Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: Which Sports must be exluded for Boise State's Full Membership?
This poll is closed.
exclude Softball 2.70% 1 2.70%
exclude Women's Soccer 0% 0 0%
exclude Women's Volleyball 0% 0 0%
exclude Softball and Women's Volleyball 0% 0 0%
exclude Softball and Women's Soccer 2.70% 1 2.70%
exclude Women's Volleyball and Soccer 2.70% 1 2.70%
no restrictions (all sports OK) 56.76% 21 56.76%
No full membership 35.14% 13 35.14%
Total 37 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Post Reply 
AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
Author Message
UCGrad1992 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,198
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 1321
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: North Carolina
Post: #61
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I doubt the average college sports fan knows who’s in the G5. You have to be a fan of a G5 school or a hardcore college sports fan in order to know what G5 conference is the best and worst. Heck, ask any random guy at a sports bar in Seattle, Denver or Minneapolis who’s in the ACC Coastal division and he’ll have no clue. The average Joe is familiar with the schools that have always been elite like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State…..schools that once were winning lots of games like Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami and Florida State or the flavor of the month like Clemson.

The AAC is the best G5 in football and the best basketball league outside the P6 (P5 + Big East) but at the end, it still has the same limitations and stigma as the other four G5 conferences. Even the P5s not named the B1G and SEC deal with it. How often do you hear media pundits and fans slam Clemson for not playing anybody in the ACC, Oklahoma for not being challenged in the Big XII or the Pac-12 for being too weak?

From my experience, the average college football fan is far more familiar with teams in the American [i.e., Cincinnati, UCF, Memphis, Houston and Navy] than teams in the other non-P5 conferences. This is because the AAC has finished with the highest ranked non power team in the final AP poll for the past 4 years in a row [5 of last 6] including representing the NY6 bid four years in a row. Also, UCF and to a lesser extent Cincinnati this past season have made the case to be in the CFP discussion. It is always a "what have you done for me lately" state of mind for most. This is why a Boise add would help in the narrative of further separating the American conference in football. Most "casual" fans have heard of/familiar with Boise St football.
06-06-2021 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,113
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 202
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #62
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 02:54 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I doubt the average college sports fan knows who’s in the G5. You have to be a fan of a G5 school or a hardcore college sports fan in order to know what G5 conference is the best and worst. Heck, ask any random guy at a sports bar in Seattle, Denver or Minneapolis who’s in the ACC Coastal division and he’ll have no clue. The average Joe is familiar with the schools that have always been elite like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State…..schools that once were winning lots of games like Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami and Florida State or the flavor of the month like Clemson.

The AAC is the best G5 in football and the best basketball league outside the P6 (P5 + Big East) but at the end, it still has the same limitations and stigma as the other four G5 conferences. Even the P5s not named the B1G and SEC deal with it. How often do you hear media pundits and fans slam Clemson for not playing anybody in the ACC, Oklahoma for not being challenged in the Big XII or the Pac-12 for being too weak?

From my experience, the average college football fan is far more familiar with teams in the American [i.e., Cincinnati, UCF, Memphis, Houston and Navy] than teams in the other non-P5 conferences. This is because the AAC has finished with the highest ranked non power team in the final AP poll for the past 4 years in a row [5 of last 6] including representing the NY6 bid four years in a row. Also, UCF and to a lesser extent Cincinnati this past season have made the case to be in the CFP discussion. It is always a "what have you done for me lately" state of mind for most. This is why a Boise add would help in the narrative of further separating the American conference in football. Most "casual" fans have heard of/familiar with Boise St football.

Boise is a known brand, I’d say it’s the biggest G5 brand out there. But, for how long though?

When Penn State played Memphis in the Cotton Bowl, I was asked multiple times if I knew what conference Memphis played. Some PSU fans knew about Memphis and the AAC though. So based on my experience, 2/3 have no idea about the G5 and the other 1/3 are anywhere from familiar to very knowledgeable.

And since we’re discussing “what have you done for me lately,” the AAC rep has lost three NY6 bowls in a row. You lose one more and I think you’ll be fine, you lose two more in a row and you’ll give the media ammo to say you can’t play with the big boys and whatever momentum the P6 campaign had will be lost.
06-06-2021 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,113
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 202
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #63
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 01:56 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 02:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think we can can easily get to the point that the AAC is considered to be, perhaps not P5—but not G5 either. A tweener conference so to speak. Once you hit that milestone, it gets easier to see how the conference could slowly morph into a lower level power conference similar to the old Big East....but that could take a decade or two of consistently high performance.

That said, I much prefer a Boise “football only” invite. I’m also fine with standing pat at 11. I could even live with a full “all sports” Boise invite—-but it’s not my preferred choice. The 3-team western “all-sports package deal” seems too risky a play for the current situation. I’d rather sit tight than make a risky big move that might not be the game changer some expect it to be. I’m not saying it couldn’t work—-but I’m not convinced that’s the best move to make just yet.

I doubt the average college sports fan knows who’s in the G5. You have to be a fan of a G5 school or a hardcore college sports fan in order to know what G5 conference is the best and worst. Heck, ask any random guy at a sports bar in Seattle, Denver or Minneapolis who’s in the ACC Coastal division and he’ll have no clue. The average Joe is familiar with the schools that have always been elite like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State…..schools that once were winning lots of games like Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami and Florida State or the flavor of the month like Clemson.

The AAC is the best G5 in football and the best basketball league outside the P6 (P5 + Big East) but at the end, it still has the same limitations and stigma as the other four G5 conferences. Even the P5s not named the B1G and SEC deal with it. How often do you hear media pundits and fans slam Clemson for not playing anybody in the ACC, Oklahoma for not being challenged in the Big XII or the Pac-12 for being too weak?

