Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
Author Message
Tigersmoke4 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,110
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #201
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-10-2021 10:30 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 11:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-09-2021 08:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  IMO, there are several all-sport, football-first, athletic programs that could definitely grow and develop over time under the American banner. The AAC will likely wait for a sure thing that immediately provides value (Boise, BYU, Army, etc.). They haven't come, nor will they for various reasons.

With the right investment, they can add a program that can get a boost with recruiting and viewership, and in the right market, it could pay huge dividends as a long-term asset to the league.

I doubt anyone gets added, but there are a few programs with strong potential with the AAC association.

I couldnt disagree more. What your suggesting is a "close your eyes and cross your fingers pick" where the league simply HOPES the school will develop into a high quality member. HOPE is not a strategy any more than buying a lottery ticket every week is a viable retirement plan.

The only thing I will say is IF the AAC was forced to select a 12th member---then the lack of viable candidates---and the complete lack of ANY candidates that are good in both football AND basketball basically requires the league to split that 12th slot and create a hybrid 12th member. Take VCU as a non-football member and pair it with the best brand name /highest quality football program available in the east (hopefully one with a much higher ceiling). That would probably be AppSt--maybe Marshall---but I just dont know if the presidents would be willing to accept those schools as they arent great institutional fits. I suspect AAC fans might be really disappointed with who emerges as the best "football only" candidate among a group of 11 university presidents.

That said, given there really arent any brand names with any significant value available to the AAC---it could be argued that it doesnt really matter who they pick. Thus, the presidents would not be completely out of line if they accepted a slightly lesser "on the field performance/brand value" in exchange for an institutional fit they DO highly value. Thus, you could actually end up with a Georgia St/Buffalo/UAB type "football only" replacement for UConn emerging from such a process.

Once you really start looking at whats avaialble and how few boxes any individual candidate checks---it becomes obvious why the AAC still sits at 11 members almost 2 full years after UConn announced their intention to exit the conference.

I never said it is a "close your eyes and cross your fingers pick" nor did I say the leagues has to HOPE for any investment addition to perform well.

Respectfully, the AAC cannot think or operate like a P5 - i.e. choosing an expansion member based on current value; it's just not there, nor will it ever be. Boise isn't coming. Nor is BYU. Or Army. The only hope is the wishes that one of those schools comes to the AAC's dream that they need the league for future survival. A 12-team playoff with 6 wild cards and only one guaranteed G5 rep doesn't expedite that.

For long term growth of the AAC - not the individual members' - they should (I don't think they will) seriously look at investing in an all-sports member. This opportunity shouldn't go to just anyone. It should go to a football-first athletic program that has already invested in its athletic program. It needs to have a commitment to facilities. It needs to open doors to a new recruiting area. For academic purposes, it needs to have recognition and respectability. There are schools within the footprint that do offer that. Just because they aren't competing for NY6 bowls, doesn't mean there isn't long-term value with prospective candidates.

The fact remains that the bottom of the AAC, long-term, is a serious hurdle, perception wise. Staying at eleven only highlights the deficiencies of that bottom tier. Investing in the right member could provide value to the AAC. The AAC will never have the opportunity to add a sure thing. As a G5 , it just won't. Like with so many initiatives, it needs to continue to think differently.

Actually the NBE took the " bottom of the AAC " off of our hands. Also your lack of knowledge of the situation is showing. The AAC is in no rush to grab an unworthy team just for the sake of getting back to 12. It's actually to the conference's advantage as of today to not rush it. The lack of even divisions will allow the conference to always match its two highest ranked teams against each other in the CCG, ensuring that our champion will always be highly ranked every year while only splitting its share of the playoff pie 11 ways rather 12. 07-coffee3
06-10-2021 11:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 51,670
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1986
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #202
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
If any of these schools you guys keep offering up were truly a target (Buffalo, UAB, GA State, etc.), they would be in already.

I think the proposed 12 team CFP hurts BYU the most. I understand the Utah angle, but maybe this new situation could change BYU's perspective. Outside BYU, and with Army and AFA saying no, i think the AAC stays at 11.
06-10-2021 11:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,897
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1928
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #203
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-10-2021 05:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 03:14 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 08:48 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  In my opinion the AAC should leave the #12 spot open in case either BYU comes available or Boise State has a change of circumstances. JMO

Do we know if BYU was asked? The prevailing wisdom seems to be that BYU doesn't want to be in a conference considered beneath the one that Utah is in, but they don't seem to have a problem with that for hoops. Would anything less than a guaranteed spot in the NY6 for its conference satisfy BYU?

I’m sure Aresco has talked to them. Gonzaga is the Notre Dame of hoops.

I'm not sure what Gonzaga has to do with my question. What I would be interested to know is whether Aresco has the authority from AAC presidents to invite BYU to be a football only member, and if he does have the authority has he done so and been turned down. Sometimes a school wants to be asked rather than be the one to do the asking.

It doesnt work that way. A conference never invites until they know the answer will be yes. That said---it been made quite clear to them that the AAC wants them bad. I suspect the reality is they effectively have a standing invitation. Im even willing to bet that Aresco picks up the phone and touches base with them every so often to see how things are going. The moment BYU becomes an interested party---it wont take long to put a deal together. Im just not sure they ever will be a willing party.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2021 01:20 AM by Attackcoog.)
06-11-2021 01:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,897
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1928
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #204
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-10-2021 11:13 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If any of these schools you guys keep offering up were truly a target (Buffalo, UAB, GA State, etc.), they would be in already.

I think the proposed 12 team CFP hurts BYU the most. I understand the Utah angle, but maybe this new situation could change BYU's perspective. Outside BYU, and with Army and AFA saying no, i think the AAC stays at 11.

Im not sure thats true. They typically have a good enough schedule that they can easily land in the top 10 if they have a excellent year. Youve got a pretty good shot of making the playoff if your can get in the top 10. Thats a lot easier than what it is now---top 4 or bust.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2021 01:23 AM by Attackcoog.)
06-11-2021 01:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,897
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1928
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #205
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-10-2021 10:30 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 11:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-09-2021 08:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  IMO, there are several all-sport, football-first, athletic programs that could definitely grow and develop over time under the American banner. The AAC will likely wait for a sure thing that immediately provides value (Boise, BYU, Army, etc.). They haven't come, nor will they for various reasons.

