Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
Author Message
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,920
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 249
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #41
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-01-2020 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 01:21 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If the Big12 does not get picked apart, then they would still be a “Power” conference or whatever the term is in that day. If the best schools are picked off, I think the AAC would be in a better position to pick who they want of the remaining schools that would likely consist of KSU, ISU, TTU, Baylor, TCU, WVU. I think the MWC would be in more danger, than the AAC. Besides ESPN is going to want to protect their property, which could see a pay bump and contract extension during that time.

2 huge rules of conference realignment:

(1) Sh*t ALWAYS rolls downhill in conference realignment.

(2) Think like a university president, NOT like a fan.

First, the old Big East thought exactly the way that you did - that if the Pac-16 happened, then they could take the Big 12 leftovers and become stronger.

The old Big East quickly found out that if you’re behind another conference today, you CANNOT leapfrog then. Ultimately, the old Big East was crushed and eventually kicked out of the power structure altogether. Similarly, C-USA thought that they could poach the remnants of the old Big East... and then C-USA got crushed. We can go down the line where the WAC has similar delusions of grandeur of poaching a weakened MWC... and the WAC up getting destroyed entirely. Rest assured, even if the Big 12 collapsed, left behind schools like Iowa State would still have the massive upper hand to poach the AAC and other leagues because they’ll have all of the exit fees, old conference distributions from the NCAA Tournament and bowl games, existing TV contracts and other assets that would dwarf the G5. Sh*t ALWAYS runs downhill in conference realignment.

Second, university presidents make the decisions about who they let into the power structure. On-the-field/court results by themselves aren’t enough: they want the right *institutions* (NOT teams). I’ve said this before, but for all of the changes in conference realignment over the past 20 years, there were 63 “power” schools when the BCS started in 1996... and there is now a grand total of 65 power schools today. After all of that shuffling, the net change was that TCU (who was in the power system in the pre-BCS world), Utah and Louisville got elevated and Temple got downgraded. That’s it: a net change of plus 2. The point is that the system will NOT elevate an entire other conference to the power ranks. That’s simply not happening because we have seen that there is remarkable stasis with the membership of who is a power school and who isn’t.

Power *institutions* are largely flagship schools, other major public schools with flagship-like qualities (such as Texas A&M, UCLA, Michigan State, Purdue, etc.) and some top tier privates with key attributes (such as top academics and/or locations in major markets). There are zero directional public schools in the Power Five and thowe only true “city” public school in the power ranks is Louisville. (A school like Pitt is essentially a flagship-like research institution that happens to be in a city.) It might sound crazy to sports fans, but the two schools in the AAC that actually look the most like P5 *institutions* (which are different than teams) are Tulane and SMU. Otherwise, the core of the AAC is made up of city and directional public schools. We might see a couple of those schools get invites to the Big 12 eventually (e.g. I could see Cincinnati plus Texas politics getting Houston into the Big 12 someday), but there’s no way that the entire league gets elevated. University presidents are possibly the single most elitist and snobby group of people in all of America.

In the early 60's Vanderbilt spearheaded an attempt to form what came to be known as the Magnolia League. It included Duke, Vanderbilt, SMU, Tulane and Rice. Duke didn't want to give up the Carolina rivalry and SMU and Rice didn't want to give up Cotton Bowl. The impetus for that type of league still exists, and as the money grows, the schools that are of the "Magnolia" mindset may still be looking to cluster together.

For consideration:

New Magnolia:

Boston College, Syracuse, UVa, Duke, Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and Miami

Notre Dame, Northwestern, Pitt, Vanderbilt, Tulane, SMU, Baylor, and TCU.



That leaves 51 schools to be divided into three conferences (16, 16, 15 ?)
02-02-2020 12:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 23,246
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2267
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
What I find odd about this topic is that it asks a forward thinking question and yet most of the replies look backwards into time fumbling for an explanation. It is why stock market models are frequently nothing more than a rehashing of old data which really do not predict any future trends but rather only offer comfort to those who don't alter their thinking.

If a school grows its research to a level that rivals that of to 35% of the so called P conference schools they'll be considered. Usually if this happens it will be in a state with massive growth like Florida, provided that the state is not already saturated with P level schools like Texas and to a lesser extent California.

The stats Bullet posted about the number of schools per total population of the state not falling below the 5 million per school total seemed to indicate that Florida could probably handle another P school with the conundrum being they probably could not, at least by his statistics, handle 2.

Now, there are many external factors driving realignment not the least of which are network desires to access advertising revenue within affluent regions, large regions, and well viewed regions. This is why ESPN has been for 20 years acquiring every property worth having South of a line running from Virginia to Missouri and South toward Texas and inclusive of all of the Southeast.

If you look at the conference rights they have practically 100% of they are the ACC, SEC, and AAC. And their realignment targets have been markets beyond that scope like the Big East teams for the ACC and Missouri and A&M for the SEC. And in the rest of the area they own it all. Why? Because no advertiser can get into a live college sporting even in that region without going through ESPN/Disney and that gives them tremendous leverage in acquiring favorable advertising rates from the advertisers which means a lot more profit. They wanted to bust up the large states between the conferences whose rights they held 100% to keep those conferences from demanding more for their total hold over large states. This is why they pushed Virginia Tech and N.C. State as SEC targets so hard in 2010-2 and were delighted to get A&M into the SEC. Florida was already divided.

But make no mistake no matter what conference it is the Big 12 will be a target unless ESPN buys 100% of their rights and locks FOX out.

The two regions that have the most actual viewers to total viewers are the Southwest and Southeast. The largest footprint in in the ACC. And where are most future top recruits going to come from in numbers sufficient to support program dominance? The Southwest and Southeast. So Disney is looking forward at demographic trends in making these moves and realizes fully that the football isn't becoming a regional sport, it has become a regional sport already.

That doesn't mean the Big 10 is locked out. The transfer portal issue is designed specifically to permit talent sitting on the bench to be spread around beyond the Southeast and Southwest to permit better competition and it is working. It is also why the Big 10 is pushing a relaxed transfer rule in that it benefits them more than it hurts them.

Whether the ACC is considered as a future possible power conference will be a matter of semantics. Will they be old guard deep rooted research universities? No. Will that matter when it comes to sports competition? No. Not after some form of pay for play is implemented. When that happens finally college sports will see a total decoupling from the academic side of higher education and the sports side of higher education and that will IMO be a very healthy matter for Big 10, the PAC, and any other conference who clings to Academic identity as being the overarching concern. Academic priority is a great thing, but it has nothing to do with sports, and hasn't had for many decades. And amateurism is all but dead in its ideal form. And truly justice says if a young man or woman risks bodily injury making millions for a university they should have some reward to go along with their risk. Whether that is a free education and insurance to cover potential injury, or just compensation, or both is another matter to be decided.

