Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
AAC and Academics
Author Message
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,595
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1900
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #101
RE: AAC and Academics
(04-28-2021 03:04 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 07:52 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Presidents decide what happens to their university and who is associated with it. That means you can knock Liberty and Boise off for different reason, but the same outcome. The president's do not want associated with either. For good reasons.

What has changed since the last time they invited Boise State, while operating under their former name?

Exactly. The AAC would absolutely take Boise—-but Boise is an exception where the brand value and on the field performance of the Broncos overcomes any perceived academic shortcomings.

The difference is that when Boise was invited the Catholic 7 were still involved, Boise was football only, and the other schools like Tulane and Navy were holding their collective nose as well as being relative new comers with out a great deal of influence.

The catholic seven left, Tulsa who had been considered as a possible football only school entered as a full member. Boise got a prima Donna BYU attitude with out the history, reach, or support and everyone became an established member because there were only three members left over and while they were and are (minus UConn) in a position to lead they aren't in a position to dictate. The relationships (i.e. votes) are quite a different dynamic hell half the schools who approved Boise aren't and haven't been members of this conference some of them ever.

Hence why when things were falling apart and the Boise shenanigans began a full membership was considered to keep SDSU, as well as football only and the Big West. Those options proved unworkable and even now any western expansion talk from the AAC even with BYU is strictly football only while Boise wants all in.

SMU, Tulsa, Tulane and Navy are a considerable voting block who will be saddled with the Boise add and prefer to compete with each other because of a more equal playing field. This is why Air Force is a much more likely add. There are seven other votes, Temple is academically sensitive at the moment so we will say neutral. USF and UCF are quite a run away as is ECU but I could see all three voting yes. Cincinnati, Memphis, and Houston would likely be yeses. I assume the approval requires 3/4 and would be announced as a unanimous vote. However I could see any president (say a sensitive Temple?) siding with four teams who will be holding high academic standards while playing a diploma mill that make Houston and UCF look Ivy. No offense to either school who have raised their level of academic poweress especially as a state school but Tulane and maybe SMU belong in the same breath as Harvard. I don't see the votes. Say what you want about BYU and their honor code, academically they are pretty solid. They are better supported and have a better program than Boise. Army and Air Force easily pass muster. Everyone else has issues and that includes Boise. SDSU is too far, most the others don't clear the athletic bar, or Liberty who has the crap academics and the "honor code" issue.

This is also why I think CSU is only a tag along option to someone, they will only be taken if they are the most convient their academics aren't outstanding, their athletics aren't outstanding, they are essentially all foundation and potential.

The question at hand is---"Does Boise academics pose an insurmountable issue as far as AAC membership?" I dont think so.

The emails from 2020 show us Boise was interested in joining the AAC as "football only" and that the AAC was interested in having Boise as a "football only". The emails also indicate that Boise could not find a place for their olympic sports and the possibility of a "all sports" Boise invite was a "No" for the AAC. So--its clear that academics wasnt an issue for the AAC. The conference was fine with grabbing Boise as a football only member. What we can discern from the emails is its apparent Boise's bleeds off enough support to cost them an invite if the Bronco's are considered as an "all sports" candidate. So---I dont think its about academics---its about the cost of flying volleyball, softball, soccer, etc thousands of miles to Boise every year....which is not an unreasonable position to hold.
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2021 06:47 PM by Attackcoog.)
04-28-2021 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 7,655
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 289
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #102
RE: AAC and Academics
(04-23-2021 11:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  Tulane had good to great teams in the 90’s under Perry Clark.

I was at USF from 1990 - 1995 when both USF and Tulane were in the Metro Conference. Those Tulane teams were bruisers, usually a few thickly-built 6'8" and 6'9" guys along the front line. I remember USF, which had NCAA tournament teams in 1990 and 1992 battling against those Tulane teams, saw a few of them at our arena.

Unfortunately, from 1993 on we went way downhill while Tulane stayed good. But the Metro Conference those years was a tough, fun basketball league. Southern Miss was good, Charlotte was good, Louisville was good. It was just seven teams but tight-knit and good competition. When FSU and Cincy left in 1991, cutting the league to seven, things looked doomed, but the next year four of the seven made the NCAA tournament.

Good conference, until its dissolution in 1995. Almost like the Big East of the south.

I believe USF was one of the teams called on to replace South Carolina, FSU, Cincinnati, and Memphis. VCU and UNCC were the other two.

Back to your point, I have to say that the Metro Six—as it was called—was the original made-for-media basketball conference. It was actually the AD or president or whomever at St. Louis that came up with it. Richmond’s AD was trying to put together a new conference because of the rapidly changing SoCon and the SLU guy came in and stole the show. It was all about media markets and the original lineup included the cities Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, St. Louis, New Orleans (Tulane), and Atlanta (GT). Dayton pulled out because of Title IX concerns and their D1 football program, which was probably MAC level by today’s standards.