With the right investment, they can add a program that can get a boost with recruiting and viewership, and in the right market, it could pay huge dividends as a long-term asset to the league.

I doubt anyone gets added, but there are a few programs with strong potential with the AAC association.

I couldnt disagree more. What your suggesting is a "close your eyes and cross your fingers pick" where the league simply HOPES the school will develop into a high quality member. HOPE is not a strategy any more than buying a lottery ticket every week is a viable retirement plan.

The only thing I will say is IF the AAC was forced to select a 12th member---then the lack of viable candidates---and the complete lack of ANY candidates that are good in both football AND basketball basically requires the league to split that 12th slot and create a hybrid 12th member. Take VCU as a non-football member and pair it with the best brand name /highest quality football program available in the east (hopefully one with a much higher ceiling). That would probably be AppSt--maybe Marshall---but I just dont know if the presidents would be willing to accept those schools as they arent great institutional fits. I suspect AAC fans might be really disappointed with who emerges as the best "football only" candidate among a group of 11 university presidents.

That said, given there really arent any brand names with any significant value available to the AAC---it could be argued that it doesnt really matter who they pick. Thus, the presidents would not be completely out of line if they accepted a slightly lesser "on the field performance/brand value" in exchange for an institutional fit they DO highly value. Thus, you could actually end up with a Georgia St/Buffalo/UAB type "football only" replacement for UConn emerging from such a process.

Once you really start looking at whats avaialble and how few boxes any individual candidate checks---it becomes obvious why the AAC still sits at 11 members almost 2 full years after UConn announced their intention to exit the conference.

I never said it is a "close your eyes and cross your fingers pick" nor did I say the leagues has to HOPE for any investment addition to perform well.

Respectfully, the AAC cannot think or operate like a P5 - i.e. choosing an expansion member based on current value; it's just not there, nor will it ever be. Boise isn't coming. Nor is BYU. Or Army. The only hope is the wishes that one of those schools comes to the AAC's dream that they need the league for future survival. A 12-team playoff with 6 wild cards and only one guaranteed G5 rep doesn't expedite that.

For long term growth of the AAC - not the individual members' - they should (I don't think they will) seriously look at investing in an all-sports member. This opportunity shouldn't go to just anyone. It should go to a football-first athletic program that has already invested in its athletic program. It needs to have a commitment to facilities. It needs to open doors to a new recruiting area. For academic purposes, it needs to have recognition and respectability. There are schools within the footprint that do offer that. Just because they aren't competing for NY6 bowls, doesn't mean there isn't long-term value with prospective candidates.

The fact remains that the bottom of the AAC, long-term, is a serious hurdle, perception wise. Staying at eleven only highlights the deficiencies of that bottom tier. Investing in the right member could provide value to the AAC. The AAC will never have the opportunity to add a sure thing. As a G5 , it just won't. Like with so many initiatives, it needs to continue to think differently.

I understand you never said "close your eyes and cross your fingers". My point is thats essentially what you are suggesting. Your suggesting rolling the dice on a school with potential. Look how poorly that gamble has gone for CUSA. The team with the biggest budget and commitment to facilities (ODU) is still a trainwreck 9 years after CUSA gambled on their potential. Frankly, there are lots of schools that are investing in their programs. The problem is some of those programs are going to develop into reasonably solid brands---but most will not. Its simply not a good gamble.

You may be right that BYU, Army, or Boise wont ever end up joining the AAC. That still doesnt make rolling the dice on a developoing school any better a gamble. What will make it a better gamble is patience. Some of the schools will develop. Wait and see who does---and THEN invite that school. There is no rush. They arent going anywhere. Its not like the AAC has to worry about the SEC grabbing any of these candidates before the American can make its move. I'll put it like this----As long as a conference ends up with a diamond----there is no huge premium for finding that diamond quicker than anyone else---but there is a HUGE forever penalty paid by any conference that rushes in to buy a diamond only to find out it actually bought a lump of coal.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2021 01:47 AM by Attackcoog.)
06-11-2021 01:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,037
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 553
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #206
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-10-2021 11:13 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If any of these schools you guys keep offering up were truly a target (Buffalo, UAB, GA State, etc.), they would be in already.

I think the proposed 12 team CFP hurts BYU the most. I understand the Utah angle, but maybe this new situation could change BYU's perspective. Outside BYU, and with Army and AFA saying no, i think the AAC stays at 11.

I don't think it hurts them so to speak....they've gone from having to be in the Top 4 get into the playoffs to being in the Top 10-12.

They are just missing out on a potential opportunity that winning the AAC would provide

I'm of the opinion as some have pointed out that there is no coincidence between the AAC no Boise announcement and this playoff expansion announcement
06-11-2021 06:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 7,701
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 292
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #207
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-10-2021 04:15 PM)schmolik Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 08:27 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Navy and Wichita are very valuable brands to the American. They will not be "dumped" so that the AAC can have balanced divisions in football or so as to nix the hybrid model. That would be absurd.

The American is in very fine shape (not "great," admittedly, but very fine). It is an all-sports league with a quality mix of academics (including six medical schools), athletics and universities with strong histories and city locations. It is joined by the Big East and the Mountain West as the three best NCAA D-I conferences (though some would add the Ivy League to that group) that are not part of the Power Five.

Did somebody suggest dumping Wichita? I think the opposite, encourage them to restart football. They’re already in the conference and the footprint. They could immediately compete to be the best football program in the state. Not many other eastern/Midwestern candidates can say that, except, ahem, Liberty!

That brings me to a thought which I’ve often had: you want a program that will pour money into it until they are upper tier? Then you look at Liberty. The presidents won’t allow it, but it’s true.

Virginia Tech says hi.