If there are current G5 schools added to the P5 in the next ten years it will be from the Southeast or Southwest and will be from a large state and will involve their research development along with their athletics. Beyond that time and a few court rulings we might be looking at a much healthier dichotomy where college athletic conferences are wholly separate from college academic conferences.
02-02-2020 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,910
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 107
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #43
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
The answer is no, the AAC will not be a autonomous conference, however the AAC is a major collegiate sports conference
Actually all 10 FBS conferences are major conferences, it’s just that some do better than others in terms of recruits and tv time and money
So imo in ten years the AAC will not be apart of the 5 autonomous conferences , this however is not to say that the AAC will not grow in terms of attracting blue chip recruits with big tv money and to play for a real national championship
I do think that the current situation has the potential “ seeds” to change a lot in 10 years
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2020 03:24 PM by JHS55.)
02-02-2020 03:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 218
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #44
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-02-2020 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 01:21 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If the Big12 does not get picked apart, then they would still be a “Power” conference or whatever the term is in that day. If the best schools are picked off, I think the AAC would be in a better position to pick who they want of the remaining schools that would likely consist of KSU, ISU, TTU, Baylor, TCU, WVU. I think the MWC would be in more danger, than the AAC. Besides ESPN is going to want to protect their property, which could see a pay bump and contract extension during that time.

2 huge rules of conference realignment:

(1) Sh*t ALWAYS rolls downhill in conference realignment.

(2) Think like a university president, NOT like a fan.

First, the old Big East thought exactly the way that you did - that if the Pac-16 happened, then they could take the Big 12 leftovers and become stronger.

The old Big East quickly found out that if you’re behind another conference today, you CANNOT leapfrog then. Ultimately, the old Big East was crushed and eventually kicked out of the power structure altogether. Similarly, C-USA thought that they could poach the remnants of the old Big East... and then C-USA got crushed. We can go down the line where the WAC has similar delusions of grandeur of poaching a weakened MWC... and the WAC up getting destroyed entirely. Rest assured, even if the Big 12 collapsed, left behind schools like Iowa State would still have the massive upper hand to poach the AAC and other leagues because they’ll have all of the exit fees, old conference distributions from the NCAA Tournament and bowl games, existing TV contracts and other assets that would dwarf the G5. Sh*t ALWAYS runs downhill in conference realignment.

Second, university presidents make the decisions about who they let into the power structure. On-the-field/court results by themselves aren’t enough: they want the right *institutions* (NOT teams). I’ve said this before, but for all of the changes in conference realignment over the past 20 years, there were 63 “power” schools when the BCS started in 1996... and there is now a grand total of 65 power schools today. After all of that shuffling, the net change was that TCU (who was in the power system in the pre-BCS world), Utah and Louisville got elevated and Temple got downgraded. That’s it: a net change of plus 2. The point is that the system will NOT elevate an entire other conference to the power ranks. That’s simply not happening because we have seen that there is remarkable stasis with the membership of who is a power school and who isn’t.

Power *institutions* are largely flagship schools, other major public schools with flagship-like qualities (such as Texas A&M, UCLA, Michigan State, Purdue, etc.) and some top tier privates with key attributes (such as top academics and/or locations in major markets). There are zero directional public schools in the Power Five and thowe only true “city” public school in the power ranks is Louisville. (A school like Pitt is essentially a flagship-like research institution that happens to be in a city.) It might sound crazy to sports fans, but the two schools in the AAC that actually look the most like P5 *institutions* (which are different than teams) are Tulane and SMU. Otherwise, the core of the AAC is made up of city and directional public schools. We might see a couple of those schools get invites to the Big 12 eventually (e.g. I could see Cincinnati plus Texas politics getting Houston into the Big 12 someday), but there’s no way that the entire league gets elevated. University presidents are possibly the single most elitist and snobby group of people in all of America.

In the early 60's Vanderbilt spearheaded an attempt to form what came to be known as the Magnolia League. It included Duke, Vanderbilt, SMU, Tulane and Rice. Duke didn't want to give up the Carolina rivalry and SMU and Rice didn't want to give up Cotton Bowl. The impetus for that type of league still exists, and as the money grows, the schools that are of the "Magnolia" mindset may still be looking to cluster together.

For consideration:

New Magnolia:

Boston College, Syracuse, UVa, Duke, Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and Miami

Notre Dame, Northwestern, Pitt, Vanderbilt, Tulane, SMU, Baylor, and TCU.



That leaves 51 schools to be divided into three conferences (16, 16, 15 ?)

When the ACC announced their intentions to study expansion in 1990, Dean Smith voiced his choice to be Vanderbilt. Of course, Eddie Fogler was the coach there at the time. 04-wine
02-02-2020 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 23,246
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2267
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #45
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-02-2020 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 01:21 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If the Big12 does not get picked apart, then they would still be a “Power” conference or whatever the term is in that day. If the best schools are picked off, I think the AAC would be in a better position to pick who they want of the remaining schools that would likely consist of KSU, ISU, TTU, Baylor, TCU, WVU. I think the MWC would be in more danger, than the AAC. Besides ESPN is going to want to protect their property, which could see a pay bump and contract extension during that time.

2 huge rules of conference realignment:

(1) Sh*t ALWAYS rolls downhill in conference realignment.

(2) Think like a university president, NOT like a fan.

First, the old Big East thought exactly the way that you did - that if the Pac-16 happened, then they could take the Big 12 leftovers and become stronger.

The old Big East quickly found out that if you’re behind another conference today, you CANNOT leapfrog then. Ultimately, the old Big East was crushed and eventually kicked out of the power structure altogether. Similarly, C-USA thought that they could poach the remnants of the old Big East... and then C-USA got crushed. We can go down the line where the WAC has similar delusions of grandeur of poaching a weakened MWC... and the WAC up getting destroyed entirely. Rest assured, even if the Big 12 collapsed, left behind schools like Iowa State would still have the massive upper hand to poach the AAC and other leagues because they’ll have all of the exit fees, old conference distributions from the NCAA Tournament and bowl games, existing TV contracts and other assets that would dwarf the G5. Sh*t ALWAYS runs downhill in conference realignment.

