There is no configuration that will make the AAC a P6 in the minds of the A5, even if it is unfair. That’s why I think AAC should add within their footprint and then they need to win and let their play do the talk. Sucks but that is how it will be and no amount of message board chatter will change it.

Top two G5 conference champs play the week after the conference championships. Winner advances to the 5-1-2 playoff. Simple!

*Nothing is ever that simple in College Football.
If Navy is in the top two (they already have a game with Army that week) then the other two highest ranking G5 play that week and the “highest surviving seed advances”.

(01-22-2021 04:58 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-22-2021 03:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2021 12:14 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I feel (just my opinion) that a key characteristic of a power football league is the presence of at least one blueblood program. Each of the current P5 offers that. The AAC does not. True, Navy offers a major history and commands a good bit of national respect, but it's not a blueblood. Houston also brings a good bit of historical success and influence but, again, not a blueblood.

If the American added BYU, San Diego State and Boise, it would be what I would call a "semi-power conference." It would overwhelmingly be the best G5 league for football, a "tweener" at the highest level.

As Attackcoog has noted, the AAC needs to sit tight and see what unfolds the next few years before it adds any programs. If the Big 12, ACC and/or Pac-12 implode ... all bets are off.

Big East and ACC were power conferences at the start of the BCS only because of Miami and FSU.

Its all about the top, not the average. Big East post Miami was doing fine on average, but there was a good chance they would be dropped even without WVU, Pitt and SU leaving.

I typically agree with your posts, Bullet. But not this time.

It's not "all about the top" programs. By that metric alone, hypothetically, Notre Dame could join the MAC and the MAC would be considered a power league in football. Which we all know it would not be thought of as such. It would be "Notre Dame is a power program" in a "non-power league."

"Power" in college football is about multiple elements (with program strength at the top a factor, no doubt). It's about resources (university endowments, university and athletic department budgets, fan bases/attendance), having a blueblood (or two or three) and overall strength of a league.

"Power" in men's hoops is defined fairly similarly but with a few fundamental differences that yield 1. the Big East being power (that league's programs clearly do not have the collective resources of the other power leagues but counter with multiple other power elements) and 2. various programs in non-power leagues (Dayton, Cincy, Memphis, Houston, VCU, BYU, New Mexico, San Diego State, Gonzaga, etc.) being considered "major programs" on par with almost all other programs — notwithstanding the bluebloods.

"Power" in baseball is harder to define — and most folks don't even use the term for that sport. I basically consider the P5 and the American as "power baseball conferences." However, the Mountain West, Big West Missouri Valley, C-USA and Sun Belt are often quite strong. It is worth noting that perhaps no league more so than the Big East shows an imbalance in the quality of one men's sport (hoops) compared to the so-so-ness in another (baseball).

"Power" in women's basketball. ...? Not sure. But I think it's the P5 only. I assume the Big East would be distant No. 6 now that it has UConn.

Excellent post Bill!!! To really get in the mindset of the average, true (not t-shirt, but more like alumni)P5/A5 fan, I would say look at how JRSec views things. He looks at what each team truly brings, and how it is trending.

Look at it like this: if CBS had to pick between MLB and MLS(Major League Soccer), it would probably go with MLB as the safe bet, right??

But what makes CBS pick MLB over MLS?? Popularity, revenue brought in, etc.

In much the same way, ESPN would pick the ACC over the AAC and the MWC.

But!!! What could MLS do to make it the better choice than MLB for CBS??

What could the American, MWC, Sunbelt, etc. do to make it better or at least a comparable choice to the ACC, PAC 12, etc.??

And this is the question that haunts many a G5 president, IMO.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

(01-24-2021 07:01 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Top two G5 conference champs play the week after the conference championships. Winner advances to the 5-1-2 playoff. Simple!

*Nothing is ever that simple in College Football.
If Navy is in the top two (they already have a game with Army that week) then the other two highest ranking G5 play that week and the “highest surviving seed advances”.