38-35 says hi.
06-11-2021 06:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 7,701
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 292
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #208
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-10-2021 11:13 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If any of these schools you guys keep offering up were truly a target (Buffalo, UAB, GA State, etc.), they would be in already.

I think the proposed 12 team CFP hurts BYU the most. I understand the Utah angle, but maybe this new situation could change BYU's perspective. Outside BYU, and with Army and AFA saying no, i think the AAC stays at 11.

Well, the same can be said for Air Force, Army, BYU and the other western pipe dreams, no?

BYU has the choice:

winning a conference title game which most likely involves going undefeated to be a top six champ, playing the extra 13th game, not putting together the entirety of their schedule, and competing for one spot.

OR

going undefeated, putting together the entirety of their schedule, and completing for six spots.
06-11-2021 06:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,817
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #209
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-11-2021 01:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 11:13 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If any of these schools you guys keep offering up were truly a target (Buffalo, UAB, GA State, etc.), they would be in already.

I think the proposed 12 team CFP hurts BYU the most. I understand the Utah angle, but maybe this new situation could change BYU's perspective. Outside BYU, and with Army and AFA saying no, i think the AAC stays at 11.

Im not sure thats true. They typically have a good enough schedule that they can easily land in the top 10 if they have a excellent year. Youve got a pretty good shot of making the playoff if your can get in the top 10. Thats a lot easier than what it is now---top 4 or bust.

They don't have to split that playoff money with anyone else either if they do make it.

In recruiting they can use the fact they play a stronger schedule than most MWC schools and that the MWC is unlikely to get the G5 bid with the AAC usually 6th highest in the rankings.
06-11-2021 08:29 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,817
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #210
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-11-2021 06:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 11:13 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If any of these schools you guys keep offering up were truly a target (Buffalo, UAB, GA State, etc.), they would be in already.

I think the proposed 12 team CFP hurts BYU the most. I understand the Utah angle, but maybe this new situation could change BYU's perspective. Outside BYU, and with Army and AFA saying no, i think the AAC stays at 11.

Well, the same can be said for Air Force, Army, BYU and the other western pipe dreams, no?

BYU has the choice:

winning a conference title game which most likely involves going undefeated to be a top six champ, playing the extra 13th game, not putting together the entirety of their schedule, and competing for one spot.

OR

going undefeated, putting together the entirety of their schedule, and completing for six spots.

What makes you think BYU would be able to win the AAC? They couldn't even beat Coastal Carolina on the road. Its probably a tougher path for them.
06-11-2021 08:31 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JamesTKirk Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 63
Joined: Mar 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: the underdog
Location:
Post: #211
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-09-2021 08:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  IMO, there are several all-sport, football-first, athletic programs that could definitely grow and develop over time under the American banner.

It might be useful to list a couple of examples.

The schools that would seem to fit this brief description most closely, based on their play over the past decade, would probably include - in descending order - Appalachian State (averaging 10 wins/season since 2014), Marshall, Ohio, Toledo (averaging 8-9 wins per season since 2011), and Utah State (averaging ~8 FB wins despite 4 sub-.500 seasons; NCAA-qualifying MBB teams (2017-19).

Other schools that could be added to this short list might be Louisiana, UAB, and Buffalo, although they've only had 4 (or 3) winning seasons in a row at this point and - - alongside Utah State - - might thus be considered more of a gamble.


(06-09-2021 08:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The AAC will likely wait for a sure thing that immediately provides value (Boise, BYU, Army, etc.). They haven't come, nor will they for various reasons.

The other ("etc.") schools on this list, based on months of discussion presumably include SDSU and Air Force (?)


(06-09-2021 08:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  They haven't come, nor will they for various reasons.

Possibly, but CFP expansion might cause some of them to rethink their positions.


(06-09-2021 08:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  With the right investment, they can add a program that can get a boost with recruiting and viewership, and in the right market, it could pay huge dividends as a long-term asset to the league.

The potential for huge dividends is probably there, with the right investment, but, like investing in the stock market, there is some risk involved, and there would be no guarantee of success.

On the other hand, failing to take any risks is the riskiest strategy of all, because it is guaranteed to fail.. This is one of the standard maxims taught in the nation's leading business schools.


[quote='Attackcoog' pid='17461936' dateline='1623393397']

I couldn't disagree more. What your suggesting is a "close your eyes and cross your fingers pick" where the league simply HOPES the school will develop into a high quality member. HOPE is not a strategy any more than buying a lottery ticket every week is a viable retirement plan.

It's true that "hope is not a strategy," and that buying lottery tickets isn't a viable retirement plan.

It may have seemed that that was what he was suggesting, because there were no specifics in GW11's post, but he then tried to clarify that what he had in mind was a kind of strategic investment plan, as opposed to buying lottery tickets.

In other words, he seems to be suggesting that there would be a thoughtful process of collecting data, conducting due diligence, and carefully weighing the options, rather than making impulsive decisions.


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  IF the AAC was forced to select a 12th member---then the lack of viable candidates---and the complete lack of ANY candidates that are good in both football AND basketball basically requires the league to split that 12th slot and create a hybrid 12th member.
Take VCU as a non-football member and pair it with the best brand name /highest quality football program available in the east (hopefully one with a much higher ceiling). That would probably be AppSt--maybe Marshall--

That's a very important point if there aren't any viable candidates that would accept an invitation. In that case, the only viable option might be to consider adding schools that have either a good football or basketball program.

Notably, while BYU and SDSU have good FB and BB programs, they wouldn't be considered "viable" candidates unless they would consider joining the AAC, which they might do if the CFP expansion proposal is approved.

Buffalo (4 NCAA BB teams since 2015) and Utah State (NCAA-qualified BB teams in 2019, '20, & '21), have had some success in basketball, as well as football, but they might not be listed among the AAC's strongest candidates.


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That would probably be AppSt--maybe Marshall--but I just don't know if the presidents would be willing to accept those schools as they aren't great institutional fits.

VCU would be a good fit, but App St and Marshall might be considered more comparable to ECU than to any other AAC school, from an institutional standpoint. They probably wouldn't be considered unless all of the schools on the AAC's short list (which might include Colorado State) show no interest in the AAC.


