(05-13-2021 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  With all due respect to C-USA, there’s just no one there that’s going to be anything but the 5th or 6th place finisher in their division and none of them are going to add media value:

UTEP: awful geography
UTSA: young and unproven
UNT: SMU says no 2nd DFW school
Rice: weak program w/ weak following
LA Tech: is a 2nd LA program necessary?
USM: they’ve taken a big step back from the C-USA 1.0 days
UAB: maybe
MTSU: meh
WKU: weak following
FAU/FIU: USF/UCF both say no
Marshall: small market team
Charlotte: low fan support
ODU: maybe, but their team isn’t that good

Market size doesn't matter for any G5 school. LOL. No G5 school, even those in the AAC, don't have control over their market. You go after the G5 team that is most recognizable and continually fields a solid team in Football and Basketball.

(05-14-2021 11:23 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  With all due respect to C-USA, there’s just no one there that’s going to be anything but the 5th or 6th place finisher in their division and none of them are going to add media value:

UTEP: awful geography
UTSA: young and unproven
UNT: SMU says no 2nd DFW school
Rice: weak program w/ weak following
LA Tech: is a 2nd LA program necessary?
USM: they’ve taken a big step back from the C-USA 1.0 days
UAB: maybe
MTSU: meh
WKU: weak following
FAU/FIU: USF/UCF both say no
Marshall: small market team
Charlotte: low fan support
ODU: maybe, but their team isn’t that good

Market size doesn't matter for any G5 school. LOL. No G5 school, even those in the AAC, don't have control over their market. You go after the G5 team that is most recognizable and continually fields a solid team in Football and Basketball.

I wouldnt say that. Its certainly not the ONLY thing---but its helpful. No--a G5 in a very large market likely doesnt "control" that market--but that's because a large city is by its very nature very diverse. But with so many people---the G5 doesnt need to "control" a market that size in order to still reach a lot of eyeballs. Furthermore---and this is the real key---IF that G5 in a large market DOES get on a successful roll---the "bandwagon effect" in a large city is potentially HUGE compared to what it might be in a less populated area. In fact, IF you built a conference of nothing but large city G5's---you know at least several of your schools will be enjoying that "big city bandwagon" effect each year. So--while the ability for any one school to grab those extra bandwagon viewers might ebb and flow---for a conference that has almost all city based schools---the bump from that "bandwagon" effect should be fairly constant when looking at the conference as a whole.

That said, its certainly possible for a team that builds its brand on success to draw an audience that is much larger than the population of its location might indicate.

(05-14-2021 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 11:23 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  With all due respect to C-USA, there’s just no one there that’s going to be anything but the 5th or 6th place finisher in their division and none of them are going to add media value:

UTEP: awful geography
UTSA: young and unproven
UNT: SMU says no 2nd DFW school
Rice: weak program w/ weak following
LA Tech: is a 2nd LA program necessary?
USM: they’ve taken a big step back from the C-USA 1.0 days
UAB: maybe
MTSU: meh
WKU: weak following
FAU/FIU: USF/UCF both say no
Marshall: small market team
Charlotte: low fan support
ODU: maybe, but their team isn’t that good

Market size doesn't matter for any G5 school. LOL. No G5 school, even those in the AAC, don't have control over their market. You go after the G5 team that is most recognizable and continually fields a solid team in Football and Basketball.

I wouldnt say that. Its certainly not the ONLY thing---but its helpful. No--a G5 in a very large market likely doesnt "control" that market--but that's because a large city is by its very nature very diverse. But with so many people---the G5 doesnt need to "control" a market that size in order to still reach a lot of eyeballs. Furthermore---and this is the real key---IF that G5 in a large market DOES get on a successful roll---the "bandwagon effect" in a large city is potentially HUGE compared to what it might be in a less populated area. In fact, IF you built a conference of nothing but large city G5's---you know at least several of you schools will be enjoying that "big city bandwagon" effect each year. So--while the ability for any one school to grab those extra bandwagon viewers might ebb and flow---for a conference that has almost all city based schools---the bump from that "bandwagon" effect should be fairly constant when looking at the conference as a whole.

That said, its certainly possible for a team that builds its band on success to draw an audience that is much larger than the population of its location might indicate.

I would say, if it counts, Hawaii has a large (if not dominating) control of the "Hawaii market" and FCS North Dakota St has a sizeable control of the "Dakota Market." (Quotations included because I'm not sure those are actual markets.) There may others or this may be hogwash but I think it exists to a certain extent.

