(02-19-2022 12:47 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 12:14 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 11:33 AM)Usajags Wrote:  The SBC would have stayed at 10 i this scenario. No desire to re-add those that left. Honestly, the most attractive school to me in the future CUSA is JxSt.

The Big XII will still lose more teams, they will still backfill. So still movement will be had.

The AAC essentially panicked. They thought they were in a position of power, thought they would raid the Big XII, the opposite happened. Thought they could raid MW, those teams said no. They then dropped the CUSA marketz plan, CUSA lost with that plan, and so will AAC.

Which teams do you think they will lose after Texas and OK leave?

The two AAU schools, Kansas and Iowa St are both very attractive to the B1G. OkSt and TxTech are attractive to the PAC12. Eventually WVU will end up in the AAC just due to the AAC wanting to keep up with the other conference going to 16 and there not being any other options.

Iowa State is definitely not attractive to the Big Ten. OSU and TTU are not attractive to the Pac -- the conference would have held their collective nose and taken them in if that's what it took to land UT (and OU). Kansas is arguably somewhat attractive to the Big Ten, but clearly not all that much or they'd already have added them.

(02-19-2022 12:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  If they had to pick 6 schools from CUSA, then based mainly on FB and BB performance (with heavy weighting toward FB), I'd say they should have taken WKU, Marshall, UAB, MTSU, FAU, and UTSA. So they got 3/6 right in that sense. Louisiana Tech would have easily made the list, but they seem to be something of an unapologetic "cancer in the clubhouse", so to speak, and I don't blame any conference for not wanting to deal with that.

AAC 2023
East: ECU, FAU, Marshall, MTSU, Temple, USF, WKU
West: Memphis, Navy*, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, UAB, UTSA
NFB: Wichita State

Those doing the choosing (or at least would have to approve those that were chosen) were Temple, Navy, ECU, USF, Tulane, Memphis, SMU, Tulsa, and Wichita State.

If each were asked to name 3 potential adds, who would they name?

They could name any CUSA, Sun Belt, or independent school.

(02-19-2022 12:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Louisiana Tech would have easily made the list, but they seem to be something of an unapologetic "cancer in the clubhouse", so to speak, and I don't blame any conference for not wanting to deal with that.

What is this based on?

(02-19-2022 10:43 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I was surprised at the 6 schools the AAC chose. They’re all fine schools and I’m very happy for them. I just thought other schools would’ve been preferred. Between the AAC and SBC, I think the SBC was the clear winner. If I was headstrong on adding 6, I would’ve gone with:

James Madison
Marshall
Old Dominion
Rice
Southern Miss
UAB

The Sun Belt, assuming it was set on going to 14, may have gone with:

Charlotte
Florida Atlantic
North Texas
UTSA

AAC
East: East Carolina, James Madison, Marshall, Old Dominion, South Florida, Temple, UAB
West: Memphis, Navy*, Rice, SMU, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa
* Football-only
^ Non-football: Wichita St

SBC
East: Appalachian St, Charlotte, Coastal Carolina, Florida Atlantic, Georgia Southern, Georgia St, Troy
West: Arkansas St, North Texas, South Alabama, Texas St, UL Lafayette, UL Monroe, UTSA

I used all 9 CUSA defects from our timeline. IMO this would ensure any future AAC defects would not alter the balance of power between the AAC and other non-power conferences. Smarter people than I am made these decisions and I’m excited to see how it turns out. I was just very surprised.

Would you have gone with the 6 they chose? Would you have gone to 14?

It was an interesting choice, but you can see the logic. They picked urban areas, good recruiting areas, schools with good budgets and schools with potential.

As for Old Dominion, I think they would have been an awful pick. They haven't succeeded yet in FBS and they didn't even play football in 2020. James Madison was FCS, also a bad pick for the AAC. They may turn out good, but are totally unproven at FBS.

I did think Marshall and Southern Miss would rate higher, along with Buffalo. But Marshall and USM didn't have the population base or the budget. So they went with FAU and Charlotte. Charlotte, in particular was a surprise. As for UNT and UTSA, that was simply a defensive move to keep the MWC out of Texas. I strongly suspect UNT would have been invited to the MWC had the AAC not picked them up.

(02-19-2022 12:03 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 11:45 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  . No point second guessing it.

