Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
Author Message
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,897
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1928
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #261
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Yesterday 07:21 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Boise fans definitely won’t fit in with other posters on this board hahahahaha. Boise is definitely not a “conference first” fan like AAC fans. It’s a strange phenomenon. SEC SEC SEC fans were always such a joke to everyone else. I get it kinda...(Southern culture) But AAC fans take the cake. I mean the majority of the posters on here root for the conference over their own team. Some don’t even have a team (Jed) It wasn’t like that when we were called CUSA. Ok, Tallgrass and Big East Homer. Though Tallgrass was a Tulsa fan, BEH didn’t have a team, he rooted for every single school in the conference...except one school that he absolutely hated lol.

What are you even babbling on about. No other fans want their conference to be better? Have you looked at any threads on this board or are you too busy daydreaming about life in the 1986 WAC?

Virtually EVERYONE wants a better conference. Do the majority of ECU fans want to be in a P5 conference like the SEC or the ACC? Yes? Well---why would that be??? Do you think ECU is going to have an easier time getting past Clemson or Alabama than UCF? Oh my gosh!! Why would you want to be in the SEC when the AAC is easier to win???? 03-banghead
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 08:50 PM by Attackcoog.)
Yesterday 08:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,280
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #262
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Yesterday 07:25 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(Yesterday 06:52 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  
(Yesterday 02:08 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  
(Yesterday 02:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(Yesterday 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct----its now similar to their shot at making the access bowl under the current system......which, by the way, has been substantially lower than the chances that the AAC champ will get to the access bowl

That's not it.

The most important factor, by far, in the committee's selection of teams for the access bowl has been: Having the fewest losses. That won't change no matter how many teams are in the playoff.

Trying to collect every non-P5 team with a shot at the playoff and putting them all in the same conference would be counterproductive. More good teams in the same conference means more good teams taking more losses. It would greatly increase the possibility of the conference champ having more losses than the champs of other conferences and watching the champ of some other conference snag that playoff spot -- unless a conference has some conspiracy where one team is designated the playoff contender for that year and the other good teams (or, ahem, the referees) just let the designated team win. But I wouldn't count on that conspiracy happening very often.

So you're saying it's ok for the "Power Conferences" to scream strength for schedule but, not for the American Conference. I see what you did there. Hypocritical much?

It took it to mean that this is how the committee operates.

Seriously, if the AAC's champ has the same number of losses as another G5 league's champ, the AAC champ would get the Access Bowl/CFP bid. But that's as far as strength of schedule will take an AAC team with the way the committee operates.

If, say, the Sun Belt champion has the fewest losses among all the G5 champs, that SB champ is in.

We already know this isn't true, because the committee itself told us.

When Navy entered the championship game against Temple, the committee announced that Navy win would delay the major bowl announcements till immediately after Navy/Army.

The committee stated that Navy's strength of schedule (two losses, one to ND) with wins over AAC teams and should they beat Army would be enough to threaten an undefeated MAC champion Western Michigan's bid.

The CFP ranking has frequently had two AAC teams ranked above the next best G4 team whether undefeated or not and even against darling Boise St with a better record than one if the AAC teams. The simple fact is the CFP has considered the access spot defacto AAC based on the same logic that has allowed multiple SEC play off teams. The games mean more in comparison to other conferences (the p5 for SEC the g5 for the AAC). The AAC has finished as the fifth or sixth best overall rated conference almost every year. Simply put our SOS based on conference alone has been superior to any other g5, with an outrageous winning percentage against them, and more games against the p5 in ooc.
Amplifying Foreverandever's point...
In 2016, going into the CCGs, the committee was open to 2-loss Navy overtaking undefeated WMU, who had wins against two Big10 teams (relatively mediocre Illinois and Northwestern). This wasn't because of Navy's win over ND -- Brian Kelly chose to kick a field goal down by four points with 7:30 left and couldn't get the ball back -- but because the AAC schedule was better than a G4 schedule.