(05-14-2021 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 11:23 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  With all due respect to C-USA, there’s just no one there that’s going to be anything but the 5th or 6th place finisher in their division and none of them are going to add media value:

UTEP: awful geography
UTSA: young and unproven
UNT: SMU says no 2nd DFW school
Rice: weak program w/ weak following
LA Tech: is a 2nd LA program necessary?
USM: they’ve taken a big step back from the C-USA 1.0 days
UAB: maybe
MTSU: meh
WKU: weak following
FAU/FIU: USF/UCF both say no
Marshall: small market team
Charlotte: low fan support
ODU: maybe, but their team isn’t that good

Market size doesn't matter for any G5 school. LOL. No G5 school, even those in the AAC, don't have control over their market. You go after the G5 team that is most recognizable and continually fields a solid team in Football and Basketball.

I wouldnt say that. Its certainly not the ONLY thing---but its helpful. No--a G5 in a very large market likely doesnt "control" that market--but that's because a large city is by its very nature very diverse. But with so many people---the G5 doesnt need to "control" a market that size in order to still reach a lot of eyeballs. Furthermore---and this is the real key---IF that G5 in a large market DOES get on a successful roll---the "bandwagon effect" in a large city is potentially HUGE compared to what it might be in a less populated area. In fact, IF you built a conference of nothing but large city G5's---you know at least several of you schools will be enjoying that "big city bandwagon" effect each year. So--while the ability for any one school to grab those extra bandwagon viewers might ebb and flow---for a conference that has almost all city based schools---the bump from that "bandwagon" effect should be fairly constant when looking at the conference as a whole.

That said, its certainly possible for a team that builds its band on success to draw an audience that is much larger than the population of its location might indicate.

So how long does it take for the "bandwagon" effect? We've had G5 schools in large metropolitan areas for decades. Has it happened yet?

(05-14-2021 01:05 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 11:23 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  With all due respect to C-USA, there’s just no one there that’s going to be anything but the 5th or 6th place finisher in their division and none of them are going to add media value:

UTEP: awful geography
UTSA: young and unproven
UNT: SMU says no 2nd DFW school
Rice: weak program w/ weak following
LA Tech: is a 2nd LA program necessary?
USM: they’ve taken a big step back from the C-USA 1.0 days
UAB: maybe
MTSU: meh
WKU: weak following
FAU/FIU: USF/UCF both say no
Marshall: small market team
Charlotte: low fan support
ODU: maybe, but their team isn’t that good

Market size doesn't matter for any G5 school. LOL. No G5 school, even those in the AAC, don't have control over their market. You go after the G5 team that is most recognizable and continually fields a solid team in Football and Basketball.

I wouldnt say that. Its certainly not the ONLY thing---but its helpful. No--a G5 in a very large market likely doesnt "control" that market--but that's because a large city is by its very nature very diverse. But with so many people---the G5 doesnt need to "control" a market that size in order to still reach a lot of eyeballs. Furthermore---and this is the real key---IF that G5 in a large market DOES get on a successful roll---the "bandwagon effect" in a large city is potentially HUGE compared to what it might be in a less populated area. In fact, IF you built a conference of nothing but large city G5's---you know at least several of you schools will be enjoying that "big city bandwagon" effect each year. So--while the ability for any one school to grab those extra bandwagon viewers might ebb and flow---for a conference that has almost all city based schools---the bump from that "bandwagon" effect should be fairly constant when looking at the conference as a whole.

That said, its certainly possible for a team that builds its band on success to draw an audience that is much larger than the population of its location might indicate.

So how long does it take for the "bandwagon" effect? We've had G5 schools in large metropolitan areas for decades. Has it happened yet?

Of course. The "bandwagon effect" is not permanent. During the 2011, 2015, and 2016 seasons the Houston viewership was fantastic locally and was near that of P5's. You saw sellouts at TDECU---and the most impressive was selling out NRG for the Oklahoma game---where probably 75% of the folks were UH supporters. Im sure UCF probably saw a similar affect in Orlando in its undefeated seasons. But that affect comes as goes for any one school. Like I said, a conference made up of JUST big city schools could always count on that bump because the conference knows SEVERAL of its big city schools would be winning EVERY YEAR (they just cant tell you which ones it will be from year to year).

