(09-09-2021 08:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

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

(09-09-2021 08:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If North Texas was located anywhere else in Texas I think they'd be right up there with UAB at the top of the list. I could be wrong on this, but I suspect SMU/Tulane/Tulsa would prefer Rice to NT.

I agree especially because the quartet of SMU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane will be playing any new western member. They will want that school to fit in with them as much as possible.

If AAC does not go East-West, i don't see how you avoid taking Rice as part of a compromise to get a Marshall or other quality football program

For me if I were Aresco unless there's some kind of MWC miracle raid or Army can be convinced I add just UAB, sit at 9 for a while, and see if any of the adds with long term upside like ODU/Charlotte/Georgia State/UTSA etc start reaching it. I wouldn't want to pick any of those schools currently, but 5 years from now that could be very different. Maybe I'm wrong about the way ESPN will view this, but I see every additional member added as a likely drain on the per team value of the TV deal.

My guess is that ESPN is going to require at least 10 schools simply for inventory purposes. Their primary goal with leagues like the AAC is to build up the ESPN+ streaming platform (much more than providing games to the mothership cable ESPN), so more content in and of itself is likely quite important.

(09-09-2021 08:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

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

(09-09-2021 08:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If North Texas was located anywhere else in Texas I think they'd be right up there with UAB at the top of the list. I could be wrong on this, but I suspect SMU/Tulane/Tulsa would prefer Rice to NT.

I agree especially because the quartet of SMU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane will be playing any new western member. They will want that school to fit in with them as much as possible.

If AAC does not go East-West, i don't see how you avoid taking Rice as part of a compromise to get a Marshall or other quality football program

For me if I were Aresco unless there's some kind of MWC miracle raid or Army can be convinced I add just UAB, sit at 9 for a while, and see if any of the adds with long term upside like ODU/Charlotte/Georgia State/UTSA etc start reaching it. I wouldn't want to pick any of those schools currently, but 5 years from now that could be very different. Maybe I'm wrong about the way ESPN will view this, but I see every additional member added as a likely drain on the per team value of the TV deal.

Can the afford to do that. How much if a pay cut do they take losing Houston, Cincy, and UCF? A solo UAB addition doesn't offset this loss

(09-09-2021 08:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

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

(09-09-2021 08:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If North Texas was located anywhere else in Texas I think they'd be right up there with UAB at the top of the list. I could be wrong on this, but I suspect SMU/Tulane/Tulsa would prefer Rice to NT.

I agree especially because the quartet of SMU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane will be playing any new western member. They will want that school to fit in with them as much as possible.

If AAC does not go East-West, i don't see how you avoid taking Rice as part of a compromise to get a Marshall or other quality football program

For me if I were Aresco unless there's some kind of MWC miracle raid or Army can be convinced I add just UAB, sit at 9 for a while, and see if any of the adds with long term upside like ODU/Charlotte/Georgia State/UTSA etc start reaching it. I wouldn't want to pick any of those schools currently, but 5 years from now that could be very different. Maybe I'm wrong about the way ESPN will view this, but I see every additional member added as a likely drain on the per team value of the TV deal.

My guess is that ESPN is going to require at least 10 schools simply for inventory purposes. Their primary goal with leagues like the AAC is to build up the ESPN+ streaming platform (much more than providing games to the mothership cable ESPN), so more content in and of itself is likely quite important.

Is it important enough to them to pay an additional lets just say 4 million a year (I'm just guessing the AAC TV value is dropping to around that per team with the losses) to add insert other random C-USA school? Maybe it is I don't know but it's hard for me to believe any of the C-USA schools are valued that much looking at their current TV deal.

(09-09-2021 08:43 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

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

(09-09-2021 08:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If North Texas was located anywhere else in Texas I think they'd be right up there with UAB at the top of the list. I could be wrong on this, but I suspect SMU/Tulane/Tulsa would prefer Rice to NT.

I agree especially because the quartet of SMU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane will be playing any new western member. They will want that school to fit in with them as much as possible.

