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?

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.

You can’t convince me that the AAC is making the CUSA mistake; the American went big and added more than they needed (like CUSa) and focused on schools in large metro/tv market areas with huge enrollment and maintaining the idea that the schools will advance themselves because they’ll be “an AAC team” (CUSA had the same mindset in 2013). It ultimately didn’t pan out then and there’s no reason to think it’ll work now (even with Aresco in charge vs Judy).

I don’t really think the particular selection of the 6 matter; as long as realignment remains active (and I’m not entirely convinced big 12 is done) the American is on shakey ground and no doubt about it SMU and Memphis are primed to make the jump and will do so on a moments notice; and the American will more than likely raid CUSA (possibly SBC) of their big market big enrollment schools and you’re going to have another CUSA on your hands

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.

They picked the right schools only as far as that they listened and followed the commands of ESPN.

(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.

Slam dunk for the AAC. No hesitation after being rejected by the prospective MWC candidates. No point second guessing it.

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

New to message boards?

As a Memphis fan, I am particularly pleased the additions offer, collectively, a "big-city schools" theme — which is good for Tiger basketball recruiting purposes. Memphis hoops indirectly benefits from sharing a league with universities located in Houston (Rice), Birmingham (UAB) and Charlotte (UNCC). Those are "basketball cities" that fit the old Metro Conference model. In contrast, most of the Sun Belt schools are located in small towns, which is fine for football but not for hoops. For example, Memphis basketball "pairs with" UAB basketball much better than Memphis football "pairs with," say, AppState and Marshall football (and I hugely respect AppState and Marshall football).

I actually like the addition of Rice: 1. AAU; 2. a respected baseball program (which the AAC needs with the loss of Houston); 3. a good add related to SMU, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy; and 4. has the potential to be good in hoops given all the talent in Texas.

I see North Texas, UTSA and FAU as "football adds." UTSA is, like UCF, a sleeping giant in football (not sure the Roadrunners will ever do much in hoops). UNT is a massive university that might simply need a quality league home in which to shine in both major sports. FAU is a question mark on various levels but could be very solid in football. I do like the AAC having two schools in Florida so adding FAU makes sense.

Again, and as I have stressed in multiple posts, there was no "home run" addition(s) for the AAC after Air Force and Colorado State said "no." UAB is the best all-around addition considering its location, history with some AAC schools, med school and quality combo of football and hoops.

The six additions were made, in large part, to benefit/appease Navy, Memphis, USF and SMU. The schools chosen do so collectively "better" than those schools, collectively, that were not chosen. (One exception is Old Dominion, which I would have preferred in the AAC over at least two, and maybe three, of the selected universities.)

The AAC's identity is that of an "urban schools league."

(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?

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.

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

I'd probably have chosen a lineup more like the OP if it were me, but I'm not sure they made the wrong choice. They lost schools with both high on-field success and large markets - Cincinnati and Central Florida. And their replacement options were basically limited to choosing between on-field success OR a large market. So I'm inclined to agree with clpp01 that they likely followed the advice of their TV partners and chose markets in the hopes of making more $. It may have been the best option they had, but I certainly think the days of being able to say "P6" with anything resembling a straight face, and being the obvious best G5 conference are gone forever.

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.

ESPN called the shots. They wanted Markets. ESPN is ruining college football. The AAC should have added UAB, Marshall, Southern Miss, And Rice and be done with it.

(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 ACC just due to the ACC wanting to keep up with the other conference going to 16 and there not being any other options.

(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.

Do you mean ACC here? If so, you're thinking too logically and thus not at all like the Terrible Trio who run the ACC from their crumbling Ivory Towers! I think if they're faced with having to swallow WVU while they still have heartburn over Louisville, it could be one of the major straws to break the camel's back and convince them to abandon the Titanic for the B1G. Those three value snobbery and elitism over $ or on-field success.

(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.

(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?

I agree and disagree with you. I agree with you that the AAC picked the wrong six, but they did get a few right.

Marshall
Old Dominion
Rice
Southern Miss
UAB
North Texas

As much as I am irritated with them for not adding baseball while they were in C-USA, they are a program with a lot of potential, IMHO.

(02-19-2022 12:46 PM)No Bull Wrote:  ESPN called the shots. They wanted Markets. ESPN is ruining college football. The AAC should have added UAB, Marshall, Southern Miss, And Rice and be done with it.

It’s all about the markets and the academics. Nothing else matters in college athletics. The AAC is about huge markets with prestigious academic institutions. That’s why we are a premiere conference. Beating Alabama in 1955 does not get you in this conference. With that being said, only time will tell if we made the right choices but I do agree with the formula used. Markets and academics and nothing else.