(09-15-2021 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 07:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Rice stinks and bring nothing to the AAC.

UAB can't be trusted in case they decides to drop football again.

You don’t know understand how this works.

Was Boise State not invited to the Big XII because they’re just a bunch of meany-head dumb dumbs? Or were there other factors?

Mhmm. I am of the belief when you are adding teams you have to ask the question "if they became consistently terrible at both major sports would I still want to be in a league with them?" Do they make sense as an institution you'd want to be associated with if their performance started to stink. Now that's not saying add teams who stink currently, but if the only reason at all you are looking at a team is their current on the field success and everything else is a red flag that's probably a bad addition.

To me it all comes down to budgets. Rank the G5 outside of the AAC by budget, and take the top 4-6. The bigger the budget, the lower the downside risk you mentioned.

(09-14-2021 10:58 PM)VCE Wrote:  I’m going to discount Aresco’s geography doesn’t matter comments because I don’t believe any MWC schools are realistic given the AAC just lost 3 of their 5 top brands (Navy football and Memphis bball being the other two).

In no particular order:

Rice
UAB
Marshall
GSU
Buffalo
ODU

Seem to be the most likely pool from which to choose 2 or 4. I think each of the above has solid arguments in their favor.

I'm slowly coming around to the idea that the AAC's future identity will be based off the Eastern wing. Memphis and USF will not be in the AAC in 5 years and we need to plan for that now. That means a core group of ODU, Marshall, Buffalo, Temple, ECU, and Navy, need to be propped up and future adds need to be assessed on how they affect that group. I know Buffalo is a stretch but they really add to and strengthen this base. It is also far better to add them now while Memphis anchors us so they have time to grow. With that in mind, who strengthens this group without hurting the core?
It's not an easy call to make.

Army/VCU
UMASS
UCONN/?
Charlotte
Georgia State
UAB
JMU

The west wing only has one realistic option based on fit and history, Rice. There really isn't anyone else to add that helps. Frankly, any and all west members will always be potential targets for expansion whether it's a new SWC, watered down Big 12, MWC, etc. West core members...

Tulane
Rice
SMU
Tulsa
Navy/Wichita

So considering everything, we need to add ODU, Marshall, Buffalo, and Rice now. When Memphis and USF leave, we add 2-4 schools off the list above that bring basketball and football and don't hurt current members. I left out UAB for now as the one thing we can't do is become CUSA 4.0. UAB is the hot name but has a dumpster fire of a an athletics history. It would be nice to see if they can maintain their success first.

2023 AAC

ECU
Temple
ODU
Marshall
Buffalo
Memphis
USF
Tulane
Tulsa
SMU
Rice
Navy/Wichita

(09-14-2021 11:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Rice stinks and bring nothing to the AAC.

UAB can't be trusted in case they decides to drop football again.

Absurd. UAB, UAB boosters and the city of Birmingham/Jefferson County have invested more than $250 million into UAB Football since 2015. They have the biggest economic players in Alabama behind them and full support of the board of regents.

(09-15-2021 09:03 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 07:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Rice stinks and bring nothing to the AAC.

UAB can't be trusted in case they decides to drop football again.

You don’t know understand how this works.

Was Boise State not invited to the Big XII because they’re just a bunch of meany-head dumb dumbs? Or were there other factors?

Mhmm. I am of the belief when you are adding teams you have to ask the question "if they became consistently terrible at both major sports would I still want to be in a league with them?" Do they make sense as an institution you'd want to be associated with if their performance started to stink. Now that's not saying add teams who stink currently, but if the only reason at all you are looking at a team is their current on the field success and everything else is a red flag that's probably a bad addition.

To me it all comes down to budgets. Rank the G5 outside of the AAC by budget, and take the top 4-6. The bigger the budget, the lower the downside risk you mentioned.

Yeah. Let's take heavily subsidized athletic programs. Guess you didn't learn anything from the recent COVID stuff. Also, budgets on their own, don't really mean much. You need to look at football budgets and to a lesser extent basketball budgets. No one cares how much you spend on your volleyball team.

Also have to remember that a scholarship at one school will cost much different at another school which definitely changes the budgets.

(09-08-2021 08:00 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Getting into the AAC is critical. The P5 is following the Knight Commission's recommendation for the top 70 or so schools to separate and form their own association. Once that separation takes place anyone outside that group faces some stark realities. It will likely be the end of a G5 being included in the playoff and possibly the NY6 Bowl. Which in turn means most, if not all, of the CFP money being "gifted" to the G5 will also dry up. Aresco knows this is a very real probability and will push hard to have the AAC included in that top group. Fact is he's been working on it for several years now. It is possible the AAC goes to 12 and it will be an absolute dog fight for those 4 spots. It's no longer about markets, or stadium size. Brand awareness and success will drive the AAC's decision. They can't afford to put their eggs into the "potential" basket. They need programs that have been and continue to be good at making noise and are well known in the college football world. There are only a handful of those out there. It is going to get interesting.