(05-14-2021 01:00 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 11:23 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  With all due respect to C-USA, there’s just no one there that’s going to be anything but the 5th or 6th place finisher in their division and none of them are going to add media value:

UTEP: awful geography
UTSA: young and unproven
UNT: SMU says no 2nd DFW school
Rice: weak program w/ weak following
LA Tech: is a 2nd LA program necessary?
USM: they’ve taken a big step back from the C-USA 1.0 days
UAB: maybe
MTSU: meh
WKU: weak following
FAU/FIU: USF/UCF both say no
Marshall: small market team
Charlotte: low fan support
ODU: maybe, but their team isn’t that good

Market size doesn't matter for any G5 school. LOL. No G5 school, even those in the AAC, don't have control over their market. You go after the G5 team that is most recognizable and continually fields a solid team in Football and Basketball.

I wouldnt say that. Its certainly not the ONLY thing---but its helpful. No--a G5 in a very large market likely doesnt "control" that market--but that's because a large city is by its very nature very diverse. But with so many people---the G5 doesnt need to "control" a market that size in order to still reach a lot of eyeballs. Furthermore---and this is the real key---IF that G5 in a large market DOES get on a successful roll---the "bandwagon effect" in a large city is potentially HUGE compared to what it might be in a less populated area. In fact, IF you built a conference of nothing but large city G5's---you know at least several of you schools will be enjoying that "big city bandwagon" effect each year. So--while the ability for any one school to grab those extra bandwagon viewers might ebb and flow---for a conference that has almost all city based schools---the bump from that "bandwagon" effect should be fairly constant when looking at the conference as a whole.

That said, its certainly possible for a team that builds its band on success to draw an audience that is much larger than the population of its location might indicate.

I would say, if it counts, Hawaii has a large (if not dominating) control of the "Hawaii market" and FCS North Dakota St has a sizeable control of the "Dakota Market." (Quotations included because I'm not sure those are actual markets.) There may others or this may be hogwash but I think it exists to a certain extent.

Just to address the point, yes there is a Hawaii market. We’ve got 1.4 million folks over here, which is more than Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota or Wyoming. And yes, UH controls the market since there are no competing pro sports franchises or D1 college programs.

Consequently the bandwagon effect described by Attackcoog is very real here. Attendance for most UH athletic events is mediocre when our teams are fair to good, but when a team catches fire — for example when football breaks into the top 25 or when basketball or volleyball is in contention for a conference championship — they’re the talk of the town, everyone wants a ticket and our venues sell out. Hence you saw 50,000 fans at Aloha Stadium when football made its 2007 Sugar Bowl run, 10,000 fans at the Sheriff Center when men’s basketball won its 2016 Big West title, and 10,000 fans at the Sheriff Center again in 2019 and 2020 when women’s and men’s volleyball were making their Big West title runs.

(05-07-2021 08:45 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 06:53 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 11:37 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

' Wrote:Be careful about taking BYU sources for that.

The ESPN deal you keep talking about is football only, they also have a deal through the WCC for olympic sports that's signed to ESPN.

The football side of the deal is an ala carte deal. BYU is paid on a per home game basis depending on who they are playing (p5) and on what channel that game is broadcast. The total deal could exceed the AAC deal but only if the right games are scheduled and put on the highest level channel (ABC). Otherwise in a general year they will make slightly less or more than the current AAC pay out.

The WCC portion of the deal is considerably less than the AAC olympic pay out.

Neither case, as SLH pointed out, really effect BYU's bottom line enough to be much more that a tiny thumb on the scale. Their home revenue in both basketball and football is the larger chunk of their revenue.

BYU draws well against AAC teams, how chasing a conference championship would effect that is unknown but looking at other teams it usually boosts attendance.

BYU's pride is and has been the issue.

Haven't read through the last few pages here, so forgive me if this was addressed already, but this is not entirely true.

1) Yes, the BYU football deal is essentially *per game*. ESPN contracts at least four BYU home games a year, with an option for more, an option that has been picked up multiple times (including last year). The deal requires that at least three of those four games be aired on ABC, ESPN or ESPN2. BYU has played multiple games on ESPN's flagship every year of the deal, I believe.

2) The current deal, which was just extended to 2026, *does not require multiple ABC games to exceed the AAC deal*. The biggest reason for this is exactly what you mentioned...it matters who you play, and BYU's future schedules control the rights to multiple P5 home games a season.

