(11-06-2021 05:06 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:14 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 12:25 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  It doesn’t really matter who “won” realignment. The AAC still remains on top of every G4 conference by miles.

No one outside the AAC thinks that. You weren’t miles ahead of the Mountain West before you lost your for best programs for now well behind

You added six completely anonymous worthless programs and yet you think you’re good still?

Markets and academics= power and prestige. Wins on the field mean nothing. So yes the AAC is still miles ahead of those G4 conferences.

Mountain West is in good shape until they loose Boise State - the AAC will clearly take the lead at that point. The so called 6 worthless programs were added with a very stategic plan. Trust me SMU would not have allowed N TX in if they did like the long term direction.

"Doing nothing" is going to suck when Boise gets poached.

The American took those Texas schools so the MWC will have to invite FCS.

At that point AFA and CSU call up the AAC again.

Boise State is not going anywhere. Academics doom them to never be in a power conference. The Super G5 conference option is effectively dead with the AAC absorbing C-USA, solidifying themselves as the urban G5 of the South.

They also are not the power they used to be, are falling back to their resource level, which is middle to upper half of the MWC. They have no attractive options.

(11-10-2021 01:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Boise State is not going anywhere. Academics doom them to never be in a power conference. The Super G5 conference option is effectively dead with the AAC absorbing C-USA, solidifying themselves as the urban G5 of the South.

They also are not the power they used to be, are falling back to their resource level, which is middle to upper half of the MWC. They have no attractive options.

Also a sign they aren't going anywhere: the fact they haven't gone anywhere despite nothing stopping them from going anywhere. It's not like the Big 12 has to wait out a GOR or anything to add Boise. If they want Boise, they can just add Boise. They haven't.

LOL at the two AAC Fanbois who have been wrong at every step predicting doom and gloom for the MWC.

(11-10-2021 01:34 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  "Doing nothing" is going to suck when Boise gets poached.

The American took those Texas schools so the MWC will have to invite FCS.

At that point AFA and CSU call up the AAC again.

I have a hard time seeing AFA/CSU taking a pay cut to go east.

(11-10-2021 01:11 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 05:06 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:14 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 12:25 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  It doesn’t really matter who “won” realignment. The AAC still remains on top of every G4 conference by miles.

No one outside the AAC thinks that. You weren’t miles ahead of the Mountain West before you lost your for best programs for now well behind

You added six completely anonymous worthless programs and yet you think you’re good still?

Markets and academics= power and prestige. Wins on the field mean nothing. So yes the AAC is still miles ahead of those G4 conferences.

Mountain West is in good shape until they loose Boise State - the AAC will clearly take the lead at that point. The so called 6 worthless programs were added with a very stategic plan. Trust me SMU would not have allowed N TX in if they did like the long term direction.

I'm not surprised that a "Tulane fan" (if there is such a thing) would be concerned about academics first - but I am surprised that they're education isn't good enough to know that winning matters. Cincinnati, Houston and UCF got invited to the Big 12 because they are competitive and that fill$ $eat$ and gets eyeball$ on TV. Markets don't hurt - but you still have to capture your market.

The MWC won this round of realignment by not losing anything - not necessarily by not adding anything (as the thread title asserts). There is a difference.

The AAC won the last round of realignment by 3 of their better programs elevating their on-field play enough to be the source of 3 of this round's Big 12 invitees - but it's left the AAC as mostly an empty shell (Memphis and SMU being the full-member exceptions) and then the AAC re-filled it with mostly empty shells. The conference is a little better geographically in terms of alignment by having filled in the middle - but I'm not sure why Temple geographically wants to be in this conference any longer. Maybe they should pair with WKU and join the MAC all-sports. I don't expect that to happen (exit fees, entrance fees, etc) - but I think it would be best for Temple, the MAC and the AAC long term. I don't think Navy stays much longer.

The Sun Belt got a ton better - especially geographically - again by filling in the 2 divisions and growing enough to limit inter-division play in FB to 1 home and 1 away game per year. They seem to be set to be the dominant P5 FB conference in the eastern and central time zones. The eastern division was already deep and getting deeper in FB - but elevating another FB program in the west to become competitive with Louisiana in FB would seal that opportunity for the entire conference.

