(01-23-2020 04:51 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  The outlook is pretty clear.

Do we want to add Boise State now, and get back to 12?

Or do we want to whiff on Boise State, and hope we don't need to add a 12th in two years?

There is no other program out there that can bring the cache that Boise State does. Adding Boise fortifies the P6 claim. No combination of App State, GA State, USM, ODU, UNCC, Marshall (etc) does that.

Yep. It sucks, but I would welcome them back with open arms. They can forget about any notion of uneven revenue, though.

Boise might be pulling a Costanza. Aresco and Boise aren't talking, they're just...talking. Craig Thompson can't believe Blue Field Man could perpetrate such a disloyalty.

The only question is whether Air Force will swoop in and get themselves canned first.

Just a thought. What if the American set up a Pacific Division that sort-of self-supported itself?

The Pacific Time Zone division could have access to all of the American's bowl games. Pacific Time Zone division could schedule amongst themselves with some high profile games against the midwest/southwest and eastern/southern schools scheduled to create ratings.

Navy and Air Force have special missions and may wish to play all over the country for recruiting reasons.
Air Force, as they have traditionally, would compete in all sports.
Navy is football only.
Witchita State competes in all sports but football.

The football conference championship game would not really be clear. It may be where the commissioner's office chooses the two best teams to compete. The hope is to propel a team to the playoff.

For basketball, the hope is to rack of basketball credits.

For non-revenue sports, maybe the conference can work to make scheduling regional.

All I am really considering is how a Boise State-type additional may work, how to build more revenue, and to make football playoff access more likely. Additionally, how can we ensure the basketball programs remain at the elite level.


Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
UCF
South Florida

Memphis
Tulane
Houston
SMU
Tulsa

Boise State
Colorado State
BYU
UNLV
Fresno State
San Diego State

Air Force
Navy

Wichita State

(01-23-2020 07:09 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 04:51 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  The outlook is pretty clear.

Do we want to add Boise State now, and get back to 12?

Or do we want to whiff on Boise State, and hope we don't need to add a 12th in two years?

There is no other program out there that can bring the cache that Boise State does. Adding Boise fortifies the P6 claim. No combination of App State, GA State, USM, ODU, UNCC, Marshall (etc) does that.

Yep. It sucks, but I would welcome them back with open arms. They can forget about any notion of uneven revenue, though.

I guarantee you that Boise State wouldn't ask for uneven revenue if an all sports western division was set up.

(01-24-2020 03:22 PM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 07:09 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 04:51 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  The outlook is pretty clear.

Do we want to add Boise State now, and get back to 12?

Or do we want to whiff on Boise State, and hope we don't need to add a 12th in two years?

There is no other program out there that can bring the cache that Boise State does. Adding Boise fortifies the P6 claim. No combination of App State, GA State, USM, ODU, UNCC, Marshall (etc) does that.

Yep. It sucks, but I would welcome them back with open arms. They can forget about any notion of uneven revenue, though.

I guarantee you that Boise State wouldn't ask for uneven revenue if an all sports western division was set up.

Could you expand on the rationale behind a western wing a bit?

The idea of regional partners can (I think) be boiled down to two main reasons:

1. Travel partners to save cost for the entire conference
2. A peer with similar goals and identities that spur rivalries through proximity.


Given how isolated Boise State is, do either of those really become established by adding more western teams, or does it do more harm for the rest of the conference?


In other words, of the top candidates to come with Boise State (BYU, SDSU, Fresno State, AFA, Colorado State) the closest one is BYU at 382 miles away (the equivalent of saying that Florida State and Clemson are regional travel partners).


In the instance of a football only invite, teams can't stay in a region for an entire week waiting for the next game so travel partners in football are irrelevant. The only real benefit would be to provide someone familiar for Boise fans to see on the schedule, but you have to think about what cost. CFP pay gets divided more, conference members play each other less, media deal gets split more, teams have to travel cross country at the minimum twice as much as they would have before.


In the case of an all sports invite, now you are increasing travel costs exponentially for just one team, let alone for 2-4 more.


Apologies for the word vomit, but long story short, is a western wing really that important given what it costs?

(01-24-2020 03:50 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:22 PM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 07:09 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 04:51 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  The outlook is pretty clear.