Quote:KIRBY HOCUTT: You know, I would say they're obviously separated by just one spot in our rankings. Western Michigan at No. 17 and Navy this week at 19. Western Michigan only one of two teams that remain undefeated. Their strength of schedule continues to be a concern, something that the Selection Committee is aware of. Look at a Western Michigan team that is very successful on the offensive side of the ball. At the same time they've only beaten two FBS teams with a winning record.
Navy has three what the Selection Committee would look at quality wins over Houston, Memphis and Tulsa. They have two games left compared to Western Michigan having one game left, that being their Conference Championship game as well as the Navy-Army game.

Didn't even talk about the ND win, the quality wins were AAC games.
Yesterday 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 10,738
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 411
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #263
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Yesterday 08:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:21 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Boise fans definitely won’t fit in with other posters on this board hahahahaha. Boise is definitely not a “conference first” fan like AAC fans. It’s a strange phenomenon. SEC SEC SEC fans were always such a joke to everyone else. I get it kinda...(Southern culture) But AAC fans take the cake. I mean the majority of the posters on here root for the conference over their own team. Some don’t even have a team (Jed) It wasn’t like that when we were called CUSA. Ok, Tallgrass and Big East Homer. Though Tallgrass was a Tulsa fan, BEH didn’t have a team, he rooted for every single school in the conference...except one school that he absolutely hated lol.

What are you even babbling on about. No other fans want their conference to be better? Have you looked at any threads on this board or are you too busy daydreaming about life in the 1986 WAC?

Virtually EVERYONE wants a better conference. Do the majority of ECU fans want to be in a P5 conference like the SEC or the ACC? Yes? Well---why would that be??? Do you think ECU is going to have an easier time getting past Clemson or Alabama than UCF? Oh my gosh!! Why would you want to be in the SEC when the AAC is easier to win???? 03-banghead

Glad you brought this up!
I always wanted ECU In the ACC of course. Why be a bottom feeder In the SEC when you can be a stud in the ACC?
Yesterday 09:49 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: #264
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Yesterday 09:49 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 08:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:21 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Boise fans definitely won’t fit in with other posters on this board hahahahaha. Boise is definitely not a “conference first” fan like AAC fans. It’s a strange phenomenon. SEC SEC SEC fans were always such a joke to everyone else. I get it kinda...(Southern culture) But AAC fans take the cake. I mean the majority of the posters on here root for the conference over their own team. Some don’t even have a team (Jed) It wasn’t like that when we were called CUSA. Ok, Tallgrass and Big East Homer. Though Tallgrass was a Tulsa fan, BEH didn’t have a team, he rooted for every single school in the conference...except one school that he absolutely hated lol.

What are you even babbling on about. No other fans want their conference to be better? Have you looked at any threads on this board or are you too busy daydreaming about life in the 1986 WAC?

Virtually EVERYONE wants a better conference. Do the majority of ECU fans want to be in a P5 conference like the SEC or the ACC? Yes? Well---why would that be??? Do you think ECU is going to have an easier time getting past Clemson or Alabama than UCF? Oh my gosh!! Why would you want to be in the SEC when the AAC is easier to win???? 03-banghead

Glad you brought this up!
I always wanted ECU In the ACC of course. Why be a bottom feeder In the SEC when you can be a stud in the ACC?

lol...I meant that to be a light hearted jab---but looking at it again, it comes off a little on the harsh side. So I appologize for that. My point was simply that on some level, every fan wants to play in a league where there are lots of interesting games. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: Today 01:00 AM by Attackcoog.)
Today 12:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 17,903
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 835
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #265
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Yesterday 06:52 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  
(Yesterday 02:08 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  
(Yesterday 02:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(Yesterday 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct----its now similar to their shot at making the access bowl under the current system......which, by the way, has been substantially lower than the chances that the AAC champ will get to the access bowl

That's not it.

The most important factor, by far, in the committee's selection of teams for the access bowl has been: Having the fewest losses. That won't change no matter how many teams are in the playoff.

Trying to collect every non-P5 team with a shot at the playoff and putting them all in the same conference would be counterproductive. More good teams in the same conference means more good teams taking more losses. It would greatly increase the possibility of the conference champ having more losses than the champs of other conferences and watching the champ of some other conference snag that playoff spot -- unless a conference has some conspiracy where one team is designated the playoff contender for that year and the other good teams (or, ahem, the referees) just let the designated team win. But I wouldn't count on that conspiracy happening very often.