The MAC can get better in FB and BB if they still get WKU (MTSU would have been a geographical fit/win - but a competitive loss/non-factor) and match them with somebody that adds to either sport (UMass would probably be the best readily available option BB wise, although it is a FB loss). Any potential call up in the East or Midwest probably adds less than UMass would as a partner for WKU. But the MAC wins even if they stay put because the AAC and CUSA lost so much.

CUSA lost a ton - even more than the AAC did. What was left (before replacements) was a widely scattered assortment of programs that were mostly floundering in CUSA. Some had decent competitive pasts, but as a group of remaining schools aren't a conference - they were outliers in what was a much too far-flung conference to begin with, now devoid of its geographic core. WKU is the one remaining program with some options for escape (although MTSU may have closed the door for their best and safest landing). The additions are not improving the conference competitively - but giving the group a replacement central core of even weaker teams and some regional games to geographic outliers. It's still not a conference and anyone that can find a life raft should take it.

(11-10-2021 01:53 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  LOL at the two AAC Fanbois who have been wrong at every step predicting doom and gloom for the MWC.

Its not gloom and doom if Boise stays. The MWC remains one of the top G5 conferences if they stay. It still remains a good G5 conference if they leave providing that CSU and AF don't follow Boise out the door. If Boise leaves, and CSU and AF go to the AAC then the MWC will have to raid CUSA or the Sunbelt to get back to a 10 or 12 team conference again. Still not a disaster and no need for gloom and doom. Gloom and doom would be CUSA if WKU and MTSU leave for the MAC. However I just read that MTSU is remaining in CUSA forcing WKU to remain there unless the MAC takes them and say UMASS for all sports. UMass your on deck - maybe.

(11-10-2021 02:07 PM)VolCajun Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 01:11 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 05:06 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:14 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 12:25 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  It doesn’t really matter who “won” realignment. The AAC still remains on top of every G4 conference by miles.

No one outside the AAC thinks that. You weren’t miles ahead of the Mountain West before you lost your for best programs for now well behind

You added six completely anonymous worthless programs and yet you think you’re good still?

Markets and academics= power and prestige. Wins on the field mean nothing. So yes the AAC is still miles ahead of those G4 conferences.

Mountain West is in good shape until they loose Boise State - the AAC will clearly take the lead at that point. The so called 6 worthless programs were added with a very stategic plan. Trust me SMU would not have allowed N TX in if they did like the long term direction.

I'm not surprised that a "Tulane fan" (if there is such a thing) would be concerned about academics first - but I am surprised that they're education isn't good enough to know that winning matters. Cincinnati, Houston and UCF got invited to the Big 12 because they are competitive and that fill$ $eat$ and gets eyeball$ on TV. Markets don't hurt - but you still have to capture your market.

The MWC won this round of realignment by not losing anything - not necessarily by not adding anything (as the thread title asserts). There is a difference.

^^^
This.

(11-10-2021 01:34 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  "Doing nothing" is going to suck when Boise gets poached.

The American took those Texas schools so the MWC will have to invite FCS.

At that point AFA and CSU call up the AAC again.

The MWC could lose schools to the Big-12 and the PAC-12, and/or the AAC.

The Big 12 could take BSU and/or SDSU, but the greatest threat to the MWC would be a PAC-16 expansion.

It really does make sense to plan on adding Montana and Montana State at some point.

(11-10-2021 01:53 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  LOL at the two AAC Fanbois who have been wrong at every step predicting doom and gloom for the MWC.

It's probably best they stick to what I assume is a constant circlejerk on the AAC board.

(11-10-2021 01:11 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 05:06 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:14 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 12:25 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  It doesn’t really matter who “won” realignment. The AAC still remains on top of every G4 conference by miles.

No one outside the AAC thinks that. You weren’t miles ahead of the Mountain West before you lost your for best programs for now well behind

You added six completely anonymous worthless programs and yet you think you’re good still?

Markets and academics= power and prestige. Wins on the field mean nothing. So yes the AAC is still miles ahead of those G4 conferences.