Florida State and South Carolina were offered membership the next year, but SC turned it down because they were actively trying to rejoin the ACC. The Sun Belt originated as a band of merry Metro-wannabes actually: it initially comprised all the schools that applied and were denied! South Florida’s head honcho spearheaded the Sun Belt. 04-wine
04-28-2021 07:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Foreverandever Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,827
Joined: Aug 2018
Reputation: 260
I Root For: &
Location:
Post: #103
RE: AAC and Academics
(04-28-2021 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 03:04 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 07:52 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Presidents decide what happens to their university and who is associated with it. That means you can knock Liberty and Boise off for different reason, but the same outcome. The president's do not want associated with either. For good reasons.

What has changed since the last time they invited Boise State, while operating under their former name?

Exactly. The AAC would absolutely take Boise—-but Boise is an exception where the brand value and on the field performance of the Broncos overcomes any perceived academic shortcomings.

The difference is that when Boise was invited the Catholic 7 were still involved, Boise was football only, and the other schools like Tulane and Navy were holding their collective nose as well as being relative new comers with out a great deal of influence.

The catholic seven left, Tulsa who had been considered as a possible football only school entered as a full member. Boise got a prima Donna BYU attitude with out the history, reach, or support and everyone became an established member because there were only three members left over and while they were and are (minus UConn) in a position to lead they aren't in a position to dictate. The relationships (i.e. votes) are quite a different dynamic hell half the schools who approved Boise aren't and haven't been members of this conference some of them ever.

Hence why when things were falling apart and the Boise shenanigans began a full membership was considered to keep SDSU, as well as football only and the Big West. Those options proved unworkable and even now any western expansion talk from the AAC even with BYU is strictly football only while Boise wants all in.

SMU, Tulsa, Tulane and Navy are a considerable voting block who will be saddled with the Boise add and prefer to compete with each other because of a more equal playing field. This is why Air Force is a much more likely add. There are seven other votes, Temple is academically sensitive at the moment so we will say neutral. USF and UCF are quite a run away as is ECU but I could see all three voting yes. Cincinnati, Memphis, and Houston would likely be yeses. I assume the approval requires 3/4 and would be announced as a unanimous vote. However I could see any president (say a sensitive Temple?) siding with four teams who will be holding high academic standards while playing a diploma mill that make Houston and UCF look Ivy. No offense to either school who have raised their level of academic poweress especially as a state school but Tulane and maybe SMU belong in the same breath as Harvard. I don't see the votes. Say what you want about BYU and their honor code, academically they are pretty solid. They are better supported and have a better program than Boise. Army and Air Force easily pass muster. Everyone else has issues and that includes Boise. SDSU is too far, most the others don't clear the athletic bar, or Liberty who has the crap academics and the "honor code" issue.

This is also why I think CSU is only a tag along option to someone, they will only be taken if they are the most convient their academics aren't outstanding, their athletics aren't outstanding, they are essentially all foundation and potential.

The question at hand is---"Does Boise academics pose an insurmountable issue as far as AAC membership?" I dont think so.

The emails from 2020 show us Boise was interested in joining the AAC as "football only" and that the AAC was interested in having Boise as a "football only".
The emails also indicate that Boise could not find a place for their olympic sports and the possibility of a "all sports" Boise invite was a "No" for the AAC. So--its clear that academics wasnt an issue for the AAC. The conference was fine with grabbing Boise as a football only member. What we can discern from the emails is its apparent Boise's bleeds off enough support to cost them an invite if the Bronco's are considered as an "all sports" candidate. So---I dont think its about academics---its about the cost of flying volleyball, softball, soccer, etc thousands of miles to Boise every year....which is not an unreasonable position to hold.


You are rewriting those emails to your own narrative.

Those emails show that Boise openned by trying to say they wanted football only, but always were working for a full western wing. Still believe they are worth enough to drag three western schools with them and get the AAC to take the three in all sports as well.

Actual dsicussion03-pissed

Boise: Hey would you be interested in football only?

Aresco: We will listen.

Boise: Great. What about all sports?

Aresco: travel, blah, blah, football only.

Boise: What if we brought some other teams from out west?

Aresco: Yeah, we just need a football team.

Boise: Well eventually you'll want a western wing of all sports, I mean once you get a taste of Boise 04-rock

Aresco: Sure, we'll let you know.


No where in that conversation did they get 7/8 presidents involved who said yes to just Boise football. Hell I don't think it was taken far enough to get the presidents to straw poll that idea. It went no further because Boise began implying they need all sports and more western members pretty much right away. Something Aresco and the conference don't seem interested in even entertaining.
04-28-2021 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,595
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1900
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #104
RE: AAC and Academics
(04-28-2021 07:09 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 03:04 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  What has changed since the last time they invited Boise State, while operating under their former name?

Exactly. The AAC would absolutely take Boise—-but Boise is an exception where the brand value and on the field performance of the Broncos overcomes any perceived academic shortcomings.