I think 5-1-2 is the worst of the 8-team playoff proposals, but if we have to have it, then a G5 playoff between the top two G5 conference champs is easily the best way to do it. It would provide an element of "earn your way in" to what otherwise would be a beauty contest that would naturally favor the better-known AAC and MW schools over the MAC/CUSA/SBC schools.

(01-24-2021 07:54 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  What could the American, MWC, Sunbelt, etc. do to make it better or at least a comparable choice to the ACC, PAC 12, etc.??

And this is the question that haunts many a G5 president, IMO.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

One of those conferences would have to produce a Top Ten ranked football team and a Sweet Sixteen basketball team eight times in ten years and average 40K attendance in football. Then the media would be happy to call them a power conference and any NY6 bowl would be happy to give them a contractual tie-in.

(01-22-2021 04:58 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-22-2021 03:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  Big East and ACC were power conferences at the start of the BCS only because of Miami and FSU.

Its all about the top, not the average. Big East post Miami was doing fine on average, but there was a good chance they would be dropped even without WVU, Pitt and SU leaving.

I typically agree with your posts, Bullet. But not this time.

It's not "all about the top" programs. By that metric alone, hypothetically, Notre Dame could join the MAC and the MAC would be considered a power league in football. Which we all know it would not be thought of as such. It would be "Notre Dame is a power program" in a "non-power league."

"Power" in college football is about multiple elements (with program strength at the top a factor, no doubt). It's about resources (university endowments, university and athletic department budgets, fan bases/attendance), having a blueblood (or two or three) and overall strength of a league.

Good point.

The way I think of the Big East and ACC at the dawn of the "bowl coalition" era is that Miami and FSU joining them was a necessary but not sufficient condition for those conferences to have been included in the power club. Without them, they don't get included, but on the other hand, if as in your example FSU or Miami had joined the MAC, that would not have been enough to elevate the MAC to that level. The ACC and Big East had a "power foundation" among their other schools such that all they were missing was that national power centerpiece to complete the picture. The MAC didn't and doesn't.

(01-24-2021 07:54 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-22-2021 04:58 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-22-2021 03:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2021 12:14 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I feel (just my opinion) that a key characteristic of a power football league is the presence of at least one blueblood program. Each of the current P5 offers that. The AAC does not. True, Navy offers a major history and commands a good bit of national respect, but it's not a blueblood. Houston also brings a good bit of historical success and influence but, again, not a blueblood.

If the American added BYU, San Diego State and Boise, it would be what I would call a "semi-power conference." It would overwhelmingly be the best G5 league for football, a "tweener" at the highest level.

As Attackcoog has noted, the AAC needs to sit tight and see what unfolds the next few years before it adds any programs. If the Big 12, ACC and/or Pac-12 implode ... all bets are off.

Big East and ACC were power conferences at the start of the BCS only because of Miami and FSU.

Its all about the top, not the average. Big East post Miami was doing fine on average, but there was a good chance they would be dropped even without WVU, Pitt and SU leaving.

I typically agree with your posts, Bullet. But not this time.

It's not "all about the top" programs. By that metric alone, hypothetically, Notre Dame could join the MAC and the MAC would be considered a power league in football. Which we all know it would not be thought of as such. It would be "Notre Dame is a power program" in a "non-power league."

"Power" in college football is about multiple elements (with program strength at the top a factor, no doubt). It's about resources (university endowments, university and athletic department budgets, fan bases/attendance), having a blueblood (or two or three) and overall strength of a league.

"Power" in men's hoops is defined fairly similarly but with a few fundamental differences that yield 1. the Big East being power (that league's programs clearly do not have the collective resources of the other power leagues but counter with multiple other power elements) and 2. various programs in non-power leagues (Dayton, Cincy, Memphis, Houston, VCU, BYU, New Mexico, San Diego State, Gonzaga, etc.) being considered "major programs" on par with almost all other programs — notwithstanding the bluebloods.