So you're saying it's ok for the "Power Conferences" to scream strength for schedule but, not for the American Conference. I see what you did there. Hypocritical much?

It took it to mean that this is how the committee operates.

Seriously, if the AAC's champ has the same number of losses as another G5 league's champ, the AAC champ would get the Access Bowl/CFP bid. But that's as far as strength of schedule will take an AAC team with the way the committee operates.

If, say, the Sun Belt champion has the fewest losses among all the G5 champs, that SB champ is in.

That's it, except in unusual circumstances.

However you look at the relative conference strength, it's not a good reason for a playoff-contending team to switch conferences.

Two ways of looking at it:

(A) Every G5 champ has the same chance to be selected if they have fewer losses than the other G5 champs.

-or-

(B) The AAC is far better at football than CUSA/MAC/MWC/SBC, thus its difficult schedules make its champ always most deserving of selection, even if other champs have one fewer loss.

If it's (A), then switching conferences doesn't give a 13-0 or 12-1 team a better chance of being selected for the playoff. No reason to go through the upheaval of switching, pay all the money needed to switch, etc.

If it's (B), if an AAC schedule is far more difficult to get through, then, in theory, a team that is 12-1 in any other G5 conference might only be 10-3 or worse in the AAC. But no 3-loss G5 team has been selected for the access bowl or a BCS bowl, ever. So, if the AAC is that much more difficult, any team with legit playoff ambitions will conclude that it's better to be 12-1 where you are and take your chances against any other team with the same number of losses.

Sure, it's theoretically possible that a Boise or BYU will be so dominant that they would consistently crush all competition in any conference, and thus would be best off in the best possible conference. But, as far as I can see, no one here thinks the current AAC members would be dominated by Boise or BYU. So we don't have to consider that possibility here.
(This post was last modified: Today 01:23 AM by Wedge.)
Today 01:23 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: #266
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Yesterday 04:48 PM)esayem Wrote:  No G5 program is going to stake their future on the possibility they can get in the playoffs with losses.

That's a classic example of an overly-simplified "straw man" argument.

Definition of straw man:

"a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man

No one suggested that BYU or the MWC schools would be staking (i.e., risking) their entire future to join the AAC simply because doing so would enable them to "get into the playoffs despite having losses."

That would be an extremely weak justification for making such a move!


After all, by virtue of being members of a FBS conference, the MWC schools would have the same opportunity that the AAC schools would have to make the playoffs, either as highly-ranked at-large team or as one of the six most highly-ranked conference champions in the nation.

Thus, the 12-team college football playoff proposal, if passed, wouldn't be a sufficient motivating factor for any MWC team to leave, in and of itself.

There would have to be other significant benefits to justify switching conferences.

Would there be any other significant benefits?

There might be. Some of the benefits might include:

1) Due in part to being located in a much more densely part of the nation, the AAC's viewership has been much greater than that of the other G5 conferences, and its future growth potential also appears to be much greater.

2) The AAC has put much more effort into making progress toward obtaining formal NCAA autonomous status than have the other G5 conferences.

3) The addition of a powerhouse football or football/basketball school such as Boise, BYU, or SDSU would be likely to boost the AAC's viewership, and thus, its long-term revenue-generating potential considerably. The effects would be evident within one year, and would be likely to increase, perhaps geometrically, from then on.

4) The addition of two or three powerhouse FB or FB/BB schools could have far more potential to increase the conference's viewership and revenue-generating potential , making it possible for the AAC schools to negotiate for $12 to $15 million per year in the 2030s, as compared with the $7 million that they are scheduled to receive in the 2020s.

5) The AAC is the only conference that has a clearly articulated strategic plan to become an autonomous power conference.

6) Every non-P5 FBS university would find it highly advantageous to become a power school, and there is a long list of schools, including some MWC schools that appear to have expressed interest in joining the American.

Those are the main reasons why some western schools would "stake their futures" on joining a conference located in the Central and Eastern time zones.