If AAC does not go East-West, i don't see how you avoid taking Rice as part of a compromise to get a Marshall or other quality football program

For me if I were Aresco unless there's some kind of MWC miracle raid or Army can be convinced I add just UAB, sit at 9 for a while, and see if any of the adds with long term upside like ODU/Charlotte/Georgia State/UTSA etc start reaching it. I wouldn't want to pick any of those schools currently, but 5 years from now that could be very different. Maybe I'm wrong about the way ESPN will view this, but I see every additional member added as a likely drain on the per team value of the TV deal.

Can the afford to do that. How much if a pay cut do they take losing Houston, Cincy, and UCF? A solo UAB addition doesn't offset this loss

Adding insert 3 other schools doesn't offset that loss either. The AAC is taking a pay cut no matter who gets added. Sure if ESPN says "get back to 12 and we won't cut your deal at all" we'll be back at 12 immediately, but that's not happening. I just suspect on a per team basis the AAC will make more adding just UAB than adding 3 more schools on top of that.

(09-09-2021 08:43 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

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

(09-09-2021 08:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If North Texas was located anywhere else in Texas I think they'd be right up there with UAB at the top of the list. I could be wrong on this, but I suspect SMU/Tulane/Tulsa would prefer Rice to NT.

I agree especially because the quartet of SMU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane will be playing any new western member. They will want that school to fit in with them as much as possible.

If AAC does not go East-West, i don't see how you avoid taking Rice as part of a compromise to get a Marshall or other quality football program

For me if I were Aresco unless there's some kind of MWC miracle raid or Army can be convinced I add just UAB, sit at 9 for a while, and see if any of the adds with long term upside like ODU/Charlotte/Georgia State/UTSA etc start reaching it. I wouldn't want to pick any of those schools currently, but 5 years from now that could be very different. Maybe I'm wrong about the way ESPN will view this, but I see every additional member added as a likely drain on the per team value of the TV deal.

Can the afford to do that. How much if a pay cut do they take losing Houston, Cincy, and UCF? A solo UAB addition doesn't offset this loss

I also think that the "wait for a few years" approach simply isn't realistic in the landscape that we're in right now. We are seeing that with the Big 12 - we were having legitimate debates even up to last week about whether they had any rush to expand prior to 2025... and here we are with them sending out new invites this week.

I've worked on a lot of M&A deals, so this makes sense to me. If you're the firm in a higher leverage position and there's an acquisition target that you know that you want long-term, then you strike quickly. To be sure, the emphasis is on long-term since you shouldn't make deals for the sake of making deals. However, as a general matter, you can't assume that you're still going to have as much leverage compared to in a few years. Therefore, if there's a move that you know that you want to make, then don't wait.

(09-09-2021 08:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:43 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

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

(09-09-2021 08:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If North Texas was located anywhere else in Texas I think they'd be right up there with UAB at the top of the list. I could be wrong on this, but I suspect SMU/Tulane/Tulsa would prefer Rice to NT.

I agree especially because the quartet of SMU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane will be playing any new western member. They will want that school to fit in with them as much as possible.

If AAC does not go East-West, i don't see how you avoid taking Rice as part of a compromise to get a Marshall or other quality football program

For me if I were Aresco unless there's some kind of MWC miracle raid or Army can be convinced I add just UAB, sit at 9 for a while, and see if any of the adds with long term upside like ODU/Charlotte/Georgia State/UTSA etc start reaching it. I wouldn't want to pick any of those schools currently, but 5 years from now that could be very different. Maybe I'm wrong about the way ESPN will view this, but I see every additional member added as a likely drain on the per team value of the TV deal.

Can the afford to do that. How much if a pay cut do they take losing Houston, Cincy, and UCF? A solo UAB addition doesn't offset this loss

I also think that the "wait for a few years" approach simply isn't realistic in the landscape that we're in right now. We are seeing that with the Big 12 - we were having legitimate debates even up to last week about whether they had any rush to expand prior to 2025... and here we are with them sending out new invites this week.

I've worked on a lot of M&A deals, so this makes sense to me. If you're the firm in a higher leverage position and there's an acquisition target that you know that you want long-term, then you strike quickly. To be sure, the emphasis on long-term since you shouldn't make deals for the sake of making deals. However, as a general matter, you can't assume that you're still going to have as much leverage compared in a few years. Therefore, if there's a move that you know that you want to make, then don't wait.