I think you make a reasonable point. However, I would add that for the very casual relatively low information college football fan your talking about----what he see's on TV is what he is likely to consider "major college sports". If he see's the AAC teams all the time on ESPN and ABC---its more than likely he will assume those teams are "relevant". Those teams he never see's on TV---he probably does not consider relevant. So, all these casual fans really know is they see AAC games on ESPN and ABC all the time and see an AAC team on NYD more often than not. Over years and decades--that simple constant TV exposure gradually changes general perceptions Saturday after Saturday after Saturday---season after season. Its a slow process.

The problem is even if you’re on ESPN and ABC, the talking heads are talking about upcoming P5 games and once you make it to mid October, it’s all about who’s in the hunt for the four CFP spots. The AAC would never be in those conversations regardless if you’re on ESPN or CBS Sports Network.

As a UTEP fan I agree with your logic but as a Penn State grad who’s watched games with PSU fans, I’ve seen the reality on the other side and it’s basically all the G5’s are the same even though we all know on this boars is not true.

The real game changer on this is CFP expansion with a designated "G5 slot" (which I think is coming). Im sure there are fans that think all G5's are the same. lol...of course, there are plenty of SEC fans that think everything outside of the SEC is just white noise. Look---anyone thinking that building the AAC toward P6 status will be easy or quick is nuts. Can it happen---yeah---I think it can. But I'll also tell you that even if we assume consistently fantastic on the field performance its a decade away at best----and more likely decades away--if it ever happens at all. Frankly, IF the G5 gets a designated slot in the CFP---and the AAC can seperate itself enough from the G5 that it claims that playoff slot 90% of the time or so---that will be close enough to "P6" status for me to be satisfied with the AAC status. To me, at that point---I wont be all that bothered by being in the AAC for the long haul---whether its considered a "power conference" or not.

The problem is you think there’s going to be a P6. AAC fans remind me of MWC fans before 2010 who thought they were going to become the 7th AQ conference and even replace the Big East as AQ. I used to tell them on their board the cartel with ESPN’s blessing would never allow it and take their two or three best properties. Utah would get the call and Wyoming would not go anywhere. I was often accused of being a troll. The same will happen to the AAC if it ever gets that close. The cartel will move one or two schools maybe three out and have the likes of East Carolina and Tulsa stay as non power programs. It’s deja vu.

As for the G5 being included in an extended CFP, I wouldn’t hold my breath. The cartel and ESPN will pull the same BS when they created the BCS where a nonAQ had to be ranked in the top 6 to make qualify for a BCS berth. I can see the sane with an expanded CFP where the G5 rep would have to be ranked in the top 4 or 5. Not impossible but not easy either.
06-06-2021 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCGrad1992 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,198
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 1321
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: North Carolina
Post: #64
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 03:05 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 02:54 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I doubt the average college sports fan knows who’s in the G5. You have to be a fan of a G5 school or a hardcore college sports fan in order to know what G5 conference is the best and worst. Heck, ask any random guy at a sports bar in Seattle, Denver or Minneapolis who’s in the ACC Coastal division and he’ll have no clue. The average Joe is familiar with the schools that have always been elite like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State…..schools that once were winning lots of games like Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami and Florida State or the flavor of the month like Clemson.

The AAC is the best G5 in football and the best basketball league outside the P6 (P5 + Big East) but at the end, it still has the same limitations and stigma as the other four G5 conferences. Even the P5s not named the B1G and SEC deal with it. How often do you hear media pundits and fans slam Clemson for not playing anybody in the ACC, Oklahoma for not being challenged in the Big XII or the Pac-12 for being too weak?

From my experience, the average college football fan is far more familiar with teams in the American [i.e., Cincinnati, UCF, Memphis, Houston and Navy] than teams in the other non-P5 conferences. This is because the AAC has finished with the highest ranked non power team in the final AP poll for the past 4 years in a row [5 of last 6] including representing the NY6 bid four years in a row. Also, UCF and to a lesser extent Cincinnati this past season have made the case to be in the CFP discussion. It is always a "what have you done for me lately" state of mind for most. This is why a Boise add would help in the narrative of further separating the American conference in football. Most "casual" fans have heard of/familiar with Boise St football.

Boise is a known brand, I’d say it’s the biggest G5 brand out there. But, for how long though?

When Penn State played Memphis in the Cotton Bowl, I was asked multiple times if I knew what conference Memphis played. Some PSU fans knew about Memphis and the AAC though. So based on my experience, 2/3 have no idea about the G5 and the other 1/3 are anywhere from familiar to very knowledgeable.

And since we’re discussing “what have you done for me lately,” the AAC rep has lost three NY6 bowls in a row. You lose one more and I think you’ll be fine, you lose two more in a row and you’ll give the media ammo to say you can’t play with the big boys and whatever momentum the P6 campaign had will be lost.

I get what you're saying but my point is relative to the other non power leagues. The issue as I see it is who is consistently making the NY6 bowl and finishing ranked high in the polls. I would rather consistently achieve both regardless of the outcome of the games. In tems of playing with the big boys, who really talks about anyone outside of Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma and a few others? They win the chips. Kansas, Wake Forest, Illinois, Vanderbilt, et al., not so much.
06-06-2021 03:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,943
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 289
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #65
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
Interesting. At the halfway point of the poll (but probably most votes in) there seem to be two camps, roughly as below.

50% are in favor of Boise State for all sports
6-8% favor Boise State for all sports if some of the women's team sports are excluded.
42-43% are against full membership, with some expressing opposition to even Football only membership (possibly 10%).

Excluding a woman's sport or two doesn't seem to make much of a difference, but it does increase the majority slightly.

Seems when people actually examine it, it's not so terrible, except about 20 matches in various team sports (counting Basketball) would have to be played on a Thursday in Boise, which (roughly) means every school will lose one more class day than now for 2 of their teams. There is travel time and expense. The expense can be offset by a small boost of ESPN money, the extra hour or two of flight time cannot be.

It simply comes down to whether that extra travel and a day of lost class time for your Basketball or Soccer or Volleyball team is tolerable or not. Seems for a small majority it is, and for a sizeable minority it is not. I suspect this result is not dissimilar to what the ADs think. Boise holding out one sport from the mix, dropping say women's soccer or volleyball in the Big Sky, might swing one or two ADs, but probably not enough to win the day.