Second, university presidents make the decisions about who they let into the power structure. On-the-field/court results by themselves aren’t enough: they want the right *institutions* (NOT teams). I’ve said this before, but for all of the changes in conference realignment over the past 20 years, there were 63 “power” schools when the BCS started in 1996... and there is now a grand total of 65 power schools today. After all of that shuffling, the net change was that TCU (who was in the power system in the pre-BCS world), Utah and Louisville got elevated and Temple got downgraded. That’s it: a net change of plus 2. The point is that the system will NOT elevate an entire other conference to the power ranks. That’s simply not happening because we have seen that there is remarkable stasis with the membership of who is a power school and who isn’t.

Power *institutions* are largely flagship schools, other major public schools with flagship-like qualities (such as Texas A&M, UCLA, Michigan State, Purdue, etc.) and some top tier privates with key attributes (such as top academics and/or locations in major markets). There are zero directional public schools in the Power Five and thowe only true “city” public school in the power ranks is Louisville. (A school like Pitt is essentially a flagship-like research institution that happens to be in a city.) It might sound crazy to sports fans, but the two schools in the AAC that actually look the most like P5 *institutions* (which are different than teams) are Tulane and SMU. Otherwise, the core of the AAC is made up of city and directional public schools. We might see a couple of those schools get invites to the Big 12 eventually (e.g. I could see Cincinnati plus Texas politics getting Houston into the Big 12 someday), but there’s no way that the entire league gets elevated. University presidents are possibly the single most elitist and snobby group of people in all of America.

In the early 60's Vanderbilt spearheaded an attempt to form what came to be known as the Magnolia League. It included Duke, Vanderbilt, SMU, Tulane and Rice. Duke didn't want to give up the Carolina rivalry and SMU and Rice didn't want to give up Cotton Bowl. The impetus for that type of league still exists, and as the money grows, the schools that are of the "Magnolia" mindset may still be looking to cluster together.

For consideration:

New Magnolia:

Boston College, Syracuse, UVa, Duke, Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and Miami

Notre Dame, Northwestern, Pitt, Vanderbilt, Tulane, SMU, Baylor, and TCU.



That leaves 51 schools to be divided into three conferences (16, 16, 15 ?)

What it leaves are 5 schools from the ACC to be placed: Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State and Louisville. And it leaves 8 schools from the Big 12 to be placed.

The SEC would be at 13, the Big 10 at 13, AAC at 10 and needing to replace UConn too, and the PAC at 12.

SEC: N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State
PAC: Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State.
B!G: Kansas, Iowa State, Virginia Tech
AAC: Kansas State, West Virginia, Louisville, Brigham Young, Army and Air Force, Boise State.

The champions of the Big 10, PAC and SEC get an auto bid and the champions of the Magnolia plays the champion of the AAC for the play into the CFP.

Now you can have your Magnolia League with a caveat and the AAC can have access and all of those schools constitute the upper division.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2020 05:33 PM by JRsec.)
02-02-2020 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
46566 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 76
Joined: Dec 2019
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Gonzaga
Location: San Bernardino
Post: #46
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
I mentioned it in another thread I think but I think that there are only 6 spots left in the P5. 4 is the Big 12 and 2 in the PAC 12. I think that the P5 model works best for 14 schools per conference. I think that the bulk of the schools moving are going to be from the MWC or the AAC. With the AAC losing some of the Western schools it may be better to reform as a North and South conference.(assuming the remaining schools in the west not taken by the Big 12 could to the MWC.

The AAC could lose 4 Western schools or 3 plus Cincinnati to the Big 12. Should that happen maybe build around USF and UCF as the southern division? Maybe Georgia southern and state? Coastal Carolina?In the North maybe bring in Umass or App state for all sports? Icon football only and another all sports but football add? If they want a oversaturation of the Florida market FAU and International (not a good add but teams may want to recruit Florida)
02-02-2020 08:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,213
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1305
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #47
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-02-2020 08:05 PM)46566 Wrote:  I mentioned it in another thread I think but I think that there are only 6 spots left in the P5. 4 is the Big 12 and 2 in the PAC 12. I think that the P5 model works best for 14 schools per conference. I think that the bulk of the schools moving are going to be from the MWC or the AAC. With the AAC losing some of the Western schools it may be better to reform as a North and South conference.(assuming the remaining schools in the west not taken by the Big 12 could to the MWC.

The AAC could lose 4 Western schools or 3 plus Cincinnati to the Big 12. Should that happen maybe build around USF and UCF as the southern division? Maybe Georgia southern and state? Coastal Carolina?In the North maybe bring in Umass or App state for all sports? Icon football only and another all sports but football add? If they want a oversaturation of the Florida market FAU and International (not a good add but teams may want to recruit Florida)

Should ND want to fully join the ACC, it might be 5 instead of 6. ACC might try to shuffle off UL to Big 12. Gives them more flexibility in scheduling and gives Big 12 a "P" team to expand with.
02-02-2020 09:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,110
Joined: May 2018
Reputation: 75
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #48
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
To join the P-5 club you need to have been a P-5 once, but dropped back, yet retained your research element, or you must be elevated based on a combination of factors which includes your universities research standing.

School - - - ARWU Rank - - - Enrollment - - - Endowment

Tulane 117-137 15 K 1.4 Billion
Houston 67-94 42 K 1 Billion
Cincy 95-116 46 K 1.4 Billion
USF 67-94 50 K 445 Million
UCF 95-116 70 K 200 Million
NM 95-116 25K 450 Million
SDSU 138-155 35 K 350 Million

If you are using the metric of around 5 million people per public school, Texas, Florida, California, and Ohio could support one more. In California there is an open market in San Diego due to Spanos, but can you imagine the politics from Fresno and San Jose. UC San Diego might not like it as well. In Florida USF has the academic reputation, but UCF is large enough to do most anything. Tulane and Houston both were members of the "club" but Houston has grown while Tulane decided to remain small. New Mexico is hampered by the ownership and Cal's management of the labs at Los Alamos. Then there is Cincy, a victim of piss poor geography.

No one else in the South is getting into the research club because those already in it will keep the others out.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2020 11:24 PM by Statefan.)
02-02-2020 11:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 23,825
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 2354
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #49
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-02-2020 04:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(02-02-2020 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 01:21 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If the Big12 does not get picked apart, then they would still be a “Power” conference or whatever the term is in that day. If the best schools are picked off, I think the AAC would be in a better position to pick who they want of the remaining schools that would likely consist of KSU, ISU, TTU, Baylor, TCU, WVU. I think the MWC would be in more danger, than the AAC. Besides ESPN is going to want to protect their property, which could see a pay bump and contract extension during that time.

2 huge rules of conference realignment:

(1) Sh*t ALWAYS rolls downhill in conference realignment.

(2) Think like a university president, NOT like a fan.

First, the old Big East thought exactly the way that you did - that if the Pac-16 happened, then they could take the Big 12 leftovers and become stronger.