The difference is though every one of the additions the B12 is making are the obvious additions you'd make now or 4 years from now. If you are the AAC looking at the collection of ODU/Charlotte/UTSA/Georgia State/FAU, the high enrollment large market schools that have "potential" it's impossible for me to really tell you which one of those is going to be the best long term add, and you can't kick schools out after you add them. The answer today about those schools could be way different then how you feel 3 years from now.

(09-09-2021 08:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:43 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I agree especially because the quartet of SMU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane will be playing any new western member. They will want that school to fit in with them as much as possible.

If AAC does not go East-West, i don't see how you avoid taking Rice as part of a compromise to get a Marshall or other quality football program

For me if I were Aresco unless there's some kind of MWC miracle raid or Army can be convinced I add just UAB, sit at 9 for a while, and see if any of the adds with long term upside like ODU/Charlotte/Georgia State/UTSA etc start reaching it. I wouldn't want to pick any of those schools currently, but 5 years from now that could be very different. Maybe I'm wrong about the way ESPN will view this, but I see every additional member added as a likely drain on the per team value of the TV deal.

Can the afford to do that. How much if a pay cut do they take losing Houston, Cincy, and UCF? A solo UAB addition doesn't offset this loss

I also think that the "wait for a few years" approach simply isn't realistic in the landscape that we're in right now. We are seeing that with the Big 12 - we were having legitimate debates even up to last week about whether they had any rush to expand prior to 2025... and here we are with them sending out new invites this week.

I've worked on a lot of M&A deals, so this makes sense to me. If you're the firm in a higher leverage position and there's an acquisition target that you know that you want long-term, then you strike quickly. To be sure, the emphasis on long-term since you shouldn't make deals for the sake of making deals. However, as a general matter, you can't assume that you're still going to have as much leverage compared in a few years. Therefore, if there's a move that you know that you want to make, then don't wait.

The difference is though every one of the additions the B12 is making are the obvious additions you'd make now or 4 years from now. If you are the AAC looking at the collection of ODU/Charlotte/UTSA/Georgia State/FAU, the high enrollment large market schools that have "potential" it's impossible for me to really tell you which one of those is going to be the best long term add, and you can't kick schools out after you add them. The answer today about those schools could be way different then how you feel 3 years from now.

Oh - I totally get it. There aren't any obvious additions for the AAC. To me, the closest one to being "obvious" is Rice in the sense that its primary attributes (elite academics in a key recruiting area and TV market) are going to be exactly the same in 5/10/20 years as they are today regardless of how they perform on-the-field. I legitimately believe that they have value to the league even if they go 0-12 every year (which is a distinct possibility).

Almost everyone else that the AAC is realistically looking at is going to be highly dependent on on-the-field performance, which is always a very risky game. That goes double when a lot of the "hot" names that get talked about have very new FBS programs with little history (in some cases younger than the AAC itself). Schools like Marshall and UAB at least have some history where you've seen their performance over several cycles, coaches and administrations.

(09-09-2021 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:43 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  For me if I were Aresco unless there's some kind of MWC miracle raid or Army can be convinced I add just UAB, sit at 9 for a while, and see if any of the adds with long term upside like ODU/Charlotte/Georgia State/UTSA etc start reaching it. I wouldn't want to pick any of those schools currently, but 5 years from now that could be very different. Maybe I'm wrong about the way ESPN will view this, but I see every additional member added as a likely drain on the per team value of the TV deal.

Can the afford to do that. How much if a pay cut do they take losing Houston, Cincy, and UCF? A solo UAB addition doesn't offset this loss

I also think that the "wait for a few years" approach simply isn't realistic in the landscape that we're in right now. We are seeing that with the Big 12 - we were having legitimate debates even up to last week about whether they had any rush to expand prior to 2025... and here we are with them sending out new invites this week.

I've worked on a lot of M&A deals, so this makes sense to me. If you're the firm in a higher leverage position and there's an acquisition target that you know that you want long-term, then you strike quickly. To be sure, the emphasis on long-term since you shouldn't make deals for the sake of making deals. However, as a general matter, you can't assume that you're still going to have as much leverage compared in a few years. Therefore, if there's a move that you know that you want to make, then don't wait.