The difference is that when Boise was invited the Catholic 7 were still involved, Boise was football only, and the other schools like Tulane and Navy were holding their collective nose as well as being relative new comers with out a great deal of influence.

The catholic seven left, Tulsa who had been considered as a possible football only school entered as a full member. Boise got a prima Donna BYU attitude with out the history, reach, or support and everyone became an established member because there were only three members left over and while they were and are (minus UConn) in a position to lead they aren't in a position to dictate. The relationships (i.e. votes) are quite a different dynamic hell half the schools who approved Boise aren't and haven't been members of this conference some of them ever.

Hence why when things were falling apart and the Boise shenanigans began a full membership was considered to keep SDSU, as well as football only and the Big West. Those options proved unworkable and even now any western expansion talk from the AAC even with BYU is strictly football only while Boise wants all in.

SMU, Tulsa, Tulane and Navy are a considerable voting block who will be saddled with the Boise add and prefer to compete with each other because of a more equal playing field. This is why Air Force is a much more likely add. There are seven other votes, Temple is academically sensitive at the moment so we will say neutral. USF and UCF are quite a run away as is ECU but I could see all three voting yes. Cincinnati, Memphis, and Houston would likely be yeses. I assume the approval requires 3/4 and would be announced as a unanimous vote. However I could see any president (say a sensitive Temple?) siding with four teams who will be holding high academic standards while playing a diploma mill that make Houston and UCF look Ivy. No offense to either school who have raised their level of academic poweress especially as a state school but Tulane and maybe SMU belong in the same breath as Harvard. I don't see the votes. Say what you want about BYU and their honor code, academically they are pretty solid. They are better supported and have a better program than Boise. Army and Air Force easily pass muster. Everyone else has issues and that includes Boise. SDSU is too far, most the others don't clear the athletic bar, or Liberty who has the crap academics and the "honor code" issue.

This is also why I think CSU is only a tag along option to someone, they will only be taken if they are the most convient their academics aren't outstanding, their athletics aren't outstanding, they are essentially all foundation and potential.

The question at hand is---"Does Boise academics pose an insurmountable issue as far as AAC membership?" I dont think so.

The emails from 2020 show us Boise was interested in joining the AAC as "football only" and that the AAC was interested in having Boise as a "football only".
The emails also indicate that Boise could not find a place for their olympic sports and the possibility of a "all sports" Boise invite was a "No" for the AAC. So--its clear that academics wasnt an issue for the AAC. The conference was fine with grabbing Boise as a football only member. What we can discern from the emails is its apparent Boise's bleeds off enough support to cost them an invite if the Bronco's are considered as an "all sports" candidate. So---I dont think its about academics---its about the cost of flying volleyball, softball, soccer, etc thousands of miles to Boise every year....which is not an unreasonable position to hold.


You are rewriting those emails to your own narrative.

Those emails show that Boise openned by trying to say they wanted football only, but always were working for a full western wing. Still believe they are worth enough to drag three western schools with them and get the AAC to take the three in all sports as well.

Actual dsicussion03-pissed

Boise: Hey would you be interested in football only?

Aresco: We will listen.

Boise: Great. What about all sports?

Aresco: travel, blah, blah, football only.

Boise: What if we brought some other teams from out west?

Aresco: Yeah, we just need a football team.

Boise: Well eventually you'll want a western wing of all sports, I mean once you get a taste of Boise 04-rock

Aresco: Sure, we'll let you know.


No where in that conversation did they get 7/8 presidents involved who said yes to just Boise football. Hell I don't think it was taken far enough to get the presidents to straw poll that idea. It went no further because Boise began implying they need all sports and more western members pretty much right away. Something Aresco and the conference don't seem interested in even entertaining.

No sir. Thats not what the emails show. The AAC was intrested in Boise as a football only. As an "all sports member"---not so much. For instance--

Apsey responded the next afternoon, writing to Larrondo, “Brad, at this point the AAC has told Dr. (Marlene) Tromp they are only interested in football. I would think that mindset would change if there were other schools in the West up for consideration which I think will eventually happen. Still talking to the president, the AAC and the Big West. Conversations are ongoing.”


https://www.idahopress.com/blueturfsport...6101e.html
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2021 08:35 PM by Attackcoog.)
04-28-2021 08:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,173
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1271
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #105
RE: AAC and Academics
(04-28-2021 08:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 07:09 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 03:04 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly. The AAC would absolutely take Boise—-but Boise is an exception where the brand value and on the field performance of the Broncos overcomes any perceived academic shortcomings.

The difference is that when Boise was invited the Catholic 7 were still involved, Boise was football only, and the other schools like Tulane and Navy were holding their collective nose as well as being relative new comers with out a great deal of influence.

