(09-07-2021 07:43 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  How much additional money did C-USA net for going to 14? Oh yeah that's right they make literal peanuts

Not so sure about that, SB's the conference with a G-level monopoly on Georgia.

(09-07-2021 08:57 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:46 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If you add Rice and promise Army a division of Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, and Navy would they bite?

They Army/Navy game will be a big roadblock as it would have to find a new date.

The good news is with playoff restructuring, it may have to find a new date anyways.

By being in the same conference, they could easily be scheduled for rivalry weekend after Thanksgiving.

With CBS losing the SEC Saturday GOTW, perhaps that will be an acceptable outcome for all parties??

You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

On top of that you would have Temple as a regular opponent whom Army has a regular rivalry with from 2007 to 2017

Here is what I would really like to see

Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, Rice, Navy/Wichita, Army/St. Louis
Temple, Marshall, ECU, Memphis, UAB, USF

When the music stops in 20 or so years from now I wouldn’t mind grabbing a chair next to those privates and military’s. Maybe Vandy and Duke will come to their senses by then and Air Force could join the party.

(09-07-2021 08:57 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:46 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If you add Rice and promise Army a division of Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, and Navy would they bite?

They Army/Navy game will be a big roadblock as it would have to find a new date.

The good news is with playoff restructuring, it may have to find a new date anyways.

By being in the same conference, they could easily be scheduled for rivalry weekend after Thanksgiving.

With CBS losing the SEC Saturday GOTW, perhaps that will be an acceptable outcome for all parties??

You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

On top of that you would have Temple as a regular opponent whom Army has a regular rivalry with from 2007 to 2017

Here is what I would really like to see

Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, Rice, Navy/Wichita, Army/St. Louis
Temple, Marshall, ECU, Memphis, UAB, USF

Army scheduled Temple because they thought it would be a likely win. When it turned out that Temple won most of the games they ended the series. They announced a series with UMass the day after they ended the Temple series. Army cares about scheduling cupcakes not about Temple.

Rice might be a good add if they had lost Tulane or Tulsa. But they lost their athletic powers. They need to add teams who best replace athletic success.

Adding Rice is a good first step in putting the AAC behind the Sun Belt and MWC.

(09-07-2021 09:25 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Rice might be a good add if they had lost Tulane or Tulsa. But they lost their athletic powers. They need to add teams who best replace athletic success.

Adding Rice is a good first step in putting the AAC behind the Sun Belt and MWC.

I only add Rice under 1 of 2 conditions, it's a play that gets Army to join, or if I get some extremely firm commitments and not just talk that they are going to spend money on facilities/coaches and take the same type of academic exceptions that SMU does. I think there's a better chance of option 1 happening than option 2, but think neither is likely so I personally wouldn't add Rice. Rice at any moment could decide they want to spend and attempt to be relevant in sports, but having seen their commitment level in C-USA for 15 years I find it hard to believe it's something the university actually wants or cares about doing.

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:46 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If you add Rice and promise Army a division of Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, and Navy would they bite?

They Army/Navy game will be a big roadblock as it would have to find a new date.

The good news is with playoff restructuring, it may have to find a new date anyways.

By being in the same conference, they could easily be scheduled for rivalry weekend after Thanksgiving.

With CBS losing the SEC Saturday GOTW, perhaps that will be an acceptable outcome for all parties??

You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

(09-06-2021 12:56 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  What other G5 schools are private?

Tulsa, Tulane, SMU. Arguably BYU because they are not currently in a P5.

(09-07-2021 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:46 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If you add Rice and promise Army a division of Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, and Navy would they bite?

They Army/Navy game will be a big roadblock as it would have to find a new date.

The good news is with playoff restructuring, it may have to find a new date anyways.

By being in the same conference, they could easily be scheduled for rivalry weekend after Thanksgiving.

With CBS losing the SEC Saturday GOTW, perhaps that will be an acceptable outcome for all parties??

You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

All it would take is one good 8-4 year in the Magnolia division for Rice to be deemed a success

Adding a school without the market and academic prestige would require an App St like showing of success with consistency.

(09-07-2021 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:46 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If you add Rice and promise Army a division of Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, and Navy would they bite?

They Army/Navy game will be a big roadblock as it would have to find a new date.

The good news is with playoff restructuring, it may have to find a new date anyways.

By being in the same conference, they could easily be scheduled for rivalry weekend after Thanksgiving.

With CBS losing the SEC Saturday GOTW, perhaps that will be an acceptable outcome for all parties??