New to message boards?

Sadly the AAC's hands were tied based on not being able to touch SunBelt schools. Had SunBelt schools been available I'm quite certain you would've seen Georgia St taken over Charlotte. I'm also not sure Rice and/or UNT were needed as they grabbed UTSA to replace Houston. I would've liked to have seen Appalachian St in place of (probably) UNT. Louisiana (Rajun Cajuns) deserved a look as well, but I can see them not being selected due to larger market (in Rice's case). Rice I see as an anchor academic private school for a conference, but the AAC already had that in Tulane, and also Navy / SMU. I'm guessing Rice was added to placate those two, but wouldn't have been my choice.

My six would've been...

UTSA
Rice/Louisiana
App St
UAB
Georgia St
FAU

Sent from my LM-G820 using CSNbbs mobile app

(02-19-2022 11:44 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 11:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve wondered if they made the right moves as well or if they are just repeating the same mistakes of C-USA 3.0.

UAB and UTSA both strike me as winners. They’ve got facilities and they are growing a name for themselves.

UNT and FAU I’m not so sure on. They are both in big crowded markets. Maybe they can establish a following as the team for the sub-section of the megalopolis they are a part of but both schools face heavy NFL and other CFB competition in their markets.

Now for the two loser adds. Sure Rice is in a big market, they are AAU, and they help complete the matching set of expensive southern private schools but they are never going to have mass appeal in their market and they have a dubious track record of financially supporting their athletic programs.

That leaves Charlotte. I want to like Charlotte—really I do. But like with FAU, UNT, and Rice they have the NFL to contend with and several other collegiate football programs to contend with and they can’t fill their undersized stadiums.

The new AAC expansion just seems like a market grab and like ESPN is hoping to capitalize on band wagon fans taking a momentarily interest on whichever team happens to be hot in the moment. Like with C-USA 3.0 rather than looking at programs of substance and I think it’s ultimately be a bust.

FAU isn't as bad as you think, since the school is far enough from Miami, in a growing market and has status as a public university that it could build its own thing over time. With you on UNT and Rice, though.

FAU needs to figure out how to market themselves as THE team for Boca Raton/Ft Lauderdale. Palm Beach County has 1.5 million people and Broward has another 1.9 million—star getting folks to see FAU as their school and their athletic brand and the Owls might have something.

I would have picked UAB.
That’s it.
Aresco blew it because he wanted to keep espn $.
I promise you a HUGE % of AAC games will now be on espn +.
Don’t expect much ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 going forward.

(02-19-2022 10:43 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If I was headstrong on adding 6

Why 6 instead of 2? is a more important question than Which 6?, IMO.

The only reasonable justification for adding 6 new members is if ESPN told the AAC it was the only way to keep the TV money from being decimated. And if that is what happened, then ESPN probably also signed off on which 6 schools were added.

If this was not done at ESPN's behest, then adding 6 was a mistake, no matter which 6.

(02-19-2022 11:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve wondered if they made the right moves as well or if they are just repeating the same mistakes of C-USA 3.0.

UAB and UTSA both strike me as winners. They’ve got facilities and they are growing a name for themselves.

UNT and FAU I’m not so sure on. They are both in big crowded markets. Maybe they can establish a following as the team for the sub-section of the megalopolis they are a part of but both schools face heavy NFL and other CFB competition in their markets.

Now for the two loser adds. Sure Rice is in a big market, they are AAU, and they help complete the matching set of expensive southern private schools but they are never going to have mass appeal in their market and they have a dubious track record of financially supporting their athletic programs.

That leaves Charlotte. I want to like Charlotte—really I do. But like with FAU, UNT, and Rice they have the NFL to contend with and several other collegiate football programs to contend with and they can’t fill their undersized stadiums.

The new AAC expansion just seems like a market grab and like ESPN is hoping to capitalize on band wagon fans taking a momentarily interest on whichever team happens to be hot in the moment. Like with C-USA 3.0 rather than looking at programs of substance and I think it’s ultimately be a bust.

UTSA has some things going for them, but facilities isn't one of them.

(02-19-2022 12:16 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  None of the picks are surprising on their own. That they picked 6 total was the surprise, and 3 from Texas.