The catholic seven left, Tulsa who had been considered as a possible football only school entered as a full member. Boise got a prima Donna BYU attitude with out the history, reach, or support and everyone became an established member because there were only three members left over and while they were and are (minus UConn) in a position to lead they aren't in a position to dictate. The relationships (i.e. votes) are quite a different dynamic hell half the schools who approved Boise aren't and haven't been members of this conference some of them ever.

Hence why when things were falling apart and the Boise shenanigans began a full membership was considered to keep SDSU, as well as football only and the Big West. Those options proved unworkable and even now any western expansion talk from the AAC even with BYU is strictly football only while Boise wants all in.

SMU, Tulsa, Tulane and Navy are a considerable voting block who will be saddled with the Boise add and prefer to compete with each other because of a more equal playing field. This is why Air Force is a much more likely add. There are seven other votes, Temple is academically sensitive at the moment so we will say neutral. USF and UCF are quite a run away as is ECU but I could see all three voting yes. Cincinnati, Memphis, and Houston would likely be yeses. I assume the approval requires 3/4 and would be announced as a unanimous vote. However I could see any president (say a sensitive Temple?) siding with four teams who will be holding high academic standards while playing a diploma mill that make Houston and UCF look Ivy. No offense to either school who have raised their level of academic poweress especially as a state school but Tulane and maybe SMU belong in the same breath as Harvard. I don't see the votes. Say what you want about BYU and their honor code, academically they are pretty solid. They are better supported and have a better program than Boise. Army and Air Force easily pass muster. Everyone else has issues and that includes Boise. SDSU is too far, most the others don't clear the athletic bar, or Liberty who has the crap academics and the "honor code" issue.

This is also why I think CSU is only a tag along option to someone, they will only be taken if they are the most convient their academics aren't outstanding, their athletics aren't outstanding, they are essentially all foundation and potential.

The question at hand is---"Does Boise academics pose an insurmountable issue as far as AAC membership?" I dont think so.

The emails from 2020 show us Boise was interested in joining the AAC as "football only" and that the AAC was interested in having Boise as a "football only".
The emails also indicate that Boise could not find a place for their olympic sports and the possibility of a "all sports" Boise invite was a "No" for the AAC. So--its clear that academics wasnt an issue for the AAC. The conference was fine with grabbing Boise as a football only member. What we can discern from the emails is its apparent Boise's bleeds off enough support to cost them an invite if the Bronco's are considered as an "all sports" candidate. So---I dont think its about academics---its about the cost of flying volleyball, softball, soccer, etc thousands of miles to Boise every year....which is not an unreasonable position to hold.


You are rewriting those emails to your own narrative.

Those emails show that Boise openned by trying to say they wanted football only, but always were working for a full western wing. Still believe they are worth enough to drag three western schools with them and get the AAC to take the three in all sports as well.

Actual dsicussion03-pissed

Boise: Hey would you be interested in football only?

Aresco: We will listen.

Boise: Great. What about all sports?

Aresco: travel, blah, blah, football only.

Boise: What if we brought some other teams from out west?

Aresco: Yeah, we just need a football team.

Boise: Well eventually you'll want a western wing of all sports, I mean once you get a taste of Boise 04-rock

Aresco: Sure, we'll let you know.


No where in that conversation did they get 7/8 presidents involved who said yes to just Boise football. Hell I don't think it was taken far enough to get the presidents to straw poll that idea. It went no further because Boise began implying they need all sports and more western members pretty much right away. Something Aresco and the conference don't seem interested in even entertaining.

No sir. Thats not what the emails show. The AAC was intrested in Boise as a football only. As an "all sports member"---not so much. For instance--

Apsey responded the next afternoon, writing to Larrondo, “Brad, at this point the AAC has told Dr. (Marlene) Tromp they are only interested in football. I would think that mindset would change if there were other schools in the West up for consideration which I think will eventually happen. Still talking to the president, the AAC and the Big West. Conversations are ongoing.”


https://www.idahopress.com/blueturfsport...6101e.html

Yep, that's the deadlock - the AAC only wants Boise football, whereas Boise is only interested in being a full member.

I say "no" to Boise as either, but definitely not as a full member.

07-coffee3
04-28-2021 08:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,506
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 68
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #106
RE: AAC and Academics
You'd think the allure of once again playing all sports in fun locales like Santa Barbara, Honolulu and San Diego would entice Boise State. Guess not
04-28-2021 10:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Foreverandever Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,827
Joined: Aug 2018
Reputation: 260
I Root For: &
Location:
Post: #107
RE: AAC and Academics
(04-28-2021 08:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 07:09 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 03:04 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly. The AAC would absolutely take Boise—-but Boise is an exception where the brand value and on the field performance of the Broncos overcomes any perceived academic shortcomings.

The difference is that when Boise was invited the Catholic 7 were still involved, Boise was football only, and the other schools like Tulane and Navy were holding their collective nose as well as being relative new comers with out a great deal of influence.