You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

I mostly agree, Rice is just so bad and more importantly than bad doesn't actually care about doing the things it takes to win, that I wouldn't add them unless it's a play that can get Army in the fold or Rice is willing to make actual commitments and not empty promises that they are going to use their resources in a similar way that SMU does. Rice chooses not to commit to what it takes to consistently win, they could at any moment (and have basically unlimited resources) to change that, but there's zero reason to trust they want to. You are correct though you could give App or Coastal 1000 years and they'd never come close to the academic chops of Rice, while Rice legitimately could become good on the field very quickly if they basically just decided they want to.

(09-07-2021 09:35 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-06-2021 12:56 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  What other G5 schools are private?

Tulsa, Tulane, SMU. Arguably BYU because they are not currently in a P5.

And Liberty. I forget them.

(09-07-2021 09:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:46 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If you add Rice and promise Army a division of Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, and Navy would they bite?

They Army/Navy game will be a big roadblock as it would have to find a new date.

The good news is with playoff restructuring, it may have to find a new date anyways.

By being in the same conference, they could easily be scheduled for rivalry weekend after Thanksgiving.

With CBS losing the SEC Saturday GOTW, perhaps that will be an acceptable outcome for all parties??

You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

I mostly agree, Rice is just so bad and more importantly than bad doesn't actually care about doing the things it takes to win, that I wouldn't add them unless it's a play that can get Army in the fold or Rice is willing to make actual commitments and not empty promises that they are going to use their resources in a similar way that SMU does. Rice chooses not to commit to what it takes to consistently win, they could at any moment (and have basically unlimited resources) to change that, but there's zero reason to trust they want to. You are correct though you could give App or Coastal 1000 years and they'd never come close to the academic chops of Rice, while Rice legitimately could become good on the field very quickly if they basically just decided they want to.

If the AAC does invite Rice there should be explicit conditions on budget and facilities. The A10 which is hardly a power conference did that with Davidson when they entered the conference. There is no inherent reason why Rice has to be awful in athletics but they have to be willing to try to be successful and that means spending money.

(09-07-2021 10:14 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:46 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If you add Rice and promise Army a division of Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, and Navy would they bite?

They Army/Navy game will be a big roadblock as it would have to find a new date.

The good news is with playoff restructuring, it may have to find a new date anyways.

By being in the same conference, they could easily be scheduled for rivalry weekend after Thanksgiving.

With CBS losing the SEC Saturday GOTW, perhaps that will be an acceptable outcome for all parties??

You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

I mostly agree, Rice is just so bad and more importantly than bad doesn't actually care about doing the things it takes to win, that I wouldn't add them unless it's a play that can get Army in the fold or Rice is willing to make actual commitments and not empty promises that they are going to use their resources in a similar way that SMU does. Rice chooses not to commit to what it takes to consistently win, they could at any moment (and have basically unlimited resources) to change that, but there's zero reason to trust they want to. You are correct though you could give App or Coastal 1000 years and they'd never come close to the academic chops of Rice, while Rice legitimately could become good on the field very quickly if they basically just decided they want to.

If the AAC does invite Rice there should be explicit conditions on budget and facilities. The A10 which is hardly a power conference did that with Davidson when they entered the conference. There is no inherent reason why Rice has to be awful in athletics but they have to be willing to try to be successful and that means spending money.

I agree. And I believe that is the likely outcome

Rice cannot be happy being in CUSA with 0 peer institutions, so they have incentive to compromise and work with the AAC to get reunited with Tulane, Tulsa, and SMU

(09-07-2021 10:15 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 10:14 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

I mostly agree, Rice is just so bad and more importantly than bad doesn't actually care about doing the things it takes to win, that I wouldn't add them unless it's a play that can get Army in the fold or Rice is willing to make actual commitments and not empty promises that they are going to use their resources in a similar way that SMU does. Rice chooses not to commit to what it takes to consistently win, they could at any moment (and have basically unlimited resources) to change that, but there's zero reason to trust they want to. You are correct though you could give App or Coastal 1000 years and they'd never come close to the academic chops of Rice, while Rice legitimately could become good on the field very quickly if they basically just decided they want to.

If the AAC does invite Rice there should be explicit conditions on budget and facilities. The A10 which is hardly a power conference did that with Davidson when they entered the conference. There is no inherent reason why Rice has to be awful in athletics but they have to be willing to try to be successful and that means spending money.

I agree. And I believe that is the likely outcome

Rice cannot be happy being in CUSA with 0 peer institutions, so they have incentive to compromise and work with the AAC to get reunited with Tulane, Tulsa, and SMU

You will find unanimous support for that among Rice message board posters. Now, selling that to the administration...

(09-07-2021 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:46 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If you add Rice and promise Army a division of Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, and Navy would they bite?

They Army/Navy game will be a big roadblock as it would have to find a new date.