The old Big East quickly found out that if you’re behind another conference today, you CANNOT leapfrog then. Ultimately, the old Big East was crushed and eventually kicked out of the power structure altogether. Similarly, C-USA thought that they could poach the remnants of the old Big East... and then C-USA got crushed. We can go down the line where the WAC has similar delusions of grandeur of poaching a weakened MWC... and the WAC up getting destroyed entirely. Rest assured, even if the Big 12 collapsed, left behind schools like Iowa State would still have the massive upper hand to poach the AAC and other leagues because they’ll have all of the exit fees, old conference distributions from the NCAA Tournament and bowl games, existing TV contracts and other assets that would dwarf the G5. Sh*t ALWAYS runs downhill in conference realignment.

Second, university presidents make the decisions about who they let into the power structure. On-the-field/court results by themselves aren’t enough: they want the right *institutions* (NOT teams). I’ve said this before, but for all of the changes in conference realignment over the past 20 years, there were 63 “power” schools when the BCS started in 1996... and there is now a grand total of 65 power schools today. After all of that shuffling, the net change was that TCU (who was in the power system in the pre-BCS world), Utah and Louisville got elevated and Temple got downgraded. That’s it: a net change of plus 2. The point is that the system will NOT elevate an entire other conference to the power ranks. That’s simply not happening because we have seen that there is remarkable stasis with the membership of who is a power school and who isn’t.

Power *institutions* are largely flagship schools, other major public schools with flagship-like qualities (such as Texas A&M, UCLA, Michigan State, Purdue, etc.) and some top tier privates with key attributes (such as top academics and/or locations in major markets). There are zero directional public schools in the Power Five and thowe only true “city” public school in the power ranks is Louisville. (A school like Pitt is essentially a flagship-like research institution that happens to be in a city.) It might sound crazy to sports fans, but the two schools in the AAC that actually look the most like P5 *institutions* (which are different than teams) are Tulane and SMU. Otherwise, the core of the AAC is made up of city and directional public schools. We might see a couple of those schools get invites to the Big 12 eventually (e.g. I could see Cincinnati plus Texas politics getting Houston into the Big 12 someday), but there’s no way that the entire league gets elevated. University presidents are possibly the single most elitist and snobby group of people in all of America.

In the early 60's Vanderbilt spearheaded an attempt to form what came to be known as the Magnolia League. It included Duke, Vanderbilt, SMU, Tulane and Rice. Duke didn't want to give up the Carolina rivalry and SMU and Rice didn't want to give up Cotton Bowl. The impetus for that type of league still exists, and as the money grows, the schools that are of the "Magnolia" mindset may still be looking to cluster together.

For consideration:

New Magnolia:

Boston College, Syracuse, UVa, Duke, Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and Miami

Notre Dame, Northwestern, Pitt, Vanderbilt, Tulane, SMU, Baylor, and TCU.



That leaves 51 schools to be divided into three conferences (16, 16, 15 ?)

When the ACC announced their intentions to study expansion in 1990, Dean Smith voiced his choice to be Vanderbilt. Of course, Eddie Fogler was the coach there at the time. 04-wine

Yet another example of why the ACC needs to rid itself of any Chapel Hill influence in the future. The big nose bastard would have had us even further behind than we already are, if not out of the game completely.
02-02-2020 11:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 23,246
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2267
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #50
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-02-2020 11:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(02-02-2020 04:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(02-02-2020 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 01:21 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If the Big12 does not get picked apart, then they would still be a “Power” conference or whatever the term is in that day. If the best schools are picked off, I think the AAC would be in a better position to pick who they want of the remaining schools that would likely consist of KSU, ISU, TTU, Baylor, TCU, WVU. I think the MWC would be in more danger, than the AAC. Besides ESPN is going to want to protect their property, which could see a pay bump and contract extension during that time.

2 huge rules of conference realignment:

(1) Sh*t ALWAYS rolls downhill in conference realignment.

(2) Think like a university president, NOT like a fan.

First, the old Big East thought exactly the way that you did - that if the Pac-16 happened, then they could take the Big 12 leftovers and become stronger.

The old Big East quickly found out that if you’re behind another conference today, you CANNOT leapfrog then. Ultimately, the old Big East was crushed and eventually kicked out of the power structure altogether. Similarly, C-USA thought that they could poach the remnants of the old Big East... and then C-USA got crushed. We can go down the line where the WAC has similar delusions of grandeur of poaching a weakened MWC... and the WAC up getting destroyed entirely. Rest assured, even if the Big 12 collapsed, left behind schools like Iowa State would still have the massive upper hand to poach the AAC and other leagues because they’ll have all of the exit fees, old conference distributions from the NCAA Tournament and bowl games, existing TV contracts and other assets that would dwarf the G5. Sh*t ALWAYS runs downhill in conference realignment.

Second, university presidents make the decisions about who they let into the power structure. On-the-field/court results by themselves aren’t enough: they want the right *institutions* (NOT teams). I’ve said this before, but for all of the changes in conference realignment over the past 20 years, there were 63 “power” schools when the BCS started in 1996... and there is now a grand total of 65 power schools today. After all of that shuffling, the net change was that TCU (who was in the power system in the pre-BCS world), Utah and Louisville got elevated and Temple got downgraded. That’s it: a net change of plus 2. The point is that the system will NOT elevate an entire other conference to the power ranks. That’s simply not happening because we have seen that there is remarkable stasis with the membership of who is a power school and who isn’t.

Power *institutions* are largely flagship schools, other major public schools with flagship-like qualities (such as Texas A&M, UCLA, Michigan State, Purdue, etc.) and some top tier privates with key attributes (such as top academics and/or locations in major markets). There are zero directional public schools in the Power Five and thowe only true “city” public school in the power ranks is Louisville. (A school like Pitt is essentially a flagship-like research institution that happens to be in a city.) It might sound crazy to sports fans, but the two schools in the AAC that actually look the most like P5 *institutions* (which are different than teams) are Tulane and SMU. Otherwise, the core of the AAC is made up of city and directional public schools. We might see a couple of those schools get invites to the Big 12 eventually (e.g. I could see Cincinnati plus Texas politics getting Houston into the Big 12 someday), but there’s no way that the entire league gets elevated. University presidents are possibly the single most elitist and snobby group of people in all of America.

In the early 60's Vanderbilt spearheaded an attempt to form what came to be known as the Magnolia League. It included Duke, Vanderbilt, SMU, Tulane and Rice. Duke didn't want to give up the Carolina rivalry and SMU and Rice didn't want to give up Cotton Bowl. The impetus for that type of league still exists, and as the money grows, the schools that are of the "Magnolia" mindset may still be looking to cluster together.