The difference is though every one of the additions the B12 is making are the obvious additions you'd make now or 4 years from now. If you are the AAC looking at the collection of ODU/Charlotte/UTSA/Georgia State/FAU, the high enrollment large market schools that have "potential" it's impossible for me to really tell you which one of those is going to be the best long term add, and you can't kick schools out after you add them. The answer today about those schools could be way different then how you feel 3 years from now.

Oh - I totally get it. There aren't any obvious additions for the AAC. To me, the closest one to being "obvious" is Rice in the sense that its primary attributes (elite academics in a key recruiting area and TV market) are going to be exactly the same in 5/10/20 years as they are today regardless of how they perform on-the-field. I legitimately believe that they have value to the league even if they go 0-12 every year (which is a distinct possibility).

Almost everyone else that the AAC is realistically looking at is going to be highly dependent on on-the-field performance, which is always a very risky game. That goes double when a lot of the "hot" names that get talked about have very new FBS programs with little history (in some cases younger than the AAC itself). Schools like Marshall and UAB at least have some history where you've seen their performance over several cycles, coaches and administrations.

If they are going to add Rice, they might as well add Harvard and Yale.

(09-09-2021 09:25 AM)SMUfan Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:43 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Can the afford to do that. How much if a pay cut do they take losing Houston, Cincy, and UCF? A solo UAB addition doesn't offset this loss

I also think that the "wait for a few years" approach simply isn't realistic in the landscape that we're in right now. We are seeing that with the Big 12 - we were having legitimate debates even up to last week about whether they had any rush to expand prior to 2025... and here we are with them sending out new invites this week.

I've worked on a lot of M&A deals, so this makes sense to me. If you're the firm in a higher leverage position and there's an acquisition target that you know that you want long-term, then you strike quickly. To be sure, the emphasis on long-term since you shouldn't make deals for the sake of making deals. However, as a general matter, you can't assume that you're still going to have as much leverage compared in a few years. Therefore, if there's a move that you know that you want to make, then don't wait.

The difference is though every one of the additions the B12 is making are the obvious additions you'd make now or 4 years from now. If you are the AAC looking at the collection of ODU/Charlotte/UTSA/Georgia State/FAU, the high enrollment large market schools that have "potential" it's impossible for me to really tell you which one of those is going to be the best long term add, and you can't kick schools out after you add them. The answer today about those schools could be way different then how you feel 3 years from now.

Oh - I totally get it. There aren't any obvious additions for the AAC. To me, the closest one to being "obvious" is Rice in the sense that its primary attributes (elite academics in a key recruiting area and TV market) are going to be exactly the same in 5/10/20 years as they are today regardless of how they perform on-the-field. I legitimately believe that they have value to the league even if they go 0-12 every year (which is a distinct possibility).

Almost everyone else that the AAC is realistically looking at is going to be highly dependent on on-the-field performance, which is always a very risky game. That goes double when a lot of the "hot" names that get talked about have very new FBS programs with little history (in some cases younger than the AAC itself). Schools like Marshall and UAB at least have some history where you've seen their performance over several cycles, coaches and administrations.

If they are going to add Rice, they might as well add Harvard and Yale.

Nobody is leaving the Ivy League for anything, ever.

If Harvard was interested in AAC, AAC takes them in a heartbeat

(09-09-2021 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:43 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  For me if I were Aresco unless there's some kind of MWC miracle raid or Army can be convinced I add just UAB, sit at 9 for a while, and see if any of the adds with long term upside like ODU/Charlotte/Georgia State/UTSA etc start reaching it. I wouldn't want to pick any of those schools currently, but 5 years from now that could be very different. Maybe I'm wrong about the way ESPN will view this, but I see every additional member added as a likely drain on the per team value of the TV deal.

Can the afford to do that. How much if a pay cut do they take losing Houston, Cincy, and UCF? A solo UAB addition doesn't offset this loss

I also think that the "wait for a few years" approach simply isn't realistic in the landscape that we're in right now. We are seeing that with the Big 12 - we were having legitimate debates even up to last week about whether they had any rush to expand prior to 2025... and here we are with them sending out new invites this week.