The good news is with playoff restructuring, it may have to find a new date anyways.

By being in the same conference, they could easily be scheduled for rivalry weekend after Thanksgiving.

With CBS losing the SEC Saturday GOTW, perhaps that will be an acceptable outcome for all parties??

You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

So why is Rice still stuck in CUSA? Why did Texas, TAMU, Baylor and Texas Tech drop them like a bad habit? I don't see any of their supposed peers wanting to play them OOC other than an occasional buy game - certainly not a home/home. I get that they could be added for academic reasons. They'll be backed by Tulsa, Tulane, SMU and Navy but I don't see how they help the AAC's cause one iota UNLESS Army demands them as part of a package deal.

(09-07-2021 10:14 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:46 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If you add Rice and promise Army a division of Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, and Navy would they bite?

They Army/Navy game will be a big roadblock as it would have to find a new date.

The good news is with playoff restructuring, it may have to find a new date anyways.

By being in the same conference, they could easily be scheduled for rivalry weekend after Thanksgiving.

With CBS losing the SEC Saturday GOTW, perhaps that will be an acceptable outcome for all parties??

You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

I mostly agree, Rice is just so bad and more importantly than bad doesn't actually care about doing the things it takes to win, that I wouldn't add them unless it's a play that can get Army in the fold or Rice is willing to make actual commitments and not empty promises that they are going to use their resources in a similar way that SMU does. Rice chooses not to commit to what it takes to consistently win, they could at any moment (and have basically unlimited resources) to change that, but there's zero reason to trust they want to. You are correct though you could give App or Coastal 1000 years and they'd never come close to the academic chops of Rice, while Rice legitimately could become good on the field very quickly if they basically just decided they want to.

If the AAC does invite Rice there should be explicit conditions on budget and facilities. The A10 which is hardly a power conference did that with Davidson when they entered the conference. There is no inherent reason why Rice has to be awful in athletics but they have to be willing to try to be successful and that means spending money.

I agree completely. Rice is awful at athletics because Rice doesn't want to do the things it takes to win in athletics (spend on facilities/budget and most importantly accept the required academic exceptions needed to actually consistently win). Both of those things they can change tomorrow if they so choose, but they'd have to make firm commitments on both for me to want to add them. The only thing stopping them from doing all the things SMU does is the desire to do them.

(09-07-2021 10:22 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 10:14 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

I mostly agree, Rice is just so bad and more importantly than bad doesn't actually care about doing the things it takes to win, that I wouldn't add them unless it's a play that can get Army in the fold or Rice is willing to make actual commitments and not empty promises that they are going to use their resources in a similar way that SMU does. Rice chooses not to commit to what it takes to consistently win, they could at any moment (and have basically unlimited resources) to change that, but there's zero reason to trust they want to. You are correct though you could give App or Coastal 1000 years and they'd never come close to the academic chops of Rice, while Rice legitimately could become good on the field very quickly if they basically just decided they want to.

If the AAC does invite Rice there should be explicit conditions on budget and facilities. The A10 which is hardly a power conference did that with Davidson when they entered the conference. There is no inherent reason why Rice has to be awful in athletics but they have to be willing to try to be successful and that means spending money.

I agree completely. Rice is awful at athletics because Rice doesn't want to do the things it takes to win in athletics (spend on facilities/budget and most importantly accept the required academic exceptions needed to actually consistently win). Both of those things they can change tomorrow if they so choose, but they'd have to make firm commitments on both for me to want to add them. The only thing stopping them from doing all the things SMU does is the desire to do them.

You’re right. Admissions is an important factor too.

(09-07-2021 10:22 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 10:14 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 08:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You beat me to it by about 30 seconds. Army might find a division of all private schools and Navy a lot more appealing than what the AAC was offering a few months back. I suspect they still wouldn't join, but that all private division is probably the most appealing possible conference offering you could make for them.

I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

I mostly agree, Rice is just so bad and more importantly than bad doesn't actually care about doing the things it takes to win, that I wouldn't add them unless it's a play that can get Army in the fold or Rice is willing to make actual commitments and not empty promises that they are going to use their resources in a similar way that SMU does. Rice chooses not to commit to what it takes to consistently win, they could at any moment (and have basically unlimited resources) to change that, but there's zero reason to trust they want to. You are correct though you could give App or Coastal 1000 years and they'd never come close to the academic chops of Rice, while Rice legitimately could become good on the field very quickly if they basically just decided they want to.

If the AAC does invite Rice there should be explicit conditions on budget and facilities. The A10 which is hardly a power conference did that with Davidson when they entered the conference. There is no inherent reason why Rice has to be awful in athletics but they have to be willing to try to be successful and that means spending money.