Lets play out an example. We know exactly what the going rate to broadcast a typical Pac-12 game is in 2022. It's about $6.1 million dollars, since that is what ESPN/Fox pay to broadcast the 45 Tier 1 Pac-12 games, with Big Ten and SEC games worth even more. In 2021, BYU controls the TV rights to three of those games (PLUS an ACC game). Typically, BYU will control home rights to 3 P5 games a year. ESPN isnt paying BYU 6 million for the rights to those games, but the number for P5s in the new deal, I've heard, is closer to 2Mil a game, a huge win for both parties. Then you can see where 9M a season becomes a reasonable number.

You also have to remember that those numbers are going to skyrocket even more. The Pac-12, Big Ten and Big 12 will all go to market and sign new Tier 1 deals well before the AAC goes to market again, and BYU will go to market again in 2025-2026, meaning BYU's future home inventory (Stanford, Utah, Ole Miss, etc) will get only more valuable.

Add the fact that BYU would likely have to pay fees to get out of future scheduled games to join the AAC (most of these contracts, many i've personally reviewed) have no-penalty clauses for P5 conference membership but not for the AAC), and it's pretty clear...BYU would lose tier1 TV money, especially by 2026/2027, by joining the AAC...UNLESS BYU's membership trigged a massive revision of the existing contract, OR the AAC agreed to unequal revenue sharing.

There are other factors to consider as well...the current WCC arrangement gives byuTV broadcast rights for some Olympic sports and rebroadcast rights for other games that perhaps the AAC wouldn't want to do....and BYU's recruiting footprint isn't anywhere hear the AAC's.

Could BYU potentially be persuaded to join the AAC? Maaaaybe. It would almost certainly require significant concessions that I doubt member schools would want.

FWIW, tracking this stuff is my job.

1) ESPN is nice, but ABC games are what BYU releases their number for media money based on. i.e. when they claimed 10m that was if all five home games (espn can pick up a sixth but because BYU tv holds the rights to one game no matter what, the pay out is less for the dual coverage) were picked up by ABC and included strictly ranked p5 or equivelent teams in the contract. So for example from 2015-2019 the last half of their contract and extension they had one home game on ABC when they played Wisconsin. Meaning BYU has never come close to the number they release to the media. The deal does require the games to be played on ESPN/ESPN2 and has the option to be moved to OTA.

2) Their deal has never required ABC showings, this is one of the benefits of Aresco negotiating the exposure side so strongly over money, we the AAC are guarenteed a minimum of games. The new contract per the BYU AD is the old contract with some light modifications, meaning as before every game and what channel it is on decides the pay. BYU continues to have no guarenteed ABC slot, the same as before.

Again you are taking BYU's rosey outlook in your scenario and worse comparing apples to oranges. It is irrelevant what anyone pays for a PAC12 game, since the contract is for BYU home games and not PAC 12 p5 vs p5 games. BYU according to the in depth article written by their beat writer at most made 4.5m off their football under their old contract when he pulled out the numbers from their finacial records or roughly a little less than 1m per game. They won't make 2m a game unless it is a p5, ranked opponent that is carried on ABC which happened once in the 2015-2019 seasons.

Also just a reminder that BYU is signing deals that aren't all one for ones and using NMST to fill in that home hole schedule doesn't pay 2m on any real world scale. Also sky rocket? BYU signed their original deal and have for basically over a decade seen no change in its pay outs. Their AD on media day confirmed the old deal was the same as the new one. Because again it is a sliding scale based on who they play and what channel they play on, so come 2026 BYU will be resigning again for the same amount of money. With the recent covid and the complete destruction of their schedule last year assuming that any current games scheduled that were part of those deals happening in 2020 is on shaky ground especially considering how schools schedule a decade into the future.

You again confuse apples and oranges, BYU paying out to end contracts (many of which are in danger from the covid and long term scheduling) would not cause them to lose tv revenue money. Beyond that any change is unlikely to happen for a couple years when the schedule is the heaviest, they also have open dates that are workable and AAC.teams already scheduled. Their MWC games are also cheaper and the more likely games to go (along with other lower level conferences) than their p5s meaning their are two years in their future schedule that are real issues. Also postponement and rescheduling occur when needed meaning some games could simply be pushed out which will be the solution to some of the lost games last year.

