(08-06-2021 06:04 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 04:57 PM)Ramblin Wreck Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 12:55 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Charlotte is an interesting long range add, but this conference has never been about long range adds.

Charlotte has a 15,000 seat stadium. There are 4 other G5 teams in the state of North Carolina plus App State and ECU. I don’t understand people’s fascination with Charlotte.

Charlotte does have a 15k stadium...right now. But you can easily see how they built it for ready expansion to 25k, then 35k, and eventually 50+k. They deliberately chose NOT to over-build.

Compare that with UMass (mentioned earlier) who is playing in a 15k stadium with NO plans to ever expand. Hell, they finally added "inside plumbing"...kinda sorta. (It's in their new "Athletic Center"...but most of the fans in the stands still have to use "Porta-Potties".)

Charlotte is, IMO, in a completely different league than UMass...but people still are quick to answer, "We'll add UMass because they are a "flagship" school."

As much as conferences have been changing over the last 20 years, would it make sense to choose and wait on a team that might have a successful program in 30 years?

(08-06-2021 02:26 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 02:21 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 01:43 PM)pesik Wrote:  we add umass in which they build a brand new stadium and invest in sports.. they then find some donors (boston has so many billionaires) ..possibility of being an east coast oregon is there

Agreed. It's ridiculous to think UMass could do it if UConn couldn't.

imagine if people started judging ucfs potential based on usf failures .. we dont know what a commited to athletics umass could look like...

ps im not syaing umass as is..we'd never take umass as is, but umass with promised and commitments made about investment

(08-06-2021 06:26 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 05:57 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 04:55 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 03:57 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  UAB is the only overlap---and knowing their history of poor football performance and support----thats a school I remain extremely skeptical about should they lose Bill Clark. What that guy has accomplished there is nothing short of a miracle.

How many G5 programs have lost good football coaches and have manage to keep winning? I don't know why you choose to equate the UAB of the past to what has been happening the last 4 years but it's your prerogative and your right to feel that way.

I didn't think UH would keep doing what they've been doing after losing Herman and..........well I see your point....lol.

If you want to be extremely skeptical about UAB it should be with the BOT. Even if Clark leaves he has laid the foundation for another coach to come in and be just as successful. UAB has new football facilities, new stadium, and donors who want to continue seeing UAB grow as an athletic program. UAB will be just fine thank you very much!

The biggest concern I have with UAB is in Tuscaloosa. Are they really going to allow continued success? I'll believe it when I see it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Aren't all those BOT opposers dead or close to it?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

The BOT has been giving UAB anything they want since the program was shutdown and they completely support them going to the AAC. But again, it's a perception UAB will have to deal with.

Yeah I know. Fortunately Presidents who actually decide also know the truth.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(08-06-2021 06:40 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 02:26 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 02:21 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 01:43 PM)pesik Wrote:  we add umass in which they build a brand new stadium and invest in sports.. they then find some donors (boston has so many billionaires) ..possibility of being an east coast oregon is there

Agreed. It's ridiculous to think UMass could do it if UConn couldn't.

imagine if people started judging ucfs potential based on usf failures .. we dont know what a commited to athletics umass could look like...

ps im not syaing umass as is..we'd never take umass as is, but umass with promised and commitments made about investment

There are programs that have actually written checks for facilities now. Any program arguing that we'll we will build facilities later isn't going to be in the running

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(08-06-2021 05:43 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 05:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 03:57 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  UAB is the only overlap---and knowing their history of poor football performance and support----thats a school I remain extremely skeptical about should they lose Bill Clark. What that guy has accomplished there is nothing short of a miracle.

How many G5 programs have lost good football coaches and have manage to keep winning? I don't know why you choose to equate the UAB of the past to what has been happening the last 4 years but it's your prerogative and your right to feel that way.

I didn't think UH would keep doing what they've been doing after losing Herman and..........well I see your point....lol.