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...given there really aren't any brand names with any significant value available to the AAC. Thus, the presidents would not be completely out of line if they accepted a slightly lesser "on the field performance/brand value" in exchange for an institutional fit they DO highly value. Thus, you could actually end up with a Georgia St/Buffalo/UAB type "football only" replacement for UConn emerging from such a process.

True.

If the question is whether the AAC would be better off with Buffalo FB and VCU BB than it was with UConn, the answer might well be "yes," because Buffalo has a better football program, and VCU's MBB program is comparable to UConn's at this point. In addition, Buffalo is an AAU, state-flagship school, which would make the AAC relevant in the nation's fourth-most populous state.

The conference might also be better off with UAB FB and VCU BB than it was with UConn, although UAB isn't an AAU or state-flagship school, and wouldn't add a region.[/quote]

Once you really start looking at what's available and how few boxes any individual candidate checks---it becomes obvious why the AAC still sits at 11 members almost 2 full years after UConn announced their intention to exit the conference. [/quote]

Perhaps, but it isn't obvious why the conference hasn't attempted to replace UConn's basketball program with a school such as VCU, which has an excellent basketball program and would be a good institutional fit.

It's clear that they were not opposed to adding FB-only or non-FB schools, and it has become clear that the absence of UConn BB has had an adverse impact. So why the conference has continued to resist replacing UConn BB is somewhat of a mystery.


(06-10-2021 10:30 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I never said it is a "close your eyes and cross your fingers pick" nor did I say the leagues has to HOPE for any investment addition to perform well.

...the AAC cannot think or operate like a P5 - i.e. choosing an expansion member based on current value; it's just not there, nor will it ever be. Boise isn't coming. Nor is BYU. Or Army. The only hope is the wishes that one of those schools comes to the AAC's dream...

The situations with these schools may be a lot more fluid than it might seem. Boise has clearly wanted to join the AAC, and probably would if they can find a conference for their BB/olympic sports to play in. If SDSU and Boise are unavailable, it may only be due to the fact that the AAC hasn't offered to accept them as all-sports members.

Could the AAC change its mind on the subject? Perhaps. It may be that only one or two AAC Presidents have prevented a majority vote in favor of doing so. New Presidents at one or two AAC schools might result in a policy shift. Similarly, a new President at SDSU, Boise, Army, Air Force, or BYU might support a move to the AAC.


(06-10-2021 10:30 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  A 12-team playoff with 6 wild cards and only one guaranteed G5 rep doesn't expedite that.

Not sure anyone would doubt that the CFP proposal, if approved, wouldn't give schools such BYU to consider joining the AAC.

As an independent, BYU's only chance to compete for a national championship would be by securing an at-large invitation. Since no non-P5 team that has lost a game has ever been ranked in the CFP top 12, BYU would probably have to go undefeated in order to get into the playoffs. They've only been able to do that once since 1922.

For BYU to have more than a 1% chance of playing in the CFP, they're going to have to join a conference, and when it comes down to choosing, the AAC is much more likely than the MWC to become a power conference. The logic is compelling.

SDSU, Boise St., and Air Force might choose to remain in the MWC, in hopes that they could win the MWC championship and end their season ranked ahead of the AAC, Sun Belt, and/or PAC-12 champions. However, the AAC has had more highly-ranked teams than the MWC, and the AAC has had four times as many teams in the NY6 as the MWC has had, so they would have a good reason to consider joining the AAC.


[quote='GoldenWarrior11' pid='17461821' dateline='1623382237']

For long term growth of the AAC...I don't think they will...seriously look at investing in an all-sports member. This ... should go to a football-first athletic program that has already invested...it needs to have recognition and respectability. There are schools within the footprint that do offer that.

Are you referring to schools such as Appalachian State, Marshall, Ohio, Toledo, Louisiana, UAB, and Buffalo? Are there any others that you would list, such as Colorado State, or Georgia State (which AC mentioned)?


(06-10-2021 10:30 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The fact remains that the bottom of the AAC, long-term, is a serious hurdle, perception wise. Staying at eleven only highlights the deficiencies of that bottom tier. Investing in the right member could provide value to the AAC. The AAC will never have the opportunity to add a sure thing... it needs to ...think differently.

According to Commissioner Aresco's statements, the AAC Presidents apparently agreed with that and were even prepared to consider the possibility of expanding to 14 schools.

They may be reassessing the situation in the wake of the BSU outcome, and the CFP expansion could change everything. They will also be monitoring the level of competitiveness of the other G5 conference teams in 2021-22.

The rise of the Sun Belt could cause them to rethink their position, if the AAC starts to look more and more like an average G5 football conference, since they could remedy that situation immediately by adding Appalachian State.

If the AAC were again to find itself with only one or two NCAA-quality basketball teams in 2022, like they did in 2020 and 2021, that too might cause them to rethink their position, since they could remedy that situation immediately by adding VCU.


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your suggesting rolling the dice on a school with potential. Look how poorly that gamble has gone for CUSA. The team with the biggest budget and commitment to facilities (ODU) is still a trainwreck 9 years after CUSA gambled on their potential.

True, the CUSA hasn't done well, but he could respond by writing this:

"Look at how well that type of gamble has worked for the Sun Belt, by adding teams such as Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina."


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...lots of schools that are investing in their programs. The problem is some of those programs are going to develop into reasonably solid brands---but most will not. Its simply not a good gamble.

I'm not sure if he is claiming that adding ODU is the kind of a gamble that he is in favor of.

It might help if he would list some specific examples, but according to his description, he might be suggesting, for example, that Appalachian State would be a fine candidate.

Q: Would App. State be a bad gamble? They have had the best W-L of any FBS program over the past 7 years, with three different Head Coaches.

Q: What about schools such as Ohio and Toledo, which have long track records of success - would they be "bad gambles?"

I doubt that you would refer to them as bad gambles, and I don't think that GW11 is proposing any "bad gambles."

Instead, the schools that he is advocating for would probably be what you would refer to as either not being "good institutional fits" or as "middle-of-the-pack" football schools with sub-par viewership.