The catholic seven left, Tulsa who had been considered as a possible football only school entered as a full member. Boise got a prima Donna BYU attitude with out the history, reach, or support and everyone became an established member because there were only three members left over and while they were and are (minus UConn) in a position to lead they aren't in a position to dictate. The relationships (i.e. votes) are quite a different dynamic hell half the schools who approved Boise aren't and haven't been members of this conference some of them ever.

Hence why when things were falling apart and the Boise shenanigans began a full membership was considered to keep SDSU, as well as football only and the Big West. Those options proved unworkable and even now any western expansion talk from the AAC even with BYU is strictly football only while Boise wants all in.

SMU, Tulsa, Tulane and Navy are a considerable voting block who will be saddled with the Boise add and prefer to compete with each other because of a more equal playing field. This is why Air Force is a much more likely add. There are seven other votes, Temple is academically sensitive at the moment so we will say neutral. USF and UCF are quite a run away as is ECU but I could see all three voting yes. Cincinnati, Memphis, and Houston would likely be yeses. I assume the approval requires 3/4 and would be announced as a unanimous vote. However I could see any president (say a sensitive Temple?) siding with four teams who will be holding high academic standards while playing a diploma mill that make Houston and UCF look Ivy. No offense to either school who have raised their level of academic poweress especially as a state school but Tulane and maybe SMU belong in the same breath as Harvard. I don't see the votes. Say what you want about BYU and their honor code, academically they are pretty solid. They are better supported and have a better program than Boise. Army and Air Force easily pass muster. Everyone else has issues and that includes Boise. SDSU is too far, most the others don't clear the athletic bar, or Liberty who has the crap academics and the "honor code" issue.

This is also why I think CSU is only a tag along option to someone, they will only be taken if they are the most convient their academics aren't outstanding, their athletics aren't outstanding, they are essentially all foundation and potential.

The question at hand is---"Does Boise academics pose an insurmountable issue as far as AAC membership?" I dont think so.

The emails from 2020 show us Boise was interested in joining the AAC as "football only" and that the AAC was interested in having Boise as a "football only".
The emails also indicate that Boise could not find a place for their olympic sports and the possibility of a "all sports" Boise invite was a "No" for the AAC. So--its clear that academics wasnt an issue for the AAC. The conference was fine with grabbing Boise as a football only member. What we can discern from the emails is its apparent Boise's bleeds off enough support to cost them an invite if the Bronco's are considered as an "all sports" candidate. So---I dont think its about academics---its about the cost of flying volleyball, softball, soccer, etc thousands of miles to Boise every year....which is not an unreasonable position to hold.


You are rewriting those emails to your own narrative.

Those emails show that Boise openned by trying to say they wanted football only, but always were working for a full western wing. Still believe they are worth enough to drag three western schools with them and get the AAC to take the three in all sports as well.

Actual dsicussion03-pissed

Boise: Hey would you be interested in football only?

Aresco: We will listen.

Boise: Great. What about all sports?

Aresco: travel, blah, blah, football only.

Boise: What if we brought some other teams from out west?

Aresco: Yeah, we just need a football team.

Boise: Well eventually you'll want a western wing of all sports, I mean once you get a taste of Boise 04-rock

Aresco: Sure, we'll let you know.


No where in that conversation did they get 7/8 presidents involved who said yes to just Boise football. Hell I don't think it was taken far enough to get the presidents to straw poll that idea. It went no further because Boise began implying they need all sports and more western members pretty much right away. Something Aresco and the conference don't seem interested in even entertaining.

No sir. Thats not what the emails show. The AAC was intrested in Boise as a football only. As an "all sports member"---not so much. For instance--

Apsey responded the next afternoon, writing to Larrondo, “Brad, at this point the AAC has told Dr. (Marlene) Tromp they are only interested in football. I would think that mindset would change if there were other schools in the West up for consideration which I think will eventually happen. Still talking to the president, the AAC and the Big West. Conversations are ongoing.”


https://www.idahopress.com/blueturfsport...6101e.html

That's Boise, pushing the Boise narrative. You seem utterly convinced that the AAC had already approved Boise football only. Thats how Boise is passing it off. Aresco did not tell Boise they were approved. He said we were interested. That is quite different then them being voted in.

Boise is not and has zero chance of coming. I have said this every time since they got told to kick rocks on the special deal. Nothing has changed in that time Boise calls we listen, they never make it to a vote.
04-28-2021 11:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,595
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1900
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #108
RE: AAC and Academics
(04-28-2021 11:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 07:09 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 03:04 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The difference is that when Boise was invited the Catholic 7 were still involved, Boise was football only, and the other schools like Tulane and Navy were holding their collective nose as well as being relative new comers with out a great deal of influence.

The catholic seven left, Tulsa who had been considered as a possible football only school entered as a full member. Boise got a prima Donna BYU attitude with out the history, reach, or support and everyone became an established member because there were only three members left over and while they were and are (minus UConn) in a position to lead they aren't in a position to dictate. The relationships (i.e. votes) are quite a different dynamic hell half the schools who approved Boise aren't and haven't been members of this conference some of them ever.