Do we want to add Boise State now, and get back to 12?

Or do we want to whiff on Boise State, and hope we don't need to add a 12th in two years?

There is no other program out there that can bring the cache that Boise State does. Adding Boise fortifies the P6 claim. No combination of App State, GA State, USM, ODU, UNCC, Marshall (etc) does that.

Yep. It sucks, but I would welcome them back with open arms. They can forget about any notion of uneven revenue, though.

I guarantee you that Boise State wouldn't ask for uneven revenue if an all sports western division was set up.

Could you expand on the rationale behind a western wing a bit?

The idea of regional partners can (I think) be boiled down to two main reasons:

1. Travel partners to save cost for the entire conference
2. A peer with similar goals and identities that spur rivalries through proximity.


Given how isolated Boise State is, do either of those really become established by adding more western teams, or does it do more harm for the rest of the conference?


In other words, of the top candidates to come with Boise State (BYU, SDSU, Fresno State, AFA, Colorado State) the closest one is BYU at 382 miles away (the equivalent of saying that Florida State and Clemson are regional travel partners).


In the instance of a football only invite, teams can't stay in a region for an entire week waiting for the next game so travel partners in football are irrelevant. The only real benefit would be to provide someone familiar for Boise fans to see on the schedule, but you have to think about what cost. CFP pay gets divided more, conference members play each other less, media deal gets split more, teams have to travel cross country at the minimum twice as much as they would have before.


In the case of an all sports invite, now you are increasing travel costs exponentially for just one team, let alone for 2-4 more.


Apologies for the word vomit, but long story short, is a western wing really that important given what it costs?

Boise isn't as remote as you might think. Sure, not many direct connections to cities on the East Coast but plenty throughout the west and midwest, including Houston.

I don't think the travel costs are significant for football as there are so few games but when you start looking at oly sports, it adds up quickly. Having regional travel partners is a significant thing, and really helpful if there are a couple of direct commercial flights to cities such as Salt Lake, San Diego, or Denver.

I've commented on the MWC board that an all sports league such as this would be doable:

AAC West
Air Force
Boise State
BYU (or SDSU if BYU won't go)
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

AAC East
Cincy
ECU
Memphis
Navy
Temple
UCF
USF

(01-24-2020 04:12 PM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:50 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:22 PM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 07:09 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 04:51 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  The outlook is pretty clear.

Do we want to add Boise State now, and get back to 12?

Or do we want to whiff on Boise State, and hope we don't need to add a 12th in two years?

There is no other program out there that can bring the cache that Boise State does. Adding Boise fortifies the P6 claim. No combination of App State, GA State, USM, ODU, UNCC, Marshall (etc) does that.

Yep. It sucks, but I would welcome them back with open arms. They can forget about any notion of uneven revenue, though.

I guarantee you that Boise State wouldn't ask for uneven revenue if an all sports western division was set up.

Could you expand on the rationale behind a western wing a bit?

The idea of regional partners can (I think) be boiled down to two main reasons:

1. Travel partners to save cost for the entire conference
2. A peer with similar goals and identities that spur rivalries through proximity.


Given how isolated Boise State is, do either of those really become established by adding more western teams, or does it do more harm for the rest of the conference?


In other words, of the top candidates to come with Boise State (BYU, SDSU, Fresno State, AFA, Colorado State) the closest one is BYU at 382 miles away (the equivalent of saying that Florida State and Clemson are regional travel partners).


In the instance of a football only invite, teams can't stay in a region for an entire week waiting for the next game so travel partners in football are irrelevant. The only real benefit would be to provide someone familiar for Boise fans to see on the schedule, but you have to think about what cost. CFP pay gets divided more, conference members play each other less, media deal gets split more, teams have to travel cross country at the minimum twice as much as they would have before.


In the case of an all sports invite, now you are increasing travel costs exponentially for just one team, let alone for 2-4 more.


Apologies for the word vomit, but long story short, is a western wing really that important given what it costs?

Boise isn't as remote as you might think. Sure, not many direct connections to cities on the East Coast but plenty throughout the west and midwest, including Houston.

I don't think the travel costs are significant for football as there are so few games but when you start looking at oly sports, it adds up quickly. Having regional travel partners is a significant thing, and really helpful if there are a couple of direct commercial flights to cities such as Salt Lake, San Diego, or Denver.