Nah, the p5 will just gobble up the best of the rest to get to some magical 70 mark and keep the rest out.

IF there is any sort of split it will be whoever is in the p5, of those conferences choosing, and no one else. Period.

(09-14-2021 02:22 PM)odu09 Wrote:  

Quote:Average Ticket Sales Per Year

Old Dominion- $3,735,450
Marshall- $3,478,819

I enjoy this data

Jmu - $2,992,676 as a little ol’ fcs in 2019

(In 2018 it was $3,838,939)

I would expect easily over $4m in sales this year with our first season allowing fans in our new hoops arena

(09-08-2021 08:00 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Getting into the AAC is critical. The P5 is following the Knight Commission's recommendation for the top 70 or so schools to separate and form their own association. Once that separation takes place anyone outside that group faces some stark realities. It will likely be the end of a G5 being included in the playoff and possibly the NY6 Bowl. Which in turn means most, if not all, of the CFP money being "gifted" to the G5 will also dry up. Aresco knows this is a very real probability and will push hard to have the AAC included in that top group. Fact is he's been working on it for several years now. It is possible the AAC goes to 12 and it will be an absolute dog fight for those 4 spots. It's no longer about markets, or stadium size. Brand awareness and success will drive the AAC's decision. They can't afford to put their eggs into the "potential" basket. They need programs that have been and continue to be good at making noise and are well known in the college football world. There are only a handful of those out there. It is going to get interesting.

When I wrote this 7 days ago I was absolutely convinced the AAC would raid the better schools of the SB & CUSA and continue being the power broker in G5. Shaping those thoughts were conversations with some very connected people who have long tentacles in the college football world. In just one week this thing has done a 180 and I honestly believe the AAC will not only lose its status as G5 power broker, but could be in a fight for it's very survival.

Give me some of what that mountain man is drinkin’!


xxx

(09-15-2021 07:06 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 08:00 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Getting into the AAC is critical. The P5 is following the Knight Commission's recommendation for the top 70 or so schools to separate and form their own association. Once that separation takes place anyone outside that group faces some stark realities. It will likely be the end of a G5 being included in the playoff and possibly the NY6 Bowl. Which in turn means most, if not all, of the CFP money being "gifted" to the G5 will also dry up. Aresco knows this is a very real probability and will push hard to have the AAC included in that top group. Fact is he's been working on it for several years now. It is possible the AAC goes to 12 and it will be an absolute dog fight for those 4 spots. It's no longer about markets, or stadium size. Brand awareness and success will drive the AAC's decision. They can't afford to put their eggs into the "potential" basket. They need programs that have been and continue to be good at making noise and are well known in the college football world. There are only a handful of those out there. It is going to get interesting.

When I wrote this 7 days ago I was absolutely convinced the AAC would raid the better schools of the SB & CUSA and continue being the power broker in G5. Shaping those thoughts were conversations with some very connected people who have long tentacles in the college football world. In just one week this thing has done a 180 and I honestly believe the AAC will not only lose its status as G5 power broker, but could be in a fight for it's very survival.

MW could grab a central time zone team or two. Wichita St could go back to their old conference. Navy could go independent. 2 schools could still be gobbled up by the Big 12.

If I am the MW I would go for the kill now.

I could see Aresco sticking with schools in larger metro areas and replacing Houston, Cincinnati and Orlando with Atlanta (GSU), Charlotte, Birmingham and Chicago (NIU). Gets the American back to 12

East - USF, Navy, Ga St, ECU, Temple, Charlotte

West - NIU, Memphis, Tulane, UAB, Tulsa, SMU

Wichita replaces Navy in hoops, but without the divisions.

(09-15-2021 09:03 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 07:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Rice stinks and bring nothing to the AAC.

UAB can't be trusted in case they decides to drop football again.

You don’t know understand how this works.

Was Boise State not invited to the Big XII because they’re just a bunch of meany-head dumb dumbs? Or were there other factors?

Mhmm. I am of the belief when you are adding teams you have to ask the question "if they became consistently terrible at both major sports would I still want to be in a league with them?" Do they make sense as an institution you'd want to be associated with if their performance started to stink. Now that's not saying add teams who stink currently, but if the only reason at all you are looking at a team is their current on the field success and everything else is a red flag that's probably a bad addition.

To me it all comes down to budgets. Rank the G5 outside of the AAC by budget, and take the top 4-6. The bigger the budget, the lower the downside risk you mentioned.

That is a good eBay to look at it, if everyone was using the same accounting matrix. But that’s not the case.