Hence why when things were falling apart and the Boise shenanigans began a full membership was considered to keep SDSU, as well as football only and the Big West. Those options proved unworkable and even now any western expansion talk from the AAC even with BYU is strictly football only while Boise wants all in.

SMU, Tulsa, Tulane and Navy are a considerable voting block who will be saddled with the Boise add and prefer to compete with each other because of a more equal playing field. This is why Air Force is a much more likely add. There are seven other votes, Temple is academically sensitive at the moment so we will say neutral. USF and UCF are quite a run away as is ECU but I could see all three voting yes. Cincinnati, Memphis, and Houston would likely be yeses. I assume the approval requires 3/4 and would be announced as a unanimous vote. However I could see any president (say a sensitive Temple?) siding with four teams who will be holding high academic standards while playing a diploma mill that make Houston and UCF look Ivy. No offense to either school who have raised their level of academic poweress especially as a state school but Tulane and maybe SMU belong in the same breath as Harvard. I don't see the votes. Say what you want about BYU and their honor code, academically they are pretty solid. They are better supported and have a better program than Boise. Army and Air Force easily pass muster. Everyone else has issues and that includes Boise. SDSU is too far, most the others don't clear the athletic bar, or Liberty who has the crap academics and the "honor code" issue.

This is also why I think CSU is only a tag along option to someone, they will only be taken if they are the most convient their academics aren't outstanding, their athletics aren't outstanding, they are essentially all foundation and potential.

The question at hand is---"Does Boise academics pose an insurmountable issue as far as AAC membership?" I dont think so.

The emails from 2020 show us Boise was interested in joining the AAC as "football only" and that the AAC was interested in having Boise as a "football only".
The emails also indicate that Boise could not find a place for their olympic sports and the possibility of a "all sports" Boise invite was a "No" for the AAC. So--its clear that academics wasnt an issue for the AAC. The conference was fine with grabbing Boise as a football only member. What we can discern from the emails is its apparent Boise's bleeds off enough support to cost them an invite if the Bronco's are considered as an "all sports" candidate. So---I dont think its about academics---its about the cost of flying volleyball, softball, soccer, etc thousands of miles to Boise every year....which is not an unreasonable position to hold.


You are rewriting those emails to your own narrative.

Those emails show that Boise openned by trying to say they wanted football only, but always were working for a full western wing. Still believe they are worth enough to drag three western schools with them and get the AAC to take the three in all sports as well.

Actual dsicussion03-pissed

Boise: Hey would you be interested in football only?

Aresco: We will listen.

Boise: Great. What about all sports?

Aresco: travel, blah, blah, football only.

Boise: What if we brought some other teams from out west?

Aresco: Yeah, we just need a football team.

Boise: Well eventually you'll want a western wing of all sports, I mean once you get a taste of Boise 04-rock

Aresco: Sure, we'll let you know.


No where in that conversation did they get 7/8 presidents involved who said yes to just Boise football. Hell I don't think it was taken far enough to get the presidents to straw poll that idea. It went no further because Boise began implying they need all sports and more western members pretty much right away. Something Aresco and the conference don't seem interested in even entertaining.

No sir. Thats not what the emails show. The AAC was intrested in Boise as a football only. As an "all sports member"---not so much. For instance--

Apsey responded the next afternoon, writing to Larrondo, “Brad, at this point the AAC has told Dr. (Marlene) Tromp they are only interested in football. I would think that mindset would change if there were other schools in the West up for consideration which I think will eventually happen. Still talking to the president, the AAC and the Big West. Conversations are ongoing.”


https://www.idahopress.com/blueturfsport...6101e.html

That's Boise, pushing the Boise narrative. You seem utterly convinced that the AAC had already approved Boise football only. Thats how Boise is passing it off. Aresco did not tell Boise they were approved. He said we were interested. That is quite different then them being voted in.

Boise is not and has zero chance of coming. I have said this every time since they got told to kick rocks on the special deal. Nothing has changed in that time Boise calls we listen, they never make it to a vote.

I never said that. Those are your words. What I said was academics was not the reason Boise was not invited. The AAC was perfectly willing to take Boise as a football only. Look---if academics were stopping Boise---then "football only" wouldnt matter. Your absolutely free to believe that Boise academics are unacceptable--but to date--you've given zero proof other than some tin foil hat theory that it was some big "Boise narrative"---a narrative that accomplishes nothing and was a year old when it finally saw the light of day due to a random FOIA request. Im sorry---this bizarre theory you've come up with just makes no sense.