If you want to be extremely skeptical about UAB it should be with the BOT. Even if Clark leaves he has laid the foundation for another coach to come in and be just as successful. UAB has new football facilities, new stadium, and donors who want to continue seeing UAB grow as an athletic program. UAB will be just fine thank you very much!

To be fair, it took UAB about two decades of non-performance to earn that perception from me. Everyone always gets excited by the team that strings together a few good seasons. It’s recency bias—-just part of human nature. The 3 teams I selected were all teams with a long history of success with multiple coaches in multiple conferences. To me—those kinds of football programs represent the safest bets. There is clearly potential in UAB—-I just think the schools I mentioned are better bets right now.

I wasn't questioning who you think should or shouldn't be invited to the AAC. Just why you're so skeptical about UAB continuing their winning ways. And I totally understand why you feel the way you do.

But the what happens to a good G5 team when they lose their coach comments has been said for UCF, Boise, UH, Memphis, App St., etc. When the time comes for UAB to get a new coach I will be just as confident of him just like the teams I mentioned fans were about their teams replacing a winning coach with a new one.

And just to be clear, I'm not pimping UAB to be in the AAC and never will and I don't expect UAB to be invited.

lol---Im the opposite. Recency bias is real. I actually think UAB will be invited. I just think the fact that a school with a long track record of poor performance and poor support did well the last couple of seasons is a not a very good reason to invite a school. That said---school presidents honesty tend to look for a reason to invite a school with strong academics---and will be hesitant to invite one that they quietly believe is academically sub-par (or at least "beneath" them). In fairness---administrations hope that associating with schools of equal or preferably--superior quality---improves the perception of their own school among parents, employers, and high school seniors. So---unless things change radically---I fully expect UAB will be one of the first few replacement schools that make it in if the AAC gets hammered by realignment. lol---In other words---the fact Im skeptical doesnt mean AAC presidents are.

(08-06-2021 05:57 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 05:37 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  EASY ANSWER

In that scenario, the AAC would invite Colorado State and Air Force.

The AAC would stay at 8 or 9 and wait for the Big 12 to implode.

The ESPN TV deal is worth too much to invite anyone else. ESPN already has the Sunbelt schools locked up at a much cheaper rate.

The AAC would have to pick among the Fox schools.

Colorado State is also more valuable for the basketball tournament in Fort Worth.

An 8/9 AAC Television contract split fewer ways is worth a lot more to those schools than sharing a much smaller MWC pie among 12 teams (which includes a lot of dead wood).

For all the grief some people dish out, Tulane and Tulsa would easily beat the MWC Champion, SJSU.

Nobody is coming east

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Colorado State and Air Force aren't Western teams.

The close proximity of Colorado to the conference offices in Dallas and the AAC tournament in Ft Worth makes them the logical choice.

And not having to split their pie 12 ways makes it the no-brainer choice. Aresco would not go on an invitation spree. He knows the value of keeping the conference at 8/9. They'd also welcome the academic cred of the AAC West (and the Naval Academy) versus being locked in with the Utah States and SJSUs.

Never forget, CSU and AFA never wanted to be aligned with the WAC refugees. It was a marriage of convenience. They'll be feathered into the ESPN contract nicely.

It's absurd for the conference to look further East at places who wont send fans to Ft Worth.

(08-06-2021 06:30 PM)Ramblin Wreck Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 06:04 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 04:57 PM)Ramblin Wreck Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 12:55 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Charlotte is an interesting long range add, but this conference has never been about long range adds.

Charlotte has a 15,000 seat stadium. There are 4 other G5 teams in the state of North Carolina plus App State and ECU. I don’t understand people’s fascination with Charlotte.

Charlotte does have a 15k stadium...right now. But you can easily see how they built it for ready expansion to 25k, then 35k, and eventually 50+k. They deliberately chose NOT to over-build.

