(04-15-2021 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: (04-15-2021 01:10 AM)jedclampett Wrote: .
One certainly can't generalize about multi-year trends from one or two seasons, particularly coming off a highly atypical pandemic year.
However, there is one multi-year trend that wasn't affected by the pandemic - - and that is the steady trend toward more and more P5 teams in the Final AP and CFP Top 25 over the past 7 seasons.
....................# of non-P5 FB teams in Final AP Top 25:
2020..............8
2019..............7
2018..............6
2017..............4
2016..............3
2015..............3
2014..............3
2013..............1
.
The AAC's best year was 2019, with four AAC teams in the final AP Top 25. If this were to continue, the American might be able to maintain that it is head and shoulders above the other G5 conferences with some credibility.
However, on average, the AAC has only had 2.5 teams per year in the Final AP Top 25 over the past four seasons. The MWC isn't far behind with 1.75 Top 25 teams per season since 2017, and the SBC has averaged 1.5 final Top 25 teams in 2019 and 2020.
The AAC may not be in imminent danger of losing its reputation as the "top dog" in the G5, but that could change if there is continuing growth in the number of upper echelon G5 teams.
.
This is of importance because it wouldn't take much at this point for one of the other conferences, such as the SBC or the MWC, to attain parity with the AAC with respect to the number of upper echelon teams per conference.
If things get to that point, the American would have a harder time making the argument that it maintains a special status as the only "P6" football power conference, with the other G5 conferences being referred to as the "G4."
.
Q: Is the AAC leadership concerned about this potential problem?
A: The answer appears to be yes, since they have responded to the evolving situation by shifting their stance from being happy with 11 teams per sport to contacting Boise St. about joining the AAC (FB-only), and by announcing an intention to replace UConn and/or expand to 14 schools.
Q: What, if anything, can the American do about this situation?
A: There's nothing it can do to prevent another G5 conference from getting 2 or 3 FB teams per year into the final top 25. All it can do to maintain a dominant position is to increase the number of AAC teams the final top 25.
Q: How can they do that?
A: Two ways: (1) They can make a greater effort to elevated the quality of their football teams, and (2) They can add another strong football program.
Of the two, remedy #2 is far easier than remedy #1 is to accomplish. No amount of conference-led effort is likely to prevent teams such as Houston and Temple from slumping when they lose a fine Head Coach. Every school is already doing whatever it can to improve the competitiveness of its FB program. In contrast, remedy #2 simply requires persuading a high-quality FB school to join the conference.
Boise State even requested to join the AAC, and if they had joined, they would have bolstered the AAC's claim to be the top dog in the G5 and a FB power conference going forward. However, the AAC leadership turned down that request because it didn't want to grant Boise an all-sports membership.
It may live to regret that decision.
.
No more than we regret the decision to not offer Boise a "special deal". If we are going to allow all sports western additions---it will have to be multiple additions and it will require a switch to scheduling that relies heavily on playing almost exclusively within eastern and western divisions. There are advantages and disadvantages to that---but its much more of a commitment for the AAC to go all sports in the west than it is to add a single western "football only" school. The hesitancy of the AAC to make that kind of commitment is not unreasonable.
Those are very valid points, and it's understandably not an easy decision, since there are pros and cons to each of the possible options.
But let me suggest a reason why it's not necessarily "much more of a commitment for the AAC to go all sports in the west than it is to add single western "football only" school:
As I understand the Commissioner's remarks, the conference wants one thing above all, at this point: To "get back to 12 schools."
I'm sure we'll agree on that point.
Further, adding Boise for all sports would satisfy that simple objective.
We'll agree on that too, but so the only dispute is whether it would involve "much more of a commitment from the conference."
I believe that - - if that is the only move that the conference wants to make - - there would be only one significant "commitment" to be concerned with, and that is the long travel time for the schools' basketball and olympic sports teams to and from Boise.
If we agree on that point, then let me point out that I have set up a new thread today, presenting a detailed plan for offsetting the increased distance of travel to Boise with a whole series of measures that would more than make up the difference.
It would simply involve shifting to divisional play and divisional scheduling, with basketball & olympic sports teams playing divisional foes twice and only playing cross-divisional foes once per season. In addition, there would be a slight increase in OOC games to offset a slight decrease in conference games (16, down from 18).
Don't know how the conference would respond to that, but let me also point out this fact:
Boise seems to be the only game in town. They would join the AAC, nobody else in the West would. The idea of them joining for FB-only is a non-starter. So saying "no" to Boise is a bit like cutting off one's own nose, despite one's face.
More accurately, "it's making the perfect the enemy of the good."
Adding Boise for FB-only would be the "perfect." Adding them for all-sports would be the good.
The only special commitment that would be involved in adding a Western team is the extra travel distance, and I have shown that a few simple measures, based on all the many benefits that could be obtained with divisional scheduling, could completely offset the effects of the travel distance to Boise.
I wonder what your response to that would be. I'm guessing that you may argue that schools such as Cincy might not want to reduce the number of basketball games they play with teams in the Central Time Zone, such as Houston and Wichita State.
If that's your response, my only counter-response would be that the conference has to make a choice - - either add Boise, because that's the only option for moving up to power conference stature, or don't add Boise because the schools don't want to have to play fewer games vs. teams in the next time zone.
It's a kind of Hobson's Choice. We can't have it both ways. In such cases, one usually goes with the essential (add Boise) vs. the optional (keep playing a full round-robin 20 game basketball schedule).
If the AAC doesn't become a power conference, it will be because they had a chance to make it happen, and just said, "it's not worth the sacrifices."
I hope that they will see that the benefits would far outweigh the inconveniences if they open up the path to power conference status.
.