"Power" in baseball is harder to define — and most folks don't even use the term for that sport. I basically consider the P5 and the American as "power baseball conferences." However, the Mountain West, Big West Missouri Valley, C-USA and Sun Belt are often quite strong. It is worth noting that perhaps no league more so than the Big East shows an imbalance in the quality of one men's sport (hoops) compared to the so-so-ness in another (baseball).

"Power" in women's basketball. ...? Not sure. But I think it's the P5 only. I assume the Big East would be distant No. 6 now that it has UConn.

Excellent post Bill!!! To really get in the mindset of the average, true (not t-shirt, but more like alumni)P5/A5 fan, I would say look at how JRSec views things. He looks at what each team truly brings, and how it is trending.

Look at it like this: if CBS had to pick between MLB and MLS(Major League Soccer), it would probably go with MLB as the safe bet, right??

But what makes CBS pick MLB over MLS?? Popularity, revenue brought in, etc.

In much the same way, ESPN would pick the ACC over the AAC and the MWC.

But!!! What could MLS do to make it the better choice than MLB for CBS??

What could the American, MWC, Sunbelt, etc. do to make it better or at least a comparable choice to the ACC, PAC 12, etc.??

And this is the question that haunts many a G5 president, IMO.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Great point about looking at JRsec's posts, Dawg. He presents this issue in a reasoned, factual and comprehensive manner.

(01-24-2021 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 07:01 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Top two G5 conference champs play the week after the conference championships. Winner advances to the 5-1-2 playoff. Simple!

*Nothing is ever that simple in College Football.
If Navy is in the top two (they already have a game with Army that week) then the other two highest ranking G5 play that week and the “highest surviving seed advances”.

I think 5-1-2 is the worst of the 8-team playoff proposals, but if we have to have it, then a G5 playoff between the top two G5 conference champs is easily the best way to do it. It would provide an element of "earn your way in" to what otherwise would be a beauty contest that would naturally favor the better-known AAC and MW schools over the MAC/CUSA/SBC schools.

I would not be opposed to a "play-in" game between the two best G5 teams at the end of the regular season. But I might be a bit biased in that I cheer for teams in both the AAC and C-USA (Middle Tennessee State). In short, anything to maximize the chances of two leagues I loosely root for would be a positive. So your proposal would be for me (from a selfish perspective) appealing in some respects.

But I doubt many AAC or Mountain West fans would share my views, as they likely don't follow a program in C-USA, the MAC or the Belt.

Also, and worth noting ... the Sun Belt has quickly closed the gap on the AAC and Mountain West in football. So we soon might see your comment needing to be changed to the following, Quo:

It would provide an element of "earn your way in" to what otherwise would be a beauty contest that would naturally favor the better-known AAC, MW and Sun Belt schools over the MAC and CUSA schools.

And, IF that becomes the case, there would be less need for a play-in game.

(01-22-2021 10:32 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  11 AAC teams add 3 MWC teams = 14 G5’s.
Not an invite to the cartel.
Explain how I’m doing my math wrong here?

I am with you. It would however Further increase the distance between AAC and the G4, not because AAC is much improved, but because MWC is weakened.

what about going to 16 team hybrid with current AAC

Temple
UCF
ECU
USF
Cincy
Navy football/ Wichita St basketball
Memphis
Tulane
Tulsa
SMU
Houston

+

Boise
BYU
SDSU
Army football/ VCU basketball
Air Force football/ St Louis basketball

16 football teams, 10 game conf schedule (7 div, 1 perm crossover, 2 rotating)

Gets you all 3 service academies, as well as adding Boise and BYU in football.