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Some of the schools will develop. Wait and see who does---and THEN invite that school. There is no rush. They aren't going anywhere.

They aren't going anywhere, but the AAC isn't going anywhere by sitting still, either and this has begun to become a problem:

In 2020, the Sun Belt and MAC had more teams in the final AP Top 25 than the AAC had.

In 2020, only two AAC teams had 23 wins, and one of those teams only went 11-7 in conference play. At most, the AAC would have gotten 2 NCAA bids.

In 2021, the A-10, the C-USA, the MVC, the MWC, and the WCC all had more teams in the NCAA field of 64 than the AAC had.


.

We don't know which schools GW11 had in mind when he wrote those posts, but it seems like he was thinking about schools that wouldn't be a cause for concern from the standpoint of being too risky, unless by "risky," one would be referring to the risk of adding a potential "middle-of-the-pack" program.

From the way he described the potential FB-only member schools that he would like to see the conference consider, it seems more likely that the schools either wouldn't be an ideal "institutional fit" (e.g., Appalachian State) or that their football teams would end up being "middle-of-the-pack" in the AAC (e.g., Buffalo, Ohio, Toledo, Louisiana, UAB, possibly CSU).

.

Q: Would the American be better off adding Ohio U.'s or University of Louisiana's Football program and adding a top basketball school such as VCU than it was with UConn?

A: Probably, since both have better football programs, and VCU has a great BB program.

But that isn't the most important questions. The question that matters most is:

Could any of those FB programs help the AAC become a higher-viewership power conference?

Some would say "yes - adding a combo such as Appalachian State and VCU might be able to help the AAC become a basketball and football power conference."
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2021 11:37 AM by JamesTKirk.)
06-11-2021 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JamesTKirk Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 63
Joined: Mar 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: the underdog
Location:
Post: #212
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-11-2021 06:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  BYU has the choice:

winning a conference title game which most likely involves going undefeated to be a top six champ, playing the extra 13th game, not putting together the entirety of their schedule, and competing for one spot.

OR

going undefeated, putting together the entirety of their schedule, and completing for six spots.


BYU has a choice, but it's not between winning a conference championship vs. going undefeated as an FBS independent.

Actually, BYU has this choice:

Join a conference, knowing that this would give them two different ways of making the CFP (by going undefeated, or by going 12-1 and winning their conference championship).

OR

Remaining as a FBS independent, knowing that their only pathway to the CFP is to go undefeated (only one BYU team has gone undefeated since 1922).


.

As a FBS independent, losing a mid-season game would make it nearly impossible to compete for a national championship.

However, as a conference member, it would be possible to advance to the CFP, even if they lose a mid-season game.

Considering the fact that BYU has had many more 1-loss teams than undefeated teams, joining a conference would double or triple their chances of making their way to into the college football playoffs.
06-11-2021 11:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,773
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 499
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #213
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
47 paragraphs. How do the fingers inside the sock puppet not fall off?
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2021 11:30 AM by IWokeUpLikeThis.)
06-11-2021 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BraveKnight Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,309
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 124
I Root For: UCF
Location: Orlando
Post: #214
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-11-2021 11:29 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  47 paragraphs. How do the fingers inside the sock puppet not fall off?
Why hasn’t anyone addressed this issue? Is it not against the rules to make sock puppet accounts? It seems this account started posting frequently after people on the AAC board were literally making multiple threads just to complain about jed.
06-11-2021 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,897
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1928
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #215
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-11-2021 10:32 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  
(06-09-2021 08:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  IMO, there are several all-sport, football-first, athletic programs that could definitely grow and develop over time under the American banner.

It might be useful to list a couple of examples.

The schools that would seem to fit this brief description most closely, based on their play over the past decade, would probably include - in descending order - Appalachian State (averaging 10 wins/season since 2014), Marshall, Ohio, Toledo (averaging 8-9 wins per season since 2011), and Utah State (averaging ~8 FB wins despite 4 sub-.500 seasons; NCAA-qualifying MBB teams (2017-19).

Other schools that could be added to this short list might be Louisiana, UAB, and Buffalo, although they've only had 4 (or 3) winning seasons in a row at this point and - - alongside Utah State - - might thus be considered more of a gamble.


(06-09-2021 08:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The AAC will likely wait for a sure thing that immediately provides value (Boise, BYU, Army, etc.). They haven't come, nor will they for various reasons.

The other ("etc.") schools on this list, based on months of discussion presumably include SDSU and Air Force (?)


(06-09-2021 08:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  They haven't come, nor will they for various reasons.

Possibly, but CFP expansion might cause some of them to rethink their positions.


(06-09-2021 08:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  With the right investment, they can add a program that can get a boost with recruiting and viewership, and in the right market, it could pay huge dividends as a long-term asset to the league.

The potential for huge dividends is probably there, with the right investment, but, like investing in the stock market, there is some risk involved, and there would be no guarantee of success.

On the other hand, failing to take any risks is the riskiest strategy of all, because it is guaranteed to fail.. This is one of the standard maxims taught in the nation's leading business schools.


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I couldn't disagree more. What your suggesting is a "close your eyes and cross your fingers pick" where the league simply HOPES the school will develop into a high quality member. HOPE is not a strategy any more than buying a lottery ticket every week is a viable retirement plan.

It's true that "hope is not a strategy," and that buying lottery tickets isn't a viable retirement plan.

It may have seemed that that was what he was suggesting, because there were no specifics in GW11's post, but he then tried to clarify that what he had in mind was a kind of strategic investment plan, as opposed to buying lottery tickets.

In other words, he seems to be suggesting that there would be a thoughtful process of collecting data, conducting due diligence, and carefully weighing the options, rather than making impulsive decisions.


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  IF the AAC was forced to select a 12th member---then the lack of viable candidates---and the complete lack of ANY candidates that are good in both football AND basketball basically requires the league to split that 12th slot and create a hybrid 12th member.
Take VCU as a non-football member and pair it with the best brand name /highest quality football program available in the east (hopefully one with a much higher ceiling). That would probably be AppSt--maybe Marshall--

That's a very important point if there aren't any viable candidates that would accept an invitation. In that case, the only viable option might be to consider adding schools that have either a good football or basketball program.