I've commented on the MWC board that an all sports league such as this would be doable:

AAC West
Air Force
Boise State
BYU (or SDSU if BYU won't go)
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

AAC East
Cincy
ECU
Memphis
Navy
Temple
UCF
USF

This is where you get BYU and Gonzaga involved for Olympics only.

Keep your divisional alignment for football (with SDSU) and then you have a critical mass of regional teams for Olympic sports scheduling:

AFA, Boise, SDSU, Gonzaga, BYU
Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Wichita, Memphis, Tulane
Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, UCF, USF

May be you hardly ever schedule women's softball games or swimming & diving meets between Boise and UCF or Gonzaga and Temple...but those are some terrific games for football and basketball.

(01-24-2020 05:18 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:12 PM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:50 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:22 PM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 07:09 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  Yep. It sucks, but I would welcome them back with open arms. They can forget about any notion of uneven revenue, though.

I guarantee you that Boise State wouldn't ask for uneven revenue if an all sports western division was set up.

Could you expand on the rationale behind a western wing a bit?

The idea of regional partners can (I think) be boiled down to two main reasons:

1. Travel partners to save cost for the entire conference
2. A peer with similar goals and identities that spur rivalries through proximity.


Given how isolated Boise State is, do either of those really become established by adding more western teams, or does it do more harm for the rest of the conference?


In other words, of the top candidates to come with Boise State (BYU, SDSU, Fresno State, AFA, Colorado State) the closest one is BYU at 382 miles away (the equivalent of saying that Florida State and Clemson are regional travel partners).


In the instance of a football only invite, teams can't stay in a region for an entire week waiting for the next game so travel partners in football are irrelevant. The only real benefit would be to provide someone familiar for Boise fans to see on the schedule, but you have to think about what cost. CFP pay gets divided more, conference members play each other less, media deal gets split more, teams have to travel cross country at the minimum twice as much as they would have before.


In the case of an all sports invite, now you are increasing travel costs exponentially for just one team, let alone for 2-4 more.


Apologies for the word vomit, but long story short, is a western wing really that important given what it costs?

Boise isn't as remote as you might think. Sure, not many direct connections to cities on the East Coast but plenty throughout the west and midwest, including Houston.

I don't think the travel costs are significant for football as there are so few games but when you start looking at oly sports, it adds up quickly. Having regional travel partners is a significant thing, and really helpful if there are a couple of direct commercial flights to cities such as Salt Lake, San Diego, or Denver.

I've commented on the MWC board that an all sports league such as this would be doable:

AAC West
Air Force
Boise State
BYU (or SDSU if BYU won't go)
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

AAC East
Cincy
ECU
Memphis
Navy
Temple
UCF
USF

This is where you get BYU and Gonzaga involved for Olympics only.

Keep your divisional alignment for football (with SDSU) and then you have a critical mass of regional teams for Olympic sports scheduling:

AFA, Boise, SDSU, Gonzaga, BYU
Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Wichita, Memphis, Tulane
Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, UCF, USF

May be you hardly ever schedule women's softball games or swimming & diving meets between Boise and UCF or Gonzaga and Temple...but those are some terrific games for football and basketball.

BYU football is the only sport the AAC is interested in.

Short of just adding AFA and VCU and/or Dayton, I think that an all-sport membership would be the only way this could work in the long run... which is important to consider because in my opinion, the B12 is not going to fold nor expand. To do this, I think that we would have to go to at least 14 teams... and that 16 might be even better.

I also think that some sort of agreement would need to be made via the NCAA, whereas we were only required to play one football game each season against members of the opposite division.

If we want to add BYU, then it’s probably best that we try to add Gonzaga as well.

If we could add Gonzaga and VCU (Olympics only) along with BYU, Boise State and SDSU it would definitely add to the value of our conference competitively and it’s possible that it would add to the bottom line as well. At the very least, it would further widen the gap between us and the G4 and likely close the gap between the the American and the Pac12 and ACC even more so.

We’ll find out soon enough if we’re adding anyone, I guess...

(01-24-2020 09:43 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 05:18 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:12 PM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:50 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:22 PM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  I guarantee you that Boise State wouldn't ask for uneven revenue if an all sports western division was set up.