BYU recruits nationally and to a certain extent internationally, so yes and no we are not near their recruiting grounds, but much like Navy, the LDS church uses the BYU athletics program to promote the bigger cause, which is.part of their argument for independence. The WCC BYUtv thing isn't an issue, because surprise BYU would be folded in under the deal by ESPN who operates the current WCC coverage and various side deals present.

For what it's worth your over paid and don't seem to be very well informed at what you are doing for your job. As SLH already explained to you earlier the total money involved between BYU independent football and BYU AAC football only, as he pointed out taking into account all revenue streams and leaving out comparisons that don't change between indy and conference that BYU would make more from AAC membership in revenue. Not very much difference and in the overall scheme of BYU's budget nothing but a fraction of a difference in favor of membership.

The issue for BYU in game revenue versus AAC and one to two extra p5 home games a year is probably greater than the media money difference and is a valid issue. I encourage you to use the search function on the AAC board and enter BYU where people like gulf coast gal and Slh sourced and broke down numbers and info that involved all of this including the previously mentioned article that broke out the actual pay per game BYU earned off their contract.

There is a ton of info there and it will get repetitive but it addresses most of your misconceptions and a lot of the points you brought up, including the scheduling issue.

For the record some of us have been following this since 2014 and keeping up.

You typed a lot of opinions here. Why hasn’t BYU already made this decision if it was so easy? Um, you’re overpaid at being a message board poster and you make zero money doing that. Man, I can’t wait to source some AAAAC board info in an article.

The fact of the matter is, like Notre Dame, BYU could make more or equal money in a conference. The exception is they have a different mission. They have their own TV network. They’re attached to a giant money pile of a church. Oh, and they don’t need a conference. Especially one that doesn’t guarantee a playoff spot EVEN if they joined.

So thanks for your effort, but please sit back down at the end of the bench.

I've been busy. But clearly you are paid too much even if you're earning decimal points on the listener.

You literally answered not one criticism about how you appled and oranged it and ignored the entire thing about the media money being an insignificant amount of difference in the overall budget.

I am going to assume you are either a huge BYU homer or your sources are.

Why hasn't BYU made a slightly money beneficial move on one portion of their overall media revenue while ignoring the possible difference in gate money? Well probably because they know how to run a successful business and understand their ESPN deal is 1/20th roughly of their total media pay out.

That's the little part in their about the difference in media money not being much, and fractional overall.

Also that you just tried to make Notre Dame and BYU an equivelent when those two institutions are not remotely on equal footing, shows how badly you understand any of this. Forget athletics, one is the chosen university of a religion and the other is one of many colleges founded by an order of catholics, a university that isn't even the best one from that order, much less the sanctioned school for an entire faith. In athletics their importance is in reverse to their faith position and even then plenty of catholics followed Boston College or other eastern schools. Your historical, athletic, and faith comparison just don't match.

As an internet poster I don't get paid to go to the AAC board, use the search engine and actually drag up printed articles, podcasts quotes, and interview snippets from the BYU athletic representatives and actual paid journalist who have a clue what they are talking about. I did however drag those up when they happened, discussed them and sourced them then. You are welcome to use that resource to educate yourself and improve job performance, but just reading along here there really isn't enough talent in the way you put words together to ever do you any good at getting a real job relating relevant information to a mass audience. Hell your writing style is poor for a message boarder. Also gulf coast gal and SLH are clearly better sources of information with far better research techniques then you have, it might do you some good to shut up and learn.

Finally considering that I have barely skimmed through this thread and found SLH slapping the dog crap out of your false equivalencies and correcting basic well known info, how you thought you could just slide in a "I get paid for this" appeal to your non-existent authority is beyond me.

Please though continue with such takes, they do amuse the people who clearly know better than to support your career finacially.

(05-15-2021 10:14 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  I've been busy. But clearly you are paid too much even if you're earning decimal points on the listener.

You literally answered not one criticism about how you appled and oranged it and ignored the entire thing about the media money being an insignificant amount of difference in the overall budget.

I am going to assume you are either a huge BYU homer or your sources are.

Don’t care about them at all.

(05-15-2021 10:14 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Also that you just tried to make Notre Dame and BYU an equivelent when those two institutions are not remotely on equal footing, shows how badly you understand any of this. Forget athletics, one is the chosen university of a religion and the other is one of many colleges founded by an order of catholics, a university that isn't even the best one from that order, much less the sanctioned school for an entire faith. In athletics their importance is in reverse to their faith position and even then plenty of catholics followed Boston College or other eastern schools. Your historical, athletic, and faith comparison just don't match.