Notably, while BYU and SDSU have good FB and BB programs, they wouldn't be considered "viable" candidates unless they would consider joining the AAC, which they might do if the CFP expansion proposal is approved.

Buffalo (4 NCAA BB teams since 2015) and Utah State (NCAA-qualified BB teams in 2019, '20, & '21), have had some success in basketball, as well as football, but they might not be listed among the AAC's strongest candidates.


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That would probably be AppSt--maybe Marshall--but I just don't know if the presidents would be willing to accept those schools as they aren't great institutional fits.

VCU would be a good fit, but App St and Marshall might be considered more comparable to ECU than to any other AAC school, from an institutional standpoint. They probably wouldn't be considered unless all of the schools on the AAC's short list (which might include Colorado State) show no interest in the AAC.


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...given there really aren't any brand names with any significant value available to the AAC. Thus, the presidents would not be completely out of line if they accepted a slightly lesser "on the field performance/brand value" in exchange for an institutional fit they DO highly value. Thus, you could actually end up with a Georgia St/Buffalo/UAB type "football only" replacement for UConn emerging from such a process.

True.

If the question is whether the AAC would be better off with Buffalo FB and VCU BB than it was with UConn, the answer might well be "yes," because Buffalo has a better football program, and VCU's MBB program is comparable to UConn's at this point. In addition, Buffalo is an AAU, state-flagship school, which would make the AAC relevant in the nation's fourth-most populous state.

The conference might also be better off with UAB FB and VCU BB than it was with UConn, although UAB isn't an AAU or state-flagship school, and wouldn't add a region.

Once you really start looking at what's available and how few boxes any individual candidate checks---it becomes obvious why the AAC still sits at 11 members almost 2 full years after UConn announced their intention to exit the conference.

Perhaps, but it isn't obvious why the conference hasn't attempted to replace UConn's basketball program with a school such as VCU, which has an excellent basketball program and would be a good institutional fit.

It's clear that they were not opposed to adding FB-only or non-FB schools, and it has become clear that the absence of UConn BB has had an adverse impact. So why the conference has continued to resist replacing UConn BB is somewhat of a mystery.


(06-10-2021 10:30 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I never said it is a "close your eyes and cross your fingers pick" nor did I say the leagues has to HOPE for any investment addition to perform well.

...the AAC cannot think or operate like a P5 - i.e. choosing an expansion member based on current value; it's just not there, nor will it ever be. Boise isn't coming. Nor is BYU. Or Army. The only hope is the wishes that one of those schools comes to the AAC's dream...

The situations with these schools may be a lot more fluid than it might seem. Boise has clearly wanted to join the AAC, and probably would if they can find a conference for their BB/olympic sports to play in. If SDSU and Boise are unavailable, it may only be due to the fact that the AAC hasn't offered to accept them as all-sports members.

Could the AAC change its mind on the subject? Perhaps. It may be that only one or two AAC Presidents have prevented a majority vote in favor of doing so. New Presidents at one or two AAC schools might result in a policy shift. Similarly, a new President at SDSU, Boise, Army, Air Force, or BYU might support a move to the AAC.


(06-10-2021 10:30 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  A 12-team playoff with 6 wild cards and only one guaranteed G5 rep doesn't expedite that.

Not sure anyone would doubt that the CFP proposal, if approved, wouldn't give schools such BYU to consider joining the AAC.

As an independent, BYU's only chance to compete for a national championship would be by securing an at-large invitation. Since no non-P5 team that has lost a game has ever been ranked in the CFP top 12, BYU would probably have to go undefeated in order to get into the playoffs. They've only been able to do that once since 1922.

For BYU to have more than a 1% chance of playing in the CFP, they're going to have to join a conference, and when it comes down to choosing, the AAC is much more likely than the MWC to become a power conference. The logic is compelling.

SDSU, Boise St., and Air Force might choose to remain in the MWC, in hopes that they could win the MWC championship and end their season ranked ahead of the AAC, Sun Belt, and/or PAC-12 champions. However, the AAC has had more highly-ranked teams than the MWC, and the AAC has had four times as many teams in the NY6 as the MWC has had, so they would have a good reason to consider joining the AAC.


(06-10-2021 10:30 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  For long term growth of the AAC...I don't think they will...seriously look at investing in an all-sports member. This ... should go to a football-first athletic program that has already invested...it needs to have recognition and respectability. There are schools within the footprint that do offer that.

Are you referring to schools such as Appalachian State, Marshall, Ohio, Toledo, Louisiana, UAB, and Buffalo? Are there any others that you would list, such as Colorado State, or Georgia State (which AC mentioned)?


(06-10-2021 10:30 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The fact remains that the bottom of the AAC, long-term, is a serious hurdle, perception wise. Staying at eleven only highlights the deficiencies of that bottom tier. Investing in the right member could provide value to the AAC. The AAC will never have the opportunity to add a sure thing... it needs to ...think differently.

According to Commissioner Aresco's statements, the AAC Presidents apparently agreed with that and were even prepared to consider the possibility of expanding to 14 schools.

They may be reassessing the situation in the wake of the BSU outcome, and the CFP expansion could change everything. They will also be monitoring the level of competitiveness of the other G5 conference teams in 2021-22.

The rise of the Sun Belt could cause them to rethink their position, if the AAC starts to look more and more like an average G5 football conference, since they could remedy that situation immediately by adding Appalachian State.

If the AAC were again to find itself with only one or two NCAA-quality basketball teams in 2022, like they did in 2020 and 2021, that too might cause them to rethink their position, since they could remedy that situation immediately by adding VCU.


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your suggesting rolling the dice on a school with potential. Look how poorly that gamble has gone for CUSA. The team with the biggest budget and commitment to facilities (ODU) is still a trainwreck 9 years after CUSA gambled on their potential.

True, the CUSA hasn't done well, but he could respond by writing this:

"Look at how well that type of gamble has worked for the Sun Belt, by adding teams such as Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina."