For consideration:

New Magnolia:

Boston College, Syracuse, UVa, Duke, Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and Miami

Notre Dame, Northwestern, Pitt, Vanderbilt, Tulane, SMU, Baylor, and TCU.



That leaves 51 schools to be divided into three conferences (16, 16, 15 ?)

When the ACC announced their intentions to study expansion in 1990, Dean Smith voiced his choice to be Vanderbilt. Of course, Eddie Fogler was the coach there at the time. 04-wine

Yet another example of why the ACC needs to rid itself of any Chapel Hill influence in the future. The big nose bastard would have had us even further behind than we already are, if not out of the game completely.
You are taking the wrong approach. If Esayem wants Vanderbilt and XLance pines for South Carolina's return then you should just get them to petition Swofford to permit Clemson and Florida State to leave for the SEC in an even swap. That way the baby blue mafia gets their dream and loses their chief detractors. It's what we call a win win. The ACC gains Tennessee's footprint without losing Florida's and they keep a South Carolina school. Voila better for everyone!
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2020 12:06 AM by JRsec.)
02-03-2020 12:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,505
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1463
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #51
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-02-2020 08:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 09:27 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I think they could, but really depends on 2 things:

1 Getting better bowl tie ins vs other Power conferences including their own NY6 tie in.

2 Staying together

This succinctly summarizes why they can't: if there are schools in the AAC that develop sufficient value to allow (1), then some or all of those schools will get an invite into the P5 (or else into a former P5 conference leveraging their legacy status to make the best of it that they can), and so (2) won't happen.

Im reminded of Bill Clintons famous---"It depends on what the meaning if "is" is".

Basically, it depends on what a "power conference" is considered to be. In the past, Bruce is absolutely correct. As teams in non-power conferences developed and began to have attractive TV values---they would be absorbed by the power conferences. This skimming of the most valuable schools from the non-power conferences---artificially stunted the natural development of these non-power conferences.

Today---most of the P5 leagues already are bloated. Furthermore, they now have huge "per team" payouts of 30-50 million dollars each. Almost a third of those payouts come from non-media sources (like the CFP) that dont expand when the conference adds members. Thus, the media value of any new member must be about a third higher than the current media payout just for any new addition to be at least revenue neutral. Since most conferences need a motivation to add a new member---the new revenue from the proposed addition probably needs to be well over the "revenue neutral" number so there is a profit incentive to add a new member.

The concepts I discussed above explain why the 2016 Big12 expansion was short circuited and shows us that conventional wisdom may have changed. The Big 12 elected to stand pat because expansion didnt make financial sense. The truth is the current huge payouts enjoyed by the P5---have created an environment where a top end G5 can have 15 to 40 million in media value and still be far below the media value needed to make P5 expansion economically viable for some (or all) P5 conferences. I think your not going to see much poaching of G5s anymore. But this new environment leaves a great deal of room for growth in the G5 conferences with little likelihood of poaching. If a conference can develop----growing organically without suffering constant setbacks from P5 poaching---we might see something that could be called a "power conference" emerge from the current AAC. If you have a conference of teams worth 15-30 million----that kind of conference is getting too big for the major networks to ignore and is entering power conference territory (but its schools are still not valuable enough to draw poachers from the P5).

To be clear---the AAC is never going to be the Big10. They just dont have that type of schools. But I do think its possible for the AAC to get to where its something comparable to what the Big East was in the BCS era. Like I said---it all depends on what the meaning of a "power" is.
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2020 02:44 AM by Attackcoog.)
02-03-2020 12:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 3,489
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 107
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #52
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-01-2020 09:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 01:21 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If the Big12 does not get picked apart, then they would still be a “Power” conference or whatever the term is in that day. If the best schools are picked off, I think the AAC would be in a better position to pick who they want of the remaining schools that would likely consist of KSU, ISU, TTU, Baylor, TCU, WVU. I think the MWC would be in more danger, than the AAC. Besides ESPN is going to want to protect their property, which could see a pay bump and contract extension during that time.

2 huge rules of conference realignment:

(1) Sh*t ALWAYS rolls downhill in conference realignment.

(2) Think like a university president, NOT like a fan.

First, the old Big East thought exactly the way that you did - that if the Pac-16 happened, then they could take the Big 12 leftovers and become stronger.

The old Big East quickly found out that if you’re behind another conference today, you CANNOT leapfrog then. Ultimately, the old Big East was crushed and eventually kicked out of the power structure altogether. Similarly, C-USA thought that they could poach the remnants of the old Big East... and then C-USA got crushed. We can go down the line where the WAC has similar delusions of grandeur of poaching a weakened MWC... and the WAC up getting destroyed entirely. Rest assured, even if the Big 12 collapsed, left behind schools like Iowa State would still have the massive upper hand to poach the AAC and other leagues because they’ll have all of the exit fees, old conference distributions from the NCAA Tournament and bowl games, existing TV contracts and other assets that would dwarf the G5. Sh*t ALWAYS runs downhill in conference realignment.

Second, university presidents make the decisions about who they let into the power structure. On-the-field/court results by themselves aren’t enough: they want the right *institutions* (NOT teams). I’ve said this before, but for all of the changes in conference realignment over the past 20 years, there were 63 “power” schools when the BCS started in 1996... and there is now a grand total of 65 power schools today. After all of that shuffling, the net change was that TCU (who was in the power system in the pre-BCS world), Utah and Louisville got elevated and Temple got downgraded. That’s it: a net change of plus 2. The point is that the system will NOT elevate an entire other conference to the power ranks. That’s simply not happening because we have seen that there is remarkable stasis with the membership of who is a power school and who isn’t.

Power *institutions* are largely flagship schools, other major public schools with flagship-like qualities (such as Texas A&M, UCLA, Michigan State, Purdue, etc.) and some top tier privates with key attributes (such as top academics and/or locations in major markets). There are zero directional public schools in the Power Five and the only true “city” public school in the power ranks is Louisville. (A school like Pitt is essentially a flagship-like research institution that happens to be in a city.) It might sound crazy to sports fans, but the two schools in the AAC that actually look the most like P5 *institutions* (which are different than teams) are Tulane and SMU. Otherwise, the core of the AAC is made up of city and directional public schools. We might see a couple of those schools get invites to the Big 12 eventually (e.g. I could see Cincinnati plus Texas politics getting Houston into the Big 12 someday), but there’s no way that the entire league gets elevated. University presidents are possibly the single most elitist and snobby group of people in all of America.

