(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."
/
Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