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...lots of schools that are investing in their programs. The problem is some of those programs are going to develop into reasonably solid brands---but most will not. Its simply not a good gamble.

I'm not sure if he is claiming that adding ODU is the kind of a gamble that he is in favor of.

It might help if he would list some specific examples, but according to his description, he might be suggesting, for example, that Appalachian State would be a fine candidate.

Q: Would App. State be a bad gamble? They have had the best W-L of any FBS program over the past 7 years, with three different Head Coaches.

Q: What about schools such as Ohio and Toledo, which have long track records of success - would they be "bad gambles?"

I doubt that you would refer to them as bad gambles, and I don't think that GW11 is proposing any "bad gambles."

Instead, the schools that he is advocating for would probably be what you would refer to as either not being "good institutional fits" or as "middle-of-the-pack" football schools with sub-par viewership.


(06-11-2021 01:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Some of the schools will develop. Wait and see who does---and THEN invite that school. There is no rush. They aren't going anywhere.

True, but the AAC isn't going anywhere by sitting still, either, and this has begun to become a problem:

In 2020, the Sun Belt and MAC had more teams in the final AP Top 25 than the AAC had.

In 2020, only two AAC teams had 23 wins, and one of those teams only went 11-7 in conference play. At most, the AAC would have gotten 2 NCAA bids.

In 2021, the A-10, the C-USA, the MVC, the MWC, and the WCC all had more teams in the NCAA field of 64 than the AAC had.

.

We don't know which schools GW11 had in mind when he wrote those posts, but it seems like he was thinking about schools that wouldn't be a cause for concern from the standpoint of being too risky.

From the way he described the potential FB-only member schools that he would like to see the conference consider, it seems more likely that the schools either wouldn't be an ideal "institutional fit" (e.g., Appalachian State) or that their football teams would end up being "middle-of-the-pack" in the AAC (e.g., Buffalo, Ohio, Toledo, Louisiana, UAB, possibly CSU).

.

Would it really be such an extreme gamble to add a UAB, a Louisiana, or an Ohio?

Probably not.

Would the American be better off adding Ohio or Louisiana Football and adding a top basketball school such as VCU than it was with UConn?

Probably.

But those aren't the most important questions. The question that matters most is:

Could any of those FB programs help the AAC become a higher-viewership power conference?

Some would say "yes - adding a combo such Appalachian State (or Louisiana or CSU) and VCU could help the AAC become a power conference."

Others would say "no," or "it depends..."

Yes. It would be a MASSIVE gamble. Recency bias is a thing. Historically---these have NOT been good program and are NOT good gambles. Like a stock picker using technical analysis--your assuming the current upward movement is "THE MOVE" that will be sustained and persistent. It might be---it might not be. The truth is--the long term history of schools like those says its more likely just a simple temporary move to the upside that likely will soon reverse itself as the school's performance returns to its long term mean. But there is no real harm in waiting to see how it plays out. The AAC has gone to a NYD bowl 6 out of the 8 years its been around. UConn---the football program that is no longer with the AAC---never played any role what so ever in that accomplishment. The AAC can afford to wait to see who, if anyone, will emerge from the scrum to be a true viable value adding brand that would be a quality #12 football member.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2021 11:41 AM by Attackcoog.)
06-11-2021 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JamesTKirk Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 63
Joined: Mar 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: the underdog
Location:
Post: #216
~
(06-11-2021 11:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-11-2021 10:32 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  Would it really be such an extreme gamble to add a UAB, a Louisiana, or an Ohio?

Would the American be better off adding Ohio or Louisiana Football and adding a top basketball school such as VCU than it was with UConn?

Probably.

But those aren't the most important questions. The question that matters most is:

Could any of those FB programs help the AAC become a higher-viewership power conference?

Some would say "yes - adding a combo such Appalachian State (or Louisiana or CSU) and VCU could help the AAC become a power conference."

Others would say "no," or "it depends..."

Yes...the long term history of schools like those says its more likely just a simple temporary move to the upside that likely will soon reverse itself as the schools performance returns to its long term mean.

.

This whole time, none of us has known which specific schools GW11 had in mind, so we've been playing a kind of guessing game here.

I was writing, above, about the "risk" that it would be a disaster to add most of those kinds of schools.

Would it be a catastrophe? Probably not, but it wouldn't help much, either!

So, if by "risky," you mean that it would involve adding "middle-of-the-pack" schools, which wouldn't help the conference move up in the world, you have a good point.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the AAC could become a power conference by adding Toledo or Ohio or most of the other schools mentioned

.

You also made an interesting point that most of these teams will tend to revert to their long-term mean.

That very well may be the case, but is it?

So I've started to take a look at some examples. Here's what I've come across so far:



Michigan State:

MSU averaged 7 wins/year the 6 seasons before they joined the Big Ten.

Before that, they averaged ~5-6 wins/year.

Did they become a drag on the Big Ten? No.

Did they give the conference a boost? They did eventually, but it took them awhile.



Texas Christian U.:

TCU averaged ~11 wins/year the decade before joining the Big 12.

Before that, they averaged ~ 5-6 wins/year.

Have they become a drag on the Big 12? So far? No.



Utah:

Utah averaged ~10 wins/year the 8 years before joining the Pac 12.

Before that, they averaged ~ 5-6 wins/year.

Have they become a drag on the Big 12? To date? No.



Rutgers:

Rutgers averaged ~7-8 wins/year for the 8 years before they joined the Big Ten.

Before that, they averaged ~5-6 wins/year.

Have they become a drag on the Big 10? To date? Yes.



That's just four examples. A lot more would have to be examined.

It might be possible that, when a school moves up to a higher-level conference, its athletic programs tend to become stronger.

Whether or not this would tend to offset the tendency to return to their historical mean is an empirical question. The data would have to be analyzed.

It would be an interesting topic for a Master's Thesis...
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2021 12:23 PM by JamesTKirk.)
06-11-2021 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 7,701
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 292
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #217
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-11-2021 11:22 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  
(06-11-2021 06:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  BYU has the choice:

winning a conference title game which most likely involves going undefeated to be a top six champ, playing the extra 13th game, not putting together the entirety of their schedule, and competing for one spot.