(09-16-2021 07:38 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 09:03 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 07:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Rice stinks and bring nothing to the AAC.

UAB can't be trusted in case they decides to drop football again.

You don’t know understand how this works.

Was Boise State not invited to the Big XII because they’re just a bunch of meany-head dumb dumbs? Or were there other factors?

Mhmm. I am of the belief when you are adding teams you have to ask the question "if they became consistently terrible at both major sports would I still want to be in a league with them?" Do they make sense as an institution you'd want to be associated with if their performance started to stink. Now that's not saying add teams who stink currently, but if the only reason at all you are looking at a team is their current on the field success and everything else is a red flag that's probably a bad addition.

To me it all comes down to budgets. Rank the G5 outside of the AAC by budget, and take the top 4-6. The bigger the budget, the lower the downside risk you mentioned.

That is a good eBay to look at it, if everyone was using the same accounting matrix. But that’s not the case.

They aren't, but if you are a school with a budget in the below 30 million it's pretty hard to believe you are going to be able to quickly ramp up your budget to get to the low end of the AAC, which is 50 million. ECU at the time of getting out of C-USA I believe was somewhere around 35 million and it's been a stretch for us to compete budget wise and we are still towards the bottom. I know you might argue such and such school gets more bang for their buck, but there are expenses you have to undertake being in the AAC that are just the cost of doing business. For example, the AAC as a conference rule does not allow you to be a "buy" team in hoops. You got to either play home and homes, neutral sites, or buy home games yourself. ECU had to spend millions to upgrade all their video and production capabilities to meet the standards of the ESPN deal. Then you throw in you have to attempt to keep up facilities wise with the rest of the league, for example if you don't have a basketball practice facility you can pretty much give up the thought of recruiting well enough to compete in the AAC.

(09-15-2021 09:44 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I could see Aresco sticking with schools in larger metro areas and replacing Houston, Cincinnati and Orlando with Atlanta (GSU), Charlotte, Birmingham and Chicago (NIU). Gets the American back to 12

East - USF, Navy, Ga St, ECU, Temple, Charlotte

West - NIU, Memphis, Tulane, UAB, Tulsa, SMU

Wichita replaces Navy in hoops, but without the divisions.

Navy wants to be in western division because they recruit Texas. They will want another Texas team to replace Houston.

(09-16-2021 07:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 07:38 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 09:03 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 07:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  You don’t know understand how this works.

Was Boise State not invited to the Big XII because they’re just a bunch of meany-head dumb dumbs? Or were there other factors?

Mhmm. I am of the belief when you are adding teams you have to ask the question "if they became consistently terrible at both major sports would I still want to be in a league with them?" Do they make sense as an institution you'd want to be associated with if their performance started to stink. Now that's not saying add teams who stink currently, but if the only reason at all you are looking at a team is their current on the field success and everything else is a red flag that's probably a bad addition.

To me it all comes down to budgets. Rank the G5 outside of the AAC by budget, and take the top 4-6. The bigger the budget, the lower the downside risk you mentioned.

That is a good eBay to look at it, if everyone was using the same accounting matrix. But that’s not the case.

They aren't, but if you are a school with a budget in the below 30 million it's pretty hard to believe you are going to be able to quickly ramp up your budget to get to the low end of the AAC, which is 50 million. ECU at the time of getting out of C-USA I believe was somewhere around 35 million and it's been a stretch for us to compete budget wise and we are still towards the bottom. I know you might argue such and such school gets more bang for their buck, but there are expenses you have to undertake being in the AAC that are just the cost of doing business. For example, the AAC as a conference rule does not allow you to be a "buy" team in hoops. You got to either play home and homes, neutral sites, or buy home games yourself. ECU had to spend millions to upgrade all their video and production capabilities to meet the standards of the ESPN deal. Then you throw in you have to attempt to keep up facilities wise with the rest of the league, for example if you don't have a basketball practice facility you can pretty much give up the thought of recruiting well enough to compete in the AAC.

Oh no he was correct, but big budgets don’t always tell the story. Operating budgets do though. The Marshall fan who broke down operating budgets hit the nail on the head.

There aren’t many programs under $30M anymore. Maybe 5 or 6 of them.

(09-16-2021 07:38 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 09:03 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 07:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Rice stinks and bring nothing to the AAC.

UAB can't be trusted in case they decides to drop football again.

You don’t know understand how this works.

Was Boise State not invited to the Big XII because they’re just a bunch of meany-head dumb dumbs? Or were there other factors?

Mhmm. I am of the belief when you are adding teams you have to ask the question "if they became consistently terrible at both major sports would I still want to be in a league with them?" Do they make sense as an institution you'd want to be associated with if their performance started to stink. Now that's not saying add teams who stink currently, but if the only reason at all you are looking at a team is their current on the field success and everything else is a red flag that's probably a bad addition.