The fact that the AAC has had the most success of all the G5 conferences in placing teams in the NY6 bowls, and thus appears to be the most likely to place teams in the 12-team College Football Playoffs is just a secondary reason why some of the MWC schools, such as Boise State, might think of joining the American.

In the case of Boise State, their interest in joining the American appears to be driven, largely, by the fact that they have tried unsuccessfully to make it into the NY6 bowls since 2014, due in part to playing a slightly less rigorous schedule. However, they may also find the prospect of joining the AAC in hope of helping to propel it to power conference status to be equally alluring.

.

BYU, is a somewhat different case. Factors 1-6, itemized above, haven't appeared to drive quite as much interest in the American as some of the MWC schools have shown.

The CFP expansion proposal might be a more important consideration for BYU than it it is for the MWC schools, because unlike the MWC schools, BYU isn't currently in a conference, and thus would only have one potential pathway into the CFP playoffs - - by earning an at-large bid.

BYU has remained dead-set on the idea of getting to the football equivalent of valhalla by playing and defeating a slew of P5 opponents, and they haven't changed their minds yet. However, they have lost far more P5 games than they have won since they departed the MWC, and they failed to finish in the top 30 even once throughout the decade that they pursued that strategy.

BYU will play 7 P5 teams this year. If they win enough games to finish in the top 15 or 20 in 2021, that might encourage them enough to keep plugging away at their strategy for another decade. But if they finish outside the top 30 again in 2021 and 2022, as they've done so many times before, they might start to reconsider their options.

The first 12-team playoffs could begin within the next 3 to 5 years, if approved. If BYU's "play a P5 schedule" strategy continues to get them nowhere, and if they become completely irrelevant in the excitement about the college football playoffs, finding themselves on the outside looking in, they might decide to ditch the "P5 schedule" and go back to what worked for them before by joining a conference, figuring that doing so would probably double their chances of at least being viewed as a CFP "bubble" team more years than not in the closing weeks of each football season.

Would that mean that they would necessarily begin to show interest in joining the American? Maybe, maybe not. They could simply return to the MWC, since they had success there.

However, the MWC isn't the conference that it was when Utah, TCU, and BYU were members, and BYU might decide that, if joining a conference is by far the best way to go - - if they really want to become a relevant part of the college playoff discussions, they should join the strongest G5 conference, with the greatest chance of becoming an autonomous power conference.

.
(This post was last modified: Today 02:52 AM by JamesTKirk.)
Today 02:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,144
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 269
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #267
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Today 02:28 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  ... The first 12-team playoffs could begin within the next 3 to 5 years, if approved. If BYU's "play a P5 schedule" strategy continues to get them nowhere, and if they become completely irrelevant in the excitement about the college football playoffs, finding themselves on the outside looking in, they might decide to ditch the "P5 schedule" and go back to what worked for them before by joining a conference, figuring that doing so would probably double their chances of at least being viewed as a CFP "bubble" team more years than not in the closing weeks of each football season. ...

Except Utah is in the PAC-12, so this is just more AAC supporter wishful thinking about BYU. Making it a wall of words and playing around with different colors doesn't distract from the fact that jed is simply ignoring the elephant in the room when it comes to BYU.
Today 04:26 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: #268
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Today 04:26 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(Today 02:28 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  ... The first 12-team playoffs could begin within the next 3 to 5 years, if approved. If BYU's "play a P5 schedule" strategy continues to get them nowhere, and if they become completely irrelevant in the excitement about the college football playoffs, finding themselves on the outside looking in, they might decide to ditch the "P5 schedule" and go back to what worked for them before by joining a conference, figuring that doing so would probably double their chances of at least being viewed as a CFP "bubble" team more years than not in the closing weeks of each football season. ...

Except Utah is in the PAC-12, so this is just more AAC supporter wishful thinking about BYU. Making it a wall of words and playing around with different colors doesn't distract from...the elephant in the room when it comes to BYU.

1) Needless to say, that isn't a thoughtful, reasoned argument.

2) Moreover, no effort was made to address any of the points in the prior post.

This phrase "Except Utah is in the PAC-12." was evidently considered a clever, self-explanatory response, but some might consider it "too clever by half."