OR

going undefeated, putting together the entirety of their schedule, and completing for six spots.


BYU has a choice, but it's not between winning a conference championship vs. going undefeated as an FBS independent.

Actually, BYU has this choice:

Join a conference, knowing that this would give them two different ways of making the CFP (by going undefeated, or by going 12-1 and winning their conference championship).

OR

Remaining as a FBS independent, knowing that their only pathway to the CFP is to go undefeated (only one BYU team has gone undefeated since 1922).


.

As a FBS independent, losing a mid-season game would make it nearly impossible to compete for a national championship.

However, as a conference member, it would be possible to advance to the CFP, even if they lose a mid-season game.

Considering the fact that BYU has had many more 1-loss teams than undefeated teams, joining a conference would double or triple their chances of making their way to into the college football playoffs.

There is no guarantee 12-1 would be top six champ. We saw this past season. Had Cincy lost then Coastal would have been in! So imagine a situation where the P5 gets all five in and a couple G5’s run the table. There is NO guarantee because it’s up to the committee. I feel the committee will still reward BYU playing P5s like they do now.

I haven’t heard anything from Provo saying this changes anything. They’re going to follow Notre Dame’s lead on this one. Book it.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2021 12:20 PM by esayem.)
06-11-2021 12:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JamesTKirk Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 63
Joined: Mar 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: the underdog
Location:
Post: #218
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-11-2021 12:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(06-11-2021 11:22 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  
(06-11-2021 06:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  BYU has the choice:

winning a conference title game which most likely involves going undefeated to be a top six champ, playing the extra 13th game, not putting together the entirety of their schedule, and competing for one spot.

OR

going undefeated, putting together the entirety of their schedule, and completing for six spots.


BYU has a choice, but it's not between winning a conference championship vs. going undefeated as an FBS independent.

Actually, BYU has this choice:

Join a conference, knowing that this would give them two different ways of making the CFP (by going undefeated, or by going 12-1 and winning their conference championship).

OR

Remaining as a FBS independent, knowing that their only pathway to the CFP is to go undefeated (only one BYU team has gone undefeated since 1922).


.

As a FBS independent, losing a mid-season game would make it nearly impossible to compete for a national championship.

However, as a conference member, it would be possible to advance to the CFP, even if they lose a mid-season game.

Considering the fact that BYU has had many more 1-loss teams than undefeated teams, joining a conference would double or triple their chances of making their way to into the college football playoffs.


There is no guarantee 12-1 would be top six champ. We saw this past season. Had Cincy lost then Coastal would have been in! So imagine a situation where the P5 gets all five in and a couple G5’s run the table. There is NO guarantee because it’s up to the committee. I feel the committee will still reward BYU playing P5s like they do now.

It's true that a team could go 12-1 without getting a CFP auto-bid, because it would also need to be one of the six highest-ranked conference champs.

In fact, there were 3 G5 conference champs (ranked #17, #18, and #20) that all went 12-1. Only one of them would have gotten into the CFP, because all of the P5 conference champs were ranked #6 or higher.

This sentence should have been written differently:

"Join a conference, knowing that this would give them two different possible ways of making the CFP (by going undefeated, or by going 12-1 and winning their conference championship).

However, note that the above also included this sentence meant to clarify that it would be possible, but not certain: "...it would be possible to advance to the CFP, even if they lose a mid-season game."

.

However, I still think that BYU would have a much better chance to make the playoffs by joining a conference.

Why? Because:

1) A 12-1 G5 conference champion would have made the CFP in 2014, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Only in 2013 and 2019 would a one-loss G5 conference champion have missed the playoff.

and

2) It would even be possible for a 2-loss G5 conference champ to make the CFP:

For example, (11-2) Boise St. was the top-ranked 2014 G5 conference champion.

.

I would like to see BYU get a chance to play for a conference championship.

However, they had a lot more success when they were members of the WAC and MWC.

It would be possible for them to ranked high enough to make the CFP as an independent - - but only if they beat those teams.

Unfortunately, the Cougars have only won about 40% of their games vs. P5 teams.


Their best season as an independent, when they played P5 teams was in 2011.

In 2011, BYU went 10-3. They went 2-2 vs. P5 teams.

Unfortunately, that wasn't good enough to get them into the top 25 that year.

Instead, they ended up at #32 in the Massey Composite rankings.

https://masseyratings.com/cf/arch/compare2011-15.htm

.......................................................................................................................

Equally striking, the only time that BYU has finished in the final AP top 25 in the past decade was the one season when they didn't play any P5 teams.

That's one of the reasons why I think BYU would have a much better chance of making it into the playoffs if they join a conference.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2021 01:18 PM by JamesTKirk.)
06-11-2021 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pony94 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 23,954
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 779
I Root For: SMU
Location: Bee Cave, TX
Post: #219
Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-11-2021 11:32 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  
(06-11-2021 11:29 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  47 paragraphs. How do the fingers inside the sock puppet not fall off?
Why hasn’t anyone addressed this issue? Is it not against the rules to make sock puppet accounts? It seems this account started posting frequently after people on the AAC board were literally making multiple threads just to complain about jed.


Haven’t seen him there lately have you?
06-11-2021 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BraveKnight Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,309
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 124
I Root For: UCF
Location: Orlando
Post: #220
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(06-11-2021 01:16 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  
(06-11-2021 11:32 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  
(06-11-2021 11:29 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  47 paragraphs. How do the fingers inside the sock puppet not fall off?
Why hasn’t anyone addressed this issue? Is it not against the rules to make sock puppet accounts? It seems this account started posting frequently after people on the AAC board were literally making multiple threads just to complain about jed.


Haven’t seen him there lately have you?
Well that certainly is a good thing that I hadn’t really noticed, but still, isn’t making sock accounts so he can still post against the rules? Genuinely wondering.
06-11-2021 01:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: HTOWN_HERD, 11 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.