I agree completely. Rice is awful at athletics because Rice doesn't want to do the things it takes to win in athletics (spend on facilities/budget and most importantly accept the required academic exceptions needed to actually consistently win). Both of those things they can change tomorrow if they so choose, but they'd have to make firm commitments on both for me to want to add them. The only thing stopping them from doing all the things SMU does is the desire to do them.

And no one wants Rice to be 12-0

Just competitive

(09-07-2021 10:27 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 10:22 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 10:14 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

I mostly agree, Rice is just so bad and more importantly than bad doesn't actually care about doing the things it takes to win, that I wouldn't add them unless it's a play that can get Army in the fold or Rice is willing to make actual commitments and not empty promises that they are going to use their resources in a similar way that SMU does. Rice chooses not to commit to what it takes to consistently win, they could at any moment (and have basically unlimited resources) to change that, but there's zero reason to trust they want to. You are correct though you could give App or Coastal 1000 years and they'd never come close to the academic chops of Rice, while Rice legitimately could become good on the field very quickly if they basically just decided they want to.

If the AAC does invite Rice there should be explicit conditions on budget and facilities. The A10 which is hardly a power conference did that with Davidson when they entered the conference. There is no inherent reason why Rice has to be awful in athletics but they have to be willing to try to be successful and that means spending money.

I agree completely. Rice is awful at athletics because Rice doesn't want to do the things it takes to win in athletics (spend on facilities/budget and most importantly accept the required academic exceptions needed to actually consistently win). Both of those things they can change tomorrow if they so choose, but they'd have to make firm commitments on both for me to want to add them. The only thing stopping them from doing all the things SMU does is the desire to do them.

And no one wants Rice to be 12-0

Just competitive

There are literally dozens of us in the stands who want Rice to be 12-0.

(09-07-2021 10:26 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 10:22 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 10:14 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think there's quite a bit more value in going after more highly rated academic schools regardless of whether Army would be interested.

At the end of the day, no TV network is paying more money for Appalachian State and Coastal Carolina compared to Rice and UAB. The fact of the matter is that every realistic AAC expansion candidate (except for maybe Army and I don't know if they're realistic at all) is going to be pure backfilling from a TV value perspective and they're all worth the same.

So, I'd go the other way from a lot of people who are just looking at recent on-the-field football performance. True power in college football comes in the form of having quality *off-the-field* on top of on-the-field. The most valuable schools (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Florida, etc.) combine all of that together. The power schools will at least give a school like Rice the time of day on, say, governance and autonomy issues because it's a peer institution (even if they think they're a non-factor in terms of on-the-field/court athletics).

If you want to ever be considered to be upper class in college sports, then the reality is that you need to have upper class institutions. When the money is equal (and that's going to be the case for the ACC here), I'd argue that you should get as many of those upper class institutions into your league as you can because academic perception changes are *glacial* while whoever is in the top 25 for football fluctuates wildly from year-to-year. On-the-field football performance is honestly much easier to change than institutional perception (which takes generations to change, if ever).

I mostly agree, Rice is just so bad and more importantly than bad doesn't actually care about doing the things it takes to win, that I wouldn't add them unless it's a play that can get Army in the fold or Rice is willing to make actual commitments and not empty promises that they are going to use their resources in a similar way that SMU does. Rice chooses not to commit to what it takes to consistently win, they could at any moment (and have basically unlimited resources) to change that, but there's zero reason to trust they want to. You are correct though you could give App or Coastal 1000 years and they'd never come close to the academic chops of Rice, while Rice legitimately could become good on the field very quickly if they basically just decided they want to.

If the AAC does invite Rice there should be explicit conditions on budget and facilities. The A10 which is hardly a power conference did that with Davidson when they entered the conference. There is no inherent reason why Rice has to be awful in athletics but they have to be willing to try to be successful and that means spending money.

I agree completely. Rice is awful at athletics because Rice doesn't want to do the things it takes to win in athletics (spend on facilities/budget and most importantly accept the required academic exceptions needed to actually consistently win). Both of those things they can change tomorrow if they so choose, but they'd have to make firm commitments on both for me to want to add them. The only thing stopping them from doing all the things SMU does is the desire to do them.

You’re right. Admissions is an important factor too.

Admissions is probably the most important factor, and the one I'm the least convinced you could get them to bend on. They've got the money to meet any budget/facilities conditions you required basically overnight and would likely find that an extremely small price to pay to be associated with SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Navy, etc. Getting them to commit to admitting people they don't want to admit requires them fundamentally changing their core principles and I just flat out don't see them doing it, and that's the one I'd need the most commitments on to want to add them.

70-80 teams would corner the market.