The opponents of All Sports have dominated the narrative, claiming it's Boise State's problem, but the poll suggests this is actually the minority opinion within the American. But it's held by more than enough to block any all sports invite. You need 9 basketball schools in favor, which is how it should be, and this poll suggests a 6-5 vote one way or the other is likely, nowhere near the consensus you need. IMO it's a dead matter for now, and will remain so unless and until there is a change in opinion of the AAC or WCC concerning Boise State basketball membership.
06-06-2021 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,113
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 202
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #66
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 03:29 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 03:05 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 02:54 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I doubt the average college sports fan knows who’s in the G5. You have to be a fan of a G5 school or a hardcore college sports fan in order to know what G5 conference is the best and worst. Heck, ask any random guy at a sports bar in Seattle, Denver or Minneapolis who’s in the ACC Coastal division and he’ll have no clue. The average Joe is familiar with the schools that have always been elite like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State…..schools that once were winning lots of games like Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami and Florida State or the flavor of the month like Clemson.

The AAC is the best G5 in football and the best basketball league outside the P6 (P5 + Big East) but at the end, it still has the same limitations and stigma as the other four G5 conferences. Even the P5s not named the B1G and SEC deal with it. How often do you hear media pundits and fans slam Clemson for not playing anybody in the ACC, Oklahoma for not being challenged in the Big XII or the Pac-12 for being too weak?

From my experience, the average college football fan is far more familiar with teams in the American [i.e., Cincinnati, UCF, Memphis, Houston and Navy] than teams in the other non-P5 conferences. This is because the AAC has finished with the highest ranked non power team in the final AP poll for the past 4 years in a row [5 of last 6] including representing the NY6 bid four years in a row. Also, UCF and to a lesser extent Cincinnati this past season have made the case to be in the CFP discussion. It is always a "what have you done for me lately" state of mind for most. This is why a Boise add would help in the narrative of further separating the American conference in football. Most "casual" fans have heard of/familiar with Boise St football.

Boise is a known brand, I’d say it’s the biggest G5 brand out there. But, for how long though?

When Penn State played Memphis in the Cotton Bowl, I was asked multiple times if I knew what conference Memphis played. Some PSU fans knew about Memphis and the AAC though. So based on my experience, 2/3 have no idea about the G5 and the other 1/3 are anywhere from familiar to very knowledgeable.

And since we’re discussing “what have you done for me lately,” the AAC rep has lost three NY6 bowls in a row. You lose one more and I think you’ll be fine, you lose two more in a row and you’ll give the media ammo to say you can’t play with the big boys and whatever momentum the P6 campaign had will be lost.

I get what you're saying but my point is relative to the other non power leagues. The issue as I see it is who is consistently making the NY6 bowl and finishing ranked high in the polls. I would rather consistently achieve both regardless of the outcome of the games. In tems of playing with the big boys, who really talks about anyone outside of Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma and a few others? They win the chips. Kansas, Wake Forest, Illinois, Vanderbilt, et al., not so much.

But the Kansas and Wake Forest of the world are part of the cartel so they have nothing to prove and nothing to worry about. The AAC like the MWC in the 00’s is outside trying to prove they belong so there’s little room for error. Losing several major bowls in a row, having a losing bowl record and not enough big OOC wins just gives ammo to the pundits and P5 fans that the P6 marketing strategy is just a fraud. As I mentioned in another post, I agree as a UTEP fan with what you’re saying but not so much as a Penn State grad.
06-06-2021 04:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCGrad1992 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,198
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 1321
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: North Carolina
Post: #67
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 04:46 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  But the Kansas and Wake Forest of the world are part of the cartel so they have nothing to prove and nothing to worry about. The AAC like the MWC in the 00’s is outside trying to prove they belong so there’s little room for error. Losing several major bowls in a row, having a losing bowl record and not enough big OOC wins just gives ammo to the pundits and P5 fans that the P6 marketing strategy is just a fraud. As I mentioned in another post, I agree as a UTEP fan with what you’re saying but not so much as a Penn State grad.

I've never worried about the P6 thing. I'm worried about the AAC surviving the financial and competitiveness thing. Again, it's about separating ourselves from the other non-power leagues more than anything else. If we achieve that, then the rest will take care of itself.
06-06-2021 04:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,434
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 133
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #68
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
CFP will expand when they figure out how to do it with out any g5s
06-06-2021 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,113
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 202
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #69
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 04:55 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 04:46 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  But the Kansas and Wake Forest of the world are part of the cartel so they have nothing to prove and nothing to worry about. The AAC like the MWC in the 00’s is outside trying to prove they belong so there’s little room for error. Losing several major bowls in a row, having a losing bowl record and not enough big OOC wins just gives ammo to the pundits and P5 fans that the P6 marketing strategy is just a fraud. As I mentioned in another post, I agree as a UTEP fan with what you’re saying but not so much as a Penn State grad.

I've never worried about the P6 thing. I'm worried about the AAC surviving the financial and competitiveness thing. Again, it's about separating ourselves from the other non-power leagues more than anything else. If we achieve that, then the rest will take care of itself.

You already separated from the other G5 conferences. The closest competitor you have is the MWC but even then, the scale favors the American. The same applies to basketball.

The problem is the cartel won’t let an entire conference move up. That’s where the problem starts and ends with the American. There’s so much being the tallest midget can get you. Honestly, I feel like I’m talking to MWC fans in 2009. So many similarities with the only exception the MWC had Utah, BYU and TCU at the top something the AAC lacks.
(This post was last modified: 06-06-2021 05:26 PM by UTEPDallas.)
06-06-2021 05:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,966
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1935
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #70
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 03:17 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 01:56 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I doubt the average college sports fan knows who’s in the G5. You have to be a fan of a G5 school or a hardcore college sports fan in order to know what G5 conference is the best and worst. Heck, ask any random guy at a sports bar in Seattle, Denver or Minneapolis who’s in the ACC Coastal division and he’ll have no clue. The average Joe is familiar with the schools that have always been elite like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State…..schools that once were winning lots of games like Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami and Florida State or the flavor of the month like Clemson.