In hoops, Boise has built a decent program. SDSU, BYU, VCU and SLU always seem to be solid. If you did some sort of pod thing for basketball where you play everyone in conf once (15 games + 5 "regional" games) for 20. Ex- Memphis regional games are SLU, Tulane, Cincy, Tulsa, and Smu or Wichita. I havent thought the exact specifics of each school but VCU, St Louis fill some of the current travel gaps.

Just a thought.

(01-23-2021 10:53 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  There is no configuration that will make the AAC a P6 in the minds of the A5, even if it is unfair. That’s why I think AAC should add within their footprint and then they need to win and let their play do the talk. Sucks but that is how it will be and no amount of message board chatter will change it.

Lol...what footprint is that? AAC geography is a disaster and will always be so. Also, keep in mind, most of its current membership joined the conference with the expectation that it would be a nationwide conference stretching from San Diego to UConn.

The goal is simple. The goal is to create a better AAC with the open UConn slot. You can’t do that if you are limiting expansion to teams that look like the bottom of your conference rather then the top. Furthermore, the AAC would no doubt prefer a school that has high quality football AND basketball. There is also an entity named ESPN, who’s opinion seems to kind of matter on questions of brand and TV value.

Throwing academics and brand arguments aside, lets just begin with the problem that no single available eastern G5/Indy school is a top of the conference addition for both football AND basketball. Thus, adding any single eastern school as a full member is a non-starter.

That leaves a hybrid “split pick” option. Beyond a hybrid split pick of Army as a “football only” and someone like VCU as a “non-football” member—-I see no viable option in the east that comes anywhere even close to that. Not to mention, even that Army/VCU selection is not as strong as to me as a split invite featuring Boise “football only” mated to the same VCU “non-football” combo. That Boise/VCU combo seems like the best viable option for the AAC to make lemonade out of the lemons that resulted from the UConn departure.

A league being allowed to replace it’s worse team is actually a fairly rare opportunity. It’s imperative that the AAC capitalize on this rare opportunity by maximizing its positive impact on the league. Thus, if you can’t actually improve the league with the pick—the AAC is better off leaving the slot open until they have an addition that DOES improve the league.

(01-24-2021 12:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That Boise/VCU combo seems like the best viable option for the AAC to make lemonade out of the lemons that resulted from the UConn departure.

A league being allowed to replace it’s worse team is actually a fairly rare opportunity.

Good point. And I agree that taking Boise alone seems like the best football move. 12 members is much better than 14 just about any way you look at it. Where I would disagree is the choice of VCU. Use the same logic for the non-football add you used with Boise, and shoot instead for Dayton. They are a better program, and a better geographical fit. VCU is more likely to prove to be a flash in the pan. Dayton has a long history of success in hoops.

(01-24-2021 01:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 12:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That Boise/VCU combo seems like the best viable option for the AAC to make lemonade out of the lemons that resulted from the UConn departure.

A league being allowed to replace it’s worse team is actually a fairly rare opportunity.

Good point. And I agree that taking Boise alone seems like the best football move. 12 members is much better than 14 just about any way you look at it. Where I would disagree is the choice of VCU. Use the same logic for the non-football add you used with Boise, and shoot instead for Dayton. They are a better program, and a better geographical fit. VCU is more likely to prove to be a flash in the pan. Dayton has a long history of success in hoops.

No idea why---but Im just not as sold on Dayton. Though the performance apepars fairly similar. VCU is the larger Metro market---but its not that different. I just think VCU would tend to draw more statewide viewer support than Dayton. I think VCU is just more appealing to my personal preference. lol, but--yeah--- if Im being fair and just looking at the data---there would be no need to throw myself off a building if Dayton was added in place of VCU.

Dayton NCAA Bids
1952, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1984, 1985, 1990, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017

Dayton Conference Tournament Championships
1990, 2003

VCU NCAA Bids

1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019

VCU Conference Tournament Champions

1980, 1981, 1985, 1996, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2015

(01-24-2021 12:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-23-2021 10:53 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  There is no configuration that will make the AAC a P6 in the minds of the A5, even if it is unfair. That’s why I think AAC should add within their footprint and then they need to win and let their play do the talk. Sucks but that is how it will be and no amount of message board chatter will change it.