Nevertheless, let's try to fathom what that statement is supposed to convey:

"Utah is in the PAC-12," in this context, seems to have been intended to imply that BYU will never stop trying to play a P5 schedule, and will just continue to slam themselves into a brick wall over and over again until kingdom come, even if they fail 1,000 times, because they are so obsessed with the fact that Utah is in the PAC-12, while BYU is not.

If that is what he's trying to suggest, there are at least three strong answers:

1) I believe that he is underestimating the intelligence of the BYU administrators and fanbase if he really believes that. The people at BYU would have to be pretty foolish to allow an obsession over Utah's P5/PAC-12 status to blind them to what is in the best interests of their program to such an extent that they spend another decade on a dead-end strategy (e.g., they didn't win a single game vs. Utah).

--True, they still seem determined to their "play a P5 schedule" strategy, but the 2020 season - in which they ended up with their strongest rankings in over a decade, after playing no P5 teams due to the pandemic - has taught the whole country that BYU can have a nationally-ranked team without playing 3+ P5 teams.

2) BYU has the option to join a stronger football conference than the PAC-12. The AAC has had more top 25 football teams than the PAC-12 has had over the past four seasons, and if BYU were to join, the AAC would become even a stronger football conference, not only because of BYU's presence, but also because if BYU were to join, it would be likely that Boise and SDSU would also join.

3) There is very little reason to expect that either the PAC-12 or the Big 12 is likely to invite BYU to become a member, but joining a conference such as the AAC would not prevent them from accepting an invitation from one of those conferences in the future. If anything, it might improve their prospects.

4) The AAC would have the potential to become a power conference if BYU were to join.
(This post was last modified: Today 05:26 AM by JamesTKirk.)
Today 05:15 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: #269
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Yesterday 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Boise still has no place for their olympic sports if they take the "football only" slot the AAC is willing to offer---so, the same impasse remains.

I wonder if anyone has any insight into why the AAC hasn't shown any more flexibility on this point than they have.

After all, returning to divisional play and playing just one cross-divisional basketball/olympic sports event per year would make it possible to add Boise State as a full member with only a rather slight increase in travel costs/time.

Given that they could easily add Boise State as an all-sports member, and given what a huge boost the addition of BSU could give to the commissioner's P6 campaign, it's difficult to understand the conference's rigidity on this point.

Perhaps the AAC makes all its decisions based on a majority vote, and one or two schools that have said yes to Boise FB but no to Boise all-sports.

Perhaps the log-jam could be broken if one or two of those schools could somehow be persuaded to change their stance (?).
(This post was last modified: Today 05:38 AM by JamesTKirk.)
Today 05:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
owl at the moon Offline
Eastern Screech Owl
*

Posts: 6,984
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 303
I Root For: rice,smu,uh,unt
Location: 23 mbps from csnbbs
Post: #270
Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Yesterday 03:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(Yesterday 02:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(Yesterday 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct----its now similar to their shot at making the access bowl under the current system......which, by the way, has been substantially lower than the chances that the AAC champ will get to the access bowl

That's not it.

The most important factor, by far, in the committee's selection of teams for the access bowl has been: Having the fewest losses. That won't change no matter how many teams are in the playoff.

Trying to collect every non-P5 team with a shot at the playoff and putting them all in the same conference would be counterproductive. More good teams in the same conference means more good teams taking more losses. It would greatly increase the possibility of the conference champ having more losses than the champs of other conferences and watching the champ of some other conference snag that playoff spot -- unless a conference has some conspiracy where one team is designated the playoff contender for that year and the other good teams (or, ahem, the referees) just let the designated team win. But I wouldn't count on that conspiracy happening very often.

Then why did it take an undefeated Marshall 4 CFP polls to even get ranked---and when they were finally included in the CFP poll---they were ranked behind a 1-loss Boise? SOS perhaps?

If you include Boise, BYU, and SDSU all in the AAC---the winner of the AAC is going to get a level of deference because the Committee members will recognize exactly what you stated----It's harder to be undefeated in the AAC than it is in the Sunbelt. I mean---we arent talking about a relatively meaningless access bowl game that doesnt really matter---we will be talking about playoff berths. I think you are underestimating how serious the committee will be taking this. They aren't just going to count wins and be done with it. I think its a little silly to think thats all the effort the committee will put into filling the bracket.