Mountain West is in good shape until they loose Boise State - the AAC will clearly take the lead at that point. The so called 6 worthless programs were added with a very stategic plan. Trust me SMU would not have allowed N TX in if they did like the long term direction.

SMU, like USF and Memphis, cant wait to leave the new AAC.

(11-10-2021 02:53 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 01:34 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  "Doing nothing" is going to suck when Boise gets poached.

The American took those Texas schools so the MWC will have to invite FCS.

At that point AFA and CSU call up the AAC again.

The MWC could lose schools to the Big-12 and the PAC-12, and/or the AAC.

The Big 12 could take BSU and/or SDSU, but the greatest threat to the MWC would be a PAC-16 expansion.

It really does make sense to plan on adding Montana and Montana State at some point.

Ive told you before that Boise has no market and a bad location. SDSU has the worst location of any possible add for the BIG XII. Theyd fit in well in the PAC but I doubt they want them.

(11-10-2021 05:08 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 01:11 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 05:06 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:14 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 12:25 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  It doesn’t really matter who “won” realignment. The AAC still remains on top of every G4 conference by miles.

No one outside the AAC thinks that. You weren’t miles ahead of the Mountain West before you lost your for best programs for now well behind

You added six completely anonymous worthless programs and yet you think you’re good still?

Markets and academics= power and prestige. Wins on the field mean nothing. So yes the AAC is still miles ahead of those G4 conferences.

Mountain West is in good shape until they loose Boise State - the AAC will clearly take the lead at that point. The so called 6 worthless programs were added with a very stategic plan. Trust me SMU would not have allowed N TX in if they did like the long term direction.

SMU, like USF and Memphis, cant wait to leave the new AAC.

(11-10-2021 02:53 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 01:34 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  "Doing nothing" is going to suck when Boise gets poached.

The American took those Texas schools so the MWC will have to invite FCS.

At that point AFA and CSU call up the AAC again.

The MWC could lose schools to the Big-12 and the PAC-12, and/or the AAC.

The Big 12 could take BSU and/or SDSU, but the greatest threat to the MWC would be a PAC-16 expansion.

It really does make sense to plan on adding Montana and Montana State at some point.

Ive told you before that Boise has no market and a bad location. SDSU has the worst location of any possible add for the BIG XII. Theyd fit in well in the PAC but I doubt they want them.

Not a bad location as a travel partner with BYU. In fact, Boise State makes a ton of sense that way.

(11-05-2021 06:51 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  FBS conferences ranked by average 10-year WMSR (Weighted Mean Sagarin Rating) of their projected 2025 lineup:



Each school's 10-year WMSR is found by averaging their Sagarin rating over the last 10 complete seasons (2010-19, omitting the incomplete 2020 season), weighting it toward the present, and a conference WMSR is found by averaging those of the teams in it. I've assigned the schools to the conferences they're currently projected to be in by 2025. I'm assuming MTSU and WKU to the MAC. CUSA will likely add more, but they're already in last place, and that's unlikely to change.

The MAC and Sun Belt improve slightly with their adds, while the AAC takes the biggest hit in WMSR, falling below the MWC, but still remains above the MAC and Sun Belt. The Big 12 takes the biggest hit in ranking, dropping 3 spots to the bottom of the autonomous 5 conferences. At least by strength, though, the Big 12 remains a power conference, with a clear separation between it and the top G5, the MWC.

Revised the table with the news that the MAC will not be expanding at this time:



It's funny that despite what happened to CUSA, it's the AAC that took the biggest hit. That's due in large part to the AAC's adds, which definitely do not represent the best of CUSA:



Here's how the current and future AAC schools stack up. Of the adds, all but FAU are worse than any current AAC school.



MARKETS!

(11-10-2021 02:07 PM)VolCajun Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 01:11 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 05:06 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:14 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 12:25 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  It doesn’t really matter who “won” realignment. The AAC still remains on top of every G4 conference by miles.

No one outside the AAC thinks that. You weren’t miles ahead of the Mountain West before you lost your for best programs for now well behind

You added six completely anonymous worthless programs and yet you think you’re good still?

Markets and academics= power and prestige. Wins on the field mean nothing. So yes the AAC is still miles ahead of those G4 conferences.