As for the AAC---the AAC isnt holding some grudge like 15 year old high school girl. Boise, BYU, Army, and maybe Air Force. Thats it. Those are the teams that add value. The list of additions the AAC would be interested in has literally been the same since 2012. None of them would join back in early 2013 when we last had an opening---but we still needed 12 back then to have a CCG. Thats literally how Tulsa got the #12 slot--because Boise and SDSU bailed. Those same teams remain targets because the presidents--Im sure after consultation with ESPN---believe they add value.
(This post was last modified: 04-29-2021 01:53 AM by Attackcoog.)
04-29-2021 01:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,057
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 263
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #109
RE: AAC and Academics
(04-28-2021 07:09 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Actual dsicussion03-pissed

Boise: Hey would you be interested in football only?

Aresco: We will listen.

Boise: Great. What about all sports?

Aresco: travel, blah, blah, football only.

Boise: What if we brought some other teams from out west?

Aresco: Yeah, we just need a football team.

Boise: Well eventually you'll want a western wing of all sports, I mean once you get a taste of Boise 04-rock

Aresco: Sure, we'll let you know.


No where in that conversation did they get 7/8 presidents involved who said yes to just Boise football. ...

And nowhere in the discussion does it seem like four or five Presidents are a hard No on Boise. That is the part that seems like your own view sans supporting evidence.
04-29-2021 02:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,961
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 297
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #110
RE: AAC and Academics
Boise is a proud member of the MWC. It is highly unlikely they are coming to the AAC. I think they believe they are worth x and the AAC thinks they are worth y, and neither is very likely to change their opinion.
04-29-2021 09:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 3,613
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 249
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #111
RE: AAC and Academics
(04-28-2021 11:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 07:09 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 03:04 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The difference is that when Boise was invited the Catholic 7 were still involved, Boise was football only, and the other schools like Tulane and Navy were holding their collective nose as well as being relative new comers with out a great deal of influence.

The catholic seven left, Tulsa who had been considered as a possible football only school entered as a full member. Boise got a prima Donna BYU attitude with out the history, reach, or support and everyone became an established member because there were only three members left over and while they were and are (minus UConn) in a position to lead they aren't in a position to dictate. The relationships (i.e. votes) are quite a different dynamic hell half the schools who approved Boise aren't and haven't been members of this conference some of them ever.

Hence why when things were falling apart and the Boise shenanigans began a full membership was considered to keep SDSU, as well as football only and the Big West. Those options proved unworkable and even now any western expansion talk from the AAC even with BYU is strictly football only while Boise wants all in.

SMU, Tulsa, Tulane and Navy are a considerable voting block who will be saddled with the Boise add and prefer to compete with each other because of a more equal playing field. This is why Air Force is a much more likely add. There are seven other votes, Temple is academically sensitive at the moment so we will say neutral. USF and UCF are quite a run away as is ECU but I could see all three voting yes. Cincinnati, Memphis, and Houston would likely be yeses. I assume the approval requires 3/4 and would be announced as a unanimous vote. However I could see any president (say a sensitive Temple?) siding with four teams who will be holding high academic standards while playing a diploma mill that make Houston and UCF look Ivy. No offense to either school who have raised their level of academic poweress especially as a state school but Tulane and maybe SMU belong in the same breath as Harvard. I don't see the votes. Say what you want about BYU and their honor code, academically they are pretty solid. They are better supported and have a better program than Boise. Army and Air Force easily pass muster. Everyone else has issues and that includes Boise. SDSU is too far, most the others don't clear the athletic bar, or Liberty who has the crap academics and the "honor code" issue.

This is also why I think CSU is only a tag along option to someone, they will only be taken if they are the most convient their academics aren't outstanding, their athletics aren't outstanding, they are essentially all foundation and potential.

The question at hand is---"Does Boise academics pose an insurmountable issue as far as AAC membership?" I dont think so.

The emails from 2020 show us Boise was interested in joining the AAC as "football only" and that the AAC was interested in having Boise as a "football only".
The emails also indicate that Boise could not find a place for their olympic sports and the possibility of a "all sports" Boise invite was a "No" for the AAC. So--its clear that academics wasnt an issue for the AAC. The conference was fine with grabbing Boise as a football only member. What we can discern from the emails is its apparent Boise's bleeds off enough support to cost them an invite if the Bronco's are considered as an "all sports" candidate. So---I dont think its about academics---its about the cost of flying volleyball, softball, soccer, etc thousands of miles to Boise every year....which is not an unreasonable position to hold.


You are rewriting those emails to your own narrative.

Those emails show that Boise openned by trying to say they wanted football only, but always were working for a full western wing. Still believe they are worth enough to drag three western schools with them and get the AAC to take the three in all sports as well.

Actual dsicussion03-pissed

Boise: Hey would you be interested in football only?

Aresco: We will listen.

Boise: Great. What about all sports?

Aresco: travel, blah, blah, football only.

Boise: What if we brought some other teams from out west?

Aresco: Yeah, we just need a football team.

Boise: Well eventually you'll want a western wing of all sports, I mean once you get a taste of Boise 04-rock

Aresco: Sure, we'll let you know.