The AAC is the best G5 in football and the best basketball league outside the P6 (P5 + Big East) but at the end, it still has the same limitations and stigma as the other four G5 conferences. Even the P5s not named the B1G and SEC deal with it. How often do you hear media pundits and fans slam Clemson for not playing anybody in the ACC, Oklahoma for not being challenged in the Big XII or the Pac-12 for being too weak?

I think you make a reasonable point. However, I would add that for the very casual relatively low information college football fan your talking about----what he see's on TV is what he is likely to consider "major college sports". If he see's the AAC teams all the time on ESPN and ABC---its more than likely he will assume those teams are "relevant". Those teams he never see's on TV---he probably does not consider relevant. So, all these casual fans really know is they see AAC games on ESPN and ABC all the time and see an AAC team on NYD more often than not. Over years and decades--that simple constant TV exposure gradually changes general perceptions Saturday after Saturday after Saturday---season after season. Its a slow process.

The problem is even if you’re on ESPN and ABC, the talking heads are talking about upcoming P5 games and once you make it to mid October, it’s all about who’s in the hunt for the four CFP spots. The AAC would never be in those conversations regardless if you’re on ESPN or CBS Sports Network.

As a UTEP fan I agree with your logic but as a Penn State grad who’s watched games with PSU fans, I’ve seen the reality on the other side and it’s basically all the G5’s are the same even though we all know on this boars is not true.

The real game changer on this is CFP expansion with a designated "G5 slot" (which I think is coming). Im sure there are fans that think all G5's are the same. lol...of course, there are plenty of SEC fans that think everything outside of the SEC is just white noise. Look---anyone thinking that building the AAC toward P6 status will be easy or quick is nuts. Can it happen---yeah---I think it can. But I'll also tell you that even if we assume consistently fantastic on the field performance its a decade away at best----and more likely decades away--if it ever happens at all. Frankly, IF the G5 gets a designated slot in the CFP---and the AAC can seperate itself enough from the G5 that it claims that playoff slot 90% of the time or so---that will be close enough to "P6" status for me to be satisfied with the AAC status. To me, at that point---I wont be all that bothered by being in the AAC for the long haul---whether its considered a "power conference" or not.

The problem is you think there’s going to be a P6. AAC fans remind me of MWC fans before 2010 who thought they were going to become the 7th AQ conference and even replace the Big East as AQ. I used to tell them on their board the cartel with ESPN’s blessing would never allow it and take their two or three best properties. Utah would get the call and Wyoming would not go anywhere. I was often accused of being a troll. The same will happen to the AAC if it ever gets that close. The cartel will move one or two schools maybe three out and have the likes of East Carolina and Tulsa stay as non power programs. It’s deja vu.

As for the G5 being included in an extended CFP, I wouldn’t hold my breath. The cartel and ESPN will pull the same BS when they created the BCS where a nonAQ had to be ranked in the top 6 to make qualify for a BCS berth. I can see the sane with an expanded CFP where the G5 rep would have to be ranked in the top 4 or 5. Not impossible but not easy either.

I get that reasoning. I just dont agree with it. I would agree it has always been that way since the 1984 Oklahoma Regents vs the NCAA case. But I think it USED to be that way because most power conferences only had 9 to 12 teams. Each team didnt make 50 million for conference distribution back when the college landscape sudenly erupted with conference expansion and team poaching. Back in the expansion heyday---a typical P5 school was making maybe 15-20 million each from media and may another 2 or 3 million from other conference income (NCAA credits, BCS, etc). Its very different now. I think we hacve reached the point of diminishing returns on expansion (the only exception being a Texas or Oklahoma level addition).

Just do the math. Virtually all the P5's have 14 members. Each conference member is getting a 35 to 55 million conference distribution share. Only about 65% of that share is coming from media. About a third is coming from "other sources" (NCAA credits and a big chunk from CFP).

Given those numbers, in order for a school to be worth adding, it cant be worth the "average" of the media contract for a conference. Lets just say that the average media value per school in a given P5 is 20 million and the total per team payout is for the conference is 30 million. If a school only has 20 million in media value---your media revenue might go up the 20 million----but the "other" portion of the payout doesnt automatically increase just because you add another team. Thus, the new team needs to bring in the FULL 30 MILLION of a share in JUST MEDIA VALUE in order to NOT have a negative affect on per team conference payout.

Now---that 30 million in media value---thats just to break even with an addition. Why would a P5 want to add scruffy AAC team to its elite super cool P5 when it just means breaking even? So, that new school needs to have enough media value that everyone gets a raise when they are added. Thats the only reason add a scruffy AAC school that at some point is going to show up on your schedule every year instead of a Texas or a Ohio St. Since conferences now have 14 members, just to add 1 million dollars to each teams payout---the new school needs to add 14 million in media value OVER THE FULL current member payout PLUS one extra million for the new school (a total of 15 million). So now, the scruffy AAC team needs to have 45 million in JUST MEDIA VALUE to be worth adding. How many AAC teams have 45 million in media value.....oh---by the way---did I mention that the conference needs two of those because they dont really want to expand and end up with an unwieldy odd number of members like the AAC is currently dealing with. So---which TWO AAC schools have a combined 90 million in JUST MEDIA VALUE?

In other words, the AAC could be easily find itself full of teams worth 15 to 25 million---which is very P5-ish---but still be absolutely hideously unattractive to the P5 in terms of poachable targets (kinda what the Big-12 figured out in 2016 by the way). This is why Im not so sure we havent entered a new era where it actually is possible to grow a conference into a a lower level power conference similar to the old Big East or the 1980's WAC.
(This post was last modified: 06-06-2021 06:46 PM by Attackcoog.)
06-06-2021 06:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,445
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1287
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #71
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 01:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 10:33 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I've seen this attitude from fans of other AAC schools on my own publication before, and I think it is categorically insane.