Look, if I look in my crystal ball---I dont think its going to happen. My sense is that the AAC feels it will get that slot most of the time as currently comprised at 11. They dont really feel any need to take anyone they dont feel enhances their brand and they arent willing to take on the expense of long distant "all sports" invitations in the west. If BYU or Boise wants to fill that slot as a "football only"--the AAC would be eager to accept them as those would absolutely enhance the AAC brand. Otherwise---as there is no available school that enhances the AAC brand in the east---the AAC appears to be just fine with taking their current line up "as is" into the new playoff era. Right now--the ball is on BYU's (or Boise's) side of the court.


Two points:
You may well be correct about SOS hurting Marshall’s ranking, but it also may be that the committee could objectively tell that they just weren’t that strong of a team last year. Rice exposed them to the tune of 20-0 to knock them off that modest ‘perch’ and other opponents bolstered that down the line.

You also may well be correct about the ball now being on BYU’s side of the court (and Boise’s). But I found it ironic that you used a tennis (or, perhaps volleyball) metaphor to describe a situation pertaining to a “football-only” offer. That’s like … pulling the cart out of water before the fish!
Today 05:57 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: #271
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Today 02:28 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  
(Yesterday 04:48 PM)esayem Wrote:  No G5 program is going to stake their future on the possibility they can get in the playoffs with losses.

That's a classic example of an overly-simplified "straw man" argument.

Definition of straw man:

"a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man

No one suggested that BYU or the MWC schools would be staking (i.e., risking) their entire future to join the AAC simply because doing so would enable them to "get into the playoffs despite having losses."

That would be an extremely weak justification for making such a move!


After all, by virtue of being members of a FBS conference, the MWC schools would have the same opportunity that the AAC schools would have to make the playoffs, either as highly-ranked at-large team or as one of the six most highly-ranked conference champions in the nation.

Thus, the 12-team college football playoff proposal, if passed, wouldn't be a sufficient motivating factor for any MWC team to leave, in and of itself.

There would have to be other significant benefits to justify switching conferences.

Would there be any other significant benefits?

There might be. Some of the benefits might include:

1) Due in part to being located in a much more densely part of the nation, the AAC's viewership has been much greater than that of the other G5 conferences, and its future growth potential also appears to be much greater.

2) The AAC has put much more effort into making progress toward obtaining formal NCAA autonomous status than have the other G5 conferences.

3) The addition of a powerhouse football or football/basketball school such as Boise, BYU, or SDSU would be likely to boost the AAC's viewership, and thus, its long-term revenue-generating potential considerably. The effects would be evident within one year, and would be likely to increase, perhaps geometrically, from then on.

4) The addition of two or three powerhouse FB or FB/BB schools could have far more potential to increase the conference's viewership and revenue-generating potential , making it possible for the AAC schools to negotiate for $12 to $15 million per year in the 2030s, as compared with the $7 million that they are scheduled to receive in the 2020s.

5) The AAC is the only conference that has a clearly articulated strategic plan to become an autonomous power conference.

6) Every non-P5 FBS university would find it highly advantageous to become a power school, and there is a long list of schools, including some MWC schools that appear to have expressed interest in joining the American.

Those are the main reasons why some western schools would "stake their futures" on joining a conference located in the Central and Eastern time zones.

The fact that the AAC has had the most success of all the G5 conferences in placing teams in the NY6 bowls, and thus appears to be the most likely to place teams in the 12-team College Football Playoffs is just a secondary reason why some of the MWC schools, such as Boise State, might think of joining the American.

In the case of Boise State, their interest in joining the American appears to be driven, largely, by the fact that they have tried unsuccessfully to make it into the NY6 bowls since 2014, due in part to playing a slightly less rigorous schedule. However, they may also find the prospect of joining the AAC in hope of helping to propel it to power conference status to be equally alluring.

.

BYU, is a somewhat different case. Factors 1-6, itemized above, haven't appeared to drive quite as much interest in the American as some of the MWC schools have shown.