Compare that with UMass (mentioned earlier) who is playing in a 15k stadium with NO plans to ever expand. Hell, they finally added "inside plumbing"...kinda sorta. (It's in their new "Athletic Center"...but most of the fans in the stands still have to use "Porta-Potties".)

Charlotte is, IMO, in a completely different league than UMass...but people still are quick to answer, "We'll add UMass because they are a "flagship" school."

As much as conferences have been changing over the last 20 years, would it make sense to choose and wait on a team that might have a successful program in 30 years?

Nope.

(08-06-2021 06:40 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 02:26 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 02:21 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 01:43 PM)pesik Wrote:  we add umass in which they build a brand new stadium and invest in sports.. they then find some donors (boston has so many billionaires) ..possibility of being an east coast oregon is there

Agreed. It's ridiculous to think UMass could do it if UConn couldn't.

imagine if people started judging ucfs potential based on usf failures .. we dont know what a commited to athletics umass could look like...

ps im not syaing umass as is..we'd never take umass as is, but umass with promised and commitments made about investment

Ffs man UCF and USF are in FLORIDA. New England dgaf about UMass or UConn and there is next to zero local talent for either program. UMass is basically a shitier version of UConn football w/o the football brand.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(08-06-2021 06:53 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 05:57 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 05:37 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  EASY ANSWER

In that scenario, the AAC would invite Colorado State and Air Force.

The AAC would stay at 8 or 9 and wait for the Big 12 to implode.

The ESPN TV deal is worth too much to invite anyone else. ESPN already has the Sunbelt schools locked up at a much cheaper rate.

The AAC would have to pick among the Fox schools.

Colorado State is also more valuable for the basketball tournament in Fort Worth.

An 8/9 AAC Television contract split fewer ways is worth a lot more to those schools than sharing a much smaller MWC pie among 12 teams (which includes a lot of dead wood).

For all the grief some people dish out, Tulane and Tulsa would easily beat the MWC Champion, SJSU.

Nobody is coming east

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Colorado State and Air Force aren't Western teams.

The close proximity of Colorado to the conference offices in Dallas and the AAC tournament in Ft Worth makes them the logical choice.

And not having to split their pie 12 ways makes it the no-brainer choice. Aresco would not go on an invitation spree. He knows the value of keeping the conference at 8/9. They'd also welcome the academic cred of the AAC West (and the Naval Academy) versus being locked in with the Utah States and SJSUs.

Never forget, CSU and AFA never wanted to be aligned with the WAC refugees. It was a marriage of convenience. They'll be feathered into the ESPN contract nicely.

It's absurd for the conference to look further East at places who wont send fans to Ft Worth.

I...

I feel like.the cop that's gotta knock on the door and deliver bad news...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(08-06-2021 02:11 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 02:00 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Maybe Florida A&M to replace USF and give UCF an instate conference rival.

Has to be a directional Florida school, I suggest University of West Florida + a larger enrolment than Florida A&M.

Approved, I worked there a life time ago.

(08-06-2021 07:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 06:30 PM)Ramblin Wreck Wrote:  As much as conferences have been changing over the last 20 years, would it make sense to choose and wait on a team that might have a successful program in 30 years?

Nope.

that is short sighted, the answer should be yes

teams are moving up, teams arent being kicked out ... you make a now invite and you could end up being stuck with them in 30 years

when you aadd someone they are there at that level for the forseeable future, with no guarantee you will be called up

If Cincy, UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston or any 4 of the five aforementioned escape we might as well simply rejoin the CUSA or join the Sun Belt.

ESPN would lower our TV payout to less than 2 million no matter who we add and the conference would collapse.

The only way to have a reasonable settlement which boosts the AAC would be to have 4 or 5 of the lb8 join us. It would not be Kansas or Kansas ST., nor would it be Iowa ST. Oklahoma St. would be improbable however the remaining lb's are possible.