SMU and Tulane were once in power conferences.

You are right that nearly every P5 public is a flagship. There are only 5 P5 publics that aren't the "flagship" like Michigan or the land grant like Michigan St. Pitt and Louisville as you mention, Arizona St., Florida St. and Texas Tech. Texas Tech is in a huge state and is almost a "flagship" for West Texas. FSU, Arizona St. and Pitt are big research institutions in a state where the flagship and land grant are the same school. Plus Louisville is also the #2 school and quite large.

You forgot the Georgia Institute of Technology, because the University of Georgia is both the flagship and the land grant institution for the state of Georgia, as well as UCLA, although technically UCLA could be a flagship, Berkeley is the official flagship. Didn't know that about FSU as I had assumed several years that Florida State University was the flagship university for the state of Florida. Same thing with Arizona State University. You learn something new everyday.
02-03-2020 01:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,741
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 193
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #53
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
No

Elaboration:

11 B1G, 10 SEC, 7 P12 (UCLA counts), 4 B12 and 2 ACC are flagship schools for their states, 34 of 65 power schools in total.

10 B1G (2), 10 SEC (3), 4 (3) P12, 4 (3) B12 and 3 (3) ACC schools are their state's designated land grant university; 31 of the 65 power schools in total. (note 14 of these schools are not flagships)

13 of 13 B1G public schools belong to one of those two categories, as do 13 of 13 SEC, 10 of 10 P12, 7 of 8 B12 and 5 of 8 ACC public schools; 48 of 52 public power schools.

13 B1G, 8 P12, 5 ACC, 4 SEC and 3 B12 are members of the AAU; 33 of 65 power schools in total.

So 10 power schools lack one of these designations are. But that 10 includes the likes of elite R1 (very high AI) private schools Notre Dame, Boston College, Miami, Syracuse, Wake Forest (not yet classified as R1, but they meet the metrics plus very high AI), and Baylor.

The American doesn't have any flagships, nor any schools designated as their State's land grant school. Only the small private school of Tulane, with AAU membership, meets any of the first 3 criteria. The AAC simply doesn't have the same type of membership as the P5 club.

The American looks like a pile of "exception" schools. Most look similar to city school Louisville (e.g., Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, Temple), or R2 TCU (SMU, Tulsa). The Academies fell out of major status after the Korean War and they stopped getting top athletes. ECU, UCF and USF are directionals who look at exceptions Texas Tech and Florida State, but Tech is a legacy school I wont consider and FSU has that critical "State" attached to it's name as well as the Bobby Bowden legend. But in each of these cases the American school is operating on an athletic budget barely half the size of the P5 exception they want to compare to and doing so at a deficit, often large. Only Tulane looks like a core P5 school.

Besides Tulane, the other G5 schools that look something like the P5 are Rice, BYU, Colorado State, New Mexico, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. It's not surprising that the 3 non-AAC schools who got roses were in this group (UConn was an AAC school at the time).

Anyway, the off the field, as well as budgeting place the AAC firmly in the category of 'tweeners looking to join the "exception to the rule" category of P5. That will forever keep them in the twilight zone.
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2020 12:45 PM by Stugray2.)
02-03-2020 02:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,125
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 163
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #54
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-03-2020 12:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To be clear---the AAC is never going to be the Big10. They just dont have that type of schools. But I do think its possible for the AAC to get to where its something comparable to what the Big East was in the BCS era. Like I said---it all depends on what the meaning of a "power" is.

To be clear, I am saying that if the AAC were to even approach the media value to be able to land a contract NY6 bowl, it would be on the back of growth in media value of it's members that would swing that calculus.

The thing is, taking as given that this whole scenario is unlikely in the first place, still, that kind of increase in media value won't happen because of an across the board increase in media value. It will be concentrated in two or three schools. And sufficient increase in media value for those schools to land a NY6 contract bowl is in the range of media value that you are talking about.

And, no, not to the SEC or the Big Ten. They raid other P5 conferences. Far more likely the AAC gets raided because the SEC or Big Ten raided another P5 than any AAC member getting within hollering distance of the media value to get into the SEC or Big Ten in the coming decade. The large majority of P5 schools don't get over that bar.
02-03-2020 02:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,323
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 143
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #55
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
No
02-03-2020 07:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,213
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1305
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #56
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-03-2020 12:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-02-2020 08:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 09:27 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I think they could, but really depends on 2 things:

1 Getting better bowl tie ins vs other Power conferences including their own NY6 tie in.

2 Staying together

This succinctly summarizes why they can't: if there are schools in the AAC that develop sufficient value to allow (1), then some or all of those schools will get an invite into the P5 (or else into a former P5 conference leveraging their legacy status to make the best of it that they can), and so (2) won't happen.

Im reminded of Bill Clintons famous---"It depends on what the meaning if "is" is".

Basically, it depends on what a "power conference" is considered to be. In the past, Bruce is absolutely correct. As teams in non-power conferences developed and began to have attractive TV values---they would be absorbed by the power conferences. This skimming of the most valuable schools from the non-power conferences---artificially stunted the natural development of these non-power conferences.

Today---most of the P5 leagues already are bloated. Furthermore, they now have huge "per team" payouts of 30-50 million dollars each. Almost a third of those payouts come from non-media sources (like the CFP) that dont expand when the conference adds members. Thus, the media value of any new member must be about a third higher than the current media payout just for any new addition to be at least revenue neutral. Since most conferences need a motivation to add a new member---the new revenue from the proposed addition probably needs to be well over the "revenue neutral" number so there is a profit incentive to add a new member.

The concepts I discussed above explain why the 2016 Big12 expansion was short circuited and shows us that conventional wisdom may have changed. The Big 12 elected to stand pat because expansion didnt make financial sense. The truth is the current huge payouts enjoyed by the P5---have created an environment where a top end G5 can have 15 to 40 million in media value and still be far below the media value needed to make P5 expansion economically viable for some (or all) P5 conferences. I think your not going to see much poaching of G5s anymore. But this new environment leaves a great deal of room for growth in the G5 conferences with little likelihood of poaching. If a conference can develop----growing organically without suffering constant setbacks from P5 poaching---we might see something that could be called a "power conference" emerge from the current AAC. If you have a conference of teams worth 15-30 million----that kind of conference is getting too big for the major networks to ignore and is entering power conference territory (but its schools are still not valuable enough to draw poachers from the P5).

To be clear---the AAC is never going to be the Big10. They just dont have that type of schools. But I do think its possible for the AAC to get to where its something comparable to what the Big East was in the BCS era. Like I said---it all depends on what the meaning of a "power" is.

