignored the other part of that - most are already OVER the 55% subsidies that is the AAC's biggest. Your theory of a state school budget increase is an INCREASE of the negative indicator of having high subsidies/allocations. Marshall for instance would move from 48% subsidies/allocations to 78% to get up to our median $55M. No. Thanks.

If a candidate could prove in two years that it is at least on a trajectory to reach these standards in, say five years, let's start talking. But none will.

+2, only because I don't have the ability to give +3.

USFFan

(01-14-2020 08:07 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  None of the above

It’s BYU, a MW team or kick out Tulsa.

This is the correct answer.

UAB

ODU or UAB: No pro teams in the metro

Southern Miss, if they get their mojo back.

(01-14-2020 04:55 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  If a candidate could prove in two years that it is at least on a trajectory to reach these standards in, say five years, let's start talking. But none will.

Ok - maybe something like that will happen. I hope so.

It's true that the possibility of two AAC teams leaving the conference for a P5 conference may be a low probability event, and it's certainly possible that no P5s will raid the AAC, or that the conference could somehow survive and keep its ESPN contract intact by adding teams at the last minute.

My thinking has been that, even though it may be a low probability event it's better to prevent the possibility of an AAC implosion during realignment (similar to the Big East's implosion in 2012-13) by replacing UConn before the potential 2023-2025 realignment period begins.

It's possible that some may think that it would be riskier to a FB school like Buffalo or App State (etc.) than it would be for the AAC to drop to 9 teams in 2023-2025 realignments.

We'll see what happens.


---------
p.s. Although it won't change anyone's mind, the history of the conference to date suggests to some that any new AAC member would be likely to make further improvements due to the benefits of membership.

Liberty will be very good in about 2 years.

(01-14-2020 07:29 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 04:55 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  If a candidate could prove in two years that it is at least on a trajectory to reach these standards in, say five years, let's start talking. But none will.

Ok - maybe something like that will happen. I hope so.

It's true that the possibility of two AAC teams leaving the conference for a P5 conference may be a low probability event, and it's certainly possible that no P5s will raid the AAC, or that the conference could somehow survive and keep its ESPN contract intact by adding teams at the last minute.

My thinking has been that, even though it may be a low probability event it's better to prevent the possibility of an AAC implosion during realignment (similar to the Big East's implosion in 2012-13) by replacing UConn before the potential 2023-2025 realignment period begins.

It's possible that some may think that it would be riskier to a FB school like Buffalo or App State (etc.) than it would be for the AAC to drop to 9 teams in 2023-2025 realignments.

We'll see what happens.


---------
p.s. Although it won't change anyone's mind, the history of the conference to date suggests to some that any new AAC member would be likely to make further improvements due to the benefits of membership.

You shouldn't take actions that are counter to progress to your strategic goal as a contingency plan for a low probability event. Even a low probability-high impact event.

Does the potential addition make us look more P5 or more G4?
If the former then we can talk about it. Today NONE of those candidates do that. In two years, it is likely that everyone of those candidates will still look more G4. Even with an AAC rising tide helping them float, I don't see any certainty of making those strides 2021-2025

LSU or Clemson

(01-14-2020 08:24 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Voted Indy for BYU. All others need not apply.

This. BYU football only. Done.

In how many threads have we beat this horse silly? Asking for a friend.

(01-14-2020 10:00 PM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  In how many threads have we beat this horse silly? Asking for a friend.

It's like weeds. You pull them, but a new one keeps sprouting up. Some people must really like weed(s)...

USFFan

(01-14-2020 02:07 PM)OptimisticCoach Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 09:48 AM)jwawker Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 09:05 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:40 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Waiting for Panama in 3, 2, 1.....

Georgia State, new stadium, largest available market in AAC footprint, largest available new recruiting area in AAC footprint, largest available student enrollment in AAC footprint...

Most of their expansion has occurred since 2000.

Just like SUNY Buffalo it would be a major mistake for the AAC to overlook Georgia State...

OK, now Que Panama

I live in Atlanta. All of those stats you mentioned may be true and would mean something if you were talking about Georgia Tech, but Georgia State gets zero buzz in this town.

Cincinnati use to Get NO buzz in Ohio much less Cincinnati and look at them now. They are the 2nd best team in the state. There are enough students and enough people around the city that rep Atlanta hard and would be more than willing to rep THEIR city's university.

Sports Competition in Cincinnati:
• Ohio State?
• Bengals
• Reds?
  

Sports Competition in Atlanta:
• UGA
• Georgia Tech
• Atlanta Falcons
• Atlanta Braves
• Atlanta Hawks
  

It's just a tad different.

(01-14-2020 08:08 PM)MWCRobert Wrote:  Liberty will be very good in about 2 years.

I would take any other FCS or G5 team before Liberty.