That is not to say they are all probable but I would try for them. At least it would get us a small to medium TV increase from ESPN and keep us as the best of the G5.

(08-06-2021 07:11 PM)b2b Wrote:  Ffs man UCF and USF are in FLORIDA. New England dgaf about UMass or UConn and there is next to zero local talent for either program. UMass is basically a shitier version of UConn football w/o the football brand.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

umass has also never played in a major conference ..is boston supposed to care that they are beating rhode island????

umass-uconn point--- again imagine if we judged what ucf could do based on usfs struggles.. they have identical profiles but one of them is successful and another is poor.. similar profile doesnt mean similar results

recruiting grounds point--- that why i noted "northeast oregon".. oregon is in as poor of recruiting ground as umass

as far as fan support-- umass is the 16th most populous state with 7 million residents.. when you add state mass/density it would be top 5..
not counting new york, simply because they dont have "a" state flagship school ,all the over top 28 most populated states have a major football attended program but mass (majority o the 30-40 range aswell)

if liberty donors magically became umass donors.. umass is the choice, the question just revolves arounf their willing to invest

(08-06-2021 07:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 07:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 06:30 PM)Ramblin Wreck Wrote:  As much as conferences have been changing over the last 20 years, would it make sense to choose and wait on a team that might have a successful program in 30 years?

Nope.

that is short sighted, the answer should be yes

teams are moving up, teams arent being kicked out ... you make a now invite and you could end up being stuck with them in 30 years

when you aadd someone they are there at that level for the forseeable future, with no guarantee you will be called up

We are saying the same thing. There is no reason to gamble on a school like that. Zero. You dont need to. In 30 years---when they make something of themselves THEN you grab them. Otherwise---you're just letting them be an anchor on your conference performance. Let them sit in CUSA or the SB while they do that. You dont grab FAU when UCF is available.

(08-06-2021 03:42 PM)maccoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 02:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So---lets say UCF, USF, Memphis, and Cinci leave. Lets be honest---whats left is a decent core---but there really are not enough high value pieces left to add to it in order to create a conference worth the travel. Adding UAB, Rice, or Marshall or anyone else willing to come isnt going to get the TV deal anywhere near 7 million a team. Its probably going to be around 2-4 million---if that. We'd have Houston, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Navy, Temple, ECU, and Wichita. Its a disaster.

So--here is the "break glass in case of emergency" idea I kinda stole (sort of) from another thread here. What if you merge that core with the A-10? Then add the 3 best football schools out there. LaTech, Marshall, and App St. Now your're in a pretty decent round robin football conference (or you can do divisions) with a very solid multi-bid basketball league. That might actually be worth the travel.

No. It's the MWC with SMU or independence if this scenario happens.

Yup. That would be the best route for us---especially if they top off that move by adding BYU/Gonzaga olympic sports.

(08-06-2021 07:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 07:11 PM)b2b Wrote:  Ffs man UCF and USF are in FLORIDA. New England dgaf about UMass or UConn and there is next to zero local talent for either program. UMass is basically a shitier version of UConn football w/o the football brand.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

umass has also never played in a major conference ..is boston supposed to care that they are beating rhode island????

umass-uconn point--- again imagine if we judged what ucf could do based on usfs struggles.. they have identical profiles but one of them is successful and another is poor.. similar profile doesnt mean similar results

recruiting grounds point--- that why i noted "northeast oregon".. oregon is in as poor of recruiting ground as umass

as far as fan support-- umass is the 16th most populous state with 7 million residents.. when you add state mass/density it would be top 5..
not counting new york, simply because they dont have "a" state flagship school ,all the over top 28 most populated states have a major football attended program but mass (majority o the 30-40 range aswell)

if liberty donors magically became umass donors.. umass is the choice, the question just revolves arounf their willing to invest

Former Boston and Amherst resident here. BC is in a major conference and Boston doesn’t care about BC sports other than hockey. The battle for 5th reliever on the Red Sox is of greater concern than BC football/basketball. UMass has the added disadvantage of being in Western Mass. It’s less than 100 miles from Boston to Amherst but for folks inside 495 UMass might as well be in Buffalo. The Calipari years and UMass’ recent trips to the Frozen Four are the only times UMass has really gotten attention in Boston media.