Could you expand on the rationale behind a western wing a bit?

The idea of regional partners can (I think) be boiled down to two main reasons:

1. Travel partners to save cost for the entire conference
2. A peer with similar goals and identities that spur rivalries through proximity.


Given how isolated Boise State is, do either of those really become established by adding more western teams, or does it do more harm for the rest of the conference?


In other words, of the top candidates to come with Boise State (BYU, SDSU, Fresno State, AFA, Colorado State) the closest one is BYU at 382 miles away (the equivalent of saying that Florida State and Clemson are regional travel partners).


In the instance of a football only invite, teams can't stay in a region for an entire week waiting for the next game so travel partners in football are irrelevant. The only real benefit would be to provide someone familiar for Boise fans to see on the schedule, but you have to think about what cost. CFP pay gets divided more, conference members play each other less, media deal gets split more, teams have to travel cross country at the minimum twice as much as they would have before.


In the case of an all sports invite, now you are increasing travel costs exponentially for just one team, let alone for 2-4 more.


Apologies for the word vomit, but long story short, is a western wing really that important given what it costs?

Boise isn't as remote as you might think. Sure, not many direct connections to cities on the East Coast but plenty throughout the west and midwest, including Houston.

I don't think the travel costs are significant for football as there are so few games but when you start looking at oly sports, it adds up quickly. Having regional travel partners is a significant thing, and really helpful if there are a couple of direct commercial flights to cities such as Salt Lake, San Diego, or Denver.

I've commented on the MWC board that an all sports league such as this would be doable:

AAC West
Air Force
Boise State
BYU (or SDSU if BYU won't go)
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

AAC East
Cincy
ECU
Memphis
Navy
Temple
UCF
USF

This is where you get BYU and Gonzaga involved for Olympics only.

Keep your divisional alignment for football (with SDSU) and then you have a critical mass of regional teams for Olympic sports scheduling:

AFA, Boise, SDSU, Gonzaga, BYU
Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Wichita, Memphis, Tulane
Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, UCF, USF

May be you hardly ever schedule women's softball games or swimming & diving meets between Boise and UCF or Gonzaga and Temple...but those are some terrific games for football and basketball.

BYU football is the only sport the AAC is interested in.

Not necessarily. I like the all sports divisions BSYTOP25 has outlined. The reality is schools want to put all their sports in one conference. BSU and BYU have been decently competitive for a number of years in BB. Western wing works for me. ESPN just has to like it enough to spend for it.

(01-22-2020 05:46 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Do we really need to go down the road of a hybrid conference? I don't think we do. So let's not, okay?

We already are. Navy/Wichita State.

(01-24-2020 10:53 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  Short of just adding AFA and VCU and/or Dayton, I think that an all-sport membership would be the only way this could work in the long run... which is important to consider because in my opinion, the B12 is not going to fold nor expand. To do this, I think that we would have to go to at least 14 teams... and that 16 might be even better.

I also think that some sort of agreement would need to be made via the NCAA, whereas we were only required to play one football game each season against members of the opposite division.

If we want to add BYU, then it’s probably best that we try to add Gonzaga as well.

If we could add Gonzaga and VCU (Olympics only) along with BYU, Boise State and SDSU it would definitely add to the value of our conference competitively and it’s possible that it would add to the bottom line as well. At the very least, it would further widen the gap between us and the G4 and likely close the gap between the the American and the Pac12 and ACC even more so.

We’ll find out soon enough if we’re adding anyone, I guess...

There is no requirement that you play even one game against the other division to hold a CCG. The only requirements are that the 2 divisions be as evenly divided as possible and that a full round robin within each division is played.

I like the idea of Gonzaga, but its just a bridge too far. AFA and VCU keep the travel pretty reasonable. Frankly, I dont see how Boise works financially unless they are a "all sports" member. A "football only" share is likely around 4.9 million. Why would Boise give up 5.8 million for 4.9 million, higher travel costs, and the relegation of their olympic sports to a lesser conference?

Thus, if you want Boise, you're going to have to either give them a special financial deal (thats a hard no from me) or you're going to have to figure out a way to make an "all sports" Boise membership work for all parties involved.