I've worked on a lot of M&A deals, so this makes sense to me. If you're the firm in a higher leverage position and there's an acquisition target that you know that you want long-term, then you strike quickly. To be sure, the emphasis on long-term since you shouldn't make deals for the sake of making deals. However, as a general matter, you can't assume that you're still going to have as much leverage compared in a few years. Therefore, if there's a move that you know that you want to make, then don't wait.

The difference is though every one of the additions the B12 is making are the obvious additions you'd make now or 4 years from now. If you are the AAC looking at the collection of ODU/Charlotte/UTSA/Georgia State/FAU, the high enrollment large market schools that have "potential" it's impossible for me to really tell you which one of those is going to be the best long term add, and you can't kick schools out after you add them. The answer today about those schools could be way different then how you feel 3 years from now.

Oh - I totally get it. There aren't any obvious additions for the AAC. To me, the closest one to being "obvious" is Rice in the sense that its primary attributes (elite academics in a key recruiting area and TV market) are going to be exactly the same in 5/10/20 years as they are today regardless of how they perform on-the-field. I legitimately believe that they have value to the league even if they go 0-12 every year (which is a distinct possibility).

Almost everyone else that the AAC is realistically looking at is going to be highly dependent on on-the-field performance, which is always a very risky game. That goes double when a lot of the "hot" names that get talked about have very new FBS programs with little history (in some cases younger than the AAC itself). Schools like Marshall and UAB at least have some history where you've seen their performance over several cycles, coaches and administrations.

You are getting to my point of why I'm saying smaller is better and baring Army or the MWC schools being interested I'd only add UAB. I don't have the revulsion to Rice that many others do, but they'd need to commit to doing the things Tulane/SMU did (building new stadiums, massively increasing their athletics budget, taking the required academic exceptions) to be worth adding. Every one of those things I listed Rice can choose to do tomorrow. Southern Miss can't choose to have more money appear or be located in a top 5 market in the country. App can't choose to be a Southern Ivy League school. Of course Rice has had the ability to make this choice for decades and probably could have been a founding member of the B12 if they cared about athletics but they simply don't. I accused Tulane of this for years, and I wasn't wrong about that, but Tulane has committed resources to facilities, coaches, and while not great at anything they are no longer terrible at anything either. Is Rice even willing to commit to Tulane's level much less SMU's level? I think the answer is no, which is fine they'd probably rather be more like Emory than SMU, but even though academics absolutely matter in conference realignment they don't matter to that level.

(09-08-2021 07:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Bravely spoken, Commissioner. We shall see if words are matched by deeds.

They won't natch because he was giving lip service. Football is far and away the driver.

(09-09-2021 09:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 09:25 AM)SMUfan Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I also think that the "wait for a few years" approach simply isn't realistic in the landscape that we're in right now. We are seeing that with the Big 12 - we were having legitimate debates even up to last week about whether they had any rush to expand prior to 2025... and here we are with them sending out new invites this week.

I've worked on a lot of M&A deals, so this makes sense to me. If you're the firm in a higher leverage position and there's an acquisition target that you know that you want long-term, then you strike quickly. To be sure, the emphasis on long-term since you shouldn't make deals for the sake of making deals. However, as a general matter, you can't assume that you're still going to have as much leverage compared in a few years. Therefore, if there's a move that you know that you want to make, then don't wait.

The difference is though every one of the additions the B12 is making are the obvious additions you'd make now or 4 years from now. If you are the AAC looking at the collection of ODU/Charlotte/UTSA/Georgia State/FAU, the high enrollment large market schools that have "potential" it's impossible for me to really tell you which one of those is going to be the best long term add, and you can't kick schools out after you add them. The answer today about those schools could be way different then how you feel 3 years from now.

Oh - I totally get it. There aren't any obvious additions for the AAC. To me, the closest one to being "obvious" is Rice in the sense that its primary attributes (elite academics in a key recruiting area and TV market) are going to be exactly the same in 5/10/20 years as they are today regardless of how they perform on-the-field. I legitimately believe that they have value to the league even if they go 0-12 every year (which is a distinct possibility).

Almost everyone else that the AAC is realistically looking at is going to be highly dependent on on-the-field performance, which is always a very risky game. That goes double when a lot of the "hot" names that get talked about have very new FBS programs with little history (in some cases younger than the AAC itself). Schools like Marshall and UAB at least have some history where you've seen their performance over several cycles, coaches and administrations.