With 14 becoming a norm, the 6 is less surprising, but taking Rice, UNT and UTSA all is still surprising, with UNT being the most surprising I would say.

I think the addition of the three Texas programs serves two purposes. First, it effectively locked the MWC out of Texas. Second, if the Big12 does raid the AAC again, the fact that the AAC will have at least three Texas programs and Tulsa, should give the conference added leverage to pursue Air Force and Colorado State. I could see Aresco pulling those two from the MWC, if ESPN is willing to keep the payout unchanged.

(02-19-2022 03:49 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 12:16 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  None of the picks are surprising on their own. That they picked 6 total was the surprise, and 3 from Texas.

With 14 becoming a norm, the 6 is less surprising, but taking Rice, UNT and UTSA all is still surprising, with UNT being the most surprising I would say.

I think the addition of the three Texas programs serves two purposes. First, it effectively locked the MWC out of Texas. Second, if the Big12 does raid the AAC again, the fact that the AAC will have at least three Texas programs and Tulsa, should give the conference added leverage to pursue Air Force and Colorado State. I could see Aresco pulling those two from the MWC, if ESPN is willing to keep the payout unchanged.

What kind of crack are you smoking??? If those two weren’t coming before, they surely aren’t coming now.

(02-19-2022 04:03 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 03:49 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 12:16 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  None of the picks are surprising on their own. That they picked 6 total was the surprise, and 3 from Texas.

With 14 becoming a norm, the 6 is less surprising, but taking Rice, UNT and UTSA all is still surprising, with UNT being the most surprising I would say.

I think the addition of the three Texas programs serves two purposes. First, it effectively locked the MWC out of Texas. Second, if the Big12 does raid the AAC again, the fact that the AAC will have at least three Texas programs and Tulsa, should give the conference added leverage to pursue Air Force and Colorado State. I could see Aresco pulling those two from the MWC, if ESPN is willing to keep the payout unchanged.

What kind of crack are you smoking??? If those two weren’t coming before, they surely aren’t coming now.

Usajags is correct in that no MWC school is leaving for the AAC now. If anything, I think once the AAC's current contract ends, their next one will be significantly devalued, quite possibly leading to SMU moving to the MWC along with perhaps either UTSA or Rice. So all the AAC did in taking so many Texas schools is keep the MWC out for now.

(02-19-2022 04:07 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 04:03 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 03:49 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 12:16 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  None of the picks are surprising on their own. That they picked 6 total was the surprise, and 3 from Texas.

With 14 becoming a norm, the 6 is less surprising, but taking Rice, UNT and UTSA all is still surprising, with UNT being the most surprising I would say.

I think the addition of the three Texas programs serves two purposes. First, it effectively locked the MWC out of Texas. Second, if the Big12 does raid the AAC again, the fact that the AAC will have at least three Texas programs and Tulsa, should give the conference added leverage to pursue Air Force and Colorado State. I could see Aresco pulling those two from the MWC, if ESPN is willing to keep the payout unchanged.

What kind of crack are you smoking??? If those two weren’t coming before, they surely aren’t coming now.

Usajags is correct in that no MWC school is leaving for the AAC now. If anything, I think once the AAC's current contract ends, their next one will be significantly devalued, quite possibly leading to SMU moving to the MWC along with perhaps either UTSA or Rice. So all the AAC did in taking so many Texas schools is keep the MWC out for now.

I agree as well, the MWC is well-positioned to be the strongest football conference amongst the G5 year in and year out.

(02-19-2022 03:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 10:43 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If I was headstrong on adding 6

Why 6 instead of 2? is a more important question than Which 6?, IMO.

The only reasonable justification for adding 6 new members is if ESPN told the AAC it was the only way to keep the TV money from being decimated. And if that is what happened, then ESPN probably also signed off on which 6 schools were added.

If this was not done at ESPN's behest, then adding 6 was a mistake, no matter which 6.

You're probably right about 6. But there are clear reasons for 12 teams over 10, so the question is why 6 instead of 4. And I wouldn't be surprised if part of the answer was, "Because if we didn't, the MWC would have taken them."

(02-19-2022 12:58 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, given that the MW schools chose not to come, the AAC should only have added two schools. There were no good-value schools out there, so why take a bunch of them?

My choices would have been App State and maybe ULL.