(01-25-2020 12:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 10:53 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  Short of just adding AFA and VCU and/or Dayton, I think that an all-sport membership would be the only way this could work in the long run... which is important to consider because in my opinion, the B12 is not going to fold nor expand. To do this, I think that we would have to go to at least 14 teams... and that 16 might be even better.

I also think that some sort of agreement would need to be made via the NCAA, whereas we were only required to play one football game each season against members of the opposite division.

If we want to add BYU, then it’s probably best that we try to add Gonzaga as well.

If we could add Gonzaga and VCU (Olympics only) along with BYU, Boise State and SDSU it would definitely add to the value of our conference competitively and it’s possible that it would add to the bottom line as well. At the very least, it would further widen the gap between us and the G4 and likely close the gap between the the American and the Pac12 and ACC even more so.

We’ll find out soon enough if we’re adding anyone, I guess...

There is no requirement that you play even one game against the other division to hold a CCG. The only requirements are that the 2 divisions be as evenly divided as possible and that a full round robin within each division is played.

I like the idea of Gonzaga, but its just a bridge too far. AFA and VCU keep the travel pretty reasonable. Frankly, I dont see how Boise works financially unless they are a "all sports" member. A "football only" share is likely around 4.9 million. Why would Boise give up 5.8 million for 4.9 million, higher travel costs, and the relegation of their olympic sports to a lesser conference?

Thus, if you want Boise, you're going to have to either give them a special financial deal (thats a hard no from me) or you're going to have to figure out a way to make an "all sports" Boise membership work for all parties involved.

Exactly. The deal would have to be mutually beneficial and Boise State isn’t going to take less money to split their programs up between conferences and fly their football team all over the country where hardly any fans will make the time and financial commitment to tag along.

The only way Boise State joins the AAC is with an all sports membership in a true western division. The AAC would need to expand to 14 or 16. Not sure that can get done without ESPN throwing a lot of money your way.

(01-25-2020 07:18 AM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 12:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 10:53 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  Short of just adding AFA and VCU and/or Dayton, I think that an all-sport membership would be the only way this could work in the long run... which is important to consider because in my opinion, the B12 is not going to fold nor expand. To do this, I think that we would have to go to at least 14 teams... and that 16 might be even better.

I also think that some sort of agreement would need to be made via the NCAA, whereas we were only required to play one football game each season against members of the opposite division.

If we want to add BYU, then it’s probably best that we try to add Gonzaga as well.

If we could add Gonzaga and VCU (Olympics only) along with BYU, Boise State and SDSU it would definitely add to the value of our conference competitively and it’s possible that it would add to the bottom line as well. At the very least, it would further widen the gap between us and the G4 and likely close the gap between the the American and the Pac12 and ACC even more so.

We’ll find out soon enough if we’re adding anyone, I guess...

There is no requirement that you play even one game against the other division to hold a CCG. The only requirements are that the 2 divisions be as evenly divided as possible and that a full round robin within each division is played.

I like the idea of Gonzaga, but its just a bridge too far. AFA and VCU keep the travel pretty reasonable. Frankly, I dont see how Boise works financially unless they are a "all sports" member. A "football only" share is likely around 4.9 million. Why would Boise give up 5.8 million for 4.9 million, higher travel costs, and the relegation of their olympic sports to a lesser conference?

Thus, if you want Boise, you're going to have to either give them a special financial deal (thats a hard no from me) or you're going to have to figure out a way to make an "all sports" Boise membership work for all parties involved.

Exactly. The deal would have to be mutually beneficial and Boise State isn’t going to take less money to split their programs up between conferences and fly their football team all over the country where hardly any fans will make the time and financial commitment to tag along.

The only way Boise State joins the AAC is with an all sports membership in a true western division. The AAC would need to expand to 14 or 16. Not sure that can get done without ESPN throwing a lot of money your way.

The “rule change” that I was speaking of was with regards to NCAA regulations which dictate that members of a conference must play each other every so often. I am of the understanding that such a rule exists; am I correct?

(01-25-2020 09:23 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 07:18 AM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 12:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 10:53 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  Short of just adding AFA and VCU and/or Dayton, I think that an all-sport membership would be the only way this could work in the long run... which is important to consider because in my opinion, the B12 is not going to fold nor expand. To do this, I think that we would have to go to at least 14 teams... and that 16 might be even better.