Dying on the hill of "BOISE IS TOO FAR IT ISN'T FAIR TO OUR ATHLETES" feels strange to me, given the geographic makeup of the rest of this league (you already make Olympic teams fly from Tampa to Cincinnati to Tulsa to Philly, is another two hours on a flight once a year really THAT big of a deal?)...but I can at least understand that.

Dying on the hill that Boise isn't good enough is just not accurate on any level. And trying to make any appeal to history, in THIS league, feels equally ignorant.

Well FWIW my position is kind of a combination of the two: IMO, Boise isn't good enough in a brand-value sense to warrant the extra travel distance. If they were located in Alabama, fine, add them, but in Boise Idaho? No.

If they were I don't know, as valuable as Notre Dame, well then we should fly to Nome Alaska to have them in our league. But they aren't. So I don't think ESPN would throw us any more dollars, or at least any more dollars worth missing, if Boise joined. They just aren't a game-changer to me in terms of dollars.

Also, I'd rather have Boise as an opponent and beat them out for the G5 autobid spot than have them under our tent. That's just competitively more fun for me **. I say the AAC should continue to bury Boise. They seem to be kind of on the ropes to me competitively, struggle to win the MW most years these days. They spurned us 9 years ago and are now sort of struggling, seemingly on a downward trajectory, so why pull their coals out the fire when the return doesn't seem so great for us?




** It's kind of like when I was a Lakers fan in the 1980s. I would have *hated* it if somehow in say 1985 we managed to sign Larry Bird away from the Celtics, and then with Magic and Larry won the next five championships. What made winning those titles fun back then was beating Larry Bird. That made the title worth winning, that you were competing against an equal, or maybe someone even better than you.

There's a problem with your analogy. To use your analogy for the AAC and MW---you have to consider that neither Boston or the Lakers are making the playoff in the current scenario (as thats how FBS works for the MW and AAC). So, maybe adding Bird to Magic's squad might make get the Lakers over the hump. It certainly would give the AAC more respect should the access bowl ever be converted into a "G5 playoof slot" in an expanded 8-team CFP.

Besides, if you want Boise to continue to be the bad guy---thats ok. Even if they are in the AAC---you still need to beat them to claim the brass ring (which could very well be a "G5 playoff slot" in the future). I keep going back to the most basic question of conference building. With limited pieces on the board---you can either build using the concept of Geography over Brand---or you can build choosing Brand over Geography. The entire concept of the AAC has always been Brand over Geography. Thats worked out pretty well so far. I see no reason to change that philosophy.

I don't see brand and geography being categorical, either/or things. To me, geography is, all else equal, preferable. But brand is something that can create inequalities, at which point it becomes a matter of weighing them. Generally speaking, brand is more important and should be - I'd recommend we fly to Hawaii for games if Hawaii was equal in brand value to Notre Dame. But that doesn't mean geography is irrelevant - if we had our choice of a Notre Dame located in Hawaii or one located in Alabama, well it should be the one in Alabama.

So it's a tradeoff, and as I explained above, I don't see Boise's value being enough to offset their lousy geography.

And that's before I get to my gut feral desire to see Boise twist in the wind in a fading conference. Beating them in the AAC wouldn't be the same. I want to see them fade away out west, in the bed they made 9 years ago.

I agree with your entire first paragraph. The issue lies in the bolded type. All else is not equal. None of the eastern G5 alternatives is viewed as "equal" to Boise in terms of "brand" (and its not close). Furthermore, lets not pretend the AAC presidents have formed this opinion in an echo chamber. They no doubt have been told this by ESPN, Aresco, their own AD's, and media experts. Im sure these same sources have told them independent Army is the only one that might could be considered a viable eastern alternative---and Army isnt interested.

What Im saying about the AAC presidents is not opinion. It is a fact. We know its fact because if the AAC presidents thought otherwise---one of those alternative eastern G5 options would already be an AAC member. Its just that simple. The reality is adding any team other than BYU, Army, Boise, or perhaps Air Force---would represent a clear and obvious step backwards for the AAC....which is why the AAC currently remains at 11 almost 2 full years after UConn announced its intent to leave for the Big East.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything here, but I would say I don't need ESPN or Aresco or ADs or media experts to tell me that Boise's brand value exceeds that of anyone in the east, heck including Army. I can tell that myself.

But IMO, Boise's value is not enough to warrant having them join given the geography. That's why I favor staying at 11 for as long as we can. Nobody out there is "worth it", meaning better than staying at 11, at least not among those willing to join, or on terms acceptable to us. I am glad Aresco did not have a knee-jerk response to UConn leaving, I endorse his deliberate approach, getting the NCAA waiver and thus allowing us to avoid being forced into a shotgun marriage.

I continue to favor that approach.
(This post was last modified: 06-06-2021 06:33 PM by quo vadis.)
06-06-2021 06:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,943
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 289
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #72
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 05:24 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  You already separated from the other G5 conferences. The closest competitor you have is the MWC but even then, the scale favors the American. The same applies to basketball.

The problem is the cartel won’t let an entire conference move up. That’s where the problem starts and ends with the American. There’s so much being the tallest midget can get you. Honestly, I feel like I’m talking to MWC fans in 2009. So many similarities with the only exception the MWC had Utah, BYU and TCU at the top something the AAC lacks.

Correct. None of the G5 schools and Independents (not including Notre Dame) are above any of the P5 in athletic budget, except BYU. In fact a gap is opening up. The American is where the MWC was in 2009, very much agree. There is not much more up for them.

Only adding Boise State football would materially improve their situation. Mostly by increasing the likelihood they will control any G5 access to the playoffs. I would see it as raising the control from 65-70% of the time to 75-80% of the time. They also would not hurt and might even help the per school media income. But any expansion beyond that doesn't do a thing, and possibly lowers the per school take.

But it wont, and cannot gain them "P5" group status. That is just not there to be had, not going to be offered. Boise State addition needs to be understood in those terms, as a small incremental gain, not a game changer.