If they are going to add Rice, they might as well add Harvard and Yale.

Nobody is leaving the Ivy League for anything, ever.

If Harvard was interested in AAC, AAC takes them in a heartbeat

If Harvard were serious and interested about any league I'm pretty sure anyone aside from the SEC would take them.

Rice and UAB are locks.

As to the other two, I’m leaning towards Marshall and Old Dominion, but I’m not convinced. Marshall and App State remind me of one another as do ODU and UNCC. I feel like Marshall and ODU currently have the leg up for various reasons.

Here’s one of my favorites that doesn’t get mentioned:

Football stadium - 41k
Basketball arena - 13.5k

Excellent brand potential that would absolutely take off in the AAC as they have shown considerable effort this last decade.

(09-09-2021 09:33 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:43 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Can the afford to do that. How much if a pay cut do they take losing Houston, Cincy, and UCF? A solo UAB addition doesn't offset this loss

I also think that the "wait for a few years" approach simply isn't realistic in the landscape that we're in right now. We are seeing that with the Big 12 - we were having legitimate debates even up to last week about whether they had any rush to expand prior to 2025... and here we are with them sending out new invites this week.

I've worked on a lot of M&A deals, so this makes sense to me. If you're the firm in a higher leverage position and there's an acquisition target that you know that you want long-term, then you strike quickly. To be sure, the emphasis on long-term since you shouldn't make deals for the sake of making deals. However, as a general matter, you can't assume that you're still going to have as much leverage compared in a few years. Therefore, if there's a move that you know that you want to make, then don't wait.

The difference is though every one of the additions the B12 is making are the obvious additions you'd make now or 4 years from now. If you are the AAC looking at the collection of ODU/Charlotte/UTSA/Georgia State/FAU, the high enrollment large market schools that have "potential" it's impossible for me to really tell you which one of those is going to be the best long term add, and you can't kick schools out after you add them. The answer today about those schools could be way different then how you feel 3 years from now.

Oh - I totally get it. There aren't any obvious additions for the AAC. To me, the closest one to being "obvious" is Rice in the sense that its primary attributes (elite academics in a key recruiting area and TV market) are going to be exactly the same in 5/10/20 years as they are today regardless of how they perform on-the-field. I legitimately believe that they have value to the league even if they go 0-12 every year (which is a distinct possibility).

Almost everyone else that the AAC is realistically looking at is going to be highly dependent on on-the-field performance, which is always a very risky game. That goes double when a lot of the "hot" names that get talked about have very new FBS programs with little history (in some cases younger than the AAC itself). Schools like Marshall and UAB at least have some history where you've seen their performance over several cycles, coaches and administrations.

You are getting to my point of why I'm saying smaller is better and baring Army or the MWC schools being interested I'd only add UAB. I don't have the revulsion to Rice that many others do, but they'd need to commit to doing the things Tulane/SMU did (building new stadiums, massively increasing their athletics budget, taking the required academic exceptions) to be worth adding. Every one of those things I listed Rice can choose to do tomorrow. Southern Miss can't choose to have more money appear or be located in a top 5 market in the country. App can't choose to be a Southern Ivy League school. Of course Rice has had the ability to make this choice for decades and probably could have been a founding member of the B12 if they cared about athletics but they simply don't. I accused Tulane of this for years, and I wasn't wrong about that, but Tulane has committed resources to facilities, coaches, and while not great at anything they are no longer terrible at anything either. Is Rice even willing to commit to Tulane's level much less SMU's level? I think the answer is no, which is fine they'd probably rather be more like Emory than SMU, but even though academics absolutely matter in conference realignment they don't matter to that level.

I believe the people at Rice are smart enough to see a golden opportunity to compete with their peers and they will make the necessary commitments. This might be their best opportunity to date. Also, I believe they have been upgrading the stadium and I imagine a renovation would be part of a bid.