I might have been OK with that option (i.e., taking a mere two "football focused and isolated-location" schools only) but ONLY if AAC hoops had opted for a 14-game league schedule. In other words, in exchange for Memphis not being aligned with "basketball schools" UAB and Charlotte and not having a maximum number of "urban-located" league brethen, Memphis gets greater flexibility with its non-league hoops scheduling.

Let's be honest, Quo. The future AAC will offer only six football, basketball or combo football/basketball programs of national note: Temple, USF, Memphis, SMU, Navy and Wichita. League expansion, TV broadcasting, intra-league game scheduling, etc., should be done so as accommodate those six as best as possible. Because if those six suffer collectively, so potentially could the other nine.

I agree with this.

(02-19-2022 04:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 03:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 10:43 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If I was headstrong on adding 6

Why 6 instead of 2? is a more important question than Which 6?, IMO.

The only reasonable justification for adding 6 new members is if ESPN told the AAC it was the only way to keep the TV money from being decimated. And if that is what happened, then ESPN probably also signed off on which 6 schools were added.

If this was not done at ESPN's behest, then adding 6 was a mistake, no matter which 6.

You're probably right about 6. But there are clear reasons for 12 teams over 10, so the question is why 6 instead of 4. And I wouldn't be surprised if part of the answer was, "Because if we didn't, the MWC would have taken them."

What are these clear reasons for 12 over 10?

(02-19-2022 04:07 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 04:03 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 03:49 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 12:16 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  None of the picks are surprising on their own. That they picked 6 total was the surprise, and 3 from Texas.

With 14 becoming a norm, the 6 is less surprising, but taking Rice, UNT and UTSA all is still surprising, with UNT being the most surprising I would say.

I think the addition of the three Texas programs serves two purposes. First, it effectively locked the MWC out of Texas. Second, if the Big12 does raid the AAC again, the fact that the AAC will have at least three Texas programs and Tulsa, should give the conference added leverage to pursue Air Force and Colorado State. I could see Aresco pulling those two from the MWC, if ESPN is willing to keep the payout unchanged.

What kind of crack are you smoking??? If those two weren’t coming before, they surely aren’t coming now.

Usajags is correct in that no MWC school is leaving for the AAC now. If anything, I think once the AAC's current contract ends, their next one will be significantly devalued, quite possibly leading to SMU moving to the MWC along with perhaps either UTSA or Rice. So all the AAC did in taking so many Texas schools is keep the MWC out for now.

Once the contract ends? The AAC contract runs another 10 years. Hypothesizing that far out is just dumb.

And depending on how the MWC media rights deal shakes out, CSU and AFA could have serious interest in leaving the MWC, especially if they continued to get pinched by BSU.

(02-19-2022 04:31 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  Once the contract ends? The AAC contract runs another 10 years. Hypothesizing that far out is just dumb.

You're a funny one.

(02-19-2022 04:31 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 04:07 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 04:03 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 03:49 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 12:16 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  None of the picks are surprising on their own. That they picked 6 total was the surprise, and 3 from Texas.

With 14 becoming a norm, the 6 is less surprising, but taking Rice, UNT and UTSA all is still surprising, with UNT being the most surprising I would say.

I think the addition of the three Texas programs serves two purposes. First, it effectively locked the MWC out of Texas. Second, if the Big12 does raid the AAC again, the fact that the AAC will have at least three Texas programs and Tulsa, should give the conference added leverage to pursue Air Force and Colorado State. I could see Aresco pulling those two from the MWC, if ESPN is willing to keep the payout unchanged.

What kind of crack are you smoking??? If those two weren’t coming before, they surely aren’t coming now.

Usajags is correct in that no MWC school is leaving for the AAC now. If anything, I think once the AAC's current contract ends, their next one will be significantly devalued, quite possibly leading to SMU moving to the MWC along with perhaps either UTSA or Rice. So all the AAC did in taking so many Texas schools is keep the MWC out for now.

Once the contract ends? The AAC contract runs another 10 years. Hypothesizing that far out is just dumb.

And depending on how the MWC media rights deal shakes out, CSU and AFA could have serious interest in leaving the MWC, especially if they continued to get pinched by BSU.

If they leave it will be for the Big XII, not the AAC.