No where in that conversation did they get 7/8 presidents involved who said yes to just Boise football. Hell I don't think it was taken far enough to get the presidents to straw poll that idea. It went no further because Boise began implying they need all sports and more western members pretty much right away. Something Aresco and the conference don't seem interested in even entertaining.

No sir. Thats not what the emails show. The AAC was intrested in Boise as a football only. As an "all sports member"---not so much. For instance--

Apsey responded the next afternoon, writing to Larrondo, “Brad, at this point the AAC has told Dr. (Marlene) Tromp they are only interested in football. I would think that mindset would change if there were other schools in the West up for consideration which I think will eventually happen. Still talking to the president, the AAC and the Big West. Conversations are ongoing.”


https://www.idahopress.com/blueturfsport...6101e.html

That's Boise, pushing the Boise narrative. You seem utterly convinced that the AAC had already approved Boise football only. Thats how Boise is passing it off. Aresco did not tell Boise they were approved. He said we were interested. That is quite different then them being voted in.

Boise is not and has zero chance of coming. I have said this every time since they got told to kick rocks on the special deal. Nothing has changed in that time Boise calls we listen, they never make it to a vote.

You seem utterly convinced that the AAC had already approved Boise football only.

Attackcoog never wrote that.
04-29-2021 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 3,613
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 249
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #112
RE: AAC and Academics
(04-29-2021 01:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 11:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 07:09 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The question at hand is---"Does Boise academics pose an insurmountable issue as far as AAC membership?" I dont think so.

The emails from 2020 show us Boise was interested in joining the AAC as "football only" and that the AAC was interested in having Boise as a "football only".
The emails also indicate that Boise could not find a place for their olympic sports and the possibility of a "all sports" Boise invite was a "No" for the AAC. So--its clear that academics wasnt an issue for the AAC. The conference was fine with grabbing Boise as a football only member. What we can discern from the emails is its apparent Boise's bleeds off enough support to cost them an invite if the Bronco's are considered as an "all sports" candidate. So---I dont think its about academics---its about the cost of flying volleyball, softball, soccer, etc thousands of miles to Boise every year....which is not an unreasonable position to hold.


You are rewriting those emails to your own narrative.

Those emails show that Boise openned by trying to say they wanted football only, but always were working for a full western wing. Still believe they are worth enough to drag three western schools with them and get the AAC to take the three in all sports as well.

Actual dsicussion03-pissed

Boise: Hey would you be interested in football only?

Aresco: We will listen.

Boise: Great. What about all sports?

Aresco: travel, blah, blah, football only.

Boise: What if we brought some other teams from out west?

Aresco: Yeah, we just need a football team.

Boise: Well eventually you'll want a western wing of all sports, I mean once you get a taste of Boise 04-rock

Aresco: Sure, we'll let you know.


No where in that conversation did they get 7/8 presidents involved who said yes to just Boise football. Hell I don't think it was taken far enough to get the presidents to straw poll that idea. It went no further because Boise began implying they need all sports and more western members pretty much right away. Something Aresco and the conference don't seem interested in even entertaining.

No sir. Thats not what the emails show. The AAC was intrested in Boise as a football only. As an "all sports member"---not so much. For instance--

Apsey responded the next afternoon, writing to Larrondo, “Brad, at this point the AAC has told Dr. (Marlene) Tromp they are only interested in football. I would think that mindset would change if there were other schools in the West up for consideration which I think will eventually happen. Still talking to the president, the AAC and the Big West. Conversations are ongoing.”


https://www.idahopress.com/blueturfsport...6101e.html

That's Boise, pushing the Boise narrative. You seem utterly convinced that the AAC had already approved Boise football only. Thats how Boise is passing it off. Aresco did not tell Boise they were approved. He said we were interested. That is quite different then them being voted in.

Boise is not and has zero chance of coming. I have said this every time since they got told to kick rocks on the special deal. Nothing has changed in that time Boise calls we listen, they never make it to a vote.

I never said that. Those are your words. What I said was academics was not the reason Boise was not invited. The AAC was perfectly willing to take Boise as a football only. Look---if academics were stopping Boise---then "football only" wouldnt matter. Your absolutely free to believe that Boise academics are unacceptable--but to date--you've given zero proof other than some tin foil hat theory that it was some big "Boise narrative"---a narrative that accomplishes nothing and was a year old when it finally saw the light of day due to a random FOIA request. Im sorry---this bizarre theory you've come up with just makes no sense.

As for the AAC---the AAC isnt holding some grudge like 15 year old high school girl. Boise, BYU, Army, and maybe Air Force. Thats it. Those are the teams that add value. The list of additions the AAC would be interested in has literally been the same since 2012. None of them would join back in early 2013 when we last had an opening---but we still needed 12 back then to have a CCG. Thats literally how Tulsa got the #12 slot--because Boise and SDSU bailed. Those same teams remain targets because the presidents--Im sure after consultation with ESPN---believe they add value.

Correct.
04-29-2021 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2021 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, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.