The only hope for any of the schools not in P5 to gain that status is for Oklahoma to leave the Big 12 and some G5 win the lottery to be selected as their replacement. That has not changed.
(This post was last modified: 06-06-2021 07:20 PM by Stugray2.)
06-06-2021 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,448
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 644
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #73
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
[quote='Stugray2' pid='17454064' dateline='1623012122']
Interesting. At the halfway point of the poll (but probably most votes in) there seem to be two camps, roughly as below.

50% are in favor of Boise State for all sports
6-8% favor Boise State for all sports if some of the women's team sports are excluded.
42-43% are against full membership, with some expressing opposition to even Football only membership (possibly 10%).

quote]

***************************************************************
Reply:

Apparently I misunderstood the options, as I assumed that those voting for no full membership meant no football membership either. I didn't vote, since I don't consider myself a fan of the AAC or any other conference (or team, for that matter). If I had voted it would have been for no membership at all for Boise if that had been an option.
But it doesn't matter what fans think. The only thing that matters is what the presidents think. And not just a majority of presidents - it takes a super majority, and I'm not at all sure that level of consensus exists.
(This post was last modified: 06-06-2021 06:50 PM by ken d.)
06-06-2021 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,966
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1935
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #74
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 06:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 01:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well FWIW my position is kind of a combination of the two: IMO, Boise isn't good enough in a brand-value sense to warrant the extra travel distance. If they were located in Alabama, fine, add them, but in Boise Idaho? No.

If they were I don't know, as valuable as Notre Dame, well then we should fly to Nome Alaska to have them in our league. But they aren't. So I don't think ESPN would throw us any more dollars, or at least any more dollars worth missing, if Boise joined. They just aren't a game-changer to me in terms of dollars.

Also, I'd rather have Boise as an opponent and beat them out for the G5 autobid spot than have them under our tent. That's just competitively more fun for me **. I say the AAC should continue to bury Boise. They seem to be kind of on the ropes to me competitively, struggle to win the MW most years these days. They spurned us 9 years ago and are now sort of struggling, seemingly on a downward trajectory, so why pull their coals out the fire when the return doesn't seem so great for us?




** It's kind of like when I was a Lakers fan in the 1980s. I would have *hated* it if somehow in say 1985 we managed to sign Larry Bird away from the Celtics, and then with Magic and Larry won the next five championships. What made winning those titles fun back then was beating Larry Bird. That made the title worth winning, that you were competing against an equal, or maybe someone even better than you.

There's a problem with your analogy. To use your analogy for the AAC and MW---you have to consider that neither Boston or the Lakers are making the playoff in the current scenario (as thats how FBS works for the MW and AAC). So, maybe adding Bird to Magic's squad might make get the Lakers over the hump. It certainly would give the AAC more respect should the access bowl ever be converted into a "G5 playoof slot" in an expanded 8-team CFP.

Besides, if you want Boise to continue to be the bad guy---thats ok. Even if they are in the AAC---you still need to beat them to claim the brass ring (which could very well be a "G5 playoff slot" in the future). I keep going back to the most basic question of conference building. With limited pieces on the board---you can either build using the concept of Geography over Brand---or you can build choosing Brand over Geography. The entire concept of the AAC has always been Brand over Geography. Thats worked out pretty well so far. I see no reason to change that philosophy.

I don't see brand and geography being categorical, either/or things. To me, geography is, all else equal, preferable. But brand is something that can create inequalities, at which point it becomes a matter of weighing them. Generally speaking, brand is more important and should be - I'd recommend we fly to Hawaii for games if Hawaii was equal in brand value to Notre Dame. But that doesn't mean geography is irrelevant - if we had our choice of a Notre Dame located in Hawaii or one located in Alabama, well it should be the one in Alabama.

So it's a tradeoff, and as I explained above, I don't see Boise's value being enough to offset their lousy geography.

And that's before I get to my gut feral desire to see Boise twist in the wind in a fading conference. Beating them in the AAC wouldn't be the same. I want to see them fade away out west, in the bed they made 9 years ago.

I agree with your entire first paragraph. The issue lies in the bolded type. All else is not equal. None of the eastern G5 alternatives is viewed as "equal" to Boise in terms of "brand" (and its not close). Furthermore, lets not pretend the AAC presidents have formed this opinion in an echo chamber. They no doubt have been told this by ESPN, Aresco, their own AD's, and media experts. Im sure these same sources have told them independent Army is the only one that might could be considered a viable eastern alternative---and Army isnt interested.

What Im saying about the AAC presidents is not opinion. It is a fact. We know its fact because if the AAC presidents thought otherwise---one of those alternative eastern G5 options would already be an AAC member. Its just that simple. The reality is adding any team other than BYU, Army, Boise, or perhaps Air Force---would represent a clear and obvious step backwards for the AAC....which is why the AAC currently remains at 11 almost 2 full years after UConn announced its intent to leave for the Big East.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything here, but I would say I don't need ESPN or Aresco or ADs or media experts to tell me that Boise's brand value exceeds that of anyone in the east, heck including Army. I can tell that myself.

But IMO, Boise's value is not enough to warrant having them join given the geography. That's why I favor staying at 11 for as long as we can. Nobody out there is "worth it", meaning better than staying at 11, at least not among those willing to join, or on terms acceptable to us. I am glad Aresco did not have a knee-jerk response to UConn leaving, I endorse his deliberate approach, getting the NCAA waiver and thus allowing us to avoid being forced into a shotgun marriage.

I continue to favor that approach.