This is about survival - in the short run. His conference took a major hit with top brands - not all of them of course. He needs to keep the AAC relevant, protect the media rights deal, and grab the best programs available that are interested. Programs called up need to hit the ground running and not build up over time IMO. It seems the universal choice is UAB. So, put that one to bed and let's focus on Texas. Just looking at performance in football and hoops over the past 5 seasons:

Football
Rice 11-43 [.204]
North Texas 31-31 [.500] / 4 Bowl Appearances

Hoops
Rice 73-85 [.442]
North Texas 87-73 [.544] / 1 NCAA Appearance

Not sure what the current facilities are for either program but Rice clearly has some work to do performance-wise. One of the issues in the AAC has been the bottom of the conference has really struggled. Also, lower attendance due to lack of interest/performance with some programs. Adding Rice does nothing to alleviate those issues. I'd be curious how SMU, Tulsa, Wichita St, Memphis, Navy fans feel about these two programs. They stand to gain/lose the most out of this.

(09-09-2021 09:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 09:33 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I also think that the "wait for a few years" approach simply isn't realistic in the landscape that we're in right now. We are seeing that with the Big 12 - we were having legitimate debates even up to last week about whether they had any rush to expand prior to 2025... and here we are with them sending out new invites this week.

I've worked on a lot of M&A deals, so this makes sense to me. If you're the firm in a higher leverage position and there's an acquisition target that you know that you want long-term, then you strike quickly. To be sure, the emphasis on long-term since you shouldn't make deals for the sake of making deals. However, as a general matter, you can't assume that you're still going to have as much leverage compared in a few years. Therefore, if there's a move that you know that you want to make, then don't wait.

The difference is though every one of the additions the B12 is making are the obvious additions you'd make now or 4 years from now. If you are the AAC looking at the collection of ODU/Charlotte/UTSA/Georgia State/FAU, the high enrollment large market schools that have "potential" it's impossible for me to really tell you which one of those is going to be the best long term add, and you can't kick schools out after you add them. The answer today about those schools could be way different then how you feel 3 years from now.

Oh - I totally get it. There aren't any obvious additions for the AAC. To me, the closest one to being "obvious" is Rice in the sense that its primary attributes (elite academics in a key recruiting area and TV market) are going to be exactly the same in 5/10/20 years as they are today regardless of how they perform on-the-field. I legitimately believe that they have value to the league even if they go 0-12 every year (which is a distinct possibility).

Almost everyone else that the AAC is realistically looking at is going to be highly dependent on on-the-field performance, which is always a very risky game. That goes double when a lot of the "hot" names that get talked about have very new FBS programs with little history (in some cases younger than the AAC itself). Schools like Marshall and UAB at least have some history where you've seen their performance over several cycles, coaches and administrations.

You are getting to my point of why I'm saying smaller is better and baring Army or the MWC schools being interested I'd only add UAB. I don't have the revulsion to Rice that many others do, but they'd need to commit to doing the things Tulane/SMU did (building new stadiums, massively increasing their athletics budget, taking the required academic exceptions) to be worth adding. Every one of those things I listed Rice can choose to do tomorrow. Southern Miss can't choose to have more money appear or be located in a top 5 market in the country. App can't choose to be a Southern Ivy League school. Of course Rice has had the ability to make this choice for decades and probably could have been a founding member of the B12 if they cared about athletics but they simply don't. I accused Tulane of this for years, and I wasn't wrong about that, but Tulane has committed resources to facilities, coaches, and while not great at anything they are no longer terrible at anything either. Is Rice even willing to commit to Tulane's level much less SMU's level? I think the answer is no, which is fine they'd probably rather be more like Emory than SMU, but even though academics absolutely matter in conference realignment they don't matter to that level.

I believe the people at Rice are smart enough to see a golden opportunity to compete with their peers and they will make the necessary commitments. This might be their best opportunity to date. Also, I believe they have been upgrading the stadium and I imagine a renovation would be part of a bid.

I believe the decision makers at Rice don't give a single crap about sports at all, which is fine BTW.

The new AAC could look similar to C-USA 2.0 if they invite Rice, Southern Miss, UAB, and Marshall. UTEP is the only C-USA 2.0 left out. You could add them if you wanted and add one more team for 14.