Lol...what footprint is that? AAC geography is a disaster and will always be so. Also, keep in mind, most of its current membership joined the conference with the expectation that it would be a nationwide conference stretching from San Diego to UConn.

The goal is simple. The goal is to create a better AAC with the open UConn slot. You can’t do that if you are limiting expansion to teams that look like the bottom of your conference rather then the top. Furthermore, the AAC would no doubt prefer a school that has high quality football AND basketball. There is also an entity named ESPN, who’s opinion seems to kind of matter on questions of brand and TV value.

Throwing academics and brand arguments aside, lets just begin with the problem that no single available eastern G5/Indy school is a top of the conference addition for both football AND basketball. Thus, adding any single eastern school as a full member is a non-starter.

That leaves a hybrid “split pick” option. Beyond a hybrid split pick of Army as a “football only” and someone like VCU as a “non-football” member—-I see no viable option in the east that comes anywhere even close to that. Not to mention, even that Army/VCU selection is not as strong as to me as a split invite featuring Boise “football only” mated to the same VCU “non-football” combo. That Boise/VCU combo seems like the best viable option for the AAC to make lemonade out of the lemons that resulted from the UConn departure.

A league being allowed to replace it’s worse team is actually a fairly rare opportunity. It’s imperative that the AAC capitalize on this rare opportunity by maximizing its positive impact on the league. Thus, if you can’t actually improve the league with the pick—the AAC is better off leaving the slot open until they have an addition that DOES improve the league.

I like the flow of your logic about where the AAC stands and what the goals should be with respect to the UConn open slot.

I think I slightly differ though about the conclusion. I was never happy with the Big East expanding with SDSU and Boise for football, I think a trans-continental conference is silly. So among the options you discuss, a split involving two eastern schools, such as Army for football and VCU for hoops, makes sense.

I don't think VCU can be improved upon for the hoops slot, but maybe Liberty would be a better add than Army for football. Maybe.

If the AAC goes hybrid and lands Boise for football only and then either Dayton (which I highly doubt would be interested) or VCU (which I feel would be interested) ...

VCU brings a "new state" to the American and a "geographic rival" (and I use that term loosely) for Temple. Strong and respected men's hoops program. A very solid TV market and a quality city (Richmond).

But Dayton would offer something the AAC football and hoops teams lack overall: a large and rabid fan base for men's basketball. At its best, VCU attendance is very good. At its best, Dayton attendance is outstanding. When the Flyers are competitive (which is most seasons), UD attendance almost always ranks in the Top 25 nationally (if I'm not mistaken). One of the many knocks on the American is that its programs' fan bases are smallish overall, don't travel and/or inconsistent with attendance. Dayton would help ease that concern.

(01-24-2021 02:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 12:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-23-2021 10:53 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  There is no configuration that will make the AAC a P6 in the minds of the A5, even if it is unfair. That’s why I think AAC should add within their footprint and then they need to win and let their play do the talk. Sucks but that is how it will be and no amount of message board chatter will change it.

Lol...what footprint is that? AAC geography is a disaster and will always be so. Also, keep in mind, most of its current membership joined the conference with the expectation that it would be a nationwide conference stretching from San Diego to UConn.

The goal is simple. The goal is to create a better AAC with the open UConn slot. You can’t do that if you are limiting expansion to teams that look like the bottom of your conference rather then the top. Furthermore, the AAC would no doubt prefer a school that has high quality football AND basketball. There is also an entity named ESPN, who’s opinion seems to kind of matter on questions of brand and TV value.

Throwing academics and brand arguments aside, lets just begin with the problem that no single available eastern G5/Indy school is a top of the conference addition for both football AND basketball. Thus, adding any single eastern school as a full member is a non-starter.