I also think that some sort of agreement would need to be made via the NCAA, whereas we were only required to play one football game each season against members of the opposite division.

If we want to add BYU, then it’s probably best that we try to add Gonzaga as well.

If we could add Gonzaga and VCU (Olympics only) along with BYU, Boise State and SDSU it would definitely add to the value of our conference competitively and it’s possible that it would add to the bottom line as well. At the very least, it would further widen the gap between us and the G4 and likely close the gap between the the American and the Pac12 and ACC even more so.

We’ll find out soon enough if we’re adding anyone, I guess...

There is no requirement that you play even one game against the other division to hold a CCG. The only requirements are that the 2 divisions be as evenly divided as possible and that a full round robin within each division is played.

I like the idea of Gonzaga, but its just a bridge too far. AFA and VCU keep the travel pretty reasonable. Frankly, I dont see how Boise works financially unless they are a "all sports" member. A "football only" share is likely around 4.9 million. Why would Boise give up 5.8 million for 4.9 million, higher travel costs, and the relegation of their olympic sports to a lesser conference?

Thus, if you want Boise, you're going to have to either give them a special financial deal (thats a hard no from me) or you're going to have to figure out a way to make an "all sports" Boise membership work for all parties involved.

Exactly. The deal would have to be mutually beneficial and Boise State isn’t going to take less money to split their programs up between conferences and fly their football team all over the country where hardly any fans will make the time and financial commitment to tag along.

The only way Boise State joins the AAC is with an all sports membership in a true western division. The AAC would need to expand to 14 or 16. Not sure that can get done without ESPN throwing a lot of money your way.

The “rule change” that I was speaking of was with regards to NCAA regulations which dictate that members of a conference must play each other every so often. I am of the understanding that such a rule exists; am I correct?

Sorry, not sure.

What some are still missing is that travel is an issue. Throwing Tulane in the West to play Boise State or San Diego State is not reasonable. -Think of volleyball and softball. Who is going to wish to miss that much class time?

A Pacific Coast division must play within itself with a few games going east.

(01-26-2020 05:58 AM)chess Wrote:  What some are still missing is that travel is an issue. Throwing Tulane in the West to play Boise State or San Diego State is not reasonable. -Think of volleyball and softball. Who is going to wish to miss that much class time?

A Pacific Coast division must play within itself with a few games going east.

My question is what does the AAC do now? Temple is about the exact same distance from Houston as is Boise. When UCONN was in the league it was further. Boise is NW of Houston, the other two are in the NE direction. Are volleyball and soccer going from Houston to UCONN and Temple now? What is different?

(01-26-2020 05:58 AM)chess Wrote:  What some are still missing is that travel is an issue. Throwing Tulane in the West to play Boise State or San Diego State is not reasonable. -Think of volleyball and softball. Who is going to wish to miss that much class time?

A Pacific Coast division must play within itself with a few games going east.

Which is why I say NOOOO Pacific Time Zone teams.
Boise
Air Force
Colorado State
BYU.
PERIOD.
Pick any three of those and call it a day. Ask ESPN for $15MM per/per with a GOR for 8 years with a 4 year renegotiation period.

(01-22-2020 10:31 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:10 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Btw - BYU needs to get into therapy and come to terms with the fact that they're not P5 program. Until they do that there's really no reason to consider them.

BYU is a P5 program, just not with the Big XII or PAC-12... So perhaps tat therapy should be geared towards P6?

They are not ND. BYU has no contractual agreement connected to a CFP conference. Until that happens, they are no better than Army.

(01-26-2020 11:40 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 10:31 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:10 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Btw - BYU needs to get into therapy and come to terms with the fact that they're not P5 program. Until they do that there's really no reason to consider them.

BYU is a P5 program, just not with the Big XII or PAC-12... So perhaps tat therapy should be geared towards P6?

They are not ND. BYU has no contractual agreement connected to a CFP conference. Until that happens, they are no better than Army.

Also they are not getting P5 money. I will say this about a lot of their fans based on message board posts: They act entitled like UCONN fans. I could see them blaming the fracking league if their teams go south.