The New England public universities other than UCONN are red headed stepchildren in their own states. I really wish UMass were a viable candidate but they aren’t.

I wonder if AFA would give some thought to the AAC and if so, is it a deal breaker if Colorado St isn’t invited too?

Replacing AAC schools is going to be an interesting exercise. There’s so many options and not enough differentiation between them to make it evident who is the no brainer pick. I’m also interested to see what factions emerge and who’s pushing/blocking who. Tulsa/SMU/Tulane seems like a block that A. will likely all still be there and B. have similar goals and opinions

(08-06-2021 02:59 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 02:42 PM)everyone Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 01:43 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 01:27 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I wouldn't add anyone unless we were to drop to 8 or less. I'd stay at 10 and I'd stay at 9 as well, unless Army changed their mind about joining and then sure add them but I'd advocate adding them tomorrow if they wanted to join so nothing changes. If you drop to 8 it depends on who left. If Houston was one of the teams I'd try to see if Army could be convinced to join if they could be in a division that looked like the old Magnolia conference dream with Rice/SMU/Tulane etc. If Army is a forever no then I'd personally just want USM back just because I miss the rivalry with them and at that point all additions are a net negative from a TV revenue perspective.

your thinking is the exactly the same thinking as the big 12, which is flawed

any new addition not the mwc/army is a net negative..today. that is the entire scope of your reasoning..but we are in it long term

we add umass in which they build a brand new stadium and invest in sports.. they then find some donors (boston has so many billionaires) ..possibility of being an east coast oregon is there

panama has sorta made me dislike georgia state, but if i remove my dislike for that 1 fan.. Ga state in 10years could easily be the next UCF... 55k students, located in major city (atlanta), recruiting hot bed ... the possibility of them doing 50-60k attendance, regularly recruiting 4/5star guys arent unrealistic with some investment

usm in 10 years will still be usm, even if they found a way to win in the conference

get a negative add who will likely stay negative, or add a negative with potential

usm in 10 years would be usm (with money). who knows what usm could do with that paper stuff. we can get 30K+ fans in our stadium win winning and with teams fans want to see. not many g5's have a fanbase like ours but hey you guys already know all this about your daddy.

The only benefit to USM would be that Tulane would have an actual Thanksgiving rival at the end of the year to obsess about.

Most of the AAC lacks that.

UH, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Temple, ECU, Memphis (debatable), and Cincy (debatable) all do not have a true "Thanksgiving" hate-fest.

Those rivalries make CFB worth it - make it interesting.

usm-memphis, usm-ecu and usm-tulane are probably three of the best g5 rivalries left.

(08-06-2021 08:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder if AFA would give some thought to the AAC and if so, is it a deal breaker if Colorado St isn’t invited too?

Replacing AAC schools is going to be an interesting exercise. There’s so many options and not enough differentiation between them to make it evident who is the no brainer pick. I’m also interested to see what factions emerge and who’s pushing/blocking who. Tulsa/SMU/Tulane seems like a block that A. will likely all still be there and B. have similar goals and opinions

If I am the AD at Rice, UAB, or USM I am blowing up the phones of SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Temple, and ECU.

(08-06-2021 07:31 PM)Rob3338 Wrote:  If Cincy, UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston or any 4 of the five aforementioned escape we might as well simply rejoin the CUSA or join the Sun Belt.

Don’t take this wrong, cause I totally don’t think this will ever happen but how fun would it be to watch Cinci in the MAC?

It would be like watching Mike Tyson go down to the local YMCA boxing camp. I’d watch just for the savagery.