The difficulty is getting a geographic niche. And the AAC has to compete with the pros in Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, Tampa, Cincinnati and Philadelphia in addition to the Big 12, SEC and ACC in its territories. So while what you describe is possible, it seems extremely unlikely. And they would have to compete in football while 25-50 million behind in media revenue. Makes it hard to keep coaches.

What might be the best approach would be a Big East type approach. Focus more on basketball and become a true power there where you have 13 man squads instead of 85. The publicity will help draw attention to the football programs.
02-03-2020 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,213
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1305
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #57
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-03-2020 01:34 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 09:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 01:21 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If the Big12 does not get picked apart, then they would still be a “Power” conference or whatever the term is in that day. If the best schools are picked off, I think the AAC would be in a better position to pick who they want of the remaining schools that would likely consist of KSU, ISU, TTU, Baylor, TCU, WVU. I think the MWC would be in more danger, than the AAC. Besides ESPN is going to want to protect their property, which could see a pay bump and contract extension during that time.

2 huge rules of conference realignment:

(1) Sh*t ALWAYS rolls downhill in conference realignment.

(2) Think like a university president, NOT like a fan.

First, the old Big East thought exactly the way that you did - that if the Pac-16 happened, then they could take the Big 12 leftovers and become stronger.

The old Big East quickly found out that if you’re behind another conference today, you CANNOT leapfrog then. Ultimately, the old Big East was crushed and eventually kicked out of the power structure altogether. Similarly, C-USA thought that they could poach the remnants of the old Big East... and then C-USA got crushed. We can go down the line where the WAC has similar delusions of grandeur of poaching a weakened MWC... and the WAC up getting destroyed entirely. Rest assured, even if the Big 12 collapsed, left behind schools like Iowa State would still have the massive upper hand to poach the AAC and other leagues because they’ll have all of the exit fees, old conference distributions from the NCAA Tournament and bowl games, existing TV contracts and other assets that would dwarf the G5. Sh*t ALWAYS runs downhill in conference realignment.

Second, university presidents make the decisions about who they let into the power structure. On-the-field/court results by themselves aren’t enough: they want the right *institutions* (NOT teams). I’ve said this before, but for all of the changes in conference realignment over the past 20 years, there were 63 “power” schools when the BCS started in 1996... and there is now a grand total of 65 power schools today. After all of that shuffling, the net change was that TCU (who was in the power system in the pre-BCS world), Utah and Louisville got elevated and Temple got downgraded. That’s it: a net change of plus 2. The point is that the system will NOT elevate an entire other conference to the power ranks. That’s simply not happening because we have seen that there is remarkable stasis with the membership of who is a power school and who isn’t.

Power *institutions* are largely flagship schools, other major public schools with flagship-like qualities (such as Texas A&M, UCLA, Michigan State, Purdue, etc.) and some top tier privates with key attributes (such as top academics and/or locations in major markets). There are zero directional public schools in the Power Five and the only true “city” public school in the power ranks is Louisville. (A school like Pitt is essentially a flagship-like research institution that happens to be in a city.) It might sound crazy to sports fans, but the two schools in the AAC that actually look the most like P5 *institutions* (which are different than teams) are Tulane and SMU. Otherwise, the core of the AAC is made up of city and directional public schools. We might see a couple of those schools get invites to the Big 12 eventually (e.g. I could see Cincinnati plus Texas politics getting Houston into the Big 12 someday), but there’s no way that the entire league gets elevated. University presidents are possibly the single most elitist and snobby group of people in all of America.

SMU and Tulane were once in power conferences.

You are right that nearly every P5 public is a flagship. There are only 5 P5 publics that aren't the "flagship" like Michigan or the land grant like Michigan St. Pitt and Louisville as you mention, Arizona St., Florida St. and Texas Tech. Texas Tech is in a huge state and is almost a "flagship" for West Texas. FSU, Arizona St. and Pitt are big research institutions in a state where the flagship and land grant are the same school. Plus Louisville is also the #2 school and quite large.

You forgot the Georgia Institute of Technology, because the University of Georgia is both the flagship and the land grant institution for the state of Georgia, as well as UCLA, although technically UCLA could be a flagship, Berkeley is the official flagship. Didn't know that about FSU as I had assumed several years that Florida State University was the flagship university for the state of Florida. Same thing with Arizona State University. You learn something new everyday.

Yes. Georgia Tech is kind of unique. They are an engineering "flagship," commonly referred to as "that trade school on North Avenue." UGA has minimal engineering programs, but is the land grant and the liberal arts/general flagship.

Florida State spent many years as a girls school. Think it was around 1947 they added males.
02-03-2020 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,592
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 884
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #58
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-03-2020 12:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The concepts I discussed above explain why the 2016 Big12 expansion was short circuited and shows us that conventional wisdom may have changed. The Big 12 elected to stand pat because expansion didnt make financial sense.

Agree with this except I think it was also important that in the middle of the expansion debate, the Big 12 got the rule changed to allow it a CCG with just 10 members. Rightly or wrongly, the Big 12 had become enamored with the notion that without the "13th data point" its schools were at a structural disadvantage in making the playoffs.

That's an ego thing, and ego is one of the few things that can trump other values. E.g., even Notre Dame has said that the one thing that could make them give up independence is if they felt independence created a major structural barrier to competing for a national title.
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2020 10:38 AM by quo vadis.)
02-03-2020 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 15,780
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 579
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #59
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power”
(02-03-2020 09:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-03-2020 12:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-02-2020 08:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 09:27 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I think they could, but really depends on 2 things:

1 Getting better bowl tie ins vs other Power conferences including their own NY6 tie in.

2 Staying together

This succinctly summarizes why they can't: if there are schools in the AAC that develop sufficient value to allow (1), then some or all of those schools will get an invite into the P5 (or else into a former P5 conference leveraging their legacy status to make the best of it that they can), and so (2) won't happen.

Im reminded of Bill Clintons famous---"It depends on what the meaning if "is" is".

Basically, it depends on what a "power conference" is considered to be. In the past, Bruce is absolutely correct. As teams in non-power conferences developed and began to have attractive TV values---they would be absorbed by the power conferences. This skimming of the most valuable schools from the non-power conferences---artificially stunted the natural development of these non-power conferences.

Today---most of the P5 leagues already are bloated. Furthermore, they now have huge "per team" payouts of 30-50 million dollars each. Almost a third of those payouts come from non-media sources (like the CFP) that dont expand when the conference adds members. Thus, the media value of any new member must be about a third higher than the current media payout just for any new addition to be at least revenue neutral. Since most conferences need a motivation to add a new member---the new revenue from the proposed addition probably needs to be well over the "revenue neutral" number so there is a profit incentive to add a new member.