No I didn’t equate the universities at all. They are only similar in there is a faith-based following that extends beyond alumni. In football, both could make more in a conference.

(05-15-2021 10:14 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  As an internet poster I don't get paid to go to the AAC board, use the search engine and actually drag up printed articles, podcasts quotes, and interview snippets from the BYU athletic representatives and actual paid journalist who have a clue what they are talking about. I did however drag those up when they happened, discussed them and sourced them then. You are welcome to use that resource to educate yourself and improve job performance, but just reading along here there really isn't enough talent in the way you put words together to ever do you any good at getting a real job relating relevant information to a mass audience. Hell your writing style is poor for a message boarder. Also gulf coast gal and SLH are clearly better sources of information with far better research techniques then you have, it might do you some good to shut up and learn.

Finally considering that I have barely skimmed through this thread and found SLH slapping the dog crap out of your false equivalencies and correcting basic well known info, how you thought you could just slide in a "I get paid for this" appeal to your non-existent authority is beyond me.

Please though continue with such takes, they do amuse the people who clearly know better than to support your career finacially.

I think you’re addressing somebody else here. I merely wanted to know why BYU hasn’t joined the American yet. Maybe I came off a little harsh, but it hasn’t happened yet and why not if it is a no brainer?

I'm calling my shot now. Boise State adding men's soccer

(05-23-2021 10:03 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I'm calling my shot now. Boise State adding men's soccer

Either adding men’s soccer, returning baseball, or reigniting wrestling.

(05-23-2021 10:16 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 10:03 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I'm calling my shot now. Boise State adding men's soccer

Either adding men’s soccer, returning baseball, or reigniting wrestling.

There are multiple theories on the Boise State board. Nothing to do with realignment though. The one I’ll go with is alcohol sales at football games.

(05-23-2021 11:44 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 10:16 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 10:03 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I'm calling my shot now. Boise State adding men's soccer

Either adding men’s soccer, returning baseball, or reigniting wrestling.

There are multiple theories on the Boise State board. Nothing to do with realignment though. The one I’ll go with is alcohol sales at football games.

If it was realignment, another conference would have spoken up.

I will go with bringing back baseball.

(05-23-2021 10:16 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 10:03 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I'm calling my shot now. Boise State adding men's soccer

Either adding men’s soccer, returning baseball, or reigniting wrestling.

Playing where? Replacing Chicago State in WAC soccer?

I like the aac jumping back to 12 with

VCU/ AFA, Army, BYU football only

Or UAB

Also like jumping to 14 with UAB and 2 football only from AFA, Army and BYU.

The only way the western expansion will work is to get BYU.

The only way BYU comes is if AAC gets P6 status.

The only way P6 status happens is if the AAC takes the best of the rest
And convinces ESPN to do a major contract that reflects the new membership, a major bowl partner(s) tie in, and P5 to accept that league as an auto-bid league.

All of which are a long shot at best.


But if the AAC is going to do it, it has to be structured to make a big splash all at one time, and have all of those things in place behind the scenes so when it makes its move, it’s considered a major jump up in appearance to garner the public perception of true P6 and a shift.

(05-25-2021 02:28 PM)ThunderDent Wrote:  The only way the western expansion will work is to get BYU.

The only way BYU comes is if AAC gets P6 status.

The only way P6 status happens is if the AAC takes the best of the rest
And convinces ESPN to do a major contract that reflects the new membership, a major bowl partner(s) tie in, and P5 to accept that league as an auto-bid league.

All of which are a long shot at best.


But if the AAC is going to do it, it has to be structured to make a big splash all at one time, and have all of those things in place behind the scenes so when it makes its move, it’s considered a major jump up in appearance to garner the public perception of true P6 and a shift.

Seems like the P5 (the Big12 specifically since they have the least members) would pull a table leg out of that plan and poach them before they agree to cut them into the CFP payout. I'm not sure that ESPN could or would make it worth their while to let that happen like they did when the B12 had their dog and pony show a few years ago. The AAC can get close but I don't see them actually gaining membership in the ways it counts.

The announcement is that Albertson Stadium will be back to full capacity use this season.

(05-25-2021 03:20 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  The announcement is that Albertson Stadium will be back to full capacity use this season.

That’s great for Boise!

Not so exciting for realignment enthusiasts