That leaves a hybrid “split pick” option. Beyond a hybrid split pick of Army as a “football only” and someone like VCU as a “non-football” member—-I see no viable option in the east that comes anywhere even close to that. Not to mention, even that Army/VCU selection is not as strong as to me as a split invite featuring Boise “football only” mated to the same VCU “non-football” combo. That Boise/VCU combo seems like the best viable option for the AAC to make lemonade out of the lemons that resulted from the UConn departure.

A league being allowed to replace it’s worse team is actually a fairly rare opportunity. It’s imperative that the AAC capitalize on this rare opportunity by maximizing its positive impact on the league. Thus, if you can’t actually improve the league with the pick—the AAC is better off leaving the slot open until they have an addition that DOES improve the league.

I like the flow of your logic about where the AAC stands and what the goals should be with respect to the UConn open slot.

I think I slightly differ though about the conclusion. I was never happy with the Big East expanding with SDSU and Boise for football, I think a trans-continental conference is silly. So among the options you discuss, a split involving two eastern schools, such as Army for football and VCU for hoops, makes sense.

I don't think VCU can be improved upon for the hoops slot, but maybe Liberty would be a better add than Army for football. Maybe.

If limited to the Eastern half of the U.S. for an AAC football-only add, Liberty might be better than Army in terms of the potential to become a rather significant future "player" in college football with attendance, beating the big boys, sending men to the NFL, etc. The resources are there. I'm impressed with what Liberty has done in a brief time. In 10 to 20 years, Liberty could be vastly stronger than Army (notwithstanding history, tradition and beautiful stadium/setting).

Still, I would nonetheless prefer Army and VCU/Dayton to Liberty and VCU/Dayton. But Army is not interested.

If the AAC adds only one all-sports member in the Eastern half of the U.S. and looks at everything — academics, city location, respectable in football and hoops, TV market, history with American existing programs, long-term potential, etc. — there seemingly are only two options that make sense: Buffalo and UAB. UAB likely would have the edge.

Having noted this, and as AttackCoog accurately maintains, adding UAB would further the narrative of the AAC simply being a better version of its old C-USA self — and nothing more.

That is why, among many reasons, I would like the AAC to attempt to lure three programs from the Mountain West. If successful, that would give the league six schools (Navy, Temple, Wichita and the three MWC programs in this hypothetical) with no C-USA history.

(01-24-2021 02:48 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 02:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 12:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-23-2021 10:53 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  There is no configuration that will make the AAC a P6 in the minds of the A5, even if it is unfair. That’s why I think AAC should add within their footprint and then they need to win and let their play do the talk. Sucks but that is how it will be and no amount of message board chatter will change it.

Lol...what footprint is that? AAC geography is a disaster and will always be so. Also, keep in mind, most of its current membership joined the conference with the expectation that it would be a nationwide conference stretching from San Diego to UConn.

The goal is simple. The goal is to create a better AAC with the open UConn slot. You can’t do that if you are limiting expansion to teams that look like the bottom of your conference rather then the top. Furthermore, the AAC would no doubt prefer a school that has high quality football AND basketball. There is also an entity named ESPN, who’s opinion seems to kind of matter on questions of brand and TV value.

Throwing academics and brand arguments aside, lets just begin with the problem that no single available eastern G5/Indy school is a top of the conference addition for both football AND basketball. Thus, adding any single eastern school as a full member is a non-starter.

That leaves a hybrid “split pick” option. Beyond a hybrid split pick of Army as a “football only” and someone like VCU as a “non-football” member—-I see no viable option in the east that comes anywhere even close to that. Not to mention, even that Army/VCU selection is not as strong as to me as a split invite featuring Boise “football only” mated to the same VCU “non-football” combo. That Boise/VCU combo seems like the best viable option for the AAC to make lemonade out of the lemons that resulted from the UConn departure.