The concepts I discussed above explain why the 2016 Big12 expansion was short circuited and shows us that conventional wisdom may have changed. The Big 12 elected to stand pat because expansion didnt make financial sense. The truth is the current huge payouts enjoyed by the P5---have created an environment where a top end G5 can have 15 to 40 million in media value and still be far below the media value needed to make P5 expansion economically viable for some (or all) P5 conferences. I think your not going to see much poaching of G5s anymore. But this new environment leaves a great deal of room for growth in the G5 conferences with little likelihood of poaching. If a conference can develop----growing organically without suffering constant setbacks from P5 poaching---we might see something that could be called a "power conference" emerge from the current AAC. If you have a conference of teams worth 15-30 million----that kind of conference is getting too big for the major networks to ignore and is entering power conference territory (but its schools are still not valuable enough to draw poachers from the P5).

To be clear---the AAC is never going to be the Big10. They just dont have that type of schools. But I do think its possible for the AAC to get to where its something comparable to what the Big East was in the BCS era. Like I said---it all depends on what the meaning of a "power" is.

The difficulty is getting a geographic niche. And the AAC has to compete with the pros in Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, Tampa, Cincinnati and Philadelphia in addition to the Big 12, SEC and ACC in its territories. So while what you describe is possible, it seems extremely unlikely. And they would have to compete in football while 25-50 million behind in media revenue. Makes it hard to keep coaches.

What might be the best approach would be a Big East type approach. Focus more on basketball and become a true power there where you have 13 man squads instead of 85. The publicity will help draw attention to the football programs.

Its funny you mention that-- Cincinnati has focused on basketball since the 1950s. However, the university has seen its biggest growth in terms of enrollment and fundraising after it went all in for football. A lot of the other AAC schools can probably say the same thing. Its probably market dependent--- Cincinnati, Ohio values high school and college football whereas schools in the northeast only care about the professional game.
02-03-2020 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 218
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #60
RE: 10 years from now, do you think the AAC will be recognized as a “Power” conference?
(02-03-2020 12:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-02-2020 11:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(02-02-2020 04:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(02-02-2020 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-01-2020 02:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  2 huge rules of conference realignment:

(1) Sh*t ALWAYS rolls downhill in conference realignment.

(2) Think like a university president, NOT like a fan.

First, the old Big East thought exactly the way that you did - that if the Pac-16 happened, then they could take the Big 12 leftovers and become stronger.

The old Big East quickly found out that if you’re behind another conference today, you CANNOT leapfrog then. Ultimately, the old Big East was crushed and eventually kicked out of the power structure altogether. Similarly, C-USA thought that they could poach the remnants of the old Big East... and then C-USA got crushed. We can go down the line where the WAC has similar delusions of grandeur of poaching a weakened MWC... and the WAC up getting destroyed entirely. Rest assured, even if the Big 12 collapsed, left behind schools like Iowa State would still have the massive upper hand to poach the AAC and other leagues because they’ll have all of the exit fees, old conference distributions from the NCAA Tournament and bowl games, existing TV contracts and other assets that would dwarf the G5. Sh*t ALWAYS runs downhill in conference realignment.

Second, university presidents make the decisions about who they let into the power structure. On-the-field/court results by themselves aren’t enough: they want the right *institutions* (NOT teams). I’ve said this before, but for all of the changes in conference realignment over the past 20 years, there were 63 “power” schools when the BCS started in 1996... and there is now a grand total of 65 power schools today. After all of that shuffling, the net change was that TCU (who was in the power system in the pre-BCS world), Utah and Louisville got elevated and Temple got downgraded. That’s it: a net change of plus 2. The point is that the system will NOT elevate an entire other conference to the power ranks. That’s simply not happening because we have seen that there is remarkable stasis with the membership of who is a power school and who isn’t.

Power *institutions* are largely flagship schools, other major public schools with flagship-like qualities (such as Texas A&M, UCLA, Michigan State, Purdue, etc.) and some top tier privates with key attributes (such as top academics and/or locations in major markets). There are zero directional public schools in the Power Five and thowe only true “city” public school in the power ranks is Louisville. (A school like Pitt is essentially a flagship-like research institution that happens to be in a city.) It might sound crazy to sports fans, but the two schools in the AAC that actually look the most like P5 *institutions* (which are different than teams) are Tulane and SMU. Otherwise, the core of the AAC is made up of city and directional public schools. We might see a couple of those schools get invites to the Big 12 eventually (e.g. I could see Cincinnati plus Texas politics getting Houston into the Big 12 someday), but there’s no way that the entire league gets elevated. University presidents are possibly the single most elitist and snobby group of people in all of America.

In the early 60's Vanderbilt spearheaded an attempt to form what came to be known as the Magnolia League. It included Duke, Vanderbilt, SMU, Tulane and Rice. Duke didn't want to give up the Carolina rivalry and SMU and Rice didn't want to give up Cotton Bowl. The impetus for that type of league still exists, and as the money grows, the schools that are of the "Magnolia" mindset may still be looking to cluster together.

For consideration:

New Magnolia:

Boston College, Syracuse, UVa, Duke, Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and Miami

Notre Dame, Northwestern, Pitt, Vanderbilt, Tulane, SMU, Baylor, and TCU.



That leaves 51 schools to be divided into three conferences (16, 16, 15 ?)

When the ACC announced their intentions to study expansion in 1990, Dean Smith voiced his choice to be Vanderbilt. Of course, Eddie Fogler was the coach there at the time. 04-wine

Yet another example of why the ACC needs to rid itself of any Chapel Hill influence in the future. The big nose bastard would have had us even further behind than we already are, if not out of the game completely.
You are taking the wrong approach. If Esayem wants Vanderbilt and XLance pines for South Carolina's return then you should just get them to petition Swofford to permit Clemson and Florida State to leave for the SEC in an even swap. That way the baby blue mafia gets their dream and loses their chief detractors. It's what we call a win win. The ACC gains Tennessee's footprint without losing Florida's and they keep a South Carolina school. Voila better for everyone!

Basketball carried much more weight then, and Vanderbilt had a top 25 program. I was merely showcasing how things change.

I enjoy having FSU, and they were a basketball school before they were a football school. 03-wink

In the 70’s and 80’s, conferences were much more tight knit. Georgia Tech seemed to be a no-brainer addition with their historic football program, academic clout, and impressive media market. After that, there weren’t many schools that fit the profile. The ACC denied Virginia Tech and East Carolina multiple times in the 70’s. We talked at length about South Carolina and what could have been.
02-03-2020 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.