Well---we arent that far off. My preferred approach is Boise for football only combined with a VCU non-football invite. I could live with a Boise full invite to get to 12---though its not my preferred option. Beyoind that---I'd probably perfer standing pat to any other option mentioned at this time (beyond BYU or Army). When it comes to the SDSU, Boise, CSU option----Im just not nearly as confident thats a great idea and would prefer standing pat to the 3-team deal at this point. Understand----Im not totally against it---Im just not as confident in it being a great idea as I am the Boise+VCU first choice. Frankly, I think time is on our side and I'd wait to see if the preferred Boise "football only" option doesnt end up working itself out in the end.
(This post was last modified: 06-06-2021 07:18 PM by Attackcoog.)
06-06-2021 07:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,113
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 202
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #75
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 06:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 03:17 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 01:56 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you make a reasonable point. However, I would add that for the very casual relatively low information college football fan your talking about----what he see's on TV is what he is likely to consider "major college sports". If he see's the AAC teams all the time on ESPN and ABC---its more than likely he will assume those teams are "relevant". Those teams he never see's on TV---he probably does not consider relevant. So, all these casual fans really know is they see AAC games on ESPN and ABC all the time and see an AAC team on NYD more often than not. Over years and decades--that simple constant TV exposure gradually changes general perceptions Saturday after Saturday after Saturday---season after season. Its a slow process.

The problem is even if you’re on ESPN and ABC, the talking heads are talking about upcoming P5 games and once you make it to mid October, it’s all about who’s in the hunt for the four CFP spots. The AAC would never be in those conversations regardless if you’re on ESPN or CBS Sports Network.

As a UTEP fan I agree with your logic but as a Penn State grad who’s watched games with PSU fans, I’ve seen the reality on the other side and it’s basically all the G5’s are the same even though we all know on this boars is not true.

The real game changer on this is CFP expansion with a designated "G5 slot" (which I think is coming). Im sure there are fans that think all G5's are the same. lol...of course, there are plenty of SEC fans that think everything outside of the SEC is just white noise. Look---anyone thinking that building the AAC toward P6 status will be easy or quick is nuts. Can it happen---yeah---I think it can. But I'll also tell you that even if we assume consistently fantastic on the field performance its a decade away at best----and more likely decades away--if it ever happens at all. Frankly, IF the G5 gets a designated slot in the CFP---and the AAC can seperate itself enough from the G5 that it claims that playoff slot 90% of the time or so---that will be close enough to "P6" status for me to be satisfied with the AAC status. To me, at that point---I wont be all that bothered by being in the AAC for the long haul---whether its considered a "power conference" or not.

The problem is you think there’s going to be a P6. AAC fans remind me of MWC fans before 2010 who thought they were going to become the 7th AQ conference and even replace the Big East as AQ. I used to tell them on their board the cartel with ESPN’s blessing would never allow it and take their two or three best properties. Utah would get the call and Wyoming would not go anywhere. I was often accused of being a troll. The same will happen to the AAC if it ever gets that close. The cartel will move one or two schools maybe three out and have the likes of East Carolina and Tulsa stay as non power programs. It’s deja vu.

As for the G5 being included in an extended CFP, I wouldn’t hold my breath. The cartel and ESPN will pull the same BS when they created the BCS where a nonAQ had to be ranked in the top 6 to make qualify for a BCS berth. I can see the sane with an expanded CFP where the G5 rep would have to be ranked in the top 4 or 5. Not impossible but not easy either.

I get that reasoning. I just dont agree with it. I would agree it has always been that way since the 1984 Oklahoma Regents vs the NCAA case. But I think it USED to be that way because most power conferences only had 9 to 12 teams. Each team didnt make 50 million for conference distribution back when the college landscape sudenly erupted with conference expansion and team poaching. Back in the expansion heyday---a typical P5 school was making maybe 15-20 million each from media and may another 2 or 3 million from other conference income (NCAA credits, BCS, etc). Its very different now. I think we hacve reached the point of diminishing returns on expansion (the only exception being a Texas or Oklahoma level addition).

Just do the math. Virtually all the P5's have 14 members. Each conference member is getting a 35 to 55 million conference distribution share. Only about 65% of that share is coming from media. About a third is coming from "other sources" (NCAA credits and a big chunk from CFP).

Given those numbers, in order for a school to be worth adding, it cant be worth the "average" of the media contract for a conference. Lets just say that the average media value per school in a given P5 is 20 million and the total per team payout is for the conference is 30 million. If a school only has 20 million in media value---your media revenue might go up the 20 million----but the "other" portion of the payout doesnt automatically increase just because you add another team. Thus, the new team needs to bring in the FULL 30 MILLION of a share in JUST MEDIA VALUE in order to NOT have a negative affect on per team conference payout.

Now---that 30 million in media value---thats just to break even with an addition. Why would a P5 want to add scruffy AAC team to its elite super cool P5 when it just means breaking even? So, that new school needs to have enough media value that everyone gets a raise when they are added. Thats the only reason add a scruffy AAC school that at some point is going to show up on your schedule every year instead of a Texas or a Ohio St. Since conferences now have 14 members, just to add 1 million dollars to each teams payout---the new school needs to add 14 million in media value OVER THE FULL current member payout PLUS one extra million for the new school (a total of 15 million). So now, the scruffy AAC team needs to have 45 million in JUST MEDIA VALUE to be worth adding. How many AAC teams have 45 million in media value.....oh---by the way---did I mention that the conference needs two of those because they dont really want to expand and end up with an unwieldy odd number of members like the AAC is currently dealing with. So---which TWO AAC schools have a combined 90 million in JUST MEDIA VALUE?

In other words, the AAC could be easily find itself full of teams worth 15 to 25 million---which is very P5-ish---but still be absolutely hideously unattractive to the P5 in terms of poachable targets (kinda what the Big-12 figured out in 2016 by the way). This is why Im not so sure we havent entered a new era where it actually is possible to grow a conference into a a lower level power conference similar to the old Big East or the 1980's WAC.

Like I used to tell MWC fans over 10 years ago: “we’ll see”.
06-06-2021 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCGrad1992 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,198
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 1321
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: North Carolina
Post: #76
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 05:24 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 04:55 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 04:46 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  But the Kansas and Wake Forest of the world are part of the cartel so they have nothing to prove and nothing to worry about. The AAC like the MWC in the 00’s is outside trying to prove they belong so there’s little room for error. Losing several major bowls in a row, having a losing bowl record and not enough big OOC wins just gives ammo to the pundits and P5 fans that the P6 marketing strategy is just a fraud. As I mentioned in another post, I agree as a UTEP fan with what you’re saying but not so much as a Penn State grad.