A league being allowed to replace it’s worse team is actually a fairly rare opportunity. It’s imperative that the AAC capitalize on this rare opportunity by maximizing its positive impact on the league. Thus, if you can’t actually improve the league with the pick—the AAC is better off leaving the slot open until they have an addition that DOES improve the league.

I like the flow of your logic about where the AAC stands and what the goals should be with respect to the UConn open slot.

I think I slightly differ though about the conclusion. I was never happy with the Big East expanding with SDSU and Boise for football, I think a trans-continental conference is silly. So among the options you discuss, a split involving two eastern schools, such as Army for football and VCU for hoops, makes sense.

I don't think VCU can be improved upon for the hoops slot, but maybe Liberty would be a better add than Army for football. Maybe.

If limited to the Eastern half of the U.S. for an AAC football-only add, Liberty might be better than Army in terms of the potential to become a rather significant future "player" in college football with attendance, beating the big boys, sending men to the NFL, etc. The resources are there. I'm impressed with what Liberty has done in a brief time. In 10 to 20 years, Liberty could be vastly stronger than Army (notwithstanding history, tradition and beautiful stadium/setting).

Still, I would nonetheless prefer Army and VCU/Dayton to Liberty and VCU/Dayton. But Army is not interested.

If the AAC adds only one all-sports member in the Eastern half of the U.S. and looks at everything — academics, city location, respectable in football and hoops, TV market, history with American existing programs, long-term potential, etc. — there seemingly are only two options that make sense: Buffalo and UAB. UAB likely would have the edge.

Having noted this, and as AttackCoog accurately maintains, adding UAB would further the narrative of the AAC simply being a better version of its old C-USA self — and nothing more.

That is why, among many reasons, I would like the AAC to attempt to lure three programs from the Mountain West. If successful, that would give the league six schools (Navy, Temple, Wichita and the three MWC programs in this hypothetical) with no C-USA history.

I cannot emphasize enough the danger of that perception gaining greater purchase. Every single AAC school would be an former CUSA school but Navy. lol...even Army was in CUSA, but at least Army has enough brand value and history that CUSA isnt the first thing you think of when you think of Army. Its something that gets overlooked a lot---but in addition to having excellent brand that stands out among G5 schools, Boise has a distinct identity that has no connection to CUSA. Thus, adding them to the AAC stew furthers the narrative that the AAC is a completely unique and intriguing combination as opposed to CUSA 4.0.

I guess I was thinking staying closer to the eastern U.S. than going as far west as Idaho.

I know they are C-USA but I feel UAB should be considered. They were C-USA when most of the AAC were, good academics, gives you the city of Birmingham, and solid football and basketball. Brings all sports which means you don’t need to find 2 teams to split with.

Edit: I understand the issue with perception though. The Sun Belt is still fighting being seen as the lowest conference even though they no longer are. I don’t think UAB hurts the brand though.

Regardless, add Boise and whoever for Olympic sports but it’s still only going to be seen as the best conference in the G5. Boise doesn’t change that perception.

(01-24-2021 02:48 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 02:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 12:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-23-2021 10:53 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  There is no configuration that will make the AAC a P6 in the minds of the A5, even if it is unfair. That’s why I think AAC should add within their footprint and then they need to win and let their play do the talk. Sucks but that is how it will be and no amount of message board chatter will change it.

Lol...what footprint is that? AAC geography is a disaster and will always be so. Also, keep in mind, most of its current membership joined the conference with the expectation that it would be a nationwide conference stretching from San Diego to UConn.

The goal is simple. The goal is to create a better AAC with the open UConn slot. You can’t do that if you are limiting expansion to teams that look like the bottom of your conference rather then the top. Furthermore, the AAC would no doubt prefer a school that has high quality football AND basketball. There is also an entity named ESPN, who’s opinion seems to kind of matter on questions of brand and TV value.