Mountain West is in good shape until they loose Boise State - the AAC will clearly take the lead at that point. The so called 6 worthless programs were added with a very stategic plan. Trust me SMU would not have allowed N TX in if they did like the long term direction.

I'm not surprised that a "Tulane fan" (if there is such a thing) would be concerned about academics first - but I am surprised that they're education isn't good enough to know that winning matters. Cincinnati, Houston and UCF got invited to the Big 12 because they are competitive and that fill$ $eat$ and gets eyeball$ on TV. Markets don't hurt - but you still have to capture your market.

The MWC won this round of realignment by not losing anything - not necessarily by not adding anything (as the thread title asserts). There is a difference.

The AAC won the last round of realignment by 3 of their better programs elevating their on-field play enough to be the source of 3 of this round's Big 12 invitees - but it's left the AAC as mostly an empty shell (Memphis and SMU being the full-member exceptions) and then the AAC re-filled it with mostly empty shells. The conference is a little better geographically in terms of alignment by having filled in the middle - but I'm not sure why Temple geographically wants to be in this conference any longer. Maybe they should pair with WKU and join the MAC all-sports. I don't expect that to happen (exit fees, entrance fees, etc) - but I think it would be best for Temple, the MAC and the AAC long term. I don't think Navy stays much longer.

The Sun Belt got a ton better - especially geographically - again by filling in the 2 divisions and growing enough to limit inter-division play in FB to 1 home and 1 away game per year. They seem to be set to be the dominant P5 FB conference in the eastern and central time zones. The eastern division was already deep and getting deeper in FB - but elevating another FB program in the west to become competitive with Louisiana in FB would seal that opportunity for the entire conference.

The MAC can get better in FB and BB if they still get WKU (MTSU would have been a geographical fit/win - but a competitive loss/non-factor) and match them with somebody that adds to either sport (UMass would probably be the best readily available option BB wise, although it is a FB loss). Any potential call up in the East or Midwest probably adds less than UMass would as a partner for WKU. But the MAC wins even if they stay put because the AAC and CUSA lost so much.

CUSA lost a ton - even more than the AAC did. What was left (before replacements) was a widely scattered assortment of programs that were mostly floundering in CUSA. Some had decent competitive pasts, but as a group of remaining schools aren't a conference - they were outliers in what was a much too far-flung conference to begin with, now devoid of its geographic core. WKU is the one remaining program with some options for escape (although MTSU may have closed the door for their best and safest landing). The additions are not improving the conference competitively - but giving the group a replacement central core of even weaker teams and some regional games to geographic outliers. It's still not a conference and anyone that can find a life raft should take it.

How is geography improved by adding one in fill and 3 schools north and east of anybody else in the conference? You are quoting the party line and its as bad as that of the Democrats and Republicans. Geography was hampered as they now look like the old CUSA except no Florida.

(11-10-2021 08:03 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 05:08 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 01:11 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 05:06 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:14 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  No one outside the AAC thinks that. You weren’t miles ahead of the Mountain West before you lost your for best programs for now well behind

You added six completely anonymous worthless programs and yet you think you’re good still?

Markets and academics= power and prestige. Wins on the field mean nothing. So yes the AAC is still miles ahead of those G4 conferences.

Mountain West is in good shape until they loose Boise State - the AAC will clearly take the lead at that point. The so called 6 worthless programs were added with a very stategic plan. Trust me SMU would not have allowed N TX in if they did like the long term direction.

SMU, like USF and Memphis, cant wait to leave the new AAC.

(11-10-2021 02:53 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 01:34 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  "Doing nothing" is going to suck when Boise gets poached.

The American took those Texas schools so the MWC will have to invite FCS.

At that point AFA and CSU call up the AAC again.

The MWC could lose schools to the Big-12 and the PAC-12, and/or the AAC.

The Big 12 could take BSU and/or SDSU, but the greatest threat to the MWC would be a PAC-16 expansion.

It really does make sense to plan on adding Montana and Montana State at some point.

Ive told you before that Boise has no market and a bad location. SDSU has the worst location of any possible add for the BIG XII. Theyd fit in well in the PAC but I doubt they want them.