To me it all comes down to budgets. Rank the G5 outside of the AAC by budget, and take the top 4-6. The bigger the budget, the lower the downside risk you mentioned.

That is a good eBay to look at it, if everyone was using the same accounting matrix. But that’s not the case.

Anyone know how the 3 teams picked up by the Big 12 fell in terms of budget rank in the AAC?

EDIT: Found data from 2019. The private schools (SMU,Tulane,Navy) aren't included, but Houston, UCF, Cincinnati fell 1,2,3 in that order.

Full List:
UConn - dropped out of the race
Houston - picked up
UCF - picked up
Cincinnati - picked up
ECU
Memphis
SDSU
CSU
AFA
USF
JMU
Hawaii
UNLV
Fresno
Boise
ODU
UMass
Wyoming
Deleware
Buffalo
Nevada
New Mexico
Utah State
North Texas
UC-Davis
Western Mich
Miami(not Miami)
UNCC
Ga State
Coastal Carolina
App State
Akron
ULL
Texas State
Stony Brook
FAU
MTSU
VCU
UAB
Toledo
Arkansas State
FIU
Ohio
South Bama
Central Mich
San Jose
UTEP
Marshall
Towson
Troy
UTSA
and so on...

Athletic budget is the criterion few on message boards ever discuss, but is one that carries massive weight by the decision makers. I found this out through direct conversations with athletic directors involved in the great shakeup a decade ago.

If one were to look up the latest available data, you’d see that the 3 largest budgets in the American were Houston, UCF, and Cincinnati. As Gomer would say, “Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!” Look who the Big 12 took.

If we look at MWC schools, the top five in terms of budgets are Air Force, Colorado State, San Diego State, UNLV, and Boise State. Better believe that’s the wishlist from out west.

Not considering MWC schools, you’re looking at James Madison, UMass, ODU, Delaware, and Buffalo. If you’re looking for top five current FBS, Charlotte and North Texas make the cut. A few important grains of salt on this is that every school on this list subsidizes more than two-thirds of their budget, with the exception of ODU. Also, private school data isn’t available.

I have no inside knowledge at all on the current state; I just wanted to provide some food for thought. My spidey senses tell me that the MWC schools above are the clear target for the American. If that falls through, expect 4 schools inclusive of UAB, Rice, and 2 from the 7 listed above.

Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

(09-06-2021 08:18 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-06-2021 07:50 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  Football winning % from 2014-2020

App St 78.2
Marshall 65.4
La Tech 65.0
UAB 64.2
Liberty 56.0
Louisiana 53.8
Southern Miss 52.6
Buffalo 48.6
FAU 47.4
ODU 42.5
North Texas 42.1
UTSA 36.1
Ga St 35.1
Charlotte 31.1
Rice 29.7

Thank you... that’s a HUGE help. I will add this in when I get back to the actual computer.

There you go. Take the top 4. I've advocated for La Tech for several years now. Very competitive Footbal school if Football is the Measure. Marshall, UAB, App State as well as USM as an alternative

(09-16-2021 09:11 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

Two things on this:

1) The list above is based on expenditures. Maybe they are saying that they pay out more than they do to athletics, but I doubt it.
2) So you think it's a coincidence that the top 3 teams in terms of spending in the G5 moved up?

(09-16-2021 09:09 AM)DrEvilGuapo Wrote:  Athletic budget is the criterion few on message boards ever discuss, but is one that carries massive weight by the decision makers. I found this out through direct conversations with athletic directors involved in the great shakeup a decade ago.

If one were to look up the latest available data, you’d see that the 3 largest budgets in the American were Houston, UCF, and Cincinnati. As Gomer would say, “Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!” Look who the Big 12 took.

If we look at MWC schools, the top five in terms of budgets are Air Force, Colorado State, San Diego State, UNLV, and Boise State. Better believe that’s the wishlist from out west.

Not considering MWC schools, you’re looking at James Madison, UMass, ODU, Delaware, and Buffalo. If you’re looking for top five current FBS, Charlotte and North Texas make the cut. A few important grains of salt on this is that every school on this list subsidizes more than two-thirds of their budget, with the exception of ODU. Also, private school data isn’t available.

I have no inside knowledge at all on the current state; I just wanted to provide some food for thought. My spidey senses tell me that the MWC schools above are the clear target for the American. If that falls through, expect 4 schools inclusive of UAB, Rice, and 2 from the 7 listed above.

Also important note for UMass:

Hockey.

That adds quite a bit to our budget and has nothing to do with anything the AAC can take (and probably is one of the few sports of ours they would be interested in if they sponsored hockey).