Throwing academics and brand arguments aside, lets just begin with the problem that no single available eastern G5/Indy school is a top of the conference addition for both football AND basketball. Thus, adding any single eastern school as a full member is a non-starter.

That leaves a hybrid “split pick” option. Beyond a hybrid split pick of Army as a “football only” and someone like VCU as a “non-football” member—-I see no viable option in the east that comes anywhere even close to that. Not to mention, even that Army/VCU selection is not as strong as to me as a split invite featuring Boise “football only” mated to the same VCU “non-football” combo. That Boise/VCU combo seems like the best viable option for the AAC to make lemonade out of the lemons that resulted from the UConn departure.

A league being allowed to replace it’s worse team is actually a fairly rare opportunity. It’s imperative that the AAC capitalize on this rare opportunity by maximizing its positive impact on the league. Thus, if you can’t actually improve the league with the pick—the AAC is better off leaving the slot open until they have an addition that DOES improve the league.

I like the flow of your logic about where the AAC stands and what the goals should be with respect to the UConn open slot.

I think I slightly differ though about the conclusion. I was never happy with the Big East expanding with SDSU and Boise for football, I think a trans-continental conference is silly. So among the options you discuss, a split involving two eastern schools, such as Army for football and VCU for hoops, makes sense.

I don't think VCU can be improved upon for the hoops slot, but maybe Liberty would be a better add than Army for football. Maybe.

If limited to the Eastern half of the U.S. for an AAC football-only add, Liberty might be better than Army in terms of the potential to become a rather significant future "player" in college football with attendance, beating the big boys, sending men to the NFL, etc. The resources are there. I'm impressed with what Liberty has done in a brief time. In 10 to 20 years, Liberty could be vastly stronger than Army (notwithstanding history, tradition and beautiful stadium/setting).

Still, I would nonetheless prefer Army and VCU/Dayton to Liberty and VCU/Dayton. But Army is not interested.

If the AAC adds only one all-sports member in the Eastern half of the U.S. and looks at everything — academics, city location, respectable in football and hoops, TV market, history with American existing programs, long-term potential, etc. — there seemingly are only two options that make sense: Buffalo and UAB. UAB likely would have the edge.

Having noted this, and as AttackCoog accurately maintains, adding UAB would further the narrative of the AAC simply being a better version of its old C-USA self — and nothing more.

That is why, among many reasons, I would like the AAC to attempt to lure three programs from the Mountain West. If successful, that would give the league six schools (Navy, Temple, Wichita and the three MWC programs in this hypothetical) with no C-USA history.

Like with Coog, I follow your logic until the very end - if I agree that there is no split/combination or single school in the East or South that adds value, then I would prefer that the AAC foregoes expansion for the time being rather than go to the far west.

(01-24-2021 04:28 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  I guess I was thinking staying closer to the eastern U.S. than going as far west as Idaho.

I know they are C-USA but I feel UAB should be considered. They were C-USA when most of the AAC were, good academics, gives you the city of Birmingham, and solid football and basketball. Brings all sports which means you don’t need to find 2 teams to split with.

Edit: I understand the issue with perception though. The Sun Belt is still fighting being seen as the lowest conference even though they no longer are. I don’t think UAB hurts the brand though.

Regardless, add Boise and whoever for Olympic sports but it’s still only going to be seen as the best conference in the G5. Boise doesn’t change that perception.

UAB just doesnt have much of a brand. If a rather banal UAB type option represents the best the AAC can attract right now, I think the AAC would be wise to just leave the UConn slot open until a more attractive opportunity comes along. Maybe in a few years UAB will be so successful they become the obvious pick---or maybe Clark leaves and they rapidly fade. No reason to gamble on a bland set of candidates where no single candidate really stands out. Just wait, remain patient, and see what develops. You may end up with an opportunity to add one of your top choices---or one of the current candidates may clearly distance themselves from the pack making them the obvious selection to all.