I've never worried about the P6 thing. I'm worried about the AAC surviving the financial and competitiveness thing. Again, it's about separating ourselves from the other non-power leagues more than anything else. If we achieve that, then the rest will take care of itself.

You already separated from the other G5 conferences. The closest competitor you have is the MWC but even then, the scale favors the American. The same applies to basketball.

The problem is the cartel won’t let an entire conference move up. That’s where the problem starts and ends with the American. There’s so much being the tallest midget can get you. Honestly, I feel like I’m talking to MWC fans in 2009. So many similarities with the only exception the MWC had Utah, BYU and TCU at the top something the AAC lacks.

Not separated enough IMO. We've had folks on this Board argue that the MWC has been a better performing conference in all metrics EXCEPT taking the NY6 bid. Fans of other non-power leagues have said there isn't much difference between us and "we're all in the same boat together." Adding quality brands strengthens our position and it also weakens our conference competitors further. With all due respect, I only care about the AAC doing everything and anything it can to continue to improve it's brand, national profile and competitiveness. That helps to generate more content, more interest, more viewers and ultimately more revenues. Finally, you have to consider the addition of teams not in a vacuum. We don't know what Commissioner Aresco has discussed with ESPN/media powers-that-be. He's a former CBS exec and knows how to navigate that realm pretty well.
06-06-2021 07:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 3,781
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 261
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #77
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 06:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  [quote='Stugray2' pid='17454064' dateline='1623012122']
Interesting. At the halfway point of the poll (but probably most votes in) there seem to be two camps, roughly as below.

50% are in favor of Boise State for all sports
6-8% favor Boise State for all sports if some of the women's team sports are excluded.
42-43% are against full membership, with some expressing opposition to even Football only membership (possibly 10%).

quote]

***************************************************************
Reply:

Apparently I misunderstood the options, as I assumed that those voting for no full membership meant no football membership either. I didn't vote, since I don't consider myself a fan of the AAC or any other conference (or team, for that matter). If I had voted it would have been for no membership at all for Boise if that had been an option.
But it doesn't matter what fans think. The only thing that matters is what the presidents think. And not just a majority of presidents - it takes a super majority, and I'm not at all sure that level of consensus exists.


Are you a fan of any pro sports organizations, ken d?
06-06-2021 08:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,448
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 644
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #78
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 08:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 06:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  [quote='Stugray2' pid='17454064' dateline='1623012122']
Interesting. At the halfway point of the poll (but probably most votes in) there seem to be two camps, roughly as below.

50% are in favor of Boise State for all sports
6-8% favor Boise State for all sports if some of the women's team sports are excluded.
42-43% are against full membership, with some expressing opposition to even Football only membership (possibly 10%).

quote]

***************************************************************
Reply:

Apparently I misunderstood the options, as I assumed that those voting for no full membership meant no football membership either. I didn't vote, since I don't consider myself a fan of the AAC or any other conference (or team, for that matter). If I had voted it would have been for no membership at all for Boise if that had been an option.
But it doesn't matter what fans think. The only thing that matters is what the presidents think. And not just a majority of presidents - it takes a super majority, and I'm not at all sure that level of consensus exists.


Are you a fan of any pro sports organizations, ken d?

Not really. I'll watch pro sports when their playoffs start, though occasionally I'll watch the NFL on Sunday when I want to get in a good nap. I generally prefer to watch college sports, picking whatever game interests me the most in the moment regardless of what conference the teams are in.
06-07-2021 07:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JamesTKirk Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 65
Joined: Mar 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: the underdog
Location:
Post: #79
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-05-2021 05:47 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I voted "no restrictions" and am on record on this board with wanting the AAC to add Boise, San Diego State and one other MWC university/sports program.

...if I were a Tulane, Tulsa, Navy, SMU, Houston or Wichita fan, I might not want the addition of three MWC programs.

Actually, you might not mind. Why? Because in exchange for making longer flights to play western teams, they would make fewer flights east to play eastern teams.

It would be a net wash - - little, if any overall increase in mileage.

I adhere to the "strength in numbers" approach to college conferences and, as such, want the AAC to have 15 total members, as opposed to 12. Having said this, I realize I'm likely in the minority regarding the "strength in numbers" mindset. [/quote]

You might not be in the minority. Strength of numbers made sense for the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC.
06-07-2021 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,194
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 272
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #80
RE: AAC Fans: what terms would you accept Boise State as Full Member?
(06-06-2021 07:52 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-06-2021 05:24 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  ... You already separated from the other G5 conferences. The closest competitor you have is the MWC but even then, the scale favors the American. The same applies to basketball. ...

Not separated enough IMO. We've had folks on this Board argue that the MWC has been a better performing conference in all metrics EXCEPT taking the NY6 bid.

Though what folks on this board argue is neither here nor there as far as where it counts among the media and other stakeholders.

Quote: Fans of other non-power leagues have said there isn't much difference between us and "we're all in the same boat together."

In point of fact, we are all in the same boat together unless and until the American is in a position to set out in its own boat. If and when the American is in a position to bargain for it's own spot in the system independently of the rest of the Group of Five ... that would mark the time it is no longer a member of the Group of Five.

Until such time, in an inside baseball sense it will be at most "first among equals".

But on the other hand, most casual fans don't track the inside baseball, and for them, as long as the American grabs the lion's share of Access Bowl spots and is the Go5 conference with the most secure hold on one or more at-large bids in the Tourney, the American will strike many as a "tweener" conference.

Quote: Adding quality brands strengthens our position and it also weakens our conference competitors further. ...

Fortunately for the American, the Presidents of the members schools likely have a less shortsighted approach and are not likely to include "does it weaken other conferences" as a point to weigh when deciding on prospective adds.
06-07-2021 08:56 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.