Not a bad location as a travel partner with BYU. In fact, Boise State makes a ton of sense that way.

Well kind of like San Jose makes a good travel partner for Hawaii?

(11-10-2021 09:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 08:03 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 05:08 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 01:11 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 05:06 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  Markets and academics= power and prestige. Wins on the field mean nothing. So yes the AAC is still miles ahead of those G4 conferences.

Mountain West is in good shape until they loose Boise State - the AAC will clearly take the lead at that point. The so called 6 worthless programs were added with a very stategic plan. Trust me SMU would not have allowed N TX in if they did like the long term direction.

SMU, like USF and Memphis, cant wait to leave the new AAC.

(11-10-2021 02:53 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 01:34 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  "Doing nothing" is going to suck when Boise gets poached.

The American took those Texas schools so the MWC will have to invite FCS.

At that point AFA and CSU call up the AAC again.

The MWC could lose schools to the Big-12 and the PAC-12, and/or the AAC.

The Big 12 could take BSU and/or SDSU, but the greatest threat to the MWC would be a PAC-16 expansion.

It really does make sense to plan on adding Montana and Montana State at some point.

Ive told you before that Boise has no market and a bad location. SDSU has the worst location of any possible add for the BIG XII. Theyd fit in well in the PAC but I doubt they want them.

Not a bad location as a travel partner with BYU. In fact, Boise State makes a ton of sense that way.

Well kind of like San Jose makes a good travel partner for Hawaii?

Exactly! A bus ride from Provo to Boise would take about as long as a flight from San Jose to Honolulu.

(11-10-2021 08:03 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 05:08 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 01:11 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 05:06 PM)Thewavefan Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:14 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  No one outside the AAC thinks that. You weren’t miles ahead of the Mountain West before you lost your for best programs for now well behind

You added six completely anonymous worthless programs and yet you think you’re good still?

Markets and academics= power and prestige. Wins on the field mean nothing. So yes the AAC is still miles ahead of those G4 conferences.

Mountain West is in good shape until they loose Boise State - the AAC will clearly take the lead at that point. The so called 6 worthless programs were added with a very stategic plan. Trust me SMU would not have allowed N TX in if they did like the long term direction.

SMU, like USF and Memphis, cant wait to leave the new AAC.

(11-10-2021 02:53 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(11-10-2021 01:34 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  "Doing nothing" is going to suck when Boise gets poached.

The American took those Texas schools so the MWC will have to invite FCS.

At that point AFA and CSU call up the AAC again.

The MWC could lose schools to the Big-12 and the PAC-12, and/or the AAC.

The Big 12 could take BSU and/or SDSU, but the greatest threat to the MWC would be a PAC-16 expansion.

It really does make sense to plan on adding Montana and Montana State at some point.

Ive told you before that Boise has no market and a bad location. SDSU has the worst location of any possible add for the BIG XII. Theyd fit in well in the PAC but I doubt they want them.

Not a bad location as a travel partner with BYU. In fact, Boise State makes a ton of sense that way.

The Big 12 doesn’t need a travel partner for BYU. BYU can be paired with Iowa State, which works well because there are direct flights between Salt Lake City and Des Moines. Adding Boise State would actually create a problem for the Big 12 because then there would be no logical travel partner for Iowa State (Cincinnati will be paired with WVU and Kansas will be paired with KSU).

I think the biggest loser was not CUSA. They got rid of some dead weight with some of their teams, and improved as a basketball conference. The AAC was the biggest loser. Taking teams like Rice, Charlotte, and North Texas...huge risk.

(11-07-2021 11:58 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 09:44 PM)VCE Wrote:  This is consistent with what I’ve heard. A 50% drop wouldn’t be surprising.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...embership/

Quote: The AAC, as it currently exists, averages $7 million per team. That figure is expected to decline significantly after the loss of three schools to the Big 12.....

"I don't understand the value of 14 [in the AAC]," said a high-profile source familiar with media rights worth of schools, "but more power to them."

This has been covered ad nauseum on this board and in the news. The remaining AAC teams are not dropping one penny.

So, no source. I’ve asked a few times and no AAC fans have responded with links. If I’m wrong, my bad.