WEST: Rice*, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, Navy^,
EAST: Southern Miss*, UAB*, USF, ECU, Marshall*, Temple

Maybe doesn't quite bring huge basketball firepower but UAB and Marshall are pretty well rounded. Southern Miss just needs a shot in the arm. Rice brings the academics and that second Texas team giving Navy their 1 away game there every year.

(09-09-2021 10:10 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  The new AAC could look similar to C-USA 2.0 if they invite Rice, Southern Miss, UAB, and Marshall. UTEP is the only C-USA 2.0 left out. You could add them if you wanted and add one more team for 14.

WEST: Rice*, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, Navy^,
EAST: Southern Miss*, UAB*, USF, ECU, Marshall*, Temple

Maybe doesn't quite bring huge basketball firepower but UAB and Marshall are pretty well rounded. Southern Miss just needs a shot in the arm. Rice brings the academics and that second Texas team giving Navy their 1 away game there every year.

Why would you want to look similar to C-USA 2.0?

(09-09-2021 09:57 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 09:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 09:33 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 08:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The difference is though every one of the additions the B12 is making are the obvious additions you'd make now or 4 years from now. If you are the AAC looking at the collection of ODU/Charlotte/UTSA/Georgia State/FAU, the high enrollment large market schools that have "potential" it's impossible for me to really tell you which one of those is going to be the best long term add, and you can't kick schools out after you add them. The answer today about those schools could be way different then how you feel 3 years from now.

Oh - I totally get it. There aren't any obvious additions for the AAC. To me, the closest one to being "obvious" is Rice in the sense that its primary attributes (elite academics in a key recruiting area and TV market) are going to be exactly the same in 5/10/20 years as they are today regardless of how they perform on-the-field. I legitimately believe that they have value to the league even if they go 0-12 every year (which is a distinct possibility).

Almost everyone else that the AAC is realistically looking at is going to be highly dependent on on-the-field performance, which is always a very risky game. That goes double when a lot of the "hot" names that get talked about have very new FBS programs with little history (in some cases younger than the AAC itself). Schools like Marshall and UAB at least have some history where you've seen their performance over several cycles, coaches and administrations.

You are getting to my point of why I'm saying smaller is better and baring Army or the MWC schools being interested I'd only add UAB. I don't have the revulsion to Rice that many others do, but they'd need to commit to doing the things Tulane/SMU did (building new stadiums, massively increasing their athletics budget, taking the required academic exceptions) to be worth adding. Every one of those things I listed Rice can choose to do tomorrow. Southern Miss can't choose to have more money appear or be located in a top 5 market in the country. App can't choose to be a Southern Ivy League school. Of course Rice has had the ability to make this choice for decades and probably could have been a founding member of the B12 if they cared about athletics but they simply don't. I accused Tulane of this for years, and I wasn't wrong about that, but Tulane has committed resources to facilities, coaches, and while not great at anything they are no longer terrible at anything either. Is Rice even willing to commit to Tulane's level much less SMU's level? I think the answer is no, which is fine they'd probably rather be more like Emory than SMU, but even though academics absolutely matter in conference realignment they don't matter to that level.

I believe the people at Rice are smart enough to see a golden opportunity to compete with their peers and they will make the necessary commitments. This might be their best opportunity to date. Also, I believe they have been upgrading the stadium and I imagine a renovation would be part of a bid.

I believe the decision makers at Rice don't give a single crap about sports at all, which is fine BTW.

I disagree and there is evidence to refute that. They made pitches to both the Big XII and Mountain West the last five years or so.

(09-09-2021 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Oh - I totally get it. There aren't any obvious additions for the AAC. To me, the closest one to being "obvious" is Rice in the sense that its primary attributes (elite academics in a key recruiting area and TV market) are going to be exactly the same in 5/10/20 years as they are today regardless of how they perform on-the-field. I legitimately believe that they have value to the league even if they go 0-12 every year (which is a distinct possibility).

What value does Rice bring even if they go 0-12 every year? How has Rice's academic standing ever helped them in realignment? I've yet to get an answer on this other than "think like a president". The SWC presidents, Big 8 presidents, Big 12 presidents, WAC presidents have all left Rice for dead at one time or another. Now they've been stuck in CUSA for I believe 3 (maybe 4) conference expansion cycles.

The way I see it is that the ONLY benefit Rice could bring is that if Army demands them as a partner.