The CFP expansion proposal might be a more important consideration for BYU than it it is for the MWC schools, because unlike the MWC schools, BYU isn't currently in a conference, and thus would only have one potential pathway into the CFP playoffs - - by earning an at-large bid.

BYU has remained dead-set on the idea of getting to the football equivalent of valhalla by playing and defeating a slew of P5 opponents, and they haven't changed their minds yet. However, they have lost far more P5 games than they have won since they departed the MWC, and they failed to finish in the top 30 even once throughout the decade that they pursued that strategy.

BYU will play 7 P5 teams this year. If they win enough games to finish in the top 15 or 20 in 2021, that might encourage them enough to keep plugging away at their strategy for another decade. But if they finish outside the top 30 again in 2021 and 2022, as they've done so many times before, they might start to reconsider their options.

The first 12-team playoffs could begin within the next 3 to 5 years, if approved. If BYU's "play a P5 schedule" strategy continues to get them nowhere, and if they become completely irrelevant in the excitement about the college football playoffs, finding themselves on the outside looking in, they might decide to ditch the "P5 schedule" and go back to what worked for them before by joining a conference, figuring that doing so would probably double their chances of at least being viewed as a CFP "bubble" team more years than not in the closing weeks of each football season.

Would that mean that they would necessarily begin to show interest in joining the American? Maybe, maybe not. They could simply return to the MWC, since they had success there.

However, the MWC isn't the conference that it was when Utah, TCU, and BYU were members, and BYU might decide that, if joining a conference is by far the best way to go - - if they really want to become a relevant part of the college playoff discussions, they should join the strongest G5 conference, with the greatest chance of becoming an autonomous power conference.

.

No no no. There is a difference between being oversimplified and concise. I am concise. I can summarize my argument in a few sentences or less. You obviously cannot.

Your original argument was centered around BYU having a more accessible path to the playoff via an AAC schedule. Newsflash: this past season BYU would have been in contention with an incredibly weak schedule featuring zero P5 teams. As you know, that is not the case in a normal season.

You keep mentioning extremely recent history when it comes to hypothetical expanded playoff participants. Okay, so in recent history which schedule has the committee favored: a schedule full of P5 teams or an AAC schedule?

BYU wants to be a national program playing P5 opponents. The AAC does not provide that. Bruce is correct, they don’t want to be perceived lower than Utah. Which is why they left a G5 conference in the first place!

So if your argument is BYU should give up playing P5 teams and join the AAC because they just can’t hack it. Well, that’ll just have to be a “wait and see”. I can’t imagine a program like BYU falling on their sword. They have their own network, they’re in a good spot for Olympic sports, and quite frankly their own self perception won’t allow them to. Plus, all signs point to them being content where they are. I’d like you to prove otherwise because I just can’t find anything from their end pointing towards interest in the AAC.
Today 08:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,144
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 269
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #272
RE: Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
(Today 05:15 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  
(Today 04:26 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Except Utah is in the PAC-12, so this is just more AAC supporter wishful thinking about BYU. Making it a wall of words and playing around with different colors doesn't distract from...the elephant in the room when it comes to BYU.

1) Needless to say, that isn't a thoughtful, reasoned argument.

2) Moreover, no effort was made to address any of the points in the prior post.

When all of the points in the prior post ignored the main hurdle for BYU joining the AAC, what need is there to address them?

Utah is in a conference regarded as a "Power" conference. Therefore, BYU does not want to have their football team play as a member of a conference that is not regarded as a power conference. Nothing you offered as reasons for BYU to join rise to the same level of important to BYU as not joining a conference that is widely seen as inferior to the one that Utah is in.

Look, jed, it really doesn't matter what you or anyone else predicts will happen to the AAC if BYU joins ... the sequence that works is:
(1) Step One: The AAC is widely seen as being in the same tier of conferences as the PAC-12.
(2) Step Two: BYU will then be willing to listen to the offer, and decide whether it is a good step for them.
(This post was last modified: Today 11:43 AM by BruceMcF.)
Today 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: Fighting Muskie, LUgrad2000, 10 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.